News Pegg: Why Trek Movies Aren’t Happening

[AutoAdmin]

A new news article has been published at TrekToday:

Star Trek Beyond‘s Simon Pegg spoke to Dark Horizons recently about the state of Star Trek movies and why they seem to...

Continue reading...

 

[Racefuel]

He's entirely right.

The excessively hyperactive box office for the MCU and Disney (SW, etc) has dramatically perverted what it takes to be seen as successful and production values.

It's a shame because Pegg genuinely loves Star Trek and has a good command of the subject matter.

 

[Qonundrum]

He's entirely right.

The excessively hyperactive box office for the MCU and Disney (SW, etc) has dramatically perverted what it takes to be seen as successful and production values.

It's a shame because Pegg genuinely loves Star Trek and has a good command of the subject matter.

^^this, on all counts.

I did want to add, "Beyond" is still the most solid of the three. Pegg did indeed have a solid take on the Kirk era. After seeing it, I could understand why he was upset at the time. At the same time, given ST2009 and STID caused some fan upset to begin with, I got the impression Pegg was stuck in the middle.

 

[Thomas Elliot]

I haven't seen the first two. I thought Star Trek Beyond was okay. It was definitely enjoyable but it wasn't something that I felt I would've missed out on had I not seen it. What's the mainstream appeal other than it being titled Star Trek and having the characters, not the actors of Captain Kirk and Spock in it?

So basically you can't make a Star Trek movie for under 200M? Or because Paramount is trying to compete with Marvel movies and will only make a Star Trek movie if it's an Avengers-level event?

 

[Racefuel]

I haven't seen the first two. I thought Star Trek Beyond was okay. It was definitely enjoyable but it wasn't something that I felt I would've missed out on had I not seen it. What's the mainstream appeal other than it being titled Star Trek and having the characters, not the actors of Captain Kirk and Spock in it?

So basically you can't make a Star Trek movie for under 200M? Or because Paramount is trying to compete with Marvel movies and will only make a Star Trek movie if it's an Avengers-level event?

Basically the issue is that before for a movie to be seen as successful it basically had to make double it's budget or so.

So if a movie's total budget was $100 million, it needed to make around $250 million to be seen as successful.

Then came the Avengers.

Now the studio attitude is that if movies don't make 5 or 6 times their budget, it's not worthwhile. So a $100 million budget would need to make $600 million or more or what's the point.

 

[Kirk Prime]

My thinking is this--Abrams attempted to "modernize" it based on what he thought Trek should be, rather than what Trek actually is supposed to be.

And he did it in a smug way in my opinion.

Using a parallel universe would have been fine, but he got cute and didn't make it clear what he was doing when he had the chance. We don't have to debate whether the Kelvin universe is separate or rewrites the prime timeline. It doesn't matter--no one's mind will be changed. Of course, having

But there was an arrogance in his choices.

I don't think Abrams really understood what made Trek great. He tried to make Trek more like Star Wars and that's not Star Trek. It's like Snyder trying to turn Superman into Batman. That doesn't work.

ST09 was a novelty. It had the return of Kirk and crew, and no matter what people think of the other Treks, those are the characters with the worldwide fame and appeal. I don't think it capitalized. I don't think his movies were intelligent sci-fi.

Intelligent doesn't mean boring. TWOK is a great movie, but not the only great movie.

I don't think Abrams, aside from Nimoy, cared much about the prime timeline.

Abrams was a Star Wars guy. Trek was a stepping stone to him. I think they needed a different person in charge. They should have come up with a story that would appeal to young and new--something that would have the epicness of a returning Shatner, and yes, end the movie with Shatner's Kirk saved. Then I would never use Shatner and Nimoy again since they have the happy ending that Generations ruined.

I don't think I would have gone the other universe route, but if I did, everything would be clear. I would not have touched the Enterprise exterior design. That was change for change sake.

The second movie was a train wreck. First, Abrams clearly didn't understand Khan. He was not the Joker to Kirk's Batman. It wasn't Last Jedi bad, but it wasn't good. It's like Abrams didn't watch Space Seed and just decided to rip off TWOK without any of the stakes or the heart.

Again, I think the idea of a Spock Uhura romance was forced and ridiculous. It shows a lack of understanding of each character.

Romance is fine, but that one didn't work.

Abrams didn't seem to understand Scotty. Pegg was terribly miscast and the character was a buffoon in the first movie and why does he have an Ewok?

George Takei is gay. Sulu was not. Takei didn't like that decision, but I will say this--they handled it perfectly. I just think they should have done that with an original character.

McCoy was brilliant. Perfect casting.

I feel these movies didn't take advantage of the franchise. Star Trek Beyond was an episode in space. I thought it was a little better, but not top tier Star Trek. But that was in the 50th anniversary year. How can they not do something more epic like what Doctor Who did?

If ever there was a time to do a prime universe story, it was then. HERE is where they should have used Shatner, Stewart and any other kitchen sink thing. It was the 50th anniversary, and that movie wasn't good enough.

The sad part is some of the 4th movie ideas were intriguing.

 

[fireproof78]

But there was an arrogance in his choices.

I will never understand how Abrams' choices were arrogant. He worked with the writers to craft a story that would appeal to as broad an audience as possible. He took the core concept of TOS Trek, specifically, as an action/adventure platform with social commentary and an optimistic lens. He showcases Kirk needing to grow to reach his full potential, an illustration of humanity.

I think that stating that Abrams' "doesn't get Star Trek" is painting with too broad of a brush. He states that he recognized Star Trek wasn't for him when he was younger but that he endeavored to understand it better. Again, making a Trek film that appeals to all audiences, not just a Trek audience.

The rest of these complaints I don't understand. But, man, Abrams has never deserved the shellacking the Internet gave him over Trek.

 

[Khan 2.0]

I feel these movies didn't take advantage of the franchise. Star Trek Beyond was an episode in space. I thought it was a little better, but not top tier Star Trek. But that was in the 50th anniversary year. How can they not do something more epic like what Doctor Who did?

If ever there was a time to do a prime universe story, it was then. HERE is where they should have used Shatner, Stewart and any other kitchen sink thing. It was the 50th anniversary, and that movie wasn't good enough.

after Orcis 'too Trekkie' script fell through (too Trekkie probably because it would've dealt with Prime universe stuff like Shatner and Treks history), I think they gave it to Pegg out of sheer desperation, who mustve been wanting to do some kind of Edgar Wright meets Insurrection by way of Avatar type thing..( and the suits demanding a Guardians of the Galaxy makeover)

 

[Malaika]

My thinking is this--Abrams attempted to "modernize" it based on what he thought Trek should be, rather than what Trek actually is supposed to be.

And he did it in a smug way in my opinion.

Using a parallel universe would have been fine, but he got cute and didn't make it clear what he was doing when he had the chance. We don't have to debate whether the Kelvin universe is separate or rewrites the prime timeline. It doesn't matter--no one's mind will be changed. Of course, having

But there was an arrogance in his choices.

I don't think Abrams really understood what made Trek great. He tried to make Trek more like Star Wars and that's not Star Trek.

^the irony of you calling him arrogant....

The man was asked to create a trek that wouldn't be just for trek fans, and he just (successfully) did that.
Of course he needed to modernize it since we aren't in the 60s anymore. Some of those 'modernizations' and upgrades actually make his trek very 'trek' for me, but I'm not here to tell people 'what trek is supposed to be'. Different fans have their own definition of what that means.

I think the only aspect where JJ was 'cute' is when he made this trek another reality and allowed old fans to ignore it if they wanted; in no way he changed the established canon, he just added his own canon as a separate universe. If he were arrogant, he'd just retcon prime, which is what current tv-trek is doing just fine, btw.. so moot point is moot.
Some old fans are still not happy, though. They prefer a normal remake where things are upgraded and different but they also are the same and not different because different is bad and change is evil. Different but the same. Changed but identical.

Maybe some find him "arrogant" because he didn't believe he needed his thing to get the prime timeline label to be 'valid'. He was right, though.

Again, I think the idea of a Spock Uhura romance was forced and ridiculous. It shows a lack of understanding of each character.

Romance is fine, but that one didn't work.

I found that relationship delicious and among the best 'new things' created by JJ's trek. It worked just fine for me and I consider myself a huge fan of both the original characters, especially Spock. It had heart and added new layers to characters who didn't get that chance in tos.

Some may dislike it or are indifferent because, perhaps, it didn't capture their interest, they didn't feel the chemistry (that's perfectly valid. At best, I find myself liking 3 out of 10 romances I see in this genre of movies), or expect/wish Kirk to be the (only) one who gets a romance instead because that may, somehow, reaffirm the main guy archetype to some.. but I don't see what's so forced and ridiculous about their particular relationship.

Furthermore, even if you want to put it in the list of 'stuff that proves JJ&co don't understand the source material' that is a weak argument. Or are we going to (still) pretend there wasn't any precedent for that romance in tos? It's literally hinted in the first episodes but obvioustly dropped because the show may be futuristic but the writers still lived in the 60s.
JJ's trek is an AU so they don't, necessarily, need to write the characters and their dynamics according to what happened or not in tos, but it surely is an aspect that can be inspired by tos in some capacity and it works with their more contemporary Spock who doesn't deny his human side and he met her in different circumstances.

For all people's claims that the Kirk/Uhura's kiss (which was originally written with her and Spock, according to Nichols) was this revolutionary thing making trek so progressive, for nowadays standards it is very problematic since both characters were forced against their will. It really is a testament of how having an interracial couple on tv was so controversial at the time that even something so crappy had to be a 'big' deal and was romanticized.
Obvioustly, if JJ&Co wanted to have a romance in their trek it had to be something a bit better than that or the numerous flings that Kirk and Spock had in the original that wouldn't last for more than one episode (or movie). Perhaps some find it ridiculous that tptb didn't (still) follow the same 'standards' the original series had for romance but I, for one, find it a blessing.


If I were able to predict lottery numbers the way I predict what some fans are going to complain about I'd be rich right now, and I probably wouldn't spend my quarantine time posting on a trek fanboard.
You break my heart by not mentioning that Spock is asexual and 'vulcans only mate once every 7 years', though. Very sad.

 

[F. King Daniel]

One man's arrogant is another man's bold

 

[Rahul]

JJ Abrams is an extremely talented filmmaker, and he's a genius at casting.

But he has no grasp at "story". Not at all. That's why all his movies feel more like a checklist, going from one highlight to another, without really a lot of tissue to connect them.

Compare that to the MARVEL movies (which the Kelvin timeline clearly tries to compete with) - they all have a solid story. Not revolutionary, hell, very by-the-numbers most of the time, carried mainly by the characters. But it's there.

There's a clear reasoning why everything is happening, and once the final action set piece comes around, you know the rules of whatever superpower the hero and baddies have and why they fight and over what. Contrast that with any Abrams movie, where nothing is ever set up, and the technicalities of everything that happens comes out of nowhere.

The prime example being the scene in "Force Awakens", where Han Solo spitballs out a plan how to destroy Starkiller base. Considering how close that movie was to "A new hope" - that one very clearly set up the Death Star's weakpoint (and why it was important and how we knew about and how to exploit it) throughout the whole movie. In Abrams' movies - the rules are always made up on the fly. Weather is how planet destroying lasers work, wormholes, time-travel, why a drilling rig has to be destroyed by landing on it instead of shooting at it with a ship - except at the end, when Spock shoots it with his ship - nothing ever make sense and you're always asked to take the filmmakers word for it that that's how it works.

THAT'S the failure of the Kelvin movies, and one none of these (even Beyond with a different creative team) was able to overcome.

Because otherwise, they have a fuckin' stellar cast, amazing production values, exciting dialogue and palpable emotions.

 

[fireproof78]

I swear I watch different films.