Star Trek: Beyond


Movies

51 to 100 of 314 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's no need to get testy just because Freehold's right.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Krensky wrote:
Freehold's right.

Not about my opinions, he isn't.

He appears to be operating under the mistaken belief that I love all the old Trek Movies oh so very much... when in fact, they're mostly impossible to defend upon their own merits.

As MMCJawa states, one can dislike the reboots AND Nemesis, Insurrection, and the Motionless Picture.

And in fact, one can dislike them for a lot of the same reasons.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.

There is also the problem of Television vs Film pacing. Lets take a look at what may be the best Star Trek episode ever in any series, the TNG episode The Inner Light.

Spoiler:
This episode removes everything from Picard's life, and the entirety of the episode is him living an alternate life. The pacing is perfect, and Patrick Stewart gives a masterful performance of fighting against the life he finds himself in to slow acceptance and love of his new family, only to find himself back on the Enterprise an hour later, after living a lifetime.

This was a perfect story to be told in 47 minutes. In an hour and a half it would have been boring, there was no action in the episode at all, and it would bomb. The payoff from the episode was set up by five seasons of character development that can never happen in a movie or even a series of movies.

Star Trek Films that try to follow the formula for good Star Trek episodes fail. These new films are did go too far away from Trek imo. But they are still fun to watch.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Imbicatus wrote:

There is also the problem of Television vs Film pacing. Lets take a look at what may be the best Star Trek episode ever in any series, the TNG episode The Inner Light.

** spoiler omitted **

This was a perfect story to be told in 47 minutes. In an hour and a half it would have been boring, there was no action in the episode at all, and it would bomb. The payoff from the episode was set up by five seasons of character development that can never happen in a movie or even a series of movies.

Star Trek Films that try to follow the formula for good Star Trek episodes fail. These new films are did go too far away from Trek imo. But they are still fun to watch.

Check out this swanky bit of information about the flute used in the episode:

quote from Memory Alpha:
The prop was sold as Lot #537 at the 40 Years of Star Trek: The Collection auction. The buyer paid $48,000 for the lot, after winning it with a bid of $40,000. Patrick Stewart commented in an interview after with laughter "It doesn't play; it's not a real flute." The catalogue estimate for the lot was 800 to 1200 dollars.

Oh, the things we do to get our hands on some memorabilia...


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Looks absolutely terrible for a Star Trek movie.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
hargoyle wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:

There is also the problem of Television vs Film pacing. Lets take a look at what may be the best Star Trek episode ever in any series, the TNG episode The Inner Light.

** spoiler omitted **

This was a perfect story to be told in 47 minutes. In an hour and a half it would have been boring, there was no action in the episode at all, and it would bomb. The payoff from the episode was set up by five seasons of character development that can never happen in a movie or even a series of movies.

Star Trek Films that try to follow the formula for good Star Trek episodes fail. These new films are did go too far away from Trek imo. But they are still fun to watch.

Check out this swanky bit of information about the flute used in the episode:

** spoiler omitted **

Oh, the things we do to get our hands on some memorabilia...

I actually made a replica using an irish tin whistle, some bronze paint, silver wire, and a tassel and gave it to my other half as an anniversary gift. Mine actually plays :).

Side note: I was inspired to give this as a gift by The Family Guy


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Imbicatus wrote:
hargoyle wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:

There is also the problem of Television vs Film pacing. Lets take a look at what may be the best Star Trek episode ever in any series, the TNG episode The Inner Light.

** spoiler omitted **

This was a perfect story to be told in 47 minutes. In an hour and a half it would have been boring, there was no action in the episode at all, and it would bomb. The payoff from the episode was set up by five seasons of character development that can never happen in a movie or even a series of movies.

Star Trek Films that try to follow the formula for good Star Trek episodes fail. These new films are did go too far away from Trek imo. But they are still fun to watch.

Check out this swanky bit of information about the flute used in the episode:

** spoiler omitted **

Oh, the things we do to get our hands on some memorabilia...

I actually made a replica using an irish tin whistle, some bronze paint, silver wire, and a tassel and gave it to my other half as an anniversary gift. Mine actually plays :).

Side note: I was inspired to give this as a gift by The Family Guy

Are you sure you are not

Spoiler:
a starship captain, knocked unconscious by some alien probe and now living a simple life of a flute maker?

EDIT: Spoiler tags


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A magnificently terrible trailer that sums up the complete and total failures of these new TREK movies in one go: a total lack of weight, substance, depth and integrity, all bombast and fury, no wit or intelligence in sight. The poverty of ambition in these film-makers is impressive: EXPLOSION! PEOPLE JUMPING! CONTEMPORARY MUSIC! INANE WITTICISMS!

As usual, the best thing in it was Karl Urban as McCoy, who will almost certainly not have a particularly big role in the film at all.

Sigh. The only hopeful thing is that it cannot possibly be as bad as INTO DARKNESS...can it?

Quote:
JJ didn't direct this one...

Yeah, I dunno why. I think he was working on some tiny, avant-garde project?

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Werthead wrote:

A magnificently terrible trailer that sums up the complete and total failures of these new TREK movies in one go: a total lack of weight, substance, depth and integrity, all bombast and fury, no wit or intelligence in sight. The poverty of ambition in these film-makers is impressive: EXPLOSION! PEOPLE JUMPING! CONTEMPORARY MUSIC! INANE WITTICISMS!

As usual, the best thing in it was Karl Urban as McCoy, who will almost certainly not have a particularly big role in the film at all.

Sigh. The only hopeful thing is that it cannot possibly be as bad as INTO DARKNESS...can it?

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS was commercially successful. That's really all that matters.

Sovereign Court

No it doesn't. Commercial success doesn't mean anything.


Hama wrote:
No it doesn't. Commercial success doesn't mean anything.

There are days, hama, where I couldn't kiss you.

Sovereign Court

Heh :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Terquem wrote:
I am going to wait patiently until the day I get to see Chris Pine talk a computer to death.

It's NuTrek, so it'll have to be sexy computer.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:

Hugos are losing prestige, rapidly.

It might be more accurate to say that there's a group of people using social media to destroy the Hugos, but that's not then or here.

Star Trek is undergoing the kind of change that any show MUST undergo when it's been around as long as Dr. Who.... reinventing itself for a new audience raised in a different time, with a very different set of worldviews.

No... it's not your Daddy's Trek, but it's not your Daddy they're making the movies for, any more.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:

Hugos are losing prestige, rapidly.

It might be more accurate to say that there's a group of people using social media to destroy the Hugos, but that's not then or here.

Star Trek is undergoing the kind of change that any show MUST undergo when it's been around as long as Dr. Who.... reinventing itself for a new audience raised in a different time, with a very different set of worldviews.

No... it's not your Daddy's Trek, but it's not your Daddy they're making the movies for, any more.

I call BS on that comparison. The new Doctor Who is completely compatible with the old Doctor Who in tone. Furthermore it's a direct continuation of the old Doctor Who, and didn't completely change the entire universe it takes place in. The new trek does none of these things. It completely jettisons everything long time fans like about the original (not sure if this is really the right word, when it includes TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise).

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Technically, Enterprise wasn't retconned when the timeline shifted when Nero traveled back in time, because it happened about a hundred years before then. Hell, the reason why Scotty was on that frozen hellhole was because he lost Archer's dog in a transporter accident.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JoelF847 wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:

Hugos are losing prestige, rapidly.

It might be more accurate to say that there's a group of people using social media to destroy the Hugos, but that's not then or here.

Star Trek is undergoing the kind of change that any show MUST undergo when it's been around as long as Dr. Who.... reinventing itself for a new audience raised in a different time, with a very different set of worldviews.

No... it's not your Daddy's Trek, but it's not your Daddy they're making the movies for, any more.

I call BS on that comparison. The new Doctor Who is completely compatible with the old Doctor Who in tone. Furthermore it's a direct continuation of the old Doctor Who, and didn't completely change the entire universe it takes place in. The new trek does none of these things. It completely jettisons everything long time fans like about the original (not sure if this is really the right word, when it includes TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise).

The new Doctor Who is very different. The show focuses a lot more on the Companions who now have a life outside the TARDIS even while still a member of the crew. And the shows tend to be about as much the Companion,or at times more than the Doctor himself. It's also a show that hasn't visited a granite quarry a single time since the reboot. :)

The tone overall is considerably darker with the Time Lords themselves becoming essentially another villain race, albeit one with more sympathy than the Cybermen. The Doctor himself has episodes where he comes close to being an anti-villain being much more willing to put masses, or even the universe at risk for the companion he's currently holding a torch for.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

(Sorry this isn't very well written, but I'm tired)

I don't disagree that the franchise needed some reinvention, the problem really is that this isn't reinvention. It is something new from producers who didn't know or like TOS, which they have said several times.

I was watching Into Darkness today, and thinking how much the sequence on the Klingon world was a scene from Star Wars, complete with a mini-Falcon for Kirk/Han to fly. You could replace that scene with some tense negotiations with the Klingons and still have an exciting movie, and that movie would be more Trek.

I was also thinking that the 60 second or so sequence where Dr. Marcus and Bones take a shuttle to a planet to open up the torpedo, where Bones gets his arm stuck in the torpedo and they have to decide whether to save Marcus or not and let Bones die. That short sequence could be a whole episode of Trek, but all of the emotional weight and discussion of consequences and character development where Bones refuses to let someone else die for him, all of that is throne away.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

A word of caution.

A trailer is not a movie.

It is very easy (and ironically unTrek) to jump to conclusions based on this limited sample of clips from that movie.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

Lord Fyre wrote:

A word of caution.

A trailer is not a movie.

It is very easy (and ironically unTrek) to jump to conclusions based on this limited sample of clips from that movie.

Certainly true, but at the same time, a trailer is how the studio chooses to market a movie, and sets the tone for what kind of movie they're trying to sell. There can be more than the first trailer shows, but generally (not always 100% of the time) if something is in the trailer, it's in the movie. Often, trailers cherry pick the best parts of a movie, and for bad movies, the trailer can consist of the only good parts of a movie.

EDIT: and if this trailer is what the studio is telling me is the best parts of the movie, the parts that will most convince me that I should see it, it's certainly not the Star Trek movie that I want to see.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
SLAaDOS wrote:
Terquem wrote:
I am going to wait patiently until the day I get to see Chris Pine talk a computer to death.
It's NuTrek, so it'll have to be sexy computer.

I absolutely love the fact that people ignore the rampant sex sells approach of earlier trek shows. Its like it doesn't exist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Freehold DM wrote:
I absolutely love the fact that people ignore the rampant sex sells approach of earlier trek shows.

Absolute truth.

From Kirk's myriad "boot scenes" in the original series to the decidedly non-standard uniform options of Troi, Seven of Nine, T'Pol...

NuTrek is not exceptionally guilty in this regard- Alice Eve's pointless underwear scene in Into Darkness is pretty bad, but so is Troi's near-weekly status as victim of some species of sexual fixation in TNG.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The entire Trek fanbase is like Tasha Yar after hooking up with Data: "It never happened."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Who the hell was Tasha Yar?*

*JK, I know she was a Romulan


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Tasha Yar was the human mother of a Romulan/human hybrid. (Whose name was Sela, IIRC.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Tasha Yar was Chief of Security on the Enterprise. She was killed off toward the end of the first season. The actress was welcomed back in a few subsequent episodes, both as Tasha and as Tasha Yar's human/Romulan daughter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Otherwhere wrote:
Tasha Yar was Chief of Security on the Enterprise. She was killed off toward the end of the first season. The actress was welcomed back in a few subsequent episodes, both as Tasha and as Tasha Yar's human/Romulan daughter.

She's also been doing voicework for Star Trek Online along with several of the Voyager cast.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Star Trek is undergoing the kind of change that any show MUST undergo when it's been around as long as Dr. Who.... reinventing itself for a new audience raised in a different time, with a very different set of worldviews.

That's not a problem. The issue is that at its core STAR TREK presents a vision of the future that is utopian, peaceful and rooted in diplomacy and avoiding war. The reason for that is made clear in DEEP SPACE NINE when we finally see a full-scale, all-out interstellar war which lasts for years and the results are apocalyptic, but handled with weight and gravity.

You can update that view for modern audiences and riff off other inspirations and ideas, but what you can't do with the franchise is completely ignore or destroy that core set of values. Levelling San Francisco, slaughtering millions of people, and then not even addressing that is a problem. Destroying Vulcan and killing billions of people and not addressing that is a problem. Having the Enterprise have the consistency of toilet paper and get blown to pieces every movie but then be absolutely fine is a problem.

If you look at STAR TREK VI, that movie is all about avoiding war. That doesn't mean you can't have some exciting battle sequences and well-rooted moments of characterisation along the way, but ultimately the film (and the franchise) is about the value of life and preventing bloodshed. The new Abrams movies, on the contrary, seem to revel in bloodshed, explosions and death but then not exploring the consequences of that in any adult or meaningful way.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

You really didn't pay attention to either film then, did you?


Krensky wrote:
You really didn't pay attention to either film then, did you?

couldn't have put it better myself.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
You really didn't pay attention to either film then, did you?

I paid attention to the nihilism and lack of logic or consistency. I paid attention to the execrable scripts written by some of the biggest hacks in the industry. I paid attention to the poorly-thought-out battle and action sequences that ignored plausibility, logic or basic physics (when the new STAR WARS movie has better science than the latest STAR TREK ones, something has gone very wrong somewhere).

I paid attention to the haphazard and illogical character development. I paid attention to Captain Kirk's completely illogical and implausible career path. I paid attention to the initially laudable decision to completely remove themselves from the original mythos and then the very weird one to instead steal ideas from a film far superior to anything they could dream up themselves.

I paid attention to the development of interstellar transporters which made starships obsolete and then their complete failure to follow up on it in any logical manner. I paid attention to their complete, outright curing of death in the second movie, and look forward to what will no doubt be a thorough and convincing exploration of the ramifications of such a shocking, galaxy-shaking, paradigm-shifting discovery in the third movie in the sequence.

I paid attention to both films far more than you did, apparently.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Werthead wrote:
Quote:
You really didn't pay attention to either film then, did you?
I paid attention to both films far more than you did, apparently.

That's manifestly false based your comments, but if it makes you feel like one of the cool nerds to hate them for things that are just as much part of the other Trek movies or only exist in your complaints, have at it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just saw that Simon Pegg (Scotty and one of the writers on Beyond) also did not like the trailer.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ah, the condescending 'you don't agree with me, so you must not understand!' phase of the disagreement.

If two people can't view something and come away with different opinions about what it 'meant,' it hasn't been invented yet.

I, for instance, loved Star Trek: the Motion Picture almost as much as Wrath of Khan, despite it being apparently the worst Star Trek of all time, to everyone else. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Set wrote:
I, for instance, loved Star Trek: the Motion Picture almost as much as Wrath of Khan, despite it being apparently the worst Star Trek of all time, to everyone else. :)

I don't much care for the Motionless Picture, but it did one thing right that most subsequent films botched utterly- Letting Kirk be dead wrong and get called on it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Otherwhere wrote:
Just saw that Simon Pegg (Scotty and one of the writers on Beyond) also did not like the trailer.

Maybe there's hope. I hated the trailer. I am seeing the movie regardless though. I actually LIKED BOTH of the New Treks (that's including Into Darkness).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cole Deschain wrote:
Set wrote:
I, for instance, loved Star Trek: the Motion Picture almost as much as Wrath of Khan, despite it being apparently the worst Star Trek of all time, to everyone else. :)
I don't much care for the Motionless Picture, but it did one thing right that most subsequent films botched utterly- Letting Kirk be dead wrong and get called on it.

indeed, this is the BEST part of the film, and it sailed over many people's heads.


Werthead wrote:
Quote:
You really didn't pay attention to either film then, did you?

I paid attention to the nihilism and lack of logic or consistency. I paid attention to the execrable scripts written by some of the biggest hacks in the industry. I paid attention to the poorly-thought-out battle and action sequences that ignored plausibility, logic or basic physics (when the new STAR WARS movie has better science than the latest STAR TREK ones, something has gone very wrong somewhere).

I paid attention to the haphazard and illogical character development. I paid attention to Captain Kirk's completely illogical and implausible career path. I paid attention to the initially laudable decision to completely remove themselves from the original mythos and then the very weird one to instead steal ideas from a film far superior to anything they could dream up themselves.

I paid attention to the development of interstellar transporters which made starships obsolete and then their complete failure to follow up on it in any logical manner. I paid attention to their complete, outright curing of death in the second movie, and look forward to what will no doubt be a thorough and convincing exploration of the ramifications of such a shocking, galaxy-shaking, paradigm-shifting discovery in the third movie in the sequence.

I paid attention to both films far more than you did, apparently.

let us do battle werthead!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:
Werthead wrote:
Quote:
You really didn't pay attention to either film then, did you?
I paid attention to both films far more than you did, apparently.
That's manifestly false based your comments, but if it makes you feel like one of the cool nerds to hate them for things that are just as much part of the other Trek movies or only exist in your complaints, have at it.

So...you have no firm rebuttal in mind or possible?

Cute.

Very, very cute.

That's fine. Some people enjoy the lolz, or explosions, or superficial gloss. Knock yourself out. Some people enjoy mindless candyfloss which does not engage the intellectual process in any way, shape or form.

But do not, under any circumstances, step up and say, "Haterz whatevs" and do not offer a single firm rebuttal, or argument, or piece of evidence to back up your position. Argue your position or retreat. There is no inbetween.

Quote:
let us do battle werthead!

I would do. But you're still in the Mutara Nebula and I'm over Vulcan's decaying orbit.

Bring. It.


I'm with Werthead on this one, the new Treks had so many logic holes it drove me crazy. The limitless transporter is a good example. Even a through away line that stated the tech wasn't stable and could put you in the void or in another quadrant would have be fine, but they don't. They introduce events that should have huge ripple effects and pretend that everything is self contained within the current story. Who cares about canon at that point?

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

We should get Joss Whedon to write/direct the next Star Trek, just for Freehold DM's benefit.


The Abrams Star Trek movies had lots of problems, yet were significantly more fun than actual Star Trek.

Abrams Star Trek is Star Trek being marketed to people who didn't like Star Trek.

The new movie just looks stupid, though. I expect the cast will put on a good performance, perhaps enough to even make it worth watching, but holy crap this movie's gonna be dumb.


Lord Fyre wrote:

We should get Joss Whedon to write/direct the next Star Trek, just for Freehold DM's benefit.

Oh, it. Is. ON.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Werthead wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Werthead wrote:
Quote:
You really didn't pay attention to either film then, did you?
I paid attention to both films far more than you did, apparently.
That's manifestly false based your comments, but if it makes you feel like one of the cool nerds to hate them for things that are just as much part of the other Trek movies or only exist in your complaints, have at it.

So...you have no firm rebuttal in mind or possible?

Cute.

Very, very cute.

That's fine. Some people enjoy the lolz, or explosions, or superficial gloss. Knock yourself out. Some people enjoy mindless candyfloss which does not engage the intellectual process in any way, shape or form.

But do not, under any circumstances, step up and say, "Haterz whatevs" and do not offer a single firm rebuttal, or argument, or piece of evidence to back up your position. Argue your position or retreat. There is no inbetween.

Quote:
let us do battle werthead!

I would do. But you're still in the Mutara Nebula and I'm over Vulcan's decaying orbit.

Bring. It.

CUE UP THE BAND

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

On the eve of going to see Star Wars, I'm wary of saying this ('cause it could bite me in the ass in 12 hours), but I don't like how much the Trek franchise sometimes coast on nostalgia.

It was pretty bad with Spock, in the later movies, where he's say something like 'Only Nixon could go to China' and it was supposed to be funny because Spock said it. And then by the time Data was appearing in Next Gen movies, he was the living embodiment of what I liked least, with pretty much every line he uttered having an imaginary laugh-track in the background (and a pause for the audience to laugh because, funny or not, it was Data, and he's so quirky, and laugh dammit!).

The mention of the Mutara nebula a few posts back reminded me of the epic scene of the Enterprise rising from the nebula behind the Reliant to smoke Khan right up his overconfident two-dimensional-thinking tailpipe, and that scene was so classic that they've felt the need to repeat it over and over, with the Enterprise rising portentously out of Saturn's atmosphere, or the ocean of some planet full of primitive folk.

I get it. I got it during Wrath of Khan that the Enterprise looks cool surfacing like a submarine. Let's move on, now.

I look back at Deep Space Nine, my favorite Star Trek sub-franchise, and sometimes think that Babylon 5 really kicked them in the ass and forced them to shake things up with the Dominion War and the Klingon/Cardassian/Breen/Dominion/Federation fleets going all out on each other.

Voyager attempted to get away from the rich Trek setting, by jaunting out to the Delta quadrant, and even then, more recent classics (like the Borg and Q) kept showing up anyway. Enterprise tried to step back, and yet kept bringing up stuff like the Borg (again!) and the Ferengi, sort of pandering to the warm fuzzy goodwill nostalgia of Trek fans, instead of boldly going anywhere.

The new Trek movies, on the other hand, seem to have yawed too far in the other direction, in some respects, while setting phasers to full pander with guest-appearances by Nimoy and the whole Into Darkness 'Wrath of Khan with Kirk and Spock swapping roles' storyline.

I'm a Trek fan, 100% more than a Star Wars fan, and I'm looking forward more to what Star Wars has on the kettle for the future than Star Trek.

Who knows, maybe this new series will (pleasantly) surprise me, assuming I can see it without buying a new streaming service just to see one show...

The Exchange

Krensky wrote:
Werthead wrote:
Quote:
You really didn't pay attention to either film then, did you?
I paid attention to both films far more than you did, apparently.
That's manifestly false based your comments, but if it makes you feel like one of the cool nerds to hate them for things that are just as much part of the other Trek movies or only exist in your complaints, have at it.

Yeah. When the bad guy deciding to hide his friends inside nuclear missiles (and is later surprised that failed to keep them safe), and that's not remotely the dumbest part of the movie, you know you are headed into a really dumb summer blockbuster.

I didn't watch the old Star Trek show or any of the movies. I walked into the J.J.A movies having only a vague idea what the universe is. I had no expectations of them being good. And still, I was disappointed. These are honestly some of the worst science fiction I've ever seen (granted, I do avoid obvious schlock, there clearly are worse movies than these but I can usually tell from a distance and avoid them). When I went out of the second one I had no other words to describe it than "Fast & Furious in SPAAAAACE".

Not riffing on you for liking it. I like plenty of dumb things too. I'm just willing to acknowledge it when I like something that isn't objectively good.

As for the new trailer - it tries so hard to be a trailer for Guardians of the Galaxy that it's kinda sad. You can just see blank faced executives sitting in some office and holding a meeting where they decide that the movie will sell best if the kids nowadays think it's just like that last laser-shooty fing wif da spaceships, y'know, the one with the cool music and one liners and all that.Not going to watch this one in theaters. Honestly, the only good thing I got out of the last one was finally realizing that I shouldn't count on the Tomatometer AT ALL.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Black Dougal wrote:
I'm with Werthead on this one, the new Treks had so many logic holes it drove me crazy. The limitless transporter is a good example. Even a through away line that stated the tech wasn't stable and could put you in the void or in another quadrant would have be fine, but they don't. They introduce events that should have huge ripple effects and pretend that everything is self contained within the current story. Who cares about canon at that point?

Plotholes and Star Trek have been a tradition since 1966. Abrams' are more obvious because of the general power creep that's been going on with the setting for decades.


Well there goes yet another USS Enterprise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DaemonAngel wrote:
Well there goes yet another USS Enterprise.

Technically it's the first Enterprise to go...since it's not A,B,C, or bloody D.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Otherwhere wrote:
Tasha Yar was Chief of Security on the Enterprise. She was killed off toward the end of the first season. The actress was welcomed back in a few subsequent episodes, both as Tasha and as Tasha Yar's human/Romulan daughter.

She had left in order to jumpstart her movie career in "Pet Semetary"

51 to 100 of 314 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Entertainment / Movies / Star Trek: Beyond All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.