New Star Trek Trailer Is Freaking Awesome

Published 5 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:

[MEDIA=114]

(Head over to Apple.com 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 Collider.com, 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.

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

66 Comments

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.

  1. It looks like the movie will be 126 minutes. Regardless the Star Trek reboot will be awesome.

  2. Does anyone else here feel the need to pretty much MUTE every action movie trailer now? These background music effects totally KILL the movie itself for me anymore. And to the poster who said the sex scene wasn’t out of place because the original Kirk fooled around all the time, he’s only half correct: Kirk fooled around all the time, romantically, BUT NEVER HAD A SEX SCENE. This kind of trite scene thrown in to make loser fanboys excited is just what the problem is with movies today. Movies aren’t made to be GOOD, they are made to cater to a certain audience, and for some reason, I guess it’s absolutely IMPERATIVE that a sex scene had to be tossed into the Trek universe, where one never existed before, not even when Troi was psychologically “raped” in STNG. I do appreciate the trailer being posted for all to see though, because if I just judged off everyone’s else’s TREK worship reactions, I would have thought that this was the last movie I’d ever need to see. Turns out, it is not.

  3. Yes, I’m so glad that everyone else is excited, too! Give or take a few complaints I see above, this is one of those trailers that just defies being criticized because it is so insanely awesome. Everyone just thinks it looks incredible, and doesn’t try to pick it apart… Thank goodnesss, because I am SO pumped for this!! :)

  4. The trailer was good but there was a lot of foreshadowing in there that will probably translate to big changes in the Star Trek mythos or a complete retooling/rewriting of that history..therefore I am both happy that they seem to be making a good action-packed Star Trek movie but I am disappointed from the viewpoint that everything we know of Star Trek for the last 43 years will change drastically and probably not for the better..

  5. I agree Alex,

    This sells me 100% and is a big improvement on the earlier trailers.

    @ Adrian, on our post for the new Up trailer (which will be up shortly), I made note of all the movies coming out each weekend in May :)

  6. hey greenknight333
    if it completly rewrites TOS history cannon which it seems to do judging by the trailers you can always just think of it as a parallel timeline / universe along the same line as Marvels Ultimate Universe ,as long as i think it about that way i should hopefully enjoy the movie and ive watched star trek all my life even have a Klingon tattoo so if i can live with it that way im sure others can too

  7. @Krok & greenknight

    It IS an alternate timeline. When the Romulan guy (whose name escapes me) goes back in time and destroys the USS Kelvin, he alters the timeline we’re familiar with.

    AFAIK that’s why things in the movie are different.

    Vic

  8. Vic,
    Didn’t like that spoiler thrown in.

  9. Sorry, man. I didn’t consider it a spoiler so much as an explanation of why it is things are different in the film.

    Vic

  10. Are you referring to Eric Bana’a character Nero?..SO why bastardize 40 years of history for the sake of a new movie..oh right money..integrity is dead

  11. @ KroktheWeak

    I find Marvel’s Ultimates ..well let’s just say I am not fond of it at all…

    I’m not saying I won’t like the new film but I just don’t understand why they tossed 40 years of history because they could not find a better story than “alternate timelines”..Say what you want even if there are an unlimited number of possible threads and timelines this will not be the Star Trek we know and it is bastardizing the characters we know by stealing their names and the comfort level we have as fans of Star Trek when we hear KIRK, Spock , McKoy..this is not Star Trek IMO but just another Sci-Fi story that has stolen characters from another franchise..Deflector Shields @ Maximum!!

  12. For the record my wife LOVED the trailer Vic and she like you got chills and can’t wait for this movie..I hope her enthusiasm rubs off on me..

  13. You know, I didn’t watch a lot of Star Trek, but out of the few I’ve seen, I think I’ve already seen at least 2 that involved alternate timelines/dimensions. I think didn’t that one really crappy movie First Contact involve the changing of timelines? There was an episode of Voyager where the entire crew of Voyager, minus the asian dude, actually ends up dying and the “alternate” version of Voyager picks up that Asian guy since their “version” gets sucked out into space, lol, and then they are the ones that end up surviving and continuing on with the show… So technically, after that episode, the entire crew of Voyager is actually dead…

    But yah, alternate timeline/dimension stories don’t really seem too out of Star Trek territory…

  14. Vic,
    I suppose the alternate reality is an important premise to put on the table very intentionally, to diffuse fan rage.

    I’m not a big fan of TOS. I like all the later versions much better. I LOVE the idea of a reboot which gives a reason for departing from canon. If nothing else, it eliminates diatribes between hardcore fans about whether someone’s boot should have had buckles instead of eyelets.

    It gives me hope for this movie and the possibility of *original* sequels to follow.

  15. @Hunger

    I agree, it’s a way to have their cake and eat it too, although some fans probably won’t go for it.

    IF they stay true to the essence of the original characters I won’t have a problem with it.

    Vic

  16. I like what seems like a new take on the transporter effect–or maybe it’s an alien transporter I see (the little tinkerbell swirls around Syl–um–Spock.)

  17. I have to say, the trailers are definitely building to a crescendo.

    Regardless of whether this is a complete reboot or an alternate timeline, the fact of the matter is, ST was a living dead franchise. I dread thinking how bad and forgettable the last few Star Trek movies were. Generations, Insurrection, Nemesis all suffered from plots that were just plain stupid and filled with so much tepid sentimentalizing cloaked as drama. The “psychic rape” of Deanna Troi actually caused the audience to laugh, which is rather horrible, but it was so badly done that Star Trek became a show you could not take seriously. At all.

    BTW, to the commenter still complaining about the “sex scene,” I just don’t understand what brings out the prudishness in so many fans. Probably the only reason TOS never had an sex scenes was that it was 1960s television! You argument that the new movie shouldn’t have a sex scene because TOS didn’t have any only makes sense if anyone could have gotten away with broadcasting a sex scene on TV back, the way you’re arguing. Sex scenes were not an option back then.

    By the way, anyone who is a Trek fan should read this Salon.com piece from 1999, prophetically entitled “The Trouble with Trek.” It has a lot of insights that explains the failure of the NG movies, the Love Boat drama that DS9 devolved into, the insipid mediocrity of Voyager, and the last gasp attempt of Enterprise to break out of the orbit of mediocrity, but failing to do.

    http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/1999/10/29/trek/index.html

    (Might take a long time to load, seems like Salon’s servers aren’t so good retrieving stores buried in the archives, but here’s an excerpt.)

    “The obvious question at this point is, Who killed “Star Trek”?

    “The obvious answer is Rick Berman.”

    “And maybe it’s as simple as that. After all, before signing on with “Trek” at the beginning of the decade, Berman was in charge of Paramount’s miniseries division, and he had been responsible for the Emmy-winning children’s TV series “The Big Blue Marble.” When he first met with Roddenberry in 1986, during his initial talks with Paramount about a new “Trek” series, Berman told the so-called Great Bird of the Galaxy he didn’t know one thing about “Star Trek,” aside from the one or two episodes he had seen as a kid. If nothing else, Berman was honest.”

    “Five years later, Berman found himself in charge of the franchise. Within two years he had alienated Spock and had become one of the men responsible for killing off Captain Kirk in the film “Star Trek: Generations.” For longtime fans like me, it’s been downhill from there.”

    “The dirty little secret is Berman and the people running ‘Star Trek’ right now hate ‘The Original Series’ and hate being compared to it,” says Altman, referred to by the Los Angeles Times as the “world’s foremost Trekspert.” Altman, during his days as a sci-fi magazine journalist, actually used to have a good relationship with Berman until he became critical of “Next Generation” and “Voyager.”

    “They are not people who have any affection for the old show. When [producer] Harve Bennett and [director] Nick Meyer took over the franchise for ‘Star Trek II,’ they went back and looked at every episode of ‘The Original Series’ and learned everything they could about what worked and what didn’t. When these guys [Berman and writer Brannon Braga] took over, they hated the original and resented being in the shadow and avoided watching it. They’d be happy if people forgot the original, and that’s unfortunate.”

    Rick Berman is the anti-Gene.”

    Kinda makes you see Star Trek in a new light.

  18. Salon.com is so slow accessing the article, I thought I would include another highly insightful and critical excerpt. Sorry if this post is way long, but this article is a must-read for any Star Trek fan to understand what happened to the franchise, and why none of the modern TV shows could come close to measuring up to the TOS. Great quotes from Leonard Nimoy, too.

    ——-

    What Berman and his staff seem never to have realized is that “The Original Series” was so endearing because of its stars — because Shatner, Nimoy and Kelley seemed at once larger than life and so very vulnerable, so very human. The subsequent casts have been, at best, knockoffs of the original characters (Data=Spock) or, at worst, anonymous faces wearing drab Starfleet uniforms. Patrick Stewart’s Captain Picard forever seemed like a good actor stuck in a thankless part: the captain of a hotel lobby, which the bridge of the Enterprise-D always resembled. And “Voyager’s” Kate Mulgrew exudes remarkably little charisma and barely opens her mouth to deliver her lines.

    Berman’s decision to kill Kirk wasn’t merely a pragmatic solution to a nonexistent quandary. After all, why couldn’t Paramount make films using both casts, at least until the original crew of the Enterprise started dying off in real life? No, his execution of Kirk symbolized a lack of understanding of what made the show so endearing for so long. You can put any group of people in Starfleet uniforms, but if there is no sense of humor, no sense of purpose, no sense of compassion, then it sure as hell ain’t “Star Trek.”

    “There has definitely been a difference in vision than what we were doing, and that’s either for better or worse,” says Nimoy, who says he does not watch the new shows because he hasn’t the time. “You have to give them credit, because, on the one hand, we only lasted three seasons and were canceled. They lasted 12 years with three different shows. If you put the aggregate years together, that’s like 30 years of ‘Star Trek.’ And they have a right to call it ‘Star Trek,’ but it has evolved into something different. What it is, I don’t know — I don’t watch enough of it to pass judgment.

    “I can tell you on a very general level I think we had a certain kind of charm and a currency. I felt we were in touch with the time. Now, times have changed, and maybe it’s not as easy to grab hold of a Zeitgeist as it was for us. We were dealing with very strong social movements of the time. By that, I mean the civil rights movement, the Vietnam War, overpopulation concerns, the growing awareness of concerns for the planet. We had very rich, fertile territory to plow, and I think we did it very well. I don’t know that these people have the same kind of territory to plow, except, ‘How are we going to get home this week?’ It’s not the same, is it?”

    Nimoy has never forgiven Berman for the poor handling of Kirk’s death — and for the fact that Braga and Moore, in their original “The Undiscovered Territory” script, had reduced the Spock and McCoy characters to nothing but walk-on parts, another sign of how little these men cared about the original show. Nimoy says he wouldn’t have minded so much had he been asked to direct the film before the script was written. Even if the Spock role was to be small, at least as director Nimoy could find some way to give him an identity.

    But that wasn’t to be.

    “I had directed two very successful ‘Star Trek’ movies, and ‘IV,’ it’s safe to say, is to this day the most successful,” Nimoy says. “But the point is, when I was asked to do them, I was brought in first, as the director to make a movie for Paramount Pictures. When Rick Berman announced to me he had been hired as producer to make the next ‘Star Trek’ movie, I said to him, ‘Who’s going to direct it?’ And he said, ‘Well, it would be very exciting to work with you as a director someday,’ which I thought was very evasive. Then several months later, after he and his people had done the script, they called me and said, ‘We would love to have you direct this movie.’

    “Well, this is an entirely different construct than making a movie for Paramount. Now, I’m making a movie for Rick Berman, you see. Well, the script was lousy. I said so: ‘This needs major, major work.’ They said, ‘Well, we don’t have time for the kind of changes you’re talking about.’ So I said goodbye. And then to end it with a fight scene between Kirk and Malcolm McDowell! What’s the point?”

    Since then, Nimoy has not talked to Paramount about anything related to “Star Trek” — with one exception: He and business partner John de Lancie (better known as “Next Generation’s” Q) have shipped to stores this week an hour-long audio version of their “Spock vs. Q” two-man show, which they’ve performed at a half-dozen “Star Trek” conventions. Nimoy licenses the character from Paramount; that’s the extent of his relationship with the studio.

    “Which is a shame,” Nimoy says, “since Rick Berman and I used to be friends.”

  19. @Lava

    Thanks so much for that background – I’d never heard any of that and it’s VERY interesting.

    But it only confirms what I’ve been saying here on Screen Rant for years: Rick Berman killed Star Trek.

    Biggest mistake Gene Roddenberry ever did was handing the reins over to that guy.

    Vic

  20. Early in TNG they tried to do the same morality plays that gave TOS it’s potency and for whatever reason it didn’t fly. I think the writing and the flat characters may have had something to do with it. From the very beginning, TOS characters had a chemistry that made them approachable, someone you would welcome into your living room every week. TNG took two seasons to come to that level!

    What faces Abrams, I think, is can he deliver the same chemistery between the main characters and tell a revelant tale at the same time. In this day and age I don’t see how that can be done at the same level as was done with TOS. If he succeeds at that, then I would expect to see a majority of hold-out Trekkies come around. Special effects, action and sex scenes (or lack there of) aside, Star Trek was originally about the characters and the situations (story) they faced.

    Nowadays that seems to be secondary to the all mighty buck. No doubt this will be a succe$$ful film, but will it be a true Star Trek? I’m holding on to my hopes it will be, but I won’t be surprised if it won’t. I am still happy just to see Star Trek in the theaters again though.

  21. I watched Star Trek when I was a kid as it was broadcast for the first time in the sixties. I was there from the beginning. So it’s been a painful process watching the life drain out of the franchise through progressively worse series, until we got to the crapfest of Enterprise, the last series. I thought that was the end of Star Trek, going out with a whimper.

    So if Star Trek is dead as a doornail, why is everyone so upset they might have to do something radical to bring it back? Anything that gets years more of Kirk/Spock/McCoy etc, adventures back in my life, I all for.

    Even if the movie is a time travel plot as rumored, and the past is changed so the canon of the original series is changed, so what? I’ve gotten so sick of time travel stories in sci-fi, because no matter how clever the plot, everything always gets reset in the end. What if there was a real consequence to the time travel? That it isn’t fixable? THAT is a story I have rarely seen, let alone in Star Trek.

    Think of the possibilities of Star Trek freed from previous storyline constrictions. What if, for example, in the episode of the original series “Errand of Mercy”, the Organians didn’t stop the Federation and Klingons from fighting. In a new timeline, that could happen.

    The writers could just skew things a little, keeping most of established lore (because it’s mostly great), but changing enough to clear the path to new stories. Star Trek is dead anyways. If some daring changes are needed to bring it back, I’m good with it as long as they try to recapture the spirit of the original series. The trailers, especially the new one in March, give me hope. The last trailer packed more drama, energy and excitement into 2 minutes than the abysmal series Enterprise did in its entire run.

    Can’t wait until the release.

  22. You know, at first I was very excited by the possibilities of this film, and then I was later incensed, but now the thought of an “alternate universe” Star Trek is starting to rub off on me, because it doesn’t invalidate the old Star Trek, which I will always love and cherish, but essentially, we can’t go back to again.

    I’ve come to grips with this concept…So, I’m excited now. I will go see it and let my judgment be known from there.

    BTW, the music is wonderful! It’s very stirring, and feels very classical, but up-to-date. I’m glad to be excited again about seeing a Star Trek film.

  23. i have read with interest all the above posts and am fascinated with the obsession of alternate timelines and the such. all through tos and the others there were plots and stories that dealt with these issues hell a transporter accident split kirk in two this is the whole essence of science fiction to get the hump about it now with this new film i find a little silly
    what i do know is this berman DID kill trek and it wasnt a slow process either because he like most of hollywood is out for the buck characters and real human stories are lost on him and others of his like what i think jj abrams has and will bring to this reboot re-imagining whatever you want to call it is a sense of purpose to these characters we all love and cherish a purpose i dont feel they have had since the voyage home
    this film will be what it has to be nothing more nothing less it is an awesome trailer and the fact that it has now surpassed any other pre release trailer for downloads is a testament to the enduring belief that star trek still has a place in entertainment that it is still respected it has lived for too long under the shadow of star wars and i hope that this film shows to new audiences what we have known for years, and that is that star trek in all its perfection and in all of its imperfection still reflects the as gene said many times @the human condition@ who we are what we strive for and what we can achieve

    thats gotta be worth something???????????

    yes???????

  24. @Ken J
    There was an episode of Voyager where the entire crew of Voyager, minus the asian dude, actually ends up dying and the “alternate” version of Voyager picks up that Asian guy since their “version” gets sucked out into space, lol, and then they are the ones that end up surviving and continuing on with the show… So technically, after that episode, the entire crew of Voyager is actually dead…

    Actually, that wasn’t an alternate timeline, that was a quantum inversion effect (2 Voyagers sharing the same space at the same time). Oh man, did I just show my geekness? :-)

    Rick Berman is the anti-Christ. He and Braga nearly destroyed Trek. Let’s hope JJ Abrams will bring it back to it’s greatness.

  25. LOL @ Kahless, yes, yes you did…

  26. Kahless, were those Voyager episodes Year of Hell (a 2-parter)? Or was it the one where the ship basically dissolved at the end?

  27. Please don’t laugh me off the planet, but how did Berman & Braga kill Star Trek? Why do people despise them? (I doubt it’s just the movies…)

    Didn’t they bring us Q, the Borg, Tapestry, Yesterday’s Enterprise, The Best of Both Worlds, etc.?

  28. well to be honest it wasnt really braga and berman now was it it was the writers but yes it was there decision to greenlight those ideas but those things dont add up to what star trek is they made the trek universe something it wasnt especially with ds9 and voyager and that was a dark place it didnt belong

  29. Let’s face it, the franchise needed re-booting, alternate time-lines are never too much for a story rooted in the sci-fi genre (in fact the mystery of time travel is one of the very concepts of sci-fi that attracted me to it in the first place! Further more, it is not a “crutch”….it is a fascinating concept that doesn’t tire when depicted well), and if anyone had any niggles from the first two trailers, trailer 3 should have ironed out all but the smallest fanboy gripes(cue discussions about the length of the nacelles and the shade of the ship’s paint). I’m an oldie folks, been there and wore the badge for getting on for 40 years now…..and trailer 3 made every hair on my body stand to attention, never mind my neck. Just one thing….so many people are saying Quinto was born to play Spock, yet I’ve a feeling when they’ll be coming out of the theatres most will be saying Karl Urban was born to play Bones…he’s only muttered a couple of lines in a trailer and the man has it nailed, let alone the reverence and respect for DeForest Kelley’s work is shining through for all to see. I hope he has ample screen time. I was worried about the very un-Vulcan brashness and anger shown by Spock in Trailer 1, but the way he was uncomfortable with consoling Uhura and the way he was rallying the cadets at the academy in classic dour Vulcan demeanour in trailer 3 have put those fears to rest too.

    Of course some ‘fans’ do not wish to be reached, and they will dissect, pick and moan at every canonical transgression and modernisation in the movie…but they will be in the minority and will have no bearing on the success of this movie – if they are the fans we have to leave behind to bring Gene’s marvel to future generations then so be it.

    Make no mistake though, I will be the first to throw my arms up in disgust if they deviate too far from Gene’s vision for the sake of action and ticket sales – but I’ve seen nothing yet to justify such fears. JJA is by no means an avid fan, but everyone and his dog knows that Star Trek is about humanity, friendship, morality and generally leaving the universe a better place than when you found it – and I don’t think JJA will have forgotten these fundamental ingredients for telling a ‘Trekkian’ story.

    When can I book my Imax seat…..I can’t wait.