Here's the first teaser...



Looks like Gary Mitchel is going to be the Kahn like tool of telekinetic terrorism.
Ummm, yay?

Can we dispense with the Hans Zimmer riffs?
It was cute for Inception, it's time to move on.

What's everyone's take on the teaser?

Looks like this film won't be seeking out new lifeforms or new civilizations, since it seems to only take place on Earth.

I'm kinda pissed that of all the great franchises out there, only a few of them call the shots and set the pace for all the others these days. There are no great Star Trek or James Bond movies anymore. They're either rehashes of Bourne or Batman or both. In Star Trek's case, it's both Batman and Star Wars. I don't like it. Ron D Moore needs to make the leap to film that JJ Abrams did and do Trek his way, now that Rick Berman's outta the picture. I'd be okay with a Klingon movie. Battlestar Qo'nos. Dy-namic!

But if Giacchino uses some riffs of Goldsmith's theme for the Enterprise in Into Darkness, I'll shut the hell up. If not, then let's just say JJ will have put the "I" in STD.

"There are no great Star Trek or James Bond movies anymore."

Human nature is curious. I wonder if sometimes our expectations are not realistic, and if  memories of past "golden ages" are just part of our nature.

Most Star Trek movies, and I am a fan of the series, were awful. They've saved whales, brought Spock back to life, etc. When were the great Star Trek pictures? Khan was the only good one, and I believe it could not survive current scrutiny with the ridiculous Kirk's son sub plot.

Same with Bond, and I grew up liking those. But were they ever really "great"? With Dr. No's and other villains destroying the world and establishing colonies in space. They were fun, but they were never great.

If every movie has to be "great" we'll only see a movie made every five years. Maybe.

And there is no way to win. If you keep Star Trek similar to past efforts, people will say "nothing new here". If you take it in a different direction, those same folks will say "it's trying to be something else".

Dan, I'm not picking on you, I hope you don't take it that way. I just see these kinds of comments so often in film and script reviews, and I wonder if we don't all, myself included, need to step back and realize the past was not as golden as we remember it. Was high school the best time of our lives? Or was it zits and awkwardness?

Quoted from leitskev ...there is no way to win. If you keep Star Trek similar to past efforts, people will say "nothing new here". If you take it in a different direction, those same folks will say "it's trying to be something else".

Star Trek, Bond, Star Wars -- all of the hardcore fans identify so strongly that they almost feel entitled to a certain kind of ownership.

Each has their own vision about what any new iteration should “be” -- particularly on a board of burgeoning writers like this one -- and anything short of that vision will never quite measure up.

This will probably be "good enough" -- as are most of them -- but the only folks who will be entirely happy with the outcome are the lucky souls who got their chance to play -- for real -- in the Star Trek universe.

Wouldn't that be, like, the best assignment ever?

The only drawback is that everyone but you would have big problems with the script...

Quoted from leitskev Most Star Trek movies, and I am a fan of the series, were awful. They've saved whales, brought Spock back to life, etc. When were the great Star Trek pictures? Khan was the only good one, and I believe it could not survive current scrutiny with the ridiculous Kirk's son sub plot.

I don't understand how the David subplot is ridiculous. It's there to contribute to the theme of old age. Aside from the Enterprise, the new-found relationship with his son's the only thing Kirk really gains in Wrath of Khan, only to sacrifice both of them for his best friend in the next chapter. Say what you will, that's a helluva story arc.

Voyage Home just did Trek well. It was more light-hearted than the previous two downers, and it used science fiction to tell an optimistic story about humanity, the environment, and the future. That's what Star Trek is all about. The only problem is that it used a fad/topic popular at the time as the basis for the story. But at its heart, it was still a metaphor for the overall theme and message of Star Trek.

Star Trek was designed to adapt to the times. The problem today is that no one's being allowed to adapt it in a meaningful way. Rick Berman kinda ran it into the ground. It was stretched too thin, started to repeat itself, then finally just lost touch with audiences and the original vision. Ron D. Moore was smart and quit while he was ahead at the end of DS9's run, then took his talents to Battlestar Galactica. That was the direction Trek should've taken, but Berman was too deluded by his own weak ideas and tastes and didn't see the writing on the wall.

Despite this, there was a fanbase still eager to be exploited by Paramount, and they were only happy to oblige. But not knowing any better, they hired a successful guy to take the helm who gutted Trek to suit his own non-Trek tastes and earn a profit. As a result, we have sexy movies, but they bear little resemblance to the intellectual, humanistic Star Trek created by Gene Roddenberry that created the fanbase it's earned over the years.

Quoted Text Same with Bond, and I grew up liking those. But were they ever really "great"? With Dr. No's and other villains destroying the world and establishing colonies in space. They were fun, but they were never great.

But that's what they were and that's why people liked them for the most part. They were fun, but not great. The Brosnans quit being fun, so that's why people stopped caring. Casino Royale made it fun and interesting, for once. So did Skyfall, for those who didn't pick it apart. But only because the Bourne movies revived the genre and shifted the paradigm.

Quoted Text If every movie has to be "great" we'll only see a movie made every five years. Maybe.

I miss the days when studios didn't care this much. They let every other Trek or Bond be appalling and fun in their own right, rather than sticking them with someone else's formula for success.

Quoted Text And there is no way to win. If you keep Star Trek similar to past efforts, people will say "nothing new here". If you take it in a different direction, those same folks will say "it's trying to be something else".

That's just it. "Similar to past efforts" means adapting to the times. That's why people like Star Trek. They stopped liking it because Rick Berman shoved Jeri Ryan's and Jolene Blalock's chests in their faces instead of intense, pertinent storytelling. Berman should've kissed every part of Ron D Moore's body to make him stay, but he bet on the wrong horse kept Brannon Braga. They lost focus and spun out of control. To this day, Braga has trouble keeping any show alive these days, but Moore's still in good standing.

Quoted Text Dan, I'm not picking on you, I hope you don't take it that way. I just see these kinds of comments so often in film and script reviews, and I wonder if we don't all, myself included, need to step back and realize the past was not as golden as we remember it. Was high school the best time of our lives? Or was it zits and awkwardness?

I know I'm being unusually harsh on JJ, because he's still making decent movies that are entertaining at the end of the day. If this had nothing to do with overhauling a franchise that I love, I'd probably be a huge fan of what he's doing. Instead, I'm disappointed that he's doing his own thing, rather than exploring new ways to rejuvenate that franchise's proven, particular style of storytelling. It's like Paramount hiring Don Siegel to make Godfather II into a cop movie because French Connection and Dirty Harry were hits. Might've been a good movie, but in lieu of what FFC did within that franchise's scope with the real Godfather II, it wasn't the right thing to do. I'm saying that's the problem Star Trek has right now. A good filmmaker's in charge, but he's not the right guy for the job and his approach doesn't do the franchise justice in the long run.

Well, leave it to the Japanese to spoil J.J.'s mystery box party...



And right there at the end...
Spock's hand on glass. Someone on the other side. Isolated. Boom.

So, it's the cranky Gary Mitchell doing Kahn like things to the Federation.
What's your take on those precious few last seconds added to this trailer?

Check it out before Paramount rips it down!

Again, Alex and Bob are rehashing Wrath of Khan. That's what I think of the extra footage. Looks like the Enterprise goes underwater, too. Probably for a sub-warfare scene that mirrors the battle in the Mutara Nebula.

If they keep this up, I'm gonna hate Wrath of Khan for spawning so many bastardized versions of itself. So much so that I'll write Star Trek III and call it The Wrath of Dan. Or Star Trek Into My A**hole.

"Dammit, JJ. I'm a sequel, not a clone!"

Quoted from Electric Dreamer Can we dispense with the Hans Zimmer riffs? It was cute for Inception, it's time to move on.

Copying the Zimmer score is something that has really begun to annoy me, too. Not only is it painfully obvious, but they've poisoned the effect by driving it into the ground.

The teaser doesn't really excite me. I saw the first movie at the theater and thought it was good, though fairly forgettable. I'll probably watch this one later at home.

Why can't someone copy Goldsmith's The Motion Picture score? Particularly the main title and the V'Ger cues.

I miss pre-JJ Star Trek right now.

Dan, you know your films and your Trek. Much more than me. I'll only make soft suggestions.

The last Trek movie was well received. And I liked it myself. Even though the plot was silly when you think about it.

Why did I like it? Why did the original series succeed? Star Trek the series did some intriguing things, such as exploring thematic topics in a true sci fi spirit. But the reason it worked was because there was a certain chemistry with the characters.

I think the recent movie went back to that. It didn't always work, but overall it did. There was the right blend of humor, tension, quirkiness and character flaw. Everyone I know liked it.

I'm not going comment on the next film based just on the trailer. I think there are some things that I would like to see, things that worked in the original series:

- character chemistry
- testosterone(no PC feminized crap like found its way in later)
- exploration of larger themes by sparking some kind of intellectual question on the nature of man.

Notice I did not say space exploration, the original premise. That's because that no longer intrigues like it did in the 1960s.

As far as missing the days when the studios didn't care...hmm. Did such a time exist? And was that really a good thing? I get that you are referring to the formulaic approach and probably big tent marketing tactics. I'm just not sure asking studios to not care will result in better product.

I'll bet one thing: you'll go see it!  Ok, I appreciate your comments.

Like you guys I've watched Star Trek since I was a kid. I like TNG, DS9, VOG, and even ENT.

But IMO Abrams took a franchise that was dead in the water and breathed new life into it. I loved Star Trek 09, it was fun and also LOOKED fantastic on the screen.

This trailer looks great to! I just cant figure out who Cumberbatch is playing. It has a Khan vibe, but he doesnt really look like Khan or sound like him. Maybe his second in command?

Quoted from Hugh Hoyland This trailer looks great to! I just cant figure out who Cumberbatch is playing. It has a Khan vibe, but he doesnt really look like Khan or sound like him. Maybe his second in command?

Pretty sure it's a revamped version of this original series character...

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Gary_Mitchell

But yeah, he does a ton of Khan-like stuff in the teaser!

Regards,
E.D.

Trek '09 DID get the characters right. STID prolly will too. At first, I loved that. Then as I watched '09 more and watched the other Trek films and TV series, i realized the space stuff was used as a device, not a metaphor. Star Trek is partially about the interpersonal relatinships of the characters, but it's also about how they react to strange new worlds, new lifeforms, and new civilizations, while boldly going where no one has gone before. Trek '09 just went where Star Wars has gone before: creating lovable characters and fun stories set in space. That's likable and commendable, but how do we get our fix from the other stuff now? There are only so many re-runs to re-watch.

JJ Abrams and Ron D. Moore should have a lirpa fight over Star Trek, a la Kirk and Spock in "Amok Time." the winner takes control of Trek.

Quoted from DanBall Trek '09 DID get the characters right.

Except for the Spock/Uhura hook-up.

That is the most retarded decision in the history of the franchise.

Quoted from bert Except for the Spock/Uhura hook-up. That is the most retarded decision in the history of the franchise.

I couldn't agree more.