Here It Is: The Official Full Star Trek Trailer

Published 6 years ago by , Updated September 17th, 2012 at 7:56 am,

star trek official trailer Here It Is: The Official Full Star Trek Trailer

I make it a policy to not show bootleg trailers so although we missed the boat on showing you the new Star Trek trailer over the weekend, here’s your first chance to see it online in high-res, non-shaky cam.

There’s a lot to take in with this trailer so it’s definitely a “multi-viewer” to process everything that’s going on. But enough talk, check it out below:


To see the HD version head over to either or

[UPDATE: I’ve grabbed over 30 screen caps from the trailer for you]

A few days ago I wrote about “Star Trek Trailer Mania” and how overall it seems that J.J. Abrams’ vision for Star Trek seems to be basically knocking people on their butts. The intent was to redefine what Trek is and it certainly looks like Paramount is getting what they paid for.

I’ll admit that along with some folks, the “Uhura bra scene” and the mild sex scene in the trailer threw me off a bit – but think about the original series: We look at the show now and it seems positively tame, but place classic Star Trek within the context of the mid-late 1960s and what you’d see on TV at that time. Kirk was a Lothario back then, famous for seducing every alien chick that came down the pike.

Keep in mind that the rules were so strict back then that the only indication that could be given that Kirk had had sex with the Scalosian hottie in the episode “Wink of an Eye” was to show him putting on his boot while sitting on the already made bed after the fact. Look back at the costumes William Ware Theiss designed and how sexy they were compared to everything else on television back then.

The point is that the show did have its share of “sexiness” back then, but looking at it through the lens of 40 years later makes it look milder than it was. So having a present-day version of that in the film is not a huge leap. While some episodes were more goofy than others, overall it wasn’t aimed at kids and was chock full of adult and serious themes.

The other complaint I’ve seen is how insanely brash Chris Pine is playing Kirk – Kirk has never been a “by the rules” guy and has also always been about action above pondering a situation in deep thought. I have a feeling that by the end of the movie we’ll see him mature considerably, and I think that may be one of the major themes of the film. The same goes for Zachary Quinto’s portrayal of an emotional and (apparently) out of control Spock. One of the themes of the show was his struggle with containing his human side – since this is early on in his life, it doesn’t surprise me that he does not have his emotions quite under control.

Finally there’s the construction of the USS Enterprise on Earth. Frankly to me it doesn’t make much sense that they would construct such a massive ship on the ground instead of in orbit. I’ll be curious to see what method they use to get the ship off the ground since AFAIK (and I’m a HUGE Trek-tech geek) the ship didn’t have any propulsion system meant for landfall.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on these issues and any other things that stand out to you based on the trailer.

Star Trek opens on May 8, 2009.

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. @vitaboy
    And when Kirk calls out “distance from Reliant,” Sulu answers something like a mere 4000 kilometers
    That was Chekov that reported 4000 kilometers, not Sulu. Sulu did say “We’re not going to make it are we?”.

    @Andy S
    I think that the episode Amok Time when he has to let Edith Keeler die, Kirk
    You mean “City on the Edge of Forever” where he has to let Edith Keeler die. Also, he doesn’t drive a vehicle in that episode. Amouk Time was when Spock hit his 7 year itch. :-)

    I have read this whole thread and most of it is about the ship and how is Starfleet going to get it into space. I kept thinking while reading, “How do we know this is not just a mockup, an illustration of a new Starship design”. While watching the trailer in Quantum of Solace, I kept thinking that the ship Kirk was looking at was too small for over a thousand people. Also, if it is the ship, why can’t they just use thrusters to get it into space, like in Voyager?

    About warp fields on planets; I’ve always thought that forming a warp field inside a planets atmosphere would create horrible atmospheric conditions. But in Star Trek IV, they went into warp after transporting the whales aboard the Bounty (Klingon ship), so what do I know.

    I’m a huge Trek fan and these little continuity issues don’t bother me. Why? Because JJ Abrams said this was a re-imagining of Trek, so we should expect some differences. Let’s just hope it is as good as the trailer shows.

  2. ROTFLMAO!!!!! That was great, Vic!!!! 😀 😀 😀

  3. Quite frankly, I was not a fan of TOS, but I was a way too young to get it. Lost in Space was more my speed then. But I saw the first movie directed by Robert Wise and I’ve been hooked ever since. Loved the collaboration between the Star Trek folks and NIcholas Meyer. Star Trek II, III, IV were good, V not so good, but VI was back on point. Next Generation films First Contact and Insurrection were pretty good but I didn’t care for Nemesis. Really looking forward to this new one.

  4. I didn’t notice anything wrong with the latest trailer when I first watched it. The second time however I thought the young Kirk tell the cop his middle name was Siberius. I played that part a couple more times and I am sure he says Siberius and not Tiberius. I made my way to this site by Googling that mistake. I agree with some of others that there is a mistake in that scene. Hopefully, they fix that.

  5. Ok. I have been replaying the car over the cliff scene many times and it sounds more like the kid does say Tiberius when I listen close. When not listening closely it sounds like Siberius.

  6. To all those out there comparing this to the original television series, it’s time to move on. JJ Abrams is not making TOS – he has reinvented it. That being the case, can’t he reinvent how to get the ship up into orbit? How the bridge looks?

    We all need to take this for what it is – an original take on some classic characters. I can’t wait!!!!

  7. @ Neurotic Nomad:

    You are absolutely right, my friend! The Enterprise was constructed on the ground, and then disassembled into smaller, more manageable sub-asemblies to be beamed up into LEO (low-earth orbit) with powerful transporters, thence re-assembled in space. Even in the 23rd Century, this would be much easier than transporting everything up to LEO, let alone, as you so eloquently stated, the workforce; not to mention, safer…How many men died building the Golden Gate Bridge, something like 22, 23?

    All anyone has to do, if you can find one, is get their hands on a Star Trek background document, some created before the original series was even on-air (‘The Making of Star Trek’, the ‘Star Trek Bible’, ‘The Star Trek Technical Manual’, etc). The Enterprise, we are clearly told, was built at what even in Century 23 still called the ‘San Francisco Navy Yards’ (nice nautical touch, doncha think?), or more specifically, the Mare Island Shipyards, just outside of San-Fran proper. This, I expect, is where we see the big scene in the trailer, and believe me, it is not inconsistent with the background. These also say repeatedly that the Big E was ‘assembled in orbit’, totally consistent with what you just said, since she is, after all, a creature of space.

    Having said that, as someone already pointed out very adroitly here (forgive me, I forget who), it would nonetheless be quite possible to launch – although not land (unless in water, I guess) a Constitution-class vessel (the ‘Connies’ someone cleverly tagged them, here, lol), just with the use of a powerful warp field to mitigate the ship’s mass, hold it all together with the SIF (structural integrity field), and make VERY sure the inertial dampeners are at FULL – never can predict what effect variable gravity will have on humanoid flesh – and then simply cut loose with the Enterprise’s main impulse fusion plasma thrusters (Impulse, btw, is a term used today, having to do with a certain quantity of fuel consumed over a specific period of time, expressed as a ratio – say, 100-1 for the chemically fueled Space Shuttle, as opposed to, I expect, 100,000-1 for the Enterprise – specific impulse). This may be an excellent test to see how the lady holds together under the even stress of 1 G to achieve escape velocity, co-ordinating several different systems at once…Hmmmm…

    On the other hand, this just might be too dangerous, even if everything was charged, spun up, and tested before hand. The Earth’s rotation, after all, will not change between today & then; America’s east coast might be a good place to launch Supercarrier-sized payloads, by taking advantage of the planet’s spin and launching a payload safely out over the Atlantic, but not from San Francisco! My God, if anything went wrong she might come down in Missouri, f’Chrissakes, that’s where I live! AAAACCCCKKK!

    No, the Enterprise was ASSEMBLED in space, but as you pointed out, Nomad, in pre-built sections, couldn’t have said it better myself. Kinda like the superlifts they prefabricate to assemble into a carrier or any other sea-going vessel today. The only difference is a matter of a couple of hundred miles – straight up. It’s just safer. But by then, all the parts have been pre-fitted, plugged in, and tested under gravity, so you KNOW the whole system works.

    Besides, this is all part of a corrupted timeline anyway, as cool as cool-on-a-T-shirt the Enterprise would no doubt look flying through the sky (and yes, areodynamics could easily be handled by the shields), so Abrams can do just about whatever he wants, as long as he remains consistent; remember, the original timeline, as well as the original Enterprise and crew profiles, might very well remain intact. This is a new direction, literally, no matter who served with whom or when, in the original uncorrupted timeline…Confused? Me too!


    Love to ya,