Alex

I really think there's way more doomsaying in this thread than their should be. DST is a fine licensee and there's plenty more products both ships and otherwise that they could produce for the market that they cater too. We know they have a bit of a protracted development schedule, and we're at the point we are every few years where the forum starts to whine that the latest ship isn't ready yet; the good news is that relatively soon we'll all be drooling over the latest ship and begging for more. Voyager, the Defiant, and the Enterprise–C are all high up on my Federation ship list, and there are loads of alien designs to work with too, so I'm still in favor of DST controlling the toy license. Heck, we just started to get TNG Phaser announcements not too long ago, and I'm sure we'll be seeing more of those if they sell the way the TOS Phasers did. I'm still crossing my fingers for 24th century tricorders too.

As for the "disjointed merchandising," it's absolutely and entirely the result of "Old" Viacom splitting itself into two separate entities. (And needlessly so given that it was done to keep Les Moonves and Tom Freston from killing each other, and Freston left shortly after the split.) The problem was that every license had to be renegotiated for new products, and some licensees might have been preferred over others depending on who was in charge at which company. Abrams idea of trying to ignore the Prime Universe was never going to fly, and he lost the chance at a Trek TV series when he made it a conditoin of producing said series for CBS, but originally the idea was to have that "corporate synergy" of '90s Trek, and to have new material on big and small screens. When Abrams took his ball (err... red matter) and went home though, that went out the window and left Viacom/Paramount marketing to a different audience than CBS, and only further fractured the license with Paramount licensing on a per–movie basis and CBS licensing (at least at the time,) on a basis of the entirety of the Prime Universe, supposedly "with the option to extend to new material," although that might have changed.

As far as the "reunification" of CBS and Paramount goes, I know this is probably better suited for a separate thread, but I wouldn't count on it happening anytime soon. Paramount appears to have garnered some foreign investments from China, and CBS doesn't appear to interested in scooping them up. A few months ago I would have been far more optimistic about such a possibility though given that CBS doesn't have a movie studio and Paramount doesn't have a TV presence, making such a merger seem like a no–brainer. Of course, with Viacom in perpetual chaos, it's entirely possible that CBS doesn't want in on the drama they've gotten a free pass out of, and some of Viacom's board members are the ones opposing such a seemingly obvious solution to the problems plaguing Paramount. I wouldn't say it's impossible, but for the time being, it's increasingly implausible.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I really just hope we get an aesthetic that meshes with TOS and feels like it's set before the aforementioned series. The show is being thrown onto CBS All–Access and other streaming services, set in the 23rd Century, and plunked in an odd spot in the timeline, so there's no excuse to screw with the asthetic when you've already made the series this nostalgia–driven.

As for the Balance of Terror comments, as long as we don't actually see Romulans, (or more specifically, the Federation doesn't actually see Romulans,) I could potentially see this working as long as it's handled carefully. If the series is going to focus around a Federation ship using an illicit cloaking device, that could be interesting, but again, this would need to be explained with some very solid reasoning to really work well. I'm definitely intrigued by this though.

Oh, and as far as the Captain goes, ten years before Kirk's first five year mission would put a five–year–old U.S.S. Enterprise NCC–1701 at a place in time where its newest Captain is a guy named Chris Pike, and where he's just replaced a guy named Robert April. I wouldn't get my hopes up, but based on what we know about "Number One," I actually wouldn't mind seeing Robert April transferred to the older U.S.S. Discovery to take command of the aforementioned ship. That would be enough of a tie to TOS for me if it's done right, and would give us a glimpse into the first Captain of the Enterprise beyond what was provided by one episode of TAS, without forcing a recasting of everyone on the bridge crew, or any references to characters that we know from TOS.

I'd guess either the technology he was using to stay alive could change his appearance, or it was some kind of projection.

I'm almost positive that it was the result of the people Krall was absorbing to stay alive, at least that seemed to be strongly implied.

I feel the A really addresses some of the issues people had with the original design. Straight pylons, further apart nacelles, a better sized neck, more tos looking nacelles. I think the secondary hull is more tos-esque, but it's hard to tell from the poor quality of the video.

The "A" definitely seems to look more TOS like from several angles, and I really hope that we get some good side–by–side reference material comparing the look of the Kelvin Timeline 1701 to the Kelvin Timeline 1701–A. I

For the next film I hope that the villain isn't simply motivated by revenge. Each Kelvin film bad guy is out for the big R and the revelation of their motivation is some plot point/mystery. I appreciate the writers giving the villains a little depth but maybe there's another archetype they can tap for number IV.

The destruction of the Enterprise was visually cool but I just didn't feel anything while it was happening. By that point we'd only had 4+ hours of screen time with her and that wasn't enough for me to be invested. The concept of the ship itself as a character really hasn't been a theme in the new timeline yet. The loss of the prime Enterprise in Star Trek III was so much more meaningful to me, especially since it was a sacrifice (and that Horner score during that scene is just so operatic!).

After seeing the new universe treated a little more like traditional Trek I'd love to see the adventures of the new Ent-A in a limited run series or miniseries (alongside Discovery with maybe even some crossovers). Trek can totally be a mini version of the MCU.

I'm actually going to defend Krall and say that I don't really perceive him as a villain motivated by revenge, so much as I see him as a "villain" who lost his mind and was motivated by delusions of granduer. Balthazar Edison was a M.A.C.O. who served the United Earth Government honorably, and apparently fought in both the Xindi and Romulan Wars. The impression that I got was that he was the kind of guy who went off to war, and like so many soldiers, could just never adjust to peacetime. He's basically analogous to the "guy in the cave" at the end of a WWII movie who doesn't realize that the war has ended and who simply breaks down, or even to someone like Jesse James who knows that the war is officially over, but who just can't adjust to peace–time and who winds up turning into a total outlaw/madman as a result of being unable to adjust. The way I saw it, Balthazar Edison's ship was brought down by advanced alien technology on a planet that's essentially beyond the reach of the Federation in its early years. At first he follows protocol and tries to establish contact with them, but as the months and years go on, he starts to go mad, (which isn't out of character with other captains who lost their ships and/or their crews based on what we saw in TOS and TNG,) eventually winds up in a sort of "survival mode," and ultimately turns on his crew when he realizes that the Federation isn't coming to save him. With his mental capabilities deteriorating, he sees the Federation as "the enemy," likely triggering some repressed Xenophobia from the Xindi and Romulan Wars, and assumes the identity of Krall in an effort to help rationalize what he's doing. Basically, I see revenge as more of an ends to a mean for Krall than a motivation, with his motivation being delusions of granduer, the belief that he's stronger alone than as part of something like the Federation, and I see those as being brought on by him losing his sanity the way he seems to have apparently done. The way I saw it, he might have answered to "Edison" in an exchange with Kirk, but by that point he was no longer really Balthazar Edison, and instead had become this creature "Krall" that he'd made himself into.

I hate to say it, but I completely agree with you about the destruction of the Enterprise. It was visually awesome, it allowed for the characters to really shine, but it didn't feel like we were losing a character we really cared about this time through; just another Kelvin Timeline ship in a long list of Kelvin Timeline ships that had been lost. I have mixed feelings about the Enterprise–A too, not the design that looks quite impressive from what we've seen so far, but the way it was introduced and the fact that I feel like an opportunity was missed to not follow in the Prime Universe's footsteps by just slapping a letter on the ship after it was destroyed. With TSFS, losing the Enterprise hurt, (just as it did in GEN,) and the introduction of the Enterprise–A felt like it was healing a wound. In the Kelvin Timeline, the Enterprise–A isn't healing a wound, because losing the Enterprise just didn't hurt the same way. I honestly think it would have been more interesting to either have the crew seem to be set to go their separate ways as they'd talked about, bringing them back together in the next film, or to show a ship like the Excelsior or Reliant being constructed as a replacement for the Enterprise, but that's just me. I feel like such a change would have really made the Kelvin Timeline stand out in a good way even more. Since we have the Enterprise–A though, I also wouldn't mind something in the Kelvin Timeline on the Enterprise–A running alongside DSC either in the form of a miniseries; just something to show us its adventures and give us a reason to care about it beyond the fact that Kirk is the ship's captain.

Finally!!!

Alteran, I knew we would disagree on something eventually!

I was relieved to (I think) see that the new Linterprise-A has no viewscreen window.
 

Absolutely! That moment (and a few others like it) stuck out like a sore thumb. This is Star Trek! These characters are (for the most part) human! At the very least, they are generally flesh-and-blood people whose bodies obey the laws of physics!

Just because they do heroic things, that doesn't mean they need to act like superheroes!

Destructor, I'm completely with you on not wanting the Kelvin Timeline viewscreens in the Prime Universe; I just don't like the way that they look. I also noticed that the Linterprise–A, (thank you for that one, LOL) apparently has no viewscreen window, but it also seems like it might have intentionally been glossed over in the shots that we saw of it, and could be there unless we're finally going to lose that on future designs.

As for the action–sequences with Kirk on the saucer destined to prove Scotty wrong about being unable to change the laws of physics, on one hand I completely agree with you that just because the crew is heroic doesn't mean that they need to act like superheroes, but on the other, I felt that this worked given that it was James T. Kirk who was doing it, that he seemed to have a bit of a plan when that scene occurred, and that compared to what we've gotten in the past from the Kelvin Timeline, this is quite forgiveable in terms of pushing the action a bit more than I would normally like in Trek.

We didn't really get a good view of the A's bridge dome, but I'd be very surprised if they got rid of that style view screen since every ship we've seen has had one.

I'm tempted to agree with you on this. It looks like the bridge doesn't have the window–style viewscreen in what we briefly saw, but given how it seems to be a hallmark of the Kelvin Timeline, I wouldn't be surprised if it did, even if I'm hoping that it doesn't.

As for the film itself, I saw it with two people who grew up on TOS, (TNG premiered on my third birthday, so I grew up with TNG–VOY,) and one of them thinks it might be his favorite Trek film to date. While my favorite is still First Contact, Beyond is definitely my favorite in the Kelvin Timeline, and as far as I'm concerned, it easily ranks among Trek's best films. Yes, it has a ton of action in it, and yes I know that might alienate some viewers, but it also seemed to feel the most like a Star Trek episode, and I mean that in a completely positive way. "Beyond" succeeds where TFF, INS, and some would even argue TMP failed in this regard, because it manages to keep pacing of a movie with the style (and arguably spirit) of a two–part episode. The other examples all capture some element of "being Trek," but forget how to be a movie, whereas Beyond remembers its a movie as evidenced by the film's pacing. I really felt like I was watching a Star Trek movie for the first time since Nemesis, and that's saying something. "Sabotage" was used perfectly in a way that made sense, I appreciated the nod to Leonard Nimoy by killing Spock, and I also appreciated that there wasn't pointless phaser fire, that Kirk seemed to be trying to spare Krall's life in a very Starfleet way, and that Kirk also seemed to have calmed down a bit. One gripe I had about him in the earlier films was that he was obnoxiously cocky, and not the way Prime Universe Kirk was, but to the point where his arrogance had me wondering how the heck he was able to stay in the Captain's Chair. In this film he's still cocky as he should be, but not overconfident, and not to the point where he seems like a petulant child. I also really appreciated the scenes with Spock and McCoy that made me feel like I was watching Nimoy and Kelley again, and appreciated that Pegg gave his character a bit more screen time as well since it seemed like Scotty hadn't gotten a chance to really shine until this film. I also feel that this was Anton Yelchin's best performance as Chekov, which makes the sting of his untimely death all that more of a sucker–punch to the gut when it felt like he really put on such an amazing performance that we'll never see again. I also really liked Jaylah, and given Anton's untimely death necessitating Chekov be written out, (I really don't want to see him recast,) I think she'd be a fine replacement crewmember even in cadet form who could do what I mentioned before about distinguishing the Kelvin Timeline from the Prime Universe even more.

I also really appreciated how many nods to past Trek films this movie worked into it. The difference between STB and STID is that the latter felt like it was created from a checklist while the former felt like it was written and made to fit into the Trek universe along the way instead of being shoved into it with a sledgehammer. Karl Urban gave a nod to McCoy in that movie with the medallion, and the idea of how everyone seemed like they might move on felt like a nod to TMP. TWOK's birthday scene and toast to absent friends were present in a way that worked too. The destruction of the Enterprise, (and even the theft of an alien ship) felt like TSFS, the Enterprise–A felt like the sole nod to TVH, while the time on the planet seemed a little like the better parts of TFF, with Krall's actions feeling a bit like TUC. The loss of Prime Universe Spock as a nod to the loss of Nimoy also feltlike a nod to TSFS and GEN, although I'm sure that's just coincidence. Speaking of GEN, the saucer crash was shot like a homage to GEN, and I refuse to believe that was a simple coincidence based on how similar it was. The use of Sabotage felt a lot like Magic Carpet Ride in FC, while Krall's attempt at immortality felt a little like INS, with the bio–weapon feeling a little like NEM. There were obviously even more noteworthy nods to the Kelvin Timeline films, but the Prime Universe shows seemed to have nods to them as well. ENT had a huge nod with the Franklin and M.A.C.O., TOS had a nod with this feeling a bit like a traditional episode with big screen sensabilities, TNG got a bit of a nod with the font for the ending credits, while Starbase Yorktown felt a little like a Human DS9, and the discovery of the lost Franklin felt like a nod to all of those lost ships found in TOS and TNG, as well as like what might have happened if VGR had Voyager's crew fall off the rails. I thorougly enjoyed this film, and this is coming from someone who would normally complain about the action being a bit more intense than I like, but it really worked for this film in a way it might not otherwise, ands I'm quite glad that it did. This film really felt like a 50th  anninversary celebration, and I'm definitely grateful for that.

I can tell you right now, that ship design will not grow on me.  I like all of the ships, none of them ever offended me enough for me to make a fuss about it.  I don't even mind the JJprise that much but I feel a lot of the design hyperbole was unnecessary (and I wish it didn't land on planets and fly underwater).  This one I simply think looks ugly.  Angular =/= sexy.  Angular + round =/= sexy.  Angular + angular...  maybe, but then it most definitely ain't Starfleet anymore.  And it's also boxy (nacelles).  And 3 little bussards (is that what we're going with)???  I can hear it now.  "How do we make this ship look different, maybe a little advanced?"  "Uhhh...add 3 little light thingies in the nacelles instead of just 1!"  *forehead slap*

I hate to say this, but I kind of feel the same way, and I'm really trying to like this design, but it's just not working. Like you, I'm fond of pretty much every ship out there, and even ones that aren't my favorites at least have some design elements that I like to them, or that I can appreciate. I also never got the aggressive hatred of the JJ–prise with the exception of its bulky, bulbous nacelles, (I don't even mind it landing on planets, and only get irked that it goes underwater without any modifications that a ship like Voyager needs in the Prime Timeline,) but it's obvious that said nacelles are a signature element of the JJ–verse's 23rd century fleet. I personally find them ugly in general, and that's a commentary on the nacelles rather than on the ship as a whole. Everything else about the JJ–prise is pretty much the Phase II Enterprise which in and of itself wasn't that far off from the final Constitution–class refit design that we got back in '79. (I'd have been perfectly happy if the ship hadn't be destroyed save for the nacelles as an excuse to refit it with new proportional ones in the next film.) The only ship that ever got under my skin before was the NX–01, and that was because it felt wildly out of place in a pre–TOS setting, looked too damn advanced to be something that came before the 1701, had way too much detail on its hull to seem like it fit in the timeline it was placed in, and was blatantly an upside down Akira–class starship designed for a TNG retro–future rather than a proper predecessor to the TOS 1701, which existed in the form of the Dadelaus–class, and would have felt far more era–appropriate. Even then it wasn't completely terrible though, and still looked like a starfleet design for a Federation starship. The Discovery on the other hand just looks wildly out of place, and while I'm well aware of McQuarrie's design making it into background shots in the past, I feel it's worth emphasizing that it was used for background shots. TSFS needed another ship in spacedock to make it seem "active," so they threw it in there with the Excelsior and the 1701 because it's all that they had the budget for. (I'm not sure if the Excelsior model was built for TWOK before it was cut from the film, but even if it was, TSFS still needed a Romulan later turned Klingon Bird–of–Prey model built, and a model built for the Grissom as well.) It made it into TNG in the graveyard of destroyed ships as well as a few other background shots, (at one point it was basically used as a decomissioned piece of junk, which seems like rather accurate commentary on the design,) and while I realize that the concept models weren't complete and couldn't be used in close–ups, if the design itself had been solid, it certainly would have turned up at some point before now. While I disagree with you about angular not looking "sexy," (the Star Wars prequel trilogy Delta–7 Jedi Starfighters are very angular, and I personally think they look rather elegant,) I do agree with you that sharp, "business end of a blade" angular combined with round looks atrocious, and that's why this design looks so freakin' ugly; it just clashes with itself in the worst way possible. Angular combined with angular could look really sharp though; give the Discovery the Enterprise–E or Voyager's elongated saucer, make it a little pointier, or round the edges of the pre–existing "triangle" on the secondary hull and voila, you've got something that would look pretty awesome. It would probably fit better in the Prime Universe during the 25th century than the 23rd, but it would look a thousand times better than what we currently have. I could also still buy angular+angular as a 25th Century Starfleet aesthetic, so I wouldn't say that it wouldn't look Starfleet enough if done right.
 
You did hit on another problem though, which is that it isn't angular+round that we're dealing with, but rather angular+round+boxy because of the nacelles. It's almost as if someone thought it would be cool to make a ship out of the shapes from the old UPN logo, came across McQuarrie's design, said "oh cool, we just need a square," realized they couldn't work a cube into the design, and wound up with the closest thing they could get to a set of rectangles instead. I'm honestly kind of torn about the boxy nacelles, because it seems like those might have a purpose if this turns out to be a 25th century ship, but that seems unlikely assuming the registry is final, and the rest of the ship seems to be where the problems are at. Likewise, I personally like the three little busard collectors on this design, assuming that it's either A) a massive ship (the asteroid doesn't give us that great an idea of this thing's scale,) that's packing three engines per nacelle and needs some sort of bulky shielding as a result, and/or a 25th century ship that's lifting 23rd century design cues the way modern cars tend to grab '80s design cues. Where this becomes a problem though is with the show's more likely setting. If this is a TMP/TWOK–era design, the nacelles should basically be remeniscent of if not flat–out identical to those of the constitution–class refit. (The Excelsior–class engines were experimental in TSFS, so I can't see those nacelles appearing on an older ship, although the nacelles on the Grissom might work as it's registry implies that it's a bit older as well.) If it's a TOS–era design, that creates a gigantic mess, because the ship once again still looks too advanced to have served during the time of TOS, (wrong color, too much detail, deflector dish instead of a more traditional sensor array, etc.,) and the TOS–era pretty much requires the Raygun–gothic aesthetic of TOS to not wind up falling into the biggest pitfall of ENT from a visual standpoint. If this isn't set after VGR or NEM, the engines are really out of place.
 

And...are we sure the ship is named Discovery?  Sorry, I watched the trailer, threw up in my mouth a little about the ship, and then moved on...haven't soaked in all the details yet.  Should we take the fact that they didn't make it "Enterprise" as another definitive clue that this will be in a time period where there already was an Enterprise?

Yes, the name "Discovery" is definite. Almost everything else about the ship itself though, including the registry, seem to be completely debatable, so there's still some hope that we're not going backwards again. This is a good news bad news situation though, so let's start with the bad news: The basic design that we saw in that video is what CBS is going for even if there are some tweaks made to the design, so don't expect a ground–up redesign. Granted, having said that, the aforementioned information came out before the reception of that design was almost entirely negative, (there are only a handful of people who don't seem to vehemently hate this design, and even fewer like Morgan who genuinely like it,) and before it's remained mostly negative, so someone might look at how the ship is being received and decided that they need to rethink their original plans. That's the bad news though, the good news is that the design definitely isn't final. Heather Kaiden noted that she was surprised Bryan Fuller didn't mention that it wasn't a final design when he showed it, that they only had three weeks to throw that teaser together, and that they'll be tweaking and refining the design, and I quote, "probably up until the last second," which definitely isn't a bad thing given what we've seen so far. Fuller also noted that one reason the design's shape isn't final yet is that there's still some things that have to be, and again I'm quoting, "figured out legally," which would suggest that we might be rid of this design for legal reasons if nothing else, or at least certain elements of it. I wouldn't take the fact that the ship isn't an "Enterprise" as a clue that this will be in a time period where we've already seen the "Enterprise," if only for the fact that DS9 and VGR proved you didn't have to set Trek on an Enterprise, and if DSC is successful, it might make more sense to set your spin–off "sequel" on a ship named Enterprise instead of starting on the Enterprise–G or whatever letter would coincide with this timeline. Having said that, there could be some design revisions that make this thing look good, especially if they dump a decent chunk of what we don't like about said design, so I wouldn't be too pessimistic about the design just yet, even if the current version looks like the result of polishing a turd.
 
Also, one thing that really irks me to no end about the design that we were shown is that unless this is a 25th Century ship as I hope that it is, the name and the registry are all in the wrong font right now. While the font used would look great on a 25th Century ship known as the U.S.S. Discovery NCC–81031, if it turns out that this is a 23rd century ship as it seems to be, that Neuropol–esque font from the trailer will be wildly out of place. If the show is set around the time of TOS, the ship's font needs to be AmarilloUSAF, which is the font that was used on the original TOS 1701. If it's set anytime after that, the ship's registry should be a font called Millenium, which is what every ship from TMP onward used for the name and registry. The Enterprise–E has a slight exception to this rule; while the registry NCC–1701–E is in the Millenium font, the words "U.S.S. Enterprise" are in a different font that seems to be some sort of sans serif and condensed variant, but I'm not quite sure what it is. If this is a 25th Century ship, the typeface could reasonably change without looking wildly out of place.
 

Amazing how much better that makes it look, Alteran!  I mean, lipstick on a pig IMO...but with the bigger saucer it almost looks like it could be at the end of the timeline instead of the beginning.

The bigger saucer definitely helps fix part of the issue with this ship's proportioning, and I agree that it makes it look like something that's post–Nemesis rather than pre–TSFS. What would really make this look post–Nemesis would be to lose the "neck" that Voyager and the Enterprise–E lacked, or to make it so thick that it looks significantly more durable than anything we've seen before. The Excelsior–class probably came the closest to having a "neck" that looked hard to damage by virtue of extending to the edge of the secondary hull on all sides. Actually, if the triangular portion of the ship has BoP–esque "wings" that move the way Voyager's nacelles did when the ship goes to warp, that would be helpful too in terms of making this design look less awkward. I'll go a step further and suggest a yellowish/amber Enterprise–E style deflector dish rather than blue if this is post–NEM, and I'll reiterate my earlier points about elongating that saucer and taking design cues from Voyager. You can have a Federation ship that has BoP–esque wings, I'm not even pretending to say that you can't, but if that's the reason for the triangular secondary hull, I think the approach to the idea should go back to the drawing board; there are better ways to pull such a design off. Also, I don't think it would hurt to try and flip the nacelle pylons so that they look like they're slicked forward rather than backwards if those engines aren't going anywhere. (Even if the engines are replaced with Constitution–class refit or Sovereign–class engines depending on when this is set, flipping the direction of the triangle could make this design look quite a bit better.) Flipping the triangular portion of the ship in such a way that something sticks out beyond where it joins with the rest of the secondary hull could also allow the aft of the ship to look less awkward and unfinished. There definitely needs to be something at the back of that ship to make the nacelle pylons look less blatantly awkward. There are ways to work off of this design and come up with something that looks good, but in its current form, without significant revisions, I do find it quite ugly, and not because I set out to despise this ship by any stretch of the imagination. At least there's still a chance that the design might improve, I just hope CBS is paying attention to the reason people don't like this design and that they're reworking it to avoid having a lead ship that's an eyesore.

Star Trek Beyond is not Star Trek, it's absolutely as plain and simple as that. None of the JJ Abrams Trek really has been. If you like it that's great, there's nothing wrong with a fun action movie set in space.

This is sort of how I've been approaching Beyond after Into Darkness, and after Trek XI has shown that it doesn't hold up the way earlier Trek films do in terms of not dating itself, and is as one reviewer of the 4K UHD Blu–Ray releases described it, "forever stuck in 2009 in terms of style, reference, and vernacular," in a way that the earlier films weren't. Beyond can still be fun, but it's not Trek, not in the sense of what makes Trek more than just a name.

I guess it really depends on your definition of what Star Trek really is. If that is anything with the Star Trek title slapped on it, then yeah Beyond fits that bill.

I'm not saying it's a bad movie, it's just not intended to be a movie for the Star Trek fans, it's designed to be a summer blockbuster for the general public. For many Star Trek fans Star Trek is about much more than just simple iconography. Simply having the names Kirk and Enterprise added on to a basic action movie isn't really the most important part. I guess it might be more accurate to say that it's an extremely shallow take on Star Trek. It's a movie the public can watch without really having to think. You don't have to know anything about Star Trek to follow the story and it won't get into any complicated stories or ideas.

This is basically my "beef" with Into Darkness. While I tolerated this in Trek XI since it did make sense to start things off by cranking everything up to 11, Into Darkness just doubled down on the aspects of Trek XI that made it less like Trek and more like a generic sci–fi action flick. While it's true that the TNG movies had more action in them than the earlier Trek films, they were still thought–provoking, and while I hate to admit it, Insurrection's problem wasn't that it was an action–movie, it was that it constantly flipped between being a thought–provoking film and being an action movie, and typically failed at the former while being only marginally better at the latter. (It also contradicts previously established morals of the crew and was a mess all–around, but it at least made an effort to be more than just an action–flick.) Into Darkness didn't even really try beyond duplicating Insurrection's "corrupt Starfleet Admiral" plot–point, which was one of the biggest shortcomings of INS, and was only watered down further in ID.

It's pretty simple.  Star Trek is the premise of a universe in which mankind has transcended above and beyond the primitive, petty instincts that have (mis)guided us for centuries.

 

Meanwhile the current cinematic Star Trek universe panders in both content and marketing to those very same primitive, petty instincts.

 

You can argue until you're blue in the face about whether other Trek incarnations focused so much on profit, machismo (battle, explosions, fighting, bad *guys*) and male-gaze-oriented sex (stripping Alice Eve, female crew in special male-gaze uniforms, cat alien threesomes, soundtracks by sex symbols designed for worship by young girls) in their content and advertising...  Yes, TOS all the way through ENT managed to work in characters who were quite transparently there largely for the male gaze.  Yes, they all had explosions and fist fights now and then, etc.  Yes, they sometimes went "dark" and showed the other ugly sides of humanity.

 

But at the end of the day, after 50 years, MOST of the time the Trek franchise had managed to keep all of that stuff to a relative minimum compared to other entertainment franchises out there.  If mindless sexual shoot-em-up-ness was ranked on a scale from 1 to 10, and most everything else lands somewhere above 5, then Trek, taken on the whole, managed to land somewhere below a 5 and continued to remind us in its content that we may not be able to have a TV show without a spandex-clad Vulcan sex object now, but in another century or two, perhaps we can.

 

You can either can see this, or you can't.  If you can't, then honestly IMO you're part of the problem with society.

 

And if you can, you realize that JJ-Trek has no qualms whatsoever with ratcheting it up to 10 and abandoning that which made this something different that inspired those of us who hope for more out of this species.  I mean, we haven't even really seen any evidence yet of what humanity is like in this new universe that would really suggest to me that they have made any progress at all.  Starfleet is full of bullies who like to punch each other in bars to work out their problems...

 

If you abandon that uniqueness, what have you got left?  Not the universe that challenged us to think harder and more progressively.  Just another escapist day at the movies where modern culture in all its folly is held up and celebrated.

Whirlygig, you've basically described my problems with the Kelvin Timeline better than I ever could. (To it's credit, the Kelvin Timeline was named by the Okudas, so I do have some hope that things might improve slightly.) I can tolerate a pop song from a fan that's a musical megastar in Beyond for the same reason I didn't have an issue with Ilia's theme or with Zefram Cochrane blasting Magic Carpet Ride and Oobie Doobie in FC; it's a small cultural reference that likely won't overpower the entire film, and might even work well if it's executed properly. (FC's portrayl of Cochrane make me believe he's exactly the kind of person who would be listening to the aforementioned songs used in that film.) What I do agree with you on is that while every Trek has indulged a little bit of "primative modern humanity," the Prime Universe has generally not held such behaviors up as virtues so much as it's treated them as vices and encouraged people to be something more. I'll even go as far as to note that Q in particular was there for such material to exist, but to also call out humanity's flaws while indulging the viewer in them to some extent. In the Kelvin Timeline though, you're absolutely right about the same vices being glorified as virtues no matter the cause, and pandering to the lowest common denominator being way too common. I was fine with doing this a bit more in Trek XI given that it was basically restarting Trek, but it shouldn't have continued or worse, been doubled down on with ID the way that it was. As much as the first trailer for Beyond bugged me, it wasn't the use of Sabotage that really irked me, (at least this time it feels like a nod to Trek XI and not shameless pandering to general audiences,) but the 30 seconds of bike–flip stunts that we were treated to. One or two of those is fine, but a whole movie of them doesn't feel like Trek. Beyond could still surprise me depending on how it comes out, but I'm fully expecting it to be another action–fest that feels like "Diet Trek" rather than Trek as we've known it.

I have been mostly indeffirent on this issue up until now. I did feel that Axanar crossed or at least came close to crossing lines of what was reasonable. These quidelines are absolutely ridiculous.

As far as I'm concerned, Axanar definitely crossed the lines of being reasonable, but these "guidelines" are extremely constraining and flat–out ridiculous when taken as a whole. Some of them make sense, *e.g. 4, 7, 8, and 10,) and some of them make partial sense, (e.g. parts of 3, and parts of 6's non–commercial requirements,) while others make almost no sense, and seem like arbitrary attempts to stick it to the Axanar production crew. (e.g. Not having "Star Trek" in the name, but having "A Star Trek Fan Film" in plain text, not allowing professional actors to appear in a fan film, etc.) I'm completely fine with a limit on fundraising, and the limit provided is very generous, but these guidelines don't appear to have been created in good faith by CBS Inc. and Paramount Pictures, and don't seem like they actually garnered the input of a good portion of the people who have been producing fan films, given that things like DVD/Blu–Ray copies have frequently been part of the fundraising effort for fan–films, and a rather significant aspect of what gets people to donate to them.

They could have easily said no fan films at all, but they didn't.

Axanar pushed it to far, and with Trek returning to TV soon, it isn't surprising that they don't want people to be confused by fan films that could be mistaken for official Trek. Don't forget that the general public is pretty ignorant as to what is official and what isn't. Especially when a lot of fan films have the actors reprising their old roles again.

True, they could have easily said no fan films at all, but they'd have basically shot themselves in the foot like they did around the time ENT entered production when they tried to distance themselves from the fans before. I completely agree that Axanar went too far, but Trek viewers aren't the complete morons that CBS Inc. is basically trying to paint them as with these guidelines. I've yet to see a Star Trek fan that wouldn't type a title into Google if they weren't sure if it was official or not and be able to find the answer in about five seconds. Additionally, if CBS were targeting the general public, they wouldn't be shoving their new series onto a no–name subscription streaming service that could still very well fail, and would instead be sticking it on "America's Most–Watched Network™" where far more people would be likely to see it. If fans are confusing fan films with official work, that says more about the quality (or lack thereof) of recent officially released material than it does about the quality of Trek's fan–films. If anything, it suggests that CBS should be hiring people who've been producing fan films that are good enough to be confused with official material and not trying to prevent further fan–films like them from being created.

Personally I think Star Trek Continues should be the model of the upper end of what's acceptable. I would also like to see them take the productions that rise to the top like STC and distribute them through their channels and help fund them. They could have a whole Star Trek fan film section on their new CBS app. There's definitely potential for them to turn this into a positive rather than a negative.

This would be something I could get behind; take the best fan–films and either offer them in a semi–official capacity after they've risen to the top, or hire away some of their creative talent for official work on Trek–related projects, but do something that's seen as a positive instead of a negative. Before these guidelines were released, Trek fanfilms were effectively the gold standard of what fan films should look like; if you'd asked me why Trek fan films were better than any other franchises fan–films, I'd have told you that it was because CBS and Paramount had been generous enough to give their fans a very big sandbox to play in, and had allowed for full–fledged episodic productions at the high–end and traditional shorts at the low–end. Trek's fan–films typically varied in length, style, budget, and just about everything in–between, which made them diverse and incredibly unique. You had things like Renegades, Continues, and New Voyages, all of which were episodic, and then you also had more traditional shorts that were typical fan–film fare. What these guidelines do is basically kill off any of the more interesting fan–films that were able to break out beyond a traditional short film format.

As for the 15–minute limit, the problem with it is that it's incredibly restrictive, and basically makes every fan–film look the same, which is why most franchises have fan films that are painful to watch while Trek had some really amazing gems available. And yes, I'm aware that it can technically be a two–part 30 minute fan–film, but that presents a whole additional set of issues. (Can both parts be shot simultaneously and split into two 15 minute parts just for distribution?) The scale of Trek's fan–films was impressive, and now it's going to be far less so, specifically because everything has to come in at under 30 minutes maximum, which prevents us from having the amazing episodic fan–films that we've had up until this point. Additionally, you're only allowed two parts and those can total up to 30 minutes, so even if you have a great idea that would only need 24 minutes, but would make sense as a three–act "play" split into roughly eight–minute parts, you can't release it as such because it would be three parts instead of two. While you could still chop it in half and release it as a two–part fan–film, an abrupt arbitrary stop in the middle of act two would be cringe–inducing, and completely ruin the pacing. I completely agree that some guidelines are needed, but what was released yesterday is flat–out insane. I'd even be fine with CBS saying "no fanfilms from -insert specific portion of the timeline here- because they would compete with our upcoming show," but what they're doing is far more restrictive than that, and not in a way that's going to generate any real creativity.

I wouldn't call guidelines that essentially shut down every major fan film production reasonable. I will agree there are some very reasonable points though. I think with a few modifications these could be good. Limiting productions to 15 minutes seems fairly arbitrary and really curtails the ability to have a good well thought out story on the other hand I think limiting fundraising to $50k seems a very generous guideline. I do think there's potential with these but they need some work. Until that happens I just have no interest in supporting Star Trek. CBS most certainly does have something to lose though, the more times they go to court over this the more opportunity there is for things to fall out of their copyright and into public domain. I don't think anyone really want to see that happen.

I'm pretty much in agreement with you s8film40, these guidelines are just too heavy–handed in their current form, despite having potential. I don't like the arbitrary 15 minute limit, but I agree with you that $50,000 is a very generous fundraising guideline. As much as I hate Alec Peters for going way over the limit with Axanar, I don't like CBS's reaction being to basically go after their fans, especially given that Paramount tried to be excessively litigious when ENT was first released, and it only further angered the fans who were already unhappy with the official production of the time. Going after fan films now is just going to piss off the people CBS needs to have encouraging everybody else to drop $6 bucks a month on CBS All–Access, and not going to do them any favors in the long run if it costs them viewers as well as potential lawsuit losses. Peters may be a dick, but all CBS has to do is go after a fan filmmaker whose much more sympathetic and the entire fanbase that would normally have their back will be at their throat instead, and that's not good for anyone involved. I don't like them effectively killing episodic Trek fan–films, especially when it would be so much better if they could figure out a way for those films to continue being made while they (CBS) managed to make some sort of small profit off of them.

At the time it was produced, TNG was the most expensive show on television; even with a proper budget it had to resort to reusing set pieces, which is hardly a rarity. A show that's initially destined for an Internet–only release will likely have an even tighter budget than TNG did. The one reason you won't see sets from the Kelvin Timeline redressed for the new show (regardless of where it's set, as they could likely redress them for the Prime Universe too,) is that the filming locations for the movies and the Toronto location for the show are all completely different and make redressing full sets relatively impractical. With TNG, the show was being filmed on the same lot as the movies (and as TOS,) and it was easy to pull props and set pieces out of warehouses and redress any sets in fold and hold on the lot itself. While it'll still be less expensive to pull props and set pieces (the keyword here being "pieces) out of warehouses and incorporate them into new sets, shipping entire sets such as corridors to Toronto and redressing them would be more expensive than just building new ones. Also, while CBS sold a large portion of their props from the previous shows through Christies auction house over a decade ago, they did retain certain props that they thought they might use again at some point, and have even used fan–made props in the past, (e.g. In a Mirror, Darkly,) so it's not like they couldn't get a hold of certain props in a cost–cutting measure.

TNG did look entirely different from the TOS TV series style true, and you're absolutely right that it was supposed to look different, (specifically because TOS's "Raygun Gothic" style was already laughably dated when the show was produced, hence why TOS itself was the last major show to use that aesthetic without specifically doing so as a homage to some earlier show,) but it intentionally retained enough of the aesthetic from the TOS Movies, (all based in Kubrick's minimalist "2001: A Space Oddssey" style,) to still look like a reasonable leap further into the future of Trek. The ships all retained a distinct look that made their origin unmistakable, and even with a bridge that looked and sounded quite different from the one in TOS, it was still obvious that the bridge of the Enterprise–D was a Federation starship's bridge. (I'll go a step further and note that even the current corridor sets used in the Kelvin Timeline also pull from the same aesthetic that Trek has used since TMP; the bridge tries to incorporate more TOS–like elements, but the corridors are basically as recognizable as they've always been.)

You can make changes to certain things, (recolor the busard collectors and deflector dish, put security officers in blue uniforms, paint the corridors gray instead of white etc.,) but make too many radical changes like those "concept" designs do and you wind up with something that doesn't look like Star Trek at all, and instead looks like "generic low–budget sci–fi series #7," and is easily forgettable. Trek has a unique aesthetic that's evolved over the past 50 years, and there's an expectation that said aesthetic is retained in some capacity. Even the Kelvin Timeline didn't radically stray from what we'd expect a ship named "Enterprise" to look like, and this series is supposedly at least being considered as something that will be set somewhere in the Prime Universe, which means that at the very least, it shouldn't have a wildly different aesthetic, at least as far as ship designs are concerned.

Also Bryan Fuller confirmed earlier today that the new show will be one continuous season–long arc that will last for 13 episodes. (Blech, too short!) Whether or not this is going to be how every season is or not wasn't mentioned, so it's possible that this could be like VOY where we get a short season in the spring and season two starts in the fall and runs at full length, or it could be like other productions with obnoxiously short seasons. I really hope that episode count is just a season one thing and that this isn't going to be another show that's gone for three quarters of the year.

I think the trend to go with Kirk and Spock comes more from the new movies and retailers assuming that fans want Kirk and Spock because those characters are back in the public consciousness.

When perhaps fans who do or would collect do want Picard and Co more?

I really think that "Kirk and Spock Hell" is actually the result of outdated views on the Trek toyline and on Trek as a whole. Back when Art Asylum first picked up the Trek license, TWOK was just turning 20, ENT was new, and we'd just seen the Playmates line crash and burn. While a lot of people wanted Art Asylum to just pick up where Playmates left off in the original 4.5" scale, starting with the ENT crew and then maybe doing updated versions of classic figures with a bit more articulation, Art Asylum wanted 7" figures, which in the long run seemed like a good call; they were a little larger, but had loads of extra detail to them. At the time, there was a good contingent of collectors who wanted more VOY stuff, especially stuff that Playmates never got too, and that wanted it while the show was still fresh in everyone's minds. This might have happened if NEM hadn't tanked and left figures warming shelves, and if ENT hadn't tanked doing the same thing and causing Art Asylum to make massive cuts to the line as a whole. When Art Asylum finally moved on from ENT, Trek was coming up on its 40th anniversary, and there was a huge demand for TOS merchandise, both for the 40th anniversary, and because logically, ENT toys should be followed by TOS toys, and then TNG, DS9, VOY toys just by going in order of the timeline. TOS had kind of been on the way backburner for several years, so there was an appetite for it both in toy form and in media form. George Takei was pitching his Captain Sulu concept, and realistically, Paramount should have green–lighted it as the timing was ideal for such a concept, and it easily would have made up for the faults with ENT. At the same time, Paramount was looking into several ideas for the movies. Some involved post–ENT stories set before Kirk's time, but Paramount decided against these because they were afraid to introduce a new cast on the big screen. Other ideas involved bringing a mixture of TNG/DS9/VOY characters to the big screen, but the idea that Paramount ultimately settled on was a pseudo–reboot, because the fad of rebooting movies and TV shows was really starting to take off, (blech,) and it was the easiest way to do a new TOS movie that was going to need a new cast anyway.

Naturally, Kirk and Spock likely sold because at the time, there weren't a whole lot of Kirk and Spock figures in a modern style, and with a new Kirk and a new Spock on the way, the focus was on the TOS characters. Now jump ahead ten years to today where we've got Kirk and Spock figures that have multiplied like Tribbles, an alternate continuity that's been criticized as "Trek–like substance" rather than actual Trek as the only new material in the franchise, and TOS nostalgia that's been milked to death at the cost of ignoring TNG–VOY. TNG turned 20 in 2007 and saw some acknowledgement, but by 2012, it's 25th anniversary went largely ignored with Into Darkness sucking up any promotional efforts for the series. (To CBS's credit, we did get TNG–R on Blu–Ray, but only on Blu–Ray, not on TV or any other format, and before most people had a Blu–Ray player.) Likewise, the aforementioned film's delay into 2013 subsequently ensured that DS9's 20th anniversary would pass unnoticed as well. VOY turned 20 last year and was also barely acknowledged, and now that it's been a good 15 years since 24th Century Trek has dominated anything, there's a demand for stuff from that era again, and a demand for a continuation from that point in the Prime Universe timeline, especially with Trek XI effectively shaking it up with the destruction of Romulus. DS9 and VOY toys are scarce, and even modern TNG figures still require a trip to eBay. People like me who grew up on TNG–VOY wanted TOS stuff a decade ago because we missed it the first time around, and wanted to expand beyond a massive gap in our collection, and now that expansion is largely complete. On the other hand, we now have huge gaps in comparable TNG–VOY merchandise, so there's demand for toys from that era. When I started collecting Art Asylum and subsequently DST's toys, nobody had done an Enterprise–A before, (the South Bend Enterprise was a refit, but not the "A," and was way before my time,) I didn't have a TOS phaser or tricorder, (my brother beat me to the Playmates version,) and I was thrilled when I finally got them. Today I have multiple TOS phasers, TOS tricorders, Enterprise–A's, TWOK and TOS 1701's, etc., but could use more TNG phasers and tricorders, a U.S.S. Voyager that's in line with my DST ship collection, and other items from TNG–VOY. I've got plenty of Kirks and Spocks to choose from though, and if I have to play in the TOS timeline only, I'd much rather have more McCoy's, Sulu's, and Scotty's than Kirk's and Spocks, altough I'd much rather set TOS aside for awhile. If DST gets a JJ–verse license though, that would be another story as those are fundamentally different Kirk's and Spocks than any that I have. (Oh and no disrespect meant to Chekov and Uhura; it's just that McCoy, Sulu, and Scotty had a lot more screen time that would make for interesting action figure possibilities.)

There is hope for TNG–VOY fans though as I'm starting to see at least TNG merchandise making its way back to shelves, most likely because of its impending 30th anniversary next year. Not long ago, I saw something on Amazon, something I've wanted since I was a kid: A TNG lunch box. It's metal, a nice step above the plastic lunchbox I'd carry as a kid, and it has the Enterprise–D embossed on it and looks completely awesome. Do I need a lunchbox? No. Will I likely buy this one as soon as I have some spare change? HELL YES! If nothing else I can display it with my other Trek stuff, or even use it to store something Trek related. As a kid I could never find a TNG lunchbox, but I still had one. My mother bought some random lunchbox (I think it had a Marvel character or something on it,) peeled the design on the front off, bought me some TNG stickers and then grabbed another package of them and used it to create a TNG lunchbox. To protect the stickers, a sheet of laminating paper was placed over where the stickers were and the previous design had been, and cut to fit the lunchbox. Voila, now I had a TNG lunchbox. Today, my one–of–a–kind TNG lunchbox now sits under my bed, holding an armada of "Star Trek" (and possibly some "Star Wars") Micro Machines, in and of themselves a product I wish Hasbro had revived when they had a Trek license, and wish they would revive if they still have said license. (They did it for "Star Wars," and they got my money, and I'd be even more excited if they did it for Trek.)

Of course, Trek merchandise of the TNG–VOY variety as a whole could still be a bit easier to get a hold of. While ThinkGeek has a new TNG beach towel, (you can pry the one I've been using since '92 from my cold, dead hands, along with the one I have that's identical but has never been used,) nobody seems to have a license to make Star Trek sheets for my bed, which is something that's irked me for years. I can find "Star Wars" sheets rather easily, and right before Lucasfilm was sold to Disney, there was even a set aimed primarily at adults, but something like Star Trek sheets with TNG or VOY "Delta Shield" communicators on them or starship blueprints are completely nonexistant. I may have to pay a small fortune for VOY toys, but at least they exist. If I want TNG–VOY bedding, or even TOS or ENT bedding, I'm completely out of luck.

As for the toys, most of the people I know would easily go for TNG–VOY over other forms of Trek. My first introduction to Trek was TNG, but I got into it at a much younger age than most of my friends. When my friends got into it, they did so largely through VOY, because at the time VOY premiered, they were in the 10–15 age range, while I was into TNG in some capacity while still in the single–digit age range. VOY and parts of DS9 were probably the first Trek series that I could completely comprehend the first time that I watched them though, and VOY and TNG constantly battle for the postion of being my favorite Trek series, and as a result, I tend to be most interested in toys from those two shows as well as from DS9. This doesn't mean that there isn't TOS stuff that I want, (there definitely is, and I've bought quite a few TOS toys already,) it's just that I'd prefer more from TNG–VOY, and as much as ENT as a series irks me, I'd easily plunk down the cash for an NX–02 Columbia, or an NX–09 I.S.S. Avenger today if given the opportunity.

Given that this isn't just the 50th anniversary of TOS, but the 50th anniversary of the franchise as a whole, (TOS merely being a part of that,) I kind of wish that DST had planned for a bigger push this year, even if it was just in the form of announcing new merchandise for 2017. I know that DST supposedly isn't interested in returning to the articulated action figure line anytime soon, but this year would have been a great time to have done so. Zach mentioned that DST has done quite a bit with TOS, so I could understand not wanting to run the older TOS figures for a gazillionth time, but VOY turned 20 last year, and it would certainly have been possible to have lumped long–awaited VOY figures in with Trek's overall 50th anniversary as something entirely new, even if they were made largely by recycling previously designed uniform parts with head–swaps. DS9 could have been acknowledged with another run of the "Trials and Tribbleations" figures, or a DS9 select, while TNG and TOS could have even just featured some of DST's other classic products in 50th anniversary packaging. I "get" DST not wanting to rush to announce another ship while two are on the drawing board, and Zach has explained the logic behind that, so I have no issue with no new announcements there, and I realize that DST is hard at work on the TNG Phaser, but it would have been nice to at least have had a TNG Tricorder announcement to coincide with Trek's 50th anniversary, or to have some sort of "The Man Trap" related thing to mark the first episode of TOS to air on TV. I'm please with what we're getting, but I do agree that there could have been more done to make certain things feel like they're intentionally going to coincide with the 50th anniversary.

Zach, is there any chance that you guys might do more next year to coincide with TNG's 30th anniversary? I realize it's not the same as the overall 50th anniversary of the franchise, but it's still a pretty big milestone for an arugably popular series, and while I'm definitely eager to purchase the new phaser, I would love to see some other announcements to coincide with TNG's 30th anniversary, such as the aforementioned tricorder idea, or the Enterprise–C assuming that the Romulan BoP has been released on schedule, and there's only one unreleased ship still in the works. Even if the Enterprise–C idea is a bit too difficult to pull off, I would definitely appreciate additional TNG merchandise in some capacity for that show's 30th anniversary.

I still think and hope that if DST were given the licence to do new and current Star Trek products based upon Star Trek (2009), Star Trek Into Darkness, Star Trek Beyond and Star Trek CBS All Access then the line would get more recognition.

1701D, Zach mentioned that Paramount seems to be the obstacle to the JJ–verse license. For some reason they don't seem to be interested in a toy line aimed at collectors for that particular universe, at least not yet. While I personally think they're shooting their own foot by not allowing DST to handle the toy license from that universe, it's definitely not DST's fault that Paramount has managed to screw the pooch on the JJ–verse toy licenses for the past two movies. (As much as I thought the Playmates line was a mess, they at least made an effort, and were working with DST at one point in an effort to create TOS figures in scale with their JJ–verse figures. Hasbro on the other hand didn't even try, they phoned in some Kre–O that was put to shame by the Mega Bloks that came before and after it, and didn't have any more traditional offerings.) As for the new show from CBS All–Access, if it's set in the Prime Universe as we all believe it will be, I would hope that CBS would have DST on speed–dial, and would offer them the license, only going elsewhere if DST turned it down for some reason. I would love nothing more than a massive press release at SDCC (or even NYCC for that matter) where DST announced that they've secured the license for the new series. I'd practically be dancing upon hearing (or at the very least, seeing) the news.

Okay, so most of these are just repackaged versions of previously released standalone sets, but those of you who might not have picked them up yet might wish to do so. Note that these are all US releases, and that the movies are all "new" in some capacity whether it's just a new scan, or an entirely new format.

TNG–R Complete Series Set: www.amazon.com/Star-Trek-Generation-Complete-Blu-ray/dp/B01BP06ENA

I'm listing TNG–R first since high sales could be the push necessary to get DS9–R off the ground. If you've been holding out for a complete series set, you've now got the chance to own one. (I've put my money where my mouth is on this and have already pre–ordered this.) If the set is still a little too pricey for you to splurge on all at once, Best Buy seems to have it split into seasons 1–4 and 5–7 for anyone who wants to spend a bit less, although you lose out on the awesome box art of the series set.

TOS–R Complete Series Set: www.amazon.com/Star-Trek-Original-Complete-Blu-ray/dp/B01CJW334Q

Unlike the earlier set that just slapped the season sets together and called them a series set, this set is actually packaged as a series set. It has a DVD counterpart using the remastered episodes that's been available for awhile now.

TWoK Director's Cut: www.amazon.com/Star-Trek-II-Directors-Blu-ray/dp/B01AI7QPM6

This has been rescanned from the film negatives and remastered in 4K; it includes both the theatrical and director's cuts of the film, (Lucasfilm should take notes for the next release of the first six Star Wars films; this is how it should be done,) and will ship the same day as the other sets mentioned above. Note that this is a standard Blu–Ray, so you won't actually be seeing 4K UHD on this release. However, that being said, Paramount has said a 4K UHD Blu–Ray release could come later this year, assuming that the 4K UHD Blu–Ray releases of the JJ–verse films do well, so if you want to actually see TWoK in 4K UHD, grab the JJ–verse films even if you do so for no other reason than showing Paramount that you'll pay for more 4K Trek.

Star Trek XI: www.amazon.com/Star-Trek-XI-Blu-ray-Xi/dp/B01DY8NDBM

This is the 4K UHD Blu–Ray release; note the use of HDR which allows for a wider range of colors to be displayed on the screen. This will give you those deep "movie theater blacks" and bright "movie theater whites" that HDTVs just can't reproduce accurately, as well as the additional colors that are lost going from digital cinema to HDTV. If you don't buy this for the resolution, it's worth the money for the improved color fidelity if you can take advantage of it. Remember, this could be the difference between 4K UHD Blu–Ray TWoK, and just having a standard Blu–Ray release.

Star Trek Into Darkness: www.amazon.com/Star-Trek-Into-Darkness-Blu-ray/dp/B01DY8AWNO

See comments above; everything is pretty much the same here as it is for Trek XI. Again though, remember that this could be the difference between a 4K version of TWOK joining this list in the future.

The TAS Blu–Ray set from the other thread isn't available yet, but this should keep most people busy for awhile. Likewise, the only other HD–ready series, Enterprise, still hasn't been compiled into a series set for US consumers, although hopefully that'll change soon. I'm really hoping that I'm not the only one whose buying the TNG–R box set though; I desparately want DS9–R and VOY–R, and more sales of that set could finally make it happen. Then again, I'm even willing to choke down 4K UHD Blu–Ray STID to get to 4K UHD Blu–Ray TWOK.

UPDATE: Fixed the TWOK link; my apologies for the typo.

So I've been thinking lately, and I know this might not be the most popular idea, but I honestly wouldn't mind another arrangement of this theme being used as the opening for the new Trek TV series.

Yes, I'm aware that this was the theme for both TMP and TNG, and that's exactly why I feel it would be perfect for Trek's latest incarnation. Trek "died" after TOS, and this is the song that played when it was "ressurrected" on the big screen. When it made its first comeback on the small screen, a variation of the aforementioned theme was used once again. Fast–forward almost 30 years and here we are with Trek poised to make yet another comeback on the small screen, and to utilize a new distribution format, just as it did when it went to movie theaters and first–run syndication. The song has represented not only 23rd Century Trek featuring Captain Kirk, but 24th Century Trek featuring Captain Picard, so why not what I would hope will be 25th Century Trek featuring another potentially–iconic Captain? Sure, the TOS theme is the original Trek theme, but I actually consider this to be the song that I associate more with Trek as a whole, even if I prefer it blended with the intro from Alexander Courage's TOS theme as it was for TNG. While we're on this idea, I wouldn't mind hearing John Williams perform Jerry Goldsmith's iconic theme, given that he kind of already did for a live performance, and the two were supposedly friends. (With J.J. Abrams going from Star Trek to Star Wars, I don't think it's too crazy to bring John Williams from Star Wars to Star Trek.) Oh, and here's a link to the live performance:

Heck, while we're looking at what TMP did right, I actually don't think it would hurt for CBS Inc. to "steal" the tagline from TMP either and give us some "The Human Adventure Is Just Beginning..." promos, perhaps with the take that "The Human Adventure Is Still Just Beginning..." suggesting that Trek still has plenty of life left in it. Heck, they've already been using "The Human Adventure Continues" for various 50th anniversary promotions, so I wouldn't mind seeing that used in some promotional material for the new series. (Of course, TSFS had this in the voice over for its trailer as "The Adventure Continues," so it's not entirely new, but the concept still seems fitting for the new series.) The one teaser poster that we have so far is exactly what I'd expect, but I think we can do better than a TOS–era Command Delta–shield and "Star Trek: The Next Chapter" as a tagline.

Jay K, while I'm not opposed to an "insert" production set between TOS and TNG, I honestly think that it's the kind of thing that's better suited for a miniseries than an actual full–blown series. You've already touched on part of my reasoning for this, which is that it needs to be done in the right hands, and the longer something in this era unfolds, the easier it becomes to start creating a plot with more holes than swiss–cheese in it. A quick miniseries event on the other hand should allow for this era to be expanded upon without inadvertently trampling on continuity, and is something that I wouldn't mind.

I think Axanar pushed the limits a little too far. They also could have been a little more humble in how they handled things. When you put out production updates and show your offices being constructed and talk about all the people you've hired to work for you it really doesn't come across as a fan film. While I was and hopefully still am looking forward to Axanar I think ST Continues ironically does a much better job with less money. If you look at the Vulcan scene, it's really not that great and in my opinion is kind of poor filmmaking. They have two people talking, it's a green screen scene where it really doesn't need to be and they have a ton of ships flying around in the background distracting from the scene. I assume this was just to show off the SFX. Of course CBS really isn't going to accomplish anything other than cheating all the fans out of the money they donated. The best way CBS can combat this is produce content for the fans so they're too busy paying attention to that to donate or care about these fan productions.

Axanar definitely pushed things too far, at least based on what I've been able to gather in my research on them. The problem, which you've sort of alluded to, is that CBS is essentially pouring gas on the fire with a heavy–handed lawsuit, and is basically just screwing over the fans who donated to Axanar. They should have just slapped the Axanar filmmakers on the wrist and focused on creating official content that would appeal to fans. If the new series is aimed at fans, (as it should be,) I don't see it likely that Axanar is some sort of serious threat, and CBS shouldn't either after they basically admitted that they think we'll buy anything, hence CBS All–Access. The smart thing to do now would be to try and settle the lawsuit out of court quickly, maybe with CBS getting some sort of access to the studio that was built for Axanar free of charge and any profit that shouldn't have been generated, and to make this lawsuit disappear before it becomes more of a distraction than it already is.

25th century all the way.

The thing with trying to place it in between series or movies is that you're automatically restricting your writing team and audience.

By going 80 years beyond what we've already seen in TNG, DS9 and VOY you free your writing staff to create new characters and storylines whilst being set in a familiar universe and you appeal to both fans wishing for the continuation of prime timeline Star Trek and casual fans who don't want to have to catch up with over 700 hours of Star Trek to understand.

This needs to be the equivalent of what TNG did.

I'm with you on the Prime Universe 25th century setting all the way. I just don't think that the show needs to go 80 years after TNG; it could go 30 years after TNG, (basically real–time,) and still look drastically different and have plenty of room for new material and new events that we hadn't previously heard of or seen. (This is basically the gap between the original and new Star Wars trilogies, so it's not like it couldn't work.) It's far enough in the future that the events of TNG–VOY aren't really in the way of anything, but not so far that you can't have cameos from past characters without having to stick them in transporter buffers or come up with other contrived ways to get them into the show. My ideal setting would be right after the Hobus supernova just to avoid any debate over whether or not the one contribution the JJ–verse made to the Prime Universe is canon, especially since it should create events comparable to what we saw with Praxis in The Undiscovered Country, and that could open up a whole bunch of new plot possibilities that we haven't seen before.

*To the tune of The Imperial March* Take, take, take my money, my money, take, take, take my money, my money, take it right now, Disney, Disney, take it now, take it now, my money, my money!

I can't even begin to describe what I'd be willing to pay for this, especially after the way the original unaltered footage was handled for DVD. ("Hamstringing" is an understatement.) The word is that Disney wanted to do this before TFA hit theaters, but the footage required extensive restoration and that's been delaying the releases that have been suggested here. However, if Disney truly can't come up with anything better from the material they have, they really ought to tap Harmy, the fan whose been featured on a few news stories for reconstructing the original films, and see if he might be able to help them out. Disney is sitting on a gold mine with these, and the second they're officially announced I'll place my pre–order. Yes, I'm aware they have to work out a deal with 20th Century Fox for Episode IV, but that's easy enough to do, especially since both companies stand to make enough money to buy a small nation from the unedited original trilogy.

Edit: Alteran195, the article in the link is old, but there are articles as recent as December 22nd that suggest the same thing. See above for why it hasn't happened yet. The restoration is supposedly taking longer than expected.

Okay, since we're ranking the films, my take is below. Be warned, my views are likely to be a bit blasphemous around these parts.

1. Episode VII: The Force Awakens
2. Episode VI: Return of the Jedi
3. Episode IV: A New Hope
4. Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
5. Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
6. Episode II: Attack of the Clones
7. Episode I: The Phantom Menace

Please don't force–choke me after reading that. ANH and RotS could easily switch places, but I put ANH above RotS just because it was the first film and the fact that it was even possible back in '77 was almost miraculous given the obstacles the film had to overcome at the time. RotJ had always been my favorite SW film until I saw TFA, as I just loved the story behind it and felt like it ended the original trilogy nicely, told a wonderful story, and avoided leaving unnecessary loose ends. (I'm also partial to the Ewok Celebration scene and song of the same name, even if said song was incredulously removed from the film when things that weren't broke were fixed until they were.) I left the theater after seeing TFA the way I wish I'd left the theater after seeing TPM, which is part of the reason why I rank TPM so low.

So,Han dying. No wonder Harrison Ford has been so happy and all smiles lately! He got his wish to be killed off. A lot of fans believe he's still alive though,y'know.....no one dies in sci fi movies and so on,LOL!

 

And Luke not saying one single word?! And not enough R2 in there either.

Han as we knew him, as a "human person," is most definitely dead. However, this is Star Wars, and I would not put it past J.J. Abrams to turn him into a force–ghost, and would honestly be fine with him doing so. Sure, Han might not have really been in tune with the force, but I could see Luke finding a way to connect to him in future films, and if you believe Obi–Wan in ANH, the force is "in everyone and everything," which would imply that this isn't as far–fetched as it sounds, even for Han. Besides, I find it hard to believe that Ben Solo/Kylo Ren's strength with the force came solely from Leia. I could see Han having more of the force in him than we initially thought. There's no way Han as we know him is alive though, even if his body landed somewhere and was recovered before the planet exploded, there wouldn't have been much of a body to save. For arguments sake let's say that First Order troops recovered a body or pieces of Han's body though. At most the only way he'd be back in "physical" form would be as a clone of some sort, and that raises the question of why the First Order would want to clone him in the first place. I can definitely see using Han as a force–ghost, but I'm going to have a harder time buying a "clone Han" just because of what it would entail.

Also, I know I'm going to get a lightsaber to the head for this one, but Luke not saying a single word was fine with me. He didn't need to utter so much as a syllable, and I actually think the silence in that scene made it more impactful, as J.J. Abrams decided to just show rather than tell as films should. I'm also fine with Luke's role in TFA being very minimal, as I think more focus on him actually would have detracted from the film and ruined it's pacing. As much as I hate to admit it, I think minimizing R2's involvement wasn't necessarily a bad thing either, as it gave BB–8 a chance to shine without being overshadowed by his counterpart. While I know something needed to be done to C–3P0 to make him look "different" for this film, I do hope he gets his arm eventually restored to its original gold color.

Han is dead... He was stabbed through the chest, fell down a shaft, and then the planet exploded. You don't come back from that.

Agreed. See my theory above though, I could totally buy him returning as a force–ghost, so while Han as we knew him is gone, I could buy him being "gone" the same way that Obi–wan was "gone" in ESB and RotJ.

Not afraid to say I cried like a little girl when Han died. I just watched it again and liked it a lot more. The Rebel Fanfare playing when you see the "garbage" is one of the many musical high points. A lot of my friends played in the orchestra on the soundtrack so I'm very jealous they were a part of it all.

It was a bit like a re-tread of A New Hope for sure. Jakku might just as well have been Tatooine. Kylo is basically Anakin minus some force points. The question is will he turn to the light eventually?

I held back tears when Han died both times that I saw the film; it's easily one of the most emotional scenes in the movie, and I kind of had a feeling that he was going to die before he ever stepped foot on that bridge. As soon as he handed Chewie the detonator, I pretty much knew it was all over for Han, even though I had my suspicions before that. (It was sort of like seeing that "individual emergency transporter" in Star Trek: Nemesis, I read the script for NEM before it hit theaters so I knew who was going to die, but my father didn't, and as soon as he saw that thing he knew that only Picard or Data was going to make it out alive, and began trying to figure out who wouldn't.) Oh, and I can only imagine how cool it must be to have friends who played in the orchestra for the film's soundtrack! I intend to pick it up very soon on CD as I enjoyed it quite a bit.

Yes, the film definitely borrowed heavily from ANH, and I did admittedly wonder why Jakku wasn't just Tatooine, but I actually didn't mind this. What sets TFA apart from Star Trek 12: The Rehash of Khan, is that J.J. Abrams actually seemed to learn his lesson from that film, and to make it rather obvious that the story he was telling was very similar to a story that had been told before. Maz sums this up in a nice and somewhat subtle way during her speech about looking into a person's eyes, but Han makes this clear much more overtly, often with some of the film's best lines. Case in point: "How about garbage chute; is there a trash compactor around here?" The film knows it's operating under the Steve Jobs adage of "good artists copy, great artists steal," and it steals wonderfully from ANH. (In contrast, STID copied TWOK, and did so poorly.)

Also, it's worth pointing out that what separates TFA from Star Wars Episode 1: The Boy Hope, is that unlike TPM, which is also arguably a remake of ANH, TFA isn't predicated on a series of coincidences. (This is why I rank ESB as low as I do, as the entire film is a string of coincidences, just as TPM is.) Yes, there are some coincidences in TFA, (the Millennium Falcon just happens to be on Jakku, and Finn just happened to have been stationed at Starkiller base at one point, but for the most part, the characters actually did something to cause the events in the film to unfold the way that they did.) In TPM, everything was a coincidence though: Qui–Gonn and Obi–Wan just happen to wind up on Tatooine, where there just happens to be a boy whose strong with the force, who just happens to be an awesome pilot who can win some parts for their ship in a podrace. Then, that same boy just happens to fall into the cockpit of a Naboo Starfighter, which he just happens to pilot at the Trade Federation ship, where he just happens to do a trench run and blow up the Death Star Trade Federation Ship, despite having never flown anything other than a pod racer before. While TFA had a trench run on the exhaust port oscilator, it's worth noting that there wasn't a huge focus on the "trench run" itself, (most of the time was spent focusing on Han, Rey, Chewie, and Finn,) and that we saw very little of Poe Dameron throughout the film, with the trench run simply serving as proof that he really was "the best pilot in the Resistance." Simply put, TFA felt intentional, while TPM felt like it had unintentional coincidences, just as STID did, which makes me wonder if Lucas would have learned from TPM the same way that Abrams learned from STID.

I cried when Han died also.... It was a very tragic ending for the rogue Hero.

In my opinion Kylo Ren destroyed Ben Solo the moment he killed his father. There is NO coming back from such a hideous act.

As mentioned above, I held back tears in the theater. When I watch this at home after the Blu–Ray comes out, I will very likely bawl my eyes out like I did when Captain Sisko died at the end of DS9. (Speaking of the Blu–Ray, I'd really like to know if Disney is going to do a billion different editions before I pre–order what's listed on Amazon right now. I'd hate to pre–order a "normal" edition only to see something fancier available right afterwards.)

Prometheus, I completely agree with you about Kylo Ren destroying Ben Solo the moment he killed his father. To me, that's what sets him apart from Anakin, and makes him a far more loathsome and fearsome villain. Anakin was a deeply tormented person, who ultimately wanted to do the right thing, but who wasn't afraid to use vigilante justice to accomplish his goals. Anakin's real "problem" was that he had control issues; he had to be in control at all times, and when he wasn't in control of a situation, he would turn to the dark side to regain control of the situation. Sure, he came across as whiny, bratty, arrogant, and dangerous, but most of the time his heart was in the right place early on even when his head wasn't. It was only after he seemed to feel that he'd lost everything that he really went off the deep end and turned entirely to the dark side. What made him redeemable is that most of his heanous and not–so heanous actions were driven by the fact that he cared for his family, whether it was the slaughtering of the sand people, or throwing Palpatine down that shaft in the Death Star II. In contrast, Kylo Ren cares only about himself and about power, and he will do anything to get and keep it. He doesn't have an issue with being in control of a situation, he has an issue with being a power–hungry tyrant. He's bratty and arrogant, just like his grandfather, but he's also far more impulsive, and more willing to throw a temper–tantrum than to try and regain control of a situation. To me, this makes him even more dangerous than Darth Vader, because Darth Vader wouldn't kill his son, and certainly wouldn't have killed one of his parents. Kylo Ren on the other hand had no problem decieving his father for the sole purpose of slaughtering him, and to me that made him go from being a whiny wannabe Vader to a serious threat who could be far worse than Darth Vader himself was. I also think Rey's line about him "being afraid that he won't be as powerful as Darth Vader" speaks volumes about just what motivates Kylo Ren. Anakin was Darth Vader as a means to an end in his mind, whereas Ben Solo is Kylo Ren simply as an end in and of himself. I see him as being irredeemable, and think that could potentially ensure that episodes VIII and IX don't retread ESB and ROTJ.

I disagree here, his score for the prequels and original trilogy were far more memorable than what was in The Force Awakens. For me there wasn't any song that really stands out like there were in the others, and there were a lot of OT themes. Hopefully 8 and 9 are better. I'll be seeing again tomorrow so i'll pay more attention to the music, maybe my opinion will change.

While there was no song that was promoted as "the song from The Force Awakens" as there were for all previous SW films, I'd argue that The Scavenger was a highly memorable track, and easily this film's Duel of the Heroes or Imperial March.

I heard Yoda but not Obi...maybe on my third viewing I'll catch it

I need to see that scene again. It's comes at you so fast and is intentionally confusing, so it's hard to tell whose saying what, but if Ewan McGregor came in to record a line for it, that's definitely something to pay attention to in my book.

My first conclusion is that 3D movies suck, I saw my first 3D movie with TFA on Thursday, and saw it normally today. It was MUCH better in a normal format.

I'm honestly surprised to hear you say this, as I'm typically the person railing about pointless post–conversion pseudo–3D, yet I actually felt that the 3D version of this film added quite a bit to the experience. I saw the film in IMAX 3D first, and as a "standard" 2D digital "35mm" DCP the second time, and definitely felt that the IMAX 3D was well worth the extra cash. The regular version of the film felt like I was watching a really awesome movie, while the IMAX 3D version felt like I was part of a really awesome movie. In fact, this is one of the few times (if not the only time) where a movie that was actually shot on film and post–converted to pseudo–3D for IMAX hasn't made me cringe at the quality of the conversion. When I saw STID in IMAX 3D it looked like pure crap, (which wasn't helped by the fact that I wasn't fond of the film as a whole,) as have most post–converted pseudo–3D films that I've seen. Even seated in the center of the theater, (which is necessary for the 3D effect to really have the most impact possible,) most of these films have been seriously lacking when it comes to decent 3D. In contrast, I was seated way off to the right of the theater for TFA, and even off on a side images were popping off of the screen in a way that felt immersive and interesting. I also didn't notice any pointless changes in framing or use of alternate takes to play up the use of the pseudo–3D, unlike when Disney released Marvel's Avengers and ruined the shot composition for the sake of showing off pseudo–3D effects. Now to be fair, I always pay for IMAX 3D when I watch a 3D film, so it's possible that if you saw a Disney "Real–D" 3D print, your experience might have been different from mine, although I've heard mostly positive comments about the Real–D 3D prints as well. I personally have not seen the film in Real–D 3D yet, but am considering doing so soon since I do want to see it for a third time, and figure I might as well see it in a third format. (Of course, I also want to see the 70mm print of The H8ful Eight that's playing at my local movie theater, but that's because I like large format films, and IMAX itself is a 70mm format, albeit one that's frequently used to show 35mm "enlargements." I'll probably stretch my wallet a bit thinner than usual on the grounds that most years I see almost no movies, and this year I'm probably going to see several, so it evens out over time.) I'm not sure why you didn't like the 3D version of the film, but I have to wonder if it was the way your theater calibrated their projector that ruined the experience for you, or if it was something else. While some people do get motion–sickness from 3D films, (in which case I can understand hating them,) I've yet to hear anyone else who doesn't have such experiences mention that they didn't enjoy the 3D print, so I would love to know what you disliked about it. My only issue with the IMAX 3D showing was that it was packed to capacity whereas the standard 2D showing I saw was a midday matinee on a work day, so there were almost no people in the theater, which gave my father and I a nice choice of seats to pick from, and a perfect dead–center view of the screen.

lol! love the rationalzation, but Its fantasy, thus its not rational. If it were rational, one might argue you wouldn't ever have light act the way Kylo Ren's saber did.

The effect stood out and my  comment is I like the clean saber effect used in all the previous episodes better.

Gothneo, for what it's worth, it seemed like the original films had the same "rough" saber effect before Lucas decided to start "fixing" everything. When the FX were re–rotoscoped to match the prequels, the blades were made much sharper and "cleaner," instead of having that "hazy," rough look. Personally, I like the effect in the new film, but I can understand why the sharper, "clean" effect is preferred by some. I personally think it worked in the prequels because the prequels were slick and slick sabers fit the style of those films; in this trilogy, and the original trilogy, I prefer the "hazier" look that seems to fit the "used universe" aesthetic.

ha! Colbert says its one beam. Done on purpose.

 

http://www.cnet.com/...ate-disturbing/

As far as Kylo Ren's saber guard is concerned, I actually had what was essentially the same theory as Stephen Colbert's, weeks before he ran that clip. Some cameras use a pentaprism mirror to split incoming light into red, green, and blue primaries, so I could see some sort of pentaprism crystal or mirror–type device in Kylo Ren's lightsaber being used to turn one beam into a beam and a hilt, which would certainly allow for light to act the way Kylo Ren's saber did. Of course, now that I know he cracked his crystal, and that his saber is the way it is because it's unstable, I actually feel that it suits him even better than before; an unstable lightsaber for an unstable individual. I still like the theory that it's one beam, done on purpose though. Then again, after seeing how Rey weilds that staff, I'm kind of hoping that she'll be the first protagonist to have a double–bladed lightsaber, even if it's just to show that "someone other than Darth Maul uses one of these."

So,EVERYONE is returning for the next movie. Guess the Han scenes must be in flashback or something,unless they come up with a REALLY good explanation on how he survived,lol! And TWO actors played Chewie this time around,which is understandable as Mr.Mayhew isn't all that agile these days.

See my comment above; I still think it's possible that we could get some sort of force–ghost Han Solo, even though I don't think there's any way he survived that death scene. While it's also possible that his body was recovered and he was cloned by The First Order, I'd have a tougher time swallowing that as I can't imagine why they'd want to clone someone who was easily a major thorn in their side, especially given that Kylo Ren is the one who killed him.

Anyone who actually thought Disney, or even Lucas if he kept the rights, would make new Star Wars movies that followed the expanded universe were kidding themselves, there was just no way that would happen

While I agree with you that there was no way Disney was going to follow the expanded universe, Lucas was pretty adamant that he considered the "Thrawn Trilogy" to be Episodes VII–IX, so I could have seen him adapting it with very minor modifications if he had retained the rights to the films, even if the rest of the expanded universe was ignored.

Can anyone tell me more about "Starkiller base" (is that the official name?  is that even stated in the film?)...

 

I mean, is it a planet/moon that was converted into a weapon, or are we supposed to be like "wow, the weapon is so big it developed its own atmosphere and it started snowing and trees somehow began growing on it"?  I would have to lean toward the former.  I suppose there is a 3rd option..."they tried to disguise it as a planet"...in which case I would just have to facepalm.

Starkiller base is referred to as such in the film repeatedly, so that's definitely the official name. As for what it is, it's a planet with a weapon built directly into it, which is why destablizing the planet's core was a concern in taking out Starkiller base. (And what ultimately happened when Chewie hit the detonator. The core of the planet destablized and we got that wonderfully large explosion.)

Some People are really that upset with this movie that they want Lucas back??!! I guess that really proves you can't please everyone!

No movie is perfect, including this one. It has its issues, they are fun to talk about, but it's still a great effort and allot of fun!

No, nooooooooooooo, big Luke Skywalker nooooooooooooooooooooo! Lucas shouldn't be anywhere near a director's chair on a Star Wars film unless Abrams does something that sends audiences fleeing from theaters, and even then I'd want him under strict supervision from someone who could overrule him. To be totally honest, I wouldn't mind bringing Lucas back for the sole purpose of adding a bit of a "political" framework to future films, which this movie seemed to lack with the way it handled The First Order, the Resistance, and the Republic, but that should be done in the form of having him onboard as a consultant, and having him limited to that specific aspect of the story. He shouldn't have any real power, and definitely shouldn't be directing. While I do think that the next film needs to be original and unique from its predecessors, I'm fine with the way this one was handled on the grounds that Star Wars needed a film that felt like a Star Wars movie, and TFA delivered that in spades. Now if Episode VIII is another ESB, I'll definitely have a gripe with it as there are plenty of directions that the next film can go in that there's no reason for it to mimmick something that we've seen before.

I saw the Beyond trailer as well as the ID 4-2 trailer when I saw Star Wars in IMAX.

Ditto this just last night. IMAX seems to have it, although the Trek trailer itself wasn't "optimized" for IMAX 3D like the IDR trailer was. Not sure if that's just my theater, or if it's just the trailer not being ready for 3D yet. (Presumably it was "the IMAX experience though," albeit in traditional 2D.)

Alex, you've put your finger right on the very point I was musing upon when I said I couldn't fathom the purpose if a trailer if it isn't strongly indicative of the movie it is advertising.

Long before ST2009 came out I felt the same way about some of the so-called "teaser" materials released before there was even a finalised script. At least this trailer has actual film footage in it but as Pegg appears to be critiquing the slant taken in this trailer, let's hope there are some more fan-pleasing goodies that haven't made the cut this time.

Thank you. I honestly don't mind traditional "teaster" that might just show a comm–badge or similar item with a tagline, as those are just meant to indicate "hey, this thing is in the works so keep an eye out for more information," and are generally understood to not be indicative of a finished product. What I do mind are "teaser" trailers that are shown in a wildly out of context fashion with footage from a film fully intact, that don't fall into the category of just not having material indicative of a finished film on hand. The "Beyond" trailer is unfortunately in that latter category, and while I could understand using it as a second or third trailer, (primarily as a nod to Justin Lin and his work on The Fast & The Furious movies,) I do think using it as the first trailer was a huge mistake, especially when it takes what people hated about STID and turns it up to 11 for a minute and a half. I do think there's more material aimed at die–hard Trek fans that wasn't shown, but I don't appreciate Paramount's pandering to the lowest common denominator.

I've watched the trailer a dozen and then some times now and I've liked it more and more with every viewing with the McCoy and Spock moment the standout moment of 90 seconds of film.

It was interesting to hear my brother talk of it though. He is not a Trekkie by any stretch of the imagination and his reaction to it was that it looked ok but that it didn't scream Star Trek to him, he didn't like the fact that this was a new "generic" alien race and that why it wasn't the Klingons or Romulans or Borg or some other well established alien coming up against Kirk and Co.

This got me thinking... By introducing a new and unseen race of aliens, have they lost what Star Trek means to the mainstream and turned Star Trek into a copycat franchise of Guardians of the Galaxy?

I do wonder if he has a point? By taking this relatively new, not Shatner or Nimoy, unestablished cast and placing them onto a new planet among a new species of alien with no Enterprise, no Klingons, Romulans or Anything that resembles what people identify as being Star Trek, You're accidentally not making a Star Trek movie that people can identify with... In fact what you're making is a generic sci fi movie that's trying too hard to be Guardians of the Galaxy... I wonder had this been a Klingon colony or even an alien of the week from TOS being expanded upon, the reaction would have been different...

My thoughts are this. I have been up and down on these movies since 2009... I am as conflicted about them as Spock once was about joining starfleet... As movies they're fun, as Star Trek... Well they're not Star Trek!

Paramount have been seemingly trying to separate Star Trek from its fan base ever since 2009 by producing a series of movies that borrow the names of ships, characters and aliens but don't really resemble what Star Trek has always been. What Paramount have ended up with is an unofficial version of Star Trek that history will look upon as being the Star Wars prequel series of the Star Trek franchise.

That means in my mind, they didn't get what was fundamental to the everlasting popularity of Star Trek prior to JJ Abrams came aboard and didn't think for one minute that there was anything worth saving from the decades of stories told before 2009.

Paramount gave Star Trek to a load of Star Wars fans and asked them to make Star Trek less Star Trek and more general, sci-fi for the masses, in other words, more Star Wars.

6 years on and that has not worked one bit. What Paramount has done to Trek has been to strip it of its very being, they have sucked the very soul out of Star Trek and replaced everything that made Star Trek iconic and great with vacuous, generic, storylines that gloss over meaningful context and character development with nonsense to varying degrees of success with an audience that think Star Trek is the long awaited sequel to Star Wars. What Paramount need to do is to not make anymore Star Trek movies but if they do make more then they need to make a Star Trek movie that is MORE Star Trekkie.

The new CBS TV series has a lot to live up to because when I see a new episode of Doctor Who I know instantly that im watching a doctor who episode... The new series has to make me believe that im watching an episode of Star Trek and for god's sake, it needs to go back to the prime universe, the Star Trek universe and not this wacky, unofficial Star Trek copy cat universe where it's all style over substance.

For the first time since being announced, Alex Kurtzman worries me... Star Trek should have been handed to Ron Moore, Ira Behr, Manny Coto, Seth McFarlane, David A. Goodman, Robert Meyer Burnett and current science fiction novelists who would be given the task to create a series that would go beyond Picard's time, developing a series that would pioneer a realistic vision of what the future should look like from today's perspective. A ground breaking, pioneering show built on plausible, hard scientific themes and storylines that commentate on social, ethical and political issues that effect our world today as well as continuing Star Trek's grand tradition of being a show driven by interesting, intriguing and well fleshed out characters whilst being entertaining, humorous and engaging.

1701D, I just want to touch on a couple of your comments here really quickly. First, the Spock/McCoy seen is the one thing that gives me hope about "Beyond" as I'm hearing there's apparently going to be a lot more of that in the finished film, and that one fraction of scene in the trailer felt more like Trek than a whole lot of what we've seen before. It felt like Simon Pegg truly understood the dynamic between Spock and McCoy that's been sorely lacking, and it felt like he might actually tap into it, which I certainly hope he does.

Regarding the new "generic" alien race, I honestly don't mind it. Star Trek has always been about finding strange new worlds, and this seems to follow that route. However, in order to care about the new alien race, I need to be given something about them to care about to begin with, which the trailer didn't give me. We care about the Klingons, Romulans, and Borg because they're threatening as villains and amazing as allies. We're familiar with them, and that helps too. However, we also care about new races when they're introduced because of their potential to be something interesting. The Ferengi, Cardassians, Jem'Hadar, and numerous others all started out as "alien of the week," but developed into memorable or somewhat memorable friend or foe. The Kazon failed to impressed on VOY because they were carbon–copy Klingons with nothing that made them unique. The Hirogen were far more memorable because their entire society was driven by their desire to hunt, and there was enough different about them from other speices that they stood out as unique. (Species 8472 stands out as well because they had the Borg on the ropes.) The trailer should show us why we care about this new alien race though, and it failed to do that. New aliens aren't a bad thing, but if your movie is about a new species, they ought to be the focus of your trailer.

As far as Trek being a GotG clone, JJ–verse Trek has always been in that category with GotG reminding me of JJ—verse Trek from the get–go; it's fundamentally a part of which the JJ–verse is, and part of why I feel it should run its course and then allow Trek to get back to being Trek.

I honestly don't think that the new alien race is the problem, although I do agree with your brother that it's easier to introduce new aliens on the small screen where you can develop their backstory over time. I think the problem is that like the Ba'ku/Son'a, this alien race doesn't seem like it's being explained in a way that makes any sense since the trailer didn't bother introducing us to said alien race. I honestly think that the last film should have introduced a new alien race, and that this film should have done something like Talosians to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the franchise, but I don't think introducing new aliens and not running with old ones is a deal breaker; I just think the order in which things were done was muddied, and not helped by the style of the JJ—verse.

Unfortuntely, I have to agree that these movies aren't "Star Trek," so much as they're "Star Trek–like substance;" a certain Vulcan might say "they appear to be Star Trek, but not as we know it, Captain." I understand why Paramount went the route they did, and I understand why fans were complict in allowing this to happen, (they let the franchise bottom out and had no leverage to push back against a reboot,) but the base is back, and the need for a reboot has passed. Yes, these films will be the Star Wars prequel trilogy of Trek, (hot on the heels of a Trek series that was on par with Droids at that,) but the style was a necessary evil once the decision to do reboot movies was made, and reboot movies were the least risky option for a franchise on shaky footing. In the long run they may be remembered poorly, but Paramount did need a flash in the pan at one point to keep Trek alive. That point however has passed, despite the style of the flash in the pan films lingering. Turning Star Trek into Star Wars is just as bad as turning Star Wars into Star Trek. If I'm watching SW, I don't want to hear yammering about midichlorins, but if I'm watching ST, I don't want to be bogged down with blaster scenes masquerating as occasional phaser fire. Occasionally doing something for the masses is fine, but doing three films for the masses in a row ruins what makes Trek stand out, and turns it into a crappy generic sci–fi spectacle that flies in the face of why it's still relevant.

I'm in 100% agreement with you on the new Trek TV series though. The new SW film made me feel like I was watching SW in a way that the prequels didn't, (visually, tonally, and not just because of what you saw in the trailers,) and the new Trek TV series needs to make me feel like I'm watching what happened after VOY/NEM, and not another version of imitation Trek. The Prime Universe is a must for this to work, and while I'm the biggest advocate for the 25th century Trek concept that you'll probably meet, I wouldn't mind keeping "The Worf Chronicles" on the side–burner as the next DS9. (Michael Dorn wanted a show that heavily involved the Klingon Empire and that he pitched as "Game of Thrones in space." I'd totally watch that concept, and it sounds perfect for a series running parallel to a more traditional Trek concept, with the grit of DS9 and the style as a whole being a bit different and setting it apart.) Kurtzman has worried me from day one specifically because what makes him a perfect producer for other shows makes him a terrible choice for Trek. This is the guy who co–writes Hawaii Five–0, and while style over substances works there because it's meant to be a high–octane procedural, it's not the kind of writing suited for Trek. With no disrespect meant to Mr. Kurtzman, I would rather see him step down or be put into an apprentice–esque role on this show, and a producer more suited to Trek's style brought on board to helm things. Manny Coto is the first guy I'd beg for, but Seth McFarlane is a close second. Heck, even Brannon Braga without Rick Berman, and with a Coto or McFarlane type would be a step in the right direction. J.J. Abrams might say he shuts his "fanboy brain" off when working on SW, but the simple fact is that SW is in the hands of someone whose passionate about it, and Trek should be in similar hands, hands of a fan who "gets" why the prime universe is so important, and why 25th century Trek is effectively a must. This person should understand how to write morality plays, and ideally have a grasp of what makes people like Trek in the first place. Failure to grasp this concept will only do more harm than good. I still have faith in Simon Pegg, but he's unfortunately stuck working in a Trek universe that's behind the eight–ball, and there's only so much he can do when he has to cater to the explosion crowd in addition to the fans. Still, he's supposedly a life–long fans while Kurtzman isn't, which makes me wonder why the heck Kurtzman got the showrunner position for the TV series while Pegg only got the movie. (And more importantly, if the fans love Pegg's take on the JJ—verse, will CBS grab him up and have him work his magic in the Prime Universe in lieu of Kurtzman?)