[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Home]
4chanarchives logo
>future bombs
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.

You are currently reading a thread in /tv/ - Television & Film

Thread replies: 31
Thread images: 11
File: Star Trek Beyond.jpg (155 KB, 1920x1080) Image search: [Google]
Star Trek Beyond.jpg
155 KB, 1920x1080
>future bombs
>>
>>69068503
Why? People loved previous dumb action-packed """Star Trek""" movies.
>>
File: teamsvscivilwarposter.jpg (685 KB, 1280x1896) Image search: [Google]
teamsvscivilwarposter.jpg
685 KB, 1280x1896
>>
Im gonna go there

Beyond had the worst trailer of the 2010s so far
>>
Tarzan
>>
File: 1462220947112.png (395 KB, 1280x800) Image search: [Google]
1462220947112.png
395 KB, 1280x800
All I needed to know
>>
>>69068503
wait, they are making another star trek movie? Why, considering how bad the last one was
>>
File: 1462218458940.jpg (255 KB, 585x454) Image search: [Google]
1462218458940.jpg
255 KB, 585x454
>>69068607
OP said future.
>>
>>69068778
It got right the music at least.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfP6o-61e2s
>>
That Warcraft movie will definitely bomb. There's no way they're making their money back on it.
>>
>>69068620
thats not ghostbusters reboot, you faggot.
>>
File: 1425068232957.jpg (227 KB, 677x782) Image search: [Google]
1425068232957.jpg
227 KB, 677x782
>>69068778
I really like the NuTrek cast, so it's pretty sad to see them fuck up with Beyond like this.

They have no idea what kind of movie they're making, when all people want is another adventure on par with Star Trek 2009. I really liked that movie.
>>
File: 1461352817476.jpg (60 KB, 467x519) Image search: [Google]
1461352817476.jpg
60 KB, 467x519
>>69069227

Faggots like you are turning Star Trek into Star Wars lite.

Disgusting.
>>
>>69069227
They're shit, if you wanna see someone do Shatner right then you should watch this series...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJf2ovQtI6w

He's got his Shatner down pat and the plots are a lot more in the spirit of the source material.
>>
File: StarTrek50-cover-MOCKONLY.jpg (539 KB, 4050x3131) Image search: [Google]
StarTrek50-cover-MOCKONLY.jpg
539 KB, 4050x3131
>>69069602
Elitists like you are what continue to kill Trek.
I'm not denying 2009 was like Star Wars (it was a better Star Wars than The Force Awakens in my opinion), but it was a fun movie that kept the Star Trek feel.

Into Darkness wasn't all bad either, but had a lot of squandered potential.

Would you rather Trek be relegated to whatever shit CBS show it's being outsourced to now? Truly?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAf5qSwsZrM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEvKu0SCNJU

C'mon. It was fun.
>>
>>69068778
>>69069227


>In January 2015 after Orci's departure, Simon Pegg and Doug Jung were hired to rewrite the screenplay, and Pegg also plans to reprise his role of Scotty.
>On the original draft by Orci, Pegg commented that Paramount "had a script for Star Trek that wasn't really working for them. I think the studio was worried that it might have been a little bit too Star Trek-y."
>For his role as the primary screenwriter, Pegg had been asked to make this new film "more inclusive", stating that the solution was to "make a western or a thriller or a heist movie, then populate that with Star Trek characters so it's more inclusive to an audience that might be a little bit reticent."
>>
>>69068575
>terrible trailer
>zero hype
>no JJ
>Into Reference left a bad taste in people's mouths
>they never made a ton to begin with
>>
>>69068934
The official budget is actually only $100 million, so it needs to make much less than most other blockbusters to hit bank.
>>
>>69068575

Star Trek was always dumb, with profound philosophical questions and hard science fiction sprinkled across only a couple of episodes and a few movies.
>>
>>69069795
>the Star Trek feel

You mean walking around a ship discussing whatever social issue allegory they're dealing with?
>>
>>69070232
Yes that the drama comes from exploring modern issues through the allegorical lense of science fiction not "pew pew sharky cam lense flare!"
>>
File: 1462143218517.jpg (212 KB, 800x450) Image search: [Google]
1462143218517.jpg
212 KB, 800x450
>>69069795
Pine plays a cocky young officer well but he doesn't quite feel like Kirk. The homosexual is awful as Spock, lacking a certain austerity and gravitas. Saldana brings fiery attitude to Uhura, but it is unnecessary. Karl Urban shines in a spot on impression of cantankerous Dr. McCoy, but it is only an impression. The character of Chekhov is forgettable and seems a glorified extra. Don't forget John "MILF, MILF, MILF!" Cho as Commander Sulu, because I almost did. Pegg, ever the ascended fanboy, seems to be the only one who understands his character-lamentable, because he's not very good at playing said character.
In spite of the difficult to cast core crew's lack of talent, the movies manage to be fun and entertaining, more so than the previous efforts by Paramount and having broader appeal than the classic films starring the original cast.
I look forward to Beyond, if only because it'll be a colorful romp through the beloved Star Trek galaxy with attractive aliens and fun chase scenes.
>>
>>69070085
I think too many people under value Star Trek as a comedy.

The series is built on verbal sparring and raised eyebrows.
>>
>>69069008
ghostbusters was pretty bad. Only thing wrong with Beyond is the trailer music
>>
>>69068503
saw the trailer ages ago, but it looked like utter shit, not that that was surprising given how bad the first two were honestly

haven't heard a single mention of it at all online or in real life since, and when the trailer came out and everyone saw it all the mentions I heard about it were bad

this is supposed to be release in 2 month? I can see this bombing super fucking hard
>>
>>69071944
At least Ghostbusters has one good piece of promotional material.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cCqOZDu2-w
>>
File: 1457023764582.gif (2 MB, 308x214) Image search: [Google]
1457023764582.gif
2 MB, 308x214
>>69068503
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f4aAwa5wdg
>>
>>69072033
oh man his face at the end says it all, poor Pegg
>>
>>69072087

He fucking hates people like you. Poor him?
>>
>>69072033
>p-please see my film.... please
>>
>>69072135
>Poor him?
you can tell he hates it but he can't say because he would get fucked by lawyers/never work with them again if he doesn't tow the line

>He fucking hates people like you.
why?
Thread replies: 31
Thread images: 11

banner
banner
[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Home]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at [email protected] with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.
DMCA Content Takedown via dmca.com
All images are hosted on imgur.com, send takedown notices to them.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.