Three years into the five year mission, huh? TOS lasted three years into the five year mission. Yes yes I know TOS takes place between 2266-2269 while Beyond is in 2263 but differeny timeline blah blah reality yeah yeah Chekov is the wrong age yada yada. But it's a nice little nod dontcha think?
Spoilers STAR TREK BEYOND - Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
I finally watched Beyond last night. I know, right? But that's how life goes sometimes. What with everything else I do as a thoroughly modern husband and Father I only just managed to catch Rogue One.
Anyway, I watched my Christmas present blu-ray and found it a great movie, much better than the last one. Bitter sweet in some ways, the photo of the old crew brought a lump to my throat and, aah, with the script giving every character a reasonable crack at doing things it really highlighted how much Yelchin will be missed next time out. He wasn't just there to have a Chekov on screen he was a valuable and contributory actor. Rest in peace, Anton.
I did still find something lacking, though, and it's something I can't really put my finger on. It's something the other movies had which this one doesn't. I genuinely believe it isn't the movies themselves but the person I am today verses the younger person I was watching the older ones. Maybe when I'm older I'll look back on these new films as fondly as I look back today on Shatner and Stewart et al.
But will I be there to watch Star Trek 4? You try stopping me! (sons sporting schedule permitting)
Anyway, I watched my Christmas present blu-ray and found it a great movie, much better than the last one. Bitter sweet in some ways, the photo of the old crew brought a lump to my throat and, aah, with the script giving every character a reasonable crack at doing things it really highlighted how much Yelchin will be missed next time out. He wasn't just there to have a Chekov on screen he was a valuable and contributory actor. Rest in peace, Anton.
I did still find something lacking, though, and it's something I can't really put my finger on. It's something the other movies had which this one doesn't. I genuinely believe it isn't the movies themselves but the person I am today verses the younger person I was watching the older ones. Maybe when I'm older I'll look back on these new films as fondly as I look back today on Shatner and Stewart et al.
But will I be there to watch Star Trek 4? You try stopping me! (sons sporting schedule permitting)
Hear, hear!
I'll second that.
(Ha, yeah...)
Ended up seeing this in the cinema twice when it came out and it was well worth it. Certainly it was visually stunning (ahh, those shots of the Enterprise) and I'd argue is the closest in capturing the dynamic and essence of the originals so it certainly stands out in my memory for that.
I hope with the 4th one however they finally try something different and more in line with TOS rather than your old angry bad guy of the hour wanting revenge for something or other.
Ended up seeing this in the cinema twice when it came out and it was well worth it. Certainly it was visually stunning (ahh, those shots of the Enterprise) and I'd argue is the closest in capturing the dynamic and essence of the originals so it certainly stands out in my memory for that.
I hope with the 4th one however they finally try something different and more in line with TOS rather than your old angry bad guy of the hour wanting revenge for something or other.
Just like my friend above I only just got to see this movie.
What a disappointment.
Muddled,unfocused with a villain whose motivation I still can't understand.
Is it not possible to make a Trek movie that doesn't involve mega-level property(i.e.Enterprise)destruction?
No cliche left unturned from a Wahoo!! Moment to the overused shot of a falling ship/plane sweeping up over the lip of a ravine.Nuts to that.
And what is with the huddled masses of trained starfleet crewmen standing around like professional hostages?
What a disappointment.
Muddled,unfocused with a villain whose motivation I still can't understand.
Is it not possible to make a Trek movie that doesn't involve mega-level property(i.e.Enterprise)destruction?
No cliche left unturned from a Wahoo!! Moment to the overused shot of a falling ship/plane sweeping up over the lip of a ravine.Nuts to that.
And what is with the huddled masses of trained starfleet crewmen standing around like professional hostages?
By this point, the entire red shirt army had
They learned from the mistakes of their predecessors, and decided en masse that 'professional hostage' was an upgrade from 'professional walking corpses.'
Dunno,it looked to me like casting deliberately picked the wimpiest most cowed looking extras they could find and shoved them into Starfleet uniforms!
I remembered Jimmy Doohans Scott as a pretty two-fisted character from TOS....guess that trait got transferred to Uhura somewhere along the way!
I remembered Jimmy Doohans Scott as a pretty two-fisted character from TOS....guess that trait got transferred to Uhura somewhere along the way!
Not sure what was so hard to understand? He felt abandoned by the Federation.
The movie also established that Edison felt pushed into the role of an explorer and was then forgotten about, even before being marooned. So, he was already resenting the Powers That Be and what they stood for long before his crash.
Nothing like those psych-evals to winnow out the nutters eh?
Look I don't remember the exact dialogue but on entering the nebula didn't Kirk(in a much more advanced ship) address the crew and say something like "we're on our own here."?
Anyway...enough complaining and here's hoping 4 will be a bit better.
Look I don't remember the exact dialogue but on entering the nebula didn't Kirk(in a much more advanced ship) address the crew and say something like "we're on our own here."?
Anyway...enough complaining and here's hoping 4 will be a bit better.
But, Edison didn't expect to be a captain of a starship. He was a soldier and then abandoned when the job was done.
Have you ever watched the original Star Trek??
All I have said is that I felt that the villains motivation seemed weak,ill-defined and poorly explained.
Hell,even tripe like Insurrection managed to do that better.
And putting an actor of Elbas quality in unrecognisable,incoherent makeup(that altered itself) during the movie was again,bizarre.
End of.
Hell,even tripe like Insurrection managed to do that better.
And putting an actor of Elbas quality in unrecognisable,incoherent makeup(that altered itself) during the movie was again,bizarre.
End of.
That show where even Kirk started becoming an egotistical and (occasionally) racist fuck-up once he'd been on the job for too long?*
*She says affectionately.
It is just hard for me to ding a new version of something that is using time honored traditions from earlier iterations of the franchise. Nutter captains and nutter admirals are a time honored Star Trek staple.
Unless they films are made by JJ Abrams. Whole different tropes are expected.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
