Another spoiler-free review of Beyond.
https://www.reddit.com/r/startrek/comments/4rnwaz/spoilerfree_thoughts_on_star_trek_beyond/
https://www.reddit.com/r/startrek/comments/4rnwaz/spoilerfree_thoughts_on_star_trek_beyond/
Note: This post assumes familiarity with the trailers and the fan and creator discussion of the trailers. While there are no spoilers, do not proceed any further if you haven't kept an eye on the publicity and/or don't even want oblique information about the movie.
I believe the creators of Star Trek Beyond had two mission statements. On the one hand they wanted to make a movie that further expanded the reach and appeal of the franchise into the mainstream. As Simon Pegg noted, the Kelvin timeline movies have performed well, but not Avengers level well. Beyond was intended to change that.
On the other hand, especially given (a) it's the 50th anniversary of the franchise and (b) its ardent fan base (of which I'm a proud member), the makers of the movie (some of whom are ardent fans themselves) wanted to remain true to the ideals of Roddenberry's vision, the fundamental optimism expressed in the premise of phrases like "boldly go" and "infinite diversity". (Or even, ahem, Hillary Clinton's current campaign slogan "Stronger together".) They've indicated publicly that the way they wanted to uphold these ideals is by having the antagonist, Krall, question what the United Federation of Planets stands for, a perfectly valid dramaturgical approach. (Deep Space Nine did something similar over the course of its run.)
It's a tricky juggling act. Does the movie succeed? Obviously everyone will have their own opinion. Most people at the premiere seemed to like it, many saying it was "better than the first [previous] two". My view is that Star Trek Beyonddoes a fine job of being a mainstream action film. There are a number of set pieces that are inventively conceived and executed with flair. Justin Lin and his team, while not necessarily having the distinctive visual aesthetic of, say, the Wachowskis, know how to stage the big scenes in a way that's visually interesting, while almost always maintaining the storytelling clarity within these action sequences. Do some of these set pieces always make sense dramatically? Maybe, maybe not. I had moments of doubt in a couple of them, and I'll form a stronger opinion after I see the movie again. But I don't actually mind big action scenes for the sake of big action scenes as long as there's sufficient other meat on the bones of a movie. And, if they're executed well, they can be their own reward. And the action in Beyondis executed well.
Does the story hang together? I think the answer is: well enough. There's a McGuffin which I don't think is seriously intended to be more than a McGuffin. It's there to move the plot to each of the aforementioned set pieces. The pacing is fast and furious (pun intended), although there are also a number of quieter character moments (alluded to below). However I got the sense that first half of the movie was trimmed more than it could have - should have - been. For example, there were two characters who played minor, but pivotal, roles in the plot that seemed to just pop up as required. Even an additional minute or two spent with each of them would have fleshed them out so that they were characters in their own right rather than just plot devices. Similarly, Kirk and Spock have character arcs that could have benefited from an additional beat or two so their respective emotional journeys are navigated a bit better. I'd like to believe that such moments were actually written and filmed, and could be reinstated for the Bluray release. I guess we'll find out if this is a possibility over the coming months.
Will Beyond make Avengers level money? I don't know (probably not), but I don't really care, beyond (no pun intended) wanting the movie to do well enough to spawn more movies.
Because I don't watch Star Trek movies as if they're general entertainment. I watch them as a fan. Have Lin & Co succeeded in satisfying me as a fan? The answer is: partly. I think the deeper question about what the Federation (and by implication Star Trek in the real world) stands for gets lost at the altar of pace and mainstream appeal. The questions are posed… but could have been interrogated in more depth. Partly it’s because the antagonist, like in almost every tentpole release these days, is thinly characterised. Krall does get developed, but (I think) too late in the movie. If this development had occurred earlier on I think not only would the dramatic, ie inter-character, conflict of the movie have been better defined, I think the deeper thematic conflict would have been laid out in starker, and stronger, relief. In that sense, just as Into Darkness failed to fully explore the thematic and political implications of its terrorism metaphor, so does Beyond fail to give a meaty answer to its underlying philosophical question in favour of pace, conventional plotting and and formulaic resolution.
That said, there’s still much, much in the movie to satisfy me as a fan. One of the things I criticised Into Darkness for is repeating the Wrath of Khan beats too slavishly and too poorly. Beyond doesn’t depend on a familiar antagonist from the TV show, or have any moment anywhere as cringe-worthy as Spock's "Khaaaaaaan!!", but it does contain many references to the canon that excited, and even moved, me, as I hope they will most fans. I’ll resist the temptation to go into details, but there are callbacks to Enterprise (a number of them), The Original Series (one so unexpectedly off-handed it made me do a double-take), The Motion Picture, The Wrath of Khan, The Search for Spock,The Voyage Home, Generations, and others. The structure of the movie means that, unlike its two predecessors, the central relationship isn't Kirk/Spock, so we get to see both Kirk and Spock interact more with other characters. In particular, fans of the Spock/McCoy dynamic from TOS will have a field day. (Again, this has been flagged by the cast and crew prior to the movie's release.)
Along with the action there's some pathos (Quinto gets a moment that I'd love to talk about more in the future) and generous dollops of humour. It's not the funniest joke in the movie, but my favourite gag is surely a meta reference to how, in Star Trek, the characters only ever listen to classical music.
One last point. The movie acknowledges the deaths of Anton Yelchin and Leonard Nimoy, as we’ve been told it would. Nimoy’s in a way that was much more impactful than I anticipated. And there’s a scene early in the movie that’s ostensibly about an off-screen character but which I think resonates unexpectedly and obliquely in light of Yelchin’s tragic death. The line between fact and fiction becomes blurry; I suspect once intentionally, and once not.
