Discoprise won't have TOS "cardboard sets"

[Rahul]

right from the get go people called the star trek 09 bridge an apple store. it was a common refrain which i never got. still don't get. apple stores are all right angles and the kelvin timeline bridge is basically the opposite.

at least they uninstalled those blinding lights for star trek beyond (then blew the set up).

It still looks very apple-ish in it's design language.

I think mostly because of the "all white, all shiny" aesthetic.
But to behonest, I always interpreted that as a friendly jab (like I do to TOS and TNG for their many flaws as well, despite my unlimited love towards them), not as the harsh criticism of serious dislike that one sees otherwise spurred towards those movies regarding their plots and story logic.

 

[Dar70]

It's funny though how opinion has generally changed towards the Abrams movies, in many ways. At first I heard over and over about how the Enterprise set was too busy, to bright and OMG it's got a window.

It seems like the next to last thing often looks a little better once it gets that status handed to it by the next new thing that must be disliked. Just like all the people who forgot to keep hating ENT over the years. Discovery will get its time.

"I don't know about all these bright colors on Star Trek: M31.. can't we just have a darker bridge like Discovery? Now THAT was a good looking bridge."

I still think the movie sets were too busy, I always thought Enterprise did a good job on their sets. Making them look contemporary and at the same time making them look like they could have come before TOS. I will never warm up to the Discovery sets. They are too far removed from what will come later.

 

[Lord Garth]

It's funny though how opinion has generally changed towards the Abrams movies, in many ways. At first I heard over and over about how the Enterprise set was too busy, to bright and OMG it's got a window.

It seems like the next to last thing often looks a little better once it gets that status handed to it by the next new thing that must be disliked. Just like all the people who forgot to keep hating ENT over the years. Discovery will get its time.

"I don't know about all these bright colors on Star Trek: M31.. can't we just have a darker bridge like Discovery? Now THAT was a good looking bridge."

True. The newest thing is always either "The Best Ever!" or "The Worst Ever!" 10 years from now, we'll know what people really think and if it still holds true. I apply this to myself as well, since I'm in the "Best Ever!" Camp. I genuinely feel this way but we'll see what I still think once the newness wears off and I'm distanced from it.

 

[Mudd]

right from the get go people called the star trek 09 bridge an apple store. it was a common refrain which i never got. still don't get.

That's because it was stupid and unobservant, and therefore destined to be popular in-joke fodder - like calling Abrams "Jar Jar."

If in-jokes were actually funny or clever, they couldn't be used to signify membership in a special group because everyone would enjoy them.

 

[fireproof78]

It still looks very apple-ish in it's design language.

I think mostly because of the "all white, all shiny" aesthetic.
But to behonest, I always interpreted that as a friendly jab (like I do to TOS and TNG for their many flaws as well, despite my unlimited love towards them), not as the harsh criticism of serious dislike that one sees otherwise spurred towards those movies regarding their plots and story logic.

Then you and I have seen different uses for it, because there has never been an instance that I've seen it used as friendly. And I still don't see the Apple store in the design language.

 

[plynch]

Really white, really bright. That's the connection.

 

[Rahul]

Then you and I have seen different uses for it, because there has never been an instance that I've seen it used as friendly. And I still don't see the Apple store in the design language.

I saw that criticism of the bridge mostly after ST09 - a movie generally liked. As soon as Into Darkness came, the real harsh criticism emerged for universe breaking transwarp beaming, dead-reviving superblood, TWOK-death-scene-rip-offs, 9-11-truther-ness, and the general awfulness that was the "KHAAAAAN" non-surprise.

Compared to those severe criticism, at least I personally think of "apple-store-bridge" and "lense flare overuse" as not more than some deserved friendly jabs.

 

[fireproof78]

I saw that criticism of the bridge mostly after ST09 - a movie generally liked. As soon as Into Darkness came, the real harsh criticism emerged for universe breaking transwarp beaming, dead-reviving superblood, TWOK-death-scene-rip-offs, 9-11-truther-ness, and the general awfulness that was the "KHAAAAAN" non-surprise.

Compared to those severe criticism, at least I personally think of "apple-store-bridge" and "lense flare overuse" as not more than some deserved friendly jabs.

Agree to disagree. My experience is that it is derisive jab, not friendly, and used as a foundational to argue against it not being real Star Trek.

Those other criticisms are ones that I find laughingly simplistic as well.

 

[Rahul]

Agree to disagree. My experience is that it is derisive jab, not friendly,

Why not both?
Kirk's fight scene with the Gorn in "Arena" looks absolutely ridiculous and silly. And I love for example the ad where Shatner himself makes fun of it. But still, I like not just the episode, but the fight as well, in a non-ironic way.

and used as a foundational to argue against it not being real Star Trek.

I have NEVER seen someone using bland or derivative visuals to argue something "isn't Star Trek".

What I have seen plenty are butthurt super-fans absolutely incapable of taking honest criticism, that feel personal attacked when flaws in the work are discussed and immediately jump to strawman arguments.

People complaining about how other people think something isn't "true" Star Trek is always a BIG red flag.

Those other criticisms are ones that I find laughingly simplistic as well.

I don't know. IMO they're serious flaws in that they aren't silly things that can't be laughed about and then be overlooked, but each of them is basically movie-breaking from a logical perspective. They diminish the value of that movie overall, and are IMO the main reason why the Kelvin timeline franchise is in this quagmire at this point despite the promising start.

 

[fireproof78]

Why not both?
Kirk's fight scene with the Gorn in "Arena" looks absolutely ridiculous and silly. And I love for example the ad where Shatner himself makes fun of it. But still, I like not just the episode, but the fight as well, in a non-ironic way.

It can be both. I have not seen it used as friendly. That is my experience.

I have NEVER seen someone using bland or derivative visuals to argue something "isn't Star Trek".

What I have seen plenty are butthurt super-fans absolutely incapable of taking honest criticism, that feel personal attacked when flaws in the work are discussed and immediately jump to strawman arguments.

People complaining about how other people think something isn't "true" Star Trek is always a BIG red flag.

Then your experience and mine are different things. I have seen the visuals of the Kelvin films being used as a criticism for maintaining the tone of the film and visual language is too derivative of Star Wars and thus makes it "not Star Trek."

Not sure about the buthhurt super-fans but I'm sure I should be offended or something....

I don't know. IMO they're serious flaws that diminish that movie overall, and are the main reason why the Kelvin timeline franchise is in this quagmire at this point despite the promising start.

IMO they can be detracting but not diminish the films overall. I am doubtful that those specific points are the reason the Klevin timeline is in a "quagmire" and more a mismanagement on Paramount's side. The "super blood" is a laughingly oversimplification of the actual presentation, and is more realistic than the transporter for a number of reasons. The transwarp beaming joins the ranks of super tech that is never used again, save that we are given an actual reason for why it isn't used. The 9-11 trutherness is something that, if I didn't know about Orci's views, would be completely undetectable. Khan is the only one that I think was a mistake because they didn't need to use Khan at all.

Again, not something I find problematic to my enjoyment of the film.

 

[Rahul]

It can be both. I have not seen it used as friendly. That is my experience.

Not sure about the buthhurt super-fans but I'm sure I should be offended or something....

Again: I wouldn't take everything personal. This is the Internet. EVERYTHING is going to be criticised. Some of that rightfull, some of it undeserved, and the majority a judgement call.

What's annoying is people that can't accept stuff they love being criticised. That's not going to work, especially not in as diverse a franchise as Star Trek. It's totally okay to say "I don't like what you like" or the other way 'round, without feeling personally attacked and having the need to "pay back".

That's not what you did here. And why I didn't wanted to attack you personally or indirectly. Sorry if it came across as that. What I meant is what derails countless other threads, wherein as soon as someone mentions criticism people come up with "If you don't like it, what are you doing in this thread anyway?" - as if like/dislike is a binary thing, and people are incapable of both liking and not liking something for different things.

Then your experience and mine are different things. I have seen the visuals of the Kelvin films being used as a criticism for maintaining the tone of the film and visual language is too derivative of Star Wars and thus makes it "not Star Trek."

Which is - again - a pretty fair criticism of that movie. It's basically as much a copy of "A New Hope" as "The Force Awakens" is - it hits the same story beats, and it really feels like "Star Wars-ing up" of Star Trek.

But in other parts that movie is clearly distinct from Star Wars - for example the production design, say the very faithfull uniforms and equipment of the crew, and basically the whole "best hits" of Trek that ST09 is (from transporter malfunction to "eject the warp core", there is every Trek staple in the books used in this movie).

Again: Neither black nor white. This movie has points where it hits the nail perfectly on the head, others where it's miles away. And it's usually everyone's personal opinion of how they feel about it.

My main complaint about ST09 is for example the destruction of Vulcan. Because it makes it impossible to integrate this movie back into the prime timeline, and as a result completely muddies the water between "prequel" and "reboot", whereas in most mainstream audiences that aren't overly familiar with Trek think it's a prequel, while for the fans it's essentially a reboot. And it leaves us at a point where everything that happens in those movies has NO meaning whatsoever to the later adventures of Kirk and Spock in TOS - no lessons learned, no "how they got there"-trivia, because they are essentially completely different characters. Yet at the same time the creators are afraid to death to really do something different compared to TOS - all the characters are still obligated to have the same snarky catchphrases and end up at the same place. Which makes the entire franchise essentially meaningless.

But that's not a "canon" problem, or really even a nitpick or something, like the look of something or how it makes no sense if the universe was supposed to have split only after the Kelvin incident. From a plot perspective, these line all up reasonably well.

IMO they can be detracting but not diminish the films overall. I am doubtful that those specific points are the reason the Klevin timeline is in a "quagmire" and more a mismanagement on Paramount's side. The "super blood" is a laughingly oversimplification of the actual presentation, and is more realistic than the transporter for a number of reasons. The transwarp beaming joins the ranks of super tech that is never used again, save that we are given an actual reason for why it isn't used. The 9-11 trutherness is something that, if I didn't know about Orci's views, would be completely undetectable. Khan is the only one that I think was a mistake because they didn't need to use Khan at all. Again, not something I find problematic to my enjoyment of the film.

It really depends on how you look at this films. From an emotional way and character perspective, they work pretty good, the characters are more or less consistent and on a clear story arc (even though if none of it is in any way surprising or a worthy pay-off for the timeline split). But from a pure story-logic perspective - the trivia side, which Trekkies like to analyze as much as if not even more - there are some really big f*ck ups in that movie. Most likely a result of the writers strike and a not really finished screenplay, but it becomes a problem if the main plot of the movie falls apart the second you think about it.

It's the same problem DIS has at this point: There is PLENTY of trivia wrong. The whole feel and aesthetics of the sets, the entire klingon reboot/redesign issue, and that it feels like any other 90s era Trek show and surely doesn't fit into the 23rd century.

But all that would be secondary issues (like the "applestore bridge") if the stories where actually good.
Solving the klingon war arc by giving a random female religious zealot the trigger to a bomb to blow the entire klingon homeworld up, and use that for her to take over the Empire and make peace with the Federation is just .... so stupid. That it invalidates the whole rocky journey it took to get there.

But that is also why the show still has potential: It just needs to become good. Like, if season 2 is actually an entertaining and well-thought out and planned-out storyline that makes it worth watching - guess what? There will still be discussions about how this and that doesn't look timeline appropriate. But it would be just that - nitpicking. Friendly (even if sometimes derisive) jabs.

 

[fireproof78]

Again: I wouldn't take everything personal. This is the Internet. EVERYTHING is going to be criticised. Some of that rightfull, some of it undeserved, and the majority a judgement call.

What's annoying is people that can't accept stuff they love being criticised. That's not going to work, especially not in as diverse a franchise as Star Trek. It's totally okay to say "I don't like what you like" or the other way 'round, without feeling personally attacked and having the need to "pay back".

That's not what you did here. That's why I didn't meant you personally, and why you don't need to feel attacked. It's what derails countless other threads, wherein as soon as someone mentions criticism people come up with "If you don't like it, what are you doing in this thread anyway?" - as if like/dislike is a binary thing, and people are incapable of both liking and not liking something for different things.

Fair enough. My frustration comes from what feels like very surface like remarks (i.e. the Klingons being wrong, the I-Bridge) and expect those to just carry the same weight. They really don't.

Which is - again - a pretty fair criticism of that movie. It's basically as much a copy of "A New Hope" as "The Force Awakens" is - it hits the same story beats, and it really feels like "Star Wars-ing up" of Star Trek.

But in other parts that movie is clearly distinct from Star Wars - for example the production design, say the very faithfull uniforms and equipment of the crew, and basically the whole "best hits" of Trek that ST09 is (from transporter malfunction to "eject the warp core", there is every Trek staple in the books used in this movie).

Again: Neither black nor white. This movie has points where it hits the nail perfectly on the head, others where it's miles away. And it's usually everyone's personal opinion of how they feel about it.

And this is a place where I will disagree. It doesn't feel any more "Star Warsing it up" to me than say Nemesis or First Contact. All it feels is faster pace. But, as you said, this isn't binary and we could be here all day about the different points and how we differentiate in our enjoyment.

And, again, in my experience, calling in "Star Wars" of Trek is used as a dismissal point rather than an actual criticism.

My main complaint about ST09 is for example the destruction of Vulcan. Because it makes it impossible to integrate this movie back into the prime timeline, and as a result completely muddies the water between "prequel" and "reboot", whereas in most mainstream audiences that aren't overly familiar with Trek think it's a prequel, while for the fans it's essentially a reboot. And it leaves us at a point where everything that happens in those movies has NO meaning whatsoever to the later adventures of Kirk and Spock in TOS - no lessons learned, no "how they got there"-trivia, because they are essentially completely different characters. Yet at the same time the creators are afraid to death to really do something different compared to TOS - all the characters are still obligated to have the same snarky catchphrases and end up at the same place. Which makes the entire franchise essentially meaningless.

Again, agree to disagree. Both Spock and Kirk's responses in that film inform about what the characters are in the Prime Universe. Also, I didn't want it to integrate back in to the Prime Timeline. Given the difficulty that DSC has been having I don't see a Kirk and Spock prequel going very well.

As for meaning, I derive a lot more meaning from the Kelvin films and Kirk and Spock than any of the TNG films and a lot of other Star Trek. So, again, I struggle with finding it meaningless because I think meaning can be found in lots of different things. Again, a point of difference and I'm trying not to make a binary analysis. But, again, it's matter of turn of phrase. Calling something "meaningless" feels very dismissive.

It really depends on how you look at this films. From an emotional way and character perspective, they work pretty good, the characters are more or less consistent and on a clear story arc (even though if none of it is in any way surprising or a worthy pay-off for the timeline split). But from a pure story-logic perspective - the trivia side, which Trekkies like to analyze as much as if not even more - there are some really big f*ck ups in that movie. Most likely a result of the writers strike and a not really finished screenplay, but it becomes a problem if the main plot of the movie falls apart the second you think about it.

I just don't see the big problems that are insisted upon. And it's not for lack of trying and not for lack of studying the film, reading reviews, listening to friends who are larger Star Trek fans and work in Hollywood and the like. I just struggle to see it. And so, when the statement of "big f ups" are in the film and "if you think about it it falls apart" when I don't have that experience its confounding.

It's the same problem DIS has at this point: There is PLENTY of trivia wrong. The whole feel and aesthetics of the sets, the entire klingon reboot/redesign issue, and that it feels like any other 90s era Trek show and surely doesn't fit into the 23rd century.

But all that would be secondary issues (like the "applestore bridge") if the stories where actually good.
Solving the klingon war arc by giving a random female religious zealot the trigger to a bomb to blow the entire klingon homeworld up, and use that for her to take over the Empire and make peace with the Federation is just .... so stupid. That it invalidates the whole rocky journey it took to get there.

But that is also why the show still has potential: It just needs to become good. Like, if season 2 is actually an entertaining and well-thought out and planned-out storyline that makes it worth watching - guess what? There will still be discussions about how this and that doesn't look timeline appropriate. But it would be just that - nitpicking. Friendly (even if sometimes derisive) jabs.

With DSC I am waiting and seeing. The planet bomb thing is stupid, I'll concede. But, I don't maintain that someone the outcome invalidates the rest of the journey. I still enjoy Michael and Saru, Stamets and Ash (for the most part). I am more interested in those characters than the plot points that may not always make sense.

And, thus far, none of the jabs directed towards DSC (much like Kelvin Trek before) feel very friendly. YMMV and all that jazz.

 

[Rahul]

Fair enough. My frustration comes from what feels like very surface like remarks (i.e. the Klingons being wrong, the I-Bridge) and expect those to just carry the same weight. They really don't.

Oh yeah, they're surface level. They still might be true, though. But in the grand scheme of things, they're secondary.

And this is a place where I will disagree. It doesn't feel any more "Star Warsing it up" to me than say Nemesis or First Contact. All it feels is faster pace. But, as you said, this isn't binary and we could be here all day about the different points and how we differentiate in our enjoyment.

Oh, "Nemesis" definitely tried be a bit more Star Wars-y as well. Wheras "First Contact" is definitely more "Aliens"-inspired. Both of those don't have to be bad things per se - I think the horror angle definitely worked in FC, and the more Star Wars-inspired shoot-outs where the least of Nemesis' problems.

But IMO it's still objective to say that the Kelvin timeline franchise is a little more inspired by Star Wars than Trek has ever been before.

And, again, in my experience, calling in "Star Wars" of Trek is used as a dismissal point rather than an actual criticism.

And this is the important part: On it's own, this is first and foremost just a statement about the film. It could be both good and bad.

For example I think it was a good idea to make the Trek universe more "used" in it's props and the characters more vibrant and expressive in ST09 - both clearly Star Wars inspired in the way it was executed. But good anyway.

The "bad" Star Wars part was IMO the introduction of a faith/force/fate-angle, in which Kirk and Spock are "destined" to end up together on the bridge whatever the state of the rest of the universe might be - I didn't like that part.

Again, agree to disagree. Both Spock and Kirk's responses in that film inform about what the characters are in the Prime Universe. Also, I didn't want it to integrate back in to the Prime Timeline. Given the difficulty that DSC has been having I don't see a Kirk and Spock prequel going very well.

In this case: Really agree to disagree.
Either these characters are supposed to be "THE" Kirk and Spock duo (either via prequel, or even in a reboot), or they are alternate version - e.g. something completely different, like MARVEL's "Ultimate"-line, in which Cpt. America was a fascist and Peter Parker died and Miles Morales became Spider-Man. That's an either-or, but the movies tried to have it both ways, and IMO failed spectacularly at it - fans of TOS hated the first two movies and liked "Beyond" where they were back to their "traditional" selves, while fans of the Kelvin movies mostly felt the exact opposite, and "Beyond" as a step back for the characters.

As for meaning, I derive a lot more meaning from the Kelvin films and Kirk and Spock than any of the TNG films and a lot of other Star Trek. So, again, I struggle with finding it meaningless because I think meaning can be found in lots of different things. Again, a point of difference and I'm trying not to make a binary analysis. But, again, it's matter of turn of phrase. Calling something "meaningless" feels very dismissive.

That's fair enough. "Meaningless" are those movies only in regard to the original TOS (which I prefer) and the rest of the Trek universe. Just in and on themselves - they of course carry meaning! Just not going beyond their respective movie line.

With DSC I am waiting and seeing. The planet bomb thing is stupid, I'll concede. But, I don't maintain that someone the outcome invalidates the rest of the journey. I still enjoy Michael and Saru, Stamets and Ash (for the most part). I am more interested in those characters than the plot points that may not always make sense.

Kinda'. I love the characters of DIS as well, Michael, Saru and Stamets, Tilly most of the time. Ash not so much, and neither Mirror Georgiou or Lorca, and so far really don't care about any of the other no-names on the bridge.

But I see them mostly as having "potential", in that their character arcs were so fumbled, that they are all basically still blank slates.

I feel about them the same way I felt about the TNG crew ca. "The Naked Now" - in that I think the group is very well put together, interesting and diverse, and now I'm awaiting to see what they'll do actually.

And, thus far, none of the jabs directed towards DSC (much like Kelvin Trek before) feel very friendly. YMMV and all that jazz.

It depends. I think calling it "STD" is a friendly jab - because that's really nothing that determines the quality of the show in any way, just a fun little gag at the shows' cost.

But then again, there was SO MUCH wrong with this show the first season, it really deserves most of the severe criticism thrown at it. NOT hate mind you - if someone really hates the show, he should make use of the off button of the remote and leave it at that. But for someone like me, who is very much into Trek and wants to give this show a chance - a bigger chance than I would give any other show not having "Star Trek" in the title btw - this first season was really cringeworthy to watch. The entire story arc and season plotting was a big, burning pile of trash. And yes - that's not a friendly jab. That's serious discontent with the current state of the show. Again: If it wouldn't take place in the Trek universe, I would by this point not watch it anymore.

It's just because I'm a fan of Star Trek, that I stay with it. There are other shows with characters I like more than the DIS crew which I don't watch either, because I'm not interested in their main arc. But for a Star Trek show, the possibilites are basically endless. It looks (at least from the teaser) that season 2 will take a completely different direction. And one that looks very promising so far. Again, it would take only one single good storyline to turn me completely around on DIS. So far that hasn't happened yet - this is where a lot of criticism of DIS comes from - but it's not bad enough to completely have lost me either, and IMO there are a lots of unpolished diamonds in this show beneath the first layer of burning trash.

 

[fireproof78]

The "bad" Star Wars part was IMO the introduction of a faith/force/fate-angle, in which Kirk and Spock are "destined" to end up together on the bridge whatever the state of the rest of the universe might be - I didn't like that part.

I wonder, as a genuine curiosity what you though of Spock's comment that Kirk's being captain was his "first, best, destiny" as well as how things like the Mirror Universe get reconciled away for having the same crew members in similar, if not identical rolls?

Either these characters are supposed to be "THE" Kirk and Spock duo (either via prequel, or even in a reboot), or they are alternate version - e.g. something completely different, like MARVEL's "Ultimate"-line, in which Cpt. America was a fascist and Peter Parker died and Miles Morales became Spider-Man. That's an either-or, but the movies tried to have it both ways, and IMO failed spectacularly at it - fans of TOS hated the first two movies and liked "Beyond" where they were back to their "traditional" selves, while fans of the Kelvin movies mostly felt the exact opposite, and "Beyond" as a step back.

that is rather binary, to use one of your words.

It isn't either-or, because by seeing what Kirk was like without certain influences, namely his dad, informs us of what made Kirk Kirk in the Prime Timeline.

Also, as another note, my dad is as TOS fan as they come and didn't enjoy Beyond but thoroughly loved ST 09.

That's fair enough. "Meaningless" are those movies only in regard to the original TOS (which I prefer) and the rest of the Trek universe. Just in and on themselves - they of course carry meaning! Just not going beyond their respective movie line.

Again, I disagree. It carries plenty of meaning and informs regarding the Prime universe counterparts by virtue of similarities and differences.

It's just because I'm a fan of Star Trek, that I stay with it. There are other shows with characters I like more than the DIS crew which I don't watch either, because I'm not interested in their main arc. But for a Star Trek show, the possibilites are basically endless. It looks (at least from the teaser) that season 2 will take a completely different direction. Ant one that looks very promising so far. Again, it would take only a good storyline to turn me completely around on DIS. So far that hasn't happened - this is where a lot of criticism of DIS comes from - but it's not bad enough to completely have lost me, and IMO there are a lots of unpolished diamonds in this show beneath the first layer of burning trash.

And that is where I am a complete and total unusual person. The story of Discovery is secondary to my enjoyment of the characters. I don't need it to be Star Trek to enjoy it. I enjoy it because it is both science fiction and Star Trek and my loyalty to it is not because "Star Trek." I gave upon Enterprise and VOY well before the first season ended on those shows, and never tried DS9 until much later. I prefer TOS in terms of actual story telling, and for Mr. Spock, but I find Michael to be a far more intriguing character to me in terms of personal engagement. I'm also glad to see Pike back as he was my favorite TOS character after Spock.

Is Discovery rough? Yes. Is it a "burning pile of trash" with some diamonds? For me, no, but I'll judge it more as a whole than by its individual parts and failings.

 

[Tuskin38]

It depends. I think calling it "STD" is a friendly jab - because that's really nothing that determines the quality of the show in any way, just a fun little gag at the shows' cost.

I honestly don't think that way because STDs can be a serious thing.

 

[Nerys Myk]

That's an either-or, but the movies tried to have it both ways, and IMO failed spectacularly at it - fans of TOS hated the first two movies and liked "Beyond" where they were back to their "traditional" selves, while fans of the Kelvin movies mostly felt the exact opposite, and "Beyond" as a step back for the characters.

I guess I missed that memo. This TOS fan likes all three. And I don't think I'm alone.

 

[CorporalClegg]

"TOS fans" is code for 'a select group of people in the interwebz.'

 

[fireproof78]

I guess I missed that memo. This TOS fan likes all three. And I don't think I'm alone.

You are not.

 

[Mudd]

The TOS fans who talk about TOS fans don't speak for TOS fans. Sorry.

 

[BillJ]

I guess I missed that memo. This TOS fan likes all three. And I don't think I'm alone.

I think Beyond was the weakest of the three. Though still a fun movie in its own right.