• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Star Trek Beyond

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Normally I don't watch movie trailers.. I've watched both now since there's about a zero percent chance of me watching this.
 
It's pretty interesting to hear thoughts of this movie seeming 'generic', considering it's the most "Star Trek" of the new Star Treks.
 
Better trailer than the first one by far. Love the new voiceover by Shohreh Aghdashloo.

More interested in this than I ever was for Into Darkness. If I see K&O&L anywhere near another ST screenplay Paramount is dead to me.
 
zerocool84 said:
If you watch a trailer for something and think it's doesn't look good from the trailer, why waste your time and watch the movie?
Click to expand...

Because then you don't miss out on films like Dredd, wherein the trailer conveyed nearly none of the great qualities of the film.

The point is more, if you are interested in a property (like, say, growing up watching Star Trek), then not seeing a film based off the trailer seems only to be an act of denying yourself something. Especially when that film is set to be the most "Star Trek" of the NuTreks. Even if the film is bad, you gain something by watching it. I mean, most Star Trek fans watched the shithouse episodes of Star Trek (Of which there are plenty. There are far more bad episodes than good ones.).

Killing Them Softly had a trailer that completely misrepresented the film as a 'generic' hitman action flick, but the film itself was actually really good. Same with The Ice Man.
 
CFP said:
Because then you don't miss out on films like Dredd, wherein the trailer conveyed nearly none of the great qualities of the film.

The point is more, if you are interested in a property (like, say, growing up watching Star Trek), then not seeing a film based off the trailer seems only to be an act of denying yourself something. Especially when that film is set to be the most "Star Trek" of the NuTreks. Even if the film is bad, you gain something by watching it. I mean, most Star Trek fans watched the shithouse episodes of Star Trek (Of which there are plenty. There are far more bad episodes than good ones.).

Killing Them Softly had a trailer that completely misrepresented the film as a 'generic' hitman action flick, but the film itself was actually really good. Same with The Ice Man.
Click to expand...

Dredd WAS a generic action flick. A well done one sure, but extremely generic and very little Dredd universe.
 
I completely agree with CFP. I might check out a rotten tomatoes score but ultimately if a movie sucks I'm not really out that much.
 
Ehhh.. it might be okay. But frankly I'm skeptical at this point that anything affiliated with JJ Abrams has any depth, feeling, or humanity. I don't doubt his knowledge or his dedication (and that puts him ahead of the likes of ST: Nemesis), but I kind of doubt his ability to pull at the ole heart strings. Getting the Fast & Furious guy to direct doesn't make me feel any better. Lots of flash, probably not much heart. Just like Abrams.
 
Last edited:
Balt said:
Ehhh.. it might be okay. But frankly I'm skeptical at this point that anything affiliated with JJ Abrams has any depth, feeling, or humanity. I don't doubt his knowledge or his dedication (and that puts him ahead of the likes of ST: Nemesis), but I kind of doubt his ability to pull at the ole heart strings. Getting the Fast & Furious guy to direct doesn't make me feel any better. Lots of flash, probably not much heart. Just like Abrams.
Click to expand...

You're right; it's a formula. Some young adult-level 'humor', tongue in cheek, flash, a checklist of things to include, make the money.

Who is 'dedicated' to quality in the franchise today like people were in the original series (and you can argue later)?

There were real scientists and writers who put care into the original.
 
NikolaeVarius said:
Dredd WAS a generic action flick. A well done one sure, but extremely generic and very little Dredd universe.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your point is, as my point was that not watching a film based off a bad trailer (which Dredd's was) means you miss out on potentially good movies (which Dredd is). When the only "loss" in watching a bad movie is that you understand what makes movies bad to you a little more, I find it silly and self-defeating that anybody would actively boycott a film based on a bad trailer when they would otherwise watch it if the trailer was better.

But to address your point on genre and Dredd:

Generic action films tend not to undermine and dehumanise their own (anti)heroes as much as Dredd does. Nor do they converse on, and attack, misogyny the way Dredd does. Action films tend not to forgo heart-of-gold character building. Action films tend not to make their heroes sociopaths. Action films tend not to eroticise violence as a visual tool for character-building (Dredd's character).

Dredd does not follow genre conventions, aka is not generic. The fact that it does it's own thing rather than lifting from the source material is neither here nor there. It is confusing when people use 'generic' as a pejorative because that's not what it means. Because a film can be generic and good. This happens the most with horror movies, where they are good and follow genre conventions to a tee.

Where's the Dredd-watching-perps-burn-in-phosphorous-and-getting-a-hard-on gif?

Edit: Ah, here we go. Like seriously, who wants to watch people burn? Hardly a generic action movie hero.

ecSm5dP.gif


pete6032 said:
Looks increasingly like star wars.
Click to expand...

I'd say that while the first two definitely had a Star Wars feel, Beyond, going from the trailers, has a distinctly less swashbuckling-space-adventure Star Wars feel.

It's the movie equivalent of a Star Trek episode where the Enterprise is attacked / incapacitated, and the crew is stranded on/in [plot device].

That's like a Star Trek TV staple.

A revenge story about space-9/11, on the other hand, isn't, which makes Into Darkness the least Star Trek of the new Star Treks. (Also, the least good.)
 
Last edited:
justin lin is directing iirc so gives me hope. he took the turdfest of fast/furious 2 and 3 and made a fun as hell and very profitable trilogy.

i know not everyone likes them (obv) but 4-6 (IMO) were great
 
I'm not sure if they had the prime directive back then but I'd like to see a star trek movie with the current cast where they face some kind of dilemma with an alien race that raises the question of what it means to be human and have human values, and see that struggle, rather than the standard plot line of evil aliens bent on revenge want to destroy the enterprise at any and all cost.
 
pete6032 said:
I'm not sure if they had the prime directive back then but I'd like to see a star trek movie with the current cast where they face some kind of dilemma with an alien race that raises the question of what it means to be human and have human values, and see that struggle, rather than the standard plot line of evil aliens bent on revenge want to destroy the enterprise at any and all cost.
Click to expand...

The prime directive features in Into Darkness. The introduction to ID was actually shaping up to be a really Star Trek-y movie, but then they went space-9/11.
 
Balt said:
Ehhh.. it might be okay. But frankly I'm skeptical at this point that anything affiliated with JJ Abrams has any depth, feeling, or humanity. I don't doubt his knowledge or his dedication (and that puts him ahead of the likes of ST: Nemesis), but I kind of doubt his ability to pull at the ole heart strings. Getting the Fast & Furious guy to direct doesn't make me feel any better. Lots of flash, probably not much heart. Just like Abrams.
Click to expand...

Exactly, JJ doesn't make memorable movies, he executes a formula of safe plot elements and then cashes in.
 
Btw, with regard to the name "Beyond", is anyone else reminded of Prof. Trelawney's first lesson in HP3?

https://youtu.be/NdLa9yYt_jw?t=22

In general the naming convention for the last three films makes me think that they had difficulty coming up with names for these car crashes.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top