New Star Trek Trailer Is Freaking Awesome

Published 6 years ago by , Updated March 6th, 2009 at 11:49 am,

star trek trailer 32 New Star Trek Trailer Is Freaking Awesome

I’ve used the phrase “cautiously optimistic” in regards to the new Star Trek movie so many times I’ve lost count – but it’s looking like I was right all along. I’ve probably been a Trekkie longer than a lot of you who are reading this have been alive, and my favorite series of all is The Original Series – and I don’t have a problem with J.J. Abrams’ rebirth of Star Trek based on what I’ve seen and read so far.

And as far as I’m concerned this new Star Trek trailer seals the deal.

If you didn’t make it out to see Watchmen, here’s the brand new trailer that’s attached to it. If you thought the previous trailers made this look good, or maybe they started nudging you towards acceptance but you’re still on the fence, this one should convince you this is probably going to be awesome AND faithful to the spirit of the original.

Check it out for yourselves:


(Head over to for HD versions of the trailer.)

Now tell me that didn’t rock your world. I will be perfectly honest and tell you that I actually got chills at the very end of this damned thing. This new trailer even smokes the previous one.

Of course a “killer app” of a trailer doesn’t guarantee a nirvana movie experience (see my Watchmen review for an example of that), but I’m keeping my fingers crossed that Abrams and company will deliver.

Oh, and thanks to, we now know the running time for the film: 2 hours and 20 6 minutes. To me, that is also great news – plenty of time to deliver a decent story.

Star Trek opens on May 8, 2009.

TAGS: Star trek
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. Wow.


    I seriously can’t watch this trailer without getting all choked up. And all that’s left is that the movie live up to this trailer.

    Star Trek didn’t need a “re-boot”. It needed to go back to it’s roots. With movies, people, politics, and television all running on damaged values, this is the time for the honesty and integrity of Star Trek to really make a difference!

  2. I was wrong about my previous post. The movie appears to be nothing but a formula piece.

    Sorry, Matthew, but one PR writer can recognize another, and when I read what you wrote I immediately recognized it as a studio PR piece.

  3. OH MY GOD.

    There are no words . . .

    This looks like everything we have hoped for.

    People . . . its change we CAN believe in.


  4. Yes we can! LMAO, oh there are suckers born every day…

  5. Hmm…is Berman the guy who first tried to pitch to Roddenberry the idea of having “conflict in the bridge,” which Roddenberry didn’t approve? I mean, was Berman the one who proposed to make Star Trek more interesting if it showed it’s crew, particularly those in the bridge fighting or arguing more often?

    I seem to have read it in an old Time Magazine article about Trek were it said that this proposal was shot-down by Roddenberry because the whole point Star Trek was trying to convey was, the whole of mankind had finally settled their differences and are now working together smoothly, that’s why you have a Russian on the bridge (Chekov)surrounded by American and British crew members, and this doesn’t bother them one bit. And since the original series was shown in the 60′s which is a part of the “Cold War” era, it really sends out a powerful message regarding peace and harmony amongst nations. Having in-fighting in the bridge will go against this ideal.

    Hence, when Roddenberry let go of his hold on the franchise, Voyager was created to pursue that “conflict in the bridge” idea. So, again, was this Berman?