Star Trek - Into Darkness - NEW TRAILER!!

[Cikomyr]

Oh man, this movie is gonna be LEGEN-wait for it-TREKKIE

LegenTrekkie!!

Trailer HERE!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhz4A5BCMAA)

[Weezer]

Kind of disappointed they seem to be going for the cliched "rogue agent on a rampage" storyline...

[Thialfi]

Kind of disappointed they seem to be going for the cliched "rogue agent on a rampage" storyline...


After the first one made gold out of a time travel plot (which almost always suck), I am cutting Mr. Abrams a huge amount of slack on this film.

[Cikomyr]

After the first one made gold out of a time travel plot (which almost always suck), I am cutting Mr. Abrams a huge amount of slack on this film.

As long as they design the villain better than in the last movie..

I still drool after SFDebris' narration of Nero.

[Hopeless]

Interesting he actually might become Khan anyone notice his comments would tend to support he's eugenically enhanced?

[Cikomyr]

Interesting he actually might become Khan anyone notice his comments would tend to support he's eugenically enhanced?

Or Khan-like. I got thinking of Bashir; who nearly got confined into an oblivion of a non-career just for being Genetically enhanced.

Maybe it's not Khan, but it could be a SuperGened man who have had his life destroyed by the anti-eugenic politics of the Federation.

[Kitten Champion]

Kind of disappointed they seem to be going for the cliched "rogue agent on a rampage" storyline...

Eh, Star Trek movies have all been a walking bundle of cliches, it comes with being fairly straight-forward action movies.

I'm kind of disappointed it's set on Earth personally. I didn't mind during the origin story, but I wanted to see Abram's interpretation of the Star Trek universe beyond. The whole "I'm going to destroy the Earth, so nyeh" thing being the centre of Star Trek films always made the Federation seem rather provincial to me. It's a minor complaint really, but one of the reasons I don't like Trek as much as Babylon 5 or Farscape.

[Cikomyr]

Eh, Star Trek movies have all been a walking bundle of cliches, it comes with being fairly straight-forward action movies.

I'm kind of disappointed it's set on Earth personally. I didn't mind during the origin story, but I wanted to see Abram's interpretation of the Star Trek universe beyond. The whole "I'm going to destroy the Earth, so nyeh" thing being the centre of Star Trek films always made the Federation seem rather provincial to me. It's a minor complaint really, but one of the reasons I don't like Trek as much as Babylon 5 or Farscape.

Are you kidding? I can count on my fingers the number of plot in the whole franchise history that actually occurred in 23rd or 24th Century-earth.

AND MOST OF IT WAS INDOOR. Either at Starfleet HQ (TNG: Conspiracy/DS9 Homefront/Paradise Lost) or Starfleet Academy (TNG: The First Duty/DS9 Homefront/Paradise Lost).

We haven't actually seen EARTH, or had a plot occuring ON Earth. It's great that we finally get to see what future Earth looks like, more than freakkin' Iowa roads and bars, I suppose.

[McStabbington]

I do appreciate, greatly, that they took the extra time to get their script done right. That was really the bane of the TNG movies: they had to have movies come out every three years or so before people forgot about the television show, so they kept squeezing them out before the plots had really been thought through. So despite the fact that 1) the reboot felt really generic, and 2) I don't know that J.J. Abrams has a really good feel for what makes Trek Trek, I'm willing to give this movie the benefit of the doubt.

[Kitten Champion]

Are you kidding? I can count on my fingers the number of plot in the whole franchise history that actually occurred in 23rd or 24th Century-earth.

AND MOST OF IT WAS INDOOR. Either at Starfleet HQ (TNG: Conspiracy/DS9 Homefront/Paradise Lost) or Starfleet Academy (TNG: The First Duty/DS9 Homefront/Paradise Lost).

We haven't actually seen EARTH, or had a plot occuring ON Earth. It's great that we finally get to see what future Earth looks like, more than freakkin' Iowa roads and bars, I suppose.

This is a franchise which on the whole we never see much of any planet beyond CG/painted skylines, closed sets, and the Californian landscapes represented as an alien ones. We've seen as much of Earth as we've seen of anywhere in particular that isn't a space station or star ship. We got plenty of indication with episodes set across the four television franchises and nearly every movie. One of the better moves on Enterprise's part, when it was winding down as a franchise, was setting plots and events on Earth while it was still phasing into being a utopia.

Earth is the Olive Oyl of planets, plain, boring, and in constant need of saving.

Still, we've seen what Abram's has done with Earth, perhaps not the whole planet, but enough to extrapolate for the rest. It's not exactly stylistically consistent with what we've come to know about

They've finished their academy days, completed their origins arc, and Enterprise was sent on its familiar 5-year mission to explore the unknown and meet new races. Why not explore that rather than returning immediately to the same setting as the first movie? You've got a starship and a mission, this isn't DS9. That we see cities other than San Francisco isn't that impressive in what is a galaxy-spanning space opera.

[Cikomyr]

To be perfectly honest, I was quite surprised we got to see the UK flag. I believe it's the first time we actually have hint of the contemporary existence of Terran Nation-states in Star Trek.

Hell, for all we've seen in DS9, Earth was under direct administration of the Federation President.

[Weezer]

After the first one made gold out of a time travel plot (which almost always suck), I am cutting Mr. Abrams a huge amount of slack on this film.

I wouldn't call the first one gold, it was shiny and fun, but plot wise? Pretty weak.

[Kitten Champion]

To be perfectly honest, I was quite surprised we got to see the UK flag. I believe it's the first time we actually have hint of the contemporary existence of Terran Nation-states in Star Trek.

Hell, for all we've seen in DS9, Earth was under direct administration of the Federation President.

That was odd, nationalism was one of Roddenberry's great evils. Sadly, he largely suggests we've evolved past it without explaining exactly how. Same way he treats capitalist economics, organized religions, and differing political ideologies, some highly condescending speech about the moral purity of future people over their "ancient" counterparts which illuminates nothing substantial about the Federation.

I agree with you to a degree, but the issue hasn't been the dearth of depictions of Earth, it's that we get far more substance on the inter-workings of crazy allegorical planets/species which they've come across than that of our own planet. Everything is glossed over with some obfuscating sanctimonious Picard speech or any number of uninformative references to Federation, its lifestyle, and its philosophy. A more thorough explanation as to how Earth actually works might have cemented that optimism of the series into something plausible. Instead we get a lot of implications that we can infer a variety of things, without knowing exactly if we're right on any of it.

It's a square peg being sawed off to fit a round hole of Gene's ideology of liberal humanism.

Abrams won't address this, I mean, did he really answer any questions about Federation life? I think he only raised more. Why did Doctor McCoy lose property in a divorce, why are there robo-cops all of sudden, cars and functional Nokia phones, dysfunctional teens in the American heartland, and probably a lot more which I can't remember. Earth in this movie will look neat, probably really neat in 3-D, but that's going to be the extent of it.

I don't mind, it's nice having Star Trek movies which are actually entertaining and don't feel like terribly cast and cheesy action movies.

[Cikomyr]

Abrams won't address this, I mean, did he really answer any questions about Federation life? I think he only raised more. Why did Doctor McCoy lose property in a divorce, why are there robo-cops all of sudden, cars and function Nokia phones, dysfunctional teens in the American heartland, and probably a lot more which I can't remember. Earth in this movie will look neat, probably really neat in 3-D, but that's going to be the extent of it.

I don't mind, it's nice having Star Trek movies which are actually entertaining and don't feel like terribly cast and cheesy action movies.

Well, I guess I can try to explain these..

- McCoy losing his property. It's not specified what exactly, but just because you are in a moneyless economy doesn't mean there aren't property that might or might not be disputed. Imagine a young couple acquiring their dream house (for free - moneyless). They take care of it, but eventually divorce. Who gets to keep the house? Hence why there could be a settlement of possession even in a moneyless economy.

- Robocop was stupid. 0 reason whatsoever of not simply having a normal policeman. Calling anybody "citizen" is just... callous. It's taken right off dystopian movies.

- Cars. Meh, I don't mind. I am sure they can replicate fossil fuel, and there thing that says there can't be prize collection items. Federation probably have already the air-cleaning technology in place not to worry about pollution. Hell, they probably have clean combustion fuel.

- Nokia Phone. Now, just because you have became a moneyless economy doesn't mean some corporations do not still exist. They just been turned into manufacturing and R&D centers. Their phones are free to pick up, they simple get allocated greater resources (replicating, energy, material, etc...) based on their innovation and likeability of their products by the public.

- Dysfunctional teens. Well, there is nothing that says there can't be screwups humans. You remember Vash or Bashir's father? Both weren't exactly the greatest represents of Gene's Evolved Humanity.

[Devonix]

Really don't see how he could possible by Khan since Khan's whole thing was that he was someone from the distant past frozen in time. And this guy was someone the obviously knew.

I mean even Time travel couldn't change that since he's from even farther back than when Nero time traveled.

I mean His whole thing that made him interesting was that compared to Kirk and the rest of the Enterprise he was essentually a Superintelligent Caveman

[Cikomyr]

Really don't see how he could possible by Khan since Khan's whole thing was that he was someone from the distant past frozen in time. And this guy was someone the obviously knew.

I mean even Time travel couldn't change that since he's from even farther back than when Nero time traveled.

How about, "The Botany Bay was found by a Starfleet Vessel, and Khan decided to do the smart thing and infiltrate the Federation to subvert it internally rather than bluntly try to takeover"?

[Devonix]

How about, "The Botany Bay was found by a Starfleet Vessel, and Khan decided to do the smart thing and infiltrate the Federation to subvert it internally rather than bluntly try to takeover"?

.... Ok that could work.

[Kitten Champion]

I assumed it would have something to do with the secret service uncovered in DS9.

The supposedly righteous and benevolent Federation is protected in the shadows by morally unscrupulous black-operatives who work outside the establishment to maintain the idyllic facade. In doing his duty, one such agent is betrayed by his government. Having had his ideals crushed and in existential turmoil, brutally seeks revenge hunting down his betrayers in vicious acts of terrorism.

In comes Kirk, now a Star Fleet hero, famous throughout the galaxy and deeply committed to the Federation. Confronted with the former black-operative and always with his heart on his sleeve, is obsessed with getting retribution. In the game of cat and mouse, Spock who's more detached from the situation, investigates more deeply and learns of the black-op group and the Federation's dark side. Kirk and Spock having been confronted with the truth, have a moment of pause and consider the complicity of Star Fleet in actions antithetical to its ideals. Then there's some new horrible act about to be perpetrated against Earth by the increasingly unstable antagonist, they're forced engage the Black-Operative in some final showdown with much CG destruction and hand-to-hand fighting. Kirk and company win, and then again there's some consideration about pragmatism V. ideals, and Kirk does something awesome and maverick-like... and fade to credits.

[Eurthantian]

I remember seeing the teaser when I went to watch "The Hobbit" and....not impressed. There was no emotional depth, just lots and lots of explosions. And people diving from...explosions. No indication of a story...which is too bad because overall I like the Star Trek reboot.

This trailer is much better...definitely a promising film, but there seems to be some trite plot themes.

[Eurthantian]

That was odd, nationalism was one of Roddenberry's great evils. Sadly, he largely suggests we've evolved past it without explaining exactly how. Same way he treats capitalist economics, organized religions, and differing political ideologies, some highly condescending speech about the moral purity of future people over their "ancient" counterparts which illuminates nothing substantial about the Federation.

I agree with you to a degree, but the issue hasn't been the dearth of depictions of Earth, it's that we get far more substance on the inter-workings of crazy allegorical planets/species which they've come across than that of our own planet. Everything is glossed over with some obfuscating sanctimonious Picard speech or any number of uninformative references to Federation, its lifestyle, and its philosophy. A more thorough explanation as to how Earth actually works might have cemented that optimism of the series into something plausible. Instead we get a lot of implications that we can infer a variety of things, without knowing exactly if we're right on any of it.

It's a square peg being sawed off to fit a round hole of Gene's ideology of liberal humanism.

Abrams won't address this, I mean, did he really answer any questions about Federation life? I think he only raised more. Why did Doctor McCoy lose property in a divorce, why are there robo-cops all of sudden, cars and function Nokia phones, dysfunctional teens in the American heartland, and probably a lot more which I can't remember. Earth in this movie will look neat, probably really neat in 3-D, but that's going to be the extent of it.

I don't mind, it's nice having Star Trek movies which are actually entertaining and don't feel like terribly cast and cheesy action movies.

The great strength and weakness of Star Trek was Roddenberry's optimism. At the time of the first series much of it came off cheesy or naive. Only in retrospect (and knowledge of executive meddling) do we know how forward thinking Roddenberry was.

Then came TNG, which I was a lukewarm fan of, though I respect it. But the writters/producers didn't quite understand the Roddenberry's vision, and hit(to my mind) the wrong notes, coming off less progressive and more sanctimonious. And they never sorted out how a realistic yet progressive federation would plausibly work, preferring to hand wave the issue, safely placing stories far far away from civilization.

This doesn't have to be a bad thing; it can be just recognizing the weakness of the series premise, and playing to it's strengths. But it often created strange character studies and cultural plot holes.

[VanBuren]

Barely related, but I always like to find an excuse to share it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhPz-Hr4nQA

EDIT: to explain the joke as it were: the trailer uses the music from the Star Trek trailer, and of course Abrams is directing the new Star Wars movie as well.

[jack88will]

Thanks for the Trailer Link.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Poor Benedict Cumberbatch's lines sound terrible. Power Rangers villains used to spout crap that flowed better.

[Kato]

Interesting he actually might become Khan anyone notice his comments would tend to support he's eugenically enhanced?
Well, it certainly adds fuel to the rumors... also the bit about "Your commanders have committed a crime I can not forgive". It's unlikely but it could refer to Khan's origin what with the genetically engineered people having to leave earth...
Though, more likely it's just about some secret operation he had to do and he was just some super awesome agent who had to do some dirty work. We'll see.


Or Khan-like. I got thinking of Bashir; who nearly got confined into an oblivion of a non-career just for being Genetically enhanced.

Maybe it's not Khan, but it could be a SuperGened man who have had his life destroyed by the anti-eugenic politics of the Federation.
It's kind of unrelated but I really liked that part of Bashir's plotline (I really liked Bashir) and when Gundam SEED kind of picked up that topic I was so excited and now I hate the show because they never really did anything proper with it.


Poor Benedict Cumberbatch's lines sound terrible. Power Rangers villains used to spout crap that flowed better.
It's Benedict Cumberbatch. I'd sit in the cinema just to listen to him count for ninety minutes. :smalltongue: Okay, maybe they'll really waste his talent, but whatever they do with him, I'm sure he'll make the best of it.

[Cikomyr]

Barely related, but I always like to find an excuse to share it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhPz-Hr4nQA

EDIT: to explain the joke as it were: the trailer uses the music from the Star Trek trailer, and of course Abrams is directing the new Star Wars movie as well.

.... it's actually pretty good.

Gives WAY more gravitas to the original trilogy than the Prequels ever did. "New" is not always "Sellout". There is good contemporary stuff.


Just keep George Lucas away from it.

[MLai]

I keep feeling that movie #2 is just way too similar to movie #1.

#1: Creepy villain wants revenge for something. Destroys lots of stuff.
#2: Creepy villain wants revenge for something. Destroys lots of stuff. On Earth.

[Drumbum42]

I keep feeling that movie #2 is just way too similar to movie #1.

#1: Creepy villain wants revenge for something. Destroys lots of stuff.
#2: Creepy villain wants revenge for something. Destroys lots of stuff. On Earth.

It's totally different:
#1: Creepy villain wants revenge for something. Destroys lots of stuff. On Vulcan.
#2: Creepy villain wants revenge for something. Destroys lots of stuff. On Earth.

SEE!! DIFFERENT!

No but really, deep complex plot lines was never Star Trek's thing. But I always enjoyed watching it and I doubt this will be any different. (Star Trek's thing was ejecting the core as a cure-all for any issue.)

[Weezer]

It's totally different:
#1: Creepy villain wants revenge for something. Destroys lots of stuff. On Vulcan.
#2: Creepy villain wants revenge for something. Destroys lots of stuff. On Earth.

SEE!! DIFFERENT!

No but really, deep complex plot lines was never Star Trek's thing. But I always enjoyed watching it and I doubt this will be any different. (Star Trek's thing was ejecting the core as a cure-all for any issue.)

I think you're short changing Star Trek. What made it great was that it was more than actioney, fluffy romps with tons of technobabble and flash. The original series was packed full of social commentary and moral lessons, and TNG/DS9 continued that tradition. Sure, it was never subtle or overly complex, but it's far more than you're making them out to be.

[Kitten Champion]

I keep feeling that movie #2 is just way too similar to movie #1.

#1: Creepy villain wants revenge for something. Destroys lots of stuff.
#2: Creepy villain wants revenge for something. Destroys lots of stuff. On Earth.

Let's not forget about Nemesis, although if you can I'm completely jealous of your awesome Men-In-Black-like forgetfulness.

This is why I wanted a setting far-far-away. Conquering/destroying Earth is a cheap way to get us invested in the resolution of the plot. Sure, it can be done well, and I like Abrams, but Nero was still simplicity itself and his insane motivation was a fundamental weakness in Star Trek (2009) movie. It seems he wants to correct that flaw with Sherlock here, but I'd rather he'd just have done that in the first film and leave this one for something I've been waiting patiently for since I first heard of this reboot, tribbles.

[Drumbum42]

I think you're short changing Star Trek. What made it great was that it was more than actioney, fluffy romps with tons of technobabble and flash. The original series was packed full of social commentary and moral lessons, and TNG/DS9 continued that tradition. Sure, it was never subtle or overly complex, but it's far more than you're making them out to be.

Generally most episodes had a moral or ethical lesson. But given that it was 45min/episode none of the series really got into complex plot lines. Most of them were good, all of them were entertaining, but few were complex because each episode was independent of the last one. Voyager and DS9 did some 2-3 parters that had some complexity, but it wasn't a main-stay. And the movies were just an extension of that.

And to be fair, I was just being silly. All's fair in the name of a good joke. :smallbiggrin: What they NEED to do is make another Star Trek TV Series, because I miss it.

[Hawriel]

PETER WELLER!!!!

Charlie could still fit as the movies villain.

[Obrysii]

Is anyone else interested in the circumstances leading to the Enterprise's destruction? (Presumably it will be destroyed, unless its an illusion / failed test program / hologram thing).

I'm also interested in what the Enterprise-A will look like - an Excelsior-class ship, anyone?

[SowZ]

Apparently no one has said it yet. Anyway, I have a fairly strong opinion the villain will be Gary Mitchell.

[Hopeless]

i think he's either Khan or a member of the eugenic race whom in this altered reality reached a suitable world and colonised it eventually discovered by Starfleet and this particular villain was recruited only for his people to be wiped out because they posed a threat to Starfleet and he went rogue to get revenge...

Well this would make sense!

Oh and he probably left nasty surprises aboard the Enterprise so he could make his escape and they would have something more important to worry about than just chasing him... staying alive would count for at least one!:smallbiggrin: