Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

A Two-Minute Trailer For J.J. Abrams’ SUPER 8 To Land Before BATTLE: L.A. And RED RIDING This Weekend??

I am Hercules!!

“Super 8,” the mysterious Steven Spielberg production that serves as J.J. Abrams’ first feature directorial effort since “Star Trek,” appears to be getting a 2-minutes-plus trailer this weekend.

Comic Book Resources has an unconfirmed report that the new trailer will precede “Battle: Los Angeles” and “Red Riding Hood.”

The Government of Alberta has a recent listing for a new “Super 8” trailer running 2:11 that's on the way.

The Super Bowl “Super 8” spot ran just 32 seconds:

Very exciting!

Thanks to “John,” who did the legwork on this one.


Follow Herc on Twitter!!

Follow Evil Herc on Twitter!!

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • March 7, 2011, 8:29 p.m. CST


    by torontoxic

    So we can stop getting updates on when you scratch your ass.

  • March 7, 2011, 8:33 p.m. CST

    Very nice, supermarch.

    by initials2d

  • March 7, 2011, 8:38 p.m. CST

    Jurasic Park meets Cloverfield meets ET meets...?

    by Yeti

    Meh... unless the new trailer blows me away I'm over it.

  • March 7, 2011, 8:40 p.m. CST

    Jurasic Park meets Cloverfield meets ET meets...?

    by Yeti

    unless the new trailer blows me away I think I'll wait for the DVD.

  • March 7, 2011, 8:44 p.m. CST

    Super 8 sounds like a lottery ticket.

    by GibsonUSA Returns

    Or a motel.

  • March 7, 2011, 8:55 p.m. CST

    A Heads Up.

    by theKRELL

    The Curmudgeon looks to be on his way to this TB. They were out of pudding at the home, so, he's already got a hair up his ass about that!

  • March 7, 2011, 9:04 p.m. CST

    Might see this movie now

    by Yurka

  • March 7, 2011, 9:05 p.m. CST

    Good to see Kyle Chandler in a movie

    by mistergreen

    Almost looks like a contagious disease and not alien monster movie.

  • March 7, 2011, 9:18 p.m. CST


    by theKRELL

    Thanks, I'll tell her you liked her performance. Actually, The Sack is the first film in Vincent Poes "Holding Trilogy", followed by The Bag, and The Parcel. Your mom, on the other hand is 'rubbish'! After her first night of hooking she gave all the money to your dad, $20.50, needless to say your dad was pissed, he asked her who the hell gave her .50 cents, to which she replied . . . "Everybody"

  • March 7, 2011, 9:26 p.m. CST

    THis is a bit much, don't you guys think? Come on, a post

    by tamethecunt

    about a coming up trailer? Very pretentious to say the least. Plus, it's from a Jew Jew Abrams, who doesn't deserve this type of hype.

  • March 7, 2011, 9:51 p.m. CST

    Oh SHUT UP yeti

    by William

    When you put it THAT way, every movie sounds unoriginal. Stop being so cynical, especially since all three of the movie you tried to compare to this(ET I understand...but the other two? Huh?) are awesome movies.

  • March 7, 2011, 10:01 p.m. CST

    Right on.

    by blackwood

    I'm looking forward to this trailer and am happy to be alerted to its imminent presence.

  • March 7, 2011, 10:34 p.m. CST

    remember when this site was last good?

    by ieatgarbage

    what has it been? a decade?

  • March 7, 2011, 11:14 p.m. CST

    No Shaky camera?

    by MajorFrontbum

    It's a fucking miracle! Someone bought that asshole a tri-pod.

  • March 7, 2011, 11:21 p.m. CST

    Harry, how does JJ's insides taste?

    by Dr. Egon Spengler

  • March 7, 2011, 11:33 p.m. CST

    Possibly the only must see this summer.

    by Gozu

    I loved pretty much all of the 80's Amblin movies and this seems like it effortlessly recaptures that feel. Also, I loved "Star Trek," in spite of (and occasionally because of) it's shaky-cam and lens-flare, and "Cloverfield" was great. If this is just another good monster movie, well, fine by me.

  • March 8, 2011, 12:21 a.m. CST

    so frikkin' MEH on this

    by justmyluck

    Abrams 'upscales' this generic monster movie by simply teasing trailer and spoiler sites with limited info. WTG brainiac...enjoy the first week's receipts.

  • March 8, 2011, 12:24 a.m. CST

    We shall see.

    by CodeName

    We shall see.

  • March 8, 2011, 12:37 a.m. CST

    No Battle: LA reviews yet Harry? Under embargo or something?

    by HB_Dad

    Under embargo or something?

  • March 8, 2011, 2:44 a.m. CST

    Noah Emmerich is in this...

    by syn_flood


  • March 8, 2011, 5:45 a.m. CST

    Living up to one's own self-created hype

    by YackBacker

    J.J. Abrams has yet to achieve this feat.

  • March 8, 2011, 6:48 a.m. CST


    by kwisatzhaderach

    MI:3 = Shit. Star Trek = Shit. Super 8 = ?

  • March 8, 2011, 8:46 a.m. CST

    kwisatzhaderach, that's a sum not too hard to figure, is it?

    by AsimovLives

  • March 8, 2011, 9:07 a.m. CST

    Way to ruin the mystery with a 2 minute spoiler reel

    by Xian042

    I think I might see Sucker Punch instead of Battle LA now, I liked being kept in the dark about Super 8, I don't see how they plan to keep the mystery with a 2 minute trailer.

  • March 8, 2011, 11:24 a.m. CST

    asimovlives is here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    by DangerDave

    Fucking RUN!!!!!! JJ Hate ensues in 5.... 4.... 3.... 2.... 1

  • March 8, 2011, 12:07 p.m. CST

    Plenty of great directors have come from TV

    by Samuel Fulmer

    But for some reason (and don't ask me what it is), but Abrams films always seem to me like they have a cheap TV quality to them. I don't know if it's his camera placement or the way he directs, but even this Super 8 film just feels, I don't know, kind of like lightweight TV fare. It's as if Kevin Smith became a franchise film director.

  • March 8, 2011, 12:26 p.m. CST

    BATTLE: LA (first review) does not exist in this dojo

    by Cobra--Kai

    BATTLE: LA first review is up at, copy and pasted below (warning contains mild spoilers): Yet again, America's been invaded by aliens, who rain from the sky like meteors to terrify an unsuspecting populace. This time, the aggressors dominate not because of their superior intelligence, but because their guns are cooler than ours. Battle: Los Angeles is an invasion movie for the Call Of Duty generation, a cinematic version of a console shooter with wok-headed invaders who bleed cola and fire pew-pew laser guns from rooftops. Aaron Eckhart and Michelle Rodriguez are the two recognisable faces among a group of otherwise anonymous soldiers dropped behind enemy lines as the occupation begins. Within seconds of their arrival, much of Los Angeles has been reduced to a smoking pile of concrete and knackered tanks, and invaders prowl the ruined streets of Santa Monica. Their ranks decimated, Staff Sergeant Nantz (Eckhart), Technical Sergeant Santos (Rodriguez) and their compatriots fight a street-level war with heavily armed aliens. Not that names particularly matter, since writer Christopher Bertolini wastes little time with introductions on either side of the fence. Director Jonathan Liebesman, meanwhile, provides even less room for pause, ensuring Battle: LA's lengthy runtime is essentially an unceasing string of action set pieces. This is just as well, since the rare moments of reflection raised audible titters among my fellow viewers. Aaron Eckhart turns in an admirably stoic, stony-faced performance, but is saddled with some desperately inane, clichéd dialogue. At one point, he delivers a monologue about the tragedy of war and the horrors he's witnessed, only to sum up everything he's just said with a dismissive, "But that's not important right now." You also have to admire a film has Eckhart say to a small boy, "Hector, you're the bravest damn Marine I ever met" before launching himself into battle with a macho roar. In this respect, Battle: LA is a B-picture movie with A-picture cinematography and special effects. Battle: LA's biggest problem, in fact, is its decision to take itself so seriously. Despite the inherent daftness of its premise (why would aliens with such advanced technology even bother to engage in street-level combat?) and the half-arsedness of its script, the film insists on ramming home the tragedy of every human loss, with lingering shots of fallen heroes, slow motion montages of weeping children, and a mournful orchestral score that murmurs constantly in the background. It's a film infinitely better made and more exciting than last year's suspiciously similar Skyline. But it's less goofily fun than the glossy spectacle of Independence Day, or the quaint brilliance of Earth Versus The Flying Saucers, or any of that first wave of invasion movies from the 50s. Battle: LA instead presents a tidal wave of shrieking action, and in the place of a three-act story, the movie is split up into videogame-like levels. There's a tower defence section, a bit that involves both driving and shooting, and even a sequence that cheekily recalls the Hammer of Dawn weapon from Gears Of War. The videogame connection is further compounded by the sneaky inclusion of a billboard poster for Resistance 3, which makes a prominent appearance during a pivotal firefight. The result, then, is a film that's heavy on theatre-rumbling big bangs, but low on emotional impact. Its human protagonists are entirely two-dimensional, while its invaders are little more than tin ducks at a funfair, moving targets for the heroes to take panic-stricken pot-shots at. Battle: LA rallies for a final, epic boss battle, but the film's over reliance on computer-generated set pieces and soulless heroics means it seldom feels like anything more than an extended version of its own trailer, a feature-length advert for a series of tie-in games and action figures, with the jingoistic atmosphere of a US Marine Corps recruitment video thrown in for good measure. Having said all this, you might think I didn't like Battle: Los Angeles at all, which is by no means the case. There were moments where the film had me truly gripped, particularly early on. Eckhart convinces, too, in his numerous action scenes. He may have been saddled with some cheesy lines, but he looks good in combat fatigues and has a world-class grenade-throwing arm. Had the film channelled some of District 9's writing as well as its gritty visual style. Battle: LA could have been a properly memorable popcorn epic. Instead, it's an entertaining but ultimately vacuous assault of explosions and special effects. 2 stars out of 5

  • March 8, 2011, 1:59 p.m. CST

    cobra--kai DOES exist in this dojo

    by DangerDave

    And brings the dirty with him. Nice work sir.

  • March 8, 2011, 2 p.m. CST


    by DangerDave

    asimovlives is already here and has a host of shity puns for Abram's name. Fuck that guy.

  • March 8, 2011, 2:30 p.m. CST

    samuel fulmer

    by Hercules

    so when you're flipping around the dial and Abrams' "Star Trek" appears, you think at first you're watching a "Law & Order" repeat? Was there ever a "Star Trek" movie as cinematic as the Abrams version?

  • March 8, 2011, 2:48 p.m. CST

    Not Law and Order but

    by Samuel Fulmer

    more along the lines of generic framing we've seen on television of the genres he's taking on. There is nothing visually dynamic about overlit visuals and shaky camera work. I'm not saying there aren't a few moments in his two previous films that weren't visually interesting, but overall his films are rather bland from that standpoint, and that is where I get the feeling that it's TV time and not film time. Compare his Mission Impossible to De Palma's and you'll see what I'm talking about. I'm not saying that this makes his Mission Impossible and Star Trek films bad, they just lack in that control of camera that seperates a big budget film from TV.

  • March 8, 2011, 2:49 p.m. CST


    by DangerDave

    I happen to agree with Samuel Fulmer on this; it has to to with the fact that JJ shots dialog in a style that is very similar to what you see on TV. The action/CGI are not the issue...its the way he film the characters (closely framed, chest up, not a lot of camera movements) that remind me to that JJ comes from a TV background. In answer to your question: Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Epic in scale, and ahead of it's time. You managed to cram an even more flippant comment at a general comment. Good work.

  • March 8, 2011, 2:51 p.m. CST

    and I posted AFTER Sam...and we both had the same view.

    by DangerDave

  • March 8, 2011, 2:51 p.m. CST

    That being said

    by Samuel Fulmer

    I have a lot of interest in Super 8 since it's an original Abrams production.

  • March 8, 2011, 3:04 p.m. CST


    by Samuel Fulmer

    that framing that you mention (the Medium two shot) is exactly what I was thinking, but unable to put into words. It's something you'd expect from your typical TV director, not say the heir to Spielberg (a guy who started in TV who is probably the greatest director at framing a shot) which is what some seem to want to hype him as.

  • March 8, 2011, 3:10 p.m. CST


    by DangerDave

    JJ has never really impressed me. He has a great mind for what the hook of a story is...but the execution is always lacking (ref; Lost). Star Trek was OK, but no where near as good as I hoped. I am always underwhelmed by JJ's stuff and while I do not have the venom for this that some have...(asimovlives)...I do see a light weight when I see one. Right now I am really unimpressed with Herc for his remark that shows one doesn't have to really see a movie to be a reviewer.

  • March 8, 2011, 5:44 p.m. CST

    That Superbowl trailer is still the shit.

    by ChickenStu

    Can't wait for this film.

  • March 8, 2011, 5:56 p.m. CST


    by ChickenStu

    I made a complaint about the Star Wars prequels. Asimovlives then lectured me, told me that George Lucas HADN'T ruined my childhood, and told me to shut the fuck up bitching about it... then proceeded to rip Abrams' Star Trek movie a new one. Levelling almost EXACTLY the same criticisms at it, that he'd chastised me for applying to the prequels. And this was in the same talkback. Weird thing is, I don't actually hate the prequels. Never replies when I call him on it.

  • March 8, 2011, 6:21 p.m. CST

    In the meantime, no reviews for Battle: L.A.

    by drompter

    Not a good sign

  • March 8, 2011, 6:25 p.m. CST

    criticizing a filmmaker for using a lot of medium two-shots

    by Hercules

    is a little like criticizing a somebody for wearing a lot of clothes.

  • March 8, 2011, 6:30 p.m. CST

    criticizing a filmmaker for using a lot of medium two-shots

    by Hercules

    is a little like criticizing a man for wearing pants all the time.

  • March 8, 2011, 7:04 p.m. CST


    by Max Welz

    WOOOOO we finally gave more to the world than our delicious beef, 2 Hockey teams, and oil!! GOOOOO US!!!

  • And I have long since found his work to be much like painted plaster molds. Pretty to look at...but ultimately hollow inside.

  • March 8, 2011, 9:30 p.m. CST

    criticizing a filmmaker for using a lot of medium two-shots

    by ufoclub1977

    Is perfectly sound if you're used to much more creative shots... and I know me and my friends used to sense this kind of defect when we were in middle school! But the biggest tv mood for a huge movie-maker, in my opinion, is James Cameron. All his movies seem like tv movies or tv miniseries with an injection of cinematic money and time. But nomater how big they get, they still have this movie of the week on ABC this mood from the 80's to me. I think it's the simplicity and strategy of his characterizations, as well as his very functional (although well crafted) but normally simple shots. Personally, I think most Spielberg movies have very creative camerawork, and a medium two shot is alway landed on as part of a more complex camera path. I never noticed too many medium two shots in Abrams movies, but I did just call him out in Mike Nichols "Regarding Henry" the other week when he was delivering pizza or groceries in a scene. I had to rewind and look again... was that him? Really? It was. He did write it after all.

  • March 8, 2011, 10:51 p.m. CST

    A theory about SUPER 8...

    by MattyAGoGo

    Abrams seems to really nailed that 70s/80s Spielberg vibe from what I can see in the second trailer. I can't help but wonder if SUPER 8 is Abrams' crack at Spielberg's never filmed/produced NIGHT SKIES that was inspired by the events of several real-life UFO incidents. Specifically the Hopkinsville encounter in 1955. Spielberg was intrigued by the incident after it was brought to his attention by non other than J. Allen Hynek. Hynek was the former scientific adviser to the now closed Project Blue Book, and was brought in as a consultant for CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND.

  • March 9, 2011, 5:24 a.m. CST

    braindrain, you want an E.T sequel... I give you

    by ChickenStu


  • March 9, 2011, 3:08 p.m. CST

    AICN sucks Jar Jar Abrams's cock... again!

    by AsimovLives

  • March 9, 2011, 3:15 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    You betray your own nicname's awesomeness by declaring your liking of that disastrous retarded dumbed down stupid piece of shit crap movie that Jar Jar Abrams's directed called STINO. You should be ahamwed of yourself, young man. And by the way, CLOVERFIELD was directed by Matt Reeves, not by the Jar Jar Miseralbe Piece Of Shit Hack Abrams. But i can understyand your confusion, since the Jar Jar fuckass couldn't stop gloating about the movie and screamed at the top of the rooftops as how he was the man of the movie. I don't think that Matt Reeves is a big talent, but the man certainly is adapt at filmmaking,and he does really try to make the best movie he can. He still has not done one that i can say it's really good, but he has not made a truly terribleone either. Unlike that Jar Jar Abrams cunt shit who only makes shit.

  • March 9, 2011, 3:18 p.m. CST

    dangerdave, fuck you too.

    by AsimovLives

  • March 9, 2011, 3:20 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    "Was there ever a "Star Trek" movie as cinematic as the Abrams version?" Are you retard? The answer to your question isa< EVERY SINGLE OTHER STAR TREK MOVIE EVER MADE! Jesus, your contractual Jar Jar Abrams' ass kissing is going out of control! It's disgusting!

  • March 9, 2011, 3:26 p.m. CST

    dangerdave put it best about Jar Jar Abrams:

    by AsimovLives

    Jar Jar Abrams is a lightweight who talks big but walks small. All his sucess is due to one thing only: his extraordinaty tireless capacity to self-promote. The man knows how to advertize, no doubt about that. Shame about his lack of talent as a filmmaker. Many people here takes Jar Jar Abrams's words as gospel and get easily hypnotised by his con-man antics. I still can see the difference between the hype and the final product. Jar Jar Abrams is a con-man who can talk big but he doesn't walk the walk.

  • March 9, 2011, 3:28 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    That monumental change of words we got must had been so important and such a defining moment that i can't even recall it ever happening. So, is there anything you want to talk to me about it? You want to continue that talk? I'm game.

  • March 9, 2011, 3:40 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    I wohldnp't say thr latest Abrams's abortion that passes as Star Trek is a movie full of energy and life. Just becaue the movie was hyper-edited and fast edited does not make it lively and energetic. Any hack can do that with super-fast editing. Big deal! An energetic ST movie is WRATH OF KAHN, and Meyers achieved that without the need to over-edited the movie to ribbons. Also, a movie is not energetic because every single sound effect in the bloody movie is played to top sound! That's stupid. It's a mere trick, and not clever sound design. It's bulslhit. It's sad that such a crappy bulslhit movie like Jar Jar Abrams's STINO can pass this days as energetic and lively, when in fact it's one of the most dead-eyed movie i ever seen in the last years. Full of hack triclery in it's filmmaking and style, and with characters that are poor parodies, at best, of the classic characters they are supposed to portait, but don't. And you can find lots of trekkies who love Jar Jar Abram's bullshit. The trekdom is not united on their opinion of the movie. I rather watch the "slow" STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE. At elast that movei looks like Star Trek and it looks like a movie, instead of the over-inflated TV episode that his Star Trek In Name Only bullshit really looks like. To point out the mistakes and idiotic dumb decisions that Abrams and his two assclown writers did in STINO is jsut too damn easy to point, he does all the work for me, how obvious it is. The bloody movie is a lesson in how not to write a script and in how not to make a movie. Of course, it went like a charm for today's audiences, to used to MTV bulslhit.

  • Jesus, guys, how long you have not seen a Spielberg movie of the 70s and 80s?

  • March 9, 2011, 8:26 p.m. CST

    Second bad review of Battle: LA I have read...