Pegg updates on script

[Rahul]

Best case for Star Trek Beyond:
-Paramount pulls Star Trek back from it's tentpole position, and back to it's original niché, with future products being aimed at a smaller, but more reliable audience (resulting in smaller budgets for future movies, but less meddling from the producers)
-The JJverse is put to a rest, any new Star Trek product tries to 'reconcile' with it's original audience

I disagree that this would be a "best case". Star Trek is not designed to be used as fodder for an art film or an indie-style Oscar bait film. It is too silly for that, uses too many gee-whiz tricks, and is too firmly linked to popcorn style flicks to get away with becoming a niche. If Star Trek stops being a viable tent-pole summer flick franchise - it dies.
The same thing happens if anyone attempts to resurrect the "Prime" timeline.

Nah. Star Trek will never, ever go anywhere even NEAR an Oscar. But the summer tentpole spot is also wrong. JJs 'Star Trek' was the first Star Trek movie that tried to be a summer blockbuster. As a result it was less "Star Trek: The movie" and more "Star Trek: the ride". Very entertaining and fun to watch, but essentially a 'best-of' of everything Star Trek, without a coherent plot or even a point to make. They never tried to do something new, just do the old stuff in a bigger way (Time Travel! Kubayashi Maru! Transporter Accidents! Red Shirts dying spectacular! Planets being destroyed! Mind Bugs! San Francisco LAZERED! Ship vs. even more giant ship! Black holes! Warp core breach!). That's the reason for the nose-dive that is 'Into Darkness': they already rehashed everything big and important in the first movie, there was nothing left to top that anymore. You can't get bigger than destroying Vulcan and nearly Earth.

I would love for the Star Trek movies to take a step back, to where they originally where, in the prize range of Star Trek: The Motion Picture to Nemesis, with appropriate budget and box office expectations. Aimed at the more traditional Star Trek audience (Fast and Furions never aimed to be big. They just stayed true to their original brand, and more people hopped on. Star Trek tried forcefully to be big). Once you go over 100 mio.$ budget, you have to please everybody, and any Producer with a dumb idea is adding his own suggestions, and the movie is more driven by marketing studies and release dates than by someone wanting to tell a coherent science-fiction story.


Never gonna' happen though. The new movies are not that big of a success, but make enough money to get the Spiderman-Treatment and will be either be continued or Rebooted, whatever to churn out one movie after another, trying to keep the brand at the market.

That's why I would like Star Trek back on tv, in the best case in the DC-version, with big blockbusters (Man of Steel, Batman v. Superman) for general audiences and a seperated continuity on tv ('Arrow' and 'The Flash'), preferable the old 'prime univers', that don't intermix, so that the tv series could go on, while the movie series is able to do whatever it wants without being bound by continuity.

 

[fireproof78]

Nah. Star Trek will never, ever go anywhere even NEAR an Oscar. But the summer tentpole spot is also wrong. JJs 'Star Trek' was the first Star Trek movie that tried to be a summer blockbuster. As a result it was less "Star Trek: The movie" and more "Star Trek: the ride". Very entertaining and fun to watch, but essentially a 'best-of' of everything Star Trek, without a coherent plot or even a point to make. They never tried to do something new, just do the old stuff in a bigger way (Time Travel! Kubayashi Maru! Transporter Accidents! Red Shirts dying spectacular! Planets being destroyed! Mind Bugs! San Francisco LAZERED! Ship vs. even more giant ship! Black holes! Warp core breach!). That's the reason for the nose-dive that is 'Into Darkness': they already rehashed everything big and important in the first movie, there was nothing left to top that anymore. You can't get bigger than destroying Vulcan and nearly Earth.

I would love for the Star Trek movies to take a step back, to where they originally where, in the prize range of Star Trek: The Motion Picture to Nemesis, with appropriate budget and box office expectations. Aimed at the more traditional Star Trek audience (Fast and Furions never aimed to be big. They just stayed true to their original brand, and more people hopped on. Star Trek tried forcefully to be big). Once you go over 100 mio.$ budget, you have to please everybody, and any Producer with a dumb idea is adding his own suggestions, and the movie is more driven by marketing studies and release dates than by someone wanting to tell a coherent science-fiction story.

I agree that a cut budget would be helpful, because it would force critical selection in terms of the story.

However, I have to disagree that Trek 09 was just a ride. It had a point to make, and multi-layered character development and a social commentary to boot.

Yeah, the surface level stuff makes for a fun action ride but there is always more to it.

 

[mos6507]

Social commentary in Trek 09? Like what? Spock being an outcast? It was a simple Joseph Campbell hero journey ala Star Wars with Kirk transformed into "the chosen one" right down to his "special birth". There's very little social relevance in there. It's pure space opera fantasy and little else. Not that Trek hasn't served as space opera, but usually had more redeeming value to it besides that.

 

[mos6507]

Pegg's "fringe concerns". It doesn't mean much.

Pegg's concerns mean a lot because he's writing the film. Whether you think his concerns are valid or not, he does, and it will be reflected in the finished product.

 

[JWPlatt]

[Trek 09] had a point to make, and multi-layered character development and a social commentary to boot.

Social commentary in Trek 09? Like what?

I am often frustrated by posts that make a claim but don't elaborate on it. I think folks assume that it's obvious and that maybe, if we're really fans of Star Trek, we shouldn't have to be told. For example, I think it was with fireproof78 that I had a good discussion about Pike being a father figure and the wider aspects of that. But even if it's been said before in other threads, it bears explanation in the new context. So yes, I'd be very interested in reading what folks think were the points made, the character development, and the social commentary when the claim is made so that it doesn't appear to simply be a sweeping generalization. This isn't really to criticize the claim, but to express my interest in the deeper thoughts of the person making it.

 

[BillJ]

It was a simple Joseph Campbell hero journey ala Star Wars with Kirk transformed into "the chosen one" right down to his "special birth".

But, what exactly is wrong with this? There's a reason these themes get used over and over and over again.

I'd say one of the big themes of Star Trek (2009), is the value of guidance in a young persons life.

 

[Amaris]

It was a simple Joseph Campbell hero journey ala Star Wars with Kirk transformed into "the chosen one" right down to his "special birth".

But, what exactly is wrong with this? There's a reason these themes get used over and over and over again.

I'd say one of the big themes of Star Trek (2009), is the value of guidance in a young persons life.

Sacrifice, guidance, redemption, I picked up a significant number of thematic undercurrents in Trek 2009.

 

[JWPlatt]

It was a simple Joseph Campbell hero journey ala Star Wars with Kirk transformed into "the chosen one" right down to his "special birth".

But, what exactly is wrong with this? There's a reason these themes get used over and over and over again.

I'd say one of the big themes of Star Trek (2009), is the value of guidance in a young persons life.

I think the general response is that cliché and repetition is not creative or interesting. I'm not saying that's how it was for me, but it's how I interpret the complaint. The complaint doesn't explain, for example, the continued success of Shakespeare in all of its renderings.

 

[fireproof78]

Social commentary in Trek 09? Like what? Spock being an outcast? It was a simple Joseph Campbell hero journey ala Star Wars with Kirk transformed into "the chosen one" right down to his "special birth". There's very little social relevance in there. It's pure space opera fantasy and little else. Not that Trek hasn't served as space opera, but usually had more redeeming value to it besides that.

Special birth? It was a stress induced premature labor...the only thing special is that his dad dies, which has more implications for his life later on.

Which leads in to my next point-the importance of father figures. Both Pike and Sarek demonstrated how incredibly needed they are in the shaping and development of Kirk and Spock as the men we would later know. The fact that the USA is seeing a decrease in fathers in families, and the increase psychological research that demonstrates that as a need, yes it is socially relevant.

Secondly, there is a wonderful theme of the balance of emotion and logic that both Kirk and Spock are trying to thread. Sarek certainly represents a more logical approach, but attempts to bridge the gap, while Nero represents that emotional state of extremism that could consume Spock, and threatens to do so at one point in the film.

Finally, I love the fact that it is multilayered. I can enjoy on a purely action piece at times, or I can dig down in to the psychology of what drives Kirk, what makes him a good captain, and why is this new Kirk so untamed.

Obviously, opinions vary, but that is my take away from the film.

 

[Mach5]

Not every Star Trek movie needs social commentary (STID had plenty). Probably my biggest gripe with ST XI is Nero being criminally underdeveloped. Bana could have done wonders there.

 

[fireproof78]

I thought Nero was perfect, but some minor details probably would have augmented it. Though I loved every moment he was on screen.

 

[Mach5]

I thought Nero was perfect, but some minor details probably would have augmented it. Though I loved every moment he was on screen.

I did too. I don't have a problem with what we got. It's what Bana could have given us, but never got the chance to that bothered me.

 

[Mudd]

I would love for the Star Trek movies to take a step back, to where they originally where, in the prize range of Star Trek: The Motion Picture to Nemesis, with appropriate budget and box office expectations.

First get a time machine and go back fifteen years.

There's no reliable place in the commercial theatrical film business for movies with that kind of subject matter budgeted in that way. Movies like that get slaughtered in the first week of an ever-shorter, ever more crowded release schedule.

The studios have more remunerative ways to spend their money.

 

[Mach5]

The studios have more remunerative ways to spend their money.

Tell that to people who still finance Ridley Scott movies

 

[fireproof78]

I thought Nero was perfect, but some minor details probably would have augmented it. Though I loved every moment he was on screen.

I did too. I don't have a problem with what we got. It's what Bana could have given us, but never got the chance to that bothered me.

That's a totally fair point.

 

[eyeresist]

I'd say one of the big themes of Star Trek (2009), is the value of guidance in a young persons life.

Sacrifice, guidance, redemption, I picked up a significant number of thematic undercurrents in Trek 2009.

Looking at the arcs for Kirk, Spock and Nero, I think it's obvious that ST09 was about dealing with loss.

---

It's extremely unlike that Trek movies will go lower budget/more thoughtful. The studio mentality is that fantasy/sci-fi movies must be megabudget in case there's a chance of being the next Avengers/Twilight/etc*. We see this in publishing as well: the corporate heads who run the major houses seem blind to the fact that a modest profit for a modest outlay is STILL PROFIT. They insist on always gambling on the mega hit (and thus often incur mega losses).

* Obviously there are still small sf movies, e.g. Ex Machina, but I doubt anyone would be happy with a Trek film of people sitting around a house talking.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Best case for Star Trek Beyond:
-Paramount pulls Star Trek back from it's tentpole position, and back to it's original niché, with future products being aimed at a smaller, but more reliable audience (resulting in smaller budgets for future movies, but less meddling from the producers)
-The JJverse is put to a rest, any new Star Trek product tries to 'reconcile' with it's original audience

This is your BEST case? Mine is:

Star Trek Beyond is popular and successful, and leads to further movies with this cast.

 

[ralph]

"There are always... possibilities", Spock said.

 

[mos6507]

It was a simple Joseph Campbell hero journey ala Star Wars with Kirk transformed into "the chosen one" right down to his "special birth".

But, what exactly is wrong with this? There's a reason these themes get used over and over and over again.

I'd say one of the big themes of Star Trek (2009), is the value of guidance in a young persons life.

Sacrifice, guidance, redemption, I picked up a significant number of thematic undercurrents in Trek 2009.

Every movie has character themes. They don't necessarily have intellectual themes. Sci-fi is also called speculative fiction. It is meant to ask "what if" questions about humanity as a whole, where we're headed, and what technological change could mean, good or bad. Trek revolves around this, from the M-5 to the Genesis device to what the introduction of warp drive would mean (First Contact). There's really nothing like that at the heart of Trek 2009 or Into Darkness for that matter.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Sci-fi is also called speculative fiction. It is meant to ask "what if" questions about humanity as a whole, where we're headed, and what technological change could mean, good or bad.

Is this a dictionary definition or a personal opinion?