Star Trek Magazine Movie Special subscriber problems

[PaulSimpson]

A higher than normal proportion of subscriber copies appear to have had delivery problems this issue. If you're a subscriber and have not received your copy, please email us at expsmag@expressmag.com with your membership number, mailing address to which the issue should have been sent and your contact email address, and we'll do our best to rectify the problem.

Apologies to those who've had this problem!

Paul Simpson
Editor, Star Trek Magazine

 

[darkwing_duck1]

While you're here, maybe you could explain your choice of format for this one. I saw it at the local supermarket, paged through it, and put it back. Nothing but actor interviews, except for one little article about the video game tie in.

Where were the concept art articles? The set photos? The "in universe" tech write ups?

I prefer more "Trek" in my Trek magazines. In the past, I've not been this disappointed.

 

[Jeri]

PaulSimpson, thanks for posting. I'm not a subscriber, but I might start.

I picked mine up at Borders.

 

[JonWes]

While you're here, maybe you could explain your choice of format for this one. I saw it at the local supermarket, paged through it, and put it back. Nothing but actor interviews, except for one little article about the video game tie in.

Where were the concept art articles? The set photos? The "in universe" tech write ups?

I prefer more "Trek" in my Trek magazines. In the past, I've not been this disappointed.

I think that stuff is supposed to be in the next issue according to the blurb. But I agree the issue, as it was, was kind of boring. I think a better mix of different kinds of articles would have greatly benefited the magazine and been more appropriate for a special edition collector's magazine. BUT, I can see the logic of the way they split it up... and I guess the interviews might be interesting to people. I just find actor interviews incredibly boring. You almost never read anything interesting and/or you get the same stories told over and over in various media.

 

[Classic Fan]

Got my edition here in the UK. Nice job, dude.

Loved the interviews, still reading it now.

cant wait for the next one.


Nice to see you on the boards.


Please, Please put concept arts and production diaries in the next issue, thats what this movie is lacking, a production/visual guide/book to flick through.

Hopefully, thats why we have Trek Mag.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

While you're here, maybe you could explain your choice of format for this one. I saw it at the local supermarket, paged through it, and put it back. Nothing but actor interviews, except for one little article about the video game tie in.

Where were the concept art articles? The set photos? The "in universe" tech write ups?

I prefer more "Trek" in my Trek magazines. In the past, I've not been this disappointed.

I think that stuff is supposed to be in the next issue according to the blurb. But I agree the issue, as it was, was kind of boring. I think a better mix of different kinds of articles would have greatly benefited the magazine and been more appropriate for a special edition collector's magazine. BUT, I can see the logic of the way they split it up... and I guess the interviews might be interesting to people. I just find actor interviews incredibly boring. You almost never read anything interesting and/or you get the same stories told over and over in various media.

Thanks for the info. I'll give next issue a shot and see if it is more to my liking.

I just REALLY miss "Star Trek: The Magazine"...

 

[Jeri]

^ ^ To me that was the one to miss. It cost as much as a book and had solid old stuff in it. It was not a periodical, in the real sense of the word.

If they wanted to make it a book, they should have just done so.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

^ ^ To me that was the one to miss. It cost as much as a book and had solid old stuff in it. It was not a periodical, in the real sense of the word.

If they wanted to make it a book, they should have just done so.

If by old stuff you mean material that had at one point or another appeared in the "Fact Files", remember a lot of us stateside didn't have access to them. It was ALL new to us, and VERY welcomed.

 

[PaulSimpson]

While you're here, maybe you could explain your choice of format for this one. I saw it at the local supermarket, paged through it, and put it back. Nothing but actor interviews, except for one little article about the video game tie in.

Where were the concept art articles? The set photos? The "in universe" tech write ups?

I prefer more "Trek" in my Trek magazines. In the past, I've not been this disappointed.

The Movie Souvenir Magazine was designed to appeal to a broader spectrum than just the people who post on bulletin boards and have been fans for many years - people like you and me.
Issue 17 included a load of pre-production interviews, and 19, which has just gone to press, includes 5000 words of Orci and Kurtzman discussing the plot, DoP Dan Mindel, Costume Designer Michael Kaplan with 11 pages of original costume designs, and much more. Much of this material simply was not available until the two-three weeks before the movie opened - by which point anything that would reach the shelves had to be already printing. Yes, in an ideal world, the magazine would have combined all of that into one issue but it simply wasn't possible. We still have material that's going to run in 20 and 21, including an interview with JJ that I'm doing today...
You'll also find literally dozens of photos in there that aren't in print elsewhere and certainly not all in one place...
Sorry that it wasn't what you were after, but reaction elsewhere seems pretty positive.
Paul

 

[Classic Fan]

I love that image of the bridge taken from the classic angle on page 64, in the Bruce Greenwood inteview. The one where the lighting is darker and there are no film crew/actors/props on the set.

Its a great photo, and due to the lack of light and more traditional angle, it looks just like an updated TOS bridge should, well, more so than the movie as its a great bridge. Also, for some reason, there are no barcode scanners or desk lamps visible on the helm consoles. I like.

The lights and displays etc make it too busy on film, but looking at the set in suce a familiar view gives it more classic feel but at the same time, new.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

The Movie Souvenir Magazine was designed to appeal to a broader spectrum than just the people who post on bulletin boards and have been fans for many years - people like you and me.
Issue 17 included a load of pre-production interviews, and 19, which has just gone to press, includes 5000 words of Orci and Kurtzman discussing the plot, DoP Dan Mindel, Costume Designer Michael Kaplan with 11 pages of original costume designs, and much more. Much of this material simply was not available until the two-three weeks before the movie opened - by which point anything that would reach the shelves had to be already printing. Yes, in an ideal world, the magazine would have combined all of that into one issue but it simply wasn't possible. We still have material that's going to run in 20 and 21, including an interview with JJ that I'm doing today...
You'll also find literally dozens of photos in there that aren't in print elsewhere and certainly not all in one place...
Sorry that it wasn't what you were after, but reaction elsewhere seems pretty positive.
Paul

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my post. I'll look for those issues when they come out and see if they're more to my liking.

 

[KimMH]

enjoy the reg format and the movie tie-in - want to say your cust svc dept very friendly and helpful.

 

[JonWes]

I love that image of the bridge taken from the classic angle on page 64, in the Bruce Greenwood inteview. The one where the lighting is darker and there are no film crew/actors/props on the set.

That looked like a CGI rendering - maybe an early concept drawing thrown in there because there weren't enough shots of Bruce to pull at the time it went to press? So I guess you could technically say there WAS some concept art in this issue.

I do think the issue was fine for what it was but it wasn't my cup of tea... but I'm glad the stuff I'd personally be more interested in is still to come.

 

[PaulSimpson]

I love that image of the bridge taken from the classic angle on page 64, in the Bruce Greenwood inteview. The one where the lighting is darker and there are no film crew/actors/props on the set.

That looked like a CGI rendering - maybe an early concept drawing thrown in there because there weren't enough shots of Bruce to pull at the time it went to press? So I guess you could technically say there WAS some concept art in this issue.

I do think the issue was fine for what it was but it wasn't my cup of tea... but I'm glad the stuff I'd personally be more interested in is still to come.

No, as far as I'm aware that's a shot of the Bridge set. As I mentioned above, much of the conceptual stuff has only been released following the movie's opening, hence it not appearing in #18. As time goes by, more stuff is becoming available, and although I have no doubt some of this may see the light of day before the issues hit newsstands, we are doing our best to provide exclusive material...

Paul

 

[JonWes]

Hmmm... are we talking about the pic on the bottom of page 64? I'm pretty sure that's some sort of CGI render or painting.

The reason I noticed this is because I was using it as reference for a picture I'm drawing and the back wall behind the command chair that I was referencing was VERY different from the one in the other stills. Looking at other details, the Captain's chair is wrong (there are no curved chair arms and the cushion on the back is shaped differently), the front console is different with a white top instead of a black top and it's a different shape and it's lacking the "joysticks" and lamps, the rails on the large see-through display screens are thinner and shaped differently then in the film and so on.

It's a lovely rendering though!

 

[Classic Fan]

I love that image of the bridge taken from the classic angle on page 64, in the Bruce Greenwood inteview. The one where the lighting is darker and there are no film crew/actors/props on the set.

That looked like a CGI rendering - maybe an early concept drawing thrown in there because there weren't enough shots of Bruce to pull at the time it went to press? So I guess you could technically say there WAS some concept art in this issue.

I do think the issue was fine for what it was but it wasn't my cup of tea... but I'm glad the stuff I'd personally be more interested in is still to come.

No, as far as I'm aware that's a shot of the Bridge set. As I mentioned above, much of the conceptual stuff has only been released following the movie's opening, hence it not appearing in #18. As time goes by, more stuff is becoming available, and although I have no doubt some of this may see the light of day before the issues hit newsstands, we are doing our best to provide exclusive material...

Paul

Well, if your told its a photo and is actually a CG render of a concept, surely they wouldve told you, unless the press guys releasing the material wernt told either, in which no ones to blame really.

Regardless, its a great image, and i prefere to what we got, just for the pure fact that the lights are subdued and it seems softer in appearence.

I cant wait for the production based issue. I love all the behind scenes stuff and conceptual art/designs.

Hmmm... are we talking about the pic on the bottom of page 64? I'm pretty sure that's some sort of CGI render or painting.

The reason I noticed this is because I was using it as reference for a picture I'm drawing and the back wall behind the command chair that I was referencing was VERY different from the one in the other stills. Looking at other details, the Captain's chair is wrong (there are no curved chair arms and the cushion on the back is shaped differently), the front console is different with a white top instead of a black top and it's a different shape and it's lacking the "joysticks" and lamps, the rails on the large see-through display screens are thinner and shaped differently then in the film and so on.

It's a lovely rendering though!

Now that you mention it, there are some differences, most notably the fact that there are no arms on the throne.

The fact of the missing barcode scanners and lamps, i just put that down to the fact that they were removed or this is an early production photo of some sort.

but, it appears that you are right, there are lots of differences between both versions. Mainly the top of the helm/nav console.

However, we cant be certain with the fact that, no disrespect to the publishers, the image isnt that high a resolution to really tell on paper.


Edit:
Right, ive grabbed the issue, and the fact that i have a day off today ive scanned it so everyone can see a bigger view of the image.

Ive had to reduce the size due to forum rules, but there is a thumbnail linky.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

^That's GOT to be the Kelvin, not the Enterprise:

1) Wrong color scheme

2) Wrong Capt's chair

3) Wrong console details

4) (and this is a subtle one) wrong shape of the entrance door on the stbd side. It has an "a frame" shape, instead of a rectangular one.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

^That's GOT to be the Kelvin, not the Enterprise

I just checked the American Cinematographer photo and it is NOT the Kelvin bridge.
It looks more like the Enterprise so it is probably concept art that was rendered as an illustration.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

^That's GOT to be the Kelvin, not the Enterprise

I just checked the American Cinematographer photo and it is NOT the Kelvin bridge.
It looks more like the Enterprise so it is probably concept art that was rendered as an illustration.

I'm not calling you a liar, but is there anyway you (or someone else who has it) could post a scan so we can see it?

 

[PaulSimpson]

^That's GOT to be the Kelvin, not the Enterprise

I just checked the American Cinematographer photo and it is NOT the Kelvin bridge.
It looks more like the Enterprise so it is probably concept art that was rendered as an illustration.

I'm not calling you a liar, but is there anyway you (or someone else who has it) could post a scan so we can see it?

I am checking this out at source and will let everyone know when I get an answer!
Paul