New STAR TREK BEYOND Image Released

A new image has surfaced from Star Trek Beyond showing Idris Elba’s villain up against a certain starship captain.


Entertainment Weekly has released a new interview with Star Trek Beyond villain Idris Elba about his new mysterious character. Along with it came this new shot from the film.

Elba talked about the villain, named Krall, and how he is a totally new addition to the Star Trek Universe.

Yes. What’s interesting about him is that he has a real beef with what the Enterprise stands for. Krall’s a character who’s deeply steeped in hatred — in my opinion, a well-earned hatred — for the Federation. It felt quite political. There’s a relatability to what’s happening in our world. Not everybody’s happy with what everybody calls the good guys.

Krall is predatory. He’s not one for big speeches. He is one for going to get what he wants. If that means having to do it himself, outside of his army, he is not afraid to do that.

As with any latex-clad Star Trek actor, Elba talked about the hard work of putting on the makeup and costume each day.

Typically, my day would start at 4:15 in the morning. I’d be in the chair until around 7:30, shoot about 8:30. Shot ‘til around 9 at night, maybe later. Get home, unwind, get to sleep, and then wake up in the morning and do the whole thing again. It was definitely an extensive process. I learned so much about working with prosthetics, and how that can influence the performance. I’m claustrophobic by the way; I don’t like rubber masks on my face.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

That photo of him holding Kirk up in the air reminds me of the famous TOS Gorn episode.

when i saw the first trailer, the one scene i liked is where kirk is thrown around like a ragdoll….on the TOS kirk got his butt kicked alot and was thrown around the engineering room or the surface of a planet a lot, so i thought that was a nice nod to the original, something we couldn’t have seen a shatner movie era kirk do

What about when he fought Kruge on Genesis? Or when Sybok picked him up and slammed him into the shuttle? Or on Rura Penthe when he fought Martia?

Well, Kirk did kick Kruge in his forehead until he fell into Genesis Hell … Sybok is a call because of the family thing … an Kirk did manage to get Martia phasered … just saying.


Well, at least Idris Elba uses the term, Federation, correctly. That “the Federation is a peacekeeping armada” from the 1st JJTrek was laughable.

The whole movie was laughable.

That’s your opinion, mate. I always took the line as to compliment how GR himself always intended Star Fleet to be (prioritizing it’s humanitarian and scientific abilities being at least equal or favored over it’s military capabilities). Pike’s line just nails it. That being said, its unclear if he means the Federation = Star Fleet specifically or the UFP as a political entity…

He = Mr. Elda

@Pensive\’s Wetness – The problem has nothing to do with GR’s intentions for Starfleet (one word) as a “humanitarian and scientific” group. Nobody objects to Pike using the word “peacekeeping.” What we object to is the part where Pike called the Federation an “armada.”

See, an armada is a fleet of ships, which means Pike should have said “Starfleet is a peacekeeping armada.” Instead, he described the Federation–a multi-planet government–as an armada. Pike’s line is like saying “The United States Government is a fleet of ships…” It’s just factually incorrect.

And no, you can’t justify it as Federation = Starfleet. There’s no rational justification for that.

Pike’s line was sloppy writing, just like Khan’s line in STID about the Enterprise’s “aft nacelle.” Um, no, there are port and starboard nacelles, but there is no aft nacelle–

–and the Federation is not an armada. At least, not in a world where words have definitions.

Everything about these movies are laughable. That this image is something they are proud of and want to shoe off is laughable, too.

I believe the phrase was. “Starfleet is a peacekeeping armada” not the federation

Interesting image. However, it could any actor under that makeup …


True, but he does have a pretty strong and distinctive voice.

I don’t think I have ever heard the actor’s voice. I won’t hear it in the cinema, too. So it probably will be like with Zoe Saldana in Avatar and a lot of people won’t know, which actor is behind the alien face.

Kirk: Humans are friends, not food! (Hoping Krall didn’t walk out of Nemo early.)

Krall, Space Chiropractor
Now Doing House Calls!

Damn it, you made me look. It looks like he has the Tony Stark battery pack on his chest, too.
Krall: You look thirsty. Do you want some of my Slusho?
Kirk: No. Thanks for asking…

Space chianti. Where the hell are the fava beans?

So he’s having his old friend Kirk for dinner? ;-)

Note: Negative Votes on this post by the weak-minded are encouraged and appreciated. Ref:

Wait, a Star Trek villain who isn’t one for big speeches? How is that going to work?

His rants will be performed entirely in mime.

“Krall’s a character who’s deeply steeped in hatred — in my opinion, a well-earned hatred — for the Federation. It felt quite political. There’s a relatability to what’s happening in our world. Not everybody’s happy with what everybody calls the good guys.”

Krall sounds to me like someone who considers the ever expanding Federation as a form of an aggressive colonization force that need to be stopped.

“Krall is predatory. He’s not one for big speeches.”

Thanks God for that!

It’s going to be another ‘America is evil’ storyline. Great. That’ll just what we need.

I don’t know, we’ll have to wait for the movie to know for sure. But, at least it looks like they came up with a clear & different motivation for Krall.

The racist, xenophobic, USA is evil? That’s news, not sci-fi

@ Harry Plinkett

Well, it’s Donald Trump anyways. :-)

Note: Negative Votes on this post by the weak-minded are encouraged and appreciated. Ref:

Screw you. Merica

America, and by extension the West, don’t have to be seen as “evil” to be seen as a threat. Ever heard of “cultural imperialism”? Just because the West isn’t controlling territory that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a form of dominance at work, nor does it mean that Western values are wanted. So when there is blowback, sometimes a violent one, we in the West tend to be surprised. ” Why are you doing this? We’re your friends!” Meanwhile the other side might say, “If you want to be our friend, the leave us alone!” Sounds to me that Federation hegemony is rubbing some people the wrong way…

Why are some here assuming that the film is a knock against the US necessarily?

If one looks at what the Taliban, now ISIS, has been and is doing, it comes off as being a sort (religious) imperialism. Clearly, the ISIS adherents believe they are doing good in making sure their view of how a society should function and Islam be practised, to the point where they are not only persecuting/murdering those not of the “faith”, but also those who are Islamic by faith, but don’t/won’t hold to and do what the ISIS think they should do. This is the main reason why Europe is facing a refugee crisis in unprecedented proportions right now.

Sometimes, not everything is about the US.
Also what we call Western values are many and some come with a long history. Many in other parts of the world, including parts of the middle east, may actually want some of these values and ideas to be taken on board within their own societal structures because they see genuine merit in them. It does not necessarily mean that they agree with all, however the traditional powers that be want to resist because they fear their own loss of authority. Some women do not want to wear a hijab etc or would like to be able to drive their kids to school ((I believe women in Saudi Arabia are not even allowed to drive a car)… AND are sick of being seen as mere sex objects/baby factories by the men in those places.

Great point Keachick. Not everything is about America.

Agreed, SPAIN and Portugal were great colonizers

Seriously! Really sick of it, personally.

@BobToday 3:25 pm
“It’s going to be another ‘America is evil’ storyline. Great. That’ll just what we need.”

Funny how TUP said nearly the EXACT same thing in another thread just a few hours earlier today:

TUPToday 11:10 am
“Hmmm another film about the big bad United States and their evil intentions policing the world?”

Wow, what a coincidence, “Bob”


Whoops! :-)) LOL

Mods have my complete permission and encouragement to say if Bob and myself are the same person. Because we certainly are not. But it dpesnt surprise me that you’d be on the look out for sock puppets…lol

I don’t know any TUP and I don’t know what thread you’re referring to. I do know J.J. is a huge ‘progressive’. Anyone who say STID knows that.

OK, Bob. Say, is you see Ibling Caesar around, tell him that mom says dinner is ready.

Note: Negative Votes on this post by the weak-minded are encouraged and appreciated. Ref:

It reminds me Kor in Errand of Mercy

Another pissed off uber-enemy. Is it vengeance?

And an even better look at these hilariously awful Statfleet Uniforms.

They are fine. You just have no taste.

They spend 90% of their time in the same red, blue, and gold from TOS. Not a fan of the original series, are you?

On the other hand, I’m very excited to see Idris perform! Going to be the one saving grace of this film.

Someone has censored out something on those panels to the left, for some reason (black splotches).

This also reminds me of the conversation between Sisko & Kira in the DS9 pilot about the role of the Federation:

Benjamin Sisko: Is something bothering you, Major?
Kira Nerys: You don’t want to ask me that, Commander.
Benjamin Sisko: Why not?
Kira Nerys: Because I have the bad habit of telling the truth, even when people don’t want to hear it.
Benjamin Sisko: Perhaps I want to hear it.
Kira Nerys: I don’t believe the Federation has any business being here.
Benjamin Sisko: The provisional government disagrees with you.
Kira Nerys: The provisional government and I don’t agree on a lot of things which is probably why they sent me to this god-forsaken place. I have been fighting for Bajoran independence…ever since I was old enough to pick up a phaser. We finally drive the Cardassians out, and what do our new leaders do? The call up the Federation and invite them right in!
Benjamin Sisko: The Federation is only here to help…
Kira Nerys:…help us, I know. The Cardassians said the same thing sixty years ago.

DS9 was prescient in so many ways. It seems that some in fandom today no longer believes as much in the progressive values that helped make Trek such a fantastic franchise. I think has always been secular humanist and liberal at its core.

Another alien opponent lifts Kirk by the throat. Kirk croaks something. The alien leans in and asks, “What?”
Kirk chokes out: “Able was I, ere I saw Elba.”

Capt Dunsel, Thank you for the ROFL!

Thank YOU! I was seriously afraid no one would get that one!

Fun enuf!

PUNY humanses! You are so easy to lift off the ground with one HAND!”


I’d like to see him try that with Montalban’s Khan. The end result would probably have both of them defying gravity.

Lift with your legs to prevent back pain.

Whoever wrote that Entertainment Weekly piece is an idiot. We’ve known his name, his appearance and his motivation for months now, and no one has been claiming he’s a Gorn. What a remarkably stupid and entirely non-newsworthy report.

This movie is being kept secret for one reason. Bomb.

The movie is not being kept secret. If it was, we would have nothing to talk about. Its story, main contents are not being revealed in order not to spoil anything for those who actually want to wait to see the story unfold when they watch it in the cinema. We know enough already.

Good on Justin Lin, JJ Abrams, et al for not allowing stupid leaks etc this time round.

“Its story, main contents are not being revealed in order not to spoil anything for those who actually want to wait to see the story unfold when they watch it in the cinema.” — Keachick

You and Casey actually typed this in the comment section of an article (which should have a SPOILER notice BTW) as it freely and openly revealed that Krall is NOT just another attacking menace with a ship but THIS time one with an ARMY?

If JJ himself posted the script today, Rose would post how wonderful it is that they are giving the fans that want it a full look at the film. Her opinion is completely biased.

And yours not? Look, we all have biases. The question is whether or not those biases get in the way of an honest analysis of the ‘Trek franchise. Example: I think TFF is the worse of the ‘Trek film franchise from a technical and directing level. However, the script had some pretty interesting ideas, and the cast, in spite of it all, carried the movie. But, in the end, I can still enjoy a bad ‘Trek film because, at the end of the day, the people behind and in front of the camera did put an effort into making the final product. Now, compare that to NEM. Technically, it was a better film, and the direction was solid. The premise was on point, and very much into keeping with the type of themes that ‘Trek is known for. However, the performance of the actors was lackluster, and the resolution to the story was “lacking”. But, at the end of the day, I can still watch the film as a ‘Trek film, and still be entertained.

And thus, that is why I don’t understand the hate for the JJ Abrams films, because, at the end of the day, they are still ‘Trek films. The question shouldn’t be which film you liked or disliked, but rather which film you liked the most, and which one you liked the least. IMO, of course.

Actually no, I am not biased. If STB is great, I will joyfully say so. I do not hope its bad. Rose probably has her review already written and its glowing.

The JJ film lovers are very reluctant to admit any short comings with the films or anything surrounding the films. Their backs are up over criticism. I can understand that to a degree but when you start rejecting reasonable arguments or criticism, then you lose credibility.

They also like to paint anyone who is critical of anything as general and unabashed haters which also isn’t true. Im sure some people hate both films. I liked 09. It had its issues but I generally liked it and was looking forward to STID.

I defended the use of Khan. Until I saw it.

TUP and BIASED are twins that were separated at birth. ;-))

Note: Negative Votes on this post by the weak-minded are encouraged and appreciated. Ref:

@Prodigal – you’re an goof. Can you please stop with the off topic posts designed solely to insult or attack?

What’s a “an Goof?” Is that related to a Mongoose?

Nope. Its called a typo. I guess you dont make typos. I was calling you “an idiot” but softened the post and neglected to remove the “n”. But your post proved my original thought correct. Thank you.

Enough with all your hate on Keachick. It’s really getting old.

Note: Negative Votes on this post by the weak-minded are encouraged and appreciated. Ref:

@Prodigal – you’re entire shtick is getting really old. I havent included any “disclaimers” attached to every post about a subject like you have. Take your own advice kid.

besides, no hate whatsoever. But as long as she continues to make posts that are little more than personal attacks or insults, I’ll be sure to continue schooling her remarks when required. As I do yours.

TUP – “But as long as she (Keachick) continues to make posts that are little more than personal attacks or insults”

I have not made any personal attacks or insults. I simply stated that the movie is not being kept a secret, which is fact. Also I congratulated the BR team for not giving away much and that there weren’t leaks. This is the opposite of being insulting to anyone.

I am tired of being picked on and libelled on this site by TUP.


“I have not made any personal attacks or insults”

“You are a dumbass.”

“the post above is what might be termed an “insult”

“Calling someone a “dumbass” is an insult”

I rest my case! :-)

By the way:

A libel is a malicious, false statement in written media, a broadcast, or otherwise published words.

Id like to know where you were libeled. lol

People have made what others deem insults on this site over time and I have been one of them, but not by any means, the only person. Until I agreed with Harry Plinkett in calling TUP a “dumbass”, I had not made any insults on these latest threads and yet TUP keeps claiming that I have. That is what I meant by him libeling me.

@Rose – well you’ve now defeated your claims of libel having you? “He libels me by saying I’ve insulted him when I havent.” “He’s a dumbass”. End of case. lol

Also, you once again repeat the insult while playing the victim card and dont have enough personal pride to apologize. Shame on you. Now let’s please move on, if you cant bring yourself to do the right thing, at least try to be mature about the discussions here.

@ Keachick @ Trekmovie Moderators

Keachick: “I am tired of being picked on and libelled on this site by TUP.”

Yea, it’s getting out of hand. Jared or anyone from Trekmovie who is reading this — please deal with TUP soon on this ongoing behavioral issue. Some of his posts against Rose in recent months have been uncomfortably misogynistic as well. ENOUGH!

@Prodigal – I think the last thing you want is mods here looking that closely at behavior of posters. Especially given your past. Were you finally told to knock off your silly “disclaimer” or did you have an attack of personal pride?

But hey, if you cannot defeat someone in a discussion and if you cannot simply discuss the topics at hand without the NEED to defeat someone then go to Plan C – lobbying the mods. You’re a sad little man. And I hope you FINALLY heed my repeated calls for you and Phil to stop with the petty insults, irrelevant posts and attacks and go back to simply discussing Star Trek like responsible mature adults.

Im fairly certain you can do it. I believe in you.

I don’t think it’s being kept secret, I just think it’s being under marketed.


@Lostrod – another great voice of reason post. And I agree with you.

The reaction to the trailer shows a studio unwilling or unable to respond to criticism.

Some here said it was a specific trailer for a specific (Star Wars) audience. Which made no sense of course. And they said we’d be seeing more general trailers. Never happened.

If Im an exec at the studio and see the reaction to the Sabotage trailer, I’m sending them back in the editing room to create a more traditional one…as soon as possible. Not pretend it never happened for months.

Can anyone think of another major ‘event’ movie like this that was kept so under wraps? I can’t.

I’m hoping for the best here but I think you’re right. They know it’s a bomb.

Here’s my instant 5 — let me know if you need more:





The Matrix

Note: Negative Votes on this post by the weak-minded are encouraged and appreciated. Ref:

SERIOUSLY TUP….I just list movies that are known to have little marketing, and you multi-vote me down by 15.

LOL. Maybe just multivote me down by 6 or 7 next time to keep what you are doing lesss obvious to all.

Note: Negative Votes on this post by the weak-minded are encouraged and appreciated. Ref:

“SERIOUSLY TUP….I just list movies that are known to have little marketing, and you multi-vote me down by 15.”

No I didnt. You’re simply lying as per usual. How to you suspect I am able to down vote you 15 times? And if I could why wouldnt I up vote myself 15 times? Give your head a shake…

“Can anyone think of another major ‘event’ movie like this that was kept so under wraps? I can’t.”

10 Cloverfield Lane
Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Star Trek into Darkness

Wait a minute. Aren’t these films produce by JJ Abrams, the guy who is enamored by his “Mystery Box Theory”?

To be fair, that Is not Prodigal Son’s full list.

Gary, you are refering to someone else’s list. My list did not include TFA, which was pre-marketed significantly. No worries though — thanks.

Note: Negative Votes on this post by the weak-minded are encouraged and appreciated. Ref:

To be fair, there was TONS of information out about TFA all throughout their production. And while they tried to keep the plot under wraps they certainly released a lot of information

Good point. We shouldn’t second-guess the producers before the movie is even released. They have seen fit in any case to provide a SPECIAL FAN EVENT at Paramount itself. Should be most excellent.

I’m not persuaded that the movie is being kept “under wraps,” and I see no evidence that makes me fear the movie is a “bomb.”

I like everything I’ve seen and heard about it, I am confident in Simon Pegg, based on his other work, and I have positive expectations. My personal impatience for the next trailer has nothing to do with the marketing of STB by itself.

I am more concerned about there not being an overall marketing plan for the 50th Anniversary given the movie, the TV show, and the other planned events.

I really think that if CBS and Paramount do not produce a 50th Anniversary retrospective for television, they are missing a golden opportunity to reintroduce and market the franchise to a new generation.

@ dmduncan: A 50th Anniversary documentary from CBS and Paramount might not happen because of conflicting interests. On the one hand, you’ve got CBS who owns the TV side. Until the new series comes out next year they make all their money from “old Star Trek” (i.e. prime universe), and if rumors about the new series are true it will also be set in the old continuity.
On the other hand, you’ve got Paramount who basically decided to drop “old Star Trek” and start anew with the 2009 movie. They are invested in this new version of Star Trek, now. Getting those two to work together on something that spans all of Star Trek might not be easy.

It’s a mutually beneficial project. They share the fan base, both old and new, and drawing crowds to one helps the other. Especially since they do not compete with each other in the same medium (TV and movies), it’s a win win, and you cannot have a proper retrospective without including both TV and movie franchises, so cooperation is essential.

If Les Moonves of CBS thinks “Trek” is the CBS family jewels or whatever he keeps calling it, he should “motivate” and get some tributes or retrospectives made that include the Paramount films as well, since they are part of the 50-year history.

Is it being kept under wraps or is there just less interest in the film from the general public and entertainment news, as well as the usual bloggers and spoiler peeps?

Paramount arent idiots. They know how to control the message and generate a narrative. Making sure everyone thought this movie was a “fun thrill ride” or a “emotional character film in keeping with Lin’s best work on F&F” would have been reasonable. But they dont seem to have a message or narrative for what STB is or what we’re supposed to think of it.

There was way more hype for 09 and STID.

Well, is anybody talking in detail about other late summer movies already?

It’s still early. Yeah, I’d like to see more. Personally, I’m not worried yet. And I do worry when I see a long trailer a year before something is released (like that Chris Pine storm movie I still haven’t seen). Even the endless BvS stuff made me worry about their lack of confidence in the film.

We’re not even at the annual lists of most anticipated summer movies stage yet.

There will be endless press junkets and billboards and bus ads soon enough.

My favourite Trek marketing surprise was when I saw a TV spot in university for Undiscovered Country (while watching TNG – the only show I watched that year – in the guys’ dorm rec room on a Friday night with all the other geeks). It was like a couple weeks before and I’d had no idea it was coming out. It was the best surprise ever (before that I’d followed the movies through the pipeline – and had usually read the novel before the movie came out). I was there on opening night.

And most of the movies I’ve seen this year I’d barely heard of a week before I saw them. You see what’s playing at the movie theatre, you check the reviews on your phone (or the opposite order) and then you go see it — tent poles require more buzz, sure – but…

That has nothing to do with anything, btw. But I’m curious whether film marketing is changing.

Where would it air? On CBS? Would folks still watch a clip show/retrospective in 2016? Did anyone watch that friends one?

Sorry – honestly curious. Not trying to attack your suggestion.

…and possibly reshooting scenes that need more of the GR concepts…

What do ya know, a picture of Kirk once again getting his ass kicked by the bad guy.

Spock got Kirk by the neck.
Nero got Kirk by the neck.
Ayel got Kirk by the neck.

Does this guy have a tattoo on his neck that says “grab here?!”

No, but he must have a heckuva tough neck.

Kick is from Iowa he only gets his neck grabbed in outer space.

IDK why I read this site. Movies take time to finish, and when you have hundreds of millions invested, you can rework decent ideas and make them better. Maybe this film will end up no better than a third season throw away. But all this speculation that the film is a bomb makes me think that people here think they understand a lot about how movies are made, when clearly they know nothing.

Holding back your story is a privilege and fans should respect it! The studio owes you nothing! Not even a trailer. What if you had the chance to see a Star Trek feature film without even having a chance to see any footage or image? Would that be cool? But no. We want to see the distillation of a two hour product into three minutes. And that makes or breaks everything. We all suck.

Hi all…I’ve not been around this corner of the multi-verse for awhile, and I see the site has been overhauled somewhat since I last looked in, lol. Personally, It won’t be bothering me in the slightest whether anyone ‘dislikes’ any of my future comments…but I’m sure gonna miss the post numbering that used to be here, which made it very easy to reference certain comments. I’m missing the old layout already, but this is ‘progress’ I guess?


Anyway, moving on…I still can’t believe that the makers of this have chosen to turn the eminently-watchable Idris Elba into some random ‘bumpy-head’ obscured by very heavy makeup!

He’s obviously a big ‘Trek’ fan to do so (and yeah, I’m sure a healthy paycheck helped his decision also)…but I was disheartened to hear that this was the way the makers of this thing had chosen to use him, considering I was so enthused about hearing of his involvement in this franchise initially.

Sure, this ‘Krall’ character might end up being somewhat okay as a ‘Trek’ villain in the end…but I would have far preferred to NOT have this fine actor’s expressive features hidden from view. Never mind that motorcycle jump…to me, this was the worst thing I discovered from the initial trailer, and an opportunity lost. ANYONE could have been stuck under that amount of obscuring makeup, and Idris could have made a terrific ‘Federation’ member of some kind instead, for instance – hell, he would have made a terrific alternative-‘Harry Mudd’ even, if it comes to that. Oh well. So big marks off in my book, over this issue alone – but I’m sure there’ll be others… ;)

As far as the pic above goes…t’s nice to see some colorful lighting in the corridor at least, as it channels a little of the TOS look somewhat, at least.

I disagree. At least until I’ve seen Elba’s performance. Prosthetics don’t necessarily hide an actor’s performance. For example, I can’t imagine any actor other than Andy Robinson as Garak. He made that character come to life, prosthetics or no

Or Marc Alaimo as Gul Dukat. He should’ve gotten an Emmy. In many ways, that demented, charismatic character made the show.

I hope we see at least as much of Mr Elba’s face as we did the actors playing Cardassians. From what I saw it looks like Krall will be as completely covered as a Jem Hadar. That would be a real stomach-clutcher for me, being, like Idris Elba, claustrophobic.

@Marja – Dukat was a favorite of mine. I agreed with the actor that they did the character a dis-service with how they portrayed him in the end. Although when watching the seasons in quick succession, it flowed better than watching them “live”. But I always felt a Dukat redemption would have been a better arc for that character.

I guess they sort of filled that Cardassion Redemption story with Dukat’s former right hand man, who’s name escapes me (Dumar?), the one with the drinking problem who eventually rose to the occasion.

“Prosthetics don’t necessarily hide an actor’s performance. ” — Redshirt Rosie

While true, it is of concern that Elba admits that this is his first attempt to perform a role using such. However, I have found that actors under prosthetics that have experience in radio drama or other voice acting work usually compensate quite adequately and he does have that going for him.

Mr. Elba has been doing lots of voice-overs lately (Zootopia, The Jungle Book). I’m always very happy to hear his distinctive bass voice, but sad that Beyond felt it necessary to encase his face. I hope it’s not because people of color don’t “play” well overseas.

I would love to see him as a starship captain gone rogue for deeply felt humanistic reasons, but we kinda had that already, except Marcus had deeply held, warlike reasons..

I believe this movie will bring in new fans.

Yes they do actually owe us in fact. If we are to be paying customers to a product they want to sell then they owe us an inight into what it is that we will be paying for, and that involves advertising.

If you went into an electronics store to buy a TV would you want to buy one if the sales rep said: “Sorry but we dont owe you the time to explain and show you what it is you are going to be parting your hard earned cash for”? That’s poor customer service and they certainly wouldn’t last very long in the business.

No one expects a dissemination of the story being presented in Star Trek Beyond, but we do at least want some idea of it to be presented in a trailer. So far what has been presented has been average at best which makes me wonder if this movie is worth parting cash for.

They don’t owe you or anyone else anything. It’s a commercial property, but it’s also art. You don’t have to go. But if you knew there was a new Star Trek with no trailer, I bet you’d be first on line physically. Unfortunately, the whole film culture is geared to make you feel like you’re getting something in the trailer itself, not intrigue as to why you ought to go see the film and find out for yourself. It’s like all these pathetic apps which tell you which restaurants to eat in. Do you really think everyone likes food the same way you do? Likes it prepared the way you might like it prepared? Frankly, we should just do away with menus entirely. I’d like a world like that. Just go in, lay down your cash and eat.

“What if you had the chance to see a Star Trek feature film without even having a chance to see any footage or image?”

Regardless of Star Trek, I would not see such a film in the cinema. Too expensive for cinema tickets these days, with a bunch of loud mouth kids playing on their phones, ruining the experience etc. If I’m gonna be subjected to all that, I wanna know what I’m getting into before setting foot inside. Period.

@Trek In A Cafe,

“The studio owes you nothing! Not even a trailer.”

True if the studio in question was “State Committee for Cinematography” in the USSR and not Paramount Pictures!

Trek In A Cafe,

Well, it is true that one of the financial backers of this endeavor actually created what became his Skydance company to back a vanity project, FLYBOYS. And it is just fine if that’s what he intends to do with STAR TREK BEYOND as well. But I think he and his other partners owe it to their own self-interest in making a profit from their work from its theater exhibition to put together a trailer that at the very least raises the attention of the potential theatergoers that their product IS out there and just as viable for potential entertainment as their competition that IS, HAS, and WILL put out trailers if not already well-before May 20th?

“Is this the guy who likes listening to Beastie Boys?”

Like Darth Vader in a new hope.

Elba is a great actor. Loved him in several movies. It really remains to be seen if this production crew screwed up this script like they did in STID. Yeah, it’s different writers, but the producers are mostly the same. What was so frustrating for me about STID was forcing Cumberbatch into the role of Khan (why did he HAVE to be Khan, like we could just forget about Ricardo Montalban) and flipping the script in Kirk’s death scene (didn’t really care about Kirk dying; hardly knew this iteration of him). It is encouraging that this will be a new voyage on the frontier. But the trailer was an abomination and makes me expect Fast and Furious in Space. I hope I am wrong. I like this cast, although not everything that has been done with the characters. I am trying to reserve judgment but it’s difficult after seeing that trailer and after STID. Hopefully the next trailer will give me some hope.

Elba is a great actor, but Pine is a lousy actor. Such a bad actor deserves to be strangled by such a good actor.

Talk about a harsh review, whoa.

The review of Pine’s acting? Yes, it was ovely harsh. I like Pine. He’s no generational acting talent or anything but he’s fine. I think in Star Trek he’s been hurt by sometimes uneven or poor dialogue and poor directing.

Those moments when he conjures up some familiar Kirk-ness are really good. I dont want a Shatner impression but more moments where Pine *becomes* James Kirk would be nice. He can really pull off some of the more subtle (and not so subtle) things Shatner brought to the role.

Im thinking specifically of how he sits in the Captain’s chair. And at the end of 09 when he walks on the bridge, takes a quick look around and says “Bones…”

@Timncc – I am cautiously optimistic about the writing for STB. Not to rehash, but you’re right, the writing of STID was awful. But generally speaking, if you look at other works by those writers, STID was a good example of the ceiling to their talent. They just arent that good.

Pegg is pretty clever so I expect more wit and a less simpleton approach to the dialogue.

And you hit upon the big failing with STID – we simply didnt care. Spock’s death scene in Wrath of Khan was emotional and heavy and meaningful because we DID care. We had 20 years with these characters. Its the same reason the destruction of the Enterprise was emotional and meaningful in TSFS.

Kirk dying in STID meant very little. We didnt believe it, for one. And Kirk never learned anything anyway. It didnt feel like a great sacrifice like Spock’s death did in WoK which was written and directed in such a suspenseful way where our hearts sank as we realised what Spock was doing, held out hope for a miraculous save at the end and wept when it didnt happen. We saw the death through Kirk’s eyes from the moment Scotty told him he better get down here, better hurry. And it broke our hearts.

None of that happened in STID.

Spock’s reaction was meant to show us that he had realised the depth of his friendship with Kirk. But the weakness is in telling us how the characters feel rather than showing us. Spock weeping for Kirk, a death in the line of duty, when he was stoic and emotionally reserved when his mother and home planet were destroyed rang hollow. It was a dichotomy for the sake of being a dichotomy. The reactions of the character changing based on the writers’ whims and their need to hit us with how WE are supposed to feel.

In WoK, Spock never cried over his own death. Kirk didnt weep. He reacted as we’d expect him to. The one thing I liked about the whole STID death thing was Spock’s pursuit of Khan. Forget the stupid CJI leaping from ship to ship, the foot chase was exciting to me. The hard hard running showed me a Spock, his face showing no emotion but his actions showing us the importance to him of this task before him. I assume there was a scene cut where Spock stops and tells a passer by that he must run as fast as he can because he is so angry and sad. lol

The whole new universe new Star Trek is based is laughable. I am rapidly losing interest in this new star Trek.

This site is like talk radio…where all the like-minded fans gather to spew their rhetoric to each other so much so that they’re so immersed in it they actually believe the tiny bubble they are in actually reflects the real world at large. Fascinating.

Or a college campus.

Then sit back and enjoy listening to talk radio…

@Jonboc – lol poor you


The problem for your bubble theory is Rod Lurie did emerge from that talk radio bubble that you fantasized can’t possibly have any actual connection to the real world to actually write and direct REAL films.

In other words those reels of celluloid that you’re fondling like Captain Queeg’s marbles: YA’ BURNT!

Are you kidding? lol Creating fiction is the perfect outlet for a hosts of talk radio, like Rush, for instance…they live in a fantasy world already. Let em make movies…the films wont make any money, but why not? You’ll get no argument from me!

Well said, Joboc.

Note: Negative Votes on this post by the weak-minded are encouraged and appreciated. Ref:

Yeah it should be bash trek movie. These so called fans are such whiners. It’s almost sad.

This is not bashing the movie (since we’ve seen so little of it), rather the criticism of the marketing (or lack, thereof) of the movie …


@Lostrod – you’re a voice of reason.


Then perhaps you should look for another Trek site or create a private group on Facebook that only allow Pro-NuTrek opinions! I’m sure that will make you feel a lot better; rather than staying here and, God forbid, come across a different opinion than yours.

Why on earth would I want to do that, when, with Trek Beyond coming in just a few months, the best anti-BR Trek pablum has yet to be puked by the usual, less-than-merry band of BR beraters! Can’t wait to read the squeaky wheels and their collective cries of “foul”, yet again, about the horrible, declining state of Star Trek as the film rakes in money, hand over fist. lol. The only icing on the cake would be the rumors of the TV series, being just that, with the reality being brand new adventures taking place aboard the USS Kelvin! Fascinating times indeed…wouldn’t miss it for the world!


“collective cries of “foul”, yet again, about the horrible, declining state of Star Trek as the film rakes in money, hand over fist. lol.”

There is little to no correlation between Box office performance & the quality of a movie. And I just don’t care about the box office numbers, I want a good movie. With the new writing team, I think STB will be different from the previous two movies, hopefully a lot better than STID & that’s the main reason why I’m going to watch it on the opening night.

“The only icing on the cake would be the rumors of the TV series, being just that, with the reality being brand new adventures taking place aboard the USS Kelvin!”

I think it’s time for you to take your own advice and step out of your “tiny bubble” & face the simple fact that CBS will NOT set the upcoming series in the NuTrek timeline. The reason for that is simple, they own the Prime universe & they are making tons of money out of its merchandise.

Beside the Devin Faraci “rumor” that said it will be in the Prime timeline, Michael Hinman of 1701News also said that it will be in the Prime universe, but Post-NEM.

We will find out for sure in the next few months.


“And I just don’t care about the box office numbers”

And yet, on both sides of the divide, somebody inevitably has to mention box office numbers, takings etc in order to support their view.

All I can say is – a certain proof that Paramount views the latest two film iterations as being reasonably successful in terms of box office numbers, income etc is that it is making a third film. No doubt, the studio would have liked more. Then again, who doesn’t want more? Part of human nature, for better and worse.

@Rose – there is plenty of examples all over the internet discussing the under-performance of STID. And if you do a google search you’ll see STID mentioned in stories about “forgettable” films or “we dont want a STID-like story” in reference to other films.

I think STID was a perfectly acceptable popcorn action film that upon first glance to the general public or uninitiated was “fine”. But it doesnt age well and I think in retrospect or further viewing critics and fans realise it was a rather empty spectacle.

We all remember Bob’s defense of the film quality by mentioning his bank account and the revenue generated by the film. But revenue and quality are two different things. And other films like Transformers and Spiderman bear that out.

We need only look at Batman v Superman to see a really clear example of a film making a TON of money that is considered a flop in many circles and created tons of speculation regarding changes to the franchise by the studio.

I assume Paramount feels they can make a few bucks on STB. Its the third film so they have money and effort invested already and probably feel they can spend a bit less, create a film with an easier story to get in to (less complicated and convoluted than STID) and come away rather clean. But I also suspect strongly that Paramount no longer sees Star Trek as a HUGE franchise.

Harry Plinkett is right. You are a dumbass.

For the record, the post above is what might be termed an “insult” – or perhaps it is merely stating the truth and no more. I have commented on TUP’s bad behaviour, not only towards me, but to others contributing their ideas/opinions to this site.

TUP is good at deflection and he has been doing it for some time now. He does it overtly and rudely. Not an insult, just stating what I see this poster consistently doing for, what is going on, for years. It is his modus operandi. Not pleasant nor intelligent.

Sorry, Rose, but it is an insult, and in response [I think] to one of TUP’s more reasonable posts.* Please don’t sink to that level — others occupy it so frequently.

*it is admittedly difficult to know exactly which post people are responding to unless we put the time stamp of the OP on our reply …. I guess mostly because the thread only indents once and no deeper.

In reply to:


Actually, a unique comment ID does exist in the diagonal bowtie in the upper righthand corner of each post. If you click on it, a little window opens on it with URL text in it that if you click on that and ctrl A then ctrl C you can copy it into the body of your reply.

When people click on that URL in a reply’s text body it will load right to the comment that you are replying to, scrolling to it in your browser’s window for the article.

The trouble is, you have to remember to click and copy on the bowtie of the reply that you’ve been reading BEFORE you click to see the one to which it is in reply or you can’t easily return to reading the reply and continue on down the tree that you’ve been reading if the two posts have been widely separated in the sort order.

I’ve been debating internally with myself on including that in each of my replies. The downside is it counts against the number of URLs that can be included in a comment without going to moderation.

Thanks Marja. I had to review some posts to try and figure out what Rose was responding to. I guess it was my reply to her about revenue vs quality. But I mentioned Bob Orci so that’s what likely got her hot and bothered.

I’ve tried to avoid the usual pettiness with certain posters here. But some of them make it difficult. And they also ignore the massive down voting from the people here who are sick of the nonsense. We could all do better. Me included.

Yes, you are right, Marja. Calling someone a “dumbass” is an insult. I have been accused here of being insulting, when I haven’t been or certainly have not meant to be.

Thank you, Marja. I have respect for your words.

“You are a dumbass.”

“the post above is what might be termed an “insult”

“Calling someone a “dumbass” is an insult”

“I have respect for your words.”

Truly an amazing series of posts. And yet, I still don’t hear an apology from Rose. :-)

@Rose – your post is finally Rose Unmasked. You just lost all moral highground (not that you had it in the first place) and Ill forever remind you of that post when you cry and whine and play the victim card in the future.

Your backtracking on it with your next post is hilarious.

I guess you’re saying blatant insults are perfectly acceptable if it’s “true” because I could call you several things that would presumably not be allowed, though one of them is, as I understand it a perfectly accept 4 letter word in the UK…but has a nasty connotation in North America… You know… ;-)

Why would you keep making posts that ONLY discuss me? Off topic, insulting, rude, silly, stupid. Those are so many of your posts. Discuss the topic. Discuss Star Trek, Respond to something specific. Or, quite honestly, go away.

I dont even know what your post referred to…lol And I bet you dont either. Have a great day you raging hypocrite!

TUP, And IF Paramount no longer see Trek as having yuuuge box office potential, I do wish they’d release it in the fall and have more sci-fi and character-created drama rather than a GALACTIC CRISIS! ACTION! VIOLENCE! emphasis.

@Marja – thats a good point too. I would guess (and there others here way more insightful than me) that they see their investment and the ‘style” of film as more suited to Summer blockbuster. Perhaps they think their best chance for a huge opening is Summer.

They could very well think its a great film that will have staying power. Or they could think it isnt a great film and will have diminishing returns so they want to hit a time when their first couple of weeks will be the largest.

We’ll find out soon enough!

TUP – Just as there is plenty of “evidence” as to how STID underperformed by those who wish to prove how bad the film was and how most people agree, hence the under performance at the box office and thereafter, there are also those who use box office figures etc to iterate how successful the movie was and that just as many, if not more, do not agree that the film was not any good.

I don’t know who is more right or more wrong. I don’t think it really matters what you, I or the guy next door thinks in this respect. It only matters what Paramount and investors think – as in whether they risk making another Star Trek film (which could lose them a lot of money). Clearly, with STB opening in cinemas on 21/22 July around the world, they believed the risk is worth taking.

I thought I was being clear in what I wrote. I was making an observation and I was not being rude to anyone. However, you, TUP, used my observation as an excuse to browbeat me with what many people on various sites have said, as if I was not aware of this already.

BTW – People are allowed to “backtrack” as you call it. The only person talking about moral high grounds is you.

@Rose – If you took my post as a browbeating, you’re either VERY over-sensitive or a first rate loon. Your posts were far more insulting, negative and “browbeating” than mine. Mine was reasonable and on point. Again, you post to attack me rather than discuss the topic. Please stop. Everyone would appreciate it Im sure.

If you’re already aware of the under-performance of STID then why try to make the point about its performance as a positive?

And finally, if you truly wish to backtrack, you will issue a formal apology to me. Until you do, the moral high ground is certainly mine.


TUP: “If you took my post as a browbeating, you’re either VERY over-sensitive or a first rate loon”

So what did TUP say to Keachick:

“You just lost all moral highground (not that you had it in the first place) and Ill forever remind you of that post when you cry and whine and play the victim card in the future.”

“Your backtracking on it with your next post is hilarious.”

“I could call you several things that would presumably not be allowed, though one of them is, as I understand it a perfectly accept 4 letter word in the UK…but has a nasty connotation in North America… You know… ;-)”

“Why would you keep making posts that ONLY discuss me? Off topic, insulting, rude, silly, stupid. Those are so many of your posts. Discuss the topic. Discuss Star Trek, Respond to something specific. Or, quite honestly, go away.”

“Have a great day you raging hypocrite!”



***TREKMOVIE MODERATERS — please review this!

@Prodigal HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHa He’s finally gone off the deep end, folks!

My post was a response to a post where a certain poster made a personal insult to me. Are you illiterate?

The last thing you want is the mods here reviewing posts. They have a lot more patience than I would, by the way. Given the amount of quality people that dont post here as often, I’d gladly trade you for them. But generally speaking a less moderated forum is better than an over moderated one. So the mods and admins here deserve some thanks for their patience and lee way.

But you’re off your rocker man. Really.

So TUP wants a personal apology from me. Why – for calling him a “dumbass”? Why does he not also demand one from Harry Plinkett?

Phil is “Furious”. Prodigal Son is a “loon” as am I a “first-rate loon”… It is also not the first time TUP has told me to go away…

Yes, Moderators – TUP has been abusing me (and now started on other posters) for some time now. It must surely be obvious to anyone who has been coming to this site for a while. The last time I dared to complain about this behaviour, I was told by a moderator that he had no time and then told other posters to ignore me, as if my concerns were of no matter. What is a moderator’s job, I wonder? The bad behaviour has continued and has involved another poster who is also a writer and producer of the latest Star Trek films and without his efforts (among others), there could be no discussion.

I do discuss Star Trek and its iterations. I commented on Paramount’s planned fan event on 20 May; I commented on why international box office takings were not included in an article. In none of these posts was I being personal or rude and I did not mention TUP’s name. On the box office takings comment, it was TUP who accused me of “whining” “playing the victim card” or whatever – rude, personal and nothing to do with the topic under discussion. This is a pattern and it’s been happening for a while now.
Now he is going for Prodigal Son and Phil. Phil has rarely been given to writing long posts on any topic and I cannot recall him ever cussing about anything or to anyone. However, TUP’s behaviour over the past week or so has become more critical, and provocative than usual which has even lead to posters like Harry Plinkett calling him a “dumbass”.

As for apologies – well TUP still owes me and Bob Orci two apologies, however I am not holding my breath. One is for telling me to get “Bob’s (Orci) sac” out of my mouth and the other is for saying that I would be happy if Bob (Orci) took a “dump” on my couch. When Marja, a few weeks ago, mentioned this as one of the more disgusting posts and generally queried some posters here, including me and TUP, for the not-so-pleasant phrasing of our posts sometimes, the only poster to basically take her head off was TUP.

Sorry, this post is so long. I am just tired of being waylaid. It could be that some other people coming here may feel similar. Don’t know for sure, just a guess…
Thank you.

@Rose – those were pretty funny. Thank you for reminding me. Figures of speech of course, not personal attacks. But if I posted “Hello, how are you”, you’d find a way to complain about it as an abusive post towards you.

Maria, who’s posts I mostly enjoy and Im glad to see her back posting more often, took you to task for your clear personal insult and you agreed with her…and refuse to apologize. It doesn’t matter if you think Im nice or like me or even if you think I owe you anything. Your admission that you engaged in the behaviour you deem inappropriate and refuse to apologize shows what sort of person you are…and its not pretty.

Ill make you a deal though. Im hoping the really low-light posters here, Prodigal & Phil, will heed the advice of people here and knock off the off topic, insulting, irrelevant posts. And I hope you will too. I will do the same.

However, I still expect an apology from you. If you have the character you claim.

Should read Marja ofcourse, not Maria. Auto correct…ugh

@Rose – abusing you? Good grief. Your cries of victimization make you look foolish and do a real dis-service to legitimate victims of abuse. Shame on you.

And yes, since you admitted you personally insulted me, I would like an apology. I don’t expect one because I don’t believe you have the character to do so. You just want everyone else censored for disagreeing with you.

The fact you’d admit what you did and refuse to apologize speaks to your character, or lack thereof. Had you apologized, I would have accepted it. Oh well, I tried.

Ask Harry Plinkett to apologise first. He said the word a lot more often than I did. Why go after me only? What you are doing is a form of bullying.

This latest brouhaha started when I made a comment about how both sides (those who like nuTrek and those who hate nuTrek) use box offices figures to prove some point. TUP completely missed the point I was making and then browbeated me on what was NOT the issue.

The issue is about the fact that people will use box office figures to support their view, that either a film was good and well liked or if they did not like a film, they will then point out that good box office returns etc do not necessarily indicate quality. Frankly, I am irritated when financial success or failure of Trek films are mentioned, given that they can be so fudged according to whoever is reporting the figures. Why bother talking about financial returns (only concern of the studio and producers/writers/directors etc anyway), if the figures, so we are reminded, supposedly indicate very little that is relevant to the individual viewer, like quality or enjoyment?

@Rose – Your response is shockingly childish. “He did it first” yadda yadda. Very child like.

Why can’t you be grown up enough, mature enough, show enough character to apologize for something you openly admit was an insult?

The only brouhaha extending from the discussion about box office revenue was that you seemingly didnt comprehend my reasonable response and flew off the handle to the extent even Marja defended me. So at least own your role and stop trying to put blame on me and trying to somehow make it my fault that you called me names like a school girl.

Honestly, I havent always agreed with you or liked your attitude, but I didnt think you lacked character to this extent. Colour me surprised Rose.

Your response was irrelevant. The fact that you wrote as you did just proves my point about the inaneness of mentioning box office takings etc, because inevitably someone will use certain figures to “prove” their point about the success or failure of a film, in their opinion. Then, if they don’t like a film which has proven itself a financial success, then the tired cliche of good box office performance does not always equate to quality gets used. In other words, mentioning figures tends to derail and distract from more worthwhile discussion.

And if I was “hot and bothered”, yet another in a constant stream of personal comments made by you without any evidence (and none of your business anyway), at the mention of Bob Orci’s name, I would not have made the comment. Yes, Bob Orci has also used film revenue figures as well. His use of them proves no more than anyone else’s use of them, when it comes to individuals’ perception of enjoyment, quality, etc.

Marja did not like the fact that I called you a “dumbass”. She also noted to me this – “Please don’t sink to that level — others occupy it so frequently.” In other words, I take her to mean that I have NOT been doing as you keep claiming, until this one post. However “others”, to quote Marja, have been. You (conveniently?) overlooked that part of her post.

@Rose – You claim hot & bothered is a personal attack? Good grief.

Once again you admit to a personal attack on me but are devoid of the character to apologize. You are at the point now where you really need to stop complaining about others since you have lowered yourself to an extent where you cannot hold anyone else to a standard which you refuse to rise to. Zero character. I am surprised. I thought more of you. I was wrong.

“‘@Rose – You claim hot & bothered is a personal attack? Good grief.”

Yes, I do. Referring to someone as being “hot and bothered” is personal by definition. It was also made with reference to Bob Orci. Given that most, if not all, know what you think of Bob Orci and me (you have no care, understanding or respect), it is easy to see that the comment was yet another putdown.

I must say that you seem very good at summing up the character of another. Also your capacity to deflect and project is quite phenomenal. Neither are particularly good attributes to have though…oh dear…:/

You say “shallow”, I say “not so shallow”, “deeper”. I do not need to have others to back me up in order to tell me what I know I see and hear. However, apparently you do, in order to confirm that you did not indeed hear or see, as I (and perhaps others) may have. I saw and heard and you did not. I guess that’s how it is.

@Rose – this is a perfect illustration of your immaturity and victim complex. I used hot & bothered in the context of you being agitated or angry (a legitimate definition) and you change the context or meaning to fit your desire to ALWAYS play the victim.

You demand censure or apology, claim you’re a victim being bullied and attacked and when YOU admit to attacking others you refuse to apologize as you would demand. You are a hypocrite with zero character, a low life person and that has become more evident with every post.

Either grow up or stop with your irrelevant, off topic, personal commentary and attacks. The rest of us are sick of it.

And yet it is you, TUP who constantly deflects legitimate discussion with off-point, personal comments. Why even use terms like “hot and bothered”? Can you not put a single paragraph together without veering into something that comes across as personal.

It is you who keeps attacking – along with the name calling. The above post is such an example – “hypocrite with zero character”, a “low life person”. Who writes something like that about someone they have not met? Those who have actually met do not consider me to be such a person, so who are you to write these insults? I have been and am being insulted/bullied by you and it has gone on for some time.

You want apology for being called a “dumbass”. That comment of mine gets downvoted but of course, your comments calling me names or calling Phil a “blathering idiot”, on more than one occasion, which is just as insulting as being called a “dumbass”, gets upvoted.

I say and keep saying it because it is the truth.

Who is running this freak show of a site these days?

Now – wait for it – lets the downvotes ring out and TUP, yet again, accuse me of whining (yet another insult).

The most irrelevant, off-topic comment came from TUP where he starts offering me a photo of himself and tells of his non-ownership of a hot tub. Like that had anything to do with anything.

Will someone shut this guy down?

@ROse – my amusing remark aside, it was in response to your continued refusal to stay on topic, your continued obsession with discussing me and insulting me. I was trying to use humour to disarm you and the situations, since you seemed so heated, and pointed out that you seem to be my biggest fan (hence the offer of an autographed head shot).

Im sorry if the remark went over your head.

I should also point out, again, you’ve made an off topic, irrelevant post and again complained about me and asked for me to be “shut down”.

Why don’t you simply stop talking about me? Try to be more positive and open minded. There are so many intelligent and insightful people here and a few seem to no longer post much. Im sure its this nonsense that has hindered their enjoyment of this site.

I think we can all do better. Will you do better too, Rose? And start with an apology perhaps?

@ Rose – again, you’re playing the victim and attacking me and your post has zero to do with any topic being discussed.

My post referring to you as a low life person was a commentary on your lack of character. That is a valid point since we discussed for days how you admitted to personally insulting me, acknowledged it was uncalled for an wrong and yet refused to apologize. So my description of your character is on point.

I should also point out the post of mine is currently 0 for votes so its not being up voting.

My replies that delve into negative descriptions of you or Phil are generally in response to you guys and your many off topic and miserable posts. So if they are up voted its likely because people share my opinion that you keep going and going and going with this nonsense. And we’d all like it to stop. Im sure I get down voted for the same reason but the person making the attack is more likely to be down voted than the person who points it out. I believe that is what happening.

Also there might be certain people who see you and Prodigal getting so upset about the voting that they are ribbing you with down votes.

I’d offer some friendly advice that you refrain from your usual style of posting, refrain from complaining about votes (or complaining in general) and try to post on topic, insightful, intelligent posts. I;ve seen you do it before. Just be open minded. You might find you get less down votes and that would seem to give you piece of mind and a better experience here.

Just some friendly advice.

You know, Ahmed, I personally don’t object to opinions that are different from mine. I’ve enjoyed your posts, and Cygnus’s, and even some of TUP’s.

What I do object to is “different” opinions being counched in terms that cast me (and others who enjoy NuTrek) as an uncritical, popcorn-munching, idiot; or a JJ idolator, or Orci ass-kisser. I don’t regard NuTrek uncritically. Neither do I criticize its every nuance.

As long as we keep it civil, we can have genuine, challenging, pleasant, intellectually stimulating discussions. When things degenerate into name-calling or branding, well, that just seems like the Trump vs. Rubio “debate” — a schoolyard dust-up. Not intellectually stimulating at all, nor the least bit pleasant. And such “debates” derail threads and go on and on and on ….

@Marja, I think that’s fair. I think for the people that really disliked STID, its hard to wrap our brains around the fact that some people thought it was a deep film.

I’ve used Battleship as an example before. It got panned. But I enjoyed it. Entertaining escapism for two hours. And Ill argue in favour of its entertainment value. But a deep film? No, I wont argue that. So if several people provided insightful critiques of the film and its flaws, my argument wouldnt be “well it WAS deep”, it would simply be “yup, but I enjoyed it”.

So I think if anyone found STID to be a really deep film that was not really flawed in many ways, then I’d love to hear that. Because quite honestly, I can absolutely appreciate how someone enjoyed it as a two hour action escapism but it was the furthest thing from quality cinema.

And ofcourse what happens with a debate like that is both sides get their backs up. So where there was agreement, suddenly the line gets drawn wider and deeper. No one wants to give an inch.

I’ve certainly not been anywhere close to the most adamantly anti-STID person here. I actually think it had the basis for a good film. But I often get grouped in with the “oh you hate all BR Trek” nonsense when it isnt true.

TUP – “its hard to wrap our brains around the fact that some people thought it was a deep film”
Then don’t try to. Some people can see depths when others can only see the shallow. Why do you make it a problem for yourself and for those who are able to see more than you can?

I have good/excellent long distance vision, which means I can read small writing further into the distance than most people can. It’s like saying because a lot of people cannot (even with corrective eyewear), that has to mean that I can’t or shouldn’t. But I can and I do…

I am sure that there will be those who could write screeds on why I shouldn’t see what I do see, but it won’t stop the reality that I can see what many cannot. I do not need to have constant critiques put in my face attempting to tell me that there is little or nothing to see, when I do see.

@Rose – ask yourself that same question. You routinely attack people that point out the obvious flaws in STID.

The point is STID was a shallow film. If you see depth its not that you;re more insightful, its that you’re more easily amused. And thats okay. But many of us want more.

It is in the nature of people to want more. In order to satiate this desire, Paramount are providing more in the form of a third film – Star Trek Beyond. Whether it provides “more” of what you think you need, who knows.

Who mentioned “insight”? I can just see more sometimes, whether I want to or not, on some occasions.

As for “shallow” – (depending on coastline) – have you ever been to a beach when the tide is out, ie the water is shallow?

@Rose – irrelevant point. But nice try.

Hey did you apologize yet or still struggling with your lack of character?

Not an irrelevant point at all. You fail to understand the analogy. I have not been the one who negatively states that others see STID as “deep”. That’s you. Words like “deep” or “shallow” are labels and a lot depends on the perspective of a particular individual.

I take it you’ve not been to any beach at low tide. I have – several different kinds. At some beaches at low tide, when the water is shallow, there is much to see and hear.

Krall is the real John Harrison!

Another enemy who is much stronger than a human?
One has to ask himself how the humans could survive this long if they are surrounded by enemies that are much steinger than they are…

Wonderful image. Can’t wait to see this movie!

It’s interesting to see that The Jungle Book, in which Disney pretty much waited until the last two months to start the marketing push, is blowing up at the box office this weekend, and had great reviews and word of mouth behind it.

Note: Negative Votes on this post by the weak-minded are encouraged and appreciated. Ref:

Prodigal Son,

It is also interesting to note that JJ Abrams name isn’t plastered anywhere on the JUNGLE BOOK as it is on that other Disney work which would be MORE appropriate for comparision as it also shared not only that but the same target audience as STAR TREK BEYOND which BTW Disney’s JUNGLE BOOK is also NOT being marketed to.

Or as you are so often fond of saying: apples and oranges.

Jungle Book had a trailer last Sept and during the Super Bowl. Possibly others but those the ones I recall. So again the idea they didn’t market it until recently is not true.

And Beyond had a trailer months ago, plus the Omaze fund raiser marketing deal — analogous to the two only two Disney items you bring up for Jungle Book which occured in advance of their late marketing campaign.

So nice try, but no, it’s exactly as I said — very little marketing until the final few months — just like we are seeing with Beyond.

Disinvted made a better point in that these are different genres — that at least makes some sense.

Now go ahead and give me 50 push-ups and 10 negative multi-votes for getting this wrong. LOL

Note: Negative Votes on this post by the weak-minded are encouraged and appreciated. Ref:

Big difference between Jungle Book and Star Trek. The thing is, you can prove anything if you look hard enough. But comparing franchise films, the marketing is well behind, the hype is lacking.

I’ve stated many times that I’d suspect Paramount hits the marketing very very hard…its just a smaller window than you’d expect. And its not as though it’s unheard of. But it does seem indicative of a smaller promotional budget.

Outside of Trek fan sites, the film has little buzz.

I think STID hurt it a lot in that 09 made Star Trek something casual or non fans could get back into but STID with a more convoluted plot and fan servicing sort of spoke against those things. Star Trek seems like something for Star Trek fans. And its possible the studio feels its an uphill climb to change that. If they are unlikely to make a 4th film, they might be in a “cut our losses” mode…which is not to say they expect to lose, but that they are not spending or marketing the franchise…they will market this film in a tighter way, get in, get out and be done with it.

@ Disinvited

I hear you, but in this case, I would say: Fruit Salad


Note: Negative Votes on this post by the weak-minded are encouraged and appreciated. Ref:

Well for me it’s not so much about the timing of the marketing for STB as for the 50th Ann. as a whole. For the 50th Ann. as a whole — in which STB is a major but one of several events taking place — my professional opinion is that it should get it’s own significant marketing push, whether Paramount and CBS coordinate their efforts or go about it separately.

For example, is there a calendar of events out? Where is it?

I haven’t heard anything about CBS producing a 50th Ann. retrospective, yet that would be a no-brainer.

The closest thing to 50th Ann. marketing I am aware of is Bob giving away his personal Star Trek things on Twitter under a 50th Ann. hashtag. Which is great initiative on his part. CBS and Paramount, however, should be chipping in, don’t you think?

It’s amazing that a little TV show that was cancelled after its third season has reached its half-century mark and is stronger than ever. An tentpole cinema offering to come in only a few months and then a tremendously promising major TV series.

Trek Lives!

Here is a UPN 30th Anniversary tribute. It is unthinkable that there will be no 50th Anniversary retrospective, There’s no news of one in the works?

It all has to do with popularity at the time.In 1996,there were two series in production (DS9 and Voyager) and The Next Generations first Solo Movie(First Contact)! A lot of stuff to make hey!


I agree with you there, even though I think you are given short shrift to CBS’ NY event that they announced much earlier prior to Paramount’s fan event.

Actually, is doing a good job of an overview. But I haven’t been to that site in years until just now. I actually forgot it existed because I always go to Trekmovie. is actually a much more popular site both globally and domestically than Trekmovie. Never compared stats before.


I wonder how that is gauged? Number of visits? But whose the impartial third party tallying that? Number of Webbies?…

I’ve been aware of for a loooong time. But I find it and blastr too censored for my tastes.

I vaguely recall Paramount once had but never really did anything with it?

@Disinvited, is still active but they are only showing STB teaser!


They must have recently reaquired it this year. As you can see here:,sbd:1&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t

back in February it was just a click trap redirector.


Well, the site is a joke. With only the teaser on it and nothing else. Oh, there is a link to STB’s Facebook page, last time it was updated was in December!

If you go to and click on the EVENTS tab you’ll see they have a decent number of event listings and dates under the Star Trek 50 logo.

If it’s worth logo-ing, it’s worth promoting on its own.

Yeah I think that’s an exhaustive list of events has for Star Trek 50 under the EVENTS tab, other than STB.

I haven’t heard of anything more. If they are planning on a retrospective, gala, or salute, why haven’t we heard about the plan for one yet?

Unique visits per day, how many links clicked, how long each visit lasts are good measures of site popularity.

Yeah, is too corporate milquetoast, but it IS doing a much better job of publicizing upcoming 50th anniversary events than trekmovie.

Just popped over there – there is a lot going on, actually.

Yeah, and you wouldn’t know it if you spent all your time on a Star Trek site at this one.

“Which is great initiative on his part. CBS and Paramount, however, should be chipping in, don’t you think?” — dmduncan

I find it very odd that Paramount essentially tarred and feathered Bob’s vision in public, and yet, he’s currently filling the pizza role in regards to acknowledging the fans for his BEYOND promotion?

I’m referring to that Abrams and Kennedy bought 1500 pizzas for the fans in line for the STAR WARS CELEBRATION in Anaheim last year and we never heard any peep about Disney chipping in on that too. I’m not sure I get this BIG corporate attitude that wants to distance itself from their devoted fans?

@duncan, maybe we’ll hear more about a CBS retrospective in the summer.

Hey man, love that hilarious YouTube video. But clearly Bob is Trekmovie’s Kobe.

Thanks, DMD

Note: Negative Votes on this post by the weak-minded are encouraged and appreciated. Ref:

Typical response to label anyone who disagrees with you as “weak minded”. People are entitled to differing opinions.


@ Lostrod

If you are strong-minded, and downvote me legitimately (e.g. not TUP multi-voting me down 5 times or Kirk James T 20 times) because you disagree with my post, then my disclaimer is obviously not directly at you, so you have nothing to worry about.

My disclaimer is only directed at people who are gaming this system and/or just down-voting people out of personal hate. And it’s not going to way — I like it, and it fits!

Note: Negative Votes on this post by the weak-minded are encouraged and appreciated. Ref:

However, you post “Negative Votes on this post by the weak-minded” on every flipping post. If you think someone who disagrees with you is weak-minded, then do so on your reply. Don’t lump everyone who disagrees with you into one insult. Sheesh. Have a good day. Finishing taxes.

You miss the point. If you aren’t weak-minded, then it obviously doesn’t apply to you. So stop stressing dude. This is mean for clowns like TUP, not you.

Note: Negative Votes on this post by the weak-minded are encouraged and appreciated. Ref:

Except ofcourse your intense obsession with votes and how being down voted drives you nuts. Personally, I love the disclaimer. Its basically a flashing neon sign indicating your rampant self esteem issues.

You have a -4 and this is the first I’ve seen of this post. I can’t down or up vote anyone 5 times you goof. You’re obsesses and your self esteem issues are frighteningly evident. You’re “disclaimer” is because this voting is driving you nuts and you’re the one trying to “game the system”.

Its hilarious though. I can’t imagine someone being as bothered as you.

In reply to:

“My disclaimer is only directed at people who are gaming this system and/or just down-voting people out of personal hate.” — Prodigal Son

Out of curiosity, is it your assertion that each and every vote you’ve cast, since the new comment system was implemented, was cast with reason and dispassion?

Everyone who disagrees with the blathering idiot must be down voting him. Yeah right. Since you lack complete self awareness Ill let you in on a secret – people are sick of your whining, insults and irrelevant posts. So they down vote you. And some people probably love watching you get so worked up about it too.

It was fantastic. Just beware bringing kids who might be subject to nightmares based on the scary imagery and situations if they can’t talk with a kind adult about the movie afterwards.

The vocal performances were superb, notably Idris Elba as Shere Khan, who has a legitimate beef with Man, and Lupita Nyong’o as Mowgli’s wolf “mother.” Bill Murry brought a wonderful humorous touch and Ben Kingsley portrayed a compassionate panther who takes his duty to the man-cub verrry seriously. Oh, and my goodness, Scarlett Johanssen as Kaa. Hypnotic. ;-)

I wonder if Kirk has Idris Elba’s gun in that scene up there.

If I was Alt Kirk I’d wear like a neck protector or something because that guy is very susceptible to being choked.

I have to say that was one scene in ST09 I totally enjoyed, when Kirk gasped out the last words Ayel would ever hear ;-)

Agreed, Marja, that was a perfect, on-the-money, Kirk moment!

That was a memorable scene.

Not yet, though it looks like Elba is getting ready to administer a Slusho enema.

Explains the higher collars on the new uniforms. :)

i bet the planet he’s from is where the federation gets their dilithium crystals and the federation exploits the people on the planet to mine the resources.

so you’ll have a heavy handed analogy to our dependency on oil and the wars in the middle east as ST allegory…because general audiences will get the connection and dilithium crystals is an easy ST reference

That would mean they have a fuel source for getting off the planet, assuming you are crazy enough to use warp power to get to orbit (remember the nuclear equivalent to Berlin airlift, one version of Project ORION?)

Hmm, heavy-handed or not, I actually kinda like that.

Would love it if Elba was kind of like Sean Connery’s Muhli Raisuli in THE WIND AND THE LION, one of my alttime favorite movies.

I think that something along those lines would indeed be of interest to the mind; the other parts of the movie no doubt would appeal to the heart — and the modern need for thrills and chills. That would be rather nice.


I believe two first series episodes, MUDD’S WOMEN and THE DEVIL IN THE DARK, establishes the Federation does indeed rely on mines and miners.

Well, I would hope the Federation is not exploiting the people. Perhaps agreements were made under a previous regime on the planet and Krall’s faction, now in control, wants to break it off.

Or Krall is trying to prevent such exploitation, perhaps experienced under Klingons or others.

Is this not what the “Prime Directive” is supposed to be about, ie helping to prevent exploitation etc through either covert or overt interference?

TV TOS always made mention of the most important reason for the Enterprise and co. to be out in space, ie exploration – discovering what is actually in space beyond what is already known and sharing that knowledge with the rest of humanity/other. Kirk talked about humanity’s inquisitive nature, which is true.
The problem with our human nature is that often inquisitiveness soon becomes ACQuisitiveness, and that’s where the problems can start.

TOS episode “Devil in the Dark” presented a situation where the mining and ignorance/intolerance was in fact impinging on the planet’s lifeforms’ continued survival as a species. This was despite (presumably) careful ecological surveys etc being made of the planet before mining could commence.

@Rose – you might have hit on something important. In STID, Kirk gets a lesson in the Prime Directive from Pike. Perhaps he realises the Federation is over-stepping.

Although, on the surface I really dont want another Starfleet/Federation is bad, our hero saves the day type of story.

Except that in the case of Nibiru, it does not appear that Kirk and co. were wanting to acquire anything from Nibiru. They simply saw a planet in distress and had the technology that could save the world and so they used it.

If there was any kind of acquisition impulse, it was to see if the technology actually worked…

I adore TOS of Star Trek, and some episodes of TNG and ‘Enterprise’.

One thing that has always struck me as somewhat odd is that none of the Star Trek series has ever shown a Federation starship named ‘USS Stains’….

I didn’t think much of the 2009 Star Trek film; I like ‘Into Darkness’, and I’m looking-forward to ‘Beyond’

Reminds me of Darth Vader in episode 4.

I glad Elba is in the movie. Quite an impressive actor. Let’s see how he performs with all that rubber on :-) I remain cautiously optimistic about this movie.

Elba is really good. Im a bit surprised he’d be covered up so much (or that he’d take a role where he is so covered) but his presence and skill as an actor should be impressive.

If the writing is strong there is a chance this character becomes one of those really classic Trek villain’s. Elba can certainly hold his own.

Very excited for the next year or so. A new movie and a new series. Good times to be a Trek fan. I’m thinking we will have a good thought-provoking, action packed movie come July. The series is too soon to say, but good writers and good leaders can only mean good things to come!

I would love a 50th anniversary tribute.
But, I will settle for a great movie, and an even better TV series that lasts for many years to come!

Oh look! Another bad guy.

Not just that, but another ANGRY bad guy. It would be interesting if STAR TREK explored the evolutionary advantage of anger and why it seems to have evolved all over the known galaxy.

It is an assumption that emotions like anger are to be found all over the galaxy. Certainly, Star Trek’s creator and writers thought that certain basic emotions – variations on love and hatred – were universal in nature and therefore could be found throughout the cosmos. However, since we have not discovered any life similar to ourselves yet, there is no way of telling.

Thoughts and emotions are energies that vibrate but whether such or similar are found outside our earth is the big question. I think we hope/like to believe that they do and will be manifest in some way that we can understand, but so far, we just don’t know.


The reason why some of us have never liked the up/down vote facility has surely become all too clear. The same people get either voted up or down and it seems to matter little as to the content of their individual posts. Although I do not agree that Prodigal Son should retain this – “Note: Negative Votes on this post by the weak-minded are encouraged and appreciated. Ref:” because it has become a bit off-putting, it does seem to accurately capture a certain sentiment.

If this site is to maintain any kind of credibility for regulars and any newcomers, then this facility needs to be put in abeyance. Then again, it could be what the owner of this site wants? Surely not?…

It comes across sop childish for people to whine about the voting. Who cares? Why does it bother you? It would take a fairly significant amount of trouble to juice the vote to a large degree so in all likelihood that isn’t happening.

If people see their posts routinely getting down voted its more likely that their posts are just not popular. And vice versa. I have posts that are up voted and I have posts that are down voted. Who cares.

If it bothers you, I’;d suggest reviewing your general posting history and determining what is you’re doing that is resulting in a negative reaction from the community at large, rather than complain that the voting system needs changing. You’re being sent a message. You just aren’t heeding it.

I would say that you, TUP, would definitely care if you were always being voted down, irrespective of what you wrote. I say this when I look at your general posting history.

As far as I can see, you have never received a downvote, however, Phil, Prodigal Son, myself, in particular, ALWAYS get downvoted. It does not matter what we write. Even posts relating factual information gets downvoted – what the hell is that about? A good instance is when I related what I had read in a magazine about William Shatner. Why should that receive any vote?

If nobody cares about posts being up or down voted, then why the hell have the system at all?

And just who are the ones sending these messages to the same people over and over? Come on, show yourselves, cowards!

It is wank, BS!

@Rose – I have been down voted plenty of times.

There seems to be a non-vocal majority that lurks here that prefers the Prime Universe over NuTrek. I do see those posts receiving down votes.

But I see plenty of favourable voting for reasonable posts regardless of opinion. One thing I’ve noticed is that the people that most often lean towards irrelevant posts, petty insults etc get down voted. And the accusations thats its me or others juicing the votes gets down voted because its insulting.

You post a lot of negativity. Sometimes you’ll make a valid observation but also add a shot at someone or a complaint about how you’re treated. I notice those get down voted too.

If the vote is 1-3 away from zero, I would pay it little mind. If its +/- 5 or more, I’d suggest that its legitimate and the general opinion is negative or positive towards your comments.

You generally think you post on topic, reasonable things. But look at your posts, you way too often don’t. I think its an important message.

I don’t sweat up or down votes. Realistically, who cares. If it makes you feel bad, try being more positive, fair and open minded for one week and see if you generate more up votes.

Not sure that is a picture of him with Kirk. I have seen it said it was a picture of McCoy and a picture of Spock and looking closely it seems the shirt is more blue. But the hair us too dark to be kirk.