51

First Star Trek Into Darkness Trailer Sends The Enterprise Underwater

fb share tweet share

The first ever trailer for Star Trek into Darkness, the follow-up to JJ Abrams’ 2009 sort of reboot of the Star Trek universe has arrived, and it does a pretty good job of keeping us in the dark about who Benedict Cumberbatch is playing. He is, however, clearly the movie’s villain and very much the focus of this first teaser trailer.

Watch…

[springboard type=”video” id=”617339″ player=”ci042″ width=”578″ height=”238″ ]

If you’re a serious Star Trek fan you’re probably a little pissed off at Star Trek into Darkness right now. Hardcore Trekkies know that the Enterprise isn’t made for atmospheric travel and, oh by the way, definitely wouldn’t be able to survive the pressure of being underwater…

The Enterprise is supposed to be a vessel purpose-built for use in the void of outer space… that’s why they have transporters and shuttles to send people down to the surface. The Enterprise can’t land, much less double as a submarine. Though apparently, that’s what’s going on here. Maybe we shouldn’t be surprised, since the first movie already sort of tossed that out the window when it showed the Enterprise being built in the middle of an Iowa cornfield instead of in outer space.

Star Trek Technical manual violations aside, the trailer delivers a villain-focused atmosphere and does a good job of showing off this sequel’s new players.

There’s lot of Cumberbatch…

And we got a good look at Alice Eve…

Expect Star Trek Into Darkness in theaters May 17, 2013.

UPDATE! The Japanese version of the new Star Trek Into Darkness trailer is a little different, and it may reveal the identity of Cumberbatch’s villain character. Watch it here.

Comments

  • http://www.facebook.com/briancmckinley Brian C McKinley

    We are “Trekkers” not “Trekkies” and I’m not pissed off at all. This is just an alternate universe. It means nothing to the real Trek universe.

    • JT

      That’s only because you’re a Trekker, not a Trekkie. Personally I’m a Trekkie.

    • http://www.facebook.com/zero32483 William Hoke Jr

      Not all of us consider Trekkie to be an insult. Rather, it’s a badge of honor.

      • JT

        Yeah I’ve always embraced it myself, I prefer it to Trekker, just feels more honest.

      • Sleeper99999

        Either one works for me.

    • Sleeper99999

      Actually TREK time travel doesn’t do that. The first movie wiped out everything, that’s gone. We’re never seeing that again.

      • http://www.facebook.com/zero32483 William Hoke Jr

        I reference Star Trek: The Next Generation Season 7 Episode 11 “Parallels” to defeat your point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallels_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation)

        • Sleeper99999

          Really? Worf was creating parallel universes by time travel in that one? That’s your claim?

          • http://www.facebook.com/zero32483 William Hoke Jr

            No he was being shifted to parallel universes. Said universes were created by differences in choice and chance. This is also the reason behind the existence of the Mirror Universe. Nero’s timeshift to the past would create such a split in realities.

          • Sleeper99999

            I’m afraid that doesn’t bear out. If that were the case, then when the Borg went back in time in FIRST CONTACT, then Picard and the rest wouldn’t have seen THEIR Earth transform as a new history enfolded them. Same goes with Kirk and the rest in “City on the Edge of Forever.” Same with the Temporal Cold War shown in ENTERPRISE. Hell, they wouldn’t need a Temporal Prime Directive if you were unable to alter your own past via time travel. Parallel universes exist on their own, without any definite cause for their existence given. Time travel alters YOUR history and YOUR universe, it does not create a new one.

            The usual rebuttal to this offered by Rebooters is that the “red matter” shown in STAR TREK ’09 is some magical substance that alters time and space and created a separate timeline. A dubious notion to be sure. If these guys wanted the freedom to play havoc with the timeline and pick and choose what they wanted to use and ignore other stuff, they should have just done a straight-up reboot, not this stupid, messy time travel story. It messed everything up.

          • http://www.facebook.com/zero32483 William Hoke Jr

            -sigh- Quantum signatures. You end back up in the timeline that matches yours the best. Anyways, it’s even referenced in expanded Trek that the events of First Contact may have been what created the mirror universe in the first place, due to Cochrane’s knowledge of the Borg. You’re just being difficult to acknowledge the possibility that I could be right. I can handle that. We’ll see whose right and who isn’t. That’s enough for me.

          • Sleeper99999

            I acknowledge that the current regime running STAR TREK has misunderstood the nature of the TREK universe and therefore changed the rules, but it’s inconsistent with what’s been shown before and that inconsistency has yet to be (and never will be) explained. I don’t understand how invoking “quantum signatures” undermines my argument that time travel in this setting doesn’t do what the filmmakers of the reboot claim it does. I don’t think they even care about continuity, they’re just shuffling things around as it pleases them…which is why a straight reboot would have been FAR, FAR better for them to do in the first place. But that’s water over the dam at this point.

          • http://www.facebook.com/zero32483 William Hoke Jr

            It’s just a personal thought of mine. At any rate the prime universe is alive and well in the form of Star Trek Online, which is set in the prime universe years and years after the Hobus supernova. In the end, I rather agree with Benjamin Sisko. I hate time travel. lol

          • Sleeper99999

            I love TREK but they really have gone to the time travel well a few times too many, heh.

  • Chris

    OMG OMG OMG OMG

  • http://www.facebook.com/zero32483 William Hoke Jr

    While I agree that the Enterprise was built for space and not water or atmosphere, I disagree that it wouldn’t be able to hold up under water. The same structural integrity field that keeps the hull together any other time would come into effect. I mean, they DID have to count for the pressure of gasses in the various nebulae the ship explored as well as one GIANT AMOEBA they took the ship into… I do also believe it could be argued that the shields could be modified to make atmospheric flight possible. In fact, the original Enterprise was originally intended to have Saucer Separation, with landing feet on the bottom of the saucer itself. They just never used it or referenced it, but supposedly the triangular “landing feet” markings are on the saucer anyways. Then why don’t they do it all the time? Well, I imagine it takes quite a bit of power to break free of planetary gravity with something massing as much as the Enterprise does. It just isn’t practical to send the whole ship when you don’t need the whole ship. Doesn’t mean it isn’t POSSIBLE, though.

    • JT

      It’s pretty well established that the Enterprise can’t go into a planetary atmosphere though. It’s even referenced in a couple of episodes of TOS, if I remember right. That’s why it was such a big deal that Voyager could land.

      • http://www.facebook.com/zero32483 William Hoke Jr

        I don’t remember it being said in such a manner, but I could be wrong. All I remember is issues with the ship running out of power and falling into the atmosphere being a negative side effect. Even if I’m wrong, though, it’s clear from the first movie that Federation tech got pushed forward astronomically in response to the USS Kelvin disaster compared to the prime universe, so at this point anything’s possible. (Which was the idea behind the reboot from the start, I think).

      • http://www.ongoingworlds.com/ David Ball

        It’s not a big deal, the original Enterprise entered Earth’s atmosphere in “Tomorrow is yesterday” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomorrow_Is_Yesterday

        • JT

          Yeah but it stayed in the highest, thinnest part of the atmosphere and they made it a point not to go too low, since that would cause problems. If you recall in that episode, Captain John Christopher’s interceptor couldn’t even really get up as high as the Enterprise was, he only really got high enough to get a look at it.

          • http://www.ongoingworlds.com/ David Ball

            Damn, you’re right!

          • Shayde

            Of course in the first Abrams flick, the Enterprise had no trouble in the atmosphere of a gas giant. Water should be no trouble.

            And the original Enterprise never said it couldn’t be in the atmosphere. Starships have not had that issue.

            What made Voyager unique wasn’t that it could enter the atmosphere, it was that it WAS DESIGNED TO LAND. The Enterprise has no landing struts.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jokeranthe7hief Sean Reilly

    At the end of the trailer it shows the enterprise crashing into water, so perhaps they get it working again and RAISE IT FROM THE DEPTHS! ^_^

    • http://www.facebook.com/zero32483 William Hoke Jr

      This is also possible, and works with my theory already stated.

    • GreyGhost996

      The ship coming out of the water is the Enterprise. You can see the NCC-17?? on the nacelle, so that’s got to be it. Reporters who have seen the 9 min. intro early, have said that it is the Enterprise coming out of the water on that “red plant” planet you can see on the trailer. The ship moving forward in the water later in the trailer is more of a mystery but I don’t believe it to be the Enterprise. The nacelles are too far apart and too skinny.

      • http://www.facebook.com/rob.barbieri.5 Rob Barbieri

        Exactly. The new Enterprise has totally different nacelles.

  • Trekkie 45

    Underwater should be nothing for a ship that can travel warp amongst other things. It is a welcome facet to the story

    . If anyone watched the Japanese trailer.. I was curious if anyone else caught the added scene. It looks like the same scene in the end of Wrath of Khan (star trek 2 movie) so for me that seals the deal on who the bad guy is.
    btw… I have been a “Trekkie” for 45 years. I don’t know who invented the term “Trekker” or when but it’s kinda rediculous and makes me think of someone that likes to go hiking in expensive REI boots or something.

    • Sleeper99999

      The Enterprise becoming a submarine is not a welcome addition to this story.

  • http://www.facebook.com/ben.close.927 Ben Close

    “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.”

    This statement would apply to the entire Star Trek universe maybe they started building them to allow atmospheric/underwater travel.

    • http://www.facebook.com/rob.barbieri.5 Rob Barbieri

      I’m thinking more that the fans, throughout all of the shows/movies, have never heard of structural integrity fields.

  • Dan Filion

    Common people. Stop refering to the technical manual. Who cares. I know the manual by heart and I don’t care really care. They can do everything they want in that new timeline universe AND IT IS GOOD! Star Trek was dying and they brought it back to life with fresh new things. How many people knows the technical manual by heart and formalize themselves with the fact that the enterprise should not be able to sustain atmospheric flight. The fact that they tought of something new that hasn’t been done before is good enough for me. Getting an Enterprise underwater…wow. Good for them and for us. The effect look gorgeous.

    By the way, I don’t believe it’s the Enterprise crashing in the water. Look carefully, the nacelles are not those of the NCC1701 and they are too far appart.

  • http://www.facebook.com/eric.nandal Eric Nandal

    they biult the Enterprise on land in the first movie. so it had to fly to get into space. also the shelds may help the ship under water for a little.

  • SMD ;)

    Any true Star Trek fan would be able to tell you that ship emerginf from the water is NOT the Enterprise but the ship crashing at the end IS -.-

  • http://www.facebook.com/robert.shepard.96 Robert Shepard

    Hello Gary Mitchell.

  • Sybok

    That is NOT the Enterprise coming up from the water. And, it is NOT the Enterprise crashing into the Bay. They are two different ships.

    • http://www.facebook.com/joepatbob Joseph Roberts

      I agree you can clearly see “NCC 4…”

      • Stephen Peters

        To me, it seems like you’re seeing the dash and the 1 form a “4” If you remember correctly, the ID number is NCC-1701. Maybe shadows from the water dripping off the top give it the appearance of a 4.

        Keep this image in mind as well: http://www.trekazoid.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/tlw_enterprise_new_b.jpg

        • Stephen Peters

          I also have this image I screen captured from the Apple Trailer, and after playing with the exposure a bit, to me it looks like a faint NCC-1701 is shown right at the edge of the sun ray.

        • http://www.facebook.com/joepatbob Joseph Roberts

          you are right… the new trailer is clearer

      • http://www.facebook.com/oliver.crisp Oliver Crisp

        You can not see anything clearly. But I’m seeing NCC-17. I think it is the Enterprise both crashing into the bay and then rising back up, having turned around. Don’t forget it has deflector shields which are air tight.

    • http://www.facebook.com/rob.barbieri.5 Rob Barbieri

      Not sure about the one coming up, but the one crashing has the nacelles too wide. Abrams’ Enterprise has them closer together. So either it’s a trick shadow, or it’s a different ship of the fleet–after all, more than one ship is apparently damaged.

  • Glen Bruton

    Going the way of Transformers movies…..

  • OptimusPrime28

    Why does this trailer remind me of all the Transformers trailers ? Same kind of music, editing…..

  • http://www.facebook.com/erik.cameron.roberts Erik Roberts

    Also, in their defense… we’re only seeing a .3 second clip where the Enterprise just happens to coming out of water. We’re just assuming that it is traveling in water or going somewhere where the pressure is more than atmospheric. I will reserve my judgement until I actually watch the movie.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1777761299 Dave Morgan

    Treknology in the story allows for the warping of space-time but not putting the Enterprise under water? Maybe you should read some books on the matter. Or better yet, ask Michael and Denise Okuda about it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ben-Critical-Hit-Coleman/100000426727489 Ben Critical Hit Coleman

    Almost thought that might have been the Botany Bay (assuming the antagonist is Khan). If it is the Enterprise and those are the nacelles (which look odd too), where is the saucer? That section wasn’t detachable until NCC-1701-D right?

    • Robert Weston

      The Botany Bay was a pre-warp ship, it wouldnt have nacelles.

  • http://www.facebook.com/joepatbob Joseph Roberts

    if you look at the screen grab of the ship coming out of the water, the necal says “NCC 4…” Not “NCC 1…” as the enterprise would

  • http://www.facebook.com/rob.barbieri.5 Rob Barbieri

    It’s science fiction. I keep seeing all these people referring to the water thing using today’s tech. Think about the future. Besides, has no one heard of structural integrity fields in all their supposed watching of Star Trek?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Greg-Bonkowski/515879857 Greg Bonkowski

    Actually, all of the vessels were made with landing gear just in case….see Voyager…

  • Zot

    Ships can land I mean look at voyager