DescentBB

It is entitled: Startrek - Into Darkness

OMG! So many awesome movies coming out. I will not die for the next two years, even if struck by a hundred phasers.

incredibly crappy trailer

As trailers go, I'd rate it as "as usual". Did you mean that you think it's a crappy movie ?

Don't these look a little similar? Are the story lines for all the new movies now getting recycled?

Gene Roddenberry is turning over in his grave somewhere from seeing what Hollywood has done to Star Trek.

No kidding.

Even though (As for Startrek movies go) I like Startrek 2, I do like the 2009 Startrek movie (so call it my Guilty Pleasure )

I did see several startrek shows and movies (I don't like the odd numbered movies, the even numbered ones are better) as a kid back in the early to late 90s and heck, even early 2000s.

I must be looking at it a little differently.
I think it's great that something this old is still relevant to my generation. Especially when it's sci-fi. I enjoyed the 2009 prequel a lot, and I'm looking forward to seeing this one. I'd say Star Trek has done a lot better for itself than most classic sci-fi that gets adapted into a modern form. Especially compared to the Star Wars prequel trilogy.

And I love the way Youtube puts ads on trailers. Because the only real difference between the ads and the trailers is that you want to watch the trailers. It's still putting an advertisement in front of another advertisement. The irony is delicious. It tastes like a paradox, but it's a little more metallic and meaty. Brings carnivores to mind where paradoxes are a little more like vegetables and herbivores.

Krom wrote:Gene Roddenberry is turning over in his grave somewhere from seeing what Hollywood has done to Star Trek.

You're mentioning all the previous startrek movies that came out, before these last two, I assume.

Alter-Fox wrote:I must be looking at it a little differently.
I think it's great that something this old is still relevant to my generation. Especially when it's sci-fi. I enjoyed the 2009 prequel a lot, and I'm looking forward to seeing this one. I'd say Star Trek has done a lot better for itself than most classic sci-fi that gets adapted into a modern form. Especially compared to the Star Wars prequel trilogy.

And I love the way Youtube puts ads on trailers. Because the only real difference between the ads and the trailers is that you want to watch the trailers. It's still putting an advertisement in front of another advertisement. The irony is delicious. It tastes like a paradox, but it's a little more metallic and meaty. Brings carnivores to mind where paradoxes are a little more like vegetables and herbivores.

2009 was not a prequel. It was a reboot, complete with explanation of how it has literally branched off from the main Trek timeline we know from the TV shows.

I think Alter' should do alot of research on the original Startrek series and movies.

Enterprise crashes into a body of water: I question the sexuality of the poster who hasn't committed themselves to see this film.

I don't think that was the enterprise crashing, when you pause the frame, the pylon and nacelle design don't match with the enterprise.

Now I want to see it more. Thanks

So a darker grittier Startrek. Whats there not to love?

Exactly! Thanks for not being an adult.

Grendel wrote:As trailers go, I'd rate it as "as usual". Did you mean that you think it's a crappy movie ?

not at all. I loved the whole Star Trek reboot. I think the trailer gave NO idea about a storyline. I have No idea about whats happening. all I know is there's a bad guy bent on the worlds destruction. hell that could be one of a thousand movies made recently. it just showed people running around shooting up and dying. BFD. it said and showed nothing.

Isaac wrote:Exactly! Thanks for not being an adult.

Ya, well sorry if us "ADULTS" like something that actually stimulates a thought process when we watch a Movie. tell me. if that Trailer didn't have the Star Trek name attached to it would you even consider going to watch it??

You mean if there was a sci-fi movie with people shooting each other and crashing star ships into the Chesapeake Bay? I believe my answer would remain, "★■◆● yeah".

whats the movie about???

for all you know it could be Little women in the 23rd century. and the only reason they crashed was because historically women are sucky drivers

You only prove my point; how could you not watch that?

So, you mean you would rather watch the new movies where they actually go on an adventure and do something significant as apposed to watching a film that spends the majority of the time revolving around a bunch of people with bright colored uniforms and bad haircuts drinking romulan ale and complaining about their love lives, space politics, and the nasty headache from said ale at a bar on a space station with a guy with over-sized ears, shallow eyes, and bad teeth.

I will say, I am an old school ST fan. I loved the original series, and the even numbered movies like most others. However, I will also admit that some of them were a tid bit boring when they focused more on politics and love lives. I was never as much into the Next Generation, Deep Space 9, Enterprise, or Voyager shows. NG was okay and I liked SOME episodes and the movies were pretty good.

As far as it being a reboot or a prequel... both of you are wrong and right at the same time. It is a prequel in an alternate universe/timeline. JJ Abrams is a very good director/writer and basically made the decision that if they simply rebooted the series, there would be no new story to follow and everyone would be expecting certain events to happen. Rather, he decided to pay tribute to the old series by saying that those events DID happen while at the same time, keeping the series open for stories that would be fresh and new. Remember how he destroyed Vulcan? Also note, he does tend to kill off his characters in most shows that he has directed, so consider no one safe.

Remember, it is a trailer and JJ Abrams also likes to keep his projects under lock and key. He has put a LOT of extra time into this one because he wanted to make a movie that is great. I'm sure he has something special in store for us and he just doesn't want to give it away yet.

[]V[]essenjah is being mature and reasonable on the net... ban him

Yea he even killed off the whole Star Fleet Department of Temporal Investigations that was brought about to stop just that from happening.

Some of the best TNG episodes, or rather some of the best Star Trek episodes ever, had zero action. Star Trek isn't without its share of action scenes, but it really shines its best when the action is heavily moderated by good characters acting out a proper story, 2009 had the characters but not the story.

I think my biggest gripe about 2009 was the villain: Super ultra BORING villain guy hiding in the shadows of his spiny evil looking ship, it was just trying too hard.

The one thing I didn't like about the 2009 movie, was that you had to read the comicbook prequels to understand why Nero was the way he was and how his ship got equipped with borg-enhanced weaponry. From what I understand, they're doing the same thing with this new movie too.

OMg... They didn't make the move exactly the way I wanted. babycry.mp3

Supposedly the rumor is this new villain is Kahn
IF that the case then a mention of that would have saved the trailer and probably guaranteed a movie. As it stands now that trailer is a POS

Trailer is awesome /thread

CUDA wrote:

Grendel wrote:As trailers go, I'd rate it as "as usual". Did you mean that you think it's a crappy movie ?

not at all. I loved the whole Star Trek reboot. I think the trailer gave NO idea about a storyline. I have No idea about whats happening. all I know is there's a bad guy bent on the worlds destruction. hell that could be one of a thousand movies made recently. it just showed people running around shooting up and dying. BFD. it said and showed nothing.

Ah, thanks for the clarification. But -- it's supposed not to give away anything; It's a teaser, not a trailer

Krom wrote:

I think my biggest gripe about 2009 was the villain: Super ultra BORING villain guy hiding in the shadows of his spiny evil looking ship, it was just trying too hard.

Where is Q when you need him.

I would love to see Q. Sadly I think they wouldn't bring him into a movie

CDN_Merlin wrote:I would love to see Q. Sadly I think they wouldn't bring him into a movie

If they do a Q movie, it has to have Picard in it.

Hell, you could get rid of the whole rest of the Star Trek TNG supporting cast and do a couple good movies with just Picard and Q.

I'd pay full price at a theater on opening night to see a Picard and Q movie, and I am cheap as hell when it comes to movies these days.

Q rules! Best Picard foil/ villain.....ever!

9 minutes of the new movie will be played at the opening of The Hobbit in IMAX.

http://www.tgdaily.com/entertainment/67 ... s-screened

I agree that action doesn't always make a movie great. For example, "The Dark Knight" really wasn't as great for it's action as it was for it's psychological effect on the audience. The problem I have, however, is when it comes down to a lot of scenes that really don't move a story along. We really don't know about how much action is actually in this film, it is just a flashy trailer that is attempting to be more eye-catching than it is informative. A lot of trailers try to convey the entire story, JJ Abrams is one of those directors that doesn't like to tell the story by using a trailer but rather hints at things.

In 2009 Star Trek, the villain was forgettable for a reason. JJ Abrams said himself, that the focus wasn't really on Nero, it was more on crew of the enterprise and was more about bringing them all back. Nero was just a story-telling device really.

As for borg technology being a part of Nero's ship. I actually never even knew that... nor do I really care. It's an interesting side-note but really not that important to the story itself. I certainly never felt lost during 2009 ST.

From what I'm seeing here, I believe that this film is supposed to stand as the new-generation "Wrath Of Khan" film. There are a LOT of references to that film seen in the trailer, the extended trailer, and even the 2009 ST film. Note the worms in the 2009 film. Note the way the villain talks in the new trailer, and in the extended trailer shown in Japan, it shows Kirk, holding his hand up to a glass window, with apparently a vulcan hand pressed against it on the other side, directly mimicking Spock's death in "The Wrath Of Kahn."

As for the villain being Khan... I don't really think so honestly. However, I think they are going for something similar in nature and for a very villain-focused sequel this time around.

It could be a good thing or a bad thing.

For example, Mission Impossible 3 was directed by JJ Abrams and I loved it. It was actually my favorite of all the MI movies and the most story-driven in my opinion. It was much more of a psychological thriller than just another action movie. MI4, also directed by JJ Abrams however, I didn't like as much because it had too much action for my personal taste.

So it could really go in either direction, but I'm excited either way.

Did any of you notice that the bad guy has a star fleet emblem on his shirt?

It's not really star trek because in real star trek the captain, whomever he happens to be, always talks his way out of trouble, logical arguments to make the "superior force" submit to the "weaker force" because of "logical reasoning."