SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Just when you thought it was safe to go to the movie theaters again, the latest in the "alternate universe" Star Trek films hits the theaters today. Ars Technica and El Reg have two reviews of the flick.
El Reg, with its usual caustic brand of British humor, calls it "An unwatchable steaming pile of tribble dung", while Ars describes it thusly: "Trek by numbers is no Trek at all". Both articles do heap praise on Karl Urban's dead-on portrayal of Dr. McCoy. Still, it might be worth watching in the theater, for as as we all know there are is no bad Star Trek. Ever!
As for myself, I think I'll do what I usually do and wait for it to come out on video and see if it is truly targ manure.
[From a more general perspective, the Rotten Tomatoes meta movie review site has a critic score of 85% and an audience score of 86%. -Ed.]
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday July 23 2016, @03:38PM
. Still, it might be worth watching in the theater, for as as we all know there are [sic] is no bad Star Trek. Ever!
Except there was (and likely will be in the future) crappy Star Trek. Star Trek V, Star Trek VI, Generations, Nemesis, The entire Voyager series and all the JJ Abrams garbage.
I guess if you're really easily entertained, you might disagree. But then, George Carlin was right.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday July 23 2016, @03:40PM
Okay, the links in the text I quoted that I didn't follow prove my point
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 23 2016, @03:43PM
Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, your opinion man.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday July 23 2016, @03:58PM
Yes, it is. That's what (among other things) comments are for. Did you actually have a point to make?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Saturday July 23 2016, @04:16PM
Is Zoe in it?
I'll watch Encyclopaedia Britannica educational films about agriculture, if Zoe is in them.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Saturday July 23 2016, @04:04PM
Wait, Star Trek VI was bad? To be sure, it had its cheesy and improbable moments, but on the whole it was pretty good.
Anyway, slanging the bad movies and episodes while overlooking the major problems in the premises behind the entire show seems inconsistent. Warp drive is conceivably possible, not completely stupid, but it takes incredible amounts of power, and their answer to that problem is magical dilithium crystals. Then there's the transporter and replicator technologies which aren't used at more than a fraction of their potential. And how about the fact that the custom of sending down an Away Team is really stupid? Why put redshirts in peril of their lives, sending them blind into completely unknown situations, when they could send drones first, or heck, just take a little more time to scan and analyze the surface from the safety of orbit? Well, that's TV for you, got to keep the drama high.
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Saturday July 23 2016, @05:28PM
but it takes incredible amounts of power, and their answer to that problem is magical dilithium crystals.
Pretty sure that the power source is supposed to be antimatter and the dilithium crystals are just some sort of catalyst/moderator thingy.
Then there's the transporter and replicator technologies which aren't used at more than a fraction of their potential.
Well, the transporter was a deliberate plot device to allow the action to shift quickly between the ship and the planet-of-the-week. Its not obvious by modern standards, but one of the notable things about the original show is how fast-moving it was c.f. other 1960s TV shows - put TOS alongside, say, one of the Irwin Alan shows, or even a 60s cop show, and it looks like a pop video.
One of the annoying things with Enterprise is that they started off with the transporter as new, unreliable, cargo-only except in dire emergencies - but quickly forgot all that and re-introduced the old plot-hole of "why can't they just transport out?". They should have killed a few people in it to maintain it as a "last resort" solution.
Certainly, the transporter (as depicted in the show) is probably the least feasible bit of technology (as you say, at least there's some fringe science around FTL travel) but is just too iconic a feature of Star Trek to be dropped from re-makes.
I do think TNG - given that it set out to be more "cerebral" than TOS - could have done a lot more proper (for a given value of "proper") SF - e.g. looking at interesting but unethical implications of using the transporter (ok, they xeroxed Riker and resurrected Scotty but that was about it) or at how replicator technology led to the Federation's post-scarcity socialist society (the very existence of the replicator could have been the basis for a war with the Ferrengi).
Well, that's TV for you, got to keep the drama high.
You just debunked your own criticism: they did have fairly magical sensors that would have prevented any totally stupid fatalities. Conducting all the action by telepresence would certainly be common sense, but it would be dull as ditchwater to watch. At the end of the day, Trek is mass-media entertainment, not serious SF.
Frankly, there are worse offences by Trek - particularly the technobabble "particle of the week" solutions that started in TOS and peaked in Voyager. Or, the whole idea of the holodeck in TNG - our heroes are off exploring strange new worlds, discovering new life, new civ... Oh, bugger all that, lets have a silly Sherlock Holmes crossover adventure in virtual reality!
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday July 23 2016, @07:14PM
One of the annoying things with Enterprise is that they started off with the transporter as new, unreliable, cargo-only except in dire emergencies
I wouldn't know, I could never get past that nails-on-a-blackboard AWFUL theme song.
Certainly, the transporter (as depicted in the show) is probably the least feasible bit of technology
Hugo Gernsback wrote [mcgrewbooks.com] in 1926 that we'd have them fifty years from then (as well as wireless electricity distribution, weather control, and electric roller skates; the article is at the link).
No one born who could always afford anything he wanted can have a clue what "affordability" means.
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Monday July 25 2016, @05:01PM
I wouldn't know, I could never get past that nails-on-a-blackboard AWFUL theme song.
Actually, I quite liked it - made a change from another generic orchestral theme (at least, the first version - they did a remix about halfway through the series that made it worse)
Hugo Gernsback wrote in 1926 that we'd have them fifty years from then (as well as wireless electricity distribution, weather control, and electric roller skates; the article is at the link).
Hehe. To be fair - he's also got things like TV movies, double glazing, air conditioning, solar power, cavity wall insulation that sound almost mundane alongside the matter transporter BS. The electric roller skates would be fine if it weren't for the "wireless" bit (mind you, a lithium ion battery would have been a bit of a stir in 1926). However, as for the wireless power - pretty sure they knew about the inverse-square law by then and his "what could possibly go wrong?" view of the effects of electricity on the human body are the sort of thing that got science a bad name in the latter part of the 20th century... and the bit about radioactive decay == matter transmission is You Fail Physics Forever, even by 1926 standards.
Nah, I'll take my 1926 predictions of the future from real scientists [wikipedia.org] with PhDs in, er, pre-mixed doughnuts...
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday July 23 2016, @07:04PM
Why put redshirts in peril of their lives, sending them blind into completely unknown situations, when they could send drones first
Because drones didn't exist in 1966 and robotics was in its infancy.
No one born who could always afford anything he wanted can have a clue what "affordability" means.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 23 2016, @05:30PM
Sir, I must say you have an absolutely fantastic sense of humor. Truly top-notch.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 23 2016, @06:27PM
Eh, I'll still probably watch this anyway - but I haven't gone to the theater for a star trek film in a long time, and I don't see a reason to go for this one either. I'll just wait til it's cheap on dvd.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Saturday July 23 2016, @06:48PM
I agree with some of your list, but it comes down to being bored and choosing Star Trek tripe over ~insert here~ tripe. I really liked the first Abrams reboot, but think they should have left it right there as a one-off space opera version of Star Trek. It destroys the franchise genre like no other before it. Nemesis was probably the precursor to the reboots...
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 23 2016, @03:39PM
Star Trek: TMP was not a bad movie. Go back and watch it. It is the closest thing to Sci-Fi that the Trek universe ever did outside of TV episodes.
The other movies were mostly action flicks. They were just limited in their special effects capacity compared to today. They are not great movies. TWOK is great, everything else was garbage.
The "stealing the Enterprise" scene from TSFS was probably the best moment in all of the original universe movies, but does not ultimately save a bad film.
The original films caved into the rabid fanbase way too much. Spock was supposed to stay dead. The Excelsior was supposed to be the Enterprise replacement. There should have never been a save the whales campaign.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 23 2016, @06:32PM
I'd get a lot more out of your comments if you didn't abbreviate the names. I don't know which ones you're talking about. "Save the whales" I know. Not sure which Enterprise replacement you're talking about. They seemed to be blowing one up every movie for a while there.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Saturday July 23 2016, @11:41PM
TMP = The Motion Picture (I)
TWOK = The Wrath of Khan (II)
TFSF = The Search for Spok (III)
Enterprise 1701 self-destructed above the Genesis planet in Search for Spock, and 1701-A revealed at the end of The Voyage Home (save the whales)
Enterprise 1701-D (saucer section after a warp core breach) crashed into Veridian III in Generations (VII) and 1701-E revealed in First Contact (VIII)
So, 10 movies, two enterprises destroyed. 3 season TV show and 3 movies with the 1701, 2 movies with the 1701-A (not counting the end of The Voyage Home, just The Final Frontier and The Undiscovered Country), 7 season TV show and 1 movie with the 1701-D, and 3 movies with the 1701-E.
So far with JJ Trek we have 2 movies with the 1701, which is destroyed either in low Earth orbit or near the moon—they couldn't make up their damned minds but it sank into the swamp one way or another. So they built another one, also the 1701. And it sinks into the swamp in this film after a span of time that didn't even last the entire run of TOS (The Original Series). I bet they build another one, which will burn down, fall over, and sink into the swamp. By the 5th JJ Trek, we might actually have a San Francisco that isn't the West Coast Matchstick City [animeworld.com] and a 1701 that can last more than 2 films.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Sunday July 24 2016, @12:18AM
Spock was supposed to stay dead. The Excelsior was supposed to be the Enterprise replacement.
Was that actually the plan? I'd love to see some description of the production plans and what happened that led to the movies we got. Maybe everybody else is already familiar with this except me.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 24 2016, @05:15PM
Nimoy was finished with the character and wanted out, so suggested that they kill his character off. Early rumours were leaked out and Spock's death caused an uproar in hate mail at the time. So they added the Kobayashi Maru scenario at the beginning of TWOK, where Spock is "killed" in a role playing exercise as a way to throw off the fans into believing that the leaked script rumours were exaggerated. They also added a potential avenue for Spock's return at TWOK, the mind-meld with McCoy, which ended up being the basis of ST:III.
There was also a "Captain's Log" where Kirk states that the Enterprise is due to return to spacedock to be retired, and he is to take command of the U.S.S. Excelsior. The design/construction of Excelsior was easily the most time ever spent on a ship not named Enterprise. It took several years to design, had the design patented by Paramount, and was supposed to introduce Transwarp drive which would expain things like, I don't know, going to the center of the galaxy in a few days (traditional warp drive would have taken decades) to meet God (Star Trek V). But fans absolutely could not deal with a non-Enterprise ship. They got Spock back, but were PISSED at the destruction of the Enterprise. So we have the "transwarp drive" malfunction, and the introduction of NCC-1701-A at the end of ST:IV. Which makes no sense if you think about it because why would there just be another re-fit Constitution-class ship sitting unused in spacedock without a name?
So for the next couple of films, Paramount caved in and let there be another Constitution-class Enterprise. But Excelsior was around to play a big role. That opening of Star Trek V, where nothing on the Enterprise-A worked correctly? That was supposed to be the "bucket of bolts" over-engineered Excelsior.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 23 2016, @03:44PM
They're a dime a dozen. I'm going to go see the movie anyway.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 23 2016, @04:47PM
Like with "Blazing Saddles", "Young Frankenstein" or "The Rocky Picture Horror Show", it is worth seeing in the big screen, with a lot of people. It is the others' ohhs and ahhs that really bring it to life. On a home system, the environment is too sterile to get the full effect. Yes, you can catch a background sight gags better, but you real miss the group experience.
>YES there are problems, and few plot points taken from todays headlines such as:
1) Spook Died (Lenard Nimoy), so a few stuffed in scenes.
2) Sulu is gay?? Again, stuffed in scenes - does nothing push anything in the plot really, just help get free advertising with the news media pushing the YAH/NAH. If you blink then you will miss it.
I give about 3.5 / 5
I would give it back 0.5 star, if they would just stop spinning the the "camera" proving you are in "space" (or at least in Blender driven scene). I am glad I did not see it in IMAX with 3D, barf bags for all!
(Score: 3, Informative) by martyb on Sunday July 24 2016, @01:29AM
Just came back from seeing it. First off, I grew up watching TOS with Kirk, McCoy (Bones), Spock, Scotty, et. al. when it was on prime time. That said, I am not as avid a follower as many others. Skipped Deep Space 9 -- couldn't get into it. Only caught a few episode of the reboot TV series (can't even remember what htey called that one.) Only saw the original movie, its sequel, and maybe another one before the JJ Abrams reboot which I did see and thought it was interesting.
I did make the mistake of reading some reviews on-line and so was exposed to a few of the plot points which did spoil it somewhat for me.
Spoilers follow: I thoroughly enjoyed Bones' banter with Spock and with Kirk! There was enough action to make up for lapses / implausibilities in the story arc. The blond woman on the planet, Kayla [imdb.com] stole many a scene and certainly caught my attention. (Keep an eye on this actress.) The voicing of Krell (the 'villain') was overdone to the point where I found him hard to understand... and I frequently meet and chat with people from all around the world, so it's not because of accent or anything like that. There were a few scenes where I thought: "Why are they doing *that*? Were it *me*, I'd obviously have done *this*." Obviously, choices were made for dramatic effect instead of making full use of the Trek tech that was available. I agree with the parent comment that there was too much screen/scene spinning going on. One obvious-to-me continuity break was near the end when the old federated starship burst up from underneath and through a lake/pool in a huge spray/wave/wall of water to cut off Krell's ship — finally coming to a halt on a plaza... pan out and see the ship, dripping wet, and people walking on dry concrete. Oooops!
tl;dr: good, not great, but fun summer flick; didn't hold itself too tightly to Star Trek cannon; IMHO, Kirk's acting was okay, but outshone by that of Bones and Kayla. 3.5/5.0 stars sounds right to me, too.
Wit is intellect, dancing. I'm too old to act my age. Life is too important to take myself seriously.
(Score: 2) by purple_cobra on Sunday July 24 2016, @09:39AM
ISTR the villain is Idris Elba, who is usually very good indeed. Maybe the rubber suit was cramping his style? Haven't seen it yet and probably won't until it makes it to DVD.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Saturday July 23 2016, @04:53PM
I hope I am not the only one disappointed that Kirk is going to meet his father somehow.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Funny) by maxwell demon on Saturday July 23 2016, @05:11PM
Don't worry. This will create a time loop paradox which will erase all bad Star Trek movies from history.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday July 23 2016, @06:09PM
I thought it was for a "Kirk, I am your father" gag.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday July 23 2016, @05:56PM
Disappointing time-travel plots are a Star Trek staple... man up.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Saturday July 23 2016, @04:57PM
When I watch science fiction movies, part of the enjoyment is exploring the universe the author has created. To me a big problem with Star Trek is that even with their "alternate time line" the universe is pretty well known. And when someone pulls random stuff out of their butts to change things around it just makes it worse.
Anyway, mentioning bad Trek with no mention of Star Trek Voyager? Or was that so painful everyone got amnesia and purged the putrid memories right next to those of "War of the Worlds the TV Series"? :P
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 23 2016, @06:02PM
60's
TOS: MUCH better than "Lost in Space", not as good as "The Outlimits"
~90's
TNG: Good and balanced
DS9: Liked, general slow, but few great characters
VOY: YES a few bad BAD seasons, campy and general more believable / constant than TNG. And I found more watchable then DS9
00's
ENT: Doing a pre-series with current movie TECH. Unwatchable s2 and s3.
10's
The re-boot movies have gotten away with old but NEW tech. Ship looks different, Engineering looks like a brewer, Spook is not so removed.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Saturday July 23 2016, @08:27PM
Really good recap
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday July 23 2016, @05:06PM
So if the new Star Trek film is out, then which film is currently in? :-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Snotnose on Saturday July 23 2016, @05:36PM
You misunderstood. It's out of the closet, probably trying to get into the next Star Wars.
Every time a Christian defends Trump an angel loses it's lunch.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Monday July 25 2016, @01:06AM
Who the holy hell moderated this as insightful? You, whoever you are, need your mod privileges suspended for a year. It was a funny, and if you think it was insightful you need to 'splain yourself.
Every time a Christian defends Trump an angel loses it's lunch.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Saturday July 23 2016, @08:11PM
... I will probably like the latest Star Trek film, despite its alleged lack of plot. I've liked the franchise reboot films despite the destruction of the old canon (not to mention Vulcan!) and the fact that they hired a Brit to play a Sikh character. At least in the TV series, Khan Noonien Singh was played by an "ethnic", Ricardo Montalban, an Mexican actor who had an interesting accent and skin tones to match the part of the world his character was from. One should also mention that he was an exceptional actor who excelled at playing bad guys. the only bad guy I've seen Benedict Cumberbatch play was a child rapist, and he was creepy, not menacing in that film.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by Celestial on Sunday July 24 2016, @04:53AM
And loved it. No, it's not "your father's Star Trek," but it's a very good science-fiction action film, IMO. Chris Pine was fine as Captain Kirk, Karl Urban was fantastic as Bones McCoy, and Sofia Boutella is very good as Jaylah. Honestly, Star Trek Beyond is the best Star Trek film since The Undiscovered Country, 25 years ago, IMO. The only real issue I had with the movie is that the villain Krall (played by Idris Elba), could have been better developed. His reason for attacking the Federation seemed weak. Other than that, keep 'em coming.
I already plan to see it again in a couple of weeks, and wouldn't be surprised if I see it a third time in the movie theater.