Star Trek (2009)
 

For those of you who are too cheap or too far away to see Quantum Of Solace, heres the Star Trek trailer attached to it: Untitled on Vimeo

Frankly, it looks like crap. If JJ Abrams - a man I have no faith in to begin with - cut that himself (which wouldn't surprise me) then this film is already worse than Nemesis and Star Trek V in the same way getting your fingers smashed by a ball-peen hammer is worse than having wonderful, passionate sex with a beautiful supermodel.

Everyone chime in on why they agree or disagree with this sentiment.

Trailer is gone.

Yeah I just caught it on the tube.

Honestly, it's a trailer. There isn't much reason to jump to the conclusion -- like you did -- that the film will be poorly shot or edited based on what's presented here.

To me, there wasn't anything I saw that made me think, "This doesn't look like an attempt to take something old and make it new." It's a movie that's trying to appeal to today's audience, the younger audience, and that's what the trailer presented. Frankly, so far there doesn't seem to be any attempt to say, "This story is about James Kirk," and that's what's most disappointing. The originals were all about Kirk and Spock and McCoy and the chemistry those three had, and there's nothing in that trailer to suggest anything but Spock and Kirk were not friendly to being with.

So far, it's "James Kirk was a bad kid, he went into Starfleet to get some structure, Spock-ships flying-explosions-phasers-boobs-ahahaha he said something funny-scary space creature-atmosphere-end of trailer." If they're trying to improve what excitement people have about the movie, they've failed to do it to me.

Or you just have the worst taste in human history.

I mean - can anyone take you seriously after what you just said here or have you just never seen a Star Trek movie before?

I own all of them, remember? $22 for all of them? Forgot that story?

I thought you were complaining mostly about the editing or the cinematography, and that's what I was referring to in that statement.

So, in a nutshell:

LeHah (in nerdy voice): HAY GUYZ THE NEW STAR TREK MOVIE LOOKS LIKE SHIT BASED ON THIS TWO MINUTE TRAILER *sniffs back nasal drip* WHAT DO YOU GUYS THINK
Me: Uh, it's just a trailer.
LeHah (in nerdy voice): FUCK YOU DOPEFISH YOU'RE WRONG, YOU'RE THE DUMBEST PERSON ON THESE BOARDS AND THAT MEANS YOU'RE WRONG

I AM LEHAH, MASTER OF ARGUMENTS

As someone who isn't a Trekkie at all, I got some enjoyment from the trailer. It looks like it will be a fairly fun time, with some good-looking action and some beautiful-looking scenery. I don't know why Abrams insisted on a prequel of all things, but whatever. Abrams hasn't let me down yet so I'm expecting some good things here, but for the most part I don't care too much about the film.

However, I *have* always wanted to get into the Trek series of films and TV. Where would be a good place to start with doing that?

THE WRATH OF KHAN MOTHERFUCKER!


Or any season of Next Generation after the first isn't a terrible place to start. The original is a lot of fun but I can see the level of camp and questionably over the top acting being a turn off to some. The other series build off of what those two set up enough that i's probably not as effective to watch them first.

The trailer looks a little spastic and action filled for my taste in Star Trek and I have little faith in a product within the series by someone who claims to not particularly like the source material. This is the shit that made Blair Witch 2 even more god awful than the first. Still not a super informative piece of video so judgment will be reserved.

So thats what it comes down to? Making your text bigger? You're a sorrier sight than I expected.

Start with the first show and just work your way up. Be sure to ignore the internet along the way - Enterprise is excellent and DS9 is a brilliant back-hand commentary toward Roddenberry's idea of utopia.

Wrath Of Khan is good - but generally overrated. All Star Trek movies make completely improper literary useage, none worse than Kahn.

What do you think of Voyager?

Voyager is Love Boat in Space, and the point at which they started to target the "stupid" demographic that is so large these days.

Voyager is TNG Redux.

I thought the kid saying his name was cheesy and cringe-worthy, but the rest of the trailer looked okay. Based on the previous movies, having a younger cast 'at the helm' will likely give the movie more action and a quicker pace. Based on the trailer, I'd say this will be a B on the Internet and an A- among critics. Yeah, I'll likely see it, but since I'm not a big Star Trek fan (I've seen the movies and most of the TV shows, but that's about it) I guess I'd enjoy it more then someone who's committed to the franchise, given the director's statement about making the movie appeal to a wider audience. In other words, I'll be watching it as a regular audience member, for lack of a better term.

But . . . as far as prior canon goes, Jimmy Kirk WAS a bad kid, unless I'm a complete and total idiot.

Huh? What does that have to do with what I said? I was talking about the delivery of the line by kid-kirk.

Tarantino, Ghost Rider, Die Hard, now THIS?

Are you trying to give LeHah a concrete example of why Dope doesn't actually have the -worst- taste on the boards?

Abrams' track record is nothing but a series of larger and larger let downs.

Felicity was a major hit - for one season. Then flailed a lot and added up to nothing; the show ends with a time travel episode.

Alias lasted two seasons - and then died in an amazingly spectacular implosion when Abrams left the show to start LOST.

LOST is crap. Its build-up without substance and suffers from Twin Peaks Syndrome - that no explaination, no matter how revealing, is going to satisfy the audience.

Mission Impossible III was boring and trite. Badly directed, with a script that made less sense than the first Tomb Raider.

Do we really need any more evidence than the press's constant question of if Abrams is the "next Spielberg"? Remember the last person that moniker was attached to? Yeah, he put out a movie this year - The Happening.

Please. There are actually people on this board who genuinely like Michael Bay, M Night, Steven Sommers, and the rest of those untalented lackeys, and you're trying to lump me in with those tasteless fucks by naming one director I enjoy, two out of my only three guilty pleasures, and a man who's impressed me as a producer only? Christ dude, you're reaching.

In terms of Abrams, the only things he's been a part of that I've seen are Cloverfield, Mission Impossible 3, and Lost. Cloverfield was excellent, both in terms of its marketing and it's actual execution, MI:3 was just a fun but unmemorable action flick (wasn't offensively bad like, say, Quantum of Solace), and Lost has always been a fun show to watch, discuss, and theorize with friends. Despite the third season being flat-out awful, it's a sharply-written show, and even though sometimes it pisses me off with the blue balls it leaves me, it's air-tight.

In regards to Star Trek, I don't care enough about it to rush out and see it on opening day (far less interested now that I read that he's going to have both a Lost AND Cloverfield reference shoved in there), and based on the 2 minutes of footage that the trailer showed us, it looks like a fairly fun sci-fi film that I will give a chance some day.

I think the unintended dichotomy here speaks for its self.

Everyone loves Wrath of Khan, but the one closest to my heart has always been Undiscovered Country. It did for Star Trek what Rocky Balboa did for the Rocky series. Namely, it showed that the characters were getting older, but it allowed them to go out with some dignity.

At least until Generations came along.

I can see a little bit of "Independence Day" creeping into the trailer there, which is pretty disappointing considering the source material, but whatever. I'm not in the habit of judging movies before I've seen them.

Then, of course, Dance Flick enters the picture and proves me wrong.

Generations has one of film's greatest visual sight gags. I gauge people's intelligence based on if they get the joke or not.

In the end it is I, Erik J. Portillo, who has the greatest opinion and bestest likes in movies.

The trailer looked boring as shit, as is the case with most Star Trek, TNG being the exception 20% of the time.

Same here. That movie to me shows the Enterprise crew at their best, despite their age. Not only that, I did like the whole subliminal context of the film [Federation/Klingon Empire = U.S./U.S.S.R.]. Plus, the film's score was outstanding...it wasn't quirky in a Star Trek way, it had a serious feel to it.

As for the trailer...it looks a little more actiony than I would expect, but i'm going to withhold full judgment until the film finally does come out. I was hoping for it to come out this holiday season, but oh well. All I hope is they dont make it campy, but I don't think they will.

I could totally get behind this statement if I didn't disagree with your math.

I enjoy the trailer, it didn't really feel "star trek" in the sense that it seen like a different style of film making. Although I don't care for uneven and sometimes droning pace of some of the TNG movies (although First Contact is still my favorite) , I always felt that star trek is more of a cerebral experience relative to some of the other more action oriented Science Fiction films.

I think this might be an interesting exercise to get beyond the setup and the premise that nerd like me always likes to play off to. Although I don't know how well the gun-ho-ness of the whole trailer, if that's how the movie will feel like works with the design aesthetics of the 1960s.