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

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Rive rong and Prosper!

[crocodile 7,984]

I was always wondering...how did Nixon do in China?

 

Karol

[Sir Hilary Bray 235]

I think this alternate reality's equivalent of the Star Trek VI quote might be 'only Clinton could go to Benghazi'.

[Cerebral Cortex 3,357]

Star Trek Beyond Deleted Scene Released And Blu-Ray Details Revealed

Deleted Scene: 

 

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

I finally got around to watching Star Trek Beyond.

 

The worst two hours of Star Trek ever produced. Worse than Spock's Brain. Worse than Code of Honor. Worse than the worst two hours of Voyager or Enterprise. Worse than Nemesis. Makes Into Darkness (the previous worst) look like The Wrath of Khan by comparison. Absolutely awful. It has nothing to do with Star Trek, and is a disgrace to the name.  The cast, who are mostly decent (with the exception of Quinto's portrayal of Spock as a psychopath serial killer in waiting) is mostly wasted. Which is a pity because Pine & Urban are mostly good. And the score is OK. The Yorktown is in fact a beautiful creation but otherwise the CGI...terrible. No sense at all that the characters are in the space their supposed to be occupying. Just a lot of running around screaming and stupid trying to be cool one liners. If at some point in the development process there was message about exploration and reaching the frontier and loneliness it was lost by the time it hit the screen. And the less said about the Beastie Boys as a crucial plot point in a Star Trek movie, the better.

 

Anyone who actually thinks this is a throwback to the style of TOS is either drunk or doesn't know the first thing about Star Trek. It's the Die Another Day of the Star Trek franchise...a complete and utter misunderstanding of the source material. 

 

I'm glad this movie failed, and I hope they never make another Trek in the Abramsverse. I'm going to take a shower and then put in Deep Space Nine.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Well fuck you!

[Wojo 2,453]

Be tolerant. Fresh minds, fresh ideas. 

[crocodile 7,984]

It's bit undercooked... but really enjoyable regardless.

 

Karol

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

I never ended up seeing it.

 

"I didn't forget. It just didn't seem to matter."

[Brónach 1,301]

The direction is sometimes less polished, the film goes waay too fast and Gia need to maybe be replaced, but otherwise I don't get the sense of seeing nothing at all like 09 or a bunch of noise like Into Darkness.

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

I didn't mind '09. It wasn't really Star Trek either, but in and of itself it was entertaining and coherent enough. This was just gibberish.

 

Even the scene with Spock looking at the photo of the original crew didn't have any pay off for me because I didn't feel like they earned the moment.  And as someone who's been a life long Trek fan, I was who that scene was aimed at, and other than brief moment of nostalgia seeing those faces, it did nothing for me. 

 

And other than supposedly playing out like an episode of the series, I really don't see how this is supposed to be likes TOS.  I get that's what they were aiming for, and I see people talk about the Spock/Bones banter and the fist fights as evidence of this, which to me misses the point. TOS earned the Spock/Bones relationship over three seasons, it wasn't just dropped in.  And there was absolutely none of the thoughtfulness of storytelling or exploration of big ideas that were the hallmark of TOS. Just another "revenge" story with a supposed twist that anyone who was paying attention (and you could forgive them if they weren't ) could have figured out in the first third of the film. It might have meant something if the information had been revealed earlier...it would have given Krall some depth as a villain. As it is he's just another one dimensional caricature under a ton of makeup.  

 

The plot was just inane, with one fake, contrived obstacle after another.  The stuff about Krall sucking the life out of people made absolutely no sense and was dropped as a plot point almost as soon as it was introduced. It also had a surprising amount of techno babble for one of these films. And then the destruction of the Enterprise...as an action piece it was incredibly impressive...spectacular even. Did anyone have an emotional reaction to it at all? Where was the emotional punch? The ship being destroyed was an afterthought, a plot device.  And who cares anyone because here's a new one.  

 

I don't want to be entirely negative. As I said, the Yorktown and swarm were impressive. The Yorktown in particular was the single best depiction of a space station I've ever seen in a Trek film or otherwise. Imagine if they would have been able to realise DS9 this way (were it not a Cardassian station).  Urban and Pine are very good in a generally strong cast. Urban has McCoy down cold, and Pine definitely seemed like an older and wiser Kirk, as he should be. The score was a little over the top, but given the story more than suitable. I appreciated at least the attempt to focus a little on character interaction, even if it didn't always work and got lost in CGI messiness.  The idea that a lot of survivors were living on this planet and formed some kind of waring tribal society was interesting but never explored. And the movie actually wasn't half bad up to the moment they entered the Nebula. I liked the quieter stuff about how the crew has lived and adapted during the mission. Though the stuff about both Kirk and Spock planning on leaving the Enterprise seems forced and contrived...a couple lines threw in so they could take them back later.

  

It's one of the few times I just got angry and annoyed watching a movie. The only way I'd want to see another one of the films in this universe would be to destroy it by either returning to the original timeline or firmly establishing that this will become the alternate universe with the evil Federation.

1 hour ago, Selina Kyle said:

I never ended up seeing it.

 

"I didn't forget. It just didn't seem to matter."

Thank you, Odo.

But your opinion was not solicited.

[Wojo 2,453]

Hmm, it would have been neat to bring the Abramsverse into the classic mirror universe, except that the TV show Enterprise visited that alternate reality in the century prior to the Kelvin incursion. And at least two of the Abramsverse films made direct references to the Enterprise TV show. 

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

Well, they made references to things that happened in Enterprise anyway.  But I dig the idea that Nero created the mirror universe, and eventually that's what these characters and this Federation will become. Yeah, it's messy in terms of continuity, but what else is new.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Star Trek actually has a continuity that holds up rather well.

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

Generally speaking, I think that's true.  At least at lot more thought has been put into it than just about any other franchise. Still, they bend it when they need to or when it's not convenient. 

 

In any event, given that we're talking about the Nero timeline/Mirror universe, I think they'd have quite a bit of leeway. Not that anything like that would ever actually happen. Alas, like Westerosworld, it's a dream that's never meant to be.

[Brónach 1,301]

References to that show work well given that it's canon to the Kelvin timeline. Which is why Into Darkness is weird.

[Wojo 2,453]

Into Darkness magically turned Khan Singh from a Latin Asian to a pasty Englishman and gave his blood magical abilities that should have transformed Starfleet medicine forever, making Khan's kin more valuable than anything. Poof. Forgotten. 

[Jay 37,287]

Indeed. That's just bad writing. 

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

10 hours ago, WojinPA said:

Into Darkness magically turned Khan Singh from a Latin Asian to a pasty Englishman and gave his blood magical abilities that should have transformed Starfleet medicine forever, making Khan's kin more valuable than anything. Poof. Forgotten. 

Not forgotten. Carol Marcus is off somewhere working on it.

[crumbs 14,301]

Just saw this movie and loved it! A vast improvement on STID (which I hated) and WOW, that Justin Lin dude can sure direct an action sequence!

 

[Trent B 337]

On 10/7/2016 at 5:00 PM, Nick1066 said:

I finally got around to watching Star Trek Beyond.

 

What an absolute piece of garbage. The worst two hours of Star Trek ever produced. Worse than Spock's Brain. Worse than Code of Honor. Worse than the worst two hours of Voyager or Enterprise. Worse than Nemesis. Makes Into Darkness (the previous worst) look like The Wrath of Khan by comparison. Absolutely awful. It has nothing to do with Star Trek, and is a disgrace to the name.  The cast, who are mostly decent (with the exception of Quinto's portrayal of Spock as a psychopath serial killer in waiting) is mostly wasted. Which is a pity because Pine & Urban are mostly good. And the score is OK. The Yorktown is in fact a beautiful creation but otherwise the CGI...terrible. No sense at all that the characters are in the space their supposed to be occupying. Just a lot of running around screaming and stupid trying to be cool one liners. If at some point in the development process there was message about exploration and reaching the frontier and loneliness it was lost by the time it hit the screen. And the less said about the Beastie Boys as a crucial plot point in a Star Trek movie, the better.

 

Anyone who actually thinks this is a throwback to the style of TOS is either drunk or doesn't know the first thing about Star Trek. It's the Die Another Day of the Star Trek franchise...a complete and utter misunderstanding of the source material. 

 

I'm glad this movie failed, and I hope they never make another Trek in the Abramsverse. I'm going to take a shower and then put in Deep Space Nine.

 

I'm sorry but you're no Trekkie if you think this film was complete garbage especially listing Voyager, Enterprise and Nemesis as garbage too.

 

Star Trek Beyond is a good film and definitely has a lot of homage to TOS and is by far the best of the three reboots.

 

I was born in 81, grew up watching old re-runs of TOS.  Watched the pilot to series finale for TNG, DS9, Voyager AND Enterprise and love them all.  Although I will admit didn't care for Enterprise during the initial airing but after re-watching the series a few years later online I grew to appreciate and liked quite a bit of it especially Season 4.  I love all of the first 10 films and do like Star Trek 09 as well as Beyond.  I didn't car etoo much for STID that much since it was essentially a re-write of my favorite movie.  But I am definitely a Trekkie...

 

Like I said sorry but you're no Trekkie.....

 

 

On 10/9/2016 at 6:42 AM, crumbs said:

Just saw this movie and loved it! A vast improvement on STID (which I hated) and WOW, that Justin Lin dude can sure direct an action sequence!

 

 

I liked PARTS of STID but ya Beyond definitely was a vast improvement over STID.

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

On 10/11/2016 at 12:31 PM, Trent B said:

 

I'm sorry but you're no Trekkie if you think this film was complete garbage especially listing Voyager, Enterprise and Nemesis as garbage too.

 

Star Trek Beyond is a good film and definitely has a lot of homage to TOS and is by far the best of the three reboots.

 

I was born in 81, grew up watching old re-runs of TOS.  Watched the pilot to series finale for TNG, DS9, Voyager AND Enterprise and love them all.  Although I will admit didn't care for Enterprise during the initial airing but after re-watching the series a few years later online I grew to appreciate and liked quite a bit of it especially Season 4.  I am definitely a Trekkie...

 

Like I said sorry but you're no Trekkie.....

 

I liked PARTS of STID but ya it definitely was a vast improvement over STID.

Oh, give me a break. LOL...."you're not a Trekkie."

 

OK, sure. I'm sorry, but you're not a Trekkie if you think this film had anything to do with what makes Star Trek great. And you if you think this film was great Star Trek, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Star Trek has been.

 

That said, I agree that the film tried to be a "homage" to TOS, I get that. I just think it failed in that respect.

 

Finally, I'm mostly throwing your own words back to you with this is "you're not a Trekkie" nonsense. What a ridiculous thing to say. I've been watching Trek longer than you have, and have seen every hour of it produced, more than once. It's precisely because I'm a Trekkie that I don't like it. Raise your expectations or they're going to keep feeding you junk food while you convince yourself it's filet mignon.  You, as a Trekkie, deserve better. 

 

That said, I wouldn't say you're "not a Trekkie" for liking it. I'd just say you're a Trekkie who doesn't understand what makes Star Trek special.

 

 

[Disco Stu 15,495]

TREKKIE TREKKIE TREKKIE TREKKIE PITANG ZOOM BOING ZWOM

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

We must bicker amongst ourselves! That is exactly what the Star Wars fans want!

[Wojo 2,453]

Special Star Trek, from the Roddenberry to Berman and Braga era, has been dead for over eleven years. It will never come back in new form, unless you want to watch fan films. The best you can hope for is selective amnesia when rewatching the good seasons. Until then, this was at worst the second best of the reboot movies. But if calling it garbage makes you sleep better, keep on keeping on. 

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

On 10/11/2016 at 2:22 PM, WojinPA said:

But if calling it garbage makes you sleep better, keep on keeping on. 

 

 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

[Pieter Boelen 740]

8 hours ago, Stefancos said:

We must bicker amongst ourselves! That is exactly what the Star Wars fans want!

YES. Yes, we do! Mwuhahahaaa!

 

Also... I like Star Trek Beyond. And most other Star Trek stuff.

Oops?

[Brónach 1,301]

21 hours ago, Trent B said:

 

I liked PARTS of STID but ya Beyond definitely was a vast improvement over STID.

 

I liked Spock and Bones and the Sulu as Captain scene and the Uhura speaking Klingon scene. But overall those are random moments that could easily have been in a much more fun and interesting film. Into Darkness is one of the dullest Trek films.

[Giftheck 916]

For me, the issue Into Darkness suffers is a disconnect to the two films it is bracketed by. Beyond does not reference Into Darkness at all, beyond being in the middle of the five-year mission mentioned there (and let's be fair, we could easily have insinuated they got the five year mission after the events of the 2009 film, and if you bring up the fact the Enterprise has been physically changed, you could argue that an off-screen refit happened in the three years).

 

The one change I might have made to Beyond is the positioning of the events. I'd have had it at the end of the five-year mission as opposed to three years in, with the Enterprise making a refuel stop at Yorktown on its way back to Earth. That way, the Enterprise has already completed the mission that gave its TOS counterpart its legendary status.

[Brónach 1,301]

Beyond is sort what I expected the sequel to 2009 to be.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Its what they should have done in the first place.

[Giftheck 916]

Indeed. I actually feel Beyond was written that way deliberately, as if to say "Well, it is technically canon to this film, but if you want to ignore Into Darkness, you can."

 

I liked Into Darkness but I still see it for what it is: trying to take too much from what is invariably a better film. I have no objections to them using Khan but it needed to be its own thing. They failed to do that and from a story point of view, the whole film was made pointless. They wanted to hit several things from Wrath of Khan but it was implemented in such a rushed, haphazard way. So you want to kill Kirk off? What's the point if within ten minutes of that happening, you bring him back to life anyway? It was like the film had to rush to a conclusion. Dare I say it, but in some ways it was almost Star-Wars-Prequelesque in that regard.

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

1 hour ago, Gistech said:

So you want to kill Kirk off? What's the point if within ten minutes of that happening, you bring him back to life anyway? It was like the film had to rush to a conclusion. 

Yeah. I felt the same when they destroyed the Enterprise in Beyond. At least they waited until the end of Star Trek IV before they gave the crew a new ship after it was destroyed in III. Is there a single person who watched Beyond who didn't know they'd get a new ship at the end?  Especially when the telegraphed it early in the film? And did anyone have an emotional reaction when they destroyed this Enterprise? Did anyone care about this Enterprise at all?  I won't be surprised to hear the new ship has Transwarp drive.

 

Star Trek has a habit of killing people and destroying ships only to bring them back, but at least they usually let it settle a bit to give the event some emotional weight. It's almost as if in these new films, particularly the second two, they're just ticking boxes, and again showing a profound misunderstanding about what made the material effective in the first place. 

[Brónach 1,301]

It had the nacelles in an ugly position, it had to be replaced.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Yes!

[Pieter Boelen 740]

7 hours ago, Gistech said:

The one change I might have made to Beyond is the positioning of the events. I'd have had it at the end of the five-year mission as opposed to three years in, with the Enterprise making a refuel stop at Yorktown on its way back to Earth. That way, the Enterprise has already completed the mission that gave its TOS counterpart its legendary status.

I was indeed quite surprised by that bit. I always figured the five-year mission would be "five years in unexplored space".

But apparently they could go for "shore leave" in the middle, which seems quite massively convenient.

 

It's like Columbus would have gotten some nice shore leave halfway to the Americas.

Or Magellan taking some "quiet time" and go back home for a bit during his around-the-world trip.

That's not how exploration trips are supposed to work!!!

 

While I definitely consider Star Trek Beyond the PROPER sequel to the 2009 film, the one thing I am disappointed by is that they went with this story already.

They could've fit at least one movie DURING the five-year mission with actual space exploration!

Now we got a tiny bit of that, but I was really hoping for an entire movie's worth....

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Sigh. Always fun to see non-trekkies discussing things like this.

 

The original crew had shore leave in TOS much like how they did in Beyond. Even on a deep space mission they must occasionally restock supplies, make repairs, take on new crew.

 

Pieter, as a sea farer this can hardly be a surprise?

[Pieter Boelen 740]

25 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

Always fun to see non-trekkies discussing things like this.

Yup, I'm not actually a Trekkie and I'm perfectly fine with that!

 

But I do quite like Star Trek. And Star Wars. And Stargate. And Starship Troopers.

 

25 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

The original crew had shore leave in TOS much like how they did in Beyond. Even on a deep space mission they must occasionally restock supplies, make repairs, take on new crew.

True. When I watched TOS, it also didn't really seem like they were truly very far from home for five years straight.

 

25 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

Pieter, as a sea farer this can hardly be a surprise?

As I said, if you're doing an "around the world trip", you don't turn back when you got halfway there.

So why would you turn back before the halfway point if you're supposed to be on a "five-year around the galaxy trip to get as far as you can get"?

If you can go back to home or a familiar base of some kind after three years,

then to me it isn't a "five year mission", it is a "three year mission" followed by a "two year mission".

 

It depends on what the concept of the story is, of course. They could have really "gone where no man has gone before" for five years straight.

You cover much more distance that way than if you return back to base once every now and then.

 

This is assuming the Star Trek universe is "infinitely large" and the warp drives not SO good

that they can transport you to anywhere inside that universe within a limited amount of time.

 

Resupplying could be handled with the replicators. Might also need to somehow refuel in unknown space.

And if you run into some friendly aliens, that's a good spot for shore leave.

That's how the explorers of old dealt with long trips on Earth as well.

 

For this reason, I really like the concept behind Voyager.

The execution wasn't always the best and it didn't quite feel to me like they were as far from home as they were supposed to be.

But the general idea was a good one.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

33 minutes ago, Pieter_Boelen said:

As I said, if you're doing an "around the world trip", you don't turn back when you got halfway there.

So why would you turn back before the halfway point if you're supposed to be on a "five-year around the galaxy trip to get as far as you can get"?

If you can go back to home or a familiar base of some kind after three years,

then to me it isn't a "five year mission", it is a "three year mission" followed by a "two year mission".

 

I don't really think the point of the 5 year mission way to "get as far as you can get". It's about expanding the known frontier, which you don't just do by pointing your ship at the horizon and going for it. It's more like a back and forth sweeping motion along the already established territories. To be the first on the front line, but occasionally going back for repairs, supplies etc.

36 minutes ago, Pieter_Boelen said:

Resupplying could be handled with the replicators. Might also need to somehow refuel in unknown space.

And if you run into some friendly aliens, that's a good spot for shore leave.

That's how the explorers of old dealt with long trips on Earth as well.

 

True, but TOS's analogy with seafaring history has always been a bit later than that. With many borders already established and outposts set up. The Enterprise went beyond those outposts naturally, but not to the extent that they were completely out of range for prolonged periods.

 

Voyager's premise was excellent, but usually not very well executed. The replicators always kept working, and despite the pounding the ship occasionally took, it looks as good as new in the next episode.

[Wojo 2,453]

ALL Star Trek series that stayed near Earth made time to come back "home" from time to time. Voyager was the exception, obviously.

 

The Mission Statement

The famous "Wagon Train to the stars" concept that is often cited as Roddenberry's basic template for Star Trek was stated right there in his original pitch, along with the "parallel worlds" theory that humanoid life similar to our own, even in terms of cultural development, could evolve on millions of planets throughout the galaxy.

The mission parameters also stayed remarkably the same: a five-year stretch, with the primary duties being Earth security, scientific investigation, and assistance or aid to Earth colonies. Landings and contact would be confined to "planets approximating Earth-Mars conditions, life and social orders.

http://www.denofgeek.com/us/tv/star-trek/258274/star-trek-how-the-original-series-changed-from-pitch-to-execution

[Pieter Boelen 740]

47 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

I don't really think the point of the 5 year mission way to "get as far as you can get". It's about expanding the known frontier, which you don't just do by pointing your ship at the horizon and going for it. It's more like a back and forth sweeping motion along the already established territories. To be the first on the front line, but occasionally going back for repairs, supplies etc.

Both are possible, of course. You can either expand the frontier in all directions, but not by that far. Or go as far as you can go in one direction.

Though if you want to go in all directions, there would be no need for the mission to be five years. Could be several one-year ones.

Or it could be several consecutive one-year ones with multiple ships at the same time.

 

That is why I always assumed it was supposed to be a single mission away from everything familiar.

But as you say, that was indeed never quite the case. Which is fine to be sure.

 

47 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

True, but TOS's analogy with seafaring history has always been a bit later than that. With many borders already established and outposts set up. The Enterprise went beyond those outposts naturally, but not to the extent that they were completely out of range for prolonged periods.

I wonder... is Star Trek Enterprise more like truly going into the unknown with borders not yet established?

So far I haven't watched much of that, so I'm curious. It's earlier in the timeline, after all....

 

48 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

Voyager's premise was excellent, but usually not very well executed. The replicators always kept working, and despite the pounding the ship occasionally took, it looks as good as new in the next episode.

Indeed it would be quite interesting if events from one episode would have repercussions on the subsequent ones.

There's a really good show hiding in that concept!

 

14 minutes ago, WojinPA said:

a five-year stretch, with the primary duties being Earth security, scientific investigation, and assistance or aid to Earth colonies.

Oh wow; seriously? I had no clue that was supposed to be in there.

That is really very different from the "five-year voyage in the unknown" that I always envisioned.

Does match far more closely with the actual series, of course.

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

As someone else mentioned, Voyager actually had the most intriguing premise of all the shows, but arguably the weakest execution (though I wouldn't argue with anyone who said Enterprise was worse)

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

And Deep Space Nine had the most puzzling premise that was eventually executed very strongly. 

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

Indeed. After a shaky start, some decent 2nd season episodes and a much improved 3rd season,  from season 4 onwards DS9 was not only the best Trek,  but some of the best television ever. And way ahead of its time in terms of serialized storytelling on TV. 

 

There were definitely clunker episodes, especially early on,  but when it was at its best nothing was better. 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine is better than everything!

[Wojo 2,453]

That's very apparent when following that series with a Voyager binge session. I miss DS9. 

[Marian Schedenig 8,173]

On 8.10.2016 at 1:58 PM, Nick1066 said:

I don't want to be entirely negative.

 

I didn't hate it. In fact, I enjoyed a lot of it. Which is curious, looking back, because I mostly remember bad things about it. It certainly got more problematic as it went on, and most of the finale was crap. I'm with you on pretty much all the individual points you bring up.

 

Beyond was probably the worst of all Trek films so far, and definitely the worst of the JJ universe.

 

We're also on the same page re DS9. You're worthy of using my old Tolkien avatar.