Star Trek: Beyond

ScumLord wrote: »

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.

nah, it'll be advanced future petrol of course...

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Space petrol is what is used in space motorbikes. The shelf life of space petrol is based on dramatic effect rather than chemistry.

The captain of that ship is probably looking down from heaven watching kirk zip around and is finally feeling vindicated for lugging that bike, all the tools needed for the regular maintenance checks and the fuel around for all those years. Was it on the bridge too?

ScumLord wrote: »

The captain of that ship is probably looking down from heaven watching kirk zip around and is finally feeling vindicated for lugging that bike, all the tools needed for the regular maintenance checks and the fuel around for all those years. Was it on the bridge too?

There is no heaven.

But otherwise, yes presumably.

In the future, being a basketcase will be perceived as diversity.

I thought it was average. A movie or series is only as good as it's "bad guy". The problem is that the bad guy was weak and uninspired. I think Idris Elba is great but he can only work with what he's given. This has always been the problem with Star Trek - Old and new. We all remember Kahn and The Borg and V'ger. But what was Klingon Doc Brown's name? Or Spock's brother or Malcolm McDowell or F Murray Abraham. I can't even remember Peter Weller's name in the last one. Oh it was Marcus. I only remember that because of his daughter - he was very bland too.
The motorbike scene was just terrible. Pointless, stupid and poorly done. I did laugh hard at the Beastie Boys scene. Thought that was very funny.... I only hope that's what they were going for.

I actually like Quinto as Spock. But didn't like his "horsh*t" comment. Cringeworthy. (Reminds me of Data swearing and going "YESS!" in one of the other movies).

Uhura as usual just there to look worried.

Pegg's accent..... And he has a Scottish wife?

I actually like Pine as Kirk. As someone said, he's pretty immature (Too immature to command) but I like that. Bit of fun.

Needless to say: Urban's McCoy just fantastic as usual.

watched it over the weekend, what a trainwreck!
The only person I could even be bothered to care about is McCoy, the script was a mess and the action tedious and overblown like most films of the last couple of years.

as for the surfing of the wave of exploding ships :rolleyes:

ItHurtsWhenIP wrote: »

OK - I've seen Beyond.

Not bad. Not bad at all. I definitely think it's a big improvement on Into Darkness and something of an improvement on the Lens Flare episode.

Yes. It is more like proper Trek. I disagree with those that said the story was a mess. It was there and was told by the end.

Pine and Urban portrayed their characters very well and I could almost feel Shatner and Kelley coming through. Quinto doesn't play Spock at all well. I say this as Nimoy's Spock is by far my most favourite Trek character. There was no chemistry between Kirk and Spock, though there was some between Spock and Bones.

Some specifics:

• Death of the Enterprise - I felt nothing for it. I balled my eyes out in ST:TSFS when she blew (and still get a lump to this day when I see it), but for this ship, I have no attachment to it.
  
• Why did the shells of people that Krall took energy from all look like a gaunt Anton Yelchin? I kept saying to myself "Did they kill him off here?"
  
• I liked the way they had the swarm come for the Franklin and look like a surfers dream wave!
  
• I had a little tear or two at the photo.
• The end credit sequence was very reminiscent of a TOS ending (though they had stills back then as opposed to this visual feast).
  
• I had the entire cinema to myself by the time the dedication came on (only about 10 people in the cinema for that sitting). I had a little cry then.
  

I'm happy to have seen it.

I re-watched this at the weekend in 3D, just in case it added anything (not really - the 3D-ness wasn't very in-your-face).

My opinion on it has gone down.

On mature reflection the story wasn't really articulated very well, including Krall's backstory (I seemed to think it was crystal clear when I first saw it, but not now).

The motorbike, the music WMD (although I liked the song), Kirk & Spock keeping secrets from each other ... a lot of stuff and nonsense.

I also really did not like this view of the Enterprise:

It made it seem almost anorexic, having the nacelles in so close to the body.

So I don't think I will be re-watching this any more. I've seen each of JJ Trek's twice.

I've seen the TOS movies dozens of times and will do so again.

I've seen the TNG movies probably about 10 times and would watch most of them again.

Not the KT movies.

Deleted User wrote: »

That's ****ing ridiculous. I get that coming across the Nerada would prompt bigger ships but the power plants and metallurgy alone required are beyond that era

We're talking about a civilisation capable of propelling spacecraft at thousands of times the speed of light and of converting matter and into energy and back again at will. I never assumed that the size of the ships had anything to do with technological limitations. They're just based on function, mission specification, that sort of thing.

CramCycle wrote: »

The short one is the one they planned, the long one is the actual size when you look at the likes of the shuttle bay and certain design features.

Long story short, it was meant to be the short one, but artistic license meant that some of the shots are impossible with that size and you end up with giant enterprise.

Artistic license my ar... I think they were just to lazy to do it with the smaller ship and to mean too. They made the ship bigger because it cost less and saved them money from having too do special effects and close ups of the slightly smaller ships. Its not like the smaller version of it is small so I think it was just a lame excuse for the fact that they really did not know how to do it. I could be wrong but that just some of what I think of it.

learn_more wrote: »

Watched Beyond, or should I say I watched the first half hour. Appalling movie.

It's really sad that CGI, and the overuse of it, is the primary focus of most sci-fi movies these days.

It's true what they say that the 3rd is always the worst. And if it was true of any movie franchise that proved it, it was Beyond.

Have you gone to "Arrival" yet. I think would enjoy it as its a clever interesting film.

As for Beyond I don,t think its as bad as you say. I think its the best of the rebooted films. I went to see it twice in the cinema and would have went to see it a third time. I nearly did.

Yeah this film is meh.

Very forgettable for me