February 21 2024


An archive of Star Trek News

Star Trek Into Darkness Trailer Debuts! – Updated

1 min read

Eager fans can finally get a glimpse of Star Trek into Darkness, with the release of the first trailer for the movie, which was released today and is now online.

The trailer can also be seen at the official movie site.

UPDATE: A Japanese trailer, seen below, has an extra scene at the fifty-eight second mark.

About The Author

135 thoughts on “Star Trek Into Darkness Trailer Debuts! – Updated

  1. Whatever happened to good story telling without all those special effects? Bring Shatner Back in the next one please.

  2. ssighment Earth. Gary had incredible power ANDKNOWLEDGE He was human ,but, he was from another world. Most important he was sent to scare the human race, His mission could change with the new time line. A reference to the old show , Spock neck pinch could not stop Gary seven.

  3. If you’re still expecting any continuity with the Old Abandoned Timeline, I wouldn’t get your hopes up. (The age of Chekhov, the size of the Kelvin and other elements from the 2009 film strongly suggested this timeline wasn’t the same even before the time travel incidents.)

  4. Guest – “continuity?” Are you serious? Well… good thing ultimately that Cumberbatch IS NOT Charlie X then…

  5. Bradley – the writer’s told us more than a year ago that the villain was going to be a CANON character from Star Trek – that means it’s a character that appeared in Star trek at some point…

  6. I must have missed that bit of news then. LOL. Of course, it could be an even more minor character, or one we wouldn’t expect. Maybe even one from the TNG or Enterprise eras (as long as it doesn’t require time travel)

  7. ‘ Could you find nothing in the trailer that piqued your interest?’

    No. If anything, my hopes for a good movie are lower than before. My hopes for a good ‘Star Trek’ movie are zero.
    I do not require over-blown spectacle and scenery chewing.

  8. ‘ Could you find nothing in the trailer that piqued your interest?’

    No. If anything, my hopes for a good movie are lower than before. My hopes for a good ‘Star Trek’ movie are zero.
    I do not require over-blown spectacle and scenery chewing.

  9. The ship “rising” is the Enterprise. In HD – you can clearly see NCC-1701 on the nacelle under the water spray. Considering the general shape – it’s also most probably the Enterprise we see in the “crashing” scene – though i wonder if it’s really “crashing…”

  10. Actually – no – his mission would NOT have changed because the timeline was NOT changed until Spock went back in time to a point when Kirk was born. Gary Seven from Assignment Earth went on his mission in the 1960s. LONG before the timeline was altered. remember – in the episode – the Enterprise went BACK in time to the 1960s – at which point they THEN met Gary Seven. So… yeah – NOPE not Gary Seven.

  11. NOT interesting… it’s merely an AD that is using keywords to target consumers. Star Trek II:TWOK – being SOLD alongside an article about Star Trek 2… Perhaps you should learn how hi-tech advertising has become.

  12. yeah, but it’s not the 1980s anymore. The world has changed, people have changed. ST changed from the TOS era to TNG and DS9 to speak to it’s audience in the language of it’s time. Than change has stopped and we got the same old stories over and over again until ST got so outdated and hollow, it was shelfed.
    I think JJ is doing the right thing, and if anything, i think he can deliver a great action movie without destroying the core values and still deilvering a message.

  13. You dismiss Charlie X because of his age… and then chastise us for any irritation we have with Abrams… Okay, then riddle me this: How do you reconcile Chekov? At all? Just wondering, since he should be about 12 at this point………

  14. People can’t have their cake and eat it too… Either the original timeline was destroyed, or he didn’t return within his own timeline… The producers are adamant that it’s an alternate… as such, we don’t have any clue about the events of this universe, before, during, or after the incursion of Nero and Spock. Period. Besides, we already know it was different, it’s not like the Kelvin should be that size, nor should Chekov be his age… so, it’s clearly a different reality… and making judgements based on the original is rather silly.

  15. I think he could be Harry Mudd! Could be Mitchell, remember in the last movie Spock had Kirk ejected on the planet Delta Vega, that’s where kirk originally killed Mitchell.

  16. Sorry McdoubleB – your logic is flawed. Darkness and negativity are not the language of “this” time in my dojo. In reality – can anyone say they prefer darkness and negativity to the positive and uplifting? No – didn’t think so… and your remark tells me that you must be very very young… because in 1986 – the Cold War was still on – the world was still in chaos… darkness andnegativity could just have easily been the “language of that time.” Ad it’s interesting that you talk about not “destroying core values” when that is EXACTLY what has been done here… but then again – as good as DS9 was… I still remember a little piece of advice Gene Roddenberry tried to give… “when it becomes about pompous Admirals pontificating Intergalactic politics it runs the risk of becoming Buck Rogers foolishness.” He’s right – it has…

  17. Mike – you answered your own question… he “SHOULD” be – no ages were ever given in TOS – or the six TOS movies… so you DON’T know if Chekov would be 12… HOWEVER – we do know that Charlie X was 16 at the time of TOS – SO WE KNOW Cumberbatch can’t be playing Charlie X. This is what is known as Fact versus Speculation. Facts always win.

  18. Sorry Mike – but your theory can’t change simple paradox theory… The timeline was NOT changed until the 23rd century… everything BEFORE then is the EXACT same as it was in the Prime Universe (Since Abrams and company made a point during the first film to explain that this new universe was an offshoot because of the changes to the timeline made by Spock… in the 23rd Century – which means Gary Seven’s mission in the 20th Century went ahead – just without the interference of Kirk and Spock – meaning Gary Seven accomplished his mission of screwing up the missile launch without all the BS of Kirk and Spock meddling. I refer you to Back to the Future… πŸ˜‰

  19. I’m pretty sure it’s either Carol Marcus or Dr. Dehner – but I’m COMPLETELY ruling Chapel out because of this: We know Chapel was on the Enterprise because McCoy asked for her assistance when he brought Kirk into Sickbay when they first boarded the Enterprise before the mission. So it would make sense that at some point Kirk met Chapel – either during the ensuing events – or during their missions that took place between the first and second movie. in the new trailer we see a scene where the blond walks up to Kirk – and Kirk looks at her – and the look in both of their eyes is that this is their first meeting – it has all the hallmarks of what Hollywood acting says is “HI there – we’re gonna get to know each other.”

  20. Oh, I know the problems… and you’re right to an extent… There is nothing in the movie that would suggest it was a different timeline. However, Abrams and co have been adamant that they did not destroy the original timeline, but rather Spock was operating in an alternate. You cannot change the past of a timeline without destroying the previous future, indeed. Which is why either Spock went to a different reality or everything we’ve ever seen in Star Trek before was destroyed… ceased to exist… Now, while the movie points to the destruction, I assure you, CBS, Paramount, and Abrams are very clear that’s not their intent… whether bungled in the mythos or not. So, sure, what we see and everything that Star Trek has ever been suggests that Spock’s adventure destroyed the previous timeline, but they claim that’s not the case… and the only way for that to not be the case is if Spock didn’t return to the past within his own timeline, the prime timeline, but rather exited to a different quantum reality…

  21. Yes, I agree. We already have proof that Trek doesn’t need to be aimed at a “much larger” audience to be successful. It just needs to be aimed at audience. Period. Roddenberry didn’t underestimate the audience, he was always confident the audience can deal wit cerebral stuff, and he was right. All this “reaching wider audience” or “masses” is just an excuse for making radical changes which are supposed to turn Star Trek into something that’s actually not Star Trek anymore in its essence. Let’s leave darkness and negativity to Star Wars. Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate SW, but to make ST SW-like is definitely wrong. I’m quite sure Gene Roddenberry wouldn’t approve of any of this. THIS is not the only way for ST to be successful. Actually, ST built its success essentially on the optimistic and positive view, portraying the future accordingly. Not on portraying apocalyptic future, but a hopeful future, one of optimism. That’s what made it so uniquely different from other sci-fi. Of course the world has changed, it’s changing every day, but even if it changed for the worse, does that mean ST has to change for the worse, too? Does it too have to embrace apocalypse, terrorism, negativity, revenge, “darkness” as its main themes? As you pointed out, the world had tough times before, maybe even worse than today in some aspects, and yet ST retained its optimistic outlook. Of course, we had DS9, which kinda deviated from that a bit, but it still remained well within the boundaries of the established canon and of the idea. It had many original stories, concepts and characters. I liked DS9, although I do not consider it to be representative of Star Trek, since ST is essentially about a journey of a crew in a starship. So, I think ST is definitely going the wrong way. This is like Dark Ages for Trek. The title is appropriate.

  22. Frankly, if JJ-Trek is the best we can get from the franchise in 2012, then its time Star Trek really did die. Better to die with the vision intact then live by watering down the message.

  23. Wow, this looks even less like Star Trek then the previous film did. Truly “Star Trek” is dead. What we are left with is a mindless action movie. Damn you Paramount!

  24. Trekfan… I agree 100% percent when you wrote about Gene’s reaction to today’s Trek. I’m sure his son Rod would put a positive spin on it – but frankly – Just remember Gene’s reaction to the original treatment for Star Trek:The Next Generation Paramount that Greg Strangis did… Gene called it “Animal House in Space.” And I have no doubt as to what he would feel about today’s incarnation.

  25. Mike… again – you are not using facts here… I’ve seen 90 year old men called 40 year old dudes a young whippersnapper… What does Kirk saying Chekov was young have to do with giving an actual age? He was young – meaning he was green and inexperienced in life… You’re beating a dead horse trying to justify this – but you can’t. Not trying to be rude here… but – Chekov can be young at 17 — he can also be considered young if he was a green 22 year old ensign… The five year gap in between is the age difference YOU yourself cited a few posts before when you said Chekov should be 12… I think 17-22 year old age range (+/- 5 years) still keeps Chekov in canon – while saying the 36-year-old Cumberbatch could be 16 year old Charlie X is just plain stupid (+/- 20 years). And we already know from the writer’s themselves that they at least have enough respect for the franchise that they’re not going to make a mistake like that – regardless of the alternate timeline or not.

  26. I enjoy smoking pot – but I think in this case – you have smoked yourself retarded… As far as your comments about the size of the kelvin and such things… this is an instance where it is simply the nature of the beast – did you honestly think they were going to spend 100 million dollars on recreating a 1960s bluescreen model shot effect? Of course the kelvin was going to look the way it did… ditto with the ship interiors – did you honestly think they were going to have plywood corridors with styrofoam packing pieces painted red and glued to them? And if you want to talk about “alternate universes” – then just go with the bubble theory – there are trillions and trillions of Universes – each action spawns a series of universes which explores the outcome of every action of everything… As I said – lay off the bong… In this case – I’ll go with what Spock said… “An ancestor of mine maintained that if you eliminate the impossible,
    whatever remains – however improbable – must be the truth.”

  27. I didn’t dismiss Charlie X at all. In fact, I defended the possibility. In fact, I said that the timeline split could mean he was born earlier, like Chekov.

    I don’t really like to fight about Abrams’ Star Trek XI. I know there are problems with it, but they came about because of a large number of factors and people involved. Not Abrams alone. I think the biggest problem was its script. There were quite a few cop outs in the story (but also a lot of good parts), but it was written during a writers’ strike. I do enjoy the film though.

    This one, I think, looks a lot better and more like previous Star Treks. We actually see ‘strange new worlds in the future, and the crew is probably closer now too.

  28. A perfect quotation, but for me, not you… See, you suggest that Spock returned to the past within his own timeline and that created a new offshoot timeline… Why? Why didn’t that happen when McCoy went back and saved Edith Keeler. Why wasn’t he then in an offshoot? Why did his actions erase everything around the Guardian in that future? Or, why didn’t the Borg create a new “bubble” as you put it when they returned to 2064? Why didn’t they assimilate Earth in that past and go about their business? Why did those events change everything outside the spacial distortion? Why does Tasha Yar going back in time and eradicating her own future happen instead of her entering a bubble? Need I go on? You can grasp at whatever ridiculous reasoning you want… There are but two options: Either Spock returned to the past and destroyed the timeline that went before (like in every incarnation of Trek time travel ever encountered except Time’s Arrow (which was a predestination paradox and wholly different)), or he returned to the past of a different quantum reality… in which case, nothing of the history of his original timeline bears any signifance, and thus you can have many, many changes. Thus, I have eliminated the impossible, and those are the remaining improbabilities… take your pick, but don’t just go making more stuff up… Unless you’d like to provide ONE example of it ever happening in Trek before.

  29. Mike – the answer to your Spock and Edith Keeler question is answerable easily by saying that Spock’s trip through time was the result of the GUARDIAN of Forever and not some “natural” time travel… The GUARDIAN sent him back – and when Spock and Kirk returned – the Guardian made a point to say that time was repaired and all was brought back to what it was – Maybe that’s why the structure/device was called a GUARDIAN – look up the word and see what it means. That means they may as well have never gone – because time went back to the way it was. And every example you cite after that is actually more preposterous and is based on some psuedo science you think if real. And as far as your question: “Spock returned to the past within his own timeline and that created a new offshoot timeline… Why?” – I’ll tell you why DUNCE – because that’s is exactly what the writers and director and Nimoy himself said happened when they made the first film. There’s this cool thing called google – try googling the behind the scenes interviews conducted for the first NuTrek. You’ll see I’m right – you’re wrong – but obviously your limited intellect can’t handle the fact that this is a movie and doesn’t follow you’re non-science science. it follows the intent of their creators. πŸ˜‰

  30. The villian is definitely Gary seven from the original star trek show the assighment to earth.

  31. Well, I just learned what the next trailer is going to be about. One that solves the mystery about the ‘hands on the glass scene’.

    It turns out that it is not the rumored death of Spock that fans are so worried about. Here is the inside scoop.

    Trailer opens with Christopher Pike(VO), telling James Kirk that he has courage but no humility, and someday that will get him and his crew killed.

    Full STAR TREK trailer indicates hands against glass scene is actually Spock and Cumberbatch.

    The hands against glass scene seems to be Cumberbatch in the brig.

    Supposedly there are scenes of space combat in the full STAR TREK trailer. Including someone in an environment suit zooming around.

    Things are getting more and more interesting with this sequel.

  32. If anything really needs to die, it is Starship Farragut and Star Trek Continues. Those two petty and vindictive series from Farragut Films has done more than watering down the message behind Star Trek. Both have literally ‘poisoned the wells’ like the Romans did in their wars of conquest.

  33. I believe that too. Unlike Rick Berman and the former staff, J.J. Abrams has gone to great lengths to bring life back into Star Trek and so far he has done an excellent job.

    I doubt that many fans will be disappointed by the results of this sequel. From what I can tell, this will be a huge success at the box office. No doubt the next and third Star Trek film that Abrams and his staff are contracted to do will also be successful(whenever that release date is).

  34. lol, wow, where to start… oh yeah, with the obvious: I didn’t ask about Spock returning to the past with regard to Edith Keeler, that’s obviously because the area around the Guardian was exempt from the changes… it doesn’t change the fact that McCoy went to the past, changed it, and that change eradicated the timeline… his timeline and the timeline around the people on the planet… Enterprise was gone, the Federation was gone… That was a result of McCoy going back in time and altering the past. It is the way every single time travel story that isn’t a predestination paradox has happened in the entire history of Star Trek… but, somehow, that’s me making stuff up and being too connected to the material… okay. lol So, after they made the first movie, Abrams, Nimoy, the writers, and the studio all rushed to correct the error none had seen: namely that they’d destroyed all previous Trek. At that point, after the fact, they tried to suggest that what they did didn’t overwrite the original timeline. I’m just asking why it doesn’t and you can’t answer me. In Star Trek you have a single timeline that is native to us. We watch a single quantum reality. Do an infinite number exist? Sure… but they are a different quantum signature. They were never the same… even when the events of one universe and another are exactly the same up to a point, the quantum signature is not the same at any point. They are never the same universe. You cannot start in a universe where your choice is supposed to be A and somehow choose B and create an offshoot… The B choice was already a distinct quantum reality. You don’t go into the past of timeline A, change events, and turn that into a different quantum reality. If you return to the past, you alter the events of that quantum reality… of that timeline. That’s not me making up anything. That’s how Star Trek has worked for decades. Entirely consistently within itself, I may add… So, yeah, that they want to make stuff up after the fact and with no justification within the mythos, no, I don’t accept it… Either he went back in time in his own timeline, thus destroying all previous Trek, or he went into a different quantum reality from the start… But if you want to pretend something else, that’s fine… it’s not accurate or true, but your ignorance doesn’t much phase me… That was on display the second you said this: “And every example you cite after that is actually more preposterous and is based on some psuedo science you think if real.” Here’s a clue: I don’t think any of this is real… however, Star Trek does exist and within the fiction this is the science… and has been. Because Abrams and co weren’t smart enough to play in the Trek sandbox properly, don’t blame me… But I can give you probably 10 examples off the top of my head that dictates that Star Trek time travel works this way and not the way you or they want to suggest… and no amount of whining or pretending will make it so.

  35. Give me a break. The man (Abrams) doesn’t even know much (anything?) about Star Trek nor does he really care about it, as he himself admitted. And the same seems to be the case for those two crappy writers he has behind him. Why put such people in charge of Star Trek is beyond me.

    Yeah, I ‘m sure the sequel will be a big sHIT. A huuuge box office success. Like Armageddon, right? πŸ˜›

  36. The FACT is that Nero traveled back in time to before Charlie X was born. Enterprise and everything that happened before the timeline split is still history in this new timeline, but the future became a clean slate.
    Kirk’s birth was at the same time as the timeline split, so Charlie X, whether or not he is in the film, or even exists in this timeline, would have to have been born after Kirk, whether that happens to be the next day or 25 years later. There is nothing that happened in this timeline that would require Charlie X to be born at the same time as he was in the Prime universe.

  37. That was a different Delta Vega, in the Vulcan system. The one Kirk killed Mitchell on was near the galactic barrier, thousands of light years away from Earth and Vulcan. I doubt anything that happens on Delta Vega in Trek XI has any bearing on Kirk and the villain’s past.

  38. I can understand why some people thought that Trek XI wasn’t really Star Trek, but you are just looking for reasons to hate now. If you think this looks less like Star Trek than the last one, you are really unobservant, or probably think Wrath of Khan isn’t Star Trek either. Or you could just be looking for flame bait, which is probably the most likely.
    Keep in mind I said nothing about the final film. It could end up being a giant piece of shit. The trailer, however, looks amazing, and very in the spirit of previous Star Trek.

  39. I would rather Gary Seven than Gary Mitchell… would also be a nice swerve if they reference “Gary” in the next trailer… Maybe someone killed his cat.

Comments are closed.

Β©1999 - 2024 TrekToday and Christian HΓΆhne Sparborth. Star Trek and related marks are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. TrekToday and its subsidiary sites are in no way affiliated with CBS Studios Inc. | Newsphere by AF themes.