Hi, my name is Megan, and I am a huge Trekkie. I like Next Generation and Deep Space Nine, don’t get me wrong, but I’ll always have a soft spot for the original series; I love the melodrama, the broad humor and the shameless ’60s color palette.
J.J. Abrams has just hit me in that soft spot. With a car.
The Star Trek movie, due out in May 2009, had one trailer in theaters ages ago—it’s a lot of mysterious shots of welding and an overlay of actual space-related soundbites. (“Godspeed, John Glenn.”) At the end, the camera pulls away and you see “U.S.S. ENTERPRISE” on the distinctive hull. I’ll admit I got chills, even though the trailer didn’t show anything. More of teaser, really.
Yesterday, a real trailer was released, and I watched it today in horror. It opens with a red car going very fast through some desert. This sequence takes long enough for me to make a Warp Drive crack and a “compensating for something” crack, and then, as the car goes off the biggest mothering cliff I’ve ever seen, it’s revealed that the driver is a twelve-year-old Anakin Sk—I mean, James Tiberius Kirk.
We jump to older Kirk on a motorcycle, looking at the Enterprise-in-progress and contemplating his destiny. Seriously, this is not The Phantom Menace. Star Trek was never about individual destinies, but about the mission, the adventure, the scrapes, the escapes! If Kirk seemed destined to be awesome, that’s one thing. He had drive and ambition, and the real James T. Kirk never mooned over whether he was “meant for something better, something special.”

We move on to little baby Spock, then older Spock. Actor Zachary Quinto looks remarkably like Leonard Nimoy in one shot and not at all in another, and it’s downright distubing when Quinto’s Spock lets himself be goaded into attacking Kirk, on the bridge of the Enterprise, no less, in full view of the crew. (And Captain Pike, I assume.)

I can see them trying to portray Spock’s angsty younger years, but he would still have the Vulcan version of angsty teenagerdom. The fact that he’s temperamental at all is human enough—but let him struggle with it in a cold, tightly-controlled way like he does in the classic episode “Amok Time.”
Then there’s a big action montage. The music is a generic, full-orchestra John Williams rip-off that makes me miss the theremin. Shots of Sulu and Chekov are too brief to judge…please, please, please don’t let Kirk and Uhura be getting it on…Scotty doesn’t look anything like James Doohan, but the accent is always cute.
I don’t even recognize Bones in his extremely brief appearance, although Karl Urban has something in his delivery that put me in mind of DeForest Kelly on a re-watching…the line is awful, though. “Space is disease and danger wrapped in darkness and silence.” Sounds
like a menu item at a Goth sushi restaurant. Can I get that to go? I would have loved to see this trailer structured with three origin stories that converge on the Enterprise. It’s not just Kirk and Spock that matter, it’s the Kirk-Spock-Bones dynamic. I love their antagonistic friendships, and along with the space-creature-du-jour, it’s the tension among the three of them that drives the show. (Hush, slashers.) I would say that I hope the movie doesn’t relegate Bones to the background, but the trailer sure does, and I may have given up all hope at this point.
I’m not saying there can’t be good re-imaginings of classics—I would love to see a Star Trek without those weird too-short pants—but as we’ve all seen, prequels are hard to do. You have to give the audience what they expect and surprise them at the same time. We want to have our affection satisfied; otherwise, it might as well be a movie about three guys called Spork, Brock and Jones. We also want to be interested. We know the characters aren’t going to die, so what, other than mortal peril, will keep us engrossed? A sense of fun, maybe? The originals had that in spades. Good writing, maybe?

“Are you afraid or aren’t you?”
“I will not allow you to lecture me.”
The thing is, I can see Shatner and Nimoy having that exchange and having it work. The old series wasn’t Shakespeare (except for that one episode…nevermind), but it had heart. This just takes advantage of a brand. Like the Andorian ambassador in “Journey to Babel,” it looks pretty good but just isn’t the real thing.
Sigh. I have now re-watched the trailer several times to write this post and it makes me crankier every time. I hope they all get eaten by this guy:

VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday November 19, 2008 10:17am EST
Time to re-watch the TOS, methinks.
Wednesday November 19, 2008 10:21am EST
As a matter of fact, if they take canon and chuck it out the window I would be perfectly happy. I'm not interested in this being a prequel that leads up nice and neat to current canon and the way the characters were written forty years ago.
I want a real re-imagining. I think JJ will deliver.
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday November 19, 2008 10:28am EST
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday November 19, 2008 10:28am EST · amended on Wednesday November 19, 2008 10:29am EST
Over all the trailer felt so.... Shiny.
It looks like the slick CG stuff I've been seeing alot of... somehow it felt off to me (I cant put my finger on it yet).
(thats funny alex and I posted at the same time)
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday November 19, 2008 10:33am EST
I'm with PhillipJ, on this one, and think alexbledsoe is completely wrong: This series is in desperate need of a true reimagining, and I have real hopes that Abrams can do it.
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday November 19, 2008 10:46am EST
I like the trailer a lot, and it made me think that this might be the first Trek movie since _First Contact_ that I actually watch in the theater.
Regarding this particular line:
Would you say that about the new Battlestar Galactica? If Ron Moore decided to remake Trek with the same badassery, would it not be completely awesome? I don't know if the JJ Adams adaption will quite reach to that level, but at least it's trying.
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday November 19, 2008 11:07am EST
I give you Star Trek 90210 (saw it on Attack of the Show last night):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAjmbASkkLY
Wednesday November 19, 2008 11:19am EST
Very true. I'm sure the idea isn't remotely original to me, but it always seemed to me that Spock, Kirk and Bones are Mind, Body and Soul and that their friendship and antagonism is exactly because of that, you can't emphasise one or the other without leaving the whole somehow harmed.
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday November 19, 2008 11:28am EST
TOS was very much about a golden future where a multi-ethnic crew traveled the stars using their enlightened values to make things a little better where ever they went (prime directive be damned.)
TNG struck at the heart of that right away in "Encounter at Farpoint." Q sets up a trial where he pokes holes in the myth of progress. Humanity is a grievously savage race and Picard has no choice but to plead guilty. That moment is a total deconstruction of TOS. TNG becomes about the choices that the crew makes going forward. The savagery of our past is never too far behind us and each challenge that we face presents us with the opportunity of going back to it or rejecting it. This theme carries through until "All Good Things" when we see that the trial never ended and never will end.
The rest of the Star Trek franchises weren't significant reimaginings, in my opinion, and that's why they got a little stale. I like the fact that JJ Abrahms is taking things in a new direction. I think that there's enormous potential there. Having said that, I see nothing in this trailer to indicate that this will be a particularly good reboot of the series. I still want to see the movie, just for the same reasons that I had before I saw the trailer. It's got a great cast and well... It's called "Star Trek."
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday November 19, 2008 11:30am EST
Oh my god. I think part of me just died.
Wednesday November 19, 2008 12:09pm EST
With JJ at the helm, however, I expect this movie will turn out like everything else he does: 45 minutes of decent, suspenseful drama, followed by two hours of meandering, all topped off with an implausible deux ex machina ending to lead into the inevitable - even worse - sequel.
Paramount wanted a bi- or tri-annual tentpole like the other big boys, so they took a look around and found a hoary old property they've never understood. All they've ever seen is "scifi" when they should have seen "morality play." Their blindness - combined with JJ's juvenile "vision" and Orci/Kurtzman's lack of talent, verve, or style - is what's giving us this generic Action Romp/Space Opera.
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday November 19, 2008 12:37pm EST
Here's why I'm looking forward to it. We also like us some Lost in our household, and although Lost has not maintained the solid brilliance of Season 1, it's been consistently enough interesting that we've kept watching and will do so up through the season finale. So I'm willing to at least give JJ Abrams the benefit of the doubt on that alone.
Secondly, a franchise reboot doesn't have to be a bad thing, even if it means what we think we know as canon may or may not continue to be true. Batman Begins is a very strong movie. Casino Royale is awesome from the first frame to the last. And, well, yeah, new BSG, which we have also been loyally watching in my house--and I say that as someone with a soft spot for original BSG as well.
Thirdly, the fact that they'll be messing with the original canon interests me from a general worldbuilding standpoint. Some will protest "oh NO they can't do X, because in episode such and such that's totally contradicted by Y"--I don't care. ;) Let's face it, folks, it ain't like TOS is a shining model of internal continuity anyway; every time I re-watch the first half of the first season, I double-take at Spock being called a "Vulcanian" and McCoy's offhand comment to him about "no wonder your people were conquered". (And certainly what TOS tells us about Zefram Cochran gets contradicted later in Enterprise, as I recall.)
So no, little fiddly bits of canon details being different won't bother me. What will bother me is if they break the core concepts of the characters--especially, of course, Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. I do agree that the trailer would have been stronger if we'd had more McCoy presence, because absolutely, those three are the heart and soul of TOS.
What I've read elsewhere indicates that that voiceover should actually be Pike, encouraging young Kirk to join Starfleet. And that whole angle of "destiny" doesn't bother me at all. By the time we see Kirk in TOS there isn't any high talk about "destiny", because, well, he's doing what he's born to do. So it doesn't need to be mentioned. But I can totally buy Pike trying to sell a young, rowdy Jim Kirk on Starfleet with exactly that kind of line.
Now, Spock. Seeing Spock flip out in the trailer doesn't bother me either. In the first half of the first season of TOS, Spock's way more emotive than he is later. What this actually means of course is that Nimoy and the show producers hadn't really gotten Spock's portrayal down cold yet, but if you want to handwave a canon explanation for it, you could argue that in those early days he was still working harder on his Vulcan control. So I have no problem extrapolating back to the idea that he was even more strained in his Starfleet Academy days. Especially given that we've seen Spock flip out in TOS and nearly break Kirk in half when Kirk deliberately provokes him. My read on this trailer is that young Spock's been similarly provoked in this movie, too.
All in all I'm interested, although sure, I'll reserve final judgment until we start seeing some actual reviews of the movie, as well as the movie itself. After all, I can't judge a movie's merits based on a trailer alone. The first trailer for Phantom Menace looked interesting, too, and we all know how that turned out. ;)
Wednesday November 19, 2008 12:49pm EST
Wednesday November 19, 2008 01:07pm EST
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday November 19, 2008 01:18pm EST
I agree with this, but no person is without their demons, and I think a much more egocentric Kirk is a great place to start off a coming-of-age story that transforms him into what he was in TOS. It would be a great individualized parallel to the sort of 'humanity has evolved' narrative presented across all the Star Trek series. The Federation represents the greatest achievement of humanity (and others), a (near-)perfect society, but there's always the lingering awful past that had to be overcome in order to create that society. I love best how Quark puts it to Sisko in the DS9 episode "The Jem'Hadar":
[quote=]The way I see it, hew-mons used to be a lot like Ferengi: greedy, acquisitive, interested only in profit. We're a constant reminder of a part of your past you'd like to forget. But you're overlooking something: Hew-mons used to be a lot worse than the Ferengi. Slavery. Concentration camps. Interstellar wars. We have nothing in our past that approaches that kind of barbarism. You see? We're nothing like you. We're better. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a lock to pick.[/quote]
As Quark points out, humanity only got to where it was through evolving and improving off of what it used to be.
Not even the idealized future society presented in Star Trek would produce perfectly balanced people from the birth, and I think it would be entirely appropriate for Kirk, as TOS's shining symbol of the evolved human, to have a flawed, self-absored, egocentric youth that had to be overcome on the course to becoming a great person.
Clearly TOS can't be rewritten to include Kirk's development as Abrams is creating it, but that doesn't mean that this will be contradictory to or incompatible with TOS. Kirk changing from whiny brat to champion of humanism fits so perfectly alongside the humanity's evolution from what it is to what it becomes, but that doesn't mean he has to pine over it forever (--after all, that's what we had Picard for). If you approach it from this perspective, Abrams' stylistic 're-imagining' seems more like just another part of the big story rather than something that inherently contradicts TOS.
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday November 19, 2008 01:49pm EST
Hopefully this version of Trek will get away from the insipid "Oh we're so much superior than humanity used to be" moralizing that infected "Next Generation", and get back to some good Space Opera storytelling.
Kirk for one thing would never have sat around for an entire episode going "Oh look Number One, that planet and everyone on it is about to be destroyed- pity the Prime Directive doesn't allow us to save the inhabitants. Tragic. Pass the popcorn.". Good space opera involves actually going out there and saving planets, not sitting around and twiddling thumbs, and hopefully the director realizes that.
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday November 19, 2008 02:14pm EST
Well he's not. This is a prequel - he's relying on the cachet of Kirk, Spock and Bones to pull people in. Ask yourself this - if the characters in that trailer were NOT named Kirk and Spock, what would your reaction be?
The trailer is basically "pretty 20 somethings blow stuff up in space". That's not what Trek has been about, it's been a series based on watching people who could be us exploring a universe new to them in a mostly positive future. The backstory of ST is key to making any episode or movie work... the idea that humanity has mostly overcome our challenges, that diverse people can work together (this was HUGE in the 60s), and that the universe is strange but ultimately understandable if we approach it with an open mind. Layer in some conflict with species who see it differently, add in good characters and you have ST.
Oh and the BSG comparison doesn't really work - the new BSG is basically a retelling of the same story as the first one. Note that the first BSG was never the phenomenon that ST has become over the last 40 years - it was a campy SF series at best.
One of the main reasons ST is feeling cramped is that the series and movies are all crammed into the same 150 year span. From Enterprise, through TOS to TNG/DS9/Voyager, there's just not a lot of space to tell new stories without tramping on ground that's already been trod upon.
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday November 19, 2008 02:34pm EST
I do wish they'd have moved forward though. I think I'd like this fine if it were a new ship, new crew, etc... and not yet another franchise mining its continuity instead of moving forwards.
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday November 19, 2008 02:59pm EST
Wednesday November 19, 2008 03:18pm EST
First of all, if someone asks your name, would your really answer and use your middle name? (James Tiberius Kirk)
The action and such are too fast. It reminds me to Transformers and not Star Trek. All visual and no substance.
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday November 19, 2008 04:12pm EST
There are loads of sensible reasons not to, but most everyone seems in favor. In general the argument for goes, "They have warp power and gravity control, so they can magic the whole thing into the air, no problem."
Some Orci person in charge of making this movie says, "You build things in space because they are fragile, the Enterprise has to be strong for space battles." Well, you can build things out of anything you want in space at this point, you want a solid metal Enterprise, what's stopping you?
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday November 19, 2008 04:18pm EST
Yes, BSG isn't really a fair analogy, because it didn't have the barnaclization of backstory that ST has developed over the years. From the same era, even Bionic Woman had more fan loyalty to its original mythos than the Lorne Greene version of BSG engendered.
A better analogy here is the successive reboots that DC has done to their core heroes, and I think that should give you some indication of how this may be received. In general, people are fans of particular eras of Batman, Superman, etc., not of the character throughout time. Those characters are not like Sherlock Holmes in that regard, whose fan loyalty seems to transcend eras, perhaps because of the consistent chronotope to which he is linked.
Speaking personally, I have never forgiven DC for installing Kyle Rayner as Green Lantern, even though it probably brought in new fans. For me, GL will always be John Stewart--not, I should point out, the news anchor without the h (although it would be cool to have a superhero from New Jersey other than Toxie).
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday November 19, 2008 04:26pm EST
"Bottom line: This is a reboot, so whether it works for old fans or not isn't the point. It's about new ones. "
First off, define reboot. If it simply means 'ripping off the name and completely changing everything else' then let's call it what it is, not mask it with some psuedo-tech sounding nomenclature.
Second - it's about new fans? Are you KIDDING ME? You have a 40 year long fanbase and you want to toss all of those people to appeal to... who? Star Trek is SO well known that, aside from the 14 year old crowd, anyone who's likely to be a fan already is.
Wednesday November 19, 2008 05:58pm EST
It needs some kind of reboot. I think you old timers (not so much referring to age, but to your love for the original series) need to calm down and enjoy it, this movie could save this sinking ship. Who knows maybe this film will serve as a punishment for hardcore fans, but then will lead to more movies. Because you did have to have Batman Begins (ok/good), before you got The Dark Knight (best movie ever made?).
I had no hopes for this movie whatsoever and then I was surprised by this trailer in a theater and I was blown away and haven't stopped thinking about it since. That's saying something.
Here's to hoping the actual movie is as exciting and fun as the trailer makes it out to be.
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday November 19, 2008 06:22pm EST
Reboot nothing, wrong is wrong.
Wednesday November 19, 2008 07:18pm EST
But that isn't really much of an advantage when you have forcefields: you can just wall off a region of space in orbit, fill it with air and work in a pressurized environment. (In either case you can have as much gravity as is convenient.)
Maybe the real reason is just so the workers don't have a long commute every day, but still have access to the conveniences of planetary life. Unless you already have major orbital cities, your workers will probably prefer to be based somewhere where they have somewhere to go on their time off. You might have to pay a high premium for people to work in space, like you do now on oil rigs or even Antarctica. (This assumes that you either don't have transporters yet, or that they're expensive to use. The fact that Starfleet uses them all the time is not necessarily a counterexample, since Starfleet is a government/military organization and might not be particularly cost conscious.)
I don't think it really is a bad idea to build spaceships on the ground, given that you have artificial gravity and a tugboat big enough to lift the completed ship into space. Not only worker quarters, but materials warehouses, tool storage - space has lots of room to spread out, but it's vacuum until you pay to make it something else. Planets (with breathable atmosphere) have lots of room *with free atmosphere* to spread out, and inhabited planets also have the amenities of civilization.
Commuting by transporter reduces a lot of these benefits, but only if the transporter is cheap as well as fast. And even then, space construction offers no particular *advantages* aside from avoiding the final lift of the finished ship - even weather isn't a problem for people with the kind of forcefields you need to survive movement at substantial fractions of lightspeed. Well, continual sunlight is a possible advantage, I guess, but artificial light is trivially cheap even *now*.
P.S. I liked Lost for parts of a season, but it rapidly became apparent they were not only not going to go anywhere much with the story, but throw in more and more obscurity as it went on. Also, FSM save me from more episodes about Jack, Kate, and/or Sawyer. If it hadn't been for the Sayid-centric episode guest starring Mira Furlan, I would have given up on the series much earlier - but Furlan's character vanished back into nowhere and Sayid didn't get enough screen time.
Overall, this track record does not fill me with confidence for future works by the same people.
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday November 19, 2008 07:41pm EST
Purists often worry about two things when it comes to remakes, the details and the essence. Even when we don't like it, fans can often understand why a remake changes details, so long as it remains true to the essence.
This movie appears to be moving too far from the essence: and that's a bad sign.
The 1997 remake of the Saint is a perfect example of missing the essence. The original character (in the Charteris stories) was a thief and adventurer who lived life for the moment, and committed crimes for the thrill. Even though there were lots of changes made for both the Moore and Ogilvy tv versions the character's basic motivation did not change.
Kilmer's Saint's goal is to amass a fortune so he can retire. That's completely antithetical to the very nature of the original character. What part of living in the now, is involved in saving for retirement?
That's my concern with the new Star Trek film. I'm afraid they're going to miss the starship completely and come up with something that completely ignores the essence of Star Trek.
Wednesday November 19, 2008 08:05pm EST
But then I expect that Hollywood will always pander to the 20-something demographic and ruin a good story whenever they can (Starship Troopers).
Wednesday November 19, 2008 09:03pm EST
Star Trek used to have a superego. Although sadly that died in 1991.
And the ego left in 1999.
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday November 19, 2008 10:17pm EST
Huh, you guys raise a good point about the whole issue of the ship being built Earthside. I didn't have the proper background to make a real judgment call on that, but after discussion with household... huh, yeah, we rather agree that this is a Problem.
So we'll see and I shall downgrade my expectations of the movie accordingly, although to have to do so makes me a little sad. Sniff. I'm willing to forgive a lot if they get Kirk, Spock, and McCoy more or less right, but inexplicably dumb starship building mechanics will be pushing it.
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday November 20, 2008 12:01am EST · amended on Thursday November 20, 2008 02:23am EST
@clay - you're 22. You started with Voyager and DS9? That's barely Star Trek. What you're not getting is that Star Trek isn't merely another SF movie. There's a whole mythos behind the series that started with the original series and continued in TNG. Some of that doesn't work for you if you didn't see them when they were first on (the original series was pretty daring in the 60s, it's quaint now). If you ignore this mythos or toss it aside and replace it with pretty people and special effects, you're going to piss off the fans. And quick.. what other short-lived TV series can you name that still has vocal fans 40 years later?
If you're going to make a generic SF space adventure movie, fine, but when you slap the name of a well know and well loved franchise on it you take on certain expectations. This trailer looks to indicate that they don't give a crap about any of that and just want to ripoff the name to make money. Fine, you can do all that, you can say "I don't care about current fans" but then you have to expect the hate from them.
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday November 20, 2008 01:14am EST
Prequels are hard. I wish them luck on this one. It's difficult to see where this will go, since while there is an expectation of "this is Star Trek", it also has to be different from what's gone on before. Delicate balance, prone to horrible failure, depending on conditions.
I think conditions may be particularly bad because this movie needs to somehow be relevant to new audiences of today while portraying the past of a series that audiences of yesterday loved. (With, yes, some overlap between Audience Of Today/Yesterday.)
If they manage to pull this off, Star Trek gets another five to ten years.
If this fails, the franchise ain't getting no reprise.
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday November 20, 2008 02:18am EST
What works against this is the extreme youth of the cast (they LOOK very young, not just that they are) and in the trailer the extreme reliance on action scenes.
It will be interesting to see how they handle the Kobayashi Maru scene since that was formative in the legend of James T Kirk. The backstory we know of indicates that he didn't win by force or even guile, but by ignoring all of what Starfleet said and changing the rules of the encounter. In canon, it was a formative thing and is one of the reasons in TOS that he does all of the bold and daring stuff - he tossed the rulebook once and it worked. That needs to work in the movie for it to really set up the 'how Kirk became Kirk' line.
And remember... this is JJ Abrams. Alias. Flash, good looks, sex appeal, but really not that long on story.
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday November 20, 2008 05:58am EST
Thursday November 20, 2008 12:18pm EST
Let’s see we have a person upset because a fictional spaceship to move large numbers of fictional people into fictional space by a fictional propulsion method is being built on "the ground"
The author of the blog post misses the thermin in the soundtrack and worries that Spock might be angry about something, which apparently is some kind of weird Star Trek sin. Oh and lets make sure that a homoerotic love triangle exist between Spock, Kirk, and Bones or it’s "just not the Star Trek that I love!"
How can less then 2 minutes of footage with no context to an actual story or plot generate so much nonsense about how someone is raping the precious memories of a 40 year old television show?
When TOR launched I thought it might be the intellectual big brother to IO9’s silly, cliché and overly fandomish coverage of science fiction. I guess I was wrong.
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday November 20, 2008 01:34pm EST
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday November 20, 2008 05:29pm EST
Anyway, I can't say I much care for Star Trek (aside from DS9), but I hope the movie does well so that there can be continuing diversity in the video sci-fi world.
Thursday November 20, 2008 05:47pm EST
I can't remember the last Trek show I saw. Maybe, *maybe* DS9. I don't think I made it through a whole episode of Voyager or Enterprise. The last movie was First Contact -- I heard way too much bad stuff about the others since. The sad thing? My dad, who LOVES Star Trek, has pretty much the same track record. Over the last decade, Star Trek became really stale.
The Trek fanbase that some people here are talking about should be respected, sure. But I think a lot of that fanbase has felt a bit alienated recently. Maybe not some of the hardcore Trekkies, but people like my dad. This trailer seems to be getting people like ClayCox excited about Star Trek for the first time in a long time, if not ever. The movie itself could very well be a gateway for millions of new fans to Star Trek. For me, that registers as some kind of cool.
Anyway, I don't remember being this excited by Star Trek before. And I can't wait to show this to my dad and get his reaction, not to mention hit the theaters with him next summer.
Friday November 21, 2008 01:47am EST
However, with this trailer - assuming it's not misdirection, and that they use in the movie everything that's in it, including the bit with Tom Cruise racing his motorbike with the Tomcats landing at Miramar.... well, Abrams hasn't left himself a lot of wiggle-room. This is either going to rock, and rock utterly, or it's going to suck asteroidal masses through capilliary tubing. And every second spent on Anakirk Skyjimmer increases that pressure gradient.
Looking around the playing field at the moment, though, I would really like this to work. There's room in our lives and our minds for Optimistic Sci-Fi. Being honest, I was never happy with Rick Berman's dystopia fetish in the Trek 'verse, and Galactica - whilst great - is 1) over bar half a season and 2) bloody miserable.
So I hope Abrams pulls it out of the hat. I don't know if he's got the chops to do it, but I'm feeling all Hopey and Changey at the moment, so I'll reserve judgement until I'm flinging my half-eaten hot dog at the screen screaming obscenities wearing a mustard-stained "UTOPIA PLANITIA IS IN SPACE YOU MORONS" t-shirt.
VIEW ALL BY · Friday November 21, 2008 06:58pm EST
VIEW ALL BY · Saturday November 22, 2008 10:25pm EST
I thought the trailer looked like fun.
Thursday February 19, 2009 04:41am EST