Trailer Easter Eggs Lead To New Star Trek Into Darkness International Poster Artwork [UPDATE 2] |
jump to navigation

Trailer Easter Eggs Lead To New Star Trek Into Darkness International Poster Artwork [UPDATE 2] March 21, 2013

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Marketing/Promotion,Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

UPDATED: Once again the sneaky folks at Bad Robot and Paramount hid a web address in a trailer. Actually they hid a number of different URLs in the different localized versions, leading to six localized versions of a new international poster artwork. Check out all the variants below       


New Posters for Star Trek Into Darkness

Hidden URL Easter eggs in each of the new Star Trek Into Darkness international trailers leads to different bonus artwork. Note: According to Paramount these images are not the official international "one-sheet" posters. Those have yet to be revealed (as has the Domestic one-sheet). These are being described as "special pieces of artwork revealed through the trailer launch."

New poster artwork (UK  version)

New poster artwork (Australian version)

New poster artwork (Brazil version)

New poster artwork (Mexican version)

New poster artwork (Russian version)

New poster artwork (German version)

Hidden URLs lead to posters

Each of the trailers has a hidden URL that leads to a different poster, with the exception of the UK and Australian trailers which are exactly the same. It was hidden in in a very interesting shot. If you averted your eyes from Alice Eve you would spot the URL:

How could you miss that?

UPDATE: The UK hidden URL is:

UPDATE: How could you miss that?

The Brazilian hidden URL is: 

Hidden URL for Brazil poster

The Mexican hidden URL is:

Hidden URL for Brazil poster

The Russian hidden URL was tricky but it works out to be

Hidden URL for Russian poster

The German hidden URL was even trickier due to different options for the characters but it is

Hidden URL for German poster



1. Jack - March 21, 2013

Okay, were you tipped off? Or did you just happen to be capturing Carol Marcus in her underwear? ;)

2. JohnRambo - March 21, 2013

lol that is brilliant!

3. Aix - March 21, 2013

What a stupid poster.

LOL @ that URL and its placing.

4. njdss4 - March 21, 2013

Kinda bummed these posters, and the trailers in general, seem to be showing as little of space as possible. Hope the full movie makes me feel like this actually takes place in the Trek universe, not just ‘generic future Earth’.

5. Alex - March 21, 2013

Stupid poster, stupid trailer, stupid Abrams’s odd job. Mockery of REAL Star Trek. I don’t wanna see this bullshit at all.

6. - March 21, 2013

I love the poster, very cool.

7. Jack - March 21, 2013

5. Wow. They should hire you to write the ad copy.

8. Aix - March 21, 2013

It is a stupid poster BUT that trailer just screams epic, big, must-see and that is great!!!

9. Forrest Leeson - March 21, 2013

o/~ Chaaaaaarlie’s Angels…

10. TheDeed - March 21, 2013

No McXoy. Again.

11. Spockchick - March 21, 2013

@ 9. Forrest Leeson
Bwahahahah! Very funny.

But, Alice in her underwear? Really? Every freakin new woman has to appear in her undies? Really? And where is McCoy?

12. Aurore - March 21, 2013

“I love the poster, very cool.”

I agree.

13. Buzz Cagney - March 21, 2013

Once again Bones is relegated to N04 behind behind Uhura.
How annoying. This Uhura has nothing to offer over the quite brilliant Karl Urban’s ‘Bone’s yet they keep pushing her up the pecking order. grrrr

14. Luther Sloan - March 21, 2013

Mexican poster

15. bardicjim - March 21, 2013

#12 that is because a thresome between 3 men is not as marketable as 2 guys and one girl. Sex sells.

16. Luther Sloan - March 21, 2013

Well… not just mexican… latinamerica also

17. Micar - March 21, 2013

Is this Star Trek SKYFALL? Seems to be a Bond Movie…

18. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - March 21, 2013

It’s likely Uhura is more prominent in STID so there is more of a gender balance for the principal characters, and to demonstrate strong(er) female lead characters than was possible in TOS, and who are present to do more than just look pretty. Girls need kick-ass female role models too.

I’m hoping STID actually pulls it off with Uhura. I personally don’t believe that strong female characters are necessarily diminished by a romantic connection – although I know there are a number of other female posters who would disagree. While I agree that we don’t want to send the message to our daughters that they don’t count for anything unless they have a man in their life, I personally am appalled by the notion that we would want to send the message that they are failing to fulfil their potential if they do have a man in their life. Family and career should not be an either/or situation for either gender.

As for McCoy: I’m confident we’ll still see a lot of him in the movie. He’s too good a character to waste.

19. lwr - March 21, 2013

Poor Leonard McCoy… This universe does not honor you well in the old Star Trek “trifecta”.

Instead of it being about loyality and friendship and how both sides of the human emotional element helped make Kirk who he was by balancing the “Bones” of humanity with the “truths” of logic, now it is about a hot ethnic Chick and the 2 space dudes who just want to jump her “bones”.
Guess that is 21st Century PC diversity.

well, guess it is still Logically Human..

20. Adam C - March 21, 2013

i prefer this font

21. Alex - March 21, 2013

Where is Bones? Who is that scary woman on behind? Oh, I almost forgot that this ugly creature is “Uhura” now. And she is now substitute for McCoy. I don’t buy this shit.

22. Boy - March 21, 2013

JJ is bipolar.

He makes Uhura the 3rd main character at the expense of Bones because he feels that a woman should be able to roll with the guys then he turns around and makes another woman nearly go naked.

JJ is both helping and hurting the image of women.

I applaud him for making Uhura a strong female heroine, however I am scared of what he has done to Carol.

Carol doesn’t even look like a classic beauty in her panties…she looks a litte trashy.

23. Jerry Modene - March 21, 2013

McCoy didn’t get a lot of love in the TOS movie posters either; for instance, in STTMP it was Kirk, Spock and Ilia. IIRC, McCoy didn’t make a TOS movie poster until ST VI.

24. Baby - March 21, 2013

What the hell is up with uhura’s face?

I have seen zoe saldana in person and she looks nothing like that female on the poster.

That is one bad photoshopped poster.


25. El Chup - March 21, 2013

Meh, Uhura in place of McCoy. Fail.

Sorry, but there was a reason Bones was the third man. Logic, emotion and Kirk being the blend of the two. The dynamic doesn’t work with Uhura. It’s just T & A with her now.

Same for Carol Marcus it seems. I wonder if the casting director saw Alice Eve’s boobs out in Crossing Over before he settle on her…..

26. Fabio - March 21, 2013


27. crazydaystrom - March 21, 2013

Okay poster. TERRIBLE Star Trek movie poster! Yeah, replacing McCoy with Uhura in the troika doesn’t bother me as much as it seems to some others. I do see it as a calculated move to broaden appeal though. Adding in one stroke a woman and a person of color. Urban/McCoy is great but if this will add to the success of the film, it’s a good move.

28. Scott Williams - March 21, 2013

Gee, can we have some more guns on the poster? Star Trek is definitely all about guns. (Can you detect my sarcasm?).

29. Nony - March 21, 2013

I hate to beat the dead “where the hell is McCoy” horse, since we’ve been doing it since 2009, but… oh, wait, we’ve been doing it since 2009! Shouldn’t that tell you something, marketing people? I know those three are on there because they’re the ones who dress like that and go on the adventure to get Harrison, but what are the odds the next one will be the exact same way? Pretty good, I’d say.

And I don’t see it as Uhura replacing anybody. Uhura was elevated in role, so don’t demote her. But you can fit four heroes on a poster. You can fit *seven* heroes on a poster if you take the Cumberbatch out.

30. USS EXETER - March 21, 2013

Once again somebody please tell JJ that the TOS trinity is Kirk, Spock, McCoy NOT Uhura, Kirk &Spock. That poster says Uhura is getting way too much screen time over Bones & Scotty.

31. LJ - March 21, 2013

The method is use for evaluating a move poster is to ask the question “would I put this on my wall?” For this poster, the answer is no. Not because i think it is a poor Trek poster, but because i think it is a poor poster for any movie. It is far too generic, – yes, I understand why they’ve gone down that road – and looks poorly put together (it looks like a bad photoshop composition). I prefer the first poster by far.

On the subject of McCoy, I hate to see him pushed out of he picture too: and not just because Bones has always been my favourite character. He is part of what made TOS what it was. The triad defined the series. I hope Scotty gets better treatment too. I hate to confess this, but Uhura never interested me much, and this new, generic action chick, Uhura interests me even less.

32. Billiam - March 21, 2013

Alice Eve looks so fit and sexy! Wow! I’m not a pig by any means and would obviously treat her like a person if I ever met her, but since all I have are photos I will just say:


And to the haters… I grew up with Sir Patrick Stewart in TNG and absorbed most of my life in Star Trek, nitpicking every episode that was inconsistent with others, etc. Grow up! The cerebral Star Trek we had as kids is gone, so what? This new version is entertaining and fun for the whole family to watch. If they completely dumb down the stories told in future Star Trek movies then yeah, sure, I’d be a little upset. But Star Trek Into Darkness looks like it’s going to have a compelling story to tell.

I’ll give it a shot.

33. helen - March 21, 2013

I;d have been happier just with Cumberbatch on the poster. Looks like the management of the other actors insisted they were on the poster and it makes it look silly.

34. Yanks - March 21, 2013

Damn, I would have NEVER caught that ip addy in the pic with Carol Marus!!


35. Anthony Thompson - March 21, 2013

They should have hidden one on the smiley guy in the original and ‘big game’ teasers.

36. Lostrod - March 21, 2013

If I recall, McCoy was omitted from all but one of the TOS movies as well:

– TMP: Kirk, Spock and Ilia
– TWOK: Kirk, Spock, Saavik and Khan
– ST III: Spock only
– ST IV: Kirk and Spock
– ST V: Kirk and Spock
– ST VI: Kirk, Spock and McCoy FINALLY


37. Picard's Slappy Patty - March 21, 2013

I hate these posters! They are so generic, and in no way capture the essence of Trek. Now, let me clarify that I am looking forward to the movie, but from everything I have seen so far, it just feels void of all the things that made Trek Trek. Where is the exploration? Why are we being earthbound? When did Trek become an action franchise?

38. Khan 2.0 - March 21, 2013

@23./ 36 – actually Bones made it on to the posters for III and IV

TMP = kirk spock Ilia

TWOK – Kirk Spock Savvik (& Khan)

TSFS – Crystal Spock Skull (teaser poster?) and also – Big Painted Spock Head with small Kirk, Bones, Savvik, Sulu, Chekov figures

TVH – Kirk & Spock heads but also bones and the rest surrounding them

TFF – Kirk and Spock heads

TUC – Kirk Spock Bones (in ‘beaming’ light)

39. Jemini - March 21, 2013

I’m sick of this “Uhura is replacing McCoy” uhura bashing fest here. Chill out guys and let’s be a tad realistic.
After Spock, McCoy had always been my favorite character but seriously guys.. trio? what trio? what you talking about? where and when? surely not in the old movies.
Uhura is replacing no one here because even in the old star trek poor McCoy had always been put aside for a Kirk/Spock DUO. The triad you’re talking about is an illusion, a generic idea that was never fully developed on screen. It’s largely recognized that the story had always been the Kirk/Spock story with McCoy quest starring along with other characters, funny no one cared about him then but people bitch about it now that Uhura is in some promotional stuff.
This sounds to me as the usual “eww a girl is getting in the way of K/S. that must be a male only club please” disguised as concerns for McCoy’s character.

40. Rebecca74 - March 21, 2013

#36- Thank you.

If anyone has replaced Bones on the posters, it’s Cumberbatch…

But I guess that’s “acceptable”…

41. Khan 2.0 - March 21, 2013


thats interesting especially when you look at the Trek II poster

its not a million miles away from it – similar sepia colour. armed Kirk/Spock/female/main Villain (only the heroes are more prominent than the villain this time),

furthur evidence that STID is a veiled reboot of Khan? (the other evidence being the lost Botany Bay teaser at the end of ST09, the latino actors considered before BC, the constant Khan rumours, BCs vaguely Khan like jacket, Carol Marcus)

42. Iva - March 21, 2013

This isn’t just about Bones being left out of the poster – it’s about who replaces him.

The times he wasn’t there it was because the main new character + Kirk/Spock were the focal point of the movie.
If there was any place for a third TOS character it was him – being the one of 3 main TOS characters.

This time he is replaced by a background character with no connections to the plot or any relevance to TOS or Star Trek.

This is making it canon that, just like in Abrams09, he is demoted and removed from the big 3, will have no screen time and no character development, while a background character is made central despite no relevance to either plot or ST in general instead of him.

43. Lostrod - March 21, 2013

@23./ 36 – actually Bones made it on to the posters for III and IV

Not in the original one sheets.

True, in later posters he was added. Same may happen with current film.


44. MAXIMUS - March 21, 2013


It’s been a brainless action movie franchise since Abrams’ first Star Wars—I mean— Trek movie in 2009

It’s finally hitting everybody. Finally.

Gene Roddenberry had a dream that was Star Trek. This is not it.

This. Is. Not. It.

45. Khan 2.0 - March 21, 2013

@43 i thought these were the original one sheet movie posters

46. TheSchlaack - March 21, 2013

@20. Hell yes.

47. MAXIMUS - March 21, 2013


Feel what you may about Star Trek V… but the campfire scene with Kirk Spock and McCoy is one of the all time best character moments of the friendship of those characters.

Star Trek II the director’s cut had a great scene of scene of McCoy and Spock arguing about the theological and galactic ramifications of the Genesis device.

Trek III brought their friendship closer in a touching scene of McCoy talking to Spock about how much he would miss if he lost him again.

And TMP had a great scene of Kirk Spock and McCoy arguing, and definitely brings viewers back to the TOS episodes. “WOULD YOU PLEASE…sit…. DOWN.”

The moments are there. A lot of moments. I suggest you watch the movies.

48. Rebecca74 - March 21, 2013

Except obviously Uhura has a place in the plot. She’s on an away mission to capture Harrison just like Kirk and Spock.

We all know why Nichelle’s Uhura was a background character in TOS (racism). I hope you don’t wish for us to go back that mess. Her “irrelevance” as you say was DIRECTLY tied to the fact that she was a black woman and the writers had zero qualms about cutting her lines and reducing her screen time. So, please stop.

It IS CANON. It’s been canon since 2009. Get over it already. And Bones hasn’t been “demoted”. He’s still a doctor, right? He’s still Jim’s main confidant, right? He’s still on the bridge, right?

49. Iva - March 21, 2013

@ 48. Rebecca74

Yeah, yeah, yeah….. like Nichelle claimd she was also supposed to be the Vulcan first officer but they cast Nimoy instead because of racism. Or the time she claimed Uhura was a “fourth” officer instead a junior one and there was a whole episode that was solely dedicated to her becoming the “forth” officer was scrapped because of racism. And other similar “Uhura is actually the main character but racism forced Gene into making Kirk the main character” claims.

But Gene totally wanted that, except he never told it to anybody but her – in private, and all of the things he did say and are recorded as his words during his interviews – that contradict all of her claims about Uhura, were just him pretending.

He actually didn’t really think any of what he said about the characters or the plot but everything she wanted. It’s just that he never told anybody. But her. In strict confidence. Completely contradictory to everything he did say in public, actual script, what the writers said etc.

50. Mantastic - March 21, 2013

This new gritty crime drama looks like it’s going to be interesting.

…..wait, this is Star Trek?!

51. Iva - March 21, 2013

Sorry, the quote code messed with this site, here’s the second attempt:

_______ We (the interviewers) tell Gene [Roddenberry] something of our recent interview with Bill [Shatner] and Leonard [Nimoy] – touching on the Kirk-Spock relationship, and Nimoy’s feeling that Kirk was essential to Spock’s life:

“I know you’ve told us you designed that relationship as ‘Two halves which come together to make a whole’. Is that how you still see it?”

Roddenberry : “Oh yes. As I’ve said, I definitely designed it as a love relationship. I think that’s what we’re all about – love, the effort to reach out to each other. I think that’s a lovely thing. Also, dramatically, I designed Kirk and Spock to complete each other – and in fact, the Kirk, Spock McCoy triad to be the dramatic embodiment of the parts of one person: logic, emotion, and the balance between them. You cannot have an internal monologue on the screen, so that is a way of personifying it, getting it out where it can be seen – that internal debate which we all have within. AND I designed Kirk and Spock, as I told you, as dream images of myself, the two halves. But in terms of the characters, yes. That closeness… absolutely.”____________

There is also this:

________”There’s a great deal of writing in the Star Trek movement which compares the relationship between Alexander and Hephaistion* to the relationship between Kirk and Spock – focusing on the closeness of the friendship, the feeling that they would die for one another…”

Roddenberry : “Yes, there’s certainly some of that – certainly with love overtones. Deep love. The only difference being, the Greek ideal – we never suggested in the series – physical love between the two. But it’s the – we certainly had the feeling that the affection was sufficient for that, if that were the particular style of the 23rd century_______

There you go. We only had this because the racist Peramount couldn’t make Star Trek about Uhura instead. If you believe Nichelle, this is all wrong and not what Gene wanted.

52. Rebecca74 - March 21, 2013


So Nichelle’s lying about everything? She’s just making it all up and her character was just going to be a glorified extra? Right. Put it to you like this, if Uhura was played by a white actress, she would have had all those things that Nichelle SHOULD have had for her character.

First of all, they’d already cast Leonard as Spock , as he appeared in the original pilot episode with Jeffrey Hunter as Capt. Pike. Leonard was actually the only character retained from the pilot.

Second. when Nichelle auditioned, she read for the character named “Spock”. She did so well that they wanted her for the part, but Leonard already had it. That’s why Uhura was created. She never claimed that she didn’t get the Spock role because of racism. How could she when she knew Leonard already had the part???

Thirdly, Nichelle DID face racism. Her lines were cut, Her screen time was cut. All of that prevented her from having any real part on the show. She received hate mail from “fans” If you think that Hollywood in the 1960s wasn’t racist, just get out now. She dealt with the same crap that other minority actors did during that time. Further, if you think those writers weren’t a product of their time, then think again. Gene fought for what he could, but he was still beholden to the studio, who did not want her featured as prominently. They also nixed the female number one that appeared in the pilot because again “how could a woman have that much power over the menz”..

But whatever, you don’t like Uhura and the more prominent role she has in the new movies. It’s painfully obvious from your other comments on ANY article with a mention of either Zoe Saldana or Nyota Uhura. You think she’s replacing the men and this movie isn’t “real Star Trek” because of all the vaginas taking over.


53. Ahsoka Tano - March 21, 2013

really stupid poster :\
hopefully Struzan will be hired for EP7

54. Lostrod - March 21, 2013


“@43 i thought these were the original one sheet movie posters”

Those posters came later in promotion. Original STIII poster was just the crystal Spock image with the words “Join the Search”.

First poster (not counting the teaser which had no faces) just had Kirk and Spock:

Was never sure why McCoy was short changed so often.


55. Jemini - March 21, 2013

Perhaps it’s precisely because I watched them that I made that comment?
They have moments (I never said that they didn’t) but MCCoy wasn’t developed the way some people are making it seems that he was and the fact that he’s not part of promotional stuff or action scenes is nothing new here.
There was no “trio” the way some people here pretend that it was (meaning that McCoy wasn’t as important as K/S and he wasn’t part of every action scene or scene involving the two of them) .
who says that Abrams star trek won’t have Kirk/Bones/Spock moments as well?
They probably elevated Uhura to MCCoy’s level of importance (that isn’t equal to K/S and never was) and have a OT4 instead of OT3 this time.
If people can’t see why it’s important to show the only female character that’s another matter. Marketing-vise it makes perfect sense for them to have Uhura in the posters but this doesn’t mean that she’s more important than McCoy in the movie.

and anyway, this is not TOS so this argument with people expecting the reboot to be totally like a show that had to follow the cultural rules of its time and was the way it was for this very reason, is getting really old.
That show was made in the 60s for God’s sake.
yeah, tos was a man only club because in the 60s bitches ain’t shit so only the male characters could get developed.

48: Rebecca74
you deserve a cookie for actually trying to reply to someone who can write things like “Uhura has no relevance to the plot”
I have lost the ability to can.
this is an (old) ad hominem argument between the K/S worshipers (you don’t need to be a slash fan to be one) that don’t want Uhura to get in the way of K/S , and the writers.

56. gingerly - March 21, 2013


And notice the new relatively new girls (IIia, Saavik) getting prominent places on the those TOS posters without any discussion or complaint.

So, why again are people miffed by Uhura’s placement?

57. Cygnus-X1 - March 21, 2013

If I avert my eyes from Alice Eve, I’ll spot the URL?

Why in a million years would I do that?

They might as well have put it on Mars.

58. drapera - March 21, 2013

Really need to get a well designed Star Trek Into Darkness poster that says Star Trek, not action/explosion/shooting guns thing here. Hopefully a final one is coming soon.

59. Iva - March 21, 2013

They’ve changed it into action genre in 09 already, what did you expect? Plot? Science?


60. Jemini - March 21, 2013

49. Iva – March 21, 2013
I don’t understand the connection between those quotes and what you are saying about Nichelle and Uhura

“like Nichelle claimd she was also supposed to be the Vulcan first officer but they cast Nimoy instead because of racism.”

She never said that and the other things you have listed in your little anti Nichelle rant here. You’re not posting the actual quotes but rather changing the point of some of the things she have said in attempt to discredit her because, of course, some of the things she had said contradict YOUR opinion.

here’s what she actually said:

when I went on interview for the role before Paramount and NBC knew I was going to be on, the roll had not been written and I read a scene that they asked me to read that was three characters: Somebody named Kirk, somebody named Bones, and somebody named Spock. And they asked me if I would read for this role of the person named Spock. And I said “Fine” because it was a long scene and he had a big part. And I thought this was the role and I said, “Tell me about this character. What is she like?”
And they looked at me like I was crazy and said “It’s not.. He’s not.. Spock is not a she, Spock is a he, we just haven’t written a role yet but this can… we can see from here.”
And I said, “Could she be a woman” And they said
“Leonard Nimoy would not like it”. *laugh*
And so I said tell me something about the character and I’ll read as though I was reading for the character. To make a long story short I got the role. But, I took my reading from what they told me Spock was about. In developing that character, and I told Gene Roddenberry about it when he decided on the book I was reading which was a Treaty from Africa called “Uhuru”. He said he wanted to use that but he said why don’t we do a little alliteration on it it because he said it was too harsh. And, I said “make it Uhura” and he said you’ve named your character it belongs to you. And I set forth then, he said “You come from the United States of Africa. I’ve just decided.” And I decided then from the character that I read [Spock] that I wanted to be very much like that character but in a feminine way. And Gene said, and I was sharing this with George the other day, when I told him that I thought of Spock as my mentor. Because if you remember Uhura was the only one he was able to teach the Vulcan lyre to and he sang and spooffed on Spock.** Now, you could have never had a love scene in 63 between Uhura and Spock but there were several hints and Gene was one in the kind of beginning to follow that *** and he wanted to do episodes if we had gone past the third year
– TrekFest ‘09 in Riverside, Iowa

what she actually said is a very different thing than your little summary here…
1) when she auditioned for Uhura’s part they made her read Spock’s part because Uhura’s character wasn’t written yet. Since he was the one she read, in creating her character with Roddenberry, she thought of Uhura as a feminine version of the character she had read (Spock)
she never said that she was supposed to play Spock LOL
they akready chose Nimoy for the part and had already estblished he was a guy
perhaps you’re confusing it with the whole thing about number one… (who wasn’t played by Nichelle and was never supposed to be played by her)

2) all the things she says, in particular sections ** and *** were supported by the writers. For example there actually is deleted scene that implied that Spock did teach Uhura how to play the vulcan lyre ( she said that Gene had thought to put them (S/U) together but didn’t get the chance which is more or less what Gene himself had said at one point too (and it could explain those random moments where Uhura DID flirt with Spock in the series so there are examples in the source text that can suggest that the writers could have had that idea at some point)

she doesn’t even talk about racism…. but let’s not pretend that it wasn’t a real thing for her in the 60s and she wasn’t a victim of it because that would be dumb, sorry.

Shatner said some things about the show that are 100% accurate as well, after all these are people like us. So Nichelle could be right or wrong and even biased of course but I can’t see why she must be automatically wrong or lying just because you don’t like what she said or you have your own conjectures about the story that clash with her opinions.
It doesn’t seem to me that the writers ever contradicted her, anyway.

as for the Uhura was fourth in command but they never showed it, why it couldn’t be true?
they even used that notion for the animated series, from what I recall.

again, point being here?
I get that you dislike Uhura and think that Nichelle’s opinion is totes irrelevant even if she was part of the show just like the other actors and she, well, read the scripts and interacted with TPTB on daily basis unlike… us?

ps: if you don’t like the movie being about the other characters too and not just a K/S love story, you can always play the new videogame that is about them only, just saying.

61. Jemini - March 21, 2013

*Shatner said some things about the show that aren’t 100% accurate

62. MattR - March 21, 2013

That poster design is pretty uninspired. The posters that they designed for Star Trek (2009) were much more interesting and dynamic, especially some of the international ones. The one with the drill laser coming down next to the Golden Gate Bridge was great. And the one with the cast with the Delta symbol and Nero’s ship firing on the Enterprise was really dynamic.

63. Trekkiegal63 - March 21, 2013

I’m going to preface this by saying that I love McCoy dearly. And feel, at his core, he is a large part of the heart of TOS. Trek wouldn’t be Trek without him.

That said… Uhura being on the poster does not negate McCoy’s role in the film. To claim otherwise is creating a false dilemma – this isn’t an either/or situation. And frankly, it’s high time that the only female protagonist out of seven series regulars be given a little spotlight.

I am a TOS woman to my soul, and can honestly say I love it more than any other series out there. However, it first aired 47 years ago. One would hope that within 47 years time a franchise would show progress towards removing the sexism that was rampant within it during the sixties. And essentially, this is what Trek is all about, progression.

Uhura being given her fair due in no way takes away from the logos (logic=Spock), ethos (ethics=Kirk), pathos (emotion=McCoy) archetypes Roddenberry used to to formulate the trimitive. This formula, which worked, and worked brilliantly, can exist intact within Abrams’ Trek, and still have room for Uhura to shine.

To be entirely frank, I’m absolutely thrilled that not only is she on the poster, but she’s fully clothed, has a weapon in her hand, and an expression of complete concentration on her face. The focus here is Uhura the officer, Uhura the soldier, which is as it should be. It would have been nice if the newest trailer, while otherwise exciting and gripping, had done the same for Carol Marcus (i.e. highlighting a skill set instead of objectifying her).*sigh*

64. emike - March 21, 2013

I have always found the talk of a trio of Kirk, Spock and McCoy to be a bit off base. Star Trek: TOS is built (consciously or not) on the Jungian four functions: the perception spectrum from sensation to intuition, and the judgment spectrum from thinking to feeling. Thus, you have Kirk the intuitive leader, Scotty the sensate engineer, Spock the thinker and McCoy the feeler. The feeling character was deemphasized after TOS. First, the doctor gave way to Troi as the feeling character in TNG, and it was downhill after that. Feelings always seem out of place in action/adventure, so the role continues to dwindle away, and the series is poorer for it.

65. THX-1138 - March 21, 2013

The poster is soooooooo Charlie’s Angels.

Not Drew Struzan approved.

66. Mad Mann - March 21, 2013

I like how this Star Trek poster has nothing to do with Star Trek:

No space, stars, spacecraft, or any celestial body (not counting Uhura).

No aliens (Spock’s pointed ears barley look pointed in that shadow), no Trek uniforms, no futuristic technology (those guns could be present-day tech), and a LOT of rubble.

The producers and marketing dept is smart: Star Trek does not sell. So, they make the most non-Star Trek poster they can make to pull inthe stupid masses.

I just hope it’s a “bait-and-switch” thing where they hook em in but showcase the Trek-isms galore in the actual movie.

67. RAMA - March 21, 2013

This is the marketing dept appealing to women and diversity. No probs with that here.

68. Paul - March 21, 2013

@Paramount: Seriously already, enough with this nonsense. When we tune in to Star Trek, we do so to watch Kirk, Spock and McCoy. Uhura’s an extra, a background, a part of the set… nobody really cares about her being or not being there. Stop pushing her forward, stop putting her on posters just because she’s black and pretty.

This is not about sexism or something. This is about her not being important enough. It is the matter of priorities: while you can’t have Star Trek without Kirk, Spock and McCoy, you jolly well CAN have Star Trek without Uhura. As evidenced by 14 episodes where she doesn’t appear at all, and some 40 episodes where she hardly ever speaks at all, let alone do something essential to the story.

Don’t get me wrong there, I like her. She’s a pretty lady, and she’s a nice character; but she has no damn business replacing McCoy.

69. Mad Mann - March 21, 2013


JJ should just pay Drew Struzan to make a poster of this movie for the fans and post it online.

70. Spock's Uncle - March 21, 2013

@44: please, go make your own fan film and get off this site, you’re a know-nothing know-it-all who doesn’t seem to understand the Trek we had, or appreciate the Trek we now have. Roddenberry pitched TOS as “a Wagon Train to the stars”. Action and adventure were always part of Trek’s DNA. JJ has done a terrific job of paying homage to the essence of Trek, while expanding its reach and appeal. And for those of you bitching about Carol Marcus in underwear… Grow up! Dear god, it’s underwear! Think if all the scantily clad women we met in TOS and Next Gen… Or the hyper sexuality of Lt. Ilia, I seriously wonder if any if you whiners on this site have actually seen any Trek!

71. Dman - March 21, 2013

It wouldn’t take me OR the Star Fleet Corp of Engineers 24 months to tunnel into that.

…you know that sounded better in my head, oh well, I stand by it. *leaves*

72. Trekkiegal63 - March 21, 2013

#70 Spock’s Uncle:

Think if all the scantily clad women we met in TOS and Next Gen… Or the hyper sexuality of Lt. Ilia, I seriously wonder if any if you whiners on this site have actually seen any Trek!

Ad hominem abuse from you once more.

You sure like to throw this accusation around. I’ve said this to you once before, Spock’s Uncle, and I’ll say it again. I have seen TOS many times over. I saw it in the sixties and I’ve watched numerous times every decade since then. I own the boxset for all three seasons so I can rewatch it any time I want. You want to go head to head with me on TOS trivia? Bring it!

That said. 47 years. There have been 47 years between TOS first going on the air and now. Did TOS have sexist elements? Oh yes. No one is denying that. But do we hope that some progress has been made in 47 years?! YES!!!! The fact that the female uniforms in TOS took very little material to make, in the 1960’s no less, does not justify objectifying women now, in 2013, when we should know better.

No amount of logical fallacy usage on your part is going to alter my opinion about that.

73. PEB - March 21, 2013

If you look at the shot, it seems as though Kirk has his back turned while she’s changing

74. TWD - March 21, 2013

I like the poster. I like Uhura being on the poster. Don’t care about McCoy not being on the poster. The movie looks good, and Alice Eve looks like a dude in drag in that picture. Not one of her best

75. Spock's Uncle - March 21, 2013

Oh Trekkiegal63… You do so amuse me. Smart, dynamic brilliant women can look good in underwear. It’s ok! Take a couple of deep breaths and try not to be threatened.

There was no ad hominem attack. I called whiners what they are (you chose to include yourself, not I). I didn’t accuse anyone of anything (I’m not sure you read well). I pointed out that in all Treks, even the most recent previous iterations (Voyager, 7 of 9–Enterprise, T’Pol) there have been women who were strong characters who happened to look good wearing little or no clothing… Why? Because its Hollywood and this is a commercial endeavor! And beyond, please refer to my original point: strong, smart, successful women can still look good in underwear. You live in the stereotypes of the past. Roddenberry himself strive to point out that you can appreciate human beings for ALL there qualities without minimizing them. You choose to be offended because its all you know how to do, and that’s just sad.

76. RAMA - March 21, 2013

68. Paul

The can put whoever they want in the ad, it’s not going to change the content. Whether you like it or not people who see themselves represented on screen whether its race or gender are likely to identify with what they say, its good advertising. SO stop worrying about old paradigms of what Trek is, this is new Trek.

PS It has been pointed out Saavik and Ilia were on posters instead of McCoy so I wouldn’t sweat over it..

77. RAMA - March 21, 2013

75. LOL I thought something similar…what scientists don’t wear underwear??

78. Trekkiegal63 - March 21, 2013

#75. Spock’s Uncle:

You choose to be offended because its all you know how to do, and that’s just sad.

Definitely ad hominem. ;)

As I pointed out in the trailer thread, and many others, there is a difference between sex (and/or humanity being sexual beings) and objectification. When sex has been shown or (more accurately) alluded to within Trek it is usually between established characters. Characters allowed to have personality outside of body shots. Objectification means that a person is narrowed down to one aspect and one aspect only… sexual appeal. In the trailer we see one shot of Carol… her in her underwear. We are not given any other glimpses of who Carol Marcus is. Therefore she is being objectified.

Can strong women characters be sexual? Yes. Will we get to see more of Carol in the movie than just a shot of her in her bra and panties? I certainly hope so! None of that negates that, within the trailer, she was objectified.

You’re confusing the issue. And a spade is still a spade.

79. RAMA - March 21, 2013

78. Also if tight clothes are objectifying women, then all of Starfleet is objectified…all the men wear tight clothing too.

80. RAMA - March 21, 2013

78. It’s a 2 minute trailer, they are not going to run a list of Marcus’ qualifications. She’s wearing a Starfleet uniform, went to the Academy, she’s qualified. Let’s see how good she is in the movie.

81. Anthony Pascale - March 21, 2013

I have got some clarification on the posters. These are not the final one-sheet posters that will be seen in International theaters. They are being described as “a special piece of artwork revealed through the trailer launch”

Also they updated UK trailer and it reveals slightly different poster…also in article above

82. Factchecker - March 21, 2013

RIP Classic Trek.

Glad JJ is going to Star Wars, his first love.

83. Iva - March 21, 2013

This poster literally makes no sense, aside the whole Uhura issue, this looks like some sort of a cop drama movie poster.
Nothing SF about it, nothing Star Trek about it.

Like you’re trying to trick people into watching it.

84. rob carter - March 21, 2013

LOL@ everyone saying McCoy has a lesser role in this movie and all you have seen are a few clips. We don’t even know what villian Cumberbatch is playing yet!

85. WWP - March 21, 2013

LOL.. I love how the geeks have their big boy panties in a twist over a poster. You gotta love those who live the stereotype!

86. cmdrdiaz - March 21, 2013

no wonder star trek continues to do bad in Mexico. That poster is just of a generic action movie.

87. Mad Mann - March 21, 2013

@81. Anthony:

I am willing to bet the final poster will be similar to this, with a very non-Star Trek vide to it. To appease the ignorant masses and international movie-goers, the marketing dept is trying to avoid all traces of Star Trek, with the exception of the words “Star Trek.” All to try to make it “cool” and less nerdy so more people will see it.

And that is so very sad.

88. cmdrdiaz - March 21, 2013

sorry anthony, did not read your previous post.

89. Spock's Uncle - March 21, 2013

Sorry Trekkiegal63, there is no confusion on my part. You are making a conscious choice to see her objectified. More enlightened individuals (now THAT is ad hominem) don’t view these things in such intellectually limited way. But embrace your Betty Friedan politics at the expense of understanding, by all means. Disappointed in you, but not surprised.

90. Trekkiegal63 - March 21, 2013

#80 Rama:

78. It’s a 2 minute trailer, they are not going to run a list of Marcus’ qualifications.

Exactly the point. If they don’t have time to set up the character, then don’t highlight her in her underwear for the trailer because it objectifies her. It’s really that simple.

Let’s see how good she is in the movie.

On this I agree with you.

I didn’t claim she is being objectified in the movie. I’m claiming she was being objectified in the trailer.

I will withhold judgment of the their use of her within the movie until I see what their use of her within the movie *is*. As for the trailer, the underwear shot fits the definition of objectification to a T.

91. Spock's Uncle - March 21, 2013

Only because you want it to…

92. Trekkiegal63 - March 21, 2013

#89 Spock’s Uncle:

Sorry Trekkiegal63, there is no confusion on my part. You are making a conscious choice to see her objectified. More enlightened individuals (now THAT is ad hominem) don’t view these things in such intellectually limited way. But embrace your Betty Friedan politics at the expense of understanding, by all means. Disappointed in you, but not surprised.

Ah but enlightened individuals can enter a debate without the use of ad hominem attacks.

BTW: insulting me gives no credibility to your argument in the slightest. In fact, that’s all you did with this, insult me, you didn’t try to explain how your view was ‘more enlightened’ then the points I made in my post #78 at all.

Bottom line, there is a difference between being ‘a sexual being’ and being ‘objectified’. The first is a matter of freewill, i.e. choice and the individual is allowed to retain their personhood because there is more to them than just that one aspect. The latter is narrowing an individual down to one facet and one facet only: sexual appeal/imagery.

And my answer remains the same: you’re confusing the two.

93. Spock's Uncle - March 21, 2013

I realize your answer is the same. I also realize that you persist in being wrong. Delight in it, even.

94. Khan 2.0 - March 21, 2013

hey i just realised poster is the same style as the Empire magazine covers (BCs head is the same)

95. Trekkiegal63 - March 21, 2013

#93 Spock’s Uncle:

And once again you fail to offer any supportive argument to your claim. Attacking me does not qualify as making a point or strengthening your side of the issue.

I’m sorry but implying the equivelant of “The shot of Carol Marcus in her underwear within the trailer is not objectifying her because I said so, so there” holds no water. That is a tantrum, not a logical argument.

96. Khan 2.0 - March 21, 2013


in that case i dont think the Bob Peak TWOK one came first either – rather it was this one :

according to the Art of Star Trek that IV K&S only one was unused concept art that was only used later for the VHS artwork? the main one was this:

either way yeah Bones did get short changed in all the posters for the original movies – not just the JJ ones

i miss the old painted movie posters by the likes of Drew Stanton, Bob Peak etc. they closest in style we got for the new films was probably this one:

but even that is abit photoshopy

97. Spock's Uncle - March 21, 2013

Trekkiegal63, it’s the same argument you’re making. You state it’s objectification, so therefore we must somehow accept your pronouncement on the subject. It’s a shot of a woman in her underwear. Period. You take offense, I do not. I don’t think less of the actress or the character portrayed because she did a scene in underwear. Sexuality is a facet of all human beings (and aliens, too, in Trek). You, defining this shot as you choose, doesn’t compel anyone else to do so. Sorry, not buying into this mentality that women, shown in underwear, are anything less than fully realized people just because you think so.

98. Trekkiegal63 - March 21, 2013

#97 Spock’s Uncle:

The definition of objectification I’ve been using comes from the American Psychological Association website:

Ergo, not my definition.

Here is the link to an entire report written on the issue which not only defines it but lists, in detail, the psychological ramifications of objectification on the female psyche:

Excerpt from article:

SO occurs when a woman’s body or body parts are singled out and
separated from her as a person and she is viewed primarily as a physical object of male sexual desire.

Was Carol Marus’ body singled out? Yes. She was shown in the trailer with nothing on but underwear and little screen time beyond that. Therefore, based on the requirements set forth by the American Psychologist Association, she was objectified.

99. Spock's Uncle - March 21, 2013

I understand where you are coming from on thus Trekkiegal63, and feel horrible that you have been so victimized by the scene of underwear, I don’t think you should ever watch Trek again! As I stated in my previous posts: I am not inclined to view a woman ( or any human) as anything other than a whole person simply because they might appear clothed, unclothed or partially clothed. You are, that’s sad. I don’t buy into the political agenda you’re selling here. You’ll just have to live with the knowledge that not everyone agrees with you.

100. Red Dead Ryan - March 21, 2013

Can’t say I’m a fan of these posters. They are generic rip-offs of other movie posters.

Not to mention that none of these feature the Enterprise, or images of outer space.

Ironic, since the movie is called “Star Trek Into Darkness”.

Oh well.

The movie does look great, though.

101. Trekkiegal63 - March 21, 2013

#99 Spock’s Uncle:

I never said you had to agree with me. What I have been doing is try to educate you on a rather serious sociological concern, one that extends beyond the needs of the one, i.e. you, and addresses the needs of the many, i.e. the American Psychological Association believes it is enough of a concern to publish a paper on it, and within that paper are many references to other psychologists who have done research on the matter.

What you do with that knowledge is entirely up to you. However, engaging in ad hominem attacks is not the best way to convey your side of things or endear yourself within a debate. In fact, to engage in ad hominem attacks weakens your argument. Thus I leave our debate not really understanding your perspective at all, and believing you to be extraordinarily defensive.

Further, you do not get to decide who sees Trek or not. It’s not up to you. You seem to think because I took issue with one frame within the trailer that I’m taking exception to the entire franchise. That is not the case. It is possible to like something but still have elements within that thing you like that you disagree with.

Being a fan of something is not all or nothing.Thus I will continue to call out sexism and by extension objectification, and also continue to be a fan of Star Trek. Both are a part of who I am, and I am proud of both of those elements.

102. Think then type - March 21, 2013

Would love to know what Mr Nimoy thinks of Spock being branded an action hero in this poster… And I’m orry, PC era be damned, Trek was alwas at it’s heart about Kirk, Spock and McCoy. Not Kirk, Spock and Uhura! They yogether really made up one character when you stopped to think about it. Kirk & Spock representing polar opposites (emotion & logic), McCoy the voice of reason inbetween.

I’m sorry, this isn’t feeling like Trek to me in the slightest from any of the trailers or the posters, and it baffles me why they bothered rebooting Trek, when they should have just created a new sci-fi franchise actioner. Another revenge death & destruction story.

Is Hollywood only good at showing destruction on a huge scale in movies now? And why do people ‘dig’ that? Destruction never used to be cool…

As a fan of both franchises, I truly hope that Mr Abrams understands Star Wars better than he does Star Trek…

P.S. why is anybody who raises a fair point against the nu-Trek automatically branded a ‘Hater’? Crazy talk! Everyone is entitled to an honest opinion without this kind of derogatory labelling. On both sides. Roddenberry would be appalled that Trek was the cause of this…

103. Think then type - March 21, 2013

P.s. sorry for the typos – damn virtual keyboards!

104. Gary Makin - March 21, 2013

I guess it’s okay for Ilia to bump Bones off of the poster, but not Uhura.

105. Keachick - March 21, 2013

I have quickly scanned the comments so forgive me if I repeat what someone may have already said.

My understanding is that Majel Barrett was to play no. 1 (the first officer on the Enterprise). However, the networks did not like it and so eventually Leonard Nimoy’s Spock became first officer. In fact, we see Majel Barrett play no.1 to Jeffrey Hunter’s Captain Pike in the first pilot episode.

There seems to be controversy over whether they did not like Majel Barrett playing the role (wanted another actress) or the idea of a woman being first officer. My bet is on the latter. It was such a “boys’ club” then and sometimes I think little has changed. The term “no. 1″ again turns up in ST:TNG. This time Riker is no. 1. It could have been a great opportunity to have made this no. 1 Commander William Riker be instead No. 1, Commander Isabel Riker, but that is not who we got. Whether a female no. 1 Riker was even considered or not, I don’t know.

106. Killamarshtrek - March 21, 2013

I think you mean Spock & McCoy as the 2 opposites (logic & emotion) with Kirk as the voice of reason in between.

107. KDubs13 - March 21, 2013

“OMG! They replaced a white man w/ a black woman! It’s the end of the world!” said 7 white dudes on the Interwebs in their moms’ basements.

108. Keachick - March 21, 2013

I like the posters. Shame about the guns though, but I guess these are dark times… hopefully the producers will come up with a different poster which shows more of the Trek characters, assuming a more peaceable position – ie no guns.

109. genericasian - March 21, 2013

If the posts are going to be generic, why not just have Marcus in her underwear on one? It’d get far more attention and people would go see the movie. :D

110. Commodore Adams - March 21, 2013

I am not feeling the poster. Its boring a bunch of peeps in long coats with guns, nothing about it says star trek. Give me a starfield with a freakin starship!

111. TreK_Fan - March 22, 2013

The posters are very weak, uncreative and look like they are promoting a cop and robbers movie rather than a film about space exploration, brave new worlds and the traditional Star Trek universe. Even the sets do not give us a interesting glimpse into the future, as the meeting of Starfleet officers could have been taken place in a modern day boardroom rather than a futuristic dynamic interior space. Boring!!!… Again the character of Dr. McCoy does not seem to have the type of focal point as that character had in the original series and movies. Wasteful to not use him in order to sell sex on the big screen with Dr. Marcus. Call me an old man, but Star use to make you think, this just looks like an action flick missing all the key elements of what Star Trek was all about, too bad.

112. Khan 2.0 - March 22, 2013

im pretty sure Kirk is in a Blade Runner type pose there (similar guns and jacket too – or the Trek III Admiral Kirk leather jacket anyhow)

Spock is looking like John McClane on the first Die Hard poster (and maybe abit of Deckard from the BR poster too)

and Uhuru – yeah she looks like she could be straight from the poster for Charlies Angels 3 (as 65 says all three make up a sort of Charlies Angels thing)

anyway going on this poster and the trailers it looks like this will be the star trek action movie to end all star trek action movies! (the previous most action movie was probably the last one followed by First Contact, then Nemesis)

so if you like star trek as an action movie you’re probably going to love this

113. Spockchick - March 22, 2013

@110. Commodore Adams

I blame ‘The Matrix’. Everyone had to have a long coat after that, and they can’t be practical for shooting and fighting an running and jumping. Don’t they get caught in stuff?

114. samrock83 - March 22, 2013

I am a huge fan of Alice Eve in her underwear. Bravo!

115. Star Wars Prequels fan - March 22, 2013


This is why I will always prefer star wars in the long run. Look at the star trek fans freaking out about how a woman is replacing a man in their franchise.

Star Wars so suppose to be set in ancient times and yet it always had a female who went toe to toe with the guys. Padme and Leia for starters.

Star Trek is suppose to represent the future and yet the trek fan boys are freaked out and mad that a woman is getting so much on screen time above a man.

I hate this poster but I am perfectly fine with the two guys and a girl scenario. This is year 2013 not 1960.

Women rule………..they don’t need to be in bra and pants all the time.

116. Tickled Pink - March 22, 2013

You people are flippin’ crazy.

Obviously, this is supposed to represent the Away Mission sequence where K/S/U go after John Harrison.

So, you suggest they have Kirk and Spock in their Away Mission gear, holding phasers and then plug Bones in wearing his Bridge gear and holding a tricorder? That makes no sense!

Or should they photoshop the away mission outfit onto him and shop a phaser in his hands too?

117. somethoughts - March 22, 2013

I’m not a fan of the posters, I would prefer a poster like the classic Indiana Jones or Star Wars, beautiful paint/artfwork that screams look at me, check me out, I’m awesome movie poser about awesome movie!

I’m a fan of the panties, there is nothing sexist about loving the human body! Alice Eve works hard at what she does and that is to look sexy, they hired her for her looks and her role in popular men magazines such as Maxim and she can also act!

Stop with the bs sexism crap, not everyone will share the same views and opinions as you and to force them upon others.

I say show us more TNA!

118. Khan 2.0 - March 22, 2013

they should change the title to Star Trek Into Darkness With Guns Explosions and Revenge Seeking Villains

(j/k – im loving all of it )

119. somethoughts - March 22, 2013

Artwork of Enterprise with collage of Kirk and crew doing their thing, Khan holding Gatling Gun, Cr-yo Tubes, Excelsior or Original Enterprise, Space Jumps, Volcano, Star Fleet, Space Stations, Bird of Prey all in one sexy Collage drawing! If you step to the left you see the Enterprise warping and i you step to the right you see Bird of Prey and Khan de cloaking.

That would be my International and Domestic Poster.

120. somethoughts - March 22, 2013

This poster reminds me of the disaster Nemesis poster, god there is really no imagination to these posters :(

International movie fans will see these posters and think meh Iron Man 3 and Man of Steel please.

121. The Sinfonian - March 22, 2013

Didn’t ABC already have this show:
“Two Guys, A Girl, and a Cumberbatch”.

122. Khan 2.0 - March 22, 2013

@120 no they’ll think oh cool a new Charlies Angels movie :D

123. Spockchick - March 22, 2013

@120. Khan 2.0

1,000 Quatloos to the first person to do a youtube vid of opening credits…

‘Once upon a time, there were three little kids who went to Starfleet Academy, in San Francisco … but I took them away from all that, My name is Christopher.’

124. somethoughts - March 22, 2013



125. Logan - March 22, 2013

Why do they have to show weapons on the poster anyway?

126. Jen - March 22, 2013

@84: thank you!

As a woman, I like Uhura’s role being stressed, but since i also like McCoy… I wonder why they can’t just put all 4 of them on the poster!
And what about Scotty? He hasn’t said a single word in all the trailers!!!

127. p'trick - March 22, 2013


I do SO much agree with you. Might, just might, be necessary to successfully market any filmed tailored and geared toward JJ’s coveted “non-star trek fans” audience.

Nevertheless, considering the current political debate about unrestrained gun-ownership and the violence that results from it.

I guess the message that JJ’s revised-trek wishes to deliver is that, even in the 23rd century, guns remain mankind’s primary means of expressing themselves..

128. Yalegirl03 - March 22, 2013

I love the posters except for the prominence of the guns/ phasers. I love Uhura being front and center–liberated from the communications station. The few times in TOS and TAS when Uhura got to do more than opening hailing frequencies were my favorite moments. I am glad to see that she will be doing so much more in the movie. I just wished the action seemed to rely less on guns. That is what I loved about TOS. The day was often saved by diplomacy, debate and a few nerve pinches.

129. spockchick - March 22, 2013

@127 & 128.
Agreed. In fact the number of guns in film posters is demoralising. Everything is also about revenge.

130. Logan - March 22, 2013


International posters seems to keep missing the proper movie’s theme, I believe. I do hope the next posters are worthy in quality and essence then these.

131. Logan - March 22, 2013

… and what’s also missing on it is: THE ENTERPRISE.

132. Son of Jello - March 22, 2013

The Matrix has left a bad legacy for movie posters.

133. Tyger Gilbert - March 22, 2013

I’m one of the original Trekkers — I saw the very first episode on TV in September 1966. I loved it. I modeled much of my life’s philosophies after that in the series. Spock was, and still is in many ways, my hero. But times change. What appealed to us then probably seems only corny to the generation of today. It’s only logical that the movie studios would produce and market a new “episode” in a way that would appear to an audience who was raised on Transformers and such. That’s what will make money for them so they can produce another movie, and that’s what every true Trekker wants to see. It’s been more than 46 years and 6 months since the original aired. I’m looking forward to this movie with great excitement, no matter what anyone may say about the poster or the trailer. It looks like it will be a lot of fun.

134. Khan 2.0 - March 22, 2013

@133 to have seen Trek right from the start and followed it through the years is quite a thing

in your experiance what would you say was the most exciting time in treks history? the first movie? Khan return? Spocks return? TNG premiere? BOBW Part II? the final TOS film/25th anniversary? end of TNG/Generations? Trek2009?

i started following Trek properly in the late 80s/early 90s so for me it was probably Star Trek VI /25th anniversary stuff that was happening (Unification) which was most exciting – and obviously 2009 was very exciting as to what they were going to do (getting nimoy and making it a prequel/sequel/reboot)…but really each time a film is announced/build up is exciting

135. somethoughts - March 23, 2013

some examples of beautiful movie posters;

My fav one maybe is toss between Indiana Jones and Empire Strikes Back.

136. somethoughts - March 23, 2013

Hey bob, get Roger Kastel to do the poster for Star Trek Into Darkness!

137. Exverlobter - March 23, 2013

This poster is so ugly!

138. captain_neill - March 23, 2013

I thought the last poster was meh, with Kirk on his motorcycle and Enterprise being built, it was very un Star Trek

THis poster once again looks very un Star Trek and looks like several shots from the crew composited together on the cheap.

Perhaps the person designing the poster should look at the posters from Star Trek’s I- VIII for what makes a great Trek poster.

139. captain_neill - March 23, 2013

Well its nice to see Alice Eve in her panties, I only fear that the scene is going to be played for a cheap laugh, a la the numb toungue scene or Scotty in the Waterpipe scene.

Oh that waterpipe was ‘so hilarious’ wasn’t it. There were moments that the humour worked in the last movie but the waterpipe was not one of them. And Kirk grabbing Uhura’s breasts by acidnet in bar during the fight, that’s typical mainstream lowbrow.

I like Zoe Saldana but I dont like her interpretatiion of Uhura. I feel she is too bitchy and the relationship with Spock just is not right.

140. captain_neill - March 23, 2013

The poster has made one mistake, it is missing the one thing that Nemesis was missing on it’s poster.

The Enterprise.

141. somethoughts - March 24, 2013


I agree!


I think she is head strong and I like her Uhura


I agree, they dropped the ball on the international poster, should be delta shield, enterpise going to warp into the darkness of space with iconic shots of crew, I hate the international poster!

142. Exverlobter - March 24, 2013

Those are IMO the 2 best Trek-posters

143. Carl Geffers - March 24, 2013

I haven’t read all the comments, so excuse me if somebody already posted something like my idea.
So here is my theory about Cumberbatch’s character: he’s an augment or an android and the first of his kind, designed by starfleet (especially by carol marcus (after all she is a pretty good scientist) and her admiral father) for mass production. But the project was put on hold and all of the augments/androids were frozen/deactivated and put into storage (the coffins) except for Harrison and now he is trying to free them – “isn’t there anything you wouldn’t do for your family?” and “Your Commanders have comitted a Crime and I cannot forgive.”.
This story would make a lot sense with the Original Series depicting artificial life forms quite often and the political comment Star Trek is known for – in this case slave labor and the creation of a cheap work and military force. Abd thus possibly laying the groundwork for the war with the Klingons (who would naturally want to fight other warriors with Harrison’s skills) in the third movie.

144. captain_neill - March 24, 2013

The internatonal poster makes me even long for the Insurrection poster

145. Khan 2.0 - March 24, 2013

@144 thats probably the worst poster of all – a lazy rip off of Trek VI teaser poster (which was itself a great poster) – even the tagline was the same.

its almost like the marketing dept couldnt be bothered and just redid the Trek VI teaser poster. in fact there wasnt even a teaser poster for Insurrection (think all the films had a teaser poster in addition to the main one sheet – even Nemesis) – i wonder WTF happened?

phone call:

Star Trek guys – so we made a new star trek film..

Paramount publicity – *silence for several long seconds* so whats it got to do with us?

Star Trek guys – well we’ll need you to do a poster and stuff..

Paramount publicity – when is the release date?

Star Trek guys – next weekend

Paramount publicity – What the f**k?! are you crazy?! You left it till now to ask you motherfu-

Star Trek guys – *starts crying* please can you do something please just anything…please..

Paramount publicity – Get the f**k out of here! and take your sh***y movie with you! *hangs up*

Star Trek guys – oh jesus… oh man we in the s**t now!!

*stares at framed Star Trek VI teaser poster on the office wall*

wait a second…i got an idea!

146. captain_neill - March 24, 2013


The last great poster was First Contact

147. Khan 2.0 - March 24, 2013

146 – yes that was one of the better posters actually

****best to worst final ‘movie’ posters**** IMO – picking what i think is the best one from each movie (i know a few of the films have had more than one)

TUC (the big 3 ‘beaming’ as the Ent A battles a battle cruiser/BOP and the title explodes out of Praxis as Chang looks on – i was mesmerized by this poster back in xmas 91 – it even looked xmasy)

TWOK (Bob Peak nebula one)

FC (Picard/Data/Queen ‘beaming’ abit like TUC & lots of borg)

TSFS (Bob Peak giant blue Spock head)

TMP (rainbow – iconic)

TFF (K/S/Ent-A with bunch of horses – always thought it was a nice poster – shame the film didnt live up to the tagline. One thing – why ‘pinky’? shouldnt it have been ‘bluey’ like the great barrier? – pinky is the Galactic Barrier from WNMHGB)

TVH (Golden Gate with BOP and 7 heads)

ST09 (the Top Gun one)

STID (Charlies Angles meets TWOKs Bob Peak – see my post @41 for more info)

GEN (Kirk and Picard in the big ‘A’ – that ‘A’ was everywhere in late 94)

NEM (Picard and Data peeking out of some green smoke. sort of a redesign of the FC one)

INS (as discussed above – pretty much same as TUC teaser poster- even stealing the tagline! It seems odd they would do that, and it dosnt look or feel like a final poster, more a teaser poster – as obviously VI had done that – but ordinarily they have characters on the final movie posters so INS is the only one without ,so it leads me to think that maybe it was intened to be a teaser poster for INS but they ran out of time or couldnt be bothered or whatever and just had it as the main movie poster too….maybe if they had done a main poster it wouldve ripped off the Trek VI main one?)

***best to worst advance/coming soon ‘Teaser’ posters***:

TUC (Klingon Head – either Gorkon or the klingon ambassador
– following the Ent A. They really pulled out all the stops for VI – esp with the posters)

TSFS (Crystal Spock Skull – some might say its a final movie poster but ive always consided this to be a teaser poster)

FC (little Ent E flying away from big Borg ship – variant was the Ent E flying toward borgified earth)

TMP (early concept design of the Ent that ST09 later replicated. Someone has actually gone to the trouble of updating it to the final design here: )

TWOK (logo words surrounded by action pics – like TSFS Crystal Skull might be a final movie poster but ive always consided this to be the teaser poster)

STID (doing the Dark Knight/Inception/whole bunch of others standing before big destruction thing)

ST09 (uniform textured gold/blue Starfleet ‘A’ badge – the first poster for the film – reassured everyone it wasnt going to be a reboot – at least not in the full on proper reboot sense)

GEN (Ent D zooms toward the Starfleet A – they really hit upon using the ‘A’ as a poster design for that movie)

TVH (Giant VOYAGE HOME flying to earth San Fran)

TFF (“Why are they putting seatbelts in theatres this Summer?” – erm…to stop people from leaving?…interestingly someone recently pointed out the seatbelt makes the Starfleet ‘A’ symbol and the chair itself is abit like a red Starfleet uniform – so even this one has some merit)

NEM (hey look Shinzons back!….green smoke alert – i guess they thought green smoke would sell that movie…why green smoke/mist anyway? i know it was to tie in with the green nebula at the end but lot of green in that film and especially in the posters…? – was a take off the greeny Alien film posters?)

INS – n/a

see all posters at:

148. Khan 2.0 - March 24, 2013

One thing I noticed looking all through the posters – is that ‘STAR TREK’ is always more prominent than the subtitles for the original films I-VI (expect the foreign posters for TVH where it’s the reverse as they seemed to want to sell it as some sort of original time travel movie overseas)
(btw – notice they used TMP rainbow effect there – lending it a bizarre gay vibe!)

With the TNG films it’s also more the reverse – and of course the same with STID – guess to help it overseas where they absolutely hate Trek and make sure they don’t go to see it so it underperforms in foreign BO! (j/k)

149. Khan 2.0 - March 24, 2013

some unsued original cast posters:

TMP: unsued Bob Peak

someones made it look more like a proper poster :

TUC – Bob Peak did the posters for the first 5 ST films but these were not used for VI

plus as we already know there was alot of unused designs out there for ST09

150. Khan 2.0 - March 24, 2013

Trek VI take off for IDWs The Last Generatioon:

maybe if Insurrection had done another poster theyd have done something like that lol

151. Jude - March 25, 2013

Whoever found this.. You Are Awesome :D LOL :)

Quotes from Star Trek Into Darkness:

152. Keachick - March 25, 2013

As we see a bit more of the movie, and then finally, the entire movie, I suspect there will be many, many more wonderful quotes like these coming out of Star Trek Into Darkness…

153. Chang - March 26, 2013

I saw the trailer and I was like cool movie! But is it worth watching? I kinda wondered.

154. Tee - April 9, 2013

Im happy that Uhura whether Nichelle was on there or Zoe. As I recalled, Star Trek had a diverse cast. Maybe they should have added McCoy on there,but it would be equally as unfair not to put Uhuru on there. Man..the racism on some of these posts are obvious.

155. Lizimmite - April 10, 2013

ysRgq [url=]collection sac guess[/url] NbvVan WhjMnz [url=]boutique isabel marant[/url] XlhMbo BksZtj [url=]isabel marant prix[/url] KekCud QfmQaa [url=]sacs a mains guess[/url] CmhNhp DrjXyz [url=]sacs longchamp soldes[/url] NstXyh GsfZgf [url=]collection isabel marant[/url] QjkXlv
EYHK [url=]longchamp cuir[/url] vhPch OztXca AdfExi UwkAey[url=]isabel marant sneaker soldes[/url]GecGyk [url=]basket isabel marant[/url] FmkCezI [url=]guess collection[/url]bhBrg Elx[url=]sacs longchamp solde[/url] HjgSkjCnk Ze [url=]longchamp cheap[/url] iTqp oOah
KjfYhk[url=]longchamp pas cher[/url] DblHve OvxOji [url=]isabelle marant sneakers[/url] PcoDps AgoWuv[url=]longchamp le pliage[/url] MvqHix NhwAcg [url=]isabel marant baskets[/url] RoxCpi AeaDwt [url=]sac kors michael kors[/url] GgfTda ExaRnn [url=]sac longchamp le pliage[/url] BqzBjr
If you value designer [url=]chaussures isabelle marant[/url] and have a few lounging throughout the house the best associated with both sides along with consign [url=]sac longchamp pas cher[/url]. A good thing regarding consignment [url=]michael kors sac pas cher[/url] created on your product sales and get additional designer [url=]guess femme pas cher[/url], which means you obtain a particular percentage from the purchase from the [url=]longchamp pliage pas cher[/url] these people manage all the aspects of selling your own handbag for you personally. The advantage in order to utilizing a consignment shop.

156. SMH Double Time - April 13, 2013

As always, someone’s big boy panties are in a bunch because it’s not a “boy’s club only” poster. All who are whining and wailing, please get a LIFE. Goosh it’s almost pathetic and yes seeing Alice Eve only in her underwear is objectification because I’m pretty sure that’s not her mandatory uniform as an officer( what a bunch of idiots who think it’s not).
I’m excited to see this movie and this poster hasn’t changed my view. Now if it only takes viewing ONE poster to inspire a hissy fit then I don’t even want to think what would happen if the complainers see the movie. is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.