Star Trek Beyond (the not The Search for Spock)

[Keith]

Seems to be an American fan culture thing that tries to stipulate you can only like "one" thing. Take a look at anime fandom, imagine if you could only like Macross or Gundam or Yamato, or Votoms, or well, tgere'd be hundreds of sub fandom gangs!

[taksraven]

Voyager didn't ruin the Borg, that was First Contact. But everybody likes that movie some reason!?

First Contact was weird. I read a detailed synopsis for it before I saw it and thought "That looks pretty cool". Then I actually saw the film and thought it sucked. Weird.

The Borg were ruined by the fact that they brought them back after "Best of Both Worlds". That was a great story and the one where they were introduced by Q was a great teaser.

They ultimately suffered in the same way that most SF villains suffer. Introduce them as being "all powerful and dangerous"? Fair enough. Keep bringing them back again and again, guess what. They have to progressively become weaker and weaker as they are constantly beaten by the good guys.

The same thing has happened time and again with the Daleks in Dr Who.

And with "The Agents" in the Matrix films.

And with the Vajra in Macross Frontier, and so on and so on.....

[Kanedas Bike]

^Really good points about any and all Sci-Fi, fictional villains or technology for that matter. Once they are de-mystified it takes away whatever it was that made them special to begin with.

And are the Borg in Star Trek 3 or is this just chatter to fill the void? Cause they already did Borg in this new universe with Nero's ship...

-b.

*edit for spelling

Edited December 27, 2014 by Kanedas Bike

[miles316]

^Really good points about any and all Sci-Fi, fictional villains or technology for that matter. Once they are de-mystified it takes away whatever it was that made them special to begin with.

And are the Borg in Star Trek 3 or is this just chatter to fill the void? Cause they already did Borg in this new universe with Nero's ship...

-b.

*edit for spelling

Its just chatter that stemed from talk of the new director!

[Dobber]

First Contact was weird. I read a detailed synopsis for it before I saw it and thought "That looks pretty cool". Then I actually saw the film and thought it sucked. Weird.

The Borg were ruined by the fact that they brought them back after "Best of Both Worlds". That was a great story and the one where they were introduced by Q was a great teaser.

They ultimately suffered in the same way that most SF villains suffer. Introduce them as being "all powerful and dangerous"? Fair enough. Keep bringing them back again and again, guess what. They have to progressively become weaker and weaker as they are constantly beaten by the good guys.

The same thing has happened time and again with the Daleks in Dr Who.

And with "The Agents" in the Matrix films.

And with the Vajra in Macross Frontier, and so on and so on.....

Really good point. I remember when the new BSG was airing and they had podcasts each week, Ron Moore made that same comment about the Cylons. That you can't make them this incredibly dangerous force, but still have you "heroes" survive week after week. It just diminishes the threat they pose. Too bad he eventually made the show the Cylon show. I also remember Jamie Bamber saying something to that effect in one of the podcasts, saying something like when the Cylon's were this unknown threat, they seemed more scarey or threatening. I agreed. I really like the NuBSG but felt the Cylon centric approach of the last season and a half was disappointing.

Chris

[taksraven]

Really good point. I remember when the new BSG was airing and they had podcasts each week, Ron Moore made that same comment about the Cylons. That you can't make them this incredibly dangerous force, but still have you "heroes" survive week after week. It just diminishes the threat they pose. Too bad he eventually made the show the Cylon show. I also remember Jamie Bamber saying something to that effect in one of the podcasts, saying something like when the Cylon's were this unknown threat, they seemed more scarey or threatening. I agreed. I really like the NuBSG but felt the Cylon centric approach of the last season and a half was disappointing.

Chris

The thing is though, that if you are clever with things like this, it doesn't have to go bad and the bad guys don't have to become completely impotent.

The best example are the first two "Alien" movies. The first one had the threat being from *one* alien that was nearly impossible to kill (at least with the weapons that Ripley and her crew had available to them) "Aliens" of course had *hundreds* of the creatures in the film and in many ways they were easier to kill due to the addition of Space Marines and some high power weapons but I still felt that they were not devalued as a threat in any major way and ultimately the Aliens were still a terrifying force to be reckoned with.

[taksraven]

Just saw this one online.....LOL

[Kanedas Bike]

Revenge and Lens Flares for the win.

In all seriousness I literally grew up watching TOS and I loved Star Trek for what it was on TV (TOS, TNG, DS9, etc.) but I'm not as opposed to the new action packed Star Trek as some.

-b.

[modelglue]

Revenge and Lens Flares for the win.

In all seriousness I literally grew up watching TOS and I loved Star Trek for what it was on TV (TOS, TNG, DS9, etc.) but I'm not as opposed to the new action packed Star Trek as some.

-b.

I didn't get into TOS, but TNG and DS9 were the most entertaining incredibly boring shows for me. I know that probably seems sarcastic, but it truly isn't. They didn't require OTT action, and all the things other shows were doing at that time to reign in viewers. What I love about TNU (The New Universe) is that they have retained the classic "pings" of TOS, blended a bit of aesthetic from each series into one visual style while adding the necessary action today's audience requires.

Contrast this with Star Wars. The original episodes were and still are some of my favourite films. The new episodes not so much. I still appreciate them and that they are different. As long as you enjoy them separately knowing full well they aren't the same things then they become more palatable. Here is hoping ST3 will fall into the former category.

Edited December 28, 2014 by modelglue

[sketchley]

The thing is though, that if you are clever with things like this, it doesn't have to go bad and the bad guys don't have to become completely impotent.

The best example are the first two "Alien" movies. The first one had the threat being from *one* alien that was nearly impossible to kill (at least with the weapons that Ripley and her crew had available to them) "Aliens" of course had *hundreds* of the creatures in the film and in many ways they were easier to kill due to the addition of Space Marines and some high power weapons but I still felt that they were not devalued as a threat in any major way and ultimately the Aliens were still a terrifying force to be reckoned with.

I disagree. "Aliens" took something away - to the extent that if you see the films in reverse order, the first one loses a lot.

IMHO, the Ori from SG1 are one of the better "opponents that remain dangerous right up to the end". It's effectively only due to dues ex machina that their threat is resolved - and that's only after the TV series has ended in a concluding movie! And even then, there's still the sticky angle of their religious aspect spawning new zealots in the future...

[taksraven]

I disagree. "Aliens" took something away - to the extent that if you see the films in reverse order, the first one loses a lot.

IMHO, the Ori from SG1 are one of the better "opponents that remain dangerous right up to the end". It's effectively only due to dues ex machina that their threat is resolved - and that's only after the TV series has ended in a concluding movie! And even then, there's still the sticky angle of their religious aspect spawning new zealots in the future...

Maybe the mystique of the appearance of the aliens and some stuff about their origins, but that's it. They were still fearsome opponents.....

[sketchley]

Maybe the mystique of the appearance of the aliens and some stuff about their origins, but that's it. They were still fearsome opponents.....

I don't disagree that they remain fearsome opponents throughout the subsequent sequels. It's more to do with the type of films that "Alien" and "Aliens" are, and the role the aliens play in those films. They remain perfect antagonists for a tense action movie, but some of what makes them a "perfect movie monster" in a horror film is lost.

[Mommar]

Revenge and Lens Flares for the win.

In all seriousness I literally grew up watching TOS and I loved Star Trek for what it was on TV (TOS, TNG, DS9, etc.) but I'm not as opposed to the new action packed Star Trek as some.

-b.

Two different things. Star Trek 2 is still considered the best film in the series by most Star Trek fans. That had action but it was done in a tactful and thoughtful way, it also had a morality play and a lot of other stuff from the original series. The new Star Trek has a lot of dumb action that is more in the vein of Star Wars, and goes on about idiotic mysterious destiny and crap like that. I don't think anybody in the fandom is opposed to action, they're opposed to making Star Trek something that it isn't.

[Duke Togo]

I don't think anybody in the fandom is opposed to action, they're opposed to making Star Trek something that it isn't.

A popular, viable franchise?

[sketchley]

(...) Star Trek 2 is still considered the best film in the series by most Star Trek fans. That had action but it was done in a tactful and thoughtful way, it also had a morality play and a lot of other stuff from the original series. (...)

I'd also add that it was about something more than what you see. A theme, in different words. Many great stories (not just movies!) are like that - they are much better when they are actually about something. In ST2's case, it was about death and rebirth. It's hard to get more universal than that (arguably, ST4's theme and relevance hit a lot more non-fan's buttons, but that's beside the point).

[Graham]

So no doubt in the next installment, we'll see the Enterprise drifting

Graham

[derex3592]

Hahahahahaha

[TehPW]

technically they already did in 2 (when the Vengence rapes the JJ-Ent outta warp)...

[Chronocidal]

I'd also add that it was about something more than what you see. A theme, in different words. Many great stories (not just movies!) are like that - they are much better when they are actually about something. In ST2's case, it was about death and rebirth. It's hard to get more universal than that (arguably, ST4's theme and relevance hit a lot more non-fan's buttons, but that's beside the point).

That's actually what turned me off so horribly to Into Darkness. It took that original theme, and then pissed all over it, taking what had been a huge emotional event in the original film, and then twisting it all around, and deus ex machina-ing it away within the last 20 minutes of the movie. It probably wouldn't even have bothered me if they had come up with something original, but making it so similar while stripping it of any heavy impact felt like a mockery.

Admittedly, that's just me being picky and nostalgic about TWOK. Hopefully the new movies can actually go forward into something truly original, instead of re-treading all the plots and ideas that've been established in previous series and movies.

Edited December 29, 2014 by Chronocidal

[Duke Togo]

The problem with Into Darkness is that the script is a bloody mess. There is so much nonsensical stuff going on that I think it's pretty unwatchable past the first viewing (which has its own entertainment value, but little more). This is totally unsurprising given Lindelof's involvement, and has far more to do with him than the reboot as a whole. I think too many people want to throw out the baby with the bathwater here, and simply don't want to acknowledge how much Trek needed that initial reboot movie (or how successful and popular it was). That said, Reboot 3 certainly isn't looking so hot right now.

[technoblue]

The problem with Into Darkness is that the script is a bloody mess. There is so much nonsensical stuff going on that I think it's pretty unwatchable past the first viewing (which has its own entertainment value, but little more). This is totally unsurprising given Lindelof's involvement, and has far more to do with him than the reboot as a whole. I think too many people want to throw out the baby with the bathwater here, and simply don't want to acknowledge how much Trek needed that initial reboot movie (or how successful and popular it was). That said, Reboot 3 certainly isn't looking so hot right now.

No. The issue isn't that Star Trek needed a reboot. The issue is that Paramount continues to let the franchise run aground. I often wonder if the show was singularly understood by Roddenberry himself. After TOS, with TNG and DS9, I thought that others were starting to get how versatile Star Trek's universe could be.

Of the reboots, I enjoy the first New Trek as a popcorn film. The special effects are incredible, and Kirk and McCoy are set up decently enough for the altered timeline, but I thought that the rest of the cast was uninspired. New Spock's crisis, for instance, wasn't given enough attention for me as a viewer to connect with it. And as much as I appreciate Nimoy as an actor, I thought old Spock's presence was more of a hindrance to the reboots development than a benefit. It diminishes new Spock's characterization and the audience's intelligence to have information fed from an all-knowing character like old Spock.

Something that could have made new Spock's development more realistic and Into Darkness more interesting would have been if Spock had taken the place of Cumberbatch's character and went rogue, blaming Star Fleet for what happened to Vulcan in the first film. It would have been a nod to the one or two old series episodes where Spock was the alien antagonist and it would also give us another glimpse of Spock's human half. And who knows? They may have still been able to toss Kahn in.

But all that would have required better writing.

Unfortunately, any potential that Into Darkness had with continuing the parallel time line idea was wasted. The end result of that film was worse than any Star Trek fan fiction that comes to my mind. There are independent Star Trek movies and series in development now that have more creativity, heart, and direction than Abrams second attempt. For me, New Trek II is one of a few blemishes coming out of Abram's Bad Robot productions.

[renegadeleader1]

The problem with Into Darkness is that the script is a bloody mess. There is so much nonsensical stuff going on that I think it's pretty unwatchable past the first viewing (which has its own entertainment value, but little more). This is totally unsurprising given Lindelof's involvement, and has far more to do with him than the reboot as a whole. I think too many people want to throw out the baby with the bathwater here, and simply don't want to acknowledge how much Trek needed that initial reboot movie (or how successful and popular it was). That said, Reboot 3 certainly isn't looking so hot right now.

I can't blame Lindelof too much this time around. The fault lies with 9/11 "truther" Roberto Orci who co-wrote the script. His idea of "social commentary" is to take Star Trek and turn it into his own conspiracy fan fiction soap box. When asked about it at a scifi con he flipped out and told everyone to "**** off".

[Agent ONE]

New Star Trek > Old Star Trek

[JB0]

Don't hate.

I honestly have no issues with the latest incarnation of Trek because, well, Trek's always varied wildly from week to week. I'm just annoyed by the space katana and that Kahn was wasted so early in the parallel universe.

...

Hey, I just had a thought.... how confusing will it be when the parallel universe meets the mirror universe? Will it be THE mirror, or a second mirror?

[Duke Togo]

No. The issue isn't that Star Trek needed a reboot. The issue is that Paramount continues to let the franchise run aground. I often wonder if the show was singularly understood by Roddenberry himself.

Everything I've read about Roddenberry and his involvement with Trek in the 1980s paints a picture of a franchise that would not have survived the decade under his creative control. To deny this is to be ignorant of what actually happened during this time period. Hell, he even fought against Khan, which was made largely in defiance of the narrow vision Roddenberry had for his universe. There are plenty of interviews out there with Khan writer/director Nicholar Meyer that spell this out pretty plainly.

And yes, it needed a reboot because the original cast was a dead end and the time for the TNG cast had come and gone without much of a fuss (outside of First Contact). The pervious two TV series had failed pretty miserably, and BSG cracked open TV sci-fi in a way that made Trek as it was obsolete. It needed to be turned on its head, and the reboot did that.

Edited December 29, 2014 by Duke Togo

[Duke Togo]

I can't blame Lindelof too much this time around. The fault lies with 9/11 "truther" Roberto Orci who co-wrote the script. His idea of "social commentary" is to take Star Trek and turn it into his own conspiracy fan fiction soap box. When asked about it at a scifi con he flipped out and told everyone to "**** off".

I've seen Lindelof crap on too many things to say this isn't his mess. He is the master of defying all logic and leaving gaping plot holes with little explaination. Why he continually gets hired is beyond me.

[technoblue]

Everything I've read about Roddenberry and his involvement with Trek in the 1980s paints a picture of a franchise that would not have survived the decade under his creative control. To deny this is to be ignorant of what actually happened during this time period. Hell, he even fought against Khan, which was made largely in defiance of the narrow vision Roddenberry had for his universe. There are plenty of interviews out there with Khan writer/director Nicholar Meyer that spell this out pretty plainly.

And yes, it needed a reboot because the original cast was a dead end and the time for the TNG cast had come and gone without much of a fuss (outside of First Contact). The pervious two TV series had failed pretty miserably, and BSG cracked open TV sci-fi in a way that made Trek as it was obsolete. It needed to be turned on its head, and the reboot did that.

I'll take your word for it on the Meyer interviews.

But I'll have to agree to disagree about the reboot. As I wrote, New Trek's reboot had promise, but the second movie wasted the opportunities the first one gave to the audience. It will be a tough act for New Trek III to clean up after Into Darkness, IMO. I wouldn't be as critical of New Trek if the Enterprise had a different crew, and a few adjustments to the story to fit that aspect. Hm..., thinking about it, that would have been a pretty cool interpretation. What if old Spock's timey-wimey shenanigans with the Romulans led not only to the incident on Vulcan, but also a completely new Enterprise crew?

[Mommar]

A popular, viable franchise?

You avoided my point in favor of unnecessary snark. My point was that Star Trek was about something, not just mindless JJ effects bullshit. You could easily make a fast paced, modern, sci-fi looking/sounding Star Trek that is ACTUALLY ABOUT SOMETHING. Hell, look at the praise for movies like Birdman and Interstellar. Aren't both of movies about the human condition? Star Trek was about that and more but these past two movies, while flashy, aren't about a God Damned thing. And that's my problem with them.

technoblue is partly right, the first movie showed promise (even if I have more than a dozen complaints about it.) The second movie showed us absolutely nothing. It was a waste of time by an idiot writer who can't come up with a complete thought and a director who knows nothing about telling a story about the human condition. JJ is all about selling sizzle, but he doesn't have a damn clue what a steak is. And with the director they've picked for the third Star Trek we're on our way to another flashy, lifeless nothing. But hey, people will pay to watch some more stupid so it must be an improvement!

[Keith]

Saying the new moviea are just mindless action is a fair amount of hater talk. You don't have to have a crap-ton of existential technobabel to have a message. And for the record, I enjoy the new movies as much as I enjoy TOS, TNG, and both movie series.

[Mommar]

Saying the new moviea are just mindless action is a fair amount of hater talk. You don't have to have a crap-ton of existential technobabel to have a message. And for the record, I enjoy the new movies as much as I enjoy TOS, TNG, and both movie series.

You need to have a message, you're confusing the "technobable" science used to solve problems for other higher concepts that aren't in these new movies at all.

[Duke Togo]

You need to have a message, you're confusing the "technobable" science used to solve problems for other higher concepts that aren't in these new movies at all.

Oh please, do share these "higher concepts" with us.

[technoblue]

New Trek could be better. That's not hater talk. That's constructive criticism. TOS had its cringe-worthy moments too, so I'm not looking at this through rose-colored glasses. As long as I'm dreaming up what-if scenarios, another cool one would have included a whole season with the cast from TOS's pilot episode before adding Shatner on as Captain Kirk.

Growing up, I appreciated Star Trek and Star Wars for what each show added to genre fiction.

Mommar and sketchley are right. Star Trek was a unique product of its time, like the Twilight Zone, using its fiction to examine current issues and events. Space was the setting, but it easily could have been set anywhere when you think about the original show. It was less an exercise in escapism and more an exercise in reflection. If one were to compare its lessons to anime, the early Leiji Matsumoto series come to mind.

[JB0]

I'll take your word for it on the Meyer interviews.

But I'll have to agree to disagree about the reboot. As I wrote, New Trek's reboot had promise, but the second movie wasted the opportunities the first one gave to the audience. It will be a tough act for New Trek III to clean up after Into Darkness, IMO. I wouldn't be as critical of New Trek if the Enterprise had a different crew, and a few adjustments to the story to fit that aspect. Hm..., thinking about it, that would have been a pretty cool interpretation. What if old Spock's timey-wimey shenanigans with the Romulans led not only to the incident on Vulcan, but also a completely new Enterprise crew?

I kind of liked the implication in the first new movie. It felt like the universe was trying to correct itself, get things back on track.

Mommar and sketchley are right. Star Trek was a unique product of its time, like the Twilight Zone, using its fiction to examine current issues and events. Space was the setting, but it easily could have been set anywhere when you think about the original show. It was less an exercise in escapism and more an exercise in reflection. If one were to compare its lessons to anime, the early Leiji Matsumoto series come to mind.

And that's one of the problems with modern Trek(and the sequel serieses are included here). It's not just unwilling to confront social issues, it's explicitly banned from doing so.

[taksraven]

Everything I've read about Roddenberry and his involvement with Trek in the 1980s paints a picture of a franchise that would not have survived the decade under his creative control. To deny this is to be ignorant of what actually happened during this time period. Hell, he even fought against Khan, which was made largely in defiance of the narrow vision Roddenberry had for his universe. There are plenty of interviews out there with Khan writer/director Nicholar Meyer that spell this out pretty plainly.

And yes, it needed a reboot because the original cast was a dead end and the time for the TNG cast had come and gone without much of a fuss (outside of First Contact). The pervious two TV series had failed pretty miserably, and BSG cracked open TV sci-fi in a way that made Trek as it was obsolete. It needed to be turned on its head, and the reboot did that.

I think it's a fairly modern thing. These days when you have SF Franchise Creator Vs. Studio Vs. Fans Vs. Internet feedback its always going to get messy.

Look at George Lucas with the prequel trilogy. The three films were a huge financial success that brought a massive number of new fans into the francise (in spite of Jar-Jar) but you have the flipside where the films were a massive critical failure amongst the fans from the '77 days (myself included) and a lot of others over the age of 15. BUT, at the end of the day the films brought in shitloads of money, and that's the bottom line.

Same goes with the new Trek films. The 2009 film made 385 million and Into Darkness made 467 million. At the end of the day, Paramount isn't going to care about critical reception if they bring enough money in. They think they have a formula, they will try to stick with it as best they can.

That is the cold hard reality of these things.

[sketchley]

I'd like to add that likes and dislikes aside, the movie versions of TNG were flawed from the start, simply because the producers tried to shoehorn them into action movies when the TV series itself was decidedly not. The TOS films work much better, as the show itself was action oriented (how many times did Kirk resolve things with a fist? How many times did Picard?)

I've only seen the first of the 'reset' films, and although I really like the characterization and character episodes in it, I found it completely forgettable. I disliked how they handled the overall plot, and specifically, how they handled the villains (as villains are generally what make or break these kinds of movies...), and how they handled the reset itself - it left an aftertaste like the producers were trying to have their cake and eat it, too!

I did find a theme in a rewatching of the 1st movie, but it is weakly handled at best, and it is quite forgettable once the end credits start to roll. Compare that to the themes of ST II, IV, and VI, which can be recalled decades after seeing the films...

Does any of this mean that ST3 (new one) will be any better or worse? It's really too early to say with the choice in director. He may surprise us like Brad Bird did with MI4.

Nevertheless, it all comes down to the writing. After all, 'a great director can make a decent film out of a mediocre script. A bad director can ruin a great script.' The key being that the quality of the script is just as important as the skills of the director.

Edited December 30, 2014 by sketchley