There’s a new Star Trek trailer and it looks terrible

It has a lot of punching, precious little "science fiction."


Read the whole story

 

[Daniel Smith]

scooternva[/url]":lbru6k7y]

takk825[/url]":lbru6k7y]It seems to me that a few of the Star Trek movies have had more on-planet scene time than space. The two that pop into my mind are Voyage Home and Insurrection.

In other words, one of the best (The Voyage Home) and one of the worst (Insurrection) entries in the Star Trek film series.

Nijyo[/url]":lbru6k7y]

DrPizza[/url]":lbru6k7y]

bigstrat2003[/url]":lbru6k7y]"That kind of crap" is exactly what every Star Trek movie was like, apart from I and arguably VI. II, III, V and all the TNG movies were pure "action movie in space" movies.

Insurrection sure wasn't. Insurrection was widely criticized as being an overlong episode, which didn't make for a great movie, but certainly explored moral aspects of the science of Star Trek.

I had just rewatched that movie for the first time in a very long while a month ago, and I was surprised at how much I liked it. I had remembered it as being fairly lackluster, and so had avoided it for years, but, aside from a couple goofy parts (the "joystick"), I was delighted to rediscover a lot of humor and introspection that I had, apparently, forgotten.

Just want to chime in on Insurrection: I too, had a low opinion of it until I watched them all back-to-back over the course of a few weeks, and concluded that Insurrection is really the best TNG movie. Don't remember details anymore, but I think it was mainly that Insurrection was actually *about* something. First Contact, while fun, was more in the "blow stuff up" lane.

 

[cerkit]

I agree that this does not look like Star Trek. However, it looks like a good movie that I want to see. If they would have called it "Space Junkies: New Ride", no one would know or care to see it. By abusing the Star Trek brand, at least they get massive recognition.

And yes, it's obvious this will be appealing to the mainstream, not the nerds.

I guess we'll see after Friday the 18th if there's any hope ("A New New Hope"?) for Sci-Fi movies in the upcoming generation of films.

But this one looks like fun, regardless of what franchise it's abusing.

I think we're probably going to witness the same abuse when Episode VIII is released as the director will be the "Jurassic World" guy. At least "Jurassic World" is Science Fiction, though and not race cars.

Time will tell.

I'm going to just be a passive observer and enjoy my 2 hours of suspension of disbelief without stressing over how they "ruined" my childhood heroes. I'm just going to expect that they're already ruined and move on from there.

 

[Ryan B.]

caldepen[/url]":q2wwx0l6]

I find the reboot films to be utterly fantastic.

You thought Into Darkness was utterly fantastic? Really? What about it specifically did you enjoy?

I think it is the weird drug, boardrooms have come up with to put us in a blissful, wallet-opening, catatonic state...

Seriously try to remember what it was that was so utterly fantastic.

edit; added commas...

Aside from being an entertaining big spectacle dumb action flick? Spock is a standout. Spock was awesome in that film.

 

[nickf]

As Julius Nicholson might say - 'going beyond Star Trek, and beyond that'.

Or was it Malcolm Tucker?

 

[papac]

This looks like it is about the level of the previous two reboot movies. The first one was awful, and the second one I turned off 30 minutes into it. It will make someone lots of money though, cause lots of stuff blows up, and that is all people want to see.

 

[heartburnkid]

Daniel Smith[/url]":1zlhczeg]

scooternva[/url]":1zlhczeg]

takk825[/url]":1zlhczeg]It seems to me that a few of the Star Trek movies have had more on-planet scene time than space. The two that pop into my mind are Voyage Home and Insurrection.

In other words, one of the best (The Voyage Home) and one of the worst (Insurrection) entries in the Star Trek film series.

Nijyo[/url]":1zlhczeg]

DrPizza[/url]":1zlhczeg]

bigstrat2003[/url]":1zlhczeg]"That kind of crap" is exactly what every Star Trek movie was like, apart from I and arguably VI. II, III, V and all the TNG movies were pure "action movie in space" movies.

Insurrection sure wasn't. Insurrection was widely criticized as being an overlong episode, which didn't make for a great movie, but certainly explored moral aspects of the science of Star Trek.

I had just rewatched that movie for the first time in a very long while a month ago, and I was surprised at how much I liked it. I had remembered it as being fairly lackluster, and so had avoided it for years, but, aside from a couple goofy parts (the "joystick"), I was delighted to rediscover a lot of humor and introspection that I had, apparently, forgotten.

Just want to chime in on Insurrection: I too, had a low opinion of it until I watched them all back-to-back over the course of a few weeks, and concluded that Insurrection is really the best TNG movie. Don't remember details anymore, but I think it was mainly that Insurrection was actually *about* something. First Contact, while fun, was more in the "blow stuff up" lane.

First Contact is TNG's Wrath of Khan. Both of them are primarily character pieces about the captain and his deeply personal conflict with a villain (Kirk/Khan and Picard/Borg, respectively), with the sci-fi trappings as largely a backdrop. It's no surprise that people consider them the best in their respective series.

 

[carldjennings]

Lots of hate in here for a 94 second trailer.

 

[Redmess]

The trailer looks like a generic action flick with some Star Trek paint applied. It felt distinctly not-Trek.

This may be how you market to a general audience, but I don't see how this will pull in Trekkies.

 

[vedekbarak]

Uninspiring preview and no sense at all of Trek in this except the ship and the uniforms. Especially adding 1994's "Sabotage" by the Beastie Boys. Good song, but hardly Star Trek.

This is not going to bring me into the theater. It will be a "straight to DVD/Digital Download" for me-much like "Into Darkness" was. This from a Trek fan.

 

[psarhjinian]

WagonWheelsRX8[/url]":5x7qm6n5]So like over 150 comments posted and not one mentions the antagonist shown might be the Tholians?
I'm surprised. I think this gives me hope for some of that exploration stuff people have been talking about to help balance out the obvious over the top action.
I think all of my other opinions have already been posted by others, so no need to retread any of that territory.

edit: Tholians not Thorians.

Interesting point. I'd assumed that the ships were those of the looks-a-hell-of-a-lot-like-a-Narn aliens, but yes, this would be an interesting take on the Tholians.

 

[vartec]

DrPizza[/url]":36yv3mnz] I can sort of buy listening to 200 year old music when you're in a 200 year old car on earth. In a spaceship it seems kinda dumb.

How about 1870's "Ride of the Valkyries" in helicopters? Also kinda dumb?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKaYOW9zMoY

 

[RT81]

brutaltruth[/url]":19kzfzja]Star Wars > Star Trek. Always been that way, always will.

Even the worst of Hayden Christensen's acting in the prequels is better than original Star Trek performances.

Star Trek fans are just another group blinded by nostalgia. The original series was extremely cheesy.

Star Wars versus Star Trek is like Batman versus Superman.

Batman is easier to to do right. His story and character are going to be much more identifiable to a modern audience. His motivation and personality are very clearly defined and have been thoroughly updated through the years in pop culture.

Superman is much more difficult to do correctly. His true character is harder to grasp. While Bruce Wayne is the mask that Batman wears, Clark Kent is the actual character. If Krypton hand't have blown up, Kal-El might have just been an average Joe. Superman is nearly invincible, so you have to make his struggle internal, and that's very, very hard to do without being boring and bland to most people.

Same goes for Star Wars and Star Trek. Star Wars has everything in it's favor to be done right. Star Trek actually takes a ridiculous amount of work to stay true to the concept but not be boring for modern audiences.

(Yes, my question on the first page of comments was largely rhetorical )

 

[Gasaraki]

Statistical[/url]":ebc54v9x]

I'll skip. I feel like the point of Star Trek might be lost on the people green lighting these sequels.

The point of "Star Trek" to the people greenlighting the sequels is to exploit it like a non-renewable resources. Think "drill, baby drill the movie edition". Drain as much cash from that carcass as possible for as many sequels as possible and then toss the dried husk into dustbin of mediocre movies which don't stand the test of time.

Based on the first two and trailer of the third one well they are executing nearly perfectly on that. I mean if Fast & Furious (a script about stealing cars) can get 7 sequels they can at least do the same for Trek. My guess is they will destroy the franchise AND make a metric ass ton of cash in the process. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Actually there are 3 more F&F movies coming out to finish the series. Noticed how even F&F has changed in to a super hero action movie instead of about street racing and steal VCRs.

 

[MisterAlex]

Star Trek transporters don't work based on physical contact with the one being locked onto. That's been made pretty clear in a number of instances, particularly in cases where "I was only able to get a clear lock on so-and-so." It's not as if Beverly ever said, "Crusher to Enterprise—beam me and everyone I'm hugging directly to sickbay."

 

[FutureScholar]

these movies are crap, Kirk is a comic book cliche and Spock (actor) is devoid of any personality or likability. And why so much action, that's not the reason people like this franchise?

 

[Gasaraki]

lint gravy[/url]"mzkxd0o]The "treating 300-year-old rock music as edgy" thing was done in ST:First Contact as well. It was just as stupid then. I mean I suppose you could make a modern-day actioner where the hunks and hunquettes are trippin' balls on Brahms but it's hard to see it really working.

In First Contact, they went beck to the past...

 

[StefanC]

I thought it was pretty nice.

Some editors clearly have vacuous taste and like to troll. The franchise will survive this back stabbing and might even benefit from it.

Bring it on says I!

 

[Snarky Robot]

One thing I will say is that I think this move may be somewhat necessary. Not "good"...but necessary. I came to enjoy Star Trek later in life, and will freely admit I have not seen all the movies...but have any of the movies had to fully cover every bit of character development? What I mean is that for my memory, the other Star Trek movies have followed behind a television series where a lot of the more contemplative stuff can happen. You can learn about characters, have the world "breathe" from time to time. Attempting to shoehorn in the characters makes them come off as caricatures. But here, there is no such thing. In order to pitch it to be sold, it's necessary that it has that mass appeal. the problem is that this is ALL there is.

In some ways, one can imagine, this is a solvable problem. You look at the Marvel universe and they're doing a lot of cross-planning. With Star Trek you don't need that, but you could easily have a situation where Netflix puts out a 13-episode season in between the years of the movies. They could have done this with Star Trek reboot, having the movie introduce the characters and then have actual character development and space exploration in the series, building tensions for a few seasons before having the trope-y, fast-paced movie.

It'd be interesting, I think, to see how a person with zero knowledge of the TV show would view the movies alone. Would they hold up? Would they make sense? First Contact builds around a tension that stems from the show, does it not? As does Wrath of Khan.

I'm not trying to excuse the new movies, they are absolutely trying for blockbuster rather than introspective sci-fi, but they also don't have as much "space" to work with as the other movies did, where there was time to truly explore.

Were I in charge, I'd probably see about correcting that. Make a series for Netflix that gives the characters the time to do what Star Trek did. Sure, build up over the years to a blockbuster, but do so knowing that you're not trying to shove everything into a 90-minute punch-fest.

Imagine a season of Cumberbatch as a character, a season of heightened tensions with the Klingons, a sense of fear and dread on border worlds, explorations cut short by the necessity of encroaching war...all of which is exploited by ambitious people who want to see the war happen, and the slow reveal of Khan as the architect of much of the conflict in the movie, payoff for a season's worth of tension.

The problem with the current Star Trek, I think, isn't just that it's too action-focused. It's that the action focus is ALL there is, because there's no TV show to develop a deeper understanding of the world.

 

[Carlos Teran]

Damn... it must be the crappiest Star Trek trailer I've ever seen... and I was in line for the premiere of Star Trek V: The Final Frontier. This movie is gonna suck, big time.

 

[SixDegrees]

On the plus side, it isn't nearly as bad as the just-released Batman vs. Superman trailer. That PoS looked like it was put together by a bunch of middle-school fan boys, who overlaid it with a videogame sound track.

Maybe BvS still has time to drop even more last-minute characters in, and can add the crew of the Enterprise to turn it into a crossover. It couldn't possibly get any worse.

 

[EvilJack]

The backing track to the trailer really should have been Intergalactic.

My one hope is that the TV series does not adopt Into Darkness as canon.

 

[SixDegrees]

Carlos Teran[/url]":2ijljp0p]Damn... it must be the crappiest Star Trek trailer I've ever seen... and I was in line for the premiere of Star Trek V: The Final Frontier. This movie is gonna suck, big time.

I take it you've never seen Star Trek: The Motion Picture

 

[Wickwick]

Operative Me[/url]":wqcl7asg]One thing I will say is that I think this move may be somewhat necessary. Not "good"...but necessary. I came to enjoy Star Trek later in life, and will freely admit I have not seen all the movies...but have any of the movies had to fully cover every bit of character development? What I mean is that for my memory, the other Star Trek movies have followed behind a television series where a lot of the more contemplative stuff can happen. You can learn about characters, have the world "breathe" from time to time. Attempting to shoehorn in the characters makes them come off as caricatures. But here, there is no such thing. In order to pitch it to be sold, it's necessary that it has that mass appeal. the problem is that this is ALL there is.

In some ways, one can imagine, this is a solvable problem. You look at the Marvel universe and they're doing a lot of cross-planning. With Star Trek you don't need that, but you could easily have a situation where Netflix puts out a 13-episode season in between the years of the movies. They could have done this with Star Trek reboot, having the movie introduce the characters and then have actual character development and space exploration in the series, building tensions for a few seasons before having the trope-y, fast-paced movie.

It'd be interesting, I think, to see how a person with zero knowledge of the TV show would view the movies alone. Would they hold up? Would they make sense? First Contact builds around a tension that stems from the show, does it not? As does Wrath of Khan.

I'm not trying to excuse the new movies, they are absolutely trying for blockbuster rather than introspective sci-fi, but they also don't have as much "space" to work with as the other movies did, where there was time to truly explore.

Were I in charge, I'd probably see about correcting that. Make a series for Netflix that gives the characters the time to do what Star Trek did. Sure, build up over the years to a blockbuster, but do so knowing that you're not trying to shove everything into a 90-minute punch-fest.

Imagine a season of Cumberbatch as a character, a season of heightened tensions with the Klingons, a sense of fear and dread on border worlds, explorations cut short by the necessity of encroaching war...all of which is exploited by ambitious people who want to see the war happen, and the slow reveal of Khan as the architect of much of the conflict in the movie, payoff for a season's worth of tension.

The problem with the current Star Trek, I think, isn't just that it's too action-focused. It's that the action focus is ALL there is, because there's no TV show to develop a deeper understanding of the world.

The only problem with that is usually people don't want to pay for stories or actors that are on TV (I'm sure there are a handful of exceptions). That's why, e.g. Pierce Brosnan was passed over as 007 when he was still contractually obligated to Remington Steele or the Star Trek movies were the old cast even though ST:TNG was out.

 

[SixDegrees]

FutureScholar[/url]":2j4f9fp0]these movies are crap, Kirk is a comic book cliche and Spock (actor) is devoid of any personality or likability. And why so much action, that's not the reason people like this franchise?

There seems to be a penchant developing to turn films into non-interactive video games. See also The Hobbit and Age of Ultron for a couple more recent examples.

And it's looking like Batman vs. Superman will be following the same unfortunate trend.

 

[Deke]

Star Trek: Beyond Recognition

I think they've given up on the original premise of Trek. They're taking dogshit, dicing it up into little pieces, serving it up on silverware and calling it caviar.

 

[SixDegrees]

I'll say it one more time, just because it needs to be said, even though there's no hope of it:

Bring back Firefly.

Please.

 

[not_a_misread]

lint gravy[/url]":109j6uvj]The "treating 300-year-old rock music as edgy" thing was done in ST:First Contact as well. It was just as stupid then. I mean I suppose you could make a modern-day actioner where the hunks and hunquettes are trippin' balls on Brahms but it's hard to see it really working.

OK. I redraw my comment. I didn't say Kirk would enjoy it. I said I did...

 

[potato44819]

SixDegrees[/url]":2930yo3f]I'll say it one more time, just because it needs to be said, even though there's no hope of it:

Bring back Firefly.

Please.

Not happening. Now go watch Dark Matter. It's basically Firefly meets Farscape.

Furthermore, I think this trailer does a great job of explaining why one should sometimes just let a franchise gracefully die instead of trying to re-animate its corpse over and over again.

 

[JPan]

I was prepared to like it. The star trek purists have caused a lot of suffering with philosophical star trek movies like 9. I would have killed to see something like the end of deep space 9 on a big screen. A big space battle not a single stupid ship like in 10.

How about federation klingon war dammit.

However I have to concur the trailer looks terrible.

 

[meelahi]

"From the director of Fast & Furious" are not words that I want to see in any Star Trek trailer."

Exactly what I thought when watching it.

The trailer seemed a like a movie version of the music industry's loudness war. They seem to have to idea what made Star Trek great or didn't know how to recreate that, instead went with as much explosion and action sequence as possible hoping that public will gobble it up. Sad part is they probably will, but it will not be the Star Trek I love. Basically,

bthylafh[/url]":2wpiw8f1]I don't know what that trailer is, but it's not Star Trek.

 

[tkioz]

After watching that trailer I feel... violated.

I was willing to give the reboots a chance, I really was, but damn this is just a step beyond.

I started watching TNG when I was seven years old with my grandfather and by the time I was in my teens I was *buying* VHS tapes with DS9 and Voyager on them because Australia was three years behind on broadcast. Yes I was such a huge nerd that I was spending every cent I earned on my after school jobs to buy video tapes of Star Trek, spending something like $40 a month at my local video store who special ordered them for me.

I played the boardgames, I brought the branded magazines and books and video games, I was an uber fan. Even Enterprise, Insurrection, and Nemesis couldn't put me off the series.

Yet none of the new movies have been aimed at people like me, its like watching a serial killer walk around wearing the skin of your best friend.

 

[Pablius]

While I have enjoyed much of it over the years, Star Trek is synonymous of bad acting and poor writing, from start to end, always has been

The problem is the lack of better options most of the time, but, who would watch any of it if there were 5 shows like the newer Galactica all the time? No one would, it would be at the bottom all the time

I have enjoyed the new movies for what they are, simple space action nonsense with big budgets. They are not infringing on anything sacred because there is nothing sacred there to begin with, only an old show that did something that nobody did before...badly and without any money

And they have been milking it since and will continue doing so for as long sci-fi continues to be an afterthought for the entertainment industry

 

[HexRei]

Wickwick[/url]":vgznuu5c]

Operative Me[/url]":vgznuu5c]One thing I will say is that I think this move may be somewhat necessary. Not "good"...but necessary. I came to enjoy Star Trek later in life, and will freely admit I have not seen all the movies...but have any of the movies had to fully cover every bit of character development? What I mean is that for my memory, the other Star Trek movies have followed behind a television series where a lot of the more contemplative stuff can happen. You can learn about characters, have the world "breathe" from time to time. Attempting to shoehorn in the characters makes them come off as caricatures. But here, there is no such thing. In order to pitch it to be sold, it's necessary that it has that mass appeal. the problem is that this is ALL there is.

In some ways, one can imagine, this is a solvable problem. You look at the Marvel universe and they're doing a lot of cross-planning. With Star Trek you don't need that, but you could easily have a situation where Netflix puts out a 13-episode season in between the years of the movies. They could have done this with Star Trek reboot, having the movie introduce the characters and then have actual character development and space exploration in the series, building tensions for a few seasons before having the trope-y, fast-paced movie.

It'd be interesting, I think, to see how a person with zero knowledge of the TV show would view the movies alone. Would they hold up? Would they make sense? First Contact builds around a tension that stems from the show, does it not? As does Wrath of Khan.

I'm not trying to excuse the new movies, they are absolutely trying for blockbuster rather than introspective sci-fi, but they also don't have as much "space" to work with as the other movies did, where there was time to truly explore.

Were I in charge, I'd probably see about correcting that. Make a series for Netflix that gives the characters the time to do what Star Trek did. Sure, build up over the years to a blockbuster, but do so knowing that you're not trying to shove everything into a 90-minute punch-fest.

Imagine a season of Cumberbatch as a character, a season of heightened tensions with the Klingons, a sense of fear and dread on border worlds, explorations cut short by the necessity of encroaching war...all of which is exploited by ambitious people who want to see the war happen, and the slow reveal of Khan as the architect of much of the conflict in the movie, payoff for a season's worth of tension.

The problem with the current Star Trek, I think, isn't just that it's too action-focused. It's that the action focus is ALL there is, because there's no TV show to develop a deeper understanding of the world.

The only problem with that is usually people don't want to pay for stories or actors that are on TV (I'm sure there are a handful of exceptions). That's why, e.g. Pierce Brosnan was passed over as 007 when he was still contractually obligated to Remington Steele or the Star Trek movies were the old cast even though ST:TNG was out.

Really? I thought Generations and First Contact both came out while Next Gen was still filming or at least airing new eps.

Regardless, I think this whole thing is also changing because of high budget, big-cast series from HBO, Showtime, AMC, Netflix. Matthew McConaghey's movie career doesnt seem to have suffered from doing True Detective. Halle Berry's series Extant was cancelled but I'm pretty sure she was courting/filming movies around the same time.

 

[sinewav]

I think it's fair to say that you're not looking forward to the movie based on a trailer. Anything beyond that is speculation. Way to early to judge the story or supposed sci-fi content yet.

For now I will enjoy our first glimpse into the next Star Trek.

 

[Hack-n-Slash]

Modern Major General Thanatos[/url]":328frqye]

SixDegrees[/url]":328frqye]I'll say it one more time, just because it needs to be said, even though there's no hope of it:

Bring back Firefly.

Please.

Not happening. Now go watch Dark Matter. It's basically Firefly meets Farscape.

Not sure where you're pulling the Farscape aspect from.
It's pretty much a straight-up poor man's Firefly from what I've seen.

 

[mlprice]

When I first watched the trailer I thought that after all the criticism, they didn't listen to a word any Star Trek fan said. They just doubled down and cranked out more crap. The Star Trek toga party part 3.

As I watched it I thought, this is basically Star Trek The Fast and the Furious.

I had no idea when I thought that, that the movie was indeed directed by the same person as the Fast and The Furious. Talk about wrong man for the job.

I wouldn't be surprised to see midget bowling in this movie.

I grew up in South Central Los Angeles. Star Trek was my escape from a crappy public school and the violence in the streets. Star Trek was my catalyst for majoring in Computer Science. It was my gateway drug for science fiction. I know we shouldn't take this stuff seriously but I cannot help but feel angry. In fact I'm disgusted.

To say I'm fond of Star Trek would be an understatement. When I look at this newest trailer, all I can think is that it's over. Star Trek is officially dead now. CBS should back away from any attempt to do new Star Trek Television. Either hand it over to the BSG crew or give it up. Fans are producing better quality stories on no budget at all.

This link is the most criticized scene of the most criticized Star Trek movie (pre-Abrams) and it is leaps and bounds better than anything Abrams and company have pooped out. https://youtu.be/b52b4yORX6U

 

[Zak]

brutaltruth[/url]":2cz6uz3v]Star Wars > Star Trek. Always been that way, always will.

Even the worst of Hayden Christensen's acting in the prequels is better than original Star Trek performances.

Star Trek fans are just another group blinded by nostalgia. The original series was extremely cheesy.

I'm a fan of both but in your world it seems impossible...

 

[SixDegrees]

HexRei[/url]":1m63mnx6]

Wickwick[/url]":1m63mnx6]

Operative Me[/url]":1m63mnx6]One thing I will say is that I think this move may be somewhat necessary. Not "good"...but necessary. I came to enjoy Star Trek later in life, and will freely admit I have not seen all the movies...but have any of the movies had to fully cover every bit of character development? What I mean is that for my memory, the other Star Trek movies have followed behind a television series where a lot of the more contemplative stuff can happen. You can learn about characters, have the world "breathe" from time to time. Attempting to shoehorn in the characters makes them come off as caricatures. But here, there is no such thing. In order to pitch it to be sold, it's necessary that it has that mass appeal. the problem is that this is ALL there is.

In some ways, one can imagine, this is a solvable problem. You look at the Marvel universe and they're doing a lot of cross-planning. With Star Trek you don't need that, but you could easily have a situation where Netflix puts out a 13-episode season in between the years of the movies. They could have done this with Star Trek reboot, having the movie introduce the characters and then have actual character development and space exploration in the series, building tensions for a few seasons before having the trope-y, fast-paced movie.

It'd be interesting, I think, to see how a person with zero knowledge of the TV show would view the movies alone. Would they hold up? Would they make sense? First Contact builds around a tension that stems from the show, does it not? As does Wrath of Khan.

I'm not trying to excuse the new movies, they are absolutely trying for blockbuster rather than introspective sci-fi, but they also don't have as much "space" to work with as the other movies did, where there was time to truly explore.

Were I in charge, I'd probably see about correcting that. Make a series for Netflix that gives the characters the time to do what Star Trek did. Sure, build up over the years to a blockbuster, but do so knowing that you're not trying to shove everything into a 90-minute punch-fest.

Imagine a season of Cumberbatch as a character, a season of heightened tensions with the Klingons, a sense of fear and dread on border worlds, explorations cut short by the necessity of encroaching war...all of which is exploited by ambitious people who want to see the war happen, and the slow reveal of Khan as the architect of much of the conflict in the movie, payoff for a season's worth of tension.

The problem with the current Star Trek, I think, isn't just that it's too action-focused. It's that the action focus is ALL there is, because there's no TV show to develop a deeper understanding of the world.

The only problem with that is usually people don't want to pay for stories or actors that are on TV (I'm sure there are a handful of exceptions). That's why, e.g. Pierce Brosnan was passed over as 007 when he was still contractually obligated to Remington Steele or the Star Trek movies were the old cast even though ST:TNG was out.

Really? I thought Generations and First Contact both came out while Next Gen was still filming or at least airing new eps.

Regardless, I think this whole thing is also changing because of high budget, big-cast series from HBO, Showtime, AMC, Netflix. Matthew McConaghey's movie career doesnt seem to have suffered from doing True Detective. Halle Berry's series Extant was cancelled but I'm pretty sure she was courting/filming movies around the same time.

I've read that the Hollywood studios aren't making nearly as many films as they did just a few years ago. Whereas in the past they would churn out maybe a couple dozen per year, now they're focused on putting out 3 or 4 major, huge-budget blockbusters. This, it's said, has led to a loss of work for a lot of the people who used to work on all those other films, and you've seen a migration of A-grade talent over to the television realm, where cable is starved for content and has the dough to produce it themselves. So we're seeing really high-quality television now in comparison to the past as it absorbs all that excess talent.

Speaking of which: looking forward to the debut of both The Expanse and Childhood's End on SyFy, which both seem like pretty huge steps up from Sharknado.

 

[sluggo042]

Isn't that Beastie Boys track just a callout to the first Chris Pine Trek? The sequence where young Kirk steals the car and is chased by the hover-cop? Not that anyone was really wistful for the first Chris Pine Trek, but at least they could tell the money people, "Look, we've added a callout to the last Trek that made money for you!".