Why I prefer Beyond to Star Trek Into Darkness

1. There was a sense of maturity to the writing with Pegg and Jung

2. Kirk is not written like a frat boy

3. Kirk is not screwing and using women for fun

4. There is more depth to Pegg and Jung's writing

5. The story telling in Beyond drives the action scenes and even helps in character development

6. The Spock and Uhura romance is written maturely instead of the bickering teenagers they were in Into Darkness

7. Less Emotional Spock but still an Emotional Spock that did not seem way too out of character when he showed emotions in Beyond

8. Beyond had the best action sequences since Star Trek 2009. the destruction of the enterprise at the beginning of Beyond is going to go down as a star trek classic moment.

9. Bones

10. I don't think anyone has ever mention this, but I loved the call backs to Kirk and Spock's mothers and what their mothers meant to them. Kirk thinking of his mum as his birthday approaches and Spock wanting Uhura to keep one of his mother's jewels.

11. Giving all the characters something to do instead of the Kirk and Spock show

12. York Town ( my best reason)

I loved how they used York Town as the back drop of the film instead of Earth

What I loved more about York town is that they made York town like the 10th major character of the movie after Kirk, Spock, Uhura, Bones. Krall, Chekov, Sulu , Jaylah and Scotty


13. An original plot with better tributes to TOS.

 

Sulu commanded the Enterprise, Uhura negotiated with the Klingons and helped fight Khan, McCoy saved Kirk, Chekov was Chief of Engineering and Scott saved them all by going to the Vengeance. I like all three movies and find them entertaining, but prefer Into Darkness, with Beyond coming in third.

I'll allow others to dissect your other points.

 

3. Kirk is screwing women for their mutual enjoyment.

Cba to reply to the rest, but had to get that one.

 

I think all 3 films are neck and neck, and all 3 have strengths and weaknesses. ST09 was a tremendous adventure. STID was darker. ST Beyond is the best combination of the film series and older Trek to celebrate the 50th anniversary. It brings all the films closer together as a whole, and that's my main reason for ranking it slightly above ST09 as the best Trek film period.

 

I need to get some repeat viewings of beyond under my belt but I enjoyed it immensely, at the moment I'm struggling to separate the three I love them all.

 

I love them all as well but my grades of the three film is this.

Trek 09 gets an A
STID gets a B
Beyond A-

STID was brought down only be the lack of originality.

 

I saw it twice at the theater. So Beyond could rise in my standings after more viewings. But, right now, it is solidly third for me.

Beyond using Khan the character, and the Spock scream, Into Darkness is a fairly original movie. As original as one can get in a franchise with seven hundred-plus hours of filmed material.

 

I think it was a great trilogy of films, not just Star Trek Films.
If I had to rank them Beyond would come in first, but ST2009 and ST Into Darkness would be tied in second.
If I were to compare it to the original Star Wars trilogy[ANH, ESB, ROTJ], then I think this trilogy is superior because of Beyond is far better than Return of The Jedi, IMHO.

 

I have only seen Beyond once, in theaters. But I haven't cried so much during Trek since What You Leave Behind. It touched everything that makes Star Trek Star Trek, to me anyway. Can't wait to see it again and really let it sink in, but right now, it's definatly better than Into Darkness, and probably a bit better than the first Kelvin-verse movie, but alteast its equal.

 

You know why I prefer Beyond to STID? Because it's a better movie.

There, I said the same thing as the OP in much less words.

 

I prefer Into Darkness, it told a relevant allegorical tale and touched upon current events such as the morality of drone strikes. The militarisation of starfleet was a clear parallel to America loosing its way post 911. I really enjoyed ST09 and felt it was respectful of the source material. I like all three films and their inclusion of Nimoy as a cultural touchstone.

I was disappointed with Beyond, it was fun, but felt inconsequential and predictable. I am unsurprised by its lacklustre box office as there wasn't 'hook' for the general audience. Krall was underdeveloped and his motivation was unclear. The next one needs to remember to tell a story and it wouldnt hurt to have a more realistic feel, Beyond felt a bit like an impressive cartoon. No way could Scotty have survived the torpedo crash, pulled himself up my his fingertips from the cliff. Nor can one imagine Kirk surviving a slide down the saucer section or falling from the rock face without injury that Jayla had him pinned to.

 

Because, you know, unrealistic shit only happens in movies that do badly at the box office. All the box office greats are completely realistic and don't feature characters doing anything that would kill or at least severely injure someone doing the same thing in real life.

What the hell, anyway? "Impressive cartoon" as a derisive? Most of the really popular movies today are based on freaking comic books.

 

"Most of the really popular movies are based on freaking comic books"

Indeed. I just don't think Star Trek should try to emulate that format. I don't think Beyonds performance was hurt by its unrealistic action scenes, but I'd prefer that the action was a bit more grounded in reality / real world physics. For sure, CG is now so convincing that film makers can depict incredible stunts, but it takes me out of the movie. If you're loving that aspect of modern films then that's great and I for one enjoyed guardians of the galaxy and Jurassic world. I just don't think that level of craziness is needed in a Star Trek film. But that's just my opinion :/

 

Indeed. It's definitely a "safer" film, which I suppose is understandable for the 50th anniversary but it stood in some contrast to its predecessor.

It's hard to get that balance between appealing to fans (I nearly said pandering, but that sounds more dismissive than I mean) and appealing to a wider audience. I think this one leaned a little too far to the former.

Having said that, it's my favourite of the three, but I think ID had a lot more potential.

 

How far do we take that though? 100% realism is boring, not to mention real world physics definitely wouldn't work for Star Trek. You know, because of the whole FTL thing.

 

I think the overall consensus, even among those who generally don't like the newer movies and those who love them dearly, is that Beyond > Into Darkness.

I think this has to be defended a bit for Into Darkness. Kirk started the movie as these two things, but by the end he had matured out of it. One of the major themes of the movie was hubris vs. reality, running parallel between Kirk and Marcus. Kirk thought he was a hotshot captain who could get away with anything, but gradually he started to temper himself more and more, until the end when he chose to sacrifice himself to save his crew.

So then by the time Beyond starts, which is around 3 years since then, he's mostly business. He'll leave crew fraternization to, well, his crew. He's direct and to the point with Jaylah. He's pondering his career and burnout. He's thinking about trying out for a promotion. He's comparing himself to his father. The Kirk at the beginning of Into Darkness would never do that, but it's the events of that movie that help shape him to become closer to TOS Kirk that we see in Beyond.

Coincidentally, both of their mothers are human women named Martha. Imagine that!



(juuuuuust kidding)

 

+1

 

Although I really enjoyed Beyond, I prefer Star Trek Into Darkness because of Benedict Cumberbatch and Peter Weller being more interesting guest stars (not slighting Idris Elba, who I love, but I liked Khan/Marcus more than Krall)