CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › STAR TREK BEYOND Post-Release
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

STAR TREK BEYOND Post-Release

post #1 of 1383
Thread Starter 
STAR TREK '09 is JJ Abrams' best STAR WARS movie.
 
STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS is also a STAR WARS movie.  And outside of a saggy section on Kronos and a flat third act, I still like it.  I like the cast.  I like the characters.  I think it's directed with a propulsive energy that sands over some of its weak spots.
 
I say this because, though I know I'll inevitably be attacked for defending STID, I recognize what those movies are.  They are STAR WARS films wearing a STAR TREK skin.
 
STAR TREK BEYOND, make no mistake, is a STAR TREK film.
 
Some of you will hate it, and fairly.  This is a movie where -- spoiler alert -- "Sabotage" literally saves the day.  This is a movie with another major villain twist.  This is a movie that begins with Kirk running away from funny little aliens, and drops another stupid "Dammit, man, I'm a doctor, not a--" joke.
 
But it's also a movie with an excellent first act, where Chris Pine really comes into his own as Kirk.  Not the cocky blow-hard of the first two films; this is a wise Kirk, contemplative.  It's a movie that finally elevates Bones to the same level as Kirk and Spock.  It's a movie that pays tribute to Leonard Nimoy's death in a way that provides Quinto's Spock some real moments of character development and discovery.
 
And that's why it's a STAR TREK movie.  For all of its action (and there probably isn't as much as you're expecting), it's a movie focused on character.  Gone is JJ Abrams' wild ADD-riddled camerawork, and in its place is a more measured, steadier hand.  Gone is a silly focus on Earth; in its place, a push forward, including the introduction of really fun new characters like Jaylah.
 
It's not perfect.  The second act is saggy (and reminded me more than once of STAR TREK: INSURRECTION, though improving on that film).  Krall's motivations are interesting (he isn't simply Nero, as some people had led me to believe), but they're held back so long that he spends 90% of the film as Evil Tyrannical Alien Guy.
 
But it's a reintroduction to what STAR TREK really is, and ends in a way that's both fitting as the closing chapter for this cast, and as a beautiful nod to this crew having been together for 50 years.  And as a springboard into the many adventures I still want to see with this group of people.
 
It's STAR TREK, warts and all.
post #2 of 1383

Looking forward to it!

 

Yay!

 

STOCKSTIMISM!!!

post #3 of 1383
Well, I'm still not going to bother, but that's good to hear. Let's hope Paramount takes a lesson from it.
post #4 of 1383
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by commodorejohn View Post

Well, I'm still not going to bother, but that's good to hear. Let's hope Paramount takes a lesson from it.

 

I think that's totally fair.  Too many people pay to see obligation blockbusters they don't really want to sit through, and studios pump out garbage.

 

Hopefully you dig it on HBO.

post #5 of 1383
You're telling me everything I wanted to hear. This bad boy could save my summer.
post #6 of 1383

How was Anton Yelchin?

post #7 of 1383

[Deleted as it was already posted]

post #8 of 1383

Concerning the finale:

 

 

 

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I read elsewhere that they beat the swarm using 'Sabotage' to jam their communications?  I find that to be...fairly fucking stupid.
post #9 of 1383
Quote:
Originally Posted by mondguy View Post
 

Concerning the finale:

 

 

 

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I read elsewhere that they beat the swarm using 'Sabotage' to jam their communications?  I find that to be...fairly fucking stupid.

 

 

Futurama shows you how it's done.

post #10 of 1383
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mondguy View Post

Concerning the finale:



Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I read elsewhere that they beat the swarm using 'Sabotage' to jam their communications?  I find that to be...fairly fucking stupid.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
That's exactly how it's used, and some people are really going to hate it. I thought the visuals combined with how the crew comes together really made it work, though.
post #11 of 1383
Many reviews are addressing it as 'possibly divisive' which is a very diplomatic way of putting it. My interest died horribly when I heard about that.
post #12 of 1383

Fuller's Trek show cannot come out soon enough!

post #13 of 1383
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I've been on a big Macross kick lately, so I'm actually receptive to the "using pop music to defeat the aliens" idea (and I wonder if there's enough anime nerdery between Lin/Pegg/Jung for them to have gotten that idea from Lynn Minmay et al.) And I don't even like the Beasties that much.

 

I had been rooting against this movie, due to my JJ hatred and wanting his failure to be complete or something. But the reviews are decent, and seem to be emphasizing this one isn't like the first two, and I like Justin Lin, and Star Trek, soooo...it looks like I'm going to see this in the theater.


Edited by justinslot - 7/17/16 at 10:54pm
post #14 of 1383
JJ hatred? Hate the movies, don't hate the artist. You can't hate a guy you don't know.
post #15 of 1383

Sure you can. I don't know Zach Snyder and I hate him.

post #16 of 1383

Unless you're a Donald Trump-level asshole, I don't think that's possible. Or, maybe, to a lesser extent, hating someone like Bill Cosby or Roman Polanski - who truly did egregious, unforgivable things.

 

At least not for normal people. I detest Zack Snyder's films to the point that I find BvS his masterpiece, but the guy himself just strikes me as a dumb meathead who hit it big. Nothing he's ever said indicates that he's a bad person, just a bad filmmaker. 

 

JJ Abrams seems to be a genuinely cool, well-meaning dude. I can't see any reason to hate him other than nerd-rage, and nerd-rage is just plain fucking dumb. Nerd-rage makes idiots send death threats to comic book writers over the stories they wrote.

post #17 of 1383
Thread Starter 
Abrams by all accounts is one of the nicest people in the business. He has a reputation as a genuinely great human being.
post #18 of 1383
Abrams might be a nice guy, and I certainly wouldn't say that I hate him (I don't even know him!)

However: as a filmmaker, he produces shoddy, poorly-thought-out crap that functions solely on a nine-year-old "you know what would be AWESOME!?" level and not always even then, and worse still, he's a smug prick about it. Anybody who signs onto a series despite being openly disdainful of it can fuck right off as far as I'm concerned.
post #19 of 1383
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Shape View Post

Abrams by all accounts is one of the nicest people in the business. He has a reputation as a genuinely great human being.

I've heard the same thing about Abrams too from people who used to work in visual FX!

post #20 of 1383
Thread Starter 

Apparently new TV spots are spoiling a pretty major third act reveal, so if you're already going to see the movie, I'd suggest avoiding the advertising.

post #21 of 1383

You can definitely hate someone you don't know, though it's petty and small and irrational. And I am not immune to pettiness and irrationality.

 

But my meaning wasn't personal in this case, or even literal. I'm just not on Team JJ.

post #22 of 1383
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Shape View Post
 
STAR TREK '09 is JJ Abrams' best STAR WARS movie.
 
STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS is also a STAR WARS movie.  And outside of a saggy section on Kronos and a flat third act, I still like it.  I like the cast.  I like the characters.  I think it's directed with a propulsive energy that sands over some of its weak spots.
 
I say this because, though I know I'll inevitably be attacked for defending STID, I recognize what those movies are.  They are STAR WARS films wearing a STAR TREK skin.
 
STAR TREK BEYOND, make no mistake, is a STAR TREK film.
 
Some of you will hate it, and fairly.  This is a movie where -- spoiler alert -- "Sabotage" literally saves the day.  This is a movie with another major villain twist.  This is a movie that begins with Kirk running away from funny little aliens, and drops another stupid "Dammit, man, I'm a doctor, not a--" joke.
 
But it's also a movie with an excellent first act, where Chris Pine really comes into his own as Kirk.  Not the cocky blow-hard of the first two films; this is a wise Kirk, contemplative.  It's a movie that finally elevates Bones to the same level as Kirk and Spock.  It's a movie that pays tribute to Leonard Nimoy's death in a way that provides Quinto's Spock some real moments of character development and discovery.
 
And that's why it's a STAR TREK movie.  For all of its action (and there probably isn't as much as you're expecting), it's a movie focused on character.  Gone is JJ Abrams' wild ADD-riddled camerawork, and in its place is a more measured, steadier hand.  Gone is a silly focus on Earth; in its place, a push forward, including the introduction of really fun new characters like Jaylah.
 
It's not perfect.  The second act is saggy (and reminded me more than once of STAR TREK: INSURRECTION, though improving on that film).  Krall's motivations are interesting (he isn't simply Nero, as some people had led me to believe), but they're held back so long that he spends 90% of the film as Evil Tyrannical Alien Guy.
 
But it's a reintroduction to what STAR TREK really is, and ends in a way that's both fitting as the closing chapter for this cast, and as a beautiful nod to this crew having been together for 50 years.  And as a springboard into the many adventures I still want to see with this group of people.
 
It's STAR TREK, warts and all.

With Anton gone, that's how I'm going into this film because frankly, I don't want to see another film with this cast without him.  That young man, with very little screen time, is wonderful as Pavel.

 

And you're dead on right about TREK '09 and INTO DARKNESS.  Completely agree with you...

post #23 of 1383
Quote:
 
 
It's not perfect.  The second act is saggy (and reminded me more than once of STAR TREK: INSURRECTION, though improving on that film). 
 
 

 

Ugh, no, say it ain't so. What a boring nothing of a movie. This why when Beyond reviews mention it's like a Star Trek episode I have this negative connotation blaring in the back of my head while other fans are all huzzahing and stuff. Cuz that's what Insurrection was like, like they took a rejected script from the TNG series and said, hey, let's just make this into a movie. It even looked like a slightly higher quality TV episode (which I know Beyond won't have as much issue with). Kinda mind-boggling that mostly the same creative team that made the totally legit, Top 3 Trek movie First Contact could turn around with 13 more million in their budget and make the utterly forgettable Insurrection (and then Nemesis tried hard to be awesome and ended up even worse). what a difference Ronald D. Moore and ILM make, eh.

 

Anyways, I will try to have faith that Beyond is more of a movie than Insurrection, which itself is still gads better than the atrocity that is Into Dumbness.

post #24 of 1383
Just out. It was...fun.

Not as good as the 2009 entry but better than Into Darkness (not hard.)

The good - cast are solid, humour works, effects are top-notch and the score is excellent if a little predictable. Plus the cast members no longer with us get nice tributes.

The bad - piss-poor villain, action beats and set pieces we feel like we've seen before, Justin Lin does an admirable job overall but the action is poorly shot and edited and very hard to follow at times.

Overall, for better or worse, it's a Star Trek film. It won't stay with me nor do I have any desire to see it again.
post #25 of 1383

"action is poorly shot and edited and very hard to follow at times."

 

That ... that sounds quite bad overall actually since that's kind of a large element of these films.

post #26 of 1383

What did you expect from the director of a few of THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS films? 

post #27 of 1383
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Shape View Post
  Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
That's exactly how it's used, and some people are really going to hate it. I thought the visuals combined with how the crew comes together really made it work, though.

 

That sounds fantastic.

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Whether or not you hated Abram's use of the Beastie Boys, how it's used here sounds like a very classic  move right out of the old Trek playbook. 

Sort of reminds me of the many times Kirk (or other teams) has gotten his crew out of a bind with clever use of the transporter (or otherwise tricked an enemy into using their own technology against their self) and so on, and I imagine it plays out in a semi-similar fashion.


By the way the entire film has already been spoiled online, so unless you really want to know I would avoid the film's wikipedia page. Usually I don't mind spoilers, but after how dull this summer has been I would actually like to be surprised.


Edited by Itsnotatumor - 7/20/16 at 7:57pm
post #28 of 1383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headless Fett View Post
 

What did you expect from the director of a few of THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS films? 

 

Don't know. Never seen one.

post #29 of 1383
I thought this was aggressively OK.
post #30 of 1383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradito View Post

I thought this was aggressively OK.

 

Well, I guess that at least beats World War Z, which set out to be as aggressively bad as possible as soon as possible after the film started.

post #31 of 1383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shan View Post
 

"action is poorly shot and edited and very hard to follow at times."

 

That ... that sounds quite bad overall actually since that's kind of a large element of these films.


It is and it isn't. There is not quite as much action in this as you would have thought based on the trailers. The stuff that worked best for me were the quieter moments and the interactions between the characters. The plot itself is paper-thin but it moves so fast you barely notice. Like I said, fun but silly. And ultimately inconsequential.

post #32 of 1383
"The Enterprise is the only ship that can maneuver through that nebula."

*The Enterprise maneuvers through the nebula with so much ease, you're like, "Uhh..."*
post #33 of 1383
Quote:
Originally Posted by doubledown1138 View Post


... And ultimately inconsequential.

 

And that there is the biggest crime for films in general but especially a Star Trek film (to be fair, it wouldn't be the first time in the series, there's been multiple offences across the entire history of Star Trek in film).

post #34 of 1383
Well, the upside is I'm losing nothing by ignoring it.
post #35 of 1383
So reviews are good and you guys are still down on it?
post #36 of 1383
It's all right, but does just feel like a jumped-up episode of the TV series. The two character arcs -- and I'm not spoiler-tagging this because you're in the post-release -- have to do with staying on the ship rather than making a change in your life. The movie goes through the motions, but at the end of it, we're sort of at the same place we were when we started.

And I didn't quite understand how Kirk, who's three years into his five-year mission, is up for a Vice Admiral job.
post #37 of 1383
Read some of the reviews and they seem less "OH MAN THIS IS AMAZING!!!" and more, "huh this isn't a complete piece of dreck. 5 STARS!"
post #38 of 1383
Idris Elba's villain is named after a female jazz vocalist.
post #39 of 1383
Ella Fitzgerald?
post #40 of 1383
Norah Jones.
post #41 of 1383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradito View Post


And I didn't quite understand how Kirk, who's three years into his five-year mission, is up for a Vice Admiral job.

Oh FFS, did every other experienced captain get wiped out in Trek '09?
post #42 of 1383
Quote:
Originally Posted by mondguy View Post

Oh FFS, did every other experienced captain get wiped out in Trek '09?
The ones that didn't were discharged in the wake of Khangate.
post #43 of 1383
I had a hard time buying the notion that Kirk would get bored being captain. That just feels so out of character. But Spock laughs and cries in this, so whatevs.
post #44 of 1383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ska Oreo View Post

Read some of the reviews and they seem less "OH MAN THIS IS AMAZING!!!" and more, "huh this isn't a complete piece of dreck. 5 STARS!"

Like Ghostbusters?
post #45 of 1383
Everyone kept touching Spock, too. It was upsetting to me. "Don't you guys know he's hypersensitive to physical contact?! Jesus!"
post #46 of 1383
Are they pulling more 'Nah, this is when he REALLY becomes Kirk' stuff? Because that got old fast with Bond.
post #47 of 1383
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mondguy View Post

Are they pulling more 'Nah, this is when he REALLY becomes Kirk' stuff? Because that got old fast with Bond.


Nah.  He's fully-formed Kirk at the beginning.

post #48 of 1383
Too bad the CGI beasties at the beginning weren't fully rendered. Woof.

I was like, "Wow, this is how we're starting things off? OK."
post #49 of 1383
Sitting in the Theater. More than 11 people. They replaced all the lame seats with reclining lazy boys!!!

Feet up ready to go where no man has gone before baby.
post #50 of 1383
I went last night.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Focused Film Discussion
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › STAR TREK BEYOND Post-Release