Star Trek Into Darkness

[DocM]

First trailer due Dec 6, 2012

[Dashel]

Any bets on it being Gary Mitchell?

Don't care for betting but if it is, Giggity!

[Rappy Veteran]

First trailer due Dec 6, 2012

Yep posted Simon Peggs tweet earlier in the post, can't wait!

[Xoligy]

Only just seen this, will defo check utube and what not for this trailer.

Btw Rappy is your sig ment to look like garfield? o.O Is that the secret enemy in Star Trek?! :o

Rappy leaks! lol

[TheLegendOfMart]

Oh dear, just watched the trailer what a load of garbage, hes turned Star Trek into some Michael Bay action film.

[Tuishimi]

No in the novels Q faced 0 (I'm not making that up btw lol) and Sha'Ka'Re was a cohort (but not the same entity or species or what have you) of 0 along with a couple other evil entities. The Q Continuum created the Galactic Barrier to keep 0 from ever getting back into our galaxy (even though he existed outside our space time continuum to begin with...whatever lol) but he "seeped" in at some point which lead to the novels and what transpired there. Eventually Q himself (not the whole Q, but Q Q lol) merged with the Calamarain (I think) and became a new entity and shored up the barrier so 0 could never get back again, and there wouldn't be anymore Gary Mitchell episodes etc :D

I have to much time on my hands.

I have that lying around somewhere... wasn't the asteroid that hit earth and wiped out the dinosaurs caused by the trouble Q got in with that gang of immortal/omnipotent beings? And Q's punishment for that was to monitor and protect life that might come from Earth in the future... which explains his involvement later... with picard et al... (and actually with the old series, Kirk and crew encountered most of the "gang" of beings).

[DocM]

Teaser -

[TheLegendOfMart]

Truely awful, the morons will lap it up because it has things blowing up, this isn't Star Trek, they are ruining the franchise by riding on the name, **** JJ Abrams, overrated twunt.

[Osiris]

haha whoever said it looks like Michael bay got his hands on this wasnt joking. I am intrigued by who the bad guy is and what their lore is, is there any news on that front or is that something perhaps to look forward to?

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

Truely awful, the morons will lap it up because it has things blowing up, this isn't Star Trek, they are ruining the franchise by riding on the name, **** JJ Abrams, overrated twunt.

Did you hate the first one? Because that movie had a lot of explosions. I'm a huge fan of Star Trek and I liked the teaser.

[TheLegendOfMart]

No, I enjoyed the first one for what it was. This looks so bad.

[Kyang]

Oh dear, just watched the trailer what a load of garbage, hes turned Star Trek into some Michael Bay action film.

That already happened with the first one.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

No, I enjoyed the first one for what it was. This looks so bad.

So why do you think this one is going to be bad after watching a 1-minute teaser? I liked the teaser for what it was but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to like the trailer or the full movie. I've already made the decision to watch it in theatre because I trust the writers and the director. But even if I didn't, I'd at least wait until a full trailer is released to properly gauge my interest.

[Vykranth]

The teaser is a little bit too summer-action-movie generic to my tastes. Remove the two scenes with the Enterprise

(that is water-proof now?)

and that could have been almost any super-hero movie.

Still waiting for a full trailer.

[Steven P. Administrators]

The teaser is a little bit too summer-action-movie generic to my tastes. Remove the two scenes with the Enterprise

(that is water-proof now?)

and that could have been almost any super-hero movie.

Still waiting for a full trailer.

It wasn't already vacuum proof?

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

The Japanese teaser is a little bit longer. I'm convinced that the villain is

Gary Mitchell

.

[yeoo_andy_ni]

The teaser is a little bit too summer-action-movie generic to my tastes. Remove the two scenes with the Enterprise

(that is water-proof now?)

and that could have been almost any super-hero movie.

Still waiting for a full trailer.

Are you serious? Are you saying something that can survive the vacuum of space isn't waterproof?!

[TheLegendOfMart]

So why do you think this one is going to be bad after watching a 1-minute teaser?

Star Trek isn't about blowing things up and action sequences which is all what the trailer showed. Gene is probably spinning in his grave at this atrocity.

Are you serious? Are you saying something that can survive the vacuum of space isn't waterproof?!

Vacuums are different to liquid, starships have exhaust ports that can get flooded

[Vykranth]

Are you serious? Are you saying something that can survive the vacuum of space isn't waterproof?!

I am. It's a question of pressure: in spaceships, the pressure is coming from the atmosphere from the starship to the exterior. 1 atmosphere inside versus 0 exterior.

Underwater, in submarines, the pressure is coming from the outside to the interior of the sub trying to crush: 1 atmosphere inside versus potentially many depending on the depth.

Take the probes sent to Venus by the Russian space agency during the 70s, flew from Earth to Venus, crushed by Venus atmospheres in minutes.

Besides, it is not as if

1 - in the teaser,

the Enterprise reaches the water gracefully

2 - Enterprise starships are fragile: a certain Captain Picard did shave one third of the 1701-E saucer while ramming a Scimitar.

[Guest seanseany]

So Star Trek is real now is it ? Wow :rofl:

[devBrian]

Star Trek isn't about blowing things up and action sequences which is all what the trailer showed. Gene is probably spinning in his grave at this atrocity.

Yeah, Star Trek is about terrible set and costume designs with wooden acting and Kirk screwing alien chicks.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

Star Trek isn't about blowing things up and action sequences which is all what the trailer showed. Gene is probably spinning in his grave at this atrocity.

You haven't answered my question. What I don't understand is how you've already made up your mind about the movie after watching a 1-minute trailer teaser. You seem to dislike things that blow up but you enjoyed watching the first movie (which had a lot of explosions and action sequences).

So, I ask again... why do you think this one is going to be bad after watching a 1-minute teaser? By the way, the teaser showed more than just explosions and action sequences. I've only seen it a couple of times but I recall seeing only one explosion.

[George P Global Moderator]

It seems people forget all the action and things blowing up in the past movies as well. One of the things I like the most about star trek are the ship vs ship fights like in STII and ST6. Whatever the teaser showed, it's a teaser, it's meant to grab your attention, so they show you parts from the action scenes. I really doubt that's the majority of the movie at all really. It's kinda funny to see the knee jerk reactions though. I like what I see though, the movies have always been about Kirk and crew saving the day. If you want a random lets go off and explore this weird planet type thing then what you want is a new tv series and not a movie.

[trag3dy]

I am. It's a question of pressure: in spaceships, the pressure is coming from the atmosphere from the starship to the exterior. 1 atmosphere inside versus 0 exterior.

Underwater, in submarines, the pressure is coming from the outside to the interior of the sub trying to crush: 1 atmosphere inside versus potentially many depending on the depth.

Take the probes sent to Venus by the Russian space agency during the 70s, flew from Earth to Venus, crushed by Venus atmospheres in minutes.

Besides, it is not as if

1 - in the teaser,

the Enterprise reaches the water gracefully

2 - Enterprise starships are fragile: a certain Captain Picard did shave one third of the 1701-E saucer while ramming a Scimitar.

Yeah. Because Star Trek is totally based on reality.

I guess people forget to check their suspension of disbelief at the door when the click on the play button. Sorry but I think sci-fi movies aren't for you.

Anyways, teaser looks amazing and I'm no where near what you'd call a fan of star trek.

[Kyang]

Yeah. Because Star Trek is totally based on reality.

I guess people forget to check their suspension of disbelief at the door when the click on the play button. Sorry but I think sci-fi movies aren't for you.

Anyways, teaser looks amazing and I'm no where near what you'd call a fan of star trek.

It's not about being real-world realistic, it's about operating within the limits of the universe itself. Star Trek's science was always at least paid lip service to real science, and keeping this in mind, basic things like pressures and the dynamics of atmospheres were always observed.

I guess that's why I'm not bothered by the water scene. Such a feat is easily hand-waved away by fact that the new Enterprise is a ship that we now know can survive super close proximity to a black hole, and then an immensely violent anti-matter explosion right after, and keep on flying happily. Being underwater a few hundred meters shouldn't matter. I mean the pressure from a black hole has to be way worse than a comparatively shallow ocean right?

...Or maybe they diverted power from the deflector to the structural integrity fields. That always seems to do the trick. :laugh: .