Star Trek Beyond

G

Gillvane

Veteran
Good entertaining movie. Thought the director did a good job. The first one didn't grab me because of the time trace the second one was a poor disjointed rebelling of wrath of khan but this was much better, just a Star Trek adventure.
a little bit hokey at times with the techno babble to solve the dilemma and the music, but fun anyway. Did not care for the direction of the action scenes which was a lot of movement and close ups to give you the feel of a fight but not let you actually see the fight unfold.
 
I thought it was OK. Justin Lin didn't crap the bed, but he didn't set my brain on fire either. Overall, the whole thing felt kind of lightweight and inconsequential. There are moments of interaction between Spock and McCoy that reminds us of why we love seeing those characters banter, and it was nice to see. But what I miss from the original cast is the deep sense of personal history you feel between them, and the love just beneath the surface. These NuTrek movies catch the characters at an earlier stage of their development, so I shouldn't expect to get that feeling, but I miss it as it's what elevated their characters above being just one dimensional action movie heroes. Better than Into Darkness, to be sure. Oh, and DO NOT see it in 3D. Lin's shaky, close up action style replicates terribly in 3 dimensions, and the 3D made many angles of the Enterprise and the space station look like tiny models. They keep making this mistake with 3D. Over dimensionalizing large objects makes them look smaller, kind of like tilt-shift photography does.
 
Last edited:
I enjoyed it! It was a fun ride. Not perfect, of course. A wee bit of confusion here and there, and some things I'd like to slap the screenwriter for. But all in all, great fun.

If I could do something a fraction as good, I'd be happy. Then again, with $185,000,000, maybe I could. :-)
 
I really liked the song under the ending credits -- 'Sledgehammer' by Rihanna. Have to say, though, that it sounded more like ending credits music for a James Bond movie than a Star Trek movie.
 
I liked the minimalist, dark lighting in several scenes. I thought the directing was fine, as well as the rest of the execution. But about two thirds through I realized that it wasn't going to be anything above a well-produced, two-hour TV episode. As others have said, the script lacked the emotional depth or thematic weight to make it transcend from a fun movie to an enduring classic. It felt like the writers were trying, though, and it's a tall order anyway, an unsolved mystery.
 
I'd like to see them start a reboot movie series of "Star Trek: Voyager". Female captain. Ship flung to the Delta Quadrant, too far from home to be able to communicate or have any reasonable hope of getting back, but forging an uneasy alliance with Maquis rebels to try. Encountering obstacles in their efforts to find an alien race who can help them shorten their trip. If they could find a way to get Seven of Nine in there early on, it could be a winner.
 
combatentropy said:
I even walk around in real life with one eye closed. That's how much I hate 3-D ;)
Click to expand...

That's maybe a step too far. :-)

I would also say that the surround sound in this movie (and others) I found distracting. I'm not sure I understand how having 3D sound with a 2D movie is better. There was a scene where Chekhov and another character walked through from left to right, passing off the right side. The sound of Chekhov's voice moved from left to right, which was fine. But when he passed off the right side of the screen, his voice continued on beyond the screen's boundaries, and I found it distracting. It took me out of the moment because I was suddenly aware of the movement and position of the sound of his voice.

When I'm watching a movie, I never get that sense of 'being present'. I'm always an external observer. Handheld camera movement and sounds outside the visible boundaries of the screen don't make me feel like I'm 'really there'. Maybe it's just because I'm old and grew up during a time before surround sound, but I prefer my sounds to come at me from the screen, not the back of the room. If the image surrounded me 360-degrees, then the sound doing so too would be appropriate to me. But a limited 2D image with a 360-degree 3D sound sometimes keeps me from enjoying a movie as much as I otherwise might.
 
David W. Richardson said:
I would also say that the surround sound in this movie (and others) I found distracting.
Click to expand...

I was just remembering how even as a teenager working at Best Buy, I confided to a customer that I think surround is unnecessary, that I like just stereo. It's a good thing Best Buy staff aren't on commission.

My dad set up surround sound in our living room. It was cool and all hearing the crickets behind me. But the novelty soon wore off and became distracting --- for the reason you cite: little 2D square of picture in front of you, but sound all around you.

Don't get me wrong. I just watched National Parks in 360 IMAX at the Museum of Science and Industry, and it was exhilarating. I guess when I'm relaxing in my living room, though, I don't want to be exhilarated that much all the time. The doctor says it's bad for the heart ;)
 
Last edited:
Well I'm all for being able to place sounds, but place them within the frame of the picture.

I have sat in theaters with movies where I didn't notice the surround one way or the other -- no doubt, an excellent sound mix. But in other movies, and especially in "Star Trek Beyond" it was so blatant that it took my attention away from the visual focus. Not good.
 
There were also writing flaws -- no offense to Simon Pegg, who co-wrote the script. Some of them I can't mention without a spoiler alert. But maybe this one I can.

As the Enterprise is entering the nebula, they make a point of stating in dialogue that once they're inside the nebula, all communication with the outside will be cut off by.....I don't know.....something to do with being inside the nebula, I guess. Yet later in the movie, while still inside the nebula, they send out a distress signal, expecting some Star Fleet ships (all of which are outside the nebula, since the nebula is 'uncharted space') to respond.

Duh...

(Okay, yes -- I just 'spoiled' it by telling you that at some point the crew of the Enterprise gets into some distress. Sorry.) :-)
 
If the makers of these movies want to be making Star Wars movies so badly, they should get jobs on the Star Wars movies. Oh, wait; that's what one of them did.

I got so bored. The many fight sequences never seemed to end. The villain was obvious and cliche and a mix of the villains from Insurrection and Nemesis. You're supposed to be enchanted by Jaylah, but meh; her type is a dime a dozen anymore. The space station was absolutely ludicrous. And then there were the obligatory direct lifts of scenes from the TOS movies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top