Paramount Confirms TWO Star Trek films currently in the works!

[pst]

The thing is, there's a year-long time jump between the climax and final scene of STID as it is, so presumably the Klingon tensions were resolved in the interim. Besides, STID made some dubious story decisions, and for that matter, so did the first film. I liked a lot about them, but they had their shortcomings, and I'm glad the STB team made a clean break.

re: those dubious story decisions, the place to wrap up the klingon thread wasn't star trek beyond, it was the third act of star trek into darkness. in-universe rationalizations aside, that's a pretty big meatball to leave hanging.

but i like star trek into darkness and i like it more because it gave star trek beyond a little more weight.

 

[Trekkin]

Makes more sense to me than, "the marketing suxed" makes.

Oddly, the friends that I saw it with seemed to have that issue.

I was a little shocked that they remembered so much of STID. They aren’t Trekkies, and apparently hadn’t seen it since it in four-frigging-years. Yet they were asking me if they’d missed a movie in-between. For eg. they were expecting Khan and Carol to come back.

Which I guess makes some sense. From my perspective, those two characters were just some of Treks many recurring cast. They come and they go. For people that had STID as 50% of their exposure to the Trek verse, Carol and Khan were leads. Leads that were just unceremoniously gone in Beyond.

And maybe the Marvel Universe had them expecting the need to remember minor details, and to see a bit more ‘connective tissue’ between even distantly-released movies. I dunno.

These same friends really hated Beyond, btw. I had some of my own issues with it (mostly knuckling down to just finding it ‘enjoyable-enough-but-unexceptional’), but their level of vitriol for it was...surprising.

 

[Christopher]

Which I guess makes some sense. From my perspective, those two characters were just some of Treks many recurring cast. They come and they go. For people that had STID as 50% of their exposure to the Trek verse, Carol and Khan were leads. Leads that were just unceremoniously gone in Beyond.

I guess I could see that with Carol, but why would they expect the villain to recur in two consecutive films?

Anyway, I have little sympathy for people who confuse "Not what I expected" with "bad." It's not the job of fiction to confirm our preconceptions, but to challenge them and expand our minds beyond them.

 

[Trekkin]

I guess I could see that with Carol, but why would they expect the villain to recur in two consecutive films?

...because he spent 2/3 of STID not being a villain? And arguably wasn’t the villain? And was probably in the movie more than Captain Kirk?

Also, he’s Cumberbatch. I am told that his presence alone tends to make certain members of the audience...eager, for his appearence.

Khan specifically aside, why is it so weird to expect not-dead franchise villains to return in a sequel? That’s ...very very normal. Sometimes in half a dozen consecutive movies.

Hell, even villain-murder-happy Marvel brings back a lot of their surviving villains for the direct sequels (Hi Nebula and Loki.) Though admittedly, usually for the purposes of being dealt with very quickly (And a less-enthusiastic-Hi to you, Crossbones and Zola.)

Anyway, I have little sympathy for people who confuse "Not what I expected" with "bad." It's not the job of fiction to confirm our preconceptions, but to challenge them and expand our minds beyond them.

(1) I never claimed they said it was ‘bad.’ They said that they hated it.
(2) I don’t agree with that definition of fictions ‘job.’ It’s a job, not the job.
(3) If that is the definition of what constitutes ‘good’ fiction, then I’m unfortunately going to have to change my judgement of Beyond to being a ‘bad’ example of it.

Because my major issue with it was that it wasn’t challenging. It had all the stimuli of a good mac-and-cheese. Enjoyable, without ever really being truly exciting or provocative in even the mildest way.

And no, I don’t just mean ‘It wasn’t hard sci-fi or a naval-gazing thesis exploring the entirety of human nature, pooh pooh.’ There’s other ways to be provocative and challenging.

 

[Christopher]

Khan specifically aside, why is it so weird to expect not-dead franchise villains to return in a sequel? That’s ...very very normal. Sometimes in half a dozen consecutive movies.

Yes, it happens sometimes, but it's not automatic or required. STID finished Khan's story. Yes, it left him and his followers alive to leave the door open for a potential return some time in the future, but it makes no sense to interpret that as a promise that he'd return in the very next movie.

 

[UssGlenn]

I still think they should have had Khan end up as a good guy, that would have been a twist.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I still think they should have had Khan end up as a good guy, that would have been a twist.

I think they went as close to that as they could have with him and Kirk teaming up to board the Vengeance. I really liked that they kept his characterisation so consistent. He's not out to do evil until he is wronged. Both times he went on crazy killing sprees (shooting up Starfleet HQ and levelling half of San Francisco), it was in retaliation for perceived wrongs. Both times he thought his crewmates had been killed.

And that tied in with the overall theme of the movie - "is there anything you would not do for your family?" Khan was willing to kill to save or avenge his family, and Kirk died to save his (which ties into his line in Beyond - "Better to die saving lives, than live with taking them")

 

[shapeshifter]

Oddly, the friends that I saw it with seemed to have that issue.

They had a, "marketing suxed" issue? You mean they thought the marketing sucked, as in they didn't see any?

Oddly, everyone I asked if they had heard a new Trek film was coming out said "Yes."

 

[pst]

I still think they should have had Khan end up as a good guy, that would have been a twist.

i thought that way about krall. if there's one (major) issue i'd fix in star trek beyond, it's that they killed krall instead of redeeming him. star trek beyond was supposed to be the most optimistic of the bunch, that would've really sold it for me.

 

[Mudd]

They didn't "redeem" a lot of real adversaries in TOS. They just didn't wind up killing them.

 

[pst]

They didn't "redeem" a lot of real adversaries in TOS. They just didn't wind up killing them.

true but "redeeming" krall would've served 3 functions:
1. provided a different type of ending after the death of nero and the refrigerating of khan (giving all three villains different fates)
2. worked to further the optimistic, utopian tone of the film
3. given krall a more interesting character arc by giving him his humanity back

 

[Mudd]

I think it wouldn't hurt for Trek fans and writers to limit the use of the word "utopian" to what it actually means, and instead use the perfectly good word "idealistic" where it belongs.

And to never utter or type the words "iconic" again.

 

[pst]

I think it wouldn't hurt for Trek fans and writers to limit the use of the word "utopian" to what it actually means, and instead use the perfectly good word "idealistic" where it belongs.

And to never utter or type the words "iconic" again.

utopian is literally synonymous with idealistic. and since there are few if any modern franchises associated with the word, i think we should embrace it.

 

[Christopher]

I agree, Edison remembering his humanity and helping to save Yorktown would've been a better ending, even if it was a heroic sacrifice.

 

[pst]

I agree, Edison remembering his humanity and helping to save Yorktown would've been a better ending, even if it was a heroic sacrifice.

right? they could've gone down the "what have done?" route. krall even employed mindless drones who could've continued their assault on yorktown, despite their leader's change of heart.

it's a total cliche, i just would've loved for krall to have been moved back to the light side by the fact that the federation had moved on to bigger better things since his day. as it is, krall has a point of view and sticks to it until his sort of oddly staged demise.

 

[Ovation]

utopian is literally synonymous with idealistic.

It really isn't. Ideals are not impossible to attain, even if rarely accomplished. Utopia literally means "no place"--thus NEVER attainable. And Star Trek, in any iteration, falls far short of depicting perfection (the quintessential characteristic of any "utopia", and equally NEVER attainable).

 

[pst]

It really isn't. Ideals are not impossible to attain, even if rarely accomplished. Utopia literally means "no place"--thus NEVER attainable. And Star Trek, in any iteration, falls far short of depicting perfection (the quintessential characteristic of any "utopia", and equally NEVER attainable).

you might have to write to those dictionary people and have that checked

 

[Ovation]

My mistake. I read utopia, the noun, not the adjective. But I stand by my point regarding utopia.

 

[Mudd]

utopian is literally synonymous with idealistic.

No it is not.

There is much that is idealistic that is not "utopian." Utopia and utopian refer to certain ideal states or "societies."

One can be idealistic while harboring no "utopian" delusions whatever.

It would be better to not use the word "utopian" when the word "idealistic" is appropriate.

 

[pst]

No it is not.

There is much that is idealistic that is not "utopian." Utopia and utopian refer to certain ideal states or "societies."

One can be idealistic while harboring no "utopian" delusions whatever.

It would be better to not use the word "utopian" when the word "idealistic" is appropriate.

seriously? i even linked to merriam in my comment above.

regardless, the point was not about synonyms, but about star trek beyond, its utopian (oh, i'm sorry, idealistic) themes, and how krall being redeemed could've taken those themes and more closely tied them to the actual story. beyond talks a good game about togetherness and peace, but doesn't use those qualities to propel the story outside of giving the bad guy something to be pissed off about. if the woke-ness of yorktown could've contributed to the resolution of the conflict, then the film would've been a lot tighter.

but i'm not talking shit on star trek beyond, i love it. and i hope the next kelvin timeline film is as utopian and/or idealistic.