There’s a new Star Trek trailer and it looks terrible

It has a lot of punching, precious little "science fiction."


Read the whole story

 

[Blinken]

2 Trek 2 Furious

 

[arkiel]

Star Trek was academy days,
Into Darkness was before 5 year mission,
Beyond looks like the essence of an Original Series episode. Light on philosophy, hard on sci-fi but not heavy with it, and populated with highly bangable space elves that escaped Thor 2 and Hellboy 2.

This is pretty much what I was expecting. What were you?

 

[Alyeska]

Blinken[/url]":2l7rh87o]2 Trek 2 Furious

2 Fast 4 Trek

 

[JWoody907]

I have to say that I think for a teaser trailer, it's fine. Lots of action, and little to nothing about the plot (other than it looks like Enterprise is gonna take a beating). As for the discussion over the soundtrack, I ask "so what?". Okay if you don't like the Beastie Boys, fine, but that song links back to the first Star Trek reboot, as its the one that Young Kirk played right before totaling the convertible off the cliff.

I enjoyed the original Star Trek movies, and I've enjoyed the reboots. I think we'll see a better picture of this one form as we get closer and closer to release. Be patient.

 

[Serrin]

The trailer looks terrible and I doubt I'll like the movie, but that being said...

It's a trailer. Scenes of Spock discussing moral dilemmas won't bring people into the theater.

 

[Coriolanus]

To be fair, even the original TOS Star Trek had a fair amount of action-oriented episodes as an excuse to get Shatner to rip his shirt.

While Star Trek had its moral play episodes which functioned as commentaries on 1960s culture or morality, there were a bunch that were just dumb episodes where people punch each other.

That said, I have intensely disliked the Star Trek reboots thus far, and I don't plan to watch this one.

 

[lewax00]

Personally I like the new Star Trek movies...I think they're terrible at being Star Trek, but entertaining enough as just movies.

 

[Static and Noise]

Watching that trailer, I had to spend a few minutes Googling to make sure it wasn't a joke.

I'm not a huge Star Trek fan but... You know what, you remember the episode "200" of Stargate SG1, the joke episode? With "Wormhole X-Treme", and things like the main cast being re-cast by "younger and cooler" actors?

Yeah. That's what this Star Trek trailer looked like.

 

[LuDux]

'Shit this new Star Trek movie has too much Star Trek in that. Better fix that.'

 

[Dez1013]

I'll skip. I feel like the point of Star Trek might be lost on the people green lighting these sequels.

 

[Serrin]

lewax00[/url]"mc7cc3s]Personally I like the new Star Trek movies...I think they're terrible at being Star Trek, but entertaining enough as just movies.

This pretty much captures my feelings about the first movie. I thought the second one was just downright bad.

Abrams was a great choice for Star Wars and a terrible choice for Star Trek. Whedon I think would have been a good choice to modernize Star Trek, make it cool and exciting and fun with some action while still offering something deeper and more meaningful at its core.

 

[mvmiller12]

It didn't look terrible to me. It looked like a teaser. Teasers by nature should be super-light on plot, and highlight things to attract people that may be on the fence about seeing a film. The fact that there is discussion here is proof that it is working as intended. We saw Kirk & crew, getting into shenanigans (as they do). What else did it need to be to jumpstart awareness of this film?

 

[Demani]

"Beastie Boys apparently?"
You sir are pushing your luck. It could be argued that the Beastie Boys were the catalyst for bringing hiphop culture into the mainstream by virtue of it's quite white members. And given the effect that hiphop has had on modern pop culture, that is no insignificant feat.
(and we aren't even discussing the actual merits and contributions of their music, which were major)

But yeah, this isn't your father's Enterprise. Or ours.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

I genuinely like the new crew and think they work well, but god damn are the plots just garbage. Star Trek was decent, Into Darkness was mostly ludicrous, but this looks dreadful.

Here's hoping the new TV series isn't complete dreck.

 

[bthylafh]

I don't know what that trailer is, but it's not Star Trek.

 

[MythBusterJoe]

At least it looks like they've cured obesity in the 23rd century, everyone looks fit.

 

[deltanonymous]

Demani[/url]":1ockfk4y]"Beastie Boys apparently?"
You sir are pushing your luck. It could be argued that the Beastie Boys were the catalyst for bringing hiphop culture into the mainstream by virtue of it's quite white members. And given the effect that hiphop has had on modern pop culture, that is no insignificant feat.
(and we aren't even discussing the actual merits and contributions of their music, which were major)

But yeah, this isn't your father's Enterprise. Or ours.

Apparently it's 1994's Enterprise. If they'd really want to appeal to the young'ins, they'd put Diplo on the trailer or something, not something that was already cringeworthy in '06.

You know, I don't really mind that these films aren't 3 guys in a room pondering the philosphical ramifications of the prime directive. I can deal with Trek Lite if it's entertaining, and nuTrek is at least that in the moment you're watching it. But I'd really appreciate if these plots weren't so dumb that they fall apart even with the slightest bit of thinking, and it seems Beyond is not an exception here.

 

[snowman<ca>]

mvmiller12[/url]":1ykkin7d]It didn't look terrible to me. It looked like a teaser. Teasers by nature should be super-light on plot, and highlight things to attract people that may be on the fence about seeing a film. The fact that there is discussion here is proof that it is working as intended. We saw Kirk & crew, getting into shenanigans (as they do). What else did it need to be to jumpstart awareness of this film?

While maybe the most vocal group is the people into Star Trek so not the fence sitting group this is aimed at, that it is getting such a poor reaction from tech blogs, Twitter and comments does not seem like it is working as intended.

 

[siliconaddict]

This may be the first Star Trek I skip in the theatres. That was not Trek. That was Fast and the Furious: Interstellar. Which may be entertaining, but I'm not looking for THAT specific entertainment. I want Gene's Trek. So pass.

 

[gijames1225]

Well, trailers often do not reflect the movie. While a dismal trailer (albeit one that will play well with the Summer blockbuster crowd) this could still be good. I found the music the most offensively un-StarTrekish thing about this.

 

[daggar]

"Hey JJ-- we just got the expense report in for the Star Wars shoot. Looks like the AT&T bill was really high. Were you phoning something in?"

[edit]

 

[0tim0]

This is what I fear from JJ Abrams and the new Star Wars. He only knows how to make action films. And action is just a small part of what made Star Wars great.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Blinken[/url]":2l2m9oao]2 Trek 2 Furious

2 Fast 2 Drek

 

[ajfink]

lewax00[/url]":1vgn8bq5]Personally I like the new Star Trek movies...I think they're terrible at being Star Trek, but entertaining enough as just movies.

I've still got dark spots floating around my vision from all the lens flare in the first one.

 

[Danrarbc]

The Fast and the Illogical

 

[Wickwick]

It's like the James Bond movies with Daniel Craig as 007. They're fun action movies but there's nothing that resembles what the Bond series had been up to that point. Yes, they could be campy but they had a tone that the new movies don't follow (haven't seen the latest - perhaps it saves itself?).

The two reboot Star Trek movies have been fun movies (if you can get over groaning at the Khan bits) but they're not really recognizable as Trek.

 

[hieper]

'Cause what you see you might not get
And we can bet so don't you get souped yet
You're scheming on a thing that's a mirage
I'm trying to tell you now it's sabotage

 

[neodorian]

lewax00[/url]":rrq8mq12]Personally I like the new Star Trek movies...I think they're terrible at being Star Trek, but entertaining enough as just movies.

That's sorta how it looks to me. Terrible Trek movie. Decent Marvel(esque) movie. You coulda replaced the characters in that trailer, told me it was a sneak peek at the next "Guardians" movie, and I would have believed you.

 

[MaHawkma]

lewax00[/url]":2gtz58me]Personally I like the new Star Trek movies...I think they're terrible at being Star Trek, but entertaining enough as just movies.

++

 

[RT81]

Besides the over simplified answer of "Disney" -- why is it so hard to get Star Trek and DC true to source versus Star Wars and Marvel?

Avengers and the related movies are knocking them out of the park. The newest Star Wars looks like it's going to do the same. OTOH, the people making the Star Trek reboots seem to have only a basic grasp on what Star Trek is and, besides Nolan's Batman (which were decidedly more gritty and "realistic" than the comic bookey Avengers), the DC movies seem to really be missing the mark as well. For every "yay!" I hear about the Batman versus Superman movie, I hear another "boo!" for a wasted opportunity with Doomsday.

 

[Martin Blank]

Ignoble Xenon[/url]":3b9raqcx]It looks like plenty of fun, just like the previous entries in the reboot. That doesn't necessarily make it "terrible", just different.

The previous movies haven't been sci-fi. They've been action movies in space. That's not what Trek is about. Wrath of Khan managed to get some exciting space battles in while still getting at the morality of not one or two but THREE dilemmas brought about by science: Khan's genetically modified superhuman abilities, the potential for abuse of the Genesis Project, and not keeping an eye on the madman you left behind in an uninhabited star system. Separate from that, it dealt with the concepts of sacrifice and friendship and where they cross. I still get misty-eyed at the end, even having seen it dozens of times.

When I finally did watch Into Darkness on Netflix, I felt a little sad that it would be the last I would see of Leonard Nimoy as he basically signed off. I was right, of course, but I think it may have been for the better judging by the mess that this has become. The one actor who I think is actually providing a proper homage to the original is Karl Urban. Everyone else is at best a caricature of the originals and a mockery at worst, as has been the case with Checkov and especially Scotty.

I don't even know how to recover from this point. Bringing in a director that has a concept of pacing might be a good start, but I'm not sure who would be willing to do it, having to take the fragments the Trek universe has been shattered into and turn them back into something recognizable as Trek. Even then, this part might not be saved.

 

[Dr Orgo]

I enjoyed the first two Abrams Star Trek films as fun action films with a touch of science fiction added. I'm also just young enough to have not watched the original Star Trek series/films. If I had watched them I'm sure I'd dislike the new films more than I do.

 

[Weekend Triathlete]

Wickwick[/url]":39x7qenv]It's like the James Bond movies with Daniel Craig as 007. They're fun action movies but there's nothing that resembles what the Bond series had been up to that point.

I'll agree that the Daniel Craig version of Bond is disconnected from the previous movies.

However, I think that the Daniel Craig version of Bond is a lot closer to the original character as written by Ian Fleming than any of the others were.

 

[thiazzi]

I've been watching through TOS, TNG, and DS9 on Netflix for about three years. Holding out hope for the new TV series, but things like this trailer and the last couple of reboot movies make me pretty wary. And sad. No market for thoughtful SF anymore, I guess.

 

[Statistical]

I'll skip. I feel like the point of Star Trek might be lost on the people green lighting these sequels.

The point of "Star Trek" to the people greenlighting the sequels is to exploit it like a non-renewable resources. Think "drill, baby drill the movie edition". Drain as much cash from that carcass as possible for as many sequels as possible and then toss the dried husk into dustbin of mediocre movies which don't stand the test of time.

Based on the first two and trailer of the third one well they are executing nearly perfectly on that. I mean if Fast & Furious (a script about stealing cars) can get 7 sequels they can at least do the same for Trek. My guess is they will destroy the franchise AND make a metric ass ton of cash in the process. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[toastie]

'Sabotage' was the song that Kirk played when he stole the car in the reboot movie. So, using it for the trailer seems to be tying in to that scene. At least that's how I read it.

Now, given the disaster that was the 2nd movie, I've lowered my expectations for any subsequent movies accordingly. I'm sure many liked the 'Into Darkness', but as far as Trek goes, it was crap. Discussion is best left for another forum.

 

[takk825]

It seems to me that a few of the Star Trek movies have had more on-planet scene time than space. The two that pop into my mind are Voyage Home and Insurrection.