Jump to content


Photo

Star Trek Beyond---------Spoilers


  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic

#41 Jay K

Jay K

    It's not a disease it's a hobby.

  • Members
  • 1,914 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, England
  • Interests:Music, Star Trek, and gaming.

Posted 08 February 2017 - 10:50 PM

Star Trek is whatever you like and enjoy, especially when you're paying money for it. I won't say the new JJ films are not Star Trek, but I will say they're the least cerebral parts of the franchise.

 

A big problem for me is that they show such blatant disregard for long-established elements of the franchise (too many to mention here), and there's no need for it. Look at Star Wars VII and Rogue One - both of them fit right in perfectly with the original Trilogy (especially Rogue One), and not just in terms of story but also look and feel. The reboot films go as far as copying the uniforms, and the names of the characters and ship, and that's it. The rest is a page one rewrite, with the guy holding the reigns admitting that he never liked the series to begin with (Jon Stewart's reaction to that admission said it all lol).

 

The Motion Picture might be really slow, but it makes up for it by pulling some of the best characters ever created out of oblivion, for the incredible redesigning of one of the most beautiful spaceships in all science fiction, and for the score.

 

The Final Frontier is an insight into the mind of the actor who brought 90% of all fan's (not mine I have to say) favourite Captain to life. There's also some moments in that film where we get to see those characters being normal and/or hilarious. Kirk wearing a 'Go Climb a Rock' t-shirt under his dress uniform, is a thousand times more funny than seeing ten baby Triceratopsian aliens jumping all over him. And Jerry Goldsmith came back to score once again, and what a score.

 

Insurrection has a good message behind its story. Like the Final Frontier, it also contains some priceless scenes with beloved characters (being played by their original actors). The 'eternal youth' idea - reducing the effect of ageing on the body, and in many ways reversing the effects it has - was daft, I'll give you that, but certainly not to the degree of various things I've seen in the three JJ films. 

 

Finally, The Wrath of Khan is a movie that doesn't require much brain power to enjoy (not that that should be a requirement anyway), but the way in which they go about defeating Khan was a million times better than how the JJ crew did it against Cumberbatch: Very much brains vs brawn. In TWoK, there was no need for karate moves and scissor kicks. Khan was almost defeated by Kirk and Spock outwitting him by simply lowering the position of the Enterprise in relation to the Reliant. Also, for those who hadn't seen Space Seed before seeing the film, Khan's physical strength was revealed to the audience by him picking up Chekov with one hand - not by crushing a guy's skull with his two hands, right in front of the guy's daughter.

But yeah, that's about all I have to say. Let people like what they like, and hate what they hate. Star Trek is what you as an individual want it to be, not whatever some corporation slaps its name onto. To automatically like something just because it shares the same name of something else you like, is just dumb. To quote a certain TV mob boss' consigliere: 

uZyJgmO.jpg

 

:D
 



#42 Whirlygig

Whirlygig

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,431 posts

Posted 09 February 2017 - 11:01 AM

1701D, you can't force this argument into BLACK vs WHITE.  And neither can I.

 

It doesn't matter that "cerebral" was directed at The Cage.  It doesn't matter if (or how many so long as they're not an overwhelming majority) episodes and films here and there throughout the 50 years often did not end up being all that cerebral.  In fact I acknowledged this reality.  What does matter is that "cerebral" was entirely indicative of the driving spirit behind the franchise.  If the spirit is somewhere back behind there showing through now and then we forgive other failures here and there as fans, but if the spirit starts to disappear that's a different problem.



#43 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 09 February 2017 - 11:45 AM

1701D, you can't force this argument into BLACK vs WHITE.  And neither can I.
 
It doesn't matter that "cerebral" was directed at The Cage.  It doesn't matter if (or how many so long as they're not an overwhelming majority) episodes and films here and there throughout the 50 years often did not end up being all that cerebral.  In fact I acknowledged this reality.  What does matter is that "cerebral" was entirely indicative of the driving spirit behind the franchise.  If the spirit is somewhere back behind there showing through now and then we forgive other failures here and there as fans, but if the spirit starts to disappear that's a different problem.


I don't think the cerebral spirit of Star Trek has remotely disappeared from any of the newest Abrams movies, its 100% there behind the loud noises and flashy action.

I think there's an interesting argument to be had that this spirit is actually more prevalent in each of the Abrams movies than most of the older movies and a certain number of the more contemporary TV series.

The problem isn't the fact you might dislike the Abrams movies, the problem I have is what right is it of any of us to tell someone else what is and isn't Star Trek. Just because you or I think we know what Star Trek should be. That in my mind is narrow minded, and completely at odds with the spirit and values Roddenberry set out to achieve with Star Trek, a vision continued by everyone who has worked on every incarnation of this great franchise.

#44 Whirlygig

Whirlygig

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,431 posts

Posted 09 February 2017 - 12:28 PM

You ask us to describe to you what "real Star Trek" is.  So, we do, in our own words.  It should go without saying that on the subjective topic of art interpretation and tastes most of what is said is opinion.  You have yours, I have mine, they all stink like ***holes, right?

 

So you tell me, what right is it of YOURS to tell US what we can and can't attempt to define Star Trek as?

 

Maybe next time someone airs their opinion, rather than write "bang head against wall" and wall of text berating them and explaining why they're wrong, you should try just shrugging and following your own advice.

 

But don't pretend like nobody has tried to explain to you their definition of "real Star Trek" because we have, you just refuse to listen and engage on that discussion.  As I understand it, your viewpoint is that basically anything can be called Star Trek as long as it has Starfleet, spaceships, captains and crews, aliens, space, and planets in it, and humans are the good guys.  And you clearly should know by now after all these arguments why I would disagree with that general view.  And when opinions that gravitate the opposite direction of yours show up, even if they are each slightly unique to each individual expressing them, you should still understand the gist of where that person is coming from and realize their view is pretty much opposite-end-of-spectrum from you and that's OK.  We all have to deal with people who think opposite of us.  But we don't have to tantrum so much while we do it.



#45 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 10 February 2017 - 05:31 AM

I'm just going to leave a quote here from Kenneth Biller (executive producer on Star Trek: Voyager) from the book "The Fifty Year Mission: The Next 25 Years - From The Next Generation to JJ Abrams. This is a portion of a larger passage regarding Enterprise. It's a good book if you've yet to pick it up.

"You're damned if you do, damned if you don't. If you keep giving them [the fans] more of the same, they'll criticise you for not mixing it up, but if you mix it up too much, they'll tell you that's not Star Trek"

...

#46 MisterPL

MisterPL

    Yes the Troi figures hair worries me.

  • Members
  • 940 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 February 2017 - 08:52 AM

Real Star Trek is this:
 
Space, the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its 5-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before.

 

Anything else is a spinoff or, at best, an homage.



#47 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 10 February 2017 - 01:20 PM

Real Star Trek is this:
 
Space, the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its 5-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before.

 

Anything else is a spinoff or, at best, an homage.

 

And as I recall the only movies ever to have that monologue in them are Wrath of Khan, Star Trek (2009), Into Darkness and Beyond... Well, there you go kids! Real Star Trek is the movies made by JJ Abrams and Justin Lin, who'd have thunk it!



#48 Whirlygig

Whirlygig

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,431 posts

Posted 13 February 2017 - 12:43 PM

"You're damned if you do, damned if you don't. If you keep giving them [the fans] more of the same, they'll criticise you for not mixing it up, but if you mix it up too much, they'll tell you that's not Star Trek"
 

 

This is balony.  A straw man.  Not any of our arguments.  I'm well open to Discovery, no matter what Klingons or their ships look like, or the hero ship, etc.  Go ahead, mix it up.  JJ did!  Not once have you heard me complain what JJ's Klingons or their ships looked like.  This type of comment is usually directed at the type of people who Shatner famously told to "get a life", the people who will lose sleep over that leaked "Klingon or not Klingon?" image...

 

My overall and biggest complaint is about the steering of the ship, not any of the individual little details.  Have I complained about details, like whether the Enterprise should be able to fly underwater...yes, I have.  But as we've also all said before, those details are all easily forgiven if the right mindset is behind the wheel and it just hasn't been there, for sure not in ST09 and STID, but started to peek its head up in Beyond.

 

Anyway you keep roping me back into this mud pit, I'm out, that's that, last time, I promise!

 

Spoiler



#49 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 13 February 2017 - 02:21 PM

What? first of all, what? Second of all... He's right! Trek fans have thumped their chests shouting "this isn't Star Trek!" for decades! Well what the F*ck is Star Trek? Sh*t dude! I mean... Sh*t!!!
 

 

You simply are damned if you do, damned if you don't with many a Trek fan who probably don't really know what Star Trek is, but just believes he or she knows what it isn't. Well I can tell you what Star Trek isn't, it isn't these mindless fans arguing the toss over what a Klingon should or should not look like.

 

The ship has been steered just fine, maybe not in the direction you'd like it to go/remain in, sometimes not in the direction I'd like it to go in but at least Abrams broke through the glass ceiling that fans had so wanted Star Trek to remain confined to. The Enterprise under water was ridiculous, no more so than Data being a floatation device, no more utterly ridiculous than two gigantic hump-back whales being beamed aboard a space ship, no more ridiculous than "so you people, you're all astronauts, on some kind of... Star Trek, no more utterly stupid as Spock having booster rocket shoes, or Scotty whacking his head on a bulkhead, or a Klingon bird of prey bringing down one of the biggest ships in the fleet, or there being a seemingly bottomless pit in the Enterprise E from Nemesis or the dune buggy chase in Nemesis, or Kirk's mind being swapped into the body of a woman, or Spock loosing his brain, or the Enterprise running into space hippies... Or the crew being turned into giant space slugs in Voyager... the crew being turned into whatever they were in Enterprise, I mean what the hell was the episode Two Days & Two Nights even for? It had no relevance! Star Trek is full to the brim of utterly ridiculous moments, episodes and films that are hokey, stupid and down right lame. At least Abrams has had the balls to acknowledge something needed to change with Star Trek, it needed to be unwrapped and allowed to be new and do exciting things. Sure Spock yelling KHAAAAAAAN and the whole Kirk and Spock death retread was stupid, super blood? Oh dear... but these new movies are legit and no more ridiculous than things we've seen in Star Trek prior to them.

 

These new movies stand for everything Star Trek should be, everything it had lost over the latter half Berman era. Not because of anything Rick Berman or Brannon Braga did, but simply because it was being crushed by the weight of its own popularity, it's own canon, and the fans demand for everything to be explained and figured out to the point where they wouldn't be able to do episodes because it contradicted episode 28 of Star Trek: The Next Generation...

 

Abrams has... SAVED Star Trek from its own short sightedness and its own myopic universe that was slowly being eroded into literally nothing but something a very small group of loyal Star Trek fans would understand. His movies, his stories have energised Star Trek and allowed for it to not just continue but to break free, rather than just become a footnote in history. Remembered fondly, but hardly relevant.

 

The voiceover on the new Star Trek Discovery trailer says that Star Trek is half a century of stories, unbridled by space or time but always a reflection of what it means to be human... Abrams is the one that returned Star Trek to being relevant, bold, risky, and engaging, Abrams held up that mirror and made Star Trek again reflect where humanity is today and I'm so sorry if you don't agree with that, but had Abrams not come along and reinvented Star Trek, allowed the idea of Star Trek to be free of so much of what fans love as canon, allowing it the freedom to expand beyond the stagnating place it was in during Enterprise (a series I still adore) then Star Trek would of died as an irrelevant piece of pop culture for our world as it is today. It would of become a fond memory. Star Trek is too good to be remembered, Star Trek is about us right now, it has a place in our society today, not making sure fans are serviced with ships and Klingons that look like designs 20 years old, but making sure that the mirror is held up, reflecting back at us, our society, our politics, our religion and telling us something important about ourselves. 

 

The more you rile me up, the more I believe what Abrams has done to Trek, was the right thing for Star Trek, the right thing for this franchise to continue to inspire, educate and inform countless generations. I bloody love Star Trek! Not because I want to see every little piece of canon examined and neatly tied into each other, but because I want to see Star Trek tell me something about myself, I want it to open my eyes the way it did for thousands/millions back in the 60's. Star Trek (2009), Into Darkness, Beyond all did that, and hopefully Star Trek: Discovery will just blow this franchise wide open to endless new possibilities. 

 

To hell with canon - it's a pain in the ass!



#50 JMW326

JMW326

    If I don't have it, they never made one.

  • Members
  • 4,836 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC

Posted 13 February 2017 - 07:10 PM

Very well said 1701D.

#51 Alteran195

Alteran195

    Their ACTION FIGURES, not dolls!!

  • Members
  • 3,461 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 13 February 2017 - 09:07 PM

I agree, very well said.

I honestly wouldn't have cared if the JJ movies weren't some alternate timeline, and I wouldn't even mind if they completely rebooted Star Trek completely at this point.

All that matters is the quality of the story telling.

#52 Whirlygig

Whirlygig

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,431 posts

Posted 14 February 2017 - 06:41 AM

Dude you just re-argued my point for me...but then after knocking down your own straw man you swapped in more guck about JJverse being awesome like you thought you'd won the argument. Nope.

#53 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 14 February 2017 - 07:26 AM

Dude you just re-argued my point for me...but then after knocking down your own straw man you swapped in more guck about JJverse being awesome like you thought you'd won the argument. Nope.


You broke your promise , I don't think I can ever trust you again. :'(

#54 MisterPL

MisterPL

    Yes the Troi figures hair worries me.

  • Members
  • 940 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 February 2017 - 11:03 AM

The biggest problem with Star Trek was that the fanbase was fractured.

 

It started with the films. Instead of continuing the mission on television, the studio looked at the popularity of Star Wars and Trek's built-in audience brimming with pent-up demand for a reunion and ditched Phase II in favor of feature film. Any chance of getting the original cast back to episodic TV went downhill after that. 

 

The movies forced a new series to introduce a totally new crew in a new future era. From then on fans had their favorite show; TNG, DS9, VOY, or even ENT. The more spinoffs, the more fragmented the fanbase became. But there was one thing no one could deny; the original crew was Star Trek, and even though the actors were aging, it was foolish to bury those most popular characters with the performers who helped create them. It was going to take Kirk and his Enterprise to save Star Trek and that's what Abrams delivered.

 

It didn't have to go that way. Trek could have come back to television back in 1979, even without Nimoy. Hell, especially without Nimoy. Save his appearances for sweeps months to boost ratings. The plots of the films would have made great two- or three-part story arcs. "Next week: An old friend returns to confront a mysterious enemy from Earth's distant past!"

 

Introduce new characters like Saavik and David while promoting other characters to Starfleet instructors or starship captains. Let it grow organically, logically. Replace expensive cast members with affordable new ones like Picard or Riker or Data. If you really want to shake things up, shoot the entire ship far off into the Delta Quadrant with another ship and mix the crews. Spend an entire season getting the Enterprise back, maybe through a wormhole to the Gamma Quadrant. (Spinoff time!)

 

But we have what we have. Fortunately general audiences don't have a problem with Kirk's crew being recast so we can continue telling their stories with expensive event movies.



#55 Alteran195

Alteran195

    Their ACTION FIGURES, not dolls!!

  • Members
  • 3,461 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 14 February 2017 - 12:00 PM

I'd be intrigued to see Trek do something like Doctor Who does. 

 

Focus on a ship, or a couple ships, and its crew(s) for a season or two, and then move onto a completely different ship and crew telling a totally different story. Maybe bridge it by having one of the crew transfer to the new ship, but eventually phase them out. 

 

Hell go to a starbase, or a planet based focus for a couple seasons, and then go back to ship based. 

 

Give a wider view of the universe over the course of the series, and just call it Star Trek. 



#56 WORF22

WORF22

    It's not a disease it's a hobby.

  • Members
  • 1,894 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:N.J.

Posted 14 February 2017 - 03:23 PM

I'd be intrigued to see Trek do something like Doctor Who does. 

 

Focus on a ship, or a couple ships, and its crew(s) for a season or two, and then move onto a completely different ship and crew telling a totally different story. Maybe bridge it by having one of the crew transfer to the new ship, but eventually phase them out. 

 

Hell go to a starbase, or a planet based focus for a couple seasons, and then go back to ship based. 

 

Give a wider view of the universe over the course of the series, and just call it Star Trek. 

 

 

and that is why "to me" DS9 is by far the best of the spinoffs, not that i dislike the rest to me it is all part of the expanded universe that TOS set.



#57 Jay K

Jay K

    It's not a disease it's a hobby.

  • Members
  • 1,914 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, England
  • Interests:Music, Star Trek, and gaming.

Posted 14 February 2017 - 03:27 PM

As you've said before, like Game of Thrones (obviously without it being like Thrones in terms of humans being as they are nowadays lol), and I agree. Having several perspectives in a storyline is a great thing, and it's why DS9 is my favourite Trek really.

 

EDIT: Beaten whilst I was writing it! lol :D



#58 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 14 February 2017 - 04:30 PM

DS9 was the closest we've ever got to a Game of Thrones style Star Trek and I think it's the one Trek series that has lasted the test of time. I've always thought of it as a complimentary series to TNG. TNG introduced us to the 24th Century and DS9 really explored it.

I wish though we had seen the TNG cast in DS9. I mean instead of Insurrection and Nemesis, we had like DS9 TV movies or cinematic movies that would include the TNG cast. I always thought that Picard and Sisko's chemistry was so cool and really worth exploring more of.

But this kind of goes into the Star Trek series being very much iscolated from each other.

#59 VulcanFanatic

VulcanFanatic

    Leonard Nimoy fan

  • Members
  • 3,165 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southeastern North Carolina

Posted 14 February 2017 - 11:16 PM

I grew up watching Star Trek when it began syndication in the early 1970's, watched the animated series first run and saw every Star Trek movie in the theater in 1979 through the 1980's, eagerly watched the first showing of TNG in 1987, DS9, and Voyager. All of these shows were true Star Trek I believe. Even the TNG movies up until Nemesis were true Star Trek in my opinion. The folks that took over making Star Trek for Enterprise and Nemesis began the departure from what the majority of fans knew to be Star Trek. It showed in the ratings of Enterprise and the poor showing of Nemesis. By the time of Enterprise season 4, they had attempted to go back to the essance of Star Trek but it was too late by then. CBS had departed from Canon, tried to change what many cherished as their Star Trek, and they stopped watching it. So it was cancelled just when it started getting back to what made it great. Many people said Star Trek was dead, but it isn't, is just doesn't have anyone willing to produce real Star Trek anymore. So CBS decides to try and capitalize off of a great franchise in 2009 by releasing a movie that takes bits and pieces that are very meaningful to Many Star Trek fans and turn them into meaningless drivel between explosions. We now have 3 movies that employ this method of turning great moments of Star Trek into a Star Wars like action movie that is forgotten before the credits finish running. I doubt anyone who sees these movies with no real Star Trek viewing in the past ever hunger for further Star Trek.

#60 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 15 February 2017 - 12:20 AM

I grew up watching Star Trek when it began syndication in the early 1970's, watched the animated series first run and saw every Star Trek movie in the theater in 1979 through the 1980's, eagerly watched the first showing of TNG in 1987, DS9, and Voyager. All of these shows were true Star Trek I believe. Even the TNG movies up until Nemesis were true Star Trek in my opinion. The folks that took over making Star Trek for Enterprise and Nemesis began the departure from what the majority of fans knew to be Star Trek. It showed in the ratings of Enterprise and the poor showing of Nemesis. By the time of Enterprise season 4, they had attempted to go back to the essance of Star Trek but it was too late by then. CBS had departed from Canon, tried to change what many cherished as their Star Trek, and they stopped watching it. So it was cancelled just when it started getting back to what made it great. Many people said Star Trek was dead, but it isn't, is just doesn't have anyone willing to produce real Star Trek anymore. So CBS decides to try and capitalize off of a great franchise in 2009 by releasing a movie that takes bits and pieces that are very meaningful to Many Star Trek fans and turn them into meaningless drivel between explosions. We now have 3 movies that employ this method of turning great moments of Star Trek into a Star Wars like action movie that is forgotten before the credits finish running. I doubt anyone who sees these movies with no real Star Trek viewing in the past ever hunger for further Star Trek.

I started watching Star Trek during TNG's run in the early 1990's, since then I've seen and enjoyed all of TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY and throuroughly enjoyed all of Enterprise during its first run (minus a few dud episodes). I went to the cinema to see all four TNG movies and thoroughly enjoyed them all. I've also seen all six of the classic Star Trek movies and enjoyed all of them too! Even The Final Frontier which I consider to be awful had its redeeming moments.

I don't believe Star Trek was still relevant to many people during Enterprise and I think a lot of fans got turned off by the same type of formula being used ever since TNG to construct stories. One of my biggest criticisms of Enterprise was that this was meant to be a series closer to our time and 100 years before Kirk. Yet the writing and the structure of episodes were exactly the same as they were on TNG. There was no life inside Star Trek anymore.

So there came a point when Star Trek wasn't relevant with anyone, throughout DS9, Voyager and Enterprise, the ratings continued to fall. Insurrection and Nemesis failed to reach a wider audience and as a result of sterile and formulaic writing, the franchise was becomeing more and more irrelevant to not just those who weren't fans but the fans themselves.

We can argue about the way in which Star Trek was revived but we simply cannot ignore the fact that it needed reviving and was done so successfully.

You may not like the JJ Abrams Star Trek movies, but I do, and I'm just as much a Star Trek fan as you. So when someone says that these movies aren't "real" Star Trek, it's insulting, ignorant and goes against everything that Star Trek has stood for over the past half a century.

So I'm really sorry you can't bring yourself to enjoy these new movies but don't come here and tell those of us who do enjoy these movies that because you don't like them, they somehow are irrelevant and stupid, that they don't represent "real" Star Trek. How ignorant and self important a Trek fan are you?

I don't doubt your love of what you believe Star Trek is and should be, I don't doubt that at one point you enjoyed Star Trek but everything changes, it has to, even Star Trek. The problem was that between TNG and Enterprise, Star Trek didn't change enough.

I hope Discovery gives you something to be a Star Trek fan over but somehow I have a feeling that won't be "real" Star Trek either...




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users