Pegg updates on script

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

 

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.

 

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?

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

 

Wait, that's it!

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

THAR BE WHALES HERE

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

+1

Truly laughable.

 

You restart every seven to ten years.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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.