I'm going to have a really big problem with this show if it's in the JJ Abrams style with lens-flare and characters constantly running from scene to scene to instill a sense of urgency, descending into mindless fast-and-the-furious action as the series progresses.

The main character (the one from Walking Dead) is a solid choice, which was necessary in a show that had such strong female leads as Jeri Ryan and the incredible Kate Mulgrew.

Just like the JJ Abrams Star Trek.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Graduate of the JJ Abrams school of dramatic lens flares.

Cool enough, though not sure I'm sold on this over Artemis Spaceship Bridge Simulator... this basically is that, but having VR requirement and set in a Star Trek universe (from the comments it appears to be the JJ Abrams universe). I'm not one to be upset about it being Ubisoft.

Pulsar: Lost Colony is another one in the same thing, though it seems to be a bit more ambitious in total scope, though missing the VR requirement. It has away missions. It's the one I'd be more interested in playing... were I to have enough friends to play any of these. lol.

The problem with JJ Abram's Star Trek is that he destroyed the core of Roddenberry's vision. Star Trek IS the optimistic, utopian future of mankind.

The popularity of themes comes and goes with the hopes and fears of the current culture. But if zombies are in and vampires are out at the moment, you don't try to make a vampire movie where vampires act like zombies. Just make a fucking zombie movie!

So maybe Roddenberry's core theme is not popular at the moment. If audiences want to see a future of betrayal, violence and individualist motivations in their plot, then pick a franchise that represents those themes and have at it. Remake "Forbidden Planet" any way you like. Shit, do "Logan's Run" in space with a shit ton of CGI.

Or get out ahead of the curve. Old testament angels in an anachronistic setting is just WAITING for a good director to come along.

JJ Abrams had the following to say about this video:
"I love it! It just needs a little more lens flare and it would be perfect!"

I've seen it twice now--once on opening night in IMAX with co-workers and the next day with my daughter and wife in 2D at the local theatre. To be honest, I wouldn't have gone to see it again if the local theatre hadn't of gifted me with discounted tickets (around $12 US for me and the wife and $9 for the daughter).

I was deeply disappointed with the film, though I would not go so far as to say it sucks like @kulpims did. If I had to sum it up in two phrases, I'd say "tries too hard to be clever" in homages to the original films and "deeply flawed" in terms of story. It's not a terrible film by any means, but I would say its unevenness makes it good yet far from great.

It's better and worse than the prequels at the same time. Acting and pacing are far better than the prequels (but not nearly as good as the originals as has been pointed out by @ChaosEngine already).

At the same time, say what you want about Lucas's prequels but he at least tried to expand the Star Wars universe and show us new sides and aspects of it--to make it really feel like a galaxy rather than a couple of mostly uninhabited worlds like Tatooine and Hoth that we got to see in the original trilogy. This movie is a step backwards from that and played things waaaaaay too safe (partly because, as I mentioned, they were too busy trying to make themselves look clever with references to the originals and lots of "nod, nod, wink, wink, see what I did there" moments).

But it is JJ Abrams and I shouldn't have really been as shocked as I was to find out how much of the movie was copy/pasted from the originals with twists that I'm sure he thought were clever but which I just found as cringe-worthy.

Still, really loved the new characters. The daughter was definitely enthralled by Rey, but surprisingly likes her better as dune-surfing scavenger than planet-hopping adventurer.

No, nothing about this was cool. It reproduced everything that was BAD about sci fi action movies.

The obscene amounts of light flicker, despite the fact that POWER SYSTEMS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY, would make JJ Abrams blush.

So obviously the story will be about Leia.

Because JJ Abrams.

You can skip at 3:20 for the Star Wars bit. It's amazing that JJ Abrams is sitting at this same table with Mark Hamill, both not knowing they would be working on a sequel in a few years. I was also surprised to learn about JJ's experience as a writer on various other films

Who did you see on the list?

Kareem Abdul-Jabar
JJ Abrams
Alan Alda
Christiane Amanpour
Jon Batiste
Big Bird
Cory Booker
Tom Brokaw
Ken Burns
Bill Clinton
Andy Cohen
Francis Collins
Cookie Monster
Bob Costas
Katie Couric
Bryan Cranston
Mark Cuban
Jeff Daniels
Bill DeBlasio
Maureen Dowd
James Franco
Thomas Friedman
Vince Gilligan
Doris Kearns Goodwin
David Gregory
Terry Gross
Mike Huckabee
Arianna Huffington
Dean Kamen
Toby Keith
Henry Kissinger
Nicholas Kristof
Paul Krugman
Alexi Lalas
Cyndi Lauper
David Leonhardt
George Lucas
Yo Yo Ma
Barry Manilow
Senator Claire McCaskill
Tim Meadows
Willie Nelson
Randy Newman
Grover Norquist
Eleanor Holmes Norton
Ric Ocasek
Keith Olbermann
Mandy Patinkin
Stone Phillips
Samantha Power
Pussy Riot
Charlie Rose
Dan Savage
Smaug
Shane Smith
Eliot Spitzer
Gloria Steinem
Jon Stewart
Patrick Stewart
Michael Stipe
Andrew Sullivan
Matt Taibbi
Jeff Tweedy
Neil Degrasse Tyson
Sam Waterston
Elijah Wood

(http://www.vox.com/2014/12/19/7419893/colbert-finale-song)

He totally deserved it http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6890554/all-the-lens-flares-from-jj-abrams-star-trek

Gotta love the dig, "Fincher is a true craftsman, not some hipster hack -- ain't that right JJ Abrams?"

Thought you would like a glimpse of the JJ Abrams millennium falcon http://youtu.be/3C7lUfVIOa4

I saw this in theater with the wife. It was actually a decent film. One of the better sci-fi films I've seen in some time. (Even if it lacks a gross abundance of Michael Bay explosions, or JJ Abrams lens flare.) The characters, and their actions, were reasonably believable given the situation they were facing.

Apparently, in the book the lady lead is 15 or 16 when she meets mister lead, who is 17 or 18, so there's only a couple years between them. There looks to be a much greater difference in age in the film. My wife said that the books do a really good job explaining everything. She read the trilogy shortly after we saw the movie.