criterionforum.org

Probably a very bad idea--and yet, not even being a Star Trek fan, I still got a slight shiver up the spine when Spock's voice and the fanfare came over the speakers. Too bad Jerry Goldsmith is no longer with us, because a score by him would have greatly helped this film's chances.

Haven't watched the teaser, but this is a very, very bad idea and will be the first Star Trek movie in 15 years that I don't see in the theatre (might not even bother with a rental)

Firstly, the idea of "Young Star Trek" is just silly. I can understand using a young, no-name cast for some el-cheapo direct-to-video film, or even for a mindless blockbuster where explosions are the main draw. But, this is Star Trek, and the biggest strength that franchise has (especially with so many other excellent sci-fis now) is the familiarity of the cast and characters. I can certainly understand people who watch The Next Generation every week paying to see, essentially, a bigger episode. I can understand even more in the case of the Original Cast movies, were there simply weren't any new episodes at the time.

But who cares about some kid pretending to be teen-Spock? Without the ship and cast familiar from the series (whichever series) this thing can only really interest me as a big-budget sci-fi action movie (hence, at least, a rental.) Heck, even the animated series stuck with the original actors.

Seriously, folks, what makes this movie Star Trek? Right now, it's looking like the names of the characters, the use of transporters* and maybe the Federation insignia. Other than that, the whole thing sounds like it could just as easily be called "Blake's 7 - the Movie" or even something generic like "Space Trek"

*And the only reason Star Trek is unique in the transporters, is that more recent series have recognised how ridiculous the concept gets with each passing year.

It could be worse: they could've made the wretched Scott Bakula ST series into a movie. Just the thought makes me a little sick.

Not that I'm seeing this one they're actually releasing, mind you. I feel quite finished with Star Trek altogether after Data got blowed up in Nemesis.

Leonard Nimoy just finished shooting his role as Spock.....who will appear as a "spirit" in the film.

A nice story about the new Star Trek movie.

Why can't Space 1999 be a movie?

The first full trailer will unspool in front of Quantum Of Solace.

First pic of the villain, Nero, arrives.

When did Billy Corgan join the cast?

Antoine Doinel wrote:First pic of the villain, Nero, arrives.

Who looks exactly like the villain from the last Star Trek movie.

Another new still, this time of the bridge of the USS Enterprise.

EW cover story with a bunch of new stills.

Here's a first look at the Enterprise.

Here's the official Quicktime version.

It looks like a complete disaster, like the studio told them to go ahead and make Transformers In Space. The last thing the Star Trek franchise needs -- and I say this as a completely casual fan -- is to be amped up on steroids and turned into another generic summer blockbuster. The thing I've also liked about the series of films is that, on some level, it took concerns about science seriously and always knew it was a TV show being made into a movie. Now this "relaunch" seems to toss all that out for poor CGI (the shot of the Enterprise being constructed looked brutal), big action set pieces and questionable, teen oriented casting (hey, that's the guy from Harold & Kumar right? Oh, Sylar!).

They should've let Joss Whedon to do this instead.

Maybe I'm just a J.J. Abrams apologist (I'm apparently the only person alive who thinks that Mission Impossible 3 was by far the best of the series), but I thought it looked like a lot of fun.

Doniel is right. As for the director, these guys are essentially tv show directors, as crazy as it sounds I would have preferred Michael Bay if that was the path they wanted to go down. Don't get me wrong I'm all for fun, but one of the lesser qualities of MI3 as opposed to the first one, is that it took itself too seriously, which is what I fear for here.

Matt wrote:Maybe I'm just a J.J. Abrams apologist (I'm apparently the only person alive who thinks that Mission Impossible 3 was by far the best of the series),

You aren't the only person.

but I thought it looked like a lot of fun.

Agreed.

Matt wrote:Maybe I'm just a J.J. Abrams apologist (I'm apparently the only person alive who thinks that Mission Impossible 3 was by far the best of the series), but I thought it looked like a lot of fun.

Totally with you until the weepy final action scene with Hoffman's very underwhelming demise.

And as someone who's long been ambivalent about Star Trek, the only warning sign I'm picking up from this is the tween vibe. I really wish that the Damon as Kirk rumor panned out.

Matt wrote:Maybe I'm just a J.J. Abrams apologist (I'm apparently the only person alive who thinks that Mission Impossible 3 was by far the best of the series), but I thought it looked like a lot of fun.

I agree. This looks like it could be pretty good and the franchise definitely needs a kick in the pants. Maybe Joss Whedon can do the same for Star Wars 'cos it sure needs a facelift!

I also really enjoyed MI:III even if it did feel like a big budget ep. of Alias. I still think De Palma's take was the strongest of that franchise, but I digress.

Back to Star Trek, it should be interesting to see what this young cast does with these iconic roles. I really like the casting of Karl Urban as McCoy.

25 minutes of footage was shown to "opinion makers" (whatever that means) on the Paramount lot. You can get a breakdown of what was shown here.

Abrams does a break down of the trailer.

Internet only trailer with some new footage. The new scenes play a lot more like a Star Trek film and actually has made me cautiously optimistic.