I gave it an "A" and I loved it. But I don't have this overriding desire to go see it again like I did the first two. Which I saw a combined eight times at the theater. I'll probably see Beyond once more before it leaves theaters.
Spoilers STAR TREK BEYOND
- Thread starter Khan 2.0
- Start date
I gave it an "A" and I loved it. But I don't have this overriding desire to go see it again like I did the first two. Which I saw a combined eight times at the theater. I'll probably see Beyond once more before it leaves theaters.
And Pike is dead.Not "The Cage". Too cerebral.
And Pike is dead.
Just use Kirk.
And the happy reviews keep coming.
So where is everyone? Go see it again this weekend!
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/26/12280432/star-trek-beyond-review-kirk-krall
So where is everyone? Go see it again this weekend!
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/26/12280432/star-trek-beyond-review-kirk-krall
Well, I hope that's the case.
A typical drop from a $59m opening weekend would be a $32m 2nd weekend.
If STB does the high $30s then we can say people who skipped it last weekend did end up seeing it at last.
The likelyhood that Bourne and STB both do $40-ish million this weekend? Unlikely.
I'm just wondering if all the wonderful reviews and generally great fan reactions have actually turned the general public off.
That is a possibility.
Two things that ran through both some of the positive and negative reviews was that the plot was very thin and there was a feeling there was something emotionally lacking. A lot was going on, and it seemed some of it was left hanging or didn't get the attention it deserved. The bow tied around this one at the end didn't exactly wrap things up as neatly as it could've, I guess. Was it a story meant to be taken seriously spiked with some humor, or a humorous light romp with some dark moments added for gravitas?
As I said, a lot was going on. Kirk was bored, he still felt like he was in his dad's shadow, Spock Prime died, Spock is seriously injured and lucky he didn't bleed to death (how bad the injury really was never seemed properly presented, but that was quite a piece of debris sticking out of him -- Vulcan physiology must be something), Spock is feeling pulls to return home, the villain is essentially a vet with bad PTSD that went neglected (I don't mean that in a light or flippant manner -- Edison should be a sympathetic character), the Enterprise was destroyed, and there were so many Trek references that I wonder how in the world Orci's turned down script could've been criticized as "too Trekky." Perhaps the story was trying to play on too many feelings and levels. As it was: You'll laugh. You'll cry. You'll believe a one hundred year-old starship can fly.
As I said, a lot was going on. Kirk was bored, he still felt like he was in his dad's shadow, Spock Prime died, Spock is seriously injured and lucky he didn't bleed to death (how bad the injury really was never seemed properly presented, but that was quite a piece of debris sticking out of him -- Vulcan physiology must be something), Spock is feeling pulls to return home, the villain is essentially a vet with bad PTSD that went neglected (I don't mean that in a light or flippant manner -- Edison should be a sympathetic character), the Enterprise was destroyed, and there were so many Trek references that I wonder how in the world Orci's turned down script could've been criticized as "too Trekky." Perhaps the story was trying to play on too many feelings and levels. As it was: You'll laugh. You'll cry. You'll believe a one hundred year-old starship can fly.
Many said, as have I, another 10 minutes would make rounded off the rough edges.
I don't know about anyone else, but I usually avoid opening weekends (this time was an exception). I consider myself part of the general audience, so I try to wait a week or so to see a movie.
Into Darkness was one that I didn't see in theater, mainly because of fan reaction. I'm glad I didn't waste my money, but I do own the DVD.
Into Darkness was one that I didn't see in theater, mainly because of fan reaction. I'm glad I didn't waste my money, but I do own the DVD.
Well, I am one fan who won't start to dislike "Star Trek" just so it can make more money.
I think you're just being paranoid, most people don't know what the fan reaction is & positive reviews will only help it.
The marketing didn't seem that great.
All I know is, the audience in my theater did a lot of laughing and clapping in all the right places.
Maybe the problem is that they didn't blow up a city, as is required by law for summer blockbusters.
Hee Hee Hee.
Yes, the audience at my 2nd viewing laughed during the Bones/Kirk exchanges.
After Bones said you have your girlfriend radioactive jewellery and then followed it up with you have her a tracking device, the cinema went into hysterics!
I do agree on the marketing.
The 1st trailer aside, I think not showing any footage at CinemaCon was a huge mistake.
OK, this raises an interesting question. Would the horse still be used as a nod to Shatner? Or, would it be replaced by a motorcycle? Both choices have merit.
Edited to add: Or, a Corvette. A pre-cliff Corvette.
J-Law as Vina?
Why not all three? It's a two hour movie.
Jennifer Lawrence? I could see that.
I listened to a YouTuber named Lorerunner. He did a live stream of his opinion on his Twitch account. He raised a point - this film lacked significance. In his opinion, Star Trek VI, released in the 25th year of the franchise, had more significance than this film in the franchise's 50th year.
I would have thought there would have been more fanfare for a franchise that is fifty years old. It seems the celebration is muted.
I would have thought there would have been more fanfare for a franchise that is fifty years old. It seems the celebration is muted.
People complained for the last seven years about universe shattering films, so Paramount made a movie with lesser stakes and people aren't showing up. Tough to know if it is because people aren't excited by Beyond or if it is about the general malaise among film goers this Summer.
Well, this was supposed to be about the significance/justification of the Federation. At least that's how it was billed. Kirk and everyone were supposed to be doubting the importance and worth of it all, and what happened in this movie was supposed to restore everyone's belief in it and the mission. It was about rediscovering and understanding the relevancy of the Federation and what it wants to do (and therefore "Star Trek", metaphorically). I was looking forward to that. But I think the message got lost somewhere in everything else. If it was there, it was far too subtle. Not that audiences need to be beaten over the head with a message, but still -- . It had surprisingly little heft for a milestone year. One positive review called it a fine "placeholder" movie for the franchise, but hoped for something a little meatier the next time.
Last edited:
Similar threads
