Im starting to remember why people don't talk to star trek fans...

Uh-oh. Set Sci-Fi nerd keyboards to stun, we have a flamewar coming in.

"Darth" Spudius here doesn't like Star Trek fans... :o

We've known for some time that Benedict Cumberbatch of Sherlock fame is the new villain, but he's been silent on what his role exactly is, or who he's playing. Given the unbelievably massive spoiler at the end of the Japanese trailer, I'll go out on a limb and guess that he's a re-imagined version of Khan Noonien Singh, or at least a mash-up of him and some other Trek baddie from the TOS era I've forgotten about.

Edit: here's some extra info from CinemaBlend: "Star Trek Into Darkness finds the crew of the Enterprise with their lives shattered, as a member of Star Fleet has turned and left the world in a state of crisis. In order to find the man responsible and settle a personal score, Captain Kirk goes to a war-zone world to hunt down the powerful culprit."

I read some speculation the other day from a really hardened fan who jumped straight to the conclusion that it was Garth of Izar, (From the third series episode "Whom Gods Destroy") but given all the superhuman jumping around in the teaser, it looks like we're back in "Augment" territory. So, maybe Khan. Or as you suggested, a mashup of the two, as Cumberbatch is wearing a Starfleet uniform every time we've seen him, but Khan should technically still be a war criminal from the 1990's at this point. (Unless continuity has been completely jettisoned.)

KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!
That sure looks epic

Batman and James Bond are a couple other series reboots that come to mind in recent years. Is Star Trek really so different that it deserves to be stripped of its title? In fairness though, it is—perhaps—the most obvious admission of fucking up a brand. They might as well have called it Star Trek: Mulligan.

If anyone should be blamed for fucking up the Star Trek brand, it's Rick Berman and Brannon Braga.

There were many realistic and "mature" Batman works before Batman Begins, I don't think that one qualifies at all. James Bond... yes, based on Craig's first two I would say those are awesome spy movies and not really James Bond movies. I have said that before many times actually. Whether Skyfall is different or not I don't know yet, I don't want to watch it in Georgian, lol.

I loved Casino Royale as a movie though. Again, it's just when a movie massively changes the tone, style and point of a franchise I say it's not a "real X movie."

This.


It appears to qualify by your criteria:

Anyway, I don't intend to criticize. I just don't understand the significance the seemingly arbitrary distinction between a series reboot and a new series with all the old familiar names and places.

Continuity is unaffected.

We know from previous Star Trek time travelling that their method is the whole parallel timelines (the Borg trying to change history by assimilating Earth in the past, for example, which would rule out a single timeline as if they had been successful then they would never have needed the mission to go and assimilate Earth in the past in the first place so would never have gone, hence a paradox and so only possible with alternate parallel timelines).

In Star Trek (2009), Spock went back in time (along with those Romulan bad guys) to an alternate timeline caused by those Romulans killing Kirk's father leading to Kirk having a different upbringing and life. This did not cause a paradox so we again have alternate parallel timelines. So everything in the original Spock's life did happen, and he went to this new timeline where the events now unfold differently.

In the new timeline, Khan would be floating in space, in suspended animation in the SS Botany Bay. The original Kirk found this derelict on stardate 3141.9. However, in the new timeline who is to say that he wasn't found by some other starship captain? The changed events from the first film may have led to many changes in history, other exploring starships, different captains. Maybe in this timeline the ship that found Khan returned him to starfleet and he chose to join in order to take over from the inside and this is him now taking action to take over the Earth?

The Daniel Craig movies are actually truer to the original , more ruthless characterization of 007 than the entirety of the Roger Moore/Brosnan Bond films were. Casino Royale actually follows the plot of the book reasonably well.

As opposed to the later Moore films (Moonraker onwards) that tended to be filled with ridiculous BS like the Tarzan roar, Jaws in love, or (in Brosnan's Die Another Day) the infamous "ice surfing" scene. Bond is a great character but some of the campy stuff those movies had was so spazzy it made Austin Powers look like There Will Be Blood.

Fine, I hate the trailer.

<Big speech, universe shattering menance, blah blah blah>
<Lots of action, head bashing, woman screams>
<wwwwoooooooouuuuuuuuuuMMM...... then whispers or slowtalks something meaningful>
<end with a single epic scene>

Every
Damn
Trailer

Yea this is true of most big movie teaser trailers. A few big shots to get people excited. I think when a full length (~2 min) trailer comes, we'll get a better sense of the story.