[movie]Star Trek Beyond

tru1cy · Post by **tru1cy** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 2:31 pm

Spoiler:

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 2:33 pm

Agreed. At this point, just release a compilation of those scenes accompanied by "Sad Trombone" and call it a day, people.

JSHAW · Post by **JSHAW** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 2:37 pm

tru1cy wrote:Trailer

Spoiler:
The Enterprise gets blown up AGAIN. I actually a little weary of ship being destroyed in almost every movie

If you go on the word of Picard there's no money in the future so it's very easy to replace one,
they cost zero dollars.

McNutt · Post by **McNutt** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 2:40 pm

They have a huge 3D printer spitting them out.

Daehawk · Post by **Daehawk** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 2:40 pm

Spoiler:

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 2:44 pm

JSHAW wrote:
tru1cy wrote:Trailer

Spoiler:
The Enterprise gets blown up AGAIN. I actually a little weary of ship being destroyed in almost every movie
If you go on the word of Picard there's no money in the future so it's very easy to replace one,
they cost zero dollars.

It's a character they can kill off without any permanence.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 3:04 pm

I can't decide between a more snarky:

"Marvel Presents: Star Trek: Guardians of the Federation"

or a more to the point:

"The fact that someone decided that the right music for a Star Trek trailer was the Beasie Boys says it all."

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 3:05 pm

Daehawk wrote:
Spoiler:
Eh I think its time they got a new design. Never was a fan of the close engines of this one. And then after Vengence? YA they need a cooler bigger meaner ship.

Hush. The last thing I want is the Fast and the Furious franchise bleeding into my Star Trek.

wait...crap.

cheeba · Post by **cheeba** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 3:06 pm

I love the Beastie Boys, but I do not think they're the right match with Star Trek. This may as well be Star Trek: the Fast and Furious.

TheMix · Post by **TheMix** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 3:11 pm

Wow. Just... wow.

I guess it will go with popcorn, but that trailer was a MESS. And the choice of music was terrible.

I'll watch it for the character interaction. And the action. But it looks like another horrible plot. And I really hope they go with different music. Sheesh.

Daehawk · Post by **Daehawk** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 3:29 pm

Hot alien babe.

AjD · Post by **AjD** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 3:31 pm

Well, it's nice to see they listened to all the fans who asked them to tone down the loud action explosion-y space opera stuff. Real excited for this one. Looks like a return to Trek roots, with an emphasis on beloved character interaction, a timely-yet-challenging plot and science-fiction ideas that make you think. Bravo, I can't wait! **

** This post comes courtesy of an alternate timeline, where AjD has just watched the trailer for an entirely different Star Trek movie.

nasai · Post by **nasai** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 3:34 pm

Jumped. The. Shark.

Brian · Post by **Brian** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 3:36 pm

I thought the first one was OK. It was fun even though the plot overall was pretty silly.

The next movie...ugh. Into Darkness. This movie is so aggressively stupid that I actually found myself getting more and more pissed off as I watched it and now (after seeing it a second time in order to be sure) actively hate this movie. (it also forms part of the foundation for my argument on why Damon Lindelof should never, EVER touch a movie script again)

So now we have the trailer for the next Star Trek movie. It looks like rubbish and for the second time I will not be seeing a Star Trek movie in the theater. (The first was Nemesis.) Unless, of course, it gets really high praise here during the first week or so of release.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 3:43 pm

The only thing that trailer was missing was Will Smith yelling "Wooooooo!"

tru1cy · Post by **tru1cy** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 3:45 pm

nasai wrote:Jumped. The. Shark.

the internet works fast

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 3:47 pm

Smoove_B wrote:The only thing that trailer was missing was Will Smith yelling "Wooooooo!"

I think you mean Vin Diesel.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 3:51 pm

Ok, just watched the trailer. I'm in, actually.

No particular brand of Star Trek has ever been sacrosanct for me. And there has been a lot of shitty Trek in the past. So some mindless Hollywood action, incongruent music (Faith of the Heart, anyone?), and a dumb plot doesn't give me the vapors or anything. I skipped Into Darkness and I can skip this if reviews are as bad but I have no problem that it's out there.

AjD · Post by **AjD** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 3:55 pm

tru1cy wrote:
nasai wrote:Jumped. The. Shark.

the internet works fast

Was indeed a lot of jumping going on in that trailer.

Come to think of it, that trailer was so opposite of what fans have been asking for, it's almost like they're intentionally punking us. I mean, maybe the actual movie will turn things around, but for the moment at least -- this trailer is almost fan-hating in its presentation. And somebody, somewhere approved it and thought it was a good idea to release it.

From the Beastie Boy music, to the cringe-worthy wise-cracking, to all that over-the-top and hilarious "jumping!", to the Enterprise exploding (again!)... this felt like a fake practical joke trailer to me. Or a clever parody.

coopasonic · Post by **coopasonic** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 3:56 pm

Blackhawk wrote:"The fact that someone decided that the right music for a Star Trek trailer was the Beasie Boys says it all."

cheeba wrote:I love the Beastie Boys, but I do not think they're the right match with Star Trek. This may as well be Star Trek: the Fast and Furious.

Can't watch the trailer at work but I imagining the song is Sabotage and the idea has me grinning like this ->

I'm Star Wars all the way.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 4:02 pm

coopasonic wrote:Can't watch the trailer at work but I imagining the song is Sabotage and the idea has me grinning like this ->

That was my first thought.

Rumpy · Post by **Rumpy** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 4:03 pm

After the first one, I never bothered with the second. Felt it took a wrong turn right from the start. And this is why I have no faith in the upcoming TV series. With Alex Kurtzman having been involved in the movies, he's going to take what he's been most familiar with and apply it to the series.

These guys think they know Trek best, but no. I'm constantly amazed at how far off the mark they tend to be. They're even smarmy about it and tend to have childish outburts when told otherwise.

I think that Trek needs retooling. Otherwise these guys are going to end up dragging the franchise down with them. When that happens, Paramount will want nothing to do with the franchise for another 15-20 years or so.

And you know guys, when say you want to have an alternate universe due to not wanting to have to deal with the breadth of canon, I respect that. But then you go and rub shoulders with some of canon's biggest villains. That's where I lost confidence that you could do anything original. You have a whole new playground to play around with, a new universe to explore, but instead of doing something brave and bold by really taking things in a different direction, you go with a retread. Paramount gave you the world, guys! This is the best you could come up with? Shame!

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 4:14 pm

I think Star Trek's Utopian message with frequently peaceful solutions to problems just doesn't resonate with today's audiences. They want sword fights, they want blaster fights, they want fantasy and magic. They don't want too much thoughtful introspection and/or cultural commentary muddying up their matinee fun. Star Wars will give them all that, I imagine. And Star Trek will try to emulate that formula, most likely.

Which is too bad. While I enjoy the Star Trek reboot for what it is (a decent enough action franchise), I do miss the halcyon days of yore when Star Trek was about more than just the action.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 4:18 pm

hepcat wrote:I think Star Trek's Utopian message with frequently peaceful solutions to problems just doesn't resonate with today's audiences. They want sword fights, they want blaster fights, they want fantasy and magic. They don't want too much thoughtful introspection and/or cultural commentary muddying up their matinee fun. Star Wars will give them all that, I imagine. And Star Trek will try to emulate that formula, most likely.

Which is too bad. While I enjoy the Star Trek reboot for what it is (a decent enough action franchise), I do miss the halcyon days of yore when Star Trek was about more than just the action.

For me the issue is not that the movies are action-heavy, especially since their Original Series which always had a Kirk as Cowboy vibe to them (though admittedly not to this degree). The issue is that this is the only source of new Trek right now (outside of the books, I suppose).

If they want to make the movies Star Trek action movies, then I don't really have a strong objection as long as they also give me a smart TV series at the same time.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 4:25 pm

I recently started watching TOS on Blu Ray for the revamped visuals and I was surprised at how "talky" it was. At least in comparison to other shows of that time. I had believed that it was more action oriented as well, but it really did tackle a lot of heavier issues (racism, sexism...believe it or not, the Vietnam War, etc.), which surprised me. When I watched them originally as a kid, I missed much of the political and societal commentary that was often driving the stories.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 4:29 pm

Rumpy wrote:After the first one, I never bothered with the second.

After the first one, I thought Abrams would make an excellent Star Wars. Then I found out it we would be making Star Wars.

I didn't love or hate Into Darkness but after seeing the trailer and having had the first preconceptions as Coop, I almost LOLed when I saw "from the makers for the Fast and Furious" or whatever the marquee said. It made me feel like I was being Onioned. But nope. ST went there.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 4:30 pm

hepcat wrote:I recently started watching TOS on Blu Ray for the revamped visuals and I was surprised at how "talky" it was. At least in comparison to other shows of that time. I had believed that it was more action oriented as well, but it really did tackle a lot of heavier issues (racism, sexism...believe it or not, the Vietnam War, etc.), which surprised me. When I watched them originally as a kid, I missed much of the political and societal commentary that was often driving the stories.

I know, it's just that Kirk is at least something of a cowboy (talky cowboy), so at least this movie is taking an element of the show and just amplifying it by a million degrees (turning it up to 11). It would be really comical if they had done this with the Next Generation crew, for example (Picard Judo Chop!).

Point is just that I'm fine with them making an action Trek, the problem is really with the action Trek being the only Trek at the moment.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 4:32 pm

They really need to take my fan fiction series "Garak Pwns the Universe!" and make that the focus of a TV franchise.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 4:33 pm

I was amused by the line given by Bones. But that's about it.

The reboot has been a bunch of summer action flicks. Which can be fun for what it is, but it's not Star Trek. It's sad that, as a Trek film, Insurrection is ten time better than the last three movies combined. And I don't even like Insurrection.

hepcat wrote: but it really did tackle a lot of heavier issues ([...]sexism...[...]

Although not always on the right side (there are two or three episodes that are remarkably sexist, especially the final one)

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 4:33 pm

hepcat wrote:They really need to take my fan fiction series "Garak Pwns the Universe!" and make that the focus of a TV franchise.

I would love to see a Keeping Up With the Cardassians.

Garak was my favorite.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 4:35 pm

hepcat wrote:They really need to take my fan fiction series "Garak Pwns the Universe!" and make that the focus of a TV franchise.

Those restraining orders might make getting the show made difficult, though.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 4:35 pm

LordMortis wrote:
Rumpy wrote:After the first one, I never bothered with the second.
After the first one, I thought Abrams would make an excellent Star Wars. Then I found out it we would be making Star Wars.

I didn't love or hate Into Darkness but after seeing the trailer. having had the first preconceptions as Coop, I almost LOLed when I saw "from the makers for the Fast and Furious" or whatever the marquee said. It made me feel like I was being Onioned. But nope. ST went there.

I was amused that Abrams threw Into Darkness under the bus while marketing The Force Awakens:

In an interview for the December issue of Wired, Abrams said that he and co-screenwriter Lawrence Kasdan (who also co-wrote The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi) focused heavily on storytelling, a luxury he didn’t have with previous films like Star Trek Into Darkness.

“I didn’t want to enter into making a movie where we didn’t really own our story. I feel like I’ve done that a couple of times in my career,” Abrams told Wired. “That’s not to say I’m not proud of my work, but the fact is I remember starting to shoot Super 8 and Star Trek Into Darkness and feeling like I hadn’t really solved some fundamental story problems.”

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 4:43 pm

You hire Damon Lindelof, you get Damon Lindelof.

Defiant wrote:
Although not always on the right side (there are two or three episodes that are remarkably sexist, especially the final one)

It's important to remember that it was filmed in the 60's. It's remarkable that they tackled it at all, which is why I mentioned it and added the little tag line "believe it or not".

Rumpy · Post by **Rumpy** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 4:57 pm

LordMortis wrote: After the first one, I thought Abrams would make an excellent Star Wars. Then I found out it we would be making Star Wars.

Yeah, actually I feel his style and philosophy of moving making fits more the Star Wars ideals, which is ironic given the fact he probably got the job by directing a Star Wars-y Trek. So, maybe he's found his calling.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 5:04 pm

hepcat wrote:You hire Damon Lindelof, you get Damon Lindelof.

Defiant wrote:
Although not always on the right side (there are two or three episodes that are remarkably sexist, especially the final one)
It's important to remember that it was filmed in the 60's. It's remarkable that they tackled it at all, which is why I mentioned it and added the little tag line "believe it or not".

To be sure (I think those episodes come off as glaring because Star Trek was usually forward looking), although it wasn't alone in that (eg, see Twilight Zone, or shows with minority leads).

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 5:30 pm

hepcat wrote:I think Star Trek's Utopian message with frequently peaceful solutions to problems just doesn't resonate with today's audiences. They want sword fights, they want blaster fights, they want fantasy and magic. They don't want too much thoughtful introspection and/or cultural commentary muddying up their matinee fun. Star Wars will give them all that, I imagine. And Star Trek will try to emulate that formula, most likely.

Which is too bad. While I enjoy the Star Trek reboot for what it is (a decent enough action franchise), I do miss the halcyon days of yore when Star Trek was about more than just the action.

Yeah, well, they're welcome to it.

I figured this one was a lost cause when I read that Simon Pegg rejected the first script for being "too Star Trekky."

Oh, who am I kidding? I've seen every other ST movie in the theater, and I'll most likely see this one, too. But I'm going to complain a lot.

JSHAW · Post by **JSHAW** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 5:44 pm

There's one thing that can defintely be said after watching that trailer, whoever is designing
the Enterprise's shields continues to do a really shitty job.

TiLT · Post by **TiLT** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 5:56 pm

Kraken wrote:I figured this one was a lost cause when I read that Simon Pegg rejected the first script for being "too Star Trekky."

Where did you read that? Simon Pegg wrote this script, and he wrote it specifically to be closer to the original Star Trek than the last two movies, which he had somewhat mixed feelings about. Don't judge this by the trailer. All Hollywood trailers tend to be set up to look more action-packed and silly than the movie itself.

Kasey Chang · Post by **Kasey Chang** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 6:17 pm

Feels like... Nemesis (the ONLY Star Trek movies I never watched)

McNutt · Post by **McNutt** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 6:22 pm

TiLT wrote:Don't judge this by the trailer.

All I have to go on is the trailer and the previous two movies. After the last movie I was ready to write Star Trek off for good. This trailer did not change my mind.