The fatherfreaking Star Trek trailer?

Shanti418 · Post by **Shanti418** » Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:32 am

is here

Certainly not the opening I was expecting. But damn, does it look pretty bad ass.

sprunkner · Post by **sprunkner** » Wed Nov 19, 2008 6:03 am

hell yes.

Post by **spiderfrommars** » Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:11 am

Yeah, I like. So is this a Casino Royale-like reboot, or a Phantom Menace-like prequel?

Post by **Best First** » Wed Nov 19, 2008 12:25 pm

i think that will depend on how well it does.

I have a kind of love hate thing with Star Trek - sometimes its great but often its poor due to the lack of character development from ep to ep and the lack of decent action.

Looks like they may have addressed the last point...

Predabot · Post by **Predabot** » Wed Nov 19, 2008 6:10 pm

Aye. 'Tis teh bees-knees.

Used to be a small fan of Trek, back when I was a wee-er one, but lost interest in recent years. But this? This looks like it'll be a mother-frakkin' rebirth of the franchise.

stranger · Post by **stranger** » Wed Nov 19, 2008 6:13 pm

The trailer works really well - I'm far more excited about this now than I was when I first heard the concept. Good stuff...

Shanti418 · Post by **Shanti418** » Wed Nov 19, 2008 8:32 pm

spiderfrommars wrote:Yeah, I like. So is this a Casino Royale-like reboot, or a Phantom Menace-like prequel?

It's chronologically a prequel. It's basically like, "Remember the Original Star Trek? Yeah, how that started."

But it's also serving as a reboot of the franchise, insofar as it's not Star Trek 12 or whatever number it is.

I watched it again, and the thing that stuck out the most was, "What is the Enterprise doing being built on the ground? How the heck do they plan to get that thing into space?"

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Fri Nov 21, 2008 7:25 am

Constitution class ships are capable of atmospheric flight.

Post by **Best First** » Fri Nov 21, 2008 9:50 am

Ha ha geek.

What?

oh.

Post by **spiderfrommars** » Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:37 am

Shanti418 wrote:
spiderfrommars wrote:Yeah, I like. So is this a Casino Royale-like reboot, or a Phantom Menace-like prequel?
It's chronologically a prequel. It's basically like, "Remember the Original Star Trek? Yeah, how that started."

I'm just wondering how fast and loose they're going with it. Design wise, its doesn't seem that faithful to the original, and the Enterprise TV series didn't always fit well with continuity.

Plus I have a hard time believing the chap on the bike will grow up to be all Shat-like.

Not to say this doesn't look good, it actually does. Maybe it'll give Wrath of Khan a run for its money.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Nov 21, 2008 11:17 am

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:Constitution class ships are capable of atmospheric flight.

Weren't Intrepid class the first starships with landing (and therefore take-off) capability? While all previous class starships needed shuttlecraft?

Also, this seems to say the Enterprise was built in orbit, as opposed to the middle of a desert.

Looks like they're rebooting it. Either that or they're going to palm off the discrepancies as "everything since First Contact, e.g. Enterprise, is an altered history."

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Fri Nov 21, 2008 4:07 pm

spiderfrommars wrote:Maybe it'll give Wrath of Khan a run for its money.

It's Wolverine and T4 it needs to worry about.

Shanti418 · Post by **Shanti418** » Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:28 pm

Rebis wrote:
Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:Constitution class ships are capable of atmospheric flight.
Weren't Intrepid class the first starships with landing (and therefore take-off) capability? While all previous class starships needed shuttlecraft?

Also, this seems to say the Enterprise was built in orbit, as opposed to the middle of a desert.

Looks like they're rebooting it. Either that or they're going to palm off the discrepancies as "everything since First Contact, e.g. Enterprise, is an altered history."

Exactly. It's a prequel, but depending on how they approach things like First Contact and Enterprise, it's potentially a reboot.

Scraplet · Post by **Scraplet** » Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:37 am

Simon Pegg and Sylar from Heros! Not what I was expecting!

Is it going head-to-head with Transformers 2, then?

sprunkner · Post by **sprunkner** » Sat Nov 22, 2008 3:19 am

Watch me say this on a Transformers board, no less.

I hope it kicks TF2's product-placing ass.

Aaron Hong · Post by **Aaron Hong** » Sat Nov 22, 2008 10:51 am

sprunkner wrote:Watch me say this on a Transformers board, no less.

I hope it kicks TF2's product-placing ass.

Depends on how many current products last till Star Trek time, really.

IronHide · Post by **IronHide** » Sun Nov 23, 2008 5:51 pm

Surely Coke-A-Cola will last into the future....

And whatever beer company is on top.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Nov 23, 2008 8:22 pm

IronHide wrote:Surely Coke-A-Cola will last into the future....

For as long as there's another Christmas.

sprunkner · Post by **sprunkner** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 7:03 pm

http://www.pvponline.com/2008/11/18/trek-on/

We can only hope.

Shanti418 · Post by **Shanti418** » Tue Dec 02, 2008 12:18 am

sprunkner wrote:http://www.pvponline.com/2008/11/18/trek-on/

We can only hope.

I definitely think Star Wars would benefit from new blood, but I think that's a different situation because Lucas created Star Wars. It's his to run into the ground if he wants to. See: George Romero and the Living Dead films.

On the other hand, when Berman first came on the scene, HE was the one rescuing Star Treak from its original creator, Gene Roddenbery.