Well, definitely no J.J. Abrams for Trek 4

Well, different opinions of course, but I don't like ST 09 or STID much at all. Beyond was a vast improvement to me personally, but clearly not with the general audience. They just didn't care, and I can't really blame them after that marketing.

 

Correction:
Beyond felt like (good) Star Trek.
Into Darkness felt like (bad) Mission: Impossible.
2009 fell somewhere in-between IMHO.
To each his own of course.

 

The Final Frontier and Nemesis got A- Cinemascores too!

User ratings on Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb are solid - better than many Trek films, but below the other two Kelvin films.

I'd say audiences were apathetic more than anything. It just lacked a big drawcard compared to the last two.

For the record, I like all three, and regard each as Star Trek without a hint of doubt.

 

I loved all three movies very much, but put them in release order with the first being the best. Into Darkness has a moment of extreme silliness (Spock's "Khaaaaaan!") which is an unintentionally awful low Beyond never comes close to, but it doesn't meet ID's emotional high points, either.

All three are Star Trek. They're not Rick Berman's TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT, but they're great modern updates of the TOS and movies II-IV vibe.

 

- people are not talking about their own enjoyment when they, matter of fact, claim that JJ is bad for trek and beyond's team is what would, seemingly, give this trek a future - in spite of evidence already suggesting the total opposite.
It's apparent that many trek fans, especially those who comment articles about the reboot, do everything but separate their own bias from what reasonably makes a movie successful and well praised by critics. If you were to listen to some, the first movies were a flop, all trek fans hate them, and the only way to save this franchise is making more "beyond" movies and retreat into nostalgia all the more.

- a lot of trekkies who disliked the first movies liked beyond better, but trekkies who loved the first movies (eg me)? And in general the "reboot fans"? Beyond alienated them because it wasn't "abrams trek" enough in the sense of pretty much ignoring most of the other movies, going backwards with the dynamics and feeling less the sequel it was supposed to be.
I don't understand why some fail to even take this into consideration, and they blame beyond's failure on everything but the most obvious and understandable reasons.
By placating the trek fans with nostalgia, beyond possibly lost the old and new fans who liked the first movies already precisely because they were different, and they now have little interest for a movie being more "trek" in the sense reboot haters, or some of them, mean anyway.
And they were even warned about that when stid came out, I remember some critics predicting what eventually happened. Even people who liked stid started to feel like the creative team was losing track and painting themselves into a corner with the fan pandering/fan service, the risk being they could alienate the very fans who loved the first movie.
And the people behind beyond completely misuranderstood, IMO, the response stid got and the issues some had with it. Or they only read some of them.

Beyond IS, according to some fans' logic used to criticize the first movies, flawed, lame and weak as a movie no less than the first two were.. maybe even more, starting from the villain story to the character development of the leads and how much everything is too underdeveloped. There is no positive evolution for the characters and the ending is, frankly, not satisfying especially if it ends up being the reboot's conclusion.
Honestly, even Sulu's thing was handled too superficially because they did nothing with his subplot and cut the one scene that would do something with it.

Beyond gets a pass, for the most part, because of the nostalgia. I saw critics roast other movies for much less, yet they blatantly gloss over the same "issues" for Beyond because they don't want to be too hard on a movie that made them happy with certain elements.


- in fact, let's talk about what makes a movie "trek" because, frankly, even this concept is very debatable.

For a lot of those trek fans, the reboot isn't "trek" simply because they couldn't have their nostalgic 3 white dudes status quo being front and center, and they thus like beyond because it sidelined Uhura to give Mccoy and the "bros" more screentime. That may be more "trek" in terms of the reboot going backwards to restore some stuff from the old thing, but it really isn't "trek" in terms of those ideals of progressiveness, inclusiveness and all the supposedly contemporary and visionary stuff trek fans love to preach about all the time in their online efforts to make it seems that being a trek fan makes them, somehow, more "special" than fans of other franchises.

For many, though, the first movies were as "trek" as you could get. It depends on what is trek for you.
Frankly, I sometimes think that if the movies were too "trek" a lot of trek fans would hate it.
Am I too harsh? Well, sorry but honestly when I read some of the stuff that self proclaimed trek fans complain about in some trek fanboards I feel ashamed to be a trek fan. I'm just sick of people pretending that all trek fans are alike, one way or another..in positive and negative.
And it's too easy to say that the problematic fans aren't "real fans" when, in fact, the problem is exactly that they are too.

As for the other "trek" things such as them being explorers, or the philosophy, the sci-fi elements etc etc..I don't find beyond more "trek" and solid in those aspects, compared to the first two. I don't even really see it having a more positive tone.. Each movie has an ' agenda' in terms of making parallels with the real world, but beyond isn't any huge innovation in that sense or particularly deep and strong, and thus remembered for some big message. It isn't really iconic.

Honestly, I think this whole "more trek" business is for the most part really pretentious. I wish people could be at least more honest about it because I find a lot of comments made about the reboot (and now Discovery too) are contradictory and very disingenuos.


I believe, anyway, that trek fans as a whole are and will always be a minority in the general audience so tailoring any movie on their desires, especially those conservative ones, is a bad idea. Then, even among trek fans we aren't all the same and in the minority we already represent, reboot haters are even a smaller percentage IMO. So when the creative team is trying too hard to placate those fans, they are basically prioritizing the minority of the minority. .which is even worse and counterproductive.

 

Loved 2009's Star Trek. Hated Into Darkness and couldn't care less about Beyond.

Hopefully Star Trek XIV will re-capture something of the first reboot movie magic again.

 

Bring in Tarantino to do his Yesterdays Enterprise movie

 

I cared. I just didn't like it any more than 09 or STID.

Maybe it's just me, but I couldn't see the difference...

 

White dudes really seem to be a chip on your shoulder for whatever reason. Yeah, I'm glad they sidelined Uhura, she was boring. The first two movies did nothing to make her a compelling character. Can you describe anything about her personality other than being good with languages and Spock's girlfriend? Because that was literally all that was done with her character. Zoe Salanda is a fun actress, and they made her a boring and nagging girlfriend in Into Darkness. Uhura, Sulu, Chekov, and Scotty have always been boring characters to me personally, so yeah I was happy with the "3 bros" having more screen time. If they do a fourth, I'd be fine with Jayla getting more screentime, because she already looks to have more potential as far as female characters go.

 

Correction:
2009 - 'A New Hope' remake.
Into Darkness - a good Trek movie.
Beyond - just an action movie with Star Trek in the title.

 

So JJ has 2 "A New Hope" remakes under his belt so far? Plus an upcoming "Return of the Jedi" remake and a "The Wrath of Khan" parody!

 

and yet, I'm not the one obsessed about trek having to be about the 'white dudes' only so, I guess, I have no choice but adeguate myself. I'm simply attempting to use your vernacular to convey an idea.

Can you describe anything about McCoy other than being grumpy and Kirk's best friend? Or anything more about Scotty besides the fact that Pegg essentially plays himself and he's funny? They both got more screentime than her in beyond so it shouldn't be that hard, or it is? I bet the latter.
Urban himself seems to think that McCoy has no purpose in the story if he isn't totally defined by 'bromance' with the main guys. He has nothing else to suggest or care about. And yet, even his dyamics with Kirk and Spock in Beyond were, frankly, one sided because the narrative only cares about Kirk and Spock's feelings, never his. Case in point: his best friend wants to leave the ship and he isn't allowed to have feelings about that. Heck, he doesn't even seem to be allowed to KNOW he's leaving, which is absurd for the kind of dynamic him and Kirk have. Most of his screentime is about Kirk and Spock and their problems, their friendship, Spock's relationship with Uhura.. and very little, if not nothing, is about him, his role on the ship, his life, his character. And while Kirk and Spock think about leaving starfleet, I have no idea why McCoy wants to stay since he, well, 'hates' space?
Plenty of missed opportunities, that no one seems to care they were missed because it seems like the only thing that matters is that they 'put the woman' in her place and 'restored the old trio' in terms of the superficiality of screentime only.
I feel like, it's lame enough that you gotta sideline the woman and her dynamics to make the bros more important (like really).. but at least give to the guys some depth and develop their characters some. Let me know them more. But nope. And here you complain about Uhura?!

Uhura who, even when she's sidelined, still makes a more important contribution to the main plot (outside of her dynamics) than McCo who pretty much is reduced to being just Kirk's best friend, but no one complains about the lack of character development he gets.
Some people really can't reconcile with the fact that they have such a transparent bias for the male characters that translates into rampant double standards for Uhura. And since she's a woman, and a woc, of course it comes across as being extra problematic because, of course, people have to paint themselves into a corner with hypocritical arguments and then complain when others get an 'impression' or notice a pattern that is, frankly, very hard to not notice.

For instance, even when it comes to her relationship with Spock, it's almost comical that people would criticize her for something they, literally, praise Kirk and McCoy for all the time e.g., if when Uhura has the audacity to call HER BOYFRIEND ( thus someone who, supposedly, should feel accountable to her, opposite to having to care about what two dudes he barely knows think of him?) out on his suicidal behavior we call her 'nagging', then I have to question how can you all even tolerate the interactions between McCoy and Spock, or Spock and Kirk, since the guys act way worse with him (and they are way more unprofessional, since we are at it).
I find it interesting that if Uhura is challenging Spock's human side and trying to make him see a different perspective (and without being racist), not to mention realistically expect him to consider her pov in the relationship too (and thus not take for granted she will always be able to 'translate' him), she's a nagging girlfriend who doesn't respect Spock is vulcan and chose a bad boyfriend for herself .. but on the flip side, McCoy's ongoing racism and Kirk's whining about him in stid (that is even more vocal and present than Uhura's) is glorified as needed s**t and making Spock see the merits of being human too. No one is like 'ok guys you don't like Spock but you know he's vulcan and if you want to be friends with him you gotta passively accept everything he says and does' .

Tell me again what kind of business Mccoy had in his first scene with Spock in Beyond where he was pleased that it looked like Spock apparently lost his girlfriend too, after already losing so much. What did Spock even do to him to justify his gratuitous pettyness? I dunno, this Spock isn't even on denial about his feelings the way tos Spock was.. their banter is, for the most part, completely one sided.

This is what some (Urban included) don't seem to get. Yes, this Spock is a more contemporary character and that makes the original trio dynamic, especially the banter with McCoy, harder to develop.. and forced and redudant sometimes (not to mention the original trio was mostly about Kirk, but here Spock was the protagonist TOO. They don't have those 'roles' anymore.) - but it isn't just Spock who should be more contemporary, it's McCoy too. It's the whole dynamic.
In all the romanticizing of Tos as the most perfect thing ever, I rarely see trek fans contextualize the old thing and thus acknowledge, or even try to, that a lot of things were developed in a certain way in tos because of the influence of the time too. Stereotypes affected everything no less than they do nowadays, and not just in the way Spock was developed as a mixed poc allegory (he pretty much was the tragic mulatto stereotype), but even McCoy was pretty much the stereotype of a white privileged 'Southern' dude who is scared of all things 'different'.
The problem is that what could be allowed at the time in that context, may actually feel terribly outdated, if not problematic, nowadays. You gotta upgrade things a bit, not just the special effects.

And the original trio? I love that people are so focused on overrating it and insisting that a modern trek must 'respect' that that they forget that, literally, we had a 3 dudes show because that's everything Roddenberry&Co were allowed to have. It wasn't even the original plan, but women ain't s**t in the 60s so Gene could never have number one, or make Rand or Uhura bigger characters. He could never have dynamics that included women, the leads would never be allowed - at the time - to have important relationships with female characters too. Bromance had to be the only representation of interpersonal relationships we could get because anything else wasn't allowed (at least not in a everlasting and meaningful way, because, of course, Kirk was allowed to have one episodes love interests). But we aren't in the freaking 60s anymore so shouldn't trek be, now, allowed to do things that Gene&Co couldn't do??

I'm not saying there can't be a way to implement the old in the new and thus pay homage to beloved aspects of the original series, all the while respecting the integrity of a modern trek iteration that has different character dynamics. But this fandom's insistence that some things must stay the same forever and ever is annoying because it essentially makes trek 'stuck' in the past. Nostalgia can't be used as a means to get a pass when your narrative is being, basically, conservative and outdated.

I respect your opinion but trek has two male protagonists already: Kirk and Spock.
It's not a priority, and never was honestly, to have a third or fourth male lead. There is enough oversaturation of dudes already; and yes, it's not lost on me that, of course, you are enforcing the clichè that while hollywood can have plenty of male leads, 'there can only be one' when it comes to the ladies. I'm not surprised by the Jaylah's appreciation either: she is safe because she doesn't 'get in the way of the original trio' since she has no interpersonal dynamic with either Kirk or Spock, and she isn't one of the iconic crew characters either so any next writer can decide to write her out if they want. She's fanboy safe, the way certain fans want their female characters to be.

also, while McCoy is a beloved character Uhura is honestly more iconic in pop culture. No one joined the Nasa because of McCoy, and probably no actor decided to try an acting career because they were inspired by someone like them being in trek. It goes beyond the way she was developed, it's what she represented (and she was the one who got the most fanmails after Spock at the time, but they wouldn't give them to her).. so it really was ABOUT TIME the reboot acknowledged that her character got wasted in tos and she needed a bigger role, just like it was about time they recognized Spock as equal protagonist and not just Kirk's sidekick friend (Nimoy could hardly get that).

In terms of the reboot, outside of old trek fans, Uhura/Zoe is honestly more popular than Urban too and they know it. I don't remember him getting any award nomination for trek either, usually it's only Zoe, Chris and very occasionally Zach who get those mentions and thus represent this trek in that kind of thing.
Frankly, if this team obviously recognizes her image and character as being more useful than McCoy/Karl's in promotional stuff such as the international posters, interviews, promotion etc etc.. then they might as well keep her as third lead like JJ originally made it (in movies that are more successful than "3 bros having more screen time" beyond), no matter how much Urban was whining about his 'lack' of screentime.

people are totally allowed to like the 3 bros being front and center, but it feels a bit disingenuos when the same cannot comprehend why nowadays audiences won't collectively find that kind of product so groundbreaking, intereresting and 'new', especially when compared to other successful franchises they have.

 

I'm as liberal and for social justice as they come, and even I think that sentence is... I'd google persecution complex.

 

ST TOS main characters are Kirk Spock period. The show was created in the 60s so yup they are played by white actors "dudes".

Alternative timeline whatever can't just change the characters race etc. to fit 21st century pc snowflake everyone gets a trophy n pizza society

The bros you reference is the 3 parts of a single mind

Spock logic
McCoy emotion
Kirk balancing both to arrive at best result while facing challenges


I really personally do not give a rats ass if the characters are white, male, etc. Just that they are interesting.

What makes Kirk fascinating to me personally and I'm sure to others is - he's a fantastic intelligent nimble character. He's a master tactician, soldier, problem solver, solid diplomat, and representative of the Federation. Not afraid to change his mind or perspective and continually learn and better himself.

Spock - half human Vulcan/aluen. extremely intelligent, using logic to see through emotions and understand the issue in play. Comes across cold calculating, but really underneath cares deeply for Kirk, crew, and ship more than anyone could see. Uses humor daftly Trying to balance all this with Vulcan logic only part of his enduring charm

Leonard Nimoy acted his ass off to bring all of this to life.

Zoe as an actor is great and one if biggest stars of ensemble if not largest, but Uhura as a character is limited. Just as Chekov (one of worst characters IMO), Sulu

This has zero to do with her gender, but all on the character.

Janeway was a phenomenal Captain imo and it has nothing to do with her gender, but how character was written and created.

 

i really hope episode 9 is great. the force awakens was a little mediocre and no were near as good as star trek 09

 

It's too late to riff on the new cast being fresh-faced and right out of the academy if they wait another 5+ years. I'm not sure the world needs to see the reboot characters entering middle-aged and going through TOS movie style moments. Cho in particular already in his mid 40s and Anton Yelchin isn't with us anymore.

If they don't do one now then they would probably need to do a full-on reboot.

 

The force awakens was a reboot of the org Star Wars - A New Hope IMO

Problem is the Lucas family not letting a new direction of the SW universe and stay with same ol same ol filming style

That's why they've changed directors on nmbr 9 and Han Solo movies - creative difference masked by other reasons reading between lines on reports imo

 

Both James Doohan (Born 1920) and DeForest Kelly (Also born 1920) were in their mid to late 40ies in 1966 and nearly 50 when TOS ended its run on TV in 1969. They did fine for the first 4 TOS films. The Abrams cast is hardly too old to pull off one more film in that near era even IF they wait another 4 - 5 years.

 

I thought Jayla was a darn good character in Beyond, her gender was irrelevant to how good she was, so its a plus she is female and speaking of JJ, jayla is better than Rey in the force awakens.