Star Trek: Beyond the 1st Trailer

[dbunting]

I liked this movie a lot more than the last one, it felt more like the first one to me and I liked that one as well. I liked the call back to the first reboot with the Beastie Boys song Sabotage, it was playing when a young Kirk stole his step dads Corvette in that one.

Spoiler

I liked the way they had current Spock find out that future Spock died. A nice little nod to pay respects to him.

All in all a good movie.

[Calibandar]

It was a disappointing film, much in the way that Into Darkness was as well.

The start is really good, with the gorgeous visuals of the space station, followed up by the Enterprise and the attack on it.

This was good stuff. And then it's all downhill. So much action, just so much of it, endless sequences of meaningless stuff.

It just induces so much yawning. 2 stars out of 5. Star Trek 2009 remains the best of the reboots.

 

 

[Corvinus85]

42 minutes ago, Calibandar said:

It was a disappointing film, much in the way that Into Darkness was as well.

The start is really good, with the gorgeous visuals of the space station, followed up by the Enterprise and the attack on it.

This was good stuff. And then it's all downhill. So much action, just so much of it, endless sequences of meaningless stuff.

It just induces so much yawning. 2 stars out of 5. Star Trek 2009 remains the best of the reboots.

 

 

Yesterday I re-watched the 2009 one, and I have plenty of grievances with it. Mostly small stuff, but when they pile up it's annoying. So right now I'm calling Beyond the best of the reboots until I watch it again, then we'll see.

[dbunting]

1 hour ago, Calibandar said:

It was a disappointing film, much in the way that Into Darkness was as well.

The start is really good, with the gorgeous visuals of the space station, followed up by the Enterprise and the attack on it.

This was good stuff. And then it's all downhill. So much action, just so much of it, endless sequences of meaningless stuff.

It just induces so much yawning. 2 stars out of 5. Star Trek 2009 remains the best of the reboots.

 

 

One thing I did notice while watching, some of the action was so fast I couldn't even tell what was happening. I believe it was an early scene and was pretty dark. All things considered, 2009 was my favorite as well. Just watched it yesterday, bored and it was on and it was hot as f outside.

[williamjm]

19 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

I have a question; in this movies the three protagonists are yet again Kirk, Spock and Uhura or Bones finaly takes rightful place instead of Uhura? Anyone can tell me about Bones?

I think Bones get more to do than in the previous films, he probably gets as much to do as Kirk does overall and he gets plenty of scenes of him interacting with Spock.

I do think Karl Urban has done a good job, but he was given a difficult task. And his Southern US accent needs a bit of work, perhaps she can get tips from Anna Pacquinn on how to turn a Kiwi accent into a Southern US one. When New Zealand actors get themselves a US accent as part of their acting CV it's normally not a Southern one, so getting a Southern accent is like extra credit.

I wonder if he feels Simon Pegg has a much easier task, whereas Urban has to attempt an authentic Southern accent, Pegg would be breaking with a fundamental Star Trek tradition if he actually did an authentic Scottish accent.

[Rhom]

I really enjoyed it... To the point where I almost didn't read opinions here for fear that some people would point out so many holes, I couldn't like it!  

Definitely my favorite of the reboots.

 

[Spring Bass]

I really enjoyed it, although it did have two problems. The pacing was a bit off, and the main villain is kind of half-baked - he feels like something less than a well-developed antagonist and more than a plot contrivance when the movie needs villainy. All of that is okay because the characters are great, the visuals are good, and the tone is good.

[Rhom]

4 hours ago, Electric Bass said:

I really enjoyed it, although it did have two problems. The pacing was a bit off, and the main villain is kind of half-baked - he feels like something less than a well-developed antagonist and more than a plot contrivance when the movie needs villainy. All of that is okay because the characters are great, the visuals are good, and the tone is good.

Yes.  I can agree with that.  In the scheme of things though, I think its a problem that many of the Trek movies run into.  How do you establish a suitable villain with menace that has not already been established?  Khan and to a lesser extent Lursa and Behtor worked because we had history with them.  Shinzon and whoever the villains in Insurrection were fell flat because there was no weight to them.  Krall does a better job of being established in this film, but its a tough row to hoe.  In the end, I felt the positives of this movie far outweighed any negatives though.

As I said, I didn't want to read the thread last night for fear that some of the shine might be taken off for me; I was pleasantly surprised that no one seemed to have major issues with the movie.  I will say that if I had to nitpick...

Spoiler

So Edison has been on that planet for what?  100 years?  Not all that long in the scheme of things to recruit thousands of fanatical followers with warp capable ships reliant on hive mind technology.

Where did his cronies come from?  IIRC, in his captain's log, Edison said that the natives of the planet had left long ago.

 

[williamjm]

38 minutes ago, Rhom said:

Yes.  I can agree with that.  In the scheme of things though, I think its a problem that many of the Trek movies run into.  How do you establish a suitable villain with menace that has not already been established?  Khan and to a lesser extent Lursa and Behtor worked because we had history with them.  Shinzon and whoever the villains in Insurrection were fell flat because there was no weight to them.  Krall does a better job of being established in this film, but its a tough row to hoe.  In the end, I felt the positives of this movie far outweighed any negatives though.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

So Edison has been on that planet for what?  100 years?  Not all that long in the scheme of things to recruit thousands of fanatical followers with warp capable ships reliant on hive mind technology.

Where did his cronies come from?  IIRC, in his captain's log, Edison said that the natives of the planet had left long ago.

 

On reflection, I think Krall was handicapped a lot in terms of being a compelling villain by the film's insistence on hiding his background right until the end. The plot twist isn't interesting enough to justify making him so enigmatic for most of the film. Khan works better because we know most of his motivations right from the start of the film, even if a large portion of the film's audience probably didn't remember him from a random TOS episode, it doesn't take long for him to get established whereas we don't really know much about Krall until the last 20 minutes or so.

[Werthead]

In terms of ranking Beyond, I put it at #7 out of the 13. Better than Star Trek (2009) but slightly behind The Motion Picture.

And yeah, Star Trek struggles with individual villains. Apart frm Khan, probably the most effective villains are more supporting, mid-ranking ones like Chang, Lursa & B'Etor and so on, or big faceless entities like the Borg (before the Queen). Probably the finest villains are Team Dominion: Dukat, Damar, Weyoun and the Female Changeling. And I feel fairly confident saying we'll never see them in a film.

I'm wondering how long it will before Nu-Trek invokes the Borg as the villains in a film. Has to be very tempting for them.

[Howdyphillip]

16 hours ago, Rhom said:

I really enjoyed it... To the point where I almost didn't read opinions here for fear that some people would point out so many holes, I couldn't like it!  

Definitely my favorite of the reboots.

 

I'm with you on this... I fully expected this thread to be one where people just shot down the movie. I think that this is the best of the reboots and probably my third favorite Star Trek film period, full stop. The only movies I enjoyed more was Wrath of Khan, and The Voyage Home.

 

Wert... I put The Motion Picture dead last on my list.

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

I've only seen the Motion Picture once and I feel like I've seen it too many times.  

[polishgenius]

1 hour ago, Rhom said:

As I said, I didn't want to read the thread last night for fear that some of the shine might be taken off for me; I was pleasantly surprised that no one seemed to have major issues with the movie.  I will say that if I had to nitpick...

  Reveal hidden contents

So Edison has been on that planet for what?  100 years?  Not all that long in the scheme of things to recruit thousands of fanatical followers with warp capable ships reliant on hive mind technology.

Where did his cronies come from?  IIRC, in his captain's log, Edison said that the natives of the planet had left long ago.

 

There certainly are nitpicks to be had with the movie if one really wanted to, but it's a testament to the overall fun that, unlike, say, STID or The Force Awakens, they were too small and the movie overall too much fun for people to really start digging into them.

[Werthead]

ST:TMP is a pretty good movie. It's just not a very good Star Trek movie. But I do absolutely admire the hell out of them for making, in the immediate wake of the original Star Wars, a slow-paced, slow-burning, hard SF-leaning film riffing instead off of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Completely barking mad.

[Spring Bass]

I guess they deserve some points for not scrapping it again after Star Wars' success, although that was after they'd already failed to come up with something before Star Wars came out (and after Close Encounters came out). 

I'll second @williamjm in thinking that

Spoiler

it wasn't a good idea to make Krall's backstory a big secret for most of the film, with a twist reveal at the end. Once they're on the planet, there's no real reason to keep it such a mystery - and in the mean-time, it greatly restricts the amount of characterization they can do for him, as well as the potential for his interactions with the rest of the cast. It was like the Khan reveal in Into Darkness, where it doesn't really do anything for the film except marketing hype (and they have to have Old Spock show up and say "Yes Khan is really bad" in case you haven't seen Wrath of Khan). 

 

[Maltaran]

19 hours ago, Werthead said:

I'm wondering how long it will before Nu-Trek invokes the Borg as the villains in a film. Has to be very tempting for them.

I wonder if John de Lancie would be willing to return as Q.

[RumHam]

2 hours ago, Maltaran said:

I wonder if John de Lancie would be willing to return as Q.

Wouldn't it be weird that he's aged? If he was interacting with the TNG crew you could explain it away with a line about how he's emulating his old friends. But of course he would't be in the Kelvin universe. 

That could be the explanation for George Kirk returning though. And it could be cool because presumably Q would recognize that it's an alternate timeline and still "remember" all the stuff that hasn't happened yet in the original timeline. I think. 

[Maltaran]

51 minutes ago, RumHam said:

Wouldn't it be weird that he's aged?

He's a Q, he can appear however he wants and they don't need to explain why.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

I've heard people describe this movie as pointless and I didn't understand that criticism until I actually saw the movie.

 

it is kinda pointless in a way. It feels like a collection of tired story tropes that could be applied to any franchise and have them be transplanted onto Star Trek.

Not only did it lack any sort of spark or something bordering on original or imaginative to keep me hooked but it felt like almost every sci fi movie I'd ever watched. I'm fine with never watching another movie about a bad guy who's getting revenge about some past wrong and who has a world beating mcguffin to do it.

The worst thing is , 3 movies in and I still don't see any of the characters as anything other than paper thin imitations of their original versions. None of the relationships are earned in these movies, they are just piggy backing on what you remember from the tv show. Kirk and Spocks relationship is non existent in these movies , totally flat, yet they allude to a great Friendship.. That really only exists between Shatner and Nimoy, not here. It relies on nostalgia for something that isn't in these movies. So in this way, every conversation feels false and unearned.

funny thing is I didn't feel so strongly about it in the previous movies , I guess because they were trying to be bigger and do something interesting, even if they failed. 

This was just a nothing movie. A movie with no sense of danger and one that ended with me feeling like I'd wasted my time watching it. I'm sad about that because I  wanted it to be good.

 

 

[Jaxom 1974]

Finally caught it. I enjoyed it better than the previous two, but it still really didn't "feel" like Trek. I was put off by a sweeping close up of the Enterprise and it seemed.like the saucer section was only a couple levels high...and it was all windows too...this Enterprise was just never right...

There were stabs to tie this Kelvin Universe more into established canon, but it's just never felt right...

The rumors of the 4th movie being a way to tie back into the Prime Universe..and let's hope it works...