The Ultimate 2016 Star-off: "Star Trek Beyond" vs. "Rogue One: A Star Wars Story"

[tomalak301]

As a Star Trek fan I have to say that 'Rogue One' is the better movie, it far exceeds anything Beyond did. I watched Beyond once. I watched Rogue One twice.
Beyond is a run of the mill action movie with a few character moments here and there but that doesn't make it a great Star Trek movie. Just a perfunctory one.

I guess I feel opposite of many people here. I've only seen Rogue One once, and I don't have a desire to see it again. I went to see Beyond again the week after it came out and I was excited to do that.

 

[Noname Given]

If you're replying to me, I said Beyond wasn't stylistically "Trek-like". And if you don't "get" that, well, consider:

- Classic Trek has offices of reasonable sizes and comfortable decor. Beyond has an admiral's office in a dark, cavernous space with huge pylons, because that's so extreeeeeme!
- Classic Trek has mostly ordinary/calm editing rhythms. The nuTrek movies zip by at a breakneck pace, often overtly cheating time (as when Into Darkness layers a uniform change and time jump over the course of a shipwide audio briefing), and feature ultra-rapid action cutting, because that's so extreeeeeme!
- Classic Trek tends to not reference pop culture from the past few decades. Beyond makes the Beastie Boys a plot point, because hip-hop as a weapon is kewl and extreeeme!
-Classic Trek, when it has subtitles, tends to have ordinary, unobtrusive ones. Beyond has animated subtitles with morphing characters, because that's kewl and extreeeme!
- Classic Trek tends to downplay the transporter-as-magic by having its subjects stand still even in the 24th century. Beyond says "fuck it, brah, two people can be flying through the air in different directions, only graze each other's fingertips after the shimmering has started, and they'll be totally fine, yo, because our transporters are kewl and extreeeeme!"
- Classic Trek tends to not build action sequences around motorcycles for no discernible reason, or feature characters slipping over cliffs and hanging on to life by their fingers. It's usually not kewl and extreeeme that way.

Note that all these observations are not inherent artistic criticisms. All three nuTrek movies are stylistically very different from pretty much all the Trek that came before, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. (Nemesis had a few moments of pushing the stylistic envelope, true, but the new movies took it all the way to eleven.) I myself tend to dislike all these kewl and extreeeme stylings, and find them mostly antithetical to Trek's spirit, but that doesn't mean I don't consider these movies effective action thrill ride flicks. (Though I do think Beyond fails even at that, whereas Trek XI is a pretty rousing rollercoaster ride.)

One can argue that Beyond "feels like a classic Trek adventure." I strongly disagree, but hey, people feel differently about different things. To say, however, that the latest three Trek movies aren't a significant stylistic and aesthetic departure from the vast majority of prior Star Trek is, IMO, objectively untrue.

^^^^
By the above logic TNG was ANYTHING but 'Trek-Like" - I mean a CARPETED Bridge? Come on. IMO - I thionk dissing STB (or any of the Abrams films because they were filmed to replicate the sets of a 196Oies era TV series... Come on.

In terms of TOS story themes and the characterizations of Pike, Kirk, Spock, et. al - it was VERY 'Trek Like'.

 

[Ithekro]

Star Trek Beyond felt the most like Star Trek of the newer films, and in some respect the older films.

Rogue One was a Star Wars movie that existed in the Star Wars universe without needing to follow the using space fantasy setting by following the story of the Skywalkers and extended family. Instead this was a war movie set A Long Time Ago, in a Galaxy Far Far Way.

Star Trek was finally feeling like Star Trek, and Star Wars was expanding what you can do within Star Wars.

Both were good films, and while I'd like more of Star Trek if they can keep that feeling, I definitely want more Star Wars universe set films.

 

[Saul]

I really enjoyed Rogue One, but all of this can easily be said of that movie as well.

Change the setting to earth and it's just a WWII movie with science fantasy dressings, very basic in almost every way (plot, characters, etc).

Again, I still really enjoyed it.

I agree with you but at the same time I think 'Rogue One' was intentionally a WWII movie in the vein 'The Dirty Dozen', 'Kelly's Heroes'. The same can be said for 'A New Hope' which was 'The Dam Busters'. I was impressed that they went in that direction. It's a bit of a bold move considering how many fingers are in the pot when making this. Yet it doesn't feel forced or by the numbers as much as Beyond does. Beyond doesn't try to be anything else than just a movie. There's no risk, it plays safe. It has nice visuals and effects but lacks the "beautiful" visuals of Rogue One and has nothing close to the emotional intensity of it.

 

[Set Harth]

RO's ending >>>>>>>>> Beyond's ending

 

[Ithekro]

Apparently George Lucas liked Rogue One specifically because it decided to take the risks, while The Force Awakens didn't take as many risks.

 

[Gaith]

I'm currently rewatching TOS, last episode I watched was Arena, which is 10 minutes of dodging mortar fire, 10 minute starship chase and a 30 minute fist fight with a space lizard.
That is the '60s equivalent of an "action thrill ride" with the budget and technology that was at their disposal at the time.

And yet every plot twist and development in that fifty-minute episode (which is far from TOS's finest) adds up to something, and produces a clear and interesting story. Whereas the reveal that Krall was once a MACO means... nothing whatsoever, so far as I can tell. Nor do I know what his connection is to the small furry creatures whose superweapon he wanted, despite being massively deadly with his swarm ships already. In more than twice of the run time of "Arena", we don't get a story so much as a sequence of vaguely connected events. (Which is also the third slam-bang action flick in a row - fourth, if one counts Nemesis.) And, it sucks.

By the above logic TNG was ANYTHING but 'Trek-Like" - I mean a CARPETED Bridge? Come on.

Yes, TNG had aesthetic and tonal differences from TOS, but those of nuTrek strike me as considerably more radical.

 

[ichab]

Star Trek Beyond by a hair. Rogue One took awhile to draw me in whereas STB had me interested from the very beginning. Not saying Rogue One wasn't good(the Vader scenes alone were worth the price of admission), but I knew how it would all turn out before even sitting down to watch it.

And since the OP brought up 2002, for all the crap Nemesis got it was still miles better than AOTC.

 

[Set Harth]

but I knew how it would all turn out before even sitting down to watch it.

I could say much the same thing about Beyond, essentially. Admittedly, I went in spoiled for the appearance of a new Enterprise at the end of the film, and the TV ads spoiled the Krall reveal. But the Enterprise situation could be guessed as the destruction was highlighted in the initial trailer. It's not like anyone was expecting Krall to win in the end.

 

[Saul]

Apparently George Lucas liked Rogue One specifically because it decided to take the risks, while The Force Awakens didn't take as many risks.

That and the fact that 'The Force Awakens' was something of a retelling of his first Star Wars movie. It's understandable. It's why i'm excited for 'Han Solo' movie, it's going to be completely different also.

 

[Tosk]

I agree the anachronisms in Beyond were a bit much.

A song and a motorbike? I don't see the problem. (Unless there's something else I've forgotten.)

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I was fine with the music, I didn't like the motorbike. I wish they'd made up some cool future vehicle that hovers or something.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Not saying Rogue One wasn't good(the Vader scenes alone were worth the price of admission), but I knew how it would all turn out before even sitting down to watch it.

You could say the same about any historical drama, and frankly most fictional movies you have a pretty good idea how everything will end up. Bad guy dies, hero gets heroine. Drunk guys find their friend. Dude finds his car. It's how they got there that makes it a good or bad movie.

 

[Tosk]

I didn't like the motorbike. I wish they'd made up some cool future vehicle that hovers or something.

But it's old tech. The bike is about 100 years older than the one Kirk rides in ST11.

 

[ichab]

You could say the same about any historical drama, and frankly most fictional movies you have a pretty good idea how everything will end up. Bad guy dies, hero gets heroine. Drunk guys find their friend. Dude finds his car. It's how they got there that makes it a good or bad movie.

Not necessarily. Psycho was memorable because we didn't know that the star of the movie died within 30 minutes nor that Norman Bates was actually masquerading as mother. Had we known that from the start the movie wouldn't have worked. With Rogue One I already knew the ending. There was no surprises to be had. It was also a story that could have been told in half the time which is why the first part drags a bit.

 

[ichab]

I could say much the same thing about Beyond, essentially. Admittedly, I went in spoiled for the appearance of a new Enterprise at the end of the film, and the TV ads spoiled the Krall reveal. But the Enterprise situation could be guessed as the destruction was highlighted in the initial trailer. It's not like anyone was expecting Krall to win in the end.

Hence why I avoid trailers.

 

[Mach5]

Voted for Rogue One, but now I almost regret voting. I liked both very much, although nothing in Beyond can quite compare to Rogue One's third act.

However, the third act alone does not a movie make, and Beyond may have been more enjoyable overall.

Rogue One had better antagonists. As much as I like Idris Elba AND Krall's backstory, Krennick, Tarkin and Vader were just... Outstanding.

2016 may have been a year of hell, but it was also a year in which we got a great SW movie, and a great Trek movie. Now compare this to 2002.

 

[Saul]

Not necessarily. Psycho was memorable because we didn't know that the star of the movie died within 30 minutes nor that Norman Bates was actually masquerading as mother. Had we known that from the start the movie wouldn't have worked. With Rogue One I already knew the ending. There was no surprises to be had. It was also a story that could have been told in half the time which is why the first part drags a bit.

To be fair, 'Psycho' was the first film and nothing had come before. Naturally it's full of surprises in the same way 'The Empire Strikes Back' was.
'Rogue One' was sandwiched inbetween 7 other Star Wars movies. It's difficult to compare the two. Now if we were talking 'Psycho IV'....

 

[dahj]

produces a clear and interesting story

It's clear because Kirk and Spock keep narrating exactly what is going on all the time to pad out the time.

Whereas the reveal that Krall was once a MACO means... nothing whatsoever, so far as I can tell.

It gives him a personal motive, and it plays into the the whole theme of nature of the Federation and human progress through cooperation or conflict. Granted the infodump comes a bit late in the movie, and it's a bit on the nose, but then Star Trek has never really been the subtlest of shows.

Nor do I know what his connection is to the small furry creatures whose superweapon he wanted

They had (half of) the weapon he wanted, that is the connection.

we don't get a story so much as a sequence of vaguely connected events.

I would disagree there, I thought the story was decently connected, flowed well and had everything set up properly so nothing really comes out of the blue.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Both were really good. Don't make me choose one.