Star Trek: Beyond

senordingdong

Saw this last night and have nothing new to say about it.
Enjoyable, and forgettable.
Hollow villain with unclear motives, action heavy with convenient plot devices.

Kept thinking of this article...
http://www.cracked.com/blog/why-star-trek-reboot-hates-idea-being-star-trek_p2/

Beefy78

I got the gist of a lot of the comments here over the last couple of weeks and definitely went in expecting a lot more Trek and a lot less 'pew pew' I didn't get it. I thought there were some nice character pieces here or there but not enough to end up with a positive impression about a film that was filmed at 100mph to try to detract you enough so that you didn't realise how little the story made sense.
I know this is a lazy comment but meh, it was a lazy film so - it felt like I was watching a Fast and Furious film.

I liked Jaylah as a character and hope we see her again in the next film and I liked that all the characters got a moment here or there (Chekov there alongside Kirk, Uhura sacrificing herself, getting moments with the bad guy, McCoy's much more prominent role, etc) other than Sulu. Honestly I now think that 'being gay' was dropped in as his thing for this film to excuse a lack of any other contribution to the plot. I enjoyed some of the one-liners.

Other than that though I thought it was a big pile of meh. Just explosions and nonsensical plotting. Elba was wasted under that makeup, his character supposedly waited 100 years to find this super-weapon which he didn't need because his ships were enough to destroy everything in his path anyway (at least until their weakness to loud music was discovered).

Imagine a TNG script in which the Enterprise destroyed at alien fleet by playing loud music - it sounds like something out of Mars Attacks rather than Star Trek.

It wasn't a bad film but nothing special. 6/10 with very little that I'll be still thinking about in a day or two.

Beefy78

Beefy78 wrote: »

I got the gist of a lot of the comments here over the last couple of weeks and definitely went in expecting a lot more Trek and a lot less 'pew pew' I didn't get it. I thought there were some nice character pieces here or there but not enough to end up with a positive impression about a film that was filmed at 100mph to try to detract you enough so that you didn't realise how little the story made sense.
I know this is a lazy comment but meh, it was a lazy film so - it felt like I was watching a Fast and Furious film.

I liked Jaylah as a character and hope we see her again in the next film and I liked that all the characters got a moment here or there (Chekov there alongside Kirk, Uhura sacrificing herself, getting moments with the bad guy, McCoy's much more prominent role, etc) other than Sulu. Honestly I now think that 'being gay' was dropped in as his thing for this film to excuse a lack of any other contribution to the plot. I enjoyed some of the one-liners.

Other than that though I thought it was a big pile of meh. Just explosions and nonsensical plotting. Elba was wasted under that makeup, his character supposedly waited 100 years to find this super-weapon which he didn't need because his ships were enough to destroy everything in his path anyway (at least until their weakness to loud music was discovered).

Imagine a TNG script in which the Enterprise destroyed at alien fleet by playing loud music - it sounds like something out of Mars Attacks rather than Star Trek.

It wasn't a bad film but nothing special. 6/10 with very little that I'll be still thinking about in a day or two.

Imagine a Trek movie where they send a Russian, at 80s cold war, to look for nuclear wessels

Beefy78

True. But people weren't saying how 'Trek' ST4 was. Quite the opposite, it was a 'fish out of water' Sci-Fi comedy which originally had Eddie Murphy attached to it.

This was just a bland action movie, as the last one was. They are what they are, I guess.

Beefy78

Beefy78 wrote: »

True. But people weren't saying how 'Trek' ST4 was. Quite the opposite, it was a 'fish out of water' Sci-Fi comedy which originally had Eddie Murphy attached to it.

This was just a bland action movie, as the last one was. They are what they are, I guess.

But it is still a trek film, based on character interaction.
Beyond is, to me, the closest weccan expect to small screen Trek in cinema.
Last time they tried proper small screen Trek in the cinema was Insurrection, which is no where near as bad as it's reputation but is definitely more like a 2part special

Beefy78

Was it Insurrection or Nemesis which had Riker piloting the Enterprise with a joystick? Chunks of both of those films have merged together in my mind over the years.

That is the closest comparison I could think of in the other films to destroying an alien fleet with loud music (I genuinely loved the "Is that Classical Music?" line btw)

squonk

I totally get what people are saying here. I thought the loud music destorying he warm was utterly stupid myself. It wouldn't have washed in a regular TNG or TOS episode but this movie is a different animal entirely. You can't go in looking at it in pure Trek terms because it's not Trek, not really the one we know anyway. As a viewer I let them away with a lot. I wasn't going in with high expectations either because, if I was, I'd be disappointed. What I did see was a movie with a lot more heart than the previous two and a lot more care was given to represent what made Trek special. In the end, this movie was executed by people not involved in Trek long term or on TV with actors who were reimagining the roles made famous by others. It wasn't made to please the fanbase solely so, with that in mind, it's a good thing if resembles traditional Trek at all. I hated the previous two movies. I think this was way better than the previous two and I can say I hate Nemesis more which should really have been better being a Trek movie made by the core Trek machine with an original cast. Instead it turned out about as big a FÚCK YOU to the fans as Into Darkness.

AtomicHorror

Beefy78 wrote: »

Was it Insurrection or Nemesis which had Riker piloting the Enterprise with a joystick?

You're mistaken. That never happened.

CramCycle

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You're mistaken. That never happened.

God I forgot how annoying that scene was (Insurrection), I remember wondering why it didn't end up blowing up the enterprise as the smoke/cloud crap (that they all seemed to be swimming in but Riker seemed to recognise as distinct without looking at sensors or getting a report).

As I got older and thought more about the idea of controlling such a large vehicle with just a joystick for sensitive maneuvres, the more I hated it. Surely they should have just steered the ship as per normal with Riker issuing commands.

Although comically, i just rewatched the scene, in my memory the joystick was comically small and Riker had to use his thumb and forefinger to hold it. Apparently it is just a small joystick. I also thought he accessed it while sitting in the captains chair but apparently a thing shoots out of the floor and he stands.

squonk

That joystick thing was stupid. In the 24th century the computer should be able to maneuver the ship just fine via voice command, or you'd think the helm is perfectly adequate.

As an aside I did see an article about one of the new huge cruise liners that allows the captain to dock and control the ship using just a joystick. Fine today but very much backwards thinking for a 24th century starship!

squonk

squonk wrote: »

That joystick thing was stupid. In the 24th century the computer should be able to maneuver the ship just fine via voice command, or you'd think the helm is perfectly adequate.

As an aside I did see an article about one of the new huge cruise liners that allows the captain to dock and control the ship using just a joystick. Fine today but very much backwards thinking for a 24th century starship!

Given that all manual controls would be probably obsolete (with maybe direct neural interface) both are stupid ideas, neither worth getting worked up over

ArKl0w

I thought it was dreadful and saw it with another Trekkie
Too rushed and too many holes in it
For example and I don't need spoilers for this as only people who've watched it will understand but just in case..

But why when fighting the main villain and in certain risk of death ,in a precarious location were the crew who had the ability to hear Kirk not beaming him out of there,there was no issue on that occasion at that location with the gear

Also the first half hour or so FFS, drivel
Half an hour before there's any action? Seriously

ArKl0w

ArKl0w wrote: »

I thought it was dreadful and saw it with another Trekkie
Too rushed and too many holes in it
For example and I don't need spoilers for this as only people who've watched it will understand but just in case..

But why when fighting the main villain and in certain risk of death ,in a precarious location were the crew who had the ability to hear Kirk not beaming him out of there,there was no issue on that occasion at that location with the gear

Also the first half hour or so FFS, drivel
Half an hour before there's any action? Seriously

The 1st half hour was great!!

ArKl0w

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The 1st half hour was great!!

Horses for courses I suppose,I thought it belonged on cbbc to be honest,a half hour of dialogue & nothing going on waffle to me

AtomicHorror

ArKl0w wrote: »

I thought it was dreadful and saw it with another Trekkie
Too rushed and too many holes in it
For example and I don't need spoilers for this as only people who've watched it will understand but just in case..

But why when fighting the main villain and in certain risk of death ,in a precarious location were the crew who had the ability to hear Kirk not beaming him out of there,there was no issue on that occasion at that location with the gear

Also the first half hour or so FFS, drivel
Half an hour before there's any action? Seriously

So... too rushed, but too slow? :P

"Pacing issues" then!

CramCycle

Deleted User wrote: »

Given that all manual controls would be probably obsolete (with maybe direct neural interface) both are stupid ideas, neither worth getting worked up over

The movies had made a move to appear more naval in regards how the ship was controlled. Something I loved about Kahn when it came out and something that makes them more open to the likes of my father or father in law, while still being Trek. I think from a QA perspective, having this system would be far better than a neural interface whereby a helmsman can adapt the maneuvre to give the captain what they want.

ArKl0w wrote: »

Horses for courses I suppose,I thought it belonged on cbbc to be honest,a half hour of dialogue & nothing going on waffle to me

A solid half hour of trek then :pac:

senordingdong

Have to admit, I'm surprised at how much praise this film is getting for being like an extended episode of the tv series.
That precise reason was held negatively against 'Insurrection'

AMKC

Deleted User wrote: »

The 1st half hour was great!!

Agree that first half hour was a good half hour of proper Star Trek and a great introduction and start to the film. Star Trek is not all about action thats what was wrong with films that came before this one they were all action rush here rush there no real meaning but this film has fixed that and hopefully the next film can keep up the good work and do it better.


Any news on Simon Pegg and Doug Jung getting to right the next script for the next one. The sooner they get it started the better they can do it and get it right.

ScumLord

Saw this last night. I thought it was pretty good over all. The ending did seem to be more or less the same ending as in the last film, lads having a fight on top of space ships over a city. The tech was a bit more up to date and they've finally realised the true potential of the communicator and use it when on board the ship in the same way you'd use a mobile phone.

senordingdong

senordingdong wrote: »

Have to admit, I'm surprised at how much praise this film is getting for being like an extended episode of the tv series.
That precise reason was held negatively against 'Insurrection'

Because Insurrection didn't follow Nemesis, Space Voyages 2009 and Spce Voyages: The Wreck of Khan

helimachoptor

Wawtched this last night.

its not Trek, but its good fun in space

helimachoptor

helimachoptor wrote: »

Wawtched this last night.

its not Trek, but its good fun in space

It's closer to Trek that some of the Trek films (cough Nemesis cough)

It's as good as you are going to get in Movie format, Trek can only be Trek on small screen

_Kaiser_

Watched it there now...

- Urban is an excellent McCoy and seems to be the only one of them making any effort to be true to the original character
- Pine's Kirk still comes across as an adolescent hyper-active child who would never have been made Captain in reality
- Pegg's Scott thankfully was not as annoying this time out .. probably because he was given more to do than provide inappropriate/unnecessary comic relief
- Quinto's Spock was the weakest here yet again
- They wrecked the Enterprise.. meh! No attachment to it anyway so don't care really (although I feel the same about the Enterprise-E funnily enough)
- The Franklin though was a nice idea. You could see the lineage to Archer's NX-01 and at least it didn't look like a bloody Apple store.. unlike the Yorktown starbase which looked nothing like a Federation facility
- The plot (if the same manic rush from scene to scene) is actually decent enough and the references to the ENT-era events like the Xindi war and MACOs fitted in well
- Jaylah was a good character but again the plot points with her were rushed.. she reminded me very much of Noss from VOY actually
- Krall was a character that got better as the film went on IMO. By the time they get to Yorktown (and I'm sorry but the Yorktown is a starship not a starbase! ) he's pretty well realised - although I thought for a minute that he was actually going to try and help Kirk vent the weapon in some sort of last-minute redemption
- Enterprise-A again rushed and glossed over. Another ship we care nothing about
- The photo of the prime crew (several of whom are no longer with us either) however was unexpected (I didn't read spoilers) and very well done. Kudos to them on that one

Overall, it's definitely a far better film than Into Darkness, however, the 2009 film is probably the best of the 3 for me - although I still have a very hard time thinking of this series as Star Trek rather than hyper-mega-active-splosioney-space-shooter. That said though this one probably comes closest to changing that perception.

_Kaiser_

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Watched it there now...

- Urban is an excellent McCoy and seems to be the only one of them making any effort to be true to the original character
- Pine's Kirk still comes across as an adolescent hyper-active child who would never have been made Captain in reality
- Quinto's Spock was the weakest here yet again
- They wrecked the Enterprise.. meh! No attachment to it anyway so don't care really (although I feel the same about the Enterprise-E funnily enough)
- The Franklin though was a nice idea. You could see the lineage to Archer's NX-01 and at least it didn't look like a bloody Apple store.. unlike the Yorktown starbase which looked nothing like a Federation facility
- The plot (if the same manic rush from scene to scene) is actually decent enough and the references to the ENT-era events like the Xindi war and MACOs fitted in well
- Jaylah was a good character but again the plot points with her were rushed.. she reminded me very much of Noss from VOY actually
- Krall was a character that got better as the film went on IMO. By the time they get to Yorktown (and I'm sorry but the Yorktown is a starship not a starbase! ) he's pretty well realised - although I thought for a minute that he was actually going to try and help Kirk vent the weapon in some sort of last-minute redemption
- Enterprise-A again rushed and glossed over. Another ship we care nothing about
- The photo of the prime crew (several of whom are no longer with us either) however was unexpected (I didn't read spoilers) and very well done. Kudos to them on that one

Overall, it's definitely a far better film than Into Darkness, however, the 2009 film is probably the best of the 3 for me - although I still have a very hard time thinking of this as Star Trek rather than hyper-mega-active-splosioney-space-shooter. That said though this one probably comes closest to changing that perception.

I agree with a lot here. I do see this one as Trek though, it is more Trek than Nemesis or Star Trek 5 for me and completely obliterates the previous 2.

I can easily reconcile this as Trek as opposed to Space Voyages

_Kaiser_

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree with a lot here. I do see this one as Trek though, it is more Trek than Nemesis or Star Trek 5 for me and completely obliterates the previous 2.

I can easily reconcile this as Trek as opposed to Space Voyages

Yea I'd agree.. I meant to say "have a hard time thinking of this series.... etc" (edited accordingly ) but I'll probably need a rewatch to see if I like it better than the first (which itself took me 2 run-throughs to be objective about)

There is a lot to like in this film which surprised me after the "featuring Rhianna" trailer. Put it this way... I'd watch this again whereas Into Darkness is beyond (no pun intended ) salvaging for me

_Kaiser_

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Yea I'd agree.. I meant to say "have a hard time thinking of this series.... etc" (edited accordingly ) but I'll probably need a rewatch to see if I like it better than the first (which itself took me 2 run-throughs to be objective about)

There is a lot to like in this film which surprised me after the "featuring Rhianna" trailer. Put it this way... I'd watch this again whereas Into Darkness is beyond (no pun intended ) salvaging for me

As a apace based action flick the 2009 film is top notch but pains me to see it with Trek characters.

Beyond is not as good an actioner but I liked it more

AMKC

Am hearing rumors that Paramount Studios are in big trouble. The proposed sale to the Chinese has failed to go through and that "Beyond" might be the last of the nu trek films. Be sad if it happens would loved to see what they would have done or where they would have gone in the next one.

degrassinoel

just seen this, it was awful

Too much glitz, not enough plot. Found myself not caring about anyone except McCoy. Honestly, it was a special effects movie, and not a particularly good one.
Kirk on a motorbike..
Spock saying horse****..
meh..
non charismatic villain, ffs even Khan in into darkness had a little bit of charisma.
I just wish they'd spent half their effects budget on character development instead.
Almost hate to say it, but Abrahm's 2009 Trek was the best of the three.

Johnny Storm

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

- Urban is an excellent McCoy and seems to be the only one of them making any effort to be true to the original character
- Pine's Kirk still comes across as an adolescent hyper-active child who would never have been made Captain in reality
- Pegg's Scott thankfully was not as annoying this time out .. probably because he was given more to do than provide inappropriate/unnecessary comic relief
- Quinto's Spock was the weakest here yet again
....

I totally agree

(although I found Kirk/Pine to be quite entertaining anyway)

ScumLord

degrassinoel wrote: »

Kirk on a motorbike..

And as we know the petrol in that motorbike would have been completely useless if it had been sitting there for even a few months.