Star Trek Beyond (2016) (2 Viewers)

[Joel Fontenot]

True. As the article noted - it could go either way.

 

[Carabimero]

It's not that they are doing reshoots that worries me. It's WHY they are doing reshoots. That's the worrying question.

 

[Dave Upton]

I am concerned about reshoots because of who's directing. Lin has never felt like a fit for Star Trek to me, so i'm rather concerned he's going to put his pop culture spin on it and ruin the future of the cinematic franchise.

 

[Carabimero]

It's clear from the first two reboot movies that the studio and the people they hire don't understand what Gene Roddenberry's vision of Star Trek was, and why fans love it so much. At this point I have little hope the studio will ever see Star Trek on the big screen as anything more than a cash cow.

I do hold out hope for the small screen.

 

[Chris Will]

Reshoots and pick-ups are common, I have no problem with them but, adding a new character/cast member during reshoots is somewhat odd and a little worrisome. Of course, I've been worried about this movie ever since the director was announced and then that first trailer only grew my worry. Now this and that feeling just continues to grow.

 

[Clinton McClure]

I wonder if Scotty will hook up some NOS to the anti-matter inductor and make the Enterprise a 10-second car...

 

[Joel Fontenot]

I wonder if Scotty will hook up some NOS to the anti-matter inductor and make the Enterprise a 10-second car...

Mixed in with a shot of Sulu stomping on the accelerator pedel.

 

[Nelson Au]

Dave, JJ Abrams already ruined the cinematic franchise of Star Trek back in 2009. So for me, it's dead. Star Trek TOS remains the only true vision of Star Trek. The spin offs do a great job of continuing that and growing the universe and the ideals that Gene Roddenberry started.

While Lin is not a choice most would have expected, he has been saying all the right things in interviews. And I enjoy Fast and Foolish movies for their escapist nonsense, but he does bring a sense of family to that group. The crew of the Enterprise is a family too. And I think he understands that. As far as what Pegg has done for a script, that's what I'd worry about. About the reshoots, my guess is it's added to help explain something. Maybe even its acting like a bookend at the start and end as she explains the events of the story. Or maybe Kirk has some explaining to do to her.

This makes me wonder about the fans of the Marvel comics. The films they make are doing massive box office which Paramount wants a piece of. And the successes on TV of shows like Flash and Supergirl no doubt has Les Moonves chomping to make Star Trek to profit from as he seems to think it will somehow make us all sign up for the service on CBS.

The question for me is do these other franchises that alter or combine elements of the old comics with new elements in the recent comics cause as much divisive feelings in their fan base? I realize the new Star Trek films are meant to appeal to the new younger audiences, so they have no history and won't care. So they enjoy what they are seeing now. So TPTB really likely don't give a moments pause to even worry about it whether these new films live up to the ideals that Gene Roddenberry, Gene Coon, Robert Justman, DC Fontana and so on created. It seems Iron Man and Captain America and the Avenger films do just fine, but are they as true to the source material? And do they make the fans angry? My sense is they don't. It seems to me Star Trek fans who are the long timers like me are less tolerant to change. I can be open minded. I know change is necessary to make something marketable. They just have to find the right balance. It seems the CBS team on the new series has a better chance at it.

Thanks, venting done now.

 

[TravisR]

The question for me is do these other franchises that alter or combine elements of the old comics with new elements in the recent comics cause as much divisive feelings in their fan base?

Sure but comics change so much (be it a major overhaul of the continuity that seems to happen more and more frequently now, a change in the creative team who make some big changes or just moving forward through 50 years of different eras) that change is sort of par for the course whereas with Star Trek, there's very few iterations and they're redoing the beloved flagship characters. I guess in short, fans get mad but there's been so much history and so many stories with those same characters that there's no truly definitive interpretation of the characters.

 

[Joel Fontenot]

Nelson, I'm not into the Marvel or DC comic world at all, but I've tried to at least keep up with what has gone on as I do enjoy the various movies and TV shows based on them.

I would say that it is a bit different in that all the different characters in the original comics were already re-booted, in some cases, several times before we even got the current MCU and whatever they are calling the DC movies now.

Much of what's going on with the MCU is sort of a mix of past stories and the fans see it that way without too much division (not that there aren't any, just not all that much). The DC stuff, particularly with the latest Superman storyline, does seem to divide a lot of the comic fans into those that really hate it and those that are okay with it.

Marvel seems to blend the history better than DC has, so far, been able to do. And keep it interesting enough for non-comic-fans (like me) to want more.

Star Trek got it's reboot so long after-the-fact, and the idea the no one who were originally involved with the show were involved in the reboot makes it a very different premise. As much of a TOS fan as I am, I did like the 2009 movie. Less so, though, did I like ID (I would have been more accepting of it if the antagonist was never Khan in the first place, and the role reversal scene at the end never happened).

The only positive thing about the new movie is the fact that they have already said that they are ignoring most of the pain points from ID.

And, while I was typing this out, Travis said the same thing much more succinctly.

 

[TravisR]

And, while I was typing this out, Travis said the same thing much more succinctly.

You said it better though.

 

[Nelson Au]

Thanks a lot Joel, Travis. From the little research that I did back when Iron Man first came out, I could see there was the original comic and then later there were changes made. And I had heard about the chamges to Superman over the years, where he dies, then comes back. And then the Dark Knight comic I gather was another iteration of Batman.

Joel, your point about Star Trek being rebooted so late in the game is right as to why it's so hard to accept for some. One of the issues with the rebooted Bond is Daniel Craig portraying younger Bond as such an idiot. On purpose of course to contrast what he becomes later. But the books never shows that. Same with Kirk in the 2009 film and ID to a degree, he's played so cocky and wreck less. But we've been down this road of comparisons. Your point that the reboot is so recent that it's far more jarring then what's happening to the Marvel universe where they've been rebooting and changing for years, is it's less problematical makes a lot of sense.

 

[Tino]

The fact is the rebooted Star Trek was the most successful film of all the Star Trek features so let's give it credit for that. It has brought new fans to the Trek universe and that's always a good thing. I loved both JJ films and think he did a tremendous job rebooting and revitalizing and SAVING a pretty much dead ST theatrical series. The new film I admit has me concerned as I didn't really like the current trailer and hope they release a better one soon.

 

[Tino]

And on that note.....

Star Trek fan film sued by Paramount for using Klingon language, Vulcan ears
And even yellow shirts!

http://www.polygon.com/2016/3/14/11221524/star-trek-fan-film-paramount-axanar

 

[Nelson Au]

Tino, I would reluctantly agree with a few points you made.

The new film did do very well at the box office, but I don't have the numbers on hand. For sure they bested the TNG films. And I would agree new fans have come aboard.

The Axanar team must have really made Paramount mad because all those points they bring up, the other indie Star Trek fan films are equally guilty of. Alec Peters is also a bit of a controversial figure in the prop collecting realm. Seems to have had issues, so he must have some enemies out there.

 

[Tino]

Nelson

The first JJ Trek film was the most successful of ALL the Trek films, even adjusted for inflation. That's impressive no matter what.


Price Inflation
Rank Title (click to view) Studio Adjusted Gross Unadjusted Gross Release
1 Star Trek Par. $300,567,700 $257,730,019 5/8/09
2 Star Trek: The Motion Picture Par. $285,119,000 $82,258,456 12/7/79
3 Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home Par. $251,168,700 $109,713,132 11/26/86
4 Star Trek Into Darkness Par. $237,514,800 $228,778,661 5/16/13
5 Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan Par. $233,518,000 $78,912,963 6/4/82
6 Star Trek III: The Search for Spock Par. $198,005,400 $76,471,046 6/1/84
7 Star Trek: First Contact Par. $180,450,000 $92,027,888 11/22/96
8 Star Trek: Generations Par. $156,994,600 $75,671,125 11/18/94
9 Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country Par. $155,692,900 $74,888,996 12/6/91
10 Star Trek: Insurrection Par. $127,878,600 $70,187,658 12/11/98
11 Star Trek V: The Final Frontier Par. $114,415,000 $52,210,049 6/9/89
12 Star Trek: Nemesis Par. $64,034,500

 

[Carabimero]

And on that note.....

Star Trek fan film sued by Paramount for using Klingon language, Vulcan ears
And even yellow shirts!

http://www.polygon.com/2016/3/14/11221524/star-trek-fan-film-paramount-axanar

Let's be clear about why CBS is suing them. Not because they used Klingon language, Vulcan ears and yellow shirts, but because they were trading on them, were warned to stop, and refused.

 

[trevanian]

I take exception with the numbers for TMP,. which have been revised downward rather drastically. (wonder if this happened in the mid80s, around the same time as when Shatner & co threatened to audit the books and all of a sudden Par announced trek had started turning a profit.)

By 1982, the figure being quoted in STARLOG and other sources was consistently a take of 175 mil worldwide. This is pretty credible given that in domestic rentals (not gross), TMP did 39 mil just in 24 days in 1979, and another 16 or 17 in 1980 (my best friend got THR and weekly VARIETY back then, I was tracking this pretty avidly). Convention back then was that you multiply rentals by between 2x and 2.5 to get approximate gross, so you've got TMP at 110 to 140 (which is in keeping with the 139 domestic figure that used to be bandied about.) Add in another 35 or 40 for int'l and you're at that 175, so that makes sense.

But then around the time internet gets popular I start seeing these numbers that are WAY WAY down on TMP (in fact, the 82 figure is one I remember for TWOK's domestic gross, which is really strange.) I'm pretty sure 175 adjusted for inflation from 1979 is probably a helluva lot more than the mess masquerading as Trek that came out in 09.

Nelson

The first JJ Trek film was the most successful of ALL the Trek films, even adjusted for inflation. That's impressive no matter what.


Price Inflation
Rank Title (click to view) Studio Adjusted Gross Unadjusted Gross Release
1 Star Trek Par. $300,567,700 $257,730,019 5/8/09
2 Star Trek: The Motion Picture Par. $285,119,000 $82,258,456 12/7/79

I

 

[Tino]

These are domestic numbers not international.

 

[Tino]

No offense but I trust these numbers more than memories and relying on rental multipliers. These are the facts.