Star Trek: Beyond (July 22, 2016)

I'm a huge TOS Star Trek fan and have seen and enjoyed all the movies.

I thought Beyond was the weakest of the reboot films. The actors are mostly great and truly inhabit their characters, particularly Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, and Karl Urban and I really enjoyed the dialogue. But I thought the film was short on plot. I would have preferred a little more story and a little less action.

 

That's because they are shooting for the South American and Asian market where language barriers prevent character development from reaching the masses.

‘Star Trek Beyond’ Must Score With Foreign Crowds to Justify Sequels »

 

That was exactly my reaction. I really liked this movie and I'm surprised it currently has a lower RT rating than Into Darkness.

After that scene I thought to myself, "Did I just see what I think I saw?"

 

I saw this film on Friday, and I felt the same way I felt about the other 2 films in the reboot series. It is a well made production, and good entertainment, with the Star Trek label attached to it. Whether they are good representatives of the Star Trek series is very subjective and it will be the subject of discussions for years to come, joining the list of many films or TV series that people feel should have been left well enough alone and not rebooted, but there you have it.

 

Where have I heard that before? Sigh.

 

You're correct - Spock gets more emotional than usual because he'd lost blood and was a bit loopy.

IIRC, McCoy makes a comment along those lines...

 

I loved the first film in the rebooted series, found the second one fatally misguided, and hated Beyond with a passion.

Hire a director of Dumb Guy films for a franchise, and you get a Dumb Guy film regardless. Ugh.

Great cast, but those Spock lines were awful, and some cleverly conceived action scenes were ruined by awful directing and editing. Without those flaws, I might have forgiven some of the weak effects, but...

Shalom, y'all!

L. Bangs

 

So was the much derided first trailer an accurate summary and was Simon Pegg full of it (with his happy talk about the film)?

 

A 90 second trailer isn't capable of summarizing a two hour film. However, for the sake of saving us yet another debate on these films, you're not going to like if you see it. You didn't like the first two, so there's not reason to believe that you will like this one. Is there a fair amount of action in it? Of course. It's a summer blockbuster film. But there is a Trek story there. It's balanced. Honestly, my favorite parts of the film were the non-action scenes. I agree with some of the comments in this thread that the action scenes were cut so fast that it was difficult to tell what was going on.

The series should remedy some of the complaints about contemporary Trek being amped up action stories. Evolving plots and characterization is difficult to achieve in a two hour film.

 

Yeah I doubt you'll like it. I enjoyed it. It reminded me of an action driven episode of the series with a much bigger budget and more action of course. Film Trek is distinct from TV Trek though focusing on a more operatic styled film than the series (which plays more like a series of plays).


I felt the script by Simon Pegg had the appropriate fan service there and enjoyed the film but there were some major issues with motivation for me and also illogical story elements.

As a side note I liked the second Trek film and don't get what offended everyone about it (well, except for the fourth act).

Still enjoyed it. It's not as bad as the worst Trek films but also not quite as good as the best. Visually though it was pretty stunning.

 

I had no issue with it whatsoever. I happen to agree with Pegg's take on it that if they introduced a new character who was gay, it would have seemed like it was pandering to the audience and would have seemed politically correct.

Yes, Sulu has been shown as being heterosexual but maybe he was bi all along. We don't know the inner lives of these characters and I thought it was kind of daring. They didn't make a big deal about it.

Seems a lot of folks were offended because it didn't fit Roddenberry's original vision but who knows what Roddenberry would have thought?

 

I liked Into Darkness as well. It was similar in tone to Undiscovered Country. I just think people were miffed about the Khan angle, and I understand that. It would have been a better film if Cumberbatch had played an original character. I like the themes explored in the film.

 

I liked "Beyond" just fine, but probably not as much as I liked the first two reboot movies. I think what might be hurting the franchise is that these are all one-and-done movies. They don't seem to be building on anything, and this third movie really had a "been there, done that" vibe for me. With all the movie universes and quality long-form television going on, I don't think you can just do stand-alone sequels anymore.

 

I'm not sure about that. I'd hate to have feature length movies being turned into serials. Some movies are already doing this and suffering for it, like the last two The Hunger Games movies or The Hobbit, which padded the plot out over 2 (or more) movies.

The chief problem is focusing too much on the familiar and what has been done before. I read a review on Ars Technica which called it a by-the-numbers action flick with a zero-stakes plot:

"More so than the other reboot films, Star Trek Beyond does the series a great disservice by focusing on the known and thus leaving discovery, personality, and stakes in the dust".

 

Gene Roddenberry originally wanted Deanna Troi to be a four breasted hermaphadite before being talked down from it (it's true...Google it.), so we should never assume what he would have thought.

I thought the Sulu reveal was well handled. It was very matter of fact and never emphasized for sensational effect. As others have said,he could just be bi,which would not invalidate previous canon. The only time they referred directly to Sulu's orientation one way or another that I can recall was in TMP when he got all flustered around Lieutenant Ilea.

 

I had no issue with Cumberbatch as Khan,especially when it was explained in some other material that he was genetically altered in appearance by Admiral Marcus to hide his true identity from Starfleet,as Khan was a well known figure in history,but as it was never explained in the film,so thus the white washing allegations from fans. In hindsight though he could have been another member of Khan's crew and it wouldn't have changed things too drastically plot wise, saving Khan for a future film and perhaps even a proper retelling of Space Seed.

My main issue was the Kirk dying/ Spock yelling "Khan!'/ resurrecting Kirk with magic Khan blood of the last half hour or so. I was loving the movie until then...then it all fell apart.

 

1. No, it wasn't.
2. No, he wasn't.

Unless you're hopelessly cynical (or just closed-minded) to the point of near brain-death.

It's a fun movie, no more, no less.

 

"Beyond" was fine, but there was nothing there I hadn't seen before in the previous two movies. With 50 years of Star Trek stuff to mine, update and put a new spin on, I expected more.

 

Saw it last night with my Son. It was alright. Good but not great.
Better then the last one but still left me wanting something more (not sure what exactly).

 

Something that the new series will deliver, perhaps.

 

I'd love that. I got a fair amount of that from the new movie, but still.

Trouble is all I've heard from the other Trek fans is "they changed it now it sucks"

So what do ya do?

 

Just got back. Not as good as the last but it was ok for 2hrs.

 

Didn't know who played Jaylah until I looked it up. Gazelle from Kingsman: The Secret Servive.

 

I think those are also the extreme fans that didn't realize that it needed to be revitalized and that the films are always different experiences compared to the TV shows--they are designed for different audiences, have different beats, dramatic structure, etc.

 

Am I the only one that remembers when Rodenberry announced that "TNG" would feature gay characters on the show and then . . . they didn't. He died shortly after and it was never mentioned again.