Spoilers STAR TREK BEYOND - Grading & Discussion

[fireproof78]

I would love to see the secret perfect cut of the Trek films which has established such a high standard for the Kelvin ones to be compared to. It sure as hell isn't any of the versions I've seen.

It extends to those involved in them too. Pine's comment about the difficulty of producing a cerebral film prompted plenty of criticism, but it fit perfectly with this quote from Nimoy about TMP: "It seemed to me that somebody was watching 2001 a lot, and getting into a cerebral, futuristic trip rather than an adventure romp, which is what Star Trek is built on."

I'd also love to see the response if Abrams ever said anything like Meyer did about TOS - ie that it was about Kirk engaging in gunboat diplomacy on behalf of the always-right pseudo-American Federation, at the expense of the "lesser breeds".

Pretty much this.

He was just Krall's thug... I wasn't looking for very much from him.

I wasn't expecting too much from him either, but certainly expected more than we got, especially when facing off against Jaylah.

That said, it's a minor quibble. The film is still excellent. I think Krall is an interesting villain and discovering that he is an ancient human gone mad is interesting to me, and fits in with the TOS style villains.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

I didn't get, until some time later, that the scene in which Krall was torturing two Enterprise crewmembers was connected to the body found in Engineering, said to be a victim from which he'd drained the life force.

On the other hand, I like Keenser.

 

[StarLore]

I just saw it. I thought it was OK.

First of all, I am not vehemently opposed to the idea of the newest Star Trek films. As you well know, many fans despise how they have been handled, and consider them contrary to what Star Trek is about. I agree with that stance more or less, but I understand the logic behind these new films, and accept them for what they are.

Anyway, I think this is the best of the reboot films. Beyond truly shines at the slow character moments, in between the silly action. Both Kirk and Spock are at turning points in their careers, and question the relevance of their current adventures. Spock feels inclined to continue his counter-part's work, while Kirk doesn't know what is keeping himself in the captain's chair. Each of those arcs is solved in clever and subtle ways, and left me quite satisfied.

But on the other hand, the over-the-top action sequences left me dazed, and showed no restraint, therefore I felt some of the tension was lost. I am alright with action in a Star Trek movie, but I prefer it to be more grounded. In the original Star Trek films, each action sequence didn't feel like just an action scene; it felt like a natural progression of the story. In Beyond, it felt like they were trying to get to one action-packed scene to the next. I think Hollywood underestimates the mainstream audience's appreciation for a more slow-moving story, but people were clearly entertained.

I didn't mind Krall as a villain. I think it was cool how he sucked the life out of others to prolong his own, although how he actually does that could've been explained more. His beef with the Federation was a little vague, but at least we got to see the Enterprise crew defending it's principles, and capturing what the Federation was really about.

I also liked Jaylah, and her "house".

I think all the characters in general were handled better in this film than the two previous ones. Kirk isn't as obnoxious and unlikable, and Spock didn't go crazy and beat anyone to death.

So overall, despite some of the action, I thought it was decent, and had a more reverent and thoughtful approach than I expected. It works quite well for the franchise's 50th anniversary.

 

[Yanks]

I think Hollywood underestimates the mainstream audience's appreciation for a more slow-moving story, but people were clearly entertained.

While I would agree, I can give at least one example where the reviews indicate the contrary. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0831387/ If you look at the reviews all they do is whine about not seeing Godzilla until the 3rd part. I personally thought this was the best Godzilla movie I had ever seen (I've been watching them since I was a kid)

I think all the characters in general were handled better in this film than the two previous ones. Kirk isn't as obnoxious and unlikable, and Spock didn't go crazy and beat anyone to death.

I very much agree. I loved the maturity of Kirk and Spock acting more like "Spock".

Glad you enjoyed the movie.

 

[BillJ]

...and consider them contrary to what Star Trek is about.

What exactly is "Star Trek" about, and how are the Abrams films contrary to it?

I have never received an actual answer that stands under any kind of scrutiny to this question.

 

[jamestyler]

What exactly is "Star Trek" about, and how are the Abrams films contrary to it?

It's a scientific fact that there was no fun, joy, action or emotion in Star Trek. It was a completely 100% serious dramatic show that was nothing but insightful, thought provoking and groundbreaking.

...or so I'm told. I think I watched a different show.

 

[fireproof78]

What exactly is "Star Trek" about, and how are the Abrams films contrary to it?

I have never received an actual answer that stands under any kind of scrutiny to this question.

Took the words right out of my mouth, as it were.

 

[StarLore]

What exactly is "Star Trek" about, and how are the Abrams films contrary to it?

I have never received an actual answer that stands under any kind of scrutiny to this question.

I was saying that many fans feel that way, not that I totally feel that way(more or less, as I said). Perhaps my wording was inadequate, but the point I was trying to make is that there are a lot of people who do not consider them comparable to previous Star Trek installments. Again, I do not strictly hold to that opinion, although I do think the Abrams movies leave much to be desired.
No, I do not believe Star Trek can't be any fun, action-packed, or just silly at times. I am a big fan of the Original Series, after all. I just find the newest movies to be to excessive in some of those departments.

 

[Relayer1]

What exactly is "Star Trek" about, and how are the Abrams films contrary to it?

I have never received an actual answer that stands under any kind of scrutiny to this question.

There's probably as many answers to that as there are Trek fans. It is a franchise where Niners cannot understand how Voyager could possibly be ANYONES favourite Trek show and vice versa. Meanwhile ToS diehards regard the much loved TNG as an inferior upstart, etc.etc...

The only thing I can contribute is that for a significant number of those diverse tastes, the new movies don't fit the bill. And although they might agree, they probably don't agree why. Or have an explanation for why similar issues with episodes aren't a deal breaker. It's probably cumulative, a number of issues that break the camels back.

For me, if the cast was different, the ship designs were different, the plots were tighter and a little less reliant on action...

Your mileage will probably vary.

 

[locutus101]

I think Star trek is about a better future, an ideal future.

 

[BillJ]

I think Star trek is about a better future, an ideal future.

Better? Yeah, I can see that. Ideal? No.

Q: Oh, better. And later, on finally reaching deep space, humans of course found enemies to fight out there too. And to broaden those struggles you again found allies for still more murdering. The same old story, all over again.

 

[Franklin]

David Brooks was on Charlie Rose last night, and he mentioned two things that I immediately thought actually describe "Star Trek" to the extent that has had consistent ideals or a thematic viewpoint on humankind and the future.
In the context of talking about American politics today, Brooks mentioned Martin Luther King, Jr.'s paraphrasing of a Theodore Parker quote: "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." The idea that despite what happens day-to-day, the universe is structured to tilt toward the moral good in the end. Brooks also mentioned an idea brought up by quite a few folks that evil sews the seeds of its own destruction, which is something I think we've seen in quite a few Trek stories (though not always evil, unethical, too -- think David Marcus and Daystrom). Evil can't win in the end. So, even if things aren't fine now, there is every reason to be optimistic about the future and no reason to give up hope or trying to improve. It's not about presenting a life in an ideal future, and certainly not in a utopia, but it's about the optimism and exorable movement of humans to try to improve their condition even in the face of occasionally huge setbacks. As Kirk in "Arena" said to Spock after talking to the Metron, "We are a most promising species, Mr. Spock, as predators go."

 

[fireproof78]

There's probably as many answers to that as there are Trek fans. It is a franchise where Niners cannot understand how Voyager could possibly be ANYONES favourite Trek show and vice versa. Meanwhile ToS diehards regard the much loved TNG as an inferior upstart, etc.etc...

The only thing I can contribute is that for a significant number of those diverse tastes, the new movies don't fit the bill. And although they might agree, they probably don't agree why. Or have an explanation for why similar issues with episodes aren't a deal breaker. It's probably cumulative, a number of issues that break the camels back.

For me, if the cast was different, the ship designs were different, the plots were tighter and a little less reliant on action...

Your mileage will probably vary.

To me this is a sad state of affairs that different facets of Star Trek cannot be appreciated by various subgroups for...reasons. Abrams Trek I guess is just the latest example of being branded as "not Star Trek" even though it offers as much as any other iteration of Star Trek.

People are welcome to agree to disagree but the simple branding of "not Star Trek" or "mindless action film" does a disservice to any meaningful discussion about the topics actually present in the films.

I can enjoy Star Trek from all series, all the films, and every TOS film at one time or another has been my "favorite" through the course of my life time. I don't like it all, but I certainly would not call it "not Star Trek." It's just not my favorite

 

[eyeresist]

I didn't get, until some time later, that the scene in which Krall was torturing two Enterprise crewmembers was connected to the body found in Engineering, said to be a victim from which he'd drained the life force.

Doesn't really make sense. Jaylah was living for years in the Franklin, with this perfectly preserved dead body lying around?

I at least like the idea of Krall/Edison losing his identity in the frontier and choosing a new name. I didn't like Manas at all and thought he was a terrible character

Was he even a character? He was basically Krall with fewer lines, and Krall was a thin enough character already.

 

[Tosk]

Edit: My memory sucks.

 

[eyeresist]

"body found in engineering" - I assume this is a reference to the body of a redshirt they find in the Franklin after they get back to Yorktown. That scene was a weird non sequitur; at first I thought Scotty had been killed off. Possibly there was an explanation for this scene, but I don't recall any line from the film that made sense of it.

At this point my best guess is one of the rescued Enterprise crew decided to take a nap, and somehow missed the rest of the crew being offloaded onto the planet before the Franklin took off. Then he was killed when Franklin crash-landed in Yorktown.

 

[fireproof78]

Was he even a character? He was basically Krall with fewer lines, and Krall was a thin enough character already.

No, not really. Ayel was at least more interesting and memorable. I barely understood what this caricature's name was, much less his significance.

 

[Relayer1]

To me this is a sad state of affairs that different facets of Star Trek cannot be appreciated by various subgroups for...reasons. Abrams Trek I guess is just the latest example of being branded as "not Star Trek" even though it offers as much as any other iteration of Star Trek.

People are welcome to agree to disagree but the simple branding of "not Star Trek" or "mindless action film" does a disservice to any meaningful discussion about the topics actually present in the films.

I can enjoy Star Trek from all series, all the films, and every TOS film at one time or another has been my "favorite" through the course of my life time. I don't like it all, but I certainly would not call it "not Star Trek." It's just not my favorite

I agree, I think 'not Trek enough' is ridiculous. I have a very low opinion of ST V, but it's still Trek.

For me (and me alone) I'd rather say either that the movies aren't to my taste, or that they simply aren't good enough.

 

[Yanks]

So, we are now into "my trek is better than your trek"

Sad state of affairs

 

[RAMA]

I liked Manas..granted he was there to keep the bad guys from looking like faceless lackeys, and he didn't have much to say till near the end of the movie, but the fact that he was one of only 3 original MACOs/Starfleet officers left was somewhat tragic to me. Unlike Krall, Manas' hatred for the UFP or any sort of alien was xenophobic, and he terrorized and killed other species, including Jaylah's father.

RAMA

No, not really. Ayel was at least more interesting and memorable. I barely understood what this caricature's name was, much less his significance.