Thoughts on the Teaser?

[Tricky]

Can't believe none of us have posted this yet:

http://youtu.be/BrHlQUXFzfw

[Aldaron]

Well, that just provides more evidence that the "tease" that Paramount is engaging in (It's Khan! It's Gary Mitchell! It's Bob the Builder!) is deflection. Not only does it sound like Cumberbatch is playing Khan, but it looks like we have Spock's Wrath of Khan death scene as well. Since they already spammed "I have been and always shall be your friend" in Abrams' last Trek faceplant, they had to come up with something different.

I wonder if Spock will give Bones his shakra as well.

Seriously, I wish people would stop paying J. J. Abrams to destroy my childhood. *sigh*

I think if Chris Pine screams "Khaaaan!" at any stage, I will simply lose it.

[PGoodman13]

I like what I'm seeing, but it doesn't point me to Khan in any way, shape, or form. The "Wrath of Khan death scene" is, I think, the producers of the trailer (not necessarily the same people who put together the movie, in case you're wondering why I phrased it that way) giving fans another red herring.

I don't believe it's Khan, nor was it meant to be. That was just a bunch of fanboys, I think, wanking about because they can't conceive that someone would want something different.

That said, the trailer infuriates me because it doesn't answer any sort of questions...which, I know, is part of the point, but they seem to forget their audience wants to know some basic info.

I enjoyed the 2009 film; I'm going to reserve judgment on this one for the time being.

[Aldaron]

I enjoyed the 2009 film; I'm going to reserve judgment on this one for the time being.

You make a good point about the Khan red herring thing, Patrick. My problem isn't that I want it to be Khan - I desperately don't want it to be. I think expanding the Gary Mitchell stuff could be really interesting, but I'm not convinced it would be him, either. I just hate the idea that they would be essentially remaking Wrath of Khan.

That said, my problem with the 2009 film (and likely with this one, if the trailer is anything to go by), is that I didn't dislike it as a science fiction film. I just disliked it as a Star Trek film. If Abrams had changed the names, I would have probably enjoyed it, too.

Unfortunately, after my experience with the 2009 film (where I nearly walked out when Spock marooned a fellow crewmate on a desolate planet, after nearly walking out when there was Nokia product-placement, after...well, you know), I won't be bothering with Into Darkness.

Star Trek - in terms of new stuff - is essentially dead for me, now. Continuing down Abrams' path means I will rely (happily so) on the DVDs (and soon, Blu-rays) of TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT for my Trek goodness...

[Sea Tyger]

This isn't Khan. Heck, John Harrison could even be "Johnny" from the first film car theft sequence.

(Actually, an idea just hit me...what about the possibility that Gary Mitchell, who apparently dies in IDW Issue #2, is able to survive in some ethereal form and possesses a body of someone familiar to Kirk...like his childhood friend from Iowa?)

Anyway, I'm in the "it's about bloody time!" camp. I'm looking forward to seeing the film. I loved Star Trek (2009), and have strong hopes for an even better story this time around.

[The Tatterdemalion King]

I hope he's Garth and that cool temple is Antos IV.

[The Tatterdemalion King]

And by "hope" I mean "This is a wild guess, it's not like I'm actually going to watch it."

[BaronVonStevie]

It comes off to me as brilliant marketing. A lot of people saw the 09 Trek. It was a breakthrough film that made stars, money, and revived the franchise. The second one is going to be a blockbuster and the questions raised in the trailer are exactly what the film needs to get a buzz going from people who are already hip to it. Smart stuff.

I think JJ and company are good at what they do... it's not Trek to me until I can sense some kind of moral or thoughtful insight. Star Trek is supposed to be a story about *us*... not these characters. I think Trek for the sake of Trek is what killed the franchise; that is to say when it has nothing vital to say. The 09 film was successful because it was a cash grab and that will be my opinion of JJ's work on Star Trek until I see something special out of it.

[selek]

It comes off to me as brilliant marketing.

It's only brilliant if it works. More of my friends are put off by the trailers thus far than attracted by it. This is one of those "only time will tell" things.

A lot of people saw the 09 Trek.

True. But fewer people liked it than saw it- and I don't know of a single "convert" who disliked Trek before they saw that movie and liked it afterward.

I can't name anyone who goes back and rewatches this movie the way they do the others.

Trek 2009 is something you watched once to see what the hubbub was about- and then shelved until Elvira Mistress of the Dark threatened to run a twelve hour Cloverfield marathon commercial free and uninterrupted.

It was a breakthrough film that made stars, money, and revived the franchise.

I really don't buy that, for the reasons I mentioned above, and as outlined below:

Not a single one of the "headliners" is demonstrably more popular or "in-demand " today than before the premier. I'm not aware of any evidence that their careers have "taken off" since Abrams abomination was vomited up onto the big screen.

Chris Pine is just as notable for his role in Unstoppable as his role as Kirk.

Most of the people screaming and swooning over Quinto were and are Heroes fanboys to begin with. Of the eleven gigs Quinto has since Star Trek came out, two are video games, and three are directly associated with the Trek franchise.

Two others are shorts, and one is a TV miniseries.

None of it is exactly Oscar material.

Zoe Saldana has had thirteen roles since 2009: two of those roles are Avatar, three more are Trek related, and the rest are B-movie skin flicks. She headlines in only one of those roles. Saldana's career appears to be matching trajectories with Carmen Electra's (and for the same reasons).

Karl Urban has eleven new roles since the premier- notably, headlining in the new Judge Dredd and as the antagonist in RED opposite luminaries Bruce Willis and Morgan Freeman. In my opinion, he is arguably the most successful of the new crew- but Christian Bale he's not (even if Urban is a MUCH better actor).

Anton Yelchin has had nineteen new roles. The peak of his career was playing the young Kyle Reese in the dismal Terminator: Salvation. Most of the rest of his work is either directly related to the Trek franchise or direct-to-video brilliance such as The Smurfs Christmas.

As to rejuvenating the franchise, I am torn between derisive laughter and soul-wrending sobs.

With the exception of a handful of designer toys marketed largely at collectors, Trekkers, and fanboys, I see no evidence that the franchise is any better off when they were punching Jonathan Frakes' time clock on a biennial basis.

Is there any evidence to suggest that the sales of Trek books are up? Magazines?
Comic books?
Movies?

Is there a plethora of new material? Of new fans?

Walmart in Utah has all but remaindered the Abrams Trek, selling em for three buck a copy.

Much the same can be said of the franchise as a whole....

The second one is going to be a blockbuster and the questions raised in the trailer are exactly what the film needs to get a buzz going from people who are already hip to it. Smart stuff.

Part of me is afraid you're right- but for the wrong reasons.

The 2009 movie was a triumph of marketing, not filmmaking. It was the success of Michael-Bay-all-flash-no-substance dazzle-em-with-special-effects-and-leave-em-deaf eye candy.

Because of the sychophantic praise heaped on that wholly-precedented waste of time, we can expect more of the same in this go-round.

And "people who are already hip to it" translates directly to "bringing in the die-hards who'll watch anything with Abram's name, Zoe Saldana's breasts, or a Star Trek logo".

All three of those demographics are fading.

The 2009 movie may have temporarily slowed the trajectory- but it's done nothing to stop it, and I have little hope that the 2013 movie will fare any better.

I think JJ and company are good at what they do...

If you define "what they do" as "self-evidently announcing their own brilliance", I am inclined to agree.

If you define "what they do" as "good, original Star Trek that doesn't insult the audience" then I disagree violently.

it's not Trek to me until I can sense some kind of moral or thoughtful insight.

Matters and insights which were notably absent in the first Abram's Trek.

Quinto stalking around the set brooding like Kurt Cobain on a bad day is not deep- it is merely annoying.

Star Trek is supposed to be a story about *us*... not these characters.

I agree, to a point. Ideally, Trek should be a vehicle through which we can imagine a better world than the one we are in and in which we can address serious moral and intellectual issues at a safe remove.

The 2009 Trek movie fulfilled none of those roles.

Yes- the 2009 movie was a good popcorn flick. What few moments it had were made by talented actors (such as Pine, Pegg, Urban, and Greenwood) and by script-writers who gave them some snappy lines ("You can whistle reeall loud")...

...but it wasn't good Trek by any stretch of the imagination.

I think Trek for the sake of Trek is what killed the franchise; that is to say when it has nothing vital to say.

I am more inclined to believe that Berman, Braga, their collosal egos and near-deliberate mismanagement by Paramount is the more likely culprit, but that's just my opinion.

The 09 film was successful because it was a cash grab and that will be my opinion of JJ's work on Star Trek until I see something special out of it.

I agree- it was a flash-in-the-pan designed to make money, rather than a lasting impact.

But as you admit above, Star Trek is- and should be- about something far more than stroking Abram's ego and filling Paramounts wallets.

Having been praised lavishly for producing a cheap knock-off with little artistic or intellectual merit, Abrams has little incentive to provide anything other than more of the same.

Indeed, Abrams approach to the franchise can be summed up in the lines of an Academy instructor:

"Is he not taking this <movie> seriously?"

[BaronVonStevie]

lol I'm not going to respond to that. I'm just going to wait until the movie comes out and makes a gazillion dollars to prove that they know what they're doing.

[BaronVonStevie]

Like I've said elsewhere, "you can take all the license with Trek you want. just don't make it dumb or take away its soul". Perfect example is TMP vs Wrath of Khan; the second film is nothing like the first, but it ends up telling such a good story and with such heart that nobody thinks about it. I don't mind young actors and thrilling action scenes... I don't mind lens flares or Romulans with tattoos on their faces... just don't give me something stupid and loud with nothing to say and call it Star Trek.

I think JJ made a fun movie, but I can't take another one *exactly like it*

[Tricky]

I still can't get over the 'Bane-esque' VO; yes i know that villians have always had a voice over in just about every modern trailer for a blocbuster, but this is the 3rd trailer of a major summer movie (two will be going head to head) with some guy going on about revolutionary stuff. (bane, this guy, and i guess the Mandrin in IM3).

If it's Kahn, he loses a lot of his punch without the personal conflict he had with Kirk. Sure, you could have him some how show up in the Trek present, and decide that he must rule again, but then he just becomes a supervillian. You could swap out any bad guy from any franchise (Dr. Doom, Goldfinger, Scar from the Lion King) and have the same basic movie.

Gary Mitchell brings us a little more; but I wonder if they would be cutting away the 'omnipotence' angle of things (although it would make the Starship crashing into the bay scene work well: the flung it out of the heavens) and replaceing it with the Skyfall villian's MO: I have a lot of knowledge about how things work in SF, and I am going to break it all! Again, still not that groundbreaking, although not used a lot in sci-fi, except in the "Balthar betrayed us" kinda thing.

Why can't JJ just TELL US what is what in his movies? I know people who thought Cloverfield WAS Godzilla, and my brother knows people who thought it was VOLTRON!?! (yeah, he has some out there friends)

[BaronVonStevie]

yeah come to think of it there was a silly amount of mystery about Cloverfield. In this case though, I think JJ wants a buzz amongst the already initiated.

[selek]

Like I've said elsewhere, "you can take all the license with Trek you want. just don't make it dumb or take away its soul". Perfect example is TMP vs Wrath of Khan; the second film is nothing like the first, but it ends up telling such a good story and with such heart that nobody thinks about it. I don't mind young actors and thrilling action scenes... I don't mind lens flares or Romulans with tattoos on their faces... just don't give me something stupid and loud with nothing to say and call it Star Trek.

You contradict yourself.

Wrek 2009 was stupid and loud and did take away Trek's soul.

And you loved it.

I think JJ made a fun movie, but I can't take another one *exactly like it*

I agree- he made a fun movie.

But it was unworthy of the mantle of Star Trek for precisely the reasons (no story, petty, and pandering) that you named.

[Sea Tyger]

Wrek 2009 was stupid and loud and did take away Trek's soul.

In your opinion.

A lot of folks loved the film, and certainly didn't think it was "stupid and loud" or take away Trek's soul.

As someone who feels TOS is the heart and soul of Trekdom, I loved Star Trek (2009) and thought it did good service to the original crew...heck, I watched the film four times in the theaters!