[movie]Star Trek Beyond

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Wed Jul 20, 2016 3:33 pm

He's just curious if he should bring his own in light of that.

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Wed Jul 20, 2016 4:40 pm

pr0ner wrote:
JSHAW wrote:From those going, let me know how much lens flare there is.
Since Abrams isn't even directing, why do you think there will be a lens flare issue?

He meant Len's flare, a pile of wearable tchotchkes from Jennifer Anniston's boss in Office Space.

JSHAW · Post by **JSHAW** » Wed Jul 20, 2016 5:29 pm

pr0ner wrote:
JSHAW wrote:From those going, let me know how much lens flare there is.
Since Abrams isn't even directing, why do you think there will be a lens flare issue?

1. BECAUSE my statement you quoted, was a joke.

2. BECAUSE I'm curious to see if Director Justin Lin will throw his own versions of lens flare
into the mix, along with the moto-cross motorcycle Kirk is seen on in the trailers, which is creative, since we've never seen THAT in a Star Trek movie, have we?

Now back to your regularly scheduled program Mr. Literal.

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Wed Jul 20, 2016 5:45 pm

Jeff V wrote:
pr0ner wrote:
JSHAW wrote:From those going, let me know how much lens flare there is.
Since Abrams isn't even directing, why do you think there will be a lens flare issue?
He meant Len's flare, a pile of wearable tchotchkes from Jennifer Anniston's boss in Office Space.

I literally LOLed.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu Jul 21, 2016 9:10 pm

Reviews are looking quite good. 83 percent on Rotten Tomatoes. Most reviews are calling it a throwback to the original tv series.

pr0ner · Post by **pr0ner** » Thu Jul 21, 2016 11:56 pm

hepcat wrote:Reviews are looking quite good. 83 percent on Rotten Tomatoes. Most reviews are calling it a throwback to the original tv series.

I see 89% right now.

Kasey Chang · Post by **Kasey Chang** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 12:20 am

I am going tomorrow morning. We shall see!

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 7:43 am

pr0ner wrote:
hepcat wrote:Reviews are looking quite good. 83 percent on Rotten Tomatoes. Most reviews are calling it a throwback to the original tv series.
I see 89% right now.

Ah, they must keep a rolling tally. That's great it's going up though!

pr0ner · Post by **pr0ner** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 8:21 am

hepcat wrote:
pr0ner wrote:
hepcat wrote:Reviews are looking quite good. 83 percent on Rotten Tomatoes. Most reviews are calling it a throwback to the original tv series.
I see 89% right now.
Ah, they must keep a rolling tally. That's great it's going up though!

Yeah, I've seen it in the low 90s. Regardless, I can't wait to see it tomorrow.

hentzau · Post by **hentzau** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 9:04 am

A good friend of mine, who's a bigger Star Trek nerd than Hepcat (sorry, Hep, but it's true) saw it last night and said that it was great. And he liked the first movie OK and hated "Into Darkness".

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 9:17 am

It's going to be rough for me to avoid seeing this opening weekend. But man, I hate crowded theaters.

hentzau wrote:A good friend of mine, who's a bigger Star Trek nerd than Hepcat (sorry, Hep, but it's true)

I'm a fraud. I say I'm a huge Star Trek fan, but I couldn't even figure out which part of a Jem'Hadar patrol ship was the front during a game of Star Trek Attack Wing once.

McNutt · Post by **McNutt** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 10:10 am

I have to admit that this is one movie that I secretly want to fail. Actually, I openly want it to fail. Perhaps the trailers somehow show the film in a way that is completely different from the reality. Perhaps. When I heard Beastie Boys and saw Kirk doing sweet jumps on a dirt bike I knew that the Star Trek I loved was long gone and the only way I was going to get the good Trek again was to have a spectacular fail. But alas, it looks like Action Trek is here to stay.

I'll just be on my front porch bitching if you need me.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 10:19 am

Like I mentioned earlier, most of the reviews I've seen mention that it's a return to its roots entry in the series, and that it feels like classic Star Trek in many ways.

I'll find out soon enough, I suppose.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 10:22 am

McNutt wrote:I have to admit that this is one movie that I secretly want to fail. Actually, I openly want it to fail. Perhaps the trailers somehow show the film in a way that is completely different from the reality. Perhaps. When I heard Beastie Boys and saw Kirk doing sweet jumps on a dirt bike I knew that the Star Trek I loved was long gone and the only way I was going to get the good Trek again was to have a spectacular fail. But alas, it looks like Action Trek is here to stay.

I'll just be on my front porch bitching if you need me.

Action Trek will dominate the films. You will not see deep, sociological stories trumping EXPLOSIONS!!! at the cinema for a tentpole property these days.

You might get something a little better when the Trek series comes out next year. Maybe.

McNutt · Post by **McNutt** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 10:35 am

hepcat wrote:Like I mentioned earlier, most of the reviews I've seen mention that it's a return to its roots entry in the series, and that it feels like classic Star Trek in many ways.

I'll find out soon enough, I suppose.

That's interesting because the first review I read the other day said exactly the opposite. They trashed the movie and said it could learn a lot from old Trek. Alas, I can't find that review.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 11:00 am

Probably written by the guy sitting in the lawn chair next to you.

I think people vastly misremember those old episodes and how interesting they were.

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 11:01 am

We may go see it tonight. I'd rather see Star Trek, but my wife would rather see Ghostbusters. It's her birthday, so I'm going to see whatever she wants to see.

I've always been Star Wars >>>>>> Star Trek, but I still enjoy the IP. I've seen all the Star Trek films to date (including the original and TNG), and have been slowly catching up on the television episodes starting with the original.

Punisher · Post by **Punisher** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 11:41 am

YellowKing wrote:We may go see it tonight. I'd rather see Star Trek, but my wife would rather see Ghostbusters. It's her birthday, so I'm going to see whatever she wants to see.

I've always been Star Wars >>>>>> Star Trek, but I still enjoy the IP. I've seen all the Star Trek films to date (including the original and TNG), and have been slowly catching up on the television episodes starting with the original.

I saw ST last night. I am slightly on the fence, but if I had to see ST or GB again, I'd go with GB.
It wasn't horrible for the most part, but I really did not like their solution at the end. Felt WAY too cheesy and ST can be better than that... I was enjoying it for the most part, but that semi ending kind of sucked..

msteelers · Post by **msteelers** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 1:41 pm

YellowKing wrote:We may go see it tonight. I'd rather see Star Trek, but my wife would rather see Ghostbusters. It's her birthday, so I'm going to see whatever she wants to see.

It's the exact opposite scenario in my house. I want to see Ghostbusters and she wants to see Star Trek.

So looks like we are seeing ST on Saturday.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 2:32 pm

I'm going with my traditional outfit for Star Trek premieres: an HR Puffenstuff costume. I tell everyone I'm a Gorn.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 2:45 pm

msteelers wrote:
YellowKing wrote:We may go see it tonight. I'd rather see Star Trek, but my wife would rather see Ghostbusters. It's her birthday, so I'm going to see whatever she wants to see.
It's the exact opposite scenario in my house. I want to see Ghostbusters and she wants to see Star Trek.

So looks like we are seeing ST on Saturday.

msteelers · Post by **msteelers** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 3:02 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:
msteelers wrote:
YellowKing wrote:We may go see it tonight. I'd rather see Star Trek, but my wife would rather see Ghostbusters. It's her birthday, so I'm going to see whatever she wants to see.
It's the exact opposite scenario in my house. I want to see Ghostbusters and she wants to see Star Trek.

So looks like we are seeing ST on Saturday.

$$$ and time

Kasey Chang · Post by **Kasey Chang** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 7:39 pm

Watched it. I liked it. It's roughly on the level of "fun" of a little lower than ST4:TVH.

Krall the mystery guy just doesn't make that much sense. There's little hints of here and there about his true origins, but that final clue at the end only makes HALF sense.

Spoiler:

Still, it's a fun little adventure that FEELS much like an episode of Star Trek, as others said. There's more of the Kirk / Spock / McCoy chemistry, and there's call outs to events that happened in the prime timeline that are echoed here, but not quite the same way.

Spoiler:

The part about Sulu being gay was only mentioned in passing. In fact, there's even a DIFFERENT scene earlier that hinted at other same sex relationships onboard. No big deal.

All in all, 6.5 tentacles. It's a fun adventure, and it was NOT as "fast and furious" in space as I feared. There's good plot, not great, but the chemistry is much better here than before, and less about coincidences and happenstances like in previous two Kelvinverse movies.

Spoiler:

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 9:50 pm

Kasey Chang wrote: it was NOT as "fast and furious" in space as I feared.

Good to hear because that's what the trailers look like. I do not like action movies.

I expect to see it next weekend, so I didn't read your spoilers.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 10:21 pm

Mindless action movies I can understand. But if you dislike action movies, I don't see how you could possibly like any incarnation of Star Trek. They all relied on it to some extent. Giant space amobea, salt vampires, Borg, Klingon battles, Romulan wars, etc..

McNutt · Post by **McNutt** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 11:58 pm

I wouldn't classify Star Trek I, II or IV as action movies. They had a few space battles, but the action made up very little of the movie. The Trek reboot, however, has been nothing but action. Over-the-top action with a maximum of 6 minutes between explosions. It's a totally different beast.

Kasey Chang · Post by **Kasey Chang** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 12:41 am

Beyond is action adventure. Feel free to AMA, and I can always give normal vs. spoiler answers.

Yes, there's that big motorcycle jump in the trailer. There is a good reason for it, for which I will NOT reveal lest it spoils your fun. It closes one act and leads onto the next act. It does serve a purpose, not just *hah, let's do F&F in space*.

And it's a little funny that even Simon Pegg was not immune into recycling a TV/Movie trope: the person who passes on the "token" is the next to die. No, I'm NOT telling you who.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 2:42 am

hepcat wrote:Mindless action movies I can understand. But if you dislike action movies, I don't see how you could possibly like any incarnation of Star Trek. They all relied on it to some extent. Giant space amobea, salt vampires, Borg, Klingon battles, Romulan wars, etc..

Well sure, action in the service of story is all well and good. I just don't like stories that are nonstop chases and explosions and gunplay -- which is what this movie's trailers look like.

D.A.Lewis · Post by **D.A.Lewis** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 3:23 am

McNutt wrote:I have to admit that this is one movie that I secretly want to fail. Actually, I openly want it to fail. Perhaps the trailers somehow show the film in a way that is completely different from the reality. Perhaps. When I heard Beastie Boys and saw Kirk doing sweet jumps on a dirt bike I knew that the Star Trek I loved was long gone and the only way I was going to get the good Trek again was to have a spectacular fail. But alas, it looks like Action Trek is here to stay.

I'll just be on my front porch bitching if you need me.

That'll be me sitting next to you. I just finished watching Voyager on Netflix (the show was great), the action in that TV show for the most part was in the dialogue and the story, not really a whole lot in special effects. The trailer for this new Trek film looked horrible and the fact that so many on the production team talks about updating the franchise for todays audience makes me ill. Obviously, with this being Saturday, Star Trek Beyond was not a must-see-day-one event. And that's pretty sad, because in the Star wars vs Star Trek camp I was always in the Trek camp, been to plenty of Trek conventions and religiously watch all Star Trek (tv, movies, animation). And yet will either wait for a good word of mouth for this movie, or just wait for it on Netflix.

rshetts2 · Post by **rshetts2** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 7:31 am

Kraken wrote:
hepcat wrote:Mindless action movies I can understand. But if you dislike action movies, I don't see how you could possibly like any incarnation of Star Trek. They all relied on it to some extent. Giant space amobea, salt vampires, Borg, Klingon battles, Romulan wars, etc..
Well sure, action in the service of story is all well and good. I just don't like stories that are nonstop chases and explosions and gunplay -- which is what this movie's trailers look like.

Because trailers are always the gold standard for a movies pacing. The majority of the reviews say that this movie is not what you think it is, based on the trailers. Sure, movies like Star Trek are going to be more action driven. Its a 2 hour movie, not a TV series. It will be paced differently than a media that has the luxury of 23 hour long episodes to spend developing stuff. This is not a new concept, the more successful Star Trek movies like Wrath of Khan and Undiscovered Country are more action based than the ones that were not so popular. Give me an action Star Trek any day over a preachy futurized ham-fisted extrapolation of today's social-economic problems. If I want a dissertation Ill go back to college.

McNutt · Post by **McNutt** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 9:56 am

I think you overestimate the amount of action in Wrath of Khan.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 11:23 am

McNutt wrote:I think you overestimate the amount of action in Wrath of Khan.

Or Undiscovered Country. To be sure, they had more action than The Motion Picture, but then, most (all?) episodes did, as well.

rshetts2 · Post by **rshetts2** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 11:58 am

And yet both had climatic major space battles. But hey they could have always gone with a climatic philosophical debate with god!

I am not saying that those movies are as action driven as today's tend to be. I am saying that they have more action than the less successful old school Trek movies.

Kasey Chang · Post by **Kasey Chang** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 2:53 pm

Yes, there's quite a bit of action on screen. All the major officers gets to hold phasers and shoot at bad guys. And yes, there are a LOT of casualties. By now every Kelvinverse Trek has people sucked out into space from catastrophic ship damage. This movie is no exception.

However, with that said, the action in THIS movie seems to make more sense, more integral to the plot, instead of "look how cool this is!" in the first two movies. As I said, the motorcycle jump has a purpose to it. Really.

Spoiler:

tgb · Post by **tgb** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 5:00 pm

We go to the movies once a year on my birthday, so I get to pick. Looks like this is it, although it doesn't sound like the big-screen adaptation of "Spock's Brain" we were promised.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 7:18 pm

I saw it in Imax 3d today. Kasey is right, it is similar to 4 in entertainment value. I really enjoyed it and loved the user of the music...actually wished it had gone on a bit longer. I'd see it again...which is a very rare thing for me.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 8:50 pm

Defiant wrote:
McNutt wrote:I think you overestimate the amount of action in Wrath of Khan.
Or Undiscovered Country. To be sure, they had more action than The Motion Picture, but then, most (all?) episodes did, as well.

Or First Contact (getting out of the TOS, of course.)

We don't talk about anything after First Contact.

McNutt · Post by **McNutt** » Sun Jul 24, 2016 4:03 pm

I have a question about the Enterprise in this new reboot. In the first of these movies they showed it being constructed on Earth. In the second one they showed it flying off of a planet.

Is there any instance in the old shows/movies of the Enterprise being able to launch from a planet? I never thought it had a propulsion system that allowed that.

D.A.Lewis · Post by **D.A.Lewis** » Sun Jul 24, 2016 4:08 pm

I know there were a couple episodes where Voyager took off from a planet. (I think it was a season two cliff hanger). And I seem to remember a couple episodes where the Enterprise was flying in a low orbit, but I can't recall specifically if it ever took off from a planet.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Sun Jul 24, 2016 4:18 pm

No, all of the old Enterprises were built in space dock and could not land. Voyager and Defiant were both designed specifically for planetary landings.