2000 AD Online Forum

General Chat => Film & TV => : Goaty 14 December, 2015, 04:14:05 PM

: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: Goaty 14 December, 2015, 04:14:05 PM
Not what I expect.
Simon Pegg as one of writers? Mmm what to do with 3rd film? Let them blow up Enterprise and fight it at on the planet? Is that same as 3rd film...?

Trailer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvR4eUjkag8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvR4eUjkag8)
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: von Boom 14 December, 2015, 04:30:08 PM
Sigh. More bra-Trek. If Kirk and Spock don't call each other bra and high-five I'll be shocked.

This gets a third film and no Dredd sequel?! Life is truly unfair sometimes.
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: blackmocco 14 December, 2015, 04:47:25 PM
Seeing as the last one made me reassess my relationship with Star Trek V, I figured there's nothing they could do to make this one worse. And then they did. Good lord. Unbelievable.
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: Professor Bear 14 December, 2015, 05:23:18 PM
I can see no way this can be as bad as the last one, but they're boxing clever by drawing attention to the director being an old hand from the Fast & the Furious franchise, because they're basically saying "Yeah we know this looks abominably stupid, but it's totally deliberate this time."
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: JOE SOAP 14 December, 2015, 05:35:10 PM

"We want this one to be more like Guardians of the Galaxy."

: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: von Boom 14 December, 2015, 05:51:33 PM
Funny. I want this one to be more like Star Trek.
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: Tiplodocus 14 December, 2015, 06:07:32 PM
Funny. I want this one to be more like Star Trek.

Even the Next Gen movies couldn't manage that.
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: CrazyFoxMachine 14 December, 2015, 07:57:47 PM
 :o

Why are they even bothering to call this Star Trek?!
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: TordelBack 14 December, 2015, 08:03:11 PM
What's truly tragic is going back to the same Beasties music as the original teaser trailer for ST 2009.  They could just have quietly said 'we have no idea what to do with this franchise at this point' and left it at that. But no, they decided to go with a shitty FX shot of Simon Pegg hanging off a CGI cliff, and hammer us over the head with the fact. Suddenly I'm feeling nostalgic for ST:Insurrection.

Is it so bloody hard to make Star Trek? Roddenberry seemed to manage fine with some face paint and a guy under a blanket. Instead we have motorbike chases and computer game acrobatics. 
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: blackmocco 14 December, 2015, 08:05:51 PM
"See, what we really want is Guardians Of The Galaxy. And Fast and Furious. Well, just their box-office takings, really. Hmm. Now, call me crazy but... is there any way we could do BOTH in one movie...? Wait, we own Star Trek? This'll be PERFECT!!"
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: blackmocco 14 December, 2015, 08:08:27 PM
What's truly tragic is going back to the same Beasties music as the original teaser trailer for ST 2009.  They could just have quietly said 'we have no idea what to do with this franchise at this point' and left it at that. But no, they decided to go with a shitty FX shot of Simon Pegg hanging off a CGI cliff, and hammer us over the head with the fact. Suddenly I'm feeling nostalgic for ST:Insurrection.

Feeling nostalgic for ST V...
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: IAMTHESYSTEM 14 December, 2015, 08:09:26 PM
Star Trek:Nemesis was supposed to be an 'Action Film.' It effectively killed the franchise for a while and though I am quite intrigued by this one as it is part written by Simon Pegg, a toothy fan it's not, as Von Boom mentioned really Star Trek anymore. It's an action movie with the Star Trek logo attached.

Is Kirk's voice broken ? Sounds sort of throaty. 
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: TordelBack 14 December, 2015, 08:29:47 PM
Feeling nostalgic for ST V...

Final Frontier is way better than Insurrection... Well, if you only watch the first 10 minutes and the last 15 anyway. The rest is crap, of course, even the bits with David Warner. But all of Insurrection is crap. Literally every shot.
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: Professor Bear 14 December, 2015, 10:00:20 PM
All the Trek movies - with the exception of the first - have been action-adventure movies, so I don't mind them ramping up the action quota.
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: Mister Pops 14 December, 2015, 10:43:24 PM
What's truly tragic is going back to the same Beasties music as the original teaser trailer for ST 2009. 

Have you heard the truly magnificent fan theory about the Beatie Boys inclusion in the reboot.

Their 1998 hit, Intergalactic, contains the line:

"...like a pinch from to the neck from Mister Spock"

Therefore, in the ST universe, The Beastie boys are either time travellers or members of the Q continuum.

'sobvious when you think about it.
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: O Lucky Stevie! 15 December, 2015, 02:35:58 AM
As far as Stevie is concerned, anything that wasn't adapted by either James Blish, his missus & her indoors or Vonda McIntyre never happened.
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: TordelBack 15 December, 2015, 06:32:12 AM

Their 1998 hit, Intergalactic, contains the line:

"...like a pinch from to the neck from Mister Spock"

Therefore, in the ST universe, The Beastie boys are either time travellers or members of the Q continuum.

Or they could have been on a certain bus in San Francisco in 1986, and been impressed with Spock's approach to music criticism.
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: Spaceghost 15 December, 2015, 08:41:27 AM
That Mr. Spock Beastie Boys reference is nothing.

The opening lyrics to Ch-Check it Out are -

All you Trekkies and TV addicts
Don't mean to dis, don't mean to bring static
All you Klingons in the fucking house
Grab your backstreet friend and get loud

...and they're all dressed in OT uniforms in the video -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYpzWRk7E9I
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: I, Cosh 15 December, 2015, 09:20:49 AM
Looks fun.
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: TordelBack 15 December, 2015, 09:38:29 AM
Looks fun.

Damn it Pete, I'm a trekkie, not a.... funster?
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: Frank 15 December, 2015, 10:01:12 AM
in the ST universe, The Beastie boys are either time travellers or members of the Q continuum

(http://i.imgur.com/Hs1OmRy.jpg?1)


https://youtu.be/WdgLMslbDuY
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: I, Cosh 15 December, 2015, 10:53:12 AM
I'd pay good money to see a Star Trek film that used Underground Resistance's The Final Frontier (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gp-LHMm5y2w) on the soundtrack. Not that they'd ever allow it.
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: Steve Green 21 May, 2016, 12:27:12 PM
New trailer - unlisted on youtube for some reason.

Still manage to get arguments about future monetary systems and racism within the first batch of comments though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzWIGFiGrlA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzWIGFiGrlA)
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: CrazyFoxMachine 21 May, 2016, 12:58:35 PM
Good spot, Steve!

You know - that didn't look nearly as bad as the first trailer made it out to be. It still looks miles away from "real Trek" (coming next year to TV hopefully) but it looked far less po-faced than Into Darkness and all the better for it.
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: Tjm86 21 May, 2016, 01:15:14 PM
Much better trailer for sure.  This current incarnation is a very different beast to the one we grew up with but that is not necessarily a completely bad thing.  Enough to go screaming out to see it?  Nah.  Still looks like video fodder.

The comments under the video really are interesting though, you're right.  I'd never really paid much any attention to youtube comments before.  The level of sophistication, the clarity of thought, the wit and satire, ... Ah who am I kidding?  Please tell me those people don't breed.
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: TordelBack 21 May, 2016, 03:49:11 PM
Better trailer, certainly.
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: Grugz 22 May, 2016, 10:20:49 AM
looks good that does! hoping they improve the enterprise after it is seemingly going to need a bit of a refit
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: Michael Knight 03 June, 2016, 04:52:34 PM
just caught trailer myself and looks good! the posters actually look like they promoting a Star trak film this time as opposed to some of them dreadful generic posters for the last movie  :)
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: Goaty 18 July, 2016, 09:53:40 PM
Final trailer, looks better and Karl in action!

https://youtu.be/NwpvjQKdpvI (https://youtu.be/NwpvjQKdpvI)
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: Steve Green 18 July, 2016, 10:15:18 PM
Some of the newer spots spoil a fairly major plot point, and was tweeted about by Comic Book Resources if that sort of thing bothers you.
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: Batman's Superior Cousin 18 July, 2016, 11:07:08 PM
Seeing the Midnight Premiere this Wednesday!!! :D
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: blackmocco 18 July, 2016, 11:52:49 PM
Trying to stay positive but that dirt bike is haunting me every time I see it...
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: TordelBack 19 July, 2016, 12:01:11 AM
Aye, dirt bike is very off-putting, and the absence of Our Karl from the poster moreso, but the more I see of the rest, the more I like. Also, I'm morally obliged to give Pegg the benefit of the doubt.
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: blackmocco 26 July, 2016, 08:30:33 PM
Well, I'm horrified to report I mostly enjoyed it. It has no brain, relies on action set-pieces when it gets itself into trouble and I have to confess, the villain made no sense to me in any way, shape or form. Didn't understand anything about what he was trying to do, why he wanted to do it or why he looked the way he did. Anyone want to help me out here, much appreciated.

In saying all that, it's got some heart. It gets the Kirk/Spock/Bones trifecta just right, even if this Kirk is a whiny little fucker compared to Shatner's. Jaylah is a great addition, I thought. The movie looks great. There's some great real pulpy science fiction imagery which I loved and this might be the first of the Abramsverse movies where I finally started to really appreciate the new Enterprise design. I think Lin has a better grasp on which angles to make it look good.

Yeah, the motorbike is there, although a little less jarring once the context is explained. Not as unforgivable as the use of Sabotage, yet fucking again. This time in completely ludicrous fashion. I guess no-one creates music in the 23rd century.

All in all, I enjoyed it, with the caveat that it's big, loud and dumb but it gets more right than wrong in terms of a Star Trek movie. Cast are great, particularly our boy Karl who finally gets plenty to do in this one.
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: dweezil2 26 July, 2016, 09:02:02 PM
I think all those very valid criticisms resulted in me enjoying the film a lot less than you blackmocco.

And yes, Krall's motivation failed to ring true or make much sense either and was rather too reminiscent of Khan's in Into Darkness.

I still prefered it to the pointless rehash of Into Darkness.

Once again, Urban was the best thing in these reboots.
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: blackmocco 26 July, 2016, 09:29:31 PM
I think all those very valid criticisms resulted in me enjoying the film a lot less than you blackmocco.

And yes, Krall's motivation failed to ring true or make much sense either and was rather too reminiscent of Khan's in Into Darkness.

I still prefered it to the pointless rehash of Into Darkness.

Once again, Urban was the best thing in these reboots.

Yeah, the only way was up after the last one. Perhaps going in with the lowest of expectations helped me get through this one. I'm not pretending it's the greatest. I'm in no hurry to see it again but it at least felt like a real sequel to the 09 one and it entertained me enough for the two hours, despite some glaring problems.
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: SIP 27 July, 2016, 09:03:15 PM
Just back from seeing it.  Thought it was great fun and i really enjoyed it. As a 40 year Trek fan it made me smile many times. It's lightweight and action centric but that's not a criticism as I was entertained throughout.
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: Professor Bear 27 July, 2016, 11:05:00 PM
I will lend my critical weight to the expressed opinion above that Beyond is nowhere near as shit as Into Darkness.
I liked the Enterprise references, but thought that Peter Mensah's character should have been the basis for Kraal: a guy with experience with space mining technology and form for space-racism and giant superweapons is basically Mensah's character from that Enterprise two-parter.
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: Bad City Blue 27 July, 2016, 11:21:32 PM
Fun without being in any way awesome.

Nice script (apart from the baddie) and I agree Jaylah was a great character.

Into Darkness was pants because after taking a whole movie to say "Hey! We're an alternate timeline and can do what we want" they then went ahead and botched the Khan story completely. That movie should have been all about the Klingons
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: Theblazeuk 28 July, 2016, 11:13:37 AM
It occurs to me that they could do a nice send off for Anton in the next movie. I mean dozens (hundreds?) of funerals happen off-screen, the next movie could start with or at least reference/show something like that for Chekov. I would prefer not a heroic sacrifice or anything so grandiose, just an SF version of the kind of tragic accident that occurred in real life.
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: Professor Bear 28 July, 2016, 01:37:20 PM
I assumed the whiskey scene at the start of the film where Kirk and McCoy pour a third glass for the absent Checkov was a homage to Yelchin.
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: Theblazeuk 28 July, 2016, 03:28:32 PM
I suppose I actually mean a send-off for Chekov which can be an homage to Yelchin as well, given they are (rightly imo) not going to recast the role.
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: blackmocco 28 July, 2016, 05:39:46 PM
I assumed the whiskey scene at the start of the film where Kirk and McCoy pour a third glass for the absent Checkov was a homage to Yelchin.

I assumed the third glass was intended for Kirk's absent father...? But it works as a Yelchin tribute too.
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: Stan 30 July, 2016, 03:26:04 PM
Well, I'm horrified to report I mostly enjoyed it. It has no brain, relies on action set-pieces when it gets itself into trouble and I have to confess, the villain made no sense to me in any way, shape or form. Didn't understand anything about what he was trying to do, why he wanted to do it or why he looked the way he did. Anyone want to help me out here, much appreciated.

Krall's motivation does seem a bit muddled. The only thing I could think of concerning this was the old quote "Adversity makes men, and prosperity makes monsters". Clearly this doesn't generally apply to the Star Trek universe since it's quite an optimistic one. Only in the mirror universe do you really catch a glimpse of what may have happened had they fallen to decadence and tyranny. Though they did almost sleepwalk into it with Peter Weller's vision for the Federation in the last film. Krall has obviously twisted this idea in his selfish, psychopathic head because he couldn't move on from his life as a warrior crafting the Federation out of the dirt.

I assume they deliberately played on this theme with Kirk's side story. He felt his forebears had done so much of the work that he contemplated a desk job as Vice Admiral. You can see how these people could slip into an idle decadence and become vulnerable to a malevolent take over (see Weller again).

As for Krall's appearance, I'm as confused by that as anyone else. He seemed to be draining the life force of other living creatures to take on his new appearance. Maybe the aliens who previously lived on the planet originally looked completely different to Krall's alien form but used their technology to make themselves 'better'. Or something. I think that's something they really should've been clearer on.

Overall though, it was pretty much what I hoped for after seeing the first (somewhat disappointing) trailer. Just calm things down a little after Into Darkness. Don't try to be too clever. It's a fun little away mission on a strange new world but with all the benefits of modern production values(TM). The only things that bothered me were a couple of CGI issues. The first appearance of Kirk and Jaylah on the space bike made it look like they were floating rather than properly attached to the ground. It sounds like a small thing but it was very jarring, like something you'd expect from a video game. I was also unimpressed by the CGI henchman. Though I suppose you could argue that it made them feel more alien.

Oh, and the humour fell a bit flat in places. The one thing I'd usually trust Pegg on.

I LOVE JAYLAH.

This film also shows the right way to reference previous iterations of Star Trek without falling into the trap of mining specific plot lines or characters. It also helps if you're a fan of Enterprise in this particular instance.

Now let's start a petition to get Into Darkness removed from canon. It wouldn't actually affect the Kelvinverse in any way (that I can think of).
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: blackmocco 30 July, 2016, 03:43:02 PM
It's interesting that this version of Kirk doesn't have the same bravado or optimism as the classic version. He's paralyzed here with the "no-win scenario" that Shatner's Kirk would have battled his way through. Pine's really not much of a Captain. Broody and whiny and full of doubts and hesitation. But in saying that, this is the first time I felt comfortable enough writing that off as an alternate/Elseworlds version of the character.

As for Krall, yeah, I just think everything about him was handled pretty clumsily. Maybe a bad edit, a weak script, something. He just never felt properly explained throughout.

And yeah, I'm willing to edit out STID and just jump straight into this one.
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: von Boom 31 July, 2016, 12:23:15 PM
I'd say this was 'bra Trek's best effort thus far. It was enjoyable, but by no means approaching the strength of classic Trek films. I will say I think Pegg managed to capture more elements that define Star Trek than in the previous two films. Especially the interplay between Bones and Spock.

Karl is simply perfect as Bones.

I won't go into the faults of the film as they have been ably covered already.

I think Star Trek still needs Paramount needs to replace Abrams, and hopefully they can find someone that understands the universe and characters better than Abrams does.
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: Mattofthespurs 31 July, 2016, 05:11:15 PM
Just returned from seeing this from the first time...

Hmmmm. My initial thoughts are it's not unlike an Easter Egg. Pretty but ultimately empty and unsatisfying.
The film looks gorgeous but the script is all over the place.
And I don't mind one randomly dropped in plot device but three? (pendant, music, motorbike). That's just far too many.
The main cast are all exceptional barring Pegg unfortunately who now seems to be channeling someone doing a very bad Scottish impersonation.
And I don't like false endings either.
I give it a 6 out of 10. Not bad but I feel that 10 years down the line this film will not be looked upon favourably.
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: Mattofthespurs 31 July, 2016, 05:12:14 PM
I assumed the whiskey scene at the start of the film where Kirk and McCoy pour a third glass for the absent Checkov was a homage to Yelchin.

I assumed the third glass was intended for Kirk's absent father...? But it works as a Yelchin tribute too.

Absent Father for me too.
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: Tiplodocus 31 July, 2016, 06:14:37 PM
I enjoyed that as did Mrs and Teen Tips.

Not a classic by any means but bright, breast, fun and dumb in equal measure.  I think it got more Star Trek right then wrong too.

Actually loved the introduction to Yorktown and the extended destruction of the thingy sequence where it took a licking but kept on ticking. It makes sense that the design would be so modular
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: Magnetica 01 August, 2016, 11:45:22 PM
Just come back from seeing this.

Not really sure about it to be honest.

I agree Jaylah was a good character.

Stan is right about the effects for the bike when Kirk starts riding it - just doesn't look right.

The Yorktown space station is very impressive. Indeed it makes Deep Space Nine look ridiculously small in comparison - especially the promenade (in DS9).

Any excitement in the first bit of the film was ruined for me by the review I read in the newspaper a couple of weeks ago which said the Enterprise gets destroyed by a giant swarm of "bees" - yeah thanks for that.

Urban and Quinto look uncannily like DeForest Kelly and Nimoy to me. Pine seemed to look less like Kirk in this one (different hair possibly?).

Overall this seems like pretty much a standalone episode, making no attempt at any ongoing storyline (which is actually some feat considering the Enterprise was destroyed and Spock and Uhura break up at the start, but the reset button (TM Voyager) was firmly pressed at the end.

One last thought - just how deep space is their 5 year mission anyway, considering that 3 years into it they can just pop back to a Federation space station?

Sorry for the rambling post...but I guess it's a reflection of my thoughts on the film right now.
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: Mardroid 02 August, 2016, 12:59:00 PM
I've been watching the original series, and they seem to spend a good deal of that visiting earth colonies or scientific outposts. In the latest outing they found a planet almost identical to Earth with architecture and technology like 1960s America the inhabitants being humanoid children who look identical to humans.

Turns out they're much older than they look.

Not a bad story, though, but I wonder why they put in so much emphasis to Earth at the start.

I know at some point there'll be another episode with 20th century Romans and another with alien 30s gangsters, although there is an explanation for the latter.
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: Professor Bear 02 August, 2016, 01:19:35 PM
A lot of Trek episodes were written to make use of existing sets and props, to keep the budget down.  I'm currently in the middle of season 3 and though some episodes are completely new to me, it's still tough going sometimes, especially when they beam down to planets that are just black backgrounds.
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: blackmocco 02 August, 2016, 03:01:03 PM
A lot of Trek episodes were written to make use of existing sets and props, to keep the budget down.  I'm currently in the middle of season 3 and though some episodes are completely new to me, it's still tough going sometimes, especially when they beam down to planets that are just black backgrounds.

Everything about season 3 is hard work. New producer, slashed budget, weak scripts. There's barely a handful of solid scripts in there. Spectre Of The Gun and The Enterprise Incident are the highlights.
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: Dandontdare 02 August, 2016, 03:06:17 PM
Not a classic by any means but bright, breast, fun and dumb in equal measure.

 :o
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: Jim_Campbell 02 August, 2016, 06:14:15 PM
One last thought - just how deep space is their 5 year mission anyway, considering that 3 years into it they can just pop back to a Federation space station?

That part didn't bother me at all. It would seem logical that the Enterprise isn't just travelling in a straight(ish) line out into the unknown, but making forays looping out from the furthest established star base to reconnoiter beyond the limits of Federation space. Of course, in the meantime, that outer limit is also moving outward as new star bases are established as a result of Enterprise expanding Federstion territory.

Just back from seeing this myself and it's stupid, but it's fun. The characters are well-defined, the plot doesn't tie itself in knots with incomprehensible machinations, a la Into Daftness, and it zips by at almost dead on two hours.
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: PsychoGoatee 06 August, 2016, 06:26:26 AM
Not much to add, just saw it, thought it was okay. It was fun to go see it, but ultimately not a lot of substance to it, and was kinda just there. Highlights were the funny interactions with the crew (especially our pal Karl Urban), but for me the 2009 Trek was by far the best of this new series. Just really playing to the strengths of this kind of formula.

This one wasn't bad though, just didn't really wow me much. I'd think they could come up with a more interesting script in the years they had here. And they could've given more for this great cast to work with, especially Idris Elba.

(Wrath of Khan is still where it's at of course)
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: Stan 06 August, 2016, 05:41:22 PM
The Yorktown space station is very impressive. Indeed it makes Deep Space Nine look ridiculously small in comparison - especially the promenade (in DS9).

Any excitement in the first bit of the film was ruined for me by the review I read in the newspaper a couple of weeks ago which said the Enterprise gets destroyed by a giant swarm of "bees" - yeah thanks for that.

Urban and Quinto look uncannily like DeForest Kelly and Nimoy to me. Pine seemed to look less like Kirk in this one (different hair possibly?).

That's funny because I actually thought they were making Pine more Kirk-like with the little quiffy thing, but I might just have a very particular version of the original in my head. His hair wasn't always exactly the same.

I hadn't really thought about DS9 though. It's looks like a piddling little petrol station outpost compared to Yorktown. I suppose this is a similar problem to having Robocop flying around in that massive (whatever it was called) ship in the second film. Whenever they try to go bigger and flashier with the technology etc., they risk making the prime universe look a bit out of date.
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: Stan 06 August, 2016, 05:43:08 PM
Not a classic by any means but bright, breast, fun and dumb in equal measure.

 :o

I was a little confused by that myself.  :think:
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: Tiplodocus 06 August, 2016, 07:16:42 PM
Breezy.

My autocorrect needs a ducking food dicking.
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: TordelBack 07 August, 2016, 01:29:40 AM
Unexpected chance to see this earlier tonight, thought it was great: exactly what I wanted to see after ST(2009), a convincing new adventure with the new cast. One of the best of the Trek movies, I thought, and while some of the action seemed tacked on by contractual obligation and some of the CGI looked rushed, it had an actual SF plot, some jaw dropping outer-space locations, genuine and deep nerdy continuity stuff, great practical makeup, entertaining character interaction and development, the expected great performances (Urban is still uncanny as a man who looks absolutely nothing like DeForrest Kelley and yet somehow is the image of McCoy) and some actual themes.

Perhaps best of all, it deftly sidestepped the original crew's mistaken paths that led to ST:TMP and WoK, essentially reaching the status quo at the end of TVH without that lost decade and the corsettry it entailed. Yeah, there are some bizarre plot holes, but it'd hardly be a Trek movie without those, and I thought the core idea of Krall worked very well.

If I had a beef, it's that they finally made the interior of this Enterprise look good, just before they trashed her.

Despite the endless acrobatics and McCoy's hitherto unknown mad skillz as s fighter pilot, it felt like a proper Star Trek adventure, a solid two-parter season finale cliffhanger and resolution with a big budget. I'm back in the fold!
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: Professor Bear 07 August, 2016, 02:02:35 PM
Am I failing to remember the relevant bits of the film, or was this also the first NuTrek to rein in the objectification of women that stood out so badly in the previous flicks?
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: Richard 07 August, 2016, 09:32:56 PM
I thought this was a great film with a great script. The relationship between Spock and McCoy was handled very well, better than in the last films. Yorktown was amazing. Jaylah was a brilliant character and I hope we see her again. I liked the homage to the original cast at the end. I'm not sure how Krall was able to change his appearance at the end, but I was enjoying it all too much to really care. (And it might have been explained but I just missed it.)

I liked the use of Sabotage, and I think it's the obvious choice -- the name of the song is exactly the reason why they were playing the song in the first place, and it's a homage to the first film (i.e. the 2009 one). And it's a cool song.

I loved the timelapse bit showing the new Enterprise being built.

I'd be more than happy for Simon Pegg to write the next one.

I do wonder whether some of the people who have posted above were determined not to enjoy this film, and to pick faults with it, before they even went to see it?
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: Mister Pops 07 August, 2016, 10:21:15 PM
I do wonder whether some of the people who have posted above were determined not to enjoy this film, and to pick faults with it, before they even went to see it?

So....you've never met a Trekkie?
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: TordelBack 08 August, 2016, 12:39:36 AM
I thought this was a great film with a great script. The relationship between Spock and McCoy was handled very well, better than in the last films. Yorktown was amazing. Jaylah was a brilliant character and I hope we see her again. I liked the homage to the original cast at the end. I'm not sure how Krall was able to change his appearance at the end, but I was enjoying it all too much to really care. (And it might have been explained but I just missed it.)

I liked the use of Sabotage, and I think it's the obvious choice -- the name of the song is exactly the reason why they were playing the song in the first place, and it's a homage to the first film (i.e. the 2009 one). And it's a cool song.

Yes to all of the above!  I thought Sabotage worked especially well because it built on the mythos of this series, rather than the preceeding 40 years - something this movie excels at (for example, Keenser getting his own 'pet' alien, a great new character in Jaylah (tragically well placed to be Chekov's replacement).  It was also a funny and rather joyous sequence - it was impossible not to root for the survival of the marvel that is Yorktown, surely one of the greatest Trek creations to date.  In fact, this film gives us all the great SF spectacle that ST(2009) had replaced with brewery vats and breezeblock research outposts.

At the same time the thoughtful use of unloved Enterprise really sold the idea of the alternate timeline having a shared past with the old one. 

The Krall explanation was a bit of a stretch, but all the answers are in the film, if hidden in a rapid exposition dump.  Even his revenge scheme makes a sort of sense, when the extreme vulnerability of his swarm is revealed: something he must have known.  The bit I couldn't really figure is who all the other baddies actually were.  Biological drones that Krall mentions? Leftovers from the original aliens? Other prisoners using the same anti-ageing tech?

As Bear says, there is none of the awful cringe-inducing Victoria's Secret crap from the previous two, and in fact the only hint of romance was the sweet and rather subtle Spock/Uhuru stuff, which at this stage feels earned rather than imposed.

A day on I'm actually dying to see this again.  Made me wish that STiD had never happened.
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: PsychoGoatee 08 August, 2016, 03:45:49 AM
Am I failing to remember the relevant bits of the film, or was this also the first NuTrek to rein in the objectification of women that stood out so badly in the previous flicks?

It lacks the fun sexuality seen in the first two films, yep. Not that it's necessary for every story, but Kirk being in bed with catgirl aliens right off the bat is something my friends reference as fun. I think it fit the characterization, and I wouldn't call it a demonized "objectification" personally, but we all have different lines on things.

And the second one had Alice Eve in her underwear, but it also has a close-up of naked wet Benedict Cumberbatch in the shower. Anyways, I personally don't find those things offensive. And the writing for characters of either gender has generally been fine.

As for being determined not to like this movie, I thought it was okay. I go in with an open mind, I really liked the 2009 one, this one to me was a bit ho-hum.
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: Tiplodocus 08 August, 2016, 02:05:30 PM
Am I failing to remember the relevant bits of the film, or was this also the first NuTrek to rein in the objectification of women that stood out so badly in the previous flicks?

Given the amount of gratuitous booty shots you tend to get in a Fast and Furious film, this was actually one thing that worried me (even though I do like my films "breasty").  But yeah, happilly absent.
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: dweezil2 08 August, 2016, 02:30:17 PM
Am I failing to remember the relevant bits of the film, or was this also the first NuTrek to rein in the objectification of women that stood out so badly in the previous flicks?

Given the amount of gratuitous booty shots you tend to get in a Fast and Furious film, this was actually one thing that worried me (even though I do like my films "breasty").  But yeah, happilly absent.

If it's breasts your after, you can't beat Ricardo Montalban's in Wrath Of Khan!!!!!  :o
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: TordelBack 08 August, 2016, 03:03:58 PM
Khan's second-in-command character is even more boobilicious.

The Carol Marcus underwear scene is one of the most embarrassingly awful things in an embarrassingly awful movie. That this film eschews similar and instead has awesome vistas of starbasrs and oddly solid nebulae is greatly to its credit.
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: COMMANDO FORCES 08 August, 2016, 03:21:00 PM
It's a bit like when we see Ripley in her flimsy vest and tiny space panties in the Alien films. Ruined it for me :thumbsdown:
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: TordelBack 08 August, 2016, 03:47:51 PM
It's a bit like when we see Ripley in her flimsy vest and tiny space panties in the Alien films. Ruined it for me :thumbsdown:

Heh!  Really nothing like that titillating scene with the strong central character of an 18s movie from 40 years ago, but nice riposte all the same!
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: Professor Bear 08 August, 2016, 04:00:03 PM
Aliens was ruined for me when Ripley incorrectly brandished a marine-issue Armat M41A Pulse Rifle in a tropical M-class atmospheric environment.  Destroyed my illusion of realism, that did.

There's a knuckle-bitingly bad deleted scene from the 2009 Star Trek that is notable for two reasons:
1 - it was fully shot, soundmixed, edited, and SFX were added, so at no point did anyone think there was a problem with it until after post production, and
2 - it is notably hard to find online compared to other deleted scenes, almost as if Paramount made a point of deleting videos of it from the web, but not other scenes from the same film.
It was available on the first blu-ray of the movie, though: in the scene, the green lady Kirk was sexing earlier in the movie was killed along with everyone else on the Saratoga, and afterwards he sees a green lady in the corridor of the Enterprise and starts talking to her as if she was the green lady that's dead.  So basically, the writers and director of Trek saw no problems with a scene where Kirk can't tell people apart if they're a different colour, but when you start thinking about what this says about how Kirk as a character views women, it just becomes more and more disturbing.
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: JamesC 08 August, 2016, 05:42:39 PM
I really enjoyed this. Weirdly, I was feeling pretty unsatisfied with it for at least the first 20mins/half hour. It just didn't feel like Trek to me. I was a bit underwhelmed when the Enterprise died too - it didn't feel like this version of the ship had earned any emotional attachment either from the crew or the audience.
Once they hit the planet though, things seemed to click and the rest of the film was really enjoyable.
Part of me was hoping that the resurrected old ship would get a hasty re-fit and they'd use it for the next film. I guess that wouldn't have made much sense though.
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: Stan 09 August, 2016, 04:53:37 PM
Yes to all of the above!  I thought Sabotage worked especially well because it built on the mythos of this series, rather than the preceeding 40 years - something this movie excels at (for example, Keenser getting his own 'pet' alien, a great new character in Jaylah (tragically well placed to be Chekov's replacement).  It was also a funny and rather joyous sequence - it was impossible not to root for the survival of the marvel that is Yorktown, surely one of the greatest Trek creations to date.  In fact, this film gives us all the great SF spectacle that ST(2009) had replaced with brewery vats and breezeblock research outposts.

At the same time the thoughtful use of unloved Enterprise really sold the idea of the alternate timeline having a shared past with the old one.

I hadn't considered that regarding Jaylah but it's a nice little back up option if they can't really figure out another way to include her. It'd feel a little odd seeing her in a crew uniform though.

Probably my favourite part about Yorktown is how it looked like a starship fish tank in places. Good idea, whoever that was.

And as one of the few people who was actually disappointed with ST: Enterprise's cancellation, I love how they made use of that series rather than just try to milk the TOS period. They barely even messed with the prime universe either.
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: Andy B 13 August, 2016, 01:50:54 PM
This was more fun than I expected: some nice 60s style fighting-in-a-quarry, and great Spock / McCoy double act (Karl Urban in particular has nailed it as Bones).

Just one complaint - and I know this is a really geeky one - the Yorktown. It was just too much: technologically far, far in advance of anything we've seen the Federation build in any timeline. They must have started building it before the Enterprise was even launched... How?

So that was jarring. Felt like it was in the wrong film. Cool design, though - a bit like I imagine a Culture GSV might look...
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: TordelBack 13 August, 2016, 11:37:27 PM
Just one complaint - and I know this is a really geeky one - the Yorktown. It was just too much: technologically far, far in advance of anything we've seen the Federation build in any timeline. They must have started building it before the Enterprise was even launched... How?

So that was jarring. Felt like it was in the wrong film.

Gotta disagree.

Real world justification: ST is set in the future. It's about the wonders of space exploration. In order to generate that sense of wonder in 2016, you can't just use the space station from Trouble with Tribbles, or even DS9. To capture the ST feel it has to be fresh and mind-blowing: Yorktown is. Your reference to the Culture's GSVs is spot on. That's what this type of Starbase is. Impressive, eh? One of my big beefs about the first two films was that the interiors of almost everything looked like 20th C industrial mixed with an Apple store: Beyond gives us the futuristic imagery I crave.

In universe explanation: technology has been hugely affected by the Kelvin incident, and the future tech it revealed. The Enterprise herself is over twice the length of the original, in and around the size of the TNG Enterprise-D. The ridiculous Vengeance from Into Darkness dwarfs even that, by far the biggest Starfleet vessel we've ever seen. The loss of Vulcan and most of Starfleet 4 years earlier may have shaken people's sense of security of even the founder planets, and made emigration to the frontier seem less daunting, as well as increasing Starfleet' funding massively.

But mainly the wow factor.

: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: Andy B 14 August, 2016, 03:58:22 AM
But mainly the wow factor.

All good points...

Still not entirely convinced by the in universe argument. Star Trek is essentially a western: we're on the (final) frontier, and that doesn't ring true if, half way through their 5-year mission, they can swing past a miraculous place like this and stick the Enterprise in an underground car park. (but I'd forgotten the diverging timeline went all the way back to the Kelvin.)

Real world justification that something like DS9 wouldn't cut it in a 2016 blockbuster... Hard to argue with that  :D


: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: Magnetica 14 August, 2016, 04:03:41 AM

you can't just use ..(or even) DS9.
But mainly the wow factor.

Yes I'll go along with that. And remember a Federation star base couldn't be based on DS9 as that was actually a Cardassian station.
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: Steve Green 14 August, 2016, 09:22:05 PM
Thought it was fun - the final showdown went on a bit, but I did tear up at the Original cast pic, and the To Boldly Go dialogue spoken by Anton
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: Steve Green 14 August, 2016, 09:24:50 PM
Oh and the big green hand making it into the credits
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: Dreddzilla 19 August, 2016, 06:48:21 AM
Just one complaint - and I know this is a really geeky one - the Yorktown. It was just too much: technologically far, far in advance of anything we've seen the Federation build in any timeline. They must have started building it before the Enterprise was even launched... How?

So that was jarring. Felt like it was in the wrong film.

Gotta disagree.

Real world justification: ST is set in the future. It's about the wonders of space exploration. In order to generate that sense of wonder in 2016, you can't just use the space station from Trouble with Tribbles, or even DS9. To capture the ST feel it has to be fresh and mind-blowing: Yorktown is. Your reference to the Culture's GSVs is spot on. That's what this type of Starbase is. Impressive, eh? One of my big beefs about the first two films was that the interiors of almost everything looked like 20th C industrial mixed with an Apple store: Beyond gives us the futuristic imagery I crave.

In universe explanation: technology has been hugely affected by the Kelvin incident, and the future tech it revealed. The Enterprise herself is over twice the length of the original, in and around the size of the TNG Enterprise-D. The ridiculous Vengeance from Into Darkness dwarfs even that, by far the biggest Starfleet vessel we've ever seen. The loss of Vulcan and most of Starfleet 4 years earlier may have shaken people's sense of security of even the founder planets, and made emigration to the frontier seem less daunting, as well as increasing Starfleet' funding massively.

But mainly the wow factor.
I have to disagree with you on the Diverging timelines starting after the Kelvin incident. I would argue the timeline was altered after the events of 'FC' which explains why the ENT era tech looked so much sleeker and advanced than anything from TOS era, especially the look and size of the Kelvin looking more like it came from the ENT era than classic Trek.
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: TordelBack 19 August, 2016, 07:48:13 AM
I would argue the timeline was altered after the events of 'FC' which explains why the ENT era tech looked so much sleeker and advanced than anything from TOS era, especially the look and size of the Kelvin looking more like it came from the ENT era than classic Trek.

A good point. Although changes as a result of First Contact (initially the Borgised 24th C Earth, subsequently its restored version where Geordie and Riker had been the crew of the Phoenix) would seem to have taken place within the same closed timeline, rather than creating a second parallel stream. Had FC altered the technological development of the proto-Federation it would have had effects in the TNG Series - but we see Scotty's holo-Enterprise, Picard's model and Sisko's Tribble one are the original design. The Enterprise D had to return to its own altered future in order to see the Earth free of the Borg, not an alternate one.
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: Jim_Campbell 19 August, 2016, 08:44:43 AM
Quality nerding on this thread.
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: blackmocco 19 August, 2016, 05:17:50 PM
I wholeheartedly apologize in advance for being that guy.

The Enterprise E had to return to its own altered future in order to see the Earth free of the Borg, not an alternate one.
: Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
: TordelBack 19 August, 2016, 05:47:29 PM
I wholeheartedly apologize in advance for being that guy.

The Enterprise E had to return to its own altered future in order to see the Earth free of the Borg, not an alternate one.

This is a discussion forum for a 1970s boys' comic - we're all That Guy. I feel no shame being outgeeked by the nerdiest.