Spoilers STAR TREK BEYOND - Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
The blame TWOK.
Weird suggestion. I rather embrace both.
Doesn't really dispute the numbers. Comparing the second weekend drop off to the last two films, it's a considerable one.
Which is too bad, because I think this is the best of the new films. I don't think we should worry about how it effects the next film though. nuTrek 4 is gonna be made anyway, only now with the mindset that it could be the last with this new cast* so I hope that means they hit it out of the park as a worthy finale.
Weird that I still refer to this cast as "new", when they've held the roles since 2007. Old habits.
I hope a director's cut sees the light of day. It probably won't though.
There seems to be a consensus that Yorktown was visually stunning. I won't disagree. It's a beautiful, imaginative construct. However, it seemed like it would be a living hell to live there for a person who suffered from vertigo. 
Also, what would it be like to be living in an earth-like environment, but there's no weather? And even with its massive size, do people in Yorktown sometimes feel claustrophobic? Can one stay there only so long? Maybe this is just a bit of McCoy-like grousing on my part about essentially minor nit-picky things. It's better than the K-7. Still, I wonder.
It's also what 23rd century people who live on other worlds have probably become used to. I mean, I suppose Ben Franklin and George Washington would have trouble with being at the top of 1000 foot tall skyscrapers, moving around the ground at 70 miles an hour in a car, or God-forbid flying in an airplane. Maybe it's all relative.
Also, I thought it odd that Spock said Yorktown was essentially built to provide a neutral non-planet site for alien species to meet as opposed to meeting on a specific species's planet. Kind of a weird rationalization for it, really. There are no inhabitable planets around that can serve as neutral territories? No Khitomer-type places?
Also, what would it be like to be living in an earth-like environment, but there's no weather? And even with its massive size, do people in Yorktown sometimes feel claustrophobic? Can one stay there only so long? Maybe this is just a bit of McCoy-like grousing on my part about essentially minor nit-picky things. It's better than the K-7. Still, I wonder.It's also what 23rd century people who live on other worlds have probably become used to. I mean, I suppose Ben Franklin and George Washington would have trouble with being at the top of 1000 foot tall skyscrapers, moving around the ground at 70 miles an hour in a car, or God-forbid flying in an airplane. Maybe it's all relative.
Also, I thought it odd that Spock said Yorktown was essentially built to provide a neutral non-planet site for alien species to meet as opposed to meeting on a specific species's planet. Kind of a weird rationalization for it, really. There are no inhabitable planets around that can serve as neutral territories? No Khitomer-type places?
Sooner or later... everyone comes to Babylon 5.
Wasn't Yorktown shrouded in fog in the first trailer and some of the early promotional pictures? That was probably because the FX hadn't been completed yet, but still... weather.
no. I mean all of them. I posted side by side comparisons of all the trailers since STTMP..they are all marketed as action movies. STII's last 3rd was all a set-piece action sequence.RAMA
TWoK was very much an action movie, as was TUC. Please don't blame TNG for something that started in 1982.
I have nothing new to add that hasn't been said, although someone on another board noticed Uhura was the only one of the group drinking water at Kirk's party and not alcohol.....
That is....fascinating.
That is....fascinating.
Movie 4 is already greenlit, and there's been some heavy rumors that whichever Hemsworth brother played Kirk's dad is reprising his role.
I only hope it's not another three year wait for that film,given the raised bar this one set.
What? Not a single Trek movie before First Contact was an action movie in any way, shape or form, from my perspective.
But even if you classified those from II onward as "action", they wouldn't be action movies for today. I was comparing them to the Mission Impossible, Fast & Furious and Bourne movies. All of them good franchises, but that's not a direction I want Trek to take. Plus, some of those other movies have pretty _good_ action. Beyond I thought was a bit generic in that department.
Yes they were, Trekkies love re-writing history to try and make us think the old stuff is so cerebral, but there was nothing overtly cerebral about any of the movies at all, they were generally better-than-average, action-adventure movies and no one at the studio saw any problem with marketing them that way.
RAMA
Vodka or gin or some tequilas (just to name a few) would appear indistinguishable from water on camera.
I would like to see that too. I always felt despite being a good movie, that it was way too short. 122 minutes? hell both Star Trek and Into Darkness were longer than that. Also Apparently Kirk's "This is my last report....as Captain of the Enterprise" was made specifically for the trailers which actually makes sense.
Last edited:
I don't really consider any of the TOS movies to be action movies. Yes, there is some action in them, but not very much. I'm not saying they're "cerebral", but I think they're primarily fantasy/sci-fi drama.
I've argued with people about it on this forum, but if you consider those films to be action movies than I think you have a different definition of action than I do, or what constitutes an "action movie".
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
- Poll
