|
| ||||||||||||
JJ,Abrams,Star,Trek,movie,trailer,new,not,teaser,full,starship,Enterprise,Kirk J.J. Abrams' Star Trek Trailer (3/5/2009)J.J. Abrams' Star Trek Trailer (3/5/2009)tags:"From director J.J. Abrams and screenwriters Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman comes a new vision of the greatest space adventure of all time, Star Trek, featuring a young, new crew venturing boldly where no man has gone before."
Comments  playlists with this video Movies by ObsidianStorm
who voted for this video Gratefulmom
- ant
- kronosposeidon
- thegrimsleeper
- siftbot
x86 - my15minutes
- gwiz665
- Stingray
who voted against this video EDD
who has this post bookmarked cybrbeast
| Friends O' the Sift Top New Videos by Vote                 Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week 12. Seric
(139 votes) Newest Appreciated Comments          | |||||||||||
Stumble This
Getting excited about this one but a part of me is still reluctant to embrace it
Aw well... time will tell.
Oh and Eric Bana FTW
1. That image they keep showing of the enterprise being built on the surface of the planet... it just makes no sense. Why would you build something like that on the planet surface when it could be built a LOT easier already in space?
2. He sounds NOTHING like kirk... yeah yeah, I know, suspend disbelief. But it just bugs me a LOT. I just can't get over that the kid is supposed to turn into kirk... I think of Ewen McGregor in the SW prequels (which sucked), at least he made SOME sort of effort at sounding vaguely like Kanobi. This actor is just not doing ANYTHING to sound like kirk.
Oh, and ponceleon - with respect to #1 - this is a civilization that has developed artificial gravity, faster than light travel and matter teleportation (of complex living organisms - consciousness intact, no less!) - what in the world makes you think they couldn't build a spaceship on the planet surface and get it into orbit?
Sure makes life support a hell of a lot easier!
The kid's just gonna have to fill the role his own way.
No respect for the equipment these days...
I'm all in favor of giving Star Trek a reboot. I'm not so sure the idea of Kirk as the unlikely anti-hero is the way to go with filling in his own personal history.
My own spinoff idea was to take Section 17 from DS:9 and make a series centered around one of their new recruits that's serving on a normal Federation vessel with all the normal goody two-shoes.
Like Alias, only Star Trek-ized. JJ Abrams would do that well, I'd think.
Yeah yeah sure, I know about pon'farr... this should not be used as a defining characteristic of Spock's character in a film. It is a mere facet of his being and I hope J.J has more talent than to cling to this for dramatic effect.
Oh hell - embrace it! Why not? As a huge fan of TOS - I think it looks great!
Oh, and ponceleon - with respect to #1 - this is a civilization that has developed artificial gravity, faster than light travel and matter teleportation (of complex living organisms - consciousness intact, no less!) - what in the world makes you think they couldn't build a spaceship on the planet surface and get it into orbit?
Sure makes life support a hell of a lot easier!
The transporter was a way of saving money and time in TOS of course but it just seems too advanced given the amount of information that would have to be read/stored/transferred and theres' the thorny issue of consciousness (I read the Science of Star Trek years ago!).
So within the Star Trek universe building a ship on the ground might be feasible but still, why? They spend most of their time in space anyhow and you'd have to expend considerable energy getting it off the planet (how do the thrusters work again?). And IIRC the first Enterprise is built in space during the opening credits of Star Trek: Enterprise. I guess this one is simply there for the SFX eye candy it offers.
I hope it's good. I really do. Mostly because if it's not, It's (to me) incredibly disrespectful to Gene Roddenberry, who faught this idea tooth and nail when it was pitched as an idea for a movie when he was still alive.
Still, it looks like it has some cool effects, and I'm usually down for anything that has lots of spaceships crashing into each other and planets blowing up.
So within the Star Trek universe building a ship on the ground might be feasible but still, why? They spend most of their time in space anyhow and you'd have to expend considerable energy getting it off the planet.
The escape velocity of Earth is 11.2km/s, or ~0.00004 times the speed of light. Considering what the Enterprise can do, the energy required to get off planet is pretty insignificant (like 1 millionth of the energy it takes for the Enterprise to accelerate to full impulse).
Also, if the materials, equipment, personnel used to build the Enterprise originates from Earth, you'd actually save energy building it on Earth.
That's just the spray booth.
But.. trailer gave me goose bumps.
They should really let the people who make trailers make feature length movies. You let a director shoot a 20 hour movie, then edit it down to a 90 minute trailer
>> ^Deano:
So within the Star Trek universe building a ship on the ground might be feasible but still, why? They spend most of their time in space anyhow and you'd have to expend considerable energy getting it off the planet.
The escape velocity of Earth is 11.2km/s, or ~0.00004 times the speed of light. Considering what the Enterprise can do, the energy required to get off planet is pretty insignificant (like 1 millionth of the energy it takes for the Enterprise to accelerate to full impulse).
Also, if the materials, equipment, personnel used to build the Enterprise originates from Earth, you'd actually save energy building it on Earth.
I bow to your figures
What if they used a space elevator though to move stuff up to the building platform?
If Spock spends the movie 'exploring his emotions', I'm gonna crap a brick. But I just BET Abrams can't help himself.
Yeah yeah sure, I know about pon'farr... this should not be used as a defining characteristic of Spock's character in a film. It is a mere facet of his being and I hope J.J has more talent than to cling to this for dramatic effect.
Has anyone else noticed that we seem to be in the thrall of fanboy directors these days? I can think of JJ Abrams and Zack Synder for a start and I bet there are more coming. Guys who are obsessive about the detail of making a film and the script but can't actually make anything with emotional depth or substance? They're going to make Tarantino (their lord and master) look like Francis Ford Coppola.
I think it was the perfect time for a Voyager movie.
Edit/ If the drill instructors were Vulcan, I'd gladly join the Marines. Otherwise, probably not.
As for the construction of the Enterprise, it was built on Earth (San Francisco) but assembled in space. (See the Making of Star Trek.)