Spoilers STAR TREK BEYOND

[Franklin]

My reaction was a bemused "Oh, so you actually went there. Huh. That's super dumb. I can appreciate that".

I had no problem with it within the context of the story, but I did think pretty much the same thing: I can believe they went there. That was either gutsy or super foolish.

I think they realized it would be hit or miss but obviously decided it was worth doing. My then 14 year-old daughter, not a Trek fan, loved the movie (and just watched it again) was moved by Spock. I think that's because she'd never seen TWOK, is too young to know about the Costanza scream, and has no idea "Khannn!" has a life of its own.

Darn. The same old same old stuff keeps coming up. Someone associated with STB needs to sneak out some shooting pictures or leak some plot rumors or something. We need fresh meat.

 

[martok2112]

Spock's scream of KHHAAAANNNNNN!!!!!! had it's good and bad points:

Bad point: It did remind me more of Vader's "NOOOOOOOO!!!!" in Revenge of the Sith....but that is a minor gripe.

Good points: Even though, as a Vulcan, Spock should be more in control of his emotions, Spock is also half-human....and in an emotional moment, humans are not always very precise with our delivery of outbursts. Spock's scream came across as the very thing I speak of....an emotionally charged, imprecise delivery.....perfect!

Also, the crescendo of Spock's scream is punctuated by the raging sound of the Vengeance screaming past the Enterprise. (Screaming for Vengeance anyone? ) If you think about it, his scream being punctuated by the Vengeance's passing is about like Kirk's scream being punctuated by the music in TWOK.

On a different note: I'll take Quinto's Spock scream over Koenig's Chekov Scream anytime.

Now, as far Shatner's "KHHAAANNNNN!!!" scream in TWOK:
When I was a kid, I loved it! I was 12 years old at the time, and I thought: "Wow! I've never seen Kirk this pissed!"

Even then, I can see where some folk would say: "This was a show put on for Khan." I completely agree with that statement. I wouldn't say it is "generally accepted", but I completely agree that he did put it on to deceive Khan.

However, as an adult, I also tend to face palm in that scene because of Kirk's angry, Billy Idol-esque lip curl just before the classic scream. However, those two or three seconds do not ruin the rest of the movie, just as Quinto's Spock scream did not ruin STID for me. Nor did it seem to ruin the movie for the majority that enjoyed the film.

One of the funniest parodies I saw of that scene was in Family Guy. "We now return to Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, edited for sheep!"

KHAN: I shall leave you as you left me....as you left her. Marooned for all eternity in the center of a dead planet. Buried alive. Buried alive.

KIRK: (angry, Billy Idol-esque lip curl as his head twitches) BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Christopher]

It's not about length. It's about what you remember afterwards.

The two moments that stick out the most for me in STID are Alice Eve's implausible striptease and Khaaaan! I can't think of any really good moments that compensated for these. The closest would be Pike's dressing-down of Kirk which seemed to symbolize the beef that Trek purists have with his punk characterization. Since Khan was so miscast, none of his scenes resonate. He's got no true scenery-chewing moments the way Montalban did in Khan. They just leaned on the tone of his low UK accent and had him perform the requisite supervillain CGI acrobatics. Meh.

I disagree about Khan; I think that he was a more effective character here than he was in TWOK, and Cumberbatch correctly played him closer to the cool, calculating figure of "Space Seed" than the vengeance-crazed madman of TWOK. But I agree that the "KHAAAN" shout and the underwear scene were disproportionately memorable for the wrong reasons. There were good bits, but those two bits tend to overshadow them in people's minds.

Same with the Enterprise underwater. A lot of people praise the Nibiru sequence as feeling like a classic Trek adventure, but there are so many other people whose sole reaction it is "Why was the ship underwater?" It's a minor detail, but it preoccupies people because it's incongruous, because it doesn't seem to make sense or serve a clear purpose. It's a distraction from the stuff that works.

 

[martok2112]

It's not about length. It's about what you remember afterwards.

The two moments that stick out the most for me in STID are Alice Eve's implausible striptease and Khaaaan! I can't think of any really good moments that compensated for these. The closest would be Pike's dressing-down of Kirk which seemed to symbolize the beef that Trek purists have with his punk characterization. Since Khan was so miscast, none of his scenes resonate. He's got no true scenery-chewing moments the way Montalban did in Khan. They just leaned on the tone of his low UK accent and had him perform the requisite supervillain CGI acrobatics. Meh.

I disagree about Khan; I think that he was a more effective character here than he was in TWOK, and Cumberbatch correctly played him closer to the cool, calculating figure of "Space Seed" than the vengeance-crazed madman of TWOK. But I agree that the "KHAAAN" shout and the underwear scene were disproportionately memorable for the wrong reasons. There were good bits, but those two bits tend to overshadow them in people's minds.

Same with the Enterprise underwater. A lot of people praise the Nibiru sequence as feeling like a classic Trek adventure, but there are so many other people whose sole reaction it is "Why was the ship underwater?" It's a minor detail, but it preoccupies people because it's incongruous, because it doesn't seem to make sense or serve a clear purpose. It's a distraction from the stuff that works.

Agreed.

It's a major fallacy in humans, anyway. We tend to allow what we perceive to be the bad in something, no matter how miniscule, to overshadow everything else that is good....especially if some are predisposed to hate the given product in the first place.

Hence: Haters gonna hate...and some folk ain't happy 'less they bitchin'.

 

[fireproof78]

There's an interesting level of role-reversal in STID compared to TWOK, and I mean one beyond the superficially obvious reversals of who's in the engine room getting a fatal dose saving the ship and who's screaming "Khan!!!"

In TWOK, it was Kirk cheating and Spock teaching Kirk the lesson that sometimes self-sacrifice is the only play.

But in STID, it was Kirk cheating and then Kirk learning on his own that sometimes self-sacrifice is the only play.

Maybe role-reversal isn't quite the right way to describe this, but rather the whole dynamic is more completely internalized within Kirk's character arc.

In any case, that makes the tragedy in STID a different kind and in some ways more bitter than the one in TWOK. We already knew that Spock was a good man, and, in TWOK, Spock capped his brilliant career by going out doing a good deed that had the added effect of rejuvenating Kirk. On the other hand, in STID, Kirk had finally grown as a person, only to have to throw it away to accomplish his good deed. Kirk's legacy wouldn't have been to be to go on and do great things as the better man he had become, but instead he had to choose to use that up completely.

That makes the "Khan!!!" cry in STID one of personal anguish that Spock feels for that sacrifice Kirk has made. On that level, it's more legitimate than Kirk's in TWOK.

I still love the Cheese Whiz application that is Kirk's "Khan!!!" scream in TWOK, though. I've always basked in the way Kirk's scream echoes within the music and finally seems to splash together with it. Glorious!

I agree regarding Kirk's arc. For me, Kirk's character and his change through the two films is what drives Abrams Trek. I am onboard with him from the word go, because his character has such potential that is wasted until someone inspires him.

The fact that it takes him two films to actually develop in to a competent officer only to be killed at the end is a brave choice. The more obvious choice for ID would be to have Kirk become like Prime Kirk by the end of 09 and never look back.

Instead, Kirk's arc is not complete, and his maturing process actually culminates with his sacrifice.

This isn't to take anything away from TWOK, but the two films really deserve to be evaluated on their own from a character perspective.

It's not about length. It's about what you remember afterwards.

The two moments that stick out the most for me in STID are Alice Eve's implausible striptease and Khaaaan! I can't think of any really good moments that compensated for these. The closest would be Pike's dressing-down of Kirk which seemed to symbolize the beef that Trek purists have with his punk characterization. Since Khan was so miscast, none of his scenes resonate. He's got no true scenery-chewing moments the way Montalban did in Khan. They just leaned on the tone of his low UK accent and had him perform the requisite supervillain CGI acrobatics. Meh.

I disagree about Khan; I think that he was a more effective character here than he was in TWOK, and Cumberbatch correctly played him closer to the cool, calculating figure of "Space Seed" than the vengeance-crazed madman of TWOK. But I agree that the "KHAAAN" shout and the underwear scene were disproportionately memorable for the wrong reasons. There were good bits, but those two bits tend to overshadow them in people's minds.

Same with the Enterprise underwater. A lot of people praise the Nibiru sequence as feeling like a classic Trek adventure, but there are so many other people whose sole reaction it is "Why was the ship underwater?" It's a minor detail, but it preoccupies people because it's incongruous, because it doesn't seem to make sense or serve a clear purpose. It's a distraction from the stuff that works.

Agreed.

It's a major fallacy in humans, anyway. We tend to allow what we perceive to be the bad in something, no matter how miniscule, to overshadow everything else that is good....especially if some are predisposed to hate the given product in the first place.

Hence: Haters gonna hate...and some folk ain't happy 'less they bitchin'.

My thing is that there is enough negativity in my life as it is, so I don't tend to recall bad moments in a film, because I want to enjoy the film. "KHAAN" and "Carol's undies" are skipped over in my mind because they are not really worth remembering.

In contrast, there are many, many, moments from ID that I enjoy and recall, including Kirk's death, his interaction with Khan in the brig, Uhura's standing up to Klingons, Sulu's threat to Khan, among others.

Sure, there are minor nitpicks I can make, but overall, the film is positive for me.

I honestly wish others the same experience

 

[Phantom]

Same with the Enterprise underwater. A lot of people praise the Nibiru sequence as feeling like a classic Trek adventure, but there are so many other people whose sole reaction it is "Why was the ship underwater?" It's a minor detail, but it preoccupies people because it's incongruous, because it doesn't seem to make sense or serve a clear purpose.

On the contrary, it's purpose was pretty clear to me and a lot of other people: to foul up the rescue of the Nibirians so that Kirk would get in trouble. It completely ignored the already established capabilities of ship and crew to set up a visible pratfall that fueled the needs of the plot. And it did it in a completely obvious way.

 

[BillJ]

Same with the Enterprise underwater. A lot of people praise the Nibiru sequence as feeling like a classic Trek adventure, but there are so many other people whose sole reaction it is "Why was the ship underwater?" It's a minor detail, but it preoccupies people because it's incongruous, because it doesn't seem to make sense or serve a clear purpose.

On the contrary, it's purpose was pretty clear to me and a lot of other people: to foul up the rescue of the Nibirians so that Kirk would get in trouble. It completely ignored the already established capabilities of ship and crew to set up a visible pratfall that fueled the needs of the plot. And it did it in a completely obvious way.

It was done to show Kirk still wasn't mature enough to be captain. As far as ship capabilities go: the TOS Enterprise survived be shot around the Sun, going through the galactic barrier, swimming in protoplasm. Not sure water is somehow beyond its capabilities.

 

[martok2112]

Same with the Enterprise underwater. A lot of people praise the Nibiru sequence as feeling like a classic Trek adventure, but there are so many other people whose sole reaction it is "Why was the ship underwater?" It's a minor detail, but it preoccupies people because it's incongruous, because it doesn't seem to make sense or serve a clear purpose.

On the contrary, it's purpose was pretty clear to me and a lot of other people: to foul up the rescue of the Nibirians so that Kirk would get in trouble. It completely ignored the already established capabilities of ship and crew to set up a visible pratfall that fueled the needs of the plot. And it did it in a completely obvious way.

It was done to show Kirk still wasn't mature enough to be captain. As far as ship capabilities go: the TOS Enterprise survived be shot around the Sun, going through the galactic barrier, swimming in protoplasm. Not sure water is somehow beyond its capabilities.

Bolded for TRUTH!

 

[Khan 2.0]

Less Scotty http://trekcore.com/blog/2015/08/reduced-role-for-scotty-in-star-trek-beyond/

Yay

 

[BillJ]

Less Scotty http://trekcore.com/blog/2015/08/reduced-role-for-scotty-in-star-trek-beyond/

Yay

I was hoping we'd get to see him in the Captain's chair. Oh, well.

 

[Christopher]

Oh, I can accept the ship being underwater. The reason was explained well enough in the movie: it had to be close enough to the volcano to communicate with the shuttle crew through the interference, but still be out of sight of the Nibirans. A shuttle was small enough to sneak through the clouds of ash and go unseen, but not the Enterprise, and the only suitably nearby place where it could stay hidden was underwater.

But there are still a lot of viewers out there who didn't get that, or who didn't find it convincing enough, and thus it bothers them. This actually came up on one of my Shore Leave convention panels last weekend, and the consensus of the audience seemed to be that it was a pretty silly moment. Just because something has an explanation in-story, that doesn't necessarily make it convincing or purposeful. Heck, Carol's underwear scene had a perfectly reasonable explanation: She needed to change into her flight suit into a hurry and couldn't waste time with privacy. But countless fans and critics have expressed their perception that it was random and unexplained.

The one explanation I don't buy is the one for Spock going "KHAAAAANNNN!!!" Just because this Spock is more in touch with his emotions than his other self was in TOS, that doesn't mean a scream like that is in character for him. Look at "Amok Time." Spock had just come down from the blood fever when he thought he'd killed Kirk; even though he regained his cool, his emotions were probably still very close to the surface. But he didn't scream to the heavens. He kept his grief and guilt tightly contained. So I just don't think that scream was in character, even for a Spock whose emotions are uncontained. The only reason it was there is because someone, I'm guessing Lindelof, thought it'd be a fun homage. And that's why it crashes my suspension of disbelief.

 

[BillJ]

Oh, I can accept the ship being underwater. The reason was explained well enough in the movie: it had to be close enough to the volcano to communicate with the shuttle crew through the interference, but still be out of sight of the Nibirans. A shuttle was small enough to sneak through the clouds of ash and go unseen, but not the Enterprise, and the only suitably nearby place where it could stay hidden was underwater.

I think out-of-universe, it sets up a stunning reveal of the Enterprise. On that level, I think they hit it out of the park.

Probably one of the coolest reveals I've ever seen in a movie. Even if I didn't buy the reasoning behind it, I'd still give it a pass because it is so bloody awesome. Especially on the big screen.

 

[Campe]

"Do you have any idea how ridiculous it is to hide a starship on the bottom of the ocean?"

Yes. It is a ridiculous idea. The film acknowledges the fact it's a ridiculous idea. Honestly, that's good enough for me.

And yes, it is a super cool reveal.

 

[Christopher]

"How many atmospheres can this ship withstand?"
"Well it's a spaceship, so I'd say anywhere between zero and one."

Although, of course, the Enterprise is designed to cope with powerful accelerations and space combats and has structural integrity fields and the like, so presumably it could withstand the pressure of being submerged. And it wasn't very deep anyway.

 

[Franklin]

Less Scotty http://trekcore.com/blog/2015/08/reduced-role-for-scotty-in-star-trek-beyond/

Yay

I was hoping we'd get to see him in the Captain's chair. Oh, well.

We still can. He may be limiting his role, but that doesn't mean he can't give Scotty high quality time, like taking the captain's chair.

I was intrigued by how much screen time Scotty got in STID. It was a lot. Indeed, an argument can be made that his role made him a major hero in the movie (not the ultimate one, of course, that was Kirk).

Really don't know what to make of the interview, though. Scripts (outside of when there's a strike) can be fluid, so if they're still writing, that doesn't mean a lot. A movie can actually be improved by changes made right up to the last minute. What would scare me a little is if they didn't have the story line locked down, at least.

 

[Christopher]

I was intrigued by how much screen time Scotty got in STID. It was a lot. Indeed, an argument can be made that his role made him a major hero in the movie (not the ultimate one, of course, that was Kirk).

Which parallels Pegg's role in the Mission: Impossible films. In M-I:III, Benji Dunn was a minor, comic-relief supporting character, basically the equivalent of Marshall from Alias. But in Ghost Protocol, he graduated to field agent and became a member of the core team, basically taking over Ving Rhames's role as the team's tech maven; and he remains central to the team in Rogue Nation (even though Rhames is included as well). In both cases, it reflects Pegg's growing popularity.

 

[Campe]

"How many atmospheres can this ship withstand?"
"Well it's a spaceship, so I'd say anywhere between zero and one."

Although, of course, the Enterprise is designed to cope with powerful accelerations and space combats and has structural integrity fields and the like, so presumably it could withstand the pressure of being submerged. And it wasn't very deep anyway.

I also feel it's necessary to mention the original Enterprise was in a giant space amoeba. And Voyager traversed fluidic space. Precedent had been set for a starship being in some sort of liquid. And that was perfectly okay then.

 

[Christopher]

I also feel it's necessary to mention the original Enterprise was in a giant space amoeba. And Voyager traversed fluidic space. Precedent had been set for a starship being in some sort of liquid. And that was perfectly okay then.

Yes, but would those environments necessarily be under pressure? The pressure on a submerged vehicle or object doesn't come from simply being in water, it comes from being underneath a column of water that's under gravity and thus has weight. The fluid environments you're talking about were in space, so the fluid wouldn't have weight. I guess the amoeba's protoplasm would be under a certain amount of mechanical pressure from its membrane holding it in, but probably not that much. So the physics wouldn't be quite the same.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I figure starships are pretty tough. Things like water and gravity aren't a problem for 23rd Century technology.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I also feel it's necessary to mention the original Enterprise was in a giant space amoeba. And Voyager traversed fluidic space. Precedent had been set for a starship being in some sort of liquid. And that was perfectly okay then.

Yes, but would those environments necessarily be under pressure? The pressure on a submerged vehicle or object doesn't come from simply being in water, it comes from being underneath a column of water that's under gravity and thus has weight. The fluid environments you're talking about were in space, so the fluid wouldn't have weight. I guess the amoeba's protoplasm would be under a certain amount of mechanical pressure from its membrane holding it in, but probably not that much. So the physics wouldn't be quite the same.

Well it would have to be under at least enough pressure to remain liquid in the vacuum of space, right? That plus the pressure of the Enterprise moving through it under impulse power at whatever speed that happened to be.

Detonating an antimatter bomb in the middle of the amoeba couldn't have helped either.