Star Trek Beyond

[Stash]

Outside of the strange editing and bad music, does this really look any different than the Abrams movies?

I definitely think so based on this small sampling. I see a lot of sizzle and very little steak. I hope I'm wrong because I want an enjoyable movie, but this wasn't a good first impression for me.

 

[mattjames2010]

I definitely think so based on this small sampling. I see a lot of sizzle and very little steak. I hope I'm wrong because I want an enjoyable movie, but this wasn't a good first impression for me.

It wasn't a good impression for most, and I don't blame them, the marketing team put this together poorly. Honestly, I just mute the trailer and it looks exactly like the last two Star Trek films.

It is quite irritating how poorly done trailers are these days, remember how many Inception-rip off trailers we had? That "Bwam Bwam" sound is the most irritating crap I've ever heard.

 

[Kevinicus]

The funny thing is that music was used in the first film, as well as the trailer for it.

 

[kristie]

looks cool to me. my husband & i already made plans to go see this.

 

[kristie]

I imagine a more serious trailer will come about next time.

i'm sure one will come out at some point.

 

[Fletch]

I was actually going to post something about this.


Star Trek>Star Wars

Pretty neato. I like Star Trek. But it's not as good as Star Wars. I still need to see the second newest installment of Star Trek.

 

[Stash]

Pretty neato. I like Star Trek. But it's not as good as Star Wars. I still need to see the second newest installment of Star Trek.

I think it's a really good film. Rewatched it just last night as a matter of fact. I think it gets a lot more criticism than it truly deserves.

 

[DallasEast]

I think it's a really good film. Rewatched it just last night as a matter of fact. I think it gets a lot more criticism than it truly deserves.

I think both reimagined Star Trek movies have been overly criticized. The concept of both new movies is transparent. They take place in a new timeline where events are slightly altered, not totally changed. Even the pivotal Kirk/Spock scene in Star Trek: Into Darkness, while somewhat awkwardly presented dramatically, makes perfect sense. The first two movies, along with Star Trek: Beyond, are original episodes rewritten for a new generation.

Personally, I love them. However, I do understand why some are turned off not seeing totally fresh material--even though the latest franchise was never advertised to be totally new. For example, Ricardo Montalban was Khan in both the original series and the movie in every sense. His performance doesn't take a back seat to anyone else's but Benedict Cumberbatch's performance was never intended to threaten Montalban's earlier work. It was a different way of looking at the character under similar yet very different circumstances. But moviegoers are sort of stuck in limbo if their personal standard is Montalban and only Montalban as Khan. I thought Cumberbatch did a great job of showing how malevolent Khan could be from a different angle.

My hopes for Beyond is seeing more Karl Urban as McCoy. I think he does Deforest Kelley perfectly, even moreso than how any his other co-stars portray their characters.

 

[Stash]

I think both reimagined Star Trek movies have been overly criticized. The concept of both new movies is transparent. They take place in a new timeline where events are slightly altered, not totally changed. Even the pivotal Kirk/Spock scene in Star Trek: Into Darkness, while somewhat awkwardly presented dramatically, makes perfect sense. The first two movies, along with Star Trek: Beyond, are original episodes rewritten for a new generation.

Personally, I love them. However, I do understand why some are turned off not seeing totally fresh material--even though the latest franchise was never advertised to be totally new. For example, Ricardo Montalban was Khan in both the original series and the movie in every sense. His performance doesn't take a back seat to anyone else's but Benedict Cumberbatch's performance was never intended to threaten Montalban's earlier work. It was a different way of looking at the character under similar yet very different circumstances. But moviegoers are sort of stuck in limbo if their personal standard is Montalban and only Montalban as Khan. I thought Cumberbatch did a great job of showing how malevolent Khan could be from a different angle.

My hopes for Beyond is seeing more Karl Urban as McCoy. I think he does Deforest Kelley perfectly, even moreso than how any his other co-stars portray their characters.

Very much agree with you. I enjoyed both of the first two films in the reboot a lot.

And I thought Cumberbatch did a great job playing his own interpretation of Khan and in some ways, he was even more ruthless than Montalban's version.

And I also think Urban does an awesome job of channeling DeForest Kelley's McCoy.

I'm just a bit worried that we're going to get a Fast and Furious version of Star Trek that will turn even more fans off of the franchise.

 

[DallasEast]

Very much agree with you. I enjoyed both of the first two films in the reboot a lot.

And I thought Cumberbatch did a great job playing his own interpretation of Khan and in some ways, he was even more ruthless than Montalban's version.

And I also think Urban does an awesome job of channeling DeForest Kelley's McCoy.

I'm just a bit worried that we're going to get a Fast and Furious version of Star Trek that will turn even more fans off of the franchise.

That's a genuine concern but I'm not too concern about Star Trek fans like me who were born at or before when the original series debuted. We choose to like or dislike what we know about the franchise. Case in point: I instantly wrote off TNG with the pilot episode Encounter at Farpoint. "Galaxy class starship hulls detaching during warp speed???" I turned off my television and cursed Roddenberry's name. It was only after curiosity got the best of me when I sat down and watched the episode Contagion that I knew new wasn't always bad.

No, my personal concern are how the newest fans, who were initiated into Star Trek by the latest movies, appreciate the reboots. I want their curiosity to ask themselves what inspired the reboots. Hopefully it drives them to sources like Netflix and watch TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager, etc.--heck even TAS--and discover what Trek was about, what it has become and what it may yet evolve into down the road. To me, Star Trek is great science fiction. And I hope it lives on strong long after Bones examines me and says, "He's dead Jim."

 

[YosemiteSam]

Nods, it's like Transformers. I love Transformers, but the new movies are difficult to watch due to all the CGI.

 

[rynochop]

Trailer looks absolutely horrible...apparently at least Star Wars is getting rave reviews. Of which I'm not reading. It's a hugely trollable movie

 

[PJTHEDOORS]

Star Trek = Star Wars IMHO. I love them both!!!

The original star trek tv cast.

 

[CyberB0b]

But that's also not this movie, is it?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a staunch advocate of Star Trek being a certain way and I enjoyed both of the past two reboots.

But for as much criticism and venom JJ Abrams got for his version, I think this new one will be getting that much and a whole lot more.

Well, obviously it's not this movie, as it won't be released until July. General reviews were good for the last two, and they were extremely profitable. No reason why this one won't be.

 

[Stash]

Well, obviously it's not this movie, as it won't be released until July. General reviews were good for the last two, and they were extremely profitable. No reason why this one won't be.

I'm not sure that I would consider the first two as "extremely profitable".

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=startrek.htm

In this era where superhero and sci-fi films are doing $700 million to $1 billion in box office, the Star Trek films each made less than $300 million. Comparatively, that's not considered "extremely profitable".

 

[Kevinicus]

I think both reimagined Star Trek movies have been overly criticized. The concept of both new movies is transparent. They take place in a new timeline where events are slightly altered, not totally changed. Even the pivotal Kirk/Spock scene in Star Trek: Into Darkness, while somewhat awkwardly presented dramatically, makes perfect sense. The first two movies, along with Star Trek: Beyond, are original episodes rewritten for a new generation.

Personally, I love them. However, I do understand why some are turned off not seeing totally fresh material--even though the latest franchise was never advertised to be totally new. For example, Ricardo Montalban was Khan in both the original series and the movie in every sense. His performance doesn't take a back seat to anyone else's but Benedict Cumberbatch's performance was never intended to threaten Montalban's earlier work. It was a different way of looking at the character under similar yet very different circumstances. But moviegoers are sort of stuck in limbo if their personal standard is Montalban and only Montalban as Khan. I thought Cumberbatch did a great job of showing how malevolent Khan could be from a different angle.

My hopes for Beyond is seeing more Karl Urban as McCoy. I think he does Deforest Kelley perfectly, even moreso than how any his other co-stars portray their characters.

I never saw Khan in the series, and I didn't see Wrath until after Into Darknes. When I saw Wrath, I though Khan was terrible and couldn't understand all the hype for him or the movie.

 

[CyberB0b]

I'm not sure that I would consider the first two as "extremely profitable".

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=startrek.htm

In this era where superhero and sci-fi films are doing $700 million to $1 billion in box office, the Star Trek films each made less than $300 million. Comparatively, that's not considered "extremely profitable".

1B gross profit sounds extremely profitable to me.

 

[Stash]

1B gross profit sounds extremely profitable to me.

and where do you see that posted about Star Trek's profits?

Here's some sobering info:

http://www.cheatsheet.com/hot-featu...lms-that-barely-made-a-profit.html/?a=viewall

 

[DallasEast]

I never saw Khan in the series, and I didn't see Wrath until after Into Darknes. When I saw Wrath, I though Khan was terrible and couldn't understand all the hype for him or the movie.

I would recommend watching the TOS episode, Space Seed. It's the episode which Montalban originated the Khan character and is regarded generally (if I recall correctly) as one of the best TOS episodes. Watching the episode may not change your opinion of Montalban's in the series or the movie but it may give insight as to why Star Trek II received the hype that it did.

 

[Hardline]

Star Wars and Star Trek are both greatness.
Like J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S.Lewis.