I went to the theater the other day to see the new Star Trek movie. Someone at work raved about the movie, so I went to give it a watch. In my opinion, the movie is just okay, not spectacular. The story kind of falls apart with sudden, illogical surprises that make you say "what?" Anyway, it would be best to wait for this one to hit RedBox. Don't spend the extra money to see it in a theater.
I thought it was pretty good, not spectacular. It was a lot more like a regular episode from TNG than a "Wrath of Khan" type blockbuster movie.
I thought the first one was pretty good. The second was terrible. "Guys, we need a transporter to reach as far as Klingon!" "Done!" "And a starship that goes to eleven." "Done!" "And we need gravity in the Earth-Moon system to behave in laughably antiquated ways!" "Done!" The third one was ... OK. Not as good as I. Not as bad as II. Forgettable, I won't remember a thing about it in a week. Although it will be months before I stop wondering what the h*ll happened to Zachary's nose.
I loved the second one, about as much as the first one. Star Trek Beyond was not as good as the first two, but enjoyable and I disagree with the OP. It's worth seeing on the bigscreen. The story felt a bit disjointed in that the relationships of the crew should have been a bit more fleshed out, but it was still okay. Waaaaay better than Independence Day II. The query I had was what happened to Carol, when she joined the crew at the end of Into The Darkness.. Her role was quite pivotal in that movie, so it was strange that she was not even mentioned in Beyond.
OK, we are obviously talking of the new Star Trek series.... [I still say Star Trek The Movie with William Shatner was my favourite! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It just felt like sloppy writing to me, more so when it came to the explanation for the motivation of the antagonist. Also, it left me with some unanswered questions. I could go into detail about what I thought was wrong with the movie, but I don't want to spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen it.
They do this fairly often. The idea is that the Federation is one big family. Gillian - the Whale Queen from Star Trek IV - was out of her time by centuries, yet she found there was a place in the Federation for her without having to be babysat by Kirk and friends.
I don't see the latest movies as a reboot. The stories take place in a different universe with similar characters who are different people. They aren't redoing & changing the ordinal stories & characters. ><
Isn't that kind of the definition of a reboot? Bring something familiar back, but change enough to make it fresh?
A reboot focuses on the original characters & stories & usually makes significant changes. Stories & people in another universe do not change what happened to the originals. Kirk, Spock etc in another universe are different people with their own stories. A reboot is not set in another universe. ><
Pegg, who wrote Beyond, said that he didn't want to bring her back just to have her underused as a minor character, or worst still to have her get killed (which I guess may have been a thread they were exploring). So he left her alive and thus able to come back into the stories as and when appropriate. Bear in mind that in the original series/films while she was someone that had a relationship with Kirk (and they did have a child together) she also didn't end up on his 5-year mission with him.
Each to their own I suppose....but I will say the first lot of Star Trek movies with William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy, were far more entertaining then the new versions with Chris Pyne.
I really want to like the reboot. I might even see the next ones that come out. But they are forgettable. I have a tough time remembering the plots of any of them. Which one is ST: Beyond anyway? Or is it ST: Darkness, or ST: Ambiguity, or ST: Stuff Happens? At least ST: The Wrath of Khan is memorable.
