I don't want to repeat what I said in the other thread so I'll just summarize my thoughts by saying that I agree and disagree with him. For one, while marketing was bad, it still reflected the movie they have created and they also were, as a team, the first to promote the movie in a way that was reductive, bland and boring. They gave very little to the media to use in order to create buzz around the movie.
Second, blaming it all on marketing may suggest he isn't able to honestly look at the whole picture and thus what might be the issues in the movie itself and therefore why the audience who loved the first two didn't all come back and make beyond successful too. Blaming marketing only seems to be a way to not take any responsibility.
Wow, that went downhill fast.
FWIW, I think Pegg is frankly brilliant, and I've enjoyed every movie he's ever written. And, of course, it's absurd to accuse him (or his cowriter or director) of having control over the marketing that he, himself, is complaining about here.
What I particularly like is his implicit acknowledgement that the previous two films were criticized (and not unfairly) for merely being "disguised as Star Trek" rather than the real thing. Beyond, on the other hand, felt a lot like a TOS episode in many ways. And that's a good thing.
If his intention was criticizing the first two and pretending his movie is more trek(tm), I'd not only have to disagree with him but I'd have to find the intention/opinion very lame too.
The first two, that are more successful than his movie, were trek too and they were loved by both non-trek fans and old fans.
Beyond placating fans with nostalgia by doing stuff like giving Mccoy and Scotty more screentime, and bring back the old trio dynamic at the expense of the new dynamics jj&co had made the face of this trek, doesn't make the movie more 'trek' than the first two. It just makes it more nostalgia but there is absolutely nothing inherently more 'trek' in beyond's plot than the first two. If anything, certain aspects like trying to restore the original trio and sidelining Uhura (and Sulu) to focus on the white guys more (and make Karl third lead instead of Zoe, like it was for JJ) may make the movie go backwards on the very 'trek ideals' Pegg himself and other fans like to preach about.
Tos may be beloved, but it wasn't flawless and it often contradicted (or didn't do enough) those Gene's ideals that fans like to preach about because it still was a thing made in the 60s that inevitably looks outdated nowadays. So no, making a tos episode isn't necessarily a good thing especially if limited to bringing back the
less contemporary and progressive aspects of tos.
Anyway trek =/= tos homages and/or listening to those who want to 'make it like tos'.
There would be nothing bad in wanting more nostalgia and homage but fans trying to always pass it as another thing is pretentious and self-contradictory because, again, there is nothing here making the other movies less 'trek'.
