JJ Abrams Star Trek film - Here's the "Enterprise"

But that's really the whole point...

With this film, JJ Abrams isn't putting the series back on track. He is totally re-making everything, and destroying 40 years worth of stories.

It's a film which doesn't fit anywhere, and it's not going to serve as a lead into the original TV series. How can it?.. apart from names and the ship's name, everything else is different.
 
Trailer looks bloody good to me. I trust Abrams.

Interesting Roddenberry quote - shows the man had immense vision and understanding of his art form.
 
It doesn't look quite right to me to be honest.



That spoiler stuff sounRAB a bit weird, and if they are doing what you suggest, I'll be a really miffed Trek Fan.
 
Agreed. I can't think of Star Trek without thinking of James T. Kirk instantaneously. I'd rather have a movie which revolves around Kirk than a movie with very little or no Kirk. To me, ever since I can remember, Star Trek has always meant Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. Who are all in this movie. Just based on that alone, I'm content to be excited and not give into any negativity or concern until I've got a valid reason to. Which I don't feel I do, yet. That will be when I've actually seen the movie in its entirety, as it's intended to be seen, and can judge it fairly.

If it does turn out to be awful, at least they tried?
 
It's the manipulation I've got serious issues with. I'd rather see a high quality, legal version than a grainy bootleg on YouTube vid but the way studios pee all over the fans like this while grinning doing it really winRAB me up.
 
Im actually looking fwd to this - though admittedly I would have preffered a Whole new Trek, with new cast, new story, new ship, etc. It seems nowadays we're obsessed with remakes, re-imaginations and prequels. But, hey, tis a new Trek movie, and Im gonna watch it.

(PS Ive watched Original Trek in the form of reruns, random ST TNG, especially those post series 4, ST Voyager from series 1 to 5 and Ive never gotten into RAB9 or watched a single episode of the last attempt called Enterprise)
 
Aha, the "refit" get-out clause.


If they'd used an identical model of the 60s Enterprise in the new film, an equal (if not greater) number of fans would also be up in arms.
 
I think Star Trek is really boring, but I'm looking forward to this film, it looks ace!

Every time I hear the 'trekkies' moaning and saying it's going to be awful (or more usually something utterly overdramatic like 'catastrophic') it just makes me think it'll be even better!
 
OK Reasons I hate this film...

1. Recast when has recasting ever been good? And don't say Batman or Bond or Superman as they are their respective franchises Star Trek is bigger than Kirk and co.Do we really want the future of Star Trek to be Kirk after Kirk after Kirk after Kirk?

2.It's a pesdo-prequel I can't stand them they alway get facts wrong look at Ent and then claim artistic Licence, Hollywood without ideas.

3.Its got Kid Kirk joyriding in a Car for crying out loud I know Kirk is the immature Captain of any of the series but seriously.

4.Apparently Canon is no longer important, Robert April, the Enterprise Bridge,Kirk racing a Car(He can't drive), the Enterprise, the Uniforms, the Romulan threat b4 balance of Terror, the stupid Romulan tatoos.

5.It's based on TOS the cornyest Americanistic Star Trek series of the lot, I have as much desire to watch as I do for the upcoming Captain America flick. The also precludes the possibility of interactions with Borg, Bajorans, Cardassians, Dominion, 8472, Ferengi, Q

6.JJ Abrams had one and a half good seasons of Alias and the Lost pilot and a hell of alot of misses on his record. Also don't forget he a " more of a Star Wars fan"

7.Mainstream appeal... Nemesis tryed for this and we got stupid Dune buggy chases and senate assainations instead of plot and character development

8.Orci and Kurtzmann ... Have they ever written anything that wasn't flawed within the films own internal logic... how on Earth will they cope with the entire Star Trek Universe

9.The fact that while this is in peoples minRAB they hope of returning to real Star Trek is slim

10.The presumtion that as a die hard Star Trek fan I must worship this movie is itself prepostrous. I'm no sheep paying to slaughter Star Trek because thats what paying to see this movie is..
 
Well in some ways it is a "new cast, new ship, new story" - that's the way I'm going to look at it. :)


It's all personal preferance, I know, but I think you should give a couple of eps of Enterprise a go (particularly S3 with the Xindi). If you don't like it then you've only lost a couple of hours - and who knows, you might just like it. :)
 
So?

Have the new Bond movies destroyed the previous ones?

Have the new Batman movies made Adam West redundant and destroyed all of those stories? Or Michael Keatons performance? Did Heath Ledger as The Joker mean that no-one will ever watch Jack Nicholsons version ever again?

Did the last Superman movie dump all over Christopher Reeves legacy?

Of course they didn't - they introduced the stories to a lot of new fans and gave it a new lease of life.

The casting has been good and almost a tribute to the original crew. The storyline looks good and is in line with Trek canon - because lets be honest, Leonard Nimoy CARES about the Trek franchise. If it wasn't in tune with his vision then he wouldn't appear. He's got enough money, he makes enough cameos in other shows. He didn't need to.

I wonder if there'd be this much trouble if it'd been an animated movie. Or why there's this much fuss about continuity about this movie coming off the Canon-destroying Enterprise.

Personally, I think the scandal that Lt. M'Ress from the Animated series (growlllllll) didn't make it to The Motion Picture is mentioned far less than it should be.
 
So you say recasting doesn't work, but insist we ignore any franchises where it has worked? Don't you think that's rigging the question a little bit?



Again, making assumptions. We have no idea, at this stage, if it will get facts wrong or not. Plus, Enterprise got very little wrong in terms of continuity. A few episodes here and there, but on the whole it was pretty accurate; bar one thing - and I'll get to that in a minute.



Where did you get this from? The most I've hread invloves Kirk riding a motorcycle. First I've heard of this and to be fair, is this, alone, really enough to hate an entire film?



Robert April has never been mentioned anwhere in any series. This was the point I was going to get to, as mentioned above. Half of this "canon outrage" comes from random snippets of information that Trek fans have picked up over the years. Robert April was the anme Roddenberry originally came up with for the Captain. He dropped it in favour of Christopher Pike, which was later dropped in favour of Jim Kirk. Well-read fans ended up adding this man to Trek literature, like the Star Trek Encyclopedia and people accepted it as canon becaise it hadn't been contradicted on screen. But I've got 3 Star Trek Encyclopedisas and they're full of data that is updated in the next edition because a later episode contradicted some off-screen data that was written in some official book. Let it go. This stuff ISN'T canon until its stared on screen. Its this "infallible Trek history" attitude that killed Trek.

As for the others;

Still don't know about the car, but all we know for certain (as per TOS canon) is that Kirk can't drive a 1930s manual-clutch-operated car. Who knows if he can or can't drive some 23rd century car.

So the ship doesn't look the same. Seriously, the 1960s Enterprise model and set don't look like they could survive in space. It ain't real!!! Please remember that and expect sets and models to progress with real-world technology. No-one moeaned when the flippy-floppy set managed to get a make over, courtesy of a "re-fit" in The Motion Picture. How many re-fits involves replacing every component - every single wall - of a ship?

The uniforms are practically identical to TOS. How is this even an issue?

The Romulans had a war with Earth a good 100 years before Balance of Terror, according to canon. This all comes out of TOS. Added to that, this Romulan threat is supposed to be from the future. You can't complain about this breaking with canon without dismissing every othet time-travel story in Trek history.

The Romulan tattoos. Seriously? TNG Romulans had ridges on the forehead, whilst TOS Romulans didn't. Enterprise invented a while story to explain away how Klingons went from a bunch of space-Mongols to heavily-ridged-foreheaded aliens. Did you notice the difference between the Borg in TNG and First Contact? Get over it! Trek has done this for decades!



So you just don't like TOS. Why not just say that?



And Cloverfield. Big success there. Besides, all this says it he makes some good and some bad stuff. Much the same as all the previous Trek front-runners. Not enough to nail this one down as dead, unless you are willing to apply the same attitude to Roddenberry, Shatner, Berman, Braga, et al, who have their fair share of successes and failures making Trek.



Straw man. Nemesis was crap because it had a crap story. It doesn't relate to a separate film. All Trek movies have tried for mainstream appeal. First Contract was wildly successful, so must have had some measure of mainstream appeal.



Don't know their credentials, so can't comment, but surely this is reason to be skeptical, as opposed to being outright sure it will be crap?



The determination of "real Star Trek" is a little subjective here. What constitutes "real" Star Trek?



No-one has even suggested that. All that's been said is that it should be given a chance until we can view it. I'm a die hard fan and there's plenty of Trek I detest with a vengence. If this film is crap, it will go in with that pile. But I'm not making that decision until I've seen it. Somehow that seems to make the most sense. I can't quite grasp the notion of hating something before I've seen it. If I did, I'd have stuck with TOS and never watched TNG. PErsonally, I@m glad I don't take that attitude.
 
Yes, I know that was the excuse they used. But let's face it, what sort of refit replaces every single bulkhead in a ship? There was nothing left of the original ship!

Interestingly, there was no explanation as to how the rest of Starfleet got rid of the cardboard fleet. Nor, as I stated, how the Klingon ships (and the Klingons themselves) underwent a massive refit.

Either way, it doesn't discount the fact that people readily accepted a kitbash model on a piece of string as the original Enterprise. Come on, it doesn't look convincing now, does it?

Just like how Enterprise shoe-horned in a reason for why the Klingons heaRAB kept changing, they could just throw in an explanation at some later date as to why the Constitution-class went through yet another transformation. Perhaps there was another refit along the way and the Federation was in the miRABt of a financial crisis, so could only afford cardboard and tinfoil for the new components.

But the point is; WHO CARES? Its a frickin' special effect, people. It ain't a real starship! If the story turns out to be good, are people really going to get hung up on the fact the design team today had more money to work with than poor Matt Jeffries did on a 60s TV show?
 
Back
Top