Star Trek Beyond

JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
I don't even know if I want to continue listening to this review. I'm really upset A.Ron didn't like this movie.

KIDDING.

I will keep listening, but I am surprised A.Ron didn't like it. I wonder what Jim will think. Yes, Into Darkness lowered my expectations quite a bit, so I forgave the abundance of action set pieces, but there were good character moments in this! I felt like the crew knew each other, for the first time. The Uhura tracking device joke was pitch perfect. The villain twist got me, and thematically, I think the message is very important for our current political climate... and isn't that what I want most from Star Trek?

I do think liking Enterprise helps with this one. For instance, I am not surprised there was a working motorcycle on the ship, given what I've seen on Enterprise. It was throwaway and dumb, ultimately, but it didn't seem implausible at least.

And, it did the thing where the crew was stranded and broke off into groups and had to work through their problems!

Comments

  • LukeLuke Central Illinois
    edited July 2016
    I didn't care for it. And I liked/loved the last two movies.

    I had two big complaints.

    The beasty boys scene was absolutely rediculous and didn't belong anywhere near Star Trek. My head was literally in my hands. That's the point where I went from being mildly bored by the mind numbing CGI action to actively hating the movie. That is why the end message probably did not resonate with me.

    The other was the awkward reveal of Idris Elba as the Star Trek captain turn lizard monster. I kept asking myself "am I missing something?" because there is literally 0 set up to why he thought the Federation needed to learn this lesson about survival. For 90% of the film Krull is basically the bad guy from Gurdians of the Galaxy, some guy in a prosthetic mask that wants to do bad things. If they had actually gave him characterization and didn't save that reveal to the end I think the plot would have made way more sense.

    And I am also a huge Enterprise fan. But instead of being mind blown my the reveal he is an Ex Mako from the Xindi wars, I basically was sad they didn't set that up 90 minutes earlier because the movie would have been way more interesting.

    What boggles my mind on how people say they didn't like Into Darkness and like this movie. It's the same damn film in many ways.

  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    edited July 2016
    1. Why did Spock change his mind re: wanting to leave the Enterprise in favor of a self-imposed "duty"? Feeling his own death made him reevaluate duty versus passion. Then, seeing the picture of the Enterprise crew made him feel the loss of his absence... Both of these are hypothetical futures he's debating, but the picture made it less hypothetical. If he had seen a picture of his future child, for instance, I bet he would have left to start his Vulcan sperm bank. His mind is changed with those two turns. (1) Spock's death and (2) that picture. 

    A.Ron mentioned something about the picture should have come first... Okay, but it didn't? And this way, the question lingers longer? (I'm perhaps misunderstanding his point.) 

    2. Cecily not understanding the joke of rock being "classical music" and A.Ron asking her why we call OUR classical music classical music. She hesitated... hahaha. This is not a slight on Cecily's intelligence. Just a comment on how trekkies are used to thinking this way. The show(s) train us to constantly evaluate our pop culture as though it were retro. And, although Cecily didn't like it, I think the joke has broader appeal outside of the trek-dom.

    3. I'm very interested in Jim's opinion. I have a feeling he would have liked Beyond more than A.Ron, enough that A.Ron might not have been so (self-described) bummed. Cecily really did not like this movie and, coupled with the bad theater experience, A.Ron had two subconscious negatives working against him. 

    4. The fuck?! (Yes, I'm typing this shit live.) Cecily had A.Ron complaining about the similarity of humanoids and the retro uniforms. I know Star Trek fans are allowed their measure of complaining about dumb things, but dammit, you gotta have earned that right. Otherwise it's like... "Only I'm allowed to insult my family members." I can't take it.

    I feel like I'm knocking on Cecily... She's been casting Bald Move shows for a long time now, but none I listen to, so this is probably a bad first exposure for me. So I want to say: She seems witty, smart, and I would probably want to be friends with her IRL. I am capable of having friends who hate Star Trek. ;)

    ----

    Storytime: I had a HORRIBLE Into Darkness movie experience. My then-friend, who was drunk, got annoyed that I was talking to a trekkie beside me, had a verbal spat with the guy's girlfriend, then got up and left. I do think it made me more pissed off at the movie than I would have been otherwise. But it was a pretty inflammatory movie, what with JJ Abrams lying about Khan a few days before it and all the rehashed dialogue.

    I think Beyond better understood the difference between homage and rip-off.
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    edited July 2016
    The beasty boys scene was absolutely rediculous and didn't belong anywhere near Star Trek. My head was literally in my hands. 
    That kind of shit happened all the time in Enterprise and Voyager. Now, that it became a plot point is new. However, I would argue that Enterprise and Voyager were too serious for that, and TOS was often playful. It feels like a natural progression for me, though it's not a joke I'd want to see all the time (just as I didn't like "late 20th century" all the time). 
    The other was the awkward reveal of Idris Elba as the Star Trek captain turn lizard monster. I kept asking myself "am I missing something?" because there is literally 0 set up to why he thought the Federation needed to learn this lesson about survival. For 90% of the film Krull is basically the bad guy from Gurdians of the Galaxy, some guy in a prosthetic mask that wants to do bad things. If they had actually gave him characterization and didn't save that reveal to the end I think the plot would have made way more sense. 

    The movie was careful to note the universal translator. And then: Krull spoke English! Uhura emphasized that clue by repeating it aloud. And he knew about the Federation. Those were played very prominently. (With the language being more of a clue.) Eventually you get the reveal about a Federation ship being crashed on the planet... I didn't notice this as a clue at the time, but I think that's my fault, not the movie's.

    Reading what you said again, you're talking about setting up his motivation... but that's just something that never happens with villains. Motivation almost always comes at the end. I don't understand that complaint.

    Edit: Not sure why the quote didn't tag you: @Luke
  • LukeLuke Central Illinois
    Maybe like @A_Ron_Hubbard I'm not the target for this film.

    I don't care much for Voyager or Enterprise (though I have seen both multiple times). So @JaimieT when you say this movie is just like Voyager/Enterprise with how soft Sci Fi the tech got that isn't a positive for me. In Trek's hay day a VHF radio frequency would never have been able to do what it did in this movie. It makes no logical sense.

    Even after saying I hated parts of it, I do want to see abother movie with this cast. Just please don't have Simon Pegg write it or Justin Lin direct it.
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    edited July 2016
    @Luke

    I'm definitely a TNG/DS9 fan first and foremost. I don't like VOY, but for reasons other than the pop culture references. As far as Star Trek goes, no, I don't care that much if the tech is wrong. I'm watching for the philosophy and characters.

    And as far as Kirk/Spock/McCoy go, logical tech was never in play to begin with? If they remade TNG and the tech was all irrational, that would bug me.
  • A_Ron_HubbardA_Ron_Hubbard Cincinnati, OH
    Yeah, I mean, the Beastie Boy stuff is just really, really hard for me to overlook.  Not the song itself, I don't mind Trek playing with current culture as classical.  Shit, Bungie loves doing that in it's live action Destiny stuff, too.  Just the idea that you could destroy this fleet with it is what was ridiculous.  
    I mean, I don't know if I can explain why that was stupid, but Nimoy swimming with whales while Shatner mugs and gulps for the camera, and double dumbass, "I'm from Iowa, I only work in outer space" is hilarious, but it just is.   Something about the tone is off.  And I also quibble with your assertion that you never know what a villain's motivation is until the end.  Certainly not with Khan.  You knew the beef and the stakes by the end of act one.  Contrast that with V'ger, the act 3 reveal really worked well (for as well as STTM works at all, anyway).  Or considering ST:TUC.  You didn't maybe understand who the villains were until the end, but their motivations and goals were clear from the beginning.  

    This felt very Lin-y.  A thin plot that serves to stitch together otherwise unrelated action sequences.  It works in the FF franchise precisely because I don't care about the characters.  In Trek I find it annoying.
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    edited July 2016
    And I also quibble with your assertion that you never know what a villain's motivation is until the end.  Certainly not with Khan.  You knew the beef and the stakes by the end of act one.  Contrast that with V'ger, the act 3 reveal really worked well (for as well as STTM works at all, anyway).  Or considering ST:TUC.  You didn't maybe understand who the villains were until the end, but their motivations and goals were clear from the beginning.  
    Quibble away -- I said that wanting contrary examples if they were out there. I just couldn't think of any.

    I guess I should say: you don't have to set up a villain's motivation for the villain to work well. So, it's still an odd criticism to me. I understand the problem of a left-field twist, but I don't think that was the case here.

    I think you should rewatch it eventually @A_Ron_Hubbard. I didn't hear you talk about the character moments very much, and those were my favorite parts. Probably because Cecily doesn't have an emotional attachment to these characters? I tuned out the action sequences, so I agree those sucked.

    Maybe a problem is this movie compares unfavorably to Guardians of the Galaxy. You said Jaylah's character design was too similar. I only saw GotG once, so it's dusty in my memory, but the action scenes were more interesting while the character scenes were less meaningful.
  • I was generally underwhelmed, it wasn't unwatchable but far from memorable. I actually felt the movies biggest crime was its under utilization of Idris Elba. This guy has a huge screen presence with the acting chops to match but unfortunately his screen time and dialogue fell short of his abilities.
    I thought the banter between the characters was entertaining, though it felt forced at times, as if here old Star Trek fans, are you happy we wrote them just like you remeber them. I do agree with Aron and Cecily the plot was flimsy and incoherent. If they had set up the movie with Idris Elba and his crew getting stranded on this planet, him losing his mind, and let that dovetail into Kirks hesitation of his mission in space, It may have a lot more satisfying.
    As far as the beastie boys is concerned, I didn't mind it that much, though, I may be showing my age, I'd love to have heard "No Sleep till........."
    JaimieT
  • LukeLuke Central Illinois
    So Orci has started to shed some light on what from his script stayed in the movie.

    The space station was in there, the swarm fleet was, as was the mcguffin that Krull was after but in his version it wasn't a weapon.

    This to me gives some context to some of the bigger plot holes in the movie.

    The reason the space station was the focus of the finale. To me it didn't make sense why destroying the station in a suicide attempt would prove survival of the fittest.

    How Krull came upon a fleet of literally millions of swarm ships when he was a shipwrecked captain on a deserted planet.

    Why the mcguffin weapon was the focus of the film when Krull already had a devastating weapon in the fleet.

    It all boils down to one thing (here us where my conjecture begins). They had already spent a shit load on effects and had begun shooting when Orci/Kurtzman were fired.

    Instead of completly staring over, they used what they could of the effects.

    I am probably being too harsh on the film, it was a solid 6 or 7 out of 10. When you consider they basically fired bad robot after filming had already started it's amazing the film is being as well recieved as it is.

    I really want to see a different tone from the next film though. Not every single star trek movie has to boil down to a fist fight in the end over an almost infinity gem.
  • Wahl-eWahl-e Seattle
    Plot holes? Let's take these one at a time:

    The reason the space station was the focus of the finale. To me it didn't make sense why destroying the station in a suicide attempt would prove survival of the fittest. 

    Krall's motivation wasn't trying to prove "survival of the fittest." That may have been the way he rationalized it to himself, but on a base level he was seeking revenge on a federation that stripped him of the duties he was most suited for, stuck him on a star ship, and abandoned him in space. He was a man born in the wrong time, suffered the curse of immortally, stewed for a century, and manifested his depression by lashing out in maniacal genocidal violence with the tools at his disposal. 

    How Krall came upon a fleet of literally millions of swarm ships when he was a shipwrecked captain on a deserted planet. 

    He had over a century to build them with a fleet of automated drones and a mining planet full of unlimited natural resources at his disposal. 

    Why the mcguffin weapon was the focus of the film when Krull already had a devastating weapon in the fleet. 

    Ships can be shot down (with Beastie Boys music). It's a lot harder to stop a Lovecraftian goo cloud that can go everywhere. 

    I do agree that the end fight was a rehash of Into Darkness, but ultimately I walked away pleased with the film. Surfing on a wave of swarm ships while destroying them with Sabatoge was almost too much, but I found myself with a stupid grin on my face while it was happening. There were some pretty cheesy scenes scattered throughout the movie, but then again all of Star Trek has cheesy scenes. 

    In the end, I just love this group of characters and the actors who play them. I also really like this universe that they've built around the framework of the previous franchises. As Paramount boldly goes into future sequels, I'll be following. 
    TheEconomist
  • edited July 2016
    I enjoyed some parts of this movie, especially the interactions between the characters, the look, the special effects.

    BUT, I was put off almost from the beginning. Let me get this straight. Kirk is 3 years into a deep space mission, exploring strange new worlds, etc... and he records in his log that it has become 'episodic'? How does that job get boring, and sitting behind a desk in a space station would be better?

    I also agree that destroying the Enterprise has become a trope, which I've become tired of (although, this now forces the Kelvin timeline to have an NCC-1701-A). I agree that the ship is a character, and to kill the Enterprise is just a terrible choice. Frankly, I would rather watch a Star Trek without Uhura, Sulu, Chekhov and Scotty, than one without an Enterprise.

    <Shields Up>
  • TheEconomistTheEconomist Chattanooga, TN
    @John I don't think Kirk wanted out because he was bored. I think he felt aimless and alone in deep space with all the burden of duty and responsibility wearing him down. Like he said he didn't join Starfleet because he was inspired by its ideals or mission but on a dare, and he enunciates how that and his father's legacy weighs on him. Maybe being a Vice Admiral was a way of proving to the memory of his father he is a worthy Starfleet officer and person. By the end he realizes he enjoys getting into fist fights too much to sit behind a desk.
  • TheEconomistTheEconomist Chattanooga, TN
    @Luke @Wahl-e
    Wahl-e said:

    Plot holes? Let's take these one at a time:


    The reason the space station was the focus of the finale. To me it didn't make sense why destroying the station in a suicide attempt would prove survival of the fittest. 

    Krall's motivation wasn't trying to prove "survival of the fittest." That may have been the way he rationalized it to himself, but on a base level he was seeking revenge on a federation that stripped him of the duties he was most suited for, stuck him on a star ship, and abandoned him in space. He was a man born in the wrong time, suffered the curse of immortally, stewed for a century, and manifested his depression by lashing out in maniacal genocidal violence with the tools at his disposal. 

    How Krall came upon a fleet of literally millions of swarm ships when he was a shipwrecked captain on a deserted planet. 

    He had over a century to build them with a fleet of automated drones and a mining planet full of unlimited natural resources at his disposal. 

    Why the mcguffin weapon was the focus of the film when Krull already had a devastating weapon in the fleet. 

    Ships can be shot down (with Beastie Boys music). It's a lot harder to stop a Lovecraftian goo cloud that can go everywhere. 

    I do agree that the end fight was a rehash of Into Darkness, but ultimately I walked away pleased with the film. Surfing on a wave of swarm ships while destroying them with Sabatoge was almost too much, but I found myself with a stupid grin on my face while it was happening. There were some pretty cheesy scenes scattered throughout the movie, but then again all of Star Trek has cheesy scenes. 

    In the end, I just love this group of characters and the actors who play them. I also really like this universe that they've built around the framework of the previous franchises. As Paramount boldly goes into future sequels, I'll be following. 


    Additionally the swarm ships didn't seem warp capable so he could only probably attack the Yorktown station. Krall obviously wanted to go on a destruction campaign to prove soft and weak it was with that people melting superweapon. His swarm ships also work best when they are close to home base and take completely unawares one space ship at a time completely cut off and isolated. He's also smart enough to know the Federation is also smart enough to probably figure out a way to negate his tactics eventually especially with a fleet if he didn't have a superweapon first or perhaps capture starships from Yorktown.
  • BigSmellBigSmell Raleigh, NC
    If Stringer Bell came in on that old ship what wasn't he ever like "Hey where did my old ship go?"
  • LukeLuke Central Illinois
    If he needed to capture star ships why didn't he capture the Enterprise, the most advanced ship in the fleet, instead of a stationary starbase?  

    Instead he needlessly destroyed it.   
  • TheEconomistTheEconomist Chattanooga, TN
    edited July 2016
    @Luke he couldn't of captured the Enterprise intact while fully manned by boarding. He had to systematically destroy it just to neutralize it to get the macguffin superweapon. The capturing starships at Yorktown would've been made possible by melting every soul on station with the superweapon, not by boarding.

    The biggest plot hole for me is why aren't they sending every shuttle on station to intercept Krall and help Kirk neutralize the superweapon. Bones finally shows up at the end but come one where have you been for this at least 5 minute fistfight. Maybe he had to tend to Spock's injury. But come on Starfleet don't prove Krall's point by being incompetent.
  • TheEconomistTheEconomist Chattanooga, TN
    BigSmell said:

    If Stringer Bell came in on that old ship what wasn't he ever like "Hey where did my old ship go?"


    That is one thing I wish was fleshed out more. Like Enterprise crew had the Franklin up and running in what, days? Did too many critical crew die before repairs could be made? Did he have to abandon the wreckage? Thats not as much a hole as what you said losing track of his old ship. Perhaps he considered it totally useless after finding the alien tech and drone fleet and stripped it of some of those Starfleet computers. Or he went pretty nuts after getting his first life force download. I would've liked more but can also see how it would destroy the pace of the movie and some folks be like "don't care! Move it along!"
Sign In or Register to comment.