Shot-By-Shot Analysis Of Star Trek Into Darkness Super Bowl Commercial | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Shot-By-Shot Analysis Of Star Trek Into Darkness Super Bowl Commercial February 3, 2013

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

The Super Bowl Commercial for Star Trek Into Darkness is just half a minute but mixed in with stuff we saw in the previous two trailers is some new (and very interesting) stuff, along with some new (and very intriguing) dialogue. Below TrekMovie has a full shot-by-shot analysis of the commercial. We also have caps of what was in the ‘extended’ version available on the mobile app. As always, beware of Spoilers.  

 

Star Trek Into Darkness Super Bowl Commercial Analysis

Once again TrekMovie dives deep with a shot-by-shot analysis analysis of the new commercial. The captions below are based on what TrekMovie considers to be confirmed information. In some cases it will note when there is supposition or conjecture. Items that are new are indicated with "[NEW]". There are also a few ALERTS to dig deeper into some parts of commercial, looking at the implications (and some nitpicking).

(Click images to enlarge)

Let’s start at the beginning…


[NEW] Building in London (note Federation and Union Jack flags)

FLAG NITPICK ALERT!
Some Brits have noted that the stripes on the Union Jacks are backwards (The thin stripes go on the bottom on the left side and the top on the right)


Capt. Kirk (Chris Pine) at Starfleet meeting location



[NEW] Explosion inside some kind of large large storage bay (possibly in London…see below)

SAME SHIP ALERT?!
Details are hard to see but is the ship Harrison uses to attack Starfleet seen in the Teaser Trailer somewhere in this giant bay? 


[NEW] Explosion (terrorist attack) in London


Crowd reacts to something (could be London or San Francisco)

MOVIEBOMBER ALERT!
Even after TrekMovie alerted the world that some guy was photobombing (moviebombing) Star Trek Into Darkness, he seems to still be making the cut – as does the 23rd century hipster (dude with sunglasses). 


[NEW] Kirk (with Zachary Quinto’s Spock looking on) asks John Harrison "who the hell are you?"

GOODBYE GARY SPECULATION ALERT?!
Many have speculated the Harrison could really by Gary Mitchell. But the new Star Trek comics (as seen below) have shown that Kirk knows and is friends with Gary Mitchell, so he isn’t likely to ask him "who the hell are you?" Unless he has had a lot of work done.  


John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) looks menacing


John Harrison attacks some Klingons on Qo’noS


Uhura (Zoe Saldana) on Qo’noS


Harrison on Qo’noS


Kirk and Uhura on Qu’noS (likely watching Harrison beat up Klingons)


[NEW] Kirk hears Harrison (still likely in the Enterprise Brig) say "I am better" and asks "at what?"


[NEW] Harrison replies "at everything"

HELLO MORE KHAN SPECULATION ALERT!
"I am better…at everything" should feed the ‘Harrison is really Khan’ speculation fans. Of course Khan Noonien Singh was a genetically enhanced superman and was known to let people know how superior he was. 


"Nothing ever changes, except man. Your technical accomplishments? Improve a mechanical device and you may double productivity. But improve man and you gain a thousand fold. I am such a man." – Khan in "Space Seed"


Dr. Carol Marcus (Alice Eve) screams



[NEW] USS Enterprise severely damaged and falling towards planet (possibly Earth)

GOODBYE ENTERPRISE ALERT?!
The above (and below) shots are somewhat reminiscent of the destruction of the original NCC_1701 in Star Trek III: The Search For Spock. The ship has sustained a lot of damage and is shedding parts as it heads to a planet. Are we going to get a NCC-1701-A in the next movie? If not a replacement the ship is going to at least need to get a major overhaul, so is there a refit in the future?



[NEW] USS Enterprise continues fall and appears out of control

SUPER DOUBLE RED ALERT!
This spinning Enterprise in bad shape is likely linked to shots from previous trailers showing explosions and people sliding around the ship (those inertial dampeners are so unreliable). 


[NEW] Title card


[NEW - but seen in IMAX Preview] Spock in Niburu volcano prepares for death


[NEW] Title card


Uhura macks on Spock


[NEW] Title card



Spock jumps off a floating barge or platform (possibly in San Franciso)


[NEW] Title card


Kirk enters the USS Enterprise sick bay


Harrison in command chair of some ship



Some ship (not the
USS Enterprise) crashes into San Francisco Bay



[NEW] Crowd (likely San Francisco) reactions to explosion or crash



[NEW] Ship crashes into building (likely in San Francisco)




Title cards

Bonus shots in "extended" version

If you have the Star Trek mobile app and you scan the commercial you can watch an exclusive "extended" version of the trailer which is about five seconds longer. In addition to switching around some of the images there were a couple of shots seen in previous trailers but also one additional shot of Kirk, plus the addition of a "THIS SUMMER" title card (preceeding the bit about "OUR…WORLD…WILL…FALL").


[NEW] Title card


[NEW] Kirk tries to hang on


Kirk and McCoy jump off cliff into Nibiru ocean

Rank the Star Trek Super Bowl Spot

What do you think of the new commercial 

Rank Into Darkness Announcement Superbowl Ad

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Comments

1. Chain of Command - February 3, 2013

Looks like the Enterprise gets rocked in this movie

2. Promo Boy - February 3, 2013

Wow– and I thought I was the only one ignoring the Super Bowl.
Cool movie trailer– great new shots of the Enterprise.
But no major spoilers.

3. Nelson - February 3, 2013

Sweet!

4. Cecilia Calabrese - February 3, 2013

Can’t wait to see Benedict Cumberbatch in this movie!

5. Chris A. - February 3, 2013

Kirk’s “Who are you?” sort of kills the Gary Mitchell rumors.

6. Punkspocker - February 3, 2013

Ok, I already cried.

7. Lord garth, formerly of izar - February 3, 2013

Looks like we are gonna get that refit for the next film

8. I'm Dead Jim! - February 3, 2013

Looks like a new Big E is on the horizon. This one obviously gets shite-canned! Looking forward to a fuller secondary hull and new improved engineering section.

9. TBW - February 3, 2013

Forgive me if this has been posed already, but…

Why would the new timeline make Khan younger?

10. Aix - February 3, 2013

Oh, man. They should have asked Benedict “Most British Person Ever“ Cumberbatch about the flag.

Really hoping the CGI explosions are improved. And that last shot is just wow!

11. jesustrek - February 3, 2013

The ship crash to san fransisico bay is similar to Enterprise J

12. Check the Circuit - February 3, 2013

It’s been the most exciting thing about the game. :)

Seriously…looks epic!

13. NCC-73515 - February 3, 2013

The best ad for the movie was that power outage XD

14. Darkthunder - February 3, 2013

#9: “Why would the new timeline make Khan younger?”

If Benedict Cumberbatch is playing Khan (no trailer has yet to reveal his name, only place we know John Harrison from, is the press release), what makes you think he’s playing a character that is his “actual age” (36 years old) ? Ricardo Montalban was 46 years old at the time of ‘Space Seed’ being aired. It’s quite easy in this day and age, to fake a persons true age, both going younger or older than the correct number.

I’m not entirely certain he’s playing Khan. I would suggest he’s playing an “Augment” of some kind, but not necessarily THE Augment, which is Khan.

With all the talk of “copying” Wrath of Khan, it would be a major letdown, if the movie ENDS as Star Trek 4 did; the launch of the NCC-1701-A.

15. MORN SPEAKS - February 3, 2013

The one thing JJ & company were forbidden to do was blow up the Enterprise in the last movie. Looks like they’re getting pretty close here.

16. MORN SPEAKS - February 3, 2013

I wish they’d left out the Enterprise getting torn to bits, it reminds of the previews for Star Trek: Generations where we see the Ent-D blow up in the trailer.

17. Aix - February 3, 2013

The Iron Man 3 ad is all kinds of lame.

18. bringbacktrekagain - February 3, 2013

Lens flares???

19. Josh C. - February 3, 2013

Could the flag thing be caused due tho the shot being flipped? Not unprecedented in a trailer

Also, still think plot may be augment but not khan related

20. Emperor Mike of the Empire - February 3, 2013

This looks to be one Bad A$$ Movie. I sure can’t wait.

21. Emperor Mike of the Empire - February 3, 2013

Look’s like the Big E really get’s into a big time fire fight. Should be good.

22. David - February 3, 2013

It has been confirmed that Cumberbatch is playing Robert April.

23. Aix - February 3, 2013

Is the power outage a part of “Into Darkness“ publicity?

24. Revan - February 3, 2013

@25
Not yet.

25. dmduncan - February 3, 2013

27

No, the power outage was an attempt to break Baltimore’s momentum and turn the game around for San Fran.

It’s working.

26. kev - February 3, 2013

Well Lets hope they succeed then Morn, either that or it gets refited to look more like her 1960’s counterpart rather than a hotrod version of it.

actually I think when they started the show up in the 1960’s they said something about it looking like the original ship had gone in for 3 minor refits during the shows run. with small details like the impulse engines changing all the time till they settled on its now classic look.

one weird thing though, if the enterprise is in the atmosphere of earth, where’s the friction and the burn up?

27. Barney Fife - February 3, 2013

I. Can’t. Wait. Bring it on!

28. AB - February 3, 2013

Looking at the enlarged photo of the ” large storage bay ” which is presumably in London, do those look like they could be armored vehicles to anyone? Possibly flying ones?

29. vva - February 3, 2013

“FLAG NITPICK ALERT!”

Well, it’s the 23rd century. Who knows if the UK decides to change the flag a bit.

30. John Gill - February 3, 2013

PLEASE set a refit for good ol’ NCC-1701 and restore it’s original grace and beauty!!!

31. Sunfell - February 3, 2013

That one set of damaged Enterprise photos has what looks like BUBBLES coming out of it, not debris. Look again, y’all. It’s in water.

32. Walt Kozlowski - February 3, 2013

Flag shot not flipped! The stripes would still be wrong. Could be a redesign of the Union-Jack.Nah they screwed up. Still looks cool!

33. Trekker5 - February 3, 2013

Loved it! I love Cumberbatch’s voice! :)

34. Walt Kozlowski - February 3, 2013

Why does it look like the Enterprise has bubbles emitting from it as it crashes towards the planet?

35. Walt Kozlowski - February 3, 2013

#37 LOL! Thought the same thing.

36. Walt Kozlowski - February 3, 2013

I think the second shots with the clouds are after it surfaces?

37. Jack - February 3, 2013

37. I’m pretty sure it’s not underwater in that shot. The bubbles could be smoke, plasma, debris…

I’m a little annoyed with all the app hoopla so far – all for ‘this summer’ and a quick shot of Kirk holding on.. and the chance to buy pre-release tickets on Fandango (which you can do right now without the app anyway, no?). I guess Fandango’s US only?

38. Lt. Dakin - February 3, 2013

How about Cumberbatch is a genetic superman.

39. Daniel Broadway - February 3, 2013

Those are not bubbles. Those are bits of hull debris and stuff from inside the ship being sucked out. Some of you guys kill me with your lack of visual comprehension.

40. James H - February 3, 2013

Anybody else notice that the damage to the Enterprise saucer seems as if someone purposely tried to blow off the ship’s name from the hull?

41. Ralpha1961 - February 3, 2013

I don’t know. Why are they making Star Trek unrealistic? Star Trek is about hope. Humans came into the scene with new ideas to solving the universe problems. And didn’t Earth just loose a fleet? Resources are valuable. You just can not just loose capital ships as if this is a game.
Earth and humans are about hope in the Star Trek universe. Bringing light into the darkness of warring factions. Not like the stuffy non-emotional Vulcans. Who do not get involved.

42. Exverlobter - February 3, 2013

Wow, they really fraked up London!
I mean European cities in contrast to those in Asia were always proud of resisting the trend to add pointless Manhattan-like skyscrapers to their skyline. They always kept their european uniqueness while in Asia big metropolises become more and more homogenous (one of many negative aspects of globalisation)
Seriously, in the 23th century you need a Union-jack to distinguish London from San Francisco. How scary is that!

43. Sunfell - February 3, 2013

Water or not, the way the debris is being ejected from the ship still looks like someone used a bubble trail as a model. Someone should ask astronaut Chris Hadfield, who is taking shots of the Superdome from orbit in the ISS and twittering them live, to weigh in. He might even give us a demonstration.

:-)

Wouldn’t that totally rock- getting a definitive answer from an actual astronaut in zero gravity?

44. crazydaystrom - February 3, 2013

Those shots of the E are NOT underwater!

45. sean - February 3, 2013

#48

San Francisco doesn’t have any skyscrapers like that, either. This is 250 years in the future, after all.

46. Bladerunner1701 - February 3, 2013

#31 The power outage was Scotty obeying the Prime Directive. As members of Star Fleet they want the 49ers to win.

47. That One Guy - February 3, 2013

So Deanna is making a cameo in this movie?

48. Exverlobter - February 3, 2013

@51
“San Francisco doesn’t have any skyscrapers like that, either. This is 250
years in the future, after all.”

Yes i know. Thats the point. While watching the film, i won’t know which city is shown , unless a flag is there.

49. Jack - February 3, 2013

47. Sometimes hope gets tested.

50. sean - February 3, 2013

#54

I imagine much like Star Trek 2009 there will be title cards telling you where they are.

51. Phasers-On-Stun - February 3, 2013

It looks awesome! I can’ t wait. I keep wondering if we are going to lose one of the main crew members. JJ keeps saying the film should make us cry if he did his job right.

52. Jack - February 3, 2013

Why would 23rd century British bystanders be dressed like such dorks. And why do ridiculous sunglasses make it futuristic. That scene needs to be reshot. ;).

53. Basement Blogger - February 3, 2013

The line, “I’m better at everything.” coupled with the line that Cumberbatch is seeking revenge indicates that he BC is Khan. What about Gary Mitchell? Maybe since he can always claim to be the better man. But you would have to add Mitchell’s backstory to the movie and then have the exposition as to why he is in disguise. Yes, there would be exposition as to why Khan would use the “Alias” of John Harrison. Sorry about that. But that would be a lot easier to do story wise.

54. Gary - February 3, 2013

Apparently the Union Jack is reversed in this alternate reality.

55. Vorus - February 3, 2013

I REALLY hope the shot of the people holding on to things inside the ship isn’t related to the ship falling toward the planet, because that reminds me WAY too much of the colossally bad physics in SW:Episode III, where the ‘gravity’ affecting the crew seems to be independent of the ship’s rotation.

I really hope JJ and Orci et al didn’t much an equally stupid mistake in Trek. Nu Trek is low-brow enough the way it is, let’s try and leave the awful cartoon physics to Star Wars, eh?

56. Son of Jello - February 3, 2013

59 The Garry Mitchel issue is in the main article (above). Its not him:)

57. Vorus - February 3, 2013

That’s “didn’t MAKE an equally stupid mistake”. sorry about that.

58. Ralpha1961 - February 3, 2013

56
True. We shall see how this movie will turn out.
I hope it’s not like the Transformer movies (which I love by the way) by destroying everything. Unrealistic.

59. 1701 - February 3, 2013

Blowing up the Enterprise? AGAIN?? What a writer’s crutch…The Search for Spock, damage in The Undiscovered Country, Generations and Nemesis. Can’t they think of a better plot device??

60. Captain, USS Northstar - February 3, 2013

Now that we’re back on the topic of the movie, I want to raise a question for possible discussion.

In another trailer, we hear Pike admonishing someone about not having an ounce of humility — some think he’s addressing Kirk, but I wonder: could he be addressing his comments to someone else? If BC’s character is Robert April, could Pike be talking to him?

The Super Bowl ad definitely gives us more to chew on and discuss.

61. The Observer - February 3, 2013

And we inch closer and closer to Khan with each new tidbit that is revealed.

62. dmduncan - February 3, 2013

59. Basement Blogger – February 3, 2013

The line, “I’m better at everything.” coupled with the line that Cumberbatch is seeking revenge indicates that he BC is Khan.

***

LOL man, you still trying to pull Cumberbatch-is-Khan out of this movie? Ain’t gonna happen.

63. Gilberto - February 3, 2013

Thanks for the post, Pascalle. A real feast.

64. Vultan - February 3, 2013

You see, this is what happens when you take a ship swimming. Corrosive alien waters are hell on a girl’s skin!

65. stan - February 3, 2013

Wait,wait…maybe they’re pulling a complete TWOK and the clips of Enterprise being destroyed are from a simulation. :)

66. scotchyscotchscotch - February 3, 2013

Lest we forget, JJ is pretty meticulous about what he chooses to reveal in trailers. Given the obvious result of internet speculation that Big E gets destroyed as a result of the new trailer, it might be too soon to assume that it meets its demise.

Or maybe it does, who the F knows.

67. 750Mang - February 3, 2013

“My God, Bones, what have I done?” – Admiral James T. Kirk

68. D-Rock - February 3, 2013

I’ve read in a couple of posts on Trekmovie that the ship crashing into the water is not the Enterprise. Is that speculation or confirmation?

69. Anthony Pascale - February 3, 2013

anything in the article that is speculation says ‘possibly’ or ‘probably’ anything without such wording is confirmed

70. Basement Blogger - February 3, 2013

@ 68

Dmduncan,

Maybe you should LOL at Anthony too. Still no retraction for the April story with his sources indicating it’s Khan. You going to call people who disagree with your opinions, idiots again? And by the way, at least I”m willing to stick my neck out. I even thought about Gary Mithcell again. But what about you? Who do you think it is? You laughed at the Khan people and others that disagree with you on other topics. Come on, boldy go.

Waiting for your angry response with plenty of capital letters.

71. D-Rock - February 3, 2013

cool, thanks

72. trek in a cafe - February 3, 2013

We blow up the enterprise to show it’s a film, a movie, a long form epic and not a TV series, with the same thing every week. It was almost desired from ‘the kid playing with a toy’ in his backyard point of view, but this crew is too young to trash the ship. it must be loved!

73. Jack - February 3, 2013

Yes, it points to Khan — very clearly — but it still doesn’t guarantee Khan… yet. Could be.

I’ve never said it wasn’t Khan — just that there wasn’t watertight evidence yet (dark hair, Hispanic actors, DVD commentaries and working out don’t rule out other possibilities).

74. Mad Mann - February 3, 2013

Wow, Anthony. Didn’t you watch the game?

But, thanks

75. sean - February 3, 2013

Ahh, glad to hear Anthony confirm that the ship crashing in the bay is not the Enterprise. The nacelles always looked all wrong to me.

76. Anthony - February 3, 2013

BC can’t be a regular human. The jump and wielding of that massive gun in the teaser plainly shows us he’s something more.
If they are rebooting the Space Seed/TWOK storyline, then he’s either Khan or perhaps one of the other members of his “family” of genetically-bred superhumans. Khan ruled 1/4 of the Earth, but there were about 70+ other “supermen” on the Botany Bay.

My guess is they switched from Khan to another augment when the Latino actor dropped out and they picked up BC.

77. MJ - February 3, 2013

@76. Although I don’t want to get in the middle of the fight you and DM are having, I would largerly have to agree with your POV here. This new trailer has me focused more on it actually being Khan again. It’s definitely a Khan-centric story with Peter Weller playing April — that I am 99% certain of at this point.

We’ve been right all along on this, even in the days when is was a couple of us against hundreds here on this unpopular opinion.

78. Anthony - February 3, 2013

Maybe they simply couldn’t revive Khan on the Botany Bay and wound up waking up someone else. “Is there anything you would not do for your family?” This line could easily reference the rest of the sleepers on the Botany Bay, and there IS that one shot in the teaser of the cryopods.

79. MJ - February 3, 2013

@82 @83 Dude, you should change your posting name here — its undoubtedly giving people the false impression that you are Anthony Pascale. I was fooled for a number of posts here myself.

80. Jack - February 3, 2013

“this crew is too young to trash the ship. it must be loved!”

Agreed. We hardly knew her. But, if the ship can handle atmospheres, being underwater and, gasp, being built in Iowa — she could very likely still be entirely intact — but needing repairs. We know Kirk ends up without a ship — is it because he’s grounded, because the ship is under repair (or gone), or both? I hope it’s handled well — I didn’t like the ship being nearly destroyed in Nemesis only to be fully repaired and better than ever in seemingly fast time. I also didn’t love the idea that the Enterprise-A was ready and waiting for them three months after they blew up the original E.

81. Anthony - February 3, 2013

BTW, blowing up the Enterprise in this movie is as colossally stupid as destroying Vulcan in the first. In this timeline, suddenly the Enterprise is Starfleet’s flagship and it’s maiden voyage was to engage Nero. The ship has barely had time to have a shakedown cruise.

That said, I hate the design. Those oversized nacelles look ridiculous on their supports and the secondary hull is too small. So maybe it’s a good thing if they do a refit. I don’t know.

82. Brandon - February 3, 2013

I still don’t get why the Enterprise hides in an OCEAN. Forget the tech nitpicks. Why hide a STARSHIP there in the first place? Wouldn’t it be just as concealed, and even harder for a primitive race to find, IN ORBIT like it’s supposed to be? And how did it get there without being seen?

Our. Believability. Will. Fall.

83. Smike - February 3, 2013

Displaying the UNION JACK is a major 23rd century anachronism, almost as bad as calling St Petersburg “Leningrad” in ST4:TVH… There is NO way the United Kingdom will remain in its present shape for another 300 years…

In two years from now, Scotland will vote for its independence and then it’s only a matter of time until Ireland shall be reunited.

I’m neither English, nor Irish, nor Scottish, so I’m not political about this but these are the final days of the UK in its present form. 2012/13 season is nothing but a big goodbye to the Union Jack…the Olympics, the 007 anniversary, Doctor Who, the Queen’s anniversary… but that’ll be it.
In 15 years, only England (and maybe Wales) will exist within one state and if Cameron goes forth with leaving the EU, it’ll only convince more Scotsmen and Northern Irish to leave that Union…

Just my two pence…

84. Vultan - February 3, 2013

#87

Abrams is anti-logic. He did destroy Vulcan, you know.

85. MJ - February 3, 2013

@84 @84

Dude, it is confusing with your posting here name being “Anthony”, given this is Anthony Pascale’s site. Any chance you could use your middle name or some other handle, or put “(not Pascale)” after your name when you post? Much obliged if you can do something about this.

86. Smike - February 3, 2013

BTW: TVH came out in 1986… Leningrad was renamed St Petersburg only five years later in 1991… So I guess the UK has about five years left… By 2018 the Union will be dissolved…

87. Neal - February 3, 2013

People can speculate the Khan/Harrison thing all they want to but here’s a thought. What if it’s not Khan but a connection to him. Can we seriously say, without a doubt, that Starfleet wouldn’t at some point restart eugenics research back up and Harrison is the culmination of that research? It could be a Section 31 type of situation where a group has the authority to go outside the restrictions Federation Law. I can see Abrams taking that route. It takes the concept of Khan without using the character itself.

I don’t know if what I have said has already been speculated at all but I wanted to throw it out there.

88. MJ - February 3, 2013

@86 Dude, it is confusing with your posting here name being “Anthony”, given this is Anthony Pascale’s site. Any chance you could use your middle name or some other handle, or put “(not Pascale)” after your name when you post? Much obliged if you can do something about this.

89. BatlethInTheGroin - February 3, 2013

#25: No, it has NOT been confirmed.

90. MJ - February 3, 2013

sorry for double posting — site behaving strangely tonight.

91. Adolescent Nightmare - February 3, 2013

Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnn!!!!!!!

Is

Better!

92. Adolescent Nightmare - February 3, 2013

One point off for ILM getting the flags wrong.

93. LOFC_Ed - February 3, 2013

Finally we have our city play a big roloe in a bif film (even.if we do get partially ripped to shreds)!

Our flag doesn’t really matter; looks pretty much identical either way.

94. John - February 3, 2013

This looks like a good action film, but it’s not Star Trek. Thank you J.J. for leaving so we can get a true Star Trek fan to direct the next movie!

95. Commodore Adams - February 3, 2013

If this movie makes me feel the way I did in the opening scene of the 2009 movie then mission accomplished. Emotions are key, everything else is trivial, that includes what was destroyed, who’s who, the fact that they wouldn’t save a planet that is destroying itself, the cliche lines used so early “needs of the many” or that the union jack is upside down or even being displayed assuming earth is united and all countries are abolished…..all trivial next to the act of evoking emotions, or that one thing that made you laugh or cry.

96. bizkid - February 3, 2013

Can’t believe I’m the first to point this out. but I don’t think that’s the Enterprise falling through the atmosphere. In the Trek cannon, all (five?) Constellation class starships were numbered sequentially: 1701, 1702, etc.

If you look closely at the photos, the last digit of the four is obscured, as is the ship’s name. This could easily be another Constellation class starship, an Enterprise sister ship, identical in appearance, crashing.

97. dmduncan - February 3, 2013

87. Brandon – February 3, 2013

I still don’t get why the Enterprise hides in an OCEAN. Forget the tech nitpicks. Why hide a STARSHIP there in the first place? Wouldn’t it be just as concealed, and even harder for a primitive race to find, IN ORBIT like it’s supposed to be? And how did it get there without being seen?

***

You want to know why? I’ll tell you.

It’s because as a movie, it’s also art. And as art, the movie has other obligations besides pfandering to this or that notion of what constitutes realism. One of those obligations is to dramatize important thematic ideas, and in respecting the integrity of their own obligations as artists, both in writing and depicting the things this script calls for, all the screenwriters and the director, along with his VFX department, really need to do is to make what you see believable *enough* in the pursuit of something greater than your narrow ideas of what is acceptable to do.

They actually have bigger thematic fish to fry in that ocean the Enterprise is hiding within.

What the USS Enterprise hiding underwater REALLY says, in a thematic sense which this movie will obviously repeat in other ways, is that big things are hiding and operating just under the surface…and just because you do not see them, does not mean that they are not there, operating, and MAYBE even affecting your lives.

So every time you guys complain about the lack of what you THINK is scientific realism of this or that ingredient of the movie, you may actually be making a complaint against the art of what good storytelling in movies is.

98. Commodore Adams - February 3, 2013

I do wish this movie was a little more highbrow like trek has always been but its far from not being a Star Trek movie. When it’s hot out we wish it was a little cooler and visa versa. For years I know a bunch of trek fans including myself who wanted some more action in Star Trek hence why DS9 is probably my favourite series. We get Star Trek action movies and now we wish it were the other way. Frankly I am glad we have both, thankful to JJ and crew for creating a Star Trek movie we can call epic! Epic is a word that has never been synonymous with the words Star Trek…..it is now!

99. bizkid - February 3, 2013

Sorry, it’s late. I meant “Constitution” class, not Constellation…

100. Commodore Adams - February 3, 2013

@ 100. dmduncan

Holy hell, could not have said it better myself, f@ckin eh! It’s a movie, it’s art. As badly as we would like it to be real and our possible future, it’s fictional art.

…..but you do know, “they” still won’t shut up and will continue nitpicking about such things lolz.

101. Commodore Adams - February 3, 2013

@ 99. 102. bizkid

It is late, here i am nodding off but still posting. Good eye and interesting theory, makes sense.

102. stan - February 3, 2013

@99 Bizkid: enlarge the photo above. It says “Enterprise”.

103. dmduncan - February 3, 2013

76. Basement Blogger – February 3, 2013

Stick my neck out? You are hilarious, my friend. I’ve been saying who I think the most likely candidate is for months now. And opinions and AP’s source don’t matter. Only the facts matter, and they are not backing up AP’s mystery source you are so confident in.

It’s not Khan. It was never Khan. It’s not going to be Khan on opening day, no matter how many times you click your heels together.

Cumberbatch, I do mean. I think we may see Khan in this movie, but probably only briefly in a flashback scene that explains Harrison’s backstory and motivation.

The star villain in THIS movie is a guy named John Harrison. And when you see the epic scale of the destruction he causes, nobody will be saying it was a stupid idea to flesh out one of the other supermen from the Botany Bay as the star bad guy for this movie instead of Khan. No, you will all be gaping so wide your jaws will dislocate.

Now, caveat emptor, sure, I could be wrong. It’s happened before. It’ll happen again.

One thing I don’t think I’ll be apologizing for, however, is how wrong you are that Cumberbatch is Khan.

104. Jack - February 3, 2013

91. Neal. Yep. That’s been the prevailing theory — a connection. Great minds think alike?

105. Vultan - February 3, 2013

#87

Seriously though, Brandon, the reason the Enterprise is underwater is simple: it looks cool. That’s it. The same reason it was built in a cornfield. It looks cool.

So if it bugs you, just look at these new flicks as something different. A sort of parody of Star Trek—Looney Tunes Trek—Silly Rabbit, Trek is for kids! Or… Galaxy Quest 3.

Something along those lines. You may enjoy it more that way.

106. Lynda Palmer - February 3, 2013

Are you sure that was supposed t be Carol Marcus? Looked more like Gary Mitchell’s girl from WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE with that hairdo. Sally Kellerman played her if my memory is correct

107. Robman007 - February 3, 2013

Destroying the Enterprise is getting old and quick. I have a feeling that scene is towards the middle, before the Klingon home world.

Still, come up with something different then killing the Enterprise, especially after one film. Won’t get any sadness outta trek viewers for the loss of a ship that was in one and a half films

108. Dr. Cheis - February 3, 2013

There’s an interesting new detail I noticed about this shot:
http://scifanatic.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/stid-sb-09.jpg

The klingon is being shot and you can see blood spurting from his back. And it’s clearly not the same Pepto-Bismol colored blood from Undiscovered Country.

On another note, I don’t see how the flag is “upside down.” It looks symmetrical to me, but even if it isn’t, this is the future. We know the US flag has extra stars so maybe theirs changed too.

109. MJ - February 3, 2013

DM, you come across so sure so sure of yourself these days. It wasn’t all that long ago that you were touting Gary Mitchell.

If it is a close relation/crew of Khan and not Khan himself, then who gets most credit here — the handful of us who have been saying its a Khan-based story for two years, or do you Johnny-come-latelys take all the credit by showing it is not Khan exactly, but Joachim or an equivalent.

Basement Blogger, Red Dead Ryan, Craiger and I have been on board with a Khan-centric story for two years now compared to your what, 2 months?

So if you are all gaga on opening day about it being Joachim or another connection to Khan having supposedly proved yourself right, well excuse us for not sending you a bowl of roses, dude. ;-)

Anybody can come up with a credible theory within a couple months of a movie’s release. Two years is a bit harder, and requires putting yourself out on a limb here for the long term.

110. Dr. Cheis - February 3, 2013

Ok, I see how the flag is “upside down” now. Guess I learned something about that flag.

Although, I believe there is some precedent for an upside-down flag indicating a crisis or emergency, similar to a flag at half-height indicating a tragedy.

111. Rose (as in Keachick) - February 3, 2013

@Robbie Gordon – Just wondering – what is your dad’s name? I know it. Do you?…:)

112. CanOpener1256 - February 3, 2013

Anyone noticed the size of the saucer against the skyscrapers? That ship is at least the size of a Galaxy class ship in the Prime universe. Remember the last big debate in 2009 about the size of the Enterprise vs. the original Prime version? That one shot in this new movie leads me to believe that the JJ ships ARE significantly larger than the prime verse’s ships. Anyone have any thoughts in this? Or smart enough to calculate the diameter using math and size of surrounding objects?

Might be more fun to discuss than “underwater” or not, or who died more in WW2! :)

113. Rose (as in Keachick) - February 3, 2013

#86 – “We know Kirk ends up without a ship — is it because he’s grounded, because the ship is under repair (or gone), or both?”

I don’t recall reading that Kirk in STID ends up without a ship. I’m not sure what you mean.

114. MJ - February 3, 2013

How can the Union Jack be upside down when it is a symmetrical flag? Am I missing something here???

115. dmduncan - February 3, 2013

115: “If it is a close relation/crew of Khan and not Khan himself, then who gets most credit here — the handful of us who have been saying its a Khan-based story for two years, ”

You get zero credit for claiming it is Khan for two years when it’s not Khan.

You can’t have it both ways. If you want the glory of calling Khan earlier than anyone else, and it’s not Khan, you don’t come away with the glory when you got it wrong. To make a football analogy: Deciding to kick a fieldgoal on 4th and 65 and almost getting the football between the uprights doesn’t get you the 3 points.

And okay, MJ. “Khan-centric?” Come on, man. You have to let go of that. The movie is about John Harrison. Centric means “centered on.” You think that if Khan appears for 60 seconds in this movie then the movie is about him and not John Harrison?

Your claim was that first Del Toro and then Cumberbatch were going to be Khan. You were extremely confident of it. You boasted. And you didn’t stick by that. When you saw the evidence starting to stack against you, you changed your claim to something so vague that only you know what it means. “Khan-centric.” I suppose if Khan is any part of Harrison’s motivation to do what he does, then you will still claim to have scored a direct hit.

But then you have to hope everyone forgets what your claim was for so long, i.e., that Cumberbatch was Khan. It wasn’t that Khan was involved, but that he was THE antagonist, and Cumberbatch was playing him.

I didn’t call it when you did because I saw how weak the evidence was for Khan. In fact, at the time Del Toro was named, I DID caution folks not to be hasty declaring him Khan because he could also be playing Joaquim. I said that AT the time.

116. Hat Rick - February 3, 2013

Can I say one thing here? And I appreciate that others have the same sentiment, but I want to kick it up a notch, as they say. And the thing I want to say is this: Haven’t we gotten out of hand with the “destroy the Enterprise” thing? I’m not sure I understand why the Enterprise has to be victimized every few films, and the more I think about it, the less I like about it.

Look — there’re precious few things holding the universe of Trek together besides the characters. And we’ve got hundreds of characters in total, yes, but only a few of them really count — the captains and their associates. And — lest we forget — the ships named Enterprise. History will never forget the name, “Enterprise,” and all that.

The Enterprise is a major character in the Trek franchise and I don’t always get the feeling that this new universe really understands that.

It’s weird to think of a ship as a major character, until you realize that for the major characters themselves, the ship IS a major character. Kirk is married to his ship. Picard said that famous line about history never forgetting the name, “Enterprise.” It’s no coincidence that the two top Trek series had ships attached to it by that name. (Oddly, the most recent Trek show, “Star Trek: Enterprise,” didn’t do that well, but that’s another story.) “DS9″ and “Voyager” were really cool series, but they’re not quite in league of TOS and TNG. Why? I would argue it’s in part because they didn’t have a ship named “Enterprise.” It sounds stupid, until you think about the importance that the (other) characters place on the ship of that name.

So when I see the Enterprise getting no respect, by being battered, or being beery, or apparently treated as though it can be trashed every few movies, it hurts a bit. It hurts because it seems that the producers don’t “get it.”

“Be careful with the ship. It’s brand new,” said Pike.

Yeah, we’ve been real careful with the ship, Cap’n. Or, from the looks of it, maybe not.

117. MJ - February 3, 2013

@121. Actually, although I don’t have a big problem with the new E, it is not nearly as good looking as the TMP E’s, so it destroying it in this movie gets me a refit E with better looks, then I say go for it.

118. MTabek - February 3, 2013

That line of damage across the nacelle in the ship fall scenes reminds me a lot of the line of damage across engineering in ST 2 as well.

More and more signs pointing to Kahn. I’m very excited for the movie. Can’t wait to see it and doubly so as the 17th is my birthday. :)

119. Kron - February 3, 2013

Wonder if that last ship is an original Constitution or The Enterprise E….

120. MJ - February 3, 2013

@54 “Yes i know. Thats the point. While watching the film, i won’t know which city is shown , unless a flag is there.”

Come on dude, you can clearly see the Thames running through London. No river runs through San Francisco. Its thus very easy to tell them apart.

121. dmduncan - February 3, 2013

I’ll never find the thread. But reviewing some of my old comments makes me think that maybe I spend too much time here.

122. dmduncan - February 3, 2013

Y’know, I really TRIED to like this Enterprise but I haven’t had much success. I think it’s ugly. So I’m not complaiing if they destroy it. If that means we get a beautiful NEW ship for the 3rd movie, I’m okay with it.

123. son of Jello - February 3, 2013

120 the flag isn’t symmetrical the white portion sits above the red portion in the top corner that attaches to the flag pole. Its not something you would notice unless you had to live with it.:)

124. Hat Rick - February 3, 2013

@MJ (122), if they replace it with a ship as beautiful as the one referenced in Post No. 77 in the first Superbowl ad article on this site, then I would welcome the new ship. But somehow, things never work out the way they ideally should and so I’m prepared to be disappointed.

Actually, if you think about it, the odds are very much against the replacement of the nuEnterprise with something akin to that referenced in said post, since there is nothing to suggest, from history, that The Powers that Be would be prone to adopt fan-based ideas in such a literal sense. Thus, in all likelihood, we’ll end up with the same ship, except “patched up,” or something entirely new, with all its attendant problems.

I really don’t know of any other SF franchise wherein the central ship is destroyed every few ships. How many times has the Enterprise been destroyed and/or changed? Let’s count: TMP’s ship was trashed in ST II and replaced by the 1701-A, nee’ the USS Yorktown (by some estimates) at the end of STIV. Then, for some reason, this new ship is retired in STVI. Okay; so much for Enterprise Number Two. The very next movie, the Enterprise-D is destroyed (thanks, Counselor Troi). So much for Enterprise Number Three. The Enterprise-E lasts a few more movies until it is substantially trashed in ST: Nemesis, after which we lose sight of it as far as the cinematic series is concerned. And as far as we know, it doesn’t exist from a production standpoint, so that’s Enterprise Number Four gone. The next one is the nuEnterprise. How long does IT last? One movie? Two movies?

Who can keep count? And yet we’re not supposed to really care that there are so many different starships, all named “Enterprise.” Maybe that’s the point, maybe it’s not. All I know is that it’s starting to seem like “Enterprise” isn’t the best name you could give a starship from warranty point of view.

Anyone starting to feel like the Enterprise is science fiction’s version of “Darrin” from the TV series, “Bewtiched”?

125. Marcus LaCroix - February 3, 2013

I hope this Enterprise does get destroyed. Maybe we will be surprised at the end and they give this timelime an original Constitution Class ship??? And keep in mind, Peter Weller (RoboCop) is in this film but his role seems to have NOT been revealed or seen as of yet. Maybe Weller is Khan and Ben edict is a follower??

126. Hat Rick - February 3, 2013

^^ is destroyed “every few movies,” is what I wanted to say.

As Picard said, there are plenty of letters in the alphabet.

Also, I wanted to make a correction to my citation of Pike’s comment: He said that “she’s” brand new, not that “it’s” brand new. Which makes my point all the more.

127. MJ - February 3, 2013

@129 “I really don’t know of any other SF franchise wherein the central ship is destroyed every few ships.”

They destroyed the entire Deathstar in SW E4, and then built a new Deathstar in SW E6, which then got destroyed again.

128. Joesph - February 4, 2013

91 There MJ goes again trying to bully posters into changing there screen name.
Dude please stop trying to be mr moderator you are not.

Anthony P clearly says his full name in his posts in the comments area.
This Anthony is clearly NOT trying to imply that he is Anthony P.

129. MJ - February 4, 2013

@133 You are trying to discredit me by make up some false crap about me bullying people — that is what is really going on here.

I am not bullying anyone here, having said exactly the following:

“Dude, it is confusing with your posting here name being “Anthony”, given this is Anthony Pascale’s site. Any chance you could use your middle name or some other handle, or put “(not Pascale)” after your name when you post? Much obliged if you can do something about this.”

So where is the bullying in this???

Hey Einstein, the guy is posting as “Anthony” and “Anthony Pascale” is the moderator. It’s legitimately confusing.

130. Mallory - February 4, 2013

Still think Harrison is Reverse Aged Capt. April.

131. DiscoSpock - February 4, 2013

#133 / Joseph

Joseph, for what its worth, I was confused with this new “Anthony”guy posting as well. I thought it was AP.

And I think MJ’s request was reasonable and did not come across as bullying.

132. Aurore - February 4, 2013

“‘I am better…at everything’ should feed the ‘Harrison is really Khan’ speculation fans.”

_______

:))

(Indeed.)

Thank you for the shot-by-shot analysis Anthony!

133. Red Dead Ryan - February 4, 2013

Well, after watching the original Enterprise, the Enterprise C, the Enterprise D, and the Defiant get destroyed, I’m a bit wary of producers sacrificing our favorite ships.

So I don’t think destroying the Enterprise in this movie is a good idea. Two movies, which takes place in a short span of time, and that’s it?

Nah, it can’t be. I suspect that the Enterprise will undergo a massive repair job and refit at the end of “Star Trek Into Darkness”.

Oh yeah, I still think Khan is going to be the villain. He’s definitely in the movie. ;-)

134. MJ - February 4, 2013

@133

Joe, here is ECACTLY what I said to “Anthony”:

“Dude, it is confusing with your posting here name being “Anthony”, given this is Anthony Pascale’s site. Any chance you could use your middle name or some other handle, or put “(not Pascale)” after your name when you post? Much obliged if you can do something about this.”

Where is the bullying here???

This was just a simple and polite request, and others seem supportive of this as well,

Joe, you always seem to come up with negative personal slam types of posts against me and try to falsely discredit me? Come on dude, you are better than this.

135. MJ - February 4, 2013

wow, this site is behaving really weird tonight….keeps rejecting my posts, then posts them later after a delay???

136. Aurore - February 4, 2013

“‘I am better…at everything’ should feed the ‘Harrison is really Khan’ speculation fans.”
_________

:))

My thanks for the shot-by-shot analysis were sincere….

I was agreeing with the comment which does not mean that I was mocking anybody!

I wasn’t!

I still think John Harrison is John Harrison, not Khan, though.
Am I allowed to say so?

:)

137. Red Dead Ryan - February 4, 2013

#129.

In “Batman Returns”, Batman ejected the sides of the Batmobile so he could squeeze between two buildings.* In the next movie, an entirely new Batmobile was destroyed by the Riddler.** “Batman & Robin” featured an entirely new Batmobile yet again, which was frozen solid by the Freezemobile. It was presumably thawed out afterwards.

*The Michael Keaton car returned in the Batman OnStar commercials twelve years ago.

**The Val Kilmer vehicle was also seen in an episode of “The Drew Carey Show” as well as being driven by Russell Brand in “Arthur”.

Not to mention that James Bond destroys pretty much every car he is given, including the Aston Martin D5 in “Skyfall”.

138. Tarrax - February 4, 2013

I’d just like to say I agree with the “Benedict is Joachim” theory. Still seems like the most plausible option given the evidence we’ve seen so far.

139. Aurore - February 4, 2013

:)

Thanks for the shot-by-shot analysis.

(I still think Mr. Cumberbatch won’t be Khan.)

140. Red Dead Ryan - February 4, 2013

Also, there was more than one boat called “Titanic”. Several boat enthusiasts have been known to borrow the name for their own little vessels. And they all have some interesting stories involving hitting rocks and sinking. :-)

141. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - February 4, 2013

@119. Rose (as in Keachick)

The Feb 2013 UK edition of Empire Magazine has a 7 page ‘world exclusive set access’ article for Star Trek Into Darkness. It states that “… Kirk is this time forced into a rash decision that breaks a critical Starfleet command, puts his crew in danger and costs him the captain’s chair.” It goes on to say Kirk, Spock and Uhura (now in civvies) have headed off to try and rectify that mistake.

I hope this helps.

142. Joesph - February 4, 2013

MJ haha wow

Your not a moderator its not your place to Tell or even suggest someone changes their posting name.
This is not the first time you have done that. You did it to the one person posting a few months back who said his name was M.J.T. in real life as well. That guy actually fell for your bullying and changed his name.

Anthony P clearly says his full name on his posts and it even has a link to the sites home page when you scroll over his name in the post.

Guess what there are millions of Anthony’s in the world and Anthony in post 84 says nothing in his post that would lead a person with atleast a little intelligence to think it was Anthony P.

And don’t even get us going about the trash talking you did about AP not posting any stories for a few weeks there.

143. miguelito1701 - February 4, 2013

Part of the movie plays in London, but you can´t use the STiD app there or the rest of the EU.
“FLAG NITPICK ALERT!”
The red stripes shouldn´t be there at all, they represent Ireland and Ireland is reunified according to “canon” . It does look like it that “Scotland” didn´t leave the union after all. (referendum in the making)

144. Joanna - February 4, 2013

The explosions CGI look so cheap in comparison to the marvel film. Cant they spend a bit more on the special effects. The flames in the corridor and the explosion in London looked like a tv movie

145. deekay - February 4, 2013

special effects addition: if you compare this spot with the announcement trailer and look at the scene where harrison is jump-shooting the klingon, you can clearly see they put in some new special effects this time.

146. Jack - February 4, 2013

Well, it’s supposed to be a United Earth — so maybe the flag is historical? It’s weird to see national flags in Star Trek. I don’t think I like the idea.

147. Jack - February 4, 2013

54. I agree with you. They turned San Francisco into Coruscant. Apparently urban planning has changed a bit by the 23rd century…

But, maybe that’ll happen…

148. Exverlobter - February 4, 2013

@ Jack

@151
” It’s weird to see national flags in Star Trek. I don’t think I like the idea.”

The federation is no unitary-state.

Here the definition.
“A federation also known as a federal state, is a political entity characterized by a union of partially self-governing states or regions united by a central (federal) government. ”

Countries like France etc do not seize to exist, just because they join the federation. So they still use those old flags. Fine.

@ 152
Well comparing it to Corusant sounds a little bit exagerated. Those buildings in Corusant were kilometers high.
The cities in STID howerer look like they could be from today, with stereotypical “futuristic” architecture, which can be found en masse in ASia or in cities like Dubai.
I don’t mind what they did with San Francisco, but i don’t like the new London which is barely distinguishable from San Francisco.

149. Jas Madahar - February 4, 2013

Has anyone actually looked at the E when it’s falling. You can’t actually read its full number and name. It may not be the big E. Can’t wait!!

150. James McFadden - February 4, 2013

it looks like Starfleet needs to badly upgrade it’s defenses

151. Joesph - February 4, 2013

134 I love how your little Hey Einstein comment is meant to insult my intellegence, when you are the one who claims you can’t tell the two apart.

Anthony P’s comments always have his full name and when you run your cursor over his screen name its a link to the home page.

ANTHONY on the other hand is just that a guy named ANTHONY.

Pretty cut and dry, Anthony P the site owner has never posted in the comments section with just his fist name. not sure how 3 posts yup count them 3 posts in this thread confused you for awhile as you put it.

DUDE just look at post 75 and you will see what I am talking about Anthony P always posts with his full name.

The main thing I am getting at is once again you trying to throw weight around that YOU don’t have to bully a poster into changing his screen name. Its not your place.
And again let us not forget in the comics thread and the JJ starwars thread you were talking trash talk about him and using the site readers to pay for a mortage or some BS.

How much longer will MJ and his crew be allowed to run amock on here.

152. Aix - February 4, 2013

I just realized that this is the first time we actually see Cumberbatch talk. Like words-coming-out-of-my-mouth talk and not VO.

153. corinthian7 - February 4, 2013

@17 not to mention the Star Trek 09 trailers that show Vulcan being destroyed. Kind of makes a mockery of all the secrecy if you’re just going to give the game away in the freaking trailers.

154. Kieran - February 4, 2013

Finally some more Enterprise pew pews

155. Tiger - February 4, 2013

@93 Neal

Actually I and others have mentioned that before, that Cumberbatch plays an Augment, a by product of Kahn like part of his group OR just from somewhere else.

And yes, there have been other Trek shows that has dealt with the augment issue, not just TOS. Enterprise did a multi-part episode about them using the character Dr. Soong (played by Brent Spiner) who was still experimenting with humans illegally. He was the great grandfather of the OTHER Dr. Soong who would go on to create Data.

And then there is DS9 that dealt with it when we learn Dr. Bashir was a secret augment and genetically engineered when he was just a boy. So yes, it has been brought up several times in different eras and would be no surprise if John Harrison was soemone like this ALTHOUGH I would assume he is somehow part of Kahn’s clan assuming it really is about augments.

156. Desstruxion - February 4, 2013

I’m very excited to see that the Enterprise is crashing. This is my least favorite version of an Enterprise ever. I really hope that the next one is along the same lines as the refit from the original timeline or at least a JJ-verse, Excelsior type ship.

157. Basement Blogger - February 4, 2013

@ 109

Dmduncan says,

“And opinions and AP’s source don’t matter. Only the facts matter, and they are not backing up AP’s mystery source you are so confident in.
It’s not Khan. It was never Khan. It’s not going to be Khan on opening day, no matter how many times you click your heels together.
Cumberbatch, I do mean. I think we may see Khan in this movie, but probably only briefly in a flashback scene that explains Harrison’s bakstory and motivation.”

Okay. First, just because I think it’s Khan, doesn’t mean I think it’s a good idea. Second, AP is very careful in reporting things and he wouldn’t have said it’s Khan without a credible source. Yes, I do trust Anthony Pascale. Third, at least we are in the same group of augments. Fourth, Bob Orci said BC’s character is canon. Not sure we’re talking about Harrison the crewmember.

By the way, the whole Bob Orci lie stuff was a post by Bob in response to a joke. A couple of Trekkers were talking about if Bob lied and our Emperor Mike wrote a funny joke about Bob lying multiple times. Bob then responded by saying he lied once.

158. Ralpha - February 4, 2013

Maybe this link may help.

http://www.movieweb.com/news/star-trek-into-darkness-villain-john-harrison-gets-compared-to-hannibal-lecter

Are we way off base?

159. Hat Rick - February 4, 2013

Thanks for the responses, everyone, about my favorite starship, the Enterprise (in all her versions).

I would compare the Enterprise to the Millennium Falcon in that “other” star-related enterprise. I think the grandeur of the Enterprise far outclasses the MF, naturally, but dramatistically or dramaturlogically speaking, the MF is somewhat equivalent in that it is also a character in its particular saga.

There’s only been one MF, with only one backstory, and to see Han Solo and friends using any other ship (except temporarily) would be incongruous in the context of SW.

Also equivalent would be the eponymous vessels in the two Battlestar Galactica series, or the six-mile long Babylon 5 station, or, obviously, Deep Space Nine. Each of these was destroyed exactly once (and although admittedly there were various Babylon stations before the fifth version, the B5 series was centrally focused on the sixth one).

In each such case, there’s only been one vessel or station (as the case may be), not a series of them.

It’s true that Bond goes through cars like Kleenexes, but I wouldn’t classify his Aston Martins or any other automobile similarly. The same goes for the Batmobile. While these vehicles are important to the mythos of their respective franchise, they’re more like extensions of the main character rather than a character unto itself.

Lending strength to this argument, there are few, if any, important beauty shots of Bond’s car, and only one or two such shots of the various cinematic Batmobiles, for example (primarily in Schumacher’s movies).

Casting an even stronger light on my conclusion is the fact that central character such as Kirk and Scotty specifically treat the Enterprise as almost a person, fully deserving of their affection. In the case of Kirk, one can argue that the Enterprise is an embodiment of her crew and thus the reason for his affinity to it; in the case of Scotty, it seems that the ship itself is the reason.

160. IPIUIL - February 4, 2013

@153 Exverlobter
The federation does not consist of countries. It`s a federation of PLANETS.
And Earth is indeed united in Star Trek so there should be no “nations”.

But of course I think the UK as a “region” could still use that flag.

161. TheMightyChip - February 4, 2013

I seriously doubt that the Enterprise will be destroyed. When the original 1701 was blown up it was after several decades of service (both in-universe and from the audience perspective). The 1701-JJ has only been on the active register for what… a couple years at most? Not enough time for the audience or the characters to build up any of the emotional attachment required for the ship’s destruction to be dramatic. If I had to guess (and as a trekkie, I do) I would say she gets tore all to hell, begins falling towards the surface of the planet (Earth?), but at the very last second Scotty reverses the polarity on the discombobulator and pulls her heroically out of a dive.

To the people saying they’re hoping the ship does get destroyed…. wow. So you don’t like the new design…. ok, I get that. It’s not my favorite either to be honest. But the Enterprise is the flagship of the franchise no matter what form she takes – why would anyone ever hope for her destruction?

162. Robe - February 4, 2013

Actually it looks like Scotland will remain part of the UK and even if it were to leave, it could well be reunited with England and Wales at a later date.

Likewise Northern Ireland either leaving or staying part of the UK is unlikely to cause the removal of the British born St Patrick cross.

Concidering we never got the Eugenics War from 1992 to 1996 I wouldn’t count a throw away line made in a Next Generation episode as a reliable prediction of Ireland’s future.

PS I am Northern Irish.

163. Spock - February 4, 2013

I don’t where people say Star Trek had “no action in it”, maybe that was the TNG era, but classic trek, especially in season 2 was action / adventure, same with the movie series. They just never had the budget to pull off what JJ can.

164. Commander K - February 4, 2013

Has anyone actually considered the Enterprise DOESN’T crash…i think it hurtles down and last minute heroics see it getting to safety before goin splat!

its another JJ deception! BobOrci will back me up on this

165. BatlethInTheGroin - February 4, 2013

#165: The fact that we, in the real world, didn’t have a Eugenics Wars is irrelevant since Star Trek isn’t “our” universe. That much is clear from Star Trek IV, “Tomorrow Is Yesterday” and every other time-travel story in which the casts visit the 20th century–if the Star Trek universe were our universe, then everyone would get all excited when they showed up in the past, thinking them to be television actors. That doesn’t happen–hence, Star Trek is not this universe. As such, the Eugenics Wars are still part of Trek history, regardless of whether or not they happened in the real world.

166. Tanner Waterbury - February 4, 2013

@162 Theres been only Fove Babylon stations, hence the “Babylon 5″

167. Chain of Command - February 4, 2013

Seeing the picture of the Refit Enterprise being destroyed….. 29 years later and I still think that (blowing it up) was the WORST decision they ever made in the history of the franchise.

Definitely would like to see the “E” in the new film get a slight revamp. It just looks weird.

168. The Bear - February 4, 2013

Does it not look that the primary hull is seperating/breaking off from the secondary hull?

169. Aurora D - February 4, 2013

My opinion, which counts for nothing, I know, but here it goes.

That ship crashing down in the trailer, despite all the “analysis” to the contrary, is supposed to be the Enterprise. Chalk up the fact the CGI model doesn’t look right to some shoddy modeling by somebody. (Even ILM sometimes subcontracts out when they get swamped.) It happens, you know it, I know it. I think the reason for having a “water landing” and for show the Enterprise can survive underwater is to actually crash the ship without utterly destroying it, sort of a “Have our cake and eat it too” thought process.

I think Harrison is an Augment, a “modern day” Augment. I believe it will turn out that following the destruction of Vulcan, some of the higher ups in the Federation decide that they need to be prepared to face any threat, including ones they can’t even conceive of because they’re from the future, and decide the best chance to do that lay in the Augment program from the past. Remember, that technology wasn’t lost, it was “secured”. Just like the US isn’t building new Nuclear weapons, or Chem Weapons, but the Pentagon sure didn’t get rid of any of the blueprints or formulas either. They felt they could create Augments, raised in the “more enlightened” Federation, they’d be controllable, and they’ve gotten proven wrong and now it’s biting them in the butt.

Given the constant references to “TDK”, I think the ending of this movie will show us that our heroes are who we expect them to be, but for the rest of the Federation, they will be considered pariahs and outcasts. In fact, it could turn out that the “Federation” collapses at the end of this movie because none of the member planets trust each other any more, and the old rivalries shown in ST:ENT flare up again.

Like I said, just my opinion, I’ll find out whether I’m right or wrong same day we all do.

170. Corinthian7 - February 4, 2013

168 – Technically speaking Young Jimmy Kirk was blasting out a song by the Beastie Boys that references a TV and film character called Spock so it would seem that in the JJverse there was indeed a Star Trek TV show…

171. Exverlobter - February 4, 2013

@ BatlethInTheGroin
“As such, the Eugenics Wars are still part of Trek history, regardless of whether or not they happened in the real world.”

Watch Future’s End (Voyager) again. THere were no Eugenics Wars. Reality has rectonned that, and the writers even acknowledge that. The Eugenics Wars are still a part of Trek though, but they probably occur a few decades later now. They probably are now a part of the Third World War.

172. LogicalLeopard - February 4, 2013

Okay, I’m so confused….

I’ve gone through several iterations of who John Harrison is, and now I’m back to Khan. I mean, the Movie App is dropping so many hints in it’s news section that Harrison isn’t really Harrison and references to Khan. I think it’s Khan. Sure, they could be red herrings, but then again, I thought Robert April was a red herring.

When this movie comes out, if Harrison is a genetically engineered tribble, I woudn’t be all that suprised….

173. Josh C. - February 4, 2013

163 – I’ve kind of seen nations in the United Earth as akin to states in the United States. They have some level of sovereignty but are still subservient to the larger (in this case) global government

167 – it may not crash. it may also crash into the water, which makes Scotty’s alternations from the start of the movie (when they’re hiding under water) suddenly become very useful

As for Cumberbatch being Khan, etc.

Is it possible? Yeah.

Is it likely?I don’t think so, and here is why:

1) Abrams has said that Cumberbatch’s goals will be seen as sympathetic, even if his methods are not. I can’t imagine seeing Khan having goals that would be seen as sympathetic.

2) Many of the arguments used to say he might be Khan (super strong, “better at everything,” etc. aren’t necessarily unique traits of Khan’s among Star Trek’s villains. I think people take these pieces of evidence as evidence of Khan because they want it to be Khan, not because it is evidence of Khan specifically.

It’s quite possible that it is an augment story that doesn’t relate to Khan. As I saw a few others note, Star Trek HAS done stories before that deal with Augments that don’t have anything to do with Khan, Enterprise perhaps being the most notable. In fact, it is quite possible that that trio of episodes is the basis behind this movie.

Or he might not have anything to do with augments. The strongest argument that it MIGHT be augments is the room with people in pods, but even that doesn’t guarantee augments (to say anything about Khan himself).

Anyway, I know this won’t change anyone’s minds but felt I had to get it off me, again. lol

174. LogicalLeopard - February 4, 2013

170. Chain of Command – February 4, 2013
Seeing the picture of the Refit Enterprise being destroyed….. 29 years later and I still think that (blowing it up) was the WORST decision they ever made in the history of the franchise.

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

Only my opinion, but I’ve always liked that. It makes you feel insecure, like you can’t take anything for granted. Definately reminds people of the danger of space travel. 1,000 redshirts can bite it, but when you see the big E go down, it moves you.

175. Exverlobter - February 4, 2013

” The federation does not consist of countries. It`s a federation of PLANETS.
And Earth is indeed united in Star Trek so there should be no “nations”.

Yes i know it’s a Federation of Planets. But there can still be semi-independant nations.
For example:
I live in the state of Bavaria. It has got an own Parliament, an own Prime-Minister etc. Bavaria is one of 16 states of the Federal Republic of Germany which itself is a part of the European Union. ANd yes, i’ve got a Bavarian flag :-) They won’t vanish, just because Bavaria became a part of Germany and later a part of the European Union.
Thats an analogy to understand how the Federation could actually work. It might be probably comparable to the EUropean Union.

176. LogicalLeopard - February 4, 2013

175. Josh C. – February 4, 2013

1) Abrams has said that Cumberbatch’s goals will be seen as sympathetic, even if his methods are not. I can’t imagine seeing Khan having goals that would be seen as sympathetic.

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

If Khan wants to spread genetic engineering to all human beings, then that would be very sympathetic. Eliminating diseases, improving the collective intellect of the species, and being better able to face growing threats around them from the Romulans and Klingons. Maybe he says that the problem with the Eugenics wars is that there were only a few augments. If everyone is an augment, no problem!

177. Josh C. - February 4, 2013

177 – “If Khan wants to spread genetic engineering to all human beings, then that would be very sympathetic.”

Why would he even WANT to do that? If he wants to rule the earth, wouldn’t it be easier if people WEREN’T genetically modified (or only very selectively so). More genetic supermen = more rivals. Also, I can’t see it being Khan without him basically wanting to rule the earth, which isn’t very sympathetic, regardless of whatever plans he might have

Now, if there was a character who wanted to use genetic manipulation to cure disease, or advocated for some form of equal “augment rights,” then that could be seen as sympathetic, but I don’t think either of those would be goals Khan would pursue, at least not for their own sakes.

178. Damian - February 4, 2013

Maybe now they’ll be able to upgrade engineering :).

For now, I’ll just accept John Harrison is John Harrison. He looks nothing like Khan to me and I think they would at least make an attempt to pick someone similar (though I think it’s very possible he is linked to Khan in some way).

179. Randy (Not Anthony At All) H. - February 4, 2013

#176 – If there was some emotional connection to this Big E, I would agree. But it is somewhat ungainly in design and has only been seen in one film. No movement here yet – we’ll have to see how it is presented in the film to see if its destruction moves me emotionally.

180. Gilberto - February 4, 2013

MALWARE ALERT ON YOUR SITE, PASCALLE!!!!! MY GOOGLE CHROME DETECTED IT!!!

181. A french fan - February 4, 2013

Hello,

In that new trailer, something struck me, maybe because I’m not an english native: the prononciation of the word “better” by Benedict Cumberbatch. He pronouces it “bether” and not “beter” (I had difficulties to understand it, at first). As I’m not an english accent specialist, I want to ask british natives if it’s a common way to pronounce this word in UK.

If yes, that may be an indication on John Harrison. I know, Benedict Cumberbatch is a british actor but doesn’t actor tend to make disappear their native accent in american film? I don’t doubt BC is capable of doing that. So, is that indicating that John Harrison may be british? That will explain the London desctruction (vengeance?) and the casting of BC…

If not, I’m sorry for my foolish theory, based on a lack understanding of the differents english accents.

182. Dave - February 4, 2013

All I see is NCC-170? And no name? Are you folks blind?

183. TBW - February 4, 2013

14…I think, at this point, he’s an Augment, but in the Bashir tradition (in that he’s an Augment but unrelated to the Eugenics Wars). My point is, Khan should be older than this, given that he was preserved at a particular age. I understand the cinematic technology exists to age people, but…shouldn’t that have happened to Khan?

184. Gary - February 4, 2013

The Enterprise in the clip is a flashback scene of April’s Enterprise, NCC-1700. Notice how the last number is obscured? Pike’s Enterprise is obviously built after April’s is destroyed.

185. Comodore Decker - Thank you JJ, Bob Ocri and everyone else! - February 4, 2013

Okay, very interesting stuff. First let me address the apparent destruction of my beloved Enterprise. As others have pointed out here, it may not actually crash/be destroyed.

Either way she appears to have been torn up pretty well. My guess? Scotty saves the day. However I am about 98 percent sure the ship in those scenes is indeed the Enterprise (and not another Constitution class ship as others have suggested).

Although I am curious to know if there are actually other Constitution class starships in JJ Trek. We already know that the Enterprise is larger than the original version and the argument so far has been that Nero’s attack scared the Federation so much that it began developing bigger and better starships. The Enterprise could be the first of her kind. Although that would mean NCC-1700 was never used and they started at NCC-1701… doesn’t seem to make much sense but whatever. Hopefully this isn’t the case and there are some other constitution class ships out there.

Last I will just say that I am a huge Trekkie, have been all my life. Ever sense my grandmother first put it on the TV for me while babysitting (re-runs obviously as I am only 28). Let me just say that although I have not liked or “agreed” with everything that JJ has done so far, I appreciate the level of effort he and the folks of Bad Robot have put into this franchise. To see Kirk and the crew on the big screen again a few years ago was such a joy and I am forever gratefully that Trek is relevant again. Please JJ, don’t let Star Wars ruin this. You can do both. Just finish what you have started here so future generations can enjoy Trek too.

186. Josh C. - February 4, 2013

184 – from the top down view, the NCC-1701 is clearly visible on the ship. It is clearly the Enterprise. Whether this is the same ship that crashes into the water or into the buildings in San Francisco, we don’t know. But the scene with it falling from orbit is clearly the big-E

185 – My personal feeling? It crashes into the water, and the modifications made by Scotty at the start of the movie to help it hide under water save the day

187. TBW - February 4, 2013

14…I think, at this point, he’s an Augment, but in the Bashir tradition (in that he’s an Augment but unrelated to the Eugenics Wars). My point is, Khan should be older than this, given that he was preserved at a particular age. I understand the cinematic technology exists to age people, but…shouldn’t that have happened to Khan if he’s going to be played by a younger man?

188. Yanks - February 4, 2013

@ 100. John – February 3, 2013
This looks like a good action film, but it’s not Star Trek. Thank you J.J. for leaving so we can get a true Star Trek fan to direct the next movie!
———————————————————————————————–
JJ’s not leaving. He’s doing the next movie too.
===========================================================
@ 102. bizkid – February 3, 2013
Can’t believe I’m the first to point this out. but I don’t think that’s the Enterprise falling through the atmosphere. In the Trek cannon, all (five?) Constellation class starships were numbered sequentially: 1701, 1702, etc.

If you look closely at the photos, the last digit of the four is obscured, as is the ship’s name. This could easily be another Constellation class starship, an Enterprise sister ship, identical in appearance, crashing.
———————————————————————————————–
I see a “1” in the second photo. I firmly believe it’s 1701 falling straight down.
===========================================================
@ 116. Dr. Cheis – February 3, 2013
Ok, I see how the flag is “upside down” now. Guess I learned something about that flag.

Although, I believe there is some precedent for an upside-down flag indicating a crisis or emergency, similar to a flag at half-height indicating a tragedy.
———————————————————————————————–
30 year Navy vet here. Very good, an upside down flag is an international sign for distress.
===========================================================
I’m glad trekmovie has conformed my summation that the star ship crashing into SF bay is NOT the Enterprise (jj’s 1701).

Also, I saw a picture on the Star Trek facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=631479560201886&set=a.131005510249296.24356.122908054392375&type=1&relevant_count=1&ref=nf#!/StarTrek) that included the NX-01 along with the nuTrek crew and a shot of nuKirk. Thought that was interesting. I always thought the ship crashing into SF bay looked like a NX class. Could this be a reveal linking this storyline to the Augments from Enterprise?

Here’s a link to the photo, not sure if everyone will be able to see it:
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/487962_631479560201886_1666711592_n.jpg

REALLY looking forward to this movie. Epic comes to mind every time I watch a trailer.

Have Star Trek movies (not just JJ’s) destryed the Enteprise too often? Yeah, but to JJ him for it is a little over the top considering we don’t even know if 1701 bites the dust or not.

One can only hope, maybe we can get an Engineering instead of a brewery.

189. Comodore Decker - Thank you JJ, Bob Ocri and everyone else! - February 4, 2013

184 – I don’t know if that would make much sense as NCC – 1700 was used several other times. If you head over to Memory Alpha they have a break down of how it was used. BUT, you do make an excellent point. There is no reason why this shot could not be from the past.

190. DeShonn Steinblatt - February 4, 2013

Khan.

191. Nachum - February 4, 2013

Perhaps if Ireland joined the UK in its entirety, it would be placed above the Scotland, so the flag would be flipped.

192. Comodore Decker - February 4, 2013

186 – Your theory about the big E crashing into the ocean and Scotty’s modifications helping it survive/hide there would certain “hold water” =D

Sorry couldn’t help myself! But all the same, not a bad theory at all.

193. Yanks - February 4, 2013

Why was my post deleted?

194. Josh C. - February 4, 2013

as someone else noted above, I just got a malware warning in Google for trekmovie.com as well…

195. LJ - February 4, 2013

I have a theory regarding the UK flags: couldn’t the UK have joined the UFP independently of Earth? I recall in TNG somewhere it was said that Australia was the last nation to join United Earth, but this does not mean every nation was a member.

Also on TNG, data screens showed evidence that the UK was operating an independent space exploration program in the mid-22nd century (HMS Lord Nelson, and HMS New Zealand mentioned, the latter on a ‘diplomatic mission to Alderaan’). Stretching the concept of ‘if it’s onscreen, it’s canon’, I know, but it is likely the Royal Navy operated separately to Starfleet for some time. I recall this being remarked on in Enterprise, where it was unique for a member of the Reed family to be in Starfleet (most of his family had served in the RN).

Perhaps in the 23rd century we have the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Northern Ireland and Wolf 359 (or the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Northern Ireland and Izar, if Harrison is Garth). The capital is still London, and the UK and its interstellar colonies are a Federation member separate to Earth.

That or, as others have suggested, the planetary regions are allowed to keep their flags. Somehow, I hope my theory is true. I like the idea.

196. ScottC - February 4, 2013

@180. Randy (Not Anthony At All) H

Love the sarcasm in your name for all the nitpickers on here!

197. Jake Sisko - February 4, 2013

That gary mitchell theory was DOA with the first trailer. I think it is Khan and everything will be explained. I think they did that in the commercial to address all the speculation. I love this movie the more of it I see. I think they are holding back on a ton of info an visuals and I am happy for that. I do not want this movie ruined for me.

The Khan thing makes perfect perfect sense considering all the evidence presented including the IMAX preview. Someone else may have discovered the Botany Bay in that timeline and maybe Kirk is dealing with the fallout of that discovery and the coverup.

The comics according to ORCI on startrek.com are not canon as much as we would like them to be. Not everyone goes to a comic shop.

198. Jake Sisko - February 4, 2013

Way too much Nerd nitpicking going on on this site. One thing I despise is nitpicking and whining about a movie that has not come out yet.

Chill with the nerd speculation. this is why when a film I really want to see comes out, I stay the hell off the internet until I do.

We dont know anything other than what we have seen.

199. Edshrinker - February 4, 2013

It’s confirmed that Abrams will still produce the third Star Trek movie, though it’s not been confirmed either way if he will direct it. Of course, Abrams rather famously took his sweet time before committing to direct Star Trek Into Darkness, so it’s likely we would have been in for another wait even if Abrams hadn’t gotten the Star Wars directing gig. [USA Today]

IMHO, JJ’s Star Wars will be great, but inexplicably it will fall short financially. It will make huge bank, but the greedy, grubby hands at Disney will be disappointed. In turn, JJ will be disappointed and his ego will take a blow. And you know what he’ll do? What most guys have done at least once in their life: call up the old girlfriend and express your undying love and commitment, apologizing with remorse over “ever leaving her”. And 18 months later, we will have ST3, directed by JJ, who goes all in to make something that will get the taste of “disappointment” out of his mouth from the box office letdown of SW.

I have forseen it.

200. Kirk's Girdle - February 4, 2013

172 Spock is referenced in Intergalactic.

201. Yanks - February 4, 2013

I’m guessing, unless I’m getting too close to the truth, that my posts are being filtered or deleted because I have links in them (to the Star Trek facebook page and a photo)

So here’s the post without the links.

===========================================================
Hey, did anyone else catch this?

There is a photo that shows the NX-01, the nuTrek crew and nuKirk in a space outfit.

It’s on the Star Trek Facebook page.

Is this a reveal that this story does contain Augments from the Enterprise series?

Also, is it possible that the ship crashing into SF bay is an NX class, possily the NX-01? I alwayss thought the style of ship crashing into the bay looked like one.

Thanks for the shot by shot analysis Anthony. Great work once again.

202. Spock Jenkins - February 4, 2013

I would second what others are saying –

If Ireland and Northern Ireland was reunited in 2024 ( ST:TNG “HIgher Ground” ), why do the Union Flags shown in the trailer still retain The Saint Patrick’s Cross on the design?

203. Jonboc - February 4, 2013

I think the crashing Enterprise may actually be a flashback where we see Captain April crashing to the planet that he is seen on in the new comic. Just a thought…I know how JJ loves misdirection!

204. Baby - February 4, 2013

#198 Edshrinker

Do you think this is what happened to Byran Singer when he left the Xmen film series to go direct superman returns.

both xmen 3 and superman returns ended up sucking and Byran Singer went back to making xmen films.

I dont think the same will ever happen for JJ

SW 7 will be a great film and there is no way it will flop even if it gets bad reviews.which it wont.

star wars unlike star trek has always made money ….it did not matter if the films were great or not.

A Star Trek film has to be good to make money….

205. Hugh Hoyland - February 4, 2013

The trailer looks fantastic, yet again! Can May get here any faster?

From the trailers and first 9 minutes this movie has an EPIC feel to it that I think is going to blow people away.

As far as Cumbers character I dont think its Khan but its leaning towards a eugenics type character. Maybe Star Fleet believed (after finding the BB) it could use eugenics to help its decimated ranks against its enemies (Klingons ect). And as usual, the government messed it up big time.

206. Hugh Hoyland - February 4, 2013

I also think it would rock if a story could be created along the lines that after these “terror” attacks Star Fleet starts using them as an excuse to act more like a police state and Kirk goes renegade in an attempt to fight it and restore freedom.

207. Son Of MJ - February 4, 2013

I am standing by what I said, if your going to use a genetic superman storyline and not have the REAL Khan in it why bother telling that story.

There are plenty of great actors out there they could have cast as Khan.
Harrison is NOT Khan.

I still think harrison is connected to Capt April, and his use of April’s Gatling gun in the trailer leads me to think he is infact a reverse aged Apri ala the Counter Clock incident.

If the last time Kirk encounters April is as a much older man(more than likely the stil un named character peter weller is playing) then its very likely that Kirk would have no clue who a reverse aged April was.

and the Better than everyone comment can definately work in that case as he would actually be better than everyone else

208. Edshrinker - February 4, 2013

Baby, I don’t disagree with anything you said. What I meant is SW7 will be a very good film, be well received…but fall short of the obnoxious projections Disney will make for B.O. It will still make a gazillion dollars, but Disney was thinking 2.5 gazillion ;) And if SW7 does fall short, JJ will be astute enough to know that. He MUST have an ego to be successful in this business. So he will have an “I will show ‘em” attitude and go balls out to finish his ST trilogy. (I strongly believe the end of this movie will be very Empire Strikes Back, full of angst, and in serious need of resolution…with a Khan reveal). And Paramount will see the numbers from STID and SW7 and think, “Damn – we can live with that!” Give JJ a huge payday. JJ is eager to knock one out of the park. A deal is made for him to direct a May 2017 ST3.

ALL SPECULATION. Just a scenario knocking through my head since the announcement.

209. Giez - February 4, 2013

184. Gary

Last # isn’t obscured… look above at the photo, clearly can the the 1

210. Edshrinker - February 4, 2013

And not to be a JJ fan boy, but he is simply more talented than Singer. Singer’s stuff has sucked out loud a few times. With JJ – I even thought Under Covers and Alcatraz were entertaining. Not awesome, but well done. Oddly enough, the one show I was CONVINCED would be amazing with 2 of my favorite guys involved (Eric Kripke and JJ)… has fallen FAR below my expectations.

211. Billiam - February 4, 2013

Our craving for explosions has desensitized how powerful it is to see Starfleet’s Flagship beat up after a long fight. When Kirk docks the Enterprise for the final time in Search for Spock, that scene still makes me freeze in awe. Think about it – we never really see the extent of the damage caused by Khan until the next movie. The fact the ship limped home like that is still a strong moment. I doubt I’ll have the same feelings about the Big E in this movie; they’ll just build another one. Unceremoniously.

212. MC Doctor - February 4, 2013

Don’t assume the damage to NCC-1701 is battle-caused. What if Kirk opens the shuttle bay doors, floods the bay, then closes them before lifing the ship out of the ocean. He has Sulu take the ship into the mount of the volcano – opens the bay to douce engough water to save Spock (somehow) but the volcano still messes up the ship. Or maybe he just takes he in the volcano sans the water drop.

I know it still looks like Enterprise is above Earth, the lights of civilization. Maybe she gets back to Earth after the “Torcano Incident” (look up Dennis Miller) but she’s so hurt he falls from orbit.

Pike bitches Kirk out – he “loses” the ship because of repairs or being bad. Then the John Harrison attacks occur, and our bridge crew use private or non-Enterprise means to go after him.

Anyway, its fun to speculate. Com’on May!!

213. BOB - February 4, 2013

ITS NOT A NITPICK ABOUT THE BRITISH FLAG! ITS LIKE HANGING THE AMERICAN FLAG UPSIDE DOWN… NOW WOULD YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT?

214. Phil - February 4, 2013

Bad day to be the Enterprise. Kinda sucks, I like that ship…That’s what happens when you toss a kid the keys to the flagship.

215. Yanks - February 4, 2013

WHY ARE MY POSTS BEING DELETED!!!

216. Chris Roberts - February 4, 2013

I’d be more concerned about the flag being outdated after the Scottish referrendum actually… ;-)

This is the first indication of Nationalism in the future, I believe. A bit controversial, as until now Star Trek was shown to be a United Earth after WWIII.

217. NuFan - February 4, 2013

An unknown augment that no one has ever heard of would not count as a canon character. Cumberbatch is playing a canon character.

218. Edshrinker - February 4, 2013

BOB – Very upset, no doubt. Very disrespectful. The American flag, well, not symetrical. Hard to “f” that up.

My thinking is London is under atack and the flag is hung upside-down as an indication they are being attacked. With the amount of time our team takes to give us morsels, if that shot is effed up I will be very disappointed. This is the most watched TV of the year. You would think they would care enough to get it right.

219. Hodge Podge - February 4, 2013

I agree with @214, nationalism should be dead by the 23rd century. No flag waving bollocks, and I say that as a Brit.

220. vva - February 4, 2013

# 211 – This is the future. Who knows what the flag will look like.

221. Edshrinker - February 4, 2013

Most watched SB of all time. Yeah pretty sure the flag shot is intentional.

222. Edshrinker - February 4, 2013

Despite your taste in movies, Ocri Kurtzman and Linelof are smaaht guys. I can’t believe they would let a trailer loose with that audience that has such a MAJOR screw up. They have “proof readers” as well. I just can’t rage on this. I am a HUGE patriot and recognize a flag’s significance. I will NOT minimize it’s importance. So – I think they did it intentionally.

223. falcon - February 4, 2013

A couple of things…

First, thanks to Anthony et al for the shot-by-shot analysis. It went by so fast during the Super Bowl that it didn’t really register.

Second, the Enterprise could conceivably be above Nibiru after the volcano erupts. And it’s not necessarily “destroyed” because impulse engines keep it from falling too rapidly. But it’s beat all to hell and Pike rips Kirk a new one over the fact he can’t keep his ship intact because of his arrogance and ego.

Third, I also think we’ll see some sort of refit taking place, because JJ took a lot of heat for the redesign, so he’ll probably think of some way to “placate” Trekkers while at the same time making it a logical sequence of events. (But I doubt it. After all, he blew up Vulcan and put Delta Vega close enough to see it.)

At any rate, don’t expect to see a lot of trailers or TV spots between now and May that reveal much more about the plot. We probably won’t see Peter Weller’s character or get the reason why Chekov is wearing a red shirt until the movie’s release, for example. And I still think “John Harrison” is a red herring.

224. Lt. Shooter Castillo - February 4, 2013

I’m pretty slow, but I just noticed that the new title cards in this trailer are set up to lead into the movie title which shows up in roughly the same font & size at the end of the trailer – So the trailer is basically saying: “Our world will fall into darkness.”

Pretty cool.

/nerd

225. Ken Dubrowski - February 4, 2013

Looks great so far and feels like a build up to a larger canvas to paint on.

I would like to see at the end of the film a Starfleet that is seriously damaged and may take years to repair, instead of the reset button Star Trek tends to do as in the past. Infinite resources to rebuild, quick turn around on new ships being built, etc. I like that the last film showed how long a starship takes to construct. Imagine having to make twenty new ships. It would be great to not have an Enterprise for awhile in the next film or that most of the Constitution class starships were destroyed. I would like to see Starfleet decimated, vulnerable to attack and invasion with a command crew unsure who their friends were. With Vulcan gone, Starfleet has no allies to come to their aid and they might never able to achieve what they had before in past time lines. That would create infinite possibilities in story lines for the future. Can’t wait and I hope it goes into darkness…

226. LogicalLeopard - February 4, 2013

178. Josh C. – February 4, 2013

Why would he even WANT to do that? If he wants to rule the earth, wouldn’t it be easier if people WEREN’T genetically modified (or only very selectively so). More genetic supermen = more rivals. Also, I can’t see it being Khan without him basically wanting to rule the earth, which isn’t very sympathetic, regardless of whatever plans he might have
******************************************************

I thought about that too, but remember, Khan wanted to rule the Earth, because the Earth was the only planet in play. Awakening into a new “world” filled with inhabitable, and habitated planets, he now has the opportunity to conquer the galaxy. And conquering the galaxy will require other supermen. Would Khan rule the whole thing? At the end of the day, i think he believes he will, and welcomes the challenge of subduing the universe and then clawing his way to the top. He’s already got a super advantage, if he’s the man who “liberated” human beings from chains of genetic slavery so to speak.

Now that may be his master plan, but really, I think some people would be sympathetic to his goal of improving humanity if he frames it right. Think about it. What would you say if a simple procedure made you a genious and a perfect physical specimen. Would you say “No, I’ll just remain stupid.” Is there a cogent moral argument against it? Human society constantly encourages people to be the best they can be, Khan is just making that happen more literally.

227. Yanks - February 4, 2013

I haven’t read every post here, but concerning that flag.

If it is indeed upside down, that IS an international sign for distress.

It would seem that that most cetainly applies to Britian in this movie.

228. Ralph Pinheiro - February 4, 2013

I believe that even if we have a single government on earth, ex-nations will maintain their traditions, regionalisms. This is deeply rooted in the whole mankind for generations.

229. KMKProd - February 4, 2013

Remember the Eugenics Wars included “supermen” from different nations, regions. Perhaps this is one of Khan’s European counterparts that is seeking revenge on his former home for expulsion.

230. SirBroiler - February 4, 2013

It’s been said time and time again – but pretty clear Harrison is an augment and he goes to Kronos to find and free Khan who was discovered in this Universe by the Klingons instead of the Enterprise.

He’s not Gary Mitchell. He’s not Robert April. He’s not Khan himself. But Khan is going to play a role in this – even if it’s the last 5 seconds to set-up Star Trek (Ambramsverse) III.

If I’m wrong I’ll take a Ceti eel to the ear.

231. LogicalLeopard - February 4, 2013

187. TBW – February 4, 2013

My point is, Khan should be older than this, given that he was preserved at a particular age. I understand the cinematic technology exists to age people, but…shouldn’t that have happened to Khan if he’s going to be played by a younger man?

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

Simple. Plastic surgery. I think there is a real John Harrison that Khan replaced and masqueraded as him to further his goals. Which is why Kirk asks him who he is. He’s clearly in a Starfleet uniform, and it would be simple for Kirk to run a check in the computer for him. But if the search comes up blank, or he has reason to believe he’s not “Harrison”, he would do a DNA check, which would come up negative, since Khan’s DNA wouldn’t probably be on file.

Actually, when you think about it, the fact that he’s 1) a Human and 2) Kirk doesn’t seem to know who he is, and can’t seem to find out without asking him directly, is the strong evidence to suggest that he’s either Khan or a Botany Bay augment.

232. Dee - lvs moon' surface - February 4, 2013

I’m a little disappointed with this shot by shot analysis that made Anthony P. .. he left out the most important shot of Captain Kirk, which explains everything!

BTW because of that this movie will be a huge success!!

Look what I’m talking about:

http://shesdonejim.tumblr.com/post/42241199856

;-) :-)

233. DiscoSpock - February 4, 2013

Joesph,

You should realize how petty you come across with your obvious negative posts directed at MJ. He had a relatively minor suggestion, and made it in a polite way, and then you freaked out and jumped on him and falsely claimed he was bullying people.

What is with you? You are coming across as someone with a petty grudge here who is looking to settle a score.

234. Anthony Pascale - February 4, 2013

Ship falling to planet IS Enterprise

Ship crashing into water IS NOT Enterprise

235. Nick - February 4, 2013

217: I am with you on that … the original Enterprise’s respect was earned over many adventures.

236. steve - February 4, 2013

I’d like to see us make it through these 3 new movies without blowing up the Enterprise again. Been there, done that, too many times.

237. Dee - lvs moon' surface - February 4, 2013

Harrison = MALWARE ;-) :-)

What’s going on?

238. Josh C. - February 4, 2013

232 – I didn’t say he wouldn’t need other supermen. Everyone on the Botany Bay was one. But there is no reason to make genetic engineering widespread throughout the population. Just having a few supermen to allow him to conquer the galaxy isn’t a very “sympathetic” goal.

(speaking of the Botany Bay, supposing this IS Khan…where are all the other Augments? I suppose there are explanations. But if he was able to escape, presumably he would have been able/willing to free his comrades as well)

I just don’t see using genetics to create super people as a sympathetic goal. If one was using it to cure diseases, then yes. But I doubt Khan is going to spend his time going around curing people, which is the other part of why I don’t think it’s him.

As for an non-Khan augment being “canon” (I know you specifically didn’t bring this up I don’t think), I think it depends how literally you use the term. Is it a CHARACTER who is literally established before (eg, Garth, Khan) or is it a character type (eg Augments) which has been established in canon. We know there were a lot of Augment embryos left over. One of those becoming a person could be argued to be canon.

Otherwise – about the flag: There is the United States. Individual states still have flags. Heck, even cities still have flags. Why would the Uk having a flag under a United Earth be all that different than New York having it’s own flag under the United States?

239. Yanks - February 4, 2013

Anthony, WHY DID MY 2 POSTS GET DELETED?

If I’ve done something wring I’d like to know what it is so it wont happen again.

Email me or something!

Thanks

240. WriterJWA - February 4, 2013

Out of curiosity, when should we expect to see a larger theatrical trailer? Any estimations?

241. K-7 - February 4, 2013

#239 Disco Spock,

Yes, I agree. Joesph is being grossly unfair on this. His posted twice again today and is bringing up some list of personal grievances now as well. He’s out of control at this point.

242. RobertSeverson - February 4, 2013

Let’s not jump the gun on complaining about Big E getting destroyed or maimed. There is a propensity towards viewing images in a trailer literally, which is total understandable. But, there are a host of reasons that we might not be seeing what we think.

1) we could be witnessing a tie-in to the IDW comics with witnessing how April wound up (stranded?) on the planet he is discovered on in the first tie-in book.

2) we could be witnessing a different tie-in with Spock dreaming about his Mothers death like he does in that very same issue.

The point is, taking things at face value when you have emotionally intelligent writers like Orci around is sillier than not taking a left turn at Albequerque. We just DON’T KNOW.

In a related topic let me say that it is wearisome to continually having to bear witnesses to the ego infighting here. There’s no reason to continually have to point fingers at one another for screen name similarities. There’s no need to call people bullies or suggest that a poster is acting like a moderator. There is no reason to use space and passively ask people to read your own self-granted pats on the back for possibly being right about a plot point. Being more right about a guess or deduction sooner than others doesn’t make anyone a better or smarter fan. Nor does it make a poster a more valuable quantity to this site. And it certainly won’t impress Anthony Pascle, Bob Orci or any of the SC that peruse the blog/comments.

Let’s keep the discussion positive and non-personal. If the SC’s creative team had as much ego wrapped up into their creation of the ACTUAL story as some of us have in mere speculation on a website, we would still be waiting for this movie to be shot! Please…can we behave ourselves now? If not, I hope Anthony P starts kicking people out. It’s depressing.

243. Gary - February 4, 2013

215. Giez

I am not convinced that the photos show a 1. It could easily be part of a zero. Why would they have gone to so much trouble obscuring the last number? They could have show it nice and sharp but they chose not to. Why? Clearly there is a reason for this.

244. Tomh, Esq. - February 4, 2013

Whatever happened to Star Trek being about going out there “to explore strange new worlds?”

It seems like all we’ve been getting in the last five films or so is an overblown action picture where someone stops at nothing to get revenge. Think about it:

* Star Trek: First Contact – Picard wants revenge against the Borg for turning him into Loquitus.

* Star Trek: Insurrection – Ru’afo wants revenge against the Ba’ku. As to why, no one is really sure.

* Star Trek: Nemesis – Shinzon wants revenge against Picard and the Federation. As to why, again no one is really sure.

* Star Trek – Nero want revenge against Spock and the Federation for the destruction of Romulus and the death of his wife and child.

* Star Trek Into Darkness – John Harrison wants revenge against the Federation for a reason that has yet to be revealed.

245. LogicalLeopard - February 4, 2013

This whole flag issue….why wouldn’t a country have it’s own flag and the UFP flag hanging outside of a building?

I mean, in our public buildings where I live, we sometimes have the city flag, the county flag, the state flag, AND the American flag flying. Just because you’re a part of a larger government doesn’t mean that you lose your national identity.

246. GeorgiaCarolina - February 4, 2013

All this bickering in the comments section. I have seen less drama on an episode of RuPaul’s Drag Race.

247. Yanks - February 4, 2013

@ 250. Tomh, Esq. – February 4, 2013

What do you want, Spock to die or a probe to show up and be looking for whales?

These are cenematic popcorn block-buster movies.

This is NOT a TV series where more complex issues can be brought to the forefront and addressed. And this nuTOS crew do not have 5 years together on a mission. This IS different!!

Enjoy these movies and the success they bring and the attention they bring to the franchise. They and they alone are the only reason we have a chance to get another TV series.

248. T'cal - February 4, 2013

Tomh, you make me angry. Therfore, I must seek revenge on YOU!

Coming this May: “Star Trek: The Wrath of T’Cal” Plot a course for Earth. We’re through running from these bastards! Destroy everything! And I will make them PAY for what they’ve done! And my voice shall echo through time long after yours has faded to a dim memory!

249. What is it with you, anyway? - February 4, 2013

ROBERTO ORCI!!!

BOBORCI!!!!

YOU’VE BEEN UP TO NO GOOD!

WHAT DID YOU DO TO OUR NEW SHIP!??!

Oh, you are having fun with us now!

:) :) :)

250. sean - February 4, 2013

#114

The pepto blood only appeared in TUC, and never again. It was simply to avoid an R-rating. Klingons had red blood forever after.

251. T'cal - February 4, 2013

I kinda liked that their blood looked different. Pink was perfect, too, what with their bad-assery.

252. Travis - February 4, 2013

After seeing the Big TV spot last night… I think I can CONFIRM some theories!

1: Benedict Cumberpatch’s character for John Harrision is indeed a ” Alias ” and he is playing KHAN! This senario finally makes sence with Harrision telling Kirk that he’s better at….. Everything! That’s a line exactly of what Khan would and will say! There’s also evidence from the last trailer that the S.S. Botany Bay is discovered but by who you say???

2: Peter Weller’s character to what we have been speculating as either John Fredrick Paxton or Khan can throw it out the Window! Weller is playing Gene Roddenberry’s character as Captain Robert April! It is very unclear why April would want to be against the Federation but if you want to go in that direction then discovering The Botany Bay and waking Khan would be something I would want to do to cause the terror to the Federation…. Makes sence now doesn’t it?

3: Enterprise is done and its a shame because we barley knew her! This is JJ Abrams way of Self Destruct the Enterprise from ST:III. All I can say is that I have seen and heard of Refit plans for the Constitution-class starships and yes the Enterprise NCC-1701-A we will see and she will be a badass vessel!

253. sean - February 4, 2013

I’d say Cumberbatch is definitely a relic of the Eugenics War, but I’m fairly certain he is not Khan (given Simon Pegg’s vehement denial). I think it’s possible that either Weller is Khan or Khan dies in his tube before being awakened.

254. LogicalLeopard - February 4, 2013

253. Yanks – February 4, 2013

These are cenematic popcorn block-buster movies.

This is NOT a TV series where more complex issues can be brought to the forefront and addressed. And this nuTOS crew do not have 5 years together on a mission. This IS different!!

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

Hear, hear! And this movie looks infinitely more interesting than any trek movie I’ve seen in the past. It’s done what I thought was impossible – successfully kept the fan base off center this close to the premier. Although we have lots of theories, NOBODY can really say they definately know what’s going on in this movie. It looks to be a great thriller, and I’m going to try to have my posterior in a seat on May 17, although I may not see two movies a year at the theater, normally.

In all of the discussion about this movie, i think it’s easy to forget the idea that we watch movies and television because they’re watchable. And although I’ve seen a couple trailers, and infinite theories on what I think could happen, that Superbowl commercial still wowed me.

255. Jack - February 4, 2013

“In all of the discussion about this movie, i think it’s easy to forget the idea that we watch movies and television because they’re watchable”

Yep.

We lean toward being self-righteous, short-sighted and displaying highly selective memory. That ”Trek Fans slam new film as ‘fun, watchable’ bit from The Onion could easily be an actual news story.

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=02LgdXVkXgM&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D02LgdXVkXgM

256. MJ - February 4, 2013

Joesph,

If you want to bring up old grudes you have against me to try to get me in trouble here, OK, I get that. But please just be direct about it and stop trying to make up like I was trying to bully this new “Anthony” person — I was not bullying and you know that. For the final time, this is EXACTLY what I said to him:

“Dude, it is confusing with your posting here name being “Anthony”, given this is Anthony Pascale’s site. Any chance you could use your middle name or some other handle, or put “(not Pascale)” after your name when you post? Much obliged if you can do something about this.”

There is “NO” bullying here! Get it???

So please just stop being a wuss and instead just directly bring up all of your past grievances you have with me that are apparently bothering you still. We all know that is what this is really about. Be a man and be direct about it, please. Enough of this facade.

257. Eric - February 4, 2013

I say the Enterprise is shown damaged under water. We saw it was underwater in the IMAX preview. We also saw another Starfleet ship hit the water in the trailer.

258. Jack - February 4, 2013

154. Yeah. It ‘s a United Earth. Individual countries do not join the United Federation of Planets. That’s the way it’s been previously handled.

259. BatlethInTheGroin - February 4, 2013

#258: No, none of that is “CONFIRMED.” And Cumberbatch is clearly not playing Khan.

260. Red Dead Ryan - February 4, 2013

The way its been depicted in Trek, to be a member of the Federation, a planet would have to be politically united as one entity. No civil wars, no rogue states, no holdouts, etc. Otherwise, it would be problematic. Would the country holding out not get protected from foreign attacks? What if the country was run by a dictatorship that brutally repressed its own people? Would the Federation-aligned countries stay out of its affairs?

I would expect that Earth, by the twenty third century, would be fully united under one government (Federation). Countries would still exist of course, to ensure survival of many cultures and languages, as well as for local governance.

Otherwise, humans would be mega hypocrites in the Trek universe after seeing the Prime Directive state how each planet that wants membership must be fully united.

261. Stallion Cornell - February 4, 2013

This does not kill the Mitchell speculation by any means. Mitchell’s body died in the (canon) comics. Mitchell the God, however, cannot be contained by a physical body, and he possesses this Harrison dude. Hence “who are you” makes sense and is entirely consistent with what they would have to do to bring Mitchell back.

It’s still Mitchell.

262. Bill Peters - February 4, 2013

anyone else here think the Falling USS Enterprise might be a Response to us fans wanting a new Engine Room and Orci and others said we’ll if they want a Refit Big E with a new Engine room lets do some damage to the one we have now?

263. LogicalLeopard - February 4, 2013

267. Stallion Cornell – February 4, 2013
This does not kill the Mitchell speculation by any means. Mitchell’s body died in the (canon) comics. Mitchell the God, however, cannot be contained by a physical body, and he possesses this Harrison dude. Hence “who are you” makes sense and is entirely consistent with what they would have to do to bring Mitchell back.

It’s still Mitchell.

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

*LOL* I’ve never been in the Mitchell camp, but….I’m forced to admit, this is feasable.

The reason I laugh is that it still amazes me that we’re this close to the premiere and have NO idea who the villian is, even though they’ve given us his name. Or a name. Brilliant.

264. Dennis Bailey - February 4, 2013

It’s not Mitchell.

265. LogicalLeopard - February 4, 2013

269. Bill Peters – February 4, 2013
anyone else here think the Falling USS Enterprise might be a Response to us fans wanting a new Engine Room and Orci and others said we’ll if they want a Refit Big E with a new Engine room lets do some damage to the one we have now?

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

If not a direct response, I think there could be an influence. As simple as a conversation like this.

“…and then, the Enterprise is destroyed.”
“No man, you can’t do that. People will complain.”
“They won’t complain. They don’t even LIKE it. We can make one closer to the original TOS model, and call it progress.
“BRILLIANT!”

266. Ralpha - February 4, 2013

250. Tomh, Esq. – February 4, 2013
Whatever happened to Star Trek being about going out there “to explore strange new worlds?”

I agree. These movies can display new technologies. Such as splendid architecture, care free clothing and magnificently manicured landscapes to name a few. And the most important feature… how to resolve differences with other species warring with one another.

267. LogicalLeopard - February 4, 2013

267. Red Dead Ryan – February 4, 2013

I would expect that Earth, by the twenty third century, would be fully united under one government (Federation). Countries would still exist of course, to ensure survival of many cultures and languages, as well as for local governance.

Otherwise, humans would be mega hypocrites in the Trek universe after seeing the Prime Directive state how each planet that wants membership must be fully united.

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

The presense of the flag doesn’t indicate a separated nation. In my city, the City of Toledo flag, the Lucas County Flag, the State of Ohio Flag, and the United States flag flies outside of the main city government building. That doesn’t mean that any of those entities are independent of each other.

268. Jonathan - February 4, 2013

What’s this obsession with it having to all looking like TOS with jelly beans for buttons and lumps of wood for computers.

Personally I’m hoping this film looks more like TNG and had lots black cardboard over the bridge screens to hide the dodgy lighting setups!

I’m also pleased other people are noticing the underwater Enterprise!

:P

269. gingerly - February 4, 2013

Harrison is Joachim.

Cunberbatch somewhat resembles the original actor and even his lapel is similar to the original costume design.

That said, ugh the wait is killing me!

Oh my poor Enterprise! She’s always getting beat-up.

270. sean - February 4, 2013

The movies have never explored strange new worlds, so why it’s a surprise to anyone that this new film doesn’t focus on that is beyond me. Methinks rose-colored glasses are the likely culprit.

271. L4YERCAKE - February 4, 2013

What I want to know is how in the world does Spock survive jumping off that building??? I think that’s still the most perplexing thing we’ve seen thus far…

272. Disinvited - February 4, 2013

#9. TBW – February 3, 2013

In SPACE SEED McCoy nearly lost Khan because his suspended animation chamber was malfunctioning. We could work up any number of scenarios were that might have allowed him to age. But something else to ponder is if Khan’s gene’s are superior one would think that he’d age slower than normals. Or at least he would not show the wear and tear of old age until much later maintaining his peak physique longer.

And I know people keep bring up the Prime historical records, but we have no idea what that picture is supposed to represent as with respect to Khan’s age in the era of his reign on Earth, and the limitation of the show’s production being unable to deage photos.. We know the records are fragmented enough that Khan isn’t positively identified on sight.

273. Bird of Prey - February 4, 2013

@ 48. Exverlobter: Exactly my thought! I seriously doubt that the contemporary Londoners would ever allow the St. Paul’s Cathedral to be dwarfed by skyscrapers like that!
Obviously there must have been a major change of attitude somewhere between now and the 2250s. Perhaps most of the old buildings have been utterly destroyed in WWIII, and the Londoners decided to completely redesign the city ala Christopher Wren after the Great fire of 1666??

274. Kardo - February 4, 2013

Is this the first time we see a earth nation flag in Star Trek post Enterprise?

The Union Flag is the wrong way around yes, but also Scotland is soon set for a referendum on staying in the Union (United Kingdom) if Scotland goes independent then the Blue and white parts of the Flag won’t be there! Looks like they voted yes…..

And all that obviously says the UK was a sovereign nation still after WWIII and all the Star Trek post WWIII history. No EU etc.

275. Bird of Prey - February 4, 2013

Oh, what I’ve noticed just now: There is the Union Jack, the Federation flag, but no EU flag?? So does that mean that the Brits DID leave the European Union eventually?? ;-)

276. Buzz Cagney - February 4, 2013

They got my flag the wrong way around! I won’t be watching this movie!
That and the fact there doesn’t seem to be much of interest in what i’ve seen so far.

277. Michael - February 4, 2013

Joachim was not an arrogant man at all. He was a rather cautious and pragmatic fellow who did not want to enter the Mutara nebula, among other things, and did not seem very happy at all with Khan’s arrogance.

“I am better at everything!”

Khan, FTW

278. Buzz Cagney - February 4, 2013

#279 that piss poor experiment will have failed long before the 23rd century.

279. Shawn - February 4, 2013

Why is no one considering that the villain could be Lazarus from “The Alternative Factor”?

There is a scene where Lazarus is on the bridge of the Enterprise and tells Kirk, “I will have my revenge!” In one of the Into Darkness trailers, BC says virtually the same thing.

The altered timeline shouldn’t make a difference because Kirk left Lazarus trapped between universes to fight his evil alternate for eternity.

Curious for your thoughts.

280. K-7 - February 4, 2013

#280. So grumpy ole Cagney, why do you even waste your time posting here other than just to irritate those of us who like JJ Trek? Or perhaps that is your main goal here?

281. Jack - February 4, 2013

Of course, the Union Jack — along with double decker buses and signs for the tube — is handy for dressing up ordinary American buildings and studio backlots to make ‘em look like London.

I wish they could have actually filmed there — it would be cool to see other Earth locales in Trek — a la Mission Impossible. Just sayin’

282. K-7 - February 4, 2013

#285. What would have been the point given the city looks completely different and is mainly a CGI creation?

283. Robman007 - February 4, 2013

I know that Anthony and others have said that is the Enterprise crashing into the water, but I’m goin a limb and thinking that is the Enterprise….

The warp engines are at a wrong angle, but that will be because of the stress of plumetting from space in a free fall and severe damage to the engine pylons (engine sag as known by modelers)…

The shape of the engines seems to be because of parts of the ship stripping off as she plummets to her death.

She skits across the water like a stone and comes crashing into the nearby buildings. That’s why you have that shot of either Sulu or Chekov looking out over the ruined rubble of the viewscreen window.

284. Actual - February 4, 2013

You know something has constantly struck me. Cumberbatch’s accent doesn’t seem to sound completely British/English to me. I’ve always thought there’s a little undercurrent of an Indian accent in there. Believe it or not, not all Indians sound like Apu from the Simpsons. I’ve even heard a few Indian accents that almost sound American (no, they didn’t put it on).

Besides, don’t forget that this is set hundreds of years in the future. Who says there won’t be white Indians called John Harrison as a result of immigration there, in the same way that there are brown Britons/Americans called Raj, today?

285. Robman007 - February 4, 2013

I’m wondering if the massive damage to the Enterprise is a result of the ship taking collision hits from the (possible) destruction of multiple star ships or when the vessel is attached to the orbiting space dock (ala Trek 11)…the dock blows up (that explosion shot in the trailer comes from the space dock) destroys vessels and the Enterprise tries to escape but fails and plummets to her death.

286. Robman007 - February 4, 2013

I can give you flat out evidence that the Enterprise is the ship crashing into the water.

Look at the high res images on this site of the Enterprise from the “side view”…the starboard nacelle has lost all of it’s outer skin. It is very thin looking.

Look at the ship in the water view…that’s the Enterprise with it’s nacelles stripped of outer hull plating and the pylon supports buckling under the pressure.

287. Shawn - February 4, 2013

@290. That’s a good observation, except the port nacelle is the one stripped in the ship hitting the water.

288. Jenna - February 4, 2013

Anyone know anything about “the US premiere” that the lucky sweeps winner will get to go to? Makes it sound like only one, so will it be in LA? I’m in NY so I’ll be bummed…

289. Shawn - February 4, 2013

I think given the “terrorist” theme of the film that the Enterprise and other ships were docked at spaceport when it was blown up by a terrorist attack. This would result in the damage being primarily on one side of the docked ship. The ship hitting the water was another “Constellation Class” starship that was docked on the port side while Enterprise was docked on the starboard.

290. drumvan - February 4, 2013

Look at the ship in the water view…that’s the Enterprise with it’s nacelles stripped of outer hull plating and the pylon supports buckling under the pressure.
_____________________________________________________

not buying it. the nacelle struts on the enterprise are slightly curved as they leave the lower section and the nacelles themselves are significantly closer together. the ship crashing into the water has straight struts and the nacelles are pretty wide apart. identical to the nx-01. it may not be the enterprise nx-01 but it’s sure as heck a ship from that time period.

291. scot - February 4, 2013

UK stays united? No independence for Scotland in the future, i guess

292. LogicalLeopard - February 4, 2013

288. Actual – February 4, 2013

Besides, don’t forget that this is set hundreds of years in the future. Who says there won’t be white Indians called John Harrison as a result of immigration there, in the same way that there are brown Britons/Americans called Raj, today?

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

Well, that’s all well and good, but the issue is that Khan’s accent ultimately doesn’t matter. Khan is a genius (allegedly) masquerading as someone else. He can fake an accent. He wouldn’t be “a white Indian,” he’d be an Indian masquerading as a young, white, Starfleet officer of British descent.

293. LogicalLeopard - February 4, 2013

292. Jenna – February 4, 2013
Anyone know anything about “the US premiere” that the lucky sweeps winner will get to go to? Makes it sound like only one, so will it be in LA? I’m in NY so I’ll be bummed…

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

Don’t be bummed. I think they fly you out to the premier. It would be worthless if everyone had to find their own transportation, because not many would or could.

294. LogicalLeopard - February 4, 2013

279. Bird of Prey – February 4, 2013
Oh, what I’ve noticed just now: There is the Union Jack, the Federation flag, but no EU flag?? So does that mean that the Brits DID leave the European Union eventually?? ;-)

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

I would think the EU, AU, UN, and every other multination government would have been disbanded to form the UE. You can’t have a UE and a NATO at the same time.

295. MJ - February 4, 2013

Perhaps WWIII gets stated in 2050 with fed up Germans invading Greece, which thus brings down the EU?

296. I kidding with you - February 4, 2013

All of you fools are missing the obvious.

BC is obviously playing DV.

End of speculation.

297. Phil - February 4, 2013

Nah, we have established the Enterprise is magic. If she can withstand a black hole, diving under the sea, flying in the air, skipping off the water or barrel rolls should not be any problem…at…all!!!

298. Josh C. - February 4, 2013

actually “surviving” a black hole shouldn’t be all that much of a problem as long as they’re far enough away. It only really becomes a problem when spaghettification begins

299. Scott U - February 4, 2013

Don’t know if anyone else has commented on this or not, but wanted to bring up the fact the Kahn is not nor was ever a “genetically engineered” superman. According to TOS episode Space Seed he was a product of “Eugenics”, i.e. controlled breeding. It was based on the what the Nazi’s were doing during WW II. The concept is if you take two with an exceptionally high IQ and they have a baby, the baby will inherit an even higher IQ. Controlled breeding has been used for centuries to domesticate wild animals ansd to create new breeds of dogs.

300. Jenna - February 4, 2013

@297 Thanks! I wasn’t actually assuming I’ll be the one lucky winner–but wouldn’t THAT be awesome?! (And yeah they say something like $2500 for travel) I’d just want to go stalk the red carpet here in NY if they had a premiere here too… Although I did that for the Hobbit and it was organized really lamely.

301. sean - February 4, 2013

#303

That was retconned or at least expanded upon in TWOK, though. Pavel specifically says Khan is the product of ‘late 20th-century genetic engineering’.

302. Phil - February 4, 2013

@303. Well, yeah, but the Nazi’s were not trying to breed a dog that was a bit better at playing fetch. Or childern that would mind a little better. They were trying to take over the world. What was presumed in the Star Trek universe was that 1990’s eugenics would have advanced to the point where genetic engineering was a part of it…something practically unheard of in the 60’s.

303. Basement Blogger - February 4, 2013

Ouch. Star Trek did not do well in thef USA Today Super Bowl Ad ratings. Link. Honestly, none of the movie ads did well. I think when it comes to Super Bowl ads, they want creativity. STID finished behind Psy! It scored 5.4 on a scale of ten.

Could be worse. Go Dadidy’s Bar Refaeli’s sloppy wet kissing with the fat geek was last with a score of 3,20. Hey, for some reason I found it satisfying. One can dream. One can dream.

Link. STID does not fare well. None of the movies did either.
http://admeter.usatoday.com/articles/view/the-results

Link. How USA Today did the Ad Meter.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/02/04/clydesdale-ad-wins-by-a-nose/1889693/

304. Killamarshtrek - February 4, 2013

@207

.
Is this a reveal that this story does contain Augments from the Enterprise series?

No, it just shows images from 3 different stories on the thread. One about new images from the Star Trek Game, one with JJ talking about the crew and one about the series most deserving another season -‘ Enterprise’!

305. CJS - February 4, 2013

@276

He’s wearing those boots from Star Trek V.

306. Bob Tompkins - February 4, 2013

Could the weird Union Jack simply be an upside down flag signifying danger?

307. Bob Tompkins - February 4, 2013

The Superbowl ad I liked the best was the 34 minute ad for infrastructure investment………

308. MJ - February 4, 2013

@303 That is simply not true:

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eugenics_Wars:_The_Rise_and_Fall_of_Khan_Noonien_Singh

309. Mee - February 4, 2013

AM I THE ONLY ONE IN THIS UNIVERSE THAT CLEARLY READS **TEPRIS* in the high res overhead shot…. I mean… Im not sitting here debating nacelle size or size shot but its a bit obvious when theres not many other words the ship name could be besides EN TERPRIS E.

Obviously this doesnt mean destruction. Maybe a dream? Just wish we could get past the “Its not the enterprise” debate…. Unless no one enlarges the photos but me…

310. MJ - February 4, 2013

@313. Yea, OF COURSE that is the E. Duh!!!

311. Picard, Jean-Luc - February 4, 2013

I think really the reaction to the trailer has been good online so who knows, these ratings mean sweet f a. I think it will do very well this movie. It seems a cross between the Avengers and Dark Knight in tone and scope.

Also that isn’t the Enterprise in or hitting the water, my guess is that the Enterprise either is rescued by Scotty just before it falls too far into Earths atmosphere OR it falls onto London killing all hands and millions on the ground. The way it’s falling out of orbit would suggest that it’s in an uncontrollable fall thus once it hits the ground it would either explode (lest we forget the warp core is a type of nuclear reactor even when damaged or non operational there’s still gotta be antimatter and matter inside it, = boom!) or completely crush each deck killing all hands including perhaps everyone but Kirk?

312. Eric - February 4, 2013

I think the images we see of the Enterprise are out of order. The second time we see the Enterprise in the Super Bowl commercial happens first. Here the ship is falling out of orbit. The first image we see is underwater after the ship crash lands in the ocean (those are air bubbles coming from the ship). I think they escape from a watery grave, using something they learned when under water earlier in the film (when they were putting out the volcano).

313. Robman007 - February 4, 2013

Yeah, anyone saying that’s not the Enterprise in a free fall is smokin crack. Very obvious in high res images.

I still think that’s the Enteprise skippin across the bay. Those are heavily damaged, about ready to pop off nacelle supports that are bent back with nacelles that are stripped to the skeletal structure. We shall see

314. Robman007 - February 4, 2013

@316…that’s not underwater. That’s hull plating.

Think Battlestar Galactica. The Galactica falling from orbit into New Caprica. The hull plating was peeling away and shooting straight up. That’s this picture. The Enterprise gets caught in the destruction of space dock and is pummeled by wreckage from the dock and the fleet.

The ship is falling fast and hits the ocean floor as the nacelles are compromised (the struts have bent sideways and the nacelles have lost their outside skin) and the ship skids across the sea…only to crash into the city and come to a final stop (with Chekov looking out the view screen of the ruined bridge).

Kirk and crew, several months later, (while or after the Enterprise is under repair) and track down JH to bring him to justice.

315. Lance W - February 4, 2013

They keep saying that the ship crashing into the water is not the Enterprise because the nacelles are different. Honestly, after the beating it takes, and then being shown hurtling to the ground, do you really think they’d look same?

Has someone from the movie confirmed that the ship crashing into the water isn’t the Enterprise?

316. Jenna - February 4, 2013

Did some of you guys not see Anthony’s tweet (240) or do you just doubt him?

(He said: Ship falling to planet IS Enterprise. Ship crashing into water IS NOT Enterprise)

317. Lance W - February 4, 2013

@317 – Just saw your post. Completely agree.

318. stunkill - February 4, 2013

Oh yeah it has to be Khan even though its been confirmed many times to be John Harrison, but you know the facts dont mean crap because it just has to be kahn. Some of you kahnites make me want to shoot myself because your so rediculous and only see what you want to see. And then when you see the movie and he is not khan you guys will be the first ones cry and complain about it. And I will be laughing at you.

319. Hat Rick - February 4, 2013

Okay, so I’m in a more positive frame of mind and am prepared to explain away the Enterprise’s destruction or near-destruction.

The point of the scenes wherein our favorite starship suffers so mightily is precisely to induce a feeling of desperation and peril. Thus, it may be argued, the fact that the Enterprise is nearly destroyed, if not outright destroyed, in the forthcoming movie serves to indicate how awful is the fate that has befallen our world, which has come under the shadow of Darkness^(TM).

My next rant has to do with that “moviebombing” extra. It must be expensive to digitally remove Mr. Smirky (as one might dub him, fondly, of course). Or else it would have been done by now.

I have no problem with Mr. Hipster (dark glasses guy) or the alien (who, BTW, looks like s/he/it/they wouldn’t be out of place in a cantina somewhere in a galaxy far, far away).

And, out of the blue, I’d like to see a reference to the Binars of TNG fame. No particular reason. I think they’d be cool. Everyone always thinks of the Gorn for some reason. Why not the Binars? But please — no Borg references.

Finally, if they can refer to Slusho in the first movie, why not the Cloverfield LSA? It would be a “bouquet” or “gift’ or “valentine” or “nod” to those fans who didn’t think Cloverfield was such a bad movie. I’m still hoping they’ll make a sequel, since, as we know, JJ has so much spare time on his hands….

320. JR - February 4, 2013

Blowing up the enterprise (again) is one way to re-design parts of the ship you don’t like. Time to start using the alphabet?

321. BatlethInTheGroin - February 4, 2013

#177: No thanks, I’d rather watch GOOD Star Trek. :)

322. ScottC - February 4, 2013

OK, I’m on the E underwater theory in this shot because those do look like bubbles and there is no smoke.

http://scifanatic.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/stid-sb-16.jpg

This shot must happen first as its falling because there is smoke.

http://scifanatic.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/stid-sb-19.jpg

323. MJ - February 4, 2013

I’ve just spent 15 minutes looking at my Playmates Toys Enterprise 2009 versus the trailer footage of that Starship crashing into the water and then hitting that city (probably SF), and there is no physical way that I can see how that ship can be the Enterprise. The pylon of the 2009 E, if bent like some or saying from the stress of reentry, could in no way be stretched in length to look like the ship in the trailer — that ship simply has much longer pylons. Additionally, holding my model at the same angle as that ship hitting the water, I can clearly see the back 40% of the secondary hull, when in this trailer you can’t see the secondary hull at all on this ship.

I am thus 99% confident that this ship is not the 2009 Enterprise based on my assessment here with my model..

324. stunkill - February 4, 2013

@319 But the saucer crashing into the building is thinner than the enterprise saucer edge so I still dont think its the enterprise, it just doesnt add up to me but of course I could be wrong. We will just have to wait and see.

325. CaptainRickover - February 4, 2013

Perhaps they destroy the Gigantoprise in this movie and return with a more sleek and beautier design in the next movie (or even in this one. Wouldn’t it great to see a more Probert-style Enterprise-A? I thought one of the best things about Skyfall was Bond’s new old Aston Martin. Perhaps JJ and Company do a similiar thing in Darkness). Sorry, but I still don’t like that shipdesign – even after four years.

326. MJ - February 4, 2013

@328. Yea, good point. Just validated that with my model as well, and while doing this, I also noticed that this starship’s primary hull has a larger circumference that then the 2009 E. So to summarize:

1. Struts/pylons are way too long on this ship (that can;t be explained by reentry)

2. Secondary hull is either missing or much smaller on this ship

3. Primary hulls edge is much thinner on this ship

4. Circumference of primary hull is greater on this ship.

OK, case closed — I am now 100% convinced that this is not the 2009 Enterprise.

327. Simon - February 4, 2013

Anyone notice the “giant size” versions of some current-day Los Angeles skyscrapers in the London skyline? You can see the U.S. Bank Tower and the Figueroa at Wilshire buildings pretty clearly.

I’d imagine it’s for continuity since they filmed the London scenes in LA.

328. Hat Rick - February 4, 2013

@CaptainRickover, what do you think of the fan-based design referenced in Post 77 of that other Superbowl thread?

This one, I mean (originally posted by StephenH):

http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs45/i/2009/079/2/6/JJ_Enterprise_Refit_Color_1_by_madeinjapan1988.jpg

Quite good, no? :-)

329. stunkill - February 4, 2013

I love this new enterprise especially because of its increased size. I wouldnt mind a new evolved design as long as it follows a logical pattern and remains large and grand. Why would they make it smaller? That would make no sense to make it the same size as the original.

330. Phil - February 4, 2013

@323. Possibly, it’s just trailer footage. It happened in the last movie, why not here?

http://io9.com/5272895/kick+ass-scenes-that-are-in-trailers-but-arent-in-the-movies

331. MJ - February 4, 2013

@332. I love the front 75% of that design you posted, but the sharp points at the back of the engines look very silly to me.

332. Michael Hall - February 4, 2013

“I agree with @214, nationalism should be dead by the 23rd century. No flag waving bollocks, and I say that as a Brit.”

Agreed, but tell that to Ensign Chekov. :-) Actually, TOS was pretty vague–and deliberately so–about Earth’s political structure in the 2200’s, with only the signifiers of “United Earth Ship” and “United Earth Space Probe Agency” to suggest the kind of world government that the latter series made somewhat more explicit. In any case, as an internationalist myself I don’t see a Union Jack waving next to the UFP flag as much cause for alarm. (My guess would be that, once again, it boils down to the filmmakers’ basic lack of familiarity with the source material more than anything politcal.) And the devilish details aside, I’ll note what the original series did explicitly state on more than one occasion: that by the 23rd century, war and racial prejudice were as extinct as the dodo. As something to shoot for, I’ll gladly take it.

333. Anthony Pascale - February 4, 2013

i considered nitpicking the nation state thing however we dont know how people in current UK will show their identity in the future. I do think it would have been a nice touch to have a united earth flag as well but the UK may be a member of the United Earth or it might be more fine like England as a member. However, this is a movie and not a lot of people outside the UK know the English flag. The current shot says “hey we are in the UK” without having to explain itself.

334. stunkill - February 4, 2013

Perhaps that building is a museum and the flags are just an exhibit piece as people enter.

335. sean - February 4, 2013

Uhura was supposed to be from the United States of Africa, according to the OG Writer’s Guide. So there were apparently local governments in place despite a United Earth government.

336. Simon - February 4, 2013

@338 – Pride in your own locale/background/ethnicity doesn’t necessarily mean you’re prejudiced against another.

Put it another way: just because you love your family doesn’t mean you hate other people.

I’m also one of those who see the UK as a “state” of United Earth in the future, just as I see a CA flag on many buildings here.

337. Hat Rick - February 4, 2013

@MJ (337), I guess 75/100 is a good start. :-)

@AnthonyPascale (339), I think it’s even more complicated than that. The U.K. is technically a union of several “countries,” one of which is England, which has its own flag.

As for nationalism, there’s nationalism, and then there’s nationalism. Texans have a very strong sense of Texas sovereignty and of themselves as a republic; Texas, the Lone Star State, is the only state every to have been its own independent country (if we grant that the original Thirteen Colonies were only truly independent after victory of the combined colonies from Britain, and if we leave aside the issue of Hawaii, which was an independent monarchy at one time). In Texas, and in other U.S. states, the state flag is quite visible in many places.

As well, it’s interesting to consider — and the British readers of this site will of course correct me in the details of this post — that when the English teams compete in football, we often see the English (not the U.K.) flag, the St. George’s cross, displayed by team supporters, depending on the context.

Thus, even if the Federation is considered to have supervened nation-states, the fact that we see a Union Jack doesn’t necessarily mean that nationalism prevails over federal (interplanetary) government.

338. Hat Rick - February 4, 2013

^^ Sorry for not capitalizing “St. George’s Cross” — please excuse the typo.

339. Copper Based Blood - February 4, 2013

Wow!!! London Blowing up. It looks like with the British & UFP flags flapping in the wind, the explosion maybe the UFP’s UK branch.

Got a Small Theory:- in the 9 min IMAX preview, John Harrison says to the Dying Girls Father “I can Save her, Your Daughter, I can Save Her”.

What happens, if the next line spoke to the Girls Father is “isn’t There anything you would not do for your Family?”

Like Blowing up a UFP building, I wonder???? Blow up the building for the life of your daughter.

Before everyone is thinking that Harrison is referring to the Augments & Khan, when he says “Family”

Just to further my theory, the shot shown of the building being blown up, is the exact same view point of London, from the Dying Girls Parents Bedroom, shown in the Imax Preview. Could be that “Harrison” can get a good Vantage point from their Condo’.

I think that Harrison is an Augment (not Khan) & Khan is the guy on the left in the other trailer, when the 2 guys are leaving the Cryogenic room. Khan on The Left, Harrison on the Right.

Khan will be Played by Peter Weller & will only have a brief cameo at the end of the movie, setting things up for the next movie, when Khan will be the main villain.

340. sean - February 4, 2013

#345

Yeah, I’m pretty sure that whole ‘Is there anything you would not do for your family’ line is something Cumberbatch says to Noel Clarke’s character in order to convince him to do something naughty or allow Cumberbatch to access Starfleet in some way. Thus why we see Clarke fiddling with his Academy ring in the trailer, seemingly contemplating something.

341. Memo Rejected - February 4, 2013

I believe I read somewhere once that Gene Roddenberry did not like the idea of setting Star Trek stories on Earth because that’s not what the series was about, it was about exploring the galaxy. Apparently team reboot did not get the memo.

342. Jefferies Tuber - February 4, 2013

The saucer chopping the buildings at the end seems wide and thin. Could it be part of the Starfleet station above Earth? http://i.imgur.com/Ya4JXfI.png

343. Yanks - February 4, 2013

Anthony, not sure what happened, but my posts are now visible. Thanks.

Break, would some of you know everything trekheads (grin) please comment on post 194 concerning the Star Trek Facebook page?

Thanks

344. Hat Rick - February 4, 2013

@MemoRejected (347), that would be consistent with the oft-cited idea of Trek’s being a “Wagon Train to the Stars.” According to good ol’ Wikipedia, “Wagon Train” was a TV series that ran from 1957 to 1962 involving adventures taking place along a route from Missouri to California.

Setting stories on Earth would be that series’ equivalent of focusing on events in Jefferson City, or even New York City, in the 1870’s.

345. Copper Based Blood - February 4, 2013

#346 sean

Yes agreed, it does look like he’s morally contemplating doing something unjust.

346. Exverlobter - February 4, 2013

SOme people here should clearly check the definition of “Nationalism”.

A nationalist believes strongly in the superiourity of his own country. That’s the difference between a nationalist and a Patriot. A Patriot is just proud of his own country without believing that his nation is better than the others.

Just waving the flag is not a sign that somebody is a nationalist.

BTW i also would have prefered the flag of England. But i can understand why they took the Union Jack instead, because it’s better known.

347. Copper Based Blood - February 4, 2013

#347 Memo Rejected said:- it was about exploring the galaxy. Apparently team reboot did not get the memo.

as team “DS9″ did not receive the memo either, but that was 20 years ago.

348. StephenH - February 4, 2013

Here’s another (larger view) of the potential refit if that’s what fate has in store for the Enterprise.

http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs41/f/2009/009/7/8/JJ_Enterprise_Refit_UPDATE_2_by_madeinjapan1988.jpg

Or at least, it’s how a JJ-prise-A could take shape.

349. Exverlobter - February 4, 2013

“I believe I read somewhere once that Gene Roddenberry did not like the idea of setting Star Trek stories on Earth because that’s not what the series was about, it was about exploring the galaxy. Apparently team reboot did not get the memo.”

@Memo Rejected
Ehm, did you see the STar Trek movies?

ALl those following films are set on earth

Star Trek 1, Star Trek 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
Star Trek 7 (although just flashbacks in the Nexus)
Star Trek 8 10 and 11
The only film where the Earth is not shown at all is Star Trek 9. Insurrection

350. Hat Rick - February 4, 2013

@Exverlobter (352), that’s a point well-taken. Thanks for pointing out the distinction, which is important to note. I didn’t mean to use “nationalism” in a negative way, although it’s true that nationalism can be destructive.

I think that it’s kind of a spectrum or gradient, especially at the edges. At what point does flag-waving become excessive? Examples that come to mind would be all the national flagwaving at the various Olympics. Surely some of that veers close to negative territory.

That said, patriotism can be a force for good, if, however, one recognizes that we all share a common humanity.

I think I’ve said all I’m going to say on this particular question as this is starting to delve in non-Star Trek-related subject matter.

Still, it’s interesting to note that even in the 24th Century, geographical distinctions are observed in the Trekverse — Riker’s being from Alaska, for example, or Michael Eddington’s (“For the Uniform,” DS9) association with Canada.

351. Phil - February 4, 2013

@347. Non-issue. TMP’s probe was menacing earth, TVH was on earth, TUD was escorting Klingons to earth, and most of the Berman era TV shows featured earth on occasion…and Roddenberry was alive and well for most of that. If you feel like spewing venom toward team JJ that’s your right. For as often as most of the movies either opened or closed with ‘seeking out new life and civilizations’, none of them really did that. Most, in fact basically retold the same story about how the clever crew of the Starship Enterprise overcame some superior foe…so if team JJ is true to formula, I’d expect Cumberbatch’s John Harrison to go out in a blaze of glory, and the happy crew sailing off into space no little worse for wear, despite what we saw in the SuperBowl trailer. There is plenty to be crtitical about in the last movie, but earth-centric storytelling isn’t on that list.

352. MJ - February 4, 2013

@356. How do you know that the flags aren’t just commerative symbols in the 23rd century and no longer mean an actual government?

353. Exverlobter - February 4, 2013

” How do you know that the flags aren’t just commerative symbols in the 23rd century and no longer mean an actual government?”

The answer to that question is clear. As the word “Federation” already explains the political structure in Star Trek is organised on a federal basis.
That means that the Federation is not a unitary state like France where the political power is centralised , but where at least a decent amount of self-governing of the constituent states is guaranteed.

Otherwise it is not feasable. I don’t think that the Federation which spreads over 8000 light years, could be manageable if everyting is organised from one central government.

There has to be local Parliaments, Governments, Governors etc.

354. Red Dead Ryan - February 4, 2013

I’m pretty sure Earth would still be divided into countries in the 23rd century. Basically as a means to maintain some cultural and historical distinctions. Economocially, and politically, every country would be represented by politicians through the global government.

355. Robman007 - February 4, 2013

That wide and thin hull is the Enterprise primary hull after the outer hull layer has been stripped away.

356. Michael Hall - February 4, 2013

“@MemoRejected (347), that would be consistent with the oft-cited idea of Trek’s being a “Wagon Train to the Stars.” According to good ol’ Wikipedia, “Wagon Train” was a TV series that ran from 1957 to 1962 involving adventures taking place along a route from Missouri to California.”

Actually, there’s a little more to it than that. Quoting as best I can from memory, a relevant passage from The Making of Star Trek (a book I haven’t laid eyes on in a quarter-century):

“It was also decided fairly early in the show’s production that the Enterprise would not return to the Earth of Star Trek’s time. To do so would mean highly complex sets. Furthermore, not returning home would avoid potential (and possibly fatal) conflicts with the network and sponsors over which social and economic theories on earth had finally prevailed.” So in the end it was a pragmatic decision, driven by concerns over budget and the realities of what could be discussed, let alone postulated, on a ’60s action-adventure TV show. Which explains why the only glimpse of 23rd century earth we got during TOS’ run was Pike’s fantasy visit to his home town of Mojave, though in keeping with the show’s philosophy, those hints were certainly optimistic ones.

“There is plenty to be crtitical about in the last movie, but earth-centric storytelling isn’t on that list.”

Agree with that. Personally, I think it’s very cool to finally get a good look at the world these characters come from. As it stood, TOS fans knew more about Vulcan than they did their own planet.

357. Michael Hall - February 4, 2013

“Or at least, it’s how a JJ-prise-A could take shape.”

Kudos to the artist. That ship’s profile is sleek and elegant (and I’d love to take on building it in 3D if I can find the time)–everything the current design isn’t. If that’s what it takes to get there, blow the sucker up.

358. Oxford - February 4, 2013

Australia is the product of a federation. Each of the states and territories has it’s own flag that they fly on state and local government buildings. I can’t see what the issue is with the British flag being flow on a building supposedly in London.

359. MJ - February 4, 2013

“That wide and thin hull is the Enterprise primary hull after the outer hull layer has been stripped away.”

I don’t think so, but suppose I give you benefit of the doubt on that one point — so then, how to you respond to these three other points in my earlier assessment, which is partially based on be putting my model of the Enterprise-2009 at the angles shown in the trailer:

1. Struts/pylons are way too long on this ship (that can;t be explained by reentry)

2. Secondary hull is either missing or much smaller on this ship

4. Circumference of primary hull is greater on this ship.

360. Exverlobter - February 4, 2013

Another thing about the national flags vs. Federation Flag thing.
The Flag of the Federation is almost a 100% Rip-Off of the United Nations Flag.
And how many people actually have that one? J ust because your country is part of the United Nations does not lead to the conclusion that everybody has to wave with UN-Flags. People still prefer their own local flags.

Same with the Federation. Obviously Starfleet uses the Flag because Starfleet is the embodyment of that whole thing about intergovernmental cooperation between Federation members. But what about the other 99% of the population who stick on Earth and don’t have as much contact with other Federation members? They probably still identify more with their own regional heritage.

361. Hat Rick - February 4, 2013

@MichaelHall (363), what I really like about the design is its elegance and refinement. It’s curves are sensuous yet powerful, and in keeping with what we currently think the future could be. It’s a completion of the aesthetic begun in the actual nuEnterprise and thus an appropriate successor as its refit.

There are certain architectural tropes that are classic and timeless. Examples would be the actual classical structures, such as the Parthenon; modern examples would be the Seattle Space Needle and the CN Tower. (Although one could argue that the former is, by now, retro-futuristic, and the “Googie” style it typifies is often now regarded as such.) Such structures have a strong voice that appeals to a wide constituency through long stretches of time because of considerations of balance, ratio, and general aesthetics. So, too, I would argue that starship architecture can be viewed similarly. The proposed refit’s curvaceousness bespeaks an organic, almost biologic form and strongly suggests the element of flight. In fact, I would go further and say that the design seems to fly even when standing still. It’s almost as thought it’s what nature would have grown, if nature could grow starships.

Kudos to the artist, indeed — I heartily concur.

362. Hat Rick - February 4, 2013

^^Correction to my post: “Its curves,” not “it’s curves.”

363. RetroWarbird - February 4, 2013

I just had this crazy notion like hey, “John” rhymes with “Khan” and all you would have to do to really fool people is replace it very last minute in ADR recording sessions.

I’m not sure if ‘Harrison’ muted and ‘Noonien Singh’ placed over would look right or not.

Now, I don’t actually think John is Khan, I do think he’s probably an Augment, and may “know” Khan. But it struck me that it wouldn’t be hard to go in and re-dup some “K” sounds before his name and keep the fans fooled until the very last minute.

Anyway this trailer looks fun but I’ve actually decided not to watch anymore trailers for Trek and a few other titles that I just want to see with completely fresh eyes.

364. drumvan - February 4, 2013

This one, I mean (originally posted by StephenH):

http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs45/i/2009/079/2/6/JJ_Enterprise_Refit_Color_1_by_madeinjapan1988.jpg

Quite good, no? :-)
_______________________________________________________

there’s a lot to like about that proposed design. kudos to the artist. it definitely acts as a bridge from the 09 version to the t.o.s. refit.

365. FroJoeKoolaid - February 4, 2013

Considering this movie takes place 6 or 7 years BEFORE Space Seed then its quite logical for Khan to be a tad younger if Cumberbatch is playing Khan

366. dmduncan - February 4, 2013

354, 370, that is very good. Much better than what JJ okayed.

367. Drew - February 4, 2013

Could have been said, but the last digit of NCC170x is covered by smoke as is the name of the ship. Possibly not the enterprise there.

368. Phil - February 4, 2013

Damn it, still no Hugo Award…..

369. Jeff G - February 4, 2013

I was hoping that in the first 9 minutes of the movie released last year had started with a Klingon ship finding the Botany Bay and zap….vaporized. No more Khan speculation! (Some others had mentioned this months ago.)
I am looking forward to the twist and turns and no matter who “John Harrison” really turns out to be, I just want to have an enjoyable Trek for a few hours.
I understand the preview comic, issue 1, ended with April coming forward. Is this the Weller character? Is Weller Khan? We have plenty of pieces missing in this puzzle and it is fun trying to guess the plot which someone will get right and rule the day for a few hours at least! lol.
LLAP

370. Max - February 4, 2013

Has anyone noticed the top of the building Spock is jumping off of looks like the “space barge” set that we saw in those spy photos a while back?

371. Rose (as in Keachick) - February 4, 2013

#238 – Dee. Really? I dunno…some people. LOL!!

#148 – MJ is right and I do not think he was bullying Anthony. His “Hey Einstein” stuff, to me, feels like borderline bullying and is a bit rude.

Yes, there were two MJs posting here, even though the newer poster’s name was actually M.J. Still, it got to be confusing, especially when at that time this site had to endure a good deal of sockpuppeting and imposters. Reading an MJ apparently contradicting his own post sometimes could be a bit of headscratcher. One or other had to do something with their name to further distinguish themselves. One did and it worked.

Occasionally someone new to a site may inadvertently use the same pseudonym as someone who is already a (regular) poster, like MJ (without the fullstops). No harm intended. I guess we hope that the newer poster will do something with his/her name which distinguishes them from the other poster in some way.

Re: the Union Jack flag – Flags can be symbols of political power, sovereignty and identity. For many flags are merely symbols of identity, like flags people wave in support of their favourite soccer team who is playing etc. All the Union Jack means, to me, in these scenes is people living in London, Britain, still like to retain their own identity (which often indicates history and culture as well), while also being part of a United Earth.

NZ Maori flags –
https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=nz+maori+flags&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Qyt&tbo=u&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=PWkQUceHMOSXiQeekYDYCg&ved=0CHMQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=931
Tino Rangatiratanga flag
http://www.mch.govt.nz/nz-identity-heritage/flags/national-m%C4%81ori-flag

I love the explanation for design. Even though I am white European (Pakeha), I also identify very much with the flag and its design, as much as I do with the more common flag which has the Union Jack as part of its design.

372. Rose (as in Keachick) - February 4, 2013

Full explanation of the flag and design –

“Explanation of design:

Black represents Te Korekore, the realm of potential, the heavens, the long darkness from which the world emerged. Black also represents the male element – formless, floating and passive.

White represents Te Ao Mārama the realm of being, the world of light, the physical world. White also symbolises purity, harmony enlightenment, and balance.

Red represents Te Whei Ao, the realm of coming into being. Red also represents active, lashing, southern, falling, emergence, forest, land, and gestation. Red is the female element, Papatuanuku, the earth mother, the sustainer of all living things. Red is also the colour of earth from which the first human was made.

The Koru (the curling frond shape) represents the unfolding of new life, rebirth, continuity, renewal and hope for the future.”

Waitangi Day – tomorrow – 6 February
NZ equivalent (more or less) to US4 July Independence Day and Thanksgiving!

373. Vorus - February 4, 2013

@371: Considering this movie takes place 6 or 7 years BEFORE Space Seed then its quite logical for Khan to be a tad younger if Cumberbatch is playing Khan

——————————–

No it isn’t. You think Khan aged at a normal rate for 271 the years he was in the capsule? If he aged at all, it’d have to be REALLY slowly, so the few years’ difference shouldn’t be noticable. Montalban was 46 when he first appeared as Khan, Cumberbach is 37, probably 36 during filming. If he plays Khan, he’s definitely noticeably older than Montalban was, for no really explainable reason.

HOWEVER, it’s not like they’ve been real careful matching up ages so far anyway, (Chekov is the wrong age, NuPike is WAY too old, etc) so we shouldn’t expect things to match up real well.

374. Vorus - February 4, 2013

Obviously, I meant “noticeably YOUNGER”. What is wrong with me lately? . . .

375. MJ - February 4, 2013

“If he plays Khan, he’s definitely noticeably older than Montalban was, for no really explainable reason.?”

Here’s one — hey dude, they are made up characters in fiction!!! Case in point, if you are really so worried about this, then please explain to me why the actual Eugenics Wars and Khan’s escape never happened in the 1990’s?

:-))

376. Ahmed - February 4, 2013

@ 381. MJ – February 4, 2013

“Here’s one — hey dude, they are made up characters in fiction!!! Case in point, if you are really so worried about this, then please explain to me why the actual Eugenics Wars and Khan’s escape never happened in the 1990′s?”

But, MJ, you are mistaken. The Eugenics Wars DID happened in the 1990s, not on our Earth but in a parallel world/alternate reality-timeline :)

377. Adolescent Nightmare - February 4, 2013

Remember the good old days when Karl Urban had jet lag and told you everything you wanted to hear? Remember when an actress hairstyle revealed all?

Yeah, you guys haven’t gotten any smarter since then.

378. Vorus - February 4, 2013

@381:

Or how about you read the rest of my post, where I acknowledged the fact that they have already played loose with ages, so it’s no big deal.

379. Jack - February 4, 2013

383. Me-owwww!

380. Memo Rejected - February 4, 2013

@353 – Nice work quoting only a small part of what I said…? The point was, the spirit of Trek is to be out there, not back at home, and DS9 certainly is out there.

@355 (& 347) – Uhhhh… Have *you* seen them? There are only 2 (pre-Abrams) Trek films in which Earth is a setting for the film’s primary action, IV and First Contact — both of which were set in Trek’s distant past via time travel which is still at least in an exploratory spirit. Being “mentioned”, or serving as a brief starting or ending point for a mission or end target of a malevolent force, or fake Nexus flashback, are quite obviously not in the same class as serving as a primary setting for the action. I wouldn’t even really consider ST09 to be set on Earth even though we do spend a lot of time there — it is treading pretty close to the line. What’s more, the films are a small fraction of Trek lore. You can count on your hands (or hand) the number of episodes of each TV series that are set on Trek’s present-day Earth, except Enterprise and possibly Voyager (2 hands may cover VOY), both of which came after Gene’s influence had begun to quite noticeably wane.

381. Jack - February 4, 2013

Hey, Roddenberry started TMP on Earth.

Where’s the ultimate escalation of a conspiracy in Starfleet going to take place ? Station K-7?

382. Exverlobter - February 4, 2013

@386.
Well you don’t even know if STID will take primarily on Earth. You’ve just seen a trailer.

383. Rose (as in Keachick) - February 4, 2013

Just because we see Earth and spend a little time on Earth does not mean that the entire movie is set on Earth. Most of Star Trek 09 took place in space, first in and around Vulcan, returning to Earth (but on the Narada) and then around the rings of Saturn, which is where the final battle was fought.

Even though we see a bit of 23rd century Earth (London, San Fransisco), they are only part of what would be at most 15 minutes of actual film footage that we have been privy to so far. Of those minutes, several scenes took place on an alien planet and the Klingon homeworld. We actually have no idea how much of the entire movie is set on Earth and how much takes place elsewhere. All we know that whatever this John Harrison is up to, the people of Earth do not/will not like it.

We also have no idea whether or not Kirk and the Enterprise were doing any exploring and we do not why Spock was trying to prevent a volcanic eruption nor what the violation of the prime directive was and why.

So far the trailers and preview have left us with more questions than answers and have made for some rather exciting and interesting viewing. So far so good.

Go on ya, JJ Abrams and co.!

384. Memo Rejected - February 4, 2013

@387 –
Me: “Starting the film on Earth is not the same as setting critical action on Earth”
You: “But they started it on Earth”

I wouldn’t really consider “the plot makes sense on Earth” as a valid defense for the question “why does the film have to focus on Earth”. It’s not like the people who decided to set it there aren’t the same people who decided the plot.

@388 –
You’re right, but all signs I’ve seen so far suggest it’s a pretty big component. Meanwhile the part that is most closely Star Trek in spirit (the planet with the submersible Enterprise) seems like a brief opening sketch taking backstage to a rather cliche movie plot.

385. Sean - February 4, 2013

I say the big E gets destroyed half way thru the movie & Kirk / Spock / uhura go off to get Harrison while sulu cheov & Scotty go find the Botany Bay

386. Joesph - February 4, 2013

377 Rose,
Except its not MJ’s place to ask, command, order or suggest a poster change his/her screen name.
Now if Anthony P decided that, its one thing its his site and he can tell us commenters what names to use and not use.

But MJ has no right or place to make mulitple posts saying someone needs to change their name making several posts demanding or suggesting that a guy who was not trying to be some one needed to change his name is bullying him into doing so. and its the same BS he did to M.J.) as it is we all know MJ also posts as Disco Spock, K-7 and Red Dead. But I guess with MJ and his morning crew cast of characters normal rules don’t apply.

But enough with this allready.

387. Joesph - February 4, 2013

moving along and forgetting( for now)
So the burning question MJ have you bought your ticket for opening night yet MJ?

Most of the good IMAX venues in L.A, are almost sold out don’t wait to long.

388. tmach - February 5, 2013

Why does everyone assume the Enterprise would have to be destroyed for a refit? They want to change the nacelles because people don’t like ‘em? No problem, the nacelles are so heavily damaged they have to be replaced and they’re replaced with something newer/better. You wouldn’t have to destroy the ship to make any changes, just have enough damage to require a lot of repairs. It’s pretty obvious she’s pretty badly beaten up.

On another front, how do we know the ship crashing into the water isn’t the Enterprise? I see where Trekmovie says it isn’t, but where’d Trekmovie get it from? While JJ doesn’t do much that’s obvious, it seems the scene with the Enterprise underwater on Nibiru was done almost exclusively as a plot device to set up the fact that the ship can, in fact, submerge. As someone else pointed out, with the tech level of Nibiru’s inhabitants the ship would have been more hidden in orbit than in the water.

Thoughts on BC’s character… Khan? Maybe, but disappointing if it is. I’d rather see something original. However, the original idea for TWoK was to have Khan return and try to lead the youth of the galaxy in rebellion against the federation. If they somehow incorporate a similar plot into the story of Khan’s initial discovery that might not be so bad.

Mitchell? Nah. BC wields a pretty big gun in one of the trailers. Mitchell wouldn’t need one.

Anyway, just a couple of thoughts. And we probably shouldn’t get too caught up in what is and isn’t canon according to any series or the other movies. JJ has made it clear that his universe is different and doesn’t necessarily follow any of that.

389. Rose (as in Keachick) - February 5, 2013

“as it is we all know MJ also posts as Disco Spock, K-7 and Red Dead.”

Well, I, for one, do not know that at all. You see bullying where there is none and then make accusations against a poster where you have absolutely no evidence that what you say is true. What I do know is that MJ lives in Southern California and Red Dead Ryan lives in Canada. I would say they were two different people. Have no idea about Disco Spock or K-7.

Sorry, Joseph, but so far, you don’t impress me.

@ Anthony – I hope you do not feel bullied, but I, for one, do not believe that was MJ’s intention. I hope you will continue to post here on this site.

390. The Sisko - February 5, 2013

Ok…this may sound nuts….but……In the movie “This Means War” which stars, Chris Pine, his friend/nemesis is played by Tom Hardy, who was, of course, Picard clone-boy Shinzon, and Bane in “Dark Knight Rises”, who was a front for the real villain, Ra’s al Ghul’s daughter, Talia. But he uses an alias for a dating site in the movie, it is…..John Harrison. Coincidence? or carefully planned easter egg? I think there may be a Khan in our lives after all. LOL

391. sscttj - February 5, 2013

in space seed, they talk about khan being part of a group of super human men.. there were several “khans” so john harrison has to be one of these other guys also the time line is years before kirk finds khan in the original time line… harrison is another augment from khans time.. if you remember scotty saying he admired Khan because he was one of the better dictators and he talks about some the positive things about him.. so Harrison is gonna be Khan on steroids.

392. Yanks - February 5, 2013

This appears to be an augment story, not a “Khan” story.

I’m also not passed it being Gary Mitchell. Just because he hadn’t met Kirk yet in the old timeline doesn’t mean this one can’t be different.

393. m - February 5, 2013

The UK flag was done on person to remind us all that this is an “alternate universe”

394. Vincent - February 5, 2013

If none of you think it’s Khan, denial is setting in:

1. Him thinking he is better then everyone else.
2. The uniform he wears to mock the federation
3. The uniform he wears in the original trailer with the ribbed coat.
4. Carol Marcus
5. Him being stronger then a Klingon
6. Him wanting to conquer the world
7. Having a vendetta against the federation.
8. The screenies with the pods on the ship, reminiscent of the Botany Bay.

Oh, I don’t know, Kirk’s basic equal opposite? (Yup that’s an oxymoron).

If it’s not Khan, I will be EXTREMELY surprised.

395. LogicalLeopard - February 5, 2013

399. m – February 5, 2013
The UK flag was done on person to remind us all that this is an “alternate universe”

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

Wow….I’m not sure if that’s a joke or not. I really don’t understand why there is all of this uproar over a flag. When Earth founded/joined the Federation, there was NO reason to get rid of all of the flags, disregard all the borders, etc. You still have countries, you still have borders, and you still have flags. The only difference is that your supreme governing body is not that of your country, but that of the United Earth government. It’s just like the United States. EVERY state has it’s own flag. EVERY state has it’s flag flying in government buildings, but the United States flag has to be the most prominent. Just like in this case. You’ve got two Union Jacks flying next to a prominent UFP flag in the center.

I mean, has anyone heard of Chekov? National pride is alive and well. Even STATE pride is alive and well. I think Sisko was proud to come from Louisiana, and Kirk was proud to come from Iowa. When Kirk mentioned where he was from, he didn’t say, I”m from a small, rural town called Riverside, in the northern hemisphere of Earth. he said, “I’m from Iowa.”

This has got to be in the top 5 silly nitpicks on this site. With “How Can the Enterprise Go Underwater?” as number 1.

396. LogicalLeopard - February 5, 2013

400. Vincent – February 5, 2013

Now, at this point, I’m ready to believe it’s the Klingon impostor from the Trouble With Tribbles, but any sane person must admit that Khan is a strong frontrunner. Some stuff you didn’t mention was that some of the writers/producers discussed going to a shot of the Botany Bay in the commentary from the last movie, I believe. But what’s really pointing towards it is the blatantly suggestive language in the news articles you find in the new movie app.

“So who is this ‘one man weapon of mass destruction?’ Though no ne nhas confirmed it, signs point to Cumberbatch’s character being Khan Noonien Singh, the genetically engineered superman who battled Kirk in teh original series episode ‘Space Seed’ and the second feature film, ‘ Star Trek 2: the Wrath of Khan'”

Then it goes into talking about how the movie is described as an “epic chess game of life and death?” and says “Recall that Khan was a master strategist, whose undoing came about becuase he thought of the battlefied as a two dimensional plan. (Kirk and Spock played a lot of three-dimensional chess, which helped them get the jump on Khan while in the Mutara Nebula.)”

Misdirection? Maybe. But when you’re misdirected, you have a fifty fifty shot of the misdirection being true or false.

397. Sherlock - February 5, 2013

Finally I figured it out!

Cumberbatch is TNG’s Professor Moriarty who’s travelled back in time :)
He’d be canon and it would explain his evil genius

398. RobH - February 5, 2013

The Union Flag (it’s only a Union Jack when flown from the jackstay of a ship) is being flown upside down. This was used in the days of the Empire as a sign for an emergency…..I suspect that it’s deliberate.
I do hate the Enterprise getting trashed though!!

399. Sherlock - February 5, 2013

But honestly, if the spinning Enterprise is linked to the crew members sliding across the floor, why is none of them wearing their standard red, blue and yellow tunic? Are they attacked while not being in service, just returning from the funeral or some other business on Earth?

What’s the chronological order of these events….

1. Cumbi in England, Enterprise under water on Nibiru

– Cumberbatch in brig
– gunfire at Starfleet meeting
– terrorism in London
– Enterprise dropping
– starship crashing into skyline
– Spock, Kirk and Uhura with Cumbi on Qu’ono’s
– Pike giving his speech to Kirk
– Kirk flying through space debris
– funeral
– Spock’s jump
– and so on…

does anyone have any ideas?

400. Simon - February 5, 2013

So…nobody else noticed the present day Los Angeles skyscrapers in future London’s skyline? (my post, #333)

401. LogicalLeopard - February 5, 2013

405. Sherlock – February 5, 2013

– Pike giving his speech to Kirk
– gunfire at Starfleet meeting
– terrorism in London
– Spock’s jump
– Kirk flying through space debris
– Enterprise dropping
– starship crashing into skyline
– Spock, Kirk and Uhura with Cumbi on Qu’ono’s
-Cumberbatch in brig
– and so on…
– funeral

I’ve always thought that the funeral scene would be last, or towards the end of the movie, not at the beginning as it seems in the clips. Now, this makes it confusing as to why they crew isn’t wearing standard uniforms during their slippy slidey danger fest, but I think maybe they’re wearing dress uniforms because it’s Federation Day, or some equivalent, symbolic holiday which BC chooses to set his terrorist attack from. Maybe it’s something like “Fleet Week”, where there are quite a few starships on “parade” in orbit, and have their guard down just enough to allow the attack.

402. stacks - February 5, 2013

That’s the enterprise crashing into those buildings…

403. shawn - February 5, 2013

BC: “For I have returned to have my vengence.”
Lazarus: “Kirk, I will have my vengence.”

404. Check the Circuit - February 5, 2013

If it was Khan, why wouldn’t they just say so and market the heck out of it? If Khan is to Star Trek/Kirk what the Joker is to Batman (as some have suggested) why wouldn’t you shout it from the highest mountain? The Joker was featured prominently in the Dark Knight marketing for a very good reason….to sell tickets. I think Paramount would do the same.

But watch for the Khan set up in Star Trek 3.0 at the end of Into Darkness.

(Just a guess, of course.)

405. Joesph - February 5, 2013

Rose I was not aware I was trying to impress ANYONE.
And how do you know that they live where they say they live, have you every actually met? Have you ever actually called them on the phone? do you talk to them via facebook?

People can claim to be from anywhere they want online only the site mod and the poster would know for sure.

Look at the tone and the grammar, between the three of them they are almost Identical, same paterns in how they are written.

But getting back to my point its not MJ’s place to request anyone change their name unless he has been made a site moderator or contributor or what not. this is why this site should have Discus installed for comments. that way there is no question about who is who and what is what. wordpress created sites such as this have that option availble to them now and take all of 5 mins to set it up.

But that is just my opinon.

406. Michael Hall - February 5, 2013

“This has got to be in the top 5 silly nitpicks on this site. With “How Can the Enterprise Go Underwater?” as number 1.”

Hmph. Well, I stated myself that I didn’t think the British flag was all that big a deal. That said, why is what the presence of that flag implies for the Star Trek future a silly topic for conversation? Seems to me that the capacity to put our differences aside and work together as a species for everyone’s benefit has been at the heart of Trek’s appeal through all the decades since its premier in 1966. Roddenberry certainly saw it that way. And while I obviously can’t prove it, my belief is that if he had caved to network pressure to designate the Enterprise as a “United States Ship” rather than the “United Space Ship” he preferred, it’s very unlikely any of us would be having this coversation in 2013.

If nothing else, at least the talk about flags and nationalism is something reasonably new and different on this forum. (As is, in its own way, the back-and-forth since the Imax footage premiered over whether a starship designed for the weightless environments of interstellar space would find it congenial to sit on the bottom of an ocean. Fact is, tech nerds happen to like that sort of thing.) Unlike, say, the sort of speculation over Harrison/Khan that’s been done to death and beyond: “So who is this ‘one man weapon of mass destruction?’ Though no ne nhas confirmed it, signs point to Cumberbatch’s character being Khan Noonien Singh, the genetically engineered superman who battled Kirk in teh original series episode ‘Space Seed’ and the second feature film, ‘ Star Trek 2: the Wrath of Khan’”. Whatever.

407. Disinvited - February 5, 2013

#371. FroJoeKoolaid, 379. Vorus

In the episode, it was clearly established Khan’s suspended animation was not working properly. One possible side effect of that could be that he resumed normal aging. For this movie, it’s still operating within parameters at this earlier date.

408. Robman007 - February 5, 2013

Hmm..something’s just odd here…

So, if you go by the synopsis, Kirk commits an error so grevious that he loses command of the Enterprise. Seeing a route to redemption, the good captain, along with Uhura (not the good Doctor?..boy I miss the Kirk/Spock/McCoy relationship) and Spock, as civilians, go off in search of the individual responsible for terrorist attacks on Earth.

So…I’m wondering…IF this ship crashing into the bay and into the city of SF is not the Enterprise, then is the shots of the Enterprise crashing to a planet a result of damage from the volcano rescue of Spock?

So, if Kirk is no longer Captain when he goes off to Klingon Space, then goes the Enterprise go back to pick him up in Klingon space..(being that Cumberpatch is in the brig)..and causes an accident on the Enterprise…then why are they wearing what looks like either the dress uniforms or some sort of hazardous duty uniform with the see thru clear portion that shows the uniform underneath…

Hope this all comes together….

Just hope it does not end with Enterprise-A…this “new” ship does not have enough service time to get that honor. The original Enterprise, despite all it did and it’s historical meaning to the Federation, was just going to be decommissoned like any old ship. The A was a result of what Kirk and crew did to save Earth from the probe.

I’m hoping this film does not end on a sad note either (such as death or maybe he’s dead of a main character, or no resolution on the fate of the Enterprise..). It’s bad enough that a conclusion will have to wait 4-6 years. Urgh.

409. Robman007 - February 5, 2013

Pike giving his speech to Kirk
– gunfire at Starfleet meeting
– terrorism in London
– Spock’s jump
– Kirk flying through space debris
– Enterprise dropping
– starship crashing into skyline
– Spock, Kirk and Uhura with Cumbi on Qu’ono’s
-Cumberbatch in brig
– and so on…
– funeral

Cumberpatch in the brig would assume that Kirk was given back command of a newly repaired NCC-1701…but he went off to the Klingon planet to find the guy responsible for the attacks and get his command back…

410. JohnRambo - February 5, 2013

Whoever decided to destroy the Enterprise……I HATE YOU!

But if there is a new one at the end of the Movie….I LOVE YOU!

411. Peter Loader - February 5, 2013

The Enterprise does crash… you can see the city through the clouds bottom right corner of second overhead shot.

So the Enterprise gets wiped in the first part of the movie and the crew and the crew are forced to steal, beg, borrow another ship to complete their mission… hmm, I wonder what they will find mothballed in the Starfleet shipyards… an old Connie perhaps?

412. Rose (as in Keachick) - February 5, 2013

I find this whole notion that the film so far seems to point to John Harrison being Khan or Joachim or whoever absurd. The 15 minutes of film that we have seen points to no one, other than John Harrison being…wait for it, JOHN HARRISON!

There are millions, probably billions, of humans along with millions of beings belonging to other humanoid races, and yet all people here have focused on is whether this John Harrison is really a pseudonym for Khan or Gary Mitchell. Other names have been suggested but that is where the primary focus has been.

You mean to say, that there wouldn’t be other humans or other who may not believe that they are better than anyone else, who might not dream and have the means of causing great destruction and “darkness”; who may not have lost something/someone and go on a revenge seeking rampage (we have been told that, indeed, James Kirk found himself falling into that trap in this movie)…

Maybe I will have to eat crow – I’ve already said I need a big crow to get me and my elder son to Los Angeles for the 15 May screening, especially given that it is also his birthday. I hope not because I doubt I’ll like the taste of crow and because John Harrison is really just John Harrison. I still go with my guess that Harrison is another Vulcan/Human hybrid, like Spock, sans the pointy ears.

413. TrekkerChick - February 5, 2013

@343

Well, technically, California was an independent republic (see the current state flag) for a short period (like, a month/so) of time.

414. Hat Rick - February 5, 2013

@TrekkerChick, are you referring to the months after the California Constitution was adopted, and before admission to the Union?

415. Mathew Binkley - February 5, 2013

I noticed something…

The first “explosion” in the dark corridor… Those bays appear to be stocked with some sort of fighters/shuttles.

And towards the end, the huge saucer that mows down the skyscraper… It’s way too big to be the Enterprise.

If you’re going to “detonate the fleet”, the obvious place to do it would be the Starbase orbiting earth that the starships were docked at in the first movie.

I theorize that the skyscraper-mowing saucer is one of the Starbases round saucers falling to earth, and the first explosion takes place on one of the long corridors connecting them to the spherical main body.

I think JJ is playing with us a bit with the trailers, and is going to try to shock us with the movie’s scale. Thus far we have seen an explosion at a building. But that’s not “epic”. But imagine multiple blasted starships filled with kilotons of antimatter impacting the surface of the planet.

Our world will fall.

416. PC3 - February 5, 2013

If Gary Mitchell gets fried (in the comic) then the line “I am better” kind of makes sense providing that Mitchell returns in a healed “better” state.

417. LJ - February 5, 2013

I am enjoying the back and forth everyone is having re: the flags and the state of Earth in the 23rd century. Let’s face it, even after 7 series, an animated series, and 11 films, we still know very little about Earth or how it is governed.

IMHO, a ‘united Earth’ does not necessarily mean a one-world government. If we look at the real world example of the EU, this is an organisation of independent sovereign nation states, yet they are united in social policy, human rights law, trade, etc., and there is growing unity in foreign policy too. Most countries in that union are also united economically, and are growing closer together.

It is quite possible, therefore, that the United Earth spoke of in Trek is similar: a union of independent sovereign nations. After all, isn’t this what the Federation is? By necessity the member worlds must have a very large degree of autonomy, as it would be impossible to govern such a large territory by central government. Central/federal government would just decide on matters of foreign policy, defence and outside trade.

If this interesting to think about, as #412 stated it is fresh, and really does touch on issues not yet fully addressed on screen. Why not share our ideas?

418. Red Dead Ryan - February 5, 2013

#411.

Hey “rocket scientist”: MJ, K-7, DiscoSpock and I are from different places. We’re all seperate individuals. Anthony can prove it through our IP addresses.

On the other hand, you -Joesph- may be the uber-infamous Stunkill looking to cause trouble yet again.

I’m not going to get dragged into this.

419. Mel - February 5, 2013

There is a lack of McCoy in the trailers so far. I hope that doesn’t mean anything bad for the amount of his screentime in the movie. He shouldn’t be a glorified background character.

420. Mel - February 5, 2013

There are one or two people in the background, when Spock and Uhura kiss. One looks like a red shirt. So they make again out in front of others. Don’t they have a room?

421. Hat Rick - February 6, 2013

@Mel (425), agreed, but McCoy figures more prominently in the nine-minute preview. He and Kirk are the ones running through the field and jumping into the ocean on Niburu.

422. LogicalLeoapard - February 6, 2013

412. Michael Hall – February 5, 2013
“This has got to be in the top 5 silly nitpicks on this site. With “How Can the Enterprise Go Underwater?” as number 1.”

Hmph. Well, I stated myself that I didn’t think the British flag was all that big a deal. That said, why is what the presence of that flag implies for the Star Trek future a silly topic for conversation? Seems to me that the capacity to put our differences aside and work together as a species for everyone’s benefit has been at the heart of Trek’s appeal through all the decades since its premier in 1966. Roddenberry certainly saw it that way.

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

Well, it’s not a silly topic for conversation. Terran nationalism in the 23rd century is an interesting subject to discuss. What is silly is the fact that some people seemed to me to be admant that the flags SHOULD NOT BE THERE, because forming a United Earth would automatically result in the death of nationalism. That’s silly. Chekov puts an end to any consideration that nationalism is dead.

So really, what I’m saying is discussing the extent of nationalism is okay, maintaining that nationalism is completely dead and the UE is completely homogenous is ridiculous and silly.;

423. LogicalLeoapard - February 6, 2013

410. Check the Circuit – February 5, 2013
If it was Khan, why wouldn’t they just say so and market the heck out of it?

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

Three main segments: Fan base, people casually aquainted with Trek, and people who have never watched it/don’t know much about it

Among your fan base, revealing it’s Khan is going to be met with instant groans and vitriol. JJ killed trek. The writer’s aren’t smart enough to come up with something orginal. Been there done that, etc. Not revealing Khan keeps the buzz going among the fan base, people keep guessing, revising their theories, and even some of the skeptics will go out and see it pretty quickly to see who it is and satisfy their own theories.

Among the casual, it doesn’t make much of a difference. Khan is not the Joker. He’s probably the biggest villian, but what does that mean for a show like Star Trek, which isn’t defined by heroes/villians as much as a superhero comic.

Among those who haven’t seen it, revealing the villian doesn’t make a difference either. And maybe some might not watch, because they think they have to learn the backstory to enjoy it.

424. Curious Cadet - February 6, 2013

@429 LL,

Agreed.

But I think the most important reason is that truly, anybody outside of the fan base has no idea who Khan is. In that respect the fans are a bit myopic — “how could anybody not know who Khan is!?”

He may be the most well known antagonist from Star Trek, and for a select few who have been around since the 80s, may carry some name recognition … But a marketing draw? Not even a negligible impact on those outside the fold. I’m actually stunned at how often this comes up among the faithful.

425. Phil - February 6, 2013

@430. At best, Khan would be a curiosity factor. I’ve mentioned that before, regarding movie villians. There’s Darth Vader, and everyone else. There is no backstory on Khan, so there is no reason to care about him. Darth Vader at least found his redemption.

426. dswynne - February 6, 2013

I have a feeling that “Into Darkness” sets up the eventual return of Khan in the third film…

427. dswynne - February 6, 2013

@410: No, “Nemesis” killed Trek, by recycling the plot of “Wrath of Khan”. The fact is this: “Nemesis” made on $67 M on a $60 M budget, getting 38% on Rotten Tomatoes; Abram’s “Star Trek” made $385 M on a $150 M budget, getting 95% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Ergo, you are quite incorrect in your assessment, and should state that you are speaking in the form of an opinion, rather than fact. In fact, you can always check out “Red Letter Media” on why “Nemesis” failed to reach an audience, and why “Star Trek” succeeded. And while I will grant you the fact that Abrams and company purposely injected the feel of an action movie into the franchise, you have to credit him for renewing it for a…next generation. It may not be the Trek that I grew up on, but I was still entertained by it. Besides, if I wanted to see more old-school Trek, there’s always reruns and DVDs/Blue Rays to go back to. ‘Nuff said.

428. LogicalLeopard - February 6, 2013

431 Phil

Darth Vader is a good example. The vast majority of the population knows who Darth Vader is, whether they’ve seen Star Wars or not. Khan, like Curious Cadet said, is not known outside of the fanbase. Or, really, if you want to be technical, outside of people who saw the movie. I sort of wonder if the only reason why people say that Khan is well known is because ST2 was either the most well reviewed or most popular at the box office.

429. trekbuff - February 6, 2013

“Some ship (not the USS Enterprise) crashes into San Francisco Bay”
How can this be certain?

430. Bill Peters - February 6, 2013

436, Anthony can be sure because he has sources in the production.

431. Yanks - February 7, 2013

@ 429. trekbuff – February 6, 2013

Because I’ve staked everyone elses reputation on it ;)

It just doesn’t match up. The damage on the nacelle of the falling straight 1701 is on the starboard nacelle, the damage on the ship crashing while moving forward into the bay is on the port nacelle.

It just doesn’t look like JJ’s 1701.

432. tim - February 19, 2013

Maybe this guy is a star fleet volunteer for a medical serum. The side effects makes him an augment. He’s pissed that he superior but like blade runner will burn out in 6 months. So he tragically dies in the end. That covers all bases
.

433. Al Xong - February 24, 2013

Nibiru really?!?!?!?

434. Rick James - February 27, 2013

I so hope the Enterprise is toast in this movie. If that’s what it takes to get the Probert TMP Enterprise back I’m all for it.

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.