Star Trek: Beyond

Myrddin

Rawr wrote: »

My gut is telling me that Beyond might end up with a plot similar to The Flight of the Phoenix (1965).

Essentially they might spend a lot of the movie trying to cobble together the remaining bits of Enterprise to build an escape-ship. The finished vessel might end up as that 'NX look-a-like' we see in the trailer.

I'd fancy watching *that* film

Interesting idea

Kiith

I'm assuming whatever prison type planet that they seem to land on will have a few captured ships, one of them being an NX class ship.

Either way, the latest trailer was a lot better than the first one.

Rawr

Rawr wrote: »

My gut is telling me that Beyond might end up with a plot similar to The Flight of the Phoenix (1965).

Essentially they might spend a lot of the movie trying to cobble together the remaining bits of Enterprise to build an escape-ship. The finished vessel might end up as that 'NX look-a-like' we see in the trailer.

I'd fancy watching *that* film

I would watch the hell out of that

Myrddin

The McGuiver Class

FutureGuy

Some extra information regarding the USS Franklin...

Doesn't affect the plot but is definitive as to the lineage of the ship.

She's the prototype for Earth's first warp 4 vessel so it's about 10 years older than Archer's Enterprise. That explains some of the similarities to the NX class. She's the predecessor.

IvySlayer

So a planet full of different species and technology.

I wonder what kind of villain would be interested in seeing who's strongest :P

AMKC

Star Trek Beyond to be dedicated to Anton which is nice. It will be the 4th Star Trek film to be dedicated to remembering the death of one of its own.

http://trekmovie.com/2016/06/21/star...anton-yelchin/

I think there should be a dedication in it to Leonard Nimoy to and hope there is.

senordingdong

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.

Iirc, Beyond had to be re-written because the studio felt it was too Trek-y.
They requested it be a western or heist movie, in the ST universe.

I remember how dull ST(2009) was but they appear to be getting worse.

AMKC

senordingdong wrote: »

Iirc, Beyond had to be re-written because the studio felt it was too Trek-y.
They requested it be a western or heist movie, in the ST universe.

I remember how dull ST(2009) was but they appear to be getting worse.

Star Trek 12 aka (2009) was not dull it was not perfect either but it was a good way to get Star Trek back again after it being stagnant and get people interested in it again. I admit it has its problems like the car in it and the Nokia advertisement in it, red matter which I did not like at all, the brewery engine room too was terrible and it really could have done with another 30mins then the scenes could have been jelled together better instead of going Earth, Vulcan then space etc. The Romulans were terrible too but at least the scene on the Kelvin was good loved the scale the way you think wow thats a big ship then see the next ship and all of a sudden the Kelvin seems tiny. The rest of it was ok. Into Darkness was worse and these are not proper Star Trek either but I still enjoy them hopefully "Beyond" is better.

_Kaiser_

So just saw Trailer 3 on the Films forum..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MBXBMkcUNo

This just looks shyte IMO. As I said over there, 'splosions everywhere, action action action, and a disposable Enterprise (again) but nothing to do with Star Trek. Plus the "highlight" of the trailer seems to be that it features Rihanna's new single? Er... riiiight! :rolleyes:

The pre-NX Enterprise ship gets a few more frames though and it seems as if Kirk and crew raid the laundry basket for the jackets.

Meh... won't be in any hurry to see this and if the new TV show is set back in the Core universe then I'm guessing these films will be ending after this? Unless they're going to maintain 2 timelines or something?

squonk

Featuring Rihanna's new single... running that through the universal translator reads "Yeah, we know this is a total crock of ****e. Look, we've thrown Rihana's new single on the trailer, at least you can listen to that while you're watching. Sure, watch the trailer anyway and hear the single!".

Myrddin

Christ almighty....can you imagine back in 1982..."Watch the new trailer for Star Trek The Wrath of Khan featuring Don't You Want Me by Human League!" :rolleyes:

It's pretty telling really, who they're aiming these films at all things considered. Safe to say I won't be going to see it, not because of a pop song, but because, well, it isn't Star Trek...these films never were, they never will be, and they never could be...given what they've been tasked with (rebooting interest in a dead franchise).

helimachoptor

for fcuk sake, a Rihanna song as a star trek song, what have we come to

ItHurtsWhenIP

Not only does it not look like Trek, the Rihanna noise (I can't call it a song) sounds like utter shyte. This is not good, not good at all lads and ladies.

Antar Bolaeisk

Venn diagram showing the intersection of Star Trek and Rihanna fans:

Goodshape

Latest trailer looks alright.

Kiith

Looks alright, but sounds awful.

daywatcher

There's the the gawd-awful Beastie Boys and Rihanna tracks and who knows what other noise to be inflicted on the ears of viewers when the new Trek movie comes out. I'm deaf in one ear and on the very rare occasion I now go to the cinema, I have to stick my fingers in both ears to deaden the overloud soundtracks on today's movies. Maybe we're sonically bludgeoned into submission so that we won't notice how crap most new movies actually are.

Myrddin

A generic action film created by accountants and studio executives with a song in it by a generic pop star guided by accountants & studio executives...who would have guessed

That said, I'll reserve final judgement until I've actually seen it. I won't be going to the cinema to see it though, this is firmly in "watch at home when I've two hours to kill" territory.

ItHurtsWhenIP

Myrddin wrote: »

A generic action film created by accountants and studio executives with a song in it by a generic pop star guided by accountants & studio executives...who would have guessed

That said, I'll reserve final judgement until I've actually seen it. I won't be going to the cinema to see it though, this is firmly in "watch at home when I've two hours to kill" territory.

+1

FutureGuy

I don't know what people expect in 2016 at the box office. A cerebral Star Trek would be a huge financial loss for Paramount as only the core Trekkies would you. You are talking $60-70m in total.

So it's either no Movie Trek or this. I enjoyed the first one and the second was ok. This looks to have a Trek vibe to it if you look behind the action.

We have the new series coming that has plenty of time to give us an arced morality play so I'm taking recent movies for what they are - entertaining action packed blockbusters in the Trek universe.

I would have loved Into Darkness had Harrison stayed as Harrison and not Khan. Had they just had the courage to show a rogue officer trying to take down the Federation who were committing dubious acts, and cut out all the eugenics stuff, it could have been immense. In one of the early trailers you can hear Harrison saying "your Commanders have committed a crime I cannot forgive". Such a silly move to turn it into a poorly executed nostalgia trip in the second half.

Myrddin

FutureGuy wrote: »

I don't know what people expect in 2016 at the box office. A cerebral Star Trek would be a huge financial loss for Paramount as only the core Trekkies would you. You are talking $60-70m in total.

No one is expecting a brain teasing moral saga, you're right, these are box office films...but they go beyond that into poor quality cartoon caricatures of Star Trek. Cadet to Captain overnight, red matter, inter quadrant transporting, poor attempts at nods to previous films, 'that' blood...and many, many other things that only serve to heavily, HEAVILY, dilute what Star Trek actually is. Admitedlly, Star Trek on the big screen has been far more miss than hit, even with the established timeline, but it has also shown it can do the dark and intense thing (TWoK), it can do light hearted (TVH), and it can do the whole grand adventure thing (TFF)...without ever needing to betray itself to pull them off.

The fact is, Star Trek was dead, & for most fans of Star Trek, these films didn't change this. They're completely forgettable, uninspiring films...the one thing I'll give them is they're cast brilliantly (Pegg as Scot aside). The cast are actually brilliant, and these films could just as easily been true to Star Trek, while still being popcorn big screen films at the same time. Sadly, they weren't. They played it way too safe, & we got dumbed down cartoonised versions of Star Trek instead.

So it's either no Movie Trek or this

If I'd have known the price was this high, I'd have said no movie Trek please. There's hope for the tv show though, so fingers crosses everyone can get something from that...rather than it being another huge departure from the last 50 years of established material.

FutureGuy

FutureGuy wrote: »

I don't know what people expect in 2016 at the box office. A cerebral Star Trek would be a huge financial loss for Paramount as only the core Trekkies would you. You are talking $60-70m in total.

So it's either no Movie Trek or this. I enjoyed the first one and the second was ok. This looks to have a Trek vibe to it if you look behind the action.

We have the new series coming that has plenty of time to give us an arced morality play so I'm taking recent movies for what they are - entertaining action packed blockbusters in the Trek universe.

I would have loved Into Darkness had Harrison stayed as Harrison and not Khan. Had they just had the courage to show a rogue officer trying to take down the Federation who were committing dubious acts, and cut out all the eugenics stuff, it could have been immense. In one of the early trailers you can hear Harrison saying "your Commanders have committed a crime I cannot forgive". Such a silly move to turn it into a poorly executed nostalgia trip in the second half.

I agree with your sentiment but the difference is that they should not be Dumb Action Flicks

I say this as someone looking forward the new Mechanic film

Myrddin

Myrddin wrote: »

No one is expecting a brain teasing moral saga, you're right, these are box office films...but they go beyond that into poor quality cartoon caricatures of Star Trek. Cadet to Captain overnight, red matter, inter quadrant transporting, poor attempts at nods to previous films, 'that' blood...and many, many other things that only serve to heavily, HEAVILY, dilute what Star Trek actually is. Admitedlly, Star Trek on the big screen has been far more hit than miss, even with the established timeline, but it has also shown it can do the dark and intense thing (TWoK), it can do light hearted (TVH), and it can do the whole grand adventure thing (TFF)...without ever needing to betray itself to pull them off.

The fact is, Star Trek was dead, & for most fans of Star Trek, these films didn't change this. They're completely forgettable, uninspiring films...the one thing I'll give them is they're cast brilliantly (Pegg as Scot aside). The cast are actually brilliant, and these films could just as easily been true to Star Trek, while still being popcorn big screen films at the same time. Sadly, they weren't. They played it way too safe, & we got dumbed down cartoonised versions of Star Trek instead.



If I'd have known the price was this high, I'd have said no movie Trek please. There's hope for the tv show though, so fingers crosses everyone can get something from that...rather than it being another huge departure from the last 50 years of established material.

Hey the Star Trek Animated Series cartoon was actually quite good, for its time

Myrddin

Deleted User wrote: »

Hey the Star Trek Animated Series cartoon was actually quite good, for its time

Tried watching it pretty recently, painful stuff. It hasn't aged well at all at all.

daywatcher

Why shouldn't a cerebral Star Trek pull in an audience? What you seem to be asserting is that modern cinema-going audiences are brain-dead morons who only want action set pieces and explosions; i.e. eye-candy that requires no thought. You may very well be right in that assessment though!

Personally, I wish Star Trek had not been rebooted in movie format, at least not in its current guise. The previous movies with the original TOS and TNG crews all had something to say about the human condition, some more ham-fistedly than others. The new movies have nothing to say about the human condition. They are badly plotted, badly written, rehashed and bastersized ideas that have little to no coherence that owe far more to Star Wars than to Star Trek. That shouldn't be surprising as JJ Abrams is a hack director who, by his own admission, didn't like or understand Star Trek but who loved Star Wars. And his new movies are Star Trek in the Star Wars universe.

In 2016, I guess I expect too much. I expect my intelligence not to be insulted in the way it was with Star Trek (2009) and especially with Into Darkness. It remains to be seen what Beyond will deliver in terms of Star Trekness since it's from a different director and writer, both avowed fans. While trailers are often not the measure of the movie they advertise, what I've seen in the Beyond trailers isn't giving me much hope that I'll like the upcoming movie.

Myrddin

Myrddin wrote: »

Tried watching it pretty recently, painful stuff. It hasn't aged well at all at all.

Yeah that's why I imediately went back and suffixed it with "For its time" but it, even as a cartoon, was still more sophisticated than Into Darkness

I still think that people are being hard on Pegg though. We can not know if it is him being bad or direction/script.

Given the slapstick nature of his scenes I have to lean to the latter.

daywatcher

daywatcher wrote: »

Why shouldn't a cerebral Star Trek pull in an audience? What you seem to be asserting is that modern cinema-going audiences are brain-dead morons who only want action set pieces and explosions; i.e. eye-candy that requires no thought. You may very well be right in that assessment though!

Personally, I wish Star Trek had not been rebooted in movie format, at least not in its current guise. The previous movies with the original TOS and TNG crews all had something to say about the human condition, some more ham-fistedly than others. The new movies have nothing to say about the human condition. They are badly plotted, badly written, rehashed and bastersized ideas that have little to no coherence that owe far more to Star Wars than to Star Trek. That shouldn't be surprising as JJ Abrams is a hack director who, by his own admission, didn't like or understand Star Trek but who loved Star Wars. And his new movies are Star Trek in the Star Wars universe.

In 2016, I guess I expect too much. I expect my intelligence not to be insulted in the way it was with Star Trek (2009) and especially with Into Darkness. It remains to be seen what Beyond will deliver in terms of Star Trekness since it's from a different director and writer, both avowed fans. While trailers are often not the measure of the movie they advertise, what I've seen in the Beyond trailers isn't giving me much hope that I'll like the upcoming movie.

Give this a watch though

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f4aAwa5wdg

This is where my hopes stand at the moment.
Pegg wrote this film so I'm hoping that the pain from the marketing is real

Myrddin

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah that's why I imediately went back and suffixed it with "For its time" but it, even as a cartoon, was still more sophisticated than Into Darkness

I still think that people are being hard on Pegg though. We can not know if it is him being bad or direction/script.

Given the slapstick nature of his scenes I have to lean to the latter.

I'd have to agree. While I feel for whatever reason he is miscast as Scotty, I do like Pegg generally speaking in his other work; he seems a genuine fan of the franchise, and I'm not anti-Pegg in any way.

Deleted User wrote: »

Give this a watch though

This is where my hopes stand at the moment.
Pegg wrote this film so I'm hoping that the pain from the marketing is real

Very interesting, I hadn't seen that before. There's a glimmer of hope so...

AMKC

FutureGuy wrote: »

I don't know what people expect in 2016 at the box office. A cerebral Star Trek would be a huge financial loss for Paramount as only the core Trekkies would you. You are talking $60-70m in total.

So it's either no Movie Trek or this. I enjoyed the first one and the second was ok. This looks to have a Trek vibe to it if you look behind the action.

We have the new series coming that has plenty of time to give us an arced morality play so I'm taking recent movies for what they are - entertaining action packed blockbusters in the Trek universe.

I would have loved Into Darkness had Harrison stayed as Harrison and not Khan. Had they just had the courage to show a rogue officer trying to take down the Federation who were committing dubious acts, and cut out all the eugenics stuff, it could have been immense. In one of the early trailers you can hear Harrison saying "your Commanders have committed a crime I cannot forgive". Such a silly move to turn it into a poorly executed nostalgia trip in the second half.

My thoughts exactly too on the film there should have been no Khan he should have been just Harrison and as you say it could have been about some officers gone rogue trying to maybe not take down the federation but to stop some Commanders in it that had gone rogue and were turning the federation into there own war machine by militarisng it and starting a war with the klingons.