What Do You Want To See? Star Trek Beyond

[BillJ]

So what is everyone wanting from the next film? Things from TOS updated for the 21st century? Things they were never able to do in one of the prior series due to either money, technological or societal issues?

I'd like to focus on Star Trek Beyond and not have this devolve into bashing of Abrams, Orci or Kurtzman, as it seems none of them have any creative input this time around.

Two things stand out for me: A gay character and Scott in command of the Enterprise. I think the first finally brings Star Trek into the late-20th century on a big social issue and the latter would be fun as I always enjoyed Scott's turns in the captain's chair.

So? What about everyone else?

 

[Ryan8bit]

Maybe a little more McCoy and a longer run time. More stuff like the intro to STID.

 

[Cyke101]

Maybe a little more McCoy and a longer run time. More stuff like the intro to STID.

-Agreed on both counts. To expand, I want McCoy to resume his place in the Triumvirate, dag nabbit. Yes, I appreciate Uhura gaining a larger role, but it's not a zero-sum game here.

-For that matter, let's see more of the rest of the Big 7, too. Sulu's role was actually reduced in STID. Chekov is earnest, but is kind of a one note character. Scotty playing a more integral role in STID was the right step forward; so let McCoy, Chekov, and Sulu follow his example.

-One personal, longtime desire of mine: yes, Star Trek is supposed to be about exploration and advancing the human condition and yadda yadda yadda, but for once, I'd love to see a large scale fleet battle in a movie. Trek's come close a couple times, but always chickened out:
--First Contact's battle was painfully brief
--Nemesis's first couple drafts had the Enterprise meeting with the Starfleet task force, and then together they do battle with the Scimitar
--ST09 gave lip service to the Narada destroying 47 Klingon ships, and the Narada destroyed the rescue fleet before the Enterprise got there!

To this day, no movie's really given us a proper follow up to the Battle of Endor over 30 years ago. Justin Lin doing Star Trek can get us closer, though. This is our chance, finally, to have Starfleet go up against a major enemy fleet. I want my wall of ships!

-Give me Morn, or give me death.

-A few more references to TNG/DS9/VOY-era planets, like Betazed, Archer IV, etc. It's neat to know that even if this is an alternate universe, there would still be a few familiar points of reference.

-For that matter, seeing a random Xindi species member in the background -- even as a Starfleet officer! -- would be a neat reference to progress since Enterprise's time.

 

[M'Sharak]

If the run time is longer, I doubt it will be by much.

As it turns out, STID is tied with TMP for longest run time of all the Trek movies, and the 2009 ST is next-longest. Several of the others run significantly shorter.*

A look at Justin Lin's filmography shows most of his fitting into the same box as Star Trek movies for length - 104 minutes for Tokyo Drift on one end, 130 minutes for FF6 on the other.



*TWoK - 113 minutes; TSfS - 105 minutes; TVH -122 minutes; TFF - 106 minutes; TUC - 110 minutes; GEN - 118 minutes; FC - 111 minutes; INS - 103 minutes; NEM - 116 minutes

 

[Cyke101]

*TWoK - 113 minutes; TSfS - 105 minutes; TVH -122 minutes; TFF - 106 minutes; TUC - 110 minutes; GEN - 118 minutes; FC - 111 minutes; INS - 103 minutes; NEM - 116 minutes

I call shenanigans -- INS felt much, much, much longer

 

[Dales]

original story.

 

[Robert D. Robot]

Two things stand out for me: A gay character and Scott in command of the Enterprise. I think the first finally brings Star Trek into the late-20th century on a big social issue and the latter would be fun as I always enjoyed Scott's turns in the captain's chair.

I agree. Scotty has always been a favorite character and I would enjoy seeing him in a bit of a less comic-relief role/situation- - being in charge, getting tough and meaning it. And if we can have Modern Family's gay characters on TV (along with many other shows), why not now in a Trek movie?

 

[Nebusj]

They have to figure out what to do with Data's Head.

 

[martok2112]

*TWoK - 113 minutes; TSfS - 105 minutes; TVH -122 minutes; TFF - 106 minutes; TUC - 110 minutes; GEN - 118 minutes; FC - 111 minutes; INS - 103 minutes; NEM - 116 minutes

I call shenanigans -- INS felt much, much, much longer

Lots of movies that fall into the 1hr 30min to 1hr 40 min mark feel longer because they are trying to compress a lot of events into a small runtime.

I remember watching The Black Hole back in '79. It was only 1hr and 35 mins, but upon first viewing, it felt like a much, much longer film. Once you know the sequence of events though, the film goes by much quicker.

Yes, I want to see an epic, meaty space fleet battle as well....as long as we're not short changed the way First Contact did it.

Gay characters? Ok. As long as they don't go all "Game of Thrones", or Cawley about it. A character is gay? Fine. It's just a part of his or her background.....don't make it a plot point or subplot point. It doesn't need to be in your face. It doesn't need to be a socio-political statement to show that Star Trek is somehow trying to be "cutting edge". It doesn't need to be something that the gay community has to somehow rally behind and cry "VICTORY"! There have been plenty of shows and movies where gay characters are portrayed in a positive, non-scandalous light. A Star Trek show or movie doesn't need to "up the ante" so to speak. It's really just kinda "been there, done that." Male or female, have the character seen in the background of a crew common area, or a corridor on the Enterprise somewhere, holding hands, or maybe with one's arm around the other....the audience will get the idea. No need to make any bigger deal about it than that.

 

[Mjolnir2000]

original story.

This. 2009 may not have been my favorite film of the franchise, but I appreciate that it tried to do something different. Into Darkness...not so much. I want to see something I've never seen before.

 

[CorporalClegg]

I don't care as long as it's entertaining.

 

[Disco]

An original story but heavy on references to canon. I like my easter eggs.

 

[Sindatur]

*TWoK - 113 minutes; TSfS - 105 minutes; TVH -122 minutes; TFF - 106 minutes; TUC - 110 minutes; GEN - 118 minutes; FC - 111 minutes; INS - 103 minutes; NEM - 116 minutes

I call shenanigans -- INS felt much, much, much longer

Lots of movies that fall into the 1hr 30min to 1hr 40 min mark feel longer because they are trying to compress a lot of events into a small runtime.

I remember watching The Black Hole back in '79. It was only 1hr and 35 mins, but upon first viewing, it felt like a much, much longer film. Once you know the sequence of events though, the film goes by much quicker.

Yes, I want to see an epic, meaty space fleet battle as well....as long as we're not short changed the way First Contact did it.

Gay characters? Ok. As long as they don't go all "Game of Thrones", or Cawley about it. A character is gay? Fine. It's just a part of his or her background.....don't make it a plot point or subplot point. It doesn't need to be in your face. It doesn't need to be a socio-political statement to show that Star Trek is somehow trying to be "cutting edge". It doesn't need to be something that the gay community has to somehow rally behind and cry "VICTORY"! There have been plenty of shows and movies where gay characters are portrayed in a positive, non-scandalous light. A Star Trek show or movie doesn't need to "up the ante" so to speak. It's really just kinda "been there, done that." Male or female, have the character seen in the background of a crew common area, or a corridor on the Enterprise somewhere, holding hands, or maybe with one's arm around the other....the audience will get the idea. No need to make any bigger deal about it than that.

While I agree they don't need to make a big Production number about a Character being Gay, it's a little offensive, that you say "just make a background character holding hands with the same sex, there's been plenty of Movies with Gay characters". Replace "gay" with "black" or other ethnicity, and you can see how offensive that sounds

 

[Ovation]

I want more lens flares.

Actually, I want what I usually get from Trek movies--a good time at the cinema. I'm pretty relaxed and open about the particulars. I would like to see A) the "antagonist" be a force of nature or something similar and B) the alien race to be new, initially suspicious of the explorers and eventually working together to overcome the challenge posed by the said force of nature. But then, that's what I'd write about. I'm confident Pegg and co. will come up with something entertaining.

 

[martok2112]

I call shenanigans -- INS felt much, much, much longer

Lots of movies that fall into the 1hr 30min to 1hr 40 min mark feel longer because they are trying to compress a lot of events into a small runtime.

I remember watching The Black Hole back in '79. It was only 1hr and 35 mins, but upon first viewing, it felt like a much, much longer film. Once you know the sequence of events though, the film goes by much quicker.

Yes, I want to see an epic, meaty space fleet battle as well....as long as we're not short changed the way First Contact did it.

Gay characters? Ok. As long as they don't go all "Game of Thrones", or Cawley about it. A character is gay? Fine. It's just a part of his or her background.....don't make it a plot point or subplot point. It doesn't need to be in your face. It doesn't need to be a socio-political statement to show that Star Trek is somehow trying to be "cutting edge". It doesn't need to be something that the gay community has to somehow rally behind and cry "VICTORY"! There have been plenty of shows and movies where gay characters are portrayed in a positive, non-scandalous light. A Star Trek show or movie doesn't need to "up the ante" so to speak. It's really just kinda "been there, done that." Male or female, have the character seen in the background of a crew common area, or a corridor on the Enterprise somewhere, holding hands, or maybe with one's arm around the other....the audience will get the idea. No need to make any bigger deal about it than that.

While I agree they don't need to make a big Production number about a Character being Gay, it's a little offensive, that you say "just make a background character holding hands with the same sex, there's been plenty of Movies with Gay characters". Replace "gay" with "black" or other ethnicity, and you can see how offensive that sounds

I understand. Certainly no offense was intended.... I do believe you either misread, or read too deeply into what I meant. I did not say "there have v been plenty enough movies with gay characters, so let's stop." I meant that the "groundbreaking" road had been groundbroken enough. ... no need to try and make a big deal out of it. That's all I will say on the matter. On this matter that has given you "offense". I am not out to suppress gays, or gay awareness/sensitivity/etc. I also did not say, just makea background character gay. I said if a main or major character is gay, you don't have to make it "in your face". During a social setting in a scene, that character (if not important to the dialogue in the scene ) can be seen in a background setting holding hands or sitting comfortably with their partner...no need for gratuitous "woo hoo....he/she is gay." If the character is important to the scene, he/she can still be seen with their partner holding hands or being comfortable without gratuitous overtones to drive a character background point home.

To characterize my statement as oppressive/anti gay/racist is what I find offensive. I have taken great strides to try and be sensitive/thoughtful toward gays. ... especially on this board.

 

[Sindatur]

Lots of movies that fall into the 1hr 30min to 1hr 40 min mark feel longer because they are trying to compress a lot of events into a small runtime.

I remember watching The Black Hole back in '79. It was only 1hr and 35 mins, but upon first viewing, it felt like a much, much longer film. Once you know the sequence of events though, the film goes by much quicker.

Yes, I want to see an epic, meaty space fleet battle as well....as long as we're not short changed the way First Contact did it.

Gay characters? Ok. As long as they don't go all "Game of Thrones", or Cawley about it. A character is gay? Fine. It's just a part of his or her background.....don't make it a plot point or subplot point. It doesn't need to be in your face. It doesn't need to be a socio-political statement to show that Star Trek is somehow trying to be "cutting edge". It doesn't need to be something that the gay community has to somehow rally behind and cry "VICTORY"! There have been plenty of shows and movies where gay characters are portrayed in a positive, non-scandalous light. A Star Trek show or movie doesn't need to "up the ante" so to speak. It's really just kinda "been there, done that." Male or female, have the character seen in the background of a crew common area, or a corridor on the Enterprise somewhere, holding hands, or maybe with one's arm around the other....the audience will get the idea. No need to make any bigger deal about it than that.

While I agree they don't need to make a big Production number about a Character being Gay, it's a little offensive, that you say "just make a background character holding hands with the same sex, there's been plenty of Movies with Gay characters". Replace "gay" with "black" or other ethnicity, and you can see how offensive that sounds

I understand. Certainly no offense was intended.... I do believe you either misread, or read too deeply into what I meant. I did not say "there have v been plenty enough movies with gay characters, so let's stop." I meant that the "groundbreaking" road had been groundbroken enough. ... no need to try and make a big deal out of it. That's all I will say on the matter. On this matter that has given you "offense". I am not out to suppress gays, or gay awareness/sensitivity/etc. I also did not say, just makea background character gay. I said if a main or major character is gay, you don't have to make it "in your face". During a social setting in a scene, that character (if not important to the dialogue in the scene ) can be seen in a background setting holding hands or sitting comfortably with their partner...no need for gratuitous "woo hoo....he/she is gay." If the character is important to the scene, he/she can still be seen with their partner holding hands or being comfortable without gratuitous overtones to drive a character background point home.

To characterize my statement as oppressive/anti gay/racist is what I find offensive. I have taken great strides to try and be sensitive/thoughtful toward gays. ... especially on this board.

I pretty much agree with this clarification, however, below is copy/pasted from your post, and this is what I was responding to (perhaps you didn't mean it the way it sounds) along with your earlier comment in the post about there already having been plenty enough of positive depictions

Male or female, have the character seen in the background of a crew common area, or a corridor on the Enterprise somewhere, holding hands, or maybe with one's arm around the other....the audience will get the idea. No need to make any bigger deal about it than that.

But, as to not making it a plot point, or "going Cawley", while I agree the heavy petting isn't necessary (Gay or straight), I don't see why it's a problem to have losing a lover (Gay or straight) to death on a mission (And the hardship of dealing with it) should be absolutely ruled out

 

[martok2112]

While I agree they don't need to make a big Production number about a Character being Gay, it's a little offensive, that you say "just make a background character holding hands with the same sex, there's been plenty of Movies with Gay characters". Replace "gay" with "black" or other ethnicity, and you can see how offensive that sounds

I understand. Certainly no offense was intended.... I do believe you either misread, or read too deeply into what I meant. I did not say "there have v been plenty enough movies with gay characters, so let's stop." I meant that the "groundbreaking" road had been groundbroken enough. ... no need to try and make a big deal out of it. That's all I will say on the matter. On this matter that has given you "offense". I am not out to suppress gays, or gay awareness/sensitivity/etc. I also did not say, just makea background character gay. I said if a main or major character is gay, you don't have to make it "in your face". During a social setting in a scene, that character (if not important to the dialogue in the scene ) can be seen in a background setting holding hands or sitting comfortably with their partner...no need for gratuitous "woo hoo....he/she is gay." If the character is important to the scene, he/she can still be seen with their partner holding hands or being comfortable without gratuitous overtones to drive a character background point home.

To characterize my statement as oppressive/anti gay/racist is what I find offensive. I have taken great strides to try and be sensitive/thoughtful toward gays. ... especially on this board.

I pretty much agree with this clarification, however, below is copy/pasted from your post, and this is what I was responding to (perhaps you didn't mean it the way it sounds) along with your earlier comment in the post about there already having been plenty enough of positive depictions

Male or female, have the character seen in the background of a crew common area, or a corridor on the Enterprise somewhere, holding hands, or maybe with one's arm around the other....the audience will get the idea. No need to make any bigger deal about it than that.

But, as to not making it a plot point, or "going Cawley", while I agree the heavy petting isn't necessary (Gay or straight), I don't see why it's a problem to have losing a lover (Gay or straight) to death on a mission (And the hardship of dealing with it) should be absolutely ruled out

Yikes....I didn't quite mean that either.

No, losing a loved one, whether gay or straight is a hardship on those who've survived...and should not be trivialized.

I was simply meaning not get gratuitous, in your face, or, as you properly put it, heavy petting about it.

I am glad we seem to understand each other better now. Certainly no dischord was intended.

I still have a rough time clarifying in one post about how I'm trying to adapt to today's society and show my understanding. Otherwise, my posts end up reading like a ton of caveats to try and explain that no offense is meant by any statement I make. (walking on eggshells, as it were)

 

[Mudd]

Zoe Saldana doing the fan dance from ST 5.

 

[Jedi_Master]

More of Alice Eve...........'s character.

I kid. I hope that Star Trek Beyond takes us out into a new area of the galaxy, has us meet a new alien species, and doesn't have any scenes that take place in the Solar System or on Earth.

 

[johnjm22]

I want to see them take a risk. I felt like STID was way too safe. Like they were trying to please everyone. I want the movie to have a sense of realism. Kill a main character if you have to.

Ultimately though, I just want to see a good story. Less action. Good dialog and drama.

I DON'T want to see:
-Emotional Spock
-Pandering to ST fans
-Uhura Spock melodrama romance
-Portable intergalactic transporters or whatever they're called.
-Another enemy with a mega sized space ship
-Girls in underwear
-Over crowded space shots with the Enterprise moving more like Tie Fighter than Star Destroyer.
-Earth