Star Trek Beyond

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

As far as the review, I liked how he was talking about stories that need to be told, as far as it seemed he was talking about premises for a movie of Trek.

I can see how this works fantastical for a general star trek installment but the better remembered movies give quite a bit of calculus stemming from the substance that was in the show, not just the framework.

[Captain Crimson]

As far as the review, I liked how he was talking about stories that need to be told, as far as it seemed he was talking about premises for a movie of Trek.

I can see how this works fantastical for a general star trek installment but the better remembered movies give quite a bit of calculus stemming from the substance that was in the show, not just the framework.

You know, that's kinda what upsets me about the modern-day spectacle. It's no longer about character, which was all-important in the past. You have to work hard to find it, often times in spite of itself. Don't get me wrong, that can be rather fun. But it's also shallow to the Nth degree. With STB, it feels like the reboot we should have got all along. It definitely feels more character-focused, though that could just be me. Whichever you think makes more sense!

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

As far as the review, I liked how he was talking about stories that need to be told, as far as it seemed he was talking about premises for a movie of Trek.

I can see how this works fantastical for a general star trek installment but the better remembered movies give quite a bit of calculus stemming from the substance that was in the show, not just the framework.

You know, that's kinda what upsets me about the modern-day spectacle. It's no longer about character, which was all-important in the past. You have to work hard to find it, often times in spite of itself. Don't get me wrong, that can be rather fun. But it's also shallow to the Nth degree. With STB, it feels like the reboot we should have got all along. It definitely feels more character-focused, though that could just be me. Whichever you think makes more sense!

As far as a general condition of today's protagonist/antagonist profiles, I don't see how that follows from what I was saying.

[Captain Crimson]

As far as the review, I liked how he was talking about stories that need to be told, as far as it seemed he was talking about premises for a movie of Trek.

I can see how this works fantastical for a general star trek installment but the better remembered movies give quite a bit of calculus stemming from the substance that was in the show, not just the framework.

You know, that's kinda what upsets me about the modern-day spectacle. It's no longer about character, which was all-important in the past. You have to work hard to find it, often times in spite of itself. Don't get me wrong, that can be rather fun. But it's also shallow to the Nth degree. With STB, it feels like the reboot we should have got all along. It definitely feels more character-focused, though that could just be me. Whichever you think makes more sense!

As far as a general condition of today's protagonist/antagonist profiles, I don't see how that follows from what I was saying.

Oh dang, I went off-topic there, didn't I?

[Fianna]

You know, that's kinda what upsets me about the modern-day spectacle. It's no longer about character, which was all-important in the past.

Uh, when was this. The film industry has always had tons of stuff that put spectacle ahead of character. "Oh my God, the train is coming right at the camera! Run!"

[CrypticMirror]

I did like Beyond for the most part, although i do agree that making Sulu gay just because of George Takei was a poorly thought out choice.

Personally if I was in charge and decided to make one of the cast homosexual/bisexual in the Kelvin Timeline I would have chosen Chekov.

Now hear me out, Star Trek since its inception has been in theory about pushing social messages about how the future where people are respected for their color of skin, country of origin or gender......or its a world where everyone is nudist and all the woman have numerous breasts.
You take the good with the weird with Gene's vision.

So with that crazy diversion in mind, with today in the Russian climate there is a strong anti Gay culture and that people of non Heterosexual orientation are stigmatized and in some cases put in jail.

To show that in the future a proud son of Russia is openly gay, happy and has found himself on the flagship of the Federation at such a young age would show a good message that someday Gay People in Russia will be accepted.

The only problem is that with the actors death people might see it as a case of Bury your Gays trope.
But in production that wouldn't have been the thought process.

If they were going forward with the Kelvin verse, which they aren't, then I'd recast Chekov as a woman. I'm not trolling here, I genuinely would. We're in a different universe, so why not say that Kelvin-verse's Chekov was trans. And also a proud Russian too, for all the reasons you say. And that in the future, being trans is no big deal and having reassignment surgery is super easy. And it could still appease the Chinese and Russian censors by having the most anyone makes of it be McCoy telling Kirk that Chekov's paperwork has been updated and telling Kirk he is messed up when this Kirk inevitably asks if Chekov is cute looking, all in one line that they could cut out because they are backwards assholes. But there would still be female Chekov sitting on the bridge.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Oh dang, I went off-topic there, didn't I?

[Riedquat]

You know, that's kinda what upsets me about the modern-day spectacle. It's no longer about character, which was all-important in the past.

Uh, when was this. The film industry has always had tons of stuff that put spectacle ahead of character. "Oh my God, the train is coming right at the camera! Run!"

That very early stuff was more in the line of technical demonstration. You need the technology to advance enough so you can do something with character first (compare with video games, which have only reached the point where they can do decent character stuff recently-ish).

[Mecha82]

You know, that's kinda what upsets me about the modern-day spectacle. It's no longer about character, which was all-important in the past.

Uh, when was this. The film industry has always had tons of stuff that put spectacle ahead of character. "Oh my God, the train is coming right at the camera! Run!"

That very early stuff was more in the line of technical demonstration. You need the technology to advance enough so you can do something with character first (compare with video games, which have only reached the point where they can do decent character stuff recently-ish).

Games like Final Fantasy 4 already did that during SNES era. It might be rather new to western made games but Japanese made games tend to be narrative heavy and focused on characters. Which is also why visual novel games are genre.

[Madner Kami]

You know, that's kinda what upsets me about the modern-day spectacle. It's no longer about character, which was all-important in the past.

Uh, when was this. The film industry has always had tons of stuff that put spectacle ahead of character. "Oh my God, the train is coming right at the camera! Run!"

That very early stuff was more in the line of technical demonstration. You need the technology to advance enough so you can do something with character first (compare with video games, which have only reached the point where they can do decent character stuff recently-ish).

Feels like you are coming from an alternate dimension. Either that or you mean something completely different from what you seem to be meaning. Care to elaborate?