The Kelvin Timeline Trilogy

[pst]

there's so much doom and gloom right now when it comes to talking about these movies because it seems like the fourth and fifth ones aren't happening.

may be true, may not be true but i thought it would be nice to talk about and/or appreciate the films that we do have. whether or not we get more films in the kelvin timeline, i think it's pretty remarkable how solid the three films we do have are. they look great. they're fun as hell (even into darkness has its moments). the cast couldn't be better. the music is catchy.

so what are your thoughts about the kelvin timeline trilogy as it stands now?*

*we already know you hate the scene where spock screams "khan".

 

[Reyman]

I'm glad we got them. 3 and out works for me.

I can see myself going back and watching them every 18 months or so for the next decade. If we got a 4th and 5th movie and they were mediocre then I probably wouldn't bother.

 

[seigezunt]

I dig them. I'm an old TOS fan, and I've never had my shorts twisted up in knots about these movies because they are TOS-proximate, an homage if you will. I lost my interest in the franchise after those last two dreary TNG movies. And TBH, TNG was never *my* Trek, so it was always a stretch to appreciate the movies.

With the announcement of the first Kelvin film, I started reading Trek novels again. I engaged in a rewatch of all the series, starting with ENT and ending with VOY, much of which I had never seen before. I'd watched TNG through its run after a could of fits and starts, but I'd never seen the other shows much past the first few episodes. And now DS9 and ENT are among my favorite. Which would not have happened but for Kelvin Trek.

The new movies have their faults, but they brought the characters I grew up with back to the screen, and in an exciting way. Being a fan from the apocryphal period between TAS and the movies, I've learned to have a thicker skin when it comes to "canon" inconsistencies, so that was never a bother. The films have other flaws, most of which can be blamed on the moment in Hollywoo'd history that they were made: needs-to-have-a-bad-guy, less that sparkling story editing, etc. The middle film suffers the most, but there's still an entertaining film in there. My biggest problem was with the Khan-no-Khan BS in the publicity, and that feels like it's poaching the nostalgia that informs TWOK. Personally, I don't feel the way about this film's central sacrifice the way I did in TWOK because I haven't been with *this* Kirk and Spock for 20 years. But I hear younger fans experienced it differently.

But I watch them a lot, especially Beyond, which I thought hit a wonderful TOS-like tone. I've said that it feels more like the TV show than the TOS movies did, with a little of the Gold Key Comics thrown in. It's close to my favorite Trek film of all. If they don't make any more, I will be sad, but I'm pretty confident there will be more down the road, likely in the form of a re-reboot (as opposed to an un-boot, which ain't happening).

I've certainly watched them much more than the TNG films.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Star Trek was the Trek movie I'd been waiting my whole life for. Spock scream aside, Into Darkness was an awesome, emotional and chaotic sequel. Star Trek Beyond was enjoyable, but a step down from the prior two. I preferred the young, emotional crew to the slightly more mature and reserved versions.

I would be perfectly happy with 3 films, had they not already announced Star Trek 4, gone silent, announced it again and a fifth movie to be directed by Quentin Tarantino, then gone silent again. And furthermore, I am pretty sure the stuff about Kirk's dad in Beyond specifically exists to set up that fourth movie. So it feels like we're at a loose end.

There are many Star Treks, but the Kelvin universe is MY Star Trek. Whatever the future holds, it has brought me a great deal of joy.

 

[CaptainMurdock]

I enjoyed them all. I hope more come but if not, that's okay. I'm happy with the three we got.

 

[Lance]

I dig them. I'm an old TOS fan, and I've never had my shorts twisted up in knots about these movies because they are TOS-proximate, an homage if you will. I lost my interest in the franchise after those last two dreary TNG movies. And TBH, TNG was never *my* Trek, so it was always a stretch to appreciate the movies.

With the announcement of the first Kelvin film, I started reading Trek novels again. I engaged in a rewatch of all the series, starting with ENT and ending with VOY, much of which I had never seen before. I'd watched TNG through its run after a could of fits and starts, but I'd never seen the other shows much past the first few episodes. And now DS9 and ENT are among my favorite. Which would not have happened but for Kelvin Trek.

The new movies have their faults, but they brought the characters I grew up with back to the screen, and in an exciting way. Being a fan from the apocryphal period between TAS and the movies, I've learned to have a thicker skin when it comes to "canon" inconsistencies, so that was never a bother. The films have other flaws, most of which can be blamed on the moment in Hollywoo'd history that they were made: needs-to-have-a-bad-guy, less that sparkling story editing, etc. The middle film suffers the most, but there's still an entertaining film in there. My biggest problem was with the Khan-no-Khan BS in the publicity, and that feels like it's poaching the nostalgia that informs TWOK. Personally, I don't feel the way about this film's central sacrifice the way I did in TWOK because I haven't been with *this* Kirk and Spock for 20 years. But I hear younger fans experienced it differently.

But I watch them a lot, especially Beyond, which I thought hit a wonderful TOS-like tone. I've said that it feels more like the TV show than the TOS movies did, with a little of the Gold Key Comics thrown in. It's close to my favorite Trek film of all. If they don't make any more, I will be sad, but I'm pretty confident there will be more down the road, likely in the form of a re-reboot (as opposed to an un-boot, which ain't happening).

I've certainly watched them much more than the TNG films.

My experience was similar. After a lack of interest in Enterprise, I went cold on Star Trek for a while. I wasn't even enthusiastic for the '09 movie from all the pre-release press I'd read about it, so I never went to see it in theaters. However, I eventually caught it on a long international flight (nothing much else to do, right?!) and I loved it. More to the point, after a while of being pretty blase about Star Trek, it put me back in touch with TOS and the TOS characters, so much so that when I got home I did my first every-episode-of-TOS-in-order rewatch in nearly two decades. The Kelvin movies revitalized my love for Star Trek.

I think they stand well as a trilogy. But I'd totally love more

 

[pst]

There are many Star Treks, but the Kelvin universe is MY Star Trek. Whatever the future holds, it has brought me a great deal of joy.

i'm split between my childhood star trek which was TNG and my adulthood star trek which is the kelvin timeline. however they're not that different: both are visions of the future and of star trek that i would want to live in. i think for me that's a big part of my fandom.

i got to be an extra in both star trek and star trek into darkness (i was a civilian, never got into uniform sadly), so there's an extra layer of wish fulfillment and fond memories of being on those sets that adds to my admiration of that branch of the franchise. JJ abrams was surprisingly down to earth and personable despite dealing with hundreds of random people all day long. when i was filming on the first film, it was hanukah and since JJ is jewish, he had a huge table set up with jewish delicacies and everyone (zoe saldana and chris pine to the lowliest extra like me) celebrated together. it's a really nice memory, on top of, you know, dressing up and playing like it was 2250-something.

My experience was similar. After a lack of interest in Enterprise, I went cold on Star Trek for a while.

i was cold on star trek during enterprise myself, though i did stay with it to the bitter end. in the interim i became a huge battlestar galactica fan and when star trek 2009 came out, i sort of rolled my eyes at the lighter, slightly sillier tone. but i was dead wrong and the film reignited a little of that lost optimism that i continue to need from my star trek.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

Which ones were you?

 

[pst]

Which ones were you?

i assume this is directed at me.

in star trek 2009, i'm a shipyard bar patron, you can see me when uhura does her little tour of the bar. in star trek into darkness, i'm walking outside the kelvin archive and later i'm fleeing from the vengeance as she crashes into SF. you can't see me into darkness very clearly, unfortunately (despite all the closeups of shocked-looking extras).

 

[Desert Kris]

I watched all three of them fairly recently after doing a production order run through of TOS, TAS and the original movies. It kind of helped me understand some fan complaints about the tone of the Kelvin films in keeping with early Trek. I still enjoy seeing the original crew with a re-worked dynamic.

My favorite is still the first one, with how it opens up the boundless possibilities of a new version of TOS Trek. I think I would have been okay with just that film followed by a steady stream of novels and comics, all not necessarily beholden to each other continuity-wise. Just the first film as a starting point for each individual new story; and if authors want to draw inspiration from other authors' novels as well they can but are not required to.

The second film is fine, I like that they work to mature that version of Kirk; except there isn't much time for him to pause and reflect on his mistakes (a short scene or two). There's a little bit of advancement of the relationship between Spock and Uhura, but I thought they could have pushed it further...

....Which brings me to my main quibble about the third film, Beyond, which should have taken things to yet another level. A break-up and then a kind of hinted reconciliation at the end is a holding pattern, which is disappointing for a movie series where it is years between each new story. Beyond shows that they've settled into the dynamic of their original versions, but it felt like it downplayed their alternative character dynamics as introduced in the first film. I like that it's kind of the What if...? ultimate landing party ST movie; the answer to all those episodes where the Enterprise is in danger from something on the planet that the landing party has to deal with; this time it didn't work and they all might be stranded. What would it have looked like if Vaal had dragged the Enterprise down, are the crew in danger of what happened to Ron Tracey's command, will Kirk go mad like Garth of Izar or Balthazar Edison? I like that it an answer, in spirit, to some of these subtle possibilities embedded in TOS; yet at the same time somehow there is also something a little more that I would like to have seen with Beyond, but it's a little difficult to put my finger on it.

Into Darkness and Beyond are perfectly fine movies. But that first movie has value for offering a new, alternative starting point for TOS, it shows us a version of a story that we never got to see (the coming together of the original crew); it stands perfectly well as a Star Trek movie that is The Star Trek movie, if you get what I mean.

 

[Relayer1]

I think '09 is flawed but servicable, STID less so and Beyond worse. Truth be told I don't like any of the plots much nor half of the cast.

Overall I'd probably have preferred them not to have been made, but would we be where we are now with multiple TV shows in development without them ?

Hard to say...

 

[Visitor1982]

Liked the first one, hated the second one and third one was even worse.

 

[pst]

I think '09 is flawed but servicable, STID less so and Beyond worse. Truth be told I don't like any of the plots much nor half of the cast.

Overall I'd probably have preferred them not to have been made, but would we be where we are now with multiple TV shows in development without them ?

Hard to say...

i don't think it's a stretch to say we probably wouldn't have these shows without them.

 

[Galileo7]

I have been a Star Trek fan since I was a young boy beginning with TOS reruns and TAS. Unlike, the release of TMP in 1979, I dreaded and doubted J.J. Abrams reboot of Star Trek in 2009, but I am extremely happy that J.J. 2009/STID/STB trilogy was made. I like the Pine Kirk films as much as the Shatner Kirk films.

 

[Lance]

My feeling was (and still is) that ST09 and STID are basically linked. Not just by the same director and writers, but in tone, in style, in storyline. A friend of mine once described STID's problem as being that it was "stuck in the orbit of the first movie", in other words it almost doesn't have an indentity of its own and kind of flubs the open nature of the end of the original movie. STID basically ends exactly where we all thought ST09 did, with the crew assembled and going out there on their mission. Beyond at the least defines itself separately and has its own identity, even if that identity veers closer to Classic Trek than the two preceeding movies.

 

[Smellmet]

I have been a Star Trek fan since I was a young boy beginning with TOS reruns and TAS. Unlike, the release of TMP in 1979, I dreaded and doubted J.J. Abrams reboot of Star Trek in 2009, but I am extremely happy that J.J. 2009/STID/STB trilogy was made. I like the Pine Kirk films as much as the Shatner Kirk films.

So do I. Now they've been out some time, my ranking hasn't really changed - all three movies are in my top 5 Trek films.

 

[pst]

My feeling was (and still is) that ST09 and STID are basically linked. Not just by the same director and writers, but in tone, in style, in storyline. A friend of mine once described STID's problem as being that it was "stuck in the orbit of the first movie", in other words it almost doesn't have an indentity of its own and kind of flubs the open nature of the end of the original movie. STID basically ends exactly where we all thought ST09 did, with the crew assembled and going out there on their mission. Beyond at the least defines itself separately and has its own identity, even if that identity veers closer to Classic Trek than the two preceeding movies.

interesting take. i actually think into darkness is the most distinctly different of the three -- it's darker and more serious than either star trek 2009 or beyond and works to grow the characters and their relationships.

star trek beyond felt to me much closer to the spirit of the first film and carries the story forward in a way into darkness doesn't, but benefits from character work done in into darkness. it's an imperfect film, but i think a necessary step in the arc of the characters, especially if we view it strictly as the second chapter in a trilogy, rather than just another entry in an ongoing story.

 

[Lance]

interesting take. i actually think into darkness is the most distinctly different of the three -- it's darker and more serious than either star trek 2009 or beyond and works to grow the characters and their relationships.

star trek beyond felt to me much closer to the spirit of the first film and carries the story forward in a way into darkness doesn't, but benefits from character work done in into darkness. it's an imperfect film, but i think a necessary step in the arc of the characters, especially if we view it strictly as the second chapter in a trilogy, rather than just another entry in an ongoing story.

Interesting thoughts There is that fascinating thing going on in Beyond, that trilogy movies sometimes have, where the third installment sometimes comes back to characters and/or themes that were important in the first movie, but mostly ignored by the (usually darker) second film. In this case, Kirk reflecting on his being the same age his dad was when the Kelvin was destroyed. I do tend to support @King Daniel Beyond's take that those scenes were certainly meant to set up the Chris meets Chris (okay okay, Kirk meets Kirk, lol) movie that the stagnant fourth film is rumoured to be.

 

[Khan 2.0]

if there isnt to be any more Kelvin movies then just a shame the 3rd movie wasn't more of a trilogy capper building on/concluding what was foreshadowed in ST09/ID - The Shat, the Klingons, more timetravel/alt reality stuff (but obviously not concluding the timeline), just a total extravaganza of trekkiness for the 50th!

 

[fireproof78]

My feeling was (and still is) that ST09 and STID are basically linked. Not just by the same director and writers, but in tone, in style, in storyline. A friend of mine once described STID's problem as being that it was "stuck in the orbit of the first movie", in other words it almost doesn't have an indentity of its own and kind of flubs the open nature of the end of the original movie. STID basically ends exactly where we all thought ST09 did, with the crew assembled and going out there on their mission. Beyond at the least defines itself separately and has its own identity, even if that identity veers closer to Classic Trek than the two preceeding movies.

I honestly see the two as two halves of Kirk and Spock's story. One can see a mirroring device in characterization for both characters as they grow and develop. Now, ST 09 could be the only film and stand on its own just fine, but I think ST ID more round matures Kirk as a character, and allows Spock to process through a lot of the consequences of ST 09. I don't think one "orbits the other" but builds off of the other, and expands upon themes touched upon in the first film but not necessarily the main focus.

Now, I'm also one who errs on the side that ST 09 is also in the spirit of TOS as much as Beyond but I can definitely see why Beyond is regarded as it is.