If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   New Star Trek trailer. Things blow up, Kirk gets rebellious, and there's a giant fish   (youtube.googleapis.com) divider line 27
    More: Spiffy  
•       •       •

4946 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 09 Mar 2013 at 9:16 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-09 11:11:37 PM  
2 votes:
I feed off internet crying, I think it makes good movies like this that much more enjoyable.

Knowing I don't have my head up my ass so far I can actually sit down and watch a farking movie

... a movie, not a epic undertaking of man that must somehow exceed every landmark that's occurred before it. An hour and 30min story with cinematography and special effects,

A flick to pass the afternoon/evening.
A regular ol movie, with good actors and ok lines. Maybe a few explosions, throw in a cute sassy chick maybe..

To be able to watch it and enjoy it for what it is, not what my precious little snowflake ass has convinced myself I should expect out of everything... a level of standards so high that if they were a mirror and applied to me, I'd fail at meeting in every aspect and fiber of my being

yeah, I'm glad I don't have to deal with any of that.
Some of you though.. shiat, how do you manage to get up in the morning without biatching how good of a morning it should have been?

Will be a good movie, can't wait. Had that theme song stuck in my head for a week after seeing the last one.
/Hope I pick a theater with good popcorn.
2013-03-09 11:00:12 PM  
2 votes:

Quantum Apostrophe: Hey, at least I don't think we're months away from some kind of sci-fi utopia because some smelly nerds put a glue gun on a stepper motor


Who thinks that? ...no one. That's just stupid. You are inventing an imaginary foe for your neurosis who only exists in your head, and then you are fighting him right here on Fark so you can prove to everyone how sane you are.

You stupendous tool.
2013-03-09 10:33:10 PM  
2 votes:

Quantum Apostrophe: Hilarious coming from you.


Says the pedantic dumbass with an unhealthy obsession with 3D printing.
2013-03-09 09:41:17 PM  
2 votes:

gingerjet: Ishkur: A Star Trek movie that uses true science fiction to explore humanity's sense of wonder at the infinite. It could have a real philosophical puzzler with a Rod Serling-esque twist at the end, and spark profound contemplation on life, reality, and the nature of the human condition. I miss when Star Trek meant discovery and exploration of the unknown and unexplained.

But hey.... gotta sell movie tickets or something.

I see you answered your own question.

/and if you want profound contemplation of life, reality, and the nature of the human condition - read a book


Elitist snobbery of Star Trek.  I sense a high schooler.
2013-03-09 09:30:09 PM  
2 votes:
You know what I'd like to see?

A Star Trek movie that uses true science fiction to explore humanity's sense of wonder at the infinite. It could have a real philosophical puzzler with a Rod Serling-esque twist at the end, and spark profound contemplation on life, reality, and the nature of the human condition. I miss when Star Trek meant discovery and exploration of the unknown and unexplained.

But hey.... gotta sell movie tickets or something.
2013-03-09 09:09:09 PM  
2 votes:

Bathia_Mapes: I think I just had a nerdgasm.


This one disappointed me.  It's the first one I've seen that actually gives credence to the 'generic action sci-fi masquerading as Star Trek' theory.
2013-03-09 09:07:16 PM  
2 votes:
Needs more speaking by Benedict Cumberbatch.


/but it was really damn cool
2013-03-10 12:07:46 PM  
1 votes:

kendelrio: I think **some** of us are reading a little too much into a TV series. Honestly, who dissects a freaking TV show like this?????


Martin Luther King Jr. who famously talked Nichelle Nichols out of quitting because she inspired black folks everywhere.

Not to mention astronauts Ronald McNair, Candy Torres, Sally Ride and Judith Resnik along with countless other scientists, doctors and engineers that have spent the decades after they grew up watching the original Trek a better place for us all.

Sure, it was occasionally campy.  But it's a pretty ignorant position to take that it wasn't until later incarnations that it became cerebral.  Roddenberry was in a constant battle with the network because despite the 60s sexual vibe he wanted to include women in positions of power, or black folks as officers.  Or deal with actual issues tearing the nation apart such as the war in Vietnam or race relations.

It's sad that folks who enjoy the fun but shallow newer movies to the original series need to try and bring the original series down.  It's seems they would be much happier if they could just find a shiny object to stare at rather than attack a show that was way ahead of it's time.
2013-03-10 11:38:28 AM  
1 votes:

kendelrio: Honestly, who dissects a freaking TV show like this?????


Hi, welcome to the Star Trek thread.
2013-03-10 10:21:39 AM  
1 votes:

Confabulat: J.J. Abrams's version of Trek is the version of Trek I grew up dreaming about back in the 70s and 80s. I was a kid and it was pretty hard to find Star Trek reruns but I ate them up when I could.

When I was in college they debuted The Next Generation and I watched it and liked it, but it always fell short of TOS for me. The other shows other than DS9 are nonsense and should be ignored.

But who cares about that crap, it was always about Kirk and Spock and McCoy getting into wacky adventures.

Did you "purists" never notice that? It was a fun and silly show, with lots of green sex and space hippies and tribbles and Mudd. Sorry you didn't ever catch onto that part.

Tell me more about how wise and brilliant it was.Brain brain, where is brain?


The first time, or two, that I saw the new Trek movie, there were some groaningly silly moments. Then, as I remembered, and watched, some of the original series (Netflix FTW) I realized how silly it also was.

Almost every episode ended with a pun, Spock's raised eyebrow, and Kirk with a pained grin. The entire ship's interior looked like it was painted by hippies on LSD with unpopular paint color remnants bought from Home Depot. (Which might have been true, btw... well, except for the Home Depot bit) But most of it was just the actors often going over the top... often. It was frequently silly, cheesy, campy... but it was fun and entertaining.

There were truly some excellent episodes with very good acting. Balance of Terror, The Doomsday Machine come to mind. For the most part they were silly characters. C'mon... Trelane, tribbles, Nazis, swordfighting Sulu (which was faaabulous!) the aforementioned missing brain, Chicago gangsters, Native Americans, US flag worshiping natives, Abe Lincoln, hippies, assheads, transporter "accidents" etc.

I think the idea that Star Trek was cerebral and serious came from TNG and DS9 (though they had some silly stuff too.) When I think of the new Trek... it is far less silly than TOS. Let's see what comes of it.
2013-03-10 10:21:39 AM  
1 votes:

cptjeff: Confabulat: But who cares about that crap, it was always about Kirk and Spock and McCoy getting into wacky adventures.

Did you "purists" never notice that? It was a fun and silly show, with lots of green sex and space hippies and tribbles and Mudd. Sorry you didn't ever catch onto that part.


Well, it was about Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, anyway. But your childish mind missed that each represented elements of the human condition, and that those wacky adventures were largly morality plays that pitted those various human impulses against each other.

It was fun and silly in many respects, but if you weren't 8, you might have caught on to a few deeper levels than that.



I think **some** of us are reading a little too much into a TV series. Honestly, who dissects a freaking TV show like this????? Several posters on here have basically stated their lives have been defined by  a campy TV show that was about sexing up green chicks, the mating habits of gerbils and sexing up green chicks.

I saw the re-boot, enjoyed the hell out of it because I'm not looking for a deeper hidden meaning! If I want that, I'll actually listen to my wife the next time she speaks and try to figure out what she **really** means and how I messed up by not meeting her emotional needs.....
2013-03-10 06:42:57 AM  
1 votes:

ActionJoe: cptjeff: Confabulat: I bet you loved the whales movie too.

I honestly did. It was silly without being stupid, with a few more serious bits thrown in here and there. Humorous content is still content. If JJ Trek had created characters believable enough where you could do that kind of movie without it coming across as a 2 hour long string of forced jokes, I wouldn't hate it as much. But if you did that kind of movie with neuTrek, it would come off as a sad parody.

If you don't like Star Trek, you don't like Star Trek. That's fine. But please recognize that the stuff JJ Abrams threw out there bears no semblance to anything related to Star Trek- it's a generic action movie that takes character names and settings from a series that still has some cache. Star Trek got itself on the map because it offered an option on TV that wasn't meaningless drivel. The acting was not the best, the production value was far from high, but it at least tried to make the characters real and to deal with something beyond another empty romantic farce. But with the new Trek, there's no there there. It's summer action flick #47. I gave the first one a chance, but very much doubt that I'll extend the same courtesy to this one.

What you seem to be missing here is Star Trek TOS had three years to build up characters. The movies expanded on the characters we knew and put them in crazy over the top situations because you need that for movies. But they always had that underlying nuance of story and character that everyone says Star Trek should have. The reason Star Trek has that is because all the movies have been made after the television series aired. The new Trek had none of that. We have completely new characters and there is no time for subtle plots and intricate character development. Sure, they are based on old characters but there hasn't been much story so they needed to make a story that would fit in a movie.



I still feel the concept of using the alternative universe to create a blank story board is a really good idea. No doubt Abrahms and co also figured the original series characters to be better known(they are) and didn't need much backstory. However, the plan was clearly to get the crew in place in the first movie. And since this crew is much closer in age and service experience to each other than the originals, you get pure stupidity like Kirk's promotion. Almost like they'd painted themselves into a corner, they needed Kirk in command, they thought it'd be cool to have Kirk be McCoy, Spock and Uhura's classmate(actually behind her). So you get a clumsy cadet to captain climb up the ranks that ranks with Spock's Brain, the Nemesis dune buggy chase, Threshold and that racist Season One TNG episode as the worst things ever done in the entire franchise' history.
I really enjoyed the reboot the first time I saw it, and less so each time I watch it. Someone earlier mentioned that they'd seen The Wrath of Khan a hundred times, I can believe that. I can't picture watching the reboot nearly as many times as Star Trek II , First Contact or even some of the episodes. It was well made, had fantastic effects, good acting performances, I even liked the music. But it just seems more and more shallow as time goes on, it's flash. Really shiny flash, but flash all the same.
Obviously the reboot made tons of money and no one can deny it re-charged the franchise. It belongs to Abrahms now. There is something odd about him being 'in control' of both Star Trek and Star Wars, but that's the way it is. He's got the keys. Nemesis was a terrible movie, just garbage, so the movie aspect of Star Trek was in trouble and there's no doubt the reboot was a huge shot in the arm. Even if I have faults with it, there's no way I can argue the reboot isn't a far,far better movie than Nemesis or The Final Frontier.
It's not like I won't go see this new one, I just don't have my hopes up for it.
2013-03-10 05:10:16 AM  
1 votes:

Alphax: cptjeff: The original Trek offered a bit more. JJ Trek doesn't offer anything.

I don't think that's a given.


Well, tell me if the new movie actually bothers with something other than zoomy things, bright lights, and explosions. Unless I'm really blown away by the reviews, I won't be seeing it.
2013-03-10 05:01:34 AM  
1 votes:

Confabulat: But who cares about that crap, it was always about Kirk and Spock and McCoy getting into wacky adventures.

Did you "purists" never notice that? It was a fun and silly show, with lots of green sex and space hippies and tribbles and Mudd. Sorry you didn't ever catch onto that part.



Well, it was about Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, anyway. But your childish mind missed that each represented elements of the human condition, and that those wacky adventures were largly morality plays that pitted those various human impulses against each other.

It was fun and silly in many respects, but if you weren't 8, you might have caught on to a few deeper levels than that.
2013-03-10 04:57:29 AM  
1 votes:

Confabulat: People who still hate J.J. Abrams' s version of Trek have really bad taste in entertainment.


As a generic action movie, it's decently executed. If that's your thing, great. Sugary light entertainment. "Cars, Booms, and Booms XVII" in space. Lots of quick cuts, explosions, and things wooshing by the cameral.

Some of us just don't see any point to that. The original Trek offered a bit more. JJ Trek doesn't offer anything.
2013-03-10 04:51:56 AM  
1 votes:

Confabulat: I bet you loved the whales movie too.


I honestly did. It was silly without being stupid, with a few more serious bits thrown in here and there. Humorous content is still content. If JJ Trek had created characters believable enough where you could do that kind of movie without it coming across as a 2 hour long string of forced jokes, I wouldn't hate it as much. But if you did that kind of movie with neuTrek, it would come off as a sad parody.

If you don't like Star Trek, you don't like Star Trek. That's fine. But please recognize that the stuff JJ Abrams threw out there bears no semblance to anything related to Star Trek- it's a generic action movie that takes character names and settings from a series that still has some cache. Star Trek got itself on the map because it offered an option on TV that wasn't meaningless drivel. The acting was not the best, the production value was far from high, but it at least tried to make the characters real and to deal with something beyond another empty romantic farce. But with the new Trek, there's no there there. It's summer action flick #47. I gave the first one a chance, but very much doubt that I'll extend the same courtesy to this one.
2013-03-10 04:33:14 AM  
1 votes:

Confabulat: cptjeff: Star Trek is not enjoying good times.

Pine away for those glory years of Voyager.


Voyager sucked. Most of Enterprise sucked. But while it was a sad reflection of the better Trek, it at least tried. JJ Trek stole the names and pissed all over everything else that made the franchise what it was. It didn't attempt to reach any deep issues. It didn't try to play on the tensions between the sides of humanity revealed by the characters. Hell, I'm not sure it had any real, or even marginally believable characters, apart from Nimoy Spock. It was an action movie. As an action movie, it wasn't completely awful. But I gave it a couple of chances, and it only got worse with repeated viewing.

Rather than this shait, I'll just watch Wrath of Khan again. You know, something that was carried by a script that dealt with age, death, past mistakes, redemption... Serious themes, not shiny objects. The action was there, but it was about more, and didn't need a zillion lens flares to make it an engaging movie. Or maybe all of Deep Space 9. The remastered versions give the Original Series a nice facelift.

Basically, I want something that doesn't insult my intelligence. I get the desire to update it, to bring the sets and effects up to modern standards, but when you remove any semblance of content- well, let's just say when I come out of a movie both intellectually and emotionally dumber, I ain't coming back for a repeat performance.
2013-03-10 03:46:32 AM  
1 votes:

FiendishFellow05: I'm sure a great deal of the Star Trek fan base would like that. But if you go in that direction, you risk alienating the mainstream audience and a box office bomb, potentially leading to another hiatus.


As part of that core audience, I'm already alienated. The last one was way too fast paced and shallow for my taste- the key to Star Trek has always been character and story. That one had neither. From the preview, it looks like this is going to be the same. Mainstream audience they may have, but this version of Star Trek isn't anywhere close to the real thing. It's another bubblegum action flick, just cashing in on what amounts to just a name at this point.

JJ Abrams can fark off. He's not going to be getting my money unless this next movie turns out very, very different from both the last one, and how this one is being advertized. I'll stick with my reruns on netflix, thanks.


FiendishFellow05: Basically, Star Trek is enjoying good times now - enjoy the ride.


Star Trek is not enjoying good times. Star Trek is dead. 'JJ Abrams does generic space action flick' is what's doing fine. Fine if you like that, but I'm not particularly interested in it.
2013-03-10 12:42:20 AM  
1 votes:

Quantum Apostrophe: Every single 3D printing story or private space fest has the usual cluster of mental midgets running in with their sci-fi fantasies. I wager you're one of them.


As I already explained to you once today:

You are a god damn retard.

Quantum Apostrophe: Something tells me you're in your twenties


Protip: Stop listening to what Something says.
2013-03-09 10:41:41 PM  
1 votes:
SilentStrider: Needs more speaking by Benedict Cumberbatch.

Agreed; it didn't meet the mandated B.C. quota for a Star Trek trailer.  I demand to see more until that quota is fulfilled.
2013-03-09 10:40:49 PM  
1 votes:
fc03.deviantart.net
2013-03-09 10:22:55 PM  
1 votes:

Quantum Apostrophe: Uh, it was fiction. It didn't explore much of anything. It's a story. On TV. With actors and sets and bad special effects.


By any chance do you have Aspergers?
2013-03-09 10:22:02 PM  
1 votes:

Mugato: That was the first movie and the fifth movie and people hated them


The first movie was a paper-thin TOS plot stretched out for two hours. The problem wasn't the idea, the problem was the pacing. The fifth movie was just awful for a number of dumb reasons (Uhuru strip tease/God/bad SFX, etc.)

Hard sci fi is attempted every now and then with mixed acclaim. The most recent one I remember was Moon. I don't mind action movies or even Star Trek movies where the action drives the plot. I just hope the new one has a little more substance to it and is more cohesive than the last one.
2013-03-09 10:08:27 PM  
1 votes:
So a bunch of confusing camera work and, what-what, is that lens flare? That's not Trek, that's GI Joe in Space. You folks enjoy.
2013-03-09 10:01:17 PM  
1 votes:
Eh. Generic Sci-Fi action movie. Yawn.
2013-03-09 09:35:03 PM  
1 votes:

Kid Mojo: At the end it kinda looks like they unattached the two parts of the ship and crash landed the saucer part. Original.


Actually, though it was never used, Constitution-class ships supposedly have the ability to separate the secondary hull in the event of an emergency.  They can't be reattached without a Starbase doing the work, but if that actually happens, it wouldn't be without precedent.

And one of the earlier trailers quite clearly showed Enterprise shot to hell and crashing.
2013-03-09 05:00:02 PM  
1 votes:
Only thing is where do you keep the franchise going when each successive movie features an order of magnitude greater number of spectacular explosions and space battles? I mean I love me some space battles but two movies from now it's going to have to start with the Enterprise exploding and end with the universe exploding. HEY time to jump to a DIFFERENT timeline...
 
Displayed 27 of 27 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report