Our Spoiler-Free Review of Star Trek Beyond

Star Trek Beyond is a rollicking, fun adventure that stays true to the ethos of The Original Series. It seems that Paramount has finally done what they set out to do with the Kelvin timeline reboot: to merge the oil-and-water worlds of Star Trek and the summer blockbuster.

Read on for our spoiler-free review, followed by a spoiler-light version (i.e. nothing that hasn’t been seen in trailers, clips, or revealed in interviews).

Our Spoiler-free Review

Last year, Simon Pegg ruffled some fan feathers when he discussed an early draft of Star Trek Beyond and what the executives at Paramount wanted out of the new movie.

“They had a script for Star Trek that wasn’t really working for them. I think the studio was worried that it might have been a little bit too Star Trek-y”

This had fans justifiably worried that the powers that be would turn this incarnation of Trek into another shoot-em-up explosion-filled action flick. Just another summer tentpole film with “Star Trek” tacked onto the title.

Those worries, it turns out, were completely unfounded, because the strength (and perhaps weakness) of Star Trek Beyond is that it is, at its core, a big, bold, classic episode of Star Trek: The Original Series.

For Star Trek fans this is absolutely a great thing. Far off locations, cool technology, alien bad guys who are not one-dimensional, character building interactions with the crew in good times and bad, and enough name checks and in-references to make the die-hard fan want to go back and see it again to find more.

And yet, Beyond comes across as the kind of movie you can take your non-Trek friends to. They will need minor knowledge of Star Trek ’09 and while the events of Star Trek Into Darkness probably play into Kirk’s emotional state, a few well-framed captain’s logs can bring the uninitiated up to speed. Director Justin Lin and Writers Simon Pegg and Doug Jung breathlessly push the story forward while still leaving room to get to know the film’s heros.



Minor Spoilers Beyond This Point

(nothing that hasn’t been seen in the trailers, clips or revealed in interviews)

We begin our journey at the Yorktown, that massive snow globe-like starbase you’ve seen in the previews and Simon Pegg has been gushing over.

Think Deep Space Nine meets Babylon 5. Actually just think Babylon 5.


This is where we see the events of all the past movies begin to catch up with Kirk (Chris Pine). Whereas in Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Admiral Kirk was itching to get out from behind the desk and become a captain again, this Kirk is far more reluctant, and in an arc that makes sense for this universe’s Captain. It gives the character actual depth and even Pine seems to be more comfortable in the role, bringing a greater complexity to the character even in the midst of shouting and panting — which happens a lot.

But we don’t linger at Yorktown long. Instead, we dive right into the action and watch in horror as Krall’s (IIdris Elba) swarm ships gut the Enterprise in a rather violent and emotional way.

I know! I know! You’re saying, ‘Oh great, we destroy the Enterprise…again.’ And you’re not alone. Simon Pegg said the same thing to Justin Lin but eventually warmed up to the idea.

I realized what he was doing brilliantly was: he was not only taking out a main character but he was removing the physical connective tissue between the crew to see what happens when you take away that which physically bonds them together. If you take away that thing that physically necessities them being a unit do they dissipate or do they come back together?

And he’s right. Not only does this set up that emotional challenge to the crew, it sets it up physically. More than any current Trek movie, and probably any Trek movie since Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, every character has a chance to shine.


Kirk and Chekov (Anton Yelchin) are the prefect pairing. Ensign Pavel “I can do zat!” Chekov, is the optimistic young ensign, which is the perfect counterpoint to a Captain who is questioning if he even wants to be doing what he’s doing. You can see how much Anton loved what he did and it’s painful at times to know we will never see him inhabit this role again. Over the course of the film, Kirk acts more and more like a captain, and this is in no small part due to having to watch out for Chekov.


Jaylah, played by Sofia Boutella, is a perfect counterpoint to Scotty. Without giving anything away, she has an interesting background and gives off a bit of a Leelo from The Fifth Element vibe, in a good way. She runs up against Scotty’s Starfleet training in some really enchanting and funny moments. The scenes play to Pegg’s comedic abilities and Sofia’s ability to be approachable but undeniably kick-ass! Seriously, when can I get a Jaylah action figure?

Screen Shot 2016-07-12 at 11.21.13 PM[3]

Uhura (Zoe Saldana), now with rank stripes (which we learned was thanks to a fan and Karl Urban’s urging to the costume department), has the most agency of any incarnation in the franchise. Thankfully gone is ‘Excuse me while I shush you Captain so I can argue with my boyfriend in the middle of a crisis’ and in her place is a competent officer. Yes, there is still plenty of interaction surrounding her relationship with Spock, but this time it’s tempered by good writing and film-making.

If I had one complaint about all the pairings it would be that we don’t get to see more of Sulu (John Cho). Back at the Yorktown, we learn that Sulu is a family man. His husband and daughter live there. Sulu is paired up with Uhura, and it would have been nice to see him talk with her about trying to get out of the situation they’re in and his worry that he may never seeing his family again.


Before you can say “Dammit Jim I’m a doctor not a…”, one of the best pairings in the film is unsurprisingly Spock and Bones, played expertly by Zachary Quinto and Karl Urban. Pegg and Jung create dialogue that takes advantage not only of their character interactions, but the genuine friendship the actors have as well. Bones is a great foil while Spock deals with his relationship with Uhura, among other things, and as you know, Vulcans aren’t really chatty.


That leaves our villain, Krall. For a good chunk of the movie he feels more like a force of nature than a character. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. The swarm ships, with their insect-like attack fashion, add to that feeling, and make Krall a force to be reckoned with. Like most Trek villains, there’s more to our villain than what’s on the surface.


Technically, the film performs well. It was shot digitally and in a way that will make audiences feel as if they are in the movie, sometimes a bit TOO much. The rapid scene cuts during action sequences are par for the course for summer blockbusters, but the digital nature of the print sometimes made it hard to make things out. I would love to have had the camera settle once in a while instead of always moving. If you see the film on a smaller screen I imagine this will be less of an issue, but still I am not a fan of constant camera shaking to indicate action.

All-in-all, Beyond was really more than I could have hoped for. Action, adventure and emotion. It honors The Original Series, and remembers Leonard Nimoy and Anton Yelchin in ways that are really very touching.

With yesterday’s tease of a possible 4th movie, for the first time in this new Kelvin-verse I am looking forward to the next installment!

Aaron Harvey is an unabashed Star Trek fan. One who has been involved in everything from fan films to video games to hosting a podcast about the animated series. He’s a lover of all aspects of Trek and enjoys taking deep dives into various aspects of the franchise.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

********** B R E A K I N G….N E W S ***********


:…reporter Scott Mantz tweeted today that such an idea exists: Chris Hemsworth will reportedly be returning to the franchise after playing George Kirk—Chris Pine’s father—in the 2009 film’s fantastic prologue, re-joining the series for Star Trek 4.”


PS: Talk to you all in a week. Starting her shortly, I am ignoring fan websites until I see the movie on Friday night next week…because at this rate, the whole movie will be spoiled for me if I don’t force myself offline.

Yeah we’re not touching that right now. Pretty dubious as to it’s validity. A lot of things would have to happen, prime of which is this film making enough $ to justify a fourth film. Bad Robot also needs to sign a new deal.

Let’s sit back and enjoy this movie before worrying about a fourth one.

JJ was quoted in a couple of interviews about Trek 4 (or 14). Unless STB implodes, it sounds like it’s a go….

During the press junket this Friday in Los Angeles, J.J. said the 4th movie is happening, as quoted by multiple sources.

While I’m delighted about a 4th movie, I’m not sure about Chris Hemswroth being back – either as Kirk’s father or Kirk’s older brother.


No, JJ did not say that at the junket. He said they are thinking about the possibility.

We were there.

Im 50/50 on it. One side, I don’t know how they will fit him in. The other side, its about time Star Trek gets some big name actors. Idris and Sofia are great, but they are not necessarily A list actors. Hemsworth is. I just think of all the big name actors who are well known Star Trek fans. Tom Hanks, Eddie Murphy, Ben Stiller, Jason Alexander, Daniel Craig, Dwayne Johnson, Kelsey Grammar, Seth MacFarlane, Rosario Dawson, Mila Kunis, Nathan Fillion to name a few.

Eddie Murphy was to be in Star Trek IV The Voyage home. Sean Connery was to be Sybok in Star Trek V The Final Frontier. Tom Hanks was to be Zefram Cochrane in First Contact but could not do it due to scheduling conflicts. Too many stars already dropped. If they can get Hemsworth in…I say DO IT!

Plus it’s Scott Mantz, Superfan, so it may be more hopeful in nature than most news reports ;-)

@Prodigal Son,

Don’t sell the bear’s skin before you’ve caught it! :)

Ha, so they’re struggling with the celebrity of their own cast, so they bring back the one Trek alum who has developed a huge following with the Marvel fans! Ha!

Personally, I would have loved to have seen Hemsworth as Kirk instead of Pine.

One thing is for sure, if he does come back, he’s gonna have to lose a lot of weight to get back to George Kirk size …

Hemsworth varies his size depending on the movie. In “Ghostbusters” for example, I don’t think he’s anywhere near Thor’s musculature or weight. He definitely was normal weight [though nicely muscled] for “Rush,” the Formula 1 movie he did a couple of years ago.

The stars really bulk up to play superheroes. Pounds and pounds of lean protein, heavy workouts, blah blah blah. Even Pine and Quinto do it for the Trek movies.

Of course. But don’t fool yourself, they don’t get those physiques by eating lots of protein and lifting heavy weights. And Paramount will have to pay dearly if they want Hemsworth to reprise his role as Geo. Kirk now.

@PS, I hope Chris plays Kirk’s brother! That would be cool.

I’m hopeful that everyone will write SPOILER ALERT/SPOILERS AHEAD if posting them in a comment. I may need to leave off for awhile if people don’t do this.

I SO want this inclusion to be a Marvel/Trek Crossover. ;-)

Good god, no.

THIS ^^^^^^

I can only repeat what Ahmed said, don’t sell the bear’s fur…

Why oh why do people put “BREAKING” on threads that can and will become old?

I like the actor. Would be interesting how they’d do it. But what if George wasn’t killed. What if he was beamed off the Kelvin at the last minute by a Klingon ship…kept prisoner and presumed dead.

Anyway good review. I see a lot of review that are best described as “backhanded compliments”.


Re:I like the actor

I do too, but why is it that people expect him to return to his original role’s 2009 film trim? If George does return, he’ll be at least 28 years OLDER, unless he hitched a ride on a Botany Bay that just came floating by after he rammed the Narada?

Interesting idea. Considering that right after the Kelvin incident a Klingon fleet approaches the Narada. One thing that pissed me off about 2009…all the cut scenes from that movie, especially the cut Klingon scenes. The fleet surrounding the Narada and the Rura Penthe scene, just cut all Klingons out of it. I want all 12 (soon 13) Star Trek movies to be extended versions.

TrekCore had my favourite review. TrekMovie and TrekNews reviews were ok, objective but just ok. TrekCore spoiler free review got me excited. Granted they could be peddling to the audience but I doubt they were untruthful in their review. Some critics are just too Vulcan anal about things.


Re:Why oh why do people put “BREAKING” on threads

Not sure what you are lobbying for here, as articles with “Breaking” in their titles become just as dated? Why are you singling out comment threads when both are dated and said date can be used to easily identify whether the current date is where the news broke?:


There are always…possibilities…

If there’s a 4th movie about this universe, I wonder if the ‘Kelvin Timeline’ might even be ‘closed off’ in some way, as this article on the news suggests?… – http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/44117/hemsworth-returning-for-more-star-trek

As far as the latest movie goes, this particular review speaks for itself (*note* – some spoilers included) – http://www.io9.gizmodo.com/star-trek-beyond-half-a-good-star-trek-movie-is-better-1783712148

Haha im in the same boat, must avoid websites, twitter, FB, and podcasts for 4 more days. I’ve seen enough trailers, TV spots, and movie clips and do not need to see any more. Ive read all the non spoiler reviews and am happy with what was said, especially TrekCore’s review, made me giddy like a kid.

With the Trek 4 (14) rumours, well Im not jumping the gun yet. JJ has said things before. Hollywood says things all the time. But it is nice to know that they have ideas of where they want to go. And if Beyond is a box office hit (which I think it will be) then I am hopping they jump right onto the next movie and can pop that baby out in 2 years rather than 3 and NEVER 4 years! Main thing for me, I do not want to wait 4 bloody years for the next movie. STID was too long a wait for too big of a let down. Granted I like parts of STID, but when I walk out of the theatre and my reaction is “meh” for a movie I waited 4 years for…im just glad Paramount cleaned house for Beyond. Point being, time to make a movie does not make it better. Lin, Pegg, and Jung were on such a tight schedule with such a short time frame and they have possibly made the best of the reboot movies. Looking at Iron Man 2 and Thor 2, only took two years for those sequels to be popped out. If JJ and crew are already thinking about the next movie, 2 years is reasonable.

We’re never gonna hear the end of this, are we?

Great review and you leave me excited for a great ride next weekend.


Sounds good, except for Spuhura. I’m SO done with that.

I’m SO done with people complaining about what was one of the great innovations of the new movies. And this time I think it will be better portrayed in the writing.

Let me join you in agreement over what are both SO done with.
Sounds to me like the relationship might continue if there is a fourth film and I am FINE with that!

Honestly I want them to get married. I kind of thought it would happen in this film (before we knew anything about it) but yeah if they are going to stay together might as well go all the way and have them get married and a kid. Lock this thing down lol. And then they will be the fourth couple in Trek universe to marry: Troi and Riker, Worf and Jazdia and Paris and B’lanna. Too bad T’Pol and Trip never quite made it on Enterprise. :(

Well so much for this universe “repairing itself”. I suspect Spock had many relationships during his long life that we did not see on screen, but it was pretty much clear that he was the single solitary type. Should he end up married with kids in this universe, then that would be a pretty significant change, with a major impact on the character — certainly no different than if Kirk were to settle down and get married.

Well he’s been in a long term relationship with Uhura for years now. They been dating since the first film and in terms of the timeline I estimate they been together 4-5 years minimum at this point. Clearly he’s not the single guy from the show so getting married with kids would make sense for this character in this universe. The fact and Uhura are together is already a pretty significant change.

Tiger and Curious Cadet,

Re:Vulcans getting married

Well given the two Spock’s united agreement at the end of the 2009 effort that they had an obligation to assist the founding and repopulation of New Vulcan, I fully expected those Spocks to have fathered several children by now. By what means could either or both help preserve the Vulcan race in fathering those children, I can’t say,

Disinvited 7/16 5:58p, There’s always sperm donation. Or … brrr … cloning

Oh yeah, that’s the greatest innovation since 2001: Space Odyssey.

Quantum 47, I didn’t say it was the “greatest” innovation, I said it was a great innovation. Based on the ideas for the original series, and a “nuVerse” turn from TOS. Spock need not be solitary to be logical [his father married a human and was still perfectly logical], and I am happy for that.

“Thankfully gone is ‘Excuse me while I shush you Captain so I can argue with my boyfriend in the middle of a crisis’ and in her place is a competent officer. ”
She always was the most competent officer in these movies, and if one puts aside the sexism and double standards about the above mentioned scene (because Kirk is much worse than her and without even having a relationship with the dude but who cares?), even there she was the only one whose skills were useful to the mission when she translated what the Klingons were telling them and she offered an alternative to Kirk’s ill conceived plan to simply face the Klingons outgunned and outnumbered. She fixed a long annoying scene where Nichelle Nichols was forced to make Uhura look incompetent by using an old fashioned dictionary to speak klingon, she was badass. What were Kirk and Spock required for in that mission that couldn’t be done by security officers? Or what Bones was doing with Kirk running the forest?

Sorry, I only meant to say in STID we spent way too much time with her ‘boy troubles’ and not letting her be her own character, where what she did didn’t have to be related to a man. I never meant to imply she was incompetent. In Beyond she’s very autonomous and the way Zoe played it, she said it was a conscious choice on her part.

Aaron Harvey. I’m sick and tired of the double standard. Of people harping on every scene Uhura has with or about her relationship with Spock in the same breath they want the dudes to be defined by their friendships. I doubt Mccoy isn’t once again just the friend here, I doubt you get to see him have his own story the way Kirk and Spock do, beyond him helping them and being the friend. People praise the ‘bromances’ being front and center and most of the male character being about that but apparently Uhura should be single and stay away from Spock to be her own character, as if that would make her at Kirk or Spock, thus protagonist, level. In this movie it’s not the romance that makes her have less screentime, it’s the fact that Pegg and Lin in their bias for the male characters decided to create a story where Uhura is conveniently kept sway from both the main guys SO that Mccoy and Scotty could be the ones getting more screentime.

“Boy troubles” — kind of demeaning, juvenile-izing term for what could have been written as a relationship between two adults. Unfortunately that was how it was written, and how it was perceived by fanboy reviewers and others who accept sexist tropes all the time in movies. No focus on stupid decisions by the guys though.

Aaron Harvey: “Too much time for her boy troubles?”

You mean Uhura can’t confront her evasive endangered species boyfriend Spock with a death wish when they’re en-route to ‘highway to death’ ie. Klingon “killing” zone?

When would have been the best time? When they’re dead?

And how about movies that show soldiers having some fun and loving time with their partners or even non-partners before going to the war zone?

But its not the same right? They weren’t “boy troubles”, they were having a slice of fun before confronting death. Right?


And if they’ll resurrect George Kirk, might as well resurrect Captain Pike, Amanda Grayson and Vulcan.

RIPIX – Yes. That’s what I’ve thought.

It is part of our condition to procrastinate/avoid topics we feel uncomfortable about, even though they may be very pertinent to a particular situation. Uhura said that she had tried to discuss where Spock’s “head was at” many times and he was evasive each time. He would find excuses. Now that they were heading for a potentially very dangerous situation, she needed to know, just from a professional point of view. This is why Kirk, when he realised what Uhura was trying to ascertain, ie get Spock to TALK, tell the truth, that Kirk allowed the conversation to continue. He also needed to know, because Spock’s attitude had been bothering him as well, and NOT because of some so-called bromance the two might be having. Interesting that NO ONE has mentioned that possibility as to why Kirk allowed the discussion to continue.

It’s not like they were actually doing anything other than pilot the shuttle towards Kronos anyway.

I guess it’s OK for guys to have “bromance troubles” with their male friends but not for a woman to have so-called “boy troubles”. UGH – the crappy double standards yet again being displayed by some people here…:(!


If you’re going to Star Trek Beyond just to watch more of Uhura, then you’ll be disappointed. The focus this time is on the original trio Kirk, Spock & Bones, as well as Scotty.
From Empire review:

In an ensemble movie, heavy emphasis on some characters may mean others are somewhat underserved, and that does happen here. […] there’s still not a huge amount for Zoe Saldana’s Uhura, John Cho’s Sulu and the late Anton Yelchin’s Chekov to do. Pegg’s Scotty is a little more involved here, but it’s not like Pegg has suddenly written himself a hero’s role.

Ahmed, Scotty was pretty well featured in STiD as well. I did see Uhura in one preview using some Starfleet martial arts training, so yay! for that.

I am looking forward to Uhura’s martial art moments, too.
But, it doesn’t surprise me that she can take care of herself.
I think Zoe has done a good of portraying Uhura with confidence.

Ahmed sorry I didn’t see your comment. Well, I think Uhura’s screentime might be less than Scotty’s or McCoy’s and I’m fine with reviewers calling the creative out on that. But about the quality of screentime I have some doubts. From what those who watched the movie told me, Uhura does some pretty badass things and this movie and her role is, in the whole story, more important than that of the secondary male characters (including McCoy). I heard at least two things that are pretty big. So some reviewers must be falling, I guess, in the usual trap of minimizing what female characters do just because it isn’t always in your face, or confusing screentime with what the characters add to the story. It’s not the same exact thing. For instance, a friend who watched it said that yes McCoy gets more screentime because he interacts with one of the main dudes (Spock) but there is no doubt that it’s all mostly about Kirk’s issues first, and Spock’s problems then and he’s basically their friend. If people, say, expect McCoy to be at the same level of Kirk and Spock and truly get to know much more about him beyond the way he relates to the main dudes, or expect him to have some huge pivotal role in the story they might get disappointed. Once again, it seems Scotty’s role is more important than his and he’s the one who also interacts, coincidence, with the new alien lady.

Sorry, Jemini, but I agree 100% with Aaron’s assessment. She has not been portrayed as a competent officer in the reboots thus far. Her role has been “Spocks girlfriend”. Her character has been sorely underused, and I for one am happy to see her character developing into someone I can look up to.

Kayla Iacovino yeah I well remember your editorial that called the writers sexist all the while you were the one making sexist arguments about Uhura and you are the one reducing her to the girlfriend. I dunno why you care about her since you are always looking for white girls to represent you, wasn’t Uhura here just for strong African American women?
That was the most pretentious and worst article I read in this site.

I didn’t know that I was only allowed to have white role models. Thanks for the tip!

Kayla Iacovino no one but you is saying that. Your first brilliant quality content editorial here talked about how Carol was the strong female character we were all waiting for while Uhura was a strong female character for African American women. You didn’t consider Uhura someone who could represent you and yet, you still use your white feminism to criticize her and belittle her and minimize everything she does just because she has relationship (which is sexist by itself) and this goes against your strong independent woman who don’t need no man white ideal, never mind the fact that this is a racist stereotype for woc and her not being single is progressive to woc who are hardly ever love interests (unlike white girls).
Then you did another of those ‘will we get finally a strong woman?’ articles only when they cast brutish Lydia Wilson and you wanted her to be the strong female role, never mind them casting Sofia Boutella in a lead role months before.

Kayla, as I say above, a lot of people took that reductionist view, skimming past:
— Uhura detected the signal in Klingon about attacks on Klingon vessels by a hugely powerful ship
— Uhura maintained signals so Kirk, Sulu, Pike and Spock could be beamed out [ST2009]
— Uhura maintained comms while Spock was in the vulcano [but yes, she did have an emo moment standing there, hearing her lover was about to die. I wish they had filmed that with her sitting at her station].
— Uhura spoke directly to the huge, hostile Klingon in charge on Kronos and stabbed him in the leg [not “waiting for rescue” as portrayed in some reviews] [STiD]
Granted, small moments in the course of two huge action! movies, but no smaller than those with Chekov or Sulu, or even [sadly] McCoy, whom she did not “replace,” ACTION! replaced a lot of good character stuff that could have happened. With everyone.

Agreed, jemini. Unfortunately the writing could have been much better than it was, and the discussion between Spock and Uhura could easily have taken place when they were in private, but there were many instances when the men f’d up big time [often because of THEIR personal feelings/failings], and I haven’t heard much whining from fans about those instances.

Agreed, jemini.
Unfortunately the writing could have been much better than it was, and the discussion between Spock and Uhura could easily have taken place when they were in private,

I was agreeing to jemini’s comment of 15 July.

You guys criticize Uhura for the same things you praise in the male characters. In the end the message I get is that this never-ending concern trolling about her has only the purpose to dehumanize her character because she is not even allowed to have feelings and express them for her significant other. You can’t all ask for Mccoy to get more screentime through his relationship with k/s and the bromances (which is something Urban himself apparently did!), in the same breath you harpy on every little hint that Uhura has a relationship with Spock and they have feelings for one another. Instead of asking women to be single to have more development, ask less of your dudes and the ‘bromances’ because those are the only real hindrance of these movies that eat more screentime than required and that could be otherwise used to develop more not only the other characters, but those being part of the bromances too (In stid Spock’s PTSD about Vulcan pretty much took a backseat in favor of Kirk and their dynamic and no one cares)

jemini, [7/16 12:15a] Spock had PTSD after Vulcan’s destruction?
Wouldn’t have known from the movies :-p

EVERYBODY could have had better character development with a few minutes’ fewer ACTION! sequences.

Here’s hoping “Beyond” does a better job of this.

Great report! Confirms what I have thought about the film based on the various trailers, tv spots, and the 10 minutes of footage I saw at the fan event at Paramount.

I’m bummed that the cinematography still appears to be filmed by a kid with ADHD after eating five bowls of sugar cereal during the action scenes. Its been one of my major gripes for the previous movies as it prevents you from being able to see and take in what the hell is going on. All your brain can do is go “wow, things are happening” without really being able to fully comprehend what those things are.

Beyond that….well….we’ll wait and see. I thought 2009 was good, and didn’t care for Into Darkness.

I have a feeling this is done to encourage subsequent viewings in theatres.

I think I agree with you. I went to see the last one twice due to this reason.

Haven’t seen indications of that at all thus far, just fast cutting. Be careful how and what you critique, QUANTUM didn’t use much shakey cam, just insane cuttiing, but everybody had same wrongheaded criticism.

kmart, I don’t think my criticism is “wrongheaded,” it’s based on what I myself experienced” [unaware of “shaky cam, just super-fast cutting], and it’s not up to you to judge my experience, is it?

Fast cutting is a curse of modern television, commercials and movies. But I’m older and I remember [just watch TOS] when the camera could settle for a moment on a character speaking. I think it appeals more to folk who multi-task, unlike myself.

I prefer slower cutting in most instances myself, but I was addressing somebody talking about CINEMATOGRAPHY being ADHD, not editing. And there’s no indication of crap camerawork in the footage I’ve seen. The camera swoops and does what it is supposed to do convey the emotion and the sweep, but I don’t see that nutso BOURNE-y stuff that seems to be used IN PLACE of artistry and taste.

Honestly, I didn’t see much if any of the “shaky cam” or “lens flare” business in any of the clips or trailers. As kmart has stated, fast cutting yes, but that’s common for trailers and another thing entirely. Nowhere near as annoying, IMHO.

> And of course that leaves our villain, Krall. For a good chunk of the movie he feels more like a force of nature than a character. That’s not necessarily a bad thing.

Most of the reviews, beside the ones on Trek sites, are agreeing on one thing, the villain is weak.


If there’s one area in which the film suffers as a result of push-back against the previous movie, it’s in the choice of bad guy.

Krall […] is a mystery rather than a fully fledged character, and when we do catch up with him, he monologues in the standard Evilspeak of a hundred nondescript nemeses.

Sadly, there’s precious little in Krall’s words or deeds to suggest why an actor as talented as Idris Elba would subject himself to hours of prosthetics. He’s just a reheated version of Eric Bana’s similarly unmemorable Nero from the 2009 reboot.

Den of Geek:

Where Beyond falters is in the villain department. Krall looks and sounds imposing, but Elba’s given little chance to project his charisma full all those prosthetics while the plot gives him little to do other than make the occasional speech or idle threat.

Ahh, rats. I was hoping for more. What these movies need to do is get rid of the “bad guy/villain” concept. It sounds, from the previews, as though Krall is trying to protect something, so that’s at least a change from revenge.


“It sounds, from the previews, as though Krall is trying to protect something, so that’s at least a change from revenge.”

Don’t be so sure!

Ahmed 7/15 4.35 p, Awww, RATS!!! But it does sound like that for me from the previews. Hope springs eternal.

Marja Today 4:31 pm

What these movies need to do is get rid of the “bad guy/villain” concept.

That would be a major deviation from their formula. Can you think of a single comic-book movie that doesn’t pit our heroes against a villain?

Star Trek isn’t a comic book movie.
Star Trek The Motion Picture and Star Trek IV the Voyage Home, show that you can successfully do a Trek feature that is not bad guy/villian oriented

Yes Cygnus 7/15 10:50 p — as we have agreed in the past, Trek should not be so focused on ACTION! but characters and science-oriented challenges. Oh well.

That may be the difference between Trek fans and the general public or fandom (sort of my point about being like an episode is a strength and weakness) Trek fans don’t always NEED a villain in the traditional sense and in many Star Trek episodes and movies the villain has reasons for what they do or at least aren’t 100% mustache twirling bad guys!’

I think the Chinese market demands more “villain” types than an ideal ST movie. I wonder if someone knows how profitable “Interstellar,” “Gravity,” and “The Martian” were, over there? They are a major film market now.

Unfortunately the more I read about Krall, the more everyone’s first reaction is reinforced — he’s basically the villain Serris from Galaxy Quest, right down to his appearance and motivation.

And I can’t help but see a lot of similarities between the aliens the Enterprise is trying to help, to the ancient device/weapon they are trying to protect, to fixing an old ship to take on the bad guy, complete with his own mobile mine-field.

Unpopular opinion here: it is not the prosthetics on Idris or the whitewashing of Khan in STID that makes the reboot “fail” in the villian department. It is just that any villain there – movies or TV – will always be compared to original Khan, who is THE villain – and a huge part of that due to Ricardo Montalban. No villain before and no villain after him came even close to the greatness of Khan played by Montalban. Even the Borgs don’t quite fit the bill if you think about it.


Surprised none of the malcontents have insisted on a ‘objective’ review from someone who hates the BR movies. Gotta be ‘fair and balanced’ now…..

On the internet these days, enjoying yourself, being happy, and being nice to people are viewed as weaknesses and signs of limited intellect. To be really intelligent and cool you have to hate everything and everyone, and be generally cynical and misanthropic. I’ve stopped bothering with responding to those human wastes of skin.

Well, at least you’re pro-“being nice to people.”

Well you’re certainly being very positive by calling others “human wastes of skin”. With your attitude you seem to be no better than a killer who slaughtered all those innocent beings with a truck in France.

That’s a bit of a stretch, don’t you think?



I don’t know about that. The only origin I have for that phrase, that you chose to employ, in my lifetime is the Nazis and their lampshades.

So let me get this straight… because I think that people who bully and spread misery on the internet aren’t worth the effort to communicate with, that means I want to drive a truck into a crowd of people. And I thought Star Trek fans embraced logic. You’re pathetic. Go back in your hole.


So let me get this straight, you intend to stop the spread of bullying, which you abhor, by embracing something from the school of thought of the worst bullies in history, i.e. that they had better uses for the skins of those that they bigotedly and irrationally chose to scapegoat for the misery in their life and society, and, for the life of you, you can’t fathom why some might fear that you may be employing it as a thin veil hiding worst intent in these times we live in?

Help me to understand the moral high ground that you think you are preserving for the world here. Because your last philosophical screed sure sounded like you pointing out that any sports fans that rained on a home team’s fan happy happy by giving them a downer wearing the opposing visiting team’s colors would get them punched in the face.

And there’s that condescension in your coda. Here’s what it communicates to me, “I, NFXstudios, intend to bully and spread misery on the internet and I have free reign to do so because I believe a MINORITY of others are doing it too which justifies this diversion from my happy happy life.” And, another possible motivation seems implied that you believe the internet forces you to use your words which wrongfully deprives you of the satisfaction of a punch?

You make a claim to embrace logic. Well, I find that people who are truly happy spend their time being happy and rarely have course to resort to waste it posting on the internet: “My solution is to watch and talk about what I like, and just ignore what I don’t.”, “I’ve stopped bothering with responding to those human wastes of skin.”, “…misery loves company.”, “You’re pathetic.”, “Go back in your hole.”, etc.

Just who is it that you are trying to convince of your happy state of mind when you post such things? Yourself?

The PeeWee Herman defense is the best you can come up with? I know you are, but what am I?

In your continued (and predictable) effort to move the goalposts, you still haven’t demonstrated the logic behind the reasoning that my original comment suggests I would commit mass murder.

I’m done. No one in their right mind has the time to have any kind of discussion with you.


Re:the logic behind the reasoning that my original comment suggests I would commit mass murder.

Probably because you and I weren’t discussing that but how much of a stretch it was for the poster that had. My whole point was not that much of a stretch for some growing up in the shadow of WW II given you had resorted to using a Nazi trope.

My Dad had a favored saw: You lie down with dogs; you wake up with fleas.

The rest was just me trying to get a handle on your claimed “happy” philosophy that you seem to be having a struggle adhering to.

Been away for a day, and I see the resident malcontent has overdosed on Red Bull and is taking it upon himself to reprint every negative review to prop them up as a consensus. All the proof of your point, right here on this site.

Is there really no title sequence as someone said in another thread?

That is true. It opens identically to the last two films … company logos and right into the story.

But no title after the opening like the first two had? I’ve loved the massive title up on the screen.

I don’t recall, I think it goes straight to a shot of the Enterprise in orbit around the planet they are visiting. It’s possible there was a brief title card, but I doesn’t stand out in my memory. I would have remembered “BEYOND” up on the screen. Then again I saw it pre-titles,

“but still I am not a fan of constant camera shaking to indicate action.”

I’m not sure I have met anyone that is really a fan of this.

“I’m not sure I have met anyone that is really a fan of this.”

And yet they keep using that crap.

I hope a full spoilers review is up before the movie is released.

Well it sounds like it has a lot of humor and action.. This review was a bit better than the other two I read that were not so glowing. Im still going to see it and Im sure I will enjoy it for the most part. One was from Entertainment Tonight and the other from iO9

The villain could be weak, But still its Idris Elba so a least we will get a good performance.

I also read the io9 one and I feel like the reviewer confused Kirk really souls searching about what he wanted to do with his life and how he came to be where he was with ‘not caring’ and if that’s your view of the character I could certainly see it coloring there rest of the film.

Seems to be doing alright in RT https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_beyond/
Its hare to see Kirk as not caring knowing his tenacity in TOS , I could see it when he was coming into SFleet in the first reboot but figured hes be over that by now.

To me the soul searching seems to be a call back to The Cage, The Naked Time, (Kirk utters “no beach to walk on” while looking at Rand), Wrath of Khan (“my son…my life that could’ve been), and Generations (going back in time in his house with Anthonia, when he retired from Starfleet!) with the Captain expressing possible regret over his life decisions. Kirk expresses remorse periodically that he chose a job of loneliness and isolation. He clearly regrets at some points that he never made time for a famlily. If anything, this characterization of Kirk is nothing new, but in fact true to the character.

VERY much the Cage. We said that Kirk/Bones bit you see in the previews is very Pike/Boyce

Sounds very promising only 6 days to go here in the UK. Box office may well be stronger than ever trek wise I hope it is as that would guarantee a fast track to ST4.

It’s a shame that even if the box office earns more in the UK, thanks to Brexit, it might end up being less.

Does not matter about foreign exchange rates what matters is the audience numbers will be higher globally so overall it will make more than STID as the budget was about $100m less. For that alone its already $100m up!!


“so overall it will make more than STID as the budget was about $100m less.”

Star Trek Beyond budget is $150 million, just $40 million less from STID.

And don’t forget they spent a lot more on marketing.

Idris Elba signs Star Trek: Beyond MURAL!
CUE 1:25

I’m glad most of the early reviews are positive, looking forward to it more than I was awhile back. I’m curious why does all the movie artwork (or at least what I’ve seen) use the previous version of the ship? The poster above looks like it again?

Probably because that’s the last we’ll see of the new Enterprise before she gets destroyed. AGAIN. Dadburn it, I love that ship and hate seeing her messed up all the time.

The ship we see in Beyond, the one the swarm ships attack, is the refit we see at the end of STiD for like 5 seconds, but judging by the impulse engine housing of the version on the poster it looks like the pre-Vengeance attack version. It’s really hard to tell, that ship evades profile images like the plague!

Yeah that’s what I was meaning the graphic above appears again to be the 2009 version before the “refit” at the end of Into Darkeness. Not a big thing, just wondered why all the new stuff is using the old version.

Check out the Barco Escape trailer @ 0:50 secs in the Enterprise gets attacked it shows many new VFX shots…the ships destruction is brutal though!

Nothing against this reviewer—he seems like an enthusiastic movie-goer. But, this doesn’t seem like very balanced or in-depth review. The “honors TOS” bits might well be in the same light as STID “honored” TOS, i.e. in superficial ways, with meaningless references, call-backs and rip-offs (to TWOK). That’s exactly what reviews said about STID right after it came out—how TOS-like it was.

Notably absent from this review is analysis of the movie’s central theme, if it has one, the character arcs and development, if there is any to speak of, particularly about the movie’s villain, which other reviews are calling weak. Also absent from this review is an assessment of the action-to-drama balance of the movie, which has been a major complaint about the Bad Robot movies from old-school Trek fans.

I have a strong suspicion that my review of this movie is going to be very different from this one. I’ll revisit the issue with anyone who’s interested, after the movie comes out on home video in 3 to 6 months, which is when I’ll be seeing it.

“Notably absent from this review is analysis of the movie’s central theme, if it has one…”

I’d actually be surprised if it had one.

VARIETY’s review is counted as “fresh” (good) at RT.com, and yet it reviews STAR TREK BEYOND as just barely passable. This is a good case-in-point for those who still don’t understand the significance of the RT ratings and how that system works:

““Star Trek Beyond” might have been more accurately entitled “Star Trek Contained.” It’s got a very familiar, old-fangled, no-mystery structure, and that’s because it’s basically the “Star Trek” version of an interplanetary action film, with a plot that doesn’t take you to many new frontiers. … Star Trek Beyond” is a somewhat diverting place holder, but one hopes that the next “Star Trek” movie will have what it takes to boldly go where no “Star Trek” movie has gone before.”


It is interesting you brought up the Vareity review because that was actually the first one I read and I too couldnt understand how it was fresh after diving deep into it. But I guess end of the day they are more positive on it, they are just saying its a fun film you will enjoy but doesnt sound like it brings anything new I guess.

This one is actually counted as “rotten” (bad) by RT:

“Star Trek Beyond is just a noisy and cluttered spectacle. They destroy the Enterprise for the umpteenth time in a sequence that’s so busy it’s hard to follow what’s going on. The simpler crash sequences in previous films were far more effective. The penultimate action sequence is juggling so many disparate threads that it feels like a mishmash of partial scenes. I was surprised there was still another finale after that, and the finale manages to turn Star Trek into a music video. So Michael Bay has won. Every movie has now become a music video, even a legendary science fiction franchise. It’s not a good Star Trek movie and it’s not even a good generic space movie.” – Fred Topel, We Live Entertainment

More on the villain from this review:

“Krall (Idris Elba) is just a bad guy who wants to kill people. This is good enough for your standard action hero vehicle but it feels beneath a series with a history of bigger picture stories and themes. With the power to feed off the life force of his victims, Krall even reminded me of the villain from Star Trek: Insurrection, easily among the weakest of the films. F. Murray Abraham was trying to stay young, but even he had a bigger plan to displace a people living on a fountain of youth. By the time they explain Krall’s backstory, it’s too late to feel like he’s motivated when the whole movie has just been stuff blowing up. It almost feels like retconning an explanation after the fact.”

“They destroy the Enterprise for the umpteenth time”

Well, that is inaccurate for a start. At least a reviewer should know something of the background to the latest iteration released within a franchise before they put fingers to any keyboard. Clearly this guy doesn’t. This is what I would term ignorant and lazy.

Lots of fancy words in this review, but overall I get the impression that the reviewer had difficulty keeping his attention – attention deficit problems, something I believe, is what many of the naysayers actually suffer from to a lesser or greater degree. It is the inability to multi-task that makes films like this difficult to grasp. Multi-tasking is the opposite of attention deficit.

Fortunately, I have found that I am reasonably good at multi-tasking most of the time, so it looks like I may need to explain this next film, just as I have done with the previous two films. I can see that my work is cut out…oh dear…

Rose: “, so it looks like I may need to explain this next film,”

I cant wait for this. Since STID went completely over your head to begin with. But I like that you’re finally just admitting you have such little respect for everyone who disagrees with you. No pretense. Thats an improvement. Keep growing.

And here’s another review from a Top Critic that has almost nothing good to say about the movie, and yet it is counted as a “fresh” (good) review. The only unmitigated praise for STB offered by this critic is of the CGI quality:

“Spectacular as it looks, this is a $150 million blockbuster about nothing. … With JJ Abrams passing the baton to Justin Lin, the latest entry plays like a CGI-heavy “Fast and the Furious” movie set in the future, with fancy gadgetry and fast-paced showdowns taking prominence over plot. … Much of the movie finds various members of the Starship roaming the planet trying to figure out ideas for escaping it. This kind of scenario often sustained single episodes of the original show, but struggles to congeal as a single 142 minute package.

Nevertheless, this playful, meandering saga ultimately arrives at a bland third act finale featuring the so-called “Climbing Killer Syndrome” in which the antagonist must irrationally flee to an inescapable high elevation while explaining his entire motive. Toss in a tenuous connection to some earlier “Star Trek” entries to keep the series’ street cred in check and everybody gets to go home happy.

Nothing about this polished movie suggests the slightest attempt to reinvent the wheel. If “Star Trek Beyond” existed outside the arena of reboots and sequels that mandated its existence, the movie’s casual air might be downright radical for such an extensive production. Instead, it’s just a sturdy riff on the same old routine.
Grade: B-“
– Eric Kohn, indieWIRE


Go read the Forbes “negative” review. This guy has plenty of good things to say about the movie, even saying he hopes they make a fourth movie with the same cast. There’s even some positive quote snippets I could see being used by the studio. But, he didn’t like the middle part of the movie, so he gives it a 5/10.

So we can nitpick like this all day – find bad things in positive reviews, and good things in negative reviews.

And if some want to keep doing that – writing paragraph after paragraph after paragraph to try to prove a point, it gets boring. And reeks of desperation.

This is the first review I have written in a while and there seems to be entire social shift of reviewing the review. That’s a bit more meta than I need to get with my entertainment critique!

I find it quite interesting. The reviews for STB are reminding me in many ways of the reviews for STID. Even the good reviews don’t tout the writing or delve much into any substantive content, like the theme(s) of the story or any character arcs. And the lauded similarities to TOS in the good reviews are revealed to be all plot-related—the crew is on a planet reminiscent of a TOS episode. Even the RT score is about the same as for STID. But, if you regard this sort of ana|ysis of the story as nitpicking (I mean, who cares about the story, right? It’s only the primary justification and main purpose of the movie), then it doesn’t surprise me that you’re not interested in it.

@Cygnus-X1 … I too read many of the reviews linked on Rotten Tomatoes and could easily post just as many or more good comments about how great the movie is. Look for a moment at the trend of Critics lately to completely harpoon movies, even if fans like them like Batman v Superman and X-Men.

In an age were critics don’t really seem to fully “get” the nerdy movies out their, and during a time when they seem to thrive in simply tearing films apart because they like to nitpick and complain, for the movie to have as many positive reviews as it does really says something. It also says a lot that paramount lifted the ban on reviews early because feedback has been overwhelmingly positive.

Also, I listened to the very spoiler filled review on the Star Trek podcast today and while they did point out some flaws, the critics seemed to like the movie regardless.

I think this Cygnus fellow wants hopes and desires the movie to fail. That perhaps this will bring and end to this movie series and then . . . what? No more Trek movies? What if the CBS experiment fails? No more Trek again? I simply don’t see the point of wanting something to fail. Sure out of a couple hundred reviews I could cherry pick the worst ones. Even the best movies ever made have some bad reviews. No one is expecting Beyond to reinvent the wheel and no one is saying it’s going to be the best Trek movie ever made but to constantly be down and depressing and negative is exhausting.

Again I come back to a simple truth – If you don’t like the Trek movies, don’t come to a site called Trekmovie. I hate Harry Potter ergo I don’t go to Harry Potter forums. I don’t waste my time on things I don’t like, it’s counterproductive and a huge waste of time. Of course the other, simpler explanation is that he’s simply a troll who enjoys rocking the boat.

Amen, Harry Plinkett

Aaron, I am just in the middle of that podcast. And it does feel like the level of enjoyment changes depending on what Trek you like and how much you like it. And for the ‘bridge too far’ actually calls to another nerdry franchise of my youth so it didn’t bug me.

They should have called Batman vs. Superman Boredom vs. Sleep, because I was only barely able to make it through to the end.

My nephew says that’s exactly what it was for him, i.e. he slept through the middle. FWIW he seems encouraged from the reviews that the Ultimate Edition will restore what the studio editing turned to mush.

Disinvited Today 8:30 pm

Well, for me the ultimate edition would be an hour shorter. Which means that if they’re restoring scenes that were eliminated, they’d have to cut more than an hour of film out in order to make room for the restored scenes.

Sort of mean this in a tongue in cheek way, but maybe there are no spoilers for most of the people who read this site. That in an of iself should not make the film bad.

So maybe, instead of plot or plot points, this trek film is really more of an “experience” which we see, hear and maybe feel in a completely new way (for a Trek movie).

How do we rate experiences?

This review is everything I wanted out of this film. Calling movies ‘nothing more than a big episode’ should not have been a bad thing… and for this new franchise, I think it’s a good idea for the movies to vacillate between smaller stories and bigger adventures. But bringing big movie visuals to stories that were akin to the episodes should never be a bad thing.. melding what we’ve loved with the theater experience should not be a bad thing!

You aren’t going to change the minds of those that want this film to be bad. For years after 09 and STID I kept hearing the refrain that the movies are nothing like the show, that they need to have more of the heart and soul of an original episode. Now the reviews are calling it just that and the battle cry is “I’m not spending good money to watch a glorified episode.”

Trek fans suck. Seriously.

Harry P, Some Trek fans do seriously suck. But we must always remember, there are those who want Trek to be exactly what THEY like, and close themselves off from new possibilities. Or endlessly condemn them. There are things I don’t like about the BR movies, but there are things I didn’t like in TOS either. Yet I am still a fan.

Why did they put a picture of him in a TNG uniform?? Facepalm.

Kayla, yeah, but I thought that was pretty funny. LLAP

Cuz he’s bald like Picard?

They meant well, but it reminds me of when my grandmother told my mom that Jack Lemmon had been murdered in front of the Dakota building.

He’s just so ahead of the curve he went into the future in an alternate universe and got his costume! I love when someone at the press conference asked about the Next Generation for the Kelvin-Verse and Zoe was like “Hey! We just got here!”

The reviews are pretty consistent that while this is a great installment of episodic television, it’s unnecessarily stretched over two hours. Might watch it when it hits netflix. A night out at the movies is too expensive to watch TV episode while someone destroys the sound by crinkling a candy wrapper for 20 minutes lol

Or blinds you as they keep checking their phone.

“All-in-all, Beyond was really more than I could have hoped for. Action, adventure and emotion”
So you don’t hope for science in your science fiction that seems to have disappeared in the JJ Verse, social commentary, exploration?. For me, that’s 3/4 of what Star Trek is / was.

@Yoda Mann,

That was brutal, they graded ‘Star Trek Beyond’ C+

“If you’re looking for a witty workplace sitcom set on a futuristic starship, the latest exploits featuring the crew of the Enterprise, Star Trek Beyond, won’t disappoint. But it has to be asked: Is that really why most of us go to see a Star Trek film? “

I don’t think most fans of ‘Trek know what they want from a ‘Trek film.


Well, for the longest time all I’ve ever wanted is a script written on the levelof a Harlan Ellison or better and a cast, which Bad Robot has, to act the hell out of it. I’ve settled for Meyer but I really want Trek’s movie writing to shoot for the moon before I leave this mortal coil.

Want a movie more like Star Trek then complain when it feels like a glorified episode. Geeze, some of you can’t stop moving the goalposts.

I don’t think I complained about that I said that’s a strength and a weakness. As a die-hard Trek fan I really appreciate it and I could elaborate on that more if we were writing a non-spoiler free review, but some people want something more ‘film’ like, a bigger story, more expansive. I don’t fault them for that. To each their own.

Sorry, Aaron. Wasn’t talking about your review, which was very well written. I was making a comment about others general comments.

Where are you getting this from? Outside of Aaron’s blessing/curse review, which you claim not to be citing, only ONE other poster said they weren’t going to the theater because it was an “episode”:


This is why Aaron and I both initially thought you were dinging the article. When is it permissible to inflate ONE negative remark referring to an episodic nature to plurality of negative “others” in an honest discourse?

Now that it is ok to shoehorn Chris Hemsworth back in, can we find a way for Kirk Prime

I can’t imagine how he could be included except in flashback. Since Hemsworth and Pine are the same age, it would be kind of cheesy to load him up with old makeup. I don’t see them doing any kind of time travel in this universe, and that leaves dream/fantasy … A trip to the Shore Leave planet for instance.

@ Curious, I think Hemsworth should play Kirk’s brother, in a desperate situation on a threatened planet. Kinda like “Operation: Annihilate” or “Immunity Syndrome But just … kind of.

Nice idea Marja!

Well considering this is an alternate universe where anything could happen, Geo. could be Kirk’s brother, the one who looks like dear old dad. And he could be the one who actually did enlist in Starfleet, and was the straight shooter who wants nothing to do with his hotshot brother (otherwise why haven’t we seen him before now?). Could be an interesting character study.

Instead of time travel perhaps some alien influence can bring them together

Like Q?

Curious Cadet

Re:Like Q?


Crazy we have not seen Q show up in a movie yet. You can do so much with that character. I would love if they could give us another All Good Things type of story line with Q. Just a bendy sci fi story although these films don’t really do any real sci fi.

Haha, that’s the most entertainment I’ve ever gotten out of that character …

Yes exactly

He’ll need to grow a fake mustache.

I would go for this and think that it is possible that it WILL happen.

Having Kirk meet his father would have to be before he rammed Nero’s ship which means Kirk cannot tell his father he is going to die that way (unless he breaks the rules & cheats history by altering in & beaming George away before the ship blows up). Quite good idea dramatically Kirk being unable to warn his father like Shatner could not tell Joan Collins she was about to get killed.


Re:breaks the rules & cheats

What rules? He already knows from Spock Prime’s mind meld that the history he is living is a cheat that already broke the rules. Kirk even told Spock Prime so. Why wouldn’t that give him free reign to muddle with it as he saw fit to get it as close to back on track as he could imagine?

The only quandary that I could see is if he chooses to restore the billions of lives on Vulcan and his father, then the little girl that Khan cured dies.

A lot of good movies get bad reviews.
So far, I have not seen anything which would discourage me from seeing the film.

I’m in the uk and have just booked my tickets for Friday night :) I’m just slightly concerned though that there’s hardly any show times for the movie, only 4 time slots on opening day and by Wednesday on week 1 it’s down to 1 showing already. I’m hoping it’s just because they haven’t put all times up yet but if not then that’s not very good, down to 1 showing not even a week in to release!

Aka pointless drivel. Like we couldn’t see this coming. *sigh* is Axanar ready yet?


Yeah…I disagree with EW’s review, and I worked on Axanar…so…

Interesting you mention “pointless drivel” and “Axanar” in the same post.

I read the ew.com article and I suspect that we may have another STID, ie a movie pointing out some very relevant socio-political allegories. This tends to have reviewers and many audiences glossing over them because the inferences make these people too uncomfortable. STID has a “big elephant in the room” which most people ignored or derided and instead nitpicked away at small scenes like Spock FINALLY explaining his feelings to Uhura and Kirk, or most notoriously, so many getting all antsy about briefly seeing a woman in her underwear

As long as they don’t hit me over the head with the point, I like movies with an allegorical edge, So, I hope that you are correct.

Didnt the new fan film guidelines kill Axanar?

I went over to IMDB to see what they are saying, some like it, some don’t.
But at the very least, Beyond appears to be a Trek film that some can enjoy.

A question for anyone who has seen the movie. From this review I take it that the final battle in the movie has that Rihanna song playing over it. Am I right?

“…The finale manages to turn Star Trek into a music video. So Michael Bay has won. Every movie has now become a music video, even a legendary science fiction franchise. It’s not a good Star Trek movie and it’s not even a good generic space movie.” – Fred Topel, We Live Entertainment


I don’t know if that is true but it would all depend on presentation to me.


“From this review I take it that the final battle in the movie has that Rihanna song playing over it. Am I right?”

Nope, it is worse than that! Didn’t watch the movie yet, but I came across a spoiler on Reddit and it was confirmed in one of the reviews. It came across as something so stupid that I didn’t believe the spoiler at the beginning but then THR confirmed it in their review.

There are no spoiler tags here on Trekmovie but basically they did something similar to what happened in ‘Mars Attack’ in that final battle!

Ahmed Today 6:39 pm

Yeah, one of the reviews said that the ending is ridiculous, like something out of a comedy, except that STAR TREK BEYOND is not a comedy. Well, if it’s similar to the ending of MARS ATTACKS—in which yodeling music is played in the streets to kill the Martians—and the reviewer says it plays like a music video, then I can only guess that Kirk & the gang play some sort of music to kill the bad guys.

This is from the negative Forbes review concerning the ending:

“Things improve once the picture “gets off the bus,” as we finally get an idea of what the grand plan happens to be and our main antagonist finally gets something approaching character development. And the final action sequences are quite clever, starting first with a big-scale attack that owes a slight debt to Mars Attacks! and then ending with a smaller-scale set piece that goes in the “I’ve never seen that before!” category.

This third “new” Star Trek picture ends on a lovely grace note, one that can serve as a finale if this indeed ends up being this crew’s last cinematic voyage. It’s not quite “Second star to the right and straight on till morning” (that still makes my eyes water every single time), but it gets the job done. It’s a testament to the cast that I’d still like to see more of this specific incarnation.”

Interesting, huh?

Lurker Today 7:32 am

That is interesting. The final paragraph of that Forbes review, “Star Trek Beyond Fails to Engage“, sums up the review nicely, after touching on the main problem of the movie early on—“The action is big, but the story is slight.”:

“The picture is filled with enjoyable characters and occasionally sharp dialogue, and a couple solid action scenes. It looked great in glorious IMAX 2D. For many that will be enough. But it spends too much time literally and metaphorically stranded. Beyond whether or not Kirk “finds his smile,” the movie really isn’t about anything of note [in other words, there’s no overarching theme driving the story]. If anything, the “What are we trying to accomplish?” question serves as a metaphor for the franchise itself. Star Trek Beyond sadly upholds that old “even/odd” rule for Star Trek cinematic universe. Or maybe it’s just the unlucky 13th installment.”

And that strikes me as an honest assessment. For many, that will be enough. But, probably not for me.


And that point about the lack of an overarching theme driving the story has been one of my two main complaints about these Bad Robot movies (the other being the imbalance of action to drama). What Nick Meyer said of ST09 and STID appears likewise applicable to STB: there doesn’t seem to be any purpose in these movies, other than just to make another Star Trek movie. And that is fundamentally un-Trek-like. From the very beginning, “Star Trek” was conceived as a show to explore issues, concepts and themes. And since Gail Berman’s decision to arbitrarily scrap Erik Jendresen’s “Star Trek: The Beginning” in 2005, in favor of the Bad Robot movies, Star Trek has been reduced to just another action-spectacle genre of movies.


Spoiler Alert

From The Hollywood Reporter..

that yields a strategy to disorient the swarm by blasting them with some Beastie Boys at max volume


Ahmed Today 8:56 am


Oh, man. Thank you for that.

Just shaking my head. So desperate to nitpick BEY that you have to speculate on second sources. Why don’t you wait until the film is actually released, then complain once the spoiler reviews are released? You can’t wait until Wednesday or something?

DSWynne Today 8:31 pm

Come on, you know that guessing in advance is always the most fun. Remember last time around when we were all trying to figure out whether or not Khan was actually the villain in STID? They wouldn’t publish reviews in advance of the movie and expect people not to speculate about them.

Star Trek Online – Agents of Yesterday


Air Hogs Star Trek Enterprise Flying Drone,


Aaron, will you post a spoiler heavy review after Beyond is released.

A question for everybody here,
In terms of character interactions, what is on your wishlist for Beyond?

It’s probably going to make less money than the first two domestically. Paramount has it on less screens for some reason.

Do we have any idea How the film is tracking internationally?

In 3 days, 7/20/16, it opens in in Indonesia, The Philippines, Iceland and Sweden. I’d say for English speakers, The Philippines entertainment news should be the easiest to find sources to track.

Don’t forget it opens on JULY 21, 2016 in Australia, Austria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Germany, Hong Kong, Israel, Lebanon, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Panama, Peru, Serbia & Montenegro, Singapore, Switzerland [German], Ukraine and UAE.

For many of those countries they will be watching the movie while we are sleeping in the US on the night of the 20th. So we’ll know the results two whole days before we first see it in the US.

I’m also interested in how many of those countries cut the Sulu & family scenes, especially in the UAE where it was shot.

Wow great review! My interest peak just a little bit more with every review so far. I’ve only ran across one who seem to truly hate it. Still going in with lower expectations but with all the chaos surrounding this film this could’ve been a huge turkey and the fact it sounds at least decent and fun is good if not amazing news.

For all my dissatisfactions with the JJ-verse, I’d actually somewhat gotten my hopes up for BEYOND, even to the extent of siding with Simon Pegg over George Takei on the revelations regarding alt Sulu’s sexuality. But this evening I made the mistake of listening to the ENGAGE podcast featuring a trio of critics who were decidedly lukewarm towards the effort, which seems to offer up yet another poorly motivated villain (even the host, who was far more generous in his assessment of the film overall, found this aspect disappointing), as well as a resolution that, if it’s half as dumb as it sounds, makes THE FINAL FRONTIER look like MADAME BOVARY.

In a world so full of needless pain and tragedy it’s nevertheless easy to lose sight of the fact that, in the end, this is just a movie. At the same time, for all its faults Trek has been a beacon of hope to millions for decades, and its mishandling by those who, however talented and well-intentioned, have consistently failed to understand the source material has become increasingly painful to watch. Please, let this be over.

I don’t know what engage is but the last group of people I’d listen to about whether a star trek movie is worth watching is a star trek fan. Frankly if so many of these so called high strung picky “fans” hate it I know this will be a fun movie. Besides aren’t we in a thread on a site that just posted a generally positive review? After reading through comments here you’d think there were some actively seeking out bad reviews.

@ Ted: Oh, there definetely are people actively seeking out negative reviews. It’s their attempt to “counter-balance” any positive feeling people might have (or develop based on the good reviews). At least some of them just cannot accept that people might actually enjoy Star Trek Beyond (or any of the Bad Robot films)

Is anyone foolish enough in 2016 to try and dis-credit the multiple award winning William Shatner and claim he’s a poor actor? Puh leeze.

And Harry does the same thing he’s accusing Cygnus of, so what’s the difference. Cygnus is simply pointing out that not ALL the reviews are glowing. Which is true.

Whats your favorite Star Trek podcast and did they like the movie?

Oh great another drama queen. Oh please let the pain be over. Personally I think they get the source material just fine – bad actors in goofy costumes flying through space interacting with goofy aliens in goofy makeup on bad sets. This idea that Trek is some deep philosophical high brow art piece is way overblown. Remember its wagon train to the stars. It’s a western in space first. You can have some underlying issues that reflect todays society but that’s never been what I’ve seen Trek about at least not in the movies. Voyage Home was a very fun movie that did have a nice environmental message behind it and I guess Undiscovered Country had underpinnings of the cold war but other than that the movies haven’t had any deep message so I don’t expect them to generally do so going forward. That’s what the shows can explore so people need to stop expecting Trek movies to be deep issue movies. That will never happen because they don’t make money. Understand this because its important – money decides whether movies get made especially when they cost 150 million to make. You will NEVER see a movie like TMP ever again so stop expecting it and being disappointed when it doesn’t happen.

Agreed. Why on Earth would any movie studio today be expected to toss $150 million on making a movie about meeting VGER, or carrying any weighty social message? They would get absolutely soaked at the Box Office. Superhero movies rake it in for a reason. Want heavy social messages? Wait till January 2017 and you’re gonna get em (albeit at extra cost). Meanwhile it’s summer and another film is out. What is “real Star Trek?” It’s alot of things. The films and tv series can coexist.

@Merchant of Vulcan,

“Agreed. Why on Earth would any movie studio today be expected to toss $150 million on making a movie about meeting VGER, or carrying any weighty social message? They would get absolutely soaked at the Box Office.”

‘Interstellar’ with its environmental message & complex science fiction themes cost $165 million to make, and grossed over $675 million worldwide.

‘The Martian’ made over $630.2 million with a budget of $108 million.

So let’s stop with this nonsense that they can’t make a Trek movie with social/science fiction themes that require a little thinking.

If you’re pinning the box office success of Interstellar and the Martian on environmental themes or science fiction themes you are grossly underestimating both the director and lead actor/s in these films who are all well known box office draws. Both of which are more popular than Star Trek in general. Star Trek doesn’t have the same following as any Matt Damon movie or Christopher Nolan project.

And that’s the problem. Paramount gave ST09 and STID an “A” list budget, but little else. No “A” list stars, Abrams was not really an “A” list director when he did ST09, nor probably even STID.

JJ’s not an A list director, but he only directed the third most profitable movie on the planet.

Why don’t you read what I wrote — Abrams was NOT an A list director when he directed ST09 and STID. There’s no argument now, but he’s not directing Star Trek anymore now is he? Linn is, and he’s arguably an A list director, but strictly for 4 cookie-cutter plot action films. Let’s see what he does with Trek first.

JJ was recommended for tfa by Spielberg himself because he knew what kind of director JJ was so please stop with these semantic arguments about when he became an a lister


Re:JJ was recommended for tfa by Spielberg

And you believe Steven came to the conclusion that JJ was ready to be an A list director because of what? How well JJ cared for Spielberg’s old Super 8s?

Geez, between USED CARS and DEATH BECOMES HER, Zemeckis had a better track record box office wise than Spielberg or anybody, but that wouldn’t make him a great filmmaker in my opinion (even after he made one or two better films later on.) Just because there is box office doesn’t make somebody a good director.

Except for parts of TFA, I haven’t been able to enjoy anything JJ ever directed (or wrote though I don’t know which sliver of ARMAGEDDON he is responsible for), and he falls into the inexplicable success category that really defines contemporary filmmaking for me as, ‘unless it is zero budget, I’m probably staying at home.’

The new Trek movies have out-grossed many of Damon’s movies, and Damon himself wanted to play Kirk, but was deemed too old.

True, but again it’s dollars and cents. It’s $150 million spent on the hopes of an Interstellar or Martian. It’s a BIG gamble. Paramount knows this to be the case.

Then why even make The Martin and Interstellar, or gravity?

The problem is, when the studio gets desperate to capitalize on their only viable franchise to save the studio as its guranteed tenpole money maker, then they begin prostituting it by playing safe and pandering to trends that might guarantee box office. In the end, here are no gurantees. None of the Trek films to date have made the kind of box office Paramount and its investors hoped for, and they were all paint by numbers.


Merchant of Vulcan,

Re:It’s a BIG gamble

It’s a BIG gamble, no matter what the suits do. All they get with all their voodoo is CYA in$urance so that when the next project fails to meet expectations they can point to something (or someone) else to scapegoat their responsibility and keep their perky jobs. Nothing they do actually GUARANTEES a hit.

Merchant of Vulcan Today 9:49 am

True, but again it’s dollars and cents. It’s $150 million spent on the hopes of an Interstellar or Martian. It’s a BIG gamble. Paramount knows this to be the case.

So, we should all support inferior Trek movies because Paramount has determined that they’re safer to make? Think about what you’re saying. If people didn’t settle for bad movies, they wouldn’t be a safe investment.

As opposed to 150 mil spent trying to ape GotG? People already know they’re getting a second one of those, they probably aren’t interesting in TREK trying to pre-empt that.

You mean like Interstellar? Oh wait, that movie did really well at the box office. So much for that theory!

Interstellar did well why? Because of the “deep issues” or the actors/characters and story were intriguing and it had a great emotional impact? I know many people who loved the movie and not one of them said the reason was philosophy or science.

Harry Plinkett,

Re:I know many people who loved the movie [INTERSTELLAR]

Great art rarely hits those that come to appreciate it over the head with a bibliography of what it drew from to achieve its greatness. It is almost universally subtle because most balk at the outright subversion that the next wave often engenders, and artists like to have there stuff noticed for the most part.

Also, you keep claiming that you believe STAR TREK has to evolve but you seem totally ignorant of the many random changes that have to play out for advancement to occur in evolution, something you don’t actually seem able to embrace for STAR TREK as you keep acting as if, somehow, you know in advance which changes will lead to greater success. Well, that’s simply not how evolution happens.

Well Harry, you do now. If the philosophy and science weren’t there, it would be Spielbergian pap, and I wouldn’t have seen it twice (or maybe even once.) I thank God he walked away from this, and while it is far from Nolan’s best, it certainly manages to transcend expectations a number of times.

This movie actually shows how respect for science can be visually engaging (the post-Damon docking bit is awesome even as a standalone.)

And in this instance, Nolan’s insistence on proper visuals really enhanced the storytelling while retaining the good science bent (except for the ludicrous bit about the little waterlogged shuttle being able to lift off and fly back to space under its own power in a high-g gravity well … if it could do that, why do you need a rocket booster to get the single ship up to earth orbit in the first place? THAT is the one huge sticking point for me in INTERSTELLAR, and it isn’t even character related, though I’d like the movie 300% more with Jon Hamm instead of MM.)

Merchant of Vulcan,

Re:Why on Earth

Because that’s what historical original STAR TREK did: defy pedestrian conventional a$$umed limitations of the medium on which it painted its tales. It was the whole reason Roddenberry created it in the first place: to get stories on tv that he wrote for other shows that were scuttled by this same thinking (such as: no one’s going to pay $180,000 an episode for THE CAGE, which STAR TREK went on to defy by getting it’s tale largely intact on the air anyway, over 2 episodes. How has the marvel of that been lost over the years?) that you now advocate we resign ourselves to accept for the movies.

When anything with STAR TREK slapped on it stops, at the very least, TRYING and starts resigning itself to being merely conventional, like everything else, it loses a very essential quality to it that’s made it last lo these 50 years. STAR TREK back then did not eventually persevere and thrive because in was resigned to being like, BATMAN, LOST IN SPACE, VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA, etc. It persevered because it was something different and unique: it was STAR TREK.

And when the majority of its advocates start accepting and preaching resignation for it, STAR TREK stops being what it was and becomes something lesser.

In fairness both Batman and Lost in Space have each themselves endured very well for the past 50 years. And 50 years ago it was much harder to get these stories produced for television. And as you point out Roddenberry was nothing but truly gifted in being able to get Star Trek up and running. But the cost of making these films today is exorbitant. It is difficult to blame Paramount for using what works. If this movie is good then there is nothing to be resigned to, if not there will be January 2017. What happened in 1966 was truly rare and cannot be expected to be easily repeated.

Merchant of Vulcan,

Re:In fairness

What fairness? We are addressing the need some express, reasoning which I don’t particularly share, for these movies. In BOTH CBS’ “Lost In Space” and ABC’s “BATMAN” the first attempts to jump to the motion picture screen from the TV fizzled and went nowhere for both. There hasn’t been another TV show for either for almost half a century or an Adam West Batman movie sequel.

And I have already pointed out the cost of Trek’s TV episodes were exorbitant for Desilu too. Why do you feel you are revealing something new about the expense of making STAR TREK?

And on what basis are you concluding that Paramount suits KNOW what works? TERMINATOR:GENiSYS? The fact that Paramount needs to go up for auction to keep the cash flowing because the TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLE movie they KNEW would work this year, DIDN’T?

Brad Grey only KNOWS how to CHA with voodoo rituals that allow him to slip out from being canned.

Now, for my part I’m glad you hold that 60s TV series endure quite well for the past 50 years as it goes to the heart of what I repudiate: that STAR TREK was dead or that any motion picture in and of itself “saved” it and is absolutely necessary for it to “endure”.


As far as the recent set of films it is curious that many posters are working hard to establish STB as a bad film with very little knowledge at hand. As American mythology Star Trek will endure regardless of fan films, new shows, etc. My point was that Batman and Lost In Space have large followings not that they have generated large amounts of money (although I do believe some work is beginning on a new LIS series so maybe some hope there). Can’t argue your paramount points and as far as expenses of movie production who knows? According to BO Mojo STID costs 190 and grossed 228 domestic, and then made more oversees. Many postings have offerred impressive discourses about how vast the studio losses were regardless. Numbers can be made to say whatever someone wants them to say. In the end Paramount would not continue making these films if they were losing cash. But as deeply entrenched in popular culture as it is Star Trek was and never will be truly dead.

Merchant of Vulcan,

FWIW Pegg was just on LATE NIGHT WITH SETH MEYERS and he said BEYOND was a $200 million picture.

Exactly what part of ‘for all its flaws’ did you not get, Mr. Pinkett? Yes, TOS may indeed be ‘bad actors in goofy costumes flying through space,’ etc., but if you truly believe that’s ALL that it is, may I respectfully ask what the hell it is you’re doing here?

I also stated that I’d begun to entertain hopes for BEYOND in spite of my reservations about Bad Robot Trek. Rest assured that I still fully intend to see the thing on opening day, and if the issues I’ve heard about turn out to be incorrect or even overstated I’ll be happy to say so. Fair enough? But then, some seem to be incapable of letting even nuanced criticism penetrate their little bubbles without tossing out accusations of being a hater or non-fan or some such nonsense. Talk about your drama queens.

@ Michael Hall – Of course I don’t believe that’s all it is but it is in essence a silly sci-fi show that has been brought into the modern era with all the summer popcorn blockbuster status it deserves. What am I doing here? I’m here because, as the name of the site suggests – I’m a fan of TREK MOVIES. Something many here obviously aren’t. They’re stuck in the past which is fine but stop expecting Trek to stay the same. It never has, it never will be, it has always evolved.

There are now going to be 13 of these movies and more or less I’m a fan of them and I’m a fan of them BECAUSE they are light popcorn action/adventure movies. I’ve always said that Trek movies and shows can equally exist to entertain both sides of fandom. I can and do enjoy the deeper issues but I like my shows deep and my movies shallow and fun and my point has always been that the movies will never be more than light action movies that can have some essence of deeper issue as long as it doesn’t get ahead of the action, characters, and plot. And I love these new actors, I like them more than the original cast because, other than Nimoy, they are BETTER actors than the original cast.

Hmm. Interesting that you can appreciate the TOS movies with those poor actors, and the JJ reboots with their silly (i.e. based on TOS) costumes. Well, to each his own. I like popcorn just fine, and so long as BEYOND doesn’t insult my intelligence the way, say, Trek 2009 did, I’m perfectly willing to enjoy it on its own terms. We’re definitely agreed that none of the films are anywhere near as deep or memorable as the best TV episodes, and you take them for what they’re worth. But I still see no reason why a successful Trek film can’t be epic AND fun AND great science fiction / drama.

Boy, Plinkett, you’ve made a lot of questionable comments (along with some – I admit it – levelheaded observations), but saying these people are better actors than the originals is nutso. Urban is good, but if he had gotten the right roles, Kelley could have been Jimmy Stewart. And Shatner, when well directed, is magic on screen (let me know when his successor in the role manages to deliver a THE INTRUDER level performance, okay?), whereas Pine is … balsa, wholly not credible in this role. Doohan was a pretty solid actor as well, though the rest of the originals were only adequate most of the time (when were they asked to deliver the goods?), so your claim of these guys being better actors just seems ludicrous.

Cygnus, I don’t see a problem with this being a movie about the characters with the plot being secondary (if that is in fact the case), because that is the saving grace of most middle-of-the-road TOS eps, and the reason I always keep TFF (along with TMP and TWOK) at the top of my TREK rewatch list. TFF remains the only Trek movie out of the whole batch that actually had me leave the theater opening day with a grin on my face, as it delivered what I had always wanted to see (K/S/M), rather than the stuff they felt obliged to deliver (VFX.)

kmart Today 7:06 am

I take your point about enjoying what you can in a movie or TV episode. Though, I’d expect that many if not most people were hoping for something better from STAR TREK BEYOND than a middling or poor TOS episode, or what is widely regarded as a one of the most disappointing movies (TFF). And, just a word about TFF. Yes, that movie is goofy in quite a few places and I’d regard it as a failure on the whole, but it did something very important and fundamentally Trek-like, which STB appears not to have done: it tried very hard to be about something meaningful and thought-provoking. TFF takes on no less than God, the meaning of life, the whole of religion, the effects of psychological trauma, cults and cult-leaders. So even amidst the poorly executed goofiness, TFF gives you plenty to think about.

@kmart Pretty much agree with you there. Lots of TOS eps (e.g. “Bread and Circuses”) that get by mostly on the crew interactions, the whimsy and fun, and the good will generated by much better shows. If BEYOND succeeds on that level, I’m more than willing to go along for the ride. In truth, I’m long since past hoping for something on the level of “The Menagerie” or “City” from these films. But I still really don’t–can’t–understand why Paramount doesn’t do themselves proud by giving us Trek at its best, instead of Trek that’s only slightly above average.

This movie would have to stink to high heaven to be as bad as Final Frontier to me.

Michael Hall Today 3:35 am


Hear, hear… And you’ve raised a good point therein, which I was just contemplating yesterday. If I were the head producer on a Trek movie, I’d hire writers to firstly write a script that could stand on its own as a short-story in print. A story interesting, compelling and intriguing enough that the actual story would conceptually grab the audience, and have them flipping through the pages at a rapid clip. Then, I might bring in an additional writer to adapt that story for the screen and turn it into a modern sci-fi movie. This is kind of what happened with TWOK, and why that movie turned out so great. TWOK went through a several writing stages, with different authors all writing their own, best story, and then Nick Meyer came in and cobbled the best themes and elements from all of the versions together into a sort of greatest hits final story that we know today as the best Star Trek movie ever made.

With regard to your interrogative about what Harry Plinkett is doing here. I’ve actually been wondering where he came from, myself. He seems to have materialized recently to put down criticism of STB. But, regardless, it’s worth pointing out that several people here have actually taken issue with the premise of critiquing the story of STAR TREK BEYOND, dismissing such criticisms as mere “nitpicking.” The same thing happened with STID. Why can’t you people just stop nitpicking and enjoy the movie? And, I have to admit that your question to Harry Plinkett has arisen in my own mind on more than one occasion with regard to people who think that it’s trivial nitpicking to raise issues relating to the story in a Trek movie. I mean, THE STORY, for chrissakes!! But, this is what it’s come to with these Bad Robot Movies. Themes, schmemes! Character arcs? Who needs ’em! Like you, I cannot but wonder what attracted such people to Star Trek in the first place.

SF literature is chockablock with stories that could serve as the basis of an excellent ST outing, much as Frederick Brown’s “Arena” did for TOS. (Well, kinda sorta.). I’d love to see someone give that approach s shot, though I doubt very much that someone would be J.J. Abrams.

I’m 100% with you on this MH, as I’d far rather see a great existing SF premise portrayed onscreen, than some inferior mishmash of ideas cobbled together by wannabe scriptwriters! There’s been too many examples of poorly thought out storylines greenlit by Hollywood over the years, unfortunately.

Oh I’ve been around my dear Cygnus, lurking, watching, shaking my head in disbelief. How dare there be people who propose waiting to see the movie and forming their own opinion before assuming the movie is bad. Cherry picking bad reviews is a poor excuse to slam a movie that you personally haven’t seen because it fits your agenda that BR movies are inherently bad and will never be anything other than bad.

I don’t put down criticism of the movie, I put down unwarranted criticism. It’s one thing to say that this or that makes you concerned but you yourself are on a mission to destroy a movie you haven’t seen. I don’t care what reviewers say, I disagree with many over many years on many different movies. Some I agree with but that agreement or disagreement comes AFTER I’VE SEEN THE MOVIE! You seem to want to conveniently skip that part because you don’t like these new movies and this new timeline. That’s your prerogative but I will call out extreme negativity where it’s unwarranted and if you can’t handle that then I’m going to be a thorn in your side and your like minded lemmings around here for quite a while.

Harry Plinkett July 17, 2016 6:11 pm

Well, I’ve read about a dozen reviews and listened to the very detailed, 1-hr “Engage” review. Pretty much without exception, everything I’ve seen and heard about this movie conforms with my suspicions. Lack of a meaningful central theme—CHECK. Excessive action at the expense of drama—CHECK. And, notwithstanding the comments about the character moments in the movie, I have yet to see a review praising the character development or arcs in the movie. All of the “character” praise has been about witty banter and camaraderie between the characters, which would be fine for me in the context of a meaningful, theme-driven story, but not in lieu of one.

ST09 had no central theme, mostly one-dimensional characters (except Spock) with no development, and a weakly motivated villain. After the disappointment of ST09, I gave its sequel the benefit of the doubt. I waited patiently and was heartened by promises that STID would “go deeper” into characters and story, and actually have a central, Trek-like theme. But, instead, STID repeated the exact, same flaws of ST09 (plus it added a new one in its overly convoluted plot). Fool me once, fool me twice… that’s it for me. I’m not waiting again like a good little Paramount supporter for a movie that has every appearance of being just as disappointing—and in the same ways—as the previous two, just to find myself nonplussed yet again at watching the movie and seeing how no attempt was made to address the main problems that fans like me have been complaining about for the past 7 years. No, I’m going ahead with my discussion of the movie rather than be fooled yet again. You can do whatever the hell you like. You don’t like my thoughts and opinions? Don’t read them.

Michael Hall Today 3:35 am

I’m listening to that “Engage” review now, and about 1/3 of the way in they’re actually justifying the fact that STAR TREK BEYOND has a “pretty thin plot” (several other reviews have remarked that the STB story is ultimately empty and meaningless), on the grounds that it doesn’t distract you from your time spent with Kirk, Spock and McCoy, their banter and so forth.

“So thin that you don’t care” are his exact words describing the plot of STB. They also echo the critique about the villain being weakly motivated and a generic “baddie”, but again they justify it as a good thing on the grounds that it lets you spend more time with Kirk, Spock and McCoy.

And that’s followed by them likening Kirk, Spock and McCoy in STB to the “Fast & Furious” characters hanging around in a garage, demonstrating their camaraderie. All this from a review posted a StarTrek.com, btw:


So the true greatness of Beyond might be that it doesnt get in its own way like the awful story from STID. I can appreciate that.

FYI not related to this artical star trek is back on TV. the Heros and icon channel will air all five star trek series starting on sunday July 24th if you have comcast it on channel 291 and wowway it on channel 132 see your listing for times of each series on this network.

They are all on Netflix here in Canada right now too.

Is it HD or SD? Even though I have it on Netflix in HD, I like watching it on MeTV OTA in SD, as my TV will crop it to 16:9. It’s amazing how cinematic it looks, and how little is lost by such tight widescreen framing. The rumor was that CBS had a 16:9 crop created when the remastered TOS (as the exterior FX shots were all 16:9), though I’ve never seen proof that it’s ever been distributed that way (aside from the version that was mixed 4:3 live action/16:9 fx). I would love to see how CBS handled a few of the shots where some reframing was definitely necessary. I always thought it would have been fun to bring in the original directors for all those episodes to create widescreen crops, but I’m sure most of them are dead now unfortunately.

Curious Cadet,

In SoCal its OTA on 13-4 at the same sd as MeTV.

CURIOUS … How can distorting the original aspect ratio be considered cinematic at all, when it is misrepresenting the intent of the makers? Do you just cut off the parts of the painting that don’t fit in your shiny new frame?

I gotta agree with CC on this, as the free-to-view ‘CBS Action’ channel shown here in the UK happens to ‘stretch’ it’s remastered Original Series episodes to a 16:9 ratio…and it makes things look more ‘cinematic’-looking as he says. Sure, it’s a slight distortion of the original ratio, but I prefer to watch it this way for the additional ‘movie’-like impact it offers, despite any distortion overall.

cerv, then you’re not using ‘cinematic’ correctly. Are you saying CITIZEN KANE would be more cinematic in widescreen even though it was composed for roughly 4:3? Would there be more cinematic oompf to MAUDE’s decision to have an abortion if the top & bottom of the frame got masked off to fit your TV’s dimensions, or, even worse was STRETCHED to do so?

That you can think of this as a ‘slight’ distortion says a lot too. I guess this happens to folks who watched old paula abdul videos which were intentionally stretched vertically to make her look thinner.

@ kmart – I’m only using the terms ‘cinematic-looking’ and ‘movie-like’ in the sense that the 16:9 more closely matches the shape of a theatre’s big screen when I go to see a movie. I never watch any kind of ‘stretched’ tv setting which would actually cut any of the frame off at the top and bottom (or sides in some instances), and am only willing to watch a 4:3 show ‘stretched’ in a manner which doesn’t lose any of the frame picture whatsoever.

It’s not for everyone, but yes, I definately would be content to watch the likes CITIZEN KANE in this way for a more ‘movie-like’ framing…and that goes for ALL OTHER 4:3 ratio material too. Personally, I can live with the distortion as a compromise.


I think what kmart is concerned with is this obsession consumers have in attempting to force everything to conform to a 16:9 frame, something that was merely arrived by government committee. If you spend any time in photo or art museums, you soon realize that framing and bordering are part of displaying a piece of art to best effect. And stretching or cutting it because you want it to conform to your 16:9 frame is destructive of the work’s beauty as the artist originally constructed it to appear.

To me it seems like some sort of 16:9 cult has arisen and it boggles that people are nigh on close to ripping out all their non-conforming windows and mirrors in their homes and cars and replacing them with “proper” 16:9 cut ones.

Also part of the problem may also be that many of these 4:3 cinematic works of art are being transcribed to video with absolutely no thought being given to giving them a proper photographic border, when one arises, and which would be default white and not black based on most photographic art that I’ve seen displayed. Assuming there’s an artistic reason for art galleries to predominantly use that, perhaps that’s why the black borders perturb many so?

I get Dish lol. Anyway I signed up to Netflix again to watch all of Star Trek again. Been watching episodes from TOS to Enterprise and all in between. Its always fun to watch Trek again when you havent seen them in awhile.

Once Beyond is released I am VERY eager to hear what Bob Orci thinks about it and if allowed what his story was, simply for curiosity and comparison sake.

Could Hemsworth be playing James T. Kirk’s brother, George Samuel Kirk (killed in “Operation: Annihilate!”) I wonder?

Paramount released a new clip about Krall that contains MAJOR SPOILERS!!!



Interesting. I’m guessing this has to do with a scene I’ve seen where McCoy uses that portable roll-out internal scanner.

I’m actually stunned they released this … Except I think they may be concerned that they need to make sure that audiences recognize more than just a name in the credits.

@Curious Cadet,

I’m shocked as well. From my understanding from the various reviews, the revelation concerning Krall’s true identity comes near the very end of the movie. This is like releasing “My name is Khan” clip from STID but tenfold worse.

Has anybody seen that clip where Kirk calls for “shields up”? I was a little dissapointed as he doesn’t sound that confident. Maybe it’s the vocal register Pine speaks in, but it sure sounds like he’s scared and unsure, and not the Kirk I would expect 2 years into a 5 year mission after saving the Earth twice … Reminds me of Spock from the Pilots, yelling things when he should be calmly conveying them…

Except for the light humor stuff and one word at the end of 09, Pine has missed pretty much every beat as Kirk. He doesn’t have the gravitas to be credible as THIS guy. It is easier for me to imagine him playing Charlie X Evans than Kirk, to be honest. Cmon Pine, go to your quarters or I’ll pick you up and carry you there (perfect example of a great shat moment that Pine couldn’t touch in a million years.)

And the argument that this is different timeline/verse/Kirk can’t hold too much water, since he still winds up in command of the E, despite not showing much of the something special that real Kirk nearly always had.

I agree with you guys. Im actually very optimistic about what I hear about Beyond. But this wussy Kirk has sucked. It shows film makers that dont really get Kirk. he’s very complicated. While he does question himself, its in more existential ways. When he’s in that chair, he’s either very confident or he acts very confident. Period. I want to see the master tactician. the guy who is thinking 12 steps ahead of everyone else/