New ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ Trailer: More Action, Less Cumberbatch

Published 2 years ago by , Updated March 9th, 2013 at 5:31 pm,

With just over two months to go before the release of the highly-anticipated Star Trek Into Darkness, any new look at footage from the film is sure to set the Internet ablaze with renewed excitement and speculation. In the follow-up to the successful 2009 revival of big-screen Trek, Captain James T. Kirk finds himself bucking against Starfleet regulations even as terrorist fugitive “John Harrison” seeks to bring down the entire Federation.

Star Trek Into Darkness is directed by JJ Abrams (Super 8) and written by Roberto Orci (Fringe), Alex Kurtzman (All You Need Is Kill), and Damon Lindelof (Prometheus). The movie features an ensemble cast headlined by Chris Pine (Rise of the Guardians), Benedict Cumberbatch (Sherlock), Zachary Quinto (American Horror Story), and Karl Urban (Dredd).

Star Trek Into Darkness Teaser 2 New Star Trek Into Darkness Trailer: More Action, Less Cumberbatch

Compared to previous trailers, this preview places much less emphasis on Benedict Cumberbatch’s mysterious villain, completely eschewing his growling voiceover. Instead, we get a mix of smaller character moments and the promised “relentless action,” including a chunk of a starship chase sequence that’s been glimpsed in previous previews.

Though a good deal of the material in this trailer has already been seen in the nine-minute IMAX preview released in December, it does confirm that Star Trek Into Darkness is devoted to being a big, slick action-adventure movie. The teaser also goes a long way toward allaying fears that the movie could end up being far too dark and dour – the crew of the Enterprise seem to be heading into the titular dark with their senses of humor intact.


Star Trek Into Darkness will warp into theaters on May 17th, 2013.

Follow Kyle Hembree on Twitter @ProjectNightHam
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. I know nothing about old star trek, but i always thought star wars was action star trek wasn’t

    • Nope… Star Wars and Trek have the same amount of action, just Trek takes a while to get there because theres story.

      • Based on your choice of words, are you implying Star Wars doesn’t have story, thus it feels like there’s more action?

      • More like Star Trek is mostly all strategy, whilst Star Wars is mostly all action. (Excluding the prequels that acted like they were all about srategy, but the strategy was dumb.)

      • Where the hell is all the ‘SPACE’ action though? There are a lot of people running around planets, there is even a starship in the sea of a planet – where are the starshps lancing each other with phasers and disruptors in space? Where is the sparkle of directed energy on shield arrays? This film looks like ‘Bourne’ in the future to me.

        • Collectively, Star Trek has more episode which have more action, than the collective of Star Wars movies.

          We are talking 300+ Episodes of Star Trek, plus the movies vs 6 2.5 Hour long Star Wars movies.

          And some of Star Wars action is based on Sword Play. The Nobility of Star Wars vs Star Treks “Cowboy Diplomacy”.

          I would take Kirk vs any Commander in Star Wars, based on Principals and willingness to break the rules to get the job done.

          • Winning by having about twenty times more hours of screen time doesn,t count. On the whole Star Trek is not really known for being action packed, while Star Wars is. This is something most star trek fans point out, and the major complaint they had with the Abrams film was that it was all action and more like a Star Wars movie.

            Compare both first movies as an example: Star Wars ANH Vs Star Trek TMP.

            • Star Trek TMP…Good lord, it took 8 minutes to get to the Enterprise.

              Star Wars ANH. Had action, but. Saber battle does not appeal to me.

              Dogfighting in space, eh…was good, but I seen better.

              For the most part, the action was nothing in TMP and was bland in ANH.

              Now Empire Strikes back had more action, as did TWOK. I am more entertained with Star Trek, then the saga which is Star Wars.

              • As a fan of both who is vastly more entertained by hundreds of cohesive hours of Trek than the six hit and miss Star Wars films, I still find your perspective a bit bizarre. You must be a youngling to be board by the spectacle of the original Star Wars. It was groundbreaking work that nobody had seen anything like, and even decades later the sword fights and trench run are masterful creations of talented individuals. Digital effects can’t easily replicate the signs of effort and artistry of the pioneering crew. It’s strange to hear someone practically yawn at such an ADD style slam bang action in outer space masterpiece. Makes you sound like you grew up watching MTV after all the music left… Glad you like Trek though, so here’s a secret: it’s just way better in general. No reason not to dig both though!

            • You are basically totally right. Except it’s not just Abrams Trek that is overly action oriented, it’s really every Trek film except the first that eschews the cerebral dignity and careful character development for flashy space action and easily digestible blockbusters for the masses. The reason diehard Trekkies like the episodes more than the movies is because the movies are made for the general public to watch, and are by design not as thoughtful, ponderous, or character oriented. The best are still good fun, but hardly exemplify what makes the characters or universe so compelling. TMP was very slow, and the prequels were largely an embarrassment, but both franchises have had good films.

    • Star Trek has always been more action than Star Wars.

      Star Wars is more of a Space Opera, where as Star Trek is a Space Western.

      • Idk just stating what ive heard. Not very knowledgeable in either subject

        • That is the problem you heard.

          Take it from people who have seen both franchises. Star Wars is a tale of Ascension into greatness, decent into darkness and redpemtion. It is a story based on heroes and villains.

          Star Trek, is a punch you in the face and go get the bad guy and beat them and then win the girl and go home. Motivated by duty and honor, but willing to break the rules.

          Everyone has to remember, Star Trek was 12 years before Star Wars.

          • NO Jeff, 90% of all episodes of TNG had nothing to do with punching anyone in the face. More’ talk to them face to face’.

            • @Wayne.

              You are assuming I am a fan of the TNG, No I grew up on TOS. TNG To me was to diplomatic.

              Movies however, there was more action than Story in Star Trek, and more Story than action in Star Wars.

      • actually it’s the opposite, star wars it’s the space wester, and trek the space opera

        • Namik, you really do not know.

          Star Wars is known as a Saga. Star Wars Episode IV V VI were the events over those three movies. It took 3 Movies to complete the story arc.

          Star Trek, each movie has been a stand alone, with the only dependent Star Trek Movies were TWOK TSFS TVH. Those movies told a story, but did But for the most part, each Star Trek movie does not require a previous movie to tell its story.

          Operas are told in Stages, Sagas, or Stories.

          So, sorry. You are wrong.

          • I think you’re getting your definitions confused.

            let’s clear things up here: a “space opera” has nothing to do with epicness, or stages, or phases, or grandeur…

            the term “Space opera” is a reference to how stupid and inconsequential the stories in opera really are. Therefore, a “space opera” is a sci-fi story that is light on depth, story, development, and heavy on action or silliness.

            Star Trek has always tackled moral dilemmas, throughout all of its TV series history. While it has some elements of space opera – battle scenes and a bit of improbable science – MOST of star trek has been firmly grounded in a universe that “could be”, and tackling moral and social issues. Those aren’t the hallmarks of a “space opera”.

            The opposite of Space Opera is “hard sci-fi”.

            Star Wars falls flat in the middle of the dictionary definition of “space opera”. It has more elements akin to fantasy than hard science. It relies on improbable coincidences to advance the story. Its characters tend to be rather two-dimensional, fitting into firmly established archetypes and stereotypes.

            There’s nothing wrong with a good ol’ space opera. I even read a lot of it (Larry Niven, for example).

            • I equate Star Wars with Saga, when I hear Saga, I think Epic. I could have done without the prequels, and I have no need for any more Star Wars films that will force the masses to accept what is today.

              DS9..That was more of Space Opera, that needed 2 seasons to complete, Voyager was more action and intrique. Enterprise, well lets just say..I would like to forget enterprise

              TNG….Diplomatic solution led to some boring episodes.

              TOS. Action in every episode, rules be damn and good adventure.

              • DS9 was about as far from “space opera” as you can get.

                As I said, you are confusing the definition. length of story has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the term “space opera”.

                “Space opera” does NOT equate with “epic” or “saga”.

                John Carter of Mars (the books) was pure space opera. Not because of the length. Because of the manner in which the subject was approached.

            • @Mike E
              Great post.

          • Star Wars has ALWAYS been called a “Space Opera”. I have never heard anyone refer to Star Trek as a Space Opera apart from you.

            A new hope was a stand alone movie! They had no idea that they’d get the oppurtunity to make a sequel.

            • Oops. That was in reply to Namik.

            • Yep! Plus how can you call a trek film standalone when it is sitting on the prominent shoulders of hundreds and hundreds of hours of storylines and characters? Which of those are specifically relevant at any time is another issue, and striving to be inconsequential is one reason Voyager wasn’t a better show, and why Enterise took years to become what it should have been from the start. Nevertheless, most people who see a TNG movie know those characters already, and many have known them for decades, having seen hundreds of hours of them before. Star Wars is six movies, and that’s all. Trek is 12 movies and six television series and a pretty consistent flow of stories for the last several decades. Nobody sat on six hours worth of trek for twenty years before finally delivering some weak prequels and reclosing the vault. If people want action most of all then they will prefer the spectacle of Star Wars the most, and will find all the tv stuff boring because the focus and the budget are not built around action and cutting edge explosions. Far be it from me to call those silly people shallow. They just like it when stuff gets blowed up real good. To each their own. I think characters like Spock and Picard are indecipherable to the casual action fan, unless they are in an action story.

    • @Trey Clearly someone never watched Star Trek Generations, First Contact, Insurrection, Nemesis, and 09 Trek, because all of those were straight action movies.

      • Obviously since i said i know nothing about old star trek.

        • What do you mean by “old” Star Trek? Do you mean everything before the movie that came out just 4 years ago? Even so, one of the movies he listed was the 2009 JJ Abrams version…

          • Clearly he meant everything before the 09 movie.

            • 2009 is old? Huh? How young is this person? Not an expert, it would seem, despite voicing a narrow perspective.

    • @Trey

      I have no clue what these other people are rambling about, it really depends on which Star Trek you’re talking about because they were all kind of different in this respect. If you’re talking about the original Star Trek with Captain Kirk, it had plenty of action. If you’re talking about TNG, it had plenty of them trying to be “diplomatic” and then realizing after the fact that not firing on a threat when they had a chance was a bad decision and the rest of the episode is them trying to recover from that mistake. That’s pretty much every other episode of that show… I think Voyager had more action, not sure about Deep Space Nine, and that weird spin-off Enterprise was supposedly pretty action-packed but I never watched it. I’ve always been more of a Star Wars person, with the exception of the new Star Trek. I’m liking the direction Abrams is bringing the series…

      • Deep Space Nine had by far the most action, space battles, explosions, large scale war of fleets of ships… It was both the most cerebral and contemplative and meditative, and the most action oriented, explosion filled exciting action series. The larger scale stuff didn’t star till Worf arrived in season four, but by the time of season six and seven the scale of destruction and space war was way beyond any other Trek, including the films. If you are lucky a trek film may have one battle with multiple ships on one side and one ship on the other, like the Borg cube. Two species and a handful of ships is all. DS9 had multi species fleets going to all out war on a regular basis and it kicked ass. Plus it built relevance and consequence with every episode, unlike Voyger which actively tried not to. ENT finally got a working formula and delivered in its fourth and final season one of the best trek seasons ever. Sure it started and ended on weak notes, but the stories became deeply relevant to the series as well as Trek at large, and if the show had continued we would have had the Romulans war with nukes and a faceless enemy… It never got there, so DS9 is still the “war series” and yet surprisingly it is by far the best show, the most cohesively impactful and week to week relevant show, with the largest supporting cast of excellent guest stars and most consistent in its characters and complexity. It’s fantastic.

  2. That’s what I’m talking about! Looks stunning! Makes me feel like a kid.

  3. wow! excited

  4. I never thought the day would come when I could say, without sarcasm, that I was excited to see a Star Trek movie. That day is here now.

  5. The back of that ship on the post looks like the bad robot head…

  6. Looks eff’n awesome. This and IM3 makes me happy that May is almost here.

  7. Does anyone else here dislike Benedict Cumberbatch and think hes talentless?

    • Nope. It’s just you. I suggest you see your doctor first thing in the morning or your affliction may only get worse. Then nobody will want to sit next to you on the bus.

      *whisper* “I’m not sitting next to that mentaller!”*whisper*

    • Nah, you are on an island by yourself.

      I suggest you hope for a Volley Ball to wash ashore and you can name him Wilson.

    • It’s just you from the looks of things.

    • Are you blind? LOL!

    • LOL. I mean, I get people making fun of his name and his unconventional looks but talentless? His voice alone has more talent/skill/charisma than most working actors in the industry.

      • Really? Did you see the whole film already and understood its story or are you basing that from mere clever marketing strategies to appeal to the public?

    • He’s definitely talented and a great actor, but I do think he’s a little overrated.
      His portrayal of Sherlock Holmes is something that bugs the hell out of me, but then again, as a SH purist, most things about that show bugs me. Other than that, he’s been terrific in everything I’ve seen him in.

  8. Hmmm. Action over story? Not a good sign…

    • Really?! Did you see the whole film already and understood its story or are you basing that from mere clever marketing strategies to appeal to the public?

    • Not sure where you got that idea from.

  9. This is not Star Trek, it’s turned into Star Wars.
    I’m glad that we know now that there is going to be no sequel. The Star Trek that I used to know had more of a story. Even though I haven’t seen the first one yet, it doesn’t look promising to me.

    I grew up with the old series and movies in the past, I knew that when JJ Abrams came in he was going to change up the Star Trek name as we knew it. But I didn’t know it will be this much. Too much action for a Star Trek movie. It was more intellectual in the past and it also had more of a deeper meaning and message (If you don’t believe me, see the old series).

    I enjoy Benedict Cumberbatch’s performance as anyone else around here. But I think this reboot has almost destroyed the original Star Trek name as we know it. They might as well set phasers to self destruct…

    • Parker,

      You really should watch the first new one if you’re going to make pronouncements about old vs new Trek. Although, yes, the first one was thin on story I’ll admit. As a TOS fan above all, I still found it entertaining as hell.

      I do think this next one will be much more story-centric than the first one.


      • Yes! While I appreciate trek fan outrage over less story and more action, I think two huge factors are forgotten. Firstly that ALL the trek movies are overly focused on popcorn action content (except the slow style of the original) at the expense of many f the things that make trek special, like meticulous character cultivation and story. That’s the way they sell it to the masses, while the most hardened Trekkies tend to prefer the tv shows. I sure do.

        Secondly, after the TNG movies were deemed unprofitable and discontinued, and Enterprise lost its audience before it became a great show (fourth season), trek was in a lot f trouble. The mere existence of the new movies and the excitement around them is almost certainly the reason trek is alive and making money, which in turn means that the viability of future truly great trek, probably on television, is alive and well. Even if you hate the new movies, you may well owe a debt to them, especially if the next series comes together and makes it what it should be again. I like the movies, but hope for much more compelling trek to be born in the profits.

    • Agree. The Star Trek TV series was more story and character driven. As a kid, I actually found it boring because of the lack of action, but as I grew older I grew to appreciate it.

      If this trailer is representative of the new Star Trek, I’m not impressed. Anyone can do action and explosions and fights. Star Trek was a little more than that.

    • You sound ridiculous. You haven’t seen the 2009 film yet you pretend like you can make a comparison.. and there will be a third film, sorry to disappoint an ill-minded person.

      • @ Trey

        Who are you referring too?

        Suffice to say, I can honestly say I am a handful of people on here who can lay claim to have seen each and every Star Trek Movie to date in movie theaters, From TMP to Star Trek O9.

        So, I know you cannot be talking to me.

        • Can you also say you watched the original series as it aired on television?

          I can.

          And yes, I was at the premieres of every one of the Star Trek films, starting with the first one.

        • Just a wild guess but I suspect he just may have been addressing the author of the original post who claimed he had not seen the first movie.

    • Long post given you are only speculating there is no story.

      You are completely wrong as well. Action and story. Abrams is doing what Star Trek would have always done given the budget and tried even without.

      Wrath of Khan worked because the action worked whereas trying to be too cerebral in the motion picture bored us all crapless.

      Search for spock – action

      The Final Froontier – Action

      The undiscovered country – action

      Generations – action with a dog awful story

      First contact – action

      Insurrection – action and rebellion

      Nemesis – really boring action.

      So I am not sure where this myth comes from that Abrams has sacrificed story for action.

      In facts all next gen movies other than first contact had no decent story at all.

  10. This looks fantastic to me i am excited for this movie and also interested to see Star Wars get a little bit of this

  11. Since Abrams will be working on Star Wars and won’t be able to do Star Trek 3 who would you guys want to direct in his place, i was thinking Rupert Wyatt from Rise of the Planet of the Apes what about you guys

    • I would think most would be in an agreement that Brad Bird would the be the one most want.

      • Wow Bird would be a great choice and he’s worked with Abrams before so i guess it could actually happen, great thinking man can’t believe i didn’t think of that

  12. Wow seriously? Did Michael Bay edit this trailer? Really hope this is just an attempt at getting mainstream interest because that looks nothing like a Star Trek movie. The first trailers were good but this could have not had Star Trek in the title and I’d have thought it was just a generic action movie.

  13. Let’s GO!

  14. Can’t trekking wait!

    • lo great line fellow trekkie great line

      • Funny thing is, I’m not a trekkie, always been in love with Star Wars. But Star Trek 09 won me over and now I love both!

        • I hear you man I grew up with Star Wars and knew very little about Star Trek until i was in middle school and saw the 09 reboot then i got into the old tv show and all. I just love them both to be honest, but i may like Star Wars more because i grew up with it, star trek to me is classical jazz and Star Wars is like Rock and Roll

  15. /sings
    “Star Trekking, through the universe…
    Always trekking forward, ‘cuz we cannot find reverse…”

  16. All I’m going to say is that Captain Kirk would merc those rat tail having jedi

  17. lmaooooo tell me why when i saw this topic on the homepage i perdiicted that there will be a star wars vs star trek battle lol. thanks to netflix ive seen all the star trek seasons because being birn in 92 i wasnt end to that space stuff but i like both St and Sw

    • Good for you! No really! I totally feel you man. I like both too.

  18. you have to watch out for trolls .some of these people havent seen one episode of star trek with episodes like “the cage” or the episode with lt mitchell

  19. From what can be seen in the trailer, this is nothing like what Star Trek stands for. Hardly any message, no emphasis on deeper aspects like the ones previous series and movies dealt with (such as exploration, “seeking out new life and new civilizations”, inter-species diplomacy). Change the Enterprise with some other ship, change the name of the characters and it ends up being some random, run of the mill, summer action flick. Not good.

  20. After reading all these comments, I believe we can all agree that there are differences between Star Trek and Star Wars. Truthfully, I like these worlds separated as they are. I remember a producer (or was it a writer) on the last ST movie comparing Star Trek to a game of chess while Star wars was something like… darn it, can’t remember exactly… something in the line of a superbowl maybe?? But my thinking is, will J. J. Abrahms stay true to this difference in styles??

    • @SJD

      Of course there are differences, I like both franchises, but I also loathe certain aspects of both franchises.

      I rather face a fleet of Star Destroyers than a fleet of Starfleet ships.

      At least I know the Starfleet ships can detect a ship that would be attacked their ships. They also do not need to dump trash before they go to warp.

      Just saying.

      • @Jeff W

        “They also do not need to dump trash before they go to warp”

        LOL. I always said to sci-fi addicts that Star Trek’s ship are more advanced than Star Wars’ ships, minutes before fans of SW tried to flign erasers at me in class for saying so. And they’re greener too; even the antimatter’s waste is recycled (if I remember B’Elanna Torres’s speech to that Maelon jerk who was dumping all his waste in a dark starless expanse of space in ST:voy). :)

        • @SJD

          Thank you for appreciating my humor..I get a lot of people going “What the hell am I talking about!”

      • actually that should be attached to their ships.

        I think the Enterprise would detect the falcon attached to her.

        Star Destroyers seem unable to detect this?

      • I know you were joking about, but they didn’t need to dump their trash to be able to jump to lightspeed. It is just when they’ve got to dump, it is best to do it while stationary. You don’t want to dump trash in hyperspace because you’ll end up with trash whizzing around the galaxy at lightspeed for the rest of eternity.

        • Nope, according to Solo, he knew the procedure is to dump their trash before they make the jump, why he detached the falcon from the conn tower and floated away with the rest of the garbage.

          Just like Boba Fett anticipated.

          And evidently, they do not know a ship was attached to their conn tower.

          • Yeah, I know. But I didn’t dispute that. I just gave a reason why it is a sensible procedure to dump before a jump to lightspeed.

        • No, the trash would eventually come to a stop, may be a few 100 million miles, but it would come to a slow crawl.

          • Without friction the only way an object will slow down or stop in space is if it encounters gravitational forces and/or hits something. Typical of the Empire not to recycle though…

          • An object in space will continue at the same speed forever unless another force acts upon it. eg: another object, gravity, atmostphere of a planet, a black hole etc…

            If something travelling at light speed never comes into contact with any other object it will continue forever until perhaps reaching the unknown edge of expanding space.

    • “will J. J. Abrahms stay true to this difference in styles??”

      Actually that’s a good question sjd. I think it’s inevitable that look and feel is going to start being the same between the two franchises with this film and Star Wars VII. Star Wars VIII could diverge from this look and feel because supposedly Kasdan and company will take the reigns following Abrams but then you have the follow up to ‘Into Darkness’ and if Abrams is once again in the directors chair it could look and feel very much like Star Wars VII unless of course another director steps in and does the next Star Trek…

  21. I thought the score sounded oddly similar to the dark knight rises credit music

  22. Here is the Problem with Abrams is a self confessed Fanboy of Star Wars.

    I am a Fan of Star Wars, and I like the simplicity of it. I like the Story more than the action.

    But, Star Wars given to a Fanboy may not be the best interest of everyone. We have seen what people do to their favorite thing

    Abrams his a good director, his writing cronies however leave a lot left to be desire and with such.

    Can anyone Argue The Final Two seasons of Lost, or Alias, or Fringe?

    Abrams has a tendecy to get WAY LOST in his projects, and it often comes off as “What the hell did I just watch?”

    Different With Lucas, he shaped Star Wars with the way he wanted, and well Outside of Empire Strike Back, do any of the other Star Wars films stack up? Name one Star Wars movie as good or better than Empire Strikes Back. This is not going to happen with Abrams, because he now has a Studio calling the shots, and he has to stay with in limits of Disney, and Disney does not like their products alter their family first thinking.

    • I’m hopeful that as a fan, Abrams could see what was so wrong about the prequels and bring back the right feel, look and story/tone that works. It could be too much of a task, but after giving up on Star Wars, I’m finally a little excited to see what could be done.

      • But, not all fans share the same thought on what they think makes a movie great. Got to have a fine line.

        If you reshape it in your image, some might not like your new vision.

        • That seems to be the problem Lucas had. Saying that, I’ve seen fan films that felt more like Star Wars than any of the prequels did. (^-^)

  23. The Enterprise under water really? Spock in an active volcano? This isn’t science fiction, it might as well be Peter Pan instead ofptain Kirk! We need better science and story line to keep it going. Just scrape the whole thing and start something new. Give me something to wonder at and imagine what the future could be

    • I’m really hoping this is good, especially cuz Cumberbatch is one of my favorite actors, but I’m beginning to get this Dark of the Moon and Battleship feeling. Hope that I am wrong though.

      • @Art

        Dude, nothing can be as bad as Battleship.


        Repeat after me…”I will never mention Battleship ever again.”

        • Lol, it was a bit extreme. I’m actually looking forward to this, just hoping it has something smart to all the action. I have faith that the cast and crew can deliver, it’s just that most trailers have had been mostly loud and mostly action. Action is one of my favorite genres, last year two of my favorite films were Looper and Avengers, but I’m not a twelve year old that will be sold on cgi and explosion alone.

    • Well, as a matter of fact. The highest temperature a fire suit can withstand is 2000 degrees F.

      Now the highest recorded volcano temperature is about 2192 degrees F.

      300 Years from now, I can see a suit withstanding a volcano temperature.

      Starships in theory are designed to withstand the the speed of warped space, so why cant a spaceship not be able to withstand the pressure of water?

  24. Hope that it is good, but also hope that there is something intriguing besides all the explosions.

  25. Wow, interesting. A new video is posted, and almost every last reply is a bunch of opinions on Star Trek vs. Star Wars.

    I was about to say that this new Star Trek saga seems to have a lot more people falling from great heights over and over again, but I guess I’d be off-topic in this forum, speaking about the video. So….

    Uhhh…Hmmmm. Star Trek is for people who like to think more, and Star Wars is more of a straight-forward, teeny saga. There. Ok, flame on, people.

  26. Technology details from the preview: there are a few places on the ship that have that circular door… Wonder which it is that he flies out of? Also that little ship sure looks like it COULD be flush with the saucer section, which is to say maybe it is their version of the Captains Yaucht. I think Picards ENT – D was the first to be known to Trekkies as having such a thing, and we never saw it, but the ENT – E actually showed one. It would be cool to establish a new ship that is part of the Enterprise.

  27. Ummm….More Cumberbatch please 😉

  28. Well in defense of Star Wars, Wars have strategies so its not like thinking gets turned off. I agree though there is a difference between them.

    What I’m hoping at least is that Abrams will take the legacies of the two franchises into account as he directs the next couple of films namely the next Star Wars and if it works out the next Star Trek. I would like to think that long after I’m gone people will be enjoying Star Trek for what it has been in the past and not as some generic Science Fiction that lost its identity long ago. In fact I’m wondering just how many Trek fans aren’t concerned about the same thing and whether or not they will stay fans after the next couple of Star Trek films. Will losing the core audience interest kill Star Trek? That’s the kind of questions that concerns me…

  29. So, um…am I missing something? Where’s the new trailer?
    There’s no link in the above article and just a photo (that DOES look like the “Bad Robot”)…