Star Trek XI - spoilers!

[X]

I really cannot accept that any NASA scientist would go for the Enterprise being built on Earth.

I would have to disagree with this. First I want to point out that NASA, while good at what they do, is the authority in space travel. Secondly, I am quite sure that both NASA scientist and others in the field have agreed that transporting raw materials into space even to build a lunar colony isn't cost effective. They have been looking at ways to use the natural enviroment of the moon to build future bases because they don't think that building in space is a worth much.

If you ignore all of the fantasy tech, there is a lot of energy required to build in space. The weilding alone would rapidly consume oxygen if using standard torches and/or a lot of power if you use arc weilders. Then if you factor in the protection that someone will need to work in space and take in account that fine manipulation is more difficult because of the lack of gravity, from a strictly science standpoint, building on ground is safer and cheaper than building in space.

When we factor in the trek tech and things like transporters, we know that they are a far leap and peices of that "technolgy" were created for the sole purpose of bypassing laws of physics that would prevent the tech from working.

I'm pretty sure that any article you pick up in any science mag that does a story on space stations and lunar bases will point out that one of the primary problems with building in space is the access to the right materials to do the job.

Addendum: NASA scientists consulted on Armagedon with Bruce Willis, but they still went with the Space Drill because it worked for the movie.

[X]

What kind of a community do we really have if we are all going to take an attitude of fanboys and not "rock the boat" or go against the status quo?

My problem with that is that I like what I see. If I'm enjoying the ride on the boat, I'm not going to tip it over because what might or might not be on the horizion.

My opinion is that every decision that I've seen, from casting to the trailer is something that I like. If there was something to rock the boat about, I'd be the first one in line. See my comments on Spider-man. If the story backs the movie, I'm for it. If the tech looks evolved, I'm for that too.

I can understand if you are not liking what you are seeing and hearing, but some of us are and remain in a holding pattern to see if we will continue to like it.

When they announced Battlestar and the cast, I was all for it, but my wife hated it on prinicple alone. She would call the show Battlestar Gasucktaca and rail against Starbuck.

She saw the show and tried to hate it. I kept watch and now she's pretending she liked it from the start and only had a problem with Starbuck being a girl and no Athena. She still hangs on to some of that hate even while she gets upset that the show isn't back.

That taught me that there were two kinds of fans.

People that will consider change and people that have to be convinced of it. If something is bad then it's bad, but if something is good, don't hate it because it's different from what you remember.

Hollywood has been remaking movies and shows since they began. Some things work and some don't. For me, at this point, the changes are working.

[Bryancd]

Certainly everyone can have their own views and opinion.  But I will say again, there is very little to go by so far.  A 1 minute and 14 second trailer isn't much.  Let's wait a bit and see how this all turns out.  If you are excited by the trailer - that's great.  If not - that's fine too.  The last thing I will say is most of the people I have known who enjoy "Star Trek" usually are able to accept new concepts and ideas.

Again, That's fine. However, I think there are a great many fans out there who are a little hurt and put off by this POTENTIAL re-boot. For sure we all don't need to agree, but how about a little passion and defense for the Star Trek of our youth? What's wrong with that? JJ will deliver a new Star Trek to the screen this Christmas. It's OK to speculate from what we have seen and read that it is going to be a very different concept. It may be awesome! Until then, ther eis nothing wrong with discussing. It's fun!

[X]

Again, That's fine. However, I think there are a great many fans out there who are a little hurt and put off by this POTENTIAL re-boot. For sure we all don't need to agree, but how about a little passion and defense for the Star Trek of our youth? What's wrong with that? JJ will deliver a new Star Trek to the screen this Christmas. It's OK to speculate from what we have seen and read that it is going to be a very different concept. It may be awesome! Until then, ther eis nothing wrong with discussing. It's fun!

What exactly do you want to discuss? I think everyone is sharing their opinions pretty well. If you want to be passionate and defensive of Trek, more power to you, but I don't think it needs a rallying cry when people are saying what they think. I also don't think anyone is trying to stop any discussion. It just appear that most of the discussion is about being interested in what they've seen.

For me, the things I hear screams Star Trek. 30% of the trek movies involve some form of time travel. The most famous and some might say the most popular TOS show features time travel.

Stats:

5 TOS episodes involve time travel
1 TAS Episode involves time travel (the most popular of the series)
3 Movies
12 TNG
10 DS9
13 Voyager
12 Enterprise

As for alternate timelines:
TOS: (2)
"The City on the Edge of Forever"
"Mirror, Mirror"
TAS: (1)
"Yesteryear"
TNG: (5)
"Time Squared"
"Yesterday's Enterprise"
"Tapestry"
"Parallels"
"All Good Things..."
DS9: (11)
"Crossover"
"Past Tense, Part I"
"Past Tense, Part II"
"Visionary"
"Through the Looking Glass"
"The Visitor"
"Shattered Mirror"
"Trials and Tribble-ations"
"Children of Time"
"Resurrection"
"The Emperor's New Cloak"
VOY: (12)
"Time and Again"
"Non Sequitur"
"Before and After"
"Future's End"
"Future's End, Part II"
"Year of Hell"
"Year of Hell, Part II"
"Timeless"
"Relativity"
"Fury"
"Shattered"
"Endgame"
ENT: (8)
"Shockwave"
"Shockwave, Part II"
"Twilight"
"E²"
"Storm Front"
"Storm Front, Part II"
"In a Mirror, Darkly"
"In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II"
Star Trek films (3)

If anything this movie follows the traditions of trek directly. If they are doing what they have always done, but bringing in new concepts to keep it from being stale ( Like they did when they created TNG than the others), what exactly is there to defend?

Enterprise being build in San Fransisco? They never said it wasn't and the dedication plaque clearly states that it was. If it was built in orbit, wouldn't they just put the shipyard on it? In fact, it wasn't until the A that it was done at the shipyard, which is in orbit. I would say that it's probably easier to build the first Constitution class ships on the ground instead of waiting for them to build a massive shipyard in space. Maybe they were still building the earlier classes in the shipyard in space and then when that class was phased out, they moved the constitution classes to space. At that point they could have enough ships that were bringing in cargo and material from other planets to justify the ability to build in space.

[Ktrek]

I have one other thing to say in regards to the Enterprise being built on Earth in San Francisco. According to the book The Making of Star Trek by Stephen Whitfield and Gene Roddenberry the Enterprise was "built" on Earth and "assembled" in space. If the film goes along this line then I am fine with it but if they disregard what Roddenberry himself said and try to show an Enterprise lifting off from Earth just for some stupid special effect sequence I will be disappointed.

Kevin

[Bryancd]

Ok, X, you lost me. What does time travel have to do with the re-imagining of TOS? I know that is speculated to be part of the story and that is fine. I just think they could have paid it bit more homage to TOS in term of what we have seen from the look of the ship, wich portends a very new look overall. I'm just not ok with that yet and there are a lot of fans who feel the same.

[X]

Ok, X, you lost me. What does time travel have to do with the re-imagining of TOS? I know that is speculated to be part of the story and that is fine. I just think they could have paid it bit more homage to TOS in term of what we have seen from the look of the ship, wich portends a very new look overall. I'm just not ok with that yet and there are a lot of fans who feel the same.

I can understand that and I can understand that there are fans that feel the same. I just don't think that people here are going to debate it if they are enjoying the direction or doing the wait and see thing. Then you have the other group of people that figure that it's happening and there is nothing we can do to stop it.

I like the new look ... Gene obviously wanted something different than the TOS ship because as soon as he got the cash to do so, he changed it twice. Every ship they have has been evolving with the technology. Even the enhanced series has worked hard to make the ship look better.

I just want to see what they can do with the franchise... it can't do worse than Nemesis and it just might be the shot in the arm that the franchise needs so that they make more Trek on both screens.

[Bryancd]

If folks are digging it, awesome. I am really psyched about the whole thing but felt a little let down by what may be the look of the new ship. I was more directing my comment at the notion that "well, we just have to suck it up, buttrecup!" in regards to what they put out there for us to consume as Star Trek fans. Ultimately that's true but I will not go silently into the night! ;)

[Rico]

I have posted this image before, but there is some internet chatter that this image may have inspired what we are seeing in the teaser trailer.  I'm sure posting this will create more controversy.  Just so you know, if it was me making the movie I would never have the ship assembled on Earth.  But who knows, maybe they have some massive powered transporter system than "beams" it into space.  Not likely, but you never know.  Anyway, here is the image.  Let the games and chatter begin!

[Bryancd]

I've seen that one before. A nice photoshop of an AMT 18" E model at Newport News! I wouldn't be surprised if someone on JJ's team had seen that before. I actually don't care too much about where she is built, although considering "Enterprise" continued the continuity of a space dock from TMP, I would rather it be done that way.

[Ktrek]

I thought of that picture when all this discussion started and although the picture is well done it was meant as a joke. To think that someone on Arbams team might have seen this pic and used the idea is I suppose possible.

Kevin

[Ktrek]

According to TrekMovie.com, Star Trek New Voyages fan series executive producer and Kirk actor James Cawley meet J.J. Abrams at the Paramount Pictures lot last week and was invited to visit the set where they are currently shooting scenes on the bridge of the U.S.S. Enterprise.

Now, TrekMovie reports that Cawley has been offered a role in the new Star Trek movie. He has been fitted for a costume and has to report for work on the set today. All he knows is that he will be playing a Starfleet officer on the Enterprise.

Here are few excerpts from his TrekMovie.com interview.

Regarding the U.S.S. Enterprise sets, Cawley said "I like the set. The bridge is spectacular, absolutely stunning, but it is not what I would  have done. But I think the fans are going to go 'woah' I think people are going to be genuinely stunned. I think people are going to be impressed. It is a beautiful set."

Regarding the uniforms, he said "The uniforms are perfect, spot on perfect. I wouldn't have done anything any different. When I saw the look of what he was going for, he's got it."


"No two people are going to share the same ideas." Cawley said  "I can like aspects of it, even though they are not my choices...If I had been in his position I would have done things a little differently because I am not JJ Abrams. He has an idea and is going to follow that to the end, just like we do with New Voyages...We can have differences of opinions and still enjoy each other's work. Would I have made some design changes? Sure! Would I have made a red button, blue? Ya! Are his sets spectacular? You better believe it!"

[Bryancd]

That sounds like an honest assesment of what he saw. Will it look awesome? You bet! Will it still feel like Trek? Maybe!

[Kirk-Fu]

Well, it's wonderful to know Cawley approves, somewhat(Kirk-Fu turns off sarcasm)

[Geekyfanboy]

http://www.sliceofscifi.com/2008/01/25/chris-doohan-scottys-son-will-be-in-trek-movie/

Chris Doohan (Scotty's Son) Will Be In Trek Movie

In January 2007 we wrote an article about Chris Doohan wanting to play his father's famous role in the next Trek film. Now we learn that he did get a role in the new Star Trek movie from J.J. Abrams and Paramount Pictures. Chris is the son of the legendary actor James Doohan, who starred as Enterprise chief engineer Montgomery "Scotty" Scott in the original Classic Star Trek television series, the episode "Relics" on Star Trek: The Next Generation" and in 7 of the 10 big screen Star Trek films. Chris also has a twin brother named Montgomery. Both appeared in minor roles in the 1979 film "Star Trek The Motion Picture." Chris is also a well known alternative rock musician.

Of course, the role Chris really wanted to audition for was the same one his father did for almost 4 decades before his death in 2005. However, the studio decided to go with actor Simon Pegg ("Shaun of the Dead," "Mission Impossible III" & "Hot Fuzz") for the part of the gruff Scottish engineer. Doohan isn't disappointed and is happy with Abrams' choice of Pegg for the part of Scotty.

Also, Chris' auditioning process wasn't in vain. He has landed a role in the upcoming Trek film due to be released Christmas Day 2008.

Recently Doohan spoke, as much as he was allowed to, about his role with TrekMovie.com, the website quickly becoming the new mouthpiece for everything Trek after the demise in December 2007 of Trek's official CBS/Paramount website StarTrek.com. Security surrounding this release is extremely tight so he couldn't tell much, but what he could reveal is still interesting.

Here is that interview:

TrekMovie.com: When do you shoot and do you know where you will appear?

Chris Doohan: At this point, I'm tentatively scheduled to go in later next week to film, but, like James Cawley, I still don't know exactly what I'm going to do. I can tell you that my father would be happy with my position on the ship.

TrekMovie.com: Have you seen your costume yet?

Chris Doohan: I went to Paramount Studios a couple of weeks ago for my fitting. After my déjà vu moment, I stood there in awe of the rows and rows of Star Trek uniforms that seemed to be everywhere. The uniforms are incredible and extremely well made. When it comes to wardrobe, they definitely spared no expense and I can only imagine what the Enterprise set will look like. I can't wait to see it.

TrekMovie.com: Have you met Simon Pegg (the new Scotty), or (director) JJ Abrams yet?

Chris Doohan: Simon Pegg and I have exchanged a few emails and we may get together to toast my Father. I guess I'll need to bring some green food coloring to put in our drinks. I'm really looking forward to meeting the rest of the cast and J.J. Abrams. I not only think that he was the right guy to do this movie, I believe he's the only one who could do it in a way that respects Gene Roddenberry's vision. The fact that he asked Randy Pausch to be in the film proves that for me. Definitely a class act. Being on this film is a dream come true and I can't thank him enough.