Personally, I’d call it a fantasy story in a science fiction setting. You have medieval fantasy, you have modern-urban fantasy, you have Victorian fantasy, and you have space fantasy. Different sets and stage dressing, same basic stories.
Of course, it’s all very fluid anyway, with no clear line between the two genres. Fantasy and science fiction are just the ends of the same sliding scale.
They missed an opportunity when the previous movie was titled “Into Darkness” instead of “So Very Tired”.
Because Star Trek doesn’t belong in movies; it belongs on tv.
If that was never obvious before, it certainly is now. This new film looks wretched.
That’s very true. We all know that the Star Treks with off-roading scenes (dune buggies, for example) are the best Star Treks.
I remember when Kirk jumped that pool with the shark in it, looking all cool in his leathers.
Why don’t you drop out of that green jumpsuit and show me that phat ass!
I don’t want to get into a semantic debate over science fiction vs science fantasy. But Star Trek is no more “hard science” than Star Wars. And in many ways it’s much more “fantasy” as Star Wars is at least consistent with the application of it’s fictional technology. That is to say, the Solo never reverses the polarity of the Falcon’s hyperdrive to allow it to travel 10x as fast (he’s lucky if it even works). No one injects graviton particles into the shield generator to turn it into a superweapon. Star Wars weapons and droids and vehicles do what they were designed to. And they don’t require the futuristic equivalent of MIT Phd West Point grads to operate.
Okay… :dubious: 
Star Trek has been humorous in the past, but it has never been devoid of thought. Every piece of Star Trek before the reboot, even the more action-oriented parts, has been about some intellectual concept.
The reboot was fun and slick, but completely devoid of anything to think about. Its sequel tried to be about something by copying the best Star Trek movie, but completely missed the point. An action-y trailer like this doesn’t give me much hope that the series will improve.
I think this is a big part of it, yeah. “The Next Generation” often works wonderfully in part because it’s an ongoing examination of neat characters. The TNG movies were boring and shitty because in part they had to skip characterization (or entire characters, like Wesley and Q.)
I agree with Sam that the reboot is silly in a lot of ways but the TNG movies were terrible, and did not require the same suspension of disbelief.
The only movie that really works, Wrath of Khan, works because it’s probably the most straightforward approach; they take the characters, bring back a memorable bad guy, and have them duke it out in a couple of epic space battles. No muss, no fuss, a solid story that touches on the core characters.
What are you confused by?
I would say that ST VI: The Undiscovered Country and ST VIII: First Contact also worked because they touched on core characters. Kirk trying to put aside his hatred and anger for the Klingons and Picard putting aside his anger and hatred of the Borg. All the odd numbered Star Treks are basically a two hour alien of the week episode.
Just trying to understand of you were agreeing or disagreeing with me. Your point was basically the same as mine.
Well. It’s certainly… kinetic.
Aside from being set in the future Star Trek doesn’t often engage in what I would call SF. They do drama, comedy, romance, adventure, morality plays, etc. I put Star Wars in this camp as well, just set in a galaxy long ago and far away. Just various stories but in a futuristic setting.
But Trek does do a real SF story at least occassionally. I can’t think of where Star Wars ever has.
But I still enjoy them both.
Typo. “If,” not “of.” :smack: