When Will We See the First Trailers for Star Trek: Beyond?

What about the font. I need to know if it's the right font.

You're missing my point - which is that "critically acclaimed" doesn't mean "long term staying power". TOS was derided when it first went out, and what few fans it had needed to fight to keep it on the air. But for them you wouldn't be enjoying your precious JJ Trek now. That's also a fact. It's also a fact that the IMDB and other online rankings are mostly retrospective, which is why modern movies tend to score higher than older ones come what may. If you go back and read contemporary reviews for The Motion Picture there are many that hail the movie. But we know the opinion of it that has been generated since, and if you look at most online reviews for it you'll find that most are written years after the fact. So your "facts" and figures don't necessarily show what you think they do.

Point is that short term box office receipts and a rotten tomato score don't always mean that it's good quality stuff that will stand the test of time. Avatar came out to acclaim, but how many people care about it or it's forthcoming sequels now? How many of the casual audience that propped up the ticket sales for JJTrek will become the kind of long term franchise fans that are keeping the franchise going long enough that these movies even got made? A small minority at best I'd say.

The idea that JJTrek is the best of all Trek is a myth. No, what JJTrek is is Trek that appeals more to the mainstream than the Trek of the past. But the truth is all they are is well made summer action movies that use a brand name in an effort to earn tickets sales from franchise fans as well as the casual cinemagoer. For the most part, in that they succeed. But the claim that it's the best of all Trek is laughable.

While I strongly agree with your general point, it is interesting that overviews of criticism during the first season in the recent These Are The Voyages paint a much more mixed and in parts quite positive image, different from what was accepted wisdom before.

Going back to an old post, but based on that concept art and the jacket there, I'm going to say that the Franklin is an old lost ship they come across from decades ago.

Check out Spocks jacket, then take a look at this:

Ah, well I haven't read that book. I just remember Nimoy commenting on some of the scathing reviews they received at the time.

If it had been that badly received, it wouldn't have gotten a second season. I think people exaggerate how poor the reception was, mainly because it wasn't instantly the pop-culture juggernaut that it became.

IIRC, TOS & TNG had about the same number of viewers on average.

But because TOS was in an era of far, far less competition it was considered a ratings failure largely while TNG was considered a big ratings success.

And a series can be successful and still get canceled. IIRC, the ratings for the original Battlestar: Galactica were pretty good. But ABC (which was getting rich at the time with low cost Gary Marshall comedies) balked at the price Universal wanted per Battlestar: Galactica episode for Season Two.

Remember kids, technically, Enterprise is the only Star Trek show recognized as canon in the alternate timeline!

(I have my own pet theory, I suspect shared by many, about how Enterprise is actually an alternate timeline, and ST09+ is actually an alternate of that alternate, but that's neither here nor there).

I've always said Abrams Trek had no real connection to the prime universe. There's nothing really connecting it to the timeline we knew in any kind of definite way, and there are a lot of design features on both the inside and outside of the Kelvin and the Enterprise which aren't present in any design from the prime universe (the CIW system, the huge turbolift at the back of the bridge that's almost instantaneous, the windshield viewscreen, and the general layout of the bridge, not to mention the brewery machinery spaces or the huge sizes of the ships, for that matter.

Yeah, yeah, you don't like it. But this part is interesting:

So you at least admit it's Trek, that's progress. Mark my words, folks, someday Chup will agree that AwesomeTrek™ is the best! Thank you JJ!

It was always my understanding that reviews were somewhat favorable, but ratings were not, hence the cancellation threat.

According to TATV, ratings too were somewhat selectively reported by the network to the producers, to keep them in check. But only somewhat so.

I thought the harshest critics of TOS were always from the professional science fiction writers who considered it (as they do virtually all television science fiction) to be "light weight".

Maybe we'll get some more answers next month.

The comments are the article are actually rather intelligent.

Well, we did get arguably too much BvS for too long before it actually came out and the suits at Paramount may think that's what hurt it rather than it being a problematic example of the characters which...the Star Trek movies are too so....

I certainly wouldn't be shocked to see Paramount miss the point.

Star Trek Beyond Plot Details Revealed

Mild spoilers behind the tags.

"!"

Justifying the concept of the Federation is a long overdue storyline, although a surprising one for a TOS timeline given it's still a little of a "wild west" era. DS9 touched on it with Eddington, Garak and Quark, but then the TNG era was a more settled one.

It could also echo a few real world situations (the EU is more like the Federation than, say, the UN), so I am curious to see where they go with it.

I quite like the idea of the plot. Sounds a lot more "Star Trek" than the trash that was Into Darkness.

There's talk about this movie. Like, they didn't even have a third act when they started filming. Pegg quit multiple times. There are still reshoots going on. This does not bode well. While I liked the first two for what they are, I have a very bad feeling that we'll get a very rotten birthday present this year.

The studio seems to know it too. The marketing machine should be in full swing now, especially following the mega success of STAR WARS: TFA. However, it's nowhere to be seen. My local cineplex doesn't even have a poster up or something. Weird.

Doesn't it come out in two months and there is zero marketing?

Basically that amounted to no plot details.

They even ducked showing it at the usual industry shindigs, and justified it with having a specific event - it doesn't sound like the studio has a great deal of confidence in the film.

Pegg seems happy with the end product, so it could be the studio is expecting positives from the fans, but something of a commercial bomb.

I'd be happy, and they'll never do this, if the alternate Enterprise-A is the TOS version with prettier viewscreens, and we head right back into TOS.

I don't think that J.J. Abrams and crew respects the Enterprise as a character.

Pegg is no doubt under contract to say only positive things about the film. He might be happy with it, he might not be, but I won't trust his comments about the film until after it comes out. (See what happened with Lenard Part Six and An Interview With the Vampire for reasons why he's probably contractually obligated to only say nice things.)

Can't see him having signed up to that, and this is Pegg, if he was unhappy he'd find some way to get that message across, even if was a deadpan interview.

Well, ships generally have the pronoun 'she', so I guess he should really keep it out of space battles and ensure it uses uses the right restroomspacedock...

Can't see Hollywood making an exception to standard contract boilerplate for Pegg.

John Malkovitch did that in interviews when he was "promoting" Con Air. Notice nobody's done it since then. The studios clamp down pretty hard on what people involved with a film can say these days. Especially a big budget movie like this. In any interview with an actor, you can bet that there's a studio rep nearby, ready to pull the plug the moment the actor deviates from the "script" the studio wants them to follow during an interview. How much work has Shia LeBouf gotten in Hollywood since he trashed Crystal Skull? Granted, the little shit never should have been working to begin with, but even so, gigs dried up after he bad mouthed the movie. Megan Fox (his co-star in Transmorphers) hasn't exactly been doing a lot of big picture work since she trashed Michael Bay.

Pegg is a fan of the original Trek, and grumbled early on that the studio wasn't letting him bring all those elements into the new movie (and then immediately walked that back after the studio chewed him out for saying it). If he wants to keep starring in the movies (assuming they make any more) and possibly have more control over things like the script, then he's going to play ball. Otherwise, the studio will find a way to shut him out.

Pegg's never come across as being all that "hollywood", so I'm not sure being shut out of other Hollywood jobs would bother him that much. He's already successful enough on his own merits, both as an actor and a writer, and has some power with being on JJ Abrams buddy list (hence his roles in Mission Impossible, Star Trek and Star Wars), and is well aware the UK networks would fall over themselves to give him work, and, most likely, Amazon and Netflix.

I really don't see the power balance being so one-sided to the studios where he's concerned.