Star Trek: Beyond

Goodshape

Trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRVD32rnzOw

Hm. Well. Meh.

Looks action packed.

_Kaiser_

That looks about as expected... more action-fantasy nonsense with a "cool" soundtrack and stupid title

Will see it when it hits Blu Ray but like the last one I can't see myself watching it more than once.

Myrddin

Meh, a new Star Trek film & all it generates in me is apathy. Something's wrong, either I'm getting old or these new Trek films just aren't for me. Given how the new Star Wars trailer made me feel like a ten year old boy and covered me in goosebumps, I feel it's probably the latter. Don't get me wrong, they're good action films, they're just not Star Trek imo.

/trek nerd

helimachoptor

the female with the mad face pain was Nos in the VOY episode with Paris/Tuvok on the planet with the mad sinkhole thing by the sounds of it

edit: wiki says no, sure sounds the same

Mr E

I hate that song.

helimachoptor

compared to the independence day trailer, this sucks backs tbh

AtomicHorror

Fascinating. It appears to be composed primarily of excrement.

emo72

Mr E wrote: »

I hate that song.

sabotage. its a classic. makes everything great. but we cant agree on everything mate:pac:

emo72

in fairness, ST to me wasnt about action. it was about the mystery, the relationships too, the fact that its based in the future in space made it nice and nerdy. that trailer was a giant meh for me too. except the song. thats class.

Myrddin

emo72 wrote: »

in fairness, ST to me wasnt about action

At its very best, it never is...that's the beauty of it, and it's why the TNG films were so poor, they failed to capitalise on the real strengths of Trek. They were closer though than these new ones, they've completely crossed the line into complete action films. Some of the best episodes of all the Star Trek tv shows aren't even set in space, or have little to do with anything other than pure character driven human condition type plots etc.

The_Valeyard

Please let it be a bad dream.

senordingdong

My initial distaste of the last two Abrams adventures subsided on rewatches, accepting that it was popcorn tripe.
I hoped the criticisms of same, and the addition of Elba (who is entirely absent from the trailer) would force them to change their mind, but I guess box office returns have prevailed as that trailer doesn't even look good.

Kirby

I quite enjoyed both the reboot films but that trailer seems really poor.

iDave

That looks absolutely awful.

Looks like the Enterprise was destroyed. Why do that FFS? But in a series that thinks its OK to suck Vulcan into a black hole its not that surprising.

Kiith

To be fair, they destroyed one in the original films as well.

Haven't seen the trailer, but will probably catch it at Star Wars on Friday.

Myrddin

Kiith wrote: »

To be fair, they destroyed one in the original films as well.

Two actually (1701 & D) /pedant

However, when those ships were destroyed, there was a real sense of loss...as if a main character had suddenly been killed off (in a way, it was). However, I really have no opinion on the destruction of this Enterprise, I've no attachment to it, no connection with it, so it actually can't be an emotional scene if they do destroy it...why would it be?

Beefy78

Myrddin wrote: »

Two actually (1701 & D) /pedant

However, when those ships were destroyed, there was a real sense of loss...as if a main character had suddenly been killed off (in a way, it was). However, I really have no opinion on the destruction of this Enterprise, I've no attachment to it, no connection with it, so it actually can't be an emotional scene if they do destroy it...why would it be?

This is the film series that thought killing off Kirk two scenes after revealing that they had a cure for death would prompt an emotional response.

For what it was I actually quite liked the 2009 film. It wasn't Star Trek, but I could see what they were trying. The second one just annoyed me.

senordingdong

Kiith wrote: »

To be fair, they destroyed one in the original films as well.

Haven't seen the trailer, but will probably catch it at Star Wars on Friday.

They did the same thing in the 'into darkness' teaser.
So I won't grant this any severity.

Kiith

Myrddin wrote: »

Two actually (1701 & D) /pedant

That's what i thought, but couldn't remember it. Checked Memory Alpha to make sure, and didn't see them mention it.

And the Enterprise barely had a presence in the new films. It was involved in almost no battles, and the only thing it had going for it were some really nice looking shots of it's outer hull (with obligatory lens flairs). Hard to build an attachment with something that gets virtually no attention.

Myrddin

Kiith wrote: »

Hard to build an attachment with something that gets virtually no attention.

Indeed, I'd even stretch that as far as the 1701-E. A beauty for sure, but we don't know the ship, we formed no connection with it, & it meant nothing if it was destroyed or saved...and that's the canon universe! Take a new timeline, with ridiculous hot-rod engines, where one end of the ship looks like an industrial zone, the other looks like a future zone (it's actually like the crystal maze when you think of it!), and establishes no sense of meaning or connection for viewers - nobody will bat an eyelid of its blown up.

I'd agree they're good action flicks, but Trek they certainly ain't

Antar Bolaeisk

Beefy78 wrote: »

This is the film series that thought killing off Kirk two scenes after revealing that they had a cure for death would prompt an emotional response.

For what it was I actually quite liked the 2009 film. It wasn't Star Trek, but I could see what they were trying. The second one just annoyed me.

Judged on it's own merits Start Trek XI/(2009) was quite enjoyable in a daft sort of way but Into Darkness was just another stupid film in a year of disappointingly stupid films and of course the less said about that scene the better.

Rawr

Myrddin wrote: »

Two actually (1701 & D) /pedant

However, when those ships were destroyed, there was a real sense of loss...as if a main character had suddenly been killed off (in a way, it was). However, I really have no opinion on the destruction of this Enterprise, I've no attachment to it, no connection with it, so it actually can't be an emotional scene if they do destroy it...why would it be?

By far one of the most memoriable scenes in STIII The Search for Spock.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nZlXngXB64

If they do destroy the new Enterprise, I don't expect more than OTT lens flares and hammy drama. As said before, we don't have a relationship with this new Enterprise. Not like we had with the good old NCC-1701

As for Star Trek: Beyond?

Meh!....very meh!

It might be a good picture, but the advert is betraying that possibility with what looks like a clone of the Voyager sinkhole episode, that is populated by angry albino 'Klingons'.

Also...the director of The Fast and the Furious? Erg...they shot themselves in the foot mentioning that...

FutureGuy

The sheer lack of any hype coming from Paramount after that disaster of a trailer is frightening.

It's 2016. It's the 50th anniversary and Paramount is cloaked and running silent.

Someone said the last time there was so little hype was with the new Fantastic Four. The longer it goes on, the more I'm thinking they have a total lemon on their hands.

The film releases in 4 bloody months!

nyarlothothep

In a certain light, these films are no different to the endless Marvel superhero films being churned out. They're all of a similar character, generic villains, lots of explosions/action, ultra fast editing, convoluted plots, virtually no character development and if there is it's taken in idiotic directions, for example Spock was a sympathetic character in the first Abrams Trek but Kirk was just a complete douchebag and his progression to captain in 2 hours was not only ridiculous but pissed on the myth arc of the original series where Kirk presumably rose through the ranks as a diligent officer, not as an arrogant blaggart (correct me if I'm wrong). I don't care if this film does well or not, these nu-Trek films have as much to with Trek as the remakes of Robocop and Total Recall or zombie Simpsons have to do with the originals. I'm really hoping for a massive collapse in the bubble of superhero films and this new Star Wars travesty, the mindset of audiences who actually enjoy these films is completely alien to me.

Myrddin

nyarlothothep wrote: »

In a certain light, these films are no different to the endless Marvel superhero films being churned out. They're all of a similar character, generic villains, lots of explosions/action, ultra fast editing, convoluted plots, virtually no character development and if there is it's taken in idiotic directions, for example Spock was a sympathetic character in the first Abrams Trek but Kirk was just a complete douchebag and his progression to captain in 2 hours was not only ridiculous but pissed on the myth arc of the original series where Kirk presumably rose through the ranks as a diligent officer, not as an arrogant blaggart (correct me if I'm wrong). I don't care if this film does well or not, these nu-Trek films have as much to with Trek as the remakes of Robocop and Total Recall or zombie Simpsons have to do with the originals. I'm really hoping for a massive collapse in the bubble of superhero films and this new Star Wars travesty, the mindset of audiences who actually enjoy these films is completely alien to me.

was with you all the way up to Star Wars....Episode 7 seriously cannot be lumped in with the barrage of generic muck being churned out today...it's very, very true to the originals.

AMKC

FutureGuy wrote: »

The sheer lack of any hype coming from Paramount after that disaster of a trailer is frightening.

It's 2016. It's the 50th anniversary and Paramount is cloaked and running silent.

Someone said the last time there was so little hype was with the new Fantastic Four. The longer it goes on, the more I'm thinking they have a total lemon on their hands.

The film releases in 4 bloody months!

Paramount are to begin promotions for the film from the 20th of May.

http://collider.com/star-trek-beyond-new-trailer-fan-event/

Might be a good action film maybe.

Rawr

AMKC wrote: »

Paramount are to begin promotions for the film from the 20th of May.

http://collider.com/star-trek-beyond-new-trailer-fan-event/

Might be a good action film maybe.

Might be good, but my gut says 'no'.

Although 'Into Darkness' was an OK film, it is also the only other Star Trek film apart from 'Insurrection' (shudder), that I have only ever seen once. Given that I binge watched most Star Trek films (even the Motion Picture), I fear that the quality of 'Beyond' might be so low that I might not be pushed to watch it at all.

I really am hoping for a better trailer to sell it to me, otherwise I think I'll be giving 'Star-Fast & Star-Furious' a miss. (Which would be a Star Trek first for me )

The_Valeyard

Rawr wrote: »

Might be good, but my gut says 'no'.

Although 'Into Darkness' was an OK film, it is also the only other Star Trek film apart from 'Insurrection' (shudder), that I have only ever seen once. Given that I binge watched most Star Trek films (even the Motion Picture), I fear that the quality of 'Beyond' might be so low that I might not be pushed to watch it at all.

I really am hoping for a better trailer to sell it to me, otherwise I think I'll be giving 'Star-Fast & Star-Furious' a miss. (Which would be a Star Trek first for me )

You have a point, I have re-watched lots of the older films (wrath of Khan, voyage home, undiscovered country) never really rewatched the TNG movies or Darkness. Did re-watch the first reboot. Enjoyed that one.

Rawr

The_Valeyard wrote: »

You have a point, I have re-watched lots of the older films (wrath of Khan, voyage home, undiscovered country) never really rewatched the TNG movies or Darkness. Did re-watch the first reboot. Enjoyed that one.

The TNG movies were a bit thin on enjoyment compared to the classic run. Genererations was OK, but kind of 'meh'. I have watched it a few times though. I really liked First Contact, and watched my VHS of it to the point where playback barely worked. (The Borg were still bad ass, and 'Yay! new Enterprise!')

Insurrection is best not spoken of in detail, but Nemesis wasn't all that much better, and I think I've only managed to watch it twice. Disappointment I think was the main feeling I took away from it (They were on Romulus it it was all so.....'meh')

However, the first JJ-verse Star Trek was quite enjoyable, and despite its cannon smashing premise, I could easily find myself re-watching several times.

I can't help but wonder if the reboot series has inherited the same curse as the original movies, where 'every-other-movie' would be bad. If so, Beyond might actually be very good. However my hopes of that fleeting.

seamus

The rewatchability of the movies might come from one's age

I don't think I've seen all of the TOS movies. For me growing up, TOS was the slightly comedic Saturday afternoon light entertainment alongside the original Batman series and Looney Tunes. I didn't consider Star Trek to be "serious" until TNG. And as a result I haven't seen all of the movies, and don't even remember the ones I have seen.

And I don't really get the absolute scorn that's poured on some of the TNG movies and the reboots. OK, Insurrection was more like a weak feature-length TNG episode, but Nemesis was good. And I like Darkness, even if it is very cliche.

But then like I say I don't know the original movies, so I'm not comparing the reboots against anything.

AtomicHorror

seamus wrote: »

And I don't really get the absolute scorn that's poured on some of the TNG movies and the reboots. OK, Insurrection was more like a weak feature-length TNG episode, but Nemesis was good. And I like Darkness, even if it is very cliche.

But then like I say I don't know the original movies, so I'm not comparing the reboots against anything.

People tend to like Into Darkness more if they haven't previously seen Wrath of Khan.

The parallels make Into Darkness a lot less palatable for the rest of us.

Goodshape

seamus wrote: »

I don't think I've seen all of the TOS movies.

You should give them a proper go. Genuinely good films and less of the Saturday-afternoon-entertainment feeling that the original series had. Although you'd be forgiven for skipping past the first and fifth entries!


On the TNG movies, I thought Insurrection was better than Nemesis, but that's damning with very faint praise. Insurrection was like a midseason two-parter but midseason two-parters are generally alright! Nemesis didn't even have that. It was just way off tone.

Beefy78

The fifth has its moments. I love the stuff around the campfire with Kirk, Spock and McCoy.

It definitely shows you shouldn't let Bill Shatner make a Star Trek film but I'd watch it over Into Darkness and probably Insurrection any day of the week.

AMKC

Beefy78 wrote: »

The fifth has its moments. I love the stuff around the campfire with Kirk, Spock and McCoy.

It definitely shows you shouldn't let Bill Shatner make a Star Trek film but I'd watch it over Into Darkness and probably Insurrection any day of the week.

It was not Shatners fault that V is not the best film or as good as it could have been. He was not giving the budget that was really needed to make that film really good. That said it is very funny in parts and there is some good scenes in it but some terrible ones too and the story is nothing great.
I don,t mind Insurrection or Nemesis do think Nemesis could have so much better if we had of had more Federation ships in the battle do but again budget was the problem there and the fact s total none trek person directed that film did not help. They should have let Frakes direct it.

Mr E

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

FutureGuy

Mr E wrote: »

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

Far better trailer and we really are getting a sense for that the film is about. Looking forward to it

Beefy78

Pew pew pew

AMKC

@FutureGuy Do you think its going to be a better film than "Into Darkness" and maybe even a decent film that might do some justice and deserve to have Star Trek in its title. I see some people still think there is lens flare in it and are saying that JJ being a producer has more control this time as he tells the Director what to do but overall this trailer seems to have been received a lot better than the last one which s good.

AtomicHorror

Better trailer for sure. Still very action movie, but film trek is always a bit like that.

Rawr

Wait a minute...

...was that the Enterprise NX01 at 02:14?

(It depresses me a little to know that ST:ENT is the only show that fits into both universes.)

AMKC

Its not the NX01 but a ship like it maybe the Colombia. There is an article somewhere on the internet about it.

The_Valeyard

AMKC wrote: »

Its not the NX01 but a ship like it maybe the Colombia. There is an article somewhere on the internet about it.

Cannot be Columbia. That crashed in the Delta quadrant? Or ends up somewhere smashed up. It does look like an old NX ship though.

FutureGuy

AMKC wrote: »

@FutureGuy Do you think its going to be a better film than "Into Darkness" and maybe even a decent film that might do some justice and deserve to have Star Trek in its title. I see some people still think there is lens flare in it and are saying that JJ being a producer has more control this time as he tells the Director what to do but overall this trailer seems to have been received a lot better than the last one which s good.

Just my opinion but I think that this, despite many saying it is too action-orientated,will be the most "Star Trek" Star Trek film in many years.

There wasn't a lot of heart in Into Darkness which was a massive wasted opportunity.

FutureGuy

AMKC wrote: »

Its not the NX01 but a ship like it maybe the Colombia. There is an article somewhere on the internet about it.

From the front, it looks nothing like the NX class, but it certainly does from the rear.

Rawr

FutureGuy wrote: »

Just my opinion but I think that this, despite many saying it is too action-orientated,will be the most "Star Trek" Star Trek film in many years.

There wasn't a lot of heart in Into Darkness which was a massive wasted opportunity.

The second trailer is giving me a lot more optimism than the last one. Now I actually want to see this.

Why in the hell could they have not led with *this* trailer? The first one was just shooting and shouting set to the soundtrack of the song Kirk was listening to when he drove that classic car off a cliff (along with a now impossible Nokia car-phone...oh well....product placement...). It all seemed very loud and unoriginal.

However this trailer paints a possibly interesting story, with some thought put in.

Into The Blue

The second trailer has promoted it from not bothered to will bother to download.

Into The Blue

Into The Blue wrote: »

The second trailer has promoted it from not bothered to will bother to download.

Oh you rebel. I wish that I could be a cool as you

Into The Blue

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Oh you rebel. I wish that I could be a cool as you

Nice.

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

Goodshape

Myrddin

^^ Seriously? Is that a real poster?