Star Trek Beyond (2016)

[Serena]

No, Takei says he knew and had told them he wasn't for it before, when the movie was being written, so they knew he wasn't going to like it and decided that it was something they wanted to do anyway. But this is not about him - there are thousands of young gay geeks that are gonna go see this movie and see a beloved character in an iconic franchise who is just like them. That's important and it has value. Are all gay people gonna like this character? No, as evidenced by Takei. But I'm a white woman and I don't like all white women characters, so who cares? I'm sure if you asked any actor playing a "franchise" character like Batman, Superman, etc. they will say (or won't, if they're diplomatic) that there's an interpretation of their character they don't like. 

But for many people, it's gonna be hugely important; it's not hurting anyone; and straight people can look at literally every other character in the movie for representation. There are so few queer character in sci-fi/fantasy movies, it's 2016 and we're still debating if adding more should be done?

Edited July 10, 2016 by Serena

[millennium]

5 hours ago, starri said:

Let me ask you a question.  If you did in fact show up to that Justice League movie, and Batman was trans, would that fundamentally alter the character? 

 

You had to pick Batman, my favorite.   Okay, yes, it would change him fundamentally.   Batman is a man's man.   By day he's Bruce Wayne, dashing playboy millionaire (or billionaire, today); by night he's the world's greatest detective, martial artist and stoic symbol of justice.   He's hard, unbreakable, often inflexible, yet always human.   He is an iconic male figure in pop culture.  His strength, his physique, his overall masculinity are intrinsic to the character.  

Edited July 10, 2016 by millennium

[millennium]

1 hour ago, Kromm said:

But I have to admit I think Takei, for once, shied away from saying fully what he REALLY feels. It's not just that the character is being reinvented. It's that it's specifically being changed in an apparent unasked tribute to himself. I think this embarasses him, and is specifically why I arrived at the word "pandering" before. Not "pandering" in a generic sense to the gay community, or even just to people who want to espouse ideas of equal representation, but a failed attempt to pander to Takei himself. He was, I think, supposed to act all appreciative and honored.  They expected this. But really they should have sussed him out first--before it went from the written page to shot footage. They just assumed he'd act a certain way if they pandered to him.  They treated him like a symbol of gayness first and a person second.

I see it as pandering on both levels, though I think your analysis of the situation strikes deeper to the core.

But really, Pegg's is a stupid premise -- a gay actor played Sulu, so let's make Sulu gay as a tribute.   Does  it follow that Spock will become gay next because he's played by Zachary Quinto?   How about any rebooted property from our TV and movie past, will all characters played by gay actors be confirmed as gay in their latest incarnation?

It seems to unintentionally validate the bias I've heard aimed at openly gay actors like Rupert Everett and Matt Bohmer -- "he's gay so he can't convincingly play a straight guy."

Pegg seems to be saying because Takei is gay, Sulu shouldn't be straight. 

[Chaos Theory]

47 minutes ago, millennium said:

You had to pick Batman, my favorite.   Okay, yes, it would change him fundamentally.   Batman is a man's man.   By day he's Bruce Wayne, dashing playboy millionaire (or billionaire, today); by night he's the world's greatest detective, martial artist and stoic symbol of justice.   He's hard, unbreakable, often inflexible, yet always human.   He is an iconic male figure in pop culture.  His strength, his physique, his overall masculinity are intrinsic to the character.  

I agree with this point to a certain extent.  Of course making a character like Batman gay or trans would change his entire storyline.  His heterosexuality is a part of who he is and an important one.  However making one of the villians gay or one of the supporting players (I believe one of the female police officers whose name escapes me is a lesbian and Gotham has made Barbara Gordon a compelling bisexual)  is another matter.

Its slightly off topic but this reminds me of the innital complaints when TPTB on The updates version of BSG made Boomer and Starbucks females when they had previously been males.  Did it intrinsically change their story?   Of course it did;however it did it in compelling and necessary ways. 

As for why Sulu and not Spock?  Well you could make the point that Spocks story has always been about sexuality anyway.  His story could be told as a man finding peace with who he is.  Half of both worlds part of neither.  In the original he never found that peace in the new version he has.

Sulu is an open book and his personal life was never fully dealt with which leaves a lot open to interpretation and plenty of room for storytelling.

Edited July 10, 2016 by Chaos Theory
Because Jimmy Olson isn't on Batman silly.

[starri]

1 hour ago, millennium said:

You had to pick Batman, my favorite.   Okay, yes, it would change him fundamentally.   Batman is a man's man.   By day he's Bruce Wayne, dashing playboy millionaire (or billionaire, today); by night he's the world's greatest detective, martial artist and stoic symbol of justice.   He's hard, unbreakable, often inflexible, yet always human.   He is an iconic male figure in pop culture.  His strength, his physique, his overall masculinity are intrinsic to the character.  

I know I'm probably very close, if not actually over the line, of sounding like I'm cisplaining here, but I don't know that I think many of those attributes are exclusively those of a cisgendered man.  To me "grim avenger of the night, at the peak of human physical and mental achievement" is Batman, no matter which set of plumbing he was born with.  I'm not saying that I demand DC give me a trans Batman, just that I think it doesn't automatically cease to be Batman.

But let's be realistic here.  There is about as much chance of Justice League having Batman or Superman being trans as there is of Star Trek making Kirk or Spock gay.  

[millennium]

I hate this new format.   First, I pressed the wrong button, now it won't let me type below the quote.

Anyway, he's called BatMAN.   Make him a her, and BatMAN is gone.  

Full disclosure: I'm no fan of gender fluidity.   I like the gender binary.   I just happened to be born on the wrong side of it.

For me, Batman is, was, and ever shall be, a man.   Just as Wonder Woman is a Woman. Start messing around with their core identities, and the whole concept starts slipping away.  

 

1 minute ago, starri said:

I know I'm probably very close, if not actually over the line, of sounding like I'm cisplaining here, but I don't know that I think many of those attributes are exclusively those of a cisgendered man.  To me "grim avenger of the night, at the peak of human physical and mental achievement" is Batman, no matter which set of plumbing he was born with.  I'm not saying that I demand DC give me a trans Batman, just that I think it doesn't automatically cease to be Batman.

But let's be realistic here.  There is about as much chance of Justice League having Batman or Superman being trans as there is of Star Trek making Kirk or Spock gay.  

Edited July 11, 2016 by millennium
i pressed the wrong button

[starri]

10 minutes ago, millennium said:

Full disclosure: I'm no fan of gender fluidity.   I like the gender binary.   I just happened to be born on the wrong side of it.

I'm fine with the binary too, but if Batman is trans, doesn't that make him a him and not her?

[millennium]

48 minutes ago, starri said:

I'm fine with the binary too, but if Batman is trans, doesn't that make him a him and not her?

Ahh, we were coming at this from different perspectives.

When you said Batman comes out as transgender, I automatically thought, "Male who announces a desire to become female."

But if I follow, you were looking at it as "Batman reveals he was born female and became a man."

In which case, you would be correct, the name Batman would apply.

Not so much in my scenario.

[Kromm]

3 hours ago, Serena said:

No, Takei says he knew and had told them he wasn't for it before, when the movie was being written, so they knew he wasn't going to like it and decided that it was something they wanted to do anyway.

Okay, I missed that part, but it doesn't invalidate the rest of what I suggested. Takei doesn't like it, I think. because he felt it was designed to pander to him, and I think Pegg and the others got so attached to the idea they just didn't want to get it go even after they knew his reaction.

2 hours ago, Chaos Theory said:

I agree with this point to a certain extent.  Of course making a character like Batman gay or trans would change his entire storyline.  His heterosexuality is a part of who he is and an important one.  However making one of the villians gay or one of the supporting players (I believe one of the female police officers whose name escapes me is a lesbian and Gotham has made Barbara Gordon a compelling bisexual)  is another matter.

Well it's a different Barbara Gordon, so it's not really stepping on much. It's the one the comic readers barely know (and what little they did know of her has long since been contradicted by the Gotham TV show aside from her sexuality). 

[millennium]

There is only Yvonne Craig.

[PatternRec]

On 7/9/2016 at 5:03 PM, Chaos Theory said:

... the bury your gay trope it is less likely to happen with Sulu then with a character named Lt. Ed Noname who shows up for one movie then dies  in the next or disappears completely.  

"Captain, why are all the gay crewmembers wearing red shirts?"

[Zuleikha]

 Start messing around with their core identities, and the whole concept starts slipping away. 

Sulu's core identity isn't straight, however. That's one of the things discussed earlier in the thread. His sexuality is almost completely unexplored. So why not fill in the blank as gay instead of straight? I prefer this to the Spock/Uhura romance, which I hate and do think has messed up the characters' core identities/role in the Star Trek story.

I also think it's not reasonable to expect a reboot or remake to preserve characters exactly as in the original. That's what the original is for. Most creators do reboots/remakes in order to play around with the stories/characters. Returning to the example of Battlestar Galactica, genderswapping Boomer/Starbuck was hardly the most significant of the changes to the story that the new version made!

[PatternRec]

1 hour ago, Zuleikha said:

Sulu's core identity isn't straight, however. That's one of the things discussed earlier in the thread. His sexuality is almost completely unexplored.

I agree with this so much. Besides Kirk being a horndog, I don't think of any of the other characters from TOS as sexually aligned at all.

Also, the move seems like it was done as an homage to Takei rather than token-ism. 

Edited July 11, 2016 by PatternRec

[Serena]

5 hours ago, Zuleikha said:

Sulu's core identity isn't straight, however. That's one of the things discussed earlier in the thread. His sexuality is almost completely unexplored. So why not fill in the blank as gay instead of straight? I prefer this to the Spock/Uhura romance, which I hate and do think has messed up the characters' core identities/role in the Star Trek story.

Exactly! I mean, I could *maybe* see the complains if the character was Superman: loving Lois Lane is a fundamental part of his story (that's not to say I would be opposed to a gay Superman being with a gender-swapped male LL in an adaptation!). That's not the case for Sulu, who was only assumed to be straight because straight is the default, not because he was written to be straight. There's an underlining problem in that, unless a character is specifically said to be gay, everyone assumes he's straight; but he could be straight, gay, bisexual, or asexual, and each of those interpretations is valid when the sexuality isn't spelled out.

[DollEyes]

Re Sulu's being gay in this film and George Takei's response to it, I'm among those who agree with the former and respectfully disagree with the latter. I think of making Sulu gay is, to quote another poster, "a tribute, not tokenism." Sulu's straightness has never been canon. IIRC, Sulu has a daughter in one of the films, but that just proves he's virile, not that he's straight.  If TPTB had put an original gay character in this film, then chances are that that character's gayness would be the first thing that most people would have cared about, if not the only one.  As for Takei's claim that Gene Roddenberry didn't intend for Sulu to be gay, when William Shakespeare originally wrote Romeo & Juliet centuries ago, I'm sure he didn't intend for it to become a Broadway musical like West Side Story. 

In comic book terms, Nick Fury and Captain Marvel were originally White men, but changing them to a Black man and a White woman hasn't hurt Marvel comics. As far as I'm concerned, having one of the main characters of one of the most popular and important TV & film franchises of all time come out as gay is a sign of the times, not pandering. 

[Kromm]

2 hours ago, DollEyes said:

Re Sulu's being gay in this film and George Takei's response to it, I'm among those who agree with the former and respectfully disagree with the latter. I think of making Sulu gay is, to quote another poster, "a tribute, not tokenism."

That's why I changed course and went from "token" to "pandering" in an earlier post.  But a pander attempt specifically aimed at Takei himself. It's clearly uncomfortable for him, and I really do think that was his problem, even if he backed off admitting that part. 

I guess that's the inherent danger you face as a filmmaker doing a tribute to someone who's still around--they might not be pleased. 

[Bruinsfan]

18 hours ago, millennium said:

It seems to unintentionally validate the bias I've heard aimed at openly gay actors like Rupert Everett and Matt Bohmer -- "he's gay so he can't convincingly play a straight guy."

I suspect that may have been part of the reason for George Takei's discomfort with the change. The signature role of his career was playing a character that he saw as heterosexual and basically everyone viewed similarly for over four decades. Now changing the character's orientation to align with his own seems to be disrespecting his performance in a misguided attempt to nod to his personal life.

I do agree that Sulu is the best candidate if the filmmakers were determined to make one of the main characters gay, for the reasons others have outlined above. He's really the only one they could re-imagine in such a way without contradicting some fairly concrete evidence in TOS.

[starri]

16 hours ago, millennium said:

But if I follow, you were looking at it as "Batman reveals he was born female and became a man."

I kept "-man" in my description purposefully.  And again, I don't think that many or most of the the elements you listed as the core of the Batman concept automatically require a cis man.  I'm pretty sure a trans man can still be a man's man.  Plenty of the trans guys that show up modeling or on Instagram have better bodies than I do.

And perhaps for the point of saying it, the current Batwoman was an obscure straight character that they resurrected as a lesbian.  And she's been one of their best received characters of the last ten years.

[starri]

Is it wrong that I really hope Sulu's husband is played by Kal Penn?

[Zuleikha]

No.

I am now going to be really sad when that (probably) isn't the case.

[HunterHunted]

On 7/11/2016 at 3:18 AM, PatternRec said:

I agree with this so much. Besides Kirk being a horndog, I don't think of any of the other characters from TOS as sexually aligned at all.

Also, the move seems like it was done as an homage to Takei rather than token-ism. 

It's kind of funny because when I heard that they were going to reveal that one of the characters was gay, I assumed it was McCoy. In the TOS, he had a history of disastrous relationships with women. And even in the rebooted film, he's been bitching about his ex-wife. I just thought they'd have McCoy have an epiphany that he's not so into women.

I agree that TOS barely touched anyone's sexuality.

[Bruinsfan]

I don't know, most of the people I've run across who came out after getting married ended up friendly with their exes in the long run. I think you have to have been really invested in the relationship to develop the kind of bitterness Bones displays.

[PatternRec]

15 hours ago, HunterHunted said:

It's kind of funny because when I heard that they were going to reveal that one of the characters was gay, I assumed it was McCoy. In the TOS, he had a history of disastrous relationships with women. And even in the rebooted film, he's been bitching about his ex-wife. I just thought they'd have McCoy have an epiphany that he's not so into women.

I agree that TOS barely touched anyone's sexuality.

That's hilarious about Bones. :D 

[starri]

According to this interview with John Cho Sulu's husband is named Ben, and he's played by Simon Pegg's cowriter Doug Jung. 

[tanita]

Saw it.

It was a lot fun and sort of like a 2 hour long episode of a Star Trek series with a bit more action. Bones is by far the MVP of this movie. Also, I kind of like all the little references to Star Trek : Enterprise, give that it's the only tv show that is fully canon anymore. Only wish we got more of Idris's character -  his villain was somewhat underdeveloped to me. Sofia Boutella was great as well, I kinda want her to be in the next one too. The Sabotage usage is not as dumb as it was in the trailer, I think you will like it.

All in all, I like it a lot.

[Morrigan2575]

On 7/14/2016 at 6:06 AM, HunterHunted said:

It's kind of funny because when I heard that they were going to reveal that one of the characters was gay, I assumed it was McCoy. In the TOS, he had a history of disastrous relationships with women. And even in the rebooted film, he's been bitching about his ex-wife. I just thought they'd have McCoy have an epiphany that he's not so into women.

I agree that TOS barely touched anyone's sexuality.

That would have been awesome.

I'm very excited to see this movie this weekend.  Kind of funny since I pretty much wrote it off after that first trailer.

Quote

Bones is by far the MVP of this movie

Excellent! I've been hoping for more Bones,  he doesn't get enough love in the movies.

Edited July 20, 2016 by Morrigan2575

[jcin617]

Just saw it and really enjoyed it; much more than the last one.     This was a case, to me, where the trailers did a disservice to the actual movie.

And yeah, loved the references to Star Trek: Enterprise.

Edited July 22, 2016 by jcin617

[thuganomics85]

Just got back from the early showing.  Thanks to Into Darkness and the trailers for this, my expectations were at an all-time low.  So, it is refreshing to say that it not only exceeded them, but it might have been one of my favorites this summer.  A few nitpicks and issues, but I just had so much fun and it was much needed, since a lot of the films I've seen this summer have either been disappointing or good, but no one else saw them (The Nice Guys, Popstar), outside of Captain America.

The biggest takeaway for me was that I felt it did a much better job at using it's ensemble.  Sure, Kirk is still the lead, but I felt like everyone had a moment to shine and played important roles in the film.  I also like all the different pairings this ago around: Uhura/Sulu, Kirk/Chekov, Scotty with the new character, Jaylah, and especially Bones/Spock.  As much as I enjoyed Kirk/Spock in the past films and their scenes here were still good, I really like how the film brought Spock and Bones' love/hate relationship to the forefront.  Zachary Quinto and Karl Urban were perfect together.

In general, I agree that Bones was the MVP and I am so glad he was used well here.  One of my many issues with Into Darkness was how he was sidelined, and only thing he did worth noting was dick around with a Tribble, and somehow magically save Kirk.  Here though, he not only had pretty great one-liners, but all of his interactions with Kirk and Spock were priceless.  I especially loved the bit when he noted how Spock's amulet gift to Uhura kind of was a tracking device.  Also loved his hatred to being teleported and having to go on the alien ship with Spock at the very end.  Urban continues to be a highlight and has the right balance of paying homage to DeForest Kelly, but not coming off like he's just ripping him off.

Jaylah was awesome and Sofia Boutella was just as badass as she was in Kingsmen.  I like how she wasn't a love interest (the early trailers kept focusing on her and Kirk, that I worried), and her own backstory and history that I hope to hear more about.  Only disappointment is that I hope her joining the Academy doesn't mean she won't be in the next film.  I hope they find some way to get her back for the next film, because I want to see more of her with the crew.

The action scenes were fun and entertaining.  Justin Lin is quickly becoming one of my favorite action directors.  If this ends up being a surprise hit like the last Fast & Furious films were, maybe he'll be known as the director who can revive franchises on shaky ground.

Shohreh Aghdashloo is always welcomed.  I did chuckle at Greg Grunberg being there in person, because I still remember him as the voice of Kirk's stepdad in the first film, so I kept wondering why was Kirk's stepdad at that base.  I could also tell this was shot in Canada, since they had a few small Canadian actors in various roles like Jared Joseph, Fiona Vroom, and Dan Payne.  But my favorite was the almost random cameo by Shea Whigham as an alien.  Even under the prosthetics, I could that that was good old Eli Thompson!

All that said, my only main gripe is that I once again found the villain underwhelming.  Iris Elba is certainly fantastic, but I felt like the prosthetics kind of held him back on some levels, and generally, Krull just wasn't that interesting of a villain.  I might have enjoyed him more if some stupid-ass TV spot didn't spoil the big twist yesterday, but in the end, he was just another stock villain that didn't leave an impression, alongside Nero and Khaunberbatch.

On the other hand, I'll shamefully this: after finding the use of "Sabotage" so stupid in the trailers, the way they used it in the film totally worked on me.  So cheesy, but I was loving every minute of it.

So, overall, I had a blast, and I hope people check it out.  Congrats to everyone involved with the filming, but a big thumbs down to the Paramount trailer guys, who really dicked this film over.  I will be so pissed if this bombs because the trailers made it look worse then it is.

[Chaos Theory]

I have next week off and I am planning to see a movie on my staycation.   This is high on my list.  Is it worth it?  Two notes I use Netflix as an excuse not to go to the theaters and I am one of the few people who actually enjoyed Into Darkness.   So again should I shell out the cash?

Edited July 22, 2016 by Chaos Theory

[MizArk]

As a fan since TOS came out when I was - gulp - 12, I thoroughly enjoyed this new chapter. I liked it much better than Into Darkness (which I didn't hate). I've seen every ST incarnation to the point of memorization (though I can't make myself watch ST 5 again) and I've had no issues with the reboot. Karl Urban was especially wonderful in this one. So, fwiw, I'd say go see it, Chaos Theory. It was just a fun two hours for me with several chuckles, pretty much all I need after watching too much news these days.

[SeanC]

18 hours ago, thuganomics85 said:

Jaylah was awesome and Sofia Boutella was just as badass as she was in Kingsmen.  I like how she wasn't a love interest (the early trailers kept focusing on her and Kirk, that I worried), and her own backstory and history that I hope to hear more about.  Only disappointment is that I hope her joining the Academy doesn't mean she won't be in the next film.  I hope they find some way to get her back for the next film, because I want to see more of her with the crew.

I was quite impressed by Jaylah (though I'm not sure they made optimal use of Boutella's proficiency in fight scenes).  Since Abrams sounded quite averse to recasting Chekov, if they want to add another permanent castmember, she'd be a good choice.  I don't think her going to the Academy is any obstacle to bringing her back; there's a million ways to get around that, even setting aside that the storytellers decide how much time has passed.

In respect of the crew of the Enterprise, I thought this was quite a good film.  The various character combinations throughout the narrative worked, and everybody got moments to shine (frequently a challenge with the Trek films).  The tribute to Leonard Nimoy (and, more indirectly, to the whole original cast at the end) was very nicely done, as well.

Krull is acceptably menacing starting out, and he drives the plot for the heroes fine, but the character is a muddle who makes less sense retrospectively, upon the truth being revealed.  For much of the film he's talking about the dangers or unity or whatever, and conflict being vital to survival.  Then we learn he's a Starfleet officer from the time of the Romulan Wars who got lost in space, and his plan is to, er, generate conflict, or something, by attacking a Federation space station.  In the end it seems to boil down to "he just went nuts in space" (I guess that makes him a less crazy Janeway), which is plausible enough, but makes all his philosophizing earlier kind of pointless if he doesn't actually have a plausible point of view.  Also, that swarm weapon he already had seemed way more dangerous than that generic bio-weapon he apparently spent decades trying to acquire.

Edited July 22, 2016 by SeanC

[tanita]

The next installment needs the Borg. The are already a faceless hive of drones and they don't need motivation or depth - maybe a few scenes with the hive queen, but she wouldn't need a butt-load of characterization. That way you can fully focus on the interpersonal relationships and the Federation , and not waste time on developing a villain only to leave it under-cooked. That has been the biggest problem from me in these new ST movies - all 3 villains were the weakest part of the movie. And given that this is AU cannon, why couldn't Kirk and co. meet the Borg now. IMO, they are still the best villain the ST universe ever had.

Edited July 22, 2016 by tanita

[Sandman]

I just saw it tonight, and I enjoyed it a lot. I agree that Karl Urban is the MVP -- I never tire of hearing McCoy grouse at Spock. I also liked the way the cast was broken out into smaller partnerships -- that was executed really nicely. I like Idris Elba, but Homicidal Maniac With His Mitts On A Superweapon seems like a well the reboot franchise has gone to too many times already, and Krall's backstory is muddled at best.

Justin Lin's visual style is too chaotic for me -- I've never seen even one of the Fast and the Spurious series -- are they all as vertiginous and headache-y? (Although, to be fair, I had one of the last remaining seats in a sold-out showing, right in the first row, and it was the 3-D version. What's the Vulcan for "Oy"?)

I'm just glad that Sulu's adorable family didn't get killed off. (And I think John Cho comes across as thoughtful, respectful, gracious and articulate in that interview.)

Also: "Is that classical music?" Bahahahahahahahaha! No.

Edited July 23, 2016 by Sandman
Oh, Bones.

[starri]

That was wonderful.  If we get more of these, I think Simon Pegg is going to fill in Leonard Nimoy's role behind the camera.  And do it very, very well.  The decision to pair the crew off was a very good one; it's a big reason that Star Trek IV works so well.

I like my fan service subtle, and I think the way they handled it was beautiful.  Light enough to get a grin, not enough to grind the movie to a full, screeching halt.

I got teary-eyed three times.  Two, I imagine I have in common with a lot of people, and I'm sure you can guess the third.

After that first trailer, I was dreading the movie...and then I got a little more excited, and a little more excited...I'm so glad that initial impression was wrong.

[peridot]

I saw the movie tonight using the new Barco screening.  It was kind of hard to get used to - the 3-screen method gave lower visual quality than the main screen.

The movie kind of fell flat to me.  I was expecting more interesting things from them being in deep space.  It was cool seeing the hologram that Jayla had, though.  I liked her fight scenes.

[benteen]

I just got back from it and I loved it.  I loved the first two Star Trek movies too but this was the first film that actually felt like a Star Trek movie to me.  The crew interactions were outstanding and Kirk's log entry sets the tone for it nicely.  Karl Urban is definitely the MVP of this film as well.

[fireice13]

I loved the movie and I did feel like it was more classic Trek than the past two have been. I agree the villain was under-developed. I guess he just didn't want to die so he started taking other people's "life-forces" to live forever, but the motivation behind that didn't make sense. You got stranded on a planet and can't get ahold of Starfleet. Is there nobody on your crew who could've figured out how to get the ship off the planet like the Enterprise crew did a hundred years later? Obviously, Jayla survived somehow so there must be food sources on the planet. Why not just have kids among the crew and create your own little society so that one day someone might find your descendants; rather than your own crazy self. 

I did love the overall movie and I absolutely loved Yorktown, I'm hoping the blu-ray/dvd extras have some way of exploring the base because it was really cool.

[Morrigan2575]

Going to see it tomorrow, very excited about all the positive reviews.

[Luckylyn]

I really liked it.  It was an improvement over Into The Darkness.  There were some flaws (the villain was way to talkative about his plan, we only got Spock's pov on the break up with Uhura as if her feelings about it didn't really matter).  Still I liked the variety in pairings and hope the next one continues exploring different friendships within the crew.  I thought Jaylah was a wonderful addition and that she joins to crew for the next one.

[Sandman]

I didn't come away with the impression that Uhura's point of view didn't matter, honestly. Spock's reasoning was so fundamentally wrongheaded that McCoy could immediately see her point. But it would have been good to get Uhura's take on it anyway.

Was the movie supposed to be post-TOS, essentially? It occurred to me that, 3-plus years into the five-year mission, we're now seeing this crew after the original gang's run in the series -- but it only occurred to me after Kirk's voice-over told us that life was feeling "a little episodic." (hyar, hyar)

Edited July 23, 2016 by Sandman

[jcin617]

I believe it's supposed to take place (at least emotionally for the crew) approximately during the time post-TOS but pre-Star Trek: TMP.   Jim's considering going Admiral, Spock's considering leaving Starfleet, Sulu has his daughter (assuming it's the same one we meet in Generations).

Edited July 23, 2016 by jcin617

[Sandman]

Makes sense to me. I was just struck by the contrast in the mood, especially Kirk's, between the end of Into Darkness ("A five-year mission! It's never done before. Sweet!") and the beginning of Beyond ("Man, it turns out five-year missions kind of suck..."). I recently re-watched Into Darkness, so it was quite apparent.

Is anyone else thinking that Jaylah and Rey from The Force Awakens are basically fraternal twins? They both seem to have an inborn genius for engineering and building/fixing things, they both have familial abandonment issues, and both are extremely handy in a fight, armed with a big stick. I think it's a tribute to Daisy Ridley's and Sofia Boutella's charisma and on-screen presence that neither is as Mary-Sue-licious as she might be.

Edited July 23, 2016 by Sandman
Well, Mary-Sue-licious isn't really a thing, but still.

[TigerLynx]

Spock and McCoy were hilarious together.  The best part of the movie.  I'm glad the entire crew actually got to participate in the action this time around.  I always found Spock/McCoy's love/hate relationship just as interesting if not more so than the Spock/Kirk relationship.

"You gave your girlfriend a tracking device?  I assure you that was not my intent.  You remember what happened the last time I flew this thing, we crashed."

The only villain from Star Trek I really liked was the original Khan.  I loved Ricardo Montablan.

Edited July 23, 2016 by TigerLynx

[Rick Kitchen]

Best Star Trek movie in several attempts.  The only negative was that they didn't use Idris Elba not being used enough.  I was very happy to see him out of makeup in the final fight. But I liked that there was a lot of character insight as there was action.  I did wish that Sulu's husband would actually have something to do.

I understand the Agdashloo scenes were added very late in the process.

"For Anton".  Sniff.

[Lebanna]

I thought it was really brilliant. There were so many fantastic moments and lots of laughs for long time fans and new viewers as well. And I thought Jaylah was really likeable and quirky - she's fit in nicely with the crew and probably has some weird habits from being alone for so long that would take her well out of Mary Sue territory, if we ever see her again. And yes, the use of the whole cast, especially Bones and Spock together and bickering like crazy, was something I've been longing to see for years now. 

I just loved this so much. I've been a fan of Star Trek since I was six years old, and this is absolutely everything I hoped this movie could be.

[Rick Kitchen]

Oh, one question: When Kirk was riding his motorcycle around the crew in circles, what caused that wall to pop up?

[kirinan]

We saw it yesterday, and loved it. I'm so happy that each crew member got a good amount of screen time--especially Dr. McCoy, who's been my favorite character since I first watched TOS on its very first run (yes, 1966--I'm old). He and Spock were pure gold together. I thought this was the most interesting story of the new films so far, Krall was a pretty decent villain, and I didn't expect Jaylah to be so likable right out of the gate--I kind of thought they'd make her be more troublesome. I'm glad they didn't, though, and I would love to see her back, especially since we won't have Chekov anymore (which, of course, was the one down point of this movie; my heart just ached every time Anton Yelchin was on screen. "To absent friends," indeed). And that photo of the TOS crew, with so many of the actors gone now--oh, man, did that give me and my husband both lumps in our throats.

I echo Rick Kitchen's question about the motorcycle, and have one of my own--I'm not quite getting why Krall's face (well, really, his whole head, I guess) changed so drastically over the years. Was it that he had absorbed the life force of so many aliens that he became a mish-mash, or was it something else? If there was an explanation, I missed it. There were several points in our showing where the dialogue was muddy.

[Sharpie66]

I completely missed the whole Krall life force thing, but as for the motorcycle, didn't Kirk press a button on the bike's handlebar right before that brown wall went up? That's what I remember, at least.

[AimingforYoko]

Yeah, they rigged one of Jaylah's traps on the motorcycle.

[Morrigan2575]

5 hours ago, kirinan said:

I  echo Rick Kitchen's question about the motorcycle, and have one of my own--I'm not quite getting why Krall's face (well, really, his whole head, I guess) changed so drastically over the years. Was it that he had absorbed the life force of so many aliens that he became a mish-mash, or was it something else? If there was an explanation, I missed it. There were several points in our showing where the dialogue was muddy.

That was my take, that he grew more Alien as he absorbed alien life forces. After he started feeding on human's his body/face started to become more human looking.

I just got back from the movie and I freaking loved it. I loved the visual style Lin used to navigate the space shots and, even the Enterprise shots, it gave a real feeling of alien/space/weightlessness. 

I absolutely loved the use of Sabotage it worked so damn well in the scene and is a fantastic song (IMO). I also have to give extra props to including Public Enemy in the film.

I floved the pairing if Bones/Spock and giving more importance to the Bones/Kirk/Spock relationship, then the previous movies. I've always loved the Bones/Kirk and Kirk/Spock relationships but the Bones/Spock interaction is the most entertaining to me.

I'm glad we got more Bones he's my favorite of both the new and TOS. That being said, I Wanted MORE.  Not sure I'll ever be happy until Karl Urban is on screen 100% of the time. ?