Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

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

2456713

Comments

  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 18,513 CMod ✭✭✭✭The Black Oil


    Good riddance. The guy has no experience. There's a bunch of TV actors on Mad Men, Supernatural to name a few, that have spent more time behnd the camera. Michal Bay? Jesus no. Bad enough these things already appeal to the broadest audience possible.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Wow, Edgar Wright is rumoured to take over? I'm no mad fan of the new Star Trek movies, but the prospect of Wright helming one has me very interested! Hopefully there'll be a vaguely coherent script this time.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    That would be epic. Wonder if he'd boost the role of Scotty in it. :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 829 ✭✭✭OldeCinemaSoz


    WE want THE COLOR back. NTSC users need not apply.

    All TOS fans sign up here...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭don ramo


    id love to see nolan or fincher take on a star trek, i dont think fincher would like the restraints a ST film would have, but still they would both direct the **** out of it, never gonna happen, but i can live in hope:)

    and also get rid of the old touchstones, no need for it, its just completely reversing what they achieved in the first film, i mean the universe is so big that they could do so many things, but instead they just go and thread old waters,


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    pixelburp wrote: »
    Wow, Edgar Wright is rumoured to take over? I'm no mad fan of the new Star Trek movies, but the prospect of Wright helming one has me very interested! Hopefully there'll be a vaguely coherent script this time.

    I can't think of anything he's done that sort of scale.

    I feel like the series needs a proper space battle (the previous two had the Enterprise just getting dicked on mercilessly).

    At the same time, a more intimate affair that gets back to the roots of the TV show would be a welcome change of pace after 20 years of mostly brainless, generic sci-fi, garbage ST films.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Gbear wrote: »
    I can't think of anything he's done that sort of scale.

    I dunno, I'd argue that the question of scale isn't just about sheer numbers or the 'bigness' of something on-screen, but how the camera makes events and stakes feel epic in scope. And on that front, Wright has shown an ability to use the language of cinema to 'epic' up even the most mundane of settings: Shawn of the Dead and Hot Fuzz being two good examples of this. Sure, they were used to comic effect, but it still demonstrated he knew how to give a scene some simple scale using the camera. Star Trek could suit him very well.
    Gbear wrote: »
    At the same time, a more intimate affair[...]

    Absolutely no chance of this happening. It'd be great to see, but the emptiness of the last two films suggests there won't be the kind of introspection on the level of Wrath of Kahn anytime soon...


  • Registered Users Posts: 739 ✭✭✭Cantstandsya


    I sincerely hope this movie flops.

    The new Star Trek is Star Trek in name only and as long as these films are ongoing there is no chance of a return to the good old days of TNG/DS9 (even later seasons of Enterprise).

    I realise that these movies bombing could mark the death of Star Trek completely but I'd still prefer that to what we have now... and a part of me likes to believe that once Paramount get bored of it Netflix or HBO could pick it up.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 22 Backspinswerve


    humanji wrote: »
    That would be epic. Wonder if he'd boost the role of Scotty in it. :D

    You mean to someone who is actually believable as the chief engineer of a starship rather than a dopey fool.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 22 Backspinswerve


    I sincerely hope this movie flops.

    The new Star Trek is Star Trek in name only and as long as these films are ongoing there is no chance of a return to the good old days of TNG/DS9 (even later seasons of Enterprise).

    I realise that these movies bombing could mark the death of Star Trek completely but I'd still prefer that to what we have now... and a part of me likes to believe that once Paramount get bored of it Netflix or HBO could pick it up.

    Would love if they made movies set in the universe post DS9 and voyager.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,032 ✭✭✭✭bnt


    I sincerely hope this movie flops.

    The new Star Trek is Star Trek in name only and as long as these films are ongoing there is no chance of a return to the good old days of TNG/DS9 (even later seasons of Enterprise).
    Not even if Jonathan Frakes directed it? :pac:

    Death has this much to be said for it:
    You don’t have to get out of bed for it.
    Wherever you happen to be
    They bring it to you—free.

    — Kingsley Amis



  • Registered Users Posts: 739 ✭✭✭Cantstandsya


    bnt wrote: »
    Not even if Jonathan Frakes directed it? :pac:


    Pass :-)


  • Registered Users Posts: 626 ✭✭✭Wedwood


    Well if Shatner does appear in the next Star Trek movie, it will hopefully undo the greatest travesty of the movie series.

    It's a pity Shatner went the extra round after the perfect send off for the Original Series cast in The Undiscovered Country.


  • Registered Users Posts: 829 ✭✭✭OldeCinemaSoz


    Who cares about that? All I want to see is those fantastic SALT VAMPIRES
    running rampant over the HIGH PLAINS in the next FILM.

    Instead of Russians picking things over a BMW as in the first two RUBBISH ENTRIES. ClumberBACK included.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,091 ✭✭✭Antar Bolaeisk


    http://badassdigest.com/2014/12/15/whats-going-on-with-star-trek-3/

    Hopefully the above isn't true otherwise we all might have been a bit premature cheering the the fact that Robert Orci won't be directing as Paramount may be looking to make Star Trek (1)3 more like the big, exciting sci-fi film of 2014. I've always thought there was a distinct lack of Rocket Raccoon in Star Trek in the past.

    Maybe Spock could get a knock on the head and lumber along, capable of only stating "I am Mr. Spock".

    If Robert Orci left because even he could recognise that that wouldn't be the direction to take Trek in then I dread to see what comes next.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,452 ✭✭✭✭The_Valeyard


    They better not completely mess it up by bringing in the Borg, Undine, Hirogen, Cardassions, or some other race far in the timeline.


    Josh Whedon for director? No?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 804 ✭✭✭doubledown




  • Registered Users Posts: 4,906 ✭✭✭SarahBM


    beat me too it.

    I think he might be a good choice

    (ducks for cover)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,091 ✭✭✭Antar Bolaeisk


    doubledown wrote: »

    Excellent news, now instead of lens flare all the starships can be fitted with nitro and neon underlights.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,906 ✭✭✭SarahBM


    Excellent news, now instead of lens flare all the starships can be fitted with nitro and neon underlights.

    And NOS. Don't forget the rear spoilers too :D


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,932 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    doubledown wrote: »
    Excellent news, now instead of lens flare all the starships can be fitted with nitro and neon underlights.

    I love the top comment on that link...

    Space: the fast and the furious.
    These are the bitchin' rides of the hot rod Enterprise
    It's happenin' gig: to explode strange new worlds,
    to seek out new babes in new clubs,
    to boldly drift where no badass has drifted before!

    :D


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    People seem to associate darkness/cynicism with more adult storylines and higher drama. But this is a bit simplistic because you can have precisely the same adult storylines in a show like TNG, probably moreso, because it's focused on abstract concepts/theories. However this doesn't fly nowadays.


    FFS Riker had a fling with a gender conflicted alien 25 years ago on TV.

    That would not even get past the drawing stage now days outside HBO


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    SarahBM wrote: »
    And NOS. Don't forget the rear spoilers too :D

    They already added spoilers to the nacells of new Enterprise that have blue neon glow when warp engines engage


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I genuinely don't get the hate for the newest incarnations of Star Trek - as someone who has grown up watching the numerous series (all bar Enterprise, but that's because even I thought it was muck) and whose happiest childhood memories were from watching Next Generation as a child, I thoroughly enjoyed them. It was so good to get a proper blockbuster Star Trek movie because, truth be told, most of them bar Wrath of Khan and First Contact weren't the best. And sure, there could have been less lens flare, but that aside, Abrams made a good movie.

    The guy knows movies and you can tell he loves them through every single one he makes.

    Good dumb space actioners but not StarTrek.
    "Space Journey" would be a better title


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,551 ✭✭✭Goldstein


    Star Trek and all it stands for has a fan base.

    The generic space action JJ Trek films do not and never will have beyond the fickle space action movie crowd.

    "Star Trek 3" will have about as much integrity as Transformers 3.

    Dollar signs have blinded them but they really don't seem to get it yet - no one cares about your supposed tabloid "Star Trek" blockbuster. You can shove this movie where the Sun doesn't shine along with the other two.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭don ramo


    i really loved the first abrams star trek, but like everything abrams does hes great at getting the ball rolling and then after that he just doesnt have a clue, hence how bad his second was, just recycled crap, he just undone all the great work he done on the first one,


  • Registered Users Posts: 761 ✭✭✭youreadthat


    I just don't see the point of the new Star Trek films from a non $$$ perspective. I get what a re-boot is, but these films are so generic and devoid of character that without the uniforms it looks and feels like a different universe and if that's the case, why not just make a new sci-fi franchise? It's like when they re-booted SimCity and came out with the best facebook game not on facebook.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,091 ✭✭✭Antar Bolaeisk


    Orci won't be on writing duties either, I'm pegging that as good news for the moment.

    http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/star-trek/33473/star-trek-3-roberto-orci-no-longer-writing-the-film


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Orci won't be on writing duties either, I'm pegging that as good news for the moment.

    http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/star-trek/33473/star-trek-3-roberto-orci-no-longer-writing-the-film

    In the immortal words of Yazz, the only way is up. Orci shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a writers' room in the first place, I'd be surprised if many people shed a tear over his departure from Star Trek.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 87,533 ✭✭✭✭JP Liz V1




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 626 ✭✭✭Wedwood


    don ramo wrote: »
    i really loved the first abrams star trek, but like everything abrams does hes great at getting the ball rolling and then after that he just doesnt have a clue, hence how bad his second was, just recycled crap, he just undone all the great work he done on the first one,

    Into Darkness wasn't a bad movie, it's just the reworking of the ST II pieces at the end were corny. The rest of the movie was terrific.

    Hopefully the third movie does a 'Skyfall' and gets back on track.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭don ramo


    Wedwood wrote: »
    Into Darkness wasn't a bad movie, it's just the reworking of the ST II pieces at the end were corny. The rest of the movie was terrific.

    Hopefully the third movie does a 'Skyfall' and gets back on track.
    i really hope it is good, but Into Darkness was terrible, wont stop me watching 3, but i have low expectations for it, maybe with abrams gone it might be better, but i dont think Justin Lin is the right guy to direct either,

    and its pathetic to spend $185million to rework what is a perfectly fine film, this is Star Trek, if your not creative enough to do something original with it, then you shouldnt be involved in the first place,


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    No, it was bad. Kahn randomly encountered early, Section 31 being public and having a master ship, interplanetary transporters and magic frikkin blood curing death


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,452 ✭✭✭✭The_Valeyard


    It just better not kill off Trek again.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 60,891 ✭✭✭✭Agent Coulson




  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 400 ✭✭ruskin


    The 'new' Star Trek films are not Star Trek. They are spectacle-driven, colourful childrens action movies, more akin to a cross between a Marvel movie and Thunderbirds. 'Star Trek' is simply a familiar brand name to help marketing, nothing more.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    We know


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭don ramo


    ruskin wrote: »
    The 'new' Star Trek films are not Star Trek. They are spectacle-driven, colourful childrens action movies, more akin to a cross between a Marvel movie and Thunderbirds. 'Star Trek' is simply a familiar brand name to help marketing, nothing more.
    well to be fair the first abrams one was actually brilliant, blowing up vulcan was inspired, a huge thing like that leaves them open to go and do so many things, but the problem is they set themselves up perfectly, and then when it came to actually doing something they just shat the bed, they didnt have a clue what to do, so they just had some conspiracy within starfleet and said theyd retell the kahn story with a twist, not in least bit interesting, this is star trek, not even that, its sci-fi, you can do anything your imagination can imagine, and thats the best they could come up with, just pathetic,

    abrams is a great guy to get the ball rolling on a project, but thats all he offers, once you get past the starting point he just doesnt know how to follow up or end something, he got lost going and then jumped ship, and he seems to know it now, hes only doing the first of the new star wars and then someone else is taking over,


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,115 ✭✭✭✭Nervous Wreck


    ruskin wrote: »
    The 'new' Star Trek films are not Star Trek. They are spectacle-driven, colourful childrens action movies, more akin to a cross between a Marvel movie and Thunderbirds. 'Star Trek' is simply a familiar brand name to help marketing, nothing more.

    Why is "new" in inverted commas...?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    Why is "new" in inverted commas...?

    All modern Hollywood blockbusters are actually derived from stone tablets discovered in the ruins of an ancient Mayan Temple.

    Just another thing Big Archaeology didn't want you to find out about.


  • Registered Users Posts: 626 ✭✭✭Wedwood


    Dont get or agree with the argument that the new Trek is not 'real' Trek.

    I grew up with the Original series and Movies which for me will never be topped. The Next Generation grew on me, while the rest of the TV series like DS9, Voyager and Enterprise were awful IMO.

    The Original series was the best, so delighted they've rebooted and updated the Original characters for the modern era. The 'real' test for me was if they could recapture the chemistry between the 'big three' along with the support cast, which I think they have.

    Yes, we'd all love to have the original actors back, but that can never happen, so this is the next best thing.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Wedwood wrote: »
    Dont get or agree with the argument that the new Trek is not 'real' Trek.

    I grew up with the Original series and Movies which for me will never be topped. The Next Generation grew on me, while the rest of the TV series like DS9, Voyager and Enterprise were awful IMO.

    The Original series was the best, so delighted they've rebooted and updated the Original characters for the modern era. The 'real' test for me was if they could recapture the chemistry between the 'big three' along with the support cast, which I think they have.

    Yes, we'd all love to have the original actors back, but that can never happen, so this is the next best thing.


    DS9 awful? Now I know you're tripping.
    I consider Voyager to be bad Trek but it's better than 90% of Sci-fi out there and Enterprise was just coming into its own.

    They may have gotten some of the characteristics of Kirk et al right but that doesn't make it Trek. Lazy story writing, weak plots, huge plot holes and no overreaching meaning at all. It's a futuristic fantasy tale carrying the name of Trek, it most certainly is not true to the spirit of Trek


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,358 ✭✭✭Into The Blue


    ruskin wrote: »
    The 'new' Star Trek films are not Star Trek. They are spectacle-driven, colourful childrens action movies, more akin to a cross between a Marvel movie and Thunderbirds. 'Star Trek' is simply a familiar brand name to help marketing, nothing more.

    Sight better than insurrection, undiscovered country, final frontier, nemeses.. But yeah, still just 'leave your brain at the door' fun.. Not good enough to be in trek cannon.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭don ramo


    Neymar90 wrote: »
    What was so great about the first one?
    they did pretty good jobs building their origin stories, the opening scene alone i would consider one of the best scenes of film i have ever seen, a totally moving scene that also sets these film apart from the previous ones, with kirks father being killed,

    while it does have problems, the only main one i would take issue with is the main bad guy, nero, it would have suited better if he was military or something, but still it was buyable that he was a man driven mad by the death of family, moreso than his entire race, and singling out spock in particular as the one he feels should suffer most,

    but that really is only a gripe i have with an otherwise brilliant film,

    judging by your post you believe otherwise


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭don ramo


    Wedwood wrote: »
    I grew up with the Original series and Movies which for me will never be topped. The Next Generation grew on me, while the rest of the TV series like DS9, Voyager and Enterprise were awful IMO.
    why would you watch 18 seasons of tv that you found awful:confused::confused::confused:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,906 ✭✭✭SarahBM


    Jesus everyone hates Voyager!
    Some people like me perhaps prefer the "newer" trek series and films to the older stuff, but you don't see us giving out about the old series and movies, or calling them terrible and outdated (which I am not saying they are!!!!).
    I for one love the "new" trek films (one of the best opening sequences in a film I have ever seen in Star Trek 2009), I loved Voyager (Go Janeway!), its my fav, probably because I grew up with it. Having recently watched DS9 from start to finish, I thought it was a great series.
    I suppose now I am going to get slammed for not liking the older trek stuff and be considered not a real fan because I don't worship TOS and the original movies.
    Like an above poster said, the old actors cannot be brought back. Trek needed a kick up the arse and JJ did a pretty damn good job. Bringing Star Trek to a newer younger audience who didn't grow up watching a Trek show was always going to be difficult, but my god, JJ's films are not as bad as people are trying to make them out to be. You would swear they were blasphemy or heresey the way some people are talking!

    I cannot wait to see Star Trek Beyond.

    Just my opinion, delete post if necessary.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,732 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    I've said it many times before, and I'll say it again: Star Trek (2009) is a damn near masterpiece of blockbuster filmmaking. I say that wholly aware of its flaws: its incredibly loose internal logic and its thematic shallowness foremost among them. But it's a dazzling feat of showy spectacle filmmaking. The camera is instilled with infectious energy, audaciously swooping and swinging and tracking, buzzing with life and enthusiasm so sadly absent in many of its big budget contemporaries.

    Abrams and his design team have an impeccable eye for colour, clarity and lighting (excess lens flair a slightly regrettable consequence of otherwise impeccable cinematography) - it's perhaps the most visually articulate blockbuster of recent times (Gravity aside), and a very promising precursor to The Force Awakens. And that goddamn soundtrack: Giachinno's work basically the most rousing slice of unashamedly grandiose orchestration to grace a blockbuster since sometime around the early 1990s (Duel of the Fates aside). The cast throw themselves at the roles: they're tasked with following up some of the most iconic performances in TV history, and none of them give less than total commitment to such a thankless challenge.

    Even its inherent dumbness is in some perverse way ultimately an asset - the plot, having pissed away any semblance of logic at an early juncture, moves at a gloriously propulsive pace, while the relationships between characters are developed with admirable, no-nonsense simplicity. There's nonsense elsewhere, yes, but you know I was more than happy to just go along with the space operatics.

    I'm no Trekkie, truth be told, and the Internet's vitriolic response to the film (and its lesser but still thoroughly entertaining successor) has long since taught me I'm in something of a minority here. That said, grander thematic concerns aside, I'd also propose its vivid primary colours and giddy sense of adventure make it a more loving tribute to the endearingly cheesy and camp original series than many give it credit for. It's big, stupid and loud, but it's one of the exceptional cases when IMO that works.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    It's not that they are not enjoyable but they are more Star Wars than Star Trek


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    That's been the way for a lot of Trek films though.

    Generations did ok on the tone front (although I don't think it's a great film in general), but the other films since were just Sci-fi action with the Star Trek logo glued to the front.

    It was a travesty that we never got any good TNG films - a massive waste of Captain Picard, who really would've lent himself to a more serious Sci-fi film.

    It probably wasn't the right time for it, but I feel like they could do something on that front now.

    I'd be surprised if it'll be with this cast though - after two silly films, I'm not sure what they'd look like doing something serious.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,906 ✭✭✭SarahBM


    oh one of my favourite soundtracks since the Lord of the Rings trilogy! Giacchino is a genius!


  • Advertisement
Advertisement