The Glade 4.0 :: View topic - Star Trek Beyond (2016)

This... this is not Trek :\ I want a Trek movie, not a stupid Fast and the Furious movie

(Which bodes well for a certain other movie J.J. Abrams directed afterward that comes out this week.)

Talya wrote:

(Which bodes well for a certain other movie J.J. Abrams directed afterward that comes out this week.)

What movie is that?

So did they sit back and say, "its the third one, we have to destroy the Enterprise."

Raell wrote:

So did they sit back and say, "its the third one, we have to destroy the Enterprise."

Why would they stop now? I mean, they've been destroying the Enterprise this whole time, to various degrees, right?

Kaffis Mark V wrote:

Raell wrote:

So did they sit back and say, "its the third one, we have to destroy the Enterprise."

Why would they stop now? I mean, they've been destroying the Enterprise this whole time, to various degrees, right?

My theory is that they have no cleaning team in the alternate universe future, so they have to destroy it before it gets too dirty to use.

FarSky wrote:

Did you print out and place that? Because that is AWESOME! Well done Mr Sky.

Don't act like Star Trek can only be what you want it to be :/ Things need to adapt.

Unless you'd prefer the Trek franchise to fade off into obscurity and never be recreated for a new audience.

Yeah, it's not exactly like anything since TNG captured the public consciousness, except in unification of belief that the Enterprise theme song sucked balls.

Abrams did the impossible and made me interested in Star Trek. He then kinda blew it, but still.

I'll just leave this here... Its kinda bad when The Frantic doesn't make you look any sillier

http://www.dailydot.com/geek/star-trek-anton-yelchin-dead/?fb=dd

Guess they're going to recast Chekov. RIP.

Author:	FarSky [ Mon Dec 14, 2015 12:32 pm ]
Post subject:	Star Trek Beyond (2016)
Silly naming convention continues, but I hope hope hope it's better than the execrable Into Darkness.

Author:	Darkroland [ Mon Dec 14, 2015 1:28 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
I also hope it's better. It's a great trailer, but that's what you'd expect from the makers of the Fast and the Furious. Much shiny, but substance?

Author:	Crimsonsun [ Tue Dec 15, 2015 12:42 am ]
Post subject:
This... this is not Trek :\ I want a Trek movie, not a stupid Fast and the Furious movie

Author:	Kaffis Mark V [ Tue Dec 15, 2015 7:28 am ]
Post subject:	Re:
Crimsonsun wrote: This... this is not Trek :\ I want a Trek movie, not a stupid Fast and the Furious movie The Space and the Spurious.

Author:	Darkroland [ Tue Dec 15, 2015 10:53 am ]
Post subject:	Re:
Crimsonsun wrote: This... this is not Trek :\ I want a Trek movie, not a stupid Fast and the Furious movie Yeah, this isn't Star Trek, I've given up on it being anything like the Trek that we love. It's entertaining, but it's not Trek. I'm hopeful the series Paramount is developing is going to be more like TNG/DS9 and less BANG BOOM everyone run EVERYWHERE ALL THE TIME.

The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/

Star Trek Beyond (2016) https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11531	Page 1 of 2

Author:	Müs [ Tue Dec 15, 2015 11:04 am ]
Post subject:
I liked Into Darkness.

Author:	Talya [ Tue Dec 15, 2015 2:29 pm ]
Post subject:
Both Star Trek movies thus far have been decent Sci-Fi action movies that have only a passing resemblance to Star Trek. In fact, they felt more like Star Wars. (Which bodes well for a certain other movie J.J. Abrams directed afterward that comes out this week.)

Author:	Kaffis Mark V [ Tue Dec 15, 2015 4:59 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Talya wrote: (Which bodes well for a certain other movie J.J. Abrams directed afterward that comes out this week.) What movie is that?

Author:	Talya [ Tue Dec 15, 2015 5:40 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
Kaffis Mark V wrote: Talya wrote: (Which bodes well for a certain other movie J.J. Abrams directed afterward that comes out this week.) What movie is that? ...

Author:	Raell [ Tue Dec 15, 2015 9:52 pm ]
Post subject:
So did they sit back and say, "its the third one, we have to destroy the Enterprise."

Author:	Kaffis Mark V [ Tue Dec 15, 2015 11:19 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Raell wrote: So did they sit back and say, "its the third one, we have to destroy the Enterprise." Why would they stop now? I mean, they've been destroying the Enterprise this whole time, to various degrees, right?

Author:	Darkroland [ Wed Dec 16, 2015 11:23 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
Kaffis Mark V wrote: Raell wrote: So did they sit back and say, "its the third one, we have to destroy the Enterprise." Why would they stop now? I mean, they've been destroying the Enterprise this whole time, to various degrees, right? My theory is that they have no cleaning team in the alternate universe future, so they have to destroy it before it gets too dirty to use.

Author:	FarSky [ Wed Dec 16, 2015 12:40 pm ]
Post subject:

Author:	Darkroland [ Wed Dec 16, 2015 3:28 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
FarSky wrote: Did you print out and place that? Because that is AWESOME! Well done Mr Sky.

Author:	Talya [ Tue Dec 29, 2015 11:50 am ]
Post subject:
What's sad about that is I liked all of those actors in their roles. You could not have cast those movies any better than they were cast. Those guys did a magnificent job of representing the old 60's star trek cast. It's the script and directing that was so frustratingly NOT STAR TREK.

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Talya [ Thu Dec 17, 2015 9:12 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
Darkroland wrote: Kaffis Mark V wrote: Raell wrote: So did they sit back and say, "its the third one, we have to destroy the Enterprise." Why would they stop now? I mean, they've been destroying the Enterprise this whole time, to various degrees, right? My theory is that they have no cleaning team in the alternate universe future, so they have to destroy it before it gets too dirty to use. Well, when's the last time you saw janitorial staff on the Enterprise in any iteration of Trek?

Author:	Darkroland [ Thu Dec 17, 2015 10:38 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
So, this has given me a bit more hope...

Author:	FarSky [ Mon Dec 21, 2015 4:34 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
Darkroland wrote: FarSky wrote: Did you print out and place that? Because that is AWESOME! Well done Mr Sky. Ah, no, that's just me photoshoppin'.

Author:	Rorinthas [ Tue Dec 29, 2015 3:00 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
I'll just leave this here... Its kinda bad when The Frantic doesn't make you look any sillier

Author:	Lenas [ Tue Dec 29, 2015 4:15 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
Don't act like Star Trek can only be what you want it to be :/ Things need to adapt. Unless you'd prefer the Trek franchise to fade off into obscurity and never be recreated for a new audience.

Author:	FarSky [ Tue Dec 29, 2015 5:32 pm ]
Post subject:
Yeah, it's not exactly like anything since TNG captured the public consciousness, except in unification of belief that the Enterprise theme song sucked balls. Abrams did the impossible and made me interested in Star Trek. He then kinda blew it, but still.

Author:	Talya [ Tue Dec 29, 2015 9:01 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
Lenas wrote: Don't act like Star Trek can only be what you want it to be :/ Things need to adapt. Unless you'd prefer the Trek franchise to fade off into obscurity and never be recreated for a new audience. FarSky wrote: Yeah, it's not exactly like anything since TNG captured the public consciousness, except in unification of belief that the Enterprise theme song sucked balls. Abrams did the impossible and made me interested in Star Trek. He then kinda blew it, but still. Nonsense. Star Trek always was fairly solid speculative science fiction, whereas Abrams reboot was a Space Opera. Battle in Star Trek was generally patterned after WWII submarine suspense movies, as opposed to an action movie. Abrams reboot is just a Sci-Fantasy action flick. Note there's nothing wrong with Sci-Fantasy, Space Opera action flicks. I've always preferred the Star Wars, which is all of those things, to Star Trek. But making Star Trek into it as well is clearly against the entire spirit of the franchise. It'd be like turning James Bond movies into a Sherman Brothers musical with dancing cartoon penguins. You can claim "Things need to adapt," but anyone who said it was still a James Bond movie would be smoking something strong. As for "capturing the public consciousness," well, that's hardly a prerequisite for any of this. The new ones didn't, either. Let's just say Browncoats like you and I, FarSky, are far, far fewer in number than Trekkies, by a factor of hundreds, perhaps thousands, and yet we will heap only praise on Whedon's masterpiece. And someone who tried to make a live version of it "on ice" would not be regarded fondly by either of us.

Author:	Arathain Kelvar [ Wed Dec 30, 2015 3:21 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
Rorinthas wrote: I'll just leave this here... Its kinda bad when The Frantic doesn't make you look any sillier You owe me half a dozen brain cells.

Author:	TheRiov [ Sun Jun 19, 2016 3:03 pm ]
Post subject:
http://www.dailydot.com/geek/star-trek- ... ead/?fb=dd Guess they're going to recast Chekov. RIP.

Author:	Darkroland [ Mon Jun 20, 2016 8:02 am ]
Post subject:	Re:
TheRiov wrote: http://www.dailydot.com/geek/star-trek-anton-yelchin-dead/?fb=dd Guess they're going to recast Chekov. RIP. Yeah, this is just... so, so sad. I think he was already a great actor, and had lots more potential. RIP.