Spoilers STAR TREK BEYOND - Grading & Discussion

[F. King Daniel]

His Vampire tech was 100% from his suit, from a couple of interviews I've seen. Also, check out when he grabs Sulu. You see the gears in the suit spinning as he drains him (and this awesomely future-proofs John Cho being almost a decade older than Chris Pine, when they're playing the same age)

 

[Chekov]

Celebrate 50 years of Trek with Star Trek Beyond. This is the place where you can grade the movie in the poll above and discuss every aspect of the film. This thread will contain spoilers, so beware.

​

In Star Trek Beyond, the Enterprise crew explores the furthest reaches of uncharted space, where they encounter a mysterious new enemy who puts them and everything the Federation stands for to the test. - startrek.com

Official Website | IMDb Page
Release Dates | Trailers
Wikipedia Entry | Box Office Mojo Page
Rotten Tomatoes Page | Metacritic Page
TrekMovie.com | On Facebook
On Instagram | On Twitter

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

And let's remember...



RIP​

Captain on sie bridge

 

[fonzob1]

I didn't particularly like it very much, but I was rooting for its success because that would mean more movies. Chris Hemsworth would have made a better James T. Kirk than Chris Pine.

 

[WebLurker]

I didn't particularly like it very much, but I was rooting for its success because that would mean more movies. Chris Hemsworth would have made a better James T. Kirk than Chris Pine.

I'm not sure. Under the right script and direction, Pine does a very good Kirk. I honestly can't see Hemsworth as Kirk.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

It looks like the final worldwide box office for Star Trek Beyond is $343,471,816.

That's x1.85 times it's budget. (For the record, Star Trek Insurrection earned x1.93 times it's budget.)

 

[Rahul]

It looks like the final worldwide box office for Star Trek Beyond is $343,471,816.

That's x1.85 times it's budget. (For the record, Star Trek Insurrection earned x1.93 times it's budget.)

Damn. That's, like, exactly in the middle between a "success" and a "failure". It's too low to earn money during it's initial run and to guarantee a sequel. But it's way too much be shelved and forgotten, since it will make money in the (very) long run and still shows audience interest.

Seems Paramount is in for a long time of risk and mistake analysis. My money is on we still will se another sequel. But don't hold your breath for it to come out soon.

 

[fireproof78]

None of the Star Trek films have been "soon" by current marketing standards. 4 years is an eternity.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

None of the Star Trek films have been "soon" by current marketing standards.

If soon means one each year then no. If soon means every two years, then most of them came out soon.

 

[BillJ]

If soon means one each year then no. If soon means every two years, then most of them came out soon.

It was four and three years between the sequels. Not soon.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

It was four and three years between the sequels. Not soon.

You must be exclusively talking about Star Trek Into Darkness and Star Trek Beyond. I was responding to this post which was referring to "the Star Trek films" in general and not specifically the Kelvin movies:

None of the Star Trek films have been "soon" by current marketing standards. 4 years is an eternity.

Because in the rest of the film franchise we have:

The Wrath of Khan (1982)
The Search for Spock (1984)
The Voyage Home (1986)
…
The Final Frontier (1989)
The Undiscovered Country (1991)
…
Generations (1994)
First Contact (1996)
Insurrection (1998)

 

[BillJ]

The Wrath of Khan (1982)

Which was nearly three years after The Motion Picture.

Insurrection (1998)

And Nemesis was four years after Insurrection.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

It was four and three years between the sequels. Not soon.

Which was nearly three years after The Motion Picture.
And Nemesis was four years after Insurrection.

Like I already said:

1982: The Wrath of Khan
+2 years =
1984: The Search for Spock
+2 years =
1986: The Voyage Home


1989: The Final Frontier
+2 years =
1991: The Undiscovered Country


1994: Generations
+2 years =
1996: First Contact
+2 years =
1998: Insurrection

 

[M'Sharak]

For the first nine films, it averages out to about two and a half years between movies. Even on a modest budget, Star Trek has never been a one-movie-per-year industry, and has managed a two-year gap only intermittently.

 

[fireproof78]

If soon means one each year then no. If soon means every two years, then most of them came out soon.

Not recently, and certainly not enough to match the current market demand.

Your point is well taken and I will qualify my statement. I meant that none of the Kelvin films have been "soon" by contemporary standards, and quickly lose their momentum. Since there is no TV show on at the moment, there is little to keep Trek in the public eye.

 

[WebLurker]

Your point is well taken and I will qualify my statement. I meant that none of the Kelvin films have been "soon" by contemporary standards, and quickly lose their momentum. Since there is no TV show on at the moment, there is little to keep Trek in the public eye.

I don't know, the first two movies were pretty disposable and don't really have a distinct voice (it's generic sci-fi action movie with a few Star Trek trappings thrown in). Your mileage may vary, of course, but the question I'd like to ask is: "are the reboot movies well-made films that'll be around years later or are they just stuff for the moment that will have no impact." Meaning, are they good enough to stand the test of time?

Personally, I'm not so sure. There's nothing really of substance or artistic quality in them that many other contemporary action blockbusters are getting, like say Captain America: The Winter Soldier or Star Wars: Force Awakens. The first two Kelvin movies may be fine, but there's nothing to make them stand out from the pack; it's all derivative of what came before it and what's been done before.

 

[fireproof78]

I don't know, the first two movies were pretty disposable and don't really have a distinct voice (it's generic sci-fi action movie with a few Star Trek trappings thrown in). Your mileage may vary, of course, but the question I'd like to ask is: "are the reboot movies well-made films that'll be around years later or are they just stuff for the moment that will have no impact." Meaning, are they good enough to stand the test of time?

Personally, I'm not so sure. There's nothing really of substance or artistic quality in them that many other contemporary action blockbusters are getting, like say Captain America: The Winter Soldier or Star Wars: Force Awakens. The first two Kelvin movies may be fine, but there's nothing to make them stand out from the pack; it's all derivative of what came before it and what's been done before.

You know well enough that I will disagree. I think the themes of the first two, especially 09, will not only stand the test of time, but become more apparent in looking back on it.

I also think that the Kelvin films have some truly exciting moments of artistry involving the score and the visuals of the film, especially with the Enterprise reveal, Kirk's apology to Marcus, and Spock and Sarek in the transporter room, among others. Even the oft-revialed reactor scene in ID has a more unique feel to it because of the space, and framing.

Will it stand the test of time? I don't know, but for me, it is my good to films for illustrating psychological concepts.

 

[WebLurker]

You know well enough that I will disagree. I think the themes of the first two, especially 09, will not only stand the test of time, but become more apparent in looking back on it.

I also think that the Kelvin films have some truly exciting moments of artistry involving the score and the visuals of the film, especially with the Enterprise reveal, Kirk's apology to Marcus, and Spock and Sarek in the transporter room, among others. Even the oft-revialed reactor scene in ID has a more unique feel to it because of the space, and framing.

Will it stand the test of time? I don't know, but for me, it is my good to films for illustrating psychological concepts.

Fair enough.

The music was good, I do have to agree with that, and there were some good scenes (although I think the reactor scene very awful and personified the problems and flawed premise of the reboot itself).

I personally thought that the '09 movie was the thinnest of the films in the franchise (like it was trying to capture the "simplistic plot that introduces engaging characters" that Star Wars IV and Guardians of the Galaxy pulled off). What themes in it do you see that I missed?

 

[fireproof78]

Fair enough.

The music was good, I do have to agree with that, and there were some good scenes (although I think the reactor scene very awful and personified the problems and flawed premise of the reboot itself).

I personally thought that the '09 movie was the thinnest of the films in the franchise (like it was trying to capture the "simplistic plot that introduces engaging characters" that Star Wars IV and Guardians of the Galaxy pulled off). What themes in it do you see that I missed?

The importance of father figures. Kirk is aimless without the direction he receives from Pike. Similarly, Spock begins to attempt to reconcile the two halves of himself, and the relationship with his father, much earlier on, unfortunately due to a shared pain of the loss of Amanda.

Part of the theme of Star Trek is humanity reaching for its potential and Kirk isn't doing that, until Pike steps in. That's the difference between Kirk and nuKirk. One had a father figure and one didn't, and we see the development of both ("stack of books with legs" and "repeat offender").

Spock encounters a similar arc, and gets a direct mirror of how deep emotions run in Vulcans in Nero. We see that logic isn't just a difference between humans and Vulcans for the sake of story, but a means to control something that is quite dangerous. Nero's break with reality with the destruction of Romulus showcases this in his scene with Pike ("It has happened!") and actually reflects Spock's own reaction to Kirk's death.

Much of the character building in the films are used through mirrors of what the main characters could become. While there is the argument that knowledge of TOS might negatively impact viewing these films, I would argue that it is improved upon knowing what Kirk and Spock could be in Prime timeline informs the differences all the more, and I enjoy the films more-so because of it.

 

[WebLurker]

The importance of father figures. Kirk is aimless without the direction he receives from Pike. Similarly, Spock begins to attempt to reconcile the two halves of himself, and the relationship with his father, much earlier on, unfortunately due to a shared pain of the loss of Amanda.

Part of the theme of Star Trek is humanity reaching for its potential and Kirk isn't doing that, until Pike steps in. That's the difference between Kirk and nuKirk. One had a father figure and one didn't, and we see the development of both ("stack of books with legs" and "repeat offender").

Spock encounters a similar arc, and gets a direct mirror of how deep emotions run in Vulcans in Nero. We see that logic isn't just a difference between humans and Vulcans for the sake of story, but a means to control something that is quite dangerous. Nero's break with reality with the destruction of Romulus showcases this in his scene with Pike ("It has happened!") and actually reflects Spock's own reaction to Kirk's death.

Much of the character building in the films are used through mirrors of what the main characters could become. While there is the argument that knowledge of TOS might negatively impact viewing these films, I would argue that it is improved upon knowing what Kirk and Spock could be in Prime timeline informs the differences all the more, and I enjoy the films more-so because of it.

I still don't like the movie, but that's a very fair argument.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

I personally thought that the '09 movie was the thinnest of the films in the franchise (like it was trying to capture the "simplistic plot that introduces engaging characters" that Star Wars IV and Guardians of the Galaxy pulled off).

Even though I do kinda like 09, I also think it is overrated, in particular when compared against STID and Beyond. In my personal franchise ranking, it sits lower than I think the average would put it. ST09 shares a surprising number of plot points with A New Hope. And I don't think it had as much to say as the sequels -- though I do like @fireproof78's analysis above. STID and Beyond both had more thought-provoking themes, imho.