|
The previous Star Trek thread (started by yours truly) gave us over four years of hilariously useless back-and-forth over Star Trek and specifically Star Trek Into Darkness. Now that we have a new movie coming out, Star Trek Beyond, I figured we were due for a clean slate. Welcome! I'll start things off with a Even/ odd-numbered movies rule? Pfffffft! Get outta here with that weak poo poo. The Trek Cycle is WAY cooler than that and is filled with more cherry-picking and confirmation bias than any Trekkie has dared implement before. So what the hell is it? It's basically the idea that Star Trek movies repeat** themselves after every four movies. We have already gone through three complete cycles. Star Trek Beyond being the 13th film in the series, it is starting the fourth cycle, and maybe (definitely) I'm just crazy, but it already seems like it's showing some signs of its alignment with its "First in the cycle" brethren. **(OK, they might not quite 'repeat', but like Mark Twain allegedly once said, it definitely rhymes). Without further ado, behold THE TREK CYCLE! (those listed under "first" are "first movie in the cycle" and so forth) pre:First Second The Motion Picture (1980) II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) V: The Final Frontier (1989) VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991) Insurrection (1998) Nemesis (2002) Beyond (2016) Third Fourth III: The Search for Spock (1984) IV: The Voyage Home (1986) Generations (1994) First Contact (1996) Star Trek (2009) Into Darkness (2013) quote:First
quote:Second
quote:Third
quote:Fourth
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So feel free to use this thread to discuss my schizophrenia, Star Trek Beyond, Star Trek movies in general, and other franchise talk (though remember this is CineD so try to keep it at least somewhat focused on the movies). "Let's see what she's got!" *->EDITED to add more points to first-step movies after viewing Beyond. lizardman fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Jul 25, 2016 |
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 08:22 |
|
|
Something else of note about the cycle: if you look at the release dates up through Nemesis, there is a fairly consistent 10 year gap between movies at the same point in their respective cycles (ie. III in 1984 and Generations in 1994), so at the time I wasn't sure if the cycle was strictly dictated by release order or if it was tied to what part of the decade the movie came out in. So in the runup to the 2009 film's release, I was curious whether the movie would start a new cycle (as it was being released at the end of the decade) or if it would continue the suspended cycle, being third following Nemesis. I was suspecting the former given that it was a reboot, but to my surprise it turned out to be the latter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
lizardman posted:
You forgot Gilbert and Sullivan in Insurrection!
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Don't forget Roy Orbison, Steppenwolf, and this classic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DXdvnkaQH4
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
^^ Hey, you make a good case that the 4th movie in the cycle may feature a rock 'n roll song or two! (of varying subgenres)Pops Mgee posted:You forgot Gilbert and Sullivan in Insurrection! Haha, I was thinking of mentioning how some of the ads for Insurrection used electronic music but figured that might've been stretching it. --------------- So Paramount has already greenlit the NEXT Star Trek movie, and it costars Chris Hemsworth, returning as Captain Kirk's father. Just for fun, let me take a guess how the movie might turn out using the TREK CYCLE *rolls out chart*: I foresee that the movie begins with Kirk being sentimental over the fact that he is now older than his father was when he'd supposedly died and he is not sure what the future holds for him. Adding to his bittersweet mood is the feeling that his makeshift family that is the Enterprise bridge crew is starting to slowly disband as they move on with their lives: Chekov has already been promoted and stationed on the Reliant, and Spock has just informed him that he's been awarded a very important (possibly diplomatic) position; he has a female Vulcan protege he's grooming to replace his station on the Enterprise, of course. Luckily, the gang gets to go on one last mission all together (except Chekov, sadly), and what's better is that the assignment is to visit the Klingon homeworld because they're interested in laying the ground work for a peace treaty. The Enterprise's first visit with the Klingons is awkward but they do make some progress - the Klingons offer to release starfleet POWs they've held in Ruhra Pente if the federation does not bar the use of cloaking devices. In the shock of his life, Kirk discovers one of the prisoners is his father! It turns out he had survived his run-in with Nero and, like Nero himself in the Star Trek 2009 deleted scenes, was discovered by the Klingons and taken prisoner. There is a heartfelt scene where the elder Kirk catches up with his son's accomplishments and tells him how proud he is. The negotiations are going well... until suddenly a Klingon ship decloaks and opens fire on the Klingon diplomats--Kirk's father and a group of rogues have hijacked a ship and, fueled with hatred for his Klingon captors, made it his goal to disrupt any peace process. Kirk's father is the surprise villain of the film! With the enraged Klingons now threatening war, Kirk has the unenviable position of having to hunt down his own father. This proves difficult because of the cloaking device on the hijacked ship (because of where we're at in the timeline, the cloaking device is presented as a novelty). As the crew readies their battle stations, Kirk meets with Spock in private and they have a personal chat about the sins of the father, the passing of time and generations, etc., before they head to the bridge. The Enterprise has a fierce space battle with the cloaked ship but eventually disables it--but not before Kirk Sr. sets his ship on a collision course for a Klingon populace. The Enterprise's weapons and tractor beam having been damaged in battle, Kirk takes it upon himself to board the other ship on a suicide mission to destroy its warp core (or something) and take the ship out before it crashes. Kirk Sr. discovers him and they have a fight, Kirk Jr. gets the upperhand and ends up mortally wounding him. Having seen firsthand his son's bravery and heroics, the dying Kirk Sr. admits defeat and tells his son to escape--he will make the sacrifice and destroy his ship. Kirk Jr. is teary-eyed but complies (his father probably contrives a way that there's nothing his son can do about it). The ship is destroyed, Kirk Sr. along with it, Kirk Jr. escapes and is spinning helplessly in space/ the sky and is rescued in spectacular fashion by the Enterprise. In the end, the peace process is back on (the Klingons impressed by the Enterprise crew's dealing with the insurgents), the remaining bridge crew bids farewell to Spock as they drop him off to his new assignment, and we hear Kirk's captain's log mentioning things about how we shouldn't let regret for the past shape our future because we can always make the future better - with cheeky emphasis on the 'generations' after us. Last shot is the Enterprise flying through a nebula whose colors resemble an orange sunset. (This would be the last movie with this cast, of course).
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
That's entertainingly plausible, except you run into the problem that Chris Pine is older than Chris Hemsworth, and I'd be very surprised if they age-up someone whose primary appeal is their appearance. It's gotta be something like Chris Hemsworth getting knocked forward in time due to the events of the 2009 movie. Otherwise, though, definitely got that Star Trek reboot feel down.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
I hope it's a mirror universe story. Kirk Sr. is alive, evil, and goateed in another dimension!
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
Wonder if they might bring the TOS character George Samuel Kirk back into being. But instead of Shatner/Pine with a mustache, it's Hemsworth.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:That's entertainingly plausible, except you run into the problem that Chris Pine is older than Chris Hemsworth, and I'd be very surprised if they age-up someone whose primary appeal is their appearance. It's gotta be something like Chris Hemsworth getting knocked forward in time due to the events of the 2009 movie. Yeah, you're right about that - not only would the actors' ages be an issue but the cycle suggests the captain finds a son figure rather than a father (I had in mind that, this being the 'young' crew, this one might subvert that). The fact that they're evoking the very first scene of the 2009 movie definitely suggests to me they're at least thinking about wrapping up this current Trek generation, especially if they're going to be having more time travel shenanigans. Maybe they even 'restore' the timeline at the end? That said, we're getting ahead of ourselves - the current Star Trek movie hasn't even been releasd yet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
I really like the IMAX posters for Beyond
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
so is this the proper place to discuss the new movie? It was pretty sweet
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
I like to imagine that one studio exec was like "You know who's big that we should get for Star Trek 4? Chris Hemsworth." And another exec was like "Brilliant! Wait... we already did that. And we killed him off five minutes into the film." And the first exec was like "gently caress... but wait a minute..." and then they stop stroking their chins to point at each other and in unison say "TIME TRAVEL!" and then gave each other raises and got steaks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
DeafNote posted:so is this the proper place to discuss the new movie? Yes. That's cool, I'm excited to see it. How's Idris?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
Detective No. 27 posted:I like to imagine that one studio exec was like "You know who's big that we should get for Star Trek 4? Chris Hemsworth." Assuming they get him back for the next movie, it wouldn't be the first time that Justin Lin brought an explicitly dead character back from the dead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
That TV spot might've spoiled stuff about Elba but it makes the movie look a lot more interesting than before.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
Star Trek Beyond rules. I wouldn't say it's low stakes, but it's a smaller film than the others. More personal. I liked that. The action is really good, but the character moments is where it shines. It's also funny as hell. Mostly thanks to Karl Urban and Zachary Quinto. But Anton's death is felt through out. It sadly ends the film on a bitter sweet note, but that isn't the film's fault. A lot better than Into Darkness.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 07:54
|
|
|
Oh, Idris is fine. He isn't a standout, but he isn't a slouch either. I can't say too much because the one time I went to go take a piss, I missed something pretty vital to his character, so I'll have to see it again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 07:56
|
|
|
Star Trek Beyond is a very good entertaining film. Idris is completely unrecognizable but does an ok job I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 08:03
|
|
|
I have nothing invested in the franchise but enjoyed the first two in the reboot series a good amount. Beyond was a bit more meh, mostly CGI action, clunkier writing and a plot that didn't really engage because the villain's motivation wasn't really revealed until over an hour in. Idris Elba was alright, Quinto and Urban were great. widunder fucked around with this message at 09:00 on Jul 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 08:57
|
|
|
It does take a while for Idris to get interesting, though he's acted fine and the movie does its best to promise you he has a backstory you will get to hear In the end he is more interesting than STID Kahn and Nero at least. (though not as fun as Nero was) yeah its not the best Star Trek movie (I'd also say ST XI is better), but the characters all get attention, Bones isnt underused for once, and the heroes get to actually be heroes also that TV ad spoiler is stupid and I am glad I didnt see it before hand
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 09:57
|
|
|
Well I just watched this and I enjoyed it a lot! Maybe a bit long but great action and some nice moments. Better than the last one to be sure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 10:19
|
|
|
Is it say first contact level good?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
There was definitely an interesting story in there someplace but it's a mess of a movie. Before I get into spoilers, I'll say the action is unwatchable, the lighting is bad, and the motivation of the villain is incoherent. The performances are good in spite of all of that and if you enjoyed the previous two movies then you'll probably get through this movie on the strength of the cast alone. But I really wish someone at any point had said, "Hey, maybe we should just let this shot hold for more than five seconds before jumping to the next one." There are sequences where it's nearly impossible to tell where or how characters are jumping about. It's incredibly dizzying and really disorienting. I just want to know what the gently caress is going on on screen. I have no idea what the gently caress is up with Elba except for in the vaguest of senses. He was from the military pre Star Fleet, ended up lost and thought dead, and so he somehow hunts down some magical space device to kill a bunch of people for some reason. Because war will make humanity stronger? He can use energy to live and that makes him look like a monster but later in the film makes him a human? Maybe it depends on the species he is absorbing? There are like a billion ships and minions he has for some reason? I'm not really sure who they are or why they follow him. The plot is really "screenwriting 101". The first object seen in the movie ends up being the important MacGuffin throughout the film. The music played in a scene between Scotty and Jaylah ends up saving the day. But what the hell happened with that signal Sulu and Uhura sent? I thought that was supposed to lure the Federation into a trap and it just never went anywhere. It seemed weird that it was just never mentioned again. The one piece of editing I really liked was when Kirk was toasting his birthday party and said something about celebrating those that made it and those that have been lost and it focuses on Yelchin. It was a nice touch. My assumption is that Jaylah will replace him in Star Trek 4 (14).
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
I can answer some of that The signal wasnt redirected to trap anyone, it was meant to divert the starbase's spaceships towards the nebula, long enough for the villain to attack the starbase. The Nebula disrupts space communications (because of course it does), so I assume the ships wouldnt know to return in time. Other than that, the movie was pretty simple yeah. But I can see what they wanted to show with Idris. That a captain can go utterly bonkers in space. His endgame was a bit hard to understand, and the movie doesnt really explain his followers or how he got the swarm ships. Or a lot of things. The magical space device originally came from that planet though, so at least it explains how he learned about that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
This cycle doesn't really ring true. I think that since 1994 there has only been two kinds of Star Trek movie. There are the films that are more or less transparent remakes of Wrath of Khan, and then there's Insurrection.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
DeafNote posted:I can answer some of that You'd be totally right if the movie made any mention of Yorktown Base being left undefended. But it doesn't. Uhura and Sulu send the signal with the bad coordinates. Elba mocks them for sending the fleet into a trap. Then it's never mentioned again. It's not like his bees arrive at the base and the admiral says, "Omg, we're completely undefended." With how big the hive was and how federation technology works, the hive could have easily overrun a handful of federation ships anyway. Basically, I think it's bad editing or screenwriting. Either that was in there and cut or it was never in there. It's like when Scotty fell off the cliff and then it cuts to what the other crew members are doing and then it cuts back Scotty and he's just exploring a crash site. Yeah, sure, he probably pulled himself up, but why include the cliffhanger at all?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
Beyond is a stupid fun movie. The crew blowing up the bad guys by blasting Beastie Boys was precisely my jam, and I thought the tribute to Nimoy was lovely  I need time to ruminate on it, but this might be favorite of the JJTrek films.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
Did the movie seem weirdly dark to anyone? As in physically dark. I just walked out of a screening where everything was so dark and murky that it was giving me a headache. The manager (who didn't give me a refund cuz "we don't give refunds past the first 20 minutes of the movie" (supposedly as a corporate policy (if so, keep yr money away from regal cinema))) swore up and down that it wouldn't be an issue with the projector but with the digitally distributed print itself. Not that I believe the manager, but did anyone else get a similar screening experience?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
Yeah the film is pretty by the numbers with the plot, but it's still silly fun. I agree that it does a really good job showing off the whole ensemble. I think the crew in this one feels a lot tighter than in any other, which of course makes sense given the whole third year of a five year mission thing going on. I'm sure there will be detractors as always that it's not in the spirit of Trek since it is a big ole action movie. I really hope the TV series goes back to the heart of it. I'd be fine if we had the parallel exploration TV series and action movies. I get that it's really hard to balance both, and the movies in general have been less exploratory. As long as they're fun like this and not bogged down by itself like the last one, I like the direction. Godspeed Anton.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
atrus50 posted:Did the movie seem weirdly dark to anyone? As in physically dark. I just walked out of a screening where everything was so dark and murky that it was giving me a headache. Nah it was p well lit, that's a fuckup on their side. Sorry that was your experience  BTW that movie kicked rear end WOOOO
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
Beyond felt like the most Star Trek of the new Star Trek movies. Even the uniforms are pretty much the same as TOS, the movie's "peace is better than conflict" moral is Roddenberry as hell, lots of Spock/McCoy banter, it was great. If this were not a Star Trek movie it would be a fun but forgettable action flick with some cool setpieces, but it draws on the history of the franchise in a way that gives it a lot of character and life. This movie revels and rolls around in everything that Star Trek is, warts and all. If you feel like Star Trek as a cultural icon is preachy, cheesy, and cliche, do not watch this movie. If you find it fun, bright, and optimistic, this movie is your jam. Also I followed the action scenes fine, they were about par for a modern action flick. I saw it in 2D, so maybe if you saw it in 3D it might have been more distracting?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
atrus50 posted:Did the movie seem weirdly dark to anyone? As in physically dark. I just walked out of a screening where everything was so dark and murky that it was giving me a headache. Yup, I found it really dark too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
Falloutboy posted:Yup, I found it really dark too. I didn't find it dark at all. I mean there were some intentionally dark scenes at night and in space but apart from that not at all. The action scenes do lean a bit toward the incomprehensible but I think it's to have a hectic feeling which works and I certainly didn't have any trouble following what's going on. Overall it's a really entertaining, really well put-together film. Great blend of a good old fashioned adventure, sci-fi, fun characters and some Star Trekkian themes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
I kind of wanted Kirk's Captain's Speech to work and for Krall to have a change of heart after looking at his reflection. Overall decent but probably the least compelling of the three new Treks for me. The action didn't have the giddy hilarity of Lin's Fast and Furious movies. computer parts posted:That TV spot might've spoiled stuff about Elba but it makes the movie look a lot more interesting than before. It comes at almost the very end of the movie. I'm glad I knew it going it because I do think knowing the character's past here adds more weight to him than a twist does and maybe it should have been revealed a lot earlier in the film. A True Jar Jar Fan fucked around with this message at 04:07 on Jul 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
Wandle Cax posted:I didn't find it dark at all. I mean there were some intentionally dark scenes at night and in space but apart from that
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
Movie was ok. I thought it pointed fun at the TV shows, "You end up doing the same thing forever". And apparently now after this movie its discovered they can go "BEYONDER"! Gasp! Updated graphics all looked pretty, its just a bunch of drones isn't that cool or crazy or anything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
I'm gonna see it this weekend, but I have to know Does the Enterprise get blowed up? Do they get a replacement Enterprise or something different at the end, like in ST 4?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
Jose Oquendo posted:I'm gonna see it this weekend, but I have to know Does the Enterprise get blowed up? Do they get a replacement Enterprise or something different at the end, like in ST 4? Yes, and yes to the first one, it looks pretty similar to me
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
Wandle Cax posted:Yes, and yes to the first one, it looks pretty similar to me Someone stated in the last thread the saucer is moved forward on the neck and the nacelles are moved back on their arms.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 04:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 08:22 |
|
|
I found the day scenes to be lit fine but anything in space or at night was impossible to see. I saw it in 2D.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 04:55
|
|