Star Trek: Beyond

[pr_capone]

Paramount just released the trailer to Star Trek Beyond. I am less than pleased overall.



Justin Lin, the director of the last 3 F&F movies, is at the helm of this bullshit and from the tiny snippet of Simon Pegg jumping out of a pod and hanging off the side of a cliff... it looks equally as campy as F&F.

Justin Lin, the director of nothing but remakes and sequels, is also the guy in charge of the reshooting (because there won't be anything new about it) of the Highlander movie.

I love Trek but this new movie series has been largely garbage. Little to no rewatchability at all for either movie. For the first time ever... I am more excited for something Star Wars related than Trek.

[JD10367]

Trek really needs to be watched chronologically with an understanding of the time in which it was made. When TOS came out in the 60s, the ideas it pushed (exploration, cooperation, racial unity) were way ahead of their times, as were the sci-fi themes and effects. If you want to understand what camp there was in the era, aside from the obvious things like "Batman", consider that "Lost In Space" was a direct attempt by another network to steal some "Trek" thunder... and "Lost In Space" is about as campy and 60s as you can get. For when it was made, TOS was definitely ahead of the curve.

TNG definitely has that 80s mojo going for it but is, for me, the highlight of the Trek canon, especially the last few seasons. The first season was pretty rough, but once the actors became comfortable in their characters they stopped overacting them and became natural at it. I constantly rewatch TNG episodes because they were such well-done individual stories.

DS9 is a bleaker more 90s look at things. It was more complicated, political, intriguing. But I guess the basic drawback to that show was the space station; it's hard to continue a canon built on exploration when the ship doesn't actually move. Once they let Avery Brooks shave the ballfuzz off his head, he went from weak-ass dad to more like his character Hawk in "Spenser"; once they started leaving the station and wars started happening, the series definitely was better.

"Voyager" was more contemplative and interesting but it tried too hard. It brought in new aliens and forced a cast chemistry that never really happened.

"Enterprise" had good actors but was just plain uninteresting IMO.

[noa]

There's just no way you can translate the point of TNG or Voyager to a movie in a way that will appeal to a mass audience, which is why I'm fine with this movie. To me, a typical TNG or Voyager episode would be that they come to a new planet, that planet has its own quirks, they deal with something relating to those quirks and learn about the other species and about themselves, all while there is also some minor interpersonal drama back on the ship. Yes, there are bigger arcs with the Borg, etc, but not every episode. Not exactly movie stuff. I think the purists are best served by a serial drama, and that's perfectly fine.
Posted via Mobile Device

[unlurking]

Originally Posted by noa

There's just no way you can translate the point of TNG or Voyager to a movie in a way that will appeal to a mass audience, which is why I'm fine with this movie. To me, a typical TNG or Voyager episode would be that they come to a new planet, that planet has its own quirks, they deal with something relating to those quirks and learn about the other species and about themselves, all while there is also some minor interpersonal drama back on the ship. Yes, there are bigger arcs with the Borg, etc, but not every episode. Not exactly movie stuff. I think the purists are best served by a serial drama, and that's perfectly fine.
Posted via Mobile Device

Can't disagree with this.

[Passepartout]

Well it seems that there are more Trekkies as they call themselves. Then we did not know. As really they are the die hards that want the movies released. As well as the TV shows.

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

I wonder if this is something of a generational thing. Or maybe I'm dumb. I might just be dumb.

I never watched TOS because I'm an 80s kid. I was also fairly young and only gave passing glances to TNG.

So to me, Starfleet was pretty much the new, global Navy. Honestly, it never occurred to me that this wasn't the case until perhaps one of these threads. I always kinda figured that maybe these starships just weren't that impressive if the Enterprise was usually looked at as the big swinging dick among starships.

So I guess it....isn't? These guys aren't out there on the USS Constitution protecting anything, they're going out there doing Magellan shit and just looking around? And while the Enterprise may be the big fish in its own pond, there are probably dozens of ships that would pretty easily annihilate it (I guess that makes sense given how many times they blow the damn thing up).

I mean...I guess that's right there in their spiel, but like I said, I just never gave it much thought. Besides, that makes the concept of Starfleet seem really odd to me, especially given that whole "Fermi Paradox" thing and the fact that perhaps we should probably just not let the whole universe know where we are. Privately funded explorers back in ye olden times made since because frankly, they were funded by profiteers. But Starfleet would appear to be nothing more than a massive public works project whereby we empower people to take heavily armed ships to just go poking stuff with sticks to see what happens.

In TOS, the Connies were the top of the line vessels (namely because they didn't have the budget to show anything else but re-labeled models of the Enterprise). RPGs and non-cannon sources released much later show other classes, but the ones bigger than the Constitution class don't make a lot of sense (or break Roddenberry's rules regarding ship design) and the smaller ones aren't really all that much worth speaking of.

By the time you get to ST-III, the Excelsior class becomes the top dog at the expense of the veritable Connies and, if you go by canon, become one of the most prevalent classes in the run up to the TNG era, where Starfleet was comprised namely by Excelsiors, Mirandas (if you don't recall, the U.S.S. Reliant from Wrath of Khan), Oberths (Grissom from Search for Spock) and Constellations (various TNG episodes) with a few Excelsior kitbashes made as well (seen in DS9). The Ambassador class is introduced in the 20~ years and is worthy enough to be the class of the flagship before we see Picard take over the 1701-D, but it isn't seen a lot outside of sparse TNG eps (Yesterday's Enterprise, obvious example).

Along this point a lot of kitbashes show up (Battle of Wolf 359) which are re-figured Galaxy class parts (the New Orleans class being a smaller-scaled Galaxy missing the "neck" between saucer and engineering sections), the Cheyenne class (simply a Galaxy saucer and four nacelles) and the Nebula class (Galaxy-sized saucer and engineering section with no neck) and the registration numbers reflect that these ships were commissioned before the Galaxy class arrived on the scene and became the flagship with Picard's ship in TNG.

Once the Borg show up, Starfleet stops paddy caking with galactic security and moves on from creature-comfort and exploration driven types with it's flagship moving on to the Sovereign and complemented by more warlike classes in the Defiant, Steamrunner and Akiras (seen in DS9 and First Contact), while keeping exploration mainly consigned to the Nova and Intrepid ships.

Along the way (noting the yuuuuge jump in registration numbers) Starfleet went from around maybe 1000 ships to probably five times that in active service, and given the prevalence of Miranda classes still in service by the post TNG / middle DS9, most ships were likely small and didn't go out exploring beyond Federation territory .

[Simply Red]

I have pissed poop that could make a better film.

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by Simply Red

I have pissed poop that could make a better film.

I'm coming over. And I will kick your ass SR!

[Simply Red]

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

I'm coming over. And I will kick your ass SR!

[Simply Red]

This caters to fans of ST - I never was a big fan.

I will leave now - I'm sure an avid fan will appreciate it more than myself.

[cdcox]

Saw it tonight. The plot was fine but the first half was miserable. Dark, loud, and chaotic it wasn't suspenseful or interesting, just headache inducing. It was an action movie set in space instead of Star Trek or science fiction. I didn't enjoy the first half at all.

[JD10367]

Originally Posted by noa

There's just no way you can translate the point of TNG or Voyager to a movie in a way that will appeal to a mass audience, which is why I'm fine with this movie. To me, a typical TNG or Voyager episode would be that they come to a new planet, that planet has its own quirks, they deal with something relating to those quirks and learn about the other species and about themselves, all while there is also some minor interpersonal drama back on the ship. Yes, there are bigger arcs with the Borg, etc, but not every episode. Not exactly movie stuff. I think the purists are best served by a serial drama, and that's perfectly fine.
Posted via Mobile Device

They tried what you describe, and it was the boring abomination known as "Star Trek: The Movie". V-ger. Eesh.

[DJ's left nut]

It's odd to me that people lament the lack of a 'true' Star Treck movie yet absolutely nobody will argue for any movie other than "The Wrath of Khan" as the best of the Trek movies.

JD is right, the 'true' Trek movie was tried with the first movie and it was boring as ****. It wasn't until they adopted the kind of style that trekkies now claim to abhor that they actually found a hit.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

In TOS, the Connies were the top of the line vessels (namely because they didn't have the budget to show anything else but re-labeled models of the Enterprise). RPGs and non-cannon sources released much later show other classes, but the ones bigger than the Constitution class don't make a lot of sense (or break Roddenberry's rules regarding ship design) and the smaller ones aren't really all that much worth speaking of.

By the time you get to ST-III, the Excelsior class becomes the top dog at the expense of the veritable Connies and, if you go by canon, become one of the most prevalent classes in the run up to the TNG era, where Starfleet was comprised namely by Excelsiors, Mirandas (if you don't recall, the U.S.S. Reliant from Wrath of Khan), Oberths (Grissom from Search for Spock) and Constellations (various TNG episodes) with a few Excelsior kitbashes made as well (seen in DS9). The Ambassador class is introduced in the 20~ years and is worthy enough to be the class of the flagship before we see Picard take over the 1701-D, but it isn't seen a lot outside of sparse TNG eps (Yesterday's Enterprise, obvious example).

Along this point a lot of kitbashes show up (Battle of Wolf 359) which are re-figured Galaxy class parts (the New Orleans class being a smaller-scaled Galaxy missing the "neck" between saucer and engineering sections), the Cheyenne class (simply a Galaxy saucer and four nacelles) and the Nebula class (Galaxy-sized saucer and engineering section with no neck) and the registration numbers reflect that these ships were commissioned before the Galaxy class arrived on the scene and became the flagship with Picard's ship in TNG.

Once the Borg show up, Starfleet stops paddy caking with galactic security and moves on from creature-comfort and exploration driven types with it's flagship moving on to the Sovereign and complemented by more warlike classes in the Defiant, Steamrunner and Akiras (seen in DS9 and First Contact), while keeping exploration mainly consigned to the Nova and Intrepid ships.

Along the way (noting the yuuuuge jump in registration numbers) Starfleet went from around maybe 1000 ships to probably five times that in active service, and given the prevalence of Miranda classes still in service by the post TNG / middle DS9, most ships were likely small and didn't go out exploring beyond Federation territory .

NERD ALERT!!!

(Just kidding; I've always found that stuff oddly interesting....if still largely indecipherable).

[Beef Supreme]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

NERD ALERT!!!

(Just kidding; I've always found that stuff oddly interesting....if still largely indecipherable).

No shit. I'm a self-professed comic book and sic-fi geek from way back, but Discuss really let the geek out of the basement with that post. Same as you, I find it kinda interesting, but holy shit!

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

It's odd to me that people lament the lack of a 'true' Star Treck movie yet absolutely nobody will argue for any movie other than "The Wrath of Khan" as the best of the Trek movies.

JD is right, the 'true' Trek movie was tried with the first movie and it was boring as ****. It wasn't until they adopted the kind of style that trekkies now claim to abhor that they actually found a hit.

First Contactwas to me, the best "Star Trek" movie of the bunch.

It had a great antagonist in the Borg, we see what's happened to planet Earth after the Eugenics wars, meet the man that discovered and created the first warp drive and witness "First Contact" with an alien civilization with the Vulcans and see Picard deal with an emotional dilemma.

It also had some funny bits, great chemistry between the actors and excellent direction and pacing.

If only half the Trek movies were half as good...