There have been reports that audiences seeing Cloverfield this weekend are going wild for the attached Star Trek teaser trailer, but my screening was dead quiet. And I can’t tell whether the mere four comments /Film received on our post about the bootleg version being on YouTube (still there) are a sign of disinterest, mild disappointment or reservation for the official version. Up until yesterday, I had a bad feeling about J.J. Abrams’s mega-budgeted December vision for Trek. The casting has been all over the place, and the filmmakers’ hardcore need to include Leonard Nimoy and as much canon as possible reminded me of the early warning signs for Superman Returns. But the trailer struck a cord with me.
The steady shot on the U.S.S. Enterprise under construction perfectly evoked how vast, dangerous and mysterious space actually is, and Nimoy’s “final frontier” line didn’t possess the stark confidence I’d expected. Instead, it sounded foreboding and safety belt-worthy. The theme music even had a refreshed alien sophistication. After seeing what J.J. and his team did minutes later with Manhattan and how tiny and disposable humans were in a monster’s wrath, their Star Trek now has my full attention.
Producer Roberto Orci spoke with Trekmovie.com to expand on the filmmakers’ intentions for the moderately esoteric and largely eerie teaser. To the Trekkies who remain adamant that the Enterprise must be built in space in accordance with canon, or “fanon” even, rather than on Earth, Orci breaks out the science and “creative license.” This is sort of impressive…
Firstly, there is the notion that there is precedent in the novels, etc that components of the ship can be built on Earth and assembled here or there. And the second thing is that the Enterprise is not some flimsy yacht that has to be delicately treated and assembled. The idea that things have to be assembled in space has normally been associated with things that don’t have to be in any kind of pressure situation and don’t ever have to ever enter a gravity well. That is not the case with the Enterprise. The Enterprise actually has to sustain warp, which we know is not actually moving but more a warping of space around it. And we know that its decks essentially simulate Earth gravity and so its not the kind of gravity created by centrifugal force, it is not artificially created by spinning it. It is created by an artificial field and so it is very natural, instead of having to create a fake field in which you are going to have to calibrate everything, to just do it in the exact gravity well in which you are going to be simulating.
Orci deadens the rumors that the Enterprise is shown being constructed at Area 51, but won’t confirm nor deny that the location is San Francisco. And he doesn’t seemed worried about the film’s title not being included on the teaser, which I found to be an extremely intriguing decision on first view. As for what the trailer is supposed to convey to today’s audiences…
This is who we are. This is real. This is maybe not so far off in the future as it used to be. In the 60s the cell phone was a fantasy. Now the communicator that Kirk had is not as advanced as my iPhone. It is a different millennium for God’s sake. We are literally a century closer than we were before.
What I found most interesting was the following quote, which implies that this Trek is both inspired by JFK’s pivotal role in the space race and hopes to refocus peoples’ attention back on exploration as well.
First of all, it has been written about that Kirk was in a way modeled after JFK. Like being the youngest captain ever, like Kennedy was the youngest President ever. Obviously the space race being kicked off by JFK is very much associated with Star Trek. It was also due to what we just discussed and linking it back to today. If we do indeed have a Federation, I think Kennedy’s words will be inscribed in their someplace. He kicked us off. And on a third level it is a slight nod to Star Trek Enterprise, in that we are not blind to the fact that going back to some of the more historical aspects of Star Trek that haven’t been covered in a while
It’s not everyday that I care to hear a producer wax on a teaser trailer, but Orci enhanced my take on it. Did you find the teaser to be too esoteric, too uneventful, or too, um, industrial? Do you feel that general audiences made the connection that it was for Star Trek, as there are quibbles from fans going about?
January 19th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Well, the group i was with had no idea.
They couldnt read enterprise, and had couldnt put nething else together. but i sure explained it to them!
January 19th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
While having been a fan of Star Trek for well over 10 years, I never really connected to the original series. Everything was too old and toyish, I’m more someone who prefers the real advanced futuristic stuff. When this movie was announced, and it was revealed that it’s a retelling of the beginning of Star Trek, with Kirk and Spock etc., I was very skeptical.
But oh boy did this teaser trailer struck a cord. I’m a sucker for everything space, and just the fact that we’re (hopefully) going to see the Enterprise launch from Earth does it for me. In other words: I loved it, and can’t wait to see more. Hell, I’m awaiting the day the trailer is available in HD so I can rewatch it in full glory :)
January 19th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
I hate Trek in any way, shape, or form (Wars is where it’s at), but the teaser certainly piqued my interest. I checked out the teaser on the two normal film prints and one digital print we have of Cloverfield, and on each print the words “U.S.S. Enterprise” are too dark on-screen. Love the idea, love the teaser, but I do see the potential for people getting confused as to what the words say.
January 19th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
I am a big Trek fan. The franchise suffered for a very very long time under Rick Berman after Gene Roddenberry passed away. The Star Trek movies to VI were broad spectrum hits. The Next Generation was also extremely popular. But by the cancellation of Enterprise, Paramount had let this brand seriously deteriorate under Berman.
It would be exceedingly unfair to lay any fault at Abrams’ feet if the audience isn’t there for this flick. Really, you can only give him credit if the long disenfranchised fans return in any numbers.
I predict $70 million in U.S. box office.
January 19th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
The pendulum has swung in a new direction for Hollywood. In the past, the themes varied from disaster remakes and meteors to comic and video game adaptions. This current (trend?) shift is unlike any we’ve seen before. The theory seems to be: connecting not to the entire audience, but to the individual popcorn muncher. Hollywood has begun rebooting old series and genres in order to become more “attainable” by a modern audience.
No longer are we content to watch the million dollar explosions and marquee name over-acting. Now, we are more often titillated by the gritty realism and down-to-earth fantasy that draws us further into the character driven stories we see. A few years ago, Batman had gone from the dark emotional Michael Keaton brooder, to a different star every film driving the batmobile up the side of gotham statues and across 100 feet jumps. The new Christian Bale/Bruce Wayne looks, sounds, and feels like every one of the men in the audience (at home when no one is looking).
Cloverfield, Batman, Spiderman, etc. have all conformed to this newer, smarter Hollywood and brought these stories so close to us that you feel as though you could walk out of the theater and see the giant creature if you just looked up…
This is why I’m very excited about this new trailer for Star Trek. To be honest, I was never a huge fan of any series. Star Trek was too old, Generation was good but a bit campy, Deep Space Nine was simply boring. However, this reboot looks as though it may do the same thing for the space saga as Batman did for all of the Super Hero movies that came before and after it; not set the bar higher, just in a different direction. There will be many detractors of this new movie for “ruining” the series, but I say we let the genius of JJ Abrams have a chance to work some magic.
January 19th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
I’ll keep it short for the sake of brevity. There were many factors as to why this trailer didn’t debut as well as was hoped by the producers. Below are two very esoteric (and probably crazy) reasons I feel this has happened.
1. Seen this before, remember the Halo three teasers directed by Neill Blomkamp? They had the whole mechanizing-preparation-before-the-storm feel that this has, and played it out already while we waited for that to come out. And Halo, even though it’s a video game is just a more relevant sci-fi franchise to this generation. In fact the entire structure of the teaser is just too cookie cutter for something as ambitious as this. We’re talking about STAR-TREK here people!!!!
2. Not having William Shatner, or his blessing in it is just going to hurt the kind of buzz that a trailer like this would normally generate. Think about it, something like this would normally be all over the net because of the loyal fan base that this particular universe has acquired. And with Shatners absence it loses a tiny bit of street cred.
Now don’t get me wrong, this doesn’t spell doomsday for the movie, but it does spell doomsday for the current marketing paradigm they had in mind. I say, move on without the “fan buzz”, and start the process of creating an entire new fan base. And entire new generation of trekies. This was supposed to be a revamp wasn’t it? If they persist with the appeasement of the current fans, as their main marketing strategy then they’re gonna end up failing miserably and making an inferior rehash in the process. If they really want to show the current fans they care, i think they need to assure them that the filmmakers are willing to bring them the WORLD of Star-Trek, not just a single movie. Something like this takes commitment. So start the viral campaign… yesterday!
All in all I wish them the best, but Abram’s mystery-box strategy just isn’t gonna work here.
January 19th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
when i saw cloverfield last night there was a handful of hoots and cheers when the star trek teaser played. i was personally a little disappointed with it. it didn’t have anything new or interesting for me. it struck me as sterile, clean, and lifeless. and afterwards it seems particularly so, in comparison to Cloverfield. Now granted, it’s only a teaser, and teasers never show much. but i just didn’t like it. for a supposed enlivening reboot, which has a cast that has little going for it beyond curiousity (Simon Pegg) and youth (damn near everyone else), and from a guy that is on top of the kingdom of the geeks right now, the thing didn’t feel like anything new or special.
January 20th, 2008 at 12:40 am
There wasn’t much to it, but this is the first Star Trek related thing in long time that made me feel any sense of anticipation or real deep interest.
January 20th, 2008 at 4:49 am
I’ll tell ya why there’s a lack of reaction.
There was this little show called Star Trek: Enterprise. It was about the very first spaceship called Enterprise, the NX-01. The ship had no shielding, just “polarized” hull plating. Whenever it took damage, the damage stayed there, visibly, for several episodes until they found a way to fix the ship. Gritty realism was the name of the game.
Story-wise Star Trek: Enterprise produced some of the best science fiction in TV history. And the characters changed in major ways. The writers weren’t afraid to take them to the limits of who they are, for several episodes at a time.
Not surprisingly hardcore Star Trek fans hated it, because it had none of the streamlined, rounded-corners feel of any of the other series. The show got canceled.
But the young fans who really loved Star Trek: Enterprise, loved its gritty realism, don’t like the old shows so much. Too simplistic, too full of technobabble, not enough character development.
But what did the teaser trailer give us?
It gave us an old-style Enterprise being constructed in the middle of a gritty, dirty technofuture.
Young fans love the gritty, dirty feel. Hate the old-style ship.
Old fans love the old-style ship, hate the gritty, dirty feel.
Me, I think J. J. Abrams did this on purpose to try to break through both prejudices.
Let’s see if it works.
January 20th, 2008 at 6:34 am
I’m looking ffwwd to enjoy this…but the only thing that dissapoints me, is the place where they are assembling the ship…Shouldn’t that place be somehow a lil bit more sterile?
January 20th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
i wish jj felt at liberty to screw with continuity as much as he saw fit…damn trekkies
January 20th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
I thought the trailer rocked the same way Cloverfield’s trailer did … they didn’t show you the whole frickin’ movie in two minutes. I thoroughly enjoyed Cloverfield because I didn’t know what was coming. Ditto the Trek trailer. The idea is _supposed_ to be to tease, not reveal. All the talk about namby-pamby does-it-or-doesn’t-it-match-the-backstory is beside the point. I think a properly secretive trailer is a sign of confidence by the movie makers … you can make a lame, boring movie appear exciting by editing the trailer correctly.
January 20th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
i have high hopes 4 this movie.but if its bad it still wont be as bad as spiderman 3
January 20th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Now I’ve always hated Star Trek. Always. But the teaser for this one got me kind of interested. Especially after seeing what JJ did with Cloverfield and the Viral Campaign for that. I can’t wait to see what the future holds for Star Trek.
January 20th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Very powerful trailer. There was also very little reaction in the theater I was in, but I always held that Trek was never hugely maistream anyway. As for this whole debate about where the ship was built, Jesus–who cares??
Any warning sings about Superman Returns? I thought was an amazing film, in large part because of how it tied into the Donner movies.
January 20th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
As soon as I saw this trailer, I started searching for an HD version of it. It hints at the optimism of the original series but at the same time has a feeling of foreboding and a sense of the unknown. I am really curious about where J.J. Abrams can take these characters and what new perspective he can add to the trek universe.
January 20th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
As one of the fans of the original show, this new movie looks awful so far. The fact that JJ Abrams is in charge is a bad thing for anyone with any knowledge of cinema history. While he is currently very popular, as time moves on and we look back at earlier movies it’s pretty clear that “popular” is rarely the same thing as “good.” I could name a dozen directors and a couple of dozen movies that were as popular or more so than JJAbrams in their time that suck big time in retrospect. The younger crowd that loves this stuff just doesn’t have the persepctive to know these things.
All that being said, the big draw of the original series (and I have direct knowledge cause I was there), was REALISM. Sure it looks hokey now, but at the time Star Trek was far and above some of the most realistic sci-fi that had ever been created at that time. The stories were mostly penned by some of the biggest sci-fi legends like Clarke, Bradbury, and Heinlein or at least based on their work.
Star Trek left any attempt at realism behind a long time ago of course. The Next Generation and DS-9 was the last series to even try for it. If they are going to “re-imagine” the series, they would do better to try to address all the hokuym and make a version that again tries for a realistic vision of the future. Instead with “Enterprise” and with this new movie, we have more ridiculous do-dads and add-ons, versions of the Enterprise that make no sense, Vulcans that don’t act like Vulcans, lame copies of Voyager stories etc.
For those who are saying that the canon doesn’t matter anymore and so forth… If the cannon doesn’t matter, then why bother to paste this crap on top of the Star Trek name? This is just more “Berman-esque” raping of the franchise IMO. If it matters that it’s Kirk and Spock and not just two guys, then make Kirk act like Kirk and Spock act like Spock. If it doesn’t matter, then make it “Frank” and “Beans” instead. the only reason this movie is being made is to suck a few more bucks out of peoples pockets for Universal. Star Trek is a shallow, empty money making racked and Shatner (as usual) is the only one that is going to come out of it smelling like a rose, as he is the only one with enough sense not to get involved.
January 20th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Roosevelt was the youngest president, not JFK.
January 20th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Well, I guess i’m on the other side of the fence. I’ve always loved Star Trek. After seeing what Abrams did with Cloverfield, I can tell you I won’t be seeing this version of Star Trek until I know more about it. Just not risking my money like that.
And to say, “Trekkies be damned” doesn’t make much sense. The whole point of that revelation “U.S.S. Enterprise” and Nimoy’s voice speaking the traditional opening line is to target the “Trekkies.” Who else would know those icons?
January 20th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
The theater I was in cheered at the end of the trailer. I think overanalyzing this whole thing bad. JJ Abrams knows how to tease an audience.
I love the new Batman franchise–and am looking forward to a similar renaissance of Star Trek. I loved “Star Trek Enterprise” because it brought a new life to the franchise, especially in its last season as it found its legs… I’m hoping the new movie launch will do that.
The trailer did what few trailers do these days: actually teased the audience into wanting more information, and hopefully into wanting to see the movie. It worked with “Cloverfield”–the highest grossing Jan. opening ever. I think audiences want the unexpected and a new take on things. And I think we’re ready for a fresh Star Trek.
January 20th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
If you need to be able to read the name “enterprise” on the ship to know what it is you must live in a box. The enterprise is probably one of the most iconic ships in popular (pop) culture, wether you’re a fan or not. The model of the Enterprise hangs in the Smithsonian Institute after all.
For all the hoot about Star Wars, and I saw it when it came out in the 70’s, the original Star Trek is well know for challenging the social norms of it’s time in the 1960’s. It wasn’t the special effects or the good verses evil (evil-doers) cowboy story (Star Wars) that gave it lasting power or it’s unique place in American culture, rather it’s underlying social-political messages that existed within the original series.
Star Trek had the first black women in a leading role and I believe the first interracial kiss on TV. Not to mention a russian and a asian on the bridge in the midst of the cold-war and racial strife of the 1960’s. Amidst all of the green alien love-in and phaser fire, was Gene Roddenberry’s real vision of the future, a future of a untied earth at peace with itself. Thankfully, it’s underlying social-political messages about “humanity” we’re carried into the spin-offs like the Star Trek the Next Generation.
If all you see is “style”, gritty vs. non-gritty and issues of realism, then you don’t get it, because all you’re seeing is the eye-candy and not the message.
Anyone who’s a fan of the new Battlestar Galactica (BSG) should understand what I’m saying, since it’s really the story about about “humanity” that makes it so successful. Not that Star Wars doesn’t do this in it’s own way, but Stars Wars outside of it’s basic good vs. evil theme, just can’t have the depth that long running series like Star Trek and BSG have.
I know my references to Star Wars will piss someone off, but Star Trek and BSG’s SCI-FI themes in many ways were meant to mask uncomfortable social-political issues that might not be accepted in any other form other than as science fiction.
This is easy to see in the original Star Trek, but much harder to see in BSG since their are far fewer social-political TV taboos these days. In the case of BSG it in many ways addressed issues that we struggled with after 9/11, like torture and suicide bombers. In one episode, characters on the show provided a justification for suicide bombings in order to resist and eventually escape the Cylons. A touchy subject these days.
January 20th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Sorry, assembling the Enterprise on Earth is an immediate jump-the-shark moment for me. The enterprise being built in space has absolutely 100% nothing to do with it being “delicate” or “flimsy”, it has everything to do with the real-world physics of escape velocity. For every pound of payload to escape Earth’s gravity a massive amount of propulsive power, and more importantly *fuel mass* is required. Why do you think the Apollo rocket ships were so large compared to the small payloads at their tips? There is no escaping this, even with the most modern technologies. (Unless if they propose that the Enterprise warp off of the Earth’s surface or something like that.) Think about the massive booster rockets on the space shuttle, which is tiny compared to the Enterprise — and the space shuttle does not even escape Earth’s gravity. The only way to build large spaceships is via many small payload trips, or by using off-Earth low-gravity material sources, like the moon.
Call me a physics geek if you will, but this was all handled properly in 2001. I will happily grant Star Trek warp drives and gravity fields, but please folks, let’s keep at least a modicum of scientific accuracy here.
January 20th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
There’s a reason why the show Enterprize didn’t work.
It took the beginnings of what Star Trek was supposed to be, and threw it into a world that it could never have in. Time travel ! OUR captain on enterprize was in several shows, which ruined it for the rest of us.
Where did they get the idea that this Beginning type show was supposed to Go into the future? Sliders and the like didn’t belong in Star Trek.
In the 1960’s original version, it was Kirk’s enterprize that used the theory for time travel for the first time. ( the sling shot around the sun )
If we all were real trekkies, we would all know that all space ships were built on Earth, and then finished in space. Captain Kirk, as Admiral Kirk changed that. His Idea was to make the pieces on Earth separately, then fly them into space where they were joined together. Remember Next Generation had the ability to split the ship into two sections.
That Idea was Kirks.
Next, If each ship was completely built in space, devoid of Oxygen, then how did they get breathable air ? They certainly didn’t truck up into outer space now did they?
January 20th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
How is it that on the show they can beam food into existence using raw materials, but they can’t just beam raw materials from the surface into the shape of a ship in orbit? In the Star trek movies and shows ships are shown being assembled in a dry dock by suited astronauts.
January 20th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
I don’t give a toss about the new movie… it’s a cynical attempt to separate us from our money in as mass a manner as possible.
Star Trek, by very definition of material, was never a huge drawer of numbers.. most of you dumb@sses out there don’t have 2 brain cells to rub together never mind attempting to grasp the finer points of peace, scientific principals and technological evolution… so the show was destined only to appeal to a relatively small section of people.. but by trying to widen the audience it’s is utterly inevitable that the subject matter will be dumbed down to accomodate a wider dumber audience….
.. By definition, if this new film is enjoyed by a wider audience, it will cease to be the Star Trek I know.. and if it isn’t the same, it’s isn’t Star Trek.
Rodenbery is turning in his grave.
January 21st, 2008 at 6:52 am
Do every Star Trek fan want this franchise rather perfect dead as living with some litle flaws?
I’m a fan but looking forward to enjoy this movie…maybe it clears the way for a new tv show
January 21st, 2008 at 8:19 am
From the bottom of the new movie’s website page:
” Synopsis: From director J.J. Abrams (“Mission: Impossible III,†“Lost†and “Aliasâ€) and screenwriters Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman (“TRANSFORMERS,†“MI: IIIâ€) 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.”
It’s a “new vision.” Let them imagine it however they want to. Who cares about the “canon.” New vision means new vision.
January 21st, 2008 at 9:40 am
Then why call it “Star Trek”? They can’t have it both ways. I can tell you right now that there will be Star Trek fans go to this movie and they will come back and talk about how disappointed they were because it wasn’t the Star Trek they knew.
This isn’t new. Things like this have been done before. Usually, though, the intention is to retain just enough of the structure to retain old fans while making it fresh in hopes of expanding the fan base. Spiderman tried this. To some extent, I think it succeeded.
“Superman Returns” excelled at it. Come to think of it, that’s a good comparison. Think about the “revisioning” called “Smallville” compared to the blockbuster “Superman Returns.” Two very different attempts and you can see the results.
January 21st, 2008 at 9:50 am
I can’t wait for this film. Hurry up…
January 21st, 2008 at 10:58 am
“I will happily grant Star Trek warp drives and gravity fields, but please folks, let’s keep at least a modicum of scientific accuracy here.”
Its Sci-Fi, enough said.
January 21st, 2008 at 11:44 am
Sounds to me like they are banking on a “batman-ization” to revive the franchise. They will make it darker and less forward looking as the classic star trek was. This is a direct reflection of the state of the world today, which is far less secure and positive than it was before.
January 21st, 2008 at 1:29 pm
/quote Trokie Says:
January 21st, 2008 at 10:58 am
“I will happily grant Star Trek warp drives and gravity fields, but please folks, let’s keep at least a modicum of scientific accuracy here.â€
Its Sci-Fi, enough said.
quote/
I’m guessing you aren’t too familiar with Sci-fi then?
January 21st, 2008 at 9:34 pm
It’s a teaser. Does what it is designed to do
Piques curiosity, makes us ask questions.
I think it was designed for fans. No one
who is a true trek fan would have any difficulty
knowing what it was for. Clarity isn’t an issue.
The movie is under construction. Something is
on its way. Something big, foreboding and
amazing. I for one was sufficiently teased.
January 21st, 2008 at 10:06 pm
I dont know about anyone else here, but when I watched that teaser trailer, I got shivvers down my spine.
Star Trek needed this.
Its not ‘just a tv show’
It is the peoples’ idea of the perfect way to escape from everyday life and just explore the possibilities of the Final Frontier.
We have always been a curious race; its in our nature to be.
January 21st, 2008 at 10:52 pm
We see the Enterprise being assembled, apparently on the ground.
This is not certain- I could not tell for sure where it is.
Even so, if an object is to be assembled in space, would it not be logical to first assemble it on the ground to be sure everything fits?
It can be taken apart and send into space in sections- later.
That being said, I am disturbed the ship’s design deviates from the original. Changes must be made, but I would have preferred them to be more subtle.
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:56 pm
It’s totally ridiculous to expect a model from 1967 to be the template for a model in 2008. Nobody will buy it. We’ve all seen Star Trek evolve since its inception to incorporate new and better props, sets and special effects. It’s time to re-imagine Star Trek for a new generation of fans. If it is done right, it can be wildly successful and satisfying. Remember all the furor over Ron Moore’s vision of Battlestar Galactica? Now that show stands as high bar that everyone else must reach. I would be very happy to have the Enterprise reworked so that her basic style is the same (as with the 1701-A, C, D and E), but with elements that make her look real and detailed and exciting. I am hoping that the interiors will mirror those created for Star Trek: Enterprise. While not the best of the Star Trek series, the look and feel was very easy to buy into and quite functional. I expect something along those lines will be used for the new movie. I am very excited to see JJ Abrams do something that will ignite the franchise again and bring in a whole new generation of fans who will embrace the original characters and the stories as we all did. Live long and prosper!
January 22nd, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Stu said:
“I will happily grant Star Trek warp drives and gravity fields, but please folks, let’s keep at least a modicum of scientific accuracy here.â€
Would you consider that a technology that would give the interior of the ship uniform, uni-directional gravity could be re-purposed to negate most, if not all of, the earth’s gravitic pull on that same ship’s components as they’re lifted into orbit for final assembly? I mean, to get material into (or beyond) orbit, you only need to overcome gravity. Whether it’s done by chemical rocket or by an inversed gravity field, up is up, no?
January 23rd, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Kirk, Spock, Picard etc.. The real star was the The Enterprise, she took more punchs that Ali, she went further than designers concieved and gave the ultimate sacrifice. I look forward her launch. Being an old style fan, thought they should have shoved DS9 through the worm hole, Voyager was a a lemon, NCC-1701 C the blinged SUV version and “D” did not fair too well in the 20g frontal crash test. Enterprise was killed too early like TOS. For XI, I prey they do not make Spock as cartoonish as Superman was in his return Finally, in closing everyone working on this movie should be forced to watch MI- III three times to make sure they do not make the same mistakes. It sucked!
July 7th, 2008 at 11:25 am
That has got to be a refurb of the enterprise as it was in service for 11 yeas at least under pike before Kirk was captain