My favorite aspect of WoK is that it's Moby Dick from the perspective of the whale.

Ray wrote:Stranding the crew on an alien world, taking away the enterprise? That kindve goes against the Star Trek formula.

My take on the trailer is that, while doing their normal space frontier exploration, the Enterprise gets shot down or captured by some alien world. The crew has been taken prisoner, and it's up to the main team to figure a way out of it and then somehow prevail over the alien antagonists.

Seems pretty appropriate for Star Trek to me.

Chuckman wrote:My favorite aspect of WoK is that it's Moby Dick from the perspective of the whale.

Insert "William Shatner is fat" joke here.

Reichu wrote:Implying that a blockbuster has to be Grade A disposable dreck. Are you being a Hollywood apologist, Fish?

I wouldn't put it in such harsh words. I see no problem in a movie that aspires to nothing more than delivering a fun viewing experience to the audience, and I didn't even expect anything else from Star Trek given the two previous movies.

Edit: Here's something I think a lot of people would consider an improvement of the soundtrack. Of course that specific song probably wouldn't fit but you get the idea, something dramatic sounding that paints the movie as an epic. I love the fact that the trailer simply embraced the movie's "for fun" atmosphere and went with an appropriate soundtrack.

Disposable "epic" music is just as trite as what they've got in the trailer now, it's just a different kind of trite. As I've said before, the issue I have with the trailer is genre recognition and tone. There's nothing about the "Sabotage" song that indicates anything recognizable to or meaningful in the known Star Trek legacy. If the trailer had shots of fast moving colorful cars instead of Enterprises and aliens, I'd have been down with the trailer.

I'm not against ST being "fun" either. In fact, I like a good helping of fun with my sci-fi. But this feels more like a drunken college fraternity party movie than any other brand of fun more appropriate for a mission to seek out new life and new civilization.

FreakyFilmFan4ever wrote:I'm not against ST being "fun" either. In fact, I like a good helping of fun with my sci-fi. (snip)

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home executed this combination really well. It's a pity we don't have more like it.

This trailer is basically, "Look! Star Trek is hip and cool, it's like Guardians of the Galaxy! It even has the same lady in it! Sorry nerds, it's not yours anymore!"

Sachi wrote:Sabatoge worked so well for the first film, that it won't seem tired at all when we use the same exact song again, right? RIGHT? Even if it's canon that Kirk likes and listens to that song, they could have at least picked a different Beastie Boys song.

I didn't know the song was already used (again, haven't seen the recent movies). To me, that was one of the things that stood out to me the first time I saw it. Perhaps Intergalatic might be better.

NemZ wrote:Magic blood that cures death! Transporters that render starships meaningless!

Repeat, I haven't seen the movies, but those are plot points? Is it wrong of me to think I could have written a better movie?

Reichu wrote:Insert "William Shatner is fat" joke here.

done.

Chuckman wrote:This trailer is basically, "Look! Star Trek is hip and cool, it's like Guardians of the Galaxy! It even has the same lady in it! Sorry nerds, it's not yours anymore!"

Again, I haven't seen that movie, so I don't understand the negative comparison.

@chuckman I agree with that assessment and I find it incredibly ironic because guardians is a very nerdy film full of comic and 80's references in every corner.
This looks so removed from anything trek related (are we forgetting her star WARS was the action oriented one and trek was mostly talking and character interactions for most of the show?) that I wonder why this is even a thing.

cyharding wrote:
Again, I haven't seen that movie, so I don't understand the negative comparison.

Star Trek is tragically unhip so they're marketing it (and probably made it) to be more like a charming space adventure movie that came out last year in hopes of snagging a wide audience.

Honestly, the whole point of ST09 continuity is to take Star Trek, which was always always niche and never had the cultural penetration or mass appeal of Star Wars, and update it to be marketable.

Star Trek as a series is more serious sci-fi than Star Wars and a lot of it, especially the most popular iteration of the TV series, is the adventures of a space diplomat and his crew of people exploring the human condition in a gigantic heavily armed TFL minivan. ST09 turned the series into a campy parody/action update of the classic TV show.

Abrams' first entry is basically an essay on why nerds ruin things.

2nd trailer for Beyond, much better then the first IMO.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzWIGFiGrlA
Elba's fully head piece still looks iffy, but the shot of him speaking in Zoe's face looks pretty good.

Chuckman wrote:Abrams' first entry is basically an essay on why nerds ruin things.

I'll agree the ST09 wasn't all that great but Into Darkness was literally awesome and renewed my waning interest in the series. I don't agree with this comment on Abram's trying to bully nerds.

The criticism against Abrams is a bit silly considering how fucking perfect Into Darkness was. It seems the old school ST fans wont be satisfied until Gene Roddenberry crawls out of the grave and writes the new stuff himself. Keep in mind that one of the more popular movies Wrath of Khan was in the same boat as Into Darkness in that the creator(s) hasn't seen the original work prior to their movies.

TheFriskyIan wrote:I'll agree the ST09 wasn't all that great but Into Darkness was literally awesome and renewed my waning interest in the series. I don't agree with this comment on Abram's trying to bully nerds.

Into Darkness was terrible. There's a good summary of the why of it here, but the main problem is that Abrams just doesn't respect his audience. I mean, the whole bit at the end, with Spock fighting Khan? That was supposedly because they needed Khan's blood to save Kirk. The only problem was that they had 72 other people just like Khan sitting in storage on that very ship. This is just one of the many obvious problems with the movie (you can see plenty more in the Everything Wrong With . . . and the Honest Movie Trailers videos).

The criticism against Abrams is a bit silly considering how fucking perfect Into Darkness was.

It's only perfect if you lack any capacity whatsoever for critical thinking. If you are capable of that it becomes physically painful to watch.

Mission Impossible III remains JJ's best work to date. His Star Trek movies didn't change that fact at all. I'm not even sure if I can land the blame on the failings of JJ's ST films on his directing, but rather it's just the failings of the film in general. Curing death would have been an amazing plot element in the hands of filmmakers that would remember that continuity into the next film installment and explored the adventure opportunities and philosophical questions it all raises up. But in the hands of the new ST franchise holders, it's just a cheap cop-out from Kurt staying dead between films.

Bagheera wrote:Into Darkness was terrible. There's a good summary of the why of it here, but the main problem is that Abrams just doesn't respect his audience. I mean, the whole bit at the end, with Spock fighting Khan? That was supposedly because they needed Khan's blood to save Kirk. The only problem was that they had 72 other people just like Khan sitting in storage on that very ship. This is just one of the many obvious problems with the movie (you can see plenty more in the Everything Wrong With . . . and the Honest Movie Trailers videos).

I'm subscribed to Cinema Sins and Honest Trailers, if I'm supposed to go by what these two channels tell me, I guess Empire Strikes Back and Inside Out were also terrible movies. Looked over plot points exists in every movie, I don't why understand why Into Darkness is terrible just because it has the same problems as every movie ever is going to have. As for Khan's reveal, the name may not register to Kirk or the crew but if they just kept his name to Khan originally, fans would instantly be saying "Well why didn't Spock just go to old Spock earlier and ask about him?" People are just trying to find flaws with this movie, specifically older fans of Star Trek and I already addressed why.

Also:

I'm not even sure if I can land the blame on the failings of JJ's ST films on his directing

They didn't fail though. These complaints are from a vocal minority that's treating the new Star Trek movies like the new Ghostbusters.

TheFriskyIan wrote:They didn't fail though. These complaints are from a vocal minority that's treating the new Star Trek movies like the new Ghostbusters.

I use the term loosely. When it comes down to it, the new ST movies are fun, short-lived action romps who's individual installments will be forgotten in about 10 years unless they really step up their game. ST3 looks like another fun-and-forgettable sic-fi decorated action romp, and probably won't have any quality of merit beyond that just like the past two films were.

TheFriskyIan wrote:People are just trying to find flaws with this movie, specifically older fans of Star Trek and I already addressed why.

I'm not an older fan of ST, and your reasons don't apply to me. I'm not trying to find flaws with the movie, they're leaping into my face and screaming "here I am!" at the top of their lungs. If you refuse to see them that's your business, but don't assume ill intent on my part just because I have a working brain.

They didn't fail though. These complaints are from a vocal minority that's treating the new Star Trek movies like the new Ghostbusters.

As the article I linked noted that's not at all true. Even Abrams has distanced himself from some aspects of Into Darkness, and he's not alone -- others among the cast and crew have done the same. It's not a good film, simple as that.

Bagheera wrote:I'm not an older fan of ST, and your reasons don't apply to me. I'm not trying to find flaws with the movie, they're leaping into my face and screaming "here I am!" at the top of their lungs. If you refuse to see them that's your business, but don't assume ill intent on my part just because I have a working brain.

None of the flaws with the story are hugely noticeable as you're saying. And it's Cinema Sins job to go and look for problems that were an oversight in making the story.

Also if you still want to bring up Khan's blood. Why would the Enterprise crew risk waking up a second person if Khan did this much damage alone?

As the article I linked noted that's not at all true. Even Abrams has distanced himself from some aspects of Into Darkness, and he's not alone -- others among the cast and crew have done the same. It's not a good film, simple as that.

So positive reviews and making an obvious profit means nothing and the movie is terrible because a vocal minority says so? This isn't BvS where the film is clearly lauded as being bad from everyone, Into Darkness will be looked at as a GOOD movie even if FFFF is right and isn't even remembered much. Articles pointing out minor flaws means little to all the reviewers and critics praising it.

TheFriskyIan wrote:None of the flaws with the story are hugely noticeable as you're saying.

Maybe not to you, but they stuck out like a sore thumb to an awful lot of us.

Also if you still want to bring up Khan's blood. Why would the Enterprise crew risk waking up a second person if Khan did this much damage alone?

You don't have to wake someone up to get their blood.

So positive reviews and making an obvious profit means nothing and the movie is terrible because a vocal minority says so? This isn't BvS where the film is clearly lauded as being bad from everyone, Into Darkness will be looked at as a GOOD movie even if FFFF is right and isn't even remembered much. Articles pointing out minor flaws means little to all the reviewers and critics praising it.

. . . until they change their minds, as the article I linked noted. When the cast and crew are distancing themselves from it and critics are going "hey, wait a minute . . . " that should be a major clue. These are not minor flaws. They're huge, glaring flaws that people didn't notice on the first pass due to slick packaging, but in retrospect acknowledge as being a pretty big deal.

I'm the opposite of Ian. I thought the first Trek was okay (though it gets noticeably worse with repeat viewings...), and Into Darkness registered as an eye-rollingly, brow-raisingly terrible piece of crap right in the theater as I was watching it. Of course, the rest of my family with whom I had gone to see the film, mainly being the types of people who will readily say a film is "good" or "great" and then never think about it again, seemed to like it just fine. Ephemerally entertaining bombast just isn't all that special. There's so much glintzy overprocessed disposable committee shite that passes for entertainment, Into Darkness is hardly a hill worth dying on.