There’s a new Star Trek trailer and it looks terrible

It has a lot of punching, precious little "science fiction."


Read the whole story

 

[Solomon Black]

For all the folks talking about the 'true' Star Trek... remember that the true Trek is the Trek of The Motion Picture and those bits of TNG before Riker grew a beard. You know the not quite "bad" on paper maybe but rather boring in execution? Because turns out Roddenberry's vision is kinda dull? The parts of Trek that are good are those that don't hew closely to Roddenberry

In practice well under 50% of Trek is worth watching. Its never been good.

And even more importantly its never, ever, never been consistent. Save maybe for the parts that nigh killed it after DS9 and TNG had sex to make VOY and ENT as some congealed mass of trying to be mostly serious space drama with the old episodic adventures model. Both like many of the 'bad' parts of Trek aren't all that bad, people are just inputting demands the series creators were never trying to fulfill and was probably a dead end anyways.

Now NuTrek? First one is just fine, nice reboot. Second one feels like someone was ordered to write a Trek II omage and came up with nothing so hashed something together at the last second to make their deadline. Whatever, still better then Insurrection which was a freaking TNG episode with no business being a movie. Into Darkness still is Trek though, the Federation isn't all roses? Yeah nothing in Into Darkness tops attempted genocide by biological warfare like in DS9 just fyi. Sure the latter was better done maybe, but there's precedent in Trek.

Now THIS trailer?

This is what "Not Star Trek" actually looks like.

This is what an action movie with a Trek coat of paint on it looks like.

 

[Geebs]

There's no science in Star Trek; it's all magic and hand waving.

 

[AmericanCitizen]

Do you hate fun, Peter? It's okay, you can tell us; we're here for you.

 

[JEDIDIAH]

snowman<ca>[/url]":1m7acsd6]

mvmiller12[/url]":1m7acsd6]It didn't look terrible to me. It looked like a teaser. Teasers by nature should be super-light on plot, and highlight things to attract people that may be on the fence about seeing a film. The fact that there is discussion here is proof that it is working as intended. We saw Kirk & crew, getting into shenanigans (as they do). What else did it need to be to jumpstart awareness of this film?

While maybe the most vocal group is the people into Star Trek so not the fence sitting group this is aimed at, that it is getting such a poor reaction from tech blogs, Twitter and comments does not seem like it is working as intended.

It's working EXACTLY as intended. It's ignoring the pretentious twats that are entirely too full of themselves. You can't please idiots like that. They will sugar coat the old stuff and be oblivious to the new stuff. They're like nerdly hipsters.

 

[sonolumi]

While Karl Urban continues to outperform everyone else. He's utterly wasted in this dross. He nails Bones in every scene he's in, they just don't give him many. I think if they were given a proper script the rest of the cast could carry it. Chris Pine did a pretty good job in the first film, for the most part. Quinto's Spock wasn't bad either.

However what we have at the moment is an Uhura who as written, is so far from being the sassy character and a professional Starfleet crew member from the original show, and now is just a love interest character with whiny emotions from some crappy rom-com. No disrespect to Saldana, I'm sure she could do better if given the right material. And Pegg, who can also do better, is just comedy relief and too much of it.

Then we have the Sulu and Chekov characters are treated as little more than props, even in the first reboot. To be fair, the previous Star Trek films didn't always manage the ensemble casts as well as they should. The high point was probably TNG's First Contact as it gave most characters some interesting screen time.

In fairness to this trailer, I looked up the teaser trailer for First Contact and it's also heavy on action. Though having seen what a steaming turd they made of the second reboot film my hopes for this one are non-existent.

It's abundantly clear Abrams didn't give a flying fuck about the franchise, while he loves Star Wars he admits to not watching nor even liking Star Trek. A less well known director, heck even some of the actors from the Star Trek franchise, could have done a much better job by, you know... giving a damn.

In the end, a youtube comment (of all things!) sums my feeling about this succinctly "Can we just take the JJ-verse Trek out back with a shotgun and end it.".

 

[NicoTexas]

It's beyond terrible indeed.
The first seconds of the trailer look like a cheap high school production.

 

[Skullpuck]

"The Beastie Boys, apparently."

I wish I had known this article was written by a 7 year old before I read it. Holy craptastic writing, terrible presentation, and absolutely abhorrent follow through.

Talk to your editor and make him do his job next time.

 

[rayleonard]

I can see what is going on here. All the new "action franchises" are all the same basic lazy story with lazy writing, situations, and spending tons of money on CGI to mask the absolute shallowness of everything else in the movie. Every "franchise" has its main invulnerable badass, a bunch of invulnerable sidekicks, a funnyman, lots of teal and orange CGI effects (seriously. Next time you watch any modern action movie, heck even the trailers, pay attention to just how much teal and orange they use.) They dont even pretend to include actual realistic physics in their stupid "action sequences" and every sequel has to be bigger, more action, more dense cgi scenes, more explosions, constant action, shaky cameras, a billion things happening yet the most boring, stupid, and lazy stories once you get rid of all of that. Who cares if scotty is hanging off a cliff or mccoy is surrounded by aliens aiming weapons at him? You know he isnt going to die.. EVER. Not when there are other sequels to be made and the actors have signed on for 3 more!

This isnt the mid 90s anymore. We arent impressed with CGI for the sake of it. We know almost anything can be done digitally that you can possibly imagine. So whats the point? Honestly it completely detracts from the story. Its like a giant flashing billboard that appears in the middle of the film saying LOOK AT ME! I could go on for hours about this and a million other things wrong with the modern industry that is gutting brands like this. They are the hollywood equivalent to corporate raiders.

 

[mogbert]

Dang, lots of pages already on this...
I actually liked Into Darkness. I felt it was pretty good.
Personally, I haven't really cared for the Fast and Furious series. I think I've seen two of them, but I couldn't tell you which two (it is possible I saw one twice rather then two). That makes me more then a little concerned about this film.

But you couldn't very well give it back to JJ, he may have his hands full with StarWars.

And there are worse directors out there they could have given it to:
Shamalamadingdong (it turns out, the entire crew was really in suspended animation all along! TWIST!)
Ewe Boll-ocks (the entire thing takes place underground, in low light with $50 a day actors)
George Lucas (the Tribbles are back, and now they can talk!)

 

[Wickwick]

AmericanCitizen[/url]":3f6o1aqb]Do you hate fun, Peter? It's okay, you can tell us; we're here for you.

He's a Microsoft evangelist reporter. How much fun can one man have in a lifetime?

 

[Lets all mariachi!]

NicoTexas[/url]":1rzlfm4f]It's beyond terrible indeed.
The first seconds of the trailer look like a cheap high school production.

because star trek is well known for its grounded realistic sci fi and high production va

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJ-ATwRq5KY

oh

 

[JEDIDIAH]

Statistical[/url]":18wt0tl5]

I think if they'd cut out the whole identification of Khan in the second film and got rid of the stupid sacrifice homage that people would have loved it unabashedly. It's just those two call outs that were stupid.

The Cross-Universe transporting didn't bother you?

Watch the movie again. Kind of like the 3rd Batman, or Skyfall. Like a weird drug that pleases you initially but has a looooonnnnng come-down.

Or the fact that they cured death?

It's no worse than katras or Spock's body being regenerated by the Genesis effect. Let's also not forget "proto-matter".

Also, Kronos is not "cross universe". It's actually pretty close to earth as the Klingons were the first species Earth pissed off. Take what Spock brought back from the future in the 1st movie and add the super-genius of Khan and it's not that far fetched.

People just gloss over the absurd crap and other failures of the other movies (and even the shows).

 

[Megabeard]

Looks pretty fun to me. If you want to go to sleep then you can always rewatch DS9.

 

[EHowardHidell63]

Diehard fans of the series know that many of the best episodes often had no action at all. You know, actual science fiction.

 

[EHowardHidell63]

Interesting side note: there is a science reporter named Miles O'Brien that lost his arm and had it replaced with a robotic one.

 

[EHowardHidell63]

Megabeard[/url]":16f76y8d]Looks pretty fun to me. If you want to go to sleep then you can always rewatch DS9.

You're referring to the show that has some of the best space battles of all the series?

 

[GenericAnimeBoy]

This is the third in the new series, right? So, good to see they're sticking to the 'Even Numbered Trek Films' rule...

 

[okami]

"From the director of Fast & Furious" are not words that I want to see in any Star Trek trailer

"From the director of Fast & Furious" is the second to last words I want to hear, just below "Directed (or produced, or whatever) by JJ Fucking Abrams." It is actually astounding the number of plot holes that man can cram into a single film. At best he'll pull out some dumb deus ex machina device or unbelievably illogical character choices to try to patch a few of the plot holes, but more likely he'll just try to distract you from concerning yourself the (non existence of a) plot with with pointless and quite frankly boring action sequences and then just fix everything with magic blood.

At least Fast & Furious had more or less a coherent plot (though I never saw any of the sequels), and the character's choices were generally believable, which is a lot more than cab be said about Into Darkness or for that matter anything else that Abrams gets his grubby little hands on.

I really don't understand how Abrams has "nerd cred"; he's basically just Michael Bay with hipster glasses.

 

[QuarterSwede]

rayleonard[/url]"ji8aa17]I can see what is going on here. All the new "action franchises" are all the same basic lazy story with lazy writing, situations, and spending tons of money on CGI to mask the absolute shallowness of everything else in the movie. Every "franchise" has its main invulnerable badass, a bunch of invulnerable sidekicks, a funnyman, lots of teal and orange CGI effects (seriously. Next time you watch any modern action movie, heck even the trailers, pay attention to just how much teal and orange they use.) They dont even pretend to include actual realistic physics in their stupid "action sequences" and every sequel has to be bigger, more action, more dense cgi scenes, more explosions, constant action, shaky cameras, a billion things happening yet the most boring, stupid, and lazy stories once you get rid of all of that. Who cares if scotty is hanging off a cliff or mccoy is surrounded by aliens aiming weapons at him? You know he isnt going to die.. EVER. Not when there are other sequels to be made and the actors have signed on for 3 more!

This isnt the mid 90s anymore. We arent impressed with CGI for the sake of it. We know almost anything can be done digitally that you can possibly imagine. So whats the point? Honestly it completely detracts from the story. Its like a giant flashing billboard that appears in the middle of the film saying LOOK AT ME! I could go on for hours about this and a million other things wrong with the modern industry that is gutting brands like this. They are the hollywood equivalent to corporate raiders.

Holy crap yes! Nailed it.

 

[svgpithon]

lewax00[/url]":1rfy2lr5]Personally I like the new Star Trek movies...I think they're terrible at being Star Trek, but entertaining enough as just movies.

Pretty much my feelings as well.

To elaborate:

Spoiler

I've never been much of a Trekkie, but I loved the original series and thoroughly enjoyed Enterprise. I could never get into any of the other series, but most of the movies were fairly entertaining and solid science fiction. I don't think that science fiction will sell anymore in its pure form. Modern audiences on a whole seem to demand heavy action elements, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Into Darkness was a little disappointing, but it was sufficiently well-executed that I enjoyed watching it, the way I enjoyed watching the Star Wars prequels; I wouldn't call them anywhere near as good as what has come before, but the entertainment value was solid if I approach them as independent works.
Understandably, that is not necessarily the approach the creators would wish for, and neither is it one that most fans seem willing to take. I don't blame them; the destruction of the Star Wars EU beginning with the recent animated series, culminating in the official culling by Disney have turned me off from the new AU completely. I have bookshelves full of novels that I read and loved and hated and didn't care for, that I'll continue to feel so about, but will likely never see an expansion.
As I said, I've never been much of a Star Trek fan. I never developed enough of an emotional attachment to feel strongly enough that I feel this reboot/alternate timeline has been bad, but I understand completely why more invested fans can hate it. It just isn't Star Trek in its full form. I would argue that the 2009 film that kicked it all off contained many of the core elements that attract fans to the older works, but many is not all. From what I know, J.J. Abrams originally intended this film as a sort of elaborate pilot for a new television series he wanted to create, and had Into Reference (upvote if you get the darkness, jk) pork-barreled into his contract. If that had been accomplished, I believe that the film would have received a much more positive reaction (assuming, of course, that this hypothetical show had remained true to the spirit of the franchise.) As it stands, I'm fully prepared to send Beyond to the C-list with all of the other gratifyingly gratuitously mindless action schlock that's come out most of my life, with a rousing "meh."
Side note: here's to hoping that Abrams has made something good out of The Force Awakens. I don't have much hope that it will revive the glory days of yore, but I'm thoroughly expecting a solid film with all of the pandering that I know I'll eat up.

 

[rainynight65]

Nijyo[/url]":33zwj2kd]
The Craig years have been utterly devoid of anything resembling those latter traits, and I, personally, think that they're worse movies for it.

To be honest, I think they're better for it.

I recently re-watched some of the Moore-era Bond movies, and while I subjectively love them (hence I have them all on DVD), objectively and in hindsight they're cringeworthy more often than not.

I loved the Craig movies specifically because they're such a departure from the old Bond patterns. I mean, with Brosnan they reached new heights of ridiculousness, culminating in Die Another Day, which in hindsight is just awful. In contrast, Craig portrays a human James Bond, who is cynical and callous, but at the same time vulnerable. Casino Royale was his introduction, Quantum of Solace his catharsis, Skyfall completed the reboot by introducing a new M, Q and Moneypenny, and now we see where we go with Spectre. The banter between Bond and Q in Spectre was great, and I just like the fact that there are less over-the-top, single-use gadgets around.

YMMV, but if the Bond franchise had continued on the path that it was heading down during the Brosnan era, I would probably not be following it today.

 

[bluloo]

Looks like it's going to be another over the top CGI-driven piece of shit, with a Star Trek theme.

 

[autochthonic]

siliconaddict[/url]":2wfa660e]

DrPizza[/url]":2wfa660e]

jafstar[/url]":2wfa660e]Peter,

That's why your're a tech writer and not a Hollywood sci fi writer or director.

You would probably make it so boring and dull with all of your fluff theories and mystical space sounds that no one would want to watch it much less pay to watch it.

The Martian, which is a proper sci-fi film, cost a little more than half what Into Darkness cost to make, and has already done over $100 million more at the box office. It seems very clear to me that people will, in fact, pay to watch real sci-fi..

Or more accurately pay to watch a REALLY popular book. JJ's Trek is sci fi. Unless I missed something no one has built FTL ships with transporters, and we haven't met aliens as of yet. So yes. It qualifies as Sci-fi. Its just Independence Day form of sci fi instead of something deep, meaningful, and thoughtful. *shrugs* Its a standard summer blockbuster, designed to make some fast cash by capitalizing on a popular franchise. Nothing new here.

What the author wants is a soap-opera set inside a space ship, rather than the action and adventure of movie scifi. Apparently he doesn't think Firefly or Serenity were scifi, based on his attitude. Not to mention, say, Kirk's epic fight with the Gorn.

 

[Oz7]

Modern Major General Thanatos[/url]":1eqv1hs7]

SixDegrees[/url]":1eqv1hs7]I'll say it one more time, just because it needs to be said, even though there's no hope of it:

Bring back Firefly.

Please.

Not happening. Now go watch Dark Matter. It's basically Firefly meets Farscape.

Furthermore, I think this trailer does a great job of explaining why one should sometimes just let a franchise gracefully die instead of trying to re-animate its corpse over and over again.

Dark matter is more Firefly than Farscape... perhaps with a hint of SG:U. Either way, highly recommended and can be watched sans ads on netflix.

 

[Lets all mariachi!]

EHowardHidell63[/url]":dclhllfq]

Megabeard[/url]":dclhllfq]Looks pretty fun to me. If you want to go to sleep then you can always rewatch DS9.

You're referring to the show that has some of the best space battles of all the series?

like when they blew up the stock footage not enteprise? Or that one clip of the defiant doing a thing, over and over and over and

 

[Abulia]

Bless you, Peter Bright. Bless you.

I had to watch Star Trek: The Motion Picture and Wrath of Khan to wipe that abomination of a trailer from my brain.

Star Trek truly is dead. Paramount is just reanimating the corpse as an action flick to squeeze a few more nickels out of it. It's a damn shame.

 

[3rdalbum]

From watching the trailer only, what is the movie about? What's the general plot?

I have no idea. There's people jumping, people fighting, and someone riding a petrol-powered motorbike in the future. I assume there's a reason why they are doing all these things in the trailer, but then again, that's just an assumption. The music and non-stop action sequences in the trailer makes the movie look loud and dumb.

Unless later trailers do a better job of describing the movie, I don't see why anybody would pay up to see it at the cinema. Trekkies already hate it and non-Trekkies don't know what it's about. They'd probably rather see the next superhero movie starring characters they already know, or the next remake of a classic movie where they already know what's going on.

Admittedly, Star Wars also keeps tight-lipped on its plot, but Episode VII sells itself, and the latest trailers give the impression of a decent story.

 

[eric123]

too early to say anything about the movie other than how they are selling it.
with action so far, and that makes a ton of sense.

need to know more about the story before i can judge it intelligently.

 

[gandalfSVG]

I'm so glad I'm not alone in this. Star Trek should not have more action than Terminator 2. These movies make me want to go to the first person I see and projectile vomit on him.

 

[Voldenuit]

daggar[/url]":2105cz7i]"Hey JJ-- we just got the expense report in for the Star Wars shoot. Looks like the AT&T bill was really high. Were you phoning something in?"

[edit]

JJ switched from AT&T to AT-AT.

 

[SamuraiArtGuy]

It definitely LOOKS amazing... But that's a matter of craftmanship, says little for plot and script.

But other than "there is where the frontier pushes back" line – I am not getting much sense of that whole "Explore strange new words, seek out new life and new civilizations" vibe... lotta fighting more angry aliens on some scruffy planet.

But please please PLEASE not another homicidal "Grrrrr Revenge!!!" space dude. Enough already after Nero, Khan (twice!), Shinzon, Ru'afo, Borg Queen (kind of), Dr Soran, Gen Chang... In the Next Gen films, they peeled Piccard from his forté, solving problems and communicating across cultural and species barriers to "beat the bad guys". This was all over the issues with "Enterprize" and it's unsatisfying run as well.

Gene Roddenberry rotates uncomfortably....

 

[Marid]

It's JJ Abrams folks. His stuff is schlock. It looks pretty, but doesn't make sense and lacks any kind of depth. Hollywood loves him because he makes money for the jerk floating in a pool sipping martinis.

I give the new Star Wars a 50-50 chance of producing any kind of lasting impact. And only because Disney doesn't want a repeat of Ep 1-3. Star Trek? Outlook bleak.

 

[ScifiGeek]

Marid[/url]":3elwpzq5]It's JJ Abrams folks. His stuff is schlock. It looks pretty, but doesn't make sense and lacks any kind of depth.

Agreed. I don't understand why he is so popular. He is just one step up on Michael Bay.

 

[muhname]

Meh, pretty much all Star Trek movies, old and new, suck. The original series wasn't IMO that good. TNG and DS9 on the other hand were great and Voyager was OK.

 

[althaz]

Blinken[/url]":rxxo9m6y]2 Trek 2 Furious

On the plus side, it cant actually be worse than 2Fast2Furious, the worst piece of cinema trash of all time.

This trailer was indeed awful, but that doesn't mean the movie will be (though it doesn't bode well).

I remain hopeful. JJ's first Trek movie was excellent and the latter was watchable, if not actually good. Both strayed pretty far away from previous Trek. A new director with what I think is a solid cast could do a good job, I'll wait and see.

Those talking about the Trek sci-fi themes etc are mostly talking about the TV show, which was interesting, but not actually very good (though I liked some of the series). The movies were always kinda action in space movies. Though they were more sci-fi than the new ones, so far.

 

[zogus]

nickf[/url]":32zflxm7]

Martin Blank[/url]":32zflxm7]
The previous movies haven't been sci-fi. They've been action movies in space. That's not what Trek is about.

If we're discussing all Trek movies then the original film definitely wasn't an action movie. It was as slow as hell, and I loved it. Definitely my favourite.

While I don't hate TMP either, you and the six other people on the planet who loved that movie failed to make it a commercial success. In fact, another TMP would probably have killed off Trek for good.

 

[Captiosus]

I remember watching the first Trek reboot and thinking: "This is more Star Wars than Star Trek." When it came out that Abrams was tapped to handle Star Wars, I was not surprised. It's clear that is where Abrams is better. The talky/techie formula of Star Trek just isn't his forte as he's clearly shaped, as a writer/director, by the space magic formula from Star Wars. Which reminds me of a video I saw years ago after the ME3 ending kerfluffle explaining the difference between Star Trek and Star Wars and how it related to the design of Mass Effect and the complaints about the ending. I wish I still had that video bookmarked, but I digress...

It's rather clear to me that JJ Abrams, faced with having both Star Trek and Star Wars to choose from, has decided to give his full attention to Star Wars, punting the future of Star Trek off to other people and (likely) industry "friends".

Marid[/url]":1ehumj3b]I give the new Star Wars a 50-50 chance of producing any kind of lasting impact. And only because Disney doesn't want a repeat of Ep 1-3.

That's true but there's also Lawrence Kasdan co-writing. If it was purely a JJ Abrams script, I'd be worried but since Kasdan has some experience reining in other writers (he kept Lucas from going insanely off the rails with ESB and fought for [but lost the argument on] a more somber ending for ROTJ), I am optimistic that Episode 7 will be decent.

 

[lyme]

The world has failed us, there are no more real morals to be learned that can be aggreed upon, stop with your brain washing.

I liked the trailer

 

[mvmiller12]

zogus[/url]":2v1xdrsm]

nickf[/url]":2v1xdrsm]

Martin Blank[/url]":2v1xdrsm]
The previous movies haven't been sci-fi. They've been action movies in space. That's not what Trek is about.

If we're discussing all Trek movies then the original film definitely wasn't an action movie. It was as slow as hell, and I loved it. Definitely my favourite.

While I don't hate TMP either, you and the six other people on the planet who loved that movie failed to make it a commercial success. In fact, another TMP would probably have killed off Trek for good.

Incorrect - adjusted for inflation, ST:TMP made MORE money (edit: at the domestic box office) than every sequel after it UNTIL the Star Trek reboot. It was most definitely a commercial success, just not a popular success.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises ... artrek.htm

 

[slymenstra hymen]

EHowardHidell63[/url]":11w6rbtv]

Megabeard[/url]":11w6rbtv]Looks pretty fun to me. If you want to go to sleep then you can always rewatch DS9.

You're referring to the show that has some of the best space battles of all the series?

Probably fell asleep before it got to them.