Star Trek: Beyond (2016)

[Vince W]

Bam! Boom! High kick! Punch! Macho crap and needless effects.

Oh, and McCoy's here too.

I hate myself that I'll probably go see this and be disappointed yet again.

No Star Trek here. Move along. Move along.

 

[Droflet]

It's star trek, but not as we know it. I too am looking forward to disappointment. Sigh.

 

[Brian G Turner]

So...something not about Star Trek, but instead a more popular genre that simply includes Star Trek characters?

Actually, I think the comparison with Avengers is a good one to demonstrate why Star Trek keeps going wrong.

For a start, Avengers didn't aspire to be a different genre with wide appeal. But, more importantly, there were a ton of restrictions on Joss Whedon - so much that he refused to work on a third film - not least relating to continuity issues with the various franchises involved. And it's this latter point where Star Trek continually falls down - it's never really evolved away from the single episode story, resulting in weak continuity. This is a point highlighted by the newer films which actively break away from any original canon in various ways, which alienates existing fans which should otherwise provide a strong marketing base.

In other words, if Star Trek wants to be commercially more successful, it needs to have clear rules for itself and observe them. That, and of course, have only the best writers/directors involved and working within such restraints.

2c.

 

[Vince W]

Vonda McIntyre was only a phone call away.

 

[BAYLOR]

It's star trek, but not as we know it. I too am looking forward to disappointment. Sigh.

On the plus side, at least there were no car chases in it.

 

[clovis-man]

More on the trailer:

The Pros and Cons of That Star Trek Beyond Trailer

 

[Brian G Turner]

Actually, I think the comparison with Avengers is a good one to demonstrate why Star Trek keeps going wrong.

For a start, Avengers didn't aspire to be a different genre with wide appeal. But, more importantly, there were a ton of restrictions on Joss Whedon - so much that he refused to work on a third film - not least relating to continuity issues with the various franchises involved. And it's this latter point where Star Trek continually falls down - it's never really evolved away from the single episode story, resulting in weak continuity. This is a point highlighted by the newer films which actively break away from any original canon in various ways, which alienates existing fans which should otherwise provide a strong marketing base.

In other words, if Star Trek wants to be commercially more successful, it needs to have clear rules for itself and observe them. That, and of course, have only the best writers/directors involved and working within such restraints.

2c.

The examples of Jurassic World and Star Wars: The Force Awakens clearly show that a genre film that stays true to its roots can be a record-breaking commercial success. The danger is that if the new Trek film moves to abandon its own, it will further diminish its own fanbase.

 

[Culhwch]

The examples of Jurassic World and Star Wars: The Force Awakens clearly show that a genre film that stays true to its roots can be a record-breaking commercial success. The danger is that if the new Trek film moves to abandon its own, it will further diminish its own fanbase.

You can't compare Star Trek to either of those franchises, though - it's an entirely different beast. And in fact the new movies already are trying desperately to make Star Trek more like those franchises: broad and accessible rather than niche and aloof.

Jurassic Park and Star Wars were both amazing commercial successes and cultural phenomenons. I guess Star Trek fans would also argue it was a cultural phenomenon, but it would be hard to argue it was anywhere near on the same scale as either of these properties. When Jurassic World and The Force Awakens 'stayed true' to their roots, they resulted in record-breaking box office receipts, but only because those roots run deep and wide. When Star Trek stays true to its roots, you get Nemesis, or First Contact, or Generations, or one of however many other Star Trek films that have done little business at the box office. Look them up here: All Time Worldwide Box Office Grosses. It's no coincidence that you'll find Jurassic World and Jurassic Park both in the top twenty, and soon you'll find The Force Awakens along with four of the other six other Star Wars movies in the top one hundred. The only Trek films I spotted in the top 625 listed are, unsurprisingly, the reboots - and not until page two or three.

The Star Trek fanbase that you're wishing the new movies played to is too small to justify indulging them in that way - past history has shown that's not a commercially viable approach. If it comes down to appealing to the die-hard fan dollar, or the popular dollar, especially in today's film industry, then the latter will win every time.

 

[Vince W]

"This one, I can definitively say, has the most action out of any one we’ve done so far. People who like summer blockbusters and like s— blowing up will like this.” - Chris Pine

Blowing up is not Star Trek. may blow up, but that's not the point of Star Trek. Fail... again.

 

[Nick B]

I disagree. In the original star trek, Kirk liked to blow everything up. The original movies too. Kirk hated klingons and liked to blow them up. He didn't like romulans. Blown up. The only people he didn't blow up were the ones he slept with.

 

[Ray Pullar]

Jimmy Kirk preferred his fists of justice most of the time. Almost every episode has a punch up, normally at the end, to sort out who is boss. Much like most other popular nineteen-sixties tv shows: The Avengers, Batman, The Invaders, countless westerns.

 

[Brian G Turner]

When Star Trek stays true to its roots, you get Nemesis, or First Contact, or Generations, or one of however many other Star Trek films that have done little business at the box office.

Star Trek has arguably never kept to its roots, and struggled to maintain any reasonable continuity. The films suffered from weak scripts and poor production values. I figured the reboot gave them a chance to change all that, but they are in danger of simply making the same mistake again: of making it up as they go along.

 

[Droflet]

I'll say it again. It's Star Trek, but not as we know it.

 

[Culhwch]

Star Trek has arguably never kept to its roots, and struggled to maintain any reasonable continuity. The films suffered from weak scripts and poor production values. I figured the reboot gave them a chance to change all that, but they are in danger of simply making the same mistake again: of making it up as they go along.

So what is it that you want to see in new Star Trek films?

 

[Brian G Turner]

So what is it that you want to see in new Star Trek films?

Meh, I'm just ranting unnecessarily. Strek Trek is an iconic franchise that has only rarely been able to carry off a strong film. IMO Abrams has done a mostly decent job with the reboot so far.

So when Simon Pegg mentioned in the above linked interview that the studio execs were comparing Star Trek to Avengers, and his solution was to try and move away from genre, my fear is that they're chasing rainbows.

But Simon Pegg has a track record of genius writing, and I'm just an armchair critic.

 

[Dave]

So when Simon Pegg mentioned in the above linked interview that the studio execs were comparing Star Trek to Avengers, and his solution was to try and move away from genre, my fear is that they're chasing rainbows.

But Simon Pegg has a track record of genius writing, and I'm just an armchair critic.

I'm completely with Brian on this, except I think he was being ironic regarding Simon Pegg. He started off well with Spaced and Alan Partridge and then began his ever downward spiral to Paul and Run, Fat Boy Run and the World's End (with a few notable exceptions such as Shaun of the Dead.)

I also think you cannot compare Star Trek with Jurassic Park and Avengers. Jurassic Park has dinosaurs!!! When my son was a small child he would watch anything with dinosaurs in (even Ep. I The Phantom Menace!) The rise of comic book adaptations is similarly "a thing!" I have never been into Marvel and DC Comics so I don't understand it, but I can still see it. Star Trek always had a niche audience and probably always will. If they don't want to make films for the fan-base then make a different film using different characters.

 

[Brian G Turner]

No one's posted up the new trailer yet?

 

[Vince W]

I think JJ's given up on Star Trek since Star Wars did so well. The studio just doesn't seem to be interested any more either.

 

[clovis-man]

I think JJ's given up on Star Trek since Star Wars did so well. The studio just doesn't seem to be interested any more either.

Yeah, but I'll go see it anyway. And it really is good to have Simon Pegg, the ultimate Star Trek geek, involved in a big way.

 

[REBerg]

Looks like the cast includes a real KISS fan ​