Review Star Trek Beyond (2016)

GhostOfTheWest

GhostOfTheWest

Member: Rank 1
afvv.jpg


The crew of the USS Enterprise explores the furthest reaches of uncharted space, where they encounter a new ruthless enemy, who puts them, and everything the Federation stands for, to the test.






On to the next movie....

STAR TREK 4.....

https://www.imdforums.com/threads/star-trek-4-cancelled.4716/


Back to the previous movie.....

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS......

https://www.imdforums.com/threads/star-trek-into-darkness-2013.971/





---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------








I really enjoyed it. It had lots of flaws and had a fairly redundant plot at this point. But I felt it was the best of the three in the new series.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Alex Vojacek

Alex Vojacek

Administrator
Staff member
VIP
I like the first one the most, even with that odd time-reset stuff in it. The second one was the weakest and the third one somewhat improved the work but it's not better (on my opinion) to the first one. The first has a much better and interesting story to it.
 
Lucas

Lucas

Member: Rank 4
Fantastic movie. My favorite Star Trek movie since at least The Voyage Home, maybe even further back. The characters finally felt like real characters, the writing was not the dumbest thing on earth and it somehow took the things from the first two films in the new series and made it work. What Simon Pegg and Doug Jung accomplished with that script cannot be understated here. It's smart, well rounded, inventive and actually offers something NEW and exciting to the franchise that felt like classic Star Trek while still maintaining the new blockbuster-y style. It truly hits home that Simon Pegg is just a great storyteller and should be writing more than he is.
 
GhostOfTheWest

GhostOfTheWest

Member: Rank 1
They thing is though they all have the same story. All three of them. Roughly the same. Guy wants revenge. I felt Star Trek was an exciting rejuvenation of the original series. Into Darkness tried to hard. But beyond to me felt a natural progression in the new series after the first film, showing the crews progression on the five year mission.
 
Lucas

Lucas

Member: Rank 4
To me it feels like the weaker parts of Beyond almost have to be in there because they were in the first two. Yes it's yet another bad guy who wants revenge plot but there's so much damage they had to fix and essentially get the whole franchise back on track and boil it down to what Star Trek should be about that they really couldn't have a very depthful and multilayered plot about some really interesting villain like they probably would've preferred. Offer them the next one and we will probably see something new.
 
GhostOfTheWest

GhostOfTheWest

Member: Rank 1
Well I'm hopeful that part 4 will keep the story going. Not sure how I feel about the idea of them Bringing Kirks father back. Feels like they might reset the timeline again. There is really no need for that at this stage. Let's move forward, not backward.
 
ant-mac

ant-mac

Member: Rank 9
GhostOfTheWest said:
I really enjoyed it. It had lots of flaws and had a fairly redundant plot at this point. But I felt it was the best of the three in the new series.
Click to expand...
I don't like the fact that it was randomly set during the historic five year mission.

Before or after the five year mission is fine, but not during it. If they wanted to show the five year mission, then they should have done it properly - with a TV series.
 
Gavin

Gavin

Member: Rank 6
VIP
The story's not the greatest but this was the first one that I felt really got the characters and their relationships right.
 
Doctor Omega

Doctor Omega

Member: Rank 10
Yep, it's definitely moved back to there... :emoji_alien:


In July, at Star Trek's 50th anniversary San Diego Comic-Con panel, Fuller announced the series' title to be Star Trek: Discovery, and revealed that it would be set in the "Prime Timeline" (which includes the previous Star Trek series, but not the reboot films of the "Kelvin Timeline").

Fuller explained that the series had been developed to fit into either timeline, but he felt that there was a "cleanliness" to keeping the concurrent series and films separated, so "we don't have to track anything [happening in the films] and they don't have to track what we're doing"
Click to expand...
 
Hux

Hux

Member: Rank 6
Hmm, I guess they could pull it off but it seems silly to ignore what the films did creating a new timeline.

We'll see.

Hopefully, the material is so good, it won't matter.
 
Doctor Omega

Doctor Omega

Member: Rank 10
Levar Burton on the Abrams movies....




Sadly the situation hasn't improved much for Levar, as Discovery will be set ten years before Kirk, so unlikely to be any Next Gen cameos....

I kind of wish they were setting this new series 15 years after Nemesis, then they could have cameos from the Berman shows, all playing their actual age.

But no, it's prequel time again.... Sigh.
 
Doctor Omega

Doctor Omega

Member: Rank 10
Agreed. They always seem so timid. For all his faults (many) I think Rodenberry was proven right to jump ahead 78 years or so for Next Gen (assuming that it was his idea to do so). His successors have been much more timid. I think any prequel is just creating continuity headaches and restrictions for yourself, and less than boldly going backwards.
 
Hux

Hux

Member: Rank 6
That the ship is exploring a different part of space will hopefully bring something new. Can't seem to help feeling pessimistic about it though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top