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

silverharp

Goldstein wrote: »

Surprised this is getting such coverage albeit mainly because of Takei's unhappiness. Jadzia Dax & Lenara made out over 20 years ago on DS9 in 1995's Rejoined. This is not a new thing for Star Trek.

What's the bet there won't be a kiss between them in the movie? If Pegg was really serious about having a real gay couple there would be. Equality and inclusivity are great buzz words but I bet they won't have the balls to show the relationship as an equal one to that of say Uhura and Spock. Maybe I'm wrong, we'll see.

why would you set a bar for Star Trek that you rarely see on TV or any other sify movie.? its got nothing to do with equality , its got to do with bums on seats

mewso

Goldstein wrote: »

What's the bet there won't be a kiss between them in the movie? If Pegg was really serious about having a real gay couple there would be. Equality and inclusivity are great buzz words but I bet they won't have the balls to show the relationship as an equal one to that of say Uhura and Spock. Maybe I'm wrong, we'll see.

As someone said earlier in the thread this should and probably will be a one-liner with no reaction or over playing of it any way at all. It should have no more effect on anyone than a comment about the weather. Times change and while a kiss scene was a risk worth taking in the 60s it serves no purpose in this day and age other than holding a sign up to say LGBT is cool when we should simply be saying it doesn't matter what your sexuality is on a spaceship only how good you are at your job on said spaceship. If you can't do your job you can get your cisgendered ass off this ship.

Are we about to have yet another saga of trolls on each side of yet another "identity politics" argument taking over? Just don't bite.

beach_walker

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I thought Hawk was, in FC?

I remember reading that that was just a rumour. Free to be corrected but there's certainly nothing on screen which indicates that.

As said this is nothing new, done before in ST. Merely an ill conceived attempt to pay tribute to the original actor and get some plaudits for it from the wider media. Meh.

Oafley Jones

beach_walker wrote: »

I remember reading that that was just a rumour. Free to be corrected but there's certainly nothing on screen which indicates that.

As said this is nothing new, done before in ST. Merely an ill conceived attempt to pay tribute to the original actor and get some plaudits for it from the wider media. Meh.

Wasnt there a cut scene or something more explicit that never was filmed. I remember Frakes commenting on it at one stage. I just feel that they've somehow diminished Takei's work with this stunt. I'm sure it was well intentioned but there's something off about honouring an actors work (outside acting) by transposing his personal identity onto a character he played.

ScumLord

Deleted User wrote: »

Are they actually going to write him in as being gay, like having a partner or whatever, or are they just going to say "he is gay from now on" and just carry on as normal?

It makes no sense. When is sexual orientation going to come up while the end of the galaxy is happening?

Even putting questions like this out there show that these films are just script by popular consensus. They want to tick enough marketing boxes that they'll be guaranteed a particular number of people will buy tickets, whether or not the film is anything more than it's trailer isn't important once they've got them in the door.

FunLover18

ScumLord wrote:

It makes no sense. When is sexual orientation going to come up while the end of the galaxy is happening?

Well, if the galaxy was ending I'd probably be thinking of my loved ones.

pixelburp

ScumLord wrote: »

It makes no sense. When is sexual orientation going to come up while the end of the galaxy is happening? [...]

I'm going to go ahead and make a bold prediction that this entire kerfuffle will simply amount to a passing subplot around Sulu having video chats with his husband and daughter. Daddy has to fly into space but will be back soon - all that kind of thing. That we'll see this brief moment establishing Sulu's personal stakes in the film and what he is leaving behind on Earth. Why wouldn't he be thinking of his loved ones then?

Fuzzytrooper

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

I see. For reference, where in TOS was Sulu's orientation explicitly stated as being hetero?

I think the main issue with George Takai is that Gene Roddenberry spent a lot of time developing his characters, backgrounds etc and he played the character as straight, so I think he sees it as a sign of disrespect to Gene - like if you suddenly made Spock a Betazoid, or a woman. No issue with having a Betazoid or a woman first officer (see the Cage) but they're not the same characters as Gene created.

In any case I won't be seeing this in the cinema - not because of anything to do with Sulu. Into Darkeness just inflamed my Nerd RageTM way too much.

AMKC

pixelburp wrote: »

I'm going to go ahead and make a bold prediction that this entire kerfuffle will simply amount to a passing subplot around Sulu having video chats with his husband and daughter. Daddy has to fly into space but will be back soon - all that kind of thing. That we'll see this brief moment establishing Sulu's personal stakes in the film and what he is leaving behind on Earth. Why wouldn't he be thinking of his loved ones then?

They could be having video chats but it will not be about him leaving space as they were on a 5 year mission and this film is supposed to take place 2.5years into that mission so it will be something else maybe like "love you have to go are under attack" something like that.

By the way it had its European premiere in London last night. They certainly kept that quiet. Did not see anything about it on Sky or any other news stations. Also noticed that Zoe Saldana was not at it not in the pics I seen anyway.

Nervous Wreck

Fuzzytrooper wrote: »

I think the main issue with George Takai is that Gene Roddenberry spent a lot of time developing his characters, backgrounds etc and he played the character as straight, so I think he sees it as a sign of disrespect to Gene - like if you suddenly made Spock a Betazoid, or a woman. No issue with having a Betazoid or a woman first officer (see the Cage) but they're not the same characters as Gene created.

In any case I won't be seeing this in the cinema - not because of anything to do with Sulu. Into Darkeness just inflamed my Nerd RageTM way too much.

In fairness, at the time of shooting the show/movies, George Takei was playing George Takei as straight. I sincerely doubt Gene Roddenberry went to each of the actors and said "Just make sure to play this character as straight" (which you're obviously not suggesting, but ya know!).

I think making Spock a Betazoid is an unfair comparison to make, given how important his heritage is to his character. When you ask someone to describe Spock in one word, they're gonna use a word that refers to his race: Vulcan, logical, pointy-eared etc. When you ask someone to describe Sulu, they don't say straight.

FunLover18

Nervous Wreck wrote:

In fairness, at the time of shooting the show/movies, George Takei was playing George Takei as straight. I sincerely doubt Gene Roddenberry went to each of the actors and said "Just make sure to play this character as straight" (which you're obviously not suggesting, but ya know!).

Apparently Takei went to Roddenberry about it but Roddenberry said no, not because he was homophobic but because the show was already breaking barriers with an interracial kiss and what not ... You can probably tell I'm summing up

AMKC

FunLover18 wrote: »

Apparently Takei went to Roddenberry about it but Roddenberry said no, not because he was homophobic but because the show was already breaking barriers with an interracial kiss and what not ... You can probably tell I'm summing up

It was the sixties. Gene Roddenberry did not have anything against gay people but he was a little uneasy around them. He said this in on interview it was only in the the late eighties early nineties that he got over this. He also knew that the producers and the studio would have cancelled the show if they had a gay character on it.

Fuzzytrooper

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

I think making Spock a Betazoid is an unfair comparison to make, given how important his heritage is to his character. When you ask someone to describe Spock in one word, they're gonna use a word that refers to his race: Vulcan, logical, pointy-eared etc. When you ask someone to describe Sulu, they don't say straight.

Fair point, it was a clumsy comparison so apologies about that. In my attempts at writing though I tend to have a whole backstory, family etc in my head for characters that never makes it on paper and my impression from an article covering this issue is that something similar had happened with the original Sulu, but that could be me making an incorrect assumption.

Still it seems forced like most things in this new franchise. I'm not bitter at all.....KHAAAAAAN!!!!! (Why did they have to do that scene,why)

Nervous Wreck

Fuzzytrooper wrote: »

Fair point, it was a clumsy comparison so apologies about that. In my attempts at writing though I tend to have a whole backstory, family etc in my head for characters that never makes it on paper and my impression from an article covering this issue is that something similar had happened with the original Sulu, but that could be me making an incorrect assumption.

Still it seems forced like most things in this new franchise. I'm not bitter at all.....KHAAAAAAN!!!!! (Why did they have to do that scene,why)

Ah, I think pretty much all of Into Darkness was a misstep, in fairness!

FutureGuy

http://collider.com/star-trek-beyond-reviews/

Very positive early reviews. Saying it's fun and very true to the Original Series.

Bacchus

Great to hear positive reviews coming out. The setting alone for me really sets it apart from the first two which (while I enjoyed them) should be a good thing for the whole "explore strange new worlds, seek out new life and new civilizations" theme that Star Trek is built upon.

Cantstandsya

I am quite looking forward to this... The first Abrams Trek was enjoyable, Into Darkness was bloody awful.

Of course, neither were "Trek" but for some reason I have hope for this one. The only thing that worries me is Uhura saying something along the lines of "my Captain will be here soon and will show no mercy" in the trailer... jesus, could you have a less Star Trek line?

Simon Pegg is irritating though. He seems full of his own sense of importance/talent. I can't say I've particularly enjoyed anything he's worked on and how he managed to wangle such influence over Star Trek considering how minor his original role was is puzzling.

As for the Sulu thing. The only reason he's been made gay is because George Takei, the actor, is gay. Takei himself said that he didn't agree with the decision. I realise that his sexuality was never explored in the original series so it hardly matters to the character but there is something unsettling to my mind about making a character gay just because the actor that used to play him happened to be gay... even though that actor has publicly stated he disagrees with that decision. I think if they wanted to introduce a gay character it would have been far preferable to either introduce a new character or to make Chekov or McCoy or someone else gay.

J.J Abrahms is saying that he isn't going to replace Yelchin - so it means no more Chekov

Goodshape

[Deleted User] wrote: »

J.J Abrahms is saying that he isn't going to replace Yelchin - so it means no more Chekov

There is actually precedent for that from the 'prime' universe – the Star Trek animated series took place in the final year of the five year mission and didn't feature Chekhov, who was written as having received a promotion and new assignment.

http://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/18625/why-wasnt-chekov-among-the-star-trek-the-animated-series-crew

He'd returned in time for The Motion Picture but was then reassigned again as first officer of the Reliant by the time Star Trek 2 came around.


Hopefully they use some of that rather than killing, or worse just forgetting about, the character.

doubledown

Just out. It was...fun.

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

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

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

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

entropi

I found it very easy to follow, strangely enough, and will be seeing it again upon general release. Agreed with the good points you have there, doubledown. Really enjoyable film, gets a thumbs up for sure.

conorhal

doubledown wrote: »

Just out. It was...fun.

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

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

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

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

Ouch. I can't say I'm surprised, the trailer with it's dirt bikes and retro rock soundtrack made me, like a lot of people, wonder WTF? Is this supposed to be Star Trek? Justin Lin seemed like a poor fit for the series as a director. I don't think I'll bother seeing this in the cinema, my old ass can't be arsed to drag itself into a multiplex for merely mediocre any more these days.

dunworth1

Just out of the midnight screening.

It was ok wasn't terrible but also wasn't great [spoiler/]

Cantstandsya

Just posted this in the Trek forum but I'm gonna paste it here... surprised that the people above didn't really warm to this. Have to say it's one of the best Trek films I've seen (and I mean Trek, not space action ala the first Abram's film).

The movie begins with the Enterprise, wait for it, exploring and Kirk, wait for it, on a diplomatic mission. Won't say anymore about the plot than that.

Much better than Into Darkness, much better than Insurrection, Nemesis etc. etc. Felt like watching Star Trek again and contained a good few subtle nods to old canon that I appreciated.

Like others I absolutely hated Into Darkness so didn't bother with any trailers or hype and went into this completely cold. Glad I did.

People are complaining about the action not being great but it was good enough for the plot.

Also, Simon Pegg is definitely a Mass Effect fan. This seemed like Mass Effect 2: The Movie. Citadel, Collectors, Geth anyone?

johnnysmack

Decent film, nothing mindblowing but happy to watch it. 7/10.

DenMan

Watched it this afternoon and really enjoyed it! It was brilliant.

AMKC

Just back from seeing Star Trek:Beyond. Its so much better than Into Darkness which we all know was a terrible film "Beyond" is at least 10 thosand Lights years better than it. Loved it. Its funny, has lots of action but it also has a good story a nice twist and character development. We also get to see some cool news ships, new characters and aliens too and the acting is very good. Already I can,t wait for film 14 or 4 in this new series of films which has already been given the green light. The film is 2hours but you barely notice it I never looked at the time at all when watching the film. I also thought the way they acknowledges Leonard Nimoys passing aka Ambassador Spocks death and Anton Yelchin was tastefully and nicely done too. I have to admit I was sad at times watching the film and at the end of it.

AMKC

conorhal wrote: »

Ouch. I can't say I'm surprised, the trailer with it's dirt bikes and retro rock soundtrack made me, like a lot of people, wonder WTF? Is this supposed to be Star Trek? Justin Lin seemed like a poor fit for the series as a director. I don't think I'll bother seeing this in the cinema, my old ass can't be arsed to drag itself into a multiplex for merely mediocre any more these days.

You know what the first trailer maybe was not the best for getting people excited about it but it all makes perfect sense now the music the bike you name it. I think if you give it a try maybe go midweek when its cheaper I think you will be pleasantly surprised. I think Justin Lin did a great job and Simon Pegg considering it was a tight schedule. More time and I think it might have become a classic. I would call this film much better then mediocre.

geecee

Just out from cinema here and I thought it was awful!

As "space move part 3" its an ok action pic. but as star trek its awful!

Enterprise was 2.5 years into its 5 year mission and yet they stopped off at a space station inhabited by millions of people...

How the hell did that station get out into deep space!

Idris Elba/Krall made an awful bad guy, with a completely nonsensical revenge plotline

AMKC

geecee wrote: »

Just out from cinema here and I thought it was awful!

As "space move part 3" its an ok action pic. but as star trek its awful!

Enterprise was 2.5 years into its 5 year mission and yet they stopped off at a space station inhabited by millions of people...

How the hell did that station get out into deep space!

Idris Elba/Krall made an awful bad guy, with a completely nonsensical revenge plotline

No worse than TNG. They were supposed to be out exploring space too but in nearly every episode they end up going to some space station which always pissed me off.

geecee

AMKC wrote: »

No worse than TNG. They were supposed to be out exploring space too but in nearly every episode they end up going to some space station which always pissed me off.

but in TNG the Deep space stations were at least "stations" and were basically orbital docking stations like DS9

"Georgetown" is a city of millions in deep space, complete with skyscrapers and public spaces... makes no sense at all!

Slydice

Saw it this evening.

It builds on the first two films really well.

It gave some _REALLY_ subtle nods to fans who.. i think.. (yes me).. would've had to watch almost everything about old Star Trek to get

Commodore Paris ... AM I RITE?!?!

I must saw my mouth dropped

for the Yorktown space station, colony GENERAL BIG MASSIVE structure They did some good music to the reveal of it and it was something.. I don't think.. I've seen before in any SciFi. I've close but nothing just like that scene.

End result is still different Trek from old trek but this was a decent film.

AMKC

geecee wrote: »

but in TNG the Deep space stations were at least "stations" and were basically orbital docking stations like DS9

"Georgetown" is a city of millions in deep space, complete with skyscrapers and public spaces... makes no sense at all!

I have to agree with Slydice do and say it Yorktown station looked awesome.

Slydice

geecee wrote: »

but in TNG the Deep space stations were at least "stations" and were basically orbital docking stations like DS9

"Georgetown" is a city of millions in deep space, complete with skyscrapers and public spaces... makes no sense at all!

AMKC wrote: »

I have to agree with Slydice do and say it Yorktown station looked awesome.

Oh the groundwork for city scale or bigger megastructures in scifi has definitely been put into place. I guess the death star in star wars and halo's ringworld are probably the most known examples at the moment.

Even the original star trek 3 had the gigantic spacedock (though not as big as Yorktown I'd say).

There was also the Dyson Sphere in TNG.

The main things that sold it for me here was:
- this new reboot has been scaling up everything. Even the enterprise engine room in Star Trek 2009 looks massive
- so much SciFi has covered stuff like this already. We even had 5 seasons of Babylon 5 based solely on a megastructure that I'd say is way bigger.

I think I also was googling the different types of space habitats recently and saw some pretty big ideas. This is probably what was looking at amongst others:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_colonization

tunguska

This is more like it......saw it tonight and straight away i liked it, just had a different feel to it than the other two films. It was suprisingly a deeper movie with some good stuff going on for kirk in relation to his life and career and where it was all going. The bones/spock dynamic played out brilliantly. I mean in the two previous films it seemed forced, but here they just nailed it. Chris pine was great aswell, his performance waa more mature and genuine than before. The story was pretty strong too and when i heard simon pegg co-wrote the screenplay i was worried. But i have to hand it to him, the dialogue is tight.
I thought the first film started very well but then degenerated into buisnees as usual and it ended up being boring. Into darkness was just not interesting in any way, so i wasnt expecting a lot here but honestly this is a great movie. Its ridiculously entertaining and the best of the series by a long way. Deserves to do well and make a tonne of money.

HamsterFace

Saw it, thought it was decent but not great.

Two things I didn't like :
1 Didn't really learn much about what happened for Kroll to become Kroll apart from a reference to some alien technology as far as I can recall
2 The big secret scary weapon was fairly unimpressive

I do love Uhura's legs though

Zubeneschamali

HamsterFace wrote: »

I do love Uhura's legs though

Bluray, so!

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

Every time I see this thread pop up, this mad sax solo starts going through my head

Tenzor07

Well, i'd give that movie 6/10

Had elements from a few of the later Next. Gen movies..Nothing original, nothing groundbreaking... Apart from the Yorktown and building the Enterprise B! A lot of action scenes stitched together, moving along at fast, but not furious pace...Motorcycles and rap music in space!

Will be interesting to see where reboot movie number 4 goes as the only thing that's changed is the ship, other than that this wasn't much of a movie, more like a mid-season double episode on TV!

AMKC

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Well, i'd give that movie 6/10

Had elements from a few of the later Next. Gen movies..Nothing original, nothing groundbreaking... Apart from the Yorktown and building the Enterprise B! A lot of action scenes stitched together, moving along at fast, but not furious pace...Motorcycles and rap music in space!

Will be interesting to see where reboot movie number 4 goes as the only thing that's changed is the ship, other than that this wasn't much of a movie, more like a mid-season double episode on TV!

The crew has changed a bit . There will be no Chokov in the next one but we might have a new crew member. The next film needs to be bold, move things on and go forward no more going back.

Nervous Wreck

This was okay but kinda boring. Lin was the wrong person for this.

geecee

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

This was okay but kinda boring. Lin was the wrong person for this.

Don't most movies of this type start with an action sequence?
Certainly the last one did... and I think that the "damp squib" start to this movie led to boredom

Also for me a lot of the sets from Kralls planet looked like they were lifted straight from Geonosis in star wars!

FunLover18

I had started watching TNG this week on Netflix and having never really watched the TV shows before I was worried it might colour my opinion of the movie and this new one in particular but I really enjoyed it. Yes there's more action but the first action heavy trailer was very misleading. I think the best part of this was that it felt much more like an ensemble than the previous outings. Sulu and Uhura were captured and I expected not to see them again until being rescued but they still had there share of screentime, as did every crew member. I think the highlight of this for me though was Bones, I remember in the reboot they set up Kirk and Bones as this great friendship which as far as I can remember wasn't very present in Into Darkness (I don't remember much about that film except a sense of disappointment) with more spotlght put on Kirk and Spock's relationship. I remember reading in interviews that in this movie they wanted to focus and develop that triumvirate and I think they really succeeded there.

Thankfully they don't number these movies as the 2009 reboot and this will make a very good double.

I also have to echo the comments on Yorktown, truly magnificent. The scene with the enterprise docking under the city scape - wow

FunLover18

Anyone else feel

they unknowingly set Jaylah up as a replacement for Chekov

?

Cantstandsya

FunLover18 wrote: »

Anyone else feel

they unknowingly set Jaylah up as a replacement for Chekov

?

Hope so, really liked her.

CiDeRmAn

The Beastie Boys/Public Enemy music, I love both of them, but not in a Trek movie.
Also, lack of explanation for the bad guy reveal.
Scotty/Alien Warrior Female Trope relationship was tepid and unconvincing.

Less dirt biking than alluded to in the trailer though, so that's a plus.

SimonTemplar

I'm a huge Star Trek fan and I think the design of their starships is absolutely beautiful; and these new movies have always filmed the Enterprise with such reverence. So the scene where

the Enterprise is torn apart was actually tough to watch. Once the nacelles were torn off I actually started to feel uncomfortable like I was watching a tense part of a horror movie. The scene obviously worked for me.

Goodshape

Felt like proper Star Trek! Really enjoyed it.

BlitzKrieg

I'm firmly on the side of liking this

and I am a trekkie

Dont get me wrong the film is not up there with 2, or 6. But its easily better then most of the other offerings. I'd put it just below First Contact and the journey home maybe.

Its got a good pace, it actually puts more of the crew then Kirk to use, the space battles while still relying too much on visual asthetic and still not actual battles were still a stark improvement over the previous 2 (oh god were they a massive improvement). The humour was spot on and...

ok I just have to outright say it. THis film gets thumbs up for one simple reason. They finally got the Spock McCoy banter and interaction down perfectly and gave them the actual space in the plot to breath and be something more then characters who follow kirk around.

I think though it did highlight what is problematic with the reboot.

All the best trek films build off the series.

Wrath of Khan is a direct sequel to a series episode

Undiscovered country draws from the gap created from the end of the series and the start of the next generation (how did Klingons go from sworn enemies to a peace treaty?)

First Contact like Wrath of Khan feels like a sequel to a classic next generation episode.

And what this connection does is give the events of the films gravitas. It doesnt make the plots more complicated but it does put weight to decisions because of the wider world around those events that have been established.

And it will always be impossible for the reboot series to call on that gravitas. Into Darkness tried by retelling a story but it drowned trying to retell it in a new world. And star trek 09 was to focused on bridging the reboot that about halfway through the film they discovered they had misplaced the plot.

Which is where I was pleasantly surprised that beyond almost touched into that gravitas but perhaps during post production or by studio mandate it was dropped or shuffled up so much that it just misses it and I get why

spoilers inbound

Star Trek beyond honestly runs off the last season of enterprise. A lot of the villains motive and origins ties directly into the events of that season which touched on the same prejeduice and fear of giving up the singular idea of earth for the federation. That coupled with the appearance of an original enterprise class ship it really did feel like it was drawing a lot of its weight from that series.

Shame that series has been finished for just over 10 years and we've had 2 reboot films in between, not to mention it was also a series that was mostly hated by audience. I dont think a lot of people will draw the same connections as I did (perhaps cause I was revisiting some of season 4 recently). Hence why I'm not surprised the villain has been on the of the most criticized points of the film, but I actually dont think he's a terrible villain, a bit predictable but one who's actions in the film tie more with the series then reboot khan or emo romulan.

I do feel some plot details between him and Uhura were cut for time that would have made her connecting him to the crew make much more sense, whether they were cut early in production or in editing will be interesting but it does feel like both the character and us the audience should have known more prior to that reveal.

And I do think the reboot overall still suffers from doing aliens as visual effects and comic relief then actual characters with cultures and civilisations which is a staple of what worked in star trek.

Overall I enjoyed it. In the list of star trek films it's easily in the top 10 and probably just crawls into the top 5 or at least is at the door.

SimonTemplar

FunLover18 wrote: »

Anyone else feel

they unknowingly set Jaylah up as a replacement for Chekov

?

But Anton Yelchin died after filming.