Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/startrek/large_trailer2.html

You need quicktime for it.

Not much of a star trek fan at all, but this actually looks good to me. Which probably means all the trekkies will hate it

It says Star Trek, but looks like "generic summer sci-fi film #142" to me.

I see they wanted Matt Damon for Kirk, and got the layaway version.

Should be to Star Trek what MI3 is to The Bourne Identity.

Excellent special effects. I'm guessing time for reflection, and deep plot will be lessened. I must be getting old, but I'm finding most films now have devolved. I can really see it with the kids. They need constant action and special effects juicing (you can see it in the in last three Star Wars films, talk about nonplot abominations).

Spock looks like a Vulcan dork though-it explains the aggression.

I like Abrams a lot, I think he'll do a good job.. but at the end of the day, it's a business and the studios are gonna want a movie that Joe Sixpack will want to see.. so that's prolly why its got that action movie feel. Just trying to appeal to a more mainstream audience, so I think a lot of die hard trek fans will end up disappointed and ranting all over the interwebs.

Rant Rant Rant! I have high hopes myself.

Sylar as Spock is the bomb.

Was that a little Tyranid action I saw there? This better not turn out to be Dawson's Creek in space.

Wow...I can see how the treckies are obsessed. Always good to have a boom boom flick now and then.

I liked it.

Love the helmet on the cop, the hive cities in the background whilst he is riding his bike, assembling the Enterprise.

Hope it kicks ass...

Interesting. Though the more I see about this flick the more it feels like The Three Musketeers in space.

Which could be good. Who knows?

I grew up watching Kirk kiss green women and fist fight monsters. I like the more actiony OST and deep space nine.

I'm such a die hard trek fan, I'm not acknowledging that its trek until a week after I see it.

There is NO WAY a trek fan will be able to walk into this and be satisfied I'm betting.

I figure, walk in, see the sci-fi movie, decide if its a good one, then worry about if its actually trek later rather than be pissed about it while watching the movie.

....Abrams already stated that he's taking the franchise into a totally new direction, that could be good OR bad for old fans depending on their demeanor.

I just wanna know if its good sci-fi, if it is, I'll decide later if its good Star Trek.

This is what all Trek fans should do.

Could have been much, much worse...



I'm hopeful JJ will do it justice.

should be cool. They have been working on it for a while.

well he did direct that crap hole of a movie cloverfield. Hopefully he will do the franchise justice, and not have a mini cam sequence AT ALL with anyone say bra, bra, bra...excessively.

yeah,
That was AWESOME!!! x10
thanx for the post necros...

Panic...

(Jim Gaffigan whisper voice)
"Hey I liked Cloverfield. Don't knock monsters destroying New York buddy."

hehe I liked Cloverfield

Cloverfield is alright on the small screen. Glad I didn't see it in the cinema though...too short, too shaky, waste of time!

nope nope nope, cloverfield was, and will always be, ace

The trailer looked okay, and Im sure that I will eventually end up seeing it. Right now, it just seems like another one of the "must-show-how-it-all-started"-movies. Which is, quite frankly, old already.

It was awesome on the large screen. Nothing says "Godzilla's attacking the City!" like a giant tail taking out the bridge. You youngins with your complete lack of proper upbriging on godzilla movies on the big screen. I am shocked. Shocked and appalled...

I'm right there with ya, Frazz. I saw Cloverfield five times the week it came out, and I have the DVD. Then again, I'm really clumsy so my real life is like a shaky video camera.

Ditto'd warpcrafter. I love good old fashioned monster movies. Considering their limited budget, it was excellent.

Frazzled wrote:Excellent special effects. I'm guessing time for reflection, and deep plot will be lessened. I must be getting old, but I'm finding most films now have devolved. I can really see it with the kids. They need constant action and special effects juicing (you can see it in the in last three Star Wars films, talk about nonplot abominations).

Nah, films are about the same as they've always been. If you're not seeing as many decent films, it's probably because you're going to summer blockbusters and expecting high art.

Really, I don't think anyone was expecting high art out of the new Star Wars movies.

Necros wrote:I like Abrams a lot, I think he'll do a good job.. but at the end of the day, it's a business and the studios are gonna want a movie that Joe Sixpack will want to see.. so that's prolly why its got that action movie feel. Just trying to appeal to a more mainstream audience, so I think a lot of die hard trek fans will end up disappointed and ranting all over the interwebs.

Uh yeah, but Abrams has made a record for himself, either on TV or on film, making films Joe Sixpack want to see. Which is what the preview looked like, Star Trek with Abrams' style. There'll be lots of effects, lots of big drama among the cast, someone will probably get tortured.

Whether or not its any good is something we've still got to find out. Transformers was exactly what you'd expect, and was good in spite of itself. The latest Indiana Jones was exactly what you'd expect, but was somehow bad in spite of itself.

VermGho5t wrote:well he did direct that crap hole of a movie cloverfield. Hopefully he will do the franchise justice, and not have a mini cam sequence AT ALL with anyone say bra, bra, bra...excessively.

He produced Cloverfield, he didn't direct.

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Excellent special effects. I'm guessing time for reflection, and deep plot will be lessened. I must be getting old, but I'm finding most films now have devolved. I can really see it with the kids. They need constant action and special effects juicing (you can see it in the in last three Star Wars films, talk about nonplot abominations).

Nah, films are about the same as they've always been. If you're not seeing as many decent films, it's probably because you're going to summer blockbusters and expecting high art.

Really, I don't think anyone was expecting high art out of the new Star Wars movies.

I'd disagree with that. Compare action movies of the past to those currently. They have to be substantially more fast paced, especially with the youngins. And if we never speak of the the horrific abortion of the last Indiana film the better. Southpark called it dead on.

OT but anyone see Rock n Rolla? How does it compare to Snatch/Lock Stock?

I'd imagine it's the same rigty royal cockney pile of bollocks, just like all his films are and largely best avoided.

There only so many times you can watch a poorly shot film with people calling each other 'muppett' and 'slag' before you lose the will to live. YMMV, but for me it was somewhere between 0 and 1.

Yes.

OT but anyone see Rock n Rolla? How does it compare to Snatch/Lock Stock?

Do yourself a favour and search for Mark Kermode's review of this (he's a BBC film reviewer - his stuff is available from the BBC radio 5 website (latest episode only) and on youtube).

Its not as funny as his 10 minute rant on how bad Pirates of the Carribean 3 was, but its still funny!