Analysis Of Star Trek Into Darkness IMAX Extended Preview + Open Thread For Prologue & Trailer #2 | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Analysis Of Star Trek Into Darkness IMAX Extended Preview + Open Thread For Prologue & Trailer #2 December 14, 2012

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Review,Spoilers,Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

The wait is over for Star Trek Into Darkness, well actually for the first nine minutes of the movie which can bee seen at IMAX 3D screenings of The Hobbit this weekend. Today TrekMovie analyzes this prologue in detail. See below and also chat about it in the comments section. You can also chat about the new trailer which is also showing in non-IMAX domestic Hobbit screenings (and will be online on Monday). Warning: Spoilers.

 

ANALYSIS: IMAX Star Trek Into Darkness Preview + JJ Talks ‘Darkness’

The Star Trek Into Darkness "extended preview" is showing exclusively with The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey An IMAX 3D Experience at Digital IMAX theaters (click HERE for Domestic List & HERE for International List). The nine minute prologue will not be made available online, but will remain in theaters with The Hobbit in IMAX. (The analysis below contains photos, but all are from the trailer released last week or other sources).

Before we start, I would like to say that there are spoilers and you should probably just go see it yourself before reading and commenting.

PART 1: EARTH

London and a Stardate – 1 year later

Star Trek Into Darkness starts with the same iconic pinging sounds that began 2009’s Star Trek, but this time it resolves into an alarm clock being shut off in a London flat. This seems to be a fake-out but also an attempt to start the film as more grounded. The year is Stardate 2259.55 (or February 2259). This is a little over a year after (most of) the events of the 2009 Star Trek movie. This is our first indication of the time setting for the film. The current Star Trek comic series has shown the new crew have a number of adventures so we knew the sequel would not take place right after the first film, but in the real world four years have passed. It appears that the new team want their crew to still be a bit fresh from when James T. Kirk was given command of the Federation’s flagship, which is probably a better move than taking us four years into their mission.

 
Into Darkness (apparently) kicks off about a year after the crew set off at the end of "Star Trek"

A family in need and an ominous offer to help – leading to terror in London?

Back to London, where there is a montage of scenes with a couple (played by Noel Clarke and Nanzeen Contractor) taking their future car to a hospital in the country where we see an old style building filled with nice but subtle futuristic touches like floating gurneys. The father and mother are visiting their very sick little girl and it is heartbreaking. This montage of scenes has no dialog but is accompanied by beautifully mournful music from Michael Giacchino. The father has to step outside to get some air….and then he hears an ominous voice behind him say "I can save her." Turning he sees Benedict Cumberbatch tell him he can save his daughter and (like every Trekkie in the world is asking), the father implores "who are you?"

Cumberbatch’s John Harrison is giving Dad a way to save his kid so the implication is that he has some kind of advanced medical technology not available to the doctors at this very fine looking hospital. With all the speculation swirling, I expect most Trekkies (and even some non-Trekkies) will jump to the theory that he is offering advanced (genetically engineered) medicine. As we know genetic engineering on humans is outlawed in the Federation, so if you are offering it you lurk around the edges of hospitals like some kind of 23rd century drug dealer. The location of London is also noteworthy due to the teaser poster which clearly showed some kind of destruction overlooking the London skyline. Benedict Cumberbatch has described John Harrison as a terrorist, so are we to assume London a target? It remains to be seen how this family ties into all that but it probably isn’t a coincidence.

 
John Harrison atop pile of rubble overlooking London (from teaser poster)

PART 2: NIBIRU

Kirk and McCoy "save" some aliens

We then have a quick jump to the Class M planet Nibiru (new to the Trek canon) with a bunch of humanoid aliens with chalky white skin adorned with colorful tattoos chasing a couple of robed figures through an orange jungle. There is also a total change in the pacing, the music, even the look. We have now entered EPIC ACTION STAR TREK ZONE.


This lovely location on planet Nibiru is Volcano adjacent

Soon it is revealed that the people being chased are our heroes, James T. Kirk and Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy and Kirk is holding something that he apparently stole from the aliens to draw them away from "the kill zone" of a looming volcano.


McCoy is not happy about being chased by aliens

Spock gets dropped in a volcano – by choice

Through some back and forth communicator chatter between Kirk and Spock (on board a shuttle wearing his shiny red Iron Man suit) we learn that Spock is planning on deploying a "super ice cube" (Kirk’s description) into a volcano, but they are all trying to hide from the aliens in order to maintain the prime directive. Sulu is piloting the shuttle and doing a lot of screaming about how things are getting hairy, and Uhura is there to help Spock with his suit – and apparently for moral support for her man as she gives him a peck on his helmet. Eventually Sulu decides that they aren’t going to make it and they try to pull Spock back up but he refuses, cutting his line to heroically drop into the volcano.


Spock and his "super ice cube" lowered into the Volcano

Kirk and McCoy go for a swim…to the Enterprise

We return back to the running Kirk and McCoy who have some witty back and forth leading up to the pair jumping off a cliff. This Butch and Sundance move seems crazy until something even crazier happens and you see the pair of them swim up to the USS Enterprise hiding under water. You read that right. Enterprise. Under. Water.


Time for a dip on Nibiru

Does the Prime Directive dictate Spock should get roasted in a volcano?

The rest of the prologue features Kirk, McCoy, Scotty, Chekov, Sulu and Uhura (boy those two sure got there fast after abandoning their shuttle) mostly on the USS Enterprise bridge (which appears unchanged since the last movie). They are all talking to Spock who is having a lovely stroll through the inside of a volcano. He is trying to stop an eruption in order to save the indigenous species. And during this we get some good bridge interplay and some funny lines by Scotty, along with a great reaction shot of him spotting a giant fish out the window. Also it is likely pandering, but sure that lots of folks will like seeing Zoe Saldana and Chris Pine is skin tight Starfleet wet suits.


Thankfully  Spock packed his volcano suit

But there is serious business going on as the shuttle is toast (and apparently sending any others is pointless?) and the transporters can’t get Spock out either. So just keeping track here, but beaming from Titan to Earth was no big deal and even beaming at warp could be pulled off, but some smoke from a volcano and forget about it.  Anyway Spock is going on about the Prime Directive and noting how the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few," but Kirk is not having any of it. There is a ticking clock towards detonation, and Kirk realizes that if the roles were reversed Spock would let his captain die to protect the Prime Directive. The segment ends with Kirk pondering his options and Spock apparently accepting his fate as a future rock formation.

While this whole sequence is a James Bond/Indiana Jones action-packed thrill-ride opening sequence it also deals with core issues of Star Trek. The Prime Directive is about as core as you can get and Kirk is faced with the dilemma of weighing it against his family (Spock is part of his crew/family)


Is this the end for Mr. Spock? Will Kirk let him die? Tune in May 17th

OK, well it isn’t a stretch to think that maybe Kirk finds a way to get Spock out of the pinch, but perhaps he has to break the Prime Directive to do it. If those are his only two choices and if the rest of the movie isn’t a flashback, then Spock is going to make it out of there some how. How do I feel about USS Enterprise under water? I’m cool with it. This one was built on land after all and if it can handle the stress of warp travel and space battles, it can probably handle a few atmospheres of water pressure. And they ‘hung a lantern on it’ by having Scotty griping about how stupid it was to do it and how the saltwater is causing all sorts of trouble. At the Bad Robot visit earlier this the producers assured us that there was a logical reason for it. That being said, I do think that a starship (especially with glowing engines) would be generating a lot of heat and shouldn’t there just be plumes of steam all over?


Not seen in the prologue – but what goes down must come up

Final thoughts

This is just a taste of JJ Abrams’ Star Trek Into Darkness. We really learn very little about the plot of the film but it is nice to start off with our crew out in space on a mission on a real "strange new world," well OK the ship is under water and not in space but close enough. The rest of the film will likely have more to do with Cumberbatch’s ominous offer to the troubled father than it will the Nibirians and their volcano.

The opening doesn’t have the same kind of emotional punch as the 2009 Star Trek film, featuring the death of Kirk’s father, the birth of baby Kirk and divergence of timelines. This time they seem to be aiming more for the gut instead of the heart to start their movie. While different, everyone still seems on their game. The actors have slipped right back into their roles and even show us how the characters have moved on a bit since we last saw them. The chemistry between Pine and Urban as well as Saldana and Quinto hasn’t missed a beat. And Simon Pegg’s Scotty still steals the show, and it seems to me, he has even dialed his Scottishness up a notch.

All of my kidding above aside, watching Kirk (with McCoy at his side) running around on an alien planet barking orders to Spock through a communicator and signing off with an emphatic "Kirk Out!" just brings chills to this Trekkie. There is no more looking at these guys as interlopers. They are the crew of the USS Enterprise, and deservedly so.

As for the look, it is clear that Abrams is now painting on an even wider canvas than his previous Star Trek film (which was his second feature film). And even though he was reportedly reluctant to embrace 3D, he uses it to great effect in this IMAX preview, with the ash cloud, and ocean scenes really giving a sense of immersion into this world. Abrams still still is frenetic with the camera constantly in motion and cuts coming rapid fire, but for this  film he seems to have toned down his signature lens flares a bit. And while some may be wondering about the logic of the USS Enterprise in the ocean, the shots of ship underwater (especially in IMAX 3D) were astounding. You can tell that even in the last four years ILM has improved their technology and their digital craftsmanship .

Of course once again the production values are at a level that almost takes some getting used to for Star Trek. From the sound, to the effects, to the costumes and props, everything is truly best in class. And Giachino’s music is again a highlight, matching and enhancing the mood for each moment. He even calls back to his last Star Trek for the reveal of the Enterprise.

If I have one beef it is with the Nibirians. With a big budget Star Trek movie we should see some really alien aliens. This has been one of the strengths of the Star Wars franchise – even the much maligned prequels. But the Into Darkness’ Nibirians just look like some kind of primitive tribe of mud-caked humans straight out of National Geographic. I didn’t even realize they had four nostrils until I visited Bad Robot and saw the designs up close. Sure they are better than the proverbial aliens-of-the-week with slapped-on latex foreheads from Star Trek on TV, but not by much.

Regardless, for those who don’t mind just getting a taste, catching this "extended preview" should be a delight for any fan of the 2009 Star Trek movie. If you have no interest in The Hobbit, it may be hard to justify paying to just see nine minutes, but if you can’t wait then you will probably think it is worth it.

Bottom Line is that seeing nine minutes of Star Trek Into Darkness only makes me want more…so five months is a long time to wait.


Uhura cant bear waiting five months either

BREAKDOWN OF TRAILER #2

Also showing this weekend with non-IMAX screenings of The Hobbit (US and Canada) is the second Star Trek Into Darkness trailer. This trailer will be be available streaming at TrekMovie.com (and elsewhere) on Monday. TrekMovie will also be offering the usual shot-by-shot breakdown. Until then, here is a repost of the details from the screening at the Bad Robot visit earlier this week.

NOTE: Showing trailers is at theater discretion and so some showings of The Hobbit may not have the Into Darkness trailer.

Description

Like with the first trailer the dialog is mostly in the form of voiceover. First up is Admiral Pike telling Kirk there is "greatness" in him, but then saying something along the lines of "you think you can’t make a mistake, but there will come a time when you you realize you are wrong about that and you are going to get yourself and everyone under your command killed." The trailer also features to voice of Benedict Cumberbatch’s John Harrison (also likely talking to Kirk), using the dialog "You think you’re safe…you are not" and "is there anything you would not do for your family?" (both heard in the first trailer).

Here are more highlights of shots not seen in trailer released last week.

These bits will all get thrown into the Speculatron which will hit a fever pitch this weekend. However, bear in mind that this report is based on a single viewing of a very fast-paced trailer (so please forgive any possible errors). On Monday (after trailer is released online) TrekMovie will have the full details, with the usual shot-by-shot analysis.


This scene will be shown in trailer coming out this weekend

VOTE: Did you see the IMAX Preview? Did you like it?

Weigh in on the IMAX preview. (If you are planning on seeing it this week maybe wait to vote).

See/Like Into Darkness IMAX preview?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

 

 

 

Comments

1. fwise3 - December 14, 2012

Just saw it! Was AWESOME! Want to see more NOW!

2. mhansen0207 - December 14, 2012

Anthony, I know it may be impossible or a pain in the ass, but is there ANY way of verifying if the AMC Foothills 15 theater in Tucson, Arizona is showing the 9 minute preview?

On the Facebook listings, it states that it is, but on the Paramount site, it states that it is the AMC Foothills 15 in Phoenix.

Again, this is probably a stupid question, but after reading your description, I’d REALLY love to see this preview if I can.

3. Oliver - December 14, 2012

Is the Trailer online?

4. Chris Rod - December 14, 2012

Anthony thank you for being so bad ass and ontop of everything and keeping to JJs vision!

Be well,

Don’t be afraid to watch the hobbit guys…

5. Anthony Pascale - December 14, 2012

I cant really track down each theater thing. Try calling the theater. I was told the list on the official site is the most accurate, that is all i know. Maybe call the theater

6. Calastir - December 14, 2012

So no use of the transporter, Enterprise under water and more running and jumping off cliffs?
I feared as much. I wish Abrams would just direct the next Star Wars sequels. Apparently the intrigue of the Star Trek universe just isn’t his thing.

7. TOS forever - December 14, 2012

Garth of Izar. A man who was gravely injured, “saved” by the people of Antos. A man whose appearance (and name) can change helping him possibly infiltrate a Starfleet building (as Spock or being chased by Spock). A former starship Fleet Captain. The legend of the Battle of Axenar. As stated in ‘Whom Gods Destroy’ starfleet’s “greatest warrior” (maybe with a score to settle with the Klingons) and a “genius” who could create weapons and destruction on a planetary scale. A man who DID NOT have any followers (unlike Khan) exceptt for a dozen mentally ill inmates and (to this point) CLEARLY DOES NOT have any followers now.

Frankly, if ‘John Harrison’ is not Garth of Izar this film is another factually-flimsy, confusing, disappointment from JJ “i gotta have more lensflare” Abrams & crew.

William Shatner, “it doesn’t have the heart my Star Trek did”. I couln’t agree more Captain.

8. Rob - December 14, 2012

I went and saw The Hobbit in 2D at midnight. Screwed. Marcus theaters don’t seem to be carrying the ST2 trailer.

I am STILL weeping the forlorn tears of a broken hearted man.

9. Baby - December 14, 2012

Two Question I have to ask?

1. Is Uhura becoming like Arwen from lord of the rings?…I sure hope she doesnt end up like Padme from Star Wars.

2. Also this 9 minutes preview does not mean it is the first 9 minutes of the film? That will just pain suck.

10. Mark James Tucker - December 14, 2012

Who was it that came up with the nonsense that the hospital scene takes place 3years prior to Kirk entering star fleet?

When clearly its one year later, well I am back to thinking if John Harrison is a decoy name, than he is really Gary Mitchell.

That said I dont think John Harrison is a decoy name.

11. mhansen0207 - December 14, 2012

I have to say though, I just don’t get it….how does anything described here sound REMOTELY related to Star Wars?

Some people just never pleased I guess.

12. Mark James Tucker - December 14, 2012

Oh and for those claiming that khans theme is heard in the opening, thats not Khan’s theme.
It vaguely sounds like a cue from TWOK, but Khan didnt have a theme in TWOK. and Giachino even said it wasnt a cue or homage of a cue from TWOK, and that he might even completely rescore the scene before the movies release.

13. captain_neill - December 14, 2012

Rick Berman always said “This was not my vision, this was Gene’s vision’ and he updated things and I think he kept well to the cision. I believe you can challenge that vision to add more conflict, like they did in DS9 but it must never be lost.

The opening on the planet sounds cool, it’s nice to see Kirk and the crew on a mission to a ‘strange new world’ which is their mission. Not sure I like the Enterprise in the ocean, the Delta Flyer had to be modified to operate in an ocean planet in the episode ‘Thirtty Days’.

For most parts this sounds cool, yes it’s not the Star Trek I grew up loving but I can stil enjoy the film. TO me the thing that can really ruin this is realising they are rehashing one of Trek’s best villain and as I said before I hate to be comparing Cumberbatch to Montalban because Montalban will win.

14. Anthony Pascale - December 14, 2012

the whole thing about it being 3 years prior was due to another site using the wrong date in their preview. As I was trying to remain relatively spoiler free in my preview (as per JJ’s request) I didnt note a date (or correct the record) until today. It was definitely 2259.55 – I scribbled it on a piece of paper right there in the theater as I knew it was a key point.

15. Rob - December 14, 2012

7 TOS…

Respectfully, you don’t know a darn thing about the total content of the movie, except for the minute amount of info we all have seen or read. If the SC hasn’t somehow read your mind and produced a movie that incorporates all of your ideas…. It’s rubbish?

I hope you are employing sarcasm. Sheesh.

16. Mark James Tucker - December 14, 2012

Khan’s Pets the Ceti Eels had a theme.
But Khan himself didnt have a theme that was specificly Khan
though i suspect some of you are trying to claim that Burried Alive, or Surprise on Ceti Alpha V are khans theme.

17. Mark James Tucker - December 14, 2012

Thank you Anthony.

18. njdss4 - December 14, 2012

Sounds good so far. Here’s hoping the story is better this time around because there isn’t a writer’s strike going on.

I really want to see this 9min preview, but I don’t want to see The Hobbit (or any movie) in 3D. Guess I’ll just have to wait until the movie comes out, or hope someone leaks it online!

19. Baby - December 14, 2012

@7 TOS FOREVER

Go home and watch TOS and leave us (a younger generation) to enjoy JJ Abrams Trek

20. Baby - December 14, 2012

@11 mhansen0207

When I gave a refernce to star wars .I meant the character of Uhura. from the description of the 9 minutes clip, uhura comes off as a very noble woman who basically worships her boyfriend/husband/lover. this is what got padme (who is a star wars character) killed.

besides star wars and star trek and soulmates…they will always be compared.

21. Anthony Pascale - December 14, 2012

Guys it is a day of celebration, not a time to fight. Lets all find a way to get along

22. Garth Faction - December 14, 2012

#7, 19

I think Garth is a good fit. And I think, if he is impersonating someone, he can immediately have followers due to the authority of that person (in TOS, he wanted to take the place of Kirk for that reason). So if he is successful at this, that is the start of his crew. And if he has a “good reason” for what he is doing (some real threat he wants to overcome) he will be able to keep those people with him.

However, I don’t think it is certain it is him. I only give it a 25% chance. I think he is the perfect fit, from what we know, but I also know he isn’t too well known, so it would have taken work to find him and decide to use him. This is possible. I don’t think the fact others don’t know him means nothing as to whether he could be used (when the TOS episode was shown the first time, no one knew him and yet he was able to be used) and this way one shouldn’t dismiss him and those who think it could be him.

23. Aix - December 14, 2012

I am all for airing opinions but man, some people just spoil the fun altogether.

Also, no preview in the Philippines. Oh, my poor country.

24. KHAAAN the weasel - December 14, 2012

Well, no matter who Cumberbatch”s character really is, no matter if “John Harrison” is his actual name or if he’s just the “Miranda Tate” of Trek, I just hope that he’s not too much of a “comic book supervillain”-type…

25. Tombot3000 - December 14, 2012

I saw the Hobbit 2D… no preview, no trailer for TREKaught13. I enjoyed the Hobbit far more than I expected. After Earth & Oblivion were too similiar, my movie buddy was turned of by them. :-D

26. Garth Faction - December 14, 2012

#24 turns out he is really a comic book supervillain and he is Darkseid!

27. Rob - December 14, 2012

21

Couldnt agree more. I hope I didnt come off too snarky in response to another groundless gripe about the SC being lame for possibly not using another pet theory/villian. Its an oft repeated refrain and I am a wee bit tired after a midnight showing of The Hobbit 2D…..that DIDNT CONTAIN A ST2 TRAILER! I feel like charlie brown after lucy pulls the football away!

And BTW…. THANK YOU for all ya do here. This is the ONLY site I visit anymore.

28. dontcare - December 14, 2012

Hey everyone, about the whole “starship in the water” thing. In the Voyager episode “Thirty Days”, season 5 episode 9, several starships emerge from a world completely composed of water (Monea, IIRC), so the idea has seen use in Trek before.

Just throwing it out there

29. Jeyl - December 14, 2012

“Uhura is there – apparently for moral support for her man”

Because that’s all she’s good for, isn’t it?

30. dontcare - December 14, 2012

Oh, and didn’t Enterprise have some Xindi Aquatics in ships that launched from oceans? If that is still a part of the history of JJ’s timeline, perhaps that technology was included when building Enterprise, since the Xindi are allies in the 23rd century.

31. JRT! - December 14, 2012

Sounds good! Look forward to seeing a crappy quality version online this weekend. And the new trailer is officially online from Monday,if I remember correctly. And I’m sure someone has mentioned it already in an earlier post here,lol!

Being a Trekker,on and off,sure is FUN sometimes! No,was never a Trekkie. Sorry,lol!

And I just HAD to add Pacific Rim to my list of movies to look forward to after seeing that REALLY cool trailer!

Have fun y’all!

J-R!

32. Steve Hills - December 14, 2012

I’m looking forward to seeing the movie, but according to the Prime Directive, should Kirk, et al., even be trying to save the indigenous species? I thought the Prime Directive was “Don’t Interfere with pre-warp cultures,” not “Interfere, but only in ways they don’t know about.”

33. Doug - December 14, 2012

The alarm clock at the beginning is, of course,stolen directly from the opening of the first episode of the Dr Who reboot.

34. Pointed Sideburns - December 14, 2012

I think it’s funny that Kirk is faced with violating the Prime Directive 1 year into his Captaincy. That probably explains Pike chewing him out in the upcoming theatrical trailer.

35. KHAAAN the weasel - December 14, 2012

@26: DARKSEID! I think you got the wrong spoiler there… But hey, if he’s Darkseid, then the stakes would indeed be high!

36. KHAAAN the weasel - December 14, 2012

@33: No man, it’s obviously stolen from “Groundhog Day”
(sorry for the double post)

37. Jemini - December 14, 2012

29 : will people say it every damn time there is a S/U scene now? Because it’s getting old this way to judge Uhura’s character. Seriously, if they’re a couple it’s totally normal for her to show support for him and, hell, care about him. What they’re supposed to do? Ignore each other? I haven’t see someone complaining when in the first teaser everything Scotty was showed doing was comforting Uhura (it’s his only clear shoot in the teaser unlike Uhura) JFC

38. Sam - December 14, 2012

#21

Anthony, today is indeed a day for celebration.

It’s great to see so many people coming away from The Hobbit so positive about STID. (Twitter has its uses!)

It’s even better to see a new generation of Trek fans emerge:
“That Star Trek2 trailer looks dope – can’t wait”
“Never thought I’d be a Trekkie!”
“My Dad’s a Trekkie so I’ll go see it with him!”
“Me and my dad spend way too much time coming up with theories as to who’s the bad guy in the new Star Trek movie”

And this an article in today’s technology section of The Economist:
“The dream of the medical tricorder”
http://www.economist.com/news/technology-quarterly/21567208-medical-technology-hand-held-diagnostic-devices-seen-star-trek-are-inspiring?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/the_dream_of_the_medical_tricorder

“Medical technology: The hand-held diagnostic devices seen on “Star Trek” are inspiring a host of medical add-ons for smartphones”

STAR TREK **MATTERS**

In a world where there is a member of the US House Science, Space and Technology Committee who recently said:

“All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell”

— it is more important than ever that all of us do what we can to keep the Star Trek franchise afloat – better still, to ensure it is triumphant.

Anthony, thank you for your great contribution to the march of progress.

39. Rose (as in Keachick) - December 14, 2012

I love what I am reading so far. The idea of the Enterprise being able to go underwater as well as warp through space is so far out and fantastic. I suspect that Kirk says something like “To hell with regulations. I’m going to get Spock back alive…”. We get to see a very, very pale person who could be Kirk…

So we get to see Pine/Kirk in a tight fitting wetsuit…hmmm Chris Pine always claimed he never looked that good in spandex. Well, hopefully, I won’t need to wait five months to see whether Chris Pine is correct. I suspect he is wrong. Oh dear, no hanging from vines over a rocky rapids but jumping off a high cliff onto a rocky swirling sea is just as good. It’ll do me. No doubt Bones will have a few choice words to say about the predicament that Kirk has put him in…:)

Oh dear, NZ is not included in the countries listed on the HERE link for international audiences. It is actually very ironic, given that the movie that the preview is meant to be preceding is the Hobbit, the first of a set of movies made solely in NZ!

I really hope this is an oversight, in that NZ is not included in that list of countries. Holy crap!

40. NCC-73515 - December 14, 2012

The Enterprise would not heat up the water much, since it has thermal isolation. Also, there have been ships under physical pressure before: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/GSC

41. Spock Jenkins - December 14, 2012

I’m sure it’s been mentioned before ( at least i hope so ), but regarding Enterprise Underwater – Voyager managed to travel through Fluidic Space for the course of a season, so it shouldn’t be a problem for Enterprise?

42. captain_neill - December 14, 2012

41
But was the Enterprise designed to be in a Class M atmosphere to get to the ocean? Voyager could land on a planet but not sure if Enterprise could, which was why the Enterprise being built on Eath rather than the San Francisco Orbital Shipyards got my goat in the last one.

43. Tiberius Subprime - December 14, 2012

Ah, there it is again. Strange…

44. Jonny Boy - December 14, 2012

My theater was on two separate lists I remember checking last week or so. Now suddenly, we get to the theater, the lights come down… and nothing. Except the Hobbit, of course. (Loved it by the way)

Then at the end half the theater stayed hoping it might show up at the end… it didn’t. Low and behold my theater is no longer listed anywhere. I must have missed all the fine print that said it would be Digital IMAX showings only. Oh well, guess I’ll have to drive to Riverside for it. Sounds awesome, though!

45. Spock Jenkins - December 14, 2012

42. Sure, I see your point. I think the shields/Structural Integrity Field/etc. would hold Enterprise together underwater though from my understanding. If it was a real life space ship/airplane I take the point it would crumple underwater.

On the flip side, I always used to wonder, with all the stresses Enterprise comes under in battle ( while in Space ), gravometric pressures/etc. How do the nacelles and the pylons not manage to break off – they’d be the first things to snap in an attack. But again I suspect, the shields account for this also…

46. BulletInTheFace - December 14, 2012

#6: Uh… how do you equate this trailer to Star Wars? There is nothing Star Wars-y about it. And the transporters not working is a staple Star Trek conceit.

Those determined to hate this movie will hate it, no matte what.

47. motrock - December 14, 2012

So, is the Enterprise bridge the same this time around? Does it look different in any way?

48. Robert - December 14, 2012

Regarding the prime directive, it’s only about not interfering with the natural and social development of a civilization. So a minor chase to get them away from the …. Blast so Spock can implant the super ice cube doesn’t interfere with the development of their society.

49. boy - December 14, 2012

when do we get more screen shots of the 9 min clip?

50. Tesla's Cat - December 14, 2012

I’m sure it’ll be great overall, but more Uhura as passive romantic prop…sorry, no. Just. No.

51. JohnRambo - December 14, 2012

@13. captain_neill

Rick Berman killed Star Trek!

52. Trekzilla - December 14, 2012

The Enterprise may be able to go underwater, but that shape is not a good one for traveling underwater. Maybe it’s just sitting there underwater?

A better question is, how would the Enterprise fly through an atmosphere? Yes, I know it’s been done before in previous treks….but how?

53. captain_neill - December 14, 2012

51-
It might have become a victim of franchise fatigue but it was still Star Trek. And perhaps it needed some freshening up and JJ Abrams did do that to a degree, but at the same time I think he has taken some liberties that as a fan I did not agree with. I think something’s have been sacrificed to get the mainstream in and that is a problem with having a higher budget and that is to satisy them.

Pleasing the mainstream and the hardcore fan base is a difficult balancing act

54. Flake - December 14, 2012

It sure is a great time to be a Star Trek fan… yes I know we dont have once weekly or twice weekly adventures anymore but we got totally spoiled during the 90s with movies and two tv shows and it nearly wrecked the franchise.

Who would have thought Trek could return like it has, surpassing its mid-80s and mid-90s zenith?

People who have never seen Trek and who would never see Trek are getting into the franchise through these new movies and some are so impressed with what they see in the movies that they just have to see the TV Shows and the old movies as well! I think thats great.

Thanks JJ Abrams and team :)

PS: Enough bitching guys, just enjoy the resurgent Star Trek and help the new fans out :) (I am not new btw, I was hooked in early 90s on TOS & TNG as a 7yr old ;) )

55. Trekzilla - December 14, 2012

#42 — I’m asking the same questions! :-) And in A Piece of the Action, Kirk flat out says the Enterprise can’t land. Now, true, the transporter was created for budgetary reasons to not have to show the ship land each week, the shape and size of the Enterprise is not an aerodynamic or seaworthy one…

56. Flake - December 14, 2012

In the Immunity Syndrome the Enterprise enters a giant space amoeba and happily swims around in its innards which is probably water or similar fluid.

57. J - December 14, 2012

I’m not that worried about having “alien aliens”. ST was always about humanoids anyway and I’m fine with it.

58. Josh - December 14, 2012

No one has happened to find either of these on youtube yet that people have provided for us, have they? Driving me nuts that all I can get is a description :P

59. Bird Of Clay - December 14, 2012

DAMN, i wish i could see it too…

*sighs*

60. Emperor Mike of the Empire - December 14, 2012

I only read some of Anthony’s post as i will be seeing this tomorrow night. But it sounds like we are getting a taste of the Big E seeking out strange new life and trying to save them. That to me is Star Trek and of course a bad guy lurking. Can’t wait to see the 9 Min trailer.

61. noleknight - December 14, 2012

@ 6 and 7….This link is just for you…
http://transformedandscaled.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/wamb.jpg

62. Emperor Mike of the Empire - December 14, 2012

#53. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
That is what J.J is trying to do.

63. Darkthunder - December 14, 2012

I only have one question (to those who have seen the longer footage):

Compared to the 2009 movie, have they reduced the amount of lens flares in the sequel? I’d love to see them removed ENTIRELY, but that might be too much wishful thinking.

64. Emperor Mike of the Empire - December 14, 2012

Hey Anthony. Any idea if they have used Del Trames name in the movie. BND.

65. LogicalLeopard - December 14, 2012

Okay.

After reading the review of this first 9 minutes of footage, I am convinced that Orci and Kurtzman buy small baggies of awesome from shady characters in shady places, take them home, freebase them, and start typing.

TOP 3 AWESOME THINGS ABOUT THIS TRAILER

1) ADVENTURE TIME WITH KIRK AND BONES!

Kirk: We need to get these innocent aliens away from the volcano

McCoy: How do we do that? I’m a doctor, not a moving company.

Kirk: See that holy looking doohickey over there? Steal it!

McCoy: I’m a doctor, not a….

Kirk: *yoink* (tosses object to bones) RUN!!!!

James T. Kirk. Out of the box idea purveyor and Gordian knot slayer.

2) SUPER ICE CUBES

A volcano is erupting What do you do? Why, a super ice cube naturally. Yeah, we can all probably figure out how it works, maybe inducing low kelvin scale temperatures by insert trekbabble here, but who cares about all that. SPOCK IS JUMPING INTO A VOLCANO WITH AN ICE CUBE! Hurrah! Awesome!

3) CORNER THE SEAQUEST MARKET

Now, I’ve always thought that the complaints about the Enterprise going in water was probably the stupidest, pettiest argument ever. Starships are made from Duranium, which is stronger than the best alloy we have today. They can survive reentry (provided they can be landed safely, I’m looking at you, Troi) So who in their right might would complain about a little salt water?

Scotty, that’s who!

When it comes down to it, the only person in their right mind who would complain about salt water is Scotty. It probably does absolutely nothing to the ship, but since it’s HIS baby, he treats it like a first time parent does a baby in November, swaddling it with twice it’s weight in coats, scarves, blankets, etc. Awesome!

Good on you, Orci, Kurtzman, and JJ! Although I still think JJ is Khan, he can take over the world of Trek ANYTIME in my book.

66. Jeyl - December 14, 2012

@37. Jemini

Jemini, it’s not the relationship. If you can find my old comments on this site, you will see that I was never opposed to the idea of Spock and Uhura having a relationship. Heck, I actually thought it was a good idea since the two of them had a nice chemistry from the original series. But the problem with the last film? There was no chemistry. It was just there. Where’s the teasing? Where’s the playful banter? Where is the attraction? I honestly didn’t buy the relationship especially when you find out that Uhura happily decided to stay onboard the Enterprise rather than aid her boyfriend in helping the remaining Vulcans find a new home

My issue with this depiction of Uhura is that the writers seem to think that all a female character needs to do is be in a relationship with one of the male leads. That’s it. They thought they could make her awesome by having her brag about how skillful she is at communications, but that ended up not amounting to anything since the one thing she could do was done offscreen (because seeing Kirk having sex with a green alien girl is more important), and her knowledge of the Romulan language is rendered pointless when the Romulans speak perfect english (A decision which everyone on the high court called ‘brilliant’). In the end, she’s just an emotional pillow for Spock as emphasized during the “I’ll be monitoring your frequencies” scene in the transporter room. She’s the useless girlfriend who stays behind while the men go off to save the world.

And they’re doing it again. She’s left her station on the bridge to be with Spock ON THE SHUTTLE for no other reason than to provide “moral support for her man”. That’s it. Why couldn’t she have done this before he left the bridge? Why does she have to constantly leave her station whenever he does something? Why is she on the Enterprise at all?

67. Clinton - December 14, 2012

No. Seriously. Why isn’t it May 17th?

68. LogicalLeopard - December 14, 2012

57. J – December 14, 2012

I’m not that worried about having “alien aliens”. ST was always about humanoids anyway and I’m fine with it.

Exactly!

69. R. Banks - December 14, 2012

@54-Flake

I took my then 76 year old Father, who was not a sci-fi fan, to see Star Trek back in 2009, and he really enjoyed it.

Next thing I know, he’s borrowing a bunch of my Star Trek DVD’s, and talking sci-fi with me all the time.

The 2009 film is what got him hooked.

Good memories.

70. could care less what people call me, read part 2 As I said - December 14, 2012

So I’ m not the only one that can see that the writers and JJ of new Trek are copy and paste artist.
Its like the seen in Phantom Menace was from Ben-Hur, to make money just copy, use no creativity at all, move things around, call them something else and you have a movie Hollywood.
Modern writers no creativity, I’ll help:
Star Trek Time Conflict = Dinosaurs on another planet being hunted for sport only senseless killing of some of them for ivory. The natives ask for help from the federation even if that planet is not a part of the Fed.
Star Trek The Center of the Galaxy = pull into a black hole only an alien force keeps the ship from destruction and it travels to a planet of the 81 century that knows of Earth and the crew wants to visit Earth just to see it out of curiosity but they must fight there desires: they cannot and they will remember that weakness but not what came of it. The alien force tells them that Earth is fine and just out of love it will take them there with only one condition It will erase there memory after there visit, they accept. However we go with them and we remember our future.
Some people will point out similitude’s with this or that but they don’t offer ideas, of course we’ve seen dinosaurs but on Earth and we have gone into the future but find it fine, no problem, nobody to fight, no antagonist just a cup of tea and go home, lol Boring to some but have the war on the journey back not in the future.

More crazies An alien planet that wants out of the Fed.
An Alien Planet that has the ability to move itself and chooses to become a brother planet to earth.
An alien planet and people that actually look like something alien, not like actors with make up yet we who see the movie actually find them beautiful, and they are not at all, yet because we can see them being hunted for food by the other species of the same planet: we see them cry out for help, an intense and hard movie to see: A Star Trek tear jerker, very nasty stuff, we rescue them by supplying the planet with cows, spock hides in a closet during the entire movie. I said more crazies….didn’t I’.

71. Buzz Cagney - December 14, 2012

#67 don’t wish your life away- certainly not for this movie.

72. LogicalLeopard - December 14, 2012

50. Tesla’s Cat – December 14, 2012
I’m sure it’ll be great overall, but more Uhura as passive romantic prop…sorry, no. Just. No.

When was Uhura ever passive in ST2009?

She was presented as being smart, capable, DEMANDED to be placed on the Enterprise and got promoted to bridge officer right off the bat. She seemed MUCH more significant than in the TOS shows and movies where, dare I say it, she was pretty much relegated to legs and incoming phone calls. I mean, even at 60 years old they were having her get naked for distraction?

This Uhura is a much stronger character, and I think the love story between her and Spock just adds a different dimension to both of their characters.

73. trekmaster - December 14, 2012

Maybe John Harrison is a kind of Soran this time destroyng planets with vulcans instead of bringing suns to an explosion.

74. could care less what people call me, read part 2 As I said - December 14, 2012

@ 71 is not asking for my opinion but I’ll give it anyhow, Your are right.

Its just entertainment, just a movie, it will have flaws and we will all enjoy it and then the pain of not knowing if JJ will be back or when.

My advice to all, lets ask politely to Paramount, CBS, well crap the owners who ever they are, that we want a series to hold us happy till the next movie and to not make anymore of them when the first one that does not make as much money as the immediate predecessor fails. Just stop continue the series and come back in ten years when will know whats the next big thing in movie making: maybe smell and taste as well as 4 dimensional shit, who knows. I agree also with @72

75. Bird Of Clay - December 14, 2012

#72,

“She seemed MUCH more significant than in the TOS shows and movies where, dare I say it, she was pretty much relegated to legs and incoming phone calls.”

Strongly agreed.

76. Aix - December 14, 2012

Can I just say, poor Cumby. Nobody believes he is John Harrison no matter how many times he confirms it. Haha!

77. Duncan MacLeod - December 14, 2012

I wonder if the Navy Pier Imax (chicago) will be showing it. It is not on the list, but it is a major theater and very nice. I am going to see the HOBBIT and if the preview is there, then AWESOME, but if not, i won’t be bummed.

78. drumvan - December 14, 2012

4 very important questions about the 9 minute clip:

1. does keenser make an appearance?
2. does scotty have to eject a warp core?
3. does mccoy say “i’m a doctor, not a …”
4. does spock raise an eybrow and say “fascinating”?

i’ve i don’t get 3 out of the 4 i’m not wasting my $20 on the 3d preview ;)

79. could care less what people call me, read part 2 As I said - December 14, 2012

I would not like Khan, nor C. Garth but I will enjoy the movie anyhow, like the idea of Mitchel better and certainly would not want Sybok that said operation annihilate with two Kirks one from this time line and one from the original time line would have been an awesome movie, who do I kill, strangely I can’t decide as of now.

80. LogicalLeopard - December 14, 2012

66. Jeyl – December 14, 2012

But the problem with the last film? There was no chemistry. It was just there. Where’s the teasing? Where’s the playful banter? Where is the attraction? I honestly didn’t buy the relationship especially when you find out that Uhura happily decided to stay onboard the Enterprise rather than aid her boyfriend in helping the remaining Vulcans find a new home

*******************************

Me -Vulcan/Human chemistry would probably be very different than regular chemistry. Look at Sarek/Amanda from TOS. Touching fingers doesn’t look very romantic, but it’s very profound for them. I’m guessing teasing and playful banter would likewise not occur, but if it does, we only got a brief glimpse at the relationship. It was not a romantic comedy. Planets were imploding, Spocks mother died, and the universe needed saving. The fact that they squeezed the few scenes in they did is great.

*********************************

the end, she’s just an emotional pillow for Spock as emphasized during the “I’ll be monitoring your frequencies” scene in the transporter room. She’s the useless girlfriend who stays behind while the men go off to save the world.

************************************

Me- Okay, I’m REALLY biased on this one, perhaps, because my mother died a couple years before the movie came out, and her name was also Amanda. So when I saw the elevator scene, and the support that Uhura so desperately wanted to give to Spock, although Spock wanted to soldier on and do what needed to be done, I -got- it. All of it.I saw my wife and me in that scene, and it was SPOT ON with reality. It was amazingly profound for Star Trek, in my opinion, for tackling the complexity that happens in a relationship under pressure. Relationships are not a hop, skip, and jump in the park where you feed each other grapes and slow dance in the moonlight. Sometimes they are strained. Sometimes you have to be supportive. Sometimes the only support you can give is a peck on the cheek and a “I’m here if you need me”, which is the equivalent of “I’ll be monitoring your frequencies. ”

As far as the shuttle scene, if we really want to think about it, the whole away mission doesn’t make much sense. Sulu’s maybe the best shuttle pilot, I get that, but he’s also the best ship pilot. So wouldn’t you want him at the helm of the Enterprise, keeping it stable and ready for liftoff, and send the second best shuttle pilot to hover around the volcano? Why is Bones, the CMO, on the planet? Who’s sick? Why is the Captain there? If what they’re doing is luring them away from the volcano, couldn’t anyone do that?

Maybe Uhura is there because eliminating the signal static from an active volcano requires her expertise. Maybe she’s there so she ends up in a wetsuit. That’s probably the best answer. But it’s dangerous to start overthinking Star Trek, especially when it’s only the first 9 minutes. If I had let thoughts of how Praxis exploding could send a shockwave so fast that a Starship’s sensors couldn’t pick it up until it was right on it bother me, I wouoldn’t have enjoyed STVI.

81. S T and SW Lover - December 14, 2012

Wow you guys have to pay $20 bucks to go to the movies: I’ only pay 6:50 and yea for 3D up to 9 in most cinemas were I live and in some 12 for 3d if in the capitol.

82. Jay - December 14, 2012

How anyone can criticize JJ’s Star Trek for canon problems or plot holes – and call themselves Trek fans – is beyond me.

Star Trek has had canon problems and plot holes since day 1 of TOS. Every movie or TV show of Star Trek will always have them. So get over it. There is no such thing as perfect Star Trek.

Secondly, it doesn’t matter what JJ does, there will always be those that think some aspect of it is not “true” Star Trek. Which makes no sense as there is no such thing.

This is Star Trek as much as any movie or TV show before it called Star Trek. The only difference is that the quality – in terms of acting, filming, sound, effects (both visual and sound), music, and story are far better than the vast majority of what has been called Star Trek before.

TWOK was amazing primarily because of the story and acting, but the scope and quality of the cinematography and effects compared to this is like comparing a VHS to a Blue Ray. Just completely different realms.

83. Commodore Redshirt - December 14, 2012

Okay… the clip sounds cool, but I don’t care about seeing the Hobbit in 3D IMAX or otherwise. I can wait to see the first 9 minutes until May when they will be attached to the other 116 minutes…
;-)
And THANKS ANTHONY for all your hard work!

84. LogicalLeopard - December 14, 2012

82. Jay – December 14, 2012

HEAR, HEAR!!!!!

85. Jay - December 14, 2012

#84 Wow we agree on something.

86. RaveOnEd - December 14, 2012

82 – Exactly, Jay!

To me, when something on screen is released by Paramount as “Star Trek” is just that. Sorry, but like it or not, it’s officially Star Trek.

Star Trek was always about change, accepting that change, and being able to embrace it all. You go completely against that by saying something doesn’t fit into what you would think as what is “true” Star Trek.

On another note, Jay: we had a nice discussion over on the other thread about Marcus/Khan and the foreshadowing. I really enjoyed it!

87. Gary Michelin - December 14, 2012

Real science has always been Star Trek’s bitch, but it’s kind of sad that they’ve decided to just decapitate it completely and bury it in a shallow grave.

88. Randall - December 14, 2012

Is there any word at all on when the 9 minute preview will be released more generally? Online, say? (The IMAX theater nearest me doesn’t seem to have the Hobbit scheduled).

89. Josh C. - December 14, 2012

I’m trying to see how anything we’ve seen so far is any more outlandish scientifically than anything else we’ve seen in Star Trek to this point…

90. Jay - December 14, 2012

#87 I really don’t think so. Again, you can find numerous examples, just as bad or worse, of Star Trek trampeling real science.

Do you hear any Star Wars fans talking about how rediculously impossible the Death Star would be? No, they just go enjoy the film. And they even have super powers in Star Wars that no one questions.

At least they attempt to make Star Trek realistic. But no Sci-fi film will every be completely realistic, unless its done like 2001: A Space Odessey, which today would bore most audiences out of their minds.

91. Jay - December 14, 2012

#89 Exactly. You can go back to TOS and find countless examples of things that are just scientifically rediculous.

How about standing 2 feet from a molten lava rock life form that can melt through solid rock walls? You couldn’t stand withing 50 ft of that thing and not get severly burned, much less 2 feet away in a cave.

You could go on and on and on. Star Trek never intended to be completely scienfitically acurate. It is first and foremost entertainment, and as such you have to take liberties to entertain.

92. Gus - December 14, 2012

I agree completely with @82

I’ll say this:
Star Trek is an idea and not just a money making vehicle.
I’ know money is needed to make more Trek but we must keep the idea of Trek as the ultimate guide for making more of this kind of Sci-FY.

I’ think this movie will accomplish these requirements , if not then Paramount lost it. Regarding the first one, well it did accomplish the idea of Star trek because it was the beginning of our heroes and we went trekking as far as Vulcan and saw friends lose there home world being destroy because of hatred . We must trek into space and see something even if its simply space junk hurting something it shouldn’t, if not well it isn’t Star Trek period.

93. razzo - December 14, 2012

I’ll watch these 9min tonight and only comment then. It’s actually fun to discuss about it all.
I’ll miss you guys when this speculation is over.
LLAP

94. Kirk Nelson - December 14, 2012

I thought the new trailer was going to be online TODAY! Darn!

Will the 9-minute clip be available to download later (after Hobbit excitement dies down)? It would be a generous move from the production, and a good hype builder since it doesn’t spoil the overall plot.

After all, I downloaded an official 10-minute preview of “John Carter!” :)

I shudder to think that surpasses what Star Trek would make available…

95. captain_neill - December 14, 2012

82
I would not say that the new movie is bigger in terms of music and acting, it is just a different kind of acting and music.

I like to view the new movie as the next chapter in the legacy, it DOES NOT , reapeat DOES NOT eclipse what came before. TWOK is an amazing film and to me it is still a better crafted film than Abrams first one, TWOk is also what got me into Trek.

Now does this mean I hate Abrams film. No, but in comparison to a film like TWOK, the lot of Abrams film is thinner and relies on dumb luck and thinly realised plot devices to get things moving along. To me it works as a movie but it is for a different audience.

96. LogicalLeopard - December 14, 2012

85. Jay – December 14, 2012
#84 Wow we agree on something.

*LOL* It’s bound to happen with everyone. Seriously though, it’s funny that everyone talks about retconns and changes and silly gimmicks and plotholes when nobody seems to remember the United Earth Space Probe Agency, Klingon foreheads, giant amoebas, and planets in the Ceti Alpha system exploding and pushing other planets out of orbit, yet not wiping out all the residents of the pushed planet because they had cargo containers for protection.

97. Daniel Broadway - December 14, 2012

Anthony, does the new trailer show the Enterprise exterior in space at all?

98. Gus - December 14, 2012

Again another participant that knows what his talking about @95, I’ loved the fun of the first movie, yet I knew it was not an epic like TWOK is.

it looks to me like someone might have told JJ Abrams that also, cuz from the look of the teasers this just might be an epic.

An epic is good and grand not just long.

99. Jefferies Tuber - December 14, 2012

I’ll read this later. It’s my 40th birthday–can you believe my great fortune?! Thanks for keeping me on life support with the updates, Anthony. Only five hours left. AMC Century City here I come.

100. LogicalLeopard - December 14, 2012

95. captain_neill – December 14, 2012

Now does this mean I hate Abrams film. No, but in comparison to a film like TWOK, the lot of Abrams film is thinner and relies on dumb luck and thinly realised plot devices to get things moving along. To me it works as a movie but it is for a different audience.

****************

Now, I’m going to rate TWOK higher than ST09, because of “Ship…out of danger” and a vastly superior villian. But as for your criticism of Abrams’ film, I do have to mention that the point of it was not “dumb luck” but “destiny.” The idea that the universe/timeline itself is sort of self repairing, that great men and women need to be together for great moments. It’s a philisophical idea which we may or may not agree with, but I’d hardly describe it as dumb luck, like “Ohhh, look who’s here…it’s SCOTTY!” You can interpret it that way, but I don’t think that was the point.

As far as thinly realized plot devices to get things moving along, I mean, there is a buch about TWOK that when you think of it, doesn’t make much sense. Genesis itself is kind of ridiculous when you think of it, and I’ve already talked about the Ceti Alpha system in post 96, but you have to look over that stuff to enjoy what are two very enjoyable movies.

101. Gary - December 14, 2012

Hey, can anyone teel me what the bridge looks like now?

102. Weerd1 - December 14, 2012

OK, this is not the first time we’ve seen a Starship submerged in fluid, and that’s basically all we’re really seeing here. NX-01 flies in a liquid atmosphere in “Broken Bow” and the Voyager enters fluidic space. I would think the pressures of an entire UNIVERSE full of fluid would be worse than an ocean on an Earth-like planet.

And if the TOS Enterprise can hit a Black Hole at warp 8 and survive, I think this is a cake-walk.

103. konar - December 14, 2012

Can not WAIT to see this, and I am an “old school” TOS fan… everything sounds fun and cool — especially the ship being underwater (I think there was a TOS novel I read years ago that had the enterprise underwater on an ice planet or something) — I can just imagine how visually stunning that could be. Also looking forward to some emotional MG music during the opening montage — I thought his music for the crash sequence at the opening of ST 2009 was brilliant. Don’t really care who the villain is, as long as he’s three-dimensional (although I do hope it’s not a Kahn rehash). I think it’s kind of funny that people are only able to imagine within the universe they know — inside a box, so to speak — without considering the possibility that they will be totally blown away by something new. Also get a chuckle out of the armchair screenwriters and directors! I guess ST is an obsession that drives us to be… obsessive!

104. Steve Johnson - December 14, 2012

@102 LogicalLeopard

There’s nothing about the Genesis device that is ridiculous. It’s a fully realized concept that has a set of rules firmly established within the films framework. Which is more than can be said of Red Matter, which has very inconsistent results depending on what point of the movie it’s used in.

Genesis as a story element, as a plot device, is probably one of the least contrived elements in any of the Trek films. We don’t understand the science behind it, but the way it is supposed to work is very clearly explained to us. Dead world = living world. Already living world = rewritten for the new Genesis eco system.

Now, Ceti Alpha 6 randomly exploding? That’s pretty damn dumb. Planets don’t just suddenly explode. Not that we know of anyway, there would have to be some pretty nasty stuff going on with the planet’s techtonics, plus some heavy meteor activity or a gravitational influence very very powerful to cause that. … Just a bad bit of writing. They could have easily just had a meteor hit Ceti Alpha 5 and ruin everything.

105. Josh C. - December 14, 2012

102 – I think someone pointed this out yesterday too: the cloaked holoship in Insurrection was underwater itself as well

But yeah, I’ve found this whole “the enterprise can’t survive in water” thing dumb. It can survive traveling at tremendous speeds and great acceleration. It can survive phaser hits and photo torpedo blasts. It can survive significant gravitational stress. I think it can handle a little water.

106. Jeyl - December 14, 2012

@80: LogicalLeopard

If you’re happy with the way they did Uhura, that’s ok. I just don’t like the idea of the only regular female character in all of current Star Trek is reduced to serving as the male lead’s emotional pillow. Maybe she’ll do something in the movie that justifies her role on the ship, maybe she won’t. The last movie failed to showcase her importance when her doing something special was done offscreen, the Romulans speaking english, leaving her station every time Spock gets up to do something, and having two other crew members (Hannity and Chekov) doing the communications work for her. This nine minute preview does nothing but reinforce the notion that the new movie will be more of the same.

107. Gary - December 14, 2012

Actually, you could just “tell” me about the bridge; I don’t know if I can handle being “teeled” so early in the day…

108. LogicalLeopard - December 14, 2012

102. Weerd1 – December 14, 2012
OK, this is not the first time we’ve seen a Starship submerged in fluid, and that’s basically all we’re really seeing here. NX-01 flies in a liquid atmosphere in “Broken Bow” and the Voyager enters fluidic space. I would think the pressures of an entire UNIVERSE full of fluid would be worse than an ocean on an Earth-like planet.

And if the TOS Enterprise can hit a Black Hole at warp 8 and survive, I think this is a cake-walk.

*****************

But we’re not talking about black holes! ANYONE can hit a black hole and survive, provided you’re not going over Warp 9.375. We’re talking about SEAWATER!!!! Since Kirk and Bones can obviously swim to it, it’s probably at least 40-50 feet under water. Do you have ANY IDEA what kind of pressure exists at that level?

*LOL*

109. Phil - December 14, 2012

Someone was up late…

110. LogicalLeopard - December 14, 2012

106. Jeyl – December 14, 2012

If you’re happy with the way they did Uhura, that’s ok. I just don’t like the idea of the only regular female character in all of current Star Trek is reduced to serving as the male lead’s emotional pillow. Maybe she’ll do something in the movie that justifies her role on the ship, maybe she won’t. The last movie failed to showcase her importance when her doing something special was done offscreen, the Romulans speaking english, leaving her station every time Spock gets up to do something, and having two other crew members (Hannity and Chekov) doing the communications work for her. This nine minute preview does nothing but reinforce the notion that the new movie will be more of the same.

***********************

I can certainly can understand and appreciate your view of the matter, especially if you are female, because you are probably more likely to pick up on such an issue than I am as a male. And I also understand that regardless of how she was treated previously in TOS, she should be a much more realized character considering the fact that we’re making a movie in 2013, not 1963. It looks like she has a lot more ground scenes in this one, so hopefully we’ll see that. I will say that I’ve always thought that Uhura was the emotional heart of the show, and I think that should be the same in the series. I know that it looks bad, since she’s a woman and it seems sort of stereotypical, but I’m of the opinion that it’s fine, as long as she’s not presented as a helpless fainting nobody.

I would say though that the most marginalized character in ST09 was Scotty. He didn’t do much more than yell at a short alien, beam himself into a pipe, and towel off. Then at the end, when he does his beaming feat, nobody is impressed IN the movie and I’m thinking that most of us, after seeing what Chekov did, were not particularly impressed. Well, to be fair, he did eject the warp core, and it saved the day, yeah….but I didn’t think it was all that stunning *L* Okay, maybe he’s not more marginalized than Uhura, maybe Bones was. Most of his important work occurred off camera.

And about this new movie. It IS only nine minutes, and they aren’t even on screen for the whole nine minutes, because of BC’s character.

111. Phil - December 14, 2012

@108. Yeah, and it would probably be enough to ensure it was a one-way trip. Buoyancy being what it is, does anyone care to guess what part of Enterprise was flooded to keep her submerged? Enterprise’s sub-light propulsion burns fuel to accomplish motion, so how do these engines/thrusters work when flooded again?

This is a dux ex machina moment, probably best to ignore it. Like the writers chose to ignore physics when they thought it up…..

112. Commodore Adams - December 14, 2012

3. Oliver – Wow im surprised no on has answered you. The second trailer will be online on Monday.

And for that post asking about the 9 minute IMAX footage, we have been told it will not be online at all, must go to IMAX to see it.

113. Josh C. - December 14, 2012

111 – I think there are pretty easy explanations:

1) If they need added buoyancy, just modify part of the ship to act as ballast. Cargo bays, for example.

2) If they are too heavy and will sink, they can either just use thrusters to keep from sinking or, again, modify part of the ship and perhaps fill it with helium or something that will reduce how much they would sink.

3) There is no reason why their engines/thrusters couldn’t work. Presumably whatever combustion chamber that thrusters use isn’t going to be flooded, and if thrusters use some form of ion propulsion, it may work even if it WERE submerged. It’s not like we’re talking about scotty throwing logs on a fire here.

114. SoonerDave - December 14, 2012

@92

If Trek weren’t perceived by *someone* at some point as a money making vehicle, it never would have seen the light of day.

@104

Re “exploding” planets

If you were Khan, and all you saw was the explosion of a neighboring planet, you’d likely not have had the chance to make so nuanced an observation about whether a meteor hit it. It just happened, and that’s how Khan described it.

Re “genesis”

As I recall, Genesis was a Roddenberry original idea, and it fit in nicely with the Trek theme of not explaining how technology worked. It works, you accept it for story purposes, and move on. Same, for me, applies with Red Matter. Okay, you want to apply real physics to it, of course there are all matter of problems. But what’s the point? Red matter does this cool thing, don’t really care how, but it gets the story told. Sure seems like similar issues to me.

Same goes for the Enterprise in water. It works because it works. And the effect, fully realized, on an IMAX screen, is going to be an epic thing I suspect!!!

Looking forward to it.

Just plain Bravo! Love it.

115. LogicalLeopard - December 14, 2012

104. Steve Johnson – December 14, 2012
@102 LogicalLeopard

There’s nothing about the Genesis device that is ridiculous. It’s a fully realized concept that has a set of rules firmly established within the films framework. Which is more than can be said of Red Matter, which has very inconsistent results depending on what point of the movie it’s used in.

Genesis as a story element, as a plot device, is probably one of the least contrived elements in any of the Trek films. We don’t understand the science behind it, but the way it is supposed to work is very clearly explained to us. Dead world = living world. Already living world = rewritten for the new Genesis eco system.

***********************************************

Now, I’m sorry, I haven’t followed the Red matter debate, although I know there is one. But I’m going to argue that Genesis is pretty ridiculous. We’re supposed to believe that a torpedo sized object can COMPLETELY terraform a planet? I think it even adds an atmosphere, but if it doesn’t, it contains all of the seeding for diverse types of plantlife? And all the plantlife grows rapidly, then just cuts off? How does that work? How does the delivery work? Does it explode? Does it circle the planet and seed? How does it automatically make the “soil” which may be just plain rock, able to support the plantlife For that matter, back up, does it MAKE DIRT? How do you change barren rock to soil? Explosions? Matter rearrangers?

I’ve probably not scratched the surface of that debate, and I haven’t even gotten to how the heck it REGREW SPOCK. How did it do that? It obviously didn’t just reanimate his body, because he was reduced in age. So, what’s the mechanism? Did it find one living cell in a dead body, and grow a new Spock from that? If so, why was there only one living cell out of billions? Why weren’t there hundreds of ressurected Spocks running around the planet?

I mean, I get what you’re saying about inconsistency versus consistency, and I also understand that sometimes we can’t always explain the science. But should it produce that many questions? It’s not just a technology, it’s an OBVIOUS tool to move plots forward. And I’m okay with that. Because I can suspend disbelief, which is quite neccessary when watching Trek.

116. JohnRambo - December 14, 2012

Who says the Enterprise can’t survive underwater?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQEsG4eKIXs

117. SoonerDave - December 14, 2012

@111

Ignore physics?

Any more than postulating FTL travel in the first place?

118. Robman007 - December 14, 2012

Eh, I’m not so pent up about the Enterprise in water. It’s the 23rd century and FICTION. I’d assume that if a culture is so advanced that they can have warp speed and transporters, then they can build ships that are capable of going under an ocean for a small period of time. We shall have to see the film to get the logical explination, but I’m willing to guess that the Enterprise is using some ship board system to help control the volcano activity or stablize it in some form or fashion.

Besides, at least this Enterprise can’t be controlled by a mid 1990’s Target brand PC Joystick.

119. Phil - December 14, 2012

Why is Kirk suddenly in a quandry about the Prime Directive in regards to saving Spock, when it’s already been thrown out the window by saving a native civilization?

120. Spuhura Addict - December 14, 2012

Thanks for the recap.
From all accounts, it seems like this is going to be a fun ride. I cant wait, but, no, I cant bring myself to sit through the Hobbit. Not gonna happen. Nope! I’ll wait for the preview to hit the Internet.

Really people, of all the amazing character iteractions throughout ST lets not demote the Uhura character to being just a girlfriend or otherwise pretending as if she was an integral member of the KSM Trinity when she wasn’t. C’mon! This historical character rounded out the supporting cast of actors/ actresses in the tv series as well as the films to demonstrate that people of all races and cultures would learn to work together to explore the cosmos.

That being said, the character did make quite an impactful impression to the sci-fi genre and to society as well so please give the girl some respect. The character made a historical contribution to television just as the Sulu and Chechov character had and she inspired me as well as others to dream big simply by her presence on the bridge of a futuristic starship. I loved the fact that in the later movies, she was given more prominence and I hope some of that will spill over to JJ’s universe. If she can hold her own, represent intelligent women everywhere by translating many different tongues- dialects and have a little Vulcan love on the side in a futuristic universe, so be it. I’m all for it.

121. LogicalLeopard - December 14, 2012

111. Phil – December 14, 2012
@108. Yeah, and it would probably be enough to ensure it was a one-way trip. Buoyancy being what it is, does anyone care to guess what part of Enterprise was flooded to keep her submerged? Enterprise’s sub-light propulsion burns fuel to accomplish motion, so how do these engines/thrusters work when flooded again?

This is a dux ex machina moment, probably best to ignore it. Like the writers chose to ignore physics when they thought it up…..

***********************

This enterprise was manufactured on Earth, and subject to Earth gravity.

Obviously, the design doesn’t lend itself to standing up under gravity.

So they probably used some sort of antigravity production system to keep it upright and/or get it off the ground in the first place.

The same antigravity system may be imbedded in the ship, and may be used to keep the ship oriented in space dock. So it could be used to keep the ship underwater.

If you don’t like that, there’s scads of reasons you could come up with. You could reconfigure the deflector dish to emit gravitons to make an “anchor”. You could do anything. But the point is, you’re not really supposed to think about it.

122. konar - December 14, 2012

I would think the same technologies that provide the inertial dampers and artificial gravities could handily provide a one-sentence explanation of how they were able to submerge. If you can believe a ship can travel faster than light without distorting time, can stop on a dime, and provide its own gravity, they you should be able to handle it taking a dunk.

123. Chris Doohan - December 14, 2012

I like this ship, it’s submersible

124. Phil - December 14, 2012

Oh, I know I’m not suppose to think about it, but even at the sci-fi level I’d hope that a decision to do something would at least make some sense, instead of falling back onto some BS technobabble reason for it. Anthony even seemed to be implying that it’s not something we should dig to deeply into…..

125. LogicalLeopard - December 14, 2012

114. SoonerDave – December 14, 2012
@92

If Trek weren’t perceived by *someone* at some point as a money making vehicle, it never would have seen the light of day.

@104

Re “exploding” planets

If you were Khan, and all you saw was the explosion of a neighboring planet, you’d likely not have had the chance to make so nuanced an observation about whether a meteor hit it. It just happened, and that’s how Khan described it.

Re “genesis”

As I recall, Genesis was a Roddenberry original idea, and it fit in nicely with the Trek theme of not explaining how technology worked. It works, you accept it for story purposes, and move on. Same, for me, applies with Red Matter. Okay, you want to apply real physics to it, of course there are all matter of problems. But what’s the point? Red matter does this cool thing, don’t really care how, but it gets the story told. Sure seems like similar issues to me.

********************

I’m not saying that Khan didn’t describe it as best as he could, I’m just asking how it happened period. Now, admittedly, I got a B or a C in Astronomy 101, but how do planets explode? Stars, I can see, they’re huge nuclear factories. But a planet? And how, if we’re expected to beleive a degree or two change in the planets temperature can threaten all life, does a planet survive being SHIFTED into the orbit of ANOTHER planet?

The point of why I brought that up is what you said about Genesis. This stuff isn’t MEANT to be explained, it’s meant to move the plot forward. And I’m TOTALLY fine with that. But for all the “purists” complaining that JJ&Co are coming up with silly ideas to move the plot forward, that means they’re TOTALLY in line with what Trek has been up to this point.

126. weeharry - December 14, 2012

just saw it this afternoon. the STID footage is pretty awesome. very much felt like a pre-credit sequence and indisputably star trek. i have to agree with the original article that these guys are ‘now’ truly the enterprise crew. the 3D looks great too – especially the leap off the cliff

the hobbit was good too…if perhaps about 30 mins too long for what isn’t even the full story

127. Commodore Adams - December 14, 2012

Damn it. I watched the first trailer again and I can’t help but notice that jackass and his idiotic smile in the crowd scene. I honestly hope it gets cut or digital magic used to erase him because im going to notice that douche every time I watch the movie and see that scene lol AHHHHHHHHHH

128. Curious Cadet - December 14, 2012

@ 121 LogicalLeopard,

LOL, you’re trying to explain how a vessel like the Enterprise can implausibly function under water after such a well thought out dissection of Genesis completely undermining it.

There’s no reason to. As you surmise, “you’re really not supposed to think about it”. I never once thought about Genisis. Despite hating the idea of “red matter” I didn’t really think about that either.

The difference between Star Trek fans and Star Wars fans has always been the science. There are no technical manuals for Star Wars. But technical manuals are the best selling books published in the Trek unverse. Abrams is a Star Wars guy. He doesn’t think about the science, only how cool it looks. And there’s nothing wrong with that, except traditionally Trek has always had more technically-minded people interested in how the universe applies to the real world. Arguably, Trek influenced and inspired people to become scientists and engineers in a way Star Wars never has. And there was plenty of implausible things presented in TOS and the subsequent spinoffs. Indeed the TNG era almost killed the “magic” by focusing too much on the science, most of which was just as fictional as the rest of the story. Abrams just seems to ignore it. Orci claims to be the defender of science and canon, but I have a feeling he gets trumped quite a bit by Abrams.

129. AugusteDuPuin - December 14, 2012

“They are the crew of the USS Enterprise, and deservedly so. ”

Sorry, Anthony, but when I read that line, you lost all credibility and I honestly rolled my eyes.

This is “a” crew of “an” Enterprise, not the original crew. And you’re telling me they’re fully established after only a year together?

The more I hear (and see) about this movie, the less enthusiasm I have. The Enterprise under water is ridiculous (no logical reason for it…it’s just for the sake of shock/”kewl!” and nothing else) and it sounds like the characterization of Kirk is still WAY off. “Super ice cube?” Really?

The only thing I see that this movie has going for it is Cumberbatch, and sadly, a great actor as a villain can’t save a bad movie. Just look at Kevin Spacey in “Superman Returns.”

I wish you could be a little more objective (okay, a LOT more objective) about this film. It’s clearly not up to the quality of the Trek we’ve known for almost fifty years.

130. pilotfred - December 14, 2012

wow,amazing make me want to see the hobbit again just for the nine minutes and the hobbit is a great film so cash well worth spent

131. BitterTrekkie - December 14, 2012

129.I wish you could be a little more objective (okay, a LOT more objective) about this film. It’s clearly not up to the quality of the Trek we’ve known for almost fifty years.

Hear, hear.

132. Frederick - December 14, 2012

I won’t argue that the ship could operate underwater… it does a lot of other things that were “made up” as this is. However, since the natives are not technologically versed, why not just monitor from orbit? Hiding in the sea makes no sense, at least until they come up with a “reason” to justify it in the film, which is all it takes.

133. Jay - December 14, 2012

#121 Leopard

Man it is a lost cause. Haters will simply hate. They can’t see the hypocracy in their criticisms of JJ’s Star Trek because they are blinded by their own hate.

Trying to say that Red Matter is rediculous science while the Genisus device is not is … well…. rediculous.

Like we have said, you could spend all day pointing out examples of rediculous science used in Star Trek from TOS, to TNG to all of the movies. So saying the new ones have some of the same issues is just pointless.

As for someone saying this movie and the ST09 not having better acting, story, sound and visuals than previous Star Trek movies…. well, I just have to believe you are blind and deaf. As much as I liked some of the other Star Trek movies, there is no doubt that from a technical standpoint, JJ’s blow them all away. By a mile and then some. The cinematography, scope, score and effects are light years ahead of anything shown in Star Trek before.

I’m sure haters will want to argue that point, but pretty much every movie critic in the country was in unanimous agreement on that with ST09, even if they had cricisms of the plot or story. I’m sure this movie will take those technical points even further.

Personally I also think the acting and story are better than almost all of the movies with TWOK being right up there on the same level. But you can not deny that the visuals, sounds and score are way better in ST09. Plus the scope is simply on a different level.

134. LogicalLeopard - December 14, 2012

119. Phil – December 14, 2012
Why is Kirk suddenly in a quandry about the Prime Directive in regards to saving Spock, when it’s already been thrown out the window by saving a native civilization?

***************

The prime directive is always dodgy. It’s about non interference in their development, like by poisoning it with technology or knowledge of spacefaring cultures.

Arguably, a couple aliens showing up on your planet gives you knowledge of spacefaring cultures. *LOL* But maybe there’s some wiggle room, because of the hoods, or maybe they thought they were sasquatches or something. Maybe this is why Pike dresses down Kirk in the voice over.

Also, I suppose it can be argued that the Prime Directive is a progressive consideration. Crewman Chuckles drops his copy of Gangs of the 20th Century on Planet P. Do you send down more people to retrieve it, or cut your losses?

135. Robman007 - December 14, 2012

@129…you came up with that whole rant about a film that is not even out yet and has just a 9 minute preview out for viewing? Sheez, chill out a bit.

Last time I checked, the last film had more “quality” then any of the TNG movies managed to have…made quite a bit more money while it was at it and ressurrected a franchise that had become stale and boring and unwilling to change and DIED as a result.

Never once did Anthony compair the current cast to the original. The CHARACTERS are “the crew of the USS Enterprise, and deservedly so”…

Geezus…some folks need to grow up and get a life. For real…..if you don’t like it, go watch your DVD’s. The Star Trek from yesteryear is not going to come back any time soon….that Star Trek died a boring death until this one came around….so, just chill out.

136. Jay - December 14, 2012

#129 and #131 Unbelieveable. You are clearly someone that would argue with a wall.

It is not only “upt to the quality” of previous Trek, it blows them all away on many levels.

137. AugusteDuPuin - December 14, 2012

Y’see, Konar, my problem has never been that a starship is underwater. Who knows how that would work?

My problem lies with the fact that the rationale given for WHY it’s under water is something seen numerous times in just about every Trek series/film.

When you’re hiding your STARSHIP from alien sensor tech and aliens’ sight, you hide behind a moon, a sun, keep a distance beyond the range of their sensors, etc.

There’s just no logical reason for the Enterprise to go underwater. Logical reasoning is a core part of Star Trek storytelling. The ONLY reason they’re turning the E into a sub is to try and seem edgy, flashy, or put more accurately, “Kewl!” for the sake of these things.

That doesn’t work for me. Not with Star Trek. You can find cool and edgy and cool in Trek while operating within the realm of reason.

138. BitterTrekkie - December 14, 2012

It blows alright.

139. Curious Cadet - December 14, 2012

@129 AugusteDuPuin,

“and it sounds like the characterization of Kirk is still WAY off. “Super ice cube?”

You know I just kind of glossed over this, but now that you say it, I can’t recall a single instance where Prime Kirk dumbed the summary down so comically. That sounds like some thing Richard Dean Anderson would say in Stargate SG-1 to Carter after a deluge of techno-babble, which in itself is a parody of shows like TNG that took themselves so seriously with their made-up explanations that really didn’t explain anything.

But it definitely doesn’t sound like Kirk. Am I wrong? Did Shatner’s Kirk ever trivialize stuff like this when Spock or Scotty explained the science to him? I always rather got the impression Kirk was just as well versed as they were in many cases. Often Kirk would come out with something you wouldn’t expect a captain to even be aware of. He was much smarter than I think he is generally given credit for.

140. Frederick - December 14, 2012

I’m betting we see a submersible tub or pool toy based on the Enterprise this coming summer.

141. Tribble Steaks - December 14, 2012

For The folks complaining about Uhura being too Padme-ish and looking like a “romantic prop”, I do recall seeing some behind-the-scenes shots taken of Zoe Saldana filming a fight scene with Cumberbacht. I hope that scene made it into the final cut.

142. drumvan - December 14, 2012

@123 chris doohan

lol! nice :)

that would be awesome if simon said that.

143. Robman007 - December 14, 2012

The Enterprise being under water is no more stupid then the commander piloting the ship with a joystick…or a dune buggy being dropped off on a planet by a shuttle, just so the dune buggy can drive over to a certain location…it is what it is. Doesn’t detract from the film, the story or anything else. Just another example of why Star Trek is FICTIONAL! It’s a universe with Transporters, Klingons, Warp Speed, Cross Circuiting to B, Command staff that go on all the missions (which, if you want to get pissy about ” Logical reasoning”..yeah, Command staff going on away missions blows that up), tractor beams, Deltans, Red Matter Bombs, Time Travel, Time Travel that at one point causes instant change of the time line, and then create an alternate time line to appease fan boys, Phasers, Photons, Changelings, Fluidic Space….and yes, a Starship that can go underwater…FICTIONAL FANTASY.

144. konar - December 14, 2012

I like cool for the sake of cool, especially in sci-fi entertainment. And I didn’t see the nine minute preview, so I don’t know what explanation they might have for needing to be underwater instead of behind a moon or in orbit. But I suspect, in order to be entertained, and to keep from taking myself too seriously, I will accept it. If at the end of the film I feel that what I had to accept in order to be entertained was worth it, then I’ll be happy. Trek lovers have always been willing to accept a little cheesiness — and to love their show, warts and all. This is no different. To be willing to accept what we saw in TOS, week after week of bad acting, cardboard sets and rubber masks — but not willing to accept what we see in the new films seems a little stubborn.

145. Robman007 - December 14, 2012

Super Ice Cube or techno babble that causes people to roll eyes…WHO…GIVES…A…FLYING….#*!$$!!!

Seriously…it’s Star Trek. It’s fictional. These are origin stories about how the crew came together before the 5 year mission. Get a grip.

I’m starting to think it would have been wise if this was a total reboot ala changed timeline. Then again, folks would whine and cry and moan and sob if it was, which was why the “alternate universe” crap was even mentioned..to appease fan boys who would jump off the Golden Gate bridge and write letters of sorrow about who their “DVD”s don’t exist anymore!” Just…can’t…win…with…some…people.

146. Sub Trek - December 14, 2012

@137

Just because you have no imagination doesn’t mean there isn’t plenty of reasons. I’ll give you one:

E has to shoot a phaser, or plot-beam at the volcano. Can’t do it from space because it would be seen. Solution: Enter water far off in the ocean where noone sees. Dive to volcano. Shoot away.

I can come up with plenty other scenarios. Why don’t you watch the film before you complain about illogical plot choices? Frankly that attitude is idiotic and not deserving of a Trekkie.

147. Jay - December 14, 2012

#138 lol… .bitter for sure…. just go be bitter somewhere else. it’s pointless. You sound like an old man bitching about kids and their new-fangled phones and how “when I was a kid, we had to come to the house if we wanted to call someone. That was how real people did it.”

148. AugusteDuPuin - December 14, 2012

Robman007, I have to “grow up and get a life” because I don’t share your opinion? Because I won’t accept a pretty pale imitation of Star Trek for the quality and depth the original iterations (yes, plural) had?

I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with trying new things. I’m saying there’s EVERYTHING wrong with changing core aspects of a franchise for the sake of change.

Case in point: the characterization and “science” of Trek 09 was sorely lacking. You probably thought it was “fresh” and “new.”

Imagine if a new Superman movie was coming out that was going to say, “Hey, the flying, the cape, the suit, all of that is too dated. Too lame. Let’s get rid of it to keep things ‘fresh.”

You’d have the thankfully-aborted “Superman Lives,” which was going to do just the things I mention and, in the process, call something a Superman story that clearly wouldn’t have been but in name and minor detail only.

The same has happened/is continuing to happen with Trek, but a lot of you folk (especially the younger fans like I suspect you are) don’t care, because you weren’t a fan of the original Trek.

Congratulations. These films are perfect for you. But they are NOT Star Trek and there’s no indication from the trailer, or the preview, or any other info that this will be getting back to what makes Trek what it is.

149. captain_neill - December 14, 2012

To me the ‘destiny’ thing was an excuse for lazy story writing. The whole movie is a parallel l universe, thought I would love to hear how destiny is making everything happen faster in this universe?

It’s 2259 in this new one but Kirk’s 5 year mission never started until 2265 in the prime universe.
Destiny is more a Star Wars thing.

150. Robman007 - December 14, 2012

144: “To be willing to accept what we saw in TOS, week after week of bad acting, cardboard sets and rubber masks”

Exactly! Don’t forget “cross circuiting to b”, GIANT SPACE AMOEBA’s, a planet with “Yangs vs Coms” with the US Flag, Space Hippies, SPOCKS BRAIN, a Dune Buggy on the E, Voyager making a new defiant like shuttle craft outta NOTHING, a Joy Stick on Enterprise E. Alot of examples of Star Trek doing things that are silly to provide entertainment.

151. Jay - December 14, 2012

#143 lol…. some people just can’t separate the fiction from reality.

I just don’t see how anyone tries to apply real science or logic to one movie of Star Trek, but ignore all the others, including the original show.

You can’t have it both ways.

Again, we could spend all day….. DAYS ON END…. giving examples of plot holes, contradictions and rediculous science in TOS, but we choose to enjoy them for what they are instead – entertainment.

152. LogicalLeopard - December 14, 2012

133. Jay – December 14, 2012

I agree wholeheartedly! At the end of the day, you’ve got to suspend disbelief, especially when dealing with science fiction. Really, the same could be said about NON FICTION. Who watches the Patriot and says, “Good movie, but I don’t buy that an upstart colony defeats one of the most powerful nation on the face of the Earth. Sounds like a contrived story to make us sympathize with the Americans.”

ST09 was unlike any Trek movie I’ve ever seen. Sure it had technical flash, but it had a lot of risk taking, emotional gut punches, and a stellar idea behind it – Life is tough, but you still need to get where you’re supposed to be. Lives depend on it.

153. boborci - December 14, 2012

as has been said so many times before, the destiny thing was an articulation of an actual theory of science. and the term itself was not used in the film.

154. Jay - December 14, 2012

#148 It’s not that you are simply trying to voice an opposing opinion. It’s that you are criticizing a movie you haven’t seen for things that have ALWAYS been a part of Star Trek, and acting as if they haven’t.

You are among those who want to hate the new Star Trek and in order to feel “better than anyone else”, or to try to place yourself in some elite status, you use the crutch of “it’s not REAL Star Trek – like MY Star Trek” as if your opinion of what is real Star Trek or not is somehow more valid than anyone else.

There is no such thing as REAL Star Trek, and this new Star Trek is no more full of plot holes or bad sceience than TOS or any other encarnation of Star Trek that has come before. So using those crticisms as reason to hate it makes no sense, because logically if those things really bothered you, you would hate all of Star Trek and wouldn’t be here int he first place.

155. boborci - December 14, 2012

148 uhuh. cuz every time travel movie uses quantum mechanics instead of the highly overused classical relativity.

156. LogicalLeopard - December 14, 2012

139. Curious Cadet – December 14, 2012
@129 AugusteDuPuin,

“and it sounds like the characterization of Kirk is still WAY off. “Super ice cube?”

**********************

I think Super ice cube is AWESOME *LOL* Just because Kirk is probably almost as smart as Spock doesn’t mean that he has to resort to treknobabble. I’m sure many scientists come up with acronyms and nicknames for devices/experiments. It’s simple, it’s funny, and it’s a great way to get the point across to an audience that may not understand “Kelvinic temperature emitter” or some other nonsense. Just say super ice cube!

157. Dee - lvs moon' surface - December 14, 2012

I’m absolutely dying to see the Enterprise underwater!

……. and Anthony you’re absolutely right about that: “Also it is likely pandering, but sure that lots of folks will like seeing Zoe Saldana and Chris Pine is skin tight Starfleet wet suits.” … I’m also dying to see CP wearing wet suits… He said that this moment was “mortifying” …

so THANKS boborci!!!! LOL

;-) :-)

158. Jay - December 14, 2012

#149 Another example of a pointless complaint. Who cares about what year it is. It’s in the future. That’s all anyone cares about. No one is going to go compare to the TOS series and say, “awww,…this shouldn’t happen for 4 more years!!! they got the date wrong!!!”

This is precisely why Trekkies as a group are the butt of so many jokes. They take their fantasy world WAAYY too seriously.

159. SoonerDave - December 14, 2012

@154 Jay

This!

I’m amazed at how many people insist Trek has to rise some level of religious purity. It doesn’t exist. Can’t people be fans and still recognize the flaws of their favorite franchises/teams/stars/whatever? *sigh*

boborci

For whatever one man’s opinion is worth, I’m looking forward to your next Trek movie and think it will be tremendously entertaining. Thanks for the effort.

160. Robman007 - December 14, 2012

@ 151…exactly my point.

“The same has happened/is continuing to happen with Trek, but a lot of you folk (especially the younger fans like I suspect you are) don’t care, because you weren’t a fan of the original Trek.”

Well, I am a pretty young fan. When I became a fan, the Original Series was off the air for 12 years, and TMP was the only film out there. So, yeah, young fan who thinks TNG was ok, DS9 was awesome, Voyager was boring, Enterprise was a waste until Season 4, and the Original Series was one of the best TV shows ever made, outside Twilight Zone and The X-Files….The Original films were awesome, the TNG films were mostly MISS with just one hit and the new Trek was a good film that was highly enjoyable and brought back Star Trek. It wasn’t “my dads” Star Trek, but it was good entertainment, which is all I ask of my Star Trek. I don’t need Reality, or even logic, because I understand it’s fictional. I don’t “buy” the “Alternate Reality” horse crap from the film, it’s a reboot with new rules and situations and characterizations. I don’t like Uhura and Spock, but it’s a new version of Trek, so whatever.

What I mean by “GET A LIFE” is exactly that…get a damn life. Don’t come on here and bust on Anthony and say he has no crediblity because he enjoys the film and sees the characters becoming the “the crew”…and to bash a film that is 5 months away from being released because it “is not realistic, and that’s not MY Captain Kirk..” and make fun of those who enjoy the new films. It’s entertainment! It’s Star Trek, and it’s far, far better then that crappy “Superman Lives” junk that was cancelled a while back.

And so the heck what that Captain Kirk is not “THE CAPTAIN KIRK”…it’s not like Pierce Brosnan, Daniel Craig or Roger Moore was ever Sean Connery…characters can be played by more then just the original actor, and they WILL change, or else fan boys will dog the actor of just doing “a cheap impersonation”

161. Baby - December 14, 2012

#148 and to the rest of all the JJ TREK haters.

For the last time if you dont like new trek go watch the old ones and stop complaining.

New Trek rocked,it was both critically and comericaly very sucessful and it created a legion of new fans all over the world.

what more do you want.

162. LogicalLeopard - December 14, 2012

Boborci:

Two questions:

1) How bad am I going to get sued for using “Super Ice Cube” as a band name? Sure I need to learn how to play an instrument, but you guys inspire me!

2) Do you guys actually freebase awesome before you write a movie, as I implied in post #65? Less than ten minutes of a movie I haven’t seen, and I already love it *LOL*

163. Julio Scissors - December 14, 2012

I liked the 9 minute preview – it didn’t seem like Star Trek (especially the Noel Clarke) bit, but I like that. It’s different, new, and I’m stoked to see the final product. I also loved how they started with an old-school “away mission”.

The Hobbit, on the other hand, stunk. Absolutely uneventful, IMO.

164. Robman007 - December 14, 2012

@ boborci

I just want to THANK YOU and the others for bringing Star Trek back. I understand these are tent pole movies that have to be made for the larger audience or else there would be no sequels….if I want old Trek, I’ll watch Old Trek, but as a long time TOS fan, I love what you guys are doing. It’s fun knowing that we get to see adventures of Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock again. It’s the characters that matter, not the logic, or “realisim” or actors who play them.

Thanks to you and the whole cast and crew!

165. Jay - December 14, 2012

I LOVE Star Trek, but this movie sucks… i mean they have a ship traveling faster than light. We all know that’s impossible. Come on. And trasporters???? Give me a break. Where is logical real science?

But I love real Star Trek. It’s awesome!!

166. Robman007 - December 14, 2012

@165….you must not be a real TOS fan…younger fan, hu? ;-)

OH, don’t forget those boney ridged head dudes…Klingons? Totally unrealistic. Can’t happen….

…you also forgot genetically engineered supermen…that’s not real either. Stupid dumb 9 minute movie. The other 2.5 hours will suck hard.

167. Dee - lvs moon' surface - December 14, 2012

Chris Pine and the “mortifying” wet suit, here:

http://news.moviefone.com/2012/12/11/star-trek-into-darkness-plot_n_2278742.html

;-) :-)

168. Robman007 - December 14, 2012

WE want the sorta REALISIM of Dr. McCoy performing brain implant surgery on Spock without cutting his hair or his head open. TOS would do nothing silly like put the Enterprise under water or show an alternate version of the good Captain that had some faults.

169. Curious Cadet - December 14, 2012

@156 LogicalLeopard,

“I think Super ice cube is AWESOME *LOL*”

Just to be clear, before someone turns their vitriol canon on me without actually reading/comprehending my post in order to press their agenda (which seems to be the primary m.o. Around here), I don’t have a problem with this characterization per se. All I’m saying is that this characterization of Kirk is unlike any we have seen before. Some of which can be easily explained as a characterization as that of a young guy who has not matured yet. But mostly it’s a way for The filmmakers to connect with a younger audience. Shatner’s Kirk was arguably always a bit of a blowhard and definitely a pontificator. The guy liked to hear himself talk, much of which is an offshoot of the actors persona. Pine’s Kirk undoubtably connects more with the younger crowd. But lines like “super ice cube” seem to be more in the realm of over simplifications McCoy made from what I recall. So the lines between characters are getting blurred as well.

170. Jay - December 14, 2012

#166 Oh yeah… forgot about that.

I wish they would just do real Star Trek.

171. captain_neill - December 14, 2012

I don’t take it as a holy religion, I know it’s fiction and I meet the actors at the cons as the actors, not the characters.

I only brought up the year difference to point out how silly the ‘destiny’ card is to explain plot conveniences, that’s all because they don’t explain away everything. Liberties were taken, which I am fine with. THis is a different Trek.

But to me this new Trek should be PART of the legacy and it should not be the ONLY Trek that is repected in the mainstram, which is how I feel the mainstream are viewing it.

Orci, I do like your film a lot, I really do. I guess using your anology in the blu ray, I am a fan who stil loves his classical music, does that make sense? However with that said I still look forward to your next movie.

172. Optimistic Doodle - December 14, 2012

5-6 months… For a fan, that is nearly an eternity :-(

Thanks everyone for the descriptions!

173. Jay - December 14, 2012

#169 Dude, Kirk in TOS was down right corny in some episodes.

You are basing a characterization on one scene in the movie. Seems a little narrow to me to fixate on one line or one scene and try to say Kirk would never do that.

174. Baby - December 14, 2012

pleased can sombody please tell me if this 9 minutes clip is actually the first 9 minutes of the film?

175. Robman007 - December 14, 2012

@171…the main stream audience and media love this version of Star Trek because it has not spent it’s time doing “search for god” stories and comes across as fresh and new and FUN. Star Trek always had a hard time attracting the younger crowd because it was so set in it’s ways of being “like that which came before it” without realizing that the original series was just as fun and as exciting at times as the new flicks and even Star Wars.

176. Robman007 - December 14, 2012

@173:

I don’t see alot of the “haters” complaining about the vast crazy changes TNG made to Star Trek…it ignored TOS for the longest time. Klingons went from being back stabbing bad guys to honorable good guys. Romulans all the sudden MUTATED and crew a head ridge and became dishonorable sneaks…..the reliance of technobable as a Deus Ex ruined half the episodes and the ship was navigated by a kid. I’d say that the new stuff is in line with the TNG stuff at times.

177. Disectivore! - December 14, 2012

@Boborci

I love the rebooted Trek. And the science is no more flimsy or solid than TOS. When I was a kid watching the Star Trek reruns in the 80s (introduced to me by my Grandad) I love it because it was discussion-provoking Sci-Fi, but also swashbuckling space adventure with larger-than-life heroes that I wanted to be.

Frankly, you’ve hit the nail on the head with the reboot for me and the more people on here who whine about who the villain is or isn’t; act like they want they hate eachother over whether the Enterprise can function in liquid (it can and has done before) and whatnot; the more I’m thankful for the way I was introduced to Trek and the way it has been reintroduced to me thanks to you guys.

You have succeeded!

178. Jay - December 14, 2012

#174 That’s what I believe Anthony has said previously.

#175 It’s not just the media or main stream. ST09 was the most universally praised Star Trek movie ever by movie critics for technical achivements, story and acting. And if you claim that’s just the media then you will really start to sound like some new-con blaiming the media for all their problems.

179. captain_neill - December 14, 2012

Oh the new movie had the fun of TOS, it was exciting, yet at the time many of the stories in TOS were ahead of it’s time and there were great SF stories.

Due to changing times I doubt I would see Pine’s take on Kirk be able to talk a computer into destruction by using logic? A classic trait I loved in TOS, I liked that side of Kirk as much as the action side.

I also think modern Trek gets a bad rep on this site. As much as I am looking forward to Into Darkness I am looking forward to getting more TNG on blu ray.

180. Dunsel Report - December 14, 2012

#176 Or the changes Gene Roddenberry made to the premise in his novel to Star Trek: The Motion Picture, in which Kirk dismisses all of TOS as an urban legend. The book introduced such bizarre ideas as the Federation communicating through Kirk via a secret mind implant.

181. captain_neill - December 14, 2012

178

I personally felt the story was weaker than some of the previous films.

This is a common trait I find in tentpole films but the characters were well done. Even if Nero was not fleshed out.

182. Robman007 - December 14, 2012

@180: Yeah, that TMP novel was bizarre.

@ 178: That’s about spot on. The new flick brought Trek back from the dead in only a way that Khan managed to do…great flick from beginning to end.

183. R. Banks - December 14, 2012

That shot in the trailer of the Enterprise rising up out of the water is awesome. Can’t wait to see it on the big screen.

I’m also curious about what ship is shown crashing into the ocean at the end of the trailer. It’s similar to, but doesn’t quite look like the Enterprise. Hmmm…

184. Michael Hall - December 14, 2012

“But it definitely doesn’t sound like Kirk. Am I wrong? Did Shatner’s Kirk ever trivialize stuff like this when Spock or Scotty explained the science to him? I always rather got the impression Kirk was just as well versed as they were in many cases.”

Well, he did refer on occasion to sophisticated spatial maneuvers and so forth with metaphors like “snapping a rubber band,” etc. But yeah, “super ice-cube” still rings of Kirk-the-frat-boy-jock from the last movie. I seriously hate that crap.

“There’s just no logical reason for the Enterprise to go underwater. Logical reasoning is a core part of Star Trek storytelling. The ONLY reason they’re turning the E into a sub is to try and seem edgy, flashy, or put more accurately, “Kewl!” for the sake of these things.”

Definitely get the “this isn’t your father’s Star Trek” vibe from this, too. On the other hand, to be fair, there wasn’t any good reason for Kirk to take the Enterprise into the galactic barrier either, other than to move the plot forward. Sure the concept is silly, but silliness and fun have their place in Trek, and certainly in a tentpole summer film. The question is, will there be anything of substance this time to balance out the silliness? Too early to say, but I like some of what I’ve heard so far.

185. Robman007 - December 14, 2012

Everyone needs to realize…if they want Trek back on TV, then these films HAVE to make tons of cash. Trek won’t come back to TV any other way. So, if you want traditional Trek, then hope this film does well.

Even then, I think 100% traditional Trek is dead and gone forever. Even a new show will have more adventure then “thinking man’s science”..it’ll be more like TOS but with a higher budget.

186. Robman007 - December 14, 2012

“The question is, will there be anything of substance this time to balance out the silliness?”

It sounds like the 9 minute intro with the scenes in London show that this film will have some substance. I like going behind the scenes on Earth and seeing a different side then the utopia that TNG created.

187. Robman007 - December 14, 2012

“I personally felt the story was weaker than some of the previous films.”

Not as weak as Nemesis and Insurrection (essentially big rehases of Khan, Attack of the Clones and Omega Glory)

188. captain_neill - December 14, 2012

Don’t forget Kirk is a skiled diplomat and has a great love for antiques and is a passionate man. Kirk’s greatest love is the Enterprise.

He is a skilled tactician and has great ingenuity. Shatner endued him with great charism and energy.

189. LogicalLeopard - December 14, 2012

169. Curious Cadet – December 14, 2012

Just to be clear, before someone turns their vitriol canon on me without actually reading/comprehending my post in order to press their agenda (which seems to be the primary m.o. Around here), I don’t have a problem with this characterization per se. All I’m saying is that this characterization of Kirk is unlike any we have seen before. Some of which can be easily explained as a characterization as that of a young guy who has not matured yet. But mostly it’s a way for The filmmakers to connect with a younger audience. Shatner’s Kirk was arguably always a bit of a blowhard and definitely a pontificator. The guy liked to hear himself talk, much of which is an offshoot of the actors persona. Pine’s Kirk undoubtably connects more with the younger crowd. But lines like “super ice cube” seem to be more in the realm of over simplifications McCoy made from what I recall. So the lines between characters are getting blurred as well.

******************

I can agree with most of that. But as for the characterization of this new Kirk, it’s also important to take in account his upbringing along with his age. Although he’s a genius, he probably will be less of a “blowhard” because he was repelled by “blowhards” like his uncle, other authority figures, etc. He may want to just have people cut to the chase and solve problems instead of trying to impress or intimidate with flaunting their intelligence. But another great thing is that it appears his attitudes are going to get addressed by Pike.

190. Robman007 - December 14, 2012

Regarding Kirk…I think it’s been said that these films are about the crew “becoming” the 5 year mission crew…this film is about Kirk “earning” the chair.

I still think it’s better then having to sit through 3 films and 8 years just to see Kirk become Captain in the last film, ala Darth Vader in the prequel star wars films. Just cut to the chase, make him captain, and make the stories about him growing into the reverse logic using ladies man that we all know and love.

191. Robman007 - December 14, 2012

“it’s also important to take in account his upbringing along with his age”

The signs are all over the last film that this was probably meant as a total reboot, with the time line or “fate” making adjustments to correct the damage that Nero caused. I mean, did Voyage Home create an alternate time line? Did First Contact….or any of the billion Time travel episodes? No, they changed the existing one and our heroes corrected the damage.

The Alternate time line stuff is there to keep fan boys from freaking out like they do when you put the Enterprise underwater.

Pine Kirk is not Shatner Kirk. Different upbringing, different person. Quinto Spock is no longer Nimoy Spock. That’s what having Vulcan sucked down a hose will do for ya. That’s why Uhura, Chekov and Sulu are older and why Scotty is a bit more silly (he was always comical in TOS..folks seem to forget that..)….it’s a changed, rebooted Star Trek with new rules that is hidden by this Alternate Universe stuff.

192. Robman007 - December 14, 2012

Besides, I don’t think anyone ever claimed that this is “your dad’s TOS” and that the films lead directly into the original series and it’s a prequel. Changed time line, different set of rules, same basic characters with minor changes fit of a rebooted Star Trek.

Works for me..maybe when they redo TNG they will have an Enterprise D that is not a luxary liner for moms and kids.

193. Anthony Thompson - December 14, 2012

No 2nd trailer w/ Hobbit at my nearby theatre (Monticello, MN).

194. Robman007 - December 14, 2012

Oh, I’m pretty sure that TOS never cared or even really said what years it took place. Novel writers and TNG writers assumed it was 2266, but who said it was not 2259…I mean, TOS bounced between being in the 25-27th Century before landing on the 22nd Century when Khan came aboard.

195. LogicalLeopard - December 14, 2012

176. Robman007 – December 14, 2012

I don’t see alot of the “haters” complaining about the vast crazy changes TNG made to Star Trek…it ignored TOS for the longest time. Klingons went from being back stabbing bad guys to honorable good guys. Romulans all the sudden MUTATED and crew a head ridge and became dishonorable sneaks…..the reliance of technobable as a Deus Ex ruined half the episodes and the ship was navigated by a kid. I’d say that the new stuff is in line with the TNG stuff at times.

**********************’

Don’t forget the changes IN TNG, like with the Ferengi. I remember seeing a magazine with a Ferengi on the cover, and it said, “The New Klingons”, seemingly implying that they were going to be the new threat, although I thought at the time, “Man, they changed the foreheads AGAIN?!?!?” *LOL* But they changed from being weird, almost savage, aggresive pirates to money hungry guys. I know you can explain it away by saying it was a subset of Ferengi, but it was an obvious change of direction.

196. Curious Cadet - December 14, 2012

@189 LogicalLeopard,

“he probably will be less of a “blowhard” because …”

Ha!

He’s less of a “blowhard” because he’s not Shatner!

And I was right about somebody jumping on my post without caring to read/contextualize it. Some people just love any excuse to lash out. All part of the fun of posting at Trekmovie.com, and why others make fun of Trek fans …

197. Chain of Command - December 14, 2012

One Question:

Totally not related to this article but to the new version of Star Trek in general.

Why is Zoe Saldana always listed as one of the “big three” and getting third billing? Whatever happened to McCoy?

Not saying anything negative here, just wondering why.

198. Captain Ransom - December 14, 2012

@129: agreed. i thought pine’s kirk was too arrogant, inexperienced, and just chris pine playing himself. where’s the leadership, command, and discipline projected by shatner’s kirk?

abram’s trek looks a lot like michael bay’s transformers or battleship or that new movie pacific rim than the trek we should be getting.

i’m much more interested in seeing tom cruise’s new movie oblivion which looks really awesome.

199. Jay - December 14, 2012

#191… I think they wanted to basically redo Star Trek from the perspective of – What would Star Trek be like if created today, instead of in the 1960’s?

But because of the history and the fan base, they felt they couldn’t just completely recreate Star Trek from scratch as if nothing had been on TV or in the movies before, so they came up with the time line thing in order to do it.

I often wondered, before ST09, what it would be like if someone created Star Trek today from scratch and how it would be different, and these movies basically give us that.

200. Phil - December 14, 2012

@197. Sex sells…

201. Phil - December 14, 2012

@199. ….It would look like TNG

202. LogicalLeopard - December 14, 2012

196. Curious Cadet – December 14, 2012
@189 LogicalLeopard,

“he probably will be less of a “blowhard” because …”

Ha!

He’s less of a “blowhard” because he’s not Shatner!

*********************

*LOL* Why did I not think of that???

203. Robman007 - December 14, 2012

“leadership, command, and discipline projected by shatner’s kirk?”

ONCE AGAIN, I’ll repeat it….it’s not SHATNER’s Kirk…it’s not NIMOY’s SPOCK, It’s not the original McCoy, Sulu, Scotty or Chekov. They are different characters molded by different situations in a Star Trek universe that is DIFFERENT then TOS. IT’s not a prequel..it’s a reboot. Different characters, different life journeys, different situations.

It’s much easier to understand then the technobabble of TNG.

204. Robman007 - December 14, 2012

@ 201..exactly. Political Correctness run wild with a luxary liner ship that can’t fight a fly.

DS9 was more like TOS then any of the shows.

205. Jay - December 14, 2012

#198 This is clearly not true. There is no comparion this to Bay’s Transformers.

You only have to look at the critical praise ST09 got universally across the country and contrast that with the critical lambasting that Bay’s Transformers got.

If you can’t see that ST09 is far superior to Transformers in terms of technical execution as well as story and acting, then you just are hating for hate’s sake and nothing more.

206. LogicalLeopard - December 14, 2012

197. Chain of Command – December 14, 2012
One Question:

Totally not related to this article but to the new version of Star Trek in general.

Why is Zoe Saldana always listed as one of the “big three” and getting third billing? Whatever happened to McCoy?

Not saying anything negative here, just wondering why.

*************************

It’s Hollywood business. Zoe gets top billing because she’s arguably the biggest star in the movie. Biggest American star, that is, with apologies to Simon Pegg and Karl Urban. That’s why her face is on the DVD, so people will buy/rent it.

207. Jay - December 14, 2012

#201 No, it would look like this, because that is what JJ and crew are doing.

208. Gary - December 14, 2012

I wonder if they will use the Aqua Shuttle shown in TAS.

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Aqua-shuttle

209. Robman007 - December 14, 2012

@ Jay….don’t you ever get tired of defending these films to folks who just simply can’t get over that it’s not TOS…

Funny enough, those are the same folks that forget that they had a hard time with TNG when it was released as well, yet consider that show to be a gem after it’s all said and done.

210. I am not Herbert (retired) - December 14, 2012

FACE-PALM! FACE-PALM!! FACE-PALM!!!

Illogical (stupid) Fluffy, Fluff, Fluff… =(

211. Jay - December 14, 2012

#209 Yes. I guess I should just stop. It’s obvious they are simply going to hate anything that doesn’t look exactly like TOS.

212. FusionVok - December 14, 2012

How crazy would it be if we’ve all been duped and del Toro IS actually in the movie. If not in a major role, how about a little “after the credits” sequence that sets up Khan in ST3?

213. Barney Fife - December 14, 2012

I’ve been a loyal fan since 9/8/1966 so I’ve watched all of this develop since the beginning. Folks need to get a grip on life since Trek is not a religion. It’s fantasy. It’s entertainment. I like seeing different takes on the Star Trek universe – from Roddenberry through Abrams/Orci, etc. It’s a fun ride! Bring it on and I sure hope Paramount and CBS are talking to each other about bringing Star Trek back to TV. 2016: “Star Trek Five-0″

214. LogicalLeopard - December 14, 2012

212. FusionVok – December 14, 2012
How crazy would it be if we’ve all been duped and del Toro IS actually in the movie. If not in a major role, how about a little “after the credits” sequence that sets up Khan in ST3?

*************

I thought about that. Maybe he wasn’t going to be in THIS movie, but another movie. Or maybe, as I constantly revise my Khan theory, Khan is not the bad guy, but it’s another augment named Harrison. Khan could appear briefly in this movie as a flashback, or a death scene, or…..maybe Harrison is one augment out of a network of augments trying to exert control over the Federation, and Khan is pulling the strings.

How cool would an underground Augment Insurrection Network be?

215. Rose (as in Keachick) - December 14, 2012

“i thought pine’s kirk was too arrogant, inexperienced, and just chris pine playing himself. where’s the leadership, command, and discipline projected by shatner’s kirk?”

So you personally know Chris Pine, do you?

The leadership and command skills were shown later when Kirk took command of the Enterprise. Remember Uhura saying “I hope you know what you are doing, Captain” in a rather sarcastic tone and Kirk replying seriously, honestly, “So do I”. He then made a shipwide announcement explaining what had happened and was about to happen. That was pure Captain Kirk talk. If this young Kirk had shown the kind of “discipline” that so many seem to agonize about not seeing, then there would no crew, Enterprise, Earth etc etc – period.

There is a time and place for everything (or not). The young Kirk sitting on his hands, saying and doing nothing, because he was only a cadet on academic suspension, would not have been the right call. That should be obvious to everyone. I can’t believe this needs explaining after 3 and a half bleedin’ years…Sheesh.

216. LJ - December 14, 2012

I must say, I am really looking forward to this film – especially as it seems to feature Britain quite heavily. Up to now, we have not seen much of Earth, aside from San Francisco and Paris, and (as far as I am aware) Britain has only been seen in TNG All Good Things… It’s nice to see the future of other well known locales, especially if it’s my own country.

I’m also enjoying the bad guy speculation. I’ve been lurking, and not yet had my say, so here goes…

Whilst I think it is likely the antagonist will be just ‘John Harrison’, there are one or two other characters who may fit the mould if ‘Harrison’ is just a pseudonym:

Khan Noonien Singh – relatively easy to retcon as a Brit, given we know little about his background (from screen sources anyway). He is a Sikh, and Britain has one of the world’s largest Sikh communities. He is also said to have ruled over 1/4 of the world’s population – the same, roughly, as the British Empire at its peak…what if he came to power in Britain on the back of some crisis (famine, civil war, etc.)? He disbands the monarchy and Britain becomes a Crown Republic once more (as under Cromwell). He rapidly turns the country around, and proceeds to bring the Commonwealth closer together. This would tie with a large part of Asia being under his dominion – India, Pakistan, Malaysia, etc. Remember, there was apparently now massacre or internal conflict under Khan – the people wanted him. He is brought low by external conflict with other augments and other nations wary of his power. We also know that Britain has an in-universe history of genetic modification up to the 24th Century (Julian Bashir).

Being a Brit would explain why he’s drawn to London.

We hear that ‘Harrison’ is a manipulator. As was Khan: note his seduction of McGivers, and the fact that he rose to power through relatively peaceful means back in 20th Century Earth. He only becomes the bombastic, direct, gung-ho, reckless villain after the Ceti Alpha VI disaster results in the death of his wife and many of his people. The ‘reak’ Khan is the charmer seen in Space Seed.

Garth of Izar – similarly easy to retcon as a Brit, if we ignore the character’s origins put forward in the books. The ‘of Izar’ reference may not be a birthplace, but an association much like ‘Lawrence of Arabia’. He did something of note at Izar, much as he did at Axanar. He also has a history of using pseudonyms and disguises, and has a background in ‘unusual healing methods’. The problem with Garth arises when we consider that Harrison is described as having logical, maybe even reasonable, motives. This does not match with a character noted for his insanity.

There is one other character, who has not been discussed much. A character who also used disguises and false names. A character known for using extreme, yet logical, methods to do what he believes is right. A character who was left high and dry by the Federation and Starfleet in his hour of need, and forced to make such drastic decisions he was held guilty of crimes against humanity. Decisions he made only to save his people, who had been (as he sees it) betrayed by the Federation. A character who, through his previous actions, has a history with Kirk…That character is Kodos.

Whilst I think it would be interesting to see Kodos again, I do not think it is him. The age of the character compared to BC is the first strike against. Then ask why he would help a sick young girl. Why would he strike against Earth, when in TOS he was happy to live out his life in hiding? Things have changed in the New Universe, but the answers to some questions remain the same.

A lot of the talk has been about Mitchell, but the more I see and hear from trailers and the preview, the more I feel he doesn’t fit. Why help the young girl? Why make what seem like political moves against Earth? He is a godlike being: put simply, why bother? I don’t think he’d make for a particularly interesting screen villain either, partly in view of the fact that some of his powers would seem, well, a little ‘Emperor Palpatine’.

Guess, though, that we’ll find all the answers in May, but it’s going to be a fun time while we wait.

217. Criager - December 14, 2012

If it is Augments wasn’t that already done with Enterprise?

218. Rose (as in Keachick) - December 14, 2012

Now, just reading that 2D twat’s name makes me sick. God, I hope that there will never be a film made involving that person/name.

This unbelievable and unholy obsession with this one character has killed any interest I might have in this character.

Once again…seeking barf bowl.

Don’t any of you know how to let go…Christ, the villain’s name is John Harrison – thank God!

219. LJ - December 14, 2012

I wish there was some way to edit these posts…that last one is littered with my beer-fueled bad typing. Paragraph 4 – should read ‘no massacre’, paragraph 6 – ‘real Khan’…

220. Jay - December 14, 2012

#218 Are you going to explode when we find out in the movie he is really Khan?

Will you finally let go of your denial?

221. Voice of Reason - December 14, 2012

Don’t you people have a job to go to or a spouse to have intercourse with?! Get over it already – the villain is John Harrison, not Garth, Khan or Gary! Now Peter Weller, that’s another story…

222. Curious Cadet - December 14, 2012

@ 218 Rose,

“This unbelievable and unholy obsession with this one character has killed any interest I might have in this character.”

I don’t know why, but this statement made me think of Monty Python’s classic skit, made all the more relevant by the film opening with the villain in England … I can hear the choir chiming in now:

Khan! Khan! Khan! Khan!
Lovely Khan! Wonderful Khan!
Khan Kha-a-a-a-a-an Khan Kha-a-a-a-a-an Khan.
Lovely Khan! Lovely Khan! Lovely Khan! Lovely Khan!
Khan Khan Khan Khan!

Sorry, I don’t mean to laugh at your frustration … But I couldn’t ignore the similarities!

223. LJ - December 14, 2012

Rose – I believe your post was in response to my, admittedly, rather long one. You’ll note (third paragraph) that I said that I do believe the villain is John Harrison. I was simply playing a game of ‘what if…?’

Given how busy I have been lately (away on business last week in an area where I could not get internet, working all hours this week) I hadn’t had time to post anything till now. Furthermore, I live in a part of the world where Trek doesn’t even register (and those who do know it think it started in 2009). To paraphrase Kirk, “I am from Britain, I only work in the back of beyond…”. This is the only place I can posit these kinds of questions with like-minded people (all my closest mates are Warsies), so cut me some slack, please.

I truly hope and believe Harrison is an original antagonist – note I do not use the word ‘villain’, especially given BC’s comments that he is in some way a person we can relate to. In fact I hope he does not meet the same fate as other Trek movie antagonists (why do they always die?), and that he can prove a foil for our new Kirk for years to come.

224. Dr. Cheis - December 14, 2012

Commenting based on your discretion, as I haven’t seen, and won’t be seeing the preview.

I know you said this as a not-so-serious criticism, but I like the idea of the very human-like aliens, if only because there are SO MANY of them in TOS, so it feels like they’re sticking with the feel of that series.

Additionally, I don’t see a logic problem with transporting through the volcano. Remember that in the first movie, they were only dealing with range and speed issues. Conditions were pretty near perfect for the transport other than that (if you consider space to be what’s moving, apparently). A volcano, and probably the volcano suit itself I’m sure put out a great deal more interference regardless of how close they are. Recall all the times on the shows they had transporter trouble due to conditions. I don’t think anybody ever said “well let’s just get in closer and try again.”

225. Dunsel Report - December 14, 2012

Future Spock was probably able to inform Starfleet that the Enterprise should be refitted to handle Fluidic Space.

226. LogicalLeopard - December 14, 2012

215. Rose (as in Keachick) – December 14, 2012
“i thought pine’s kirk was too arrogant, inexperienced, and just chris pine playing himself. where’s the leadership, command, and discipline projected by shatner’s kirk?”

So you personally know Chris Pine, do you?
***********************

*LOL* Good response. It’s questionable even to say that Shatner was playing himself in Star Trek, but at least if you don’t know Shatner personally, you have a bit of information based on his interviews, you tube videos, alleged behavior from coworkers, etc.

Arrogant and inexperienced would probably suit a young Kirk well. We DO know both versions cheated at the Kobiyashi Maru. He would be more arrogant and brash being a deliquent and all *L*

227. LogicalLeopard - December 14, 2012

Don’t you people have a job to go to or a spouse to have intercourse with?! Get over it already – the villain is John Harrison, not Garth, Khan or Gary! Now Peter Weller, that’s another story…

******************

I have a job and a spouse. I’m not sure about the third part, after I tell my spouse today, “I gotta go and see the Hobbit, because Bones and Kirk steal a doohickey from some aliens, and then jump off a cliff into some water where the Enterprise is waiting and Sulu and Uhura drop Spock into a Volcano with an ice cube, but then they have to decide if they can get him out of the volcano without breaking the Prime directive. *gasp for breath* Also, the gurneys at the hosptal DONT HAVE WHEELS!!!! Awesome!”

228. Robman007 - December 14, 2012

@ 227

When you say it that way, it does sound like an original episode of Star Trek. “I gotta watch an episode in which space hippy chicks in go-go boots steal Spock’s brain and Dr McCoy performs a brain transplant while Spock’s brain tells Bones how to reconnect the various, uh, wires…all without slicing his head open and shaving his hair!”

Awesome!

229. cpelc - December 14, 2012

I can’t believe the trailer still hasn’t leaked from the 2D Hobbit showings…

230. Michael Hall - December 14, 2012

“#218 Are you going to explode when we find out in the movie he is really Khan?”

And what if, in fact, he’s really not? Who cleans up the mess you leave behind?

Jeez. Being able to look forward to more having more Trek in a just a few months should be a good thing–hell, I’m even starting to get interested in seeing it, and I hated the 2009 movie. But why people want to invest so much of themselves in this Khan/Not Khan debate is beyond me.

231. Robman007 - December 14, 2012

I’d love it if the 9 minute preview ended with that piece of overly dramatic music from TOS Season 2…the one that played right before the opening credits of “Wolf in the Fold” and countless other season 2 episodes…(Season 2, Disc 1, Track 14 for those who have the La-La Land TOS box Set)..haha!

232. Jay - December 14, 2012

#230 What mess? I’m just following the clues that are all pointing at Khan.

I was against this movie being about Khan, but you have to be blind to not see it now. I’m not too stuborn to admit when I’m wrong. And I was wrong about it not being about Khan.

233. Damian - December 14, 2012

Isn’t stopping a volcano to save a species violating the Prime Directive? But perhaps that was caused by some outside force, so maybe they are preserving the Prime Directive. Maybe it ties into Harrison’s character, who knows.

I will say there is some precedent for a ship flying under water. The Delta Flyer did that in Voyager, for instance, and Voyager was even able to land on planets. Also, one of the DS9 novels (I know, not canon) did depict the Defiant having to hide under water. So it’s not totally unheard of. I like Anthony’s comment about not being able to use the transporter. But in all fairness, Star Trek has always had technology involved that works sometimes and not others. So that’s not a shocker.

234. Jemini - December 14, 2012

66. dude, you’re making way too many assumptions after watching a 9 minutes preview. Sounds like you already decided anyway and aren’t even giving a chance to the writers. Kinda unfair.
though, to be honest I will never get these views on and about Uhura so I’m not able to follow an argument that doesn’t make any sense to me. My fault.
I do think that the writers did a good job in the first movie and are unfairly accused and blamed for things that they didn’t really do.
& I’ve read a lot of faux feminist arguments about this point that had been made by some fans ~because of reasons~ that have very little do to with Uhura — at least that’s my experience with this fandom and the reason of why these arguments register under my “I don’t buy it” radar.
I’m sorry for the metaphorical “rolleyes” you got me here (excuse me but old argument is getting damn old)

oh! I don’t even question the fact that you didn’t think they have chemistry, I’ll just say that many many many people (including the reviews of the movie) thought differently (not just differently, totally the “did we watch the same movie” differently :D ) to each his own.

72. seconded.

80. agree

235. LogicalLeopard - December 14, 2012

228. Robman007 – December 14, 2012

When you say it that way, it does sound like an original episode of Star Trek. “I gotta watch an episode in which space hippy chicks in go-go boots steal Spock’s brain and Dr McCoy performs a brain transplant while Spock’s brain tells Bones how to reconnect the various, uh, wires…all without slicing his head open and shaving his hair!”

****************************

*LOL* That’s what so fun about it!! I don’t know how some people don’t get the parallels between TOS and this.

*Flashback to the 60’s*

*someone walks into the room*

“What are you watchi—-”

“SSHHHHH!!!! *whispers, as if they’re disturbing McCoy onscreen* They stole Spocks BRAIN, man….chicks in go go boots. But now Spock’s gotta tell McCoy how to put it back…..”

236. Curious Cadet - December 14, 2012

@ 232 Jay,
“I’m just following the clues that are all pointing at Khan.”

Yup like lemmings getting queuing up cliff-side. You’d have to be blind to miss the clues Abrams is presenting.

237. Anthony Pascale - December 14, 2012

Rose

You need to calm down and watch your language. This is your final warning. A note…you dont need to take every comment on CP or other actors as a petsonal attack to defend to the death

238. LogicalLeopard - December 14, 2012

237. Curious Cadet – December 14, 2012
@ 232 Jay,
“I’m just following the clues that are all pointing at Khan.”

Yup like lemmings getting queuing up cliff-side. You’d have to be blind to miss the clues Abrams is presenting.

************************

I agree totally. I”ve been Team Khan for a while now, but the only thing that keeps nagging at me, and making me think it’s not Khan is, ironically, the BBC’s Sherlock series *LOL* If you havent’ seen it, rent it from your local library or video store, it’s a treat. I”ve watched season two (only three episodes) so far, and the last episode is what gets me.

I won’t give spoilers for those that want to see it, but suffice it to say, at the end of the episode SOMETHING HAPPENS. Something bizzare. Something big. Something which I, and many other people, cannot figure out. It happened right before our eyes like a magic trick, and there are all sorts of theories on exactly what happened.

What I learned from that is that sometimes filmmakers come out with weird original tricks (Think Kaiser Sozhe, Bruce Willis in that ghost movie) that leave you scratching your head. Orci and Kurtzman are definately of that caliber, I believe, so although I thought it was Khan with a facelift, I’m now leaning towards another augment. Or maybe it’s another augment and Khan is going to burst out of his chest like in Aliens. I dunno. They seem like they have a twist, and I expect one.

239. FusionVok - December 14, 2012

214. LogicalLeopard – December 14, 2012

Indeed. I have a hard time buying the “John Harrison is just John Harrison” bit, especially with everyone describing Cumberbatch’s smile in the 9 minute IMAX preview upon being asked who he is. I mean, they’re clearly setting up something clever here and I can’t help but feel the unanswered question raised in that scene would fall flat upon finding out he’s just some guy named John Harrison. What does that sort of payoff do for us in the audience? I think the writers are smarter than that.

I also believe there’s significance in the mother and daughter in the opening sequence being of Indian descent. Something that happens over the course of the movie with that little girl is going to lead to Khan somehow. If not in this movie, then the next. It’s been said that the reboot movies are being seen as trilogy by the folks involved and you just KNOW with all the influence of The Dark Knight on this particular movie that at the very least the writers will be planting seeds for the 3rd installment.

How do you put Khan in this new series and work around the problem of topping Ricardo M.’s performance in ST2? Make Khan female in this universe. Almost instantly you lose all the baggage. It’s not some guy trying to out Khan the original Khan. It’s clearly a new direction and the audience is up to speed in seconds. A BSG Starbuck sort of scenario. And the marketing writes itself! (and maybe a little Khan/Kirk sexual tension?) I know, I know…the pre-Nero timeline and it’s Khan shouldn’t be changed in this new timeline. But I don’t think the writers would care much at all about that little hiccup if they really wanted to bring in a new Khan with a twist. The average movie going public just doesn’t care about such minutia.

With three of these new movies planned, at least one of the three bad guys needs to be a bad girl. Something we haven’t seen since ST:FC and The Borg Queen.

240. LogicalLeopard - December 14, 2012

239. FusionVok – December 14, 2012

Although I agree, there aren’t enough female villians, I don’t think Khan is going to be the one. I don’t think the writers are going to go BSG revised version and deviate from the alternative timeline, because that’s a good way to lose most of your fanbase. IF they had done a full reboot, BSG style, they would fare better, but not in the middle of the alternative timeline. True, we’ve been talking about the average movie going public, and alienating fans, but that would tick off probably MOST fans, especially with such an iconic character. They’d shoot themselves in the foot.

My thoughts on Khan have always been that since he’s a recognizable figure, Khan gets plastic surgery to disguise his appearance while he works his plans. I thought that maybe the girl could be his descendant, suffering from a genetic defect that Khan can cure because she shares his DNA.
Maybe what makes the audience want to identify with Khan is that he says, “Look, you’ve got the Klingons, you’ve got the Romulans, and a host of other outside threats, plus you have children dying. Why not use genetic engineering to solve that?”

241. MJ - December 14, 2012

@233. I don’t think that would violate the spirit of the Prime Directive — it’s probably a grey area, but since it is obviously the right thing to do, I think it would survive any challenge in the Federation Supreme Court.

242. Jack - December 14, 2012

I was torn between seeing The Hobbit in IMAX (for the Trek preview) and seeing it with the higher frame rate, with Trek trailer, in non-IMAX. I chose IMAX, solely because of that preview — seeing it tonight. Great marketing for IMAX because I’m not usually a fan (of seeing movies not shot in IMAX, in IMAX — often it doesn’t add much to the normal movie experience, other than making it tough to see everything in the frame. Stuff filmed in IMAX is a different story, I think.).

I know this adds nothing to the discussion. I’m just impressed by the marketing.

243. Dennis Bailey - December 14, 2012

Saw it.

Star Trek, turned up to 11.

244. JJ's Secret - December 14, 2012

Just got back from seeing The trailer and The Hobbit.

While I didn’t see anything different than already described.. During the trailer (which we already saw) during the end… I SWEAR I could see flame or fire coming from under Cumberbatch’s boots when he goes up in the air during the Klingon scene.

For other fans.. The Hobbit was awesome… Enjoy it and the 9 Minutes of Star Trek

245. LJ - December 14, 2012

I forgot to say (and perhaps I shouldn’t considering the firestorm that seems to have followed my first post), that the one person I would not like to see using the pseudonym ‘John Harrison’ would be Robert T. April.

I’ve always felt a sense of national pride, for some reason, that the first Captain of the old E was British, and more than that, English. I’d hate to see him treated in the same way that the Mission: Impossible regulars were in MI1. That is unless he has a real cause, and provokes real sympathy in the audience. And that later in the film Kirk, Bones et al. come to see his point of view against a wider threat. I.e. he is a ‘red herring’ villain, as opposed to the real ‘big bad’.

One of the problems I have with April as antagonist is the character’s age. BC is much younger than April’s successor Pike. True, he ‘de-ages’ in Counterclock, but the old fountain of youth/de-ageing thing has already been done in the movies (IMHO quite poorly) in Insurrection.

Then there is the issue of the Enterprise, which appears to be under construction in the 2009 movie, with Pike as a short-term first captain. Where does April fit? On the other hand, I choose to imagine the scene of the E in Iowa as a refit to counter the Narada rather than a new build – I think the E existed before that. The refit explanation also covers the design differences between TOS and 2009.

246. Robman007 - December 14, 2012

@ 235. LogicalLeopard – December 14, 2012

And don’t anybody think otherwise…if they had the budget and technology in TOS to put the Enterprise underwater, it would have been done. Scotty would have rigged the ship to travel like a submarine to get at Kang’s underwater Lair….and the shuttles would have been gone and the transporter malfunctioning as well!

247. FusionVok - December 14, 2012

243. JJ’s Secret – December 14, 2012

Ah ha! Maybe he’s not super hero jumping after all! Star Trek V rocket boots! Didn’t someone say there’s a scene with Spock jumping off a tall building in the new extended trailer? Rocket boots again?

248. Robman007 - December 14, 2012

@ 246 “Spock jumping off a tall building in the new extended trailer? Rocket boots again?”

Maybe the abilities of an individual with super powers who can also shape shift and he is posing as Mr Spock? hmmmmmmmmm

249. Phil - December 14, 2012

@184. I suppose he could have gone over it, or around it, but we believed Kirk ordered the ship through it because we had an understanding that even though it would be a rough ride, the capabilities of ship and crew meant there were odds of the trip being successful. In that context, the risks and the rewards made some sense, even at a science fiction level.

The is the problem underwater Enterprise is creating – it just doesn’t make sense. Buoyency is the upward force exerted by a water that opposes the weight of a ship. In a controlled situation you take on ballast and it nicely controlls how far down you go, and the storage of such is an important part of the design. In an uncontrolled situation, well, you have the Titanic. Enterprise was designed for the environment of space, so FTL, artifical gravity, 100% reliable computers and such make sense. There has never been a hint of a underwater capability for the large starships that it’s not even been a consideration – granted, with all the tanks on JJ’s ship, maybe it was part of the design, and if so, it is what it is.

My point, asides from things making sense in the context in which they are presented, is that the tidbits we are seeing so far suggest that the writers may be playing a bit loose with story and character development in this universe, too. It might work, but it also runs a big risk of failure. I suppose we will only know that when we see the finished product.

250. FusionVok - December 14, 2012

247. Robman007 – December 14, 2012

Possibly! The idea of shape shifters infiltrating Starfleet was done to death on DS9 (very well, I might add). Seems like a well-tread sort of thing to bring up again, but that’s just me.

251. Robert - December 14, 2012

Not sure if this has been discussed, but the fact that there is a very specific stardate 2259.55 might be a hint?

I looked this up, not sure if this has any bearing on the plot or characters?

http://popapostle.com/Star-Trek/html/episodes/ST-Rebooted/Return-of-the-Archons_Pt01.htm

252. LogicalLeopard - December 14, 2012

243. JJ’s Secret – December 14, 2012
Just got back from seeing The trailer and The Hobbit.

While I didn’t see anything different than already described.. During the trailer (which we already saw) during the end… I SWEAR I could see flame or fire coming from under Cumberbatch’s boots when he goes up in the air during the Klingon scene.

**********************

I saw that too!!!! And didn’t it look like maybe a blue glow on his back right after he begins to come down? I posted that before, and never got a response, as I recall. I thought it could have been some misdirection on JJ & Co’s part

253. FusionVok - December 14, 2012

249. Phil – December 14, 2012

I don’t think we know a whole lot about the tech built into the new Enterprise. Sure, we can draw on all the series and movies that have come before as far as assuming details about shields, gravity, forcefields, inertial dampeners, etc. But who’s to say these things function the same way in the rebooted timeline. The tech is obviously much more advanced as a result of Nero’s incursion, so why is it unreasonable to think the ship can go underwater.

As far as the forces of the water, ballasts, etc…there was an early episode of DS9 (might have been the pilot actually now that I think about it) where some technobabble results in O’Brien being able to move the station closer to the wormhole by changing the physics around the station or some such thing. Couldn’t this be a feature of the new Enterprise that’s not referenced?

Personally, I take the JJ approach. If the fact that the ship goes underwater is enough to ruin your day…then you can “enjoy your reruns!” :)

254. Robman007 - December 14, 2012

@ FusionVok

Exactly. I don’t think it’s the dominion…I’m just saying, it might match a certain crazy Captain from TOS…..

The genetic engineering angle will more then likely be a plot in this film. Guys LIKE Noonien Singh are running around…

Remember…there were some 80 or 90 of these “supermen” unaccountable after the Eugenics War was over.

Besides..Khan is not the man’s first name. It’s a title. Who’s to say other of these “supermen” couldn’t have the title of “Khan” and he is in the film, without being in the film

255. LogicalLeopard - December 14, 2012

244. LJ – December 14, 2012

Then there is the issue of the Enterprise, which appears to be under construction in the 2009 movie, with Pike as a short-term first captain. Where does April fit? On the other hand, I choose to imagine the scene of the E in Iowa as a refit to counter the Narada rather than a new build – I think the E existed before that. The refit explanation also covers the design differences between TOS and 2009.

*****************************

I thought Pike stated that the Vulcan mission was the new ENT’s first mission. Perhaps April had been assigned to a new ship. Anyway, I would like to see these characters pop up at some point, even some of the original pilot characters, like Number One (who needs a name), Dr. Boyce, etc. Or at least a reference.

256. LogicalLeopard - December 14, 2012

245. Robman007 – December 14, 2012

And don’t anybody think otherwise…if they had the budget and technology in TOS to put the Enterprise underwater, it would have been done. Scotty would have rigged the ship to travel like a submarine to get at Kang’s underwater Lair….and the shuttles would have been gone and the transporter malfunctioning as well!

**************************

*LOL* Exactly! If it had a higher budget, there’d be no transporters, because that’s the only reason why they made them in the first place – so they wouldn’t have to show the ship landing on a different planeteach week. And the ship would be doing all sorts of crazy things, like breaking up Kang’s underwater go-go party.

257. Robman007 - December 14, 2012

Besides…was not John Ericssen a code name for the genetic superman in the first draft of Space Seed before he became Khan? Funny.

258. Gustavo - December 14, 2012

I’m back and have read some comments about what I said regarding ST not being just a money making vehicle. V’ ger has evolve friend Star Trek was first put on CBS to make money but it has evolve into a series that shows us hope and what we humons (ferengui) can do together. Zoe Saldana (put an accent on top of that “n” ) from Dominican Republic and myself from the neighboring island of Puerto Rico a USA territorial possession and many, many, many Irish crew of the Enterprise; together we venture on a trek to see whats out there not to kill vengeful people on every trek to make money, that’s not star trek. if you don’t agree talk to the late G.R’s son and he will tell you what kind of vehicle is ST. For myself I’ love the first JJ ST movie and will like this one even if it’s a ST lets make money movie. True Trek won’t make it on the big screen unless you get cinemas all over the world fill with intelligent so called nerds instead of fast and the furious’ tattoo junkies that could never build a rocket to go the moon because they are to preoccupy with christal meth. The movies of today action and fast car chases are for idiots with money and that’s what Hollywood wants, money, forget about quality adventure and education about life in general. Ericsson (Harrison) should not die in this movie, his evil persona should be expunge from his body somehow and have him become a crew member for the 5 year mission and never have him show any sign of the evil returning (ever – no matter what he may face in the future), (that be star trek). Why the evil must be killed in every movie is just plain stupid creativity, can’t people rehabilitate in some cases, is not like he is the ultimate evil, or is he. Lets not go there.

259. Robman007 - December 14, 2012

Not having Captain April is nothing major. April was never cannon TOS. TAS was never made Cannon for Star Trek. Writers put TAS easter eggs into shows, but it was never an official continuation of the show.

…technically, I don’t think that TOS was ever official Cannon when TNG came around..at least for the first 4 years

260. FusionVok - December 14, 2012

254. Robman007 – December 14, 2012

Exactly. I don’t think it’s the dominion…I’m just saying, it might match a certain crazy Captain from TOS…..

Besides..Khan is not the man’s first name. It’s a title. Who’s to say other of these “supermen” couldn’t have the title of “Khan” and he is in the film, without being in the film

____________

Right. I didn’t mean to imply that you were suggesting the Dominion was in the movie….just that shapeshifters are very familiar territory in Star Trek and not something I think the Supreme Court would want to rehash here.

I don’t know if I buy the thing about Khan being a title in this particular instance. You’d think Kirk would have yelled “Noooooooonien!!!!!” right? I mean, if somebody wanted to curse Prince Charles by name they wouldn’t yell “Priiiiiiinnnceeee!!!!” would they?

261. dmduncan - December 14, 2012

230. Michael Hall – December 14, 2012

It’s a game, that’s all.

262. Robman007 - December 14, 2012

I SOLVED IT..I KNOW WHO THE VILLIAN REALLY IS!!!

It’s….

…………………

………………………………..Lt Leslie. He was sucked into this reality by the vampire cloud of Tycho IV.

When he was on the planet Argus X, because of his proximity to Tritanium, when the cloud killed him it gave him super powers and sucked him into the alternate universe. He is back to get revenge on Captain Kirk because he allowed him to die a death only befitting of someone who was hired for one scene of one episode!

263. Robman007 - December 14, 2012

either that or Cumberpatch is playing the Doomsday Machine that was warped by Red Matter and turned into a real being!

264. FusionVok - December 14, 2012

262. Robman007 – December 14, 2012

Dangit, Robman! How about a SPOILER ALERT??

265. Robman007 - December 14, 2012

@ FusionVok…Khan is a title. Most of his followers called him Khan out of fear. He was absolute ruler of over a 1/3rd of the world, so I don’t think anyone would call him Noonian. He used it because his ego made him do so. It’s a arrogance and power deal. Folks call Prince Charles “your majesty” or something similar. I doubt they’d ever just call him “Charles” unless they are buddies.

“I didn’t mean to imply that you were suggesting the Dominion was in the movie”

Don’t worry, my friend, I took no offense. There was a shapeshifter of unknown origin in Star Trek VI.

266. Robman007 - December 14, 2012

@ 264. FusionVok – December 14, 2012

Haha!! My bad….

…make ya think though….oh, it could be V’GER DECKER/ILLIA!! They evolved into John Harrison and want to take out the good captain because he’s a jerk..and the Enterprise was built on land.

267. kevan - December 14, 2012

I think that BC is playing colonel green. He did some eugenics and was the forerunner that lead to eugenics war and tie in for Kahn in the third movie.

268. Robman007 - December 14, 2012

Peter Weller could be Col Green. Cumberpatch is playing Lt Leslie, out for Tritanium fueld vengance.

That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it…..

269. Tombot3000 - December 14, 2012

Robman007, uh, McCoy from TOS was in the first episode of TNG! LOL! So, I think TOS was canon for TNG! ;-)

270. Robman007 - December 14, 2012

The villian is actually William Shatner, who is disguised as BC, who is actually playing William Shatner, who wants his role back….

“You think your role is safe? It’s an illusion, a comforting lie told to protect an actors ego. Enjoy these final moments of being Captain Kirk, for I have returned to… have…. my… role back….”

271. LJ - December 14, 2012

255 – LogicalLeopard – you are correct, that is stated in the 2009 film, however one could look at it in a similar way as saying the Prime Universe refit 1701’s VGER mission was its first mission. Nothing to say the New Universe 1701 isn’t a refit. The Prime Universe refit was so much of a redesign it constituted a new vessel, well almost, perhaps it is the same here.

272. Robman007 - December 14, 2012

@269…I know…but it was only incinuated that he was McCoy…and most all references to TOS were forbidden by the boss himself until he was too sick to take over…so goes the story

273. LJ - December 14, 2012

Here’s one for the people questioning how the E can enter a planetary atmosphere and go submarine – wasn’t the original TOS E designed for planetfall? I seem to remember reading it in some book or other, and the underside had those hatches that seemed to conceal landing struts as I recall…

274. Tombot3000 - December 14, 2012

I think so, LJ, I vaugely recall illustrations, either for the Gold Key comic or some book. The water thing doesn’t bother me at all, and I’m no friend to Rebootrek.

275. Robman007 - December 14, 2012

Yes, the underside of the 1701 and the 1701-A had landing gear of a sort. The Yellow, white boxes were all landing gear.

The new Enterprise has those same markings

276. dontcare - December 14, 2012

@249. There are lots of prior Trek examples of Starships operating in or under water, take a look at this thread, a bunch of us have noted episode names where it happens, get over it.

277. NuWisdom - December 14, 2012

people, stop complaining over the feasibility of Star Trek science. When TOS was made, no one thought iPhones, cell phones, laptop computers, flat screen TVs, hybrid cars, or 75% of the rest of the tech which makes up 2012 society would be possible. Even primitive holography is emerging.

What’s more, scientists are now working on developing a real warp drive. I think its reasonable to say that in 250 years something called red matter, a device which can rebirth a planet and a person, a starship that can survive underwater, through an atmosphere, in space, and in the event horizon of a black hole, teleportation tech, matter replication tech, etc. will exist. Perhaps even more advanced tech might.

Another variable: red matter was from the late 24th century, not the 23rd. and perhaps the JJprise’s ability to survive underwater came from 24th Century tech reverse engineered from scans of the Narada.

278. Salvadore - December 14, 2012

Lens flares. Tell me about the lens flares! Same/less/more? My wife won’t rewatch the 2009 Star Trek because the flares make her head hurt.

279. Mark James Tucker - December 14, 2012

Also who was that claimed Harrison gave mischievious smile when asked who he was. He didnt smirk let alone smile. He just starred intensly.

Here is my problem with the people saying because the little girl and the mother are indian it must be a khan story and thats why Harrison is helping cause he is really Khan.

If your going to go to all that trouble to do that, then why go and cast a white guy as Khan?

Its not Khan and with the stardate being confirmed now as 1 year AFTER trek 09, I am back to thinking that if Harrison is a fake name then he is really either Gary Mitchell, or April, (the April Gattling gun description is what has me leaning a bit more towards April)

That being said I still think John Harrison is just that John Harrison.

thats my theory anyways you dont have to agree with it, just like i dont have to agree he is Khan.

280. Mad Man - December 14, 2012

This:

“watching Kirk (with McCoy at his side) running around on an alien planet barking orders to Spock through a communicator and signing off with an emphatic “Kirk Out!” just brings chills to this Trekkie.”

Wow, now THAT is the shizznit that gets me excited for a Star Trek movie. Science faux pas of a submerged starship aside, I may actually get excited to see this movie if it really holds true to the spirit of Star Trek like Tony Pascale stated. I want a big-budget production of the 1960s TV show, not the 1980s movies or 1990s spin-offs. The statement above brings me hope that this may be so.

I’m still not sure if I will go see it, but Pascale got my Trekkie up! Here’s hoping…..

281. Basement Blogger - December 14, 2012

Just saw the first nine minutes of Star Trek Into Darkness with IMAX The Hobbit.

I like it. It was exciting. :-) I found the pace to be at the speed of warp and the dialogue flew by like an Aroldis Chapman fastball. That may not be so good if Abrams uses the same speed for all action scenes. I wonder if a non-Trekker could explain The Prime Directive which was featured. That being said Abrams visual style is fascinating. I want to see it again.

Kudos to the writers for channeling two Star Trek concepts. The Prime Directive. Hiding the Enterprise reminded me of TNG’s Who Watches the Watchers and the movie Star Trek: Insurrection. There’s also the concept of exploring strange new worlds. The grade is B+.

Full review.
http://berniebasementblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/i-just-saw-first-nine-minutes-of-star.html

282. gingerly - December 14, 2012

YEEEEESSSS.

I live in the boonies, so IMAX is out for me. This shot-by-shot analysis has done my heart good.

I am soooo excited for this. :)

On the issue of the Niburians looking humanoid, well that’s part of Star Trek canon.

A “seeding” race dispersed DNA through the known solar system, which is why so many of the races in Trek canon are humanoid.

I do agree with you though.

It’s just that since we haven’t seen the movie, we don’t know if there are truly alien-looking (like feet where are our heads are and so forth…) species included.

I’m hoping for a tentacled-blob or some-such.

283. gingerby - December 14, 2012

YEEEEESSSS.

I live in the boonies, so IMAX is out for me. This shot-by-shot analysis has done my heart good.

I am soooo excited for this. :)

On the issue of the Niburians looking humanoid, well that’s part of Star Trek canon.

A “seeding” race dispersed DNA through the known solar system, which is why so many of the races in Trek canon are humanoid.

I do agree with you though.

It’s just that since we haven’t seen the movie, we don’t know if there are truly alien-looking (like feet where are our heads are and so forth…) species included.

I’m hoping for a tentacled-blob or some-such.

284. Battle-scarred Sciatica - December 14, 2012

Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

All of you just listen to yourselves.

Hilariously sad!

Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

285. Bob Tompkins - December 14, 2012

Aw geez. Four years to create this and this is our reward?
A gigantic clusterf***.?!?
Cummerbund Bandersnatch is Khan, who is going to use genetic manipulation to save the kid and get thrown in jail for it. Why Kirk and Spock would be involved has to be something contrived.
While the ban on genetic engineering is probably firmly in place, apparently the Prime Directive has not fared nearly as well in the new timeline.
This is a primitive culture and there is absolutely no logical reason for the Enterprise to be underwater other than to get an easily amazed audience to say- “Look! The Enterprise is underwater!”
The comic book dealt well with why they are not going to ever use the advanced transporters again, but taking the whole ship down to the surface when there is no good reason?— unless it is the lamest version ever of the gun on the wall in the first act getting used in the third act?
The Federation we all know and love as Gene Roddenberry’s creation would never have taken overt action to save these people. Do.. not… interfere. But there they are, showing themselves to a pre- warp civilization, stealing an artifact to lure them away from an exploding volcano that Spock is trying to stop. Two acts that Roddenberry would have never ever allowed to happen.
This is not Star Trek in any sense of that title, and I would have been just as happy had those words not been used in the title. If these first 9 minutes are an indicator, this has no relation whatsoever to what we knew as Star Trek.
JJ Abrams’ ‘Star Drek’ is an excuse to blow s*** up and sell bucketsfull of overpriced popcorn and gallons of sugar water at the same time.
Paramount will make a ton of money on this, but Star Trek is dead until they bring someone in who hasn’t written a Transformers movie. Perhaps Trek’s proper place is not on the big screen after all, but a more warm nurturing environment such as Showtime.
I’d love 12 episodes of Trek a year done as thoughtfully as Homeland or Boardwalk Empire.
Waiting four years for another Cowboys and Aliens? Not so much.
Star Trek is something I would just as soon not have to check my intelligence in the lobby to enjoy.

286. Bob Tompkins - December 14, 2012

I do not want a fight.
That was a review and my opinion of what I saw.

287. Michael Hall - December 14, 2012

“@184. I suppose he could have gone over it, or around it, but we believed Kirk ordered the ship through it because we had an understanding that even though it would be a rough ride, the capabilities of ship and crew meant there were odds of the trip being successful. In that context, the risks and the rewards made some sense, even at a science fiction level. “

Not really. At the very edge of human-explored space (though for some reason there’s an automated mining station conveniently just a few days’ travel away, even at sublight), Kirk encounters an entirely unexpected and unknown phenomenon: a forcefield of negative energy surrounding the galaxy. Instead of taking his time to see if it can be gotten around, or shooting probes into it first, he orders full speed ahead and plows right into the thing, ultimately crippling his ship and killing a dozen of his crew, including his best friend. If the good captain hadn’t subsequently demonstrated his total awesomeness, justice would have demanded an end to his career on the spot.

“The is the problem underwater Enterprise is creating – it just doesn’t make sense. Buoyency is the upward force exerted by a water that opposes the weight of a ship. In a controlled situation you take on ballast and it nicely controlls how far down you go, and the storage of such is an important part of the design. In an uncontrolled situation, well, you have the Titanic. Enterprise was designed for the environment of space, so FTL, artifical gravity, 100% reliable computers and such make sense. There has never been a hint of a underwater capability for the large starships that it’s not even been a consideration – granted, with all the tanks on JJ’s ship, maybe it was part of the design, and if so, it is what it is.”

Of course, WMNGB nevertheless remains a classic, easily one of the most literate scripts TOS ever produced. My point is that, as the saying goes, few texts can survive a determined critical analysis. Sure, there are lots of why reasons Enterprise-as-submarine is pretty silly, and probably wouldn’t work even in the broad context of what’s possible in the ST universe. I’d also say it highlights a weakness of J.J. Abrams as an artist and filmmaker: a ready willingness to sacrifice story logic (and even common sense) in the interest of a “cool” image or emotional moment (e.g. the ship being constructed in the middle of a Iowa cornfield, for gods’ sake). That said, though, I still think it’s mostly good clean fun, and not all that big of a deal, so long as there’s some real wit and substance elsewhere in the story to balance it out. The description of the first few minutes of this preview seems to imply that there is; I certainly hope so.

288. R. Banks - December 14, 2012

@286 Bob Tompkins

Do you think that you will still go to see the entire film when it’s released in May, or will you pass based on what you’ve seen so far. I’m not looking for a fight either, not at all. I’m just interested in your honest opinion.

289. mhansen0207 - December 14, 2012

#285

Wow. Stay classy, such a “mature” review.

290. Hat Rick - December 14, 2012

I just saw the preview. I am blown away. This film is so much bigger than the last one, and the last one was big.

JJ Abrams is doing a great job with this franchise.

I can tell you this: I think that this is by far Abrams’ best work.

There was an “Avatar” vibe to this that made me happy. (See my blog posting on “Avatar.”)

291. Yanks - December 14, 2012

Can’t believe folks have a problem with a ship that is air tight enough to travel at warp in space going underwater. (face palm) Some technical problems sure, but structurally NO PROBLEM.

Couple questions for anyone that might know.

#1. Did JJ & Company tone down the bridge some? Less lens flares?

#2. Will this trailer be available here and if so when? Not really interested in seeing ‘The Hobbit’.

Thanks

292. Amorican - December 14, 2012

@291 Yanks.

You sir are 100% correct. They build these things to withstand action and adventure. Phasers and photon torpedoes. Explosions and fun!

But they can’t go underwater? B.S.

293. Anthony Pascale - December 14, 2012

Answering some questions as best as I can (some of which were answered in the article, others added in)

– Bridge is the same
– Lens flares still there but not so much in your face
– Trailer online Monday
– 9minute Preview online NEVER
– Yes it is first nine minutes of the film

Any other questions?

294. Reign1701A - December 14, 2012

@197: this notion that Star Trek 2009 under-values McCoy because he’s not on the movie posters is absurd. In fact McCoy usually got bumped for the female guest star/lead. Let’s look who’s featured at all the movie posters shall we (and I’m talking the main theatrical posters)?

Motion Picture: Kirk, Spock, and ILLIA’s heads.
Wrath of Khan: Khan (featured the most prominently), Kirk, Spock, and SAAVIK *No McCoy*
Search for Spock: Spock’s head in the background, Kirk, SAAVIK, and McCoy (who is slightly more in the background than Saavik)
Voyage Home: Kirk and Spock’s heads featured prominently, the rest of the crew’s heads featured in smaller, equal sizes
Final Frontier: Kirk and Spock, *No McCoy*
Undiscovered Country: Kirk, Spock, and McCoy’s heads featured in equal size.

So in 2/6 of the original movies, McCoy is not featured at all. In another 2/6, McCoy is featured in the background with equal or less prominence than the rest of the crew. Only 1 movie, VI, has McCoy featured with equal prominence to Kirk and Spock.

Then there is this classic publicity shot: http://imgc.allpostersimages.com/images/P-473-488-90/61/6189/YY41100Z/posters/star-trek-the-original-series-captain-kirk-spock-uhura-and-dr-mccoy.jpg

Or this: https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSUIW3mz6mn02Ww1BwW7ww421PszRX1RiGYLHxJUeLijRoYP7-Z

So in sum, by giving McCoy the shaft on the 2009 poster, JJ Abrams’ Star Trek is right in line with classic Star Trek. But guess what? McCoy still played a significant role in those movies in which his head was missing or in the background, just as he did in the 2009 movie.

295. Reign1701A - December 14, 2012

Correction, THREE out of 6 of the original series movies had McCoy completely absent from the poster. So why unfairly pick on Star Trek 2009 for this “crime”?

296. Reign1701A - December 14, 2012

Sorry one more thing…if we’re going to count the Kirk/Spock/BOP poster as the main one for IV (http://www.joblo.com/posters/images/full/1986-star-trek-iv-the-voyage-home-poster2.jpg), then that brings up the count to 4/6 of the original movies not having McCoy.

I didn’t want to make 3 posts on the same topic but that critique again the 2009 movie really grinds my gears. I saw the IMAX preview and I loved it, except I was way too close to the screen (3rd row, we got there late!) and therefore the 3D wasn’t quite right. That said, the sequence on Nibiru was great stuff. It’s a perfect blend of classic Trek with the Prime Directive argument amongst the crew, and nuTrek with the epic scope and intensity. I can’t wait until May!

297. Jefferies Tuber - December 14, 2012

In all seriousness, is there a scientific reason to believe a starship would not be water capable? Life is water, electricity and reproduction. Starfleet is clearly Naval. I’m just not seeing the basis for the objection.

If the much-maligned large translucent pipes in ST09 turn out to be for underwater navigation, the irony will be exquisite and I will seriously throw a rod in the theater.

298. John from Cincinnati - December 14, 2012

Another Khan connection:

In Space Seed Checkov wasn’t in the episode and was later explained that he could’ve been “down in Engineering or Security” which would explain Khan recognizing him in STII The Wrath of Khan

Isn’t Checkov seen wearing a red shirt in the new trailers…..?

299. John from Cincinnati - December 14, 2012

Hey BobOrci

Have you thought about dedicating this movie to the late Neil Armstrong? I mean, the first man on the moon and a Trekker?

300. Yasuda - December 14, 2012

I saw the 9 min preview earlier today. I didn’t hate it. But I didn’t love it.

I enjoyed seeing London in the 23rd century. I also liked opening the film on Earth inside the flat. However, I was hoping for something epic. I didn’t get epic.

This felt over edited and a little contrived. The entire Enterprise mission on the planet just didn’t work for me. The writing felt clumsy and unconvincing.

Contrary to many on this blog, I was very excited to see the Enterprise under water. Even though it made no sense in terms of canon, I thought it was a new concept and the writers would find a way to make it interesting. Based on what I saw, it made no sense – not in terms of canon OR logic. They’re underwater so the inhabitants of the planet don’t see them because of the prime directive. Well, how about keeping the ship in orbit. Isn’t that the point of a shuttle and the transporter? Perhaps there will be more explanation as to why they chose to submerge the Enterprise, but based on the clip, it was pointless.

The Uhura and Spock dynamic worked for me in the 2009 film. The subtly made it plausible. But I agree with an earlier post that said there was no point to Uhura being in that shuttle… other than to serve as a dramatic device.

I’ve read the comparisons Abrams (and the media) has made between the Dark Knight series and his Star Trek reboot. I think my expectations were to see something closer in tone to the Dark Knight opening. That was an epic set up. It was focused – didn’t jump back and forth between three story lines: Kirk and McCoy on the planet, Spock and company on the Volcano and the family on Earth. Watching the Star Trek intro, I felt like the editor smoked a pipe full of meth and went to town.

I hope that when seen in the context of the entire film, I’ll feel differently. But I have to say – as of right now – my expectations for May have been tempered.

Was it bad? No. What is epic? I didn’t think so.

301. Yanks - December 14, 2012

@ 293. Anthony Pascale – December 14, 2012

Thank’s for the answers.

Sorry to hear the 9 minute preview wont be online. Kind of hard to believe in this day in age.

302. Ahmed - December 14, 2012

Is the preview online somewhere ?

303. Bob Tompkins - December 14, 2012

289- not looking for a fight, so trolling me is not gonna work.
288- Eventually I will, but it is not going to be a high priority and a repeat viewing is highly unlikely.
The first one had plot holes that took me entirely out of it and this one accomplished that with a 9 minute preview,
I am 60 years old in failing health and disappointed with what has happened to Star Trek. I just want to see some real Star Trek that makes me think, not some eye- candy version before time’s up.

304. Daniel Broadway - December 14, 2012

Anthony is the Enterprise exterior seen in the 9 minute preview or new trailer in space?

305. SoonerDave - December 14, 2012

@285

Sorry, Robert, but with all due respect, I just can’t abide the selective amnesia. Roddenberry wouldn’t let TOS Trek save primitive alien worlds!?? I’d refute that by asking not *if*, but HOW MANY FREAKING TIMES did it happen, especially if Kirk thought he had a moral high ground? He overthrew governments in “A Piece of the Action” (gangster rule is bad), “Patterns of Force” (Nazi’s are bad), “The Cloud Minders” (slavery is bad), supplanted government insurgencies, “A Private Little War”, and overthrew countless computer-controlled cultures, eg “For the World is Hollow, and Bones is Really, Really Sick..” “Return of the Archons”, “A Taste of Armageddon” (computer controlled culture and war is bad). and “The Apple” . Heck, this list alone constitutes of 10% of the original series run of “planetary interference” episodes.

I know you’re not soliciting a fight, but for heaven’s sake, this notion of Trek purity that is sweeping the canonista side of Trekdom is exhausting. Trek wasn’t this perfect ideal, and the Prime Directive had to be discarded on a weekly basis because they’d run out of stories to tell in about two week’s time if they abided it. Kirk had to be autonomous, he had to have discretion to make decisions within the dramatic framework of the show.

The point is that to say Roddenberry would “never have let this happen” (with dramatic ennui implied) is simply, and factually, wrong. It happened in TOS. Routinely. With all due respect…just couldn’t disagree with you more.

Peace.

306. Phil - December 14, 2012

@291. Airtight and waterproof are not the same. Structural design requirements to contain one atmosphere would be substantially different then whats required to compressive forces 100’s of time higher.

My issue isn’t can it be done, but I’d expect that kind of ship to be a speciality design. Moving about in water is a unique task, requiring special design elements that would be unnecessary in space. There has been no hint, ever, that Enterprise had this ability, so for this ability to suddenly manifest itself is odd.

I’ll still watch the movie, I just hope it doesn’t have too much more nonsensical stuff in it.

307. Anthony Pascale - December 14, 2012

Q: Anthony is the Enterprise exterior seen in the 9 minute preview or new trailer in space?

A: Not in the 9min preview. Maybe in the trailer but cant remember if you do it was partial shot and very fast. We will know monday when we can analyze. There is certainly not ‘beauty shot’ of the Enterprise in space

308. Michael Hall - December 14, 2012

“- Bridge is the same
– Lens flares still there but not so much in your face”

Well, that’s too bad. Overlit as it was in the 2009 movie, there was just no sense of atmosphere on that set at all. As countless others have noted, it had all charming sterility of an iStore. What makes it a real shame is that the preproduction renderings of the bridge in that book about the film’s designs are very faithful to what was eventually built, but the images are much more attractive due to the lower-key lighting. A bad on-set creative choice, that.

Call me a purist, but I’ll take Matt Jeffries’ classic plywood bridge with its backlit graphics,resin control buttons, and dark corners where interesting things could happen, any day.

309. Michael Hall - December 14, 2012

“There is certainly not ‘beauty shot’ of the Enterprise in space.”

*Sigh* With this version, that’s almost a contradiction in terms anyway.

310. Daniel Broadway - December 14, 2012

Thanks, Anthony.

311. Ahmed - December 14, 2012

@ 293. Anthony Pascale – December 14, 2012

“- 9minute Preview online NEVER”

Never Say Never :)

Thanks for all the reports & updates; Anthony .

It is good to have trekmovie back as it used to be in the past. Now, if we could have the sci-fi news (TV & movies) articles back, that would be great.

312. LogicalLeopard - December 14, 2012

# 306 Phil

This is probably the third time I’ve said this. Starships are made of duranium. Much stronger than our alloys. They can hold in air pressure in an absolute vacuum, survive re-entry, and light waepons fire. How people have a problem with this and NO problem with Spocks volcano suit, much thinner than a starship hull, I don’t know.

Although I think the Enterprise can go deeper than a submarine, it should be noted that apparently Kirk and McCoy swim to it. So its what, 20-30 feet underwater?

As far as it being designed to maneuver underwater, it isn’t. But a bright engineer and planetary scientist can figure out how to use inertial dampners, graviton emitters, and whatever they use to stay oriented in space and spacedock to orient the ship underwater. And since they are hiding, not exploring, it shouldn’t be that hard.

The only problem is the “why.” I’m fine with “It looks cool,” but I must stress that the scene is not over, and there may be a perfectly logical explanation for it. How many planets have natural interference in their atmospheres that prevent communication, transporters, etc? So Kirk is reckless, thinks out the box, and takes the ship down.

313. Battle-scarred Sciatica - December 14, 2012

@285

I agree with your opinion entirely.
There is nothing wrong with voicing your opinion as far as I am concerned. Isn’t that what these sites are for?

I might see the movie when it arrives but I will not go out of my way to get to the cinema.

314. Vultan - December 14, 2012

I don’t have so much a problem with the technical issues of the Enterprise being underwater but rather the reason behind it.

To those who have seen the first 9 minutes, do they give a good reason (or a reason at all) for why the ship couldn’t do its mission from orbit?

Also, do they tell us why this planet and its pre-industrial inhabitants are important? Not to be cold-hearted, but doesn’t the Prime Directive mean no interference at all? And since they’re interfering with this society anyway, why go to such lengths as submerging the ship to keep the villagers from seeing this giant shiny ‘sky chariot’?

315. Red Dead Ryan - December 14, 2012

I still can’t believe how many people are hung up over the Enterprise going underwater. The ship survived a black hole in the last flick.

C’mon, the ship’s structural integrity fields, inertia dampers, gravity systems, engines, and hull structure would all be able to handle the stresses of being underwater.

CASE CLOSED!!!

316. Red Dead Ryan - December 14, 2012

I would assume that its a tactical manuever on the part of Kirk. Probably some ingenius way to defeat the bad guys without getting his ship blown up, or his crew killed.

Probably a classic “thinking outside of the box” scenarios we saw Kirk Prime resort to many times before in the old timeline, including when he took the Enterprise into the Mutura Nebula to even his odds against Khan.

And oh yeah, I agree with everything Jay has said here. Trek science has always been questionable. The new Trek movies not excepted. We just have to take it all with a very large grain of salt. Trek science is presented as ideas, not scientific fact. And they are based on theory only.

To me, Red Matter is no more, no less “believable” than the Genesis Device, which if you really want to think about it, is probably scientifically impossible.

But as a STORY DEVICE, it worked.

317. Crone - December 14, 2012

Saw the nine minutes tonight. wonderful! Everyone cheered!!

318. Vultan - December 14, 2012

#315

But the REASON for it being underwater is…?
Are shuttlecraft not longer up to the job?

And besides that, I don’t really get why Kirk and crew are getting so worked up over the Prime Directive? Okay, they’re violating the PD in the first place by wanting to save these primitives—for whatever reason. Their good deed for the day. Fine.

But surely any revelation of an advanced society from space to these people will be recorded in their history as sky gods or some such and will eventually achieve mythical status—ff their evolution is any way similar to our own. Why worry? It’s not like they’re dealing with a 19th or 20th century level society with a mass communications network, where this sort of revelation could greatly upset their society. Better to have a few ancient UFO sightings than an extinct people, right?

If Mr. Pascale or Mr. Orci or anyone could elaborate, thanks in advance.

319. Ahmed - December 14, 2012

@ 317. Crone – December 14, 2012

“Saw the nine minutes tonight. wonderful! Everyone cheered!!”

Good to hear that.

320. Hakka - December 14, 2012

I guess the rest of the world will never see this extended preview, then. So thank you. =_=
Thank you for breaking it down for us non-US. :)

321. Bob Tompkins - December 14, 2012

The movie that came afterward the Trek preview was a little slow for the fist half but looked stunning at 48 fps. 50% eye candy, 50% good movie + eye candy.

322. rm10019 - December 14, 2012

Saw it and really enjoyed myself!! Trek looked better than The Hobbit!! Bob will we be told why its ok to extinguish the volcano and that isnt a violation of the PD? Maybe in a comic or something?

323. JimJ - December 14, 2012

Saw the 9 minutes and was absolutely blown away. JJ used the IMAX 3D in a fantastic way. MUCH more impressive IMAX 3D showing in 9 minutes than the entire Hobbit movie. However, I will admit I enjoyed The Hobbit much more than I expected to. Bring on 2013. 2012 has sucked in a big way (especially the earlier part of the day today) and I can’t wait for my Trek fix in 2013. Bring it on, my money is ready!!!!! lol

324. Crone - December 14, 2012

@303. Bob, sorry that you can’t enjoy nu trek. I am 61 and a first generation Trekkie and I am greatly enjoying seeing my old ” friends” in a new way! I love that these characters are still flying. Sure , they’ve changed over the years, but who hasn’t? I’m looking forward to their new adventures from Abrams and whoever takes them out to play with in the future. Also sorry to hear about your health issues. Aging is difficult, at best ( but beats the alternative). Best, Crone

325. Elias Javalis - December 14, 2012

Anthony great article! I pushed my self really hard not to read it.. Kindly I must disagree with you on one thing. Trek does not need complex aliens that much..

326. martin - December 14, 2012

Gosh, I would love to give my comments but I went to see the 10pm show of the Hobbit, and it showed trailers for a couple Zombie movies, then it showed a trailer for the Host, and another couple trailers. No Star Trek trailer, no Man of Steel trailer.

Hobbit was good. Wish I had seen it when I was more awake, but I couldn’t wait to go see it so I could see the Trek trailer.

327. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - December 15, 2012

Saw the Hobbit in IMAX tonight and though I’ve disagreed with most of the naysayers here and I’m reluctant to side with them, I have to say I was THOROUGHLY unimpressed. I know there’s plenty of movie left and my opinion could change, (hopefully) but everything from the scenes to the dialogue to the character’s depiction, and the forced humor and tension seemed flat and generally lacking. Sorry. I was very hopeful.

328. Jim Nightshade - December 15, 2012

Ufos have no trouble diving into the ocean….forcefields would tend to keep u safe and make travelling thru water just as fluid smooth as space…however jjs shots make it look like the big e is buoyant bobbing up from under water like a sub so protective fields must be off so scottys worrying bout the salt water…hahhhh

329. Pegasus - December 15, 2012

#316 – trek ‘science’ is always based on salient theory and it is internally consistent. That is the beauty of it. It uses real, grounded ideas that are consistent within the universe.

#325 – agreed. Trek has never really had complex aliens, and that has become a part of the mythology. Sprinkle them around here or there, but if you start making Trek all flashy and colourful like Star Wars, you lose what Trek is about, the beauty of humanity. The fact that humans work in a lot of environments, and that Klingons evolutionarily would turn out much the same as Humans, just because our design is so good. It is about celebrating humanity. That has always been trek. An alien with a long snout and tubby body and four fingers… well, the environment of their world better make that an evolutionary necessity or you’ve lost me.

#320 – I went to see the Hobbit in AVX 3D and was treated to the same teaser trailer we’ve been watching and dissecting for a week now. Huge disappointment. So JJ and crew… you know how you wanted us to experience it ourselves? Sorry. I’ve read all the details I can find on the 9 min preview and I’m really kinda sick of waiting. Plan backfired. I tried, just didn’t get anything for my efforts.

That is all.

330. Matias 47 - December 15, 2012

Howdy, children —

Just got back from seeing The Hobbit and the 9 min trailer. I gotta go with Yasuda at 300, I didn’t love it, didn’t hate it. I did, however, love the London beginning, it really gets your attention. The rest of it is visually stunning, but when Spock gives the “needs of the many” line, it feels totally contrived — HOWEVER, it’s more than made up for by McCoy admitting that if the situation were reversed Spock would let Kirk die and then watching Spock prepare for death — that was very cool. One thing I seriously disliked was the Uhura/Spock public displays of affection (which is also something I disliked about ST09). I don’t care that Spock and Uhura are involved, but you don’t indulge in such unprofessional behavior at work in front of others, I’d fire them both if they worked for me. Plus, Spock’s half Vulcan, how about some respect for keeping emotion under control.

As far as the Enterprise under water — my feeling about this is colored by the fact that, when I was 10, I saw Gene Roddenberry at a convention (this 1977) and he was very specific about starships being built in space and not being designed to enter atmospheres — so it’s sentimental for me.

Will it keep me from seeing the movie? Hell no. I’ve always cut Star Trek some slack.

I guess I liked the preview more than disliked it.

I’m posting from my phone and sipping cognac (I can’t find Saurian Brandy) so I apologize for any typos.

331. Aix - December 15, 2012

Dunno if really high standards or inherent hate on nuTrek.

I, for one am really excited with all the new terrain they would be adventuring in. And particularly intrigued on who the guy in the space suit is.

332. Aix - December 15, 2012

Also, the Enterprise underwater? This is science-fiction, guys.

333. Matias 47 - December 15, 2012

So Anthony — why were my posts giving links showing science in support of warp drive removed. I was merely responding to other posts in this thread and I was in no way being rude to anyone.

334. JRT! - December 15, 2012

The 9 minutes online NEVER!?! NEVER say never! It’ll be online,in crappy quality,just like they did with Batman,so I’ll watch that WHEN it comes online. LOL!

Still looking forward to the movie,but there’s so many OTHER movies I look forward to next year as well. Busy movie year,lol!

Have fun y’all!

J-R!

335. It's LORD Garth! - December 15, 2012

You know what? I saw those posts and they were cool. I just went back to look for them and they’re not there. Why not? The guy is right. He didn’t call people names and he wasn’t rude.

Come on.

336. It's LORD Garth! - December 15, 2012

That is, I saw those warp drive posts. And I’d also like to know why they’re gone.

337. Aix - December 15, 2012

What if the little girl is Uhura?! Okay, I do not follow the stardate at all but what-if?

338. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - December 15, 2012

Just don’t see how anyone who’s not already planning to see this movie would be enticed to see it now. Nothing seemed to jump off the screen (pardon the pun). Even the extended shot of Cumberbatch’s close-up seemed reminiscent of a soap opera moment. The opening scene of an unknown child of unknown parents meeting an unrecognizable villain left me uninterested and the scene on the planet looked contrived as our heroes appeared to be going through the motions. I’m not dismissing contrary opinions but right now I think fans are caught up in the excitement of a new movie.

339. JRT! - December 15, 2012

Just saw the 9 minute footage online. Yeah,crummy qualtiy,but I still enjoyed it. This looks it could be a good movie,lol!

J-R!

340. Jemini - December 15, 2012

I finally watched the preview and it was amazing! I have to agree with some reviews on the internet (like the one over mtv) the best parts where Kirk/Bones running in the forest (p.r.i.c.e.l.e.s.s) and Uhura/Spock in the shuttle. The best is when she made a joke to light up the mood (something like I should take your place) and he didn’t get it and replied all serious hahaha that’s sooooo him. The peck on the helmet is all kinds of adorable. I like that it’s Uhura and Sulu that are helping him and piloting the shuttle.

330
PUBLIC (public?! ) display (display?) of affection? xD rotfl.
I have no comment on that matter.

341. Pontihog - December 15, 2012

#339

Any hints on where to find it?

342. R. Banks - December 15, 2012

@303 Bob Tompkins-

Thanks for the reply. Sorry to hear about your bad health, that’s something I understand all too well. And I understand your too much eye candy point of view.

The reason I asked if you were going to see the film anyway, was the fact that I got really excited to see the film Prometheus after seeing all the trailers and previews. I was sure it would be an outstanding film-unfortunately, in my opinion, it was not.

I was thinking the opposite in regards to your opinion on the 9 minute preview. I was going to say that you should see the film anyway because you never know, you might be pleasantly surprised.

I enjoyed the 2009 Star Trek film, although it did have some plot holes and a bit more eye candy than I was used to seeing in a Trek film. Part of the enjoyment for me was getting my non-science fiction father to go to the film with me, and seeing him really enjoy it. He became a Star Trek fan after seeing it.

Anyway, thanks for the reply, I appreciate your opinion.

343. Baby - December 15, 2012

i have seen a crappy version online

344. Jenna - December 15, 2012

@343 Was just going to tell people that! Usual person recording making too much noise (the one I saw) but it’s on YouTube. Probably not for long.

345. Markus - December 15, 2012

Where is this online version?

346. Jenna - December 15, 2012

Well I’m probably dooming it but try searching variations of yesterday’s date with no hyphens. Or search trek 9 minutes on tumblr

347. Markus - December 15, 2012

I give it up… beyond my research abilities.

348. Pontihog - December 15, 2012

Thanks

349. Jenna - December 15, 2012

@348 Sorry thought links to it wouldn’t be allowed! Came back to say screw it and put it up but trekmaster beat me to it!

350. Markus - December 15, 2012

got it… thanks a lot. thanks to 3d image very blurred, but one gets the message. seems okay, but I am not overwhelmed. nice cliffhanger. but one wonders if it is in the beginning of the movie. if it is, it is clear that spock will be saved somehow. I liked the music somehow.

351. Phil - December 15, 2012

This is science fiction, so get over it? Okay, no one should have any objections to shrink rays, orbiting the sun, and transforming into a giant fighting robot, either. No one ever specifically said it could not be done, right? Continuity be damned, I guess.

It is what it is at this point. hopefully it does not suck.

352. Disinvited - December 15, 2012

I don’t understand this notion that if Cumberbatch revists a role that was done before, it would destroy his career. That was exactly what he did with Sherlock and some would say that made his career. In fact, if the role turns out to have been Khan then his success with Sherlock may have been precisely why he was asked to audition.

353. Remington Steele - December 15, 2012

Look, I’m just gonna say it, I felt that the “I have been and always will be your friend line” was horribly shoehorned into Star Trek 2009

Now, having seen the prologue, the Wrath of Khans other memorable line “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one” has simply been dumped in as well.

Neither fit in at all. They are clunky and while I appreciate the sentiment they’re trying to convey, it feels way too forced.

That’s only my opinion of course!

354. Nony - December 15, 2012

The opening hospital bit was fascinating in its sheer un-Star Trek-ness – lovely music at the very beginning, touching scene with the little family (the image of the daughter lying motionless in the hospital bed hit home even more after the awful events of yesterday, I have to say).

I give the rest of it an A for hilarity, though the logic of it completely falls apart without much prodding. (But then logic’s never mattered or applied all that much in this franchise when it comes down to it, so I ignore that). I found the jumping between the two simultaneous adventures also took away from rather than added to the tension. As always, Urban made this clip – from his terrified ranting on the planet (great Kirk and Bones dynamic, by the by) to the tear in his eye betraying his stone-faced “he’d let you die” – and Quinto had some great subtle Spockish humour as well. Pegg was also funny as usual…seems like he dialed the Scottish up to 11; maybe the worry over his poor baby Enterprise brings it out in him. I really loved the Spock and Uhura dynamic, too. Very tender and sweet. Haters gonna hate.

May I also, on behalf of all like-minded viewers, thank the creative team for putting Chris Pine and Karl Urban in wetsuits. I am much obliged. Bob, if you’re reading this: may the heavens smile upon you for your good deeds.

355. Weerd1 - December 15, 2012

Discourse seems a bit more civil today; huzzah everyone. I think Bob Tompkins has a bit to do with that, and though I disagree with him, the fact everyone is respectfully sharing opinion is quite refreshing, and I want to thank everyone.

I do however think it is a mistake to apply the intellectual level TOS built up over 79 episodes to the films. The one GR managed intellectual Trek movie is TMP, and though I love it, it is not a movie with many fans. Fans seem to universally love TWOK and TUC, both of which were actually derided by Roddenberry for the more militaristic portrayal of Starfleet.

A movie though, to be a success has to have some universal appeal, unless every Trekkie out there agrees to go see it 10 times to make up for the audience. Previously successful Trek films had adventure and action and cool starship fights, while the various series could engage in deeper discussion. Sure, there’s the overall discussion of aging in TWOK and TUC, and the overall examination of revenge in FC. TVH plays as a comedy romp. As the highest grossing Trek films, they each dealt with universal themes, and not just Trek Universe themes. The average audience does not care that “…When making contact with a pre-warp civilization and officer of Starfleet shall make no identification of self or mission, no references to space, and shall not interfere with the natural development of said planet” (That’s a paraphrase from the old “USS Enterprise Officer’s Manual”).

Now, I would LOVE to have a series–in line with Mr. Thompkins suggestion–based in the JJVerse that DOES explore exactly how what we know of TOS is being handled in the new timeline. A two hour movie though is not the appropriate place to handle that.

356. Jack - December 15, 2012

Didn’t the dialogue say something about radiation meaning they can ‘t beam him out – I can’t remember the details (radiation from space, from the volcano, from the device?).

I loved this. And I ‘m sure people will be complaining that saving the planet is against the prime directive, except in TOS they did such things before …

Surely saving a civilization, no matter what they become, is also morally required…

357. Iva - December 15, 2012

Preview has been all over tumblr for a while now, if anybody cares to see it.
The mistakes from the last Abrams movie haven’t been corrected, none of the mistakes we had listed and voted against here.

358. MattR - December 15, 2012

SO we can currently land a rover on Mars and have it land within a 1km of it’s intended target, open up, and then do it’s work, BUT 250 years in the future, they can’t drop a box from a few hundred feet up from a volcano, have it locate a rock and then activate on its own. That was kinda lame.

359. Iva - December 15, 2012

@358. MattR

This isn’t a science fiction movie tho, it’s an action flick.

360. MattR - December 15, 2012

#359. That’s true. But logic and realism doesn’t have to go out the door.

Otherwise, I love the fact that we’re dropped into the tailend of a random mission – most of the other movies just start with the crew hanging out, having fun, or going home until something bad happens (literally all of them except First Contact and Insurrection). This way we see a little mission, and then the big bad starts.

361. Curious Cadet - December 15, 2012

@329 Pegasus,
“Trek has never really had complex aliens, and that has become a part of the mythology. Sprinkle them around here or there, but if you start making Trek all flashy and colourful like Star Wars, you lose what Trek is about, the beauty of humanity. The fact that humans work in a lot of environments, and that Klingons evolutionarily would turn out much the same as Humans, just because our design is so good. It is about celebrating humanity. That has always been trek. An alien with a long snout and tubby body and four fingers… well, the environment of their world better make that an evolutionary necessity or you’ve lost me.”

While this is generally true, even to the extent TNG felt the need to explain why there were so many humanoids scattered through the Galaxy, because it seemed unnatural (and I suppose therefore canon now), I’m not sure we’re not doing a disservice to the message.

Unfortunately it’s no longer the 1960s. Civil Rights legislation has been with us for over 40 years, yet racism is still alive and well. But showing us a guy who is half white fighting a guy who is Half black is no longer going to work to make these points. It’s going to have to be a lot more subtle. And since we have the technology to do it now, Star Trek should be doing just that. Showing us how a sentient life form so utterly alien from our own is still equal to the rest of humanity, and doing the right thing is important even if you can’t personally identify with others.

Sadly, Trek is a mostly white European cast. And the current filmmakers have not done much to change that. Of the main cast, we have 5 white European males, 1 Asian male, and one black female. The antagonist, Nero, and his entire crew were basically all white European males. Most of the primary supporting cast were essentially white European males, “Pike”, “cupcake”, etc. and aside from the short-lived Capt. Robau, I can only think of one other significant minority speaking role … The black Starfleet Admiral overseeing the inquiry.

Unfortunately, they have done nothing in STID to correct that. Weller and Alice Eve for starters. While Eve can’t be helped thanks to canon, Weller probably could have been, unless of course his character somehow ties into race. Which I suppose likewise holds true for Cumberbatch, who is supposed to be from canon. However, if Cumberbatch is supposed to be Khan, then casting yet one more white European male in a lead role, no matter how good an actor he is, is just sad. So once again, only the minor supporting roles end up being minorities, and so far Eve appears to be the only other major female.

I suppose in this context it is not surprising Star Trek does not have a global appeal, since the future looks pretty much like the present does — a bunch of white men based in the USA, are calling the shots for the rest of the galaxy. Then again, perhaps in this context, it is far better that the North American white men are fighting one of their own, rather than the only minority in the movie.

Makes me wonder if Abrams shouldn’t have just rebooted the franchise, or at least had Nero arrive a bit earlier to change the ethnic makeup of some of the main characters. It’s an interesting delimma. Roddenberry wanted an ethnically diverse cast, something the networks simply would not allow at the time. So we’re kind of stuck with a cast picture that doesn’t even represent the ethnic make-up of US TV audiences anymore, much less the rest of the world, which is arguably the target market for Star Trek today — the US alone can no longer sustain the kinds of budgets these films require to make. The decisions made in 1965 make perfect sense for a TV series limited to one-time broadcast for a mostly white US only audience, before syndication, before home video, before the Internet. But today, Trek seems saddled with some pretty limiting baggage. In that sense, only making the villains minorities is probably a bad idea, as is the aliens. The good guys therefore probably need to repsent a more true global image, and the aliens probably need to be far less humanoid to help give us this diversity.

One closing observation about Trek’s history of humanoid aliens: while Yoda was effectively done in Star Wars, I was never fully able to connect with his muppet. I never cried over Yoda’s death. Perhaps that is my own failing, but one thing is certain: human beings evoke human emotions. And that more than anything probably dictated the use of humanoid characters. The more makeup they slathered on someone in Trek, the less real they were and the less we identified with them. But that is changing with the technology today. Human expression can be added to just about any creature, or object for that matter. No longer is it stifled behind restrictive layers of latex. So its hard to imagine a case where Trek should not try to expand from the traditional and explore truly alien creatures.

362. Iva - December 15, 2012

360. MattR

Logic and realism won’t make it appealing to the general audience expecting an action flick.
And it needs the general audience to make money – last one wasn’t even in the first ten worldwide when even Transformers made it to the 4th place.

I loved that it started with a mission too, excitement right from the beginning. That worked well with the first Abrams movie, the intro scene with Kelvin fight is still my favorite.

363. ety3 - December 15, 2012

Having seen the preview, I can say that Spock does NOT cut his cable so he can stay in the volcano.

There’s a lava burst and the shuttle rockets up. We saw the end of the line hanging from the shuttle and the end was molten, as though lava split it.

As far Spock preparing to die, I think it would have been more in character for him to assume a meditative position, akin to the one in Star Trek II, instead of the pseudo-crucifix, “take me now” position.

Minor quibbles, to be sure. I thoroughly enjoyed it and can’t wait for May.

364. Iva - December 15, 2012

363. ety3 –

You can’t compare him to Roddenberry’s Spock, this is a completely different character from a completely different universe only inspired by the original character.
This one acts human expect for the times he is aggressive like a Vulcan with no self control. I don’t think he meditates on daily bases like Vulcans do or needs to meditate at all? He chose to live as a human.

365. J - December 15, 2012

@320: “I guess the rest of the world will never see this extended preview, then.”

Not really, IMAX is (or will be – country dependent) showing it worldwide

366. Flake - December 15, 2012

Stupidity watch:

Hiding in ocean from pre-warp civilisation!
Dropping Spock into active volcano instead of some form of robot/rover
Uhura only there as moral support, serving apparently no other purpose
‘Super ice cube!’

367. Iva - December 15, 2012

Is it allowed to post links to screencaps and download here?

368. Anthony Pascale - December 15, 2012

Iva

NO

No link to pirated material

369. Flake - December 15, 2012

I should add that the stupidity led to a cool sequence, but it would be nice if they could write something logical and be cool at the same time? It was great but stupid ;)

370. Iva - December 15, 2012

Haha, yes, Uhura is not on her post in this movie either.
That makes it two movies and all of the comics with her not doing any of her job but randomly getting up and running to her boss for make out sessions.

371. Trekzilla - December 15, 2012

Saw the Hobbit and the 9 minutes with trailer and was really impressed! Visually outstanding!! The musical score seemed better than the 09 film!! Loved it!!! The crew came across as a real functional team!!

This is the best Trek has ever looked! Can’t wait to see the film!

372. Iva - December 15, 2012

368. Anthony Pascale

It counts as pirated? I thought it was ok because it was available to us who watched Hobbit – we didn’t pay for ST but got to see it anyway. That line of thought. (^__^)’

373. Hat Rick - December 15, 2012

I watched the trailer, as I mentioned yesterday, and as I mentioned, I did not see The Hobbit.

Star Trek 2013 is going to totally rock!

374. Iva - December 15, 2012

Does anybody have a guess who the couple in the beginning might be?
Kirk and Bones pulling their hoods down while running should count as breaking the prime directive already, shouldn’t it? The natives have seen them.

Too bad it was just Sulu in the shuttle, it he had qualified crew with him maybe something could have been done to help Spock right away. How was having a linguist there supposed to be helping?

I wonder what the little sick girl in the beginning had to do with anything….

375. Anthony Lewis - December 15, 2012

No links but if you search tumblr you will find the links in there.

376. AJ - December 15, 2012

I managed to see The Hobbit in the only IMAX theater in New York City without either of the new STID trailers OR the Man of Steel trailer: Avoid the AMC 68th and Broadway if you are there, and go to 34th Street or 14th Street instead.

The quality was outstanding. Just no trailers.

377. NCC-73515 - December 15, 2012

A Vulcan in a volcano. Makes sense!

Another thing occurred to me: Could SIHQ (Starfleet Intelligence) be in London, something like a successor to MI6?

378. DeShonn Steinblatt - December 15, 2012

Happy to report the audience was much more responsive to Star Trek than The Hobbit.

379. Iva - December 15, 2012

I noticed there were a lot of Cumb fans but that’s it. And a couple of low whistles at the sight of Kirk in a wetsuit (kind of giggling actually).
But that’s it.

Hope Bones made it back to his main character status this time around instead of tagging in the background after Kirk all the time while Spock is stuck on the other side of the world.

380. Boy - December 15, 2012

# 371 and # 366

From your comments, I am convinced that you are both boys.

First of al,l let me say that I saw the 9 minutes clip/ trailer and I must say I was impressed.

However I think you both misunderstand the character of Nu-Uhura and her not been on her post in this film.

I would argue that JJ is trying to make more use of her …her been the female lead.

One of the criticism of the first film is that the women… mostly uhura and galia didn’t do much. all they did was look pretty and have boyfriends.

As a moderate feminist, I think Uhura aiding Spock and helping Sulu fly the ship is great and very impressive, she is riding with the boys. I rather have Uhura do that than just sit in a chair and translate foreign languages.

Maybe in this film Uhura will be more of an Ewoyn instead of an Arwen (In case most of you don’t know, This two female characters are from lord of the rings)

Ewoyn, who is suppose to be a noble woman, who jobs is to cook,clean and take care of the children, rejects that idea and goes to war with the guys .She even takes down one of Saroun’s fiercest soldiers.

Arwen on the otherhand does nothing, the only thing she does is sits, cries and wait for Aragon to come back to her.

Is that what you want for Uhura , a woman living in the 23rd centuary?

Also talk about double standard. McCoy/Bones is a doctor. Why don’ you want him to sit in the medical department. and wait for the next patient?

Someone once asked why Uhura is considered as one of the big three in JJ’s Trek Universe and a person replied by saying… it’s because Zoe’s is a big star and one of the most recognisable faces among the cast.

I for one think different. Uhura is put as one of the big three for the sole purposes of drawing more girls and women into the Trek franchise.

Something that was lacking in TOS version as TOS was all about Kirk-Spock-Mccoy.

Things have changed since the 60’s guys. Females characters like Buffy Summers ,Hermoine Granger, Katniss Everden and even JJ Abrams own Sydney Bristow has shattered the notion that the perception of a woman is to sit down and doing feminine jobs.

And all this females of had guys they where every much in love with and gave moral supoort too.

JJ Abrams Star Trek is not an all male show anymore.

381. Ahmed - December 15, 2012

I can’t say that I was impressed by the preview. The whole thing with the aline planet was kinda lame & even “stupid” IMO.

If you ignore the color of the jungle & the shuttle scenes, you might be mistaken of thinking the events are happening on one of the remote Pacific islands.

Why hide the “starship” under the water ? Couldn’t they just send the shuttle down to the planet & fix the problem without doing this dumb move?

The scene in London somehow seem to indicate some connections to Khan, what with “John” offering his help to cure the girl & the ethnicity of the parents as well.

Overall, the preview wasn’t as exciting as 2009 movie opening scenes. Some people were comparing the preview, before it came out, to Bond movies opening scenes. It wasn’t even close to that.

I hope the rest of the movie will be more exciting & with less “stupid” moments.

382. boborci - December 15, 2012

299. John from Cincinnati – December 14, 2012
Hey BobOrci

Have you thought about dedicating this movie to the late Neil Armstrong? I mean, the first man on the moon and a Trekker?

——————–

if he’d told us all he knew, maybe;)

383. Hat Rick - December 15, 2012

I’m sorry to disagree, @Ahmed (381), but I thought the preview was incredible. You don’t have to be a geologist to appreciate the peril that Spock was in, nor do you have to be a National Geographer to appreciate the terrifying fury of the inhabitants of Planet Niburu.

Each character was totally in sync with the context; Sulu was spectacular as the commander of the shuttle; Uhura was consummately believeable as the love of Spock’s life; Spock, of course, was exactly as he should be (logic and all!); and Kirk demonstrated why he was picked by Pike in the first movie to run the ship.

My favorite character moments, however, involved McCoy, whose dialogue even while running reminded me of a young version of Bones, and Scotty, whose love affair with the ship is the first thing we think of even in the ten seconds we see of him.

This was a great preview and I loved very second of it.

I left as soon as it was over.

384. Hat Rick - December 15, 2012

Also, I want to mention that this preview, alone, will give a sense of the size of the Enterprise.

I will be looking for Memory Alpha and a number of other sites to compare the size of Kirk and McCoy as they swim toward and into the airlock of the Enterprise with the size of the ship to determine, once and for all, whether the Big E is closer to 1,000 or 2,000 feet in length.

385. Red Dead Ryan - December 15, 2012

Listen, I’m all for increasing the role of women in “Star Trek”. I don’t mind seeing Uhura get more time on screen. But it doesn’t mean it has to be at the expense of Dr. McCoy.

Okay, the lack of big roles for women in TOS was one of the things that needed correcting. But Dr. McCoy was a strength, and their is no reason to push him back into the background. The Kirk-Spock-McCoy trio is really what made TOS work. It grounded an often fantastical (and sometimes downright silly) show with a sense of humanity, realism, and relatability.

Hey, if they want to make it the “big four”, that’s fine by me.

Also, Karl Urban is a damn good actor. Especially as McCoy. So I would think it would be best to utilize him whenever possible.

386. Iva - December 15, 2012

The “angry savage natives trying to kill us” run across the field is reminiscent of Jack Sparrow scenes. It made it…kind of bland? That kind of cheap humor is quite common these days.

It’s not like they are in any real danger, we know Spock and the rest appear in later scenes from the trailer, couldn’t have done that if they were dead now could they?

387. Ahmed - December 15, 2012

@ 383. Hat Rick – December 15, 2012

You don’t have to be a geologist to appreciate the peril that Spock was in”

But we know already from the trailer that Spock will still be alive & kicking as well.

“My favorite character moments, however, involved McCoy, whose dialogue even while running reminded me of a young version of Bones, and Scotty, whose love affair with the ship is the first thing we think of even in the ten seconds we see of him.”

I totally agree with you here. Karl Urban as Bones is just pure joy to watch. He should get more screen time.

388. Iva - December 15, 2012

384. Hat Rick

It must have been some serious drop in the ocean bottom for all of the Enterprise to fit in that close to the shore.
Especially since we see from the top of the edge that the water is shallow near the coast. They jumped of a cliff, free fall couldn’t have taken them far away.

Plus they made it awfully far and deep with no equipment whatsoever. Not to mention fast.

The volcano crew was too relaxed and slow in preparing themselves to send Spock down. Waisting time while a volcano is about to erupt doesn’t seem very smart.

389. NCC-73515 - December 15, 2012

The alarm clock sounds like the scanners the Reliant away team used on Ceti Alpha V :D

390. boborci - December 15, 2012

386. Iva – December 15, 2012

Try Indiana Jones, which itself was homage to Saturday matinee serials from the 40’s and 50’s.

391. trekmaster - December 15, 2012

@#386
They will survive. The contract contains 3 movies…

392. trekmaster - December 15, 2012

@#396
You could have used the transporter to save kirk/bones from the natives and spock from the vulcan.

393. Boy - December 15, 2012

yes yes yes..I thought so too. I was like… that scene with the angry savages was very similar to pirates of the Caribbean: dead man’ chest.

I must say I dint like the scene all that much.

I almost forgot how dark and serious the rest of the whole film is going to be.

394. Hat Rick - December 15, 2012

@Ahmed (387), I don’t think I would have believed that any situation would have resulted in the death of any of the Big Three given that they are in fact at the core of this movie, so that wasn’t a factor for me.

@Iva (388), I’m willing to make concessions to the fact that it’s an alien planet.

395. Iva - December 15, 2012

392. trekmaster

Yeah, Chekov was pretty good last time around with the transporters, he should have been able to think of something.

390. boborci

I watched the one with the secret tunnels under library floor and corpses but don’t remember much. Too young.

Why did you show the preview this early? Aren’t you worried random moviegoers will be used to hearing about it by the time the movie rolls about and less interested in watching the whole thing?

396. Vulcan Soul - December 15, 2012

“This time they seem to be aiming more for the gut instead of the heart to start their movie.”

If only they went for the BRAIN for once! But I guess I need to turn to other science fiction movies for this. Fortunately there is enough intelligent and mature science fiction out there these days (think “Looper” this year). But Abrams has turned Trek into a comic book travesty that makes Flash Gordon serials look like Shakespeare. Trek is dead.

397. boborci - December 15, 2012

395. Iva

Suffice it so say, Jack Sparrow didn’t event running through a jungle.

As for preview, it’s not really that early. If you’ve been on this site lately, it’s been a year of complaints about not showing anything!

398. boborci - December 15, 2012

396.

Trek Lives!!

399. Anthony Pascale - December 15, 2012

Tough crowd on a Saturday afternoon eh Bob

400. Hat Rick - December 15, 2012

@Iva (395), I am neither Bob Orci nor do I play one on TV, but I want to contribute my two microlatinums’ worth:

I think that the publicity generated by the two trailers and this nine-minute preview has been outta sight, as they used to say. (Not me, because I don’t remember the 1960’s. Don’t ask me why.) And this, six months before the darned thing opens!

This is the best buzz about a future Trek movie I’ve seen in a while, although I must admit that the World Wide Web was but a glint in young Al Gore’s eye when the TMP was about to open.

This is the best and most positive buzz about a Trek movie since the TOS days, and First Contact, and I, for one, am really, really happy about it.

I’m especially happy because Paramount announced the precise theater nearest to me where I could see the preview, and I saw it on the first try. Paramount has thought this thing through from the looks of it, and from now now, we can count on it to ratchet up the PR until the world is in a Trek frenzy by the time May comes around.

This. Is. Awesome.

401. dmduncan - December 15, 2012

Wow. 9 minutes that felt like 2.5.

Just the opening sound of that familiar Star Trek “chirping” gave me chills, and it turned out to be what Bob promised. And it was every bit as good as I was hoping for. Like an action packed mini episode that is just LOADED with information every second.

My only disappointment came when the screen went black!

My jaw fell open and stayed that way for the duration.

And the opening scene with the parents and the daughter whom Harrison offers to help really left me with the sense that this movie is not just going to be all action. I felt that there’s something important here about the kinds of decisions we are sometimes faced with making when maybe the “right” choice comes with unintended consequences that are not so good, and I left the theater (3 hours later after The Hobbit) with those ruminations stuck in my mind.

Bravo, to all these guys, for what looks like another great movie. The mix of action, emotion, and humor is a straight line extension from the last movie, and my early impression is that they will deliver on their promise to make this Star Trek a movie that illustrates some important idea worth discussing.

And that idea is not why the Enterprise goes underwater.

That was awesome. And UFOs do it all the time, so what’s the big deal.

Right Bob?

:-)

Great, great stuff. May can’t come soon enough.

402. boborci - December 15, 2012

anthony — good practice — always appreciate tough crowds;)

403. Iva - December 15, 2012

397. boborci

I haven’t been lately, but a trailer should have been enough for now. Or some scenes that won’t be in the movie, things you changed your mind about, something like that.

We already know now there will be this mission, everybody will come out ok, that will take a chunk of the movie… the rest better be very interesting.

btw – maybe Sparrow didn’t start it, but for all of us who have seen similar so many times, the original movies that started it would be just watching old tricks. It wouldn’t matter they were the first ones to do it.

I apologize if I don’t make much sense, English is my second language.

404. Spockchick - December 15, 2012

I, among many, am very, very grateful to the team for putting Bones in a wetsuit (apologies for the objectification). Mr Urban is such a great actor and totally was McCoy. The other surprise for me was ZQ as Spock. He has a one-liner in the midst of extreme peril (as they say in the posters) which had me laughing out loud and I really thought he was getting a handle on the character. I felt he wasn’t quite there in ST09 (and Nimoy also said it took a while to get a handle on the character). This felt like Spock got his mojo, and ToS Spock was very witty.

I like the Spock/Uhura interaction, and thought Sulu was really good. As for the Prime Directive transgression, it seemed to me that TOS Kirk almost took pleasure in subverting it at every turn! As was pointed out up-thread :-)

405. dmduncan - December 15, 2012

I DID feel ripped off though because I was told it was 9 minutes and no way. I don’t believe it! ;-)

406. boborci - December 15, 2012

401. Dmduncan

Ufos? Exactly. To another civilization, the Big E is a UFO, and our UFO lore includes ships coming out of the water, etc. Also, we’ve had submarines since who knows when, hundreds of years before space travel. So which one do we all think is harder?

407. David Ryan - December 15, 2012

my bet is that Harrison is from a class m Planet with agravity higher then earths. He from the future and the prime time line was on Nero’s Ship.
He is altering the current time line. he has medical knowledge and weapons knowledge that does not exist yet in this time line.

408. dmduncan - December 15, 2012

406. boborci – December 15, 2012

Hehe! And I know the lore so when I first saw that I raised my eyebrow, all Spock-like. Very interesting, I thought.

I love how you guys put so much stuff — connected to other things outside the movie, sometimes — in Star Trek. It makes it that much more interesting, it’s like decoding a glyph or something.

409. trekmaster - December 15, 2012

@#406
But why is it needed to observe them from underwater? Usually orbital observation is usefull enough

410. boborci - December 15, 2012

403. Iva – December 15, 2012
397. boborci

I haven’t been lately, but a trailer should have been enough for now. Or some scenes that won’t be in the movie, things you changed your mind about, something like that.

We already know now there will be this mission, everybody will come out ok, that will take a chunk of the movie… the rest better be very interesting.

btw – maybe Sparrow didn’t start it, but for all of us who have seen similar so many times, the original movies that started it would be just watching old tricks. It wouldn’t matter they were the first ones to do it.

I apologize if I don’t make much sense, English is my second language.

————————

First, no apologies necessary — English is my second language, too.

As for seeing old tricks, I would try to look at it as true homage and less literally. Though it evokes Indiana Jones and Sparrow, the circumstances and dilemmas are completely unique to Star Trek. Are we supposed to avoid all chases now for the rest of time in cinema because we’ve seen people chasing each other before?

As for your statement that the rest of the movie better be “interesting,” i couldn’t agree more!!!! Let’s hope you think it is interesting.

Cheers.

411. dmduncan - December 15, 2012

And it was hilarious — Scotty comes in complaining about the ship being underwater, which is like holding up a mirror to some fans on this site. Loved it. Loved the whole thing, and the whole FEEL of it, the progression of emotion. After waiting so long I am just so happy to see something that I think was worth the wait, and not losing anything in those 9 minutes that I loved about the first film. That was important to me to see, and I think it hit all the right notes to make the people there for The Hobbit want to turn out to see how that little mini episode concludes.

And more than that I am just hooked on learning where it all goes with the daughter. Just that brief scene made me started thinking.

412. boborci - December 15, 2012

409. trekmaster – December 15, 2012
@#406
But why is it needed to observe them from underwater? Usually orbital observation is usefull enough

———-

Might not be about observing them. Wait and see.

But as a general rule, we try to do things in the movies where we have an answer to why and how, even if we don’t express that answer, because it is more realistic and natural for the dialogue. Once the Big E is somewhere, they’ve already discussed the rationale for being there. So to fully explain means a scene like:

Scotty: Remind me why we’re hiding in the rings of Saturn?

Kirk: Cuz — blah blah blah plot techno babble.

If we did our jobs right, answers from fans who know trek will be forthcoming to justify.

413. Red Dead Ryan - December 15, 2012

dmduncan

How was “The Hobbit”?

414. boborci - December 15, 2012

which is not to say we don’t imply a good reason.

415. Craiger - December 15, 2012

So Bob, is John Harrison just your version of a 23rd Century Bin Laden?

416. Hugh Hoyland - December 15, 2012

I wonder what the name of Kirk and Bones “ride” is? :)

417. Craiger - December 15, 2012

and not Khan.

418. Trekzilla - December 15, 2012

Personally, I Ioved the Indiana-Jones-ish chase! I’ve been saying for a long time Trek needed those kind of fun elements. Sure beats a dune buggy chase! LOL!!!

I was impressed with the 9 minutes. I really don’t know what some of you are complaining about. It’s whine whine whine from some of you.

I understand it’s only 9 minutes but if the rest of it is anything like what I saw, I think we’ll have a fun and memorable Trek film here.

I just hope theres no Khan in this — unless it’s at the end of the film.

419. Ahmed - December 15, 2012

Bob, is the ethnicity of the parents a sign that in some way, a familiar villain is connected to the action of our new friend “John” ?

Also, are we going to find out whatever happened to the Vulcans after the events of the last movie?

420. LogicalLeopard - December 15, 2012

Bob

We desperately need an interview, DVD voice over, or book about the writing process behind this movie, and the villian controversy still unfolding. Also, how much “awesome” costs on the street, and how much of it do you freebase before writing.

421. BillT - December 15, 2012

I’m seeing the 9 minute clip tomorrow morning. The only place in Dallas, TX for me to see it is at North Park Mall. I told myself last year that I would never see a movie there again near Christmas because it took over an hour to find a parking space and another hour to get out of the parking lot. This is how much I love Star Trek and how much I am looking forward to this movie.

Bob, can you make this happen? http://www.billpturner.com/tree-trek.html

422. dmduncan - December 15, 2012

413. Red Dead Ryan – December 15, 2012

dmduncan

How was “The Hobbit”?

***

The Hobbit was very good. It was a totally different pace, obviously, and it took its time building momentum, but it eventually got there with the end result being that I care about Middle Earth again.

About the high frame rate I am not so enthusiastic. The VFX shots were all good, but when the lighting was on the cold side the movie looked like a video on TV.

I’ve never seen Showscan so I don’t know how high frame rate FILM compares, but high frame rates REALLY brings out the digital VIDEO quality of the cameras, much more so than 24fps does. And I don’t like it. The image quality that digital video camera sensors are producing is ugly to me. The images lack the warmth of film. Something is missing.

But it IS interesting to see the clarity in the motion shots that 48fps creates.

423. Iva - December 15, 2012

The running scene distracted from Spock-in-the-Volcano, if they weren’t so close together it would have been better. This way it’s people laughing at Kirk being silly and ignoring the Spock about to get roasted as the camera switches between the two.

424. Concerned citizen - December 15, 2012

Saw the 9 minute preview. First off, “Hobbit” was very enjoyable. Felt very familiar.

As to the trailer, my fear is that Trek will become “Transformers” – cutesy dialog, too many over the top action sequences, not enough substance or reality. Trek was never ultra serious, but it had a grounding in reality. Science fiction as opposed to science fantasy or comic superheros.

What I saw of the trailer – the gravitas was missing, save for the unnamed parents worried about their daughter. The Spock/Uhura banter, Scotty/Pegg comic relief, Kirk winging it without a real plan.

Nothing against action or scale or humor – but it all just felt way too cute and adolescent. I didn’t believe Spock was in danger or that the stakes were real. Felt like a comic book.

425. Trek Fan - December 15, 2012

I saw the 9 minutes of the Trek movie. I absolutely loved it! It certainly had that Trek feel with Kirk & McCoy runny through the alien jungle. LOVED that scene! Once again, Urban nails McCoy And I think the relationship between Kirk & McCoy is as strong as it was in TOS.

I have no issues with the aliens not looking Star War-like. Classic Trek aliens were very human looking too. An homage to TOS perhaps? At least you can’t say JJ was doing Star Wars!

As for the opening scene and Cumberbatch’s appearance. I went in with an open mind trying to see a “Khan-nection” and didn’t. I feel that John Harrison IS just John Harrison in Starfleet. Even the line in the first online trailer makes sense now…

“Is there anything you would not do for your family?”

Initially, when I saw the Japanese trailer, I thought that line was spoken to Kirk. After seeing the Opening scene at the hospital… I think that line is spoken to Clarke’s character on the balcony. Harrison is asking for something in return for giving the cure for the child.

I didn’t get a Khan vibe at all… even though I went in trying to find something Khan-like about the Cumberbatch. Nada. Zip. Zero. Nothing.

I really can’t wait to see the movie in May. I like what I saw. Trek is in good hands.

426. Hugh Hoyland - December 15, 2012

100% agree with dmduncan, stunning, simply stunning. Its a real pleasure to see Trek get the “big time” treatment with these movies. The movie looks BIG. There is money on that screen, not that thats the only important thing there but it sure helps the story IMO.

And we pop right back into the thick of things with the crew. They look wonderful. And the interation is very similar to ST 09. But at the same time they have a more “mature” vibe (or maybe a “been together for a while” vibe?)

I have a feeling this movie is going to blow some people away, including me.

Cant wait till 2013! Bring it.

427. Red Dead Ryan - December 15, 2012

#422.

Sounds like the 48fps technology was a bit ambitious. Maybe it just needs more refinement. I do plan on seeing the movie in a few hours, so I will know for myself at that time.

But good to hear that you enjoyed it.

428. Roddenberry was a Peacenik - December 15, 2012

Bob – I’m curious, did you ever foresee this much speculation on the villain’s (assumed secret) identity? It seems that fandom has coalesced into something like factions, you had a “Team Khan”, “Team Mitchell”, “Team Garth”, “Team April”…all of which seemed at times to be one step away from a soccer riot. What do you make of all that?

Also is there anything new to report on the possibility of getting a new animated series off the ground after STID?

429. Harry Ballz - December 15, 2012

Bob

on a different note, did you ever research The Black Pope?

Good stuff there for your upcoming conspiracy-based TV show!

430. dmduncan - December 15, 2012

When we got to that last shot I was like “no no no…don’t end it…don’t end it…DON’T EN— DAMN IT!!!”

Hehe! VERY happy with what I saw. I can’t gush enough about it, because this is the version of the franchise I always thought was POSSIBLE.

So I’m thinking the aliens see the Enterprise rise up out of the water and take off, and that becomes part of their mythology.

And we have lots of very credible amazing stories regarding UFOs and water, going in, coming out, including a famous case in Canada that prompted a military response.

That would be the Shag Harbour case.

So the Enterprise going underwater doesn’t bother me in the slightest.

Sometimes transporters go on the blink or need repair, and the water is a great place to hide.

431. boborci - December 15, 2012

420. LogicalLeopard – December 15, 2012
Bob

We desperately need an interview, DVD voice over, or book about the writing process behind this movie, and the villian controversy still unfolding. Also, how much “awesome” costs on the street, and how much of it do you freebase before writing.

—–

LOL.

Will take notes for the book.

432. dmduncan - December 15, 2012

427. Red Dead Ryan – December 15, 2012

I LIKE the extra clarity, but I don’t like the camera image quality. Wish I could compare HFR film next to HFR video to note the difference.

Would LOVE to see Star Trek in HFR IMAX. Hahaha! That would be mindblowing I am SURE.

433. boborci - December 15, 2012

428. Roddenberry was a Peacenik – December 15, 2012
Bob – I’m curious, did you ever foresee this much speculation on the villain’s (assumed secret) identity? It seems that fandom has coalesced into something like factions, you had a “Team Khan”, “Team Mitchell”, “Team Garth”, “Team April”…all of which seemed at times to be one step away from a soccer riot. What do you make of all that?

———-

Always expected it. That’s part of the fun. See, we always knew that Star Trek is unique for many reasons, but a main one being the fans. We (fans) are all potential story tellers of this franchise because we all have so much to go on. That is why there are so many great theories on this site. We all know, as fans, as much as the film makers do about what is or isn’t Star Trek. Though opinions can differ, so many fans have PHD’s in Trek that it is part of the world of loving this franchise. So we always expected serious theories and learned guessing, and that is why we are so protective of the story. It keep the guessing fun and alive. And there are multiple valid theories of what this movie could be.

434. Red Dead Ryan - December 15, 2012

#432.

Well, seeing as how its the first 48fps movie, it would be naive to expect perfect results on the first go-round. I’m glad that you noticed the extra clarity. Although apparently it has made a few people sick.

I really CANNOT wait to see the movie! I’m going with a bunch of pals, so it promises to be a good time had by all!

435. dmduncan - December 15, 2012

Maybe that’s what’s so cool about this place even when the owner goes AWOL. ;-)

We’re not all under one roof in a building somewhere, but we are in a sense under one roof through this site!

436. dmduncan - December 15, 2012

434. Red Dead Ryan – December 15, 2012

Felt NO adverse physiological effects at all.

437. Jonboc - December 15, 2012

Saw the preview this morning. Man, I can’t wait…this movie can’t get here fast enough…I was smiling from beginning to end. My only beef was Uhura’s use of some common modern vernacular. It seemed really out of place in the 23rd century. But it’s nothing I can’t work around. Great fun and suspense!

FYI Bob, the preview got huge applause here in Texas while the movie itself got none. I think you’re onto something! :)

438. Red Dead Ryan - December 15, 2012

#435.

Agreed!

We’re all friends here, yet we don’t truly know each other. We don’t know what anybody looks like. We’re from all over the world, yet, we feel like we’re right next door to one another. A nice diversion from all of the problems in the world.

Funny what a mere website can do.

:-)

439. Hugh Hoyland - December 15, 2012

The Hobbit was fantastic as well. Some have said it has to much exposition. I dont think so. IMO it felt similar to LOTR in that respect.

Didnt have a problem with the 48fps to be honest. It looks crisp and clean as water to my eyes. But I can imagine it could be hard to adjust to after viewing 24fps all our lives. Just think Avatar 2 will be 60fps(or higher). :)

440. Hugh Hoyland - December 15, 2012

Imagine that opening nine minutes of STID in 120fps!

441. sean - December 15, 2012

The IMAX preview was a lot of fun. Even more fun is watching so-called “Trekkers” going apoplectic over these 9 minutes.

442. trekmaster - December 15, 2012

@#438

FULL ACK

443. John Tenuto - December 15, 2012

Hi Everyone

Just rewatched “Space Seed” to answer some questions for myself. Here is what I observed:

1) It is never said conclusively that Khan is from India or is a Sikh. McGivers offers these as guesses, not facts. She guesses he is from Northern India and is probably a Sikh. Why she thinks that when he has no beard is interesting (although that alone isn’t a disqualifying fact for being a Sikh).

Also, later it is stated that Khan was ruler of Asia and the Middle East. At no time does he or another character say he is from India, however, although it is possible I missed some reference to it, so please let me know if I did!

On the other hand, McGivers’ guesses and Khan’s name including Singh certainly argues for him being a Sikh. However, if I understand the precipes of Sikhism, the name Singh is usually a middle name meaning Lion. Khan has it as his last name.

2) Khan is described by McCoy twice as having amazing recuperative powers. There is something in him, McCoy says, that refuses to die. Possibly in the new film John Harrison, if he is Khan, has DNA which he uses to heal people or some special understanding of genetics that helps him heal. The Khan of “Space Seed” does have super healing of his own self at least.

3) McCoy estimates that Khan could lift both him and Kirk with one arm. Spock refers to Khan and his people as super. So, there was that intention even if was not shown too much due to budgetary and special effects limitations of the era. There is much talk of being superpowered, and Kirk refuting this is more that they were not better people because they were stronger and smarter, just that they were stronger and smarter.

Thought this may help those who are in the John Harrison is really Khan camp! Thanks for reading!

John

444. No Khan - December 15, 2012

I’m not wild about another movie about Terrorism. I go to a scfi movie to escape that.

445. Spock Jenkins - December 15, 2012

Spock will get beamed away from the Volcano. Somehow.

Prologue was brilliant. Enough said.
People getting a Khan vibe from the London scene – how?? WHat are you seeing that I missed?

446. dmduncan - December 15, 2012

Good idea to release John Harrison’s name because if too many people go into this expecting “Harrison” to unzip his skin suit and to see Khan step out, and it never happens, they may be disappointed. Harrison’s name lets them adjust to the real possibility that he is Harrison

I was going to say the real possibility that he is “just” Harrison, but I have the feeling that after this movie is over we are not going to be comparing him to Khan — we’ll be comparing Khan to HIM.

447. Trek Fan - December 15, 2012

443. John Tenuto

I think you are grasping at straws, John.

448. Spock Jenkins - December 15, 2012

People can’t accept Enterprise going underwater? But can accept beaming ( total molecular destruction and recombination of living beings ). C’mon guys stop trying to be such smart alecs to show how ‘above’ JJ’s Trek you are.
This new movie looks incredible – as a previous poster said, if you want to see Trek continue ( eventually ) on TV, you need it to be a hit first at the box office or we’ll never ever get a viable continuation of the franchise ever again.

I’m confident that this movie will have heart, but let’s just all see how it turns out in 6 months rather than proclaiming this is the death of Star Trek ( as happened on the forums at the time of the previous film – some of the naysaying is so OTT, it really puts me off coming to this site ). I’ve been a fan of Trek and the original crew since the early 80s, and I cannot wait for “Into Darkness”…

449. Blake - December 15, 2012

Forgive me if this has already been discussed, but does anyone think John Harrison is “Johnny” from the Iowa scene in the last Star Trek? Fits with the whole “family” mantra.

450. Craiger - December 15, 2012

Could Cumberbatch like some have said in here be a different version of Sybok? Maybe in the new Universe he is half Vulcan but instead of healing someones pain like in ST V he does have full healing powers and when he heals people they follow him?

451. Commodore Adams - December 15, 2012

424. Concerned citizen –

“As to the trailer, my fear is that Trek will become “Transformers” – cutesy dialog, too many over the top action sequences, not enough substance or reality”

“Nothing against action or scale or humor – but it all just felt way too cute and adolescent. I didn’t believe Spock was in danger or that the stakes were real. Felt like a comic book.”

I agree with you and I was afraid of this.

Star Trek is science fiction not science fantasy. It is the one grip I had with the 2009 movie, too much bubblegum, otherwise it was fantastic. I could not stand Keenzer, he belongs in Star Wars, and I am disappointed to hear that is he back for the next instalment. I didn’t mind the banter between him and Scotty at his desk and when he tosses the wrench behind him but when he whimpers when Scotty beams away or when Scotty tells him to get down and he just shakes his head crouched up somewhere he is not supposed to be, I can’t stand that crap!

I remember walking out of the theatre in 2009 and overhearing a man ask his girlfriend or wife “what did you think of the movie?” Her response was, “it was too bubble-gummy.” Being a Star Trek fan I thought what are you talking about, but then I thought about it and knowing her view was more objective, I thought, yea she’s right.

452. Killamarshtrek - December 15, 2012

Well, based solely on a poor recorded copy, I can’t wait to see more! They seem to have taken up straight where they left off. Same fast paced action, same quirky humorous dialogue, same spectacular visual set pieces.

So, ideas anybody, (cause I’ve been racking my brains and I’m stumped!) they can’t use the transporter, they can’t break the prime directive, so how the hell do they get Spock out of there?!

453. dmduncan - December 15, 2012

449. Blake – December 15, 2012

JOTR Theory. (Johnny On The Road). It’s a candidate, but I don’t think it fits best what we are seeing.

454. Blake - December 15, 2012

453 Haha love that it has a name already. Can’t wait regardless…hard to resist all the spoilers floating around and just wait til May.

455. Paul - December 15, 2012

Apart from the mis-judged opening shot on the clock & slow family scenes I thought it was fantastic but to me those first 2.5 mins ruined it a little by taking it away from the far future to a mundane setting on earth. It would have worked far better just opening with the main titles then showing the Enterprise warping through space to the lava planet & giving the crew a few moments each. So far there has not been a single shot of the Enterprise in space and the Enterprise is as big a character in TOS as the crew!

Bob please fix this or assure us we get a lot more Enterprise in space than ST09!

Apart from that you did an incredible job thanks for putting so much hard work into this.

456. Red Dead Ryan - December 15, 2012

God, if I had a penny for every time someone compared Keenser to Jar Jar Binks……..I would be in bankruptcy, with my credit cut off, and living in a dumpster behind 7-11 living off of week-old hot dogs and stale donuts!

Seriously, folks, Keenser IS NOT JAR JAR BINKS! NOR DOES HE BELONG IN “STAR WARS”!

457. Spock Jenkins - December 15, 2012

452.
THEY can’t use a transporter but what if Spock has a device which initiates emergency site-to-site transport? He doesn’t have to go far, just outside the volcano at least, to buy him a few more seconds…? OR, he has a rocket pack, similar to the Spock suit from the Motion Picture?

458. Hugh Hoyland - December 15, 2012

I would think any craft capable of velocities much greater than the speed of light could be capable of total submersion with the greatest of ease.

459. Commodore Adams - December 15, 2012

400. Hat Rick – lmao this is the second time I have made this correction, its 5 months away not 6.

460. Nano - December 15, 2012

L A M E
It appears our writer used Wikipedia to draft the opening scenes for ST Into Darkness. Nibiru: widely known imaginary Planet beloved by occult groups The rogue Planet Nibiru supposedly has a disastrous encounter with Earth every 26,000 yrs or so. Check your local Mayan calender. This event subjects our world to all kinds of natural disasters – Like magnetic poles flipping, Volcanoes etc.

461. Roddenberry was a Peacenik - December 15, 2012

@460

It has been discussed, and complained about, at great length already. It’s a bit distracting, like using “Kolob” as a planet name in a Star Trek film, but oh well. I didn’t let it ruin my enjoyment of the preview.

462. Spockchick - December 15, 2012

@458. Hugh Hoyland

Those magnificent men in their flying machines….they go up tiddly up up, they go down tiddly down down.

463. draderman - December 15, 2012

Quote from Voyager: The episode they go underwater.
Tom Paris: “With a few simple thruster modifications to the Delta Flyer she will be sea-worthy in no time.”
Captain Janeway: “Good. It would take at least a week to make the necessarily modifications to Voyager.”

464. Spock Jenkins - December 15, 2012

460.
Actually Niburu is from Babylonian mythology – it would be natural for the Federation to assign such a name, in the manner we assign greco-roman mythological names to planets now.

465. NCC-73515 - December 15, 2012

Starships launching from the ocean are not that new, actually. Watch a few seconds from Space Patrol, Bavarian Sci-Fi from 1966 ;)
http://youtu.be/FGcIy76N9sY?t=16m18s

466. John Tenuto - December 15, 2012

#447

Hi Trek Fan

You wouldn’t be the first! Many fellow fans would agree with you: http://trekmovie.com/2012/12/12/tenutoblog-making-the-case-for-identifying-the-star-trek-into-darkness-villain/

But it sure is fun to guess! Thanks!

467. Spock Jenkins - December 15, 2012

460.
Forgot to add, sure I accept there is a slew of theorists who follow the Zechariah Sitchin crap about Niburu, but I think the movie is playing with that – the human crew and the Enterprise are the ‘gods’ now, with ol’ Ent being their ‘Chariot’…

468. Roddenberry was a Peacenik - December 15, 2012

@464 Yeah, but the Babylonian Nibiru was just their name for Jupiter (If I recall correctly). I might need to look again. It was the whole Zachary Stichin/ancient astronauts/12th planet craze that talked about it as an extra-solar planet. That’s why I complained about it anyway. But it’s not a big deal. Like you said, no reason the Federation can’t call any planet whatever they want.

469. Jeyl - December 15, 2012

So despite Prime Spock telling NuSpock that he has a very productive, important and meaningful life ahead of him, NuSpock decides to toss his whole life away so that the natives of this unknown planet won’t be inconvenienced.

470. Trek Fan - December 15, 2012

466. John Tenuto

Oh, I read your theory. And it is just that… a theory. I made just as many points for the Mitchell case. But I was man enough to admit, after seeing the trailer, that it couldn’t be Mitchell… or even Khan. You can, in fact, make the argument for anyone that way too. Just because you are a contributor here it doesn’t make your theory any more right than the rest of us. Sorry.

From everything I have seen.. the trailer and the 9 minutes of footage… and everything I have heard about the movie. I think we are looking at a character named John Harrison… no fake name… no Khan plot… just a Starfleet guy that feels that Starfleet has gone away from what it was supposed to do. And that is very similar to many other characters that are not essentially bad, they are doing what they are doing because thet feel they are doing a greater good.

471. trekmaster - December 15, 2012

@#450

For me Sybok ist still an option, but I guess it goes into the direction of biological humanoid weapons of mass destruction. John Harrison seems to be an augment.

472. Spock Jenkins - December 15, 2012

468.
I think the whole scene ( I hope ), will play out as a light hearted wink to that whole ‘ancient astronauts’ craze. It won’t be the first time in Star Trek though that a pre-warp civilisation has mistaken the Starfleet / Federation people as ‘gods’…

473. Jefferies Tuber - December 15, 2012

I saw the preview 24 hours ago and let it all sink in. I loved the entire experience: IMAX, 3D and $$$. This is the Star Trek I’ve always wanted, the expensive, richly-detailed Trek universe from the paperbacks.

The sequence in London feels rushed. I’m not sure if this is because it’s only a teaser edit or if JJ is going to rush everything, the way he did when directing Nimoy in ST09. The scene is so streamlined that it’s like a comic book panel.

The sequence on Nibiru was funny and breathtaking. I totally flinched when the spear flew at the screen. I remember Orci citing Indy. Didn’t expect them to actually quote the film. The relationship and the humor were instantaneous. The actors are the stars of this footage. While Trekmovie’s community has been obsessing on BC, the true kick of the trailer is the presence of Pine, Urban and Quinto. It will be a lot easier to appreciate Pegg as Scott if they decide on a hair color.

Count me 100% in support of the ship underwater. I’ve always imagined the Enterprise emerging from water like a submarine, particularly the Enterprise-A. As I said elsewhere, if they end up retconning the translucent tubes as essential to the Enterprise’s underwater function, the irony will be exquisite.

I was a little distracted by BC’s TNG-style business attire in the hospital scene. I imagine there’ll be a lot of that. Then he’s in black -shocker- and exhibits fancy jumping moves. The BC scenes left me underwhelmed. For a villain who is set up to be so complex, the only thing missing from his introduction is organ music.

Whatever criticisms I can think of fall under JJ’s responsibility. LKO’s script plays our characters like a string section and cuts straight to the core of Trek.

I’m really stoked for the trailer. If anyone has definitively spotted a Klingon ship, what’s the report?

474. Chris Doohan - December 15, 2012

433 Boborci

Well said. It’s going to be an interesting 5 months…oh, and Hi.

475. Weerd1 - December 15, 2012

@460- Widely known? First I’ve heard of it, but I don’t read a lot of Mayan prophecy…

Having…ahem..somehow seen the 9 minutes, I am not questioning that the E CAN go underwater, but I am not yet convinced it needed to. Hopefully seeing the rest of the scene will provide the answer to that. I am also interested to discover if Spock’s device to halt the volcano is a product from Dr. Marcus and some nascent version of Genesis.

476. Spock Jenkins - December 15, 2012

475.
That’s a wonderful theory! I have to give that the award for the evening – I love it!!
“Spock’s device to halt the volcano is a product from Dr. Marcus and some nascent version of Genesis.”

477. John Tenuto - December 15, 2012

#470:

Thank you for the reply. I am not certain why your reply has such a tone: my article directly states, more than once, that not only could I be wrong, but that there are fellow fans who know much more Star Trek history than I.

In my reply to your post, I did nothing but thank you, and provided a link to the article if you were interested.

I do not believe the 9 minute preview did anything to disuade any theory. I don’t think it negated the Mitchell theory or the Khan theory, or the many other good theories that fellow fans are suggesting. It doesn’t tell us much about John Harrison. I think there are ideas there, from his healing ability to the Spock line about the needs of the many that help support the Khan theory, but they are possibilities, not facts.

I don’t know where you got the idea that I suggested that my theories are better or worse than any other theories, and don’t believe there is a single line I have ever wrote that suggests that my contributions here give me any more importance than those who write their ideas in the comments. Indeed, the comments are as interesting as articles many times and I enjoy learning from fellow fans.

Thank you for reading,

John

478. Jim, London - December 15, 2012

Saw the preview in London on Friday when seeing the hobbit at the IMAX… You know you are on to a good thing when people having exited the cinema are talking about the preview rather than the film they went to see!!

479. crazydaystrom - December 15, 2012

450. Craiger-

‘Team Sybok’! Hooray! We’re a small, imaginatve and hopeful few.

469. Jeyl-

I seriously doubt Spock ‘tossed his life away’ and whatever the case, I’m sure his decision was a logical one.

480. Hat Rick - December 15, 2012

@CommodoreAdam (459), I’m afraid I don’t follow…. I believe mentioned May but didn’t mention any number of months, unless I’m missing something.

Anyway, no worries.

481. boborci - December 15, 2012

Chris Doohan

Hello, yourself, stranger! How are you?

Wish your dad was around to see this:)

482. John Tenuto - December 15, 2012

#481:

Hi Bob,

My big question isn’t if Harrison is someone else or not, it is whether we will see any toys (besides Kre-o) and restaurant promotions (like Burger King) for the film. Anything you could share?

Thanks!

John

483. Hat Rick - December 15, 2012

I’m not Bob Orci, although I’ve been asked to play one on TV by Harvey, my invisible giant rabbit friend, but here’s my take on it @JohnTenuto: I for one would be zonked beyond the orbit of Niburu of there weren’t to be some massive promotional tie-in to STID.

I have the complete set of glasses from ST (2009) and they are in mint condition.

I’m not even a collector, but I am sure to try to get anything Trek-related.

I also have the “Red Alert, Red Alert”-sounding toy featuring the voice of the commander of the ill-fated ship on which George Kirk served. (Oddly, that toy sounded the red alert at the weirdest of moments, such as when I would accidentally brush up against it while having a snack. Don’t ask.)

Anyway, I am looking forward to massive amounts of choice in promotional toys for STID, because I’m well past my second childhood and heading toward my fourth.

484. John Tenuto - December 15, 2012

#483

Hi Hat Rick

That’s awseome! I hope we see plenty of Trek everywhere again…it made going to the store fun! Thanks!

John

485. Hat Rick - December 15, 2012

I can’t wait, John. It will be so much fun. Fun on a bun, as Bender the robot would say. :-)

486. Hat Rick - December 15, 2012

I just saw my mistake about the six months thing. I did make a mistake in that reference. As a very wise man once said, repeatedly, ad infinitum: “D’oh!”

@CommodoreAdam — my mistake!

487. Hugh Hoyland - December 15, 2012

@ 462. Spockchick

I dont believe I’ve ever read it described that way before. But quite accurate. :)

488. dmduncan - December 15, 2012

483: “Anyway, I am looking forward to massive amounts of choice in promotional toys for STID, because I’m well past my second childhood and heading toward my fourth.”

I know it! When ST.09 came out I was ordering the promotional stuff off cereal boxes!

Years before ST.09 came out I auctioned off all my stuff, which included some genuine movie-set blueprints I picked up at a convention many years earlier. I was a nosy kid and asked lots of questions on the convention floor about this trader’s merchandise and if there was anything else she had that wasn’t on the table, when she quietly told me that the “good” stuff was upstairs if I was interested.

I was interested. We did the deal. It was all very hush-hush. Funny when I look back on it.

Now I wish I still had that stuff, but a friend of mine in NYC that I left a bunch of stuff with when I left just emailed me and said he found a piece of production art from that time which I didn’t even know I still had, and he’s sending it.

489. Craiger - December 15, 2012

I really think they should put the 9 min preview up at the Star Trek Into Darkness movie site and on iTunes. I think that could get more people to see and I think they would forget about what the first 9 mins was like since it doesn’t premier until May.

490. Killamarshtrek - December 15, 2012

@ 483

I have that same 2009 Burger King spaceship (it’s the USS Kelvin) except mine was bought while on holiday in Benlmadena Spain so min says “alerta roja”!

491. Trek Fan - December 15, 2012

477. John Tenuto

Sorry if you sensed a “tone” to my post. I am just used the smugness and arrogance of other posters on here when they talk about their theory being Khan. They come across as holier than thou and come down on anyone that has a differing theory than theirs. The talk down to everyone else, especially when they had a Mitchell theory. So I apologize if you sensed a tone… I did not intend there to be.

I found your article well written and your theories were imaginative. What I feel is that there is a bias on this site due to Anthony’s “inside source” article, etc. Someone should write an article with other theories to make it fair.

I was one of the first with a Mitchell theory and all signs pointed to Mitchell. MJ would disagree with me saying that not everything did. I would be able to go point to point with your arguments… and I did in my head. LoL.

I meant no disrespect to you and I do enjoy your articles, John.

At this point in time… looking at all the facts… I have some to the conclusion that John Harrison IS John Harrison. But then again… that is just my theory, :) Cheers John…

492. Craiger - December 15, 2012

Just curious would the crew follow Kirk and want to save those Aliens based on the Prime Directive? Would they want to take the chance of being seen by the Aliens and the Prime Directive already being viloated and a crew member dying?

493. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - December 15, 2012

The point that Voyager was capable of submerging as well as other vessels on other shows doesn’t make much sense, I have to confess. Those were differnt ships from a different and later time. It was clearly stated in several episodes that Kirk’s ship could NOT enter a planets atmosphere and could not land. If it hadn’t be illustrated so often or had it not been pivotal to several plots I could see an argument for it. I think a better argument would be to simply say JJ’s/Orci’s Enterprise can and leave it at that. But that’s just me.

494. Killamarshtrek - December 15, 2012

Hey Bob Orci

Here’s a question I’ve always wanted to ask you which I hope you can answer:-

If you were to portray a character in your star trek films who had been established in ‘cannon’ before the point at which your new timeline split off, would you do something like, change that characters ethnicity, nationality or skin colour?…… See what I’ve done there!?

495. Curious Cadet - December 15, 2012

@443 John Tenuto,
” It is never said conclusively that Khan is from India or is a Sikh. McGivers offers these as guesses, not facts. She guesses he is from Northern India and is probably a Sikh. Why she thinks that when he has no beard is interesting (although that alone isn’t a disqualifying fact for being a Sikh).”

Here’s the thing. She guessed he was from Northern India, without any evidence of being a Sikh (i.e. beard and turban — why they we’re clothed at all is another matter).

So, there’s only two reasons she would guess Khan would be from Northern India:

1) Khan looks ethnically like someone generally from that region, i.e. brown skin, which is what we get with Montalban. Given his build and location, she makes the Sikh/warrior connection with no other supporting evidence for it.

2) McGivers is visibly smitten with Khan from the moment she sees him, and also instantly recognizes him, though keeps his identity to herself. This is how she knows exactly where he’s from.

So, unless we decide the second choice is what informed McGivers statements, then I feel like it’s obvious Khan is not supposed to be a pale white guy.

Either way, making him a white guy is the worst choice here, mainly because there are so few other races depicted in major roles in Star Trek in general, especially from what I’ve seen in STID so far. See my response to Pegasus @361 for more on the lack of racial diversity I think Abrams’ Trek is exhibiting …

496. Lostrod - December 15, 2012

#493

Personally, if they had to have the Enterprise submerge they should have done a saucer separation first.

Then it would have tied in with the UFO analogy from earlier. If the primitives saw the starship they could have dubbed it a “flying saucer”.

Regards.

497. Hat Rick - December 15, 2012

@dmduncan (488), I envy your luck at having had those items!

I remember about thirty-odd years ago, at the local library, there were some blueprints of the Enterprise in a nice plastic envelope; part of the envelope was transparent and I believe the back was brown. Obviously I checked it out and lovingly admired it. In any event, the item was paid for as “lost” when it couldn’t be found by the due date. Subsequently, many years later, it was rediscovered and I have been meaning to send it back to the library, but never got around to it. It’s in storage someplace, I think. I’m not sure I need to send it back to the library anyway, since it’s been paid for. Or maybe I’m misremembering another copy of it. But I do remember the item and it was just so detailed, as if the Enterprise was a real ship.

As I said, I’m not a collector but I just love this stuff.

I have the Sternbach Technical Manual, both editions of the ST Encyclopeida by the Okudas, and various other things, and at one point I even had the ST (2009) phaser. I regret having traded that item as nonfunctional (as is), since the person that received it later advised that I had simply forgotten to turn on the thing!

Did I say that I’m not a collector? Maybe that’s not technically true….

I still have the PlayMates 2009 Enterprise. And it works. :-)

Alas everything is in storage.

@Killamarshek (490), that is muy bueno! :-)

498. Frank - December 15, 2012

I cant’t believe Abrams put the lens flare in again. #1 complain from the last movie. I suppose the engine room still makes beer too.

499. Barney Fife - December 15, 2012

Bob Orci,
If I may be permitted to go off topic for a second….I’m trippin’ over last night’s ‘Fringe’ and for some reason I wanted to watch Monty Python after viewing that episode ;-) I’m going to miss that show when it finishes its run next month.

500. The Sinfonian - December 15, 2012

@495 Bleh. Study some. Northern Indians are an Indo-European people, and lighter skin and multi-colored eyes aren’t unexpected. Punjab, is certainly in Northern India. Southern Indians are a Dravidian people, with darker skin. There’s a reason why the ancestor of modern Indian languages, Sanskrit, is directly related and consanguinous with Greek, Latin, Slavic, Germanic, etc. They’re all Indo European. Having a Spaniard (which Montalban’s family was), an Indo European play an Indo European descendant from Northern India wasn’t a bad move. Likewise, having an Englishman of darker complexion play Khan isn’t crazy. Of course, not sure that Cumberbatch has the darker complexion of say Rowan Atkinson. Bean Noonien Singh!! Yes.

501. Vultan - December 15, 2012

To those who have seen the first 9 minutes:

— Why doesn’t the Enterprise stay in orbit and send down its shuttles to carry out the mission?

— If they’re so concerned about the Prime Directive, wouldn’t a pair of small shuttles leave less cultural contamination than a giant starship entering the atmosphere and submerging into and later rising from a nearby ocean?

— And wouldn’t sending down a small landing party of shuttles be safer than risking the 400 or so crew of the Enterprise underwater? The needs of the many, right?

Anyone…?

502. Curious Cadet - December 15, 2012

@453 dmduncan

“JOTR Theory. (Johnny On The Road). It’s a candidate, but I don’t think it fits best what we are seeing.”

Oh, I don’t know. We don’t know anything about Johnny. Johnny’s dad could be in Starfleet and Johnny could be one of those military brats who moves all around the Galaxy. He could have been raised in England, moved to Iowa for his dad to work in the shipyards, then off to Axanar where he learned got-knows-what. Later, he joins Starfleet, gets recruited by the covert initiative Sulu was approached about in the IDW Return of the Archons comic, and becomes a highly trained special ops soldier. That sets him up to be exposed to things, like gentic engineering, and to know things that could very easily lead to him being the John Harrison in this story. All it takes is a reason to turn on Starfleet. Maybe his wife, child, or parent contracts a deadly disease which he knows can be cured using the technology Starfleet used to enhance him. But his superiors won’t allow it, and his loved one dies. That would certainly be enough to make you sympathetic for his cause.

I don’t mean that this is the story by any means, but an example for how little of a stretch it would be to make JOTR your guy …

503. LogicalLeopard - December 15, 2012

Star Trek is science fiction not science fantasy. It is the one grip I had with the 2009 movie, too much bubblegum, otherwise it was fantastic. I could not stand Keenzer, he belongs in Star Wars, and I am disappointed to hear that is he back for the next instalment. I didn’t mind the banter between him and Scotty at his desk and when he tosses the wrench behind him but when he whimpers when Scotty beams away or when Scotty tells him to get down and he just shakes his head crouched up somewhere he is not supposed to be, I can’t stand that crap!

******************

Balok finds Keenser juvenile and ridiculous too, and would like to discuss the matter with you over tranya. He’s also inviting his friends Vic Fontaine, B4, and a huge, cantankerous probe that only speaks whale.

504. John Tenuto - December 15, 2012

#495

Hi Curious Cadet

Thanks for the reply. I am not suggesting that Khan should be any ethnicity (I don’t think I would call another human being a “pasty white guy”). I am describing something, not saying that is how it should be. My list from “Space Seed” is about how dialog from the episode, true canon, could support the Khan argument. I am not saying that Benedict Cumberbatch is, or should be, Khan. I am trying to provide information for those interested in the Khan theory.

Thank you

John

505. Antni - December 15, 2012

@501

– it doesn’t really say why the enterprise is under water and not in orbit however it does look amazing down there. Perhaps the reason it has to go under might beep pained in a later scene or the comics which will tie into the film. Scotty isn’t impressed that they’re down there though.

– if I remember sulu was having issues with the shuttle due to the volcanos ash and smoke etc interfering with the shuttles engines. Also if I remember correctly I think he has to ditch the shuttle.

– as above probably due to the smog etc but I had no issues with the enterprise under water I thought it was an awesome opening 9 mins I almost wish I hadn’t seen it as it’s going to feel like decades until may 17th haha

506. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - December 15, 2012

496 Lostrod.
Yeah, I think that would have made more sense.

507. John Tenuto - December 15, 2012

#491

Thanks for the reply! I appreciate the sentiments, and I think that all the theories are (forgive me, here it comes…) Fascinating! It means a great deal if you liked the article, even if it not agreeing with the theory. In fact, that means more than if someone did agree! Thanks again and I can’t wait to learn the answer this May!

I totally concur, and have suggested, that there be articles arguing for Gary, for John Harrison being John Harrison, and all other theories. I would even love to write some of those disagreeing with my original article. Or, it could be that TrekMovie sets up a kind of open forum for everyone to discuss a specific theory each week. That would also be fun!

Thanks again!

John

508. Roddenberry was a Peacenik - December 15, 2012

@506 John Tenuto

“I totally concur, and have suggested, that there be articles arguing for Gary, for John Harrison being John Harrison, and all other theories.”

Gotta say, this would be really cool, a series of “The case for…” articles that is. I mean it’s hard keeping up with all the villain factions at this point. Would the “John Harrison being John Harrison” theory be split in two, one with the JotR theory and one “John Harrison REALLY being John Harrison”?

509. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - December 15, 2012

501. Vultan, it is not explained in those 9 minutes, that I can remember. Alot was happening. There was some mention of radiation, I think, and it could be explained elsewhere in the movie. You don’t know the ship is under the sea until Kirk and McCoy plunge off a cliff into the water. Then they use their boots to propel themselves to the Enterpise.

510. Jonboc - December 15, 2012

…something I’m having trouble with, and Bob, help me out, if you can, without letting any more cats out of the bag…but why all the concern from Spock about violating the prime directive, when he is, in essence, about to violate it, big time? Granted, stopping an natural disaster and saving all those lives is the first thing Kirk would do, Prime Directive be damned. But Spock, being such a willing participant, especially while expressing concern of it being violated, is a bit puzzling.

511. Boborci - December 15, 2012

499 Barney fife

Thanks for watching!

512. Vultan - December 15, 2012

#508

Okay. Well, I can see how radiation might mess with the transporters. Not so much the shuttles. Obviously from the description at least of them was able to fly. Are they short on personnel?

The only pilot in the quadrant, right?

513. Antni - December 15, 2012

The 9 mins are awesome I can’t wait. Kirk and McCoy cracked me up too xD

514. Shilliam Watner (Click Name for my Christmas card) - December 15, 2012

Bob Orci – Thanks for coming here and playing with us. I’m really excited to see your next Trek Film. Between that and Man of Steel, I’m a pretty stoked geek.

Hello to the rest of you as well. Been away mostly lately, not that it really matters. I’m a sidelines player here, a Red Shirt that has somehow slipped through the cracks.

But I DO love Star Trek when it’s done well. I thought the last film to be the best work Abrams, Orci and company have done, and I thought it was a great start. I think Star Trek brought the best out of these people, and I know without a doubt they want to hit this thing out of the proverbial ballpark. I know they care, that this isn’t just a paycheck movie for them.

I definitely have not liked a lot of Abrams’ and Orci’s work. But too many people will discount Bob Orci because of Transformers. Look guys, I hated the Transformers movies as much as anybody, but nobody does their best work all of the time. I love Elvis Costello, but hate half his songs. Still, he’s my favorite singer/songwriter. I love Anthony Hopkins, but he’s made a lot of wretched films. I love Charles Dickens, but sometimes you could tell he was paid by the word.

My point is that just because you hated Transformers doesn’t mean everything Roberto Orci writes is on the same level. Nobody always does their best work, but what I saw in Star Trek was a very good start. I have watched it as much as any Trek movie, and more than most.

I’m glad the film is in the hands of people who give a damn. They accomplished so much in just two hours. I was impressed, though it wasn’t perfect by any means. There were some things I certainly would have done differently (and better ;-)), but the things they did right were done very well and overshadowed those things I didn’t like.

This time my expectations are higher. I expect them to raise the bar. That’s gotta be a little scary for them, as well as us, but I think they can do it.

That’s all I have to say. Nothing too controversial or provocative. Just flotsam in the interwebs. I hope you are all well.

515. Vultan - December 15, 2012

Correction: “…at least ONE of them…”

516. Craiger - December 15, 2012

Bob, please tell me Kono not getting into trouble again.

517. Curious Cadet - December 15, 2012

@500 The Sinfonian,
“Bleh. Study some. Northern Indians are an Indo-European people, and lighter skin and multi-colored eyes aren’t unexpected.”

Really? I love this site. You ended up saying exactly what I said, Cumberbatch is not the right shade, while Montalban was, and insulting me in the process. Ha! I’m well aware Northern India is populated by mostly Caucasoids and Mongoloids, with the other “oids” mixed in. But the point remains, if you saw pasty white Cumberbatch (as he appears on this film) laying in that sleep chamber, based on appearance alone, would your first guess be he was from Northern India, much less a Sikh? And by the way, McGivers never saw his eyes before making that statement, and I never said anything about eyes. So the point is, what motivated McGivers to identify Khan as being from Northern India from his clean shaven face and hair alone? And if you decide that Khan should have darker skin, and an appearance more specific to typical indigenous Northern Indians, do you hire Cumberbatch anyway, especially when Star Trek is overrun with white European men?

Oh, and I just realized there’s a third possibility … McGivers was completely unqualified to do her job.

518. Anthony Lewis - December 15, 2012

I don’t think this beginning could be anymore “TreK” if there is a standard definition for it.

You have the crew working together, and one member who is willing to die just to save a primitive alien race from extinction. All the while Kirk is left with the dilemma of do I protect the Prim Directive or do I save my friend and crew mate who put his life on the line, wouldn’t we owe him that much?

To me that is classic Trek!

519. Roddenberry was a Peacenik - December 15, 2012

@509

I was curious about this myself. I remembered in Pen Pals in TNG, they were basically going to let an entire people die of planetary natural disaster, but then I remembered in the Paradise Syndrome, they did the opposite. This seems a contradiction, so I looked at ol Mem Alpha, and there’s an exception:

“Helping a society escape a natural disaster that is unknown to the society and where the assistance can take place without the society’s knowledge.”

So Nibiru qualifies.

520. Craiger - December 15, 2012

#517 – Good find. Also maybe Kirk asks the crew if they would volunteer to save the planet?

521. Curious Cadet - December 15, 2012

@504 John Tenuto,
“I am not suggesting that Khan should be any ethnicity (I don’t think I would call another human being a “pasty white guy”). I am describing something, not saying that is how it should be. My list from “Space Seed” is about how dialog from the episode, true canon, could support the Khan argument.”

I appreciate the clarification. And I don’t believe I accused you of any of those things, though I can see how they could be inferred by you.

I too am only interested in clarifying whether Cumberbatch could, or should play Khan, based on canon, and as such have pointed out from your astute observation, that your observation does indeed tell us something specific about what ethnicity Khan should be, or alternately that McGivers lied (or had no idea what she was talking about). That is all. So sorry you felt slighted by my comments.

That said, I am “pasty white” with blue eyes and have to work very hard against it. That is not a slur in my book. However, I used the term not so much about Cumberbatch in his street appearance, but specifically in the guise of John Harrison. Go ahead, take a look at that “brig” photo in particular. He has been intentionally made very white, lighter than Spock (who is very light) or Kirk, and even his normal appearance when playing Sherlock. Make-up makes his lips the exact same color as his skin. That is not natural, and is likely a clue to his true identity. His resemblance to Data in this make up has disturbed me since I first saw it. And that my friend is most definitely “pasty white”. Hardly any kind of Northern Indian appearance that McGivers was likely imagining when she identified Khan from that region.

522. No Khan - December 15, 2012

I just saw the 9. Not seeing anything related to Khan. I’m glad, no need for Khan in this movie. Still got a ways to go. Still no Weller.

523. No Khan - December 15, 2012

BTW, I liked the Aliens rather than the G. Lucas over the top Aliens that he does just because he can do it.

524. Ahmed - December 15, 2012

@ 521. No Khan – December 15, 2012

“BTW, I liked the Aliens rather than the G. Lucas over the top Aliens that he does just because he can do it.”

Funny, since lot of people think that the aliens in the JJ Trek movies are closer to Star Wars aliens than to Star Trek aliens

525. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - December 15, 2012

Don’t think that preventing a natural disaster is a violation of the prime directive per se. I think the directive addresses cultural or technological contamination. That’s their defination of “interference.”

526. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - December 15, 2012

Correction: definition. Not that the TOS Kirk and crew haven’t been guilty of it.

527. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - December 15, 2012

511. Possibly. ;)

528. Trek Fan - December 15, 2012

506. John Tenuto

Would love to read your take on Mitchell and John is John. Hopefully you will be able to do that. I have tried to look at everything with an open mind. I first came up with a Mitchell theory after the smugness of some posters saying the clues definitely point to Khan. I just took every point and I was able to point to Mitchell. Not that I ever thought that Mitchell would be the villain at first… but I actually was convinced after going clue after clue!
But I firmly believe now there is no Mitchell… and there is no Khan (and no Khan-centric story).
Good luck with the other articles, I look forward to reading them!

529. SHM - December 15, 2012

I’ll throw my hat into the guessing ring.

John Harrison was a dedicated Starfleet Officer serving aboard the Enterprise during the events of WNMHGB. He was similarly affected by the Galactic Barrier. However, due to his lower Esper Rating he did not immediately show the same effects that Mitchell did (remember Dehner took some time before she started showing her Godlike powers). When he became aware of his powers, he kept it a secret and made a conscious decision to use his powers only for the good of Mankind/the Federation (in direct contrast with Mitchell’s response to his own powers.) This is what we see in London – Harrison using his powers for good.
However – as these things go – absolute power corrupts absolutely and soon he is driven mad by the combination of his powers and his quest for good. He determines that the Klingon threat to the Federation must be eradicated and he travels to their homeworld where he meets a surprised Enterprise crew. And then fun ensues.

530. Nony - December 15, 2012

Hey, Bob —

Was it an intentional thematic pun that you put the VULCAN into the VOLCANO? (Resulting, I suppose, in a VULCANO?) With the mythological connotations and the species name origin and all? ;)

531. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - December 15, 2012

My 527 comment is directed at Vultan @512 and not 511. Sorry Bob.

532. this is me - December 15, 2012

Nibiru? how cheap.

533. dmduncan - December 15, 2012

It’s cool that Starfleet issues swimwear! I dug that. And was Uhura wearing a version of that too?

534. The Observer - December 15, 2012

The explanation for how it is that Khan is made to look like John Harrison is both valid and acceptable.

However, the fan explanation for why they can accept it’s possible to make a klingon look like Arne Darvin, while at the same time insisting there is utterly no conceivable way for a science fiction film set in the 23rd century to possibly explain how Khan is made to look like John Harrison, is neither valid nor acceptable.

535. John Tenuto - December 15, 2012

#521

Hi Curious Cadet

Thanks for the clarifications and the information, it helped me understand your ideas and reply better.

It is so funny you mention those traits about Marla McGivers because so many of the original production memos about “Space Seed” we are researching talk about how much trouble they had with making that character believable. I think the most reasonable presumption is that Khan is from India. Have you read Greg Cox’s Khan trilogy? I really enjoyed them. Did you like them if you did read them? I love how they explain how all of us never knew the Eugenics Wars happened during the 1990s!

Thanks again

John

536. Peter Loader - December 15, 2012

Here’s a thought on the volcano scene. Spock will survive. He will be jettisoned out of the erupting volcano riding a stream of lava. He’ll get beamed aboard the shuttle.

537. John Tenuto - December 15, 2012

#528

Hi Trek Fan,

Thanks for the kind words! I would love to write those or read what theories fellow fans have about all these possibilities!

John

538. ObiWanCon - December 15, 2012

Has anybody thought that the look of the Nibiru people might be homage to TOS?

539. rynocarp - December 15, 2012

9 mins were fantastic, lots of fun and a great reminder of just how great this cast is. And people whining over a ship in water? Some people need to loosen up and have some fun with their Star Trek.
I thought the the swimwear was a great little homage to the uniforms from Enterprise the tv series.

540. Roddenberry was a Peacenik - December 15, 2012

Hey John, if you guys end up doing that series of articles on villain possibilities, and you ever a piece on the “John Harrison is the Tribble Queen” camp (which consists solely of myself) you let me know, k?

541. Jonboc - December 15, 2012

# 519 “Helping a society escape a natural disaster that is unknown to the society and where the assistance can take place without the society’s knowledge.”

Works for me! Thanks for the clarification!

542. Roddenberry was a Peacenik - December 15, 2012

@ 541 JonBoc

Cheers! I was actually surprised to find that out. I had the same reaction you did, “wow this is cool but aren’t they already violating the prime directive..?” Seems the Supreme Court did their homework this time.

543. T'Cal - December 15, 2012

Just got back from seeing it and liked it better than The Hobbit, which looked great but was otherwise boring and gross.

The preview looked fantastic and see the positive reviews above for details that there’s no need to repeat. The only negative thing I’ll say is that in the dialog, they kinda over explained the Prime Directive issue, the “needs of the many” line seemed a bit gratuitous, and the “but it’s Spock, so we have to risk everyone and everything to save him,” was a bit melodramatic. Still, this was not completely in context so I’m waiting to see the entire thing before passing final judgment. I loved McCoy’s line about “if it was you, he’d leave you behind.” The timing and delivery were spot on! And Cumberbatch has THE voice and THE look. He’s gonna be great, I’m sure.

544. T'Cal - December 15, 2012

535 – John Tenuto
Have you read Greg Cox’s Khan trilogy? I really enjoyed them. Did you like them if you did read them? I love how they explain how all of us never knew the Eugenics Wars happened during the 1990s!

John, I have them on audio tape and I agree; they do an excellent job of meshing fiction with history.

545. Devon - December 15, 2012

Prime Directive can be amended overtime.

546. Zinc Saucier - December 15, 2012

boborci:

I have to ask you something concerning the title. Is “Into Darkness” meant to be a subtitle (as can be seen from the format used on the poster and trailer), is the whole thing meant to be a single sentence (as can be seen from the lack of a colon) or is it actually meant to be a clever way to work as both?

I ask because there’s been an ongoing discussion about it on Wikipedia about how to title the film’s page. According to the Wikipedia style policy the title can only be “Star Trek into Darkness” (notice the lower case i) or “Star Trek: Into Darkness” (notice the colon). “Star Trek Into Darkness” (capital i, no colon) doesn’t fit as Wikipedia always lowercases prepositions 4 letters or fewer in titles. That is of course unless someone involved with the film says otherwise and we can make an exception. What’s the official stance here? Is the lowercase “i” fine?

547. Kirk, yes really - December 15, 2012

Hey 303!
Sorry about your poor health. I went through a rough spot myself a few years ago. Crazy as it sounds, making it to see the new Trek in 2009 was one of my goals. Still in remission and totally psyched to see this one now! Sure, I think I know what you mean, it’s not exactly the Trek we grew up with. But it’s still being made and we’re still here to see it! It’s a new interpretation, a whole new band with young people who really know how to jam. Keep yourself open to what they want to say with our favorite old tunes. The melodies are familiar, just new chords and phrasing , ( was gonna say phasing but wow, that would’ve been awful). We had our Trek, always will, let’s just enjoy this icing on the cake. Fight on my friend, after all, they did sign on for a trilogy, gotta see it through.

Kirk

548. Son Of MJ - December 15, 2012

What’s up with Spocks Yoga session in the Volcano as the Lava is rising right before the end of the sequence

549. Son Of MJ - December 15, 2012

I Hope Burger King is the fast food tie in this time again, and they have some more of those glasses.

550. T'Cal - December 15, 2012

Per space.com:
“Linked to the close of the Mayan calendar, a variety of rumors have spread regarding ways the world could end in 2012. One popular contender is Nibiru, a supposed planet that some claim will collide with Earth at the end of the year. But despite the buzz, there is no scientific evidence supporting the alleged planet’s existence. [VIDEO: 12-21-2012 - Just Another Day]

Nibiru has been linked to NASA by various bloggers, and is also sometimes referred to or confused with Planet X, another supposed world for which there is no evidence.”

551. Hat Rick - December 15, 2012

With this Star Trek preview, it is hip to think about the future once again. Our future.

I think it’s important to realize how much we live in the past, present, and future, simultaneously. There are philosophies that recognize that we are always in an Eternal Present, in that there is no vestige of consciousness that resides in the past and the future is unknow. (Actually, the past does persist for a short period of time — at least as required by the processing time of our brains; this, at least, is a reference to the perception, but probably not the actuality, of the past.)

The day before yesterday (Friday), I engaged in a videophone call with some friends of mine. This was done through Skype, and it was live and flawless. And the Skype device was portable so that I was able to use it while showing my friends my surroundings as I walked.

This is a future that Bell never anticipated — portable videophony.

I remember as a child wondering when, in the future, we would get our videophone. We never did. But we have Skype, and it’s free.

Star Trek is helping us see our possible future, and it is amazing to realize how much our future is really our present.

I believe that the world consciousness created through a mass understanding of the possibilities of existence (quoth Picard) is indeed changing our world.

All hail Star Trek, the once and future king of what was, is, and may be.

552. BulletInTheFace - December 15, 2012

#301: The phrase is “in this day and age,” not “in this day in age.” The latter makes no sense whatsoever.

553. David - December 15, 2012

Fry: “How many atmospheres can the ship withstand?”
Farnsworth: “Well, it’s a space ship. So I’d say anywhere between zero and one.”

554. pg - December 15, 2012

Some people on this site really need to go get “lucky”, just way too critical of some things. We finally get Trek on a big budget, along with the spirit of the original series… What’s to whine about? Get out of your parents basement and get real.

My hat’s off to the writers, JJ Abrams, and everyone involved with this sequel, looks like you guys hit a homerun.

That Niburu planet sequence is like something right out of an Original Series episode, and yet, we never really saw something even close to that level of action/adventure from an old episode. However, I can still picture the old actors in the same position that Pine and Urban are in, running through a jungle being chased trying to complete a mission.

My only hope is that they open the film with the Original Series opening, with the 5-year mission voiceover, and the old Alexander Courage theme blaring full tilt….. I REALLY hope Abrams, and Giachinno go that route.

555. Hat Rick - December 15, 2012

I never did trust Farnsworth’s numbers. After all, the man is related to Fry.

556. dmduncan - December 15, 2012

It occurs to me that both the Prime Directive and Kirk’s breaking the Prime Directive both have their roots in Kant’s categorical imperative. “So act that the maxim of your action can become a universal law binding on all rational beings.”

557. Jack - December 15, 2012

543. The prime directive does need to be explained, even briefly, for a new audience. I think.

You know, and Spock saying anything seems a little stilted/clunky. I hope it will change . Quinto’s delivery always feels a little… I don’t know, smug? His Spock certainly seems angry, rather than insistent. But whatever.

558. Well Of Souls - December 15, 2012

Well I got to see the Hobbit twice this week. The 1st being theThursday midnight premier in standard 3D & was a little disappointed that it did not have the 2 minute Star Trek trailer. Loved the Hobbit & cannot wait for the next 2 parts. However I just got back from the IMAX & saw the 9+ minute Star Trek preview & absolutely loved it. May 17 2013 cannot arrive soon enough. The 3D stuff was easy on the eyes, but then Zoe is always easy on the eyes even in 2D ;-) This clip flew by so fast & I just wanted more. Cannot wait to see NCC-1701 out of the water on the IMAX in 3D. BTW, the Hobbit was spectacular on a 2nd viewing with the Atmos sound system, however the theater I was @ did not have HFR. Well worth the 4 hour round trip though. Looking forward to monday’s online release of the 2+ minute trailer & view what I missed on Thursday. Regardless, after a little visit to the 23rd century to catch up with a few old friends, I was able to return to Middle Earth & hang out in the Shire for a spell. P.S. The trolls there were more entertaining & much wiser than the trolls that drop in here from time to time. LOL It was a good day to go Trekin’…

559. Phil - December 15, 2012

@553. Well, the probe NASA launched into Jupiter was crushed at 22 atmospheres. So at 2000 feet, less then the length of the Enterprise, you are looking at about 63 atmospheres….

560. Phil - December 15, 2012

@545…and frequently ignored.

561. Hat Rick - December 15, 2012

@dmduncan (556), that is quite profound. Star Trek in actuality creates discussions that are most pertinent to philosophers.

The philosopher in me enjoys the resonance that Trek creates in the endless, and endlessly fascinating, disquisitions that we call “philosophy.”

Kant loved to make rules that were universalistic yet grounded in reason. But he was very careful to limit his efforts toward that which could be apprehended by reason. He knew, far more than much more exuberant thinkers such as Hegel, that without such grounding, we tread on dangerous ground.

I cannot claim to know Kantianism well, but he is my favorite philosopher. I think that if all the world knew more of him, it would be a better place.

We in the modern world are, at best, occasional Lockeans, rare Humeans, and almost never Kantians except in our endeavors in the sciences and in limited forays into ethics. But I think that there is a strong strain of Kantianism in our laws in spite of ourselves; and we often do balance Bentham’s “good of the many” with his “good of the few.” A truly utilitarian world — under the auspices of act-utilitarianism — would be little different from mob rule.

I think of Kant as the elder statesman of philosophy. I think of Rawls as an exponent of modern humanism in legalism. And I think of our world as a prolegomena to a future in which we do what we can to make our fellow beings as comfortable as we ourselves may be.

It’s a very cold universe out there. It’s one inaccessible to us but through our perceptions, which are distorted through the iron laws of spacetime. In the end, there is nothing we can truly control except what we can do with what we can see.

562. Red Dead Ryan - December 15, 2012

I just got back from watching “The Hobitt”. Good movie. But certainly not nearly as good as the “Lord Of The Rings” trilogy. There were many parts in the movie where it dragged, with some of those scenes clearly filler material. Had the movie been half an hour shorter, it would have been better. The movie was well shot, and there were some great battle scenes. Martin Freeman was great as Bilbo Baggins. The 48fps picture was pretty sharp, though it did look like hi-def video at times. Definitely did not make me sick. The IMAX screen at the theatre I went to was recently installed, so that may be why it wasn’t problematic.

I do hope the second part is better, though.

As for the “Star Trek” nine minute trailer, it sure felt more like five minutes. It went by really fast. Lots of action, and some really cool effects. Can’t wait for May!

563. Buzz Cagney - December 15, 2012

I nipped into town yesterday to do some Christmas shopping and wouldn’t you just know it there were no spare parking spaces. So, thinking, what would Captain Kirk do? I parked in the nearest lake.
The Police Officer told me later that I hadn’t really thought it through., ‘had I’.

564. Commodore Adams - December 15, 2012

Just saw The Hobbit in AVX 3D, awesome movie great adventure. The AVX is almost as grand as IMAX, huge screen and sound system, speakers in the ceiling adding a new level of surround……but of course, they did not play the second Star Trek trailer, guess I’ll have to wait till monday.

565. intruder - December 15, 2012

my analysis: the movie is about the Prime Directive. the same rule that would let a civilization to perish because they don’t have warp capabilities. I would agree with a terrorist that this is wrong

In these nine minutes we see Kirk screwing up his career by breaking the Prime Directive to save Spock.

and the villain… or terrorist… or Khan… will reason that the Prime Directive must be destroyed (and what the Federation stands for), and probably, the miracle cure to save the girl comes from a planet/culture isolated by the Prime Directive

566. Vultan - December 15, 2012

#563

Buzz, have you ever considered becoming a hack screenwriter? Because with that sort of logic, you’ll be the king of Hollywood in no time.

Hope your car dries out soon….

567. Elias Javalis - December 15, 2012

Screenrant reports Star Trek ID has over 1400 effect shots! A bit of info more…Mr Burman – Oscar Winner (who was responsible for the Klingon make up under the helmets in Star Trek 2009) has been replaced.

568. Red Dead Ryan - December 15, 2012

#563.

I hope you didn’t leave your friend in the nearby burning building….

:-)

569. GG - December 15, 2012

Just watched it. It really didn’t reveal anything new. My nitpicks:

– Uhura kissing Spock again. That’s just wrong, and out of character for Spock (in ANY universe). Still doesn’t feel right.

– And, I didn’t like how Kirk runs onto the bridge with Bones like an overexcited little kid when they were trying to save Spock from the volcano. Captain Kirk always composes himself first, and then STRUTS his way onto the bridge, no matter how urgent or hairy the situation is. He never panics or let’s anyone see him sweat.

Yes, I know, it’s supposed to be a ‘different universe’. But, it’s still the same people living in it. They still have to be – who they are.

570. Buzz Cagney - December 15, 2012

#565 mate, you ever get one of those days when things just go from bad to worse? By the time I swum back to the car the Christmas presents were bloody ruined too. And, not being a Lotus Esprit, wouldn’t you just know it, the sodding thing wouldn’t start. Those MG’s certainly earned their reputation for unreliability. I gave the HT leads a shot of WD40 but it didn’t really help. Who’d have thought 10′ of water could cause so much damage?
I’ve just checked the owners manual to see if you shouldn’t take it under water and there is no mention of it, as I suspected there wouldn’t be.

Never again will I ask myself ‘what would Capatin Kirk do?’. You’d have thought i’d have learnt my lesson when a probe came demanding I get it 2 hump back whales. That ended up being ‘another one of those days’.
;))

571. Son Of MJ - December 15, 2012

568
He knows that spock is just doing yoga and feels left out.

plus he is not yet the kirk you know

572. Red Dead Ryan - December 15, 2012

I once was carjacked by a maniac in “Star Wars” gear and his merry band of followers, and forced to drive home. I sped up to my driveway, smashed through the garage door and crashed into the back wall.

My good friend, who was a half-brother of the nutjob, had the guy at gunpoint with a custom made rusty rifle, but refused to pull the trigger.

Understandable, he didn’t want to kill his brother. But his brother was a “Star Wars” fanatic who once peed on an Enterprise model. Unforgivable. But I digress. The half-bro forced me back into the car.

Thus, it was very long night of being forced to drive into the desert somewhere. He insisted that a magical being would be found there.

It turned out to be an image of an angry George Lucas on a electronic neon billboard.

The nutjob threw himself into the sign, wanting to feel GL’s “pain”, and being that it was a rainy night, he was electrocuted. Absolutely shocking.

I was then rescued by a cheap AMT Klingon Bird-of-Prey model which fired a few peas at the George Lucas head, which subsequently exploded in a pyschidellic array of laser-like neon light.

:-)

573. The Great Bird Is The word - December 16, 2012

A Constitution class Starship is equipped to withstand gravitational forces of a magnitude great enough to examine many types of stellar phenomena at close range. These gravitational forces exceed those experienced while submerged in water. So assuming Starships were real, seeing one submerged- or even maneuvering under water would be doable. That being said, it would be wise to not linger in such an environment- due to the corrosive nature of saltwater. Deflector, or repulsive shielding would be impossible so it is likely to experience damage to the hull plates, and the deflector array should it remain for an extended period of time. And becoming airborne again could be problematic. Since the use of impulse engines would be detrimental to any aquatic based lifeforms, only reaction control thrusters would be possible. I mean, I’m sure the prime directive applies to all life- even non intelligent species. And if you fire up the impulse engines, you’d be par-broiling everything in a 5 mile radius. So, it would be necessary to immediately jettison the ballast, and use the waters quick displacement to quickly ‘burst’ out of the water like a submarine jumping out of the water. Except in this case the reaction control thrusters surrender to the main impulse engines that can now, safely be fired. Should be a sight to see, provided the powers that be took into consideration these factors.

574. Tom - December 16, 2012

http://www.veoh.com/iphone/#_Watch/v4158452387rXMZSk

575. Buzz Cagney - December 16, 2012

#573, which they won’t have.
Good explanation though. :))

576. Eminiar7 - December 16, 2012

In the London scenes there are several massive towers on the horizon (especially visible where Cumberbatch shows up outside of the hospital).

Does anybody know what those are? By their size and the way they are arranged they look like they might have some kind of environmental purpose like weather control.

577. TrekTech - December 16, 2012

I just think Cumby’s acting style and adeptness at playing mentally brilliant but emotionally challenged characters lends itself (along with his look) much more toward Garth than Khan. I dont buy him as Khan.

578. StelArian - December 16, 2012

Just got back IMAX preview. Total impression: NOT very impressed! Just for the record, was VERY impressed from 09’s trailers.

Plus:
1. I’m quite sure everything we see on this past of promotional campaign it’s coming from the first half hour of the movie. So, expect lot of surprises!
2. London.

Minus:
1. 3D was annoying! Make it hard to focus on the movie. I’m quite sure will cover one eye to enjoy it on IMAX!
2. Action was too fast! Even faster than Ghost Protocol.
3. Was 75% sure the movie is Earth based. Now I’m 99%. I so hope I’m wrong on this.

I’m not sure if this is for plus or minus, looks like complete different style than 2009 movie. That’s it for now.

Was fun seen IMAX employees surprise living the theater 10 mins after screening start :-)

579. Jim Nightshade - December 16, 2012

Hey Roberto sir, wasnt the giant ice cube..also done already in futurama in the global warming episode haha…i also echo previous comment re Fringe….such a great series…every episode has something that makes me cry out in astonishment at how great this show is and how much im gonna miss it when its gone….the acting/casting is perfect…and writing as well…we all care so much for these people..only other shows i cared so much are all incarnations of trek on tv…anna torv n john noble especially wow…thanx for fringe n nutrek roberto…we luv ya..

580. dontcare - December 16, 2012

@545. The Prime Directive has been amended in previous Treks. After Nikolai Rohzenko (human brother of Worf) violated the PD to successfully (mostly) save a primitive culture from an extinction level event by beaming them aboard the Enterprise into the holodeck, then moving them to a new world.

The presence of a Holoship in Insurrection indicates Nikolai has been exonerated in the eyes of the Federation, despite the unethical use of the technology by a corrupt Admiral.

581. Garth Faction - December 16, 2012

Intruder

I agree with you that the Prime Directive seems to be a central part of the story. Perhaps one of the things which will call into question what Kirk is doing is that the villain had a court martial for violation of the Prime Directive for doing something which Kirk himself did? And maybe at the end, to take him down, Kirk will have to violate it again, in a way similar to how the villain was caught?

As for Garth…. well, you know there is fanfiction which has him associated with the Prime Directive? LOL.

http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5285991/1/The-Madness-of-Garth-of-Izar

Now, I can still see Garth with this part (no, the fan fiction isn’t what is going on here, but perhaps it gave some writer some ideas? ) and I still think he wants to save the Federation from some foe by becoming Lord Garth. But I can see how the use of the Prime Directive and debates on it could be a wedge issue for him to get the people of the Enterprise fighting each other.

582. Yorkie - December 16, 2012

Well, I can see we all have a long way to go.

583. NCC-73515 - December 16, 2012

578. StelArian

I’m sure redwood forest is not on Earth ;D

584. Justin Olson - December 16, 2012

@ 412. boborci – December 15, 2012

Might not be about observing them [being underwater]. Wait and see.

——————————————————————————————————-

So, is the Enterprise underwater in order to scoop up a bunch of it in their shuttlebay/cargo hold and dump it on the surface to either harden the lava in its tracks or protect Spock?

585. Garth Faction - December 16, 2012

I’m thinking something is wrong with the transporters..

586. Justin Olson - December 16, 2012

@ 585. Garth Faction – December 16, 2012

I’m thinking something is wrong with the transporters..

————————————————————————————————–

Right, Chekov mentions it (that the magnetic fields of the planet are screwing with the transporter) and that they need a direct line of sight to beam up Spock. So, I’m guessing Kirk orders some hatches open to collect water, they surface… then fly over the volcano and dump the water to clear a path to Spock.

587. Captain - December 16, 2012

I’m just spitballing here, but this is how some of the puzzle pieces fit..,.i think!?

First, Spock is gravely injured in the volcano. They return to Earth, where Pike rips Kirk a new one for being freckles.
Spock succumbs to his injuries. That’s his funeral we see.
Kirk later finds out about Harrison and gets him to revive Spock. ( perhaps the hands on glass scene?

After Spock is “healed”, Harrison books it (the chase scene on Earth)perhaps stealing another starship ( Wellers ?) and Kirk and crew must chase him all the way to the Klingon home world to recapture him.

… Or not? Lol

588. Freckles - December 16, 2012

@587: are you stoned?

589. JRT! - December 16, 2012

@341. Seems my post got deleted,for some weird reason. At least I j can’t find it anymore. I didn’t post links or anything but I hope you got to to see the 9 minutes thing,it’s been up and gone and up again all weekend,lol!
I too hope that BK will be involved again,hoping for Kelloggs again as well. Anyways,hope THIS post won’t be deleted as well.
Have fun y’all! And keep Trekkin’!
J-R!

590. crazydaystrom - December 16, 2012

587. Captain

I think Spock will escape the volcano (relatively) unscathed.

BUT

your theory might be correct. If Spock’s gravely injured it’s not a stretch at all that his brothe…uh, Sybo….ummm,.. uh… Harrrison, the ‘healer’ would get him back on his feet. What was his line about FAMILY?

What I really liked about ‘the 9′ is even seeing more of 23rd century earth, something I always wanted to see in TOS. I hope there’s a lot more as well as great space scenes. It does look like we’re in for a fun ride! And I hope the climax of the film will have the emotional impact of the Kelvin scene from ’09. It HAS become my favorite Star Trek scene/sequence of all time. And that’s saying a lot.

Thank you Bob Orci!

591. trekprincess - December 16, 2012

Yeah thanks to everyone involved in Star Trek Into Darkness I can’t praise you guys enough :):) saw the 9 minute prologue all I can say brilliant warp speed to May 2013.

592. Jeyl - December 16, 2012

479. crazydaystrom: I seriously doubt Spock ‘tossed his life away’ and whatever the case, I’m sure his decision was a logical one.”

It’s not. Just wait until you see it.

593. Tom - December 16, 2012

Lots of great action. Seems to capture the essence of Trek. Im sure there will be some wonderful character moments in as well as the non stop action. I think a short scene with Nimoy and Shatner would be perfect. Anyway looking forward to May

594. DeflectorDishGuy - December 16, 2012

Is anyone bugged by the informal nature of the dialogue? Sulu never would have addressed Spock like he did in the IMAX trailer, as if the were pals. Spock is a superior officer, gene Roddenbery always built in customs and courtesies into his dialogue.

Minor detail, I know.

595. razzo - December 16, 2012

@BobOrci:

I watched the 9 minutes preview in IMAX3D and I have to say, that was SPECTACULAR. What a beautiful usage of technology, I was completely stunned by it.

I just wanted you to know you can be proud of your work and give no damns what anyone say, because it didn’t drop a single step from the last movie, it only raised the level.

What I watched was quality from scriptwriting and directing to acting and editing, all of it done with your hearts.

Also I have no idea if it’s just you who stops by these posts here, but I’d like to thank you guys and JJ for not toning down the FLARES, since it was what made me fall in love with the first movie, at the very first second of it.

Thanks for setting phasers to INSANE!!

LLAP

596. Killamarshtrek - December 16, 2012

Hi Bob Orci

LOVED the preview by the way!

@ 494. Killamarshtrek – December 15, 2012
Hey Bob Orci

Here’s a question I’ve always wanted to ask you which I hope you can answer:-

If you were to portray a character in your star trek films who had been established in ‘cannon’ before the point at which your new timeline split off, would you do something like, change that characters ethnicity, nationality or skin colour?…… See what I’ve done there!?

Suppose I didn’t really expect you to answer but I’m hoping you just missed it, otherwise your lack of answer (kind of) speaks volumes…..

597. Disinvited - December 16, 2012

#443. John Tenuto – December 15, 2012

Well, she was an historian of sorts so what can we expect survived of accurate historical facts after the WWW III that came after Khan departed?

What I found odd is McCoy was treating him so you’d think he would with his medical scanners, et al, provide Kirk with Khan’s ancestry? But I could just as easily imagine that he told Kirk “Jim, I don’t know what to make of him. He seems to be made up of unlikely genetic components and combinations the likes of which I’ve never seen. My best guess is that he has a thousand mothers and a thousand fathers and on top of that he has numerous beneficial mutations the odds of which all occurring in one individual are astronomical.”

#493. moauvian waoul – aka: seymour hiney – December 15, 2012

But isn’t it more than obvious that the 2009 Enterprise is absolutely NOT of the same construction as any of the other (original) series’ Enterprises?

#534. The Observer – December 15, 2012

Exactly. Not to mention Khan is likely something of a construct which makes it least likely to experience deadly consequences when activating and deactivating gene sequences to initiate such changes.

598. Nathan - December 16, 2012

First time poster here. I’ve been reading articles and comments on this site for some time and have quite enjoyed the back-and-forth.

To me? A good-movie is a good-movie is a good-movie. The rest are details. ( Just my opinion!) In other words, I love all things Trek. And if I’m transported away (pun not intended) for a while and given “hope”, I feel the movie (or Trek episode) was good. And I found the 2009 movie fantastic. I also understand that we have different opinions on what makes a Trek movie “good” (does it stick to the original philosophies? do the characters stay true to form? Etc…)

I’m not a die-hard I suppose, but I enjoy re-watching episodes, movies and what not time and again. My 4-year old gets excited when I put on TNG and asks for it regularly.

So I’m a little more than a casual fan, but less then most of you(?). Having said all that, I think it’s important to remember that filmmakers have a lot of people to answer to.

They (the studios) are in business to make money (as most businesses are). It would appear that they know what they’re doing and have thought through so much (Bob Orci, teams and the like) and have made a good film again.

The studios goal it would seem (and if I may be so presumptuous), is to secure the widest audience possible and turn a profit. Almost all else seems secondary. That means walking a balance between staying true to the fans while still appealing to a larger segment of the population.

I don’t know much about the nacelle measurements, shirt colors or history of certain characters and the dates of certain events (I may be getting into trouble, here, I hope not!) but I still enjoy Star Trek and feel feel the 2009 movie was fantastic. I was entertained and moved. It wasn’t just empty entertainment and I feel this will be the same for the new one.

Anyway, I absolutely love reading the diverse posts and discussions here, I feel “at home” even though I’m not up on all the canon. Interestingly enough, (and please don’t hate me) I’m the farthest from a “utopia” and “peace-will-prevail” kind-of-guy.

I don’t share the same outlook with Gene Roddenberry and I see people differently. (For instance, in recent years I wondered how people would show up without getting paid to work. Because they’re nice? Because that’s how it is? I struggle with this. I don’t think man will ever get to that point where money/reward/compensation isn’t necessary. I have a teenager after all. But maybe I don’t have all the details on how it works in the Trek universe and I’m missing some finer details, so forgive me if I have it wrong.)

Anyway, just a new guy sharing random thoughts and saying thank you to Anthony and all you regular posters for giving me escapes and enjoyment, especially in light of recent events when the world seems so bleak at times.

I come back daily and love reading it all. :)

599. Hat Rick - December 16, 2012

@Nathan (598), you sound like a very reasonable person who likes Star Trek but doesn’t necessarily think of himself as a Trek fan. That is perfectly okay and I, for one, am happy that you find enjoyment in Star Trek.

The questions you ask — how did Roddenberry think that the world could function without monetary exchanges, for example — are things that even hardened Trek fans wonder from time to time. I think that most of us simply suspend our disbelief and enjoy the ride, and then maybe “retcon” it if we can. It’s not always possible to rationalize away these issues, but sometimes the questioning of it is the point — not the answer. It’s fun for many of us to ask, “What if….?”

Honestly, there are no right answers to what makes a good Trek fan. I believe that everyone who enjoys good entertainment at the movies or on TV would be a potential Trek of fan, but you certainly don’t need to agree with me, and you certainly don’t need to be a “Trek fan” or “Trekkie” to enjoy productions set in the Star Trek universe.

In the end, it’s just entertainment. And we like it the way it is, the vast majority of the time — terrific entertainment for people of all ages and backgrounds.

And to some of us, it’s something more — a hopeful vision of the future — not to be taken literally, but as an allusion, a statement of possibilities. You don’t have to subscribe to this part; if you enjoy Star Trek, then that’s all that matters.

I hope you and your family continue to enjoy Trek, because I think Trek is a positive, meaningful thing. You can also look at it this way: It’s kind of like apple pie — most people like it, and it’s made of things that are generally good for you. (Unless you don’t like apples, and if so, that’s fine too.)

600. Chris Doohan - December 16, 2012

481 boborci

Yes, my dad would have loved it. He would likely be reading all the comments here as well.

Congrats in advance on what is sure to be one of the best Star Trek films. Can’t wait to see the other 111 minutes of it.

601. davy - December 16, 2012

since peter weller is in the film could he be playing an older john paxton from “Enterprise”? if so maybe “John Harrison” is another vulcan / human hybrid made with some connection to Spock? which would explain the “what wouldn’t you do for family” line in the trailer, after which you also see Harrison touching Spock’s hand against the glass.

602. Ahmed - December 16, 2012

Maybe the father of the sick daughter is a starfleet officer who have access to something that John Harrison want & that why he is offering to cure the daughter in exchange for that.

Hence the threat within starfleet is coming from the father & not John.

603. AliGee in Scotland - December 16, 2012

The 9 min sequence rocked – great stuff – well done to all!
Roll on May 2013!

604. Trek Fan - December 16, 2012

We haven’t heard much about Weller’s character. Just that he is a CEO and has his own ship. He wasn’t in the trailers and he wasn’t in the 9 minute preview. We don’t know if he is a bad guy. We don’t know if he is in a branch of Starfleet. We haven’t even seen any interviews with him.

Anthony, when you were at the Bad Robot party…. was there any mention of Weller and/or his character?

605. drumvan - December 16, 2012

Went to see the 2d version of The Hobbit last night. No Star Trek trailer was attached to it :(

606. Valenti - December 16, 2012

No local IMAX. :(

Hay, no IMAX previews at all in the Netherlands. =/

607. dmduncan - December 16, 2012

561. Hat Rick – December 15, 2012

I think we are a deranged mixture of Hobbes and Locke, as if these two philosophers with very different views of human nature are battling for our souls, while we are largely unaware of the conflict in principles between them.

608. Sebastian S. - December 16, 2012

Saw the nine minutes.
Nice kick off; felt very TOS…. ;-)

The Cumberbatch/Noel Clarke moment was intriguing (if maddeningly obtuse), but I really enjoyed the ‘already-in-progress’ planetary adventure with the Enterprise crew.

With the exotic foliage, odd colored aliens and raging planetary forces it almost reminded me of an homage to TOS’ “The Apple”, but done in a bigger budget (but no less tongue-in-cheek) way. Fun, but serious. A winning combination for a ST adventure.

609. Hat Rick - December 16, 2012

@dmduncan (607), I tend to agree. There is a very, very strong element of the war of all against all in our country (and by extension, much of the world). I can hardly stop myself from approaching the precipice of anger when I read the thoughtless comments of “contributors” to many political websites. I look at leaders as human beings first and politicians second, but it seems that my views are not shared when it comes to the vitriol spewed against those for whom the majority actually voted.

The great thing about what JJ Abrams has done is that he has made Star Trek relevant to our age. He has updated the action and other cinematic tropes; he has brought forth that spirit of life, that vitality, that the previous generations no longer had (or perhaps needed). As individuals grow older, they also grow into other phases of life. It is impossible to expect the previous cast to have been as vigorous in a way that is as plausible as this current cast is. And this goes for the director as well.

The sensibilities of 2012 are different from those of the 1960’s, and even of 2009. Abrams is of this generation, this zeitgeist. He is a smarter director than most of us know, because he makes movies that have broad appeal, and yet are grounded in — not rationality, per se — the essences of things past.

If Star Trek can be described as the plays of Aristophanes combined with the ideas of Plato, then Abrams’ Trek takes their spirit and transplants them thousands of years forward to our age, picking up a little Milton, a little Shakespeare, and a little Gilbert & Sullivan along the way. In an age of MTV and “flash, bang, thank you ma’am,” perhaps what he has done should be appreciated all the more.

610. The Original Spock's Brain - December 16, 2012

@ Tom #574

Thanks!

611. The Original Spock's Brain - December 16, 2012

Sybok

612. R. Banks - December 16, 2012

The opening scene with the little girl was something I was not expecting, and it really caught me off-guard. On a personal level, it was difficult to watch, because a very simiar situation played out for real in my own life earlier this year, and there was, unfortunatley, no happy ending for us. I hope there is one for the girl in the film.

Leaving aside my personal emotional baggage, I thought the opening sequence was very well done. Without a word being said, you know exactly what’s happening in very short order. Great visual storytelling. And the reveal of our villain-very sublime, very menacing. Nicely done.

Then the action sequences-I loved them. Theoretically, can the big E submerge like a sub? Heck, I don’t know. I do know that it sounds feasable enough for me to accept, and seeing the Enterprise underwater combined with the musical score made for one big wow moment that I loved.

Overall, I thought the 9 minute prologue was nothing short of excellent. It evoked sadness, tension, excitment, and even some laughs in a very short period of time. And, best of all, it left me wondering about mysteries, and wanting more.

Well done.

613. Tomar Re - December 16, 2012

Saw the first nine minutes; it was ok. Nothing really special about it. It didn’t really evoke Star Trek to me – it looked like every other Summer Action/Adventure, blow ‘em up movie to me instead. I’m less enthused. That’s just my opinion.

614. Weerd1 - December 16, 2012

As a fanboy, I would love to see some tie-in to Paxton with Peter Weller, but as a new commercial film I would expect any references to be something that the audience need not have watched to put in context with the film. Trekkies knew Scotty was talking about Jon Archer in Trek ’09, but the reference was just some Admiral to most of the audience. I just can’t see a major plot twist or story point being wrapped around a character from the last season of the least watched version of Star Trek. OK, second least watched. Is John Harrison actually B.E.M.?

615. Elias Javalis - December 16, 2012

I wouldn’t be surprised if Peter Weller is Robert April!

616. Dee - lvs moon' surface - December 16, 2012

Hi there, Mr. Orci!

About the trailer – 9 mins … absolutely AWESOME!!!… moment of drama with the “Harrison” and family… moment of comedy with Kirk and Bones… a bit of flirtation Uhura/Spock… Spock logical brain… sexy Trek guys and girl in wet suits… action and suspense… ????… WOW … I can’t wait for movie!!!

;-) :-)

617. Elias Javalis - December 16, 2012

I ll watch the second trailer tomorrow before I go to work. It ll make my day.. yeah baby!!

618. captain_neill - December 16, 2012

Saw the 9 mins and I think it look awesome as an SF movie.

Glad the new team mention the prime directive and it seems like a cool set piece. Some nice nods.

I would agree with 613, although good it does feel a bit alien from Star Trek as we know it. Still not liking the Enterprise being in the Ocean, even though the fact that the Enterprise landing in the ocean would be seen and therefore violate the prime directive, even before we get into debating if the Enterprise can fly in an atmosphere.

Seems excessive to have some kick ass, do it for the mainstream moments.

Yet despite these gripes I do think it will be a good movie.

619. davy - December 16, 2012

weerd1 i kinda agree but if Paxton were included he would be a minor character and could be explained pretty quickly. in the film the major emphasis would be on John Harrison and Paxton would only be a detail of Harrison’s back story.
the second trailer does imply heavily that there is some sort of family connection between Spock and Harrison. but Harrison could also be an alternate universe version of Sybok.

620. Roddenberry was a Peacenik - December 16, 2012

@614

“Is John Harrison actually B.E.M.?”

I think a new faction has just been born. ;)

621. Bones - December 16, 2012

Was at The Hobbit screening Friday night. Didn’t get the 9 minutes of footage, but we did get the trailer. The audience went nuts for it! :)

622. boborci - December 16, 2012

Peter Weller hasn’t been around lately because he was gracious enough to agree to direct a big episode of Hawaii 5-0!

623. boborci - December 16, 2012

612 r. Banks

sorry to hear about your situation. Thank you for sharing it with us.

624. trekmaster - December 16, 2012

@#620
Who is BEM?

625. drumvan - December 16, 2012

@612

very, very sorry about your loss :(

626. Konar - December 16, 2012

Can’t wait to see this– sounds like it has a little of everything I love about Trek. And I used to love it in the show UFO when they’d depict a UFO coming up out of the water — also, was it Destroy All Monsters that had a huge flying saucer come up out of a lake?

Very curious because I love this sort of thing… Did the music cue for the Enterprise reveal underwater sound at all Korngold-y or voyage-to-the-bottom-of-the-sea-ish? A lot of the original music for TOS had a nautical theme to it (not to mention the STWOK score).

627. Konar - December 16, 2012

Sounds like it has a little of everything I love about Trek. And I used to love it in the show UFO when they’d depict a UFO coming up out of the water — also, was it Destroy All Monsters that had a huge flying saucer come up out of a lake?

Very curious because I love this sort of thing… Did the music cue for the Enterprise reveal underwater sound at all Korngold-y or voyage-to-the-bottom-of-the-sea-ish? A lot of the original music for TOS had a nautical theme to it (not to mention the STWOK score).

628. Curious cadet - December 16, 2012

@366 Flake
“Stupidity watch:
Hiding in ocean from pre-warp civilisation!
Dropping Spock into active volcano instead of some form of robot/rover
Uhura only there as moral support, serving apparently no other purpose
‘Super ice cube!’”

Why stop there? There’s so many more “stupid” things in this preview, and in every Star Trek episode or movie I’ve ever seen. Not sure what your goal is here.

1) The preview is unfinished. There’s absolutely no reason to believe we’re not going to get a justification as to why the Enterprise is underwater.

2) I admit I found myself wondering the exact same thing about why Spock needed to be lowered with the device, since it seemed like all he had to do was turn it on. But again, I have faith this will be justified.

3) what are you talking about Uhura serving no other purpose? What’s apparent about that? There were three people on that shuttle, in fact I found myself wondering why there were so few. Something happens to Sulu and Spock’s screwed if Uhura’s not there. Notice Uhura was getting all ready to suit up after Spock’s cord was snapped? It’s like on a commercial plane — the co-pilot seems pointless until you need him. Most likely this was an all-volunteer mission and 3 was the minimum required to pull it off assuring some backup contingency. The fact Uhura went as backup suggests she’s a lot more capable than we are even aware — I’ll bet she’s a pretty good little pilot too.

4) “Super ice cube” seems to me a character aberration from Prime Kirk. Seems more like a McCy quip. But this guy’s still young, and did in fact have a different upbringing, so in fact this may be a new personality trait. That alone doesn’t change who Kirk is, which has yet to be fully realized. And it’s kind of fun, reminds me of Richard Dean Anderson in Stargate, whom I liked a lot.

SPOILER: (only because it doesn’t seem to have been mentioned)

Now I have to admit I was totally unprepared for Kirk shooting their “transportation” as McCoy calls it, and then realizing his mistake. That’s completely unlike Kirk Prime. I mean I realize the adrenaline is pumping, but wasn’t that the plan? Run back to the “transportation” and ride off? But even this, I can write off to a slightly different Kirk, who is still young and has little of the experience Prime Kirk did by the time he took command. But I am surprised people who like to point out flaws haven’t hammered this.

Then there’s the depth of the Enterprise in the water and their apparent lack of proper diving equipment. This also gave me pause. This Enterprise is supposedly somewhere in the neighborhood of 625 feet high, and Kirk and McCoy enter near the bottom. That’s over 700 feet under water considering the ship appears to be at least an additional 50-100 feet under. And that’s the world record setting free dive depth. Nitrogen narcosis kicks in at around 100 feet with air, and then there are decompression issues. Now presumably all of these things have been addressed in the 23rd century and I trust they had some diving equipment we didn’t see. Indeed there were bubbles coming from their feet and they were moving considerably faster than a human being alone could.

I guess my point is to sit and focus on these things is pointless. Ultimately there is not much I saw that cannot be logically explained. It’s about adventure, and nothing else. Star Trek has always done “stupid” things, and always will, and half the fun is picking them apart after the fact. Doing so before seeing the entire movie just seems a bit short-sighted to me …

629. Konar - December 16, 2012

Sorry for the double post — got an error the first time.

630. gingerly - December 16, 2012

@boborci

I see what you did there, with that cute little Spock/Uhura interaction when she was adjusting his suit, I know you took that from the turbulence scene in That Which Survives.

Bravo, man.

631. Weerd1 - December 16, 2012

@624: BEM:

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

632. Curious Cadet - December 16, 2012

@630 gingerly,

Ha!

And I just figured out where Keenser came from thanks to catching an episode of Plato’s Stepchildren …

At the end of the episode Kirk is talking to Scotty telling him “we’re bringing you a little visitor” in reference to Michael Dunn’s character Alexander. Why Kirk would phrase it that way to Scotty didn’t make sense to me until now!

633. Roddenberry was a Peacenik - December 16, 2012

@ 624 trekmaster

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

My favorite Harrison theory so far. (By the way, if you saw the episode, it has a really absurdist feel to it ala Trouble with Tribbles. So I think the suggestion was tongue-surgically-implanted-in-cheek)

634. Roddenberry was a Peacenik - December 16, 2012

Oops, Weerd already answered that.

635. Bill Peters - December 16, 2012

Bob Orci, I have to say that I love that you Brought back the Prime Directive into this Film, I know you will do good job of Explaining it to new Fans and General Movie goers Scotty’s Assistant who a lot of fans don’t like comes from the Star Trek book Prime Directive, I am looking forward to seeing what else you pulled from TOS Books and maybe a line or two from the Animated TOS

636. Lee - December 16, 2012

I just read on Facebook someone saying the nine-minute preview was a “one-night only” event. Is this true? This is the first I’ve heard about this.

637. Ahmed - December 16, 2012

Bob, whatever happened to “Secret Cabinet” TV series ?

638. R. Banks - December 16, 2012

@627-Konar

“Very curious because I love this sort of thing… Did the music cue for the Enterprise reveal underwater sound at all Korngold-y or voyage-to-the-bottom-of-the-sea-ish? A lot of the original music for TOS had a nautical theme to it (not to mention the STWOK score).”

The music cue for the Enterprise under water scene was a familiar combination of cues heard in the 2009 film. Kirk and McCoy go underwater and approach the ship, and the cue is the one where the battle between the Kelvin and the Narada is over, and the main “Star Trek” title appears. Then, it’s a somewhat different but familiar sounding version of the cue played during the reveal of the Enterprise in the 2009 film.

I’m going off of memory, and I’m sure there are others who can better identify the cue, but that’s what I took away from it. It really sounded great.

639. Matias 47 - December 16, 2012

Howdy, Childrens!

This is a response to those hating the others who have a problem with the Enterprise being underwater and giving the reason as a ship that handle warp drive and the various problems of being in space would de facto be able to enter an atmosphere and go underwater.

First a small bit of background:

My brother works at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena. I’m having brunch at his house with a friend of his from work. His friend has degrees in both physics and engineering (my brother’s degrees are engineering and economics) and they have both worked on the space station, the mars rovers and other extremely cool projects. Since I’m just an effects guy, I’m going to turn the floor over to Michael.
————————————————–

Hello. Matt showed me this site this morning and, being a Star Trek fan myself, (Scotty’s the man) we entered into a discussion of the starship underwater. Now, speaking from an engineering standpoint there could be many reasons why a starship wouldn’t be able to enter an atmosphere let alone be a submarine. First off, the physics involved in space travel are totally different than the physics of flight or undersea travel. This is why we don’t yet have a flying sub. Modern theories of possible warp travel, yes, warp speed is making the transition from fantasy to possibility, , have hit upon the idea that the actual shape of the craft could be very important to the power consumption and the efficiency of the warp bubble. (I think Discovery News and Space.com have some very good articles written for the layperson on the subject) Now, it’s also theorized that the materials needed for space flight at warp could very well preclude a warp ship from being able to function in a planet’s atmosphere. However, in 2 or 300 years, it’s conceivable that future engineers could work that out, but it’s also true with every step of progress we discover more, new limitations.

The Enterprise is underwater because the creators of the film want it there and that’s fine. Due to my background, I, personally, have a problem with it, but sometimes scientists can lock themselves into one way of thinking and that creates limitations.
——————————————

Ok, back to me. Just thought you ladies and gentlemen might like what Michael had to say. Anyway — let’s be nice to each other.

640. Trek Fan - December 16, 2012

622. boborci
” Peter Weller hasn’t been around lately because he was gracious enough to agree to direct a big episode of Hawaii 5-0!”

Thanks for the update Bob! Is there anything you can tell us about Weller’s character that hasn’t already been mentioned? (CEO, has own ship, not canon)

641. Matias 47 - December 16, 2012

@ 597 —
What I found odd is McCoy was treating him so you’d think he would with his medical scanners, et al, provide Kirk with Khan’s ancestry? But I could just as easily imagine that he told Kirk “Jim, I don’t know what to make of him. He seems to be made up of unlikely genetic components and combinations the likes of which I’ve never seen. My best guess is that he has a thousand mothers and a thousand fathers and on top of that he has numerous beneficial mutations the odds of which all occurring in one individual are astronomical.”

———————————————-

Very, very cool.

642. Jim Nightshade - December 16, 2012

i hope it wasn t opening night only..planning to see it this week…

643. Skulltrail - December 16, 2012

After watching the trailer for maybe 1473 times I saw in the scene where Alice Eve is screaming someones leg with grey pants on the floor which look BC’s ones …. But when it’s BC … Who’s she screaming for ?! Maybe the kllingons and why is BC on the floor ?

644. R. Banks - December 16, 2012

@639-

Very interesting info.

Gracias Matias!

645. drumvan - December 16, 2012

just caught a glimpse of 5 minutes of the 3d trailer. pretty cool. didn’t get to see anything past spock falling into the volcano tho.

just an observation, i didn’t think the music for the hospital scene was very effective. there seemed to be too much of it going on. it was too busy and didn’t really enhance the scene. just my 2 cents.

646. Aix - December 16, 2012

Can I just say, Cumby’s voice over in the announcement video are becoming popular in the interwebs by the minute. They’re currently crazy over the Toy Story one.

647. trekmaster - December 16, 2012

Just listen to the music for the hospital scene. The tune fits to the song “Hymn” from “Ultravox”.

648. Matias 47 - December 16, 2012

@ 644:

You are more than welcome.

649. trekmaster - December 16, 2012

@#639
I’m more interested in the reason for being underwater instead of being in space orbit…there should be a logical reason. I think we are not discussing about technical possibilities.

650. Fascinoma - December 16, 2012

What if Weller is the Kurtz figure in this film, not Cumberbatch?

651. trekmaster - December 16, 2012

Kurtz figure?

652. Weerd1 - December 16, 2012

@649: here here! I know it can, I want to know why it DID!

From a story writing standpoint, compare this to the teaser. We see what appears to me to be the 1701 rising out of the ocean…likely I think Kirk blowing General Order One out of the water (see what I did there?) in order to save Spock. Something the Kirk who would tell the culture in Spock’s Brain to “learn to cuddle” after completely destroying their civilization would likely not have a problem with.

Later in the teaser, some ship (and I personally don’t think it’s Enterprise) crashes INTO a body of water. I have to wonder if our dear @boborci is following certain rules of writing. The 1701 underwater on Nibiru sets the stage for how the later starship will be affected. So long as I get a good reason that the ocean was a better place to hide from a pre-industrial civilization than orbit was, I’ll be good.

653. Commodore Adams - December 16, 2012

The link has been removed and the site shut down but I was able to catch the bootleg of the 9 minutes. Sorry Bob :(

It didn’t have the impact as if I had seen it in IMAX 3D, but at least I have now seen the content. Whomever posted that, thanks, even though it wasn’t above board. After seeing The Hobbit last night in AVX 3D with no new trailer, needles to say I was pissed, I had a feeling it was going to happen just like when I saw Quantum of Solace with no Trek trailer, pissed pissed pissed! Needless to say Im not going to see the movie again in IMAX 3D just to catch the 9 minutes. Granted ill see the new trailer tomorrow but now i’ve seen the 9 minutes as well :D

It was pretty good, the opening scene was moving, Kirk and Bones running through the brush was jokes, the white aliens look fine to me, I like em. Spock in the volcano was interesting the quip about him being alive after the fall, was jokes. The reveal of the Enterprise was not that epic, as you don’t see the whole ship, simply the nacell in one shot and the lower hull in the other, when that beauty rises out of the ocean, that is what I am eagerly waiting to see with regards to her reveal. Scotty being startled by the large fish was damned funny regardless of how simplistic it is in terms of comedy. Granted not seeing it in IMAX I didn’t get a sense of how large everyone say’s this movie feels. Aside from that it was a great balance from start to finish. Two thumbs up, 5 stars, I am satisfied and excited.

654. Anthony Pascale - December 16, 2012

the STAR TREK IMAX preview will stay with the HOBBIT while it is in IMAX theaters.

655. Commodore Adams - December 16, 2012

I still disagree that the Enterprise could not be submerged. By todays science we can only deny that a starship cannot go underwater or enter an atmosphere. There are some US military aircraft which can fly through the atmosphere just fine as well as hit high atmosphere or almost no atmosphere. I don’t think a starship would have a problem going from space to atmosphere and some ships have landing struts, shuttles do it all the time. Same with water. The ships are structurally built to withstand a vast lack of pressure, which from one view point vastly different, from another viewpoint not that different than a great deal of pressure. Besides I am sure the Enterprise is able to close all ports and opening i.e. any opening in the bussard collectors, bussard ramjet, and any ports which express ionized plasma.

656. trekmaster - December 16, 2012

@#655
The Voyager landed on a planet and bounced on an iceplanet with survivors!!! So the Delta Flyer dived into the ocean of an water planet in season 5. So THATS not our problem unless you want to talk about todays views of warp drive, force fields, phasers and other stuff that usually won’t exist.
The question is: why underwater and not in space orbit!?

657. RAMA - December 16, 2012

Enterprise underwater? Starships in ST are structurally super-strong, made of advanced materials, air tight, use both exterior shields and structural integrity fields, and on top of that, anti-gravity technology is well established in-universe. Quite frankly its almost shocking anyone is asking this question, because out of the 4-5 most exotic technologies on the Enterprise, going underwater is probably the LEAST impossible of them.

658. Trekzilla - December 16, 2012

Shuttles are aerodynamic forms. The USS Enterprise is not. The shape and size of the Enterprise would not work for traveling underwater.

It doesn’t matter…I still look forward to the movie.

659. Tom - December 16, 2012

By the end of the movie, Spock will defy what McCoy said to Kirk…. That if the roles were reversed, Spock would let Kirk die. We’ll see him embrace the notion that the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many.

This will symbolically join the remaining loose threads that are meant to permanently unite Kirk and Spock. It will pave the way to the third and final act in the new Trek trilogy.

660. RAMA - December 16, 2012

A starship doesnt need an aerodynamic form when it has thrusters, impulse engines and anti-grav.

661. R. Banks - December 16, 2012

@651-

The Kurtz figure refers to the character Colonel Kurtz portrayed by Marlon Brando in the film Apocalypse Now. The story and character was adapted from the Joseph Conrad novel Heart of Darkness.

Althought he didn’t appear until the final part of the film, he was an iconic and unforgettable enemy who you could, at times, sympathize with.

662. Weerd1 - December 16, 2012

@661

Weller’s a great man; Cumberbatch is a small man…

663. Ahmed - December 16, 2012

Will the trailer go online at midnight ?

664. Trekzilla - December 16, 2012

RAMA — Why not just say the Enterprise is magic and can do whatever can be imagined? HAHAHA!!!

In reality, physics would still apply.

Bu again, I realize this is a movie — so I’m willing to suspend disbelief.

665. R. Banks - December 16, 2012

@662-

I should have been a pair of ragged claws, scuttling across the floors of silent seas-

but I’d probably end up banging my head against the hull of an illegally parked starship…

666. captain_neill - December 16, 2012

I wonder if Abrams and the team knew that Peter Weller was Paxon on Star Trek Enterprise. Be interesting if Weller’s character was a decendant of that character. Weller was a good vilain in Enterprise.

667. RAMA - December 16, 2012

If you hypothesize a universe that has certain technologies, matter transmission-re-integration, warp drive, anti-grav, etc, then you can stay internally consistent. Going underwater is no more illogical in this fictional universe than going at close to infinite speed at warp 9.9 for example.

668. Roddenberry was a Peacenik - December 16, 2012

Interesting…I don’t know if someone mentioned this here or not, but someone over at trekbbs thought he saw something alive in the volcano with Spock. I remember a deep groan and some kind of movement, but I think that was just some kind of bubble in the lava rising up. Would be kinda cool though if there was a lava monster. Very third season TOS.

669. RAMA - December 16, 2012

664. In reality, transporters are not real, neither is warp spped.

670. BillT - December 16, 2012

Just got back from The Hobbit. I may have been tired but I slept for an hour and a half of the movie. I didn’t like the high frame rate either. It felt like I was watching a HDTV. Don’t get me wrong, it was sharp and clear, with no motion blur but it didn’t feel like a movie. It was distracting. I’ll probably go back to see it in 24 fps. The Trek preview was awesome. It felt epic in scale, even the London stuff. Was this the actual first 9 minutes of the movie or just 9 minutes from somewhere near the beginning? It said Kirk and Bones were being chased because of that scroll thing Kirk stole. Are we ever going to get an explanation as to why he stole it?

671. Jox - December 16, 2012

669. Transporters are not real? Try to tell that to Jason Statham :O

672. Craiger - December 16, 2012

If the sequel is in 2259 are the Countdown Comics set from right after Kirk took command in 2258 to 2559 when the sequel starts?

673. Sam - December 16, 2012

Structural integrity field (SIF):

“The structural integrity field (abbreviated SIF) is a technology developed by spacefaring cultures to supplement the natural structural integrity of the material their starship hulls or other constructions are composed of.
Engineers use a structural integrity force field to supplement the supports and bulkheads that give a piece of architecture its shape. This technology was made necessary by the fantastic stresses and probability of a hull breach presented by warp fields and spatial phenomena present in the galaxy.”

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Structural_integrity_field
———–
Seems a reasonable basis for believing the Enterprise could handle submersion/water pressure.

674. Weerd1 - December 16, 2012

I think most people have accepted (even grudgingly) that the ship is able to submerge, but the question is still why it needs to? I want an idea as to why hiding in the ocean is a better alternative to staying in orbit.

675. Curious Cadet - December 16, 2012

@670 BillT,

“Are we ever going to get an explanation as to why he stole it?”

The explanation was in the preview. He stole it to get all the natives out of the volcano kill zone.

IS IT JUST ME, or did ANYBODY ELSE NOTICE the very first shot of the alarm clock seems awfully big and clunky for the 23rd century. I suppose it is some kind of hip antique, and I know they did it to give the impression of present day, but I REALLY hope we have a much more interesting ALARM CLOCK solution by the 23rd century for waking up in the morning than what I’m currently using.

676. Justin Olson - December 16, 2012

@ 674. Weerd1 – December 16, 2012

I think most people have accepted (even grudgingly) that the ship is able to submerge, but the question is still why it needs to? I want an idea as to why hiding in the ocean is a better alternative to staying in orbit.

——————————————————————————————————-

Screenwriting is about setups and payoffs. There’s no payoff to them being in orbit. If I had to guess, I’d say the Enterprise is going to collect seawater and dump it into the volcano to clear a path to Spock so that Scotty can beam him up.

677. BillT - December 16, 2012

@675. I thought they said if the volcano blew everyone would die so what good would having the natives run a mile or two. If Spock was successful it would make the volcano inert, if he failed they would all die. It did get them out of the way of some of the early small eruptions and falling rocks so that’s probably what they were doing. Maybe it was Vol (lol).

About the alarm, I agree. You’d think a voice would just come from your household computer telling you it’s time to get up and the home food processor would have coffee and breakfast ready.

678. Craiger - December 16, 2012

And the Alarm would be digital.

679. Craiger - December 16, 2012

Forget my last statement, I think by the 23rd Century, BillT would be right about a computer voice that would tell you its time to get up. Unless in JJ’s universe it wouldn’t be a utopia like Roddenberry’s Trek future and some people in the future couldn’t afford a high tech computer alarm system?

680. Craiger - December 16, 2012

Also why wouldn’t they beam Kirk and McCoy to surface and have to hide the Enterprise underwater? Wouldn’t the Enterprise’s sensor’s be able to beam them down and up whenever the aliens weren’t present? Not trying to be nitpicky but I guess maybe the planets surface prevents beaming somehow? Or having the Enterprise underwater makes for a great action scene?

681. Justin Olson - December 16, 2012

@ 680. Craiger – December 16, 2012

I guess maybe the planets surface prevents beaming somehow?

——————————————————————————————————-

Yes. Chekov says in the preview that the magnetic fields of the planet are disrupting the transporter and that they need a direct line of sight to beam up Spock.

682. Phil - December 16, 2012

@674. I’ve accepted that the writers choose to do it. Not thrilled that they threw continuity out the window, though. I suppose there isn’t any reason why we can’t orbit the sun now, because no one ever said we couldn’t.

683. Roddenberry was a Peacenik - December 16, 2012

“I suppose there isn’t any reason why we can’t orbit the sun now, because no one ever said we couldn’t.”

But…we do orbit the sun.

684. Flake - December 16, 2012

It is utter stupidity that they park the enterprise off shore from the primitive civilisation they are trying not to expose themselves to. Literally in swimming distance. It’s just so incredibly dumb..

The movie looks great but they appear to be once again missing one final part of the puzzle… Making sense :)

I had hoped they had learnt from the last movie but I do not have much confidence thus far, however I will still enjoy it :)

685. Vultan - December 16, 2012

Still doesn’t explain why they didn’t just send an unmanned probe into the volcano rather than poor Spock. Guess he’s been watching Iron Man too much.

Probably best to looks at these flicks as semi-parodies of TOS (and a lot of other movies). At least they’re coming off that way.

686. Craiger - December 16, 2012

Wouldn’t the Aliens think of the Enterprise’s as a UFO and that wouldn’t violate the Prime Directive? Just like the acient people of Earth have drawn Alien’s and UFO on caves? If that is what those drawings are depicting?

687. Craiger - December 16, 2012

Vultan good point about the probe. Maybe, Spock can’t fit it on a probe?

688. Flake - December 16, 2012

They might see the enterprise and base their religion around it with repercussions over thousands of years!

689. Craiger - December 16, 2012

Flake, I forgot about, and remembered the Voyager episode like that where they were trapped in a planets orbit and that planets time accelerated too fast and their society was based on Voyager.

690. Justin Olson - December 16, 2012

@ 685. Vultan – December 16, 2012

Still doesn’t explain why they didn’t just send an unmanned probe into the volcano rather than poor Spock.

——————————————————————————————————-

Because there’s no emotional connection to an unmanned probe… and therefore it isn’t very dramatic.

691. Adolescent Nightmare - December 16, 2012

My mom made us leave in the middle of The Hobbit because my sister kept falling asleep. But we were at the 11:00pm showing and it was pretty boring. I’m just happy I saw the first 9 minutes of the best movie of 2013!

692. Curious Cadet - December 16, 2012

@ 690 Justin Olson,

Ha! Exactly! Just like it was more dramatic to have Kirk, McCoy, Sulu and Uhura risk their lives by swimming down over 700 feet underwater to enter the Enterprise rather than just beaming them in from the surface of the water.

693. Vultan - December 16, 2012

#690

Isn’t very logical either. (See what I did there?)

Nah, I understand they want to crank it up to 11 on the emotional, dramatic levels. Abrams likes to play up the soap opera stuff. Thrills. Spills. Screaming. Crying. One-liners. Logic out the airlock.

It’s an action flick. I got it.

694. Craiger - December 16, 2012

I guess it is more action then just beaming up. Same with just sending a probe to the surface.

695. Michael Hall - December 16, 2012

Well, I saw the preview last night, attached to some fantasy film footage shot by a very talented director in desperate need of an editor (epic chaotic fight scene followed by brief conversation; lather, rinse, and repeat—but that’s another review). And at the risk of giving Mr. Orci and those with whom I’ve debated the merits of 2009’s STAR TREK over the past three years heart attacks, the bottom line is that I found myself enjoying those nine minutes quite a lot.

Divided as it is into two segments, my impression was that the opening of INTO DARKNESS pays tribute to two different aspects of the original series, each equally recognizable to those who have followed it. The first, tracing its roots back to Gene Roddenberry’s then-revolutionary notion of producing an adult science fiction drama with continuing characters for television, and embodied here in a nicely off-format and understated sequence set in 23rd Century London, sought to grapple with contemporary issues in a reasonably serious way, be respectful of current scientific theory, and to give our protagonists the same believable motivations and character traits that would be expected in any other kind of drama. The latter portion, which segues to the Enterprise crew on a “typical” away mission to save the primitive inhabitants of a world about to be destroyed by volcanic eruption, reflects another notable aspect of the original series that coexisted uneasily with the first, was largely dictated by the realities of ’60 action-adventure TV, and which was largely absent from the sequel shows and movies: an unalloyed sense of adventure and swashbuckling fun; a willingness to look contrived and silly with its tinfoil bikinis, horned ape-monsters, drop-kicks, and now, apparently, starships that double as submarines.

As a fan of TOS since the Seventies I was always willing to give J.J. Abrams and his “Supreme Court” credit for returning that spirit of fun to the Trek francise in 2009. What made the film a huge disappointment for me was that there didn’t seem to be anything else to their take on TOS besides the fun. Yes, there were any number of things in the movie I didn’t particularly care for: Mickey Mouse hands, the cliched and easy portrayal of Kirk as an arrogant, shoot-from-the-hip fratboy who learns to be a team player, beer vats, Spock/Uhura, Scott Chambliss’ sterile production design, etc. But I could have lived with all of those things and still liked the movie, had they been showcased in a story where something truly meaningful was at stake. But for all those imploded Vulcans I could never take Nero seriously as a villain, and it just kills the film for me. Because his motivation to do what he does makes no real sense, taking him down becomes a mere matter of logistics, as foreordained as we know Spock’s escape from that volcano will be. Because our heroes have the screenwriters on their side, the outcome is never in doubt.

This time out, though, it appears things will be different. Because our first exposure to the story’s adversary is decidedly not an act of a casual murder, or the threatened destruction of worlds. Instead, we see him offer comfort and hope to the parent of a sick child that no one else seems to be able to give. How that character (Harrison? Mitchell? Khan? who cares?) winds up becoming the terrorist of those later scenes is the stuff of our real-life nightmares. As the terrible tragedy of two days ago reminds us, we need to be talking about things like this. It’s long past time that Trek served as more than just fodder for model kits, RPGs, and convention dress-ups, and returned to its role of actively encouraging us to think about Roddenberry’s only real subject: what it truly means to be human, and what the outlines of a better world might actually look like. It’s only the first nine minutes of a summer tentpole movie, I know. But I continue to hope.

696. Jack - December 16, 2012

693. It’s also stuff we haven’t seen before. Which is better than ‘by the book’. There’s some reason they can’t orbit, beam down or just launch a probe.

And, you know what? Who says a spaceship Ian ‘t built to handle atmospheres or isn’t built to handle water? And where does the holy canon say this. This one is.. The times we saw the E about to burn up, it was because they had NO POWER and were in a decaying orbit. And the only reason they had transporters in the first place was because landing on planets was too damned expensive for a TV show.

Canon/continuity-checking is about preventing major glitches when there’s a revolving door or writers and directors — not to constrict imagination and new ideas and, instead lead to a dusty, self-referential web of minutiae.

697. BillT - December 16, 2012

To me it seems like, rather than risk the Chief Science Officer, Spock could have sent a red shirt or a blue shirt with instructions. What are all the 500 crew members for anyway? Surely there was a geological expert on board that would know just what to do with the super ice cube that was probably designed for the very purpose Spock was going to use it for.

698. Jack - December 16, 2012

“Well, I saw the preview last night, attached to some fantasy film footage shot by a very talented director in desperate need of an editor (epic chaotic fight scene followed by brief conversation; lather, rinse, and repeat—but that’s another review”

Indeed. And only two more to go. Plus we got the second whispering-to-moth-to-call-for-giant-rescue-birds scene in the series (which apparently doesn’t happen once in Tolkien).

699. Konar - December 16, 2012

M. banks –thanks for answering my question about the music. :)

700. R. Banks - December 16, 2012

I was an M1A1 Abrams driver back in my younger days, and we used to have something called a deep water fording kit that gave us the capability of fording a river with most of the tank submerged if needed.

Although we had the capabiity of submerging most of the vehicle in water, it was a capability that you did not use unless you really had to. It was a pain in the butt to deploy the kit, and the water often wreaked havoc with all sorts of systems.

I see the submerged Enterprise the same way. Sure, it’s capable, but it’s not something you would want to do on a regular basis, something you would not do unless you absolutely had to.

701. Canon Dude. - December 16, 2012

@BOB ORCI

I hate to nit pick but can you guys please make sure that the comic prequel and the movie actually have some consistency.

Contrary to popular belief the last comic prequel was not a prequel to me because it clashed with the film way too much. Although I loved the Next Gen nostalgia of countdown my biggest issues were the inconsistencies. For example:

In the movie Spock told Kirk about Nero as if after the explosion that was the first time they met, then in the comic it seems that Spock and Nero had a relationship. Nero knew who he was because he was famous. His career and exploits were well documented and known on Romulus. The Romulans in the prime universe knew who James Kirk was because he was the first human to make contact with them since the Romulan/Earth war so I gather thats where Nero knew them both from. They were famous in the quadrant.

Thats why the comics can’t be canon and the Jellyfish was created by the Vucaln Science Academy in the movie but LaForge in the comic. Geordi was not there in the room. My point is in the film they went to great pains to leave out any references to Next Gen in 2387 and it just did not reconcile with the comic for me. Would have been cool to see Patrick Stewart and Levar Burton in non speaking roles but that wasnt going to happen.

Thats all I am saying. Make the comic a meaningful event. Just because the writers say its canon does not mean Paramount feels the same way.
Ask George Lucas about expanded universe canon. He has over turned a lot of that stuff with his clone wars animated series.

702. LtPiper - December 16, 2012

My movie theatres SUCK!!!!!!! No IMAX previews NOT EVEN THE FREAKIN TRAILER!!!!!! Boy was three hours of Hobbit rather boring.

703. BulletInTheFace - December 16, 2012

#701: Yeah, and pretty much everything Lucas has touched, Star Wars-wise, has sucked since the ’80s. Only the Expanded Universe has had any worth in the past 20 years.

704. Vultan - December 16, 2012

#696

Wrong argument for me, Jack.

I don’t really have much of an issue with the technical reasons whether or not the Enterprise can go 20,000 Leagues. It’s the logic behind it, to hide from these primitives (if they were hiding from an enemy ship, it would make more sense).

It wasn’t explained in the preview. Hopefully it will be explained in the rest of the movie. Seems pretty silly right now. Along with Spock’s mission impossible.

But hey, it’s an action flick, right?
“Get to da CHOPPA!!!”

705. The Sinfonian - December 16, 2012

@704 Spock, Mission Impossible? Well, another salute to Leonard Nimoy put into the film. Good going, Boborci!

706. Darmok - December 16, 2012

Wow, some of you folks out there flipping out over the Big E under water need to go back and rewatch their Trek. All of the series have had some sort of contradiction or so-called canon–violations unto each other. There’s hundreds and hundreds of episodes with hundreds of people involved in the creative process over the years. Considering the fact that it is FICTION, it’s still not that far out of reach to have a spaceship underwater. Seriously let it go. Go back and watch TOS and good luck combing through all of the bad science and contradictions. It’s entertainment people. You’re entitled to your opinion but no one here is a Star Trek Canon Police Officer. So you’ll bite on a sling shot around the sun to travel back in time but not a starship under water? As far as my opinion on the matter, I think it was masterfully handled in the movie with Scotty’s reaction.

707. Darmok - December 16, 2012

Also, for those folks who really really can’t make it to an IMAX, if you think you CAM look for it in the right place, then swashbuckle your BAY over there and check it out.

708. Red Dead Ryan - December 16, 2012

After Kirk submerges the Enterprise, I wonder if he told the landing parties to remember where they parked?

:-)

Also, I still can’t believe some folks here are still hung up over the idea of the Enterprise being underwater!

I thought we all agreed on this?

There are various reasons, you just have to remember the technical aspects of the ship which allow it to be underwater.

CASE CLOSED!!!

709. Vultan - December 16, 2012

#708

See my comment at #501.
The case is not quite closed.

710. Ahmed - December 16, 2012

Almost 50 minutes to go, will the trailer go online at midnight ?

711. fwise3 - December 16, 2012

Midnight PST… so 3 hours and 45 minutes to go :/ …assuming theyfollow their usual schedule.

712. Red Dead Ryan - December 16, 2012

#709.

“The case is not quite closed.”

Actually, it is. Sorry. The fact is, Kirk had his reasons to submerge the Enterprise. That should be good enough.

713. Ahmed - December 16, 2012

@ 711. fwise3 – December 16, 2012

“Midnight PST… so 3 hours and 45 minutes to go :/ …assuming theyfollow their usual schedule.”

Guess I will watch it then in the morning before I go to work!

714. Ahmed - December 16, 2012

@ 712. Red Dead Ryan – December 16, 2012

“Actually, it is. Sorry. The fact is, Kirk had his reasons to submerge the Enterprise. That should be good enough.”

And the reasons are ?

715. The Original Spock's Brain - December 16, 2012

@675 & 677: You nitpickers take all the fun out of Trek.

I own 4 Apple computers, including the original iPad, but use a inexpensive flip-phone, because I don’t need a smart phone and I CHOOSE not to get one. In the present, there are a million different styles of clocks available to choose from to buy. And I only hope that in the future people will have a choice too.

716. MC1701B - December 16, 2012

82. Oh, a $200 million movie looks better than a $12 million movie. Derr. So, by you, the Star Wars prequels are superior to the OT because they benefit from unlimited budgets and 16 years of technological advance. Moron.

708. The question is not whether the Enterprise could survive the pressure of being underwater. The question is, how did it survive the atmospheric flight down to the water, being an utterly non-aerodynamic spacecraft, and how did the aliens from whom it’s hiding not notice its arrival? How on God’s green Earth is it not simpler and safer to just stay in orbit and raise shields? Moron, part II.

717. The Original Spock's Brain - December 16, 2012

@716. MC1701B

No need for name-calling. Not cool at all.

718. Vultan - December 16, 2012

#714

The Enterprise needed a wash.
Lot of soapy water on that planet.

719. The Original Spock's Brain - December 16, 2012

Anthony, this incivility is not in the spirit of Trek.

720. Ahmed - December 16, 2012

@ 718. Vultan – December 16, 2012

“#714
The Enterprise needed a wash.
Lot of soapy water on that planet.”

LOL,

721. Red Dead Ryan - December 16, 2012

For all you “Einsteins” out there struggling to understand how the Enterprise can enter the atmosphere and then set down under water, I’ll give you a few reasons:

A superstrong hull that was able to survive a black hole in the last movie.

Gravitational systems.

Inertia dampers.

Shields and deflector dish.

And oh yeah, structural integrity fields. Y’know, to hold the ship together during intense flights.

Or did you all forget about what’s in those technical manuals?

#714.

Watch the movie in May. The reasons will be given then.

722. Ahmed - December 16, 2012

@ 721. Red Dead Ryan – December 16, 2012

“#714.
Watch the movie in May. The reasons will be given then.”

Will do for sure. I wasn’t that impressed with some of the stuff in the preview, but I will be the first one in line on May 17, 2013 to see it.

723. Vultan - December 16, 2012

#720

“This is the captain. Prepare for musical number.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v8I5egzoMo

724. The Original Spock's Brain - December 16, 2012

@ 721 Red Dead Ryan

Thanks!

725. Red Dead Ryan - December 16, 2012

#724.

You’re welcome!

726. boborci - December 16, 2012

684. flake

guess we haven’t learnt much.

727. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - December 16, 2012

597. Disinvited. Yes. I agree with you. The new Enterprise is definitely different than the original. And yes, I would guess that is why it can enter a planet’s atmosphere now. What I was saying was that I don’t believe the fact that Voyager could land, or the Defiant, or any other vessel, was justification since it was plainly expressed on TOS several times that the ship could not withstand reentry.

728. Red Dead Ryan - December 16, 2012

#726.

Hi Bob! Saw the preview last night! Exciting stuff! Can’t wait for the full “meal” in May!

#727.

Well, I will remind you that TOS contradicted itself so many times that, for me at least, I tend to ignore that piece of canon.

729. Vader_the_White - December 16, 2012

OK, I have an answer about the Prime Directive being violated or not in relation to the preview: it isn’t. Here’s a quote from Memory Alpha’s page on the Prime Directive, “Helping a society escape a natural disaster that is unknown to the society and where the assistance can take place without the society’s knowledge.” The episode they cite is an episode of TOS, “The Paradise Syndrome”. From what I saw in the preview, the crew of the Enterprise did not violate the Prime Directive.
Just wanted to clear that up with some research.

730. BillT - December 16, 2012

@715. I’m hoping we all have choices a few hundred years from now too but I’d be surprised if one was a plain old alarm clock with a snooze button. A few hundred years ago people were getting around in wagons but I don’t see that as a choice these days. I imagine the choices in a few hundred years would be an alarm bed, a computer in an automated house, an alarm on your personal communication device, a robot or talking or telepathic dog.

Don’t get me wrong. I am a fan of Star Trek and have been from the beginning. I lived in a dorm at UT Austin where my floor’s TV room was painted like space with the Enterprise on the wall. I’ve seen the 2009 movie more than 10 times and will see the next one at least that many times. I have no complaints about the upcoming movie and have complete confindence that everyone involved will make an awesome Star Trek movie. I wasn’t trying to nitpick.

731. Red Dead Ryan - December 16, 2012

I can’t believe people are getting their underwear in a twist over the alarm clock, either.

Look, the characters decided to keep an antique clock instead of something more modern? So what? How does that affect your enjoyment of the movie?

Plus, I figure it was included as a means of “grounding” the movie in some amount of realism to make it relatable to the mainstream audience.

732. The Sinfonian - December 16, 2012

@726: Today, my wife and I made our 150 mile Trek to the only 3D IMAX in Maine to see the preview. It was great. Your 9 minutes packed so much in, and we can only imagine what you could do with 146 minutes (hint: Peter Jackson) of film. The intro with Noel Clarke’s family leading to Benedict’s Smaug-like grin at the end is rather inexplicable, but we wonder: is what we just saw *literally* the first nine minutes? Or is there more context? If I hadn’t read some of the comments already, or were a non fan just there for a Hobbit Part T minus 3, I’d have no idea I was seeing a preview per se for a new Trek film.

We wish the London, Stardate 2259.55 font was brighter, larger, and persistent more. It was hard to read it, same with the Nibiru print overlay. Maybe you can fix those graphic inserts before May to be larger and more visible. Enjoyed the large structures in the distance comparable to the same structures seen in Riverside, Iowa. Space elevators, we guess?

Nibiru was colorful. Loved the magnetic fields comment that Chekov made about not being able to beam. Made us think of “Enemy Within” in that if you beamed Spock out, you might get Two Spocks.

@1701: “I like this ship.” It’s different, very very different. It’s the result of a committee of building a supership to match the Narada.

I imagine the Constitution class proceeded as planned (maybe a Connie is what we see crashing into the bay during the trailer????), but Naval Construction Contract 1701 was pulled out of that project and assigned to Christopher Pike’s anti-Narada project.

It makes sense that this alt-Enterprise is not only larger, but filled with all sorts of bells and whistles (and 21st century scanners and duct tape if you look closely!), such as planetary landing, water submersion, transwarp beaming conduits, and other things unexpected. It was designed to have every possible advantage.

733. Commodore Adams - December 16, 2012

@ 730. BillT – I agree, just look at the tech in Tony Starks house, even just his bedroom, you would expect something…a little more high tech…..

……But some people in the future might like some things retro or vintage. I have not bought a CD in years for me its iTunes or vinyl records, I love vinyl.

734. Curious Cadet - December 16, 2012

@730 BillT,

“I wasn’t trying to nitpick.”

Nit-picking is half the fun of Star Trek. Heck if Abrams made a film where everything was perfect, logical and made sense, then it wouldn’t be Star Trek. I’ve never known a single episode or film of Star Trek that wasn’t chock-full of problems, nor equally as much fun to dissect.

@731 Red,

Since I brought it up, let me assure you it was nothing more than an observation. And frankly I haven’t seen anything in response as dramatic as you imply. I see a good natured discussion of an issue raised by the trailer. Abrams made an interesting choice and it’s being discussed, calmly, and intelligently. This is what Star Trek is about. I don’t see anybody saying the film makers are idiots and they aren’t going to enjoy, much less watch the movie as a result. So lets try to keep this all in perspective and save the chiding for the true complainers. This is all part of the fun.

735. Red Dead Ryan - December 16, 2012

The same people complaining about the clock are the same ones who conveniently ignore the fact that Dr. McCoy gave Admiral Kirk a pair of antique eye glasses in “The Wrath Of Khan”. Yet I don’t hear anybody saying “oh, but nobody wears glasses in the twenty-third century! They have cures for eye problems! People would have ocular implants!”

Kind of like how a lot of you bitch about Red Matter, and how its supposedly a ridiculous concept, but are perfectly able to accept the Genesis device.

736. Curious Cadet - December 16, 2012

@735 Red,

“Kind of like how a lot of you bitch about Red Matter”

Seriously? Relax, nobody is complaining about the alarm clock … Much less “bitching” about it. This is all in good fun. And nobody has put it in the same category as the Red Matter debates, or the Genesis device. Take a deep breath and few steps back man …

737. dmduncan - December 16, 2012

The real 23rd century, when it arrives, will probably be like nothing you imagine. For all you know, a 23rd century alarm clock might once again be a rooster crowing when the sun comes up.

738. Curious cadet - December 16, 2012

@ 737 dmduncan,

Exactly. It’s like that old Hollywood joke, where the sound effects guy plays a sample alien voice for a producer who exclaims, “that’s not what Martians sound like!” … and we’re all the producer!

739. Jonathon - December 16, 2012

Perhaps, Khan is on the Klingon homeworld:

“After the crew of the Enterprise find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization, Captain Kirk leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one man weapon of mass destruction.”
~from IMDb

740. dmduncan - December 16, 2012

I think Star Trek is a world that a lot of fans really want to live in, so when things don’t make sense to them even temporarily, it destroys the illusion that this is a future they will eventually have.

741. Douglas - December 16, 2012

I saw the 9 minute preview today and it was good to see the Enterprise crew studying a new civilization. The preview was in 3-D and it was the first time I’ve seen Trek in 3-D. The 3-D adds an interesting feel to the film. I usually don’t care much for 3-D but it’s constructed very well here.

The special effects are the most spectacular that has ever been in a Trek film. This film will appeal to a wide variety of film goers. I’m not worried or angry as I was after seeing the announcement video. This is going to work. The audience applauded at the end of the preview.

I found one thing strange in the plot of the preview. Captain Kirk shoots his ride to safety mistaking it for an attacking animal. Kirk was many things but not a character that would be unaware of something important like that in a mission. Just a small point; I know this is young Kirk and he might be a bit trigger happy at this stage. It’s an alternate time-line and he’s different; I just don’t want to see Kirk become incompetent.

742. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - December 16, 2012

728. Sure Ryan. That’s one way to look at it. ;)

743. Curious Cadet - December 16, 2012

@740 dmduncan,

“I think Star Trek is a world that a lot of fans really want to live in, so when things don’t make sense to them even temporarily, it destroys the illusion that this is a future they will eventually have.”

Is this in response to the alarm clock discussion? That’s a very dramatic statement if so. Is it not possible to discuss choices by a director in a film without assuming it shatters some fan’s fragile realities?

744. JimJ - December 16, 2012

OK, it came to me in a dream: he’s Trelane!!!!

745. Buzz Cagney - December 16, 2012

#690 my Dr gave me a probe once and i got so emotional it brought a tear to my eye!

746. Jack - December 16, 2012

‘I found one thing strange in the plot of the preview. Captain Kirk shoots his ride to safety mistaking it for an attacking animal. Kirk was many things but not a character that would be unaware of something important like that in a mission’

Well, aparently he didn’t know it was their ride. I’d guess none of this was planned months before. Have some imagination.

Gosh, TOS Kirk improvised all the time. And the guy made mistakes, Everyone’s complaints (‘they should have just launched the probe from the ship, Kirk should have known the animal was his ride) along these lines seem to presume that these characters and their technologies are magic somehow. I found the crew’s bumbling in the 20th century on their pwn homeworld in Trek IV far more out of character.

And bottom line: everybody seems to be viewing this through the lens of “JJ doesn’t understand Star Trek.”

Comments like Phil’s (I hope not the bad astronomy guy) at 111 about the writers ignoring the laws of physics (the Enterprise apparently uses thrusters, which wouldn’t work under water) make plenty of assumptions.

747. Buzz Cagney - December 16, 2012

#686 not ;parody, Vults, homage. Kind of like the new 5-0 is a homage to the original while at the same time being not nearly as good.

748. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - December 16, 2012

I don’t know, but the dialogue seemed kind’a forced. I couldn’t connect. Most people here didn’t seem to have that problem, and I drove 100 miles each way to find an IMAX. Oh well, I’ll just have to wait and see, like everyone else here.

749. Red Dead Ryan - December 16, 2012

#747.

Young minds, fresh ideas, Mr. Cagney. Be tolerant. ;-)

750. MJ - December 16, 2012

Got to see the nine minute IMAX preview last night. Frankly, it was a bit of a letdown in that BC was barely a part of it. I guess given all the hype, I was expecting something more gritty and disturbing that what I saw.

Stll though, the movie looks bigger and better than the last one, so I think my feelings towards the 9-minute preview will have no relation to me seeing the entire film in May.

751. MJ - December 16, 2012

“than what I saw”

752. Red Dead Ryan - December 16, 2012

#750.

What did you think of “The Hobbit”?

753. Anthony Thompson - December 16, 2012

443. John Tenuto

Khan’s last name is ‘Singh’. That’s an exclusively Sikh name – it means ‘lion’. The vast majority of Siks live in Punjab state in northwest India (the rest are scattered all over the world).

754. MJ - December 16, 2012

Loved The Hobbit. not so sure about 48 FPS second though. The Hobbit exceeded my expectations — PJ”s done a great job of a making a kid’s story more adult, and the scenes with Bilbo and Gollum were just like I imagined them from the novel.

The 48 FPS works great on special effects and vistas, but is distracting to me on people scenes. I never saw 3D look so bright though. Still, I am not sure I would want to see 48FPS again. I will see The Hobbit again next week in either digital 3d or 2d.

What did you think of it?

755. Red Dead Ryan - December 16, 2012

#754.

I thought “The Hobbit” was good, not great. A bit disappointing. I thought it was half an hour or so too long. There were a number of scenes that either went on too long, or weren’t really at all necessary.

That said, it was well shot, and well acted. Martin Freeman was outstanding. It was great to see Gollum again.

The theatre I was at had a really good 48fps 3-D showing. The picture was sharp, although a couple of times it looked a bit like video (some of the daytime overhead vista shots).

I do hope the second chapter is better.

756. John W. - December 16, 2012

For all the talk about Shatner’s acting, who here thinks Pine is better?

And I don’t mean this rhetorically — I’d like to know how you think, member-for-member, the new cast stacks up against the old.

I can tell you straight away that I prefer De Kelley and Nimoy, even though I think Urban and Quinto are stronger actors than Pine.

757. Red Dead Ryan - December 16, 2012

Also, Howard Shore’s score is amazing.

758. Curious Cadet - December 16, 2012

@746 Jack,

“And bottom line: everybody seems to be viewing this through the lens of “JJ doesn’t understand Star Trek.””

I disagree. While that sentiment is certainly true for some, its hardly “everybody”. I think the vast majority of those with complaints are forgetting that this universe is brand new, and that many things have evolved differently from the Prime universe. It’s force of habit for some it seems to criticize things in this universe that don’t reconcile with canon, forgetting there are perfectly logical reasons for most of these changes when taking into consideration Nero’s incursion.

That said, Kirk shooting his ride took me out of the moment for a minute, simply because I’m not used to Kirk doing something like that in the series. However, I immediately wrote this off to his youth and inexperience. He’s not the Kirk I remember from the 60s yet, and might never be. But in this timeline, he absolutely could behave that way. Doesn’t mean I can’t observe that fundamental change and discuss it, or even like it.

Keep in mind, for many, a healthy discussion of incongruous concepts in the new film will often help people to reconcile with the new universe and open up to new ideas and possibilities.

For others there’s no hope. But it’s important to know which is which.

759. Cra cra Trekkie :) - December 16, 2012

Has the new trailer been posted? I can’t see it anywhere…

760. Buzz Cagney - December 16, 2012

#749 young minds, no fresh ideas, surely? ;)

761. Red Dead Ryan - December 16, 2012

#756.

Well, Shatner still beats Pine when it comes to playing Kirk in his prime. And I do think Pine is great. But Pine beats the Shat if you look at his performances in the last four movies he did, especially “The Final Frontier”, and “Generations”.

I agree that Nimoy and Kelley are still tops at playing their characters, but Karl Urban may end up being remembered as being just as good as the original actor. John Cho should easily put George Takei to shame, if he’s allowed more screen time. Zoe Saldana may equal Nichelle Nichols, but that is a hard case to make since Nichols generally wasn’t allowed to have an expanded role due to sexism and racism. Anton Yelchin should at least equal Walter Koenig’s performance.

762. BillT - December 16, 2012

@735. I didn’t completely ignore that Bones gave Kirk antique glasses in in the Wrath of Kahn. He did that only because Kirk was allergic to Retinax 5. Maybe the guy just liked old clocks. I don’t really care. Maybe it was just to show that in the future we have a device that makes synthsized food and clothing, transporters that can disassemble our molecules and reassemble them hundreds of miles away, flying cars and flying motorcyles, star ships, etc. but we still need to set a clock with a timer on it to remind us to wake up on time.

763. Red Dead Ryan - December 16, 2012

#760.

Ah, don’t be a buzz-kill, Buzz! ;-)

I take it you aren’t so keen on seeing the movie, then? I thought you were a fan of the first one?

764. TrekFan75 - December 16, 2012

What time is the trailer coming online? I can’t wait to see it

765. chrisfawkes.com - December 16, 2012

I cannot believe not one person has posted the nine minute preview to youtube.

300 million people in America and not one person could do this.

I’m disappointed.

766. MJ - December 16, 2012

Pine blows Shatner out of the water — it’s not even close.

767. John W. - December 16, 2012

#761: I think I agree with that, with the exception of Pine. I’m not sure Shatner gave better performances or is even a better actor, but I think he plays a better Kirk. Actually, what I mean is that I don’t think the two play Kirk in the same way, and that I like Shatner’s Kirk better.

I agree about Urban. He’s excellent. I think the Nimoy/Quinto comparison is not even very fair, for a number of reasons. I also strongly agree about Takei/Cho.

What about Pegg/Doohan?

768. John W. - December 16, 2012

Fawkes, it was there and taken down. It’s definitely up on DailyMotion.

769. MJ - December 16, 2012

Nimoy > Qunito
Doohan >>> Pegg
Urban = Kelley
Zaldana > Nichols
Red Dead >>> Buzz Cagney
Cho >>> Takei
Yeltsin = Koenig

770. Pointed Sideburns - December 16, 2012

I would imagine Trailer should go online at 12am Pacific Coast Time like the teaser did.

771. Pointed Sideburns - December 16, 2012

Pff

I meant ‘the’ Trailer.

772. Pointed Sideburns - December 16, 2012

Scratch post 770.

Damon Lindelof has said on twitter that the 2 min Trailer will go live online at 8:30am Pacific Time, and he will post the link then.

That will be at 10:30 my time in the Central Time Zone

773. Anthony Pascale - December 16, 2012

Regarding the timing for the trailer coming online. I was told by Paramount it was 9am but damon’s tweet says 830am (pacific).

I am trying to get clarification.

Regardless whenever it is live it will be streaming here at TrekMovie.com. Then there will be follow up with full breakdown shot by shot a bit later.

774. fwise3 - December 17, 2012

I wish I could have found this out BEFORE I stayed up until 3 am to see the trailer… lol at least it will be there when I wake up!

775. JRT! - December 17, 2012

So trailer not out like last time then? Bummer! Was hoping it’d be online by now,now it won’t even be online before I leave work! Guess I have to go youtube again,lol!

Have fun y’all!

J-R!

776. Hat Rick - December 17, 2012

So, if we’re talking about actors’ acting abilities now, I would have to defend William Shatner. I’m not saying that he’s better than Pine — only that he’s at least as good.

Shatner is a Shakespearean actor. He was Christopher Plummer’s (General Chang from ST VI: TUC) understudy when the both of them were in Montreal doing theater. (It was a reunion of sorts when they did TUC!) HIs acting was, admittedly theatrical, but he could also be naturalistic.

I’m remembering right now how Shatner played it when his character learned that David, his son, had been killed in ST III: TSFS. It was believeable. It was realistic. It was a very good portrayal of a man of action who had just learned the worst news of his life.

I thought that Shatner’s low point in the depiction of Kirk was his mugging for the camera in ST IV: TVH when his character saw Spock communing with the whales. That scene took me out of the movie, momentarily. That’s not something Kirk would have done. But it was a minor issue.

You cannot really compare Pine to Shatner. Pine has only started his career; Shatner’s has basically ended. Shatner has half a century on PIne as far as his work in the biz.

I do agree that if one compares Shatner’s portrayal in his Twilight Zone episode, “Nightmare at 20,000 Feet,” with Pine’s portrayal of Kirk, the latter’s is much more believeable by today’s standards. However, the two eras are not the same.

I am not prepared to give Pine the nod over Shatner overall.

777. Oliver - December 17, 2012

Can anybody tell me what Time is it right now on Pacif Time?
Were i live we have 9:37 ;)

778. Hat Rick - December 17, 2012

It’s 12:39 a.m. Pacific Time, December 17, 2012.

779. Anthony Pascale - December 17, 2012

REMINDER: Links to pirated material are not allowed

780. Hat Rick - December 17, 2012

^^ Pacific Time is always determinable as follows: Take Greenwich Mean Time (London, England, U.K.) and subtract 8 hours. For example, if it’s 10 a.m. in London, then it’s 2 a.m. the same day in California.

781. Douglas - December 17, 2012

758 Curious Cadet said:

Keep in mind, for many, a healthy discussion of incongruous concepts in the new film will often help people to reconcile with the new universe and open up to new ideas and possibilities.

Thank you for understanding my post

782. NCC-73515 - December 17, 2012

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html

Should be 1730, Oliver.

783. Vultan - December 17, 2012

#776

Good point, Hat Rick. Let’s not compare “Nightmare at 20,000 Feet” and “Star Trek: 20,000 Leagues.”

;-)

784. Iva - December 17, 2012

777. Oliver

It will be around 18:00 at your place.

785. Oliver - December 17, 2012

Thanks guys!

786. Hat Rick - December 17, 2012

My apologies: On the matter of Greenwich Mean Time, what I stated in regard to Pacific Time is accurate only on Standard Time. In areas of the United States that observe Daylight Saving Time (DST), one must subtract 7 hours, not 8 hours, from GMT to obtain Pacific Time during the days when DST is in effect.

Because it’s past November 4, 2012, most of the United States reverted back to Standard Time, and so my original statement happens to be true as pertains to today.

(Those states that did not revert to had always been on Standard Time.)

Right now it is 1:02 a.m. PST, December 17, 2012

See: http://www.timetemperature.com/tzus/gmt_.shtml

787. Hat Rick - December 17, 2012

^^ “revert had always been…”

As corrected.

788. Jim Nightshade - December 17, 2012

Thanx to Anthony for answering my question re 9 min preview playing with hobbit after opening…glad it willl be there still…

789. MJ - December 17, 2012

@776 “Shatner is a Shakespearean actor.”

That may be on his resume, but in his last 20 years he is more like Buffonian actor. Even on Boston Legal, he just played a caricature of himself.

He’s a B-level ham actor who just happened to find the once in a lifetime perfect role that not only covered up his acting weaknesses, but allowed him to use his personal characteristics to play “himself on steroids” essentially. So for that one role, he came across as singularly outstanding.

He’s like Costner that way. With Costner, given him a “silent thoughtful guy role” and he excels and is a joy to watch. Make him really have to act though and he stinks.

790. Aix - December 17, 2012

Did they really ask people to accomplish a survey form after the 9-minute preview? Or is that a cinema thing?

791. JRT! - December 17, 2012

It’s a nine hour difference between here and L.A.,eight hours between London and L.A. At least it was when that first trailer hit. And since my friends in L.A. can confirm it,that’s what I’m going with. So that’ll be 5.30pm for me and 4.30pm for the UK for trailer time,lol! I’ve still left work by then so I still have to youtube it on my phone when I get home. Don’t have internet at home. Yeah,yeah,one of the few people left in the world who don’t……and I don’t care…..most of the time. Today I wish I did of course,lol!

Have fun and keep Trekkin’!

J-R!

792. Pointed Sideburns - December 17, 2012

@789 MJ

Did you ever see him turn in a outstanding performance in “The Andersonville Trial’? If not check it out. He got great reviews.

Also check out his performance as a racist in the movie ‘The Intuder’ from 1962. It is one of his most outstanding performances ever.

Here is a sample of it. Take a good listen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXdgElbKe_w

793. Disinvited - December 17, 2012

#789. MJ

He held his own in JUDGEMENT AT NUREMBERG with a roomful of the greats. Do you really think Pine could pull that off at this stage of his career? Not saying he doesn’t have the makings – just he’s not quite there yet.

I would be interested in comparing Pine’s efforts in a similar filled work but the only thing that comes to mind is his PRINCESSS DIARIES II?

794. SherlockFangirl - December 17, 2012

http://trekweb.com/articles/2012/12/17/Michael-Giacchino-Discusses-His-Approach-to-Scoring-Star-Trek-Into-Darkness-Wants-to-Incorporate-Alexander-Courage-Theme-from-TOS-.shtml

795. EarlGrey Hot - December 17, 2012

Hey, its 6:30am EST Monday the 17th, where’s the $#@%$# trailer???

The teaser was up the Friday morning it was released. WTF?

796. Iva - December 17, 2012

Relax mate.

797. John - December 17, 2012

Easy killer. Iva’s right. Chill my matey!

798. wiesniak - December 17, 2012

Dawać ten trailer chamy, czekamy tu już z wypalarkami do jasnej cholery

799. Pegasus - December 17, 2012

774, 795. Yeah, I’m feeling you. I stayed up all night for the trailer and it still hasn’t come. It’s nice of them to give us a date and then totally change up their MO from last time. Hahaha who are these people?? It feels like those Conan teases all over again. They really like to make fools of fans, these producers… I mean I was tricked by the Hobbit release, shown pretty much nothing new with my viewing and now I’m sitting here waiting for an indeterminate amount of time for an indeterminate thing. This is getting stupid.

800. Ahmed - December 17, 2012

It is kinda dumb to release the trailer around 8:30am PST on a Monday, a time when most people will be at work. Why not release it earlier like they did with the teaser ?

801. Furby - December 17, 2012

Guess I’ll have to wait until after work to see it. Was hoping to catch before I left. Oh well.

802. Jonboc - December 17, 2012

#789 “That may be on his resume, but in his last 20 years he is more like Buffonian actor.”

You’re wrong, of course, but it’s not the first time. And that’s ok. :)

Wonder when the new trailer is going to show up on iTunes today?

803. Joe Coatar - December 17, 2012

For those of you with 3D anaglyph glasses, 3DTV, or Nvidia 3D Vision PC there is a 3D version of the announcement trailer on youtube from a Russian source, english audio, excellent quality

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoTlq71STVU

804. Disinvited - December 17, 2012

#792. & #730.

Correction, I just reviewed Admiral Kirk’s pad and I think that which I took for a clock is actually a barometer.

805. Oliver - December 17, 2012

#803

Thanks! Looked great on my 3D TV :)

806. Garth Faction - December 17, 2012

If you want to be surprised with Shatner, watch “The Brothers Karamazov.”

807. Darmok - December 17, 2012

#111 I was on an 85 foot long yacht over the summer that 16 thrusters on it for maneuvering. They yacht was about 20 feet at it’s widest and the captain crammed her between two other boats with only two feet to play with. The thrusters looked exactly like they did on a BSG Viper. If a 21st century boat can have thrusters working in water, then why couldn’t a star ship? This debate is getting ridiculous. It’s also SCIENCE FICTION…FICTION…as in fake. We’re debating over a fake ship from 200 years in the future.

808. Flake - December 17, 2012

726. Boborci

I will give you the benefit of the doubt for now because I am only aware of a fraction of the movie. Maybe there is a technobabble line in there somewhere that explains the bizarre hiding place in which case all is forgiven :)

Like I said, enterprise being underwater is fine with me it’s just the reasons for being there that aren’t sitting well with my ‘trek geek radar’ ATM. I’ll get over it eventually I guess!

It doesn’t help that we are only nitpicking this scene in isolation when there will be so much more to nitpick after we see all of it !

809. Frederick - December 17, 2012

A single volcano that will destroy a world when it erupts? Sounds like the same “science” of a supernova that will destroy a galaxy.

810. Flake - December 17, 2012

Yellowstone volcano would devastate life on this planet if it erupts.

I think Spock is referring to the planets biosphere, not the actual planet.

811. Iva - December 17, 2012

809. Frederick

The only way the whole island would blow up is if the walls protecting the core of the volcano below the water level were somehow damaged and the ocean water poured in.

But nothing else would happen, a simple eruption would not blow up anything, let alone a whole world.

812. Iva - December 17, 2012

Remember the massive black hole that was created by all of the pink matter in Abrams 09 – what happened to it in the end ?

813. Flake - December 17, 2012

812. It’s still there but is not a threat to any nearby star systems including sol. An exclusion zone was created by star fleet and starships give it a wide berth :)

Use your imagination :p

814. Garth Faction - December 17, 2012

808 Flake

From what I can tell, transporters are not working. So Kirk came up with an idea…

815. stealing the enterprise - December 17, 2012

McCoy: “Shut up Spock we’re rescuing you!!!”

Spock: “Why thank you… CAPTAIN MCCOY!”

816. Weerd1 - December 17, 2012

For my own edification, a quick question only slightly related:

I have long been under the impression that “Khan” is a title, like “Prince” or “Regent” and it was not his name. I always thought they were referring to “Prince” Noonian Singh. Someone with a better understanding of the region and culture, please tell me, Is that correct?

817. Flake - December 17, 2012

814: well he came up with a darn stupid idea if you ask me! Parking the enterprise off shore from the very people they are trying to hide from and next to an active volcano etc. Just stay safe in orbit and send a shuttle down damnit! Amateurs! They could even keep the cliff jumping scene if they put the shuttle underwater…. The enterprise could the come down into the atmosphere to save transport Spock instead of rising from the ocean. It would *still* look cool!

818. Danpaine - December 17, 2012

789. MJ – December 17, 2012

The words “…in my opinion” would have added a touch of class after you verbally dragged Mr. Shatner – and Mr. Costner – through the mud, both of whom are actors I happen to enjoy very much.

You’re entitled to your opinion, of course. But please keep in mind it’s just YOURS.

819. Nathan - December 17, 2012

@Hat Rick (599)

Thank you for the welcome! Very well put as well, gave me a new perspective. And thanks for the comments, I appreciated it.

And if it’s okay with everyone else, I’ll call myself a “Trekkie”. :)

820. The Professor - December 17, 2012

Where is the new trailer???

821. BeyondtheTech - December 17, 2012

After watching tragic events of this weekend in CT repeated over and over again across all media outlets, I had to unwind before heading back to work, so I watched The Hobbit in IMAX 3D HFR in a surprisingly packed theater late Sunday night.

At first, I was like, “Oooh, this is weird. Looks like a live performance.”

But, 2 hours later: “Wow, this is awesome! Looks like a live performance!”

However, getting back to the “IMAX Exclusive Preview” of Star Trek, I have to say, it was very enjoyable to watch, and yes, Zoe’s wet suit was icing on the cake, but I agree with AP on the whole transporter debacle.

And, if they’re so concerned about being seen rising out of the ocean, how about cruise underwater halfway across it before rising up? Surely, they would have found enough deep water to settle in that should only get deeper as they move away from the coastline.

I would have also liked to see what happens if they attempted warp drive underwater. I was jawdropped when Commander Adama did an FTL jump when freefalling in the atmosphere in the Battlestar Galactica episode Exodus.

822. Jenna - December 17, 2012

@820 Still 45 minutes away, apparently.

823. Captain Hackett - December 17, 2012

5 more months to go!!! :)

824. Anthony Thompson - December 17, 2012

731. RDR

How was Star Wars “grounded in realism” to “make it more relatable to a mainstream audience”? Or did SW find it unnecessary to do that?

825. Garth Faction - December 17, 2012

Singh can be Sikh, but there are non-Sikhs with the name.

Oh, and for the fun of it… Khan is now seeking world domination:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/boxing/article-2249331/Amir-Khan-suffers-fractured-hands-Carlos-Molina-win.html :P

826. Roddenberry was a Peacenik - December 17, 2012

Anthony, any word on when the trailer’s going up?

827. Anthony Pascale - December 17, 2012

Looks like trailer will be here at 830am. So 27min

828. Iva - December 17, 2012

I thought it was supposed to be at 9…. not complaining :)

829. filmboy - December 17, 2012

@BobOrci,

I am going to leave the Enterprise under water thing alone, unlike many people on here. I don’t have a problem with it btw, as long as it is explained somewhat in the film.

Rather, I wanted to ask you a more long term question if I may. Do you, Alex, JJ, and Damon have an outline for a third Trek film written? Or do you have some vague idea where you will go for a third film? Then as a follow up, will the ending and events of this film lead itself to that third film?

I know all the prinicipals are signed for three film deals and I would imagine JJ loving Star Wars like he does would like to create a Star Trek Trilogy, if you will. Assuming Into Darkness does well in overseas markets, I would imagine a third film would become a reality.

So I am just kind of curious if you have had discussions of this nature and if there is already a plan for the third film’s story should you be given the opportunity to move forward on that.

Thanks!

830. Sebi - December 17, 2012

Only five minutes to go….

831. NCC-73515 - December 17, 2012

omgomgomg are we there yet? XD

832. NCC-73515 - December 17, 2012

its there!

833. NCC-73515 - December 17, 2012

http://trailers.apple.com/movies/paramount/startrekintodarkness/startrekintodarkness-usajj-tlr1_h1080p.mov

834. Iva - December 17, 2012

Hey, Anthony, we need a separate post for this.

835. NCC-73515 - December 17, 2012

SPOILERS

chekov runs through enginbeering
there are humanoids in cryo tubes or something similar!!!
the father puts a starfleet ring into a glass of some liquid
tmp badge

836. boborci - December 17, 2012

829. Filmboy

No — we like to make one movie at a time! That way, after you’ve all seen it, we can learn from what you liked and didn’t like.

837. boborci - December 17, 2012

812. Sucked into the black hole. No red matter left.

838. Curious Cadet - December 17, 2012

@837 boborci,
“812. Sucked into the black hole. No red matter left.”
Huh!?

The black hole was sucked into the black hole? Is that even possible?

And what do you mean “no red matter left”? There’s two whole IDW comics that indicate there’s not only red matter left, but that what remains is held by the Romulans now. And last I heard that’s canon. ;-)

839. Frederick - December 17, 2012

With all the talk of the comic book being canon, I thought that only filmed and shown elements (not evendeleted scenes) could ever be considered Trek canon. Or am I just imagining that? So now, other elements can be claimed to be official just by calling it so?

840. boborci - December 17, 2012

732 Sinfonian

Bless you and your wife for driving 150 miles to see the preview! Much appreciated! Hope not to dissapoint you!

841. boborci - December 17, 2012

729 Vader

yes! And in the Ny Times best selling trek novel “Spock’s World,” Spock it is revealed that the Vulcan’s saved earth from an extinction event without our knowledge long before disclosure of First Contact.

842. MJ - December 17, 2012

@811 “But nothing else would happen, a simple eruption would not blow up anything, let alone a whole world.”

You are stating this with just the limited context of what is in the trailer to go by.

843. boborci - December 17, 2012

Vulcans

844. boborci - December 17, 2012

839. I agree. Only filmed events. Anthony twisted my arm in that interview, but one interview cannot change case law.

845. Matt - December 17, 2012

The whole time I was watching this trailer, I couldn’t help but wonder why the hell the shuttle was there and why they were risking the FIRST OFFICER’S life on something that could easily have been done from orbit by firing a probe into the volcano? Doesn’t anyone ever think about this stuff?

Sorry, but the movie looks like more action and less thought. This isn’t Star Trek, folks. It’ll make hundreds of millions, and it will continue to degrade the franchise just like ST 2009 did.

Color me disappointed.

846. weerd1 - December 17, 2012

@845- I seem to remember the three highest ranking individuals on the Enterprise beaming themselves into danger nearly EVERY WEEK on TOS. Why is it dissapointing now, but wasn’t then?

847. mhansen0207 - December 17, 2012

#845

So what would make this Star Trek praytell? What makes it more acceptable to YOU?

Long shots of staff meetings? People standing around talking to each other? A viewscreen conference?

People are so arrogant to presume things are not Star Trek, it’s sickening. If you don’t like it, either have the wherewithal to realize you’re watching 9 minutes of the entire film or shut up, stop complaining, pull up your big girl panties and don’t go. Simple as that.

848. dmduncan - December 17, 2012

743. Curious Cadet – December 16, 2012

No. To some fans’ hangups about the E being underwater without context or explanation in a 9 minute sneak preview.

849. Left to Right - December 17, 2012

I love the poster who asks if long shots of staff meetings and people standing around talking to each other would make it more Star Trek.

Ummmm you mean story?

It’s a clear line of what entertainment is to people of different generations.

Filmmakers are not obligated to create films that make you think. That’s not their job unless they want to undertake that challenge. Likewise, audiences shouldn’t expect it.

But wouldn’t it be cool if the 2 universes could meet? What the Abrams camp introduced to Star Trek that it sorely needed was scope. It needed epic locations and a level of effects the previous regime’s budget’s wouldn’t allow. Abrams delivered that to us in spades and I applaud that.

But, I feel it did lose some of the exploration of the human condition that made older Star Treks the kind of show that actually inspired people in their real lives to go on and do better.

If this new movie explores humanity, doing what Star Trek always did best, I dont care if the Enterprise is under water. But, if it’s simply a derivative action flick, then I’ll be disappointed. Either way, I’m willing to plop down my quatloos and check it out.

And for those younger folks who think that the “talking parts” are boring, I would implore you to get your hands on something like “City on the Edge of Forever,” “Balance of Terror,” “A Private Litte War” or even “Amok Time” with the whacky fight music and invest that small amount of time to let them TELL you a story and not simply SHOW you a story. It’s from a time before visual effects could fill holes. It’s from a time when characters were the center, not the effects. Give it a try.

For those old timers who cant get around this new Trek, understand that you have hundreds of hours of Star Trek to fall back on and these new guys have had 2 hours. Cut em some slack. Go see the new movie. There’s no denying that it’s brought in new Trek fans and thats great news!

850. Disinvited - December 17, 2012

Apparently Kirk had a chiming clock in GENERATIONS. I’ll have to crank the audio in STII and STIII to see if it’s a normal part of Kirk pad ambiance.

851. mhansen0207 - December 17, 2012

#849

Let me make this perfectly clear. I may be young, but I respect Star Trek. I own every season of every show and every movie and I have been watching Star Trek consecutively for almost 20 years. I LOVE Star Trek, both in what it was and where it’s going.

What baffles me is that people are so arrogant to presume from what they’ve seen that this isn’t “Star Trek.” My post, exaggerated as it was, was to prod these trolls into telling me exactly what would make it “Star Trek,” because to me, the assumption that it is not from this preview alone is presumptuous and foolish.

Star Trek CANNOT remain stagnant, and I’m sorry to say, but it was getting that way in 2002 and 2005. Any franchise that is 50 years old cannot survive without change. It just irritates me that some Trek fans, who are supposedly so forward thinking cannot seem to grasp that very simple concept.

But don’t mistake my youth for inability to appreciate a good story and what Star Trek was before. I would not have spent so much money and invested so much time in this franchise otherwise.

852. Anthony Pascale - December 17, 2012

bob

Now I’m a bully?

As I said, its your franchise for now, so you can make the rules. The ‘only filmed’ thing was the old guard. Plus it is new (for the most part) to have canon creators oversee the extended universe. So we are in new waters here that require new rules.

853. Disinvited - December 17, 2012

#754. MJ

In the 70s when we were discussing Tolkien on the college campuses we never considered his works “Kid’s Stuff”. But I do take it as encouraging sign for civilization if, 4 decades later, you found it being discussed and read in elementary school.

854. boborci - December 17, 2012

852. Anthony Pascale – December 17, 2012
bob

Now I’m a bully?

As I said, its your franchise for now, so you can make the rules. The ‘only filmed’ thing was the old guard. Plus it is new (for the most part) to have canon creators oversee the extended universe. So we are in new waters here that require new rules.

—————-

You bully, you!

All I am saying is that the rules for what constituted canon were in place before we arrived, and it doesn’t seem fair to change that. I agree that the comics are as close to canon as you can get since the court in charge of current trek is on it, but you can’t just change the fourth amendment with a declaration!

855. boborci - December 17, 2012

845. Matt – December 17, 2012

By that logic, there is no need to have manned space flight at all. It could all be handled by robots. The whole point of GR’s vision was that PEOPLE would be out there doing the exploring. You are forgetting what Star Trek is all about. The Borg in TNG are a reminder of the basic DNA of Star Trek.

856. Anthony Pascale - December 17, 2012

Bob if you dont declare the EU canon I may have to take your lunch money!

I agree this is all new, but I do feel that the upcoming game and the comics deserve a kind of special status, different than the regular comics/books, etc. I think the rule should be, comics are canon until filmed canon trumps them.

That’s reasonable

dont make me give you a wedgie

857. dontcare - December 17, 2012

@853. But Tolkien did write the Hobbit for his son Christopher when you get down to it. According to everything I know about the books and author he began writing what would eventually become the Hobbit and the LOTR during WW I, much of which was sent home in messages to his wife, who one of the Elven Princesses in his world (Luthien Tinuvinel, Elrond’s grandmother) is based. He and his wife created their own code cyphers so that they could communicate with each other without interference from war censorship.

Tolkien also lost a finger during the war, which is why several of his important characters do as well, like Sauron, and Frodo.

While Klingon is the only truly fully developed fiction language, Tolkien’s Elven comes very close.

It is also interesting to know that when a live action LOTR was being considered in the 1960s while Tolkien was still alive, he personally selected Christopher Lee to play Gandalf. While Lee did not get Gandalf in Jackson’s franchise, it was nice to see him as Saruman, since IMO as a friend of Tolkien’s he belonged there.

858. Left to Right - December 17, 2012

#849 I didn’t mean any offense. The truth is, many younger viewers of ANY media today have shorter attention spans. They want frenetic action and as long as it looks glossy, that’s enough for them. Thats not a bad thing, it’s just the way media and the influence of video gaming has affected perceptions. But have no misconceptions, it is true. It’s not a generalization of EVERY young person, but it is a trend.

Of course you’re right. Star Trek DOES need to evolve with its audience, but for many of us, evolve doesn’t just mean bigger and flashier. I understand people have different points of view but I’m also not a troll for having a differing opinion. The last movie, for me, didn’t capture what I found unique and interesting about these characters. It sacrificed that in lieu of flash. Again, that’s my opinion. Not everyone shares it, but do I need to be insulted for having it?

Being a long time fan, what about the first movie MAKES it Star Trek for you? Just curious about the alternative view. Maybe it’s something I missed I can look for when I watch it again.

859. Rose (as in Keachick) - December 17, 2012

#793 – On IMDb, if you go onto an actor’s page, an entire list of FILM work is given about the particular person. Chris Pine’s work is listed. Unfortunately, an actor’s stage/theatre is not listed, although often their work in this field can be mentioned in the Biography section.

Three earlier movies come to mind that could give a person an idea of the kind of actor Chris Pine has been and potentially could be.

Blind Dating – Danny Valdeseque – born blind, first year law student
Bottle Shock – Bo Barrett – winemaker (movie based on true story)
Carriers – Brian Green – blue collar worker – odd jobs guy

I was given for my birthday the second season of Boston Legal. I had forgotten just how GOOD that series was. Denny Crane/William Shatner is brilliant, an absolute hoot. I don’t know/don’t care if Shatner is just playing himself or not – just bl**dy good entertainment and I doubt the series would have been as good if Shatner was not part of the cast.

On John Harrison – I agree that he could be an augment (with Weller possibly being this Paxton guy?) or a human/vulcan hybrid like Spock. Either of these may account for his greater strength and mental abilities. Not seeing Khan here, although no one can be completely ruled out. Possibly Gary Mitchell… then again, why? John Harrison is as good a name as any other, whether he be a good guy or a “mean dude”…

860. mhansen0207 - December 17, 2012

#858

Believe it or not, I do have a theory for you, and I hope you read this and maybe watch the first film again with this mindset:

Star Trek, at its very basic premise to me, had nothing to do with exploring new worlds. It was all about people and the idea that we humans (and aliens as the case may be) MUST work beyond our petty differences, insecurities, prejudices and doubts in order to accomplish an amazing goal or task and secure a better future for all life. Personally, I never bought into the whole “humans are perfect” aspect of TOS and TNG. I’m viewing this much more through the DS9 lens in the sense that I think Star Trek works best by acknowledging that yes, as humans, we have our inherent flaws and prejudices. But in the Star Trek world, we STILL try to be the best possible humans we can be, even if we are flawed and sometimes make mistakes and selfish decisions.

If we look at the characters in Star Trek 2009, each of them came to the table with some sort of flaw. Let’s go through them one by one.

Kirk was a smart young man with a lot of potential, but he is also too stubborn, headstrong and is unwilling to work with anyone else or respect any sort of higher authority.

Spock, as we all know, grapples with both of his hertiages. In this film, he is more conflicted than ever, due to his youth and the fact that he has suddenly had one of his parents ripped away from him. He too is stubborn and unwilling to listen to Kirk.

Bones is a cynical, bitter man who just has finished going through what sounds like a very spiteful divorce. He is aimless, only going to Starfleet not because he’s interested, but feels like it’s the only path that’s open to him. But he is not excited to be there, and is even more doubtful about Kirk’s abilities, despite being his closest friend at the beginning.

Uhura, while a competent xenolinguist, isolates herself. She is close to Spock, but has a hard time trusting her life with anyone else, ESPECIALLY Kirk when he takes command.

Chekov and Sulu are young officers who will be capable. However, they are just that: YOUNG. And very much inexperienced. That Sulu scene at the beginning, while played for laughs, illustrates to me that this is a young officer who may not be as capable as he thinks he is. When we start off, we are questioning as to whether these two will actually rise to the occasion in the middle of this fleet-wide crisis.

And Scotty, we know he’s brilliant. He has some great new engineering theories regarding the transporter. However, after one mistake with Admiral Archer, he’s condemned to Delta Vega in a thankless job, which also has made him unhappy, cynical and bitter. Will he be able to wrestle that greatness that’s within him to become the chief engineer and a part of the crew we all know and love?

The characters of Pike and Spock Prime are avatars for us the audience. They see in these characters (particularly Kirk) that they are destined for greatness and can accomplish many things for the betterment of all mankind. However, they teach both Kirk (and at the end Spock) that they will only do this by depending on each other and putting aside their preconceptions and differences.

And in the end, that’s exactly what the crew does that allows them to save the day and stop Nero. When Kirk sits in that chair for the first time, EVERYONE is still skeptical and everyone is doubting him. But they all (begrudgingly) go along, and as they plan for the attack, they realize that only by combining their skills can they solve this problem. They MUST work together as a crew. By the end, although I do not think they’re all entirely buddy-buddy, they have now realized that only by being the best possible humans they can be and working together despite their differences will they secure a better future for mankind and the Federation.

And that’s why I think Star Trek 2009 IS Star Trek.

861. dmduncan - December 17, 2012

I say don’t oblige screen canon to comic canon. You can oblige comic to screen, if you like, but I don’t think it should necessarily work the other way ’round. If there’s never a conflict between the two, no problem. But if there comes a time when there will be, then I say screen trumps comic.

But with the MWI/QM angle, it barely makes sense to talk about a single thread of canon anyway.

I mean, if there are an infinite number of universes with many Kirks on many Enterprises, then following the “lifeline” of Kirk across a “map” of all the junctures where new universes split off in different directions realizing different possibilities where Kirk does something different in each of them, becomes problematic.

Kirk IS all of those Kirks. You can’t ask the real Kirk to please raise his hand, and you can’t chart the path of the “real” Kirk across all those junctures.

Whether you come to an MWI junction and go left, or whether you go right, real Kirk is what you get.

Unless of course in looking at that MWI/QM “map,” you could see that many Kirk-paths lead to dead ends where those Kirks die early, and maybe you saw one line that didn’t, and this line extended as far as it possibly could, and then you as a writer followed that path, like staying on I95 as far as it went past all the junctions where it turned into side roads.

Then you could say that this is the story of THAT Kirk. And maybe there are many Kirk-paths like that. Wouldn’t it be cool if they somehow all ended up meeting at the same place in the end?

I’m always thinking of how you end Kirk’s tale as a starman in some mind bending way that befits the character.

But no ending ever seems right unless he’s there with his family.

That MWI/QM thing, anyway, is how I think it’s best to think of canon between different mediums of expression.

862. dmduncan - December 17, 2012

Bob, you ever read Cities in Flight? James Blish. THAT’S the kind of ending I always thought the crew of the Enterprise ought to have.

Doesn’t get bigger than that. Not in THIS universe, anyway. ;-)

863. Disinvited - December 17, 2012

#659. Rose

You make excellent points. But when I said filled work, I was refering to a singular film the cast of which was filled with with Hollywood old guard A-listers still in top form as in JUDGEMENT AT NUREMBERG. Pine’s PRINCESS DIARIES II being directed by Gary Marshall and featuring Julie Andrews, John Rhys-Davies, Hector Elizando and stretching to include Anne Hathaway, being the closest I could recall.

864. Left to Right - December 17, 2012

#860

I see your points and I got what they were going for. It’s just that I longed for something nobler. It was derivative.

The way modern storytelling deals with heroes (both new and established ones) is mostly, again, I say mostly, very derivative and a product of the times they’re told in and by who. Take Superman for instance – co-created by a kid who looked up to his dad, but saw him die of a heart attack while stopping a robbery. That same kid was also fighting the depression here while overseas, his relatives were being exterminated by a mad-man.

The creation of Superman came out of a need by this kid to have something, someONE aspirational in his life; a character that bad guys couldn’t push around. A guy who wouldn’t take a payoff and did the right thing BECAUSE it was the right thing. On top of that, even though he could do all these amazing things, he chose to fight for those that couldn’t fight for themselves.

In today’s world of storytelling, that’s a quaint story that’s too old fashioned. It’s “unrealistic” because the heroes of today MUST be punks or ne’er-do-wells or damaged in some way that they need to climb out of the mess that their lives are to rise above it. Only THEN can they be heroes.

In the original series we know next to nothing about these characters with the exception of Spock. But what we DO know about, say Kirk, is really interesting. According to various episodes, in the academy he was a stack of books with legs. Watch out for Lt. Kirk! In his class you either think or sink! All these little snippets that lead us to believe he was straight as an arrow. Not a risk taker. A by the book officer. In today’s storytelling, they went for the low hanging fruit. He’s a troubled, damaged youngster that had to discover his potential. Thats the formula today. I get it. I was just hoping for an explanation of what turns a straight arrow into the man we know as Captain James T. Kirk; risk-taker, cowboy. What set of circumstances drives his true potential through without him having to start as damaged?

I loved what they did with the Captain America movie. He wasn’t a damaged guy. He simply wanted to to what was right and for me it felt fresh to not have him have to be F’d up to get there.

Now, it’s all Star Trek. We can each spin it how we want and come to the same conclusion. I just wanted Kirk to be more than the same old hero of today’s films, thats all. You’re right, it’s all Star Trek in some respects.

As for Spock, everything interesting about his internal struggle has been ripped away for me. By the end of the movie he has had the epiphony that “Hey, if I think a joke is funny, I’ll laugh. If not, I’ll stick to logic.” His easy embracing of his human side makes him far less interesting to me. Now he’s just a guy that will access emotion when it’s convenient for the story. I mean even the way he says “Live long and prosper” to the Vulcan elders, this isn’t something Vulcans simply say. It’s woven into their ideology as a culture. It MEANS something to them. They MEAN it when they say it. But Spock uses it as a thinly veiled way to say “F you.” Again, thats low hanging fruit to me.

But ultimately, you are correct and it can all be titled Star Trek. It’s not like whacky things didn’t happen on TOS or there were flaws and other mishaps. It’s TV. I think it’s a matter of people longing for what they were used to from their mind’s eye.

As an aside, the original series had very little “humans are perfect” stuff in it. They fight and argue and struggle with their emotions. TNG on the other hand is as you describe, but certainly not the Original Series.

Lets agree that we hope the next one hits it out of the park and keeps people interested in Trek for years to come. Hey, nice exchanging thoughts with you!

Have a great holiday!

865. Disinvited - December 17, 2012

#850. #804. #792. #730.

I checked Kirk’s apartment ambient noise. In II and III can hear the ticking of an analog clock. In III you can hear the analog clock chime shortly before Sarek rings Kirk’s doorbell.

866. Michael Hall - December 17, 2012

“Bob, you ever read Cities in Flight? James Blish. THAT’S the kind of ending I always thought the crew of the Enterprise ought to have.”

IIRC (it’s been a couple of decades at least), at the end of the “Cities in Flight” series New New York’s mayor John Amalfi pushes the button that starts the universe and the cycle of creation all over again.

Hmm. Kirk as God. Yeah, I think Mr. Shatner could definitely get behind that one. :-)

867. dmduncan - December 17, 2012

866. Michael Hall – December 17, 2012

Yes, but the next one, they know, will be patterned in some unfathomable way after ALL of them by that act. In the end, like Kirk on the bridge, Amalfi is surrounded by HIS family too.

What’s so great about he MWI/QM angle Bob contributed, is that you can literally end this rebootiverse with a spectacular concept like that — you can take this crew where no SF franchise has gone before, on a one way trip into the future, At Universe’s End, and after it’s over it can start all over again in some MWI side path.

I mean, if you are only going to do three or four movies as a filmmaking team and then turn it over to someone else, why go small?

They destroyed a world in ST.09. So how about something bigger now? Say…the entire universe???

But if you do something like that it should be informed by some big thinking about the nature of existence and the purpose of life here.

Half Cities in Flight and half Job: A Comedy of Justice (my favorite Heinlein novel).

868. dmduncan - December 17, 2012

I would love to see Star Trek tackle the subject of religion — it has global importance and impact — in a meaningful way, as BSG did. I was floored that the machines were more religious than the humans. That was unexpected.

869. Cygnus-X1 - December 17, 2012

Straight off the bat there was a self-contradiction in the first 9 minutes.

Spock is playing the chastising nanny about the Prime Directive while MASSIVELY intervening in the ecosystem of an alien species. If the condition of the planet, from which Spock is bent on saving the aliens, turns out to have been caused by the Federation, then the contradiction will be resolved. Otherwise….that’s a pretty big matzo ball hangin’ out there. The Prime Directive is annoying enough on its own merits. Combining it with logical inconsistency would be an insufferable bridge too far.

And obviously there’s a MAJOR theme from The Wrath of Khan presented in the first 9 minutes. If developed well, it could turn out to be a meaningful addition to Trekdom; or it could turn out to be just a rip-off.

So far that’s two themes lifted directly from Wrath of Khan in this new movie: (1) the hands touching on opposite sides of the glass; and (2) “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” It remains to be seen whether the writers earn this, or whether they’re shameless rip-offs and trying to cash in on the success of someone else’s (Nick Meyer’s) work.

870. dmduncan - December 17, 2012

Cygnus, my friend, you have forgotten what Starfleet General Order # 1 IS!!!

871. Rose (as in Keachick) - December 17, 2012

Does John Harrison offer genetic engineering or gene therapy to the parents of the sick girl? If the child is sick, it is likely to be gene therapy where, if the illness is caused by a genetic disorder, the therapy should correct the problem and bring about wellness. Perhaps there may be *dangerous side effects though…or what Harrison is offering has been untested.

*depends what the danger is.

872. Cygnus-X1 - December 18, 2012

870. dmduncan – December 17, 2012

dm, my friend…from Memory Alpha:

“The Prime Directive, also known as Starfleet General Order 1 or the Non-Interference Directive, was the embodiment of one of Starfleet’s most important ethical principles: noninterference with other cultures and civilizations. At its core was the philosophical concept that covered personnel should refrain from interfering in the natural, unassisted, development of societies, even if such interference was well-intentioned.”

And Spock speaks the key phrase as he’s going about his interference with the natural development of the Nibiru society. To paraphrase, “We must not interfere with the natural course of development of this species.”

Uhh…that means that, if the volcano trouble wasn’t caused by The Federation (or some other off-world species), then the volcano killing off those Nibiru IS the natural development of that species, just as the dinosaurs becoming extinct and thereby making way for the rise of mammals on Earth was the natural development of those species. If the Enterprise had prevented that asteroid from hitting the Earth 65 million years ago in the Gulf of Mexico, there probably would be no such things as humans. And preventing against that sort of thing is, after all, the intent and purpose of the Prime Directive…Right?

So, Spock’s actions would seem to be at odds with his rhetoric, unless Spock was reversing some previous outside interference, which I’m assuming he will be shown to have been doing after he’s beamed up from the planet by Kirk.

873. Cygnus-X1 - December 18, 2012

P.S. Even if we assume “non-interference with the natural development of cultures/civilizations/societies” to refer only to species of certain intelligence—And this may be a point that needs clarification in Trekdom—they Nibiru were obviously considered intelligent enough not to be messed with by Spock.

874. Cygnus-X1 - December 18, 2012

On a totally different point, I found the dialogue disappointing so far in the first 9 minutes. After the brief hospital scene—which seemed too superficial and cut/cut/cut—almost like in a comic book, the movie kicks off with an action scene, our heroes in trouble, like the beginning of an Indiana Jones or James Bond movie. And there are several spots amidst the action calling for witty quips, but the dialogue just doesn’t deliver.

This was surprising to me because one of the things that these writers did well in the first movie was precisely the kind of witty quips and banter that they seemed to have intended, by the blocking, to insert into this movie so far, but then seemed to have developed writer’s block when it came to actually writing the dialogue.

875. Cygnus-X1 - December 18, 2012

* …that they seemed to have intended, judging by the blocking, to insert into this movie….

876. dmduncan - December 18, 2012

@872: But this is what you wrote:

“Spock is playing the chastising nanny about the Prime Directive while MASSIVELY intervening in the ecosystem of an alien species. If the condition of the planet, from which Spock is bent on saving the aliens, turns out to have been caused by the Federation, then the contradiction will be resolved. Otherwise….that’s a pretty big matzo ball hangin’ out there.”

The Prime Directive covers interfering in the development of a society/civilization.

It doesn’t say anything about eco-systems.

The Prime Directive doesn’t say you must let a pre-contact society perish by volcano. It says you cannot alter how that society evolves, which is the thing Spock is very concerned about by being seen, since the sight of the Enterprise can alter their culture.

So if you can save them without their knowledge of your existence as people from space, I don’t think that’s a violation.

That means “natural” in this case refers to the internal development of a pre-contact society or civilization as the thing which Starfleet should not influence, since that influence would be coming from a more advanced society OUTSIDE a less advance and pre-contact society, i.e., something that would not naturally happen without the effort of the more advanced society, which is why they must conceal their presence.

877. Matt - December 18, 2012

#847, The reason I was so pissed at the preview was because this situation was so contrived it wasn’t funny. How on earth did they get the enterprise underwater without the natives noticing? How did they get the shuttle TO the volcano without the natives noticing? Why are they sending someone down to a volcano crater to drop off some tech when they could simply drop it off without risking life and limb? Why be on the planet at all when all this stuff could have been solved from orbit in TOS, TNG, et al? My mind was asking all these questions while I was watching it. I normally try not to do that, but geez! Try to come up with a plot device that isn’t full of holes!

I think with these new movies, they have the characters down pat. I despise the ship, but hey, you can’t have everything. But to introduce plot points that don’t make sense? It just seemed ridiculous to me.

I will go see the movie. I’m reserving judgement until I’m done with the whole thing, but wow, they aren’t off to a good start.

878. Rose (as in Keachick) - December 18, 2012

#877 Matt – you managed to watch the first nine minutes of a two hour movie. Why are you already calling it out for plot holes etc when you have no idea what the rest of the movie may explain?

“How on earth did they the enterprise underwater without the natives noticing?” One possible answer, off the top of my head, is that perhaps, in this timeline, Starfleet has managed to develop a cloaking device of its own… I don’t know and neither does anyone else.

879. cw - December 18, 2012

Hey man, if a bear shits in the woods: Does it make any noise?? Only if someone sees it. Maybe they did this stuff covert……..at night…..in areas of thin population…….
Where the hell would the drama be if Spock did all that shiz from Orbit??
THIS is why Matt, you are not a writer for bigass blockbuster movies. Missing the imagination chip.

880. dontcare - December 18, 2012

@872. You did not read far enough. Also from Memory Alpha is a list of exceptions to the Prime Directive, one of which is saving a culture from a coming natural disaster they are unaware of, while keeping it secret from them, this exception was established in TOS The Paradise Syndrome. There are also two listed circumstances when the Prime Directive is SUSPENDED, one being the Omega Directive, and the other being General Order 24 which allows a starship captain to order orbital bombardment of an entire planet. But hey, don’t believe me, here is the text from Memory Alpha.

ExceptionsEdit

“There can be no justice so long as laws are absolute. Even life itself is an exercise in exceptions.”

– Captain Jean Luc Picard(TNG: “Justice”)

There were many exceptions to the applicability of the Prime Directive that were accepted by the Federation. Each was driven by the context of the situation, the society, and the circumstances at the moment. These were typically not full exceptions that voided the Prime Directive entirely; it was only suspended to the extent minimally necessary to address the matter at hand (e.g., answer a hail, provide rescue assistance). Also, actions were to be handled in a way that attempted to minimize the interference resulting from the limited suspension. For example, the attempted “repair” of prior cultural interference was not, itself, to be done in a way that would lead to even greater interference. (TOS: “A Piece of the Action”) These exceptions generally fell into the following categories:

The society already knew of and contacted the Federation (e.g., seeking assistance; treaty matters) (TNG: “Datalore”, “Deja Q”)
The society sent a general distress call to any space-faring cultures who might pick it up (TOS: “Miri”; TNG: “Pen Pals”)
A material injustice involving a Federation citizen would occur absent the interference (TNG: “Justice”)

Regarding minimal interference, compare the interference by Picard in TNG: “Justice” to the interference by Jameson described in TNG: “Too Short a Season”. In both instances Federation citizens were being held in an arguably unjust manner. But Picard’s actions were the removal of a single condemned prisoner without loss of life or technology transfer, albeit with the planting of seeds of doubt regarding inflexible laws. Jameson, on the other hand, transferred technology which resulted in decades of war and millions of deaths. Picard’s actions were much less intrusive in the Edo society.

Compliance with specific (and valid) orders that could not be followed if the Prime Directive fully applied (e.g., ancillary to a war with the Federation; first contact missions; diplomatic missions; trade negotiations) (TOS: “Errand of Mercy”, “Spectre of the Gun”, “A Taste of Armageddon”, “Friday’s Child”; TNG: “First Contact”; DS9: “In the Pale Moonlight”)
Helping a society escape a natural disaster that is unknown to the society and where the assistance can take place without the society’s knowledge. (TOS: “The Paradise Syndrome”)
The society hails or attacks a Federation vessel (TOS: “The Corbomite Maneuver”; VOY: “Thirty Days”)
Rescue missions (TNG: “Transfigurations”)
The society is in diplomatic discussions with the Federation (TOS: “A Taste of Armageddon”; TNG: “Encounter at Farpoint”)
The society was previously interfered with by Federation citizens, whether or not in violation of the Prime Directive (e.g., prior to the Prime Directive being in force; accidental interference). (TOS: “The Return of the Archons”, “A Piece of the Action”; TNG: “Who Watches The Watchers”)
The society was previously interfered with by non-Federation citizens (e.g., Klingons) in a manner that would have violated the Prime Directive had it been done by Starfleet personnel (TOS: “A Private Little War”; VOY: “False Profits”)
The society had been contacted by Starfleet but, upon recommendation by the contact/survey team, the planet was nonetheless subject to the Prime Directive as though such contact had not occurred. (TOS: “A Private Little War”; TNG: “First Contact”)

There were, however, two circumstances where the Prime Directive was suspended in its entirety. The first was when the Omega Directive applied. Due to issues of security only Starfleet officers ranked captain and above were privy to knowledge of this directive. The existential threat to interstellar society of the dangerous Omega molecule, which destroyed subspace and rendered warp travel impossible if destabilized, outweighed the philosophical aspirations of the Prime Directive. As a result, during periods when the Omega Directive was operative the Prime Directive was fully suspended for the purpose of rendering harmless any Omega molecules and the ability to create them. (VOY: “The Omega Directive”) The second circumstance was General Order 24. That order permitted a starship captain, in certain circumstances, to destroy the entire surface of an inhabited planet and thereby eradicate any societies living there. (TOS: “A Taste of Armageddon”)
General Order 24 was only directly referenced in TOS: “A Taste of Armageddon”. It was implied in each of “Whom Gods Destroy” and “Operation — Annihilate!”, where the result of discussed actions could have included the destruction of an entire planet or civilization. The circumstances when General Order 24 could be used, the limitations on captains to invoke it, the responsibilities of a crew to comply or not, and its relationship with the Prime Directive have never been addressed.

Federation citizens did not need an exception as the Prime Directive did not apply to them. In fact, under the rules as defined in the Directive in the 24th Century, a Starfleet crew was forbidden from forcibly removing Federation citizens from a world, even if they had intentionally and materially interfered with the culture of a world in a way that would otherwise have been prohibited by the Prime Directive. (TNG: “Angel One”)

881. get paid uk - December 21, 2012

hey there and thank you for your information – I have certainly picked
up anything new from right here. I did however expertise some technical issues using this
website, as I experienced to reload the website many times
previous to I could get it to load correctly. I had been wondering if your hosting is OK?
Not that I am complaining, but sluggish loading
instances times will often affect your placement in google and can damage your quality score if advertising and marketing with Adwords.

Well I’m adding this RSS to my email and could look out for much more of your respective intriguing content. Ensure that you update this again very soon.

882. Live long and prosper - December 24, 2012

The planet Spock sent James Kirk to when he expelled him from the ship was Delta Vega in the Latest Star Trek Movie, in the original series, Delta Vega is where Spock tells Jim to strand Gary Mitchel, in Where No man has gone before. The series first show. (brief synopsis) The ship goes to the edge of the Galaxy and encounters a force that burns a part of the brain out that maintains control of E.S.P. in humans releasing Gary into a super Esper. It is Fascinating that when Kirk in the new movie meets (Spock from the future, which incidentally is from the Gary timeline as well) that Spock knows of a star base outpost not far from where they are stranded. where they find Scotty. Could it be this is the same outpost where they strand Gary Mitchel in the original series? Coincidence, that Delta Vega is in the last Star Trek Movie, that the same outpost which Gary Mitchel was stranded at now Spock is stranded at. I think not. However, there is another probability that the scene at the beginning where Spock states the needs of the many are indicating Spock may die at the end of the show which is why they show the classic two hands against the glass, which may also indicate this Star Trek is about Khan.. Arthur Conan Doyle, Sr. stated Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. Logically speaking of course. Live Long and Prosper.

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.