New Star Trek Into Darkness Teaser


A new teaser for Star Trek into Darkness has appeared, featuring several new scenes.

The short teaser, which runs 1:17, is below the cut.

Source: YouTube

What do you think? Chat with other fans in the Star Trek Kelvin universe movies forum at The Trek BBS.




Up Next
  • SJStar

    It looks more like a trailer to a two hour video game!

    As for Captain Kirk imitating Ironman by flying through space, looks more like out of a Paris’ holosuite episode of “Captain Proton.” I could also be copy of Astroboy. (I was expecting to see Professor Ochanomizu / Dr. Packidermus J. Elefun!)

  • There is nothing Star Trek about that trailer.

  • milojthatch

    It’s just so frustrating being a Star Trek fan today. It makes me sad that this is all we are left with. *sigh*

  • trekfan

    Don’t worry, Abrams and his gang won’t stay there forever.

  • Andy

    Happy fans or sad fans, watching this film you will.

  • Mike

    Yep. Even though Paramount is saying he’s their man for ST3, I wouldn’t hold my breath. Obviously they’re not going to bounce him before this film is already out and done in terms of the box office. But I’d be stunned if he’s actually with Trek after this. Major companies like Disney and Paramount don’t like that sort of thing. God’s jealousy has nothing on a Hollywood studio… Will Paramount be fine delaying their production should Star Wars warrant it? That’s just the sort of thing that sticks in the craw of a studio exec… Look for this to be Abrams’s last outing, I’d bet.

  • I might be one of the few people on here to say it but I’m looking forward to this movie. Cumberbatch is a great actor from what I’ve seen of him and I can’t wait to see him play a villain. While the trailers shows mostly action, I’m sure there will be more to this movie story-wise than what we’ve seen here. Either way, it’s sure to be entertaining. Not as intelligent and thought provoking as the TV series’, but enjoyable to watch nonetheless.

  • ahki

    You guys sound like a bunch of Star Trek burn-outs. You need to move on, find a hobby, switch to a different genre, because if it’s making you *itch, then your obviously got what you needed, so shove off.

    Imagine what the show will be like to a person that has not seen Star Trek before, it’s all new to them. My nephew’s favorite Star Trek is Voyager, since that is what was on when he watched t.v. back then. It was all new to him, since he did not watch the previous Star Trek shows.

  • ahki

    Your crazy or blind? It’s written in the title of the movie, “Star Trek: Into Darkness”. Where do all these silly people come from, they don’t even read the titles of movies? Whatta maroon! Whatta ignoranimus!

  • I completely agree. Nothing is ever going to live up to the expectations of a lot of classic Star Trek fans. Either enjoy the new films for what they are or move on. I love TNG more than any other show because I grew up watching it. No series or movie will ever compare to it but I still enjoy these new movies because they, although very different, are still in the realm of Star Trek.

  • Polaris01313-1

    Ahki, Daniel Ireland, and Andy each make valid points. I’m looking forward to watching the next Star Trek film. If the purists don’t like it, then they don’t have to watch it. Simple as that. I’m a fan of the original series, and I am still going to go see it.

  • AndrewLynch1

    Your tireless rejection of so-called purism is more tedious than any purist rant you’re likely to encounter. Last I could reckon, trektoday is a site for all Trek fans, including the ones like you who think that a modern mediocrity is A-OK.

    Honestly, I don’t give a rat’s poo what watching Star Trek is like to someone who has never seen it before. Star Trek has been many things, but it has rarely suffered from a mainstream-identity problem. “Purists,” whatever that means to fans of many versions of Trek, including your late-adopter nephew, simply relish thoughtful ideas and rich character interaction BEFORE special effects and bang-zoom-pow action sequences. Abrams and his posse excel at the latter at the expense of the former. That is not Star Trek, that’s “Star Trek the Thrill Ride.” Many of us are waiting for the real thing.

  • AndrewLynch1

    Ireland, no pun intended, is in the realm of Great Britain. That doesn’t make them English.

  • garak theta five orange

    I think I figured out the plot, and who cumberbatch is… he is khan, correct, but recall when the plot was explained “a threat from within starfleet’s ranks, meaning starfleet created khan, they probably used previous medical/genetic records to resurrect him to create the ultimate starfleet officer, they tried to modify him and improve on past “mistakes” of the eugenics efforts, and created this white guy john harrison, but using the original khan as a template, so basically he is a copy of khan that went “wrong” as well, and in the last minutes of the movie he will reveal this point. But again this is merely speculation. But I feel this is it. Thoughts…

  • garak theta five orange

    Supplemental: That’s why kirk asks him in the trailer “who are you?”

  • JWPlatt

    > “While the trailers shows mostly action, I’m sure there will be more to this movie story-wise than what we’ve seen here.”

    Really? Chris Pine is on record as saying this film is “relentless” and indicated there was no time for Kirk to get Carol pregnant with David. If there’s no time for even Kirk to get the girl, wow, what does that say to your point?

  • Mike

    See, but your fighting a paper tiger there… I’m old enough that I could’ve rejected TNG if I was such a purist as you’re suggesting. I didn’t. I didn’t reject DS9. I didn’t care for Voyager all that much, but it had its moments and a few interesting characters (you know, the only ones they cared about), and I even was able to squeeze enjoyment out of Enterprise. No, sir… this isn’t about us being purists and being stuck in 1991. There were some people that could never accept TNG… Their loss, right? 25 years from now, I doubt anyone will be saying “your loss” if they’ve missed out on JJ Abrams’s version of Trek…

    And lastly, this suggestion is entirely wrong for a bigger and more important reason: We want new Star Trek, but we don’t want the purpose and meaning of Star Trek destroyed in order to give us shadows of characters that are nominally Kirk, Spock, etc. Star Trek isn’t this stupid, and we shouldn’t settle for it. Destroy the franchise over it? No… but encourage this to be the continued direction of the franchise when they COULD do something that was actually worthwhile? I’d rather have real Star Trek than fake Trek using names we know.

  • Mike

    If they’ve done that, they’ve really done more harm to Star Trek than I could’ve possibly imagined… A Mexican playing an Indian Sikh is bad enough, but to then genetically engineer him into a white guy? Wow. Yay! Racism! Of course those horrible white men of the 23rd Century were still conducting genetic experiments, and of course they were making Indians white… Puke. Puke. Puke. Because there isn’t already enough white guilt heaped on the society. Oh joy. I really hope you’re wrong on that, because that’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard… not your speculation of it, but if they really did that? Shameful.

  • You’re right. Might as well sulk and complain about how different these films are from the original series instead of enjoying them fr what they are. That’s much more satisfying.

  • The_Comic

    The trailer is very good, the film will be awesome. I have to say I am amazed by the negativity towards the reboot from ‘purists’ I’d like to see the source material they think this incarnation of Trek has deviated so far from? Space jumping Kirk – the cut opening scene from Generations was Kirk doing just that. Space Battles are a Star Trek staple, Wrath of Khan, Balance of Terror. Jokes between the crew? Star Trek 4 “LDS” “Doctor gave me a pill and I grew a new kidney” or Kirk saying Spock’s ears were from a rice picking accident in the franchise highlight, high concept and very thought provoking “The CIty On The Edge of Forever”. This dour Sci Fi show that I hear so much about on talk backs did it have episodes like Mudd’s Women, or The Trouble with Tribbles? Did pretty much every episode end with the crew laughing at one of Kirk or Spock’s jokes? Because that is the star trek I remember? That and women in bikinis and an almost mandatory fist fight.In “For the World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky” there is a meaningless fistfight on beaming down.

    Star Trek 09 had its problems, like any other Star Trek movie, or any other movie for that matter. The red matter idea was naff as was transporting from Delta Vega to the Enterprise at warp, and yes yet another villain hell bent on revenge is getting so tedious, but it is an understandable post 9/11 facet of all american pop culture. However, whatever the issues I cared about Amanda Grayson and I cared about George and Winona Kirk, I enjoyed having the classic crew back. Overall it was great fun and this new one looks like more of the same. Will it be perfect? I doubt it, but will it be fun to watch? I bet. and its no more or less a deviation from ‘proper’ Star Trek than Spock neck pinching punks for playing their music too loud in Star Trek 4. For the record I love the Motion Picture,its aesthetic and story are bold and stark and the shots of the minuscule enterprise against the giant VGer cloud are cinematic trek like no other. But it also drags,it gives us a captain Kirk its difficult to root for and a sterile Enterprise I wouldn’t want to work on, its anti escapism. If you want hard core sci fi watch that movie, if you want action adventure watch this one. If the original series could produce the Alternative Factor, Where No Man Has Gone Before and Spock’s Brain then the movie series can produce The Motion Picture, The Voyage Home and Into Darkness without being accused of blasphemy, If only there was a science fiction saying or phrase about infinite diversity that could be used here to sum up…

    The Motion Picture = Motzart

    Star Trek 09 = Bon Jovi

    Nothing wrong with either. Nothing wrong with liking both.

  • I really like your take on this. Too many negative attitudes around here.

  • Guest

    So casting a Mexican as a Sikh was fine, but casting a white guy in a reimagination of the character would be “Yay! Racism!”


    Let me guess…you consider racism as a one-directional phenomenon coming from whites.

  • The_Comic

    Cheers pal I appreciate it!

  • The_Comic

    Shall we watch the movie and then work out if its racist?

  • The_Comic

    IF its Khan I think it will be as simple as the Klingons found him and together they came up with the plan we see enacted in the movie. Its nice not knowing what the plot of the entire movie will be but I dont think it will be as complicated as you suggest.

  • The_Comic

    I think a bit of passion could be included in the term “relentless”. As for the story its the difference between showing the story The Empire Strikes Back and talking about what the story is The Phantom Menace.

  • Mike

    Actually, quite the opposite, I think you misunderstand me. There would be no reason for an Indian to be genetically altered to be white. There is no advantage therein. So, the idea that this would be Khan, but, better because of 23rd Century tech, and the big difference is that he’s white, yeah, that’s horrible, and that’s horribly racist. However, I’m actually more upset that the writers and studio would put something that stupid on screen to begin with that only reinforces the ridiculous notion that whites are the only racists. Notice where I decried the heaping on of white guilt? That’s because I don’t buy into it. I’ve never had a slave. I’ve never treated someone badly because of their skin color or ethnicity… nor have many, many white people. And yet, in popular fiction, how many non-white racists do you see? If this is Khan and Khan is now made white, the moral of the story is going to be the same, isn’t it? That eugenics is bad? But the culprits, and apparent desires of man, even of the 23rd Century is to make everyone whiter? That’s ridiculous. One of the brilliant things about Khan Noonien Singh is that he wasn’t white. Sure, they cast Ricardo Montalban as a Sikh, and I said that was bad enough… but the reason recasting the character, by whatever means, particularly these, however, is even worse… Why? Because it just reinforces that same old trope of white racists being the only racists… So, sorry if I wasn’t entirely clear there, but I think this is bad, not because they’re casting a white guy, but because the way this is being done is even more anti-white than usual… But, of course, this comment and the previous are based entirely on this one guy’s speculation, so take it with a grain of salt!

  • Mike

    I agree, I was just going down the rabbit hole of this guy’s speculation… Time will tell.

  • The_Comic

    I agree with your point re Khan, although I would point out that Sikhism is a religion and not an ethnicity. I would prefer not having Khan on the grounds that he was serviced well enough in his episode and movie.

  • Maybe they just decided to ignore race altogether and cast an actor they thought could do the character justice? I don’t know. I’m looking forward to finding out who he really is though.

  • JWPlatt

    Would you hire Russell Crowe to portray Martin Luther King, Jr.?

  • JWPlatt

    You allude to something I find interesting in that the pair of “Star Trek: The Motion Picture” and “The Wrath of Khan” are really history repeating itself. The more action-oriented “The Wrath of Khan” is largely responsible for the continued success of the franchise in the same way that “Where No Man Has Gone Before” succeeded where “The Cage” failed with it’s more “cerebral” theme.

  • Guest

    Definitely not…but that’s more because he’s a jerk than because of his race 🙂

  • Well put. The movies from the 70’s and 80’s just wouldn’t fly on the big screen anymore. If people are going to shell out $15-$20, they want to make it worthwhile and different than something they could watch at home. That means special effects and action sequences.

  • That’s a bit different considering Martin Luther King Jr. was a real person and not a character of fiction. Nice try though haha.

  • SJStar

    Frakn’ bigot

  • SJStar

    Frack’n bigot!

  • CO-Battle of Vulcan

    Everyone that is not a fan of what JJ Abrams has done with the new Star Trek(Which I am very happy with btw) should remember that the Star Trek(2009) was written by a team of men, one of whom is a devoted and life long Star Trek fan. I could tell that the movie was written by someone who is loyal to the spirit of Trek, which is all I could ask for. I remember when Star Trek: TNG came out in the late eighties, people just HATED the idea of an Enterprise with no Vulcan science officer, and a Captain that was so different than Kirk. Yet, it was simply amazing. and It just got better despite the shaky start it had both with Critics and the fans. Trekkies (and I am a trekkie folks) are a progressive minded group. Enjoy the new life that has been given to something that is so dear to our hearts. In thirty years I will be experiencing this all over again with a new director, writers and a new take on Trek. It is here to stay for all of us. So enjoy! Live long and Prosper and keep the spirit of the Great Bird of the Galaxy alive in your hearts.

  • Mike

    lol… Howso? Because I want an Indian character played by an Indian that’s racist? I suppose there are plenty of people that would suggest the same were I to have the inverse opinion that Khan should be a white guy… So, whatever. I’ve extensively explained myself here, I don’t require or even want your approval. If, after you’ve read this, you conclude I’m a bigot, that’s fine… It just reinforces my opinion, after reading what you have to say, that you’re an asshole. So, it all works out.

  • Mike

    lol, that’s what they want you to believe. The simple fact is, Hollywood has decided that the only films worth making are the ones that are surefire hits… ON DAY ONE… Why day 1? Why not allow a build up of word of mouth? Firstly, theatre space is more limited than ever, and secondly, they just can afford to take the chance on something that might not hit. So, they continually put out sequels, reboots, and other tired installments of known properties. Ask just about any creative force in Hollywood today and they’ll tell you that the place for actual innovative storytelling is now on cable TV. They have to get as much money from every film they do on the first weekend because they expect the audience to entirely drop off after that point. So, you get things like Battleship, which are completely devoid of anything anyone wants to see, but because it’s effects heavy, they can make a trailer that entices 12 year old boys to the theatres on that first weekend. Anything beyond that is a pipedream for most of those properties because, in these instaces, word of mouth actually destroys them… After all, you might have thought the trailer for Battleship looked interesting, but when you realize the entire film is just that shell of emotionless drivel, does anyone recommend it to anyone else? So, yeah, they do this because they’ve discovered this is the way to make more certain money… but they haven’t discovered that’s what people actually want… because while all this is true, and while they will make more money than ever, they’re doing it off the backs of fewer and fewer people proportionally… a shrinking percentage of the overall audience. So, it’s smart business today, but only for today…

  • John (not McCain)

    Guess again. Fool me once…

  • John (not McCain)

    How do you read “A Mexican playing an Indian Sikh is bad enough” and translate that into “So casting a Mexican as a Sikh was fine”?

  • trekfan

    Maybe. But paying (read: financially supporting it) I certainly won’t.

  • I wish there were more positive outlooks like this. I love all Star Trek, some series and films more than other but it’s all great 🙂

  • The_Comic

    Really good point re the two original pilots, I wish I’d thought of that! Bottom line is if its not commercially viable you won’t see it at the cinema or on the telly. For my money I think that the real home of Star Trek is on the TV where a more varied creative team gives a stream of different and interesting science fiction stories and emotional dramas allowing for stories like The Inner Light, The Visitor and It’s Only A Paper Moon. And yes as you point out history did repeat with the action packed and militaristic Wrath of Khan following its antithesis The Motion Picture. I know which one is ‘proper’ Star Trek but I also know which one is my ‘desert island’ Trek Movie… although lets not forget that the cerebral Motion Picture features a lengthy effects heavy space walk sequence and a huge “look at me” special effect as we tour the debut of the cinematic enterprise for like 20 hours!

    For me Trek is at its best when it articulates friendship and conviction. Spock’s sacrifice in Wrath of Khan, Kirk nicking the enterprise in Star Trek 3 (“You do this Kirk and you will never sit in the captain’s chair again” is my number one trek movie moment), Spock recognising Kirk in Star Trek 4, the Enterprise flying into the horizon in Star Trek 6 are all huge emotional moments. The USS Kelvin sequence sits proudly alongside those moments, it is pitch perfect. I can’t really think of any similar moments in the generic and largely disappointing next gen films… and when you consider that includes the death of Captain Kirk that’s a pretty poor return.

    I just hate that some people seem to treat liking Star Trek as an intelligence test where liking Trek 09 means you are brainless or culturally naive. Trek 09 was a great fun movie, was it as powerful a deconstruction of the human condition as Le Mepris? No, was it as philosophically profound as Meditations on First Philosophy by Rene Descartes? No again but then neither was Spock’s Brain, Mudd’s Women, The Trouble with Tribbles, The Voyage Home, Rascals, The Magnificent Ferengi or Bound.

    Aaaand finally my one bug bear with Trek09 is the tagline “Not your grandfather’s Star Trek”

    Trek 09 Spock played by leonard Nimoy, TOS/TNG Spock played by leonard Nimoy

    Trek 09 Space jump to Vulcan – TOS Tholian Web Space suit Kirk/Motion Picture extended space walk sequence

    Trek 09 Spock picked on as a child – TOS Yesteryear (animated)

    Trek 09 Ice monster – TOS Mugatu, Search For Spock tentacle thingy

    Trek 09 Sword fighting Sulu – TOS Naked Time

    Trek 09 Kirk bluffing cheating at Kobayashi Maru – TOS Corbomite Maneuver , Wrath Of Khan

    Trek 09 Destroyed ships around Vulcan – TOS Doomsday Machine, Wrath of Khan

    Trek 09 Bar with aliens in it – TOS Trouble with Tribbles/Search for Spock,

    Klingons, Romulans, Star Fleet Academy etc etc etc its all painting by numbers trek.

    My point being that much of the film is simply the star trek we all know with the volume turned up a bit, is some of it goofy, yes for example Scotty in the water tube, but again Spock’s Brain and umpteen other classic episodes are guilty of idiotic moments too. If anything Trek 09 cannot be accused of betraying Trek, its too conservative a vision. It looks as though Into Darkness may be pushing the envelope a little further this time, I think that is a good thing. especially if it paves the way for a TV trek(with post LOST, Walking Dead, Game Of Thrones sensibilities) with the production values to match and the deeper and riskier elements we all loved.

  • trekfan

    I still think that’s one cheap, dumb, crappy movie lacking the spirit and essence of Star Trek. It doesn’t deserve to be called Star Trek (It’s presumptuous and disrespectful to give a movie the name of the original show and the franchise itself). We can’t pretend the last 40+ years didn’t happen. And we can’t compare Abrams Trek with TOS. Star Trek TOS was in the 1960s. A Star Trek movie which is trying to be just an updated version of the 1960s show is just ridiculous, if you ask me. A Trek movie shouldn’t be emulating the past, it’s supposed to be about the future! Star Trek’s all about the future. It’s highly ironic that on the poster of that 2009 movie it says, ‘The future begins’, while actually it’s the past that begins all over again. I’m certain Gene Roddenberry would prefer going forward, not making rehashes and reboots, especially not such silly ones. But thanks to the fact that millions of people nowadays enjoy all sorts of mindless crap in the cinema, AbramsTrek became a financial success (we also shouldn’t forget that the highly overrated name “JJ Abrams” also sells). You mention some bad episodes of TOS as an example, probably implying how it doesn’t matter if something turned out to be crap in this Abrams Trek – it was crappy anyway. Well, I don’t think I agree with that logic. First of all, should we be led by bad or good examples? If you suggest we should take the bad examples of Star Trek and use them as justification for the lack of any meaningful substance in this nuTrek, then I think it’s bad reasoning. Secondly, while a motion picture and a TV show are two different formats, and we can’t really have the same expectations for those two, there’s still no reason why a Trek movie can’t have some of the defining elements of the franchise – exploration, the unknown, humanity, philosophy – and a compelling storytelling which combines all those elements in a creative manner. Abrams Trek fails miserably at that. So far it’s been about revenge, and it looks like more of the same is to come.

  • The_Comic

    I think I am saying a couple of things that aren’t necessarily incompatible with your view.

    I am not citing Spock’s Brain/Trouble with Tribbles for any reason other than to point out that Trek’s history is not so high brow and philosophically profound as some people seem to be suggesting. Across every incarnation of Trek there are stupid and goofy episodes, I wouldn’t necessarily describe them as “bad” though, similarly the trek movies are not infallible either. I’m not saying we should be led by trek at its ‘worst’ just that the hallowed vision I am reading about simply isn’t as consistent going backwards as people are implying. I can tell you that given the choice I’d rather watch AI than Avatar, I’d rather watch Planet of the Apes than Battle for the Planet of the Apes and I’d rather watch 2001 than Men in Black. Trouble is there are goofy ideas that simply entertain, for example Back To The Future is a classic and I wouldn’t dismiss it on the grounds its “not philosophical enough” about the true effects of time travel.

    I totally agree re the revenge motif,I thought I had made that clear, I’m bored of it in Trek and in mainstream cinema for that reason.

    There are lots of problems with Trek09, Scotty in the water tube, Delta Vega being different to WNMHGB Delta Vega, and Vulcan being visible in its atmosphere. The Whole Supernova plot making no scientific sense at all, but regardless I enjoyed it and it felt like trek to me, just like Spock’s Brain feels like trek when I stick it on. Star Trek is not exclusively about philosophical ideas it is also an action adventure series, Trek09 was that.

    As for Trek moving forwards this is a problem of modern culture per se. Describe Superman to a child and you may include the love triangle between Superman, Clark Kent and Lois Lane, trouble is in the comics (up until the new 52) Superman has been married for the best part of 20 years so a staple element of Superman’s palette is simply absent. Likewise had Hamlet not been reinvented with new actors in the role it wouldn’t have been seen for 400 years, Bond would have finished at the end of Sean Connery’s tenure and Batman Movies would have finished with Adam West. What is Star Trek? Its the dynamic between Kirk, Spock and McCoy, its the Starship Enterprise, its the federation, its the 5 year mission. Kirk and Spock particularly are iconic, ingrained in popular culture, in a way that even the Next Generation characters are not would anyone recast Picard or Geordi LaForge? I don’t think so and as much as I loved that show as a kid the next generation hasn’t aged well the constant references to “Data exploring the human condition” are embarrassing, I am clever enough to work it out without characters pointing out thematic richness to me! That would be like Kirk saying to Spock in Trek09 “Hey your mom died and my dad died, I guess that is a parallel between us…”

    I think recasting the original series was the right direction for Trek to go in. Enterprise’s dwindling success showed that the public appetite for just another spaceship with another crew simply wasn’t enough, even with the characters in their pants once an episode! (and for the record the ‘Sim’ episode was as thought provoking as Trek gets) So with the franchise exhausted after a 20 year TV run they asked what is star trek? and Trek 09 is the answer they came up with. You don’t have to like it, no one does. I simply disagree that it deviates from Trek’s past to the extent some people claim and I also think the best chance for a new TV series is a successful movie franchise and lastly if you don’t like it I don’t understand the need to trawl the internet for stories to comment on when you haven’t seen the new movie. Why not write your own philosophical story and pitch it to someone? Go create and maybe one day people will bitch about how there weren’t enough laser guns in your story or complain that a robot crying was the most important scene.

    So whilst I broadly agree with your point I think its pretty much relevant to every trek film after the motion picture and I’ve had too much fun with most of those 10 movies to dismiss them on philosophical grounds.

  • I just can’t believe they’d use Khan, no matter how much they may head-fake about it. If they want to invoke Khan, I think at most they’d make Harrison a different augment who’s seriously pissed about his people’s second class status ((in Trek “history,” augments have been challenging that status from the ENT era all the way through Doctor Bashir on DS9).