GustavoLeao

Simon Pegg Talks BEYOND and STAR TREK 4

Recommended Posts

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. 

He tracks them and psychoanalyzes them until they hug it out:

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 that's not what the creator believes in, writes, films, or otherwise wants to create. Watch it or don't. You're not owed your point of view anywhere but your own mind,

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. 

He tracks them and psychoanalyzes them until they hug it out:

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 that's not what the creator believes in, writes, films, or otherwise wants to create. Watch it or don't. You're not owed your point of view anywhere but your own mind,

^
This.

And there are plenty of good films I enjoy that I don't 'agree' with politically or morally; "Patton" (1970), "The Godfather" (1972) are two favorites that come to mind, and I wouldn't ask the filmmakers to change a single shot to make it more 'palatable' for me.   Art, even pop art, is a take-it-as-it-is proposition.   It is an avenue of freedom and expression that is admittedly funded by corporations, but the understanding is that the art is not beholden to a political party or their views.   And the arts have largely (but not exclusively) been the purview of liberal/progressive thought, just as the NRA, the police or the military are largely (but not solely) right wing in their respective memberships.  That's just the way it is.

And again, I'm just not sure how one would or could skew Star Trek to make it less progressive (?); would the crew suddenly become less inclusive and less accepting?  Would the plots be about just stopping Klingons or other 'bad guys'?   Would the ships be more military and less diplomatic?  Would the crew suddenly start complaining about the government providing all of the essentials of life?   Or maybe capitalism would make a 23rd century revival in the Federation and Starfleet would start slapping corporate logos on the Enterprise hull?   I just... don't know. 

At any rate, NONE of that is really Star Trek when you think about it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And again, I'm just not sure how one would or could skew Star Trek to make it less progressive (?); would the crew suddenly become less inclusive and less accepting?  Would the plots be about just stopping Klingons or other 'bad guys'?   Would the ships be more military and less diplomatic?  Would the crew suddenly start complaining about the government providing all of the essentials of life?   Or maybe capitalism would make a 23rd century revival in the Federation and Starfleet would start slapping corporate logos on the Enterprise hull?   I just... don't know. 

 

Pretty sure a right-leaning Enterprise would have immediately jailed Loki for Bele, destroyed Vaal simply because it was there because the feeders should be "our version of free," and, Let's just say the Horta would be too dead to be a problem to the miners because manifest destiny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And again, I'm just not sure how one would or could skew Star Trek to make it less progressive (?); would the crew suddenly become less inclusive and less accepting?  Would the plots be about just stopping Klingons or other 'bad guys'?   Would the ships be more military and less diplomatic?  Would the crew suddenly start complaining about the government providing all of the essentials of life?   Or maybe capitalism would make a 23rd century revival in the Federation and Starfleet would start slapping corporate logos on the Enterprise hull?   I just... don't know. 

 

Pretty sure a right-leaning Enterprise would have immediately jailed Loki for Bele, destroyed Vaal simply because it was there because the feeders should be "our version of free," and, Let's just say the Horta would be too dead to be a problem to the miners because manifest destiny.

I'll concede that Star Trek occasionally had seemingly 'right wing' elements to it ("Private Little War" had Kirk taking the side of American justification in Vietnam, for example), but the framework of the show is very progressive-leaning.  That's been part of it since the beginning, as for the 'argument' that TNG made it even more so?  From all I've read about the production of TNG, some of Roddenberry's more far-left ideas were NOT agreed to, in favor of a more even-keeled format.   Roddenberry's more left-leaning politics are on display in his failed pilots "Genesis II" and "Planet Earth" (and both are pretty terrible, to be honest... not so much for the very 'hippie-dippy' politics of that era, but for everything else).

As for KT Star Trek?  I see almost NO evidence that they're skewed politically left one way or the other, to be honest.  They're really not that deep to be politically sensitive; they're really more popcorn movies blessed with the endearing charm of the ST characters.   STB really had no political message other than Krall/Edison was a militant fascist and didn't fit into the more inclusive era he found himself in.   How would one 'balance' that?   Make him a communist trying to undo the military of the Starfleet?   I really don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

I'm asking a writer to entertain, and not force their extremist views on me.  What's an issue right now is the misconception people have of conservatives, like the claim that the right is anti-science.  That's ridiculous.  That's like saying everyone on the left if a flag burning hippie that needs to crawl into their safe space if they don't get their way.  That's like saying everyone on the left hates religion, are all atheists, and all want hand outs and are not willing to work for it.  And they all have man buns.  Lots of man buns. 

For the record, as a conservative, I have the benefits of science every day, from the use of computers, phones, TV, movies, cures for diseases, transportation, etc.

I see a lot more conservative views from Kirk than just the "let them die" line in ST6.  The alt-right is NOT conservative.  They couldn't be further from it.  And maybe it's these misconceptions that are doing the alienation and hurting Star Trek.  And only a small percentage of those who voted for Trump agree with the alt-right.  And here's a newsflash, there is an alt-left.  They are the ones who rioted in the streets and get violent with Trump supporters.  They are just as bad. 

The problem with people like Pegg trying to write a "Trump" villain is that he clearly has no clue what Trump or conservatives are all about.  He made up a fiction and tried to pass them off as conservatives, and then convinces himself that this really is conservatives. 

TOS had some very right wing ideals as well.  The strong military.  Peace through strength.  The lunacy of racism (that's not a left wing concept).  Pride in the American flag.  That sometimes diplomacy doesn't work and while you don't want it, you have to take more action.  And of course, the concept that government doing your thinking for you is just not a good thing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yikes.  We're getting WAY too Kobayashi Maru for this thread.

But I will only say the Pegg isn't 'forcing' his liberal beliefs on anyone; just as me enjoying "The Hunt For Red October" doesn't involve me buying into Tom Clancy's conservative worldview either.  I decide with my wallet, and I also decide whether I'm going to put my ideology aside or not for 2 hours and just settle on having a good time. 

Interesting that you cited Kirk's 'let them die' line in ST6 as an example of Star Trek having a conservative bent; since Kirk's viewpoint  was disproven by the movie's end, and he came to accept the Klingons as allies.  I prefer Kirk's "People can be  very frightened of change" line as the real intent of both the movie and the character's journey, not "let them die." 

But Star Trek doesn't owe any side of the political spectrum equal airtime.  No entertainment does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've observed TOS is EASILY the series with largest percentage of conservative Trek fans, so there HAS to be something about TOS in particular that appeals to them.

The details of whether that "something" is actually THERE or not or is a matter of political interpretation is indeed a matter of a Kobayashi Maru debate, though - and I would suggest TAKING it there before this entire topic derails any further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've observed TOS is EASILY the series with largest percentage of conservative Trek fans, so there HAS to be something about TOS in particular that appeals to them.

The details of whether that "something" is actually THERE or not or is a matter of political interpretation is indeed a matter of a Kobayashi Maru debate, though - and I would suggest TAKING it there before this entire topic derails any further.

Just did... ;)

 

....and I just LOVE your new avatar!!! :thumbup:

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).

Paramount Pictures is a business that needs to turn a profit. As much as Beyond was popular with the crotchity, Abrams-hating diehards, it didn't do as well at the box office as the previous two films that he directed. Lens flare, as realistic as it is, is not for everyone - we get it. But the man knows how to cut a trailer that gets people talking (Beyond flubbed this badly) and his films are terrific at weaving emotion and action. Whether J.J. directs or not is one thing, I think the discussion that's the most interesting is how Chris Hemsworth would be utilized. This announcement was made before Beyond hit theaters or Star Trek 4 had been green lit, which tells me they must have a pretty solid and compelling story already under their belts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, does the director even control how the trailer is setup? I remember seeing the Search for Spock trailer spoiling the movie (showing the destruction of the Enterprise).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, does the director even control how the trailer is setup? I remember seeing the Search for Spock trailer spoiling the movie (showing the destruction of the Enterprise).

Paramount had much more control in 1984 over things, especially with a first-time director in Nimoy. With J.J. he absolutely oversees the cutting of his trailers - which is why they are so good usually. Remember, the second full trailer for Star Trek (2009) broke the internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, that 2nd trailer was so epic , it tricked me into seeing it. The Into Darkness trailers didn't impress me much.

The trailers for Into Darkness didn't have to be as impressive due to how popular the first one was. Mainstream audiences were going to pile in and see these characters' next adventures either way, which they absolutely did - to the chagrin of un-approving diehard fans who can never be satisfied, lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites