Pegg is right that they mishandled it. 4 years is too long.
I will miss Pine as Kirk if this is the case.
I will miss Pine as Kirk if this is the case.
Simon Pegg on The Future of Star Trek
- Thread starter Armus
- Start date
- Status
It peaked with the first and the best -- Star Trek. They didn't help themselves by kicking off a vibrant, revitalized movie franchise by waiting 4 years for the second entry.
As for Pegg's movie, I haven't managed to get thru a full re-watch of it. I have tried, but I normally check out not long after the Enterprise goes down. Lot of behind the scenes drama which lead to a rush job done by Pegg.
As for the 50th anniversary excuse - spare me.
As for Pegg's movie, I haven't managed to get thru a full re-watch of it. I have tried, but I normally check out not long after the Enterprise goes down. Lot of behind the scenes drama which lead to a rush job done by Pegg.
As for the 50th anniversary excuse - spare me.
Well, I'll strongly disagree with you on that. I thought Pine was a better Kirk than Shatner.
Star Trek Picard
Star Trek Discovery
Short Treks
And Many more to come from CBS. We could be getting a Section 31, Pike, No 1 and Spock show.
With cbs all access trek, the visuals and style are amazing, They are better than some high budget sumner movies. They also open the door to tell more interesting fascinating star trek stories.
Chris Pine is a good actor. His Kirk was a different character than the Kirk we saw in TOS or the Kirk that Gary Mitchell described as a book with legs. It's not fair to compare the two.
https://boundingintocomics.com/2020/03/01/simon-pegg-on-star-trek-weve-lost-momentum/
Pegg is correct as I said. the movie lost a lot momentum but it was not because of Anton's passing. the momentum was lost around the four years we waited for the into darkness sequel.
Pegg is correct as I said. the movie lost a lot momentum but it was not because of Anton's passing. the momentum was lost around the four years we waited for the into darkness sequel.
I don't think it is a matter of better, since Shater defined the role. But Pine brought a different energy and life to it that I personally thoroughly enjoyed.
You're right that it's not fair to compare them, especially as Shatner had a lot more time in the role, but I do find I prefer Pine's performance and his take on the character.
I've always felt that the three Kelvin movies created, either on purpose or artistic accident, a nice arc for Pine's Kirk to become the captain we remember in the original series. By Beyond, he's Kirk completely through and through.
Of course, I also see Pine's Kirk as a younger more raw version of the Prime Universe one. To me, his Kirk and Shatner's Kirk are one and the same character. And I don't really tend to separate the two timelines. In my head, they're all just variations of the same story.
Which makes me wonder how much CBS is getting back by producing such highly expensive TV shows for a niche audience?
I don't know about that, but I did prefer Quinto's Spock narrative than Pine's Kirk; I thought the new Vulcan idea was grand and should've continued this idea with a Romulan involvement. I'm curious to see what that villainous race looked like in the JJverse? Nero's Romulans were from TNG-Movie timeline.
Last edited:
Subscription fees. At $10m an episode for 30 episodes a year that's $300m. Doesn't need many fans globally to subscribe to offset those costs.
While I don't do the separation, I do agree that his arc is among the best in the films, and I don't care if it was a happy accident. Kirk demonstrates the rebellious nature that actually is common even in this day and age and needs a mentor to become the Kirk we eventually see. He has to grow in to his own man instead of "George Kirk's son."
It's an awesome arc.
I like this Kirk more than the original too, but I also believe he isn't a strong enough protagonist who can carry a whole movie alone (it has nothing to do with Pine or the character being bad), so the insistence of making it a 'Shatner redux' thus the Kirk show again at the expense of finally doing more with the other characters, fixing an issue the old movies had, is just..not worth it. It's outdated, in a way. It's disappointing. Trek can do better now.
People love this cast; making everything about Kirk is counterproductive as it also creates issues like a planned fourth movie getting cancelled because the story was about him and his dad, so the moment Chris isn't available you have no movie. It would be wiser to focus on the ensemble precisely because that way you don't need every movie to have a big Kirk story if the actor isn't available full time. Nowadays successful franchises don't necessarily have only one main guy and his story so limiting this trek that way is unnecessary.
The main guy and main focus of a movie should be like that because his story objectively is the one with the most potential, it shouldn't be all based on the character being called Kirk or the fact he's the captain of the ship. In the reboot, I feel like it exactly is like the latter and thus different writers struggled trying to create stories that had Kirk as the main focus to reassure people (and maybe some executives) that their franchise still has a conventional hollywood hero. The result is two sequels that weren't as powerful as the first movie was, some scripts rejected by the studio and a planned fourth movie that had a forced storyline no one asked for and that was ultimately cancelled because of contract issues with Pine.
Besides, kelvin Spock is a strong lead and many expected him to have a prominent role after st09. The set up of this trek was like that. His conflict, the fact they destroyed his world, the fact he has the main relationships of this trek, heck..the fact itself Spock is part alien. He IS 'trek' in the most symbolic way of the reality the franchise is supposed to represent.
He's a contemporary version of a character that is even more relatable to nowaday kids because he is a mixed kid who embraces his heritage (both his sides), an outsider, a slightly autistic coded introvert who is developed without certain annoying tropes that affected this kind of character before. One of the reasons why I liked the romance is the fact that it's a deliberate way to give both him and Uhura a life outside of Kirk. That is damn important. For Uhura, she's a character who also was denied romance in tos because of racism. .and in a way, Spock too was denied some things before because he was influenced by the 'tragic mulatto' stereotype.
It's absurd how he was gradually reduced to sidekick of hero, again, in the sequels and beyond especially.
It's a waste because he was the character who had a stronger link to those elements (the destruction of vulcan for one, the fact he is the one character whose prime version also was in this reality and, in a way, contributed creating this reality) that help making the next movie a real continuation and evolution of what st09 started.
I remember when the rumor was that paramount wanted to 'copy' guardians of the galaxy which is, of course, silly. However, that franchise does have aspects trek could use as good examples, one being the strong family element. Starlord is the main guy but the other characters aren't treated like afterthought..they all have connections to him and to each other. The bond is flawed and authentic. The movies also have a ton of nostalgia. .of the good kind. Such as the director putting little 80/90s objects from his childhood/teen years that are vintage in the futuristic reality the characters are in. Not to mention the unique vintage soundtrack. It really adds a nice touch.
Last edited:
To produce a season of DSC cost around $100M, which covers production costs and actors' salaries. That would be your "budget".
How was Spock a side kick hero? the movies never gave me that impression. Spock had more character development than Kirk in the 3 films. Sulu is more of a sidekick to Kirk. I would even rank Scotty higher than a sidekick character in Star Trek 2009, Into Darkness and Beyond.
There is also no evidence out there that suggest Spock would be able to carry a movie by himself and Kirk wouldn't. Kirk and Spock are equals and they work better when both are co-leads like Will Smith and Matt Lawrence from the Bad Boys movies
Last edited:
The thing is, in theory, Star Trek movies are selling to a wider audience than your obsessives with CBSAA subs. The movies still have a greater potential to reach a wider audience. It was legit to say the last few TOS movies were affected by people 'staying home' to watch TNG, but TNG was on regular TV, not a premium service behind a paywall. So, if anything, the divide in audience share is even greater now than it was then.
I hope he's wrong I love the current incarnation of Star Trek films.
James Bond has had its ups and downs and they still make that.
We Have to have another Star Trek film with current brilliant cast!!!!!!!
James Bond has had its ups and downs and they still make that.
We Have to have another Star Trek film with current brilliant cast!!!!!!!
Oddly enough, of all the nuTrek characters, I thought Simon Pegg's version of Scotty was the least compelling.
I have been impressed with Pine's version of Kirk, Quinto's Spock, Saldana's Uhura, etc., except for Pegg's Scotty.
I didn't expect to like nuTrek's version of the TOS characters, but it turned out to be much better that I thought, except for Pegg's Scotty. His version of Scotty just didn't work for me.
If Beyond is the last that we will ever see of this cast as who they are, I suppose whatever nu nuTrek movie that will be produced in the distant future will be with a completely different cast again. I will miss this cast, except for Pegg's Scotty (repeating myself). But it will be interesting to see who the future cast will be, whenever that happens. And then we can all do our comparisons of which cast(s) was better.
I have been impressed with Pine's version of Kirk, Quinto's Spock, Saldana's Uhura, etc., except for Pegg's Scotty.
I didn't expect to like nuTrek's version of the TOS characters, but it turned out to be much better that I thought, except for Pegg's Scotty. His version of Scotty just didn't work for me.
If Beyond is the last that we will ever see of this cast as who they are, I suppose whatever nu nuTrek movie that will be produced in the distant future will be with a completely different cast again. I will miss this cast, except for Pegg's Scotty (repeating myself). But it will be interesting to see who the future cast will be, whenever that happens. And then we can all do our comparisons of which cast(s) was better.
With TV, profits are split with broadcasters. With streaming, you're pouring money directly into CBS (at least in the US. Elsewhere it's split with Netflix or Amazon). So they can make more profit with fewer viewers.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
