New Star Trek Trailer

[Fox 6]

Looks better than I thought it would.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GBQyjrRgE4c&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GBQyjrRgE4c&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Happydude]

lol Star Trek: 90210

[Professor S]

Abrams does NOT understand Star Trek at all. Star Trek is where political intrigue and theoretical physics meets Horatio Hornblower in space. Its Star Wars for the intellectual set, not some kind of teenage x-games emo space soap opera.

My God... Abrams just shit on the single most sacrosanct mythos in all of sci-fi geekdome. Trekkies re going to RIOT and then shun this film from the lexicon, as if it wore a scarlett letter "A" on its chest.

[Combine 017]

Its instantly lame cause spock isnt Leonard Nimoy.

[manasecret]

To me it looks like it has a chance at being good. I like Star Trek, TNG and Voyager being the ones I watched most, but I'm not exactly a Trekkie at least by Prof. S's dramatic prediction of how Trekkies will accept this movie. Taking things in new directions is fine by me, as long as the end result is good.

Oh, and btw, Leonard Nimoy is in this film, as Spock, from the future, to help the young Spock against the Romulans from the future trying to interfere with the past.

[Professor S]

To me it looks like it has a chance at being good. I like Star Trek, TNG and Voyager being the ones I watched most, but I'm not exactly a Trekkie at least by Prof. S's dramatic prediction of how Trekkies will accept this movie. Taking things in new directions is fine by me, as long as the end result is good.

I'm not a Trekkie either, but I know several, and they will not be pleased. Remember when Lord of the Rings came out and some people brought the books to the theater and complained about tiny little inconsistencies?

1) The LotR movies were true to the themes of the books, and the fanatics still had issues with changes that were inconsequential. The Abrams Trek doesn't look to respect the themes of the original series at all. Maybe the movie will be good, but the problem will be it doesn't look like a part of the Star Trek mythos, rather than another sci-fi concept wrapped in the trappings of Federation unitards and pointy ears.

2) Trekkies are about 1,000,000 times more protective about their obsession than any other geek related fan base I know. These people rattle off characters like "OA Team member 4" in episode 8, season 2, entitled "A Tribble ate my Ballsack" in casual conversation. They discuss the scientific merits of a Dyson Sphere, Worm Holes and a Warp drive. They DON'T talk about the hot chick Capt. Kirk just nailed or the big explosions on screen.

If the movie runs to the trailer's form, Trekkies will view this reboot as an attempted assissination of a universe they've loved for 30 years. Perhaps there is more substance and thoughtful content, but from what I've seen in the trailer the movie is utterly unrecognizable from the Star Trek that has been around since the early 70's.

[thatmariolover]

I would like this made public:

WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A "TREKKIE" AND A "TREKKER"?

"Trekkie" is obviously the more common term, the one found in some dictionary or something or other. Anyway, many people have assigned different definitions distinguishing between a "Trekkie" and a "Trekker"--one's a casual fan, one's an obsessed fanatic, one's got a life, one's a loser--but their definitions tend to vary and switch (depending on which side of the Trekkie/Trekker argument they stand on).

But my basic definition of the difference between a "Trekkie" and a "Trekker" gets down to the root of the issue, and I think it's one most will agree is true:

Trekkie: a Star Trek fan.

Trekker: what a Star Trek fan who doesn't like the term "Trekkie" (because they think it's demeaning, or indicates a group of Trek fans of a different kind) calls himself or herself.

I'm not saying that "Trekkers" are snobs--they just don't like "Trekkie," which some people might feel is a belittling term used by non-Trek fans for our ilk.

As for me, I have no qualms about being called a Trekkie or a Trekker, but to be "politically" correct, I refer to other Trek fans as "Trekkers" so as not to alienate those who do not like being called "Trekkies."

That out of the way, I am a Trekkie. My brother tends towards the trekker end of the spectrum, though that's just because he can rattle off stuff like "OA team member member 4" in episode 8, season 2, entitled "A Tribble ate my Ballsack" in casual conversation. He's more knowledgeable about the franchise than he is protective of it (thank God).

Regardless, we're both waiting to pass judgement until we see it. But I agree, they're certainly going for a different crowd. Disgust won't set in until they start a new Star Trek series for the 90210 crowd instead of catering to the proper Sci-Fi appreciating crowd (then again, maybe it'd be easier for the geeks to get laid if they could talk about Star Trek with girls? But I digress...).

[Combine 017]

Awww man, I want a cool nerd title. Half-Lifie? Half-Lifer? or maybe, The half-life of my life is Half-Life.

Also. Horray for Leonard Nimoy in the movie!

[Fox 6]

You dont even know what Half-Life means in science do you?

:P

[Combine 017]

I dont know the exact term to describe it but its how long it takes something radioactive to decay by half. How could I not know what Half-Life meant? Thats like a trekkie not knowing what Star Trek means.(if it has a meaning?)

[thatmariolover]

A trek through the stars :p

[BreakABone]

I dont know the exact term to describe it but its how long it takes something radioactive to decay by half. How could I not know what Half-Life meant? Thats like a trekkie not knowing what Star Trek means.(if it has a meaning?)

Wow, Adam showing knowledge and actual having a legit point... that I agree with. :lolz:

[Fox 6]

Trek is an adventure, or quest, travel.

so star adventure.

[KillerGremlin]

I would like this made public:



That out of the way, I am a Trekkie. My brother tends towards the trekker end of the spectrum, though that's just because he can rattle off stuff like "OA team member member 4" in episode 8, season 2, entitled "A Tribble ate my Ballsack" in casual conversation. He's more knowledgeable about the franchise than he is protective of it (thank God).

Regardless, we're both waiting to pass judgement until we see it. But I agree, they're certainly going for a different crowd. Disgust won't set in until they start a new Star Trek series for the 90210 crowd instead of catering to the proper Sci-Fi appreciating crowd (then again, maybe it'd be easier for the geeks to get laid if they could talk about Star Trek with girls? But I digress...).

Anything with the prefix "trek" is synonymous with "virgin" in my books. :p

[Neo]

I think it looks great. Hopefully it will breath some new life into the Trek franchise. I think I've gotten over the whole rewriting history part of it. The jury is still out on whether this should be viewed as the new canon or if it's kind of like a parallel universe. Abrams simply said it was a "reintroduction", whatever that means.

It will be successful if the movie concentrates on the characters rather than on the action. In a Star Trek movie, the action should always be the backdrop, not the main feature. One of the original producers (Berman or Braga) said that Star Trek was primarily about the action. This philosophy is what lead to the cow patties known as Insurrection and Nemesis. I know First Contact had a ton of action, but it only served to create drama and interesting story lines for the characters since the Borg are their arch enemies.

At its core, Star Trek has always been a show about morality. Being in space and flying around in ships are just the backdrop. If you reverse that, you just get another cookie-cutter mind-numbing series of action scenes. Oh, and they need to start using actual models again instead of CGI'ing all the ships. All that computer generated shit shuts my brain down.

[BreakABone]

I think it looks great. Hopefully it will breath some new life into the Trek franchise. I think I've gotten over the whole rewriting history part of it. The jury is still out on whether this should be viewed as the new canon or if it's kind of like a parallel universe. Abrams simply said it was a "reintroduction", whatever that means.

It will be successful if the movie concentrates on the characters rather than on the action. In a Star Trek movie, the action should always be the backdrop, not the main feature. One of the original producers (Berman or Braga) said that Star Trek was primarily about the action. This philosophy is what lead to the cow patties known as Insurrection and Nemesis. I know First Contact had a ton of action, but it only served to create drama and interesting story lines for the characters since the Borg are their arch enemies.

At its core, Star Trek has always been a show about morality. Being in space and flying around in ships are just the backdrop. If you reverse that, you just get another cookie-cutter mind-numbing series of action scenes. Oh, and they need to start using actual models again instead of CGI'ing all the ships. All that computer generated shit shuts my brain down.

Yay Neo is back...
For how long though? :ohreilly: