ROTTEN TOMATOES: RT Sees Star Trek Footage! Comments

RT Sees Star Trek Footage!

by Orlando Parfitt | November 11, 2008

Summary

RT was one of a number of news outlets treated to a sneak peak of Paramount's upcoming in London this morning, with director JJ Abrams himself introducing both the first theatrical trailer, and four scenes from the movie that haven't been seen anywhere else in the world. Back to Article

(1-36 of 36 posts) | Reply

INVOCUS writes:
on Nov 11 2008 10:42 AM

Chekov!

(Reply to this)

INVOCUS writes:
on Nov 11 2008 10:45 AM

But yeah, nice article ;)

(Reply to this)

infernaldude writes:
on Nov 11 2008 02:14 PM

I never realized Eric Bana was in this. Nice!

I didn't read the whole article because I want to go into this knowing little as possible. I feel I already know to much with the dual Spocks and all.

I like the idea of more action. I feel the worst of the Trek movies had to little excitement. Hope he doesn't over do it!

(Reply to this)

blattman writes:
on Nov 11 2008 02:27 PM

This could be a fun romp. I will give it a go.

(Reply to this)

jokerboy1991 writes:
on Nov 11 2008 02:30 PM

I think this will be really good....KHAAAAAN!

(Reply to this)

jokerboy1991 writes:
on Nov 11 2008 02:31 PM

Also maybe it is just me but boy I hate Ahton Yelchin, this article proves my fear he was a miscast in this with his over the top russian accent, he will also probably suck in T4.

(Reply to this)

elliot m. writes:
on Nov 11 2008 03:06 PM

The new Enterprise looks dumb as hell, and really CG

(Reply to this)

The Vile writes:
on Nov 11 2008 03:46 PM

In reply to this comment (#2125035)
i too hate anton yelchin, mainly because he has roles in two of my favourite franchises, and also had that topless threesome in a pool in whatever movie that was, with the chick from mama mia. yeah, i'm definately jealous of the young punk.

(Reply to this)

scifimark writes:
on Nov 11 2008 04:06 PM

that isnt the enterprise. Whoever did that caption should be fired. That is supposedly kirk's fathers ship the kelvin. I think the cgi is great though on the ship. If you look at the pic you can see it says kelvin. I wouldnt worry too much about yelchin since out of the crew he is the least important anyways

(Reply to this)

scifimark writes:
on Nov 11 2008 04:09 PM

********spoiler from article*************8

i always like the fact they sort of stayed on cannon with pike as the captain before kirk

(Reply to this)

emoticant writes:
on Nov 11 2008 04:21 PM

You say you didn't know why the audience laughed at the "you've got a talented tongue" line. I assume it's because Kirk & Uhura shared the first interracial kiss ever to appear on tv back when Star Trek originally aired.

(Reply to this)

xenogears writes:
on Nov 11 2008 04:24 PM

I'm not a big trekkie but this seems great.

That pic shown says U.S.S. KELVIN though. That just sounds like a terrible name for a starship. Can you imagine "Enterprise to Kelvin, Come in Kelvin". Maybe it's just me.

Definitly gonna see.

(Reply to this)

xenogears writes:
on Nov 11 2008 04:26 PM

In reply to this comment (#2125100)
Yeah, not to mention that the phrase can seem very sexual if taken out of context :)

(Reply to this)

Matanuki writes:
on Nov 11 2008 04:50 PM

In reply to this comment (#2125103)
LOL!

(Reply to this)

tomwaitsjr writes:
on Nov 11 2008 05:47 PM

If this is considered an "odd numbered" Star Trek movie, then it will suck and be boring.

Hey, don't yell at me, I don't make the rules. . .

(Reply to this)

David r. writes:
on Nov 11 2008 06:28 PM

I wasn't very interested, but now I'm pant-wettingly excited.

(Reply to this)

M H. writes:
on Nov 11 2008 06:40 PM

Seems cruel that someone who doesn't know the difference between Sulu and Chekov and can't tell the Enterprise from the Kelvin got to see the clips before me, an ancient Trekkie (never liked Trekker)

(Reply to this)

EIKOH writes:
on Nov 11 2008 07:36 PM

Yelchin is Russian, Chekov is Russian, whats the problem?

My friends mom was a huge Trekkie and all of their license plates were numbered like starships, hers was NCC1701.

(Reply to this)

sunsaz writes:
on Nov 11 2008 07:53 PM

Things are certainly looking up for this movie. Can't wait for the theatrical trailer to drop.

(Reply to this)

alevi31690 writes:
on Nov 11 2008 08:12 PM

To see Zachary Quinto as Spock is pretty cool. Now I'm going to get used to him Vulcan pinching his enemies instead of cutting the tops of their heads off and playing with their brains. lol

Looks promising; can't wait to see it.

(Reply to this)

scifimark writes:
on Nov 11 2008 08:42 PM

apparently they sent some blonde bimbo to watch these scenes who doesnt know anything about star trek nicely done rt!!!!

(Reply to this)

Random_Jake writes:
on Nov 11 2008 10:26 PM

http://www.khaaan.com/

(Reply to this)

Ruby M. writes:
on Nov 11 2008 11:49 PM

Good lord, that was one of the most poorly-written articles I've seen on the interwebs! Why not try some basic fact-checking, or have a go at this wonderful new invention called GRAMMAR?

(Reply to this)

jackrabbit75 writes:
on Nov 12 2008 12:36 AM

Amen to that.

(Reply to this)

thejuggernautlives writes:
on Nov 12 2008 03:58 AM

I don't understand the problem with Anton Yelchin being Chekov and having a thick Russian accent. Walter Koenig, who played Chekov first, also used a Russian accent that was a lot more exaggerated than his own. I've seen him in other stuff, and interviews and such, and it's not nearly as thick.

Also, I have been extremely excited about this movie from day one. Since J.J. Abrams creates great TV and movies, I figure it's in great hands. My only worry is that since Abrams wasn't a fan of the movies and tv shows, he will try to make it something completely different and all his own, and unrecognizable as Star Trek. As a die-hard fan of the movies and shows, that's the one thing I worry about.

(Reply to this)

thejuggernautlives writes:
on Nov 12 2008 04:01 AM

And I have to agree that it was a poorly written article. How can you mix up Sulu and Chekov?

(Reply to this)

smi1ey writes:
on Nov 12 2008 08:14 AM

I'll be seeing this both for the movie, and to observe the hilarities of trekies. :)

(Reply to this)

TheFrenchConnection writes:
on Nov 12 2008 10:06 AM

why are all the new cast members 20 year old babies, where are the ADULTS in movies these days?

(Reply to this)

ViveLaFrance writes:
on Nov 12 2008 01:14 PM

Maybe because in this movie the characters have just graduated from the academy ? So having young actors seems pretty logical to me...

(Reply to this)

rle4lunch writes:
on Nov 12 2008 02:06 PM

I'd like to use some of what Spock called 'colorful metaphors' for how bad the Enterprise looked in ST: Nemesis. That was god awful ugly. I kinda like the new look for the old ship. Nostalgic, yet advanced. I approve. Not like that means anything though.

(Reply to this)

thereign writes:
on Nov 12 2008 04:13 PM

This sounds really bad. First off, I have to agree with Ruby M. that this was one of the worst written articles I've EVER seen. Orlando, please don't write anything else until you learn how to fact-check.

This film sounds like it's going to be all about J.J. Abrams and what he always thought Star Trek "should be about", rather than what it truly is: a story of a group of intrepid explorers seeking out strange new worlds, to expand the basis of human knowledge and find new adventures. There's too much of the "yuk-yuk, nudge-nudge, LOL" from what I've read here, and it sounds like something closer to the experience of Shatner's godawful Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, rather than the great experiences of Wrath of Khan or even First Contact.

And French Connection is also correct: These shouldn't be wee babies running around on the Enterprise; whether or not they just graduated from the Academy, several of the characters--Chekov and Sulu, at least--shouldn't be on the bridge, as they were at least half a decade younger than Kirk, Spock or McCoy, and should still be attending classes themselves. The opening scene as described with Kirk and Uhura sounds especially abominable. Abrams obviously either doesn't know or care enough about Trek's history to adhere to these minor facts about the franchise.

I was looking forward to this with mild enthusiasm. Now that enthusiasm is dead. That's right...it's dead, Jim.

(Reply to this)

reavus4983 writes:
on Nov 12 2008 05:38 PM

In reply to this comment (#2126462)
It's not in continuity with current Trek canon; it's a remake, like Batman and Bond. It's hard for you to credibly call the writer of the article so awful when your comparison to Final Frontier automatically discredits everything you said... do you know how bad that movie is? Or how creative Abrams is? Orlando got numerous details that many other reports didn't have. And how is Kirk/Uhura sexual tension so contradictory? Shatner himself said that he had always wanted to kiss Uhura! ...Unless you can think of a way to more interestingly introduce every single original character... because I think this is potentially a great set up that could lead into the vision of Star Trek that's been lost for over ten years. But for someone on such a high horse that they have to berate someone just for mixing up Sulu/Chekov to the point that they should stop writing, I guess you must be Gene Roddenberry himself, and rightfully, so offended.

This new start looks to be more about character development/relationships, which was where the other series have always shined, with the exploration/optimism as a backdrop. At least for the beginning. The point of this movie is to reinvigorate the franchise to get people into that message... so obviously, the first movie will have to rely on the characters to do that and make them as appealing as possible, which so far, they look so. THEN people will pay attention to the classic Trek message. I don't care if it's 90210 in space, as long as it brings attention back to Trek.

(Reply to this)

thereign writes:
on Nov 13 2008 10:42 AM

Your comment "I don't care if it's 90210 in space, as long as it brings attention back to Trek" pretty much discredits everything YOU said.

I understand this isn't within Trek canon--it's basically a time-travel story which eventually diverges known Trek history into an alternate possibility. Still, since it has to start somewhere WITHIN known Trek history, certain facts--Sulu and Chekov not being part of the Enterprise crew, for example--should be adhered to. They could always have been introduced in a sequel, since we all know this film will be successful enough to spawn one.

And no, I'm not Gene Roddenberry...but if someone can't get a simple fact like Chekov being the one with a Russian accent, or that the ship in the photo isn't the new Enterprise(a glaringly stupid mistake to make), perhaps they do need to take a little hiatus from writing informational articles for a while.

(Reply to this)

Giedion writes:
on Nov 14 2008 08:14 PM

thereign... I TOTALLY agree with your comments 100 percent. If it did end up being "90210 in space", I wouldn't care how much attention it would draw because it would be the WRONG kind of attention, and a total disgrace to the Trek franchise and what it stands for (even though they might have forgotten that as of late - I hope this film redeems the franchise as credible and worthy of attention once again).

And as for the writer of this article, if he chooses to make journalism or critique writing a profession, then INDEED he better get his facts straight or else lose whatever credibility he might have had.

But 'reign, as for your lack of enthusiasm for the upcoming film, never lose hope.. no matter how remote it might be! Even though Abrams might not be following the true chronology of the original Trek series, no matter how blasphemous, perhaps he might be forgiven if the story and the characters still preserve some sense of integrity .. we can only hope..

(Reply to this)

Related Links

Star Trek

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links