Pegg updates on script

[Autistoid]

I love how the Internet has gone from "Trek is doomed under Orci" to "they should have stuck with Orci"

By the sounds of it, the franchise has just went from a disappointment, to a graveyard movie.

 

[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.

Star Trek can be just as much about adventure as it is exploration. That's part of the Western undertones that created the backbone of TOS.

I am hoping that the tone of the next film will follow through on that more Western, frontier and unknown, type of attitude.

One movie adventure sure, but at this point your burning through your audience fast.

The last movie completely relied being a remake of the most popular movie, and being very fortunate that cumberbach was a superb choice for Khan.

You gotta maintain the value of the name, and more importantly the fans(who are not all 65 year old tos fans, or 15 year olds that like bewbs. ).

A massive part of the fan base are people like myself(40-25) who grew up watching tng, who got turned onto TOS from the new movies.

That kinda rebirth isn't something to be taken lightly.

 

[Jedi_Master]

By the sounds of it, the franchise has just went from a disappointment, to a graveyard movie.

Is the Star Trek franchise a disappointment or are
the new movies (09 and STID) a disappointment?

Which is it, and on what are you basing that assessment?

One movie adventure sure, but at this point your burning through your audience fast.

Roll that assertion by me one more time, and this time please include some kind of evidence.

 

[M'Sharak]

The last movie completely relied being a remake of the most popular movie...

Only not really.

The last movie wasn't a remake by any reasonable definition of that word, and—while the other movie in question may be held up by some as being the best of the Trek films—WoK is far from being a clear winner in the "most popular" contest.

A massive part of the fan base are people like myself(40-25) who grew up watching tng, who got turned onto TOS from the new movies.

"Massive," is it? Have you some statistics to back up that assertion, or is this just one more example of the "My opinion counts more than everyone else's because I say it does, therefore I should be catered to" species?

'Cause this sure reads that way:

You gotta maintain the value of the name, and more importantly the fans(who are not all 65 year old tos fans, or 15 year olds that like bewbs. ).

Your dismissal of those too far outside your stated age group was casual, but the tinge of arrogance was much too heavy. Work more on subtlety.

 

[BeatleJWOL]

The last movie completely relied being a remake of the most popular movie...

Only not really.

The last movie wasn't a remake by any reasonable definition of that word, and—while the other movie in question may be held up by some as being the best of the Trek films—WoK is far from being a clear winner in the "most popular" contest.

Wait, that's it!

Star Trek Beyond!
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bRAtV-jgoQ[/yt]

THAR BE WHALES HERE

 

[JWPlatt]

...TPTB at Paramount deemed it "too Star Trek-y" and directed Pegg to write something "not as Star Trek-y"

Pegg disclaimed the "Trek-y" comment in a more recent interview.

Are you referring to his 19 May blog entry, or to another piece? If the latter, perhaps you could dig up a link? If the former, I got the impression that the "dumbing down" remark from the Guardian interview was more what he was interested in clearing up.

It was a brief video interview found on this TrekToday page:
http://www.trektoday.com/content/2015/05/pegg-shatner-in-star-trek-3/

 

[fireproof78]

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.

Star Trek can be just as much about adventure as it is exploration. That's part of the Western undertones that created the backbone of TOS.

I am hoping that the tone of the next film will follow through on that more Western, frontier and unknown, type of attitude.

One movie adventure sure, but at this point your burning through your audience fast.

The last movie completely relied being a remake of the most popular movie, and being very fortunate that cumberbach was a superb choice for Khan.

You gotta maintain the value of the name, and more importantly the fans(who are not all 65 year old tos fans, or 15 year olds that like bewbs. ).

A massive part of the fan base are people like myself(40-25) who grew up watching tng, who got turned onto TOS from the new movies.

That kinda rebirth isn't something to be taken lightly.

I'm not quite following at all.

First of all, Trek needed the rebirth in order to appeal to the age demographic claimed. I personally think that the next film can stand up on its own two feet, without relying upon nods back to any other series, or villains, by following more the spirit of TOS. This is really exemplified in Trek 09 with the sense of adventure and space being an unknown, as well as the characters and themes running through the film.

As for the claim that ID was a remake of TWOK, M'Sharak pointed out that that really isn't the case, save in the villain's name only and one scene, that has more implications that surface level viewing would suggest. The film's themes are different, the tone is different, and the overall point of the villains is different, beyond the surface level of "REVENGE!" (trademark pending).

Finally, the base that Paramount is trying to reach is outside of the Star Trek fan base. The untapped potential in that audience is large enough to warrant their efforts to bring them in. It won't be Avengers huge (nor should it be) or Star Wars huge (nor should it be) but if it goes with the Western spirit of adventure that TOS tapped to begin with, then I think it has great potential to reach a larger audience (again, like Trek 09).

tl:dr-I probably missed your point, but I don't think ID was as much a rip off of TWOK as is generally thought, and Beyond seeks to reach an audience outside of the Star Trek base.

 

[Autistoid]

By the sounds of it, the franchise has just went from a disappointment, to a graveyard movie.

Is the Star Trek franchise a disappointment or are
the new movies (09 and STID) a disappointment?

Which is it, and on what are you basing that assessment?

One movie adventure sure, but at this point your burning through your audience fast.

Roll that assertion by me one more time, and this time please include some kind of evidence.

I referring to the third movie, I'm actually a fan of the other two.

As far as evidence.

My whole point is after the khan plot, which is objectively the most popular plot. It is far harder to keep drawing from the past in the modern adventure plot format.

This isn't just an opinion there is some pretty solid evidence when the studio says don't make it too treky, after greenlighting a khan plot.

 

[Autistoid]

The last movie completely relied being a remake of the most popular movie...

Only not really.

The last movie wasn't a remake by any reasonable definition of that word, and—while the other movie in question may be held up by some as being the best of the Trek films—WoK is far from being a clear winner in the "most popular" contest.

A massive part of the fan base are people like myself(40-25) who grew up watching tng, who got turned onto TOS from the new movies.

"Massive," is it? Have you some statistics to back up that assertion, or is this just one more example of the "My opinion counts more than everyone else's because I say it does, therefore I should be catered to" species?

'Cause this sure reads that way:

You gotta maintain the value of the name, and more importantly the fans(who are not all 65 year old tos fans, or 15 year olds that like bewbs. ).

Your dismissal of those too far outside your stated age group was casual, but the tinge of arrogance was much too heavy. Work more on subtlety.

Your being absurd with the box office numbers.

TMP although popular in its time(because it was the first, which is actually a large part of my point why you need to change formats as a series get known) is not something people seeing either movie in 2009-2012 were aware of. in relative terms.

ST4 was of course well recieved however, aside from talking whales leaves a very small amount of canon to draw from.

My point about the 25-40(alright 40 in 2009) is that they are the upper age demographic of theaters.

Go look that up yourself, I spend enough time in theatres to understand the demographs.

The younger folk never watched the show,(statistics backs this, as ENT ratings were abysmal.

And people younger than 25 would of be sub 11 when voyager ended.

If I had to guess 1/3 of the audience was 25-45 now in st 11-12. The other 2/3rds were sub 25.

My point is the best developed demographic that still spend money in theatres are a consistant audience. The type that support total bombs like nemesis, the type that give value to the name star trek.

These aren't crazy wild claims, the except percentages are not something I posess but they are hardly in left field to this context.

 

[M'Sharak]

Pegg disclaimed the "Trek-y" comment in a more recent interview.

Are you referring to his 19 May blog entry, or to another piece? If the latter, perhaps you could dig up a link? If the former, I got the impression that the "dumbing down" remark from the Guardian interview was more what he was interested in clearing up.

It was a brief video interview found on this TrekToday page:
http://www.trektoday.com/content/2015/05/pegg-shatner-in-star-trek-3/

Ah, OK - I hadn't watched that yet. Thanks.

 

[eyeresist]

nuTrek would probably have hit me better if it went full-bore into humor instead of taking itself somewhat seriously overall, but of course, then it risks transforming into Galaxy Quest.

Really? I thought there was a ton of humour in NuTrek. Just a few examples from the IMDb quotes page for STID:

KIRK : The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
SPOCK: An Arabic proverb attributed to a prince who was betrayed and decapitated by his own subjects.
KIRK : Well, still, it's a hell of a quote.

McCOY: Don't agree with me, Spock, it makes me very uncomfortable.

PIKE : That's a technicality.
SPOCK: I am Vulcan, sir. We embrace technicality.
PIKE : Are you giving me attitude, Spock?
SPOCK: I am expressing multiple attitudes simultaneously. To which are you referring?

SULU : ... You have two minutes to confirm your compliance. Refusal to do so will result in your obliteration. And if you test me, you will fail.
McCOY: Mr. Sulu, remind me never to piss you off.

McCOY: You know, when I dreamed about being stuck on a deserted planet with a gorgeous woman, there was no torpedo.

I love how the Internet has gone from "Trek is doomed under Orci" to "they should have stuck with Orci"

+1

Truly laughable.

 

[Mudd]

You restart every seven to ten years.

 

[martok2112]

I love how the Internet has gone from "Trek is doomed under Orci" to "they should have stuck with Orci"

Lol.... lots of Trek fans can be rather Cardassian in their sense of blame and/or allegiance.

 

[Khan 2.0]

Pegg talks Shatner in STB
https://uk.yahoo.com/movies/simon-pegg-considers-william-shatner-cameo-for-120181925469.html

 

[Malaika]

anyone linked this interview already?
http://www.theguardian.com/film/201...ry-hard-to-write-for-women-man-up-tess-morris

Simon Pegg: ‘I find it very hard to write for women’
Can we expect to find elements of romantic comedy in Pegg’s Star Trek, too? “Yes, absolutely,” he says. “Because it’s all about relationships. Myself and Doug Jung, who are writing it together, we’re writing about characters that already exist, so there are pre-existing relationships there, it’s a familial setting. It’s not a romantic comedy exactly, but there are human relationships in it, and that’s what’s at the heart of a romantic comedy, too.”
“I find it very hard to write for women,” adds Pegg. “It’s mine and Edgar [Wright, with whom he wrote Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz]’s self-confessed weakness – whenever we’ve written scripts together, the women in our films are the weakest characters. It’s hard – you can understand the opposite sex, and yet still there’s a degree of authenticity that’s hard to achieve.
Particularly when you’re writing specifically about issues relating to your own gender, because when you’re trying to see how the opposite gender interprets those issues you tend to project what you hope they think, and it isn’t always right. So I thought Jack was a really interesting character.”

Pegg doesn't know how to write 'for women' *eyerolltoinfinity*

 

[Ryan8bit]

At least he admits it? I think more writers than you'd think probably have that issue.

 

[Borgminister]

Do women know how to write for men?

 

[Ryan8bit]

Do women know how to write for men?

Arguably probably more so than men know how to write for women, just because that's the way the culture is.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Do all the actors on a film have to say exactly what is in the script? So for example if a female actor was offended or upset could she change a line or adjust a scene?

 

[fireproof78]

Do all the actors on a film have to say exactly what is in the script? So for example if a female actor was offended or upset could she change a line or adjust a scene?

I believe it is up to the director to have to allow the actors some freedom to try different variation on the lines.

Actors certainly can refuse to say a line (Nichelle Nichols did with Star Trek VI) and the director can make adjustments, but there can be ramifications.

Ultimately, the director will have the final say.