Star Trek 2.

[DanielJones]

Here is the teaser trailer for the next installment of Star Trek.
[video=youtube;a-13Ic19WUs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-13Ic19WUs[/video]
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1408101/

Fascinating.

Cheers!

Dan

 

[scotrace]

Oh boy, oh BOY!

 

[Vornholt]

Oh, good Lord. They are re-doing Khan. Or at least using it as a springboard. I hope they're careful.

 

[Gene]

Oh, good Lord. They are re-doing Khan. Or at least using it as a springboard. I hope they're careful.

If they do it anything like the last one, it's going to be pretty amazing! Also keep in mind it's going to be a reimagining of the original series episode "Space Seed," not Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Don't you mean Star Trek 2.1? :doh:

 

[Matt Deckard]

Appears a lot like it could be Khan. But who knows.

 

[Gingerella72]

If they do it anything like the last one, it's going to be pretty amazing! Also keep in mind it's going to be a reimagining of the original series episode "Space Seed," not Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.

Thank you for pointing that out, or I would have been rolling my eyes at the thought of it!

 

[Gene]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untitled_Star_Trek_sequel

 

[scottyrocks]

I'll be keeping this one on my radar. Or sensors.

 

[Vornholt]

I know it's "Space Seed"; that much was obvious if you were paying attention to the trailer. My concern is why, as rumor had it, they're re-doing any TOS episode. It worked for TNG, early on, but at least that was a genuinely new crew and ship in the same universe.

I'm also wondering if the Mount Olympus project back story will have significant presence. Parts of the trailer suggest that. That might be interesting, but it can't carry the movie.

 

[Vornholt]

Also, while I grant that the first reboot was visually stunning and certain to grab attention, there were plot holes large enough to fly a Galaxy-class ship through.

 

[Doctor Strange]

Not to mention the worst "science" ever seen in a Trek project, and a total rejection of Starfeelt as a meritocracy in favor of dumb force-of-personality moments and a series of absurdly contrived coincidences.

I wasn't a fan of that film, and I don't expect to like this one.

But hey, I'm a special case: I'm one of the original viewers who was there from the very first broadcast in 1966. One of the folks who wrote letters to NBC to save the show in 1968. I attended some of the first conventions. I actually saw ST:The Motion(less) Picture twice the week it opened. You're dealing with a Trekker who faithfully watched all the follow-up films and series (except for some of DS9, and that was mostly because it coincided with my kids' infancy and I couldn't focus.) To have been a major Trek guy since 1966, only to have that entire timeline rendered "invalid" by the 2009 film... well, it's pretty galling!

 

[vintage68]

Personally I was very happy that the last one scrapped the timeline that had been built up over the years, and the accompanying quibbling. It had become too calcified. We're starting with a fresh cast, fresh stories, and new a direction.

 

[Vornholt]

I wouldn't necessarily object to the idea of a complete reboot, despite being a heavily involved fan(seen every episode of every series barring the animated one; every movie; you get the picture) as long as they do it well. And re-doing existing TOS plots doesn't exactly qualify as a "new story".

I liked the continuity; I didn't consider it calcified. I saw it as building on its predecessors. I even liked Enterprise, because I saw that as laying foundations that the audience could identify.

I'll stop now.

Beams self off soapbox

 

[Gene]

I even liked Enterprise, because I saw that as laying foundations that the audience could identify.

I liked Enterprise as well, I am always a fan of back stories and prequels (well, except for 3 prequels which shall remain nameless).

 

[Chasseur]

I wasn't a fan of that film, and I don't expect to like this one.

You are one of the few other people I've heard say that. I completely agree with you. I'm not sure why people liked it so much. Just a lot of yelling, running about and explosions: Michael Bay meets Luc Besson in space. While I am a fan of most of the Star Trek series and films, I'm not a trekkie and I still didn't care for that last film that much.

 

[Edward]

To have been a major Trek guy since 1966, only to have that entire timeline rendered "invalid" by the 2009 film... well, it's pretty galling!

I can understand it wasn't for everybody, but this was actually one of my favourite things about it. I would argue that it did precisely the opposite of invalidating the existing timeline. It would have invalidated it had it been a pure reboot and just done its own thing. By rendering this effectively a parallel universe, what they have done is left the original to stand as is, untouched, while giving themselves the freedom to do something new without being tied to having to set up predestined outcomes (one reason why so many prequels are weak).

 

[scottyrocks]

I was very torn about about the alternate universe thing with the last Star Trek. As much as I wanted to love it, it seemed contrived to me. I kept trying to relate it back to what I know and it was always a fight.

It's redeeming features were some of the performances, or rather, the virtual impersonations these young actors attempted of the original cast members. I also enjoy watching the technical evolution of the special effects through the years.

 

[Gene]

It's redeeming features were some of the performances, or rather, the virtual impersonations these young actors attempted of the original cast members.

I think that Karl Urban's McCoy was a particular standout, and Chris Pine had enough Shatner cockiness without just doing a Shatner impersonation. The only one I wasn't impressed with was Zachary Quinto as Spock...I just wanted to punch him in the face.

 

[Dixie_Amazon]

I thought Karl Urban stole the show. Bones was always my favorite.