Star Trek Beyond

[CharlesPhipps]

I have decidedly mixed feelings about Star Trek: Beyond and it basically is similar to my feelings about Star Trek: Discovery. I really enjoyed Star Trek (2009) and Star Trek: Into Darkness. I felt the latter really fixed the former's problem of no social commentary and worked well as a critique of the Iraq War. Khan was a lousy addition but whatcha gonna do.

So, when they change EVERYTHING for Star Trek: Beyond you run into the problem of people who LIKED the former two movies getting cheated.

[Nealithi]

I admit I had the exact same reaction to my character. For all the faults that Star Trek Online's story has, the KDF player is someone I feel has a fairly natural progression from bloodthirsty berserker out to kill a bunch of Federation soldiers (like when he massacres the ones trying to capture Frank Drake). However, by the end of the Iconian War, my Klingon is fully an ally of the Federation and thinks of Ju'la as a retrograde embarrassment.

"T'kuvma was a lunatic who thought he was Khaless Reborn. I've met Khaless and helped him kill the Devil. No, I don't think the Founders created the Fekhiri. They're real, dammit."

Maybe I missed it. But is this in the wrong thread Charles?

[CharlesPhipps]

Maybe I missed it. But is this in the wrong thread Charles?

Fixed.

[CharlesPhipps]

My opinion on Star Trek: Beyond is that it's...okay.

I mentioned above that the problem of Star Trek: Beyond is that if you actually LIKED the previous two movies then you run into a problem with a movie that changes everything. I feel like Star Trek: Beyond is incredibly disconnected from the events of the previous two films and thus runs into feeling like it's a missed opportunity.

1. What happened to Carol Marcus? She's a character that just lost her father to the heroes and yet had helped bring it about. I liked the possibility of a budding relationship with Kirk (or McCoy, which would have been a nice timeline shift).

2. Are Uhura and Spock still doing a dance of "will they or won't they?" I thought we settled that in 2.

3. Is Kirk really ready to get promoted after his repeated maverick behavior and lunacy? He's only now at the right age for BECOMING a captain.

Really, my problem with this episode is it felt the most TOS-y and really didn't have the kind of stakes or power that the previous movies did. Yes, the Yorktown seems fine but the previous two movies had the entire Federation at risk and some essential battle for its moral core.

I was hoping for more from Krall as well but basically he actually seemed like Khan 3.0 for the series. Even more Khan than the actuak Khan or Nero (who was Spock's version of Khan). He's a deranged warrior abandoned on a planet with his dying crew that goes utterly insane and then decides to go on a campaign of slaughter with his planet-destroying superweapon.

I feel like its doubly disappointing because there's an interesting story there and I like the idea that some people in Starfleet during Archer's era weren't prepared for the Federation's peace, tolerance, and brotherhood. That Krall is the kind of guy who would have belonged to Terra Prime and was a xenophobic anti-Romulan/Anti-Xindi and probably anti-Klingon and Anti-Vulcan sort of guy that would be disgusted by the Federation. The irony of being a black Starfleet officer ala Admiral Cartwright underscoring it.

But there's not enough of that and Idris Elba actually asked for less lines, which is a shame because I do think that Krall is the sort of guy who COULD have had a conversation about these subjects.
I liked a lot of this movie but I just didn't really feel it.

7/10

[Link8909]

I think one thing I missed from the STAR TREK: BEYOND review is the fact that Edison is another Khan. He's a guy marooned on a world for decades that gets driven insane by it and blames the Federation. He's a war monger from a past age and seeks a superweapon to turn against his enemies.

I'd argue he's more Khan than Into Darkness' Khan or Nero.

Agreed, when I first watched Star Trek Beyond in the cinema, I wasn't that keen on Edison's motivations as I felt it was "another revenge plot" that has been done to death in the films, but thanks to Chucks review I got to appreciate the film more and I think now he's actually a great villain, not just from the Kelvin Timeline films but all the Star Trek films, I like his ideology of strength through adversity, and tied nicely into the films deconstruction of the franchise and Captain Kirk's character arc of him doubting his own beliefs.

[CrypticMirror]

Star Trek movies have the same problem Star Wars movies have, both franchise peaked at the second movie, and all subsequent restarts have been about replicating their second movie instead of developing new stories instead. The next Khan, another Empire; the nails in a franchise's coffin, hammered home by directors and/or producers who only care about being the next big thing. This is why you should hire hacks instead of prima-donnas and auteurs. A hack comes in, does the job to the best of their ability, and moves on. They don't care about topping anyone else's efforts or making some grand art, they just tell a story.

And often just telling a story is exactly how you get great art.

[CharlesPhipps]

Star Trek movies have the same problem Star Wars movies have, both franchise peaked at the second movie, and all subsequent restarts have been about replicating their second movie instead of developing new stories instead. The next Khan, another Empire; the nails in a franchise's coffin, hammered home by directors and/or producers who only care about being the next big thing. This is why you should hire hacks instead of prima-donnas and auteurs. A hack comes in, does the job to the best of their ability, and moves on. They don't care about topping anyone else's efforts or making some grand art, they just tell a story.

And often just telling a story is exactly how you get great art.

This is why I unironically think IV and Undiscovered Country are the best after II.

[Link8909]

Star Trek movies have the same problem Star Wars movies have, both franchise peaked at the second movie, and all subsequent restarts have been about replicating their second movie instead of developing new stories instead. The next Khan, another Empire; the nails in a franchise's coffin, hammered home by directors and/or producers who only care about being the next big thing. This is why you should hire hacks instead of prima-donnas and auteurs. A hack comes in, does the job to the best of their ability, and moves on. They don't care about topping anyone else's efforts or making some grand art, they just tell a story.

And often just telling a story is exactly how you get great art.

Personally with Star Trek films, I think it's more that we as fans have placed The Wrath of Khan on too high of a pedestal, and that we are far too critical of the films that come afterwards, and if one applies that same kind of overly critical thinking to the film you do like, you'll end up hating everything.

We didn't stop getting good Star Trek films after The Wrath of Khan either, personally I think The Search for Spock was a great follow up with an underrated villain, The Undiscovered Country was a great film to close the chapter on The Original Series cast, while flawed I always have a soft spot for Generations, First Contact was a great follow up to "The Best of Both Worlds" with some great horror elements and expanse the lore, while they're not my favorite I do like that other people like both (2009) and Into Darkness and that they got into Star Trek because of them, and I really like Beyond and really appreciate it more thanks to Chucks review.

[CharlesPhipps]

Whales man.

SPACE WHALES.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I used to go to the aquarium every year as a class field trip that they filmed at for Voyager Home.

I met the whale. Got its autograph.