Nothing about this looks appealing. Jumping from "reconstructing ship" to "destroying recently reconstructed ship" does nothing for me. Clearly nothing is sacred and everything can be pooped back out brand-new, this incarnation already has its first resurrected character, so what's at stake here?

Ever since Wrath of Khan, Star Trek writers have been convinced they can only produce Khan-a-likes as a path to success. I was only partially onboard after the first film, I checked out completely after the last one, but I'm particularly surprised at the laziness of this one. The CG and action direction seem to be the only areas that are getting any creative engineering in any of these films.

Your video, STAR TREK BEYOND Official Trailer #2 (2016), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 83 Badge!

I like it, I just can't get over the MANY mispronunciations. I have such a hard time taking "eagle-tarians" seriously. I don't hear any specific accents that lead me to believe English isn't the Narrator's first language... I just get the feeling that the Narrator only knows english from reading it, not from hearing it spoken.

Despite my pedantry getting in the way, I still like it. The narrator doesn't try to say "Everything is great" or "Everything is terrible"... mainly pointing out how the Star Trek canon is a tapestry of many different, real-world philosophies. Nothing ground-breaking or eye-opening, and it could be 30 minutes, but still good.

OK. I concede that sometimes the later parts of a series can be better than the second one. ;-)

But among the three Nolan Batman Movies, the second one is by far the best.

And nobody would argue the Terminator 2 is better than 3, 4 and 5 (and in my opinion even 1).

Star Trek 2 (The Wrath Of Khan) is still one of the best Star Trek movies.

> Die Hard 3 was WAY better than the snooze fest sequel.
> Samuel L. Jackson, man.

Back then I thought that DIe Hard 3 was more part of the Lethal Weapon series than a real Die Hard movie, but after 4 and 5, the majority rule makes it clear that Die Hard and Die Hard 2 are not part of the Die Hard series. ;-)

Exorcist 3 was way better than the second movie, although technically it is a sequel to the first.

Mad Max Fury Road was better than... well, all of the Mad Max movies.

Die Hard 3 was WAY better than the snooze fest sequel. Samuel L. Jackson, man.

Star Trek 6: The Undiscovered Country is WAY better than the original, 3, 4, and 5. So sometimes the sequel is good and then it takes 4 more movies before you get a good one in.

James Bond arguably got better with age. Maybe not the most recent ones, but Golden Eye was amazing. Great games can also be spawned from over making a franchise!

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is hands down the best of Sergio Leone's Dollars Trilogy. It wasn't just a western, it was an epic civil war movie in the west. And the ending with the Mexican stand off; soundtrack?!?! Hot damn! Not that the "sequel" sucked but the third was the BEST.

I know there are a couple good horror series that had a better third or fourth movie. Any Hellraiser is better than Hellraiser 2, same goes for Halloween. Though I can't say they were ever as good as their originals. It's still a hope I reserve for horror movies that make it past their shitty sequel.

The next Ring might be awesome. "Might." It's had a fairly massive career spanning 4 countries, 12 movies, 2 telvis ion series, 2 video games and a bunch of manga. Movies most people don't even know exist. I think the seventh iteration of the Ring (2002's American Ring) is the best.

And, while it might just technically count, it's worth noting that while i like Gaspar Noe's despair trilogy, his third movie Enter the Void is the only movie in the trilogy I can enjoy watching a third or fourth time. I once recommended his movies and alienated an entire office space. The only movie anyone enjoyed was his third movie.

Ghostbusters 3 will probably be better than 2. Blasphemy!! Hah, we will see. Girl power!

I think Batman also got better because of Nolan. Does that count? I mean, if a franchise goes on that long, it's all just sequels, despite the so-called canon and concept of "rebooting" a FAKE universe.

(Does Harry Potter count as the third movie in the Troll series?)

Gonna have to disagree here. Not that you are incorrect, but the assumptions might be incorrect. First, technological advances occur rapidly when one is found and they tend to ripple in every advancement. Consider that human "advancement" is really just centuries old. Second, and I am not entirely sure of the Star Wars universe on this matter, but Star Trek technology has the ability to warp time and time travel. This means in theory that if their universe saw people doing this over and over, the technology could have spread and spread in the same eons. In essence, the technology of their pantheon could be trillions of years old (Ie., Scotty gives shield upgrades to save whales, shields have now been upgraded to Scotty's timeline even further than before. But Scotty has to go back in time for some other event, gives newest shield information which increases his own time's shield power further, cycle continues indefinitely when Scotty is killed by a younger version of himself...)

Star Wars and Star Trek geeks easily scare, but they'll soon be back, and in greater numbers.

There was a lot of posturing from Star Wars fans (from stardestroyer.net, I think) for a long time, with exaggerations about the power of imperial starships. However, some fans have done an extensive (and pretty ridiculous) amount of work to make a lengthy comparison, that, while only as accurate as can be interpreted from the provided material, does come out in strong favor towards Star Trek technology:
http://www.st-v-sw.net/
So yes, NdGT is correct, and really, you don't need to do the extensive research the fans did to confirm that. Logistics in a post-scarcity civilization alone gives a significant advantage.
But this is to be expected. When you have a TV show as focused on science and technology as Star Trek, it will certainly excel.
Meanwhile, Star Wars isn't supposed to be about high end technology. For them the technology is only there to highlight the story. The charm of the Millenium Falcon is not that it's a god-like ship that can mop the floor with everyone else, but that it's some guy's souped up junker that's full of surprises. The Death Star isn't the ultimate weapon, but a weapon of fear. (A weapon that destroys excessive amounts of available resources is impractical for anything else, and that especially includes Starkiller Base.)
And if there really needs to be some sort of sci-fi-peen competition, you can go the complete nonsense route with Doctor Who, where one Dalek could probably conquer both the Trek and Wars universes with minimal effort.
Or the overkill route with the Culture, where wiping the rest out would be an idle task, pursued for entertainment.
Star Wars fans just need to chill and embrace their universe of junkers and quaint technology. Star Trek fans have already embraced the fact that their universe isn't about action and explosions. (No, we don't include the Abramsverse.)

Jesus you two... I made a joke about Star Trek because I had to 'bail out' of what, a plea for everyone to agree and get along? I don't think it's a horrible thing for people to disagree, at least if they have genuinely differing viewpoints and respect each other enough to argue about it.

There is an actual conversation here, and some points are getting resolved and others will be more entrenched when it's all over - one star trek joke one way or the other doesn't change that.

Which points did you want to actually adress? "Instead of agreeing that certain things are wrong and need to be changed, we argue about who got it worst"? It helps to figure out which large groups of people are getting the worst treatment, because if we want to improve society we need to start with the ones who get it worst.

Every single person on earth has shitty things happen to them at some point, and every society will always fail someone at some point - but if we are going to change those societies we need to start figuring out where we're failing the worst, and start adressing that. It will probably take some arguments to agree on those things, but once we do we can slowly move forward.

Being dismissive and pretending that everybody who disagrees with you is angry or 'bailing out' will not get us closer to agreements. I don't think.

Off topic, but speak of the devil and he shall appear.
Apparently a trove of 200 floppy disks owned my Gene Roddenberry have turned up, and been deciphered (they were made on a proprietary OS made just for Gene, apparently) and 'there may be surprises in store on this, the 50'th anniversary of the original Star Trek' is all that's been said about it so far....
http://venturebeat.com/2016/01/04/200-floppy-disks-belonging-to-star-treks-creator-have-been-recovered-and-could-offer-some-surprises/

And here we are again.
THIS is the reason why we can't have nice things.
Instead of agreeing that certain things are wrong and need to be changed, we argue about who got it worst. Instead of acknowledging that we have a lot work to do until we become the nice people Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek wants us to be, we fight about shitty details. We'd rather point fingers than making a change from within ourselves.
Any change for the better in any society comes from within. It's a painfully slow process and it requires more patience and blood than humanly bearable. We, as a society, need to suffer greatly before we learn our painful lesson. We always pay a price much too high. We pay in human suffering. We pay in blood. All the time.
What doesn't help is antagonizing each other. Apparently, we can't help it.

#i'mjustsayingi'mamisanthrope

Um..yeah. If we lived in the Star Trek universe, it would be different. That doesn't translate to a right to a job, much less the right to any specific job. Even Stalinist Russia didn't provide that.

I will guess you never owned or run a business that employed someone you found outrageously disgusting. I think you might see the other side if you had, and that this man's needs don't trump the company's owners rights to make their own choices.

Your video, Star Trek Reacts to Star Trek Beyond Trailer, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This is like half way down the road from regular Star Trek towards Team America. Very strange.

Looking forward to SW in glorious 2D!

I wouldn't mind it so much if not for two things:

1) I thought they specifically said that this movie was supposed to be more "old school star trek" and more cerebral

2) all the action seemed like a total repeat of the last two movies.

I used to not mind the reboot. I hated the whole alternate timeline thing and the Borg involvement, but I thought the movies themselves were still fun and decent. I'm just so sick of it now. I'm done.