Video: Time to post that “Star Trek” trailer that you’ve probably already seen

posted at 9:49 pm on December 10, 2012 by Allahpundit

Why post it if you’ve already seen it? Because (a) with “The Walking Dead” on mid-season hiatus, I have nothing to whine about in the weekly Monday night whine-about-TV slot. And (b) I need a Trek fan to explain to me the appeal of this trailer, assuming there is any. I didn’t see the 2009 reboot but I can understand the fun of watching iconic characters reimagined and put through their paces onboard the Enterprise. This clip doesn’t feel like Trek at all, though. If not for the uniforms, it’d be a generic sci-fi/fantasy thriller. Question, then: How much of the appeal here is Trek-related and how much of it is simply that it’s J.J. Abrams and the first film was solid and this one has a nice little “Wrath of Khan” vibe going on and the F/X look sweet and therefore you’re all but guaranteed a good show, even if the only vividly Trek-related element in the movie are Spock’s ears? Is it pure branding, in other words? I.e. if you loved the original series and TNG, you’re duty bound to see this? Or are you expecting something more, like seeing them play with the conventions of the series?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

To all these whining fans that dream about Trek in the 60′s, get a life and watch/comment on something else! Enjoy the fact that Star Trek lives on. Unlike most of you idiots, I grew up in the sixties and enjoyed the show than and enjoy the new characters now. May you all fall into a black hole and never be heard of again.

whsiii on December 11, 2012 at 12:43 AM

It’s not canon, but the Star Trek novel “Kobayashi Maru” told of Kirk’s test… and the way that book told it, the reboot was ultra-difficult by comparison.

It also told of Scotty’s, Sulu’s, and Chekov’s experiences with the test… I liked Scotty’s the best.

malclave on December 11, 2012 at 12:20 AM

Unfortunately not a book I have read, so I can’t comment on it. I’m not sure I’d want to read it though, just because I think the main reason the whole thing was so epic is that we really don’t know exactly what happened.

That’s why I think it was a mistake to show it at all, never mind in that way. It would’ve been infinitely better had they simply alluded to it having happened and left the mystique in place.

Worse, they chicken out of the consequences. It was already something to wonder how Shatner’s Kirk managed to cheat on a test at Starfleet and not get booted for it. New Kirk is in the process of getting verbally destroyed by New Spock, and looks like he’s about to get booted, but they bail on it before anything comes of it.

Really, I think the only way Shatner’s Kirk could’ve possibly gotten away with it in the first place is if he did it subtly enough that it just looked like he legitimately figured his way through, and then turned his cheating into an accusation against his professors, arguing that he did it to prove their test was BS and clearly he could’ve rescued the ship if it didn’t have the artificial barrier to winning. They would naturally tell him to keep his mouth shut about it, so that would be the reason for him not wanting to tell Saavik later.

CrankyTRex on December 11, 2012 at 1:00 AM

It actually looks kinda cool. Better than that “Next Generation” crap.

echosyst on December 11, 2012 at 1:04 AM

Never watched Star Trek, never cared to watch Star Trek, but I saw the 2009 movie and thought it was awesome, and that was without knowing any of the series back story.

I’ll definitely see this one, even if it directed by Abrams (I still have not gotten over Lost, and I never, ever, ever will).

Lawdawg86 on December 11, 2012 at 1:12 AM

That’s a good argument and I’m sure your analysis is better than mine. Kirk always seemed too young to be captain so the new Kirk’s path didn’t seem too out of whack to me.

MechanicalBill on December 11, 2012 at 12:36 AM

Well, IIRC, Shatner’s Kirk was the youngest person to ever become a captain, but he’s in like his 30s at the time.

New Kirk though isn’t even finished at the academy, is about to be booted for cheating, and for reasons that defy all logic and military discipline, is made first officer by Pike, who then makes Spock captain. Spock doesn’t like Kirk yet inexplicably doesn’t immediately dump him for someone actually qualified. Then Kirk somehow remains first officer even though Spock threw him off the ship, and thus would presumably have promptly picked a new one. Kirk again inexplicably remains in command even after Spock gets over his momentary lapse of provoked homicidal urges and returns to the bridge. Then Starfleet not only overlooks the whole cheating thing, but makes him a Captain and gives him their new flagship to command despite any number of officers, Spock included, who would have seniority.

That would be incredibly hard to swallow if he didn’t spend the movie acting like a raving jackass and contributing absolutely nothing to their success. The least they could’ve done is shown a montage of him rising through the ranks at the end, to ultimately become Captain.

CrankyTRex on December 11, 2012 at 1:20 AM

The 2009 Star Trek Movie has shifted the plot lines of all the Original Star Trek,TNG,Voyager,Deep Waste 9, etc. Since the planet Vulcan was destroyed, and the many ships/cadets were destroyed by the time traveling Nero, it changes the future. This also means possibly a new TNG series based on the 2009 future.

portlandon on December 10, 2012 at 11:17 PM

That’s a good point, I do recall having a problem with them changing the time line now that you mention it, (I haven’t seen it for a while), but I’ve been assuming they would correct the damage in the next movie or something. If they don’t correct it then I’m not sure how I’ll feel about that. If it leads to a lot of good Star Trek movies then I guess I’ll probably have a positive opinion, and vice versa.

FloatingRock on December 11, 2012 at 2:13 AM

I loved the youthful characters of the TV series, so these movies are interesting to me. I did not enjoy watching the original characters age in the movies.

That being said, I wish Obama’s agenda for his second term was “Live Long and Prosper.”

HellCat on December 11, 2012 at 2:19 AM

the 2009 reboot

It’s a good film. You should see it. I disagree with the actors’ and filmmaker’s politics, but the film they made is a good one.

Lourdes on December 11, 2012 at 2:38 AM

Question, then: How much of the appeal here is Trek-related and how much of it is simply that it’s J.J. Abrams and the first film was solid and this one has a nice little “Wrath of Khan” vibe going on and the F/X look sweet and therefore you’re all but guaranteed a good show, even if the only vividly Trek-related element in the movie are Spock’s ears?

*ALL* of Abrams’ work is so heavily reliant upon CGI that I often question whether he’s a cartoonist or a theatrical filmmaker. I haven’t decided which, though I like his work for what it is: heavily reliant on CGI and more cartoon-rendering than theatrical filmmaking.

About the story in the STAR TREK theme (or even, “genre”) as to the first one Abrams made (that you, AP, says you haven’t seen), it was a successful add-on to the story of ST and the individual development (original and then that re-enactment) of the characters — STAR TREK THE MOVIE (Abrams’ “first one” or his ST feature that you haven’t seen, AP) carried forth with the story line of the earlier, original films and TV series, so it was a satisfying theatrical film for those of us who are ST “fans” (who like, appreciate the original characters).

AS TO STORY, though, characters aside, the whole ST theme is one that introduces random, varied, unusual plots and happenings — that’s what the TV series was about, that’s what the earlier feature films were about. The only thing that tied the earlier films to the Series was that the same main characters reappeared in those new plots.

So Abrams’ feature picked up some plot lines as to the original characters and explained them, along with his ongoing use of big-big-CGI excitement, so that film was rewarding for fans because it provided ongoing insight into the main characters, their connections to one another and thus, to the ST theme itself.

This trailer for the upcoming ST addition isn’t entirely grabbing and doesn’t impress me too much but it certainly doesn’t turn me off to seeing this film when it’s released. I like how Abrams has cast the “new” actors in the “old” main characters purpose and presence — just excellent casting for each and all of them, superb even, one doesn’t have to work at all to believe the new actors in the old roles are those we knew from the Series and earlier films.

So I think the trailer’s a bit dull, but it’s not discouraging as to the worth or value of the upcoming, additional ST feature. The “new adventure” tales with each film are what the Star Trek experience is all about, same as was the TV series.

Lourdes on December 11, 2012 at 2:50 AM

I loved the youthful characters of the TV series, so these movies are interesting to me. I did not enjoy watching the original characters age in the movies.

HellCat on December 11, 2012 at 2:19 AM

I did not enjoy watching the original characters age in the movies.

Yeah, that was a hard slog, I agree, made enthusiasm for the ongoing films increasingly bogged down. Spock, especially, what with Leonard Nimoy not aging at all well, nor increasingly portly “Scotty”…for a super-genius astral engineer or whatevertheheck he is/was, it was difficult to accept that Scotty would get so obese in his work as the aging actor became.

I like the new cast in the old characters. That’s one thing, the casting, that Abrams has done superbly well.

Lourdes on December 11, 2012 at 2:55 AM

If I had to sit through years of that rotten “Enterprise” series, this movie will be fine.

portlandon on December 10, 2012 at 9:55 PM

I wouldn’t touch Enterprise with Sandra Fluck’s Bubba’s stiffness.

Electrongod on December 10, 2012 at 9:56 PM

Enterprise, otherwise known as: “HIGH HEELS IN SPACE”

I mean, COME ONNNN. I know Seven Of Nine was keenly beauteous but the high heels in space thing was too much to be taken seriously.

Lourdes on December 11, 2012 at 2:58 AM

This clip doesn’t feel like Trek at all, though. If not for the uniforms, it’d be a generic sci-fi/fantasy thriller.

The reboot was exactly that. It was an incredibly bland, generic Scifi/fantasy movie that wasn’t terribly good on its own merits and really had nothing to do with Star Trek beyond the absolutely superficial.

CrankyTRex on December 10, 2012 at 9:59 PM

Awww, I completely disagree, CrankyTRex.

Lourdes on December 11, 2012 at 3:00 AM

If I had to sit through years of that rotten “Enterprise” series, this movie will be fine.

portlandon on December 10, 2012 at 9:55 PM

I wouldn’t touch Enterprise with Sandra Fluck’s Bubba’s stiffness.

Electrongod on December 10, 2012 at 9:56 PM

Enterprise, otherwise known as: “HIGH HEELS IN SPACE”

I mean, COME ONNNN. I know Seven Of Nine was keenly beauteous but the high heels in space thing was too much to be taken seriously.

Lourdes on December 11, 2012 at 2:58 AM

OH-Mah-Gosh, I got ENTERPRISE confused with VOYAGER. Sorry.

VOYAGER, otherwise known as “HIGH HEELS IN SPACE”

Lourdes on December 11, 2012 at 3:02 AM

I agree with others, STAR TREK, INSURRECTION was not a good one. Creepy, needlessly artificial; and it was creepy to see DATA trying too hard to be cute and fuzzy.

Lourdes on December 11, 2012 at 3:07 AM

And still no seat belts anywhere to be seen.

Trashhauler on December 11, 2012 at 3:36 AM

At no time is Shatner’s Kirk even close to the insufferable jackassery of New Kirk though. New Kirk is constantly talked about as though he is the clever, knowledgeable Kirk we used to know, but the movie not only never demonstrates it, but actively refutes it all the time.

CrankyTRex on December 10, 2012 at 11:39 PM

That, I agree with. Abrams did a superb job in casting his film/s (the new cast playing the same “old” characters) but he’s not doing a superb job in directing them.

Lourdes on December 11, 2012 at 3:59 AM

JJ-Verse is Star Trek for people who hate Star Trek…

Critic2029 on December 11, 2012 at 4:01 AM

Plinkett(guy who did the epic Star Wars prequel reviews) does a review of Star Trek(2009).

He makes some really good points. Content Warning.

tom daschle concerned on December 11, 2012 at 4:09 AM

A lot of people thought this didn’t look like Star Trek either. Now it’s the high bar everything else gets compared to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJTi7KJPx_E

fusionaddict on December 11, 2012 at 6:48 AM

Sigh. Remind me again, AP, why you’re the one who keeps posting this stuff when you haven’t seen it and aren’t familiar with it. Site traffic? A perverse enjoyment of watching the geeks debate the merits of nonexistent stuff and/or the minutiae of ST lore?

I.e. if you loved the original series and TNG, you’re duty bound to see this?

Don’t assume a correlation where none exists. I did indeed love TOS and TNG, liked Voyager, and tolerated DS-9. (The less said about Enterprise, the better. But the mythology behind all those versions was just played out – not only the stories, but the look, feel, characters, all of it. That’s why I was excited when the 2009 reboot came out. I knew it would be completely different than what came before and I had no problem with it. I was happy to see Star Trek back on the big screen, albeit in a completely different iteration, and happy with the execution.

Or are you expecting something more, like seeing them play with the conventions of the series?

There’s nothing new under the sun. The time-travel device used as a reset in the 2009 version has already been done. Khan’s already been done. But I like this crop of actors and I like how Abrams is handling everything so far. Again, I have no problem with any of it because I’d already made the emotional break from the previous ST-verse.

mrsknightley on December 11, 2012 at 6:58 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJTi7KJPx_E

fusionaddict on December 11, 2012 at 6:48 AM

“Scotty! I need warp speed in three minutes or we’re allll deeaaddd!” says Kirk.

That’s like watching films from ten years ago when everyone was speaking into a giant tank they held up to their head “making a phone call.”

Three minutes for warp speed?!? That’s an eternity when there’s a projectile aimed at your “star ship”…

THREE MINUTES! Imagine.

Lourdes on December 11, 2012 at 7:05 AM

JJ Abrams sci-fi, action, fantasy pap with a ghastly script and cute actors who literally cannot act.

Nah, think I’ve seen this movie before. It’s the only movie he makes.

CorporatePiggy on December 11, 2012 at 7:16 AM

This is Star Trek for idiots.

Seriously? Where have you been? Star Trek is Star Trek for idiots, and has been right from the off. Let’s not pretend we’ve been watching Shakespeare all these years (as much as Kodos the Executioner might like to think otherwise).

mrsknightley on December 11, 2012 at 7:16 AM

MIDNIGHT SHOWING for the Hobbit Thursday night.

Possum Holler megaplex here we come!!!

And I like the Trek reboot.

PappyD61 on December 11, 2012 at 7:24 AM

Thanks for posting the “Wrath of Kahn” trailer.

That looks like ancient history. Hard to believe that was top of the special effects back then.

Ricardo Montalbahn was a great baddie.

PappyD61 on December 11, 2012 at 7:31 AM

The irony is almost too much to stand. Barak Hussein Obama has been called Spock-like yet he is impervious to a Vulcan mind meld because he doesn’t possess the basic prerequisite.

Happy Nomad on December 11, 2012 at 7:31 AM

A lot of people thought this didn’t look like Star Trek either. Now it’s the high bar everything else gets compared to.

fusionaddict on December 11, 2012 at 6:48 AM

The only clinker in that particular series of movies, IMO, was Star Trek IV. I just didn’t buy the whole humback whale whisperer thing.

As to the 2009 movie and this sequel… Well, it is just another part of the franchise. Just like some of the gizmos that were fantasy in the early offerings in the 007 series are positively hillarious in 2012. And BTW, the latest Bond movies are darker and less campy than earlier stories.

But most of all- this is just the movies! I can’t stand purists that nit-pick arcane trivia. William Shatner’s skit on SNL “Get a Life” mocking these people. It was an instant classic.

Happy Nomad on December 11, 2012 at 7:48 AM

Star Trek: Insurrection damaged the TNG series. It was dark and just had a bad feeling all through it.

portlandon on December 10, 2012 at 10:01 PM

All the STNG movies damaged the series. Well I did like First Contact but only because I like time travel stories and it did center around Earth’s inventor of warp drive. It kind of connected it to the original series.

I liked the re-boot and I liked Enterprise. I disliked Voyager and see it as worse than Star Gate Universe which was pretty much worthless. The only redeeming character in Voyager was the Doctor and that’s not saying much. Admittedly the whole “Zindy” arc of Enterprise was crap but I though it was picking up steam after they dumped the writers in season 4. The biggest problem I had with Enterprise was that it was to much TNG and not enough TOS.

Frank Enstine on December 11, 2012 at 8:33 AM

The only clinker in that particular series of movies, IMO, was Star Trek IV. I just didn’t buy the whole humback whale whisperer thing.

Happy Nomad on December 11, 2012 at 7:48 AM

Again a time travel story so I liked it. It also had a lot of campy stuff in it. I agree that the whale thing was a little far fetched but I really loved the ending where the pass babe blew off Kirk.

Frank Enstine on December 11, 2012 at 8:36 AM

I long for a lingering view of Jolene Blalock in what ever iteration of the TV series she was in.

countrybumpkin on December 10, 2012 at 10:31 PM

Best in the two part Mirror Universe story “Through a Mirror Darkly” Nice uniforms and she even looked good in the TOS uniforms.

Frank Enstine on December 11, 2012 at 8:40 AM

Even when I was a young ‘un Star Trek pretty much lost me whenever they showed a distressed Star-ship Enterprise tilted in space.

Tilted in space? There isn’t up or down in outer space just towards things or away from things or placed somewhere amidst.

viking01 on December 10, 2012 at 10:39 PM

But there is in the Trek universe. What do you think all the the “Come around to 325, mark 7″ type stuff is about when they change course? There was an established up/down north/south/east/west in the Star Fleet.

Frank Enstine on December 11, 2012 at 8:48 AM

My favorites were the episodes where Jolene wore only the Vulcan ears.
Could we get those back by “popular demand”?
Where do I sign?

countrybumpkin on December 10, 2012 at 10:51 PM

She claims body double and considering she done nude in movies I believe her.

Frank Enstine on December 11, 2012 at 8:51 AM

At no time is Shatner’s Kirk even close to the insufferable jackassery of New Kirk though. New Kirk is constantly talked about as though he is the clever, knowledgeable Kirk we used to know, but the movie not only never demonstrates it, but actively refutes it all the time.

CrankyTRex on December 10, 2012 at 11:39 PM

But he’s not. The timeline changed which they made abundently clear. The old Kirk grew up with his father’s influence and the new Kirk didn’t. Even that was made clear in the new movie. IN TOS Kirk didn’t meet Spock until he took command of the Enterprise but in the new one they meet while Kirk was still training. The old Kirk took over the Enterprise after Pike had already had it for many years. Nero changed everything and Kirk ends up with basically a battlefield promotion. Yes, vastly changed from the original but also laid out pretty well as to the how and why.

Frank Enstine on December 11, 2012 at 9:02 AM

The appeal lies in the interactions between well-known characters who have been re-imagined in a fairly creative and refreshing way in this reboot.

wfcook on December 11, 2012 at 9:13 AM

Decided to finally get off the Trek fandom wagon with the 2009 re-boot… the poor franchise had been booted so often that it couldn’t recover. And it had so many internal contradictions, even in a single season and at times within single episodes, that the poor franchise just was no longer coherent. Lots of nice stories, some good characters and actors, yes. A coherent, consistent and believable future, no. Had to finally do some fanfic on my own to do that, and once you start to peel back the Trek layers, the problems just multiply, not decrease.

I’m glad that Marvel called in JMS to do the continuity between its major films post- X-Men. Trek needed a JMS type to do that… and after B5 it is apparent that there is only one JMS type around.

ajacksonian on December 11, 2012 at 9:19 AM

There’s so much missing from the trailer — Who’s talking? Why is he out for revenge? Is he going to create volcanism in the middle of San Francisco? Where’s the Enterprise (as mentioned). Why would I want to watch it – there’s nothing compelling in the trailer.

sadatoni on December 11, 2012 at 9:49 AM

The main question I had after watching the newest movie is…
Why is Uhura kissing Spock? How does that even make sense. There wasn’t anything in Spock’s background, or Uhura’s background that Nero changed.

cptacek on December 11, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Everyone, please lighten up. Star Trek is an enterprise, if you pardon the pun. Their goal is to make money. They owe you nothing. There is no legacy they have to honor to keep you happy. The 2009 film attracted new fans who YES actually sat down and watched the original series and the other shows. They may have a bent perspective on what is their favorite is, but it is their perspective. Their added fire of enthusiasm feeds the property some much needed interest. Maybe this will spur a new series?

Everyone please calm down. I loved Star Trek decades ago, and I enjoy this reimagining of the series because I understand that the idea is bigger than just a fan’s angry attitude of “if it ain’t Shatner, it’s crap”. Nobody’s betraying you. If anything, they’re remembering you and your love of a great idea.

Ken Gentner on December 11, 2012 at 10:09 AM

To all these whining fans that dream about Trek in the 60′s, get a life and watch/comment on something else! Enjoy the fact that Star Trek lives on. Unlike most of you idiots, I grew up in the sixties and enjoyed the show than and enjoy the new characters now. May you all fall into a black hole and never be heard of again.

whsiii on December 11, 2012 at 12:43 AM

This.

exliberal on December 11, 2012 at 10:36 AM

@cptacek – The idea was that Nero’s interference with space-time changed everything about everyone’s lives. Spock put it best:

“Nero’s very presence has altered the flow of history, beginning with the attack on the U.S.S. Kelvin, culminating in the events of today, thereby creating an entire new chain of incidents that cannot be anticipated by either party…Whatever our lives might have been, if the time continuum was disrupted, our destinies have changed.”

mrsknightley on December 11, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Everyone please calm down. I loved Star Trek decades ago, and I enjoy this reimagining of the series because I understand that the idea is bigger than just a fan’s angry attitude of “if it ain’t Shatner, it’s crap”. Nobody’s betraying you. If anything, they’re remembering you and your love of a great idea.

Ken Gentner on December 11, 2012 at 10:09 AM

And this.

I am a life-long Trekkie. The reboot was a masterful homage to the original series and subsequent spinoffs, without being maudlin or creepy. Chris Pine is the perfect new Kirk. Cheeky, bold, sexy, smart. The rest of the cast – just wonderful characterizations that back in the 60′s we could only dream about.

JJ Abrams – you go, dude.

exliberal on December 11, 2012 at 10:40 AM

I really don’t understand all the hate for Enterprise. Archer was one of my favorite captains.

Dunedainn on December 11, 2012 at 11:07 AM

@cptacek – The idea was that Nero’s interference with space-time changed everything about everyone’s lives. Spock put it best:

“Nero’s very presence has altered the flow of history, beginning with the attack on the U.S.S. Kelvin, culminating in the events of today, thereby creating an entire new chain of incidents that cannot be anticipated by either party…Whatever our lives might have been, if the time continuum was disrupted, our destinies have changed.”

mrsknightley on December 11, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Sure. I guess I don’t get the subtly, though. I suppose it is the whole butterfly in Africa causes a hail storm in Kansas thing.

cptacek on December 11, 2012 at 11:17 AM

But he’s not. The timeline changed which they made abundently clear. The old Kirk grew up with his father’s influence and the new Kirk didn’t. Even that was made clear in the new movie. IN TOS Kirk didn’t meet Spock until he took command of the Enterprise but in the new one they meet while Kirk was still training. The old Kirk took over the Enterprise after Pike had already had it for many years. Nero changed everything and Kirk ends up with basically a battlefield promotion. Yes, vastly changed from the original but also laid out pretty well as to the how and why.

Frank Enstine on December 11, 2012 at 9:02 AM

I know he’s not. In fact, him not being the Classic Kirk would actually have given them the ability to tell an interesting Star Trek like story had they bothered to explore that nature vs. nurture, fate vs. free will kind of thing, particularly once Old Spock showed up and gave him a glimpse of who he could have been.

But they don’t do that because they’re too busy treating him like he is the Classic Kirk. All the characters talk about him like he is the Classic Kirk, to the point of Old Spock even treating him like he’s the younger version of the guy he knew. The problem is that his actions not only fail to reflect that, but also often actively refute it. That’s “Show, Don’t Tell” failing in spectacular fashion, since the Show and Tell are actually opposed to each other.

The writers see him as the Classic Kirk, so they write it like he is. They know he’s supposed to be captain at the end of this thing, so they have to Mary Sue him along so that he can be captain. It’s how badly they suck at writing that they can’t even write their own characters, and part of the reason the semi-alternate reality thing was such a huge cop-out.

More importantly, even if they actually had the stones to write an honest to God prequel with the younger Classic Kirk acting in the manner we expect Kirk to act and earning his way the whole movie, I’d still have trouble accepting he went from disgraced cadet to captain of the flagship like that.

CrankyTRex on December 11, 2012 at 12:24 PM

I understand that J.J. Abrams is about to do a reboot of the old comedy classic M*A*S*H

I have the inside scoop so let me tell all…We begin by meeting young Hawkeye Pierce sitting on a barstool in the local pub in Crabapple Cove Maine. Most of the other customers are students from Harvard Medical School. Hawkeye tries to flirt with attractive nursing student “Hot Lips” Houlihan, when suddenly young Frank Burns comes up and punches him in the nose.

After the brawl is over, Doctor Henry Blake (who is the students chaperone) talks to Pierce “Son your dad was the greatest surgeon I’ve ever known, he died in a trench at Verdun trying to save the life of a horse that had been hit by mustard gas…I challenge you to do better!” We learn that Hawkeye’s dad had been killed by a rogue German Corporal named Hitler.

The next morning Hawkeye gets on a bus with all the other students and go’s off to Harvard Medical School. On the bus Hawkeye meets a young kid who tells him that his dad lost the farm in Iowa investing in something called the Radar Range, and now he has to go to Harvard to learn to be a file clerk, the nickname sticks

We don’t learn much about what happens for the next couple years but we get the idea Pierce spends most of his time drinking martini’s and chasing nurses. This eventually gets him hauled up in front of Dean Wormer. Just before they can put him on double secret probation, a giant video screen lights up and President Roosevelt announces that the Germans have bombed Pearl Harbor.

The entire student body of Harvard University immediately board buses and heads off Hawaii where Hawkeye is appointed head of surgery

halfbaked on December 11, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Looks Good!

Crossing my fingers…..it can’t be worse than the original reboot……can it???

(lol…we true Trek fans are easily seperated from our money)

Tim_CA on December 11, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Just got finished reading most of the comments, and I’m totally confused… It almost seems that no one went to IMDB to get some answers. :)

The baddie is KAHN, played by Benedict Cumberbatch…BBC’s current Sherlock Holmes. If this movie is anything like the last one, AND we get Cumberbatch, it will not suck.

I can’t say I’m a full fledged Trekker, but I loved the old series and TNG (major hat tip to my favorite Trek nerd, Wil Wheaton!). But I thought Abrams did a good job with the reboot, and this one just seems to be more of his types of decisions. So, I’m in.

Cumberbatch and Pegg…. Tickeddragon, happy.

tickleddragon on December 11, 2012 at 1:18 PM

I got no problem with it. The “Star Trek” formula has been worked to death so I’m happy to see a fresh approach.

Does Spock get married in this one? If so, who’s the groom?

CrustyB on December 11, 2012 at 1:18 PM

I didn’t like Star Trek up until DS9, because before that Star Trek was all about our Happy Socialist Future. DS9 was great because it started poking holes in that, calling the Federation out for what it was, and taking the first tentative steps to tearing down the noxious mythology behind the whole thing.

And for that, I forgave DS9 for being a complete ripoff of Babylon 5.

JSchuler on December 11, 2012 at 3:28 PM

I liked that 6 of 9 chick.

MechanicalBill on December 10, 2012 at 11:02 PM

Her name was Seven of Nine.

And she’s the reason Obama is President.

Really.

There is a true -life tale there, and it end’s with Obama in the White House.

You can look it up.

Bruno Strozek on December 11, 2012 at 3:32 PM

So, am I missing something?

As I understand it, the first “reboot” film dumped us in an alternate timeline where all that 60′s Star Trek stuff NEVER HAPPENED.

Explain where this guy comes from.

mojo on December 11, 2012 at 4:54 PM

I liked the 2009 movie. Thought the characterizations were pretty good — a large part of why I went to see it. I did find the plot to be rather far fetched, even for a sci fi movie, but I was entertained anyway despite the flaws.

I did not know that a new movie was coming out and only the vaguest idea of the story. I suspect that, while it may be well done and be entertaining, it is likely going to play some hob with the ST universe again.

After saving the Earth, the Federation, and the Universe a few times, I suspect a series would be kind of out of the question. But maybe nobody really expects to be able to make a series out of Star Trek anymore. Oh well.

Russ808 on December 11, 2012 at 5:41 PM

What a loss. Star Trek used to be about exploration and discovery and wonder, about humanity bumping up against the unknown and exceeding ones own limits. The first movie was nostalgic and was fun to watch because of the back-story on well-known characters, despite its weak plot. Now that they’ve used up that hook, it’s just about revenge and kicking ass, like 99% of the drek Hollywood is shoveling out these days. Special effects and violence is no substitute for story.

Socratease on December 11, 2012 at 9:06 PM

I like what Abrams has done.

Good villains and he gets the Star Trek funny.

I’ll see it.

workingclass artist on May 8, 2013 at 11:31 PM

Comment pages: 1 2