There is yet another Star Trek Into Darkness preview. This one aired during Thursday night’s The Big Bang Theory and today it was posted on the areyouthe1701.com site. Its mostly stuff seen before but there are a couple of new things. But beware of spoilers.
Star Trek Into Darkness TV Spot – Run
Although this being called a ‘clip’ it is more like a TV spot.
Analysis (spoilers)
Scroll Down
Spock on the bridge
Dialog
Spock: You betrayed us
John Harrison in the brig
Dialog
John Harrison: You were sent to be sacrificed
WARNING: SPOILER COMMENT POLICY
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 TrekMovie.com and/or linking to other spoilers will result in deletion and instant ban.
Very Cool. Can’t Wait!!!
As Ash Williams once said “Groovy!”
New footage of both ships on fire and falling, hot girls in the bar. Cool!
Well, no one can complain that Paramount isn’t marketing the crap out of this movie.
If it’s been in a clip before, I’ve never noticed it – but when Kirk says “you can’t go after him, but we can” – the look on Spock’s face says “we are doing WHAT, now?”
“Do you remember when we used to be explorers ?!?”
I like that the communicators look like flip phones and they didn’t consider the look dated by today’s standards, ya gotta love it…!
ACK! More Vengeance shots please! I
#6
No Star Trek film has ever had anything to do with exploration. Why should they change the trend now?
@ #2
I quote Tuvok during Future’s End: “I am curious. What does it mean, groovy?” :P
Just saw Iron Man III. A bit of a letdown.
James Cannon – Runcorn Trekkie UK – May 3, 2013
“Do you remember when we used to be explorers ?!?”
——
Nope. Not even Kirk could. They were always going someplace they’ve been before, be it colony, space station, or familiar zone. It was actually pretty rare for them to explore anything new. Any time the ship went to someplace they haven’t been before was against their will. “New life” was done more frequently than “strange new worlds”, yet “bizarre, messed up stuff” is nowhere in the mission statement. Too bad. They could have had a very interesting and exciting series if they did do more exploring. Alas, poor imaginations and a tyrannical creator limited what stories could be told. *Sigh*
EXPLORERS:
“The Cage” Never been to Talos.
“Where No Man Has Gone Before” (self explanatory)
“The Enemy Within” (exploring new planet Alpha 117)
“Miri” (discovered Miri’s World)
“The Corbomite Maneuver” (First contact with First Fed)
“Shore Leave” (First contact with Omicron Delta)
:
“Beyond The Farthest Star”
Are you people serious? Trek’s had plenty of strange new worlds and journeys of exploration.
GREAT! But please – NO MORE SPOILERS OF ANY KIND! I’m counting the minutes until the preview!
@ #13, Bravo.
There were plenty of exploration stories in the original series and ST:TNG, and plenty more good stories to come. Unfortunately we’ll have to wait until Trek returns to the small screen before we’ll see good old fashion sci fi Trek and less action-adventure Trek.
@#13 and 15
‘Rarely’ does not mean the same as never.
While 13 can name seven episodes, I still think they could have done more and made it exciting. I lament that they didn’t and in a lot of cases couldn’t (i.e. “The Roddenberry box”).
I can partially agree with 15 about Star Trek returning to the small screen. Though, I don’t see why you can’t have both action-adventure and discovery at the same time. I think it would be great to have another TV series, but not bog it down with so many idealistic boundaries to the point of not being fun. If there is a new show, I hope that it is allowed to expand in content and is done by somebody that cares about what they’re doing.
I also like that #13 started with EXPLORERS. Great movie.
“6. James Cannon – Runcorn Trekkie UK – May 3, 2013
“Do you remember when we used to be explorers ?!?”
______________________
Said Picard at the start of a really terrible movie full of action scenes, mamboing and boob jokes.
“Where No Man Has Gone Before” (self explanatory)
Well if you mean “Where No Man Has Gone Before….except the Valiant” then yeah, it counts. Otherwise someone else had already been there. ;)
No one is saying there were not episodes about exploration. Just that the movies never did that.
They sure are marketing in the US now! I saw one spot run three times in 90 minutes last Sunday.
Just hope when I see IM3 this weekend I see a BIG TREK POSTER in the lobby ….
to show, y’know, that the movie will be playing in that movie theatre ; )
The motion picture was about exploring, it’s also considered the most boring……
#21. Brew1701 – May 4, 2013
In its time, blown up 70mm 6 discrete channels it wasn’t boring cinema. Boring cinema just didn’t gross $175 million in the 80s.
Now as a shoot ’em up action film it could be regarded as boring but then when was the 60s series ever regarded as part of that genre prior to TMP?
@21, TMP was the ONLY magical Star Trek movie with a huge scope. A long time ago some reviewer said it was boring and now all the fanboys repeat that without even paying attention to how great the first film was. It was long, interesting and delivered real Sci-Fi. Didn’t need a space bad guy or anything. It was a mature science fiction film with fantastic imagery. Still my favorite Star Trek movie. Possibly the only one that wasn’t a rehash of “Khan” (which wasn’t that great anyway) in some form or another.
The filter seems to think I overly quoted this in a previous attempt and there is a lot relevant in it so that may be:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/03/business/media/star-trek-into-darkness-aims-for-world-audience.html?ref=media&_r=1
”STAR TREK may be one of the biggest franchises in Hollywood history, but it has one surprising flaw: Captain Kirk doesn’t travel well. Foreign moviegoers for one reason or another have never fully embraced the swaggering Starfleet captain and his oddball crew. That is a major problem for Paramount Pictures now that international ticket sales account for up to 80 percent of a movie’s total gross…” –
By BROOKS BARNES
Published: May 2, 2013
NYTIMES.COM
“The team has really been in the weeds, so to speak, going country by country and looking at every possible opportunity. On a profit level, focusing on your shareholders, this is now how detailed you have to be on pictures of this scope and scale. Between J. J. outdoing himself and our efforts to build up our global distribution system, I’m very, very confident that the franchise is finally going to live up to its potential.” – Brad Grey, Paramount’s chairman
@ #24 I find that really odd, Captain Kirk does not travel well? The syndicated series aired in over 60 international markets. It is a global pop phenomenon. Is that off Spock and Sulu ect.? What is not to embrace about James T. Kirks swagger? What hero in film history did not have some sort of swagger? Where is the polling data on this? I would love to know what countries don’t get Captain Kirk!
#25 – Hollywood
#25. It’s the New York Times. Ignore it. The rarefied gas that passes for air in their philosopher-salons comes purely from the flatulence that passes out of their posteriors.
However, having said that, there is a kernel of truth to the thrust of the article. Star Trek–save for Germany–is largely an Anglosphere phenomena. The whole ‘seek out new life and new civilizations’ appeals to the pioneering spirit. Now, how many nations in the world have had that kind of pioneering spirit? At various times, most major European colonial nations did, but not so much anymore. They seem embarrassed by it. America still embraces it. We still talk about space as a frontier whilst the rest of Europe tries to desperately put philosophical lightyears between their colonial legacies and today.
So it works for North America and, to a slightly lesser extent, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. Germany is an anomaly I’ve never been able to figure out. Perhaps it was the influence of so many U.S., Canadian, and British troops during the Sixties. I’m not sure. But I can see why it would not necessarily sell in, say, Japan. Having lived there for most of my teenage years, their idea of science fiction is what we’d call science fantasy. It’s a tough sale to do hard sci-fi there.
I think what most troubles me about the article, however, is that Paramount is willing, it seems, to take for granted that the international market is important enough to have a large influence on what or how the movie is structured. I’m concerned that there’s only so much in the way of marketing one can do and that they’ll decide to make changes to the formula in order to satisfy their need for international dollars.
Now, I would love to expand the ranks of Trekdom overseas and whatnot. But not at the expense of turning Star Trek into something it’s not. I love Star Wars for Star Wars. That scratches my science fantasy itch. But I love Star Trek for Star Trek. Ne’er shall the twain meet. I thought Star Trek was best when recalling that Starfleet had a duel mission: exploration and as the military arm of the UFP. I thought Nicholas Meyers nailed it right on the head with the overt callbacks to the Anglo-American naval traditions in TWOK and the UC. I don’t want to suddenly see the sloppy representation of a military force we find in Star Wars that seems so slapdash as to be farcical.
So if that’s what Paramount is eventually looking for–injecting more fantasy into the mix–I’m a little wary.
@28 I agree.
I think the best way to maintain the form of Trek and to inject the fantastic would be to actually embrace the literal mantra of Trek “STRANGE NEW WORLDS.” If they made, and I use this only as a off the top of my head example, a planet akin to “Pandora” with lots of whimsy and fantastical imagery, the center of a Trek story, it could satisfy that looser fantasy element that the other markets need, without having to twist Trek into another animal.