Film: Star Trek Beyond (2016)

Books, movies, television...
Post Reply
swan
AnalLog
Posts: 1419
Joined: Thu January 24, 2013 2:19 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Film: Star Trek Beyond (2016)

Post by swan »

Overall it did feel more Star Trek-like than the first two to me. I grew up on TOS & TNG, and this gave me all of those feels while keeping the fun & action of JJ's 2 movies.
swan
AnalLog
Posts: 1419
Joined: Thu January 24, 2013 2:19 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Film: Star Trek Beyond (2016)

Post by swan »

Good article for all you JJ-haters out there:


https://theringer.com/jj-abrams-star-tr ... .8g7a41ef5
User avatar
CopperTom
Champion of RM
Posts: 10760
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 11:19 pm
Location: Northeastern Pennsylvania

Re: Film: Star Trek Beyond (2016)

Post by CopperTom »

swan wrote:Overall it did feel more Star Trek-like than the first two to me. I grew up on TOS & TNG, and this gave me all of those feels while keeping the fun & action of JJ's 2 movies.
Kirk was a bit more serious and much less goofy. He seemed much more "Kirk" to me.
emanon wrote:I think I either need to drink less to become more alert, or more so as not to care.
User avatar
BurtReynolds
An enigma of a man shaped hole in the wall between reality and the soul of the devil.
Posts: 45833
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:13 pm
Location: 6000 feet beyond man and time.

Re: Film: Star Trek Beyond (2016)

Post by BurtReynolds »

swan wrote:Good article for all you JJ-haters out there:


https://theringer.com/jj-abrams-star-tr ... .8g7a41ef5
warning: spoiler city.
RM's resident disinformation expert.
swan
AnalLog
Posts: 1419
Joined: Thu January 24, 2013 2:19 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Film: Star Trek Beyond (2016)

Post by swan »

BurtReynolds wrote:
swan wrote:Good article for all you JJ-haters out there:


https://theringer.com/jj-abrams-star-tr ... .8g7a41ef5
warning: spoiler city.

Yes, thank you. Shoulda mentioned that
User avatar
BurtReynolds
An enigma of a man shaped hole in the wall between reality and the soul of the devil.
Posts: 45833
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:13 pm
Location: 6000 feet beyond man and time.

Re: Film: Star Trek Beyond (2016)

Post by BurtReynolds »

Tis a silly movie . It's fine. Not Star Trek but it's fine. Fine.

I now hate Sabotage.
RM's resident disinformation expert.
User avatar
CopperTom
Champion of RM
Posts: 10760
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 11:19 pm
Location: Northeastern Pennsylvania

Re: Film: Star Trek Beyond (2016)

Post by CopperTom »

It was in the first scene of the first movie too.
emanon wrote:I think I either need to drink less to become more alert, or more so as not to care.
User avatar
LoathedVermin72
The Master
Posts: 33839
Joined: Sun May 25, 2014 9:32 pm

Re: Film: Star Trek Beyond (2016)

Post by LoathedVermin72 »

This wasn't good. Better than the Abrams shitshows, but still bad. The "Sabotage" scene was the only part I liked.
User avatar
dimejinky99
what on earth am I talking about
Posts: 39789
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 12:35 am

Re: Film: Star Trek Beyond (2016)

Post by dimejinky99 »

Greg? Grundberg??

Again??

Uuuggghhhhh
Calibrate your enthusiasm
User avatar
BurtReynolds
An enigma of a man shaped hole in the wall between reality and the soul of the devil.
Posts: 45833
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:13 pm
Location: 6000 feet beyond man and time.

Re: Film: Star Trek Beyond (2016)

Post by BurtReynolds »

dimejinky99 wrote:Greg? Grundberg??

Again??

Uuuggghhhhh
Its a thing now. A stupid thing. But a thing.
RM's resident disinformation expert.
User avatar
dimejinky99
what on earth am I talking about
Posts: 39789
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 12:35 am

Re: Film: Star Trek Beyond (2016)

Post by dimejinky99 »

Bury Idris Elba, an incredible actor, under a ton of make up.

Put Grundberg in it. Looking EXACTLY the same as he looked in Force Awakens.

Talk about being totally taken out of the movie.
Calibrate your enthusiasm
User avatar
dimejinky99
what on earth am I talking about
Posts: 39789
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 12:35 am

Re: Film: Star Trek Beyond (2016)

Post by dimejinky99 »

Overall I liked this film. It felt more like an episode which is great. (Kirk mentioning the days feeling episodic in his log may have helped plant that thought). It looked great and went along at a fair clip. And established itself in all the important ways as feeling more like Star Trek than the previous two managed to. I'd watch it again it was good fun.
Calibrate your enthusiasm
User avatar
epilogue
We All We Got, We All We Need
Posts: 84850
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:33 pm
Location: Ghorman
Contact:

Re: Film: Star Trek Beyond (2016)

Post by epilogue »

Man, I really want to see this. I hope it works out tomorrow.
User avatar
BurtReynolds
An enigma of a man shaped hole in the wall between reality and the soul of the devil.
Posts: 45833
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:13 pm
Location: 6000 feet beyond man and time.

Re: Film: Star Trek Beyond (2016)

Post by BurtReynolds »

It's a very forgettable movie. It seems that audiences already forgot about it.
RM's resident disinformation expert.
User avatar
stip
The worst
Posts: 42946
Joined: Thu December 13, 2012 6:31 pm

Re: Film: Star Trek Beyond (2016)

Post by stip »

this seems like a pretty brutal year for blockbusters if you aren't Disney or Deadpool
User avatar
epilogue
We All We Got, We All We Need
Posts: 84850
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:33 pm
Location: Ghorman
Contact:

Re: Film: Star Trek Beyond (2016)

Post by epilogue »

stip wrote:this seems like a pretty brutal year for blockbusters if you aren't Disney or Deadpool
I didn't realize how bad until the Suicide Squad reviews came out. :lol:
User avatar
epilogue
We All We Got, We All We Need
Posts: 84850
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:33 pm
Location: Ghorman
Contact:

Re: Film: Star Trek Beyond (2016)

Post by epilogue »

BurtReynolds wrote:It's a very forgettable movie. It seems that audiences already forgot about it.
Yeah, but a lot of people hated the first two rebooted Trek films, too. And I'm not one of em. Soooooo....
User avatar
BurtReynolds
An enigma of a man shaped hole in the wall between reality and the soul of the devil.
Posts: 45833
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:13 pm
Location: 6000 feet beyond man and time.

Re: Film: Star Trek Beyond (2016)

Post by BurtReynolds »

stip wrote:this seems like a pretty brutal year for blockbusters if you aren't Disney or Deadpool
I'm hoping it signals the death of sequels and franchises, but I kinda doubt it.
RM's resident disinformation expert.
User avatar
BurtReynolds
An enigma of a man shaped hole in the wall between reality and the soul of the devil.
Posts: 45833
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:13 pm
Location: 6000 feet beyond man and time.

Re: Film: Star Trek Beyond (2016)

Post by BurtReynolds »

durdencommatyler wrote:
BurtReynolds wrote:It's a very forgettable movie. It seems that audiences already forgot about it.
Yeah, but a lot of people hated the first two rebooted Trek films, too. And I'm not one of em. Soooooo....
I hate the term popcorn flick, but this is totally a summer popcorn flick. It's a good way to get out of the sun for a couple of hours. Then you never think of it again.



I'm still not clear on what was going on with the lame villain. Feels like a lot of his backstory got left on the cutting room floor.
RM's resident disinformation expert.
User avatar
epilogue
We All We Got, We All We Need
Posts: 84850
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:33 pm
Location: Ghorman
Contact:

Re: Film: Star Trek Beyond (2016)

Post by epilogue »

BurtReynolds wrote:
durdencommatyler wrote:
BurtReynolds wrote:It's a very forgettable movie. It seems that audiences already forgot about it.
Yeah, but a lot of people hated the first two rebooted Trek films, too. And I'm not one of em. Soooooo....
I hate the term popcorn flick, but this is totally a summer popcorn flick. It's a good way to get out of the sun for a couple of hours. Then you never think of it again.



I'm still not clear on what was going on with the lame villain. Feels like a lot of his backstory got left on the cutting room floor.
I'll be able to tell you if I agree or disagree soon.
Post Reply