Star Trek Beyond (2016)

[Helena Dax]

As a fun sci-fi movie, it was cool. As a Star Trek movie, I didn't like it. First, because it follows the same plot than the other ones: a bad. powerful villain, wants to take revenge with a powerful weapon. This shouldn't be a super-heroes movie; there, I expect that kind of plot. But I expect other things from Star Trek. The old movies weren't exactly masterpieces, but at least they were trying to tell different stories every time. 

And related to this, my second complaint: it may look like Star Trek, but it isn't Star Trek. It was never about "we must stop this villain". It was "try to understand, to learn, to communicate". I know, Chris Pine said you can't do that kind of movie anymore, but I think he's wrong. This movie could have tackled interesting issues: some small changes in the script and you could be talking about something.  They simply chose not to do it. 

And sorry, but it's 2016. I'm not going to congratulate them for gay Sulu when they don't have the balls to show him greeting his husband/partner with a peck in the lips. What's this? 1990?

One thing I really, really loved was the way they handled Nimoy's death. That was perfection. I also enjoyed a lot the Spock-Bones-Kirk scenes.

[Spartan Girl]

If nothing else, it was better than Suicide Saquad.

ITA that the best part was the way they paid tribute to Spock Prime/Leonard Nimoy. And of course poor Anton.

[kokapetl]

For fucks sake, another NuTrek movie that ends with a climactic fist fight? And that friggen colour corrected planet drove me nuts. It looked like colourized black and white footage. 

[Matt K]

So I saw this on a plane and it's the first reboot Trek I've seen.  Overall I like it for the most part.  The villain had a lot of issues but the swarm ships were neat looking and pairing off the characters worked pretty well. 

That said, the whole movie came across like some sort of big budget fan film.  The actors were aping their TOS counterparts so much so it felt like one of those fan films you see on YouTube.  Plus Uhura seems to have no actual role on the ship which seemed like an odd choice.  It was a pretty good movie but I think it would have worked better if the crew were just completely different characters (Scotty and Checkov specifically seemed almost like a parody in some scenes). 

[Bruinsfan]

But TOS Checkov kind of had that vibe too. (I have no defense for Simon Pegg playing Scotty like one of the Three Stooges, it's perhaps my biggest issue with the Abrams franchise.)

[millennium]

Finally saw this because a) no way would I shell out the cost of a movie ticket for anything written by Simon Pegg, and b) it was just added to Hulu and Amazon.

As I feared, Pegg made it his movie by giving Scotty more face time than any other character (at least that's how it seemed to me).   A newcomer might suspect Scotty is the central character of the film, in fact.   Scotty the Buffoon.

Essentially the movie has no heart or soul.   The people who made it either do not understand what Star Trek was about or don't care.   It was a lot of sound and fury with no message or humanity.   My only smile came when Kirk described his life in space as seeming "episodic."

I agree Karl Urban was MVP.   Kirk and Spock were used as little more than props in this film, which made me feel Pine and Quinto were robbed of the prominence their characters deserve.   Meanwhile, Idris Elba was robbed of the opportunity his talent deserves, hidden beneath all that makeup, speaking in gruff, terse sentences.

And they destroyed the Enterprise again?   The method of attack was novel but the saucer skid on the planet's surface was more impressive in Generations (which was also a better film, in my opinion, because it dealt with mortality, a genuine human issue).  

Seeing the original crew in the photograph broke my heart because it echoed the dismay I felt upon finishing this generic action movie.   All I could think of is how much we've all lost.

[Bruinsfan]

Oh thank God, I'm not the only one who thinks Pegg stinks up everything he touches as far as Star Trek is concerned. Though I did like this movie better than the previous two; it mostly felt like a middling 2-part episode of a new ST series with a really big FX budget rather than the previous wrongheaded travesties, and both Kirk and Spock at least vaguely resembled the characters I'm familiar with.

[benteen]

Pegg is a detestable human being but I still loved Star Trek Beyond.

[Fukui San]

Er...  Did Simon Pegg kill somebody or something?  Or are people just not a fan of his work? Genuine question. I only really know him from the Cornetto trilogy so I am predisposed to like him.

[benteen]

I don't like him and find him very unlikeable in interviews.  He's a nasty little fanboy, like many of his ilk.  Though I have liked stuff that he's done.

Edited June 23, 2017 by benteen

[millennium]

2 hours ago, benteen said:

I don't like him and find him very unlikeable in interviews.  He's a nasty little fanboy, like many of his ilk.  Though I have liked stuff that he's done.

I don't understand why Pegg was cast as Scotty in the first place.   In the case of every other character, the filmmakers made a genuine effort to cast actors who sufficiently resembled the the original actors (in both appearance and acting style) to allow for a smooth transition between OS and the new timeline.

Except Scotty.   Pegg's Scotty is like a half-hearted pastiche in a Saturday Night Live sketch.   Pegg doesn't look like James Doohan.  He doesn't sound like James Doohan.  And he has none of the white-knuckle, grace-under-pressure seriousness that Doohan brought to the role.   Sure, Scotty had lighter moments in the original series, but never at the expense of his credibility as an engineer or miracle worker.

Pegg as Scotty is a casting anomaly in this series.   It makes no sense.   And the addition of that superfluous "Wee Man" character for R2-D2-like comic relief only further distances the new Scotty from the old.  The original Scotty had no sidekick, nor we would he likely have tolerated one.  

With the other characters, the filmmakers have crafted a passable illusion of the original series.  But Pegg's Scotty lays waste to it every time he's on the screen.   Which happens to be a LOT in Star Trek Beyond.

Edited June 23, 2017 by millennium

[millennium]

Good grief.

Simon Pegg Is ‘Star Trek’s’ Secret MVP

[Lugal]

Simon Pegg's Scotty MVP??  Um, no.

The MVP of the reboot movies was Karl Urban's McCoy.

[2727]

I really like Pegg's* Scotty and his friendship with Keenser, but then I have a hopeless blind spot for the series in general. I almost never rewatch movies but these are comforting in an unexplainable way and I've watched them 5-6 times.

 

*I'm unfamiliar with his personal life and any peccadilloes and am going to preserve my illusions and not search.

[Lugal]

Finally saw this last night and it was better than the previous two, and I didn't hate it.  It was about the level of Insurrection, for me.  I feel like more of the characters were starting to gel.  Although Kirk wanting to take a position on Yorktown after being tired of wandering through space told me they still haven't got Kirk at all.  Quinto was a little better as Spock this time, but Nimoy set a high bar.  I'm really liking John Cho as Sulu and Karl Urban is good as ever and they were smart to pair him with Spock for so much of the time.  Simon Pegg doesn't work as Scotty (The best Scotty now is Chris Doohan on Star Trek Continues).  Uhura still didn't have a lot to do.  Anton Yelchin felt like he was starting to work as Chekov (it was hard when he got the lion's share of the technobabble with the Russian accent), and it's a shame we won't see him grow into the role.  Sofia Boutella as Jaylah stole the movie and I would like to see her come back in future movies.

There was a lot of stuff that made no sense but there was enough fun that it worked anyway, like destroying the fleet to "Sabotage", or McCoy and Spock flying the ship together.  It's fun enough I could go with it.

They destroyed the Enterprise again.  I'm really getting tired of all the destruction porn (and it's not just Star Trek that does this).  When Kirk blew up the Enterprise in Star Trek III it meant something, like when Alderaan was destroyed in the original Star Wars.  Now they blow up a planet or the ship in every movie.

[johntfs]

On 6/24/2017 at 10:09 AM, Lugal said:

There was a lot of stuff that made no sense but there was enough fun that it worked anyway, like destroying the fleet to "Sabotage", or McCoy and Spock flying the ship together.  It's fun enough I could go with it.

In the first movie "Sabotage" was the song young James Kirk played when he stole and then wrecked his stepfather's car.  Stepdad was kind of an asshole so Jim was smiling at the memory of that incident when Jaylah started that song.

[Joe]

Possible writer and director for movie 4, Quentin Tarantino. Word has it he's made a pitch to JJ. Frankly, I'm a little skeptical about this happening. He doesn't much step in to other universes. Besides, I don't like his movies anyway.

[dwmarch]

6 hours ago, Joe said:

Possible writer and director for movie 4, Quentin Tarantino. Word has it he's made a pitch to JJ. Frankly, I'm a little skeptical about this happening. He doesn't much step in to other universes. Besides, I don't like his movies anyway.

"Do you see a sign on my shuttlebay door that says Dead Klingon Storage?!?!"

[Bruinsfan]

I generally like his movies for what they are, but I think he's a terrible fit for the Trek franchise. Having the familiar characters talk like ALL the characters in his movies do just won't work.

[scriggle]

STAR TREK 4: Tarantino Requires ‘R’ Rating, Paramount Says ‘Okay’ As Writing Prep Continues

Quote

The film will most certainly go where no Star Trek has gone before: Tarantino has required it to be R rated, and Paramount and Abrams agreed to that condition.

Most mega budget tent poles restrict the film to a PG-13 rating in an effort to maximize the audience… the exception to this rule was Fox’s Deadpool, but that film started out with modest ambitions before it caught on and became the biggest R rated film ever.

That rating was crucially important to Tarantino, who hopes to direct this Star Trek and who has helmed R rated films his entire career.

Because what Trek obviously needs is incessant swearing and lots of blood and gore.

I, for one, do not need or want a Quentin Taratino-ized Trek movie. The Abrams-ized ones were bad enough.

[Joe]

I don't like Tarantino movies. In fact, I stopped watching them some time ago. This bodes pretty badly. Frankly, he should go create his own space opera. Not mess about with Trek.

[benteen]

I agree.  Tarantino is not a good fit for Star Trek.

[SimoneS]

Huge Tarantino fan and Trekkie here. Hell no! He should stay miles away from Star Trek.

[scriggle]

Where are all the non-gritty reboots?
 

Quote

 

Paramount is going ahead with Quentin Tarantino‘s Star Trek movie, capitulating to his main demand: an R rating. The Revenant‘s Mark L. Smith is the frontrunner to write the script, suggesting a tone that makes Star Trek: Discovery look like Sesame Street.

By insisting on an adult rating, Tarantino confirms that he’s aiming for a gritty reboot. This already sounds like a terrible idea, because Tarantino’s brand of sex and violence is fundamentally unsuited to Star Trek. It’s also a textbook example of a depressing Hollywood trend:

J.J. Abrams already did this to Star Trek in 2009. While Abrams’ Star Trek is a fun blockbuster, it warps and misunderstands the Original Series cast and what they stood for. To understand why look no further than Kirk and Spock. Chris Pine‘s Kirk is an arrogant frat boy who treats women like crap and launches into an antagonistic rivalry with Spock. He’s also motivated by daddy issues, a thoroughly overused theme among male filmmakers.

Kirk already had a reputation as a playboy, but if you watch the 1960s show, you’ll understand the difference. William Shatner‘s Kirk is a charming romantic lead, and his love-interests are treated with respect. Judged by the standards of their respective time periods, 1960s Trek is probably more feminist and progressive than the Abrams movies. The original Kirk was a thoughtful leader and kind of a bookworm, with a dorky sense of humor. He also maintained a warm relationship with his crew, something the reboot franchise only achieved after Simon Pegg, Doug Jung, and Justin Lin took over for Star Trek Beyond.

Zack Snyder famously did something similar to Batman and Superman, turning them into humorless, violent enemies. Just to jog your memory, the original 1978 Superman was a romantic comedy. The comics routinely portray Bruce Wayne as a loving mentor who hopes to rehabilitate his opponents—not that you’d know it from the recent movies.

These filmmakers understand that stories need conflict, but totally misinterpret what “conflict” actually means. They rewrite friendships as fractious rivalries, which is how you end up with Batman v Superman, Kirk v Spock, and the 2004 Starsky & Hutch reboot. They fail to grasp why these characters were appealing in the first place, and who they appealed to. (Hint: It was often women.)

Toxic masculinity is a central theme in gritty reboots. Guy Ritchie is the king of this phenomenon, rebooting King Arthur (another romance!) as a macho gangster story, and Sherlock Holmes as an action movie peppered with no-homo humor. He took The Man from U.N.C.L.E.—a silly spy show whose fanbase was predominantly female—and made its lead characters hate each other, rebooting the jovial friendship they had before. And while we’re talking about Sherlock Holmes, you may as well say the same thing of Steven Moffat‘s Sherlock. Judging by recent adaptations, you’d never know that Holmes and Watson were ever comfortable in each other’s company.

After hearing the mind-boggling combination of Tarantino, “R-rated,” and Star Trek, it’s tempting to imagine what the opposite would look like. A non-gritty reboot, either filmed from a woman’s viewpoint, or taking a relentlessly macho franchise and imbuing it with warmth and affection.

 

[Joe]

In more worrying news,we get an idea of why Tarantino wants an R rating.

Quote

He wants an R-rating to really make those beats of consequence land. If it’s not PG, if someone gets sucked out into space, which we have all seen before, we might see them get disemboweled first…It allows some some breadth…gives him some leeway to do that.

That sounds like a terrible idea. Whatever Tarantino is planning, it has no place in Trek.

[Lugal]

On 9/4/2018 at 6:53 AM, Joe said:

He wants an R-rating to really make those beats of consequence land. If it’s not PG, if someone gets sucked out into space, which we have all seen before, we might see them get disemboweled first…It allows some some breadth…gives him some leeway to do that.

Considering that getting disemboweled is not a consequence of getting sucked out into space, this tells me it's going to be over-the-top gratuitous violence.  The last thing I want in Star Trek.

[Morrigan2575]

On 12/8/2017 at 2:24 PM, benteen said:

I agree.  Tarantino is not a good fit for Star Trek.

I generally love Tarantino's work and thought he did a fantastic job with his CSI episode way back when. It's entirely possible that he can do well within an existing franchise if he really loves it (I have no idea if he does). However, my initial reaction was similar, I'm not sure he'd be a good fit for Star Trek. Although it would be really fun to see what he comes up with, IMO.

In the meantime I'm amusing myself by recasting Star Trek characters with Tarantino mainstays (Keitel, Roth, Jackson, Madsen, Bell and, maybe even Waltz and Russel).

Edited September 10, 2018 by Morrigan2575

[dwmarch]

On 9/9/2018 at 5:07 PM, Lugal said:

Considering that getting disemboweled is not a consequence of getting sucked out into space, this tells me it's going to be over-the-top gratuitous violence.  The last thing I want in Star Trek.

Agreed. Is there anyone out there that thinks Nemesis would have been a better movie if when that crewman got sucked out the viewscreen he had left a trail of intestines behind?

Star Trek has done good horror before and it did not rely on blood and guts. Ceti Eels anyone? That scene was pure nightmare fuel and didn't need an R-rating to get there.

[SmithW6079]

On 9/4/2018 at 9:53 AM, Joe said:

In more worrying news,we get an idea of why Tarantino wants an R rating.

That sounds like a terrible idea. Whatever Tarantino is planning, it has no place in Trek.

Gene Roddenberry's "Star Trek" is dead. That's why I like "The Orville."

[Morrigan2575]

9 hours ago, SmithW6079 said:

Gene Roddenberry's "Star Trek" is dead. That's why I like "The Orville."

The Orville is the love child of ST:TOS and ST:TNG ?

It really is the spiritual successor of Roddenberry's Star Trek.

[Joe]

I watched a trailer for the Orville, and no. It looks like a cheap and nasty Trek ripoff. I don't care how many Trek cast members they get, I'm not wasting my time with it.

[HunterHunted]

45 minutes ago, Joe said:

I watched a trailer for the Orville, and no. It looks like a cheap and nasty Trek ripoff. I don't care how many Trek cast members they get, I'm not wasting my time with it.

As is your right, but the gender identity episode of the Orville was very very Trek.

[starri]

As a veteran of the great DS9 vs B5 war of 1994-1998, I sometimes think we've forgotten the lessons of the Armistice.

[SmithW6079]

On 9/30/2018 at 10:47 AM, starri said:

As a veteran of the great DS9 vs B5 war of 1994-1998, I sometimes think we've forgotten the lessons of the Armistice.

All of this has happened before and will happen again.

[Morrigan2575]

On 9/30/2018 at 10:47 AM, starri said:

As a veteran of the great DS9 vs B5 war of 1994-1998, I sometimes think we've forgotten the lessons of the Armistice.

B5 all the way ?

I say that as someone who watched DS9 and TNG regularly but, B5 was the better show IMO (as long as you ignore that awful S5).

[starri]

22 minutes ago, Morrigan2575 said:

I say that as someone who watched DS9 and TNG regularly but, B5 was the better show IMO (as long as you ignore that awful S5).

I liked B5, but I think it's aged fantastically poorly compared to DS9.

[Morrigan2575]

8 minutes ago, starri said:

I liked B5, but I think it's aged fantastically poorly compared to DS9.

Interesting, I'm of the opposite opinion. I can watch B5 over and over again but I've tried DS9 and it didn't hold up well for me. Although, I will say TNG held up the worst of the 3. 

[Matt K]

B5 had a terrible first and last season but an amazing middle.  I'd say B5 had more high point but the bad episodes were absolutely terrible (and there's essentially two seasons of almost exclusively bad episodes).  DS9 had a some very good episodes and even the bad episodes weren't that bad (they were mostly enjoyable).  In the end I much prefer DS9 because of the more consistent quality.  Also DS9 did a better job of fleshing out not just the major characters but also a number of minor characters too. 

[Unusual Suspect]

7 hours ago, Matt K said:

B5 had a terrible first and last season but an amazing middle.  I'd say B5 had more high point but the bad episodes were absolutely terrible (and there's essentially two seasons of almost exclusively bad episodes).  DS9 had a some very good episodes and even the bad episodes weren't that bad (they were mostly enjoyable).  In the end I much prefer DS9 because of the more consistent quality.  Also DS9 did a better job of fleshing out not just the major characters but also a number of minor characters too. 

B5 remains, to me, the crown jewel of Sci-fi TV. I find its themes very relevant and prescient, and compared to DS9, I love both a lot, but I think B5 accomplished its goals better, if that means anything. DS9 fumbles a bit more to find itself, and the serialized storytelling is stronger in B5.

I'll disagree on the quality of Seasons 1 and 5, while I think that might be common wisdom, those seasons are a lot stronger in retrospect. There's a few really strong episodes.

Season 1 is about creating a brand new universe, and while there are a few weak episodes, there's some good stuff. Deathwalker, Believers, By Any Means Necessary are very good, and still very relevant. Signs and Portents, Chrysallis are great for setting up the core story arcs.

Season 5 has the one problem in common with DS9's last season, both introduced a brand new character that both takes up too much time trying to get them up to speed and not enough to really develop them. I was never a fan of Ezri or Lochley. But the Fall of Centauri Prime is one of the best episodes of sci-fi, let alone B5, and while the Telepath arc does last over 11 episodes, it's really only the focus of half of those. I dunno, Season 5 is definitely the weakest for me, but I struggle to call it bad. I prefer Byron to Vic Fontaine.

The thing is, you can ignore the attempts to spin-off of Babylon 5, it stands tall alone. DS9 is part of Star Trek. And I love Star Trek, but even within Star Trek, while I'd argue DS9 is the best series, TNG is my favourite series, I grew up with it.

Argh, and I want another reboot movie, Star Trek Beyond was, to me, the best of the reboot series, because it was the most Star Trek of them.

[BetterButter]

Paramount Setting Noah Hawley To Write & Direct Next ‘Star Trek’ Film

[ruby24]

5 hours ago, BetterButter said:

Paramount Setting Noah Hawley To Write & Direct Next ‘Star Trek’ Film

Yay!!! I love this series. I was so sad because I thought they weren't going to make another one. I'm glad it worked out.

[KatWay]

If they ever do make another one of these, can we at last get the Kirk/Spock/McCoy dynamic that was so essential for the charm of the old show? cause all three movies have flopped hard in that regard. It's so clear that they were made by people who didn't understand the appeal of the original series at all.

The 2009 film introduces Kirk and Spock at odds, with Bones as Kirk's sidekick. Then in Into Darkness they try the whole Spock can't admit he feels thing, except it DOESN'T WORK cause they also gave him the hot human girlfriend (Uhura, further proving they neither understand what made Spock interesting - the struggle with his humanity - nor know what to do with female characters unless they're there for romance) so Spock who clearly does feel as evidenced by his entirely normal relationship just comes off as a dick who dislikes Kirk. And then they're supposedly finally friends aaaaaand Beyond happens which finally gives us some Bones/Spock interactions but Kirk/Spock get like a 3 second scene where their vibe is, at best, friendly co-workers. Otherwise, there's almost no interaction between them, aside from shouting plot points at each other occasionally. The hell. It's like they're unwilling to show any male friendships unless they're rooted in conflict and rivalry, which is a messed up attitude if you ask me.

[shapeshifter]

Just watched this for the first time on the CBS Sunday Night At The Movies pandemic program. 
Very moving for me for too many reasons to list. 

[BetterButter]

Next ‘Star Trek’ Film To Be Directed By ‘WandaVision’s Matt Shakman

[tv echo]

Chris Pine Q&A: The Barry Linen Co-Founder On Ramping Up His Banner’s Slate, His Directing Debut On ‘Poolman’, Potential Captain Kirk Return & “Following The Giggle”
By Justin Kroll    April 1, 2022
https://deadline.com/2022/04/chris-pine-barry-linen-poolman-star-trek-1234989517/ 

Quote

DEADLINE: Recently it broke that you’re in talks to possibly to return as Captain Kirk in a new Star Trek film. I don’t know if you can say anything, but were you intrigued by the idea? Not much to go on at this point but always open for a return?
PINE: I’ve not read a script. I met the director, Matt [Shakman], who I really like. I met a producer on it that I really like. I know JJ [Abrams] is involved in it in some respects. I met the new people over at Paramount, which is many different kind of relations. I really liked them. Everybody seems excited about the prospect of it. There’s just simply no — I don’t have a tangible script to look at.

Conceptually, I love it. I love Star Trek. Again, I love the messaging of it. I love the character. I love my friends with whom I get to play. It’s a great gig. I mean, it’s a gig I’ve had, working and not working, for 15-plus years. It cemented the career that I have now. I’m honored to be a part of it. It’s given me so much. I think there are plenty of stories to tell in it. You know, I think Star Trek for me, it’s an interesting one.

We always tried to get the huge international market. It was always about making the billion dollars. It was always this billion-dollar mark because Marvel was making a billion. Billion, billion, billion. We struggled with it because Star Trek, for whatever reason, its core audience is rabid. Like rabid, as you know. To get these people that are interested that maybe are Star Wars fans or think Star Trek is not cool or whatever, proven to be … we’ve definitely done a good job of it but not the billion-dollar kind of job that they want.

I’ve always thought that Star Trek should operate in the zone that is smaller. You know, it’s not a Marvel appeal. It’s like, let’s make the movie for the people that love this group of people, that love this story, that love Star Trek. Let’s make it for them and then, if people want to come to the party, great. But make it for a price and make it, so that if it makes a half-billion dollars, that’s really good.

But we operate in a system now which I don’t know how much longer we have of you have to spend 500 million dollars on a film to reach …even you have to pay all sorts of people back. So to make a billion, it’s like you haven’t even — a billion is the gross. You haven’t brought your net in. So I mean, if I had my business suit on, that’s what I would do, but I don’t know where that is. That’s all above my pay grade.

 

Edited April 4, 2022 by tv echo