Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

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

Options
1246721

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 626 ✭✭✭Wedwood


    Dont get or agree with the argument that the new Trek is not 'real' Trek.

    I grew up with the Original series and Movies which for me will never be topped. The Next Generation grew on me, while the rest of the TV series like DS9, Voyager and Enterprise were awful IMO.

    The Original series was the best, so delighted they've rebooted and updated the Original characters for the modern era. The 'real' test for me was if they could recapture the chemistry between the 'big three' along with the support cast, which I think they have.

    Yes, we'd all love to have the original actors back, but that can never happen, so this is the next best thing.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Wedwood wrote: »
    Dont get or agree with the argument that the new Trek is not 'real' Trek.

    I grew up with the Original series and Movies which for me will never be topped. The Next Generation grew on me, while the rest of the TV series like DS9, Voyager and Enterprise were awful IMO.

    The Original series was the best, so delighted they've rebooted and updated the Original characters for the modern era. The 'real' test for me was if they could recapture the chemistry between the 'big three' along with the support cast, which I think they have.

    Yes, we'd all love to have the original actors back, but that can never happen, so this is the next best thing.


    DS9 awful? Now I know you're tripping.
    I consider Voyager to be bad Trek but it's better than 90% of Sci-fi out there and Enterprise was just coming into its own.

    They may have gotten some of the characteristics of Kirk et al right but that doesn't make it Trek. Lazy story writing, weak plots, huge plot holes and no overreaching meaning at all. It's a futuristic fantasy tale carrying the name of Trek, it most certainly is not true to the spirit of Trek


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,358 ✭✭✭Into The Blue


    ruskin wrote: »
    The 'new' Star Trek films are not Star Trek. They are spectacle-driven, colourful childrens action movies, more akin to a cross between a Marvel movie and Thunderbirds. 'Star Trek' is simply a familiar brand name to help marketing, nothing more.

    Sight better than insurrection, undiscovered country, final frontier, nemeses.. But yeah, still just 'leave your brain at the door' fun.. Not good enough to be in trek cannon.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭don ramo


    Neymar90 wrote: »
    What was so great about the first one?
    they did pretty good jobs building their origin stories, the opening scene alone i would consider one of the best scenes of film i have ever seen, a totally moving scene that also sets these film apart from the previous ones, with kirks father being killed,

    while it does have problems, the only main one i would take issue with is the main bad guy, nero, it would have suited better if he was military or something, but still it was buyable that he was a man driven mad by the death of family, moreso than his entire race, and singling out spock in particular as the one he feels should suffer most,

    but that really is only a gripe i have with an otherwise brilliant film,

    judging by your post you believe otherwise


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭don ramo


    Wedwood wrote: »
    I grew up with the Original series and Movies which for me will never be topped. The Next Generation grew on me, while the rest of the TV series like DS9, Voyager and Enterprise were awful IMO.
    why would you watch 18 seasons of tv that you found awful:confused::confused::confused:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,906 ✭✭✭SarahBM


    Jesus everyone hates Voyager!
    Some people like me perhaps prefer the "newer" trek series and films to the older stuff, but you don't see us giving out about the old series and movies, or calling them terrible and outdated (which I am not saying they are!!!!).
    I for one love the "new" trek films (one of the best opening sequences in a film I have ever seen in Star Trek 2009), I loved Voyager (Go Janeway!), its my fav, probably because I grew up with it. Having recently watched DS9 from start to finish, I thought it was a great series.
    I suppose now I am going to get slammed for not liking the older trek stuff and be considered not a real fan because I don't worship TOS and the original movies.
    Like an above poster said, the old actors cannot be brought back. Trek needed a kick up the arse and JJ did a pretty damn good job. Bringing Star Trek to a newer younger audience who didn't grow up watching a Trek show was always going to be difficult, but my god, JJ's films are not as bad as people are trying to make them out to be. You would swear they were blasphemy or heresey the way some people are talking!

    I cannot wait to see Star Trek Beyond.

    Just my opinion, delete post if necessary.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,094 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    I've said it many times before, and I'll say it again: Star Trek (2009) is a damn near masterpiece of blockbuster filmmaking. I say that wholly aware of its flaws: its incredibly loose internal logic and its thematic shallowness foremost among them. But it's a dazzling feat of showy spectacle filmmaking. The camera is instilled with infectious energy, audaciously swooping and swinging and tracking, buzzing with life and enthusiasm so sadly absent in many of its big budget contemporaries.

    Abrams and his design team have an impeccable eye for colour, clarity and lighting (excess lens flair a slightly regrettable consequence of otherwise impeccable cinematography) - it's perhaps the most visually articulate blockbuster of recent times (Gravity aside), and a very promising precursor to The Force Awakens. And that goddamn soundtrack: Giachinno's work basically the most rousing slice of unashamedly grandiose orchestration to grace a blockbuster since sometime around the early 1990s (Duel of the Fates aside). The cast throw themselves at the roles: they're tasked with following up some of the most iconic performances in TV history, and none of them give less than total commitment to such a thankless challenge.

    Even its inherent dumbness is in some perverse way ultimately an asset - the plot, having pissed away any semblance of logic at an early juncture, moves at a gloriously propulsive pace, while the relationships between characters are developed with admirable, no-nonsense simplicity. There's nonsense elsewhere, yes, but you know I was more than happy to just go along with the space operatics.

    I'm no Trekkie, truth be told, and the Internet's vitriolic response to the film (and its lesser but still thoroughly entertaining successor) has long since taught me I'm in something of a minority here. That said, grander thematic concerns aside, I'd also propose its vivid primary colours and giddy sense of adventure make it a more loving tribute to the endearingly cheesy and camp original series than many give it credit for. It's big, stupid and loud, but it's one of the exceptional cases when IMO that works.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    It's not that they are not enjoyable but they are more Star Wars than Star Trek


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    That's been the way for a lot of Trek films though.

    Generations did ok on the tone front (although I don't think it's a great film in general), but the other films since were just Sci-fi action with the Star Trek logo glued to the front.

    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.

    It probably wasn't the right time for it, but I feel like they could do something on that front now.

    I'd be surprised if it'll be with this cast though - after two silly films, I'm not sure what they'd look like doing something serious.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,906 ✭✭✭SarahBM


    oh one of my favourite soundtracks since the Lord of the Rings trilogy! Giacchino is a genius!


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    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!


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭don ramo


    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,


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,906 ✭✭✭SarahBM


    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:D


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,479 ✭✭✭brevity


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭don ramo


    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,


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


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


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,460 ✭✭✭Oafley Jones


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 626 ✭✭✭Wedwood


    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 !!!!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


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


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭don ramo


    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,


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,091 ✭✭✭Antar Bolaeisk


    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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2 Estnord


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 626 ✭✭✭Wedwood


    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 !!!!!


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2 Estnord


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,358 ✭✭✭Into The Blue


    Year of hell ftw!


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭don ramo


    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 ;)


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    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


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 702 ✭✭✭Simon2015


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


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    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.


Advertisement