Star Trek: Beyond


Movies

251 to 300 of 314 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

bugleyman wrote:

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

Still not Star Trek.

To each his own. I consider Wrath of Khan the only one of the Star Trek films to have merit as a movie on it's own. None of the others would be worth watching if the Star Trek stuff were filed off of it, and several of them, First Contact in particular were painful to watch, and are in the category of "Never subject myself to this torture again!"


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
To each his own. I consider Wrath of Khan the only one of the Star Trek films to have merit as a movie on it's own. None of the others would be worth watching if the Star Trek stuff were filed off of it, and several of them, First Contact in particular were painful to watch, and are in the category of "Never subject myself to this torture again!"

I've pretty much concluded Star Trek simply isn't a good fit for movies.


bugleyman wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
To each his own. I consider Wrath of Khan the only one of the Star Trek films to have merit as a movie on it's own. None of the others would be worth watching if the Star Trek stuff were filed off of it, and several of them, First Contact in particular were painful to watch, and are in the category of "Never subject myself to this torture again!"
I've pretty much concluded Star Trek simply isn't a good fit for movies.

There is no reason that you can't have a good Star Trek movie. Wrath of Khan simply proves that perhaps the needed ingredient is someone who isn't too close to the material to view it objectively.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
There is no reason that you can't have a good Star Trek movie. Wrath of Khan simply proves that perhaps the needed ingredient is someone who isn't too close to the material to view it objectively.

Personally, Wrath of Khan wouldn't have worked without the history established on the T.O.S. Why would we have cared at all about Spock?

At best I would amend my statement to add "without first having a series."


I saw this on Thursday, and even though I enjoyed watching it in the theater, I can't stop thinking about the huge plot hole this film has and how it ruined the movie for me entirely after I thought about only a little.


Terquem wrote:
I saw this on Thursday, and even though I enjoyed watching it in the theater, I can't stop thinking about the huge plot hole this film has and how it ruined the movie for me entirely after I thought about only a little.

I'm afraid you're going to need to be more specific. Which of the huge plot holes? :P

Liberty's Edge

And which Star Trek movie?

Scarab Sages

bugleyman wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
There is no reason that you can't have a good Star Trek movie. Wrath of Khan simply proves that perhaps the needed ingredient is someone who isn't too close to the material to view it objectively.

Personally, Wrath of Khan wouldn't have worked without the history established on the T.O.S. Why would we have cared at all about Spock?

At best I would amend my statement to add "without first having a series."

This simply isn't true. As a child of the 80's the first exposure I ever has to Star Trek was Wrath of Khan. I was too young to have seen TOS or TMP when they were released. Khan was able to grab my attention and work without knowing the history of the characters, and are what made me watch the other movies and Next Gen when it came out. I didn't get to see all of TOS until the DVDs were released, because back in the day, there was no video on demand and no local networks were airing TOS.


Imbicatus wrote:
This simply isn't true.

Alternatively, consider the possibility that this is a matter of opinion.

Scarab Sages

MMCJawa wrote:
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.

Plus quite a few fans of Star Trek tend to confuse the whole franchise with a couple of great episodes that could probably all be seen in one day but took 5 tv-shows of various length to be created.


bugleyman wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
To each his own. I consider Wrath of Khan the only one of the Star Trek films to have merit as a movie on it's own. None of the others would be worth watching if the Star Trek stuff were filed off of it, and several of them, First Contact in particular were painful to watch, and are in the category of "Never subject myself to this torture again!"
I've pretty much concluded Star Trek simply isn't a good fit for movies.

I have heard this argument before and accept it as quite fair.


Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

All I know is that this movie pooped on my childhood.

This is not Star Trek, it's the zombified corpse of Star Trek, reanimated completely without its soul.


Yeah it's not quite a series for movies. Some things just make better TV series than they do movies as you can get a lot more detail over time rather than trying to cram it all in one feature.

I first saw one episode of TNG as a kid, only because of Reading Rainbow and LeVar Burton. After that, I went to watching the original series when I was able to do so, then the others. The original series and DS9 were my favourites.

The Star Trek movies are just okay to me and I find even the worst of the original series movies better than the TNG ones. This is opinion, of course, as I enjoy a slow pace in my tar trek with more character development and slow effects rather than big overblown action scenes.

A good example of how Star Trek was with starship battles was more like a submarine battle. Slow, quiet, and lots of planning rather than BLAM BLAM BLAM.

I know it is weird to say but TMP kinda feels like a deep sea exploration with insane things happening. I guess I would call it "good boring" for that. It has been a while since I watched it but it felt atmospheric. More science fiction rather than science fantasy.

Star Trek always felt more cerebral to me. Less phasers and explosions, more thinking things out and solving problems. More mature thought, less "I'm taking this thing because they were worshiping it, then running off with it even though I have no idea what it is!" from that Star Trek Into Darkness nonsense. That scene felt like a slap in the face.


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 would say yes, and more so than the previous two movies. There's lots of knowing nods to fans whilst still being accessible to newcomers, rather than the incoherent and bizarre attempt to remake THE WRATH OF KHAN in INTO DARKNESS (and failing miserably).

The sort of thing they do is have McCoy and Spock sparring verbally and both making valid philsophical points, and dialling down the Kirk-Spock relationship so they can feature some of the other characters more prominently.

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

It's a difficult one to go back and forth over. The order I favour at the moment is:

1) THE WRATH OF KHAN
2) THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY
3) THE VOYAGE HOME

From this we learn that getting Nicholas Meyer on board is a very good idea, which is why him advising and writing for the new TV series is quite interesting.

4) THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK
5) FIRST CONTACT
6) THE MOTION PICTURE

That may be mildly controversial, but whilst III has several major problems (a rather inconsistent Christopher Lloyd, who is absolutely great in some scenes but dire in others, and the crappy planet set) it also gives us a huge amount of iconic stuff (the Excelsior, Spacedock, the Klingon Bird-of-Prey) and has two completely brilliant sequences (the theft of the Enterprise and its later destruction). As one reviewer said, only STAR TREK and a James Horner score could make reversing out of the garage so epic. And the best thing it did was say to Kirk that yes, you can have your best friend back. But you have to pay for it with your son's life, your ship and your career. That was quite a brutal thing to do to Kirk and you have to wonder if it was worth it.

FIRST CONTACT is brainless and stupid on a level not far off the Abrams movies, but it is rather good fun and Patrick Stewart as an action hero works very well.

THE MOTION PICTURE is a very good SF movie but arguably not a great STAR TREK movie, sacrificing the character interplay for a hard (ish) SF examination of machine intelligence, what makes something human or not and how utterly insignificant man might be compared to what's out there (the Enterprise crew would simply have been annihilated by V'Ger if they hadn't out-thought it). But it would be better if about 50% of the effects sequences had been cut out of it.

7) STAR TREK (2009)

Abrams nails the cast, does an okay (ish) job with the characters and keeps things moving along quite well. At the same time, the plot makes no sense (like, no sense, whatsoever) and the villain is laboriously over-explained to us, sucking tension out of the movie. Some howlers aside it's a fun picture.

8) GENERATIONS
9) INSURRECTION
10) NEMESIS

There's some good scenes in all of these movies, but a huge amount of wasted potential as well. INSURRECTION isn't really bad, as incredibly forgettable. Almost nothing happens in it, and the only good things are the villain (who is not well-served by his dialogue) and the Gilbert and Sullivan scene.

11) THE FINAL FRONTIER
12) INTO DARKNESS

I think that is fitting. THE FINAL FRONTIER is utterly diabolical but once you recover from the initial awfulness it does become rather fun to watch after a few drinks. It's a bizarre window into the mind of William Shatner and it does do a few things quite well (like nailing the Kirk-Spock-McCoy dynamic, and Shatner sells the moment when Kirk says he knows he'll die alone). It's also quite incredibly camp and, if a bad movie, at least came from somewhere where there were good intentions.

INTO DARKNESS is really wretched though. It attempts to service various thematic ideas but can never hold onto them before jumping onto the next shiny notion that flitters through the mind of Abrams or his woeful band of writers (Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof are decent TV writers who should never be allowed anywhere near movies ever again) with absolutely no regard for rhyme, reason, sense, logic or character. It's also a film that was made from very cynical motives (NEMESIS may have also tried to channel THE WRATH OF KHAN, but INTO DARKNESS goes far beyond that) and rejoices in the ability of modern CGI to blow up and destroy entire cities and millions of people. TREK occasionally shows large numbers of people dying to underlie the gravity of the situation, but INTO DARKNESS goes way beyond that and then fails to show any consequences to the situation. Also, the Vengeance is a terrible ship design and Khan, the most iconic TREK villain, is reduced to the patsy of Yet Another Mad Bad Admiral.

It might improve with age and go up a ranking or two, but for now I'd say calling it the worst movie is a reasonable opinion.

Quote:
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.

Nope. Both Justin Lin and Simon Pegg have said they hated those elements and basically just jettisoned them from canon. Fanwank can probably account for both issues (i.e. there were a few transwarp beaming accidents and it was outlawed; the magic blood could cure people of certain things but at a radically enhanced risk of causing cancer or something).

Quote:
There is no reason that you can't have a good Star Trek movie. Wrath of Khan simply proves that perhaps the needed ingredient is someone who isn't too close to the material to view it objectively.

They tried this, very deliberately, with NEMESIS and it backfired badly. The trick was to get a director who could sit back and view things objectively but who was also a good director. Nicholas Meyer was that and Stuart Baird was...not.

Quote:
This simply isn't true. As a child of the 80's the first exposure I ever has to Star Trek was Wrath of Khan. I was too young to have seen TOS or TMP when they were released. Khan was able to grab my attention and work without knowing the history of the characters, and are what made me watch the other movies and Next Gen when it came out. I didn't get to see all of TOS until the DVDs were released, because back in the day, there was no video on demand and no local networks were airing TOS.

Agreed. THE WRATH OF KHAN saved TREK. It let them make III, and then they started talking about a new TV show. Then the dailies and buzz on IV got them really excited and they decided to greenlight TNG. And back in those days you didn't have the whole series to watch whenever you wanted. Lots of people saw II having never seen the original TV episode or not having seen it for years. It's certainly my earliest memory of TREK, bar none.

II actually does a great job of establishing who Khan is with very little dialogue (the original script had a lot more exposition which Meyer cut before filming, and then cut after shooting, some of which are restored in the director's cut and almost all of them aren't needed).

Quote:
Alternatively, consider the possibility that this is a matter of opinion.

That you don't need to have seen SPACE SEED to have enjoyed TWoK? I think it's overwhelmingly likely that the majority of people who've seen TWoK have never seen SPACE SEED and never missed it for an instant.

In fact, I'm not sure that Nicholas Meyer ever watched SPACE SEED before writing and directing the movie (Harve Bennett, who penned the first draft that Meyer rewrote, did). The interview on the new Blu-Ray which came out a couple of weeks back suggests that he didn't. And that didn't hamper the film at all.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Werthead wrote:
In fact, I'm not sure that Nicholas Meyer ever watched SPACE SEED before writing and directing the movie (Harve Bennett, who penned the first draft that Meyer rewrote, did). The interview on the new Blu-Ray which came out a couple of weeks back suggests that he didn't. And that didn't hamper the film at all.

Khan remembering Chekov (who wasn't on the show yet) indicates that if he DID sit down and watch Space Seed, he didn't let what he saw get in the way of the story he wanted to tell.


Werthead, after reading through your well thought out post with a ranking system I actually agree with, I am going to see Beyond today. Unfortunately it will be in 3D only at my theatre and I hate the modern 3D. It is mostly irrelevant to the film, darkens things, and costs more money. I am annoyed that they are ignoring the personal trans warp device and the magic blood, but those are like the midichlorians of Star Trek. Terrible ideas that never should have existed and will likely be a joke for some time, but stand as somewhat as a plot hole. It is like when you get a marvel movie and any of the avengers are not present for the cataclysmic event.

Really, my criteria is just for this to be better than Into Darkness.

I will say though that one entertaining thing that came out of Star Trek: The Final Frontier was the line "What does god need with a space ship?" In that mess of a movie, it showed that Kirk was actually a bit bright and not a lugnut like people tend to think. Also, The Motion picture gets more hate than it deserves. It wasn't terrible and is a lot better than many films we get today, including Into Darkness.

Really, the best thing they could do with this new universe is to make their own stories and never try to copy any of the old ones. Do your own thing or you are just going to divide the fans. It's like when X-men and Marvel movies base a story off a comic, but go wildly in another direction. Make your own story and this wont be an issue.

Oh also, please tell me they cut back on the lens flares this time. It's a bad gimmick as I like actually being able to see the movie. An effect is best when used sparingly so as not to lessen the impact of it.


Jaçinto wrote:

Werthead, after reading through your well thought out post with a ranking system I actually agree with, I am going to see Beyond today. Unfortunately it will be in 3D only at my theatre and I hate the modern 3D. It is mostly irrelevant to the film, darkens things, and costs more money. I am annoyed that they are ignoring the personal trans warp device and the magic blood, but those are like the midichlorians of Star Trek. Terrible ideas that never should have existed and will likely be a joke for some time, but stand as somewhat as a plot hole. It is like when you get a marvel movie and any of the avengers are not present for the cataclysmic event.

Really, my criteria is just for this to be better than Into Darkness.

Just remember, if you don't like it, I tried to warn you.

and if you do...

Well, glad you enjoyed it.


If I had to put BEYOND on that list, it'd probably go in at 6 or 7. I'd say it's fairly comfortably the best film in the series since FIRST CONTACT. Which isn't actually saying all that much, but still :)


You suck, wethead!

Yeah, I went there. :p

More seriously, you have a well thought out(if wrong) movie hierarchy. I can only wish more people were as erudite in their criticsms.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

I always liked IV best.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

My crazed goblin alias's spoiler-containing review


Well I just came back from the movie. I actually enjoyed it. I had some issues with it, like using glass instead of transparent aluminum and the whole warp four thing. Overall though, it's not as bad as most of the TNG movies. It is definitely better than Into Darkness though, without a doubt. All I wanted was for it to be better than Into Darkness. That one alien though, who's name I forget. The white skinned lady. They point out surprise that she spoke their language but there was no explanation as to why. Also, are they going to just ignore the maguffin floating over there at the end of the movie? As it can be a serious problem if ignored.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jaçinto wrote:
They point out surprise that she spoke their language but there was no explanation as to why.

...

Yes there is.

"I learned it from my house."

Sovereign Court

Jaçinto wrote:
Well I just came back from the movie. I actually enjoyed it. I had some issues with it, like using glass instead of transparent aluminum and the whole warp four thing. Overall though, it's not as bad as most of the TNG movies. It is definitely better than Into Darkness though, without a doubt. All I wanted was for it to be better than Into Darkness. That one alien though, who's name I forget. The white skinned lady. They point out surprise that she spoke their language but there was no explanation as to why. Also, are they going to just ignore the maguffin floating over there at the end of the movie? As it can be a serious problem if ignored.

I'm sure they picked it up. Or destroyed it.


Jaçinto wrote:
Well I just came back from the movie. I actually enjoyed it. I had some issues with it, like using glass instead of transparent aluminum and the whole warp four thing. Overall though, it's not as bad as most of the TNG movies. It is definitely better than Into Darkness though, without a doubt. All I wanted was for it to be better than Into Darkness. That one alien though, who's name I forget. The white skinned lady. They point out surprise that she spoke their language but there was no explanation as to why. Also, are they going to just ignore the maguffin floating over there at the end of the movie? As it can be a serious problem if ignored.

It was picked up and put into an unmarked wooden crate and now is residing in a very large warehouse just outside Washington DC.

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Nah, the warehouse is in New Mexico. And it's being examined by top men.

Top.
Men.


The same ones that decided to re-cut the original Star Wars Trilogy, Imbicatus?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Spock shot first!!

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Orions and Gammoreans are the same race!


I feel sorry for the people who can't watch a reinterpretation of classic material without it ruining their appreciation of the original. I strongly suggest that such people avoid reboots and sequels entirely. If the mere presence of such things existing ruins it for them, I suggest staying off of the internet entirely.

I enjoyed this move. Was it my favorite? No, but it was worth my money and two hours of my time.

I do think that it's hilarious that all three of the modern Star Trek films are different interpretations of Wrath of Khan.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Philo Pharynx wrote:

I feel sorry for the people who can't watch a reinterpretation of classic material without it ruining their appreciation of the original. I strongly suggest that such people avoid reboots and sequels entirely. If the mere presence of such things existing ruins it for them, I suggest staying off of the internet entirely.

I enjoyed this move. Was it my favorite? No, but it was worth my money and two hours of my time.

I do think that it's hilarious that all three of the modern Star Trek films are different interpretations of Wrath of Khan.

I agree. I enjoyed Beyond. Beyond has a lot of action elements. However, I liked the planning and thinking the characters did in this movie. The movie is not as good as Wrath but I definitely enjoyed the film.


Freehold DM wrote:

You suck, wethead!

Yeah, I went there. :p

More seriously, you have a well thought out(if wrong) movie hierarchy. I can only wish more people were as erudite in their criticsms.

You'd have put FINAL FRONTIER first?

It's fine, embrace it.

Just as some of us can believe it's butter, some of us know EXACTLY what God wanted with a starship.

:P


That he needed a ride home after partying with Galactus and the Celestials, Wert?


Review with spoilers I agree with pretty much everything in here. Also you get the perspective of a Star Trek fan and someone that never watched Star Trek.

They really do need to stop with the "Bad guy wants revenge" and "Doomsday Maguffin" stuff. There are other things they can do.

Sovereign Court

Saw it last night. It remains consistent with the reboot action over substance philosophy. Though the humor is often well timed and the film felt like an original series film at times so its a noticeable improvement IMO.

spoiler:
For me the film fell into two modern traps. The first is that the film needs to feel like one long action scene. There is very little set up in fact, you could call story and character development "action relief". The second is caricature villain who is super powerful, ultra pissed, and has his finger on the button. All that but never really fully explained or fleshed out. Though this was actually expected with Lin at the helm this is his specialty.

I do want to tip my hat to Simon peg I think he did his best to give fans a script that they would like. The small stuff was right. The humor was also pretty good considering peg's background that wasnt too surprising. I enjoyed how he was able to breath more life into "Bones". The takes a village message was also a nice change from Kirk does it all.

In the end though the overall story arc is very weak. I give the film a C and probably wont have reason to revisit it in the future. All IMO of course.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I saw it Friday and enjoyed it. Though I wish they would focus more on exploring strange new worlds, seeking out new life, and new civilizations.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:
I saw it Friday and enjoyed it. Though I wish they would focus more on exploring strange new worlds, seeking out new life, and new civilizations.

Or at all.

Plot Summary x3:

First movie: Megalomaniacal BBEG named Nemo wants to destroy the Federation in general and Kirk in particular.

Second movie: Megalomaniacal BBEG named Khan wants to destroy the Federation in general and Kirk in particular.

Third movie: Megalomaniacal BBEG named Krall wants to destroy the Federation in general and Kirk in particular.


Quark,

To be fair, when you already have Khan, you expect him to do that. The other two...yeah.

Liberty's Edge

Except that Nero (not Nemo) had a hate on for Old Spock not Kirk, and Khan didn't really care about Kirk as opposed to Admiral Marcus.

I have yet to see Beyond, but the plot summaries I've read suguest Krall doesn't care about Kirk personally either.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

Khan wasn't really trying to destroy the Federation either (I mean, I'm sure he'd get around to it, being a megalomaniac and all) but his main goals through the film were all about killing Marcus and getting his people back.

I'd argue the central conflict of Into Darkness was Kirk and Marcus battling over the soul of Starfleet.

(For the record, I still think that movie stunk)

And yeah, in the new one, Krall has a beef with the Federation, but not really with Kirk in particular.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Specific quibbles aside...

Villain (Nero/Khan+Marcus/Krall) has a desire to maim the Federation in some lasting and terrible way using a Thing (Nerada+Red Matter/Vengeance+Augments on ice/Swarmships+Bioweapon doohickey) is getting a trifle stale.

Especially since we already got something to that effect in Wrath of Khan, Search For Spock, First Contact, and Nemesis.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

You mean most of the Star Trek movies have the same plot when reduced to one sentence with wild cards? Say it isn't so!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I really do miss the cosmic being type aliens found in the original show. Were are the giant glowing hands, cosmic ameba, floating head of Jaja Gabor, etc.


Dragon78 wrote:
I really do miss the cosmic being type aliens found in the original show. Were are the giant glowing hands, cosmic ameba, floating head of Jaja Gabor, etc.

I'm sure they're still around. Now they just Uber a starship instead of trying to hijack it.

Edit: Also, I am very amused by the concept of a Jar Jar Gabor.


Krensky wrote:

Except that Nero (not Nemo) had a hate on for Old Spock not Kirk, and Khan didn't really care about Kirk as opposed to Admiral Marcus.

I have yet to see Beyond, but the plot summaries I've read suguest Krall doesn't care about Kirk personally either.

Yeah, if anything, Kirk really just irritates Krall for some spoilery reasons I'm not going to go into. He thinks he's weak, but he's got no specific hatred going on for him.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

Dragon78 wrote:
I really do miss the cosmic being type aliens found in the original show. Were are the giant glowing hands, cosmic ameba, floating head of Jaja Gabor, etc.

Space Lincoln!


*misses Space Lincoln and Space God Apollo*


Mudd's Women/I Mudd

nuff said.

We need an antagonist for the crew who isn't trying to destroy all things good and pure, but maybe just a guy trying to get a little bit ahead of the game, you know, Star Fleet rules be damned.


I would like to see a "Q" like entity.

Also love Space Lincoln and Space God Apollo.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

I want one where they go to a planet that just happens to be exactly like some period from Earth's history. My preference would be 1930s gangsters.

251 to 300 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.