Jump to content


Photo

Star Trek Beyond


  • Please log in to reply
339 replies to this topic

#301 Alteran195

Alteran195

    Their ACTION FIGURES, not dolls!!

  • Members
  • 3,461 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 01 November 2016 - 06:57 PM

The Walmart and Amazon versions of the movie both seem to have the same special features. 



#302 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 02 November 2016 - 06:53 PM

I've pre ordered the qmx set from Amazon, wasn't sure about it but now I've seen what the ship looks like I'm looking forward to getting mine!

Not sure if any of you listen to the Trekmovie podcast but it's an interesting one this week about Discovery and Beyond and the future of Star Trek.

I've got to agree with them and say that there's probably not going to be a Star Trek 4.

#303 robster

robster

    Will work for toys.

  • Members
  • 1,206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Crapland....some call it Norway.

Posted 03 November 2016 - 12:11 AM

I'm still hoping there will be more movies with the current cast. I kinda like'em. And STB is at least doing well on dvd/br/4k and such,if you believe what they say on blu-ray.com. Three versions in the top ten best sellers,even more version in the top ten trending or whatever,so who knows. I bet a LOT of people just waited for the movie to come out on dvd/br so they could just buy it and watch it whenever and as many times as they like. Think I've only seen it about eight times so far. lol!

 

J-R!



#304 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 03 November 2016 - 07:08 AM

I liked Star Trek Beyond, I'm looking forward to having it on Bly ray but meh, I'm not really fussed about seeing another Star Trek movie. I'd rather CBS got their series out there and started continuing on with the prime universe, developing new stories, new series etc that truly tie into the Star Trek canon.

Canon isn't a dirty word anymore, I think Star Trek would do well to embrace its own rich Timeline rather than create a new timeline.

At the end of the day when Paramount have looked at the financials and they've met about doing another one, I can't help but feel the nagging sense that no one really cares about doing another.

The fans are indifferent about these new movies, any new fan brought into the franchise as a result of these movies seems to have either the opinion of take it or leave it or has realised that actually they're not what Star Trek is and has become a fan of what Star Trek was.

Star Trek is in a bloody mess right now.

#305 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 05 November 2016 - 05:28 AM

I'd rather CBS got their series out there and started continuing on with the prime universe, developing new stories, new series etc that truly tie into the Star Trek canon.

Canon isn't a dirty word anymore, I think Star Trek would do well to embrace its own rich Timeline rather than create a new timeline.

 

 

Abrahms was the one who seemed to think star trek canon was tying his hands, but he didn't seem to have any such concern with Star Wars... I've always believed that was because he wanted the Star Wars Franchise (which he got) and when he got the Trek Franchise he simply wanted to showcase what a Star Wars movie might look like.... but his outlandish mcGuffins, which work fine in sci-fantasy, don't work as well for sci-fiction. 

 

Trek movies used to be about providing fans a nice  "thank you" to fans of the shows. You got to see your TV icons on the big screen and with more action... but I struggle to think how to make Trek relevant and modern outside of its native format, which is episodic TV shows. Without the dramatic TV show to fill in character development, I think the action oriented movies feel a bit flat... not to say they haven't been developing the characters... but its still different when you have 3, or 7 years of TV show development.

So I continue to think that scaled back, more dramatic, and less action oriented sci-fi would serve the franchise better in the movie arena. Or go back and develop a series, like discovery, that resonates with viewers and will translate to the big screen.



#306 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 05 November 2016 - 06:11 AM

I think the studio's reaction to Enterprise's poor ratings (ironically networks would give their right arm these days for ratings like the ones Enterprise got back in the 2000's) was the wrong reaction to have.

The opinion at the time was that there was too much Star Trek for new people to get into it and it was far to complex and ultimately turned people off from getting hooked on Star Trek.

That sounds utterly ridiculous. It is popular for all of the above. For being complex and for being the godfather of what we all now know as canon.

What should of happened is Star Trek should of gone away for a while and then once enough time had passed, a new series or a new/continuation of Enterprise series should of been created that was in the same prime universe as the previous incarnations and built upon Star trek's legacy.

As a result we got this new Star Trek that threw out the legacy. It was never going to be this mega brand Abrams wanted because it ignored what had come before. Beyond is the only movie of the three to connect these movies to the older franchise and even then it wasn't enough. These movies have divided the fan base which in itself is not a great way to go. They have for the most part ignored what has come before and while trying to reach a broader audience, have managed to reach comparatively no one to the extent that the original/prime franchise has reached.

The studios need to get a grip. Understand that legacy and continuity and canon are gospel and accept that Star Trek isn't going to be this billion dollar movie franchise for everyone in the same way that Star Wars is or Marvel is or even DC is. Star Trek is and has always been a niche, acquired taste television series. There was nothing wrong with it when TOS was cancelled and there was nothing wrong with it when Enterprise was cancelled to warrant such a departure from what fans had loved and everyone else had admired.

They've diluted the brand by starting again and ignoring the Star Trek legacy. They now need to realise that the only real way back for Star Trek is to hit canon hard and grab back the loyal fans they've screwed over.

that's why the three Kelvin timeline movies are done with. They are so irrelevant to the rest of Star Trek and as films and as a business, the studios simply can't justify spending the money needed on making another.

More importantly though, no one cares enough for Paramount to do another one. Pine isn't Kirk, Quinto isn't Spock and Urban isn't McCoy. No matter how great those actors are, the legacy of those characters and of this franchise just isn't in these movies.

All you really have to do is to ask yourself one question; what would have been the outcome if lucasfilm had decided to ditch the legacy of Star Wars in favour of starting again? Recasting Ford, Hamil and Fisher and changing the series of events that lead to the destruction of the first Death Star, redesigning the Millennium Falcon and ignoring the legacy the original Star Wars trilogy had created.

Star Trek's legacy is just as important as Star Wars, so why ignore it.

These new movies don't fail because their bad movies, they fail because they just don't matter.

#307 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 05 November 2016 - 02:05 PM

1701D, you pretty much echo my sentiment with "These new movies don't fail because their bad movies, they fail because they just don't matter."

 

I'm actually extremely excited about Rouge One... and much of its due to the fact that I think we are *finally* going to get a a story set in the Star Wars universe thats not all about the Skywalkers... something I've been waiting for ever since Episode VI!

 

Your absolutely right about re-booting SW... if they decided to throw out SW canon and just do a re-telling of episode IV people would ask "Whats the point?"  Well... thats how they treated Trek... TWOK managed to find a great nugget from canon and build something great out of it... then Many Coto showed it could be done again and again in the final season of ENT.

 

I like Pine, Quinto and Urban just fine... I just think they should have found a way to tell new stories built on all the canon. Rebooting was just a resort of a team with no imagination IMO.



#308 Alteran195

Alteran195

    Their ACTION FIGURES, not dolls!!

  • Members
  • 3,461 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 05 November 2016 - 02:29 PM

Some Star Wars fans flipped out over Disney wiping out the EU, imagine if they tried to do that with actual movies. Jesus, it would have been insane. 

 

Even though it was the right choice since all of the newer stuff being released is much better than a lot of the old EU, and it is all considered canon regardless. 

 

It would upset me a bit if we didn't get anymore Kelvin movies, but it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't make anymore. 

 

It would be cool if they used some of the new actors in Discovery. Would love to see Bruce Greenwood as Pike, or even Quinto as Spock. I do't think anyone else would make sense to show up based on the time period. 



#309 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 05 November 2016 - 07:55 PM

Some Star Wars fans flipped out over Disney wiping out the EU, imagine if they tried to do that with actual movies. Jesus, it would have been insane.


And this is the point - what on earth was CBS/Paramount thinking when they thought starting again would be a great idea on a franchise which is just as important to its fans as Star Wars is to Star Wars fans.

These fan bases are important to the franchises they support. Especially with Star Trek. To ignore the importance of the fan base has resulted in no one caring about the brand enough for them to justify continuing.
 

It would upset me a bit if we didn't get anymore Kelvin movies, but it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't make anymore. 
 
It would be cool if they used some of the new actors in Discovery. Would love to see Bruce Greenwood as Pike, or even Quinto as Spock. I do't think anyone else would make sense to show up based on the time period. 


I think I'm ok with them not doing anymore. Star Trek Beyond gave us a great send off for this crew if it is to be their last live action adventure. If this universe is to continue though then maybe as an animated series would be better, build a new universe from the ground up for a young generation to enjoy and then in time explore other ideas with new characters and ships with the potential to link both the Kelvin and Prime universes together in some way.

#310 Alteran195

Alteran195

    Their ACTION FIGURES, not dolls!!

  • Members
  • 3,461 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 06 November 2016 - 11:14 AM

Interesting article. 

 

http://lrmonline.com...ematic-universe



#311 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 06 November 2016 - 01:11 PM

Good on Jung to be thinking wider than just the next movie - an issue I have had with paramount over these new movies.

Ok you don't have the TV rights but shit, Paramount have really screwed the part of the franchise they do own up by not exploiting it more.

Right now I think Paramount needs to be bought out and sorted out. In a years time it might be that CBS and Paramount are one and the same meaning it becomes easier to create a cinematic, multi layered universe for Star Trek both on the small and big screen.

#312 MisterPL

MisterPL

    Yes the Troi figures hair worries me.

  • Members
  • 940 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 November 2016 - 10:26 AM

Just got miy disc from Amazon. It only has two deleted scenes. Did they pull that crap where the retailers had separate features?

 

Yeah, the "Play All" button really should say "Play Both." I guess we got to see almost everything in theaters after all.



#313 MisterPL

MisterPL

    Yes the Troi figures hair worries me.

  • Members
  • 940 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 November 2016 - 11:30 AM

Interesting article. 
 
http://lrmonline.com...ematic-universe


"There aren't currently any plans for a Star Trek Cinematic Universe..."

Why plan something that already exists? 



#314 Alteran195

Alteran195

    Their ACTION FIGURES, not dolls!!

  • Members
  • 3,461 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 16 November 2016 - 11:55 AM

Cinematic universe usually means more than one focus. 

 

Right now the movies have solely focused on the Enterprise. 

 

A cinematic universe would focus on other things in that same universe. 



#315 MisterPL

MisterPL

    Yes the Troi figures hair worries me.

  • Members
  • 940 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 November 2016 - 01:58 PM

I'm pretty sure they mean "shared cinematic universe," which, like I said, we already have in Star Trek.

 

We've had DS9 and Voyager. Janeway's appeared on film as has Worf's DefiantDiscovery is on the way. It's clear the television series and films all share the same cinematic universe even if the focus in films is the Enterprise

 

I'd argue the Enterprise is the main character of Star Trek, part of its mission statement by name. If we want to focus on another ship or setting or even tone (a half-hour sitcom set at Quark's bar), that's fine but it's not exactly a revolutionary concept, even for this franchise.



#316 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 16 November 2016 - 02:00 PM

Yeah I wouldn't say that Star Trek has a cinematic universe as things stand.

The problem is the studio not having the forethought to take Star Trek beyond an ensemble cast onboard a ship. A villain of the film and an isolated story that loosely links into the previous movie isn't cutting it.

If they want Star Trek to be something beyond its current limitations then they are going to have to think bigger than the starship Enterprise.

My feeling is that they should just drop the movies for the time being and build an established young fan base through an animated series set in the Kelvin Timeline. The comic book team responsible for the current IDW series would be the perfect team to develop such a series that would appeal to both fans of the Kelvin Timeline but also a much needed younger fan base.

From an animated series, you could then perhaps think about a live action TV series or movie that would begin building an expanded universe.

#317 MisterPL

MisterPL

    Yes the Troi figures hair worries me.

  • Members
  • 940 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 November 2016 - 01:15 PM

If you redefine "cinematic" and "universe" to mean something completely different then, yeah, Star Trek totally does NOT have one of those.

 

They never crossover characters the way Marvel does. You never ever see characters from the TV series in the films or vice versa. Every single film or TV show stands alone. No sequels, no prequels, new casts with every project. There's just no continuity or consistency at all. It's like they reboot it every single time, right from scratch.

 

Seriously, I'm all for Star Trek returning to television. Fortunately it is. Unfortunately it's not going to feature the main character but since DS9 is my favorite flavor of anti-Trek, I'll give it a try.

 

But please, no pandering to young people by giving them an animated series that's supposed to cater to their immature sensibilities. That's 20th century thinking and it's been done. (Successfully if you count that Emmy, not so much if you look at longevity.)

 

Trek should elevate. It's aspirational. Unless you've got Netflix on board, the kind of cartoon Trek that would do the franchise justice wouldn't appeal to most networks. They'd run it through the Silly Filter™ and you'd end up with a Teen Titans Go! version of TAS.



#318 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 17 November 2016 - 08:51 PM

Star Wars Rebels appeals to both adults and kids. Sure it's going to be more action orientated but as long as it kept the Star Trek message alive then to do an animated series based on an already action orientated movie franchise, then I don't see the problem.

I see the advantage of building a modern day cinematic universe where we see characters from the animated series move into the live action movie franchise.

One things certain... we won't get Star Trek 4 (nothing has been green lit) if Paranount don't do something to help increase Star Trek's broader appeal and increase its popularity in general among a younger, more influential audience.

It's been a ridiculous 11 years. From the great start to this new version of Star Trek, Paramount seriously dropped the ball.

They waited too long between Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness

They didn't do something new and original with the sequel to the 2009 movie

And they didn't really done anything to build upon the success of the 2009 movie to keep people interested in Star Trek.

We are where we are with Star Trek Beyond because Paramount's inability to build on the success of Star Trek and by developing a broader franchise beyond single movies every 3/4 years. Why would anyone not already a Star Trek fan be invested in something that isn't anything more than 3 separate movies separated by too many years.

Plus all of the issues Paramount have with the fundamental problems of starting again with a franchise already established with a rich plethora of events in established canon (Romulan Wars for example) characters, planets, aliens and ships to pick and chose from without having to start again changing everything.

So I can see this going one of two ways. they scrap any plan to make a 4th movie which would by every indication make less money than Beyond and perhaps keep it alive in the comic book series by IDW.

Or they sit down and say ok let's face it chaps, fans don't care, general audiences don't care and quite frankly the movies aren't working but we think there's something to this alternate universe that could work and could add something to the established prime universe if developed over a period of time but not for film...

CBS and Paramount may have to become one for this to ever happen but I think that's more likely now than it has ever been before.

Whatever the outcome I think it would be sad to see them do nothing more with this cast, simply because I think it would be to be detriment of the franchise if they just left this timeline hanging. The least they could do is tie it back into the prime universe in some ways and have some closure to it.

#319 MisterPL

MisterPL

    Yes the Troi figures hair worries me.

  • Members
  • 940 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 November 2016 - 12:14 PM

Abrams' Trek should have been a pilot for a new series. Unfortunately with the franchise split between film and TV divisions, I suppose that wasn't possible. It's fun to think about what might have been. Clearly the Powers That Be aren't learning from their mistakes or anyone else's.



#320 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 22 November 2016 - 12:55 PM



Abrams' Trek should have been a pilot for a new series. Unfortunately with the franchise split between film and TV divisions, I suppose that wasn't possible. It's fun to think about what might have been. Clearly the Powers That Be aren't learning from their mistakes or anyone else's.

 

I do wonder if we will see Zachary Quinto at least as Spock in Star Trek: Discovery? It seems to me that there's an opportunity here to fuse the two universes together in a way that will perhaps please a lot of new and old fans alike. Zach Quinto being one of the highlights of the Kelvin Universe. 

 

I think that actually they've [the studios] worked together better in recent years. Theres clearly some kind of deal being worked out so it could be that the two become one again and that the future of Star Trek isn't as divided as it has been these past 11 years. 

 

Certainly the problems with the franchise as a business is due to the relationship between two studios and their desire to both make Star Trek.

 

It'll be interesting to see what actually happens from here on in. I've reviewed Star Trek Beyond (link in my signature) after watching it many a time on digital and blu-ray and I must say its still a fantastic Star Trek movie. Its up there with Undiscovered Country, First Contact and yes, The Wrath of Khan. It's a great Star Trek movie and easily better than Into Darkness but struggles to hit maximum warp in the same way that the 2009 movie did in terms of surprising people who had thought Star Trek was a dead beast. Into Darkness really dropped the ball but along with the studio who waited too long to release the sequel to 2009. As far as I'm concerned Beyond does nothing new, it's a fan pleaser and goes nowhere the franchise hasn't already been before.

 

So in my mind, the damage has been done, Star Trek Beyond is great but not great enough for there to be another Star Trek movie, at least with this crew/cast and what I'd like to see now is a continuation of the Kelvin Timeline in animated form tying into the current comic book series from IDW, with or without the actors voices and perhaps Qunito appearing in Star Trek: Discovery in some form or another playing a younger Spock Prime.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users