Star Trek: Beyond

[pr_capone]

Paramount just released the trailer to Star Trek Beyond. I am less than pleased overall.



Justin Lin, the director of the last 3 F&F movies, is at the helm of this bullshit and from the tiny snippet of Simon Pegg jumping out of a pod and hanging off the side of a cliff... it looks equally as campy as F&F.

Justin Lin, the director of nothing but remakes and sequels, is also the guy in charge of the reshooting (because there won't be anything new about it) of the Highlander movie.

I love Trek but this new movie series has been largely garbage. Little to no rewatchability at all for either movie. For the first time ever... I am more excited for something Star Wars related than Trek.

[pr_capone]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

So, not really a Star Trek movie, then

QFT

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

So, not really a Star Trek movie, then

Eh,

I get the complaints. I enjoy the old Trek as well. But things change and evolve over time.

The last movie movie before the reboot cast bombed pretty hard. Trek had grown stale. Eventually things will probably swing back.

[DJ's left nut]

I wonder if this is something of a generational thing. Or maybe I'm dumb. I might just be dumb.

I never watched TOS because I'm an 80s kid. I was also fairly young and only gave passing glances to TNG.

So to me, Starfleet was pretty much the new, global Navy. Honestly, it never occurred to me that this wasn't the case until perhaps one of these threads. I always kinda figured that maybe these starships just weren't that impressive if the Enterprise was usually looked at as the big swinging dick among starships.

So I guess it....isn't? These guys aren't out there on the USS Constitution protecting anything, they're going out there doing Magellan shit and just looking around? And while the Enterprise may be the big fish in its own pond, there are probably dozens of ships that would pretty easily annihilate it (I guess that makes sense given how many times they blow the damn thing up).

I mean...I guess that's right there in their spiel, but like I said, I just never gave it much thought. Besides, that makes the concept of Starfleet seem really odd to me, especially given that whole "Fermi Paradox" thing and the fact that perhaps we should probably just not let the whole universe know where we are. Privately funded explorers back in ye olden times made since because frankly, they were funded by profiteers. But Starfleet would appear to be nothing more than a massive public works project whereby we empower people to take heavily armed ships to just go poking stuff with sticks to see what happens.

[DJ's left nut]

P.S. This is still the coolest moment in Star Trek History, movie or otherwise.



Crank up the surround and watch Sulu and Chekov kick some ass! Soundtrack, camera work...that part is just friggen awesome.

[Chieficus]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

I wonder if this is something of a generational thing. Or maybe I'm dumb. I might just be dumb.

I never watched TOS because I'm an 80s kid. I was also fairly young and only gave passing glances to TNG.

So to me, Starfleet was pretty much the new, global Navy. Honestly, it never occurred to me that this wasn't the case until perhaps one of these threads. I always kinda figured that maybe these starships just weren't that impressive if the Enterprise was usually looked at as the big swinging dick among starships.

So I guess it....isn't? These guys aren't out there on the USS Constitution protecting anything, they're going out there doing Magellan shit and just looking around? And while the Enterprise may be the big fish in its own pond, there are probably dozens of ships that would pretty easily annihilate it (I guess that makes sense given how many times they blow the damn thing up).

I mean...I guess that's right there in their spiel, but like I said, I just never gave it much thought. Besides, that makes the concept of Starfleet seem really odd to me, especially given that whole "Fermi Paradox" thing and the fact that perhaps we should probably just not let the whole universe know where we are. Privately funded explorers back in ye olden times made since because frankly, they were funded by profiteers. But Starfleet would appear to be nothing more than a massive public works project whereby we empower people to take heavily armed ships to just go poking stuff with sticks to see what happens.

Like you, being born int he 80s, I missed a lot of the TOS, except the movies. TNG is really what hooked me in and DS9 cemented the ride. I tried to get into Voyager but was in college for most of it and had other things to do and never really got into Enterprise, though I continued staying up with the movies.

So, what I can tell, is that Starfleet was primarily about exploration post a near-apocalyptic nightmare for earth heightened by the eugenic wars (from where Khan came). The humanity that survived basically evolved to be more explorers and peacemakers than warmongers.

In the movies with TOS crew, there was a mixed tension of exploration and war. A former war with the Klingons basically wound down into a cold war of sorts, impacted by Kirk's hatred for Klingons after they killed his son. Throughout the series and into the movies the Enterprise and crew went from being top of the line to rundown and old with bigger and better ships to follow (the Excelsior for example). The 1701-A seemed to be a refitted Constitution class ship, which was already beginning to be on the way out, given to the crew for legacy sake (whereas the 1701-B ended up being an Excelsior class and therefore regarded as more top of the line again).

With TNG, the 1701-D as a Galaxy class starship was essentially the biggest, baddest, and best of it's time. In TNG, there was the occasional interaction with other such ships, but most were smaller and less capable.

By then, most of the old wars were long past though uneasy truces remained among the Federation, Klingons, and Romulans. The Enterprise was sent out mostly as a vessel of exploration and discovery, but it was still decked out weapon-wise to face any unknown threats (like they would ultimately encounter with the Borg, though it was not advanced weaponry that enabled successful battles but rather the crew's ability and experience). As the top of the line ship, both in weapons and for exploration, the Enterprise would be called to various places to seek peace and engage in battle if necessary.

When DS9 rolled around, they put the space station crew on the edge of federation territory where things were more frontier like, messier, and less peaceful. It took some of the utopian gleam away from the federation.

In the reboots, the 1701 was billed as a top of the line ship. It paled in comparison to the Romulan ship due to it being from the future. In ITD, it paled to the Vengeance b/c that was a special-ops ship designed with the most advanced weaponry they could develop with the help of Khan out of a warmongering attitude toward the perceived threat of the Klingons.

Since Beyond wasn't THAT much further in the future and the Klingon war hadn't manifested, the Enterprise would still be more top of the line. But, yeah, given the existence of the Vengeance at one point and the technological feat of the new space station, it does make you wonder why there hadn't been a greater advancement in some more ships for that universe.

With the "fermi paradox" thing you mention: for the most part the Prime Directive seemed to limit a lot of poking. It's aim was to observe but not engage cultures that had yet to develop warp capability, therefore not to unduly influence the culture's evolution.

That seems to be something they picked up from the Vulcans. In First Contact, the Vulcans had already been explorers for years, yet had no interest in earth until Cochrane made a successful warp test as the Vulcans were passing nearby.

With TNG, Q basically warned Picard and thus the federation that they were poking at some very nasty unknowns, but the response was essentially: "We're explorers and we're up to the risks because the rewards will be greater." Then Q ultimately threw the Enterprise into the hornet's next with the Borg.

All that to say... Yeah, the federation was more Magellan and Columbus like than a war-time Navy, for their main aim was exploration; but they also prepared for possible wars and those wars did come. So, yeah, explorers with really powerful weapons, somewhat poking at things.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

Eh,

I get the complaints. I enjoy the old Trek as well. But things change and evolve over time.

The last movie movie before the reboot cast bombed pretty hard. Trek had grown stale. Eventually things will probably swing back.

Star Trek's had an uneven history with its movies, so noting that the last one prior to the rebooted case had bombed isn't really saying much. The movies reached their pinnacle in WOK, and have been trying to equal that ever since, after all.

I get that maybe you don't give a shit if this is really Star Trek, and you're fine if it's really just a bland space action film. It's just that many do, and aren't.

[Bowser]

I wasn't a fan of Nemesis when it first came out, but it has surprisingly held up well (for me, anyway). Naturally it is full of plot holes and Trek logic (the scene with the dune buggy and the whole concept of B4 was super lazy), but I thought Stewart and particularly Tom Hardy did a great job. The battle at the end between the Scimitar and the Enterprise was likely as good of a space battle that we've seen in any Star Trek movie.

[DaneMcCloud]

Star Trek really jumped the shark for me with Voyage Home. While it was a fun and enjoyable movie, the mere fact that time travel becomes a theme throughout the Star Trek universe made it completely unrealistic and unbelievable for me.

There's no real future and no real past. Everything can be easily manipulated, so why should I even bother concerning myself with these people if "time travel" can correct everything?

The Abrams produced "Kelvin Timeline" has taken it a step further and despite a good cast, I have no intention of ever purchasing these movies On Demand, streaming, Blu Ray or watching in a theater.

Maybe the new series will live up to the standard that Gene Roddenberry set in the 60's but it's doubtful.

[Chieficus]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Star Trek really jumped the shark for me with Voyage Home. While it was a fun and enjoyable movie, the mere fact that time travel becomes a theme throughout the Star Trek universe made it completely unrealistic and unbelievable for me.

There's no real future and no real past. Everything can be easily manipulated, so why should I even bother concerning myself with these people if "time travel" can correct everything?

The Abrams produced "Kelvin Timeline" has taken it a step further and despite a good cast, I have no intention of ever purchasing these movies On Demand, streaming, Blu Ray or watching in a theater.

Maybe the new series will live up to the standard that Gene Roddenberry set in the 60's but it's doubtful.

That's odd reasoning considering time travel was used several times in TOS and the slingshot of IV was first in an original series episode...

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Slingshot_effect

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Chieficus

That's odd reasoning considering time travel was used several times in TOS and the slingshot of IV was first in an original series episode...

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Slingshot_effect

IIRC, the episode in the original series was to be used as a springboard to completely new series but the pilot wasn't picked up.

I didn't like time travel in the TOS but it wasn't the huge plot device that it would become in the movies like IV, First Contact (which is my favorite Trek film), TNG and now the Kelvin Timeline.

IIRC, even Enterprise had some time travel aspects (or maybe not. Totally forgettable series).

[Chieficus]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

IIRC, the episode in the original series was to be used as a springboard to completely new series but the pilot wasn't picked up.

I didn't like time travel in the TOS but it wasn't the huge plot device that it would become in the movies like IV, First Contact (which is my favorite Trek film), TNG and now the Kelvin Timeline.

IIRC, even Enterprise had some time travel aspects (or maybe not. Totally forgettable series).

Yeah, I rank First Contact just below WoK and just above Undiscovered Country as my top 3.

But in a three year run, time travel was used in some form in 5 episodes of TOS. Maybe not to the same effect as IV, which did essentially create a new timeline too. But 5 episodes is still a significant original part of the show...

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Time_travel_episodes

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Star Trek's had an uneven history with its movies, so noting that the last one prior to the rebooted case had bombed isn't really saying much. The movies reached their pinnacle in WOK, and have been trying to equal that ever since, after all.

I get that maybe you don't give a shit if this is really Star Trek, and you're fine if it's really just a bland space action film. It's just that many do, and aren't.

I think you forget where Star Trek was right after Nemesis bombed in 2002. It was at rock bottom or near. The movies were diminishing returns and had been for awhile. Same for all the TV series. It took them 7 years to make a new movie and figure out how to reboot the property to get audiences excited again. They had to make them relevant to modern audiences.

Lets be honest, the majority of the Trek fanbase has gotten old and Trek as a brand doesnt meant that much to under 30s.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

I think you forget where Star Trek was right after Nemesis bombed in 2002. It was at rock bottom or near. The movies were diminishing returns and had been for awhile. Same for all the TV series. It took them 7 years to make a new movie and figure out how to reboot the property to get audiences excited again. They had to make them relevant to modern audiences.

Lets be honest, the majority of the Trek fanbase has gotten old and Trek as a brand doesnt meant that much to under 30s.

Modern audiences have been watching Star Trek all their lives.

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Modern audiences have been watching Star Trek all their lives.

I can appreciate both types of Trek. Yes the reboot is dumbed down and action oriented, but that's where we are in 2016. Paramount isn't going to spend 200 milly on a boring, dialogue heavy Trek. Not gonna happen anymore.

[unlurking]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

I wonder if this is something of a generational thing. Or maybe I'm dumb. I might just be dumb.

I never watched TOS because I'm an 80s kid. I was also fairly young and only gave passing glances to TNG.

So to me, Starfleet was pretty much the new, global Navy. Honestly, it never occurred to me that this wasn't the case until perhaps one of these threads. I always kinda figured that maybe these starships just weren't that impressive if the Enterprise was usually looked at as the big swinging dick among starships.

So I guess it....isn't? These guys aren't out there on the USS Constitution protecting anything, they're going out there doing Magellan shit and just looking around? And while the Enterprise may be the big fish in its own pond, there are probably dozens of ships that would pretty easily annihilate it (I guess that makes sense given how many times they blow the damn thing up).

I mean...I guess that's right there in their spiel, but like I said, I just never gave it much thought. Besides, that makes the concept of Starfleet seem really odd to me, especially given that whole "Fermi Paradox" thing and the fact that perhaps we should probably just not let the whole universe know where we are. Privately funded explorers back in ye olden times made since because frankly, they were funded by profiteers. But Starfleet would appear to be nothing more than a massive public works project whereby we empower people to take heavily armed ships to just go poking stuff with sticks to see what happens.

This whole post completely sums up Star Trek for many new fans. Completely misunderstanding what Star Trek is about. The people are the stories, surrounded by cool tech/space/aliens/etc. Star Trek was never about a "global navy". It's not "global", as the federations spans many alien cultures across many worlds. It's not a "navy", as the primary mission is the advancement of knowledge. Defense is secondary.

And what's with the usage of the derogatory term "profiteer". That's a pretty broad stroke to paint all merchants and traders. Not to mention that some of the most famous explorers in history were funded by governments. Magellan, Columbus, Lewis & Clark, Armstrong, etc.

I guess this is the new demographic for Star Trek. This is why we can't have nice things.
(nice things = good Star Trek)