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

[Gojira]

I really enjoyed all three movies. I hope they continue with this cast. I think they did a real good job and I accepted them in their roles. Into Darkness is one I do enjoy even though Khan felt forced into the movie, wasn't necessary, and despite Benedict Cumberbach (or whatever his name is) doing a fine job, he was miscast .

 

[fireproof78]

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

Unless someone here is Paramount, "we" can't say that.

The lack of ST 4 would give greater weight to that "disappointment."

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.

These arguments are false equivalencies. The first one basically argues that "Best Picture" means the best of the LOTR trilogy, which isn't how that system works.

The second is a subjective opinion, one that may or may not be shared by everyone.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

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

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.

My thoughts exactly. The bad taste that STiD left in the mouth hurt Beyond badly. It was a vastly superior film but by that time it was too little too late.

 

[Smellmet]

My thoughts exactly. The bad taste that STiD left in the mouth hurt Beyond badly. It was a vastly superior film but by that time it was too little too late.

That bad a taste that it became the most successful film worldwide in the franchise.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

That bad a taste that it became the most successful film worldwide in the franchise.

Just like Transformers: Dark of the Moon is in its franchise then!

 

[Malaika]

I think if I could make a movie with only the aspects I liked in both stid and beyond, I'd get a decent sequel of the first movie. But I can't.

However, the argument that beyond was damaged by stid, and it is the least successful of the trilogy for that reason, stays silly and inconsistent for me. It's a cop out and, honestly, it just seems like a way some people who loved Beyond are using to cope with the fact that the majority of people didn't really share their opinion. It's much easier to blame stid and the previous team than use critical thinking about Beyond and acknowledge its own issues.

Here's the thing and why this blaming stid thing is lame for me: I'm part of the audience that was disappointed by stid (though I wasn't as over the top about it as some were. I wouldn't say stid or beyond are completely shitty movies just because I don't like some aspects), and I was more than eager to get a better movie after it. But that's not what happened.
Beyond failed to be "better" for me, and actually did worse in the aspects I didn't like about stid (mainly the nostalgia being too much a hindrance at this point, and the writers losing track of what made the alternate reality interesting, in the first place).
If stid was the beginning of the end, beyond put the final nail in the coffin for me.


What doesn't even seem to compute to some here is that there could be many people who were disappointed about beyond too or even more. That early reviews and "word of mouth" couldn't make everyone automatically excited about the movie if what those fans liked in beyond wasn't what the audience they lost was interested about, or had expected to see after the first movie. It's wrong to assume that just because YOU liked the movie for x, y and z reason, then everyone would. What may be 'positive' for you, may be negative for someonelse.
One thing is sure, Beyond was different compared to the first two and in many ways, its own thing, and by that context alone it shouldn't be SO hard to understand that not all the audience would love the changes by Lin&Co, especially not those who loved the first movies.

The insistence that nothing is wrong about beyond, or that there is some conspiracy against it or there is 'no explanation' for his 'failure', beside blaming stid, makes no sense to me.
I know many who hated stid but were "meh" about beyond simply because by reading what the creative team said, watching trailers, and then reading the reviews, they didn't feel beyond was a movie they needed to watch or would've liked. There are many possible explanations for its decline. Maybe many of those who watched it simply didn't like it or didn't like it as much as the first two, or didn't like it to the extent they'd pay to watch it more than once and then hurry up and buy the dvds when they got released. There are people like me who still went watching it, but there are some who didn't care *because* what they heard about the movie was enough to make them uninterested.

 

[Smellmet]

Just like Transformers: Dark of the Moon is in its franchise then!

YMMV of course, bar a couple of creative and casting decisions, Star Trek Into Darkness far from leaving a bad taste in the mouth, I found to be the consummate blockbuster movie.

This 'bad taste' in my view is something that has been concocted on boards like this and other websites many months after it came out. The film got nothing but praise upon release.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon may be the highest grossing in that franchise, but as they're all shit that doesn't really resonate with me.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

Transformers: Dark of the Moon may be the highest grossing in that franchise, but as they're all shit that doesn't really resonate with me.

Agreed. The series took a nosedive after Orci and Kurtzman left the franchise.

<sarcasm>

 

[Malaika]

That bad a taste that it became the most successful film worldwide in the franchise.

You said it with more grace than this guy:

"I think it’s like when you tire of an indie band that you love because, suddenly, they get a number one single. You don’t necessarily start disliking their music, but you stop liking them because you’re pissed off that they’re famous, or whatever. “Star Trek Into Darkness” is the most successful “Star Trek” movie ever made. It is, in terms of what it took at the box office and how many people went to see it. More people saw that film than any iteration of “Star Trek” that existed before. That is probably slightly annoying to some “Star Trek” fans — which I totally understand (but) you know what ... it absolutely isn’t the worst “Star Trek” movie. It’s asinine, you know? It’s ridiculous. And frustrating, as well, because a lot of hard work and love went into that movie, and all J.J. wanted to do was make a film that people really enjoyed. So, to be subject to that level of sort of, like, crass fucking ire, I just say fuck you. Not you, but the people who said that. " ​

I'll let you guys guess or remember who said that ^ lol

 

[ISS Enterprise]

Agreed. The series took a nosedive after Orci and Kurtzman left the franchise.

<sarcasm>

Transformers made a ton O cash, but they were weak on script n plot LOL

Thought the 1st set up the universe and while I saw all of them in the theater save for last one n have all on dvd (have two Sons), ROTF N DOM were all over the map in terms of plot, but that's Michael Bay. ...

Would be interesting to see a TF movie with a solid script n plot under a different director

 

[Dales]

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)

I will make it simpler b'cus you are using commercial argument but that is again irrelevant to the substance of a film. there are far more best trek films ranks where beyond beats STID. I will say 9-1. also I see things clearer when people give good reasons why Beyond better and those reasons are stronger vs why STID is better. so it is not irrelevant.

let me give you an example

STID ranked 8th
Following up 2009’s Star Trek, one of the most well-received reboots in recent memory, had to be an unenviable task for all involved. Unfortunately, screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman did almost everything wrong when writing Star Trek Into Darkness. Even the name sucks. The reason this movie is as high as it is one the list is mainly this: The first hour of the film mostly works, and addresses certain big issues the previous film had –like the fact that saving the world or not, cadet Kirk was not ready to be Captain of a ship yet. The first act really hums along and has great moments.


And then the movie hits its second hour…and it all falls apart. Once Bendedict Cumberbatch reveals his true identity and hisses to the camera that he’s Khan, everthing just hits a wall. How did timeline disruptions turn the previously ethnic Khan Noonian Singh into a pasty white British dude? Why is it his master plan makes ZERO sense? There is no reason for Khan to be in this movie, aside from the fact that there was once another Star Trek II that had a Khan in it. But if you’re going to do Khan, do him right or not at all. And redoing the end of Wrath of Khan, but with Kirk dying instead of Spock, and the two of them sharing that particular heartfelt goodbye moment, feels totally unearned at this point in the series.


It’s to JJ Abrams’ credit that he’s such a good director of popcorn entertainment, that he can almost make you forget that the story in this movie makes no sense, and that the script has giant plot holes (some might even say he did this for The Force Awakens, but the plot holes are WAY bigger in this movie). Oh, and Khan has magic resurrection blood in this movie. Because reasons.There is a reason this movie has a high Rotten Tomatoes score–it’s actually very watchable, especially if you just want entertaining eye candy. It’s just not very good.


Beyond ranked 6th

After the tepid fan response to Star Trek Into Darkness, JJ Abrams stepped back as director (but remained as producer) for the third part of the adventures of the Enterprise crew in the rebooted universe. Fast and the Furious director Justin Lin came on board, and between all the explosions and motorcycles poppin’ wheelies in the trailers, everyone thought this was going to be Star Trek in name only. But that couldn’t have been further from the truth. Beyond, despite all the heavy action, is very much in the vein of the original series and its ethos, and it finally gets the Enterprise away from the vicinity of Earth and out exploring the galaxy.


Taking place three years into the crew’s five year mission (exactly where the original series left off), Kirk and company have fallen into routine. Then, an out of nowhere surprise attack from an unknown species forces the Enterprise to crash land on a totally unknown world. The assault came from Krall (Idris Elba), an alien commander who needs a valuable artifact that’s aboard the Enterprise. With nothing but their gumption and their will to survive, the crew must now battle a deadly alien race while trying to find a way off a hostile world.


At first, Krall seems like a generic alien villain, but a reveal in the movie paints him in a whole new light and makes him far more interesting than he first appears. And while destroying the Enterprise is a cliche at this point, it serves the story in a big way, as the crew have to discover who they are to each other without the confines of the ship. And the alien warrior woman Jaylah (Sofia Boutella) is also a welcome addition to the cast. As the movie that was meant to celebrate 50 years of Star Trek, it hit all the right notes. Here’s hoping it’s not the last journey of Pine and Quinto as Kirk and Spock.

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

So as you see this are strong opinions of both films that matter more than RT scores and frankly I agree.

Also can you point me any movie director or another critic that said RT is the best place to see if a movie is better than the other?? I think some people tend to use RT when it is comfortable. that is the problem with RT. People can get very selective of what they say its a good film or a bad film.

Also can you personally tell me what STID did better than Beyond? I can give you many reasons why beyond is better by using star trek's lore 50 years in the making. that lore to me shows STID is weaker,, this is why over the years STID has aged poorly on a mainstream and JJ Abrams is on board with that too.
http://www.slashfilm.com/star-trek-into-darkness-problems/
http://www.slashfilm.com/star-trek-into-darkness-problems/

a film maker's real and honest criticism of his own movie is far more relevant that what a score is on RT.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Show me any filmmaker who doesn't have criticisms of their own work.

 

[Smellmet]

I will make it simpler b'cus you are using commercial argument but that is again irrelevant to the substance of a film. there are far more best trek films ranks where beyond beats STID. I will say 9-1. also I see things clearer when people give good reasons why Beyond better and those reasons are stronger vs why STID is better. so it is not irrelevant.

let me give you an example

STID ranked 8th
Following up 2009’s Star Trek, one of the most well-received reboots in recent memory, had to be an unenviable task for all involved. Unfortunately, screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman did almost everything wrong when writing Star Trek Into Darkness. Even the name sucks. The reason this movie is as high as it is one the list is mainly this: The first hour of the film mostly works, and addresses certain big issues the previous film had –like the fact that saving the world or not, cadet Kirk was not ready to be Captain of a ship yet. The first act really hums along and has great moments.


And then the movie hits its second hour…and it all falls apart. Once Bendedict Cumberbatch reveals his true identity and hisses to the camera that he’s Khan, everthing just hits a wall. How did timeline disruptions turn the previously ethnic Khan Noonian Singh into a pasty white British dude? Why is it his master plan makes ZERO sense? There is no reason for Khan to be in this movie, aside from the fact that there was once another Star Trek II that had a Khan in it. But if you’re going to do Khan, do him right or not at all. And redoing the end of Wrath of Khan, but with Kirk dying instead of Spock, and the two of them sharing that particular heartfelt goodbye moment, feels totally unearned at this point in the series.


It’s to JJ Abrams’ credit that he’s such a good director of popcorn entertainment, that he can almost make you forget that the story in this movie makes no sense, and that the script has giant plot holes (some might even say he did this for The Force Awakens, but the plot holes are WAY bigger in this movie). Oh, and Khan has magic resurrection blood in this movie. Because reasons.There is a reason this movie has a high Rotten Tomatoes score–it’s actually very watchable, especially if you just want entertaining eye candy. It’s just not very good.


Beyond ranked 6th

After the tepid fan response to Star Trek Into Darkness, JJ Abrams stepped back as director (but remained as producer) for the third part of the adventures of the Enterprise crew in the rebooted universe. Fast and the Furious director Justin Lin came on board, and between all the explosions and motorcycles poppin’ wheelies in the trailers, everyone thought this was going to be Star Trek in name only. But that couldn’t have been further from the truth. Beyond, despite all the heavy action, is very much in the vein of the original series and its ethos, and it finally gets the Enterprise away from the vicinity of Earth and out exploring the galaxy.


Taking place three years into the crew’s five year mission (exactly where the original series left off), Kirk and company have fallen into routine. Then, an out of nowhere surprise attack from an unknown species forces the Enterprise to crash land on a totally unknown world. The assault came from Krall (Idris Elba), an alien commander who needs a valuable artifact that’s aboard the Enterprise. With nothing but their gumption and their will to survive, the crew must now battle a deadly alien race while trying to find a way off a hostile world.


At first, Krall seems like a generic alien villain, but a reveal in the movie paints him in a whole new light and makes him far more interesting than he first appears. And while destroying the Enterprise is a cliche at this point, it serves the story in a big way, as the crew have to discover who they are to each other without the confines of the ship. And the alien warrior woman Jaylah (Sofia Boutella) is also a welcome addition to the cast. As the movie that was meant to celebrate 50 years of Star Trek, it hit all the right notes. Here’s hoping it’s not the last journey of Pine and Quinto as Kirk and Spock.

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

So as you see this are strong opinions of both films that matter more than RT scores and frankly I agree.

Also can you point me any movie director or another critic that said RT is the best place to see if a movie is better than the other?? I think some people tend to use RT when it is comfortable. that is the problem with RT. People can get very selective of what they say its a good film or a bad film.

Also can you personally tell me what STID did better than Beyond? I can give you many reasons why beyond is better by using star trek's lore 50 years in the making. that lore to me shows STID is weaker,, this is why over the years STID has aged poorly on a mainstream and JJ Abrams is on board with that too.
http://www.slashfilm.com/star-trek-into-darkness-problems/

a film maker's real and honest criticism of his own movie is far more relevant that what a score is on RT.

This is still someone's OPINION that you're dressing up as facts.

 

[Dales]

This is still someone's OPINION that you're dressing up as facts.

I did not say it was facts, infact I said it was opinions but the thing with opinions is they become very collective and start to function as whole. I do think the opinions of why beyond is better than STID is a lot much stronger than the opinions of why STID is better..

Another good example is when 100 trek fans voted STID as the worst of the films, that was an opinion of a few but what it did is make people look deeper into the film and made people who did not like the film to speak out more and yeah that also included simon pegg that admitted STID has a major flaws after that poll came out.

For me beyond is better because it had a better story, was a better tribute to TOS and did not sacrifice the story for the action, the character interaction and characterization in beyond was better than stid, I liked how kirk was so mature in Beyond unlike the superficial frat boy cool guy he was in stid, the females were treated better, spock was more balanced in beyond that the over emotional wreck he was in STID, Beyond used the ensemble cast better than STID, Krall is Krall not Khan, Kirk's birthday party at the end, spock/uhura romance was better written too..so that is why I feel beyond is better and more importantly beyond was trying to be an actual trek film than just another...action packed summer cgi blockbuster movie like STID.

 

[Smellmet]

All three of the reboots have their share of problems. I think they are all about as good as each other ultimately.

I just don't buy into this backlash or bad taste thing with STID. People just stopped giving a shit about the series, and the fault with that started with the 4 year gap between 09 and STID, and the lacklustre promotion/tough release date of beyond.

The standard of STID has nothing to do with it.

 

[Malaika]

Show me any filmmaker who doesn't have criticisms of their own work.

James Cameron? Lol

the thing with opinions is they become very collective and start to function as whole.

And yet, here you are saying that sites like rotten tomatoes are irrelevant, in spite of that so called 'number' literally being the result of the opinions of a sizeable amount of real people in the audience and critics.
Probably, some of those sites you quoted are already included in that number too, in that "whole".

It seems to me that you are accusing (to question their validity and relevance) sites like rt of doing the very thing you are doing right now with those bloggers whose opinions you pass as facts.

Again, an important detail keeps getting deliberately ignored here: that "number", thus those opinions that rank stid above beyond, are consistent, in this case at least, with box office and DVDs sales results as well. It's different elements that in no way contradict each other. The only contradiction is in your argument stating that a movie is more successful than another in spite of evidence suggesting quite the opposite.
To put it simply: there is no proof the people you quoted speak for the majority of the audience, but there is some evidence they might be the minority.

Most of the audience doesn't even post online but they still made their opinion clear by making the choice to spend their money more for a movie than for another. This is something the studio does care about because their job is first foremost making money and if the audience likes, by real numbers representing real people, one movie less than the other two - when they at least hoped it could get the same results of its predecessors, if not doing better - it's a problem. It's the reason this thread even exists.
What I have here is that we got beyond thank to stid being successful still and telling Paramount&Co that trek could make a profit, while thank to beyond we are now in doubt about whether we will get a fourth movie that had already been announced, and whose part of the cast had already signed for.

The rest of this argument is just a discussion about..nothing.

 

[Jayson1]

I think "Beyond" failed because Abrams wasn't directing and the "Fast and Furious" guy was which is something to make everyone nervous and frankly the villian is very weak and new aliens don't work well in the movies. You see Krell and he looks like someone that could have been used in any random "Voyager" episode. Why get Irba if you going to cover his face the entire movie, just about? The 4 year wait also hurt.

Jason

 

[C.E. Evans]

IMO, Beyond didn't do as well at the box office not because of the director, the story, or the villain but because the newness of the Kelvin Timeline had worn off by 2016 and it had already become "just another Star Trek movie" to non-Trekkers. A fourth outing may do even worse than Beyond no matter how good it might be, unless there's something that can hook in more than just Star Trek fans.

 

[Jayson1]

IMO, Beyond didn't do as well at the box office not because of the director, the story, or the villain but because the newness of the Kelvin Timeline had worn off by 2016 and it had already become "just another Star Trek movie" to non-Trekkers. A fourth outing may do even worse than Beyond no matter how good it might be, unless there's something that can hook in more than just Star Trek fans.

That is if we think mainstream fans even know what a Kelvin Universe is? I think many of them they just thought it was a reboot or a simple alternate timeline that wiped out the old shows or since many people get confused by time travel just figure that the timeline is restored when they all become a crew like on the old show and everything has been fixed.

Jason

 

[F. King Daniel]

That is if we think mainstream fans even know what a Kelvin Universe is? I think many of them they just thought it was a reboot or a simple alternate timeline that wiped out the old shows or since many people get confused by time travel just figure that the timeline is restored when they all become a crew like on the old show and everything has been fixed.

Jason

I think most casual viewers are able to enjoy them without trying to untangle the timelines. They see new actors and a new look and get that it's as much TOS as modern Batman is the old Adam West show.