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 - Page 9

post #401 of 1383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Stockslivevan View Post


I've noticed that too elsewhere. User ratings on major sites have it much lower than the last two... I don't get it.

I think for a lot of people, they're willing to overlook the flaws in Trek 09 because this was the first time they're seeing the origin stories of all those characters. I can sort of understand that, even though my reaction is that these aren't the same characters at all so the films really don't satisfy that curiosity.

post #402 of 1383
Jay and Mike have their review up, echoing the overwhelming sentiment here:

http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-bag-star-trek-beyond/
post #403 of 1383
Quote:
Originally Posted by User_32 View Post

So was Orci's rejected script ever leaked? Or the plot? I'm sure they'll add it to the book of "Unmade Star Trek Movies". 

What's the proper way to pronounce Orci, is it like Orca or Ocelot? If I'm going to curse a man's name I need to get it right.
post #404 of 1383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Analog Olmos View Post

What's the proper way to pronounce Orci, is it like Orca or Ocelot? If I'm going to curse a man's name I need to get it right.
Asshole-alot


But seriously, I think it's dOrci(dorky)..
post #405 of 1383
Snuck out to see this after work. I'll have to see it again to be sure, but right now this sits as top 6 Trek for me without even breaking a sweat, and may very well be Top 4 material.

I'd say this movie characterizes Scotty and Sulu more than any other film containing them save Undiscovered Country for Sulu (mayyyybe SFS as well), and gives us the Captain Kirk we haven't seen since The Voyage Home. I love Kirk in Undiscovered Country but he's in a different place by then. Voyage Home Kirk is still feeling his oats.

This is the Kirk I watched in TOS reruns as a kid. He felt like a real person, and proves that Pine is goddamn perfect for this role if only given a decent script (so strange that 3 films in I now feel Pine is a better Kirk than Quinto is a Spock... Did NOT see that coming in 2009).

Jayhla is a supporting character that isn't forgettable and also feels like, wait for it, a real person.

I'll also say the 1701 looked better in the brief time she was on screen than in either of the last 2 films, which made her loss hurt even more. Lin shot the hell out of her with interesting angles that made her feel new even though I've been looking at variations on this ship for 30-odd years.

Unintended downside: having now gotten a better view of the 1701-A.... I actually like the Refit 1701 from ID and Beyond better than the new ship, which is a complete reversal from the original series (I respect the hell out of the 1701 TOS ship and love her, but the Refit/1701-A from the films is where my heart is). The angled leading edge on the new saucer is a buzzkill for me, as are the cartoony impulse drives. The nacelles also look not-different enough from the Refit ones, but the pylons are back to being straight after the Refit had angled them back, and the deflector dish is still a separate dish instead of flush with the hull like in the original 01-A.

That said, the characters in this were aces from front to back. I cared about them all, and wish like hell this had been the second film. Hope to the gods we get at least one more.

ETA: the musical climax worked like gangbusters for me. I'd read about it before but even knowing it was coming it put a giant grin on my face for that whole sequence.

The best compliment I can give, is this was real Trek. As real as any original series film, with heart and stakes and friendship and duty and something to say.

And I'll just note that the main conflict of philosophies being "Stength through Unity" vs "Us against Them" has more than a little resonance with the state of the western world at the moment.

Loved this film.
Edited by Analog Olmos - 7/29/16 at 4:26pm
post #406 of 1383

I was surprised to see a mediocre review today from one of my go to Trek review sites.  For comparison, they gave Trek '09 and STID three stars.  And I've seen similar sentiments expressed elsewhere, which baffles the hell out of me.

post #407 of 1383
Which site is that?
post #408 of 1383

Jammer's reviews

 

One of the critiques was the 'flatter style' of this movie.  I call it not tilting the camera and randomly tapping it on the side for the hell of it.

post #409 of 1383
Or arbitrarily shining flashlights on the lenses.

Oh, that reminds me, there's this weird shot in 2009 that swoops from behind Spock and to the Vulcan committee, with the angle rotating 70 degrees clockwise. I just want to ask Abrams: What the fuck was the point of that??? It's senseless camerawork like this that makes me think he has more in common with Michael Bay than Spielberg. The only difference between him and Bay is that he's not hateful about humanity.
post #410 of 1383

I remember that shot, it was a big what the hell moment for myself, because I couldn't figure out why the big swooping dutch angle.  It reminded myself of stuff I would do with the family camcorder because I wanted to be EXCITING.  If that's not a condemnation of Abram's style, I don't know what is.

 

EDIT:

 

I also remember a cameo by Akiva Goldsman...as a Vulcan with a big grin plastered on their face.

post #411 of 1383
It's silly and pointless but it didn't hurt anything.

I guess he figures Star Trek should ALWAYS be swooping..
post #412 of 1383

Hahahahaha people actually gave this film bad remarks for not having really dumb, pointlessly "flashy" camerawork?


I guess once you take a beloved classic property and mutilate it into something more "edgy" to appeal to the lowest common denominator, it's really hard to go back.

I wonder if there's any reviews out there criticizing Simon Pegg for not being the go-to comic relief in Beyond. 
 

post #413 of 1383
Dutch-angles...no Dutch-angles....lens flares....no lens flares....it makes me no nevermind. As long as the movie gives me what I want. Star Trek '09 and STID look very similar but my reaction towards them could not be more different. One works despite it's flaws and the other is buried by them.

Sure Beyond's camerawork was more traditional and drew much less attention to itself but that was a better movie for sure..
post #414 of 1383

I'm not an expert in cinematography, but showy bullshit/style without substance annoys me to no end.  Especially when it counters the intention of a movie or scene.  I don't care for bland point and shoot journeyman stuff either, but if you're too busy throwing every cinematic trick in the book at the screen, it all becomes meaningless.

post #415 of 1383

This ad's complete "dissociation" cracks me up.

 

post #416 of 1383


I still find it so off putting that they actually used that as a tagline. I don't remember anything else being marketed like this that implied disdain for previous iterations.
post #417 of 1383

I didn't think much of the score while watching the movie. I was in a good Imax theater, so the audio experience should've been top notch.

 

It was too subdued in the mix, too. The dialogue and sound effects dominated the headroom 90% of the time. As the Enterprise spent forever breaking apart, I kept wishing the score would punctuate a moment or ratchet up the tension, but instead it just hummed away blandly.

 

Sabataage was the only time I remember the music being pushed up in the mix.

post #418 of 1383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Stockslivevan View Post



I still find it so off putting that they actually used that as a tagline. I don't remember anything else being marketed like this that implied disdain for previous iterations.

As not a huge fan of Star Trek at the time that trailer not only got me in the theater to see the movie, but subsequently made me love and understand the appeal of the series after a long time of disregarding it, all paying off with the culmination of NuTrek becoming ClassicTrek with Beyond.  Which by the way, along with Civil War is the best movie of the summer for me unless I'm forgetting something.

post #419 of 1383

You're not. It's been a particularly dreadful summer.

 

One thing I did like was that they started the Franklin, basically, by doing the old 'roll the standard car down a hill and pop the clutch' trick that many, many films have utilized before!

post #420 of 1383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Itsnotatumor View Post
 

I wonder if there's any reviews out there criticizing Simon Pegg for not being the go-to comic relief in Beyond. 

 

 

Yeah, Scotty is much more of a three dimensional character here and much less of a cartoon. I also appreciated that the script gave him genuine intelligence (such as his use of the torpedo bay to escape) rather than just have him use techno-babble all of the time as a shortcut. 

 

God, it's so nice to have a new Star Trek movie that I love. 

post #421 of 1383

Figures that the writer would pair himself with the smoking hot alien lady for half the movie.  

"Simon, shouldn't that be Kir-"

 

"No no no laddie, I've got a system here trust me."

post #422 of 1383

Ha. Well, it was either her or a tiny black-eyed creature that sneezes acid. No competition really!

post #423 of 1383

Star Trek Beyond: Twelve Things We Learned From Justin Lin and Simon Pegg

 

Some interesting things here, including the fact that the Enterprise has never had an official blueprint, and the other music considered in place of Sabotage.

 

interesting to read that it was Lin who wanted the Enterprise destroyed. It's such a pivotal moment of the movie that I can't imagine a version where it didn't happen.

 

Quote:
 Both Pegg and Lin spoke of the hectic and often stressful schedule Star Trek Beyond was given, after original director Robert Orci left the project. The film went from writing to production in two-and-a-half months – a speed Lin claims “has never been done before” on a film of this size – and the process was sometimes painful. Never more so than a disagreement over whether the Enterprise should be destroyed.

 

We had a stand-up row on the phone,” chuckles Simon Pegg, co-writer on the film (as well as starring as Chief Engineer Scotty). “A proper shouty row with each other. Me saying ‘no’ [to destroying the Enterprise], and him saying ‘yes’”.

 

Pegg argued that it had been done before, in earlier films The Search For Spock and Generations. “But the more I thought about it, and the more we talked about it, the more I realised what Justin wanted to do is remove the connective tissue that necessitates the crew stay together, and see if they stay together”.

 

Lin admits that some of their meetings were “painful”, noting that “Simon comes from a traditional way of making movies, where you write, and then you keep working on it, and only when you're ready do you shoot. Here, I come in, pitching all these crazy ideas: "we're gonna take out the Enterprise in the first act! Here's Krall!" It was a very painful way to get to know each other. But looking back, I have fond memories of the process.”

 

post #424 of 1383

How exciting, and mad respect for both guys.  Specifically Pegg for arguing against blowing up the Enterprise.  It was brilliant, and has never been as well done as this.  But it had been done. 

post #425 of 1383

Goes to show why someone like Lin is important to the movie-making process. He saw something that could be changed and fought for it, and it ultimately proved to be the right decision. I've heard JJ tends to second-guess himself a lot, and wonder whether he would have made the same decision if he'd been director. 

 

Another interesting fact from that link - Greg Grunburg is playing a character from TOS in the movie.

 

Quote:
 “I kept getting calls saying, 'what's Greg Grunberg doing?'” laughs Lin. “Finally I said, ‘he's gonna be in charge of Yorktown’. Greg comes in and says ‘I want to be Finnegan’. So we had to look up Finnegan...” As hardcore Trekkies will tell you, Finnegan first appears in The Original Series as a Starfleet Academy officer, known for his love of tormenting Kirk.
post #426 of 1383

Hahahahaha!  He was Finnegan?!?!

post #427 of 1383

Saw it last night and yeah, really enjoyed it because it actually did feel like proper Star Trek tale, and everyone seemed to be comfortable in their roles (except maybe Quinto, oddly, something felt a tad off this time round). Jaylah was great, Bones owns all the scenes, I love love loved the 'Sabotage' sequence and reuse of an old Enterprise era ship, and yes, Yorktown was magnificent. The destruction of the Enterprise, while nothing new on paper was brutal, sad and terrifying, and as a plot point worked exactly for the reasons Lin outlined, 

 

Krall was the weakest part of the film, the reveal came far too late but I appreciated that he went out a committed asshole to the very end instead of some awkward, unearned hero moment like it looked like they might have gone for when he caught sight of the glass shard.

 

I also found the use of symmetry interesting. They start with the Enterprise crew on the verge of breaking up, returning to the Federation at Yorktown and picking up an alien woman, lose their ship to the swarm, a saucer crashes into the planet, everyone's pootling about split up and lost on the surface, Kirk and Chekov reach the saucer, FLIP IT! annnnnnd...

 

..the officers are reunited, the crew are rescued, a saucer leaves the planet, the swarm is lost to the ship, they return to Yorktown and drop off an alien woman, and the Enterprise heads off back into deep space again, with its crew committed to staying together. Kinda nifty, everything basically 180s when they flip the saucer section.

 

Speaking off, what the hell, the Enterprise and Franklin in this make pretty much every ship in the OG films and TNG look like fragile garbage in comparison, they sure don't build 'em like these any more.

post #428 of 1383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentinel Red View Post

Saw it last night and yeah, really enjoyed it because it actually did feel like proper Star Trek tale, and everyone seemed to be comfortable in their roles (except maybe Quinto, oddly, something felt a tad off this time round). Jaylah was great, Bones owns all the scenes, I love love loved the 'Sabotage' sequence and reuse of an old Enterprise era ship, and yes, Yorktown was magnificent. The destruction of the Enterprise, while nothing new on paper was brutal, sad and terrifying, and as a plot point worked exactly for the reasons Lin outlined, 

Krall was the weakest part of the film, the reveal came far too late but I appreciated that he went out a committed asshole to the very end instead of some awkward, unearned hero moment like it looked like they might have gone for when he caught sight of the glass shard.

I also found the use of symmetry interesting. They start with the Enterprise crew on the verge of breaking up, returning to the Federation at Yorktown and picking up an alien woman, lose their ship to the swarm, a saucer crashes into the planet, everyone's pootling about split up and lost on the surface, Kirk and Chekov reach the saucer, FLIP IT! annnnnnd...

..the officers are reunited, the crew are rescued, a saucer leaves the planet, the swarm is lost to the ship, they return to Yorktown and drop off an alien woman, and the Enterprise heads off back into deep space again, with its crew committed to staying together. Kinda nifty, everything basically 180s when they flip the saucer section.

Speaking off, what the hell, the Enterprise and Franklin in this make pretty much every ship in the OG films and TNG look like fragile garbage in comparison, they sure don't build 'em like these any more.

Whoa, I definitely missed the symmetry but now that you point it out it's blinding. Also the Enterprise destruction sequence is one of the main scenes that's stuck with me - they really made you feel it, and I'll say again that for the brief period she was on screen, this is the best the nu1701 has looked.
post #429 of 1383

Really liked this movie, Pegg is redeemed for defending the indefensible STiD (of course he had to), but, but.....

 

I thought the theater I saw this in, a Alamo Draft House knock off, had their projector lighting turned down way too low for me to see the action properly, but from reading this thread, that seems to be a problem with the film itself. 

 

The shaky cam action didn't work for me at all, and I love it in the Bourne movies and Quantum of Solace. 

 

And the score didn't work for me at all (no more Goddamn choruses you lazy bastards!) except for the Beasties. 

 

All the above are nitpicks though: this was a real fun time in the theater. 

 

Loved Idris Elba: that poor guy can take the most nothing role and make it something. And this time he's got some meat on the bones to work with script wise, even though we don't ever really understand what exactly happened to him (which I actually quite like: it's that sense of mysteries out there where "no one has gone before"). We can surmise that whatever tech he found to keep him alive also muddled his thought processes, especially if he was assimilating alien life forms to stay alive. 

 

One interesting thing that may be something or nothing: there's an implied spirituality in this movie that intrigued me: at several points in the film characters refer to X numbers of "Lost Souls", meaning casualties. That could be a riff off Ron Moore's Battlestar Galactica, which used that term to describe people, or it could be something else. Also, the fact that Elba's character drains "life force" implies that there is something other than the tiny bio-electric charge in the bodies of the people he drains...an actual soul. I don't expect that to be addressed again, but thought it was interesting. 

 

One more nit pick: Elba's all about "Unity is your weakness", but his team is all about unity, to the point where they Cybernetwork to each other to attack the Enterprise then Yorktown. Hypocrit!

post #430 of 1383

Oh and the 10:15 AM show I saw this at was almost full. That may be because it's 115 here but still....hope this movie does well and warrants a sequel.

post #431 of 1383

A final point (for now): In the NuTrek movies the Federation is portrayed as more or less competent: In the Original Series Movies, the Federation is consistently shown to be a fundamentally incompetent, sclerotic bureaucracy. 

 

Kind of interesting how the Trek movies of the 80's and 90's reflect the mistrust of Big Government, while the new movies trust Big Government as a concept while showing how individual members of StarFleet can act evilly. 

post #432 of 1383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post
 

A final point (for now): In the NuTrek movies the Federation is portrayed as more or less competent: In the Original Series Movies, the Federation is consistently shown to be a fundamentally incompetent, sclerotic bureaucracy. 

 

Kind of interesting how the Trek movies of the 80's and 90's reflect the mistrust of Big Government, while the new movies trust Big Government as a concept while showing how individual members of StarFleet can act evilly. 


Eh while certain the Federation in Old Trek is often portrayed as you said a "fundamentally incompetent, sclerotic bureaucracy." the rest of this doesn't really ring true to me.

The Federation is so competent nearly the entire fleet is destroyed in one surprise attack in Trek 09, and by Into Darkness the Federation has been all but completely taken over by Section 31, the Star Trek equivalent of the CIA. Pretty incompetent when a relatively small part of the Federation is secretly able to pretty much take full command without anyone knowing until the damage is all but reversible.

Such as it is, Into Darkness is the most blatant anti-government story there's ever been in Star Trek. Even when we went fullblown actual conspiracy to keep the Federation from making peace with the Klingon Empire in The Undiscovered Country it was just a handful of people working together. The closest I can think of Old Trek exploring similar notions was in TNG when Federation Command had been infiltrated by evil parasitic lifeforms, or the occasional Admiral that went mad like the one really old guy that took a youth serum or whatever it was.

I think the real fundamental difference between the two is that the old series was developed over time enough that it differentiated between Starfleet and the Federation. Although sometimes the two are kind of used interchangeably in conversation for the most part we understand the Federation is a political organization, I don't think they've really made any important distinction at all between the two in nuTrek.

post #433 of 1383
There's Section 31 in DS9 and ENT, but they're portrayed as far more competent and don't go out of their way instigating wars. They don't even have an actual HQ so that they can remain spread out and anonymous. INTO DARKNESS makes them into chumps lead by some moron. They're so bad at their jobs, they put a secret dry dock in their own solar system that Scotty can easily sneak into.
post #434 of 1383

Just saw the movie again without having to deal with BARCO ESCAPE.

 

It played a lot better with a great presentation.  Though it does confirm that I don't really like much of the action beats in this movie aside from the Sabotage sequence.  Good thing that everything I enjoyed about the film wasn't related to the action!

 

I like it! 

post #435 of 1383
I saw it last night and enjoyed it, though I wouldn't say I was blown out of my chair. It was decent.

My film buff colleague at work considered this the least of the three, and I can see how that might be the case for non-Trekkies. The qualities that made this reconnect with the core Trek fanbase probably translate to the general public as "slower, more like a tv show". I must confess: part of me missed that Abrams sense of propulsion!

I don't think revealing the villain's character and motivation at the very end of the film was a very good idea. It's not like it was set up as much of a mystery, so the effect is you go through most of the film not really knowing who the baddies are or why they're doing anything. And then when you get all the info that finally turns Krall into a potentially interesting character, it's all over anyway. I'm still not sure I entirely get why he turned into an alien and renamed himself (I guess because of Fel magic or whatever?). And we have the third limp revenge motivation in a row!

In fact in terms of story, plotting, depth etc I didn't find this a huge departure from the last two. It's not really about anything, and it even does several of the exact same things that pissed fans off about the earlier ones (hokey revenge motivations, overly convenient crash landings, underwater space ships, the discovery of immortality-granting powers being treated as no big deal etc). I can't help thinking people are reacting to the lack of certain names on the credits as much as what's actually on screen.

I saw some people praising the characterisation of Kirk in this movie compared to the last two. Kirk is barely character in this movie! His intro and outros trick you into thinking he went through some kind of arc, but he goes through the bulk of the film as your standard issue competent, detached protagonist. Pine didn't seem that into it.

On the upside, of the three movies this one definitely does the best job of balancing screen time across the whole cast. Not everyone gets a story but everyone at least has their presence felt, which is nice. Also the planet (which reminded me of Lord Of The Rings a few times with the camera swooping over rocky vistas) and Yorktown station are very lovely locations, if a bit lacking in identity aside from the visuals.

I was and still am a big fan of the 2009 reboot, which for my money kicks the shit out of any Marvel film in terms of breezy action adventure delights. Now we have a trilogy I'd say I'm more or less satisfied with it overall, warts and all, and yet still a slight missed opportunity in terms of both quality and lasting popularity. It probably would've helped if this had been the second movie. If they do another one that should probably be enough to wrap the whole thing up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post

One interesting thing that may be something or nothing: there's an implied spirituality in this movie that intrigued me: at several points in the film characters refer to X numbers of "Lost Souls", meaning casualties. That could be a riff off Ron Moore's Battlestar Galactica, which used that term to describe people, or it could be something else. Also, the fact that Elba's character drains "life force" implies that there is something other than the tiny bio-electric charge in the bodies of the people he drains...an actual soul. I don't expect that to be addressed again, but thought it was interesting.

You might be right, but "souls" originates as an old nautical term.
post #436 of 1383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Itsnotatumor View Post


Such as it is, Into Darkness is the most blatant anti-government story there's ever been in Star Trek. Even when we went fullblown actual conspiracy to keep the Federation from making peace with the Klingon Empire in The Undiscovered Country it was just a handful of people working together. The closest I can think of Old Trek exploring similar notions was in TNG when Federation Command had been infiltrated by evil parasitic lifeforms, or the occasional Admiral that went mad like the one really old guy that took a youth serum or whatever it was.

Well that TNG ep originated as a 7 DAYS IN MAY story without aliens, which I would have greatly preferred.

 

ID may be blatant, but the most disturbing (and story-compelling, as in begging for a followup) stuff for me was in SEARCH FOR SPOCK when the Fed security guy tells McCoy, "sir that's a subject you shouldn't be discussing in public,' regarding Genesis. That and the subtext that Starfleet is just sweeping Kirk & crew under the rug even before he steals the E (which is something David Gerrold took from his first screening as well) have fueled my thoughts about where TOS TREK features really SHOULD have gone, which is just about the opposite of what they did in the original films.

 

I always thought that the best way for Kirk and co to represent the ideals they believed in was to go and stay rogue and go do the stuff they always did, but OUTSIDE the mantle of Starfleet. Production-wise it'd've saved a ton since you lose all the Earth and spacedock baggage and can spend on those strange new worlds instead. Part of this thought came from something I read even before SFS -- that the original storyline for ST 2 had Starfleet abandoning the 'boldly go' notion in favor of just protecting its existing worlds, which is what puts Kirk into his midlife crisis, questioning all that had gone before. Made me think of the ethical issue in THE ANDERSONVILLE TRIAL about whether you fight for the state just because it is the state, or for the principal upon which the state stands.

 

(and yeah, when I first heard about the Fuller Trek series, all these thoughts went through my head again, along with a whole miniseries idea I cooked up right after suffering through GENERATIONS about what happens with the E-B and its crew, and it basically postulated a S31 before DS9 ever dreamed it up.)

 

Wow, after reading all that, you can really tell I don't want to spend the next few hours transcribing ...

post #437 of 1383

I'm not well versed enough in behind the scenes happenings of early Trek to know a lot about all that, but I'm sure there were a lot of people throwing ideas out there that totally went against the grain of what Star Trek is about and that idea of Starfleet changing to an organization only interested in protecting their own borders honestly sounds terrible and more like some people wanted to take the series in a darker more edgy direction early on, and thankfully were vetoed on that.

post #438 of 1383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Itsnotatumor View Post
 

I'm not well versed enough in behind the scenes happenings of early Trek to know a lot about all that, but I'm sure there were a lot of people throwing ideas out there that totally went against the grain of what Star Trek is about and that idea of Starfleet changing to an organization only interested in protecting their own borders honestly sounds terrible and more like some people wanted to take the series in a darker more edgy direction early on, and thankfully were vetoed on that.


Well, the short answer about TWOK's development is they had several writers (Jack Sowards as the main writer, 2nd pilot scripter Sam Peeples turning something in that didn't even have Khan but did have Saavik, and apparently Ted Sturgeon did something on it too, in addition to Bennett himself having written a short treatment up front) and scripts and were approaching shooting without anything that totally worked on paper. So Meyer did a mash-up of what worked from each and that is what he shot. Among other elements, the whole Starfleet angle was dropped, along with an extensive in-person Kirk / Khan battle, the latter having developed PSI powers at some point, which while corny, is nowhere near as bad as ID's magic blood.)

 

As for the direction TREK took, I can only mourn (and piss&moan.) If TREK doesn't have any tangential relationship to the real world, then it doesn't work for me; that's why DS9 DOES work for me, because there are some people I understand with respect to motivation, passion and perhaps most importantly, circumstance. I would figure only a tiny percentage of people should 'get' TNG because very few people have magic box tech where you get something for nothing like the damned replicators, which always works against crediblity for me, so I've never understood its popularity. The story to tell is how we got from here to there (something ENTERPRISE failed at even more miserably, given that is what it was supposed to do, instead of recycle the boring TNG storytelling with different tech names.)

 

Also, my attachment to TOS TREK was principally the characters and their take on things, not that they worked for a particular organization. The idea they had to stay with Starfleet is such a hamstring pull, given that it didn't do anything good for the storytelling (the whole 'Kirk has to make a decision because command's reply is 3 weeks away' seems to have utterly vanished, especially in the reboot. I get the idea that M31 Andromeda is probably less than 3 weeks away in the Abramsverse, assuming you can't just up and beam there direct.) These people were largely without blood relatives anyway, so they were taking their family with them.

 

And from Roddenberry's perspective, KHAN was totally taking the thing in the darker wrong direction, so whether that took place within the auspices of a Holy benighted Starfleet or a crumbling empire incarnation would just be a matter of degree, since he was apparently disgusted with the uniforms and the 'military' feel and that Kirk vaporized an unarmed bug that came out Chekov's ear.

post #439 of 1383
A large part of what I've always liked about Trek is that it's always terribly contemporary; at its best, the franchise is a snapshot of the times. In the original series, the Federation is America idealizing itself at the height of the Cold War. In Enterprise, Archer's story arc goes from George W. Bush-era indignation that other First World civilizations think SPACE 'MERICA is barbaric, then it doubles down on the post-9/11 defensiveness by having state-sponsored Xindi terrorists commit mass murder, before evolving into a wish fulfillment fantasy about SPACE 'MERICA being recognized as a leader among the developed space nations, and building lasting alliances through shared struggle against state sponsors of space terrorism. Trek fascinates me, because art that that can serve as a time capsule and tell future generations something about the zeigeist when the art was made fascinates me.
Edited by Reasor - 7/31/16 at 5:06pm
post #440 of 1383

The Enterprise crew going rogue and leaving StarFleet is a terrible idea. 

 

Just from a practical standpoint, how would Enterprise even last beyond 5 months without replacement parts, Dilithium crystals, how many of the crew would decide to commit treason just to hang out with Kirk and get killed in every other episode (and where do they get competent replacements?) etc. 

 

Also, StarFleet and the Federation are integral to all iterations of Star Trek. The various crews of the Enterprise are meant to represent the best that StarFleet has to offer; that's the whole point. 

 

Then there's the practical thing of why would the Enterprise last a week with all of StarFleet plus every space faring race out to bring them in or destroy them? 

 

Think what would happen if the Captain of a Cruiser in the US Navy declared that he doesn't like the policy of the US Government so he's gonna just sail his heavily armed Cruiser wherever he wants and "do what's right!".

post #441 of 1383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post
 

The Enterprise crew going rogue and leaving StarFleet is a terrible idea. 

 

Just from a practical standpoint, how would Enterprise even last beyond 5 months without replacement parts, Dilithium crystals, how many of the crew would decide to commit treason just to hang out with Kirk and get killed in every other episode (and where do they get competent replacements?) etc. 

 

Also, StarFleet and the Federation are integral to all iterations of Star Trek. The various crews of the Enterprise are meant to represent the best that StarFleet has to offer; that's the whole point. 

 

Then there's the practical thing of why would the Enterprise last a week with all of StarFleet plus every space faring race out to bring them in or destroy them? 

 

Think what would happen if the Captain of a Cruiser in the US Navy declared that he doesn't like the policy of the US Government so he's gonna just sail his heavily armed Cruiser wherever he wants and "do what's right!".


I'm not talking about anybody taking the Enterprise along, it was always about the key crew in a small ship like that BirdofPrey, where you don't have to worry about the cost of staffing extras running up and down long hallways and can focus on these people and the decisions they make. Some genuine sense of 'frontier' would be welcome in Trek. 

 

Basically I was looking for STAR TREK FIREFLY since 1984, which would have been a STAR TREK GOLDEN YEARS in a way, since they'd be in their element but not tied down by logistics of portraying all this crummy earthscape stuff with its idiot blimp-hangar-in-space dock that is so screamingly terrestrial-minded in design. 

 

I haven't bought into the idea that Starfleet and Federation live up to anything near their ideals since around ST3 or so, except in some of the better-written novels, so it is much easier for me to want to follow the exploits of the people who really walked the walk. Also, based on the Bennett films, Starfleet seems filled with crummy captains and not-so-great crews -- and you see a fair amount of this in TOS too, if Ron Tracey of THE OMEGA GLORY is any indication (a Roddenberry script, that one!)  In fact, it'd be these folks who would probably find the like-minded souls from other worlds and bring about some actual unity, rather than the Fed policymakers (who again, seem ineffectual as Hell in TOS), who REALLY make me wonder how we get from where we are to any sort of idyllic future.

 

And if you can't imagine an interesting dramatic situation or seventy where a small ship can get into scrapes while exploring the Trek universe, then you have been suffering through BermanTrek or been blinded by AbramsTrek too long.

post #442 of 1383

Yeah all those TOS characters were middle aged or beyond by the end of Star Trek 6, so the idea that they'd hijack a Bird of Prey and galavant around the galaxy like a bunch of teenagers won't fly. 

 

Make it a younger group, hell maybe even a group of Maquis, and you have something. 

post #443 of 1383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post
 

Yeah all those TOS characters were middle aged or beyond by the end of Star Trek 6, so the idea that they'd hijack a Bird of Prey and galavant around the galaxy like a bunch of teenagers won't fly.

Ya, Shatner and Nimoy were both 51 when The Wrath of Khan was released, Deforrest Kelley was 62 to give you an idea of the state of the cast at the time. There's just no way that would have worked for that reason alone. The films we did have were enough of a stretch as they were.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kmart View Post

 

As for the direction TREK took, I can only mourn (and piss&moan.) If TREK doesn't have any tangential relationship to the real world, then it doesn't work for me; that's why DS9 DOES work for me, because there are some people I understand with respect to motivation, passion and perhaps most importantly, circumstance. I would figure only a tiny percentage of people should 'get' TNG because very few people have magic box tech where you get something for nothing like the damned replicators, which always works against crediblity for me, so I've never understood its popularity.

The fact you feel like you could more relate to a series where a bunch of old geezers steal an alien ship and go off on adventures aside, the Next Generation wasn't about people who had "magic boxes" from which they could get any type of food they wanted anymore than TOS was about people who had hand held communication devices. At any rate, I'm just gonna have to revoke your Star Trek credentials because you sounds like you don't really know a lot about the series. Replicators are actually based on the same technology as transporters (and there's a lot of real science tied into that as well, essentially if a transporter were possible irl it would be creating a copy of someone rather than actually transporting material from one place to another, so it's not just Trek technogarble), so if you can accept one you have already accepted the other. Also I don't know if you were aware but all of your complaints about TNG existed in DS9,  the series overlap eachother.

post #444 of 1383
Just occurred to me about Spock's decision to procreate with Vulcans in order to repopulate the species. Are we to assume Spock's first wife T'Pring is actually among the dead or is she still out there? I think that would have been an interesting element for BEYOND to acknowledge. Spock finds out she's alive and well and this is what rocks the relationship with Uhura, him feeling obligated to carry out that marriage (until Stonn comes into the picture) so to help repopulate the species. I'm kind of surprised this has been overlooked, given that Pegg went deep into the mythology for BEYOND, unless she's really supposed to be dead.
post #445 of 1383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Itsnotatumor View Post
 

Ya, Shatner and Nimoy were both 51 when The Wrath of Khan was released, Deforrest Kelley was 62 to give you an idea of the state of the cast at the time. There's just no way that would have worked for that reason alone. The films we did have were enough of a stretch as they were.

 

The fact you feel like you could more relate to a series where a bunch of old geezers steal an alien ship and go off on adventures aside, the Next Generation wasn't about people who had "magic boxes" from which they could get any type of food they wanted anymore than TOS was about people who had hand held communication devices. At any rate, I'm just gonna have to revoke your Star Trek credentials because you sounds like you don't really know a lot about the series. Replicators are actually based on the same technology as transporters (and there's a lot of real science tied into that as well, essentially if a transporter were possible irl it would be creating a copy of someone rather than actually transporting material from one place to another, so it's not just Trek technogarble), so if you can accept one you have already accepted the other. Also I don't know if you were aware but all of your complaints about TNG existed in DS9,  the series overlap eachother.


The point being that DS9 managed to skill its way around some of these idiot notions, whereas TNG wallowed in them.

 

Getting something for nothing (which is an admittedly simplistic view of TNG's magic-box replication tech) is a dramatic cheat, and it puts the whole series at a much greater remove from relatability.

 

I think you're getting WAY ahead of yourself in expecting that tech to be expecting that tech anytime soon, but I'm not even debating the veracity, but just the storytelling problems inherent when dealing with same. One of my pitches to TNG (when they were actively looking for environmental issues stories in 91, something I guess they didn't actually get to until season 7) was that they discover replication is bad for space-time, as in, fucking up the universe. Would have totally torn up how easy things were for them from then on out, so of course they didn't embrace it (they didn't exactly respect what they DID wind up doing with warp drive messing up the universe either.) I am not claiming any great expertise on this, just figured it would be a riff on Asimov's THE GODS THEMSELVES, where a  seeming free-energy system is actually in the process of setting one universe on the path to destruction while letting things be just hunky-dory in the parallel universe.

 

If it makes you feel any more secure in your righteousness over what is and isn't trek and how my views of it are not valid, I also thought the major misstep in DS9 was not making it a maquis series, as I found that group to be more interesting by far than the whole cluster of aliens in the other quadrant, and often more likeable than Starfleet/Feds, who have to go into something I think of as hypocrite mode to justify their own actions and inactions. I also find the most potential for Trek is in the period after TUC, when there are still frontier aspects to exploration, and wish ST 09 and STID had never happened just as much as I wish the same for VOYAGER and ENTERPRISE, as they each represent extremes in storytelling at different ends -- stale&boring or empty pyrotechnics -- -- of the spectrum, none of which worked for me. 

 

As far as TREK street cred being revoked, I'm not sure I should be upset about that. I have written professionally about TREK several times (four pieces about BEYOND in International Cinematographers Guild and HD VIDEO PRO magazine, plus long articles about TUC, GEN, FC & INS VFX work for Cinefex), but except for a trek fan site that misrepresented me (apparently in a favorable way, if you can believe that) as a 'trekkie' I don't think I've ever made any claims in that area, though I do think there should be some scholarship in journalism instead of the 'print the legend' shit that makes up too much of trek's behind the scenes history. 

post #446 of 1383

I think Voyager's replicator rations were a great way of getting around the silliness.

 

Maybe I'm biased, I was always more of a Voyager fan (although I like TNG, never really watched DS9).

post #447 of 1383
Giving VOY a chef, as replicators could be depleted over time, was one of the few good touches on that show. Literally explaining that the holodeck functions on its own power source and is incompatible with the rest of the ship was duuuuuumb and just a way for the writers to justify having a functioning holodeck on a ship that is on reserves.
post #448 of 1383
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmart View Post
 


The point being that DS9 managed to skill its way around some of these idiot notions, whereas TNG wallowed in them.

 

Getting something for nothing (which is an admittedly simplistic view of TNG's magic-box replication tech) is a dramatic cheat, and it puts the whole series at a much greater remove from relatability.

 

 

I think you're getting WAY ahead of yourself in expecting that tech to be expecting that tech anytime soon, but I'm not even debating the veracity, but just the storytelling problems inherent when dealing with same. One of my pitches to TNG (when they were actively looking for environmental issues stories in 91, something I guess they didn't actually get to until season 7) was that they discover replication is bad for space-time, as in, fucking up the universe. Would have totally torn up how easy things were for them from then on out, so of course they didn't embrace it (they didn't exactly respect what they DID wind up doing with warp drive messing up the universe either.) I am not claiming any great expertise on this, just figured it would be a riff on Asimov's THE GODS THEMSELVES, where a  seeming free-energy system is actually in the process of setting one universe on the path to destruction while letting things be just hunky-dory in the parallel universe.

 

If it makes you feel any more secure in your righteousness over what is and isn't trek and how my views of it are not valid, I also thought the major misstep in DS9 was not making it a maquis series, as I found that group to be more interesting by far than the whole cluster of aliens in the other quadrant, and often more likeable than Starfleet/Feds, who have to go into something I think of as hypocrite mode to justify their own actions and inactions. I also find the most potential for Trek is in the period after TUC, when there are still frontier aspects to exploration, and wish ST 09 and STID had never happened just as much as I wish the same for VOYAGER and ENTERPRISE, as they each represent extremes in storytelling at different ends -- stale&boring or empty pyrotechnics -- -- of the spectrum, none of which worked for me. 

 

As far as TREK street cred being revoked, I'm not sure I should be upset about that. I have written professionally about TREK several times (four pieces about BEYOND in International Cinematographers Guild and HD VIDEO PRO magazine, plus long articles about TUC, GEN, FC & INS VFX work for Cinefex), but except for a trek fan site that misrepresented me (apparently in a favorable way, if you can believe that) as a 'trekkie' I don't think I've ever made any claims in that area, though I do think there should be some scholarship in journalism instead of the 'print the legend' shit that makes up too much of trek's behind the scenes history. 

 

Look I'm not trying to be rude you're certainly not the first person I've encountered that had this issue with TNG, but my issue is that you keep insisting you're right. You're certainly welcome to your opinion but that's what it is. Me, I had no issue with the idea of replicator technology because the tech was explained as much as it needed to be in the within the first season of TNG, the 7th episode of the series in fact, and it never was just some machine that produced something out of nothing, rather it was a form of transporter technology that reforms junk matter, breaking it down to it's base molecular level and forming it into useful material including food and clothing (it does have some limitations however, such as it can't recreate dylithium crystals and so on). That's perfectly fine in the world that these stories take place in, and I would rather argue that the attempts subsequent series took to step back from that were actually cheap gimmicks, where as this was just simply part of the setting and at that a rather important part for the setting to even work really, being a future where energy is unlimited, currency is a thing of the past and so on.

I have my own set of issues with TNG, personally I don't feel the show has aged very well at all (a lot of that has to do with how messy the show was behind the scenes, some 20+ writers came and left the show in its first 3 seasons) but I don't think at all that it's central premise was the issue then or now, and it seems to me that you're really saying that you're not a fan of the central premise of that show, which was about showing us what a pristine future where the technological limits of today have been overcome to usher in a more or less utopian society, might be like.

Also the idea of taking Trek and deconstructing it to the point of making it about a ship or something that detracts from the Federation goes very much against the core of what Star Trek is really about. I don't know if you're a big fan of NASA or a military buff, but if you were you'd probably get a lot more out of Star Trek in general. I understand that very well because my great grandfather was a Colonel in the Signal Corp, actually part of the original team that eventually became the US Air Force and served as a Colonel in both World Wars, my Grandpa (father's father) was actually a very highly decorated military chef (the first executive chef at the Air Force Academy, which is the position that oversees all Air Force entertainment) and a lot of my other family served in high and low ranking positions in the Air Forces from it's earliest days when it was the Signal Corp on, Roddenberry himself was a Captain in the Army Air Forces in WW2. And so those experiences and that influence are in the very DNA of the show, all the way down to the idea that through these type of developments in the future we'll eventually have replicators and such.


Edited by Itsnotatumor - 8/2/16 at 6:55am
post #449 of 1383

Voyager was a GREAT idea for a Trek series. kinda tragic that its writers and characters (with a couple exceptions) were hot garbage.

post #450 of 1383

remember "Tuvix"?

 

LOLz

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