Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

Star Trek Beyond (2016)

Kromm

By Kromm
in Movies

  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 294
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Serena
Serena

No, Takei says he knew and had told them he wasn't for it before, when the movie was being written, so they knew he wasn't going to like it and decided that it was something they wanted to do anyway.

Serena
Serena

Or, crazy thought, Sulu is bisexual and happens to be in a same-sex relationship. He can find Uhura attractive and also his male partner. I hate that any time someone adds a woman or a minority t

starri
starri

Is it wrong that I really hope Sulu's husband is played by Kal Penn?

Kromm

Kromm

  • Author

That's old news.  It's not even a question.  He's written it already.  It's being filmed off what he and his co-writer wrote right now.

 

Since he's been a screenwriter for his entire career as much as an actor, is that really that strange an idea?

Except of course it's technically Star Trek XIII, not III.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
millennium

millennium

I don't have much confidence in Pegg as a screenwriter for Star Trek.   Was nobody else available?   I've never seen a good result when an actor in a series gets to steer the storyline.    Star Trek 5, for example, story by Shatner.   Or any of the terrible X-Files episodes written by Duchovny.

Link to comment
Kromm

Kromm

  • Author
(edited)

I don't have much confidence in Pegg as a screenwriter for Star Trek.   Was nobody else available?   I've never seen a good result when an actor in a series gets to steer the storyline.    Star Trek 5, for example, story by Shatner.   Or any of the terrible X-Files episodes written by Duchovny.

Shatner and Duchovney weren't screenwriters before they were actors.  Pegg was.

 

I mean are you totally unfamiliar with Pegg other than as Scotty?  He's co-written pretty much every single acting project he's been involved with OTHER than Star Trek.

 

He wrote Shaun of the Dead before starring in it, as well as the other films he did with Edward Wright (Hot Fuzz and The World's End).  Also he wrote several other films he's starred in (Paul, Run Fatboy Run and several others).  He also was a primary writer on Spaced, the sitcom he appeared in before doing movies, as well as a few other British TV shows before that. 

 

He's more akin to a Kevin Smith or Woody Allen figure than a William Shatner or David Duchovney. He just happened to wind up in Star Trek because I guess Abrams loved his earlier work and Pegg in turn loved Star Trek.

 

Of course his experience is pretty much just with comedies, but it's still pretty unfair to compare him to lightweights like Shatner and Duchovney.

Edited by Kromm
  • Love 3
Link to comment
Joe

Joe

I'm concerned because he was told to make his script less Star Trek-esque. The higher-ups want the Star Trek name, but not the actual thing itself? That's just not right.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Bruinsfan

Bruinsfan

While I'll give Pegg props for his comedies, he made Scotty a buffoon that seemed like he wandered in from another movie, the diametric opposite of Karl Urban's eerily faithful DeForest Kelley impersonation. And based on my familiarity with Pegg's past projects I have ZERO confidence in him being able to write a largely serious sci-fi action adventure script. I worry that it's going to be 90 minutes of gags like Scotty being pumped through tubes in the engine room and Kirk waving inflated balloon hands around.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Kromm

Kromm

  • Author
(edited)

While I'll give Pegg props for his comedies, he made Scotty a buffoon that seemed like he wandered in from another movie, the diametric opposite of Karl Urban's eerily faithful DeForest Kelley impersonation. And based on my familiarity with Pegg's past projects I have ZERO confidence in him being able to write a largely serious sci-fi action adventure script. I worry that it's going to be 90 minutes of gags like Scotty being pumped through tubes in the engine room and Kirk waving inflated balloon hands around.

Fair enough.  I just thought it was wrong to compare him to/expect him to write at the (basement dwelling) level of Shatner and Duchovney. There's room to be concerned about the direction he's writing it, of course, but he's hardly one of the legion of "dumb actors with swelled heads demanding creative control".

 

Although if we're being honest, his cowriter doesn't inspire confidence either.  I have no idea who this is or why anyone thinks he's qualified, having never heard of any of the single season TV shows or the obscure movie he's previously credited writing (other than Banshee and Big Love, which I have heard of, but which he only wrote 2 episodes of each, and neither show sounds like a real good match for "Star Trek"): http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1136647/?ref_=tt_ov_wr

 

But at this point the script has got to be done since they've allegedly been actually filming for a while now.

Edited by Kromm
Link to comment
millennium

millennium

Shatner and Duchovney weren't screenwriters before they were actors.  Pegg was.

 

I mean are you totally unfamiliar with Pegg other than as Scotty?  He's co-written pretty much every single acting project he's been involved with OTHER than Star Trek.

 

He wrote Shaun of the Dead before starring in it, as well as the other films he did with Edward Wright (Hot Fuzz and The World's End).  Also he wrote several other films he's starred in (Paul, Run Fatboy Run and several others).  He also was a primary writer on Spaced, the sitcom he appeared in before doing movies, as well as a few other British TV shows before that. 

 

He's more akin to a Kevin Smith or Woody Allen figure than a William Shatner or David Duchovney. He just happened to wind up in Star Trek because I guess Abrams loved his earlier work and Pegg in turn loved Star Trek.

 

Of course his experience is pretty much just with comedies, but it's still pretty unfair to compare him to lightweights like Shatner and Duchovney.

 

I know Pegg's other projects; I didn't like Shaun of the Dead.   And I don't like him as Scotty either.

 

I'm solidly with Bruinsfan on this one.   Star Trek doesn't need a comedy writer.   Especially a British comedy writer. 

Link to comment
benteen

benteen

(edited)

I just hope we get something original.  I don't want to see the same "bad man with a big gun" storyline that has been the focus of the last three films.

Edited by benteen
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Bruinsfan

Bruinsfan

I know Star Trek: The Motion Picture gets a lot of scorn, but I think something high concept like V'Ger's search for its own origin might be a good idea. Or, maybe revisit one of the classic Trek stories that should be occurring right about now, like the deadly game of cat-and-mouse with the Romulans  from "Balance of Terror" or the incident with the Horta from "The Devil in the Dark."

 

Of course, given how Abrams handled adapting "Space Seed"/The Wrath of Khan, perhaps they should avoid the classic episodes and instead work with "Spock's Brain." Not much chance of people being up in arms over changes made to THAT story.

Link to comment
Kromm

Kromm

  • Author
(edited)

This article calls the film "Star Trek Beyond" WAY back on May 21, and the writer (who I believe most of us remember from TWoP as the writer/moderator Moriarity) claims to know Pegg in some undefined sense (maybe through previous interviews?), so maybe that gives some credence to Mr. WcWeeny's observations.

WILL 'STAR TREK BEYOND' TAKE THE ENTERPRISE 'WHERE NO ONE HAS GONE BEFORE'?
 
Some prime bits quoted only (so you'll still click on the link and give Hitfix their proper hit on the article):
 

I've known Pegg for a little over a decade now, and I was a fan for a year or two before that thanks to "Spaced." It's been quite clear in that time that he takes genre very seriously, and that his fandom is genuine.

 

I find "Star Trek Into Darkness" to be one of the most confounding examples of franchise filmmaking in our modern age. The cast is all on point, there's a great deal of energy to things… and it is crippled by some of the most disastrously strange choices imaginable. I was talking to a friend on Sunday night and when I mentioned the odd way they handled Khan in "STID," he was confused. Somehow, even though he saw it twice, it never registered to him that Cumberbatch was playing Khan. He refused to believe me at first.


That's not a good sign.

 

One of the things that I found most promising about a third "Star Trek" movie based on the early conversations with Pegg took over as the writer was the idea that they would finally be beginning their "ongoing mission to seek out new worlds." To me, that's "Star Trek." Keeping them Earthbound worked for one film, but it's a disaster if you're talking about the series as a whole. The entire point of the show was exploration, the idea of expanding our universe. One of the beautiful things about the way the reboot happened was knowing that there are no rules now for their universe. None of what we've already seen has happened, and there's no guarantee things will happen the same way twice. The entire universe is open to "Trek" storytellers now, as long as they take advantage of it.


What concerns me is that Paramount, a studio that is barely in the studio business as this point, is desperate.

 

What's tough to decipher here is exactly what Simon's talking about. He says "They had a script for 'Star Trek' that wasn't really working for them. I think the studio was worried that it might have been a little too 'Star Trek'-y." There were rumors about what the third film might entail under Orci that involved Romulans and more time travel and it sounded like it would look a lot like the first two films, but without Abrams there to ride herd over it. One of the most immediate and important shifts the project took under Pegg and Jung is that they're leaving Earth and they'll actually be on their ongoing mission now. Within that, it sounds like Paramount wanted something much more conventionally shaped, and Pegg explained that they will "make a western or a thriller or a heist movie, then populate that with 'Star Trek' characters so it's more inclusive to an audience that might be a little bit reticent."

Edited by Kromm
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Trini

Trini

(edited)

It's interesting to me how he compares New!Trek to New!Bond, because the Daniel Craig movies have been the only ones I've liked, but the new Trek films I feel are lacking in several ways.

 

One of the beautiful things about the way the reboot happened was knowing that there are no rules now for their universe. None of what we've already seen has happened, and there's no guarantee things will happen the same way twice. The entire universe is open to "Trek" storytellers now, as long as they take advantage of it.

Gah! Things don't have to happen exactly the same, but there still should be "rules"; things still need to make sense within the Star Trek universe.

 

Within that, it sounds like Paramount wanted something much more conventionally shaped, and Pegg explained that they will "make a western or a thriller or a heist movie, then populate that with 'Star Trek' characters so it's more inclusive to an audience that might be a little bit reticent."

Which audience, though? Trekkies or everyone else? He's probably talking about non-fans, so are the diehards going to be mightily annoyed with the next one too?

Edited by Trini
Link to comment
Kromm

Kromm

  • Author

Which audience, though? Trekkies or everyone else? He's probably talking about non-fans, so are the diehards going to be mightily annoyed with the next one too?

Original Trek WAS a Western though.  Gene Roddenberry's original pitch for the show to the network was "Wagon Train to the Stars", in fact.  

 

So maybe the answer is both.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
benteen

benteen

(edited)

They'd probably like a story that can relate to non-Trekkers like The Voyage Home.  I'm hoping the next movie takes them out into deep space.

 

From what I read about Orci's draft, I'm glad it got scrapped as it just seemed to continue the insulated story of the first two movies.

Edited by benteen
Link to comment
ruby24

ruby24

If they're talking about attracting non-Trekkers, hasn't that already been the first two movies? But what, they just want more of it? I don't know how much more they could dumb it down, tbh.

 

Pegg says they're annoyed that the franchise hasn't been able to make superhero money, but what they've made is a hell of a lot more than any other Star Trek movie ever did.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
benteen

benteen

Star Trek has never been a huge money-maker.  Before the JJ Reboot, only one film ever crossed $100 million in the U.S. and the international box office for some of the films have been putrid.  They've improved overseas but I don't see Star Trek ever becoming a billion-dollar a movie franchise.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
VCRTracking

VCRTracking

I liked it. The part with Bones and Spock are surrounded by unfriendly looking aliens and Bones says "Well, at least I won't die alone." and Spock gets beamed away made me laugh. I can understand though the complaints from people that they're trying to be like Guardians of the Galaxy.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
SmithW6079

SmithW6079

I have to say it. I can't keep quiet.

That looks like utter and complete garbage to me.

I think it looks like a glossy, action-packed science fiction movie. But it's not Star Trek in any shape or form. It's like fan fiction that uses the same characters but totally changes the setting, the premise, and anything else that made the show the show. 

 

And the Enterprise appears to get destroyed. Again. Is that some kind of director's rule -- that the Enterprise must be destroyed in at least one of the movies in each series? 

  • Love 5
Link to comment
Joe

Joe

It looks entertaining, but it doesn't look like Star Trek. Call that a trailer for the next Star Wars, Guardians of the Galaxy, even a brand new original space opera. Great! Star Trek? Not so much.

  • Love 3
Link to comment
Ronin Jackson

Ronin Jackson

(edited)

I agree it's a crappy trailer, and though I never glean too much from a trailer, pretty good bet the movie isn't going to be much better. You know it's not a good sign when the screenwriter seems to be apologizing for it in advance (at least that's how I interpret the comments): http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2015/may/19/simon-pegg-criticises-dumbing-down-of-cinema

 

EDIT: Saw the comments discussed above too late but I'll leave the quote so people don't need to scroll back up.

 

 

 

He said he had been asked to make the new Star Trek film “more inclusive”.

“They had a script for Star Trek that wasn’t really working for them. I think the studio was worried that it might have been a little bit too Star Trek-y,” he said of the original draft.

“Avengers Assemble, which is a pretty nerdy, comic-book, supposedly niche thing, made $1.5bn dollars. Star Trek: Into Darkness made half a billion, which is still brilliant.

“But it means that, according to the studio, there’s still $1bn worth of box office that don’t go and see Star Trek. And they want to know why.”

He added: “People don’t see it being a fun, brightly coloured, Saturday night entertainment like the Avengers,” adding that the solution was to “make a western or a thriller or a heist movie, then populate that with Star Trek characters so it’s more inclusive to an audience that might be a little bit reticent”.
Edited by Ronin Jackson
Link to comment
millennium

millennium

(edited)

I have a longstanding dislike of the Beastie Boys, so ...   I understand Abrams is a "die-hard Beasties Boy fan" but I think it sucks that he should impose his personal preferences on a body of work that predates him, especially when those preferences have absolutely no relation to the material at hand.   It feels like an abuse of power.

 

The trailer looks like shit.   It has already garnered nearly 10,000 dislikes on youtube.

 

This isn't Star Trek anymore.

Edited by millennium
  • Love 1
Link to comment
revbfc

revbfc

I'm just tired of the Enterprise getting destroyed in every movie. The original crew kept that hunk of junk together for 3 seasons, an animated series and almost 2 movies. It's official: this timeline sucks.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
VCRTracking

VCRTracking

Simon Pegg didn't like the trailer either:

 

"It was very action-packed," Pegg said. "I find that it's the job of the marketing people to say ‘everybody come and see this film, it's full of action and fun,’ when there's a lot more to it than that."

 "I didn't love it," he said of the trailer. "Because I know there's a lot more to the film. There's a lot more of what I would call 'Star Trek stuff.'" Who knows what Pegg means when he says "Star Trek stuff," but we're going to assume that Beyond includes 45 minutes of Chris Pine debating morality with a poorly rendered alien.

 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Maximum Taco

Maximum Taco

Did not like the trailer.

 

It definitely feels more like Guardians of the Galaxy than Star Trek. Not that there's anything wrong with Guardians, it was a fun and fine movie. But when something says Star Trek I want it to be Star Trek.

 

It felt like we finally conquered the Star Trek Even/Odd Numbering Law when Star Trek (2009) was good. I guess it's just another anomaly like Nemesis (which was terrible, but by numbering law should've been good)

Link to comment
Last Time Lord

Last Time Lord

(edited)

I actually kinda liked the trailer, but not really for the trailer itself, but because there was one shot of an alien, and this is pure speculation on my part, but I'm pretty sure it was a Jem'Hadar.

Add to that, and the line in the trailer about the Frontier pushing back, or however it was worded.

Sounds like something The Founders would say.

They knew about the Federation in the Alpha Quadrant all the way from the Gamma Quadrant. The changes in the time line that made the Federation more militaristic could cause The Founders to advance their time table.

And best of all, they'd FINALLY do something interesting with the Alternative Reality concept from the reboot.

Which, after Rehash Of Khan, they desperately need.

Edited by Last Time Lord
  • Love 2
Link to comment
LydiaMoon1

LydiaMoon1

(edited)
That trailer is BAD. There's no sense of plot, little sense of character and it's just a barrage of THINGS. Like I could feel a collective shrug from the universe as I watched it. Damn shame, the first movie was pretty great, to me anyway.

Agreed.  I really liked most of the 2009 movie.  I got a sinking feeling, however, when they used pretzel logic to end it with Kirk as the captain again.  They could have kept Spock as the captain and explored a completely different dynamic. Instead, they sank right back into the same old, same old.  Typical.

 

Anyway, here are my kneejerk reactions to the ST Beyond trailer:

 

1. The music sucks.

2. Kirk looks terrible with that ugly haircut. 

3. Those are some ugly azz uniforms.

4. Spock looks terrible in that bad wig.

5. The Enterprise gets destroyed again?  **yawn**

6. Are they planet-bound again? 

7. Spare me “Action” Scotty. I like him as Mr. Fixit.

8. Motocross. Motocross?

9. What’s with the cheesy-looking makeup on that female alien?

10. Whose idea was it to portray her flat-twists as an “alien” hairstyle?

11. Where did the alien female learn kung fu?

12. Damnit! You covered Idris Elba!

13. So Sula and Uhura are captives while the white men run free?

14. First, they write Uhura as a nag and now she’s a damsel? Really?

15. I wish they wouldn’t take my telling Kirk to take a flying leap every film so literally!  

 

<sigh> I was hoping for better than Star Trek Into Dumbness, but it feels like I'm going to get Star Trek Beyond Awful instead.  I do hope that I'm wrong.

Edited by LydiaMoon1
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Morrigan2575

Morrigan2575

I'm a little worried about the movie. I didn't like the trailer but, I'm not totally put off (yet).

I hope there's more depth to the movie and it's not Fast and Furious in Space. I'm not knocking Lin or the Franchise, I rather enjoyed 5 and 6 but, what works for Fast and Furious doesn't necessarily work for Star Trek.

Link to comment
Kromm

Kromm

  • Author
(edited)

Based on the trailer this should have been titled Star Trek: 2 Frenetic 2 Watch.

Heh. I think we both know it's either 3 or 13 depending on how you count, but I suppose that joke doesn't work as well (only 2 and 4 work as words), but also there's likely no good jokes to reference the third F&F film "Tokyo Drift", so bravo anyway!  Or wait.  Maybe "Star Trek: Star Fleet Academy Drift". Nah. Not funny.  Let's go with yours instead.

Edited by Kromm
Link to comment
Kromm

Kromm

  • Author

Ok, y'all. What the hell has happened to Star Trek?

Has anyone seen the clip/scene from the $1 million STAR TREK fanfilm--Axanar?

...

There's a 3 min scene out that's so-so. The true measure of that is the 20 minute prequel they put out. 

 

Don't play this unless you have that 20 min to spare (because likely most people will want to sit through the whole thing).  

 

Yes, those are real Star Trek actors. A couple of the highest profile fan projects have had real Trek actors, but they're used particularly well in this.

Oh yes, and Candyman. Being non-Candymanish, thank goodness. A very good performance by him.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
SmithW6079

SmithW6079

Sadly, CBS and Paramount are suing Axanar now for copyright infringement, and there is some Internet chatter that Axanar may have been misusing the crowdfunding money. Also, Tony Todd is no longer involved and has been passive-aggressive on Twitter about it.

That said, "Prelude to Axanar"is awesome.

Link to comment
Kromm

Kromm

  • Author

Sadly, CBS and Paramount are suing Axanar now for copyright infringement, and there is some Internet chatter that Axanar may have been misusing the crowdfunding money. Also, Tony Todd is no longer involved and has been passive-aggressive on Twitter about it.

That said, "Prelude to Axanar"is awesome.

That's distressing. Until this point they've not only not pursued claims against any of the many fan projects, they've even quietly encouraged a few of them.

 

The biggest one is probably Star Trek New Voyages/Phase II--which is so big that Majel Barrett, Walter Koenig, Eugene Roddenberry Jr., George Takei, Grace Lee Whitney, Denise Crosby, Malachi Throne, William Windom, Trek writers David Gerrold, Marc Scott Zicree, and Michael Reaves, and others have all been involved to (sometimes) very large amounts. But it's technically a fan production, with several "episodes" in mid production right now, so if CBS and Paramount have started going after such projects simply because the budgets have grown, then this could mean a shitload of trouble for them too.

Link to comment
SmithW6079

SmithW6079

(edited)

That's distressing. Until this point they've not only not pursued claims against any of the many fan projects, they've even quietly encouraged a few of them.

The biggest one is probably Star Trek New Voyages/Phase II--which is so big that Majel Barrett, Walter Koenig, Eugene Roddenberry Jr., George Takei, Grace Lee Whitney, Denise Crosby, Malachi Throne, William Windom, Trek writers David Gerrold, Marc Scott Zicree, and Michael Reaves, and others have all been involved to (sometimes) very large amounts. But it's technically a fan production, with several "episodes" in mid production right now, so if CBS and Paramount have started going after such projects simply because the budgets have grown, then this could mean a shitload of trouble for them too.

I follow Axanar on Facebook, and many of the posts there mentioned concerns about other fan productions being shut down and speculation that the size of Axanar's budget and professional, polished look made it a target.

Also, there's the new Star Trek film coming out and the new streaming series in 2017, so they don't want the competition of a production that aligns more closely with what die-hard fans want.

I haven't seen "New Voyages," but I've watched "Star Trek Continues," which uses the original characters and could be considered a far worse infringement of copyright than Axanar's use of a one-off character and backstory from one episode.

Edited by SmithW6079
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Kromm

Kromm

  • Author

I haven't seen "New Voyages," but I've watched "Star Trek Continues," which uses the original characters and could be considered a far worse infringement of copyright than Axanar's use of a one-off character and backstory from one episode.

Well yeah, and the thing is with Star Trek: Phase II/New Voyages it's even a step further. The voice of the computer (at least before she died) was played by Majel Barrett (just like on Trek). One of their most prominent episodes is a script David Gerrold actually wrote for Star Trek itself, but which never got used because it had a gay character. Gene Roddenbury Jr. is a co-producer. Koenig and Takei appear and play actual versions of their actual characters. I mean think about the level of egg on Paramount's face if they start cracking down on this after doing nothing in the face of all that semi-official involvement over a period of THIRTEEN YEARS.

 

Heck, one of th episodes got nominated for a Hugo Award--in direct competition to episodes of Doctor Who, Torchwood and Battlestar Galactica. It lost, but just think about that.

 

So yeah, I'd like to see how and where they're going with this if Axanar is in their sights. Axanar has a greater cast percentage of professional actors (Phase II generally only had the pros as episode guest stars). That's really the biggest difference besides the budget.

  • Love 1
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...