Star Trek’s New Trailer Features More Cumberbatch Moustache Twirling

19 responses to “Star Trek’s New Trailer Features More Cumberbatch Moustache Twirling”

1. 

   kaflooey

   March 22, 2013 at 9:52 am

   Oooh! I’m not really a ‘trekkie’, but this looks good. Can’t go past a Sean-Bean-in-Goldeneye type villain who’s been wronged. Especially one played by Cumberbatch. Also, what is it with Scotts loving Cumberbatch?

   Reply
2. 

   bagmup

   March 22, 2013 at 9:55 am

   Looks the goods, i enjoyed the first too…but i’m not a die hard trekkie

   Reply
3. 

   chuloopa

   March 22, 2013 at 10:04 am

   That actually looks pretty bad-arse!
   I’m still yet to see the other one, though.

   Reply
   1. 

      jimu

      March 22, 2013 at 10:12 am

      Do it!
      It was suprisingly good. Excelent update while at the same time a return to form.
      All the good stuff 😀

      Reply
   2. 

      corteks

      March 22, 2013 at 11:58 am

      Yeah seriously you should go see it! Also if you want the opinion of a Trekkie, well my Mum is a pretty big Trekkie and she loved it too 😛

      Reply
4. 

   jimu

   March 22, 2013 at 10:09 am

   Cumberbatch being escorted by a group of Red Shirts…BAHG HA HA!!

   Reply
5. 

   jimu

   March 22, 2013 at 10:10 am

   A little dissapointed Cumberbatch didn’t actually have a moustache…

   Reply
6. 

   jimu

   March 22, 2013 at 10:10 am

   They need to stick with the coloured shirts and avoid all the uniforms and black leather jackets

   Reply
7. 

   jimu

   March 22, 2013 at 10:11 am

   This looks awesome!!!

   Reply
8. 

   hayden

   March 22, 2013 at 10:12 am

   Arrr, I hate being so cynical; but I am not looking forward to this movie. It looks like -any other- modern action film, except it has the Star Trek name tacked on to it.

   It’s all well and good that the first movie gave them almost complete freedom over their future directions, but why use the original characters if you want to make a completely new series in movie form? The original series was probably amazing in its day, but when compared to some of the stories in TNG it’s a pile of poop (and I’m only working through TNG as the Blurays come out!).

   Sure, that’s a comparison between the television series and not the movies; but it’s a comparison between the series they decided to reboot the franchise with. Why reboot from the most boring franchise? The only thing the original series has going for it is people know most of the characters despite never watching the show. They have somehow made quite a large ..cultural? impact.

   Star Trek to me is about the story telling. And to me, it seems as though they’ve put story telling aside to create quite a large visual spectacular for people who would otherwise not be willing to ‘try something new’. Of course, I’m not a fan of this type of movie in general. But neither is my girlfriend! But she’s excited for the new movie! How? Why can’t I be? I’ll put it down to being a cynical douche.

   Reply
   1. 

      weresmurf

      March 22, 2013 at 10:50 am

      If it’s about the storytelling you must’ve really hated every single movie since First Contact, seeing as they were so goddamn boring, with terrible storylines… Nemesis being of a bloody awful plotline and redacted lore and Insurrection being nothing but an elongated tv episode.

      Your comments about ‘the have somehow made quite a large… cultural? impact.’ show you have zero knowledge of the trials and tribulations that Star Trek had to go through, some of the topics it dealt with in its run on television, the fact it dealt with televisions first interracial kiss, it clearly dealt with the issue of racism on television in a time when that was not even heard of, that Roddenbury gave a black woman an equal position on the bridge, that there were metaphors for race, creed and religion on the show…

      Talk about missing the point completely. TNG was good, infact it was great, but it in no way broke the new grounds that TOS did.

      Reply
      1. 

         hayden

         March 22, 2013 at 10:52 am

         Honestly, I’m not overly invested in Star Trek. I’ve only watched the original series, and the first two seasons of TNG. I’ve never watched any of the movies. What I say has mostly no relevance to what Star Trek most likely represents.

         Reply
         1. 

            hayden

            March 22, 2013 at 11:00 am

            And yes, it’s hard to watch Star Trek without seeing Gene Roddenberry popping up talking about how he was the most amazing person back in the day because he was dealing with racism and women in power. It’s mirrored by the TNG crew in both the old and new .. commentary? I understand that it dealt with what Roddenberry considered a Utopian society. A world free of hunger, hatred, poverty, whatever. But creating that world doesn’t necessarily create compelling viewing, when every episode it’s just them beaming down on to a new planet and re-hashing a familiar story.

            Reply
            1. 

               weresmurf

               March 22, 2013 at 11:07 am

               Which is how you see it now, but audiences back then had never seen it in that day. Try not to think of it in a 2000’s way but in a 1960s way. To them it was like the unveiling of the PS4, something that they’d never seen before, it was new, exciting, fresh. Your attitude towards it is a little, well, to be honest, arrogant and dismissive. I don’t think Roddenbury was god or anything like that but I do think he did a lot for women on tv and especially bringing sensitive topics out into the open on television, at least helping getting it out there.

   2. 

      kaflooey

      March 22, 2013 at 11:05 am

      Nah, the original is the best.

      Reply
9. 

   gunnie

   March 22, 2013 at 10:30 am

   Yeh looking forward to this. I too enjoyed the first one, it was a much needed reboot in my opinion. I’m slightly disappointed that the villain in this movie isn’t Kahn, and also that the Klingon’s don’t make an appearance (well I can’t be fully sure until I see it).

   Reply
10. 

    Dominic

    March 22, 2013 at 11:08 am

    There’s really nothing about this film nor the last one that makes me think it’s Star Trek.

    Reply
11. 

    teajay

    March 24, 2013 at 12:02 am

    The 2009 one was too frustrating for me. It had some good bits, like the first 10 minutes, but the bits with the kid Kirk driving his step-dad’s car like the worlds greatest stuntman, the fact that a new graduate went from Ensign to Commander in a day, being dropped on the same random planet as future Spock, and an elite crew that are stupid enough to hover so close to a gigantic black hole that they almost get sucked into it, etc., etc. There were no creative ideas used to get the crew back together in spite of their new timeline, it was just improbable coincidence 1, improbable coincidence 2, improbable coincidence 3, like the writers weren’t even trying.

    Oh, and if you haven’t seen it, sorry for spoiling it.

    Reply
12. 

    mikeockertz

    March 25, 2013 at 12:58 pm

    Dr. Carol Marcus– Yes please!! 😀

    Reply