'Star Trek Into Darkness' teaser gives a first look at the sequel
Lots of big images for a very short glimpse
Are you a fan of Motion Captured?
Sign up to get the latest updates instantly.
It seems like the release of the blockbuster trailers has now become a two-stage process, because it generates twice the conversation on sites like ours and twice the opportunities for people to become aware of the upcoming film.
Tonight, Paramount is releasing an "announcement video" to tell you that on December 17th, there will be a teaser trailer for the film. That's exactly five months before the opening of the film, and seems like a perfect date to kick things off.
At least we're finally seeing footage. This coming week, I'll see the nine-minute presentation that will be in front of "The Hobbit," and I'm also doing some other press event stuff that should answer a whole lot of the questions I have about what this film will cover and who Benedict Cumberbatch plays and all sorts of things. But for now, this 60 seconds of "Star Trek Into Darkness" will be heavily scrutinized and discussed and debated, and Paramount will indeed get to dominate the conversation on Thursday even without putting out the full trailer.
UPDATE: I'm putting a short piece at the end of this based on the Japanese language version of the trailer which is also available today, and for those of you who are spoiler-adverse, please be warned. I don't know anything about the new film for sure, but there's an image there that is pretty hard to miss, and it's worth a little bit of discussion.
So what do we get to see today? Take a look in the video updated at the top of this post.
Okay... for a teaser to a teaser, that's actually pretty good. Still no idea who Cumberbatch is playing, although "I will have my vengeance" sorta sounds like something Khan would say. There's a sense that the scale is much bigger this time, and some great imagery like the Enterprise evidently coming out of the ocean at one point. I like that we see some alien landscapes, and I hope that even if this is very serious and dangerous, there's still a sense of humor like in the first film. They got that right, and they made it fun, and so many blockbusters take themselves so seriously these days that I want "Star Trek" to stay fun.
UPDATE CONTINUED: Okay, so the Japanese language trailer is basically identical, but at the very end of it, there's a little bit more footage, and there's one image in particular that would seem to strongly STRONGLY hint that (A) this is Khan and (B) there's a similar ending to this film.

That can't be what they've got planned, though, right? There's no way JJ would tip his hand this early if it really is the end of the movie, and if it's not, then he's just playing fans, and I'm excited to see what this really refers to.
Either way, based on this first glimpse, I am confident they know what they're doing and that we'll be wowed come May, but tell me what you thought. If you're a hardcore "Trek" fan, does this inspire you?
You can "Star Trek Into Darkness" on May 17, 2013.
News From Our Partners
-
'Star Trek Into Darkness' Takes Box-Office Crown With $84 Million
'Arrested Development' Gang: Where Are They Now?
'Star Trek Into Darkness': What's Next For J.J. Abrams And The Cast?
-
'Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters': Jeremy Renner Never Read the Script Before Signing On
'Angry Birds' Movie Flies Forward
Jennifer Lawrence as Mystique: First Look at the Actress in 'X-Men: Days of Future Past'
-
FX's 'The Strain' Taps 'Alias' Mia Maestro as Female Lead
FX's 'Tyrant': Ang Lee Drops out of Directing the Pilot, Cites 'Life of Pi' Exhaustion
NBC's 'Siberia': New Reality-Skewing Drama Ordered for Summer
-
What to Watch Tonight: The Season Finales of Rectify and Hawaii Five-0 and the Series Premieres of The Goodwin Games and Motive
Mad Men "The Crash" Review: Uppers Give You Wings!
News Briefs: CBS Is Pulling Mike & Molly's Season Finale Due to a Tornado Storyline
-
Ultra Music Festival Dates Announced, Tickets Go on Sale May 21
Girls' Generation's Jessica Poses With Purses in Vogue Girl [Pics]
Austin Mahone vs. Jonas Brothers – Pop Clash
-
The Telefile - Veep: The Episode's Best Insults
The Telefile - Saturday Night Live: Straight Outta 8H
The Telefile - Game of Thrones: Our Weekly Westeros Scorecard
-
Hear This: With “Deceptacon,” Le Tigre captured the sound of youth in a song
Watch This: Walter Hill’s The Driver is all about work done well
Scenic Routes: A quiet scene from The Matrix demonstrates how to make exposition compelling
-
Ranking the Blockbusters with Summer Movie Scorecard 2013
RT on DVD & Blu-Ray: The Last Stand and Side Effects
Box Office Guru Wrapup: Star Trek Softer Than Expected at #1
Get Instant Alerts on Motion/Captured
Latest Posts
-
The final film in the trilogy changes the way we look at the seriesTuesday, May 21, 2013
-
Plus he describes how he's like his character in the filmsMonday, May 20, 2013
-
One of the strangest moments of my online career involved the legendary musicianMonday, May 20, 2013
-
Instead, he explains how he feels the new film defines the whole trilogyMonday, May 20, 2013


Comments
Option 1
Comment instantly as a guest GuestOption 2
Option 3
Login or create a HitFix account Login SignupLbsammills51
December 6, 2012 at 4:31AM EST Reply to CommentI still really hope the villain is not Khan. Benedict Cumberbatch is great, but something about an English actor taking over the role played by the Mexican Ricardo Montalban doesn't sit well with me.
That aside, hey, looks cool for a teaser but what else is new. The shot of the Enterprise landing/rising from the ocean does look great.
Biscuits doesnt it hint it is Khan? We see him do some superhuman leaps, declare he wants revenge, is human (probably genetically engineered as Khan was), seems to know starfleet machinery/vessels, etc
December 6, 2012 at 4:42AM ESTLbsammills51 I don't disagree that it's looking more and more (now that we finally see footage) that it will be Khan...I'm just hoping, even still, that they won't go that route and this will turn out to be a different character.
December 6, 2012 at 4:48AM ESTpotty break Well, the first choice was Benicio del Toro, so hmm. But they said it's not Khan, so hmm. J.J. likes to turn his upcoming movies into puzzles.
December 6, 2012 at 9:35AM ESTJonathanWiki Love my job, since I've been bringing in $5600… I sit at home, music playing while I work in front of my new iMac that I got now that I'm making it online(Click on menu Home)
December 6, 2012 at 10:25AM ESThttp://goo.gl/YNCBB
KlarkKent Agreed. I love Kahn and I love Cumberbatch, but I'm going to be sorely disappointed if they're retreading this early after they had a whole universe of new material to explore.
December 6, 2012 at 10:11PM ESTBiscuits
December 6, 2012 at 4:39AM EST Reply to Commentok, I love big blockbuster movies, but I think a recent Jeffrey Wells post might have taken them down a little for me. Stay with me here. He was bitching about 'The Avengers' (and basically how big tent-pole movies go):
"No comic-book fanboy has ever explained to me the appeal of watching superheroes duke it out as such battles ALWAYS deliver the same back-and-forth. One superhero will assert temporary superiority by pounding the other and then throwing him/her backwards through a wall or a plate of glass or whatever, and then this briefly humbled combatant will recover, shake it off and pound his/her opponent and then throw him/her through a wall or a plate of glass or whatever. Repeat ad infinitum. This is all that ever happens. Have the people who write and make these films descended to the level of dumb beasts?"
Dont we kind of this here in the Star Trek teaser. Strong Cumberbatch comes in, hits around the crew for awhile, probably someone minor dies. (If someone major dies, maybe as hinted by Japanese version, they will not be dead for long). Then Kirk and company will rise up and take Cumberbatch down.
I guess this is the problem with sequels, not enough of the good guys and gals die to add power to a movie.
Ah, these are simple thoughts, maybe just the mood I am in right now.
I will see it and love it. Just the noise along from the Enterprise slamming into water might be enough to tantalize me. Always trust the Star Trek movies ILM works on.
Crow3711 You're right, you should take it upon yourself to completely alter the way stories are told. good luck.
December 6, 2012 at 11:55AM ESTDave I @Crow3711, I think that was a pretty valid critique. Not EVERY story has to follow that same formula. In fact, if you can compare a movie to that above scenario, and it pretty neatly fits into it, maybe they should try something a little different.
December 6, 2012 at 2:28PM ESTAnd there are a lot of stories that do not fit into that. Hamlet for instance. Actually, I thought The Dark Knight broke that mold (especially how they incorporated real loss and a psychological aspect to the villain). O.k., neither of those are superhero movies. Still, what is wrong with reminding fantasy/sci-fi media makers (of any type, really) that you can up the stakes and break the mold?
-Cheers
Marquan There are many ways to add drama and tension to a movie without killing main characters. As an audience member, the central question can't just be who will win, since you know the answer 99% of the time. Did anyone doubt that Indiana Jones was going to live and win? Of course not, but Raiders of the Lost Ark was incredibly enjoyable. On the other hand, you know that {spoiler alert} Charles Foster Kane is going to die, but that hardly diminishes the drama of that story. Complaining about having the end of a story be predictable is an unsophisticated critique. Taking pleasure in a well told story is the only way to enjoy movies unless you plan on watching very few of them.
December 6, 2012 at 3:26PM ESTDave I @Marquan, I agree, main characters (or anybody for that matter) do not have to die. Heck, even movies like Memento have proven it does not matter if we know the endings (which most of the time we can predict anyway). It is nice of we cannot predict the whole storyline and every major plot point.
December 6, 2012 at 5:10PM ESTAs for the endings being predictable? I kind of disagree. I am fine with stories ending in the usual way. Most end with happy endings, and most people enjoy that. However, they can still be more complex than "the good guy beats the bad guy, and the major characters live." Look at The Dark Knight, for instance. Mild spoiler alert here. Sure, we all knew Batman was going to live, however there were some pretty serious losses to the characters (and to Bruce Wayne & Harvey Dent in particular). At the end, Batman beat the Joker, not by throwing him through a window, but by capturing him, stopping Two-Face, and being right about the citizens of Gotham. In The Watchmen, the "good guys" (well, sort of) won. They were conflicted, morally gray characters, however they kind of won in a fashion. However, a lot of people still died and it was an unconventional ending. There are other examples (Citizen Kane, Rocky in some ways, The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, The Empire Strikes Back, even the video game Silent Hill 2 had a pretty compelling and at the time unpredictable ending, at least to me, not to mention books like The Great Gatsby, or comics like V For Vendetta, Sandman, even something like Scott Pilgrim did something unique with that formula). So I think there is definite merit to the critique of stories that have utterly predictable endings.
That is not an excuse to bash everything that has parts where the villain/antagonist gets the upper hand and then the hero makes a comeback and wins. However, when it looks like a scripted WWE wrestling match, or it looks like the writers were lazy and just used that formula pretty much straight-forward, that is lazy and it has justified that kind of criticism. However, if it still more-or-less ends up that type of story, but has great moments and earns that redemption a/o happy ending, then it can be great.
-Cheers
Marquan If a movie features lazy writing, than of course that deserves criticism, because it is lazy writing. I just don't see the need to say something like predictable = bad, original = good. Things become formulas because they work. I love when a movie successfully subverts the formula and still produces a satisfying ending. Sometimes those are the ones that can become transcendent. However, some of the greatest movies ever made are fairly formulaic. My point is that critics often try to justify the fact that they don't like a movie or a type of movie by complaining about a lack of originality. If Jeffrey Wells didn't like the Avengers, it was probably because he takes himself too seriously and doesn't care for movies where men in silly costumes fight each other. That's certainly his prerogative. I generally don't like movies that are about waiting for someone to die from a terminal disease. That's got a predictable ending too, but that's not why I'm not interested. However, I doubt critics would slag that kind of movie for lacking originality. Obviously, the ideal movie would be entertaining throughout and have a surprising, yest satisfying and inevitable conclusion. But there are so few movies like that. Anyway, I appreciate your response.
December 6, 2012 at 5:34PM ESTDave I @Marquan
December 6, 2012 at 11:31PM EST" If Jeffrey Wells didn't like the Avengers, it was probably because he takes himself too seriously and doesn't care for movies where men in silly costumes fight each other. That's certainly his prerogative. I generally don't like movies that are about waiting for someone to die from a terminal disease. That's got a predictable ending too, but that's not why I'm not interested."
Touche'!
It is not a matter of being able to predict the ending (for me at least). It is also not a matter of twists & turns (see anything recent M. Night Shyamalan has done). I think a lot of it is doing something of high quality, formulaic or otherwise, and then hopefully telling a story that needs telling. For me, that means something that is new and not beaten to death, however not just unpredictable for the sake of being unpredictable. It might not even be unpredictable, just not a retread of the same old ideas. Having interesting a/o conflicted characters put into certain realistic-yet-interesting situations may be very predictable. Certainly a lot of quality movies are if you think about them. Sometimes that can even be the point. It is a matter of it being organic-feeling and not just like they are following a set of bullet-points on how to make a movie. There is a lot to be said for sincerity or overall quality.
In this specific case, if the whole world thinks you are doing something that is paramount to the second movie in the OTHER series of Star Trek movies with Kirk, Spock, and the rest, maybe it is a mistake to do the exact same thing.
-Cheers
CinemaPsycho Jeffrey Wells doesn't like to have fun or enjoy himself while watching a movie. Ever. If that's the kind of person you want to emulate, go for it. Movies like The Avengers are not about reinventing the wheel or intellectual stimulation. That is something that cinema snobs like Wells will never understand.
December 7, 2012 at 3:08AM ESTChesterfield
December 6, 2012 at 4:47AM EST Reply to CommentThere's but one thing to say: "BWAAAPP!"
Doug Robertson
December 6, 2012 at 4:50AM EST Reply to CommentNo, because if Spock dies then the third movie HAS TO be Star Trek III. Why would they do that? Please...don't do that.
DG
December 6, 2012 at 4:55AM EST Reply to CommentThe villain is Colonel Philip Green who is responsible for the 3rd world war and has a hand in the eugenics wars...wow! That would be awesome if I got this right lol
DG
December 6, 2012 at 4:58AM EST Reply to CommentThe villain is Colonel Philip Green or Kronos, one of which is responsible for world war 3 on earth...he is also partly responsible for the Eugenic wars...Wow! It would be awesome if I got this right lol...
Guy Smiley KODOS (the Executioner) you mean... Kronos, although spelled with a "Q," is the Klingon homeworld.
December 6, 2012 at 10:36AM ESTYes, I am a major nerd. Thanks for asking.
Mulderism
December 6, 2012 at 5:18AM EST Reply to CommentWhat's the point in rebooting the series if you're going to rehash old stories? Doing TWOK again is just plain lazy.
FistOSalmon
December 6, 2012 at 5:31AM EST Reply to CommentThe question isn't whether or not Cumberbatch is Khan?
It's why isn't Cumberbatch in Man Of Steel as Zod? Someone, anyone tell me how Michael Shannon is a better Zod than Cumberbatch.
mmcb105 While I agree that Cumberbatch would have been great as Zod, I think its a little premature to say anything about Michael Shannon as Zod considering we've seen exactly zero minutes of his performance. Plus Michael Shannon is awesome.
December 6, 2012 at 2:10PM ESTFistOSalmon Michael Shannon is pretty great, but unless they are going a completely different direction it seems like a miscast. A charismatic Kryptonian general raised on an incredibly advanced world would likely have an urbane and sophisticated personna. I've just never seen Shannon in that sort of role and esthetically he doesn't fit that part.
December 7, 2012 at 5:03AM ESTI'm not even saying he won't be good, maybe the character will portrayed as some sort of savage and earthy throwback to a more violent time in Kryptonian history or something, I'm just saying that the existing character is more Hannibal Lector than the "tip of the swwword" guy from Pearl Harbor.
That Werewolf Guy
December 6, 2012 at 6:24AM EST Reply to CommentWell, that superhuman leap COULD happen because of low gravity or something like that.
But really, if he plays Khan, I would be very disappointed.
bottleHeD
December 6, 2012 at 6:40AM EST Reply to CommentMaybe he's Kirk from yet another alternate universe.
mikerwilson That's actually what I was thinking as well. One of the shots of him standing with Kirk makes them look awfully similar. An alt-Kirk as the villain could be very interesting if done right.
December 6, 2012 at 6:17PM ESTcritter42
December 6, 2012 at 7:25AM EST Reply to CommentI know it's minor, but BC is wearing a shirt with a Starfleet emblem on it - that's more Gary Mitchell than Khan, don't you think?
BRob Absolutely. I wish folks would drop the whole Khan thing. And how would Khan be after vengeance if Space Seed has not happened? This guy is associated with Starfleet.
December 6, 2012 at 8:07AM ESTGuy Smiley To both you and Brob, remember that Khan, in the "Space Seed" episode, briefly wore a Starfleet uniform on the Enterprise after being revived. It was odd, but it happened.
December 6, 2012 at 10:40AM ESTSo, since we know almost nothing about the plot, nor who Cumberbatch is playing, it could still very easily be Khan.
Considering how (ridiculously) quickly they made New Kirk a captain, they could just quickly give us Khan, and his reasons for vengeance, all in one movie. I'm not saying it will be Khan, just that it could be.
OldDarth He's either Gary Mitchell, as Urban leaked, or Garth.
December 6, 2012 at 3:42PM ESTMy preference is for Garth.
Robin My bf, who is a much bigger TOS fan than I tend to be, is convinced it's Gary Mitchell as well. He is betting the movie is referencing Where No Man Has Gone Before. If the blonde in the teaser is supposed to be Elizabeth Dehner, it lends more support to Cumberbatch playing Mitchell, not Khan.
December 7, 2012 at 2:41PM ESTI really can't see Abrams doing a Khan story. He's such an iconic villain played by an iconic actor.
In any case, CANNOT WAIT FOR THIS MOVIE.
BMK
December 6, 2012 at 9:16AM EST Reply to CommentIsn't this the full teaser?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSoIs4wfaeM&feature=youtu.be
jaketaylor7
December 6, 2012 at 9:19AM EST Reply to CommentLooks exciting. The image of what appears to be the Enterprise crashing into the water--WOW.
Lando
December 6, 2012 at 10:20AM EST Reply to CommentBenedict Cumberbatch is Chaka Kahn.
Guy Smiley I feel for him.
December 6, 2012 at 10:41AM ESTJason Regan I think I love him.
December 6, 2012 at 4:48PM ESTushaped
December 6, 2012 at 10:44AM EST Reply to CommentHardcore Trek fan. I am excited to see other planets and the ship rising out of the water is cool. But, I'm less thrilled with another personal vendetta story. I accept that a tent-pole sequel to a successful reboot will likely have elements of the previous film. I hope there is some old-school Trek elements like the appropriateness of certain actions as explorers. I don't expect this as the main thrust of the story but it would be appreciated as a secondary theme. I also realize it's pointless to say the TOS was often about these themes but they were to me, the main appeal of the show. For every "Balance of Terror" or "Enterprise Incident", there were two or three episodes that were hardcore science fiction. I just hope some of this is still there while remaining fun. The reboot totally nailed the relationships between the characters. Cautiuosly hopeful.
Kurt
December 6, 2012 at 11:18AM EST Reply to CommentI immediately thought Khan when I saw the close-up where he's holding the gun in his trench coat. The piping around the collar is very reminiscent of Khan's outfit (minus the famous chest of course).
Beef Supreme
December 6, 2012 at 11:19AM EST Reply to CommentThis looks horrible, and seems to suffer from the same delusion that "Star Trek" did - that ST somehow is an action franchise on par with Transformers. Are we sure Michael Bay didn't direct this?
mmcb105 I understand where you are coming from, but I don't buy this argument. The best films in the series (Wrath of Khan, First Contact) were unabashed action adventure films, which is exactly what this movie is aspiring to be. Star Trek always straddled several different genres in all of its iterations. There were action adventure episodes, there were hard sci-fi episodes, there were comedy episodes, etc. To say that Trek should not be action-oriented is kind of ridiculous.
December 6, 2012 at 11:46AM ESTBeef Supreme I didn't say it shouldn't have action. "First Contact" is actually my favorite ST movie (mainly thanks to Stewart and the Borg), but ST to me is just not what it seems to be to Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman. Their idea of ST is incredibly small-minded and Earth-centric, lacking any semblance of ideas and adventure - "To boldly go where no man (or one :p) has gone before" is clearly nothing they care much about. Not much to do about that, I guess, except hope that this at least is less idiotic than their first outing.
December 6, 2012 at 11:56AM ESTmmcb105
December 6, 2012 at 11:51AM EST Reply to CommentThe Khan issue. I think people are underestimating this series' willingness to play with continuity and their interest in playing with fan expectations. They may include things like Khan or something else from the original universe, but most likely they are going to drastically change up what happens.
Oh, and the hand on the glass thing is a total fan tease. J.J. knows how fans would take that, and purposely included it on the Japanese release only in order to promote speculative comments. Don't expect this to be a Spock death scene like in Wrath of Khan.
filmboy I agree. Everything with JJ is intentional. That image was meant to stir up very specific feelings in fans of Star Trek. Let's face it, only fans of Trek will watch and re-watch this announcement trailer. The general public will get the full trailer next week.
December 6, 2012 at 1:38PM ESTJJ understands the power of nostalgia in terms of the fans of Star Trek. But messing with iconic imagery can be a double edged sword. If done right it can be a brave and emotionally effective way to recast that imagery in a new context. If done wrong, it can alienate the fan base and come across as a lazy and uninspired attempt at some greater meaning for the film.
I have faith in JJ and his team here. I think they can reinvent some iconic images and events in STID in ways that will be exciting and innovative.
Does it mean what we see in that image is what we think it is? No way. You may have a scene with Spock and someone separated by glass, but it will not play out as you expect.
If I were to hazard a guess, I would say that it is Pike and not Kirk who is reaching out to Spock. I like the idea of this scene having the feel of the one from TWOK, but with a different result and different characters involved. I think it plays into the idea that no matter what universe we are in, some things will echo across the universes. The idea that Khan, umm I mean nameless villain, will cause great pain and loss to Kirk and crew in any universe. That someone will always have to sacrifice themselves to save the crew of the Enterprise from the actions of nameless villain (Khan) and Spock will always be the one present when that person does, and in one case when it is him that is doing the sacrificing.
I, for one, am interested to see what JJ has in mind for this film. I like the idea of playing in an established universe and playing things different than they went the last time. It could be fun.
HT @filmboy..u know something IF it is Pike then that would play with what happen in The Menagerie since in the original timeline Pike sacrifice himself to rescue some cadet in some ship when that ship had a radiation leak or something..i think you hit that nail in the head..and i think it would be awesome if that were to happen though
December 6, 2012 at 5:28PM ESTMarkP
December 6, 2012 at 12:26PM EST Reply to CommentTo be fair, while that image is evocative of the end of STII, I really doesn't "hint" anything other than a deepening of the Kirk/Spock relationship (which is great!). I certainly, in and of itself, doesn't hint at a return of Kahn.
Fawst
December 6, 2012 at 1:02PM EST Reply to CommentAm I the only one who finds it completely amusing that BC's VO work sounds so much like Patrick Stewart?
Also, this looks incredible. I am sufficiently psyched for the 9 minute preview.
studioplant
December 6, 2012 at 1:14PM EST Reply to CommentI just watched the international trailer and the nerd inside of me lept for joy. I am have to go back and watch a million more times.
filmboy
December 6, 2012 at 1:50PM EST Reply to CommentI am still going to say that the villain here is Khan. I am also going to declare again that I feel Alice Eve is Carol Marcus.
However, nothing in this announcement trailer makes a particularly strong case for either of those assertions. In fact, this trailer casts doubts on both. Well played JJ, well played sir. You show us some footage and still leave the larger questions intact. We are no closer to knowing who is playing who in this then we were before the trailer was released. However I suspect after next week we will at least know who Cumberbatch is playing.
Overall, ths trailer is very effective and interesting. It establishes the tone of this film while also raising new questions as to what the overall story will end up being.
I am not sure I am down with the 10,000 uniform changes the original crew will go through in this film. I counted no less than three different uniforms worn by members of the crew. What's with all the outfit changes JJ? The basic primary colored uniforms work, they do. No need to have the crew change uniforms, except when it comes to dress ones. A minor nipick, but just something that kind of bothered me.
Looks like Starfleet is going to be in a bad way here and I would imagine the Enterprise will be the only ship unscathed. What I wouldn't give to have the Enterprise work with another ship and crew to take down the threat present, rather than going it alone YET AGAIN.
How bout we introduce the USS Reliant here and show us a younger Captain Terrell and crew. It would be a way to tie to TWOK, which I think JJ and company very much want to do, while also giving us a new crew to meet and get to know.
Just a thought there. But seriously how big is the fleet exactly when the Enterprise is the only ship capable of saving the day all the time?
Anyway, solid announcement trailer. Now on to the next week. Here comes...Khan!
Dave I
December 6, 2012 at 2:35PM EST Reply to CommentIt looks cool, however . . . I hope it is not Khan and the Wrath of Khan storyline. I do not see a need to create an alternate timeline where basically everything happens the same way. If they are going to rehash the old stories, particularly of stories done right the first time, I really do not see the point. Plus, they can create NEW characters, struggles, and events. Granted, the pic from the Japanese trailer could be misdirection thrown in as a bit of fan service. Or maybe we get some sort of story with Khan, or similar villains, and the alt-timeline makes things change. I mean, maybe somebody dies OTHER than Spock. Is it possible old-Spock somehow reaches out to new-Spock and changes the outcome? And yes, I am sort of fuzzy on how the two met up last time and if it is possible again, it's been a while since I saw the last movie. There are probably lots of possibilities even if they use the same players since some things will have changed.
I am still not terribly excited about just rehashing Khan, then having Star Trek III: The Search for Spock . . .Again. That really makes it seem like a mistake if they follow the exact same trajectory as the last time almost beat-for-beat.
-Cheers
Paul S I agree that it is an alternative timeline, so it gives the writers new possibilities - good guys can become bad guys and vice versa, all because of circumstances and choices made.
December 6, 2012 at 3:14PM ESTNo need for Khan yet, but it looks like Carol Marcus could be in it.
Star Trek 2 was such a great film, from the original Space Seed episode giving Khan a reason to hate Kirk so much and then you have the elements of Kirk feeling his age, a possible son & the Genesis device, Spock, a character we had grown up with on countless re runs making the ultimate sacrifice...plus a great score of music all handled superbly by Nicholas Meyer.
I like much of Abrams work, so hope that he just makes the film as cool as the trailer and just continues to reinvent and not copy the past.
Mike
December 6, 2012 at 3:33PM EST Reply to CommentIt's Pike touching the glass. He dies/gets disfigured saving Kirk & Co. during an attack by Garth of Izar (or whoever Cumby is playing). Cumby then goes to some other planet, so Kirk has to go find him and stop him from blowing more stuff up. It's basically going to be Heart of Darkness with spaceships.
Fievel
December 6, 2012 at 3:45PM EST Reply to CommentIt's not Khan, it's Gary Mitchel right before whatever happens to him that turns him into the god-like villain of the film.
Fievel
December 6, 2012 at 3:46PM EST Reply to CommentIt's not Khan in the picture, it's Gary Mitchell at the moment before whatever happens to him that turns him into the god-like villain of the film.
Fievel Crap.... forgot that new comments go to the bottom.
December 6, 2012 at 3:47PM ESTdyikini
December 6, 2012 at 5:52PM EST Reply to CommentA nicely teasing teaser!
I hope that final shot in the Japanese trailer is misleading. That is more than a tease if it's what we all think it might be.
Gotta say I'm keener for this now and the trailer reminded me how much I enjoyed the first film.
Really like the title too - the format makes it work for me.
troopermsu
December 6, 2012 at 8:14PM EST Reply to CommentKhan as the villain? Not interested in that.
Jason Regan
December 7, 2012 at 6:22AM EST Reply to CommentThe reason I don't think it's the Wrath of Khan ending is that in the original, there was 25-odd years of history giving resonance to the payoff. It wouldn't have anything like the same impact with a cast in their second film.
I like Fievel's suggestion above that it's Gary Mitchell during whatever catastrophe caused his change.
Mooked
December 7, 2012 at 12:57PM EST Reply to CommentI’ve seen JACK REACHER for about a month now.