Star Trek Beyond **SPOILERS FROM POST 566 ONWARD**

Mickeroo

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Ah, okay. But how were the alien ships supposed to receive radio waves or was it simply the signal being sent out that was supposed to be enough.

Must see what the wider internet make of it...

That's all explained in the build up to the scene using the trademark star trek techo-science gibberish

strandroad

FunLover18 wrote: »

I completely forgot that was her field of expertise, was it mentioned in the film? I genuinely can't remember.

She's a communications expert on board, in the movie she is also asked to patch communication etc. so it should be possible to deduct even if you missed the original series or both previous movies (although to be fair it's possibly quick enough to miss).

Avatar MIA

Mickeroo wrote: »

That's all explained in the build up to the scene using the trademark star trek techo-science gibberish

I get that technique is employed, and maybe it's because they did use somewhat understandable technology - VHF radio frequencies - that it comes across as a 'Jump the Shark' moment.

Here we have a vastly superior force (able to decimate Kirk's starship with ease) being destroyed by the use of such a benign technology.

Wedwood

Harry Palmr wrote: »

70% fall Friday on Friday at the US box office so another disappointment in that regard.

Looks like Star Trek is running out of cinematic steam again. The reboot novelty is over. Back to the TV series so.

ZeitgeistGlee

mhge wrote: »

How did Krall lose his lizard face on the space station?

He 'absorbed' a bunch of humans after the crash, apparently the tech is something internal to the user.

mhge wrote: »

Who were his henchmen on the planet? Did he conquer an alien race, or was it his Franklin crew who evolved with him (but he said they were all dead in the recording)?

The two other Franklin survivors Balthazar/Krall mentions in his post-crash recording (IMO).

Mickeroo

ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »

The two other Franklin survivors Balthazar/Krall mentions in his post-crash recording (IMO).

Would agree there, I think at first we're meant to think

Krall and co are a new species but it's just a red herring.

strandroad

Mickeroo wrote: »

Would agree there, I think at first we're meant to think

Krall and co are a new species but it's just a red herring.

Who are the green glowing "soldiers" then? And the lizard woman who lures the Enterprise into the trap - the second survivor? I can't remember if there were any "lizard faces" there apart from Krall, Manas and the woman, as opposed to helmeted "soldiers"... I suppose they were capturing and draining local aliens (Jayla's tribe), inheriting their looks and taking their tech?

ZeitgeistGlee

mhge wrote: »

Who are the green glowing "soldiers" then?

Automated mining drones (what is it with NuTrek and re-purposing advanced mining tech for combat? ) left over from the planet's original owners. Same guys who made the weapon and the draining/absorbing tech. Swell bunch of lads it seems.

mhge wrote: »

And the lizard woman who lures the Enterprise into the trap - the second survivor? I can't remember if there were any "lizard faces" there apart from Krall, Manas and the woman, as opposed to helmeted "soldiers"...

From what I understood Krall didn't need the tech of the aliens he'd capture, just the aliens themselves to drain to keep himself and his two minions alive. It's possible, given their appearance would chance with every absorption/draining, that Krall's initial appearance was a mix of a few different species.

The only 'free-roaming' aliens we saw were a mixed group which included someone who looked a bit like Manas. My assumption would be they were escapees like Jayla who'd banded together to survive.

mhge wrote: »

I suppose they were capturing and draining local aliens (Jayla's tribe), inheriting their looks and taking their tech?

Jayla's people weren't the natives, just another group Krall's swarm had captured.

strandroad

Good explanations there ZeitgeistGlee! I had edited my post to remove some as I was in the process of figuring it out myself but there's still some fun stuff to unpack.
Like

Why would Krall & minions leave USS Franklin with no surveillance for starters, and wouldn't check it later while looking for fugitives either? It was believable for as long as we didn't know they are in fact the original crew.

ZeitgeistGlee

mhge wrote: »

Good explanations there ZeitgeistGlee! I had edited my post to remove some as I was in the process of figuring it out myself but there's still some fun stuff to unpack.

No worries, in fairness to Pegg he had plenty of layers of stuff to the film beyond the very surface stuff.

mhge wrote: »

Like

Why would Krall & minions leave USS Franklin with no surveillance for starters, and wouldn't check it later while looking for fugitives either? It was believable for as long as we didn't know they are in fact the original crew.

Again, purely theorising. I see two main reasons:

1)

He didn't need it, the drone tech was clearly more advanced/powerful than even the Enterprise (which was hyped as the 2nd most advanced ship at Yorktown) which in turn was much more advanced/powerful than the Franklin. From what I could tell the Franklin might even be older than the old NX-01 Enterprise from the series Star Trek: Enterprise.

2)

Krall/Balthazar wanted to cut ties with anything associated with the Federation and Earth Starfleet which he felt betrayed him/humanity. He viewed the Franklin even when he was still human as a posting unsuitable/unworthy of him and its mission to be contrary to the benefit of humanity so sticking around after it crashed would've been a constant unpleasant reminder.

TerrorFirmer

Watched this today and while it's very entertaining and a decent film overall, it's let down by a really poor plot. Disappointing but worth seeing all the same.

BlitzKrieg

ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »

No worries, in fairness to Pegg he had plenty of layers of stuff to the film beyond the very surface stuff.



Again, purely theorising. I see two main reasons:

1)

He didn't need it, the drone tech was clearly more advanced/powerful than even the Enterprise (which was hyped as the 2nd most advanced ship at Yorktown) which in turn was much more advanced/powerful than the Franklin. From what I could tell the Franklin might even be older than the old NX-01 Enterprise from the series Star Trek: Enterprise.

based on the plot details given and the last season of enterprise it can be a best guess that the franklin comes very shortly after the nx-01 enterprise as its clearly identified as a federation/starfleet ship and the enterprise was not a federation/starfleet ship right up until the last few episodes of season 4.

ZeitgeistGlee

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

based on the plot details given and the last season of enterprise it can be a best guess that the franklin comes very shortly after the nx-01 enterprise as its clearly identified as a federation/starfleet ship and the enterprise was not a federation/starfleet ship right up until the last few episodes of season 4.

The Franklin is referred to as a Warp 4 ship, the Enterprise was Earth's first Warp 5 so the implication to me was it was a predecessor, given they share similar designs. Keep in mind as well the Vulkans and Andorians had Warp 7 vessels at that the start of Enterprise.

As to the Franklin being Federation Starfleet as opposed to Earth Starfleet, all member navies were merged on/slightly after the foundation of the Federation so the Franklin would've gone from being Earth Starfleet to Federation Starfleet. It would also explain its high-ish NCC no. in spite of being only a Warp 4 vessel.

Manach

While it was an enjoyable mix of humour and action, plot wise it was rather lacking and more similar to a typical Hollywood blockbuster than the Trek francise fare.

Sad Professor

Spoilers from this post onward.

Bacchus

Avatar MIA wrote: »

I get that technique is employed, and maybe it's because they did use somewhat understandable technology - VHF radio frequencies - that it comes across as a 'Jump the Shark' moment.

Here we have a vastly superior force (able to decimate Kirk's starship with ease) being destroyed by the use of such a benign technology.

It was one of the most 'Star Trek' elements of the movie. A perfect Star Trek solution to defeat a vastly superior enemy.

Bacchus

Bacchus wrote: »

It was one of the most 'Star Trek' elements of the movie. A perfect Star Trek solution to defeat a vastly superior enemy.

Exactly, Trek thrives on an underdog crew against superior force but thinking their way out of it as opposed to space based Pew Pew Pew

Space based Sci-Fi, to be commercially successful, nowdays needs big set pieces so we are never going to get real cerebral Trek (that is for the small screen, do NOT disappoint me Discovery!!)
BUT
This is a major step in the right direction in terms of balancing the sentiment of Trek against the action required.
Simon Pegg seems to really get Trek (and Mass Effect 2) and should be commended for it.
Considering how it seems that they had to reshoot to remove the overtly Trekky bits I think that they have donw a wonderful job. It needs to do better box office and home-sales though or the studio will revert to Pew Pew Space Voyage films.


Is it the best Trek film? No
Is it a Trek film? Yes


I am buying the physical copy of this!

KingBrian2

This forum looks like a top secret CIA dossier with the amount of blacked out spoilers. I like Star Trek Beyond. Got Trek back in the right direction.

murpho999

Has anyone seen this in 3D Imax?

Is it worth it, I think it finishes in Cineworld Imax this week so wondering is it worth going to see it or would normal 3D or even 2D be fine?

Avatar MIA

murpho999 wrote: »

or would normal 3D or even 2D be fine?

I saw it in normal 3D, Limerick Omniplex (the 3D showing was the time I could fit in) and it really detracted from the experience, very dark and smudgy around the corners.

murpho999

Avatar MIA wrote: »

I saw it in normal 3D, Limerick Omniplex (the 3D showing was the time I could fit in) and it really detracted from the experience, very dark and smudgy around the corners.

THanks, well my mind was quickly made up, checked prices for this Thursday for 2 of us.

Imax Cineworld is €19.50 each plus booking fee. I knew IMAX was more expensive but bloody hell no film is worth that.

Then checked 2D version in IMC Dun Laoghaire as it's near my work and it's a €5 each for online bookings on Thursdays so it's a no brainer.

€25 saved will go towards food after the film.

mikhail

Avatar MIA wrote: »

I saw it in normal 3D, Limerick Omniplex (the 3D showing was the time I could fit in) and it really detracted from the experience, very dark and smudgy around the corners.

It's very underlit in places, and I'm sure 3D exacerbates that.

Avatar MIA

mikhail wrote: »

It's very underlit in places, and I'm sure 3D exacerbates that.

It did, I took the glasses off a couple of times to confirm. Was going in with low expectations wise because it was 3D.

Avatar was probably the only movie I've seen that was enhanced by normal 3D.

Sad Professor

I saw it projected in 2D through a 3D filter in Vue and it was very dark and smudgy as well.

3D ruins everything, even 2D films.

McLoughlin

The 3D set up in most cinemas ruins films either the cinemas don't care or don't know how to set it up I just avoid them now and watch the 3D at home.

As for the film I am an old school Trek fan and I enjoyed it yes it wasn't like the old Trek films in the 80's but i don't those kinda films would work nowadays it was a vast improvement on The Into Darkness Kahn remake.

I was surprised though to learn it has made less than the last film and even more than the first and I don't think a 4th film will be shelved it will probably have a lower budget.

One think I did like though is it wasn't setting up another film a spin off or a new Star Trek film. Its kinda nice to watch a film that isn't part of a shared universe or trying to be.

I would like more aliens or more crew members that don't get killed off a bit like Savik in the old films.

DMcL1971

I would advise against seeing it in 3D. There is a section in the middle of the film that is very dark. Even in 2D it is almost impossible to tell what is going on.

Some of the action sequences are cut so fast, with so many ships, I can only imagine the 3D would make it even more confusing.

Blahfool

Wasn't bad really. Good trek movie.
I'm posting because I found myself looking forward to seeing it at home in sharp focus and 3d. (At the risk of being shot down, I would have seen it in 3d in the cinema but alas there's no option in my town). The blurry multiplex experience is underwhelming sometimes.
Call me mad, but things going pew pew bang bang between flying one liners deserve the silly dialed up, not down with regard to visuals.

Just saying.
Carry on.

Since spoilers are allowed.. that Sabotage scene, with all the explosions and shouting and music and noise was an absolute visual delight. Especially just as it really starts going when the space station blasts it out.

I was smiling from ear to ear and possibly one of the best uses of music in quite a long time -- just for the sheer enjoyment of it.

Kirby

Saw it tonight.

It was okay. Enjoyable, but not great by any means. I speak this softly around here and in the trek forums, but I preferred 09 and Into Darkness. There. I said it.

AMKC

Deleted User wrote: »

Exactly, Trek thrives on an underdog crew against superior force but thinking their way out of it as opposed to space based Pew Pew Pew

Space based Sci-Fi, to be commercially successful, nowdays needs big set pieces so we are never going to get real cerebral Trek (that is for the small screen, do NOT disappoint me Discovery!!)
BUT
This is a major step in the right direction in terms of balancing the sentiment of Trek against the action required.
Simon Pegg seems to really get Trek (and Mass Effect 2) and should be commended for it.
Considering how it seems that they had to reshoot to remove the overtly Trekky bits I think that they have donw a wonderful job. It needs to do better box office and home-sales though or the studio will revert to Pew Pew Space Voyage films.


Is it the best Trek film? No
Is it a Trek film? Yes


I am buying the physical copy of this!

^^ Me too in Blu-Ray hopefully but it depends on the extra,s on it.

Kirby

Kirby wrote: »

Saw it tonight.

It was okay. Enjoyable, but not great by any means. I speak this softly around here and in the trek forums, but I preferred 09 and Into Darkness. There. I said it.

For sheer blockbuster value, I absolutely agree with you. This wasn't a patch on 09 or Into Darkness.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

For sheer blockbuster value, I absolutely agree with you. This wasn't a patch on 09 or Into Darkness.

No but it's still a better Trek film, by far.

Kirby

Is it though? Yes they get stranded on a planet in very trek like fashion but ultimately this villain and his motivations are very blockbustery and nothing like some of the best trek villains.

People consider the last two films which "werent trek". This one supposedly more trek and yet the villain is the same is he not? Similar to both Nero and Khan. Person relied on federation. Feels betrayed by federation. Vows revenge on federation.

The only difference here is Nero and Khan's plans were sound and what they did made sense. In this one, Idris' motivation for staying on the planet and needing the bioweapon are extremely murky. Its evident he can destroy that station whenever he feels like.....so why bother luring people into the planet for a hundred years? Why not just go out and get revenge and take the people you need by force. In actuality, the bioweapon achieves the exact opposite of what he needs as it kills everyone....and he needs them alive to wraith suck them.

It makes no sense. And we have stuff like the motorcycle sequence which arent very trek are they?

I dunno. I feel people are seeing more in this film than I am and forgiving it a lot because it was written by Pegg, who is a trekkie.

The motorbike chase, with the overhead panning shot, was absolutely horrendously done. It felt like the only reason it was included is because of the director's background more than anything else.

Kirby

Kirby wrote: »

Is it though? Yes they get stranded on a planet in very trek like fashion but ultimately this villain and his motivations are very blockbustery and nothing like some of the best trek villains.

People consider the last two films which "werent trek". This one supposedly more trek and yet the villain is the same is he not? Similar to both Nero and Khan. Person relied on federation. Feels betrayed by federation. Vows revenge on federation.

The only difference here is Nero and Khan's plans were sound and what they did made sense. In this one, Idris' motivation for staying on the planet and needing the bioweapon are extremely murky. Its evident he can destroy that station whenever he feels like.....so why bother luring people into the planet for a hundred years? Why not just go out and get revenge and take the people you need by force. In actuality, the bioweapon achieves the exact opposite of what he needs as it kills everyone....and he needs them alive to wraith suck them.

It makes no sense. And we have stuff like the motorcycle sequence which arent very trek are they?

I dunno. I feel people are seeing more in this film than I am and forgiving it a lot because it was written by Pegg, who is a trekkie.

It focuses on the characters and, while it has pew pew, it doesn't focus on it. So yeah, more Trek

Harry Palmr

Bad weekend for this just 10 million dollars tally for Fri-Sun with SS having grabbed the remaining potential audience by the looks of it.

squonk

By focusing on the characters more I felt it was proper trek. If I was to really put my trek hat on then I could find all sorts of faults with it but, compared to what came before, it was a vast improvement. I don't care about Pegg or his allegience to Trek. I didn't see much of that allegiance in his portrayal of Scott. I'm realistic however and know that a text book move that gets massive thumbs up from regular Trekkers like myself will probably take in about 50 quid globally so you have to compromise. In this case I think the compromise between Bang, CRASH, WALLOP and actual character based scenes was worth it.

AMKC

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Bad weekend for this just 10 million dollars tally for Fri-Sun with SS having grabbed the remaining potential audience by the looks of it.

That is bad. I seen an article where they were saying that Paramount are going to have to come to a point that they will have to be happy with a Star Trek film making 150million at most sad but unfortunately true.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2016/08/06/friday-box-office-jason-bourne-plunges-71-as-star-trek-beyond-continues-freefall/#3171339035f5

Wedwood

Star Trek movies have in the main not been the biggest grossers. The earlier movies had relatively small budgets so could make their money back easier.

I'm coming to the view Star Trek should now remain on solely on TV. The earlier Trek movies had an advantage in that the original cast in particular were already well known through the original series and had built up a fan base that remained through their cinematic outings, unlike today's cast.

pixelburp

Yeah, while 'Beyond' was the best attempt yet at aping the Trek TV formula in the blockbuster format, Trek was never a big draw in the first place & beyond doubling down on the showy-space-adventure formula - which will ultimately alienate fans completely - Trek was never going to be the big hit Paramout would like. The 2009 film gave it a bounce through the gimmickry of the reboot, but once that settled down, box office normality would be restored.

Looking to the past, Star Trek: The Motion Picture was a relative flop & the reaction to this was a much tighter budget & scope, galvanising minds until we got the near-peerless Wrath of Khan; in essence a submarine thriller and battle of wits between two complicated characters, but perhaps not something we would have got were the purse-strings and reins a little looser.

It's probably less like to occur again given the way Hollywood is structured these days, but perhaps Beyond's underperformance will cause Paramount to reassess the brand and try to fashion something a little more cost-effective in scope. The reduced scale might then focus scripts on character and more direct stakes. Just a thought.

Wedwood

It's well known when producer Harve Bennett started producing The Star Trek movies (he produced movies 2- 5), one of the first things he did was reduce the budgets so he could make more movies. He also narrowed in on what made the TV series work, which were the characters rather than spectacle.

Maybe it's time for the new Harve Bennett to step forward.

Sad Professor

Wedwood wrote: »

It's well known when producer Harve Bennett started producing The Star Trek movies (he produced movies 2- 5), one of the first things he did was reduce the budgets so he could make more movies. He also narrowed in on what made the TV series work, which were the characters rather than spectacle.

Maybe it's time for the new Harve Bennett to step forward.

Medium budget films like that aren't made anymore. They are much riskier from a studio perspective than a big budget blockbuster. They cost less money to make but just as much to market and release. And the smaller, more character-driven approach with less spectacle means they make less money. This can lead the studio to decide the film isn't worth the marketing costs so the film makes even less money. Part of the thinking behind current blockbusters is that the production budget has to be huge in order to force the studio to market and release it. It's crazy but that's how it is now.

Sad Professor

Sad Professor wrote: »

Medium budget films like that aren't made anymore. They are much riskier from a studio perspective than a big budget blockbuster. They cost less money to make but just as much to market and release. And the smaller, more character-driven approach with less spectacle means they make less money. This can lead the studio to decide the film isn't worth the marketing costs so the film makes even less money. Part of the thinking behind current blockbusters is that the production budget has to be huge in order to force the studio to market and release it. It's crazy but that's how it is now.

Dredd suffered from that

.ak

Found it a bit dull tbh... Fairly unoriginal and uninteresting... and I say that as a fan of the new series!

FortuneChip

Went to see this yesterday.
Fun, light entertainment with some exciting scenes (Sabotage). But pretty standard box office fare.

They really wasted Eric Bana in 2009, and I think they've done the same with Idris Elba here.
I think it might have been better to drip feed some back-story for Krall rather than go for the shock revelation at the end - ok might not have been as dramatic, but it could have made his character more interesting.

I thought the Jaylah character was very good, and it was great to see Bones get more screen time.
Karl Urban is a talent that needs to be utilised more.

I thought it was a nice understated tribute to Leonard Nimoy.

Where was Alice Eve?

DubTony

I've never felt such indifference to a Star Trek film as I did to this one. It was the first time I noticed that Chris Pine can sound like William Shatner when you close your eyes, and about halfway through I was sorry I hadn't left them closed. This film was probably great if you're 12. In many ways it was a Transformers film with characters you're supposed to care about.

The character interactions, while plentiful, were too short. The action scenes were too long, and the expectation of belief suspension was evident more in this than any other (bringing people back from the dead I can live with). Too many action scenes in movies these days incorporate the Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon type capabilities of "movie humans", and unfortunately Star Trek is now no exception. Being thrown 30 feet across a room, hitting a metal or concrete wall, then falling another 20 feet to the floor and getting up and fighting on is the stuff of Captain America and Spiderman. Sliding 300 yards down the tipping saucer section of a space ship looks great but a fall like that typically leads to certain death; and I'm not talking about the thing landing on your head. All of these put Star Trek firmly in the mainstream of fantasy action films with impossible feats completed by what are supposed to be mere mortals.

For me, a Star Trek movie was a thinking man's action film. It was a bit more high brow than your average insulting "look what we can do with CGI" production. But maybe this is what summer blockbusters are supposed to be all about. I can't see any modern audience getting excited about a starship crew leading a bunch of natives on a long walk to safety any more.

I wasn't aware of anything about this movie before I saw it. I didn't even know who the bad guy was (although they could have used anybody in this as Elba was wasted). But even if I had known it was just a silly revenge flick, I'd still have gone. I'm a trekkie after all.

Kirby

Deleted User wrote: »

Dredd suffered from that

3D killed dredd. The studio refused to release it in 2d and this was back when 3d was just taking off due to Avatar. Most cinema's didn't have 3d projectors so it got a limited release. The best marketing in the world wouldn't have made a difference. It just wasn't in enough cinema's to make money.

Duggy747

Kirby wrote: »

3D killed dredd. The studio refused to release it in 2d and this was back when 3d was just taking off due to Avatar. Most cinema's didn't have 3d projectors so it got a limited release. The best marketing in the world wouldn't have made a difference. It just wasn't in enough cinema's to make money.

Marketing was pretty rubbish for the film, coupled that with 3D being forced as the only way to see it meant I had no intention of going to see it.

Only through word of mouth did I decide to give it a go and ended up loving it, it was even one of the better examples of the 3D format.

Wedwood

A bit of good box office news finally. It's now made $320m from a $185m budget, thanks to a decent performance in China where it's made $50m +.

Nothing earth shattering, but at least it's becoming a moderate success - just about !

silverharp

Wedwood wrote: »

A bit of good box office news finally. It's now made $320m from a $185m budget, thanks to a decent performance in China where it's made $50m +.

Nothing earth shattering, but at least it's becoming a moderate success - just about !

that is still a firm loss, they would need $500m at a minimum to keep everyone happy