GustavoLeao

Simon Pegg Talks BEYOND and STAR TREK 4

Recommended Posts

Is it just me, or does the idea to bring Kirk's dad back from the dead sound like a bad idea?

No, I was thinking the exact same thing; especially since STB had Jim Kirk coming to terms with living up to his own standards and not under his long-dead father's.  Bringing George back seems like a redundant step that is only a 'good' idea because Chris Hemsworth's career has exploded since ST09.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, leave his father alone, Beyond did a good job with finishing that storyline.

The fact that JJ might have created / liked that idea so much could possibly means he may come back for ST4? I know he said he was more of a SW guy, but really, he might have not liked the original series, but he rebooted ST, it's still his baby in a manner of speaking, I don't think he would object to coming back, or that he would rather just saty with SW and leave ST forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Noooooooooooooooooo!!!!! Keep JJ Abrams as far away from the director's chair as possible. Star Trek Beyond was a better movie , partially because it didn't have those damned lensflares and shakey cam ( except when the ship was actually shaking).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammer   

I really wish Pegg would leave his political partisanship and views out of his writing and away from interviews about Trek. It's hard to like a film series from which I feel excluded by the writers. I don't want Star Trek movies to be made for left wingers only.

Edited by Hammer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really wish Pegg would leave his political partisanship and views out of his writing and away from interviews about Trek. It's hard to like a film series from which I feel excluded by the writers. I don't want Star Trek movies to be made for left wingers only.

Why?  Gene Roddenberry was very political when he created Star Trek; he evoked agnosticism, feminism, mixing of races (very controversial in 1966), socialism and a lot of other hot-button political territories.   Some were blatant ("Private Little War" "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield"), others were more subtle.   But politics have always been part of Star Trek's DNA.    

I think Pegg is simply carrying on ST's humanist legacy...

Whether one 'agrees' with the politics is irrelevant; it simply is.  I watch the Rocky movies knowing full-well that Sylvester Stallone and I don't exactly see eye-to-eye on politics (same with Clint Eastwood movies), but I enjoy them nevertheless.   But with Star Trek, the message is part of what the show is all about

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammer   

I really wish Pegg would leave his political partisanship and views out of his writing and away from interviews about Trek. It's hard to like a film series from which I feel excluded by the writers. I don't want Star Trek movies to be made for left wingers only.

Why?  Gene Roddenberry was very political when he created Star Trek; he evoked agnosticism, feminism, mixing of races (very controversial in 1966), socialism and a lot of other hot-button political territories.   Some were blatant ("Private Little War" "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield"), others were more subtle.   But politics have always been part of Star Trek's DNA.    

I think Pegg is simply carrying on ST's humanist legacy...

Whether one 'agrees' with the politics is irrelevant; it simply is.  I watch the Rocky movies knowing full-well that Sylvester Stallone and I don't exactly see eye-to-eye on politics (same with Clint Eastwood movies), but I enjoy them nevertheless.   But with Star Trek, the message is part of what the show is all about

I must have missed the TNG episode on Reaganomics... Or that 'very special' episode about Bill Clinton on Voyager...

Political issues have always been fair game. Commenting on contemporary politicians ages the show badly on replay. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really wish Pegg would leave his political partisanship and views out of his writing and away from interviews about Trek. It's hard to like a film series from which I feel excluded by the writers. I don't want Star Trek movies to be made for left wingers only.

Why?  Gene Roddenberry was very political when he created Star Trek; he evoked agnosticism, feminism, mixing of races (very controversial in 1966), socialism and a lot of other hot-button political territories.   Some were blatant ("Private Little War" "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield"), others were more subtle.   But politics have always been part of Star Trek's DNA.    

I think Pegg is simply carrying on ST's humanist legacy...

Whether one 'agrees' with the politics is irrelevant; it simply is.  I watch the Rocky movies knowing full-well that Sylvester Stallone and I don't exactly see eye-to-eye on politics (same with Clint Eastwood movies), but I enjoy them nevertheless.   But with Star Trek, the message is part of what the show is all about

I must have missed the TNG episode on Reaganomics... Or that 'very special' episode about Bill Clinton on Voyager...

^
Nowhere is it written that Trek's creators have to give separate-but-equal airtime to both political extremes; this is entertainment, not the evening news.  

The writers/producers of the show can reflect their politics if they wish.   Just as Rambo can reflect the politics of Sylvester Stallone, or Death Wish can reflect the politics of Charles Bronson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammer   

I really wish Pegg would leave his political partisanship and views out of his writing and away from interviews about Trek. It's hard to like a film series from which I feel excluded by the writers. I don't want Star Trek movies to be made for left wingers only.

Why?  Gene Roddenberry was very political when he created Star Trek; he evoked agnosticism, feminism, mixing of races (very controversial in 1966), socialism and a lot of other hot-button political territories.   Some were blatant ("Private Little War" "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield"), others were more subtle.   But politics have always been part of Star Trek's DNA.    

I think Pegg is simply carrying on ST's humanist legacy...

Whether one 'agrees' with the politics is irrelevant; it simply is.  I watch the Rocky movies knowing full-well that Sylvester Stallone and I don't exactly see eye-to-eye on politics (same with Clint Eastwood movies), but I enjoy them nevertheless.   But with Star Trek, the message is part of what the show is all about

I must have missed the TNG episode on Reaganomics... Or that 'very special' episode about Bill Clinton on Voyager...

^
Nowhere is it written that Trek's creators have to give separate-but-equal airtime to both political extremes; this is entertainment, not the evening news.  

The writers/producers of the show can reflect their politics if they wish.   Just as Rambo can reflect the politics of Sylvester Stallone, or Death Wish can reflect the politics of Charles Bronson.

Yeah, I want equal airtime on Star Trek for both Democrats and Republicans. By this I mean equal to zero airtime. The rest of the world has the American president election cycle rammed down our collective throats for 2 years straight. How about the writers think about issues that go beyond the borders of the USA, being as this show is based in a world where there is full cooperation and participation in a global government.

If Pegg was making a conscious effort to make Krall a Trump clone, I can see why he failed miserably to write a compelling villain for that movie.

Edited by Hammer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really wish Pegg would leave his political partisanship and views out of his writing and away from interviews about Trek. It's hard to like a film series from which I feel excluded by the writers. I don't want Star Trek movies to be made for left wingers only.

Why?  Gene Roddenberry was very political when he created Star Trek; he evoked agnosticism, feminism, mixing of races (very controversial in 1966), socialism and a lot of other hot-button political territories.   Some were blatant ("Private Little War" "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield"), others were more subtle.   But politics have always been part of Star Trek's DNA.    

I think Pegg is simply carrying on ST's humanist legacy...

Whether one 'agrees' with the politics is irrelevant; it simply is.  I watch the Rocky movies knowing full-well that Sylvester Stallone and I don't exactly see eye-to-eye on politics (same with Clint Eastwood movies), but I enjoy them nevertheless.   But with Star Trek, the message is part of what the show is all about

I must have missed the TNG episode on Reaganomics... Or that 'very special' episode about Bill Clinton on Voyager...

^
Nowhere is it written that Trek's creators have to give separate-but-equal airtime to both political extremes; this is entertainment, not the evening news.  

The writers/producers of the show can reflect their politics if they wish.   Just as Rambo can reflect the politics of Sylvester Stallone, or Death Wish can reflect the politics of Charles Bronson.

Yeah, I want equal airtime on Star Trek for both Democrats and Republicans. By this I mean equal to zero airtime. The rest of the world has the American president election cycle rammed down our collective throats for 2 years straight. How about the writers think about issues that go beyond the borders of the USA, being as this show is based in a world where there is full cooperation and participation in a global government.

If Pegg was making a conscious effort to make Krall a Trump clone, I can see why he failed miserably to write a compelling villain for that movie.

Pegg seems to feel that Krall was supposed to be a Trump clone; I personally don't see him quite that way.  I just see him as a bitter reactionary, lost to a changed era in which he no longer belongs.   But I don't think the Trump analog was rammed down anyone's throat.   

With all respect to Pegg, I really didn't see Trump or American election politics of 2016 in STB (it's one of the things I liked about the movie; it took my mind off of the election for a couple hours).   But there were other allegorical elements in STB such as fundamentalism (Krall's belief that conflict and strife are what makes humanity better echoes some of ISIS' barbarism), or people living under ISIS control (Krall's crew and assimilated aliens), or the bitterness/resentment of soldiers who are unable to assimilate back into civilian life (Krall's anger and dismay at seeing Yorktown starbase).  

That was my take on Krall/Edison, but I think that's one of the good things about it (and a lot of Star Trek); different interpretations can be drawn from it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammer   

In the article, Pegg also mentions that Krall was originally going to be augmented by living tissue and organs from other alien species.... like the Vidiians.

He sure comes up with a lot of great ideas... that have already been used by previous Trek writers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scenario   

In the article, Pegg also mentions that Krall was originally going to be augmented by living tissue and organs from other alien species.... like the Vidiians.

He sure comes up with a lot of great ideas... that have already been used by previous Trek writers.

How many episodes of Star Trek have their been? Something like 700, I've heard. I'd like to see anyone write a coherent movie that has a whole new set of ideas that have never been used in any Star Trek episode or movie and it still has to make sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the article, Pegg also mentions that Krall was originally going to be augmented by living tissue and organs from other alien species.... like the Vidiians.

He sure comes up with a lot of great ideas... that have already been used by previous Trek writers.

How many episodes of Star Trek have their been? Something like 700, I've heard. I'd like to see anyone write a coherent movie that has a whole new set of ideas that have never been used in any Star Trek episode or movie and it still has to make sense. 

^
This.

And yes, it's over 700 episodes and movies.   You're not going to find a single idea in any newer or future incarnation of Star Trek that we haven't seen on the show in some previous capacity or incarnation.   Hell, even TOS started to use and reuse old tropes from its earlier shows; how many time/space jump portals have we seen on the show?  How many super-sized enemy starships that look like giant black porcupines?   How many renegade Klingons?  How many god beings that judge humanity?   How many evil kids?  How many misunderstood demigod beings?   How many resurrected characters?   How many historical figures come to life?   How many mad scientists?   How many aliens that need to know 'what is love'?  How many sentient robots or computers?   How many Vulcans lose control of their emotions?  The list is endless... and gets even longer with the 18 years of TNG to ENT.

Frankly I don't really care if a long-running science fiction show reuses old tropes or story ideas again; that's unavoidable.   What I'm hoping for is that they're delivered in a new or interesting way, or offer some new angle or insight unique to a particular new story.   Even those events happening to a new character can be exciting? 

ST is not going to reinvent the wheel after 50 years and over a dozen movies.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Simon Pegg Teases STAR TREK 4 Script Has Begun
 

Or it could be a shot of them working on a Mission: Impossible movie, or it could be the two of them online holiday shopping together for all we know...

A shame because I'd love to believe they're working on a new ST script, but that photo says nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Simon Pegg Teases STAR TREK 4 Script Has Begun
 

Simon Pegg is involved in writing ST 4? Hell yeah Paramount, finally taking wise decisions.

Well, don't get too excited yet, my friend...read the link first.  It's more interpretive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kenman   

If Pegg and Jung are involved in the script at any point I consider it a good thing. I am willing to give the earlier announced kids a chance, but even if these two just come in an inject some of the warmth, humor, and smarts they added to the mixture of Beyond? I will be well satisfied. If not...oh well. The picture is ambiguous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nowhere is it written that Trek's creators have to give separate-but-equal airtime to both political extremes; this is entertainment, not the evening news.  

The writers/producers of the show can reflect their politics if they wish.   Just as Rambo can reflect the politics of Sylvester Stallone, or Death Wish can reflect the politics of Charles Bronson.

Actually, the evening news is exactly where extreme left wing slants are found.

I think you sort of said it yourself--it's entertainment.  So why alienate half the country?  Smart writing isn't so extreme, which is why Star Trek did such a good job in its day.  GR was nowhere near as extreme left as the writers today.  Maybe that's part of why Star Trek hasn't done as well as it did in the past.  Turning off so many people by forcing their views down your throat isn't the best idea. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nowhere is it written that Trek's creators have to give separate-but-equal airtime to both political extremes; this is entertainment, not the evening news.  

The writers/producers of the show can reflect their politics if they wish.   Just as Rambo can reflect the politics of Sylvester Stallone, or Death Wish can reflect the politics of Charles Bronson.

Actually, the evening news is exactly where extreme left wing slants are found.

I think you sort of said it yourself--it's entertainment.  So why alienate half the country?  Smart writing isn't so extreme, which is why Star Trek did such a good job in its day.  GR was nowhere near as extreme left as the writers today.  Maybe that's part of why Star Trek hasn't done as well as it did in the past.  Turning off so many people by forcing their views down your throat isn't the best idea. 

Because asking a writer to appease isn't being smart; it's coercion.

And no one if 'forcing' anything; if the audience doesn't like it, they can vote with their wallet.   To any alt-right fans who feel alienated by Star Trek?  You won the election,   Console yourself with that.   Leave the artists (and pop artists) alone.

Besides, with ST's template of a socialist utopia without money, and where there is no homelessness or materialistic greed, it's kind of hard to imagine a right wing spin on it anyway....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And to be clear?  Roddenberry was pretty far out in terms of his political ideas; he was also very sexually explicit (his original ideas for the 4-breasted Betazed women, or exceptionally endowed male Ferengi, for example).   His politics were very much part and parcel of the show as well.  His personal beliefs were, ironically, very anti-capitalist (his subtle and not-too-subtle jabs at corporate sponsorship in "Bread & Circuses" were due to his rewriting).  I just can't imagine a right wing version of Star Trek; it wouldn't be the same show, really.

It'd be like a left-wing "Death Wish" film. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scenario   

The most Right wing I remember the TOS getting (by current D Trump, alt-Right standards) was in ST6 when Kirk found out that the Klingons were dying his response was "Let them die." Star Trek is pro science. The right wing in the U.S. is anti-science. I don't really know how you could make an show that is optimistic about the future that the far right wing wouldn't consider to be far left propaganda.

I just can't see an argument in a Star Trek show where two of the good guy's arguing with one of them saying something like "We have to help the aliens. If we don't help they'll all die." And the other one saying "Let them die. They should be held responsible for their own actions. We didn't put the asteroid there. If we solve this problem and stop them from going extinct, how will they ever learn to help themselves?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites