Star Trek Beyond

cinema, Star Trek Beyond (2016) film

This was the first Trek film I wasn't looking forward to. Let me be more specific: it was the first I was ambivalent about. I thought I'd probably have to see it in the cinema, but I almost didn't, whereas the previous films I was actively looking forward to. Let's go back to the late 2000s when there had been no Trek for a few years, and only the vague hints about 'Star Trek' (or 'Star Trek XI,' as I think of it), to keep me believing that this series set in the future had a future itself. I was both excited about the prospect of more Trek, and disappointed by the direction chosen by these outsiders who had nothing to do with the previous regime, and therefore, no loyalty to it. When I saw the film I was impressed, while still having major reservations, hating that iconic characters had been recast, a new, modern look given to the technology, and pretty much everything that I liked about Trek ignored or bent into a shape that would be acceptable to a mass audience that had no love for Trek. In a way I felt like an outsider myself. But as much as I hated the concept and the many stupid choices, I had to concede that it was a vibrant, lively ride whose verve, intensity and pounding assuredness was enjoyable in itself, even while it was a bad form of Trek, and so I imagined the kind of things they might do in the inevitable sequel - I felt sure Gary Mitchell would be the Big Bad, as the crew was such a gang of youthful mates, and I could see this Kirk being pally, maybe delving into how he and Spock might become friends through dealing with Mitchell (because their 'friendship' sure didn't make any sense from the first film!).

Then 'Star Trek Into Darkness' took four long years to come to fruition, and partly because of sour grapes (at least in my reading of it), JJ Abrams, the mind behind this alternate universe, the Abramsverse as it was monickered (recently recast as the 'Kelvin Timeline'), didn't seem as invested in it - he'd wanted to have a new Trek franchise, all within his universe, with merchandising, cartoons, comics, etc, eclipsing the 'old' brand, and CBS, the owners of TV Trek, weren't having it. So it harmed the new film series that they took so long to get around to a sequel, but it turned out to be a blessing, because those that had loved the 2009 reboot, and were hungry for more Trek, pounced on the old Trek films and TV shows, and added to the ageing fan base rather than being part of a new clique. It turned out that 'STID' was the worst Trek film I'd seen, not engaging with me as 'STXI,' or all previous films in the series, had done. In fact, in some areas it was positively offensive, and had lost the momentum of the first film. So I was turned off from the Abramsverse even more, and while I gave the first film a pass, the second was a fail for me, and so I wasn't greatly interested in what they did next, despite the fact that the 50th Anniversary was approaching in 2016. My interest was piqued by the developments post 'STID,' where original Kirk, William Shatner announced he was going to be in the next film, and then promptly fell again when Roberto Orci was dropped as Director after his script was considered too 'Star-Trekky' (while Abrams concentrated on reviving 'Star Wars,' with equally unimpressive result, I felt).

It sounded like Orci had planned to try and right the franchise, make it more appealing to the diehards like me that had watched it most of their lives and had a significant investment in it, not just appeal to the action blockbuster crowds that Paramount wanted. So, although I was in two minds about Orci, since he'd done plenty of damage in co-writing the first two films, it sounded like he was going to do right by the 50th, and the move away from that, lowered my expectations to zero: thus the ambivalence. I was relieved to find 'Star Trek Beyond' wasn't actively offensive as 'STID' had been, ripping off (sorry, 'homaging'), 'Star Trek II,' and the whole furore over Khan - the worst of 'Beyond' being Spock blubbing about Ambassador Spock's death, and other annoying displays of emotion (showing his pain instead of stoically facing it as a Vulcan - they ripped the guts out of an amazing character to make him 'new and different,' but also made him so much less than he had been, by doing that), and too much silly humour. With the controversial teaser trailer promising action, rock music and dirt bikes, the fears of the faithful appeared justified, and Justin Lin, 'The Fast and The Furious' guy was going to do exactly what it said on his tin. It turned out that, as silly as the sequence was with Kirk riding around an alien planet on a motorbike, it was driven by the plot. And as incongruous as it was to call back to the first film by playing 'Sabotage,' it actually worked fine as a plot point, in both cases diversion or disruption to the enemy. I would even go so far as to say that this was the most 'Star-Trekky' of the trilogy.

The important part of these films for me, is not so much the characters and stories themselves, but any reference or connection to the true, or 'Prime' universe, and we were reasonably well served in that regard. I loved that the bad guy turned out to be a former MACO, the military marine-type organisation created in 'Enterprise,' the only TV series unaffected by the changing of the timeline to create the Abramsverse, since it occurred a century before. In each film, they've nicely referenced that series, whether it was mentioning Admiral Archer and his prize beagle, or a model of the NX-01 on the desk of Admiral Marcus, and this film was no different. I loved seeing the boiler suit uniforms from that series, and glimpsing a shuttlepod landing, and of course, seeing another NX-type ship from that era with the Franklin. It was terrific that the fact Kraal had been a MACO was so integral to the plot, not just a name-dropping reference without meaning. But it's also where some of the failure came in. I was excited when 'STID' used the shady and undefined Section 31 that had been created in the best years of 'DS9,' but it was such a mundane use that it negated the point of their inclusion. I was thoroughly disappointed that we only saw all that 'Enterprise' stuff played back on a crackly, monochrome screen in 'Beyond,' so we didn't get the full force of it. I could barely make out the uniforms had the same look as the NX-01's, and the Franklin itself, while its exterior was well designed and fitted into the period's style, the interior could have been any ship.

I began to wonder how they might have honoured the 50th Anniversary better, rather than simply hitting the release date. But then I realised that the creators of this universe don't care so much about it being fifty years of history, and Paramount wanted the film out in 2016 because they thought they'd make more money off the back of it being a red letter year. Except, as far as I could see, they never once promoted it as the 50th Anniversary of this iconic space series, so what was the point of rushing a 2016 release, where it might have done better with a few months extra time, or even a year? I think back to the other two old-time franchises that are still going today: James Bond and 'Dr. Who.' They both celebrated their 50th with great care, and it was clear that it was about the achievement of reaching such a milestone. 'Beyond' never felt in the same vein of celebration to me, and weirdly it seemed more like any old Trek film than the first two, which were trying (too?), hard to show all the elements you'd expect from Trek. When I think of 'Star Trek VI' (25th Anniversary), 'First Contact,' 'Trials and Tribble-ations' or 'Flashback' (all 30th Anniversary), it's hard to compare the love and understanding for the property they showed back then with that of today. I'm not going to complain about 'Beyond' going off into space and meeting new aliens, because that's what 'The Original Series' was about, but I felt the perfect opportunity was there to represent those established elements of Trek that we all know, not to mention tie directly into each of the other series'. It would have been a tall order for them to get a character from each TV show, but they could have had the space station Yorktown be full of recognisably familiar aliens, not just fancy new ones that, in truth, had a lot more 'Star Wars' DNA about them than Trek, which has been the case in all these films.

I wasn't sure if one of the aliens on the planet that accosts Scotty was meant to be an homage to the Jem'Hadar (or the bulky vampire-like one a remake of an 'Enterprise' design, and I thought one looked vaguely like Morn, but it was only a quick flash so I couldn't be sure), but he behaved nothing like that tough warrior species, so it took me out of the moment. Why couldn't we have seen green Orions on Yorktown, blue Andorians, piggy Tellarites, maybe even a Cardassian or a Klingon as a nod and wink to a dedicated audience? Instead, we're bombarded with aliens that mean nothing, but at the same time we're barely able to revel in exotic designs and see who or what they are because the camera travels at warp speed round the cavernous community (the Yorktown's design itself owed much to the station in 'Elysium'). One major problem was we had no investment in the station, with a quick zip round not enough to form attachment or present a sense of the importance of the place, either on a personal level or a wider, Federation one. If this had been set up as a hub of peace (like Nimbus III from 'Star Trek V,' except this could have been a success), that had helped to keep the region safe and secure, and had performed the function DS9 did, bringing races together in harmony, it would have meant more when that peace was threatened, but as in all these films, we aren't afforded time to linger somewhere before being whisked headlong away, a problem with much of the action, too. Whether or not it was the poor quality of the Vue cinema I saw this at, the projection (in 2D!), was very dark, and this, coupled with the jerkiness of the camera, meant it was often hard to make out what was happening.

But back to the 50th Anniversary: I was very glad that Ambassador Spock was mentioned, even a picture of him shown, and the best moment of the entire film was when Zachary Quinto's Spock opens a box of his things, finds a little flat device and opens it to reveal… For a moment I thought 'they're actually going to do it - they pretended Shatner wasn't having any part in this film, but they're going to do the hologram scene that was written for the first film, but never came into being, and now here it is!' That would have been amazing, and a brilliant touchstone to celebrate the first Captain of Trek, while also being Shatner celebrating the life of the deceased Leonard Nimoy. But it wasn't. Instead it was second best, but still good: a publicity photo from 'Star Trek VI,' or so I thought at the time. Afterwards, thinking about it, this would have been the perfect moment not only to get Shatner as Kirk, but to bring back the other surviving members of the original cast: Walter Koenig, Nichelle Nichols and George Takei. They (and their characters), could easily have filmed a holo-message to their Spock as the perfect homage to him and Nimoy. The photo was fantastic, but it was a bit of a money-saver, and how much longer do they think these actors will be around? I later discovered that the photo (and it is a bit odd that old Spock collected memorabilia from his own films!), was from 'Star Trek V,' not 'VI.' The unbelievable irony of these new films, and perhaps a further indictment to their understanding of those that love previous Trek, is that they've directly referenced the least regarded TV series ('Enterprise'), detested by many (not me), and the one responsible for Trek failing on TV, and now the most loathed film (not by me)!

I also found some difficulty with the Franklin, as much as I loved the idea of them finding a ship from that era which they could use to escape after the destruction of the Enterprise. If they were going to have a ship from the 22nd Century why not the NX-01 herself? How much more relevant that would have made the film! Could it have been the cost of rebuilding those sets that turned them off to it, because there's no reason in canon that the NX-01 couldn't have been lost in the way they described (as far as I know…). It would have had so much more resonance, as would even the NX-02, Columbia. But you can see they either didn't have the budget or else they didn't want to put it into the Franklin, which is, frankly, ugly on the inside. Its coincidental location on the bad guy's planet didn't appear to make much sense at first, until you later learn that Kraal was once human, Balthazar Edison, Captain of the Franklin, so it's not so strange that it would have ended up on that barren planet - it's still hard to reconcile that it was so easy to get working again after a century, or that Kraal didn't appear to know anything about it. You'd think he'd have kept his old ship, although I'm a bit vague on the details as I've only seen the film once, so it may be that he and his crew assumed it had been destroyed when they evacuated. And as much fun as it was to see the Enterprise's remains aflame, the saucer section burning on the planet (saucer separation, hooray!), shouldn't the raging fires have been green for plasma?

Another issue was the lack of wonder from the characters about their own organisation's history. The closest we come to it is Scotty's explanation that this is a key ship in Starfleet's line, and Kirk patting the Captain's chair, though I took that to be more a display of affection for his own, now destroyed ship, touching a memory, this ship a reminder of what he'd just lost. Then again I never got the impression of closeness this Kirk had with his Enterprise. In 'Trials and Tribble-ations,' the fantastic 30th Anniversary tribute from 'DS9,' when the original Enterprise-1701 shimmers onto screen it's a magical moment and the characters react to it, but the Franklin is just some old rust bucket of the past which no one's really that bothered about beyond its use as an avenue of escape (no sign of planet to planet Transporters in this film…). It's a relic of history, but history's boring, right? That's the kind of attitude I'd expect from this version of the characters. The only interest Kirk really has is in the antique motorbike sat proudly and in full working order, in a corner, seemingly none the worse for wear, and that's a problem when a bike has more meaning than the ship! It's not called 'Star Bike.' I appreciated the mirroring of the USS Kelvin from 'STXI,' named for Abrams' Grandfather, which could also be taken for Lord Kelvin, with this one named for Lin's Father, Frank Lin (get it?), but which could also be for Benjamin Franklin, in line with the other series' naming of ships for famous scientists and explorers.

My problem with the Franklin herself, which again, could be due to confusion in dialogue, was that it was cited as the first Warp 4 ship - I wasn't sure if they said it was launched in the 2160s, or lost in the 2160s. The latter would make more sense, since the NX-01, the first Warp 5 ship, was launched in 2151. We also hear that Edison fought in both the Xindi 'War' (as they term it), as seen in Season 3 of 'Enterprise' (a wonderful reference - how great that a race created in 2003 should be referenced thirteen years later, especially after Trek seemed to have died with that series' demise), and the Romulan War, which would have been late 2150s. What I was unclear about was that if Edison was a MACO, an organisation disbanded after the war by the Federation (formed in 2161), then given captaincy of the Franklin, why was he given such an old ship? Was it a deliberate slight on their part, a kind of punishment for being just a MACO? There's also the issue of Jonathan Archer, the creator of the Warp 5 engine, who I thought had worked on previous iterations, eventually leading to the Warp 5, which then led to the NX-01 and Earth's first proper mission out into space. I suppose we could say that Franklin was considerably older, a good few years, and that it had never actually ventured out very far, had been mothballed and brought out of retirement during the Romulan War, before being given to Edison. But you have to bend over backwards to do it!

That's the trouble (and the challenge!), with canon, it guides you, but you need to come up with creative ways to add to the history, especially in an era that has been pretty well defined. You also need people that really know their stuff, and while I do appreciate the effort Pegg and his cowriter went to, and that Director Lin knew 'TOS' quite well, I do get a sense that they were reaching a little bit. I also felt much of what they claimed about the film proved either erroneous or weak: the big thing was going to be Kraal as an alternative point of view to demonstrate the Federation wasn't the beneficial force we see it as, views that might be valid, and we weren't going to get another villain bent on revenge. But we did. I'm sure intentions were good, and I'm sure the tight schedule had something to do with it, but the story was far from finished or fully thought through regarding the villain. There's a muddled message about strength in unity (Kraal says being united is a weakness because everyone feels the loss of one of their own), but it's far from being integral. I loved that he turned out to be one of 'our own,' but his motivations remained unclear. Nero, though pretty two-dimensional as villain of the first film, had clear motive for his actions (even if his logic was skewed to ridiculous proportions), and we'd already had a dodgy guy up top in 'STID' (Admiral Marcus), so it was refreshing to have a former Captain as opponent (seen a few times on 'TOS,' another aspect to make it more Trekkish), but he did appear to want revenge for having his soldiering career ended, and that no one came to rescue him, so it was a simple case of disgruntled injustice.

Add to this that he'd been turned mad by the alien technology he and the remaining members of his crew had used to prolong their lives, turning their DNA alien, and you have a thoroughly unsympathetic villain with vague superhuman abilities to suck the life out of his enemies, and… I guess that's it, I still don't really understand the significance of the planet where he kept the Enterprise crew prisoner, or why he specifically targeted Yorktown for his vengeance, apart from it being the closest Federation installation. With a bit more time and thought (and some big changes in directing style, to be fair!), this could have been a great film that examined the relevance of the Federation, and whether or not it really is just another imperialist force that gives aliens what it deems good for them. I feel that if this had been a film from 'The Next Generation' era we'd have got all that (look at how much time they allowed for Picard to discuss what it means to be human with Tom Hardy's Shinzon in 'Nemesis'!), and more, as well as plenty of action. Instead the plot comes across as a vehicle to get Kirk interested in his space career again, which could be viewed as a rather selfish angle! I always have the impression he's little more than an adrenaline junkie in this universe, not a professional officer, and that he's fighting his nature more than being naturally drawn to the rules and regs of Starfleet - just look how he handled the diplomatic mission in the opening scene!

When Kraal became Edison again, they began to stop wasting the talents of Idris Elba so much (he'd have made an amazing Klingon, and when he was first cast I thought he would be one), which they had done by stuffing him away in a full head prosthetic and giving him grunty dialogue - in fact, when he was fully human in his captain's logs (another great Trek staple, even though we don't normally see them recorded direct to camera!), I would even say he was a compelling character, and one I'd have loved to see more of. How much better it would have been if we'd actually done a 'Generations' thing and shown the Enterprise era in flashback. How about beginning with the Romulan War instead of the silly diplomatic mission designed to make us burst into childish laughter? The Romulan War, something we were denied on 'Enterprise' due to the series' early cancellation, has always been a major point of contention that I so wanted to see, and would have provided more legitimate action than you could wiggle a couple of pointed ears at. They might have lost their twist, of course, and that's one of the problems we see in these films: secrecy, preserving a surprise, is more important than the quality of the storytelling. We could have seen the Franklin go missing, we could have had cameos from Captain Archer or T'Pol, or any of the 'Enterprise' cast. In the 50th Anniversary film, we got not one cameo from an actor reprising their character! It's astonishing, really, and no excuse about it being too difficult to work out because it's an alternate universe or different time, will satisfy.

However, as I said before, this does feel the most Trekky of the Abramsverse films, and I don't know if that was because it was helmed by a man who knew his stuff (or had a childhood appreciation of 'TOS'), or was written in a more sensitive way. There are plenty of fun Trek things like the Universal Translator being active on screen while alien Kalara speaks her native tongue, so we hear both, quite rare on Trek. Or the music at the beginning opening with the familiar 'bing bong' (though it doesn't complete the sequence), as well as the occasional refrain from other Trek music, though subdued and brief as they were. And it's good to see a starbase, even if they don't call it one and it looks absolutely unlike any Federation architecture we've ever seen! We hear some actual technobabble when Scotty and the crew are getting the Franklin into shape (though a montage of them hard at work over hours, even days, wouldn't have gone amiss), something that I could enjoy zoning out on, because there's a certain comfort from hearing that stuff, even when I'm not fully understanding it - they've typically avoided such hallmarks in this series. They also addressed some things I didn't like in the other films, from lopping up this ugly version of the Enterprise, to ending the Spock/Uhura romance, though in both cases they're back to square one again by the end. It suffered through not having the authority figure of Pike, the best character of the Abramsverse, and they must have realised this because they added Commodore Paris in reshoots after filming had ended, as if to make up for his absence.

The film's beginning and end largely worked, only the middle, on the planet, falling short and dragging things 'down to earth.' And I wasn't enamoured with the opening scene of Kirk flexing his diplomatic skills (neither doing too badly, nor excelling), a shallow setup for idiotic humour: oh, these aliens are actually tiny, how funny that is (not). I can see they were trying to go for 'The Trouble With Tribbles' approach and recreate the amusement of Kirk being covered in those hairy fur balls, while also missing the point: it's funny because Kirk has a lot of dignity, a serious character put in a ridiculous and undignified situation, whereas this Kirk is still a bit of a teenager (he's a great deal less annoying and more Kirk-like in this film, I grant), and his getting up to larks, commonplace. But what I realised with this film in particular, is that they've created a parody of 'TOS,' not trying to recapture it, with added modern effects and sensibilities. The oddity is that these characters are actually informed by the older versions from the 'TOS' film series - Spock was much more relaxed about his human side by that time (though even there he kept a Vulcan reserve that meant he didn't burst into tears, share a good laugh, or show pain and fear: he had dignity and respect), Kirk was much more gung-ho (less reflective about his decision-making, which is where the two sides of his personality come in, represented by Bones and Spock, never achieved in any of the Abramsverse entries), McCoy complained a lot more in his old age, and Scotty and the other supporting cast were more figures of fun than in 'TOS.'

I just get fed up with humour that makes the heroes look like fools, avoiding wit and charm for farce. That moronic, or childish, humour which pervades this film is one of the main things to drag it down, and while I can see that that's the kind of thing to help it appeal to the general audience, I'm sure they could get onboard with a higher class of humour instead of being talked down to, assuming they won't reach to meet it, completely the opposite of much previous Trek which tended to elevate and encourage thought. It's a constant reminder not to take things too seriously and have fun because this is a summer blockbuster. It was the same with the first two films, but here the stupidity has been ramped up, like someone asking if the Rock is Classical music, or having Spock swear, because that's funny (they did it over twenty years ago with Data and it wasn't funny then). Admittedly, I did snort in amusement when Jaylah calls the Engineer 'Montgomery Scotty,' and she does have an endearing way about her, but apart from that, she's rather irrelevant, purely designed to add female presence. 'TOS,' being a product of its time, was indeed heavily male oriented, and I can fully understand their wish to redress the balance to attract a wider female audience, but shoving in a female character for the sake of it and not making her particularly important to the story or using her to bring something new out of the characters we know through their interactions, was a missed opportunity. In fact, she took away from Uhura's screen time. How about bringing in Janice Rand or Christine Chapel if we need more female characters, or even make Jaylah as essential as Ilia, Dr. Marcus, Saavik and Valeris were in the old films?

They have the aesthetic of 'TOS' in the youth of the characters and the look of the uniforms (which must be where a huge chunk of the budget went, because there were a ridiculous number of outfits in this film!), yet they're treating the characters with the broader brush of those older film versions. They want to make 'Star Trek IV,' yet also have it be dramatic and dangerous. I'm not against humour in Trek, and in the right hands it can be fantastic (even farce can work - see the many Ferengi episodes of 'DS9'), but you can't suck out the tension with silliness and then expect the drama to enthral. The stakes are pretty high, we see the Enterprise herself get annihilated, and the Yorktown's next on the hit list, but there isn't a strong enough reason to care. It's also strange that Kraal takes a different approach to the station than he did to the ship - rather than swarming it and ripping it to shreds, he goes aboard and actually has to plant the mcguffin (the Abronath, which kept bringing to mind the Argonath from 'The Lord of The Rings'!), personally, thus allowing Kirk a chance to intercept him and have a cliched good guy versus bad guy fight finale. In its defence, it was a good sequence (reminding me of the terrific one-on-one battle between Archer and Silik in the time room of 'Broken Bow'), one that I'd have actually preferred to see more of, since it does something hard to accomplish on a TV budget - the gravity slipstream was a cool idea, and if only we could have had Kirk and Kraal swooping round the skyscrapers a bit longer, it would have made for a grander finish.

As it is, they do a little swooping, a little fighting, then Kraal gets sucked into space, the device he planned to reduce every living thing to dust with, backfiring against himself. I quite liked the party at the end, especially the moment when they make a toast to absent friends and the camera's centred on Anton Yelchin, the Chekov actor who sadly died in an accident mere weeks before the release of the film, and which put a pall over the celebratory air of the marketing (Chris Pine seemed especially affected during interviews, perhaps because he spent the most time with Yelchin in this film). On the positive side, Chekov had more to do, and while in the previous films he was my least favourite character, rather irritating, he's a lot more grounded and useful this time. It would have been inappropriate for Yelchin's last performance in the role to have been overly cartoony and silly as some of his previous scenes had been ("I can do zat, I can do zat!"), and whether it was because the character was improved in response to criticism of the first two films, or whether they edited it to give his character more gravity, it worked. Either way, it was a nice little tribute (Dax was shot the same way on 'DS9' during a similar speech about people not being around forever, though in that case it was a fictional death), as well as the silence after the main credits where they had a title card 'For Leonard' followed by 'For Anton.' I can't help wishing for more, though, especially regarding Spock's death. It affects Quinto's Spock, but that was a negative for me, because I've never liked his portrayal of a Vulcan with emotions right on the surface.

At the risk of repetition, I can never fully warm to these characters because they're merely a parody of 'real' people, and as much as I try to appreciate them, it's not something I'm going to get past, which wouldn't have been the case if they'd been new characters. They've even completely altered the DNA of these people (one in a very controversial way in this film), and I don't like that they think they have the right to do that and still appeal to those of us that care about Trek as a continuing history. They didn't exactly endear their choices with this film when it begins with Kirk finding space boring and wondering if the daily grind of interstellar travel is really for him. I mean WHAT?! I see their wish to create an arc, somewhere for his character to go, and that realising he actually does belong as a starship Captain after all, and wants to get back out there was it, but like all these films it's not very organic, nothing to encourage his change of heart other than the camaraderie of his crew, the thrill of doing dangerous things, and maybe even a little of succeeding in making a difference. But the line about him joining Starfleet on a dare to see if he could do better than his Father, is absolutely true, and while it was quite poetic and contemporary in the first film, it now looks as if, yes, his motivation was purely to prove Pike wrong. He hasn't changed enough from a cocky, naive youngster, but that's because the universe he's living in hasn't necessitated that change. It positively rewarded him for his attitude and approach, so I can actually buy that he'd have a crisis of career - he's realising how shallow he is. (It's the same lack of requirement to qualify that Jaylah experiences when she's allowed into Starfleet, when I never even got the idea she was that drawn to it). If that led to growth in future films, then great, but I've never felt these or the previous writers are capable of developing complex character arcs within the action spectacle beats that need to be hit to keep a casual, fickle audience engaged.

When Jaylah talks about the rock music coming out of the Franklin, she says she likes it for the loudness and the shouting, and I realised that's what the appeal of the summer blockbuster type of film is, and consequently the appeal of these Trek films, to a modern audience: it's the visceral rather than the emotional or intellectual, and that's really all that these films have, and why they've been so much more successful than the older films, which at least were grounded in the established Trek universe, and were careful not to take the characters too far from their roots. This isn't 'Mission: Impossible' (another film series Bad Robot got their claws on and changed to make it simpler and more generic), but that's how it's marketed and viewed, and in the 50th Anniversary that's very sad to me. The news that of the new series, this film has been the least successful, monetarily, actually gives me hope that they'll call it a day with this cast. It wouldn't be the same without Yelchin, and I can't imagine them doing another straight-up, full-cast sequel, yet before the film was even in cinemas Paramount had announced a fourth that would reunite Kirk with his dead Father, George. I was both dismayed and intrigued by that because I liked George Kirk, and his death in 'STXI' was the high water mark of this series, never to be reached again. And for the same reason it would be a terrible idea to undo that and give us more, for the sake of marketing a film! You would undo the only great thing you achieved in the series, and it just shows the wrongheadedness of the money men in charge.

If Paramount wants (or more like needs), to keep the Trek films rolling out and bringing in the cash, I hope they at least do something different, with new characters (and preferably a new era, the 23rd Century not being my favourite), even get that Romulan War going, maybe, as was the original intention for the eleventh film during the Berman era, before the Viacom split put Paramount and CBS at odds, with both controlling parts of Trek. They've shown they can recreate the look of the 22nd Century, so do it! As you can see, I'd be fine if they left the Abramsverse as a trilogy (albeit one where the middle film could be easily skipped), but what of this film? Ultimately, despite it having a more authentic Trek flavour, it remains part of the high-calorie, low satisfaction diet of the second film, and I enjoyed it about as much as 'STID,' which isn't saying much - like that one, I can't imagine looking forward to sticking this one in the player for years to come. It didn't have a strong sense of place, and I don't mean just because they were off the Enterprise most of the time, but that they pinballed around. It seemed a bit bland, having lost the verve and impetus of the first film, and despite that being little more than a ride with many of its own problems, it was at least entertaining. 'Beyond' just didn't have that, and while it wasn't offensive, neither was it different enough from so many identikit action films before it - take the fights, for instance: why would I care about Jaylah and Manas (the token bad guy lieutenant, another of many orc-like aliens), having a rumble? The stakes mean nothing if you can't follow the visual narrative, and I couldn't even revel in the choreography for the camera shaking to pieces (fly her apart, then!).

One film (aside from the silliness of 'Star Trek IV'), that this one contains similarities to, is 'Insurrection.' Another underrated entry in the 'TNG' film series, it's also about the crew surviving on an alien planet while villains who are much closer to home than we realise, cause much trouble. Oft complained about for its 'TV episode' feel, something which I actually respect about it, it has the same kind of bad guy and his main crony, as 'Beyond,' but while that cliche is present and correct, as well as the Captain having to fight it out in a special room at the end, there's actually some redemption, as Gallatin, the lieutenant to Ru'afo, is accepted back into the Ba'ku community from which his race came. It's incredibly true to the spirit of 'Star Trek,' and the kind of missing element that a film like 'Beyond' is crying out for. All it really has is the large scale action that couldn't have been done before (or not as slickly, perhaps). One thing that was a success, and might be the most emotive part of the film is the destruction of the Enterprise. I noticed that they made sure to show her off with some pleasing beauty shots beforehand to make the most of her, a nice concession. Her fate was no secret (they did learn not to keep the big, controversial stuff a secret, as they tried to with Khan, actually lying outright about his identity before 'STID' came out), and I thought I wouldn't care, because I have zero attachment to that chunky monstrosity that was the Abramsverse redesign of the classic Enterprise.

I was wrong. It wasn't the ship itself and what she meant to me that got me, it was just the awe-inspiring destruction of a starship - it doesn't matter what universe, seeing one of these vast spacefaring vessels mercilessly ripped apart is a shocking sequence. When you think what it means to a crew that have lived there and made their home within, or to a Captain, given the responsibility of this ship and crew, the final resort to abandon ship is a hard decision. My one complaint would be that Kirk didn't at least try to go down with his ship as Captains usually do. There was a beat where I thought he was going to, and maybe Bones or someone would pull him away as a lost cause, or it might refer back to the sacrifice of his own Father. Again, the picture was too dark and the camera moving frenziedly so I couldn't fully appreciate the moment - it also could have done with some slow motion and haunting music (think the various sacrifices in 'The Lord of The Rings,' choral music soaring high and sad above the action), which might be a bit of a cliche, but always works wonderfully. Even so, it was a moving moment, not for the specific ship, but to witness such a symbol being demolished, a brave choice in the 50th Anniversary year. Of course, as soon as its destruction was assured in early trailers speculation of the Enterprise-A's appearance at the end was rife. I was hoping they'd leave Kirk's next command ambiguous, or make it another ship, but one thing I did like was the time-lapse  construction, something new to Trek and an effective device, though it made starships appear cheap and easily replaceable - we'll have another for you in a jiffy! In the original films they had to wait for the subsequent instalment before they had their first glimpse of the 'A,' and back then they had exactly the same class because they couldn't afford to construct a new Enterprise, whereas here, with CGI at their disposal, they could have gone wild.

Something else that worked nicely was each of the main cast saying part of the 'These are the voyages' speech. As it began, I thought how fitting it would have been for each of the old Captains to record part of it: Sisko, Janeway, Archer (they already had Picard and Kirk's soundbites), which would have been amazing, but wouldn't have meant anything for the characters, one reason why they don't mean much to me. The perfect tribute to the various TV shows, tying it all together, but I can also see that this version represents this crew finally taking the limelight without old Spock or anyone else, and in that regard it is just as fitting, except for the fact that this very much feels like the last one, never having lived up to the potential of an alternate universe to be dramatically different. The whole point of a different timeline was so they didn't have to worry about canon (in other words they were terrifically lazy and didn't want to learn), and proved it by destroying Vulcan and killing Spock's Mother (why didn't they have Sarek bring the news about the death of Ambassador Spock?), then they tried to recreate 'Star Trek II' and failed miserably. For the 50th they are at least connected to the history (obliquely with the Franklin era), when they should have been at their most direct. They could have gone into the politics and troubles of New Vulcan instead of just having Spock consider leaving the service to help his race. It would have been much more dramatic to disband the crew - if they do a fourth film, they could have had fun bringing the band back together.

If only they'd begun their film series with something like this one, and gradually introduced more traditional Trek aliens and stuff into proceedings instead of going the inverse route. It's also somewhat ironic that they bypassed so much of the time, jumping right past the third year of the Five-Year Mission. They could have given us more films like the first one, showing the crew learning their roles and such, but they always want to jump to 'the good stuff' (or is that 'the easy stuff'), rather than build a story and universe - look at the Nolan Batman trilogy and imagine how good this series could have been if it had had that level of progression and intelligence. For what it is, the Kelvin Timeline has been an object lesson in how to make it appeal to the masses, while forgetting the loyal followers that stuck to it even during the bitter days when 'Enterprise' was at its lowest point. But the times are changing once again, and after twelve long years in the wilderness with only this watered down Trek to look forward to, 2017 promises a new dawn with the TV series 'Star Trek Discovery.' Hopefully this will fulfil the need for traditional Trek, and if these films continue then fair enough - the truth is they matter a whole lot less in the light of Prime Trek's return, a stopgap measure, better than nothing, but now obsolete. Thanks for what you did, now it's time to move on.

**