I had just watched the TNG 2-parter Time's Arrow (where they find Data's head in a cavern on Earth that had not been touched for 500 years, and they end up going back in time to meet Mark Twain), and that two part episode had more intellectually stimulating ideas and dilemmas than all the recent Trek reboot films.

I have to say I enjoyed the writing of the individual trek characters better this time. Pegg and whoever else helped him write it seem to understand the inner workings of the interpersonal relationships that make people love Trek. The failures were more in terms of the plot devices. (plus I HATE it that they feel like they have to destroy the enterprise in every fucking movie.)

I think the whole speculative/moral dilemma/evolutionary philosophy angle of the original Star Trek and most of its greatest incarnations is a bit lost on the modern era. Deep down, beneath the make-up and the impossible space explosions and action scenes, Star Trek is a whip smart commentary on the nature of humanity, and how war — and, more sugnificantly, peace — fit into the dream of an eventual and improbable utopia.

Looking back at Roddenberry's original storylines and characters, it's all about the importance of peace, and the distinctly non-military way in which peace might ideally be maintained by a semi-military force. Its truly defining plot points often deal with disastrous mistakes made in this fictional future during the 20th and 21st centuries, i.e. NOW. The greatest Star Trek moments concern themselves with issues of friendship, camaraderie, compromise, the measured resourcefulness of a group of post-conflict peace-keepers and meaning of "humanity" itself. Some of the best moments come from pure dialogue, instead of raw action. Some of the most powerful scenes depict a these peace-keepers as the weigh the pros and cons of breaking the peace in various trying situations, and the greatest virtue of it is that they almost never resort to violence when good, sensible governance could be used to achieve the same goal.

I think this stuff is just a bit too boring for the audiences they're trying to reach. They've mostly abandoned these elements for the new films. In the hands of JJ Abrams, I think it was a match made in heaven. That man has always wanted to make Star Trek. Look at LOST, and tell me the same themes of governance at the edge of civilization (the "frontier") aren't firmly in place throughout the series. But Abrams is being tapped as a "turnaround artist" for flailing franchises, the Mitt Romney of sci-fi cinema. And his talents as a storyboarder, produced, director and creator are being pushed aside by his ability to reliable make blockbusters.

In his hands, I think the new Star Trek films would have eventually found their footing. But now, if this movie really is a disappointment, then I'm afraid it may be the end of the line for Star Trek in cinema.

Though I think a modern film with the TNG cast would definitely draw in some bucks. Those TNG kids are the world's biggest nerds. For serious. They'd pay millions just to see a 2010s Patrick Stewart "make it so."

Anyway. What the fuck were we taking about again? Oh yeah, LOST! LOST was great. ;)

Hah! Yeah. That poor ship! I mean, just the events of the TNG episode "Cause and Effect" alone see (or imply) the destruction of then Enterprise-D, like, 20 fucking times.

But, y'know, it's always destroyed, rebuilt, destroyed, rebuilt. And I think it's only happened in three movies, if you count Beyond. I know it was blown to shit in Search for Spock and Generations, but I think the rest of the time it merely sustained some heavy damage, from, I don't know, plummeting to Eart's surface or some such thing.

Tell me (and don't worry about spoilers because I don't give a shit, I'll always love Star Trek) ... does the Enterprise "return" in some form at the end of the movie? Or do they manage to rebuild it somehow? It would be really hard to imagine a 50th anniversary film that didn't end with the/a(n) Enterprise soaring off to boldly go do stuff. :)

I do like that poster, and the fact that it pays tribute to the 1979 film.

you better believe it returns!

I do. I do believe.

i was gonna say "it has its moments" and then i went looking for a review and found ebert saying in 1983 "it has its moments"

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/d-c-cab-1983

and i agree mainly with everything he says there, but i'd add

1) just like it wasn't about taxis it wasn't about dc except you get to recognize some landmarks. the movie doesn't reflect dc culture. but the zones do get a mention (now they use meters)

2) it was probably funnier in 1983 than in 2016

but yes, it has its moments. i laughed the most when i spotted some bush in that woman who runs out to what seems to be the old H street NE (decades before hipsterization, i wonder how it looks like today)

i watched police academy for the first time the other day. i have no idea how i made it so many years without watching it. i prefer watching comedies to other genres.

i must say michael winslow (the guy that does SFX with his voice) is brilliant. i want him in every movie ever. no movie without michael winslow.

agree here.

I would like to mention historic Star Trek move toward LGBT community and portraing famous captain Sulu as a gay in the last Star Trek instalment which I found unnecessary plus funny, but hey...what should I say.

nice scenes and action, plot pretty much same.

Beastie Boys and Public Enemy!

edit...i was surprised to see Simon Pegg as one of the script writers. I do not why, I just did. just checked imdb. he is writting alright. hmm. but Star Trek?

the original script for the Trek Beyond movie was even more actgion packed and had very little interpersonal interactions. Pegg and his buddy rewrote the script to its final form.

Came across this film distribution co. on Vimeo. Artspoitation. After every trailer, I think, "Yeah, I'd watch that."

https://vimeo.com/artsploitation/videos

Pegg was the major driving force behind the movie. It had production troubles early on when Abrams left, and Pegg initially quit. It took meeting with the director (what's his ass from Fast and Furious part 9,000) for him to change his mind. Can't imagine why, but I guess he saw a fellow Trek nerd in... y'know... what's his ass.

But Pegg's writing credit was one of the first big pieces of news surrounding the film. I'm surprised you didn't know about it.

the h8full eight.. i really digged it. kinda slow burn build up but i love kurt russel and sam jackson so im cool with that

the h8full eight.. i really digged it. kinda slow burn build up but i love kurt russel and sam jackson so im cool with that.

it was prototypical Tarantino flick. the dialogue was witty, snarky, yet sophisticated. the plot was like a subverted Gabriel Garcia Marquez magical realism, like magical urbanism.. a blend of the criminally psychotic with a gentile politeness, what was so superb about Pulp Fiction.

i felt like it was Pulp Fiction meets Inglorious Bastards set in the west however i didn't see Django so i can't say anything about it.

the scene where the set up took over Minnie's made me realize how much this polite ambush trope is a big part of Tarantino flicks (Vincent and Jules at Marvin's apartment, the wedding scene in Kill Bill, the Nazis raid in Inglorious Bastard.. the ambush at Minnie'a in h8ful eight) i never realized it was all the same until this one
i particularly liked the costumes and cinematography.

You should check out RECRUITS. Everyone should.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNnNvUTug50

So bad, you can see the boom mic not once, but twice! Plus, natural breasts throughout, so it's sort of feminist I guess.

Yeah, "polite ambush" ... Nice.
I loved the "flashback" scene you're referring to, when the plot really started to unfold. Excellent. And how about Channing Tatum not sucking?! Good for him!

I thought it was quite different from a lot of Tarantino films in that it had the feel and scope of a stage production. Never has a Tarantino film been so focused on one setting. But that's a classic trope in itself. Gave the movie a classiness.

Most writers/directors wouldn't have been able to pull this film off. It was almost entirely dialogue focused, something you just don't see much in films these days (except for stage/screen adaptations like Doubt). I don't think anyone else could have held audience interest through the first ¾ of the film. For Tarantino, it probably was no challenge at all.

What a shit film. I applaud the ambition, but fuck that noise.

wat da fuc.

go watch cartoons

Pssh. I almost never watch cartoons usually. ;)