Watch: 2 New Star Trek Into Darkness TV Spots – New Footage |
jump to navigation

Watch: 2 New Star Trek Into Darkness TV Spots – New Footage May 3, 2013

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

There are two new short USA TV Spots that have been released by Paramount. Each one ups the action and each one has a bit of new footage and/or dialog to check out. Watch them below along with our usual analysis but beware of spoilers.


2 new short TV spots

Here are the new USA TV spots. Both are short but contain a tiny bit of new footage

The Future

The Dark


Analysis (spoilers)





The Future

USS Vengeance heads towards San Francisco

Spock fights John Harrison as Uhura aims phaser in background


The Dark

Kirk and Spock talk to Admiral Marcus


Kirk: This could just be the beginning

Admiral Marcus: At what?

Kirk: All out war

Spock strapped into the Captain’s chair


Spock: Hold on

John Harrison fires at some Klingons

Kirk shoots at some Klingons



Comments for articles with spoilers allow discussion of spoilers in the comments section – but try to limit to spoilers discussed in the article.

Discussing potential spoilers not posted at and/or linking to other spoilers will result in deletion and instant ban.


1. T2 - May 3, 2013

Looks like they’re giving the future away…

2. Toby - May 3, 2013

This is getting silly – I want to watch this film sooo bad at the cinema, not in loads of little clips, they’ve released FAR too much footage now, it’s spoiling it for me!

3. Ciaran - May 3, 2013

Looking good!!! Seeing the movie next Wednesday/Thursday for the first midnight screening!!

4. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - May 3, 2013

Can. Not. Wait.

It’s a pity I have to…

Where’s the TARDIS when I need it?

5. thalos - May 3, 2013

The Vengeance looks alot like the Sovereign from that angle.

6. PaulB - May 3, 2013

#2 – THEN DON’T WATCH THE CLIPS! It’s that simple: don’t want to see a clip? Don’t watch a clip. See? No spoiling happens.

The only thing that’s silly is people like you saying these clips are spoiling the movie for you. That’s you own fault; nobody’s making you watch anything. Stop being silly.

7. Trekman_dave - May 3, 2013

Can’t wait seeing at midnight on the 8th (well really early on the 9th)

8. - May 3, 2013

I’m doing the midnight session in Melbourne.

My Mr Spock wig has not arrived in the post yet. Getting anxious.

9. Toby - May 3, 2013

@6 I DIDN’T WATCH THE CLIP, I just read the article which clearly spoils the identity of the ship the crashes, now jog on!

10. copper based blood - May 3, 2013

It’s not as if we had not worked out what ship in was that crashes into the bay.

11. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - May 3, 2013

@9. Toby

… and Anthony warns everyone before they can see any spoilers, that there are spoilers…

12. PaulB - May 3, 2013

#9 – Um…then don’t read the article. Duh. Oh, and since you complained about the clips in your first comment–the footage specifically, not the article–I responded to you about watching the clips.

13. FrancoMiranda - May 3, 2013


You’re a fool if you didn’t know the identity of it anyway. Hanging around this site every day as I’m sure you are, you were bound to pick it up.

Unless everyone else is blind?

14. Hawkeye - May 3, 2013

I’m seriously starting to question whether or not Harrison is the true villain in this movie…almost thinking that it’s Admiral Marcus

15. Khan - May 3, 2013

UK Star Trek fans – If anyone wants 2 premium seat tickets to the IMAX premiere of Star Trek next Wednesday in Waterloo check out

16. JSM - May 3, 2013

I chan’t believe after all their effort to do nu-Trek, that they’re re-purposing old villains and huge chunks of Trek II to diguse the fact this new series of films already lack any originality, or true heart, depth and identity.


Take away the FX and “homages” to Trek II what are you left with?

Hope they’ll get a proper bona-fide sci-fi writer (not glorified fanboy hacks!) in for no.3 and re-orientate ths new series in the correct direction. No more villain of the week after revenge, and more imaginative use of the Trek universe! The new cast certainly deserve it, as does – more importantly – Gene Roddenberry’s legacy

17. Kyle Swinderman - May 3, 2013

Did any one else catch the screen shot at 0:08 in the future tv spot? It shows Uhura pointing a phaser towards Harrison while Spock is fighting him!

18. JohnRambo - May 3, 2013



19. Captain Dunsel - May 3, 2013

OK – this is straight from the “department of nit picking”. But the photo tagged “Kirk and Spock talk to Admiral Maruis” finally made me realize the one tiny thing that struck me wrong about Pine and Quinto versus Shatner and Nimoy. Their relative HEIGHT. Pine is much taller than Shatner, and so the disparity that my eyes are *accustomed* to seeing isn’t there between Kirk and Spock.

(And before anyone starts spouting off about “haters”, I am NOT criticizing the casting. I am just making an observation about *perception*.)

20. Gornsky - May 3, 2013

“this new series of films already lack any originality, or true heart, depth and identity.”
Have you seen the new film?

“Take away the FX and “homages” to Trek II what are you left with?”
Humour, angst, action, emotion, an original and believable perspective on Kirk and Spock in particular and an immensely engaging examination of beloved characters in a new context.

And a LOT of heart.

21. porthoses bitch - May 3, 2013

@8 When I read “the Melbourne” I heard Shelby’s voice in my head….accompanied by Rik5ers sag of the shoulders.

Much like the Thermians in Galaxy Quest………”Gilligans Island” “Those poor people……….”

22. LOFC_Ed - May 3, 2013

Need some advice guys:

I’m not sure whether to be sad enough to see the first showing of ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ at 12.05am on the 9th

What do you all reckon?.

23. Di1701 - May 3, 2013

@Capt. Dunsel
It took you all this time to notice that Pine is a lot taller than Shatner??
But, both Shatner and Nimoy deserve credit for having created, even channeled, these iconic characters. Sure, the Incredible Roddenberry too, but in the week to week grind of shooting a 1960s tv series, how many of the little traits, humor — which we recognize as BEING these characters, came from Shatner and Nimoy as they simply – acted?! Now what they created almost spontaneously and brilliantly, has these slick, perfectly coiffed, expensive premieres worldwide and everyone smiles just right. No scrounging for costumes in the ’60s “Mission Impossible” set just to get thru the week’s episode, no suits called Herbert telling these 2013 perfect people, “No, you can’t do that!” And, these “perfect people” really do not WANT to do what they are told not to, they really do not WANT to go where no show has gone before, except in terms of FX and big splash. They want to make a movie that fits all the requirements and knocks your socks off too and good for them. It’s better than nothing by far. Yes, I’m looking forward to ID, and yes, I’m one of those old Trekkers who wrote and read fanfic and campaigned to have the first space shuttle named Enterprise. I’ll be in the ID line, first showing. I’ll enjoy it greatly but–I will remember.

24. JSM - May 3, 2013

Disagreed Gornsky – shadows of the real McCoy….. And a heart shamelessly cribbed from a far superior era, or moments, of Trek.

But glad you enjoyed it.

25. Jensen - May 3, 2013


I would tend to agree, especially on your comment about the writers. A lot of fans seem to place all the blame on Abrams for the various problems with Star Trek 2009 and the now obvious flaws in it’s sequel. I think the majority of the blame is on the writers. They gave us weak storylines, poorly thought out villians and cookie cutter characters that lack depth. On top of all that, where previous Trek has always moved us forward the new Sar Trek movies are taking us backwards…and not in a good way.

Abrams was an excellent choice to direct the new movies, the casting for the was excellent overall, the budget was certainly there and with modern special effects nothing should have held these movies back. Yet, despite all they have going for them they still manage to disappoint. While fun to watch they lack the originality and heart of previous Star Trek incarnations and in my opinion do more harm to the Trek Universe than good.

With better concepts and writers these new Star Trek movies could have been truly epic. They could have carried Gene’s dream into a new generation and passed on the very important messages of Star Trek. Instead they pass on a degenerating message, a “dumbing down” of Star Trek for future generations. Sadly…or perhaps for the best, the new movies will quickly be forgotten and all we can do is hope for something better in the future.

Ironically that is pretty much the core message of Star Trek isn’t it? Hope for the future? It’s what Gene was always trying to give us, something that the new movies seem to miss entirely and something we will have to find for ourselves this time around.

26. porthoses bitch - May 3, 2013

@21 Are we talking “sad” as it pathetic ? Hell no brother….

Now if we were talking about camping out at the theater for 3 days when you already have advance tickets…maybe…..

27. Trekman_dave - May 3, 2013


Do it! Do it! do it!

I am

28. OvsessiveStarTrekFan - May 3, 2013

@16. Kyle Swinderman

Oooh – well spotted.

29. KHAAAN the weasel - May 3, 2013

Projectile weapons? REALLY?? The “pew pew”-Phasers of Trek ’09 were something that took a little getting used to, but those guns in the spots are defintely very un-Trek-like.

30. Gornsky - May 3, 2013

JSM, you didn’t answer my question about the movie. I was curious as to whether you were basing your impressions on seeing the movie in its entirety, or from reading spoilers and reviews.

31. Michael Hall - May 3, 2013

@ 15 JSM, 24 Jensen–

Couldn’t agree with you more as regards Trek 2009. But INTO DARKNESS hasn’t premiered yet, so why not hold your fire until you have more concrete data to work with than your guesses, suppositions, and estimates of what this film will be about?

(And, TWOK knockoff or not, at least it looks to be more substantive than its predecessor, for which I’m grateful. Though admittedly, that doesn’t set the bar all that high.)

32. KirksLove - May 3, 2013

Oh God, it’s so annoying… 99 % of the people who have seen this film yet have loved it. Still people here trying to write it down before it’s even released. What a bunch of nit-picking, close-minded, negative spoil sports you are..

33. Curious Cadet - May 3, 2013

I’m still not convinced those are seat belts. Has this been confirmed with anybody?

34. MelyBelle44 - May 3, 2013


I thought the same thing.

I also wondered if maybe it isn’t the Enterprise after all, and perhaps it is a different ship that Spock may or may not be on. (Sorry if that’s too spoilerish)

After all the other scene where it shows Spock in the captain’s chair shows an unfamiliar woman in the navigator’s position.

35. Dr. Image - May 3, 2013

Hell, I’m a Trek “purist,” but I’m also the first to admit that Abrams produced one hell of an entertaining film in 2009, despite the numerous “flaws” of sloppy research and design work regarding Trek as we had come to know it.
Therefore, I’m totally on board with this one.
After all, go back an look at the plodding, incoherent mess that was Nemesis and remember where things were heading- makes one appreciate this version all the more.

36. Neil - May 3, 2013

Not sure that this has been mentioned anywhere before, but there’s an interview with Chris Pine in today’s edition of The Mirror (UK). He says that he’s committed to a 3rd and 4th Star Trek films!

37. MelyBelle44 - May 3, 2013

For some reason, I am addicted to hearing Spock say “Hold on.” He sounds so normal!


Great catch. Anyone up for some prognostication? Here is my guess regarding that scene:

One thing I have noticed is that it seems like all the STID away missions, they are wearing uniforms or gear of some sort. In that scene Spock and Uhura are wearing their Starfleet uniforms, which makes me wonder if it isn’t an away mission but rather some sort of unplanned event.

So here is my prediction: In the #3 trailer, there is scene on the bridge. It shows Spock looking terrified. Then, a bit later, in the exact same scene (which you can tell bc the exact same crew members are in the exact same position), Jim turns around to say I’m sorry, and Spock is gone. Also, Lt. Uhura is not there either.

We’ve all seen the scenes of Spock running like a bat out of Hades. And, then the scene of him and Cumby throwing down. Now, it appears Lt. Uhura is there as well. So, my guess is that something happens to Uhura, perhaps she gets kidnapped or tries to go after Harrison herself. Maybe Spock sees it on the screen or Kirk says something. And, then he immediately goes after her, hauls it to get there, and that’s when the fight begins.

I very well may be wrong, but that’s my guess. And, I love the guessing game. I’m getting antsy, can ya tell?

38. BH - May 3, 2013

Some of this “at least it’s better than Nemesis” sounds like “satisfaction with mediocrity” in regards to passing a low, low bar.

ST09 was a fine and fun ride, but let’s face it: MASSIVE amounts of internal logic were violated surrounding Delta Vega IV: being close enough to a new black hole that Vulcan was 5x the size of our moon, and of course Kirk getting dumped two blocks from Spock, and a half mile from Scotty.

Some of these reviews imply more of that logic jumping occurs during this film’s second half, and THAT’s what I’m worried about. Taking the needle off the record to skip ahead of something you’ve boxed yourself into is lazy writing, I don’t care how fast onscreen events are occuring in order to hide it. It’s sloppy screenwriting.

And in that way, it’s not like Trek at all.

39. Reign1701A - May 3, 2013

Yeah, I really DID NOT want to know that was the USS Vengeance crashing into San Francisco…

40. spock - May 3, 2013

What a bunch of HERBERTS!!! :p JJ Trek has been really well done, he managed to capture the feel of the original series season 2 action episodes and taken them to a new level. They totally get what made the original characters tick.

41. CanOpener1256 - May 3, 2013

@38 .. We’ve known what ship it was from day one. Never was the Enterprise, that’s fer sure.

42. jkooz - May 3, 2013

If you couldn’t tell from all the clips before hand that it wasn’t the enterprise crashing into the bay. then you deserve to “have it spoiled”

43. Toby - May 3, 2013

@9, 11 & 12:

Your missing my point, although admittedly I maybe should have been clearer in my original post. I’ve been coming on to this site for (what seems like an ice age) 6 months, reading all the articles, and enjoying most peoples comments Trekkers old and young, the round of clips that have been put up I’ve avoided watching, but seen the selection of stills and read the articles – so far until today this has resulted in not spoiling the film for me as by looking at the still you cant see the context of the scenes.

My beef is not with but with the existence of these clips at all, why all the secrecy if you’re going to blow major plot points a week before release? Yes I suspected it could well be the USS Vengeance crashing into SF, (just as I SUSPECT a couple of other plot points) but I was clinging to the fact that things were being kept with a level of ambiguity – it didn’t look big enough and was simply another ship from the other trailers. I knew from the off it wasn’t the Enterprise (I saw TMP at the cinema so I’ve been a fan of Trek long enough to know my shit). To be absolutely fair I didn’t read the ‘beware of spoilers’ bit and jumped straight to the stills so my bad really.

And to anyone who says ‘why come on this site then’ I’ve been a Trek fan for well over 30 years and have been looking forward to this movie for 4 years, it’s like asking a junkie with a pile of drugs in front of him to not sniff it!

44. cpelc - May 3, 2013

New Uhura Featurette

45. Phil - May 3, 2013

@19. Well, relative to Pine and Quinto, Karl Urban is friggin huge!!

46. Factchecker - May 3, 2013

PRE-APRIL 2013: Secrecy, secrecy, secrecy, secrecy, secrecy, secrecy, secrecy, secrecy, secrecy, secrecy, secrecy, secrecy, secrecy, secrecy, secrecy, secrecy, secrecy, secrecy, secrecy, secrecy, secrecy, secrecy.

POST-APRIL 2013: STID is released on the internet prior to box office release.

47. Sunfell - May 3, 2013

I believe I saw the second spot (or one very much like it) on the “Big Bang Theory” last night.

11 days and counting to the Fan Sneak!

48. Fubamushu - May 3, 2013

JSM, Jensen and BH.

Thank you for being wise.
Thank you for not being sheep.
Thank you for not being easily duped.
Thank you for not putting up with mediocrity.
Thank you for not accepting something that has been dumbed down and watered down for the masses.
Thank you for not blindly liking something simply because it has Star Trek in the title.
Thank you for thinking,questioning, and challenging.

You are more than Trekkies or Trekkers. You are true Star Trek fans who “get it.”

Thank you.

49. Toby - May 3, 2013

@46 Sounds like I’m not alone then!

50. Factchecker - May 3, 2013

@48 – Agreed.

I grow fatigued….yet AGAIN.

51. ChikiMonki - May 3, 2013

I’m excited to see this bootlegged within the first 24-48 hours of release and then put up on any number of free-to-watch movie sites. Sorry, JJ, you’re not getting any money from me on this release – you’ve done too much damage to the franchise. Lens flares and camera shaking don’t cut it for me in a Star Trek movie.

52. HubcapDave - May 3, 2013

Oh, I just LOOOOOOVE it when someone tries to define what a “true” Star Trek fan is……….

53. Captain, USS Northstar - May 3, 2013

I seem to remember a time when folks were complaining there wasn’t enough news/information about the movie and how TrekMovie wasn’t quite “up to par” in its reporting.

Now, TrekMovie is all over this story — updates are happening daily if not more frequently.

And yet: the complainers complained on.

C’mon: get out and enjoy the movie when it debuts. I know I will. Then, I’ll start hoping that in Movie 3 they’ll bring back the First Federation. Tranya anyone?

54. HubcapDave - May 3, 2013


Then why watch it at all? If you dislike it so much, why would you be driven to violate the law in order to watch it?

55. HubcapDave - May 3, 2013


True, dat.

56. Red Dead Ryan - May 3, 2013

Well, today is Friday, and the bars tend to be the most popular place to be. Looking at some of the ridiculous comments (in particular those from Fubumashu, JSM and ChikiMonki). I guess “Idiot Night” has started early, and we’ve already seen the lunatic fringe indulge themselves in Gene Roddenberry’s special brand of finely-aged whine. LOL!

57. deleted - May 3, 2013

deleted by admin

58. Joe Schmoe - May 3, 2013

Kirk: This could just be the beginning

Admiral Marcus: At what?

No, it’s “Of what?”

Yikes. At what doesn’t even make sense.

59. Robman007 - May 3, 2013

@56..amen. You’ve gotta wonder if Shatner was on to something with this old SNL skit.

60. smike - May 3, 2013

@57: The problem with AICN…The problem’s right there in the name of the site: they just ain’t cool… A bunch of overweight nerdy know-it-alls with delusions of authenticity who believe to own geekdom. You know what… they don’t own me. I my look like them, watch the same stuff like them…but I ain’t them. I actually LIKE the genre, I actually like modern-day blockbusters and yeah, even want to like everything they don’t want to like… Guess I am better than AICN…at everything :-) I know, not an ounce of humility in me these days LOL

61. Robman007 - May 3, 2013

AICN has been a joke for a while.

62. Dennis C - May 3, 2013


LOL, I hear ya’, The review, however, echoes an earlier review from The Guardian and some other that are now popping up. I’ll be going and have my advance tickets purchased for the 15th but my biggest fear has been that while 2009 served to reboot the series, Star Trek 2 (too) would revisit something that had already been done. I didn’t want a fresh take on something that had already been done but an entirely new story in the newly established universe. As Beaks says in his review, it openly invites comparisons and you kind of have to wonder why when JJ and company had a blank slate to work with.

63. Robman007 - May 3, 2013

@62..true, true.

I’m willing to bet that any lack of originality that this film may have is a direct result being ignored for the better part of 2.5 years while the folks in charge did a million other projects.

Based on what I have read, it seems that events that happen in the film are different takes on previous events. I’m pretty sure in the film that is supposedly “rips off” that the Enterprise was not spriralling down to Earth and there was no chase the villain scene to close it out.

It’s a hard road to travel. Fans want to see a familiar face yet don’t want to see simliar events. I’d almost think they should just leave anything TOS out for the comics only. Don’t bring any previous villains back, don’t do anything that has been done, which is REALLY, REALLY HARD when you’ve had 28 seasons of TV and 11 previous films. Something will get overlapped.

I just have a feeling that if they did the type of film that Trek fans are begging for that it would be a colassal failure of a movie and the end of the franchise. At least the common word with this film from most the critics is that while it does tread past ground that it cements this franchise as being alive and well. I’ll take that.

64. Fubamushu - May 3, 2013

Red Dead Ryan,

So because we don’t like this new interpretation of Star Trek we are idiots and lunatics? So there is no room for differing opinions or diversity of opinion?

Wow. That is some very narrow minded, sheepish, thinking. Thanks.

65. Fubamushu - May 3, 2013


I would have to agree with you. All these people who are in love with these new Star Trek movies simply because Star Trek is in the title or they are easily amused by lens flares and explosions or because it is a J.J. Abrams film are the type of people living in their parents’ basements and they need to get out and get a life.

Those of us who left our parents basements, experienced the world, lived in other cultures, learned to think critically, and established lives are not easily fooled into thinking these are films are “good” let alone “Star Trek.”

66. Jack - May 3, 2013

57. That’s pretty spoilery. Thanks a lot.

67. Fubamushu - May 3, 2013

@51 The BitTorrent client is ready to go. No money from me to J.J./Paramount for this soft and sloppy wet turd.

68. Toby - May 3, 2013

One bad guy on one big ship beating up the enterprise. Captain of said enterprise turns the tables at the last minute via a cunning plan or a crew sacrifice. This is the plot for Star Trek TYP…..Take Your Pick.

69. Jack - May 3, 2013

Dennis, I’m pretty pissed about this. Some of us go out of our way to avoid spoilery reviews. So you post one here — with a few asterisks.

70. Robman007 - May 3, 2013


“Those of us who left our parents basements, experienced the world, lived in other cultures, learned to think critically, and established lives are not easily fooled into thinking these are films are “good” let alone “Star Trek.” ”

I’d say that is the sorta attitude though that helps label Trek fans as being elitist and in need of a life. I’ve been a fan for 32 years, my Dad a fan since the beginning. I loved TOS, liked TNG, Loved DS9…not going to comment on the TNG films/Voyager/Enterprise..and I like the new films. I don’t live in my folks basement nor did I ever, not only because they don’t have a basement, but also because I spent alot of time out and about playing sports and visiting with Friends.

Besides, basement dwellers are the type that bitch and moan about these films not being “their star trek” and acting like the Comic Book Guy from Simpsons (which is a spoof on militant fanboys)

I lived in Germany and just about every state in the country, have friends that are English, German, Russian, Italian, French, American, Canadian, Mexican, African, etc and I like these films.

It’s portal Star Trek. A good way to get new fans and get them into old Trek. It’s not “our trek” but it’s good. I had issues with some internal Logic of Trek 09 and didn’t care for some portions of the Enterprise, but I liked the characters. They kinda reminded me of how each Bond actor plays his version different then the last. The story was enjoyable and I watched it far more then I did the crap that was the TNG films.

I may not like some of what I heard about this film, but I don’t see it as a blatant copy. I’m pretty sure I never saw the villain of this film attack London and San Francisco in the original series or the film.

There are two different types of Trek. TV Trek which is full of messages with action mixed in. There is Movie Trek. The most successful movie trek films, with the random exception of IV, had action in them. They were exciting.

I don’t care about the physics portion of this film in much the same way I didn’t give a pint of piss about Uhura getting re-educated in few weeks after getting memory flushed….I don’t care, it’s fictional and enjoyable escapist matieral.

I didn’t mind the logic leaps and coincidences in the last film like the rapid promotions and Kirk meeting Spock and Scotty on the same planet at the same time..I’d rather see that then the travisty of spending 3 films just to get the bridge crew together and that’s it. I saw that with the prequel Star Wars films and they SUCKED. Took 3 movies to get the point. Lame.

I enjoy the new films because I understand and have come to grips with the reality that old Trek is dead and will never come back. I want the films to be a success because then TV Trek will come back, but it will never be the same. It will always be Trek lite. Old Trek died when the fans decided to stop watching Enterprise and not show up to see Nemesis on opening weekend. We killed it along with the fact it grew stale after so many seasons of doing the same story over and over.

71. RBanks - May 3, 2013

I’ll never criticize others because they have a differering opinion on the quality of a film, or the lack of. Art is a subjective thing, and we all have our own needs, wants, and expectations.

However, I cannot understand the people who have not actually seen the entire film beginning to end yet, who write it off as a bad film. A bad film it may end up being to some people, maybe even to many people, but how can you know this without first seeing it?

Why not keep an open mind, and go see the movie. Your misgivings may indeed be confirmed, but there’s also the chance you might end up liking the film, or maybe even loving it.

72. Robman007 - May 3, 2013

@67…..If he were real (or if we could get Mr Nimoy to channel him) I’m willing to bet that Mr Spock would find great logic in an individual claiming to miss his “good Trek” and want it back, yet activly participating in trying to make this film a failure. I got new for ya, by downloading the film off bittorrent and hoping it fails, the only thing you will accomplish is making sure Star Trek dies and stays dead, because if these films fail, there will never be another. If these films succeed, you MAY see good Trek back on the small screen. Illegally downloading the film and hoping it fails will lead to the death of Trek in much the same way that fans not watching Enterprise and no-showing for Nemeis led to the death of old Trek.

Besides, if you and others HATE this new stuff so much, then quit being monday morning quarterback, internet tough guys and GO MAKE YOUR OWN DAMN STAR TREK FILM OR SHOW THEY WAY YOU THINK IT SHOULD BE. Don’t hid behind grandma’s computer and talk trash about something and wish for “your trek” to return unless you are willing to DO BETTER. Try to push a Trek movie idea. It may fail, but you never know. Or, go the route of the New Voyages cast (done by James Cawley, who was chased off by the more militant whiners on this site back in the 09 days)…make your own stuff instead of playing internet tough guy and bash the film because it does not fit within your narrow view of what Trek should be and shouldn’t be.

73. Robman007 - May 3, 2013

*great illogic, that is

74. RBanks - May 3, 2013


Well said.

75. Commander K - May 3, 2013

Well I seen this movie at the London premiere last night. All I can say is…WOW. It’s like being on a rollercoaster ride, hell of a lot of fun.
I would be careful watching it in IMAX in 3d if you suffer from motion sickness!
I would argue that it is up there with Trek 09.
You are definitely in for a treat and there will sure be a lot of discussion around the more…controversial…parts of the movie.

Effects mindblowing, lens flares..present, Cumberbatch flawless.


76. JSM - May 3, 2013

There seems to be a lot of thinly disguised contempt on this board for those who have different viewpoints to themselves. Just as many have legitament reasons why one does not like the new films, or the direction nu-Trek is being taken in, there are thousands who eat it up! What I would say is Star Trek has an obvious history. You cannot just change the core values of what made it great, and not expect some grumbling.

People are always going to be somewhat protective of what they love. Especially when it’s Kirk, Spock, Bones etc. If it was some new crew I wouldn’t mind it being ‘sexed up’ for a new generation. But if you’re using THIS crew and using the name Star Trek one had better be damned respectful of just WHY it was a success in the first place. And if you’re one of those who thought Star Trek was slow and boring, you were never really a fan of Star Trek anyway. It was the way it was, and loved because of it, for a reason/reasons. Don’t turn it into a Star Wars type actioner and expect everyone to love it!

Look, if you love the new films, great! No need to get heavy with those who don’t. And vice versa! This topic is bound to incite a certain amount of passion, as many have followed Trek for literally decades. And me have noy just got into it through the new films, and love those! and other fans love both. I’m personally all for bringing things more up to date, but not at the expense of the core of Star Trek, which I feel has been jettisoned with these new films. In my humble opinion, the only modernising Trek needed was the Special Effects work so we could truly go where nobody has gone before on the big screen. But in my opinion it HAS been dumbed down. BUT I would not begrudge those who like it, but it’s not Star Trek to me anymore.

No need to get bent out of shape either way – it IS just popular entertainment at the end of the day…

Let’s all try and respect each others opinions a little more. Perhaps both ‘groups’ of fan will learn a little from the other then ;)

77. JSM - May 3, 2013

^ And many have now just gotten into it, even.

Damned virtual keyboards! ;)

78. Coastie - May 3, 2013

They keep editing these clips together to make it appear that it is the Enterprise crashing into the bay — i.e. show Enterprise getting hit, show Enterprise falling towards Earth, show ship crashing into San Fran. Clearly it isn’t the same ship, yinz ain’t fooling nobody! As Kirk said in the last movie to McCoy “STOP IT!”

79. Dennis C - May 3, 2013

@63 I agree. Well, as they have for more years than I’m willing to admit, they have my money yet again so I’m just going to sit back and enjoy the ride. I’ll bitch a bit about it later but that’s always been half the fun of Star Trek!

80. Robman007 - May 3, 2013

Look at these as portal films…meant to get a new fan interested in what has come before. I’ve had plenty of friends, smart cultured types, who didn’t like Trek because it was too boring, yet went out and either borrowed or bought old Trek because they loved what they saw in 09, and are looking forward to this one and have become fans of the old stuff.

healthier mind frame to look at it that way….

81. Thomas Vinelli - May 3, 2013

At 25 ,this why i still say Star trek should take a new direction when this trilogy is done. As good as this cast is they will never live up to the orignal cast. No next gen reboot , but a new cast with new stories. You can’t relive Trek of the past , move forward with new new new!!!

82. HubcapDave - May 3, 2013


You make excellent points. You know, whenever I see people complaining about the the new movie(s) not living up to “Roddenberry’s vision”, I think about the part of the Trek Nation documentary where Gene’s son shows JJ the video clip of his dad saying how he’d like for someone in the future to go back and do something with the original crew.

83. Captain Dunsel - May 3, 2013

@23. Di1701 –
“It took you all this time to notice that Pine is a lot taller than Shatner??”

What can I say? I’m old, slow, and not particularly observant.

84. Phil - May 3, 2013

Karl Urban is the tallest one of the bunch….

85. Fubamushu - May 3, 2013

@76 JSM

I wholeheartedly agree. If these films were set in the Star Trek universe but involved different crews on different ships I might feel differently about them. I’d probably still think they were awful and watered down to pander to the lowest common demoninator but I would not loathe and despise them.

86. Jack - May 4, 2013

85. Have you seen this movie yet? And have you seen some of the terrible Trek movies were designed to pander to fans?

87. Fubamushu - May 4, 2013

@86 I did not say every preceding Star Trek movie was perfect. At the very least, the most awful of those movies was trying to be Star Trek. Maybe they were trying too hard. Maybe they were not trying hard enough. But even the most awful of those films was a better Star Trek movie than J.J. Abrams’ films. J.J. may have made a better movies that use Star Trek in their title, but he has not yet made a Star Trek movie.

88. Fubamushu - May 4, 2013

@82 Simply because Gene Roddenberry wanted someone at some point in the future to revisit the original crew does not mean J.J.’s films are what Gene envisioned, it does not mean these films would have had Gene’s blessing, and it most importantly it does not mean that J.J.’s films are any good.

89. RBanks - May 4, 2013

@86 Jack-

I’ll go out on a limb here and say no, JSM and Fubamushu have not seen this movie yet. Ask them what specific things they did not like about STID, and all you’ll get is B.S. They hate a film they’ve never even seen. JSM has already been asked if he/she has seen the film, and has said everything under the sun, except for a simple yes, I’ve seen it, or a simple no, I have not seen it.

I will respect ANY informed opinion. However, I do not understand, nor do I respect anyone who hates something, be it a movie, or any other piece of serious work, simply because their warped, preconceived notion of what something is, prevents them from even viewing that thing before they judge it.

How simple is the concept, that only once you’ve ACTUALLY seen a film beginning to end, are you then qualified to form an opinion on it?

Good, bad, or indifferent, if you have not seen the damn movie, your opinion of said film means nothing.

90. Marja - May 4, 2013

You guys just wow me with your respectful, “differing views.” I’d say these two phrases below point quite well at the elitist view of “traditional” Trekkies who complain about the movies and will not accept that series TV is the best place for “intellectual and scientific” Trek:

Fubamushu said, “Just as many have legitimate reasons why one does not like the new films, or the direction nu-Trek is being taken in, there are THOUSANDS WHO EAT IT UP!”

JSM said, “I’d probably still think they were awful and watered down to PANDER TO THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR ….”
I can count on my fingers how many TOS episodes actually met your vaunted criteria, for one, and for two, most TOS stories involved moral lessons arrived at by the contrast of two cultures: the Federation and Planet X.

Why not wait until Trek becomes popular with the populace at large, then made for television, where it will also make money, but can become more cerebral, intellectual, and scientific. On television it can have a series arc; they can tell long stories over 13 + episodes, and short stories within an episode.

Sure, ST 2009 had some plot holes and silly “Trek science.” So did many TOS episodes, TNG episodes, and TOS movies.

If you’re such great writers, scientists and plotters, I suggest you write and submit your script to Paramount/CBS and see if they will produce it. Oh yeah, but first, good luck finding an agent.

I’m saying if all you guys and all the other traditionalists despise “Abrams Trek,” and we *lowest common denominator multitudes* who like it, then do your part to make the movie fail – don’t go to see it. Stay home, watch your previous Trek incarnations, and whine about why they don’t make your Trek anymore.

The fact is plain and simple, and we people who also live in the real world, with all OUR worldly experience, understand this:

Movie studios do not make movies unless the movies are going to make money.

— signed, A Trek Fan for Over 40 Years Who ALSO Lives in the Real World.

91. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - May 4, 2013

@43 Toby

“And to anyone who says ‘why come on this site then’ I’ve been a Trek fan for well over 30 years and have been looking forward to this movie for 4 years, it’s like asking a junkie with a pile of drugs in front of him to not sniff it!”

Oh, I understand and agree with you completely. Every time I come here, I tell myself: “this really should be the last time, old girl…” And then, I’m back again, looking for my fix…

92. JSM - May 4, 2013

@ Marja – so much vitriol….

?!? I don’t write/make movies because that’s not my area. I watch movies. I have – gasp! – an opinion on whether I like a film or not. I take each film on its own terms, by the way. Just because I am not a film maker, that means I’m not allowed an opinion?

I do not like the new Trek movies. And I say this as a film buff first, and a Trek buff second. And I feel strongly that its being taken in the wrong direction, and short cuts are being made for the sake of making money. A new Trek should not have to rely on an earlier film for many of its dramatic beats. Or a character, especially after having gone to so much trouble to ‘reboot’ the franchise.

It’s lazy.

You don’t share my opinion, and that’s absolutely fine. But for heaven’s sake enough of the “you don’t like it, you try doing better” retort… Understand I have my reasons for not liking it, which are just as valid as yours. No need to get accusatory or resort to cliche finger pointing! I have said I understand why many like the new films, but I personally feel they’re turning Trek into something its not. Trek at its best was never about pandering to the mainstream.

And enough with the cheap “live in the real world” BS too. Childish and a very moronic & churlish thing to say being as you don’t know me at all…

Anyways, enjoy it – I am glad so many of you are (I truly mean that), but they’ll never be the Star Trek to me, though I hope Trek III might truly give us something special, and we finally get to see some of that 5 year mission of exploration which was meant to be the heart of Star Trek…..

93. Red Dead Ryan - May 4, 2013

Guys, Gene Roddenberry is dead. He’s been that way for over twenty years.

I do think the anti-Abrams nutjob fanatics are right in that Roddenberry probably wouldn’t care much for the new movies. Heck, DS9 wouldn’t have happened (or at least not with the all the episodes dealing with the horrors of war and torture, and oh yeah, the massive space battles and good guys fighting the bad guys) had Roddenberry been alive and well at the time of the show’s inception.

Yeah, Roddenberry created the original series. No doubt he deserves a lot of credit there. But it was writers like D.C Fontana and Gene Coon who made the characters iconic, the show classic, and Matt Jeffries and Wah Chang’s visual and imaginative ingenuity and creativity that helped sell a possible history of the future, and what things look like and how they would work.

94. Unwanted - May 4, 2013

@93. Well said, and Gene also hated TWOK and TUC, which are near the top of my list of best Trek films as they are for many. I really think that Zephram Cochrane’s character in FC was based on Gene. Look at the similarities, a man creates/invents something in order to make money and get rich, and what he makes becomes something so much more than he could have planned for.

Other people then start to pile semi-mystical importance on him, out of some misguided conception that he somehow saw what impact his creation would have on the world. They forget that in the end Gene and Cochran are just men, no more visionary than anyone else, and that sometimes great things come out of the most surprising places.

“Don’t try to be a great man, just be a man, let history make it’s own judgement.”

95. Red Dead Ryan - May 4, 2013


Yeah, well said!

I think fans (this can also apply to “Star Wars” devotees in regard to George Lucas) tend to elevate Gene Roddenberry to prophet-like status, ignoring the flaws of the man, resulting in constant hero-worship that goes to the head of the creator, and when he fails to live up to expectations, or goes off in another direction that is different from what everyone is accustomed to, fans love to bring him down.

96. Marja - May 5, 2013

92, JSM, said: “@ Marja – so much vitriol….” Vitriol? Well, okay, maybe I was sarcastic, which is in the dictionary definition.

JSM: “I take each film on its own terms, by the way. Just because I am not a film maker, that means I’m not allowed an opinion? I do not like the new Trek movies.” Movies, plural? Did you see the second one already?

JSM: “But for heaven’s sake enough of the “you don’t like it, you try doing better” retort” … I wasn’t the first to say it on this group of entries.

JSM: “Trek at its best was never about pandering to the mainstream.” ….
‘Pandering to the mainstream’ implies an awful lot; first that I’m in the mainstream. I’m not. I’m a fan of cinema and a fan of Star Trek. Seldom have the two met on film, but I love Trek even though the movies are not examples of the finest things in cinema. There’s a lot of love, camaraderie, and fine renditions of cinematic tropes, but I wouldn’t call it “cinema” – they’re movies. Also to see your words imply that I’m one of many silly people who need pandering to. Nah. They would have got me into the movies to see Trek, in any incarnation. [Which is why I didn’t see TMP more than once; it was a special effects snoozefest based on a not-great TOS episode. Admittedly, some good character moments in there, but egad, making the cast stand and look amazed and intimidated for half the movie was. a. bore. Kudos to the actors though.]

JSM: “And enough with the cheap “live in the real world” BS too. Childish and a very moronic & churlish thing to say” …. hem, well, I wasn’t the first to say it, Fubamushu, who likes most everything you say in here, said it first. I should have replied to Fuba separately. My bad.

As for many of your other comments, I agree: there has been some lazy writing. I hated that they killed off Amanda – AND Vulcan! To me the first ST was sort of a re-make of ST WOK, but there were lots of great character moments among Spock, Kirk, McCoy, Scotty and Uhura, and a lot of heart there. And from the looks of things for ST2, I probably will not be happy with some things about that, but let’s save that for after many of us have seen it, okay?

97. Stean - May 6, 2013

This is an interesting fiction. This trek movie is may be adrenaline stimulating.

98. Promo Boy - May 6, 2013

“But it was writers like D.C Fontana and Gene Coon who made the characters iconic.”

Thanks for the Fontana and Coon mentions. They are truly the unsung heroes of Trek history. Roddenberry came up with the concept and characters,but these two producers really brought the characters to life. Besides writing (and rewriting) some of TOS best scripts, they developed the relationships and personalities into the three dimensional characters we know and love today. Last I heard, Fontana is still alive and well.
Would love to know her opinion on JJ’s Trek. Has anyone heard any comments from DC Fontana? is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.