Star Trek Beyond (2016) (1 Viewer)

[Osato]

$9 and free shipping. Ordered!!

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/star-tr...ital-copy-blu-ray-dvd/5450019.p?skuId=5450019

 

[Osato]

Picked up Star Trek beyond for $10 at target! It also includes the target exclusive disc of extras!!!!

 

[Patrick Sun]

So it took them 3 movies to get the cast to feel "right", but the antagonist was so poorly set up in this film. Grr...

I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.

 

[benbess]

Zoe Saldana on Beyond's box office "burnout":

http://trekcore.com/blog/2017/01/zoe-saldana-really-hopes-well-get-a-star-trek-4/

" really hope there is [going to be another film]. It’d be crazy to limit the longevity of a show that has had a fifty year life – and on – to stop just because they had a bad box office turnout."

 

[Jonathan Perregaux]

I love her to death and wish her all the best, but Star Trek movies as of late have more in common with "Lost in Space" than "Star Trek." All we get is a heaping loaf of witless prattle and unjustified violence, jarringly ensconsed in stellar production values. That's what made me not give a shit.

 

[Carabimero]

I wish someone would write a Star Trek antagonist that was intelligent, articulate, with a point of view they could morally justify. Real moral argument. An exchange of ideas about diversity and exploration. Values in opposition expressed through dialogue and action sequences. The studio could still have its set pieces and Star Trek fans could fall in love with Star Trek all over again.

It's not really rocket science. It's just Star Trek, with a little complexity and messiness.

 

[Sam Favate]

Perhaps when and if the new series is successful in writing thoughtful stories that are really akin to Star Trek, the folks writing the movies will take note of it and follow along. That's not meant as a disparagement of Simon Pegg & Doug Jung's script for Beyond, which was good (but not great) but still ended up with an antagonist that didn't make a lot of sense and was bent on destruction.

 

[dpippel]

Nothing's going to change as long as filmmakers keep ignoring what makes Star Trek so popular and continue to give us generic shoot-em-ups with boring, cookie-cutter antagonists and lotsa stuff blowin' up real good.

 

[TravisR]

Until talking sells more tickets than explosions, Star Trek is going to continue to be a space adventure movie.

 

[dpippel]

Oh, come on Travis. It's not an either/or situation. Both of these aspects could easily be incorporated into stories set in the current Trek universe. You know, sort of like TOS and TNG did it? The shows that made Star Trek popular in the first place? Until then the studio will continue to sit there and wonder why their films underperform.

 

[Jonathan Perregaux]

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home out-grossed nearly all the "classic" Star Trek films without firing a single shot. It had much talking and witty banter, nobody ran hurriedly from room to room (even as Earth's doom hung in the balance), and it had an on-the-nose environmental moral.

Interestingly, until 2009, IV was only out-grossed by The Motion Picture, which was lethargic to say the least.

 

[Tino]

I didn't think TMP was lethargic at all. And many here agree. It's actually my favorite of all the original films....including TWOK.

 

[TravisR]

Oh, come on Travis. It's not an either/or situation.

I agree but I think it's fair to assume that Paramount feels that these movies need to be action movies that play to a global audience (less talking, more killing) to make the most amount of money. I've said it before but while I'm a fan of all 3 of the new Trek movies, I feel bad for the people who want to see something more in line with the original because I don't think that's something that's coming back.

 

[Carabimero]

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home out-grossed nearly all the "classic" Star Trek films without firing a single shot. It had much talking and witty banter, nobody ran hurriedly from room to room (even as Earth's doom hung in the balance), and it had an on-the-nose environmental moral.

Not only that, it didn't even have villain.

 

[dpippel]

I agree but I think it's fair to assume that Paramount feels that these movies need to be action movies that play to a global audience (less talking, more killing) to make the most amount of money. I've said it before but while I'm a fan of all 3 of the new Trek movies, I feel bad for the people who want to see something more in line with the original because I don't think that's something that's coming back.

That's kind of what I was addressing. Paramount, from what I understand, hasn't been too happy with the box office of the Kelvin Timeline Trek films, yet they continue to ignore (for the most part) what makes Trek great in the first place and why so many people are drawn to it. It would be very easy for them to serve BOTH the fans and the general public with a smart film that touches on moral and philosophical themes while mixing in action and adventure. I mean, that's exactly what TV Trek did. Instead they're still barking up the same tree hoping for a different result. I think the hiring of Justin Lin for Beyond is a good illustration of that mentality. "Hey, let's get that Fast and Furious guy in here to spice things up!" While he and Simon Pegg did a fairly decent job with some of Beyond, it still had the same basic formula as the previous two films that Abrams helmed. They don't get it, and I'm afraid they never will.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home out-grossed nearly all the "classic" Star Trek films without firing a single shot. It had much talking and witty banter, nobody ran hurriedly from room to room (even as Earth's doom hung in the balance), and it had an on-the-nose environmental moral.

And they made it for $21 million! Imagine if Beyond had a budget of $85 million instead of $185 million. If that had been the case, the $158 million domestic box office would have looked great.

Even if they want the film to have action, you can do more set pieces like Kirk's motorcycle ride in Beyond and less vast CG-intensive battles in space.

 

[Tino]

And they made it for $21 million! Imagine if Beyond had a budget of $85 million instead of $185 million. If that had been the case, the $158 million domestic box office would have looked great.

Even if they want the film to have action, you can do more set pieces like Kirk's motorcycle ride in Beyond and less vast CG-intensive battles in space.

Which is about $50 million today. Amazing even at that number.

 

[Carabimero]

If the JJverse movies became extinct it wouldn't be a bad thing, necessarily. Especially if Trek is thriving on TV.

 

[Brandon Conway]

I've said it before and I'll say it again - they were able to break through the box Star Trek has been in with the mainstream with the 2009 film primarily because it came at a time where Star Wars was not found on the big screen.

Go look at the reactions to that film at the time - it's a lot of "move over Star Wars" rhetoric. But now, in a world that is getting the real deal of Star Wars every year those mainstream crowds that latched onto the Trek films in 2009-12 have moved on. They'll never get those people back playing the same game.

If the next film can successfully transfer the series to a 90% character driven series with only 10% whiz-bang, and do it on a $75-100m budget, then as a series it can continue successfully. But Paramount may see that as playing in too small of a profit sandbox and not want to bother. Studios these days want $500m+ box office for their tentpole properties, period.

 

[Malcolm R]

They need to face reality. Star Trek is never going to be Star Wars at the box office. It's just never going to happen. But that's probably why Paramount keeps trying to make Trek a battle/action franchise, to try and emulate SW. It's a futile effort.