Movie Trailers: Star Trek: Into Darkness - International Trailer

Star Trek: Into Darkness - International Trailer

Once again Starfleet looks to be on its last legs. They should really look into getting better security.

Watch Video

OK. That was cool. But I just experienced something weird. After this trailer I can totally see Benedict Cumberbatch as the next James Bond.

So it's Skyfall, with a worse script and more lens flare?

Boldly going my ass...

....

Was that supposed to be Khan? It certainly looked... and sounded... and acted... and operated... and... everythinged like Khan, but without Khan's backstory.

Unless Starfleet unfroze a war criminal and said "hey, wanna be a secret agent?"

I was seriously hoping that they were going to include a bit of new!Kirk yelling "Khan!" just to clarify. We never (that I recall) got the Khan-like guy's name. Why hide the name unless they were planning a big reveal like Kirk shouting Khan?

Bara_no_Hime:
....

Was that supposed to be Khan? It certainly looked... and sounded... and acted... and operated... and... everythinged like Khan, but without Khan's backstory.

Unless Starfleet unfroze a war criminal and said "hey, wanna be a secret agent?"

I was seriously hoping that they were going to include a bit of new!Kirk yelling "Khan!" just to clarify. We never (that I recall) got the Khan-like guy's name. Why hide the name unless they were planning a big reveal like Kirk shouting Khan?

maybe they cloned Khan because they really wanted super-soldiers.
does Star Trek have cloning?
And at this point my liking this movie hints on "KHAAAAAAAAAAAAN" being in there, as long as he is a eugenics super human(cloned, unfrozen or just plain new) i am OK with his backstory and since he seems to channel the Joker it wouldn't really fit to have him be a former warlord.

Bara_no_Hime:
Unless Starfleet unfroze a war criminal and said "hey, wanna be a secret agent?"

At first I was expecting the (un)surprise of "John Harrison" being Khan. Then I saw this trailer and it seemed too much like he's a here-and-now kind of guy to be Khan.

But this sentence now makes me wonder. Maybe this is what he means when he talks about the sins of Starfleet. Or maybe he's like Liquid Snake, lashing out because he is the evil clone of Khan or something. "Why do you continue to follow orders while your superiors betray you? Well, I'll tell you then: you enjoy all the killing, THAT'S WHY."

Speculation galore until the movie is finally released. Until then, bring on Admiral Robocop.

teebeeohh:
since he seems to channel the Joker

If there is to me a disturbing trend in Hollywood, it's this. In the wake of Heath Ledger's standout performance, you start seeing shades of this in Tom Hiddleston's Loki, Javier Bardem's Bond villain Silva, Andrew Scott's Moriarty, and now (to a lesser extent) this. The same "rage against the machine" motive seems to be driving Ben Kingsley's Mandarin, if the Iron Man trailers are any indication; these two trailers seem to be carbon copies of each other. Not to mention the last two Star Trek baddies - Tom Hardy's Shinzon and Eric Bana's Nero - were venegeful psychopaths along the lines of the original Khan. And that's what this feels like to me, based on the trailer: Joker-Khan.

Don't get me wrong, I'm still excited about the film, and Benedict Cumberpatch will steal every scene he's in. I just think sci-fi films need to move on from xeroxing The Joker and Khan and find a different fuel for their villains than revenge.

teebeeohh:
And at this point my liking this movie hints on "KHAAAAAAAAAAAAN" being in there, as long as he is a eugenics super human(cloned, unfrozen or just plain new) i am OK with his backstory and since he seems to channel the Joker it wouldn't really fit to have him be a former warlord.

Well, he said something like "I am superior to you in every way" - which to me is a giant red flag for Eugenics Super Human.

So what I'm asking is, Paramount, if you're gonna go there with that line, why not add the line you know would get butts in seats?

Say it with me now: "KHAN!!!"

I gotta ask, what's with the British flags still hanging in London? Isn't this supposed to be the future where there are no nations and everyone is united under the federation? Or are people so stupid that they can't recognize London without the Union Jack?

Avaholic03:
I gotta ask, what's with the British flags still hanging in London? Isn't this supposed to be the future where there are no nations and everyone is united under the federation? Or are people so stupid that they can't recognize London without the Union Jack?

Actually, I didn't catch it, either. Neither did I recall seeing most of the typical landmarks: Buckingham Palace, Big Ben, that giant ferris wheel on the Thames. Maybe in the full movie these things show up but the Union Jack was the only thing that told me London until it was specifically named in this trailer. I always figured it was San Francisco, since Starfleet HQ/Academy and the Golden Gate Bridge are the only parts of earth ever shown at any time in Star Trek. Keep in mind these are the same guys who had the Enterprise built in Iowa rather than show Kirk anywhere other than the exact place where he grew up.

*sighs* I still feel so 'meh' about this new Kirk who loves vengeance and anger. Granted old Kirk wasn't exactly cool-headed either, but at least you got to know his M.O. a bit more in the tv series and didn't have to rely on movies alone. And Uhura taking a backseat as essentially the love interest/breasts to ogle... Meh.
Also, I want a Federation that is not stupid.

...Still going to watch this for the villain only.

This trailer successfully sold me watching 'Sherlock' TV series.

Not sure if that's the intended effect.

So Star Trek: Generic Action Movie in SPAAAAAACE!!
Also, explosions

TheSchaef:
[quote="Bara_no_Hime" post="6.404058.16720155"] Not to mention the last two Star Trek baddies - Tom Hardy's Shinzon and Eric Bana's Nero - were venegeful psychopaths along the lines of the original Khan. And that's what this feels like to me, based on the trailer: Joker-Khan.

That right there is why my reaction to the rumor that the sequel might do the Khan story again was "what, you mean for the third time in a row?" I get that TWoK was the most critically successful Star Trek movie prior to the 2009 reboot[1]. I just wish they'd try to do something new, because there's so much more to Star Trek than that one movie. Then again, there's so much more to Star Trek than revenge and explosions, as evidenced by my favorite of the movies, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. Or by, you know, basically any episode of any of the series.

Now that Abrams has Star Wars like he wanted in the first place, can we please take him off of Star Trek duty? Because he clearly neither gets what Star Trek is about, nor really cares. When he was making the 2009 movie, he pretty much admitted that he was just making a Star Wars movie with the Star Trek characters, since they were what he had to work with. Since he's directing the new Star Wars movie, I don't see why we have to indulge him in that anymore :P

[1] Although it was The Voyage Home that had the biggest box office success, save the whales plot and all.

Bara_no_Hime:

Was that supposed to be Khan?

TheSchaef:

Speculation galore until the movie is finally released.

Woah woah woah.
A high-profile film where we still don't know who the villain actually is?! What is this craziness?!

Ah melodrama, it was laid a tad too thick for my tastes. And it does indeed remind me of Skyfall.

It looks like an interesting movie, but it looks even less Trek than the last one. I definitely don't require the entire thing take place on a starship, nor do I want it to feel like a TV episode stretched into two hours (like the TNG movies), but both JJ Treks so far seem a bit limited in scope.

Loop Stricken:

Bara_no_Hime:

Was that supposed to be Khan?

TheSchaef:

Speculation galore until the movie is finally released.

Woah woah woah.
A high-profile film where we still don't know who the villain actually is?! What is this craziness?!

It's Abrams. It's a theoretical copy of what we have already seen, but it is not. It's not-Khan. But it is Khan.

This is why I just blatantly ignore Abrams' reboot. It is pointless action fluff with nothing really to it, other than screwing with some continuity for a bit.

Did they initially make a completely different movie and then reskin it to Star Trek for brand appeal?

Cumberbatch... That man could turn me in a second.

I couldn't really give a rats about the enterprise crew in this, I'm a trekkie but I'm seeing this for cumberbatch in 3D.

TheSchaef:

Avaholic03:
I gotta ask, what's with the British flags still hanging in London? Isn't this supposed to be the future where there are no nations and everyone is united under the federation? Or are people so stupid that they can't recognize London without the Union Jack?

Actually, I didn't catch it, either. Neither did I recall seeing most of the typical landmarks: Buckingham Palace, Big Ben, that giant ferris wheel on the Thames. Maybe in the full movie these things show up but the Union Jack was the only thing that told me London until it was specifically named in this trailer. I always figured it was San Francisco, since Starfleet HQ/Academy and the Golden Gate Bridge are the only parts of earth ever shown at any time in Star Trek. Keep in mind these are the same guys who had the Enterprise built in Iowa rather than show Kirk anywhere other than the exact place where he grew up.

Don't think I noticed the Union Jack, but in the scene where the craft destroys the conference I'm sure there were UN flags in there. Which is completely wrong if you follow Trek lore. After WW3, and with the arrival of the Vulcans, all the governments(that were left) agreed to form one body, then go on to become the Federation.

Once again it looks like we may have more lens-flare than plot. I hope they greenlight a new series soon so Star Trek can go back to being based on science, politics, and philosophy.

scw55:
This trailer successfully sold me watching 'Sherlock' TV series.

Not sure if that's the intended effect.

Probably not the intended effect, but it will be a very good move if you do.

OT: I will go and see this, I've not been the flicks in a while and I'm just glad that Cumberbatch is finally getting the recognition he deserves for being a good actor. I'm glad he never turned down the Sherlock role now, its probably the single best thing the BBC have produced since Life on Mars.

Bara_no_Hime:
....

Was that supposed to be Khan? It certainly looked... and sounded... and acted... and operated... and... everythinged like Khan, but without Khan's backstory.

Unless Starfleet unfroze a war criminal and said "hey, wanna be a secret agent?"

I was seriously hoping that they were going to include a bit of new!Kirk yelling "Khan!" just to clarify. We never (that I recall) got the Khan-like guy's name. Why hide the name unless they were planning a big reveal like Kirk shouting Khan?

Just this. That is all. Conversation over. KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN.

But thinking about it for a moment, Khan was in Star Trek 2 (Hey, the film was named after him!), so having him in the new Star Trek 2 makes sense in a 'gratify the fans' kinda way. Not that that ever affected anything.

Deathlyphil:

TheSchaef:

Avaholic03:
I gotta ask, what's with the British flags still hanging in London? Isn't this supposed to be the future where there are no nations and everyone is united under the federation? Or are people so stupid that they can't recognize London without the Union Jack?

Actually, I didn't catch it, either. Neither did I recall seeing most of the typical landmarks: Buckingham Palace, Big Ben, that giant ferris wheel on the Thames. Maybe in the full movie these things show up but the Union Jack was the only thing that told me London until it was specifically named in this trailer. I always figured it was San Francisco, since Starfleet HQ/Academy and the Golden Gate Bridge are the only parts of earth ever shown at any time in Star Trek. Keep in mind these are the same guys who had the Enterprise built in Iowa rather than show Kirk anywhere other than the exact place where he grew up.

Don't think I noticed the Union Jack, but in the scene where the craft destroys the conference I'm sure there were UN flags in there. Which is completely wrong if you follow Trek lore. After WW3, and with the arrival of the Vulcans, all the governments(that were left) agreed to form one body, then go on to become the Federation.

Once again it looks like we may have more lens-flare than plot. I hope they greenlight a new series soon so Star Trek can go back to being based on science, politics, and philosophy.

I did notice the Union Flag. I don't know too much about Trek lore, but I would guess that just like each of the states in the US has a state flag, each of the states in the Federation probably kept their own flags and used them for ceremonial stuff. But that's just a thought.

Deathlyphil:
Once again it looks like we may have more lens-flare than plot. I hope they greenlight a new series soon so Star Trek can go back to being based on science, politics, and philosophy.

It would have to go a long way back to do that.

Blood Brain Barrier:

Deathlyphil:
Once again it looks like we may have more lens-flare than plot. I hope they greenlight a new series soon so Star Trek can go back to being based on science, politics, and philosophy.

It would have to go a long way back to do that.

Deep Space Nine wasn't that long.... oh, nearly twenty years ago. Voyager had moments of greatness in it. Can't speak for Enterprise, but then it was Enterprise, not Star Trek: Enterprise.

 

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
Registered for a free account here