Star Trek: Beyond

[Crabs]

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

2 Logical 2 Prosperous

 

[Crabs]

Just realized that J.J. Abrams didn't direct this one, only produced it. That's disappointing. They got one of the directors from the Fast & Furious franchise.

 

[Totenkindly]

Saw it today.
Gave it 3.5/5 stars.

yeah, it's got all the typical Trek elements and banter, along with feeling more in the vein of a Fast/Furious pic. (duh.)
It was enjoyable while I watched it, it's just that i can't say much of it will linger after.

There are a few poignant moments of course.
- Kirk is trying to figure out why he personally is in StarFleet.
- Spock is trying to figure out what his life's work should be.
I tried to think of other overall arcs, but there really aren't any. F&F ain't known for its internal soul-searching, right?

Depth mostly comes in the form of the passing of Leonard Nimoy and Anton Yelchin. The actual narrative addresses the passing of one of these; the other causes pain simply in seeing him on screen and knowing the real-world happenings.

I dunno. It was well-constructed and a "fun" movie, I'll give it that. Technical aspects were good, although (even in 2D) I had some trouble following zoomed action shots. And there was some decent tech jury-rigging going on by the characters. You can tell Simon Pegg (Mr. Scott) worked on the draft, based on the inclusion of those kinds of items + the humor angle.

 

[Crabs]

I'll probably see it this week. Not getting my hopes up too high, although I liked Into Darkness as much as the first one.

Saw it today.
Gave it 3.5/5 stars.

yeah, it's got all the typical Trek elements and banter, along with feeling more in the vein of a Fast/Furious pic. (duh.)
It was enjoyable while I watched it, it's just that i can't say much of it will linger after.

There are a few poignant moments of course.
- Kirk is trying to figure out why he personally is in StarFleet.
- Spock is trying to figure out what his life's work should be.
I tried to think of other overall arcs, but there really aren't any. F&F ain't known for its internal soul-searching, right?

Right!

This never gets old.

Depth mostly comes in the form of the passing of Leonard Nimoy and Anton Yelchin. The actual narrative addresses the passing of one of these; the other causes pain simply in seeing him on screen and knowing the real-world happenings.

I dunno. It was well-constructed and a "fun" movie, I'll give it that. Technical aspects were good, although (even in 2D) I had some trouble following zoomed action shots. And there was some decent tech jury-rigging going on by the characters. You can tell Simon Pegg (Mr. Scott) worked on the draft, based on the inclusion of those kinds of items + the humor angle.

I liked Simon Pegg in Shaun of the Dead. His character in Star Trek is likeable enough, but I found his constantly joking persona distracting and misplaced in the latest Mission Impossible movies. I hope it's not on par with that character.

 

[magpie]

I saw it the other day. I enjoyed it. It had a lot of nods to TOS. Sure, it wasn't the best movie I've ever seen, but it was fun. I was watching it with a heavy heart though since Anton Yelchin, who plays Chekov, just died a few months ago at the age of 27. He was just a baby and has been one of my favorite characters throughout the series, even though he didn't get to do much.

 

[Riva]

I dont have my hopes up that much. They fucked up the universe by destroying vulcan and having to bring back khan. Don't they have any creativity, do they have to bring characters they've already used and destroy an entire timeline thereby destroying future serieses/stories to make a movi?. Remember Star Trek is made in a setting with so many possibilities.

However i did enjoy the last two movies esp the last. Benedict was a great khan.

Anyway despite the complaints, as a huge star trek fan i will definitely watch any star trek movie that is made.

 

[Totenkindly]

I'll probably see it this week. Not getting my hopes up too high, although I liked Into Darkness as much as the first one.

I watched STID some months later. I think if one can view it as a separate movie, it works; it's just that it's difficult to disassociate it from the movie it's cribbed from, which is generally regarded as the best ST movie made, so then it seems horribly cheap and derivative.

Right!
This never gets old.

I think I've only seen two movies from that franchise, although one of those was Furious 7 and I actually liked it. Not a cerebral movie, but it was fun and had heart. There was some ridiculous crap in it that was just crazy-hilarious (like jumping the car between a few buildings... like WHUT??) I think I liked it better than STB. if you're gonna go that way, go big.

I liked Simon Pegg in Shaun of the Dead. His character in Star Trek is likeable enough, but I found his constantly joking persona distracting and misplaced in the latest Mission Impossible movies. I hope it's not on par with that character.

In this movie, each cast member only gets a certain amount of time allocated, and you can almost see them divvying it up. ("Well, if we let Uhura take THESE scenes, then we can give Chekhov THOSE scenes, and...") So that minimizes TPE (The Pegg Effect). He does do his jokey thing here, but other characters joke as well, and it's minimized since he only gets so much screen time, and it fits the tone, so... not bad IMO.

I really hated MI4 because of that, though. It came across as this jokey Pegg-Cruise buddy movie, and his character worked better as a tangential sidekick than as a main character IMO. It's way down on the MI list for me because of TPE. Rogue Nation was improved, he actually had to do some serious stuff that worked for me + we had the additional of the female spy.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Just realized that J.J. Abrams didn't direct this one, only produced it. That's disappointing. They got one of the directors from the Fast & Furious franchise.

From what I have read and heard about Lin, he may actually be a better fit for Star Trek than JJ Abrams. Lin has claimed it's his most personal choice yet as a director and that that he grew up a devoted fan, which is more than we can say about Abrams who openly admitted he didn't "get" Star Trek and wanted to make it more like Star Wars.

I am curious to see the new film, even if it does look like Star Trek Nemesis on steroids....i.e. more conflicts with tattoed, bald aliens.

Regarding Into Darkness, I felt the first half or so was really good, well-paced, and I cared about the characters, but it devolved into mindless action set-pieces and plot points heavily lifted from Star Trek II by the second half. Funny how the reboots have sort of followed the original film series with certain beats and measures. I.e. first film involves an alien menace whose motives aren't clear at first, second film involves Khan, and the third film involves Kirk allowing the Enterprise to be destroyed to save his crew.

I just wish they could make a compelling and interesting Trek film that could be exciting without involving more generic alien villains to fight. That has been the formula to most of the films, and has worked well maybe half of the time (typically best when the aliens' characters and motives were allowed to be fleshed out beyond the trite "I hate and want to destroy the federation because reasons" shite. Hopefully it works better this time than it did in the last few films.

 

[Totenkindly]

From what I have read and heard about Lin, he may actually be a better fit for Star Trek than JJ Abrams. Lin has claimed it's his most personal choice yet as a director and that that he grew up a devoted fan, which is more than we can say about Abrams who openly admitted he didn't "get" Star Trek and wanted to make it more like Star Wars.

I am curious to see the new film, even if it does look like Star Trek Nemesis on steroids....i.e. more conflicts with tattoed, bald aliens.

Regarding Into Darkness, I felt the first half or so was really good, well-paced, and I cared about the characters, but it devolved into mindless action set-pieces and plot points heavily lifted from Star Trek II by the second half. Funny how the reboots have sort of followed the original film series with certain beats and measures. I.e. first film involves an alien menace whose motives aren't clear at first, second film involves Khan, and the third film involves Kirk allowing the Enterprise to be destroyed to save his crew.

Yeah, I actually saw that in the theater (Star Trek 3) as a teenager and it was devastating. Now I've seen the Enterprise be destroyed over and over through various TV series and movies, but nothing matches that first time. "What have I done?" says Kirk as they watch the flaming pieces of the ship crash to earth. "What you do, what you've always done," says Bones. "Turn death into a fighting chance for life." It was really powerful. And of course it was tied to another tragedy in that movie + the hope that Spock could live again.

The stakes were high in Star Trek 2 and 3, there were decisions made and costs enacted that couldn't be withdrawn.

Star Trek Beyond actually does align with the TV series mentality in that it:

basically creates a problem, solves it, and everything returns to the initial starting position by the end so that nothing is lost or gained, really. There's no change in the balance of the franchise. I hate movies where a terrible cost appears to be paid but it doesn't even matter because everything is reset. "Nah, it just looked in danger or lost, but not really."

I just wish they could make a compelling and interesting Trek film that could be exciting without involving more generic alien villains to fight. That has been the formula to most of the films, and has worked well maybe half of the time. Hopefully it works better this time than it did in the last few films.

Yeah, sorry. This is kind of "generic kind of alien wants to hurt Federation, Kirk must stop him" all over again.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Yeah, I actually saw that in the theater (Star Trek 3) as a teenager and it was devastating. Now I've seen the Enterprise be destroyed over and over through various TV series and movies, but nothing matches that first time. "What have I done?" says Kirk as they watch the flaming pieces of the ship crash to earth. "What you do, what you've always done," says Bones. "Turn death into a fighting chance for life." It was really powerful. And of course it was tied to another tragedy in that movie + the hope that Spock could live again.

Yeah, it loses its effect if when its that overused. Plus, every single time it happens they replace it with a shinier, nicer Enterprise (or Defiant in the case of DS9). Not to mention how often characters die and are resurrected...I think Sisko's "death" was the only one that really stuck with me because it actually felt permanent and an end to a chapter.

Yeah, sorry. This is kind of "generic kind of alien wants to hurt Federation, Kirk must stop him" all over again.

Did they include the overused "the Enterprise is the only ship in range" or "Kirk is our last best hope" tropes?

 

[Totenkindly]

Yeah, it loses its effect if when its that overused. Plus, every single time it happens they replace it with a shinier, nicer Enterprise (or Defiant in the case of DS9). Not to mention how often characters die and are resurrected...I think Sisko's "death" was the only one that really stuck with me because it actually felt permanent and an end to a chapter.

Wow. Thanks, I guess I really am unmotivated now to actually plod through DSN.

Did they include the overused "the Enterprise is the only ship in range" or "Kirk is our last best hope" tropes?

Ha.

"The Enterprise is the only ship that can navigate the nebula [Because Windows 10 update, you get the drift]."
[Update: to borrow a line from Inspector Clouseau... "Not anymoah.")

"Kirk, we trust you with this mission; we'll consider your request for promotion but would like you to reconsider."

Blah blah blah.

So yeah, that's what I mean. Nothing new; no real changes; pretty much just a circular plot in terms of crew/ship status by end. But they have nicer shinier ship, with beautiful sparkly Chrome!

I saw it the other day. I enjoyed it. It had a lot of nods to TOS. Sure, it wasn't the best movie I've ever seen, but it was fun. I was watching it with a heavy heart though since Anton Yelchin, who plays Chekov, just died a few months ago at the age of 27. He was just a baby and has been one of my favorite characters throughout the series, even though he didn't get to do much.

He was solid in the role. They actually gave him some time here with Kirk, which was nice.

And yes, that part is what hurt. I think he was a tremendous actor, although this was his most fan-pop role. He was a sensitive actor and had a lot of talent; it sucks that he died in his 20's over a freak accident.

 

[Totenkindly]

So I went to see this now, since next week Jason Bourne (AKA Bourne 5) opens, and I already have my tickets the week after to see Suicide Squad. I'm hoping the movie can live up to the advertising campaign for the latter; they've had a great one, but I always fear overhype. It would be nice to see DC nail a movie.

 

[magpie]

He was solid in the role. They actually gave him some time here with Kirk, which was nice.

And yes, that part is what hurt. I think he was a tremendous actor, although this was his most fan-pop role. He was a sensitive actor and had a lot of talent; it sucks that he died in his 20's over a freak accident.

Oh, I agree. After I first saw him in Criminal Minds I started following his work. I think I've seen almost everything he's been in at this point except for really recent stuff.

 

[Mole]

As a young teenager I was entranced by science fiction because it was based on the extrapolation of a scientific fact. And it was this scientific fact that made it science fiction.

But Star Trek elides the speed of light and doesn't know the size and age of the universe.

So Star Trek is not science fiction it is fantasy.

It is so easy to imagine the characters discussing their personality types under mbti - 'cause it's all fantasy.

 

[Tellenbach]

The new Bones is better than the old one; he stole the show. It's a fun film - the best in the series, imo.

 

[Qlip]

It's worse than Ghostbusters 2016, and I haven't even watched either of them.

 

[Mal12345]

Star Trek Beyond = Terrible.

In order to separate this "Star Trek" from the rest, I have dubbed it "Action Trek." But even some action movies have more depth. Terminator 2 had family values going for it. Action Trek has nothing going for it.

 

[entropie]

I liked it. I am looking forward to the TV series. At least StarTrek continues then !

 

[Mal12345]

I've been taking my time watching this movie thing. I'm at 1:15 (hours) in and it's just embarrassing to watch.