Somebody asked me to pose these questions for them.
- In Star Trek 2009, the Enterprise suffered heavy crew losses and damage from the Narada. Vulcan and nine ships full of crewmen were destroyed, but the adventures began and the main crew had come together. In Into Darkness, the crew was again decimated and despite Kirk's heroism, most of the crew was dead and hundreds of thousands below in San Francisco die from the crashed Vengeance. In Beyond, the first Enterprise is destroyed 25 years before its OS counterpart was, marking the deaths of just about everyone on board. My question is why does every movie hinge on mass casualties suffered by the crew, and how will Star Trek 4 top the previous movie's body count? Is Star Trek's new movie series just about how many red shirts can be blasted in 120 minutes?
- I've now watched Star Trek, Into Darkness and Beyond. Why is it that all three movies hinge on the main plot point of the Enterprise's crew being slaughtered?
- At the beginning of Star Trek: Beyond it was nice to see the crew settled into the five year mission and interacting like family, being finally familiar and in high spirits. It was like the original series had begun, only earlier than the prime universe, which was great. Tragically, they were summarily executed by Krall. Now it seems the movie franchise, like the original series ones, have moved away from the crew-family aspect and toward a "crew of seven" theme. This makes me mad. Thoughts?
- With Star Trek: Beyond killing off practically all the Enterprise crew, I guess this means that people like Helen Noel, Kevin Reilly, O'Neil, Rand, Romaine, Zahra and other recurring characters are gone forever, too….
-I think it would be best to recast Chekov rather than killing off or moving his character away following Anton Yelchin's death. English actor Jack O'Connell looks a lot like him, and could be a good fit. I don't want to replace Yelchin, but with all the pain Star Trek fans have been through saying goodbye to on and off-screen favorites alike, losing Chekov's character would, in my opinion, be too much. After we lost the rest of the crew in Beyond, I really wouldn't want to see Kirk lose yet more people….
-Why does it seem that despite Kirk's overwhelming pain for the loss of his father and Chris Pike, nothing else phases him. He loses his crew three times and his whole ship once, yet he always jokes around and ends off movies with a neutral attitude (Let's not forget the 2013 video game events - which are cannon to an extent - that saw another tragedy occur). How can any human being not be miserable or at least traumatized with what he has seen and lost?
-It's frustrating that you can't really begin to like any characters in the Star Trek new movies because they are always wiped out. Hendorff doesn't count because he really isn't in Into Darkness or Beyond. Thoughts on this?
-I wish that the new Star Trek movies wouldn't follow in lock step with the original series movies, at least not just all at once right now.
-It's just demoralizing that the 50th anniversary of Star Trek is marked by probably the biggest, most tragic catastrophe to ever hit the Enterprise crew in any Trek show or movie. Is this indeed the most painful mass disaster ever depicted as inflicted on the crew of a ship?
-Krall/Balthazar Edison mentioned in Beyond that after everything he had done and the millions that were lost in the wars with the Xindi and Romulans, the Federation and Starfleet were now "breaking bread with the enemy." To an extent, I felt almost bad for him. The MACOS weren't even thanked for the incredible losses they incurred, and really…was it all for nothing, since Federation citizens - especially humans and Starfleet officers - die by the boatload with no punishment for those responsible?
-If Starfleet has such amazing technology to create the virtually invincible USS Vengeance why hasn't the same tech been equipped on board regular starships? (Maybe then the Enterprise could actually survive a movie lol).
-I really feel sorry for the alternate reality Kirk. By 2263 he has already lost two crews, his ship, his dad and if Star Trek 4 is like its predecessors, hundreds more crewmen. Prime Universe James Kirk had a record of very few losses and was known for this even as far ahead as the early 2290's. Poor alternate reality Kirk has a long way to go in his storied career, but who knows how many more losses he'll have to endure...
- In Star Trek 2009, the Enterprise suffered heavy crew losses and damage from the Narada. Vulcan and nine ships full of crewmen were destroyed, but the adventures began and the main crew had come together. In Into Darkness, the crew was again decimated and despite Kirk's heroism, most of the crew was dead and hundreds of thousands below in San Francisco die from the crashed Vengeance. In Beyond, the first Enterprise is destroyed 25 years before its OS counterpart was, marking the deaths of just about everyone on board. My question is why does every movie hinge on mass casualties suffered by the crew, and how will Star Trek 4 top the previous movie's body count? Is Star Trek's new movie series just about how many red shirts can be blasted in 120 minutes?
- I've now watched Star Trek, Into Darkness and Beyond. Why is it that all three movies hinge on the main plot point of the Enterprise's crew being slaughtered?
- At the beginning of Star Trek: Beyond it was nice to see the crew settled into the five year mission and interacting like family, being finally familiar and in high spirits. It was like the original series had begun, only earlier than the prime universe, which was great. Tragically, they were summarily executed by Krall. Now it seems the movie franchise, like the original series ones, have moved away from the crew-family aspect and toward a "crew of seven" theme. This makes me mad. Thoughts?
- With Star Trek: Beyond killing off practically all the Enterprise crew, I guess this means that people like Helen Noel, Kevin Reilly, O'Neil, Rand, Romaine, Zahra and other recurring characters are gone forever, too….
-I think it would be best to recast Chekov rather than killing off or moving his character away following Anton Yelchin's death. English actor Jack O'Connell looks a lot like him, and could be a good fit. I don't want to replace Yelchin, but with all the pain Star Trek fans have been through saying goodbye to on and off-screen favorites alike, losing Chekov's character would, in my opinion, be too much. After we lost the rest of the crew in Beyond, I really wouldn't want to see Kirk lose yet more people….
-Why does it seem that despite Kirk's overwhelming pain for the loss of his father and Chris Pike, nothing else phases him. He loses his crew three times and his whole ship once, yet he always jokes around and ends off movies with a neutral attitude (Let's not forget the 2013 video game events - which are cannon to an extent - that saw another tragedy occur). How can any human being not be miserable or at least traumatized with what he has seen and lost?
-It's frustrating that you can't really begin to like any characters in the Star Trek new movies because they are always wiped out. Hendorff doesn't count because he really isn't in Into Darkness or Beyond. Thoughts on this?
-I wish that the new Star Trek movies wouldn't follow in lock step with the original series movies, at least not just all at once right now.
-It's just demoralizing that the 50th anniversary of Star Trek is marked by probably the biggest, most tragic catastrophe to ever hit the Enterprise crew in any Trek show or movie. Is this indeed the most painful mass disaster ever depicted as inflicted on the crew of a ship?
-Krall/Balthazar Edison mentioned in Beyond that after everything he had done and the millions that were lost in the wars with the Xindi and Romulans, the Federation and Starfleet were now "breaking bread with the enemy." To an extent, I felt almost bad for him. The MACOS weren't even thanked for the incredible losses they incurred, and really…was it all for nothing, since Federation citizens - especially humans and Starfleet officers - die by the boatload with no punishment for those responsible?
-If Starfleet has such amazing technology to create the virtually invincible USS Vengeance why hasn't the same tech been equipped on board regular starships? (Maybe then the Enterprise could actually survive a movie lol).
-I really feel sorry for the alternate reality Kirk. By 2263 he has already lost two crews, his ship, his dad and if Star Trek 4 is like its predecessors, hundreds more crewmen. Prime Universe James Kirk had a record of very few losses and was known for this even as far ahead as the early 2290's. Poor alternate reality Kirk has a long way to go in his storied career, but who knows how many more losses he'll have to endure...
Last edited: