Spoilers STAR TREK BEYOND

[Captain of the USS Averof]

George Kirk didn't really die. He just got caught in the Nexus. James Kirk finds him and they both stop the mad scientist. Of course in their struggle George Kirk dies for real in the Valley of Fire, Nevada… oops, I meant to say Veridian III.

Paramount execs call me, I'm available.

 

[Racefuel]

I think they may go for a Mirror Universe situation, where George Kirk didn't die but he exists in a fascist version of Starfleet and Kirk feels obligated to "rescue" him but Spock reminds him about the Prime Directive, etc. That's just my theory right now.

That sounds a lot like ol' Jenny Sisko in the mirror universe.

 

[Smellmet]

I think they may go for a Mirror Universe situation, where George Kirk didn't die but he exists in a fascist version of Starfleet and Kirk feels obligated to "rescue" him but Spock reminds him about the Prime Directive, etc. That's just my theory right now.

I'm not convinced this team will take the chance on a story of this type, to me, a mirror universe story is a risky move that could alienate general audiences, it would have to be done extremely well for the casual movie goer to not confuse, or give a shit about all the different timelines. Having said that I don't envy the people who will be responsible for the next instalment, after the relative underperformance of beyond at the box office, what hand do they play next? It surely cannot be another villian of the week tale. Even I'm getting tired of that. I think we need something with some 'world building' in it that expands the star trek universe somehow, a big event of some kind like TUC.

 

[Kor]

I'm a millennial and while I can't speak for an entire generation of people (arbitrary or not), I don't quite fit this mold. I'm more of a TOS guy, at least in terms of character. As for story, I guess I'd be lying if I said TOS had stronger stories than TNG. In any case, the Kelvin Timeline films really appeal to me. I'm just one person though -- can't speak for everyone in my demographic.

EDIT: Beyond and STID rank very highly in my favorite Trek films. ST09 less so.

I'm a millenial and I believe that TOS is the one and only true Star Trek. I very rarely revisit any of the spinoff series, even TNG. I also quite enjoy the Kelvinverse movies. They bring back a sense of swashbuckling fun and adventure to the Trek franchise.

Kor

 

[BillJ]

I'm a millenial and I believe that TOS is the one and only true Star Trek. I very rarely revisit any of the spinoff series, even TNG. I also quite enjoy the Kelvinverse movies. They bring back a sense of swashbuckling fun and adventure to the Trek franchise.

Kor

I guess I'm what you'd call a second generation fan. Came in during the 70's before there were any movies at all. I can enjoy Star Trek when it is fun, and I can enjoy it when it is serious. But, I think if you abandon either approach, Star Trek just isn't very enjoyable to watch. The original Star Trek could lean too far towards swashbuckling fun at times, but also had enough seriousness to balance it out. The spinoffs seemed to lean far too much towards the serious side, and that really ruined the overall enjoyment for me.

I believe JJ Abrams found the right balance in the feature films, and I'm hoping Bryan Fuller finds the balance needed to make Discovery enjoyable.

 

[Franklin]

To me it's also about the overall feel of an episode/movie and if the mix of "fun" and serious drama fits the story. My main problem with STB compared to ST09 and STID is I didn't know if I was supposed to take the story as just a romp or something far more serious. Krall was a very sick man not just a moustache twirling villain. He was supposed to present a valid challenge to the principles of the Federation -- metaphorically to the existence of "Star Trek". Yet, I don't think the story ever approached those areas with the appropriate gravity and even horror of someone who existed as he did and for what he did. I don't know. The salt monster in "The Man Trap" was handled with more gravitas, in my opinion, and it preyed on people pretty much as Krall did. In short, in terms of talking a balance seriousness and fun, the balance just seemed a bit off to me in STB given what I expected from Krall, what he did to the Enterprise and its crew, and the overall theme of the movie as it was promoted.

That, and the situation was grave, but everything turned out to be so easy for them to do. The tone always seemed light. They never seemed in real danger. There was no real drama to the plight. No sense of "they're not getting out of this."

 

[Smellmet]

To me it's also about the overall feel of an episode/movie and if the mix of "fun" and serious drama fits the story. My main problem with STB compared to ST09 and STID is I didn't know if I was supposed to take the story as just a romp or something far more serious. Krall was a very sick man not just a moustache twirling villain. He was supposed to present a valid challenge to the principles of the Federation -- metaphorically to the existence of "Star Trek". Yet, I don't think the story ever approached those areas with the appropriate gravity and even horror of someone who existed as he did and for what he did. I don't know. The salt monster in "The Man Trap" was handled with more gravitas, in my opinion, and it preyed on people pretty much as Krall did. In short, in terms of talking a balance seriousness and fun, the balance just seemed a bit off to me in STB given what I expected from Krall, what he did to the Enterprise and its crew, and the overall theme of the movie as it was promoted.

That, and the situation was grave, but everything turned out to be so easy for them to do. The tone always seemed light. They never seemed in real danger. There was no real drama to the plight. No sense of "they're not getting out of this."

The destruction of the enterprise sequence was the only part of beyond where the crew felt in serious jeopardy. I would say this is my only real gripe with the movie. Everything from that point all felt a bit too... easy

 

[JKM]

I'm not so sure. I think in terms of style and feel, TNG had a bigger influence. A lot of the perception of Trek comes from the post-TOS views Roddenberry had in the 70's, which then led into the TNG era. Might just be my view - everyone and everywhere is different - but the general feeling is that Trek is serious and stoic television. Which seems, to me at least, to come from the TNG era more than TOS.

I grew up with it and it had an influence on me all right. It influenced me to not be a Star Trek fan. Bored me to tears for the most part. As I've said before, I didn't become a fan until JJ's Trek.

So, I just finally got to watch STB again for the second time. I really like it, but still haven't decided if it's my favorite of the three. I'll have to watch it a few more times, which now I can do whenever I feel like.

 

[johnjm22]

I'm not so sure. I think in terms of style and feel, TNG had a bigger influence. A lot of the perception of Trek comes from the post-TOS views Roddenberry had in the 70's, which then led into the TNG era. Might just be my view - everyone and everywhere is different - but the general feeling is that Trek is serious and stoic television. Which seems, to me at least, to come from the TNG era more than TOS.

Yes exactly my thoughts.

I'm a millennial and while I can't speak for an entire generation of people (arbitrary or not), I don't quite fit this mold. I'm more of a TOS guy, at least in terms of character. As for story, I guess I'd be lying if I said TOS had stronger stories than TNG. In any case, the Kelvin Timeline films really appeal to me. I'm just one person though -- can't speak for everyone in my demographic.

I'm a millenial and I believe that TOS is the one and only true Star Trek. I very rarely revisit any of the spinoff series, even TNG. I also quite enjoy the Kelvinverse movies. They bring back a sense of swashbuckling fun and adventure to the Trek franchise.

Yeah, certainly not all casual ST millennial fans favor TNG over TOS, but I think the majority do, by the simple fact that they mostly discovered Trek though TNG, not TOS. Their exposure could also have come from the original six movies as well, which thanks to Meyer, had a more serious militaristic tone than TOS.

Kor, you're somewhat proving my point; people that like TOS are more likely to enjoy the new movies than people who primarily like TNG. For example, TNG is my personal favorite series, but I find the Kelvin Verse movies to be pretty boring and uninteresting.

 

[RAMA]

One thing is apparent. No new theaters were added yet to the domestic or China box office. Still, Beyond is likely over $338 million as I write this. Officially: $337.894 million.

 

[JKM]

So I have been absent from here lately, does everyone know you can now watch STB on Amazon Video? I was super excited when I found that on my amazon page yesterday. It was like Christmas came early. I knew the Blue ray wasn't supposed to be released until Nov 1st.

 

[KGator]

Meh, STB is by far the biggest movie that Paramount released this year. You want to see a production they've actually lost money and sleep over, look at the TMNT sequel.

Perhaps a Scifi movie will help ease Paramount's box office woes this year after all but instead of Star Trek Beyond it will be Paramount's November release "Arrival". The early reviews are literally off the chart. If it has WOM that matches, it could be one of the surprise hits of the year. And on a $50 million budget too!

If so, and if Arrival becomes a breakout hit I wonder could it effect how studio execs saw a future Star Trek movie storyline? Would they go for something more thought provoking and innovative or stick with an action packed movie that can be better marketed to the general public and overseas?

 

[Khan 2.0]

I can't help but wonder about Shatner and of how a golden opportunity may have been missed.. In UK the media have been going a bit nuts over Shatner being at the Destination Europe convention. TV interviews etc. I'm just thinking of all the publicity Beyond could've gotten had he been in it (even just a cameo) leading to extra $$$s (surely it'd have reached 400m). The fact that Shatner would be returning to the movie series after 22 years for the 50th anniversary.. Almost a Harrison Ford/TFA type thing. (unlike Generations which was only a couple of years after VI so wasn't that much of a big deal for shatner to be in another ST movie even if it was the 1st TNG film). I think Orci may have had the right idea for Trek '3'...

 

[F. King Daniel]

Love Shatner, but he doesn't have the career or drawing power of Harrison Ford. Trekkies might have loved to see him in STB, but it looks like only Trekkies turned out to see the movie anyway.

 

[Khan 2.0]

Love Shatner, but he doesn't have the career or drawing power of Harrison Ford. Trekkies might have loved to see him in STB, but it looks like only Trekkies turned out to see the movie anyway.

that's true, but Shatner in a star trek movie again? For the 50th? (even a cameo),..that would've been quite a big deal for fans and movie goers in general, an extra 'hook' that might've been enough to help push it into the comfortable 400m range

 

[Visitor1982]

Shatner doesn't do cameos. He wants to be the main focus and have a huge salary.

 

[wayne39]

watching the film I would like to think that spock already had a Vulcan woman picked out of him since he already had his bags packed and knew the one reason for returning to new Vulcan.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Just one? Repopulating the species requires Spock to have several Vulcan women.

Poor, poor man.

 

[Khan 2.0]

Shatner doesn't do cameos. He wants to be the main focus and have a huge salary.

It almost happened (Orci)

 

[Kemaiku]

Just one? Repopulating the species requires Spock to have several Vulcan women.

Poor, poor man.

Each having a turn 7 years after the other? that would...take a while.