Pegg updates on script

[Timo]

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.

Oh? I thought ST:ID made some pretty blatant comments on the waging of wars of vengeance using assassination drones... Cutting edge stuff compared with anything TNG ever did with technology and its ramifications.

Is this a dictionary definition or a personal opinion?

Is there a difference? Any dictionary definition is just somebody's personal opinion anyway. Abbreviating the complex meaning of a word or a term into an entry perhaps two phrases long necessarily means heavily imposing one's own values and preferences on the definition.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Jedi_Master]

Actually a dictionary definition for a word is based on the way the word is used and defined in the context of written literature.

 

[Timo]

...Which is inevitably a subject one couldn't squeeze into a regular paperback in full, considering the volume of "written literature" extant. So the abbreviation shoehorned into the dictionary is still just an interpretation by some dude.

(As evidenced by every dictionary having a different definition, cheap plagiarism aside...)

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Jedi_Master]

...Which is inevitably a subject one couldn't squeeze into a regular paperback in full, considering the volume of "written literature" extant. So the abbreviation shoehorned into the dictionary is still just an interpretation by some dude.

(As evidenced by every dictionary having a different definition, cheap plagiarism aside...)

Timo Saloniemi

Chuckle. I think you should read this book. You would find it very interesting.

 

[fireproof78]

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.

Beyond what makes a good leader or the importance of fathers? In a society where fatherhood that is being question as to its importance that is relevant and significant.

It may not be reflected upon society as a whole but there is an everyman type quality to Kirk and asking the question of what made him a great man? What the changes meant to his life, good or bad, and the impact upon society as a whole.

At the heart of 09 is the question of what a man's life means to society. Really, the concept of Roddenberry's future humanity in TNG where everyone works to the betterment of humanity. Well, what if someone isn't participating? What does that mean to the individual? What does that mean to society?

I have other thoughts here

 

[Rahul]

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.

Yes. Thats why I have added that it's never gonna' happen
To be fair though, I would love a Star Trek movie in the price range of 80 - 120 mio $. That's about the range of "smaller" blockbuster movies like 'Oblivion', 'Edge of Tomorrow', 'Inception' oder 'Gravity'. Not the 250 mio $ uber-blockbusters like Transformers or everything marvel, but a prize range where you can make a good action movie and still tell your own story.


@fireproof78 and others:
i would argue that Star Trek 09 didn't have a theme. It had many great character scenes, some of them dealing with daddy issues, loss and revenge (yay! never seen before!). But it didn't actually made a point on any of those. In fact I'm pretty disappointed with some of the themes in this movie, as revenge seemed partially protrayed as totally justified (as long as our guys do it), and there was a severe lack of mother-figures.

What it did have were many great character scenes, which in the end almost connected to a small theme: the origin of an iconic group of characters. It's not exactly profound, but for a summer blockbuster, it works.

That being said, a big blockbuster doesn't actually need a theme. It's great if it has one (Captain America: The Winter Soldier), but in the end it only needs to entertain for 2 hours (The Avengers). Forcefully adding a moral issue can wreck a movie (like 'Insurrection' and 'Into Darkness').

Star Trek 09 is basically just a big, dumb, loud thrillride with likeable characters. And that's exactly what it should be. And it's very good at that.

 

[Mudd]

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?

Skiffy fans all have their favored definitions - there is not one that's generally agreed upon, and never has been. Look up Damon knight's.

 

[martok2112]

Just entertain me. That's all I ask of any movie, Star Trek in particular.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Star Trek will never, ever go anywhere even NEAR an Oscar.

Say what? Star Trek (2009) won an Academy Award, and there have been fifteen nominations to films in the franchise over the decades, starting with the first film, and including the most recent two.

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Star_Trek's_awards_and_honors

 

[martok2112]

Star Trek will never, ever go anywhere even NEAR an Oscar.

Say what? Star Trek (2009) won an Academy Award, and there have been fifteen nominations to films in the franchise over the decades, starting with the first film, and including the most recent two.

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Star_Trek's_awards_and_honors

Sadly, I think when some people say Star Trek is/will not be Oscar material, I think they're thinking in terms of the more prestigious Oscar nods: Best actor/actress/supporting role, Best Director, Best Screenplay, Best Film Score, Best Film, etc. The technical things such as visual effects, art design, best sound, although still obviously having won Oscars are just not given the same weight.

Again, it is sad that it is so.

 

[Maurice]

I'm going to use the word "ignorant" here nut not in its pejorative sense.

From many of the posts I've read, here and elsewhere, it's obvious to me that the people who speak about the script delays and production start dates are ignorant of the reality of how movies (and TV for that matter) are made.

It's not impossible for a film to have a "draft" script in May and start shooting in July, for instance. Pegg could have turned in a messy draft script that had most of the story beats worked out to the satisfaction of the producers and studio executives, which they could then approve for a rewrite/revision with very specific notes. For instance, the dialog might not be final, and all the action in specific scenes not worked out (I don't mean big action set pieces necessarily), but if there story structure and beats and where the scenes take place is solid and not likely to change the studio can and will start preproduction on those elements, from set to costume to prop design. Scripts are rarely set in concrete during pre-production, and scenes get tweaked, massaged, added and even omitted right down to the wire. That's the nature of the business.

So, yes, more prep time is better, but just because they don't have a locked production draft today doesn't mean they can't possibly start shooting two months from now.

 

[martok2112]

I'm going to use the word "ignorant" here nut not in its pejorative sense.

From many of the posts I've read, here and elsewhere, it's obvious to me that the people who speak about the script delays and production start dates are ignorant of the reality of how movies (and TV for that matter) are made.

It's not impossible for a film to have a "draft" script in May and start shooting in July, for instance. Pegg could have turned in a messy draft script that had most of the story beats worked out to the satisfaction of the producers and studio executives, which they could then approve for a rewrite/revision with very specific notes. For instance, they dialog might not be final, and all the action in specific scenes not worked out (I don't mean big action set pieces necessarily), but if there story structure and beats and where the scenes take place is solid and not likely to change the studio can and will start preproduction on those elements, from set to costume to prop design. Scripts are rarely set in concrete during pre-production, and scenes get tweaked, massaged, added and even omitted right down to the wire. That's the nature of the business.

So, yes, more prep time is better, but just because they don't have a locked production draft today doesn't mean they can't possible start shooting two months from now.

The original Battlestar Galactica series was plagued with lots of such production problems. A lot of times, there were even mid-shooting script changes. That's why some of the eps seem to lack a bit of cohesion.

But, for what it achieved, the original Galactica still became a bit of a success story even if it only got the one season.

 

[Maurice]

Well Galactica (78) was a fairly different situation because they were only planning to make a series of TV movies but ABC ordered a series while they were still shooting the pilot, so they had to scramble to try to get any scripts done in time.

 

[HIjol]

I am with martok and others that simply wish to be entertained. For my own part, I also wish that the film returns enough revenue that the Studio will be greenlighted for another movie or two.

Maurice is absolutely correct regarding his script comments.

I think I know what Deckard was talking about, re: dictionary definition vs. "own words" definition. I find it is usually best to try to put things in my own words, unless I am quoting. But that is me.

 

[martok2112]

Well Galactica (78) was a fairly different situation because they were only planning to make a series of TV movies but ABC ordered a series while they were still shooting the pilot, so they had to scramble to try to get any scripts done in time.

You're absolutely right. They did want to do a series of telemovies. Imagine the quality of the shows if they'd been given the time they needed to actually make quality event television. I too would've loved to see War of the Gods and The Living Legend get the budgetary and production considerations they could've gotten if ABC hadn't seen $$$ after the pilot.

Thanks, HIjol! In honesty I just prefer to watch movies at the primal level. I'll worry about analysis later.

 

[Firebird]

I'm going to use the word "ignorant" here nut not in its pejorative sense.

From many of the posts I've read, here and elsewhere, it's obvious to me that the people who speak about the script delays and production start dates are ignorant of the reality of how movies (and TV for that matter) are made.

It's not impossible for a film to have a "draft" script in May and start shooting in July, for instance. Pegg could have turned in a messy draft script that had most of the story beats worked out to the satisfaction of the producers and studio executives, which they could then approve for a rewrite/revision with very specific notes. For instance, they dialog might not be final, and all the action in specific scenes not worked out (I don't mean big action set pieces necessarily), but if there story structure and beats and where the scenes take place is solid and not likely to change the studio can and will start preproduction on those elements, from set to costume to prop design. Scripts are rarely set in concrete during pre-production, and scenes get tweaked, massaged, added and even omitted right down to the wire. That's the nature of the business.

So, yes, more prep time is better, but just because they don't have a locked production draft today doesn't mean they can't possible start shooting two months from now.

The original Battlestar Galactica series was plagued with lots of such production problems. A lot of times, there were even mid-shooting script changes. That's why some of the eps seem to lack a bit of cohesion.

But, for what it achieved, the original Galactica still became a bit of a success story even if it only got the one season.

And we're all familiar with TMP's production rewrites being such a nightmare that cast and crew were getting new pages not just daily, but sometimes HOURLY, with annotated timestamps from either GR or HL. I don't think I've ever heard of a production that's filmed from day one with a locked script without a single rewrite.

 

[fireproof78]

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.

Yes. Thats why I have added that it's never gonna' happen
To be fair though, I would love a Star Trek movie in the price range of 80 - 120 mio $. That's about the range of "smaller" blockbuster movies like 'Oblivion', 'Edge of Tomorrow', 'Inception' oder 'Gravity'. Not the 250 mio $ uber-blockbusters like Transformers or everything marvel, but a prize range where you can make a good action movie and still tell your own story.


@fireproof78 and others:
i would argue that Star Trek 09 didn't have a theme. It had many great character scenes, some of them dealing with daddy issues, loss and revenge (yay! never seen before!). But it didn't actually made a point on any of those. In fact I'm pretty disappointed with some of the themes in this movie, as revenge seemed partially protrayed as totally justified (as long as our guys do it), and there was a severe lack of mother-figures.

What it did have were many great character scenes, which in the end almost connected to a small theme: the origin of an iconic group of characters. It's not exactly profound, but for a summer blockbuster, it works.

That being said, a big blockbuster doesn't actually need a theme. It's great if it has one (Captain America: The Winter Soldier), but in the end it only needs to entertain for 2 hours (The Avengers). Forcefully adding a moral issue can wreck a movie (like 'Insurrection' and 'Into Darkness').

Star Trek 09 is basically just a big, dumb, loud thrillride with likeable characters. And that's exactly what it should be. And it's very good at that.

I would have to disagree on that point, though I understand why people feel the way that they do. I think that Trek 09 is a good film, but I don't think it is big and dumb, but can be enjoyed as such. But, it can be more.

I would argue that there are several themes running through Trek including leadership and father figures. I would also argue that emotion vs. logic framed with revenge is also a running theme. But, the main theme, to me, is what makes a good leader? and it is carried on in to Into Darkness.

I don't think it is a moral issue or a matter of black and white at all. I think it offers up a commentary, that the viewer can agree or disagree with, or ignore, at their leisure. It isn't a "message show" so much as it makes a comment, and moves on, not demanding more of the audience than that.

Same thing with Into Darkness. In my opinion, ID hit me at exactly the right point, taking on several concepts such as leadership doing wrong in the name of right and remote killings of citizens. It does actually make a moral decision, but it also forces Kirk to grow as leader, continuing his arc.

Also, this is becoming a frustration of mine is the term "dumb action movie." I feel like it demeans the film and stops discussion or engagement with the material. Yes, Trek 09 had action, but has a whole lot more.

 

[Autistoid]

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.

Have you ever heard of Christopher Nolan?

No seriously?

If it's not obvious that he's the best reference frame for comparison your likely extremely out of touch with the younger generations.


Inception-Interstellar-Batman-the Prestige-memento, all demostrate traits of films that would ideally sync up with star trek. Obviously it's not easy, but that is the realm where star trek can thrive and maintain relavency.

Seriously people here I think are being dishonest to themselves and using a cicular argument that taste is subjective.

It's not, while not everyone can agree and like everything, without question an experienced audience can make congruent subjective judgements.

Fast and the Furious films are incapable of winning oscars for acting, plot character development, etc.

And the Franchise is based on such a flimsy premise that no one is expecting their films to win any awards any time soon.

That's not subjective, it's more or less a fact. Films like this focus there development, on celebrities, fast cars, chicks, and special effects. Where budget is spent and the demographics that sponser them are not based on random feelings they are based on facts.

Star trek fans are trapped in a cycle of justifying why something they love never meets up to their expectations. Its something that I think is crucial part of being a treky, yet I think its something people need to get over. It's 2015 not 1965 trek is capable of more.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Interstellar had a budget of $165 mill, easily in the same league as ST'09 ($150m) and STID ($190m)

In today's money, TMP's budget compares too. This should be about tone and content, not cost.

(and if STB has any nonsense about love being quantifiable and transcending time and space, I'm done)

 

[Autistoid]

I would have to disagree on that point, though I understand why people feel the way that they do. I think that Trek 09 is a good film, but I don't think it is big and dumb, but can be enjoyed as such. But, it can be more.

I would argue that there are several themes running through Trek including leadership and father figures. I would also argue that emotion vs. logic framed with revenge is also a running theme. But, the main theme, to me, is what makes a good leader? and it is carried on in to Into Darkness.

I don't think it is a moral issue or a matter of black and white at all. I think it offers up a commentary, that the viewer can agree or disagree with, or ignore, at their leisure. It isn't a "message show" so much as it makes a comment, and moves on, not demanding more of the audience than that.

Same thing with Into Darkness. In my opinion, ID hit me at exactly the right point, taking on several concepts such as leadership doing wrong in the name of right and remote killings of citizens. It does actually make a moral decision, but it also forces Kirk to grow as leader, continuing his arc.

Also, this is becoming a frustration of mine is the term "dumb action movie." I feel like it demeans the film and stops discussion or engagement with the material. Yes, Trek 09 had action, but has a whole lot more.

I also think there is an extremely heavy subtext of physcology.

Kirk demostrates some extremely strong traits of narcissim.

SPock display strong traits of Autism spectrum disorders.

While Khan is clearly a Psychopath.

Kirk is shown directly on screen to be an indescriminate womanizer. He clearly treats woman like objects. He has no regard for federation protocols and directly expresses the opinion that he is above the law because he gets results. While detractors would sugguest this is because he's written as an immature child, to advance a superficial ADD plot I think its to blatant for that to be true.

From the beginning core Characters such as Pike, Spock, and Uhora are seen objecting to his ways. The fact that he has chosen one status further complicates this narrative. Is Kirk only out for himself or is he actually of true empathy for other people? Of course another element often forgotten is that he's an orphan from an upbringing that appears to have been abusive. All these questions circle the themes of Ego, Moraltiy etc.

Spock is at the other end of empathy spectrum. He's fully capable of understanding right and wrong(unlike kirk), and yet is crippled by his inability to have his actions reflect his beliefs. Seemingly uncarring, willing to commit defacto suicide for his beliefs.

Added to this are many traits that make him the true hero of the films. He gets the girl, not because he's the cool guy, but because his intelligence and ethics impress uhura. This also puts a feminist twist that a woman is capable of making her own dating choices, by rejecting kirk. He's the true everyman of the first film, having his homeworld destroyed, being the core character of the plot, etc. I could go on and on about this actually.

Khan is a more extreme version of Kirk. He's clearly a psychopath, without remorse incapable of seeing people as anything less more than subhuman. Yet his apparent fixation on his 72 sugguest a more complex form of ehtics. Does he truly care about his people or are they objects needed for his plans of galactic domination.


While I might not be the best at explaining these premise be certain these are some fundamental questions that are not getting enough attention.

The classical good and evil motif has been exhausted.

In response Generation X was obsessed with the notion of the anti hero, everything is a shade of gray, and people are products of their environment and conditioning.

In 2010's we're in a time where both motifs are dated. Neuroscience is clearly showing us that some people are born bad to the bone(Psychopaths), and some are born truly good(People on the autistism spectrum have a very strong instinct for right and wrong, while pardoxically shown to have immense difficulties in translating these beliefs into actions).

What does this new found neuroscience mean no one knows, however I do believe these films will be proven to be ahead of their time with this aspect.