Details of 9 Minute Preview Revealed *SPOILERS*

Things like building the ship on Earth or sending it underwater at most involve a significant evolution (or deterioration, if you don't like it) of the way a lot of us thought about the Enterprise and about space travel in general in the 1960s and 70s or even at the time TNG was introduced. The fictional narrative about these ships in Star Trek has "powered them up" considerably over time, and all of this can now be justified by various technobabble statements that have been made onscreen and incidents we've been shown over the years.

Even Superman couldn't fly, at first.

 

Well if there's some technobabble explanation for it then that's fine, but if they have hidden in the ocean because they think its the best place to hide then *facepalm*

There was a time when they invented the transporter because they couldn't afford to show them landing every week, now they have so much money they just go land in the ocean instead

 

It depends on whether they hid the Enterprise underwater because of something other than the natives on the planet. Could there be other starships (Starfleet or otherwise) nearby that would detect the Enterprise and would investigate to find them violating the Prime Directive?

 

IIRC, Voyager navigated through fluidic space without problem. And I guess maneuvering thrusters could propel the ship through water too.

 

There's a certain truth to that.

 

Perhaps Nibiru has a more advanced twin and the twin world isn't too keen on the backward natives surviving their dance with the volcano and don't want the Federation mucking things up for them. So the Enterprise can't hid in orbit for they'd be seen.
Perhaps the advanced twin have their own Mayan problem and want to get rid of Nibiru before... well, the baktun ends.

 

I can give the Enterprise under water a pass.

I just write it off as a timeline change thanks to Enterprise/Nero, maybe more resources were pumped into starship development and advancement due to what happened with Nero, much like what happened with the Borg/Dominion threat in the 24th century.

 

I'm going with Charlie X.

Seriously.

Why not?

 

It's definitely Charlie.

The new photo of Cumberbatch in the Enterprise brig proves it, for the following reasons:

• Charlie was escorted to the brig by Kirk and Spock. Who do we see in this shot? Cumberbatch, Kirk and...Spock.
• Charlie/Cumberbatch is staring at Kirk with what is unarguably the hurt and angry look of a betrayed child or mistreated pet (don't try to argue this. I know what I see). He's completely ignoring Spock. Again, only one possibility: Charlie X.
• We haven't seen any footage of Janice Rand interacting with Cumberbatch's character. The only possible reason for this is that Abrams is hiding it, because he knows that it would give away the villain's identity.
• Alice Eve has the same haircut as Yeoman Tina Lawton in "Charlie X." She's screaming in the trailer because she knows that Cumberbatch is about to turn her into an iguana.
• Because, uh, SHUT UP!

Has to be Charlie Evans. I've proven it.

 

Reviews of what, a 9 minute teaser? Hardly indicative of anything.

 

Family. FAMILY!!!

What would you do for family?!?!

Charlie X has...

no...

family, so he's pissed and he wants revenge!!!

 

Not really so. If the first ten minutes of the movie are really good, it's not likely that the rest sucks.

Hell, film marketers have their challenges making a two-minute theatrical trailer for a bad movie without letting the cat out of the bag (somewhat more true, I think for comedies than action films, but still...).

 

I don't expect it to be bad, but come on. The first several minutes of any movie can be good, while the whole thing goes off the rails halfway through, or at the climax. It's only slightly better than judging how good it might be based solely on the trailer!

 

I've never found that to be true. Sometimes the plot of a movie is disappointing, but I've never started out enjoying a movie and then gone away feeling that the movie "fell apart" in any other sense than plot. If the performers, the look, the dialogue and the energy of the thing work at all, it's not an accident. Movies that actually suck as whole experiences, you figure out that you're in trouble pretty damn quick.

In fact, if one's primary enjoyment of fiction comes from plot most commercial film and television is going to disappoint. A tremendous percentage of the attempts to do movie criticism that you find on line, IMAO, never dig any deeper than plot and that's why they're so negative.

 

I think the people who are aiming at a “rouge officer” type might be closer to the truth.

Personally I don’t think it would be Garth mainly because in 2012 when people hear that name they think of an SNL skit. I don’t think movie execs today would like that name. If Cumby is playing an officer and a British one I think Robert April is the best option. If you consider TAS to be cannon then he is a cannon character I suppose.

If they are taking after the Batman Nolanverse films at least in the way they are constructed, I think Khan may have been the first choice for the villain but after talks fell through with who they liked maybe they changed directions.

Avoid the Batman foul up (which granted they could not have predicted). After the first they overtly teased The Joker for film two (Orci and company have said that they thought about teasing the Botany Bay at the end of Trek ’09).

As a result of Ledger’s death, obviously there would be no Joker in the third film. And even though Rises was fun it just paled in comparison to TDK. If the third movie is the send off for this creative team then tease Khan at the end of this as the set up for the huge finale!

 

Granted, it's 9 minutes, but it's a good sign in my book. The superlatives have been flying.

 

Whenever somebody writes "Garth," I think of Wayne's long-haired hellion sidekick. Whenever somebody writes "Gary," I think of Spongebob Squarepants's pet snail.

Hardly cringe-inducing, intimidating names.

 

Waitaminute, didn't we see a Federation ship underwater in Insurrection?? Why was that allowed, but the Enterprise itself isn't?

I don't get the need to justify it like that. Just because we never saw the Enterprise go underwater in The Original Series doesn't mean it wasn't capable of doing so, whether designed for it or not. As far as I know, there's no counter-evidence at all.

 

If the ship is underwater, then the enemy must be Black Manta. The Enterprise is picking up Aquaman where he's been busy helping the whales Kirk brought back. The blonde woman being Gillian who is revealed to be Aquaman's mom.

 

It moved around inside the amoeba just fine, and it's denser.