Red Mosquito

First 9 minutes.
The quality is bad, but the sound is great: http://www.worstpreviews.com/headline.php?id=27042


Taken down already. Sorry lads. It is out there though, for those interested.

Yeah, it's gonna be badass.

I just can't wait.

gonna be badass....

BUT, not a Star Trek movie by any means.

lolz at Abrams.

Rank the Star Trek movies from most to least Star Trek.

the new trailer is out, and this movie is not Star Trek....that moment with the ship...thats star wars.

People all over the internet keep saying things like that. And as I huge Star Trek (and not a very big Star Wars) fan, my only response is, PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT.

There's nothing wrong with updating what had become a very stale and rigid brand. My issue with these movies is that, when you update something with a long history like Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, or Dr. Who, it needs to be more than just a physical upgrade. You can even make big, sweeping changes and have it work really well, so long as those changes enhance or redefine the brand rather than serve to disassemble it.

The last Star Trek movie wasn't about updating and enhancing, although the promotion pushed it that way. It was about taking recognizable imagery and characters and using them to populate a bunch of pretty ordinary action and humor sequences because that will sell tickets. Then, they tucked just enough in-jokes in to make it feel like it was playing Star Trek. Take away the iconic imagery and the character names, and it tended to look a lot like JJ Abrams just got it in his mind to make a sci fi action thriller.

It was a fun movie, and this one will be, too. But it's just a fun, forgettable sci fi action flick. It doesn't feel attached to anything outside of its little two hour run, because at the end of the day...it just isn't.

McParadigm wrote:There's nothing wrong with updating what had become a very stale and rigid brand. My issue with these movies is that, when you update something with a long history like Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, or Dr. Who, it needs to be more than just a physical upgrade. You can even make big, sweeping changes and have it work really well, so long as those changes enhance or redefine the brand rather than serve to disassemble it.

The last Star Trek movie wasn't about updating and enhancing, although the promotion pushed it that way. It was about taking recognizable imagery and characters and using them to populate a bunch of pretty ordinary action and humor sequences because that will sell tickets. Then, they tucked just enough in-jokes in to make it feel like it was playing Star Trek. Take away the iconic imagery and the character names, and it tended to look a lot like JJ Abrams just got it in his mind to make a sci fi action thriller.

It was a fun movie, and this one will be, too. But it's just a fun, forgettable sci fi action flick. It doesn't feel attached to anything outside of its little two hour run, because at the end of the day...it just isn't.

I respectfully disagree. I keep coming back to Star Trek (2009). Again and again and again. Not just because it's fun, which it is, or because it's pretty, which is also true, but because of the characters. I enjoy willfully investing my time in their journey. Undiscovered Country is probably still my all-time favorite Trek flick, but this reboot is a close second. It has all the backbone needed to prop up the lights and sounds.

McParadigm wrote:JJ Abrams just got it in his mind to make a sci fi action thriller.

pretty much spot on.

durdencommatyler wrote:Not just because it's fun, which it is, or because it's pretty, which is also true, but because of the characters.

They're good characters. They just don't have a whole lot to do with Star Trek aside from the names and a few surface mannerisms or catchphrases.

McParadigm wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:Not just because it's fun, which it is, or because it's pretty, which is also true, but because of the characters.

They're good characters. They just don't have a whole lot to do with Star Trek aside from the names and a few surface mannerisms or catchphrases.

I grew up on TNG and DS9 and the feature films. So, I admit my knowledge of Stark Trek TOS is thin at best. If you're directly comparing Abrams' revision to TOS, I'll concede. But usually when I see people say that the 09 film isn't "Star Trek" they're talking about a label, a broad sweeping declaration. They're talking about Star Trek like it's a style.

And while I absolutely agree that JJ "upgraded" the style of the franchise, I see zero reason why this new one can't co-exist with the other. Pine's Kirk doesn't seem that distant from Shatner's. Same with Quinto's Spock. Obviously, JJ played up his mixed race and the emotions angel. But he didn't event all of that. It was always there, he just chose to highlight it in new way (that I, not being married to TOS, really enjoyed).

AND JJ made some of the more peripheral characters interesting. At least, to me. It was nice to see Uhura do more than answer phones.

But usually when I see people say that the 09 film isn't "Star Trek" they're talking about a label, a broad sweeping declaration. They're talking about Star Trek like it's a style.

In terms of being a franchise, it absolutely is a style. Any long running storytelling 'brand' is going to develop its own internal shading, and is going to look and feel differently from what might be otherwise similar products. It's going to have running thematic elements, and a very defined universe in which it exists. When I say that large and sweeping changes can be made to a stale franchise, which is what Star Trek had absolutely become, I am including those elements. But when I say that the last movie merely felt like JJ Abrams made an everyday scifi action movie, and slapped some surface elements of Star Trek decor on it, I'm saying that it contains no evidence whatsoever of what made Star Trek different from other scifi.

Pine's Kirk doesn't seem that distant from Shatner's. Same with Quinto's Spock.

The characters are probably the place where the largest change occurred, actually. And Spock is the best example of this.

In the original series, Spock was extremely reserved and isolated. They actually played up the half human element a ton on that show, too, but instead of using it as an excuse to show him pitching a fit they used it to illustrate an almost toxic and tumultuous internal drama. Here you had a character who you knew was capable of very powerful emotions, who desired intrapersonal relationships and felt quite lonely, but who felt that he had to prove himself by containing and refusing all that. And they revealed it in small doses, often keeping him reserved at the moments that would have best cemented his friendship with Kirk. Over the course of the series and the early movies, that wall was slowly broken down to an extent. But it was a journey, and even then the distance between him and Kirk was still so prominent that it gave them the idea, when they killed Spock off, to do it in such a way that he was physically separate from the crew...to show that, even at the end, Kirk couldn't actually reach his friend to comfort or console him. After years and years of TV and movie making, the most nakedly honest Spock could be was to press his hand to the glass and admit that Kirk was his friend.

That Spock, as a young man, would have actually been even more extremely reserved and isolated, because at that age he would be in the process of trying to define himself. He would have worked even harder to deny his loneliness and pain, even to himself. It took his experiences as part of the Enterprise crew to initiate his character growth.

The new Spock gets angry, sounds a bit sulky sometimes, has a hot girlfriend, apparently engages in oral sex, beats people up when he's pissed off, and is comfortable evidencing his affection for his new friends at the end of the film. So really, the only thing they took from the original character is that particular way of talking and the more recognizable physical appearance stuff.

There's nothing bad about this character. And the guy does a great job of playing him. This "Spock" is a pretty well-constructed example of the 'too uptight but talented crewmate who learns to work with the team' movie archetype. And in terms of that, he's among the best written ones I can think of. But there's nothing left of Spock there, save for those few surface features.

I'm not saying "Oh, fuck this movie, it's not Star Trek." And I'm not saying "You shouldn't change anything, ever." I like the look (maybe a little too Apple shiny to feel like anybody really works there, but otherwise pretty cool). I like the changes to Uhura. But when I watch that film, I find I'm constantly saying, "Fun sci fi movie. Why did they feel the need to paint 'Star Trek' on the side?"

Think of it this way: if they remade A New Hope, and had the new actor dress and talk like Han Solo but rewrote it a bit so that we quickly learn that he hates the Empire, loves and secretly supports the Rebellion, has a large misfitty social network (partially made up of homeless people around Mos Eisley that he looks after), encourages Luke to become a Jedi because "the universe needs to be able to hope, again," and talks crass to the princess but then, in the big sequence near the end, goes back against all odds to save and kiss her...it could still end up being a good, fun movie. But would that still be Han Solo? Is the character, or his appeal, just the outfit, the ship, and a few surface behaviors that can be completely recontextualized without altering who he is or how much you like him?

In regards to Spock, though, they had an entire series in which to slowly reveal those traits, as you pointed out. Abrams had 2 hours to reboot. Things are sped up, and that necessitated a different approach. It happens to be an approach that I personally think is an improvement.

This is gonna get me in trouble, but honestly, any changes you can make to the Han Solo character, outside of making him asexual or an alcoholic, would probably be an improvement. Just my opinion.

But I see your overall point. I guess my ignorance is my saving grace here. Because I never watched TOS until after I'd seen the six feature films, I don't know that Spock (or any of the others, for that matter) as intimately. I've always loved Spock, but the Spock I've loved has been the same kind of contradiction as the Abrams version, except that Abrams (well, Kurtzman, Orci and Lindelof, really) chose to tap into anger/aggression and his feelings of isolation.

I think what really blows my mind about the whole concept of Star Trek 09 is that it's a legitimate reboot, in a way I've never seen before. All the old arguments go out the window because it's a new time line with new events and new challenges. These characters can't be the same as they were back then. Spock didn't originally watch his Home being destroyed, he didn't watch the near annihilation of his race. Those events changed him. I love that. These guys came up with a way to make it brand new, and they ran with it. I think it's quite brilliant.

Ultimately, I think there's enough of the "brand" in there to warrant the sign painted on the side. If this movie had been released as something else, not as Star Trek, people would have hated it for ripping off Star Trek.

durdencommatyler wrote:In regards to Spock, though, they had an entire series in which to slowly reveal those traits, as you pointed out. Abrams had 2 hours to reboot. Things are sped up, and that necessitated a different approach. It happens to be an approach that I personally think is an improvement.

This is gonna get me in trouble, but honestly, any changes you can make to the Han Solo character, outside of making him asexual or an alcoholic, would probably be an improvement. Just my opinion.

But I see your overall point. I guess my ignorance is my saving grace here. Because I never watched TOS until after I'd seen the six feature films, I don't know that Spock (or any of the others, for that matter) as intimately. I've always loved Spock, but the Spock I've loved has been the same kind of contradiction as the Abrams version, except that Abrams (well, Kurtzman, Orci and Lindelof, really) chose to tap into anger/aggression and his feelings of isolation.

I think what really blows my mind about the whole concept of Star Trek 09 is that it's a legitimate reboot, in a way I've never seen before. All the old arguments go out the window because it's a new time line with new events and new challenges. These characters can't be the same as they were back then. Spock didn't originally watch his Home being destroyed, he didn't watch the near annihilation of his race. Those events changed him. I love that. These guys came up with a way to make it brand new, and they ran with it. I think it's quite brilliant.

Ultimately, I think there's enough of the "brand" in there to warrant the sign painted on the side. If this movie had been released as something else, not as Star Trek, people would have hated it for ripping off Star Trek.

Just finished the 09 reboot...its a fine movie, with some holes and even if i dont particulary like what they did with the characters, Durden is right about how they handle the reboot stuff...the timeline is different, yet all the other movies still exist in the same universe.
That´s brilliant.

That Yelchin guy is hideous though.

I'm not even getting into this argument. It will make my head explode. I liked the 2009 movie, that is all.

Spock isn't really any different in New Trek. In the TOS Spock would smile, laugh, get angry, be snarky, whenever Uhura would sing he'd look at her like he wanted to bang her.....they went away from that as the series went on but you could just say he didn't have that shit locked down when he was younger. It's pretty established that if he is a calm pool on the surface he is a raging storm underneath. He often had issues keeping himself in check especially when he was younger. In New Trek he is younger, his planet blew up, he meets his older self who tells him these people are going to be his best friends so chill out, he has a girlfriend(even his dad would let his guard down around his human wife when they were alone)....it all seems pretty consistent considering the change of events.

The part where Kirk is found by the old Spock wasnt very good.

Still, im exited to see where this franchise is going, the next one sounds promising...Leonard Nimoy is in it right?