This is a trailer so it has to focus on the action and fights I just hope that isn’t all the movie is.
You forgot
http://application.denofgeek.com/images/m/kirk/Transporter_KIrks_EVil_counterpart.jpg
and of course
https://galifreyidiot.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/captain-kirk-dick.jpg
Really? No comment on how disposable a certain ship is?And yes…
WHoever us directing this is just keeping up the ST tenets weve seen since 1987
Agreed. Meanwhile the tension towards a certain other franchise is reaching fever pitch.
I mean X-Files of course.
Star Wars? One frame of THEIR trailer puts the entirety of this trailer look like chidish shit.
As we saw with the original, the warranty on an Enterprise is only good for two feature films. Put it in a third one, and this is what happens.
It’s official. I am now to old to be the target audience for a Star Trek film.
The movie may or may not be good, but damn…the trailer looked like someone put a bunch of random film clips in a blender and just pasted together random shit.
Bear in mind that it’s eight months until the film comes out. Random clips may be all they have.
Then it’s too early for a trailer. 
Seriously, that was possibly the worst trailer I’ve ever seen to the point where it diminished my enthusiasm for the movie (and I liked the Trek Reboots).
I always thought the biggest problem with Star Trek is that there weren’t enough motorcycle jumps. I’m glad they’ve corrected that.
And I’m tired of fight scenes shot coherently from a middle distance so you can see all the action, so I’m glad they’ve gone back to extreme close-ups and smash cuts so you can’t tell what the hell is going on. That adds a satisfying element of mystery when contemplating what just happened.
On Twitter someone said that the trailer was the perfect sweet spot where it killed enthusiasm for the people who would be interested in seeing it but completely uninteresting to people who wouldn’t have been.
For an example of how to make a trailer that actually hooks people, see the first trailer for the new Star Wars movie. It had me hooked from that first visual with the crashed star destroyer.
Wow–yeah. I’d missed that particular trailer. That looks great
Evvvverrything has happened as i foresaw.
No seriously, Abrams cannibalized the franchise for parts and fanboy wrote it right into a corner.
"Let’s take out the things that make Kirk interesting and and magnify the myth. Cheated on a Starfleet test? They’d kick him out! Gave him a new major vessel right out of the Academy? His recklessness would get him canned! Violate the PD? They’d demote him at best! Klingons are a warrior race! That mission would be doomed! Khan is a genetically superior man…Kirk can’t hurt him!..
…okay so where does that leave my heroic lead? Oooooops. I made the lead comedy relief. Shit. I turned Kirk into Mitchell!" (not Gary)
The trailer feels more like a sequel to Galaxy Quest than to Star Trek. (Nothing wrong with Galaxy Quest in its own right though) If the other trailers (when they come out) look this bad, I might actually skip this one.
They’ve made I think 573 Star Trek movies now and almost all of them are terrible. Even the last two, while they were FUN, don’t hold up very well for repeat viewing and are kind of silly.
The obvious comparison to the new Star Wars movie, which apparently is very good and is a welcome return to movies that were excellent, is an interesting if unfair one, because I find it curious how hard it seems to be for them to make a good Star Trek movie. I actually like Star Trek, you understand, but of all the films the only one I think really stands up as an above average movie is “The Wrath of Khan,” a movie scarcely more recent than The Empire Strikes Back.
I wonder why that is?
I’d say it’s because the Star Trek canon is silly and makes no sense. Therefore, it’s hard to make a movie with a coherent plot.
Furthermore, JJ Abrams’ device of going back to the early days of Kirk, Spock, etc. went off the rails from the start, because he went back too far in their history. It’s simply unbelievable that the Kirk depicted in his movies could go from a joyriding hooligan to the captain of a starship in a couple of years. The whole premise requires a major suspension of disbelief. And we waste a lot of time trying (and failing) to re-establish the rapport those characters had with each other in the original series. It would have been much better had he started the reboot at the moment Captain April turned over command to a young James Kirk.
But in general, I think Star Trek’s problem is that over the years so many writers have screwed around with the canon that it no longer makes any sense whatsoever, and has so many ways to deus-ex-machina your way out of any situation with the right application of technobabble or magical technology that there is no drama. If you die in the Star Trek universe, you will be resurrected if the fans want you back. If you are surrounded by enemy ships, you simply need to create a space-time rift and overcharge your proton core and use that to modify the dilithium crystals in a way that will cause them to wipe out all your enemies as soon as you reverse the polarity on the trans-warp induction coil…
Science fiction needs rules. The stranger the world, the harder the rules must be so that the audience can follow along and understand what’s going on. Star Trek has no rules. It’s now little more than bad fantasy wrapped in the glitzy trappings of an incoherent future.
Pike. Captain Pike was Kirk’s immediate predecessor.
But yeah, I agree with everything else you say. I would have loved to see a real prequel set in the days of Captain April (Pike’s predecessor) that was much more like Forbidden Planet, one of Roddenberry’s main inspirations.
Dorothy Fontana wrote a prequel set in the days of Pike that included Number One and a young Spock and a young Mr Scott. It was one of the few Trek novels I read that I didn’t want to flush down the toilet when I was done with it.
Whereas Star Wars was fantasy from the start and obeys fantasy rules, which are different from science fiction rules but can be just as rigorous.
I can’t agree with this. Star Wars has been described as science fantasy, but telepathy, telekinesis, robotry, FTL travel, anti-gravity drives, energy weapons, and the like have all been SF staples for more than a century now. It’s only the mythological scale of the story line that gives it an air of fantasy.
(By SF, I mean science fiction, of course.)