Star Trek: Beyond

degrassinoel

CramCycle wrote: »

3. Somebody made Mass Effect the movie, and stuck the Enterprise in there.

Mass Effect had a lot more story to it than any of the reboots. I'd even go so far to say that watching the game trilogy on youtube (yes you can watch all of it lol) is better than watching the reboot trilogy.
The main difference is that Mass Effect involved you and made you care about the characters. The reboot, only McCoy and Kirk were likeable, the rest were forgettable.

degrassinoel

degrassinoel wrote: »

Mass Effect had a lot more story to it than any of the reboots. I'd even go so far to say that watching the game trilogy on youtube (yes you can watch all of it lol) is better than watching the reboot trilogy.
The main difference is that Mass Effect involved you and made you care about the characters. The reboot, only McCoy and Kirk were likeable, the rest were forgettable.

I actually really liked Chekov

degrassinoel

Wasn't used nearly enough, sadly

AtomicHorror

Deleted User wrote: »

2009 was Star Wars lite FFS

Any pretense of the Sci in sci-fi was dropped.
Time and distance meant nothing, plotholes abound, red-fecking-matter, cadet captain, and enough random chance for it to be guided by some kind of omnipresent influence (maybe created by some microbes or something?)

The criticisms of 2009 are valid in and of themselves, but unfavourable comparisons against previous Star Trek films, really, really aren't valid. Serious rose-tinted specs all round, with an irrational bias against the new and shiny.

Most if not all of those criticism can be levelled against even the best classic Star Trek films. Maybe not the cadet-captain thing though. That was actually my biggest gripe with 2009.

Where was the "Sci" in II, for example? It was Moby Dick meets Horatio Hornblower in space- adding a MacGuffin/Super Space Nuke does not make it Sci-Fi. VI was a cold-war thriller. V could be considered Sci, but it was also a dumpster fire of a movie. IV wasn't bad in that sense actually, but for the most part, the "Sci" in Star Trek has been largely reserved for TV, where it is best accepted. The most "Sci-fi" Star Trek movies have typically been the worst-received ones (TMP suffers the most from that). The best-received have been action-oriented (II, VI and FC are standouts).

Time and distance have rarely (or even never) been consistently employed in Star Trek. Earth, Vulcan and Kronos are typically as close or as far away as is required of the story. Planetary and stellar explosions travel plot-sensitive distances at plot-useful speeds. The Enterprise has frequently been of fluid size and internal configuration. Retcons all over the place.

Plot holes and illogics very much abound, particularly in V and Generations, but even II, the darling of the series, has some really weird leaps in it. A highly advanced 23rd century starship shows up to a well-explored star system with a massive warning sign on it about a stranded psychopath, fails to notice the absence of an entire planet, misidentifies another planet and then sends the captain and first officer down to the surface entirely unprotected, despite knowing the environment is extremely hazardous? On discovering some sort of makeshift settlement, in said system home to a notorious stranded psychopath who made a makeshift settlement, both decide to take a closer look without asking for backup? The "genius" Khan, fails to remember that in space you can move in three dimensions?

Red matter is no more offensive than previous Star Trek McGuffins. The genesis device is particularly absurd in II, and even more so are its effects in III. Nemesis introduces another big dumb space nuke. At least the red matter did something interesting.

Highly convenient random chance? Half of Star Trek's history would be absent without that.

Comparisons of 2009 to Star Wars, I don't get. Yes, in some of the aesthetics. The gunfire, the warp effect, the used-future look. That's all surface, where is it like Star Wars in the substance?

AMKC

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The criticisms of 2009 are valid in and of themselves, but unfavourable comparisons against previous Star Trek films, really, really aren't valid. Serious rose-tinted specs all round, with an irrational bias against the new and shiny.

Most if not all of those criticism can be levelled against even the best classic Star Trek films. Maybe not the cadet-captain thing though. That was actually my biggest gripe with 2009.

Where was the "Sci" in II, for example? It was Moby Dick meets Horatio Hornblower in space- adding a MacGuffin/Super Space Nuke does not make it Sci-Fi. VI was a cold-war thriller. V could be considered Sci, but it was also a dumpster fire of a movie. IV wasn't bad in that sense actually, but for the most part, the "Sci" in Star Trek has been largely reserved for TV, where it is best accepted. The most "Sci-fi" Star Trek movies have typically been the worst-received ones (TMP suffers the most from that). The best-received have been action-oriented (II, VI and FC are standouts).

Time and distance have rarely (or even never) been consistently employed in Star Trek. Earth, Vulcan and Kronos are typically as close or as far away as is required of the story. Planetary and stellar explosions travel plot-sensitive distances at plot-useful speeds. The Enterprise has frequently been of fluid size and internal configuration. Retcons all over the place.

Plot holes and illogics very much abound, particularly in V and Generations, but even II, the darling of the series, has some really weird leaps in it. A highly advanced 23rd century starship shows up to a well-explored star system with a massive warning sign on it about a stranded psychopath, fails to notice the absence of an entire planet, misidentifies another planet and then sends the captain and first officer down to the surface entirely unprotected, despite knowing the environment is extremely hazardous? On discovering some sort of makeshift settlement, in said system home to a notorious stranded psychopath who made a makeshift settlement, both decide to take a closer look without asking for backup? The "genius" Khan, fails to remember that in space you can move in three dimensions?

Red matter is no more offensive than previous Star Trek McGuffins. The genesis device is particularly absurd in II, and even more so are its effects in III. Nemesis introduces another big dumb space nuke. At least the red matter did something interesting.

Highly convenient random chance? Half of Star Trek's history would be absent without that.

Comparisons of 2009 to Star Wars, I don't get. Yes, in some of the aesthetics. The gunfire, the warp effect, the used-future look. That's all surface, where is it like Star Wars in the substance?

The "genius" Khan, fails to remember that in space you can move in three dimensions?
Its not that Khan did not remember he did not know he was from the 20th century after all and the only spaceship he was on was was a sleeper ship until the Enterprise found him in the 23rd century.

Cookie_Monster

AMKC wrote: »

The "genius" Khan, fails to remember that in space you can move in three dimensions?
Its not that Khan did not remember he did not know he was from the 20th century after all and the only spaceship he was on was was a sleeper ship until the Enterprise found him in the 23rd century.

so? no aircraft or subs in the 23c?

That said it's one of the very very few times there's been 3d action in Trek :pac:

AMKC

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

so? no aircraft or subs in the 23c?

That said it's one of the very very few times there's been 3d action in Trek :pac:

You mean the 20th Century I take it. Yes of course there was aircraft and subs that does not mean that Khan operated them. He had his army do it for him.

AtomicHorror

AMKC wrote: »

You mean the 20th Century I take it. Yes of course there was aircraft and subs that does not mean that Khan operated them. He had his army do it for him.

I'm from the 20th century. I've never flown an aircraft or a spacecraft. Despite these disadvantages, I'm familiar with the concepts of up and down and feel confident I could make use of them if my life depended on it.

AMKC

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I'm from the 20th century. I've never flown an aircraft or a spacecraft. Despite these disadvantages, I'm familiar with the concepts of up and down and feel confident I could make use of them if my life depended on it.

True good point. Well they had to come up with some excuse to give Kirk and crew an advantage and I suppose they thought that would be cool.

Antar Bolaeisk

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I'm from the 20th century. I've never flown an aircraft or a spacecraft. Despite these disadvantages, I'm familiar with the concepts of up and down and feel confident I could make use of them if my life depended on it.

Yeah but have you ever played 3D chess?

AtomicHorror

Antar Bolaeisk wrote: »

Yeah but have you ever played 3D chess?

I only play Stratagema, and when I play, I play to stalemate.

MisterAnarchy

I only got around to watching this now as I had avoided it because of Pegg's involvement in the script and Lin as director.
I thought it would be crap and boy was it a turd.

The plot was like something written by a child ,it was so childish and silly.
The laws of physics were completely disregarded ,with indestructible ships bouncing off planets .
No suspense ,too much cgi,massive plot holes ,unfunny jokes, just incoherent trash.

Scotty and Bones were like 2 pieces of wood ,really hamming everything up .
Their jokes were terrible and very irritating.

This was not Star Trek ,I think Lin thought he was making Fast and Furious in space.
By a mile the worst Star Trek film made,a disgrace.

goose2005

Deleted User wrote: »

2009 was Star Wars lite FFS

Any pretense of the Sci in sci-fi was dropped.
Time and distance meant nothing, plotholes abound, red-fecking-matter, cadet captain, and enough random chance for it to be guided by some kind of omnipresent influence (maybe created by some microbes or something?)

did you ever here the tragedy of Zefram Cochrane the wise?

AMKC

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

I only got around to watching this now as I had avoided it because of Pegg's involvement in the script and Lin as director.
I thought it would be crap and boy was it a turd.

The plot was like something written by a child ,it was so childish and silly.
The laws of physics were completely disregarded ,with indestructible ships bouncing off planets .
No suspense ,too much cgi,massive plot holes ,unfunny jokes, just incoherent trash.

Scotty and Bones were like 2 pieces of wood ,really hamming everything up .
Their jokes were terrible and very irritating.

This was not Star Trek ,I think Lin thought he was making Fast and Furious in space.
By a mile the worst Star Trek film made,a disgrace.

Have you not seen the film before this one. I am not even going to say its name because I just like to pretend it was never made. It is the worst Star Trek film ever.
Sure beyond ain,t perfect its an average film at best but its not the worst its maybe the 3rd worst. I enjoyed it when it was in the cinema and still do when my mood suits. I certainly don,t think it deserves the daming you gave it. If you don ,t like a film then fine just say that but let other people make up there minds about what they think of the film.

MisterAnarchy

AMKC wrote: »

Have you not seen the film before this one. I am not even going to say its name because I just like to pretend it was never made. It is the worst Star Trek film ever.
Sure beyond ain,t perfect its an average film at best but its not the worst its maybe the 3rd worst. I enjoyed it when it was in the cinema and still do when my mood suits. I certainly don,t think it deserves the daming you gave it. If you don ,t like a film then fine just say that but let other people make up there minds about what they think of the film.

I have seen all the Star Trek films ,numerous times .
I liked Into Darkness ,it has its flaws but its quite dark like Nemesis and I don't understand the hate for it .
It goes a bit over the top in the end but overall its a good film .
I watched Beyond with 2 other Trekkies and we all agreed it was poor.

Beefy78

Beyond is bad. Into Darkness is insultingly awful. Beyond wins.

FutureGuy

I have to laugh at some of the "reviews" of STID and STB on here...

Rotten Tomatoes has Into Darkness at 86% for critics and 90% for viewers. Likewise, it has Beyond at 84% for critics and 81% for viewers.

Are boardies perhaps overreacting somewhat in their posts?

CramCycle

Beefy78 wrote: »

Beyond is bad. Into Darkness is insultingly awful. Beyond wins.

On rewatching, I actually think Into Darkness is a better movie. If they could edit the movie to get rid of references to Kahn and just have the baddie as John Smith, that alone would do wonders.

FutureGuy wrote: »

I have to laugh at some of the "reviews" of STID and STB on here...

Rotten Tomatoes has Into Darkness at 86% for critics and 90% for viewers. Likewise, it has Beyond at 84% for critics and 81% for viewers.

Are boardies perhaps overreacting somewhat in their posts?

As park your brain at the door blockbusters for the current generation, they are mediocre but the ties to Trek boost it in many peoples eyes as they have characters they can identify, so the holes are easier to gloss over, particularly if you are not a Trek fan of old. The reviews on the sites above seem fair enough in that regard.

As a Trek forum, they will be hit harder as they are Trek in name and in loose characterisation only. I presume the movie would receive less of a slating in the general movies section of the site.

As random park you brain at the door movies, I didn't mind them, wasted time on far worse. As Trek movies, they just are not great.

MisterAnarchy

FutureGuy wrote: »

I have to laugh at some of the "reviews" of STID and STB on here...

Rotten Tomatoes has Into Darkness at 86% for critics and 90% for viewers. Likewise, it has Beyond at 84% for critics and 81% for viewers.

Are boardies perhaps overreacting somewhat in their posts?

Its funny you should mention Rotten Tomatoes as that was the deciding factor in me watching the film.
I had avoided it because of Pegg's involvement in the script but on checking Rotten Tomatoes and seeing the high percentage mark I said I'd watch it thinking my preconception was incorrect.

senordingdong

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Its funny you should mention Rotten Tomatoes as that was the deciding factor in me watching the film.
I had avoided it because of Pegg's involvement in the script but on checking Rotten Tomatoes and seeing the high percentage mark I said I'd watch it thinking my preconception was incorrect.

What was it about Peggs involvement that put you off?

expectationlost

whats was 'Elba's motivation? he thought he was abandoned so he grew a grudge?

TheValeyard

expectationlost wrote: »

whats was 'Elba's motivation? he thought he was abandoned so he grew a grudge?

Years of exposure to JJ lens flare can have that effect on you.

senordingdong

expectationlost wrote: »

whats was 'Elba's motivation? he thought he was abandoned so he grew a grudge?

None of the villains have had clear motivations in these movies.
If Nero went back in time why would he decide to destroy vulcan instead of warning Romulus?
And why did Johnson/Khan want to destroy starfleet instead of just Marcus.
Abrams seems to like the 'he lost his mind but somehow remains cognisant enough to have a specific target/vendetta' story element

FutureGuy

expectationlost wrote: »

whats was 'Elba's motivation? he thought he was abandoned so he grew a grudge?

What a waste of a casting. Great actor buried by poor writing and awful prosthetics.

expectationlost

FutureGuy wrote: »

What a waste of a casting. Great actor buried by poor writing and awful prosthetics.

the prosthetics was a plot mechanic point just like in Discovery

expectationlost

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d2nC39pgHY

Asked to do movie ~4 months before production had to start, writing script all the way through... :/

TheIrishGrover

I enjoyed the first one. Thought it was fun (For some reason initially I didn't like Pine as Kirk. But he was actually very good. Don't know why it didn't click with me initially). Anyway, enjoyed the first.

Second was Meh.

Third I thought was pool but with some funny bits (I thought the use of Beasty Boys was funny)

Can't understand the relatively high ratings for each of these.

Rawr

Trek 09 was pretty enjoyable for a space adventure movie. Although back in the day it was hard to warm up to a film that had apparently wiped out all of Trek I had enjoyed before with the exception of Enterprise.

Into Darkness was silly and poorly executed attempt to rehash Wrath of Khan while forgetting everything that made that movie a classic. Cumberbatch somehow didn't work as Khan, which is odd since he was a pretty good choice I felt.

And then we have Beyond.

It's not a bad film, nor is it bad Trek. It's Just OK. But therein lies the problem. It had so much going for it:

• Most of the crew captured by a baddie
• References back into Enterprise
• A whole sub-plot of trying to salvage an old NX-Class and escape the planet

Had plenty potential to make it a very classic Trek film. But alas it failed. The villian was just silly and cartoonish, and the pacing wasn't the best. It was an OK film, but that's about it. You also have them destroying the Enterprise but unlike loosing the Enterprise in Search for Spock or Generations, I don't think that many people had that much of an attachment with the JJ-verse version of the ship. They played up the loss for drama, but there was very little of that on offer. When the Enterprise hull was being gutted I found myself not caring at all. This wasn't like loosing the TOS or TNG Enterprise that we had visited every week for years and grown attached to. This was a new ship, shiny and well rendered for sure...but a stranger we barely even knew when she died.

"Beyond" is the last JJ-verse Film we're likely to see. Creating further Trek films in that series when we have had years of returning to the "Prime" Trek universe is just going to confuse things. The existence of the JJ-Verse films also makes it difficult to continue on with Prime Universe movies, meaning alas...beyond "Special Movie Events" we might not see any more theatrical Trek movies for the foreseeable.

AMKC

Very sad to say that it does look like there will not be any more cinema movies for a while yet and it is now the longest that Trek has gone without a movie in the cinema since the very first one "The Motion Picture" was released way back in 1979.

feelings

Blame poor decisions from Paramount HQ. ST Beyond was a mess. Even Nemesis was better and that's saying something!