Sign in to follow this  
GustavoLeao

Chris PIne is Very Pleased with BEYOND

Recommended Posts

Chris Pine, opens up on Idris Elba, filming in Dubai and the destruction of the Enterprise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris Pine, opens up on Idris Elba, filming in Dubai and the destruction of the Enterprise

Interesting that he refers to Dustin Lin as being in charge of a "$175 million corporation" which is essentially what modern movies are these days, for better and for worse; they are corporations (albeit temporary ones, in most cases), whose sole function is to create and market a single product.   I think (IMO anyway) STB definitely delivered on the product end, but the movie failed somewhat on the marketing end (which is more Paramount's fault than any fault on the part of the creative folks).

Such a shame, because the more I see of this movie (and I've seen it a couple times on blu ray since I bought it), the more convinced I am that it (more than the previous two BR movies) captures the 'feel' of Star Trek so much more than the previous two (even more than ST09, which I really enjoyed).  

Part of that (and perhaps one of its weaknesses for non-fans?) is that it feels like a really big, 3 part 'very special episode' of Star Trek.  In part one, the crew ventures into the dark, dangerous nebula after a nice stay at Yorktown.   In part two the crew is stranded as the ship is destroyed (the dark middle act of the opera).    And in 'the big finale' the crew is reunited and fights back to save both Yorktown and the Federation.   The End.   For me, as a ST fan, that was more than enough.   But perhaps I overestimated its pull on non-fans (?), I don't know.

I still blame that crappy staggered release schedule for much of the fiscal collapse of the movie, but I'm also finding that even when the film came to blu ray, there was an unusual 'meh' reaction out there; some of it from longtime ST fans in my own circle.   I have old ST fan friends of mine, some of whom used to watch TNG and DS9 in VHS tape binge sessions with me during the '90s, who were like, "Yeah, I didn't see it in theatres.  I'll Red Box or Netflix it someday... maybe."  :S

STB is, for reasons that elude me, the Rodney Dangerfield of the BR ST movies; the one that gets 'no respect.'   I really can't quite understand why.   Maybe they were just burned on Into Darkness?   I dunno... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Ugh, and I thought I was the only one that was tired and bored by the Kelvin timeline. Go figure.)

Anyway, Pine gave an interview for the Spanish-language site CARAS and said that a sequel to BEYOND willl be filmed next year.

—Y pronto tendremos una nueva entrega de Star Trek, ¿correcto?

—Eso creo. El próximo año, sí.

Translation :

(-We will have a new Star Trek sequel, right ?)

(-I think so. Next year, yes)

http://www.caras.cl/tv/el-talentoso-senor-pine/

Gus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, Pine gave an interview for the Spanish-language site CARAS and said that a sequel to BEYOND willl be filmed next year.

—Y pronto tendremos una nueva entrega de Star Trek, ¿correcto?

—Eso creo. El próximo año, sí.

Translation :

(-We will have a new Star Trek sequel, right ?)

(-I think so. Next year, yes)

http://www.caras.cl/tv/el-talentoso-senor-pine/

^
Next year?  First I've heard of it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked Beyond, but for me, the reason it didn't do well was several fold.  First, they really should have come up with a much more exciting story for the 50th.  Doctor Who really milked their 50th for like a year.  They had a lot of hype, a multidoctor story, and they delivered. 

And that leads to the second reason this movie didn't do as well as they wanted--advertising.  This is the Abrams era in a nutshell.

I think in general, Abrams is a pretty talented guy, but I don't think he knows how to promote his work at all.  The advertising for this movie was terrible.  You didn't know what the movie was really about.  You saw some effects, but ultimately, there was really nothing about the movie that gave enough plot to say, "I need to see this."

I think Abrams relies too much on the words "Star Trek."  He doesn't understand that you not only need to give away some details, but you SHOULD. 

That's one thing I don't think he learned from STID.  While I hated the decision to use Khan, how do you make a movie with Khan, and NOT advertise that you're using Khan?

Having Khan in the movie and revealing that is NOT a spoiler.  It's a hook.

And yes, I do think the staggered release dates don't help.  I feel that they also spend too much time thinking about the international market and tend to forget that their first duty should be to make a good movie, not one that will please China.

The movie grossed $158 million in the US, and $184 million in all the other countries combined.  I would focus on the American audience.  I think the hike in US dollars will be greater than the loss in foreign dollars, and I also believe that they could focus more on plot and character and less on effects, which should lower their budget.

Maybe another problem is that in the first two movies, they didn't quite get the characterizations right, which meant we the audience didn't love the characters the way we did the originals.  Without that, we don't care as much about what happens to them. 

I think they made a good movie, but I don't think they made a great one.  And ultimately that is what let them down.  They could have done better.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the argument that they could always do better applies to just about everything, right?   Even the best works of art have their critics.   Yes, it was the 50th anniversary movie and I agree that more could've been done to exploit that angle, but I think the movie itself was pretty solid.  Not perfect (nothing is; I still think there are pacing issues in the middle third) but it's a strong entry.

As for the previous movies not quite getting the characters right?  I agree and disagree on that point because ST09 was a 'coming together' movie, so of course the characters weren't going to be quite the same.   Not to mention they had differing life circumstances than their TOS counterparts.  But I agree that by STID, they should've been further along towards that end.  They still felt like 'students' and not the fully functional crew they should've been after a year in space together.  As for Khan?  That whole debacle was just wrongheaded.  It overinflated the character's importance to the franchise; just because TWOK is one of the best movies doesn't make him ST's answer to Darth Vader; that's because ST doesn't have a Darth Vader...because it's Star Trek, not Star Wars.   And yes, the deliberately false leaks to the press were harmful to the fans because it created a needless barrier.  I agree that the latter two Bad Robot ST movies did a really poor job of marketing and PR, true.

As for the overseas market?  I can see the reason for wanting a bigger piece of overseas pie, which was one of the reasons that staggered release schedule (almost the precise opposite of STID's) was so puzzling; it deliberately sabotaged (cue Beastie Boys; hehe) the movie's chances for making STID's kind of money (which was much more successful in foreign markets than it was domestically).   That decision to stagger the release over 2 months is not only counterintuitive, but it almost seems like there was malice behind it as well...it's just too wrongheaded to be a simple miscalculation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, everything can do better, but I still feel Star Trek is a very good commodity and that Paramount still doesn't quite get it.  I don't think they realize what they have, and even those that do, don't know how to execute.  I wonder what the Doctor Who team would do with this product.  I also agree with you that the movie itself was pretty solid.

 

But on the heels of the two prior movies, I think they lost some good faith, and they should have really used that 50th to their advantage.  Yes, the movie would have been different, but I don't think any of us would care as long as it was good. 

ST09 wasn't just the characters not being the same, they were pretty much different people with the same names.  Between the writing and the timeline changes, it really wasn't the same.  Kirk was more of a Han Solo type than a Captain Kirk type.  Pine did a nice job but I didn't feel that this guy could grow into the Kirk I knew.  Yes, they had a built in excuse, but that's not the point.  I believe the point of the timeline change was so they wouldn't be bound by past canon, but if they are going to choose to write these characters, they should have written them truer to form.

Spock getting involved with Uhura was beyond out of character.  Again, sure, you have the timeline change as an excuse, but that's not Spock. 

I did like Uhura and McCoy.

McCoy they nailed right on the head.

Sulu was bland, but I guess so was the original.  I really had no issue with Sulu.

Chekov was out of place, and I actually think they should pull a Smallville and reveal that this was not the Chekov we knew. 

As for Scotty--that was the worst butchering of a character I could imagine.  They couldn't have written the character any worse if they had a mandate. I think both Scotty and Chekov were very poorly cast, and while Pegg is a very good actor and talented, he just didn't work for me as Scotty.  He didn't capture the character's combination of intensity, the ability to kick ass, brilliance, and of course, his warmth.  Scotty is a very underrated character I think, and these movies didn't get him right.

I do think that they improved the characterizations, so I give them that, but it just may have been too late.

I think we are in total agreement on Khan.  Sometimes a character is so attached to the actor that brought him to life that it's hard to really recapture that with someone else.  There's a fine line between talent, getting the character right, and not looking like you're doing an impression.  With better writing, I think Pine could have done even better as Kirk.  But Khan?  I think you're right.  First, I think Montalban was so identified with the character, that it's hard not to redo.  Second, Cumberbatch, while an AMAZING actor, was just miscast. 

I think the movie gains some steam if you tweak the script so he's just an augmented character named John Harrison.

I get the attraction of the overseas market, but I think that writers need to take a step back and stop just using effects.  Why was TWOK so popular?

It had the action that we all want, but it showed the characters at their best.  The worst moment in that movie was Kirk's failure to raise the shields.  But that was necessary so Khan had a chance.  And Kirk admonished himself for the mistake.  Aside from that, it was Star Trek at its best.  You saw the human condition, with loyalty, sacrifice, humor, action, and overcoming difficult odds.  The characters were heroic, and we rooted for them.  I don't remember audiences cheering in the Pine movies like they did whenever Shatner did something awesome. 

 

STID shows that when not done right, and the audience doesn't have the emotion, almost the exact same scene will fall flat.

Staggering release dates to me is a mistake.  It encourages bootlegging, though if a studio chooses to do that, it can't be worse than opening overseas BEFORE the US.

It's an insult to your top customer.  The US market in a well performing film should do about 45-50% of the gross.  That's a big chunk.  So making the Americans happy should be top priority.  If a movie is good enough, the foreign markets will come through anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait a minute, are you guys saying that there was a 50th anniversary celebration for STAR TREK in 2016 ??? I must have missed it.............

Gus

Edited by GustavoLeao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zef'No   

I think I might be in a small minority group who actually prefer STID to STB.

I can't say that definitively yet; I'd need to see them both again (except I have no burning desire to see either again anytime soon).

From what I remember, I found STB to be boring with too much stuff going on that I just couldn't bring myself to care about. There was very little in the way of story, it just drifted from one action scene to another.

Don't get me wrong, STID certainly had flaws - very obvious and stupid ones, but the whole thing felt more like a cohesive story and the characters worked better for me (though STB did get a better Bones/Spock dynamic).

May change my mind when I see them again though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I might be in a small minority group who actually prefer STID to STB.

I can't say that definitively yet; I'd need to see them both again (except I have no burning desire to see either again anytime soon).

From what I remember, I found STB to be boring with too much stuff going on that I just couldn't bring myself to care about. There was very little in the way of story, it just drifted from one action scene to another.

Don't get me wrong, STID certainly had flaws - very obvious and stupid ones, but the whole thing felt more like a cohesive story and the characters worked better for me (though STB did get a better Bones/Spock dynamic).

May change my mind when I see them again though.

Give STB another chance.  It also holds up better on the smaller screen than STID in my opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this