NCC-1701 no bloody A, B, C, or D

[Red Shirt]

Star Trek Beyond. I'll do my best not to give any spoilers, but come on it's Star Trek - crew gets into impossible situation and come out of it saving the universe. I grew up with the original series. I love these characters. My interest in science is largely due to this show. I hated TNG. Bigger is not necessarily better. I did eventually learn to embrace Picard as a worthy Captain. How could I not he drinks Earl Grey hot.

Anyway, my non-spoiler gripe is the lack of rational physics. I know, I know, it's Star Trek and I know I have to suspend all physics logic when I sit down, but my lands there are some whoppers in this movie. That said, the thing that irritated me most was non-physics related. How was there suddenly enough smooth level ground for the bike? Every scene prior had people struggling over boulders. If there was a path, why didn't they all walk on it? Hollywood. 

Oh, and if these guys are three years into a five year mission to seek out... why do they keep hanging out around Federation settled places? Shouldn't they be so far out beyond that getting back, to save the Federation, isn't an option? OK, future note to self, suspend physics and logic when going to a Sci-Fi movie.

I actually enjoyed the movie a lot despite what I have written. The actors portrayal of the iconic characters are growing on me. 

I did very much love and appreciate the Nimoy tribute. Also the quieter and less obvious Anton moment. 

I loved Jaylah. The character stole the show and definitely needs to come back in the next physics disaster. I liked that this movie had a small story line and focused more on character interaction. That is a solid TOS move. 

 

[TheSaint]

Quote

NCC-1701 no bloody A, B, C, or D

Haven't seen the movie, probably won't until it comes out on Netflix. But you did point out one of my biggest gripes with the whole Star Trek canon. Obviously nobody involved in any of the series could wrap their heads around the concept of hull numbers. 

[p1t1o]

I rolled my eyes so hard when I saw the dirtbike on the poster...

And come on, this is 2016, can we PLEASE get a better alien than straight-up-no-frills human in striking makeup. It must not have cost a lot to phone in female darth maul.

Having said that, I heard the film is a laugh so I'll probably watch it. No spoilers!

[razark]

3 hours ago, Red Shirt said:

Oh, and if these guys are three years into a five year mission to seek out... why do they keep hanging out around Federation settled places?

I must note that this also applies to a large number of TOS episodes.  (Which I am also a fan of, having grown up on the reruns.)

 

So the second movie involved Khan, and this third one seems to include the destruction of the Enterprise.

If the next one has so much as a single damn whale...

Edited July 26, 2016 by razark

[cubinator]

1 hour ago, p1t1o said:

I heard the film is a laugh

That is true.

[pTrevTrevs]

2 hours ago, p1t1o said:

And come on, this is 2016, can we PLEASE get a better alien than straight-up-no-frills human in striking makeup. It must not have cost a lot to phone in female darth maul.

Gotta stay true to the original series, amirite?

[p1t1o]

17 minutes ago, pTrevTrevs said:

Gotta stay true to the original series, amirite?

I suppose so, the spacey graphics got an upgrade though, and star trek isnt the only offender.

[LordFerret]

I love the original series. The ones following took some getting used to. In my book, DS9 shouldn't even be considered 'Star Trek', and Voyager treads dangerously close on that same ground. What I really don't get, and indeed at that - it does irk me, are all the remakes. I mean, come on, how do you remake Khan?... not to mention all the others. Poor Ricardo Montalbán, he must roll in his grave every time one of those remakes airs again. This is Star Trek, they have a whole friggin galaxy and beyond to work with, and the best they can do is remakes? This just shows how Hollywood truly has no talent what-so-ever any more. Don't get me started on Star Wars either, don't even go there. And the new "Iron Man" ... where does it end. What the hell is wrong with people these days???

[Nuke]

i have a hard time taking trek seriously when there is a motorcycle involved.

[Red Shirt]

16 hours ago, p1t1o said:

can we PLEASE get a better alien than straight-up-no-frills human in striking makeup

Problem is when they venture off the path we get Jar Jar Binks, Jabba the Hutt, or Alien. It is harder to make an emotional connection with them. TOS did have that episode where they patched the alien with cement.

15 hours ago, razark said:

I must note that this also applies to a large number of TOS episodes.

I agree. It just never felt as obvious on the show.

15 hours ago, razark said:

If the next one has so much as a single damn whale...

If I were writing the next one, it would open with whale sounds and a blue whale breaking the ocean surface. Then the camera would look upward as a shuttle flies by. The rest of the movie would have nothing to do with the whales. It would simply be for that groan moment. It would make me laugh. 

[LordFerret]

47 minutes ago, Red Shirt said:

If I were writing the next one, it would open with whale sounds and a blue whale breaking the ocean surface. Then the camera would look upward as a shuttle flies by.

2001: A Space Odyssey... monkey throws the bone.

 

 

Edited July 27, 2016 by LordFerret

[Green Baron]

 

I love the original series as well: grown-ups playing star ship crew. Half-naked humans beating up green aliens, papier-maché rocks in dimly lit studios and handles of kitchen devices as control levers. Love TNG and Voyager as well, nobody is taking that serious and everyone knows that.

But i still have my problems with the last 2 startrek cinema-movies (haven't watched "Beyond" yet, am waiting for blueray-release). The new movies are mostly just citations from older ones and the dead body count/movie is far too high for my gusto. Bones grave face when saying "He's dead, Jim." has given way to "oh well, another half crew gone, let's just carry on". I don't like that in a movie that's supposed to be just easy entertainment, but i will probably get used to it like everyone else.

Another thing is lighting and changing of scenes. I know it's just a button press to make new scene out of another one and noone plays in a real environment any more, but can't a single scene hold mor then 3 seconds ? Seems to be a specialty of the producer but it makes me tired after 10 minutes watching ... anyone else having these problems ?

Live long and prosper

 

 

[LordFerret]

3 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

... can't a single scene hold mor then 3 seconds ? Seems to be a specialty of the producer but it makes me tired after 10 minutes watching ...

I've been told (by three different 'independent' filmmakers) that anything longer than 10 seconds and the viewer loses interest, the eye begins to wander. So scenes are kept to 3 to 5 seconds. This all stemmed from research done back in the 60's and 70's; The concept started with commercials, and has since extended itself into full length features.

[Vanamonde]

Quote

This is Star Trek, they have a whole friggin galaxy and beyond to work with, and the best they can do is remakes? 

This is why I developed a violent hatred for (series) Enterprise. They went to the trouble of choosing a whole new time setting because they claimed they wanted a reset to fresh material, and what did they do? Met the exact same ST aliens that have appeared on every other ST series, told pretty much the same stories, and just rehashed the already over-worked existing material. Such a waste of potential. 

[KSK]

On 27 July 2016 at 0:11 PM, Red Shirt said:

Problem is when they venture off the path we get Jar Jar Binks, Jabba the Hutt, or Alien. It is harder to make an emotional connection with them. TOS did have that episode where they patched the alien with cement.

I agree. It just never felt as obvious on the show.

If I were writing the next one, it would open with whale sounds and a blue whale breaking the ocean surface. Then the camera would look upward as a shuttle flies by. The rest of the movie would have nothing to do with the whales. It would simply be for that groan moment. It would make me laugh. 

Looking forward to the fourth film - gonna have me a whale of a time.

Ahem. Sorry.

Anyway, back on track, the other problem with filmmakers venturing off the beaten track for a given franchise is that they tend to get an internet's worth of bile thrown at them for the privilege and mixed reviews to boot. And if you try anything as dangerously radical as doing a reboot where your main protagonists are *gasp* female, well there are no limits to the nerd rage that will get flung at you. 

So it's no real surprise that they play it safe, stick to the formula and rake in the cash. You only need to look at The Force Awakens for an object lesson in 'why fan service works'. It's exactly the same with games. There are genres, there are conventions for those genres and if you dare to innovate on them you can look forward to your player forum turning into yet another toxic internet sinkhole. 

TL:DR. If you want something original and new, don't go to a franchise movie. Sadly, that can be tricky in some genres. 

[moogoob]

...I love the fact your threat title quoted a TNG episode. One of my favourites, actually!

I'm not a huge fan of the nuTrek movies. They're enjoyable, but not stuff that I'd want to watch more than once.

[Red Shirt]

5 hours ago, KSK said:

try anything as dangerously radical as doing a reboot where your main protagonists are *gasp* female, well there are no limits to the nerd rage that will get flung at you

To me the most memorable character in this movie is the female alien. So even if Kirk, Spock, and Bones have most of the lines, the fancy paint job girl stood out. Rage away nerds. I know what you mean though, my wife would not even give the reboot of Battlestar Galactica a chance when she learn Starbuck was a girl. 

12 minutes ago, moogoob said:

I love the fact your threat title quoted a TNG episode

Caught that didn't you. One of my few favorite TNG episodes. Another was when Picard visited his brother on his farm with no modern technology. Well written episode. 

I am looking forward to Rogue One later this year. It has to fit the setting but it should have wiggle room to soar of go the way of Alderaan on its own merits. Yes I am mixing franchises and I have no guilt or shame in doing so. 

 

[Mjp1050]

On 7/27/2016 at 5:58 AM, Green Baron said:

Another thing is lighting and changing of scenes. I know it's just a button press to make new scene out of another one and no one plays in a real environment any more, but can't a single scene hold more then 3 seconds ? Seems to be a specialty of the producer but it makes me tired after 10 minutes watching ... anyone else having these problems ?

That's J.J. Abrams in a nutshell. 

And yeah, we're all tired of this "impossible scenario yet still saves the day" stuff. We all love TOS because it was so original and revolutionary (everything else is kind of meh) but what Hollywood outputs today is just plain walrus droppings.

Seriously, can anyone think of a director or company that tries to make original, creative films? Christopher Nolan, maybe, but I can't think of anyone else.

[lajoswinkler]

On 27.07.2016. at 3:07 PM, LordFerret said:

I've been told (by three different 'independent' filmmakers) that anything longer than 10 seconds and the viewer loses interest, the eye begins to wander. So scenes are kept to 3 to 5 seconds. This all stemmed from research done back in the 60's and 70's; The concept started with commercials, and has since extended itself into full length features.

That's a pile of cow poop. There are sooooo many successful movies with longer scenes. Some of the most memorable movies used quite longer scenes. How about Kubrick's masterpieces? Christopher Nolan?

Granted, the "research" might've used dumbasses... That would make sense.

 

I'm also highly annoyed by this "style" the reboot uses. I don't have the feeling I'm looking at a Star Trek movie, but mindless lensflare-napalm psychotic perversion from the minds of typical moneybag directors of this time. Historians will condemn all of this, I'm sure of it.

10 hours ago, Mjp1050 said:

That's J.J. Abrams in a nutshell. 

And yeah, we're all tired of this "impossible scenario yet still saves the day" stuff. We all love TOS because it was so original and revolutionary (everything else is kind of meh) but what Hollywood outputs today is just plain walrus droppings.

Seriously, can anyone think of a director or company that tries to make original, creative films? Christopher Nolan, maybe, but I can't think of anyone else.

Alfonso Cuarón comes to mind.