Simon Pegg, Doug Jung To Write Star Trek 3
- Thread starter Firebird
- Start date
Blackanvill0
Ensign
Re:
If Shatner and Nimoy already signed contracts to be in the movie, can they re-do the script and write them out of the story legally? I thought once the contracts were signed that they will be in it so any new script has to include them. Am I wrong in that?
To Co-Write Star Trek 3
well, Pegg is trekker. I think Doug isn´t.
Are they starting from scratch?
will Shatner and Nimoy be back in ST3?
If Shatner and Nimoy already signed contracts to be in the movie, can they re-do the script and write them out of the story legally? I thought once the contracts were signed that they will be in it so any new script has to include them. Am I wrong in that?
Re:
But a fanciful portrayal of the cosmos actually matches up with TOS, its kind of one of the reasons I think its more fun than the other treks.
To Co-Write Star Trek 3
But a fanciful portrayal of the cosmos actually matches up with TOS, its kind of one of the reasons I think its more fun than the other treks.
Re:
To Co-Write Star Trek 3
You're wrong in setting up a Shatner/Nimoy contract as fact and then questioning the consequences. It's Strawman's cousin, I guess. Such a stipulation could generate several pages of wasted time and meaningless speculation about something that probably doesn't exist.well, Pegg is trekker. I think Doug isn´t.
Are they starting from scratch?
will Shatner and Nimoy be back in ST3?
If Shatner and Nimoy already signed contracts to be in the movie, can they re-do the script and write them out of the story legally? I thought once the contracts were signed that they will be in it so any new script has to include them. Am I wrong in that?
Re:
I agree, and I "generally" enjoyed The World's End, but only about 7/8 of it
.
What I mean by that is I think it was moving along very well, and was well-written, intelligent, thoughtful, and hilarious...BUT it all fell apart in the final acts.
Granted, I'm not sure how it should have ended, but I think the end they came up with was not very effective from a story standpoint (although still well-written).
To Co-Write Star Trek 3
I agree, and I "generally" enjoyed The World's End, but only about 7/8 of it
.What I mean by that is I think it was moving along very well, and was well-written, intelligent, thoughtful, and hilarious...BUT it all fell apart in the final acts.
Granted, I'm not sure how it should have ended, but I think the end they came up with was not very effective from a story standpoint (although still well-written).
Re:
To Co-Write Star Trek 3
Probably no Contract in place, but, if there were to be one, it would most likely only mean they'd have to be paid as if they appeared, not that they'd have to be written into the moviewell, Pegg is trekker. I think Doug isn´t.
Are they starting from scratch?
will Shatner and Nimoy be back in ST3?
If Shatner and Nimoy already signed contracts to be in the movie, can they re-do the script and write them out of the story legally? I thought once the contracts were signed that they will be in it so any new script has to include them. Am I wrong in that?
Re:
The smart option would be to get them on film while they still can, even if it's 'shelved'. They'd be paying them either way.
Nods to the old series ? It is based on it.
JJ's script more character driven ? The last two were flashy action adventure movies.
Film companies are businesses - they're ALL about the money.
To Co-Write Star Trek 3
Probably no Contract in place, but, if there were to be one, it would most likely only mean they'd have to be paid as if they appeared, not that they'd have to be written into the moviewell, Pegg is trekker. I think Doug isn´t.
Are they starting from scratch?
will Shatner and Nimoy be back in ST3?
If Shatner and Nimoy already signed contracts to be in the movie, can they re-do the script and write them out of the story legally? I thought once the contracts were signed that they will be in it so any new script has to include them. Am I wrong in that?
The smart option would be to get them on film while they still can, even if it's 'shelved'. They'd be paying them either way.
Change in tone ? I hope so.
Nods to the old series ? It is based on it.
JJ's script more character driven ? The last two were flashy action adventure movies.
Film companies are businesses - they're ALL about the money.
Re:
To Co-Write Star Trek 3
yes, I'm essentially judging a book by its cover Christopher but the thing is.. I only have the cover so far.
Perhaps I'm being unfair to him but it seems to me you're telling me to blindly trust the guy using arguments that are no less generic and clueless than mine.
It's not my hobby to be pessimistic at any cost but I honestly don't think that all my concerns are completely unfounded here.
as for 'something new', that's not my problem. I liked Uhura's expanded role and things like the Spock/Uhura relationship that were 'something new' . I also liked the fact that Spock is a more equal protagonist with Kirk and he has his own arc as a character. Heck, in some ways I even like the destruction of vulcan because it was bold and opened a lot of new possibilities. I also loved the introduction of another reality and the concept that the characters are the same in spirit but they are unpredictable because their destiny is not written so it doesn't have to be everything like the original series for them.
If you think I'm some sort of tos purist who is scared they will ruin my trek you are wrong
I love both tos and the reboot but I keep them separated.
Like I said in the other thread, I don't need a star trek fan to write the movie. The most important thing for me is the creative team being people who care about the integrity of these characters and respect the work that was done before them.
Now, Simon Pegg comes across as a trek fanboy and someone who only cares about the dynamic between the guys and will threat the female characters as an after thought.
So back to what you are saying, I guess the concern here is they won't do something so new. I rather think that they will go backwards to keep it safe.
Perhaps I'm being unfair to him but it seems to me you're telling me to blindly trust the guy using arguments that are no less generic and clueless than mine.
It's not my hobby to be pessimistic at any cost but I honestly don't think that all my concerns are completely unfounded here.
it's bad if they end up putting aside and ignoring everything that in my opinion was done well in the other movies.
as for 'something new', that's not my problem. I liked Uhura's expanded role and things like the Spock/Uhura relationship that were 'something new' . I also liked the fact that Spock is a more equal protagonist with Kirk and he has his own arc as a character. Heck, in some ways I even like the destruction of vulcan because it was bold and opened a lot of new possibilities. I also loved the introduction of another reality and the concept that the characters are the same in spirit but they are unpredictable because their destiny is not written so it doesn't have to be everything like the original series for them.
If you think I'm some sort of tos purist who is scared they will ruin my trek you are wrong
I love both tos and the reboot but I keep them separated.
Like I said in the other thread, I don't need a star trek fan to write the movie. The most important thing for me is the creative team being people who care about the integrity of these characters and respect the work that was done before them.
Now, Simon Pegg comes across as a trek fanboy and someone who only cares about the dynamic between the guys and will threat the female characters as an after thought.
So back to what you are saying, I guess the concern here is they won't do something so new. I rather think that they will go backwards to keep it safe.
I read him saying that he wanted his character do be more prominent. Nothing wrong about that, I'm sure all the actors feel the same but they won't be writing the script. Why should he not take advantage of the fact that he's writing the story this round? come on..
I'm not following your argument here. You're saying that he cannot have an ego because, basically, he was the lead character in the trilogy he helped writing but, hey!, after all he was comedy relief so this proves he has no ego because he wrote a bad lead character for himself? seriously?
we agree here.
Re:
+1
The limited time to write may be a good thing. Not too much time for the studio to interfere and demand changes.
To Co-Write Star Trek 3
+1
The limited time to write may be a good thing. Not too much time for the studio to interfere and demand changes.
Re:
I'm right there with you. Most of the movie worked, but the resolution to Gary's character arc just fell flat & struck a false note. We see him on the path to growing up, and the ending essentially gives him an excuse to never have to.
Thankfully, this is not a deficit shared in the other films Pegg has been a co-author on. So, I'm not worried about his writing skills.
To Co-Write Star Trek 3
I agree, and I "generally" enjoyed The World's End, but only about 7/8 of it
What I mean by that is I think it was moving along very well, and was well-written, intelligent, thoughtful, and hilarious...BUT it all fell apart in the final acts.
Granted, I'm not sure how it should have ended, but I think the end they came up with was not very effective from a story standpoint (although still well-written).
I'm right there with you. Most of the movie worked, but the resolution to Gary's character arc just fell flat & struck a false note. We see him on the path to growing up, and the ending essentially gives him an excuse to never have to.
Thankfully, this is not a deficit shared in the other films Pegg has been a co-author on. So, I'm not worried about his writing skills.
Re:
I agree as well on the GOTG part, I thought the film was bad to me. the worst comic film of 2014 in my personal opinion I did not just get it and it is almost scary to see paramount say they want trek 3 to be like that.
I would rather keep the social themes and seriousness of Into Darkness than see trek made like an MCIU film like GOTG.
I am curious of pegg as well. what film or tv show has he written?
He is usually a comic relief in many of his films so that is why I am curious. it may be possible that pegg has another sides to his artistry.
To Co-Write Star Trek 3
I agree as well on the GOTG part, I thought the film was bad to me. the worst comic film of 2014 in my personal opinion I did not just get it and it is almost scary to see paramount say they want trek 3 to be like that.
I would rather keep the social themes and seriousness of Into Darkness than see trek made like an MCIU film like GOTG.
I am curious of pegg as well. what film or tv show has he written?
He is usually a comic relief in many of his films so that is why I am curious. it may be possible that pegg has another sides to his artistry.
Re:
Yes, but "producer" can mean anything from "person actively at the helm" to "financing partner" to "person who's not directly involved but is still getting paid for one reason or another." That's why I qualified it with "hands-on." Of the five listed producers, the two executive producers are just financing partners, I think, so that just leaves Abrams, Burk, and Orci. And there are rumors that Orci's producer title is only honorary at this point. It's not clear whether he'll still be actively participating.
Actually I quite liked the ending. I thought it was marvelously subversive and made a very effective resolution to Gary's arc. The fact that it's not the comfortable resolution most people would expect is exactly what's so clever about it (in both the American and British senses of "clever").
Right. Contracts are generally written with clauses spelling out what will happen if one party or the other chooses to withdraw from the agreement or is unable to fulfill it. Actors get written out of movies all the time, or choose to drop out of them. And it's all covered in the contract.
That said, I doubt that either Shatner or Nimoy would've been signed before Paramount even had a firm script. At most, they might've been signed to an option -- i.e. an agreement to make themselves available if the filmmakers choose to use them, without being a guarantee that they will be used.
I'm saying nothing of the sort. I'm just saying that there's no need to judge at all. You don't have to pick a side right off the bat -- it's perfectly all right to remain neutral, to keep an open mind until you have more evidence. Don't blindly trust, but don't blindly condemn either. How many times have fans assumed someone was a terrible choice to write or direct or star in a movie, only to have them turn out brilliant? You just can't know until you see the actual results.
Key word, "if." We won't know until we know.
I don't think anything. My whole point is that it's perfectly fine to assume nothing at all.
But that doesn't mean he'd be so egomaniacal that he'd compromise the integrity of the story. There's an optimistic way and a cynical way to interpret what he's said, and you seem to be jumping to the most cynical possible interpretation. I just don't think it's fair to assume the worst of a total stranger before you know for sure what he'll do. People deserve the benefit of the doubt.
And, again, he's not the only person involved. In feature films, writers are always subordinate to directors and producers. If Justin Lin or Abrams and Burk don't like what he writes, they can rewrite it partially or completely. And Abrams is the guy who created Felicity and Alias and co-created Fringe with Kurtzman and Orci. He's definitely not opposed to strong female characters. And from what I've heard of Lin, he's handled the female characters in the Fast and Furious movies better than his predecessors did.
To Co-Write Star Trek 3
Yes, but "producer" can mean anything from "person actively at the helm" to "financing partner" to "person who's not directly involved but is still getting paid for one reason or another." That's why I qualified it with "hands-on." Of the five listed producers, the two executive producers are just financing partners, I think, so that just leaves Abrams, Burk, and Orci. And there are rumors that Orci's producer title is only honorary at this point. It's not clear whether he'll still be actively participating.
I agree, and I "generally" enjoyed The World's End, but only about 7/8 of it
What I mean by that is I think it was moving along very well, and was well-written, intelligent, thoughtful, and hilarious...BUT it all fell apart in the final acts.
Granted, I'm not sure how it should have ended, but I think the end they came up with was not very effective from a story standpoint (although still well-written).
Actually I quite liked the ending. I thought it was marvelously subversive and made a very effective resolution to Gary's arc. The fact that it's not the comfortable resolution most people would expect is exactly what's so clever about it (in both the American and British senses of "clever").
Right. Contracts are generally written with clauses spelling out what will happen if one party or the other chooses to withdraw from the agreement or is unable to fulfill it. Actors get written out of movies all the time, or choose to drop out of them. And it's all covered in the contract.
That said, I doubt that either Shatner or Nimoy would've been signed before Paramount even had a firm script. At most, they might've been signed to an option -- i.e. an agreement to make themselves available if the filmmakers choose to use them, without being a guarantee that they will be used.
I'm saying nothing of the sort. I'm just saying that there's no need to judge at all. You don't have to pick a side right off the bat -- it's perfectly all right to remain neutral, to keep an open mind until you have more evidence. Don't blindly trust, but don't blindly condemn either. How many times have fans assumed someone was a terrible choice to write or direct or star in a movie, only to have them turn out brilliant? You just can't know until you see the actual results.
Key word, "if." We won't know until we know.
If you think I'm some sort of tos purist who is scared they will ruin my trek you are wrong
I don't think anything. My whole point is that it's perfectly fine to assume nothing at all.
But that doesn't mean he'd be so egomaniacal that he'd compromise the integrity of the story. There's an optimistic way and a cynical way to interpret what he's said, and you seem to be jumping to the most cynical possible interpretation. I just don't think it's fair to assume the worst of a total stranger before you know for sure what he'll do. People deserve the benefit of the doubt.
And, again, he's not the only person involved. In feature films, writers are always subordinate to directors and producers. If Justin Lin or Abrams and Burk don't like what he writes, they can rewrite it partially or completely. And Abrams is the guy who created Felicity and Alias and co-created Fringe with Kurtzman and Orci. He's definitely not opposed to strong female characters. And from what I've heard of Lin, he's handled the female characters in the Fast and Furious movies better than his predecessors did.
Re:
the females in fast and the furious were beautiful, smart, sexy, had a lot of cool attitude, rode well with the guys and were edgy. do you think uhura and carol can fit into this role?
for me yes. Uhura already does especially in the first film.
While a few may complain about uhura or carol one thing the trek films got right is that this ladies have never been damsel in distresses and that is a huge thing in comparisons to other films. In fact in Star Trek Into darkness spock was the damsel. Uhura saves him.
So I have no doubt that Lin will write the women great. I don't think Lin will do something as ridiculous and as outlandish as the Carol awkward strip.
what some may have with Lin is that he may be all action but I will give him a chance. All Lin needs to do is research Trek and he will be fine.
Lin looks like a man that can display high intelligence when it really counts.
To Co-Write Star Trek 3
Yes, but "producer" can mean anything from "person actively at the helm" to "financing partner" to "person who's not directly involved but is still getting paid for one reason or another." That's why I qualified it with "hands-on." Of the five listed producers, the two executive producers are just financing partners, I think, so that just leaves Abrams, Burk, and Orci. And there are rumors that Orci's producer title is only honorary at this point. It's not clear whether he'll still be actively participating.
I agree, and I "generally" enjoyed The World's End, but only about 7/8 of it
What I mean by that is I think it was moving along very well, and was well-written, intelligent, thoughtful, and hilarious...BUT it all fell apart in the final acts.
Granted, I'm not sure how it should have ended, but I think the end they came up with was not very effective from a story standpoint (although still well-written).
Actually I quite liked the ending. I thought it was marvelously subversive and made a very effective resolution to Gary's arc. The fact that it's not the comfortable resolution most people would expect is exactly what's so clever about it (in both the American and British senses of "clever").
Right. Contracts are generally written with clauses spelling out what will happen if one party or the other chooses to withdraw from the agreement or is unable to fulfill it. Actors get written out of movies all the time, or choose to drop out of them. And it's all covered in the contract.
That said, I doubt that either Shatner or Nimoy would've been signed before Paramount even had a firm script. At most, they might've been signed to an option -- i.e. an agreement to make themselves available if the filmmakers choose to use them, without being a guarantee that they will be used.
I'm saying nothing of the sort. I'm just saying that there's no need to judge at all. You don't have to pick a side right off the bat -- it's perfectly all right to remain neutral, to keep an open mind until you have more evidence. Don't blindly trust, but don't blindly condemn either. How many times have fans assumed someone was a terrible choice to write or direct or star in a movie, only to have them turn out brilliant? You just can't know until you see the actual results.
Key word, "if." We won't know until we know.
I don't think anything. My whole point is that it's perfectly fine to assume nothing at all.
But that doesn't mean he'd be so egomaniacal that he'd compromise the integrity of the story. There's an optimistic way and a cynical way to interpret what he's said, and you seem to be jumping to the most cynical possible interpretation. I just don't think it's fair to assume the worst of a total stranger before you know for sure what he'll do. People deserve the benefit of the doubt.
And, again, he's not the only person involved. In feature films, writers are always subordinate to directors and producers. If Justin Lin or Abrams and Burk don't like what he writes, they can rewrite it partially or completely. And Abrams is the guy who created Felicity and Alias and co-created Fringe with Kurtzman and Orci. He's definitely not opposed to strong female characters. And from what I've heard of Lin, he's handled the female characters in the Fast and Furious movies better than his predecessors did.
the females in fast and the furious were beautiful, smart, sexy, had a lot of cool attitude, rode well with the guys and were edgy. do you think uhura and carol can fit into this role?
for me yes. Uhura already does especially in the first film.
While a few may complain about uhura or carol one thing the trek films got right is that this ladies have never been damsel in distresses and that is a huge thing in comparisons to other films. In fact in Star Trek Into darkness spock was the damsel. Uhura saves him.
So I have no doubt that Lin will write the women great. I don't think Lin will do something as ridiculous and as outlandish as the Carol awkward strip.
what some may have with Lin is that he may be all action but I will give him a chance. All Lin needs to do is research Trek and he will be fine.
Lin looks like a man that can display high intelligence when it really counts.
Re:
I don`t think it's a matter of being egomaniacal (or like Shatner lol!) as much he's just human
they are not the ones writing the story though. The one writing it is someone who seem to not be able to even consider the female characters worth the attention. The one writing is someone who goes around taking the defense of an old man that abused a little girl saying that he's getting 'vilified' by her.
To Co-Write Star Trek 3
I don`t think it's a matter of being egomaniacal (or like Shatner lol!) as much he's just human
they are not the ones writing the story though. The one writing it is someone who seem to not be able to even consider the female characters worth the attention. The one writing is someone who goes around taking the defense of an old man that abused a little girl saying that he's getting 'vilified' by her.
Re:
To Co-Write Star Trek 3
Great news to read!!!! 
Colour me very excited - huzzah!!!!!!
Colour me very excited - huzzah!!!!!!
Similar threads
