News - Star Trek: J.J. Abrams' Enterprise NCC-1701 unveiled

[MSIC]

I'm sure it is - I thought this was the adventures they had before the Original Series?

It is true that it's set in a time (stardate / year-wise) before Kirk and Spock et al had their 5 year missions etc.
However it's also a "re-imagining" (see 'Planet of the Apes', 'Battlestar Galactica', 'Batman Begins' etc) so it does not have to comply with anything that we already have seen on TV or in films.

If it were a prequel, then we would know what was going to be in their futures.
In this film, the Enterprise might get destroyed, or Kirk and Spock might get killed (it's never gonna happen, but it could because it's a reboot).

[shiato storm]

actually it looks quite a bit like the ship in the first ST movies they did. oh and agreed, first contact was perhaps one of the best, though shatner nimoy etc are legends. I believe nimoy is making a cameo appearance in this new film, and its cool seeing takei in heros too...bit of an actor swapage going on between those things!

[Ferral]

I thought Insurrection was quite poor and did look just like a long episode. Nemesis I really did enjoy, it was quite sinister with the plot and enjoyable film.

I love the newest incarnation of the Enterprise, seeing it for the first time in First Contact was awesome on the big screen. Looked so much sleeker than previous incarnations.

New / old enterprise looks good. Looking at the warp nacelles they are very similar to Zephran Cochrans ship from First Contact so they have kept it together pretty well. I can't wait to see this movie.

[Platinum]

Ruined it, DO NOT CHANGE SOMETHING THATS ALLREADY BEEN DONE, i can has contiuity?, This guy is gonna ruin Trek, he has allready said he isnt bothered about sticking with the timelines.

[Bluecube]

A re-imagining? Errrmmm... I dunno if I'm happy about that! I'm not a huge Star Trek fan by a long shot although I did enjoy most of the films but re-imagining is just not right. US comics do it all the time and it's just plain naff. I suppose it depends on your point of view, but the fact that Star Trek had/ has a continuous timeline kept it together.

[Agent]

It is true that it's set in a time (stardate / year-wise) before Kirk and Spock et al had their 5 year missions etc.
However it's also a "re-imagining" (see 'Planet of the Apes', 'Battlestar Galactica', 'Batman Begins' etc) so it does not have to comply with anything that we already have seen on TV or in films.

If it were a prequel, then we would know what was going to be in their futures.
In this film, the Enterprise might get destroyed, or Kirk and Spock might get killed (it's never gonna happen, but it could because it's a reboot).

Interesting mate - didn't know that.

Not that I doubt you, but where did you read it? I'd like to see if they have gone into the reasoning of why they did this as there is a lot of Star Trek Canon material that's unpublished.

[shadowmaster]

Not that I doubt you, but where did you read it?

+1 I am quite sure its not a reboot, well according to this it isn't.

http://trekmovie.com/2007/10/08/inte...anon-and-more/

From what I've read its a prequel to 'Star Trek Original Series, but based well after Star Trek Enterprise. It has the same crew as the original series but all of them are just younger, probably based between star trek dates 2161 (End of enterprise) and 2265 (start of original series).

[MSIC]

IGN.
Aint It Cool News.
Wikipedia however does acknowledge that Orci, one of the writers, wanted to play down or dismiss the 'reboot' idea as not to annoy the 'Star Trek faithful', so i think that it's going to be heavily close to the orginal story lines, ideas etc.

I think, for me, that Star Trek began to have so much discontinuity between it's own (canon) stuff, that they are just cutting lose a bit and not worrying about treading on toes, whilst keeping the spirit right.
I hope.

Edit: Actually, that TrekMovie page (which i hadn't read before, so thanks for that link) seems to walk a line between 'prequel' and 'reboot'.

TrekMovie.com: You guys have resisting labels for this film such as remake, reboot, etc….even prequel. Prequel has a pretty basic definition so what is wrong with calling it that?

Roberto Orci: But yet it is not entirely accurate. In some senses it is a prequel, but the word I would use, which is how Damon [Lindelof] describes it, is a re-invigoration or re-vitalization.

TrekMovie.com: So your point is since Nimoy’s Spock would at least start well after the TOS period, then it isn’t exactly a prequel.

Roberto Orci: Exactly, Nimoy’s Spock is very much in line with canon.

[Platinum]

The Enterprise was built in space not on earth, Pike was not the first commander, and at the same year the ship was launched Checkov was born.
I dont mind re imaged films if done well but to do it with a show that has been running for so long with such a well established time line?, This is gonna go down like a lead ballon with the trekkies.

[[GSV]Trig]

Agree'd

[[GSV]Trig]

Seen the new trailer on the apple site?

http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramo..._trailer2.html

Looks a damned site better than the first one, we'll see how it goes tho, from the quoted Q&A above it looks like the writers are having trouble deciding if its a prequel/reboot/canon thing or not...

[MSIC]

More fuel to the 'prequel/re-imagining' fire:
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/39433

[Spud1]

imo this new film will probably be quite good - JJ Abrams has a stellar track record, and what we should get is a pretty decent action/sci-fi movie. What I do not think we will get is a traditional "Star Trek" movie - at least that is the impression I get from the trailers, cast, images and info thats around the internet.

I would liken it very much to the last 2 "James Bond" films with Daniel Craig. Both of them were *rubbish* as Bond films go, but were also both really good films..IF you forget about all the previous Bond films that have been produced.