Does anyone think that Beyond was something of a missed opportunity?

[The Wormhole]

Something about the Marvel and Star Wars universes is that there is a feeling of a larger universe. The Star Trek universe feels small. In Beyond, the action takes place in a small area. And the more successful films are films which build upon earlier films - it seems, that like tv, audiences are moving to serialized films and away from episodic films for franchises. Suicide Squad was crud, yet it made its money back for many reasons, including a reason mentioned here, it was part of a larger story which began two films ago and will be added to in the next year.

My mother felt the film was tired and did not go anywhere. For her, it was dominated by explosions and violence.

Creating a "larger universe" does not automatically guarantee success. Although I have been critical of Disney's plans with the MCU and Star Wars in the past, I now admit they do seem to know what they're doing, but the success of those franchises has more to do with the fact they are good movies and less to do with them being interconnected. Particularly with Marvel where every series is a different take on the universe. Iron Man is an action series, Thor is fantasy, Captain America is political thriller, Guardians of the Galaxy is space opera, Doctor Strange is mysticism, Avengers is where everyone meets up. Star Wars is similarly branching out with it's "side story" movies like Rogue One, which is being touted as a gritty war film set in the SW universe. Part of Star Trek's problem is that it sticks with the same formula, the adventures of a starship. The variations on this theme have only been the sequel set 100 years later, the prequel set 100 years earlier, the one where the ship is lost, the one on a space station instead of a ship. And try doing something different Trek fans get all up in arms declaring their childhoods raped and the current producers worse war criminals than Hitler.

DC has gotten lucky so far that they haven't really had a flop, but they really don't seem to have their head in the game as far as movies go. In all honesty, of the three DCEU movies currently out, Suicide Squad is probably the best, and even that is severely flawed. I guarantee, the lackluster quality of the films combined with the behind the scenes drama with every director who isn't Zack Snyder either walking away or being screwed over, the DCEU will collapse within five years or so.

 

[wayoung]

To continue with The Wormhole 's post, every part of the Marvel CU is run by different people. There is no Rick Berman and Brannan Braga controlling every element. They have Kevin Fiege in charge overall for the movies amnaging master arc but, as wormhole says, each movie is set in a different genre (although even then there is a fairly standard Marvel Formula that is followed).

Fiege isn't involved in the TV side of the Marvel CU. It's managed by the Marvel committee which Fiege separated from a year or two ago. And each show has its own showrunners setting it's own tone and plot, only loosely connecting to the rest of the CU - to the point that many people involved in the productions don't consider the TV and film universes connected. The links are mere lip service, even between the ABC shows and the Netflix shows.

Ultimately, with Marvels method, you cut down o franchise fatigue and get a much larger variety of film and TV programs. The downside is you'll never get as interconnected of a franchise as Trek did.

Personally I think the Marvel method is the better solution. What's the point of four tv shows and film franchises if they are all the same?

 

[F. King Daniel]

Paramount's Trek movie team and CBS' Discovery people are as separate as they can get.

I'm still curious if Paramount will have the guts to expand the Trek cinematic universe beyond the adventures of James T. Kirk. I'd give that "SEAL Team Six of the Star Trek universe" movie idea a go... especially if it were the Franklin MACOs fighting the Romulan War.

 

[fireproof78]

Universe building is only as important as the story that's being told. Books have recognized this for years, but TV and filmmakers have been more slow to adopt it, shying away from, what I would guess, was a fear of being a "soap opera."

The MCU is an interesting example, because comics over the past several decades have not cared about continuity, because of all the various writers. It's only with the advent of the "cinematic universe" rather than one off's, like Blade and Spider-Man, that there's been a push towards consistency and world building.

I think that Star Trek needs to branch out with similar variations on the theme of exploration. Honestly, I would use SG-1 as a great example of adding in variations to a theme, as well as world building. Learn from their mistakes, and build up from there.

I honestly think that Star Trek needs either an Atlantis style spin-off, in another galaxy, allowing them some creative originality, and some opportunities to do something a little bit different.

 

[Phoenix219]

I would say the opposite; that comics have cared more about continuity in the last few decades, hence all the attempts at FIXING and REBOOTING their continuities....

 

[fireproof78]

I would say the opposite; that comics have cared more about continuity in the last few decades, hence all the attempts at FIXING and REBOOTING their continuities....

Possibly, but they are constantly rebooting, at least it feels like to me. Haven't been able to keep up in the past year or so. But, I'm not the expert on comics (far from it) so I could be wrong.

 

[BillJ]

I honestly think that Star Trek needs either an Atlantis style spin-off, in another galaxy, allowing them some creative originality, and some opportunities to do something a little bit different.

I think you need to keep things closer to home. Not sure people care about spinoffs that don't affect the main universe.

 

[fireproof78]

I think you need to keep things closer to home. Not sure people care about spinoffs that don't affect the main universe.

Possibly, and I would prefer it. But, I also feel like the larger world building could benefit from such a spin off. This is also why I like an Academy based series, which I think could be done very well and keep things close to home, as you say

 

[The Wormhole]

There is no Rick Berman and Brannan Braga controlling every element.

Actually, contrary to popular belief, Braga did not control the Trek franchise. His authority was only over Enterprise and seasons 5 and 6 of Voyager. That's it.

 

[Vger23]

I think you need to keep things closer to home. Not sure people care about spinoffs that don't affect the main universe.

Agreed...and Star Trek tried this once before. It was called Star Trek: Voyager and it wasn't very good.

 

[Zonker]

My biggest complaint with Beyond was that they set up a lot of interesting threads but didn't give them enough screen time to pay off. Kirk's birthday blues, Spock's decision to leave Starfleet, Krall's motivation to fight the federation. These were all good themes that I think would have brought the movie to another level if they were fleshed out a bit more. Supposedly there was also a thread about Bone's struggling with the dilemma of picking up a weapon that ended up being cut out of the film. More things like that would really have elevated the film in my opinion and I'm hoping will make it into a directors cut.

 

[TRON JA307020]

Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed the movie for what it was. It was a nice way to honor Trek's 50th anniversary. It was not a bad movie whatsoever. And it was leagues better than Into Darkness!

However, I can't help but feel that it could've been so much more. We got nothing that explored the potential of the awesome possibilities of an alternate timeline. I thought the whole point of Star Trek 2009 was to take the franchise into new directions with stuff we've never seen before! Star Trek 2009 was very promising. But what have we seen since then? A rehash of TWOK and then a story with another forgettable villain who wants revenge against the Federation. Beyond just seemed like stuff we've all seen before. It was good, but none of it felt substantial.

Anyone feel the same?

Yeah. I like the visuals on the film but it was same old same old. Another rogue Starfleet officer with the twist that he was thought to be an alien. I really hoped for something spectacular but we got a story with Starfleet civilians running and Kirk saving them after he lets the villain cause massive destruction. I really wished for the Enterprise to be out her on their own with no space station or any other Federation outpost to go to. Well there is always the fourth one I guess with the NuEnterprise Nu1701-A.

 

[Smellmet]

No guarantee at this point that it will even get made. Here's hoping.

 

[fireproof78]

Yeah. I like the visuals on the film but it was same old same old. Another rogue Starfleet officer with the twist that he was thought to be an alien. I really hoped for something spectacular but we got a story with Starfleet civilians running and Kirk saving them after he lets the villain cause massive destruction. I really wished for the Enterprise to be out her on their own with no space station or any other Federation outpost to go to. Well there is always the fourth one I guess with the NuEnterprise Nu1701-A.

Why? Even in TOS Enterprise had places to go and bases to support it. The whole "only ship in the quadrant" thing seemed to come up more in the TOS films and early TNG, though I could be mistaken.

I liked Beyond and it played enough with my expectations that it was a lot of fun.

 

[The Wormhole]

Why? Even in TOS Enterprise had places to go and bases to support it.

Indeed, people often confuse the Enterprise's "five year mission" as meaning they were out for five years on their own with no contact Starfleet Command at all. This is false, we know they stopped at starbases and other stations, it was featured a few episodes. We know there were crew transfers on and off ship, Norman only just transferred on the ship a week or so prior to I, Mudd, and the same episode would indicate Chekov wasn't with the crew in Mudd's Women. Hell, they traveled to the Federation core at least twice, four times if you count their trips to 20th century Earth.

 

[Xerxes82]

Now that I've finally seen this film, I can wander back into this section of the bbs.

I definitely agree that this was a "safe" movie. It did feel very much like a long episode of some missing Star Trek show. I really liked that they at least gave more screen time to more characters, even if not all of them got to do all that much (Uhura/Sulu/Chekov).

But I agree as well that this was an opportunity to do something boldly different. Even way back in the casting stage, I was super disappointed that they chose not to bring back Carol Marcus. Especially with no mention of her at all in this film at all. There was an opportunity to shake up the old dynamics, really inject something new into the mix. And while there is no reason that she would have to be used as a romantic interest for Kirk, using her as a woman that gets under his skin would be fun. Hell, while it would probably end up being trite and cliche, the thought of seeing Kirk, even this alternate Kirk, actually attempting a committed relationship sounds really, really amusing to me. I'm probably the only one, however.

Also, we're sticking to the original series checklist so far. The First One. The One with Khan. The One Where They Destroy the Enterprise. Next up is time travel. Please try to do something, anything different! Really that's all I ask. Give me something new, not just a nostalgia kick to the days long gone.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

Something about the Marvel and Star Wars universes is that there is a feeling of a larger universe. The Star Trek universe feels small. In Beyond, the action takes place in a small area. And the more successful films are films which build upon earlier films - it seems, that like tv, audiences are moving to serialized films and away from episodic films for franchises. Suicide Squad was crud, yet it made its money back for many reasons, including a reason mentioned here, it was part of a larger story which began two films ago and will be added to in the next year.

My mother felt the film was tired and did not go anywhere. For her, it was dominated by explosions and violence.

Creating a "larger universe" does not automatically guarantee success. Although I have been critical of Disney's plans with the MCU and Star Wars in the past, I now admit they do seem to know what they're doing, but the success of those franchises has more to do with the fact they are good movies and less to do with them being interconnected. Particularly with Marvel where every series is a different take on the universe. Iron Man is an action series, Thor is fantasy, Captain America is political thriller, Guardians of the Galaxy is space opera, Doctor Strange is mysticism, Avengers is where everyone meets up. Star Wars is similarly branching out with it's "side story" movies like Rogue One, which is being touted as a gritty war film set in the SW universe. Part of Star Trek's problem is that it sticks with the same formula, the adventures of a starship. The variations on this theme have only been the sequel set 100 years later, the prequel set 100 years earlier, the one where the ship is lost, the one on a space station instead of a ship. And try doing something different Trek fans get all up in arms declaring their childhoods raped and the current producers worse war criminals than Hitler.

DC has gotten lucky so far that they haven't really had a flop, but they really don't seem to have their head in the game as far as movies go. In all honesty, of the three DCEU movies currently out, Suicide Squad is probably the best, and even that is severely flawed. I guarantee, the lackluster quality of the films combined with the behind the scenes drama with every director who isn't Zack Snyder either walking away or being screwed over, the DCEU will collapse within five years or so.

I don't think the shared universe aspect is what Star Trek is missing. Sure, Disney and WB have had success with their shared universe films, but I think it's because each film gives the audience an entertaining experience. Something different every time, that people want to patron again and again.

Just look at Fox's X-Men films as an example of a shared universe that seems to be stuck in low gear. X-Men Apocalypse came out this year (Fox's 9th X-Men movie) and it's the 2nd lowest grossing comic book movie (the first being TMNT 2) of the year. Domestically (unadgjusted), Apocalypse made less than X1, X2, X3, XMO, FC, DOFP and Deadpool. Compare the X film numbers to the MCU and DCEU films, and you see that, like Sony 2 years ago with TASM, Fox is lagging behind. Like with Spider-Man, the X-Men films have been criticized for repeating themselves in each movie, and making the viewer experience boring.

I think Paramount didn't advertise the film very well and that's the cause of the low turnout. My family is filled with Trekkies. I have 3 aunts and uncles on my mother's side and 9 uncles and aunts on my father's side, spread out across the US, and none of them knew there was a new Trek film this year. I think some executives at Paramount still feel Star Trek is lame and are ashamed to embrace it the way Disney embraces Marvel and Star Wars and the way WB embraces DC and their fantasy films (Harry Potter, LOTR and The Hobbit).

 

[Desert Kris]

Having re-watched in on video, I still quite like the movie as a fun movie that has some nice action sequences, and really nice thoughtful character moments.

With regard to the OP question, now that the newness of it is starting to wear off, yeah, retrospect is making me feel like there's some things that it would have been nice to see followed through on.

I love TOS crew, while at the same time was okay with and interested in seeing how they developed differently in an alternative reality. I liked the sense that because they met each other in different ways, how the ensemble relate to each other may have echoes of what we remember in the old show, yet have alternative nuances. I liked Uhura's expanded role, didn't see her as a replacement of "the big three", it felt like her dynamic could have made them more of a big four (except we don't have a strong sense of her rapport with Bones). I liked her sassiness with Kirk, the sense that she could keep him honest by calling him out sometimes. She has a self-sacrifice moment for Kirk in Beyond, separating the Saucer section, but I think the movie could have taken a moment to have at least one more character beat between her and Kirk to show that, while they've achieved that mutual respect, she is also willing and able to give him sass.

Having Uhura and Spock broken up throughout the movie, opens the possibility that the next movie will drop the relationship, or give us an impression that they start spin around in an on-again, off-again romantic relationship; that won't feel like progress to me. OTOH, if they show Uhura and Spock taking Saavik under their wing as a young child and building a family together, that would follow through with Spock's feelings of responsibility towards his Vulcan people, and move him forward with Uhura.

I was okay with Spock Prime's fate having an influence on Spock's concerns about his role in the universe. Would like to have seen McCoy say something like, "Your older counterpart had at least a hundred years to live all those different lives, to take on all those roles. Logically, it will take time for you to accumulate all that on your own." A very straightfoward argument in favor of Spock seeing through a little farther with his Starfleet career. In the spirit of taking things in a different direction, Spock's current background does speak strongly towards him leaving Starfleet much, much sooner in this continuity, so they might as well follow up on that. Again, returning to Saavak, this time around, rather than save Saavak and then put her with a Vulcan family, or his own parents, Spock and Uhura can raise her directly.

As for Carol Marcus, I liked the possibility of her becoming part of the Enterprise crew, and the opportunities it brought up. We've seen so many old ST stories of Kirk with endless regrets, yet with this timeline we've seen they have the potential to avoid the ruts that the original version of the characters seemed to be stuck in. The fact that Carol disappeared was disappointing, and I know with films there are pacing concerns, and telling the best story possible and all that, or not distracting the focus of a story with a character who doesn't have a place in the story. I kind of feel that Carol could have had a place in this story. We see how Bones is able to help Kirk sort out his thoughts on his restlessness, and Carol could have played a part in helping, or complicating, or done both for Kirk. Keep the scene between Kirk and Bones, and also include scenes of a relationship with Carol being a direction Kirk can go to settle down. Carol can be supportive of his directional crisis, yet also confuse Kirk with her own desire to settle down, something like that. Also, Carol is a weapons specialist scientist. She had potential to identify the nature of the Arbonath, provide some helpful, clarifying exposition, maybe even provide some tactical anaylsis of how that Krall's swarm operates. She could also have an understated character journey where she has to reflect on her role as a scientist with expertise in weapon technology, and she her desire a different direction for herself (it doesn't have to be Genesis, per se!). There was opportunity there, I feel. Which was missed.

Other people have commented on the chance to see a different fate for Krall. I feel a bit detached from a desire for a different outcome, but I can understanding the sentiment that it might have been interesting to take it in a different direction. They saved Khan, in order to pointlessly freeze him back to sleep, yet Krall, who is potentially more interesting they just killed off.

Actually, Krall is only interesting to me personally because I like ST stories that explore characters who go crazy from alien-ness of deep space; Ron Tracy and Garth of Izar. And the same goes for characters who stretch our definition of human capabilities, with Flint from Requiem For Methuselah. Yet, it's not a theme that is easy to relate to, for an audience. We're not traveling through the far reaches of outer space, and seeing what that can really do to us, or seeing really weird possibilities open up to us that change us in ways that we can't predict or deal with. The idea of Krall as representative of how we deal with soldiers coping with peace after fighting a war for that peace resonates, sure, but it gets buried beneath all that alien; the same way that Idris Elba is buried under all that alien make-up. They buried Edisson and Elba too deeply. Missed opportunity.

As others have said, Krall can easily be seen as too similar to Khan and Nero. So, missed opportunity, sure, I can definitely see it.

I still like the movie, though, it's fun for what it is.

 

[Nyotarules]

I enjoyed the movie but was disappointed in how the villian turned out. The statement 'this is where the frontier fights back' I was hoping that in STB the Federation was the villian of the peice and Kirk and crew aid the bad guys, sounds too much like Insurrection? Well what we got wth 'villian seeking revenge' was just like ST09 and STID. Marcus should have been there as Head of tactical, being a weapons specialist and add some tension between her and Kirk. Five years in space and Kirk is supposed to live like a monk, or at least pair her up with Bones.
Also the UK promotion of the film was very poor.

 

[Malaika]

With regard to the OP question, now that the newness of it is starting to wear off, yeah, retrospect is making me feel like there's some things that it would have been nice to see followed through on.

I love TOS crew, while at the same time was okay with and interested in seeing how they developed differently in an alternative reality. I liked the sense that because they met each other in different ways, how the ensemble relate to each other may have echoes of what we remember in the old show, yet have alternative nuances. I liked Uhura's expanded role, didn't see her as a replacement of "the big three", it felt like her dynamic could have made them more of a big four (except we don't have a strong sense of her rapport with Bones). I liked her sassiness with Kirk, the sense that she could keep him honest by calling him out sometimes. She has a self-sacrifice moment for Kirk in Beyond, separating the Saucer section, but I think the movie could have taken a moment to have at least one more character beat between her and Kirk to show that, while they've achieved that mutual respect, she is also willing and able to give him sass.

It's unfortunate that Uhura and McCoy have not interacted yet, especially when their dynamics with Kirk and Spock sorta parallel each other a bit. Wasted potential for a big 4 indeed.

I, for one, liked the Spock/Uhura/Kirk trio more than the 'trying to restore the old Kirk/Spock/McCoy trio back' from star trek beyond because it gives me different dynamics beside the bromance; I still think it works better for this trek.
I know that some fans wanted more Mccoy and the original trio back, but I don't see why the potential of the new things must be constantly wasted because of nostalgia, and why we must insist things are the same when they really aren't.
The Kirk/Uhura/Spock dynamic is well liked and considered the 'image' of this trek now, along other aspects that make it a separate thing.
I don't think that having an all male dynamic is a wise move in 2016. Trek may come cross as 'old' and limited and conservative compared to other things, and I really don't see how that would be a good thing.

It's not that I hate the original trio, but it's 3 dudes and it's literally having only male friendships over and over and over. In a way, I have to settle for that in tos and I accept the limits of the 60s not making it possible to have other things, but I'm not willing to give them a pass in 2016.
I think the trio with Uhura makes more sense in this trek, anyway. The way Uhura does show Spock that there is good in his human side is a different approach, and more enganging to me, than trying to replicate the love-hate relationship between Spock and McCoy in tos, that is something that, to some extent, we already had with reboot Kirk/Spock anyway. If Kirk and McCoy are Spock's opposites, Uhura is that character who is NOT his complete opposite and she challenges him without necessarily having to treat him as a weird alien who needs to be either attacked or placated. She's, in a sense, what McCoy is for Kirk with the added layers of a romantic relationship that is something the characters didn't have in the old thing. I honestly like that the introvert nerdy guy is the one who gets to have a stable relationship in the story.
The banter with McCoy can be funny but it doesn't really add, for me, anything new to this Spock and might come across as a bit forced too for a Spock who is, after all, different and not so on denial about his human side and feelings like Nimoy Spock was.

If turning Spock into an impersonation/parody of tos Spock will be the new modus operandi in future movies, and the price I have to pay for the writers to find pretexts to give him banter with McCoy and have the 'original trio back' (and restore Kirk's original status as the one and only protagonist vs the first movie essentially making Spock a co-protagonist), sorry but I'll pass.

and I don't get Lin honestly. He said that his movie wanted to do more with the relationships that tos never explored, and yet, he apparently didn't understand that JJ did EXACTLY that.
So, not only he dismissed Uhura's new role, but he made it about the old tos stuff at the expense of the new.
Am I supposed to really believe that trek fans are so stuck in what tos couldn't do, that we project tos on the new movies, characters and dynamics to the extent we can't even notice it when some things are different?
Because, I mean, there is a level of headstratching obliviousness in some of the stuff Lin and Pegg said about these characters. They don't even seem to understand how foundamentally different the dynamic between this Kirk and this Spock is, and the consequence of that when you want to pretend the old trio dynamic is the same exact thing it was in tos - in spite of these movies literally never giving to these characters those 'roles'.
Maybe to some it doesn't matter either way but it's a problem for me.
It's also a problem for me that in 2016 it seems like you apparently couldn't give more screentine to Karl Urban and explore some spock/bones bromance without having to break Spock/Uhura up and keep her away from both him and Kirk for 90% of the movie.
and yes, the fact they didn't completely ignore her and her dynamics doesn't make me give them a free pass when there was such a deliberate effort made to write her out of the trio and restore all things old. They didn't even attempt to develop an interesting dynamic between Sulu and Uhura.

Having Uhura and Spock broken up throughout the movie, opens the possibility that the next movie will drop the relationship, or give us an impression that they start spin around in an on-again, off-again romantic relationship; that won't feel like progress to me. OTOH, if they show Uhura and Spock taking Saavik under their wing as a young child and building a family together, that would follow through with Spock's feelings of responsibility towards his Vulcan people, and move him forward with Uhura.

If writers are so obsessed about dynamics being in peril, they can add drama to the bromances next time. Just challenge k/s or Kirk/Bones with a misuranderstanding or something they fundamentally disagree about and questions their friendship. Imagine if the actors had to tease about a movie where the guys are not friends anymore...fans take those dynamics so for granted that it seems like nothing new can be done with them..

replying to your point: I'm not holding my breath, but you'd think that in a fourth movie it's reasonable to believe that now the writers should maybe feel like trying something different than giving the romance more 'will they won't they' angst fest AGAIN. Dropping the relationship would be overkill and unnecessary at this point and, after all, their relationship is here since the first movie and they have many fans that are still hoping to finally see them do something a bit more with it and its potential.
It also would come across as if only Spock's relationship with a woman can be sacrificed all the while his friendships with the dudes are considered a given and untouchable by the creative team.
People who like these movies and the new dynamics don't deserve less consideration and respect than the fans of the old tos dynamics that the creative team constantly makes a point they want to make happy.

At this point, just show them being a couple... that would be a different approach and more 'new' than breaking them up again or giving them relationship issues. It's not like these characters are starving for threats that challenge them outside of their dynamics, anyway.
Also, he is a (half) vulcan and they are a couple since.. 6 years!? maybe they could start to talk a bit about the uniqueness of being with a vulcan, and a human/vulcan relationship, beside the whole 'he has a hard time showing his feelings'. We get it, but there is more to the vulcans and Spock than that, at this point, cliché.

If, like I read some suggesting, the reason why they don't do more with their relationship is because they are 'scared' of some trek fans still.. well, that's beyond (no pun intended) ridiculous. I mean, JJ&co already did the bold thing putting them together in the first place, and people for the most part embraced it already, outside of some who had a nervous breakdown over Spock kissing a girl and liking it. After 3 movies of them being a couple, it's a tad too late to get self conscious about it and keep things 'tos safe' still.