New Star Trek Movie's First Trailer Kicks Some Serious Galactic Ass

J.J. Abrams has released the trailer for the next Star Trek movie: Star Trek Into Darkness. Just watch it, because it's awesome. Seriously. I mean, I'm sold just on the fact that Benedict Cumberbatch -- of Sherlock fame -- plays the bad guy. That's enough for me, but this teaser makes me want it all now!

It seems the movie is really going to be dark. Like Batman: The Dark Knight Rises kind of dark, but without the pointy ears and without all that latex and a lot more lens flares.


    A captain, who's a man of action, ensues dialogue for whatever weapon he can find (in the Arnie mode) because, of course, intelligence is flawed. Put in some deep bass and big CGI that have little to do with the plot and you get a solid B from me.

      Get over yourself comic book guy

    needs more lens-flare

    It'll still be with pointy ears, Spock...

    Looks like they've reduced the franchise to a clone of Star Wars/Spiderman/Batman/

      They went for a split off timeline so they could take liberties with the characters, I appreciated that much when I saw the last one, but maybe it will attract more people to the television series' that preceeded it. Who knows, they may reboot that angle too and you might see a psuedo-Firefly come about.

    Batman: The Dark Knight Rises is not a movie that exists.


    Here I am, with Star Trek TNG playing on my second monitor...

    This trailer is an abomination to Star Trek. It's Star Trek "Michael Bay" edition, that trailer was mostly;

    1) Running
    2) Screaming
    3) Explosion
    4) Fighting

    i.e ACTION which is NOT what Star Trek is about, Star Trek is about in-depth plots that address real human issues.

    Shitty entertainment industry ruins everything when there is a buck to be made.

      I agree. I have a bad feeling about this - the Enterprise is a star ship not a submarine. It seems J.J. Abrams has done what I feared he would and destroyed the essence of what ST is about.

        "How many atmospheres of pressure can the ship take!?"
        "Well it's a spaceship, so I'd say anything between zero and one".

          Star Trek Voyager - Episode "thirty days"

          Last edited 07/12/12 9:52 am

          I think you'll find quite a few episodes in all the series where ships are flown into gas gaints, the Coronas of stars and areas of space with server gravimetric distorsions. So having a ship slightly below the water isn't breaking canon

            Having just come out of a massive Star Trek session (Voyager and TNG, 3eps at least per day until finished (finished two weeks ago)- DVD box sets were 30.00 a piece, why not?) I can safely say I'm aware of all that.

            Clearly you guys haven't seen Futurama though. =(

      When I saw the first one I thought I'd be able to get past the major SciFi fopars like building massive ships on the ground and other silly things that just stink of a non SciFi guys writing this stuff. But I think this is just a travesty, being written purely to drag in the current, Gen Y set who can't sit still for a minute and actually absorb what happening between the lines. Very sad for the Genre... :{

        Agreed. SciFi fans usually actually care about the "Sci" part. TNG generally tried paying at least lip service to the science, rather than ignoring it completely. I know it's fiction, but scenes in SciFi films that aren't even remotely grounded in actual, feasible science make fans angry, and it goes completely against the ethos of the genre (like travelling "through" a black hole back in time? FFS). Prometheus was also guilty of many "let's not run anything through a reality filter" problems.

        Instead of SciFi, these films become just another action movie in space. SciFi is an intelligent genre. It's supposed to make you think, which gets you more involved in the story, which is a good thing. Diluting the science to appeal to the lowest common denominator for maximum box office dollar value is a backwards step, and turns what could have been a fantastic film into just another "explosions in space" film.

        Also, faux pas, not fopar :)

      Watch it as a movie based in the star trek universe. Don't compare it to the original series, just enjoy what has been developed. I for one love a good story driven movie, but I'll just as easily enjoy kick ass explosions, super flares and CGI. Take it for what it is.

    I'm set to watch TOS back to front in anticipation, now that I've magically acquired it. It's only just over 5 months...

    Another revenge story?

    Well I for one believe any trek is better than no trek. Long time fan since TNG since early 1990's. seen every tv episode of all incarnations, and as much I love "old school" trek, it's 2013 and we've got to move on or fade into irrelevance.

      Yes I agree we need to update and keep it relevant, but not at the expense of continuity or common sense. Trek has a definite and well entrenched history, there is absolutely no need to tear that apart for the sake of keeping it fresh.

        I agree somewhat. But the issue is that sticking with that "history" has so far not really worked (I refer to the flop of Nemesis, $67M versus Star Trek "2009" $385M).

        How many times can you tell the same story?? I mean don't get me wrong "Generations" and "First Contact" was bloody fantastic, great story arc and fit into the ST universe like a glove, but lets be honest, it's getting old and stale. They cannot simply reboot and expect a new generation of movie goers to "get it". I think what they have done is pretty good. It's new yet old. It's different yet the same. Put it this way they could have done it MUCH MUCH worst, I think you'll agree (Star Wars Episode 1). As a movie it was good. Because it was also Trek too made it great.

        Case in point: I took my sister to see it in 2009 at the movies. Her level of knowledge about Star Trek was thus: When we were walking into the cinema she asked "Who's Spock? which one is Spock?". When she walked out of the movie she was so enthusiastic about it she started asking me about the entire history of Star Trek, the shows, the ship, the ears. "I really like Spock, he's so cool". My point is this new formula does what it's intended to do, make ST more accessible to the new generation masses.

        For me, I ordered ST:TNG Season 2 Remastered Blu Ray and now even my wife has shown some interest in the series.


        Last edited 07/12/12 11:52 am

          "she started asking me about the entire history of Star Trek"
          My case in point. Don't destroy the history just because they can't find a director to take it on. It's a challenge that I'm willing to wait for and let's face it, there's a long wait between movies in the Startrek genre.

            So you'd rather that Trek die a slow and painful "loyal" death than be revitalised by a new injection of fizz and bang and live long and prosper? Who knows, if this series does well, they may reboot it again in future with classic retelling of First Contact and/or ST universe law. Don't be so short sighted.

            Would you rather it go the way of Star Wars?? I can't even rewatch Episode 1 without my face in my palm. I've re-watched Star Trek "2009" on Blu Ray and it's still entertaining.

            No one can take away Trek history and content, but with no one interested enough to watch it and want to know about it, it won't matter one bit!

            Last edited 07/12/12 12:03 pm

              I'm all for breathing new life into it, I can swallow the new timeline if that's the direction they must take. What I can't forgive is twisting it out of shape! Vulcan destroyed, Spock in love with Uhura and the like. Give the story to someone who actually understands SciFi and at least pay some homage to Roddenberry as well, instead of ringing the life out of it.

            how are they destroying any history? I don't get what you mean. Science fiction audiences are surely able to accept multiple timelines by now.

          I wish I could upvote you fifty times mate. This Trek movie is also what got my wife into Next Generation. A wonderful gateway drug to science fiction.

      Well said. Trek movies and Trek TV are entirely different beasts.

        Totally disagree!
        Whilst you should expect more action, better graphics and a single story, the history is, or should still be there. Personally, so long as they don't mess with the continuity of the genre, I too love a good action flic but not at the expense of what Gene Roddenberry built in 'his' story.

          Is your main beef with it that they've 'changed' the Trek history? While they did make it very clear it was a 'new' timeline, I definitely see your point. It's thin ice to be sure.

          If not, I'm not sure what you're saying is the main down point could you elaborate? Or is it about the concept of 'rebooting' and kind of 'wiping' everything?

            As I mentioned above in my reply to @lillee, I can live with the new timeline if that's what must happen. I just think they've gone too far. And what's wrong with expecting the producers and directors to at least be aware of how realistic Scifi actually works. Some of the things in the original movie had me cringing in my seat. Case in point, Building a massive starship on the ground. In most every show that shows a ship in drydock, it was in space not on the ground at the full mercy of gravity. The only ship in the Genre that could do that was 'Voyager' and she was purpose built. There are a a myriad other examples that I shouldn't need to go into. Give the job to someone who knows the subject.

              Never mind the lack of realism already? Sound in space? That's right, it's for entertainment. They have to throw a little realism out the window to make it fun. (That said, if they went 'Firefly' style and abolished sound in space, I'd applaud it. In fact, there was one scene in the 2009 Star Trek that gave us a taste of space soundlessness).

              I agree that building the ship on the ground was silly. And in Iowa (wtf). And I'm not 100% convinced by this preview. But saying that all the Trek movies before Abrams were written by people with Trek backgrounds, and made for fans, just doesn't wash. It simply isn't true.

              What I'm sayin' is, I agree with your points but don't agree that this is a new trend. It's been going on since 1982(ish).

                @olearymo @lillee
                Guess I've invested a lot of time and money into that franchise, what with the books and what not, over the years since the early 70's, it's hard to see it ripped apart like this. All I can say is if they are going to go down this path, they better treat it like 'Game of Thrones' or the new 'Battlestar' or Stargate except for the cowardly cancellations! :)

                Last edited 07/12/12 4:48 pm

                  The new battlestar concept is kind of what I've been feeling this new trek is all along. What makes it different for you?

              Yeah look I raised a concerned eyebrow at that scene too, but I think you're a little too critical. You're dismissing a whole movie over one or two throw away scenes?

              We need to look at the bigger picture of what these movies do for the whole franchise. It is far more good than bad. I think you'll agree that the movie itself was entirely watcheable and quite entertaining unlike many many others in this genre (c'mon there are some terrible movies out there am I right?)

              So what if there are a few scientific flaws, I mean sure it's not as rock solid scientifically as say Transformers *MASSIVE sarcasm*, but there is more good here than bad right?

              I mean there were so many "in" jokes that only hard core fans would have even noticed, like I had to point out to my wife and sister that it's an ongoing joke that a red shirt on the away team always dies, in that space jump scene. I chuckled to myself, no one else got it.

              Last edited 07/12/12 3:26 pm


      Gary Mitchell seems more likely so:

        I had to read up on GM at memoryalpha, im not sure why he would be bent on world destruction (unless he was abord a ship that went through the energy barrier and hence repeating the plot from where no man has gone before, but to rehash that story doesn't seem right.

        The only thing i can see that really points towards it being mitchell is this snippit from memory alpha "That year, Mitchell aimed a 'little blonde lab technician' towards Kirk" and in the teaser the there is a blonde that Kirk is interested in.

        Khan or other Augment would be more in line with world domination/destruction and wanting vengeance though. And looking at that jump at the 20second mark, unless gary mitchell has absorbed the entry of the galactic barrier (as is explained in the awesome book The Q Continuum by Greg Cox), only an augment would be able to jump that high, unless its just a trick of perspective.

    Calm down folks. Star Trek movies have NEVER been made for Star Trek fans. They're for wide appeal. They're movies. Explosions, action. Not the cleverest writing*. Star Trek V, anyone?

    Let's just enjoy what we get for now, the more popular it gets the more likely we'll be proper Trek back on TV. Wouldn't that be worth it?

    *Of course, as always, exclude anything Nicholas Meyer was involved with (ST2, 3, 6). Pure. Genius.

    Last edited 07/12/12 9:49 am

      They most certainly were made for fans as well as anyone else. Abrams is, and never was a fan. It's just a job for him. If he simply produces a revenge movie set on earth with wall to wall explosions he will have entirely alienated the fan base. I hope I'm wrong but the teaser does bode well.

        'The Motion Picture' was made for fans and written by Roddenberry. Flop. Wrath of Khan wasn't made for fans. Financial success. And often considered the 'best' of them all. The studios have gone that way since.

        Read into Wrath of Khan and how Nicholas Meyer approached it sometime. He wasn't a fan. He never 'got' Star Trek, and then went 'ohh it's Horatio Hornblower in space'. Went from there.

        I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes. I'm just saying looking back on old Trek movies can be a bit rose coloured. The ones we love were, in fact, quite action heavy, and whatever you may believe most were NOT made for fans.

        Now, on a side note - how awesome is it how many Trekkie/ers are around here? Represent!

      Rubbish, I have a wall full of the old and the new ST Books, so I consider myself a fan, but not a fanatic. I explained the rest earlier in this section.

    Star Trek fans jump on your high Tribbles, another Trek movie that's not "Trek" enough for you,

      Don't stereotype us, I liked it

        I'm not saying I didn't like it, I loved it, I just get disapointed at the fans that rage and scream it's not Trek.

          A little harsh and generalised Jones. Not all of us are balking at it. But I get disappointed by the reactions too.

    Oh great, more revenge stories from the worlds most bland director. I'm glad that Star Trek was able to accommodate his massive ego yet again.

    Where's Megatron?

    The idea of building the ship on the ground was to get non trekkies to see the movie.It was also pointed out that if it had the power to warp through space surely it could rise from the ground. Also the first Enterprise from the Enterprise series could land also.

    I'll BET if you made a mashup of all the science fiction movies in the last 5 years you couldn't tell the difference. They would all look the same.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now