Star Trek Beyond (the pale? a joke?)

[mothman]

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

I haven't liked either of the other two films, but I will likely go watch anyway. But... ugh.

[checkoutgirl]

Director of Fast and Furious? No thank you. Star Trek: Beyond Even Simon Pegg's Standards Which Are Quite Low These Days. I'm trying to come up with something funny but can't as usual.

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

I'm one of the few people who didn't utterly loathe Into Darkness, but this really doesn't look particularly good, does it? Particularly after Pegg's editorial a while back about sci-fi dumbing down and whathaveyou.

[Glebe]

Nothing wrong with humour, but it looks a bit shallow to me. Scripted by Pegg of course... not saying he had any say in the trailer, but he's certainly put center-stage.

[Garam]

These trailers give me that same kind of MSG headache you get when you eat too much Haribo.

[mobias]

I never got the total hatred for Into Darkness amongst a lot of people. I thought it was a perfectly enjoyable romp. I really liked the first JJ Abrahams movie, if only because I had such low hopes for it and it ended being way better than I ever imaged it would be.

I didn't realise Pegg was writing this new movie. He had a comparatively small part in Into Darkness, and the first movie for that matter. I'm not surprised he's put himself centre stage. I'll remain open minded about. I sometimes think people have too high a regard for Star Trek in someways. As far as the movies are concerned they've always been a bit silly and crap but enjoyable all the same. Its never been anywhere near high brow sci-fi , which is part of its charm I think

[checkoutgirl]

I sometimes think people have too high a regard for Star Trek in someways. As far as the movies are concerned they've always been a bit silly and crap but enjoyable all the same.

You're missing the point. The point is that I alone know what a typical Star Trek story is and this films by Pegg do not reflect my exact vision of what Star Trek stands for which is to boldly meet new aliens and junk. If they don't boldly meet new aliens and junk then it is not Star Trek. It is just like all the other non Star Trek things.

[Small Man Big Horse]

I think it looks quite fun. Hopefully it'll have a bit more depth than the trailer suggests, but at least it's not the bleakfest of Into Darkness, and I'm looking forward to it now when I wasn't before.

[mothman]

You're missing the point. The point is that I alone know what a typical Star Trek story is and this films by Pegg do not reflect my exact vision of what Star Trek stands for which is to boldly meet new aliens and junk. If they don't boldly meet new aliens and junk then it is not Star Trek. It is just like all the other non Star Trek things.

Guilty. That is pretty much the definition of what Trek is. The problem is however that the Abramsverse films stretch it to the limit.

I'm a long time Trek nerd. I was watching in in 1973. I have a black belt in canon discussions and a Masters in Treknobabble. I know that the whole point of the Reboot films was to get away from all that; however it's not just the general bastardisation of What Trek Means, ultimately I just really didn't like the films, as films.

[Bhazor]

You're missing the point. The point is that I alone know what a typical Star Trek story is and this films by Pegg do not reflect my exact vision of what Star Trek stands for which is to boldly meet new aliens and junk. If they don't boldly meet new aliens and junk then it is not Star Trek. It is just like all the other non Star Trek things.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLNh0iiacg8

[phantom_power]

I thought that trailer was great. It needs to grab you quickly, which it does with the music and the action, but there are hints of a more serious tone with Elba's "this is the frontier pushing back" line. Is there going to be some ethical debate in the film about how much the federation interfere with worlds?

I also think Pegg should be able to balance the faithfulness to the old material with the humour that was always part of the series and, more so, the films.

[Blumf]

I don't get it. They went back to TOS era, re-jigged the continuity, yet they don't have a big twat up with the Klingons? Surely that's what everyone wants. Kirk and some Klingon commander twatting each other up. The Enterprise and a Warbird twatting each other with photon torpedoes and phasers.

Why aren't they twatting up with the Klingons?

[Glebe]

I know that the whole point of the Reboot films was to get away from all that

I'd be lying if I said I was a big Trek fan, but I've certainly always had a fondness for it... actually, even though I remember reruns of the original series as wee one, it was TNG I watched the most, always thoroughly entertained of an evening in the '90s. I haven't seen all of the earlier movies, but I found Abrams' first movie refreshing and heartfelt (I've not seen Into Darkness as yet).

I didn't realise Pegg was writing this new movie. He had a comparatively small part in Into Darkness, and the first movie for that matter.

Well as I say, I've not seen Into Darkness yet - but I don't recall him exposing himself in the first one!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpaOy8b8X6A

[SavageHedgehog]

I thought the first two were mediocre at best, but I think this is a good teaser. The emphasis on humour doesn't bother me, because I think Star Trek IV: Fishes Out of Water, Also a Whale is at least in the Top 2 of all them there Trek movies.

[The Region Legion]

Well, that is an absolutely appauling trailer and raises enormous concerns for me.

Could you stop using Beastie Boys now please? That's three in a row where their music has featured, and twice the same song. How long until Kirk literally has a line "I LOVE the Beastie Boys! 250 years... now THAT'S old school!". As if in 250 years no one ever lived up to Sabotage. And I say that as a huge Beastie Boys fan. EDIT: Someone on the IMDB forum mentioned that, given we had Sabotage in the first and Body Movin' in the second, this would have been a perfect opportunity to use INTERGALACTIC. Holy shit, that seems so fucking obvious, they even fucked up the bad music choice.

Idris Elba's alien looks as cheap as an Enterprise villain, like a fucking Xindi.

This trailer is going to look like a total fucking joke next to Star Wars. What an enormous miscalculation. Star Wars is action, but it's sci-fi action, and it has pomp and portent. Even to STAR WARS fans, this is going to make Star Trek look like a desperate whore of a franchise. The very idea that you would PROMOTE the fact that Justin Lin directed the fucking Fast & The Furious in a STAR TREK trailer speaks volumes.

Goodbye Star Trek films. Good luck, Star Trek TV show. Maybe you can pull the franchise back from the brink, like the 2009 film should have done.

I hold a sliver of hope that this is a really fucked up promotional gambit, and the actual film has some substance. Like they're trying to sneak a good film under people's noses. But... I mean FUCKING CHRIST that is an insulting trailer.

And in the 50th Anniversary year too.

ANOTHER EDIT: I will admit that you could make any film look awful by using inappropriate music and bad editing, and sure - with a Star Trek theme and some shots of more expositional moments, my reaction would likely have been very different. However, there's one thing we can't get past...

KIRK HAS A MOTORBIKE ON AN ALIEN WORLD THAT HE RIDES OFF A RAMP ON.

THERE'S A MOTORBIKE STUNT IN A STAR TREK FILM.

WHY.

WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS.

[Bingo Fury]

Oh, shitfuck,

Spoiler alert

they're destroying the Enterprise

[close]

- again! I hate it when they do that! I hated it the last two times and I'm going to hate it this time too!

I've enjoyed both previous films, right up to the terrible moment Into Darkness had an identity crisis and went all Wrath Of Khan, so I've got my fingers crossed for this. Apart from the aforementioned quibble, of course.

This trailer is going to look like a total fucking joke next to Star Wars. What an enormous miscalculation.

Horses for courses. The Star Wars trailer is visually impressive, true, but all the jazzy visuals in the world can't change the fact that it is, underneath it all, Star Wars, and something that I'll only catch, if I can be arsed, just before it disappears from the cinemas, or, failing that, when a decent torrent emerges.

[mothman]

Oh, shitfuck,

Spoiler alert

they're destroying the Enterprise

[close]

- again! I hate it when they do that! I hated it the last two times and I'm going to hate it this time too!

There's gonna be a big reveal of

Spoiler alert

the NCC-1701-A

[close]

at the end, isn't there? I can just see it now.

Spoiler alert

In fact some people I know online are probably already making their fan designs of what it'll look like...

[close]

[The Region Legion]

Horses for courses. The Star Wars trailer is visually impressive, true, but all the jazzy visuals in the world can't change the fact that it is, underneath it all, Star Wars, and something that I'll only catch, if I can be arsed, just before it disappears from the cinemas, or, failing that, when a decent torrent emerges.

Compare and contrast though.

The Star Wars trailers have been full of love and respect for their source material. They use the original score, there's been a deliberate effort to recreate a lot of the original vibe, there's excitement at seeing not just the familiar faces again but also the familiar ships. The film itself will take itself extremely seriously, and will be a love letter to the fans more than anything else.

In the Star Trek trailer, the Enterprise gets blown to smithereens under the Beastie Boys' "Sabotage", and Kirk does a trick on his motorbike - that he has for some reason - off a conveniently bent bit of metal that functions as a ramp to get him to the perfect height to catch zebra lady from falling.

Their embarassment at their source material is apparent from the off.

[Glebe]

Spoiler ALERT: Benedict Cumberbatch cameos at the end as

Spoiler alert

The Joker

[close]

.

zebra lady

Then there's a bit where they have to stop at a 'zebra crossing'! The audience groans good naturedly!

I'm mad, me!

[Dex Sawash]

I know why you are here, why we are all here

intergalactic sex tourism?

[Custard]

I thought Into Darkness was good. Am I remembering it wrong? Was I drunk? Do I exist?

What was so bad about it? Genuinely wondering, as I've not seen it since it came out

[Jerzy Bondov]

I bet the end of this film is them flying off in the Enterprise to have an interesting adventure which we aren't allowed to see.

[phantom_power]

If they are going for more action then Justin Lin is the man for the job. He did great work on Community and the Fast and Furious films may be great or dogshit but they are well filmed.

I liked the callback to Sabotage and its a great song that is a perfect fit for the sort of trailer they are going for. This is just a teaser after all. I imagine the next trailer will show more plot and what the film will actually be like

[Cloud]

It all depends on whether you try to compare it to the Star Trek you used to know.  We've all become those "it ain't what it used to be!!" old fogies much like those who were whinging about TNG when it came out.

On their own merit, they're decent spacey action romps.  I actually came out of both of them thinking "I rather enjoyed that!"

I find it's when you sit down afterwards and think "so hang on... that was Star Trek.  Where was all the heart, where was the moral preaching, where was the SOUL of Trek?" that disappointment hits and you remember that Star Trek died in 2005 (or if you have the same opinion of Enterprise as I do, 2001).  If they'd called it something else, we wouldn't have had these mixed feelings.

Whether the real one we used to know will ever revive, who knows.  I've said all this before but liked the old "preachiness" and there's plenty of that to be done again.  Do another massive planet of religious nuts like the Bajorans (preferably without the wormhole alien explanation this time, just have them irrationally believe in something like other religions), show a relatively tiny sect of extremists committing acts of terrorism in their name and why it's cruel and stupid to then persecute the whole lot of them over the acts of that small sect - that'd probably be quite relevant right now.  Doesn't have to be quite that obvious/sledgehammered, of course - it was always at its best when they got the point across clearly yet without putting people off along the way.
Not that it was ever perfect - perhaps this time they could reconsider whether "LGBT went the same way as the common cold in the future, except in the evil/chaotic mirror universe" is necessarily the message to be putting out.  If it is, then the reasoning could probably be better conveyed.

I don't mean that it was all about the preachy stuff.  That actually wasn't even all that often, but it was part of the recipe.  So was fun sci-fi-ness, exploring strange new worlds, having the feeling of like a group of friends on a bridge.  Above all something NEW - not "here's roughly same movie we did about 30 years ago but with the soul sucked out of it"

I'll watch the movie, why not.  I'm not excited for it in the same way as if it was "old" Trek though.

[greenman]

I never got the total hatred for Into Darkness amongst a lot of people. I thought it was a perfectly enjoyable romp. I really liked the first JJ Abrahams movie, if only because I had such low hopes for it and it ended being way better than I ever imaged it would be.

I didn't realise Pegg was writing this new movie. He had a comparatively small part in Into Darkness, and the first movie for that matter. I'm not surprised he's put himself centre stage. I'll remain open minded about. I sometimes think people have too high a regard for Star Trek in someways. As far as the movies are concerned they've always been a bit silly and crap but enjoyable all the same. Its never been anywhere near high brow sci-fi , which is part of its charm I think

The latter TNG films weren't up to much of course being full of weak fan service but I would say that the previous success of the franchise on screen was creating well constructed dramatic blockbusters with a nice atmosphere to them. Abrams films are okish ADHD style blockbusters but really don't come close to the quality of the best of the original cast films.

[Chairman Yang]

Thing is, if you're part of the audience that likes watching real actual cars do racing stunts why are you going to watch a Star Trek film? It's fine saying 'Oh it'll just be a popcorn action film, whatever', but the Fast and the Furious films are actually about something. These new Star Trek film aren't about anything.

The most infuriating form of internet hack apologetics is "These films will capture the spirit of the original series", by which the writer means: 'I never actually watched Star Trek and if you can't just enjoy this fun movie then you're a fucking nerd. Remember when Tribbles stole Spock's brain? LOL'.

Edit: So Roberto Orci is co-writing this which means it will make about as much sense as the previous two.

[phantom_power]

I know opinions on Pegg are mixed on here  but I think he puts a lot of thought into the scripts he writes and there is usually some underlying themes and concepts going on. Certainly there is a lot of depth in the Cornetto trilogy, for action comedies that is, despite how successful you think those themes are addressed in the actual films or how good the end result is.

I have a feeling that he will try to explore a bit about what made the original Star Trek different from the other space films and TV show.

[biggytitbo]

I'll be there if everyone does the film in their underpants.

[Bingo Fury]

So Kirk smuggled a motorbike on to the Enterprise. Riker had a trombone, for Christ's sake. Get your head around that first.

[All Surrogate]

I thought Into Darkness was good. Am I remembering it wrong? Was I drunk? Do I exist?

What was so bad about it? Genuinely wondering, as I've not seen it since it came out

Spock cried.