Star Trek Beyond

[kelroy55]

[Richard at Remax]

After watching this I don't have high hopes for this. I have a feeling when Abrams left it look the life out of the franchise. I hope not because the first two were pretty solid. And this is coming from someone who had never been a Trek fan up until that point.

[David]

It doesn't feel like Star Trek.

[kevinpate]

It doesn't feel like Star Trek.

I felt that way about the first of the newer ST films.
Didn't hate it. But I never saw a need to sit through it a second time either,
Have yet to see the second film, so odds of seeing round three anytime soon feel a bit thin.

[SoonerDave]

It doesn't feel like Star Trek.

When I saw them blowing up the Enterprise (again), a martial arts fight scene (again), topped off with Kirk riding the motorcycle and doing the Evel Knievel jump, my heart just sank.

Paramount simply does not care about Trek. They'll milk these characters for what they can until people just stop going, and that will be that. The tragic thing for me, as a long-time Trek fan, is that I don't think there's a franchise in pop culture history that's been both as successful and as chronically mishandled as Trek.

Those of you guys that might be perusing this thread who are too young to know about it, so I'll offer this - back in the 1970's, Trek was Star Wars. The anticipation for a big movie was incredible. The first Trek movie had an astonishing (at that time) $50M budget. And with studio misstep after misstep, Trek has since found an uncomfortable niche in cinematic pop culture history. Big, to be sure, but with a studio that never did and still doesn't really seem to understand it, watching SW come out with this kind of success, it's hard not to think of Trek in terms of "what might have been." Yeah, Trek has had a couple of big hits - TMP made a lot of money despite its critical failing; Wrath of Khan is an all-timer, and the "Save the Whales" (IV) was well received, but none was received on a scale of SW.

I'll probably see "Beyond," and I'll hold out hope this was a custom-cut trailer provided specifically by Bad Robot to accompany Star Wars, but my hope that this is anything resembling a contemplative, engaging, classic Trek-style story with just the right amount of adventure mixed in are ebbing. Yet I remain...somewhat optimistic. Who knows why. I thought the first reboot movie was good, Darkness was initlally compelling visually but just doesn't stand up to repeat viewings...and this trailer leaves me...apoplectic.

[FighttheGoodFight]

I agree with everyone here. Looks like a generic action movie. I'll wait til it is on demand.

[TU 'cane]

Never have been, and still not, a big Trek fan.

I did enjoy the first of the newer movies, though.

However, I will say that when I watched this trailer the other day, I walked away extremely unimpressed. The entire thing screams generic action/sci-fi movie that's carrying a big name. It would seem they're trying to copy Marvel with Guardians, etc. There's just no need for that.

I also read that Justin Lin was at the helm as either director or one of the producers. FYI, he's the guy who's been in charge of the over the top Fast and Furious movies...

[SoonerDave]

Never have been, and still not, a big Trek fan.

I did enjoy the first of the newer movies, though.

However, I will say that when I watched this trailer the other day, I walked away extremely unimpressed. The entire thing screams generic action/sci-fi movie that's carrying a big name. It would seem they're trying to copy Marvel with Guardians, etc. There's just no need for that.

I also read that Justin Lin was at the helm as either director or one of the producers. FYI, he's the guy who's been in charge of the over the top Fast and Furious movies...

That's *exactly* the direction Paramount has stated they want to take Trek. Apparently those were the marching orders they have to Simon Pegg when he was chartered to rewrite the script after they fired Bob Orci, who had supposedly delivered a script that was "too Trekky," which I'm really trying *not* to say means "too intelligent."

[kelroy55]

Gene is probably rolling over in his grave

[MadMonk]

LOL, whelp, there goes another Enterprise.

And rehashing the Beasty Boys music? Really? Hopefully, that's just music for the trailer.

[elitespy]

Thought this was interesting

'Star Trek Beyond' Will Effectively Ignore 'Into Darkness' - Spinoff Online - TV, Film, and Entertainment News DailySpinoff Online ? TV, Film, and Entertainment News Daily

[shawnw]

It's still a Bad Robot production so hopefully won't completely suck.

[SoonerDave]

Thought this was interesting

'Star Trek Beyond' Will Effectively Ignore 'Into Darkness' - Spinoff Online - TV, Film, and Entertainment News DailySpinoff Online ? TV, Film, and Entertainment News Daily

In all honesty, they just don't have much *choice* but to ignore Into Darkness. That story was so replete with *horrendous* plot holes that you couldn't possibly reconcile them. The Carol Marcus story wasn't bad in and of itself, but I think they've opted to drop it merely for the fact it is an "Into Darkness" artifact.

And that goes back so much to what I mentioned before - I admit that *visually*, Into Darkness was very engaging and compelling. I was wowed when I first saw it. But when I watched it a second, maybe a third time, the wow factor faded and all these issues came up that made me kinda cringe. Spock's "KHAAAAANN" yell is embarrassing. Kirk kicking the Warp Drive Spark Plug from the wrong direction and it suddenly pops into place is embarrassing. The Spaceship-Obviating-Warp-Drive is just a crushingly bad plot device.

I try not to be one of those "absolutist" fans that say Trek *has* to be a certain way, because its all fun and fiction, but at some point it needs to bear *some* resemblance to its origin or what's the point in making it at all?

In a bizarre way, it's kinda like the "Minions" movie from last summer. I think that was a *blown* opportunity. Why? Because the studio, ultimately, didn't trust the material, didn't let the characters do the silly things that made those characters compelling and fun. They wrapped this deep origin story with all kinds of pointless narrative that NO ONE up to then cared about or needed - until the studio decided they didn't really think people liked the Minions for what they were. They didn't trust the material. Same goes with Trek. Paramount doesn't trust the material. They don't think you can create the kind of adventures Trek implies with some sort of intellectual introspection or commentary *and* make it commercially entertaining. So they turn to a franchise they do understand (translated: makes big box office) and say "go make this look like that," and are then surprised when it fails.

I'm not saying Trek 3 is a failure before it starts. But judging from what's emerging so far, it's getting increasingly hard to be optimistic.

[Urbanized]

[SoonerDave]

Looks like either or both Paramount in general or Simon Pegg in particular has gone into damage control mode given what has turned out to be consistently negative reaction to the trailer. One of the sites that tracks Trek creative development posted a story quoting him as saying even *he* didn't like the trailer, Pegg is spinning the trailer as cut for an action movie, but there's a lot more to it:

Exclusive: Simon Pegg Responds to Star Trek Beyond Trailer Criticism - 'There's more to it.' - HeyUGuys

This is either going to become a colossal surprise hit or a colossal failure. I don't think there's a middle ground.

[kelroy55]

LOL, whelp, there goes another Enterprise.

And rehashing the Beasty Boys music? Really? Hopefully, that's just music for the trailer.

They must have a huge parts stockpile.

[MadMonk]

They must have a huge parts stockpile.

I read a comment somewhere about how many starships he's gone through and the starship building industry. Said something like "Kirk is the biggest jobs program the Earth has ever known"

[shawnw]

It's been a really long time since I owned a "Star Trek Technical Manual", but I thought Enterprise A was ~300 meters and Enterprise D was ~600 meters.

I say that because a modern Ford class supercarrier is ~350 meters and costs ~$10B (and many years) to build and is the closest analog we have to deducing the "cost" of Kirk's endeavors. Has anyone geekier than me (and I'm pretty geeky, as evidenced by having owned a technical manual) ever tried to figure out the cost to build an Enterprise? Or has it been disclosed elsewhere?

[jn1780]

I read a comment somewhere about how many starships he's gone through and the starship building industry. Said something like "Kirk is the biggest jobs program the Earth has ever known"

To be fair, this is the first Enterprise that this version of Kirk has lost. Although, he is already ahead of his alternate reality version for his age.

[Mel]

Since this re-boot is based on an alternative reality, I will not begrudge Kirk an extra ship. The Starship Builders Union always have him on their job security celebration calendars every year. The second movie I take as a stand alone story in the same Universe but not so much as part of the Grand Story Arc. I will not know about the third one until it comes out on DVD.

[kelroy55]

Don't forget Picard crashed an Enterprise too so I'm thinking they need to name it something else.

[stile99]

Has anyone geekier than me (and I'm pretty geeky, as evidenced by having owned a technical manual) ever tried to figure out the cost to build an Enterprise? Or has it been disclosed elsewhere?

What does cost mean in a world with replicators? While it may cost us, in our economy, X dollars for a particular item, what is the cost when you have energy to matter technology and almost unlimited energy? Right now if I want a cup of coffee, I have to fork over four bucks to the dude behind the counter at Starbucks. In the Star Trek world, I have to press a button. Or not even that, just bark to the replicator unit that I want a hot cuppa. In our current economy, my wallet limits the number of cups of coffee I can order. In the post-replicator economy, my bladder is the only limit.

Once replicators come along and destroy the economy as we know it, the only cost that matters is time. Say (just to pull a number out of thin air) it takes one year to completely build a starship. And we're not just sitting around waiting for one to get smashed, either, we're building them as fast as we can. Once one is done, the next one is started. And we don't just have one shipyard, we have four, so basically we have a new starship every quarter.

So, Kirk loses a ship, the crew hangs out on Risa for three months, the next ship off the line gets "NCC-1701-?" stenciled on, and we're good to go.

[White Peacock]

As a non-Trekkie, it looks fine. I never cared much for Star Trek before the first Abrams treatment came out, and I thought it was pretty ace. The sequel was still good, but I couldn't get over the bad physics. This one looks like it might be as good as the sequel.

[SoonerDave]

As a non-Trekkie, it looks fine. I never cared much for Star Trek before the first Abrams treatment came out, and I thought it was pretty ace. The sequel was still good, but I couldn't get over the bad physics. This one looks like it might be as good as the sequel.

If you're going to trip over Trek's physics, you might as well not even get on board in the first place LOL

But in all honesty, that's the big issue. They're aiming for a more mainstream audience, which means more shoot-em-ups, but that was never the central theme of Trek - not that they *didn't* do that - but it wasn't the "raison d'etre" for the show. It was supposed to be a "thinker's adventure." Some in the "core" Trek audience thinks they've gone so far afield it has kinda lost its way. While I don't know that i agree with that entirely, I can see the point they're making. The original reboot movie was just fine, Into Darkness was meh, and the jury is still way, way out on "Beyond."

[Snowman]

I have been a long term trek fan, though pretty much my opinion on the movies is I am glad they are still being made, especially in periods when it is off active TV production but the films have never been it's best format. There are only like three of the twelve that are considered good by what seems like the majority of fans, with variance in what individuals like but several widely considered bad. That CBS had recently given the go ahead on a new TV series is still makes 2015 a positive year on Star Trek news even if that includes finding out another one of the films will likely have it's own troubles.