Star Trek: Beyond


Movies

201 to 250 of 314 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Ok let me try it this way. Is this a Star Trek movie for someone that actually enjoys Star Trek, rather than someone that just enjoys dumb movies with explosions?


Jaçinto wrote:
Ok let me try it this way. Is this a Star Trek movie for someone that actually enjoys Star Trek, rather than someone that just enjoys dumb movies with explosions?

I have no idea how it will appeal to grognards.


I do not know what that word is and if it is an insult.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/grognard


A retro gamer? And I like plenty of new things. Honestly "Grognard" sounds like an insulting term. It can be someone that sticks to old versions of things when new stuff is available (Not that new means better) which does come off as insulting, but ah well.


That's what some call them yes, Jacinto.


Jaçinto wrote:
I am debating seeing this. Okay, I thought the first Abrams Trek movie was just okay, but at least better than Nemesis. I absolutely hated Into Darkness as it was a big dumb flashy action movie where the characters kept contradicting themselves, they ignored the timeline prior to the temporal incursion in the previous movie, and nothing really made sense when you actually pay attention to things like character development and story. I am more about the substance, not the flashiness. Big fight scenes have no purpose if they feel tacked on and don't fit the characters. So tell me, does this movie deserve my money or is it just another summer schlock big dumb action movie, or is it more cerebral like the series and older movies, where they actually cared about making sure the plot works and the characters make sense?

In my opinion, it is more of an action movie. Without going into spoilers, it's more of a whizz bang boom movie than anything cerebral, and if you stop to think about things, there are quite a number of plotholes or things that really don't make a lot of sense.

It's an enjoyable movie (remember, I enjoyed Into Darkness), but if someone didn't like the two movies prior to it, I'm not certain they'll enjoy this one.

It does have quite a bit of homage to the original series, for example...

Spoiler:

Kirk get's into a little melee at the beginning and he tears his shirt, which he mentions, which is a homage to how often Kirk got his shirt torn off in the original series...

There's a lot of McCoy/Spock Dialogue which sort of hearkens back to the Original series, and several other things in that regard.

However, for a hardcore trekkie/trekker who felt the other alternate verse Star Trek movies were not true in spirit to the Prime timeline...they might want to wait to see this one on DVD if at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Action movie does not imply dumb movie. Lots of action movies can be well thought out rather than stupid non stop explosions. Die Hard, Scarface, LOTR, Escape From New York, Mad Max 2 and 4, Assault on Precinct 13, etc... These are really good well thought out action movies. Being loud and stupid is not a prerequisite for action.

Also an homage to Kirk would include how Kirk actually followed regulations pretty much all the time in the original TV series, save for how he went down with the away team all the time.

Edit: More action movies that are not made of dumb. The Last Starfighter. Robocop (The original), Total Recall (original), Terminator, Alien (which is action and horror), and I am sure there are more.

Sovereign Court

I enjoyed pretty much all incarnations of Star Trek and I have to say I did enjoy this one as well. While it is a bit more of an action film, it is not a high paced action film.

Spoiler:
The exceptions being the assault on the Enterprise, arguably the motocross bit, and the attack on the station. The pacing worked pretty well in those segments though, so no complaints.

I found the Bones/Spock dialogue was particularly entertaining.

Dark Archive

Jaçinto wrote:
Ok let me try it this way. Is this a Star Trek movie for someone that actually enjoys Star Trek, rather than someone that just enjoys dumb movies with explosions?

I just got back from it and enjoyed it, but, as a long-time Trekkie, I'd say it, like most of the Star Trek movies, IMO, was probably more enjoyable as an action/adventure movie than a pure 'Star Trek' experience, which, again, IMO, tends to be something more on the small screen in serial episodes that can really explore the cultures, characters, effects of technology, etc.

There was lots of cool nostalgia for the old time fans, as well as some new stuff, with the Spock/McCoy banter being particularly fun. There was even another shout-out to the Enterprise show (mention of a past war with the Xindi).


I liked the fan service nods, like Chekovs comments on Russians inventing things they did not..they are smartly placed rather than slapped in your face.

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Jaçinto wrote:
A retro gamer? And I like plenty of new things. Honestly "Grognard" sounds like an insulting term. It can be someone that sticks to old versions of things when new stuff is available (Not that new means better) which does come off as insulting, but ah well.

Grognard was termed by wargamers back in the seventies for those who had been playing before the boom in war gaming at the time. It's a historical refrence since the veteran Old Guard of Napoleon's army were called les Grognards, the grumblers, because one of the privileges they had earned was to complain about stuff whenever and wherever and to whoever they chose.


Ok I may have to check this out then. As long as it is better than that refuse pile Into Darkness, which was worse than even Nemesis which was previously the worst Star Trek movie.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaçinto wrote:
Ok I may have to check this out then. As long as it is better than that refuse pile Into Darkness, which was worse than even Nemesis which was previously the worst Star Trek movie.

well.

That's a f%*$ing lie, but whatever.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There was no lie there at all. Nemesis was awful but Into Darkness was worse. It was close though.

Liberty's Edge

I saw it yesterday. I liked it but I thought a number of scenes were too dark to see much. This is the one that should have been called "into Darkness"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jaçinto wrote:
There was no lie there at all. Nemesis was awful but Into Darkness was worse. It was close though.

The fact that you regard those two as the worst is where some of us are scratching our heads...

Insurrection, The Motionless Picture, Let's Find God After Visiting Mos Eisley....

They're all in contention.

Really, listing the GOOD Trek movies is quicker and easier.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaçinto wrote:
There was no lie there at all. Nemesis was awful but Into Darkness was worse. It was close though.

Have you seen the movie?


Yes Hama, yes I have. Hated both of them. As soon as I heard the line "Cold Fusion Bomb" I knew how bad the movie was going to be. I saw Into Darkness and it was total failure across the board. Also generations was way worse than the motion picture or insurrection. Heck out of the TNG moviesI would say First contact was the good one. After that it is insurrection after a large drop off though, followed by generations and nemesis. See the motion picture may be bad, but I can actually watch it without getting mad at it. A slow movie does not bother me. I don't need constant fight scenes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaçinto wrote:
There was no lie there at all. Nemesis was awful but Into Darkness was worse. It was close though.

I actually really liked Nemesis.

It was FAR better than...

Let's save 600 people on a planet because it's just as important as saving the galaxy and possibly the crew of our ship which has more crew than the entire population of the planet below...and at the same time let's be extremely boring about it...Insurrection.

Or...

Let's have a great start to a movie, but then devolve into endless droning about the possibility of eternity among our...Generations.

Or...

We haven't touched upon Plato's children in a few decades, why don't we reapproach this entire deity thing again with a planet in the center of the galaxy that would take our ships at least a decade or more to reach...in our Final Frontier...

Or...

Let's see how long it takes to put you to sleep with our spectacularly slow special effects that are from the 70s and early 80s...Motion Picture.

Nemesis was actually pretty neat, and had Tom Hardy (who is the everyman) in his first Mad Max appearance (okay, made that up, but his character was a tad insane...and was almost Max tough when he took one up the gut and kept on ticking).

I found it fun, not the BEST of the Star Trek movies, but nowhere near being as bad as some try to portray it as being. It had the unfortunate release timing to be against some movies which basically destroyed it at the box office.

It's the second best of the Next Gen movies (to me at least) and beats out 1,3,5,7, and 9 (hmmm, I seem to see a pattern there) at least to me.

On the actual question though...my guess Jacinto is that you probably won't really care for ST:B if you see it in the theater.

There is at least ONE REALLY BIG and MAJOR plothole that really makes NO SENSE if one thinks about it

Spoiler:

Someone is stuck on a planet and can't get off of it, but would if they could.

Then, when they get a way off the planet, do they leave? Of course not, that would make too much sense...obviously.

Instead they want to destroy everything that they helped to create and later served.

It probably has bigger plotholes than Into Darkness.

For the hardcore trekkie/trekker, I really think they'd be disappointed with this one.

If you aren't hardcore (though you seem to share many of the hardcore trekkie/trekker's hate for Nemesis and other things), it's a fun movie.


All the next generation movies are worse then into darkness.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Watched it yesterday, thoroughly enjoyed it.

The cast are all great at their roles, and it's fun to watch.


Into Darkness: Kirk steals an artifact from some alien race for no reason other than it was there so why not, and Spock tells him not to violate the prime directive while breaking the prime directive by stopping the volcano from erupting with a "cold fusion bomb" that does not do what cold fusion is theorized to do at all. If they wanted a science sounding name for "makes things frozen" then they could have called it a cryo bomb. Kirk is the worst choice for captain in the whole movie and is a total failure as not one person respects him or really follows orders. Spock and Uhura argue about their relationship, which they are in for no reason, when the captain is trying to give them orders and he never has a presence of authority. Khan can just take a phaser shot, which can make matter reach annihilation, and shrug it off. Khan can design a modern ship even though he has been in stasis since the 1990s. Spock and Kirk had no reason shown to ever be friends as they are constantly at each others throats but just happen to be friends now because the script says so even though nothing about how they act show it. Carol Marcus is turned into just fan service. Khan is presented in the cell as some big deal, but really nobody in this universe has any reason to care about "Khan." Klingons are used in the beginning as just a throw away villain. Khan's plans rely heavily on everyone being a complete idiot, which they seem to be. His plans would have been thwarted if they had any air control at all that could notice an armed craft flying around near the secret meeting without being tractored or shot down. Kirk and the enterprise are the only ones near earth that could possibly help even though Earth is the heart of the federation with tons of starfleet on it, plus the shipyards at mars so there should be dozens of ships and armed crew around that could just tractor the enterprise to keep it from crashing into the earth. Spock is never logical at all because the movie wants to push the half human aspect but totally ignores the vulcan half, plus the vulcan upbringing. Old Spock saying how Khan is the most dangerous threat they ever faced when there were tons of things more dangerous like the squire of gothos, the doomsday machine, and others. Damned stupid magic blood that cures death and thus makes the sacrifice at the end totally pointless.

There are lots more things wrong with this but I don't feel like going on. Getting too angry at the stupid. Also when are those time travelling ships with shields that protects them from time being re-written from the voyager series going to do their job and correct the time line, as that was their purpose?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I find it an endless font of amusementto watch people complain about the new Trek movies because almost invariably their complaints are composed of a mixture of nitpicking, stuff the franchise has done for ever, and whining about how they're just not the Originals.

It's just delightful.


Except I liked the 2009 movie so your statement is flawed, Krensky. Besides, what's wrong with pointing out when a movie is bad?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Which had all the same flaws.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And yet it had better execution because they were making a whole new story rather than a rehash, maybe. I don't know why but the 2009 movie was just better than Into Darkness.


I liked this one a lot. Nice humor balance, and while the villain started out pretty generic, they did a nice handling of the character. Worth the ticket, definitely.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

3 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:


There is at least ONE REALLY BIG and MAJOR plothole that really makes NO SENSE if one thinks about it

Well,

Spoiler:
In the film, they suggest that the Franklin fell through a wormhole to get to where it ended up. I assumed that he was essentially lost, so even when he got off planet, he didn't know where to go. Given that, it sort of makes sense to stick around the place with the sweet eternal life machine.

By the time the federation got out to that end of the galaxy, he'd already gone space-/splice-crazy.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Grey Lensman wrote:
I enjoyed the first, and didn't bother with the second once I heard they were trying to redo Khan. Wrath of Khan is as close to a perfect Star Trek film as one is going to get, any attempt to delve into that theme was doomed from the start, and that's before you add in the magical blood.

The whole point of "the new timeline" was to NOT rehash old stories (... but Paramout wanted to go with something that worked before).

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:
Grey Lensman wrote:
I enjoyed the first, and didn't bother with the second once I heard they were trying to redo Khan. Wrath of Khan is as close to a perfect Star Trek film as one is going to get, any attempt to delve into that theme was doomed from the start, and that's before you add in the magical blood.

The whole point of "the new timeline" was to NOT rehash old stories (... but Paramout wanted to go with something that worked before).

** spoiler omitted **

They tried to go timey whimey and get both an old story and a new one. Clearly miles vary on that being a success.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JoelF847 wrote:
Still not a fan of these new "Star Trek" movies that don't feel at all like Star Trek, but I was happy to see what looked like a Cardassian in it. Not enough to see the movie most likely though, still haven't seen the second...and in no hurry to.

They don't feel like Star Trek to someone raised on TNG, but for me, the Adams movies are the first thing that felt like TOS since the series went off the air in '69. The ships are butt-ugly, perhaps, but we actually have our Bones, a Chekov that is as competent as he was in the series (and was denied in the movies), a swashbuckling Sulu, and a sensual Uhura without the 50's era hangups about it. And the exhuberant adventure style, without all of the dark and gloomy sets of the movies which pretty much acted like TOS never existed for the most part.


Except that in TOS, the crew actually respected Kirk and did what he said since he was the captain. It doesn't make much sense to have a captain that nobody listens to at all.


Jaçinto wrote:
Except that in TOS, the crew actually respected Kirk and did what he said since he was the captain. It doesn't make much sense to have a captain that nobody listens to at all.

Even with the differences, it's still a series of movies that has much of TOS that simply wasn't present in any of the movies before Abrams with the sole exception of Wrath of Khan.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Saw the movie over the weekend. It was a good action movie. I liked it.

As for it being TOO actiony, all but "The Motion Picture" and "The Journey Home" were action movies; although, there was only a little action toward the end of "The Search for Spock".

Some people have complained that it was too dark, and they had trouble seeing. I did not have that problem. Maybe the problem was with your theater.

I give it an 8.5/10.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
JoelF847 wrote:
Still not a fan of these new "Star Trek" movies that don't feel at all like Star Trek, but I was happy to see what looked like a Cardassian in it. Not enough to see the movie most likely though, still haven't seen the second...and in no hurry to.
They don't feel like Star Trek to someone raised on TNG, but for me, the Adams movies are the first thing that felt like TOS since the series went off the air in '69. The ships are butt-ugly, perhaps, but we actually have our Bones, a Chekov that is as competent as he was in the series (and was denied in the movies), a swashbuckling Sulu, and a sensual Uhura without the 50's era hangups about it. And the exhuberant adventure style, without all of the dark and gloomy sets of the movies which pretty much acted like TOS never existed for the most part.

I'll grant you those points. However, what it was missing was a Kirk who earned his place, and who while certainly got into actiony fights with phasers and fists, most often won by out-thinking his opponent, whether by tactics, trickery, or hell, even chemistry when he made a primitive gun to fight the Gorn.

Also, the fact that they destroyed Vulcan is more than just saying "reboot", it fundamentally changing the nature of the Federation. It's like rebooting Lord of the Rings, and having the elves killed off in the first scene. Just not the same thing. The other thing that's bugged me about the reboots, is that they changed the timeline, but that somehow drastically changed the tech level, which makes no sense. Being able to transport people at warp was something they couldn't do until TNG, yet the reboot had Scotty do it no problem, even though it was set before TOS.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
JoelF847 wrote:


Also, the fact that they destroyed Vulcan is more than just saying "reboot", it fundamentally changing the nature of the Federation. It's like rebooting Lord of the Rings, and having the elves killed off in the first scene. Just not the same thing. The other thing that's bugged me about the reboots, is that they changed the timeline, but that somehow drastically changed the tech level, which makes no sense. Being able to transport people at warp was something they couldn't do until TNG, yet the reboot had Scotty do it no problem, even though it was set before TOS.

That's actually Old Spock's fault. He brought the futuritons with him when he traveled, so the laws of physics came back with him, too. :P


TOS Era federation still used money. They had to pay for those ships and crew and maintenance. In Beyond, did they touch on how they have the portable personal long range transporters that makes ships obsolete and thus save money, and did they talk about the magic blood at all? These were stupid points but totally disregarding them is very sloppy.

What bugged me the most in into darkness was Khan. See, everything before the temporal incursion in the 2009 movie would have been exactly the same. Therefore, khan's physiology would have been the same and he would have simply been a peak human due to eugenics, not have super powers since he existed prior to said incursion. At the time he wold have been drifting in space on board the Botany Bay after the eugenics war of the 1990s. So why did they decide that now, he should have powers like being able to shrug of a shot from a phaser or have magic blood? Sloppy writing.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Jaçinto wrote:


What bugged me the most in into darkness was Khan. See, everything before the temporal incursion in the 2009 movie would have been exactly the same. Therefore, khan's physiology would have been the same and he would have simply been a peak human due to eugenics, not have super powers since he existed prior to said incursion. At the time he wold have been drifting in space on board the Botany Bay after the eugenics war of the 1990s. So why did they decide that now, he should have powers like being able to shrug of a shot from a phaser or have magic blood? Sloppy writing.

In TOS, Khan was never shot by a phaser. No one tested his blood for healing properties.

His super-human strength is shown here.
It wasn't shown in the movie, but when Admiral Marcus found Kahn he performed plastic surgery on him and brainwashed him so he thought he was a Starfleet officer. He then used Kahn's ability to learn quickly in order for him to have him advance Starfleet technology.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To be fair a lot of the problems with the new Trek movies are inherent to the various Trek series, old and new. But the TV show had the benefit of 20-24 hours of Trek a season, which meant that the really stupid/bad episodes were counteracted by a lot of really good ones. The movies, which honestly get a far larger budget and far more time to develop scripts and plots, as well as often access to pretty good actors, shouldn't be on par with really bad Star Trek episodes (which is what I think Into Darkness was at least).

Sovereign Court

Into Darkness addressed war mongering, and paranoia really well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Charles Scholz wrote:


In TOS, Khan was never shot by a phaser. No one tested his blood for healing properties.
His super-human strength is shown here.
It wasn't shown in the movie, but when Admiral Marcus found Kahn he performed plastic surgery on him and brainwashed him so he thought he was a Starfleet officer. He then used Kahn's ability to learn quickly in order for him to have him advance Starfleet technology.

In Wrath of Khan those pecs of Ricardo Montalbahn weren't costumed on... they were real. He was one hunk of a man.

Sovereign Court

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Charles Scholz wrote:


In TOS, Khan was never shot by a phaser. No one tested his blood for healing properties.
His super-human strength is shown here.
It wasn't shown in the movie, but when Admiral Marcus found Kahn he performed plastic surgery on him and brainwashed him so he thought he was a Starfleet officer. He then used Kahn's ability to learn quickly in order for him to have him advance Starfleet technology.
In Wrath of Khan those pecs of Ricardo Montalbahn weren't costumed on... they were real. He was one hunk of a man.

Holy cow.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
We haven't touched upon Plato's children in a few decades, why don't we reapproach this entire deity thing again with a planet in the center of the galaxy that would take our ships at least a decade or more to reach...in our Final Frontier...

The plot of Star Trek 5 was a recycle of the original plot of Star Trek One, the movie that was of the lot the absolute disaster in production. As Harlan Ellison has noted, Roddeberry had a fixation on mad Space Gods.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Charles Scholz wrote:


In TOS, Khan was never shot by a phaser. No one tested his blood for healing properties.
His super-human strength is shown here.
It wasn't shown in the movie, but when Admiral Marcus found Kahn he performed plastic surgery on him and brainwashed him so he thought he was a Starfleet officer. He then used Kahn's ability to learn quickly in order for him to have him advance Starfleet technology.
In Wrath of Khan those pecs of Ricardo Montalbahn weren't costumed on... they were real. He was one hunk of a man.

indeed. He was hot.

You need to see him when he was young. My god. An adonis.

Sovereign Court

Oh you mean like this?


Hama wrote:
Oh you mean like this?

wow.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Charles Scholz wrote:


In TOS, Khan was never shot by a phaser. No one tested his blood for healing properties.
His super-human strength is shown here.
It wasn't shown in the movie, but when Admiral Marcus found Kahn he performed plastic surgery on him and brainwashed him so he thought he was a Starfleet officer. He then used Kahn's ability to learn quickly in order for him to have him advance Starfleet technology.
In Wrath of Khan those pecs of Ricardo Montalbahn weren't costumed on... they were real. He was one hunk of a man.

Ricardo himself said that he did "a lot of push-ups" to look like that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Randarak wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Charles Scholz wrote:


In TOS, Khan was never shot by a phaser. No one tested his blood for healing properties.
His super-human strength is shown here.
It wasn't shown in the movie, but when Admiral Marcus found Kahn he performed plastic surgery on him and brainwashed him so he thought he was a Starfleet officer. He then used Kahn's ability to learn quickly in order for him to have him advance Starfleet technology.
In Wrath of Khan those pecs of Ricardo Montalbahn weren't costumed on... they were real. He was one hunk of a man.
Ricardo himself said that he did "a lot of push-ups" to look like that.

He talks a bit about the character's inspiration in this clip. He'd have made a great Q.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It was...meh. Better than Into Darkness, but worse than the first one.

It's still not Star Trek.

Spoiler:

Who casts Edris Elba, but then covers him in make-up for 90% of the movie? WTF?

201 to 250 of 314 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Entertainment / Movies / Star Trek: Beyond All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.