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 11

post #501 of 1380
I agree there's very little of the Kirk/Spock stuff happening in this film, though it's not such a detriment to me because there had been as many TOS adventures with them working apart as there were the other, and a lot of the times when they were apart it was Spock/Bones adventures we got where they had to work/depend on each other without Kirk in the middle playing ref, and I consider it a highlight in this film.

I don't want so much of the Prime cast sticking out either because I want this cast to stand on their own (that Spock cameo in INTO DARKNESS was awful), but I let it slide in this instance because I thought it was mostly a touching nod to Nimoy's passing. They didn't need to go there, but they made it work. At least for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C View Post

Gotta love how trekkies can watch Pine's bored, half-awake performance in Beyond and be like "Yes! The real Star Trek's back".

I get that Pine is playing that in the beginning, but I wouldn't say that of his overall performance or even regard it as a negative. I prefer Pine finally playing the more tempered Kirk over the Red Bull fueled jerk from the last two, though I understand many loved his nuKirk in those films for whatever reason. I actually buy that the asshole that was in those first two films would become the bored guy we see in the beginning, and that he needs to have a reason for staying in Starfleet beyond "I'll take your dare, bro!"
post #502 of 1380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Stockslivevan View Post

I agree there's very little of the Kirk/Spock stuff happening in this film, though it's not such a detriment to me because there had been as many TOS adventures with them working apart as there were the other, and a lot of the times when they were apart it was Spock/Bones adventures we got where they had to work/depend on each other without Kirk in the middle playing ref, and I consider it a highlight in this film.

 

I would probably be more accepting of the difference if the movie didn't make it a big point to tell us TWICE that Kirk would be lost without Spock...but fails in any way to actually show this to be true.

post #503 of 1380
There is, but as mondguy said there's only those few moments we're given like Kirk's genuine concern over Spock looking preoccupied. I'm willing to forgive a lot of the flaws in this film because of the behind the scenes turmoil with Pegg and Lin having to work from scratch in a short amount of time.

Again, I'm just shell shocked that I got a film that I genuinely like. It's not a great Trek film, but merely being the first one I enjoy since the 90s has an impact on my enthusiasm over it.
post #504 of 1380

I need to see it again to land on the "mostly good" or "mostly crap" side. A big factor for me was our theater's sound system was complete shit. My car has more surround sound and aural depth. It sounded really flat, which hurt the film's presentation. Combined with how hard the chase/fight scenes were to follow inside Enterprise, and it seriously affected quality of experience.

post #505 of 1380
Maybe with proper sound system it will play as well as the dock scene!
post #506 of 1380

We can only hope for that level of effectiveness.

post #507 of 1380

Just saw this today, liked it a great deal. The most/first substantial movie with this cast. And the first where the character beats and interactions felt right to me, Bones in particular. Though possibly Uhura felt out of place sometimes in her role as "person who the villain explains their plan to." Poor poor blue shirt alien lady...save the artifact in your weird hair, get disintegrated for your trouble.

 

Jaylah was great, and I don't just mean the actor was great--she's a really well-designed alien, like something out of a comic book involving scavenging postapocalyptic wastelands.

 

Krall, on the other hand...I dunno, he looked like Scorpius from Farscape without the black leather. Some aesthetics work better in Trek than others...like really elaborate aliens feel out of place to me in Trek. Personal thing.

 

I could not follow the scene where Kirk and Chekhov are sliding down the Enterprise and not falling to their deaths and somehow not getting squished like bad alien lady was. That was the only action bit that stood out for me as really not working. The Sabotage bit, on the other hand, worked really well. The prolonged destruction of the Enterprise worked well, though I feel like Trek science should be sufficiently advanced

 

Did we get a scientific gobbledygook explanation for why they didn't just beam the artifact outside Yorktown? I know I shouldn't care about that. Oh, Yorktown was fantastic-looking by the way, skyscrapers and rivers inside a space station....good old science fictionny wonder.

 

I want to see this again, which is a good sign for me continuing to like this film. I'm not a huge TOS fan (will we ever get a New Generation reboot? that's my iconic cast)--actually I guess I'm more of a fan of the TOS movies than the show. And this definitely felt like a good TOS movie.

post #508 of 1380
Lots of concept art here. Including the more or less "final" design of the new Enterprise.

http://trekcore.com/blog/2016/08/stunning-new-star-trek-beyond-concept-art-released/
post #509 of 1380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Stockslivevan View Post

Either way, I'm glad his Kirk changed for BEYOND.

Also, Roberto Orci speaks! He's been tweeting about what his own ideas for Trek 3 were before Paramount booted him off the project. It pretty much confirms everything we've heard.

“Chase for doohickey against Annunaki to reset back to prime timeline. Theme: The Last temptation of Kirk And Spock”
"It's the temptation. Restore Vulcan, Kirks Father, and Spock's mother? Or play the hand they are dealt"
"Only with help of Prime Kirk, who they meet on the adventure, can they solve the dilemma. "​


Sounds like he wanted to do some DAYS OF FUTURE PAST riff.

Given how (relatively) easy and harmful time travel is in the Trek universe, you'd think it would be a more serious issue. In other words, purposefully going back in time should be a crime on the level of--or perhaps beyond--violating the Prime Directive. Forget Section 31--the Department of Temporal Investigations (or whatever it was) should be the Federation's real black ops organization.

I kinda like Orci's idea for Trek 4, except for his including old Kirk (not sure how they would encounter him -- he's rather dead (!) and Shatner is too old to portray Kirk in a time period prior to the character's death. It would really be interesting to see Vulcans as the villains. However, the conclusion would be obvious--much like Roddenberry's discarded script where the Klingons somehow go back in time and prevent the JFK assassination. You know the film can't leave JFK alive, just like you know the NuTrek characters aren't going to erase what they know.
post #510 of 1380
If you wanted a renegade Vulcan to try to manipulate time to restore the home world, can't imagine a better excuse to bring back Sybok. For once we wouldn't need a full fledged villain but a broken man desperate to get his home back. Use VOYAGER's "Year of Hell" as the basis with the antagonist trying to change the timeline but it has unpredictable effects. Kirk and Spock could restore Vulcan, but would it be back to the way it was or could they inadvertently cause a timeline that's even worse when attempting?
post #511 of 1380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Stockslivevan View Post

I agree there's very little of the Kirk/Spock stuff happening in this film, though it's not such a detriment to me because there had been as many TOS adventures with them working apart as there were the other, and a lot of the times when they were apart it was Spock/Bones adventures we got where they had to work/depend on each other without Kirk in the middle playing ref, and I consider it a highlight in this film.

I think we could have used one scene between Kirk and Spock  (perhaps in place of the drink Kirk and Bones share) early in the film to help cement things before the ship was destroyed, but it's totally the premise of the film to test how well the crew stays together when they don't have their ship. That's the whole point of having that conversation with Spock and Bones where Spock asks him what he thinks Kirk would do if he were to leave the ship. The notion that Kirk wouldn't know what to do without him isn't brought up again until Kirk himself says it later in the film when Spock comes up with their plan to destroy the swarm. Whether or not that worked for everyone, that was literally the premise of the film playing out right there.

 

Quote:
 I don't want so much of the Prime cast sticking out either because I want this cast to stand on their own (that Spock cameo in INTO DARKNESS was awful), but I let it slide in this instance because I thought it was mostly a touching nod to Nimoy's passing. They didn't need to go there, but they made it work. At least for me.

I think their inclusion of Spock Prime here was tasteful and had no objection to it, whereas Into Darkness set up the most stupid premise that Spock could just call up Spock Prime whenever they ran into a problem to see if he might have had the same issue. It was just plain stupid. That said I think the film meant to signify that Spock was breaking up with Uhura because he was going off to Vulcan to make babies but I'm pretty sure that he doesn't find out about Spock Prime dying until after he's broken up with her. That seemed pretty half baked.

Quote:

 I get that Pine is playing that in the beginning, but I wouldn't say that of his overall performance or even regard it as a negative. I prefer Pine finally playing the more tempered Kirk over the Red Bull fueled jerk from the last two, though I understand many loved his nuKirk in those films for whatever reason. I actually buy that the asshole that was in those first two films would become the bored guy we see in the beginning, and that he needs to have a reason for staying in Starfleet beyond "I'll take your dare, bro!"

Ya pretty much all this. The beginning of the film sets up the notion fairly well that things aboard the USS Enterprise have become very routine and more or less uneventful during their five year mission, and uses that idea well to do away with old frat boy Kirk. For me, it's about as smooth a transition as we could have hoped for.

 


Edited by Itsnotatumor - 8/5/16 at 2:40am
post #512 of 1380

So, I've seen the movie twice and a strange thing occurred to me last night:  If a non-starfleet alien and a handful of crewmembers can get the Franklin going again after approximately 100 years, why couldn't Edison and his two crewmen do the same thing right after they crashed?  Granted, Jayla was working on the ship for years, but all of a sudden Scotty shows up and the ship is capable of liftoff in a couple of days.  Is there something I missed in the film explaining specifically why Scotty could get the ship functioning when the actual trained crew of the Franklin couldn't?  

post #513 of 1380
Quote:
Originally Posted by littlenomad View Post

So, I've seen the movie twice and a strange thing occurred to me last night:  If a non-starfleet alien and a handful of crewmembers can get the Franklin going again after approximately 100 years, why couldn't Edison and his two crewmen do the same thing right after they crashed?  Granted, Jayla was working on the ship for years, but all of a sudden Scotty shows up and the ship is capable of liftoff in a couple of days.  Is there something I missed in the film explaining specifically why Scotty could get the ship functioning when the actual trained crew of the Franklin couldn't?  

I thought the implication was that while sure it had fallen into disrepair over the last 100 years, it was basically just grounded with no way to get it going. I mean, the Cap was still recording his log so they had power at least. Also they'd lost most or all of their crew by that point, right? My takeaway was Scotty got the power back up but it was Sulu's insane idea that got them flying again.
post #514 of 1380

I guess overall the implication is that the Frankin crew gave up and retreated into blaming the Federation for their problem, whereas they could have stuck with it a little while longer and escaped by themselves.  This might translate into another "big idea" of the film:  that instead of making its citizens "weak," the Federation actually fostered teamwork and critical thinking.  The latter-day Starfleet crew was much more intellectually and psychologically prepared to deal with a crisis than the hardened militarry commandos of years past.  

post #515 of 1380
Quote:
Originally Posted by littlenomad View Post
 

I guess overall the implication is that the Frankin crew gave up and retreated into blaming the Federation for their problem, whereas they could have stuck with it a little while longer and escaped by themselves.  This might translate into another "big idea" of the film:  that instead of making its citizens "weak," the Federation actually fostered teamwork and critical thinking.  The latter-day Starfleet crew was much more intellectually and psychologically prepared to deal with a crisis than the hardened militarry commandos of years past.  


While I think part of what you talk about is also alluded in the film, when they show Edison's logs later on in the film he specifically mentions that his entire crew is lost.

Also I don't have an issue buying that Scotty would have an easier time fixing that ship than they do, hell he could probably built that entire ship out of scratch with at least some parts and proper tools to work with, given enough time.

post #516 of 1380
Scotty's truly a miracle worker, and when you have Sulu at the helm you're set.
post #517 of 1380

I hadn't thought about it, but, yeah teamwork again was the key in restarting the Franklin. Scotty got it running, but it took Sulu's hunch and courage to get it to fly.

 

I wasn't emotionally engaged with the film much but the more it's discussed here, the more I admire Pegg's script. 

post #518 of 1380

Yeah, in general I thought the movie was fine.  But I do admire it for the little things that felt right (which I say as someone who is not a fan of Trek overall).  It felt like it was being made in good faith.

post #519 of 1380
Fuck, Orci said he started writing STID in late 2009, so he had three whole years to get that shit ready and polished before filming. Pegg had six months and delivered something more coherent.
post #520 of 1380

Not to diminish Pegg's contribution but Doug Jung also deserves some praise as the script's co-author. Apparently he wrote two episodes of Banshee - a show that I very much enjoyed - and so I'm now keeping an eye on his next project, God Particle, to see how it turns out. 

post #521 of 1380

Right. I just couldn't remember Jung's name or be bothered to look it up. Both of them deserve a lot of credit for a tight, thematically consistent script.

 

And Stocks' point is so much there in contrasting the time involved vs the quality of the results.

post #522 of 1380

Some people can do better work with a fire under their ass!  Less time to second guess yourself!

post #523 of 1380

JJ is a second guesser, or so I read somewhere. 

post #524 of 1380
A Trek buddy wrote this likely scenario of STID's development that I have to share. It's pretty much my image of Bad Robut.

Quote:
Orci: Oh shit, dude.

Kurtz: What? *snorts a line*

Orci: We F***IN' killed Kirk n shit.

Kurtz: Yeah, it's like what happened in the orginal Star Trek II, but we reversed it because we're clever.

Orci: But he's still dead at the end.

Kurtz: Oh fuck.

Orci: Fuck.

Lindelof: Hey, I just wrote another brilliant movie where everything made sense called "Prometheus".

Orci: Ah, yeah. I tried to watch that Alien movie but it was boring and gay.

Lindelof: Well, Prometheus had some blood shit.

Orci: Blood shit?

Lindelof: Yeah, blood shit. Maybe the doctor guy what's his name, he can put Khan's blood shit in into Kirk because Khan is an X-Men and it'll make him alive and shit.

Orci: Shyyiiiiit.

Kurtz: Fuck.

ABRAMS enters.

Abrams: Where' my fucking reflectors? I want my god damn flare!

Orci: Dude, we finished the script n shit.

Abrams: I don't give a fuck about a script.
post #525 of 1380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Itsnotatumor View Post
 


While I think part of what you talk about is also alluded in the film, when they show Edison's logs later on in the film he specifically mentions that his entire crew is lost.

Also I don't have an issue buying that Scotty would have an easier time fixing that ship than they do, hell he could probably built that entire ship out of scratch with at least some parts and proper tools to work with, given enough time.

Actually, there were three of them.  Edison and two other survivors:  The female who lures Kirk & Co. to the planet, plus the second-in-command that fights Jayla.  I know, not a lot of people to run a ship, but just a handful of our heroes got the ship operational again.  

post #526 of 1380
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSaxon View Post
 

JJ is a second guesser, or so I read somewhere. 

I've heard the same from someone who knew people at ILM back in the MI3/Trek 09 days.

 

Really really nice guy.  Really indecisive.

 

 

Oh, I on the second viewing, I noticed that JOE TASLIM was Krall's second-in-command.  Taslim was awesome as the squad leader in THE RAID and had worked with Lin on Furious 6 as one of Shaw's henchmen that beats up on Sung Kang and Tyrese.

 

And Danny Pudi was one of the alien goons that were threatening Scotty.

post #527 of 1380
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
 

Really really nice guy.  Really indecisive.

 

Yeah. Probably why he flourished with Disney telling him what to do over on TFA.

post #528 of 1380

did he though?

 

did he flourish?

post #529 of 1380

Ohohohoho. I'm not falling for your "Let's start a Star Wars conversation in this thread" trickery!

post #530 of 1380
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

did he though?

did he flourish?

A good question.

For another time.
post #531 of 1380

very well

post #532 of 1380

live long and very well

post #533 of 1380

very well and prosper

post #534 of 1380
Just seen this.

Better constructed and a more solid adventure than either of the previous two, but it's still not even close to the essential camaraderie of the older films. The one scene that captured something close was the Bones/Kirk scene at the beginning and that felt like a rip off of the similar scene in WoK.

The Franklin was very cool, nice to see another big habitat, and the scaling to the Enterprise was impressive. The first act destruction of the Enterprise managed to not feel like too much of a retread of the umpteen other times it has happened.

Villain was miles better than either Nero or nu-Khan, but the motivation was still quite murky. Was it a Third Man style conflict vs peace debate, a man vengeful at having been left for dead, or a castaway gone bonkers? What was he hoping to achieve by killing the population of the Franklin? The script seemed to want to leave all three possible but I guess they figured the bigger thematic motivation was more Trekky so that stuck in the final scene between Kirk and Krall.

I liked Kirk's line about dying so others can live being the world he was born into. That elevated things.

Overall, a decent marriage of the humor of the first film with something approaching a plot that made some sense and was about something. Pegg and his co-writer should do the next one.

Oh? But the Sabotage bit? Eye rolling in the extreme. When they did the VHF dialogue I turned to my friend and said I hope they aren't going to do Sabotage. And then, the vicar did indeed drop his trousers...

Bah.
post #535 of 1380
The Kirk/Bones scene goes a bit further than TWOK. TOS used to have these scenes of the two having a heart to heart with a drink. Justin Lin actually cited the Pike/Boyce scene from the pilot as a strong influence, as that is also featuring a captain in a moment of self doubt, contemplating about leaving Starfleet.

Certainly plays a lot better than just a direct copy of the TWOK ending right down to the dialogue.
post #536 of 1380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Stockslivevan View Post

The Kirk/Bones scene goes a bit further than TWOK. TOS used to have these scenes of the two having a heart to heart with a drink. Justin Lin actually cited the Pike/Boyce scene from the pilot as a strong influence, as that is also featuring a captain in a moment of self doubt, contemplating about leaving Starfleet.

Certainly plays a lot better than just a direct copy of the TWOK ending right down to the dialogue.

Ah, there you go then. Mea culpa. I must have been confused by Bones offering fancy liquor to Kirk on his birthday which he is reluctant to celebrate, and which prompts a chat revealing that Kirk is unsure of his place in the world.
post #537 of 1380

Saw it.  I think it actually works better if you forget the first two films in the universe exist.  Otherwise, you're looking at the third straight movie in which a monomaniacal villain with obscure revenge motives and a muddled backstory attempts mass destruction on colonies.

 

I thought the performances were great, although I was disappointed that Kirk, yet again, spends so much of the movie not being a captain of a starship or interacting with crewmates, and instead is an action hero.  Easily the best dialogue/script of the three reboot films. 

 

I would sure like one of these movies to revolve mostly around SPACE, rather than planets.  Why is it Balance of Terror, a first season Star Trek TOS episode, managed to be a more gripping portrayal of space-based drama/action than any of the films except Wrath of Khan or Undiscovered Country?  Why is there this constant need to blow up the ship at the first opportunity so we can have fistfights and mano a mano blaster battles? 

 

Well done with the reveal of Spock's death.  Real pathos from Quinto. 

 

How this movie cost 185 million is beyond me.  A lot of completely unnecessary special effects when location shooting would have been just fine, is my guess. 

 

Justin Lin's direction was nausea inducing at times.  How many shots involve the camera twisting in an unnatural way to get bizarre camera angles?  A large chunk of the action scenes are incoherent.  I'm really not a fan of the "swarm" presentation of the enemy ships.  It is a ludicrous concept, but maybe a different presentation could have made it work.  Instead, it's basically the equivalent of white noise on the screen. 

 

"Tore my shirt again."  LMAO.


Edited by Overlord - 8/8/16 at 2:50pm
post #538 of 1380
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhp1608 View Post

Oh? But the Sabotage bit? Eye rolling in the extreme. When they did the VHF dialogue I turned to my friend and said I hope they aren't going to do Sabotage. And then, the vicar did indeed drop his trousers...

Bah.

 

Nooooo, it was great! I rolled my eyes when they used that song in the first Nu-Trek movie but at least they did something interesting with it here. 

post #539 of 1380
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSaxon View Post
 

 

Nooooo, it was great! I rolled my eyes when they used that song in the first Nu-Trek movie but at least they did something interesting with it here. 

 

Horses for courses. I felt it was shoehorned in the first time, then doubled down on this time around. Pegg and Lin may have chuckled to themselves when they wrote it, and I can see how it riffs on the sort of Trekkie techno-babble solutions, solves their situation in-film with ostensible intelligence and thinking outside the box, and gives us proto-middle aged viewers the chance to say "I got that reference", but it still throbbed painfully like a stubbed toe and took me out as much as the few references to Prime Spock. 

 

I can totally see how someone might appreciate them owning some of the flaws in NuTrek's conception and see it as making lemonade out of lemons, in both cases, but it was too much for me.

post #540 of 1380

This film had some of the most poorly staged action I've seen in a motion-picture in sometime. The interior fight scenes during the Enterprise raid are done in cramped medium and close-ups shots, and there's so much unnecessary editing. The giant CGI set-pieces are just a mess too, and full of hall-mark modern block-buster issues. Roving CGI camera, everything moving too fast giving it the quality of weightlessness, and poor geographic establishment. That entire starship chase through Yorktown is a nightmare.

 

I also though the cast splitting up highlighted the strengths and weaknesses of each prospective member. Sulu and Uhura were gloomy bores, while I’d kill for a Bones and Spock film. Chris Pine is still such a void and lacks any time of presence as a captain.

 

It’s not all bad, but it’s aggressively OK to the point where I felt bummed out about paying for it when I could have just half-watched it on cable while doing laundry a couple years from now.

post #541 of 1380
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhp1608 View Post

 

Trekkie techno-babble solutions, solves their situation in-film with ostensible intelligence and thinking outside the box,

 

Was it just me or was there a lot more 'techno-babble' in Beyond than in past movies?

post #542 of 1380
Quote:
This film had some of the most poorly staged action I've seen in a motion-picture in sometime. The interior fight scenes during the Enterprise raid are done in cramped medium and close-ups shots, and there's so much unnecessary editing. The giant CGI set-pieces are just a mess too, and full of hall-mark modern block-buster issues. Roving CGI camera, everything moving too fast giving it the quality of weightlessness, and poor geographic establishment. That entire starship chase through Yorktown is a nightmare.

It's weird, because I would totally apply this to the mess that are the Abrams films yet I actually had a pretty easy time following on what was going on in this film and never felt distracted by the camerawork. I didn't even get that some scenes were too dark like others are saying.

I'll have to pay more attention to what exactly about his use of the camera is dizzying for others when I get this on blu.
post #543 of 1380

The chase/fight scenes that took place on board the enterprise were fucking terrible. I couldn't follow the action at all. Hyper-shaky cam, poorly lit shots and scenes, and no sense of geography at all. The outdoor and in-space sequences were just fine.

post #544 of 1380
During the attack by the bees or when checking the wrecked saucer or both? I can see that complaint for the latter cause it happens so quickly and is again in dark corridors.

As for shakycam, this is no where near shakycam level of Abrams where he literally had people hold onto the cameras and frantically shake them so hard and fast. The behind the scenes stuff showcasing that is so funny and sad. Poor cameras.
post #545 of 1380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Stockslivevan View Post

During the attack by the bees or when checking the wrecked saucer or both? I can see that complaint for the latter cause it happens so quickly and is again in dark corridors.

 

Both. The latter sequence was worse, but they were both essentially visually indecipherable for me. I initially willing to chalk up to my old man eyes and a likely underlit projection lamp, but seeing enough folks make the same complaint tells me it wasn't just me.

post #546 of 1380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Stockslivevan View Post


It's weird, because I would totally apply this to the mess that are the Abrams films yet I actually had a pretty easy time following on what was going on in this film and never felt distracted by the camerawork. I didn't even get that some scenes were too dark like others are saying.

I'll have to pay more attention to what exactly about his use of the camera is dizzying for others when I get this on blu.

Interesting. I was extremely distracted by the camerwork for the first 30 minutes. Every single shot in the Enterprise felt like it was on a spinning rig. Zero gravity dutch angles?

post #547 of 1380
Again, which is what I think of Abrams flicks!

Jump a minute in this video and this is the kind of camerawork that really perplexes me. Unnecessary camera movement, especially that twisting shot coming behind Spock.

post #548 of 1380

Stupid camera work aside, it's a shame the rest of the nuTrek series hasn't done Spock half as well as that two minute clip.

post #549 of 1380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Stockslivevan View Post

Again, which is what I think of Abrams flicks!

Jump a minute in this video and this is the kind of camerawork that really perplexes me. Unnecessary camera movement, especially that twisting shot coming behind Spock.

You say, "Why?" Abrams says, "Why not?"

post #550 of 1380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Itsnotatumor View Post
 


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'm a total NASA kid, wasn't yet 9 when Apollo XI happened, had my mind blown and cinematic sensibilities overwhelmed the year before with 2001. But that also means that I went through what followed, which makes me think 'two steps forward, two steps back and to the left' is often the path to alleged progress. I can admire the idealism of Trek, but think seeing some of the hard steps taken to get there would be more inspirational than just clicking heels together and having the semi-utopia appear.

 

As for military stuff, I read it, but since nobody seems inclined to do ASSAULT ON THE LIBERTY as a film (which, politics included OR apart, is still a great sea story), I try not to be too inspired by it (though the spec I sent in  to NextGen -- the one that actually got me in to pitch there, as opposed to the 'hard science fiction' one  -- was inspired by that book.)

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