New Star Trek Trailer

roelbj writes "The full trailer to the next Star Trek movie is now available at the movie's official web site. The upcoming J.J. Abrams-helmed installment represents a changing of the guard, a reboot of the franchise, and a return to the original-series crew. It should prove interesting to see how Abrams' writing staff (Cloverfield, Lost, Alias) tackles the Star Trek universe and all the continuity and baggage that comes with it."

Comments

Uneasy

[bigstrat2003]

The problem I had after watching this trailer was that it looks like they're turning Star Trek into a mindless summer action flick. I like those movies as much as anyone else, but the franchise deserves something better than that.

I also still think Kirk looks like a preppy douche, not a skilled (if overly testosterone-driven) starship captain. Rest of the cast still looks fine.

Re:Uneasy

[caffeinemessiah]

The problem I had after watching this trailer was that it looks like they're turning Star Trek into a mindless summer action flick

I caught the trailer during the opening of Quantum of Solace and must say felt the same way. Right from the Fast and Furious-like opening scene, through the brief flashes of sex and Spock getting all mad, it really seems like they're pumping it full of Summer Flick Formula(r). Someone mentioned this earlier in an older thread about the movie, but why is it that everything today has to be re-imagined as darker, more filled with violence and sexier? Ironically, that's how I felt about Q of S too -- it just wasn't fun anymore, and isn't that why so many of us put up with (nay, relished!) the carpet-on-a-rock aliens of TOS?

Re:Both franchise shared the same fate.

[niktemadur]

Both franchises got similarly raped by dubious quality prequels.

The Star Trek franchise lost me a long time ago, but I'm genuinely intrigued by this new film. At this point in time, a project helmed by JJ Abrams has far more potential than any other overseen by Lucas.

Consider how Abrams has surrounded himself with hardcore trekkies and genuinely takes feedback from them, while Lucas insisted on being the sole "intellectual author" of his prequels, giving us the unsightly spectacles of lil' superboy Anakin, baby Greedo and that infamous Gungan.
Another great difference is dialogue and filming itself, Lucas "can write that shit but sure as hell can't say it" and puts acting on a secondary plane, too busy visualizing how to fill the green screen. In contrast, Abrams has a keener eye and ear for these things.
Better still, Abrams is aware that he has something to prove here, voluntarily put himself in an uncomfortable position as a creative challenge, and I can respect that.

Bottom line, I'll pay money to see this prequel (as most of us here will) and will reserve criticism for afterward.

Re:Both franchise shared the same fate.

[nEoN nOoDlE]

If you want good Trek, watch Battlestar Galactica. What made Trek good in the first place was that it tackled issues of the day in a sci-fi environment. That was the only way they could even show something like the first interracial kiss, or having a Russian as a good guy alongside Americans. BSG does just that. It talks about modern problems through the sci-fi setting. The reason BSG is so good now is that they didn't worry about the canon from the original cheesy show. They just took the premise and ran with it.

Star Trek is outdated and needs a kick in the ass to be good sci-fi again. This movie probably won't be a resurgence of what made the original great, but neither would a movie based completely off of Star Trek canon.