Jump to content


Photo

Star Trek Beyond


  • Please log in to reply
339 replies to this topic

#41 Alex

Alex

    Yes the Troi figures hair worries me.

  • Members
  • 926 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 December 2015 - 04:27 AM



I'm sorry but I think I just threw up in my mouth a little after watching that.... I'm not happy.... Sorry for complaining .... I just am not happy with this trailer..

Trust me, you're not alone. I finally had the chance to watch the trailer tonight, and like Worf, I was not a merry man after seeing it. The first teaser (not the first proper trailer, but the first teaser trailer,) is supposed to make people want to see a film on impulse after only seeing the teaser once; this teaser did the exact opposite. The problem with it is that it's inherently set up to fail, as the people who this sort of trailer appeals too are the people who aren't even going to give anything with the words "Star Trek" in it the time of day, and the people who are clammoring for Trek are the ones most likely to be repulsed by said trailer. Paramount would have honestly been better off catering to Trek fans to whip them into a frenzy, knowing full well that they'd drag all of their friends to see this thing, and would be able to rope in plenty of non–Trek fans who might give Trek a shot as well. This is something that Disney actually did perfectly with the trailer for TFA: they put it together in a way that was meant to sell the film to Star Wars fans instead of pandering to the lowest common denominator, and it got them plenty of casual viewers because they embraced what Star Wars has always been instead of running from it. They're not going to get the people like my girlfriend who hates Star Wars, (but likes Star Trek,) and instead of trying to, Disney handled the initial teaser for TFA the way they should have. Paramount took the exact opposite approach to a somewhat predictable reaction. This really should have been the second or third trailer for the film, after one that felt more like traditional Star Trek, at which point it probably would have received a much better reaction.

 

My initial reaction to the trailer: BLECH! Simon Pegg and Justin Lin need to write "Star Trek is not The Fast & The Furious" on a chalboard 5,000 times Bart Simpson style.

 

My reaction after watching the trailer a couple more times: "Okay, that doesn't suck as much as I thought it did the first four times I saw it." There are little things that are easier to appreciate the second, third, fourth, and fifth time through, but the action dial needs to be cranked down about 12 notches for anyone to pick up on them. Even the use of Sabotage didn't quite hit me until the third time that I saw the trailer and realized what the song was. (Granted, it would have been remotely funny if there had been at least one reference to "Sabataage" thrown in for a laugh, although unlike Abrams who didn't realize he had an awesome reference hiding under his nose, Lin and Pegg are clearly giving a nod to Trek XI; I just think a nod to Shatner's pronounciation of the word would have taken it to the next level.) The trailer doesn't quite invoke the reaction it should have, but it's not terrible, and I certainly won't use it as the sole basis for whether or not I see the film. If Abrams were still hands–on with the previous writing team, I would have felt very differently though.

 



Hmm, not quite sure how I feel about it. It's weird to me that they would already destroy the new Enterprise, but it does look like it is. 

 

I'll wait until we learn more about the actual plot, but I'll still be seeing it regardless. 

I also agree that it seems weird to destroy the new Enterprise, (even if this is set a few years after the last film,) primarily because it just seems like the exact type of thing that the film should be avoiding. I could totally understand blowing up the warp nacelles, if only to replace them with ones that didn't look like giant hair–dryers, but blowing up the whole ship seems like it's taking a page out of Into Darkness's flawed playbook in the "if it exists, it can explode category," and one of the things that the JJ–verse has been critcized for rather heavily is the waton and gratuitous destruction of starships for the sake of destroying starships. (Yes the Prime Universe did this too, and it was criticized for it as well, particularly when said ship was named "Defiant," and a replacement was ready just in time for DS9's finale.) While my initial reaction to the trailer was not positive, I will still see the film. I just think that whoever put the trailer together was wildly out of touch with what it should have been, and that this would have been better suited for a second or third trailer, or even a first TV trailer after we'd gotten a more accurate glimpse of the movie.

 



Very true that trailers can make any movie seem worse than it might be. We definitely need to see more to start to get a real picture of what to expect.

While this is true, it's worth pointing out that you're more likely to see a great trailer for a craptastic movie than you are to see a terrible trailer for a good movie. I agree that we need to see more to make a determination either way, but this is not the right foot for the film to be starting off on. Paramount is botching the promotion of the film, and that's not a good thing, not when Trek fans who hated STID are fully expecting proof that the next film will be worse, and at first glance, this seems like it would validate their viewpoint. (Under more scrutiny it doesn't, but teaser trailers are all about the immediate reaction after they're first seen, and a bad one can be a real headache for a potentially good movie or TV show. While it wasn't the only thing that did it in, one of the things that caused Firefly to suffer during its initial run was trailers that were wildly out of context with the show. Don't even get me started on what happened with John Carter, and the fact that it should have been promoted as John Carter of Mars from day one.)

 



http://www.polygon.c...n-into-darkness

 

Looks like Lin is "politely ignoring" the events that happened in Into Darkness. I find that amusing.

This gives me quite a bit of hope for "Beyond." The further it gets from ID, the better. Granted, the trailer should have taken the same cue and "politely ignored" the kind of trailers used for the previous two Trek films.

 



Simon Pegg had a quote about the trailer:

 

"It was very action packed.  I was…it was surprising.  I found it to be kind of…the marketing people sort of saying ‘everybody come and see this film, it’s full of action and fun’, when there’s a lot more to it than that.  I didn’t love it, because I know there’s a lot more to the film.  There’s a lot more story, and a lot more character stuff, and a lot more of what I would call ‘Star Trek stuff.’  But, you know, they’ve got to bring a big audience in, they’ve got to bang the drum.  So to Star Trek fans, I’d say hang in there, be patient."

 

from trekmovie.com

On one hand, I'm glad to see Simon Pegg basically saying "the trailer is not indicative of what the film will be like," but on the other hand, I feel bad that he already has to defend the film from an inept marketing team, and worse that said inept marketing team completely screwed the pooch on this one. I'd have been fine with this trailer at some point, but having it as the first one just felt like it was hitting on everything from STID that left a bad taste in my mouth the first time through, and that's not what I want to see when I'm looking toward the next Trek flick. To alter a Homer Simpson quote a bit, "Less zappin', more yappin'!" A bit more dialogue would have shown that the movie isn't just Star Trek: Warp Speed Overdrive, and would have probably gotten a much better reception. Once that was done, running a trailer like this would have left everyone laughing and in a good mood to see the film.

 



I'm remaining rather neutral and calm for now.

 

It looks like it might be a fun film and be enjoyable. Pegg and Lin are infinitely preferable to Orci and Abrams - Lin might be best known for Fast, Furious Films, but he has also directed some of my favourite episodes of Community and some very cerebral episodes of True Detective (among a lot else, I'm sure).

 

There's even a part of me that's excited about seeing this film...

 

But it's not the part that usually gets excited about Star Trek. There's a palpable shift in my approach to Beyond... I'm genuinely treating it like it's not Star Trek, and so it therefore doesn't matter if it continues to sh*t on canon, to be low-brow, and to not look anything like Star Trek... because, to me, it simply isn't. This isn't me denying anything - I'm kind of surprised at how natural this reaction is. I didn't think about it, I just watched the trailer and was totally un-bothered. When I tried to find out why... it was because I don't feel like it's Star Trek any more.

 

STID really hurt me... I think I am now Star Trek Beyond caring about the JJverse.

 

I won't be seeing this in the cinema, but I will see it.

Ditto for me on the neutral and calm factor. I keep reminding myself that the production crew is different, and that this film might not be what it looks like in the trailer; I just hope that I'm right, and that this isn't another STID style let–down.

 

I agree that this looks like it'll be fun and enjoyable, although I just wish we'd seen a bit more about the story. While I completely agree that Pegg and Lin are infinitely preferrable to Orci and Abrams as far as Trek is concerned, (Abrams is great as Star Wars, and Orci has his high points too,) virtually anyone would be preferrable to Orci and Abrams at the helm of Trek. Berman and Braga writing together would almost be preferrable, and the thought of them alone in a writer's room together is more than enough high–octane nightmare fuel for me after ENT. The problem there was a yes–man issue while the problem with Orci and Abrams is that Orci didn't bother to flick on his "fan switch" when he probably should have, and Abrams didn't understand why Trek was different from SW. (Again, I harbor no ill–will towards either of them, and will defend Abrams' involvement in SW as a wise decision without even batting an eye, because he's perfect for that film. It's a matter of what position each person is best suited for, and Trek just wasn't Abrams forte.)

 

Unfortunately, while it pains me to admit it, I agree that what we've seen so far makes this film look a lot better when you don't look at it as Star Trek, and just treat it as "Generic Sci–Fi/Action Movie 9 from Outer Space." It doesn't look terrible, it doesn't make me want to projectile–vomit like STID did, but it still doesn't feel like Trek. You might even say "Jim, it's Trek, but not Trek as we know it. I just hope that the new TV series gets back to the Prime Universe, and to "Trek as we know it," and manages to elevate itself to the level of the previous TV shows. I'm fine with something like "Beyond" on the big screen, but I expect something different from the small screen, especially since I'm being asked to shell out $6 bucks a month to watch it once it's out. If nothing else, I hope that CBS realizes what Paramount doesn't seem too, and that's the fact that Star Trek isn't a Marvel comic book, or a movie based on said comic books. (Not that Marvel comics are "bad," or that they don't have their place, because they do; Star Trek is just something different and should be treated as what it is, and not shoehorned into something that it's not.) I think that's probably my biggest complaint with STID, and I hope that "Beyond" is able to prove that it's addressed said complaint when it's not hacked together out of context in an action–style teaser.

 

Destructor, I unfortunately can relate to how you feel about STID. If nothing else, it's given me a newfound appreciation for The Final Frontier, (intentionally and unintentionally funny,) and even Insurrection, which feels like it should have been the TV pilot for a "TNG Phase II." While I could go into a whole argument in favor of the new Trek series actually being produced as TNG Phase II, that's another thread let alone another post entirely, and Rolling Stone kind of beat me too it. (The short version being that everything from Heroes to Dallas has been revived in some form with its original cast, and that there's no reason why you couldn't do this with the cast of TNG for a show that'll have a premiere coinciding with TNG's 30th anniversary. While I'd push for a 25th century prime universe series as my top choice, TNG Phase II would be a very close second.) I won't let STID prevent me from seeing beyond in a movie theater, but until more information comes out, there's still a chance I'll be watching it more out of morbid curiosity than out of passion. I've only done that for one other show, and it's just managed to find its footing again after a series of significant missteps. Given that it's the only other show that I'm as passionate about as I'm passionate about Trek, (and that it's much younger than Trek,) I owe Trek the same courtesy of at least giving the film a shot. Simon Pegg keeps me optimistic while I'm admittedly very neutral on Justin Lin, if only out of a lack of detailed knowledge of his past works.

 

I'm going to spoiler tag the rest of this post, although it's nothing too Earth–shattering.

 

Spoiler


#42 JulesLuvsShinzon

JulesLuvsShinzon

    Will work for toys.

  • Members
  • 1,101 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Bielefeld, Germany
  • Interests:Collecting Art Asylum 7" Star trek action figures.

    Star trek & writing fan fiction.

Posted 22 December 2015 - 06:49 AM

If a trailer isn't indicative of the movie it advertises, then I can't imagine what purpose it serves, frankly, but that doesn't look too bad to me.

There's a nice Bones character moment but I cannot extrapolate anything about the movie's plot from that short trailer, which is good because I hate very long trailers that give too much away.

I don't find anything to dislike so far but then the Abramsverse movies don't excite the same kind of passion in me as the Prime Universe used to. I'll probably go and see this like I saw Spectre and will see the new Star Wars movie when the Original English Language Version is screened at our local cinema (we live in Germany now).

#43 BadBunnyMike

BadBunnyMike

    Wishes He had Spots

  • Members
  • 2,233 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Stockton, California

Posted 22 December 2015 - 04:35 PM

It was on the showing I went to

#44 Alex

Alex

    Yes the Troi figures hair worries me.

  • Members
  • 926 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 December 2015 - 06:02 AM

If a trailer isn't indicative of the movie it advertises, then I can't imagine what purpose it serves, frankly, but that doesn't look too bad to me.

Usually a trailer that isn't indictive of a movie it's promoting exists for one of two "purposes," neither of which is really positive.

 

  1. The people handling the film's promotions are so inept, off–base, and out of touch with the thing that they're working on, that they develop a trailer that's wildly out of context with the work it's supposed to promote. I cannot remember the name of it for the life of me, but there was a miniseries on FOX a few years back that was promoted as a horror series, and it was supposedly much more of an action series with some thriller elements thrown in. Firefly is another FOX example where the show's teaser played the show up as "Cowboy's in Space" instead of "Sci–Fi with a Western flare," and that arguably hurt the show in the long–run, even if it wasn't the worst thing FOX did to it. In some cases an inaccurate trailer is just incompetent promotion, but in others it's a case of genuinely not having accurate materials to work with. Star Trek: First Contact's first teaser was just stock footage of ships from TNG–VOY shown in rapid sequence with no real context whatsoever. This was done because at the time the teaser was produced, there wasn't a single frame of footage from the movie filmed yet, and the story still hadn't been completely locked down; a "space battle" and the Borg were pretty much givens though, so Paramount ran with that concept just to excite people, and it worked, even if it didn't show a frame of footage from the film.
  2. The more nefarious reason for an inaccurate trailer is to get quote unquote "stupid people" to think that a film will be something that it isn't in the hopes that they'll go see the movie. What irks me about the "Beyond" trailer is that it seems to fall into this category. (You can almost here someone in promotions going "shove enough action into the trailer so that the average idiot will see this film even if they hate Star Trek.") It's action for the sake of action, designed to appeal to the "Ooh, an explosion!" crowd, which is insulting to what Trek is, and unlikely to be successful at what it's attempting. I've seen a few movies promoted this way as well, some are quite good, while others have been promoted as seemingly more intelligent than they ultimately turn out to be.

I'm still cautiously optimistic about STB though. Granted, with Simon Pegg and George Takei both expressing displeasure with the trailer, I'm hoping that Paramount will wake up and realize that they're shooting their own feet with this kind of promotion. I still think there's a place for this trailer, I just think using it as the first impression for the film was a huge mistake when action for the sake of action is a significant part of what the previous film was criticized for.



#45 JulesLuvsShinzon

JulesLuvsShinzon

    Will work for toys.

  • Members
  • 1,101 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Bielefeld, Germany
  • Interests:Collecting Art Asylum 7" Star trek action figures.

    Star trek & writing fan fiction.

Posted 24 December 2015 - 09:12 AM

Hey, it's nice that we have a "Like" button now! :)

Alex, you've put your finger right on the very point I was musing upon when I said I couldn't fathom the purpose if a trailer if it isn't strongly indicative of the movie it is advertising.

Long before ST2009 came out I felt the same way about some of the so-called "teaser" materials released before there was even a finalised script. At least this trailer has actual film footage in it but as Pegg appears to be critiquing the slant taken in this trailer, let's hope there are some more fan-pleasing goodies that haven't made the cut this time.

#46 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

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

Posted 25 December 2015 - 08:58 PM

I've watched the trailer a dozen and then some times now and I've liked it more and more with every viewing with the McCoy and Spock moment the standout moment of 90 seconds of film.

It was interesting to hear my brother talk of it though. He is not a Trekkie by any stretch of the imagination and his reaction to it was that it looked ok but that it didn't scream Star Trek to him, he didn't like the fact that this was a new "generic" alien race and that why it wasn't the Klingons or Romulans or Borg or some other well established alien coming up against Kirk and Co.

This got me thinking... By introducing a new and unseen race of aliens, have they lost what Star Trek means to the mainstream and turned Star Trek into a copycat franchise of Guardians of the Galaxy?

His argument was that if you want to introduce a new species of alien then do it through a TV series were you can develop them over several seasons like the Borg, Cardassians etc... Making them as much a part of what makes up Star Trek as the Enterprise, the Klingons and Romulans... He went onto say that what people want from Star Trek on the big screen are the things people love and associate with Star Trek and to him, a man ignorant of the minutiae of Star Trek, is a ship called the Enterprise, Klingons, Romulans, the Borg, phasers, photon torpedoes, shields, ship battles and a message of hope among an action adventure story.

I do wonder if he has a point? By taking this relatively new, not Shatner or Nimoy, unestablished cast and placing them onto a new planet among a new species of alien with no Enterprise, no Klingons, Romulans or Anything that resembles what people identify as being Star Trek, You're accidentally not making a Star Trek movie that people can identify with... In fact what you're making is a generic sci fi movie that's trying too hard to be Guardians of the Galaxy... I wonder had this been a Klingon colony or even an alien of the week from TOS being expanded upon, the reaction would have been different...

My thoughts are this. I have been up and down on these movies since 2009... I am as conflicted about them as Spock once was about joining starfleet... As movies they're fun, as Star Trek... Well they're not Star Trek!

Star Trek Beyond needs a better, more thoughtful trailer to win over its fans and critics. By and large the response to this trailer has been mixed to luke warm at best. The most worrying thing is that no one, not even fans care about it! The fans don't care because they don't see anything in this series as worthwhile or anything that all that much resembles Star Trek. General audiences don't care because well, what's there to care about?

Paramount have been seemingly trying to separate Star Trek from its fan base ever since 2009 by producing a series of movies that borrow the names of ships, characters and aliens but don't really resemble what Star Trek has always been. What Paramount have ended up with is an unofficial version of Star Trek that history will look upon as being the Star Wars prequel series of the Star Trek franchise.

That means in my mind, they didn't get what was fundamental to the everlasting popularity of Star Trek prior to JJ Abrams came aboard and didn't think for one minute that there was anything worth saving from the decades of stories told before 2009.

Paramount gave Star Trek to a load of Star Wars fans and asked them to make Star Trek less Star Trek and more general, sci-fi for the masses, in other words, more Star Wars.

6 years on and that has not worked one bit. What Paramount has done to Trek has been to strip it of its very being, they have sucked the very soul out of Star Trek and replaced everything that made Star Trek iconic and great with vacuous, generic, storylines that gloss over meaningful context and character development with nonsense to varying degrees of success with an audience that think Star Trek is the long awaited sequel to Star Wars. What Paramount need to do is to not make anymore Star Trek movies but if they do make more then they need to make a Star Trek movie that is MORE Star Trekkie.

Star Trek Beyond will I'm sure be fun. The trailer for it was fun. But it's been a long time since I saw anything new that remotely resembled "STAR TREK".

The new CBS TV series has a lot to live up to because when I see a new episode of Doctor Who I know instantly that im watching a doctor who episode... The new series has to make me believe that im watching an episode of Star Trek and for god's sake, it needs to go back to the prime universe, the Star Trek universe and not this wacky, unofficial Star Trek copy cat universe where it's all style over substance.

Star Trek works best when it's done with a limited budget forcing the writers to write stories that rely heavily on character moments rather than large explosions.

For the first time since being announced, Alex Kurtzman worries me... Star Trek should have been handed to Ron Moore, Ira Behr, Manny Coto, Seth McFarlane, David A. Goodman, Robert Meyer Burnett and current science fiction novelists who would be given the task to create a series that would go beyond Picard's time, developing a series that would pioneer a realistic vision of what the future should look like from today's perspective. A ground breaking, pioneering show built on plausible, hard scientific themes and storylines that commentate on social, ethical and political issues that effect our world today as well as continuing Star Trek's grand tradition of being a show driven by interesting, intriguing and well fleshed out characters whilst being entertaining, humorous and engaging.

Granted the films have only 2 hours but in 2009 I think paramount should have recognised what had made Star Trek brilliant on TV during TOS and TNG's run.

Star Trek perhaps should have been a film series that was more intellectually stimulating rather than all out action, blockbusting for the masses who aren't ever going to be invested in Star Trek.

#47 Whirlygig

Whirlygig

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,431 posts

Posted 25 December 2015 - 10:20 PM

I saw SW:TFA twice.  One theater did not have the Trek trailer, one did.



#48 Prometheus

Prometheus

    If I don't have it, It's on preorder.

  • Members
  • 2,137 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 26 December 2015 - 10:07 PM

I saw the Beyond trailer as well as the ID 4-2 trailer when I saw Star Wars in IMAX.

#49 Alex

Alex

    Yes the Troi figures hair worries me.

  • Members
  • 926 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 December 2015 - 06:50 AM

I saw the Beyond trailer as well as the ID 4-2 trailer when I saw Star Wars in IMAX.

Ditto this just last night. IMAX seems to have it, although the Trek trailer itself wasn't "optimized" for IMAX 3D like the IDR trailer was. Not sure if that's just my theater, or if it's just the trailer not being ready for 3D yet. (Presumably it was "the IMAX experience though," albeit in traditional 2D.)

 

Alex, you've put your finger right on the very point I was musing upon when I said I couldn't fathom the purpose if a trailer if it isn't strongly indicative of the movie it is advertising.

Long before ST2009 came out I felt the same way about some of the so-called "teaser" materials released before there was even a finalised script. At least this trailer has actual film footage in it but as Pegg appears to be critiquing the slant taken in this trailer, let's hope there are some more fan-pleasing goodies that haven't made the cut this time.

Thank you. I honestly don't mind traditional "teaster" that might just show a comm–badge or similar item with a tagline, as those are just meant to indicate "hey, this thing is in the works so keep an eye out for more information," and are generally understood to not be indicative of a finished product. What I do mind are "teaser" trailers that are shown in a wildly out of context fashion with footage from a film fully intact, that don't fall into the category of just not having material indicative of a finished film on hand. The "Beyond" trailer is unfortunately in that latter category, and while I could understand using it as a second or third trailer, (primarily as a nod to Justin Lin and his work on The Fast & The Furious movies,) I do think using it as the first trailer was a huge mistake, especially when it takes what people hated about STID and turns it up to 11 for a minute and a half. I do think there's more material aimed at die–hard Trek fans that wasn't shown, but I don't appreciate Paramount's pandering to the lowest common denominator.

 

I've watched the trailer a dozen and then some times now and I've liked it more and more with every viewing with the McCoy and Spock moment the standout moment of 90 seconds of film.

It was interesting to hear my brother talk of it though. He is not a Trekkie by any stretch of the imagination and his reaction to it was that it looked ok but that it didn't scream Star Trek to him, he didn't like the fact that this was a new "generic" alien race and that why it wasn't the Klingons or Romulans or Borg or some other well established alien coming up against Kirk and Co.

This got me thinking... By introducing a new and unseen race of aliens, have they lost what Star Trek means to the mainstream and turned Star Trek into a copycat franchise of Guardians of the Galaxy?

I do wonder if he has a point? By taking this relatively new, not Shatner or Nimoy, unestablished cast and placing them onto a new planet among a new species of alien with no Enterprise, no Klingons, Romulans or Anything that resembles what people identify as being Star Trek, You're accidentally not making a Star Trek movie that people can identify with... In fact what you're making is a generic sci fi movie that's trying too hard to be Guardians of the Galaxy... I wonder had this been a Klingon colony or even an alien of the week from TOS being expanded upon, the reaction would have been different...

My thoughts are this. I have been up and down on these movies since 2009... I am as conflicted about them as Spock once was about joining starfleet... As movies they're fun, as Star Trek... Well they're not Star Trek!

Paramount have been seemingly trying to separate Star Trek from its fan base ever since 2009 by producing a series of movies that borrow the names of ships, characters and aliens but don't really resemble what Star Trek has always been. What Paramount have ended up with is an unofficial version of Star Trek that history will look upon as being the Star Wars prequel series of the Star Trek franchise.

That means in my mind, they didn't get what was fundamental to the everlasting popularity of Star Trek prior to JJ Abrams came aboard and didn't think for one minute that there was anything worth saving from the decades of stories told before 2009.

Paramount gave Star Trek to a load of Star Wars fans and asked them to make Star Trek less Star Trek and more general, sci-fi for the masses, in other words, more Star Wars.

6 years on and that has not worked one bit. What Paramount has done to Trek has been to strip it of its very being, they have sucked the very soul out of Star Trek and replaced everything that made Star Trek iconic and great with vacuous, generic, storylines that gloss over meaningful context and character development with nonsense to varying degrees of success with an audience that think Star Trek is the long awaited sequel to Star Wars. What Paramount need to do is to not make anymore Star Trek movies but if they do make more then they need to make a Star Trek movie that is MORE Star Trekkie.

The new CBS TV series has a lot to live up to because when I see a new episode of Doctor Who I know instantly that im watching a doctor who episode... The new series has to make me believe that im watching an episode of Star Trek and for god's sake, it needs to go back to the prime universe, the Star Trek universe and not this wacky, unofficial Star Trek copy cat universe where it's all style over substance.

For the first time since being announced, Alex Kurtzman worries me... Star Trek should have been handed to Ron Moore, Ira Behr, Manny Coto, Seth McFarlane, David A. Goodman, Robert Meyer Burnett and current science fiction novelists who would be given the task to create a series that would go beyond Picard's time, developing a series that would pioneer a realistic vision of what the future should look like from today's perspective. A ground breaking, pioneering show built on plausible, hard scientific themes and storylines that commentate on social, ethical and political issues that effect our world today as well as continuing Star Trek's grand tradition of being a show driven by interesting, intriguing and well fleshed out characters whilst being entertaining, humorous and engaging.

1701D, I just want to touch on a couple of your comments here really quickly. First, the Spock/McCoy seen is the one thing that gives me hope about "Beyond" as I'm hearing there's apparently going to be a lot more of that in the finished film, and that one fraction of scene in the trailer felt more like Trek than a whole lot of what we've seen before. It felt like Simon Pegg truly understood the dynamic between Spock and McCoy that's been sorely lacking, and it felt like he might actually tap into it, which I certainly hope he does.

 

Regarding the new "generic" alien race, I honestly don't mind it. Star Trek has always been about finding strange new worlds, and this seems to follow that route. However, in order to care about the new alien race, I need to be given something about them to care about to begin with, which the trailer didn't give me. We care about the Klingons, Romulans, and Borg because they're threatening as villains and amazing as allies. We're familiar with them, and that helps too. However, we also care about new races when they're introduced because of their potential to be something interesting. The Ferengi, Cardassians, Jem'Hadar, and numerous others all started out as "alien of the week," but developed into memorable or somewhat memorable friend or foe. The Kazon failed to impressed on VOY because they were carbon–copy Klingons with nothing that made them unique. The Hirogen were far more memorable because their entire society was driven by their desire to hunt, and there was enough different about them from other speices that they stood out as unique. (Species 8472 stands out as well because they had the Borg on the ropes.) The trailer should show us why we care about this new alien race though, and it failed to do that. New aliens aren't a bad thing, but if your movie is about a new species, they ought to be the focus of your trailer.

 

As far as Trek being a GotG clone, JJ–verse Trek has always been in that category with GotG reminding me of JJ—verse Trek from the get–go; it's fundamentally a part of which the JJ–verse is, and part of why I feel it should run its course and then allow Trek to get back to being Trek.

 

I honestly don't think that the new alien race is the problem, although I do agree with your brother that it's easier to introduce new aliens on the small screen where you can develop their backstory over time. I think the problem is that like the Ba'ku/Son'a, this alien race doesn't seem like it's being explained in a way that makes any sense since the trailer didn't bother introducing us to said alien race. I honestly think that the last film should have introduced a new alien race, and that this film should have done something like Talosians to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the franchise, but I don't think introducing new aliens and not running with old ones is a deal breaker; I just think the order in which things were done was muddied, and not helped by the style of the JJ—verse.

 

Unfortuntely, I have to agree that these movies aren't "Star Trek," so much as they're "Star Trek–like substance;" a certain Vulcan might say "they appear to be Star Trek, but not as we know it, Captain." I understand why Paramount went the route they did, and I understand why fans were complict in allowing this to happen, (they let the franchise bottom out and had no leverage to push back against a reboot,) but the base is back, and the need for a reboot has passed. Yes, these films will be the Star Wars prequel trilogy of Trek, (hot on the heels of a Trek series that was on par with Droids at that,) but the style was a necessary evil once the decision to do reboot movies was made, and reboot movies were the least risky option for a franchise on shaky footing. In the long run they may be remembered poorly, but Paramount did need a flash in the pan at one point to keep Trek alive. That point however has passed, despite the style of the flash in the pan films lingering. Turning Star Trek into Star Wars is just as bad as turning Star Wars into Star Trek. If I'm watching SW, I don't want to hear yammering about midichlorins, but if I'm watching ST, I don't want to be bogged down with blaster scenes masquerating as occasional phaser fire. Occasionally doing something for the masses is fine, but doing three films for the masses in a row ruins what makes Trek stand out, and turns it into a crappy generic sci–fi spectacle that flies in the face of why it's still relevant.

 

I'm in 100% agreement with you on the new Trek TV series though. The new SW film made me feel like I was watching SW in a way that the prequels didn't, (visually, tonally, and not just because of what you saw in the trailers,) and the new Trek TV series needs to make me feel like I'm watching what happened after VOY/NEM, and not another version of imitation Trek. The Prime Universe is a must for this to work, and while I'm the biggest advocate for the 25th century Trek concept that you'll probably meet, I wouldn't mind keeping "The Worf Chronicles" on the side–burner as the next DS9. (Michael Dorn wanted a show that heavily involved the Klingon Empire and that he pitched as "Game of Thrones in space." I'd totally watch that concept, and it sounds perfect for a series running parallel to a more traditional Trek concept, with the grit of DS9 and the style as a whole being a bit different and setting it apart.) Kurtzman has worried me from day one specifically because what makes him a perfect producer for other shows makes him a terrible choice for Trek. This is the guy who co–writes Hawaii Five–0, and while style over substances works there because it's meant to be a high–octane procedural, it's not the kind of writing suited for Trek. With no disrespect meant to Mr. Kurtzman, I would rather see him step down or be put into an apprentice–esque role on this show, and a producer more suited to Trek's style brought on board to helm things. Manny Coto is the first guy I'd beg for, but Seth McFarlane is a close second. Heck, even Brannon Braga without Rick Berman, and with a Coto or McFarlane type would be a step in the right direction. J.J. Abrams might say he shuts his "fanboy brain" off when working on SW, but the simple fact is that SW is in the hands of someone whose passionate about it, and Trek should be in similar hands, hands of a fan who "gets" why the prime universe is so important, and why 25th century Trek is effectively a must. This person should understand how to write morality plays, and ideally have a grasp of what makes people like Trek in the first place. Failure to grasp this concept will only do more harm than good. I still have faith in Simon Pegg, but he's unfortunately stuck working in a Trek universe that's behind the eight–ball, and there's only so much he can do when he has to cater to the explosion crowd in addition to the fans. Still, he's supposedly a life–long fans while Kurtzman isn't, which makes me wonder why the heck Kurtzman got the showrunner position for the TV series while Pegg only got the movie. (And more importantly, if the fans love Pegg's take on the JJ—verse, will CBS grab him up and have him work his magic in the Prime Universe in lieu of Kurtzman?)



#50 Jay K

Jay K

    It's not a disease it's a hobby.

  • Members
  • 1,914 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, England
  • Interests:Music, Star Trek, and gaming.

Posted 30 January 2016 - 06:16 AM

So remember from the trailer, Spock is seen with a patch for a 'USS Franklin'? Well Trekcore have managed to find a picture of it, and there's something interesting about it:

http://trekcore.com/...s-new-starship/

 

T'will post my thoughts in spoiler tags, for those who don't wish to see:

Spoiler



#51 Alteran195

Alteran195

    Their ACTION FIGURES, not dolls!!

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

Posted 30 January 2016 - 08:10 AM

So remember from the trailer, Spock is seen with a patch for a 'USS Franklin'? Well Trekcore have managed to find a picture of it, and there's something interesting about it:

http://trekcore.com/...s-new-starship/

 

T'will post my thoughts in spoiler tags, for those who don't wish to see:

Spoiler

 

Spoiler


#52 robster

robster

    Will work for toys.

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

Posted 30 January 2016 - 08:59 AM

Love it!!



#53 Alteran195

Alteran195

    Their ACTION FIGURES, not dolls!!

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

Posted 30 January 2016 - 12:04 PM

Spoiler



#54 Stargazer

Stargazer

    Toys before the light bill.

  • Members
  • 17 posts

Posted 31 January 2016 - 05:06 AM

I actually quite like it!
 

Spoiler

Spoiler



#55 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

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

Posted 31 January 2016 - 10:00 AM

Spoiler


#56 Destructor!!!

Destructor!!!

    It's not a disease it's a hobby.

  • Members
  • 1,883 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ireland

Posted 02 February 2016 - 06:55 AM



Spoiler

That someone was me!



#57 Alteran195

Alteran195

    Their ACTION FIGURES, not dolls!!

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

Posted 02 February 2016 - 09:36 AM

That someone was me!

Didn't notice that, you were indeed one of them. 



#58 Alex

Alex

    Yes the Troi figures hair worries me.

  • Members
  • 926 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 February 2016 - 01:09 AM

Spoiler



#59 robster

robster

    Will work for toys.

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

Posted 11 February 2016 - 09:13 AM

What did we get in 2012?? Did I miss something? Hopefully not! lol.



#60 Jay K

Jay K

    It's not a disease it's a hobby.

  • Members
  • 1,914 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, England
  • Interests:Music, Star Trek, and gaming.

Posted 11 February 2016 - 11:14 AM

... The release of Star Trek Into Darkness. lol




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users