I would enjoy something in a harder science fiction vein influenced by literary SF, along the lines of 2001: A Space Odyssey (complete with a retro psychedelic light show), but I don't think it would flow with what's been established so far.
Kor
The First Trailer
- Thread starter Squiggy
- Start date
I would enjoy something in a harder science fiction vein influenced by literary SF, along the lines of 2001: A Space Odyssey (complete with a retro psychedelic light show), but I don't think it would flow with what's been established so far.
Kor
Yet they still turned out to the total of $465 million and another $75 million on Blu-ray sales. Which was an $80 million dollar increase over Star Trek (2009).
If we go with Trek fans being a significant piece of the pie, it seems like they turned out rather strongly for hating what Abrams has done to the franchise.
Re: Star Trek - Beyond Bad
The Enterprise was designed two movies ago, so if you have a complaint about that it's got nothing to do with any choices made by the current writing/directing team.
Not seeing what the travesty is in swarms of drones/fighters using kinetic energy to penetrate the hull. Given the velocities most ships would approach each other at in orbit it would actually be pretty effective.
Not seeing the travesty in being stranded on the planet either.
Lots of great actors have had their faces concealed under makeup and prosthetics on Trek (and other scifi) before, so I'm not seeing why it's such a travesty here.
The Beastie Boys have already been included in the previous two films, and are again in this trailer as a callback to that (though it may feature in the film too). Again though, that's not a complaint for the current writers and director unless it features prominently in the film itself.
Where did it show Spock bleeding red blood? There's a picture of Quinto on-set that shows green blood on his hand.
Kirk's uncle had a vintage Corvette, and Kirk had a vintage motorcycle in the first movie. Why should this be any different? He's a collector of vintage vehicles.
And not that it should be difficult for a society as resource rich as the Federation to produce gas and tires for vintage collectors, but why do you assume that it's using gas? Kirk's motorcycle in the first film clearly had a distinctive electric motor sound.
All of your complaints seem rather petty, and don't rise to the level of travesties to me (although nothing really would, because it's just a movie).
This trailer is showing us multiple travesties (IMO). We have the already illogically designed Enterprise GT being attacked by replicators or space piranha or whatever those things are, then evidently the crew that survives gets to a strange planet via escape pods and the movie takes place on that planet (and earth). Idris Elba is completely in rubberface, and now the Beastie Boys is our soundtrack? Oh, and Spock now bleeds red blood. Why not, since that is a great followup to blowing up Vulcan. And what was with the dirtbike? How does Kirk have a dirtbike, full of gas and with good tires in the 23rd century? Oh, that's right...because, Justin Lin.
The Enterprise was designed two movies ago, so if you have a complaint about that it's got nothing to do with any choices made by the current writing/directing team.
Not seeing what the travesty is in swarms of drones/fighters using kinetic energy to penetrate the hull. Given the velocities most ships would approach each other at in orbit it would actually be pretty effective.
Not seeing the travesty in being stranded on the planet either.
Lots of great actors have had their faces concealed under makeup and prosthetics on Trek (and other scifi) before, so I'm not seeing why it's such a travesty here.
The Beastie Boys have already been included in the previous two films, and are again in this trailer as a callback to that (though it may feature in the film too). Again though, that's not a complaint for the current writers and director unless it features prominently in the film itself.
Where did it show Spock bleeding red blood? There's a picture of Quinto on-set that shows green blood on his hand.
Kirk's uncle had a vintage Corvette, and Kirk had a vintage motorcycle in the first movie. Why should this be any different? He's a collector of vintage vehicles.
And not that it should be difficult for a society as resource rich as the Federation to produce gas and tires for vintage collectors, but why do you assume that it's using gas? Kirk's motorcycle in the first film clearly had a distinctive electric motor sound.
All of your complaints seem rather petty, and don't rise to the level of travesties to me (although nothing really would, because it's just a movie).
Anyone who didn't like the Enterprise bridge's Apple store look or the brewery should be happy.
The Enterprise is a character of the show and it might be a tad abusive to kill it every movie. That's not to say TNG's Cause And Effect wasn't thrilling - it was. I like ship shows. On the Enterprise. Planet shows on TOS were usually less interesting to me. So while the term "bottle show" seems to have a negative connotation, they were a positive for me. I want to see a story that requires the Enterprise and its crew at full potential to overcome their latest challenge instead of crippling it to fit the needs of the story. I think that's really the only thing that has disturbed me about the trailer. And there's a certain eerie or humorous S&M irony that "Scotty" wrote the script to kill his own ship.
The Enterprise is a character of the show and it might be a tad abusive to kill it every movie. That's not to say TNG's Cause And Effect wasn't thrilling - it was. I like ship shows. On the Enterprise. Planet shows on TOS were usually less interesting to me. So while the term "bottle show" seems to have a negative connotation, they were a positive for me. I want to see a story that requires the Enterprise and its crew at full potential to overcome their latest challenge instead of crippling it to fit the needs of the story. I think that's really the only thing that has disturbed me about the trailer. And there's a certain eerie or humorous S&M irony that "Scotty" wrote the script to kill his own ship.
I hope they get those hair dryer nacelles right for the next ship.
I wonder how much of that was made up of fans who before had little interest in Star Trek but were fans of Cumberbatch? For all while he was plastered all over and it was all I heard about.
I don't understand Overmind One's comment about "now the Beastie Boys is our soundtrack," since that's been there since ST09.
Besides, in the 23rd century, the Beastie Boys will be regarded as ancient classical music. (cf Futurama with Fry listening to Sir Mix-a-lot
)
Kor
Besides, in the 23rd century, the Beastie Boys will be regarded as ancient classical music. (cf Futurama with Fry listening to Sir Mix-a-lot
)Kor
Don't let the few blowhards on here get you down. There are a couple who like to look down on other fans because they think they know the correct answer about every issue, or otherwise have some sort of inside scoop, which they don't.
Of course, you're free to express your opinion. That's what the BBS is here for.
Mr Awe
If they thought he made that big an impact at the box office, we'd probably be getting ready for an Into Darkness follow-up featuring Khan.
Yes, I think a lot of casual fans went to see both of the previous two movies. I did even though I didn't like them.
The overall box office numbers for STID have a lot to do with the international audience too. STID was pushed overseas more than any other Trek film before it, and I think's that's a big reason why it did better internationally; it was getting exposed to new people.
Domestically, STID did significantly worse than ST2009, and I bet STB will do even worse in the States than STID did. How it does internationally will be interesting to see. Will the people who got newly exposed to Trek via STID come back for STB?
Those who got newly exposed to Trek via ST2009 didn't really come back that much for STID.
Geez, you and your constant criticism of fellow posters and the condescending tone are starting to sound like an old man yelling at the kids to get off the lawn!
Why not just express your own opinion and then let others express theirs? There can be discussion about differences but, holy cow, people are free to have different opinions than you and it doesn't mean that they're wrong.
Mr Awe
This is sad. For those of us in the science and technology fields, what you are calling "technobabble" was the reason we watched. The real science, seeing in science fiction what is only theoretically (but realistically) possible, and lingo that "nerds and geeks" use on a daily basis.
Having said that, why would Trek fans need to buy remastered versions of the show in a packaged gift/collector set? TNG and Trek in general was never meant to be a money juggernaut appealing to the masses. That was what Star Wars and Transformers is for.
This new set of movies starting with 2009 are a disappointment to guys like me who have been watching since 1966, through all the movies and all the shows and a few conventions. Transwarp beaming still has not been fixed. Magic tribble Kahn blood has not been fixed. The Enterprise now has a bunch of useless decorative lights on it and giant nacelles and the main viewscreen is now a WINDOW? According to this trailer, Spock now bleeds red blood.
Star Trek Into Darkness was dropped between Fast and Furious and Iron Man 3. It had much more competition for dollars than Star Trek (2009).
YouTube has taught me that any movie can have a trailer made into any genre. The only thing we can take from this, or any, trailer are vague facts from still images and lines almost certainly taken out-of-context. It's possible that the Beastie Boys line and song may have been made purely for the trailer and not even in the film.
So, on that basis, I can't see how anyone can judge the film as good or bad or neutral. We can judge the trailer, and I found it to be a fun trailer, but that has no bearing on the quality, or lack thereof, of any future Star Trek film project.
So, on that basis, I can't see how anyone can judge the film as good or bad or neutral. We can judge the trailer, and I found it to be a fun trailer, but that has no bearing on the quality, or lack thereof, of any future Star Trek film project.
So much of that was simply gibberish. Do some damned research.
It wasn't a gift set. It was a painstaking recomposition of the original film elements for HD. It is fucking masterful. I bought the series. Just fucking gorgeous.
From the Star Trek Writer's Guide...
This new set of movies starting with 2009 are a disappointment to guys like me who have been watching since 1966, through all the movies and all the shows and a few conventions. Transwarp beaming still has not been fixed. Magic tribble Kahn blood has not been fixed. The Enterprise now has a bunch of useless decorative lights on it and giant nacelles and the main viewscreen is now a WINDOW? According to this trailer, Spock now bleeds red blood.
You do realize transwarp beaming was in TNG. Blood is used by the medical community to treat diseases now. And is far less magical than using the transporter to fix everything.
There is a dark stain on Spock's uniform, which doesn't look red at all. Maybe adjust the color settings on your monitor. Oh yeah, go watch "The Man Trap" and tell me what color Spock's blood is suppose to be...
Last edited:
Science is one thing. The problem that most of us developed over time with technobabble was its habitual use (particularly ihn Voyager) to produce a formulaic deus-ex-machina reset button to conveniently erase the drama and jeopardy that had been building up throughout the first 2/3rds of the episode. In short, it's sloppy/lazy writing.
For example:
"If I could figure out a way to adjust the [insert fictional McGuffin device with no basis in scientific fact] in order to make it [do something it was never meant to do by original design], I might be able to [erase our reason for being in the past 30 minutes]."
Such words in various incarnations were uttered countless times by LaForge, O'Brien, Torez and Tucker over the course of all shows. I don't think Scotty did it so much but after a while, we knew there was no real danger for the crew, because some gadget or farcical pseudo-scientific theory would be invoked to make it all null and void. Got kind of boring after a while, to be fair.
It's the nerds and geeks that want something more substantive than this drek.
There have been comments on these forums that deny Star Trek was about optimism and deny that Star Trek inspired people, like those at NASA, to go into their chosen meaningful careers such as space exploration, technology or medicine. That's what you're dealing with here. BillJ's answer that "so much of [the technobabble] was simply gibberish" admits to that lack of comprehension about what Star Trek meant to you.
Again, technobabble and dialog based on real science are two very different things with very clear lines of demarcation.
Similar threads
