'Star Trek Beyond' - July 22, 2016

[Himmel]

New pic..

[Show spoiler]Krall is angryyy!!!

[StingingVelvet]

I have to stop going to io9. They're getting way dumber, and more like Gawker proper politically. Today they have a huge article NEW STAR TREK IS IN TROUBLE based on nothing but "you'd think we'd have a second trailer by now" with the caveat inside their own article that Paramount are holding it for a celebration event.

Like... PANIC over nothing cause we need the clicks! So gross.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Like... PANIC over nothing cause we need the clicks! So gross.

It's all about that bait, 'bout that bait

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by GC Riot

I really like both of the Abrams films, but I can see how Trek fans might not really like the more action-oriented vibe that permeates throughout, and this new one seems to veer in that direction even further, and I'm not sure that's a good thing. It makes these films seem more generic and interchangeable, like you could almost just slap a Star Wars-logo on and a lot of people wouldn't know the difference.
I choose to look at them as entertaining and well-made sci-fi films, not as Star Trek films, and I think a lot of people would appreciate them more if they did just that as well.

Good point of view.
Being a little more flexible with our expectations results in being entertained more easily than an all or nothing attitude.

Originally Posted by HimmelBlau

New pic..

[Show spoiler]Krall is angryyy!!!

Thanks.
That villain looks tough.

[LuckyDragon]

I'd be pissed too.

Clearly that's a darkroom, and Kirk must have opened the door and ruined his photos.

[trevanian]

Originally Posted by Det. Bullock

Is it not a positive?

Seriously the problems of the first two movies were primarily because of Abrams not getting Star Trek and Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof being awful sci-fi writers.

I agree completely. The fact that they actually had at least one self-professed fan among them yet still so totally missed the boat with characterizations and the feel of the thing speaks volumes about how wrongheaded the 09 was, and the second one was only a marginal improvement (mainly cuz they couldn't have done any worse.)

I really don't see the creative point of reworking a franchise to the point that you're barely paying lip service to it, just to cash in on the name value. Then again I don't really consider much of the Berman era to feel particularly treklike either, outside of most DS9 that is. And it isn't that I think action-adventure is out of place; anybody who actually watched the original series knows that was often a big part of things (the Kirk/Finnegan fight in SHORE LEAVE is kind of trek's THEY LIVE skirmish.)

I really like the idea of an antagonist with a challengin point of view, and this new one seems to have that.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Det. Bullock

Seriously the problems of the first two movies were primarily because of Abrams not getting Star Trek and Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof being awful sci-fi writers.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/


http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star...=into darkness


Huge disconnect between some Trekkers and others and the rest of the critics and moviegoing public.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Det. Bullock

Seriously the problems of the first two movies were primarily because of Abrams not getting Star Trek and Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof being awful sci-fi writers.

And what's really a knee-slapper is that Orci's original script for this was deemed too "Trek-y," so they brought in the likes of Pegg and other writers to open it up for the summer crowds.

Thank the stars Alice Eve isn't in this. What a vapid waste of time she was in the last one.

[JamesKurtovich]

I hope this film slows down a bit. My only complaint about Star Trek and Star Trek ID was its frenetic pacing. J.J. loves his "Talk real fast, breathe heavy, and run around" scenes a bit too much.

[Det. Bullock]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/


http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star...=into darkness


Huge disconnect between some Trekkers and others and the rest of the critics and moviegoing public.

Abrams is like Zack Snyder in reverse, critics love him so they don't consider how stupid the screenplays of the two trek movies are, the ending of the first trek was idiotic beyond belief.
And many trekkie hate it especially because the stupid is covered up by vapid trek references and cameos that seem to be made with the "throw a bone to the weirdos who speak klingon and do trek cosplays" mindset, the second movie is even more insulting than the first in this regard.

Originally Posted by dissention

And what's really a knee-slapper is that Orci's original script for this was deemed too "Trek-y," so they brought in the likes of Pegg and other writers to open it up for the summer crowds.

Thank the stars Alice Eve isn't in this. What a vapid waste of time she was in the last one.

We need to know what they mean by "trek-y", many believe that "trek-y" is filling movies with nerd references and call it a day.
No reference to the apparent mindset that led to the first two movies, no sirra.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/


http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star...=into darkness


Huge disconnect between some Trekkers and others and the rest of the critics and moviegoing public.

Enough with that Trekker shit. I'm a Trekkie and proud of it.

[robgmun]

Originally Posted by doctor_who

But, we wouldn't be getting more Star Trek films without that - the die hard Star Trek fanbase is nothing compared to the amount of people who liked the new Star Trek films.

Well i'm happy to say i'm in both camps, i love the old movies but it differently needed a fresh take and for all the things it could have gone wrong, what we got was pretty decent, a bit more care on the casting of Khan would have been nice but that's a minor complaint

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Det. Bullock

Abrams is like Zack Snyder in reverse, critics love him so they don't consider how stupid the screenplays of the two trek movies are, the ending of the first trek was idiotic beyond belief.
And many trekkie hate it especially because the stupid is covered up by vapid trek references and cameos that seem to be made with the "throw a bone to the weirdos who speak klingon and do trek cosplays" mindset, the second movie is even more insulting than the first in this regard.

Except it's YOUR opinion. Usually when guys like you complain about something they think is "stupid" it's because they weren't paying attention. Pretty much everything has an explanation.


And for every "stupid" thing you complain about there's an equally stupid thing in the classic TOS films you do like.

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Enough with that Trekker shit. I'm a Trekkie and proud of it.

As a huge fan myself, I always looked at it like this....

A Trekkie is someone who just idolizes the franchise from a purely entertainment standpoint. They love it. They can't get enough of it. But, they are more about it as face value entertainment. They are the types who are more fascinated by the fancy environments and alien lifeforms and funky languages than anything else.

A Trekker is someone who really goes along on the journey of exploring themes and topical issues raised amidst a very attractive and fascinating environment filled with creative design features.

I've met many a Star Trek fan in my day, and there can be quite a huge divide between these two demographics. And that is why I consider myself a "Trekker." The term is more appropriate for those who Trek through the stars with the characters on a far deeper level that incorporates philosophical and sociopolitical concepts as part of the journey while allowing themselves to adapt those themes into their real everyday life. "Trekkies" are those who don't bother trying to learn and grow from the show.

That's been my opinion on the labels for decades since high school when I would try to have conversations about the latest episode with another overzealous fan who always wanted to talk about the technology and alien races instead of important themes.

[StingingVelvet]

I am a huge fan of Star Trek.

[Geoff D]

Christ, there's actually a whole political divide in Trek fandom as to what Trekkies and Trekkers actually represent? I love the techy action stuff AND the use of sci-fi to hold a mirror up to society. Does that mean I'm a Trekkier?

Let me revise my statement to reflect the gentleman above: I am a huge fan of Star Trek.

[L-Rouge]

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

As a huge fan myself, I always looked at it like this....

A Trekkie is someone who just idolizes the franchise from a purely entertainment standpoint. They love it. They can't get enough of it. But, they are more about it as face value entertainment. They are the types who are more fascinated by the fancy environments and alien lifeforms and funky languages than anything else.

A Trekker is someone who really goes along on the journey of exploring themes and topical issues raised amidst a very attractive and fascinating environment filled with creative design features.

I consider myself both here, I truly run with Trek exploring themes and yet it was the Enterprise that brought into the universe at the age of 4 (saw a trailer of Trek 3 30 odd years ago and never looked back)

that speaks volumes about how Star Trek's aesthetic gives so much to me.

I just love Star Trek.

[L-Rouge]

I seem to echo others sentiments heh

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Christ, there's actually a whole political divide in Trek fandom as to what Trekkies and Trekkers actually represent? I love the techy action stuff AND the use of sci-fi to hold a mirror up to society. Does that mean I'm a Trekkier?

Let me revise my statement to reflect the gentleman above: I am a huge fan of Star Trek.

I loved the Original series, TNG and DS9 but disliked Voyager and Enterprise. I like most of the films. Am I a Trekkie?

[Det. Bullock]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Except it's YOUR opinion. Usually when guys like you complain about something they think is "stupid" it's because they weren't paying attention. Pretty much everything has an explanation.


And for every "stupid" thing you complain about there's an equally stupid thing in the classic TOS films you do like.

Star Trek V doesn't count. :P

Joking aside, the way Kirk becomes captain is idiotic.
It's the kind of thing you might find in a fanfiction with a Marty Stu protagonist, basically Starfleet goes: "you haven't even graduated but because you are awesome we are making you skip years of career and put you in command of the most advanced ship in the fleet!"

The closest thing to that in Old Trek is Weasley Crusher and trekkies HATE him, and even then his case isn't as bad as newTrek Kirk, hell, at least he doesn't get a ship command before graduating at the academy.

Also, I'm mostly a DS9 fan, although I mostly like/enjoy the TOS movies, but I also don't share the reverence some people have for Wrath of Khan (part of the reason I don't like newTrek is because it follows its template too much), and I like the first movie a LOT when most trekkies hate it.