Shot-by-Shot Analysis Of Star Trek Into Darkness Alternative Teaser | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Shot-by-Shot Analysis Of Star Trek Into Darkness Alternative Teaser March 9, 2013

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

The new alternate teaser trailer for Star Trek Into Darkness has a surprising amount of new footage and dialog in it. And so as we do with all new trailers and previews, TrekMovie takes an in depth shot-by-shot look at the alternate trailer. Find out what’s inside the trailer below, but beware of Spoilers.  

 

Star Trek Into Darkness Alternative Teaser Trailer Analysis

Once again TrekMovie dives deep into the new trailer with a shot-by-shot analysis. Shots that new are noted with "NEW" Other shots were seen before in other trailers, the Super Bowl commercial and/or the IMAX preview.

(Click images to enlarge)


Nibiru Volcano



Nibiru natives chase Kirk (Chris Pine) and McCoy (Karl Urban)



Nibiru native throws spear at McCoy

Dialog:
McCoy: I hate this
Kirk: I know you do



[NEW] Shuttle flies to pan of San Francisco skyline


[NEW] Pike (Bruce Greenwood) talks to Kirk in his office

Dialog
Pike: Do you have any idea what a pain you are?
Kirk: I think so sir.



Back to Nibiru chase

Dialog
McCoy: Jim, the beach is that way!


[NEW] And back to Pike reprimanding Kirk

Dialog
Pike: You think the rules don’t apply to you because you disagree with them


[NEW] Kirk prepares for space jump with countdown heard "3, 2, 1…"



[NEW] Kirk and second jumper exit the Enterprise


[NEW] Kirk flies through debris field towards another Starfleet ship

DETAIL ZOOM


Close-up on ship Kirk is flying towards. Ship is similar to Enterprise but not the same (saucer and nacelles somewhat different)

 


Kirk’s faceplate begins to crack


[NEW] Kirk fires suit thrusters on way through field


Title card


[NEW] John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) looks on (presumably watching London attack)

Dialog
Admiral Marcus (Peter Weller): By now all of you heard what happened in London


London attack


[NEW] Harrison piloting small craft (NOTE: says "EMERGENCY" on windshield)


[NEW] Kirk talking to unknown person (possibly Pike or Marcus)

Dialog
Kirk: He’s a fugitive and I want to take him out



[NEW] Kirk piloting civilian ship being chased by Klingon ship  (firing on them) on Qo’noS



[NEW] More of Kirk piloting craft through buildings on Qu’noS, note Uhura (Zoe Saldana) in background

Dialog
Kirk: Hold on
Spock: This ship will not fit
Kirk: We’ll fit




[NEW] Kirk squeezes ship through narrow opening




[NEW] Ship exits narrow opening and flies on

Dialog
Kirk: I told you we would fit
Spock: I am not sure that qualifies



Spock prepares to drop into Volcano


Sulu (John Cho) piloting ship inside volcano and talking to Uhura

Dialog
Sulu: If we are going to do this we are going to do it now!



Uhura prepares to drop Spock into Nibiru volcano




Spock enters volcano



Scotty (Simon Pegg) spots a big fish while ship is under Nibiru ocean

 Uhura in her wetsuit in shuttle on Nibiru

Dialog
Sulu: Ready to swim?
Uhura: I’m ready


USS Enterprise exits Nibiru ocean


Kirk orders Sulu to "punch it"



[NEW] Sulu takes the ship to warp



[NEW] Enterprise jumps to warp from Earth Station



Spock leaps off floating barge while chasing Harrison through San Francisco


[NEW] McCoy talks to Kirk

Dialog
McCoy: Tell me this is going to work
 



[NEW] Pike (talking to Kirk)

Dialog
Pike: I believe in you


[NEW] Kirk and Scotty running through Enterprise corridors (ship at red alert)


Kirk talks to McCoy on bridge of Enterprise

Dialog
Kirk: C’mom. It’s going to be fun


Ship crashes into San Francisco Bay



Ship crashing in San Francisco





Title cards

More ‘shot by shot’ analysis

Check out TrekMovie’s other analyses:

 

Comments

1. freezejeans - March 9, 2013

Woohoo! Four years of waiting is finally almost over :D

2. fansincesixtynine - March 9, 2013

nice

3. Chames - March 9, 2013

Honestly this is simply an amazing trailer. Kirk looks like a real hero and the dialogue between he and Spock/Uhura and he and bones on the bridge is just like the old series. Chill worthy trailers all in all.
Great analysis!

4. JB - March 9, 2013

Thanks for the nice images!

5. Matt - March 9, 2013

2 months and 8 days left.

6. starfish - March 9, 2013

does Chekov die early on in this? he doesn’t seem to have any scenes whatsoever

7. Giez - March 9, 2013

sure looks like it could be an older Enterprise in orbit…

Still not giving much, I’ll bet March 29th is when we see much more, though maybe not who BC is…

8. Trekker5 - March 9, 2013

This is great! :)

9. Martin - March 9, 2013

Only 2 months for me.

10. Zirclet - March 9, 2013

Dammit I’m still not sold by the flash & blast of these early trailers. There’d better be some substance to go with Lando, er, Kirk, flying ships through tight holes and having the same conversations with Pike that he did last time. Saw this at an Oz screening last night and the audience reaction wasn’t exactly stellar.

11. Aix - March 9, 2013

No Cumby VO to not scare the kids? Haha. Love that you get running, jumping, flying, swimming and a trusty circle of friends. Plus parental lectures. It’s a great “kid-friendly” trailer!

12. ILM Operative - March 9, 2013

I am betting that is Captain Robert April’s original U.S.S. Enterprise Kirk is space diving to.

http://i.imgur.com/CO2N2XM.jpg

13. CAPT KRUNCH - March 9, 2013

After 4 yrs we’re finally setting sail again and it’s wonderful!!….Awesome pics and the new teaser was spectacular!..Finally got to “hear” Peter Weller at least…. The ship that Kirk is flying towards looks more like the ship that we see crashing into San Francisco, not the Enterprise????…anyway I can’t wait ..this is going to be the longest 2 months!!!…
But again where’s Chekov????

14. Nony - March 9, 2013

I think Kirk’s last line might be “It’s going to be fun,” not “It’s going to be fine.” Though I have crappy speakers.

15. deekay - March 9, 2013

wow, in the scene where spock is leaping off the building, they changed the buildings in the background! (i compared it with the big game spot)

i noticed other changes (cgi, colors…) before…. maybe it´s time for a trailer comparison? :))

16. Enterprisingguy - March 9, 2013

Has it now become a running gag that anything in the Star Trek universe that falls from orbit must land in the San Francisco bay? There’s a whole lot of world for this stuff to land on. But it always finds it’s way there. It must be like a junk yard by now with all the stuff in there! :)

17. Copper Based Blood - March 9, 2013

#12

I agree, it could be April’s Enterprise.

Is that Earth’s moon in the background?

18. Anthony Pascale - March 9, 2013

it is indeed ‘fun’ not ‘fine’

yes that is Earth’s moon

19. Flake - March 9, 2013

This movie has very cool colours… More blue and trek 09 had very warm colours…. Just saying :)

20. scotchyscotchscotch - March 9, 2013

#16 – If you count ST IV, then yes :)

21. deekay - March 9, 2013

trailer comparison “spock´s jump”

i have an image for you guys:

http://www.myimg.de/?img=comparec55c8.jpg

22. Aix - March 9, 2013

#21 Cool. Thanks for that.

I have heard great things about that foot chase in SF. The Guardian stated that it made the opening of Skyfall look like an episode of Doctors. Exciting! Exciting!

23. WaylanderNeo - March 9, 2013

@13 I was just thinking the same – my first reaction on seeing that ship in the space jump that it was the same one we see nose diving it to San Francisco bay.

**Potential Spoiler taking into account from what I read from the Brazilian report earlier this week**

The ship that Kirk is jumping to is possibly the same ship that “someone” gets reassigned to? (also would explain why Kirk is allowed to make the jump as a part of the consequences that caused the reassignment?)

24. Killamarshtrek - March 9, 2013

@12 & 17

Looks very much like Robert April’s Enterprise. I wonder if a regenerated or, dare I say it ‘Augmented’ Robert April is waiting on it?

25. gingerly - March 9, 2013

I am sooo happy the trailers aren’t giving away the entire movie.
PLEASE CONTINUE THIS TREND.

26. AJ - March 9, 2013

Finally: A character-driven trailer, and it is GREAT.

27. NCC-73515 - March 9, 2013

Are the rankpins on the shoulders similar to the “sqeaks” used in II-VI?
The half-saucer ship looks like the USS Newton NCC-1727, a successor of the Intrepid type of ships.

28. will - March 9, 2013

id bet the ship that kirks space jumping to and the one that crashes in the san fran bay is the origional enterprise that they mention in countdown to darkness.this new trailer just got me even more excited about this movie:)

29. Michael - March 9, 2013

JJ wasn’t kidding when he said these movies weren’t made for me.

30. Disinvited - March 9, 2013

In the top picture of the two captioned “Enterprise jumps to warp from Earth Station”, why is the right nacelle missing that should be on our left?

31. NCC-73515 - March 9, 2013

The red thing Spock jumps off is probably the set in the early spycam videos where he unsuccessfully uses the FSNP on Harrison…

32. Tanner Waterbury - March 9, 2013

@ 12 ILM,

No argument there! Definitely has to be a Connie before the JJ Connie came to existence. I want more pics of it!

33. Michael - March 9, 2013

Incredible! It’s all coming together so well now. Easy to see why J.J. got promoted.

34. LtMiles - March 9, 2013

#29- you and me, both.

35. Andreew - March 9, 2013

@31

You are correct! I never made that connection actually. Interesting. So the melee between Harrisson and Spock will take place on the roof of that building.

Also, ILM Operative, is that ILM as in Industrial Light and Magic?

36. GO - March 9, 2013

#29 and #34 – so say we all…

37. Ahmed - March 9, 2013

@ 36. GO – March 9, 2013

“#29 and #34 – so say we all…”

So say we all :)
God, I miss BSG

38. somethoughts - March 9, 2013

Indeed, gave me chills

39. Dee - lvs moon surface - March 9, 2013

Chris Pine with Michael Giacchino:

http://instagram.com/p/WqLM3eldm5/

40. Adolescent Nightmare - March 9, 2013

Perfectly perfect. You can show this one to your friends and they will not laugh at you for liking Star Trek.

41. Aix - March 9, 2013

#33 Do you mean promoted as in he is now going to direct a more popular franchise ie Star Wars?

42. Moputo Jones - March 9, 2013

“Are you the 1701?”

Makes more sense now given the two Enterprises.

43. DeflectorDishGuy - March 9, 2013

Not a fan of these silly “dress uniforms”. The shoulder boards don’t correspond to anything, certainly not rank. Definitely not time in service… sry, my military service acting up again. lol.

I’m definitely excited, though it still doesn’t have that “Trek” feeling that I will always miss. Its become just another CGI filled action movie… that doesn’t mean its bad, just not “Trek”.

Live Long and Prosper, Roddenberry’s dream

44. T'Leba - March 9, 2013

Can’t wait!

45. Troi's bar of soap - March 9, 2013

#29 and #34 I am assuming that you would prefer a or more familiar Trek? Not possible if the franchise is to survive. It has to evolve and become fresh again. I am 52 years old and have been a treker the better part of those years, and I think this is awesome!

“Young minds fresh ideas, be tolerant.”

46. Dangkids - March 9, 2013

Kirk and Sulu are getting OLD.

47. banned - March 9, 2013

deleted by admin

48. Daniel Broadway - March 9, 2013

The federation ship over the moon has the same pylons and nacelles as the one that crashes into the water at the end. Just sayin’

49. Sebastian S. - March 9, 2013

That is a GREAT trailer!!!
Looking very forward to this. Pike looks like he’s sporting some Civil War era mutton chops, though; kind of funny…. maybe they come back in fashion?

;-D

However, my only nit is that Kirk is busted back to exec for violating the Prime Directive by exposing the primitives on Nibriu to the Enterprise in order to rescue Spock, whose mission was to drop a super-cooling device into the volcano (and presumably save the Nibriu primitives).

Um… isn’t dropping the super-cooling device into the volcano ALREADY an act of violating the Prime Directive?!? If they followed the PD to the letter, they’d just watch passively as the natives died….

Just my opinion, otherwise the movie looks like a hell of a lot of fun.
I’m counting the days now …. ;-)

50. somethoughts - March 9, 2013

Anyone notice, Chekov has hardly done any promos and he is very limited in the trailers. I wonder if he is to perish in the sequel.

51. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - March 9, 2013

For all we know, maybe that’s just what they did by preventing the eruption. Maybe Kirk persuaded his crew that it was only a ‘technical’ violation if the natives never knew they were there. Of course, it all hit the fan when Enterprise came out of the water in broad daylight to rescue Spock.

52. cloudynow - March 9, 2013

About Chekov’s lack and/or being seen in red shirt in teasers: sorry if already mentioned but I have a feeling that this is about his absence in the TOS episode Space Seed.

53. 750 Mang - March 9, 2013

Kirk demoted, space jumps, villain set on revenge… didn’t I see this movie in 2009?

54. James - March 9, 2013

52 every new bit of info we get point further an further away from Khan.
Further more even if it were Khan, JJ and Orci and Kurtzman have all said into darkness is not a REMAKE of anything we have seen before.

55. 750 Mang - March 9, 2013

No, it’s a remake of Trek ’09.

56. Star Trek: Nemesis blows, is the point - March 9, 2013

@49.

This is the general concept of the Prime Directive, from TOS (via Memory Alpha): “No identification of self or mission; no interference with the social development of said planet; no references to space, other worlds, or advanced civilizations.”

Kirk revealing himself to the locals is a clear violation. The Federation trying to save the civilization is not. The concept is they’re trying not to alter the social trajectory of the civilization; this volcano could not only completely wipe out the civilization, it could conceivably eradicate all life on the planet.

57. James - March 10, 2013

Kirk wasn’t demoted , and I would call the jump in 09 more of a low orbit High altitude dive. in anycase its different than what we get in the new movie.

58. LordOfTheArchons - March 10, 2013

That scene of Kirk flying through Q’onos is a rip off of the scene from The Empire Strikes Back where the Millenium Falcon fly’s through a canyon on an asteroid to evade two TIE fighters. I think JJ is starting to get his movies mixed up.

59. RAO - March 10, 2013

I think that ship is the Excelsior. Looks like the saucer anyway, but the nacelles are more TOS. Looks like a good film, but I fear even more Star Warsy knockoffs than the first movie.

60. 750 Mang - March 10, 2013

Yes, the low orbit high altitude dive from ST09 is totally different from what is in this trailer. I stand corrected. And you’re right Kirk wasn’t demoted in ST09, he was just kept from getting an assignment because he got busted. These things are in no way alike. Eye roll.

61. Devon - March 10, 2013

#43 – “Its become just another CGI filled action movie…”

The previous ones were just plastic model filled action models. It’s a film, not a two hour naptime for the masses.

“Live Long and Prosper, Roddenberry’s dream”

Yes… money and naked women. Sorry, my realistic side acting up again LOL.

62. 750 Mang - March 10, 2013

The problem with the new team is they have dumbed down Trek. Sure, it’s been done before, but we all knew it sucked. Now we clap our hands and say it’s great. “I don’t think these kids can steer.”

63. Mel - March 10, 2013

The huge fish reminds me of Raumpatrouille Orion. :-P

http://youtu.be/H748XDA7iRs?t=56s

64. Mel - March 10, 2013

At 0:58 in the video.

65. J - March 10, 2013

@750 Mang: totally agree on the “remake of ST 2009″ thing. When I saw the spacedive and Kirk lectured by Pike I had a dejavu. And that Empire Strikes Back plug is awful.

66. X - March 10, 2013

Oh, look, it’s a shot of them turning the ship sideways to get out of somewhere. They already did that in Star Wars and The Next Gen.!

A good half of the trailer looks like it was “inspired” by Star Wars. JJ, you have SW now, please leave ST alone.

67. X - March 10, 2013

Also, the more I find out about this film the less I want to see it. No wonder they were being so secretive before.

68. bardicjim - March 10, 2013

Remember Checkov is very young at this point. He only made it onto the Enterprise as it was an emergency situation with Vulcan. So he could just be at the Academy maybe?

69. Neil Bradley - March 10, 2013

Remember a while back there was an article about the fact that Chekov gets reassigned to Engineering in the film. So that’s probably why we’re not seeing him in any of these trailers.

I don’t think we’ve actually seen anything of Engineering in the trailers? Perhaps there’s a new set and showing Chekov would spoil that surprise? :P

70. shamelord - March 10, 2013

Isn’t Kirk’s ship on Qo’noS a Captain’s Yatch?

71. Neil Bradley - March 10, 2013

Just re-watched the IMAX Preview and Chekov was on the Bridge after kirk & McCoy returned from Nibiru. It’s just not been shown in any of the trailers.

72. Hythlodeus - March 10, 2013

@63 we even have a ‘Rücksturz zur Erde’ in this movie. Schönherr should definatly get a cameo in the next Trek ;)

73. Jonboc - March 10, 2013

#67 “Oh, look, it’s a shot of them turning the ship sideways to get out of somewhere. They already did that in Star Wars and The Next Gen.!”

Yeah! And that part where the ship goes into warp was done in prior movies and TNG! And that bit about Pike believing in Kirk, I saw that in Karate Kid! And I’ve seen explosions before too, just like they are using in the scene where London is being attacked!! This movie is gonna suck…

…NOT!

74. Janice - March 10, 2013

Thank You for all those screenshots.
LOVE the ones of PiKE!! A SUPER close-up of him!!

75. NCC-1864 - March 10, 2013

@ 27

The registry of the Newton-type ship can be identified as NCC-0718, so this is definitely not the USS Newton but another ship of that class.

76. Colinar - March 10, 2013

counting the days till i see this..

77. Neil - March 10, 2013

Supposedly that smaller ship is the USS Bradbury that Spock gets assigned to. Quite interesting because in The Next Generation, there was reference to an experimental starship named Bradbury, that was to be the first of the Bradbury starship class.

78. Curious Cadet - March 10, 2013

@22. Aix,
“I have heard great things about that foot chase in SF.”

I have to say, after reading the synopsis of the chase given by the press, I am a bit concerned that the description of them leaping across the tops of flying cars sure sounds a lot like the chase in Minoriy Report. More concerned now with so many other derivative images in this trailer. I resisted commenting on this earlier because everything is derivative …

All things considered, this does look like an exciting movie, whatever anyone thinks about its connection to the Trek we know and are familiar with. Should do much for taming Trek’s geek’s-only reputation with the general public, and will go a long way toward raising Trek’s stock enough to survive another self-destructive fall should some well meaning future producers decide to return it to the Berman era philosophy.

It strikes me now, that the decades of accumulated canon are over, and that Trek has entered the era of the rebooted franchise, which will get a fresh facelift every decade or so wih a new cast, new origin story, and new approach to the subject matter, just like Batman, Sperman, and dare I say The Hulk. Trek no longer belongs to the same old group of hard core fans, but to the changing visions of future generations, raised on increasingly disparate views of the franchise. Forget Kirk vs. Picard, it’ll be Rodenberry’s Kirk vs. Abrams Kirk vs. Nolan’s Kirk, et al.

79. X - March 10, 2013

73 – Fair enough doing something that was used in another movie series but recycling something that was already used in Star Trek? And something that was taken from Star Wars? People have enough trouble telling them apart already! Time for something new!

Also, I never said the film would suck. It’s too early to tell whenever it will be great or not.

80. JimJ - March 10, 2013

So cool, can’t wat!!!!

81. Chris Roberts - March 10, 2013

What with “Punch It” having cross-pollinated its way into Star Trek…

I look forward to JJ Abrams bringing “Make it so” and “Engage” to Star Wars VII.

I can’t see it happening though… can you? :-\

82. Colonel West - March 10, 2013

Great teaser, if April’s ship turns out to be a decent update of the original Big E we all know and love then that will tie up everything nicely with the whole post Narada intervention in the timeline thread that set up the new universe. With the influx of possible future tech taken from sensor readings etc from the Kelvin leading to Starfleet putting the Constitution class redux into production then and mothballing the older model.

As for the nu Trek Vs Old Trek debate, two things spring to mind, IDIC and as the great man put it himself:

“Come, come, Mr. Scott. Young minds, fresh ideas. Be tolerant!”
;)

83. NCC-73515 - March 10, 2013

63. Mel

Maybe in the next one we will see Tiefseebasis 104, and they will film on location at the Koenigsplatz! XD

84. NCC-73515 - March 10, 2013

75. NCC-1864

From one NCC to another… that’s why I wore “looks like” and not “is” :p

85. Al - March 10, 2013

Uhura + wetsuit = heaven

86. bk - March 10, 2013

Starting to get a bad feeling…

Script in “outline” form for an extended time, Abrams distracted by Super 8 & now Star Wars, trailers that imply a lesser scale/ambition than prior film. Rumor of notably shorter run time. Extreme secrecy combined with half-hour previews. Might be this one was just mailed in.

Alternatively, might address a few faults of the last film – cadet to captain, and a rather gruesome E. Perhaps Kirk goes back to school, and the E gets ditched and replaced by a more retro ship.

We shall seen soon enough.

87. Flake - March 10, 2013

Wish these Star Wars posts would go away…

How do you expect a big budget scifi action adventure movie to look in 2013?

Its Star Trek!

88. Flake - March 10, 2013

I wish we had message boards in 1982 & especially 1984 because undoubtedly people would have been making Star Wars comparisons then as well. I can only assume these people are wishing for a TV bottle-episode in space using only Enterprise sets on a low budget?

89. Flake - March 10, 2013

86: Trailers imply lesser scale/ambition than the previous film? I am sorry but I would say from what we have seen so far that the scale & ambition has gone up another notch. The only thing missing thus far is the epic trailer music from the last movies theatrical trailer. The way these trailers have been made & cut is thus far vastly inferior to Trek 09s theatrical trailer which imho is one of the best trailers ever made.

90. Sebastian S. - March 10, 2013

@ 56

That’s not the Prime Directive we see later on in “Pen Pals” or “Homeward”; where we see the crew quite willing to sit on their butts & do nothing to help two doomed civilizations; they only get involved because of interference from Data and Nikolai Rozhenko (Worf’s stepbrother).

So is the Federation in this timeline now committed to saving ALL life wherever they find it, or only life that they can save without ANY risk of exposure? If saving ALL threatened inhabited planets is now a priority then they’ll HAVE to risk exposure at some point (see: “Paradise Syndrome” where the crew beamed down in broad daylight in front of a mob to rescue Kirk and reset the planet’s asteroid deflector). To only rescue endangered planets that can be saved without fear of detection is kind of B/S, really.

I think I’m in agreement with Kirk on this one…

91. Giez - March 10, 2013

Running time is about 2:20, according to my advance Fandango ticket for 5/15. Maybe there’s 5 minutes of lead in but not sure. Whoever is starting these rumors are dopes. They’ve showed 30 minutes of the film around and theres still no clue on anything…relax.

@theGiez

92. Chris Roberts - March 10, 2013

@86 Come off it. Definitely doesn’t look smaller in scale.

But I think you could be right about addressing oft-mentioned fan criticisms of the first film. From giving the sequel a better villain, to making it tougher for Kirk earn the right to sit in the Captain’s chair

93. J.A.G.T. - March 10, 2013

If you listen VERY closely, you will notice that the sound effect played as the Klingon ship fires a shot (or rather at the moment the shot misses Kirk’s ship), is actually the classic “War of the Worlds” sound effect, that was used for photon torpedoes in the original series.

94. Buzz Cagney - March 10, 2013

#25 how do we know they aren’t giving the entire movie away? And another Space-Jump? Really?
:-/

95. Buzz Cagney - March 10, 2013

#93 you want to hear a photon torpedo effect, listen out for the noise the flare makes that 007 lets off under the ice toward to end of Skyfall!

96. shannon shark - March 10, 2013

Remember that show Star Trek? It was about James Kirk who was Captain of the Enterprise and his relationships with his two best friends Kirk and McCoy. What happened to that formula?

97. Arex Jones - March 10, 2013

Once, the apologists claimed the Star Wars knockoffs in the first film didn’t exist. Then when it became blatant, the knockoffs became a good thing because “Trek needs to be more like Wars to be relevant.” If the only way for this franchise to regain relevancy is to trade in what made it what it was for 40 years in exchange for being just another mindless action flick and a glorified remake of Star Wars with Trek names, then it’s already dead.

98. AJ - March 10, 2013

If anything, ST09 and STID are improvements to what Star Wars became in this century. Also, saying that the ship escaping is a rip-off of the MF’s escape in TESB should probably be restated as a ‘tribute’ to that iconic scene, which may have been on the artist’s mind when he created it.

99. David - March 10, 2013

i missed the part where the SHAT appears as Kirk

100. Commodore Adams - March 10, 2013

A lot of the pictures are bad gateways, 404 error. What gives.

101. BRF - March 10, 2013

58: the saucer-shaped ship turning sideways and buzzing through a narrow space gave me a Han Solo flashback, too. I’m sure the new team thought they were improving on things by adding the sparks and the scrapes, but I’d rather they were innovating. (Of course Lucas cribbed relentlessly from WWII movies, but in the original three at least he was pulling things from one genre to another and giving them a twist.)

102. I am not Herbert - March 10, 2013

LOTS OF FLASH…, no INTELLIGENCE, no LOGIC, no HEART…

“Star Trek” for dummies… =(

103. I am not Herbert - March 10, 2013

would be nice if they had a command structure/procedure…

rather than a bunch of egos yammering at each other… =(

104. I am not Herbert - March 10, 2013

and YES… QUITE DERIVATIVE… =(

(following the Transformers formula?)

105. DeShonn Steinblatt - March 10, 2013

Perhaps you happy people simply don’t understand the feeling of realizing you wasted 30 years hiding from life in a big pile of Star Trek canon.

Oh sure, we would have found some other body of canon to hide in had we not noticed Star Trek first. But the stupid and the lazy prefer repetition, familiarity and comfort!

Long live Rick Berman!

106. Flake - March 10, 2013

Ppl who hate on the movie are diehards left over from the days of tng/ds9/voy who can’t let it go and want it to come back… Things have to move on and change. Adapt to survive etc

This is still Star Trek and contains all the elements from it.

Let go…

I remember movies like insurrection and nemesis when folks where annoyed that it looked like a tv episode rather than a movie…. First rule of Star Trek fandom is you can’t please em all !

107. GornTrekker - March 10, 2013

#105 — Rick Berman and his stale group of writers were just as repetitive!! Hell, I was BEGGING for him to change the writing staff for at least a decade!!

JJ Trek may be more Star Wars-like and action oriented but it’s ok for what it is. We only have to “put up with” one more movie from him anyway…I don’t why people can’t sit back and enjoy it for what it is for three movies.

108. fan - March 10, 2013

How great would it be if the ship Kirk is diving to turns out to the the TOS style Enterrpise with the TOS colors and style updated by JJ and crew?

109. Red Dead Ryan - March 10, 2013

#108.

Yeah, I would love that! That would be like how at the end of “Skyfall”, the new M’s office looked very similar to the old one from the Sean Connery days.

110. fansincesixtynine - March 10, 2013

What a great homage to TOS it would be if Kirk saves the day with the TOS Enterprise!!! Would love it. It would be like “Relics” times 10.

111. bk - March 10, 2013

#92 – Perhaps its comparing the trailers – even just the music. But 2009 definitly pitched itself as reaching for more. That said, there were flaws. But I thought it was great ride even though certain things didn’t add up.

Remember the first two Superman (Reeve) movies? Both were very good in their own way, yet very, very different. I wonder if the comparisons might be similiar here.

We’ll see…

112. bk - March 10, 2013

So is the funeral for Pike? Checkov? I assume its a character we care about…

113. Trekfan133 - March 10, 2013

IGN has revealed that the ship crashing into San Fransisco bay is the Enterpise.

114. fansincesixtynine - March 10, 2013

@113 – sounds like an assumption on IGN’s part, like the earlier assumption about Khan to me.

115. Matt Wright - March 10, 2013

Wow! this was not attached the Oz screening I went to on Friday, it still had the old teaser :(

116. Calastir - March 10, 2013

Looks like a thrilling carnival ride, but also just as forgetful.

117. James H - March 10, 2013

I’m getting a feeling that they edited out the words “…in the ass..” from Pike’s dialogue to make the trailer kid friendly. Pike saying Kirk is “a pain” just sounds awkward.

118. Keachick - March 10, 2013

#39 – Cool photo!!! Love that smile…sigh…:)

I wonder – am I objectifying Chris Pine by saying that I would like to see him (near) naked, bare, because he has a nice body/figure, that I love his smile and his blue eyes? Or am I expressing affection/attraction towards someone who makes me smile also when I see a photo of him such as what Dee posted here. When does a genuine response to a picture or film sequence where someone finds the person on film attractive in every way become mere objectification of that person?

This is an honest question. I am not being sarcastic or snide or anything. Perhaps trekkiegal or even Chris Pine himself may like to answer. I ask it of these two, because I respect trekkiegal because she is always on point and respectful and well, Chris Pine, because he is the *object* of my liking, even drooling sometimes…

I have scrolled quickly down the article and comments on this thread, not stopping to read any captions. That may be one way for people to connect with a thread without necessarily seeing/reading every spoiler in any great detail. I suspect I may be doing a lot more of this in the near future.

119. bk - March 10, 2013

#113 – perhaps the ship in the space jump shot is an “older” E, which later hits the surf. Nacelles don’t seem to match the jj’s E.

That said, I wouldn’t mind if JJ’s E does a permanent deep dive…

120. Buzz Cagney - March 10, 2013

#97 Spot on.
They want to make Trek relevant by making it irrelevant. How sad is that.

121. Buzz Cagney - March 10, 2013

#40 perhaps not, but you may find you are laughing at them.

122. Vince - March 10, 2013

An Akyazi-class ship – finally on film ;)

123. boborci - March 10, 2013

movie will be here before u know it

124. This is going to be a long year - March 10, 2013

@boborci

Hey Bob, any comments on the trailer?

125. Trekprincess - March 10, 2013

Can’t wait bob :):) the movie looks incredible

126. Mr Tim - March 10, 2013

@boborci

Hi Bob, have you seen a final cut of the film yet?

127. This is going to be a long year - March 10, 2013

Question for boborci:

In the prequel comics why is April’s Enterprise decommissioned while they are building the new Big-E? Usually don’t they spread the ships out by a few years?

Wouldn’t that mean that the JJ-prise was originally going to be called something else?

Will the comics or movie reveal the answer?

128. MJ - March 10, 2013

ALL, THE POST BELOW WAS NOT ME:

47. MJ – March 9, 2013
Looking at this again, I really had to glue my flaps down! Can’t wait for this shit to come out! My man Kirk! My man Bones! I’m all about his lip wrapping! Cho’nah!

129. boborci - March 10, 2013

127. Mr. Tim

Ha! Have seen a couple of final cuts! There’s no final cut till we r done, which we are not.

130. oliver - March 10, 2013

The only part of the trailer I hate is the smug look on Pine’s face at one point.

131. boborci - March 10, 2013

125. Yes:

Ask not what your contra can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

132. Mr Tim - March 10, 2013

130 boborci

So, there’s still time to include that klingon musical number then???

133. boborci - March 10, 2013

Mr. Tim

You mean there’s still time to take it out;)

134. MikeB - March 10, 2013

The new trailer looks great, but they are at a disadvantage selling this film to kids. My friend is a school teacher and he said his kids have no idea what Star Trek is. They all know Star Wars, Batman, etc because there are cartoons on that they watch. No such thing for Trek. I haven’t even seen any new lines of toys out for this movie while the Iron Man stuff is already out. It’s really time for a new Trek Clone Wars style series to keep the interest in Trek going between films. What do you think, Bob?

135. Captain Fed up with Moronic Fan Boy Posts - March 10, 2013

I have decided that unless it is a trailer I am going to avoid any further information about this movie. There is too much being put out and You can gurantee that someone who sees an early screening will reveal John Harrisson’s identity.

Whatever happned to being genuinely surprised anymore? What if the revelation that Darth Vader was Lukes father had been revealed before the movie came out? It would have been a disaster. Spoilers suck and the internet makes them suck even more.

I want to be genuinely surprised and moved by what is probably my fav sci fi series ever next to Star Wars. To all you morons on here with your speculations and bull crap theories, do me a favor and shut up. I hate these morons who want to analyze and over exaggerate every little scene and moment. You guys need to shut up.

I am also tired of these Trek purists who think want to go back to the sixties. Do me a favor and shut up and oh by the way grow up. Trek has grown and evolved. This is an alternate timeline with new possibilties. Who in the hell in 2013 is going to see a trek movie about communicating with a whale probe? (Not a bad movie but its not a reflection of this generation) At some point Stan Lee had to let Spider-Man go. George Lucas held on to Star Wars too long and did not allow others to help grow his universe. i.e. Jar Jar Binks. Trek needed new blood. The last gatekeepers recycled the same formula over and over till it finally caught up with them.

You people who moan about this movie have not even seen it. They could have stuck a middle finger up and said lets scrap it all. The created an alternate reality and preserved the original timeline. Hey at least they did that. Bottom line I wish all the critics and know it alls would shut up.

136. boborci - March 10, 2013

135. Workin on it!

137. planetaryexile - March 10, 2013

@boborci

Kirk or Picard?

138. Mr Tim - March 10, 2013

134 boborci

Am sure you’ll make the right choice… And i look forward to seeing that chorus of moonwalking klingon warriors!

The film is looking really good, and I’ll be IMAXin’ the hell out of it over here in Manchester, England.

139. Commodore Adams - March 10, 2013

@ 135. MikeB

….well for kids yea. And granted they deserve something tailored to them but if there is a cartoon series there will not be a second star trek series on at the same time, so no live action series for the adults or more mature who have ZERO interest in a star trek animated series. As a child of the 80′s I was exposed to star trek through TNG and reruns of the original series. It wasn’t a cartoon which got me hooked as a child. I have a feeling a cartoon is all we are going to receive on TV in the near future.

140. Keachick - March 10, 2013

Oh god. I might have to watch the trailer because I want to know about the smug look on (Pine) Kirk’s face. Kirk looked smug – wouldn’t know whether Chris Pine would/could appear just as smug as the character he plays appears to.

My own Chris (my better half’s name is also Chris) wonders why I get annoyed when the actor’s name is used instead of the character’s name when describing a fictional storyline. I guess it is a bugbear of mine. Chris Pine is not Captain (or is he in this movie?) James Kirk, although I think he does play the character well. Nor is he FDR (This Means War), Brian Green (Carriers) or Darwin Tremor (Smokin’ Aces) LOL or any other character. He just pretends to be those fictional people and does it well.

141. Harry Ballz - March 10, 2013

Bob

on a lighter note, what did you think of Shatner’s appearance on the Academy Awards?

142. NCC-73515 - March 10, 2013

Pleeease no Clone Wars thing.
Trek was at its best with TNG-VOY.
What about a live action series with one 90 min episode per month or so…?

143. LLAP - March 10, 2013

Holy lens flare, Batman!

144. MikeB - March 10, 2013

I would love to see a new Trek TV series, but I doubt it will happen during this JJ Trek trilogy. However a TV presence makes sense in this day and age if for no other reason than from a marketing perspective. That is why I think an animated or computer generated show has a better chance. As for my Clone Wars reference – well that was just an example, but I do enjoy the show and would like a Trek that is accesable to kids and adults.

145. L4YERCAKE - March 10, 2013

Interesting to note that it appears Pike is walking in his scenes. Something tells me that is very intentional.

146. Jack - March 10, 2013

129. Well, you gotta admit he has your syntax down. Totally kidding.

Bob, obviously you need to fill a schoolbus, charter plane, whathaveyou with a few dozen of us (we can meet at Keachick’s in NZ), take us to some godforsaken, isolated industrial park — and show us what you got. We’d promise secrecy — and contradicting opinions. We’d probably be nicer if you throw in discounted popcorn. It will be genius PR (okay, not NZ) — like Oprah’s audience getting free crap. And cheaper than a round of ad spots. ;). Hey, I volunteer for western Canada. ;).

147. Jack - March 10, 2013

Thing is, I think it’s pretty easy to get stale — and lose perspective. That same team put out a trillion hours of Trek — and it was a product. So are these new Trek movies, but that Trek became like McDonald’s, where the stores were in different places, had different staffs, and some might have playgrounds and others cappuccino bars — but they all come from the same well-oiled machine, looked and smelled like McDonald’s no matter where you are and served pretty much the exact same stuff every time you go. They were engineering shows to cater to perceived demand, and deliver consistency not just to tell stories.

Do other franchises — law and order — get that stale?

I used to think that Braga had contempt for Trek and audiences, back in the Voyager days, but I don’t know if I believe that anymore.

148. Marja - March 10, 2013

Keachick, your question re: objectification of the men of Star Trek is a good one. As an old-time feminist I feel to some extent that “turnabout is fair play” – there have been years of sexism in ST from TOS (short skirts and next to no women in senior staff positions), TNG (Counselor Troi’s always low-cut costumes, until she worked for and achieved promotion as a Bridge Officer and wore a regular uniform, praise be), to present-day hip-length uniform dresses – about the most impractical style I can imagine, but one that is there so the guys can enjoy Uhura’s legs. As it has ever been in Trek, some female has to be in a skin-tight uniform, a dress with decolletage, or a very short dress. So be it; as Spock remarked, “sauce for the goose …”.

Yet, I’m conflicted. I want to be deeper than to say “it’s okay for us to be sexist now, guys, you had your chance now it’s our turn” … because I too enjoy the sight and the acting of the male cast of Star Trek. And what great actors they are, each and every one.

But let’s face it. Actors are attractive. Like actresses they are all very good looking and work out every day to maintain their Hollywood appeal, and thus I’m not ashamed to look and enjoy their appearance. The Female Gaze on men is a little newer; we’re a little franker about our appreciation of the male form these days, and Hollywood is beginning to recognize this. We have the right to enjoy sex appeal that’s on display as well as men do. However, we don’t have the right (in public, at least) to demean the actors or speak as if their bodies are the only thing we appreciate about them. I think that, as much as I appreciate Zachary Quinto, you appreciate Chris Pine, and not just for his attractive appearance. Both actors bring a lot to their roles. They have acting “chops”.

Part of the reason I love Star Trek, frankly, is because I’ve been in love with the characters since I was a pre-teen. Star Trek influenced my choice of career in a “peacekeeping humanitarian” organization. Just as the President has admitted he’s been in love with Uhura ever since he first saw Star Trek, I admit to loving the men of Star Trek, and assert that Uhura was a role model for me. She was more than a sexy lady in a too-short dress. She was, and is, a consummate professional – and a lovely lady.
____________________________________
The new trailer looks great; I love the fact that there’s a bit more emphasis on characters rather than scary voice-overs and relentless action. Despite the “tributes” to Star Wars I think this is gonna come out great.

My big fear from this movie is “Iron Man 3″ … it’s still gonna be pulling in viewers by the truckload on its third weekend. So I hope all of us* will bring our friends and make this film a big success … so we can see the third movie in a few years.

*Naysayers excepted – ‘cos I know you’re going to skip the movie, right? Not gonna be there, no way, not nohow … right? Because you dislike it so much?

As a long-time Trekker I.Can.Not.Wait.

149. Marja - March 10, 2013

Sorry, “my big fear FOR this movie …”

Oh, yeah, I went to see “Oz” today and really enjoyed seeing the trailer on the big screen. But I looked around as I walked in and said to my friend, “Danng, no lobby cards for Trek? What’s *up* with that??”

BobO, if you’re still here, I do hope we will see major in-theater promotion soon … not just short trailers, but fully-orchestrated trailers that last longer than the present ones AND BLOW OUR SOCKS OFF.

And please, Paramount/CBS, some Lobby Cards and big promotional Standups such as those I saw before ST2009? Pretty please?

150. Keachick - March 10, 2013

Thank you, Marja, for your response.

Personally, I have never even considered the notion of “what’s good for the goose…”. I have just simply responded spontaneously, viscerally to the sight of a good looking male and I tend to want to see more of him. Couple that with the fact that James Kirk has always had a certain charisma (for want of a better word) for me at least, it has always been a matter of liking what I hear and see. I have never thought in terms of just because it’s considered OK for men to oogle at attractive women, then fair’s fair. It’s never occurred to me – honestly. I figured that was because I was a heterosexual female and really was something I couldn’t really help. I am hardwired that way!

I don’t know where some male posters here get the idea that women do not respond in a similar way as a male might respond on seeing a very attractive woman or man. Women have been taught to be more circumspect and maybe even more respectful towards the man/men she may find sexually attractive and desirable, however I think their responses are just as spontaneous as any male response.

I can recall my older half-sister “losing it” over Sean Connery/James Bond in the 1960s. She was totally infatuated and frankly I realize her 15 year old hormones were reaching the stratosphere, just as millions of other females were at the same time. I later saw one of the early Connery/Bond movies, where there were scenes where he only wore briefs and I completely understood why she was a little gone on him….whoa, that man was sexy, sexy, sexy… dammit he looked GOOD. Chris Pine can also look VERY GOOD and there are moments when I am sure my hormones may be reaching the stratosphere as well.

I know I am writing hyperbole here but this is part of who we are as human beings and we should stomping on ourselves and one another for being this way sometimes.

Let Kirk be a man with a healthy share of male libido and pheromones who also happens to have a good heart and tries to be a good person.

Star Trek is about seeing a snapshot into the lives of fictional humans (and others) from a 23rd century planet earth. One of its main characters is James Kirk. Surely we can and even should see something of who he is and might be, other than just being a Starfleet officer. Same with some of the other major protagonists in this film series.

151. Keachick - March 10, 2013

I meant to write “…should STOP stomping…”

My mind thinks one word while my fingers type the next word sometimes…UGH!

152. Captain, USS Northstar - March 10, 2013

Looks great – counting the days! Thrusters on full!

153. Caesar - March 10, 2013

I just really, really hate this. There’s nothing “Trek” about this at all. “Punch it” is straight out of The Empire Strikes Back.

154. boborci - March 10, 2013

137. Picard

155. boborci - March 10, 2013

141. Harry
he was hilarious.

156. boborci - March 10, 2013

147 jack

I have always said, on this site, that I don’t want to work on Trek any longer than I can genuinely serve it. that is why you may not see us associated with it again. I truly don’t know. If we don’t have sincere conviction that we have what is best for Trek, we will walk. period.

157. boborci - March 10, 2013

153. Ceasar

Still time to change it. what do you suggest?

158. boborci - March 10, 2013

and my usual reminder:

Star Trek came first.

used the force first and used a planet destoryer first, just to name a few things.

159. Give me TOS or give me Death! - March 10, 2013

@157 boborci

Keep it. I love the “punch it” line from Pike & now Kirk.

160. The Great Bird Lives - March 10, 2013

@Bob Orci,

Oh no, my friend- you guys opened up a can ‘o worms with this alternate timeline deal. You cant just walk away, and leave some other writers to fill in the void you created. It sounds like your doubting yourself, Bob. Are you doubting the scripts ability to stand on it’s own? You should be confident at this point, and ignore the naysayers. And if you’ve truly been turning to the fans for indirect inspiration then you should know first, and foremost that you cannot please us all. And secondly, many posters have expressed their confidence in you- myself included. So chillax- I’m sure we will all be pleasantly surprised.

161. planetaryexile - March 10, 2013

@boborci

Thanks for responding. I prefer Picard as well. I am going to push my luck and go for two. If you were given the reins for a new Trek series, would you consider working with the old gang…Ron Moore, Braga, and Behr? Also, I would love to see more former Trek actors in future K/O productions.

Thanks. LLAP.
David

162. The Sinfonian - March 10, 2013

Bob, if you want to appease… you can quote TOS Corbomite Maneuver, the first regular episode filmed, where Kirk decides to try to outmaneuver the ‘space buoy’. He says to Sulu:

KIRK:
Engage, Mister Sulu.

Sure, Picard used it ad infinitum, but Shatner said it first, in 1966!

163. Jonboc - March 10, 2013

I agree, keep the “punch it” line. It fit’s Pine’s Kirk and feels right. Also, the fact that Pike uses that phrase as well, tells us that the good admiral has had a huge impact on young Kirk.

Hope you’re feeling better bob!

164. boborci - March 10, 2013

161. Planetary Exile

If we worked on a new Trek series, it would be an honor to consider working with the folks you mentioned if they were so inclined!

165. boborci - March 10, 2013

160 the great bird lives

Don’t mean to sound like I doubt our current work at all. Super excited for you to see it. But as I have said before, I don’t like to count sequels before they hatch. Each movie is its own movie, and If I don’t believe any idea that we have for part three is the best idea, then someone else should have the chance to come in.

But thanks for vote of confidence.

166. Jack - March 10, 2013

156. Hey, yeah — you’ve been saying that here all along. I believe you. And it’s a different situation, arguably — 2 movies vs. 600+ episodes/4 movies (or something). I wonder if *they* knew it was getting stale.

As grumpy as I get, I like what you guys are doing with Trek. People are watching it and there’s an emotional connection that a lot of those other hours didn’t have. I hope some politics can be worked into it. I gripe about simplistic messages (which the very best of TNG and DS9 could be good at avoiding) — partially because I worry about future holders of the franchise or the studio reducing Trek, again, (and probably well-meaningly) to a checklist (Obvious allegory with clear right and wrong? Check. Winks for the fans? Check.). I’m glad you’re telling real stories about these characters — and not just inserting a bunch of obligatory Trek moments.

167. boborci - March 10, 2013

166. Jack

Interesting what you say about obligatory Trek moments. I will admit we felt the pressure to iniclude many in the first movie.

We didn’t feel that this time around.

168. Jack - March 10, 2013

And TNG was still the better, more interesting show (compared to TNG). I think — even with the weaker seasons and occasional problems. It’s part of what made the worst of the technobabble and the clunky b-stories so frustrating — because the show could be really great.

169. Sebastian S. - March 10, 2013

@ boborci #157

I love ‘punch it.’
There’s no need to change it.

It sounds a hell of a lot more energetic and commanding than ‘engage’ (which sounds like an invite to a spring formal). I assume Pike used it on his mostly cadet crew in 2009 to get their adrenaline going. Kirk is using it because he’s a protege of Pike’s. I love it. It’s also a wonderful nod to my favorite Star Wars movie, “The Empire Strikes Back!’ ;-)

So, for whatever its worth? Please keep ‘punch it.’
Please, please, please… ;-P

170. The Great Bird Lives - March 10, 2013

@Bob Orci

Gotcha, Bob, and I know with remarkable certainty that this ones gonna be a Home-run. Call it ESP

171. Robman007 - March 10, 2013

Having Kirk give the “punch it” order would be a good way for him to honor pike, if something bad where to happen to him. I like it.

172. somethoughts - March 10, 2013

Hey Bob, any idea who is doing the voice for the Enterprise and how long do you think the final cut will be? I was hoping over 2hrs30mins since we waited patiently lol and so long :)

I think John Harrison is Khan’s son, in this time line, Khan is intergrated into Starfleet, and marries a London gal, btw is Peter Weller playing Carol Marcus father?

173. Marja - March 10, 2013

@158 boborci

ST was first on the popular science fiction front and prepared the way for Star Wars – a generation had grown up watching TOS in its first run, or in reruns, and flocked to see a new science fiction movie. I remember it well.

Thanks for reminding everyone of this truth. Star Wars is great (at least IV, V and VI) … But Trek was first!

And please do begin conceptualizing #3 … I’m on fire to see STID, and hope it can be followed by another great ST flick.

A fan for over 40 years, I loved what y’all did in 2009. Indeed …

Punch it!

174. Trek Wars: Part Dude! - March 10, 2013

You can keep ‘punch it’ in the movie as long as you have a giant hairy sidekick at the controls. Barf, Puke, whatever.

175. Vultan - March 10, 2013

#158

True, but when did TOS ever use “punch it”?

176. Keachick - March 11, 2013

I don’t like the term “punch it”. I keep thinking “Punch what? Why do you need to punch it?”

I’m not sure what other term to use that does not sound just as lame though. Even lamer could be – Kirk – “Warp 5, Mr Sulu. Giddyup now!”

177. Vultan - March 11, 2013

“Warp speed, Mr. Scott” or simply “Warp speed” work just fine. Simple and to the point and… totally Star Trek.

“That’a way” is also good (if you’re going for lighthearted).

178. Colinar - March 11, 2013

Hi Bob, good to have you back!

If i got this right, you have suggested that you will only be involved in a third movie if you are 100% certain that you have what Trek needs. If I may ask, how exactly will you ascertain that, apart from the figures the new movie makes?

I myself certainly hope the outcome is such to keep you around.

Best regards

179. madtrekfanuk - March 11, 2013

No-one else mentioned it yet?? The close up of the other ship looks surprisingly like the Sovereign Class…..

180. Star Trek: Nemesis blows, is the point - March 11, 2013

@90. “That’s not the Prime Directive we see later on in “Pen Pals” or “Homeward”; where we see the crew quite willing to sit on their butts & do nothing to help two doomed civilizations; they only get involved because of interference from Data and Nikolai Rozhenko (Worf’s stepbrother).”

Last I checked this movie takes place in 2259 not 2365 or 2370. Laws, rules, regulations evolve over time.

181. Janice - March 11, 2013

I too loved to hear Kirk say “Punch It”
It’s a nice nod to his mentor Pike.

I’ll say it again—I REALLY want to see Pike alive and kicking at the end of this movie. I can deal with injured Pike–again– but not dead Pike. No need to go that far–give the guy a break!

182. Dom - March 11, 2013

The whingers should take note that many years ago, a production team took a leaf out of Star Wars’ book and made a gripping action adventure film with plenty of explosions, gunfire and a dash of philosophical musing. It was called Star Trek II.

Perhaps the snobby ends of fandom want a two hour film of people sitting in a boardroom talking self-help book-level philosophy: in that case, they can string three average episodes of TNG together from the Blu-rays and watch that!

This film looks utterly in keeping with the previous film’s ‘original Star Trek on the big screen approach.’

As a lifelong original series fan, I can see the lifeblood of the first show I really loved flowing through these trailers. The Trek snobs need to accept that the original Star Trek was always primarily an action adventure series which also delved into philosophy and stop pretending it was something it wasn’t.

183. Ben Yoris (FR) - March 11, 2013

About “Punch it” :

in french it was translated to something that would mean “rush” or “hurry” with this sense of “go fast”. I think it particularly works with the notion of getting rapidly to Vulcan to check after the distress call.

In France, the reference to Star Wars is not obvious as a different translation was used in both movies (i.e. Star Wars & Trek 09)

Thanks for you (french) attention !

184. chrisfawkes.com - March 11, 2013

You guys who don’t like what Abrams is doing, why are you here to whine? Nothing is going to change if you complain.

The fact is the true trek was Tos. Next Gen had some similarities but was not the same and everything else was less so.

Good viewing but a different feel to tos.

What Abrams has done has given Trek the feel of the original series. More action? yes but only what would have been done all along given the budget and skills.

185. chrisfawkes.com - March 11, 2013

182. Dom

Spot on.

186. chrisfawkes.com - March 11, 2013

Even Yoda was a knock of from an episode of Star Strek the animates series.

187. Mad Mann - March 11, 2013

Not for nothing, but why did Pike and now Kirk have to use the “punch it” line from Star Wars? Couldn’t they have gone with a less Star Warsian line? Like, maybe “hit it” or “gun it” or something?

I’m kind of glad Abrams is going over to the Dark Side with Star Wars. I appreciate what he did for Trek, but he should just stay with what he wants to do. Let someone else captain the Trek movies now. I vote for Brad Bird!

188. star trackie - March 11, 2013

I’m officially excited now, this new trailer rocks! And “punch it” is just fine, that line along with the big E shooting off into warp is a great 1-2 punch combo!

189. Caesar - March 11, 2013

…yes, clearly Yoda was a ripoff from a saturday morning cartoon. Well-spotted.

190. Dom - March 11, 2013

187. Mad Mann

To be honest, it’s a fanboy issue. I didn’t know ‘Punch it!’ had any Star Wars connotations and neither will most of the audience, who are there to watch a film and have a good time. And if Star Wars characters said it somewhere, so what?

Trek and Wars have always crossed over plenty behind the scenes and creatively influenced each other. Hell, Star Wars and the original Star Trek have far more in common than TNG and its spinoffs have with the original Star Trek.

I was perfectly happy for Enterprise to drop the Star Trek name. I wish DS9 and Voyager had too!

191. LogicalLeopard - March 11, 2013

Uhm……am I the only one that is kind of amused by the Star Wars references?

I like them repeating the little homages to Star Wars, with the Millenium Falconesque ship Kirk drives turning sideways through a narrow opening. A nice little crossover that science fiction fans can appreciate. I’m glad JJ is doing Star Wars, so hopefully he can throw some Star Trek references in there.

Han: Why didn’t you just use the force to knock that guy off the platform?
Luke: Because he’s my brother.
Han; You made that up.
Luke: No I didn’t
Han: You did too!!!!

192. Mad Mann - March 11, 2013

190. Dom.

Yeah, you’re right that most people would not know it was used in Star Wars, but there are some big sci-fi fans that DO notice. And to avoid any comparisons to that other franchise, it would be best to just not use it.

And yes, I do know that Star Wars took from Trek. I remember a mention of a “cloaking device” from Empire Strikes Back, for example.

But oh well. Abrams is gone now so I’m thinking there will be less of a Star Wars influence in the next Trek film.

193. Ben - March 11, 2013

Hey boborci!

What’s a word from the last line of dialog in the film?

194. Michael - March 11, 2013

People who think the line “punch it” originated in Star Wars clearly only watch nerd movies. Expand your horizons!

195. LogicalLeopard - March 11, 2013

Top 10 Star Wars References I Want to See in the Next Star Trek Film (JJ or Not)

10) Pike tells Kirk tearfully, “I believed in you! You were supposed to bring balance to Starfleet!”
9) Carol Marcus leaves Kirk. Kirk gets a Dear John letter, and yells, “NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!”
8) In another Time Travel plot, Kirk stumbles across an adorable Holographic Doctor and Exocomp pair from the future bearing a message from the future. “Help us Jim Kirk, you’re our only hope.”
7) In yet another retconned physical appearance, Tribbles are now slightly taller, with limbs and faces. When the Klingons threaten to build a superweapon in orbit of their planet they team up to help Kirk and Spock destroy it.
6) Kirk and Spock have a rather unfortunate meeting with the Pakleds. They refuse to help them with repairs to “make them go”, and get thrown into a giant trash compactor. Scotty comes to the rescue in the nick of time.
5) The crew visit the bar on Nimbus III in it’s heyday; a Mos Eisley Cantina environment with an Andorian blues band.
4) To find the cloaked ship, all you need is ONE torpedo to go up the exhaust pipe…oh wait, that was Star Trek VI
3) Uhura, shamed by having to wear headphones instead of an earpiece due to slight hearing loss, jazzes them up by making them look like giant buns of hair.
2) Harrison is not Khan. Harrison IS KIRKS FATHER!!!!!!!!
1) A somber moment with a group of redshirts, looking at each other glumly across the transporter pad. One speaks, before the transport begins.

“We seem to be made to suffer. It’s our lot in life.”

196. gingerly - March 11, 2013

@94

“#25 how do we know they aren’t giving the entire movie away? And another Space-Jump? Really?
:-/”

What’s the movie about? You can’t answer that question. That’s how we know.

Also, the first was a dive into a planet’s atmosphere.

This one seems to be a propulsion driven “flight” through space debris.

197. Spock's Bangs - March 11, 2013

Wow someone is watching way too much Star Wars! lol but still funny!

198. EM - March 11, 2013

@boborci –

How ya doin’, man?

199. Hugh Hoyland - March 11, 2013

Either way I sure hope this team can be involved, if not in a third movie, at the least in a new TV series set in this universe with the ship and crew.

IMO it would be a bit of a shame if we got Trek up to this high level then watch it fall into limbo again.

200. @theGiez - March 11, 2013

@boborci –

Hey Bob,

Just a question. I don’t think this would give much away. In talking about the next movie, do you see it as a stand alone, or might a few dots need to be connected? Besides Kirk becoming an adult Kirk that we are familiar with.

Personally I can see them granted a 5 year mission at the end of the next one as the fitting finale. But I can see them picking up already into it… I think #3 being out and away from Earth would be fresh for #3.

Giez

201. section9 - March 11, 2013

@boborci:

I hope you guys didn’t make the mistake of killing off Cumberbatch’s character at the end of the film. This franchise needs a Vader, but one with a sense of his own, internal moral compass.

202. JRT! - March 11, 2013

There’s not enough being put out on this movie and I love spoilers! So I can’t agree with anyone who says there’s too much. And all the complaining that follows,lol!

Marketing for this movie still sucks though. I agree there should be cool standees and a new poster and such in theaters by now.

J-R!

203. Disinvited - March 11, 2013

#196. gingerly – March 11, 2013

Unless, of course, in a fit of desperation they called in the Seinfeld script Consultancy Agency? ;-)

204. Michael Hall - March 11, 2013

“Hell, Star Wars and the original Star Trek have far more in common than TNG and its spinoffs have with the original Star Trek.”

Bull.

205. crazydaystrom - March 11, 2013

Bob Orci-

I’m feeling this is going to be an OUTSTANDING Trek adventure and am already thinking about ‘down the road’. I read somewhere Paramount want something special for the 50th anniversary in 2016. What are the chances this could be a new Trek television show? That or the next film SHOULD happen for that year. Or BOTH! That would be almost too much to hope for but I am, anyway.

Any cryptic allusions you’re willing to make?

206. Superman - March 11, 2013

Let’s assume that Kirk is space-jumping to April’s Enterprise. Let’s also assume (due to stronger evidence) that the ship that crashes into the bay is also April’s Enterprise.

Then let’s recall the last full trailer’s focus on the current Enterprise falling from orbit.

Are two Enterprises going to crash into oceans or the Earth in this film?

Seems a bit much if so.

207. TrekkerChick - March 11, 2013

@134

I’m, too, looking forward to the “Springtime for Kahless” number.

208. crazydaystrom - March 11, 2013

199. Hugh Hoyland -
Hadn’t read your post when I made mine, Hugh. We’re on the same page. A new Star Trek television show has got to be an inevitability. The 50th anniversary would be beautifully perfect symbolically. And with all the huge Star Wars plans Disney’s making, big screen and small, I think Paramount’s going to be ‘inspired’. If for no other reason the $.

209. I am not Herbert - March 11, 2013

“Punch it!” is fracking STUPID. =(

you probably show a close-up of Sulu ham-fisting that STUPID chrome throttle too…?

You are commanding the helm of a STARSHIP, not joyriding a muscle car =(

You give SPECIFICS as to course, speed, power, acceleration, maneuver, timing, etc…

Then, you give the order to “Engage”, or “On my Mark”, or something similar

Bridge commands should be brief, but also be explicit in meaning.

“punch it” is WAY TOO cavalier… =(

210. cpelc - March 11, 2013

People talking on here about hope that Harrison lives by the end of the film.

Talk about monumental in Trek film history – never before has the big bad survived the movie! Think about it. In all the previous films the main “humanoid” villian has always been struck down.

211. I am not Herbert - March 11, 2013

VERY GLAD to hear that boborci is willing to consider handing over the reins on the next one…

…hopefully JJ and his designer will also be busy with Star Wars…

212. Spock's Bangs - March 11, 2013

““Hell, Star Wars and the original Star Trek have far more in common than TNG and its spinoffs have with the original Star Trek.”

Amen! Action! Adventure! Fun! Those that think otherwise just aren’t accustomed to modern Snore Trek being so exciting! understandable considering all the soapy, yawn inducing plot lines of TNG and it’s derivative spin-offs is about as far away from the fun and excitement of old school Trek as you can get!!

213. I am not Herbert - March 11, 2013

it doesn’t have to be stupid to be exciting, does it? =(

214. deekay - March 11, 2013

@boborci

why did they change the city in the background during spocks jump?

(see comment #21)

215. Trekkiegal63 - March 11, 2013

#118 Keachick:

I wonder – am I objectifying Chris Pine by saying that I would like to see him (near) naked, bare, because he has a nice body/figure, that I love his smile and his blue eyes? Or am I expressing affection/attraction towards someone who makes me smile also when I see a photo of him such as what Dee posted here. When does a genuine response to a picture or film sequence where someone finds the person on film attractive in every way become mere objectification of that person?

I’m assuming you admire other things about Chris Pine? His acting chops (i.e. how well he played Kirk), his taste in roles, his personality as exhibited in interviews? There is a difference, I feel, in admiring physical attributes and objectifying a person.

The definition of objectification once again:

Sexual objectification refers to the practice of regarding or treating another person merely as an instrument (object) towards one’s sexual pleasure, and a sex object is a person who is regarded simply as an object of sexual gratification. Objectification more broadly is an attitude that regards a person as a commodity or as an object for use, with little or no regard for a person’s personality or sentience.

So in a way my answer would be similar to the one I gave you in the other thread when you asked why I didn’t consider Kirk as being objectified while I feel the two cat women are:

Kirk is given a personality outside of his sex-life: i.e. likes, dislikes, personal philosophy, talents and intelligence. He’s not put in the film merely for a love scene. The two cat women are put in that scene specifically for the purpose of sexual imagery and implication and for no other reason. Similarly, Chris Pine is more than a pretty face, for one he’s Kirk, the lead protagonist of Star Trek.

216. Dom - March 11, 2013

204. Michael Hall

Since you’re content just to swear and not elaborate, I shouldn’t feed you, but hey-ho…

In the 80s, when I was growing up, there was only one version of Star Trek and it was running alongside the golden era of the likes of Spielberg, Lucas, Dante, Columbus and so on. Blockbusters weren’t a weekly event then. The Star Trek movies were part of that late-70s/80s era of action, adventure, sci-fi/fantasy/comedy-drama boom the same as everything the big name producer/directors were putting out, whether Trek snobs like it or not.

When TNG showed up, we were getting to the end of that boom and TNG was all about sniffiness towards anything that wasn’t all jaw. Trek snobs’ attitude is that Star Wars is a bit dopey, as are its fans. Star Wars is seen as less ‘intelligent’ than Star Trek and is about dumb people firing guns at each other and goblins that speak with words in the wrong order. And, most importantly, the franchises are ‘enemies.’

Thing is though, Star Trek (original) and Star Wars both derive their characters from archetypes – one is a callow youth on a heroic quest, while the other has a soldier being advised by a doctor and a priest. Both include melodrama, both have a lot of battle and fight scenes, both blend philosophy and a desire to learn. Both feature humans as part of a universe where older forces (excuse pun!) exist and humans are there to understand the universe around them. For all the times Kirk will kick a false god such as Apollo in the balls, he’ll acknowledge the superiority of a race such as the Organians.

TNG has no archetypes: a lot of TV stereotypes are in there like the patrician older guy, ‘the kid’ or the flaky psychotherapist. It’s about humans who consider themselves ‘perfected’ and travel through space secure in their superiority. Q-entity? Bah, he’s a tosser who can be dismissed by perfected humans who know so much better! Borg? Gave humans a bit of a kicking, but they end up quite fluffy after exposure to humans! Rather than exploring the universe to learn, TNG’s humans meet other races and show them how much ‘better’ humans are and tell other races why they are wrong in the way they go about things. Star Trek sees the Federation saving races from environmental disaster, alien dictators and enslavement by rogue technology. TNG and its sister shows have a Federation that permits negligent genocide in Homeward.

There’s no sensible rivalry between the original Star Trek and Star Wars: they’re cut from the same cloth, so no wonder Team Bad Robot is perfect for both!

217. somethoughts - March 11, 2013

This is for all the punch it fans!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kT5UlRy80cw

218. Olli - March 11, 2013

Can someone please tell me his or her experiences with the IMAX in Ford Lauderdale?

I’m on vacation in Florida when STID hits Theaters and i’m planing on visit this IMAX for that:

http://www.mods.org/IMAX/ARCHIVE/home.html

Is it a real IMAX and is it good?

Kind Regards.

Olli

219. Sebastian S. - March 11, 2013

# 216 Dom

Beautifully said. ;-)

And I know “I Am Not Herbert” was trolling, but I’m still compelled to ask; Why is ‘punch it’ any more cavalier than ‘engage’?

And the ‘ham-fisted’ shot of Sulu’s warp lever that I-Am-Not-Herbert complained about was also very similar to a shot in ST-TMP when the ship was powering up to warp speed. So what?
No one gave a damn about it then….

Why do so many ST fans feel that there can only be ONE true way to Star Trek? If that were so, we would’ve never had the movies or the spin offs (or arguably this forum). Or the books, or the fan fic, or the fan movies, etc. etc.

ST is an evolving entertainment; much like James Bond, or Doctor Who. It evolves to fit the needs and changing tastes of its audiences otherwise there is no more ST. You can’t make new (and very expensive) movies in the style of a 1960s TV show exclusively for a bunch of aging nerds (like myself); the franchise only survives and thrives by reaching new members as well….

220. Spacedock - March 11, 2013

Something to remember, folks…

If Kirk followed the step-by-step protocols likely required to launch a starship, we would be sitting through tons of unnecessary dialogue for the audience.

I’m not to thrilled about “punch it”, but the continuity with Pike’s use of it is the main reason I accept it. Good logic on the part of the writing team. (Nods to Mr. Orci.)

221. Mad Mann - March 11, 2013

“Punch it”

Meh.

I’m over it. I do find solace in the fact that Darth Abrams has gone to the Dark Side. Here’s hoping the rest of the “Supreme Court” follow him.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a troll, and I do appeciate the work they did in bringing Trek back. It’s just that it’s time for some new minds.

222. RBanks - March 11, 2013

Call me simplistic, but all I really want from any movie, is to be entertained.

I thought Star Trek 2009 was one of the most entertaining sci-fi films to come out in a long time.

I have every reason to believe Into Darkness will be a great and entertaining 2 hour escape as well. In fact, it might even be better than 09′.

I like all the mystery surrounding our new villain. Casting an outstanding actor like Cumberbatch in this role was a brilliant move, in my opinion.

Can’t wait for the 17th…

223. Spock's Uncle - March 11, 2013

I so love #219…. So true. So many Trek fans seem to think that if it didn’t happen before in some version of Trek, it shouldn’t ever happen. So limited, so opposite of what Roddenberry’s vision was (as is). Embrace the new, don’t fear it, and don’t have it simply because it doesn’t conform with what YOU think Trek is (based totally on what Trek WAS)… that’s just silly. Bob/JJ et al have done a wonderful job of revitalizing this franchise, and have honored the TOS characters we love. I’m glad they are on this project, I am very excited about STID, and am also hopeful that the 3rd film (to which the actors are already attached) will also be helmed by the current creative team. @boborci: “PUNCH IT!” indeed….

224. yellowdogsc - March 11, 2013

I for one am glad new Star Trek adventures are being made for the big screen. It would not be Star Trek if it weren’t for a subset of Star Trek fans complaining about absolutely everything. I do hope these people will be true to their word and stay home and never watch this movie. I sure their absence will not have a detrimental impact to the box office for Into Darkness in the least. Stay home and keep watching your VHS tapes over and over again.

225. LogicalLeopard - March 11, 2013

Wow….people are complaining about “Punch it?” Come on, it seems obvious that Pike either tries to maintain a little levity on the bridge to cut tension, or he was trying to diffiuse the tension among his crew that was suddenly being dispatched, along with EVERY OTHER SHIP there to a disaster.

Like Sebastian S. said, Punch it isn’t any different than Picard’s “Engage.”
Nobody wondered why he made the pretentious hand signal along with it, when the helmsman had his BACK to Picard and couldnt’ see it, let alone the fact that s/he didn’t need to see it, because he TOLD them to Engage. Why? Because we love Picard, and we love “Engage”, and we love his hand signal. But since people hate JJ Abrams, and hate nu-Trek, they feel obliged to hate everything about what was a pretty good movie.

People dismiss it as being not very cerebral. it is a MOVIE, not a television show. The purpose of a television show is to keep people engaged enough that they keep watching each week, so the sponsors keep shelling out money. The purpose of a movie is to make everyone come out and see it, so you can make a big profit. And perhaps, make it watchable enough that people will want to buy it on DVD as well. If you’re looking for a cerebral version of Trek that really challenges your thinking, well, all seasons of the Trek series are on DVD, and soon to all be on Blu-Ray. If you want to see a fun, Trek themed movie, YOU ONLY HAVE TWO MORE MONTHS!!!! WHOO HOO!!!!

And to those who still grumble, I challenge you to come up with a Trek movie that was flawless, or less flawed than ST09.

226. Curious Cadet - March 11, 2013

@215. Trekkiegal63,
“The two cat women are put in that scene specifically for the purpose of sexual imagery and implication and for no other reason.”

More importantly, I feel now they are put in to make a purely puerile joke, a sophomoric one at that. While I continue to defend the film makers right to objectify anyone to make a story point, I don’t really feel like that’s the reason for this scene. It seems like they merely wanted to make a “pussy” joke. Which makes this little more than an Animal House moment. And that’s really why this appears to be objectionable, since I find I hard to believe it could be turned into a meaningful life lesson, making it the worst kind of objectification. We’ll have to wait and see the film to be sure.

This reads on the surface like a James Bond moment … A haggard super spy, blowing off a little steam with nameless sex objects before heading off to the next assignment. And this has real meaning following the recent US Secret Service scandal where similar hard working, put-their-life-on-the-line, secret service agents solicited local prostitutes in Columbia while doing advance work on a mission. It sends a message that it’s OK to think of women in this context. James Bond does it, US Secret Service Agents do it, and now James Kirk does it. He never did before, but now he does. The question is, is it really necessary to take Trek down this particular rabbit hole, if indeed they are?

227. somethoughts - March 11, 2013

for the record, PUNCH IT works, Loved ST2009 and I can’t wait for ST ID

228. somethoughts - March 11, 2013

#226

Kirk has always been a womanizer no? sometimes being too politically correct is incorrect.

229. Chris Roberts - March 11, 2013

So… John Fredrick Paxton, the leader of Earth for humanity organization – Terra Prime… has changed his name to Alex Marcus and is basically in charge of Starfleet these days?

Uh-oh. Does his daughter know about that dirty secret? :)

230. Keachick - March 11, 2013

What I see here is that the only ones making puerile “pussy” jokes are the male posters who come to this site, like MJ and Red Dead Ryan. The sexual objectification of these catwomen starts here.

231. Spock's Uncle - March 11, 2013

Really #226? Have you EVER watched Star Trek: TOS? Kirk slept with a LOT of women (aliens, earthlings, it didn’t matter). Elaan of Troyius comes to mind immediately… Obviously there was an out of wedlock liasion with Carol Marcus… Kirk being a womanizer is very much part of the Trek canon and this iteration of Kirk is no different that regard. Don’t try to “sanitize” Trek to suit your world view… At least understand the mythos behind Trek before making comments like that above, which has no bearing of the true history of the franchise.

232. Spock's Uncle - March 11, 2013

@#226.

You wrote: “James Bond does it, US Secret Service Agents do it, and now James Kirk does it. He never did before, but now he does. The question is, is it really necessary to take Trek down this particular rabbit hole, if indeed they are?”

How can you say that? Again, I ask, have you ever watched TOS?

233. Keachick - March 11, 2013

#231 – Actually Kirk did not sleep with that many women. “Out of wedlock liaison with Carol Marcus”? What century are you in? Unfortunately, Elaan of Troyius is not a good example to give to prove your case about Kirk’s womanizing. Kirk only bedded Elaan after she wept tears which had a powerful, drug like affect on all men of her race and it seems on human males as well. Although it is possible that Kirk might have been a little bit physically attracted to her, he behaved in a very business like way with her until she started weeping those tears…

Kirk knew that Elaan was betrothed to another and that any sexual liaison between himself and her would be disastrous for all concerned. He might be horny at times, but he is not stupid. Sleeping with Elaan was Elaan’s idea, pure and simple…

234. Smike - March 11, 2013

As if that sort of “sexual objectification” was a male thing only. I hear women keeping complaining about being objectified while they themselves don’t even give a darn about those sad geezers living in their parents’ basements. And you know WHY they are still there? Because whenever they had tried to speak to girls and women, those women had simply regarded them of insufficient sexual objects… Try to be nice but tell them they’re just not your type…

I’ve given up on the entire issue… It’s not male 007s and Kirks objectifying innocent women. It’s beautiful people of both genders having fun together, while ignoring those two divisions below them… It’s as simple as that.

Nope. Women are not innocent victims of male superficiality. It works vice versa to the same extend. Don’t give me that “content of your character” drivel. If a woman doesn’t like your extra pounds she’s just out of your league. Full stop. Maybe they talk to you for a while but at the end of the day, they’ll treat you like you treat them.

235. Dom - March 11, 2013

230. Keachick: ‘What I see here is that the only ones making puerile “pussy” jokes are the male posters who come to this site, like MJ and Red Dead Ryan. The sexual objectification of these catwomen starts here.’

The simple answer is: grow a thicker skin (and possibly fur!) If you believe in equality, you have to take the same s**t as the rest of us!

236. Mad Mann - March 11, 2013

Kirk hooked up a LOT in TOS. I don’t see why the Cat-girl scene in a big deal.

237. Mad Mann - March 11, 2013

Question: how do we know that the ship is a civilian ship from the teaser? It could even be Klingon.

Another question: is the fact that there is an “emergency” title in Harrison’s shuttle a big deal? I wonder what other information we can get from reading the various displays.

238. Jefferies Tuber - March 11, 2013

236. And Roddenberry carried on with Nichols before Barrett, then attempted to inject all sorts of future sex into Phase II/TMP and TNG. Before any conservative asks anyone to change Star Trek, perhaps they should remove the gauze from their eyes.

239. somethoughts - March 11, 2013

This was posted on another board a few years back;

Women he probably slept with:

Areel Shaw — Described Kirk as “my dear old love,” suggesting they were closely involved for a time.

Janet Wallace — Another old flame who keeps track of how long it’s been since they broke up, so it must’ve been pretty serious.

Janice Lester — She and Kirk were together for a year, according to her.

Women he kissed but definitely didn’t sleep with:

Eve McHuron — She tried to seduce him but couldn’t go through with it.

Janice Rand — The evil Kirk’s rape attempt didn’t get past first base, and the intact Kirk was too much of a professional to even let himself look at her legs.

Andrea — Doesn’t go beyond kissing because she’s “not programmed for [him].”

Helen Noel — People often think they were an item, but that was an illusion planted by the neural neutralizer. In reality, they only flirted and danced at the Christmas party, and the brainwashed Kirk kissed her briefly before coming to his senses.

Sylvia — He tries to seduce her to gain an advantage, but she catches on before he gets past first base.

Marlena — He simply doesn’t have time. The only gap in their scenes together is the act break after Spock warns Kirk he’s been ordered to kill him, and when we come back, Marlena’s still in uniform and reacting to that event. So there’s no opportunity for sex.

Nona — They’re definitely headed that way, but it’s scuttled by a case of mugatus interruptus.

Shahna — Ditto, except this time it’s Galtus interruptus.

Miranda Jones — His seduction bombed totally.

Uhura — They were forced to make out by the Platonians, and Kirk regained control of himself before it could go further.

Marta — She interrupted their makeout by attempting, err, premature evisceration.

Martia (from ST VI) — They only kissed once and then she left.

Uncertain cases:

Lenore Karidian — They fell into an embrace at the fade-out and we didn’t see either of them again for some time. But he was just using her to get to her father, so the question is, how far would he take it?

Ruth — With the fantasy version, probably yes, eventually. But the real Ruth was a memory from his Academy days, yet she was played by a 32-year-old actress. So she would’ve been an “older woman.” Was she his Mrs. Robinson, or just someone he worshipped from afar?

Edith Keeler — She was the love of his life, but would a “Sister” Edith from 1930 have been willing to have sex before marriage? The Crucible trilogy by David R. George says yes, and it’s true that sexual values in that era were probably more flexible than we assume (and more liberal than later in the ’50s, say), but it’s hard to be sure.

Kelinda — Very probably not; they still seemed to be at first base when interrupted by Rojan. But there was a cutaway, so it’s theoretically possible they could’ve gone all the way, gotten dressed again, and started over again with the kissing.

Anne Mulhall — If it did happen, it was while their bodies were in use by other minds, so it wouldn’t really count anyway.

Elaan — Again, probably not, since they always seemed to be getting interrupted, but we can’t be sure how much time elapsed between scenes.

Odona — There’s an act break in which it might’ve happened, but it doesn’t seem too likely that they had time.

Rayna Kapec — They probably didn’t have the time or opportunity, since the whole whirlwind courtship takes less than four hours, but it can’t be definitively ruled out.

So the breakdown, for women appearing on camera:

Definite sexual intimacy: 2
Near-certain intimacy: 5
Indeterminate: 8
Kissing but definitely no sex: 12

240. somethoughts - March 11, 2013

Point being, audience doesn’t mind seeing the protaganist hook up and have some fun, they deserve it, they saved the world!

241. Smike - March 11, 2013

With regards to that “Punch it!” line…Good, good, release your anger. Everything unfolds as I have forseen it. First JJ turns Star Trek into Star Wars and now he’ll turn Star Wars into Star Trek! Love it! I hope there’ll be a mega crossover at some point in the future.

I love both franchises equally and I truly hope Bad Robot will put a final nail into the coffin of that rivalry. They’re both rockin’ space adventures. I’ve never really cared about those “hardcore” sci fi aspects in the spin-offs. TOS and the original movies were all scientifically campy in a “Those engines show signs of stress” kind of fashion. Transfering Spock’s Katra and visiting God himself in the center of the galaxy… the same kind of “May the force be with you” esotherics displayed on Star Wars… The world of ideas transcending the realm of science… I like it that way. All of this is supposed to be a semi-religious mythology set in space, not an intermediate course in accurate quantum mechanics. I’d rather see more of the Greek gods on Star Trek than any technobabble mumbo jumbo as on NextGen and VOY… In the end, science doesn’t explain anything important anyway. It just creates new questions popping up like Hydra’s heads…

242. Spock's Uncle - March 11, 2013

@Keachick: You can discount his numerous liasons Kirk all you want, but despite your protestations, he did in fact sleep with a lot of women. And aside from “out of wedlock” how would you like to me phrase it? He knocked up Dr. Marcus? My point remains, this is not some new “rabbit hole” the current team is taking Trek down, rather it is an established part of Trek canon, which they are playing upon. Reference ST VI: The Undiscovered Country (which I watched this weekend). When on Rura Penthe, Kirk is making out with Martia, Bones remarks “What is it with you?!”, clearly playing upon Kirk’s nature as a womanizer. It is a part of Trek, has been a part of Trek, and should be going forward. If you want a Captain that didn’t sleep with a lot of women, perhaps Captain Picard or Janeway may be more to your liking…

243. somethoughts - March 11, 2013

#242

If you want a Captain that didn’t sleep with a lot of women, perhaps Captain Picard or Janeway may be more to your liking…

LOL

I always hoped Picard was nailing Troi or Dr. Crusher and Janeway was hooking up with 7of9 lol

244. Smike - March 11, 2013

@239: So what? Kirk got interrupted several times before getting his game started. Other cases may be indetermined. But nonetheless he had his fair share of close encounters. For a TV show set in the 60s, mainly adressed at young viewers, that is quite a lot. In those days, comic book characters had to grow up with their aunt and uncle in order to avoid any hint at sexual intercourse between their parents.

But this is the 21st century and issues like that should be adressed far more frankly. So yeah, meaow… punch it, Captain!

245. somethoughts - March 11, 2013

#244

It is a lot, I was trying to prove he is a womanizer, punch it!

246. somethoughts - March 11, 2013

27+woman, Kirk is the man, high fives!

247. Spock's Uncle - March 11, 2013

Does give “Punch it” a different interpretation, doesn’t it….

248. Aurore - March 11, 2013

@ Roberto Orci

See what you guys did to this fine little site?!
What’s next ?!

Spock and Uhura taking a shower together ?!
(Please, say yes….Some will moan about it . I even know someone who promised he would vomit…copiously… if such a thing were to occur. And, I’m sure he’s a man of his word, But, who cares? You ‘re doing this movie for ME, after all ! )

:)

P.S. : I tried to resist for days, but, LOOK what YOU made me do!!! :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBdSqk78nHw

Wo-oo-wo-oo-wo-oo-wooooo…..

Damn you, hack writerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrs!

249. Smike - March 11, 2013

@245: Sorry, I misread. Actually, this breakdown was used to prove the exact opposite in the past if I remember correctly…

250. Smike - March 11, 2013

“Spock and Uhura taking a shower together ?!”

That would be Trip and T’pol in the Decon chamber all over again… Oh my, they used it in so many trailers… So yeah, Star Trek had those elements, even solely for marketing purposes, time and again… We got stuck in that “rabbit hole” a long time ago and I don’t feel like leaving it any time soon…

251. Spock's Uncle - March 11, 2013

By the way in that breakdown, you have to relist the “Elaan” incident as a definite. The scene cuts from them proceeding toward the bed, then to a shot of Kirk pulling his boots back on… If you dig deep, you will find a note about that episode that, according to the writers, that was as close as they could get to “showing” a sexual encounter because of censorship issues. But clearly, the intent was to indicate they did, in fact, have sex. Kirk: Sleeps with lots of women. Get. Over. It.

252. I'm a trekkie NOT a trekker TOS=The ONLY Series (worth watching) - March 11, 2013

To please the whiny GR fans, future Trek movies should use SFX models, cartoon laser beams, low-res cameras and grainy film. And bad acting.

Sheldon’s whininess about ST is funny. Real life whining isn’t. In the words of Shatner, “Get A Life!!”

253. Smike - March 11, 2013

@boborci:

Let’s briefly talk about the third one…

Okay, let me see what I’ve got in store for you…

Now, we’ve got “Star Trek Into Darkness”…check.

There was that wonderful line in ST09 “Space is danger and disease wrapped in Darkness and Silence”…

Why not calling the next one “Star Trek Beyond Silence” ???

Another idea I’d like to mention upon you.

The Narada was equipped with Borg technology snatched by Nero in the “Countdown” comic book…

Could it be that the 23rd century Borg might have picked up their own signature at some point and are already on their way to Sector 001, one hundred years before they’re supposed to?

Okay, let’s take into account that, according to Peter David’s novel “Vendetta”, the Doomsday Machine was once built as a weapon to defeat the Borg…well…

But I want more… please let the Borg assimilate the Founders, turning them into T-2000ish silver surfers…

254. Trekkiegal63 - March 11, 2013

#242 Spock’s Uncle:

You can discount his numerous liasons Kirk all you want, but despite your protestations, he did in fact sleep with a lot of women.

A few things:

There is a difference between casual sexual encounters and serial monogamy. There is also a difference between consent and coercion. First, of the list of Kirk’s supposed ‘conquests’ how many were a result of coercion? For example: Elaan used tears that acted as a love potion. Helen Noel used the Tantalus machine. Deela captured him, threatened to use him as a stud, and do the same to the rest of his crew. Janice Rand only because Kirk was split into two parts: an evil side and a good side, it was the evil side that went after Rand. Miramanee, Kirk had amnesia, didn’t know who he was and was told by the tribal council of the planet he was on that he was destined to marry this person. Nona has him bewitched and drugged and flat-out orders him to do it. And the list goes on…

Now, how many of those were women Kirk showed definite interest in beyond casual encounters: Carol Marcus, Ruth (the real version whom he had been engaged to at one point), Janice Lester, Edith Keeler, Areel Shaw.

Fact, in only two episodes did it heavily allude to Kirk having actual sex. “Wink of an Eye” and “The Paradise Syndrome”. Thus with Deela, for whom had him captive and threatened the same for the rest of his crew, thus holding him at metaphorical gunpoint. And Miramanee, whom Kirk had amnesia and couldn’t remember whom he was and was told he had to marry (and did).

Thus Kirk was hardly the lothario fandom has made him out to be. His reputation is larger than the truth.

And yes, I have watched TOS, many times over, have bits of dialogue memorized even, so if you want to argue this point with me, bring it!

255. Keachick - March 11, 2013

What the hell are you on about, Dom?

Smike – I completely agree with you. I think we all, to some degree, *objectify* other people, as in we size them up in terms of whether they would/could make good sexual mates.

Actually, it is reproductive, biologically driven and it occurs in BOTH sexes. Most people can (subconsciously) work out whether they would want to have sex with another within 30 seconds or less. I suspect that women may indeed tend to *objectify* men more, mostly at a subconscious level, because she is the one whose biology requires successful viable pregnancies. I am speaking about the primordial procreative directive that is within all of us.

However, whatever the hormones and pheromones may be telling him/her, that is not the whole story. Some men and women who we might be attracted to on a very visceral level may not be good for us in other ways, in things that matter in the long term, like reliability, dependability, honesty, integrity, good sense of humour etc. The sight of a good looking face and body won’t tell you much about those other qualities at all. You may get a sense that this is a good person – they certainly look good – but are you good for each other for more than a night in the sack (if it comes to that)? There are some who are not so bothered by such considerations, but a good many are.

Smike – Hang in there.

256. Smike - March 11, 2013

Giancarlo Giannini would be great as Commodore Matt Decker, this time hellbound on trying to control the Doomsday Machine and failing, before Kirk & crew actually achieve exactly that…

257. somethoughts - March 11, 2013

Maybe having Kirk’s dad passing away when he was born and growing up as a delinquent, Kirk is more of a womanizer in this reality? hehe

Kirk made out with the green gal to cheat in the KM sim and Kirk tried to pick up Uhura at the bar, which ended in a fist fight, Kirk looking at ladies coming down stairs with McCoy and saying, “hello ladies” the same line is used in sickbay when he is drugged by McCoy to sneak him onto the ship.

We can argue that this Kirk is more of a womanizer!

258. Superman - March 11, 2013

#225 and others saying there’s no difference between “punch it” and “engage.”

You’re incorrect. “Engage” is a valid command used in the military parlance of various cultures throughout history. Prime Captain Pike used it FIRST in “The Cage.”

“Punch it” is ill-fitting a starship captain in the Trekverse. It’s great for smuggler captains and hip-hop cops, but it doesn’t work for the captain of the Enterprise.

That said, it doesn’t bother me as much as the fact that Kirk had ZERO space hours logged when he became captain of the Enterprise.

259. Trekkiegal63 - March 11, 2013

#234 Smike:

Nope. Women are not innocent victims of male superficiality.

I have statistics gathered from a non-profit organization that prove you wrong. I have a report filed by the American Psychological Association that proves you wrong. I have articles published in such widely regarded publications such as the New York Times that proves you wrong.

Here is a sampling that I posted on another thread:

Stats for you (from the site seejane.org):

Males outnumber females 3 to 1 in family films. In contrast, females comprise just over 50% of the population in the United States. Even more staggering is the fact that this ratio, as seen in family films, is the same as it was in 1946.

Females are almost four times as likely as males to be shown in sexy attire. Further, females are nearly twice as likely as males to be shown with a diminutive waistline. Generally unrealistic figures are more likely to be seen on females than males.

From 2006 to 2009, not one female character was depicted in G-rated family films in the field of medical science, as a business leader, in law, or politics. In these films, 80.5% of all working characters are male and 19.5% are female, which is a contrast to real world statistics, where women comprise 50% of the workforce.

Here is an article for you:

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/07/magazine/hers-the-smurfette-principle.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

And here is what the American Psychological Association as to say on the matter:

http://www.apa.org/education/ce/sexual-objectification.pdf

Excerpt:

Objectification theory provides an important framework for understanding,
researching, and intervening to improve women’s lives in a sociocultural context
that sexually objectifies the female body and equates a woman’s worth with her
body’s appearance and sexual functions. The purpose of this Major Contribution
is to advance theory, research, practice, and training related to the sexual
objectification of women. The purpose of this article is to introduce readers to
objectification theory and related research, extend objectification theory to our
understanding of women’s substance use and/or abuse and immersed forms of
sexual objectification via sexually objectifying environments, and provide an
overview of this Major Contribution on Sexual Objectification of Women.

You, sir, need to put your money where you mouth is. Proof? Come on, give me evidence to back up your claim? Otherwise take your blantant sexism elsewhere.

260. somethoughts - March 11, 2013

#258

I think that is why there is a change in the sequel to allow Kirk to earn the Enterprise more.

The whole punch it thing works because this Kirk is more edgy and not the same as the prime Kirk.

261. Smike - March 11, 2013

“That said, it doesn’t bother me as much as the fact that Kirk had ZERO space hours logged when he became captain of the Enterprise.”

Yeah, that’s kinda weird. This is why I’m glad they take the Enterprise away from him again, at least temporarily…

On the other hand, things like that actually happen. In my country, there are supervising teachers that help and examine starters for about two years after their university studies. Normally, these supervisors are supposed to be significantly older and / or more experienced that the beginners.

However, a friend of mine got promoted to such a position directly after he had finished his own training. This happened around the same time ST09 came out and it helped me a lot accepting Kirk’s field promotion…

262. oliver - March 11, 2013

Nervous reading @boborci’s comments. His mood seems a bit down. Like he’s given up on remaining on the franchise. Maybe because there wont be a 3rd film but just a tv series.

263. Keachick - March 11, 2013

trekkiegal – I agree with you. Kirk definitely had encounters that could have become sexual in nature, but most were not. With Miramanee, I don’t think that his amnesia caused him to fall in love with her. He just did that because of who Kirk is fundamentally. I think the short term amnesia allows viewers a little insight into this man who is not bound by duty and obligation to Starfleet and the Enterprise. That episode also posed quite a dilemma actually which the writers *neatly solved* with having Miramanee and their unborn child killed off…sigh…:(

I tend to see this younger (Pine) Kirk as being similarly opportunistic as the prime Kirk, but because he is that much younger and appears to be on earth (here in STID), he may well be less circumspect about his sexual proclivities. Hopefully he will also be given the opportunity to form more long term loving relationships, with more luck than he had with the prime *Carol Marcus.

*I don’t like TWOK’s Carol Marcus. She pushed Kirk away from having anything to do with his son and then lies to David about his father. Carol Marcus did a very dishonourable thing there.

264. Trekkiegal63 - March 11, 2013

#263 Keachick:

With Miramanee, I don’t think that his amnesia caused him to fall in love with her.

Agreed. He fell in love with Miramanee naturally. However, the reason he married her in the first place was because he had no memory of who or what he was, was told by the beings he found himself among that he belonged to them, was prophesized to lead them and had an arranged marriage with Miramanee. One could definitely argue the issue of consent there.

He just did that because of who Kirk is fundamentally. I think the short term amnesia allows viewers a little insight into this man who is not bound by duty and obligation to Starfleet and the Enterprise

On this I agree. Without his memories Kirk married and settled down, with a child on the way. That does give insight to personality without personal history getting in the way. Nature vs. nurture, if you will.

265. Smike - March 11, 2013

@259: I don’t need to PROOF anything because I’m not a scientist or researcher and this isn’t a scientific paper whatsoever. You’re refering to some feminist studies that mix media appeares, job prospects, career etc., all of which aren’t even an issue to me in this context. I’m talking about sexuality and relations, and it’s a matter of fact, though solely based on personal experience, that women do judge males by their outward appearance when it comes to physical relationships or media worship.

Otherwise, millions of men would have better chances with women and there wouldn’t be millions of female teenagers dying to get an autograph of Justin Bieber or Robert Pattison. I would go so far to say that girls and women are even more picky about outward appearances than boys and men are. That’s solely based on personal observation and life experience and I don’t need any biased statistics to prove myself right.

That said, I agree with you to a certain extend when it comes to professional careers and payment. I know there is still male dominance in employment and business and women are paid less in most areas. But while these feminist interests are more than valid, I don’t see a connection to Kirk fellines here…

Women are used as eye-candy by the media, but so are men…significantly… Boys desperately trying to look like Justin Bieber just to attract some attention among girls, women measuring males in comparison to male perfume models… all of this does exist on both sides…

And if those female comsumers are provided with the likes of Pattison and Bieber, I don’t feel bad about looking at sexy women in films… If you call that “blatant sexism” so be it. But you certainly won’t shut me up woth your “blatant feminism” and those politically correct studies of yours.

266. Keachick - March 11, 2013

As I have said, the mistake has been to believe that women cannot be as visceral as men can be when it comes to acknowledging who they see as being a good looking.

The problem with the roles that many females get to play in movies, eg the two catwomen mentioned in STID, is that their characters do not get enough screen time, so audiences never really get to know anything about these catwomen lovers that James Kirk seems to have spent the night with. That comes down to producing and writing directives. Too much focus is often given to what are overlong CGI enhanced (all very techobabble for me) fight sequences etc, which show a lot of action but do not necessarily tell a lot about characters, even the main ones, sometimes, let alone minor characters, like Kirk’s lovers.

Please – Producers and Writers – Pay more attention to relationship, yes even ones that may be sexual in context – in fact, ESPECIALLY those. It is good for the characters and audiences! Deleting such scenes does not solve the problem. It becomes part of the problem.

267. Darmok - March 11, 2013

Star Trek Into Darkness – Benedict Cumberbatch character theory #235,425,074
——————-
BC could be Robert April. in the Countdown comics, Robert April is fighting with the inferior species on the planet. The dominant species are faster/stronger. Perhaps he uncovers some secret of theirs. Kirk might abandon April and leave him to die or betrays him some how. Robert April somehow uses the dominant species bigger/faster/ secret and becomes bigger/faster/younger himself.He returns to Earth to seek his vengeance on Starfleet and Kirk.

No? I’m wrong too? Hey, sure beats the Kahn theory.

268. Trekkiegal63 - March 11, 2013

#265 Smike:

By your response I’m thinking you missed this particular statistic I posted:

Females are almost four times as likely as males to be shown in sexy attire. Further, females are nearly twice as likely as males to be shown with a diminutive waistline. Generally unrealistic figures are more likely to be seen on females than males.

…which specifically addresses objectification.

Also, the paper I linked to from the American Psychology Association? The title of it is “Sexual Objectification of Women: Advances to Theory and Research”.

Thus my answer, yes it can go both ways, but it is far, far more common for women to be objectified then men.

269. Curious Cadet - March 11, 2013

@232 Spock’s Uncle,

Again, it has nothing to do with what they did in the sixties, during the early struggle for civil rights, and women’s equality.

This is 2013, and we know better. A lot of good people have given up their rights and freedoms for the ground women and minorities have gained and currently enjoy.

This is a new universe, which Abrams can and has used to justify anything. So why are we going back down the same sexist rabbit hole network television took us in the sixties? Perhaps we should sell product placement to big tobacco while we’re at it? Because they did that in the sixties media too.

In othe words, the implication is that James Bond, James Kirk, random secret service guy, all have important jobs to do. The women they hook up with are only there to service these important men, and as far as the audience knows, they serve no other purpose. They aren’t doctors, they aren’t pilots, they aren’t professors. They might be 23rd century intergalactic bikini models. But that’s about it. When Kirk gets back from his next mission, they may or may not be free unless they are shacking up with another overworked starship captain.

It doesn’t matter who Kirk hooks up with, it matters how he hooks up with them. But more importantly it matters why he producers want to show it at all.

Sure, we all objectify, but are we lemmings? Is it good to objectify? Or should we strive to do better? Should we insist the movies we produce for impressionable kids deliver a better message? Should we try to do better than the “high bar” set for women in 1960s television?

270. Trekkiegal63 - March 11, 2013

#269 Curious Cadet:

Wonderfully said and excellent, excellent points.

271. somethoughts - March 11, 2013

Gosh, can’t a starship captain get some action without the protests and civil rights speeches and movements, get over it, it’s a fictional character that is part of canon.

As another posted eluded to, if you don’t like womanizing Kirk, go checkout Picard or Janeway lol

272. Trekkiegal63 - March 11, 2013

#271 somethoughts:

As another posted eluded to, if you don’t like womanizing Kirk, go checkout Picard or Janeway lol

Or we can continue to support the franchise we love, and have done so for decades, in a lot of cases, yet still be able to recognize and discuss when we find a certain scene questionable, as free thinking individuals who have a stake in a franchise are want to do. :)

273. Curious cadet - March 11, 2013

@271. somethoughts,
“it’s a fictional character that is part of canon.”

This Kirk has nothing to do with canon beyond sharing a birthdate.

Being fictional does not excuse the producers from responsible filmmaking. Don’t just use anonymous scantily clad women to make a sophomoric joke. Give me a reason for Kirk and these women to be in this situation, besides squeezing in a little T&A. It’s not about what these fictional characters might do, it’s about what images the producer chooses to present and why.

274. Spock's Uncle - March 11, 2013

@269: I don’t disagree that perceptions have changed, society has changed, and we’ve made tremendous strides in regards to “objectifying” women and how that is done by major studios in major films. I am reminded of a clever turn in Trek IV: The Voyage Home, when Kirk stops Gillian as she is headed off to her science ship… she in essence blows him off, saying “don’t call me, I’ll call you…” which turns the whole Kirk/Women relationship on it’s head in a clever, light way. No too ham-handed but clearly a nod to the fact that Kirk doesn’t live in that “Love ‘em and Leave ‘em” world. But as we explore young Kirk in the new timeline, I don’t think he’s learned those lessons (he also had the tables turned on him by the Orion Cadet in Trek 2009–”other guys? how many other guys”)… So I think there is a sensitivity to the issues you address. I also think that Kirk is, at his heart, a lover of women with not much of a committment streak. Addressing that in STID may require some frolicking… and who’s to say that the cat-women he’s cavorting with aren’t playing HIM. Perhaps they get just as much pleasure from the exchange, perhaps they are the instigators… I haven’t seen the film, so I don’t know the context or the backstory (and neither do you). But to deny Kirk’s canonical bedding of many women is to change the character in ways that would alter who he is, how he makes decisions, and how he interacts with the Universe around him. I think you can embrace his love of women and realize that perhaps they get as much or more out of the interactions as he does….

275. somethoughts - March 11, 2013

Boobs in space!

I see your point #273 but we haven’t seen the film yet and do not know the context of the particular pussy cat scene and how it furthers the story or characters.

276. somethoughts - March 11, 2013

#272

Agreed, we just need to see the film for ourselves and then decide

277. Logical - March 11, 2013

@ 153 / @ 157

Just like Shakespeare’s plays, the STAR WARS franchise already exists in TREK’s past as a beloved cultural treasure. For decades, hot shot cadets at Starfleet Academy have been using Han Solo’s classic “Punch it!” line in simulations. Kirk’s use of it is just a nod to to that.

The genius of JJ doing WARS is that he’s actually working on something that already exists in TREK. Kirk & co. have already seen Episodes 7-12. We haven’t.

So every new WARS movie is actually just another part of the already existing TREK universe.

Which makes the new STAR WARS movie actually a new STAR TREK movie.

Boom. Logic. Vulcan high-five.

Game, set, TREK.

And now when Spock says “Do, or do not. There is no try” in INTO DARKNESS, nobody needs to freak out.

278. Dom - March 11, 2013

274. Spock’s Uncle: ‘I am reminded of a clever turn in Trek IV: The Voyage Home, when Kirk stops Gillian as she is headed off to her science ship… she in essence blows him off, saying “don’t call me, I’ll call you…” which turns the whole Kirk/Women relationship on it’s head in a clever, light way. No too ham-handed but clearly a nod to the fact that Kirk doesn’t live in that “Love ‘em and Leave ‘em” world.’

That’s completely mischaracterising the scene. Kirk makes a joke about not having Gillian’s phone number in reference to the reverse conversation earlier in the film. Gillian is pleased that Kirk has his old job back and the implication is that he’ll be easier for her to find because he’s so famous and will carry on being so. And it’s obvious she will be in touch.

Shatner’s Kirk wasn’t exactly a pussy hound in the films anyway: a chaste kiss with Gillian and a snog with a hermaphrodite shapeshifter is hardly evidence of his being sex mad. He’d clearly grown out of the womanising by then, albeit was still attractive to women.

Really, the topic for discussion is nothing to do with all this gender study nonsense (I’m privileged to say!) ;) The fun part is that 30-ish year-old James Kirk indulges in what is technically bestialty. It reflects rather amusingly on ST09 joke about Kirk having sex with farm animals…

I mean would you trust this guy with your horse?

Neigh! I thought not!!

279. JohnRambo - March 11, 2013

The Warp scene looks amazing! Imagine how this will look in 3D!!

280. Dom - March 11, 2013

273. Curious cadet: ‘Being fictional does not excuse the producers from responsible filmmaking.’

Oh God! I bet your local landlord loves you: get you in at 10.55 and the bar will be empty by 11!! Ooh the self-righteousness!

‘Don’t just use anonymous scantily clad women to make a sophomoric joke.’

Why not? How about I say don’t let all chick flicks present men as evil bastards who cheat on women and mistreat them when most of us don’t? Simple reason: men laugh about jokes about women, women laugh at jokes about men and love an excuse to dance to I Will Survive. There is life outside of the works of Andrea Dworkin!

‘Give me a reason for Kirk and these women to be in this situation, besides squeezing in a little T&A.’

They had a few drinks, were horny and wanted some action? The females like to copulate I groups of more than two? One of the cats is actually a tom? The viewing audiences like sex and violence in movies?

‘It’s not about what these fictional characters might do, it’s about what images the producer chooses to present and why.’

It’s about making a fun film. Kirk’s sexual escapades will amuse 99 per cent of the audience. Kirk gets to do stuff we never will in the real world! These issues are about you, your own problems and your own self-esteem issues.

281. Christopher Roberts - March 11, 2013

John Harrison is in fact a deaged Admiral Jonathan Archer.

He goes by an assumed name, because he’s a pretty famous figure… with starships, schools and even planets named after him.

As the genetic alteration he’s undergone wears off, he begins to look more and more like his old self.

Meaning a cameo for Scott Bakula at the end, before his face melts…

The real tragedy is, he only wanted his beagle back.

:-)

282. Curious Cadet - March 11, 2013

@274 Spock’s Uncle,
” and who’s to say that the cat-women he’s cavorting with aren’t playing HIM. Perhaps they get just as much pleasure from the exchange, perhaps they are the instigators… ”

In which case they are no longer being objectified. I would indeed like to see it played this way, because then we actually learn something about these women.

Agreed none of us know the exact context. I fear it is a puerile joke made at the women’s expense. However, my only goal here is to point out alternatives. And I will do it for both sides. I originally responded to Tenuto’s one-sided assertion that the scene was inherently unredeemable, by pointing out that the film makers could indeed use such a scene to make a point about Kirk’s character. And I still defend their right to do so. Perhaps they will, perhaps they won’t. I’ll reserve judgement until I see the film. In the meantime, there seems to be a general disconnect about exactly why the producer’s possible failure to justify such a scene is a problem. So that is what is being discussed …

283. Dom - March 11, 2013

Given Kirk’s history with Carol Marcus in the original Star Trek, hasn’t anyone considered that meeting Carol is what will change his youthful ways and that the cat women scene might be showing the ‘before’ character?

I’ve long seen Kirk’s womanising in the TV show as part of a reaction to leaving a woman he loved behind and that he had no part in his son’s upbringing. One wonders, should Carol get pregnant with Jim’s child in the new reality, would he leave Carol and his son or daughter behind, given the impact the loss of his Dad had on his own life?

284. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - March 11, 2013

@281. Christopher Roberts

…fascinating premise – I love it! … Although the beagle reappeared in The Truth About Tribbles. Perhaps Scotty refused to hand him back.

285. Keachick - March 11, 2013

Perhaps if this Carol gets pregnant, this Kirk will insist on having access to his child, irrespective of what this Carol might want. I hope so.

The prime Carol pushed prime Kirk away – Kirk, “I did as you asked. I stayed away.” Somehow, I think he regretted doing what she asked, something which she really had no right to demand in the first place. Then again, they were both young. It is likely that the pregnancy was unplanned (no contraceptive will ever be totally foolproof, because Life will find a way…). He probably had not given any serious thought at this stage to marriage/children, so what Carol asked seemed logical, sensible…at the time.

The canon on Kirk’s romantic history is quite confused really. Don’t ya just love some of ST:TOS canon?

286. Keachick - March 11, 2013

#281 LOL Like it!

287. Trekkiegal63 - March 11, 2013

#280. Dom:

Ad hominem attack on another poster, with little to no supporting, empirical evidence to back-up your argument. Lovely.

How about I say don’t let all chick flicks present men as evil bastards who cheat on women and mistreat them when most of us don’t? Simple reason: men laugh about jokes about women, women laugh at jokes about men and love an excuse to dance to I Will Survive. There is life outside of the works of Andrea Dworkin!

Hasty generalization. You’re assuming all women watch chick flicks (let alone ones featuring evil men). First off, as a woman myself, I can tell you quite honestly that I go out of my way to avoid chick flicks. Secondly, romcoms do not even make up the top five box office grossing genres. According to the-numbers.com, those would be 1. Comedy at 23.48%, 2. Adventure at 20.03% 3. Drama at 17.63% 4. Action at 16.81% and 5. Thriller/Suspense at 8.12%.

For those who are curious, Romantic Comedies are #6 at 5.92%.

And yet women make up 51% of the population and according to mpaa.com in 2009 and 2010 we bought more movie tickets than men at 51%. In 2011 and 2012 that number evened out to 50/50.

So let’s sum this up, shall we? Women are buying at least 50% of the movie tickets (some years more) and romcoms don’t even make the top five genres. ;)

It’s about making a fun film. Kirk’s sexual escapades will amuse 99 per cent of the audience. Kirk gets to do stuff we never will in the real world! These issues are about you, your own problems and your own self-esteem issues.

Another hasty generalization (as well as another ad hominem attack). The scene hasn’t come out yet, so we can’t get a true feel, but based on reactions on this site to the spoiler post? Quite a large number of people have already expressed concerns and/or distaste over the information given thus far for this scene. Just did a general survey around my household asking my husband and fifteen-year-old daughter, the former answered “adolescent humor – when did Star Trek become like Dumb and Dumber?” the latter “gross”.

I will give you this, we do have yet to see this scene. So if there is more to it than what we’ve been told, and there is a scene added showing the cat women soliciting Kirk for sex, then I will alter my opinion that they are being objectified.

288. Sebastian S. - March 11, 2013

# 231 Spock’s Uncle

Great post.

You’re spot on. You also notice how so many seem to remember TOS ST as it never was? And to forget that Kirk sleeps around is just mind boggling. That’s been a part of who James T Kirk was almost from the beginning of the show!

So many ST fans seem to remember ST the way that Gene Roddenberry wished it to be (perfect people with no conflict, pettiness, etc) rather than how it actually was (real human beings who sometimes had imperfect judgment and yes, even prejudices at times; in short, relatable people not walking icons).

As for the cat women? There was a three breasted cat-woman in ST5. M’Ress in the animated series was a felinoid. Isis in “Assignment Earth” was a cat-to-human shapeshifter. Sylvia in “Catspaw” was another. And Kirk attempted to seduce at least one of them.

ST has a long history of such ‘cat women’. So having Kirk sleeping with two cat women is not a ‘slap in the face’ to TOS; it’s a near-exacting homage!

289. Sebastian S. - March 11, 2013

And a PS to Spock’s Uncle~

As you also pointed out in post # 274

How do we know it wasn’t the cat women who seduced Kirk? ;-)

I’m also of the mind to see the movie first before I prematurely judge the scene. No one cried ‘sexist’ in ST09 when Kirk slept with Gaela (the Orion); we know from TOS that both Kirk and Orions are somewhat ‘oversexed’, so a pairing of the two was very much in character for BOTH.

290. Keachick - March 11, 2013

Referring to movies of a particular genre – mostly romantic/comedy/action movies as “chick flicks” and then summarily flicking them off as being not quite so good, important, intelligent etc is another kind of prejudice that I get a bit tired of reading. Many of these movies, despite their small box office attendances, can actually be very good, very well done. Somehow films that may interest “chicks”, ie women (I assume) more perhaps than men are always, well…flicked off.

From what I have read, a movie labeled for some as a “chick flick” called People Like Us starring Chris Pine and Elizabeth Banks, written and produced by Alex Kurtzman and Bob Orci and directed by Alex Kurtzman has been given some very good reviews and yet it barely made it money back. Even females have learned to be prejudiced against a movie that is not about villains, guns, car chases etc. A bit sad actually.

291. Trekkiegal63 - March 11, 2013

#290 Keachick:

Even females have learned to be prejudiced against a movie that is not about villains, guns, car chases etc. A bit sad actually.

To be fair its stereotypical characters, pandering to horrible cliches, predictable plots (and plot reuse, just giving characters different names from film to film), and unrealistic portrayal of romance that sets impossible expectations for young girls (i.e. real-life relationships actually take work) are the issues I have with romcoms. ;)

I can’t speak for “People Like Us” as I didn’t see it. But we did watch “This Means War” on netflix in a moment of insanity and it was horrible! I didn’t want the female protagonist to pick either man! They were both liars, and horribly juvenile. Yet, by the end of the movie, the female can never be single, can she? *sigh*

292. kev - March 11, 2013

lol Y’all overthink things too much down here in yonder comments section

anyways Please tell me that it was a mistake and that there jumping towards the newly refitted enterprise and that Robert Church is going to be tried for crimes against humanity for the redesign of my favorite hero ship in the trek universe lol.

and its just a movie guys relax and we never saw what happened in the prime universe with Kirk and his wife of whom he was supposedly hooked up with again in a cut generations scene.

basically take a page out of the MST3K handbook, page one: Its a show and I should just really relax.

293. Keachick - March 11, 2013

Yes, I have seen This Means War and I have it on DVD. It is a romantic action comedy and I think that speaks for itself. I found it to be a fun movie.

I do think that Lauren should have remained single. Tuck did go back to his wife. I am not sure what would have become of FDR though? On the other hand, both FDR and Lauren were looking for company, so I think it was good that they both had the courage to give the relationship a go. I doubt that they were necessarily ready for marriage though. Also, neither Lauren or FDR were teenagers with little education, work experience and having little in the way of savings etc.

I have to say that I do find it odd that you seem to be against women being in a romantic/sexual relationship, perhaps even married, when you are one of those women yourself.

I think that many young females are not quite as naive as some believe that they are. Some fans are, but I do not think they make up the majority of young women. In fact, I have had the impression from reading some of the boards on the internet that many people are decidedly unromantic and actually very cynical.

294. Trekkiegal63 - March 12, 2013

#293 Keachick:

I have to say that I do find it odd that you seem to be against women being in a romantic/sexual relationship, perhaps even married, when you are one of those women yourself.

Without getting into this discussion again, as we’ve had it before and I don’t think either one of us wants to get into another long debate rehashing it all, I’m just going to sum this up. I’m not against women being in a relationship and/or marriage at all. I love my husband and wouldn’t trade him (though I do threaten to trade him in for a Ferrari on occasion, just to keep him on his toes ;)) I’m against the Hollywood portrayal of relationships: i.e. stereotypes, glorifying co-dependency, tired formulas and tropes, sexual objectification and gender assignation.

In that vein, saw a hilarious comic strip the other day that sort of highlights my stance a bit (if anything it will give you a chuckle or two): http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4307. Enjoy! :)

295. Aurore - March 12, 2013

“….I even know someone who promised he would vomit…copiously… if such a thing were to occur. And, I’m sure he’s a man of his word, But, who cares? ”
_______

….Um….I…. actually do.

The man is a former Marine, after all.

Don’t you EVAH forget about this!

:)

Wo-oo-wo-oo-wo-oo-wooooooo……

296. The Mighty Chip - March 12, 2013

Sorry to derail the feminism discussion but I wanted to point something out I just noticed:

Look at the screencap where the Enterprise warps away from the starbase. You can see a few other ships docked at the base, most prominently NCC-07?? (18 maybe? It’s hard to make out)

Point being, that ship (and the others docked at the base it seems) seem to have TOS stylings, most notably matte hull coloring and round nacelles with red nacelle caps. Hell they almost look like TOS-Enterprises with half the saucer missing. They are the most TOS-looking ships I have ever seen in the JJ-verse so far.

So…. what does that mean exactly? Any ideas? I’m afraid I can’t think of anything.

Also, I apologize if someone else already pointed this out.

297. Enlightenment - March 12, 2013

They still use those annoying vertical window blinds in the 23rd Century?

http://scifanatic.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/stid-t3-09.jpg

Bummer

298. Mad Mann - March 12, 2013

296: Mirror Universe or other dimension crap? Or it could just be an Easter egg for the TOS fans to throw in some TOS styles in the other starships.

299. The Mighty Chip - March 12, 2013

@298 Mad Mann:

You think maybe they make an excursion in to the Prime universe or something? Maybe enlist the help of the TOS Enterprise? :-)

I know I know, not even remotely probable. But I can dream.

300. edshrinker - March 12, 2013

We srr “The Ring of Death” being dropped in a glass – causing a reaction the is explosive. My guess is many of the NEW ships were designed with some type of metal composite that could detonate (“Detonate the fleet”) when mixed with something. Carol Marcus is a weapons expert that is looking for a way to counter-act it. The TOS type ships were not built with this new metal and are available to be safely used (this is reminiscent of BSG and how the old Battlestars weren’t on the network that were hacked). Anyway, we see severe damage on the Big E, they are probably explosions from within the hull due to this reaction (since it is a new ship). Marcus is trying to fix this, but too late to avoid some damage to the NEW big E. So the old April Big E is orbiting the moon, decomissioned. But it is capable and available for Kirk to use to capture the fugitive. ADMIRAL Marcus gives him access.

How am I doing fellow fans??

301. Trek in a Cafe - March 12, 2013

Thought: Kirk and Carol break up because Kirk us somehow responsible for her father’s death…..?

302. edshrinker - March 12, 2013

This all could have been schemed years ago by some terrorist type who hekped design the new materials used in the new fleet ships. Hell, maybe Admiral Marcus is involved due to his disgust over the Prime Directive (from the comic). It is a way to assert control over Starfleet. “Hey, listen to me or I can explode your ships with a simple wavelength” or whatever. He does this to get their attention with Harrison being the grunt on the ground. Carol Marcus playing off her villain father sounds about right from a screen play standpoint.

303. Curious Cadet - March 12, 2013

@300 & 302 edshrinker,

I like it. I’m still not sure Marcus and April have anything to do with each other, but as the producers seem to be aping batman dark knight so closely, your scenario could pan out exactly. Exploding hull metal. It would explain a few things like how the Enterprise came to be so unexpectedly heavily damaged. Since April was originally the guy in charge of building the Prime Enterprise, perhaps Marcus filled that role after April went missing?

– SPOILERS —

Also, since we found out from the 28 min. screener reports that Harrison gives the sick girl a blood transfusion from himself and actually cures her, it hasn’t really been discussed as to who he might be based on this new information. Is the blood transfusion thing a new addition to a canon character, or is some canon character already capable of this kind of curative power? Is blood type a factor, or does Harrison’s blood make him some kind of universal donor? Maybe there’s more to it than a simple blood transfusion which was missed by the screener audiences. Were the augments in Enterprise ever shown to have curative properties in their blood on others? Certainly they had superior recuperative powers, which if universal donors would mean their blood might be used to rejuvenate a non-augment. Anybody else?

304. msn1701 - March 12, 2013

I’m so excited! :D Admiral Marcus, huh? That means Carol has a LOT to live up to, just like Jim did with his (dead) dad.

I’m glad we get a good dose of Pike in this.

Augh! It is coming in like 2 months!

305. Darmok - March 12, 2013

How is making love between 2 or 3 consenting adults womanizing? People do make love outside of marriage. Is that supposed to somehow be suppressed in the future? Kirk was always a ladies man, that’s not news. The guy has a stressful job, he’s gotta relieve that pressure somehow. Kirk in TOS had a different lover in virtually every other episode. I wonder if the people who have problem with this are jealous of a fictional character. Seriously, get over it. I mean, you’re entitled to your opinion, but that makes you sound like such a square.

306. Check the Circuit - March 12, 2013

@ I am not Herbert

From Memory Alpha:
The term “Herbert” was an uncomplimentary slang term used by the followers of Dr. Sevrin. The basis for the term was a minor official named Herbert, notorious for his rigid and limited patterns of thought.

Have you read any of your own posts?

307. captain_neill - March 12, 2013

I feel this will be a good action film, but to me I wish Abrams would make a Star Trek film that felt like Star Trek.

He also has Star Wars but because he is a Star Wars fan why do I feel he wont make any changes there.

308. edshrinker - March 12, 2013

#303 Cadet

Thank you – now let’s see if this holds up, The phrasing used about betrayal from with and detonating the fleet make this feel right. Imagine being told your starship is a bomb just waiting to be detonated with the right code or substance or whatever. The Big E looked to passively in orbit, not in a firefight. Then BOOM damage throughout the ship. Decimating her. Admiral Marcus covered for April all these years, so whatever his involvement in the terrorist plot, he is somewhat involved if April is involved.

309. The Mighty Chip - March 12, 2013

300/302 edshrinker:

Love it. If the plot goes that route I would certainly be happy with it. :-) The only thing I don’t like is the Enterprise being destroyed (I know a lot of us aren’t happy with the nuEnterprise’s looks and while I definitely understand that viewpoint I’m sick of the movies changing Enterprises almost as often as people change their underwear).

301 Trek Cafe:

Unfortunately, something like that definitely sounds plausible.

303 Cadet:

As far as I know, no canon source says Augments carry blood with restoritive properties. That being said, there’s nothing that says they don’t, either. Be that as it may, I don’t believe any more that BC is an augment. The only real evidence supporting it was that he appeared to have super strength, and when you step back and look at trek there are a LOT of species that are super-strong compared to humans, and there are a LOT of different technologies and other things that could give a human super-strength.

310. Trekkiegal63 - March 12, 2013

#305 Darmok:

Seriously, get over it. I mean, you’re entitled to your opinion, but that makes you sound like such a square.

Ad hominem. Attacking the person behind the argument and not the argument itself. It is a fallacy of logic, one, I’ve noticed, that has been used A LOT on this thread. It does not strengthen your argument in the slightest, rather, it makes it seem as though you can’t articulate a response using empirical evidence, so you resort to name calling instead.

You want to claim TOS Kirk was a ladies’ man? Back it up! List episodes and plot details. And if you do use this information be prepared to argue your stance because there are a lot of people exceedingly familiar with canon source material.

You want to claim women aren’t being objectified in media? Back it up! Find statistics from reputable sources and post them. Otherwise posts like the one you just posted only adds fuel to the fire.

Thank you and have a nice day.

311. Robman007 - March 12, 2013

I’m pretty sure that Captain Kirk would be considered a ladies man in TOS. He was always picking up women, hardcore flirting or even just looking them up and down, left and right. Here are some examples…

“What Little Girls are Made Of” Granted, he was using Andrea, but you know he loved the kisses

“Dagger of the Mind” The “christmas party” between the two seemed to be an issue before the landing party. Yeah, he hit on that chick.

“Court Martial” Prior relationship. Chick still loved the Captain. Made out on bridge while on duty.

“The Deadly Years” – Yeah, example of past womanizing

“Shore Leave” – Past example of womanizing. Shows the man has so many girlfriends that he could start a harem if he wanted too.

“The City on the Edge of Forever”..Kirk poses as random hobo, chick takes a liken to him. Ladies charm at work again, except he falls for her.

“Cat’s Paw” Same as with Andrea, using the lady, but still, ladies man charm at work

“Where No Man Has Gone Before” – That cute little blonde technician..we assume that is Carol Marcus..had kid, stayed away like she asked. That gives him another girlfriend from his academy days if it was her and yet another if it was not.

“Wolf in the Fold”..that “little place, where the women are soo..:” yeah, implied he loved putting the charm and mac to good work

“Mirror, Mirror”…Marlena..both universe version. He put the works on her at the end of the episode. Left to the imagination, but we all know how that will end…

“Bread and Circuses”…he was thrown some curves. Charm at work

and perhaps the most blatant example of workplace sexual harassment in the history of sexual harassment..(and his ladies man drive at warp 9)

“Immunity Syndrome”…he looked those junior officers up and down while commenting about taking a trip on “some lovely…..planet”…got a smirk from Dr McCoy as well.

Captain Kirk = Shining example of how to be a ladies man or how to get fired from the work place for harassment

312. Robman007 - March 12, 2013

“I like it. I’m still not sure Marcus and April have anything to do with each other”

I’m pretty sure that is solved in Countdown to Darkness. Captain April was declared dead. Captain Kirk found him on that planet fighting a backwater war in violation of the prime directive. His first Officer was Marcus. Marcus is an admiral in this film.

Marcus did or will do something to April by the end of the countdown comic. April is going after Marcus as revenge. April is Cumberpatch as a result of some experiment that will go down by the end of Countdown. Marcus is using Kirk to try and stop April.

313. Edshrinker - March 12, 2013

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=284151771716299&set=a.118194261645385.20126.100003644353962&type=1&theater

314. Edshrinker - March 12, 2013

Nice new poster

315. Trekkiegal63 - March 12, 2013

#311. Robman007:

Disagree that Kirk was the one doing the tail chasing in pretty much all of your examples:

“What Little Girls are Made Of” – Andrea was an android working with Korby to hold Kirk and Chapel hostage and turn them into andriods. I’ve always referred to this as the Stepford Wives (scariest movie there ever was) episode. Kirk makes advances at Andrea to confuse her because she wasn’t programmed to respond to them.

“Dagger of the Mind” – they flirted at the Christmas party. Kirk said no. Noel, unwilling to accept no, later tried to use the Tantalus machine to change his mind.

Use of machine to alter Kirk’s memories = not his idea

“Shore Leave” and “Where No Man has Gone Before” – these go together because it was actually Ruth Kirk was talking about in “Where No Man has Gone Before”. BTW, Kirk mentions in this episode that he was engaged to Ruth. “Engaged” would indicate she was more than a one night stand.

“Court Martial” Areel Shaw, legitimate former girlfriend of Kirk. The episode indicated they dated but it didn’t work out as each wanted to put their career first. Having dated does not equal one night stand.

“Deadly Years” – another ex-girlfriend whom Kirk dated, as in, not a one night stand. Like Areel, called it off because of careers. In this episode Wallace comes onto Kirk, he refuses.

““The City on the Edge of Forever” – Kirk falls in love with Edith Keeler. Tells Spock exactly that “I’m in love with Edith Keeler” as actual dialogue in the episode. Not a one night stand.

“Catspaw” – Kirk, Spock and McCoy are captured. One crewman, Jackson, had already been killed by their captors. Scotty and Sulu are being mind-controlled. Sylvia admits to Kirk that she has the power to control minds. He had little to no alternatives that would ensure his and his crews’ survival.

““Wolf in the Fold” – Ah, the Jack the Ripper episode. Kirk gets together with nobody. He and McCoy are down on the planet to help Scotty recuperate from an injury and play as his wingmen.

“Mirror, Mirror” – lol, I’m sorry but that’s really reaching. As in the non-mirror Kirk didn’t even meet the non-mirror Marlena till the very end of the episode, the last dialogue of the episode *is* them meeting for the first time. AND she was a crewman, for which Kirk notoriously kept a hands-off policy (Rand and Noel).

““Bread and Circuses” – already discussed this episode in detail in another thread. But let’s lay this out again, shall we? Kirk, McCoy and Spock are captured by Roman wannebes who are planning to execute them in gladiator type sports. Claudius, the leader has knowledge of Starfleet protocol because of a previous starship that had come there to which they had done the same thing: killed those who didn’t agree to join their society. Claudius orders Kirk to have the rest of the Enterprise beam down. Kirk says no. Claudius keeps Kirk hostage in his house presumably to wear him down. He also makes Spock and McCoy fight in the arena, with McCoy barely making it out alive. Claudius sends Drusilla to ‘take care’ of Kirk, Kirk, through it all, is convinced Drusilla is reporting back to Claudius because he says this during their ‘encounter’, very clearly.

“Immunity Syndrome” – he did not hook up with anybody. He didn’t even act on his appreciation. He admired the physical appearance of a crew member. All this tells us is that Kirk appreciates beauty. Who doesn’t?

… in conclusion my challenge to you is this: find an episode where Kirk wasn’t being threatened, held hostage, captured, incarcerated, had the lives of his crew threatened, assaulted, under the influence of tears that acted like love potions, mind control machines, and/or alien drugs, all of which are cases of coercion.

And of those episodes which do pass the above criteria, which of these were one night stands and which were considered rather series on Kirk’s part?

Can you find one where Kirk pursued anyone on his own accord, and using his own freewill, without any mitigating circumstances and without him being serious about the woman in question?

316. Curious Cadet - March 12, 2013

@312 robman007,

Sorry, I MEANT to say, I don’t know it there is necessarily a connection between Marcus (or April) and Harrison. Absolutely a connection between April and Marcus. However, I don’t think April will actually be in the film. I think Kirk will wrap up that encounter and file a report wih Starfleet before heading to Nibaru. It won’t segue seamlessly into the movie like the last countdown did.

317. captain_neill - March 12, 2013

I am not the biggest fan of the changes Abrams has made to Trek but I will still be there on opening night.

Although I feel he has tweaked Trek to much that it feels like Trek in name only I want to have hope that it will be a good film.

Sometimes I feel Kirk is too cocky here, Kirk was never cocky, he was a confident leader, who did not break rules as often as you would think and don’t forget he did try to go through proper channels with Starfleet when it came to Spock’s life in Amok Time and The Search For Spock. He was a leader who was a risk taker and defied the prime directive when it was necessary and when the safety of his ship was involved. He was never a jerk, which is how I feel the new movie has been playing him.

So I hope for the best but worried I am not going to like it. I know it will be better than the last one as there be no planet contrivance this time and should be a stringer story. Worst Case Scenario, the other Treks are stil there.

318. Keachick - March 12, 2013

#311 – What you have given is a rather distorted and minimalist representation of the events and Kirk’s role in them.

I agree that one might describe Kirk as being a “ladies man”, but what does that actually mean? Well, it means that Kirk is open in his appreciation of women and their form. He appears to enjoy their company, in and out of the bedroom. In ST09, when Kirk says, “Hello, ladies!” (in two separate scenes), he is flirting; he is acknowledging them as, at least, looking to him as being attractive, even perhaps interesting. He was not giving them anything akin to a wolf-whistle and believe me, I do know the difference between having some guy wolf-whistle you (rather unpleasant) and what Kirk said.

I think that trekkiegal’s assessment of those TOS episodes is a correct one.

I have to say – it is interesting that I have been virtually the only one, until now, who has queried the notion of Kirk being the womanizer (ie sleeping around and having one night stands at a matter of course), because that is how this character has NOT come across to me as being. That is not to say that possibly on occasion, in his younger days (which is where this new (Pine) Kirk is now) that he did not engage in one or two one night stands, but I never saw that as being his basic nature. Not at all.

I think that Kirk has been torn between his love of being in Starfleet and being captain of his own ship (with all the obligations and responsibilities that come with that) and his desire to have a woman, maybe even children, by his side, them sharing their lives together. That is perhaps the biggest difference between the makeup of someone like Picard and Kirk.

I think both men are fine people.

319. Trek in a Cafe - March 12, 2013

Trailers like this are fun to think about, especially when we’re loaded up with spoilers, plot points and a whole previous universe to compare this new film to. So I wonder if what freaks out all of us who love films and some television from the 60s and 70s is that there was usually time and to watch the characters think. That was at least half the fun. I keep thinking that there would be no tension between anyone on this list if there was a “Game of Thrones” style Trek series — it would satisfy every angle we would like to see in the Star Trek universe.

In TOS, character was displayed either constantly or during decisive moments that were often intense and slowly paced. The crew could make mistakes, learn from that, figure out the problem. Raising the stakes was a cerebral exercise in the TV format because they had a limited budget and had to appeal to all kinds of adult audiences with a large variety of human values. There was a visual aesthetic, and characters were only as interesting as their problems and the way they solved them. Which is why we loved Roddenberry. He did well with less. It was almost never boring because the Roddenberry’s Trek was very much invested in the future of the “guest stars.”

But tent-pole films, if they are made well do not seem to have the depth that true adults seek. Major motion picture action films rely on very beautiful, well-executed, tricks. By the present time both studios and audiences anticipate this as a “need” or a rule. We go to them for light entertainment. I just saw Oz and there are traces of what an adult might seek (romance, sexual banter, even Mila Kunis in leather), but the film also needs to have be child friendly. EVen in a film for children, this need for beautiful action undermines anything pondering. This does not mean we do not crave it. We always come out against movies that look like shit.

My fear is that this means there’s no gray areas explored, no gray matter in the characters. They make no discoveries, and display no real emotions that are not plot-motivated.

There have been studies of shot-length in films.
And this site takes a look at several episodes of TNG
http://www.cinemetrics.lv/index.php
If anyone has a count of the ASL in TOS, the TOS movies and onward, you could trace the change as the shots got shorter and shorter, more motivated by plot, and less by discovery.

320. Keachick - March 12, 2013

#319 – Your comments are worthwhile and interesting.

321. Darmok - March 12, 2013

@310 Trekkiegal63

“Kirk had quite the reputation as a ladies’ man” – Ben Sisko – Trials and Tribble-ations

I hope you have a nicer day

322. Desstruxion - March 12, 2013

Yayyyy more Star Wars……….er trek I mean.

323. NCC-278917 - March 12, 2013

The Fact that Keachick doesn’t like Carol Marcus,makes me like the character even more.

324. Keachick - March 12, 2013

#323 – Duh.

325. Trekkiegal63 - March 12, 2013

#321 Darmok:

And that proves what, exactly?

Did Sisko ever meet Kirk? Know him personally? Didn’t over 70 years separate them? Ever play a game of telephone as a child? You know, how you whisper something from one person to the next and by the time you reach the end of a group of people the message is nothing like it was in its original form? Exactly what happened with Kirk and this ‘ladies man’ business. The legend became much, much larger than the truth.

Give me TOS examples, thus actual relevant source material as Kirk was actually in TOS and known by the other characters there.

326. Keachick - March 12, 2013

I agree that Kirk being a “ladies man” in the way that a lot of people take it to mean is something of a myth. It tickles people’s fantasies, but had little in common with what has been shown of his actual behaviour on the TOS television or film series.

I explained how I understand the term “ladies man” to mean in a previous post. It is interesting because I had been reading about this TOS Kirk’s sexual exploits and yet when it came to actually watching the entire second TOS series, there ain’t much at all and what there was, eg Bread and Circuses, has already been discussed at length.

327. Lt. Dakin - March 13, 2013

Cumberbatch is standing in front of the Crystal Cathedral in Garden Grove, California and it is labeled “presumably watching London attack”. The building reflecting in the Cathedral is the Welcome Center- in the announcement trailer shot by shot, the welcome center is labeled “Kirk presumably at Starfleet HQ or San Francisco”.

So, I think both of these shots are the same location in the movie,(as well as in real life) not both London and San Francisco. And I was just there on Saturday and have plenty of photos to match up.

328. ProtoVulcan - March 13, 2013

@Dakin: so you’re sayin Cumberbatch is in San Francisco watching that big group seated outdoors?

329. Lt. Dakin - March 13, 2013

@Protovulcan. Yes!! They are the same physical location in Garden Grove, California at the Crystal Cathedral!

330. TyrusX - March 13, 2013

Just read COUNTDOWN TO DARKNESS #3. SPOILERS:

Mudd is the daughter of that MUDD.
Enterprise is stollen by RA.BACKDOOR PROGRAM.
Klingons are the hidden bad guys.
References to how how vulcan are stronger than humans.
Enterprise almost bombing the planet. ending.

Hard to tell how it connects to the movie yet. RA may be John Harrison.
But I would guess he is either Vulcan or Klingon.

331. Phil - March 14, 2013

Mother of God!!!! Enterprise is stolen!!???!!! …..again. (yawn)….

332. Phil - March 14, 2013

Maybe a better question is, who doesn’t steal a starship…..

333. cpelc - March 14, 2013

three page blurry preview up on itunes page https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/star-trek-countdown-to-darkness/id585453144?mt=11

334. Jemini - March 14, 2013

262 oliver
gotta agree a bit here

I hope that Boborci won’t give this up now that we have only one movie left.
This not just trek, this it’s YOUR trek too.
I would never in a million of years give the third, last, conclusive movie of a trilogy that I created from the beginning to new writers who could ruin all the work I’ve done in the other two and then get the credit for something that I made for the most part, not them. Yes, each movie should be its own story but in the end people will still see these 3 movies as a whole.
It’s like The Deathly Hallows not written by J. K. Rowling..
It’s already bad that we’re at the risk that JJ won’t direct the third movie, if even the writers change better not make a third movie at all…

haters gonna hate and bitch the loudest about what they dislike (especially in this site) .. but tons of people loved the movie and have none of the “huge issues” some folks have with it, here.

335. Jemini - March 14, 2013

333. cpelc
from that it looks like: you go Sulu!

336. TyrusX - March 14, 2013

There should be a review of the comic by now. It’s been out for 2 days. It’s weird. RA is crazy. He looks very mad on the end of the comic.

337. Elvis_Shatner - March 14, 2013

At least one encouraging thing I noticed…

Lack of lens flares! :) :) :)

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.