Star Trek Beyond

[Orel]

"Destroy the Death Star once, it's thrilling. Destroy it twice, it's diminished. Destroy it a third time but now we've made it bigger, and now it's just something to check off the to-do list, isn't it?"

A subtle dig at Abrams' other work, I take it.

This is my favorite of the Kelvin-verse movies, and it's a pity that this wasn't the second movie instead of Into Darkness. The first one was a mindless action flick, but I can let it slide for much the same reason I can forgive that other Abrams movie for being a shot-for-shot remake--rebooting a franchise can be risky and it's understandable that the studio wants to play it safe. But once it makes money, that should be a sign to let the creative staff be more adventurous. They have a whole Alpha Quadrant of possibilities, and it's good to see the crew doing something new instead of hanging out in the walk-in trophy closet.

As to the motorcycle, I kind of wonder why it wasn't some kind of futuristic electric motorcycle. Surely a recharge from the ship's power supply is more reasonable than hauling gasoline around.

One of the other things I like about this movie is the larger alien presence on the ship. Into Darkness was almost entirely human (augmented or otherwise), and even [2009] wasn't all that galaxy-spanning. It's good to see them acknowledge the Federation's size and really play with the possibilities the budget allows.

I hadn't thought of the parallels Chuck notes between Edison and main-timeline Kirk, but they make a lot of sense. And I wonder whether the lines Elba asked to redact might have helped flesh him out more. I agree that the villain is the weakest point of this story, though IMO he's still stronger than Nero.

The main question that the deconstruction and reconstruction asks, according to Chuck, is whether there is still a point to Star Trek. IMO, the film answers with a definitive "yes." It shows that there's still potential in this property and these characters, still new stories to tell and new ideas to plumb, and that they don't have to revisit the same old things to be good. Which makes it all the more of a shame and a waste that the Kelvin-verse stories got kneecapped just when they were getting good.

[Riedquat]

Started watching the review even though I've not actually seen the film (did that for Into Darkness too, no regrets there!) But I like what I see from the review so far, to the point where I'm stopping it and going off to watch the film. Oh dear, Chuck's video has sold a viewing, good job they keep trying to hound him off the internet.

[Mabus]

Beyond was good, even if flawed. I really liked the concept of Yorktown, I guess after the loss of Vulcan, Starfleet decided that making micro-planets is a good idea, even though they'd be a higher-risk target for alien threats than planets, but I guess since the Federation doesn't use money anymore, they can spare no expense. The film felt like a big-budgeted TOS episode, in a good way. I do liked how they turned the most controversial part of the trailer into the most hilarious (and ridiculous) part of the film. Which leads me to the biggest issue the film had: the marketing, or should I say the lack of it. Despite being released on the Trek's 50th anniversary, the marketing was bad. I didn't even know that the film was about to be released until I saw the godawful trailer which really turned me off. I even thought for a moment that JJ Abrams just gave up and made a parody (he even brought in the director for one of the F&F films) which, given how Into Darkness turned out, it wouldn't have been out of place. There was also little side promotion for the film. While the second trailer was better, the third one also had that awful Rihanna music, so it didn't help that much.
But the biggest issue was the trailers spoiling that the Enterprise would crash on the planet, in a third Star Trek film, after the film with Khan. This raised lots of The Search for Spock bells, and I've seen many people saying "Ah, so it's pretty clear that they're just remaking the old TOS film. I bet the fourth one will involve time travel and whales, and if they make a fifth it will be about finding God and Zoe Saldana will do a naked dance at night" (and given that the rumors for the 4th film would involve some time travel this really didn't help to cool the rage). You can still see the comments from 4 years ago on the YT trailers. So it's safe to say that people weren't thrilled and were very disappointed with what they saw. Then the film premiered and people changed their opinion... only too late. The damage had already been done.
Star Trek just can't catch a break, can't it? Even when it was at its peak, there was always some meddling and always someone that just couldn't help not screw it somehow. It's a miracle that it was able to endure that much.

[Chaltab]

I really loved this one, in spite of it's flaws, after thinking 2009 was too dumb to be considered really 'good' and skipping Into Darkness altogether once I learned about Cumberkhan.

It's biggest problem is exactly what Chuck says, too: the script somehow manages to take Idris Elba as the main villain and make him forgettable. It's a great idea, a former Starfleet officer disillusioned with what the Federation has become, but it just doesn't deliver enough to make him memorable.

[Mecha82]

Now I know that I am in minority on this site but I found 09 and Into Darkness enjoyable enough but Beyond is one that I still haven't seen. Based on Chuck's review I can safely say that I would also enjoy watching Beyond if I ever get chance to do so. Shame really that they handled marketing so badly because I would had loved to see least one more Kelvinverse Trek movie.

[Cheerilee]

As to the motorcycle, I kind of wonder why it wasn't some kind of futuristic electric motorcycle. Surely a recharge from the ship's power supply is more reasonable than hauling gasoline around.

That was something I thought as well. When I saw the movie, I immediately compared the motorcycle unfavorably to Robotech (or more accurately, Mospeada), where if a ship landed (or crash landed) you could open up an emergency compartment and pull out a folding motorcycle, for simple ground transportation, which ran on the same fuel as your spacecraft.

The "Cyclone" motorcycles in Robotech (Mospeada) felt way more integrated and blended in with the universe. The motorcycle in Beyond feels like one of the crew had a hobby.

Here's an idea: Have Kirk get excited when he realizes that he's on an NX-class ship, have him run over to the armory, and have him find at least a dozen of the futuristic motorcycle that Kirk previously had in Star Trek 2009 (just prior to him joining Starfleet). Say that that's where his old future-bike came from, that it was an old piece of military surplus that Starfleet doesn't put on ships anymore.

[TheGreenMan]

I enjoyed Chucks take on Beyond. Sadly, while the best of the three new movies in my opinion, when I watched it I manly came away with the thought: "Ah, those poor people didn't like being out in space, exploring away from home for 3 years. Poor sops. And now one wants to quite and the other wants to blow everything up."

[Rocketboy1313]

I really liked "Star Trek Beyond" and Chuck's views are basically my own.

I think I am harsher on Krall. While "Star Fleet Captain goes nuts and must be stopped" is the plot of several episodes for a movie I wanted a better motivation than, "Fuck Peace" for the alien vampire.

I wonder if I would prefer the movie if it were not an ancient Star Fleet soldier who was the bad guy, but Klingons. That they had found this planet with an ancient weapon and sought to star a full blown war with the Federation via this opening attack. Klingons definitely have some, "conflict makes us strong" philosophy in contrast to the Federation. And being that they are a rival nation the lack of explanations and long speeches would be fine, their motivations of patriotism is implied.

[clearspira]

"Destroy the Death Star once, it's thrilling. Destroy it twice, it's diminished. Destroy it a third time but now we've made it bigger, and now it's just something to check off the to-do list, isn't it?"

A subtle dig at Abrams' other work, I take it.

This is my favorite of the Kelvin-verse movies, and it's a pity that this wasn't the second movie instead of Into Darkness. The first one was a mindless action flick, but I can let it slide for much the same reason I can forgive that other Abrams movie for being a shot-for-shot remake--rebooting a franchise can be risky and it's understandable that the studio wants to play it safe. But once it makes money, that should be a sign to let the creative staff be more adventurous. They have a whole Alpha Quadrant of possibilities, and it's good to see the crew doing something new instead of hanging out in the walk-in trophy closet.

As to the motorcycle, I kind of wonder why it wasn't some kind of futuristic electric motorcycle. Surely a recharge from the ship's power supply is more reasonable than hauling gasoline around.

One of the other things I like about this movie is the larger alien presence on the ship. Into Darkness was almost entirely human (augmented or otherwise), and even [2009] wasn't all that galaxy-spanning. It's good to see them acknowledge the Federation's size and really play with the possibilities the budget allows.

I hadn't thought of the parallels Chuck notes between Edison and main-timeline Kirk, but they make a lot of sense. And I wonder whether the lines Elba asked to redact might have helped flesh him out more. I agree that the villain is the weakest point of this story, though IMO he's still stronger than Nero.

The main question that the deconstruction and reconstruction asks, according to Chuck, is whether there is still a point to Star Trek. IMO, the film answers with a definitive "yes." It shows that there's still potential in this property and these characters, still new stories to tell and new ideas to plumb, and that they don't have to revisit the same old things to be good. Which makes it all the more of a shame and a waste that the Kelvin-verse stories got kneecapped just when they were getting good.

Serious question: has Abrams ever had an original idea? Because I am only familiar with him from Trek and Wars, and from what I can see..,

09 - TOS repackaged.
Into Darkness - The Wrath of Kahn
The Force Awakens - A New Hope
The Rise of Skywalker - The Return of the Jedi

He seems to be great at copying other peoples' work - and doing so poorly yet making lots of money. Kind of like Michael Bay.

[TGLS]

Well, how about Lost or Cloverfield?