Movie Trailers: Star Trek: Into Darkness - Announcement Trailer

Star Trek: Into Darkness - Announcement Trailer

So this time they're battling Space Sherlock?

Watch Video

Ahhhh, Khan. Now with a British accent and no fake muscle suit.

Nice trailer, though it's a teaser trailer.

Is it just me, or does Benedict Cumberpatch's character look a lot like Michael Eddington from DS9?

Japanese extended teaser. The bonus seconds are totally worth it.

That's not Khan, it's a cyborg V'Ger!

So who was supposed to have returned? And why can't I bring myself to get excited over this? Also I think Gene Rodenberry is spinning in his grave right now.

When did we last have a star trek movie that wasn't about vengeance? Don't get me wrong; I'm glad the franchise isn't dead (I enjoyed the remake and my mom will be thrilled when I tell her about this), but I honestly can't remember the last movie they had where the villains weren't motivated by revenge.

Remake: vengeful romulans
Nemesis: vengeful clone
Insurrection: vengeful outcast children
First Contact: vengeful borg queen (admittedly the least vengeful of the bunch)
Generations: dude just wanted back into nirvana

So yeah, counting the movie for this trailer, that's five in a row. I know there's more to this universe than revenge; it'd be nice to see it on the big screen.

canadamus_prime:
So who was supposed to have returned? And why can't I bring myself to get excited over this? Also I think Gene Rodenberry is spinning in his grave right now.

Its most likely Gary Mitchell.

I saw a lot of water in the trailer, hopefully one of the characters is a whale biologist.

So, its about revenge... again.

Revenge for what? I don't know about you, but just some guy (no matter how hot his voice may be) wanting revenge for some undisclosed reason does not make me care.
Is revenge now some sort of codeword in Star Trek that is supposed to just automatically make me interested?
Can't we have a villain with some other motivation for a change?

Maybe it is just my wonderfully forgiving nature, but I can't relate to revenge that well.
At least not as well as this trailer seems to think.

Ah yes, I forget, maybe I'm not actually supposed to relate to the villain, but to the protagonists... Ok, what is their motivation?
I guess staying alive somehow. It's not like the trailer tells me more than that.

I'm sure the movie is going to be very pretty, lenseflares nonewithstanding, but I do remember a time when Star Trek was about interesting characters/societies and moral quandries...

Is it just me? I feel like every other star trek movie is about someone/something returning for revenge.

I could have sworn that I've already seen a half of those shots before. I'll try to stay optimistic about this.

But still, I miss the 90s.

aceman67:

canadamus_prime:
So who was supposed to have returned? And why can't I bring myself to get excited over this? Also I think Gene Rodenberry is spinning in his grave right now.

Its most likely Gary Mitchell.

Already confirmed to be Khan.

Woodsey:

Already confirmed to be Khan.

Where's your proof? The only place that even mentions that Cumberbatch is playing Khan is IMDB, and they have "(rumored)" next to that.

Startrek.com says nothing.

Memory Alpha wiki says nothing.

Wikipedia says nothing.

If it was confirmed, as you say it is, This site would be reporting as such, along with EVERY OTHER star trek news site, most notably trekmovie.com

I suggest you go back and watch the TOS episode "Where No Man Has Gone Before", because you'd see a lot of similarities between some characters.

image - Elizabeth Dehner
image - Unnamed Female Science Officer

Total agreement with the "too much revenge" theme of this thread. (hmm Star Trek "In the future, there is only revenge...")

Also, that's one damn generic looking trailer.

aceman67:

Woodsey:

Already confirmed to be Khan.

Where's your proof? The only place that even mentions that Cumberbatch is playing Khan is IMDB, and they have "(rumored)" next to that.

Startrek.com says nothing.

Memory Alpha wiki says nothing.

Wikipedia says nothing.

If it was confirmed, as you say it is, This site would be reporting as such, along with EVERY OTHER star trek news site, most notably trekmovie.com

I suggest you go back and watch the TOS episode "Where No Man Has Gone Before", because you'd see a lot of similarities between some characters.

image - Elizabeth Dehner
image - Unnamed Female Science Officer

Hmm, read in a couple of places that they'd confirmed. Might have misread or they might have been bullshitting - in either case, the final shot of the Japanese trailer is meant to be pretty explicit, I believe. More so than "blonde woman with bob".

OK, I'm now excited. Looks like stuff is going to hit the fan, and not in a good way. Keep on dazzling me J.J.

Although for a teaser trailer, I didn't see that many lens flares. Bah, I'm sure that will be fixed in the actual trailer at some point.

Ok, I was motivated by this trailer... wait, what was that? Oh, right this is a trailer of the TRAILER that will be released December 17, a couple of days after The Hobbit. Huh. Awkward.

I liked the reboot a lot, that being said from my first experience of the Star Trek Universe. Yet a lot of people (MovieBob) say that it was not Star Trek essence. So I really wonder if they will return to the core with this film or if they will simply continue mutating the franchise from what I hear.

So Question to you Star Trek Fans, if you did hate the reboot, why was that? I want to know why the hate or disappointing experience.

Hey, did anyone else notice that Andy Chalk has recently put up a very similar thread? I love it when users manage to find things before the staff.

Might turn out good, I liked the first one.

I recently watched some episodes from the original series, and I just wish we'd get more light-hearted and engaging Sci-Fi again these days. Everything is so dark and hasty.

I didn't see a single clip of Simon Pegg!
Oh. Okay. IMDB has him credited for this.
Trekking is better with Mr. Scott.

Woodsey:

Hmm, read in a couple of places that they'd confirmed. Might have misread or they might have been bullshitting - in either case, the final shot of the Japanese trailer is meant to be pretty explicit, I believe. More so than "blonde woman with bob".

Right now the best place to get movie news about this film is http://www.Trekmovie.com. That site has done interviews with Abrams and cast members in the past, in live chats, twitter, and traditional interviews for the site. If they haven't said that its Khan, then it hasn't been confirmed, because they would have jumped all over that like a fat kid at an ice cream parlor.

As for the last scene on the Japanese trailer, you have to take that with a grain of salt, especially since this is a JJ Abrams movie. This is the guy who made us worry about a smoke monster on an island (LOST) for an entire series then nothing came of it. He's also the guy who snuck the company name and logo that dug up the monster from Cloverfield on a building during the 2009 trek movies teaser trailer. This guy gets people in seats by teasing people with something, then shocking them with something entirely different.

Clankenbeard:
I didn't see a single clip of Simon Pegg!
Oh. Okay. IMDB has him credited for this.
Trekking is better with Mr. Scott.

Oh hey look, a Star Trek movie sequel.

Take cover - when MovieBob finds out, things shall go nuclear! O_O

why is this?
WHY IS THIS?

there were really few good ideas in voyager, one was the idea of the first temporal directive and the federation timeships used to uphold said directive, a large scale temporal clusterfuck like the first movie would have them fix it faster than you can say "live long and prosper", so this movie CAN not be if you not want to throw most continuity after ds9 session3 out of the window.
and to be honest, voyager failed in most places, but they had sometimes really good ideas that were terribly handled, while the new movies have incredible bland ideas handled really well.
i don't want a re-imagening-thingy, i want a continuation of the main universe equally well handled or better as the new movies.

also, why would khan care about pike, kirk, spock and attached superfriends? i mean from the point of the story, khan is just flying through space in a frozen state in a spaceship from the 1990's and knows noone in the 23rd century, unless they rehach the original episode but let them fuck it up somehow, this will be even more painfull to sit through than the first of the new films for someone who knows about and cares for the lore of star trek.

Lhianon:
why is this?
WHY IS THIS?

there were really few good ideas in voyager, one was the idea of the first temporal directive and the federation timeships used to uphold said directive, a large scale temporal clusterfuck like the first movie would have them fix it faster than you can say "live long and prosper", so this movie CAN not be if you not want to throw most continuity after ds9 session3 out of the window.
and to be honest, voyager failed in most places, but they had sometimes really good ideas that were terribly handled, while the new movies have incredible bland ideas handled really well.
i don't want a re-imagening-thingy, i want a continuation of the main universe equally well handled or better as the new movies.

also, why would khan care about pike, kirk, spock and attached superfriends? i mean from the point of the story, khan is just flying through space in a frozen state in a spaceship from the 1990's and knows noone in the 23rd century, unless they rehach the original episode but let them fuck it up somehow, this will be even more painfull to sit through than the first of the new films for someone who knows about and cares for the lore of star trek.

No alterations to the original timeline took place, it's a separate timeline. Also, there's no proof this is Khan. Also there's no reason to think that whoever this is intends to inflict his vengeance upon Kirk in particular, it's possible he's feeling vengeful towards Humanity or against the Federation.

So, huh, that movie poster looks awfully familiar... Oh look, and we get to see parts of Earth get destroyed again! You know, aliens beating the crap out of the homeland is a neat Star Trek tactic to raise the stakes after we care about the characters, but I'm not convinced the first remake got us to that point yet.

I'm left wondering if this grim, gritty, cynical destruction is more reflective of A) Americans in general being skeptical of the scientific advancement of humanity providing solutions to our problems (in contrast with Gene Roddenbery's vision), or B) if some Hollywood producers didn't go, "Hey, grimdark worked for Batman, why not cram it into Star Trek?"

JaredXE:
Ahhhh, Khan. Now with a British accent and no fake muscle suit.

And you know, white. Fuckin' Hollywood.

aceman67:
Its most likely Gary Mitchell.

Haven't heard that theory, that'd be so much better than Khan.

Woodsey:

aceman67:

canadamus_prime:
So who was supposed to have returned? And why can't I bring myself to get excited over this? Also I think Gene Rodenberry is spinning in his grave right now.

Its most likely Gary Mitchell.

Already confirmed to be Khan.

Link? I've heard of no such confirmation.

AgentNein:

Woodsey:

aceman67:

Its most likely Gary Mitchell.

Already confirmed to be Khan.

Link? I've heard of no such confirmation.

Seems not, as we've talked about somewhere in here. The end of the Japanese version seems to have confirmed it for most people though.

In the Japanese trailer, those few extra seconds confirm what we know (spoiler warning)


So this is more of a remake of the second original film, and I'm guessing that they'll also fit in the story of Khan, probably in the first 20 minutes of the movie.

However, just from watching the trailer, I'm very disappointed, and here's why. Star Trek was always more about pushing the borders of science and metaphysics than about personal stories. And it was about SPACE and how our limited race would deal in extreme situations. Sure, there was always the "peaceful utopia, no money, no wars" background but the human nature was always present, with strengths and weaknesses alike. Maybe this is why I loved Voyager so much, while many others hate it. And let's face it, Star Trek has always relied on great actors with "boring" personas (Kirk not included). Just by looking at the trailer, I get the impression that I'm watching a Transformers/Twilight/Avengers/Batman movie set in New York, not something that has anything to do with SPAAAACE!!!

Star Trek does not fit the action blockbuster scene. It doesn't need to. The other Star Trek movies worked because you had entire series behind them. The original Wrath of Khan had the best design of any Star Trek set. I saw it after watching all the other series and was blown away by how awesome it looked, uniforms, bridges and ships in all. I still think that technology in 400 years should look like that (not the displays though. We all still laugh when we see the old tube with static images on them). The new one? Meh... looks like a transparent IPhone with flashlight pointing at your eyes.

I could ramble on about how awesome the Star Trek series have been for me or why. Even before the first remake I was well aware that any reboot would have a HARD time pleasing the fans. After all, Patrick Stewart... But they took it in the extreme opposite direction, which was understandable for the first movie (try to get more new fans in the cinemas). But now? We're Trekies, we don't need people jumping off cliffs and punching eachother in the trailer.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here