Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I didn't see a thread for film reviews, so here is one.

TLR: This one feels like Star Trek.

The film makes good use of the characters, has some topical thematic content without going full Into Darkness, a less silly plot, some of the most innovative action scenes in Star Trek, maybe all Sci Fi, humor, and heart. As a film, I would give it a B, but as Star Trek I'd give it an A. It also manages to capture the optimism of TOS and the sense of wonder that hasn't been seen in Star Trek since TMP, although most of this wonder is pointed inwards to strengthen the themes of unity and teamwork.

Idris Elba could have had better material, but I wouldn't say he was wasted--the revelation scene where we discover the root of his motivations would have been unbearably silly with any actor less gifted with gravitas. It still may not work for general audiences, as the villain is a very old school TOS trope. It also turns out accidentally to be amazingly on target social commentary on recent US events, though ,aye not in a good way.

Jaylah really works as the "good immigrant" character who loves federation culture, assimilates smoothly, and has a degree. I hope she replaces Chekov in the next one, assuming Chekov will be promoted and transferred to Reliant.

I saw it yesterday and loved it.

If this was Mass Effect Beyond, I'd give it a solid C. But it's (supposed to be) Star Trek.

Some films are story-driven, some are character-driven, this one is action-driven. Things happen in this movie because someone thought it would look cool. And to be fair, sometimes those things do look cool - even really cool. But too often, the lighting is so bad and the sets are so confusing that even the action is merely bewildering. That especially hurts because, being action-drive, it's really hard to tell why, in a narrative sense, important plot points are happening.

The key example is the villain. These rebooted Star Trek movies are 0 for 3 when it comes to villains. This time, the villain's motivation is obscure to the point of nonexistent until, in the last 15 minutes or so, there is a anti-climactic reveal that still fails to establish a convincing motive for the character. This problem extends to the protagonist with a terrible twist: Captain Kirk, of all people, is fed up with exploring strange new worlds and seeking out new life and new civilizations, cutting against the grain of 50 years' worth of character development. The reason? To set up a thematic parallel with the villain, which is only relevant for the last fifteen minutes of the film and honestly adds little to no drama to their confrontation. For the rest of the film, the audience is expected to just accept that reboot Kirk would feel the exact opposite to what we would reasonably expect.

To the film's credit, this is the closest that reboot Trek gets to being Star Trek. They actually do explore a strange alien planet. And the characters, with a few exceptions, get to be funny and adventurous - although for some reason Spock feels barely there. I can't decide if that was deliberate. But the good bits and pieces remain bits and pieces amid the larger problem of a movie pulled along by confusing, if expensive-looking, action set pieces.

D+

For reference: Star Trek (2009) C; Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) F

Sounds like one to wait for tv / streaming then.

 Compel wrote:
Sounds like one to wait for tv / streaming then.

It is getting 85% on Rotten Tomatoes, which isn't proof that it is good, but it might be an indicator how most audiences are receiving the film. In any event, if you are interested in spectacle and sci fi wonder, Beyond is worth seeing on the big screen. Yorktown station is as visually impressive as anything in the franchise, and has a much more vibrant approach than the mushroom stations of the old Star Trek movies.

When I have more time, I'll post some more of my thoughts. I don't necessarily disagree with Manchu on the film's weaknesses, but I find them to be less compelling than the film's strengths.

 Compel wrote:
Sounds like one to wait for tv / streaming then.

No, mate, it's worth seeing in the cinema for sure.

Here's the thing though.

£4.00 bus
£11.50 for the ticket (up to £13.50 for 3d and £17.50 if you want Imax/3d or £20.50 at the other cinema in town, wich is only showing it in 3d.)
£7.50 for medium popcorn and a drink

In other words, in 40k terms, about the price of a Space Marine Razorback. Or, more correctly for me, the price of a Batman Miniatures Game Starter Set.

It's got to be a film I'm seriously excited about seeing for me to pay that much. And, I'll be fair here, it doesn't take too much to talk me out of seeing a film I was less than ambivalent of going to see anyway.

 Compel wrote:
£4.00 bus
£11.50 for the ticket (up to £13.50 for 3d and £17.50 if you want Imax/3d or £20.50 at the other cinema in town, wich is only showing it in 3d.)
£7.50 for medium popcorn and a drink

Don't see it in IMAX or 3D and don't buy theater food? Also, movies are expensive in the UK it would seem; I paid $10.50 (£8.00) to see a matinee show on Friday.

It's got to be a film I'm seriously excited about seeing for me to pay that much. And, I'll be fair here, it doesn't take too much to talk me out of seeing a film I was less than ambivalent of going to see anyway.

Fair enough. I don't know how much you like Star Trek or what your excitement level about this film was prior to its release. Personally, I love Star Trek and I particularly enjoy the rebooted series so $10 and an afternoon of my time was money well spent. Plus I saw it at the Alamo Drafthouse where I enjoyed some loaded fries and a cold beer.

The Yorktown space station is another great example of how we got a Mass Effect movie mislabeled Star Trek.

I'll just wait for it to come out on digital... Doesn't feel like I missed much. I was watching First Contact yesterday, and it's fair to say that it was the last decent Trek film they made.

 Manchu wrote:
The Yorktown space station is another great example of how we got a Mass Effect movie mislabeled Star Trek.

What do you mean? I've never played Mass Effect.

I saw Yorktown more as an homage to the kinds of matte paintings used in the old show. It had a JJ Abrams meets the Starfleet Technical Manual vibe that meshed with the Kelvin Timeline in my opinion.

There is a conceptually similar space station in Mass Effect that, in the first game, is the target of the main antagonist, who likewise reminds me of Idris Elba's character.

It was ok, not grant. Weakest New Trek, to date.

 Compel wrote:
Here's the thing though.

£4.00 bus
£11.50 for the ticket (up to £13.50 for 3d and £17.50 if you want Imax/3d or £20.50 at the other cinema in town, wich is only showing it in 3d.)
£7.50 for medium popcorn and a drink

In other words, in 40k terms, about the price of a Space Marine Razorback. Or, more correctly for me, the price of a Batman Miniatures Game Starter Set.

It's got to be a film I'm seriously excited about seeing for me to pay that much. And, I'll be fair here, it doesn't take too much to talk me out of seeing a film I was less than ambivalent of going to see anyway.

Boldly going where no man has gone before? Priceless!

Nicely done there, BigWaagh!

And yes, just skip the popcorn and drink - or smuggle your own stuff in!

In the winter, as a young Kronk, I snuck in Subway and a can soda. Allegedly.

I snuck 4 cans of Mt Dew in once in my socks!! Wore soccer socks, really baggy khakis, and just walked right through.

Just saw the movie. It's actually rather good. They didn't really throw it in your face the new Sulu is gay. They showed the daughter with his husband. I don't even think they kissed so much as hugged. Honestly with as little as was said it could've even been Sulu's brother and his brother's daughter or anything. I mean i was hoping they wouldn't insert it in a forceful way and they didn't. Usually i hate the PC stuff but this time it was done rather well.

The action was pretty good, the humor was pretty good (esp. how they stopped those 3 ships and it was a good movie overall. I honestly liked the connection between scottie and the new girl. They make a fun pair. Hope that's going to be that way.

Watched it, enjoyed it, went back home and watched Star Trek 2009. I would put them both on a level peg, but not as good as Into Darkness.

Been watching ToS on Netflix too, most of which I've never seen. All good stuff. But for the first 6 episodes of ToS, I notice that they all have EXACTLY THE SAME PLOT. A Thingy has got loose on the Enterprise! We can't tell who it is? We have found the thingy! Horray! Next planet!

Now, I'm not saying that this isn't good, but the Star Trek I grew up with was the first movie series, all of which were action and spectacle movies to a greater and lesser degree. So the criticisms that I see that the movies are nothing like the original Trek just don't ring true to me.

Basically - it's shiny, its funny, the method that they use to beat the enemy fleet is just DUMB and cheesy but entertaining - all good stuff.

IIRC YOrktown was the ship Roddenberry served on in the navy so they tend to use the name for Federation ships a lot. It was a semi regular in DS9 and I think there was in in TOS as well.

As for reboot trek, no plans to see it.

 Graphite wrote:
Watched it, enjoyed it, went back home and watched Star Trek 2009. I would put them both on a level peg, but not as good as Into Darkness.

Been watching ToS on Netflix too, most of which I've never seen. All good stuff. But for the first 6 episodes of ToS, I notice that they all have EXACTLY THE SAME PLOT. A Thingy has got loose on the Enterprise! We can't tell who it is? We have found the thingy! Horray! Next planet!

Now, I'm not saying that this isn't good, but the Star Trek I grew up with was the first movie series, all of which were action and spectacle movies to a greater and lesser degree. So the criticisms that I see that the movies are nothing like the original Trek just don't ring true to me.

Basically - it's shiny, its funny, the method that they use to beat the enemy fleet is just DUMB and cheesy but entertaining - all good stuff.

You said "Into Darkness" and "good" in the same sentence.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
IIRC YOrktown was the ship Roddenberry served on in the navy so they tend to use the name for Federation ships a lot. It was a semi regular in DS9 and I think there was in in TOS as well.

As for reboot trek, no plans to see it.

The U.S.S Yorktown, one of the Enterprise's sister ships in the Kelvin Timeline, also featured recently in an STO mission.

 Frazzled wrote:


You said "Into Darkness" and "good" in the same sentence.

Yup. And? So it's not as good as the original Wrath of Khan. It's still great fun.

Hate the idea of reboot.

Star Trek put the show's mission statement into the opening credits "To boldly go where no one has gone before".

You cannot boldly go where no one has gone before if you're retelling stories from 50 years ago!

Glad to see them exploring new avenues with ST Discovery.

A very large chunk of the original TV series had the enterprise boldly going to some scientific outpost/archaeological dig/starbase/other existing federation thing. That's not exactly going where no one has gone before.

Deep Space 9 was pretty much the opposite of boldly going where no one had gone before, since it was stationary. There was, admittedly, the worm hole. But once they'd been through that a couple of times they largely stayed put.

TNG, if I recall, actually had a fair bit of boldly going. My mind may be playing tricks on that though.

The only previous Trek series which had a really large amount of boldly going were Voyager and Enterprise. Yeah. Less said the better....

For what it's worth - you're right. They are re-treading old ground. But that can still be entertaining.

Technically, no one had ever rebooted Star Trek before, so they bodly went back where no one had gone back before!

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Hate the idea of reboot.

Star Trek put the show's mission statement into the opening credits "To boldly go where no one has gone before".

You cannot boldly go where no one has gone before if you're retelling stories from 50 years ago!

Glad to see them exploring new avenues with ST Discovery.

The problem is that it was 50yrs ago, where just about all the props were made of foam and ships were made from wood attached to string. And teleporting was light shone at some tinsel.

Not all of the younger generation would fully appreciate it when compared to what they can do with imagery now.

@Graphite: They were quite far away from Federation space in DS9. That and they never applied the strap line to the show. They just had a few pretty shots of a comet etc.

watched it, enjoyed it, will recommend it.

I like that they still find little ways to sneak in throwbacks and homages to the original show and movies: "tore my shirt again" and "to a full head of hair".

 Graphite wrote:


Basically - it's shiny, its funny, the method that they use to beat the enemy fleet is just DUMB and cheesy but entertaining - all good stuff.

I think you mean coolest way to beat the enemy.

I want to know what starfleet makes their ships out of because they were flying them with all the grace of a tractor and somehow did not shatter into a million pieces.

How else would they