‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ IMAX Prologue Preview

Published 2 years ago by , Updated February 15th, 2014 at 4:28 pm,

Star Trek Into Darkness Trailer Logo Star Trek Into Darkness IMAX Prologue Preview

Paramount Pictures screened the 9-minute opening of Star Trek into Darkness for journalists that will premiere in front of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey in select IMAX theaters – and Screen Rant was invited to attend. While they asked that we not divulge details of the footage, here are our spoiler-free thoughts on what was shown…

If there is a comparison to be made between the opening of Star Trek 2/Star Trek into Darkness to other films, it would be a cross between the opening of Raiders of the Lost Ark and a typical James Bond movie. That is to say that it opens with a sequence that (at this point) seems disconnected from the main story, and is instead presented to establish the characters and where they are contextually within the Star Trek universe.

The introduction indicates that the film does not pick up directly after the end of the first film – instead it shows that the starship Enterprise is already into its mission, and that the crew has been working together for a while. The relationships seem more established – and Kirk is put into a position where he must choose between the needs of the many or the needs of the few. It also depicts the USS Enterprise in a situation we haven’t seen before, and we have no doubt that Trekkies will debate the viability of the ship’s ability to function in this environment.

Prior to the Bond/Raiders-esque sequence, there is a short series of scenes that do tie into the plot – and they are enticingly vague. Benedict Cumberbatch does make an appearance – and that appearance is of a nature that will spark some debate regarding the competing rumors as to who, exactly, he plays in the film.

Star Trek Into Darkness Screenshot Benedict Cumberbatch Captains Chair 570x234 Star Trek Into Darkness IMAX Prologue Preview

Star Trek Into Darkness’ 3D was added through post-production (which I’ve always been critical of in the past), but recent examples have improved greatly – to the point where it can be difficult to tell the difference between shot-in-3D and post-production-3D. It seems that director J.J. Abrams had 3D cinematography in mind while shooting the film, as some elements of the action on screen were clearly shot with the format in mind. Some of the use is subtle, and some is pretty “in your face.” Whether you enjoy 3D or not, your mind is probably made up, so there’s not much point going into it other than saying that it looked good.

As to the impact of the IMAX prologue/preview… did it knock the crowd in attendance off its collective seat? I’d have to say no. However… it did leave us all wanting more and was ultimately successful as a result. The opening minutes of the first Star Trek film are incredibly difficult to top, and the Into Darkness prologue did not have the impact of the similar preview of The Dark Knight three years ago.

It did however, establish where the crew of the NCC-1701 is as a team, and gave us an enticing peek into the villain of the film, with an introduction that may throw into doubt who we expected him to be as a character. Cryptic? Yes, but we don’t want to give away too much – it’s best left for you to see yourself. For now, check out the one-minute Star Trek Into Darkness teaser trailer.

J.J. Abrams returns to direct Star Trek Into Darkness off a screenplay by Alex Kurtzman, Damon Lindelof and Roberto Orci. It stars Chris Pine, Benedict Cumberbatch, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, John Cho, Anton Yelchin and Simon Pegg.

Star Trek Into Darkness opens in theaters (regular and IMAX 3D) on May 17th, 2013.

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


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com 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. Intriguing. I think it’d be a good move to show the Star Trek crew establish there self as a team. Sure, Star Trek 2009 was a powerful opening but Into Darkness is a different film with different ways to interpret the story. It is only a 9 minute preview after all.

  2. glad that the 3d looks good.if 3d is done well it can really enhance a movie like a star trek into darkness.just one question in the prolouge did the 3d make things darker cause i had that problem with harry potter and the avengers.the dark scenes become too dark with 3d.

  3. Guess the Enterprise is under water from the comments above !
    There is a glimpse of it in the trailer ! :)

    • There’s a glimpse of a Federation vessel underwater, not necessarily the Enterprise. What little we see of the submarine-ship’s saucer section actually seems a little wide and flat to be the Enterprise’s.

      • could it be an older ship, like the other enterprise, the older one?(havent watched much outside TOS, and most of the movies), but I do know there was an earlier pioneer one

      • A saucered ship goes in but another ship (shaped more like a shuttle but presumably larger) comes out. This could be an homage to the WW2 submarine drama that inspired “Balance of Terror”.

        That makes sense. The villain must be Harry Mudd. Interesting. That works. :) :) :)

        • Hey, do you think he’s Carlie X all grown up? :)

          • Why would he need to be grown up?

        • Those are the nacelles of the Enterprise (or another ship of the same class) coming out – the contours just look a bit odd from that angle because of the “fins” on the top of each one.


          • Specifically this one: http://www.trekazoid.wordpress.com/2010/11/tlw_enterprise_new_b.jpg

          • I’m not convinced its the Enterprise. The nacelles look the same as the Enterprise but the arch of the pylons look reversed. Catch the first couple of frames of the ship plunging into the water, to me they look like they arch inward, not outward. That may be a trick of the angle of the image though.

            • It’s not the Enterprise going in (not the current one anyway). The nacelles are much smaller, a different shape entirely, too far apart, and the struts they’re on are straight, not curved. Different ship altogether.

      • Its archers enterprise

    • FYI: In the novel by Diane Carey (Pub. 1989), if memory serves, Capt. April tests the shields of the new and as yet unnamed Starship by flying her through a large asteroid. A dip into San Francisco Bay should be no problem.
      Oh wait! That’s old canon! Never mind.

      • ::: Pulls David back from the brink of Star Trek Canon :::

        Relax, Archer was already included in this Star Treks continuity.

        Remember, everything was reset from Kirks point of view in the Star Trek universe.

        Not anyone or anything that proceeds it.

        :: Off to wait for another person wondering about Star Trek Canon ::

        • Thanks man, I was slipping .. into …. darkness

  4. I hope that one of the scenes that looks good in 3d would be the whole USS Enterprise crashing coming towards the camera, that just seems like it would look awesome. Is it worth the money to go see it in IMAX?

  5. Can A Starship function underwater?

    Considering that parts of the international space station and the space shuttle were submerged in water to check for leaks and airpockets

    The fact that Submarines can operate under water.

    The fact that any ship that is airtight can operate under water.

    and considering the reason the Enterprise was buit on earth, she has only to contend with the added gravity of water.

    • True, but keep in mind a starship is designed to keep pressure in and a submarine is designed to keep pressure out, it depends to what depth the craft falls, as well as the impact force.

    • As I recall, the from an early episode it was stated that the Enterprise wasn’t designed to work in the atmosphere. Voyager however was. You have to go through the atmosphere to get to the water. Also similar in functionality from air to water.

      • Again, the line between Original/Alternate Star Trek continuity is another big thing here.

        In the altered timeline, Enterprise is actually bigger than her counterpart in TOS. Also, I am reasonably confident that she was built in space in TOS, not on Earth as she was in the reboot.
        I doubt this was all just coincidence.
        In both timelines the Enterprise wasn’t actually built until Kirk was in his 20′s. It makes sense that, in the alternate continuity, the designers of the Enterprise will have been running scared after the Kelvin turned out completely powerless against the Narada.
        It stands to reason that – along with what may or may not have been precautional paranoia of building Enterprise on Earth – that she was much more advanced in design than she otherwise would have been.

        She was not designed specifically for atmospheric flight, no. But that’s not to say that she can’t do it if it’s necessary; TOS Enterprise got out of Earth’s atmosphere easily enough in “Tomorrow Is Yesterday”.
        Plus, how did the Enterprise get to Space Dock in the alternate timeline?

        Eh, I’m not smart enough to have been the first person to point that out. I’ll stop waffling now.

  6. I would imagine that Starfleet starship class vessel should be able to function underwater. If it’s shields can stop torpedoes and phasers then I think it can withstand the pressure of water. It’ll sure be interesting to see why it’s in water!

    • Yeah, and I would like to know why the writers find it necessary to take a spaceship out of its natural habitat and to put it into the water when there already are too few space related movies as it is. If you wanna make a submarine movie, make a submarine movie. This is called STAR Trek, however. ;)

      • @TheLostWinchester.

        Ahh My friend, maybe it is different from the ship crashing.

        Perhaps the ship has encountered a planet that it totally composed of water, and the ship could simply fly into the planet.

  7. Hows is it compares to the rises preview?

  8. Well I hear a NASA guy say once that if their shuttle is about to take off and it starts to rain they have to cancel the flight. Because even though they are air tight they aren’t water tight. Kind of reminds me of that Doctor Who Episode.

    • The one with the water?

    • i hate to burst your bubble, but if something is air tight then it is by design also watertight

      • Hate to burst your bubble on your burst your bubble. Something that is airtight under water, depending on depth would remain till airtight till it starts to approach crush depth. Then all bets are off.

        • does it ever really rain enough at Cape Canaveral to attain “crush depth” values of water pressure?

          No one is talking about attaining “crush depth” with a starship.

          bubble-burster’s bubble burst.

          • Water forming on the Space Shuttle prior to launch would seep into the heat shield/Tiles of the Shuttle or Any Rocket. When it reaches altitude said Water would freeze and expand and force a gap or possible loosen the tiles of the ship. It could create a problem should the the vehicle re-enter earth. To many shielding tiles lost can be catastrophic, it is a root cause of the Columbia disaster.

            • Thanks for the back up/explanation, Part’ner

              • Never thought I would say this.

                You are welcomed Luthor. :0

          • was a response to the ship underwater, not at The Cape.

  9. Bottom line is this is Abrahms Star Trek, which is more like Star Wars. Absolutely anything is possible. Pure fiction, little science. Not that TOS didn’t stretch it a bit…

    • Although TOS communicators = modern day cell phones. That could be a case of not stretching science but greatly infuencing it.

      • we still cant “beam me up…” yet, there are no phasers, tricoders, or vehicles that come anywhere close to the speed of light. i will give you the cell phones though, even though the phone seems to have de-evolved back into a typewriter, but that is a cool thing for those people with hearing issues.

        • Jeffro.

          Have to correct you. Albeit not as compact a a Tricorder. A Masspectrometer comes damn close to a tricorder in function.

          This could be considered the Great Grandfather of the Phaser


          • yeah, well…we still don’t have flying cars yet! i want a jetsons-mobile, with the detachable pods for the kids to be dropped off at school.

            • Ah Jeffro My Dear friend.

              Define Jettison?

              As in pods, or driving really fast then hitting the Emergency Brake and drifting to the point where the little buggers are launched from the car at a high rate of speed right into their class rooms?

              And Flying cars? Flying cars yes….LANDING SAID FLYING CARS..Still working on it.


              • really? jettison? i didn’t say that, i was talking about George Jetson…The Jetsons. his flying car/saucer,,,c’mon man!

                • was refering to the pods.

            • And admit it. You saw that rifle and was wondering if you could buy one! :)

            • Thought this would be of interest, plenty of things have become available, just not speed of light yet


  10. The 2nd ship in the trailer that crashes into the water is not the Enterprise because if you look at it the nacelles are way to far apart from the saucer section but and the nacelles are way less thick then the Enterprise.

    My guess is that if it’s Gary Mitchell and ships are still being built on earth it’s possible that Gary could use his power to move a star ship from it’s moorings in order to cause more damage to the surrounding areas.

  11. If that ship fell from space there’s no way in hell it be intact like that 2nd ship was in the trailer.

    • Aaron, you forget, a starship is designed to withstand the pressure of warp space by use of its Inertial dampers and structural integrity system.

      So a ship can remain intact from space.

      Remaining intact upon crashing is another story.

      • That’s what I mean the crashing aspect of it and that ship doesn’t look to be crashing from space it looks more like from a near by shipyard to me that’s why I figured if it was Gary Mitchell he could use his power to move a ship in order to cause more damage to the surrounding area.

        But now it’s looking like it’s some guy name John Harrison

  12. Khan is strong but not strong enough to move an entire star ship from it’s moorings.

    He had hard time lifting the debris when it fell on his follower during the fight scene in Wrath of Khan

    • You guys are over thinking the crap outta this…. WHO CARES! a ship under water is COOL ! Put functionality aside, put actual “REAL LIFE” science aside and use your imagination. this movie is gona be awesome ! now hop on board and get with the warp signature baby!

      oh and the good lord above that Micheal bay was no part of this cuz then he prolly woulda made Kirk female and spock yoda and the enterprise an actual submarine.

      • Everyone just wants to know who the bad guy is :-)

  13. I still think JJ Abrams took what was Gene Roddenberry’s and ripped it off so he could call it his own. He was not creative enough to be able to make a new Star Trek addition, so he just bastardized the original. I hated his first one, with the single exception of Simon Pegg, and I hope this one crashes and burns, which if the dreadful title is any indication, this will suck donkeys too, though I will never know. I am not a troll, I just happen to think it’s wrong to take something that was genius, and change it to “make it your own”(leaving the genius in the trash can, by the way). It’s just like ripping off artwork.

    • What do you think Berman and Piller did to TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise then?

      They took Star Trek and ran it into the ground, over saturated the franchise. Blew everything up with Star Trek Enterprise.

      And you think Abrams is worse?

    • You must be British. They are the only ones that would ONLY appreciate Simon Pegg out of an entire all star cast.

      • I resent that! ;P

        I’m a Brit and I don’t think Pegg was anywhere near the best-cast actor. He was, in fact, one of the worst-cast in my opinion.

        Pegg’s forte is and always has been comedy, so as soon as I saw that he was cast I knew that Scotty was gonna be the comic relief. Don’t get me wrong, he definitely WAS funny in the last film and I may just be nit-picking here, but in TOS (although he had his moments) Scotty wasn’t the comic relief. They all took turns and, if anyone, it was McCoy that delivered the most humour… albeit in a completely different way.

  14. Sounds awesome

  15. Abrams Star Trek.

    Better than Generations, First Contact, Insurrection and Nemesis.

    • I’ll give you Generation, Insurrection and Nemesis (all of which I did like), but First Contact was awesome. 2009 Trek was WAY better than Star Trek 1 and Star Trek 5, though.

  16. Honest question.

    Who here remembers the last time they were HYPED for a Star Trek Sequel, or was Hyped for the Reboot of Star Trek.

    Me personally. I could not bring myself to get excited of Generations, First Contact, Insurrection or Nemesis. They were all either ok, or extremely bad.

    Insurrection, ok Manual control of the Enterprise via a Joystick? Really?

    Nemesis Oh when did the Romulans actually get Picards DNA to clone him?

    First Contact…Yeah ok Borg go back in time, did they not see that the Enterprise would come after them?

    Generations….No one explained how one can die in the nexus and come back to die on the side of a mountain??

    • I saw Generations in theaters and that was obviously the first for me because I was 8 yrs old. I was definitely excited for it and equally excited for the rest. I grew up with TNG over TOS.

    • that was probably the only thing that piss me off about Insurrection..the fact that manual control was via joystick too…who the hell came up with the concept of manual control of flying the Enterprise by joystick? I don’t ever recall a time where The Enterprise or Voyager or Defiant (with the exception of maybe the NX-01) where they lose helm control and you had to fly the ship with a joystick..someone prove me otherwise

  17. Considering the animosity between Kirk and Spock, I had hoped to see that inevitable friendship grow from its roots.

  18. Enterprise under water is very cool and i’m sure there’s going to be a explanation for why and the enterprise from the TOS did go into the atmosphere but I can’t remember what episode that was…I think it was the one with the Air Force in it

    • You’re right, that was in Tomorrow Is Yesterday.

    • yes but that was the outer atmosphere and the only ships that could go into the atmosphere (or known) are/were the Voyager and Defiant..and who’s to say that is The Enterprise? too many question, not enough answers and a lot of speculations

      • Still low enough to be intercepted by a Starfighter ie below 30 km. ;-)

  19. Interesting idea that’s floating around- anyone think this just might be a Gary mitchel/ khan hybrid? Personally would rather have one or the other but this is Abraham’s universe. And technically a lot is possible with this new timeline…

  20. http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/star-trek-darkness-image-release-article-1.1217047

    Paramount just released one picture and the caption says Benedict is playing some guy named John Harrison.

    It wasn’t Kirk on the opposite side of the glass in the Japansese Trailer at all

    • Did JJ Abrams just pull a Scooby Doo on us?

      • Ruh row

  21. This so far is what we know…At some point Kirk and Spock catch this villain and put him in what looks to be the brig of the Enterprise

  22. I think Paramount is trying to allude the fans and there was a twitter feed from one of the journalist in New York that got to see the prologue that confirmed that Alice Eve is indeed playing Carol Marcus but the tweet has to sent been deleted.

  23. Ok just to clear this up. Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman and whomever else thinks we are all mindless robots.

    Alternate Universe my Ass. You introduced Spoke Prime in the first movie, negating any possible Alternate Universe where you can perceive new “stories”. The simple existence of Spock would reveal any and all actions the Federation would encounter all the way up to The Next Generation.

    Khan and his people launched from Earth in 1996. Relative to the Space Time Continuum which is somewhat still a Hypothetical Science. The Narada and Spock inclusion into the time line was a matter of difference between 20-25 years. It intereferd with the Kelvin and Kirk’s father from that point on. Not anything that happned 300 years Prior!

    Now given the fact that it is Possible to have found the Botany Bay by now before The Enterprise Encountered it.

    Making your second Movie similiar to the Wrath of Khan is doing what exactly? Lets put aside that The first Star Trek Movie Ligtening Storm in Space, entire world taken by a black hole/Giant Cloud/V’GER! A Threat to Earth/New Enterprise vs New Old Enterprise/ Kirk taking Command first time/again/Spock going through his Vulcan/Human feelings or lack there of. And needing to shed all of his emotions/Beat the crap out of Captain to get emotions out of system/ Enteprise Near Giant Ship/Enterprise in Giant Ship/ Last Minute Escape/Bright Light/Enterprise Safe/All Stations Report/ Spock no need to go back to vulcan/Becomes First Officer.

    Yes, when you look at it..Star Trek 2009 was a Re-Write of Star Trek The Motion Picture.

    Cant anyone be original any more?

    • Help me Jeff!!
      I’ve Stopped/Beginning To/Still slipping In/Out/Stuck In Old/New canon Again/Before/Still/Not Yet!

      • JustDavid!

        Listen to me carefully.

        Nothing is what it seems. Stuff does not make sense. Star Trek is not the old star trek, it is the new star trek.

        ::Throws a lifeline to JustDavid::

        HOLD ON BUDDY! Me and others will try to make sense of all of this!


        I been a nerd of Star Trek for over 35 years. Books, Ships, Action Figures. Applied Science.

        I think I know what I am talking about????

  24. So.. I don’t get it.. Has cross over between true imax camera partially shot w/ 3d ever been attempted? I wonder how that’s gonna look in 3d.. Also, is JJ Abram leaving true imax camera shot for the later shock? Why is this not being shown in true imax?(quite disappointed)