http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/wp-content/2008/10/startrekewcoverfloct01_21.jpg

Apologies if this has already been seen, but the UK's Daily Mail has an article and photos for the new Star Trek XI...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1078100/Sneak-peek-First-glimpse-new-Star-Trek-cast-prepare-boldly-time-prequel.html

Cheers!

Jim.


EDIT by Griffworks: Sorry, Jim - I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to lump everything about the new Trek Movie that gets posted here in the Movies for Modelers section in this thread.

Is it me, or does it seem like they all should still be ensigns fresh out of the academy? They look too young to be the command staff of a front line starship.

Is it me, or does it seem like they all should still be ensigns fresh out of the academy?Chris Pine is 28. Wasn't Kirk supposed to have been 29 when he got his first command? Of course, I don't think that was the Enterprise, but still ...

Qapla'

SSB

AFAIK, this takes place before Where No Man Has Gone Before. So Kirk wouldn't necessarily be the captain of the ship until (possibly) the end of the flick. Seem to recall reading that Chris Pike (the previous captain of the Enterprise) is also in the movie...

The bridge looks like an 80s hair salon.

Carl Urban is a terrible actor. I see he's doing his "dramatic hand gesturing" schtick even in the still.

I guess this is a full reboot. Oh well.

Yep, I gotta get me that issue! Has anyone seen these shots?

The Bridge:
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff5/Prince_of_Styrene_II/bridge.jpg

The USS Kelvin:
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff5/Prince_of_Styrene_II/usskelvin2.jpg

The USS Kelvin getting "redecorated":
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff5/Prince_of_Styrene_II/usskelvin1.jpg

Well, the USS Kelvin should be an interesting scratch.
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff5/Prince_of_Styrene_II/usskelvin2.jpg

I have lost any enthusiasm I may have had for this film.I can't relate to the new cast and imagine them as the characters I love.Chris Pine doesn't cut it as Kirk.The new bridge remaining faithful to the Original Series.I can understand maybe a slightly polished up look on the old bridge but not something totally different.By the way if that is the new Bridge its awful.Forget about calling this movie a faithful representation of early Star Trek.Guy S

Yes! Let's all grab torches and pitchforks and storm the studio, burning the horrible abomination! What? How can I call it an abomination? Well, true, I haven't seen it, but it just is. The pictures with no context convince me!

Sarcasm aside, come on, folks. Don't make up your mind seven months before it's released.

Yeah, I like the uniforms. The bridge is bad...very Galaxy quest-ish (Star Quest? Galaxy Trek?) I don't care for a reboot either. Oh well, I guess this flick is being made for Generation text. I'm going to keep up on the info and see where it goes.

Carl Urban is a terrible actor. I see he's doing his "dramatic hand gesturing" schtick even in the still.

Ah, but just wait until Karl says "dammit Jim, I'm a Doctor, not a Kiwi" :wave:

You know, none of you guys have seen the first frame of this film onscreen and already you're...you know what; I'm not even gonna bother. If you're so convinced you'll hate it, then don't even bother to see it, I just wish some of you wouldn't hose down other people's enthusiasm.

No one is hosing your enthusiasm down JeffG. We're rendering our opinions, which the last time I checked was a perfectly reasonable thing to do in America.

What was wrong with the original bridge again?

No one is hosing your enthusiasm down JeffG. We're rendering our opinions, which the last time I checked was a perfectly reasonable thing to do in America.
I know, and I understand that. I just don't understand how you can dislike something so much when you haven't even seen it. All we've seen are a couple of carefully released photos-yet from this quantum of information you can extrapolate that the entire movie will tank? That's a gift and foresight I wish I had.

I know, and I understand that. I just don't understand how you can dislike something so much when you haven't even seen it. All we've seen are a couple of carefully released photos-yet from this quantum of information you can extrapolate that the entire movie will tank? That's a gift and foresight I wish I had.

A few points Jeff.

-I never said the movie will tank, you have me mistaken for someone else.

-You don't have to understand why I don't like something.

-I don't need to see the thing in motion to decide if I like it or not.

-I think it looks cheesy, that's how I feel. You don't have to like or agree with it.

JeffG, you are the one here who's really bent out of shape. You insist on arguing; I noticed it on the other thread. Just cool down man, I'm not Admiral Nelson. If you like the design great, I respect your opinion; but don't keep coming at me with the same attack strategy trying to shout me down. It won't work. Just enjoy what you've seen and let others say their peace.

I just read some of the comments left by those who viewed the pictures.Look what they have to say about the movie.People are going to voice their opinions.Some good some negative.But thats their right and I don't think they mean to ruin it for someone else even if they have a negative opinion.I spoke how I felt.Even though I don't like the images I've seen.I will still voice my opinion.And I am a diehard fan of the Original Series since 1970 since I'm 5.You bet I'm going be critical in my judgement about this film

Typical hollywood, turn an old show like Star Trek into a movie and end up with no respect for TOS which it is "based on".
I knew years ago that it was just a matter of time before some one got it in their head to redo Star Trek in their own way.

Don't get me wrong guys. Everybody has a right to their opinion, and that's cool. But I just don't understand why nearly everything about this film seems to bring about such a 'pooh, pooh' attitude just because it doesn't look like TOS. It's NOT TOS. Look, my opinion is no more or less valid than the next guy's but I'm willing to hold off judgement till I see the completed film and fit the pieces together. I'm just saying it's good to have an open mind. Isn't that, after all, what our beloved Star Trek tried to teach us.

I've been waiting a long time to see someone redo Star Trek in their own way because the way it's been made for the past decade or so has stank on ice. This movie is going to drive trekkers crazy. I define trekkers as Star Trek fans without a sense of humor--I am a proud trekKIE. My own theory and opinion is that trekKERS have forced Trek into utter stagnation by spending so much time worrying about whether the bridge buttons look right and what is and isn't continuity and canon.

All that matters about this movie is--are the performances and characters interesting? Is the story good? Is the movie exciting? I guarantee the pre-viewing kvetching has only begun, people are going to be up in arms about some of the look of this movie as some already are--so if you rate Star Trek movies by whether they have the aztec pattern right, you will likely hate the movie, but my guess is that is a dwindling demographic. The more I see, the more I suspect this movie will be a huge hit and it will reposition the Trek franchise in a way it never has been before.

Thank you!

Look, my opinion is no more or less valid than the next guy's

Jeff, no one is saying it's less valid. I can see you're really on the defensive, don't be; as I said before no one here is telling you to dislike what you see. You on the other hand are telling us there's something wrong with us not liking what has been shown.

People feel differently than you do. We don't agree and we don't have to. There are over 300,000,000 people in the U.S. alone, do you agree with all of them?

But I just don't understand why nearly everything about this film seems to bring about such a 'pooh, pooh' attitude just because it doesn't look like TOS. It's NOT TOS

The problem, in part is that it is such a radical departure from TOS. TOS is very special and very important to a great many people. People love the original characters, ship and feel. The fact that it is seemingly being rebooted is what is engendering such strong responses. I would be suprised if I did not see strong responses, especially from the folks on this board.

My responses are not a product of a closed mind, but rather of one that is troubled by what has been shown and said by TPTB.

I feel, for me, it is too far a departure from what was. This is the last I'll say on this subject because I feel as though I've been spamming the board and I think I have rendered my opinion in full. I'll let others have the floor for awhile.

So far, it looks as though the new movie will stink. The uniform variations are fine but the bridge and other set designs have been prostituted for the modern "coolness" factor. I fear this may be the "Star Trek: Enterprise" version of ST:TOS.:cry:

I agree Lee

You know, none of you guys have seen the first frame of this film onscreen and already you're...

Actually, we've just seen several frames of the film right here on our computer screens. :p

How many wide angle pictures of the bridge does one need to see to have a legitimate reaction?

And I've seen Carl Urban act more than enough to know how bad he can be.

I'm done with it. But in closing I'd just like to say; remember the gripes about how 'Daniel Craig will never be a good Bond' based on a few photos? How'd that work out for ya?

Guys, I didn't open this thread just to start another flame war on the possible pros and cons of the new film.

Sadly, but not entirely unexpectedly, that's exactly what's happened.

I know Trek can polarise a lot of people, but can't we vent on something that really matters - like the upcoming elections in both your country and mine?

Personally I'm gonna keep an open mind and see the film before I start shooting off at the lip or cheering wildly.

Well I for one think its a good idea to kinda reintroduce Trek to a new generation. Im thinking that this movie is like Superman Returns in regards to continuity. The story elements from all the previous Trek films and series are still part of this new movies past and future, except they have changed the actors and updated the look. Its as simple as that.

NOW anyone who is surprised that they didnt use the original bridge design,uniforms etc. should really not have been surprised at all. I mean did anyone REALLY think they were going to use the designs from the 60's series. NO they are going to use something that is based on current asthetic trends, just as all the previouis films and seires have done.

So Im thinking that this is apart of the whole Trek tapestry and will not concern myself with the visual continuity one bit. Besides how many movies will they really have with this recasted TOS crew anyways??? Maybe three at the most. A very SMALL part of Trek as a whole.

And I've seen Carl Urban act more than enough to know how bad he can be.

John, if you're going to diss on someone, at least get their name right.

Karl Urban did, IMHO, a great job in Out of the Blue, a film about the Aromoana shootings here in NZ a few years back.

On the other hand, Pathfinder was, again IMHO, just shonky.

Shonky?

I liked Pathfinder in a strange sort of way.

(The Bridge)


Too high tech for me. What is that console the female crew member standing behind?

(The USS Kelvin)


When I first saw the picture in the magazine I thought the picture was put in upside down. I turned the picture upside down the name of the ships name was going the wrong way. Then I saw the picture was put in the correct way after all and there was a "thing" on the top of the ship. That "thing" on top of the ship looks like a giant eyeball.

Alright, everybody - take a deep breath and try to remember to respect each other opinions. Whether you agree w/them or not, doesn't matter. Just respect them and we'll all get along just fine.


That being said... I, too, think it's pretty silly to judge a movie based on a few pics and some of the actors. As already pointed out, lots of folks poo-pooed Daniel Craig as Bond well before the movie was shown - and it seems to have been a big hit even w/die-hard Bond fans. Or other, similar wailing, gnashing of teeth and rending of sackcloth that I've seen other folks bring forth in their posts. ;)

We don't know the overall plot for this movie, tho speculation seems to be flowing in the direction that it somehow involves alternate timelines of some sort - i.e. "time travel". I personally like to think that - given J.J. Abram's track record - it's going to be a pretty decent movie should some sort of alternate timeline thing indeed be the main plot. So, at worst, I'm hoping for a fairly decent, entertaining movie. Thus, I'm willing to give it a fair shake and not go in to it with any pre-conceived notions about whether I'll like it or not.

I also like Karl Urban and while have found some of his acting to be rather wooden on occasion, I actually sorta liked him in Pathfinder, as well as The Riddick Chronicles, The Bourne Supremacy and as Eomer in the Lord of the Rings movies. I'm not saying he's a Robert DeNiro or anything, but he's not what I consider a horrible actor.

One thing I do think I've got a tiny bit of a pre-convceived notion in my head about, tho - Chris Pine as Kirk. I keep seeing Pine in his role as Darwin Tremor in Smokin' Aces.


BTW, I've always felt that the original TOS bridge is waaaaay too dated. While it looked kewel in the 1960's - and even later - with all the pretty, blinky lights and stuff, WTF were all those controls supposed to do? How does someone who's not familiar w/the controls yet has to take over when Sulu Gets Blowed Up Real Good out of his chair supposed to fire phasers, raise shields and do evasive maneuvers if the controls have no labels on them?!?

Given how our technology is now, I'd have thought theyd have gone like we saw in TNG and ENT and have more flat-screen technology along w/toggles and switches. As such, I don't have a real problem w/some changes to the bridge controls being made should they decide to make some changes.

Now, the look of some of those pics has me a bit on-edge, admittedly. But again - I'm willing to wait to see what the movie is all about before casting pre-judgements. Who knows, by the end of the movie we might see The Grand Lady pretty much 100% intact - tho I'm sorta hoping for the Re-Mastered look! - and with a bridge that's nearly 100% TOS in it's appearance - tho I'm again hoping for something slightly more updated.

But that's my opinion on the subject as a member of the forums. I could be wrong.... :thumbsup:



Now, one more time - let's all be respectful of each others opinions and not attack an individuals opinion just because we disagree with it. That goes for both sides of the equation, folks. Plus, if you put your opinion out here for others to read, expect them to comment on it. If it bugs you that someone says something, just ignore it - or respectfully disagree.

John, if you're going to diss on someone, at least get their name right.

Karl Urban did, IMHO, a great job in Out of the Blue, a film about the Aromoana shootings here in NZ a few years back.

On the other hand, Pathfinder was, again IMHO, just shonky.

OH MY GOD I GOT ONE LETTER IN HIS NAME WRONG!!!!

FLOG ME!!

:rolleyes:

Didn't see Out of the Blue. But he was a frequent guest actor on Xena. Given the choice role of Julius Caesar, he often turned in high school theater group levels of performance.

OH MY GOD I GOT ONE LETTER IN HIS NAME WRONG!!!!

FLOG ME!!

:rolleyes:
I think you might want to keep this sort of dramatic licensing in mind next time you go on a tear about someone misspelling something or using poor grammar, John. ;)

Sorry John. One minute I'm asking everyone not to turn it into a flame war, and in the next breath I'm pulling you up about your use of 'C' instead of 'K'...
Mea culpa.

Never really saw that much of Xena, so I can't comment on his acting in that, or in Lord of the Rings. I only saw the 2nd one - what is it with some Kiwis not watching stuff made at home?.

Personally I thought he did a pretty good job as a Russian (I've seen/heard worse) in The Bourne Supremacy and with what he had to work with in Chronicles of Riddick.



Eric K - sorry, it was just my opinion. Your mileage may vary :)

:confused: Other than the delicious little tan-colored fruit I buy at the grocery store, what is a 'kiwi' as mentioned a few times in these posts?

Thanks!

Kiwi (with a capital 'k') = slang term for someone from the wonderful land of New Zealand. See Jim NCC1701A (who looks like Sting! No, really! Ask that kid in the elevator at WonderFest '07!) for an excellent example of a Kiwi! :thumbsup:

.....Eric K - sorry, it was just my opinion. Your mileage may vary :)

Oh, no...I meant..."What is Shonky?" Never heard the term before.
:p

Oh, no...I meant..."What is Shonky?" Never heard the term before.
:p
Ah, local slang I guess. My understanding of it is something not quite up to standard.

Kiwi (with a capital 'k') = slang term for someone from the wonderful land of New Zealand. See Jim NCC1701A (who looks like Sting! No, really! Ask that kid in the elevator at WonderFest '07!) for an excellent example of a Kiwi! :thumbsup:

Thanks Jeff :wave: A humble Kiwi, too :)

A Kiwi, other than New Zealanders name for ourselves, is a flightless, noctural bird that forages in the forests and woods of our little country.
About the size of a small cat, there are several different sub-species, mostly endangered - they often fall prey to stouts and dogs :(

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi

Yeah, Sting. Man, if I could do what he does, and get the chicks then I'd have it made :thumbsup:

I'm willing to give this movie it's fair turn. I have seen several things I am concerned about, mainly the warp nacelles and that will depend on how the rest of the ship looks.

I have voiced my opinion on that and will not readdress it here.

I can't help but chuckle at those who claimed the bridge of the NX-01 looked too glitzy and high-tech for being pre-TOS, I'm guessing it's looking pretty mundane now.

Waiting to see how the rest of the bridge and ship looks, I for one thing the Captain's Chair looks pretty damn sweet.

I think you might want to keep this sort of dramatic licensing in mind next time you go on a tear about someone misspelling something or using poor grammar, John. ;)

The things I go off on are usually a bit more eggregious than not knowing a guy named Karl uses the German spelling instead of the vastly more common C, Mr. Overmoderator.

Not to mention Jim seemed to be being a bit snotty about it (which he graciously apologized for).

The things I go off on are usually a bit more eggregious than not knowing a guy named Karl uses the German spelling instead of the vastly more common C, Mr. Overmoderator.


That's an egregious mispelling of the word egregious, John. Just sayin'. ;)

I for one, being a total Non-Trekker, find that this is the first Star Trek project in about 15 years that actually interests me. It's clearly a "reboot" -and a reboot is what's needed if you want to bring a larger audience back to the franchise.

That was just a stutter. :freak:

The things I go off on are usually a bit more eggregious than not knowing a guy named Karl uses the German spelling instead of the vastly more common C, Mr. Overmoderator.

Not to mention Jim seemed to be being a bit snotty about it (which he graciously apologized for).
Tit for Tat, John. ;)

In one respect, I like the idea of a new variation of the Constitution class. I may never accept it as "real" but I like the cool modifications.

As far as interior set design, there's nothing wrong with the ORIGINAL SERIES' basic layout. It worked for later movies and the ST:TNG movies and trek television series after ST:TNG have been fairly consistent with the bridge set designs and slowly evolving them, perhaps, during the time line of the series.

IMHO, and what I was really hoping for, the bridge could be shown "in more detail" without radically altering everything. (And, do we REALLY know that that is the 1701 bridge in the pic being discussed?)

What was shown in the '60s was rarely in extreme close-up and we could now be shown that the buttons are indeed labeled and make some sort of sense. The screens above the consoles could be utilized more with moving graphs and the like. There's all sorts of things to do without changing the basic shapes of ANYTHING on the bridge.

If I don't like the basic look of the movie, I may wait for it to come on cable. But, that's just me :)

And, do we REALLY know that that is the 1701 bridge in the pic being discussed?
Yes, it is. Multiple websites that those pictures were directly released to by Paramount say that is the Enterprise bridge.

Tit for Tat, John. ;)

Only if you're 12 frickin' years old :rolleyes:.

According to the article in Entertainment Weekly, a FULL trailer will screen with "Quantum of Solace" in November. I'm not too excited by the pictures I've seen either, BUT... Abrams being a VERY creative guy (and an admitted NONfan of Trek) may be able to give this project an energy and new direction
(or maybe course correction is a BETTER way of putting it) we haven't seen since Nick Meyer came aboard for "Wrath of Khan". BTW, I think Paramount considers this NEW Star Trek I rather than Trek XI.
Tom