I thought he was good, but as a villain maybe Trekkies liked Benedict Cumberbatch and the White weirdo villains in the first two films respectively much better--I thought Elba was best when he was in full alien regalia,he was perfectly evil, but then like Adam Driver in TFA, surprise! he's unmasked and then the last scene they made him ugly again, kind of weird, and he kind of died too easily
shareIdris was fine. Check him out in "Pacific Rim" which made a lot more box office than Beyond.
It was just that his character in Beyond wasn't important enough. It wasn't dangerous enough.
He just played some angry Starfleet officer who turns into some unknown alien who just bothers a space station.
(And forget the music destroying the drones idea. That was weak.)
Let's say Elba had played a Klingon leader who led an invasion of earth. That could have been much more popular with casual fans.
Because it would have been on a bigger scale like Star Wars.
Instead Beyond feels like a stretched out TV episode. That's fine for hard core fans (like me) but casual fans want things in Star Trek movies to be more spectacular than TV shows.
Imo at least, BB ;-)
it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈
I agree Elba himself was fine. I think they just missed the mark with his character a bit. His motives are frankly, weird. They didn't properly explain his backstory on how became an alien although Pegg recently commented on this and there was suppose to be more and that he has basically a lot of alien DNA mixtures inside him but in the movie they don't bother to explain any of it. And yeah I still don't understand how he was stuck on that planet for so long and YET doesnt seem to have any problem leaving it??? Maybe it took time to get the drones working or something but why in the hell is he still there??? Why not just, you know, leave? It just makes no damn sense.
Just so much of this character isn't explained at all and he just comes off two dimensional as yet another pissed off guy who wants to take down the Federation. I think the character wouldve went a lot farther if they did this instead:
When he was still in Starfleet he had heard about that device (cant even remember the name) through a world he visited and he sort of became obsessed with finding it. Sort of like Gollum and the ring from LOTR. And maybe he became so obsessed he turned against Starfleet and disobeyed orders going into that sector to find it, there was a skirmish and his ship crashed on that planet and he was left for dead. But the entire time he was still plotting to find that device and wage against the Federation.
Now its not perfect obviously but it would eliminate some of the problems the script had, mostly him just being upset no one ever picked him up so he sat 100 years stewing and just by chance know about some alien tech to rule against the Federation with as revenge. I think it wouldve worked a lot better if he was always after it like a fountain of youth thing and his obsession cost him his career and life basically left for dead on that planet but never gave up looking for it. He needed a bigger purpose other than Starfleet forgot about him.
Marvel 2016: Agents of Shield, Agent Carter, Daredevil, Civil War, Dr. Strange, Luke Cage!
I liked your comment fctiger which had several good points. Including this.
"He needed a bigger purpose other than Starfleet forgot about him."
I think this is one of those Star Trek movies which is not going to age well.
Yes, it is more true to the franchise than the other reboot movies, but does it hold up as a good film?
Each week I see or read another comment which picks pieces of Beyond apart.
Now the whole motivation for Krall staying on the planet so long is being questioned.
'"And yeah I still don't understand how he was stuck on that planet for so long and YET doesnt seem to have any problem leaving it???"
I have a feeling my rating for Beyond is going to go down another notch.
Imo at least, BB ;-)
it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈
Do not blame Elba at all. He did the best with what he had to work with.
Blame:Script (although better than Into Darkness)
Into Darkness: terrible film that probably killed any eagerness for a 3rd
Special effects: it's obvious by looking at it that the budget was slashed for it; not nearly as impressive as the first two films
Initial trailer: wtf were they thinking? Looked like a generic space film, not like a blockbuster that the first two looked like from their trailers
No, Idris was not the problem. TPTB basically squandered what is great about Star Trek and gave us something less interesting. Folks say they were aiming for an adventure similar to TOS, but as a fan of the series, IMO they missed the mark by throwing out what was so special about Star Trek. In addition, they completely wasted the opportunity to celebrate and capitalize on the 50th anniversary of Star Trek.
At the end of the day, it was the script: Instead of capturing the rush of space exploration and really letting the Enterprise and her crew pull together and take off to find "new lives and new civilizations; to boldly go where no one has gone before" they gave us burnt out Kirk, melancholy Spock, a destroyed Enterprise, the crew grounded for much of the film and a motor bike to save the day against an enemy who turns out to be...wait for it...a misguided and vengeful...HUMAN, a former Star Trek captain. They did a great job of capturing some of the dynamics of the crew, but that wasn't enough.
All those missteps were apparent in the Fast and Furious style trailer and IMO kept lots of people away. Middling word of mouth and reviews kept the film gaining any traction against Bourne and Suicide Squad.
I really enjoyed both the 2009 film and Star Trek Into Darkness (misguided 'homage' to WOK and bait&switch marketing aside) I saw both multiple times in the theater, but I was really disappointed in Beyond - once and done for me.
Have a lovely day - John Finnemore
His motives in the script just don't make much sense and the film is so rushed that it doesn't help matters. Krall's true identity is revealed so late in the film that we don't have a chance to consider it. Can we please stop with the plot twists? How about just have some bad guys that are...bad guys?
shareHow could Idris Elba be the problem when he isn't even recognisable at all during the movie under the costume?
shareI didn't know it was idris in this movie because it wasnt really as promoted as the star trek before that one.
"I think I liked it better when I thought Sylar ate brains." -Warriorrenegade
I agree with the others here, Idris Elba himself was fine with his role and I think he did a fantastic job. But I think the problem that many people seem to have was his character itself and how his character was written, many people seem to think that he was poorly written as a villain in the movie, which I personally disagree with because I like Krall, I think he was a more interesting and more complex villain than Nero was in the first movie. But everyone has different opinions after all.
As an actor, Idris could only do the best he could with the role he was given.
He was really fine but the script was very bad and the way they designed his character was terrible. He would have made a great Klingon villian.
share