‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ Featurette Promises ‘Relentless’ Action

Published 2 years ago by

With the Star Trek reboot, J.J. Abrams managed to make the franchise synonymous with fast-paced action and intense special effects, not the cerebral, hardcore science fiction of the original series. But with all the promises of Star Trek Into Darkness¬†pushing Kirk to earn his captaincy through a “journey of pathos,” one might think sci-fi drama would take top billing over sci-fi thrills.

The newest Into Darkness featurette suggests that that’s not the case, and that the destruction and frantic combat seen in the first trailer (and again in the Super Bowl TV spot) offer just a taste of the “relentless” and “stunningly beautiful” action in store.

Anyone who sat through the Into Darkness IMAX Preview has an idea of how the term “relentless” could apply to the basic pacing of the film, sporting not one, but two pulse-pounding sequences within the span of 9 minutes. Interestingly enough, that same prologue also gave the first hints at how Abrams will be employing 3D in both close-up action and the larger expanses of space.

USS Enterprise Falling Star Trek Into Darkness Star Trek Into Darkness Featurette Promises Relentless Action

The director hasn’t been tempering his excitement for what the 3D post-conversion will add to the film, despite earlier reservations about the process (he must have read our article on the Biggest 3D Misconceptions).

We know for certain that the film won’t be falling into the ‘cash-grab-post-conversion’ category, as it is already said to contain over 1400 effects shots and 40 minutes of IMAX footage. Pair that kind of pulse-quickening space combat, urban destruction and zero-gee diving with the highly-praised new villain John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) and we can’t help but hope Abrams knows how to walk the line between ‘relentless’ and ‘out of control.’ That’s without mentioning the biological subplot that will be used to introduce Alice Eve’s Dr. Carol Marcus.

We’d be downright skeptical that a movie trying to do justice to all those elements wouldn’t buckle under its own weight if the previous movie hadn’t turned out so well, and if the task was being left to a cast less capable and, according to Abrams, crazy-smart” and opinionated about returning to their roles.

Star Trek Into Darkness Spock in Volcano Suit 570x341 Star Trek Into Darkness Featurette Promises Relentless Action

That being said, we’re not surprised that the bigger and bolder approach to action – along with one seriously complicated villain – left little room for romance. An on screen love story between Kirk and Marcus may not be a top priority, but you know what they say about relationships formed under extreme circumstances…

What aspects of Star Trek Into Darkness are you most interested in – the story, the action, or the characters? Sound off in the comments.

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


Follow Andrew on Twitter @andrew_dyce.

Follow Andrew Dyce on Twitter @andrew_dyce
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. Trekkie: Action in a Star Trek film????!!!!! NO NO NO NO NO! JJ Abrams is JUDAS!!!!!!!!!

    • Ha, so true. But if you throw a tribble in there they would be soothed.

      • Actually, we Trekkies, Trekkers or whtever it is you call us theses days, embrace whatever Star Trek has to throw at us. A true fan will embrace it with open arms. Those who sit there and constantly complain about Abrams Trek and otheres, (namely Enterprise) are not true fans, and therefore give us real fans bad credit. Most of us enjoy the action in Trek franchises. I myself am looking forward to the action sequences of this movie. Many that claim to be “true fans” will argue with me and tell me I have no idea what I am talking about, which is a tell-tale sign that they are not fans, just nit-pickers. So please do not categorise us all into that one small group of Trek haters who disguise themselves as Trekkies just to whine and complain around every corner. You can also find these wannabes in the Transformers franchise, shouting that “everything must be like G1!”. Funny thing is, if you asked these guys about any Trek lore, they wouldn’t know a definite answer. So thank you for that, but trust me, we enjoy the action too. Trek is Trek, no matter what, and that’s why we love it. Because every bit of it has Roddenberry’s dream to influence it, and that’ll keep it goin forever.

        • You mean the guys that fly off the handle if you call them a “Trekkie” instead of a “Trekker”?

          The Transformers movies really deserve to be complained about though.

          • Exactly. Im perfectly fine being called whatever, Im a fan of the series as a whole so I don’t really care what name the fans go by. Matter of fact, most of us don’t, cuz like I said that’s not what its all about. And Im reffering to all of the Transformers series as a whole. I give the movies credit because, minus the terrible choices for female leads, they actually had a decent story to them. THe only thing that kept me from loving them was Megan Fox, and those toe-thumbs.

        • I respect that. I’m a fan of the original series myself and respect the scientific facts and stoic nature. But I also appreciate JJ Abrams great storytelling even if it does break scientific laws (the original series broke the rules of science too, but more carefully and with a solid set of rules).

          • Haha very true. That’s why its my favorite scifi series. They went to great lengths to make Star Trek more of a hope for what our future could be, even if some more whimsical aspects of the series, (case in point, Q), were some of its biggest selling points.

        • I have to totally agree. It doesn’t matter who directs, just do a good job. And I think J.J. has. He gave the franchise the major chops it needed to be relevant after some of the movies right before it did so mediocre. Trek was dying quickly and all us fans only had to live on the old TV shows and previous movies, with us true fans going to our conventions. J.J. gave it the jolt it needed to thrive and survive and even bring people in that never even THOUGHT about EVER looking at ANYTHING Star Trek! So I say bravo Abrams!!

        • You can have an opinion, mate, and that’s okay. But don’t act like you’re the spokesperson of “true” Star Trek fans. Abraham’s sold out the brand. He made a great film, but IMO, a bad ST film. Just because its easier for you to accept his “improvements” doesn’t make you better than anyone or give you a right to blather on about “true” Star Trek fans.

        • @ Captain_Jmar,

          Other words, if someone disagrees with you, they are not a ‘true’ “Star Trek” fan. Ignorance on so many levels. I was once like you. When my friends pointed out certain flaws, I use to get into arguments about what makes a ‘true “Star Trek” fan’. Its a very ignorant point of view.

          If the series “Enterprise” was such a success, the series would not have been cancelled. Period. “Star Trek: The Original Series” was also not considered a success, and it was cancelled after three seasons. While I did enjoy certain aspects of “Enterprise’, the series didn’t capture my attention. I have been a “Star Trek: TOS”, “Star Trek: DS9″, “Star Trek: Voyager” and “Star Trek: TNG” fan for roughly thirty years. Even though I enjoyed those series, I am not afraid to admit their flaws.

          “Star Trek” fans should not be afraid of criticism. As someone who was a ‘blind’ fan for thirty years, I can also say that “Star Trek” is not the best science-fiction to exist. …and, that goes for “Star Wars” as well.

          We are all “Star Trek” fans. Regardless about our different perspectives, we all hold certain aspects of the franchise close to heart.

          JJ’s version of “Star Trek” stinks. I wished the franchise created “Star Trek: The Third Generation” rather than a prequel. You will just have to live with the fact that I am a “Star Trek” fan.

  2. I loved the first one and this one is starting to look even better than the firsti can’t wait for this, I really can’t. Hope Abrams brings his talents and gifts to Star Wars next.

  3. Hope it isn’t over-flooded with Action. In all the Trailers and Nine Minute Prologue, it’s mostly action. Hopefully there’s also an Excellent Story. I thought the First J.J. Abrams Film was absolutely fascinating, with a good mix of Action, Story, Comic-Relief among other things. The only weakness of the first film was the Villain Nero. Star Trek Into Darkness has a very intriguing Villain, however looks like too much Action.

    Man of Steel looks to be another Film with too much action, I’m kind of worried since Cavill said Man of Steel would have more Action than The Dark Knight Rises.

    Despite it all, Star Trek Into Darkness is my most Anticipated Film of this Year.

    • I understand your concern the diffremce between the 2 films for me based soley on the trailers is man of steel trailer pressents themes and i strong arc. Where star trek relys in chaos much like the DKR trailers and ironman 3. Knowing jj he has a great story behind the scenes that he wishes not to unvale.

  4. My guess is if the villain is Khan then instead of killing Kirk’s son… he kills Kirk’s love interest, Dr. Carol Marcus.

    (Does conjecture count as spoilers?)

    • Khan didn’t kill Kirk’s son. A Klingon did.

      • @Spock

        You should know. You were there.

      • @Spock:

        My bad… twas so long ago… I guess I’m not a real Trekk(er/ie/ite).

        Although… Khan did mean to kill them.

        Here’s another conjecture… does future Spock actually die in this one? He should and re-utter his famous line “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”.

    • Two big problems with that: if Khan is here then he isn’t the same guy, has no history with Kirk, and doesnt even have any need to be wrathful in particular so far, plus if there isn’t even a love story with his one-time wife and mother of his son then killing her off can’t resonate very powerfully. Nobody knows each other enough for your theory to make sense…yet.

  5. LOL because when I think Star Trek, I think (or want) “relentless action”. What a joke

    • Exactly. I’m kinda sad about this. I mean, Star Trek has never been about the action and the huge moments. It’s more about the long build-up to those moments, and it deals with the aftermath. There’s real progression. I don’t want every Star Trek movie I go to from now on to be about “outdoing” or “being bigger” than the previous one. This is why Star Trek belongs in TV series form, first and foremost.

      • Exactly! But given the innapropriate and admittedly dumbed down nature of trek films, prepared for the masses and crammed with explosions, at least this may be a good one. I too would greatly prefer a weekly series to a movie series, so long as it does the material justice. No word on Dorn’s idea to spearhead a Warf show… Probably not a good sign for that project. Tim Russ’ project meantime looks like it doesn’t actually exist beyond a very unfinished feeling pitch monologue by Walter Koenig.

        • The best Trek movies had a bit more action. Also after hundreds of TV episodes, the pacing of Star Trek began to get a little stale. There’s nothing wrong with a bit of action, just as long as it isn’t meaningless.

          • Case in point, these guys are who I was refering to lol

  6. I can’t wait for this movie. I hope Abrams can bring this level of excitement and anticipation back to Star Wars.

  7. make the franchise synonymous with fast-paced action and intense special effects, not the cerebral, hardcore science fiction of the original series

    Exactly the problem with it. Much more suited to Star Wars – oh where is Abrams going next? Star Wars.

    • Only problem is Abrams isn’t much a good action director ! His mind set still fits better to TV productions,its unepic and small ! Prove me otherwise please!

  8. Star Trek not about action? Pfft

    There has always been action on Star Trek movies.

    Wrath of Khan

    Search for Spock

    The Final Frontier

    The Undiscovered Country

    Generations (attempted anyway)

    First Contact



    Abrams has a bigger budget so it won’t look b grade.

    • Not to mention everyone knows that redshirts are dispensable, not something you would expect if there were no action in Trek, we all know about Kirk getting his shirt off.

    • Amidst those mainstream offerings there were also six different series on tv totaling hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of hours of trek that was not made for the same budget or the idea of mass consumption. These smaller stories are the best of the trek universe to many, including me, and that is the point you were missing regarding too much action. The films are not made for the fans as much as they are made for everyone else, and they all seek to be action blockbusters and top contenders for sci fi cash. That’s the way it is. That’s why a series is better suited to doing the franchise justice. Fewer explosions, and more careful character cultivation over the course of many years worth of stories. It can be quite remarkable when it works.

    • Action in search for Spock.

      Knock Security Guards out.

      Steal Enteprise

      Blow Up Enterprise

      Kill David

      Kill Kruge

      Not actually action packed.

  9. To be honest I am not a big comI fan neither a vintage tv series watcher. But still I loved the new phase 1 marvel movies. And most of all the avengers. I think it was because it had a lot of stuff of my kind of people who don’t know much about comics but would love to enjoy a solo movie. So I don’t care if star trek will bring more action as long as it has a goo story. For all I want is to have fun at the theatre watching a nice eye catching film.

    That is why I am excited about both man o steel and star trek. Need genuine action with a good plot. My still most awaited movie is mos cause I have followed superman for a long time. But star trek is a close second.

    • Spoken like a very very casual fan. Nothing wrong with that, but you can see why a devoted fan of multiple decades, such as me, would prefer deeper stories to more action. Both would be fine, but we only get the movies these days, which means that for many years now we have only a few hours of action heavy mainstream Trek. Tough times to be a fan!

      • You’ll just have to stick to writing your Trek fan-fiction then. *sigh*


  10. my grandma is a super duper trekkie shes is like 77y if she says this stark franchise is geat then its GREAT !! im a new bred trekkie watched all epidodes and seasons of star trek on netflix so maybe my opinion doesnt mattter but we are in a age where we tweek things to appeal to the next generation so stop hating and complaining about this film either you watch the movie or you keep your mula and pipe down (no anger included)

    • @Marcus

      Well Stated, to me that is one of the better scenes in all of Science Fiction.

      But these words spoken by Khan is the best in all of the movies

      He tasks me. He tasks me and I shall have him! I’ll chase him ’round the moons of Nibia and ’round the Antares Maelstrom and ’round Perdition’s flames before I give him up!

  11. Action packed or not, this’ll probably be his last Star Trek film being that he’s moving on to Star Wars!

  12. Is anyone else wondering where Kirk’s half brother (shown briefly on the roadside in Iowa in the last film) is? Young Kirk did call him Johnny and the stepfathers name could be Harrison. The trailers do have an awful lot of talk about “family”. I know they are referring to the Enterprise crew but maybe his brother is pissed that Kirk left him and their mother behind and something happened to the mother and he blames Kirk.

    • The character was actually not his brother, rather Kirk’s friend “Johnny” who he happened to see. The production crew changed it last minute. His brother, George Samuel Kirk is brought up in the IDW ongoing series where he and his family are on a planet being over-run by mind controlling parasites.

  13. Was that a Speed reference?

  14. Ts footage like this that tells me Abrams can handle Satr Wars episode 7 :)

  15. Ive never been a star trek fan but Abrams has made me a fan of his version. Im very excited for this movie.

  16. Heres who I believe the villain is, John Harrison. Why? Because that’s the only thing that makes any sense. It’s not Gary Mitchell because the trailers haven’t shown anything that slightly suggests the villain has any godlike or telekinetic abilities. So he’s just a very powerful man. So that means its kahn right? Wrong. As was stated earlier, kahn has no reason to attack starfleet along with kirk and his crew. Putting kahn in this film would be pointless and a waste. Now, here’s the possibility that makes perfect sense. John Harrison is one of kahn’s comrades that is somehow set free from his sleeping prison along with kahn. He goes and starts all of this chaos and mayhem for whatever his reasons are, and kirk kills him somehow. Therefore setting the stage for kahn to make an appearance in a later film, and giving him a legitimate reason to hate kirk and his crew. Because he wants to avenge his friend. Doesn’t that make sense?