John Cho: Star Trek Beyond Feels Like The Best Of The Original Series

John Cho has a very good feeling about Star Trek Beyond.

The actor spoke to Famous Monsters magazine as part of their special issue celebrating Star Trek‘s 50th Anniversary.   He talks a great deal about the much-anticipated third installment in the rebooted film series, and we’ve got a few excerpts.

Cho describes the adjustment that he and the rest of the cast had to make to new director Justin Lin and his approach to the material:

[Justin Lin] cared about the mythology, he cared about the world, he cared about getting it right, he cared about moving the characters forward. … I think we all had question marks; it’s tough to be told that the guy you made two successful movies with isn’t going to be helming the third one. But we were all just really pleasantly surprised as we eased into working with him.

Simon Pegg and Doug Jung are writing the screenplay this time around, and Cho says they brought a very particular feeling to the story:

What you’re going to get when you ask Simon Pegg to pen a script is a very human touch. And a warm touch. And that can come out in comedy, but doesn’t necessarily have to. And there are some funny moments. But I think he and [co-writer Doug Jung], from what I could tell, were constantly looking for connections between the characters. And that, from the cast perspective, was what was spectacular about asking Simon and Doug to do it. It just felt like they were looking for human moments.

Cho feels that the film really captures the spirit of TOS:

When I read the script, my emotional impression was that it felt very much like the best of the original series. It felt like the series felt to me. And the first [film] that we made didn’t entirely feel like that to me.

The rest of Cho’s interview will be available on newsstands and as well as digitally via June 7.   The issue will also feature interviews with Nichelle Nichols, Rod Roddenberry, and a great deal more. To pre-order the issue, click here.



Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Sounds good, but………….we’ll see.

Harry, you are going to love it. The opening sequence has time travel where the crew convinces LBJ to let JFK live.

I’d prefer time travel where they give Captain Archer some spine….

Serious? My friends and I refer to Archer as Space Bauer.

Why are you so negative, Harry? Did you have to add in the “we’ll see”?

I only take that position because STID was a steaming pile of doggydoo. Once burned and all that…

Harry, does this mean you quit watching the Bond movies during the Roger Moore years?……well, the last one Pierce Brosnon did was pretty bad, too..

Phil, it’s not that simple. First, I really liked Roger Moore in The Persuaders, so when he became Bond, I didn’t mind. Also, I really liked Star Trek 2009. That’s why I was so terribly disappointed with STID, as it was such an inferior film. Hell, Benedict Cumberbatch is my favorite actor and I can’t watch him in STID, it’s THAT bad!

I was a huge fan of Trek’09, too, but like Mr. Ballz here, I felt like STID was a muddled mess of a story that also missed what made the first one work. So hearing this makes me optimistic, but cautiously optimistic. I suppose it doesn’t hurt that Simon Pegg and Justin Lin were both childhood Trek fans.

I admit that Trek ’09 has grown on me. My only real problem with it were the glaringly obvious things like seeing Vulcan from Delta Vega and the like, but I came to realize that Trek in the movies was always doing similar blunders.
STID, to me, was an entirely different bird.
I always though the Khan thing was going to be a mistake, even before STID went into production. I had a lot of my own reasons and that argument has come and gone so I won’t rehash any of that. Needless to say I felt that it was an epicly bad move that translated into an awful movie. JJverse Trek with me needs to sort of prove itself again and I’m going to remain skeptical until I get to see the final product on the screen. That first trailer didn’t do anything for me, save for Urban’s one-liner about Spock. So far I personally am not too excited for Beyond.
As far as my own take on Moore’s Bond, I was barely entering adolescence when they were making them so I enjoyed them at the time. As I got into my teens I started to see those movies with more mature eyes and realized they were somewhat awful. I tuned out until the Craig era, and that was out of curiosity.

yeah, I doubt any reviewer will say that once it’s released. How tedious and boring if it were correct, I thought the point of rebooting was starting fresh and doing exciting things.

Looks OK to me.

Then again, I enjoyed Into Darkness so yeah, your mileage may vary and all that

I love it!

Now watch people find negatives in this? :-(

@Prodigal Son,

Dude, why do you keep doing that in EVERY NEW Thread?

Just express your OWN views & lets others do the same.

Feature length episode of Spocks Brain. Bring it on….

Aww c’mon Phil, Cho said the best of Trek, not the best of Dreck. ;-}

Aww cmon. Spocks Brain is definitely the best of Trek. Who doesn’t enjoy seeing Deforest Kelly try to keep a straight face as he eats up his lines with dramatic vigor.
Dramto. Vigor

Much in the same way that “The Great Vegetable Rebellion” was the best of Lost in Space and Mark Goddard having to turn his face away every two minutes to try to hide that ever growing smirk.

Oops typo in there. Stoopid ipad

Because I hope it will give people pause NOT to be so negative here.

Im not religious but for lack of a better phrase, amen to that.

Prodigal Son,

In reply to your comment uniquely identified by the following URL:

Fascinating, you honestly and sincerely believe that you can win a case of Mutually Assured Destruction of optimism by preemptively and loudly launching your PESSIMISTIC barbs first.

To paraphrase Lawrence Lasker and Walter Parkes, “Strange game, your Global Thermal Negative War, Professor Prodigal, the only way to win is not to play.”

@ Disinvited

Hey, Reagan won the Cold War doing that, so why not.

Prodigal Son,

In reply to your comment uniquely identified by the following URL:

Odd, I don’t recall Reagan being quoted as saying, “Now watch people use SDI as excuse to add another foot to that damn wall.”

Unfortunate that you have such an incorrect & skewed view of history.

That’s a bit arrogant, if you’ll pardon my bluntness..

And…it won’t.

How many releases before we’re allowed to express negativity here?

2009 bastardized the franchise, in my opinion.
Into Darkness was an abomination (apparently not just in my opinion).

Is it time yet, you think? Is it perhaps alright for some of us to openly fear the worst the third time round?

Dude, he’s got a point, and its a very apt point. If people can (far too frequently) express their negativity towards the new movies, he has a right to point that out.

Because its just marketing after a storm of bad press and negative fan reaction, they have to shore up the base.

I like what I’m hearing so far. There was also a new interview with Justin Lin where he talked about the importance of the characters in STB.


Lin: “The most challenging part, for me, was making sure that we don’t waste any frame of the film, because there’s a huge ensemble.

I wanted to make sure that everybody – regardless of screen time – when you see them, that they exist for a reason and they have valid feelings and emotional connections to the audience… so after you see the movie, you feel like you actually have a great relationship with all these characters.”

Lin brought in a reputation on being able to work an ensemble cast properly. So far, it seems like his cast has been pleased with his effort. We’ve had two comic book movies hit the cinema in the last month – BvS and CA:CW both have run times within three minutes of each other – BvS got raked over the coals for being bloated, I’ve heard no such complaint (so far) on CA:CW. It’ll be interesting to see STB’s run time, and how Lin pulls off ‘hav(ing) a great relationship with all these characters’….


It’s a great to see Lin recognizing the need to give everyone on the crew something to contribute on the screen. The attention to the characters is also very refreshing & it’s making me more excited for this movie.

I think it’s a fallacy that TOS-centric films need to embrace every character. TNG was an ensemble series, while TOS was, very much, about Kirk, Spock and McCoy. The TOS movies leaned slightly more towards this “ensemble” model and that was only because, over the years, through conventions and novels and fan fiction, the perception of the supporting players and their actual involvement with TOS became slightly skewed.
With the new movies, it’s really born from a need to service all of the actors and their collective egos, not so much to further or enrichen a story. 2 hours is not a lot of time to begin with, so, to feel the need to give everybody something to do at the risk of sacrificing a good solid story is a bit reckless, but I understand the politics of such things. And the right people, with the right story, can pull it off…but it doesn’t have to be a do or die situation…love the supporting cast, but at the end of they day, they aren’t that integral to the stories of TOS….they can be removed 9 times out of 10 without any real consequence to the story at hand.

I agree. Trying to give everyone a moment usually feels forced. Outside of the fantasies of Takei, Nichols and Koenig, TOS was never an ensemble show.

Even the TNG movies suffered from this – and that show was more of an ensemble. Like you say, in a movie, there’s just not time. That said, CA:CW did a pretty great job of featuring a bunch of characters without any of it feeling forced. They actually mattered to the story.

I can’t see Star Trek Beyond being longer than 2 hours.

Again this sounds like spin. “making sure that we don’t waste any frame of the film….” and we have silly action sequences with a motorcycle.

I hope I’m wrong.

This does sound a lot like the Russo Brothers’ description of the writing process for CA:CW. Hope it pans out as well.

Wow, the importance of characters. What a brave, original stand to take.

Next he’ll try to tell us that having a strong plot is important, or that a story should have a definite beginning, middle, and end.

Everything I hear from Lin paints the picture of a below average intellect doing a soulless job for pay for a subject with ZERO personal fire and drive. I mean, he’s poo pooing the idea of doing another Trek film – while saying YES to Space Jam 2.

Space… Jam… 2. This is your SF auteur who is going to bring back the best of the original series?

Next thing you know he will directing Three Men and a Baby or writing The Prince of Egypt .

Ahmed, you should run for President. :-)

It was intriguing when Lin said during the Dubai press conference that it felt like they were making the biggest budgeted indie film ever.

So, Spocks Brain. Space Hippies, Tribbles, go-go dancers, and the Doomsday Machine all rolled into one.

Join the discussionI would watch the hell outta that movie!

Austin Powers: Star Trekkin, Baby.
Yeah, I’d go, too.

Kirk: “I’m spent! I’m SPENT, baby!”

Seriously though, Justin Lin is throwing a really good vibe into this. It remains to be seen how this translates in the execution…

really, because I just hear a drone spouting empty studio marketing lines in the face of colossally bad press and fan reaction. I repeat: Space Jam 2. That’s where he’s headed next. Not abandoning Trek for Wars but for… SPACE JAM 2.

Something stupid this way comes.

I really don’t want to post anything negative about something I have not seen.

But this next trek looks a bit depressing. Seems like a good part of the movie will show the Enterprise and crew being stranded and in desperate straights – for most of the movie at least.

I expect to be surprised by this effort.


Only a bit? I think it looks a LOT depressing.

Because TWOK was a barrel of laughs? Movies, like TV shows, have to have conflict, folks. And only x rated trailers show the happy endings.

I’m liking it.

Yeah, cause TOS had so many motorcycles and rock music.

Pegg and Lin have stated they weren’t impressed with the first trailer, which was the result of the marketing departments involvement.

and their script and shooting. Those were what someone thought the HIGHLIGHTS were. I can only imagine the bits they thought not to use.

Only time will tell. The actors said the same thing about Into Darkness. But as always, I have hope and I am always optimistic about these movies. With a new production crew and JJ taking a bit of a back seat, I hope this movie will set itself apart from the previous two to a degree. As long as its better than Into Darkness (which part of me does like) its a win. If its better than 2009, success! If it captures Star Trek, a grand slam. I hope that the upcoming trailer will show us what Lin and Pegg are talking about. Whenever I think of or watch the first trailer I think of that look, that squeezes my heart that Simon Pegg gave when interviewed about the first trailer….i’m hanging in bud, i’m hanging in.

Via Trekcore,


Sofia Boutella in the Recording Booth for STAR TREK BEYOND Audio

Spoiler !? Well, She screams ! 👽🚀 #startrek #startrekbeyond #jaylah #justinlin @ParamountPics @trailingjohnson xx”

comment image:large

Hopefully, John Cho is correct and the first trailer wasn’t a very good representation of the film.

It was like a bad joke by JJ Abrams. “Sabotaging” again seven years later…

Without knowing the words to the song “Sabotage” by the Beastie Boys, perhaps the reason why the song was used, again, is because the Enterprise was sabotaged and the crew were forced to evacuate the ship and land on the closest habitable planet. Sabotage is what enemies tend to get up to…


Hmmm…I’ve seen the trailer in the theater a couple of times but I don’t have the impression that the playing of SABOTAGE occurs on the Enterprise. Nether does the way Scotty enters the room give the impression that it’s Kirk’s going to battle song. My sense its more something he plays at the launch of theduring work on it.

Cho said all the right things, but what movie is he talking about? It surely isn’t the movie the teaser trailer presented, not even remotely. Casting a new role a filming a bunch of new material isn’t going to change the focus of the film to the relationships between the principles… or make us actually care about the E again.

I hate to be a drag but after a very strong start with ST09 they seem to have dropped the ball continually. This interview sounds like spin because it sounds too perfect, and the exact opposite of the trailer which was almost universally hated by anyone who cares about Star Trek.

I hope I’m wrong! I would love to see a Trek movie that is like what Cho says above.

Your concerns is probably why we have yet to see a second trailer at this point. Even Simon Pegg, who is writing the thing, didn’t like it. But, again, we’ll see…

My thoughts exactly. The trailer was awful and really…that’s not Star Trek. Hopefully they’ve done a better job than the other two. I hope I will be impressed but I don’t think that will be possible. That being said, we’ll see and I agree with what has been written int he other comments. The sad part in all this is that I an no longer happy or thrilled to go and see another Star Trek movie at the cinema.

Does sound good, although I don’t know what Cho’s comments about ST09 were prior to release. But it does seem that, unlike JJ, Lin is a fan and hopefully the goofy action of trailer 1 will be tempered by great story and character moments.

p.s. Civil War was amazing!

such a fan that he doesn’t want to do another one but was super gung ho to sign onto Space Jam 2. Clearly we are dealing with a HUGE Trek fan, right?

I am encouraged by these comments and I look forward to seeing the movie.

It is true, you have to have a good trailer to sell the film. I wouldn’t worry so much about the ‘lack’ of promotional material. There isn’t much box office activity until about this time anyway. This weekend’s Capt America opener is just for starters. So, tacking on one of the final trailers to a big event film will maximize exposure to those going to the movies to see..I guess it’ll be the X Men movie or one of the others that will open wide.

I’m being positive, like the best of Trek does in showing a possible future, in believing this movie will be good. If Cho says there are good relationship moments, we should take his word for it. As long as the crew isn’t sitting around a campfire, eating marsh melons singing, then we should be ok. :)

I’m hoping Sulu has some good action/fighting scenes in the movie. A nice, decently choreographed fight scene that is part Matrix, part Jason Bourne and the rest Star Trek.

This isn’t news. This is just a promotional piece for the movie targeted at the fans.

“John Cho has a very good feeling about Star Trek Beyond.” One of the actors being paid to promote the movie has a good feeling about it? You don’t say!

Cho hits most of the buzzwords that the market research shows fans want in this movie—“character” (development), “TOS”… Though he neglected to mention “space exploration,” which also ranked highly on the poll at this site.

And weren’t people saying the same thing about STID? That it would be more like TOS, what with Khan and and tribbles and other TOS references. . . .

Well, I agree with Cho that ST09 did not feel like TOS. And will this forthcoming action movie, directed by an action-movie director, feel like TOS? Or, are they just trying to sell the movie by saying so. The trailer sure didn’t feel like TOS.


In reply to your comment uniquely identified by the following URL:

Well, the Barco Escape coverage makes it very clear Abrams is actively in the editing room for BEYOND on that, which I would have thought would be a reason to express less, rather than more, candor on anything disappointing about his 2009 effort. As it expresses a sentiment that I share about his first TREK effort I’m less inclined to believe that he totally committed to his contractually obligated role to puff BEYOND. So, I’m encouraged about BEYOND.

One possible reason for that candor though, could be that he knows for a fact that he and possibly the rest of the second tier cast members are not being asked back for their fourth Trek movie.

It does gnaw at my thoughts why Bad Robot might incur in a reportedly reduced budget production, the added costs of building NX class starship sets? It makes me wonder if Abrams, ever the STAR WARS film making student, is considering taking his next 3 Treks even further back before TOS? But what role could Pine and Quinto play in a time before they were born? Unless, that of C3PO and R2D2 in the WARS saga? But to paraphrase Bob Gale, we’re going to have to “…see some serious time travel $hit…” for Abrams to pull that one off successfully.

Disinvited Today 1:53 am

One possible reason for that candor though, could be that he knows for a fact that he and possibly the rest of the second tier cast members are not being asked back for their fourth Trek movie.

You go places that I wouldn’t think to go. It’s an interesting hypothesis, but I’m not sure that Cho was being all that “candid.” Paramount’s marketing communications dept likely sent the press release containing Cho’s comments to various news outlets and blogs (like this one and TrekCore), who then wrote articles based on the content of the press release. That’s the way it’s typically done, and it means that Cho’s comments were approved before they went out.

And how is THIS comment not productive!?! It’s not relevant to discuss marketing procedure with respect to the new Star Trek movie?!?!?

I dare anyone to say why this comment is not relevant or productive.

For all we know, it’s people associated with the movie who have downvoted it.

Come out of the shadows, you COWARDS, and say what you think. And, please downvote this comment in order to express contempt for the memory and legacy of Gene Roddenberry.

Well, it is not me who downvoted your comments, Cygnus, because I refuse to vote either way. However, a reason could be because you question Cho’s candidness. If Cho said that something of a more negative nature, you would not question it. Your bias and cynicism are obvious, and I do not think that John Cho necessarily deserves it. You know that to be true. Be honest. That’s why I would downvote you.

I have no idea why others have downvoted your comments. I am stating why I would. However, I don’t need to up or down vote, because I can express either agreement or disagreement with any post and can also state why, through using fingers on a keyboard and actually type my thoughts into a post and submit.

If Cho said something negative about STB it would be so unusual and newsworthy that the veracity of what he said would be more likely to be true just by the nature of actors promoting their films. He has nothing to lose by fluffing up the film. He has much to lose by publicly crapping on it. That alone would make a negative remark more likely to be true.

When JJ was negative about the writing on STID, do we argue with him? What would his motive have been to think the writing was great but to publicly say it wasnt?

As for Cho being positive, we know it’s part of the deal to do promotion, in some cases contractually obligated. So that alone would call into question whether his remarks are accurate or not.

You’re jumping to some conclusions here that are…perplexing, to say the least.

why would they incur a reduced budget? because they have their C TEAM on it.

Well, it’s hard for words like “character” not to be deemed buzzwords also. Just maybe, the actor John Cho is saying what he feels and not necessarily what the studio would want him to say. He is the actor who plays Sulu who’s character is heavily based on the TOS TV and movie series character. He already has a more intimate relationship with the Sulu character than we have and feels that what Sulu gets to say and do in this latest movie reminds him more of what he saw prime Sulu say and do. He said that this film feels like what he considers to be the best of the original TV series. It’s not that the first movie wasn’t at all Star Trek. It just that this film feels closer to what he sees and feels as he watches episodes from TOS TV Star Trek.

Sounds good to me.

Jesus, there is more to Trek than the original series. I know they like hyping it up because the average Joe doesn’t know much else, but… shit, give it a rest.

I think the trailer is awesome! beastie boys sabotage ! I loved the Enterprise series also except for the lamo theme song…guess ya could call me a “NEO-TREKKIE

From your mouth to God’s ears, Mr. Cho!

What’s with all the positivity, optimism, rational thinking and willingness to wait to see the final project before judging it?

Is this the same i’ve been visiting for the past 6 years??

Some people must have been on vacation for a few days ;-)

“And the first [film] that we made didn’t entirely feel like that to me.”

Well, he didn’t make it, but he’s right. To me, that’s not even Star Trek. I didn’t hate the second one as much as the first one, but I disliked it. I hate the title, though (Into Darkness? What a dumb title aspiring to be trendy). What I consider the biggest advantage with this movie though is that a) fricking JJ Abrams, a man who isn’t familiar with Trek, doesn’t like Trek (hates it?), and who is also is one of the biggest hack directors of all time, is actually not directing, and b) that Mr. Lin seemingly understands and respects the franchise. Hopefully he has instructed the writers to remove the Star Wars elements that Jar Jar was so fond of and get rid of the teenage soap opera vibe (Spock & Uhura, etc.), and, one of the very important things, make the movie at least partially feel like “Star Trek”. It seems it’s going in the right direction.

Its funny he says that NOW… what did he say in 2009?

Oh yeah, the same empty lines about characters:

“I was really impressed with his focus on the characters and making all of the action so much more interesting as a result. ”


@Ibling – yup. Its interesting how different people perceive things. Sure, they are saying all the right things but that doesnt change my opinion going into it. Because we’ve heard it all before.

People said 09 was the perfect embodiment of the spirit of Star Trek and now here is one of the cast members saying that wasnt so.

People said STID was a well written film and then JJ comes along and pours cold water on that thought.

STB could be amazing. But if it sucks, no one going into it is going to say so. But 2-3 years later, they might. And that would make fools out of many fans who argued so vehemently.

Ill make the point again – if you are going into STB with great optimism, great! But that doesnt change the fact that those people going into it with pessimism havent been given reason to feel that way. Both perspectives are relevant.

quantum47 May 7, 2016 7:32 am

And why the hell would this comment get so many tomatoes thrown at it?

How is this comment not productive? How is it offensive? He/she is expressing their opinion about the very topic that this post is about.

I dare anyone to express in words how this comment is offensive or necessarily unproductive, in accordance with the guidelines of this site for voting.

Kayla Iacovino, Brian Drew, perhaps you can shed some light on why this comment by quantum47 deserves mass disapproval. It was, after all, you who put the button in place for anonymous people to simply click on in order to poo-poo this comment. Please, tell me how you think this is productive. Or even polite. Can you even tell me what the downvotes are supposed to signify in this case? Look at the various opinions quantum47’s comment, and tell me which of those opinions is being disapproved of.

Can ANYONE tell me? I’m really asking.


in reply to your comment uniquely idenitfied by the URL:

I can only offer speculation as I didn’t vote on it one way or the other, but as you seem to be begging for speculation on unknowns’ motivations, could it likely be because of the over the top personal attacks on Abrams in violation of the new rules?

To whit:

“…one of the biggest hack directors of all time…” “… Jar Jar…”

I mean saying he hack directed one or two Trek films might charitably be given the benefit of the doubt as straddling the line, but “…one of the biggest hack directors of all time…” seems to unmistakenly be crossing it. Also, calling him “… Jar Jar…” contributes absolutely nothing productive to the discussion and seems to be a case of just plain name calling or outright making fun of his name, and not even bothering to make a Trek connection in bothering to do it, at that, which seems to also make it an uncalled for STAR WARS dig too?

Disinvited Today 5:37 pm

I can only offer speculation as I didn’t vote on it one way or the other, but as you seem to be begging for speculation on unknowns’ motivations,

JJ Abrams has always been known to be more fond of Star Wars than of Star Trek, especially when he was directing the previous two BR Trek movies, which many fans have criticized as being attempts to make Star Trek more Star Wars-like. I wouldn’t use that nickname, myself, but neither does it invalidate the commenter’s entire opinion. If that’s the reason, it’s pretty weak.

Disinvited Today 5:37 pm

I can only offer speculation as I didn’t vote on it one way or the other, but as you seem to be begging for speculation on unknowns’ motivations…

And that’s the point, isn’t it. There’s no way to know anyone’s motivation, and are you kidding with your suggestion that it’s “in violation of the new rules”? Most of the downvoting does not comport with the guidelines. It’s a joke.

If one of the COWARDS lurking in the shadows who downvoted quantum’s comment would grow a pair and express their feelings with words, then perhaps we might get some insight.

And by the way, you COWARDS, I can call you COWARDS as many times as you can downvote my comment. So, if you’d like a war, by all means have at it.

COWARDS who downvote this comment are doing so in opposition to IDIC and as such are expressing contempt for the legacy of Gene Roddenberry.

They already decided he doesn’t matter any more because he had flaws. Unlike everyone else who worked on the franchise, I guess…

It’s not a big deal. I understand, and it is to be expected, that some people may not agree with everything in that comment, and that’s fine. True, it’s difficult to tell what someone specifically disagrees with since there’s more than one thing, but I guess it’s mainly the negative attitude towards JJ Abrams and the 2 BR movies that prompted the many downvotes. But I don’t care. I don’t respect JJ Abrams because I find that he didn’t respect Star Trek. And I expressed that in my comment. However, I also said that I think that Mr. Lin seems to have more respect and understanding for the franchise and may possibly take this movie into a somewhat better direction. That’s my view on these things, anyway. I certainly didn’t want to offend anyone here, I was merely commenting the article. You may agree or disagree with that. The choice is yours.

When I say, you may agree or disagree with that, I mean all of you, not just one person.

Well, Cyg, if you scroll down, there are people answering your question. The problem is, they aren’t necessarily in agreement with your observations.

I’m seeing more and more commentary in mass media about the 50th anniversary – sufficient to say, it’s probably a bit rash to be proclaiming that Trek has faded from societies collective memory.


I must admit I found the University of Iowa Library’s 50th anniversary observations pertinent:

”The reason Star Trek remains popular, he [Peter Balesrtrieri, curator of science fiction and popular culture collections in for Special Collections, University of Iowa Library] said, is because of its fans, like the ones inside the Main Library.

“The whole exhibit is heavy with the work of the fans,” he said.

There are dozens of Star Trek fan-made zines that show everything from fans writing themselves into Star Trek episodes to stories about Kirk and Spock being romantically involved with each other. Other items include a fan-made Star Trek encyclopedia that captures every known fact in the Star Trek universe and a program from the first Star Trek convention.

“This is only the tip of the iceberg; we have thousands of Star Trek zines,” Balestrieri said.” — ‘ University of Iowa Library beams up Star Trek fans with exhibit’; Zach Berg; THE DES MOINES REGISTER; 4:48 p.m. CDT May 8, 2016

this can all be studio speak , so yeah, we’ll see.

Totally unrelated,I miss Science Saturday.

Yeah Kayla Iacovino used to science the sh*t outta this place.

Why on Earth would anybody poo-poo this comment?

You don’t like Science Saturdays? Or you don’t like Kayla? Or you don’t like the movie that I was referencing?

I dare anybody to say what they don’t like about this comment.


Yeah, there are some weird downvoting & massive vote flipping happening on this thread, perhaps the Eight are back!

I miss the bi-weekly Sci-Fi TV & Movies news articles.

Ahmed Today 4:20 pm

Ah…the Hateful Eight…

Well, here’s an article that would likely have been part of Science Saturday here for this week:

I dont think it’s difficult to see what is happening. There are certain posters who always end up with several upvotes very very soon after posting and the people they generally dislike are suddenly down voted. The efforts of the mods only served to chill those that were being more responsible and opened the door for those that are now delivering receipts to the people they dislike.

Although again, the voting means nothing to me. But since it seems like no one actually likes it (either you dont care or you dont like it), I see no reason to keep it. As any admin actually explained why they enjoy the voting…other than perhaps the discussion the votes create which seems to be little more than people complaining or fighting…which I thought was something they wanted to avoid.

I can see if someone makes a short, general post and its down voted that it could contribute to that person saying “why bother”. Same with someone making a longer, more detailed thoughtful post, whether you agree or not…rampant down voting is going to tell that person “you’re not welcome” around here. I just dont see the point.

@ TUP @ Ahmed @ Cygnus

Yea, the voting is freaking all over the place. Weird?

I am trying to take a page of TUP’s advice and just ignore it.

@ PS I kinda figured you’d be laughing your @$$ off over that….oh, the irony.

@ Phil

I think there have maybe been maybe two threads in that last couple of months where I have received a lot of positive votes, versus the vast majority of times that people are just killing me here.

I don’t get it? Anyway, I am trying to relax and not care anymore about the damn voting.

@ PS. That’s about all you can do – or fire up another drinking game and enjoy it.

May 9, 2016 6:16 pm

@ PS I kinda figured you’d be laughing your @$$ off over that….oh, the irony.

uh huh

I don’t see the point either. I did do it on about three different threads a couple weeks back when somebody on the board p—-d me off (in lieu of getting into a War of the Words with them), but ultimately it’s meaningless and in future I will “use my words” or ignore for the moment the posters who p–s me off.

Someone pointed out a while back that the up/down votes may be a way of tracking site traffic. That is the only idea that makes any sense to me.

Not sure – I liked the Science Saturday feature, too. I’d contribute, if it would help.

Re: Vote Swings.

Likely what’s going on is that once the cookie connection got out, some couldn’t resist the voting cookie jar when they realized:

“Accessing TrekMovie is not dependent on accepting cookies and all major browsers allow you to disable cookies if you wish. ” —

Word to the wise:

“Do not do these things: Ask for up/down-votes or engage in voting manipulation (including the creation of multiple accounts to avoid following the rules)

If you do not follow the guidelines here, your comment may be deleted by a moderator. If a commenter continually chooses to ignore these guidelines, the moderators are not above permanently banning that person if it means making the TrekMovie comments a safer place.
…” — Staff

This is a refreshing change of pace from when the actors usually bash a film before it comes out.


I mean, I know it’s standard to have the actors and director hype the movie before it’s released, but didn’t they say that STID would be more like TOS, too? What I’m expecting from STB is an action movie with some banter between Spock and McCoy as they’re running around and whatnot. And that one line in the trailer—“typical”—was funny. But, how can the movie “feel like TOS” when it has to be wall-to-wall action? The structure of these movies doesn’t allow enough time for the sort of thematic and character development of TOS and the TOS movies. And why should anyone expect any different this time around, when the director is best known for “Fast & Furious” movies? If John Cho really wanted to persuade us that this movie would be more TOS-like, he’d have said that it spends less time on action and more resembles the TOS movies in its structure. The “character” moments that he’s talking about are probably 30 seconds here and there, as opposed to something like this:

That 4-minute non-action scene from TWOK sets up the death/rebirth theme of the movie and gives meaning to the action that occurs later—the “life from lifelessness” associated with the Genesis Device; the life cycle of Khan, which is the diametric opposite of Kirk’s; the death of Spock vis-a-vis the birth of the Genesis Planet; and, of course, Kirk’s emblematic line at the end while watching the birth of the Genesis Planet: “I feel young.” All of that is set up by that 4-minute non-action scene at the beginning of the movie.

Courage, Cygnus. [your 7 May 12:44]
It could just possibly happen that Justin Lin will take more than 30 seconds with the character moments. Gosh — maybe two minutes. I hope for more.

Wall-to-wall action is boring after two viewings. And if they want to sell DVDs, well, they MAY just slow it down.

A girl can dream.

@Marja – agreed. Punching up the action is easy. Start with a great story, great writing and some wonderful character moments. You can add the flash bangs at any time.

TUP, 11.43 am, LOL!!



At least Cho is saying that AFTER working on the movie, unlike last time when he was praising the movie before even reading the script!

October 8, 2014

OfficialJohnCho: I’m absolutely confident in Bob. No one knows these characters better than Bob. And no one knows the Star Trek universe better than Bob. I think he’s going to blow people away. And I don’t know anything about Star Trek 3.

I’m guessing I’m in it? I just went in for a costume fitting

Exactly. Anyone using these statements as an example to support their position that STB will be amazing is barking up the wrong tree.

2 1/2 months to go. Would LOVE to see a trailer that explains some of the plot. Hoping it’s a truly great flick. At least the unis will be better than the ’09 Nike jerseys.

@CmdrR: Less than 2 weeks till the next trailer premieres. I expect it to be 30 to 60 seconds longer than the first from December. Since this is still a Bad Robot Production, I don’t expect the trailer to spill all the beans but it should give a better idea of the story (hopefully).

On a related note to Star Trek Beyond, just posted a couple of clips of the documentary that Leonard Nimoy’s daughter Julie is making about his battle with COPD. The first clip of Adam Nimoy explains some of why Orci’s Star Trek film might have fallen apart – Leonard Nimoy knew that he was dying and would likely not live long enough to make the movie:

Well, official word has been that the studio wasn’t satisfied with Orci’s story and that’s why they got Simon Pegg, Doug Jung and Justin Lin to start over. I guess it’s possible that Orci’s story relied heavily on Nimoy and the studio had doubts because of his health. However, I can’t imagine that that would be enough to cause both parties to part ways.

Maybe that is why Bob had to write another draft. Perhaps it was less reliant on Leonard Nimoy. Hopefully Bob will shed some light on the subject once the film is released. Hoping for the best but was liking Bob including Shatner and Nimoy. I am glad they are acknowledging the loss of Nimoy in this film but to omit Shatner again???

I bet my name sake is in the new movie…again…just kidding but I wouldn’t be surprised.
I can see it now, the ultimate twist:
Khan: No Kirk, I am your father.
Kirk: No..that can’t be! That’s impossible!
Khan: Spock, search kirks feelings, you both know it to be true.
McCoy: Damnit Jim, he’s your dad!

I. Love. J Cho. Period.


I hope this is a sign that of the many characters that have been resurrected – it’s the foundation of the show more or less — on SLEEPY HOLLOW, you are giving serious consideration to resurrecting his Andy Brooks.

I find it interesting that there have been an awful lot of people that would go nuts around here saying how amazing 09 and STID were and yet we have had statements from actors/film makers somewhat being negative about them. So…are they trying to push those films down to make STB seem better or is it perhaps that those films werent as wonderful as some of us thought?

Why can’t people find ST 09 and STID amazing EVEN THOUGH some actors/film makers might be somewhat negative about them? Everybody has their own opinions about these movies. Some people love them, others like aspects of them while even others hate them (or one of the two) with a passion. For the actors and film makers involved there are two additional layers to how they might feel about the movies: the intentions they had when going into it and the experience of making it. Some filmmakers are extremely critical of their own work. Some actors don’t even like to watch anything they are in. I don’t remember anyone involved in the last 2 ST movies suggesting that they were complete failures. They may have reservations, just like everybody else. That doesn’t have to influence how you or I feel about the movies.
Coming to Star Trek Beyond, of course they will say that the newest one is better than the ones before, especially before the movie’s release. On the one hand, I guess every filmmaker doing a sequel intends to make it better than the previous one. On the other hand, they want to get as many people as possible to watch it. We’ll see in July whether they succeeded.

My comment today at 2:34 pm was in response to TUP (6:31 am) if anybody is wondering. I still don’t like the comment format of this site with just one level of nesting. Others make it much easier to see which comment you are replying to.

@Diginon – absolutely people can love a film that others dislike, including actors and film makers. Although it adds some weight when its those people rather than “just fans”. How many fights took place here over the writing of STID and then JJ admitted there were issues there. A film can actually be lousy and still be liked by people. We can like films on different levels. I like The Godfather and I like Battleship. Very different films in terms of quality, depth and historic legacy. But both enjoyable for different reasons.

How many people count Dirty Dancing as one of their all time favorites? Its not great cinema…but it is a great film.

I love how he didn’t stick up for you, just like the rest of the team.

Are there really 5 lights?
I still don’t know….

We’ll see how well it performs. I hope personally that it does well as a movie, and pays respect the franchise on its 50th anniversary.

And I would direct the attention of Kayla Iacovino and Brian Drew to this comment: quantum47 May 7, 2016 7:32 am

And I would kindly ask you to explain how this comment deserves 18 tomatoes thrown at it. And how it’s productive or even polite.

The comment by quantum47 is most certainly on-topic. It is most certainly a valid, reasonable set of opinions. It is most certainly not using any language that could reasonably be deemed offensive. It is most certainly not ad hominem with respect to anyone. PLEASE, I implore you to explain how it is a good thing for this comment to be ostensibly stigmatized—and that is your purpose with regard to the whole voting system, is it not? How does it foster productive, interesting, thought-provoking discussions? How does it encourage people to express ideas?

PLEASE explain why the tomatoes that you’ve handed out to the crowd are appropriately thrown at this comment. I’m really asking.

Stop whining, and what the h*ll are you talking about?

Don’t tell me to stop whining, you cretin.

I included the date/time and name of the commenter. All you have to do is scroll down to the comment to see what the hell I’m talking about.

“I see we have a long way to go”

I think too many people confuse “troll” with “doesnt agree with me”.

Being negative on BR is just as relevant as being positive. Intrigues me that there are still people who would rather silence the critics then allow them to express their opinion.

Cretin? You whine like a coward that someone is getting an unjust bashing, then you go personal and insult me, when your original quandary was about doing just that? By the way, your idiot posts are too long. Get a life and stop wasting it in front of your computer…

Without wanting to rehash the whole love/hate debate on JJ and BR, quantum47’s original comment is pretty much a summary of every trope on the ‘hate JJ/BR’ side that has been aired here the last few years. There’s no objectivity or even opinion expresses, he’s just taking another piss on the BR movies, and that point has been repeated ad nauseam. Seems to me the audience is throwing the tomatoes because, for the ten thousandth time, we get you hate it. Enough is enough.


“There’s no objectivity or even opinion expresses,”

How so? Isn’t it objective that Abrams doesn’t like Star Trek (nor is familiar with it)? That’s a fact. Another fact is that JJ Abrams is not directing this movie. Those are two facts, objective information. There’s also my opinion, like hating the ridiculous title of the second reboot movie, or not considering those movies Star Trek. I’d say that’s pretty much a combination of objectivity and opinion.

@ quantum47. No, it’s conjecture. You’ve already arrived at your conclusion, now you are just crafting opinion to support it. I mentioned when answering the question about all the thumbs down that the post received a negative reaction because it’s nothing more then a rehash of the volumes of negativity previously posted. Debating that, yet again, is pointless. The negative reaction to your sentiment suggests that the non-posting public isn’t really interested in rehashing it, as well. You’re free to disagree with that conclusion, but it does answer the question that was posted.


“There’s no objectivity or even opinion expresses, he’s just taking another piss on the BR movies”

Well, by taking “another piss on BR” he IS expressing an opinion!

“Seems to me the audience is throwing the tomatoes because, for the ten thousandth time, we get you hate it. Enough is enough.”

We could say the same about the others who keep expressing their love for the BR movies, right? Perhaps EVERYONE should just go away & not express their love or hate for the movies, that should make life easier I guess /S

@ Ahmed. The question was, explain why the sentiment of the post was met with such a negative response. I offered an answer. No where did I say someone shouldn’t offer up an opinion, but if it’s met with an overwhelmingly negative response, then it’s on the opinion holder to understand not everyone shares that sentiment. Endlessly repeating a negative opinion doesn’t lend it validity, or make it more palatable.

Quantum47’s original comment reads as pure trolling. I didn’t even vote up or down on it because it seemed to be such an obvious attempt to rile up the Abrams fans by stringing together the most overused anti-Abrams attacks. I figured the comment didn’t deserve the attention because it was obviously trolling us. That was my reaction, anyway.

I just now voted on it to make sure I’m right about not having voted before, and to be honest, I’m downvoting it because I think the comment was just troll-spew, nothing but tired old gripes with no meaningful message around them. I tend to dislike comments that are all bile or all rainbows–either the haters or the gushing fanfolk. Quantum47’s seems to fit the first category, IMHO.

I can’t speak for others who downvoted it, but I’d bet real money that they viewed the comment as trolling, NOT a legitimate attempt to communicate within the commenting guidelines, and that’s why they downvoted it. I’m 50/50 on Abrams’ Trek films (loved 09, loathed ID) and not a big fan of his other work, but even I thought quantum47’s anti-Abrams comment was excessive and completely out of line. I imagine that others who spend more time and energy here than I do, and especially the Abrams fans among us, were even more annoyed about quantum47’s troll-seeming comment.

So, there you go–one person’s explanation for why that comment received downvotes. (You asked!)

Oh, and we all know the voting system isn’t going to be perfect, so relax, cupcake!

About this voting system–an idea (that might have already been discussed):

Some of us ignore the votes. Some of us freak out about the votes. But I think we all agree that the up/down voting system here is NOT working yet. So, let’s see if we can help it along.

For those of us who think the voting could be useful, let’s start openly stating our reasons for up/downvoting comments. Vote on a comment, then reply to the comment with at least a quick “up/downvoted for [reason].”

If you don’t comment with a reason, your vote deserves to be ignored. (Receive 10 downvotes but only 2 comments with reasons? Then 8 of those votes are personal or petty votes to be ignored.) This changes a pointless numerical value into a chance to give actual feedback, and it makes us accountable for our voting behavior.

It turns drive-by voting into conversation while making that +/- number more meaningful.

This way, we all can see exactly why our comments receive votes, and we can act/respond accordingly. It will greatly increase the number of comments here, but we only have to do this (or something!) for a while–long enough to learn some new habits for dealing with the up/down votes.

Anyhoo, just thought I’d offer a possible solution rather than griping about the problem any more. Might be more work and trouble than it’s worth. (And sorry if I’m retreading old ground, but I hadn’t seen this suggested, so…)

Feel free to downvote me, of course. I’ll just assume that means ‘no’ to this idea, unless you tell me otherwise. :)

I thought I typed that in paragraphs. Sorry. Haven’t used this new comment system much!


Your paragraphs are there. It’s just that when a comment exceeds around 255 words, the comment system compresses it as a form of ersatz abstraction and places a green ‘Read more »” at the end that must be clicked on to see the entire comment as originally formatted by you.

@Disinvited [3:57 am 9 May]
I really hate that because it makes long posts just under 255 words demmed hard to read. Gad I’m gettin’ old. An experiment follows.

Moderators please delete my comment awating moderation.

The people using the voting as its intended is one thing. But people multiple-voting or just voting up/down based on who they like/dont like wont comment and say so. So its moot. I think generally there are two camps: those that dont care and those that dont like it. So its probably worth just getting rid of it

But since it seems so important to the admins here, they must like it for some reason.

@ Disinvited

LOL — I want to see that post!


Your paragraphs are there. It’s just that when a comment exceeds around 255 words, the comment system compresses it as a form of ersatz abstraction and places a green ‘Read more »” at the end that must be clicked on to see the entire comment as originally formatted by you.

They should just remove the down button…

If there’s an up button, it’s only fair that there is a down button.


@PaulB….while your suggestion would attach some accountability to up/down voting, it would also be a moderation nightmare, pretty much requiring ‘eyes on’ every post and vote. I don’t think the volunteer mods here have that much time on their hands. Really, all the up/down vote does is gauge the general sentiment of any given comment – one would expect “I love apple pie, mom, and cute fluffy kittens’ to reflect a positive sentiment, and ‘Wow – Hitler was a great guy for giving the world the VW Beetle’ would reflect a negative one. So, instead of rationalizing it away (it’s not hard to vote multiple times, depending on your access to IP addresses), just look at it for what it is, an expression of support for, or disagreement with, an expressed sentiment. Now, if someone doesn’t understand why a vote has gone a particular direction, that’s probably a different conversation for a different day.

Yeah, my suggestion isn’t a good idea. I’m just so tired of all the griping about it that I thought I’d toss out an idea. Light a candle instead cursing the darkness, that kind of thing.

There was nothing wrong with your idea, Paul – it could very well be that the mods have a better understanding of the functionally of their software, and may be able to implement something similar. I agree. accountability can prevent abuses. The problem is, it can lead to abuses as well. For some people, any comment that could be construed as positive about Trek is chum in the water for them. These individuals seem to think it’s their moral duty to explain to those folks why they are wrong to support BR’s efforts. So, the vote is a decent way to express displeasure with the comment while avoiding a pointless confrontation. I don’t up/down vote, and am trying (with varying degrees of success) to not comment to those who are constantly negative. And yeah, there is some irony that those negative individuals, who are defending their right to be that way, are actively suppressing dialog while at the same time claiming to promote it through harassing those with whom they don’t agree. That said, I can live with the votes, for the reason that it’s a barometer of sentiment.

@Phil, 10 am 9 May:
I dunno, a lot of people love Volkswagens so that might get a mixed reception in votes :-p


In reply to your message uniquely identified by the following URL:

I can’t believe you didn’t provide a spoiler warning before mentioning that BEYOND marks a return of internal combustion vehicles in space as last occured in VOYAGER’s Amelia Earhart episode! ;-)


@Prodigal Son I say we keep the voting and we just get rid of the Trekmovie resident troll instead. :)

@ Moderators

Please delete raffie’s post above — it is in violation of your new rules of behavior.


@Prodigal – I love that your request for some politeness here gets down voted. lol Again, a wonderful example of the voting system at work. Does someone get a royalty for every vote or something? Otherwise, whats the actual point?



The guidelines:

You should upvote someone when:

– The commenter has contributed something interesting or new to the discussion
– You enjoyed reading a comment
– You think more people should read the comment

You should downvote someone when:

– They have commented something offensive or inappropriate
– They have commented something that does not contribute to the discussion

Famous Monsters magazine is still a thing? I had a subscription back in the `60s.

Yes, it’s still around. However Forrest J. Ackerman, the original creator and publisher, was pretty much robbed of his own creation in his later years. He was a great gentlemen. He turned his home into a museum of one of the largest collection of sci-fi and horror memorabilia and welcomed anyone to stop by for a tour.


I’m trying to be cautiously optimistic like I was when I heard about the director and writer shift. Getting Orci and Kurtzman as far away from Star Trek as possible was a promising start was far as I was concerned.

I watched the first trailer despite the fact that I generally don’t watch trailers and thought it looked terrible. Mad Max meets Star Wars/Guardians of the Galaxy rather than Star Trek so so far I’m not enthusiastic.

Claims that the trailer is nothing like the movie we’ll actually see are all well and good but don’t they have to say that to put out the PR fire? Same here with John Cho, he’s never going to say “This film I’m in gets nothing right, ignores the characters and completely misses the point of Star Trek”. Any pre-release chatter should really be taken with a pinch of salt since they probably have to be optimistic as per their contract, it’s a simple fact.

I guess what I’m saying is that I’ll have to see how the end result turns out but at this point I couldn’t be much less excited. I has to be better than Into Dumbness though. Right? Right?

That is all

John Cho could have said nothing if he didn’t think it’s going to great.

True, but doing a certain amount of press is probably in their contract and they won’t be allowed to be negative before the film is released. That’s why you would see people talking positively about tripe like X-Men 3 even though the final result was a dud. Ben Affleck recently talked about how humiliated he was for saying that Batman Vs. Superman was going to be great when people reacted so negatively to it. Any pre-release chatter that comes out should essentially be ignored because people will never be honest since those that work on it will need to encourage people to turn up and buy a ticket.

They have to promote. And they have a vested interest in the movie doing well. I dont begrudge them saying great things. Who knows, maybe he’s right. But we heard it about 09 and STID too and then people said negative things later. For ST 4 Cho might say “09 didnt feel like Trek. STID was a mess. STB was goofy. But this…this one is the real Star Trek.”

Its going to be up to us as the viewer to decide.

It’s kind of hard to reconcile Beyond feeling like “the best of the original series” while being subjected to that moronic Beastie Boys “music”, Pine’s retro motorcycle Xtreme sports jump yet another last second beam out save. I know everyone and their uncle are saying that the first trailer was not indicative of the movie but I remain to be convinced that we won’t be getting more of the the same. Hopefully the next trailer will give me some reason for optimism.

@TonyD – if (big if), STB contains wonderful character moments and drama that are reminiscent of TOS in their quality and depth, then its even more mind boggling that they released the Sabotage trailer the way they did. Im not against different trailers appealing to different audiences, but to have nothing out there indicative of this supposed “best of the original series” just seems idiotic.

This is off topic, but I just watched a fascinating video about a secret behind a key scene in Star Trek the Motion Picture:

Speaking of TOS – William Schallert, who played Nilz Baris, in “The Trouble With Tribbles”, has passed away.

I guess I’ll just remain skeptical until I see it. After the last movie I take whatever the cast says in interviews with a grain of salt.


@Bob: The new trailer will premiere at the fan event on 20 May.

For Me, the original series was at its best when it slightly cheesy and tackling a contemporary issue in a moderatly ham-fisted way.

So yeah, I liked Into Darkness. Feel free to pelt me with rotten tomatoes if you’d like :D

@Scott – for me, it wasnt that the issue was the wrong issue, just how they presented it. I didnt think they explored the motivations of the bad guy overly well which diminished not only the perspective of the bad guy, but the perspective of the good guys too…and didnt lead to as strong a moral dilemma for Kirk as it could have it.

It was like they had a really great idea…but just decided to make a flash bang action film that didnt serve the story.

There were actually two bad guys and their motivations were pretty clear. Marcus wanted to have full defensive capabilities against the Klingons because he believed “They are coming!” He told us that the Klingons had attacked Federation outposts. He took the view that the best defence was offense, ie have the upper hand. For him, the ends justified the means, even if it was to use the particular knowledge of a genius criminal through threats etc. Marcus thought he could control this man who called himself Khan.

Khan was a man out of his time. However, the genetic manipulation that had been done to him allowed him superior intellect and physical strength. He could new things very quickly, including much of 23rd century technology, some of which Marcus had shared with him. Khan had his own agenda though and bided his time, mainly because of the threat of death hanging over his crew in cryostasis.

Kirk’s motivation was clear. He wanted to see justice done, according to Starfleet/Federation guidelines. Killing Khan would not have achieved that. I do not see why there would be (or have to be) a strong moral dilemma for Kirk. Once he had worked through his own grief, part of which was anger and desire for vengeance, it was really a question of catching Khan and bringing him back to stand trial. The truth will “out”. Kirk was betrayed by his own commander (Head of Starfleet) for acting according to correct Starfleet protocol. Both Marcus and Khan were a little treacherous by nature.

There was “flash bang” but there was more than that as well. Even in the scenes which contained punching, the writers still managed to inject a little (black) humour – the scene where Kirk tries to knock Khan out and can’t and then Khan says (as only Benedict Cumberbatch could) – “Captain”.

If only people weren’t so distracted…

If you want to rehash this argument Ill start by saying YOUR enjoyment is not relevant to MY perspective of STID. The motivations of the villains was fine for a mustache twirling shallow film. We’ve been down this road many times where you at first denied the War on Terror analogy. Once you accepted that, you must also accept that they did an injustice to the explanation and motivation of Marcus as anything more than a one-dimensional bad guy.

And Khan was nothing like the Khan we saw in Space Seed. So again, poorly explained as to how Khan from Space Seed turned into Khan from STID, given that by the filmmakers own rules of the new universe, they were the exact same person.

Truly, the answer is they just didnt want to go beyond the surface when it comes to the bad guys. And as I’ve said repeatedly, its a real shame because the War on Terror analogy was a good one – just poorly executed.

Khan changed dramatically (due to circumstances) between Space Seed and Wrath of Khan so its not hard to imagine different circumstances change him in Into Darkness. Yeah, Marcus was a one-dimensional bad guy but so was Khan in Wrath of Khan but it still made for an enjoyable film just (for me) as much as Into Darkness.
I think (me included) that Trek fans tend to look back on older episodes and movies that we love, and have watched countless times to the point where we look at them with blinders on and can’t see the flaws. Then when something new comes out, something fresh, we pick it apart. I remember doing that for Voyager and DS9 after years of rewatching my VHS recordings of TNG.

Except, Khan was way more interesting and deep in Space Seed, a, what 45 minute TV show, then Khan was in the two hour STID. They were two completely different characters.

Ofcourse Khan was different in WoK from Space seed, he and 25 years on a desolate planet which he blamed Kirk for. He wasnt so much different as he was the same…but add in anger and bitterness and sadness and a thirst for revenge. All the traits he showed in Space Seed still existed in WoK.

And yet, the year or so he spent in STID unfrozen seemed to change him into a completely different character, which many people have said was an issue – it just wasnt Khan. And I question whether the film makers even watched Space Seed in great detail as they should have. The Khan in STID would have been basically the same Khan from Space Seed and yet was the furthest thing from him.

In what ways is the Khan in STID not the same Khan from Space Seed? In STID we see Khan acting under completely different circumstances. He’s not in a position to manipulate the crew the way he did in Space Seed. The Khan from Space Seed wasn’t being used and manipulated by Admiral Marcus- he was the manipulating one- STID we see him reacting to being used, to his family being used and endangered. In Space Seed that’s not the case, so we just don’t get to see that side of him, the vengeful side, just yet.

In every single way, from how he acts to the power he seems to posses. They wrote the movie with him not being Khan and then called him Khan. That is painfully obvious. And as some desperate fans have tried to push, just because his name is Khan and he was an augment doesnt mean he was THAT Khan. Suuurrrrreeee.

Can you give details? I mean, be specific- how is Khan different? How is he not acting like the revenge filled lunatic we saw in Star Trek 2 (driven there by different circumstances)? What powers? His “magic blood”? Just cause it never came up or discovered by the others means it doesn’t exist? What other powers?

For one thing he’s stronger. But hey, if you LIKED it, great! Its not my job to convince you not to like it. But your perspective isnt relevant to mine (and many others). Khan in STID was clearly completely different from Space Seed. Was he male? Sure. Was his name Khan? Yes. Did he want revenge? I guess so (which was more of a WoK thing than a Space Seed thing). But thats about it. Because the character was written as NOT Khan before changing to Khan after it was written.

I guess I’m just looking for specific examples to help me understand. In Space Seed he had x5 human strength. Of course Kirk was still able to beat him with a pipe but I guess he didn’t have high enough endurance / constitution. I’m not looking to be convinced so much as understand.

“mustache twirling shallow film” – defaulting to cliches.

My post was not about my enjoyment, or otherwise, of the film. I was not talking about me. I was talking about the characters. Must it always become personal?

Marcus was not written as a one-dimensional bad guy at all and neither was Khan. That’s the point. No one was.

No, defaulting to obvious facts. If you think Marcus was not one dimensional then it IS personal because you’re not looking at what was presented on-screen.

But I am looking at what was presented on-screen. Always have.

Perhaps it is terminology like “one dimensional” that is at issue. What does “one dimensional” even mean when it comes to writing about people anyway? And how does not seeing someone as not necessarily being “one dimensional” become “personal”?

Or is it a matter of “objectivity” as opposed to “subjectivity”? When does one start and the other stop? I have come to believe that your negativity towards STID (and me) has clouded your objectivity when it comes to discussing aspects of this movie. I think that it definitely has become personal to you and I suspect that you assume it’s the same for me. Careful now…

Ive come to believe you’re wide eyed enthusiasm for anything Bob touches is clouding your judgment. Even JJ admitted the writing of STID was an issue he thought he could correct but couldnt. And yet you maintain its a great film. if YOU love it, great. But dont try to diminish the opinion of others who didnt.

How come Trekmovie is not getting this?
Look at the advertising of Star Trek Beyond film in Cannes

The one thing with the new uniforms is its not recognizable as Star Trek unless you’re familiar with Chris Pine’s work. Also, are they not using the words “Star Trek” at all?

The words “Star Trek” are used. The posters are huge and wrap around the buildings. It depends on which part of the building is photographed but you can see the full movie title in a lot of the pictures. The full title on the one with Kirk (Chris Pine) looking up is a bit obscured, but he is seen wearing the gold top (associated with TOS TV Star Trek).

I think they are great – very impressive.

@ TUP, 7:34 am: The large banner in the first and second photo has the full movie title “Star Trek Beyond”, although Beyond is bigger than the rest. Maybe they think that Star Trek isn’t that familiar to people as a franchise internationally. If I remember correctly, ST IV was just called “The Voyage Home” in the UK poster, with “Star Trek” in much smaller font. The idea might be similar here, although “Beyond” makes less sense as a single title than “The Voyage Home” did.

uhm.. ok but the first movie is very ‘trek’ to me, it depends on what is trek for you.
They’re saying what they think hardcore reboot nayers want to hear, but I don’t get this obsession that everything must be like tos, why make a reboot then? As long as the SEQUEL doesn’t lose track of the fact it’s a SEQUEL and thus continuation of the first movies that makes sense for them, I’m good. And Tos was by no means perfect so if by being more like tos you mean ‘let’s get back to the 60s where everything is about white dudes and Spock cannot get a life outside of being the nerdy sidekick of hero because of reasons, thanks but no thanks. Keep trek’s spirit and make trek contemporary and progressive, do not bring back the problematic stuff.

Yes, everyone wants to see 60’s era low budget TV on the big screen. You really summed it up. Congrats!


Must be filmed in black & white as well :)

Nailed it!

No, Ahmed did not nail it. Apart from the very first pilot, the TOS TV series was filmed in colour. In fact, it was one of the few TV series at the time to be filmed in colour.


In reply to your comment uniquely identified by the following URL:

No, all pilots and episodes of the first STAR TREK series were filmed in glorious 35mm color. I think what Ahmed nailed was that because most of the NBC affiliates had not yet converted to broadcasting in color by 1966 and black and white 16mm distribution prints were a lot cheaper to make, Desilu likely did not bother printing the more expensive color prints for stations that couldn’t possibly benefit from them.

You can see evidence of this cost shaving in a quote from the August 16th 1986 BOSTON GLOBE:

“It [STAR TREK] was made under Desilu, which was a low budget studio. I was running out of money making Star Trek episodes, and they Desilu asked me if it was possible to work in the first pilot with Kirk and the new crew. If it could be done, we could have two episodes for the price of one. And maybe make it through the year.” — Gene Roddenberry as quoted by Farley, Christopher. “Star Trek: The Pilot.” Boston Globe. 16 Aug. 1986: 7.

The reason the original color negative of THE CAGE was “lost” in making THE MENAGERIE episodes was that Desilu didn’t even have the $200 to make a copy of it — so the edits for the episodes were made directly to the master negative.

One thing that’s always remained a mystery for me about THE CAGE is that a color print must have been made from that master negative to show the NBC brass in attempting to sell the idea of STAR TREK initially to them, so what happened to THAT color copy? Shatner repeats a tale that even he relates has taken on the adjustments that accompany the making of a myth, i.e. that Rodenberry drove up on his motorcycle containing his officer tools, broke the lock, and took that color pilot print to his first science-fiction convention in the midwest where he met Bjo Trimble. The presumption is that that color print continued making the rounds of sf conventions and somehow never found its way back, likely bumped from convention exhibition by actual episodes that had aired being made available.

My two cents, comments like this one by Cho are damage control for what was a very ‘unTrek’ and unpopular first trailer. For the first time in my life (and I’m 50 this year), I’m actually not going to run out and see a new Trek film, which is sad. Not after how much of a letdown STID was, IMO. Flying motorcycles and Beastie Boys, no thank you. That said, I do have hope for the new series, as long as they don’t gear it towards tweens.

And one more

comment image

I know everyone seems to be wondering where the marketing is for this movie but It’s kind of cool to be this close to the release and know much about it. I’m a little disappointed to find out that the enterprise gets destroyed in the first few seconds of the first trailer but maybe in the context of the movie it’s not that big of deal. It’s hard to imagine that it wouldn’t be a big deal though. Captains are supposed to be the last to abandon ship. I hope they address that.