[movie]Star Trek Beyond

Odin · Post by **Odin** » Mon Jun 20, 2016 11:56 am

The problem with Star Trek Into Darkness wasn't that it was too cerebral, it's that it was profoundly stupid in almost every conceivable way. It tried too hard to recreate the end of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, but without any of the actual camaraderie that made old Spock's sacrifice meaningful to the audience. It had a spaceship submerging underwater so the pre-technical natives couldn't see it? Funny, without telescopes it seems like just STAYING IN SPACE would have worked better. It had the whole convoluted "Khan" plot (who for some reason was British this time instead of a Sikh. Which, granted, Montalbán wasn't, either, but at least he wasn't pasty white) which involved about 20 elements that made absolutely no sense. It had the desperate need for Khan's blood to heal Kirk at the end, instead of just getting some from the dozens of other eugenic supermen they had in the cooler. It had tribbles for no apparent reason. Aaargh - that movie is such a HUGE disappointment. Even moreso than the first one, which was also pretty dumb.

I get what they're saying - they believe you can either have a summer blockbuster or you can have a deep, meaningful sci-fi movie, but not both. But they're going so far in the Michael Bay "explosions make everything okay!" direction that it just doesn't even feel like Star Trek anymore. Star Trek II, IV, and VI all had smart, clever stories that weren't too convoluted. They need to try to steer closer to those, in my opinion.

McNutt · Post by **McNutt** » Mon Jun 20, 2016 12:04 pm

Well said, Odin. You most certainly can have an intellectual movie. You just increase the risk of it not making as much money as if you stick with the sad formula of loud noises, people hanging off cliffs and boobs. Star Trek is no longer about telling great stories. It's about throwing as much action, CGI and old references that it can at the audience.

rshetts2 · Post by **rshetts2** » Fri Jul 15, 2016 9:46 am

Paramount held a viewing for critics and it appears that the reception was overwhelmingly positive.

http://movieweb.com/star-trek-beyond-early-reactions/

Many comments say its the closest thing to TOS that they have done so far. Full reviews are not out yet so it will be interesting to see how this translates on RT but it sounds like it will be worth seeing in the theatres.

Daehawk · Post by **Daehawk** » Mon Jul 18, 2016 10:52 pm

JJ says he wont recast Chekov

So wtf man...ST needs a Chekov. I liked Anton but he's gone..pick a new actor. He'll replace the entire Trek cast but when his own dies he wont?..Weirdo. Why does a director have total control of this decision?

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Mon Jul 18, 2016 11:54 pm

Star trek made it for a full third of its run without Chekov, and even then he was only active in a fraction of the episodes. It is great to have him, but I can see not recasting him, at least for a little while.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Tue Jul 19, 2016 2:11 am

I'm OK with them writing a character out if it's done well -- not just "Chekov's grandma is sick so he's off to Russia" or something. It's an alternate timeline, after all. Only the Kirk/Spock/McCoy triumvirate is sacrosanct.

gilraen · Post by **gilraen** » Tue Jul 19, 2016 2:57 am

Daehawk wrote:So wtf man...ST needs a Chekov. I liked Anton but he's gone..pick a new actor. He'll replace the entire Trek cast but when his own dies he wont?..Weirdo. Why does a director have total control of this decision?

I disagree. They should deal with Chekov's death somehow and it'll become part of the timeline.

Daehawk · Post by **Daehawk** » Tue Jul 19, 2016 3:06 am

Really?..Star Trek with out a Chekov? Would you guys want them to go here..heres our new crew member Bekov? The actor died not the character. I think someone else just has to be Chekov next time.

gilraen · Post by **gilraen** » Tue Jul 19, 2016 3:15 am

Chekov wasn't on the 1st season of original Star Trek show at all, somehow they managed... And it was different on a TV show as camera focused on the bridge crew quite a bit. In the movie, there's lots more going on, it doesn't really matter who's sitting at the control panel in the corner, it can be any nameless face, they'll be in camera shot for a few seconds at a time.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Jul 19, 2016 8:30 am

Kraken wrote:I'm OK with them writing a character out if it's done well -- not just "Chekov's grandma is sick so he's off to Russia" or something. It's an alternate timeline, after all. Only the Kirk/Spock/McCoy triumvirate is sacrosanct.

But how could they do it well without recasting the role for at least one movie? Presumably they didn't shoot a scene where Chekov dies a dramatic noble death. So it's hard to see how the options aren't: (1) offscreen throwaway line ("Chekov moved to Russia and died in a tragic borscht-related accident"); (2) recasting the role at least temporarily so that Chekov can die a heroic death; or (3) CGI Chekov (who then dies a heroic death). None of those options seem great.

I think it's most likely that Chekov won't be in the next movie, but will be back for appropriate successive movie(s) after that.

Daehawk · Post by **Daehawk** » Tue Jul 19, 2016 9:05 am

Star Trek Kelvin Timeline 5. "Chekov....have you done something with your hair?"

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Tue Jul 19, 2016 9:27 am

Chekov is a supporting character, easily replaced by another that fits the uniform. No need to do something drastic like kill him off.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Tue Jul 19, 2016 9:29 am

El Guapo wrote:(3) CGI Chekov (who then dies a heroic death).

They did it with Paul Walker in Fast 7. I haven't seen it, but I heard it was really well done.

Additionally, with what they did with Robert Downey Jr. in Civil War, I really wouldn't put anything past them. That was really amazing.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Jul 19, 2016 9:46 am

stessier wrote:
El Guapo wrote:(3) CGI Chekov (who then dies a heroic death).
They did it with Paul Walker in Fast 7. I haven't seen it, but I heard it was really well done.

I'm not sure why I sat through that damn film, but I did.

The CGI was odd. It made his head look like it was floating over his neck. It was also really, really sappy.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Jul 19, 2016 9:47 am

stessier wrote:
El Guapo wrote:(3) CGI Chekov (who then dies a heroic death).
Additionally, with what they did with Robert Downey Jr. in Civil War, I really wouldn't put anything past them. That was really amazing.

Yeah that was incredible. I didn't even process it as CGI at the time.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Tue Jul 19, 2016 10:32 am

Daehawk wrote:Really?..Star Trek with out a Chekov? Would you guys want them to go here..heres our new crew member Bekov? The actor died not the character. I think someone else just has to be Chekov next time.

Half of the stations on the bridge are already crewed by Ensign Doe. Most of the time the only job Chekov had was to say, "Aye, Captain!" and push a button. That can also be Ensign Doe. Sulu was the same way. They're great characters, who had a few great episodes devoted to them, but the show could (and did) function without them.

McNutt · Post by **McNutt** » Tue Jul 19, 2016 11:10 am

They don't need to have that character filled. Just show some nameless shirt in that seat and concentrate on the others.

rshetts2 · Post by **rshetts2** » Tue Jul 19, 2016 11:35 am

But whos going to get directions to the nuqulear wessels now?

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Jul 19, 2016 11:39 am

They should just slide in Walter Koenig and not say anything or explain it.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Tue Jul 19, 2016 11:40 am

Bonus points if it turns out he's an undercover psychic investigator.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Tue Jul 19, 2016 11:55 am

El Guapo wrote:
Kraken wrote:I'm OK with them writing a character out if it's done well -- not just "Chekov's grandma is sick so he's off to Russia" or something. It's an alternate timeline, after all. Only the Kirk/Spock/McCoy triumvirate is sacrosanct.
But how could they do it well without recasting the role for at least one movie? Presumably they didn't shoot a scene where Chekov dies a dramatic noble death. So it's hard to see how the options aren't: (1) offscreen throwaway line ("Chekov moved to Russia and died in a tragic borscht-related accident"); (2) recasting the role at least temporarily so that Chekov can die a heroic death; or (3) CGI Chekov (who then dies a heroic death). None of those options seem great.

I think it's most likely that Chekov won't be in the next movie, but will be back for appropriate successive movie(s) after that.

Easy. They destroy the Enterprise in every movie; poor Chekov doesn't make it out next time. Then launch his coffin onto a genesis planet from the next Enterprise. ST: The Search for Chekov!

He's a minor character, though, so it doesn't matter much one way or the other to me. I'd prefer that they introduce a new character, but fleshing him/her out in an action movie is next to impossible without the TV series background. Maybe the smartest move is to import a character from the new TV series if those two properties can intersect.

Daehawk · Post by **Daehawk** » Tue Jul 19, 2016 1:09 pm

El Guapo wrote:They should just slide in Walter Koenig and not say anything or explain it.

Man.....oh man....dang...uh well...cool.

Scuzz · Post by **Scuzz** » Tue Jul 19, 2016 1:27 pm

McNutt wrote:They don't need to have that character filled. Just show some nameless shirt in that seat and concentrate on the others.

They could introduce Ens. Wesley Crusher?

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Tue Jul 19, 2016 2:12 pm

Scuzz wrote: They could introduce Ens. Wesley Crusher?

Still finding reasons to miss promotion exams after all these years.

geezer · Post by **geezer** » Tue Jul 19, 2016 4:31 pm

hepcat wrote:
I'm not sure why I sat through that damn film...

Because it was FANTASTIC. Duh.

Krillin · Post by **Krillin** » Tue Jul 19, 2016 5:21 pm

How about he gets replaced by a promising new cadet, Ensign Jon Luc Picard!!!

sgoldj · Post by **sgoldj** » Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:10 pm

Lt. Arex

AjD · Post by **AjD** » Tue Jul 19, 2016 7:35 pm

This has long been one of the problems in translating the 60s show to cinema -- figuring out what to do with all those minor characters!

In a TV show, you can keep the focus on the main characters (Kirk/Spock plus Bones), while still giving the secondaries occasional story arcs in various episodes. That's not possible in a motion picture. As crass as it is to say this, I'll bet it makes things easier, story-wise, for the Star Trek movie producers to keep Chekov's seat empty.

Scuzz · Post by **Scuzz** » Tue Jul 19, 2016 7:46 pm

They will use a Redshirt.

McNutt · Post by **McNutt** » Tue Jul 19, 2016 8:24 pm

geezer wrote:
hepcat wrote:
I'm not sure why I sat through that damn film...
Because it was FANTASTIC. Duh.

Why do you hate America, hep?

And Japan.

Daehawk · Post by **Daehawk** » Tue Jul 19, 2016 9:59 pm

In the Kelvin timeline Shran became disgruntled with his life and went off into space looking for adventure. He found it with Starfleet and became one hell of a weapons and navigation officer. He was a shoe in when Chekov died.

"Welcome aboard Mr Shran. Take the weapons position."

WarPig · Post by **WarPig** » Tue Jul 19, 2016 10:09 pm

How long do Andorians live?

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Jul 19, 2016 10:09 pm

McNutt wrote:
geezer wrote:
hepcat wrote:
I'm not sure why I sat through that damn film...
Because it was FANTASTIC. Duh.
Why do you hate America, hep?

And Japan.

I don't hate America. I just think we should see other countries.

JSHAW · Post by **JSHAW** » Wed Jul 20, 2016 1:09 pm

This friday's opening of ST-B will be the first Trek movie that I will not be seeing on opening day.

Not in a Trekky mood lately.

I own every series, every episode, every movie from the franchise, just not feeling it on this one.

Probably buy it when it hits bluray.

From those going, let me know how much lens flare there is.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Wed Jul 20, 2016 1:20 pm

I hear they'll be filling Chekov's seat with a lens flare in future films.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Wed Jul 20, 2016 1:46 pm

Blackhawk wrote:I hear they'll be filling Chekov's seat with a lens flare in future films.

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Wed Jul 20, 2016 1:50 pm

Bravo. The lens flare and spinning camera angles made my wife physically ill and now she refuses to go to ANY space movies.

Thanks, JJ!

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Wed Jul 20, 2016 2:31 pm

We plan to see it in a week or two. Always prefer to avoid opening weekend crowds.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Wed Jul 20, 2016 3:14 pm

I'm a Star Trek dork. I'll see it next weekend (rule number one: never attend a summer blockbuster on opening weekend...unless it's a DC superhero film, of course.).

pr0ner · Post by **pr0ner** » Wed Jul 20, 2016 3:32 pm

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?