I thought maybe sharing a whisky between Kirk and McCoy with his being the unlifted glass at the table was perhaps a nod to Anton Yelchin's death. However later, at the party before credits, we hear Chekov say how whisky is a Russian invention...
...which would mean the other glass was for Kirk's dead father...
...so why was Bones going through Chekov's locker?
My bestestest funny evah!!! https://vid.me/ToVD
I immediately assumed Chekov gave him permission just for McCoy to get alcohol. Some people are trusting like that, while some are trusted enough to do that (go through another's belongings)...
Just because someone does something good for you, that doesn't mean they're good for you.
I found that whole "toast to Chekov" scene --which seemed to me to be a clear "farewell to a dead comrade" moment-- totally baffling. I knew that Anton had died, so figured it was an homage to Chekov....but then Chekov is merrily bounding around the whole movie, not dead in the slightest. Didn't they refer to Chekov in that scene in the past tense, even?
If they did mean it as an homage to Anton, why not put it at the end of the film, where it would at least make some sense??
Otherwise, it sorta comes off seeming like McCoy is no respecter of privacy or personal property...but then whey focus on that third, untouched glass when they toast to Chekov, if that's not supposed to be a glass for the dead Chekov? It just --again-- makes no sense.
It was a toast to Kirk's dead father since he died on the day Kirk was born.
Mikey,
that would make more sense than it being any sort of tribute to Chekov, given that he was clearly alive (in the movie) after the scene occurred, but unless I missed something there was nothing to indicate that Kirk's father was the one being toasted, which would still seem to indicate sloppiness on the film makers' parts.
I appreciate the info...I'd either forgotten it or never knew it (hard admission for a long-term Trekkie).
Whoever they meant it for, they ought to've made it clearer.
The scene is suppose to act on both levels. In the movie its a tribute to Kirks dad. For the actual production its a tribute to Anton.
I think the whole Chekhov locker bit was to sort of clue us in its really about Anton end of the day without saying it but I can see how you could get confused.
I just didnt understand why Bones had to steal it. All he had to say was it was given to him from Chekhov for Christmas/birthday or something.
Yeah, the "steal it" thing was part of the problem to start with, I think...I was in pre-"Huh?!" mode already. I think when you get so involved in a project you can lose track of being able to see how things could look to people who weren't involved at every stage.
shareI thought maybe sharing a whisky between Kirk and McCoy with his being the unlifted glass at the table was perhaps a nod to Anton Yelchin's death.
Source?
share> According to an interview with Star Trek Beyond director Justin Lin, that scene was indeed a tribute to Anton Yelchin.
If so, it was poorly done, since it is pretty obvious for the rest of the movie that Chekov was alive and well. The scene depicts blatant theft and that's all.
--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?
My thought process
-a tribute to Anton? Noo, filming would have been wrapped up months before his death
-did he actually steal it, maybe they'll develop it and Bones more as the film goes on (they don't)
-maybe it's a whole 'brothers in arms' thing, the camaraderie is so strong, they can just take each others stuff without asking
Weird scene for a weak movie.
________
Armchair Critic Law 38:
If a film has a plot twist, overanalyse.
> -a tribute to Anton? Noo, filming would have been wrapped up months before his death
It would be no biggie to bring back the two actors and quickly film the tribute and add it to the film months after primary filming wrapped up. It wasn't a complicated scene that needed CGI or anything.
> -maybe it's a whole 'brothers in arms' thing, the camaraderie is so strong, they can just take each others stuff without asking
That's really the only thing that makes sense. The world of Star Trek is a Socialist community. People give what they can and take what they need. Everybody shares everything and no one specifically owns anything. Notice that Bones said that he found this in Chekov's locker, not that it belonged to Chekov.
--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?
-a tribute to Anton? Noo, filming would have been wrapped up months before his death
I do not believe it to be a tribute.
Speaking as a vet, I know that when we lived in barracks privacy and sometimes personal property were non existent, and if someone left a bottle of liquor it would have been considered community property, even if he put it in his locker (alcohol was not allowed in the barracks, but it still would get smuggled in.
Chekov and McCoy are officers and would not live in barracks, but that feeling of community property could extend to officers that work so closely together.
Well, Bones sometimes likes to nose into other people's business after all, such as when he tried to probe Spock about his relationship status with Uhura, but rifling through someone else's locker does sound a bit too extreme even for Bones. Maybe it wasn't exactly "theft" and he had permission from Chekov? Or maybe Chekov was going through his own locker when Bones just happened to see the whisky in his locker at that time and asked Chekov if he could have it? We can only speculate.
To find Chekhov's Gun.
America isnt ready for a gay mexican chicken sandwich - Poultrygeist
[deleted]