Star Trek Beyond

Saw this last night. This siers you guys.....what the fuck? Was iffy about Star Trek 2009. Like it was ok, felt too rebooty and hammy in the desinty shit, but it was alright. Thought Into Darkness was contrived non-sense, that teases and tries to mislead more than tell its story..... and Beyond was the best Star Trek movie since First Contact, holy shit it was fun. Some dumb moments for sure, but overall they fucking nailed the action-star trek they've been trying to make for years

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=nlOTRxt-dIw
youtube.com/watch?v=z5rRZdiu1UE
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

too bad its a bomb

...

You're right. I didnt even plan on seeing it bc of the first two. Went on a whim and was throughly surprised by how much I enjoyed it. It's not great, but it's prettay prettayyy good. Easily the best since First Contact.

>image

LISTEN ALLAYALL ITS A SABOTAGE

NIGGER

>Not having Kirk pronounce it "sabatage"

YOU HAD ONE FUCKING JOB, PEGG!!!

gonna see it a few more times before i decide but i think its my favorite star trek movie

>prettay prettayyy
Nigger

youtube.com/watch?v=nlOTRxt-dIw

>Kirk literally tells the black villian that all lives matter

That was pretty funny

>he doesn't watch CYE

>Putting some random single use alien woman dead in the center for no other reason than muh 2016

Why isn't it Kirk, Spock, and Bones/Scotty?

Nigger

I liked it but are they seriously ripping off the Motion Picture's poster? What the fuck it wasn't that good. And apart from like, maybe the kind of similar twists there are no thematic similarities.
Star Trek the Motion Picture was a nice, sci-fi Star Trekky movie. A little more focusedon visuals in almost 2001 kind of way but Beyond wasn't half as good as it. It was just pretty good and decently entertaining for a cheap action movie knock off

Correct

Because she looks cool and is a featured ally in the film it's not starship science

She did kinda steal the show, highlight of the cast for sure

Because it's apeing this poster, you dopey fuck.

It's rip off of Star Trek the Motion Picture but Jaylah isn't really as centric as Ilia nor do I see any real similarities between the characters, this poster pisses me off

Saw it today as well, and I hated it. I'll never listen to mike the supposed 'trekky' again.

>In the 2016 movie the female meaningless side character is given equal space on the theatrical release poster as the male leads
Fuck everything

you fucking dweeb, you're just as bad as sjws

It totally has things for the fans, but wasnt made for the fans. Its trying to appeal to an action-scifi audience. Nemesis made it very clear paramount was using the franchise as a vehicle for that. First Contact and Insurrection had action for sure, but they still had plots centered on exploration or the prime directive and the future of a species.

Nemesis, 2009, Into Darkness and Beyond are all "bad guy tries to kill crew and more" dreessed as star trek and none them really pulled it off. They half-assed two things and they failed. However, I feel Beyond did manage to pull it off.

Misogynist pig cis scum MRA woman hater lossless virgin

Xir is great in the film.

youtube.com/watch?v=z5rRZdiu1UE

>Montgomery Scotty
>Jamestee

Jaylah is CUTE!

I take more issue with how consistently Bones gets pushed aside in these new movies. At least he's in this one more, even though he isn't on the poster. He's the only one to convincingly nail his character.

It's common knowledge the new Star treks aren't really star trek. In the first one when they do an alternate timeline it's pretty much JJ Abrams throwing the canon out of the window.

There are alternate timeline episodes in all star trek series but they're usually a portion of an episode, not 3 movies.

It was an excuse for JJ and the writers to be lazy and not actually try to make a good, modern star trek movie.

>but they need to appeal to a mass audience so they can make money back
That just means the movies aren't as good as they could be, but they're made just to make money. And how can we be satisfied with second-rate shit when we all know a modern star trek movie, with the movie-making capabilities we have now would be fucking awesome.

Profit is the main motivator of this film, not art, not being true to star trek. And you faggots give them money and praise the movies.

D R O P P E D
R
O
P
P
E
D

>all I got left is my bones
gay

>And how can we be satisfied with second-rate shit when we all know a modern star trek movie, with the movie-making capabilities we have now would be fucking awesome.
Are you sure? All the movies have had difficulty reconciling the desire to be cinematic with the need to conform to the sensibilities of the TV show. An increase in production budget doesn't really solve that.

>Profit is the main motivator of this film, not art

Such is the business of show. Yeah, it was an action flick but this recent one still captured a classic, campy feel of ToS that eluded the previous two stinkers. For the first time in 20 years, the series is somehow exciting.

I think it's been long enough from the end of the show and the last movie that we can take an objective look at it all and see what worked and what didn't. The TOS and TNG movies came either while the show was running or very soon after the end. It was still fresh in people's minds and I think people were just excited to see a star trek movie. Similar thing happened here, people were so hungry to see a movie with 'star trek' in its name that most people were going to love anything.

A lot of star trek is the environment, setting, sets, hell even CGI and I know I'll get hated for saying this but what made star trek great along with the story was the world it was set in. It was cool to see automatic doors, cell phones, tablets, tricorders, all this cool shit. It was a future to look forward to. We're not there yet and we should keep dreaming about the future, modern star trek blows up planets and the future. You have super-genius and evil villains to look forward to.

This is also shown in the first scene of the movie: Kirk is riding a classic American car, in the 2300s. What the fuck? His stepfather getting mad, like he just can't replicate another one. Or he can go drive one in the holodeck. Besides, future cars and bikes go much faster and I bet they're more comfortable: they fucking float on air.

A modern star trek should have been set a 100 years after data dies. Show us the future, not the fucking past.

>The TOS
>movies came either while the show was running or very soon after the end

It's difficult to go significantly beyond the TNG era, how much further can their technology advance? There's a reason that the franchise keeps going backwards (Enterprise, nu-Trek movies, the new show), they don't have the confidence they can use a setting more than one step away from Kirk, because the level of technology in that setting pretty much dictates the abilities and methods of the crew.

Moving on from TOS, the TNG-era featured a wider variety of ships, hologram technology, and the technology that was already a staple of TOS got faster or more efficient. That was pretty much it.

Thanks to the amount of time-travel fuckery that often happened in the TNG-era, we know that mastering time travel is in the Federation's future. That's fine for the occasional episode featuring time travellers, but if a new show was set on a time travel ship, it would up-end the whole nature of the show.

So if they go into the future, the advances in technology will break the storytelling. If they stay TNG-era they're stuck with 80s/90s designs that'll start to date, like how we already have handheld computers more advanced than the PADDs. If they go backwards, they're forced to change the way they had depicted the future in the 60s, making things feel anachronistic and incongruous.

Anything they choose to do is a risk.