the music to 6 is good

James T. Kirk = "The One"

Gotta love how this marketing campaign is just like a double middle finger blow to the eye sockets of the Trek "traditionalists." They've been left sucking the new Trek's exhaust fumes, whether that Trek is boldly going where no man has gone before or flaming straight into the sun, I got no idea, but all these spots tell me that IT IS ON with the Old Trek vs. New Trek wars.

I'm getting a chubby just thinking about it!

As an "Old Trek" fan, I guess I should be ranting and fuming and vowing to boycot the powers that be and such. But, if there's one thing I've learned through 40+ years of followin the franchise is that chang is inevitable, change is constant and in the final analysis, change is often good. The changes made in the new Trek look good so far. If an new series sprouts from these new beginnings, so be it. It may be far better that what has been done with the last 4 attempts.

I agree that change is good to bring freshness to the franchise. Not concerned at all about revises and nits regarding the "canon". Let the new Trek rule!

wow this is the first time I see a post about Star Trek without someone ranting how the movie is gonna suck. Good to see that those fanatics have finally given up.

DID ANYONE SEE THE LAS VEGAS VERSION OF C.S.I. WITH RONALD MOOREMONDAY? ,GRACE PARK AND "ELLEN TIGH"? RONALD MORE WAS THERE DOING A CAMEO SCREEMING TO THE "FUTURE CORPS" THAT HE "CHANGED THINGS AND HE SUCKED" IN REFERANCE TO HIS "REAMAGINING "A "STARTREK LIKE "SHOW .aLL THE COSTUMED FANS WERE BOOING THE GUY FOR CHANGEING THE CANON OF THE SHOW .I THINK IT WAS CALLED"ASTRO QUEST" OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT .IT WAS A HOOT!

File under, 'Marketing to teenage boys'

I'm not attached the the original series at all, but this is typical superficial Abrams garbage; it's gonna be like "Lost". Lots of formula, cheap suspense tactics, dramatic nonsense without any basis in psychology leading to archetypical character arcs. This is awful stuff.

At least the destiny talk was well-done on BSG and was more metaphorical and subtle and not quite so literal on The X-Files.

The trailer with Kirk being offered a destiny is awful and reminds me of the speech given Miles on that recent "Lost" episode. Life isn't like that -- where you can know your full purpose.

This is tacky, typical Abrams and his crappy Transformers writers' nonsense with lots of doses of stereotypical Americana; Kirk steals his parents' car and races it, then he gets into a barfight. As bad as the original Kirk was in superficial alpha male terms, they at least rectified it a bit with "The Motion Picture"; this is just cliche awfulness.

I'm sure it will do well, given all the love shown to "Lost".

I'll follow the real genius behind any greatness in Star Trek, Ira Steven Behr, over to "Crash" after The 4400 was mercilessly cancelled after an amazing Seasons 3 and 4, which had heart, dramatic realism, complex characters, originality, and deep political insight into the most pressing issues of our time, rather than just using "terrorism" as a backdrop like Abrams, Orci, and Kurtzman do on "Fringe" with absolutely no sense of what motivates terrorism.

TV spots are always so lame. I'm more excited about this movie than any other this year, but I've never seen a tv spot that made me wanna see a movie. They're just so frantic. Anyway, I'm glad they are finally marketing this as being different from the old Trek. It was clear to every sci fi fan from the beginning, but they need to draw in non- sci fi gurus into the fold and that's gonna be tough with the the stigma this franchise carries. Getting popular people to see this movie, the ones that will get others to see it, will be a challenge, though I think they might be able to pull it off.

I am very excited about this movie. It's the superfans that drive me nuts, the ones who go on endlessly about "canon" and "continuity". Gene Roddenberry was never as concerned with "canon" as some of these Trek fans. Many co-workers from the Original Series have stated that he would change his mind almost point-by-point. According to Paula Block who worked on the publishing of the officially licensed Star Trek publications, at one point Roddenberry even stopped considering TOS as canon, stating that if there was a conflict between TNG and TOS, TNG was canon not the Original Series. Star Trek's official archivist Richard Arnold has even stated that episodes from the third season of TOS, after Roddenberry was no longer officially the producer are not canon and the only movie which is entirely canon is the Motion Picture.

Hopefully that will pre-empt the whining from the superfans that movie isn't canon. Roddenberry was never fully on board with any of the movies.

Mudfeld- RE: The trailer with Kirk being offered a destiny is awful and reminds me of the speech given Miles on that recent "Lost" episode. Life isn't like that -- where you can know your full purpose.

The voice talking about destiny sounded british- which makes me think that it was probably Ben Cross as Sarek, talking to Spock. There were a lot of little snippets of dialogue in those trailers that were over slightly different scenes than we have seen in previous trailers, so I guess we'll have to wait and see.

As for "cliche awfulness", honestly, none of the concepts that Trek has ever dealt with have been truly original. You can draw parallels back to myths, epics, fables and even Shakespeare. Just because you can see the archetype doesn't necessarily mean it'll be "cliche awfulness". Give it a chance.

No matter what they do with this, those of us who loved it will always have TOS.

I am a Superfan, but Star Trek hasn't had a good movie since "The Search for Spock"!!! I'm willing to give it a chance, because the movie can't be as bad as that lemon (Star Trek V) that Shatner directed.

This doesn't look like a star trek you can build a series off of.

I can't wait! This looks awesome!!! And though I am not fond of the tag "this isn't your Father's Star Trek" which is lame and kind of insulting (I started watching ST repeats with my dad when I was little, that's how I became a fan), that was the only thing that bothered me.

Man, I can't wait, this looks awesome!!

Hey, we Star Wars fans have to put up with the Prequels, so.... suck on it, Trekkers. Now you'll know our pain. :D

doesnt is seem like Scifi Wire is obsessive over these Star Trek 09 things. they report every trailer, tv trailer, wallpaper, image, private screening, public appearance, and mere mention in the media.

budgethero, it's sci-fi. It's their job.

Snowkestrel, the destiny quote is actually about Spock, Kirk just gets asked if wants an ordinary life or not.

budgethero, it's syfy. It;s their job.

snowkestrel, I've seen another ad in which the guy from "13 Days" and "Nowhere Man" says that to Kirk.

I know that in general terms there are similar things in all drama, but Ira Steven Behr did some truly wonderful and inventive things. Has there ever been an enemy so complex as Gul Dukat and the Dominion; they're so much like what we encounter in the real world. Even on The 4400, there was a mind-take over type story in Season 4, but it was done with such originality, that it was always surprising.

Furthermore, Ira Steven Behr is intensely political; he wants to wake people up to see how complex issues like terrorism are and what motivates them, and to understand what divides people, and to sympathize with the homeless and are critical of unrestrained capitalism, so that we're smarter citizens and voters.

J.J. just wants to entertain and doesn't really care about pushing the envelope creatively. He wants easy, popular stuff and Ira could have really done something amazing on the big screen, and this is an insult to all those DS9 writers who really worked hard to do something new, and this formulaic guy and his crappy Transformers writers come along, and churn out the blockbuster stuff and make millions. I just think we have our priorities wrong as a culture if we reward this kind of nonsense and I've seen too much of J.J.'s stuff and info on this film not to be skeptical.

I might see it much later on, out of curiosity, but I know it will be more forgettable trash masquerading as cutting edge and reinvention. It's all superficiality.

"You're captain now Mr. Kirk...You got it"..must be the 'Z' generation attitude to authority...being a Trekker, I can get Kirk stealing the car, getting into the fight, etc etc...I can even get having the Big E built on earth as opposed to in orbit (at least per my grey memory cells)....and can definitely go for Kirk and space-babes showing a lot of skin...but I can't picture Kirk responding to getting command as "you got it"...hopefully it's just a trailer mix-hash of words...

I think it's dialogue out of sequence. It's probably Kirk taking his shot at the Kobayashi test. Trailers can be very confusing.

I think it's dialogue out of sequence. It's probably Kirk taking his shot at the Kobayashi test. Trailers can be very confusing.

Mudfeld: Good points. You'll get no argument from me on Behr's work.

Much as I hate to admit and accept it though, movies and tv are as much (or more) about escapism and entertainment as they are about raising our awareness and making us think. Those are good things, and we need them, but in all honestly, they simply don't make money.

And if this doesn't make money, there won't be any more big screen Trek, regardless of whether it's good Trek or just drek.

I am an all the way back to the original series Trekkie (yes, I use that term, and voluntarily). In watching the various series as they have come along, I have enjoyed them, for their depth and insight, but also for the sheer fun and escapism. If they had all been angst and pathos, heavy issues and pontification, I would have turned them off pretty quickly.

Here we have coming up approximately 120 minutes of story, set in a milieu that many of us have come to love and imagine even beyond the boundaries we have so far been presented on screen. And personally, I don’t want it to be all that heavy. I want adventure, excitement, and a little bit of familiarity that comes with knowing the Trek universe, so I don’t have to be distracted from the fun by trying to figure out what the heck is going on with this world through the whole thing. If I want that, I can re-watch The Matrix.

Paramount is taking a chance on bringing it back from the grave. Yes they're doing it for the money. I don't personally care about that. I want Trek. I want Trek to have a shot at coming back, and telling new stories, and showing me adventures in that world that Mr. Roddenberry and Mr. Behr and all of the others helped create over the years. If the way to have it back, and have it go on is to give it to JJ, then so be it. He may not be a Robert Wise or a Nicholas Meyer. His writing staff may not include DC Fontana or Harlan Ellison, but it won't be Abrams, Kurtz and Orci forever either.
We own Trek, the fans. But Paramount owns the rights, and they are the only ones right now who have the law, the money and the willingness to make a big-screen Trek.

I dread some of what they're going to get wrong in this movie. But if this one fails, the next thing that will be wrong with Star Trek is that there won't be anymore. I dread that much more.

Spock: You say you “can't picture Kirk responding to getting command as "you got it"...” If I may be so bold, I think yo can’t picture Mr. Shatner saying “you got it”.

Whatever else it might have been, Star Trek was a product of its time. Bearing, grooming, manner of speech (not to mention set design, modeling, and special effects) were all 1960’s America. Was that a bad thing? No. Not in my opinion. In fact, I think much of it holds up even today.

But I don’t think that the whole package would play in a movie made in 2009. The 1960 had its drawbacks too. I won’t enumerate them, we can all look up the history, if we weren’t there to experience it the first time. Too much of it is just too archaic for today’s audience, young or old.

You have to ground you new work in the present, even if it is supposed to depict the future. To use a retro future, or even extrapolate a future too far removed from the basis of the present, brings too much risk of leaving the view feeling too disconnected. At that point, the movie fails, no matter how good the message, or how faithful it may be to its source material.

Would the Kirk we knew say anything like “you got it”? Nope. Would the Kirk we knew fly today? I think that’s already been proven by the state of the Star Trek franchise, even before it moved on to the TNG era.

Let’s give Jim Kirk, Generation Z a chance. He may be pretty cool after all.

I think the most surprising thing about this movie is that it would inspire so many different permutations of the statement:

"In order to save STAR TREK, we have to kill it."

from the fans and that I would even be advocating one of them....

@Son of a Maui Portagee: In my case, I don't think this movie is gonna kill it. It may not rank in the top 10 Trek Stroies for Trekkers, but hey- if STV didn't kill the franchise outright, then nothing will!

This movie is a "What If" type of story that the Star Trek producers have always been fond of. If the mirror universe stories were about "What if the Federation didn't operate within moral and ethical guidelines", then this movie is about "What if Kirk wasn't raised by his parents; would he still be the same James T. Kirk"? It's a valid premise for a Star Trek movie and I can't wait to see it. The amount of debate and argument generated by this movie means its already starting to do its job as a work of art: love it or hate it, you can't ignore it.

The Kirk in this movie seems to throw around alot of 20th century slang. Kind of odd for someone raised in the 22nd century.

I'm very excited to see this movie. I've been a fan of Trek and Doctor Who my whole life. Look how successfully RTD brought back Doctor Who, with changes, and modifications to the characters, enemies, etc.... Give the new movie a chance. Check it out to see if you think it's good or not. Don't judge it on a few clips that have been seen so far. Change can be good. Open your mind to new possibilities! I'm psyched to see the new movie either way!

Snowkestrel,

I've said elsewhere in other comments that I too don't think the failure of this movie will kill Trek.

But I've also acknowledged that it may kill CBS/Paramount's interest in it and that I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing which is the particular permutation that I see applying to me.

Spiff,

Remember, Kirk's read the collective works of "The Greats."

Trailer # 1 : Sucked and was insulting
Trailer # 2: Sucked
Trailer # 3: Suck and look put together by a 5 yr old

As for "Kirk of yesterday" appealing to audiences today versus the "Kirk of today" (I know there's a lame 1st season TNG episode in there)...given that I'm still watching Star Trek TOS in reruns...I'd say the Kirk of yesterday...does fly today...now if in the original series they could have worked in more of Scotty's single malts and some of Boston Legal's cigars... DS9 took a while to grow on me...TNG..kinda grew (sans the holodeck episodes)...Voyager after 7of 9...what looks to be common between yesterday and today is sex sells..Kirk and babes in the 60s, Diana in TNG, 7of 9 Voy...put babes in a Trek and it'll sell...but Kirk and "you got it"...hoping not...