or Connect
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › JJJHHHAAANNN! FULL TRAILER FOR STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

JJJHHHAAANNN! FULL TRAILER FOR STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

post #1 of 58
Thread Starter 
by Renn Brown: link

"Is there anything you would not do for your full Star Trek trailer?"
post #2 of 58

Chekov wearing a red shirt? Hmmm...

post #3 of 58

Still the atmosphere feels off from the description of the nine minute IMAX thing but I'm pre-sold on this.

post #4 of 58

It's better than the teaser....but it also felt distinctly like two different trailers stitched together. I kinda wish they hadn't gone with two voiceovers. It would have worked without Kh-, Harrison's in the second half.

 

But loved that the focus was on Kirk and the crew. Loved Greenwood's voiceover (in a just universe, he'd be a HUGE star). And it did what it was supposed to: get me excited for the new film.

 

I showed my daughters (both in their midteens) the teaser over the weekend, and they loved it. They'll go nuts over this, as it features more Pine.

post #5 of 58

I love that they are trying to show gravitas in the trailers, not just money shots.

 

Great work on building critical mass for this film.

post #6 of 58

Have I said how great I find the fact that Cumberbatch is a thing now?

post #7 of 58

Renn Brown, this is looking like a STAR TREK INTO...Greatness! I wasn't sure whether this had the potential to be a great sequel but now I think that it... KHAN! Very excited for this... ENTERPRISE... because my excitement hasn't doubled.... it has actually TRIBBLED!

 

(Beat that, Fleed! *Throws down mike*)

post #8 of 58

Looks like they're continuing the sequel tradition of the Enterprise getting pretty messed up.  Also, another space jump?

post #9 of 58

Saxon, are you trying to make Lauren's head explode?

post #10 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelM View Post

Saxon, are you trying to make Lauren's head explode?

 

400

post #11 of 58

Enyaish sounding music again?  Is this what we can expect in the next six months as trailers try to zag away from the BRRWWMM zig?

post #12 of 58

Hey, we gotta complain about something, right?

post #13 of 58

Huh?  Who even said it was a complaint?  It's just an observation that two of the last three big trailers to be released did something similar that seems in direct contrast with something that has become very common in other big trailers over the last couple years.  Don't be so sensitive.  I actually liked the trailer... despite that fact that it was two stitched together, as MichaelM said.

post #14 of 58

It was just a joke, Mr Sensitive-who-calls-other-people-sensitive!

post #15 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer View Post

It was just a joke, Mr Sensitive-who-calls-other-people-sensitive!

 

Sorry, I didn't mean to be so sensitive.  I'd just been listening to some Enya music.

post #16 of 58

Greenwood sounds like he's talking to Hilary Swank in The Core.  Glad he's back, though. 
 

post #17 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotai View Post

Glad he's back, though. 
 

 

Seconded. He's perfect in that part.

post #18 of 58

That music is a good way to open a trailer for a new Trek movie, I thought. Subconsciously, it kinda reminded me of Horner's music for Apollo 13, but then I realized what it was really reminding me of was BSG.

post #19 of 58

Bigger, louder, faster!  More money shots!  A better script...?

post #20 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

A better script...?

 

C'mon, this is the real world.

post #21 of 58

Really enjoyed that trailer, even if parts of it look exactly like Trek 09 (spacejump, debris field, lens flare).

post #22 of 58

I thought I saw a brief shot of a Bird of Prey in the trailer. Since I enjoyed the 09 flick, I will be seeing this one.


Edited by Chaz - 12/17/12 at 9:46pm
post #23 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaz View Post

I thought I saw a brief shot of a Bird of Prey in the trailer. Since I enjoyed the 09 flick, I will be seing this one.

 

 

If it's the shot I am thinking of, I thought it was the body of the enterprise chasing after the saucer but after downloading the trailer and having a look it's not :( it looks like a shuttle being chased by another winged shuttle.  Call me crazy but it could be someones escape all we need is a head out the window and we have a link from TDK and Skyfall to Star Trek.

post #24 of 58

I like the fact that the theme of this movie appears to be (going by the narration at the beginning) the humbling of Captain Kirk. As the first movie was essentially "Kirk Is Awesome!", it'll be an interesting character arc for him to get taken down a Simon Pegg* or two.

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Didya see what I did there? Didya?

post #25 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey View Post

 

Sorry, I didn't mean to be so sensitive.  I'd just been listening to some Enya music.

 

I think you're both just....so....very....sensitive......M-e-o-w!!!!!!

post #26 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotai View Post

Greenwood sounds like he's talking to Hilary Swank in The Core. 
 

 

"The Only Way Out Is In...   to Darkness"

 

......

 

Back to fruitless speculation about the villain: I hadn't gotten around to watching the previous Japanese trailer, so that "family" line and the Spock hand on the glass at the end here really had me thinking wacky half-brother Sybok. I doubt that's it, though.

 

I really liked the trailer and am way more excited about this thing than I probably should be.

post #27 of 58

I'm just going to repost my theory here, since I think I missed the other thread.  I'm basing it on an assessment of Team Abrams as competent but uninspired storytellers, with occasions of staggering ineptitude/genius. Thus, they're either not capable or uninterested in doing a dark, psychological thriller in which we see Gary Mitchell and James T. Kirk as best friends, see Mitchell gain god-like power, then go mad with it. But, they are smart/commercial enough for basic branding. Benedict Cumberbatch looks and sounds literally nothing like Khan. Look at Karl Urban in the first movie. He's absolutely doing an impression of Deforrest Kelley. I don't think we'd go from that to "oh, Khan is a slender pale Starfleet officer with an English accent instead of a Colombian superman." It's just bad branding.

 

However, they will trade on the name value of Khan, so I'm going with Cumberbatch as "___ of Khan". Possibly he's a follower/rival of Khan from a separate cryo-ship (in which case, expect dialogue about how he was worse than Khan/even Khan was scared of him). Or a modern-day descendant of Khan/Khan's forces. "You know me as John Harrison, but my proper name is John... Harrison... KHAN." Either way, he's been reawakened/activated and infiltrated Starfleet, along with followers maybe, like a terrorist cell. 9/11 parallels ahoy with the villains as terrorists, which is safe now that Obama's president and the filmmakers can't be mistaken for Republicans (see Iron Man 3, Zero Dark Thirty). He eventually uses this infiltration to screw over Starfleet: i.e., going from being captured to crashing the Enterprise, blowing shit up, etc. His goal is to find the Botany Bay and revive Khan, who'll serve as Sealed Evil In A Can. If accomplished, this will rally Augments embedded throughout the Federation, but if Team Kirk gets Khan, they'll be demoralized or surrender, thus giving the good guys an easy "blow this up to save the day" plot. However, since franchises are all about the build-up now (Amazing Spider-Man 2 leading up to Green Goblin, Green Lantern leading up to Sinestro, Avengers leading up to Thanos), the final shot will reveal that Khan has survived and now has a bone to pick with Kirk in Star Trek 3. Bonus points if he somehow is revived and screws Cumberbatch over so he becomes an 'ally' of the Federation/friend to Kirk, all the better to be an even bigger villain in 3 when he betrays their trust.

 

In fact, with Team Abrams' over-the-top secrecy, it wouldn't surprise me if early rumor Benecio del Toro got the role of villain after all, but it was simply a small cameo leading up to him as full-on Khan in the next movie. Sorta like Samuel L. Jackson showing up as Nick Fury in Iron Man. 

 

That, or Garth of Izar.

post #28 of 58

Interesting, but unlikely in at least one aspect. I'd bet dollars to donuts the Klingons are the Big Bads for ST3.

post #29 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelM View Post

Interesting, but unlikely in at least one aspect. I'd bet dollars to donuts the Klingons are the Big Bads for ST3.

I'm kinda thinking it'll be Khan in charge of Klingons. Or the Borg. That's assuming Into Darkness isn't the Klingon Show.

post #30 of 58
I finally figured out who Cumberbatch is playing, you guys. It just took me a while to recognize the vocal performance.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
post #31 of 58

I would be cool with it being Sybok.  While Luckenbill did the best with what he was given, there is far more potential within that character.

post #32 of 58

If it hasn't been done, it will be. Someone is gonna watch Space Speed and look for anyone among Khan's supermen who bears any kind of resemblance to Cumberbatch.

post #33 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken View Post

I would be cool with it being Sybok.  While Luckenbill did the best with what he was given, there is far more potential within that character.

That's one character I wouldn't mind revisiting. My idea was about the aftermath of Vulcan's destruction. No doubt there would be a number of Vulcans shaken to their very core and no longer follow Surak's teachings of logic because their emotions got the better of them in the face of tragedy. Along comes Sybok who takes this opportunity by manipulating the emotions of a great number of Vulcans and forms his own terrorist group that attacks Romulan colonies, believing the Romulan Empire was behind Nero all along. The Romulans tell the Federation to stop this group by any means or else they will believe that the Federation actually supports Sybok, thus go to war with the Federation. The Enterprise is sent out to find Sybok and stop him and his attacks. Spock is still shocked by the destruction of Vulcan, but realizes throughout the film that Sybok's actions and those following him are the very reasons his people embraced logic because they would otherwise destroy themselves when sweeped up in their emotions. He himself comes to embrace logic as a way of preserving himself and his culture. This is really just my way of getting rid of EmoSpock from the first film.
post #34 of 58

There's no way they would ever pick the villain from what is arguably the worst Star Trek movie.

post #35 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHUD Main Site Feed View Post

"Is there anything you would not do for your full Star Trek trailer?"
Yeah: I wouldn't go to the hassle of installing QuickTime just to watch it.
post #36 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by User_32 View Post

There's no way they would ever pick the villain from what is arguably the worst Star Trek movie.

 

There's no argument.  Star Trek V is absolutely not the worst entry in the series.  Not while Insurrection and Nemesis still exist.

post #37 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken View Post

 

There's no argument.  Star Trek V is absolutely not the worst entry in the series.  Not while Insurrection and Nemesis still exist.

 

Hey, Star Trek V deserves all the shit we can pile on it, so can we at least say it was the worst of the original cast's series? And this is no way diminishes Nemisis' suckitude. 

post #38 of 58

Star Trek V has ONE redeeming quality: "What does God need with a star ship."

 

This leads to another good line:"Jim you just don't go asking The Almighty for his ID."

post #39 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by User_32 View Post

There's no way they would ever pick the villain from what is arguably the worst Star Trek movie.

 

And this is what almost everyone said when a few people suggested Bane as Nolan's final villain for Batman. (Including me - I thought there was no way Nolan could pull it off.)

 

Sometimes the badly written or thinly portrayed characters are the ones that can be redeemed and fleshed out more easily and powerfully than the iconic ones.

post #40 of 58

Sorry, but there's no salvaging Shinzon......

post #41 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackson View Post

Sorry, but there's no salvaging Shinzon......

 

Shinzon is incredibly stupid conceptually, though. Sybok is actually a potentially interesting character from a lousy movie.

post #42 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelM View Post

 

And this is what almost everyone said when a few people suggested Bane as Nolan's final villain for Batman. (Including me - I thought there was no way Nolan could pull it off.)

 

Sometimes the badly written or thinly portrayed characters are the ones that can be redeemed and fleshed out more easily and powerfully than the iconic ones.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackson View Post

Sorry, but there's no salvaging Shinzon......

 

 

If only the guy who played Shinzon had been as talented as the guy who played Bane. Now, that guy knew how to make a memorable character. 

post #43 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackson View Post

Sorry, but there's no salvaging Shinzon......

 

My original post did say "Sometimes." Agreed that there are characters and/or plots that aren't worth repurposing.

post #44 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackson View Post

Sorry, but there's no salvaging Shinzon......

 

Give him a breath mask, a ludicrous accent and a hard on for dispensing nutritional advice and it'd be the best Trek villain of all time, easy.

 

Anyway, I humbly suggest V gets a bad rep and isn't even the worst of the original crew films (that honour is forever reserved for the Motionless Picture). I'd also argue Shatner is actually a better director than Nimoy, the film's main issues lay with the script and piss poor effects.

post #45 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentinel Red View Post

I'd also argue Shatner is actually a better director than Nimoy,

 

Three Men and a Baby laugh at you.

post #46 of 58

ST V just feels cheap all around to me.  The effects, the unfocused script, some sub-par acting, and way too many scenes of too many characters just standing around combine in an unappetizing rock soup of mediocrity.

 

The concept of the film is fine, and should have made the it feel like a fun throw back to the types of stories the original series explored (Who weeps for Adonis, Charlie X, The Squire of Gothos).  The result is overlong with half baked explorations of a pseudo Lovecraftian cosmic entity, and the human need for adversity.

 

The movie is not without endearing qualities though, DeForest Kelly and Shatner both give great performances with some memorable lines.  Sybok's character adds some interesting depth to vulcans, undermining the one note characterizations we had always seen up to that point, creating an intergalactic David Keresh.  

 

Klingons are used for comedy relief in this film.  I did not care for that, although I guess that was another que taken from the original series (Trouble with Tribbles).   Also, IIRC, isn't this the movie where Scotty is almost completely useless? doesn't he bump his head and knocks himself out like five times in this film?

post #47 of 58
There is at least one positive thing THE FINAL FRONTIER and INSURRECTION have in common: Jerry Goldsmith.

Michael Giacchino can eat a fat dick.
post #48 of 58

Guys, guys, guys!  Can we get back to yelling about The Hobbit, Batman, Star Wars, and Superman, please?  Because when we argue about Star Trek it makes me feel like a dork.

post #49 of 58

STV:TFF has some genuinely good ideas in it:

- The concept of God, as applied to different species (human, Vulcan, Klingon, Romulan)

- The idea of a planet jointly controlled by all species in an effort to foster peace.

- The idea of a Vulcan who rejects logic and embraces passion.

- The idea that our inner pains are necessary to make us who we are.  Do we need to be released from that pain?

 

It's a shame that the execution of the film is so poor, but the ideas are there.  There's scope, there's imagination, and there's ambition.  It actually feels like a classic Star Trek episode, too.  

 

NEMESIS is just a piece of shit with zero imagination or ambition other than to make a quick buck.  It's irredeemable.

post #50 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judas Booth View Post

 

 

NEMESIS is just a piece of shit with zero imagination or ambition other than to make a quick buck.  It's irredeemable.

 

It's better than Insurrection.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: CHUD.COM Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › JJJHHHAAANNN! FULL TRAILER FOR STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS