- Time
- Post link
Saw the 10 minute clip [end of it is just the teaser trailer]. Looks like fun.
- Time
- Post link
Neat.
My educated guess is some teaser trailers are tailored to a specific country or market.
Where were you in '77?
Star Trek Into Darkness — Page 4
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Kirk & crew encounter the first teaser trailer for 'Star Trek Into Darkness".
“First feel fear, then get angry. Then go with your life into the fight.” - Bill Mollison
- Time
- Post link
And we have new trailer.
A Goon in a Gaggle of 'em
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
This movie looks absolutely incredible. I think it's going to bring the goods, from big set pieces to deeply personal character moments.
“Grow up. These are my Disney's movies, not yours.”
- Time
- Post link
For a few seconds there, I thought someone placed the Man of Steel trailer soundtrack over Star Trek footage..
“First feel fear, then get angry. Then go with your life into the fight.” - Bill Mollison
- Time
- Post link
Johnny Ringo said:
Saw the 10 minute clip [end of it is just the teaser trailer]. Looks like fun.
I saw it too. It looks really neat.
<span style=“font-weight: bold;”>The Most Handsomest Guy on OT.com</span>
- Time
- Post link
They replaced the synopsis! No more "detonated the fleet and everything it stands for"!
Old Synopsis said:
In Summer 2013, pioneering director J.J. Abrams will deliver an explosive action thriller that takes Star Trek Into Darkness.
When the crew of the Enterprise is called back home, they find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization has detonated the fleet and everything it stands for, leaving our world in a state of crisis.
With a personal score to settle, Captain Kirk leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one man weapon of mass destruction.
As our heroes are propelled into an epic chess game of life and death, love will be challenged, friendships will be torn apart, and sacrifices must be made for the only family Kirk has left: his crew.
New Synopsis said:
In Summer 2013, director J.J. Abrams will deliver an explosive action thriller that takes Star Trek Into Darkness.
In the wake of a shocking act of terror from within their own organization, the crew of The Enterprise is called back home to Earth. In defiance of regulations and with a personal score to settle, Captain Kirk leads his crew on a manhunt to capture an unstoppable force of destruction and bring those responsible to justice.
As our heroes are propelled into an epic chess game of life and death, love will be challenged, friendships will be torn apart, and sacrifices must be made for the only family Kirk has left: his crew.
The new synopsis sounds less like it was written in Japanese and translated back to English. It also doesn't mention that one person is responsible, in fact it uses the plural. Were we too close to the answers, so they obfuscated the facts even more?
Star Wars Revisited Wordpress
Star Wars Visual Comparisons WordPress
- Time
- Post link
I'm a trekkie. I loved the 10 movies, even the one Shatner directed. Then I've seen JJ's movie and it was the first Trek-related film I hated. And the trailer to the "second" movies persuades me NOT to watch it. TNG HD is the only exciting Trek for me right now :-)
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
georgec said:
I think Abrams did a good job on the first one, and the alternate universe thing allows him to leave every preexisting thing in the myths intact. But his works seem less like ST movies and more like action movies set in the ST universe. And I don't mean that in a negative way.
That's exactly what Abrams did--and I do mean that in a negative way. He wants to make a sci-fi action movie? Fine. I just don't get why he'd brand it as Star Trek. He's taken a TV and movie series that was about thought-provoking stories with moments of action and created action stories with... Well, who are we kidding, with no thought-provoking content at all.
It'd be like making a movie of All In The Family, but instead of having a character-driven film that centers around challenging Archie's world views, fill it up with car chases, explosions, killer robots sent back from the future to kill Edith before she can give birth to Gloria and start the Resistance... oh, and have Archie walk onto the bridge of a naval destroyer and have him instantly promoted to the rank of Captain.
I'd have nothing against a movie like that, mind you. I just don't think it should be called All In The Family.
“It’s a lot of fun… it’s a lot of fun to watch Star Wars.” – Bill Moyers
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
bkev said:
And we have new trailer.
Star Trek + Mass Effect = This.
Keep Circulating the Tapes.
END OF LINE
(It hasn’t happened yet)
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
bkev said:
And we have new trailer.
This trailer doesn't tell us any more than the first one did.
It just had a few different clips.
Whoop-dee-doo.
Star Wars Episode XXX: Erica Strikes Back
If you want Nice, go to France
- Time
- Post link
The "first" trailer was a teaser teaser trailer. You know, the now common preview for previews that everyone does.
Star Wars Revisited Wordpress
Star Wars Visual Comparisons WordPress
- Time
- Post link
corellian77 said:
georgec said:
I think Abrams did a good job on the first one, and the alternate universe thing allows him to leave every preexisting thing in the myths intact. But his works seem less like ST movies and more like action movies set in the ST universe. And I don't mean that in a negative way.
That's exactly what Abrams did--and I do mean that in a negative way. He wants to make a sci-fi action movie? Fine. I just don't get why he'd brand it as Star Trek. He's taken a TV and movie series that was about thought-provoking stories with moments of action and created action stories with... Well, who are we kidding, with no thought-provoking content at all.
It'd be like making a movie of All In The Family, but instead of having a character-driven film that centers around challenging Archie's world views, fill it up with car chases, explosions, killer robots sent back from the future to kill Edith before she can give birth to Gloria and start the Resistance... oh, and have Archie walk onto the bridge of a naval destroyer and have him instantly promoted to the rank of Captain.
I'd have nothing against a movie like that, mind you. I just don't think it should be called All In The Family.
I largely agree. However, it was clearly a marketing move as well. Star Trek was on the ropes, but Abrams made a film that appeals to more modern audiences who like a little less thinking. I do enjoy the film, but it does sadden me how it has departed from the aspects of Trek that I loved. I watched Star Wars for action and adventure. I watched Star Trek for moral dilemmas and political commentary. When the respective franchises stray into the other arenas (read PT and ST'09), they suffer. That said, I did enjoy other aspects of that film with characters with the same names as Star Trek characters, but was not a Star Trek film. I just disconnect it from the real Star Trek universe in my mind.
- Time
- Post link
That "All in The Family" movie sounds so exciting! But now, I keeping wondering what a Quentin Tarantino version of "Maud" would be like.
“First feel fear, then get angry. Then go with your life into the fight.” - Bill Mollison
- Time
- Post link
corellian77 said:
That's exactly what Abrams did--and I do mean that in a negative way. He wants to make a sci-fi action movie? Fine. I just don't get why he'd brand it as Star Trek. He's taken a TV and movie series that was about thought-provoking stories with moments of action and created action stories with... Well, who are we kidding, with no thought-provoking content at all.
The blame for this doesn't lie with Abrams, though. The Star Trek movies have been dumbed-down, plotless action movies ever since Generations. The only major difference between the TNG movies and Abrams' movie, in that regard, is that Abrams' movie was a well done action movie.
Every 27th customer will get a ball-peen hammer, free!
- Time
- Post link
Hey now! I liked Generations and First Contact, and while there was some action, there was more to them than that. ST II, III, V, and VI were pretty action oriented as well, I thought.
- Time
- Post link
I stand by my statement. I'm glad you got some enjoyment out of Generations and First Contact, but in my opinion they are little more than dumbed-down action schlock covered with the paper-thin veneer of "plots" that are shoddily written and riddled with plotholes. The same goes for Insurrection and Nemesis.
I suppose I could type out a long rant summarizing all of my various gripes with these movies, but RedLetterMedia pretty much sums them up better than I ever could:
Every 27th customer will get a ball-peen hammer, free!
- Time
- Post link
darth_ender said:
Hey now! I liked Generations and First Contact, and while there was some action, there was more to them than that. ST II, III, V, and VI were pretty action oriented as well, I thought.
The original 60's series was an action show. Kirk had some type of hand to hand in most of the episodes, but TNG was much much more cerebral in it's focus. Picard hardly ever had a hand to hand combat in the TNG episodes, and the rest of the crew mostly did the point and shoot thing.
“First feel fear, then get angry. Then go with your life into the fight.” - Bill Mollison
- Time
- Post link
Love or hate what Abrams and Co. have done with Trek, you can't deny this is a wonderful thing for them to do.
Where were you in '77?
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
I don't understand this anti-Abrams thing. Have you guys seen TOS?? Really?? It was a fucking action adventure series with romance and humour. TNG was when we started having slow-paced episodes with philosophical discussions at conference tables. TOS had that element, but it was mixed in with a plot where spaceships were shooting each other and Kirk was uppercutting an alien lizard after flirting with whatever female was in that episode. TOS was a mainstream action television series and that's why it took off. I would say Abrams films take place along side the Nicholas Meyers films as the most faithful Star Trek movies made. Whoever says otherwise has either a short memory or has been too influenced by TNG (which I love) and the post-TNG series (which I don't love). I love TOS and Abrams has hit the nail on the head better than Meyers, who was dealing with an older cast who had the ability to reflect philosophically on their life, unlike the younger, more rip-roaring years of the 1960s show. In my opinion, anyone who hates the Abrams series was into TOS for the wrong reasons in the first place. Get lost so we can get back to Star Trek at its roots and at its best. Seriously, some Trekkies are pretty clueless. I have this suspicion that they say they know TOS but really don't, otherwise they wouldn't be saying such blatantly contradictory things. They would probably be saying ST IV was a disgrace with its humour and unrealistic time travel. If you think that, you shouldn't be watching ST TOS movies.
- Time
- Post link
Zombie, there was no female flirting in the Gorn episode. Trust me on this. ;)
Where were you in '77?
- Time
- Post link
LOL fair enough. The slow-motion wrestling moves took up enough screen time to kill any hope at romance.
- Time
- Post link
BTW, who here saw the intro with The Hobbit? How awesome was that? We all wanted the movie to continue! Luckily The Hobbit was a worthy successor. The 3D effects in ST made everyone in the audience duck, with all those spears flying in our faces. Loved it. I regret seeing the first film once, and this so far looks to one-up it in every way.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
SilverWook said:
Zombie, there was no female flirting in the Gorn episode. Trust me on this. ;)
One of my favorite episodes. Captain Kirk never did any "flirting"! That's what they call "Cowboy Diplomacy". ;)
“First feel fear, then get angry. Then go with your life into the fight.” - Bill Mollison