93% on Rottentomatoes so far even though it's only based on 43 critics reviews so that score may change a bit. Either way, I'll be seeing it this Saturday.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_beyond/

Yes, I saw that, and hope it's a good indication that it's better than the previous two, at least. I'm looking forward to hearing what you thought of it.

The odds of it being the best one are slim. Remember that 93% isn't an absolute objective scale, it will be biased by the reviewers' expectations based on the previous ones and other current films (like Star Wars).
So if they loved the 2009 ST, this could mean "almost as good".



The Jedi Master

Let us know how it goes. The first two (the second especially for whatever reason) I found incredibly gag inducing. Basically Transformers with an Enterprise thrown in.

But 100% less Shia.



The Jedi Master

So 93% is good, or it's 93% rotten? I never understand what I'm seeing with that sight. Is it a red rotten tomato, a green splat or a campfire? None sound positive to me.

It means that 93% of the critics reviews are positive while 7% are negative.

Just got home from watching this and I felt it was overall a pretty solid film. Its biggest strength is that it didn't have the gaping plot holes that we saw with "Into Darkness".

What struck me the most about this film is that I couldn't tell at all that this was made by a different director. In both style and pacing, Justin Lin was indistinguishable from JJ Abrams.

Saw it yesterday. If say that in general it felt like a really good 2 part TNG episode. However, it turned into Attack of the Killer Tomatoes towards the end and almost ruined the movie for me. Maybe I missed it out maybe they just glossed over it, but I didn't hear a real reason for the transformation etc. Or why he reverted his appearance to almost normal.

Raw, that was my feeling too, but my wife seemed to get it. She said that he takes on the form of whatever lifeform he absorbs. Because he had been sucking the human's life force after capturing the E crew, he was beginning to revert to his human form.

Again, I'm not sure if we were supposed to figure that out, or if I missed it, but it sounds good to me!

My thoughts:

Come to think of it, Mars Attacks! used the "music kills the enemy" bit too. That and Attack of the Killer Tomatoes. Not good company for an otherwise good ST movie.
Really a bad call.

Yeah, that was the only thing about the movie that really bugged me. It was cheesy. It's like the video game-like scene in the first JJ Trek where Scotty transported directly into one of the water pipes and Kirk had to get him out before he drowned.

Saw it today. It was OK. I felt that there was too much spasmodic filming of action scenes. And the Kung-fu fighting went on way too long. One thing that really suspended my acceptance was how these space craft were able to take huge amounts of physical damage entering the atmosphere and ricocheting down several mountain strikes and a surface impact and still be partly functioning. And then one shakes itself out of debris, again ricochet off several mountain strikes and do a planetary exit. Yeah, they find a motorcycle in the old Franklin, but are we to believe that it's gas, oil, and electrical system are still working ? I could go on and on, but my summation was - way too much spasmodic action and way too little story development.

Agree precisely.

Throwing in the gratuitous homosexual embrace for Sulu for the shore leave sequence near the beginning was extremely unwelcome and off-putting (both morally, and in deviation from the original series, whatever Takai's off screen choices).

Less objectionable, but still not recommending the movie to any future viewing on my part, was the dig at military careers (soldiers want war) and the continuation (from Into the Darkness) of the inane Roddenberry mantra that Starfleet (the organization made up of armed starships crewed by uniformed personnel) is not a military force, and that military force is somehow not necessary to safe preservation civilization against everyone that wants to kill it.

Definitely questionable at this point whether I purchase it on Blu Ray (which would be a bit of a first for a Star Trek movie for me).

Kudos to Takei at least for his objection to making Sulu gay. He resisted the massive social media pressure to just cave in say "yeah I think it's great!"

Definitely.

I have to agree with the above comments + Early in the film, a feeling of Political overtones. Under-developed Story kinda hurt in the editing department. However, it was a good movie.

So far the box office performance of "Beyond" is significantly trailing that of the previous two JJ directed films. Why is that? It's not clear yet if interest in Star Trek is waning again with the mainstream audiences or if it's something else. The majority of the critics reviews have been favorable.

I'm going to guess that the first 2 JJTrek films (especially the last / Khan rip off) turned fans of "Old Trek" like myself off, so we've not seen "Beyond" and probably won't until it's on PPV. Likewise the "New Trek" fans "JJTrek" was supposed to attract are not as loyal as "Old Trek" fans and they've not seen "Beyond" either.

I wasn't going to see it out of protest for their treatment of Axanar. However, my wife wanted to see it, which is a good step in her geek training, so that was more important.

That makes sense to me. It's not just Star Trek of course, there are several other film franchises that have been faltering lately at the box office. Maybe enough movie-goers are finally getting tired of all the sequels.

People are fickle.

I've come to the conclusion I really don't like them.




The Jedi Master

I think that also has to do with the perceptions left after "Into Darkness".

Within the new franchise, it was a far less entertaining movie than the first one, even though it had a bigger budget. They could have brought in a lot of the old trekkies with a good treatment of an alternate universe Wrath of Khan story, but they dropped the ball on the writing (too many plot holes) and bad casting on the main villain (it does not matter how good of an actor he is).

Usually this would mark a trend regarding the quality of the subsequent movies, since it is very rare in a franchise to have one of the latter movies to be better than the original. Mainstream audiences just assumed this was going to be worst than the last one. I know I was one.

The early trailers did not help either. I was turned off by the whole presentation.

I am glad the reviews have been favorable from the standpoint of the Star Trek franchise as a whole. But I will not see this movie at the theater.

Good post Bib. I just find it interesting how Beyond has received much more favorable reviews than Into Darkness from the critics but Beyond is doing worse at the box office.

The problem is movie execs 100% refuse to acknowledge trends. They insist on evaluating films in a bubble.
The (wrong) conclusion they will take from this is audiences prefer ST films to be like Into Darkness, because it made more, and less like Beyond, which made less despite the critics.

You cannot convince them otherwise.




The Jedi Master

The film was good but not great. I really liked the Jaylah character.

Just read Karl Urban almost didn't come back. He was unhappy with his character's role in Into Darkness and had no interest in reprising that. The director talked him into coming back after he read the script.

Good thing, I think everyone agrees that not only is Urban's McCoy one of the best of the new cast, but his role in Beyond was excellent as well.




The Jedi Master

Absolutely. People may have legitimate complaints about the scripts and the style of the JJ reboot films but one thing I think they absolutely got right was the casting. Pine, Quinto and Urban are superb. The rest of the main cast is pretty good too but not on the same level IMHO.

In case any of you were wondering why Carol Marcus was not in this film,

http://io9.gizmodo.com/oh-thats-where-carol-marcus-was-during-star-trek-beyon-1784771007

IMO, Karl is wasted as Bones, although he does it well. Should've been Kirk and they shouldn't have all started as kids.

Urban is not reminiscent of Shatner in any way at all. The first film did have Kirk and Spock as kids in the beginning and that was plenty. Those were the only two you saw as kids though.

We can only hope for the best, although IMHO the only positive thing about that article is that they've spelt 'colour' correctly.

Are they making a series or a political statement? Do they really start a tv production these days thinking first "how can we include as many colored and gay/trans people as possible?" before thinking "What will make a good story?"

The same thing is being done with the new Star Trek tv show for CBS. It's so overt that it feels very contrived.

Pine isn't reminiscent of Kirk either, nor Urban of Bones. For kids, I mean the bridge crew. They're growing into their roles some now, but seemed too youthful in appearance in the first two movies. Urban and Pegg look old by comparison. Too much older.

Karl Urban was 37 when Star Trek came out, but it was filmed if you recall two years earlier. It was supposed to come out early 2008, then late 2008, finally early 2009. He was born in 72, so in 2007 he was 35.

DeForest Kelley was born in 1920, and Star Trek's Man Trap episode aired in late 66, when he was 46 years old.
Karl Urban still isn't 46. Likewise James Doohan was born in 1920, and was also 46.
Shatner was born in 1931, so he was 35 when he did Man Trap. Kelley and Doohan were 11 years older than Shatner.

Chris Pine was born in 1980, so he was 27 when they did Star Trek. Urban is only 8 years older than Pine, Pegg is 10.
Zoe Saldana is two years older than Pine. John Cho is the same age as Karl Urban, same month and year (June 1972). Pegg is the oldest, born in 1970. Quinto is 3 years older than Pine, born in 1977, he was 30 when they made Star Trek, only 7 years younger than Pegg.

The facts are the entire cast was born within a ten year period with the exception of Yelchin who was 9 years younger than Pine, the otherwise youngest cast member. The range of ages, exempting him, is 10 years, smaller than the original cast who were born over a 17 year range. Koenig is only 5 years younger than Shatner, believe it or not, and Takei is a year younger than Koenig.
Include Yelchin, and it becomes only 19 years.



The Jedi Master

To each his own but I think Pine mimics the Shatner mannerisms pretty darn well and then there's the physical resemblance,


http://screencrush.com/star-trek-captain-kirk-poll/

No, I don't see it.
Still don't care for the apparent age difference in the crew. Maybe if they hadn't started the whole thing as new graduates it would've allowed for it to all fit better.
Doesn't work well due to the way they presented the movies, as opposed to the show, which made more allowance for characters of different (apparent) ages. The age of the original actors isn't really relevant.
Some of these people look like they're right out of the Academy, some look like they should've been out for 10-15 years. They were all portrayed, or I was lead to believe, that they were all out of the academy at the same time. About all there is to it. Maybe Bones was already in Star Fleet and transferred in? I don't remember anything like that being said though.

Bones was always late to Starfleet. Grew up, went to medical school, had a family, it fell apart, he joined Starfleet to get away. Never mentioned his wife, but his daughter Joana was mentioned from time to time although never seen.
Also remember Scotty was not at the academy, he was found on an outpost after already having been in the service for years.



The Jedi Master

Saw it tonight, bunch of plot holes or at least unexplained details, but overall a pretty solid Star Trek experience.

10min less action sequences and instead more dialoque might have suited it, otherwise it was far, far better than the terrible trailer.

Finally watched this. It was OK. Better than Into Darkness for me.

But falls on some of the same holes as the others. No memorable villain, and actually, no memorable locations - even Lexington station was just some CGI with people running in front of a green screen - it did not looked like a liveable space station.

The Jayla character was interesting and underused. The motorcycle bit felt out of place. And speaking about tacked on, re-using Sabotage....really?

But the pacing was much better, and the main character development was way better this time.

I recognize my gripes are really minor. I would have definitively watched this on the cinema.

Also...what happened to Dr. Marcus?

Ask and ye shall receive an answer,

http://screenrant.com/star-trek-beyond-carol-marcus-absence/

I don't know what the future is though for this franchise. It's starting to falter and lose gas at the box office. Just compare these box office stats for the three films.

Star Trek (2009) domestic: 258 million foreign: 128 million

Into Darkness domestic: 229 million foreign: 239 million

Beyond domestic: 159 million foreign: 179 million

Adjusting for inflation and taking into consideration how much the films cost to make several original timeline films (maybe most of them?) did better than the JJTrek films.

Finally got to see it. Wasn't all that bad, really. Felt a lot more like Star Trek than the other two films.

I agree with the motorcycle scene.

I did like the "Sabotage" bit though, because it was actually a plot device.

I thought it was a bit dumb to give us all of the villain's backstory within the last five minutes of the film. That bit felt like an afterthought. Either give the audience some exposition around mid-movie (or piecemeal throughout the film), or just skip it completely.

Sometimes, bad guys are simply jerks, with no deeper meaning behind it all.

I thought that Idris Elba was grossly underutilized. That was a major failure of the script.

I got the impression that a lot more backstory was originally in the script, but got rewritten/ cut out somehow. Either before shooting started, or in post.

Maybe they should have focused less on the "hunt for the McGuffin" and dedicate a little more time on explaining what exactly happened to the USS Franklin, to Edison and his crew, and how they initially coped with their situation. Even the little information we get was rushed.

I couldn't help but feel sad every time I saw Chekov in a scene.

"To the Enterprise....and to absent friends". And then the camera centers on Anton Yelchin. I don't think that was a coincidence. I bet the scene was cut that way in post production. Very moving.

Also the scene where Bones and Kirk have that Glenfiddich 30y which Bones liberated from Chekov's locker. Bones fills up three glasses, and both clink glasses with the third one.

He died June 19, the film was released July 22. No way they had time in the middle of the press tour to make a set and film that and get it in the film and localize it in time for the premiere.
That was just a coincidence.




The Jedi Master

The first scene was merely a panning shot of the entire crew; it wouldn't have been that hard to re-cut that scene to keep the camera from panning any further. Could also have been a coincidence, but in that case it was an eerie one.

BTW, panning shots seem to be Justin Lin's lensflares.

For the second scene I've mentioned, it could have been as simple as CGI-ing a third glass into the scene, copy & paste Karl Urban's pouring move, and so on.

The scene where they clank the glasses together was a close-up shot of literally two glasses banging against a third one. No need for a studio set or complicated re-shoots.

Theoretically, a small green screen, two extras, three glasses (real or CGI) and one cutter would have been sufficient to create that shot and cut it between Kirk and Bones toasting each other.

Coincidence or not, that scene would make total sense considering Anton Yelchin's death. Without that, not so much.

Why would Bones "raid" Chekov's (a junior officer) locker for an expensive bottle of Scotch, drink it with Kirk but pour some in an empty glass, while the person was still alive on the ship somewhere, probably sitting next to Sulu on the bridge?

Ok, maybe Chekov's lost a bet or something, but then you wouldn't say "look what I've found in Chekov's locker", but rather "look what Chekov gave me".


Edit:

Google was helpful again:

http://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/star-trek-beyond-justin-lin-simon-pegg/

The third whisky glass was there to honor Kirk's father, who died on his birthday.

+1

So the director of the film, Justin Lin, lied?

Or was that the initial reason, and the scene got re-purposed, as Mr. Lin stated in the link that I posted above?

I remember in the movie, Kirk said it was for his father.

But it was to be taken as a hint that it was for Anton.

The scene is a little vague in that regard.

"Technically", the dialogue reveals that Bones brought the bottle for Kirk's upcoming birthday (which would be "in a couple of days"), and Kirk does not like to celebrate on that day because it's also the day his father died.

BTW, over where I live, it's considered bad luck to celebrate an upcoming birthday. If you can't celebrate on the date for whatever reason, you do that afterwards. Is there a similar superstition in the US?

So I guess the third glass was initially meant for Kirk's absent dad. The "clinking" scene got inserted later in post-production as an homage to Yelchin. (since Chekov was mentioned as the original owner of the bottle).

I find it a little odd, though, because neither Kirk nor McCoy even knew George Kirk. A third glass would IMO have been more appropriate for Pike, who was a much more influential father figure to Kirk in the rebooted universe.

In the end, the scene primarily was a very expensive commercial for Glenfiddich.


[and yes, I am bored today, hence my belabouring of that rather minor scene ]

I'm assuming Paramount will be making another Trek film with this cast but they surely have to be worried with the fact that Beyond has been the lowest box office performer so far of the rebooted franchise.

Finally watched this on Amazon Prime, included in my membership I'm glad, I didn't pay to see it. I agree with OG and Nimits comments above. To me much of the movie was more "science fantasy" rather than "science fiction", IE too much "Star Wars" and not enough "Star Trek".

I've seen all of the pre-JJ movies at least twice, I've never watched a JJ/Lin movie a second time. I don't expect that to change.

Have to agree, not much urge to rewatch the new movies other than the Kahn one, unless they're on TV and nothing else on. They aren't bad Sci fi movies, just not great. Kind of dull. I still think the Enterprise should be a main character like in the shows and older movies, but in the JJ movies it might as well be a taxi cab. It just takes them here and there, instantly, and gets the crap shot out of it. It wasn't their home, and the crew never felt like they were close knit.
I've softened my opinion of the crew casting, I was pretty harsh before. LOL I now blame the writing rather than casting.

Without being political here, the crew felt more like how I would imagine a moderately over-armed college students working for Peace Corps over the summer than a well-trained crew successfully piloting a starship for months at a time. Obligatory romantic subplots aside, I never really believed they cared much for each other, or really even liked each other.

Can someone explain the timeline of the new Trek movies?

Assuming time passes in the JJ Trek universe at the same rate as in the real world

2009 - Enterprise crew is comprised of a bunch of fresh cadets, one of whom (Kirk) is given command
2013 - Kirk is still in command of Enterprise but he gets demoted then he saves humanity etc.
2016 - Kirk is still a Captain but he has "applied for" the position of Vice Admiral of a space colony

So in the space of 7 years Kirk goes from cadet to being offered the rank of Vice Admiral?

Yeah, that has always bugged me. Again, showing the complete lack of any respect for how real people or organization actually function in many of these movies, and perhaps a manifestation of the Hollywood obsession with the supposed wisdom and ability of innocent youth superior to that of those who have been "warped" by actual life experience.

Of course, you saw the same sort of "teen prodigy" nonsense with Abram's other space blockbuster, Force Awakens, with a girl going from orphan scavenger to Jedi Master equivalent in about 72 hrs assisted only by 5 minute self help talk from a short barkeep and the obligatory Jedi/British accent.

Well, until the late 19th century it wasn't unheard of for officers to be given high rank based on social standing or the family name rather than working their way up through the ranks. Does anyone really want to hear about the years Kirk would have had to spend getting his ticket punched in staff job after staff job before being given ONE command in the next larger class of vessel?

It's what you see in tons of movies.

Han Solo went from a disreputable smugler to General in notime. Lando Calrissian the same.

Well I don't think rebels have the luxury of sending people to OCS or military academies, command & staff college, etc LOL. It's basically "can you do the job of an officer, i. e., command troops? You can? Good, you're a general." Plus, Han Solo had been in the Imperial Navy before being discharged for disobeying an order to kill a prisoner named Chewbacca (or something like that.) So he did have at least a junior officer's education.

Ran across this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Star_Trek

According to this the first "alternate timeline" movie was set in 2258-2259 and the last movie was set in 2263.

So Kirk goes from rebellious cadet who joins Starfleet on a dare to Vice Admiral candidate in 5 years.

I would loved to have seen a true origin trilogy for Star Trek, showing Kirk adventures as a young officer, fwhy/how he stays on staship service, how he met Spock, etc. My favorite book (and movie) in the Hornblower series has always been Lieutenant Hornblower where we see Hornblower having to save those appointed above him, while still maintaining the chain of command (or at least the appearance of it). I would have liked to see something along those lines with Kirk.

Also, it should be pointed out, the tension between starship and "shore" service, and Kirk's preference for the latter, does make an important plot point in several episodes and original cast movies.




Those examples do not beg credulity nearly as much, for three reasons:

(1) Both are men with years of experience fighting, smuggling, piloting, leading, etc. Calrissian is shown governing a sizable colony and, though not revealed on screen, Solo is supposed to have been a junior officer in the Imperial Navy. New timeline Kirk has zero experience outside of fighting and drinking, prior to his abbreviated training at Starfleet Academy.

(2) There is a presumable gap of at least three years between the time both Solo and Calrissian are introduced, and the time they are mentioned having formal rank within the Rebellion military. They do not just show and get handed the keys to the Rebellion, unlike Kirk, who for some reason can be trusted to run something bigger and more complex than a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, and beyond that, even promoted to Vice Admiral, despite the fact he has never finished college.

(3) The Rebellion in Star Wars are, of course, a revolutionary force with a very small staff and logistical "tail." Obviously, they do not have the formal training courses, and presumably their pool of officer and even flag officer candidates is quite limited, so they would promote the best available. Star Fleet is an established space/military organization. They have plenty of people waiting in the wings to command; the idea they would or would need to promote a cadet to command the fleet flagship just does not make any sense within the universe the movie(s) established.

Even Star Trek VI which had General Chang and the other Klingons? If you think that one is dull then you must think ST: The Motion Picture is the equivalent of taking a bottle of valium.

In general.
I like TMP a lot but it has to do with seeing it in the theater and the grand return of Star Trek. The idea of the vastness of the ship sent back and the idea of a machine culture appeals to my imagination. I like the serious treatment of the movie and Kirk being a little underhanded to get the Enterprise back. We also got the new Klingon look and more of the Enterprise not seen in the show. It wasn't seemingly made of cardboard boxes either. It's a good movie although it's missing the battle scenes we all love. As a ST fan at the time, the movie was full of new and exciting things you wouldn't see as a fan now, after multiple shows and movies. Then, the only previous ST was a low budget show.
ST 6 is possibly is the best of the movies, including 2 and First Contact. It's close. 2 has the space battles we'd like in them all, and a strong tie to the show.
4 was funny and quotable, but time travel, no Enterprise and a strange unexplainable conflict blow it.

So that's 3-4 movies out of how many?