Spoilers STAR TREK BEYOND

[Balok's Decoy]

First of all, everything I say is IMHO. Second of all, even if not literally true, that is an accurate statement of how I feel about those movies, so by saying it I'm explaining where I'm coming from. Thirdly, as a viewer, I'm not obligated to "accept" everything I'm presented with. If I don't see how it fits the bill, I'm perfectly within my rights to explain that, esp. since I'm not forcing it on anyone. If you like those movies, fair enough.

The question I have with any major change to a franchise is how far can it be twisted before it becomes something different? Maybe I should've put it that way, but when seeing those movies, it's lacking somehow.

I should qualify my comments.

I think a valuable criticism of anything, Trek or otehrwise, is more like, "X doesn't work because [insert reason that is more than just "it's not Star Trek"]. Because you can't have a very interesting discussion about who thinks what is "real" or not. I'd rather have discussions about what the work is saying (or failing to say) or how it's saying it (or how it's not) etc. Debates about legitimacy are rarely useful and generally just people talking at each other about their own boundaries.

What I really take umbrage with, what really makes my skin crawl, is when Trekkies say "You are not a real Trekkie if you just watch the Kelvin movies." It doesn't look like you've done that, so this criticism isn't directed at you. But it's related -- it has to do with gatekeeping -- setting boundaries around what is "real" and what is "poser Trek" or "fake Trek." I hate that stuff. It's exclusionary. For all the hemming and hawing Trekkies go through about making Trek more popular and successful, we sure have a funny way of making the problem worse by being gatekeepers.

 

[Khan 2.0]

all this not accepting nu Trek, not true trek stuff is abit old hat..we've been through all of it before with TNG (although it was sort of accepted after the 3rd season)

 

[BillJ]

all this not accepting nu Trek, not true trek stuff is abit old hat..we've been through all of it before with TNG (although it was sort of accepted after the 3rd season)

I'm sure here in about eight months, people will be remembering the Abrams films as "the good old days" as they rip the shit out of Discovery.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

I'm sure here in about eight months, people will be remembering the Abrams films as "the good old days" as they rip the shit out of Discovery.

I'm laughing because it's better than crying.

 

[urbandefault]

I'm sure here in about eight months, people will be remembering the Abrams films as "the good old days" as they rip the shit out of Discovery.

I'm laughing because it's better than crying.

I'm laughing because I know it's the truth.

 

[Relayer1]

I'm sure here in about eight months, people will be remembering the Abrams films as "the good old days" as they rip the shit out of Discovery.

Discovery may or may not be good, but that will largely depend on the writing, plot and character arcs over the season, not whether they could get away with a flashy two hour special effects extravaganza instead. Discovery already has a decent chance.

I was enthusiastic about the '09 film, I enjoyed it to some extent but it didn't hold up to repeat viewing. Hell, it didn't hold up to much thinking about either. I've enjoyed them less each time and have had to belatedly admit to my self that I'm not really a fan of the style of film making, most of the cast or (most of all) the writing. And no, disappointingly, Pegg didn't improve Beyond one tiny bit.

I can't see Discovery being any worse than Enterprise or even Voyager, and I found enough to enjoy in them to both watch and buy them.

 

[BillJ]

Hell, it didn't hold up to much thinking about either.

Much of Star Trek doesn't hold up to the strict scrutiny some folks hold the Abrams films to.

 

[Khan 2.0]

Beyond labelled 'a flop' by that pedantic Forbes guy
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottme...most-sequels-in-2016-didnt-flop/#6768f5137d6d

Star Trek Beyond earned some of the best blockbuster reviews of the summer but couldn’t break the Star Trek global glass ceiling. With a $185 million budget, $158m domestic (compared the $256m and $228m North American grosses of the first two reboot offerings) and $343m worldwide (versus $385m and $467m) wasn’t nearly enough. Paramount and Skydance must confront that reality that Star Trek is never going to be a top-tier blockbuster franchise.

Flops (8):

Zoolander, No. 2 ($50m/$28m/$55m)

Divergent Series: Allegiant ($110m/$66m/$179m)

The Huntsman: Winter’s War ($115m/$48m/$164m)

Alice Through the Looking Glass ($170m/$77m/$299m)

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows ($135m/$82m/$245m)

Independence Day: Resurgence ($165m/$103m/$389m)

Star Trek Beyond ($185m/$158m/$343m)

 

[Balok's Decoy]

Beyond labelled 'a flop' by that pedantic Forbes guy
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottme...most-sequels-in-2016-didnt-flop/#6768f5137d6d

People's definition of "flop" is rather broad now. I guess "underperformed" isn't as exciting from a click standpoint.

 

[Relayer1]

Much of Star Trek doesn't hold up to the strict scrutiny some folks hold the Abrams films to.

True.

But 'some' episodes out of an ongoing series are easier to overlook than each entry in an occasional movie franchise.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

True.

But 'some' episodes out of an ongoing series are easier to overlook than each entry in an occasional movie franchise.

I'd argue that @BillJ's comment still applies if you just consider the films.

 

[BillJ]

True.

But 'some' episodes out of an ongoing series are easier to overlook than each entry in an occasional movie franchise.

But it isn't 'some' episodes. There is much of Trek that simply doesn't hold up to the standard set for the Abrams films.

 

[Relayer1]

But it isn't 'some' episodes. There is much of Trek that simply doesn't hold up to the standard set for the Abrams films.

I'd say it all comes down to the suspension of disbelief, which has different cut off points for different folks.

For me, bad as some 'prime' can get, JJTrek has casting issues with Pine, and more so with Yelchin, Cho and especially Pegg (who I otherwise like) so I am already partly 'out' of the movie.

There's not too much residual immersion left, so when you get a motorcycle chase (yes, the Jeep chase in Nemesis got slagged too) or the ridiculous 'superhero' fight with Krall, I'm done. Suspension gone.

 

[urbandefault]

The only problem I have with some of the actors is that their enunciation is not the same as the originals. Shatner is Canadian, Nimoy was a Bostonian, Kelley was from Georgia. This was apparent in the original actors' performances. The "new kids" don't enunciate the same as the old guys.

I'm not saying that they should do a straight-up imitation of the originals, it's just that some words stand out because they're not spoken in the same way as the old folks.

A little more attention to detail in this area could have captured more buy-in from the audience.

 

[WebLurker]

I should qualify my comments.

I think a valuable criticism of anything, Trek or otehrwise, is more like, "X doesn't work because [insert reason that is more than just "it's not Star Trek"]. Because you can't have a very interesting discussion about who thinks what is "real" or not. I'd rather have discussions about what the work is saying (or failing to say) or how it's saying it (or how it's not) etc. Debates about legitimacy are rarely useful and generally just people talking at each other about their own boundaries.

I see what you mean.

What I really take umbrage with, what really makes my skin crawl, is when Trekkies say "You are not a real Trekkie if you just watch the Kelvin movies." It doesn't look like you've done that, so this criticism isn't directed at you.

I do appreciate that, since that is not my intent and I object to that mindset. (After all many people have found the older materials through those movies.) And, for what it's worth, the Beyond movie does make it easier for me to look at those movies as just another branch of the Star Trek even if the stuff that I value about the franchise isn't really in them.

But it's related -- it has to do with gatekeeping -- setting boundaries around what is "real" and what is "poser Trek" or "fake Trek." I hate that stuff. It's exclusionary.

That's a fair assessment.

For all the hemming and hawing Trekkies go through about making Trek more popular and successful, we sure have a funny way of making the problem worse by being gatekeepers.

I guess I assumed that the reboot movies had made Star Trek popular (at least the TOS-themed stuff) and that those of us who didn't appreciate them were in the minority. Still, I agree that I should be more careful in the future about word choice when stating or explaining that I don't think movie X fits with the rest of the franchise for reasons XYZ, etc.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

I see what you mean.



I do appreciate that, since that is not my intent and I object to that mindset. (After all many people have found the older materials through those movies.) And, for what it's worth, the Beyond movie does make it easier for me to look at those movies as just another branch of the Star Trek even if the stuff that I value about the franchise isn't really in them.



That's a fair assessment.



I guess I assumed that the reboot movies had made Star Trek popular (at least the TOS-themed stuff) and that those of us who didn't appreciate them were in the minority. Still, I agree that I should be more careful in the future about word choice when stating or explaining that I don't think movie X fits with the rest of the franchise for reasons XYZ, etc.

You have no idea how refreshing it is to have a reasonable exchange of ideas on the internet. Thank you. For my part, I should probably count to 3 before jumping on people about word choice because as is clearly the case with you, it's not malicious or exclusionary. We're all passionate about this franchise.

I will say that it doesn't look like the Kelvin timeline has caused an explosion of interest in Star Trek. I think it has expanded viewership to some extent, and I've talked to people online who have said that the Kelvin timeline got them to go back and watch the older stuff. I'm hoping DSC can boost Trek's popularity more than the KT has. But how and why Trek doesn't have the mass appeal of, say, Star Wars or Harry Potter is a different issue and one I don't think I understand fully. It's a bummer though.

 

[fireproof78]

I'd say that Beyond first of all, gave the non-Kirk and Spock characters more to do. The Spock/McCoy relationship (something that was an important part of the TV show) was used in Beyond, something that the previous two movies had not used much, if at all. The makers did their homework and the ENT-era materials were design-accurate to the TV show (unlike in the first movie, where none of the ships from the original timeline looked like they belonged), and the connections made sense (I think Into Darkness knew that Khan was popular, but didn't really understand why).

IMHO, this was the first movie that captured the spirit of the TV show it was based on. The characters were all closer to the TV versions than they had been previously. We finally got away from Earth and to top it off, the battles and the space station setting were more creative and better executed set pieces than we got the first two times around.

I will respectfully disagree. I think the first two films are layered with smaller moments between the entire cast that feel very much like TOS and those simple moments. The small tenderness that Spock's moment with Amanda before going before the Vulcan Science Academy is reminiscent of Sarek and Amanda in "Journey to Babel." McCoy's introduction feels very much like Kelley's acerbic humor coming out in TMP or TVH. I could go on, but I'll not do my own play by play.

Suffice to say, that the spirit of the show felt very much alive in those moments. And then they take them, and do a slight twist on them to shine new light on these relationships. Which, may not work for everyone, but it works for me.

As for Khan, that's a whole huge mess of a long shadow that Star Trek, not just ID, cannot get away from. I think that the studio knows that Khan is popular, but has no idea why, and ever since TWOK it keeps trying to capture that lightning in a bottle. ST ID at least felt like it had something to say with the material, versus Nemesis. Regardless of whether or not it has been said before, I thought they did it in a different way that stood out.

While I can appreciate the fact that it felt closer to the interactions of TOS, I think that the first two showcased the characters in a different situation and different character arcs. I loved Kirk's arc from top to bottom and think it showed just how important Kirk Sr. was to Prime Kirk.

I see other perspectives, but the way that Kirk is framed within the first two films sets him up perfectly for Beyond. I don't think we get to Beyond with them.

But it isn't 'some' episodes. There is much of Trek that simply doesn't hold up to the standard set for the Abrams films.

Indeed.

 

[Set Harth]

or the ridiculous 'superhero' fight with Krall, I'm done. Suspension gone.

I really don't see how the fight with Krall is fundamentally different from or worse than any of the hand-to-hand fighting we got in, for example, TOS.

 

[Relayer1]

I really don't see how the fight with Krall is fundamentally different from or worse than any of the hand-to-hand fighting we got in, for example, TOS.

It appears very, very different to me, but as I said, everyone has different takes.

 

[Trekkin]

I really don't see how the fight with Krall is fundamentally different from or worse than any of the hand-to-hand fighting we got in, for example, TOS.

Where Kirk literally fights a superman?

Star Trek in a nutshell. Ridiculously awesome, and awesomely ridiculous.