'Star Trek Beyond' - July 22, 2016

[Infernal King]

It's no Star Trek: Into Darkness, that's for sure.

[trainreck]

Originally Posted by L-Rouge

this link states Dec 31 as release date. Mighty Ape in NZ has a release date for the film as November 2nd.

5 months from theatrical release to home video seems long since most seem to come out in 4 months or less these days. I also wouldn't think they'd want to release a movie that has all those special editions and models a week after Christmas.

[master gandhi]

Originally Posted by L-Rouge

this link states Dec 31 as release date. Mighty Ape in NZ has a release date for the film as November 2nd.

That has to be just a placeholder for the actual release date. I see December 31st all the time before the official date is known. Besides, that's a Saturday.

[Det. Bullock]

Originally Posted by peterthx

what if you just think it's incredibly overrated?

to the stake!!!

Burn the heretic!!!

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Infernal King

It's no Star Trek: Into Darkness, that's for sure.

[stvn1974]

People who don't like Blade Runner shouldn't be allowed to watch movies.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Infernal King

It's no Star Trek: Into Darkness, that's for sure.

[kemcha]

Keep in mind that I haven't seen the third rebooted Star Trek Beyond just yet and that these rebooted Star Trek films are okay, in their own right, but that I've been watching the original films and trying to compare them to the JJ-Trek films. While there's no doubt that JJ has injected new life into the franchise, they just don't seem to stack up very well to the original film series.

I'm not referring to the box office take but rather the performances of the cast between the original films and the Kelvin timeline films. William Shatner is not my idea of a great actor but he projects his charisma into his portrayal of Captain Kirk more-so than Chris Pine does and the same goes for the rest of the cast. They give their performances such emotion that doesn't seem to carry over with the cast of the new films.

While the rebooted films do stand fine on their own right, I just don't see the same kind of emotional performances as in the original film series. I think that may be because the original cast are invested into these characters and that their style of acting is far different than how actors and actresses are currently trained in their acting performances.

Shatner's performance in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, stands out in my mind. When Khan believes he's trapped Kirk on the planetoid where the Genesis project was tested and Kirk says "like a poor marksmen, you keep missing the target". Go back and watch the scene, there is a strong emotional performance there that seems to be lacking from the first two films in the rebooted Star Trek series. Chris Pine just doesn't bring that kind of performance across, despite how much effort he tries to put into it.

It's the same kind of performance that is missing from TNG, DS9 and Voyager and seems to be solely on the director, who doesn't elicit that kind of performance from their cast. I don't know if it's the writing, the directing or the cast but it's the original films Wrath of Khan through The Undiscovered Country that continue to stand out to me and it's the kind of performances that Paramount has never been able to replicate in the followup films and TV shows based on the franchise.

[Gizz]

Originally Posted by kemcha

Keep in mind that I haven't seen the third rebooted Star Trek Beyond just yet and that these rebooted Star Trek films are okay, in their own right, but that I've been watching the original films and trying to compare them to the JJ-Trek films. While there's no doubt that JJ has injected new life into the franchise, they just don't seem to stack up very well to the original film series.

I'm not referring to the box office take but rather the performances of the cast between the original films and the Kelvin timeline films. William Shatner is not my idea of a great actor but he projects his charisma into his portrayal of Captain Kirk more-so than Chris Pine does and the same goes for the rest of the cast. They give their performances such emotion that doesn't seem to carry over with the cast of the new films.

While the rebooted films do stand fine on their own right, I just don't see the same kind of emotional performances as in the original film series. I think that may be because the original cast are invested into these characters and that their style of acting is far different than how actors and actresses are currently trained in their acting performances.

Shatner's performance in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, stands out in my mind. When Khan believes he's trapped Kirk on the planetoid where the Genesis project was tested and Kirk says "like a poor marksmen, you keep missing the target". Go back and watch the scene, there is a strong emotional performance there that seems to be lacking from the first two films in the rebooted Star Trek series. Chris Pine just doesn't bring that kind of performance across, despite how much effort he tries to put into it.

It's the same kind of performance that is missing from TNG, DS9 and Voyager and seems to be solely on the director, who doesn't elicit that kind of performance from their cast. I don't know if it's the writing, the directing or the cast but it's the original films Wrath of Khan through The Undiscovered Country that continue to stand out to me and it's the kind of performances that Paramount has never been able to replicate in the followup films and TV shows based on the franchise.

Have you not seen First Contact Patrick Stewart has a scene just like that where he goes nuts

Picard's White Whale - YouTube

While I do agree that the original crew do deliver great performances. the other cast members from TNG,DS 9, Enterprise have replicated that kind of performances from time to time. I can't speak about Voyager because It's the only Star Trek live action series that I never got in to.

[Dreamliner330]

Originally Posted by Gizz

Have you not seen First Contact Patrick Stewart has a scene just like that where he goes nuts

Picard's White Whale - YouTube

While I do agree that the original crew do deliver great performances. the other cast members from TNG,DS 9, Enterprise have replicated that kind of performances from time to time. I can't speak about Voyager because It's the only Star Trek live action series that I never got in to.

I grew up on TNG. I have TNG series, movies and TOS movies on Blu-ray.

I've seen all TNG and VOY content. I haven't watched all the TOS movies, seen the TOS, DS9 or Enterprise series.

I watched the Kahn TOS episode and Wrath of Kahn after seeing Into Darkness and it was cheese.

There's a great deal for all TOS episodes at Best Buy right now for $48 so I watched the first couple episodes on Netflix. I couldn't possibly imagine wanting to ever watch that again. Mega cheese.

Watching that scene has got me wanting to go through TOS, TOS movies, TNG and TNG movies. I really liked the TNG movies.

[kemcha]

I have to agree that the TOS series contains a lot of cheesy dialogue. I haven't watched the original series in some time but I think it's time to re-associate myself with the series. But, I have to agree that some of the Star Trek shows do contain some emotional performances from the cast from TNG, DS9 and Enterprise. I just don't see those kind of performances from the new cast of these "Kelvin Timeline" films.

I think there's a reason why I'm kind of partial to the original films ... I've watched Star Trek (2009) and Into Darkness and there's just a lack of emotion from the performances of the cast. J.J. Abrams is great at getting people into theaters to watch his movies, he just lacks the kind of ability to elicit emotional responses out of his cast. I've watched many of his films and while they are pretty decent, they just don't have the same long-term shelf-life for me in what I consider quality entertainment.

This is why I prefer watching older films. I don't think this problem is centralized on Abrams but rather the whole industry of what's been termed as "Young Hollywood". The Breakfast Club, Scarface, Dirty Harry, Enemy of the State and so on ... these are films that had pretty strong performances. With the new Star Trek films, they are decent films for watching on a weekend, but they are easily forgotten because the performances just aren't that moving.

Patrick Stewart's performance in First Contact is what I would equate to William Shatner's performance in Wrath of Khan. They draw you into the scene and you can find yourself becoming invested in these characters. I think one of the episodes of TNG that stands out for me is Stewart's performance in the fourth season episode "Family" where he's relating his experience to his brother Rene Picard.

I just don't think Chris Pine has the experience behind him to elicit those kinds of performances, when he does try, it often fails miserably because he doesn't have the experience to draw those kind of performances from.

[Dunemoon]

Re: Cheese

Millennials just don't get Trek.

[kemcha]

WOW! Such a wide range of vocabulary. If you can;t see beyond your adulation of J.J. Abrams, then i don't know what to tell you. But, I stand by what I said. The only thing I'll ever give Abrams credit for is making Star Trek relevant again, even if his choice of writers and talent leave a lot to be desired. Abrams lacks the ability to elicit strong performances out of his choice of casting talent. One only needs to look at his films. Cloverfield, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Star Trek, Star Trek: Into Darkness ... while they have all generated a lot of box office revenue for the studios who released them, I don't give them high marks for notable performances.

BTW, I'm not a millenial. I was born in the 1960's, back when there was quality in movies. For the past 20-25 years, Hollywood hasn't exactly put out any original content or noteworthy films. The only film/series that even comes to being remarkable that has been released in the last 20 years is Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy.

[L-Rouge]

Originally Posted by Dunemoon

Re: Cheese

Millennials just don't get Trek.

Of course they do.

[Dreamliner330]

Originally Posted by Dunemoon

Re: Cheese

Millennials just don't get Trek.

I was born in 84 and refuse to call myself a 'Millennial'.

Not being around when TOS was on air means I don't have nostalgia for it. I'm going to watch a couple more episodes today (I plan to watch them all) but it is pretty hammy.

I love TNG.

[StingingVelvet]

TOS is definitely cheesy, as were most things in the 60's on television. I love Batman for being cheesy fun, but it's not what I want from Trek really. That's not the big reason that show is my least favorite Trek show though, it's mostly because (IMO) most episodes are poorly written and boring. The top ten shows of the series are excellent, and I watch those a lot, but at least half that show's episodes were bad. Same with classic Doctor Who, when it's good it's great but most of the time it was bad.

Voyager is also super hit-and-miss, but it has the TNG style and tone I love, so it is a bit more enjoyable. Enterprise was hit-and-miss the first two years but had a great third and fourth year to push it ahead. TNG and DS9 are 90% good and the core of my fandom.

[Infernal King]

Originally Posted by kemcha

BTW, I'm not a millenial. I was born in the 1960's, back when there was quality in movies. For the past 20-25 years, Hollywood hasn't exactly put out any original content or noteworthy films. The only film/series that even comes to being remarkable that has been released in the last 20 years is Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy.

Ahahahahaha pathetic.

[hanshotfirst1138]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

TOS is definitely cheesy, as were most things in the 60's on television. I love Batman for being cheesy fun, but it's not what I want from Trek really. That's not the big reason that show is my least favorite Trek show though, it's mostly because (IMO) most episodes are poorly written and boring. The top ten shows of the series are excellent, and I watch those a lot, but at least half that show's episodes were bad. Same with classic Doctor Who, when it's good it's great but most of the time it was bad.



Voyager is also super hit-and-miss, but it has the TNG style and tone I love, so it is a bit more enjoyable. Enterprise was hit-and-miss the first two years but had a great third and fourth year to push it ahead. TNG and DS9 are 90% good and the core of my fandom.

There's some dated cheese in TOS, but he first two seasons are solid by and large. The third looks really rough, even back then TNG and DS9 are when the mythology really started to build and probably when most of the fanbase who weren't part of the original series really jumped on. The huge afterlife TNG has had in syndication has probably helped a lot too. It was a cable TV staple during the CRT days.

[Groot]

Any estimate on blu release?

[imsounoriginal]

Early December, I'd wager.