Star Trek Beyond **SPOILERS FROM POST 566 ONWARD**

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Don't be silly. Adding 'splosions and magic blood does not a Trek film make

Ah because what made it a Trek movie previously was really working for them. Watch the movies that came after First Contact and can you honestly tell me they were anywhere near good? He changed a lot up and made an incredible, stylish, and fun blockbuster movie.

Hell, I would argue there's only two good Trek movies: Wrath of Khan and First Contact.

Kidchameleon

[Deleted User] wrote: »

People seem to forget just how bad the previous Star Trek movies had been before he came along with the reboot. He is to Star Trek what Nolan is to Batman.

Lol

Kidchameleon

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Lol

So you can honestly tell me that you liked Nemesis?

pixelburp

Seems to me like part of the problem was that the Next Generation was never really a good fit for cinema: it was easy to see how the Original Series, with its more swashbuckling tone and attitude (not least personified by the captain himself), could fit into the realm of adventure-cinema.

Picard and co., from what little I've seen of the TV series, spent a lot of their time debating and tackling the moral grey areas of the Prime Directive. Not saying that was good or bad or anything, just that perhaps it wasn't the best fit for the blockbuster form, which is why you ended up with those drab, lifeless TNG films. Nobody really knew how to translate TNG to the silver screen; Insurrection might have made for a fantastic TV episode(s), but the actual film was tedious. Picard himself seemed like the antithesis of Kirk which was fine for a TV drama shaped around his personality, less so the lead in a modern blockbuster I guess.

Sad Professor

TNG was closer to Roddenberry’s original, more uncompromisingly utopian vision of Star Trek. It was also more of an ensemble. Both of which created issues when it came to making films. Basically, like the original series, it needed to be adapted for cinematic purposes, which, in fairness, it was (Picard was much more of a proactive action hero than he ever was in the series), just not very successfully. Berman and co lacks of experience with film was a big part of it. Pillar, Moore and Braga were too close to the series and had never written a film before, etc. The interference of Paramount execs, who hadn’t much confidence in them and disliked Stewart as a leading man, also probably played a role.

However, I think the biggest problem was the fact that, unlike TOS, TNG ran for a very successful 7 seasons and there wasn’t a lot of standalone stories left to tell. The only way forward was to shatter the nice, safe formula that TNG had created, which, as Voyager and Enterprise demonstrated, Berman was never going to do.

Re: Insurrection, it has a great, if rather well-trodden premise IMO. It was the decision to make it a comedy on the mistaken belief that a few tension relieving scenes in First Contact were actually funny that ruined it. The actors might have been hilarious in real life, but their characters never were. And after a decade of writing and performing them, it was stupid to think otherwise. But I still think Insurrection is a masterpiece compared to Nemesis.

Kidchameleon

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So you can honestly tell me that you liked Nemesis?

No I hated it. First Contact was far worse though. Id put Trek 5 and First Contact in my bottom 4 Trek movies. First Contact was a join the dots effort, borg, time travel and action thrown into a blender. No thought put into it.

Zubeneschamali

pixelburp wrote: »

it was easy to see how the Original Series, with its more swashbuckling tone and attitude (not least personified by the captain himself), could fit into the realm of adventure-cinema.

I play "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" and win.

pixelburp

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I play "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" and win.

you mean the movie that couldn't have been more unlike the TV shows tone if it tried? (even if it was more like what Rodenberry envisioned mind) The Original Series was a big, colourful adventure show in space, albeit one whose own frontier playfulness eventually morphed into those goofy stories about the Planet of Nazis, Planet of Gangsters, Planet of the Romans and so on.

Agent Coulson

Star Trek Beyond Trailer to Premiere with Star Wars 7

http://screenrant.com/star-trek-3-beyond-trailer-star-wars-7/?utm_source=SR-FB-P&utm_medium=Social-Distribution&utm_campaign=SR-FB-P

AMKC

Thats a great boast for Star Trek and hopefully the trailer will be good not give too much away about the film but get people interested in it. Has a Star Trek trailer ever been before a Star Wars film before or vis versa?

Kirby

Deleted User wrote: »

So you can honestly tell me that you liked Nemesis?

My fondness for the TNG crew led me to enjoy all the movies, even nemesis. Getting a director who didnt know what star trek was about.....was a blunder. But the movie is not terrible by any means. Tonally its a million miles from TNG but I enjoyed it for what it was.

Fan snobbery led to franchises like star trek and stargate being abadoned for years. We havent had either on tv for a years because of it. I'll take subpar trek over no trek any day of the week.

I'm still baffled by the people who condemn the recent reboot movies. They are making money, getting casual movie goers into seats and keeping the franchise alive. Bitching that "this isnt my trek" achieves nothing but destroying what you claim to love.

Not you in the literal sense of course. I'm not having a go at you, just fan apathy in general. The attitude of "If I dont get exactly what I want, I'm going to boycott and bash" is so pointless and destructive. Its why the studio's seem reluctant to touch certain franchises. "If even the fans want to lynch us, whats the point?"

Because you can't just slap a name on something 50 years and expect it's fans to accept the fundamental changes.

The magic blood, transwarp transportation, inter system transportation, red matter etc.
They made it into a science fantasy franchise. It was JJ's audition for Star Wars and it shows.

I'm not overly a fan of Star Wars for its overly simplistic fantasy logic breaks so stands to reason that I would have the same issues with nu-Trek

I thought that JJ's Star Trek movies were exhilarating blockbuster movies, with great set pieces, stories, likeable actors playing the roles.

Here's the truth: the TNG movies became extraordinarily stale towards the end and, after the failure that was Enterprise, it was a franchise that likely wouldn't have resurfaced.

So JJ came along, made excellent movies (sure, the hardcore trekkies hate it!), and now not only have we had two new movies, we're going to get a third one, and there's now enough interest that there's going to be new TV shows.

Let's face it: if it wasn't for JJ, none of that would have happened.

Oafley Jones

STiD killed all the goodwill that Star Trek built up. So poorly has it been received that the future of the third movie at one point seemed in doubt. Nearly everyone involved in it has put up their hand up at this stage. It's been completed disowned by the actors. Only The Amazing Spider-Man 2 did a more thorough job of stopping a franchise dead in it tracks.

I don't like Star Trek (2008?). I love the tone and most of the cast, but the story is another Orci/Kurtsman mess. It's much more coherent than STiD. The thing is Abrams take is precisely what was needed. Star Trek had petered out under a string of dull tv shows and a string of (at best) so-so movies. It was crippled under the weight of what went before. A complete reboot was needed both creatively and in terms of accessibility. A whole Universe free to tell their own tales. And look what they did with that freedom FFS.

Star Trek can be (and has been) many things. It can be swashbuckling in outer space or a commentary on race relations. It just needs someone who can tell a decent and compelling story.

ScumLord

Kirby wrote: »

Fan snobbery led to franchises like star trek and stargate being abadoned for years. We havent had either on tv for a years because of it. I'll take subpar trek over no trek any day of the week.

Stargate got ridiculous towards the end. Kilk got turned into Chuck Norris the alien.

I'm still baffled by the people who condemn the recent reboot movies.

I have no problem with the movies per say, I liked the first one, it was a nice take on the ST universe. But it isn't really what I want from ST, they're fairly run of the mill action films. A complete departure from what STTNG established. STTNG always felt like you were following people that lived in a completely different futuristic culture. ST reboot doesn't have any real substance to it once the action stops. I liked the films, but I'm kind of bored with the whole premise already.

AMKC

Oafley Jones wrote: »

STiD killed all the goodwill that Star Trek built up. So poorly has it been received that the future of the third movie at one point seemed in doubt. Nearly everyone involved in it has put up their hand up at this stage. It's been completed disowned by the actors. Only The Amazing Spider-Man 2 did a more thorough job of stopping a franchise dead in it tracks.

I don't like Star Trek (2008?). I love the tone and most of the cast, but the story is another Orci/Kurtsman mess. It's much more coherent than STiD. The thing is Abrams take is precisely what was needed. Star Trek had petered out under a string of dull tv shows and a string of (at best) so-so movies. It was crippled under the weight of what went before. A complete reboot was needed both creatively and in terms of accessibility. A whole Universe free to tell their own tales. And look what they did with that freedom FFS.

Star Trek can be (and has been) many things. It can be swashbuckling in outer space or a commentary on race relations. It just needs someone who can tell a decent and compelling story.

What do you mean Star Trek ID was poorly received. It was an even bigger success than Star Trek 2009. There is lots of people out there that think its great. I was very disappointed with it. It is not the best film and the Villain should have been someone else not Khan. Name him the John even would have done. The thing is all the elements were there in the film to make it a great film except for the way they went about it and the mistakes in it like the Enterprise at the moon and then crashing into the Earths atmosphere.

As for the third film being made that was never in doubt its just JJ Abhams got pouched to direct Star Wars and they had to find a new director to direct Star Trek 3 really 13. That took a while and then there was some changes in the story along the way. The film has been made and will be released quicker than Star Trek Into Darkness was. It was 4 years between Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness but will only be 3 years between it and Star Trek Beyond.

Wedwood

As someone who's liked Star Trek since the early 70's, the new movies are a return to form and yes that includes into darkness.

The latter series' were frankly borefests that appealed to a fairly small group of people.

Rebooting Kirk, Spock, McCoy et all, has been the best decision since, well, The Undisovered Country.

Yes the Khan bit was a bit corny, but the overall story was very good. People seem to forget they were all looking for Khan in this movie, they got it and then didn't like it.

The new movies have done what I thought would be impossible, they've recaptured the spirit and interplay of Kirk, Spock and McCoy. Hopefully these guys keep making these movies for the next 30 years !!

Kirby

ScumLord wrote: »

Stargate got ridiculous towards the end. Kilk got turned into Chuck Norris the alien.

I'm not sure who Kilk is. Do you mean Teal'c? He was chuck norris from the very first episode. That cant be a valid complaint. And in actuality he saw more character development than O Neill and Carter put together.

And the fans I'm talking about who turned on the franchise did it long after SG1 was finished. I was refferring to the backlash when Atlantis was finished up and the budget given to Universe. Atlantis has run its course, it had gotten stale. It came to a natural conclusion and certain elements of the fanbase couldnt accept it, and blamed the new show , stargate universe for its demise.

Kirby

Kirby wrote: »

I'm not sure who Kilk is. Do you mean Teal'c? He was chuck norris from the very first episode. That cant be a valid complaint. And in actuality he saw more character development than O Neill and Carter put together.

And the fans I'm talking about who turned on the franchise did it long after SG1 was finished. I was refferring to the backlash when Atlantis was finished up and the budget given to Universe. Atlantis has run its course, it had gotten stale. It came to a natural conclusion and certain elements of the fanbase couldnt accept it, and blamed the new show , stargate universe for its demise.

Universe failed because its lead characters were unrelatable, unlikeable dicks. People have to work with others that act like them, they're hardly gonna want to relax watching them

Kirby

Universe failed because not enough people watched it. Thats the bottom line. The merits of the characters didnt matter.

Too much of the fanbase had temper tantrums when Atlantis wasnt given another season and some idiot PR person said they were going with a "younger crew" which gave people the impression we would be seeing this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sd23slMhWQU

For the record, Universe was a great show following a shakey start.

Anyway, while I think the parallells between star trek and stargates fandom holds true, we should probably relegate this topic to another thread.

Bulbous Glans

Wedwood wrote: »

As someone who's liked Star Trek since the early 70's, the new movies are a return to form and yes that includes into darkness.

The latter series' were frankly borefests that appealed to a fairly small group of people.

Rebooting Kirk, Spock, McCoy et all, has been the best decision since, well, The Undisovered Country.

Yes the Khan bit was a bit corny, but the overall story was very good. People seem to forget they were all looking for Khan in this movie, they got it and then didn't like it.

The new movies have done what I thought would be impossible, they've recaptured the spirit and interplay of Kirk, Spock and McCoy. Hopefully these guys keep making these movies for the next 30 years !!

Why do they need to be rebooted, why not write new stories and new characters?

Zubeneschamali

Bulbous Glans wrote: »

Why do they need to be rebooted, why not write new stories and new characters?

Why not make something entirely original, instead of more Star Trek?

Money. Most money-making movies are remakes, sequels, reboots or prequels. People like what they know, and will pay for more of it.

And Kirk/Spock/McCoy are Star Trek to the biggest audience, that's where the money is, so reboot it is.

Kirby

Kirby wrote: »

Universe failed because not enough people watched it. Thats the bottom line. The merits of the characters didnt matter.

Too much of the fanbase had temper tantrums when Atlantis wasnt given another season and some idiot PR person said they were going with a "younger crew" which gave people the impression we would be seeing this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sd23slMhWQU

For the record, Universe was a great show following a shakey start.

Anyway, while I think the parallells between star trek and stargates fandom holds true, we should probably relegate this topic to another thread.

Why do you always bring a topic to the conversation then, when someone disagrees, say its for another discussion. Why bring something up if you feel it's derailing the thread?

ScumLord

Kirby wrote: »

I'm not sure who Kilk is. Do you mean Teal'c? He was chuck norris from the very first episode. That cant be a valid complaint. And in actuality he saw more character development than O Neill and Carter put together.

I think he's character turned comical towards the end. He was a badass at the start, he was a great dry wit. But it got utterly ridiculous towards the end. The first 2-4 seasons were great, it started to off the rails after that.

Kirby wrote: »

Universe failed because not enough people watched it. Thats the bottom line. The merits of the characters didnt matter.

I don't see what your getting at there. It didn't get viewers because it was rubbish, more people watching it wouldn't have made it better. Atlantis was also rubbish. I tried to stick with universe but atlantis I couldn't watch at all.

Cantstandsya

Kirby wrote: »

Universe failed because not enough people watched it. Thats the bottom line. The merits of the characters didnt matter.

Too much of the fanbase had temper tantrums when Atlantis wasnt given another season and some idiot PR person said they were going with a "younger crew" which gave people the impression we would be seeing this:

Universe failed because it wasn't a Stargate show and it was awful. It attempted to ride the BSG hype with its "edgy" and whiny characters. The tone was completely at odds with all previous Stargate series so for a start they lost most people who actually wanted to watch Stargate. The fact that it was a terrible BSG clone meant that they weren't going to get any new viewers either.

Watch any season of SG-1, it's a light-hearted, rompy adventure... now watch Universe, a dull, depressing drudge. One of the first episodes featured a crewman warping back to Earth via communication stones and raping another crew member's wife. I tuned out after that. It was a shockingly bad effort.

Oafley Jones

Oafley Jones wrote: »

STiD killed all the goodwill that Star Trek built up. So poorly has it been received that the future of the third movie at one point seemed in doubt. Nearly everyone involved in it has put up their hand up at this stage. It's been completed disowned by the actors. Only The Amazing Spider-Man 2 did a more thorough job of stopping a franchise dead in it tracks.

No offense, but you're talking about nonsense. Into Darkness was poorly received? It's on 87% on rottentomatoes, so that pretty much makes it a critically well received movie and made $228,778,661 domestic gross in the US. So the facts and figures are actually working against you. Plus not once have I heard any one say, "yo, sorry, our bad".

You might not like the direction it went in, but to say it was poorly received is ludicrous.

Sad Professor

German version of the trailer has leaked but keeps being taken down.

Looks like a big departure from Abrams’s Star Wars-y take on the franchise. Bit of a post-Matrix action movie vibe. Not much plot details but something (guess what) gets blown up. Loads of stunts and hand-to-hand combat. Elba appears to be buried under heavy prosthetic makeup. Digitally shot with costumes reminiscent of the latter TNG films suggesting they had less money to play around with.

Sad Professor

Official:

johnny_ultimate

Scotty jumping out of the pod there is right out of the 'Legalos running across the collapsing bridge' area of the uncanny valley.

pixelburp

Oh look, the Enterprise gets completely trashed in this film. That's never happened.

Word Effect, how are ya.

Bacchus

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Scotty jumping out of the pod there is right out of the 'Legalos running across the collapsing bridge' area of the uncanny valley.

Straight out of Fast and Furious really.

Looks very actiony but at least it's moved the action away from Earth/Vulcan and they look like they really are exploring strange new worlds.

Sad Professor

Bacchus wrote: »

Straight out of Fast and Furious really.

Looks very actiony but at least it's moved the action away from Earth/Vulcan and they look like they really are exploring strange new worlds.

Is that not San Francisco being destroyed again at the end?

Thargor

Motorbike stunt chase in a star Trek film :rolleyes:

I hate every member of that crew, Ill pirate it when its out, not wasting any more money on this mush.

cowboyBuilder

Is the trailer up ?

edit .. just see it, surprised it leaked before the Star Wars premiere..

Myrddin

Thargor wrote: »

Motorbike stunt chase in a star Trek film :rolleyes:

It's on par with the dune buggy's from Nemesis at worst. As a Star Trek fan, these films do nothing for me...despite being enjoyable action blockbusters. Credit to the cast though, the main trio do a great job emulating the chemistry of old (except Pegg, he's ridiculously out of place in these films).

BrookieD

really lost all hope for this franchise now.... shame as legacy trek was just brilliant on the whole and this is just bad as it gets.... Give me "The Final Frontier" anyday....and thats saying something. Come back Nicholas Meyer

And new trek fans can just suck it, New trek is crap, We need the TV series to not be set in JJ verse and be a return to form.... little chane though

bnt

Listen, all y'all, it's Sabotage. And that was before they put the music on the trailer.

ScumLord

Thargor wrote: »

Motorbike stunt chase in a star Trek film :rolleyes:

Not only a motorbike, but a fossil fueled motorbike. Because, I'm sure not only will you find them lying around the place in 300 years time, and of course there will be be a couple of gallons of fuel placed with it.

PirateShampoo

Looks like they have tried to combine Star Trek / Fast and the Furious and the bloody Hunger Games.

The trailer looks pants.

Goodshape

I can't stand it, I know they planed it, I'm gonna set it straight: this isn't trek.

WWooooaahhhhhh....

The_Valeyard

Oh.
Dear.
God.
No.

Mitch Connor

I am a Trek fan - though not as massive a fan as some on here. Unlike some of the massive fans, I also enjoyed the last two star trek movies. I've no issue with the alternate timeline scenario they have set up for this universe, or the repetition of the a story line, as I can square it up with the universe they have set up.

That trailer for Beyond though... wow. Not a fan. There is no heart or emotion on display in that trailer. Heart and emotion should be at the core of a ST movie. The trailer is too action packed, too insane.

Obviously this is just the first trailer, and the movie could be a very different product. I will go see it, i've no doubt about that, but the trailer isn't making me wish it was coming out sooner.

As an aside, I have no issue with The Enterprise being blown up; its happened before, it will happen again - but this trailer packs nothing but worry.

I don't see it attracting new viewers, and I can see it turning off the current audience.

Falthyron

It has been known for some time now that the Star Trek: Beyond trailer was going to be shown before Star Wars (Bad Robot being the reason for that). Is it possible that with this information, they deliberately tailored the trailer to appeal to Star Wars fans first and foremost to try and get some of that audience to check out the Star Trek movie?

I don't want to make excuses for the trailer, but it could be a factor at play here. Perhaps a more Trek-centric trailer will follow in the coming weeks?

Mitch Connor

Falthyron wrote: »

It has been known for some time now that the Star Trek: Beyond trailer was going to be shown before Star Wars (Bad Robot being the reason for that). Is it possible that with this information, they deliberately tailored the trailer to appeal to Star Wars fans first and foremost to try and get some of that audience to check out the Star Trek movie?

I don't want to make excuses for the trailer, but it could be a factor at play here. Perhaps a more Trek-centric trailer will follow in the coming weeks?

I honestly don't see how that would attract a SW fan anymore than either a current fan, a fan of the original movies or new converts.

Itlooks like it will either be a bad movie, or it is a terrible trailer.

Sad Professor

Falthyron wrote: »

It has been known for some time now that the Star Trek: Beyond trailer was going to be shown before Star Wars (Bad Robot being the reason for that). Is it possible that with this information, they deliberately tailored the trailer to appeal to Star Wars fans first and foremost to try and get some of that audience to check out the Star Trek movie?

I don't want to make excuses for the trailer, but it could be a factor at play here. Perhaps a more Trek-centric trailer will follow in the coming weeks?

No, because they are trying to make it less like Star Trek and more appealing to non-Trekkies. I know many feel Abrams already did this, but Paramount apparently feel the opposite, that he didn't go far enough. They want the sci-fi toned down, more of a genre mash-up like Guardians of the Galaxy. Or at least that's what Pegg's recent comments suggest.

.....

Ehm.

Mad Max: Lost in Space.

ScumLord

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Obviously this is just the first trailer, and the movie could be a very different product.

That could be the case. It's easy enough to take any movie and make it look however you want in a short trailer.

F#%k it. I like it.

Looks like the ship crashes over a slaver colony (explaining the bike, we still use horse and carts today and there are still steam trains around)

Sure it's action-y but it could explore the universe outside the rebooted federation

Technocentral

WTF, it looks like an awful cgi video game, last two were crap this looks even worse unless you're a meathead. Wonder if he'll destroy Star Wars to?

PS I'm sticking on the real ST:3 The Search For Spock now to remind me of the original magic that was Star Trek.

Mitch Connor

Technocentral wrote: »

WTF, it looks like an awful cgi video game, last two were crap this looks even worse unless your a meathead. Wonder if he'll destroy Star Wars to?

JJ has nothing to do with this one, I think.