Star Trek Beyond (2016) (1 Viewer)

[George_W_K]

I saw it in an RPX theater, Regal's pseudo-IMAX "premium" theater, and there were no light issues for me either.

I saw it last night in RPX (3D) and it was dark. Looked like when I lamp is nearing the end of its life cycle. I don't know how theaters operate, but the showing before in the same house was a non-3D presentation and I wonder if the lamp settings are different for each and maybe it wasn't set brighter for the 3D?

Either way, I should have gone to the IMAX screen like I usually do, but this theater was more convenient for my friend so I chose RPX.

 

[FanCollector]

I hope you'll indulge me in a little analytical thinking about Beyond. It seems to be succeeding as a fun action picture with a little angst from Kirk about his role and the value of his mission and Spock's desire to go help rebuild his world.

One friend really trashed the movie for repeating the same old, same old. That Krall was like a line of villains we've seen before. An angry guy who wanted to take revenge against Starfleet: Nero, redux Khan and now Krall.

But I was thinking about that. Just based on only one viewing of the movie, and from what I could tell, as has been discussed, Krall's dialogue is hard to understand. But my impression is that Jung and Simon Pegg were trying to tell an allegorical story about home grown terrorism. It just had the unfortunate need to have a bad guy that resembled other bad guys. Krall was a Starfleet guy who suddenly had to do something that he eventually disliked and then circumstances led to the destruction of his crew. So he blames Starfleet. What do you guys think?

I think you're right about their intent. It's also significant that the villain in this case had been a soldier and was not comfortable with the new peaceful order in which cooperative exploration became his mandate. (Obviously the script was written before the Brexit vote, but I think we know how Krall would have cast his ballot...) Krall has a lot in common, obviously, with Captain Garth.

The characters repeatedly debate the relative strength or weakness of "unity" in the movie, and it seemed that one of Pegg and Jung's major themes is that diversity and unity are necessary to accomplishing goals. Kirk's final escape and then his conversation with the commodore seem to settle once and for all that Krall is mistaken about unity being a weakness.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I think the unity theme is important. I think there's also s secondary theme of "what happens when the fighting is over".

We learn that Krall wasn't originally Starfleet, that he was part of the military organization that preceded Starfleet. They won the wars that led to the peaceful creation of Starfleet, and this proud warrior was told to go forth in peace and make friends with people he had spent a lifetime opposing. When he confronts the Enterprise crew later, he argues that humanity was at its best as a warrior race, and the the existence of peace is an illusion. In his own way, he believes he's helping humanity. Here's a guy who wanted to fight a war but couldn't live with the consequences of winning it.

We know from the film that being on that planet, the nebula can block a lot of transmissions. Krall probably assumed that Starfleet was making a choice not to rescue him, when the truth is they never got his distress call. And he probably felt anger at sacrificing his crew for no real purpose. If Starfleet had focused on fighting instead of exploration, he wouldn't have been in that spot. It's an extemely twisted way of looking at his situation, but we've seen captains go mad before.

As I write this, I can't help but think of Christopher Plummer's Chang from Star Trek VI, when during the dinner party he said that his generation would have the hardest time living in the new world they helped to create. That seems to apply to Krall too. He couldn't live in the peaceful universe his fighting had helped to bring about. At one point Kirk tells him that he's already won, but he can't accept that.

 

[Johnny Angell]

But my impression is that Jung and Simon Pegg were trying to tell an allegorical story about home grown terrorism. It just had the unfortunate need to have a bad guy that resembled other bad guys. Krall was a Starfleet guy who suddenly had to do something that he eventually disliked and then circumstances led to the destruction of his crew. So he blames Starfleet. What do you guys think?

I think you may be right. Another point to take from this is that Krall was an extremist but not a religious extremist. Perhaps the scriptwriters are saying religion isn't the real problem, extremism is.

 

[joshEH]

TrekCore has posted a nice article explaining where the USS Franklin fits into what we know of 22nd-century Star Trek history:

http://www.trekcore.com/blog/2016/07/heres-where-the-franklin-fits-in-the-star-trek-timeline/

Some highlights:

The NX-Beta, of which Archer and colleague A.G. Robinson piloted on the first Warp 2.5 flight, occurred in 2143 ("First Flight"), narrowing down the launch window of the Franklin to between that time and the NX-01’s maiden voyage in 2151.
...

And if you think this is just our speculation, worry not: we got a note from Dylan Highsmith, one of the lead picture editors on STAR TREK BEYOND, about this very issue:

If you want the official explanation on the Franklin and it's warp factor: it was a M.A.C.O. ship (or a United Earth Starfleet ship that housed M.A.C.O. personnel at times) that predates the NX-01.

When the UFP Starfleet is formed, M.A.C.O. was disbanded, and the ship was reclassified as a Starfleet ship [with the USS identifier]. The ship is then "lost" in the early 2160's.

 

[Johnny Angell]

The more I think of it the more Krall seems like a self-radicalized asshole (i.e. terrorist). His big move was going to be an attack on civilians, not a strategic battle. He only had a military battle to enable his terrorist goals. It wasn't clear to me but was that weapon cable of multi-uses or one time only? If one-time only that really makes him a terrorist. He was also willing to be a suicide bomber in order to accomplish his goal. Again, that makes him a terrorist.

A question: how many times has the Enterprise been destroyed now? You'd think they'd think twice about giving Kirk command of a starship named Enterprise.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I think the weapon could be utilized multiple times. His original goal was to destroy the population at the station, and then use the technology at the station (including other starships) to help him spread and amplify it's use. Ultimately he wanted to wipe out other Federation planets with it, shattering the alliance between worlds and sending the galaxy into war.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I saw it last night in RPX (3D) and it was dark. Looked like when I lamp is nearing the end of its life cycle. I don't know how theaters operate, but the showing before in the same house was a non-3D presentation and I wonder if the lamp settings are different for each and maybe it wasn't set brighter for the 3D?

Yeah, I don't like 3D, with rare exceptions, so I went to a non-3D screening.

 

[George_W_K]

Yeah, I don't like 3D, with rare exceptions, so I went to a non-3D screening.

I couldn't go until a late showing so 3D was it if I wanted RPX. Normally, I don't care if I see it in 3D either, although IMAX 3D isn't bad. I've changed my opinion on home viewing though when I picked up my OLED tv earier this year, home 3D really surprised me at how good it is.

 

[Johnny Angell]

I couldn't go until a late showing so 3D was it if I wanted RPX. Normally, I don't care if I see it in 3D either, although IMAX 3D isn't bad. I've changed my opinion on home viewing though when I picked up my OLED tv earier this year, home 3D really surprised me at how good it is.

It's kind of sad when the home 3D experience is better than the theater. I think I could easily see fewer movies in the theater, but my wife had to see this. I saw it at our only imax and thought it seemed too dark.

 

[Tino]

My local 3D theaters have all been great. Guess it depends on the theater you go to. Here in the nyc area I'm more than satisfied.

 

[Wayne_j]

I would hope that the NYC area would have good 3D, they have the highest ticket prices in the country.

 

[Nelson Au]

Guys, I've been enjoying the deconstruction of the film, good discourse about Krall. It's been difficult to really embrace this reboot for me. But this film has some good bits and themes and what appears to be a character based on current affairs. So some things to chew on. This makes me want to revisit the first film to look for anything there.

How many times has the Enterprise been destroyed? Star Trek 3 was the first time. Generations was the second time when the D was destroyed. The Enterprise E was wrecked, but not destroyed. So it seems Beyond is the third time it's destroyed and the saucer has a similar crash landing.

 

[AshJW]

Finally my favorite cinema will show it in 2D, so Friday will I be in.

 

[Bryan^H]

3-D is nearly dead at my theater. I always pick a 3D feature if it is available. Now all 3D movies have only two showings(I remember there being 4 screenings per day when I saw Mad Max Fury Road) and they are relegated to the early bird special, or the red eye showings. in the case of Star Trek Beyond 11:00 AM, and 10:35 PM Add to that an abbreviated 3-D window. They used to play for a few weeks. now usually unavailable after the first full week of showings. Pretty terrible.

 

[Tino]

3-D is nearly dead at my theater. I always pick a 3D feature if it is available. Now all 3D movies have only two showings(I remember there being 4 screenings per day when I saw Mad Max Fury Road) and they are relegated to the early bird special, or the red eye showings. in the case of Star Trek Beyond 11:00 AM, and 10:35 PM Add to that an abbreviated 3-D window. They used to play for a few weeks. now usually unavailable after the first full week of showings. Pretty terrible.

At my local AMC almost all the showings are in 3D with only 2 regular 2D showings per day.

 

[Tino]

Did everyone get the pin at their AMC screenings?

 

[Joel Fontenot]

Guys, I've been enjoying the deconstruction of the film, good discourse about Krall. It's been difficult to really embrace this reboot for me. But this film has some good bits and themes and what appears to be a character based on current affairs. So some things to chew on. This makes me want to revisit the first film to look for anything there.

How many times has the Enterprise been destroyed? Star Trek 3 was the first time. Generations was the second time when the D was destroyed. The Enterprise E was wrecked, but not destroyed. So it seems Beyond is the third time it's destroyed and the saucer has a similar crash landing.

Agreed on the Enterprise over the years. This is only the third time. She's been beat to heck many more times, including both prior NuTrek films, but this is its first outright destruction beyond repair in the new timeline.

 

[todd s]

Again...Why not show Andorians and Tellarites?

Tino, I did get a pin...Even though I went to the regular showing.

 

[Johnny Angell]

Guys, I've been enjoying the deconstruction of the film, good discourse about Krall. It's been difficult to really embrace this reboot for me. But this film has some good bits and themes and what appears to be a character based on current affairs. So some things to chew on. This makes me want to revisit the first film to look for anything there.

How many times has the Enterprise been destroyed? Star Trek 3 was the first time. Generations was the second time when the D was destroyed. The Enterprise E was wrecked, but not destroyed. So it seems Beyond is the third time it's destroyed and the saucer has a similar crash landing.

If there was an E Enterprise, that means 4 previous enterprises? We've accounted for 3, what happened to the 4th?