Karl Urban still knows nothing about Star Trek 4 as Paramount fills out summer 2019 slate.

Except that, "critically", beyond also got worse reviews compared to the first two TOO, so it clearly wasn't just a matter of box office results. Even critical response wasn't as good as the first two (even if it's good in general for sure)
Sites like rotten tomatoes make lists divided by genre about the best movies from the last 10 years (they combine critics and votes from the audience) and just look at how little attention and recognition Beyond gets compared to stid and St09. Even in terms of more official awards and noms.
I dunno what kind of facts can be used here to establish beyond was the best of the 3 by a "wide margin" (of what?).

Like others said, the problem is that the movie isn't memorable and many didn't care. Some liked it because it's funny and more safe than stid (I myself like some aspects of beyond more than stid), but generally not enough people cared.
In a sense, it's as divisive as stid was but it's divisive in a more subtle and "not caring enough to create real debate" (dangerous) way.
Honestly, I think this movie gets a pass on some issues people criticized other movies for because to some, any movie would automatically be better than stid or what jj did. In that, pegg&Co were a bit lucky to have jj's nayers as by-default allies.

Bad promotion had a role for sure but people should stop, IMO, blaming it all on promotion. People got an idea of what to expect from the early reviews, and even the most positive reviews didn't give many a reason to hurry and watch this movie asap or, later, buy every DVD release like they did for the first two. Also, the so called bad promotion was still..honest in terms of what you could expect, and the fact they were pretty much ignoring the first two movies, especially the aftermath of stid, which in my humble opinion backfired like crazy.

While the "made by tos fans for tos fans" appeal (confirmed by early reviews) could attract reboot haters, it possibly alienated the fans and general audience (who obvioustly are the majority) who liked the first two precisely because they were "not your grandfather's trek".
Getting a new team already created some trepidation, and then the new team made it worse. Instead of reassuring people that what they liked was in good hands and they respected what the original team did, and really wanted to give them the continuation they were hoping for, Lin&Co more or less were the cliché of the new team coming in and making it seems they were doing their own thing and ignoring what the original team did. They also seemed to be, let's be honest here, on a mission to tell reboot haters/trek purists who hated JJ: "give us a chance, we are tos fans too we will FIX this and restore trek to the origins" - which, unfortunately, only translated into them going backwards about the new things, and unique aspects of the alternate reality, and thus sidelining Uhura (and downgrading Saldana from third top billed status in favor of a dude), the romance and the new trio just to restore the 3 white guys status quo from tos, and give more screentime to Urban and Pegg. That's not "trek", that's caving under the bias and desires of some trek fans who want it to be stuck in the past under the guise of nostalgia.
In short, it just came across as them trying to placate the fans who were whining about things like "Uhura replaced mccoy" and every, basically, contemporary aspect of jj's trek, instead of them truly making a movie that fit so called trek ideals more and provided a more original and optimistic story.

I mean, a lot of people were complaining we didn't see enough of the five years mission and them being explorers, or that we were stuck in earth. And what they do? destroy the ship in the first part and then make the characters spend most of the movie on a planet without even really exploring it, without adding wonder and mystery, make us see its people. Even their goal to explore "new" dynamics by separating the group was fail because there are no new dynamics there. The only dynamic explored is the tos homage spock/mccoy banter (who are literally stuck to each other for most of the movie in a way that inevitably downgraded spock from being the co-protagonist of the first movies to being nerdy friend of hero interacting with other friend of hero, again). Again, a safe "tos conservative fan pandering" move. Sulu/Uhura were more a new dynamic, but they end up being just pair the spares and get no development as duo, and neither did kirk/chekov. . And Pegg makes his character interact with the original character the most, of course (how reassuring it is for some fans to have a female character who doesn't interact with kirk or spock a lot, let alone have any dynamic with them, and who in no way can be a 'threat' to the original trio and bromance)

Point is, even in terms of listening to the fans and making a "trek" movie, they seemed to only placate the ones who complained about Uhura , the romance and the white dudes status quo getting challenged by JJ a bit.
I honestly don't really trust what some people on the internet mean when they preach about how a movie is more "trek" or not trek because, for the most part, they seem to just disguise their own bias and personal fannish preferences as a completely different thing. Hence the inconsistencies in arguments, and the giving beyond, for example, a pass for stuff that the same had criticized the first movies for (or giving beyond a pass for failing to deliver what people expected the first movies to deliver).

 

Beyond was the second best and yes both critically too. I think maybe some may not really understand how critical reception is measured. they may just think if a number has a higher mark in RT then it means it is the better than this movie but that is not the true case.

the word of mouth for into darkness was very divisive regardless of the good rt score and as time went past, the film has suffered in reception greatly.

Not only was Beyond a much better movie,in the long run it has become far better received than into darkness. You will hardly see any rank of the best trek movies that has STID over Beyond.

 

You guys have me all wrong. When I said "critically", I meant by MY critique. That's the only opinion that matters. I wasn't being deep at all.

 

And yet, here we are

 

If by safest you mean that Beyond did it’s own thing and didn’t rely on Trek’s most known/successful villain/movie for cheap thrills or blowing up Vulcan/Romulus simply for shock value than yes, it’s by far the safest.

 

Only had a revenge plot, or something...

 

Yeah. Only about 11 out of 13 Trek movies have a revenge plot or something.

 

I at least enjoy Nero and Khan. Krall is a far more mixed bag and feels more ill defined to me.

 

I can understand that. I disagree 100% but I accept it.

 

yeah, it was opin

BC did an amazing job as ''Khan'' , I think if had he remained john harrsion and the script of STID was a lot more original. I bet we will today will be talking about how STID is one of the greatest trek films and scifi action film ever made, its amazing how just one little change, movie twist or tweak can make a great thing fall apart so easily.

As for Krall. I think maybe you feel that way because he was more like a villain of the week type of guy than a BIG BAD....a big bad is what nero and khan felt like so its no suprise that you felt krall was a mix bag because I share your good feelings too

 

Star Trek 2009

Rotten Tomatoes:
TOMATOMETER: 94% | Average Rating: 8.1/10 | Reviews Counted: 338 Fresh: 319 Rotten: 19
AUDIENCE SCORE: 91% liked it | Average Rating: 4.1/5 | User Ratings: 746,612
Metatritic:
Metascore: 82 Userscore: 7.9​

------------------------------------------------------------------
Star Trek Into Darkness

Rotten Tomatoes:
TOMATOMETER: 86% | Average Rating: 7.5/10 | Reviews Counted: 267 | Fresh: 229 | Rotten: 38
AUDIENCE SCORE: 90% liked it | Average Rating: 4.2/5 | User Ratings: 311,803
Metatritic:
Metascore: 72 (positive 36, mixed 6, negative 1)
Userscore: 7.7 (positive 1251, mixed 178 , negative 115)​

------------------------------------------------------------------
Star Trek Beyond

Rotten Tomatoes:
TOMATOMETER: 84% | Average Rating: 6.9/10 | Reviews Counted: 263 | Fresh: 221 | Rotten: 42
AUDIENCE SCORE: 80% liked it | Average Rating: 3.9/5 | User Ratings: 73,366
Metatritic:
Metascore: 68 (positive 39, mixed 8, negative 3) Userscore: 6.8 (positive 525, mixed 173 , negative 99)​

In terms of how early positive reviews and word-of-mouth affect these numbers and box office/dvd sales results, it seems that negative comments didn't affect stid's results that much but, on the other hand, the numbers for Beyond seem to suggest a decline of interest that wasn't helped by what people who watched the movie were saying. That decline could mean that: a) people didn't care either way b) word-of-mouth online had the opposite result for most because maybe what they were reading in positive reviews wasn't making them feel it was a movie they'd like too (e.g, pre-existing reboot fans who loved the first movies and who could understand that Beyond was made for a different audience, and probably wouldn't give them what they were expecting; which was already hinted by the creative team during promotion, anyway) c) a bad combination of these reasons.

The argument that word of mouth is better for Beyond and that 'in the long run it has become far better received than into darkness' is easily debunkable. Dvd sales TOO show decline of interest that, again, happened AFTER Beyond got a seemingly positive response online:

http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Star-Trek#tab=summary
http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Star-Trek-Into-Darkness#tab=summary
http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Star-Trek-Beyond#tab=summary

I think that, taking into consideration all the numbers, there is consistency between critical/audience response online and general box office/dvd sales results. I don't see any of these movies, or specifically Beyond, being an obvious example of 'most popular but didn't make money' kind of movie because I don't see that kind of contradiction between different results you'd otherwise see if that were the case.




I'm sure that, to some, these informations don't matter and it's ok. I'm unsure, though, what factual counterargument evidence is provided here to show that Beyond is liked more than the first two movies or stid. Let alone that it's more successful than stid.
If the evidence in form of the amount of real people who liked a movie more than another, plus box office results, plus dvd sales, plus awards noms etc etc is irrelevant in order to at least get an idea about how audiences and critics responded to movies, I'm genuinely curious, now, about 'how critical reception is measured' for some here.

Metacritic: Best (and Worst) Star Trek Movies Ranked
#1: Star Trek 2009
#2: Star trek into darkness
#5: Star Trek Beyond
----
Rotten Tomatoes: Every Star Trek Movie Ranked from Worst to Best
#1 Star Trek 2009
#4 Star Trek Into Darkness
#6 Star Trek Beyond

top 100 Best Sci-Fi Movies of All Time
#10 Star Trek 2009
#47 Star Trek Into Darkness
#60 Star Trek Beyond

(in terms of awards norms, you can check this page to get an idea about how much recognition Beyond received compared to the first two)

Of course, you may find other editorials and some trek fanboys making different lists and possibily liking Beyond more than stid or st09, but it wouldn't be, honestly, any more relevant and factual here than the above mentioned lists (that take into consideration reviews and different variables unlike lists by individual bloggers), or MYSELF making a list of my favorite trek movies and writing it in this fanboard.



tl dr: I guess it's hard to really get any absolute evidence about anything when it comes to these things.
A lot of the people who watch movies and like or dislike them won't even express their opinions online. In terms of the trek fandom itself it's.. a mess. Because it truly is only a tiny minority of us all who actually post online and make their opinions 'visible'.
However, the audience that didn't like Beyond as much as they liked the first two, or simply didn't care about it at all, still expressed their opinion loud and clear by not spending money for this movie, before and after the reviews came out and in spite of good word of mouth.
This is not a 'detail' for tptb and the studio, and if they were to make more movies, they can't simply ignore that Beyond IS the least successful of the trilogy. They can't not ask themselves WHY all these people who apparently loved the first two movies that much didn't like Beyond too or as much.

 

One important number in those Rotten Tomatoes stats is the total number of user-reviews. You can see the number go down between ST and STID and it NOSEDIVES with Beyond.

My interpretation is that the damage was largely done to the Kelvin franchise with Into Darkness and the troubled/extended route to get Beyond done. and by the time you get to Beyond it's sort of in Nemesis territory where people had already stopped caring and didn't bother checking it out.

Fans are fickle. It takes a lot to rope them in and you can only keep them engaged for so long before they clock out and move to the next shiny new thing. Witness the sentiment regarding the long delayed Avatar sequels for instance. Not that Beyond took that long to come out, but it was a long and rocky road to get it made with JJ heading to greener pastures (with SW) and a general perception that it was sort of a fatherless/rudderless franchise.

 

I think Beyond just lacked a "hook". ST'09 was "here's how the Star Trek crew met", ID was "The new Star Trek crew meet their most famous baddie" and Beyond was...

The next adventure with the Star Trek crew. The Enterprise is destroyed, which we've all seen before. The Enterprise crashed dramatically, but they teased that and crashed another Federation ship in the film before - and that was into a busy city not a forest and thus a massive "holy shit!" trailer moment.

I really enjoyed Beyond (and want them to make 5ym movies forever), but it didn't have the "must see!" hype the prior two had. It didn't feel as fresh as they did. And the competition was much more fierce in 2016.

 

It was more like a mid-season two-part episode than a movie, you mean?

There. Must. Be. High. Stakes. And unfortunately, a possible reset would do just that, but I like having both co-exist, not one overwrites the other.

 

fair points, but, like you noticed, the decline of interest was there after st09 too (which was very successful, so it has little to do with how much people liked the previous movie), so this aspect can hardly be used as the main explanation of Beyond's lack of success compared to the first two. You'd be more right about that IF, also, stid had at least received worse reviews and had made worse results at the box office and dvd sales than Beyond, but it didn't.
You'd also need to, basically, assume that all the audience they lost in between movies would have automatically loved Beyond more than stid had them watched it, but you can't do that. Who is to say that had Beyond gotten the same number of user-reviews the first movie got, its stats wouldn't be worse, and thus follow the trend of the existing reviews?

Like I pointed up before, I see consistency between the different results these movies got. I see no contradiction between different stats that would suggest that Beyond is unpopular because of stid's fault, or that it's the most popular but didn't make money when it was released.
If that were the case, the good word of mouth Beyond got online would have had positive effects in the long run (e.g, last weeks of release, dvd sales). But it didn't happen. You don't see any big change once the reviews are out and fans seemingly like it online.
There are many sequels that are more successful than their predecessors because of good word-of-mouth making people understand that it's better, so the excuse that a movie isn't successful just because people didn't like the previous one doesn't work here (not to mention it doesn't work in the specific context because stid IS successful or more successful than beyond, anyway. There is that contradiction already).

My interpretation is that for both star trek into darkness and beyond, people seem to ignore the facts and essentially spread 'rumors' about these movies.
So on one hand, star trek into darkness is getting passed around as some sort of flop or universally disliked movie, in spite of facts like its results suggesting the very opposite and contradicting these arguments. On the other hand, that same denial of the facts affects Beyond on reverse in that people now deny all the evidence suggesting that the movie is the least popular and successful of the trilogy and they blame stid for its failure.
One movie is underrated, while the other is overrated.

And this is the main issue here because this blaming stid for Beyond's failure essentially boils down to people spreading falsehood about stid, in spite of what facts actually suggest. And it also boils down to people, one way or another, constantly passing the opinion of a minority of fans online as what the majority of the audience and fans thought (about BOTH movies).
The truth is always in the middle, but often it also is more simple than what people make it seems that it is.

 

Nah, that was Insurrection.

This was more like Thor 2, Incredible Hulk or Ant-Man, a fun but ultimately skippable latest instalment of a massive franchise. Why not just skip to Avengers 3 or whatever?

 

National Amusements (a.k.a. Sumner Redstone) owns both CBS and (through Viacom) Paramount. I don't think he particularly cares about what company owns what part of Star Trek as long as they're both not in the red.

 

------------------------------------------------------------

I have mentioned this already that a better movie is not judged by one single number or RT% score.

LOTR 3 won best picture and it is not the best rated of the trilogy on RT, LOTR 2 is.
The Dark Knight Rises is rated higher than Batman begins on metacritic and begins is a better movie by a long mile.

a lot more goes into reception of a film than scores on RT or MC.. RT is good but rt is not the one rule to judge good movies. STID is the weakest of the trilogy and that can be proven by the entire plot, characterization and story of the film.

STID may have gotten a better RT and MC score but the reception is worse. let me give you a better proof.

This is the first google page of trek movie ranking by various media outlets

http://nerdist.com/all-13-star-trek-films-ranked-from-worst-to-best/

https://www.timeout.com/newyork/movies/best-and-worst-star-trek-movies-ranked

http://collider.com/star-trek-movies-ranked/#the-final-frontier

http://www.syfy.com/syfywire/13-star-trek-movies-ranked-worst-first

https://www.thewrap.com/star-trek-movies-ranked-worst-to-best/


http://www.craveonline.co.uk/entertainment/1154729-13-star-trek-movies-ranked-worst-best

if you see all the rankings, into darkness is usually at the bottom. so while you might say rt is higher, the overall reception of into darkness is still worse. and it doest help that JJ abrams admitted he made some mistakes with STID, and yeah that I think shows that the word of mouth of beyond has gotten stronger and stid has gotten worse. the proof is from jj abrams himself and every star trek movie ranking that beyond beats into darkness with people giving good reasons why beyond is better. RT scores are irrelevant to that.

I have already said why beyond failed so I am not sure I need to repeat myself but I can make it quick.

star wars came back with a bang, STID had no good will and a part of the good will already died after 4 years of waiting after 09 and Beyond was not promoted by paramount.

When it comes to box office, let's just say both STID and Beyond were disappointing for paramount.

 

That's too bad. I really wanted to see Jaylah again. I wonder if Yelchin's death might have had anything to do with it as well, along with the Box Office Numbers.

 

No, it's not. But those numbers, combined with box office results, awards noms, DVD sales etc are more factual than anything you have provided here to support your assertion that stid is the weakest movie of the trilogy.

In your opinion it is. The question is if your opinion is shared by the majority or not, and evidence suggests it's not.

You are using internet to seek "proof" but your assertion that the reception is worse is contradicted by the number of people and critics who, by actual numbers, prefer stid over beyond.

I debunked this argument before you even posted the links.
Again, those lists are no more relevant than the ones I posted myself where beyond ranks below stid, or me making my own personal list of fav trek movies. They just say x person likes x movie more. It's completely irrelevant to your argument because you aren't talking about individual bloggers and individual opinions, you want to establish what the collectivity thinks about the movies.

Frankly, your claims that rt numbers, box office results and DVD sales are "irrelevant", while your personal opinion and a bunch of bloggers making fan lists are factual things is, well, pretentious to say the least.

Yeah, that's something Lin&Pegg probably won't do for beyond, doesn't mean their movie is perfect, or that it isn't less successful than stid (your argument).

And yet, Beyond's dvd sales (worse results than stid) contradict what you are saying.
Perhaps, the good word of mouth for beyond, and the bad one for stid were both representing minorities, and thus not "enough" to truly influence the actual success of these movies for the majority of the audience.

Again, that's no proof.
It's like me saying that St09 was the highest grossing movie of all the time just because Nimoy said it was a good movie. Different arguments.

I guess your Google must only show results that agree with your opinion but my links ( posted in this page) of other lists ranking stid above beyond already contradict your "every" here.

I like to learn new things everyday. Today, I understood that, apparently, box office, critics and real people who praise a movie more than another and spend their money for it are irrelevant. Next time I want to see if a movie is "good" and the most popular and successful, gotta check the fan lists made by bloggers (and what an user of trekbbs says, of course)