Though J.J. Abrams isn't directing this film (Justin Lin is), his production company Bad Robot Productions is still producing it, so... "'Star Trek Beyond' Trailer Snags Prime 'Star Wars: The Force Awakens' Slot" (Monday, 12/7/15) Chris Pine, star of the revitalized 'Star Trek' franchise (Jason Kempin / Getty Images Entertainment) -G
Can someone with a stronger stomach than me describe the trailer? I don't think I can stand watching it. And why are you linking to a Beastie Boys video? Oh sweet Anubis please don't tell me it's somehow related.
Yes it is…apparently in this new movie, the Enterprise and crew travel to Brooklyn IV, a case M planet whose primitive, per-warp culture was forever changed when a careless Federation surveyor dropped and left behind a Licensed to Ill CD…
Don't watch it Spejic. Don't. I'll just mention one thing that sums it up rather nicely: it includes a motorcycle stunt.
As a non-Star Trek person (they should come up with a term for those people), that did not look like the trailer to a Star Trek movie. Your description was dead on.
There was also a Beastie Boys song in the 2nd movie when Kirk was with the 2 girls. The guy is a fan, can't blame him really. I mean it's not like it's popular, Scotty comes right out and says "Is that music?"
This observation raises an excellent point. Why the need to attach the Trek IP to these films? If the aim was to create a series of sci-fi action flicks chuck-full of Beastie Boys songs and motorcycle stunts, completely devoid of Trek's humanism and social commentary and rendering the institutions (e.g. Starfleet, the Federation) that inhabited the universe to mere logos that mean nothing at all, then they should have created a new series to do so. I mean, it's not like a huge fan base is required to make these kind of films successful. Marvel made a fortune out of an adaptation of a comic book series most casual fans will have never heard of ("Guardians of the Galaxy"). I don't see what exactly they gain from attaching these features to the Trek name. Hardcore Trek fans won't be attracted to them. I guess you might get the attention of the most casual of Star Trek fans, but wouldn't those pay attention to a sci-fi action flick anyway?
In order for a billion dollar IP to continue to make billions of more dollars….and who are you to judge who is “hardcore” and what they want or don’t want…I don’t play dress-up, attend fan conventions, or speak Klingon, but I love Star Trek, and have since I was a little kid…I’ve watched and seen everything Star Trek since the TOS….and I can’t wait to see this new movie, I’ve really enjoyed the last two… Specifically regarding that clip, it was just a mash-up of random action scenes with a few jokes thrown in…who knows what the actual substance of the plot involves…why can’t there be humanism and social commentary…while doing a few motorcycle stuns?
That part of my post was based on the content of the two movies that have already been released, though do you really expect any depth based on this trailer? This isn't an argument against "dumb fun", I might be its biggest supporter on BS. Nor is it an argument against Trek movies being fun. But the best ones, including the TV series (especially TNG and DS9) were a lot more than that.
But what does that IP consist of? Names like "James T Kirk"? A UFO with three cylinders named "Enterprise"? Jokes about being a doctor and not an un-doctor-like object? The trappings exist, but the substance is gone. Star Trek had always been about a better version of ourselves, advanced in intellect and moral sense and a celebration of hard work. We are not in an aspirational age any more, and I mourn that. We're in a Marvel Universe world now. Star Trek Beyond was specifically written to be more like a Marvel movie and less like traditional Star Trek. Instead of being about a better version of ourselves, it is about our betters: a class of hero-leaders chosen by divine fiat, their existence (constantly, repeatedly) being the only thing separating the whole of civilization from destruction because the rest of us are useless.
Along with promiscuous fluff balls, finding Spock’s brain, and reenacting the gun fight on the OK Corral…yes, Star Trek is all of those things you mention, but it also never took itself as serious as you remember or would have us believe… and while the new movies are certainly more action-y, they don’t completely disregard the qualities you speak of… Being a better version of ourselves, advanced in intellect and moral sense and a celebration of hard work….I see all that in the new movies…
It would be an interesting experiment to make a fake trailer for First Contact using Steppenwolf's "Magic Carpet Ride" throughout.
There's funny and there's silly. And yes there has been bad Star Trek, but saying "it's better than Threshold" isn't praise. There's been lots of good Star Trek. Of the JJ Abrams version we have only seen two movies and a preview of the third, and they consist entirely of explosions and enough plot to set up more explosions. In what sense? New Kirk didn't work hard to be captain - he became captain because Old Spock said he was supposed to be captain. Shatner Kirk graduated from the academy, rose through the ranks on multiple ships, and earned the position. He had history. All the old characters had history. The new characters were are all freshly minted and yet found slots waiting for them at the highest level, ones they did not have to give up after the emergency of the first movie. And when New Kirk loses the captain chair, he regains it not through merit, but by outliving his replacement. And New Kirk is kind of a dummy. The only reason for the black hole scene at the end of the first movie was his ignorance.
I'm committed to go and see it now. Not because you guys hate it and think it's beneath you to enjoy a movie for what it is. Not what you perceive it to be. Or believe it should be. But because my wife bought Terry and a couple of tickets for next Monday in 3D. You may have tainted to outlook somewhat with references to Marvel Comics. That was as low as you can get. Anyone over 14 watching Marvel comics, needs a serious mind adjustment.
Yes, Shatner Kirk has oodles history, much of which is erased by the second act of the reboot…but the new Kirk is still very much the Old Kirk…although largely glossed over, there is no reason to doubt new Kirk doesn’t work hard the 3 years he spends at Starfleet Academy, where just like the Old, he beats the Kobayashi Maru…and yes, at the point, all the history changes….New Kirk does get command of the Enterprise much earlier than the Old, but I would say he more than earned it….and then between Star Trek and Into Darkness, spends 4 years commanding that ship…once again, I think it’s fair to assume he did quite well over those unseen years, because when he does lose captain’s chair, it’s a wrist-slap demotion to 2nd in command, of the same ship, under his mentor… I am going to go on a limb and suggest Starfleet never meant to strip New Kirk of command for very long, more than likely because they view him as a smart, brave and damn good leader of men, just like the Old one… yes, he more quickly gets his chair back then expected, but not without some merit…it’s not like when Khan attacks the meeting and kills Pike, New Kirk is just standing around doing nothing…once again, just like Old Kirk would, New Kirk saves the day (or at least stops it from being much worse) through some very Shatner-istic bravado and wit… Old Kirk has been in ~80 episodes and 7 movies…New Kirk has had all of 4 hours on screen…I think if we are going to try and make honest comparisons between the two, we need to give a little leeway or at least acknowledge it’s probably not a fair fight… Personally, I have no problem seeing New Kirk as the re-imagined, different, yet same Old Kirk…but then again I accept and embrace the premise of the reboot, and don’t I view the IP as some sacrosanct, highbrow literature or philosophy…it just a cool sandbox, that I am glad JJ Abrams has been allowed to play in it…