New Star Trek Into Darkness IMAX Poster + Mazda Poster [UPDATED] | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

New Star Trek Into Darkness IMAX Poster + Mazda Poster [UPDATED] April 30, 2013

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

There is yet another poster for Star Trek Into Darkness (actually two). First up today Bad Robot revealed the official Into Darkness IMAX poster. Also the official Star Trek app is sending fans to Mazda dealers to scan a picture of their new cross-promotional poster and we have a shot of that too. [UPDATE: Hi-res version of IMAX poster added]

 

IMAX Poster

Earlier today the official Bad Robot twitter account tweeted this new Star Trek Into Darkness IMAX Poster, which features the little itty USS Enterprise being chased by the big giant mean ol USS Vengeance. The poster may not be to actual scale, but it is still pretty cool.


New IMAX Poster

[DOWNLOAD (right click ‘save image as..’]

Mazda Poster

And in other poster news, the official Star Trek app has a new mission sending fans to Mazda dealers to scan a a new poster. I visited a So Cal Mazda dealer who had a few posters up and even gave me a couple.


New Mazda Into Darkness poster

Comments

1. Ciaran - May 1, 2013

Loving that IMAX poster! Would love to be able to see it as such!

2. Logan - May 1, 2013

No, this should be THE poster for the movie. Excellent.

3. 4lights - May 1, 2013

Firing… phasers… at warp

4. njdss4 - May 1, 2013

This is a great poster, but I think I would like it a bit more if the last movie hadn’t also had a huge ship that dwarfs the Enterprise.

I always thought one of the reasons TWOK was so good is it was between relatively equally matched ships, and it was about the people commanding them. Not outmatched heroes fight ridiculously big enemy ship and win because the plot says they will.

5. YARN - May 1, 2013

The IMAX poster is a hoot.

It’s so desperately preoccupied with making the other ship look menacing that it looks like the Enterprise should really be behind it.

6. JohnRambo - May 1, 2013

@3

?

7. thorsten - May 1, 2013

@4lights…

Gul Madred will be pleased.

8. Unwanted - May 1, 2013

@6. According to the old Trek tech manuals Phasers were sublight only weapons, however since in several episodes of TOS the Enterprise does things like “pivot at warp 2″ (the episode with the Dolman of Elas [love potion tears] in particular) before firing it was probably something the writers never paid attention to, and really shouldn’t be an issue now.

9. Sherlock - May 1, 2013

If Enterprise remains operational after all the damage inflicted on her in this movie, she really has to be refitted to stay in touch with tomorrow’s technology

10. Melllvar - May 1, 2013

6. Watch TMP (the first film)
All of your questions will be answered

11. just a guy - May 1, 2013

By the size of it, this should be a star wars ship, fantasy.

12. Toby - May 1, 2013

Look waaaay too big, even after seeing it in the trailers it looks 3x the size of the enterprise at the most, this poster makes it look 10x bigger.

Love the artwork though

13. THK - May 1, 2013

Perhaps the ships seem to be out of scale because of the warp field distortions or things like that… Oh, whatever.

14. Calastir - May 1, 2013

Star Destroyer chasing Millennium Falcon comes to mind…

15. Mark Lynch - May 1, 2013

If the JJPrise is indeed bigger than the Enterprise-D. Then just how big does that make the Vengeance? Sheeeeesh!

About the size of Hemel Hempstead?!?

16. Mad Mann - May 1, 2013

IMAX poster FTW!!!!

17. DaddlerTheDalek - May 1, 2013

I love that Poster!

18. NCC-73515 - May 1, 2013

If nadions are limited to light speed, phasers cannot be used at warp. Unless maybe if they stay within the warp field…?

19. Niall Johnson - May 1, 2013

…Or they could be torpedoes.

20. marja - May 1, 2013

Run little Enterprise! RUNNNNNN !!!

21. Sean4000 - May 1, 2013

14, EXACTLY what I was thinking!

22. YankeeWhite - May 1, 2013

The IMAX poster, wow. Just WOW!

23. DeflectorDishGuy - May 1, 2013

Phasers are energy, right? Basically, beams of light. If warp speed is the process of traveling faster than light, would not phasers be worthless at such speeds?

Or, we could simply follow Star Trek: The Motion Picture’s paradigm of tying phaser power to the warp drive. Either way, it’d make much more sense to use torpedoes at warp.

24. Curious Cadet - May 1, 2013

@2 Logan,
“No, this should be THE poster for the movie.”

Totally agree.

Unlike the Enterprise plummeting from the sky in the other one, this has action, hope and excitement without pandering to the baser desire to witness death, carnage and destruction. Yet it still communicates all the same ideas: dark vs. light, good vs. evil, frailty vs. might, and it still raises the question is this it for the Enterprise?, but still suggests there’s a fighting chance.

While the other is definitely cool, this looks more like Star Trek, and frankly tells me more about the film I’m about to see. It screams David v. Goliath, and that’s a story everyone wants to see, where they can root for the underdog.

25. Nurse Gabble - May 1, 2013

Love the poster, reminds me of Nemo and Bruce the Shark ;)

26. daniel malgren - May 1, 2013

My name is Daniel and I approve this poster!

27. CmdrR - May 1, 2013

Too blurry.

28. Kirk's Girdle - May 1, 2013

That’s no moon. That’s a starship.

29. Phil - May 1, 2013

I’d buy a copy of that poster. Someone needs to photoshop in a little dialogue bubble over Enterprise that says ‘Oh shit!’

30. brett - May 1, 2013

Kind of want the Mazda poster. I own a mazda6 with NX1700 as my plate number. Sounds like it was made for me. The IMAX poster is awesome too.

31. Danpaine - May 1, 2013

My name is also Daniel and I also approve of this poster!

32. TheRobotKing - May 1, 2013

I find that the size of the Vengeance actually makes it kind of silly.

Too bad though, if they would have scaled it back a little more it would be pretty impressive.

33. Logan - May 1, 2013

@24, Curious Cadet

Absolutely, you got it. I don’t like the poster of the falling Enterprise either. To me this should be the only and official poster for STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS.

34. SciFiMetalGirl - May 1, 2013

Does that Mazda have anything even vaguely Star Trek-y about it?

35. LJ - May 1, 2013

I’ve never been able to truly believe in those starship behemoths, whether it be the USS Vengeance, Star Destroyers or the Death Star. They raise too many questions in my mind: where do the resources to build them come from? Why build something that would take such a long time to construct? How do you hide the construction of something that big (and yes, I know space is a big place)? How do you crew them? And, basically, what’s the point?

True, in Star Wars the Empire could just plunder a few planets and have swarms of droids to build them, but what about the Trekverse? The only massive ship I’ve been able to come close to buying in any franchise has been Red Dwarf, which I believe was built around and into an asteroid.

I must admit I’m kind of bored of super ships in Trek. Probably started with the D’Deridex and the Borg in TNG, but it’s become as much of a trope in modern Trek as the revenge-seeking movie antagonist.

36. Elias Javalis - May 1, 2013

I agree with friend above…This poster should be first…Its Amazing!! Starfleet vs Starfleet…Thats kick a$$ trek Man!!

37. Phil - May 1, 2013

Details, details…and in the case of the Death Star, not only did they build a planet, they built it with a fatal design flaw…twice…and never saw fit to install fire control computers, even though we could clearly see dishes and scanners on the surface.

And before we get to feeing all ‘Trek-y ships are superior’ the base design (saucer section, secondary hull, warp nacelles on struts) the structural layout and weapons placement are such that an adversary could match speed and sit off the stern and blast away with little fear of the Federation ship getting off a shot. I’ve also assumed the impulse engines vector thrust to some extent or another – more bad design, flight along the pitch or roll axis limits the use of vector thrust, because the exhaust is going to be directed into the secondary hull. Oops. Why is that important? Well, we have been treated to trailer footage of Enterprise flying through the atmosphere in STID. The impulse engines are the primary source of sub-light propulsion, and in order to get this bird back into orbit that vectored thrust along the pitch or roll axis is going to come in handy…

It’s best to just accept that physics and engineering principles are ignored in this movie, too, and just enjoy the show.

38. Red Dead Ryan - May 1, 2013

The poster featuring a tiny Enterprise with a huge Vengeance behind it reminds me of the scene in the “Deep Space Nine” mirror universe episode “The Emperor’s New Cloak” where the massive Klingon attack cruiser flagship decloaked behind the Defiant. The Defiant was absolutely tiny compared the Klingon ship.

39. shockwave - May 1, 2013

#15

I guess the new ship is about a size of an Imperial Star Destroyer or a Super Star Destroyer. I really hate these massive ships in ST now. Ok the Borg I can understand but c’mon a huge Fed-ship.

40. Danpaine - May 1, 2013

I must say, that Mazda poster has nothing in it which would motivate me to test-drive a Mazda.

A starship, perhaps. But not a Mazda.

41. MC Doctor - May 1, 2013

So, Admiral Marcus should be pimp-slapped. If STID happens shortly after ST09, then the USS Vengence was around to confront the Narada. But noooo, we had to put our hopes on some unknown fleets of ships con-fabbing at the Lateritian system – and Cadet Kirk saves the day with NCC1701 (no blooming A, B, C or Deeeeee!).

42. Cant Wait Fer ST:ID - May 1, 2013

My name is not Daniel…

but I approve of this poster anyway.

43. smike - May 1, 2013

@35: “I’ve never been able to truly believe in those starship behemoths, whether it be the USS Vengeance, Star Destroyers or the Death Star. They raise too many questions in my mind: where do the resources to build them come from? Why build something that would take such a long time to construct? How do you hide the construction of something that big (and yes, I know space is a big place)? How do you crew them? And, basically, what’s the point?”

You’ve really got a couple of points there. But I can live with a Section 31 secret project a lot better than with the Scimitar, secretely built by Reman slaves under close observation of the Tal Shiar or the Narada, a mining (!) ship, be it from the future and be it updated with Borg technology, decimating an entire fleet… Those two were even less like than Vengeance…

44. smike - May 1, 2013

“So, Admiral Marcus should be pimp-slapped. If STID happens shortly after ST09, then the USS Vengence was around to confront the Narada.”

Maybe the Vengeance wasn’t finished at that point and had no crew ready to board it. However, I think they should have made the Dreadnought project a direct result of the Narada incident and not an answer to another threat ( I cannot discuss here due to spoiler policy)…

45. VOODOO - May 1, 2013

IMAX poster is awsome!

Equating the Enterprise to a Mazda is pathetic

46. Bird of Prey - May 1, 2013

Even though I don’t like the Vengeance, I have to admit that this poster looks awesome!

47. Anthony Thompson - May 1, 2013

A huge starship named Vengeance? That’s gotta be a joke, right? Right?

48. Superman - May 1, 2013

The Mazda poster’s slogan is remarkably ironic.

“Like science fiction. Without the fiction.”

Abrams has turned Trek into “Science fiction. Without the science.”

One has only to watch the recently released clip which demonstrates that the laws of physics do not apply in this alternate timeline because, apparently, they don’t have to.

I’m bordering on saving ten bucks and seeing STID via Redbox.

49. Arathorn - May 1, 2013

It’ll be okay…it’s just a movie…

50. Steve Johnson - May 1, 2013

@10 Mellvar

TMP won’t tell you anything about the phasers. Kirk prepares to fire them while they’re in a wormhole at warp.

The problem wasn’t that they were at warp. The problem was that they were suffering a M/AM imbalance which would have probably caused the ship to have been destroyed. Decker’s words “Sir the Enterprise redesign increased phaser power by channeling it through the main engines. When they went into anti-matter imbalance, the phasers were automatically cut off.” To which Kirk responds “You saved the ship.”

It was a stupid rule I never liked in the following series. The TOS E could shoot it’s weapons at warp, no problem.

51. Saiyan - May 1, 2013

still think small, nimble & deadly was the way to go. I hate the tread of “I win” starships in star trek now

52. smegger56 - May 1, 2013

@10.

But that was due to the redesign of the ship in 2271. The JJ verse is in the 2250’s. So there you go.

And even if it did contradict canon like that… not bothered. I just want to be entertained for two hours.

53. ThatNuttyFanboy - May 1, 2013

@39.

Eh – ginormous hangar scene in the 2009 movie aside, the detailing suggests that the NuEnterprise is around 340-350ish meters in length (also supported by the bridge shot, overall). This makes the Vengeance about 720-ish to 750-ish meters in length. Still enormous, but well in the plausible range for a federation starship (though very large for the 23rd century). Remember, Galaxy class ships were over 640 meters in length (and more massive than the slightly longer Sovereign class)

54. LordOfTheArchons - May 1, 2013

@35

Where do they get the resources to build these large starships? The same place we get our resources to build the aproximately 14 – 1200ft long Aircraft Carriers that have served and are serving in our Navy with at least 2 more under construction. Out of the ground.

55. Superman - May 1, 2013

@smegger56

Thank you, sir. You are the exact reason Star Trek has become what it has: empty popcorn spectacle with no soul.

56. smegger56 - May 1, 2013

@Superman

And you sir, are a reason why many Trek fans are viewed as pretentious, sad a**holes. Star Trek 09 had more soul than Voy, Ent, DS9 combined. IMO of course.

57. Phil - May 1, 2013

@54. Replicators. Magic boxes of the future…

58. smegger56 - May 1, 2013

@54

To be fair, we also have a massive quardrant to get the resources to build more ships… and replicators :-D (thanks @57 lol)

59. Tiger - May 1, 2013

Abrams notes for designing the U.S.S. Vengance-

“Bigger”

I guess Section 31 doesnt play.

60. Keachick - May 1, 2013

What has the redesign of a ship got to do with a film having soul?

Soul is generally associated with the living, the animate, the psyche of a person or people and the desire for continuation of life…a ship is just a ship is just a ship…inanimate, of itself, empty, soulless. It is the living beings who occupy such an inanimate place that provide soul!

61. Jim Nightshade - May 2, 2013

luv imax poster but like the giveaway one better…

Haters pleassse stop yer hatin….what was it thumpers dad said….if you cannt say something nice….dont say anything at all.

62. Jackson Roykirk - May 2, 2013

Ah well. I’ve reached the rank of Commodore in the Star Trek app. 250 to go before Rear Admiral. Got the points for all the SF and LA locations, even bought a ticket for the 8pm May 15th “fan sneak” showing. I think I’ll slow down on the points accumulation now.

63. smegger56 - May 2, 2013

@60 Keachick

Huh? Who was talking about ship design and soul?

64. Superman - May 2, 2013

smegger56:

Can’t argue with you about VOY. It was crap all around. But parts of Enterprise and especially DS9 had tremendous “soul” compared to AbramsTrek.

I’m guessing you haven’t seen the entirety of these three series but, like many JJ apologists, you reuse comments from other people to sound cool and hip while bashing the “old” Trek stuff.

Google “best of DS9″ and watch the episodes listed. They’re on Netflix streaming. I don’t know what you mean by “soul,” mainly because you seem to lack the descriptive language skills necessary to convey what you’re trying to convey, but I will equate “soul” with “depth” and “character.”

AbramsTrek lacks both in spades. DS9 is all about these qualities. Even when DS9 has your beloved “kewl-splosions,” it still manages to be about people and what they’re experiencing, not kids running around poorly-designed sets and bickering the whole time.

65. smegger56 - May 2, 2013

@64 Superman

Seen every single episode of Trek (and I only bash Trek, like DS9, VOY, ENT) that I bashed long before JJ came along (but not bash someone else for liking what I don’t). You seem to really be offended by anyone who rates the JJ verse highly. Like somehow, it threatens you. I don’t get that attitude. I’m fine with someone not liking the JJ trek, like I’m fine with people loving VOY but hating on TOS. So why are you so offended by this and feel the need to act like somehow you are above me, and others, who like/love the JJ films?

I love how you seem ‘above’ a good explosion now and then. Just because something has, as you put it, ‘kewl-splosions’ does not make a film shallow and poor. This Trek isn’t Transformers. JJ has brought main stream summer blockbuster style to the Star Trek franchise while maintaining a heart.

What I remember a lot from DS9 was a lot of awkward dialog. A lot of poor acting (for example, when Sisko got upset, such as in the ep ‘In the pale moonlight’ – a good ep btw) and a potential premise that at times worked, but overall failed to really deliver.

WE also have to remember that this is a two hour film. Not a 20-26 episode season. And what they did in the first, get so much in without it feeling bogged down or crowded… I was more than impressed.
Is JJ’s Trek better than TOS/TNG? Now THAT would be something to talk about. As, IMO, it would be a tough one to call, especially has both are different. The best bet would be to compare the original 10 films with the JJ films. And I can easily say that Trek 09 is my 3rd favourite, behind TWOK and TUC.

In conclusion, sorry, but your reaction to my liking JJ’s Trek highlights a problem with people like you. That you make Trek fans look pretentious. Your little attack highlights it. You could just accept that someone likes something you don’t and get off that high horse. Not very ‘Star Trek’ of you, is it?

66. Kenji - May 2, 2013

@64

TV shows cannot show spectacle (often) due to budgetary limitations, which is why it is better, as David Gerrald explained, to show two soldiers talking rather than two armies fighting.

However, Paramount’s take on the side-boot is to compete with the Avengers and Star Wars, which means spending $150M to make $400M.

Paramount would not ALLOW a movie that consisted of two soldiers talking. Of course JJ Trek is big and bombastic.

To say it is soulless, however, is difficult to establish. The very first scene of Trek09 was the birth vignette, which shoehorns in an extraordinary amount of exposition (e.g. that the officer in charge is “Captain” regardless of substantive rank; the First Officer is behind the Captain; James Kirk is not the first Captain Kirk; the new movie is a direct sequel to existing canon because of Original Spock) while culminating in a sacrificial act shot, edited, and scored to maximize the emotional impact.

I was in tears as the titles rolled, and doubt that I am the only one.

Then begins the film itself. Themes are for book reports, but if you are looking for ‘character motivation’ we have:

– parallels of Kirk and Spock and Nero as ‘fish out of water’ (Vulcan among humans; jerk ruffian/secret genius; displacement in time) and as people who have lost their families and react to tragedy in different ways;

– villain is an honest labourer, now deranged by personal grief, seeking collective punishment of a species for the loss of his own;

– an examination of the concept of the no-win scenario.

In the construction of the film, there are numerous callbacks to TOS, starting with the once-startling fact that we are watching Kirk et al and not Captain Whosit, Commander Spockclone, and Lt. Neverheardofyou, and proceeding to reference moments intimately familiar to true fans, such as hitting one’s head on a ship beam, neck pinch, Spock’s admission to the Vulcan Science Academy, Ambassador Sarek, canonization of fanfic names like Hikaru and Nyota, “Wulcan,” etc etc etc.

Soulless, hm.

I can’t believe you people sometimes.

67. Superman - May 2, 2013

JJ Trek had the makings of a really good Trek film and is, to be fair, a really good film.

But not a really good Trek film.

Smegger56, TOS and TNG were vastly superior to anything we’ll ever see in this new universe, UNLESS we get a new series and it’s not run by JJ and his people.

I’m not averse to a series set in this timeline, I just want to see Trek where it belongs: on television, written by real science fiction writers, with characters who are not portrayed like imitations of Star Wars characters, themselves inspired by mythological archetypes.

I like Star Wars, and I like mythological archetypes, the hero’s journey in particular. Great stuff. But in Trek? I prefer thinking man’s entertainment.

Had Trek 09 excised some of its unneeded scenes and used a little more reason (i.e., doing another time jump to show Kirk as a lieutenant on the Farragut, having a better “device” than “red matter” and supernovas destroying solar systems, etc) then we’d have a better film. Same goes with Spock jettisoning Kirk to the ice planet so Kirk could conveniently find Spock Prime. There’s so much nonsense in an attempt to demonstrate this idea that the universe “needs” Kirk and crew to be together that the film suffers because of it.

And I’m not “above” anyone or anything, certainly not explosions and good action. But when it comes at the expense of logical storytelling and narrative, you’re damn right I don’t like it.

Trek 09’s best parts involve the character stuff, which is mainly at the beginning of the film. I really like the stuff with George and Winona Kirk, the stuff with young Kirk and Spock. After that, the movie steadily falls apart for me, especially Kirk’s meteoric rise from three-year cadet to captain of the Enterprise. It’s so idiotic in that it contradicts the great moments that preceded it.

And the Kobayashi Maru? We Trek fans waited for decades to see that on screen somehow with James Kirk, and it was played for laughs, not the moment of fun but also serious determination and brilliance that we get the sense it was in TWOK.

You can defend Trek 09 to a point, just as I can defend other Trek to a point. Both are flawed, but when I read a statement like “as long as I’m entertained for two hours,” I cannot help but be frustrated and ashamed. That mentality has ruined good films and storylines. It’s done the same to Trek, for which “entertainment” was never the only end purpose.

68. K-7 - May 2, 2013

The poster severely exaggerates the size difference. Look at the trailer and you can see that the ship is about 3-4 times as massive at the Enterprise, but this shot makes it look like it is perhaps 500 times more massive than the Enterprise.

Looks cool, but it is completely unbelievable.

@67. I have no clue what you expected with the Kobayasi Muru, but the scene in Trek 2009 pretty much nailed it as I would have hoped. That’s one of the best moments in all of Star Trek, and it was portrayed and executed perfectly.

69. Dave H - May 2, 2013

I agree with K-7 on the ST09 Kobayasi Maru scene. That was fantastic, and one of the best scenes in any Star Trek movie to date. How could anyone be critical of that scene???

70. DiscoSpock - May 2, 2013

Superman, you lost me with your lambasting of the Kobayashi Maru scene?

That is one of the best scenes of all time in Trek, period, exclamation point. And it directly draws from Kirk showing a smirk when describing it in Trek II.

They nailed that scene. It’s part of Trek Lore now.

71. Dr. Cheis - May 2, 2013

Is anybody else unable to get the app to scan the picture of the poster? It doesn’t look like the one in the mission image.

72. Toby - May 2, 2013

@67 I’ve been on these boards sticking up for the JJ verse a lot in the last month or so, but I’m forced to agree with you on the (admittedly very well written) points you’ve made about ST09, doesn’t stop it getting into the top 3 best ever Trek movies for me though, lets be honest you can pull apart most films if you choose to put them under the microscope, I point you in the direction of Iron Man 3 which I’ve just seen on the big screen, my god I’m glad I’m not a die hard Iron Man fan with the plot holes and re-writing of characters I witnessed in that mess of a movie (which will unfortunately out-gross STID I’m afraid also)

73. Superman - May 2, 2013

I always imagined that Kirk took the Kobayashi Maru test more seriously than NuKirk did in Trek 09. I had no problem with the eating of the apple, but the idea that he would treat the test, which is a test of command character, with such flippance (the “gun hand” bit) was glaringly out of character for James T. Kirk.

Granted, this isn’t the same Kirk, and I get that. I just don’t think it was a “perfect” scene since I don’t care for this version of Kirk.

Truth is, I really enjoyed Trek 09 upon the first few viewings. Over the last four years, though, I’ve found it doesn’t hold up to repeated viewings. Sadly, it wouldn’t have taken much to make it a great Trek film.

74. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - May 2, 2013

#73 Huh?????

The Kobayashi Maru scene from Trek 09 is my favorite scene in the entire movie!

How could anyone be critical of that scene? It’s bleeping brilliant, and fits perfectly into Trek history — where they are pretty much joking and reminiscing about it in Star Trek II.

Not getting your critique???

75. Superman - May 2, 2013

Kirk is too flippant and immature in the scene. I didn’t like the way it was written/directed/performed. Kirk is very confident, but he also has a natural command presence and authority that wasn’t present in Pine’s portrayal.

As I’ve said, this was not the original Kirk, and so I understand the difference in how it was played.

76. Superman - May 2, 2013

Let me further explain my problem with the scene, after going to watch it again:

Kirk is far too casual about the whole thing. He tells the other cadets “don’t worry about it” when they’re under (simulated) attack. Kirk was many things, but too casual and indifferent were never among them.

It’s clear from TWOK that Kirk reprogrammed the simulator, but nowhere has there ever been the suggestion that he did so in a cavalier and light manner.

Again, this isn’t the Prime Kirk, so he doesn’t have the seriousness that Prime Kirk did. But I felt cheated that I didn’t get to see my hero, the Prime James T. Kirk, in this classic scene.

77. Silvereyes - May 2, 2013

I loved the K-Maru scene as well. It was very well executed, and was a great nod to Star Trek history by JJ and company.

I get some criticisms of Trek 09, but surely not that great scene?

Superman, stick with Budengineering or Nero — stuff that it makes more sense to be critical of.

78. K-7 - May 2, 2013

@77. “Superman, stick with Budengineering or Nero — stuff that it makes more sense to be critical of.”

Agreed. Superman, your case kind of falls apart when you pick a scene in Trek 2009 that is beloved by so many. Your arguments I think would be taken more seriously if you focused on some of the real weaknesses of the movie, instead of parts of the movie that most of us are very pleased with.

Otherwise, you are rapidly losing credibility here, my friend

79. Superman - May 2, 2013

@78: I don’t care about credibility, but if you somehow mean to suggest that “credibility” is gained by agreeing with everyone else’s opinion of something, then I recommend looking up the definition of the word.

I don’t like that scene because of what it could have been. It was a wasted opportunity, but I understand that it’s not how it would have happened in the Prime universe. That doesn’t mean I have to pretend it’s great.

And I have many other problems with Trek 09, Nero and Engineering among them. And last time I checked, true discussion is had when people share the entirety of their opinions, not just those parts that are “safe” or “fit in” with the popular opinions of others.

80. Red Dead Ryan - May 2, 2013

Superman,

I have to agree with K-7, Dave H., DiscoSpock, and Admiral Archer’s Prized Beatle. The Kobayashi Maru scene (along with Kirk’s birth) is one of the all time greatest scenes in all of “Star Trek”. It was pure classic.

And how do you know how Prime Kirk would have handled it? We never saw him take the test. He mentioned it. For all we know, he could have been just as brash and cocky as his alternate timeline counterpart is.

Honestly, Superman, I think you might have been exposed to some kryptonite which has caused weakened reasoning on your part. :-)

81. Superman - May 2, 2013

@80:

You’re confusing your opinion with fact. The KM scene in Trek 09 was not one of the all time greatest scenes in all of “Star Trek.” That’s simply your opinion.

Mine is that it was a huge wasted opportunity in a film filled with wasted opportunities.

And we do have a very good idea of how Kirk Prime would have handled it. Gary Mitchell tells us more about Cadet Kirk in “Where No Man Has Gone Before” than TWOK does.

Mitchell to Kirk: “I remember you back at the academy. A stack of books with legs.”

Mitchell also says Kirk was a teacher at the Academy while still a lieutenant. If the Kobayashi Maru is an officer training test, it’s very likely it wasn’t taken by cadets, but by junior officers.

Even if Kirk was a cadet, he was definitely a more serious and driven man than the one we see in Trek 09. As I’ve said repeatedly, the NuKirk isn’t that guy, and that’s fine. That’s the whole point of an alternate universe.

But I don’t have to like it.

82. Keachick - May 2, 2013

I don’t think that it was Gary Mitchell who referred to Kirk as being “a stack of books on legs”. It was actually Finnegan or more accurately, Kirk’s recollection of a fellow Starfleet cadet and prankster, from the TOS episode Shore Leave.

You are taking the ST09 Kobiyashi Maru scene way too seriously.

If I recall, from TWOK, it was Dr McCoy who first mentioned the fact that Kirk was the first person to beat the test and that Kirk received a commendation for original thinking. Kirk starts eating the apple and says “I don’t like to lose”. There was an overall flippant, light heartedness in how the whole KM test was referenced. At about the same time, Spock is able to transport Kirk and party back to the Enterprise, much to Khan’s chagrin…

Kirk is probably just as driven in this universe as the prime one was. He just appear to be outwardly as serious as some claim the prime Kirk was.

83. Keachick - May 2, 2013

darn it – meant to write – “He just DOESN’T appear to be…”

84. Superman - May 2, 2013

Keachick, you’re incorrect. I’ve seen WNMHGB a dozen times (this year) and pulled up a transcript of the episode to make sure the quote was accurate.

Here it is if you disbelieve me: http://www.chakoteya.net/startrek/2.htm

I concede your point about this Kirk; he’s definitely not appearing as outwardly serious as Prime Kirk.

And that’s my problem: I will admit that I am one of the few who was open to a faithful prequel to TOS, not unlike what Roddenberry and Harve Bennet had in mind. I wanted a direct prequel that showed these classic characters in their youth. That would have meant:

*seeing Kirk’s time on Farragut

*seeing Spock begin his service under Pike

*seeing Kirk take command of the Enterprise from Pike

*seeing how Kirk and Bones met (it’s pretty evident that “Bones” referred to “Sawbones,” a term for doctors that Kirk, a student of history, would have known.)

*seeing the very first mission of the Enterprise with Kirk in command.

I’d have been perfectly fine with not seeing Uhura and Chekhov until later films. Scotty was older than Kirk, so he was likely aboard the Enterprise when Kirk was in command. We know Sulu was there as well. Uhura and Chekhov were still very likely in the academy or junior officers.

*The story of TOS was always, for me at least, the story of the triumvirate of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. Spock was willing to throw his career away for Pike, but he died to save Kirk and the Enterprise. How did friendship begin? Same with Bones.

Sadly, we got an alternate universe take that decided it had to go the alternate route to avoid a direct prequel and the problems of continuity that can involve. And while I understand that reasoning, I still wanted to see how Kirk, Spock, and McCoy came together. I always loved those stories in the 80s novels that told that story, and wanted to see it on the big screen.

And if there was never a continuing series of films with the full TOS crew, that would have been fine as well. We won’t likely get more than one more movie from these actors. What was the big hurdle in telling a direct prequel to TOS? Updating the aesthetic would not have caused any more controversy among TOS fans than what this new film(s) has already done.

My problem is the overall lack of creativity and “three-dimensional thinking” with regards to telling the story of how Kirk, Spock, and McCoy forged their friendship. It was and remains the heart of TOS and sadly, we have yet to see how it happened in the Prime universe.

I suspect we never will.

85. DiscoSpock - May 2, 2013

@81. Superman,

You need to take note of the unified and completely contrary response to you criticism on the great K-M scene in Trek 2009. The fact that multitudes of people have jumped in here to say that they loved the scene should at the very least give you pause to reconsider that scene as on of the main basis points on your complaints about Trek 2009.

I am trying to throw you a bone here to protect some bit of credibility you have here. Talk about Budgeneering, Red Matter, Chekov, or something like that, and I think you will get more people to take you seriously in your critiques.

Seriously, the K-M scene in Trek 2009 in now cemented as a great moment in Trek. That is completely the wrong scene to bring up to support any problems with Trek 2009. Focus on the legitimate problems with that movie instead.

86. Dave H - May 2, 2013

Well said, DiscoSpock.

What Superman is trying to say is like using the beloved “Rosebud scene” in Citizen Kane to try to argue why he doesn’t like the Citizen Kane movie. It’s a complete non-starter, and defies the overwhelmingly positive view of that scene by 95%+ of the movie-going audience. No one would take such a viewpoint seriously, and most would question if the reviewer was smoking funny stuff, etc. :-)

87. Silvereyes - May 2, 2013

I agree with Red Dead Ryan that the K-maru scene rises to the level as one of the best all-time scenes in Star Trek history.

88. Silvereyes - May 2, 2013

@84. Whoa, now you are complaining about how Kirk met McCoy in Trek 2009 — that unbelievable awesome scene??? WTF ???

That is another one of the best scenes ever now in Trek history. And when they play a bit of Courage theme after they meet — that gives me goosebumps.

I kind of pity you if you can’t even enjoy that brilliant scene. What a shame that it’s brilliance is lost on you.

Again, as others have mentioned, there are some problems and issues with the movie, of course. But you picking on some of the best scenes in the movie to make your point just strains all common sense, and hurts your credibility here. Frankly, I am having a hard time taking anything you say seriously at this point.

89. K-7 - May 2, 2013

Oh, come on — now he is whining about not liking the Kirk-McCoy introduction scene? What?

LOL

That is one of the best Star Trek scenes ever shot.

90. K-7 - May 2, 2013

@82 “If I recall, from TWOK, it was Dr McCoy who first mentioned the fact that Kirk was the first person to beat the test and that Kirk received a commendation for original thinking. Kirk starts eating the apple and says “I don’t like to lose”. There was an overall flippant, light heartedness in how the whole KM test was referenced.”

Exactly, Keachick. That is why that scene in Trek 2009 is just so perfectly done, and why everyone pretty much is coming out the woodwork tonight to correct Superman on this brainfart opinion of his.

91. Red Shirt Diaries - May 2, 2013

My goodness,

This is all kind of surreal.

It’s like criticizing Star Wars by using the Cantana scene and Vader-Kenobi light saber duel as your arguments to why the movie sucked.

;-)

92. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - May 2, 2013

OMG, now Superman’s criticizing the McCoy-Kirk first meeting scene? You’ve got to be kidding me? That is an instant classic Star Trek scene.

Me thinks that Lex Luthor slipped some Kryptonite under Superman’s bed, which is now impairing Superman’s judgement. :-))

93. DiscoSpock - May 2, 2013

“OMG, now Superman’s criticizing the McCoy-Kirk first meeting scene? You’ve got to be kidding me? That is an instant classic Star Trek scene.”

WOW! I can’t believe he is now being critical of THAT scene?

This is so far off the reservation that I find myself with a complete loss for words.

94. K-7 - May 2, 2013

@91 “It’s like criticizing Star Wars by using the Cantana scene and Vader-Kenobi light saber duel as your arguments to why the movie sucked.”

Yep!

95. Phil - May 3, 2013

@91 Well said.

96. Superman - May 3, 2013

I can’t believe that a group of Star Trek fans such as yourselves, who I imagine not only know what “IDIC” means but also embrace that meaning, are tag-teaming a guy who disagrees with you.

You can think I’m trolling or whatever. I do not like the tone of the Kobayashi Maru scene and the other various items I’ve mentioned in Trek 09. That’s my “captain’s prerogative” if you will, and whether you like my opinion or not, it is not any less valid than your own.

In my opinion as a Trek fan of over thirty years, I feel that scene, along with the rest of the movie, could have been much, MUCH better.

I’m disgusted by the apparent lack of tolerance and intelligent open-mindedness here. What is this, TrekMovie, or IMDB’s message boards?

Or even worse, the talkback of AICN?

97. K-7 - May 3, 2013

@96

Or could it be that pretty much everyone here whose read your posts completely disagrees with you?

No, of course it couldn’t be that.

:-)

98. Superman - May 3, 2013

My last comment here, since it seems to not matter:

I may not hold a shared or popular opinion, but that does not make it any less “right” or “wrong” than anyone else’s opinion. To treat me with condescension and animosity over my differing opinion is immature and rude.

But that seems to be the norm here now, so I’ll stop defending myself. It’s apparently pointless.

99. Red Dead Ryan - May 3, 2013

#96.

You brought up two of the most popular, and two of the best scenes overall, as part of your opinion why you didn’t like the movie.

The meet-up between Kirk and McCoy as well as the Kobayashi Maru test scene are almost universally praised and highly-regarded.

To the rest of us, that just seems too incredible. How you think those scenes could have been done better, I don’t know.

But here’s an idea: Why don’t you go and write your own versions of these scenes and then come back to us when you’ve got something?

:-)

100. DiscoSpock - May 3, 2013

@98. Oh please, spare us the whining and sympathy grab attempt.

And yes, when you opinion is such that pretty everyone else vhemently disagrees with it, then I am afraid that yes, your opinion is less right than others. Just like that extremist opinion rant you had where you were saying Sisko should be tried for war crimes. Duimbass opinions don’t rise of the level of intelligent discourse. But sure, your as certainly entitled to have dumbass opinions.

BUZZ — these opinions of yours ARE IN FACT LESS RIGHT than others.

101. Red Shirt Diaries - May 3, 2013

Superman,

Come on now, your are using the best scenes in the movie to make a case to others here in public as to why the movie has problem. If you had picked weaker elements of the movie, you would have found some traction (e.g. Budgeneering, Nero). But it’s just preposterous of you to bring up universally loved scenes to make your case against the movie…that just comes across so weak. It’s like what I said earlier”

“It’s like criticizing Star Wars by using the Cantina scene and Vader-Kenobi light saber duel as your arguments as to why the movie sucked.”

This is why people are universally not buying your arguments here. What you are saying is just not credible.

102. smegger56 - May 3, 2013

Superman, I’m afraid after reading it all, I cannot respect you. But then, whatever right? It’s only the internet. But still, I think you come across as a pretentious…

Anyway, somehow, if it was up to you, we’d still have movies like the TNG films. Or Trek shows such as VOY and ENT (of which I have seen all. NOTE: I may have issues with DS9, but it still had its moments, so I’ll give it a pass… just). Which, as we saw, was choking the franchise.

Trek had gotten itself into a massive rut. Appealing to only the hardcore fans, and at the same time, not appealing to us.

JJ, IMO, has done a really good job of bringing in new fans and ensuring a majority of Trek fans enjoyed themselves. And he’s done it all with spectacle, whilst keeping it with a heart.

I would LOVE Trek to return to TV. BUT, not how it was. It needs to move with the times. Good sci fi mixed with REALLY good character arcs, with the characters the main focus.

Anyway, there is nothing wrong with ‘Kewl-splosions’ (I loved how you said that just on the basis I really enjoyed the JJ film. Funny), but as long as it offers something along with that, like heart, emotion in a film, something the likes of Michael Bay can only dream of and the action feels like it has a purpsoe (again, something Bay can only dream of), then I’m fine with that :)

103. smegger56 - May 3, 2013

I do agree though. The Kobayashi Maru scene in 09 is not how I imagined to have have happened. It was TOO cocky for Kirk. Too obvious. WAY too obvious. But I still enjoyed it.

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