[movie]Star Trek Beyond

rshetts2 · Post by **rshetts2** » Thu Dec 17, 2015 11:58 am

JSHAW wrote:Is it fanboy worship or did someone die at Paramount and put Simon Pegg in charge of
the Star Trek franchise?

Why does he think his opinion on Trek is so important these days?

As mentioned he is one of the writers. Also the in the video, in case you didnt watch it, he is responding to a direct question during an impromptu interview. His reply was basically that he understood that marketing wanted an action packed trailer but that its not really a great representation of the film in its entirety.

pr0ner · Post by **pr0ner** » Thu Dec 17, 2015 12:51 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:IMDB lists him as the first of five, but all are listed as 'writer'.

Justin Lin is quoted as saying he talked with Orci once and he and the other original writers had almost nothing to do with the final script. They get credited anyway, because rules.

Kasey Chang · Post by **Kasey Chang** » Thu Dec 17, 2015 12:58 pm

pr0ner wrote:
Isgrimnur wrote:IMDB lists him as the first of five, but all are listed as 'writer'.

Justin Lin is quoted as saying he talked with Orci once and he and the other original writers had almost nothing to do with the final script. They get credited anyway, because rules.

WGA have strict rules on who gets credit for writing the script, even if it's just a couple lines.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Thu Dec 17, 2015 4:10 pm

And yet...

"The first film was about establishing the characters. The second film was about taking it into a darker place, which was the in-vogue thing circa the Batman/Dark Knight era. For us Beyond is re-establishing — especially in the 50th anniversary of the Enterprise — of the world of Star Trek, re-establishing why Star Trek is uniquely its own beast… It’s funny, it’s got a total sense of humor,” Pine tells us.

"This one, I can definitively say, has the most action out of any one we’ve done so far. People who like summer blockbusters and like s— blowing up will like this.”

McNutt · Post by **McNutt** » Thu Dec 17, 2015 4:29 pm

More action than the other two? Is that possible?

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Thu Dec 17, 2015 4:44 pm

McNutt wrote:More action than the other two? Is that possible?

Maybe, if they have stuff blowing up in the background during the sex scenes.

McNutt · Post by **McNutt** » Thu Dec 17, 2015 4:48 pm

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Thu Dec 17, 2015 4:49 pm

Blackhawk wrote:
McNutt wrote:More action than the other two? Is that possible?
Maybe, if they have stuff blowing up in the background during the sex scenes.

It's like how Age of Ultron could have easily fit in way more Avengers.

cheeba · Post by **cheeba** » Thu Dec 17, 2015 4:51 pm

Man Simon Pegg looked like he was in physical pain while explaining that trailer.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Thu Dec 17, 2015 4:52 pm

No Carol Marcus in this one.

Rumpy · Post by **Rumpy** » Thu Dec 17, 2015 4:54 pm

Shades of pre-release publicity for the last movie. "It's Kahn! No, it isn't, we lied. We really mean it. Kahn is not the villain." And I thought I read they wanted to avoid that kind of thing this time around...

AjD · Post by **AjD** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 1:18 pm

pr0ner wrote:Simon Pegg says he wasn't thrilled with the trailer, either. Gets why Paramount did it. Tells fans to be patient.

Wow, that's a fascinating watch... pretty rare to see such a candid reaction like that from someone closely tied to a film, especially pre-release. Pegg is actually wincing:

I wonder who has final cut on the finished film? That alone could make the full-length movie resemble the action-y trailer, despite Pegg's contributions (and good intentions).

Daehawk · Post by **Daehawk** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 10:45 pm

Most people know the new series Enterprise is bigger than original series..I didn't know until well after the first movie...but most dont realize the size.

McNutt · Post by **McNutt** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 10:47 pm

I didn't know it was bigger.

Odin · Post by **Odin** » Wed Jan 06, 2016 12:25 am

McNutt wrote:I didn't know it was bigger.

Same here - no idea. In fact, I'm not sure how I could have known. I've seen both of Abram's Trek movies a few times, and I don't recall it ever being referenced in any way.

Daehawk · Post by **Daehawk** » Fri Apr 29, 2016 9:40 pm

7 new photos

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Fri Apr 29, 2016 9:50 pm

I'd like to see just one where the Enterprise -doesn't- get destroyed.

Doomboy · Post by **Doomboy** » Sat Apr 30, 2016 12:50 pm

Well, there wasn't much room in the old ship for it to be a water pumping facility like the new Enterprise apparently is.

Rumpy · Post by **Rumpy** » Sat Apr 30, 2016 5:14 pm

Holman wrote:I'd like to see just one where the Enterprise -doesn't- get destroyed.

Probably all they know how to do at this point, because EXPLOSIONS!!!

killbot737 · Post by **killbot737** » Sat Apr 30, 2016 6:42 pm

Maybe these people never invented Duotronic circuits?

I'm more inclined to believe

AMERICA! Fuck YEAH! Coming to space, to save those fucking aliens!

tru1cy · Post by **tru1cy** » Sat May 21, 2016 7:16 am

new trailer still very action oriented. also, the Enterprise is destroyed AGAIN. It's a personal pet peeve of mine and one I can't seem to get over

AWS260 · Post by **AWS260** » Sat May 21, 2016 8:34 am

Looks... okay? I'm also irritated at the Enterprise blowing up again, but if it's a good movie, all is forgiven.

Fingers crossed that this lives up to the 2009 film. I watched it again last weekend, and it holds up very, very well.

Odin · Post by **Odin** » Sat May 21, 2016 12:04 pm

It looks like a cool action movie. Which is fine. I sure wish they'd make another Star Trek movie, though.

$iljanus · Post by **$iljanus** » Sat May 21, 2016 12:06 pm

Odin wrote:It looks like a cool action movie. Which is fine. I sure wish they'd make another Star Trek movie, though.

With a more durable Enterprise hopefully...

Odin · Post by **Odin** » Sat May 21, 2016 12:07 pm

Yeah, instead of being the flagship of the Federation, you have to figure Starfleet members would think it's cursed by now.

Daehawk · Post by **Daehawk** » Sat May 21, 2016 9:04 pm

This 'may' be the first Star Trek movie I dont go see.

Odin · Post by **Odin** » Sun May 22, 2016 2:24 am

Daehawk wrote:This 'may' be the first Star Trek movie I dont go see.

I chose Nemesis as my first. I still haven't seen it.

Kasey Chang · Post by **Kasey Chang** » Sun May 22, 2016 2:45 am

I haven't seen Nemesis either.

Daehawk · Post by **Daehawk** » Sun May 22, 2016 2:51 am

Didn't miss anything but one good space battle. I have it on my PC and that space battle is all I ever go back and watch.

McNutt · Post by **McNutt** » Sun May 22, 2016 10:24 am

This will be the first Trek I don't see at the theater too. I'm not on board with the new Star Trek. I'm still pissed about the last movie.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sun May 22, 2016 10:42 am

I just can't muster excitement about the reboot Trek. Aside from two or three scenes per movie, it has never seemed to capture the feel or the ethos of TOS or TNG or the rest. The tilt towards action just gets something wrong, and there's none of the sense of characters inhabiting a Roddenberryesque world of ideas, however cliche those ideas sometimes have been. Even taken on their own as action movies, the ones so far have been sloppily written and directed.

I understand that others may disagree.

McNutt · Post by **McNutt** » Sun May 22, 2016 10:43 am

It's Trek for the ADHD generation.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Sun May 22, 2016 10:48 am

I haven't seen any of the reboots in the theater (I did see them all from Netflix BluRay.) And I'm someone who saw every Trek film, from the Wrath of Khan to Nemesis, in the first few days of release.

Apollo · Post by **Apollo** » Sun May 22, 2016 12:20 pm

Holman wrote:I just can't muster excitement about the reboot Trek. Aside from two or three scenes per movie, it has never seemed to capture the feel or the ethos of TOS or TNG or the rest. The tilt towards action just gets something wrong, and there's none of the sense of characters inhabiting a Roddenberryesque world of ideas, however cliche those ideas sometimes have been. Even taken on their own as action movies, the ones so far have been sloppily written and directed.

I understand that others may disagree.

I agree with what you've posted, BUT...

1. The Movies (particularly the first one) have been entertaining and focus more on the characters than the plot (think TOS not TNG), which I like.

2. No one is going to make one of the "Old School" Star Trek movies again. They simply fizzled out over the years. Fourteen year-old boys don't care to watch movies about convoluted philosophical conflicts. Better "Action Star Trek" to keep the franchise alive over "No Star Trek".

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sun May 22, 2016 12:27 pm

Well, in a way that's fine. The new Trek movies aren't bad in the way Star Wars Eps I-III were bad, but that doesn't mean I can't hope for a future Star Trek that's closer to the spirit of the old stuff than to the style of the new stuff.

We waited long enough and got Ep VI, didn't we?

pr0ner · Post by **pr0ner** » Sun May 22, 2016 1:39 pm

Return of the Jedi was 33 years ago, man.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sun May 22, 2016 3:33 pm

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Sun May 22, 2016 4:15 pm

We're not going to get a Star Trek film that captures the thoughtfulness of the TV shows. But hopefully we'll get a TV show that does someday soon.

I'm okay with the reboot. It's still a bit more thoughtful than most of your average sci-fi spectacles (for the most part), and it's still more character driven than most.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Sun May 22, 2016 7:50 pm

Apollo wrote:Better "Action Star Trek" to keep the franchise alive over "No Star Trek".

To be honest, I don't think it matters. We're going to be getting summer action flicks regardless of whether they say 'Star Trek' on them, and given that what most long-time Star Trek fans look for isn't in these films, they essentially are 'No Star Trek.'

Now, as I've said before, I don't dislike the films. They're good action flicks. They just don't have much in common with Star Trek besides some proper nouns.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Jun 20, 2016 10:46 am

Chris Pine: 'Star Trek’ Can’t be ‘Cerebral’ in 2016

“You can’t make a cerebral Star Trek in 2016. It just wouldn’t work in today’s marketplace. You can hide things in there – Star Trek Into Darkness has crazy, really demanding questions and themes, but you have to hide it under the guise of wham-bam explosions and planets blowing up. It’s very, very tricky. The question that our movie poses is “Does the Federation mean anything?” And in a world where everybody’s trying to kill one another all of the time, that’s an important thing. Is working together important? Should we all go our separate ways? Does being united against something mean anything?”
...
This isn’t the first time the franchise has had to address its “cerebral” decline. When the original “Star Trek” and “Into Darkness” creative team parted ways –save for Roberto Orci — rumors posited that Orci was taken off “Star Trek Beyond” because his initial script take was too “Star Trek-y.”

Watching the trailer before X-Men last night, I commented to the wife, "Now if they'd only make a Star Trek movie."