Star Trek: The Next Threaderation

[hefdaddy42]

Not sure why you need to be so God damned pissy about nobody else being on the bandwagon.

[BlobVanDam]

We saw 90 seconds of crap in the context of having seen the two films prior. 

Bingo.

[rumborak]

Checking in late. That looked awful.

[Kotowboy]

Not sure why you need to be so God damned pissy about nobody else being on the bandwagon.

[Orbert]

Oh you guys.

I'm a long-time Trek fan, grew up with TOS, etc., etc., and I finally checked out the trailer that y'all are whining about.  I thought it looked kinda cool.  Yep, it's another explosionfest generic action-thriller summer blockbuster eye candy switch off your brain and just watch it kinda thing, but given that, I thought it looked kinda cool.  Karl Urban is perfect as bones.  The rest of them... whatever.  The white chick looked kinda hot, too.

[Kotowboy]

I think it looks like entertaining fun.

No Star Trek movie has been "proper" Star Trek since 1991 anyways so...

They're not gonna make The Motion Picture again. We'll never get a slow moving deep intellectual movie like that when they spend $200m on it.

That's just the way it is.

As i've said before - i go to the cinema and pay £10 - £15 to have fun and be entertained.

I don't go to watch Waiting For Godot The Movie.

It is possible to enjoy a movie despite all the flaws.

Like Into Darkness - yes the plot is flimsy and the ending is tacked on and it borrows from a previous movie but I Like It Anyway.

I don't know why people get so *angry* that not everyone hates what they hate.



Also - try telling me that the 4 TNG movies would look vastly different to this if they all had a $200m budget.

[Implode]

I don't know why people get so *angry* that not everyone hates what they hate.

I don't think anyone is angry here that you like it; at least I'm not. You can like and enjoy any movie you want; that's fine. Based on my own past experiences and tastes, the trailer to this movie makes it look like something that might be a little enjoyable at times, but over all would be a boring experience and also one that I'd forget about a week later. I think that's majorly disappointing seeing as how much I enjoyed the 2009 movie.

[rumborak]

I'm pretty sure nobody has problems with explosions per se. Almost all of the classic ST movies them. It's when the plot just becomes an action scene delivery vehicle, that's when it sucks.

I can't remember Roddenberry's exact quote, but he said something like that he refused to take the stupidity of the viewers as a given. Star Trek was never a lowest common denominator type of show. The new movies however are.

[BlobVanDam]

There's a huge of middle ground between plodding boring mess like TMP and ADHD millennial explosion-fest like Into Darkness. See Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. It's a smart movie with subtlety, and yet you also get to see an ape riding a horse through flames while firing two machine guns and fight a tank.

It's possible to make a great movie that appeals to a broad audience without being empty Hollywood garbage. It's also possible to make a fun movie that entertains people without being empty Hollywood garbage. It's also possible to write a movie without gaping plotholes that insult the intelligence and attention span of your audience. There are minor flaws that you can brush off, and there are the kinds of flaws that just make a movie fucking stupid to watch.

But all of this requires a half decent director and a half decent writer, neither of which this movie has.

[rumborak]

Case in point: Interstellar. Look, one can use relativistic time dilation as a plot element! And soon later you get a neat major CGI fest of skyscraper waves coming at you, but it's fine, because right after you learn that the guy on the orbiting ship has aged 50 years.

[Implode]

And it works because Nolan likes to be a bit more poetic with his movies, which allows for more suspension of disbelief.

Inception is another great example. It's a really excellent and simple action movie. I think people were just so caught up in it being "deep" because it wasn't stupid.

[Orbert]

There's a huge of middle ground between plodding boring mess like TMP and ADHD millennial explosion-fest like Into Darkness. See Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. It's a smart movie with subtlety, and yet you also get to see an ape riding a horse through flames while firing two machine guns and fight a tank.

It's possible to make a great movie that appeals to a broad audience without being empty Hollywood garbage. It's also possible to make a fun movie that entertains people without being empty Hollywood garbage. It's also possible to write a movie without gaping plotholes that insult the intelligence and attention span of your audience. There are minor flaws that you can brush off, and there are the kinds of flaws that just make a movie fucking stupid to watch.

But all of this requires a half decent director and a half decent writer, neither of which this movie has.

It also requires the intention to actually make a movie which goes beyond empty Hollywood garbage, which I don't think we have here. 

And that's the whole problem that purists and many long-time fans have.  Star Trek (to them) should be more than empty Hollywood garbage.  They want something that goes beyond that, actually has something to say, actually gives you something to think about for more than five minutes as you're leaving the theater (or taking the DVD out of the machine).  Instead, the primary motivation here is to make a big entertaining movie that makes a lot of money.  There's nothing wrong with that.  But it certainly bothers some people, and we're hearing about it.

[BlobVanDam]

And that's the whole problem that purists and many long-time fans have.  Star Trek (to them) should be more than empty Hollywood garbage.  They want something that goes beyond that, actually has something to say, actually gives you something to think about for more than five minutes as you're leaving the theater (or taking the DVD out of the machine).  Instead, the primary motivation here is to make a big entertaining movie that makes a lot of money.  There's nothing wrong with that.  But it certainly bothers some people, and we're hearing about it.

As pointed out, these are not mutually exclusive goals. One can make a movie that isn't a turdburger of fireworks but still appeals to a general audience. Just because it's entertainment, doesn't mean I should have to voluntarily accept watching complete garbage, and not expect more. Are we really at the point where turning your brain off and not thinking is mandatory to even sit through the shit Hollywood is churning out? That's pathetic. Thinking shouldn't be frowned upon.

Star Trek at its very core is more than this, but it obviously went over the heads of these morons, because this does not resemble Trek. Sure, you can dress people up as the characters, throw in a spaceship, but that's only the surface of Star Trek. This crap would be unrecognizable to Gene Roddenberry.

[Implode]

Star Trek at its very core is more than this, but it obviously went over the heads of these morons, because this does not resemble Trek.

I wouldn't say they are morons for not understanding Star Trek. They clearly are just trying to make a product that is more likely to make money than a "boring" accurate representation of Star Trek. This kind of movie is safe and doesn't require as much effort as trying to make a legitimate Star Trek movie that's good.

More like they are lazy.

[BlobVanDam]

Star Trek at its very core is more than this, but it obviously went over the heads of these morons, because this does not resemble Trek.

I wouldn't say they are morons for not understanding Star Trek. They clearly are just trying to make a product that is more likely to make money than a "boring" accurate representation of Star Trek. This kind of movie is safe and doesn't require as much effort as trying to make a legitimate Star Trek movie that's good.

Looking at the people involved in any these 3 movies, I'm not convinced they could make a decent Trek/scifi movie even if they wanted to. JJ admittedly didn't even like Trek, and basically spat in the face of the fanbase with many of his decisions. If only he liked it half as much as he adores Star Wars......
Why even use a franchise's brand recognition to make a movie under the assumption that most people thinks it's boring?

[Implode]

Why even use a franchise's brand recognition to make a movie under the assumption that most people thinks it's boring?

I'm guessing they assumed that the audience they were catering too aren't actually huge Star Trek fans but just know that it exists. Even if that audience thought it was boring, it was made obvious that the movie wasn't "your dad's Star Trek". And previous views of the source material don't matter to them. Any recognizable name is guaranteed money in their eyes.

[Kotowboy]

Simon Pegg co-wrote this and he certainly knows how to write a movie. Just look at the Cornetto trilogy.


When he came on board as a writer - they threw away everything that Orci wrote and started again.

That should give you at least *some* goodwill towards it.

[Implode]

Honestly, that does. It makes me feel a bit better knowing that he's going to commit to his own vision instead of trying to shove in everyone's ideas.

[hefdaddy42]

Maybe.  However, his conception can only be shaped by his immersion in the first two films.  Also, although he has certainly written some entertaining films before, that doesn't necessarily mean he can write a big-budget sci-fi extravaganza.

So, we'll see.

[Kotowboy]

Honestly, that does. It makes me feel a bit better knowing that he's going to commit to his own vision instead of trying to shove in everyone's ideas.

I heard that Orci wrote this thing which was the Trekkiest Trek that ever Trekked which If I recall or if the story is true -

- would be nothing but 50th anniversary fan service. Wherein Shatner and Nimoy would reunite on screen and they would restore the original timeline at the end.

I don't think that would have been the right thing to do either.




I'm looking forward to longer trailers and the official poster etc

[El Barto]

Didn't Pegg also say that he's constrained to play the current Hollywood game? They're spending over a hundred million on this thing and expect a ROI, which can only be achieved by making a Summer blockbuster. The fact that it will alienate the people who actually want to see a Star Trek movie is inconsequential. I'm suspect Pegg could write a perfectly good Trek movie, and could probably make one that we'd all enjoy if left to do it on his own. I wouldn't bet two bits on his ability to do it within the current paradigm.

[rumborak]

I think the baton of Star Trek has passed so many times at Paramount, it arrived at people who simply don't have an emotional connection to the original series. So, they re-imagine it as something entirely different.

[King Postwhore]

I think the baton of Star Trek has passed so many times at Paramount, it arrived at people who simply don't have an emotional connection to the original series. So, they re-imagine it as something entirely different.

I agree with this.  Though, I do thing they were losing steam in the box office prompting the hiatus and the keys handed to someone else.

[Kotowboy]

" As for those fans who think Lin might have made a Fast & Furious movie set in the Trek universe, Lin understands where the criticism is coming from:

" Yeah, and I don’t know if that’s the case here. When I saw the teaser, I’m like, aw shit.  You really have to put the motorcycle in there? So I get it. "


So yeah - everyone will just say he's backtracking to save his arse but it sounds like ( from the rest of the interview )  that there were several different versions of the trailer - and that's

the one the studio chose.

He also says they're halfway into the 5 year mission and they're just not addressing anything from Into Darkness like curing death etc.

[BlobVanDam]

Simon Pegg co-wrote this and he certainly knows how to write a movie. Just look at the Cornetto trilogy.


When he came on board as a writer - they threw away everything that Orci wrote and started again.

That should give you at least *some* goodwill towards it.

Never heard of or seen that. Realizing Orci can't write isn't much of a benchmark, but I guess it's a start.

He also says they're halfway into the 5 year mission and they're just not addressing anything from Into Darkness like curing death etc.

Oh good. I love weak continuity and writing deus ex machinas for a cheap movie ending with no intent to follow through on it.

[BlobVanDam]

https://trekcore.com/blog/2015/12/simon-pegg-asks-fans-to-hang-in-there/

The point of a trailer is to bring in the audience, not to repulse the audience so badly that both the writer and director have to publicly defend that the movie isn't as bad as it looks. It doesn't fill me with confidence that the director and writer had so little say on the trailer. This franchise is so poorly mismanaged it's not funny.

If only Star Trek was managed like Star Wars, with an overall producer of the franchise, and people who know what the hell they're doing and give a shit about their fanbase who support them, rather than the "f*** the fans" attitude they've had since the reboot. Oh but hang in there, insignificant basement-dwelling real Trek fans, there are some scraps in there for you too!

[Kotowboy]

OR - the studio chose the trailer and the writer and director disagreed with THE STUDIO.


I've read a lot over the last few days which makes me look forward to it - but whatever.  I'm done. I'm not posting here again until i've seen the film.

Had enough of everyone turning every single shred of information into a gigantic negative and just bitching at people who actually like them...

[hefdaddy42]

FFS, NO ONE IS BITCHING AT YOU. Our extreme apprehension about this film has NOTHING to do with YOU.

You have liked the films thus far, and you are excited about the next one. Great. But other people making negative comments about the films are not about YOU.

[Cool Chris]

I will agree that sometimes the marketing department misses the boat when they cut and release a trailer. Whether it gives away too little, too much, doesn't present the movie well or accurately enough. I recall David Find her saying some of them have this mentality of "well, they did they best they could. It is up to us now to make sure people actually see this film."

I will say the franchise needs to amp up the hype machine a bit. Before yesterday I didn't even know they were working on a new film, to say nothing of getting ready to release one.

[JayOctavarium]

My coworker forced me to watch the trailer. She is excited. I am not.

I liked 09 and Darkness. But I also found them to be action movies set with familiar Trek characters in a familarish Trek universe.

Will I watch Beyond?

Yes. In theaters. Not on opening day. Probably not until it hits the second run budget theater.  Will I enjoy it? Probably.

Would I rather see a TNG era series?

YES.

[Implode]

OR - the studio chose the trailer and the writer and director disagreed with THE STUDIO.

That's most likely. It's obvious that Pegg is embarrassed by the trailer.

[El Barto]

OR - the studio chose the trailer and the writer and director disagreed with THE STUDIO.

That's most likely. It's obvious that Pegg is embarrassed by the trailer.

[King Postwhore]

He's assuming since Pegg released a statement asking the fans to wait on their judgement until they see the movie implying the trailer does not represent the movie.

[Implode]

I'm drawing conclusions from this video of Pegg's reaction to the trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f4aAwa5wdg

[Podaar]

That's actually encouraging. Thanks, Implode!