• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spoilers STAR TREK BEYOND - Grading & Discussion

Grade the movie...


  • Total voters
    611
It's not like we haven't seen it before.

This Kirk's disillusionment may have been the same reason his counterpart became head of Starfleet operations.

Which brings me to a question that has been nitpicked, but not really answered. It was established that Kirk applied for the job at Yorktown. What wasn't discussed is the fact that some real life military postings come with a rank attached.

For instance, the Surgeon General of the US holds the rank of Vice Admiral (3 stars), even a civilian. Other postings and appointments also come with 3 stars. Looking at US military history, I found that a 3 star officer usually retires at the end of his appointment. If not, he goes back to his previous rank and another assignment.

So, as illogical as it might seem that Kirk "applied" to be a vice-admiral, it's probably just the rank that came with the position. Commodore Paris might have been a placeholder there, or just the officer assigned to interview Kirk for the job.
 
So, as illogical as it might seem that Kirk "applied" to be a vice-admiral, it's probably just the rank that came with the position. Commodore Paris might have been a placeholder there, or just the officer assigned to interview Kirk for the job.

Maybe she just commanded the Starfleet administration attached to Yorktown. Kirk may have been applying for some kind of sector command that was based out of Yorktown.
 
The ship was already taken away from him in Into Darkness and the crew came very close to all getting blown up so I thought he would have learned that lesson already. Spock seemed to have forgotten that he almost lost Kirk in that movie as well, he's ready to ditch him here. Despite all that they grew complacent and this dangerous situation shook them out of it... despite having dangerous encounters from time to time during the normal course of their mission.

It would have been cool if there was some parallel with Krall going rogue to Kirk. But it'd be hard to do that because Into Darkness covered that ground already.
 
If it was meant to be such a drag between missions then Kirk would start every episode depressed until something interesting happens. We have to believe none of this kirks adventures were exciting enough for him or got him attached to his crewmates until Krall wrecks the ship.

Or he simply didn't understand what it all meant to him until he had it ripped away?
I was going to post something like this but @BillJ mentioned it first. Kirk's whole identity is wrapped up in the fact that he is his father's son. He joined Starfleet to try and live up to that ideal, that potential, and he gets out there and it isn't what he expected. It's like Bones said of being dieease and death wrapped up in darkness and silence.

Kirk is also facing his mortality a whole lot sooner than his Prime counterpart did. He has outlived his dad and has died himself. I'm not sure how I would react if I were to be my age and my dad was dead and I had outlived him so young. It would be a very surreal and emotionally difficult thing to navigate.

I feel like Kirk's arc has been simplified to the point that it has lost its emotional impact. Kirk is working on finding out what it means to be himself. If that is a small feat, than I would expect him to be done with it by ST 09. But, it isn't a small feat, so maybe it should be treated as a walk in the park.
 
We see these characters so rarely -- once every two or three years -- and so little time is devoted to real character development (i.e. dialogue) I just don't care about nu_kirk's character arc.

Seriously, I JUST saw this guy in a huge adventure (STID), he gets the E back, does great stuff, ready to go off to explore and be awesome. Cut. New movie. Now he's bored. [Coulda skipped all of that boredom thing because they don't seem to return to it (unlike TWOK, where Kirk says he feels "young" at the end, bookending things).]

ANYWAY . . .
Give me a hero, fully formed albeit not perfect, who goes about to do good, in well-written, intriguing, thought-provoking stories that involve a major choice or some dilemma (i.e. drama) where the outcome is not foreordained (i.e. "good guys" win).

STID is actually the best of the nu-3 at meeting my grumpy old man criteria above, I think.
 
Or he simply didn't understand what it all meant to him until he had it ripped away?

I was going to post something like this but @BillJ mentioned it first. Kirk's whole identity is wrapped up in the fact that he is his father's son. He joined Starfleet to try and live up to that ideal, that potential, and he gets out there and it isn't what he expected. It's like Bones said of being dieease and death wrapped up in darkness and silence.

Kirk is also facing his mortality a whole lot sooner than his Prime counterpart did. He has outlived his dad and has died himself. I'm not sure how I would react if I were to be my age and my dad was dead and I had outlived him so young. It would be a very surreal and emotionally difficult thing to navigate.

I feel like Kirk's arc has been simplified to the point that it has lost its emotional impact. Kirk is working on finding out what it means to be himself. If that is a small feat, than I would expect him to be done with it by ST 09. But, it isn't a small feat, so maybe it should be treated as a walk in the park.

These are thoughtful answers and I tend to agree with them. There really wasn't an emotional payoff for the Kirk monolog or the scene with McCoy. The Kirk-McCoy scene was a heavy moment that I thought was setting the tone for Kirk's story arc the rest of the way. As it was, it didn't seem to fit into the story at all. In fact, the story could've actually survived very well with Kirk's opening monolog and the scene with McCoy cut out. At least that's how I see it.

If Kirk had a story arc in TOS at all, part of it was his occasional realization that Enterprise cost him his personal life, and sometimes that hurt. The ship came to define him. It was his wife, mistress, and best friend, and it demanded all his attention to the exclusion of anything else. It could make him feel trapped.

Maybe in STB, magnified by the approaching birthday, Kirk is starting to realize their are personal costs to his adventuring spirit. With such an emotional birthday coming up, it just piles onto the feelings of how much he's giving up for his career. I thought McCoy's line about Kirk calling his mom was odd. It just hung there. Shouldn't Kirk's mom be calling him on his birthday? Maybe they should've had McCoy ask Kirk if he was going to call Carol. Kirk could've given him a WTF look and one of those curt, annoyed answers, maybe even mentioning "opening old wounds." He could've told him Carol made it clear to him when she transferred that she wasn't going to compete with the Enterprise for him.

We see Kirk is coming to a crossroads in life with no turning back. To go on means having a commitment to the Enterprise at the expense of any other potential loves or other happiness in the future. To be Jim Kirk requires him to devote himself totally to one love, and at this point in his life, he's not sure any more that he wants it to be the Enterprise. The burden may be too great. The personal cost too high. Then go on with the story and the loss of the Enterprise.

Or, have a payoff for McCoy asking Jim if he's going to call his mom in the opening. At the end of the movie, just after McCoy surprises Kirk with the party, have him tell Kirk that before he has too much to drink, there's a call he needs to take. He escorts Kirk to a private alcove with a viewscreen. His mom is on screen. "You never got around to calling her, so -- " McCoy says. Kirk gives him a "but now?" look. "Doctor's orders," McCoy tells him as he walks off. She could tell him she heard he saved the world, again. She's glad he's OK. She's sorry for the loss of his ship and the deaths of his crew. That he must have good friends to care enough to throw their captain a party. Most poignantly to the story, she could tell him she worries about him, but she's proud of him, and she knows his dad would be very proud and happy to know his son has gone on to achieve so much. That his father would be proud to serve with him. Just a short scene to close the arc and make Kirk realize something he already concluded for himself, he is on the right track for him.

I don't know. Like I've said before, I think there was an emotional void in this movie after the McCoy-Kirk scene. It became more or less a light romp. The Kirk story arc was too weak for the tone it set early.
 
Last edited:
I just saw Beyond today. I gave it an A+. I've always supported Pegg; he did a kick-ass job with this movie. I have no complaints and all praise. I hated Beastie Boys' Sabotage in trailer #1, which was an awful trailer, but it was in the perfect spot in the movie, which even managed to improve my attitude about it being in Star Trek 09.

I felt plenty of emotion at the end. So many movies these days leave something of a disconnect for me. This one did not. I was in the movie.

Congrat's to the production.

Edit: There was enthusiastic applause from the audience
 
Last edited:
Not planning on seeing it at all as I am boycotting CBS/Paramount. And before you ask - I have been a Trekker from day one and have watched over the decades as CBS/Paramount, IMHO, have sucked the life out of Gene's vision of Star Trek. If the trailer for the new series, if that was in fact what it was, shown at Comic Con is any indication Star Trek will die in 2017.
Well, since this thread is about GRADING and DISCUSSING the film, and one would be unable to do either without actually SEEING IT, then what the hell are you doing in this thread?
 
Up to 3 viewings now. I noticed that the flow of the movie was even better after the second time. Also I caught a few details I missed, like certain rationales Pegg probably wrote in to make sense of things. One example explains why Krall didn't just destroy Yorktown with his ships.

I really enjoyed thids and I'm quite secure that the quality of the movie had nothing to do with it's box office.

The last viewing I went alone. There were only 3 other people in the theater. The couple near me seemed to enjoy themselves quite a bit.

RAMA
 
I really wish we could bury "Gene's Vision" once and for all. The man created Star Trek, but was a pretty poor human being and out for himself.
A lot of people throughout history who had good ideas have been selfish and petty. Actually, probably most of them. We're all of us human.
 
A lot of people throughout history who had good ideas have been selfish and petty. Actually, probably most of them. We're all of us human.

Of course. I feel the same way when people throw the Founding Fathers out there.
 
I forgot to include in my post (now edited) that there was enthusiastic applause from the audience. Few movies get that. If revenues are lower than expected, it's not the movie. Trailer #1 was bad, for instance. If that wasn't it, timing of the season? Politics? But not the movie.
 
Well, since this thread is about GRADING and DISCUSSING the film, and one would be unable to do either without actually SEEING IT, then what the hell are you doing in this thread?
This is an example of a post which did not need to be made. At all.

Yes, that other post contained neither grading nor discussion, and yes, it amounted to little more than "Nyah, nyah, Gene's Vision™ and get off my lawn." It was also from nearly two weeks and five hundred posts ago, and resurrecting it solely in order to have a go at the guy was a really petty thing to do.

Please don't repeat it.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top