Star Trek Beyond SPOILERS FROM POST 566 ONWARD

27-08-2015 9:34pm

The score and camera work are great.
As I and many others say; had they been named Space Voyage then all would have been great. As it was they failed to live up to decades of internal logic.
Now, not tied up by canon and such but things like magic blood, inter system transporters, warping from Vulcan but able to see the planet from another system and Kirk somehow being made captain TWICE!

don ramo · 27-08-2015 9:39pm

i think star trek 2009 is a prime example of how to reboot a franchise right, i would say its probably the main film that got the ball rolling on many of the reboots weve seen the last few year, it was that successful,

all the cast were recast perfectly, they had a fresh story for us to watch, a story that done a great job resetting the universe so that we wont have to watch what has come before, by destroying vulcan they created a whole new set of stories to be told, im pretty sure thats what the new terminator film was attempting to do, not as successfully as star trek did, but i think it done enough that they could make a great sequel if they actually want to, but i think itll be just like into darkness, now that theyve done the hard work of rebooting the thing, theyll just sit back and throw something together, which was somewhat acceptable for star trek cause the first one was so great, but genesis was nowhere near the quality of star trek 2009,

SarahBM · 27-08-2015 9:40pm

Deleted User wrote: »

The score and camera work are great.
As I and many others say; had they been named Space Voyage then all would have been great. As it was they failed to live up to decades of internal logic.
Now, not tied up by canon and such but things like magic blood, inter system transporters, warping from Vulcan but able to see the planet from another system and Kirk somehow being made captain TWICE!

Oh come on! Stranger things have happened in the Star Trek universe!!!
Fairhaven!!! That's all Im saying! LOL

:D:D:D

brevity · 27-08-2015 9:41pm

Ye should check out the RedLetterMedia reviews of the Start Trek films, Mike on RLM is a huge trekkie and goes into great detail about the movies.

don ramo · 27-08-2015 10:02pm

Neymar90 wrote: »

Do you really believe Scotty was believable as an engineer of a starship?

i dunno havent met many starship engineers being honest, is any less believable than a blind guy, or an irish guy that ran a transporter room for years and is then given an entire space station to run, or maybe a half klingon who was kicked out of the academy,

do i think someone could have been better as scotty, yes, do i think it made any difference to the over story, no, they could have got better actors to play all the roles, would it have worked better, who knows, i know this cast works well together, given the right story, which is what its all about,

the actors do what it says on the script, so the real question is, could they have gotten better writers, definitely,

27-08-2015 10:15pm

SarahBM wrote: »

Oh come on! Stranger things have happened in the Star Trek universe!!!
Fairhaven!!! That's all Im saying! LOL :D:D:D

They were terrible but within the logic of the show.

This film series just throws that away (not even for plot necessity; just because)

Oafley Jones · 27-08-2015 10:27pm

Gbear wrote: »

It was a travesty that we never got any good TNG films - a massive waste of Captain Picard, who really would've lent himself to a more serious Sci-fi film.

Everything I've read suggests Stewart is primarily responsible for Movie Picard bearing little or no relation to TV Picard. Fancied himself as an action star.

I'm not a fan of the new movies. What I think they got majorly right was tone. There's an exuberance to the whole thing that owes a great deal to an excellent cast - although, I don't care for Simon Pegg's "Peggy". Scripts are atrocious. Don't care for the score either. I feel it's predicable, pedestrian affair full of unearned swells and lacking in nuance. Give me Goldsmith's "Locutus" any day.

Yet, I'd still rather watch either Nu Trek movie instead of Voyager, which was the absolute nadir of Trek. An interesting set-up squandered in spectacular fashion. You can derive some amusement in watching Robert Beltran (barely) trying to swallow his contempt for the dialogue. I'll defend parts of Enterprise. Manny Coto did sterling work turning around the last two seasons. Shame it was cancelled as it was getting really decent with the change to multi-episode arcs.

Edit: It's well worth reading Michael Piller's unpublished Fade In: The Making of Star Trek: Insurrection for an insight into the creative process on the TNG films.

Wedwood · 27-08-2015 11:52pm

Everyone is entitled to their own views, but how anyone can think the likes of DS9, Voyager or Enterprise is more 'Trekkie' than the new movies ???

Ok, I'll accept the new Trek took a wrong turn when they rehashed the Wrath of Khan lines and reversed the death scene, but that was just a few minutes of an otherwise fine film. It's still better a better movie than for instance Star Trek Insurrection or Nemesis.

The re-booted Bond movies had Quantum of Solace as the second, maybe the Trek equivalent of Skyfall is on the way !!!

PS, no I didn't watch every episode of the later Trek series, my sympathies to those who did !!!!

Kidchameleon · 28-08-2015 12:12am

I hope they never try to do a take on The Voyage Home. They could never remake that better. A true classic.

don ramo · 28-08-2015 12:39am

Wedwood wrote: »

PS, no I didn't watch every episode of the later Trek series, my sympathies to those who did !!!!

cheers but i dont need your sympathy, DS9 is a excellent series,

people talk about how great BSG was, and it is, but i cant see any space based show ever topping DS9, sure the first 2 seasons are kinda here and there, but once it kicked into gear and the dominion arrived it never let up,

and while voyager wasnt as good, i still remember watching both shows every week along with Stargate SG-1, some good times back then, 3 top sci-fi shows all airing together, hard to believe it was about 14 years ago,

Antar Bolaeisk · 28-08-2015 10:42am

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I hope they never try to do a take on The Voyage Home. They could never remake that better. A true classic.

They shouldn't be trying to remake/rehash anything, it's Star Trek, they have unlimited potential to do pretty much anything.

Estnord · 28-08-2015 9:17pm

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I hope they never try to do a take on The Voyage Home. They could never remake that better. A true classic.

There is an entire universe to explore, why go back and remake old stories, what's the point?

They should just continue the universe after the events of voyager.

Kidchameleon · 29-08-2015 12:09am

Estnord wrote: »

There is an entire universe to explore, why go back and remake old stories, what's the point?

They should just continue the universe after the events of voyager.

Its a disgrace I know. It sickens me that cumberbaches character was called Khan. I hate Abrams treks. Embarrassing to say the least

Wedwood · 29-08-2015 1:45am

don ramo wrote: »

cheers but i dont need your sympathy, DS9 is a excellent series,

people talk about how great BSG was, and it is, but i cant see any space based show ever topping DS9, sure the first 2 seasons are kinda here and there, but once it kicked into gear and the dominion arrived it never let up,

and while voyager wasnt as good, i still remember watching both shows every week along with Stargate SG-1, some good times back then, 3 top sci-fi shows all airing together, hard to believe it was about 14 years ago,

Ok, ok, DS9 wasn't too bad, at least Gene Roddenbery was aware of it as a project and gave his blessing before he died, but what followed DS9 was very poor IMHO.

I get some people liked the later series, maybe it's just an age thing. As someone who grew up with the original series, it's nice to see those characters get another spin around the block albeit with new actors.

PS your worried Voyager was 14+ years ago, I was watching Star Trek 40 years ago !!!

Live Long and Prosper !!!!!

Estnord · 29-08-2015 7:54am

Wedwood wrote: »

Ok, ok, DS9 wasn't too bad, at least Gene Roddenbery was aware of it as a project and gave his blessing before he died, but what followed DS9 was very poor IMHO.

I get some people liked the later series, maybe it's just an age thing. As someone who grew up with the original series, it's nice to see those characters get another spin around the block albeit with new actors.

PS your worried Voyager was 14+ years ago, I was watching Star Trek 40 years ago !!!

Live Long and Prosper !!!!!

Why is it nice to see the same characters get another spin, it seems like nostalgia to me without much merit?

Voyager gets a lot of undeserved criticism, there was some stunning episodes in voyager.

Into The Blue · 29-08-2015 7:55am

Year of hell ftw!

don ramo · 29-08-2015 9:59am

Wedwood wrote: »

PS your worried Voyager was 14+ years ago, I was watching Star Trek 40 years ago !!!

well seeing as im 31 its kinda hard for me to feel that nostalgic, its all relevant

29-08-2015 10:36am

Estnord wrote: »

Voyager gets a lot of undeserved criticism, there was some stunning episodes in voyager.

People go on about year of hell all the time to show how good Voyager was.
I say it shows hiw BAD Voyager was.
Year of Hell and Equinox should have been the series all the time, not just a few episodes

Simon2015 · 30-08-2015 4:33pm

Has anyone heard if Shatner is going to be in this one ?

30-08-2015 4:58pm

I enjoyed Voyager. For me, its always been Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager, Original Series, Enterprises.

What I always would have loved was a mini series of sorts, that follows how the likes of Neelix and 7 of 9 adjusted to life on Earth.

hjr · 30-08-2015 5:00pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I enjoyed Voyager. For me, its always been Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager, Original Series, Enterprises.

What I always would have loved was a mini series of sorts, that follows how the likes of Neelix and 7 of 9 adjusted to life on Earth.

Neelix didn't go to earth, left in second last episode..

30-08-2015 5:01pm

hjr wrote: »

Neelix didn't go to earth, left in second last episode..

Did he? I haven't watched it since it originally aired.

Montesarlo · 30-08-2015 8:22pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

People go on about year of hell all the time to show how good Voyager was.
I say it shows hiw BAD Voyager was.
Year of Hell and Equinox should have been the series all the time, not just a few episodes

There were loads of brilliant episodes.

Bacchus · 01-09-2015 12:32pm

Montesarlo wrote: »

There were loads of brilliant episodes.

I agree, it had some brilliant episodes. Unfortunately they were spread out over 7 seasons. Voyager definitely had the highest ratio of absolute tripe vs quality of all the series (I never got in to Enterprise mind you). What was most disappointing with Voyager was that there was a real opportunity to create a show that didn't just hit the reset button every week and could actually show a journey of a lone crew deep in space. Instead, it only touched on that rich vein a couple of times a season and the rest was just retreads of TOS and TNG stories.

Also, it is the show that single handedly ruined the Borg. I remember when they first arrived in Borg territory thinking that this was going to be awesome. Within 2 episodes the Borg were basically reduced to an inconvenience and made only a handful of appearances. The only thing of significance from the encounters with the Borg was 7of9 and even she was just reduced to a deus ex machina plot device in a tight body suit after about 5 episodes. Only occasionally did such a unique character reach her potential on the show.

pixelburp · 01-09-2015 12:57pm

"There were good episodes!" is a hollow argument when you had to wade through the garbage to get to them: I think Voyager in its own way contributed to the existence of the 2009 reboot in the first place - ditto Enterprise. I'm not a big Star Trek fan anyway, more of a casual viewer who dips in and out of series, but by the time Voyager and Enterprise came around, Star Trek felt like a show creaking under the weight of its own baggy, overwrought mythology. It had become so impenetrable & allergic to accommodation or change, it wasn't that big a surprise the reboot decided to jettison all previous continuity.

It's kinda funny as in many ways both shows seemed to attempt a mini-reboot themselves: in Voyager they shot the crew as far from Federation space as possible, and Enterprise set itself before the Utopia of Star Trek as we know it, when conflict and drama was still viable and organic to a story. Heck, Voyager could have been Battlestar Galactica before BSG came to be, following a crew of lonely travellers scrabbling to get 'home', but it dropped the ball and then some.

I remember being so excited about Enterprise, in many ways it could have been the reboot that made everyone happy: a period of time when the Federation & its members were malleable and an unknown quantity. When personal conflicts might have still existed in a society that hadn't quite reached peaceful 'perfection'. Instead it was the same old drab nonsense, with a final episode that in many ways summarised everything that was wrong with the franchise as a whole.

That said, I think the 2009 reboot went too far in the other direction, overly hyperactive to the latter TV series' drab, dull register.

pixelburp · 01-09-2015 6:47pm

Wibbstm wrote: »

Why are you obsessed with reboots, Voyager and Enterprise weren't even close to reboots, making them reboots would have made absolutely no sense. I think you just like the word reboot.

Read again what I said. Voyager literally removed itself from the Star Trek universe by throwing the ship across the galaxy and away from 99% of existing mythology; by all accounts it was a 'reboot' without actually resetting the whole universe.

Bacchus · 01-09-2015 9:17pm

pixelburp wrote: »

Read again what I said. Voyager literally removed itself from the Star Trek universe by throwing the ship across the galaxy and away from 99% of existing mythology; by all accounts it was a 'reboot' without actually resetting the whole universe.

I kinda get what you're saying... and kinda agree. Had Voyager followed through on the great premise it would have been a unique take on the Star Trek universe. However, it was essentially just another "5 year mission" that occasionally paid lip service to the fact that they were stranded 70 years from Earth. When they did go there, it was great, but most of the show was standard Star Trek fare that had all been done before. In that sense it was a sort of reboot but it didn't actually reboot the universe.

_Kaiser_ · 02-09-2015 9:49pm

Bacchus wrote: »

I kinda get what you're saying... and kinda agree. Had Voyager followed through on the great premise it would have been a unique take on the Star Trek universe. However, it was essentially just another "5 year mission" that occasionally paid lip service to the fact that they were stranded 70 years from Earth. When they did go there, it was great, but most of the show was standard Star Trek fare that had all been done before. In that sense it was a sort of reboot but it didn't actually reboot the universe.

They tried the whole darker, cut-off thing with Stargate Universe.. it didn't go down well.

More's the pity.. I thought it only got better as it went on. Really would have liked at least a TV movie to wrap things up properly

Zubeneschamali · 03-09-2015 12:13am

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

They tried the whole darker, cut-off thing with Stargate Universe.. it didn't go down well.

More's the pity.. I thought it only got better as it went on.

Maybe they should have led with the good stuff. I didn't turn it off because it was dark and different - I turned it off because it was a boring formulaic soap opera.

ruskin · 03-09-2015 1:38pm

hjr wrote: »

Neelix didn't go to earth, left in second last episode..

He should have left in the first episode.

_Kaiser_ · 03-09-2015 11:05pm

hjr wrote: »

Neelix didn't go to earth, left in second last episode..

Seven never called him back either.. that's just rude

SarahBM · 04-09-2015 5:35pm

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Seven never called him back either.. that's just rude

I always wonder did they ever finish that game

Kirby · 05-09-2015 12:23am

Absolutely. I dont know how you can call Voyager a reboot when it had Klingons, Ferengi, Romulans and Borg present. You also have Quark, Riker, Troi, Barclay, LaForge and Sulu all guest star as themselves. You have several episodes on earth and several more in the Alpha quadrant.

It's clearly canon and in the same universe as the other series. Sure they visit DS9 in the pilot. It was heavily steeped in established Star trek mythology.

pixelburp · 05-09-2015 1:32pm

Kirby wrote: »

Absolutely. I dont know how you can call Voyager a reboot when it had Klingons, Ferengi, Romulans and Borg present. You also have Quark, Riker, Troi, Barclay, LaForge and Sulu all guest star as themselves. You have several episodes on earth and several more in the Alpha quadrant.

It's clearly canon and in the same universe as the other series. Sure they visit DS9 in the pilot. It was heavily steeped in established Star trek mythology.

I think I really used the wrong word here, or am bad at explaining my point. I never said Voyager was an actual, total reboot; my notion was merely that the concept of the show felt like it was deliberately and intentionally divorcing the ship from the tether of the Federation and that part of the galaxy; it felt like a quasi-reboot. What would Star Trek by like without the Federation sort of thing? A clean break from races, characters and hard links to the mythology. Yet, as you say they still couldn't resist the cameos and inevitably the show became as wedded to the past as before.

Anyway, it's just my perspective on what Voyager might have been, which is a far cry from what the show actually was, so it's all incredibly academic. Swap 'reboot' for whatever other word you think runs parallel to my point

Coriander3000 · 05-09-2015 3:38pm

pixelburp wrote: »

I think I really used the wrong word here, or am bad at explaining my point. I never said Voyager was an actual, total reboot; my notion was merely that the concept of the show felt like it was deliberately and intentionally divorcing the ship from the tether of the Federation and that part of the galaxy; it felt like a quasi-reboot. What would Star Trek by like without the Federation sort of thing? A clean break from races, characters and hard links to the mythology. Yet, as you say they still couldn't resist the cameos and inevitably the show became as wedded to the past as before.

Anyway, it's just my perspective on what Voyager might have been, which is a far cry from what the show actually was, so it's all incredibly academic. Swap 'reboot' for whatever other word you think runs parallel to my point

It's neither a reboot nor a quasi reboot. Not sure you mean by "wedded to the past". It's in the same universe so there were some cross overs, they did it well.

pixelburp · 05-09-2015 4:18pm

Coriander3000 wrote: »

It's neither a reboot nor a quasi reboot. Not sure you mean by "wedded to the past". It's in the same universe so there were some cross overs, they did it well.

As already mentioned, they flung the ship to the other side of the galaxy yet still tried to bring in races and characters from previous shows == 'wedded to the past'. Enterprise did the same, to the point where they inexplicably made its own finale a

Next Generation holodeck episode

Voyager literally moved the ship as far as they could from established canon without completely removing said canon from the universe. Honestly I thought it was a stroke of genius btw, I'd call that a quasi-reboot but this discussion feels like a pointless argument in semantics so we'll leave it at that; Voyager had plenty of problems , and wouldn't try to claim that failing to live up to a unique premise was the sole reason for its failure. It just felt like an opportunity lost

McLoughlin · 05-09-2015 4:29pm

Voyager and later Enterprise both suffered due to the fact they were made for UPN and UPN wanted the shows a certain way that the writes/producers didn't want.

Coriander3000 · 05-09-2015 4:36pm

pixelburp wrote: »

As already mentioned, they flung the ship to the other side of the galaxy yet still tried to bring in races and characters from previous shows == 'wedded to the past'. Enterprise did the same, to the point where they inexplicably made its own finale a
Next Generation holodeck episode

Voyager literally moved the ship as far as they could from established canon without completely removing said canon from the universe. Honestly I thought it was a stroke of genius btw, I'd call that a quasi-reboot but this discussion feels like a pointless argument in semantics so we'll leave it at that; Voyager had plenty of problems , and wouldn't try to claim that failing to live up to a unique premise was the sole reason for its failure. It just felt like an opportunity lost

Most episodes were about delta quadrant species and Canon, a small number of episodes linked back to the delta quadrant which worked well imo.

As for the last two star trek movies, absolute nonsense. why are they going over the same ground again, why not introduce new characters and new ideas. I never want to see another star trek movie with Spock, Kirk, Scott etc, it's been done, leave it in the past and move in.

05-09-2015 9:44pm

pixelburp wrote: »

I think I really used the wrong word here, or am bad at explaining my point. I never said Voyager was an actual, total reboot; my notion was merely that the concept of the show felt like it was deliberately and intentionally divorcing the ship from the tether of the Federation and that part of the galaxy; it felt like a quasi-reboot. What would Star Trek by like without the Federation sort of thing? A clean break from races, characters and hard links to the mythology. Yet, as you say they still couldn't resist the cameos and inevitably the show became as wedded to the past as before.

Anyway, it's just my perspective on what Voyager might have been, which is a far cry from what the show actually was, so it's all incredibly academic. Swap 'reboot' for whatever other word you think runs parallel to my point

Your meaning was totally clear FFS. They were trying to leave the weight of the established politics and canon behind

ruskin · 08-09-2015 1:18pm

The biggest problem with Voyager was that Seven of Nine had to wear clothes.

SarahBM · 08-09-2015 9:29pm

ruskin wrote: »

The biggest problem with Voyager was that Seven of Nine had to wear clothes.

And here I thought Roddenberry inspired enlightened thinking :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Does anyone know what evil genius Idris Elba is playing in "Beyond"?

ruskin · 09-09-2015 3:03pm

SarahBM wrote: »

Does anyone know what evil genius Idris Elba is playing in "Beyond"?

Stringer Bell.

don ramo · 09-09-2015 3:40pm

SarahBM wrote: »

Does anyone know what evil genius Idris Elba is playing in "Beyond"?

hopefully some sort of klingon warrior, some captain that clashes with kirk at first, then they team up to take on a bigger enemy,

Cookie_Monster · 10-09-2015 6:48pm

don ramo wrote: »

hopefully some sort of klingon warrior, some captain that clashes with kirk at first, then they team up to take on a bigger enemy,

the above suggestion sets off immediate alarm bells of General Chang and VI being molested next...

Wedwood · 10-09-2015 8:31pm

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

the above suggestion sets off immediate alarm bells of General Chang and VI being molested next...

If Elba'a character like's quoting Shakespeare you'll know for sure. Tach Ba- Tach bey !!

bikeresearcher · 11-09-2015 10:45am

The current incarnation of Star Trek movies seem to operate on the assumption that nobody watching them ever watched the original series...or even the movies that followed. The new ones rob directly from these movies so often that it becomes very irritating....cringe worthy even.

Sad Professor · 11-09-2015 4:09pm

It’s hardly stealing when it involves the same characters in an alternate timeline. The whole point of Abram’s semi-reboot was that it didn’t totally forsake the original mythology, which many people believed was the only way to save the franchise. Abrams found a middle way, reinventing Star Trek for a new generation while still paying tribute to what came before. It didn’t satisfy all the fans, nor could it — they are an impossibly difficult bunch to please — but it made Star Trek mainstream again and satisfied enough fans to be considered a success. I cringe at a lot of stuff in the new films too and I prefer the originals, but Abrams did what needed to be done.

AMKC · 23-09-2015 9:43pm

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

the above suggestion sets off immediate alarm bells of General Chang and VI being molested next...

I really hope your wrong. Star Trek VI The Undiscovered Country is one of my favorites.
I hope its a totally new story and new enemy maybe with some cool new ships too.
Not sure if it has been posted already but the latest films release date has put back by two weeks.

24-09-2015 11:54am

People seem to forget just how bad the previous Star Trek movies had been before he came along with the reboot. He is to Star Trek what Nolan is to Batman.

24-09-2015 12:15pm

Don't be silly. Adding 'splosions and magic blood does not a Trek film make

Star Trek Beyond **SPOILERS FROM POST 566 ONWARD**

Comments

Star Trek Beyond SPOILERS FROM POST 566 ONWARD