Trailer: ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’

The teaser trailer for the next J.J. Abrams installment of the Trek franchise, Star Trek Into Darkness has been released. I’ve embedded it here for your viewing, assuming you haven’t already seen it 10 times.

There was a time, back in my college days, around the time that First Contact was released, that I knew a ton about a Trek movie months before it even came out. Those days are long gone, and I haven’t followed Trek XII‘s production much at all, beyond knowing it was being made.

But I was informed today of the release of the teaser trailer for next May’s upcoming Trek film, which based on the title and trailer, seems like it’s going to be pretty, well, dark, I guess. If you’re going into darkness, I guess it’s going to be dark.

Please, no spoilers here. If you know way more about this movie than I do, don’t feel compelled to share. I’m going to go into it as oblivious as possible.

◄ Blog Home Page

83 comments on this post

Monday, December 17, 2012, 9:37 pm (UTC -5)

“Lost” and “Fringe” hint to me that Abrams might be capable of far better work in a televised version of Trek, yes.

BUT – and you yourself have expressed this in previous writings, Jammer – “Lost” wasn’t really an exploration of philosophical themes. It bore a promising Lord of the Flies element in the first season, but after that it degenerated into a collection of unconnected quasi-philosophical mini-puzzles and unresolved mystery plot threads that teased significance and then evaporated.

Credit Abrams and Lindelof (“Prometheus” suggests it was more Lindelof) for realizing that Google was a terrific ready-made Trivial Pursuit game just waiting to be harnessed to keep viewers hooked; great commercial move. But when it comes to real themes or imagination, it was all mostly borrowed and never led anywhere. That’s Lindelof’s reputation now, and Abrams has kinda gotten lumped into the same “unoriginal” category. He seems better suited to character development than allegory or imagination.

John the younger
Tuesday, December 18, 2012, 3:33 am (UTC -5)

@karatasiospa – For the record, I’m a ‘DS9er’ and I didn’t particularly like Trek 2009.

Re – Optimism in TOS: I think the only thing that was particularly optimistic about TOS was the basic premise.

Tuesday, December 18, 2012, 5:07 am (UTC -5)

@John the younger
i said MOST NOT ALL.


i quote @Brandon because i totally agree with him:
““Lost” wasn’t really an exploration of philosophical themes. It bore a promising Lord of the Flies element in the first season, but after that it degenerated into a collection of unconnected quasi-philosophical mini-puzzles and unresolved mystery plot threads that teased significance and then evaporated.”
There were no philosophical, moral or whatever themes in lost even less in Fringe. There were both incoherent and some times even nonsense stories (with the exception of Lost’s 1st season perhaps). In the case of Lost mixed with a little religiosity and an abundance of fantasy (fantasy not science fiction) cliches.

But it is true that both series were very good at character development and in Lost they were successful on creating a feeling of suspense. So if you want a star trek which will have only character development and perhaps a feeling of suspense then perhaps Abrams is the right man for you.

Tuesday, December 18, 2012, 6:47 am (UTC -5)

@John the younger
which TOS episodes were not optimist? And since star trek is not only TOS Thereis also TNG which was definitely optimist. The same is true for voyager, Even DS9 was not pessimist in the end although it was darker.

Tuesday, December 18, 2012, 11:48 am (UTC -5)

Fringe actually struck me as good sci-fi, though still stuck in Abrams’ fascination with alternate universes.

Tuesday, December 18, 2012, 6:43 pm (UTC -5)

Fringe for me is just gimmicks. They are just inventing new tricks every time they don’t know what to do with the story. The problem with time travel and parallel universes is that they can be easily used either for great stories or as gimmicks

John the younger
Wednesday, December 19, 2012, 3:39 am (UTC -5)


I will grant that most TOS episodes have ‘happy endings’. But a lot of them aren’t what I’d call upbeat and optimistic. Eg. Arguably the best episode “The City on the Edge of Forever”.

I remember watching it as a kid and thinking it was kinda weird and spooky.

Wednesday, December 19, 2012, 9:04 am (UTC -5)

@John the younger
optimism doesn’t mean that everything will bee happy and easy, Optimism means that things (human society for example) will become better but not neccesarily without some sacrifices, In the episode you mentioned kirk had to make a sacrifice so the “good” version of the future will continue to exist.

John the younger
Wednesday, December 19, 2012, 10:01 am (UTC -5)

I dunno, I think that kinda backs up my point.

Either way, we can both agree that with Abrams at the helm, neither of us are expecting a masterpiece; whether it follows Trekkian lore (whatever that is) or not.

Wednesday, December 19, 2012, 10:50 am (UTC -5)

@John the younger

Perhaps you could explain what you mean with the term “optimistic”?

Thursday, December 20, 2012, 8:26 am (UTC -5)

I saw second trailer:
Gosh! Beautiful!@

Latex Zebra
Monday, December 31, 2012, 5:22 am (UTC -5)

JJ is just directing. Kurtzman and Orci (one of which, can’t remember who is a massive Trek fan) are writing them as the 2009 film.
You can blame JJ for the lens flare and direction but if the story is not Trek then blame the writers.

Stange no one had a problem doing that with B&B during Enterprise.

Saturday, January 5, 2013, 12:54 pm (UTC -5)

While the 2009 Star Trek was a fun action romp and well made, it wasn’t Star Trek. There was no meaning, no exploration of a philosophical message. At least Nemesis had an interesting philosophical idea.

I’d like to see somebody closer to TNG or DS9 write a script and have JJ Abrams execute it. Imagine if a movie like Nemesis had been done well!

Friday, January 11, 2013, 5:43 am (UTC -5)

Star Trek 2009 injected a much-needed dose of fun and adventure into the movie franchise, following the previous two Trek films which were stale and unexciting. The reboot was clearly an attempt to broaden Trek’s appeal to the masses – it had action, humour, inter-personal conflict and cool cinematography, while still having nods to continuity to keep the core fans happy. I think a movie has to try and appeal to a wider audience, compared to a TV show which only has to keep the steady number of niche fans engaged in order to survive.

I think The Undiscovered Country and First Contact are the only Trek films which truly try to convey that positive message that Trek is so often characterised by. To be fair, that message was really expanded upon and reinforced in TNG. Yes, TOS had its share of allegory and idealism (not least in the casting), but it certainly had a more cavalier and Wild West approach to situations. It was also significantly focused on Kirk and Spock. It’s not surprising that the rebooted franchise, which is based on TOS, has adopted a similar attitude so far.

Friday, January 11, 2013, 7:22 pm (UTC -5)

Appeal to a wider audience all you like. I don’t even mind if you forget the much-ballyhooed message (well, yes I do, but I won’t lambast for it). I just want some depth to Trek. Resonance, imagination, truth, something.

The Trek movies may not have been all about the “Roddenberry message”, and they may have had varied degrees of success in conveying their ideas, but at least they were about something. Friendship and loyalty for II and III, time and regrets in VII, a massively macrocosm’d metaphor of the classic intellect/emotion debate in I, integrity and conscience in XI, identity and destiny in X. They tried to carry an idea that drove the plot. XI? Takes perfunctory stabs at – I dunno, what was it about? Daddy issues? – before rushing on to the next explosion/plot shoehorning.

I would rather watch any of the first ten Trek movies than Abrams’ vapid fan service. Yes, even V. I’m not even exaggering for the sake of my point. At least V had a couple of fleeting moments that made me ponder.

Friday, January 11, 2013, 7:23 pm (UTC -5)

“Integrity and conscience in IX” is what I meant to type.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013, 10:06 am (UTC -5)

I think JJ Abrams is a creative guy. But I get the feeling he was the kind of guy who used to take his GI Joes apart and reassemble them after mixing all the peices.

Everytime he plays with someone else’s toys he changes them around a lot, and I think Star Trek is no exception. I thought his first ST movie was amazingly cast, but it did not have the heart of ST. They did not boldly go where no one has gone before. They did not explore the human condition.

I’ll see the new trek, but probably not until DVD, unless I hear some great things from the hard core nerds.

Thursday, January 24, 2013, 8:16 pm (UTC -5)

Disney just hired Abrams to direct Star Wars 7.


Oh well, give him credit for knowing how to navigate Hollywood, at least.

Thursday, January 24, 2013, 8:49 pm (UTC -5)

Abrams is a far better fit for Star Wars. He actually might do very well there.

Friday, February 8, 2013, 5:24 pm (UTC -5)

The new Trek certainly does not feel like old trek. I will miss the old Trek style and hopefully we’ll see its return someday. That said, I’ll watch the new Trek movie and I know I’ll enjoy it.

Sunday, February 10, 2013, 7:19 pm (UTC -5)

Based on this, I’d say people are getting a little crazy over this movie already

I’ll probably see the new movie, under the old adage “the proof in the pudding is the eating”.

Saturday, March 2, 2013, 6:54 pm (UTC -5)

Wow, almost 3 months since the last blog post.

Is Jammer even alive at this point?? O____O

Saturday, March 2, 2013, 10:53 pm (UTC -5)

Jammer is alive, but has had some things going on which I will elaborate on in this space shortly. Also, I have the last new reviews on the way for the end of TNG’s seventh season. Several of them are already written. Stay tuned.

Monday, March 4, 2013, 8:26 am (UTC -5)

Shock! =D

Glad to hear from you, I feel like asking if something bad happened, but I’ll just wait for the blogposts, then.

It just felt like a bad omen you’d disappear so close to finish not just all TNG reviews, but also the totality of every single episode of Star Trek released so far.

I’ll stay tuned, anyway. 🙂

Greg M
Monday, March 4, 2013, 11:12 am (UTC -5)


Glad to know you’re still around. I found it odd that you stopped with only 6 more episodes of TNG to go. I know the seventh season isn’t as good as the prior seasons (I still liked it) but there are some great episodes still to be reviewed like Pre-emptive Strike and of course All Good Things…

Looking forward to the end of your TNG run, but it will be bittersweet. With TNG coming to an end, this whole review site might have just ran it’s course. Yeah you might pick up another series to review (Or the animated series and attach to your “Star Trek” reviews, but the whole review thing will pretty much be done. 13 years coming to this site (I’ve been here since I think the end of Voyager) and no more reviews to look forward to. That’s sad. 🙁

Monday, March 4, 2013, 5:39 pm (UTC -5)

Nothing bad has happened to me. On the contrary, all is very well. It has just sort of been a scheduling issue for the past couple months. I’ll give more details when I get a chance to do a proper blog post, which should be pretty soon, actually. And like I said, I’m THIS close to having those last six TNG reviews done.

David Ryan
Tuesday, March 5, 2013, 2:49 pm (UTC -5)

My word, some people here really have it in for JJ Abrams. I was no fan of Lost or any of his other work, but as a fan of TNG, DS9 and some of Voyager (plus bits of TOS that I’ve seen and most of the movies), I thought ST ’09 was pretty good. Yes, it had a lot more action in it than TOS. So did The Wrath of Khan and First Contact, as well as Insurrection and Nemesis. I’m not sure I see the point. Likewise, the lack of any kind of theme is being picked up on as a weakness, whereas I can think of a few off the top of my head – the importance of individual choice in shaping one’s destiny (Spock choosing to go to Starfleet, Kirk choosing to kick himself out of petty offending), a person’s actions having sometimes profound consequences (Spock’s failure to reach Romulus in time setting events in motion) and perhaps even the theme of new beginnings (Kirk leaving his past behind, McCoy leaving his divorce behind and perhaps even the whole reboot). Granted, they’re not spelled out in pontificate-like fashion and they do at times take a firm back seat to the special effects – but that doesn’t mean it’s a brainless merry-go-round. I hate films like that. I’m in agreement with Jammer – before denouncing him as the worst think in Trek history, let’s see what he comes up with this time around.

Tuesday, March 5, 2013, 4:13 pm (UTC -5)

No mention here yet of “Super 8.” That was J.J. Abrams channeling Steven Spielberg all the way, but it’s a very nice sci-fi adventure yarn that, like vintage Spielberg, saw the world through the eyes of 12-year-olds and had tragic, substantive underpinnings and some tough emotional situations that made the kids real characters and not just placeholders for a brainless summer action movie.

I myself do not buy into all the Abrams hate. In today’s Hollywood, Trek frankly could use a high-profile director to go along with its profile and pedigree. I don’t think Trek 2009 was the best ever, but given the need to balance characters and Trekkian substance with the lowest common denominator expected of today’s summer blockbuster, you could do far, far worse. If you think Abrams is half as soulless as someone like Michael Bay, you haven’t been paying attention.

Wednesday, March 6, 2013, 7:00 am (UTC -5)

jammer will you be interested in Defiance?

Wednesday, March 6, 2013, 12:16 pm (UTC -5)

I must confess to have never heard of Defiance until this very moment. I just Googled it. No, I won’t be watching it.

Wednesday, March 13, 2013, 4:42 pm (UTC -5)

The problem with this Trek movie -based on the trailer at least- is that Trek used to be about exploring the universe, seeing what’s out there, and finding adventures somewhat by accident along the way. The ideal of exploration in spite of danger and risk. This new movie is not about that. It’s about the Earth, not the universe, and heck, just about San Francisco from the look of it. It’s not a movie about the exploration of anything except how afraid people can be. In other words, it’s just like modern terrorism themes except wrapped in a Star Trek wrapper. It’s a movie designed to make you look at tall buildings and worry that someone might bomb them, instead of a movie that makes you look at the stars and wonder.

This is a terribly sad sort of movie to make. It’s not about hope and potential and the maybe of the future. It’s about how you can never escape dying at the hands of a terrorist -and I for one am sick of that crap. There is more to life that inspiring fear and more to life than allowing yourself to BE afraid, and that’s all this movie is about. Fear.

Churchill was right about fear, you know. If we ever actually want to inherit the stars, we are going to have to get the hell over our fears and over making stuff like this.

The other reason to doubt this movie is just by looking at who wrote it. The same idiot who wrecked Prometheus and turned what might have been a decent film into junk. Pretty, but junk.

Wednesday, May 8, 2013, 11:11 pm (UTC -5)

You guys do remember that Gene Roddenberry in addition to creating Star Trek and inspired Andromeda, helped create “V” and directly influences “Earth Final Conflict”. Despite idealism that the 60’s Star Trek was known for, he went dark in later years, long before most of America even thought about the ramifications of terrorism.

Before people start reciting Trekkian values and themes, let’s not forget that Gene was extremely dark on the concept of humanity. V and EFC were both basically based around extremists humans, who were armed to the teeth and could be considered terrorist to the authorities of their universe. Sure the aliens wanted to invade, but they used coercion and humanity itself for a powerbase.

The missing part to the Star Trek formula is in the darker exploration of human issues, something that is not blindly idealistic. Abrams at least is trying to explore the thread that Gene did in his later life, so why shouldn’t we as Trekkies embrace it as well?

Sunday, October 13, 2013, 8:03 pm (UTC -5)

Good day! I know this is kinda off topic but I was wondering if
you knew where I could find a captcha plugin for my comment form?
I’m using the same blog platform as yours and I’m having trouble
finding one? Thanks a lot!

Submit a comment


RSS feed for comments on this post

◄ Blog Home Page