I think Beyond gets some love because it hangs together reasonably well in a way that the two others don't. The first one manages to ride some wildly dumb plot stupidity and remain fun with some excellent moments, the second falls over pretty quickly and ends up a complete mess, the third never feels stupid but also probably never quite ignites the way you want it to.
It's possible the new ones aren't ever going to feel like Star Trek of old, because the old movies were mostly about people in middle to old age, and they feel melancholy and the characters feel familiar and at ease, and the new movies obviously aren't anything like that. The new movies also aren't really interested in the ethos of Star Trek so much as they want to be four quadrant blockbuster movies, so they're not really about anything in the way the old ones were.
I've probably said so before, but I have a massive soft spot for the first Abrams Trek. In part that's because I saw that one with my (now-)wife at a point where we'd just had an intense, emotionally draining week with some relatively bad though expected news at the end - and that evening we went to see a big, stupid, goofy, fun space action film and it was exactly what we needed. In part, though, I still think that they did a great job of casting the films and getting the key relationships to feel right without feeling like a carbon copy - for me, this was a valid, enjoyable take on Kirk, Spock, Bones et al. The novelty of that quickly wore off with the sequels, but it's why I enjoyed and still enjoy the first of the reboot films.
But, yeah, my reactions to the two following films suggest that the factor unrelated to the film itself was a big part of why I really enjoyed Star Trek (2009).
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
+1
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
I have to admit that I'm sort of puzzled by the love Beyond gets from some corners. I thought it was serviceable but also forgettable. There's literally nothing I remember other than... there's some scene with a motorbike, right?
I thought the characters were better. '09 and Into Darkness had a whole lot of conflict between Kirk and Spock that didn't seem natural, conflict for conflict's sake. The actors did a good job at least, but it all sort of felt forced. Beyond ditched that conflict and let them sort hang out together. After the STUFF HAPPENING! from the first two films it was a really nice change of pace. Plus it had the super amazing space station. But otherwise it definitely could have done with a few rewrites. The antagonist's motive was pretty derpy, they pointlessly killed the Enterprise (again), and the Achilles' heel was a Beastie Boys song. A few tweaks and they could have had a nice story involving Kirk getting burned out after five years on the ass end of civilization, with Elba maybe as someone who isn't just burned out but is actively angry about having 'wasted' their life in service to Starfleet (or something like that, I dunno).
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Star Trek (2009) was definitely fun! The opening scene is terrific, the casting is great, everything looks fantastic. I've seen it several times and like it well enough.
I think it's also kind of dumb and doesn't work in several important ways because it wasn't important to the creators to make the story/plot work so much as it was important to string together these key scenes with the first idea anyone had and who cares if it makes sense. It's a common criticism of Abrams that he doesn't seem to understand how stories actually work, and instead just sort of keeps everything moving quickly and hopes you don't notice.
Abrams has no concept of time, distance, or consequence in his films. Everything happens right after the previous thing, and anything major before the finale is instantly reset at the first opportunity. He's basically a variant of Uwe Bolle who managed to luck into the good nerdy franchises instead of getting stuck with video game adaptations.
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
The point where the '09 movie loses me is the second (?) confrontation between Kirk and Spock. Kirk tells (yells) Spock that Spock never really loved his recently (as in an hour ago) mother in order to make Spock lose his cool enough to admit that he's too emotional about the situation to retain command when they go after the Romulans. At which point Kirk somehow becomes captain because he's definitely able to maintain his cool when freaking going after the ship that killed his father, no emotional involvement there. And for some reason Spock becomes friends with this super asshole who just mocked his relationship with his dead mother for personal gain. And the 'some reason' is just future Spock saying that this is the way it must be. It's just an awful scene that exists because Kirk must be Captain and Spock must be his First Officer and Friend.
If Abrams had any storytelling ability or courage, the movie would have just gone with Spock as captain and Kirk as the first officer. Mix that shit up, make something interesting happen. Instead he took a character that absolutely should not be put in command of a starship and writes a scene full of horrible character moments to just give him command of the ship.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Wasn't there a scene where Adira flat out tells everyone to use "they/them" to refer to them.
It's possible this happens later on in the season. I'm only on like the 4th or 5th episode. So far it's all she/her for Adira and he/him for Gray.
It is a thing in later episodes. My biggest problem with Disco S3 in regard to that is it got hard core backgrounded. Like, "oh we introduced these characters for the cred, then ignored them most of the season".
I'm not sure I see the problem. Other shows have been lambasted for making a big deal out of a character being trans, i.e. that being their defining trait. As a cis dude I'm not going to pretend to know what's right here but I felt like Disco handled it fairly well. They introduced a significant character, addressed the fact that they were trans, and carried on.
The point where the '09 movie loses me is the second (?) confrontation between Kirk and Spock. Kirk tells (yells) Spock that Spock never really loved his recently (as in an hour ago) mother in order to make Spock lose his cool enough to admit that he's too emotional about the situation to retain command when they go after the Romulans. At which point Kirk somehow becomes captain because he's definitely able to maintain his cool when freaking going after the ship that killed his father, no emotional involvement there. And for some reason Spock becomes friends with this super asshole who just mocked his relationship with his dead mother for personal gain. And the 'some reason' is just future Spock saying that this is the way it must be. It's just an awful scene that exists because Kirk must be Captain and Spock must be his First Officer and Friend.
If Abrams had any storytelling ability or courage, the movie would have just gone with Spock as captain and Kirk as the first officer. Mix that shit up, make something interesting happen. Instead he took a character that absolutely should not be put in command of a starship and writes a scene full of horrible character moments to just give him command of the ship.
Abrams missed a natural story arc by putting Kirk in the chair so early. If your story about a character's early years, why rush to the end?
09 should've ended with Pike as captain and Kirk as first officer. That's built-in tension for the sequels—how does Kirk end up in the chair?—and narrative throughline to keep them all connected.
I dunno how good that would have been either, to be honest. The whole point of the reboot seems to have been to figure out a way to have more TOS movies now the actors are all either too old or too dead to go chasing around the galaxy. It's just figuring out which way you'd like your meal re-heated. The new movies seem like action movies first, Star Trek movies second and sometimes not at all beyond referencing earlier Star Trek movies.
I may be sounding too down on them, but I watched the first 9 Star Trek movies the other weekend in a marathon and the gulf between those and the Kelvin movies feels especially vast right now.
I love 2009 Trek because my then girlfriend now wife took me to dinner, got me drunk on margaritas, then surprised me with going to see the new Trek movie.
It's also the first time I spoke up to an asshole who was on his phone during the start of the movie and he left! I cut him to his core with a resounding "Man, come the fuck on?"
The point where the '09 movie loses me is the second (?) confrontation between Kirk and Spock. Kirk tells (yells) Spock that Spock never really loved his recently (as in an hour ago) mother in order to make Spock lose his cool enough to admit that he's too emotional about the situation to retain command when they go after the Romulans. At which point Kirk somehow becomes captain because he's definitely able to maintain his cool when freaking going after the ship that killed his father, no emotional involvement there. And for some reason Spock becomes friends with this super asshole who just mocked his relationship with his dead mother for personal gain. And the 'some reason' is just future Spock saying that this is the way it must be. It's just an awful scene that exists because Kirk must be Captain and Spock must be his First Officer and Friend.
If Abrams had any storytelling ability or courage, the movie would have just gone with Spock as captain and Kirk as the first officer. Mix that shit up, make something interesting happen. Instead he took a character that absolutely should not be put in command of a starship and writes a scene full of horrible character moments to just give him command of the ship.
Abrams missed a natural story arc by putting Kirk in the chair so early. If your story about a character's early years, why rush to the end?
09 should've ended with Pike as captain and Kirk as first officer. That's built-in tension for the sequels—how does Kirk end up in the chair?—and narrative throughline to keep them all connected.
Like a lot of Abrams stuff, the point of the movies is to slavishly re-create things you remember from other movies and not to actually tell a story. So Kirk has to end up in the chair at the end with the crew fully formed. That's the point.
I haven't seen Tomb Raider, but Capt Marvel was entirely servicable, what's your complaint?
Also, I'm intrigued, which universe will it be in? It will probably be the JJ Verse, but honestly, IMHO, they should abandon that, and go back to prime. They've proven that they can do legit ToS era stuff (ok, kinda) with Pike. There is also a whole lot of REALLY late 24th century/early 25th century stuff they could expand into, or... you know, do new and interesting things. Do a movie or trilogy that tells the Cardassian War, or the Romulan war (could be a whole series of functinoally cold war era esque sub movies).
It will be the Kelvinverse. They can't set movies in the Prime universe because of copyright issues: the Prime universe belongs to CBS, not Paramount. That was the whole reason why Paramount created the Kelvinverse in the first place.
I haven't seen Tomb Raider, but Capt Marvel was entirely servicable, what's your complaint?
Also, I'm intrigued, which universe will it be in? It will probably be the JJ Verse, but honestly, IMHO, they should abandon that, and go back to prime. They've proven that they can do legit ToS era stuff (ok, kinda) with Pike. There is also a whole lot of REALLY late 24th century/early 25th century stuff they could expand into, or... you know, do new and interesting things. Do a movie or trilogy that tells the Cardassian War, or the Romulan war (could be a whole series of functinoally cold war era esque sub movies).
It will be the Kelvinverse. They can't set movies in the Prime universe because of copyright issues: the Prime universe belongs to CBS, not Paramount. That was the whole reason why Paramount created the Kelvinverse in the first place.
CBS and Paramount have merged, so the movie and television rights have been reunited.
The movie doesn't necessarily have to be Kelvinverse, but it's a good bet. That's what general movie audiences are aware of these days and none of the newer shows have enough cultural penetration to support a movie.
That particular problem has been worked around by the re-merger, both sides are back under one roof again, Discovery was able to reference the Kelvin timeline and STO's license got extended to cover those movies, leading to the Temporal War crossover mission and like 35 damn lootbox ships.
Edit: see that's why I usually don't check my info and just spew nonsense, when I check I get beat.
Like a lot of Abrams stuff, the point of the movies is to slavishly re-create things you remember from other movies and not to actually tell a story. So Kirk has to end up in the chair at the end with the crew fully formed. That's the point.
I'm not sure how much sense this makes here, since the movies were never about the crew in their prime. From Wrath of Khan onwards, they're quite explicitly about getting old. If the whole enterprise (ba-dum tish!) had been about slavishly re-creating what we remember from other movies, the films and their cast should've looked differently.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Like a lot of Abrams stuff, the point of the movies is to slavishly re-create things you remember from other movies and not to actually tell a story. So Kirk has to end up in the chair at the end with the crew fully formed. That's the point.
I'm not sure how much sense this makes here, since the movies were never about the crew in their prime. From Wrath of Khan onwards, they're quite explicitly about getting old. If the whole enterprise (ba-dum tish!) had been about slavishly re-creating what we remember from other movies, the films and their cast should've looked differently.
Yeah I'd say the Kelvin verse is biased more on a parody of ToS than anything else. It's all the characteristics gleamed off of pop culture osmosis than anything from the show or movies. Kirk is a womanizer, and Spock goes crazy all the time and smashes computer screens etc.etc.
+1
Options
HardtargetThere Are Four LightsVancouverRegistered Userregular
I have to admit that I'm sort of puzzled by the love Beyond gets from some corners. I thought it was serviceable but also forgettable. There's literally nothing I remember other than... there's some scene with a motorbike, right?
Beyond was solid because it actually seemed to get what made ToS crew work. It took the cheap shot of destroying the enterprise, which I still don't think worked the way they hoped it would, but they hit all the main characters in a way that even 2009 didn't. Spock and McCoy was just right there. Kirk finally seemed to be growing into who he should be. It was still an action movie, but they undeniably just seemed to get some of the main components of Trek. I also particularly wanted to know more about the MACO captain turned bad guy.
The whole beastie boys thing was IMMENSLEY stupid, and IMMENSLEY fun, and was a neat way to... not fix, but make less annoying? One of the chief things that I irrationally disliked about 2009.
Also, everything about that space city was just awesome sci fi.
+8
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
edited July 2021
Beyond was alright, I saw nothing that particularly elevated it over the same egregious annoyances/issues of the prior film(s). It was still a shitload of fast action in place of anything thoughtful, handed out some major deus ex machina ("if only we had one survivor to explain all of this, oh look here's one single survivor alien who knows about all of this and how to stop it"), and the "motivation" of the villain was just crap. The guy hates Starfleet to death for his ship and crew being lost in the service of the mission they were all excited to sign up for? Fucking what?
Even the Starbase was wildly out of place. Fine, this "version" of Trek is more advanced than the ToS; a reasonable patch on things so that a mega-budget film bypasses people handing each other monochrome plastic datacubes and painted plywood doors. But that Starbase is some Culture-grade shit and, in Star Trek, is basically just a big pile of visual spectacle for no reason other than to be a dramatic place for a finale. They plant this space city thing right at the edge of the unknown, then protect the thing with space plastic wrap which, if it breaches on a large scale (which is all but guaranteed to happen eventually, this is fucking Star Trek), everybody inside is fucked if they aren't in a building already.
Then in the big finale with the big splashy actiony reversal against the drone fleet, of course the one ship that manages to reach the interior carries the one guy carrying a nanite bomb to kill everybody on the station, which he's doing because he hates Starfleet because he encountered the unknown while exploring the unknown on his mission to... explore the unknown. And it still had dumb action shit like the motorbike scene and the ship "riding" the wave of drone ships because obviously there had to be a reason they had to get super-duper close just to get that shot, while also playing Beastie Boys.
The character interactions were at least much improved, with a lot less of people running around desperately trying to make every conversation exciting instead of just being dialogue. They actually got to sound and interact more like a crew this time instead of a bunch of people at the hands of a shitty director who had to pack every second with breathless action of some kind.
Like a lot of Abrams stuff, the point of the movies is to slavishly re-create things you remember from other movies and not to actually tell a story. So Kirk has to end up in the chair at the end with the crew fully formed. That's the point.
I'm not sure how much sense this makes here, since the movies were never about the crew in their prime. From Wrath of Khan onwards, they're quite explicitly about getting old. If the whole enterprise (ba-dum tish!) had been about slavishly re-creating what we remember from other movies, the films and their cast should've looked differently.
Kirk ends up as the captain at the end because Kirk is supposed to be the captain. That's what the character was in the thing Abrams is copying. You see this even more explicitly in the next movie where they thoughtlessly copy a ton of stuff from previous (better) films just because that's what he does. They even have a reveal that only makes sense in the context of copying those films. But Abrams is also just not a Trek fan the way he's a Wars fan, so a lot of the copying is like the internet meme version of the characters.
But the reason Kirk is captain at the end, despite it making zero goddamn sense even in a movie as shoddily scripted as ST09, is that Kirk was captain in TOS so he has to be captain now.
I still enjoy the new films and the cast is great but they are kinda in one ear, out the other experiences.
My memory of Beyond is that it felt like it was missing an entire act in the middle of the film. It feels like they blow up the Enterprise, we get the whole aftermath of that and then it immediately transitions into the finale.
Which makes it Shakespeare compared to Star Trek and Into Darkness.
+1
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
Meh. Beyond is still an incredibly sub-par Trek film. So what if it's marginally better than the prior two films? It's still just a pretty generic space action movie, this time less bad than the last two but still not actually particularly good. I've certainly seen worse films, but I've never felt the desire to watch it again on my own.
Into Darkness is three maybe good movies shoved into one definitely bad movie.
Khan still has potential for good story, especially with the twist that he's an uneasy ally instead of an enemy. Whether or not Kirk is really ready for command is an obvious question after 09. A story about Starfleet's increasing militarism and the specter of war with the Klingons is as topical today as it was in 1991.
But instead we got unserviceable scrap that changes plot every 10 minutes.
EDIT: And don't even get me started on fucking "super blood." It takes a lot of skill to come up with a dumber idea than Janeway and Paris turning into lizards and banging.
Mancingtom on
+1
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
I really like everything I've read about Anson Mount and he seems to have good taste
i don't even remember the enterprise blowing up...but yeah, i guess they take the other ship that was trapped on the planet huh? wow..they need to pick a new name, enterprise is cursed in these new timelines.
i don't even remember the enterprise blowing up...but yeah, i guess they take the other ship that was trapped on the planet huh? wow..they need to pick a new name, enterprise is cursed in these new timelines.
They got a shiny new Enterprise a la STIV at the end of Beyond, don't you worry.
Meh. Beyond is still an incredibly sub-par Trek film. So what if it's marginally better than the prior two films? It's still just a pretty generic space action movie, this time less bad than the last two but still not actually particularly good. I've certainly seen worse films, but I've never felt the desire to watch it again on my own.
sub-par is not a term I'd use for it. I'd probably put it closer to Star Trek 3. Not bad, some real genuine good stuff, and otherwise just sort of there. 3 suffered (I guess?) from being sandwiched between 2 and 4, and Beyond is elevated by being after ID.
0
Options
HardtargetThere Are Four LightsVancouverRegistered Userregular
But Abrams is also just not a Trek fan the way he's a Wars fan, so a lot of the copying is like the internet meme version of the characters.
I think is actually a good thing when you look at how the latest 3 star wars films turned out
at least these 3 star trek movies have a sense of fun and the casting is incredibly good and the characters feel like the characters
hell the story McCoy tells Kirk about how his wife which leads into how he gets the nickname Bones in the first movie is SO GOOD OMG and it's not even about being a doctor lol
Meh. Beyond is still an incredibly sub-par Trek film. So what if it's marginally better than the prior two films? It's still just a pretty generic space action movie, this time less bad than the last two but still not actually particularly good. I've certainly seen worse films, but I've never felt the desire to watch it again on my own.
sub-par is not a term I'd use for it. I'd probably put it closer to Star Trek 3. Not bad, some real genuine good stuff, and otherwise just sort of there. 3 suffered (I guess?) from being sandwiched between 2 and 4, and Beyond is elevated by being after ID.
I know I am the only one (here) to stan the 2009 movie, but: it’s telling that I have watched that film five or six times with non-Trekkie friends, and they’ve all enjoyed it, but I’ve only bothered with Into Darkness and Beyond once, at the cinema, and nobody I know talked about them much afterward.
2009 was a great reimagining, and if it was as an actionish movie, it was! The follow ups were bad or unmemorable.
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
I enjoyed the '09 film much much more before it became apparent that "summer action blockbuster" was going to be the permanent flavor of the new franchise and anything solidly resembling Trek was not going to be part of it. Then we got the next film that was terrible in a lot of ways. Then we got the next film that wasn't completely terrible, but it wasn't great either and it still didn't have anything to do with Star Trek besides names.
Meh. Beyond is still an incredibly sub-par Trek film. So what if it's marginally better than the prior two films? It's still just a pretty generic space action movie, this time less bad than the last two but still not actually particularly good. I've certainly seen worse films, but I've never felt the desire to watch it again on my own.
Those are the two films most people compare Beyond to. The two previous Trek films most people, both Trek fans and general public, have seen. The two previous Trek films Beyond is a direct sequel to, with the same actors and production team. It's the most fair and logical comparison we can make.
I'm really not a fan of the whole "we need a fight or an explosion every ten minutes, or the audience will get bored and start looking at their phones" pacing of the new movies (or, for that matter, the new streaming shows). But I also acknowledge that the movies have always had more things exploding than the episodes, because they actually have a budget, and when you have money you film it.
I always try to give the Kelvin movies a lot of leeway because I remember reading the plot to The Voyage Home before seeing it and thinking you couldn't make a dumber Trek movie, and it probably would have been one of the dumbest if Nimoy wasn't directing. I often wonder if truly great Trek is more lucky accident and timing than premeditated brilliance. Actually I take that last part back, because The Voyage Home was Nimoy's passion project from the start, and it was no accident or luck, but determination that he used to shepherd that movie to greatness.
Posts
It's possible the new ones aren't ever going to feel like Star Trek of old, because the old movies were mostly about people in middle to old age, and they feel melancholy and the characters feel familiar and at ease, and the new movies obviously aren't anything like that. The new movies also aren't really interested in the ethos of Star Trek so much as they want to be four quadrant blockbuster movies, so they're not really about anything in the way the old ones were.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
But, yeah, my reactions to the two following films suggest that the factor unrelated to the film itself was a big part of why I really enjoyed Star Trek (2009).
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
I thought the characters were better. '09 and Into Darkness had a whole lot of conflict between Kirk and Spock that didn't seem natural, conflict for conflict's sake. The actors did a good job at least, but it all sort of felt forced. Beyond ditched that conflict and let them sort hang out together. After the STUFF HAPPENING! from the first two films it was a really nice change of pace. Plus it had the super amazing space station. But otherwise it definitely could have done with a few rewrites. The antagonist's motive was pretty derpy, they pointlessly killed the Enterprise (again), and the Achilles' heel was a Beastie Boys song. A few tweaks and they could have had a nice story involving Kirk getting burned out after five years on the ass end of civilization, with Elba maybe as someone who isn't just burned out but is actively angry about having 'wasted' their life in service to Starfleet (or something like that, I dunno).
I think it's also kind of dumb and doesn't work in several important ways because it wasn't important to the creators to make the story/plot work so much as it was important to string together these key scenes with the first idea anyone had and who cares if it makes sense. It's a common criticism of Abrams that he doesn't seem to understand how stories actually work, and instead just sort of keeps everything moving quickly and hopes you don't notice.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
If Abrams had any storytelling ability or courage, the movie would have just gone with Spock as captain and Kirk as the first officer. Mix that shit up, make something interesting happen. Instead he took a character that absolutely should not be put in command of a starship and writes a scene full of horrible character moments to just give him command of the ship.
Abrams missed a natural story arc by putting Kirk in the chair so early. If your story about a character's early years, why rush to the end?
09 should've ended with Pike as captain and Kirk as first officer. That's built-in tension for the sequels—how does Kirk end up in the chair?—and narrative throughline to keep them all connected.
I may be sounding too down on them, but I watched the first 9 Star Trek movies the other weekend in a marathon and the gulf between those and the Kelvin movies feels especially vast right now.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
It's also the first time I spoke up to an asshole who was on his phone during the start of the movie and he left! I cut him to his core with a resounding "Man, come the fuck on?"
Like a lot of Abrams stuff, the point of the movies is to slavishly re-create things you remember from other movies and not to actually tell a story. So Kirk has to end up in the chair at the end with the crew fully formed. That's the point.
It will be the Kelvinverse. They can't set movies in the Prime universe because of copyright issues: the Prime universe belongs to CBS, not Paramount. That was the whole reason why Paramount created the Kelvinverse in the first place.
CBS and Paramount have merged, so the movie and television rights have been reunited.
The movie doesn't necessarily have to be Kelvinverse, but it's a good bet. That's what general movie audiences are aware of these days and none of the newer shows have enough cultural penetration to support a movie.
Edit: see that's why I usually don't check my info and just spew nonsense, when I check I get beat.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Yeah I'd say the Kelvin verse is biased more on a parody of ToS than anything else. It's all the characteristics gleamed off of pop culture osmosis than anything from the show or movies. Kirk is a womanizer, and Spock goes crazy all the time and smashes computer screens etc.etc.
you're puzzled people enjoyed a good movie?
huh
sounds like somebody needs to listen to the 'beat and the shouting'
The whole beastie boys thing was IMMENSLEY stupid, and IMMENSLEY fun, and was a neat way to... not fix, but make less annoying? One of the chief things that I irrationally disliked about 2009.
Also, everything about that space city was just awesome sci fi.
Even the Starbase was wildly out of place. Fine, this "version" of Trek is more advanced than the ToS; a reasonable patch on things so that a mega-budget film bypasses people handing each other monochrome plastic datacubes and painted plywood doors. But that Starbase is some Culture-grade shit and, in Star Trek, is basically just a big pile of visual spectacle for no reason other than to be a dramatic place for a finale. They plant this space city thing right at the edge of the unknown, then protect the thing with space plastic wrap which, if it breaches on a large scale (which is all but guaranteed to happen eventually, this is fucking Star Trek), everybody inside is fucked if they aren't in a building already.
Then in the big finale with the big splashy actiony reversal against the drone fleet, of course the one ship that manages to reach the interior carries the one guy carrying a nanite bomb to kill everybody on the station, which he's doing because he hates Starfleet because he encountered the unknown while exploring the unknown on his mission to... explore the unknown. And it still had dumb action shit like the motorbike scene and the ship "riding" the wave of drone ships because obviously there had to be a reason they had to get super-duper close just to get that shot, while also playing Beastie Boys.
The character interactions were at least much improved, with a lot less of people running around desperately trying to make every conversation exciting instead of just being dialogue. They actually got to sound and interact more like a crew this time instead of a bunch of people at the hands of a shitty director who had to pack every second with breathless action of some kind.
Kirk ends up as the captain at the end because Kirk is supposed to be the captain. That's what the character was in the thing Abrams is copying. You see this even more explicitly in the next movie where they thoughtlessly copy a ton of stuff from previous (better) films just because that's what he does. They even have a reveal that only makes sense in the context of copying those films. But Abrams is also just not a Trek fan the way he's a Wars fan, so a lot of the copying is like the internet meme version of the characters.
But the reason Kirk is captain at the end, despite it making zero goddamn sense even in a movie as shoddily scripted as ST09, is that Kirk was captain in TOS so he has to be captain now.
I still enjoy the new films and the cast is great but they are kinda in one ear, out the other experiences.
Other then that it was ... fine.
Which makes it Shakespeare compared to Star Trek and Into Darkness.
Khan still has potential for good story, especially with the twist that he's an uneasy ally instead of an enemy. Whether or not Kirk is really ready for command is an obvious question after 09. A story about Starfleet's increasing militarism and the specter of war with the Klingons is as topical today as it was in 1991.
But instead we got unserviceable scrap that changes plot every 10 minutes.
EDIT: And don't even get me started on fucking "super blood." It takes a lot of skill to come up with a dumber idea than Janeway and Paris turning into lizards and banging.
Blizzard: Pailryder#1101
GoG: https://www.gog.com/u/pailryder
They got a shiny new Enterprise a la STIV at the end of Beyond, don't you worry.
sub-par is not a term I'd use for it. I'd probably put it closer to Star Trek 3. Not bad, some real genuine good stuff, and otherwise just sort of there. 3 suffered (I guess?) from being sandwiched between 2 and 4, and Beyond is elevated by being after ID.
I think is actually a good thing when you look at how the latest 3 star wars films turned out
at least these 3 star trek movies have a sense of fun and the casting is incredibly good and the characters feel like the characters
hell the story McCoy tells Kirk about how his wife which leads into how he gets the nickname Bones in the first movie is SO GOOD OMG and it's not even about being a doctor lol
I know I am the only one (here) to stan the 2009 movie, but: it’s telling that I have watched that film five or six times with non-Trekkie friends, and they’ve all enjoyed it, but I’ve only bothered with Into Darkness and Beyond once, at the cinema, and nobody I know talked about them much afterward.
2009 was a great reimagining, and if it was as an actionish movie, it was! The follow ups were bad or unmemorable.
Goodreads
SF&F Reviews blog
Those are the two films most people compare Beyond to. The two previous Trek films most people, both Trek fans and general public, have seen. The two previous Trek films Beyond is a direct sequel to, with the same actors and production team. It's the most fair and logical comparison we can make.
But I also acknowledge that the movies have always had more things exploding than the episodes, because they actually have a budget, and when you have money you film it.
(gif for Picard)
Blizzard: Pailryder#1101
GoG: https://www.gog.com/u/pailryder
It's a new timeline split from the Mirror Universe.