'Star Trek Beyond' - July 22, 2016

[Aerodude73]

Originally Posted by Talyn

I remember seeing an interview with Brad Bird once and he said he was always a fan of Star Trek... I think he'd do an amazing job, and would be the right guy to drive the franchise back on path and to the future. My other choices would be sketchy at best, but I'd love Alex Proyas or Darren Aronofsky to try Star Trek...

After just finishing THE WOLVERINE, I'd like to throw James Mangold's hat into the ring for Director.

Originally Posted by RyanPom

I think they should put Trek on hold for awhile. There is no audience out there for it anymore.

Originally Posted by Walts Ghost

Oh please...

Lol, Walt - dont' ever feel a need to reply to that type of post.
Have you ever read Anything Positive from him, anywhere? It seems he hates everything

Originally Posted by assydingo

Do you feel the same way about a TV series?

That might work better because then it can be everything. Action, philosophy, social satire, world exploring, and tons of character interaction. Whereas a movie has to compete with other big blockbusters in a two or so hour time frame.

That's it, exactly. Movie's like this have 2 hours to get everything in, characters/character development, action, etc., & all while trying to appease the masses, which will Never happen (most of the time).

[RyanPom]

Originally Posted by Aerodude73

After just finishing THE WOLVERINE, I'd like to throw James Mangold's hat into the ring for Director.




Lol, Walt - dont' ever feel a need to reply to that type of post.
Have you ever read Anything Positive from him, anywhere? It seems he hates everything

That's it, exactly. Movie's like this have 2 hours to get everything in, characters/character development, action, etc., & all while trying to appease the masses, which will Never happen (most of the time).

I'm one of the few people in the thread that liked both Trek movies. I want JJ to come back to direct.

[Aerodude73]

Originally Posted by RyanPom

I'm one of the few people in the thread that liked both Trek movies. I want JJ to come back to direct.

Wait, you Actually LIKED something?



I'd love to have him back, but if they get a competent enough director for the 3rd one, I have no problem with that. Plus, Less LENS FLARES...

[RyanPom]

Originally Posted by Aerodude73

Wait, you Actually LIKED something?



I'd love to have him back, but if they get a competent enough director for the 3rd one, I have no problem with that. Plus, Less LENS FLARES...

I didn't really notice any lens flares. Too busy trying to enjoy the movie to count.

[Aerodude73]

Originally Posted by RyanPom

I didn't really notice any lens flares. Too busy trying to enjoy the movie to count.

Lol - I enjoyed both too but they are noticeable (& as to Not derail THIS movie's thread, let's move along).



ON TOPIC:

At least JJ will be Exec Producing this, so his hand-print will be there one way or another.

[assydingo]

Originally Posted by Aerodude73

That's it, exactly. Movie's like this have 2 hours to get everything in, characters/character development, action, etc., & all while trying to appease the masses, which will Never happen (most of the time).

As difficult as pleasing everyone is they weren't that far off. The first new Trek was the best. It got the characters right and had the emotional gravitas. The sequel succeeded in action but fumbled with some of the drama. Still, it's as good or better than the average blockbuster. The first is way above that.

What's fun about Star Trek is they can do anything. Doesn't always have to be action heavy. Very interested to see what they do with the third.

[Ironhorse75]

Originally Posted by Infernal King

Look, if you can't handle someone having a different opinion than your own, then don't even bother typing out an insulting response.

You used a personal attack because I compared 2 movies with tons of empty action and paper-thin characters to the filmography of a director who specializes in movies with tons of empty action and paper-thin characters. Now who's being a spoiled child?

It wasn't a personal attack.

I accept many of the criticisms people have for these movies. You didn't like the portrayal of Khan, or the rehashing of older plotlines, you're entitled to feel that way. I won't try to convince you otherwise.

I just don't buy the "paper thin characters" a legitimate criticism. If you look at every positive review of these two movies they were almost unanimously praised for their character dynamics. Hell, most people talk about having man tears when they watch George Kirk's scene in the opener of 2009. Those first ten minutes of Star Trek have more emotional value than Bay's entire filmography.

Do we have humor that panders to the lowest common denominator? I'm talking about mothers smoking pot, dogs and robots humping, autobots urinating... etc etc.

Were these movies closer to three hours than two?

Are the women endlessly sexualized the way Megan Fox and Rosie Huntington are in Transformers? Wait, you got me, we see Alice Eve in her underwear for 2 seconds.

[Infernal King]

Originally Posted by Ironhorse75

It wasn't a personal attack.

I accept many of the criticisms people have for these movies. You didn't like the portrayal of Khan, or the rehashing of older plotlines, you're entitled to feel that way. I won't try to convince you otherwise.

I just don't buy the "paper thin characters" a legitimate criticism. If you look at every positive review of these two movies they were almost unanimously praised for their character dynamics. Hell, most people talk about having man tears when they watch George Kirk's scene in the opener of 2009. Those first ten minutes of Star Trek have more emotional value than Bay's entire filmography.

Do we have humor that panders to the lowest common denominator? I'm talking about mothers smoking pot, dogs and robots humping, autobots urinating... etc etc.

Were these movies closer to three hours than two?

Are the women endlessly sexualized the way Megan Fox and Rosie Huntington are in Transformers? Wait, you got me, we see Alice Eve in her underwear for 2 seconds.

This is the kind of response I would have appreciated to begin with so thank you, however belatedly, for writing it.

But wait, didn't the same guys (Orci and Kurtzman) write both the Transformers AND New Star Trek movies?

[RyanPom]

Originally Posted by Infernal King

This is the kind of response I would have appreciated to begin with so thank you, however belatedly, for writing it.

But wait, didn't the same guys (Orci and Kurtzman) write both the Transformers AND New Star Trek movies?

Actually, no they didn't. Ehren Kruger wrote Dark of the Moon. Get your facts right before libeling people. Orci and Kurzman only wrote Part 1 and 2.

[blonde_devil]

Originally Posted by Superman!

Star Trek - imdb 8/10 ; Rotten tomatoes - 95%(critics); 91%(audience); Yahoo users 4.5/5

Star Trek Into Darkness - imdb 7.9/10 ; Rotten Tomatoes - 87%(critics); 91%(audience); Yahoo users 4/5

Clearly you alone because those are one of the highest action movies in 2009 and 2013...

He is not alone. I said it before, the numbers lie. People like to talk about how much a movie makes but they don't adjust for inflation. Movies today should be making a small forture due to the price of a movie ticket. Look at how many of the big films are coming out in 3D - think that extra $3-5 a ticket doesn't help make it sound more successful than it is? After Earth made almost $250 million at the box office which isn't bad but everyone agrees that it is a horrible movie. How could it make so much and yet be so bad?

As for the ratings, not surprising that they are so high when anytime someone has something bad to say, it just get dismissed. It amazes me that Into Darkness has been out on bluray for months as we are still hearing the film makers defend it - JJ just admitted it was stupid to try and hide the fact that it was Khan. If the movie is so great, why are they still defending it? That score is based off of 1000 reviews on IMDB. You can't believe a convention that says Into Darkness was the worst Trek movie ever because it represents such a small number of people but you can when 1000 say how good it is? Ever been to a sci-fi/Trek convention? It isn't like only 50 people show up. If people actually listened and didn't just dismiss the negative reviews, you might get a truer picture.

If you like the movie, great. But people need to start realizing that everyone isn't liking these movies no matter what sites like IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes say. You are getting people here who are telling you they don't like it so why are you fighting them?

[RyanPom]

I'm starting to realize NO one really likes movies here. Everyone is such a grump about everything. Every thread here is a big gripe fest.

[blonde_devil]

Originally Posted by RyanPom

I'm starting to realize NO one really likes movies here. Everyone is such a grump about everything. Every thread here is a big gripe fest.

It's like anything else - people like certian things and not others. I love movies but there are certian genres and actors I can't stand. I am sure you are the same. Just personal preference.

[Infernal King]

Originally Posted by RyanPom

Actually, no they didn't. Ehren Kruger wrote Dark of the Moon. Get your facts right before libeling people. Orci and Kurzman only wrote Part 1 and 2.

"libeling people" - LOL!

Two out of three is close enough and it's not like any of the Transformers movies are substantially different from each other.

[nolfoc]

Originally Posted by RyanPom

Yes, seriously. The last movie underperformed in the States, and a lot of older Trek fans were denouncing the movie before they had even seen a scene.

228 Million domestic is and under performance? Lets be real now

[RyanPom]

Originally Posted by nolfoc

228 Million domestic is and under performance? Lets be real now

I was being sarcastic. I was waiting for some guy to tell me that money doesn't equal success.

[nolfoc]

Originally Posted by RyanPom

I was being sarcastic. I was waiting for some guy to tell me that money doesn't equal success.

got cha

[Ironhorse75]

It's a tricky discussion because we're talking about art.

You can say 100% of critics liked it and fans voted it into IMDB's top 10 all time, but at the end of the day it's everyone's right to not like any movie.

The only thing you can really hope for is that the people in the minority, acknowledge that very fact.

[Kirk Out]

Originally Posted by Ironhorse75

It's a tricky discussion because we're talking about art.

You can say 100% of critics liked it and fans voted it into IMDB's top 10 all time, but at the end of the day it's everyone's right to not like any movie.

The only thing you can really hope for is that the people in the minority, acknowledge that very fact.

nice

cant wait for more news on this movie.

[Samus Aran]

Originally Posted by RyanPom

I was being sarcastic. I was waiting for some guy to tell me that money doesn't equal success.

Money = success when you like a movie. Money ≠ success when you hate a movie. Get it straight or lose your internet card.

[AmrlKJaneway]

Hey, I was wondering something...

Is Data's head still buried under the ground?

I believe it is in a state of temporal flux. He still would have visited the past in this timeline, but certain events from the present would jeopardize his creation in the future, such as interstellar relations and things like Vger which might not be dealt with properly this time around.

Just food for thought... Would anyone like to see Data alongside the new crew if they find his head for whatever reason...

Although that involves going back to Earth, and I was hoping with the beginning of the five year mission the next movie would be see as far away from it as possible (I seen it too much in the last two offerings...).