The First Trailer

[Bones]

Fan from the 70's here. I've watched Trek evolve from a singular series to "The Franchise". Every evolutionary step along the way resulted in whining from some contingent of change-resistant fans. Same goes today. ST survived and thrived.

I'll give the production team credit for taking a risk and blowing up the E. This gets the crew off the ship and the movie into new territory without the Enterprise to run home to for that big final decisive space battle. Also it looks like a new alien rather than the Klingons I was expecting from Orci. Obviously going for the action movie crowd.

Looking forward to the next trailer and I'm excited to see next summer's movie.

 

[Overmind One]

Nope. You're just plain wrong on this Dennis. The box office for older Trek movies are based on *very* deflated dollars and have to be adjusted to provide for a valid comparison.

Mr Awe

There are a ton of other factors at play, though. Length of time in theaters and length of time between theatrical and home video release were both significantly different in the '80s (and even the early '90s) than they are today, for example. The splits between exhibitors and the studios were calculated and managed differently. The marketing machine is a completely different beast today than it was even ten years ago, to say nothing of 1979. Overseas box office wasn't A Thing back then. And so on. Just doing some "What X in 1982 would mean in 2015" adjustment doesn't really offer anything of real value to an argument.

That may all be true. But, the fact remains that if you want to compare dollars for anything over decades, you have to convert them to a constant year. Otherwise, it's an apples to oranges comparison. The dollar simply has different purchasing power in different decades. The difference is huge across multiple decades.

It's a simple matter to take the domestic box office in 1979 and convert that purchasing power to 2014. That's all you're doing so it's on a level playing field. The box office in 1979 would have a very different purchasing power today and that's what you're figuring out.

Mr Awe

Do you know if anyone has done an adjusted dollars thing for the older movies?

 

[Overmind One]

Justin Lin Box Office: $1,961,769,603

Star Trek Box Office (All Movies): $1,919,548,708

It doesn't count unless it's a YouTube comment.

It's so funny when things get to the point where people are arguing with a straight face that 'it made gobs of money, therefore it's quality'.

Yep. Just like 50 Shades of Grey sold more than Harry Potter. So clearly 50 Shades is better than Harry Potter.

That is the goto argument for the NuTrekkers. They have a point in terms of dollars, but as far as Star Trek, these movies starting in 2009 are simply not Star Trek in the spirit of Gene Roddenberry. They argue (convincingly) that the purpose of making movies is to make money, and the 2009 movie made almost as much by itself as all the previous movies in unadjusted dollars.

But they are not Star Trek.

How do you explain WHY they are not Star Trek to people who are not really science fiction fans from when scifi was still science fiction and not soap fi action flicks in space? We are relics....

 

[Tom Servo]

I think to me, regardless of the infighting going on here, is that IF we were to really have Trek films that are more introspective and about human ingenuity and science, then the rebooting of the franchise needs to be MUCH harder then what we got from JJTrek. JJTrek takes the fun and adventure aspects of the original shows, and turns them up to 11 with a semi retro twist on everything. His Trek is still the future, as viewed through the lens of the 1960s, and because it plays up the action and adventure, it totally works.

However, I think that if we were to take Trek and try to make a dead serious interpretation, a la Interstellar or The Martian, I think that we'd have to seriously reboot the aesthetic and universe for a modern audience, especially with the advances in science since the 60s. It'd be closer to old BSG/ nuBSG in terms of how different it would be, not necessarily in tone, but in how its a reinterpretation of the source material. I feel like in that case as well, we'd still get people complaining it's still not close enough to the original show.

I'm not saying I'd be against that one day, but I think a modern movie that looks like the original show would be unfeasible.

 

[Dukhat]

...these movies starting in 2009 are simply not Star Trek in the spirit of Gene Roddenberry. They argue (convincingly) that the purpose of making movies is to make money...

...But they are not Star Trek.

Here's where you lose your credibility. Roddenberry made Trek to make money and fuck girls. Don't ever confuse yourself thinking that it was anything more than that.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

...and a director who's probably never watched Star Trek in his life.

Shows exactly what you know...

But then again, most fans know nothing except that it has to fit Roddenberry's bullshit 'vision' that never was except as the smoke being blown up his ass at conventions.

http://collider.com/star-trek-3-director-justin-lin-on-exploring-new-worlds/

“I thought about how much a part of my life Star Trek was,” Lin said. “Growing up, my parents had this little fish and chips restaurant in Anaheim in the shadows of Disneyland, and they didn't close until 9 PM. As a family, we didn't eat dinner until 10 PM, and we would watch the original Star Trek every night at 11. My dad worked 364 days a year, only took Thanksgiving off, and from age 8 to 18, the only time I could hang out with my parents was by staying late. And every night, it was Star Trek on Channel 13 in L.A. That was my childhood. All my friends were Star Wars kids but I didn't go to the movies, so I was the Star Trek kid. Thinking about this, it became a very personal and very emotional decision.”

That there is true fandom, no matter what the haters say. It looks like he's taken what he knew/knows about Star Trek, and made a good movie of it along with Pegg.

People need to remember; this isn't the universe of Star Trek: The Next Generation, but Star Trek: The Original Series. And things got very rough and tumble on the Original Series; it was an action-adventure show, after all!

People have become way, way, way, too enmeshed in TNG and have now mistaken that show for all of Star Trek when it wasn't all of Star Trek, just a bit of it. They've also become too caught up in the hot mess that was Star Trek: The Motion Picture and believing in the plot of that movie as being 'smart' when it wasn't (the plot of it was and is 'The Changeling' done differently and with a bigger budget.) Let's just accept the new movie for what it is, and not prejudge it completely on a trailer.

Here's where you lose your credibility. Roddenberry made Trek to make money and fuck girls. Don't ever confuse yourself thinking that it was anything more than that.

THIS. Exactly, and completely, THIS.

 

[137th Gebirg]

...these movies starting in 2009 are simply not Star Trek in the spirit of Gene Roddenberry. They argue (convincingly) that the purpose of making movies is to make money...

...But they are not Star Trek.

Here's where you lose your credibility. Roddenberry made Trek to make money and fuck girls. Don't ever confuse yourself thinking that it was anything more than that.

So THAT's where they got the idea for Zefram Cochrane!

 

[Draculasaurus]

The majority of Star Trek fans, both hardcore and fair weather, are already hating on Beyond like hating's going out of fashion.

WTF are you talking about? Nothing of the sort is happening other than a few blowhards here at this BBS and any other pointless internet discussions.

It's not a vocal minority.
Everywhere I've been on the internet, the Star Trek Beyond trailer being disappointing has been the topic du jour.
I googled Star Trek Trailer and one of the first results was an op-ed article about how badly received it's been.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Adversarial and condescending? Really? How do you figure that?

You ignore posts (like mine) that challenged the non-subjective points you raised, continuing to make the same claims over again without addressing the rebuttal.

Most of your criticisms have been in regards to the nuTrek films as a whole instead of directly dealing with the content of this trailer. It's an entirely new writing and directing team, so critiquing their performance based on the output of the previous two films is unfair.

You keep establishing your Trek bona fides like how you've been watching since '66 to set yourself up as some sort of authority on what does and does not qualify as real Trek, which you hold court on often, usually when something contradicts one of the claims you've made. You're not the only long term Trek fan in the forum, nor do all long term, hard core Trek fans share your appraisal of the new films.

It's all "real" Trek, even the stuff you don't like. You don't set the parameters of what does and doesn't qualify as really being part of the franchise or not.

You're allowed to have a negative opinion. I haven't told you once that you're not allowed. My advice was about how you're choosing to express that opinion.

 

[Jedi_Master]

The majority of Star Trek fans, both hardcore and fair weather, are already hating on Beyond like hating's going out of fashion.

WTF are you talking about? Nothing of the sort is happening other than a few blowhards here at this BBS and any other pointless internet discussions.

It's not a vocal minority.
Everywhere I've been on the internet, the Star Trek Beyond trailer being disappointing has been the topic du jour.
I googled Star Trek Trailer and one of the first results was an op-ed article about how badly received it's been.

By that logic - 9/11 was an inside job, Jesus rode dinosaurs, and vaccines give you autistic cancer.

 

[JWPlatt]

...these movies starting in 2009 are simply not Star Trek in the spirit of Gene Roddenberry. They argue (convincingly) that the purpose of making movies is to make money...

...But they are not Star Trek.

Here's where you lose your credibility. Roddenberry made Trek to make money and fuck girls. Don't ever confuse yourself thinking that it was anything more than that.

Hmmm, how would that explain how he often held to his vision for the show instead of giving the studios exactly what they demanded? Wouldn't you expect that in a new situation where you are solely concerned about money that one would pander to the studio with the big pocketbook doing your funding?

 

[Dukhat]

Hmmm, how would that explain how he often held to his vision for the show instead of giving the studios exactly what they demanded?

I'll explain it as soon as you give me some examples of what you're talking about.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Star Trek has always been a commercial, ahem, enterprise.

 

[OpenMaw]

What I meant was it is a fact that these shows with technobabble have directly inspired people to leave their beds at home for their chosen careers. Overmind One is one of them. I am another. Same thing for lots of folks at NASA and all over the world. It's not about the gobbledygook. I don't believe you misunderstand that, but there you go.

Alright, then with all sincerity I ask you to name a few of your favorite and more inspirational technobabble moments. I'd really love to understand what it was and how it came to inspire you to join any particular field.

 

[JWPlatt]

What I meant was it is a fact that these shows with technobabble have directly inspired people to leave their beds at home for their chosen careers. Overmind One is one of them. I am another. Same thing for lots of folks at NASA and all over the world. It's not about the gobbledygook. I don't believe you misunderstand that, but there you go.

Alright, then with all sincerity I ask you to name a few of your favorite and more inspirational technobabble moments. I'd really love to understand what it was and how it came to inspire you to join any particular field.

It didn't. You think I'm talking about the technobabble. I'm not. You are. That's wrong. Are we learning yet?

 

[Admiral Bear]

I for one don't understand the use of the term "Fast and Furious in Space" to disparage the new Star Trek film.

The Fast and Furious films all have their charms, but the last three in particular were fantastic.

Star Trek is not The Fast and the Furious.

That is true. The Fast and the Furious franchise is far more successful and has a broader appeal. It also attracts a lot more media attention and foreign box office receipts.

The Mona Lisa isn't Van Gogh's Sunflowers.

More people in the world will instantly recognise and be able to name the Mona Lisa. Should we paint over Vincent's not quite as well known hundred million $ masterpiece with a fake copy of the Mona Lisa?

 

[Romulan_spy]

So THAT's where they got the idea for Zefram Cochrane!

Yeah, the way Cochrane in FC built the warp drive just to become super rich and get women but then after the trip, it becomes something so much greater, was a clear allegory for Roddenberry and Trek. Cochrane represents Roddenberry and the warp drive represents Star Trek. Like the warp drive, Roddenberry created Trek to get rich and get laid but the show later became the incredible franchise that it is today.

 

[BillJ]

More people in the world will instantly recognise and be able to name the Mona Lisa. Should we paint over Vincent's not quite as well known hundred million $ masterpiece with a fake copy of the Mona Lisa?

Jesus Christ. No one is 'painting over' Star Trek. I just checked, all my DVD's and Blu-Ray's are still sitting on the shelf.

 

[BillJ]

Yeah, the way Cochrane in FC built the warp drive just to become super rich and get women but then after the trip, it becomes something so much greater, was a clear allegory for Roddenberry and Trek. Cochrane represents Roddenberry and the warp drive represents Star Trek. Like the warp drive, Roddenberry created Trek to get rich and get laid but the show later became the incredible franchise that it is today.

The show was already an incredible franchise by the time of TNG. For TNG, Roddenberry got a huge sum of money, which is how they lured him back. He also had a drug problem. His lawyer nearly ruined the show. The only difference was he was beginning to believe the hype that Star Trek was somehow socially relevant.

Watch Chaos on the Bridge.

 

[Admiral Bear]

Still looks like crap to me, but at least there's an edit with better music:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qULdofE03c4&feature=youtu.be

I like it better already! Even the bike looked good!