Star Trek Beyond Trailer Has Enterprise Going Down in Flames

[B5Alpha]

Boy, The Enterprise can't catch a break can't they when it come to the ship getting hit?

Also, is it a trend now to show new trailers in December now? We had TNMT:OotS, X-men: Apoclaypse, Independence Days Resurgance and now this?

They want their trailers to be in the opening of the new Star Wars.

 

[Zipa]

I don't know why this is a surprise, in most of the trek movies the Enterprise (Whichever one) gets a beating or damaged in some way, the only exceptions are the motion picture and a voyage home.

 

[Hairless Mammoth]

Was that a Star Trek trailer I just watched? If it didn't have a title, I'd think it was an adaptation some completely different (purely action focused) scifi franchise.

It seriously does feel like they are dumbing Star Trek down. But hey, China is Hollywood's hip new target demographic, and it's easier to just subtitle and sell a dumb action movie to non-English speaking audiences than to do the same with a slower, thought provoking story.

I'd be more surprised if the Enterprise DIDN'T get destroyed in a movie.

The Enterprise will be destroyed in this movie, did no one tell you the 'reboot' has clearly decided that it wants to retell the original frnachise movies stories and plot lines but with a made for the lowest intelligence twist.

So the original franchise had The Wrath of Khan as it's second movie, the reboot had Khan appear as the bad guy in it. The third movie in the original franchise, The Search for Spock had the Enterprise destroyed around so safe to say that will happen in this movie as well.

So, does that mean the next movie will involve time travel and have Zachary Quinto swimming with whales? I'm starting to take bets right now.

 

[FillerDmon]

"They had a script for Star Trek that wasn't really working for them," Pegg said in an interview earlier this year. "I think the studio was worried that it might have been a little bit too Star Trek-y."

.... I.... I don't actually know what to say to this. It just sounds so horrible sounding in my head, I'm mainly confirming that it exists, and that these people are still going to be rewarded for continuously homoginizing everything due to the popcorn munching standard consumer base.

Then again, I may be part of the problem, since due to my childhood I've been on my knees, mouth open, tongue out, for everything the Marvel Cinematic Universe spurts all over my face. But still, at least those movies are good. Into Darkness was bland as hell, and considering this quote, I don't imagine this improving on that.

... the fact that they've already got a sequel green-lit for 2019 probably doesn't help.

 

[Metalrocks]

what did i just watch?
please tell me this is just a test project and JJ is actually directing the third movie after completing star wars.
this trailer is terrible with this music and the huge amount of action. why the hell they choose a director for the fast/furious movies? this doesnt seem to have anything with politics and diplomacy as the last previous movies. hell, into darkness was far better then the 2009 version of star trek.
i think i might skip this one.

 

[Redvenge]

I'd be more surprised if the Enterprise DIDN'T get destroyed in a movie.

Many years ago, when I saw the trailer for Search for Spock, I was horrified. "No, they wouldn't...".

The actual scene was pretty powerful. Fires inside the Enterprise were slowly eating away at the iconic "NCC 1701-Enterprise" written across the saucer. Then, the saucer blew up and it slowly started falling into the planet's atmosphere. Kirk and Bones even took a moment to morn the old girl.

I doubt they will even pause for a moment after they blow up this Enterprise. It will just be another empty pew-pew lightshow scene and then on with another pew-pew lightshow scene.

 

[webkilla]

So - what star trek movie plot is this one a rehash of? I couldn't tell...

 

[Biran53]

I love it. A dire scenario on a foreign planet with the odds stacked against the crew?

Sounds like an episode of Classic Star Trek, if you ask me. And now the action will actually be GOOD.

I have more faith in this than I ever would under Abrahms

 

[Bobular]

Wait... That was supposed to be Star Trek? It looked nothing like a Star Trek movie.

"They had a script for Star Trek that wasn't really working for them," Pegg said in an interview earlier this year. "I think the studio was worried that it might have been a little bit too Star Trek-y."

He said the goal of this script was to "make a western or a thriller or a heist movie, then populate that with Star Trek characters so it's more inclusive to an audience that might be a little bit reticent."

Ah that's why, sounds like they don't want to make a Star Trek movie.

I just hope that Star Wars doesn't start to go the same way, being a generic movie with brand items tacked on.

 

[wizzy555]

Hasn't the "enterprise going down in flames" been in every JJ star trek trailer?

 

[Vigormortis]

Eeeyup. Fuck that. And fuck you, Paramount.

When your producers are complaining that your fucking Star Trek movie is too "Star Trek-y", you've lost your minds.

What the hell's the point of using an established brand, one with an established lore and fan base, if you're just going to produce something that is both generic and completely different from the source material? All you'll end up doing is alienating the fans and bringing in no one new.

Well done, Paramount. You're fucking worthless.

 

[Darks63]

Why are these new treks still being made? I turned off the 2nd one after 3 min it was so stupid and lens flarey.

 

[Kahani]

But this? Even by the standards of these movies (which I can readily admit have a shift towards action,), this is going to another level entirely. We have:

a) Rock music

b) Motor cycles

c) Martial arts

d) Aliens invading Earth. Again.

Given that the first reboot kicked things off with rock music, vintage cars and people punching each other, I'm not sure why you'd think that's suddenly a problem now. And as Deathfish notes, Kirk getting in fights with virtually everyone he meets (and sleeping with most of the rest) was always a running theme of Trek.

As for the shift towards action people keep complaining about, that's nothing new either. One of the big complaints about every film since TNG started has been that there's basically no connection between the TV show and the films. Picard in particular is two entirely different characters that just happen to have the same name - in the TV show he's a highly competent diplomat who will always talk rather than fight and do everything to save even his enemies from harm, while in the films he's a psychotic thug who happily guns down his own people when he already knows how to save them, let alone anyone who actually opposes him. Whatever flaws the reboots might have, being more action-oriented than the TV series is not something that started with them.

Why are these new treks still being made?

Money. The last two films both made more money than any previous Trek film. You could argue they weren't more successful than all based on the ratio of profit to production cost, but a solid $100 million+ is not something film studios are going to turn their noses up at. And by any measure they have been far more successful that the last couple of TNG films.

On top of that, critical response has been better as well. Star Trek 2009 has the highest critical rating of all Trek films, and Into Darkness is (somehow) around 2nd or 3rd depending on how you count it. People can argue all they like that they're not proper Trek films or simply not good films at all, but the fact remains that not only do a lot of people like them and pay money to watch them, but they like them more and are willing to pay more than with previous Trek films. It may suck for those who want films closer to the TV series, but that's just how the market works.

 

[Hawki]

Given that the first reboot kicked things off with rock music, vintage cars and people punching each other, I'm not sure why you'd think that's suddenly a problem now. And as Deathfish notes, Kirk getting in fights with virtually everyone he meets (and sleeping with most of the rest) was always a running theme of Trek.

Those are fair points, but in response:

-Rock music: Did rock music feature in any of the trailers for ST: 2009? I know it was in the film proper (Kirk's joyride and the bar), but the trailer, on the other hand, used an orchestral score. Everything about it says "this is an epic adventure" and, IMO, ST: 2009 is without a doubt an action-adventure movie (key word on "adventure" though). Point is, in terms of music, the trailers for both previous Abramsverse films have fit the tone of the movie. So in this case, the tone seems to be going for "kewl." It doesn't help that it also seems to be riffing off Guardians of the Galaxy in this regard.

-Vintage Cars: True, this was in ST: 2009. Difference is, the car in that case at least had a reason to exist (Earth, countryside, etc.), and the scene provides characterization for Kirk in that we're shown him as a child, see the seeds of his cockiness, and ties in with his overall arc of maturing as an individual (which STID kinda sets back a bit, but whatever). The motorbike, on the other hand, has far less reason to exist on the Enterprise. And while I'm lacking the context of the motorbike scene, its sole purpose for existing here seems to be the "kewl" factor.

-Martial Arts: Again, you're right, there's been fighting in the TV shows and previous films. But there's undoubtedly a focus on the fighting here, and flashiness to it. Now I admit I'm actually interested in the alien girl here (if only to see a main cast member who isn't a human (or in Spock's case, half-human), but again, there's far more focus here on what she can do, rather than who she is.

I suppose "focus" is the key word here. None of the above are out of place in Star Trek. I'd also argue that a Star Trek film doesn't need to have an overall theme or deep philisophical meaning to be enjoyable (see ST3*, 4, 11). But if we're operating under the assumption that the trailer is indeed indicative of the movie, then the movie is primarily an action flick. And I would argue that no other ST movie has ever been that first and foremost. Not even ST 2009 (which was adventure complimented by action), Nemesis (which did have a theme, albeit an under-explored one in the midst of said action), or STID (which had a trinity of themes, and, IMO, actually pulled them off). Here, I see action and little else.

There's also the sense that this is trying to emulate Guardians of the Galaxy, which is a film I admittedly enjoyed, but under the proviso that I had to turn my brain off. And, let's see:

-Leader of the group who's into rock music (Star-Lord/Kirk)
-Alien who takes things literally and is often unaware of the subtleties of humor (Spock/Drax)
-Wacky sidekick who's good with machines (Scotty/Rocket)
-Alien girl who's good with weapons and martial arts (Gamora/alien girl)
-Swarming ships and grey-coloured foot soldiers (both films)
-Climax that takes place on capital world of main faction (Federation/Xandar), involving said swarming ships

Not saying, but...just saying.

*I've heard it said that the theme of Search for Spock is "life from death" and "loyalty." That said, I don't personally agree, as I feel "life from death" is more in the realm of Wrath of Khan, and "loyalty" is stretching things a bit. Admittedly, I rank SfS lower than most people, so go figure.

 

[The Jovian]

I'd be more surprised if the Enterprise DIDN'T get destroyed in a movie.

The Enterprise will be destroyed in this movie, did no one tell you the 'reboot' has clearly decided that it wants to retell the original frnachise movies stories and plot lines but with a made for the lowest intelligence twist.

So the original franchise had The Wrath of Khan as it's second movie, the reboot had Khan appear as the bad guy in it. The third movie in the original franchise, The Search for Spock had the Enterprise destroyed around so safe to say that will happen in this movie as well.

The worst aspect of the entire thing though is just how wank the whole thing looked. No hook, no sneak peaks, nothing, I can't even tell what the story is meant to be about. The Enterprise gets destroyed by someone who doesn't like them for reasons, fuck even the real Kirk managed to complete their five year mission before he got his first ship blown up.

By this logic the next one will have whales in it. Or time travel. Both can result in a good movie I guess but I'd rather have them do something that isn't a rehash of the original film series.

 

[BoogieManFL]

So they are doing what the gaming industry is doing. Watering it down to make it more palatable to the masses even if it means taking it farther and farther from it's roots and what it was all even about. That barely even looked like something Star Trek. More like just a typical action movie.

Corporate idiocy at it's finest. YOU CAN'T MAKE SOMETHING APPEAL TO EVERYONE. ACCEPT REALITY ALREADY.

 

[Jeroenr]

I'd be more surprised if the Enterprise DIDN'T get destroyed in a movie.

The Enterprise will be destroyed in this movie, did no one tell you the 'reboot' has clearly decided that it wants to retell the original frnachise movies stories and plot lines but with a made for the lowest intelligence twist.

So the original franchise had The Wrath of Khan as it's second movie, the reboot had Khan appear as the bad guy in it. The third movie in the original franchise, The Search for Spock had the Enterprise destroyed around so safe to say that will happen in this movie as well.

The worst aspect of the entire thing though is just how wank the whole thing looked. No hook, no sneak peaks, nothing, I can't even tell what the story is meant to be about. The Enterprise gets destroyed by someone who doesn't like them for reasons, fuck even the real Kirk managed to complete their five year mission before he got his first ship blown up.

By this logic the next one will have whales in it. Or time travel. Both can result in a good movie I guess but I'd rather have them do something that isn't a rehash of the original film series.

Oh No, no time travel.
Remember how this mess started?

Time travel in Star trek has always been iffy, "First Contact" was a good movie, But "the voyage home" was just people in star trek uniforms walking around in the 1980's.


But i am surprised that they didn't have the Borg show up in this movie, i know its more a TNG thing, but i don't think they are bothered about that.

And talking about red coning things, should't Vigor still be on route to earth?

 

[THM]

Couple of things:

1. The thumbnail for this article is hilarious - even Chris Pine looks like he's fed up. Or clueless, whatever.
2. Having seen the trailer, yeah, there was a lot of boom and flash - but overall, it was hilarious, too.

Maybe this approach ends up doing more harm than good, maybe not. Time and money will tell.

Based on what I've seen so far, I'm interested. Of course, the actual movie could end up sucking monkey nuts, but at least the trailer was fun.

 

[iseko]

I was REALLY hoping to have the "pride" of starfleet not to get 1 shot for ONCE. Three movies in a row the most advanced starship, starfleets pride and joy, is getting its ass kicked instantly... again.