While the numerical reviews on Metacritic have been good. Many of them note that it is closer to the original Trek ethos but still pretty light on the philosophy with action packed space adventure. If that is what this is, calurker is probably right. You need the TV show to flesh out the characters and relationships and then use the movies to challenge them with fleshed out villains or "impossible situations".
Better than the previous two movies. I know why simon pegg reacted the way he did to the first trailer. If you are a Trek fan you have to go see the first 15 minutes in the theater asap. Spoiler What I liked: Emo/angry Spock is gone. Screaming between the crew is gone. Punching people in the face to solve a problem is gone. Kirk is clever. Far more time spent on the rest of the bridge crew. Far more time with Scotty (obviously). They have real characters to move forward with now. Tragedy that Anton Yelchin is gone. What I don't like: I knew from following the production that Shohreh Aghdashloo had been put into the movie with reshoots. It is totally obvious, and pointless. Nerd credit I guess? Lens flare from Star Trek 2009 has been replaced with dutch angles and camera rotation. unlike lens flare you can compensate by tilting your head but it was annoying. Wasn't used out of place and there is a set piece that makes it sort of useful, but was used way too much. Star Trek is a TV show. To make money with a movie you need action. This movie, unlike Star Trek 2009 had real characters and not cartoon characters and was very Star Trek.
Worst of the 3. Lots of action... but absolutely zero story/plot (which is a very un-Trek like thing). The first trailer ended up being pretty spot-on. This is an action-adventure ride that really doesn't slow down at all to explain the significance of any of it. I did like the shout-out to the original movie crew/actors at the end.
Wow...some hate it and some love it. No in-between? It's a very hard pill to swallow. I have no idea who to believe review-wise.
Despite my post, I wouldn't say I hated it... just thought that it needed more story/background to break up the lengthy action sequences. Just a personal preference... most Trek movies have a solid story/dillema to work with. This didn't seem that well thought out.
Are you ****ing kidding me? Someone delete the post I quoted. Hell, delete Jontro while you're at it. Who made you "God of the Movies," Jontro? One hell of a lot of us haven't seen the flick yet, goofus.
I'm still waiting on the new crew to just sit around in an Enterprise meeting room and have a meaningful conversation about what is going on. They are always on the move and split into smaller groups. Dialogue is an important part of any movie regardless of how much action there is. In that regard, my opinion is these new ST characters still feel like almost cardboard cutouts after two films and maybe this third one. But, we also didn't see these same actors able to do a television series to build these characters up. The character development just feels a bit shallow. I guess I'll see what this film brings soon...albeit I don't feel like I'm in a hurry to see it.
I think you are wrong that the big meetings build characters. In TNG Disaster S05E05, you had major character developments and it sent Troi into a different era of her life (until the horrible movies). This movie pulls a massive u-turn on the cartoon characters the first film left us with. Click my spoiler, no plot points are revealed on second glance. I might take away the tags.
Actual spoiler below Spoiler What about that entire middle hour? where certain bridge crew members actual skills were needed and used, relationships were clarified, unity was embraced? There were only two action sequences.
I didn't say big meetings builds characters. You did. I'm saying that there can be too much action and not enough dialogue. That's fine if all you want out of ST is non-stop action. To me, that's not what ST was or is all about. I don't care how characters are developed and fleshed out...just that they are and it's not all about moving from one action sequence to the next.
I'm seeing it alone tomorrow night in 3D at the local Drafthouse. I'm interested in how the 3D turned out myself. Anyone who's seen it have a comment on the quality of the film's 3D? My experience has been that how good 3D is varies a lot from one film to another. Just leave out the plot, etc.!
Not the case in this movie. Also, sitting Senior Staff in a meeting room is a way to fill time and get exposition done without special effects on a TV budget. They lock down cameras and deliver lines. I don't know why you long for that. Also you said you had a problem with no group meetings and then talked about building character so I assumed that was what you wanted and why you wanted it. Also, I argued against big meetings building character. So I don't know why you think I said that. They are. And there was a lot of work to do as the previous two movies boiled them down to catch phrases and made Spock a boxer. But they did the heavy lifting in this one.
Spoiler There were like 4 or 5 individual pods of them... too many to really delve too much into each one, and not that much happened within them (but I agree the Spock-McCoy pod was the most in-depth/enjoyable). And that doesn't include pretty much glossing over the entire crux of the conflict... other than it being a really bad entity that wanted to destroy a lot (only at the very end do they try and tie it all together... they could have done more with that).
Spoiler 4-5 pods of what? I'm shocked you think this is worse than Into Darkness. That was a huge pile of ****. Can you defend that view a little? Spock was punching Khan in the face because Khan wanted to launch torpedoes he built with his crew in it for some reason. The plot holes and mess that movie was is endless. This villains motivation and desires are pretty evident, sympathetic and fits the theme of the movie (Unity) He thinks he is saving civilization, this isn't a idiotic revenge plot.
Spoiler Pods of the crew... Kirk/Checkov, Uhura/Sulu, Spock/Mccoy, Scotty/new meaningless character. I presume this was the middle hour of non-action you were referring to.... just wasn't much there. Spock/McCoy offered the most... and even then it was some pretty horrible dialogue. Khan was a more developed villain than whatever this was... Like I said, they only attempt to show the true basis for their motive at the very end way beyond for it to have any sort of impact or sympathy behind their actions for the viewer. Again, good action movie... but zero story behind it. It literally was Star Trek meets fast and the furious... most Trek fans I've talked to didn't think that was a positive.
saw it last night, I enjoyed it but I still prefer the 2nd one. I didn't think JLin screwed it up other than the 1 Fast/Furious action rift seen in the trailer. Nice homage to Leonard Nimoy and Anton got a "In Memory of" mid credits fwiw, I saw it the Barco Escape version at Santikos. Interesting layout, only about 25 mins of the movie used all 3 panels. Don't think it was worth the premium price ($18.50) but good enough to experience once. First Maze Runner had like 10 mins, with Maze Runner Scorch Trials had around 20 mins. Apparently Fox, Jerry Bruckheimer proudction company, and Bad Robot have agreements to shoot select movies in this format. Only 30 theaters worldwide has this version and 2 of them are at both Santikos in Houston (Richmond/Tomball) http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/star-trek-beyond-barco-escape-912679 <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lDWIc4MGirE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
What was the story you liked so much in Into Darkness? Khan is mad? How is that fleshed out. Why did he put 70+ people in torpedoes? Spoiler This villain was around for the huge transition from military to Federation. He disagreed, and went insane over 100 years thinking he was saving civilization. They encountered a new world and a new civilization. They used their wit and a clever trick to discover a mole and the location of the villain, not punching. Khan of Into Darkness wasn't developed at all, it relied solely on people knowing the name Khan. His motivations and actions were very unclear. Also how did he know how to build super torpedoes? He was 300 years old? You say nothing was there in the middle hour, then complain about the action? Besides you liked Khan, could you defend why Into Darkness is better? You prefer convoluted revenge plot to this? The Trek fans you talked to liked crying/emo/punching Spock to this? The first two movies were screaming at each other equals drama. To me, the second one was the general audience action movie one.
Haha. You're too obsessed with Spock punching to reason with anything else. He honestly was pretty useless in this movie too. His character needed his older self in the first movie to be more relevant. Spoiler Everything you just hashed out about the current movie villain was glossed over in the final 15 min of the movie. No development. No story. They went from exploring space to the enterprise being destroyed in two scenes, and nobody cared as a result. Again, fast and the furious. I prefer any semblance of a story with action supplementing it. There was zero attempt to develop this story. Cool visuals with Yorktown. Very little development leading up to it, so again it was largely ignored. As far as the second movie goes, it had a plot. It's actually held up on rewatching it. While most of it was just the original Star Trek II altered, it still had a direction. I actually thought the starflert secret militarization faction was far more interesting than anything in this movie. This was just how much action can we pack into 2 hours. I'd be surprised if it outperforms the other two movies both critically and financially.
I don't even know what to say to this. I do think you are talking out of your ass though to be honest. The actual plots of the movies were not at all similar. Khans motivations very completely different. You say this is a good action movie, comparing it to Transformers and F&F which aren't good action movies. Are you saying you are a Trek fan looking for more Trek? What was the story to The Motion Picture. They encountered something strange and fleshed it out. Was that enough story for you? Spoiler You don't know anything about v'ger until the last 15 minutes. Problem? TMP IS pure star trek. It isn't even that you dislike the film. I just find your reasoning to be conflicting. Complaining about action but then saying Into Darkness was better seem to be at odds. Same as wanting more story and saying Into Darkness. I guessed you weren't a Trek fan and this confirms it (Section 31). Which is probably why I am confused with your stated reasons. This had less action than the other two movies though so I think that ticks another WTF box for me.
