Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 

Author Topic: Star Trek Beyond (2016)  (Read 6923 times)

von Boom

  • Member
  • Battle Hardened War Robot
  • ****
  • Posts: 3129
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
« Reply #45 on: 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.

Mattofthespurs

  • Member
  • Posting Machine
  • ***
  • Posts: 1964
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
« Reply #46 on: 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.

Mattofthespurs

  • Member
  • Posting Machine
  • ***
  • Posts: 1964
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
« Reply #47 on: 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.

Tiplodocus

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 7527
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
« Reply #48 on: 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
Be excellent to each other. And party on!

Magnetica

  • Member
  • Posting Machine
  • ***
  • Posts: 1547
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
« Reply #49 on: 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.
« Last Edit: 01 August, 2016, 11:52:03 PM by Magnetica »

Mardroid

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 6590
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
« Reply #50 on: 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.

Professor Bear

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 7353
  • "Why, Black Dynamite? WHY?"
    • View Profile
    • Your Friends and Neighbors
Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
« Reply #51 on: 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.

blackmocco

  • Member
  • Posting Machine
  • ***
  • Posts: 1460
    • View Profile
    • ART!!!
Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
« Reply #52 on: 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.
"...and it was here in this blighted place, he learned to live again."

www.BLACKMOCCO.com
www.BLACKMOCCO.blogspot.com

Dandontdare

  • Member
  • CALL-ME-KENNETH!
  • *****
  • Posts: 10338
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
« Reply #53 on: 02 August, 2016, 03:06:17 PM »
Not a classic by any means but bright, breast, fun and dumb in equal measure.

 :o

Jim_Campbell

  • 2000AD Creator
  • CALL-ME-KENNETH!
  • *****
  • Posts: 12987
  • Letterer to the Stars! (and PJ)
    • View Profile
    • deviantArt Gallery
Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
« Reply #54 on: 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.
Stupidly Busy Letterer: Samples. | Blog
Less-Awesome-Artist: Scribbles.

PsychoGoatee

  • Member
  • Prog Stacking Droid
  • ***
  • Posts: 974
  • Drokk!!
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
« Reply #55 on: 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)

Stan

  • Member
  • Posting Machine
  • ***
  • Posts: 1013
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
« Reply #56 on: 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.

Stan

  • Member
  • Posting Machine
  • ***
  • Posts: 1013
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
« Reply #57 on: 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:

Tiplodocus

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 7527
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
« Reply #58 on: 06 August, 2016, 07:16:42 PM »
Breezy.

My autocorrect needs a ducking food dicking.
Be excellent to each other. And party on!

TordelBack

  • Member
  • CALL-ME-KENNETH!
  • *****
  • Posts: 26233
  • Thunder Chops is dragged off, gnashing...
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek Beyond (2016)
« Reply #59 on: 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!
« Last Edit: 07 August, 2016, 01:36:04 AM by Tordelback »