Shot-by-Shot Analysis Of Star Trek Into Darkness International Trailer [UPDATED] | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Shot-by-Shot Analysis Of Star Trek Into Darkness International Trailer [UPDATED] March 21, 2013

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

The new international teaser trailers for Star Trek Into Darkness are now online. There is much to digest with this big new trailer. And once again TrekMovie takes a deep dive with a shot-by-shot look at the trailer and at the subtle differences between the different versions . Find out what is inside the trailers below, but beware of Spoilers.

 

Star Trek Into Darkness International Trailers Analysis

This new trailer is heavy on the action, which makes sense for something aimed at audiences outside the USA where Star Trek often under-performs (especially non-English speaking countries). But there is still lots of Star Trek goodness to analyze, so lets take a deep dive. NOTE: This shot-by-shot analysis uses the Australian version of the new international trailer as a base case. There are a few differences with some of he other versions and that is noted at the end of the article. As this is the fourth trailer, the analysis will show just new shots that haven’t been seen in any trailer or commercial.

(Click images to enlarge)


Benedict Cumberbatch as John Harrison in Enterprise Brig  – where he gives his now famous dialog…

Dialog

Harrison: You think your world is safe. It is an illusion. Enjoy these final moments of peace.
 


Starfleet HQ


Meeting at Starfleet HQ (note Chris Pine as Kirk is center frame at far end seated next to Bruce Greenwood as Admiral Pike)


Peter Weller as Admiral Marcus talking at Starfleet meeting

Dialog

Adm. Marcus: By now all of you heard what happened in London. The man who did it is one of our top agents (could be speaking about Harrison or about the "Father" seen dropping his ring in the December teaser trailer)




Harrison dispatches some guy (wearing different style uniform) with punch – note Kirk and Simon Pegg as Scotty are behind Harrison


Title card


Harrison looks out over Qo’noS

Dialog

Harrison: Your commanders have committed a crime I cannot forgive…None of you are safe…have I got your attention now?





Kirk & Pike, Spock (Zachary Quinto) and Marcus notice ship outside window




Kirk screams warning as ship begins to fire


Harrison’s little ship fires on meeting


Officer gets injured in Starfleet attack




Kirk rushes to aid of female officer



Harrison begins beaming out of his little ship while Kirk watches


Title card


Kirk speaking to someone (could be Marcus or at the meeting)

Dialog

Kirk: This could just be the beginning


Kirk in shuttle bay on Earth

Dialog

Kirk: I request permission to go after him

Adm. Marcus: Starfleet is not about vendetta Kirk.

Kirk: Maybe it should be



Shuttle heads from Earth to Enterprise docked at Starbase


Kirk speaks to Marcus


Title card




Kirk talks to McCoy (Karl Urban) in Earth shuttle hanger

Dialog

McCoy: Jim, you are actually going after this guy are you?


Kirk talks to Spock on Enterprise

Dialog

Kirk: I have no idea what I am supposed to do. I only know what I can do.


Kirk saunters into bridge of USS Enterprise


Enterprise at warp



Kirk and Harrison have a little chat

Dialog

Kirk: I watched you murder innocent men and women. I will make you answer for what you did.


Harrison speaks ominously

Dialog

Harrison: You have no idea what you have done.


Dr. Carol Marcus (Alice Eve) watches McCoy scan Harrison



Dr. Marcus looks concerned as Kirk eats some floor


More ominous chatter from Harrison

Dialog

Harrison: I will walk over your cold corpses.





Spock and Harrison fight on floating platform in San Francisco


Kirk (and possibly Harrison) space jump from Enterprise to another ship



Kirk gets an eyeful of Dr. Marcus
 


Title card


Uhura (Zoe Saldana) talks to Kirk on board civilian shuttle

Dialog

Uhura: We are outgunned…outnumbered


Explosion on Federation ship (not the Enterprise)


Harrison under guard of some red shirts (Uhura, Kirk and Spock following so presumably this follows capture on Qo’noS)


Title card


Kirk at controls of civilian ship

Dialog

Kirk: So we come out shooting


Spock and two crewman exit (guns ready) ship on Qo’noS




Harrison jumps from one platform to another



Enterprise severely damaged and falling towards Earth


Federation ship (not USS Enterprise) falls towards Alcatraz




Federation ship destroys Alcatraz prison



Saucer of Federation ship plows into San Francisco

Minor differences with other versions [UPDATED]

There are some minor differences between the different localized versions. The biggest difference is the location of Easter Egg poster links (see article on new International posters). Mostly the minor differences show things that had been seen in previous trailers, but there are a few new bits (below).


UPDATE: Harrison Reveals himself on Qo’noS (UK trailer)


Spock looking down during his San Francisco fight with Harrison (German trailer)


Uhura looks really sad (Mexican trailer)



Kirk fights Harrison Qo’noS (Russian trailer)

More ‘shot by shot’ analysis

Check out TrekMovie’s other analyses:

 

Comments

1. Copper Based Blood - March 21, 2013

Fantastic Best Trailer yet.

2. Calastir - March 21, 2013

To boldly go where no one has gone before.
Earth.

3. richard - March 21, 2013

Wow! This is going to be epic in 3D Imax. Love the shot of Enterprise at Spacedock. Looking forward to this now. A lot!

4. NCC-73515 - March 21, 2013

Could the small ship be the Captain’s yacht?

5. Captain Bob - March 21, 2013

annnd #2 says it all. Earth. Oh, And Quo’nos! DON’T FORGET THAT.

6. Tarrax - March 21, 2013

Woah Anthony, you’re like a Ninja with this. I love it!

7. John Harrison - March 21, 2013

Your commanders have committed a crime I cannot forgive…

8. ProtoVulcan - March 21, 2013

Wow. Totally different take on the film.
Good to see Weller.

9. Jack - March 21, 2013

The lights/table are quite like the war room in Dr. Strangelove…

10. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - March 21, 2013

I’m pretty certain that they fixed the UK flags to be the right way up this time.

11. WhoIsThe1701 - March 21, 2013

No Khan then? What about the shot with those cryotubes in the first teaser?

12. Jack - March 21, 2013

I guess that means Alcatraz is cancelled for good. ;)

13. Jack - March 21, 2013

The Russian one shows Chekov…

14. Matt - March 21, 2013

Adm. Marcus: Jim, you are actually going after this guy are you? it was bones who said this line. and it was you’re not actually not you are actually

15. Sub commander - March 21, 2013

No Chekhov or Scotty speaking in this one.
Only one line from Sulu. A lot of Kirk, and a teeny bit of Spock, McCoy and Uhura speaking and 1 line from Sulu.

16. Dan - March 21, 2013

Good trailer!

17. Aix - March 21, 2013

#2 Plus Nibiru and Quo’nos!!!

18. Jack - March 21, 2013

Oops. Maybe they all show Chekov. I didn’t notice in the others.

19. Aix - March 21, 2013

That female officer looks like Robin Scherbatsky aka Maria Hill aka Cobie Smulders.

20. Aurore - March 21, 2013

Magnifique trailer.

@ Bryan Burk, Alex Kurtzman, DamOn, Roberto Orci, Mr. Abrams

I very much liked this international trailer. It was exciting.

P.S. : Black underwear? Timeless.

:)

21. WhoIsThe1701 - March 21, 2013

I’ll go with Harrison being April’s son. Probably Robert April dies in the fourth issue of the comics and his son Harrison (who is currently serving as an agent in Starfleet/Section 31) comes to know about his father being alive all these years and how he was helping an endangered race achieve freedom. Harrison holds Starfleet responsible for his father’s death. He then attacks Starfleet and conspires with the Klingons to complete his father’s mission.

22. Gorak - March 21, 2013

@ 10. there should not be any national states at this time in the future.
And the UK-Flags at this time can not look like the present ones.
2024 is the unification of ireland (TNG: “The High Ground), so the flag should loose the St Patrick’s Cross.

23. Copper Based Blood - March 21, 2013

The shot of Carol Marcus, Red Shirt with gun & Bones scanning Harrison (Under titled “Dr. Carol Marcus (Alice Eve) watches McCoy scan Harrison”)

Looking at Carol Marcus’s Face, looks likes she’s totally pissed at what Harrison must have done, (i.e. Maybe killing her father at Starfleet HQ) & the “Missing Man” fly-by/ Folding of Banner, could be for Admiral Marcus.

I can’t wait for this movie, Seven long weeks to go……

24. Star Trek: Nemesis blows, is the point - March 21, 2013

National states could be akin to what the United States are today. All 50 states each have their own flag.

As for St. Patrick’s Cross, it would presumably be lost with the unification of Ireland. With that being said, post WWIII, we don’t know what would become of England or Ireland. Picard, with a British accent, identifies as being French. When he goes home in the Season 4 episode “Family,” he says he’s in France.

I don’t think national identies need to go away because the manner of governance has changed. Even then, while Earth could operate as a one world government, that doesn’t mean it has to be a federal system. One could argue that a one world government could be confederal in nature, while unifying military and monetary systems. You leave the “bigger picture” stuff to the World government, while everything else stays with individual countries participating.

In an opitimistic future world that Star Trek is, though not very realistic, there is no reason why that couldn’t work if in a post-WWIII scenario, everyone is kumbaya and not like we are today.

25. Moputo Jones - March 21, 2013

A hero will rise? I thought Kirk was already a hero. Didn’t he just save Earth 4 months ago (in-universe time)?

26. Joe - March 21, 2013

i wonder if Admiral Marcus would be the equivalent of a Five Star General due to him have 5 of those gold rank thingys. (technical term eludes me)

27. Buzz Cagney - March 21, 2013

Hmmm, it loks very pretty ‘n all but hardly appears much new on show here.
I remain to be convinced. It looks like every other action-adventure from the last few years.
If its surpasses Skyfalls box-office i’ll eat my hat.

28. Cervantes - March 21, 2013

Dr Marcus is certainly gonna look good in 3D, even if it is the ‘converted’ type.

That shot of her sure made up for her dodgy scream in the previous trailer.

29. Ciaran - March 21, 2013

Did anybody notice the name of the shuttlecraft in the BG when Bones is speaking with Kirk in the hangar? It’s called “Takay”. I know it’s spelled differently, but maybe it’s a small nod to George Takei?

30. Melllvar - March 21, 2013

I am officially excited. Nothing like an inside job! And section 31 DEFINITELY deserves more attention / stories.
Luther Sloan ftw!!!

31. Au - March 21, 2013

I think its a good trailer, but at the same time, Im kind of concerned that the emphasis seems to be much in the villain… What I loved about the first film was the crew, and in this trailers we have seen so little of anybody except for Kirk and Spock… I want my Star Trek full of Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Sulu, Uhura and Chekov… The bad guy is secondary for me…

Apart from that I wish there were more than humans in that Starfleet meetings, same in the first film, no aliens in the top brass?
Anthony… you seem pretty sure that it is not the Enterprise the ship which crashes in San Francisco, but this trailer seems to suggest pretty much that… You know something we dont?

32. Jim Phelps - March 21, 2013

@23

Marcus survives the attack because Kirk is asking to go after Harrison. Marcus says it’s not a vendetta or something like that.

33. Jim Phelps - March 21, 2013

As for the guy Harrison is dispatching with Kirk and Scotty in the background, it’s Sulu. I freeze framed it in the trailer.

34. Jim Phelps - March 21, 2013

And the guy space jumping with Kirk looks clearly like Spock with his big nose. I can’t see it being Harrison.

35. Ciaran - March 21, 2013

#31

It’s so completely obvious that it isn’t the Enterprise crashing into San Francisco Bay. The nacelles are rectangular in shape (much like the refit and Enterprise-A), they’re too far apart and the ship is far too small-looking to be the Enterprise. Remember, the JJ-Enterprise was made to be just a little bigger than a Galaxy-Class starship. Strange I know, but true.

36. rogerachong - March 21, 2013

AP you did not mention that Kirk, Spock & Uhura are in the background of the shot with Harrison guarded by the Redshirts. Also iy is obvious that the same trio are coming out guns ready on Quonos Spock is in front, Uhura is behind Spock and Kirk is last out the door. That order is Kinda strange in a way. You would expect Kirk to exit the civillian ship first.

BTW Best Trailer Ever. Yeeeeeeeeeessssssss!!!!!!!!

37. Copper Based Blood - March 21, 2013

#32 I thought that was Pike saying it?

but either way, It still looks like Carol’s really pissed at something.

(she has that look of…What? you’re going out with your Buddies to the bar again,…or… what do you mean you are going to Vegas for the weekend with the guys…lol!!!)

38. Janice - March 21, 2013

Well, there’s no photos to give any indication that Pike is not alive, so I remain hopeful that he’ll be OK. Don’t have Quicktime, so can’t see the trailers.

I see there is someone else posting at trekmovie as Janice. Just wanted to say it’s not me. Pike/ Briuce Greenwood is all I ever post about.

39. Jenna - March 21, 2013

The shots we’ve seen of Carol M so far sure aren’t making her seem terribly smart. JJ not like AE or something?

40. summoner2100 - March 21, 2013

The biggest problem I have with this new trailer is the title card for: “A Hero Will Rise” REALLY?? REALLY?? *sigh*

41. HomerT6 - March 21, 2013

I am totally watching this in IMAX 3-D in Las Vegas! I’ve got the time off work to watch this and everything!

42. Paul - March 21, 2013

Looks great only just over 7 weeks to go for me now as I live in UK but still think there is a lot of movie they are holding back & we have not seen some key scenes/locations which is why not much Chekov/Scotty to date. Its probably unlikely there will be much new footage shown before release now. International box office is key here if it fails to make more outside US expect a much smaller scale ST13 as the last one only made $140m outside U.S Star trek thanks to the berman years is not seen as much more than TV series level bargain sci-fi sadly apart from in UK & Germany where there are still plenty of fans!!

43. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - March 21, 2013

Thank you, Anthony for putting so much effort into bringing this to us. It is appreciated.

44. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - March 21, 2013

26. Joe

I think it’s more likely 5 ‘stars’ means Admiral. Kirk has 4 ‘stars’ for captain, and Spock has 3 ‘stars’ for commander. That’s my interpretation anyway.

45. Mel - March 21, 2013

@ Paul

As this movie is in 3D, it probably will make more. Even people who prefer watching a movie in 2D may watch it in 3D, which costs more, because their local cinema doesn’t show it in 2D.

46. mr homn - March 21, 2013

Wow trailer looks great. Heres my theory, after the nero incursion star fleet decide to restart genetic augmentation to create an elite force of agents. Harrison being one discovers that the klingons have found an earth cryoship.  he believes starfleet should rescue these people when they refuse he goes apeshit and decides to punish star fleet and then go and rescue them himselves. I think at the end of the movie it will be revealed that this ship is you know whos, and that harrison knew all along whom he was trying to rescue and awaken.

47. Solarfusion - March 21, 2013

Notice how much older Kirk and McCoy look in the shuttle hanger. Interesting…

48. Aix - March 21, 2013

Uhura crying?!?! :(

49. Eric Cheung - March 21, 2013

The quote “One of our top agents” seems likely to rule out both Khan and the Captain Robert April of Countdown.

50. Valenti - March 21, 2013

June can’t come soon enough.

51. SpudUk - March 21, 2013

@ 22/24

The unification of Ireland wouldn’t mean that the St. Patricks Cross would be removed from the Union flag. When the Irish Free State was created after the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1921, the decision was taken to keep the St. Patrick’s Cross, despite Northern Ireland ultimately rejecting the use of the Cross, and instead adopting the Ulster Banner as their flag some years later.

Indeed, there is some debate as to whether the St. Andrew’s Cross would be removed if Scotland voted for independence in 2014. The flag, despite being an amalgamation of separate national flags, is the flag of the whole of Great Britain, not just individual nations, and therefore there is no requirement for it to be amended should any member nation choose independence from the Union.

I think we can assume that the Union Flag will likely remain as it is for a good few years to come.

With reference to the global political situation on Earth under, it has been established in quite a few TNG and Voyager episodes that individual nations have kept their separate national identities under the larger banner of the United Earth Government. I suspect, though I cannot confirm, that this would likely take the form similar to the European Union or United Nations, with slightly more federal overtones to its political control. I suspect, however, that the creation of a single world Government, whilst maintaining the role of nation states, would probably lead to the end of political unions such as the European Union, African Union and Arab League, although these might be retain as regional-governments of the greater United Earth, unlike as suggested in TNG and Voyager episodes. The politics of Star Trek has always fascinated me, and it’s always a fascination that has been unsatisfied. Maybe I need to turn to fan-films instead!

52. Darkthunder - March 21, 2013

#49:

Unless the reimagined Robert April, was actually an agent of Section 31 :)

53. Superquerulant - March 21, 2013

Sorry guys… but the “top agent” Weller refers to is the black guy from the other trailer (the one who throws his starfleet ring into a glas of liquid)…

54. Andrew - March 21, 2013

@53

Yes. This should be changed in the shot by shot analysis. Kirk wouldn’t be briefed about one of starfleet’s ‘top agents’ then ask him in the brig “who are you”

55. Exverlobter - March 21, 2013

Wow, it’s a Bond movie now.

56. Aix - March 21, 2013

@53 Oooooh! Could be!!!

57. Vince - March 21, 2013

@52 I think April being an agent of section 31 is VERY likely after reading countdown to darkness #3 as he is using an “emergency protocol 31″…

58. Anthony Pascale - March 21, 2013

i have updated the article with a few changes, including the extra bits in the non-UK trailer. (note the thing with Chekov running that is in a couple was actually in a previous trailer).

A couple of notes: The ‘agent’ comment can be either Harrison or the Father and that was added. It isn’t clear. Kirk could be asking him who he is if Harrison is only a cover ID.

No that isn’t Sulu being punched by Harrison, I picked a different frame that makes that clear.

No that isn’t Uhura and Kirk running out of the shuttle behind Spock. It is two men. One may be Hendorff.

One other thing, bear in mind this is an international trailer. And has been talked about many times, Star Trek struggles in many international markets and so the trailer is long on action and short on Trekness.

59. Will Decker - March 21, 2013

All I can think about is Alice Eve in that space bikini…

60. Exverlobter - March 21, 2013

i guess Alice Eve worked out during filming.

61. rogerachong - March 21, 2013

@42. Paul There is some chatter about Kik and Scotty running towards Engineering when the Enterprise is falling. As the ship’s gravitational stabilizers are not working it is like “Inception” running on the side of the corridor that is turning and all that. The “missing” Chekov is involved in all this, saving the day. There is the quick shot in the earlier trailer with Chekov in a red shirt running through Budwiser Engineering.

I believe the Enterprise will be saved as it soft lands into the ocean. The Nibiru aquatic modifications will come into play.

You are right the foreign boxoffice is key. I must say that I am hopeful. In Trinidad in the Caribbean the response for the last film was better than all the previous ones but not as good as “Fast 5″ and some others. However I gotta tell you a lot of casual movie goers did catch the last film and they loved it. It was also the most pirated movie globally when it came out. I visited Bangkok and it was only then I realized what a true pirate industry can do. Over here piracy is big but Asia has it down to a science. I remember the first time I saw “Austin Powers” on a pirate DVD after being encouraged by a friend who said it was a great movie. I loved it and me and a whole lot of people in my country went to see the sequal in cinemas. Skeptical freinds and I took the day off and saw Star Trek 2009 followed by Wolverine. We were all pissed that we saw Wolverine last as it was way boring after watching Star Trek. I was the only one in that group that had a higher expectation for Star Trek than Wolverine. This time around the mood is flipped and there is more anticipation here for Into Darkness almost on level terms with Iron Man 3. BTW only the American Star Wars and to an extent movie fans see all the parallels to other films in these trailers. The general audiences in Trinidad don’t see them and even if they did they don’t care. They just love the action, suspense and edge-of-your seat thrills that this movie will provide!! I hope AP is wrong and that Into Darkness can have a foreign total equal to or above the expected 300m for domestic USA.

62. Captain Hackett - March 21, 2013

It is very fascinating!

63. crazydaystrom - March 21, 2013

9. Jack -
“The lights/table are quite like the war room in Dr. Strangelove…”

First thing I thought when I saw that shot in the trailer.

64. RBanks - March 21, 2013

Harrison’s ship is a cool looking ride. The overall shape reminds me of Jango/Boba Fett’s Slave I.

Great trailer, and as always, a great shot by shot analysis. Can’t wait to see the movie.

And Alice Eve=Schwing!!!

65. Lister - March 21, 2013

Wow, fantastic. This ain’t no “Insurrection”.

66. Awesome - March 21, 2013

AHHH mind blown!!!!! The official plot said an attack from someone within their own organization. What if they wernt talking about harrison, but the father!!!
IDK

Just going with what people said about the ‘top agent’ being the father

67. Exverlobter - March 21, 2013

“You are right the foreign boxoffice is key.”

The last film was the most succesful Trek-Film ever, even without international sales. It’s not like the future of the Franchise is at stake here.
But you’re right, international sales can indeed save a film.
For example Hansel and Gretel Withhunters bombed in the USA, but will get a sequel because it made it’s money on foreign markets.
Or Battleship. Well it won’t get a sequel, but international sales probably saved that one from bankrupting a studio.

Nevertheless i also hope that it will be stronger on international markets. The more money this film makes, the bigger is the chance that a new TV series will be made. I guess here in Germany traditionally it will perform not great but solid.

68. Superquerulant - March 21, 2013

This “mysterious ship” looks like an extra-armored prototype to me.

http://scifanatic.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/stid-t4-55.jpg

http://scifanatic.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/stid-t4-68.jpg

And it`s probably really a “heavy battle cruiser” of some sort because Carol Marcus is described as a weapon expert.

69. Bela Okmyx - March 21, 2013

@21 – I think you’re really close on this one. It’ll be great to find out!

@35 – If it looks somewhat different, I wonder if it’s because of what the ship lost on the way down. I really think it is the Enterprise. I don’t think it’s an accident that they have the 1701 falling through the atmosphere, then cut to the Alcatraz crash shot.

Alice Eve – yummy!

70. topas - March 21, 2013

Have not seen the trailer itself (no QT installed at work), but have to say (would not think I say it ever) that the Enterprise looks incredibly sexy in the spacedock shot. Hope it won’t be totally destroyed, I’m actually growing to like it.

71. bardicjim - March 21, 2013

For those of you that have problems with quicktime all I can say is 2 words…

YOU TUBE.

I thankyou.

tata for now…

72. Ben Yoris - March 21, 2013

After this new trailer, I’m a bit confused.

Star Trek ia about to explore strange new worlds, seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go … you know where. Except the Niribu part (which I have already seen after the Hobbit), there don’t seem to be any part of “strange new worlds”. There may be Q’nos and some other surprises though.

This film seems to be a thriller, nearly a cop movie, or terrorist movie where the good guys go after the bad guys.
Though I’m enthousiast and eager to discover a new Star Trek movie, something in me tells me that my hunger for “real” Star Trek won’t be satisfied.

Of course, I’ll have to wait and see the movie. Who’s Harrisson, possible relations to previous time line Trek, Kahn relation or anything else related to the “old” Trek can be cool.

But at the moment, I have the intuition that this will not be an entire real Star Trek.

73. Mel - March 21, 2013

20 people at that Starfleet HQ meeting and 4 (maybe 5) women among them. Just like in the last Star Trek movie, every time when we see some people in higher positions, a clear majority are men. :-(

74. Olli - March 21, 2013

Am I the only one who is seeing the deflector of the Enterprise – D at 00:32:15 :D

75. Mel - March 21, 2013

I think I have overlooked one women, so probably 5-6 overall. Some are hard to see.

76. MyNamesChris - March 21, 2013

Thing is though, when did the last Trek movie ‘explore strange new worlds’?

TMP to Nem included 4 direct threats to Earth (5 if you consider the threat of war in VI and potential of what Khan could do next in II) and each of the others concentrated on a specific threat or task that had to be done…. Zero exploration time of anything strange or new apart from something they happened on while doing something else entirely.

At least the Nibiru mission will include them having visited somewhere strange and potentially new.

Watching the new trailer(s) I cant wait for May now!

77. Captain Dirk - March 21, 2013

Is it possible that Harrisson is an agent of Section 31? I have heard the Robert April theory being bantered about but I doubt that. I think he is like a special forces type of dude. It is obvious he is not your typical Starfleet Officer. This movie is going to be amazing. I don’t want to have anything else spoiled for me.

78. Ben Yoris - March 21, 2013

@76 Sure you’re right. I loved TMP for this.

Sure also, action packed movie are more audience-friendly than philosophical and thoughtful movies.

That’s what I miss a little, but that’s not a major problem for me. I can live with what I see in theaters.

79. Exverlobter - March 21, 2013

Well now we have finally seen Peter Weller. And i am disappointed. I always hate it when different characters are portrayed by the same actor. I had hoped that Peter Weller is in some sort of heavy make-up, to distract from the fact that he already portrayed Paxton on Enterprise. For example Vaughn Armstrong was like a dozen times on Trek, but he portraied a human only once(Admiral Forest)

I cannot buy Weller as a Starfleet-Admiral anymore. He’s still Paxton. And don’t forget that the only Trek-series that is still canon in the Abramsverse is Enterprise” so an explanation with the alternative timeline does not count.

The same way i felt when i saw Captain Erika Benteen on DS9 and only thought: Gee, wasn’t this once Geordi’s girlfriend in another universe(Dr. Brahms), lol.

80. Green - March 21, 2013

I’m growing more and more disappointed at the fact that Starfleet Command is apparently a human’s only club.

81. LogicalLeopard - March 21, 2013

Just got an epiphany.

John Harrison = Arne Darvin

Mind. Blown.

82. Exverlobter - March 21, 2013

@80 Green

Well, as Chancellor Azetbur once said:

“The Federation is no more than a homo sapiens only club.””

Maybe with some additional Token-Vulcans, lol.

83. LogicalLeopard - March 21, 2013

72. Ben Yoris – March 21, 2013
After this new trailer, I’m a bit confused.

Star Trek ia about to explore strange new worlds, seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go …

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

You’re making the mistake that everyone is making regarding this movie – comparing the movie to the television shows. The movies don’t deal a lot with that because they are movies, and they are meant to hold the audience’s attention, give them two hours of pleasure, and make you recommend it to your friends. Television is different. It’s meant to engage your mind and emotions so that you’ll tune in the next week. Movies are about the big stuff. The stuff that you can’t see in an episode of trek with a limited budget. And when Trek movies aren’t effective, one of the chief complaints you hear is, “Couldn’t they have just done this in a TV episode?”

With the Nibiru scene, I think this will make the only Trek movie where something was actually explored. None of the others dealt with that period. They’re all about villians that need to be stopped (Vger, Khan, Genesis Planet/Jim from Taxi, Whale Probe, Sybok/Alien Prisoner, Valeris, Soran, Borg, Ru’afo, Shinzon, Nero).

84. The Sky's The Limit - March 21, 2013

This is a great breakdown of the trailer. A lot of fun still trying to figure out the story before seeing the movie.

Thanks, Anthony!

85. Yanks - March 21, 2013

@ 83. LogicalLeopard – March 21, 2013

You’re exactly right. The complaint is just naive, and this is not a TV series.

Folks need to enjoy this for what it is, an action packed summer pop-corn movie centered around our beloved Trek.

The popularity here can lead to another series. That’s what I’m hoping for.

Thanks Anthony for another detailed shot by shot review.

86. LogicalLeopard - March 21, 2013

79. Exverlobter – March 21, 2013

I cannot buy Weller as a Starfleet-Admiral anymore. He’s still Paxton. And don’t forget that the only Trek-series that is still canon in the Abramsverse is Enterprise” so an explanation with the alternative timeline does not count.

The same way i felt when i saw Captain Erika Benteen on DS9 and only thought: Gee, wasn’t this once Geordi’s girlfriend in another universe(Dr. Brahms), lol.

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

Problem. Solved.

http://cdn.sheknows.com/articles/2011/09/nicolas-cage-vampire.jpg

The person in that picture is not Nicolas Cage (unless he’s a vampire and we’re all wrong) It is simply someone with whom he shares a remarkable resemblance, who predated him by almost a hundred years.

Like Paxton and Marcus.

You’re welcome!

87. somethoughts - March 21, 2013

The other ship could be the uss excelsior…

88. Green - March 21, 2013

@83. LogicalLeopard

While that’s true in a sense it’s because the movies that often get that complaint leveled against them are ones like Star Trek V, Generations and Insurrection which would have been nearly as bad as episodes as they were as movies.

Other than the 2009 film, Star Trek IV was the highest grossing film, and while it wasn’t exactly exploring a strange new world it was successful at doing something other than “defeat the central badguy.”

I have nothing against a fun, action oriented Star Trek movie and I enjoyed 2009, but we’re getting a bad guy revenge plot immediately after a bad guy revenge plot. You can do practically anything with Star Trek, it’s such a vast property with limitless possibilities. I feel like the complaints about Star Trek’s direction are valid when all we’re being served is the same basic premise with a different dressing.

89. LogicalLeopard - March 21, 2013

85. Yanks – March 21, 2013
@ 83. LogicalLeopard – March 21, 2013

Folks need to enjoy this for what it is, an action packed summer pop-corn movie centered around our beloved Trek.

The popularity here can lead to another series. That’s what I’m hoping for.

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

Right! You know, I look at it this way – Trek has three levels. You’ve got the shows, which we all enjoy. Thats the bread and butter of the series. Then you’ve got the movies, which are like the icing on the cake. It lets you see the big stuff that you want to see in the series, but can’t. I mean, isn’t it great to see a car chase through Qu’noS instead of a matte painting that has been recycled for use as Romulus, New Sydney, Trill, Feregnar, etc? (yes I’m exaggerating) Isn’t it nice to see London blow up and ships crash into ALCATRAZ instead of….I dunno….a couple guys in red shirts with phasers walking through the streets of faux New Orleans when they had whatever threat to Federation security that was in DS9. Oooh, tense!

And like you said, renewed popularity can be the springboard for a new series. Yeah, people may not like that either, but it’ll give some of us some enjoyment. And the rest of the people can treat it like the third layer of Trek – the books. If you’re itching for Trek, and you don’t mind it non-canon, there’s always books coming out. And if you don’t like the new series, you can just leave it on the shelf like a book. Or like many people did Enterprise.

90. LogicalLeopard - March 21, 2013

88. Green – March 21, 2013

I have nothing against a fun, action oriented Star Trek movie and I enjoyed 2009, but we’re getting a bad guy revenge plot immediately after a bad guy revenge plot. You can do practically anything with Star Trek, it’s such a vast property with limitless possibilities. I feel like the complaints about Star Trek’s direction are valid when all we’re being served is the same basic premise with a different dressing.

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

I respect your opinion, and I do agree that there are probably directions movies can take away from the bad guy scenario. But the thing is, bad guy revenge plots are in ALL Star Trek movies. So, I’m not understanding why people criticize these two movies instead of doing the same thing for earlier movies. I really doubt people said, “Oh come on, ANOTHER probe?” in Star Trek IV. They probably said, “Wow, that was a fun movie.” And it was regarded as one of the best Trek movies ever, even though it was about A PROBE THAT SPOKE TO WHALES! The argument against baddie of the week is probably valid, but since it rarely leads to a complaint about Trek movies in general, it’s a bit disengenuous. Star Trek didn’t take a direction change with Abrams. The direction was established in the TOS era movies.

91. Planet Pandro - March 21, 2013

Don’t know if anyone noticed, but the guy Harrison takes out in the hallway is wearing what looks to be the outfit that the “villains” or “specialists” from the Kre-O Enterprise are wearing: black arms/shoulders + blue chest.

92. Green - March 21, 2013

I’m not saying they shouldn’t have these revenge plots, I’m saying that they shouldn’t make it the theme in two back-to-back movies.

And your claim that ALL Star Trek movies are like that is dubious since revenge was the major motivation of the villain in 3 films. Khan, Nemesis (aping Khan) and 2009.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m excited about the new movie, but I’m disappointed about several aspects.

93. chrisfawkes.com - March 21, 2013

Cumberbach will be the agent.

Not likely some small player in the movie is going to have been one of their top agents, That would be to give Harrison a greater sense of being better.

94. Weerd1 - March 21, 2013

Not sure why people are upset the movie is centered on Earth:
ST:TMP- all on Earth, or on the way to Earth (couple minutes on Vulcan)
ST: IV- Couple minutes on Vulcan, otherwise, all Earth.
ST:FC- few moments in space, rest on Earth.

Several episodes of all of the shows took place on Earth (except the Animated I guess).

It’s the capital of the Federation, I am willing to bet cool stuff happens there. And, it’s where I keep my stuff.

Additionally, there has been a stylistic change in the JJ version of Trek, but not really a narrative change. Really though each show has had it’s own style independent from the others.

95. LLAP - March 21, 2013

Oh, lens flare. I wish you would go away.

96. Josh C. - March 21, 2013

I just read the third Star Trek Ongoing collection, and both stories in there have things dealing with Starfleet intelligence, etc.

In the first one, Starfleet seems to have been behind the “experiment” on Beta III. Also, Sulu was asked to consider joining some covert special ops group, but that’s as far as it got. In the 2nd one, the tribbles were handed over to Starfleet Intelligence.

That definitely seems to suggest some sort of shady dealings by starfleet command. Perhaps that is part of what Harrison is angry about (and that Kirk is clearly in the dark about).

97. Maltz - March 21, 2013

They’ve abandoned exploration. Recently, I went back a watched some of the early episodes of “Enterprise”, a show which I never watched originally due to Trek TV burnout. Now I have a better appreciation for the exploration-oriented stories of long ago.

Not saying this won’t be a good summer movie, but we are missing something.

98. CmdrR - March 21, 2013

Two more months!

99. LogicalLeopard - March 21, 2013

92. Green – March 21, 2013
I’m not saying they shouldn’t have these revenge plots, I’m saying that they shouldn’t make it the theme in two back-to-back movies.

And your claim that ALL Star Trek movies are like that is dubious since revenge was the major motivation of the villain in 3 films. Khan, Nemesis (aping Khan) and 2009.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m excited about the new movie, but I’m disappointed about several aspects.

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

Perhaps I shoudln’t have said bad guy revenge plots, but bad guy plots. But I think, as I recall, revenge played a major role in Insurrection. Wasn’t Ru’afo and his friends all messed up because they were wayward children of the people living on that Fountain of Youth planet? And even though this wasn’t on behalf of the villian, revenge certainly played a role in First Contact, with Picard being portrayed as a vengeful Ahab, acting uncharacteristically with his crew.

But I do have to say, this movie can turn out much different than what we imagine. It looks like a revenge plot, but it may morph into something completely different. “Your commanders have committed a crime I cannot forgive…None of you are safe…have I got your attention now?” Looks clearly like revenge. But is it? Are those comments spliced together? Do they actually even APPEAR in the movie? We’ve been told that this character can be identified with. Maybe what we think is revenge is going to look more like setting things in order. We don’t know yet, so I wouldn’t be disappointed over a back to back revenge plot at this stage.

100. Afort - March 21, 2013

Does it look as if the warp nacels are blown off in the space jump shot? Maybe the space jump is a last minute evacuation by top officers.

101. LogicalLeopard - March 21, 2013

94. Weerd1 – March 21, 2013
Not sure why people are upset the movie is centered on Earth:

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

Especially since we’ve seen Nibiru, Qu’noS, AND Earth in this movie. And since some will likely take place on the ship in space, I REALLY don’t know why people have that complaint.

102. topas - March 21, 2013

Both in the ‘Explosion’ and “Alcatraz’ shots of the new (not USS Enterprise) federation ship you can see that it seems to have an angular secondary hull. The nacelle struts seem to be ‘broken down’ in the middle, nacelles themselves have more sharp edges as well… If you combine this with the dark interiors, and the information about an agent – this gives what? A stealth spec-op ship? Curious.

103. Josh C. - March 21, 2013

@100 Afort – I think they’re there (I think you can finally see them in the last couple of frames). it’s just there is so much debris floating around that they’re hard to see

104. LogicalLeopard - March 21, 2013

97. Maltz – March 21, 2013
They’ve abandoned exploration. Recently, I went back a watched some of the early episodes of “Enterprise”, a show which I never watched originally due to Trek TV burnout. Now I have a better appreciation for the exploration-oriented stories of long ago.

Not saying this won’t be a good summer movie, but we are missing something.

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

This is what, the twelfth Star Trek movie? In all twelve movies, how many new worlds and new civilizations were explored?

I count two:

The Fountain of Youth Planet – Insurrection
Nibiru – Star Trek Into Darkness

Did I miss any?

105. somethoughts - March 21, 2013

#104

TSFS – Genesis Planet
TF – Galactic Barrier, God Planet
Generations – Veridian III
Nemesis – Remus, Kolarus III
ST09 – Delta Vega, Vulcan

106. Josh C. - March 21, 2013

104 – Well, there have been a few more: Genesis Planet (no civilization, though), Nimbus III, Sha Ka Ree, Rura Pente (though it was Klingon), Veridian III (uninhabited), the Baku Planet, and Kolarus III.

But yeah, most of those weren’t exactly about “exploring” those planets, per se

And the funny thing is, the movies that ARE mostly about just traveling around exploring (Final Frontier, Insurrection) are the ones that get panned the most.

107. xs - March 21, 2013

So… XI was obviously a STAR WARS ripoff. This seems to become a Skyfall / GI Joe 2 copy.

108. Josh C. - March 21, 2013

wait…how was Star Trek (2009) a Star Wars ripoff? I mean, other than the fact that it has better CGI than past Star Trek movies?

109. Al - March 21, 2013

Terrible acne

110. Damion - March 21, 2013

Why do I want to suddenly yell, “KHHHHAAAAAAAAAANNNNNN!!!”

111. BatlethInTheGroin - March 21, 2013

#72: Name even ONE Star Trek film that has been about exploring strange new worlds.

TMP: Nope.
WOK: Nope.
SFS: Nope.
TVH: Nope.
TFF: Nope.
TUC: Nope.
GEN: Nope.
FC: Nope.
INS: Nope.
NEM: Nope.
ST09: Nope.

The ***TV series*** was about exploring new worlds. But we’ve had Star Trek in film format for the past 33 years, and aside from stops at Genesis, Nimbus III and the Ba’ku, there’s been very little in the way of “strange new worlds” in any of the movies–and even then, it wasn’t about exploring.

Those complaining that this film isn’t about exploring strange new worlds are grasping at straws in an effort to bash Abrams. None of his predecessors did any exploring either.

112. BatlethInTheGroin - March 21, 2013

#79: It’s just a movie. Take a breath. You’re being melodramatic. Canon-schmanon.

113. somethoughts - March 21, 2013

Us Trekkies are fricken spoiled, we get a Tent Pole epic Star Trek sequel directed by the new Star Wars director and written by same guys who does very well on tv, movies etc, music by the guy who did up etc and we get maxim girls. Never would I have imagined this day, how cool it is to be a trekkie.

This new movie has a chance to set the bar very high. Thanks Anthony for all the updates!

My last wish is for the movie to be same length at T2 169mins and for the film to do very well overseas and win some more awards.

114. LogicalLeopard - March 21, 2013

105. somethoughts – March 21, 2013
#104

TSFS – Genesis Planet
TF – Galactic Barrier, God Planet
Generations – Veridian III
Nemesis – Remus, Kolarus III
ST09 – Delta Vega, Vulcan

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

The Genesis Planet wasn’t explored, or a mission of exploration. It was a mission to recover Spock’s body. The Galactic Barrier wasn’t explored, because scientists already knew about it. True, they were the first to break through, but they weren’t on a mission of discovery. Sybok was trying to find the God Planet, not Starfleet. Veridian III wasn’t explored, they were there to stop a bad guy. There was no exploration mission to Remus. Delta Vega is a Federation Planet, and so is Vulcan. They can’t be explored. I forget the details on Kolarus III, if that’s the planet where they found B4, I think they were there just to recover the source of the positronic signal.

I think the Fountain of Youth planet is the strongest example of an actual exploration mission. They had an established outpost in a duckblind that was meant to study the population. As I think of it, I’m not sure I can count Nibiru, because we havent’ seen enough of the movie to judge. But from all appearances, they weren’t at Nibiru to find a bad guy or some other thing that has nothing to do with the planet itself, but it appears they were dispatched for some specific scientific mission. My guess is that they were there studying the planet, realized a volcano was going to destroy the civilization, and intervened. The fact that there at Nibiru in the first place (and not chasing Harrison there) seems to indicate it was a scientific exploration mission.

115. BatlethInTheGroin - March 21, 2013

#105: Not one of those examples you cited were about exploration. The films have NEVER been about exploring strange new worlds–not even once.

116. RBanks - March 21, 2013

I’m seeing some new and interesting ships in this film. Harrison’s small attack ship is an nice looking design. I hope one of the kit manufacturers will put out models of some of these ships. (R2 and Bandai, are you listening?)

Back in 09′ R2 Models was supposed to produce an ST09 Enterprise kit, but that project got scrapped for some reason.

A 1/350 scale ST09 Enterprise would look mighty nice parked next to my 1/350 Refit and TOS Enterprises.

117. MORN SPEAKS - March 21, 2013

Looks like a nod to the JJ TV show ‘Alcatraz’ being sadly canceled.

118. LogicalLeopard - March 21, 2013

106. Josh C. – March 21, 2013
104 – Well, there have been a few more: Genesis Planet (no civilization, though), Nimbus III, Sha Ka Ree, Rura Pente (though it was Klingon), Veridian III (uninhabited), the Baku Planet, and Kolarus III.

But yeah, most of those weren’t exactly about “exploring” those planets, per se

And the funny thing is, the movies that ARE mostly about just traveling around exploring (Final Frontier, Insurrection) are the ones that get panned the most.

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

Yup, with the exception of Insurrection, all of the planets that are visited seems to occur done so because it’s essential to move the plot along because the villian is there, something strange is there, or because the ship got hijacked. Which is why I disqualify Final Frontier as exploration. Sybok is not hijacking the ship because he wants to explore the Galactic Barrier. He’s there because he wants to meet God.

And really, when you think about it, Insurrection barely qualifies. The Enterprise is there because Data’s gone crazy and the Prime Directive has been compromised. The people doing the exploring is the Starfleet team in the first part of the movie.

119. somethoughts - March 21, 2013

#114 and #115

Maybe in part 3 we will see some epic exploration where nature is the threat, the crew discover that a planet is alive and is dying and they go on a epic adventure through the galaxy and cosmos to save the day.

Love and friendship will be tested, Kirk’s command ability will be tested, sacrifices will be made and we get a kick ass ethical moral dilemma which teaches us a valuable lesson about being human and how we came to be. 3.5hr epic of gorgeous slow motion beauty shots of the Enterprise in full detail with pumping original music.

120. Dr. Dayuuum - March 21, 2013

Came here for Alice Eve in her underwear… was not disappointed!

121. Chris Roberts - March 21, 2013

79. Presumably the Marcus and Paxton families are related.

The Terra Prime leader maybe had a daughter, and she married into the Marcus line.

122. JA - March 21, 2013

At 1:54:45 one can clearly make out the “(NC)C-1701″ printed on the saucer of the descending and breaking up ship.

So I am pretty sure it is the Enterprise, unfortunately.
And I don’t think it is the follow-up “A” since that mark is missing on the saucer. Maybe they’ll introduce the A in the movie, who knows. Or it will crash into San Francisco in the end and then Kirk, when offered command on another ship will say “There’s only one ship, that I want to be a captain of. I’ll wait for her.”
Who knows?

Two more months. I’m excited!

123. cpelc - March 21, 2013

Anthony – Also to note in picture of Harrison punching guy with Scotty and Kirk in background – Kirk has a gun/pistol in his right hand.

124. Simon - March 21, 2013

@114 – They DID explore the Genesis planet, at least David Marcus, Saavik and the USS Grissom did.

I’d call actually going into the barrier exploration: Kirk said no ship has ever returned from it. They had no idea the fake-god planet was in there. Shatner even had them pan down to the “where no man…” plaque.

125. Phil - March 21, 2013

Well, I’m guessing we have a good general idea what’s going on now.

In a perfect future world I’d assume that mixed sex crew members could change without anyone taking notice. The look on Pines face suggests that the little Kirk is very aware of his surroundings. Oh, well…

Nice shot of Enterprise at spacedock.

If Starfleet just had one of their own turn on them, why would you gather your leadership in one spot for a conference…just sayin..

126. Damion - March 21, 2013

“Star Trek” movies have many layers. If you start to peal those layers back, you will see what you have missed.

“Star Trek: The Motion Picture” was about human and technological evolution.

“Star Trek: Wrath of Khan” and “Star Trek: Search for Spock” were about self-sacrifice and cheating death, so that a greater good could be obtained.

“Star Trek: The Voyage Home” was about human recklessness, and our hidden ability to take responsibility.

“Star Trek: The Final Frontier” was about examining our existence, but in terms beyond scientific measurements. “What if…”

“Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country” was about the cold war, and how we can get caught up with fear. As a result of being at war for so long, we allow our fears to get in the way of the future.

“Star Trek: Generations” was about personal change, and our need to leave certain things behind. It was also about confronting mortality.

“Star Trek: First Contact” was about extreme socialism being defeated by strong individuality. It was also the celebration of breaking into the unknown. (People have to get it into their heads that the Borg represent socialistic philosophies.)

“Star Trek: Insurrection” was about learning from history, so that we do not make the same mistakes. It was a commentary about powerful civilizations recklessly take over primitive societies.

“Star Trek: Nemesis” was about facing one’s self. It was also a commentary about oppression and revenge.

“Star Trek: 2009″ was about… I need to think about this one. I could say it about heroism.

“Star Trek: 2013″ looks like its about taking risks, standing up against the odds, and to fight for something worth while.

Out off all of these movies, the only one that deeply explored a new world and species is “Star Trek: Insurrection”. All the other movies were about the human condition.

127. somethoughts - March 21, 2013

#126

Yes, correct

128. kmart - March 21, 2013

So after they TRIED to use some ripoff designs from Saarinen in the last one, now they have ripped off Ken Adam’s STRANGELOVE war room ring light for HQ. Guess that’s in keeping with taking from GODFATHER 3 for the copter ship outside shooting up the meeting (some security, huh?)

Pine looks better with some wear on him, that’s for sure.

114, there’s an implied exploration aspect in TUC, given the gaseous anomaly aspect that is partially cut from the film (the part where Kirk gives Klings a tour and mentions what Sulu mentions up front, in order to set up the torpedo modification at end.)

Face it, with Bennett you weren’t ever going to get that kind of thing, he was more about checking off TV go-tos storywise.

129. Mawazitus - March 21, 2013

At the end of the day, I couldn’t care less about the box office take in various countries (including the United States). I want a good Star Trek movie. This is the first trailer/teaser for the new film that actually has me concerned. It looks like they used a Die Hard/James Bond script and slightly reworked it to take on the superficial appearance of a Star Trek film. I hope I’m wrong.
I had hoped that a big budget would allow the filmmakers to really show how *alien* the future Star Trek universe is, but it looks like they have instead focused on “local politics” and fist-fights.
Yes, I know this is the “international” trailer and is, perhaps, intentionally emphasizing the action scenes. But I’m still worried.

130. PhilK - March 21, 2013

That one screencap is incredible

131. somethoughts - March 21, 2013

#129

The trailer is aimed at international movie fans, with the action scenes, panties, good vs evil etc. I am trying to imagine if I would go see this if I had never heard about Star Trek before and I believe I would based on the info available, director, actors etc.

132. Marja - March 21, 2013

Rankings:

#27 and #44:

From the previous look I had at Pike’s epaulette pips they are a different color from Kirk’s. Kirk’s appear silver and Pike’s appear bronze. This would be the difference between Captain (0-6) and Rear Admiral (0-7) [which title is shortened when you address them to "Admiral"]

Admiral Marcus, a “full” admiral, Admiral (0-8) wears five bronze pips denoting his rank.

Rear Admiral and Admiral are these days called “Flag Officers”.

Admiral Marcus may well be Trek’s equivalent of the Chairman of Starfleet Staff. There may be “full” admirals below him who wear five silver pips.

133. Admiral_Bumblebee - March 21, 2013

So what is the order of events?

Nibiru – Kirk violated Prime Directive, rescues Spock and is ordered back to earth for court martial.

Earth – Meanwhile Harrison attacks London. Attack on San Francisco happens, Harrison escapes. Kirk is demoted to Commander and Pike takes command of Enterprise and they pursue Harrison to Qo’noS.

Qo’noS – There they capture him, find out who he truly is and take him back to Earth.

Earth – Harrison escapes and “detonates” the fleet. Kirk and Spock try to catch him and kill him. Kirk gets promoted to captain again and takes command of new Enterprise-A.

134. The Real Flexo - March 21, 2013

#126- Star Trek was about reaching ones full potential- individually and as a crew.

135. Gary S - March 21, 2013

WARNING, SPOILERS I was listening to The Hugh Hewitt Show the other day, Hugh was talking to Father Robert Neal Of The Crystal Cathedral .
The Catheral is being redesigned.
the new welcoming center is according to Neal going to be the new Starfleet Command or Starfleet Headquarters ,Father Neal used both terms .
So if Cumberbatch is standing outside of Starfleet Command at the time of the attack , he could be the”agent” referrred to.

136. LWR - March 21, 2013

The evolving Star Trek villain of the moment:
Star Trek 2- the wrath of Kahn
Star Trek 3- the wrath of Klingon Kahn
Star Trek 5-the wrath of Vulcan Kahn
Star Trek 6- the wrath of Shakespere Klingon Kahn
Star Trek degeneration – the wrath of Malcom McKahn
Star Trek first contracts – the wrath of Borgian Kahn
Star Trek imperfection- the wrath of the Norman Bates mother complex Kahn
Star Trek blemishes- the wrath of the clone Kahn
And if course…..
Star Trek 09- the wrath of the lost Kahn.
Man! It is almost as bad as a superman movie and lex Luther!
Such a wealth of possibilities and all we get is Kahn by any other name.
Well at least it will look cool

137. Dennis C - March 21, 2013

122. JA

I think that’s a red herring. It’s edited to make it appear that it’s the Enterprise crashing but I’m thinking it’s Harrison’s ship that we see plunging into San Francisco Bay. If you look at the deflector hitting Alcatraz it looks more like the deflector form the Enterprise E than the JJ Enterprise (and a part of me thinks Harrison’s ship is going to be popular with fans).

The JJ-prise could use a few tweaks. Still not entirely won over by it.

138. DavidJ - March 21, 2013

Very cool trailer. And I don’t care what people say, the new Enterprise looks awesome.

139. LogicalLeopard - March 21, 2013

119. somethoughts – March 21, 2013
#114 and #115

Maybe in part 3 we will see some epic exploration where nature is the threat, the crew discover that a planet is alive and is dying and they go on a epic adventure through the galaxy and cosmos to save the day.

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

That would be nice. There’s a way to do it. Even the producers talked about whether in Part II they were going to have nature be the threat, or an actual villian. The only problem with that is that we all love a bad guy, a black hat, and that’s why so many movies deal with villians.

140. Khaaan, the weasel - March 21, 2013

That’s a damn fine trailer! “Action-Trek” again for sure, but well, it looks just great! But dangit, why are Starfleet ships so friggin HUMONGOUS in the Abramsverse? – I mean, think of it: A ship whose secondary hull is about ten times the size of friggin ALCATRAZ? That’s just WAY too big in my opinion

141. Frederick - March 21, 2013

Someone mentioned having trouble viewing one character as another after having played a different one before. I don’t. I didn’t have a problem with seeing Mark Lenard as Sarek despite his playing an indentical-looking Romulan captian earlier. I didn’t look at Nurse Chapel and only see Number One. I never had a problem with Dr. Pulaski being played by the same actress as Ann Mulhall on TOS., and so on. Otherwise you typecast an actor and never let them play another role.

Anyway, this trailer looks awesome, the best yet.

142. LogicalLeopard - March 21, 2013

@114 – They DID explore the Genesis planet, at least David Marcus, Saavik and the USS Grissom did.

**************************
I think you’re thinking of the cave in Star Trek II where they tested Genesis. That’s not exploration. David Marcus and Carol Marcus knew it was there. Kirk and company weren’t supposed to see it, but did because they had to hide from Khan. That’s not exploration.

***************************
I’d call actually going into the barrier exploration: Kirk said no ship has ever returned from it. They had no idea the fake-god planet was in there. Shatner even had them pan down to the “where no man…” plaque.

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

Not exploration in my opinion, because they were hijacked. It’s the same as if someone carjacks you and makes you drive to the Grand Canyon, it’s not a vacation. You might say, “This car jacking thing sucks, but….wow….I’ve never been to the Grand Canyon”, but it’s not a vacation. It’s a carjacking/kidnapping that you have no choice in.

143. LogicalLeopard - March 21, 2013

126: Damion

Star Trek: 2009″ was about… I need to think about this one. I could say it about heroism.

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

Star Trek 2009 was a PHENOMENAL story about how the circumstances of your life don’t dictate who you are, or who you can be. It’s about embracing destiny, and letting no one turn you away from “the big chair.” In life, your big chair may be anything. Just because your father was bad, doesn’t mean that you’ll be a bad father. Just because your family was poor doesn’t mean that you have to be. Just because you were molested doesnt mean that you’re going to turn into a molester. You have to recognize your inner potential and put it to use in the area where you can be of use, because you JUST may turn out to be an indespensible part of history.

I took Star Trek 2009 to a friend’s house to watch it with her, because I knew there was something she needed from it. Although she’s the furthest thing from a Star Trek fan, she was crying, because she got the messages she needed that applied to her own life. When I hear people dismiss ST09 as being no more than Punch it, Uhura’s panties, a spitting Romulan, and stuff blowing up, I wonder how they missed it. Pike’s speech to Kirk in the bar (yes, even with the Federation flub), is probably one of the most profound speeches I’ve ever seen in a movie, let a lone a Star Trek movie.

144. Commander K - March 21, 2013

No-one spot the teaser poster released this morning as well?

http://www.treknews.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/new-star-trek-into-darkness-poster-2.jpg

Not incredibly Trek looking….

145. PureGenius - March 21, 2013

The agent that Admiral Marcus is referring to, is the father who dropped the ring into the glass. I also think the order of events in the trailer have nothing to do with the real order in the movie. I’m thinking the crash of the ship at end of the trailer, actually happens in the beginning half of the movie. Just a thought.

146. falcon - March 21, 2013

The full name on the shuttle in the Kirk/McCoy scene is “Takayashi”. In reference to whom, I’m not sure.

147. Commander K - March 21, 2013

#146 George Takei played Vice-Admiral Baron Takahashi in Blood Oath

148. falcon - March 21, 2013

Or it is possibly “Takayama,” because when Kirk passes the shuttle in the previous scene, where Marcus tells him Starfleet is not about vendettas, there is a clearly visible “AMA” on the starboard bow of the shuttle. I believe this is the same one in front of which McCoy and Kirk have their conversation.

149. falcon - March 21, 2013

If it’s “Takayama,” it appears to be named after a prefecture in Japan. I cannot find a reference to a person with that name who was involved in space exploration.

150. AndoriaUberAlles - March 21, 2013

Again, where are the Andorians? Not a single one of them at the Starfleet brass meeting? Come on on now. Not even a Tellerite either.

151. Josh C. - March 21, 2013

@146, 148, 149 – maybe this person? There was a Takayashi who has worked on Star Trek TNG and The Undiscovered Country: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Wes_Takahashi

152. Josh C. - March 21, 2013

Oops, his name Takahashi not Takayashi #derp

153. Dunsel Report - March 21, 2013

Awesome.

Prediction: Benedict Cumberbatch is so mad because of the Federation’s long prison terms for possession and sale of the Venus Drug.

154. falcon - March 21, 2013

Okay, how about this for a theory…

The shuttle “Takayama” is named for famed surfer and surfboard designer Donald Takayama, who passed away last year in LA. Who knows, maybe JJ is a big surfing fan and he wanted to honor Takayama’s memory in some way.

Makes as much sense as anything else.

155. just sayin - March 21, 2013

#80…In case you have not noticed…you are human. Who cares about Starfleet being mostly humans?

156. Robman007 - March 21, 2013

Did anybody notice the deep scratch marks on the primary hull of the Enterprise where the docking clamps are located..almost as if the Enterprise is in desperate need to get away from the star base…almost like the Starbase is about to blow up, which would cause alot of the deep damage to the Enteprise….

157. KMKProd - March 21, 2013

In the shots where Harrison dispatches that guard, and Scotty and Kirk are behind him. It appears they are only following him, not pursuing him. Is it possible Harrison convinces them he’s actually a good guy and that they start to work with him? That would be a major twist. Can’t wait to find out.

158. Dennis C - March 21, 2013

The title cards come across like something out of a fan made trailer. They need some work.

As for that new one sheet, well, it’s the weakest Trek poster since Nemesis. Also, it looks like we’ll be missing the Kirk / Spock / McCoy dynamic again.

159. Jim Phelps - March 21, 2013

@144 Commander-K referring to new poster.

Can you say ‘Charlie’s Angels’

160. Iva - March 21, 2013

Maybe it’s a reference to Sailor Moon, and how Sailor Pluto – the soldier who controls the gateway between dimensions and place and time goes on to help fix this Abrams AU mess.

161. Jenna - March 21, 2013

@75 I think it’s equally annoying that the science officer who apparently will save the day is only shown in the trailers screeching like a B movie star, looking upset, or practically naked. Nothing at all against nakedness but let’s have some naked Cumberbatch too? (I’m serious, can we please??)

162. NuFan - March 21, 2013

Why does Marcus not want Kirk to go after Khan?

Because Marcus is the bad guy. He found Botany Bay first. He helped Khan infiltrate Starfleet Intelligence to do his dirty work for him.

But Khan is going to betray him and pursue his own agenda, which is becoming more and more clear.

“Your world.”

163. Jim Phelps - March 21, 2013

@156 Robman007

Those are just shadows of the docking clamps reflecting behind them.

164. cpelc - March 21, 2013

162 – Also would explain why “meeting” was called by Marcus and why people in meeting are being picked off precisely instead of another bombing.

165. NuFan - March 21, 2013

April was helping Marcus fight his dirty wars on other planets, but I bet April is one of Khan’s first victims.

166. 16309 - March 21, 2013

Carol Marcus

’nuff said.

167. somethoughts - March 21, 2013

The poster should be a nice picture of the enterprise and around her pics of Kirk in space jump, faded with Bird of Prey chase, volcanoes and a blow up pic of new Klingon in background.

Have 3 variants.

A Enterprise and space shots
B Enterprise with faces of heroes and villains
C Big Block Delta Shield with Star Trek and Into Darkness fading and reappearing on bottom

168. Jonny Boy - March 21, 2013

Soooo… the Enterprise has already sustained her battle-damage by the time Kirk and Spock (or whoever that is) space-walk to the other starship orbiting the Moon. So Obviously, she survives that fall through the atmosphere ;)



… As if there was any doubt.

169. madtrekfanuk - March 21, 2013

Ship that crashes…… Looks like a Sovereign class to me (which would be interesting considering)

170. Marja - sad, sad Marja - March 21, 2013

I think in the JJ-verse, McCoy serves as a sounding board/helper for Kirk [sneaking him onto Enterprise; challenging him as he assumes command of Enterprise] and a “logic challenger” for Spock, as in 2009 [their dialogue about racehorses].

#137, #122

The ship descending from space *appears* to be Enterprise, but it is not for certain:
I have looked closely and here’s what I see:

NCC-170[hole in hull].

Also wondering if TWO ships descend into poor ol’ San Francisco Bay? Where is Alcatraz in relation to the city? Doesn’t the ship crashing into the shoreline and sweeping over it look like it’s on a descent path right into the shoreline? I remember Alcatraz as being fairly close to the shoreline, but wouldn’t “the rock” slow or block the descent of a ship? Or is the engineering hull so big and heavy it can smash thru rock?

Yeah, the poster’s kind of “meh” but I like that it focuses on three characters vice just Harrison. And it’s boss to see Uhura stalking the bad guy.

Anybody else think that “A Hero Will Rise” could apply to Spock [though in my opinion he was equally heroic with Kirk in 2009 film]? Or maybe Chekov who saves the Enterprise? Or, heh-heh, Uhura [A feminist can wish can't she?]

171. Danpaine - March 21, 2013

As an old-school Trek fan, of course I’ll go see this simply because it’s a Trek movie and I’ve gone to see every Trek movie ever made.

However, I hate to say I’m just not very jazzed about what I’m seeing so far, plot-wise. Of course the visuals are impressive, but impressive visuals are a dime a dozen these days, and don’t mean squat without a solid story.

Trek ’09 had me a lot more excited at this point. I hope I’m proved wrong, but does anyone else feel similar?

172. Elias Javalis - March 21, 2013

The ship crash onto Alcatraz is iconic moment by it self!

173. Jim Phelps - March 21, 2013

Is it me or does the shooting up the conference room scene remind you of the ‘The Godfather III’ where the mafia bosses were taken out by the helicopter outside the building?

174. phil - March 21, 2013

Why does this author continue to perpetuate that the ship crashing into the bay is not Enterprise? Just trying to understand how one came to that conclusion…? What prooftis there?

If a ship that looks a lot like Enterprise is seen breaking up in orbit of Earth, followed by scenes of a similar-looking ship crashing into San Fran bay… the math says that’s Enterprise. And why would the filmmakers put a ship we don’t know in that kind of jeopardy? The emotional impact is lessened, and it’s a waste of a set piece for something like that to happen to a ship that *looks* like Enterprise, rather than Enterprise itself.

175. Denny Crane - March 21, 2013

This is not my Star Trek. No action, too many philosopical dialogues. I am disappointed about Spock. Nimoy has been Vulcans Bruce Willis: always “Pow! – Right in the kisser!”, first shoot then ask…

But Quinto… too intellectual for my taste.

176. Granite Trek - March 21, 2013

Anyone else notice the shuttlecraft in the hangar named “Takay”? A tongue in cheek tribute to George, perhaps? :)

177. Craiger - March 21, 2013

I wonder if Kirk doesn’t get demoted? Maybe that meeting is where they are discussing if he should be demoted and that is when Harrison attacks and Pike gets killed? Then Admiral Marcus changes his mind seeing Kirk’s heroics and keeps him as Captain and orders him to go get Harrison?

178. ScottC - March 21, 2013

#174, its called clever editing. The nacelles of the ship crashing do not appear to match up with the new Enterprise in other shots we have seen.

179. Phil - March 21, 2013

@174. The proportions of the crashing ship are clearly different then NCC-1701. Also, I believe AP has confirmed from production insiders that that craft isn’t Enterprise…

180. Robe - March 21, 2013

Well Marcus must be Fleet Admiral as he has five gold bars, Pike has four gold bars as a full admiral. Kirk has four silver bars as a captain.

181. Marja, now doing happydance! : D - March 21, 2013

Re my post at #170, regarding the ship crashing into Alcatraz. At that time I hadn’t yet seen the trailer [and I am SO THANKFUL to the person who suggested I check good ol' YouTube]! So I clearly saw the ship crash thru the structures on Alcatraz into the shoreline and buildings of San Fran.

Agreed #178, ScottC, and 179 Phil, the nacelles appear to be more rectangular looking per Enterprise 1701-A in TOS movies.

Some other points: We ladies got a bit of eye candy in the trailer for 2009; Kirk was making out with Gaila. Doesn’t mean I’m all happy-dappy about Ms Eve in her black underwear, but I think previous poster is right and it’s going to be comedic. I do enjoy some male pulchritude and really hope I get to see Spock/Uhura in the third movie [if not this one] at least waking up together, maybe in response to a red alert? And as someone pointed out, Kirk’s going to be at least somewhat unclothed in his early scene of “bad-boy-ness.”

What do y’all call doing a planetary survey of new-to-them Niburu, if not exploration?

182. Exverlobter - March 21, 2013

Alice Eve in underwear is nice, but i would have prefered Diora Baird who got cut out in the 2009 film, lol.

183. LogicalLeopard - March 21, 2013

162. NuFan – March 21, 2013
Why does Marcus not want Kirk to go after Khan?

Because Marcus is the bad guy. He found Botany Bay first. He helped Khan infiltrate Starfleet Intelligence to do his dirty work for him.

But Khan is going to betray him and pursue his own agenda, which is becoming more and more clear.

“Your world.”

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

Love it! I think that’s what’s happening here.

184. Chain of Command - March 21, 2013

Great trailer. Looking forward to seeing this film. I have a feeling this is going to be the film that cements the crew’s relationships with each other. I also really like that this film is going to have a certain “edge” to it.

185. Phil - March 21, 2013

Nibiru is a common reference for a rogue planet today. As we now know that Harrison is a Federation agent gone rogue, I’m wondering if this red planet has more signifigance to the story the just being a spiffy opening sequence….

186. BatlethInTheGroin - March 21, 2013

#162: Khan is not in this movie.

187. Marja, now doing happydance! : D - March 21, 2013

#73, Mel, *white* men, to boot.

Where is the lovely variety of alien Federation members such as we saw in the Kelvin and Enterprise bridge scenes? : (

188. Pensive's Wetness - March 21, 2013

@179 maybe the other ship previously noted in that one pic of the space jump?

…Though i did blurt out ‘It is the Enterprise!’ when i watched it. So probably not… i hope?

189. BatlethInTheGroin - March 21, 2013

HUGE SPOILERS FOR THE FILM OVER AT POP CULTURE ZOO!

http://popculturezoo.com/2013/03/exclusive-major-spoilers-for-star-trek-into-darkness/

190. Al - March 21, 2013

Oh my! If that’s right, then this is totally not what we expected

191. Phil - March 21, 2013

@189. That makes so little sense…and has been speculated on here tongue-in-cheek for a while now.

192. Edshrinker - March 21, 2013

If this is more holodeck crap, I truly will walk away, JJ. As panned as that episode was by fans and cast alike – I doubt seriously that will be the case.

193. Ritz - March 21, 2013

Part of what made the original Trek great was the Kirk, Spock, Bones relationship and the interplay between their personalities – in fact I would go so far as to say those three specific characters and their relationship is what made the original Trek so special – to use the same characters but not understand that and/or highlight that, as it appears is happening, is disappointing. Yes, the best Trek had action, revenge, explosions, etc. But it was in the context of fascinating characters and relationships and personalities. I am not sure we will see that in this movie.

194. Josh C. - March 21, 2013

@189 – interesting if true. More believable than any of the Khan rumors anyway. Of course, forgive me if I’m still skeptical due to all the false spoilers we’ve seen before.

I think the big question to me still would be: what is his motivation?

195. marty - March 21, 2013

i immediately thought harrison as ‘harry’s son’ when i saw harriet mudd in the comics.

as for the other bit, i’m not too sure about. why is harrison mad at starfleet? the spoilers didn’t get into that, but his true identity.. which just raises more questions, even though it’s an interesting detail.

but the fact that these spoilers didn’t answer much is kind of like getting fandom-happiness replies to what we want/think is happening.

and stay tuned after the credits for an ‘enterprise’ finale kind of moment? PLEASE TELL ME THIS IS ALL A DREAM! picard was having a nightmare and the next star trek movie is a next generation finale! :-D

196. RAMA - March 21, 2013

Too the poster trying to figure out what ST 2009′s theme was, its pretty clear this is Kirk’s voyage, it’s his growth from tragic beginnings of death and wild youth to the 5 year mission captain.

197. Astrophysicophile - March 21, 2013

58. I rewatched the clip of the three men running out of the shuttle. The first man is actually Spock, not Kirk.

198. Matt - March 21, 2013

regarding #189′s post to pop culture, that was not what i expected….AT ALL!! if that stuff really is legit then i am definitely staying through the credits.

199. Charley W - March 21, 2013

BTW, I just saw Alice Eve in an episode of Poirot: The Mystery of the Blue Train (2005). Not too bad in spite of The Perm from Hell.

200. Moputo Jones - March 21, 2013

189. If that is true, then WTF? Why would Harry Mudd’s son possibly be so mad at Earth and/or at Starfleet? I guess that would make AP’s source about Khan full of sh.ite.

And 195 – if this new spoiler report is true – then yes, I hope all this was an effing dream!

201. Matt - March 21, 2013

that whole dream thing would feel like a damn cop out to me.

202. BatlethInTheGroin - March 21, 2013

I’m at a complete loss about this Harry Mudd bit. It’s either really cool news or completely stupid.

203. Thomas - March 21, 2013

I also followed the link to Pop Culture Zoo. If it’s true, then it’s definitely more interesting than what people have been speculating (and holding up as gospel without proof, by the way). Of course, Pop Culture Zoo is going to say their source is reliable, but I don’t know their track record as I’ve never visited that site before today. If what they said is indeed true, then I have to give J.J. And Co. credit for giving us something out of left field.

204. somethoughts - March 21, 2013

#189

1:47 shows John Harrison bleeding on the face, I do not think he is a android or Harry’s Son.

We will find out in a few weeks though!

205. Phil - March 21, 2013

@189. There are problems with their theory. Most of what they cite as evidence can easily be explained as consistent with what we know about the movie, without added plot devices. Second, what was described has already been done…remember Battlestar Galactica?

206. The Theorist - March 21, 2013

Even though it’s clearly the damaged Enterprise falling out of orbit, I don’t believe it’s the same ship we see crashing in to Alcatraz/SF Bay.

As many have pointed out, the hull only bears a passing resemblance to Enterprise – when you start to look at it closer you see that the nacelles are shaped differently, the struts are too shallow, the deflector is inset instead of protruding out, etc etc etc….

But I also have out-of-universe reasoning: We know from other trailors/previews that Kirk, Scotty, and possibly other crew members are aboard the Enterprise as she is falling, trying to correct the damage – they do not abandon ship. If the E was the same ship that crashed into SF Bay then I highly doubt anybody on board would have survived it, even with advanced Treknology(tm). Kirk and Scott are main characters and thus are protected by Plot Armor (i.e., they can’t die because they are needed for the next movie).

So this leaves me with the following scenarios:
1. Kirk and Scott reluctantly give up trying to save the Enterprise and abandon ship at the last possible second.
2. The Enterprise is destroyed by the crash but the main characters survive because of [insert amazing safety treknology here].
3. The most likely scenario: THE ENTERPRISE ISN”T THE ONE THAT CRASHES IN TO THE BAY.

I know my reasoning is highly speculative and circumstantial, but I thought maybe it would give some extra stuff to think about for people who aren’t satisfied with the fact that the SF Bay ship is shaped different to the Enterprise (again: very similarly shaped at first glance, but definitely different once you look closely at it.)

207. Thomas - March 21, 2013

Just had a crazy thought:

If what Pop Culture Zoo says is true, what if that’s the cure he offers to the Father for his daughter? To make her like Harrison, so to speak?

208. Josh C. - March 21, 2013

204 – I don’t know if I’ve ever watched the episode, but Kirk, Uhura, and Spock bring Harrison in alone. If he’s an android? That seems unlikely, unless they stun him. Though it would explain why he may be impervious to a Vulcan neck pinch (but if they know he’s an android, why bother trying that?)

Again, my biggest thing is…what’s the motivation?

209. NuFan - March 21, 2013

189

Wow, the canon police are getting desperate.

210. Planet Pandro - March 21, 2013

@189, etc.

What’s funny about this all is that I think that rumor is completely feasible, just like almost every other rumor. I think it fits the facts nicely, doesn’t really refute anything we’ve seen, is definitely something I would not have expected.
I give JJ, Bob, Alex, Damon etc plenty of credit for creating alot of “who is this guy anyway??” buzz amongst the fans. Could be Khan, Garth, Darvin, a Mudd-Droid, or a sex-changed Elaan of Troyius and we’ll be guessing right up until premiere day!

211. Rich Civil - March 21, 2013

Here is what I don’t understand…..
Why do so many people here insist John Harrison is some other character.?
Why do many of the folks pan the entire movie after only seeing a few trailers that concentrate on action? I contend you could take any Trek movie , even TMP, and edit a trailer that makes it look look a high action film,

212. Paul - March 21, 2013

Alright, so Harrison is a rogue Spectre. Interesting, even though hardly original.

213. BatlethInTheGroin - March 21, 2013

#211: Because people are crazy.

214. Astrophysicophile - March 21, 2013

128, 173. I unfortunately don’t remember “The Godfather, Part III”, but Harrison’s little ship firing on the meeting does remind me of a similar scene in the episode “Alliances” of the series Star Trek: Voyager.

215. The Mighty Chip - March 21, 2013

I apologize if someone has already said this, but I felt I should point it out: The Enterprise’s damage looks almost like it was caused by internal explosions rather than external damage from enemy weapons.

Has anybody addressed the possibility that the auto-destruct system was activated? Either deliberately by the bridge crew or perhaps Harrison hacked the ship somehow?

I recall somebody on the site mentioning prefix codes – I really hope they don’t come in to play here. For starters, I really hope Starfleet engineers wouldn’t be crazy enough to make the auto-destruct command available remotely. Second, prefix codes are only 5 digits; I could hack a starship with my cell phone in a matter of minutes. :-P It’s amazing how fast technology has grown since Star Trek began, isn’t it?

216. cw - March 21, 2013

Those androids were morons, that Kirk shorted out with some confusing crap he was spouting. Harrison is NOT a Data, could’t be.

What is the Ent connection from TATV is Trip? Or Harrison is Archer’s chef’s grandson and he’s pissed about food replicators that cost his family their jobs……..

217. Thomas - March 21, 2013

210. Planet Pandro

I think the reason I like PCZ’s spoiler claim is that it goes along with my theory regarding Khan: I don’t think it was ever Khan precisely because everyone was so quick to assume it was him. What better way to keep a secret than to let everyone believe something opposite of what you know to be true? Of course, no one here will know the reliability of PCZ’s report until May 17th.

218. Astrophysicophile - March 21, 2013

80, 82. Well, Kirk did refer to the Federation as the Earth Federation in two different episodes: the TOS episode “Friday’s Child” and the TAS episode “The Lorelei Signal” ;-)

219. The Mighty Chip - March 21, 2013

@211 – We are insistant John Harrison is another character because the people in charge of the movie told us that Cumberbatch’s character would be someone from established Canon. True, it wouldn’t be the first time a movie team lied about an upcoming character’s identity *cough* Dark Knight Rises *cough cough* but still…. that’s why a lot of us think Harrison isn’t Harrison.

As to why people are making snap judgements based on a few trailers…. I don’t know. I think being speculative and nitpicky is one of the more fun aspects of being a Trek fan but I agree with you that it’s unwise to judge the quality of an unreleased movie solely by its trailers. Some people think that a trailer’s job is to accurately portray a movie’s plot, characters, and themes.

That couldn’t be farther from the truth. The sole purpose of a trailer is to get as many people as possible to buy a movie ticket. Period. It has no obligation to the movie itself – it’s only job is to get people’s butts in the seats. To accomplish this task, a trailer has to appeal to the largest possible demographic, and in most areas that would be the “explosion-loving horny young male action fan” demographic.

And that is why people should never judge a movie by its trailer.

220. PEB - March 21, 2013

I look at the crash sequence, which looks A-FREAKIN-MAZING!!!! and I can’t help but wonder how much cooler the crash of the Enterprise D could’ve been if they had a real budget.
That being said, many of the cast and directors of previous films mention how JJ is getting the budget they always wished they had. I wonder how many people would be saying ‘that wasn’t real Trek’ if they used the budget the same that JJ is using it…

221. Robman007 - March 21, 2013

Was it not already stated from the 30 min previews abroad that the way Harrison saves the guy’s daughter is a by a blood transfusion? That does not sound like something an android could do anywho.

Sounds like a decoy plot leaked out to keep folks guessing. If this was all a holodeck program and Harrison nothing more then an android..then that is kinda lame.

I could possibly see something happening with alternate realities starting to collapse or what not, ala Fringe.

222. Bill Lutz - March 21, 2013

more god damn lens flare….
yuck

223. Phil - March 21, 2013

@215…just an observation, but what was added today hinted that while the Enterprise trajectory was definately getting her into the higher atmosphere, it looked like she could be moving in a direction to skip off of it, as opposed to a reentry trajectory. It’s just an observation, and I’m the first to admit I could be dead wrong, but look at the image of Earth behind her, it’s going by at an angle you would not expect for an object on reentry…

224. Rich Civil - March 21, 2013

IF Harrison ends up having another name tied to to Star Trek cannon I would rather be surprised while I watch the film. I had heard the speculation about the Miranda Tate character, but dismissed it , so I was surprised at the reveal. With that movie it ended up tying of the trilogy nicely. doing that kind of thing with Star Trek doesn’t work since there really isn’t same type of story opportunity (at least not one I can see).

225. Craiger - March 21, 2013

I now think the way JJ has kept the secrecy is cool. JJ’s people could be floating different people around to keep us guessing as to who Harrison really is and we really shouldn’t believe the spoilers people post online that their source has told them who Harrison really is.

226. kmart - March 21, 2013

214,

I think even the VOYAGER folk acknowledged that their scene was a riff on GODFATHER 2, probably in the Cinefantastique coverage of whatever season that was (maybe s2? I’ve only seen about 20 eps all the way through before abandoning it fourth season, have little memory of it outside of some Picardo bits and Brad Dourif’s appearances.)

227. Sherlock - March 21, 2013

@ 211
because they are stupid.

Why do so many so-called fans insist that the ship crashing into San Francisco is the Enterprise? Even my girlfriend could tell from the very first teaser that it’s not. And hell, she’s only seen one Trek-movie?

228. Randall - March 21, 2013

Is it just me, or does Alice Eve look more like she’s turned on by Cumberbatch in that one quick bit (where McCoy is scanning him) than angry?

229. Robman007 - March 21, 2013

Besides…makes zero sense that this would all be a holodeck type surprise ending, ala the finale of Enterprise. They have all ready confirmed that there are a series of comics that deal with the Enterprise and it’s crew in the aftermath of Into Darkness….

230. TheWrathOfBong - March 21, 2013

Andorians?

231. Sherlock - March 21, 2013

@ 228

for me she looks like she knows something, some vital information regarding Harrison’s motives and origin.
I mean we know she’s a scientist – and she’s the C in C’s daughter – that could’ve helped her to get into a top secret project – artificial intelligence, augmentation, whatever. And whatever she knows is important for the crew, but she can’t tell

232. Platitude - March 21, 2013

I can’t wait for this movie! So excited!

233. TrekkerChick - March 21, 2013

@221

“Was it not already stated from the 30 min previews abroad that the way Harrison saves the guy’s daughter is a by a blood transfusion? That does not sound like something an android could do anywho.”

Recall how the crew of the Enterprise were, in some cases, being tempted by Mudd’s androids: eternal youth/beauty in an android body for Uhura, the bimbos for Chekov, the med lab for McCoy, the engineering facilities for Scotty….

234. Harry - March 21, 2013

Wow, Bebe Besch could have never pulled off that bra and panties pose like that. Boing!

235. RaveOnEd - March 21, 2013

@216: You forget that the beginning of the episode has Norman rerouting the Enterprise’s controls to destroy the ship if tampered with until they reach Mudd’s planet, and he did that mainly from the Auxilliary Control Room.

Definitely not the work of a moron.

236. Son of Harry - March 21, 2013

@ 221

never seen Battlestar Galactica?

237. TrekkerChick - March 21, 2013

Oh… And a Klingon agent with an vital mission cracked under the pressure of a couple of fluffballs shoved in his face.

238. Chris Doohan - March 21, 2013

They’ve pulled out all the stops on this movie. I can’t wait!! Buckle up

239. Josh C. - March 21, 2013

@238 – what say you about the “Harry’s Son” rumor? lol

240. For Whatever It's Worf - March 21, 2013

Based on an abundance of information from all manner of sources, my theory:

***POTENTIAL SPOILERS***

Starfleet’s confrontation with the Romulans of this time period, as chronicled in 2009′s “Star Trek” — the first substantial, face-to-face interaction between the two species — during which humans (Kirk, especially) were found physically lacking, as well as the decimation of Starfleet by a single (Borg-augmented, and 24th-Century) enemy vessel, has made an impression on certain of Starfleet’s leadership. With the annihilation of Vulcan and the removal of most of that species from galactic prominence (as they strive to rebuild on their new colony world, courtesy Spock Prime and the surviving elders from the Katric Ark), humanity is left short of allies. It is therefore decided to resurrect an old idea: To “improve” certain necessary elements of humanity and ready them mentally, physically, and militarily for future combat, thereby levelling the playing field and permitting humanity a chance of survival against other species that have evolved or been specifically bred for warfare (the aforementioned Romulans, Klingons, Gorn, Breen, Cardassians, etc.). This is a logical choice to many: Humanity is weak, puny, nascent. In order for humans to exist among the violent, contentious, infinitely more capable races it has or will soon come into contact with, it must evolve — quickly. Enter Admiral Marcus, and old Earth records concerning a complement of augments — “products of early-Twenty-First Century engingeering”. In the wake of Vulcan’s destruction and Nero’s attack on Earth, Starfleet dispatches a mission to locate one S.S. Botany Bay, adrift in deep space, and to retrieve its precious cargo — not merely the genetically enhanced superhuman warriors it bears, but their DNA, key to improving the lot of Redshirts and the abilities of certain Starfleet operatives and special-mission personnel. Perhaps, even, the species. The decision is made to revive their leader, and to harness his abilities in pursuit of Starfleet’s military and covert objectives, to supply him with a new, generic identity and turn him loose to carry out Admiral Marcus’s special-forces instructions. But the revived “John Harrison” is no more cooperative than Khan Nooinien Singh was, and he quickly turns the tables on his putative masters, using his newly-obtained knowledge of the 23rd Century to settle scores and achieve destinies first pursued in the 21st: Conquest, unification, domination of Earth and its peoples. Going rogue, he not only becomes a target for his former puppeteers at Starfleet Command; he also, unwittingly, signs the death sentences of every single on of his former comrades… The remainder of the Botany Bay’s cargo. Fearing that thawing out and attempting to utilize his brothers and sisters in arms will result in similar disaster, Admiral Marcus orders the abandonment of this secret project once precious DNA samples are collected for permanent storage and future experimentation… And pulls the plug on the remaining augments. Now “Harrison” has his motivation not only to create a new world order with himself at its apex… He thirsts for revenge for the slaughter of his innocent comrades.

“Harrison” now means not only to rule the world, but to sweep away two centuries of “progress”. He is only one man, true; but by precipitating a war with a superior aggressor, he will sow Starfleet’s destruction and devastate Earth, creating a climate of fear and desolation ripe for the ascension of a superhuman savior. He approaches certain key Starfleet personnel, with access to sensitive information and facilities — and, more importantly, with specific medical conditions — with a true devil’s bargain: I will (via injection of his augmented DNA) save your loved one, but only if you betray everything you believe in to advance my revenge. That is how “Harrison” is able to gain access to the very heart of Starfleet and to assassinate many of its leadership, and to aquire the ships and weaponry necessary to strike at the heart of the Klingon Empire — the Council.

Some specific predictions:

> Pike will be slain by Harrison during the attack on Starfleet Command. (It is a memorial to him, and other Starfleet casualties of “Harrison”‘s campaign, that occurs at the end of the film and has been featured in trailers.)

> Admiral Marcus — who once attempted to persuade Kirk to join Starfleet as an operative — will first encourage and enable Kirk to carry out his revenge plot against “Harrison”, but will withdraw his support once his daughter is herself killed in the course of Kirk’s quest.

> Spock, having lost respect for Kirk when his Captain blatantly defies the rules out of sensitivity toward his first officer’s survival, will grow to appreciate Kirk anew when he observes how single-mindedly the young renegade guards the safety of his crew… And the lengths he will go to avenge them.

> Uhura and Spock’s romantic relationship will not survive the plunge “Into Darkness”.

> The Enterprise will be significantly damaged… But not destroyed.

> Kirk, Spock, and Uhura’s mission to Q’onos to interfere with “Harrison”‘s plan will bring Kirk respect — and a grudging admiration — from the Klingons.

241. TrekkerChick - March 21, 2013

Hmmmm…

Am I recalling, correctly, a previous observation (set photo) that Harrison wasn’t affected by the FSNP?

From the Memory-Alpha entry for “I, Mudd”

“Elsewhere, Spock tries to nerve pinch another Alice, but it has no effect.”

242. Plum - March 21, 2013

Kirk: I request permission to go after him
Adm. Marcus: Starfleet is not about vendetta Kirk.
Kirk: Maybe it should be.

Really?

243. Josh C. - March 21, 2013

@242 – as people have noted with the scenes of the crashing star ship, one never knows exactly how things are edited together. “maybe it should be” could be in response to something else. Also context. Or passion of the moment.

244. boborci - March 21, 2013

who amoung you will attempt to avoid reading spoilers as movie opens internationally?

245. Josh C. - March 21, 2013

@244 – yeah, i’ll have to block “star trek” on the web and twitter come May I think. reading rumors and ideas pre-release is fun. But I don’t want to hear actual real story spoilers from the actual movie before I see it

246. Lone Browncoat - March 21, 2013

@64. Harrison’s ship is a cool looking ride. The overall shape reminds me of Jango/Boba Fett’s Slave I.

It looked to me like a helicopter minus the rotors.

247. Chris Roberts - March 21, 2013

@216. “What is the Ent connection from TATV is Trip? Or Harrison is Archer’s chef’s grandson and he’s pissed about food replicators that cost his family their jobs…”

Augmented Admiral Archer. He’s pissed because Paxton’s Terra Prime is running Starfleet like a homosapiens only club.

248. Phil - March 21, 2013

@244. Nah, bring them on, I’ll read them all. My anniversary is 5/17, so needless to say I’ll be missing opening weekend. As I’ll know everything when I walk into the theater anyway, it doesn’t matter to me if I know it now or later.

249. Ben - March 21, 2013

I’ve always seen Star Trek as dealing with the social issues of the day. This was most present in TOS with various points made in TNG through ENT.

While Trek 2009 was a stage setter, I clearly see this film as following Roddenberry’s wish of the franchise evolving to tell stories of future struggles. How you may ask? Simple, Into Darkness is about Terrorism.

What have we as not only a nation (United States) but as a global people fought with over the past decade? You can’t fly anywhere and the events of 9/11 not pop into your mind. The same when you go through security be it at a sporting event, local courthouse, or even some Star Trek conventions!

Let’s see what JJ and his crew do for Trek’s 12th outing but as a whole should be more unified that what we are. If it’s not occurred to you yet, remember you’re able to complain and argue about Into Darkness because Trek ’09 was SUCCESS. Like it or not, Star Trek is back baby!

250. Ahmed - March 21, 2013

@245. Josh C

I will second that. I don’t understand how they could, in this age of 24/7 news & internet , they release the movie in Europe a whole week before the movie is out in North America ?

The Internet will be flooded with spoilers & it will be hard to miss them unless we block it completely !!

Bob, I loved the trailer, it was amazing, The poster on the other hand is another story.

Why Dr. McCoy is missing in that poster ? I don’t know know about the others but I couldn’t care less about Uhura.

251. StelArian - March 21, 2013

Can you pls explain me, how are you so sure the ship failing to SF is NOT Enterprise????

252. Phil - March 21, 2013

@251. Sure. See above.

253. porthosesbitch - March 21, 2013

Ever had a stupid thought that made you think…..what if those cryo tubes were in place at Alcatraz…

254. hotchkiss gould executive - March 21, 2013

@244 boborci:

While it is fun to see a little more or to hear a little more, I prefer not to heat any international spoilers. The movie will be better that way. Anyone who is a Mad Men fan has been used to the secrecy. And it makes watching it more fun.

Although, I do have to ask: Is it still fun to watch the movie even though you’ve written it?

255. CrazyHorse - March 21, 2013

I was trying to remember what the ship firing on the conference room reminded me of, and I came up with 4 possibilities.

Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life (1983)
The Godfather Part III (1990)
Star Trek Voyager – Alliances (1996)
The Matrix (1999)

256. gingerly - March 21, 2013

@250

McCoy was missing from most of the TOS posters as well.

So, Uhura isn’t replacing him,.

…But perhaps she is replacing Saavik and Illia who were on the posters.

This is well-deserved for both the actress (she has earned the largest box office of any of the stars) and Uhura (for which Saavik and Illia stepped in as “women” while Uhura remained in the background).

257. The TOS Purist aka The Purolator - March 21, 2013

Wow, looks like it’ll be a pretty neat Mass Effect movie!! :)

258. Sherlock - March 21, 2013

‘One of our top agents’

does Paxton refer to Cumbi or to Noel Clarke who has dropped the ring into the water?

couldn’t he just beam it into it?

259. Ahmed - March 21, 2013

@256. gingerly

My point was that from what we seen so far, the teaser, the trailers, the comics and now the poster, it seem like the focus is shifted from McCoy to Uhura.

I don’t have a problem with expanding Uhura role but that should not be at the expense of McCoy.

They should keep the original troika: Kirk, Spock and Dr. McCoy.

260. porthosesbitch - March 21, 2013

Hey….check out the red shirt escorting Harrison if that isnt Security Chief Giotto (Devil in the Dark) he oughta be.

261. Sherlock - March 21, 2013

@ 251 StelArian

In which alternate universe does Kirk’s Enterprise look like the vessel colliding?

262. Randy - March 21, 2013

Wasn’t there an early rumor during pre-production that Greg Grunberg could be playing Mudd as the antagonist? Could fit in w/ this rumor, along w/ Mudd’s daughter in the comics. I don’t buy it though. The androids of planet Mudd, and Mudd himself, seem fat too esoteric to build a major summer tentpole movie around. I thought they wanted to make a ST movie for everyone, not just ST fans…

263. Chris Roberts - March 21, 2013

@244. “Who among you will attempt to avoid reading spoilers as movie opens internationally?”

Living in Britain and planning to go see it either Thursday or Friday night, I won’t have to avoid them.

I don’t plan on spoiling it for anybody, so will wait a few days and join in the discussion then.

I’m more worried about leaks before then, or just a lot of speculation that’s well informed. A lot of that is fog at the moment, but I might well stay away from Trek forums in the last few weeks, as it begins to clear.

264. Christopher - March 21, 2013

Is TrekMovie going to run an article acknowledging the rumored Mudd spoilers from that website? They did when everyone thought Entertainment Weekly spoiled Kahn as the villain and debunked it. Just wondering cause it’s pretty major if so. Though I also see that none of the major movie new sites have picked up the story and that was hours ago. So part of me wants to call b.s.

265. PureGenius - March 21, 2013

@251

The ship that hits Alcatraz has a good amount of secondary hull superstructure BELOW the deflector dish. The JJ-enterprise’s dish is almost flush with the bottom of the secondary hull. I think this ship and the Enterprise do battle above Earth. The trailer is edited to make the casual observer think it is the Enterprise. It’s a typical red herring.

266. Plum - March 21, 2013

No one has posted anything about this ‘crime’ that, presumably, starfleet has committed. This seems to be John Harrison’s motivation, and the biggest question on my mind.

267. tuvix - March 21, 2013

Revenge is a dish best served cold corpses.

268. Mudd in Your Eye - March 21, 2013

@266.: #240 may have alluded to it when they referred to “pulling the plug” on the augments.

269. Astrophysicophile - March 21, 2013

105. Although the Genesis Planet, the Great (not Galactic) Barrier, the God Planet (Sha Ka Ree), and Veridian III were new worlds (or new places as in the case of the Great Barrier), they did not have new civilizations. And Remus, Delta Vega (the one that Vulcan’s sister planet), and Vulcan were not really new worlds, as Remus belonged to the Romulans and Delta Vega and Vulcan to the Federation.

106. Since Nimbus III was a joint Federation-Klingon-Romulan colony and Rura Penthe was a Klingon penal colony, they don’t count as new worlds.

111. As 104, 105, and 106 tried to say, SFS, TFF, and INS were partially about exploring new worlds (and new civilizations.) Even though SFS was actually about saving someone, the USS Grissom did explore the Genesis Planet. In TFF, the Enterprise A explored Sha Ka Ree, although someone forced the ship to do so. And although INS was about greed and vanity and turned out to also be about revenge, the Enterprise E did explore the Ba’ku.

270. cw - March 21, 2013

#235 Point taken. Forgot all about that.

I still wonder about the Enterprise (ENT) connection (BIG fan of ENT) and can’t help but thing the start of the Federation, Trip’s death, or maybe Reed and his connection to Sect 31? IDK, but I am having some fun thinking about the ‘what if’s”

271. Classy M - March 21, 2013

All day I’ve been trying to think what the poster reminded me of and I finally got it: Kirk, Spock and Mc… uh, Uhura are in the classic Charlie’s Angel pose. That can only mean one thing…

Cumberbatch is Bosley!

272. Craiger - March 21, 2013

What if Admiral Marcus is head of Section 31 and asks Kirk to work for him and become a Section 31 agent allowing Kirk to keep being Captain and he will have authority to violate the Prime Directive as he sees fit in order to get Harrison?

273. Scott Umsteadt - March 21, 2013

I totally agree the the movies have been the same revenge plot recycled (There are supposedly only three stories in drama that get retold). and I agree that it gets old. If Star Trek, as Roddenberry claimed, was about us, then why can’t the writers find other forms of conflict for the plot? Exploring space does give a writer unlimited possibilities for an antagonist. And the established stories have already given us mysteries, comedy, and drama wrapped in a Science Fiction shell. I understand that the scope of the films need to be bigger, story wise and visually, but beaming down to a new unexplored planet seems to me to be a great way to get the action started. And lets not forget that Classic Trek always had a twilight zone element to a lot of the episodes. I miss those “ironic twists”.

274. PEB - March 21, 2013

I have a strong feeling we’ll see a refitted Enterprise at the end of the film. Or an Enterprise in the process of being repaired and refitted. I mean, why damage it SO much right now unless…

275. BRF - March 21, 2013

Strong trailer, and yes — the Federation’s interior design is strangely, strongly Strangelovian. Perhaps Cumberbatch has the doomsday device.

276. Astrophysicophile - March 21, 2013

114. I agree with you. However, the Genesis Planet and the Great (not Galactic) Barrier were explored. As I mentioned in 111, the USS Grissom explored the Genesis Planet, so the mission of exploration was the Grissom’s. The mission to recover Spock’s body was that of the senior officers of the Enterprise.

The scientists who already knew about the Great Barrier never explored it per se because no ship had ever gone into it and no probe had ever returned. So, they probably knew about it from having discovered and studied it from afar. And so, as I mentioned in 111, the Enterprise A explored it, even though someone (Sybok) forced it to do so. That is, the ship de facto explored it, even though the mission of discovery was Sybok’s, not Starfleet’s.

115. See 269 and 270.

277. Where on or off Earth is... - March 21, 2013

I want to know:
On the bridge, WHERE is the ship’s plaque?

U.S.S. Enterprise
NCC-1701
Constructed in …

Don’t tell me this tradition ended after the Narada/Kelvin incident when the timeline changed…

(Looking at Roberto Orci, our resident Star Trek fan — and Star Trek movie Power That Be.)

278. porthosesbitch - March 21, 2013

Alice Eve ….I just want to lay in the dialouge track from the finale of Superman II (the retribution in the diner )…..”I’ve been…..ummmm…working out “

279. topas - March 21, 2013

@277

It’s there, next to one of the turbolifts, but looks like nowthing we’re acustomed to… It’s no longer a traditional / maritime plaque, but rather a piece of plexiglas in a weird shape…

280. Yanks - March 21, 2013

240. For Whatever It’s Worf – March 21, 2013

Wow, that’s some serious work there.

Don’t agree, but impressive nonetheless.

..and Bob, no spoilers from over the pond please.

Epic trailer!!

281. Astrophysicophile - March 21, 2013

118. Since the introductory sequence of Star Trek includes the words “strange new worlds”, I do not mind a visit to a planet because something strange is there. So, the Grissom exploring the Genesis Planet qualifies as exploration.

As I tried to say in 276, even though Sybok forced the Enterprise A to explore the Great Barrier, the ship did in fact explore it.

Thank you for reminding me that a Starfleet team (Admiral Dougherty’s), not the Enterprise, was doing the exploring of Ba’ku, and that the exploring was only done at the beginning of the movie. So, you are correct that the exploration in Insurrection barely qualifies.

282. topas - March 21, 2013

@277

Here’s the plaque, on the right:

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/811/startrekmp4000.jpg/

283. Astrophysicophile - March 21, 2013

126. You left out Star Trek: The Search for Spock.

284. Hawkeye53 - March 21, 2013

@ 87, I have to agree. My first thought was it looks like the Excelsior. An re-imagined version. The drive section, especially where the deflector dish is.

I can’t wait for this movie, roll on 9th May.

285. Twilight Trek - March 21, 2013

Bob Orci, …Dr. Marcus… thank you… and thank the casting crew.

286. Romulus - March 21, 2013

Does anyone know if the role was written differently when the Supreme Court were wanting Benicio Del Toro as the villain.

287. Trek Fan - March 21, 2013

Well if THAT doesn’t end the Khan rumors, I don’t know what will.

288. RAMA - March 21, 2013

This trailer is really action packed, but there’s a Nolanesque vibe going through the whole thing and that’s probably good. I bet there are theater goers saying “this is star trek”?

Did you ever think you’d see such a fully realized, solid, believable world like this in a Trek movie? Love the shot with Kirk looking out on the Klingon horizon.

This may be the first trek movie since I was kid that I only know half the story to. I guess that’s what they wanted and it’s probably a good thing too.

For the traditional Trek fundamentalists…yes it doesn’t look like Trek, but what does that mean really? Its a different “regime” it SHOULD be different, I don’t understand the fuss…if they had made it exactly like the old movie series, then they’d say it wasn’t original.

Exploration: File under beating a dead horse. Most of the exploration was a sidebar to the real Trek stories and sometimes even that was within a parable, so exploration was not the central theme. The movies explored little…Sulu was doing scientific tests on Excelsior (but that wouldn’t have excited people as a story), Genesis was explored by Reliant and Grissom (again not the central story), even V’Ger–as alien as it was–went to Earth. Every Trek movie but ONE had scenes on Earth.

289. William Bradley - March 21, 2013

That’s right. TrekMovie pushed the Khan nonsense and you still won’t give it up … lol

>Dialog

Adm. Marcus: By now all of you heard what happened in London. The man who did it is one of our top agents (could be speaking about Harrison or about the “Father” seen dropping his ring in the December teaser trailer)

290. kmart - March 21, 2013

281,
The exploration in INS barely qualifies, but there is an acknowledgement up front when Picard says something like, ‘remember when we used to be explorers?’

Also, a slight detour: I remember Shatner saying that the way he played Kirk (and this was in the late 70s) was to look at everything like wow, that is really weird and interesting. So he was PLAYING IT as a kind of exploration — even when it was just monster-of-the-week.

Exploration can be a state of mine as well as literal, just as Trek can explore inner space (consciousness and self) as well as actual strange new worlds (in fact, TNG to me was way too much this way, focused more on their own navels than the universe around them.)

But like it or not, that is part of what Trek was and did — and more to the point, it is what AbramsTrek has failed to do, and probably doesn’t want to know from, because they’re too busy recreating MILLENNIUM FALCON moments with their little spaceships.

291. gingerly - March 21, 2013

@259

“I don’t have a problem with expanding Uhura role but that should not be at the expense of McCoy.”

Why do assume her prominence is the reason why you’re seeing less of Bones?

Do you also blame Illia for the reduction in Bones’ role in TMP?

292. jacob kell - March 21, 2013

the ship crashing to earth is the Enterprise.

293. Mad Mann - March 21, 2013

I will not avoid reading spoilers. I would like to know as much as possible before I see a movie. As proven in a recent study, knowing more about the movie increases the enjoyment of it. It is a myth that one should little to nothing before watching a movie. Abrams is too hung up on that “mystery box” bullshit.

294. jacob kell - March 21, 2013

#21 “I’ll go with Harrison being April’s son. Probably Robert April dies in the fourth issue of the comics and his son Harrison (who is currently serving as an agent in Starfleet/Section 31) comes to know about his father being alive all these years and how he was helping an endangered race achieve freedom. Harrison holds Starfleet responsible for his father’s death. He then attacks Starfleet and conspires with the Klingons to complete his father’s mission.”

*this sounds pretty spot on..

295. kmart - March 21, 2013

De did, kind of. He mentioned in 82 that he was getting tired of being airbrushed out of early artwork in order to add Persis and Kirstie. Part of the deal with Trek was that the principal characters were also the principal people in each others’ lives, so when you bring in new blood that can dilute the existing relationship (or make it seem that much stronger by comparison.)

296. Ahmed - March 21, 2013

Unless the movie is 3 hours long, you have a limited amount of time to allocate to your supporting characters. Given that Kirk & Spock are the main characters, everyone else will get less time on the screen.

And from what I’m seeing so far Uhura is getting more on the screen time than McCoy & that in my view is weaken the classical troika of Kirk-Spock-McCoy for the sake of a love interest character.

“Do you also blame Illia for the reduction in Bones’ role in TMP?”

No, Illia was a major part in the plot & not just there to “show support for her guy” as it is the case with Uhura.

And I guess you can tell that I’m not fond of this whole Spock-Uhura relationship thing that they put in the movie.

297. Yanks - March 21, 2013

@ 282. topas – March 21, 2013

Well played, well played.

298. Marja - March 21, 2013

#197 Astrophysicophile – Agreed, it sure looks like Spock, followed by Uhura, followed by Kirk. The three are coming out of the ship that Kirk insisted would “fit, it’ll fit”

#208 JoshC – maybe Harrison is shamming so he can get onto the Enterprise and wreak mass destruction

#240 ForWhatitsWorf – Dear heart, I so wish you could space between paragraphs but maybe you’re comming us from a Smartphone … I think your theory is very plausible until it gets to the Khan part. I think as someone else speculated it may be that nanotechnology – a sophisticated 23rd century type, of course – was used after Kelvin’s destruction by a DARPA-like Starfleet organization to create supersoldiers. But I don’t think it’s a Khan-centric [heh] plot ….

#253 PorthosesB – An interesting idea – a “convenient” crash destroys whatever is there!

#282, Topas – Dang, I can’t read the thing, but if that’s it I am sad that it looks like an iPlaque. I like the bronze-style plaque. : (

299. Curious Cadet - March 21, 2013

@59. Will Decker
“All I can think about is Alice Eve in that space bikini…”

Noo, there’s nothing objectified about that …

300. Sebastian S. - March 21, 2013

That trailer is absolutely 110% awesome.
Thanks Bad Robot, for brightening an otherwise humdrum Thursday…

Safe to say the Khan rumors are officially dead now, eh?
Unless Khan is now “one of our own” as Adm. Marcus says. Don’t think so…

Augment? Very likely.
Khan Noonian Singh? Um… don’t think so.

At any rate, the movie looks absolutely spectacular; I can’t wait for May!

301. Sebastian S. - March 21, 2013

# 289

“Adm. Marcus: By now all of you heard what happened in London. The man who did it is one of our top agents (could be speaking about Harrison or about the “Father” seen dropping his ring in the December teaser trailer)”
_____________________

The ‘father’ was a suicide bomber; highly unlikely Starfleet HQ is focusing their manhunt on a dead guy. Pretty sure they were referring to Harrison, who is clearly NOT Khan.

Unless, of course,Khan was revived earlier in the new timeline somehow (without Kirk/Spock’s knowledge), not recognized by anyone in Starfleet intelligence or on earth, went to the academy, and then signed up to become an agent without any kind of vetting or background check (that was a joke, BTW…).

;-D

302. Ritz - March 21, 2013

@296

Exactly – I am not a fan of the relationship either – or the new take on Spock for that matter. Without much Bones, the Kirk-Spock relationship isn’t as dynamic or intellectually interesting. And without Spock actually being Spock it gets even farther away from Trek. That may be fine for some – but for me, scenes like the one in WoK when Kirk, Spock, and McCoy discuss the genesis project are what make original Trek so fascinating.

303. Astrophysicophile - March 21, 2013

142. 114 was writing of Star Trek III in which David Marcus and Saavik explored the Genesis Planet after having detecting something strange there.

Even though the Enterprise A was hijacked to the Great Barrier, the ship did effectively explore that region of space. The ship not only broke through the Great Barrier, the crew also tried to use the ship’s instruments to get readings on it, and the senior most officers explored Sha Ka Ree. Trained to explore, the crew would not waste any opportunity to explore. So, although the ship was not on a mission of exploration to the Great Barrier, it effectively conducted exploration of that region of space anyway. If a group of religious fanatics hijacked the Santa Maria to Antarctica, wouldn’t Columbus have done some exploration anyway?

304. Cant Wait Fer ST:ID - March 21, 2013

I must not be a “real” trek fan cuz I hate all the navel-contemplating episodes that supposedly represents GR’s vision. I like nuTrek and all the action and adrenaline rushing and fast pace and … KEENSER.

305. Jonboc - March 21, 2013

Bob Orci, no spoiler-ridden foreign press for me! I’ll be abstaining from my usual Internet haunts the day the movie is released over yonder way…I already know way more than I want to.

306. Keachick - March 21, 2013

The thing is – Dr McCoy is a medical physician, whose first duty is to uphold the Hippocratic Oath, even before any other oaths/vows he may have made to Starfleet. He is in a slightly different category from the other officers on the Enterprise. Therefore, to see Dr McCoy in a poster like the one just produced would not be right. Given what is known of the plot, Dr McCoy’s absence from the poster and what it is depicting makes absolute sense.

We know that both Kirks are not TNG’s Picard – different characters/personalities (even Picard ignored certain SF regulations, re captain going on away missions on a couple of occasions on TNG TV series). Spock in ST09 noted that there was little point in citing regulations in this regard because he would just ignore them anyway. Therefore Kirk, Spock, Uhura, Chekov, Scotty etc can be asked to fight, if necessary. Dr McCoy no doubt knows how to defend himself, but battle strategy/tactics and execution is not his primary function or focus and nor should they be. His vocation is of a much *higher* calibre. Kirk, Spock and the other officers, like Uhura, would see an important part of their duties would be to defend and protect the good doctor, his medical team and patients. The sick bay is the safest, most protected area on the entire Enterprise, according to a season 2 episode I’ve just watched…built that way.

I believe that Dr McCoy in STID has a ethical/moral dilemma of his own to deal with because of who he is – a physician charged with saving lives and alleviating suffering.

Shaping up to be an interesting and exciting film!

307. Ahmed - March 21, 2013

@306. Keachick,

Maybe I’m getting it wrong, but what you described here is a passive Dr. McCoy, someone that I don’t recall seeing a lot in the series or the movies.

Dr. McCoy was not confined to the sick bay, he was one important part of the trio that include Kirk & Spock. True, most of the time, it was his advice that Kirk was seeking but he also contributed & fought alongside Kirk & Spock.

308. Shilliam Watner (Click Name for Trek Poster) - March 21, 2013

Anthony, this is hard work. Thank you. There’s no way I’d ever watch this thing that closely. I appreciate you showing all the stuff I miss because I’m such a flake.

I have no doubt at all that even if Cumberbatch IS playing Khan, the story is so not Space Seed that it shouldn’t matter to anybody now.

Anyway, it looks really fun, but I hope it’s more than that. They obviously have the big moments done well. I hope for some great small moments as well.

309. Dominic - March 21, 2013

Regarding spoilers and leaks; having foreknowledge of a movie, book or TV show doesn’t detract from my overall enjoyment of it. The pleasure is in the journey, as they say. Knowing how the movie ends doesn’t make it any less of a thrill ride for me.

Fringe is my current obsession. I have been a bit behind, but I am now on the final season and immediately after the 4th episode, I watched the final scene of the final episode. And it was wonderful- everything a fan would want. And now I get to watch it all unfold beautifully in front of me, episode by episode and it is still just as exciting and emotional a show as I will ever watch. I adore it. Spoilers took nothing away from the experience.

310. Marja - March 21, 2013

Well, I kinda think Keachick’s take on McCoy is correct.

In TOS McCoy did go on a lot of away teams [usually composed of the "troika"] … but I don’t recall him *ever* shooting anyone, unless to defend one of his fellow officers … I don’t even remember *that* though. First thing McCoy got busy doing after any gunplay was see to the patients – all of them.

He looks pretty busy in Sickbay. Anyone notice his shirt in that picture? Homage to TOS McCoy’s “surgical” shirt! Yay

I am looking forward to the twisty turny surprises – don’t know for sure if I can resist some spoilers though.

311. BH - March 21, 2013

I’ve been thinking Garth the whole way. Let’s remember this, from Paramount:

“In Summer 2013, pioneering director J.J. Abrams will deliver an explosive action thriller that takes Star Trek Into Darkness.

When the crew of the Enterprise is called back home, they find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization has detonated the fleet and everything it stands for, leaving our world in a state of crisis.

With a personal score to settle, Captain Kirk leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one man weapon of mass destruction.

As our heroes are propelled into an epic chess game of life and death, love will be challenged, friendships will be torn apart, and sacrifices must be made for the only family Kirk has left: his crew.”

Detonating the fleet means more than one ship, which is why that isn’t the Enterprise in the water.

Kirk and family, the line of “I watched you murder innocent men and women…”

Kodos the Executioner 2.0?

I’ve been reading Countdown, and unless they’ve deliberately drawn April to fool us, this mystery is pretty good. I’ll stick with Garth, and his explosives.

312. Geek Girl - March 21, 2013

Hmm that’s odd. A comment I posted earlier this morning (119 according to the other tab I have open) has suddenly disappeared.

As I was saying earlier having finally watched season 3 of TOS (for the first time in my 15 yrs of being a Trekkie), I’ve come to believe that Benedict may be playing Garth of Izar. After all he is capable of taking on other appearances (so Benedict’s character could still be Harrison), he claimed to have created the most powerful explosive ever, he’s just as arrogant and intelligent as Khan and he was a highly respected captain in the Federation. Of course like my first two guesses I’m probably wrong again but the signs certainly point towards Garth.

And if this post disappears again I’ll know that it’s a conspiracy ;)

313. Phil - March 21, 2013

He’s a Tholian…

314. Keachick - March 21, 2013

I am not describing a passive Dr McCoy at all, just the inappropriateness of his being in the latest poster. Fortunately, he is not in it.

In TOS, we saw Dr McCoy a lot of the time on the bridge, however he rarely needed to be there and most of the time did not even belong there. He was there because his FRIEND, Jim Kirk, was there and if Kirk did not mind him being there, then he remained until he was needed in sickbay. Sometimes Dr McCoy went down as part of a landing party, but much of the time, that was not really appropriate either.

Another aspect about Uhura’s presence in the new poster, as opposed to McCoy’s non-presence, I think, has to do with Uhura becoming a kind of troubleshooter. That is the impression I am getting from the little of the comics that I have seen so far. In TNG, the communications and security areas were combined, firstly with Tasha Yar being in charge of both, and then Lt Wolf. Perhaps what happened later in the 24th century has become fact in this alternate 23rd century. I can see how combining communications and security/tactics could make sense. After all, it is surely a communications officer with xenolinguistics who would be the first to pick up on miscommunication, misunderstanding and possible aggression resulting from this confusion.

315. StelArian - March 21, 2013

265. PureGenius: Nice say. Thanx :)

316. Ahmed - March 21, 2013

@314. Keachick

“Another aspect about Uhura’s presence in the new poster, as opposed to McCoy’s non-presence, I think, has to do with Uhura becoming a kind of troubleshooter”

Uhura as a troubleshooter would be an interesting take on her character, however; my fear is that the writers will focus more on the relationship aspect than her skills.

We seen her comforting Spock in one scene, crying in another scene. Sound more like the typical love interest take than a serious character.

We will find out for sure when the movie come out in May :)

317. RoadSiren21 - March 21, 2013

@240

Starfleet doesn’t need to find the Botany Bay to get Augment dna because they already have augments from the Eugenics Wars stored at Cold Station 12.

318. DonDonP1 - March 22, 2013

@314: No offense, but don’t you mean Lieutenant WORF?!

319. Bird of Prey - March 22, 2013

My two cents:

- Many humans at this Starfleet’s bigwig conference table. That one woman on the right side looks like she could be Vulcan, and there is another alien on the right side. And the bald man (from our perspective) at the right side next to Kirk could be Deltan or Tiburonian (or simply a bald human). But wouldn’t that have been a perfect opportunity show show some Andorians, Tellarites, ect.?

- Didn’t the Kazon do the same “hover with shuttle directly in front of window and shoot everyone” trick in a Voyager-episode?

- I like the uniforms Kirk and McCoy are wearing in the shuttle hangar. A transparent part shows the shirt underneath, and thus the department color! :-D

- The picture wherein Carol glares angrily at Harrison. Maybe his attack killed her dad?

- The picture wherein some security personnel escorts Harrison. Perhaps the Enterprise crew members are the ACTUAL captives, and Harrison is the leader of a redshirt revolt, the crime of the commanders he cannot forgive being the fact that redshirts tend to be treated as nothing but cannon fodder?? ;-)

- Why is it always stated that it’s NOT the Enterprise that crash-lands in San Francisco? Granted, the cut (showing a partly damaged Enterprise in orbit directly before that) could be deliberately misleading – but how are you so sure about that??

320. Exverlobter - March 22, 2013

@314.
What a waste. Uhura?
Judge Dredd should have been on that Poster ;-)

321. Jack - March 22, 2013

I’m looking forward to seeing a Trek trailer in a movie theatre — for months it’s been Wall-E , er, I mean, Oblivion.

Man, this seems like an especially sci-fi heavy movie year.

322. Sebastian S. - March 22, 2013

# 319

“- Didn’t the Kazon do the same “hover with shuttle directly in front of window and shoot everyone” trick in a Voyager-episode?”
________________________________

Yes, but VGR didn’t invent that shot.
“Godfather III” did. It was a helicopter that wiped out a mobster conference.
The idea is not unique granted, but hey… it still works.

323. Jack - March 22, 2013

Oddly, the recycled Oz movie might be the only look we get at strange new worlds this year…

324. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - March 22, 2013

@319. Bird of Prey

So, out of 20 personnel, 3 or 4 are apparently non-human (including Spock). That’s 15-20% alien (depending on whether the bald man is Human or not). My understanding is that Starfleet is still overly represented by Humans, so maybe those ratios a quite good for a meeting of personnel at that level.

325. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - March 22, 2013

And the percentage of females (of all species) present seems to be 25%.

326. Astrophysicophile - March 22, 2013

115. Regarding 276, I incorrectly referred to 270. Just see 269.

327. ksmsscu - March 22, 2013

@244 — Bob: I’m nearly at the point of stopping all exposure to STID now. Yet it’s irresistible not to watch when the Court puts out such a spectacular (different from TOS, but we want Trek to live and prosper for many more years) trailer and we can study the screencaps. I know your sequences, even one frame to another, can and often are misleading; that just adds to the fun. I’d never watch the 30 minutes or read the supposed ‘truth’ at PCZ.

On international release, I will carefully select non-SF/non-entertainment sites, watch only DVRed TV, and ignore my daily newspaper. Then, my wife, son and I will be at the 8pm IMAX 3D showing on May 15th in Colorado Springs. I’ll be wearing my ‘Risk Is Our Business’ T, anticipating a great story and a worthy successor to the best of the TOS films.

Thanks for all your hard work. Now get back to the grindstone: 13 in ’16!

328. Astrophysicophile - March 22, 2013

170. In relation to the city of San Francisco, Alcatraz is about 1 mile north of Fisherman’s Wharf. See Google Maps (http://goo.gl/maps/JDfss.)

329. Passionate About Protein - March 22, 2013

I came looking for the new Star Trailer;

Found the new Judge Dredd trailer instead.

This is Star Trek? Really?

330. rogerachong - March 22, 2013

Bones is scanning Benedict in one of the pics as Dr. Marcus gives him the eye. The redshirt is in the background so it implies this happened before they place him in the brig. So if he were a robot or an augment they should have that knowledge before he is placed in the brig, before Spock chases him around town and before he breaks out of the brig.

I am confused a bit here I must say; and why is Kirk and someone else (maybe Harrison) space jumpimg from a damaged Enterprise unto the other ship that I now believe crashes into Alcatraz? Is this other Constellation class ship piloted by a rogue Peter Weller (April conspiracy connection)?

An earlier poster is right Kirk has a gun in his hand and together with Scotty only seems to be following Harrison when he punchs out the asian dude with the funny light blue outfit. The Kreo figures have a bad guy with the exact same outfit! Also in the new comics “Return of the Archons” redo Sulu (who happens to be an asian dude) is seen to be some sort of shady Starfleet operative maybe headed by Peter Weller.

Harrison is said to be a manipulator and tries to break the bond between our heroes, so does he convince Kirk and Scotty to inadvertently assist him and then Spock sees through it all and goes after Harrison to stop him! Uhura is driven to tears as she believes it is a suicide attempt ( ala Nibiru volcano and in the Countdown comics) as by now they know the true physical nature of Harrison.

I like this ship it’s exciting!! By now anyone who thinks STID is not their Star Trek should try writing their own fan fiction. Really, that way you get to improve yourself and broaden your life experiences. Get into the studio, get into the game, otherwise just chillax and enjoy the music. LLAP.

331. somethoughts - March 22, 2013

#244

I know I should stop reading and limiting info gained but it is so hard. I know I may enjoy the movie more if I hid away and turned off the tv, phone and internet but I do not think it is possible. I wish you guys had a worldwide release at the same time, but I guess that is not possible also.

I will watch it on 3D IMAX first then go again with friends and family and see if I had missed anything the first few viewings.

I have a feeling the crew and the audience do not find out until near the end and you will torture us for another 4yrs :)

332. boborci - March 22, 2013

327. ksmsscu – March 22, 2013

good luck to you:)

333. Mark Lynch - March 22, 2013

Bob Orci and team

I just have to thank you for this…

http://forum.starplex.co.uk/download/file.php?id=55&mode=view

Thank you! :-)

334. lwr - March 22, 2013

hey I was wondering……….
is the fact that Alcatraz gets pretty muched “cancelled” in this trailer a homage by JJ that his Tv show “Alcatraz”, which i loved by the way, got cancelled?
lol!!

335. Sebi - March 22, 2013

Damn, everytime I browse through those screencaps, I stop for the picture with Alice Eve longer than for others….

336. Thomas Cook - March 22, 2013

I just hope we don’t get stuck with a pessimistic and/or questionable movie ending to remember, since I personally don’t believe we will be getting any more ST movies..

I’d really like to have something good to remember.

May the movie be a massive hit! (hopefully)

Thomas

337. Mel - March 22, 2013

@ 325. ObsessiveStarTrekFan – March 22, 2013

“And the percentage of females (of all species) present seems to be 25%.”

Just like in the last movie. :-(

There was the hearing after Kirk cheated in the Kobayashi Maru test, Spock before the Vulcan Academy board and the leaders of Vulcan in that cave, which Spock evacuated shortly before Vulcan’s destruction. Hardly any women in higher positions were seen in those scenes.

It really can’t be so hard to make it more 50%/50%.

338. LazarusNine - March 22, 2013

I have never felt so dispassionate about an upcoming Star Trek film. I wasn’t sure if I was watching the Iron Man 3 trailer or maybe Die Hard 18. And I stand tall with all those pissed off about Carol Marcus in underwear – it’s completely unnecessary and patronising to an audience that I suppose is expected to want to pay £7 for a ticket to see some skin. Are you serious? As Shatner would say, ‘get a life!’

339. Exverlobter - March 22, 2013

@338
” And I stand tall with all those pissed off about Carol Marcus in underwear – it’s completely unnecessary and patronising to an audience that I suppose is expected to want to pay £7 for a ticket to see some skin.”

Nothing new. We saw Uhura in underwear in the previous film.
We saw Jolene Blalock’s bare butt in Enterprise. We saw Jeri Ryans bare back in Voyager. We saw Terry Farrel in a Bikini on DS9.
And TOS with those miniskirts? Nuff said.

340. boris - March 22, 2013

The ship crashing to the ground looks like the 1701-E however I suspect its the JJ Exelcior class. A prototype Harrison has sabotaged or something. Notice on the close up explosion the purple/blue impulse engine is larger and longer and in the same position like excelsior class.

341. JohnRambo - March 22, 2013

there is a new scene in this trailer
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=101867

342. LogicalLeopard - March 22, 2013

339. Exverlobter – March 22, 2013
@338
” And I stand tall with all those pissed off about Carol Marcus in underwear – it’s completely unnecessary and patronising to an audience that I suppose is expected to want to pay £7 for a ticket to see some skin.”

Nothing new. We saw Uhura in underwear in the previous film.
We saw Jolene Blalock’s bare butt in Enterprise. We saw Jeri Ryans bare back in Voyager. We saw Terry Farrel in a Bikini on DS9.
And TOS with those miniskirts? Nuff said.

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

You know, I didn’t see the trailer until later yesterday. I saw the pictures here first, thinking that it was going to be explained in the trailer why she was in her underwear.

But the picture is basically what you get in the trailer, which is a split second of Alice Eve in her underwear, looking as if she’s thinking, “What am I doing in my underwear in this stupid trailer?” It was useless and totally out of joint with the rest of the trailer. I don’t claim to be a filmmaker, but that shot serves no purpose but to show the audience, “Oh yes, there will be cheesecake.” The problem I had with it though is that although the actual scene may be….well, as sensible as you can make it….it made no sense to include it in the trailer. And that’s really the problem.

343. The Mighty Chip - March 22, 2013

219 Bird of Prey and others:

It’s been stated several times in several threads why we believe it’s not the Enterprise crashing into Alcatraz/SF Bay. At first glance the crashing ship looks like a JJ-Constitution class ship, but when you look at it closely you notice several differences:

1. The nacelles are shaped differently – they are rectangular/trapezoidal (possibly triangular) instead of the bulbous round shape of the Enterprise’s nacelles.

2. The nacelle struts are too shallow/spread out, whereas the Enterprise’s are more upright. (This one is subtle, you might have to look at the pictures side-by-side to see it).

3. The deflector dish on the Enterprise protrudes outward from the hull, much like it did in TOS. However in the closeups of this most recent trailer you can see the deflector dish is inset into the secondary hull similar to the TOS Excelsior class. (I’m not saying the crashing ship is neccesarily an Excelsior, I’m just saying that’s what it looks similar to)

344. The Mighty Chip - March 22, 2013

To the people commenting about the high percentage of humans in Starfleet admiralty:

It’s my understanding that Starfleet is Earth’s military force, and that other planets in the Federation maintain their own military fleets. SF may be the most prominent military in the Federation, just like the US military is the most prominent one in the UN, but that doesn’t mean it’s the only one.

So given the fact that SF is Earth’s fleet it doesn’t surprise me at all that it’s comprised mostly of Earth personel (ie, humans). Just like the US Navy has mostly US citizens and the British army has mostly British citizen’s – it’s not neccesarily prejudice just because your organization happens to be made up mostly of your own people.

TL;DR: The aliens are so sparsely represented in Starfleet because most of them decided to join the fleets of their own planets instead of trucking all the way to a foreign system’s military.

345. Denny Crane - March 22, 2013

The ship crashing into Alcatraz IS in fact the Enterprise-E, coming from future. The big secret Abrams wants to keep is that the TNG-crew is playing a big role in the movie.

346. Phil - March 22, 2013

@345. Riiiiiiight…..

347. bmar - March 22, 2013

A thought – and forgive if someone has pointed this out before. So the “round table” scene. You will notice that there are some dressed in admiral uniforms (Pike, Marcus, etc) and many dressed in uniforms either identical or similar to what Kirk is wearing. Since we have heard in the past that Harrison decimates the star fleet – and we hear in this one that “your commanders have committed a crime” – might we suppose that the gathering of people at this table are the Captains of all (or many) of the Starships in the fleet? That would account for Kirk being at what seems like a high level meeting. It would also give a good reason for Harrison to be blowing it apart…take out all of the Captains at once.

348. The Mighty Chip - March 22, 2013

On the subject of C. Marcus in her underwear:

Remember that the entire reason for a trailer’s existence is to get as many people as possible to buy a movie ticket. It was NOT made to give an accurate description of the movie or to carry any social/political/moral/etc message of its own. It’s just there to get butts in the seats.

With that in mind, I would just urge everyone to withhold judgement of the underwear scene until they actually see the movie. Yes, the way Eve’s character has been depicted in the trailers so far has been pandering to a male’s libido, but as previously stated pandering to people is the entire reason trailers are made – that is literally the only thing a trailer is supposed to do.

Maybe I’m just being too optimistic, but given the plot details we’ve gleaned so far, I don’t think the “underwear scene” will be anything demeaning or raunchy once we see it in context. To me (and I admit I’m just guessing here) it looks like Marcus is just changing in to a space suit or something similar – no sexual undertones to it at all. It’s very common in real-world militaries to change clothes together because there’s no time or space to give everyone their own private changing room. It’s not done for sexiness, it’s done for practical/pragmatic reasons. I think that’s what’s happening here: Kirk and Eve are both trained SF officers, and I bet she’s in her underwear for professional job-related reasons (again, my guess is changing in to a space suit).

…I’d be lying if I didn’t admit she’s a damn attractive woman though.

349. somethoughts - March 22, 2013

as a funny joke, John Harrison is in fact a de aged Rick Berman coming through the alternate reality to get his vengeance upon new kirk and crew for being so dam successful.

350. cpelc - March 22, 2013

@341 – Yeah crew getting sucked out of the ship at Warp. Looks cool. Did you also notice the location text i.e. London 2259 and Starfleet Headquarters San Francisco?

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=101867

Link again for others.

351. somethoughts - March 22, 2013

#348

Boobs in space, holds out plate, please sir can we have some more?

I complained about Uhura’s boring white undies in ST09 and wanted some sexy lingerie, thanks again bob! :)

After I see this movie, I’m gonna give you guys a big high five!

352. Bela Okmyx - March 22, 2013

Great comments about action film vs. thinkpiece, etc.

I just hope it’s not over the top on action to satisfy a “new” audience of people who think “Armageddon” is the pinnacle of filmmaking.

Remember what happened when the Bond series strayed into Bourne-like territory? The result was a less-than-stellar “Quantum of Solace.”

I don’t want Trek to make the same error. Just sayin’.

353. kmart - March 22, 2013

QUANTUM actually had a couple of minutes that felt genuinely Fleming-inspired (quite a trick given that Craig, in addition to being utterly miscast in terms of physical appearance, has pretty much thrown the character of Bond out the window from a great height.)
That makes it a distinct improvement upon all other Bondfilms made after 1989′s LICENCE TO KILL (and that especially includes the insanely popular moron-plotted SKYFALL and CASINO ROYALE, even though the latter is supposed to be a faithful adaptation … yeah, a spy who goes round killing people to get his leads off their cellphones, because they are so ‘professional’ they can’t keep secret data in their heads!)

310,
McCoy certainly used a phaser to kill a mugato while defending the wounded Kirk and has brandished one on many occasions (seem to remember him threatening to waste one of Sargon’s people in RETURN TO TOMORROW.) With a lesser character, that might seem like hypocrisy, but in his case I think it just adds depth and texture, because it is more about the context of a particular situation than him just being one of the gang and therefore automatically being ready to shoot (or being ‘just a country doctor’ who doesn’t ever shoot, for that matter.)

354. crazydaystrom - March 22, 2013

Using sex to sell a product? Wow! Star Trek really has gone where no one has gone before!

Oh wait…

But seriously folks it’s marketing. As has been said, sex and action are used to catch the eye and lure an audience in. Then, hopefully a product will be served up that’s full of intelligent characters, both men and women, and has an intelligent and intriguing story. Of course no matter what we get in March it will be debated as to whether we got that or not.

355. DUNN - March 22, 2013

Why does Uhura say ‘outnumbered’? They are a starship crew (presumably, unless the Spock/Uhura/Kirk trio is running a one-off mission while the E and everyone else is still back orbiting Earth) against one man. This seems to indicate Cumberbatch has something bigger up his sleeve that we have thus far seen nothing of in these trailers.

356. Exverlobter - March 22, 2013

“…I’d be lying if I didn’t admit she’s a damn attractive woman though.”

However, Diora Baird is more attractive. And she got cut out in the last film :-(

357. somethoughts - March 22, 2013

#356

She was on the Enterprise toilet in ST09

http://www.icbe.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/diora_baird_toilet.jpg

358. Classy M - March 22, 2013

I didn’t care for the Alice in Wonderbra bit either. It’s titillation for titillation’s sake, the objectification of women in order to sell a product.

One of the things I always loved about Star Trek was that it aimed higher than any other series. It may not always have met its mark, but at least it tried.

Semi-clad women in TOS were certainly plentiful, but haven’t we learned anything in the past 40+ years? We have made strides in race equality thanks, in some degree, to Star Trek, but sexism is still OK?

I’m disappointed in the writers and the director, but I’m even more disappointed that so many people on this board pretend not to get it. Don’t any of you have daughters?

359. LogicalLeopard - March 22, 2013

344. The Mighty Chip – March 22, 2013
To the people commenting about the high percentage of humans in Starfleet admiralty:

It’s my understanding that Starfleet is Earth’s military force, and that other planets in the Federation maintain their own military fleets. SF may be the most prominent military in the Federation, just like the US military is the most prominent one in the UN, but that doesn’t mean it’s the only one.

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

Starfleet is the UFP’s military force. That’s been expressly stated, I believe. I do not believe that any planet maintains it’s own military force. If Starfleet was Earth’s military, they wouldn’t have ships with all Vulcan crews like….what was the one in TOS? The Defiant? The Intrepid? And of course there’s the T’Kumbra in DS9. I think even when you join the Federation, they absorb your force in with Starfleet. Didnt’ they say that about the Bajoran Militia in the final days of DS9?

TL;DR:

Real Life reason why Starfleet is primarily human – Budget. And probably, relatability to the audence.

In Series reason why Starfleet is primarily human – they don’t work for pay. I don’t know if this has ever been explicitly stated in Trek as the reason, but humans don’t work for pay, as Picard said, they work to find fulfillment. My theory is, humans are the equivalent of an overseas call center or sweatshop. They’ll work practically for free. Saves the Federation overhead.

Plus, their temperament is more suitable for exploration, and other races at the founding of the Federation probably also recognized their potential, as they reached Warp capability relatively quickly. Its’ been said in Enterprise that Vulcans, contrary to what one would think, aren’t really into exploration either. I”m guessing that Tellarites and Andorians wouldn’t be either. So by the time Starfleet gets started, they have all these humans willing to build ships virtually for free and staff them for free, while the other races get involved in what matters – trade, politics, etc. Notice on DS9 it’s always a Bolian Freighter or some other alien freighter that shows up, seldom one from Earth.

360. LogicalLeopard - March 22, 2013

348. The Mighty Chip – March 22, 2013
On the subject of C. Marcus in her underwear:

Remember that the entire reason for a trailer’s existence is to get as many people as possible to buy a movie ticket……

It’s just there to get butts in the seats. With that in mind, I would just urge everyone to withhold judgement of the underwear scene until they actually see the movie.

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

Well, starting with the second comment first, I’m witholding judgement on the underwear SCENE. Like in the last movie, sure it was there for cheesecake, but it wasn’t out of character for what was going on. Kirk is trying to seduce the Orion computer tech, they’re getting ready to engage in intercourse, they are not wearing many clothes. Uhura comes in, and like many people when they come from work/school, takes off her clothes, presumably to change into something more comfortable or suitable for what she’s going to do for the rest of the day. That’s fine. Yes, it’s cheesecake, and it could have been done differently, but it works for what is going on in the movie.

But in the trailer, it doesn’t. Now, sorry, maybe I just have different tastes, but nothing about Alice Eve in her underwear makes me want to go and see a movie. I doubt there are many people who saw that trailer and said, “Well, I wasn’t going to go, but now I will, because seeing a woman in her underwear is guaranteed.” You can see the same thing, and probably better, in the underwear section of a department store ad. But the biggest problem with it is that it’s TOTALLY out of joint with the rest of the movie. I can see if they would have shown a clip from a love scene, but it’s just some ticked off looking woman in her underwear. It’s stupid, it doesn’t do much to make people want to see it, and it should have been left out of the trailer. I’m not saying the movie, because I haven’t seen the scene, but it should have been left out of the trailer.

361. LogicalLeopard - March 22, 2013

Actually, contrast that to the other sexual parts of trailers, like say, the Enterprise trailer. Remember the butterfly eating women? It’s sensual, to a degree, and you wonder, “Hey, what’s going on there?” Did they show the decon rubdown scenes in the trailer? If they did, you think, “Wow, someone’s rubbing someone down with goo in their underwear, what’s going on with this show?” But to see Alice Eve in her underwear with a “This is so stupid” look on her face, it’s just stupid.

362. somethoughts - March 22, 2013

#360

I am sure there are people who saw the trailer with eve in her panties thinking very sexy and cool, this movie is going to rock!

Everyone has different tastes and opinions please do not speak for others who share different views than you :)

363. LogicalLeopard - March 22, 2013

“that it’s TOTALLY out of joint with the rest of the movie”

I meant that it’s totally out of joint with the rest of the TRAILER.

364. Danpaine - March 22, 2013

By the way, today is James T. Kirk’s birthday, March 22, 2233.

Thank you, Star Trek Calendar…

365. LogicalLeopard - March 22, 2013

362. somethoughts – March 22, 2013
#360

I am sure there are people who saw the trailer with eve in her panties thinking very sexy and cool, this movie is going to rock!

Everyone has different tastes and opinions please do not speak for others who share different views than you :)

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

Oh, I’m sure that they thought that. I’m not speaking as to their tastes and opinions, the question I’m asking is this: how much of a difference does that scene in the trailer make? I mean, even if you thought she was the most beautiful woman you ever saw, would that be the determining factor in shelling out the dough to see the movie?

I mean, come on, informal poll: How many men have ever paid money to see a movie just because they saw a beautiful woman in the trailer? I’m not saying how many people watched a movie on video, or how many people stopped channel surfing and watched a movie with a beautiful woman in it, how many people could see a trailer for “Polka Till You Drop: The Bjorn Bjorkinson Story”, see a Victoria’s Secret model in her skivvies, wait a few monthsm, then remove 10-15 bucks from their pocket and say, “one ticket, please!”

366. Edshrinker - March 22, 2013

http://imgur.com/36EJTUx

So this is what it is like to be blown out of a ship at warp. Yeah, gonna have to avoid that one.

367. Trekkiegal63 - March 22, 2013

#358. Classy M:

Brilliantly stated!

#360. LogicalLeopard:

But the biggest problem with it is that it’s TOTALLY out of joint with the rest of the movie.

Agreed!

Anthony:

Wonderfully detailed report. Thank you!

368. LogicalLeopard - March 22, 2013

367. Trekkiegal63 – March 22, 2013

May I also mention that when I saw it, probably one of the first things I thought was, “This is NOT going to go over well with Trekkiegal63″ *LOL*

369. somethoughts - March 22, 2013

#368

LOL I was thinking the same thing and then went back to frame and said ship it followed by a hard stare :)

Dr. Marcus looks like android with that pose btw, what if Admiral Marcus has been replacing star fleet people with android clones of themselves and locking up the real versions in those cryo tubes lol oh yea!

370. Trekkiegal63 - March 22, 2013

#368. LogicalLeopard:

LOL, you were definitely correct about that. ;)

Loved the rest of the trailer though. My Benedict Cumberbatch can do menacing. I’m utterly sold on him as a villain.

371. crazydaystrom - March 22, 2013

HAPPY BIRTHDAY MR. WILLIAM SHATNER!!!
Oh Captain my Captain!! You have lived long and have prospered. Keep up the good work!

This couldn’t have been the first mention of this birthday today on this board could it?

372. Doug Haffner - March 22, 2013

One of the interesting things covered across the Star Trek series is the Human looking Klingons. It has been discussed briefly. I’m not so sure John Harrison isn’t a Klingon spy planted in the federation. Perhaps he is “activated”. I can’t help but wonder how a “human” Klingon would be treated at home…probably not well. Easy to understand how that kind of person could become a terrorist out to destroy both worlds. It would also explain some of the early casting attempts for the role…although Benedict is a more subtle and better choice, ultimately.

373. p'trick - March 22, 2013

Maybe someone has already inquired about this in one of the 371 comments posted before mine. If so, sorry for asking again.

Has any inventive fan downloaded all of the trailers/previews and then re-edited them in some “likely” order? Producing for us ravenous fans, some kind of order to the clips that might appear like a condensed-version of the film (as we know it so far)?

374. a-Dub - March 22, 2013

I haven’t seen anyone point out that there looks to be a Klingon seated in the shot at Starfleet HQ. Fourth to Kirk’s right. Only the top of its head is visible, but it sure resembles Klingon features.

375. Trekkiegal63 - March 22, 2013

#371. crazydaystrom:

I do believe you are the first. Good on you!

HAPPY BIRTHDAY MR. WILLIAM SHATNER!!!

I second this!

Best wishes, Bill. Hope it’s the best one yet, and that the year to follow is filled with much happiness and joy.

Thank you for playing my favorite Trek character so well and for so many years.

82 and more active than ever. You, sir, are inspiring.

376. Keachick - March 22, 2013

#318 – Yes, you are right. I must have been channeling Roxanna Troi at that moment because she always called him Mr Wolf…:)

I agree that showing Carol Marcus in her underwear was a bit out of place in the trailer, but not necessarily in the movie. Then again, John Harrison seems to have made anyone/everyone the object of his violent revenge.

377. The Mighty Chip - March 22, 2013

@Logical Leopard:

I’m sorry if I missed it, but I’ve never seen a canon source stating that SF was the sole military force for the entire UFP. But in fairness, I’ve never seen a canon source stating that it isn’t. I’ve always viewed the UFP as a metaphorical United Nations, and in the UN each nation maintains their own militaries. So from there I concluded that SF was the Earth’s fleet, but that they happened to be the most advanced and/or had the most ships, so they ended up doing most of the UFP’s work. If there’s a canon source that contradicts that though please feel free to point it out to me. (I’m sorry, but “It’s been expressly stated, I believe” isn’t a reliable enough source for a nitpicker like me.)

I agree about the budget thing though as the out-of-universe explanation.

Underwear Scene:

I must have worded something wrong here because you (and others) are taking my comments on that way differently than the way I intended. I was not trying to defend the scene being in the trailer. Everything you said about it being out of place, tacky, etc. is completely justified.

What I was trying to call attention to were the people who are unilaterally calling the movie unrefined and sexist based only on the trailers. Yes, the trailer uses that scene in a pandering, demeaning way, but that doesn’t mean the movie is going to. The movie could have that scene fit perfectly in context without any sexual undertones whatsoever, and the movie as a whole could be portraying Marcus as a strong, independant, professional SF officer with real contributions to the plot beyond being “Kirk’s love interest.”

I was just trying to tell people not to judge the movie by the trailers. That’s all. If I wrote my post poorly or in a misleading manner I apologize.

378. Charley W - March 22, 2013

In skimming the messages that were posted overnight, I caught mention of those ‘cyrotubes’ seen in the trailer/-s. Has Anyone thought that they might be COFFINS, probably from the attack on London?

379. Jack - March 22, 2013

Exactly. It’s jarring in the trailer because it’s the only scene that’s not about doom and destruction.

So it’s: shooting, grey, running, screaming, more screaming, grey, crashing, running, falling, scared faces, shooting… BOOBIES!!!… screaming, fighting, jumping, screaming, crashing.

There’s the one, er, joke (I know, not really) about “we’re not gonna fit” the Falcon in between the Tyrell building and Bespin, or something… and otherwise it’s all screaming and gettin’ even and ‘splosions — and then Alice Eve in her undies.

Apparently, it’s why they cast her. That and screaming. ‘Cause that’s all we’ve seen (so far)…

Total guess, but it sure looks like she’s changing into a flight suit or space suit or something in the shuttle and the ‘joke’ is that Kirk is the one who’s unprofessional and is checking her out, because he’s, you know, 14.

Good news for Keachick :) — maybe Kirk’s clothes are off too. And, incidentally, maybe he’s screaming. But they don’t want to turn off guys by showin’ that in the trailer (?)…

380. LogicalLeopard - March 22, 2013

377. The Mighty Chip – March 22, 2013
@Logical Leopard:

I’m sorry if I missed it, but I’ve never seen a canon source stating that SF was the sole military force for the entire UFP. But in fairness, I’ve never seen a canon source stating that it isn’t. I’ve always viewed the UFP as a metaphorical United Nations, and in the UN each nation maintains their own militaries. So from there I concluded that SF was the Earth’s fleet, but that they happened to be the most advanced and/or had the most ships, so they ended up doing most of the UFP’s work. If there’s a canon source that contradicts that though please feel free to point it out to me. (I’m sorry, but “It’s been expressly stated, I believe” isn’t a reliable enough source for a nitpicker like me.)

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

Well, I probably shouldn’t have said “it’s been expressly stated,” because I’m not sure if it has. But there’s plenty of evidence to suggest it is. Upon doing some digging on the Memory Alpha, the website confirms what I thought about Bajor, stating that in the DS9 episode “Rapture”, it is said that the Bajoran Militia is to be absorbed into Starfleet upon Bajor joining the Federation. This wouldn’t happen if Starfleet was only a member force, the militia would still be intact, and certainly not absorbed in a Terran force. As far as your theory on advanced or most ships, let me remind you that at the time the UFP was formed, Earth couldn’t have had more than 10 ships that could do Warp 5. The Vulcans, Andorians, and Tellarites had vastly superior ships that could run circles around the Earth based Starfleet clunkers. But also, there’s the fact like I said that there have been at least two all Vulcan Starfleet vessels, which would make no sense if they were earth vessels. And, during the big battles during the Dominion, why didn’t we see any other vessels belonging to other races? No Andorian ships, Vulcan ships, etc. I find it hard to believe that the Andorians wouldn’t be on the front lines, at least.

What REALLY throws the monkey wrench in everything is the whole UESPA thing, which would support your argument. Kirk mentiones that they are from the United Earth Space Probe Agency in a few of the early TOS episodes, I believe, then they refer to the agency as Starfleet afterwards. So, is that a sub agency? Or something that is retconned out? Memory Alpha also says they put UESPA on background details on Enterprise (NX) and the Enterprise B. I don’t know if you consider that canon, but it’s confusing and has never been explained.

Oh, and as far as the trailer, I agree with you. People can comment on how the trailer is, but you can’t comment on the movie until you actually see it.

381. Jack - March 22, 2013

So, complain about the trailer all you want — but it’s a little premature to complain about a scene you haven’t seen in a movie you haven’t seen.

382. Edshrinker - March 22, 2013

Yes. It is possible. But I am trying to think how showing a room full of coffins makes a 2 hour movie edit. And I can’t think people want a clear glass pat that shows the face…as they are buried. No. Pretty sure that is a stasis chamber. Can’t decide whether it is Botany Bay thing, but those folks are most definitely alive.

383. Keachick - March 22, 2013

Definition of sexism -

“sex·ism
[sek-siz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1. attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles.
2. discrimination or devaluation based on a person’s sex, as in restricted job opportunities; especially, such discrimination directed against women.”

“The belief that one sex (usually the male) is naturally superior to the other and should dominate most important areas of political, economic, and social life.”

How does showing a *known character in her underwear equate with sexism? If they showed Kirk in his underwear, would that also be described as sexist? I am hoping that we might see Kirk (or whoever else) in his bare skin as well.

“Uhura as a troubleshooter would be an interesting take on her character, however; my fear is that the writers will focus more on the relationship aspect than her skills.
We seen her comforting Spock in one scene, crying in another scene. Sound more like the typical love interest take than a serious character.”

How do you define a “serious character”? In the trailers we have seen Uhura run, fight, handle a gun, prepare to swim underwater in a wetsuit, presumably capable of giving and taking orders. How does the sight of a character appearing a bit tearful or giving comfort to a friend/lover make them less of a character, someone who can be taken seriously? Is not showing concern or grief also part of our humanity, part of Uhura’s humanity? In one of the pictures, Kirk looks almost on the point of tears – are we not to take his character seriously either because of his expression? The fact that women are able to cry more easily than men is biological – nothing more and shedding a tear is not a sign of weakness. In fact, it can be anything but.

384. Jack - March 22, 2013

Yes, and to belatedly answer your question, Bob:

I’m planning on being blindfolded and in a medically induced coma in a cave out of reach of wifi, radio, satellite, cellphone signals, and the newspaper delivery boy — from the 8th until the 15th.

385. Curious Cadet - March 22, 2013

@339. Exverlobter,
“Nothing new. We saw Uhura in underwear in the previous film.
We saw Jolene Blalock’s bare butt in Enterprise. We saw Jeri Ryans bare back in Voyager. We saw Terry Farrel in a Bikini on DS9.
And TOS with those miniskirts? Nuff said.”

Do you seriously not see how doing this in the past does not make it OK in the future? Clearly, not nearly ’nuff has been said.

Abrams is pandering to the standard blockbuster movie audience using the Michael Bay playbook. Star Trek is supposed to show a future that respects all individuals, where men and women are equals, race and species have no bearing on a persons value, and acceptance and tolerance is the rule of the day. But Abrams’ vision doesn’t come close.

Much has been discussed in this thread about the ratio of men to women, aliens to humans around the captains table, but what about the film in general? The percentage of women and minorities is horrible!

There are two women in the principle cast. Two. Contrast that against the 15 top billed men. That’s not even 12%. Of the 12 major characters, only two are minorities. And Spock is the only alien (who is half-human!). The other minor characters introduce a few more minorities, but these are token inclusions, much the way Tyler Perry was in the last film. Noel Cooke is probably the most featured minority akin to Capt. Robau, and what does he do? He blows up London. Just looking at the screen caps, along with the Captains meeting, all the other faces are decidedly white and human. From the shuttle bay crews to the red shirts. White. Male. Human.

This is not the picture of harmonious diversity I have been promised by Star Trek. In fact it’s not much better than the compromises NBC delivered in the sixties. Yes Uhura is taking on a more prominent role, but she’s still a subordinate. Young white male Kirk leapfrogged to captain. But Uhura is still an intergalactic operator with lieutenant stripes. What about her contributions to saving the Earth from destruction? Shouldn’t they have all gotten promotions? And of course Sulu is still a glorified taxi driver.

What would be wrong with making Admiral Marcus a woman — April’s “Number One”, Carol’s mother? Just looking at IMDB, in genral I see dozens of fresh white male faces, a few women (mostly white) and a tiny percentage of minorities. This just sends the wrong message, not only about Star Trek in general, but to this international audience the franchise seeks to court.

Given this blatant disparity, I’m not inclined to give the producers the slightest break on what also appears to be blatant sexism and objectification of women either. The “boy’s will be boy’s” mentality which seems to apply to the Supreme Court as well as the film is the problem. Hollywood can continue to pander to audiences with this age old formula of racism and sexism that appeals to baser instincts of adolescent men (of all ages), or they can try to do better.

There appears to be so much excitement in this film without showing Alice Eve in her underwear, that including it in that particular trailer is just insulting. And the fact that the producers tend to lean toward a generic vanilla visual palette both with principle actors, supporting, and background is disheartening. Star Trek is so much more diverse than this. And it doesn’t matter what Trek has done in the past, all that matters is what they do going forward, and it appears they have made little progress after 50 years. Token aliens, token minorities, objectified women. Is this Mad Men or Star Trek?

386. Edshrinker - March 22, 2013

Jack. That whole post still has me laughing. And after seeing Burt Wonderstone (VASTLY under appreciated comedy and worth $10 for the laughs)..”BOOBIES” still has me rolling. And yes, feminists, I said EXACTLY that. You are beautiful creatures. I am in awe of you.

387. cpelc - March 22, 2013

Has anyone tried to figure out what’s on the screens everyone is looking at in the Starfleet HQ roundtable shot?

388. Classy M - March 22, 2013

#386 – Edshrinker: We don’t want awe. We want respect.

#385 – Curious Cadet: Absolutely spot on.

389. Jack - March 22, 2013

386. Thanks! Good-looking people are in movies, partially, to look good. ;)

And, yeah, just saw this, which shows why this is in the trailer (and why every magazine at the supermarket checkout shows ‘amazing celebrity beach bodies!’):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2297264/Star-Trek-Into-Darkness-trailer-Alice-Eve-distracts-Captain-Kirk-stripping-underwear.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

They figure she’s stripping as part of a plan to save the day, which I argue is the opposite of sexist, detractors — I say she’s reconfiguring her minidress to emit an inverse tachyon pulse.

390. dswynne - March 22, 2013

Okay, uniforms in STiD:

Duty
Utility
Dress
Away Mission

I like that the Away Mission uniform had overcoats and lack color scheme and ranks, as a means of obscuring the identities of the wearer.

391. Edshrinker - March 22, 2013

Too Bad Classy. You earn respect. Awe comes at first glance. The physical beauty can elicit that. Respect takes effort and time.

Does anyone else think that the shot of Scotty and Kirk behind Cumby (Kirk is ARMED) is them watching in disbelief as he dispatches a security force of some kind? Like they are on the same team? The next screen shot is Cumby turning around like “yeah, I did that” to Kirk and Scotty.

The whole “you will understand his motivations but not his methods” thing comes to mind. I am really thinking at the end, Harrison saves the day with the Enterprise crew backing him up. Maybe what Starfleet has done is really that evil, Harrison convinces them, and they all woork to root out the evil within. I am thinking YES.

392. crazydaystrom - March 22, 2013

383. Keachick-
“How does showing a *known character in her underwear equate with sexism?”

Answer- It doesn’t.
As I implied on this or another thread on this board I suspect most of those who have a problem with the bikini shot are Americans who are conditioned to instantly and automatically equate the human body with something negative, if not evil. This is the result of the American Puritan Ethic and is why so many of us in this country are practically schizophrenic when it comes to nudity, sexuality and generally all things carnal. It’s also why we tend to be so much more acceptant of scenes of violence in media than we are of sensuality, sexuality or eroticism.

As far as those things go, we in the US are generally unbalanced and in need of adjustment.

393. Jack - March 22, 2013

No offense, but it’s not all women’s boobies up there, just like Taylor Lautner, Channing Tatum and Daniel Craig aren’t showing off all men’s chiseled abs.

And to those, including me, who say the scene doesn’t fit into such a dark trailer — I point out that the bra and panties are indeed dark-coloured.

394. Trekkiegal63 - March 22, 2013

#385. Curious Cadet:

I find myself wanting to give you a standing ovation for this. Thank you! Very well said, sir!

#388 Classy M:

We don’t want awe. We want respect.

Indeed. Also well said.

395. Chris Roberts - March 22, 2013

339. Exverlobter – “Nothing new. We saw Uhura in underwear in the previous film. We saw Jolene Blalock’s bare butt in Enterprise. We saw Jeri Ryans bare back in Voyager. We saw Terry Farrel in a Bikini on DS9.
And TOS with those miniskirts? Nuff said.”

Connor Trinneer answered that question at a convention once. It was a body double.

They got a stunt butt. The casting of which, must’ve been an interesting day at the office. :)

God, I remember the shitstorm online after “Harbinger” went out. I think they edited it in some States, so recent was the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction outrage.

Anyway I’m off to dig out the episode of Family Guy about the FCC. Got to love a musical number that features the phrase “Trouser friendly kiss”.

396. Jack - March 22, 2013

392. And yet, of course, we’re also obsessed with sneaking glances at nudity or partial nudity. Like Norman Bates sneaking glances of his mother changing. It’s completely sexualized because it’s so taboo.

I was super-confused as a Canadian the first time I was on a beach, in Thailand, with a bunch of Europeans — and the women were topless and the guys were stripping on the beach, without any todo, to put on their bathing suits — and nobody around was either gawking or covering their children’s eyes. It wasn’t a big deal.

I’m gay — and yet I’ve never made such intense eye contact in my life when conversing with a beautiful topless girl, because I didn’t want to be caught glancing at her boobs. And of course, because I couldn’t look, I couldn’t get it off my mind… “This is the breast, er, uh, best, weather we’ve had all week.”

397. The Mighty Chip - March 22, 2013

@385 Cadet:

While I agree with most of what you said, I don’t think you’re giving the Uhura and Sulu characters enough credit. In a real-world navy (which SF tends to emulate) the communications department and especially the main communications officer is an EXTREMELY significant and important role. Just ask any modern naval officer how they would feel if the communications officers were no longer aboard their ship – they are MUCH more than “operators with leiutenant stripes”.

As for Sulu: I can’t speak for Abram’s depiction yet, but the previous Trek canon presented him in a fantastic light. In TOS he was given a lower rank and role because he was a fresh recruit and didn’t have the experience for anything else, it wasn’t because he was a minority. By the time Undiscovered Country came around he was in command of one of starfleet’s newest ships, and shown to be handling that command quite well.

“She’s still a subordinate” is a horrible argument. Everybody is a subordinate to someone. She could be a Five Star admiral in command of the entire starfleet and people could still complain about how she’s “still subordinate to the Federation president it’s so unfair!!!”

But everything else I agree about: the gender/race ratios in Trek are definitely highly skewed for a franchise that’s supposed to depict a unified earth without any discrimination.

But like I said in previous posts: Nobody has seen this movie yet – I’m witholding judgement.

398. Jack - March 22, 2013

I remember talking with a female friend who was disgusted that hot women were being (and have always been) shown in ads to sell products, and I pointed out all the ads around us that had shirtless or nearly naked men and she said it wasn’t the same thing. I don’t know.

Yes, there’s absolutely sexism in the world. But is this scene part of that? Well, we’ll wait and see.

399. crazydaystrom - March 22, 2013

396. Jack -
“392. And yet, of course, we’re also obsessed with sneaking glances at nudity or partial nudity. Like Norman Bates sneaking glances of his mother changing. It’s completely sexualized because it’s so taboo.”

Exactly Jack. Interest in ‘flesh’ is prurient and wrong(evil), per someone’s ‘moral code’ but that interest is natural and innate, per DNA and biological imperative. Hence the schizophrenia I mentioned.

400. dave - March 22, 2013

So Kirk is schtupping the admiral’s daughter? And Harrison is a Klingon?

401. Jack - March 22, 2013

399. Yeah. Exactly!

And yet we’re also obsessed with getting, being and staying sexy. It’s human. Look at stories on that Daily Mail page — they’re about who’s looking good and bad, and how they got that way (George Clooney’s miracle diet pills! Gwyneth Paltrow’s infrared face ironing! So-and-so’s ab workout!). The top stories on Huffington Post and real news sites usually aren’t politics and issues — they’re about “side boob!” and sexy abs.

402. Jack - March 22, 2013

“Just looking at the screen caps, along with the Captains meeting, all the other faces are decidedly white and human. From the shuttle bay crews to the red shirts. White. Male. Human. This is not the picture of harmonious diversity I have been promised by Star Trek. In fact it’s not much better than the compromises NBC delivered in the sixties.”

Yes. Exactly. It’s worse than what we saw on Trek in the ’60s. A lot worse.

Heck, most 70s sitcoms had more racial diversity than Trek does now.

403. Jack - March 22, 2013

And I can see the argument — “Well, we can’t cast non-white people as security or as maintenance/support staff or as people who die because it will be perceived as stereotyping” — but is the answer to not cast them at all?

Like I’ve said before, even the Trek 09 characters mentioned by name only — CMO Purie and Ensign McKenna — were men.

404. Trekkiegal63 - March 22, 2013

To answer your question, Keachick, correctly this time (as crazydaystrom’s was severely editorialized), excerpt from a recent article I’ve linked before:

The concept of objectification owes much to the work of Simone de Beauvoir regarding the basic dualism of human consciousness between the Self and the Other: the general mental process where humans classify the world into ‘us’ and ‘them’. Women are universally viewed as the Other across all cultures, a role which is both externally imposed and internalised, and which means that women are generally not truly regarded as fully human. Otherness and full equality cannot coexist.

405. somethoughts - March 22, 2013

The eve panty scene was also a nice way to reward people with the terrible international poster embed so there is a method to JJs madness. Where better to hide a url link than where most people will be pausing and looking at eves marvelous body and face, yammy!

406. Curious Cadet - March 22, 2013

@397 The Mighty Chip,
““She’s still a subordinate” is a horrible argument.”

In the proper context I am in total agreement. The problem is Abrams has given us no senior ranking female (or minority for that matter) officers. But while I hear you with respect to modern Navy analogous positions, Abrams is ignoring those conventions. Promoting Kirk from cadet to captain of the flagship has no real precedent in the modern navy. So it’s pretty clear we’re not looking at a direct parallel to our modern Navy.

In the process it kind of dismisses the contributions of the lesser ranking officers, who are depicted in this universe as contemporaries and classmates of Kirks. Summation, young white male gets everything, while women and minorities go unrecognized.

It’s not about the reality of the situation but rather what is presented on screen. Audiences don’t know Uhura has an important job, they only know what they see her do. This film at least promises to get her out into the field and balance her role with the top men, even if she does not get a promotion. My point is basically that there is no “Number One” in Abrams Star Trek, no central strong female character with obvious seniority. This Starfleet seems to be devoid of Janeway’s. Perhaps this film will rectify that, but only one senior female who also happens to be one of only two minorities in the top billed cast is not really enough. That wreaks of tokenism as much as the sprinkling of peripheral characters. (And where are the Latinos? You’d think Orci would have made sure at least one major character would represent one of Trek’s major underserved international markets).

Again, audiences only know what they see. If white male humans hold a sizeable majority of the senior positions in Starfleet, and populate most of the rest of them, all of the other characters are going to be viewed in relation, and that sends the wrong message. As others have pointed out, we’ve seen Carol Marcus do very little save flirt, scream, and now strip down to her underwear. I truly hope she ends up being more of the Carol Marcus we saw in TWOK, and not some lame “Abramsian” excuse that she’s not yet become the woman we see in that movie, and is instead more like a smart but confused sorority girl at this point in her life.

In the end, the amount of screen time each character gets will outweigh any casual assessment of the known actors cast. We could see a huge amount of Uhura, Carol Marcus, Kirk, Spock and Harrison, and very little of the rest. In which case, the ratio is much better as to the importance of the onscreen characters. It still leaves us with only one representative minority, and Eve still has to be more than a “girl” for Kirk to play off of, but I’m hopeful. Unfortunately, it still doesn’t excuse the overall choices made in casting and thus representation of diversity in future society, nor does it give them license to blatantly objectify women, which is most likely what they have purposefully done with no other justification.

407. Curious Cadet - March 22, 2013

@405. somethoughts,
“The eve panty scene was also a nice way to reward people … Where better to hide a url link than where most people will be pausing and looking at eves marvelous body and face, yammy!”

No offense, but it strikes me that you are exactly the demo Abrams was targeting with the underwear shot. Your Pavlovian response here kinda makes my teeth hurt. And if it wasn’t clear enough before, your painfully correct assessment confirms the shot is included for the express objectification of Alice Eve and nothing else.

408. somethoughts - March 22, 2013

#406

I do not need to apologize for loving the human body!

Do not confuse passion for sexism, get over it.

Good job jj! Ignore the boring pc prunes.

409. Allenburch - March 22, 2013

In spite of so much speculation over the amount of information we have on the new movie, I still don’t know what this movie is really about.

Looking forward to it !

410. LogicalLeopard - March 22, 2013

392. crazydaystrom – March 22, 2013
383. Keachick-
“How does showing a *known character in her underwear equate with sexism?”

Answer- It doesn’t.
As I implied on this or another thread on this board I suspect most of those who have a problem with the bikini shot are Americans who are conditioned to instantly and automatically equate the human body with something negative, if not evil. This is the result of the American Puritan Ethic and is why so many of us in this country are practically schizophrenic when it comes to nudity, sexuality and generally all things carnal. It’s also why we tend to be so much more acceptant of scenes of violence in media than we are of sensuality, sexuality or eroticism.

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

With all due respect, that’s garbage. What “American Puritan Ethic” exists in 2013? We’re not all covering up here, and sex sells everything. What we’re talking about is the fact that the presense of Alice Even in her skivvies, although it may have “purpose” in the movie, has no business in the trailer. This has nothing to do with repressed sexuality, this is a simple case of “Three of these things go together, one of these things just doesn’t belong” that we all learned on Sesame Street. Refer to Jack’s wonderful assessment of the scene above. *LOL* You see it, and it’s like, huh?

Lets compare it to Uhura’s scene, which some may say is cheesecake too. She’s wearing a skin tight diving suit, and says that she’s ready. It’s obviously a uniform, and she’s obviously about to do something mission related. Is it tittilating? To some, but it works within the kinetic frenzy of the trailer. Alice Eve standing in her underwear and frowning makes you just scratch your head. Not even in a “Hey, what’s that fish doing behind scotty way”, but in a “Hey, uhm….I’m confused. Does a disgruntled woman in her underwear have something to do with the plot, or does the editor think that disgruntled women in their underwear put butts in seats.” And actually, going back, that fish with Scotty thing is a bit disconcerting as well, but there was comedy established along with all the explosions. A snippet of a LOVE scene would have been better, but no, we just get some lady scowling in her underpants.

PS: And please believe, I mean no offense. I just don’t understand how anyone believes that the majority of America operates on a puritan mindset. I teach Sunday School, and my main obejection is not her being in her underwear, but being senselessly in the trailer.

411. somethoughts - March 22, 2013

Gotta love ufc chicks, maxim chicks, playboy, victoria secret models, thank god for all the lovely creatures of the universe! Yammy! Lol

412. Keachick - March 22, 2013

#398 – Oh the double standard of people.
A lovely body is just that and to enjoy seeing and delighting in the sight of such can be a positive expression of our humanity. Then again, seeing a body that may not appear so lovely (according to some and/or current cultural norms and expectations) should also be deemed OK as well.

My preference is to see a handsome male body belonging to someone who is hopefully a nice person as well, eg Chris Pine/Captain Kirk.

“my fear is that the writers will focus more on the relationship aspect than her skills.
We seen her comforting Spock in one scene, crying in another scene. Sound more like the typical love interest take than a serious character.”

I have already discussed this in another post, but I actually find this comment SEXIST, in the genuine sense of the word. It is undermining of women in that they cannot be taken seriously, unless they conform to standards of emotional expression and behaviour that men are more likely to engage in. It seems that to express concern/love for someone, to express visible signs of grief (tears) deems her less worthy as a character capable of performing her Starfleet duties, especially when this woman has proved her worth as a Starfleet officer. That is sexism!

There was a scene (from another trailer) which showed Scotty with his arms around an upset Uhura. Do we call him out for giving physical comfort? In this trailer, we see Kirk lending assistance to a wounded female officer. Do we call him out? No. Of course not.
In all these instances, Kirk (with the wounded woman), Scotty (with Uhura), Uhura (with Spock) are just trying to be decent, kind human beings giving comfort and assistance where they can, to the best of their abilities, in the circumstances presented. Does it matter whether they may know the person or not? Should it matter?

413. LogicalLeopard - March 22, 2013

And another thing, we can talk all day about how demeaning it is towards women to have Alice Eve in her skivvies as a selling point with the trailer, but to me, it doesn’t even have anything to do with women. What about us guys? Isn’t it weird that we live in a culture in which we all talk about how sex is such a natural thing, but sex is used against men like it’s something unnatural – like a universal mind controlling agent that we’re all supposed to fall for. Sex is used to sell everything from movies to eggs. How many places are there out there where scantily clad women serve men eggs, hot wings, haircuts, car washes, etc? Why? Why can’t I just go to your restaurant because it has good food? There are places where guys go to see women – they’re called strip clubs. Why am I expected to fall all over myself because I see cleavage, and shell out money for, I dunno…..dish detergent, spark plugs, caulk, SUV’s, paperclips.

This is probably a radical point of view, but shouldn’t I be just as offended if somene tries to sell me somethng with cleavage because I’m a man, as I would if, being also a black man,, someone tried to sell me a car by saying, “Every new car comes with a year’s supply of fried chicken and malt liquor?”

414. somethoughts - March 22, 2013

#412

They also sell fried chicken and liquor in china, I do not see your point.

Also rice is consumed by countries other than china.

The problem here is too much generalizations and people complaining to suit their own religious and ethical beliefs.

I will watch star trek nakked while eating fried chicken and flipping thru playboy and maxim while pondering human existance.

I will freeze frame at eve panty scene and flip the bird to anyone who thinks im sexist lol

415. Keachick - March 22, 2013

The thing is – some are calling out any and every scene or notion of seeing a partially clothed body or any kind of romantic/sexual liaison between a main character and another. The Spock/Uhura relationship is frowned on with people saying it does not belong; the article mentioning Kirk in a bed with two “catwomen” – most likely, Caitian (they do have a race, a name) – look how many people objected to that?; or this quick shot of Carol Marcus in her underwear. It does not seem to matter what is being depicted or hinted at.

People were angry at me 18 months back when I suggested that Kirk meet an alien woman, where they develop a strong mutual bond of love, which could also be sexual in nature. I was yelled at, sworn at…suddenly people waffled on about Star Trek Love Boat, Mary Sue’s and other such trash.

Something does not smell right here. It’s not me because I have bathed…

Trekkiegal even calls out the need for a woman not to remain single (in every sense) in a movie that is actually billed as…wait for it, a ROMANTIC/action/comedy – This Means War.

Jack is correct – the scene with Carol in her underwear is the only bit that does not depict doom and gloom. Perhaps the level of gloom and violence depicted is maybe we should be focusing on more and whether that could have a negative/harmful effect on audiences.

416. LogicalLeopard - March 22, 2013

413. somethoughts – March 22, 2013
#412

They also sell fried chicken and liquor in china, I do not see your point.

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

I think you do see my point. It’s sort of demeaning when people play to what they think your baser interests are, in order to manipulate you into doing what they want. Yeah, yeah, I know that advertising uses a number of tricks and ploys, but it doesn’t stop it from being demeaning. Like say, if someone tried to sell you a Star Trek pocket protector, because they thought that you were a nerd, thus would buy pocket protectors based on Star Trek. It’s ridiculous.

417. Keachick - March 22, 2013

By and by – I don’t think Carol Marcus is wearing black underwear. It looks more like teal. Nice colour.

http://www.google.co.nz/imgres?imgurl=http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YE5u4EpQzok/TswcOaqnfdI/AAAAAAAACKw/H-ULW0yFGnc/s1600/D152teal.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.noshortcorners.com/2011/11/extra-teal.html&h=332&w=500&sz=1&tbnid=Sjo0fAnl6fWfVM:&tbnh=79&tbnw=119&zoom=1&usg=__lYLLN1p1r30ontOPEE2EZOvB-mI=&docid=5_asSMz7CtKMlM&sa=X&ei=eLlMUcqcL4qWkwXSvYGQBw&ved=0CGgQ9QEwBw&dur=174

418. crazydaystrom - March 22, 2013

404. Trekkiegal63 -
“To answer your question, Keachick, correctly this time (as crazydaystrom’s was severely editorialized),”

?
What would make your answer “correct” as opposed to mine? And how are Simone de Beauvoir words any less “editorial” than mine? And does she speak of women viewing men as ‘the other’ I wonder?

I do happen to think of females as ‘the other’ – the other half of ‘the whole’ which is humanity, or the human species, if you will. But that’s just my opinion and, as such, “editorial”.

419. somethoughts - March 22, 2013

#416

I see your point, some beer and car commercials are so lame and I wonder how these people get into their industries!

420. Trekkiegal63 - March 22, 2013

#415 Keachick:

Trekkiegal even calls out the need for a woman not to remain single (in every sense) in a movie that is actually billed as…wait for it, a ROMANTIC/action/comedy – This Means War.

Because both men were liars and deceitful. The fact that the female protagonist had to pick one of them to pair up with at the end sent the wrong message, i.e. even if two men vying for a women’s attention are of questionable character, she still must end up with one of them, can’t walk away from both, surely not!

BTW Keachick, you agreed with me that she should have remained single so I’m ever so interested in why you’re using this as an example now?

421. Hair Today Gorn Tomorrow - March 22, 2013

That is NOT the Big E crashing into Alcatraz. Don’t be misled by clever trailer editing. Although the Big E does plummet toward Earth, you’ll notice that the forward deflector is badly damaged and without illumination. Then if you look at a frame-by-frame of the vessel coming down on Alcatraz, its deflector (just a 2-3 frame glimpse) is fully intact with a blue illumination. It is not the Big E. Case closed.

422. crazydaystrom - March 22, 2013

410. LogicalLeopard
“What “American Puritan Ethic” exists in 2013? We’re not all covering up here, and sex sells everything. What we’re talking about is the fact that the presense of Alice Even in her skivvies, although it may have “purpose” in the movie, has no business in the trailer.”

I wasn’t clear I suppose. It is the lingering and still pervasive residual effect of a past much more dominant ‘APE’ that is one (and I suggest primary) reason for this very debate. And speaks to the difference between the way we view, use and react to nudity and the human body in this country compared to other countries.
And if Alice Eve in her underwear might have a purpose in the film, as you suggested, how in the world could it have “no business” in the trailer for the film? That shot is as ‘of the film’ as any other.

423. Trekkiegal63 - March 22, 2013

#418 crazydaystrom:

Perhaps because so much study has been done on ‘male gaze’ within the film: numerous books, essays, papers, thesis’ all supporting it, that to pass this issue off as anything other than what it is, falls under the term ‘red herring’. (Seriously, google the term ‘male gaze film’ and read the results you get, then get back to me on puritanical roots!).

Maybe also because I’ve posted again, and again, and again, an actual paper, written by the American Psychological Association, detailing the detrimental side effects of female objectification in film and yet this entire argument is still dismissed as ‘puritanical roots’.

And if you still want to be stubborn in your belief that sexism isn’t rampart within modern media, read this article on how the sexless puritan myth has been debunked:

http://www.cracked.com/article_19575_5-ridiculous-sex-myths-from-history-you-probably-believe.html

424. spockboy - March 22, 2013

@421

Damn!

I was hoping…. :)

425. Anthony Pascale - March 22, 2013

Not sure why this is being debated. Since the announcement trailer was released TrekMovie has been reporting that ship crashing into SF is NOT the USS Enterprise. Same has been reported in every other analysis. 100% certain that it isn’t the same ship – it clearly has a number of differences with the E, most notably the nacelles and struts but also in the details as well.

Whenever an analysis isn’t clear on something there are weasel words like maybe, possibly, etc.

That is NOT the USS Enterprise. They try and make it seem like the Enterprise by juxtaposing it with shots of the E, but it isn’t.

I think maybe it is time to do an article about the ‘other ship’ (or ships) we have seen enough footage now to start putting together a picture.

426. The Mighty Chip - March 22, 2013

@406 Curious Cadet:

Very true, the closest Abrams has come so far to a “strong female leader” is that bossy extra that told bones to sit down on the shuttle. I guess I’m just being too optimistic and trying to not call Abrams out on that kind of stuff after only seeing one of his Trek movies. After all, in ST09 he had to cram in origins for the entire main cast, he didn’t really have time to introduce new characters to show diversity.

I’m right there with you about how unfair it was that Kirk got promoted so quickly. While I very highly doubt that the writers just sat around and went “Well, he’s the leading white male so clearly he’ll be deserving a fast promotion with no work,” it was rediculously unrealistic – even if Pike was a father-figure to Kirk it would be blatantly stupid to bump him to first officer before he had even technically finished school. Buuut I digress….

As to the “Tokenism” of the main cast… I do tend to agree with you but I don’t think it’s really Abram’s fault – Trek is a VERY firmly established franchise, can you imagine the massive backlash if Abrams had tried to replace one of the core characters just to prove he’s tolerant? Do you really think swapping Spock out for a Spockette would have gone over well?

He can introduce brand new characters, surely. But with that option I’m falling back on to the “we haven’t seen the movie yet” argument.

I’m probably going to sound really ignorant for saying this, but when I watch a movie I honestly don’t notice gender/race ratios, especially in background/supporting characters. If I hadn’t read this thread, I would have never gleaned any “message” at all from the meeting room scene, and I don’t think most other audience members would have either. Again: perhaps I’m ignorant/ not looking at the subtext, but before today Star Trek has never carried sexist/racist undertones to it, save for the episodes that specifically dealt with it as a major plot point.

All this back-and-forth about whether or not Abrams meets some arbitrary diversity quota is starting to get exhausting. Can’t we all just strive to be tolerant in our own personal lives and not care about what some movie writers we never met may have accidentally implied in a half second shot in a movie trailer?

427. crazydaystrom - March 22, 2013

423. Trekkiegal63
“And if you still want to be stubborn in your belief that sexism isn’t rampart within modern media…”

Excuse me where did I state or even imply that? I’m much more aware of the sexism, and racism for that matter, than you can ever know. For what it’s worth I was once a card carrying member of The National Organization for Women, during the Eleanor Smeal days (really liked her) and I consider myself something of a feminist. And I respect women highly. I do not think you would believe how many times over the decades I have, in the exclusive company of all males, pointed out sexist statements made, sexist ideas held and sexist behavior. Believe it or not.

But back to the Alice Eve shot, if it had been Kirk standing there in briefs, objectified, as it were, I’d be saying essentially the same thing to anyone who might have had an issue with that. So it would seem you did “proceed from a false assumption”.

428. crazydaystrom - March 22, 2013

And Trekkiegal63, proceeded from a false assumption as would someone have if they had assumed from your moniker that you were not an strong and intelligent woman.

429. Hugh Hoyland - March 22, 2013

Its not often that trailers get me very excited about a movie but these latest ones have just blown me away. Prometheus did, and I did enjoy it very much, despite the fact the trailer gave a rather large chunk of the plot away. On the other hand Dredd’s trailer didnt, but I wound up liking it as well.

I have a feeling I’m going to love STID (I know dumb just from some trailers). But this movie looks like its going to be EPIC!

430. Phil - March 22, 2013

@415. You just seriously cannot grasp the concept of context. To take a step back for the moment, we really don’t know what the context of that scene is. If Kirk and Carol are needing to change in the confines of a shuttle I’d expect them to be professional about it. Unfortunately, the very brief reaction we get from Kirk would seem to suggest that he’s thinking with the little admiral while ogling her. That begs the question, does this scene exist because it’s essential to the story, or do we need to show a little skin to get our PG-13 rating. If they are going it just to show some skin, then she is being objectified. If it was Kirk getting the look from Carol if HE was in his BVD’s…guess what, it’s still objectification, and still wrong.

Violence in movies and television is a legitimate conversation, but it’s not a ‘if this, then that’ discussion. Seperate issue.

Last thought on context – the movie is billed as action/adventure. Were it drama, or romance, then it’s much more reasonable to expect an exploration of intimate behavior, and in a lot more detail. Star Trek isn’t ‘The Secretary” so I’d not expect any cross mixing of themes, which could be valuable knowledge for a parent deciding what is or isn’t suitable for their children.

431. Fio1984 - March 22, 2013

@ 344 in almost every other episode of next generation and voyager didn’t they open hails by saying this is the federation starship Enterprise/voyager

432. Curious Cadet - March 22, 2013

@426. The Mighty Chip,
“Trek is a VERY firmly established franchise, can you imagine the massive backlash if Abrams had tried to replace one of the core characters just to prove he’s tolerant? Do you really think swapping Spock out for a Spockette would have gone over well?”

I’m not really advocating they change the established core characters. Truly, there is a reasonable amount of diversity — 7 characters, one woman, two minorities, and an Alien. What needs to change is the depth of those characters, and Abrams seems to be doing that with Uhura. The prime universe did that with Sulu. Battle star Galactica replaced Starbuck with a woman, and it worked perfectly for me and many others. I’m not sure Spock could survive the transition, but certainly Abrams has already tried his hand at shaking things up by removing Chekov as Kirk’s protege and turning him into Doogie Howser. At the end of the day, Abrams is very clear about not making these movies for the fans. If Spock had been made female, there would have been just as big an uproar from the fans as there was over changing canon and destroying Vulcan, but general audiences would have probably taken it in stride, especially if they had slipped “Spockette” into a slinky objectifiable costume. I can’t ink of a good reason to swap genders with Spock, but it’s something I’d like to see explored. If anybody could have been jettisoned, it’s Chekov. They could have made him a woman for all the genetic manipulation they did to him, and that would have been very interesting. Sort of a Starbuck character.

————————
“He can introduce brand new characters, surely. But with that option I’m falling back on to the “we haven’t seen the movie yet” argument.”

See, I don’t need to see the movie for that. Unless there are uncredited cameos of more than a few lines, we know the ethnicity and gender of all the new characters Abrams has created, and mostly whether any are human or aliens. There’s no diversity envelope being pushed with this movie.

————————
“before today Star Trek has never carried sexist/racist undertones to it, save for the episodes that specifically dealt with it as a major plot point.”

And that’s the reason this should be discussed and not just buried under the rug. Most people approach entertainment that way. They focus on the characters and the story, as they should. The relationships between the characters, their demographic makeup, objectification, etc. all form a subtle tapestry, a backdrop which registers subconsciously. Kids come away and emulate what they’ve seen, and it starts with something as simple as: girls can play as long as they wear skirts and make intergalactic phone calls. Sigourney Weaver in Galaxy Quest is the perfect example of this, and all the male actors fell into the pattern of what she did on the show despite knowing her as an actor who was capable of more. Indeed even she played the role at first. Abrams has created such a white male power-dominated Trek, that the not-so-subtle subliminal message presents disturbing ramifications.

Indeed, I have to wonder about the Supreme Court itself in this context. It’s 5 men, mostly white. The producers embody the stereotypical white, well-paid, male-dominated Hollywood. What women and/or minorities are tempering their choices in this movie, if not us?

433. somethoughts - March 22, 2013

#425

I agree Anthony, I think it is the USS Excelsior JJ style

434. John from Cincinnnati - March 22, 2013

I am very happy they stayed with the retro looking original series uniforms. It makes it Star Trek.

435. Phil - March 22, 2013

@431. If he messed with Kirk, Spock or McCoy, yeah. Any of the secondary characters would have been fair game for gender swapping, though. Hell, you could probably have swapped race or orientation with the secondary characters for that matter and gotten away with it.

436. DaddlerTheDalek - March 22, 2013

Amazing Trailer! Just Awesome!

I think John Harrison will be one of Trek Best Villains yet. And Carol Marcus looks Hot. :)

437. Keachick - March 22, 2013

Kirk ogling Carol in her underwear? Maybe. However, what I saw was a look of surprise on both their faces. Her expression had a surprised and questioning look, as if to say ‘What the hell is going on?” Kirk looked as if he was running and turned back, as if to answer a question and could not help but note her appearance. The impression I have of that scene is that everyone was caught off guard, by surprise and had Carol leaving her quarters to find out what was going on at that instance, instead of putting on her uniform first.

It is people of this century who appear to have a problem seeing a woman in underwear. I doubt (hopefully) that Kirk and others have similar problems in their 23rd century Star Trek universe. As for Kirk’s “little admiral”, I am pretty sure that given the circumstances (context), he had the little man nicely under wraps. I am not sure the same might be said of the some of male posters commenting on this thread and site though… We see what we want to see, or not.

trekkiegal: I mentioned This Means War as an example of how you do not appear to like any couple shown in a romantic relationship. The two men were no more deceitful than the female protagonist was. If there was any lying, it was by omission. Tuck did not tell his ex-wife what he really did for a living (I don’t think that people work in a secret service organisation tend not to tell anyone what they do – it would hardly be a secret anymore). Tuck did not tell Lauren that he knew FDR, who was his closest friend and worked with him. FDR did not tell Lauren that he knew Tuck, who was his closest friend and worked with him. Lauren did not tell either men that she was also dating another man. All’s fair in love and war, or something like that, so they say.

I did note that maybe Lauren should have remained single, but I also stated that she might also be considered courageous enough to give a relationship with FDR a real good go. Both FDR and Lauren had become very good at avoiding becoming involved in any relationship that required some kind of commitment, for reasons stated in the movie.

438. Phil - March 22, 2013

@431. I’m not sure I’m in agreement with the notion that a lack if diversity is all that disturbing – there are enough background characters of varying race/point of origin/sex that I don’t think someone is going to see STID and think ‘Birth of a Nation’. That aside, what could Abrams done differently? The nice thing about the secondary cast is that they are lesser known entities. Checkov could have been defined as of Kazan decent, and Muslim. Sulu could have been female. Several North African nations had Jewish populations, who’s to say Uhura might be of Jewish decent? Scotty is fairly typecast, but there isn’t a ton of reason why the Scotsman engineer could not have been a person of color. What might have been….

439. Red Dead Ryan - March 22, 2013

#438.

You do realize that Jew is a race, right? Why would anyone turn Uhura (an black African character) into a lighter-skinned, Semite?

440. Mel - March 22, 2013

@ 435. Phil – March 22, 2013

“If he messed with Kirk, Spock or McCoy, yeah. Any of the secondary characters would have been fair game for gender swapping, though. Hell, you could probably have swapped race or orientation with the secondary characters for that matter and gotten away with it.”

I agree. For example they could have easily made Pike a women. He was a VERY minor TOS characters, who only hardcore Star Trek fans were familiar with.

441. LogicalLeopard - March 22, 2013

422. crazydaystrom – March 22, 2013

410. LogicalLeopard
“What “American Puritan Ethic” exists in 2013? We’re not all covering up here, and sex sells everything. What we’re talking about is the fact that the presense of Alice Even in her skivvies, although it may have “purpose” in the movie, has no business in the trailer.”

I wasn’t clear I suppose. It is the lingering and still pervasive residual effect of a past much more dominant ‘APE’ that is one (and I suggest primary) reason for this very debate. And speaks to the difference between the way we view, use and react to nudity and the human body in this country compared to other countries.
And if Alice Eve in her underwear might have a purpose in the film, as you suggested, how in the world could it have “no business” in the trailer for the film? That shot is as ‘of the film’ as any other.

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

What I mean by having no business in the trailer is that it is out of line with the rest of the trailer and serves no purpose. There’s terrorism, shooting, jumping, blowing up, crashing, narrow escapes, a fish, and a woman posing scornfully in her underwear. Two of those things don’t fit. The fish fits more, because humor has already been established in the trailer, but really, it doesn’t fit much either.

Let me say this. Say the scene isn’t Alice Eve in her underwear, but rolling around on the floor naked with Kirk. THAT actually is more appropriate, since it let’s the audience know that although the movie is dark and action filled, there will also possibly be a romance angle and comedy (back to Scotty and the fish.) But Alice Eve in her drawers hints at nothing and serves no purpose than to say, “Hey….you didn’t think we’d let her in the film without showing her in her drawers, did you?”

And I get what you’re saying about the effects of repressed sexuality, but I don’t think America bears that anymore than other countries I think that’s a line we’re fed. So other countries have more nude beaches. So what? It’s just different standards of normalcy. We like people to be clothed. That has nothing to do with repression.

And neither does this conversation. Alice Eve is wearing the equivalent of a bathing suit. It is not risque in most circles. It is not offensive. What IS offensive to some men and women is that your secondary female lead is reduced in these trailers to screaming, staring, and undressing. And what should be offensive to men is that they apparently think that the prospect of Carol Marcus being in the movie isn’t enough of a draw, but the certainty of seeing her in her underwear is. And that is what it boils down to.

442. Thomas - March 22, 2013

I would like to throw out there again, as I’ve stated in a previous post, that Alice Eve has a track record of being willing to undress on screen. For all the anger and vitriol being thrown around, how many of you actually got angry at Alice herself? Since she was so willing to do it, she’s as culpable as anyone else for that shot happening.

I can’t help what other people will do. If people don’t like it, the best objection you can make against this movie is to refuse to see it. Or maybe the Alice Eve shot didn’t make any difference to you one way or another (if you’re visiting these threads, chances are you were going to see STID anyway). I’m going to see this movie, and I was going to go regardless of this shot being there or not. All this Alice Eve business might be STID’s equivalent of people who said they weren’t going to see ST09 because Shatner wasn’t in it.

I think the message I’m getting from this thread is that we all need to get up from our keyboards, get a breath of fresh air, and realize that if you’re getting this upset about one shot in one trailer of a movie that hasn’t been released yet or you’re stopping to count the racial/gender diversity of one scene in that same movie, then you’ve deeper, more personal issues than the objectification of women.

443. Curious Cadet - March 22, 2013

438. Phil,
“I’m not sure I’m in agreement with the notion that a lack if diversity is all that disturbing – there are enough background characters of varying race/point of origin/sex that I don’t think someone is going to see STID and think ‘Birth of a Nation’. That aside, what could Abrams done differently?”

I would disagree with your assessment of the background characters. I looked through all the trailers and stills we’ve seen to date and the vast majority are white human men, followed by white women, a peppering of minorities, and then a few aliens thrown in for good measure.

It’s the other characters mainly. Admiral Marcus could have been a woman. For that matter, Carol could have had a Hispanic mother, or been Hispanic herself — this is a brand new universe after all. Cooke and Contractor are at least non-white though likely short-lived like Robau. But the majority of named characters with likely speaking roles appear to be white human males. Of course Harrison could have been Non-white. And I agree, Sulu, Chekov, and even Scotty could be different. I have a huge affinity for James Doohan, that Simon Pegg just doesn’t salve for me. I would have never thought it, but I could go for the Starbuck treatment with Scotty.

———————-
@437. Keachick,
“It is people of this century who appear to have a problem seeing a woman in underwear. I doubt (hopefully) that Kirk and others have similar problems in their 23rd century Star Trek universe. As for Kirk’s “little admiral”, I am pretty sure that given the circumstances (context), he had the little man nicely under wraps. I am not sure the same might be said of the some of male posters commenting on this thread and site though… We see what we want to see, or not.”

This statement seems to illustrate your confusion on this point.

It’s not about whether Kirk and others have a problem with a woman being in underwear in the 23rd century. It’s about how such a scene is perceived by current audiences. And as you correctly surmise, the guys watching this scene will most likely be titilated by it. I doubt they (or anyone for that matter) will be thinking, “oh cool, people are so progressive in the future”. They will most likely be reacting as you predict. And the filmmakers know this and pander to it, otherwise why include it in the movie? They aren’t just offering up a slice of 23rd century life for the heck of it, they are trying to compel 21st century audiences with cinematic techniques designed to appeal to today’s social mores. In other words, Orci didn’t write that scene to demonstrate how little issue Kirk has with women in their underwear, he wrote it to provoke young men for whom sex sells. And including it in the trailer negates any explanation which may be offered in the movie. For the record, I think you may be right about the scene being a surprising situation for both of them, and that it serves the purpose of raising Kirk’s interest in her by giving him a glimpse of her body from which he’s otherwise been attempting to professionally detach himself from (but the universe keeps conspiring to put them together). Again that’s a 21st century perception with which the audience will identify, and further suggests that Kirk actually loses control over his “little admiral” as well (whether such a situation would actually affect a real Kirk 200 years from now or not), since that’s the function of such a scene for the audience.

444. Curious Cadet - March 22, 2013

@440. Mel,
“they could have easily made Pike a women.”

Wile I agree in principle, not with the story they told. Kirk needed a father figure, and Pike was it.

445. I am not Herbert - March 22, 2013

Ha! check out these “guns”… ;-)

https://twitter.com/TrekMovie/status/315205715851628546/photo/1

…at least they are not using those lame-ass “phasers” from 2009…

446. Thomas - March 22, 2013

441. Logical Leopard

I agree completely. What’s funny is, because what she wears looks like female underwear, people are up in arms. I would like to suggest that if her outfit looked more like a two-piece bathing suit, these arguments would not be going on. I would bet the farm on it. America does not subscribe to a Puritanical Ethic, at least not anymore. I think you could make a debate that it never really did, especially if you have a better (i.e. truer) idea of the Puritan attitude about sex (thanks to #423 trekkiegal63 for linking to that Cracked.com article). I consider myself moderately conservative, but I don’t necessarily object to The Shot. It’s plainly obvious Alice Eve herself didn’t, a point people on this thread seem to be overlooking, if not ignoring outright.

I don’t know who threw out the whole “American Puritanical Ethic” thing, but Lord knows the only people who were offended on these threads were self-identified feminists, and feminists are not exactly known for “Puritanical” thinking.

447. I am not Herbert - March 22, 2013

money overcomes “ethics” ALL THE TIME… =(

448. LogicalLeopard - March 22, 2013

This statement seems to illustrate your confusion on this point.

It’s not about whether Kirk and others have a problem with a woman being in underwear in the 23rd century. It’s about how such a scene is perceived by current audiences.
********************

Well, with some of us, this has nothing to do with the SCENE. We haven’t seen the scene yet, and can’t object to it. We’re wondering why its in the trailer. It doesn’t serve a purpose other than to titilate us. Say it was Spock in his underwear when Kirk turned around. It’d be the same reaction – “Ok, buuuut why?” To entice women to see it?

Maybe my perspective is a little different, because I saw the pics here before I saw the trailer.When I saw the pic, I was.wondering what she was saying and doing. I thought it was going to be a funny one liner. Well, I’m still wondering, and wondering why its in the trailer. To make a different point, its like Scotty and the fish. I thought it was funny, because I know what’s happening. But you have to assume most people don’t, so why put it in?

449. Harry Mudd's Hairy Balls - March 22, 2013

Jesus, you people are uptight.

450. Phil - March 22, 2013

@439. There have been many Jewish communities in north Africa – notable among them Ethiopian Jews, rumored location of The Ark of the Covenant. These good people are very African in appearance, not to be confused with the lighter skinned people who play them in the media.

451. Mel - March 22, 2013

@ 439 Red Dead Ryan

Black Jews do exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Jews
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_Israel

Either way there are different definitions used for what makes someone a Jew or not. Some think that you can convert to Judaism, so that you don’t have to be born as one. That is a more religious than ethnic view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_to_Judaism

452. Phil - March 22, 2013

@444. Considering that it appears that Kirks mother was an absent parent, a strong female figure would have worked just as well.

453. I am not Herbert - March 22, 2013

feminism: the extreme concept that women are human beings too! =D

454. LogicalLeopard - March 22, 2013

446. Thomas – March 22, 2013

I agree completely. What’s funny is, because what she wears looks like female underwear, people are up in arms. I would like to suggest that if her outfit looked more like a two-piece bathing suit, these arguments would not be going on. I would bet the farm on it. America does not subscribe to a Puritanical Ethic, at least not anymore. I think you could make a debate that it never really did, especially if you have a better (i.e. truer) idea of the Puritan attitude about sex (thanks to #423 trekkiegal63 for linking to that Cracked.com article). I consider myself moderately conservative, but I don’t necessarily object to The Shot. It’s plainly obvious Alice Eve herself didn’t, a point people on this thread seem to be overlooking, if not ignoring outright.

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

I don’t think that the issue is underwear versus bathing suit. It’s the issue of “why is it in the trailer?” And we’re deluding ourselves if we say it serves any other purpose than to say, “Lookie, Lookie,, hot blonde! Come see our movie!”

I have no objection to the actual scene, because I haven’t seen it yet. I had no objection to the Kirk/Gaila/Uhura scene, because at least it served some sort of purpose in the plot. The only way I would hold Alice Eve or the writers culpable is if the scene is poor and serves no purpose.

Let me tell you my FAVORITE example of that….*LOL* Swordfish. Halle Berry. Somewhere near the beginning of the movie, she’s sunning herself, and someone walks up and says something to her, and she just drops or raises her sunny reflecto thingy (what do those do, anyway?) and we get a shot of her naked chest. For the first time. Now, mind you, there were PLENTY of red blooded men waiting her whole career for that. But it absolutely served NO purpose,and was stupid. In fact, I thought it and the rest of the movie was so stupid, I didn’t even finish it. But back to Alice Eve, I will say that I would hold her less accountable than Halle Berry, who is infinitely more powerful and probably could have gotten that scene rewritten. But Monster’s ball? Not much of a problem with that. Why? CONTEXT!

455. LogicalLeopard - March 22, 2013

But let me say, in all of my talking about the trailer, I’m still going to see the movie, it still looks good, no I won’t wear a bra and panties and disrobe in the theatre in protest (a scary sight), and no I’m not accusing Alice Eve of molesting the Star Trek of my Childhood. I’m just calling a spade a spade. It’s there, it’s cheap, and it serves no purpose. And I don’t think many people can dispute that. How much offfense one takes to it, if any, however, varies by individual person.

456. Astrophysicophile - March 22, 2013

12. The scene of the starship destroying Alcatraz would be very ironic if it meant the show “Alcatraz” was canceled, but as 117 and 334 state, it could just be an homage or nod to the show.

457. Mel - March 22, 2013

@ 444. Curious Cadet – March 22, 2013

“Wile I agree in principle, not with the story they told. Kirk needed a father figure, and Pike was it.”

I disagree. He needed at best a proper PARENT figure. Someone with authority, but who at the same time really cares about him and tries to help him. It seems he grew up without such a person. I don’t see, why a woman couldn’t have fulfilled that role.

458. Phil - March 22, 2013

@437. The very first thing I said was that we do not know the context of that scene, as it’s presented it’s titillating. The entire trailer has the crew dealing with the effects of a very bad situation, and suddenly there’s a near neekid woman in the mix. So yeah, objectification is a legitimate topic of conversation.

Can’t resist the cheap shot, can you? And you wonder why you rarely get the benefit of the doubt anymore…

459. Thomas - March 22, 2013

455. LogicalLeopard

Oh, The Shot absolutely serves a purpose: the titillation factor. I know people don’t like the idea of it being in the trailer, but this might a good time to remind people that we are not the portion of the potential audience these trailers are trying to reach. If you’re the kind of person who would dissect individual shots of a movie trailer, you were probably going to see the movie regardless. The Shot hasn’t changed my mind about this movie. I was looking forward to it before, and I’m still looking forward to it now.

460. Phil - March 22, 2013

@439. Regardless of appearance, and in consideration that Muslim/Jewish tensions grab so many of todays headlines, a world where those tensions are a thing of the past and the two peoples are actively working together might be soothing at some level…

461. Trekkiegal63 - March 22, 2013

#427 crazydaystrom:

So it would seem you did “proceed from a false assumption”.

In that case I apologize and also thank you for your work discouraging sexism amongst your peers. Please continue your good work.

However, having said that, I still feel you are wrong in your interpretation of the Carol Marcus underwear shot and the fan reaction to it. It has nothing to do with repression, prudishness or reader interpretation of The Scarlet Letter. It has to do with the all too common trend of women being narrowed down to their sex appeal to sell things, in this case, a movie.

Carol Marcus was a brilliant scientist in Wrath of Khan. She invented Genesis. She figured out the way to expedite evolution from millions of years to mere days. Yes, this is a different Carol in an alternate universe. But I seriously doubt Nero had any effect on Carol’s level of intelligence. Did they show any of Carol’s most stunning feature, her brain, in the trailer?

No, they didn’t.

Her sexuality is but one aspect to a broad spectrum of identity, yet so far we’ve seen her caught up in two sexist cliches. Screaming in one trailer, ergo, the damsel in distress, and in her underwear in the next with no context leading up to or beyond that one shot. New people coming into the franchise with no backstory, or fans who’ve only seen the ST2009 movie have no idea who Dr. Carol Marcus is. And by what they’ve seen of her so far, what their first impressions have been? I doubt its complementary to Carol’s great scientific mind.

The movie will hopefully change that. It is my greatest wish. But the trailer, by itself, with no other context, does indeed objectify her.

462. Phil - March 22, 2013

The objectification question can be answered rather easily. All else being exactly the same, substitute Ms. Eve with Betty White or Rosie O’Donnell, then tell me the studio would have still presented what we have seen so far, exactly as shown. Well, would they?

My guess, no. I’m open to be pursuaded otherwise.

463. Trekkiegal63 - March 22, 2013

#437 Keachick:

I mentioned This Means War as an example of how you do not appear to like any couple shown in a romantic relationship.

Keachick, we’ve been over this a dozen times, in multiple threads, I really don’t want to get into this again. So I’m just going to cut and paste what I said the last time you brought up and leave it at that. (Seriously, what is your obsession with my views on cliches, no, not romance, cliches, there is a difference!)

From the “Shot-by-Shot Analysis Of Star Trek Into Darkness Alternative Teaser” thread, post #294:

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.

Yup, still feel that way. And yup, still like Chris Pine but thought “This Means War” was an utterly horrible film.

464. Trekkiegal63 - March 22, 2013

#462. Phil:

What a wonderful way to put it into perspective! Thank you!

465. Jack - March 22, 2013

Nah. Or replace Taylor Lautner, Ryan Gosling or Hugh Jackman with Seth Rogen (even now), warwick davis or Jack Nicholson. So are the first three being objectified?

Movies show people in their lives — and sometimes in life, people are in their underwear.

A better test — would the character still be an interesting, compelling, necessary character if he/she didn’t show off his/her underwear? If the answer’s no — then they’re nothing but eye candy. See: Megan Fox.

466. Curious Cadet - March 22, 2013

@457. Mel,
“I disagree. He needed at best a proper PARENT figure. Someone with authority, but who at the same time really cares about him and tries to help him. It seems he grew up without such a person. I don’t see, why a woman couldn’t have fulfilled that role.”

Phil also had this reaction. And I don’t disagree, a strong parental figure could do the job, male or female. However, that is not the setup we got. Both of you allude to the fact his mother, or other authority figure were absent from his life. We actually don’t know that. What we know is his father was killed the day he was born and thus missing from his life. Pike seemed to fill that role in a way his overbearing step-dad did not. Everything else is speculation. And there are plenty of single parent families where the mother or father were fine parents, yet the child still suffers from the absence of the other parent.

Again, in this context it was poetic. The loss of his father is replaced by a strong father figure, also a Starfleet officer. There’s artistic symmetry there which can’t be duplicated by a female. If the setup were different, I would agree 100%, let Pike be a woman. For instance, Kirk loses his mother too and goes to live with his step father. But since we don’t know, or it was never established his mother was not around, it’s not as strong a choice thematically.

467. LogicalLeopard - March 22, 2013

459. Thomas – March 22, 2013

Nope, it hasn’t changed my opinion on the movie either. Maybe my opinion on whoever edits the trailers, but, not the movie.

468. Phil - March 22, 2013

@466. No, but it was inferred. Young Kirk recognized the empty threat of having to deal with his mother ‘when she gets back’ and continued on with the car. We can infer that the guy on the phone didn’t hold that level of authority in Kirks life, and that ‘when mom gets back’ the incident would not incur much of her wrath, either. Pike needed to be a authority figure in Kirks like, the sex of the character was inconsequential. The producers chose male, so Pikes a guy. At this point it is what it is…

469. LogicalLeopard - March 22, 2013

A note on gender-swapping:

It worked perfectly with Battlestar Galactica. Because Battlestar Galactica hadn’t been a viable property for what, three decades? Star Trek is a lot bigger than that, with an extremely dedicated fan base, and you can’t go mucking around with it like that now. Perhaps they could have did that around the TNG era if they did a reimagining, and if they didn’t have any movies.

Not that it wouldn’t be interesting. What about a total flip, Jamie Kirk, T’Spock, Leonora McCoy, Pavelina Chekov, Nyoto Uhura, Hikara Sulu, and Margaret Scott? *L*

But I disgress. I know what era TOS was made in, but my thing is, why didn’t the spinoffs have more women? It seems like the cap is two, unless you’re talking about Voyager. Most of us probably work in balanced workplaces, the same should apply for Starfleet. If they make a new series, I would like to see an eight member main cast, evenly split male female.

470. LogicalLeopard - March 22, 2013

461. Trekkiegal63 – March 22, 2013

Great point! Even considering it from just a character view, it’s demeaning to the character. What would happen if you had a trailer for ST:09 and Bones was depicted as just screaming and dressing in his underwear? People would be ready to burn effigies of JJ Abrams. Carol Marcus is not a central character, but some respect, please?

471. Phil - March 22, 2013

@465. Except for one thing. Transforms was alway eye candy. Good looking actors, fast cars, giant fighting robots. There isn’t any meaning there.

Trek, at least in concept, was to represent a future for humanity where we had mastered most of our basic impulses. When TOS was made, racism was the elephant in the room, and as time has passed this vision expanded to include sexism and bigotry. In the future these things should not matter, in the here and now, we debate them because we are still dealing with them.

472. Jack - March 22, 2013

Sure. But is a girl (or guy) in skimpy clothing necessarily sexist? Is sexy sexist? is being attracted to the gender one’s attracted to, sexist? She’s playing Kirk’s potential love interest — chances are he’ll see her in her knickers at some point. And the scene looks like she’s giving him a WTF look for checking her out when she’s just an officer changing in front of another officer.

I respect Barack Obsma, but if was changing in front of me, I’d be checking him out.

Was the shower scene in Starship Troopers sexist?

Would Betty White or Rosie O’Donnell play Chris Pine’s love interest? And is it sexist to suggest that Pine would probably be attracted to someone hot around his age. Sure, hopefully she’s not *just* hot.

I’d be surprised if we don’t see Pine shirtless at some point on this thing.

I agree, if a woman was playing the president of the federation and she just happened to be giving a speech in her underwear for no reason that makes sense to the plot — well, that would be sexist.

Again, until we see the actual movie, this is a tempest in a C-cup.

473. Jack - March 22, 2013

Note to Bad Robot. Obviously the next trailer had to show us Chris Pine’s dink.

474. Jack - March 22, 2013

Has.

475. Red Dead Ryan - March 22, 2013

The producers couldn’t make Chris Pike a female in this timeline. He was born before the new timeline diverged from the original. The writers chose to spin off the new timeline from the original that existed for over fourty years. They had to keep the gender roles consistent.

Had they decided to do a total reboot set in an entirely new universe with no link to the old one and ignore the old canon altogether, making Pike a woman would have been feasible.

Had they made Pike a woman in the last movie, it would have been too much of a “WTF?” scenario to explain logically.

476. Trekkiegal63 - March 22, 2013

#470 LogicalLeopard:

What would happen if you had a trailer for ST:09 and Bones was depicted as just screaming and dressing in his underwear?

Very good question.

I think a lot of people are forgetting that we know who Carol is, we know her back story, we know she has an amazing scientific mind, because we’re Trekkies. It’s what we do. The Wrath of Khan is that thing we point to and see “see what our franchise is capable of?! This movie is awesome. Critics loved it and so did we.”

So we see this trailer and, knowing Carol, knows there’s more to her. Does anyone not familiar with the franchise? At this point, in recent trailers, they’ve seen her twice. Once screaming. The other time in her underwear with no other context. How can anyone see her as more than a really attractive damsel in distress when given only that?

They say first impressions are the most difficult to overcome…

477. Phil - March 23, 2013

@475..Yeah, baby….apologies to Austin Powers.

478. Jack - March 23, 2013

“How can anyone see her as more than a really attractive damsel in distress when given only that?”

It’s a trailer. For Europe, Mexico and… Brazil (?). Yeah, it’s also online. Most people who see the movie won’t have seen the trailer. But regardless, if people can’t accept her character or believe her performance solely because they’ve seen her in her underwear, well, those people are dummies.

Don’t get me wrong, I think the scene stands out like a sore, er, thumb in that trailer. But, come on, let’s not get carried away.

Remember Sigouney Weaver in her panties? It didn’t stop Ripley from
taking charge in a million more sequels.

479. Giez - March 23, 2013

244. boborci – March 21, 2013

I will try to avoid the net Trek sites, those last few days before International releases, but that is really unfair. I bought May 15th tix so we could see it before all, as advertised, and then these days pop up?? Maybe those Fandango dates should be = to International an move up those dates?? It’s wrong.

480. Phil - March 23, 2013

@478. That’s what is fueling the debate, we are making assumptions about this movie based on attributes from the last one, and TOS. The scene we saw is a couple of seconds long, and the truth is we don’t know the context of it, or that it even makes it into the movie. It’s not a question of accepting her or the character, it’s the circumstances under which the image is presented that’s being debated. We are all going to see the movie, regardless….

481. Curious Cadet - March 23, 2013

@475 Red,
“The producers couldn’t make Chris Pike a female in this timeline. He was born before the new timeline diverged from the original.”

You’re being too literal.

In this context there are several solutions to this — first, a female fulfills the purpose of Pike, but doesn’t actually play a character named Pike. I believe this is what most of us were thinking. Second, had they wanted to reboot the actual character of Pike, they simply move the timeline divergence further back.

My argument for a Pike-like character being male is the poetic artistry of literally replacing Kirk’s father with a father-figure (age, sex and background) based on the story choices they made. The SC chose Pike presumably to better connect the character with the canon they were eviscerating. They could have easily chosen Matt Decker or numerous others, including Robert April or Admiral Marcus. They could have substituted a woman too, but it wouldn’t have been as artistically symmetrical, based on the story they wanted to tell, and I can’t really name a suitable female character from canon off the top of my head …

482. Trekkiegal63 - March 23, 2013

#478 Jack:

The point I was trying to make is that a person, not just a woman, but all people are composed of many components: interests, hobbies, intellectual pursuits, creative outlets, quirks, likes, dislikes, an opinion on who made the best Bond, or who was the better front-man for Van Halen, Roth or Hagar (totally Roth, btw). In Carol Marcus’ case she is an amazing scientist.

Let’s stop and consider Genesis for a moment. Yes, ultimately it failed because David was taking a few shortcuts, but she managed to make something that took millions of years of evolution and turn that into mere moments.

When you show someone in their underwear, and only that, no other context, their sexual appeal is the only aspect to them you are given. That’s it. That’s all.

That’s objectification.

Even if that person you are looking at is a great mind, you wouldn’t know it, because you’re not given that piece. And now you carry that impression with you for a little under two months.

Don’t care that it’s just a trailer. That shot shouldn’t have been there. That’s my stance.

Said this before, I’ll say it again. Just because I’m a Trekkie does not mean I have to agree with every aspect of the franchise. Being a fan of something is not all or nothing. I can love Star Trek and still desire that it not objectify women.

BTW: Just went to rewatch the Alien trailer, for old times sake, because you got me feeling nostalgic and I adore Ellen Ripley quite a lot, and she was given much more to do than just the underwear shot. In fact, the trailer had her running, hiding, and kicking ass, as one expects Ripley to do (did I mention yet how much I adore her?). In that trailer she was given a personality beyond the underwear scene.

483. Jack - March 23, 2013

482. I absolutely agree — and just showing that scene alone is juvenile and crass at best (even if they say they’re using it to show what a douchebag Kirk is). But I’m hoping there’s more to Marcus than abs — and more to this movie than chases and explosions.

484. Trekkiegal63 - March 23, 2013

#483 Jack:

…and just showing that scene alone is juvenile and crass at best (even if they say they’re using it to show what a douchebag Kirk is). But I’m hoping there’s more to Marcus than abs — and more to this movie than chases and explosions.

Agree! 100%.

I’ve bought my tickets already and I’m looking forward to seeing what Carol contributes (and who John Harrison really is and what exactly his beef with Starfleet is… oh, and I’m also really looking forward to seeing Klingons. Like Ripley, it’s a nostalgia thing ;)).

485. Jack - March 23, 2013

And don’t get me wrong on this either, I think you’ve made the point here. So have the others. And I have agreed and continue to agree. And I can’t argue with you not liking the scene in the trailer. And I feel the same way

Not only does it look sexist — it looks dumb. And I wasn’t a fan of the Uhura scene in Trek ’09 either. It’s like it was solely there to stick in the trailer. But I’m an optimist ’til the end. — and I’m hoping there’s a hell of a lot more to Carol Marcus than a peep in a shuttle. And there’s hopefully more for Scott to do than gape at a fish. Or for Chekov to do then run a little.

And, putting it in perspective, it’s not like these trailers are big on character moments — or dialogue.

But, it’s already getting press.

486. Red Dead Ryan - March 23, 2013

#481.

Okay, I see what you’re saying. I think I misunderstood the original posts.

Yeah, I do agree that nuKirk needed a mother figure as well.

Doesn’t look like we’ll get it in the sequel.

Maybe there will be a Mrs. Pike in the third movie, should it be made.

487. Trekkiegal63 - March 23, 2013

#485 Jack:

But I’m an optimist ’til the end. — and I’m hoping there’s a hell of a lot more to Carol Marcus than a peep in a shuttle. And there’s hopefully more for Scott to do than gape at a fish. Or for Chekov to do then run a little.

Agree with all of this as well.

I come down hard on sexism because that comes from a personal place. It’s part of my framework, who I am. That said, I am very much looking forward to this film. Objectifying shots aside, the rest of it is all very intriguing. I think we’re in for quite the ride. :)

488. Keachick - March 23, 2013

Kirk seemed to look back because of what Carol may have been asking, eg “What the hell is going on?” His look was more of surprise. Kirk is not in a bar in civies. He is on duty and running with others. As I said, we see what we want to see…

trekkiegal: Your reply re This Means War was a deflection. I pointed out that Lauren was not so honest or her own behaviour so stellar either. You seemed not to pay attention to the actual movie and characters in question. All you did was become impatient and copy and paste your stuff about stereotypes, glorifying co-dependency etc., which are quickly becoming yet another set of cliches.

People have a tendency to do that – we all do it at times – but it is not always very helpful, quite the opposite.

489. Jack - March 23, 2013

488. Not to wade into this, but just an observation: all three of them were despicable, to varying degrees, in that movie.

490. Keachick - March 23, 2013

Jack – I think “despicable” is too heavy a word. They were three people with some baggage – you know, fairly ordinary, flawed human beings actually. I liked them for the most part, because, at least, to the audience we knew what was going on with all of them.

491. Keachick - March 23, 2013

Re – last post – also meant to say – the guys were too easily tempted to behave as they did because they had easy access to all kinds of surveillance technology…

492. Trekkiegal63 - March 23, 2013

#488 Keachick:

Because I’ve gone done this road with you before and I do not wish to do it again. You know my stance. I’ve said to you at least twenty times that its not romance I object to, it’s stereotypes, cliches and tropes.

I saw the movie once. I don’t remember it that well. It wasn’t that stand-out-ish. What I remember was that both men were fighting over a girl using over-the-top means to do it like a dog over a bone. If she was dishonest too, which I genuinely, honestly don’t remember, then all the more reason she shouldn’t be in a relationship. If you can’t be honest with a partner, or worse, yourself, I think a little reflection is in order before a relationship among equals can be obtained. The only thing I remember from the film? I left thinking that she shouldn’t have picked either. Not because I’m opposed to romance, but because I thought neither man desirable as a partner. I don’t even remember the character’s names the way you do! Which one was FDR?

But my point is why bring up me and my views on “This Means War” at all? What does that have to do with the tea in China? Other than staring Chris Pine, what does that movie have to do with Star Trek? You and I haven’t even been conversing much in this thread. I answered a question you asked, one that didn’t have to do with “This Means War”, that was it. Any deflecting on my part was mostly part ‘why is she bringing this up again’, and part ‘but we’ve already discussed this so much!’

And I’m asking you sincerely, please don’t drag me into whatever it is you are trying to accomplish here. I’ve had my fill of negativity for a bit. Right now I’m looking for a little positive energy.

Thus if you’d like to discuss anything in the movie that doesn’t include a threesome with cats or a shot of Carol Marcus in her underwear (i.e. stuff you know very well we disagree on) that you are looking forward to in the new movie, then I’m game.

493. Exverlobter - March 23, 2013

@454. LogicalLeopard

“I don’t think that the issue is underwear versus bathing suit. It’s the issue of “why is it in the trailer?” And we’re deluding ourselves if we say it serves any other purpose than to say, “Lookie, Lookie,, hot blonde! Come see our movie!” ”

Yeah, that’s ecactly the goal of a trailer. Critizising a trailer for it’s core-function is pointless.
Of course they’re gonna try to encourage the masses to buy a ticket. Did you except something else? Trailers by definition have to be “attention-whores” and almost never represent the final film.

494. Astrophysicophile - March 23, 2013

181. I’d call doing a planetary survey of new-to-them Niburu exploration.

495. Exverlobter - March 23, 2013

I don’t get all this criticism here about supposed sexism.
This is not a remake of Voyager, so naturally there is just one girl in the main-crew. And switching genders like in Battlestar Galactica would have lead to a public outcry.
And unlike in the 60s the female guest star (today it will be Alice) is not just a byproduct to be kissed by Kirk or answer the pone like old Uhura, but will be shown as an intelligent scientist.
You all are making to make mountains out of molehills!

496. Keachick - March 23, 2013

Wow, trekkiegal – So no one who is dishonest should be in a relationship? Well, I guess that just about says it all really. Dishonesty is part of what could be described as Delusion. Very few of us are totally honest with ourselves, let alone others, all the time. It is not that people are necessarily deliberately dishonest, it is just that humans have their blind spots, which can have the effect of not allowing them see clearly always and so they make mistakes.

FDR was played by Chris Pine.

If you say that you don’t mind seeing romantic relationships played on screen, name a relationship that you do approve of, because so far, all I read is negativity.

497. RAMA - March 23, 2013

So earlier in the thread I was discussing themes in Trek movies. In ST09 the theme was mainly Kirk but also partially Spock’s growth and establishing those characters for future growth(yes people ST09 had more character bits than most ST movies, get over it). STID, for those who seem to think it is solely an action flick (it is an action flick but a bit more) is the terrorism plot that firmly is in line with topical Trek, and in this aspect I’m seeing that it is taking the tack of previous Trek. In STNG several episodes tackled terrorism (Too Short a Season, The Hunted, The High Ground, et al) , and the conclusion–generally espoused by Roddenberry–is that their motivations are more complicated than it would seem and should not be dismissed. In STID, we have been told that Harrison might even be sympathized with, despite the killing. Now I won’t excuse the killing but I generally agree with this…murders must answer for their crimes. but that doesn’t mean the underlying issues should not be looked into. I think we should be prepared for such views in the movie, terrorism isn’t all black and white. However, we also must guard against nutjob conspiracy theorists like BobOrci, who is a talented writer, but isn’t very concerned about facts.

498. crazydaystrom - March 23, 2013

461. Trekkiegal63 -
“#427 crazydaystrom:
…thank you for your work discouraging sexism amongst your peers. Please continue your good work.”

You are welcome and I intend to.

“However, having said that, I still feel you are wrong in your interpretation of the Carol Marcus underwear shot and the fan reaction to it. It has nothing to do with repression, prudishness or reader interpretation of The Scarlet Letter. It has to do with the all too common trend of women being narrowed down to their sex appeal to sell things, in this case, a movie.”

Well of course The Scarlet Letter has nothing to do with it at all but I think you are correct about my misinterpretation of the reaction of SOME fans to that shot. It would seem I did “proceed from a false assumption .” I apologize about that.

“…this is a different Carol in an alternate universe…Did they show any of Carol’s most stunning feature, her brain, in the trailer?”

No, but the same can be said of Spock or McCoy or Uhura here. And no those characters were not shown in they’re underwear as Marcus was but the purpose of the trailer is not to give the (potential) audience an idea of what they might see in the movie. And it does attempt to, in a few seconds, to push a button or two or three that will entice and lure ticket buys to the work.

Yes, and to your point, objectification of women is rife and rampant in the media. And I, as a male, am not in a position to know fully how it feels to be objectified in that manner. In fact as you probably know, we guys, when objectified sexually, are flattered! But that’s a whole other thing, for numerous reasons. But I do feel, as a potential (though inadvertent) offender should defer to the potentially offended, for the sake of sensitivity and further understanding. I realize I’m not perfect, even though it seems that way to me. ( I keed! I keed!)

But consider this.
I’m an American of relatively recent African descent .. a Black guy. I have seen, many times over the decades, people of my “race” come to or jump to the conclusion that a given person’s actions towards them or reactions to them were based on “race” or racist when there was little reason to believe that was the case except for the differences of skin color of those involved. They “proceeded from a false assumption” and as a result erroneous conclusions were drawn. All due to what was perhaps an over-sensitivity to a subject.

Please know I AM aware that sexism and racism exist. And I don’t want to start a big thing here about racism here. And I am certainly not attempting to diminish what you and others have said and feel on the subject of the objectification of women in general and of ‘Alice Eve in underwear’ specifically. Only suggesting, as someone did in an previous post that “Sometimes a cigar IS just a cigar”.

And you know, when I see STID I may find myself sittin in the theater shaking my head thinking “OMG I can’t believe they used the character that way!” Hopefully not.

499. Phil - March 23, 2013

Ms. Eve’s undies must have made an inpression – the flap made mention on a different thread…

500. RAMA - March 23, 2013

We are all aware of sexism, it’s getting way too much play here in my opinion. Objectification: Generally this means to the exclusion of all else…Carol Marcus is said to play an important role as a scientist, weapon expert AND love interest. The fact a shot of her was used out of context for a trailer IS in fact meant to sell the movie, but not to the exclusion of all else. If there is expectation her qualifications will be lsited in 1 toi 2 minute trailers, prepare for that to be dashed…her qualifications are her uniform.

On a different note, there are plenty of movies and shows where scantily clad women are gratuitous, to me the fact it is brought up here simply shows an overreaction, a plea to sympathy where none is needed, and is impressing views when unnecessary and demonstrates prudishness because of the genre, but doesnt consider reality in other movies.

I still think the horror over skin is telling, and has been mentioned skin has been seen on both genders, its addng an aspect of reality, sexuality exists in the real world in a sexual species and will be reflected in our art and entertainment. That’s the last I’ll say on the already overused subject.

501. crazydaystrom - March 23, 2013

Yeah RAMA. In seven weeks or so we’ll all hopefully be posting about the THE BEST TREK FILM EVER! And debating nerdishly only about the tiny details we fans love to micro-scrutinize.

Peace! IDIC! & LLAP!

502. Curious Cadet - March 23, 2013

@498 crazydaystrom,
“No, but the same can be said of Spock or McCoy or Uhura here. And no those characters were not shown in they’re underwear as Marcus was but the purpose of the trailer is not to give the (potential) audience an idea of what they might see in the movie.”

I had not really considered this point until Trekkiegal63 made it. But it is 100% valid and at the core of the issue. No, we don’t see the big three (and let’s face it, Bones seems to have been related to 2nd tier Scotty status in this universe) solve complex equations on screen. But we do see the results of their intellect. We see them in action, fighting back, chasing the bad guy, piloting space craft, speaking, reasoning, giving orders. If we then saw any of them in their underwear, we’d be like “wow brains AND body”. But Eve has only been seen in classic non-speaking stereotyped vignettes: damsel in distress, flirting with Kirk, and now posing in her underwear. Trekkiegal63 is right, I’ve been filling in the blanks with what I know about Carol Marcus as a fan. For those the producers are targeting with this out of place clip in the trailer, I imagine a scenario where they are sitting in the dark theater, and for every fully clothed dialogue scene they see Eve in they are not listening to what she has to say, but rather thinking: “when are they gonna get to that underwear scene?”, and “what else are they gonna show us?”, and likely mentally undressing Eve from her already skimpy outfit. Granted that’s extreme, but I do feel such things in trailers put perspective audience members in that mindset with that character. It’s no different than showing a lot of action in a trailer, only to find out the film is actually comprised of long stretches of dialogue with the audience thinking: “when are they going to get to the action?”.

@500 RAMA,
“there are plenty of movies and shows where scantily clad women are gratuitous, to me the fact it is brought up here simply shows an overreaction, a plea to sympathy where none is needed, and is impressing views when unnecessary and demonstrates prudishness because of the genre, but doesnt consider reality in other movies.”

That’s EXACTLY the point! We are discussing it in this thread because we don’t want Star Trek to become just like all those other movies. Unlike the average Michael Bay “check-your-mind-at-the-door” explodarama, Star Trek offers a message of tolerance, mutual respect, and equality. A time when racism, sexism, intolerence and greed are a thing of the past. So portraying characters with their most stereotypical attributes to entice people to come see your movie seems counter-intuitive to the vision this franchise has always espoused. And yes, there’s been sexual objectification in the past. I recall Enterprise using some of their most salacious scenes to promote the episodes, but they were desperate — the show was in the toilet and they were trying to build an audience any way they could: sex sells. But honestly, sexual objectification of Alice Eve aside, this trailer was too good on its own to abruptly hit the breaks to flash some skin. Most of the complaints I’m reading have to do with how out of place it is to begin with. Then you ask why it’s there and the answer is obvious. Long before they started flashing skin on the screen in STID trailers, they had built a lot of excitement and enthusiasm for the movie. That tells me Star Trek sells itself on its core values, without resorting to the same old sexual exploitation tactics Hollywood trots out for every film. And it’s not like this movie franchise is in imminent danger of failing (not that that’s any sort of justification, merely an understandable one). But they couldn’t help themselves.

As I said before, if we don’t draw a line in the sand, who will? Do we want to see Star Trek become just another mindless Summer blockbuster franchise with pointless T&A thrown in to titilate teenage boys at the expense of women everywhere and promote the same old objectification women have been subjected to for years? Or should we expect better from THIS particular franchise?

The scene itself may have some redeeming value in context of the movie, but lets face it, it’s included mainly to titilate. While there is no excuse for the trailer, perhaps this wouldn’t be such a big issue now if not for the previously reported cat women threesome scene, which based on all reports, exists solely to titilate and therefore objectify the otherwise anonymous women for the likely purpose of making a sophomoric joke. But in light of that revelation, there seems to be a clear and disturbing pattern here about what these producers deem an acceptable message in a franchise that should aspire to higher ideals. The bottom line they should be asking themselves, is is it necessary to be gratuitous or otherwise exploit characters to tell their story, and that goes for sex, AND violence as well. If the answer is no, then they should look for another way to express themselves, and avoid the easy-to-pick, low-hanging fruit — if for no other reason than to preserve the message Star Trek has always tried to present, no matter how flawed it may have been presented in the past. Star Trek is a product of its time, the difference is it aspires to represent more than we are today and envisions where we should be tomorrow. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. The same axiom applies to Star Trek. If not for the fans calling foul on the producers, then who will?

503. Jack - March 23, 2013

500. “Objectification: Generally this means to the exclusion of all else…Carol Marcus is said to play an important role as a scientist, weapon expert AND love interest.”

Yes. Exactly. Finding someone attractive does not automatically diminish them.

504. Jack - March 23, 2013

CC. Yep. Marketing. There to bring in guys. And so are the explosions and shooting. Every other Trek movie trailer has had ‘em. Those ‘on the next episode of Star Trek” TV teasers had ‘em (you saw shooting, space battles, monsters, kissing and some pronouncement of doom for our heros). They’re there to pique, er, interest. If the movie has nothing but these things, then we can worry.

505. Curious Cadet - March 23, 2013

@504 Jack,

Absolutely. But as Orci has indicated before, the Supreme Court is in firm control over whatever Paramount marketing wants to do. These guys aren’t putting out anything that doesn’t get Abrams’ stamp of approval.

Now, via-a-vis the trailers, we’ve seen much more than explosions and shooting. We’ve seen a funeral, soul-searching by the characters, emotional angst, pike lecturing Kirk on his behavior, Harrison making grave and intellectual statements, Admiral Marcus making a threat assessment. There is intrigue, and mystery, and morality, and justice infused within that trailer. It perfectly compliments the action scenes giving the prospective audience a well balanced look at what the film will deliver. It’s at least as intellectual as it is visceral.

So when they drop in a clip of the beautiful and fit Alice Eve, with no other context than she looks great in her underwear, then one of these things just doesnt fit with the rest of the well balanced trailer. Especially when the ONLY other images we’ve seen of Eve in these trailers is apparently helpless and screaming with horror, and flirting with Kirk. Yes Carol Marcus is smart AND beautiful, NOTHING wrong with that. But you wouldn’t know it from these trailers.

We can say the marketing guys are just doing their job, and the film will hopefully make everything right, but at the end of the day the buck stops at JJ Abrams’ desk. He put those shots of Eve in the film, and he approved their inclusion in the trailer (to the exclusion of all others which presumably show her in a more intellectual and competent light). Dismissing these trailers as the cost of doing business may be the truth, but it doesn’t mean we have to just sit back and accept it. Especially when the trailer otherwise seems of a higher calibre than one for say GI Joe, or Battleship. As the current guardians of Star Trek, Abrams’ should demand better, and so should we. The excuse of: “that’s the way it’s always been done” just doesn’t fly in 2013.

506. LogicalLeopard - March 23, 2013

493. Exverlobter – March 23, 2013

Yeah, that’s ecactly the goal of a trailer. Critizising a trailer for it’s core-function is pointless.
Of course they’re gonna try to encourage the masses to buy a ticket. Did you except something else? Trailers by definition have to be “attention-whores” and almost never represent the final film.

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

Well, actually, that’s the point. We know sex sells. And we know that trailers are designed to sell the movie. So putting Alice Eve in her underwear seems perfect, right?

Until you do the mental math between the two. Okay, so you have Alice standing there. To many people, this is an attractive sight. It is a welcome sight. But….is it going to make you see the movie? This is harder for us to analyze, because most of us were going to see the movie anyway. But If you’re not a Star Trek fan, your secondary reason for seeing the movie is probably because it looks like a good action popcorn flick. Which is what most of the trailer plays to. But say you don’t like either of that, or you’re on the fence. Is one shot of Alice in her underwear going to make people see the movie? I really don’t think so. I hate to get into a tearing apart of Alice, but she doesn’t look much different than the women in your average department store bra ad. In fact, some of those people are wearing less. And that’s another thing, this doesn’t even promise NUDITY in the film, which may bring some people who are on the fence off the fence. All it promises is that you’ll see a woman scowling in her underpants, which actually makes me tend to think they’re WONT be nudity.

But even if there were nudity, how many people are going to be seriously swayed out of their money to see something they DON’T want to see, because it has nudity in it. Would you step up to the line and say, “Well, I don’t like polka, but I’m going to go and check out “Polka till you Drop! The Sven Sveum Story” because it had a really hot chick who was getting naked.” Or more to the point, because it had a hot chick who scowled in her underpants?

Sex sells. This sex, I don’t see selling. There may be many cases of objectification, but this one was just stupid and pointless. The only scenario in which it makes sense is to pander to some fans who wanted to see a young Marcus in her underpants. Who were going to see the movie anyway. It’s not going to draw any of the “JJ Trek is an Abomination, I hate Punch It, I hate the Star Wars References, I….wait….Alice Eve in her underwear? CURSE YOU JJ, NOW I HAVE TO SEE IT!!!!” It’s more likely a poor editorial choice in which someone said, “Oh, but what about that shot of Alice Eve in her underwear? That’s gold, drop it in!” and it was added without much thought.

507. Robe - March 23, 2013

No doubt Kirk will be topless in a scene but there will be no complaints from the PC Brigade.

508. Exverlobter - March 23, 2013

“506. LogicalLeopard”
Well as a fan I’m going to see this film anyway, so they don’t have to worry about me.
Yes Sex sells. Action sells. We fans are dependant on the non-fan masses that have to be convinced to see this film. I am not a marketing expert but if they believe that that’s the way to lure them all into the cinema, then go for it.
BTW, they included a bra-scene with Uhura in the trailer of the 2009 film, so i am wondering why there still is a public outcry. You should get used to it.
And going further into the past. Remember those infamous sexed up promotional photos with Jeri Ryan that actually had nothing to do with her rather prudish character? Sex marketing in Trek is definetely not new.

509. Marja - March 23, 2013

Wait, I know! Harrison is Kevin Riley, avenging the deaths of his family by Kodos the Executioner!

Red Dead Ryan, TrekkieGal, CuriousCadet, LogicalLeopard, Jack and Phil – I second you in what you’ve said re: Marcus in her undies [snif! "I love you guys!"].

CrazyDaystrom, I agree with most, but not all things you’ve said in this thread, and your post about assumptions based on perceptions [re: racism] was very well said sir. Thanks for challenging my POV.

I dislike the jarring inclusion of that “one-thing-doesn’t-fit” underwear scene, but I’m hoping/thinking it is part of a longer scene and she is changing in a small space [a shuttlecraft] to do some srs officer-like biznz. It’s just, every shot of Marcus so far [as others have said], is a stereotypical screaming titillating underwear-clad female. I think the stereotype will be somewhat disproven in the full-length movie, as it was with Uhura, but it bothers me to see it included among the action- and humor- oriented scenes to do the “sex sells” thing.

And thanks Astrophysicophile #494! I think you and I may be the only ones that noticed.

510. captain_neill - March 23, 2013

Come on the lingerie scene is more than likely going to be played so lowbrow that the mainstream teens will giggle like idiots.

This humour has none of the charm of the humour of a film like The Voyage Home.

511. captain_neill - March 23, 2013

I would like to know why no forcefield in the brig, they did have them in the 23rd Century.

512. LogicalLeopard - March 23, 2013

472. Jack – March 22, 2013

I respect Barack Obsma, but if was changing in front of me, I’d be checking him out.

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

Friday, I’m thinking: Checking him out? I dunno about that….

Saturday, in line at the drug store, I see a picture of him in a bathing suit on a tabloid and think, “Wow…the President looks really good!” Then I immediately think of this comment.

So, there’s that….

513. LogicalLeopard - March 23, 2013

508. Exverlobter – March 23, 2013

“506. LogicalLeopard”
Well as a fan I’m going to see this film anyway, so they don’t have to worry about me.
Yes Sex sells. Action sells. We fans are dependant on the non-fan masses that have to be convinced to see this film. I am not a marketing expert but if they believe that that’s the way to lure them all into the cinema, then go for it.

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

I’m not a marketing expert either, but like I said, I don’t think that is going to bring in more people. Sex sells. I can’t see how scowling women in their underpants sells. You’re trying to convince people outside of the fanbase to come, but I don’t think they’re going to do that by showing a single shot of her in what aren’t really risque undergarments.

********************************
BTW, they included a bra-scene with Uhura in the trailer of the 2009 film, so i am wondering why there still is a public outcry. You should get used to it.
And going further into the past. Remember those infamous sexed up promotional photos with Jeri Ryan that actually had nothing to do with her rather prudish character? Sex marketing in Trek is definetely not new.

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

Now, as for public outcry, I don’t know. I hear there’s another thread on the outcry I haven’t checked out. I personally am not raising an outcry, I’m just saying that it was sort of jarring in the trailer. It didn’t fit. And I don’t see the purpose it serves. But you know what? I’m not going to pay to see the trailer, I’m going to pay to see the film. So it isn’t a great huge deal in my eyes. I’d have to watch the trailer again to remember the context of Uhura taking off her clothes. I vagely remember it in the trailer. It probably wasn’t a good fit either.

As far as Jeri Ryan, by the time she came on Voyager I had stopped watching. So, I’m not sure which one’s you’re talking about, other than the ones in….I think it was a silver bodysuit? I don’t know if that’s really sexed up, in my opinion, although that doesn’t mean that’s not the direction they were going in. If so, that’s kind of sad. I hate to sound risque, but Borg implants aren’t the types of implants that make people tune into a show. And as for Voy, they would have done better figuring out ways to keep the vans involved and maybe draw in new ones.

But I will say this, I think it was after DS9 went off and I was jonesing, I started watching Voyager, and was suprised to see that a lot of the latter episodes were pretty good, and Seven was hands down the best character on the show. They gave her a lot of good stuff, and Jeri Ryan pulled it off. So, when you look at the advertising, if they were intending her to be a strong character altogether, it detracts from that.

514. Exverlobter - March 23, 2013

513. LogicalLeopard

I’m talking about photos like this

http://www.udargo.com/images/jeri.jpg

7of9 facial expressions looks rather saucy here, which she definetly was not to be in the show. It was all just a marketing thing. And indeed in relation to the character those photos were just horrible because they contradicted the character.
The bra-scene with Uhura in context was not that a contradiction, because it was not meant to be sexy in the scene because she was unaware of Kirk lying under the bed. She was rather annoyed when she found him and threw him out.
Let’s see how the context of the half-naked Alice Eve in the film will turn out.

One more thing about Voyager. Personally, i only continued to watch Voyager because of Robert Picardo. I did not care that much about 7o9 like many other fans do.

515. Curious Cadet - March 23, 2013

@511. captain_neill,
“I would like to know why no forcefield in the brig, they did have them in the 23rd Century.”

Correction. They had them in the PRIME universe.

Moreover, I don’t recall any evidence of them in “The Cage” which took place in 2254.

We don’t see them for the first time until “WNMHGB” which takes place in 2265, and only on Delta Vega, not the ship. The first time we see a force field on the Enterprise is in 2266.

Since STID takes place in 2259, it’s entirely possible the force field prison containment system has not yet been invented and/or put into use, at least not aboard Starships.

It’s also possible that following the Nero incursion that force field prison containment systems were not a priority in general, with physical barriers being deemed more secure.

516. Trekkiegal63 - March 24, 2013

#509 Marja:

Red Dead Ryan, TrekkieGal, CuriousCadet, LogicalLeopard, Jack and Phil – I second you in what you’ve said re: Marcus in her undies [snif! "I love you guys!"].

Awww, love you too, darlin’.

For those listed above:

Completely disheartened by the level of rationalization for objectivism going on by some (albeit only a handful, though a rather exasperating handful) of posters here I decided to calm myself down a bit by perusing the ‘net to see what other movie sites were saying in their reporting of the new trailer and found these synopsizes that sort of renewed my faith in humanity:

truthoncinema.com:

I was wondering when the obligatory objectified woman would appear in the hype for the new Star Trek film. You just can’t get people to see a movie nowadays unless someone is in their underwear in the previews. Fortunately for us, there’s also some pretty cool shots and a lot more to learn about our heroes and their foe this go around.

From i-flicks.net:

The new Star Trek international trailer arrived online this morning and it’s fantastic stuff – except for one shot, which feels wholly unnecessary. Can you guess what it is?

(image of Alice Eve here)

Can anyone give me a valid reason why that shot is in the trailer? Apart from continuing the dated costume department traditions of the TV series. Or getting teenage boys excited about possible sex in the movie…

moviesblog.mtv.com:

Late last night, the newest trailer for “Star Trek” hit the web, debuting a ton of new footage and an outrageously gratuitous shot of a female character in her underwear. But hey, this thing needs to make a lot of money, so that’s all good sport, right?

The objectification of Alice Eve aside, the preview gave us our best sense yet of who this John “Not Khan” Harrison guy is, plus a ton of new actions sequences.

bestforfilm.com:

Also, as Empire definitely noticed, Alice Eve gets her kit off! We were planning an image along the lines of the one above which highlighted how radically gratuitous her underwear shot was, when we noticed something…

(image of Alice Eve here)

JJ Abrams knows what he’s doing – Alice Eve’s tits weren’t just gratuitous interstellar sexism, they were gratuitous interstellar sexist DISTRACTIONS! We followed the link, and it took us to this beautiful new poster.

ifanboy.com:

This 700th iteration of the Star Trek Into Darkness trailer includes a number of sequences with which we’re well familiar, but there’s also heaps of new. In many ways, it’s the most revealing cut yet, not just because Alice Eve turns up in her skivvies for some odd reason.

…. So CuriousCadet, LogicalLeopard, Marja, Red Dead Ryan, Phil and Jack – looks like a handful of media sites share in our observations.

517. BH - March 24, 2013

@ #515 – typically I would find your post somewhat over analytical but damn it was refreshing!

518. tuvix - March 24, 2013

force-field invented by malcom reed in ent episode vox sola, so since that took place b4 jjverse existed…

519. 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.

520. Curious Cadet - March 24, 2013

@518. tuvix,
“force-field invented by malcom reed in ent episode vox sola, so since that took place b4 jjverse existed…”

This doesn’t really affect anything in the Prime or alternate timeline. Just because technology exists doesn’t mean it was applied in the way we later saw it in the Prime Universe. Technology tends to be used in areas that benefit from it the most. As I stated above, jail cells don’t really need this technology. A solid door is tried and true prison tech. Force fields require all sorts of redundancies.

We saw intra-ship transport in TOS, so clearly this was possible, but it was also experimental, while in TNG it was common practice. We can infer from that, that while Starfleet was interested in the possibilities of such technology, it was not a priority for them. Likewise with force fields in holding cells — much better to focus on more productive uses, like a temporarily airlock, defensive barrier, or deflecting weapons fire.

Regardless, we can’t really infer anything about TOS canon we didn’t actually see on camera, regardless of what Enterprise may have implied. There was simply no evidence of force field holding cells until 2265. But the bottom line is the Alternate universe is under no obligation to use any technology seen in the Prime universe anyway, as there’s always a reason to do, or not to do something given a different motivation.

521. LogicalLeopard - March 24, 2013

516. Trekkiegal63 – March 24, 2013

It’s amazing how many of those articles pointed out how uneccessary that scene was. But actually, the one from Bestforfilm.com provides the best explanation for putting it in the film I’ve heard.

I forgot that there was a hidden url included in the trailer, and it was apparently in that scene. So I feel a little better if they dropped that scene in there purely because they wanted the url discovered quickly, and knew that not only would people notice that the cut didn’t work with the rest of the trailer, but that fanboys would freeze frame it to drool over….and somehow notice there was an url in it. Or, did they do it because they DIDN”T want people to find it, so they could say, “See horndogs? We gave you a link to a poster and you didn’t even notice it!” I dunno, but it’s better than the alternatives.

522. Bela Okmyx - March 24, 2013

By the by, I thought I saw some text in the Alice Eve photo (below the Low Clearance sign), and behold – it does read

http://bit.ly/WyJV4F

Follow the link to an Australian Trek site. Interesting!

523. Anthony Pascale - March 24, 2013

@Bela

http://trekmovie.com/2013/03/21/new-star-trek-into-darkness-poster-unveiled-through-hidden-url-in-international-teaser/

524. Bela Okmyx - March 25, 2013

@Anthony

Thanks! That’s what I get for reading articles out of order : )

Have a great week!

525. Jovius the Romulan - March 25, 2013

I thought the shot of Uhura in her brassiere was pretty jarring in the trailers for Star Trek 2009 as well. I’m no prude. I think the human body is a wonderful thing. The argument can be made that you’ll see as much skin — if not more — at the beach. All the same, it just seemed out of place compared to the rest of the trailer.

526. crazydaystrom - March 25, 2013

525. Jovius the Romulan -
“I thought the shot of Uhura in her brassiere was pretty jarring in the trailers for Star Trek 2009 as well. I’m no prude. I think the human body is a wonderful thing. The argument can be made that you’ll see as much skin — if not more — at the beach. All the same, it just seemed out of place compared to the rest of the trailer.”
___________
Sexual objectification aside, just as movies tend to have varying tones and rhythms within a single work, there’s no rule that says a trailer MUST have a single consistent tone or rhythmn. Jarring the viewer is a technique that is often used to great (and legitimate) effect, in all genres of theater, music, cinema, literature and the visual arts.

527. Keachick - March 25, 2013

It is only sexual objectification if that is how we perceive it. Otherwise, it is simply a picture of a woman in underwear.

In the STID scene with Carol Marcus, I think it sat in juxtaposition to everything else we see going on, ie running/fleeing, explosions, yelling “Clear the room!” but still people are killed and injured, John Harrison stomping on something/someone? (I don’t read anyone calling out that scene?), scenes of ships crashing into islands, buildings etc and – then, in the middle of all this mayhem, suffering, destruction -

a partially clothed woman simply standing in what looks like a corridor on a ship, looking slightly bewildered and as if about to say, “WTF?” – perhaps symbolizing not only her own peculiar position as in what is she doing there? but also symbolizing our own beautiful, but fragile flesh and blood humanity…

I guess it comes down to perception; ie, seeing more or less than what is actually shown and assuming that to be fact/truth.

528. Phil - March 25, 2013

@527. No, it comes down to context. God, you are being so thick headed about that.

529. somethoughts - March 25, 2013

Who cares, yammy! Got my tickets to may 15 imax 3d sneak peak.

Would have went with or without eve in stunning lingerie.

Prudes need not come lol I kid

530. Keachick - March 25, 2013

Well, my husband thought that the scene with Carol Marcus was very short, a bit of eye candy to further pique the interest of a movie that seemed focused on marketing to males and looked a bit out of place in the trailer.
I am not being thick headed about it. I just chose to see it from various perspectives. I can understand where some of you are coming from, but there are other ways of looking at something. I chose the other way, because I can be a bit contrary at times and because what everybody was saying really did not occur to me at first.

As far as context, we don’t really know the full context in which said scene takes place.

531. somethoughts - March 25, 2013

#530

It is all good, look at the art David, it has caused the same outcry over the years!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_(Michelangelo)

When doctors show patients images and ask them what they see, this forum is a clear indication of the vast majority of different answers the doctor would get!

Doctor flashes picture of Alice Eve in 2 piece, and asks what do you see?

I see beautiful lady in a 2 piece bikini looking amazing! I also see some url pointing to some crappy looking international poster that was made by some amateur on the cheap! I can also see why some people may take offense to this! But you know what? Yammy! LOL

532. KevinA Melbourne Australia - March 26, 2013

What the…..!!!!

I’ve just been to a showing of “Good day To Die Hard”.
“Star Trek Into Darkness” trailer was shown. NO “Star Trek” anywhere!!!! Yes a trailer with just “Into Darkness”is being advertised in Australia.
I’ll say again….What the…..!

533. Jefferies Tuber - March 26, 2013

The argument over Carol Marcus is the saddest yet. The obvious tease is whether or not they’ll get together and have a child in this timeline. Sex is natural and particularly for Star Trek. We’re it not for the family values era chickenshit TNG, Moreno this board might realize this fact. Roddenberry was extremely sex positive and progressive.

For the feminist activists looking for a target, how about Kirk Prime, who never knew he had a son. (BS) I just had a kid out of wedlock and we declared paternity. Does anyone seriously believe that 200 years from now, with catalogued DNA and AI, the news would never have reached Kirk that he had a genius son with his Oppenheimer-level genius ex flame?

“The Enterprise Incident” is one of the best episodes of all Trek, with one of the most important feminist characters–the Romulan Commander. But in the end, she fails her Empire by being seduced. That’s not sexism. That’s just sex.

Get over yourselves. Get some exercise. Take your clothes off.

534. Scott - March 26, 2013

Gotta go with Harrison and Section 31. Yup, that’s it, mystery solved. Next, peace in the Mid East – get back to me after lunch.

535. somethoughts - March 26, 2013

#533

Thanks for that! I agree!!

536. Scott - March 26, 2013

#533 I agree, however, if I read correctly you state that Kirk prime didn’t know he had a child, except he did. In Wrath, when he was talking to Dr. Marcus he asked “David?” and just appeared to be surprised that it was him, not that he had a son.

Now I should probably go back and read the other posts up to this one because I’m sure I’m arguing something that isn’t even remotely relevant.

537. BH - March 26, 2013

#533 THANK YOU. I’ll go one further though: there are a LOT of people looking to bag on this for any reason and this is a very obvious one since its so titillating.

Will someone post something about the working of flux capacitors please? We need to get back on track.

538. Jefferies Tuber - March 27, 2013

536.
KIRK
Carol. Is that true?
She nods –

KIRK
(continuing)
Why didn’t you tell me?

… anyway, Scott, we’re both wrong. The script makes it Carol’s decision to keep their son secret. But even with that reminder, I still think it’s a pathetic and morally outrageous thing–whether the selfish scientist denied Kirk his son and David his father, or that Kirk was willfully blind to the medical records that would have easily matched their Y-chromosomes.

In 2013, when an unmarried woman has a child, she declares paternity on a form that can be affirmed by the father, if present, or used as the basis for a later claim. TWOK is a masterpiece in many ways, but in this regard its 1980s feminism is appalling. If there were any moral equilibrium to this trilogy, Carol should have been killed by Kruge in TSFS for what she did.

539. Jefferies Tuber - March 27, 2013

Of course, I’m leaving out Carol’s Oppenheimer-type responsibility for naively constructing the ultimate weapon of genocide and imperialism.

If we’re going to get our panties in a bunch, perhaps it shouldn’t be over panties. Carol Marcus Prime is a tragic figure at best, a bad person in my book.

540. Jim Nightshade - March 28, 2013

yes mr Bob orci sir you bring a very valid point…isnt this going to be the first time a trek movie has been released in another country before the good ole usa?? What will we do how can we avoid hearing the actual details? Which JJ does not want us to find out early?
Any suggestions BOB???
If I was able to read all the details about the FRINGE finale online befoe I saw it would I have done that??? Probably in which case I might not have been quite so impressed with it….as I mentioned in the letter I got partially printed in the feb 11-24 issue of Tv Guide I thought it was the best SCIFI series ending Finale I have seen…..

Damn I may not be able to get online at all until the premiere as the only way to avoid finding out the real plot to INTO DARKNESS..DAMN…..

541. Phil - March 28, 2013

Before this drops off the page, for the folks who seem to feel the need to defend objectification as a positive attribute of womanhood. Consider the damage you are doing to a good percentage of the female population where women hold the same status as property.

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/28/175471907/on-indias-trains-seeking-safety-in-the-women-s-compartment

In a good portion of the world, riding a subway car is an ordeal. Basic activities all through the prisim of Kirks lecherous glance at Carol. That’s why it seems so out of place.

542. Keachick - March 29, 2013

Kirk does not look lecherous, just surprised… If I may say, Phil, from where I sit, the lechery is all yours!

Perhaps, once we see the movie in its entirety, then it is possible that Kirk’s expression may be something other than or more than surprise, but right now, surprise is what I see in this shot. Lechery or not, surprise would surely be the very first expression shown if you turn around and see a woman just standing in a corridor in her underwear, when everyone else appears to be running.

Women are still considered property/chattels in countries where any sort of skin exposure on the part of the woman is suppressed, by law. In extreme cases, women can be flogged for not wearing veils/head scarves… reality check here is needed.

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