New Star Trek trailer has diehard fans wondering what happened


The latest Star Trek installment has been taken in an entirely new direction by unapologetic action director JJ Abrams. Abrams has made it clear that he’s never been a real Star Trek fan, and is less concerned about getting the technical details of the film correct than exploring the emotional, some say also inaccurate, lives of the characters.

The next Star Trek movie is a prequel set before after the last television series Enterprise and before the 60s television show. (This last sentence is an update, thanks Chamalla and everyone who pointed this out.) It features younger actors and a lot more action and sex. Fans are worried that Abrams is running roughshod over the tried and true franchise in his quest to put out a palatable action movie with mass appeal:

Mild spoilers toward the end of this quote

“My goal was to make a movie about the emotional lives of these characters,” Abrams explained, according to the Associated Press. “We’ve seen a million ships fly by the camera, but nobody is going to care about the ship if they don’t care about the people inside.”

Not so fast, Abrams. Since 1966, Earth has been simply bombarded by the emotional lives of the seminal Enterprise crew, first on television and then in six, count ’em six, feature films. And that’s just the central narratives: Kirk, Spock and the rest of the gang have been peripherally explored in everything from the clunky ’70s animated series to pretty much every Trek iteration after that.

And then there is the lamentable “nobody” — a term Hollywood should really stop using. It’s simply not true that nobody cares about the ship if they don’t care about the crew: I know a series of gearheads who care more for the ship than they do for who’s inside.

Throw in a few revelations gleaned from a series of Star Trek screenings in Rome and elsewhere in Europe, and it’s time to move to yellow alert.

For one, Zachary Quinto’s Spock is described by AP as appearing “edgy and hostile” in the preview scenes, two words one would rarely associate with a Vulcan, much less one that has spent the last several decades as a model of cool, calm intelligence.

Less but still moderately confusing is the description of Chris Pine’s James T. Kirk, who spends the early scenes of the film as a biker who can’t stop getting into fights in 23rd-century Iowa. Not a problem, except that Kirk was a nut for horses more than he was for horsepower in earlier iterations of the Trek franchise. Trekkies might want to check my math here, but I believe he was riding one alongside Jean-Luc Picard when he met his doom in the film Star Trek: Generations.

A new Trek is needed to resuscitate interest in the canon — I understand that. And the changes make sense coming from a director who has banished Lost into what seems like an insurmountable disorientation, and who claimed in Rome that Star Trek “was never my thing.”

So will it work? Maybe. According to AP, the preview screenings featured several exciting action sequences and even a return of Leonard Nimoy as Spock from the future. But couple these revelations with Entertainment Weekly’s recent cover shots of Quinto and Pine looking like they just walked off the set of The Hills, and there’s reason to be nervous.

[From Blog.Wired.com]

It looks fun enough, but it definitely doesn’t look like any Star Trek I’ve known, and I’ve watched enough episodes and seen enough sequels thanks to my brother and the various geeks I’ve dated. It won’t matter if the film is technically accurate if it cleans up at the box office. Honoring a 40 year old classic is less important than making bank. You just wish they could have picked a director who actually cared enough to honor the foundation of the series while trying to update it. It’s like Abrams ripped the historic mansion off the lot and built a bunch of condos in their place. We’ll have to wait and see, though, and it does look entertaining and updated for a new generation of fans.

Star Trek is due out in May of next year.

Photos thanks to TrekMovie.com

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

43 Responses to “New Star Trek trailer has diehard fans wondering what happened”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. miss_kitteh says:

    I watched the trailer and I’m actually excited for the movie. I liked the original Star Trek series when I was a kid, but I never cared for any of the movies until the ‘Next Generation’ came along. Maybe this movie will attract a whole new set of fans who aren’t steeped in Star Trek canon. (I can empathize with those who are, though, don’t get me wrong!) ๐Ÿ˜†

  2. Ginny says:

    I just can’t get over Angry/Violent Spock in the trailer. Doesn’t he know what a Vulcan is?

  3. Kristin says:

    LOL @ Sylar.

    I have never seen anything Star Trek. Not an episode, or a movie. So, I guess it doesn’t matter what I think of the trailer. But I saw it last night and it looked kind of stupid.

  4. Codzilla says:

    Oh sh*t, trekkies are gonna freak.

  5. WTF?!?! says:

    There was talk by Spock on the original series that it took him awhile to overcome his human side and embrace the stoicism of the Vulcan within, but methinks this film will tank. It’s not like Star Trek has been in a filing cabinet for 40 years, the old episodes are regularly available on cable.

    The Hills has a niche audience, and those folks aren’t going to pick up the slack for the purists who want to see the prequel, not just another space action flick bastardizing well-loved and well-known characters.

    That’s lazy filmmaking, saying they can’t combine action with the plethora of personal history provided on these characters. JJ Douchams will live to eat those words.

  6. JohnnieR says:

    Okay, I am a huge fan of the original Star Trek 1960’s series, and the feature films. I for one am not against a quasi-new direction for the Star Trek franchise at all. If there’s a great script, great director and awesome yet realistic special effects, then more power to the idea.

    BUT…after viewing the trailer, I was extremely annoyed at how friggin’ YOUNG this Enterprise crew is! I mean, come on! Now I understand Hollywood’s need to cater to a certain viable demographic, but seriously, having
    James T. Kirk, Spock and the rest of the crew be barely 20 somethings, then I’m sorry – the credibility factor – for me – anyway, goes way down.

    If the cast were in their early 30’s to mid 30’s, then I could easily accept this as being a great approach.

    I mean, what is Abrams trying to achieve here – Star Trek – Baywatch style?

  7. Megan says:

    erm I did NOT just see Spock hitting Kirk. what. the. f.

  8. Ron says:

    Geek Geek Gnarf Gnarf!

  9. Vibius says:

    This is going to be a disaster.

    And make tons of money.

  10. Anna says:

    Oh. My. God.

    What’s the first rule about Vulcans? They don’t have emotions! I certainly hope there was some brain parasite eating away at Spock in the scene in which he lashes out at Kirk because, man…

    I am rather speechless and that doesn’t happen often to me. I am SUCH a Trekkie and this… rubs me a bit the wrong way.

    The only reason I will go see this is Simon Pegg. I am a huge fan of Pegg’s and I know how much Star Trek and this part in the prequel meant to him, but this really is why I will be going, nothing else.

    Sometimes, sticking to the canon is better. I am upset that they have made such wrong changes.

  11. Megan says:

    I agree Anna, and to be honest, it WILL be mostly Trekkies that will go and see this movie, so I don’t know why they’ve not at least tried to stay true to the canon. I think the Trekkie backlash will be pretty bad. It’s not -that- difficult to stay true to the characters and the plot line, and still make it exciting.

  12. vdantev says:

    ๐Ÿ˜ฏ ๐Ÿ˜ฅ And there is no God in heaven, he cried. Thanks for making me hate you a little more, Hollywood. You can’t catch lightning in a bottle twice.

  13. KateNonymous says:

    Wow, that looks terrible.

    BTW, JohnnieR, the idea is to show the characters at a younger age, which pretty much requires Kirk to be in his 20s. He was in his 30s in the original series.

    And Anna, Vulcans don’t lack emotions, they control them. Spock is half human, which means he struggled with it more than most.

    Yes, I’m a life-long Trek fan. What of it?

  14. Anna says:

    Absolutely right Megan. I just hate the prequel-mania (and the sequel-mania too) that is raging in Hollywood. Sure, I get they make a lot of money. But it really diminishes the worth of the original movies when such trash comes out and it makes the true fans, who love the “original” stuff, just plain sad.

    The same also goes for remakes. Why on earth remake The Day The Earth Stood Still, for example?? I love Keanu Reeves just as much as the next woman, but it still baffles me. I think more often than not, movies just be allowed to stand alone and be left alone. It’s like people trying to make money off of famous friends… UGH!

  15. Your Friend says:

    Clearly, the marketing and direction of this film as been heavily influenced by the Dark Night Trilogy….

    snooze~

  16. Dizzybenny says:

    they only problem i have in casting is Kirk.the other actors you can see a glimpes of the “older” actors in them.
    i think that Kirk is not Captain in this movie(why he wears the black long t-shirt)it’s probably an older actor that we dont know who yet.(at least i hope so to balance out the very young crew)

  17. Bella Mama says:

    aha! but wait! Spock is only HALF vulcan….the other half is HUMAN so i can buy the human half winning out when he’s younger until he matures and the vulvan half controls him later in life

    maybe….

  18. Buttercup says:

    Well if they can mess around with Miami Vice, the Bond films and other remakes/redo’s etc, then why not the Star Trek prequel?

    I’m on crappy dial up so gave the trailer a miss, but surely a revamp can’t be that bad?

    With that said I’ve found most of the remakes etc not that great and not worth making in the first place.

  19. CosVis says:

    Hey everybody

    Umm…I’m a long time lurker and first time poster. I’ve always been happy to just read the (often very funny) comments but as a die-hard Trekkie, I thought I’d throw in my 2 pence.

    I’ve literally craved something new to do with Star Trek since the end of my beloved Voyager (I’ve watched every series ๐Ÿ˜› ) and was really excited about this film.

    I’m feeling pretty apprehensiive and agree with the general sentiment that mostly Trekkies will watch the film and ignoring some parts of the original canon may alienate the fans. That said, I will still watch it and reserve judgement till then. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    Take care.

  20. prissa says:

    Bella Mama, I think you put more thought into your reply than the director did this whole movie. ๐Ÿ˜•

  21. miss_kitteh says:

    Belle mama, I’m laughing myself sick over Spock being controlled by his vulvan half. tee hee, that explains the eye shadow. ๐Ÿ˜†

    JohnnieR, now that I think about it, the last JJ Abrams movie was RUINED by the cast being too young, too. They were 20-somethings with jobs and apartments that would make the Trump kids green with envy.

  22. Chamalla says:

    I married a trekkie and thusly grew to appreciate the various series and movies. One minor correction – this movie takes place after the series Enterprise but before the 60’s series in the Trek Timeline.

    I’m marginally embarrassed for knowing that.

  23. Sarah says:

    Chamalla – LOL! Second everything you said, except I am not married. ๐Ÿ˜‰ Especially the “slightly embarassed”-line of yours just knocked me out since my first thought after reading this article was also – WAIT, there is a mistake: This movie isn’t a prequel to Enterprise, the lastest tv show installment, it is a sequel to that and a prequel to ST:TOS. Gosh, I am such a nerd… LOL!

  24. Anna says:

    Chamalla: no need to be embarassed, I think so far, all the commenters know to appreciate such knowledge ๐Ÿ˜€

    CosVis: welcome to the active commenters ๐Ÿ™‚ You are right to a point. We shouldn’t be quite so judgmental! But then again, this site has a “bitchy” in its title ๐Ÿ˜€

    Bella Mama: I think it’s so cute how you try to save Abrams’ arse, but I have to agree with Prissa ๐Ÿ™‚ I think the damage is done and there is no talking ourselves out of it.

  25. Sam says:

    Having watched the franchise when it debued in 1967, when I was 16 i must say i am excited about seeing this. I am not a trekkie but I am a fan of sc-fi and action flicks so this is a must see for me. ๐Ÿ˜‰

  26. Yzzy says:

    I just want to point out a mistake in the post. It’s not set before Enterprise (the TV show), but actually after that. It is set before the original Star Trek series, so that’s probably where the confusion happened.

    Yes, I’m a Star Trek geek. I fully admit it. ๐Ÿ™‚

    My pedantic, geeky side having been satisfied, I’m much more a fan of The Next Generation than the Original series, so I don’t think I’ll get disappointed by this movie. I simply don’t know enough about these characters to get frustrated like the die-hard Original series fans.

  27. Lastdaylight says:

    Looks like just another generic sci-fi action movie.

  28. Robin says:

    Ok, lurker posting yadda yadda

    anyway, i am a bit sad to admit that I am still really excited about this film. I have been a fan of the franchise for years and have been saddened by the sharp drop off in quality with the tv series and recent films.
    I think that the depiction of Spock is appropriate since there were instances in the 60s series where he lost his temper or behaved in an otherwise irrational manner. In fact Spock frequently threw down with the sardonic smirk too.
    Just sayin’
    I’m prepared to wait and judge the film on its own merit and see if despite a tweak or two is stays faithful to the essence of Trek.

  29. EB says:

    I’m a trekkie and I’m not sure what to make of this trailer…and I don’t think that’s a good thing. I suspect that Paramount is going to have a rude awakening. As a woman I’m also ticked that the only shot we have of Uhura is her taking off her top. As a black woman, I’m a disappointed that they cast a black actress who barely looks black. It’s 2008 people! Where to actual black actors get jobs now! To bad The Wire’s over.

  30. Steph says:

    If I go see this, it won’t be in a full-price theater. There is too much wrong with it to even warrant my paying full price just to see it.

  31. Izzy says:

    The trailer looks great. I’m willing to bet that the elder Spock will be dealing with the younger Spock’s emotions.

  32. Trashaddict says:

    Hahahahah I’m old and my generation did it better than yours will….signed, Trekkie from the Start

  33. Celebitchy says:

    Thanks Chamalla and Sarah for letting me know that the film was after Enterprise. I read that quickly and mixed it up because everyone looks so young. Now there’s really no excuse for it. That’s fixed in the story.

  34. geekaziod says:

    What the hell even in the future light years from now WOMEN STILL WEAR BRAS?! Out of everything man invents you’d think they would invent something a little more comfortable in the future!

  35. 88modesty88 says:

    Hey guys

    Star Trek (original) is currently in re-runs on South African television. We’re up to season II, and I’m loving it all over again.

    The squeaks, creaks and faux *computer* sound effects are classic and very very funny.
    I last saw vintage Star Trek when I was, oh, 8 years old (I’m almost 30 years older now) and it’s a mindf*ck to see now how truly camp it all was and how bad some of the acting was!

    That said, I record every single episode — they are shown daily — and they are clogging up my PVR (Tivo)!

    I’m all for “regeneration”. But some things are sacred. And there’s no way of getting around that, JJ Abrams! If you are not *clever* enough to work within the framework that is Star Trek, you might lose many fans along the way!

  36. RhymesWithSilver says:

    JJ Abrams should know that the LAST thing you ever want to do in SciFi is mess with anything that has a rabidly devoted fandom and an insanely complex storyline, not to mention that StarTrek has had 40 years to develop both. Tread carefully, dude- those geeks are nuts.

  37. Bryan says:

    Someone please explain why this is a prequel and not a reboot (ala Casino Royale/Batman Begins)? By calling it a reboot, you can get away with all the screwed-up continuity/technology/etc. It makes it more palatable.
    But no, it’s as if they WANT the Trekkies to go insane over this.

  38. Trashaddict says:

    Modesty, you don’t know from bad TV shows, but if you’re lucky, maybe they’ll rerun “Dark Shadows” there!

  39. matt says:

    This looks like Lost. I know paramount sacked the original star trek production company and agreed for JJ Abrams to make it instead. Although I was skeptical at first, knowing and loving Abram’s previous work, I didn’t think it would fit with the whole star trek ideology. JJ Abrams said he would make this for new audience as well as for star trek fans, so I was keeping an open mind.

    Now I’ve seen the trailer, I’m pissed off because it’s not star trek anymore. They’re just trying to attract a new audience but it no longer has the things I liked about and were specific to star trek, like its values, idealism, and the whole idea creatd by gene roddenberry of an ideal future, with no conflict or worries or money, in an enlightened human race, and to look at humanity to see what is good and bad about us. The whole style created by gene roddenberry has been lost now, and they’re turning it into a meaningless money spinner. Paramount have no idea what star trek is about.
    It stood for something far bigger and more important than a tv prgram. It has inspired millions to better ourselves, not to mention created many medical and engineering breakthroughs. The original production company decided it was important for everything to be as plausible as possible, based on predicted and measured scientific advances, based on real science. This was obvious to most of the fans and any scientists watching, including myself. Now that they’ve all been sacked, this new JJ Abrams venture is just an artistic thing with no real science or meaning behind it. The Needle-less needle? It was a breakthrough in medical science, and invented by star trek scientists as the ‘hypospray’. Ipod and all other hand held pads? Concept based on the ‘padd’ from star trek. Nasa base much equipment on star trek, I could go on forever. Many devices, and technological advances we see today were inspired by, and some physically prototyped by star trek. Not to mention worldleaders who have been inspired by the ideals, perfect and fair world set out in gene roddenberry’s vision. The world I fear won’t be the same without it. TV has lost something more important than most people will ever know.

  40. matt says:

    Star Trek wasn’t an artistic fantasy like most other sci-fi programs, it was trying to be a meaningful and optimistic representation of a possible future. Abrams and Paramount have thrown this away and the rare and important things that made star trek special, aren’t a part of this new film. I’m sure the film will attract new fans, but it will lose old fans as the film has ‘lost’ everything that star trek is.

  41. TechMainiac says:

    The Trailer looks great, should change the ships and the crew and it may be good, but they have torn up Star Trek. Gene I am sure has rolled over twice so far. I realize this is a show, but there are many of us who know the history very well, several things stand out as wrong in the trailer:
    1. The Constitution class was not built on the earth, it was built in orbit about the earth, it was not built to land or to take off.
    2. The Federation has never seen a Romulan until later on, which was made quite clear in TOS when everyone looked at Spock and pointed out the similarities.
    3. The Doctor and Scotty where much older than the Captain. Pavel Chekov was very young and was new; all of a sudden the trailer makes them all to seem as the same age.
    SO will I go see it, OF COUSRE I will! WILL I enjoy it OF COURSE I WILL! WILL I be mad at what they have done to this franchise, OF COURSE I WILL!

  42. destruct26 says:

    to: “your friend”- two things: the dark knight hasnt been made a trilogy yet, based on the fact that only two movies have been released and 42 entertainment did its marketing for one of them, “the dark knight,” but not for star trek, so why dont you get the facts straight before you post. *yawn* I liked the shows and saw the movies. But like Batman or anything else really popular, things need to be updated and reinvigorated. Im going to give this a chance.

  43. Hi there, I found your blog via Google at the same time as searching for a related topic, your website got here up, it looks good. I have added to favourites|added to bookmarks.