I swear in the trailer you see ship which looks like the enterprise, consistuation class crash in to the water?
We definitely see a ship crash into the water, but I don't think it's the Enterprise. Reason being, look at the nacelles shape: they're rectangular, not circular. Plus, the Enterprise's nacelles are thicker in the front, while this ship's nacelles are more even
But you're right, it looks very similiar to the Constitution class from Prime Trek
Was named Trek17.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
To those who keep saying that Star Trek is all about exploration and that JJ should watch the shows are not with it...
No Star Trek film was ever like a show. There was always something that was ready to destroy earth or the federation. And the crew of the enterprise went all out to avert disaster. Yes the number of things blowing up is 10 fold... but I sure wouldn't go to a star trek movie if it was like a show.
Not going to sit in a movie theater for an hour and a half to watch a glorified episode.... Maybe best of both worlds was near movie material... but not much else.
join Date: Sep 2009 - I want my changeling lava lamp!
I'm TOTALLY excited. I agree, I think with the line "vengance" it's Kahn. He seems to be doing "enhanced human" stuff (jumping, fighting, etc.) and not much god-like stuff. Plus they originally approached Benecio Del Torro and some other hispanic actor first, so that give me a Ricardo Montelban/Kahn/suave guy feel that they were originally looking for.
I also think the blond is Yeoman Rand. Kirk love interest anyone?
BTW, our company has a trailer app and as the resident ST geek I got to curate it and add in polls and trivia and whatnot. If you want to see the trailer again and leave a comment, answer some ST trivia and so forth, please, feel free to check it out here:
And seeing as how this is (obviously) a very ST centric crowd, any feed back would be greatly appreciated. I end up adding a lot of stuff to these movies and trailers but generally don't have direct access to hardcore fans.
EDIT: And hey! Since when I am I an ensign? I've been playing since beta and had tons of comments on the board before (Capt. Hunter of the USS Fury). When did the boards change? I remember my avatar and all still being intact when the PW switch happened quite a while ago. =(
EDIT: And hey! Since when I am I an ensign? I've been playing since beta and had tons of comments on the board before (Capt. Hunter of the USS Fury). When did the boards change? I remember my avatar and all still being intact when the PW switch happened quite a while ago. =(
Yes, the boards did change back in June. Have you posted since then? Cause if not, that would be why.
Maybe, at the end of the final alternate timeline movie (whenever that is) "Q" could return and repair the timeline and appear on the bridge of the Enterprise just as he did on his first appearance in "ST: Next Generation"
surely kirks love interest would be much much older
We have to remember Kirk isn't 30+ plus years in JJ's Trek In there, he's roughly 20 instead, so any love interest (including temporary or false leads) would have to be close to that age
Was named Trek17.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
Umm... it was epic... but I honestly was having a very hard time finding the Trek in the trailor. I'll have to rewatch that a few times to try and understand what's going on.
And when I read the description, an image of Khan and the Enterprise crew on a big chess board came to my mind. I know it's not Khan and it's not really a chess board, but still...
Not really. Only The Motion Picture, The Voyage Home and First Contact are direct threats to Earth. Nemesis is more about one man's insanity as he could never realistically have destroyed the federation, it only took a handful of ships to stop him after all, and the Undiscovered country was more about a bunch of Klinks sabotaging a peace process. The rest deal with personal vendettas and the crew risking all to save one of their own. The Final Frontier is a bit of an odd ball one but has one of the best lines in any Trek movie "Excuse me. I'd just like to ask a question. What does God need with a starship?"
A thalaron radiation generator that could kill whole planets and sabotaged peace between humans and Klingons sound like threats to the Federation though :P Indirectly, yes, but they ARE threats, even if they never fully materialized
Yes, some of the movies dealt with 'risking it all' and personal vendettas, but more often than not, there was a direct or indirect threat to Earth and/or the Federation in these movies
Was named Trek17.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
Maybe, at the end of the final alternate timeline movie (whenever that is) "Q" could return and repair the timeline and appear on the bridge of the Enterprise just as he did on his first appearance in "ST: Next Generation"
:P
There's technically nothing to repair. But a Q appearance would be hilarious.
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them." -Thomas Marrone
I highly doubt the villain is Khan. Remember, Khan originated on Earth of the late 20th century, a time frame that IRL is already well in our rear-view mirror. If Abrams' goal is to spruce up the franchise for a 21st century audience, I can't see him trotting out a villain from what is now our recent "past" - there'd just be too much explaining to have to do for the new target audience of his.
Beyond all else, and this doesn't just apply to nu-Trek, I am just SICK and TIRED of movie directors having this obsessional, compulsive, need to make movies 'dark and gritty' these days.
Couldn't agree with ya more Reyan! There was a time in my youth (ahhh...the heady '80s!) when I reveled in 'darker' entertainment, from sounds of 'The Cure', 'Depeche Mode' and 'The Smiths' to the literary musings of Anne Rice's 'Vampire Chronicles'. I was (and still am) an obsessive James Bond fan, who pined for the films to reflect Ian Fleming's moodier edginess, rather than the Roger Moore era's slap-stick antics. And I still love all those things and still they still evoke the same pleasure to me.
Yet, fast-forward from my teens to just past forty, and I've become absolutely sick and tired of virtually every filmmaker these days, trying to one up Chris Nolan's 'Batman' films for sheer "darkness". Hell, much as I enjoy Daniel Craig's Bond, I so wish they would just lighten the mood a little (not back to Moore, mind ya), but a touch lighter would be nice.
Looks like the new Trek film might need a helping of light, while it's busy delving "Into Darkness". It would be nice for Trek to have a balance of fun and substance, instead of flashy violence and brooding stares, all driven by what I fear might end up being a mindless plot.
And JJ Abrams is well and capable of making some fun stuff (I love 'Fringe'). Doesn't suit him or any other filmmaker to keep pushing this Chris Nolan worship.
"Don't try to be a great man. Just be a man and let history make its own judgments." -Zefram Cochrane
Vice-Admiral Methos Corinthian
methos71
my speakers were acting up when I watched the trailer... thought it was a mass effect trailer until I saw the ship crash into the ocean...
as for the bad guy.... meh maybe its the mirror universe JJ adams universe version of chuck norris... or just someone who wants revenge for whatever reason no one can remember.
Couldn't agree with ya more Reyan! There was a time in my youth (ahhh...the heady '80s!) when I reveled in 'darker' entertainment, from sounds of 'The Cure', 'Depeche Mode' and 'The Smiths' to the literary musings of Anne Rice's 'Vampire Chronicles'. I was (and still am) an obsessive James Bond fan, who pined for the films to reflect Ian Fleming's moodier edginess, rather than the Roger Moore era's slap-stick antics. And I still love all those things and still they still evoke the same pleasure to me.
Yet, fast-forward from my teens to just past forty, and I've become absolutely sick and tired of virtually every filmmaker these days, trying to one up Chris Nolan's 'Batman' films for sheer "darkness". Hell, much as I enjoy Daniel Craig's Bond, I so wish they would just lighten the mood a little (not back to Moore, mind ya), but a touch lighter would be nice.
Looks like the new Trek film might need a helping of light, while it's busy delving "Into Darkness". It would be nice for Trek to have a balance of fun and substance, instead of flashy violence and brooding stares, all driven by what I fear might end up being a mindless plot.
And JJ Abrams is well and capable of making some fun stuff (I love 'Fringe'). Doesn't suit him or any other filmmaker to keep pushing this Chris Nolan worship.
It happened with Comic Books in the 90's. It was stupid then too. But eventually people will get tired of it. :P
So now the Enterprise is amphibious, not only can it take off from it's construction site on the ground it's now a submersible, what's next with these films, the Enterprise coming down to zap giant guys in rubber dinosaur suits that are torching Tokyo?
Well I'll be watching it, but I think I might wait until it goes to video, because I'm sure I'll be thrown out of the theater for rolling in the aisles laughing my A-- off.
If something is not broken, don't fix it, if it is broken, don't leave it broken.
So now the Enterprise is amphibious, not only can it take off from it's construction site on the ground it's now a submersible, what's next with these films, the Enterprise coming down to zap giant guys in rubber dinosaur suits that are torching Tokyo?
Well I'll be watching it, but I think I might wait until it goes to video, because I'm sure I'll be thrown out of the theater for rolling in the aisles laughing my A-- off.
I'd like to point out we don't know which ship that crashed and submerged. It could likely be the Enterprise, but it could also be another ship, just to throw us off.
And I might add, the fact they were crashing in the first place instead of with a prodecure, shows this wasn't exactly something the ship was meant to. But because of emergency circumstances, they're forced to make due
And I don't see how being built on the ground is a bad thing We know ST has all kinds of gravity tech, so why not use a little large-scale anti-gravs to help in construction; keep it afloat? And I really think Impulse power would clear plantery orbit in no time, even if they had to start slow by simply using thrusters to get manuevering room.
Was named Trek17.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
And I don't see how being built on the ground is a bad thing We know ST has all kinds of gravity tech, so why not use a little large-scale anti-gravs to help in construction; keep it afloat? And I really think Impulse power would clear plantery orbit in no time, even if they had to start slow by simply using thrusters to get manuevering room.
Building on the gound is bad because even with anti-grav sled to help manipulate the components of the ship being built gravity is still acting on the component. It can slip and fall to the ground. In a zero-g environment the components can be manipulated and moved in to place easier. In addition, a ship the size of the Enterprise would have trouble keeping form it would be more likely to crumple and buckle. A zero-g environment wouldnt have this issue.
It's simply easier to build something large and complex in zero-g.
I dont really know how the impulse drive would work in the atmosphere.
Building on the gound is bad because even with anti-grav sled to help manipulate the components of the ship being built gravity is still acting on the component. It can slip and fall to the ground. In a zero-g environment the components can be manipulated and moved in to place easier. In addition, a ship the size of the Enterprise would have trouble keeping form it would be more likely to crumple and buckle. A zero-g environment wouldnt have this issue.
It's simply easier to build something large and complex in zero-g.
I dont really know how the impulse drive would work in the atmosphere.
Well you'd think in a futuristic series like ST, this wouldn't be much of an issue, considering their general ease of doing things In fact, they probably rigged up some technobabble to put an anti-gravity field on the Enterprise herself, neutralizing it's weight, but not overdoing it that it started floating.
Somehow, that wouldn't surprise me
And I'd think impulse would work the same whether it was atmosphere or deep space :P It's designed to move the ship forward/backward/whatever direction after all, no special tricks required (unlike warp drive)
Was named Trek17.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
Comments
But you're right, it looks very similiar to the Constitution class from Prime Trek
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
No Star Trek film was ever like a show. There was always something that was ready to destroy earth or the federation. And the crew of the enterprise went all out to avert disaster. Yes the number of things blowing up is 10 fold... but I sure wouldn't go to a star trek movie if it was like a show.
Not going to sit in a movie theater for an hour and a half to watch a glorified episode.... Maybe best of both worlds was near movie material... but not much else.
So it's going to be like Star Trek Online?
Kirk "Gather a task force"
Spock"the queue is not moving sir"
Kirk "take us to warp"
Sulu "can't sir we are at red alert"
Kirk "Hello attractive space princess"
Dental "Take it somewhere else ERPER"
I also think the blond is Yeoman Rand. Kirk love interest anyone?
BTW, our company has a trailer app and as the resident ST geek I got to curate it and add in polls and trivia and whatnot. If you want to see the trailer again and leave a comment, answer some ST trivia and so forth, please, feel free to check it out here:
https://apps.facebook.com/socialcinemapreviews/products/1544-star-trek-into-darkness-trailer
And seeing as how this is (obviously) a very ST centric crowd, any feed back would be greatly appreciated. I end up adding a lot of stuff to these movies and trailers but generally don't have direct access to hardcore fans.
EDIT: And hey! Since when I am I an ensign? I've been playing since beta and had tons of comments on the board before (Capt. Hunter of the USS Fury). When did the boards change? I remember my avatar and all still being intact when the PW switch happened quite a while ago. =(
But why is she wearing blue? Yeoman Rand always wore red.
Yes, the boards did change back in June.
:P
We have to remember Kirk isn't 30+ plus years in JJ's Trek
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
And when I read the description, an image of Khan and the Enterprise crew on a big chess board came to my mind. I know it's not Khan and it's not really a chess board, but still...
he would look for a woman in her 50's
A mother figure
perhaps a role for good old Mrs Gene
Yes, some of the movies dealt with 'risking it all' and personal vendettas, but more often than not, there was a direct or indirect threat to Earth and/or the Federation in these movies
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
I think she died a few years ago.
There's technically nothing to repair. But a Q appearance would be hilarious.
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them."
-Thomas Marrone
My Foundry missions | My STO Wiki page | My Twitter home page
And then... she be brought back from the dead! ONLY EVIL!!!! :eek:
Or it's Nero again with some new timey wimey.
Couldn't agree with ya more Reyan! There was a time in my youth (ahhh...the heady '80s!) when I reveled in 'darker' entertainment, from sounds of 'The Cure', 'Depeche Mode' and 'The Smiths' to the literary musings of Anne Rice's 'Vampire Chronicles'. I was (and still am) an obsessive James Bond fan, who pined for the films to reflect Ian Fleming's moodier edginess, rather than the Roger Moore era's slap-stick antics. And I still love all those things and still they still evoke the same pleasure to me.
Yet, fast-forward from my teens to just past forty, and I've become absolutely sick and tired of virtually every filmmaker these days, trying to one up Chris Nolan's 'Batman' films for sheer "darkness". Hell, much as I enjoy Daniel Craig's Bond, I so wish they would just lighten the mood a little (not back to Moore, mind ya), but a touch lighter would be nice.
Looks like the new Trek film might need a helping of light, while it's busy delving "Into Darkness". It would be nice for Trek to have a balance of fun and substance, instead of flashy violence and brooding stares, all driven by what I fear might end up being a mindless plot.
And JJ Abrams is well and capable of making some fun stuff (I love 'Fringe'). Doesn't suit him or any other filmmaker to keep pushing this Chris Nolan worship.
Vice-Admiral Methos Corinthian
methos71
as for the bad guy.... meh maybe its the mirror universe JJ adams universe version of chuck norris... or just someone who wants revenge for whatever reason no one can remember.
It happened with Comic Books in the 90's. It was stupid then too. But eventually people will get tired of it. :P
Well I'll be watching it, but I think I might wait until it goes to video, because I'm sure I'll be thrown out of the theater for rolling in the aisles laughing my A-- off.
And I might add, the fact they were crashing in the first place instead of with a prodecure, shows this wasn't exactly something the ship was meant to. But because of emergency circumstances, they're forced to make due
And I don't see how being built on the ground is a bad thing
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
Building on the gound is bad because even with anti-grav sled to help manipulate the components of the ship being built gravity is still acting on the component. It can slip and fall to the ground. In a zero-g environment the components can be manipulated and moved in to place easier. In addition, a ship the size of the Enterprise would have trouble keeping form it would be more likely to crumple and buckle. A zero-g environment wouldnt have this issue.
It's simply easier to build something large and complex in zero-g.
I dont really know how the impulse drive would work in the atmosphere.
Somehow, that wouldn't surprise me
And I'd think impulse would work the same whether it was atmosphere or deep space :P It's designed to move the ship forward/backward/whatever direction after all, no special tricks required (unlike warp drive)
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.