Star Trek Beyond | 7.22.2016 | Not an Oscar winner.

[Arlborn]

5 minutes ago, FilmBuff said:

I actually liked the character BC played, and he was the best part of the movie for me. It was certainly a good movie, but could've been so much better!! This one looks lame.

 

Agreed on the first part but this one looks awesome to me. Truly awesome.

 

 

[kowhite]

Just now, Arlborn said:

Agreed on the first part but this one looks awesome to me. Truly awesome.

 

 

 

I do think it looks good.  Like if Star Trek Insuurection (ok, which I enjoyed) was well shot and not filmed in some valley in Southern California. 

[Newbie]

59 minutes ago, Telemachos said:

 

...wait wait wait, are you saying Enterprise and Voyager are good?

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

Actually I really like Enterprise, and would be very positive about it if i could cut about 15 episodes off its run, and While Voyager is my least liked Trek, I still didn't find it to be bad tv. I mean seriously the range of what is produced as television is goes to the utter terrible to great, for the most part I found Voyager fairly average.  But hell I love DS9 and think season 1 is largely forgettable, that I could loose a third of its 3rd season and a third of its 7th season.  I fell in love with TOS as a child and really disliked almost everything from its third season (that's third of its material well  almost).  I love TNG and I think it has the worst first and 2nd season of any Trek series (minus again the animated which I seriously don't like), and i could easily lose 2/3rd of its 7th season.

 

And each series probably has at least ten episodes that i think are better then the very best Star Trek movie (khan in my mind).  For the most part I don't think Trek has had very successfully created films.  It just has never really been their strong suit, and why should it be, its not what it was ever conceived as.

 

Out of all the Trek films I would only recommend khan, voyage Home (general audience seemed to really like, I am far more critical), first Contact, star Trek (2009) and Into darkness.  Out of twelve those are the only ones I wouldn't be embarrassed to have invited causal viewers to watch with me.  For my local Trek friends I would only recommend Khan, First Contact, and Trek 2009.

[FilmBuff]

Star Trek voyager was my shit back in the day!

[Newbie]

21 minutes ago, kowhite said:

 

Thats what's annoying, it was a good villain!  But it was not Khan.  That did not work.  Well, neither did magic blood.  I honestly let out a hearty laugh when Spock screamed Khan.  Ha, no.  No.  Still, solid flick.  But that, no.

why does the magic blood bother people, its taken literally from the original episode Space Seed.  When Khan's Stasis Tube malfunctions, McCoy talks about something inside of him is whats keeping him alive (not McCoy's medical science).  It's the genetic factors in his blood, that have greatly enhanced restorative abilities.

 

I mean there are things not to like about the film (again with the interstellar beaming, why do you need a ship if you can beam across the quadrant?  Or look again we are the only ship in the area, something in about 7 of the 12 films).

 

Why is it so hard for people to hear Spock yell out Khan's name?  We already know that in the Prime universe Spock was more emotional when serving with Pike then later on the 5 year mission, and so many other powerful events had damaged this character compared to the original Spock.  Death of his mother.  Death of probably billions of Vulcan's, experience through meld the death of his mentor in Pike, days earlier.  And we know if Spock loses his emotional control he is more emotional then a typical human.  If you can believe he has lost his emotional control its entirely.  Did it bother you when it yelled out when attacking Kirk, when Kirk deliberately broke his emotional control after the lose of Vulcan and he is mother?  Its the very same concept.

[kowhite]

Because, despite the drama of that scene being well played...it's also a very obvious call back, one to a scene based around a character who really is nothing like the OG.  What could've been great drama was just so obvious fan service it completely undercut any of the drama.  And...I laughed.

 

Im glad that worked for you.  And on the whole, STD worked for me.  I mean, STiD.  But that shit was...well, silly.  The magic blood?  Honestly it just seemed too convenient.  In its favor...I didn't want Kirk to actually die (cause then part 3 would slog through another retread)...so I suppose it doesn't bother me that much.  But it's also silly.  

 

Honestly it only bothers me cause I really think most of that movie was really good.  Even if it wasn't the plot I wanted, it was good.  

[Dementeleus]

8 minutes ago, Newbie said:

why does the magic blood bother people?

 

Because the movie uses it as a deus ex machina to resurrect Kirk 5 minutes after he died (in screen time). It's absolutely terrible as a dramatic construct. 

 

9 minutes ago, Newbie said:

Why is it so hard for people to hear Spock yell out Khan's name? 

 

Because that entire scene is played as a nudge-nudge-wink-wink to WRATH OF KHAN, so much so that it's really distracting and pulls you out of any inherent drama in the scene. It ends up feeling like a skit where the idea is to see how many references to the original you can riff on.

 

I liked STID -- quite a bit, for the most part -- but the two moments you mention were absolutely awful, IMO. My wife (who's less familiar with Trek minutae than me) didn't really mind the Spock/Kirk scene. It was nails-on-a-chalkboard bad for me. 

[kowhite]

3 minutes ago, Telemachos said:

 

Because the movie uses it as a deus ex machina to resurrect Kirk 5 minutes after he died (in screen time). It's absolutely terrible as a dramatic construct. 

 

 

Because that entire scene is played as a nudge-nudge-wink-wink to WRATH OF KHAN, so much so that it's really distracting and pulls you out of any inherent drama in the scene. It ends up feeling like a skit where the idea is to see how many references to the original you can riff on.

 

I liked STID -- quite a bit, for the most part -- but the two moments you mention were absolutely awful, IMO. My wife (who's less familiar with Trek minutae than me) didn't really mind the Spock/Kirk scene. It was nails-on-a-chalkboard bad for me. 

 

This man...he spits truth.  He knows.

[MrPink]

[filmlover]

6 minutes ago, MrPink said:

Yum pizza.

[Arlborn]

It seems it's a good thing I've never watched any of the Trek movies beyond these new ones. I was taken in when he yelled Khan, I thought it was a good scene.

[trifle]

19 minutes ago, Telemachos said:

 

Because the movie uses it as a deus ex machina to resurrect Kirk 5 minutes after he died (in screen time). It's absolutely terrible as a dramatic construct. 

 

 

Because that entire scene is played as a nudge-nudge-wink-wink to WRATH OF KHAN, so much so that it's really distracting and pulls you out of any inherent drama in the scene. It ends up feeling like a skit where the idea is to see how many references to the original you can riff on.

 

 

Yeah. 

 

I still liked the movie a lot, but I liked the previous one a lot better.  What REALLY excites me about THIS one is people who have seen it saying it might even be better than that first (of the trilogy) one.

 

[junkshop36]

2 hours ago, Newbie said:

What a load of crap.  There has never been a scientific poll of US diehard Trek fans and their reactions  to Into darkness.  NEVER.  There was one convention where one part of said convention was polled and they picked it.  But that is in no way shape or form a valid representation off Diehard Star Trek fans feelings.

 

Go the treks one off the largest message boards for star Trek fans, and out of the 25,000 members only a handful are die hard haters of Into darkness.  Look at the various rankings of the films done over the last three years and rarely is it last, usually ranks 5th or higher.  

 

Typically threads that come out asking about how bad Into Darkness is, get overwhelming responses saying that opinion isn't very common in the broader community.  Sure there are those that do hate it, and some of them go on and on and on about it, but in my 43 active years of remembering Trek (watched it since 68, but don't actually have memories of it until 720, haters and there have been haters of various Treks starting with season 3 of TOS, to those who hated TNG, to hated DS9, to hating Voyager, to hating Ent, to hating and film, for change in film regime. Those people tend to be loud and get their opinions out there, but they never really seem to be representative of what fans think.

 

It reminds me of when Trek 2009 aired, it started at 7pm, and a large group of local trekkers, trekkies got together and we were asked by our local NBC affiliate if we would stick around for an interview about the film.  We did an interview as a group and then broke into smaller groups for more details.  Well, the general thoughts were that the film was exceedingly enjoyable even if it had a few flaws.  Know what made the news, the 2 people who were utterly negative about the film and thought it betrayed Trek's legacy. 2 out of over 40 people, and those two were the only two used in the interview.

 

Damn! Ok man, chill out. It's cool. I didn't know it was just some little poll done at some small convention lol. 

 

I love Trek. Not as much as Star Wars but it's pretty high up there for me. Wrath of Khan is my favorite Trek movie and one of my all time favorite movies period. 

 

TNG was really good for the most part. 

 

I loved Deep Space Nine after the first couple of seasons. 

 

Didnt care much for Voyager though. 

 

I actually rather liked Enterprise

 

I think ST '09 is great and I enjoyed STiD. 

[kowhite]

1 hour ago, Arlborn said:

It seems it's a good thing I've never watched any of the Trek movies beyond these new ones. I was taken in when he yelled Khan, I thought it was a good scene.

 

Honestly when I saw it...I thought this would totally work if you didn't know...

 

Unfortunatley...

 

I did.

[RobinHood26]

Watched Wrath of Khan last night, damn is that movie fucking good, and oh yeah the whole last like 4/5 minutes of that (which are basically perfect) was a reshoot. 

[The Futurist]

85 (95?)% of people who have seen STID had not seen Wrath of Khan.

 

So any complains STID was getting by comparing the two movies was coming from old farts, hardcore cinephiles and trekkies.

 

Edited July 12, 2016 by The Futurist

[KGator]

2 hours ago, The Futurist said:

85 (95?)% of people who have seen STID had not seen Wrath of Khan.

 

So any complains STID was getting by comparing the two movies was coming from old farts, hardcore cinephiles and trekkies.

 

 

Given the fact that 75% of STID's domestic audience was over the age of 25 (and most were male), do you really think that many (85-95%) of the audience had NEVER seen what is considered the most popular movie in the franchise's history?  For a series where even the lesser regarded movies that no one but Trekkies could love would sell 8-12 million tickets . . . . you think that only 1-2 million of the 35 million STID tickets sold were by people who are familiar enough with the brand to have seen the entry that is widely regarded to be the best Star Trek movie ever made?  They just walked into the theater thinking "Star Trek, Star Wars, The Fault in our Stars . . . . same difference."

 

Seriously?  You make it sound like Star Trek Beyond and Finding Dory have a common audience.

[Newbie]

7 hours ago, Telemachos said:

 

Because the movie uses it as a deus ex machina to resurrect Kirk 5 minutes after he died (in screen time). It's absolutely terrible as a dramatic construct. 

 

 

Because that entire scene is played as a nudge-nudge-wink-wink to WRATH OF KHAN, so much so that it's really distracting and pulls you out of any inherent drama in the scene. It ends up feeling like a skit where the idea is to see how many references to the original you can riff on.

 

I liked STID -- quite a bit, for the most part -- but the two moments you mention were absolutely awful, IMO. My wife (who's less familiar with Trek minutae than me) didn't really mind the Spock/Kirk scene. It was nails-on-a-chalkboard bad for me. 

 

Now on the first issue i didn't really like that Kirk was considered Dead for as long as he was before khan's blood was injected (though i really am not sure how long Kirk was considered 'dead" before being put into stasis).  But I never considered it a "Deus Ex Machina", because it wasn't something unexpected and out of blue to resolve the plot.  Now if it hadn't been shown to be a restorative above the medicine of the 23rd century back in the 1967 episode Space Seed, then yeah.  But it is based on established Trek canon material in relation to the character of Khan.  Now of course, a casual fan or just an average movie goer wouldn't have that knowledge, but for someone like myself, who is fairly well versed in Trek it doesn't fit that classification.  The one part i didn't like in relation to that aspect of the film, was the i assume long dead Tribble being revived, that was seriously over the top, for my taste.

 

On the issue of various mirror situations or dialogue fragments between Kirk and Spock, that also didn't bother me.  Back during TNG's television run, there was a website that run an S.O.S. ranking were fans could rate episodes on a 1 - 10 scale.  The episodes Cause and Effect (5th season) and Parallels (7th season) both ranked extremely well 8th and 13th (On IMDB it's 7th and 10th so both back in the day and by current ranking systems) out of 178 episodes off TNG, and both showed various changes to the timeline and part of the enjoyment of those episodes was seeing how changes in the timeline could have that same type of mirroring of dialogue and plot switched between characters.  Heck there is even some elements of this in TNG's final episode All Good Things (which is another very well received episode).  So if I could enjoy it (on television where I think Trek generally can hit higher highs), I couldn't rationally dislike it being done in thee film.

 

Of course their were things that II did seriously dislike.  Spock calling Spock to get info on Khan.  Chekov somehow jumping over everyone in the engineering fields to go from Navigator to Chief of Engineering.  any use or mention of Interstellar transporter ability (seriously the single biggest flaw in both of the reboot films).

 

Loved that for literally the first time in all Trek Films, we got to see the crew out on a mission seeking out new life and news civilizations.  Every other film has been the ship is having to go out and respond to a threat.  

[Macleod]

14 hours ago, Jay Hollywood said:

Watched Wrath of Khan last night, damn is that movie fucking good, and oh yeah the whole last like 4/5 minutes of that (which are basically perfect) was a reshoot. 

 

Not a "reshoot" of anything already shot, to be clear.  "Additional photography" would be more apt, here.  ;-)

 

And no, director Nic Meyer didn't do it and didn't agree with it at the time, but he's come around since...he's also stated his opinion that STID goes beyond homage to ripoff, though (and he's friends with Abrams, so that tells you something).

Edited July 12, 2016 by Macleod

[The Futurist]

So if JJ had called STID a remake, people wouldn't have had their men-period ?