This Star Trek Beyond Trailer Isn’t the Trailer You’re Looking For…

Just… Just watch it and get it over with. Or don’t, and see it this weekend attached to The Force Awakens.

I am actually a big fan of what Abrams did with creating an alternate universe timeline for the original Star Trek series.

But this isn’t Star Trek.

Kirk out.

18 thoughts on “This Star Trek Beyond Trailer Isn’t the Trailer You’re Looking For…

  1. I’m not sure what band is the in the background music in trailer but maybe it’s to advertise that band and the song along with the movie? If there was different background music, maybe our views would be different (of the trailer)?


      1. Yeah, WOW, people are young. The song in question is 21 years old (it’s so old that it was an oldie when it featured in Abrams’ first Star Trek movie). The band members are all huge Classic Series Trekkies who namechecked Spock in several songs, except that they stopped recording when one of them died almost 4 years ago and… wow, I can’t believe that it has to be explained who the Beastie Boys are ….

        Liked by 1 person

  2. hello geekritique its dennis the vizsla dog hay dada sez this luks more like sum sort of spayse kung fu moovee but he also sez it wuz wurth sitting thru the trailer just for that wun seen of mccoy saying he wood not die alone!!! maybe they cud mayk a verzhun just of mccoys seens all spliced toogether and it wood be a littel less noisy and eksplody do yoo think??? ok bye


      1. hello geekritique its dennis the vizsla dog my dada sez it is becuz i am a reskyew dog with no formal edjookayshun but i think he is just beeing speciesist as hyoomans offen ar!!! ha ha ok bye


  3. I have no problem with the music choice — the same song already featured in the first AbramsTrek movie, and the Beastie Boys are/were huge original-series Trekkies, so it’s a good homage. I also don’t mind the pacing of the trailer — the first iteration of “Deep Space Nine” also went for a similar rock-‘n-roll feel. However, while I like the trailer, I still don’t trust the script to be any good.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Is it “Star Trek”? I don’t know. Star Trek isn’t always Star Trek. Roddenberry had a bit of the same love/hate thing with his universe that Lucas has with Star Wars. Fiddling with things, not liking where the logic says the story ought to go, so changing things. Famously, Roddenberry was increasingly ignored over the years… just like Lucas is now out of the loop for Star Wars. Classic Star Trek is hard to duplicate. At best, you could redo stories with new actors and people would always be saying “that’s not Shatner, or Nimoy, or whomever.” but then if you change things, people say “that’s not how it was.” So, I think the alternate reality really works. It allows the purists to ignore these movies IF they want to… it allows people who hated the old show to give something new a try… and people like me are able to revisit Classic Trek anytime we want while also appreciating the new direction. Not everyone in Star Trek world loved the idea of TNG when it launched… that was fought tooth and nail… and even when it became popular, people fought tooth and nail to prevent the new crew from displacing the classic crew in the movies. DS9 was resisted, panned, then appreciated… Voyager was liked and hated… Enterprise was largely hated. I’m of the mind that the new Trek movies don’t in any way devalue the stuff that came before, so I try not to compare them. I treat them like their own thing. In real life we’re way past some of the historical “future” in the classic series… Khan, for instance, was from the 1990s! But our real-life 1990s weren’t so advanced in genetics… meanwhile, we carry cellphones largely superior to the Star Trek communicators… so it’s weird, and while we can appreciate classic Trek… I think we kind of needed a new Trek rather than trying to live in the old world. New movies in the old Trek world probably wouldn’t play well enough these days to be worth the cost to produce.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. I give Abrams credit for avoiding continuity problems by creating the alternate timeline, but in doing so, he kind of betrayed the entire point of Roddenberry’s Star Trek. The whole purpose of the original universe was that mankind had solved their problems and become a utopia, with the Federation at the head. All the conflict/tension/adventure came from either exploration or maintaining the integrity of the federation against an opponent that wasn’t adhering to the same standards.
    Abrams ignored all of that and in the first movie showed that the Federation was primarily a bureaucracy, and in the second made the Federation just another corrupt organization. This trailer makes the third movie look even worse. They’re not bad movies (at least the first two aren’t), I really like both of them, but none of them are really Star Trek.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. So I heard Roberto Orci’s original script was rejected for being “too Star Trek-y”, and that Paramount wanted something more populist, that could appeal to the Guardians of the Galaxy audience.

    It was weird, cause Orci wrote it without Alex Kurtzman after they separated to work on their own projects, so for some reason, Simon Pegg and Doug Joung redrafted it, and I recall Pegg saying that the commission was more of a genre film with the Star Trek characters than an actual Star Trek film.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s