True, the bike could have been "borrowed" from the planet. But I think the idea that it's Kirk personal property stowed aboard ship resonates as more likely. Time will tell, though!
The First Trailer
- Thread starter Squiggy
- Start date
That is part of the problem. Everything is done only to satisfy the studio's greed. I have come to accept the fact that the Star Trek (or space opera as such) as I like it (mostly equals to Berman-era Trek / Babylon 5 etc.) is way of past, and not economically viable anymore.
Why cant they make a movie on slightly lower budget (similar to past Trek movies) and market to fan audience? Answer = its not the optimal way to make money.
This means, they will not do it anymore.
Which means, new Star Trek I like will not be made anymore.
Simply because they put a Trek label on a generic movie, does not necessarily mean I must like it.
Will I see it - yes (and thats the problem. Once they have your money they dont care anymore). Will I buy Bluray or rewatch it - most likely not.
If I recall correctly, the car-off-the-cliff scene was in the Trek 2009 trailer too, and when the movie came around it featured in only one throwaway scene. It isn't surprising that a trailer for the general audience would focus on action-packed moments that aren't too 'out there' for those who may not naturally go to a sci-fi movie.
If I'm honest, the trailer didn't completely sell me. It seemed a bit all over the place, but then that is often true of trailers. You can get nothing of the tone or pace of a film from a 90 second re-edited trailer, and not even much of the plot, as scenes are re-cut together out of order.
This reminds me of the Futurama episode where Fry listens to his old "Baby got back" CD, and Leela describes it as "classical music".
(Bender later refers to "stuffy old songs about the buttocks".)
Who knows, Kirk may be considered the height of culture in his own time. Extremely unlikely, but still....
Anymore? When did they ever do that? All the Trek movies were trying to make money from global appeal. The Motion Picture was specifically commissioned because of the commercial success of Star Wars. Anything that markets itself to existing fans only is ultimately doomed to ever depleting audiences. None of the Trek moves have been 'marketed to a fan audience' even if that's ultimately who ended up buying tickets.
Completely untrue. Those factors are the very best information we have upon which to base expectations regarding the performance of the next film.
You think these things materialize and are launched into the marketplace sui generis? Wishful thinking.
This is a realistic understanding of the current situation, yes. You're more likely to find some satisfaction in a future Star Trek TV series, as long as you aren't attached to the continuity and specifics of the oldTrek shows. It's reasonable to expect a greater variety and depth of characterization and storytelling in a TV series than in the theatrical marketplace now.
Dennis said it perfectly on Facebook.
It's also written by Simon Pegg and directed by the guy who directed Fast and Furious 3-6 and set in the universe created by Abrams, Kurtzman, and Orci. If you're disappointed that this isn't a cerebral discussion about trade disputes or interspecies politics or were expecting that then you simply haven't been paying attention.
And ProTip®: if you use the term "Abomination" and "Abomination 2" to describe the other nuTrek movies then you're not going to be taken seriously by a majority of people here. It's like going into a DMB forum and saying Under the Table and Dreaming is a worthless waste of an album.
Can I just point out something that really irrationally bugs me?
Why are there starfleet branded World War 2 RAF goggles? I get using found objects in Trek is a storied tradition of the franchise, but they almost always had some level of gubbins applied to hide what they are. As you can see, these are used as is. And as someone who only has a cursory knowledge of the second world war, noticed these straight away and found them distracting.
I would've been fine if they used the alien abduction trope Voyager had for the 37s, and it literally was a WW2 pair of goggles with an old motorbike too, but that starfleet logo is just...why?
Why are there starfleet branded World War 2 RAF goggles? I get using found objects in Trek is a storied tradition of the franchise, but they almost always had some level of gubbins applied to hide what they are. As you can see, these are used as is. And as someone who only has a cursory knowledge of the second world war, noticed these straight away and found them distracting.
I would've been fine if they used the alien abduction trope Voyager had for the 37s, and it literally was a WW2 pair of goggles with an old motorbike too, but that starfleet logo is just...why?
You may be right, but still, the tone of 90-ties movies was much different from this one. Ultimately even Nemesis (which has had a much different tone from rest of TNG movies) is much more like Star Trek then this new thingy.
All I see in this trailer is attempt to create dumbed down GOTG style movie.
And I am slowly loosing hope for the new series. As usual, it wil be aimed at teenage audience, likely lacking vast resemblance to any series which came before.
And yes, I want the slower, political, intrigue filled Star Trek. I never was fan of TOS, so space western is not doing it for me either.
Can I just point out something that really irrationally bugs me?
Why are there starfleet branded World War 2 RAF goggles? I get using found objects in Trek is a storied tradition of the franchise, but they almost always had some level of gubbins applied to hide what they are. As you can see, these are used as is. And as someone who only has a cursory knowledge of the second world war, noticed these straight away and found them distracting.
I would've been fine if they used the alien abduction trope Voyager had for the 37s, and it literally was a WW2 pair of goggles with an old motorbike too, but that starfleet logo is just...why?
Interesting.
I can't say I noticed the WWII connection when watching the trailer or that I care now that I know about it.
Well, they tried that. It was called Nemesis. It was made on a budget of 60 mil. It got beat by a Jennifer Lopez rom-com on it's opening weekend and killed TNG.
Independence Day had a budget of 75 million and that was 20 years ago. Hell, The Martian was 100 million and most of that movie was Matt Damon talking to dirt. Want it to be like Interstellar? $165m.
Good movies are expensive. Its a sci-fi/action/summer movie. There aren't any sub-100 million dollar movies made like that anymore.
That being said, high budgets don't mean it will make money. Those are called flops (Jupiter Ascending made $47m on a budget of $176m, John Carter made $73m on $250m budget), but there's zero indication that Beyond will be one.
I do. Never liked the design since the first time it appeared. Really hoping they'll come up with something better for the 1701-A.
I do like how it doesn't look as clean and glossy as the prior two movies. Some of the set design and uniforms look better as well.
Still, the trailer makes it look like it's going to be another bland generic snooze fest. Can't imagine that it could be any worse than STID though.
Still, the trailer makes it look like it's going to be another bland generic snooze fest. Can't imagine that it could be any worse than STID though.
Sorry good movies don't need to be expensive.
I think that's my biggest problem with the trailer:
They try to be too big for their own good. I think people slowly get tired of every blockbuster trying too blow up earth/the universe.
You will get the Transformers crowd, that's only there for the spectacle. But you will loose your core audience, which in turn damages the brand.
The Avengers was basically the bigest thing ever. But in the movie/marketing, they almost seemed to downplay the scope. It wasn't "OUR HEROES HAVE TO SAVE THE UNIVERSE!!!", instead "hey, here are some characters you liked individually. Now look how they play off each other!". The same goes for the new Star Wars. There's no Starkiller Base in the Trailer, just "remember the musice, and the world of Star Wars? Here is it again!". Hell, Skyfall may be a very flawed movie. But it was exactly what it was, a James Bond movi, and it hit the tone perfect.
With this trailer it seems to go the other way 'round: Everything is big!The Enterprise destroyed! Earth attacked! And it feels too much like generic blockbusters a la Man of Steel, Age of Ultron or Transformers. Box office succecces. But not too much liked by the critics, and not leaving really a mark on the audience.
Which is weird. Because Justin Li made a good job with the Fast and Fusious movies in making them action-packed, but not too big and mostly character driven.
I still have hope the movie will turn out just fine, and that it's just the marketing department that didn't got the tone right (remember how the latest Batman v. Superman - Trailer tried to heavily adjust the tone to "more light-hearted" after everyone complained about the grim-darkness of the first teaser? Maybe the second Beyond-Trailer will be much more theatrical, with orchestra-music and a grand scope instead of just "big events".)
Who knows? Movie might be good, Trailer is problem-ridden
They try to be too big for their own good. I think people slowly get tired of every blockbuster trying too blow up earth/the universe.
You will get the Transformers crowd, that's only there for the spectacle. But you will loose your core audience, which in turn damages the brand.
The Avengers was basically the bigest thing ever. But in the movie/marketing, they almost seemed to downplay the scope. It wasn't "OUR HEROES HAVE TO SAVE THE UNIVERSE!!!", instead "hey, here are some characters you liked individually. Now look how they play off each other!". The same goes for the new Star Wars. There's no Starkiller Base in the Trailer, just "remember the musice, and the world of Star Wars? Here is it again!". Hell, Skyfall may be a very flawed movie. But it was exactly what it was, a James Bond movi, and it hit the tone perfect.
With this trailer it seems to go the other way 'round: Everything is big!The Enterprise destroyed! Earth attacked! And it feels too much like generic blockbusters a la Man of Steel, Age of Ultron or Transformers. Box office succecces. But not too much liked by the critics, and not leaving really a mark on the audience.
Which is weird. Because Justin Li made a good job with the Fast and Fusious movies in making them action-packed, but not too big and mostly character driven.
I still have hope the movie will turn out just fine, and that it's just the marketing department that didn't got the tone right (remember how the latest Batman v. Superman - Trailer tried to heavily adjust the tone to "more light-hearted" after everyone complained about the grim-darkness of the first teaser? Maybe the second Beyond-Trailer will be much more theatrical, with orchestra-music and a grand scope instead of just "big events".)
Who knows? Movie might be good, Trailer is problem-ridden
Sci-fi ones do.
My conclusions as well. And, how much you want to bet that they'll use parts of the crashed ships to solve the problem.
Mr Awe
I have already given up on my hope to ever see a Star Trek movie that hit's the tone so perfectly as Master & Commander: The far side of the world did.
But I think the current problem is the producers: They want Trek to be their Star Wars, GotG, Transformers or Avengers. But Star Trek was always a bit smaller, a bit more brain-y, and a bit more nerdy.
They should try to make it their Ant-Man or The Martian or Gravity, Prometheus in terms of scope. Smaller budget, but a bit weirder and with more risks. And hey, who knows? James Bond got really bit after(!) they hit the tone right.
But I think the current problem is the producers: They want Trek to be their Star Wars, GotG, Transformers or Avengers. But Star Trek was always a bit smaller, a bit more brain-y, and a bit more nerdy.
They should try to make it their Ant-Man or The Martian or Gravity, Prometheus in terms of scope. Smaller budget, but a bit weirder and with more risks. And hey, who knows? James Bond got really bit after(!) they hit the tone right.
I get the impression that the producers are starting to follow in the footsteps of George Lucas' vision for Star Wars with his "Used Future" trope, with things starting to show a little wear and tear - as they would understandably be in real life after being in service for several years. In fact, there was a metric ass-ton of WWII-vintage stuff throughout all the Star Wars movies, particularly the weaponry used on both sides, as well as dogfight choreography.
As johnjm22 mentions above, things aren't "clean and glossy" as they were 2 movies ago, when everything was new and fresh. These goggles give that feeling of something that's been around for a while - the logo plate even has a look of patina and tarnish around it to invoke that feel. And, sadly, the costume designers may be taking advantage of the average moviegoer's knowledge (or lack thereof) of things older than 30 years of age. Either way, I can live with it.
Similar threads
