Pegg updates on script

[JWPlatt]

I'd personally put Prometheus over Interstellar. I think it's because the Alien series was always more 'pulpy,' so I could forgive it more because it met expectations. Everybody (except for David) had moments where they were dumb as rocks, but I liked the themes and the ambiguity, and Michael Fassbender could have carried the movie on his own.

Loved Prometheus. Watching it at the primal "I just wanna be entertained level" it's great. Watching it at the analytical level has opened up some great discussion with my roomie (who also loves the film).

I could no more tune out the utter stupidity of Prometheus for its entertainment value than I could appreciate the tonal perfection of fingernails being dragged across a chalkboard. Oh, yeah, but the visuals were nice.

 

[eyeresist]

I thought Charlize Theron was terrible.

 

[Mach5]

I could no more tune out the utter stupidity of Prometheus for its entertainment value than I could appreciate the tonal perfection of fingernails being dragged across a chalkboard.

+1

It really is beautifully made, the music is very nice, Fassbender was terrific is David, but I just couldn't immerse myself. I mean, the sheer stupidity of the characters... Who are supposed to be scientists...

I honestly didn't even mind all that ridiculous pseudo-creationist bullshit that the whole fucking premise was based on...

Jesus Christ, it's almost as if Damon fucking Lindelof himself wrote this crap.

 

[JWPlatt]

Trivia: I recently watched "Event Horizon," essentially a 1997 B-movie sci-fi flick with some A-list cast members such as pre-Matrix Laurence Fishburne and Sam Neil. I knew the movie was in trouble the moment they started to remove their helmets on the derelict ship (sound familiar?) without a proper check. It was as if Prometheus copied it directly.

 

[Mach5]

Event Horizon was an unambitious sci-fi horror flick with some genuinely scary moments. I remember it being pretty fun.

 

[martok2112]

I will agree that some of the characters acted rather foolishly in Prometheus....especially Fiefiied and Milburn when they saw the serpent creature back at the dome. One could defend it as Milburn being "the consumate scientist" having curiosity, and no fear.....Fiefield was appropriately trepidated, and wanted to get the hell away from there.

But, more than one danger needed to be presented for this story.... not just the bio-warfare issue that David tested out on Holloway....so, the story needed a foolish scientist to help present some of the other dangers involved.

Logic and physics go right out the window to suit the needs of dramatic storytelling.
The Alien series of movies, including Prometheus, do not necessarily feature mental giants as their protagonists. Been that way since the first film.

Loved Event Horizon too. Same thing. Not a lot of Mensa members in that film either, but it was a fun movie to watch.

And wanna talk about copying? Interstellar seemed to do a bit of copying from a certain Disney movie for a bit of its story.....The Black Hole, anyone?

 

[fireproof78]

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.

Quick note: this is a longer response and too me a while to get it done. I really appreciate Austoid's points and discussion.

First of all, I appreciate your candor and description of your take away from the films. You say you are not qualified, but you express the opinion very well, and I find your focus on the psychology of the characters to be very descriptive.

Secondly, I appreciate your willingness to engage the material from such a point of view. To me, Trek 09 and ID have a lot of underlying character subtext that really can be appreciated from a psychological point of view.

Kirk is definitely not always treated like the hero, though his journey reflects a bit of the Hero's Journey, but Kirk does not always have the qualities of a hero. As you pointed out, he's a womanizer, selfish and rebellious. It's only through having a mentor like like Pike and developing relationships.

I am not sure that I agree with the autism interpretation of Spock's character, but it is an interesting take on the character.

I agree that the film is likely before its time in its commentary on father figures and the neuroscience that underlies the characters. I think it has more depth to it that many give it credit for.

Star Trek trying to be 'hard' has never really ended well. It's usually done better with morality tales, presenting basic moral quandaries for the audience to ponder, or commenting on modern politics in a scifi setting. If you look at the usual 'best of Trek' lists, the top eps are your 'City on the Edge of Forever's', TWOK's, and 'Inner Light's.' You could take out the scifi elements completely and make them fantasy (or even historical in Khan's case), and they'd still work perfectly well.

Basically, what I'm saying is the new writers probably shouldn't worry about making a 'type' of movie or including 'scifi concepts'. They should just do a story they think is good, and will work in the Trek verse.

IMO, of course.

I agree. I think the goal of the writers should be to tell a good story. The idea that is must be a social commentary can limit the story telling abilities because it can feel forced.

I could no more tune out the utter stupidity of Prometheus for its entertainment value than I could appreciate the tonal perfection of fingernails being dragged across a chalkboard.

+1

It really is beautifully made, the music is very nice, Fassbender was terrific is David, but I just couldn't immerse myself. I mean, the sheer stupidity of the characters... Who are supposed to be scientists...

I honestly didn't even mind all that ridiculous pseudo-creationist bullshit that the whole fucking premise was based on...

Jesus Christ, it's almost as if Damon fucking Lindelof himself wrote this crap.

You do realize there were two drafts and the film borrowed from both of them, right?

 

[JWPlatt]

Yes, the first was what the audience wanted, more or less, but bored with all that, the second was dressed up by Scott in pretentiously conceptual Emperor's Clothes while thoroughly wasting Guy Pearce. And they changed LV-426 to LV-223 to say "screw you" to fans who wanted a real connection to Alien. Oh, and they put a spacesuit on the Space Jockey, faking the answer with a giant shoehorn to the question Scott originally asked that inspired the whole thing.

 

[Mach5]

You do realize there were two drafts and the film borrowed from both of them, right?

Yeah, Jon Spaihts (the guy who also wrote that unwatchable POS "The Darkest Hour") shares the blame (so does Sir Ridley, TBH), but Lindelof was the one who came aboard later on and stayed through the production.

 

[fireproof78]

You do realize there were two drafts and the film borrowed from both of them, right?

Yeah, Jon Spaihts (the guy who also wrote that unwatchable POS "The Darkest Hour") shares the blame (so does Sir Ridley, TBH), but Lindelof was the one who came aboard later on and stayed through the production.

Just wanted to make sure. I'm not saying Lindelof is blameless, but he hardly came in to the production and ruined it. Ridley did what he wanted.

 

[Kruezerman]

Good Stuff.

I'll see your explanation, and raise you mine.

Spock, isn't logic, in Star Trek Spock in fact represents emotion and us trying (and ultimately failing) to control it. Even more so, he's our devout religious side (because he tries to control himself so much and is grounded in his beliefs).

On the opposite end is McCoy, the skeptic, the actual rational one. He keeps Kirk grounded and doesn't attempt to control his emotions because he sees no reason to do so.

Kirk is in the center, being pulled in both directions, both in the show and the movies (new and old).

 

[martok2112]

Yes, the first was what the audience wanted, more or less, but bored with all that, the second was dressed up by Scott in pretentiously conceptual Emperor's Clothes while thoroughly wasting Guy Pearce. And they changed LV-426 to LV-223 to say "screw you" to fans who wanted a real connection to Alien. Oh, and they put a spacesuit on the Space Jockey, faking the answer with a giant shoehorn to the question Scott originally asked that inspired the whole thing.

I have to respectfully ask, why is every change that an artist makes, even to an original concept, considered some kind of big "screw you" to the fans?

Even when I used to be a fan of things, I never took overt changes as a "screw you" to me. Ultimately, I realized that life is too short to take the inconsequential so personally.

 

[Smellmet]

Trivia: I recently watched "Event Horizon," essentially a 1997 B-movie sci-fi flick with some A-list cast members such as pre-Matrix Laurence Fishburne and Sam Neil. I knew the movie was in trouble the moment they started to remove their helmets on the derelict ship (sound familiar?) without a proper check. It was as if Prometheus copied it directly.

Event Horizon was an unambitious sci-fi horror flick with some genuinely scary moments. I remember it being pretty fun.

Great film. Dumb in parts, but also genuinely twisted, scary and gruesome at times too. Great FX that still holds up well today. Outstanding set design also. I saw it three times at the cinema.

 

[saddestmoon]

Trivia: I recently watched "Event Horizon," essentially a 1997 B-movie sci-fi flick with some A-list cast members such as pre-Matrix Laurence Fishburne and Sam Neil. I knew the movie was in trouble the moment they started to remove their helmets on the derelict ship (sound familiar?) without a proper check. It was as if Prometheus copied it directly.

Event Horizon was an unambitious sci-fi horror flick with some genuinely scary moments. I remember it being pretty fun.

Great film. Dumb in parts, but also genuinely twisted, scary and gruesome at times too. Great FX that still holds up well today. Outstanding set design also. I saw it three times at the cinema.

I saw it twice in cinemas, and a few times more on DVD - and loved it as well. Great with the horror tropes - and apparently (rumour at the time) there was 40 minutes of deleted (and graphic) material which was deemed to strong for it's rating - mostly showing more of the 'horror-scene' that was briefly shown on the snippet of video that the crew discover (revealing what happened to the missing crew of the Event Horizon, who were driven to insanity, becoming cannibalistic, latin-reciting, blood-soaked, etc).

I was always intrigued by this, but to date, haven't heard anything further about this...

 

[Phily B]

How is this movie gonna hit a 2016 release date when it hasn't started shooting yet? I see Suicide Squad getting tons of leaks and it comes out later.

 

[Firebird]

How is this movie gonna hit a 2016 release date when it hasn't started shooting yet? I see Suicide Squad getting tons of leaks and it comes out later.

Principal photography on a film like Star Trek can take only 3 or 4 months, and then post-production can be completed in another 8. It's entirely possible to have it done in a year.

 

[fireproof78]

How is this movie gonna hit a 2016 release date when it hasn't started shooting yet? I see Suicide Squad getting tons of leaks and it comes out later.

Principal photography on a film like Star Trek can take only 3 or 4 months, and then post-production can be completed in another 8. It's entirely possible to have it done in a year.

Completely agree. This timeline is totally doable. The first Pirates of the Caribbean film was done with principle photography in 7 months, and that includes filming on real boats, and sets burning due to accidents.

With a cast that is already comfortable with their characters, and sets already established, as well as Lin's experience, I have no doubt that principle photography can be done to meet the deadline.

 

[JWPlatt]

Yes, the first was what the audience wanted, more or less, but bored with all that, the second was dressed up by Scott in pretentiously conceptual Emperor's Clothes while thoroughly wasting Guy Pearce. And they changed LV-426 to LV-223 to say "screw you" to fans who wanted a real connection to Alien. Oh, and they put a spacesuit on the Space Jockey, faking the answer with a giant shoehorn to the question Scott originally asked that inspired the whole thing.

I have to respectfully ask, why is every change that an artist makes, even to an original concept, considered some kind of big "screw you" to the fans?

Even when I used to be a fan of things, I never took overt changes as a "screw you" to me. Ultimately, I realized that life is too short to take the inconsequential so personally.

"Every change" is hyperbole. But it was Scott himself changing his own work for a new context. Like Lucas. It was disappointing - that's all. I know the Space Jockey had no suit in Alien - those were bones. I went to see the story of THE Space Jockey from Alien - not a mundane pilot in a suit. Scott cheated his own mythology and his own initial inspiration. Is the "screw you" concept something common you have encountered before? I am unaware of the fan cliché. In any case, I do think Ridley Scott is quite comfortable saying "screw you" to anyone, so it fits him perhaps more than others.

And yes, while I am critical at times about Lindelof, Scott is the captain of the ship and ultimately responsible for the product. Lindelof was, more or less, just doing Scott's bidding.

Trivia: I recently watched "Event Horizon," essentially a 1997 B-movie sci-fi flick with some A-list cast members such as pre-Matrix Laurence Fishburne and Sam Neil. I knew the movie was in trouble the moment they started to remove their helmets on the derelict ship (sound familiar?) without a proper check. It was as if Prometheus copied it directly.

Event Horizon was an unambitious sci-fi horror flick with some genuinely scary moments. I remember it being pretty fun.

Great film. Dumb in parts, but also genuinely twisted, scary and gruesome at times too. Great FX that still holds up well today. Outstanding set design also. I saw it three times at the cinema.

I saw it twice in cinemas, and a few times more on DVD - and loved it as well. Great with the horror tropes - and apparently (rumour at the time) there was 40 minutes of deleted (and graphic) material which was deemed to strong for it's rating - mostly showing more of the 'horror-scene' that was briefly shown on the snippet of video that the crew discover (revealing what happened to the missing crew of the Event Horizon, who were driven to insanity, becoming cannibalistic, latin-reciting, blood-soaked, etc).

I was always intrigued by this, but to date, haven't heard anything further about this...

The deleted material is well-documented. The "initial rough cut submitted to the MPAA received the kiss-of-death NC-17 rating."

It reminded me strongly of the Vulcan ship in Star Trek: Enterprise falling under the effects of o trellium-D in the Delphic Expanse.

 

[Autistoid]

Basically, what I'm saying is the new writers probably shouldn't worry about making a 'type' of movie or including 'scifi concepts'. They should just do a story they think is good, and will work in the Trek verse.

IMO, of course.

That sounds like a direct contradiction.

The whole point is that movies have to take a tone different from television. You have to work with certain budgets, you have to target an audience and you have go with a tone that people have some experience in seeing and making.

The whole point is Prometheus and Interstellar fill a space that is much more suitable for trek, than an avengers knock off.

 

[Autistoid]

I will agree that some of the characters acted rather foolishly in Prometheus....especially Fiefiied and Milburn when they saw the serpent creature back at the dome. One could defend it as Milburn being "the consumate scientist" having curiosity, and no fear.....Fiefield was appropriately trepidated, and wanted to get the hell away from there.

But, more than one danger needed to be presented for this story.... not just the bio-warfare issue that David tested out on Holloway....so, the story needed a foolish scientist to help present some of the other dangers involved.

Logic and physics go right out the window to suit the needs of dramatic storytelling.

People that complain these issues can be forgiven because the movie does fail to communicate alot, however if you have the information most of it makes as much sense or more than any other movie.

The two guys at that point were prepared to spend a whole night trapped, and it was directly shown that the mohawk guy brought drugs with him. If you know anything about drug use this scene is not at all surprising.

I'll admit the whole tangent wasn't an interesting part of the movie, if I could I'd edit it out.

It was an artistic failure but it made perfect sense.

There was a bunch of prereleases that explained alot about the plot.

David is clearly following orders the entire time.

Taking the helmets off made perfect sense as is explained if you understand the technology.

The corporation developed bio filters that was designed to pick up containment. (Which there was none of FYI)

Taking off a helmet was needed because it conserved air. If you understand anything about being space it's better to take minor risks and conserve.

I could go on and on.

The pieces are there and it's very clearly laid out.

Granted I get that the movie was a dramatic failure.

It was ambitious with a whole lot of parts to it. They didn't all mesh together but it made sense regardless.