Jump to content

Star Trek Beyond (2016 Justin Lin) - The Big Bad Star Trek (X)III Thread


BLUMENKOHL

Recommended Posts

Care to back that up? Because I can count on two fingers how many films tried to 'boldly go', and I don't need fingers to tell you which of those two got good reception. I'd need all my fingers and thumbs to tell you how many ditched that premise and went for conflict-driven stories, with varying critical success. The mowt successful being Wrath of Khan and the least being Nemesis.

Rubbish.

Btw has there really ever been a Star Trek Story that was not conflict driven whether personal political intimate grand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The movies isn't the only place Star trek existed. There are 28 seasons of the show in existence with more varied and less cinematic stories.

Stefan every TNG episode is conflict driven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please don't put words into my mouth. I certainly do not remember ever saying that all the films were ripping off Wrath of Khan. What I said was that since Wrath of Khan, the stories have largely been centred around conflict instead of Star Trek's premise of boldly going. Of course there was conflict in the series, but it was not centralised into the story as much as the films do it. Regardless how many of those films had vengeance at the core of their stories, that still requires the story to be conflict-driven.

Regardless of whether the 'trek hardcore' like it or not, Abrams and Orci have made films that have had fairly decent critical reception. Granted that Into Darkness did not get as good reception as 2009 did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do agree that the two new films were "standard" sci-fi action fare for the most part. I did enjoy the first film, and even the second to a lesser extent (although it got lambasted by many Trek fans), but neither truly felt like Star Trek to me. There was no sense of discovery and the characterizations of the crew are off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both Star Trek (2009) and Into Darkness use elements most famously used in TWOK. But so did Insurrection and Nemesis.

Those felt more authentically like Star Trek though, despite their many failings.

It's not so much the stories as the style of the last 2 films which make then feel un-Star Trekkie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm being an old fart about this, but I completely understand the need to update the model a bit, so style isn't necessarily a deal breaker, but don't update what is ultimately the heart of mind of the show. Love of science, discovery, philosophy, and morality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Into Darkness did have some interesting questions about morality though.

My main issue with it as a film is that, as good as the cast actually is, putting them in a story that takes many elements from an TOS film or episode doesnt work. It just forces the comparisons.

Using Khan perse isnt really the problem, but using Khan, and then doing a so-called clever reverse version of the TWOK death scene just does...not...work.

We saw it before, there it felt real, in Into Darkness it felt like a gimmick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did they ever address how Admiral Marcus knew where to find Khan and his followers.? I surmise the Botany Bay was not mentioned in Into Darkness, and in Space Seed, it was a new discovery for Kirk to rediscover something that hadn't been lost that long ago. Are we to assume (retcon perhaps) that only the Nero incursion altered the timeline enough for Section 31 to track down Khan in this timeline?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, in the new timeline The Enterprise, the 5 year mission ect all happens much sooner. So it probably increased Starfleet's resources etc, meaning they traveled further far sooner, and Khan was found long before he was in the main timeline. The film might have specified details, but I can't recall.

Somehow I don't think the writers are all that fussed about explaining why things are different though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, in the film, Khan explains that Starfleet began 'aggressively' searching space and that Khan's ship was found adrift. The graphic novel expands on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did they ever address how Admiral Marcus knew where to find Khan and his followers.? I surmise the Botany Bay was not mentioned in Into Darkness, and in Space Seed, it was a new discovery for Kirk to rediscover something that hadn't been lost that long ago. Are we to assume (retcon perhaps) that only the Nero incursion altered the timeline enough for Section 31 to track down Khan in this timeline?

They explain this in the movie. Khan says that after the Nero situation, Starfleet began exploring deep space more intensely, and found the Botany Bay

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably a natural response from the events in the first film anyway since they got lit up by the much more advanced future Romulan ship, which also inform the plot of the second movie in a way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That single timeline infraction (OK, two when Spock Prime catches up) is meant to be the catalyst of all that is different about these characters, their technology, and their interactions, albeit stylized for the 2010s instead of the 1960s. For the most part, I buy it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God forbid should they actually do a movie with out a member of the original cast this time. I mean I could understand if Nimoy makes a re-appearance....but honest to god if this movie has Shatner (that's not part of a flashback) in it it'll suck...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God forbid should they actually do a movie with out a member of the original cast this time. I mean I could understand if Nimoy makes a re-appearance....but honest to god if this movie has Shatner (that's not part of a flashback) in it it'll suck...

Honestly, they should never had included Nimoy to begin with. As result, they have now entered a level of fan-service that should have been altogether avoided.

If you're going to reboot, then freaking reboot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem isnt finding a way to bring back Shatner. It's a sci-fi show. There are hundreds of ways.

The problem is why! Why would you bring him back? What's the point of doing that, other then providing a fan service?

Star Trek Generations already is something of a redundant film in "passing the torch" by having Kirk die. Something that didn't need to be done. The ending of Trek 6 is fine.

They have an very good new Kirk in Pine.

Why why why???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm perfectly fine with his appearance in Star Trek (2009). It makes sense for the character in where he was in the TNG era (trying to find common ground with the Romulans). And It's a neat time paradox concept.

The Into Darkness cameo was illogical, ironically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The problem isnt finding a way to bring back Shatner. It's a sci-fi show. There are hundreds of ways.

 

The problem is why! Why would you bring him back? What's the point of doing that, other then providing a fan service?

 

Star Trek Generations already is something of a redundant film in "passing the torch" by having Kirk die. Something that didn't need to be done. The ending of Trek 6 is fine.

 

They have an very good new Kirk in Pine.

 

Why why why???

William Shatner pressed Paramount to resurrect the character in the sequel to Star Trek Generations, but the studio had other ideas for how to use the Borg.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.