Page 1 of 11

The Star Trek trailer

Posted: 2008-11-09 04:23am
by Bounty
It's out later this week, but AICN supposedly has the description from an employee screening at Paramount.
Hey there, long time Paramount employee here. They showed the new trailer for JJ Abrams Star Trek yesterday over at the Paramount theatre. It ran every 15 minutes and all employees were encouraged to go see it. Thought you'd like a little info.

The trailer starts by showing a mid-60's Corvette convertible tearing across the country side. After a few seconds we see a long shot that shows a policeman in hot pursuit. Another long shot shows the Vette screaming at full speed toward a steep cliff. A slo-mo shot shows the driver leaping from the car at the last second and tumbling ass over teakettle toward the edge of the cliff itself. The driver is a young boy who looks about 13 or 14. He manages to grab a hold at the last second and hang on as a birds eye shot show the antique Vette fall away into an abyss.

We see the boy get up and dust himself off and the camera cuts away to show a troopers boot come down close-up. The black leather boot is obviously the policeman's who was chasing the car but it looks suspiciously "different." Just different enough to let the audience know this isn't a normal policeman. The shot then cuts to where we can see the policeman standing in front of the boy with his "bike" hovering in mid air a few feet beside him. He shouts at the boy, "Who are you?" or "What's your name?" and the boy shouts back defiantly, "James Tiberius Kirk!"

We're then treated to another long shot showing an older boy riding a hover bike similar to the one the policeman was shown riding a moment or two before thru the country side . We hear a voice over of an older man, presumable Kirk's father saying, "You never found yourself here, you never really fit in." The voice continues as the bike rider pulls up and stops and looks off into the distance, "What you choose to do with you're life is up to you." We see the boy starring at a huge futuristic structure (Star Fleet headquarters?) as the voice over continues, "Maybe you were meant for something different, something....bigger."

It then cuts to scene of an obvious Vulcan woman holding a baby. Again we hear a voice over of the woman saying, "You will always be a part of two worlds." as we cut to a toddler Spock walking in a Vulcan robe. The boy has the Beatles hair cut and pointed ears we associate with Vulcan's throughout Star Trek history. We then see a bunch a quick shots of the crew walking around the bridge of some starship and we see a 20-something Spock angrily pointing at a 20-something Kirk and saying, "I will not be lectured by you!" and an angry Kirk getting in Spocks face saying, "Why don't you do something about it!?!" We then see an enraged Spock trying to stab Kirk with something pointed I couldn't quite make out. It was a quick shot and Kirk is shown using both hands to fend off Spock and hold the object away from his face.

Several quick cuts are shown of space ships firing at one another and people being thrown about the bridge of whatever ship they're suppose to be in. We see crew members running down bright white corridors as another voice over with a Scottish accent says, "I'm having fun!" We then see a close-up of what had to be a young(er) Dr. McCoy with about a weeks worth of black stubble on his face and his arms crossed in that oh so familiar Bones manner saying angrily, "Space isn't suppose to be fun, it's aliens and phasers and death!" We also see a woman in silhouette (Uhura?) pulling off her top and scenes of the crew running to man their battle stations on a bridge.

We then see a bunch of battle shots of space ships being hit by phaser fire and pieces being blown off of them while engine nacels explode before it all ends with the familar Star Fleet logo against a black background and we hear the familar Star Trek opening cords played over it and the release date appears underneath.

I can't vouch for every line of dialog I quoted as being 100% accurate, the cuts were very quick and I only sat through the trailer once but that's the basics. The colors of the corridors and the uniforms was very bright, everything had a "new" appearance. No doubt some of the shots were meant to represent Star Fleet academy training exercises and not real life combat scenes though again, it all went by pretty quick.
Spock going apeshit sounds weird. Let's hope it works better in motion.

EDIT:

I'd love to have been a fly on the wall when they decided that
The trailer starts by showing a mid-60's Corvette convertible tearing across the country side
would be an awesome opener for a Trek trailer. 'Cause it is.

Re: The Star Trek trailer

Posted: 2008-11-09 08:17am
by Darth Fanboy
So at what point in his upbringing then did Kirk survive living on Tarsus then? because, they made this whole episode about how when he was a kid that he saw what Kodos the Executioner did.

Re: The Star Trek trailer

Posted: 2008-11-09 08:24am
by Bounty
In TOS, he was 13 at the time of the famine; so either the movie takes place after he's come back to earth, or the whole incident didn't happen in the new continuity. Take your pick.

Re: The Star Trek trailer

Posted: 2008-11-09 01:02pm
by charlemagne
So, they show what a rebel Kirk is by him trashing an antique, precious car all James-Dean-like? I don't know what to think of that, on one hand it's not really Federation-type behaviour which may be good, on the other hand, isn't this more something Tom Paris might have done? Kirk being badass is one thing, but I doubt that someone with that kind of attitude (which seems to continue, if he provokes Spock into a fight later on) is really Captain-material.

Re: The Star Trek trailer

Posted: 2008-11-09 01:16pm
by Darth Wong
Unfortunately, in Hollywood they do not seem to distinguish between the concepts of "courage" and "reckless stupidity". A 13 or 14 year old kid speeding down the road in a stolen car is an example of an idiot who will probably spend a lifetime in and out of prison, not someone who will eventually end up being a responsible leader.

Re: The Star Trek trailer

Posted: 2008-11-09 03:00pm
by Swindle1984
How the fuck did Kirk FIND a 1960's Corvette in the 23rd century in the first place, much less find one that was in running condition AND had gasoline compatible with its engine available?

That's like expecting to be able to find a 1929 radio set in 2100 and being able to just turn it on and tune in to a particular station. Where the fuck are you going to get vacuum tubes that are compatible with it? Now you have to really look for decades-old tubes that haven't been broken or burned out, or order a handful of 1980's-production tubes that happen to be compatible with western electronics that were sold as surplus when the Soviet Union collapsed. How the heck are you going to do that a hundred years from now? The technology is going to be two hundred years old and the infrastructure to support it will have been gone for almost half as long.

A Corvette would be nearly four hundred years old by then, the infrastructure to replace parts on one will have been gone for over three centuries, and who the fuck uses gasoline in Star Trek when they've got fusion power and antimatter reactors?

Is the Corvette located on Earth, or on the colony Kirk spent most of his childhood on? If it's on the colony, what fucking moron paid to have an antique that weighs half a ton shipped to a colony that probably doesn't even have enough roads to let you drive the thing any appreciable distance, as if it would be anything other than a giant paperweight in a museum anyway.

Once again, Hollywood and Trek writers prove that they never think these things through. Fucking retards.

Re: The Star Trek trailer

Posted: 2008-11-09 03:05pm
by Bounty
My god, that's got to be the most retardedly petulant post I've ever read. Of all the things to comment on, you think the biggest problem is the car? Car collectors don't have trouble keeping Model T's running, or machining new parts for them. Why would a Corvette, with 22nd century tech, be a problem at all? For all we know it's a replica body over a brand-spanking-new fusion-powered Trek-era chassis. And whether it is or not, it does not fucking matter, nor does it reflect in any way on the movie or its writers.

I'd ask if you were grasping at something to hate here, but I don't have to; you obviously are.

Re: The Star Trek trailer

Posted: 2008-11-09 03:39pm
by charlemagne
Yeah, the car itself really isn't the problem here. Trek is technobabble land, so there's no reason to think that you couldn't make all spare parts, or modify or replace combustion engines with future tech so you can drive around in 400 years old cars. You only need some car enthusiasts to make it happen. Look at Tom Paris, the guy knew how to start the engine of an old pickup truck and spent his free time on the holodeck working on a Camaro, I think.

To use a present-day example, IIRC the production of reel to reel tapes has been started again quite recently because there's enough reel to reel enthusiasts around still buying enough tapes to make it profitable. You also can get everything you need to play your old shellack discs.

Re: The Star Trek trailer

Posted: 2008-11-09 03:40pm
by Bounty
The British Museum has working clocks dating back centuries. As long as you know how something works, and you have the money, you can rebuild anything.

Posted: 2008-11-09 04:26pm
by Patrick Degan
Darth Wong wrote:Unfortunately, in Hollywood they do not seem to distinguish between the concepts of "courage" and "reckless stupidity". A 13 or 14 year old kid speeding down the road in a stolen car is an example of an idiot who will probably spend a lifetime in and out of prison, not someone who will eventually end up being a responsible leader.
To quote Han Solo: "I'm getting a bad feeling about this."

Re: The Star Trek trailer

Posted: 2008-11-09 04:43pm
by tim31
Wait, this is serious?? When Uranium posted it in testing, and yeah, I read his disclaimer, but damn. I thought he was kidding.

Fucking Abrams.

Re: The Star Trek trailer

Posted: 2008-11-09 04:44pm
by Bounty
tim31 wrote:Wait, this is serious?? When Uranium posted it in testing, and yeah, I read his disclaimer, but damn. I thought he was kidding.

Fucking Abrams.
What do you think is bad about it?

Re: The Star Trek trailer

Posted: 2008-11-09 05:38pm
by Havok
Darth Wong wrote:Unfortunately, in Hollywood they do not seem to distinguish between the concepts of "courage" and "reckless stupidity". A 13 or 14 year old kid speeding down the road in a stolen car is an example of an idiot who will probably spend a lifetime in and out of prison, not someone who will eventually end up being a responsible leader.
Well honestly, when is a 13 year old going to be able to display "courage"? To a 13 year old "courage" is taking a dare from your friends, or jumping your skateboard off something your KNOW you shouldn't. And Kirk didn't quite end up being a "responsible leader" did he? He was constantly breaking rules and being insubordinate, it was his sheer luck, and intelligence and willpower that got him through his life.

The trailer sounds pretty cool to me. The only thing it sounds like it is missing to me is Kirk getting laid. :D

Re: The Star Trek trailer

Posted: 2008-11-09 05:50pm
by tim31
Bounty wrote:
tim31 wrote:Wait, this is serious?? When Uranium posted it in testing, and yeah, I read his disclaimer, but damn. I thought he was kidding.

Fucking Abrams.
What do you think is bad about it?
The Thelma and Louise bit does not sit well with me. Maybe I shouldn't jump the gun, because this is just some guy's retelling of a screen test six months before the release date; for all we know it could just be Abrams trolling.

At least, that's what those of us that don't want to give up hope would say.

Re: The Star Trek trailer

Posted: 2008-11-09 06:22pm
by Havok
"Thelma and Louise bit"? Are you referring to the car going off the cliff? Dude, not even close. Have you actually seen Thelma and Louise?

Re: The Star Trek trailer

Posted: 2008-11-09 06:29pm
by Manus Celer Dei
Joyriding an expensive car off a cliff actually sounds perfectly in-character for a teenage Kirk.

Re: The Star Trek trailer

Posted: 2008-11-09 07:22pm
by VT-16
Yeah, he does happen to joyride a spaceship into god-knows-what later in life, so at least that part is consistent. :P

Re: The Star Trek trailer

Posted: 2008-11-09 07:30pm
by Magister Militum
You know, at first I thought that this might be the Trek film that would rekindle my interest in Star Trek after my brain oozed out of my ears from watching Nemesis. After reading ths, I now fear for the worst. However, I'm inclined to give this the benefit of the doubt for the moment, if anything because I'm not that much of a pessimist.

Re: The Star Trek trailer

Posted: 2008-11-09 07:35pm
by RedImperator
Seeing as AICN has the credibility of Miss Cleo's tax returns, I'm going to operate under the assumption that I know exactly as much about the Trek movie today as I did yesterday.

Re: The Star Trek trailer

Posted: 2008-11-09 08:01pm
by tim31
havokeff wrote:"Thelma and Louise bit"? Are you referring to the car going off the cliff? Dude, not even close. Have you actually seen Thelma and Louise?
Alright, the Simpsons version of T&L, or Dallas if you will. Or hell, even shades of Indiana Jones. I really don't know where he's going with this thing, because this description- and as I already said, yes, it's a second hand account- seems like a bunch of movie cliches tied together in a familiar wrapper.

Re: The Star Trek trailer

Posted: 2008-11-09 08:18pm
by Darth Wong
havokeff wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Unfortunately, in Hollywood they do not seem to distinguish between the concepts of "courage" and "reckless stupidity". A 13 or 14 year old kid speeding down the road in a stolen car is an example of an idiot who will probably spend a lifetime in and out of prison, not someone who will eventually end up being a responsible leader.
Well honestly, when is a 13 year old going to be able to display "courage"? To a 13 year old "courage" is taking a dare from your friends, or jumping your skateboard off something your KNOW you shouldn't
You're missing the point; Hollywood likes to establish character traits through character development scenes in which we are informed which Hollywood stereotype the character happens to be. The "reckless idiot who will eventually become an elite military man because he has so much damned testosterone" stereotype is an old one, and this scene stinks of cliche.
And Kirk didn't quite end up being a "responsible leader" did he? He was constantly breaking rules and being insubordinate, it was his sheer luck, and intelligence and willpower that got him through his life.
Bullshit; when he was insubordinate, it was to save his ship or save lives. In fact, if you had ever bothered watching Star Trek, you would know that the weight of responsibility for the safety of the Federation and the lives of his crew weighed heavily upon the man. He took it very seriously.

Re: The Star Trek trailer

Posted: 2008-11-10 01:08am
by Havok
Darth Wong wrote:
havokeff wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Unfortunately, in Hollywood they do not seem to distinguish between the concepts of "courage" and "reckless stupidity". A 13 or 14 year old kid speeding down the road in a stolen car is an example of an idiot who will probably spend a lifetime in and out of prison, not someone who will eventually end up being a responsible leader.
Well honestly, when is a 13 year old going to be able to display "courage"? To a 13 year old "courage" is taking a dare from your friends, or jumping your skateboard off something your KNOW you shouldn't
You're missing the point; Hollywood likes to establish character traits through character development scenes in which we are informed which Hollywood stereotype the character happens to be. The "reckless idiot who will eventually become an elite military man because he has so much damned testosterone" stereotype is an old one, and this scene stinks of cliche.
I didn't realize that was your point. It seemed like you were just saying that stealing a car=jail bird and not possibly a leader. Not that the cliche sucked and was old. I can get behind that assessment. Reading what you wrote again, I see what you were trying to say.
And Kirk didn't quite end up being a "responsible leader" did he? He was constantly breaking rules and being insubordinate, it was his sheer luck, and intelligence and willpower that got him through his life.
Bullshit; when he was insubordinate, it was to save his ship or save lives. In fact, if you had ever bothered watching Star Trek, you would know that the weight of responsibility for the safety of the Federation and the lives of his crew weighed heavily upon the man. He took it very seriously.
Uh, actually he risked the life of his crew and ship just as often for one man. That is not being responsible as far as a military leader goes. In fact, it was that very insubordination, irresponsibility and luck, that put him in position to save Earth in STIV, as he wouldn't have been there if he hadn't assaulted officers, stolen military property, then destroyed it all in an attempt to save ONE man. The only reason he didn't get punished for it was because he happened to save the entire Federation. They gave him a pass based on that I think. :wink:

I have to be honest though. My memory of TOS episodes is pretty bad, so I will concede the point.

Re: The Star Trek trailer

Posted: 2008-11-10 02:14am
by Uraniun235
The only other time I remember Kirk being insubordinate for Spock's sake was in Amok Time; and frankly, that was entirely justified given that the tradeoff in saving a highly-trained and valuable officer's life was merely having one less starship present at a ceremonial function.

Re: The Star Trek trailer

Posted: 2008-11-10 04:48am
by Darth Wong
Kirk did not choose to risk his crew in ST3. He told them to all stay behind, but they insisted on going along with him.

Re: The Star Trek trailer

Posted: 2008-11-10 08:03am
by Palantas
I can't comment on the TOS episode, but in the case of Search for Spock, we're using the term "crew" pretty liberally. He didn't put his whole command at risk for one person. It was just him and his senior staff, who were all also friends with Spock, and went on the mission voluntarily, as Mr. Wong noted.