Good thing Edison was only a crazy captain then, eh? XD
Spoilers STAR TREK BEYOND - Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
Hee Hee.
He was lost, as Kirk himself said harking back to something Cmdr Paris said that out here, it's easy to get lost..
A
Amaris
Guest
Shohreh Aghdashloo needs to be in every Star Trek movie, playing a Commodore or an Admiral. Also, she needs to be in every movie playing a President, Ambassador, or some kind of high level diplomat. She is so very convincing.
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertai...e-blockbuster-america-needs-right-now/492605/
It’s refreshing to see a blockbuster that has any kind of philosophy, especially one this good-hearted.
Beyond begins with Captain Kirk (Pine) bored by the generally utopian universe he lives in, shuttling through deep space on diplomatic missions for Starfleet and longing for some real action. He gets it quickly enough: Embarking on a rescue mission into a remote nebula, the Enterprise is attacked by a hive of alien ships, and crash lands on an uncharted planet ruled by a tyrant named Krall (Idris Elba). For most of the film, Krall is rather thinly sketched: Speaking guttural, halting English and mugging behind layers of scaly makeup, Elba can only do so much with the role, which doesn’t get much context until the film’s climax.
Still, he represents a basic threat to everything Kirk and company stand for, ranting about Starfleet’s emphasis on diplomacy and peace, and cursing their pathetic emphasis on solidarity. Meanwhile, the Enterprise crew, scattered to four corners of the planet by Krall’s assault, have to come together to stop him, making an alliance with another stranded alien warrior named Jaylah (Sofia Boutella). Pegg and Jung’s script is simple stuff, mostly avoiding the lovable ponderousness of past editions of Trek (there’s no Patrick Stewart reciting Melville and Tennyson, though Spock does at least slip in a Shakespeare line). Perhaps this reflects Hollywood’s current lows more than anything else, but it’s refreshing to see a blockbuster that has any kind of philosophy, especially one this good-hearted.
Best of all, just as he did with the Fast & Furious franchise, Lin never hits the audience over the head with the crew’s sweeping sense of diversity and the power they draw from their egoless camaraderie. Early on, as the crew takes some shore leave on a space station, you catch a sweet, subtle glimpse of Sulu embracing his husband and child; when Uhura is captured by Krall, she doesn’t need her boyfriend Spock’s help in escaping his clutches; and there’s a continuation of the brotherhood between Scotty and his three-foot engineering assistant Keenser, a beady-eyed, fungus-resembling creature who sneezes acid any time he has a cold.
It’s refreshing to see a blockbuster that has any kind of philosophy, especially one this good-hearted.
Beyond begins with Captain Kirk (Pine) bored by the generally utopian universe he lives in, shuttling through deep space on diplomatic missions for Starfleet and longing for some real action. He gets it quickly enough: Embarking on a rescue mission into a remote nebula, the Enterprise is attacked by a hive of alien ships, and crash lands on an uncharted planet ruled by a tyrant named Krall (Idris Elba). For most of the film, Krall is rather thinly sketched: Speaking guttural, halting English and mugging behind layers of scaly makeup, Elba can only do so much with the role, which doesn’t get much context until the film’s climax.
Still, he represents a basic threat to everything Kirk and company stand for, ranting about Starfleet’s emphasis on diplomacy and peace, and cursing their pathetic emphasis on solidarity. Meanwhile, the Enterprise crew, scattered to four corners of the planet by Krall’s assault, have to come together to stop him, making an alliance with another stranded alien warrior named Jaylah (Sofia Boutella). Pegg and Jung’s script is simple stuff, mostly avoiding the lovable ponderousness of past editions of Trek (there’s no Patrick Stewart reciting Melville and Tennyson, though Spock does at least slip in a Shakespeare line). Perhaps this reflects Hollywood’s current lows more than anything else, but it’s refreshing to see a blockbuster that has any kind of philosophy, especially one this good-hearted.
Best of all, just as he did with the Fast & Furious franchise, Lin never hits the audience over the head with the crew’s sweeping sense of diversity and the power they draw from their egoless camaraderie. Early on, as the crew takes some shore leave on a space station, you catch a sweet, subtle glimpse of Sulu embracing his husband and child; when Uhura is captured by Krall, she doesn’t need her boyfriend Spock’s help in escaping his clutches; and there’s a continuation of the brotherhood between Scotty and his three-foot engineering assistant Keenser, a beady-eyed, fungus-resembling creature who sneezes acid any time he has a cold.
Two more comments:
I found it almost humorous that the first two minutes of the movie were just logos for a half-dozen production companies, including Paramount, Alibaba, Bad Robot, and a bunch I never heard of. Giacchino had to write two minutes of theme music just for the logos, before the movie even started. Anyone else miss the good old days when movies started with just the Paramount logo and went right into the opening titles?
And, now that I have thought about the plot for a while, it comes down to a disgruntled veteran who wants to release a poison smoke bomb in a large city. Aside from its taking place in outer space, there's nothing particularly science-fiction-y or Star Trek-y about the story or the villain. This could have been the plot to a "Die Hard" or "Mission: Impossible" movie. (In the same way, "Avatar" was just a re-make of "Dances With Wolves" or "The Last Samurai" set on an alien planet.) I'm not saying it's a bad movie, but given the history and scope of the "Star Trek" universe, I wish they could come up with a less-conventional storyline than we could see in any other summer blockbuster.
I found it almost humorous that the first two minutes of the movie were just logos for a half-dozen production companies, including Paramount, Alibaba, Bad Robot, and a bunch I never heard of. Giacchino had to write two minutes of theme music just for the logos, before the movie even started. Anyone else miss the good old days when movies started with just the Paramount logo and went right into the opening titles?
And, now that I have thought about the plot for a while, it comes down to a disgruntled veteran who wants to release a poison smoke bomb in a large city. Aside from its taking place in outer space, there's nothing particularly science-fiction-y or Star Trek-y about the story or the villain. This could have been the plot to a "Die Hard" or "Mission: Impossible" movie. (In the same way, "Avatar" was just a re-make of "Dances With Wolves" or "The Last Samurai" set on an alien planet.) I'm not saying it's a bad movie, but given the history and scope of the "Star Trek" universe, I wish they could come up with a less-conventional storyline than we could see in any other summer blockbuster.
Kralls as 'sci fi' as most villians of Trekdom. Khan (revenge!), Kruge (I want your shiney!), Sybok (Westboro Baptist Church) or Chang (less Die Hard, more political summer movie)? You could extend that to others (Dukat & The Dominion aren't very sci fi in concept).
The best Trek stories have been personal ones. The worst (3/4 of the TNG movies) have relied in sci fi concepts. Not to say a huge SF concept doesn't work (First Contact relied on it, but again it was all character over concept) and the best of Trek is a grounded story in a space setting.
Seriously??? Nothing science fictiony about
a Starfleet warrior in space who finds anti-aging and alien drone technology on an abandoned planet and uses it to attack a Federation UN space station?? Wow, I must have been watching CSI or something.
RAMA
Last edited:
I saw it in an IMAX 3D theater. Ticket prices have gone up slightly. The theater was 1/4 full.
When I left the theater we stopped at a book store to get the Beyond movie magazines, and the lady at the counter asked me if I'd seen it yet. She told me she saw it in the morning and loved it.
RAMA
When I left the theater we stopped at a book store to get the Beyond movie magazines, and the lady at the counter asked me if I'd seen it yet. She told me she saw it in the morning and loved it.
RAMA
Current critic status update
So I watched it a second time last night. Appreciated noticing some new little details (including the green hand in the credits) and I still love the movie.
I found Krall's motivation not 100% convincing the first time around but after thinking about it some more it really worked for me this time.
The whole "warrior who doesn't know how to live in peace"-thing obviously works already anyway. The only way he knew for species to interact was through conflict and violence. But then there's also the fact that he chose conflict and violence as a means to extend his life span, too. He decided to use a technology that let him consume other species and integrate them into his own body. But since the way he chose was violent it just resulted in more conflict.
The Federation in general and the Enterprise crew in particular are the exact opposite to that. Peace, cooperation and teamwork.
Since the movie was about the teamwork of the crew and people needing each other I thought that Krall was the perfect villain.
Based on the things he learned in the military he could only think of violent ways to deal with other species (war, conflict, the technology he found to consume people).
The Enterprise crew on the other hand stands together, leaves nobody behind and even welcomes new people like Jaylah.
I found Krall's motivation not 100% convincing the first time around but after thinking about it some more it really worked for me this time.
The whole "warrior who doesn't know how to live in peace"-thing obviously works already anyway. The only way he knew for species to interact was through conflict and violence. But then there's also the fact that he chose conflict and violence as a means to extend his life span, too. He decided to use a technology that let him consume other species and integrate them into his own body. But since the way he chose was violent it just resulted in more conflict.
The Federation in general and the Enterprise crew in particular are the exact opposite to that. Peace, cooperation and teamwork.
Since the movie was about the teamwork of the crew and people needing each other I thought that Krall was the perfect villain.
Based on the things he learned in the military he could only think of violent ways to deal with other species (war, conflict, the technology he found to consume people).
The Enterprise crew on the other hand stands together, leaves nobody behind and even welcomes new people like Jaylah.
^
The great twist to that is the weapon he uses is one that requires perfect synchronicity.
The great twist to that is the weapon he uses is one that requires perfect synchronicity.
A
Much better than Into Darkness and somehow better than Star Trek 2009
I loved that opening scene. It was funny. As for Krall's motivation I think it can be handled as the anti-aging thingy made him aggressive and he was affected by it. But they couldn't made this comment in the movie as that would have been something they shouldn't realize. Overall it was a fun movie, I can hardly wait to see it again. But my theater is only projecting in 3D and it was very dark, in the swarm battle there are scenes I couldn't see what was going on.
Much better than Into Darkness and somehow better than Star Trek 2009
I loved that opening scene. It was funny. As for Krall's motivation I think it can be handled as the anti-aging thingy made him aggressive and he was affected by it. But they couldn't made this comment in the movie as that would have been something they shouldn't realize. Overall it was a fun movie, I can hardly wait to see it again. But my theater is only projecting in 3D and it was very dark, in the swarm battle there are scenes I couldn't see what was going on.
I saw it for the first time last night. For me, Star Trek Beyond is the consummate summer blockbuster, easily as good as the first two, time will tell if I rank it above them, but my gut feeling at the moment is that I do, slightly.
Action-wise the film delivers in spades and then some - The attack on the Enterprise alone is worth the price of admission, what an absolutely jaw dropping sequence - I actually turned to my other half after feeling like I'd not taken a breath for fifteen minutes and uttered a silent 'wow' There's several other intense set pieces throughout the movie that boast gorgeous, stunning visuals, not only the best seen in Star Trek but among the best I've ever seen, full stop. The Yorktown base is utterly amazing, and some of the shots of it were head spinning. I also thought the beginning scene was very clever and very funny. Didn't massively care for the bike sequence but is was pretty well done and didn't spoil my enjoyment of the movie.
The characters here are also far better and more comfortable with each other than the previous two films, especially Kirk and Bones, but the whole cast get something to do instead of getting sidelined and that was handled well. I'm so glad Kirk seemed to be back to the character we all know and love, and dropped the arrogant frat boy act from the previous films, and also had a nice character arc himself. Most of the humour this time round comes from Bones Spock and Scotty and they pretty much nail all of it.
The gay Sulu scene was subtly done and was just right, and the tribute to Nimoy was, in my opinion expertly handled and integrated into the story really well. The photo was an emotional icing on the cake for this.
My only criticisms of Beyond is Krall's backstory is a little dubious, but Elba chews the scenery he's in and sells it to me, even at the end. and the VHF thing seemed all a little too easy but they're minor quibbles compared to some of the complaints I had in the first two.
Overall the story is a bit 'lightweight', but as a pure spectacle I think it's brilliant and it's a shame the box office appears to be down because this film deserves to compete with the big boys. The whole film is a fantastic tribute to the franchise on it's 50th Anniversary, and after the first trailer (which I now see though different eyes having seen the film) I never thought I'd be saying that. I gave it an A+
Action-wise the film delivers in spades and then some - The attack on the Enterprise alone is worth the price of admission, what an absolutely jaw dropping sequence - I actually turned to my other half after feeling like I'd not taken a breath for fifteen minutes and uttered a silent 'wow' There's several other intense set pieces throughout the movie that boast gorgeous, stunning visuals, not only the best seen in Star Trek but among the best I've ever seen, full stop. The Yorktown base is utterly amazing, and some of the shots of it were head spinning. I also thought the beginning scene was very clever and very funny. Didn't massively care for the bike sequence but is was pretty well done and didn't spoil my enjoyment of the movie.
The characters here are also far better and more comfortable with each other than the previous two films, especially Kirk and Bones, but the whole cast get something to do instead of getting sidelined and that was handled well. I'm so glad Kirk seemed to be back to the character we all know and love, and dropped the arrogant frat boy act from the previous films, and also had a nice character arc himself. Most of the humour this time round comes from Bones Spock and Scotty and they pretty much nail all of it.
The gay Sulu scene was subtly done and was just right, and the tribute to Nimoy was, in my opinion expertly handled and integrated into the story really well. The photo was an emotional icing on the cake for this.
My only criticisms of Beyond is Krall's backstory is a little dubious, but Elba chews the scenery he's in and sells it to me, even at the end. and the VHF thing seemed all a little too easy but they're minor quibbles compared to some of the complaints I had in the first two.
Overall the story is a bit 'lightweight', but as a pure spectacle I think it's brilliant and it's a shame the box office appears to be down because this film deserves to compete with the big boys. The whole film is a fantastic tribute to the franchise on it's 50th Anniversary, and after the first trailer (which I now see though different eyes having seen the film) I never thought I'd be saying that. I gave it an A+
Gave it a solid A. A much better film than the trailers let on. Seriously, whoever was involved with the very first trailer should be banned from Star Trek since it needlessly turned off many fans.
The movie felt original, fun, exciting and the interplays between the characters were pure gold. For the first time with the reboots, I felt like I was watching a Star Trek film. Congrats to the team!
The movie felt original, fun, exciting and the interplays between the characters were pure gold. For the first time with the reboots, I felt like I was watching a Star Trek film. Congrats to the team!
I'm not so sure Orci's script has been "gotten rid of". With the way JJ has already been saying the next script is his favorite, I'm thinking they're using Orci's script for the 4th movie.
A McGuffin? We talk to him, learn his motivations, through his interaction with Kirk. The movie, for most of it, I would agree with you. He was just a baddie. But to be revealed as the Captain of the 22nd-century ship, and that his motivation is to make humankind "strong" again, not exactly revenge and Moby Dick references. This movie has very little revenge in it, actually.
That said, I know people on here were moved by the Enterprise being destroyed, but after seeing Into Darkness, where Kirk sacrifices himself to stop the ship from being destroyed, to see the hull crack, and buckle, in '09, as they tried to escape the singularity, I felt like we had done this for 3 straight movies. Also, I watched the trailers, and they did not keep it a secret. Destroying the Enterprise, killing a main character, and revenge as a motivation of the baddie, need to be tabled for awhile. What I would like, is a mission movie where we explore larger themes, or something completely different--open up the storytelling--and make the Enterprise the wraparound story, something character-driven, maybe a story about a planet--the protagonist isn't Kirk--and have the Enterprise rescue our hero at the last moment of his/her death. Something told from the view of a planet. I am sure that would never be green-lit, but Star Trek is less-than-innovative right now. They don't do stories like "Hush" in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and there is a lot of potential to do so.
That said, this wasn't a movie about getting the Enterprise back, and that is an improvement. It's about the crew, not the hull, of the ship, and that is a change, a welcomed one. This one felt like Kirk actually cared about the lower decks of his ship, and i am not talking about conduits and phaser banks. He risks life-and-limb to get back his crew, not out of duty (this character does very little for duty), but because he genuinely cares.
I didn't see it that way. Yes, the character needed to be stopped, but his conversation with Kirk, Kirk telling him "where he comes from," was the meat, not destroying his weapon. Let's take a step back here. This is a summer blockbuster. My expectations are LOW for this type of movie. Action movies are simple--hero is introduced, they face death because of a baddie, baddie dies, and hero rides off into the sunset. That's the formula. It works for Batman, Avengers, anything. A variation on that would be too "trekkie-like" for anyone at CBS Paramount. Welcome to summer blockbusters, welcome to the complaints I had about "Into Darkness." Now, along the way, you can have character moments. AND THAT is the meat of the story, where it varies. Like Batman taking down Two-Face for being the vigilante he COULD be, contrasting and comparing those two characters, makes "The Dark Knight," one of my favorites. So, what this the meat of this movie?
Jayla is Kirk. She loses her parents, her parents sacrifice themselves, in a battle, so that she can live away from Krull. Replace that sentence with Nero. She plays the damn Beastie Boys song. She is young Kirk from the beginning of this journey. Scotty gets her to go back, when she is afraid of her destiny to save Kirk's crew and stop Krull, by a promise that the crew will be her family from now on. He's Pike. James Kirk's character is actually deepened, if you follow this thought process, by the fact she feels fear. Kirk is a rebel without a cause. We don't know why he's "The only genius-level repeat offender in the Midwest." If he fears that he will never live up to his father's sacrifice, if he is snuffed out early, as he almost was, by that officer, before Pike intervenes, he will have destroyed himself before he can live up to his potential. What is the emotion causing him to do that? I think we are about to find out, but my guess, is fear. Hemsworth will be back as George Kirk in the next one. If Kirk is compensating for his fear--that he will die early, as is brought up in this movie, that he won't live up to George Kirk's legacy, whatever--then we have gotten to the root of James T. Kirk, in these movies, and done it in a bunch of epic action movies.
Spock is a variation on a theme. Bones says "You spent all this time trying to be George Kirk, but now you are wondering, what it means to be James Kirk." Spock says essentially the same thing--that he wants to live up to the legacy of Prime Spock, and feels leaving Starfleet to continue his race, may be a better way of honoring him. Both Kirk, because of boredom at not "making a difference (from Generations)," just cataloging spacial anomalies, and understanding that the mission is endless because space is endless, and Spock, because of Prime Spock's death, think about leaving the Enterprise. It is a nice twist that they never get to have that talk they wanted to have, where they both would've ended their run on the Enterprise. Both resolve the issue, independent of the Bromance. This was a nice twist, especially, when you consider that the movie franchise, may be talking about itself in these pictures.
Krull plays out the argument that others have made for why Star Trek wouldn't work. People would get comfortable, they would become complacent because they didn't got through a Nero-style attack, or the Xindi and Romulan wars. It's taking the critics of Star Trek, putting their voice in a bad guy, and having Kirk make the counter-argument for Star Trek. It's talking about why the universe works. This is meat to purists like me, who want that hopeful future to remain intact. To do it on the 50th Anniversary, just icing on the celebratory cake.
Agreed. The movie isn't perfect, but I don't expect it to be. This is a summer blockbuster.
As a pansexual man, I like what they did. This is not 1966. Star Trek missed its moment to be ahead of the curve on this one. It's a character moment for Kirk. He is looking for fulfillment, and it hearkens back to "Generations," that he sees Sulu and Demora (and, yes, his gay lover), and thinks "maybe what I need is a family." It's also about George Kirk and the family reunion, he never got to have. This is about KIRK seeing a FAMILY there and seeing it as something beautiful, and that he might WANT to fill the void in him. It's a step forward to have a gay character, there is certainly potential to do more with it, but they didn't stop the story to have the gay moment in Star Trek, and they shouldn't, at this point. Star Trek lost its moment to do that. If this was 1988, make a bigger deal about it. If Data, for instance, sleeps with Geordi instead of Tasha Yar, make a big deal about it. But, he didn't. The way they did it was of its time. It mentions the marriage equality argument without ever saying it, it reflects the time, and it never, ever seemed heavy-handed. It's EXACTLY what I wanted, at this point.
Last edited:
Maybe, maybe not.
But I'm talking about Beyond specifically here not ST4, so in this context they did indeed get rid of it.
He means the MacGuffin as an object (in this case, the Abronath), not a person.
The abronath is incidental. It's a method, and not a very clever one, about how to get the character's means accomplished. If that was about abronath, then you are getting lost in how something is accomplished, not what is accomplished (re-establishing a military).
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
- Poll
