Comments

  1. Jack M says

    Seems like a boring supervillain movie. I haven’t been impressed by the new ST movies, or the actors.

  2. Rich F. says

    Hmm… How many MORE ways can Abrams screw with canon?

    @ Jack M: I’m not the biggest fan of the Abrams reboot by any stretch of the imagination (it’s clear that he’d never watched Star Trek in his life, and is WAY to influenced by Star Wars), but I think Zach Quinto is actually very good as Spock, and I really like Simon Pegg as Scotty. And while John Cho does a decent job as Sulu, he’ll still always be Harold in my eyes.

  3. al says

    Very pretty looking with more pretentious, over-modulated dialog. Can’t actors speak in real tones anymore? It just comes off like another growling Batman movie but in space.

  4. says

    I don’t know what THIS is, but it isn’t Star Trek. The last film was pretty good, but this going too far. Paramount has killed the franchise.

  5. says

    THIS looks like a fun two hours to me! Huge Trek fan, a little bothered by the reboot’s re-imagining (Scotty a goofball comedian? No more Vulcan??), but canon aside, the last one was a really good movie. There are about 100 Trek books you can read if you want to stay immersed in the original, but don’t begrudge a well-above average sci-fi/action flick.

  6. Dback says

    Ooh, a J.J. Abrams flick with lots of explosions and things crashing? How new and revolutionary of him.

  7. Will says

    These new Star Trek movies are just some crapy sci-fi movies with the title Star Trek slapped on.

  8. Brian says

    I liked Abrams 1st film in the new franchise and am looking forward to this one, but I will never understand Americans’ fascination with unattractive (if not downright creepy) British actors like Cumberbatch, Pattinson and Garfield.

  9. Scooter says

    It would be hilarious if somehow they bring the timelines back together in a Dr. Who like 5 Doctors movie, and like Bob Newhart, William Shatner wakes up next to Leonard Nimoy and says, “Spock, you should wear more sweaters.”

  10. Brett says

    Looks amazing to me. Hard to see how “Paramount has killed the franchise” when the last movie was so successful and there is so much interest in the next. The complainers on this page seem really, really old.

  11. Zlick says

    There are something like 785 episodes of stuff called “Star Trek,” so I’m willing to grant wide latitude. Most of Trek is TV, with a very, very small minority being movies – which, of course, have an outsize effect. But I think the massive amount of TV helps to keep the importance of any individual episode in perspective. Cut it some slack.

    Having seen most of it, dating all the way back to when I watched the original as kid in the 60’s, and being a big if not nearly fantatical fan, I find the indescribable “tone” of any Star Trek project to be paramount (no pun intended).

    To me, J.J. Abrams’s first Trek effort got an “A” for tone, but an “F” for annoying plot holes and mistakes and just plain absurdities (even for a sci-fi fantasy). But tone being most important (to me), the project was successful enough, and I look forward to the next installment.

    Yeah, it looks villain-centric. So was the best of the Trek movies, Wrath of Khan. That one got the tone spot-on perfect. I’m eager to see how the new one fares.

  12. Tim says

    Why are there British flags flying in London? In Star Trek, there are no more individual nations on Earth. In the entire history of Trek, in all the various scenes in San Francisco, you never see a US flag.

  13. Zlick says

    Where is anyone getting there are no nations on Earth in the 23rd century Trek universe? Picard hails from France, if I’m not mistaken.

  14. Rich F. says

    @ Zlick: There are regions, but no national governments. Granted, that doesn’t discount the possibility of the regions maintaining their symbolism, and it’s not entirely unlikely that the British would hold onto the Union flag for historical reasons, but it doesn’t really fit with the Trek ethos.

  15. jaragon says

    I agree with Dave- this trailer does not look like a “Star Trek” movie-I thought Abrams did a great job with bringing new life to the origin story but this things looks like a generic sci-fi terrorist plot- and that guy playing the villain is dull.

  16. Rich F. says

    @ Ryan: For it to be a Section 31 movie, it would require Abrams and Lindeloff to have watched Deep Space Nine. I doubt they’ve even bothered to watch TOS yet.

  17. SeanInSeattle says

    At all the haters: I show you something fantastic; you find fault. That is so Welsh.

  18. Will says

    There’s no determining one way or another if individual countries exist, because they never talk about the government of Earth in the future in any of the shows. The Federation is (*gasp*) a federation, and so each member planet is still “independent” (having ambassadors, they must be). What the Earth political landscape looks like is never touched upon, other than that Picard is from France, Chekov is from Russia, etc.