38 response about Witness the Awfulness: JJ Abram’s Star Trek (UPDATED: Hi-res) »

1. 

   I don’t think it looks THAT awful. Certainly the cheese factor looks a bit too high, and I don’t know why they’ve included the story of when they were younger, but it looks not bad to me. Admittedly the trailer isn’t very well put together but I think that’s understandable since it’s the first “proper” one. I’m willing to give it the benefit of the doubt until we see a better trailer.

   Comment by Ross Miller — November 16, 2008
2. 

   I agree with Ross. Basically this trailer is all about Kirk & Spock, which is only one part of the story. I’ll still see the movie when it comes out. The space parts look pretty fantastic.

   Comment by Shelagh — November 16, 2008
3. 

   Haha.

   Comment by El Gringo — November 16, 2008
4. 

   I have to say that the May 8 opening is cause for at least some concern. Admittedly, the Star Trek franchise offers up enough excitement to warrant a summer release date, yet I can’t help but wonder just how much the effects/action have been ratcheted up to appease the typical summer crowd.

   This will be the 4th Star Trek film released in the summer, and the 1st since the dreadful FINAL FRONTIER in 1989.

   I’m still looking forward to seeing it, but I share Kurt’s concern.

   Comment by Dave — November 16, 2008
5. 

   You had me at “Uhura (Zoe Saldana) removes her top.”

   Seriously though, I like the back story idea. How well it plays out we’ll have to see. I wouldn’t say I’m excited about the movie - certainly not this trailer, but I admit they’ve got my money already.

   Drew out.

   Comment by Andrew James — November 16, 2008
6. 

   It’ll be par for the course with JJ Abrams. He’s like the new Michael Bay for me. I don’t expect anything from the movie, but I bet it’ll look pretty sweet on the screen. And I definitely agree that if Zoe Saldana is taking her clothes off, I’m more than willing to pay $8 to see it.

   Comment by Andy — November 16, 2008
7. 

   I had no interest in this movie to begin with, other than that fact that I like the cast’s potential and would like to see them have successful careers beyond this movie. And I am pretty much in love with J.J. Abrams but I prefer his TV series’ to his movies.

   The trailer does look a tad cheesy, but I’ll give it the benefit of a doubt. I think seeing an official high-def release might help. I’ve seen way worse trailers that ended up being great movies. I don’t think this early promo will turn off the hardcore fans. It may scare some of the general population away, but positive reviews and word-of-mouth will bring them right back.

   Comment by Ashley — November 16, 2008
8. 

   Run of the mill action stuff really. Nothing different or original, other than showing life on earth during that time, something that was only lightly discussed in the movies and series.
   But I like Abrams as a director, his MI3 is the best of the series.

   Comment by swarez — November 16, 2008
9. 

   This is written by retards, but seeing NCC-1701 and Mr Spock on the screen is a hook that generates excitement in me in ways I can not begin to intellecualize or explain.

   Comment by Henrik — November 16, 2008
10. 

    Me and MI:3 do not get along well. I felt that Abrams has no sense of cinematic flare with that one. Lifeless, boring, wasteful of PS Hoffman as a villain. Embarrassing really.

    Comment by kurt — November 16, 2008
11. 

    I haven’t seen MI:3 but I find it weird to attack it repeatedly. How good could something like that be?

    Comment by Henrik — November 16, 2008
12. 

    I have to agree. Two negative posts up on R3 (Watchmen/Star-Trek) I try to avoid this kind of thing, rather focus on the positive. But it seems these two projects (like Transformers in 2007) seem to be gathering a ridiculous amount of steam and it is hard not to drop in a couple of cents from the old soapbox from time to time. Gets people talking anyway.

    Also, don’t you Henrik drop little casual dismissal bombs with regularity.

    Comment by Kurt Halfyard — November 16, 2008
13. 

    Was that a question?

    I didn’t mean that you couldn’t dismiss things with any sort of regularity you want, I just find it strange that MI:3 is a movie that you hate. Like I said, how good could it have been, really?

    Comment by Henrik — November 16, 2008
14. 

    We all have our pet peeves. I can’t explain it either. I find it baffling that people seem to like that film. A lot of people.

    Comment by Kurt Halfyard — November 16, 2008
15. 

    “This is written by retards, but seeing NCC-1701 and Mr Spock on the screen is a hook that generates excitement in me in ways I can not begin to intellecualize or explain.”

    From what I’ve put together about Abrams he thrives on geek reference shit like this but then cheaply throws together whatever images and sounds on the screen by use of some formula whereby the amount of decentcy is arrived at in which to keep audiences from straight walking out of theaters. I think we all (or most of us) have sympathy for Abrams b/c of LOST, but think about Cloverfield. Does that have any rewatchability value at all?

    Comment by stump — November 16, 2008
16. 

    Haven’t seen Cloverfield, can’t stand shit like Lost. Void of intelligence.

    Comment by Henrik — November 16, 2008
17. 

    well, Henrik, that doesn’t surprise me that you think that, but you don’t explain yourself, and I can’t help but assume that you watched ten minutes of Lost and just turned it off b/c you were cranky.

    Comment by stump — November 16, 2008
18. 

    Cloverfield is actually quite good but it Matt Reeves directing, not JJ Abrams.

    Comment by Kurt Halfyard — November 16, 2008
19. 

    I can’t help but feel Abrams had a heavy hand in the production of that, like Reeves was just hired for the day to day duties.

    Comment by stump — November 16, 2008
20. 

    Lost is kooky, takes leaps and simply because its a network show there’s a handicap towards what it could be, but saying a ‘void of intelligence’ is extremely dishonest and one hell of a broad snap judgment. Tonnes of people have valid frustrations with it, concerns of where its going and how it will end, certain performances and reaching for meaning, the occasional hodge podge of concepts lifted from Stephen King and sci fi novels, but even with as many flaws as I can count with it, ‘void of intelligence’ is words from someone who doesn’t know what the fuck he’s talking about.

    I could list dozens upon dozens of shows I can’t stand, even non-serialized programs that require a nice little bow wrapping everything up at the end of each ep, that I wouldn’t dare call a ‘void of intelligence’. Lost has been extremely groundbreaking as well in how modern drama is taken care of on network television, and that it still has such a devoted fanbase should count for something. It didn’t get abandoned the second another show found out how to work the same format smarter or better.

    Comment by Goon — November 16, 2008
21. 

    “I can’t help but feel Abrams had a heavy hand in the production of that, like Reeves was just hired for the day to day duties.”

    Abrams came up with the concept of trying to come up with some new American monster franchise type thing, it was handed to Goddard (one of Lost’s main writers) to put together, and Reeves just went with it. I think the direction in Cloverfield is underrated. I mean we all know how many stupid unrealistic things happen, but the way its all put together is a lot tougher than it looks. Abrams keeps so busy that I would need convincing that Reeves was just a day to day man.

    Comment by Goon — November 16, 2008
22. 

    It’s all about hyping up action, people shouting, people sweating, guns, running all of this stupid shit that nobody can relate to takes precedence over any other sort of story components that may have been interesting. Compromised for the idiots, void of intelligence.

    Comment by Henrik — November 16, 2008
23. 

    “that it still has such a devoted fanbase should count for something.”

    Hey, 1 million flies can’t be wrong - eat the shit!

    Comment by Henrik — November 16, 2008
24. 

    Shit is really good for flies though. It’s subjective, duh!

    Comment by stump — November 16, 2008
25. 

    It’s subjective, and I choose to avoid shit because I don’t find it pleasant to spend my time on.

    As long as we agree that something is shit, we can then depart as friends realizing that some are flies and some are humans.

    Comment by Henrik — November 17, 2008
26. 

    yup, Henrik just proved he has no idea what he’s talking about.

    Comment by Goon — November 17, 2008
27. 

    Lost thinks it’s much more clever than it actually is.

    Comment by swarez — November 17, 2008
28. 

    Oh here we go with Lost again. I know it has been said in defence of the show many times both on related threads and the actual Lost discussion thread but it’s one of the best TV shows to come along in years. Consistently hooks you in and keeps you hooked, always leaves you wanting more and wondering what’s going to happen next time, not to mention make you willing to chew your own bloody arm off in wanting of the next episode. The acting is superior to most other shows that are on at the moment, the character development is unmatched, the story is at the same time original and yet it pays homage to other shows, books and movies (Stephen King is the major one I think), the story twists are jaw-dropping at time, it’s believable within itself (note I don’t say it’s original in the whole context of things just WITHIN ITSELF)….on and on.

    As far as I’m concerned you can’t get much more for your TV time than Lost.

    Comment by Ross Miller — November 17, 2008
29. 

    *Sorry that should have been - “note I don’t say it’s BELIEVABLE in the whole context of thing…..” not “ORIGINAL…”

    Thank you..

    Comment by Ross Miller — November 17, 2008
30. 

    I think selling this film as an action film first and everything else second is the right way to get buts in seats, but If they wash out the populist social-science that was the hallmark of the movies and multiple TV shows then what’s the point?

    Does the world need a “Star Trek: The Fast and The Federation”?

    Comment by kurt — November 17, 2008
31. 

    I probably still won’t go see it, but the official hi-res trailer looks WAAAAAAAAAAAAY better than the bootleg. If reviews and buzz are decent, I could change my mind …

    And Lost is the best show on television. Period.

    Comment by Ashley — November 17, 2008
32. 

    “And Lost is the best show on television. Period.”

    Ding! That is correct.

    Comment by Andrew James — November 17, 2008
33. 

    “He’s like the new Michael Bay for me.” Oh how true.

    As for this trailer, I thought Kurt *had* posted the wrong trailer - until they started to talk. I’m not excited or impressed and like Ashley individually, I have high hopes for most of the cast but this trailer does nothing for me. It doesn’t even feel like Star Trek - like Kurt hinted at, it feels more like The Fast and the Furious in Space.

    Comment by Marina Antunes — November 17, 2008
34. 

    Positive note: Bruce Greenwood would make a great voice-over artist. His is the voice spouting the ‘you are destined for great things’ cliches, and it’s a mesmerizing voice that belies the cheesy words.

    Comment by Kurt — November 17, 2008
35. 

    3 things.

    1) The hi-def version is way better and gives me a bit more hope.

    2) I didn’t realize it was Bruce Greenwood (The Core, 13 Days) until I saw this hi-def version.

    3) Is anyone gonna mention the major lack of lack of emotion coming from Spock? Attacking people and getting angry doesn’t seem very Vulcan-istic to me.

    Comment by Andrew James — November 18, 2008
36. 

    Well he’s young and maybe not as trained in “not giving a fuck” as he was later on.
    The HI DEF version of the trailer is of course way better and has a punch that it was otherwise lacking in the youtube version.

    But of course they are focusing on the action to draw in the crowd. There are some great visuals in this, my favorite being the gigantic buildings in the distance when Kirk his riding his bike. Love that look.

    Comment by swarez — November 18, 2008
37. 

    Not worried about the effects, of course everything looks great, from the ship to the makeup to the bridge.

    Story, storytelling and science fiction elements that are scaring me. This looks like an action picture first, everything else second.

    Comment by Kurt Halfyard — November 18, 2008
38. 

    YES! : :
    

    Comment by Andrew James — November 20, 2008

Leave a comment