Thinking it's bad is one thing. Calling it the worst ST film, or anything close, is a different beast entirely.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Star Trek: Beyond - Review Thread
- Thread starter Future Foundation
- Start date
- Status
brandonh83
Banned
I don't do that though and I've never said his films were perfect.
Hey, I'm with you, man. '09 and ID are easily in my top five Trek movies, '09 might be number 1. I love the reboot films, and super excited for Beyond.
Because science has proven it's the fourth worst? Third best?
I mean, that's the problem. I'm fine with someone not liking the film. It's obvious upon first viewing the shortcomings the film had.
Creating some sort of alternate universe where the film is considered to be the worst by the masses is a bit misleading.
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
STID whitewashes an established character.
It's pretty down among the worst, though.
Please quote the post that says that.
Also you seem obsessed with "the masses" and not viewing a film on its own merits.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
Who said anything about the masses?
One of many things wrong with the movie.
But Cumberbatch brings the cash.
It's not this thread, but there have been multiple instances where here on GAF, people will claim that the film was universally panned for some reason.
Maybe you guys are unclear on this discussion? It's been pretty straightforward.
AngmarsKing701
Member
I enjoyed the first two. Sounds like this one is less dark and more fun than Darkness, which sounds great. Perfect summer movie.
AmaterasuOni
Banned
Going to see Star Trek on Tuesday. Can't wait. I'm a huge ST-nerd. I even kinda liked Darkness.
No, I'm just saying those statements are very different.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
The movie was loved by most critics. What of it?
Doesn't change that I think the movie was poop.
It was a silly but very fun film, imo.
It's funny you say that because most of your replies put words into people's mouths then argue with whatever's in your head.
Sure.
I've been following along with you. Don't think I've made your points to be any different from your responses.
You mean a guy named Khan played by a guy named Ricardo?
As great as he was in the role, let's not act like it wasn't problematic that he was cast as a guy named Khan too.
I didn't care for thst much either. Speaking of Bond, it was very similar to the revelation in Spectre in terms of impact for the audience.
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
1967 vs. 2013.
Yeah, that wasn't good. But lets not kid ourselves, Khan was already an Indian character played by a Hispanic man. Not exactly a shining beacon for racial inclusion or awareness.
Noted. Just weird people no sell that both actors are problematic in the role on the surface. Like if Benedict doesn't work, how does Ricardo?
orthodoxy1095
Banned
Montalbán's casting wasn't perfect, but we're talking about a time when Roddenberry faced many barriers to representation in his work. Getting someone of color to play a character of color was a success itself, even if we wouldn't want things done that way now.
Into Darkness was made in 2013. There really wasn't a good reason to not cast someone who looked the role of a North Indian Sikh.
That said, if you look back at the episode Space Seed, the only person who said he was a Sikh was a historian speculating, and the only other proof was the painting Khan looked at which seemed to show him in a dastar. The point wasn't that he was a Sikh. The point was that in 1967, aired a few months before Loving v. Virginia, Roddenberry sent Star Trek out onto national television to basically posit that if a geneticist took all of the best DNA from earth to make the perfect human, he wouldn't be a white guy. That was a grand statement and the exact racial or ethnic background wasn't the point.
And what is Khan in Into Darkness?
Just another perfect white dude.
I don't get how that is relevant to your argument. You said ID treated its characters badly by whitewashing Khan...who was already whitewashed in the first place.
Nemesis had Picard driving around a pre-warp world killing the local inhabitants. Insurrection had Data making boob jokes and Worf going through Klingon puberty. V had the ENTIRE crew of the Enterprise chose to betray Kirk, except for Spock and Bones who were supposed to but Nemoy and Kelly refused. And these are just a few examples from a long list of Star Trek movie character assassinations.
I don't see how ID betrayed its characters any worse (or nearly as bad) than Stat Trek has done before.
Great, post some links. I'd like to see it.
Chezzymann
Member
Dash_Riprock
Member
I thought Spectre was so piss-awful everyone immediately forgave Skyfall's faults?
I said Star Trek fans, you said masses. And I have proof.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/aug/14/star-trek-into-darkness-voted-worst
orthodoxy1095
Banned
I dunno, some people seem to think he's pretty perfect. He has a pretty big following that's hot for him!
I obviously didn't mean Cumberbatch himself, I meant he was portraying a genetically "perfect" dude!
I'd say that is likely news to a majority of fans.
It's sacrilege, but I don't think The Wrath of Khan is an amazing movie. I do think it's good. It's big, flashy, and blockbustery for the time, but it's no better or worse than Star Trek '09 or Into Darkness. There are certainly bad Trek movies, but the Abrams films don't qualify. I don't subscribe to rankings or scores, but I think there are more entertaining Trek movies than bad ones. Even Nemesis, as stupid as that fucking movie is, wasn't terrible. It was mediocre, but I've seen legit dogshit movies.
The only one I remember being genuinely disappointed in was Insurrection, because I just found it really boring. It wasn't as interesting as the plot wanted it to be, which I did think was an interesting plot.
Ultimately, this shit is all subjective anyway. People love and hate different things. I guess I'm just one of those dudes that doesn't subscribe to "I don't like thing, therefore thing must be dogshit," philosophy. I just think it's a lazy way to express a negative opinion about something (not saying everyone that dislikes things do that, of course).
News to you. Pretty big story among Star Trek fans when it came out because of Simon Pegg's "Fuck you" response.
I'm not a Star Trek fan? I mean, I wouldn't consider myself a Trekkie or find myself at a convention. Don't believe a healthy portion would either.
MHWilliams
Member
Huh.
Then Star Trek fans are wrong.
This is the list:
13. Star Trek Into Darkness
12. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
11. Star Trek Insurrection
10. Star Trek Nemesis
9. Star Trek: The Motion Picture
8. Star Trek Generations
7. Galaxy Quest
6. Star Trek (2009)
5. Star Trek III: The Search For Spock
4. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
3. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
2. Star Trek: First Contact
1. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Final Frontier, Insurrection, Nemesis? Final Frontier is dire, Insurrection is a bad episode of the show stretched to movie length, and Nemesis is everything you could possibly say about Into Darkness's faults, done worse. Hell, I have issues with Search for Spock coming in before 2009. It screams fans prizing nostalgia over actual quality.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
Faraci nailed why it belongs there.
You mean it's shortsighted, nostalgia-tinged, reactionary based nonsense committed at a convention level? No way that could ever happen.
Made badly? The film is fucking gorgeous, and at least moves alone at a good clip. V also isn't original in the least, its story had been done before in Star Trek.
MHWilliams
Member
Nah. I'd still put it ahead of FF, Nemesis, and Insurrection. They are horrible films. Seriously. Into Darkness is watchable.
My list is probably:
1. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
2. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
3. Star Trek (2009)
4. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
5. Star Trek: First Contact
6. Galaxy Quest
7. Star Trek III: The Search For Spock
8. Star Trek Generations
9. Star Trek: The Motion Picture
10. Star Trek Into Darkness
11. Star Trek Insurrection
12. Star Trek Nemesis
13. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
Getting away from trying to penalize it for treading the same ground, STID is a legitimately better film than the bottom three. Insurrection is a toss-up, but it's goddamn boring.
I'm not sure I'd put it at #2 but it would definitely be in the Top 5.
I mean, Galaxy Quest is on that list.
As good as that film is, a certain extent of objectivity went out the window on that note. It's a fan convention list through and through
I don't think it's worth using as a piece of evidence for either argument
As good as that film is, a certain extent of objectivity went out the window on that note. It's a fan convention list through and through
I don't think it's worth using as a piece of evidence for either argument
I understand peoples' appreciation for it, and I like it ok. Easily best Next Gen movie. But I wouldn't put it near 2. Maybe 5 or 6.
This feels like a variant of the similar issue that is plaguing Ghostbusters right now.
I don't see giving Final Frontier brownie points, when you have a franchise struggling to stay afloat. They are employing common franchise tactics. Provide fan service and reach out to bring in broader audiences.
Yeah. I liked it quite a bit.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
Bunch of people buying the new $50 Ghostbusters game just to neg it on Steam.
cubicle47b
Member
I just finished watching the Inside the Box review for Star Trek Fontiers and got excited for a moment until I realized this was about Beyond.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
Meh, I'd accept that listing.
Like I said, I think it's a bottom of the barrel in terms of the franchise. That ranking and your ranking both put it in the bottom third.
Looking gorgeous isn't the mark of a good movie or Tron: Legacy would be a good movie.
What about the clip is good? It's just a standard summer blockbuster barrage to the sense.
- Status