Someone needs to dope slap Simon Pegg.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/05/19/simon-pegg-says-original-star-trek-3-script-was-too-star-trek-y
Opinions are like assholes, as they say.
That being said, it doesn't mean that Pegg is wrong in creating a movie that will earn the studio as much money as a Marvel movie.
Unfortunately this particular asshole is co-writing the next movie.
The reboots have been completely "Un-Star Trek-y". And now they're going to try to mainstream it further?
QuoteHe further explained "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."
Just make a decent goddamned Star Trek movie!!! >:(
Quote from: mirth on May 20, 2015, 12:33:21 PM
Just make a decent goddamned Star Trek movie!!! >:(
How do define a decent Star Trek movie?
Quote from: OJsDad on May 20, 2015, 01:18:30 PM
Quote from: mirth on May 20, 2015, 12:33:21 PM
Just make a decent goddamned Star Trek movie!!! >:(
How do define a decent Star Trek movie?
Wrath of Khan
First Contact
+1 to everything mirth posted! O0
Quote from: mirth on May 20, 2015, 12:33:21 PM
Unfortunately this particular asshole is co-writing the next movie.
The reboots have been completely "Un-Star Trek-y". And now they're going to try to mainstream it further?
QuoteHe further explained "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."
Just make a decent goddamned Star Trek movie!!! >:(
Unfortunately, I think we're stuck relying on fan-based projects for that,
mirth. Personally, I'm waiting/hoping on
Prelude to Axanar.
Axanar is very promising, based on that 20 minute trailer they did.
Agreed. I'm pretty stoked for it!
Quote from: OJsDad on May 20, 2015, 01:18:30 PM
Quote from: mirth on May 20, 2015, 12:33:21 PM
Just make a decent goddamned Star Trek movie!!! >:(
How do define a decent Star Trek movie?
Star Trek ship battles, with sparks shooting, people flying over consoles, short but brief references about killing/vengeance, and mostly just sequences of ships maneuvering & shooting the piss out of each other for two hours.
Wrath Of Khan is the only one that came near. The Undiscovered Country was only slightly in the vicinity. The rest were BLECH, especially after the original cast was gone.
Frankly, a sizable portion of the Star Trek writing after TOS/C has been saddled with enough fantastical Space Hippy Society nonsense to set off the Believability Detectors. It often seemed to be focused more on moralizing than a fun sci-fi romp filled with conflict. :-\ We need more of the latter. The last two were okay but still missed something.. especially the last one that pillaged the best of the bunch and didn't turn out as well as the original. >:(
The first reboot movie was okay. Better than I expected.
Into Darkness was decidedly 'meh'. A completely unnecessary film. And it still made $500 million.
Ok, -1 to that last mirth post. Neither reboot movie was Star Trek. :uglystupid2:
The true ST fans here probably just put me on Ignore after my rant. ;D
Don't feel bad Mirth. :P
Quote from: Nefaro on May 20, 2015, 06:30:54 PM
The true ST fans here probably just put me on Ignore after my rant. ;D
Don't feel bad Mirth. :P
I have to admit I did look for that option on the Groghead forums. :P
The IGN article edited out some context to the Pegg quotes
Read this version
http://www.blastr.com/2015-5-19/simon-pegg-says-he-was-hired-make-star-trek-3-less-star-trek-y
It sounds like it's the studio guys (and not Pegg) complaining about how ST compares to Avengers, not Pegg. And that they hired Pegg to try to make ST more accessible to the Avengers audience, rather than just Trekkies. It sounds like Pegg is regurgitating the argument the studio made to him, and not necessarily his own views.
Quote from: bbmike on May 20, 2015, 06:27:38 PM
Ok, -1 to that last mirth post. Neither reboot movie was Star Trek. :uglystupid2:
I wasn't trying to say the first one was. Just that it was an enjoyable film on it's own.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on May 20, 2015, 06:54:15 PM
The IGN article edited out some context to the Pegg quotes
Read this version
http://www.blastr.com/2015-5-19/simon-pegg-says-he-was-hired-make-star-trek-3-less-star-trek-y (http://www.blastr.com/2015-5-19/simon-pegg-says-he-was-hired-make-star-trek-3-less-star-trek-y)
It sounds like it's the studio guys (and not Pegg) complaining about how ST compares to Avengers, not Pegg. And that they hired Pegg to try to make ST more accessible to the Avengers audience, rather than just Trekkies. It sounds like Pegg is regurgitating the argument the studio made to him, and not necessarily his own views.
I still don't get it. I thought that the reboots were given the Abramization treatment to make them more mainstream and accessible.
And why isn't Trek accessible to the Marvel audience? I'm part of the damned Marvel audience and I like Trek too. I don't need Trek to be turned into Space Avengers. We have Guardians of the Galaxy for that.
Quote from: mirth on May 20, 2015, 07:07:39 PM
Quote from: bbmike on May 20, 2015, 06:27:38 PM
Ok, -1 to that last mirth post. Neither reboot movie was Star Trek. :uglystupid2:
I wasn't trying to say the first one was. Just that it was an enjoyable film on it's own.
Alright, I can agree with that. ;)
Quote from: bbmike on May 20, 2015, 07:16:44 PM
Quote from: mirth on May 20, 2015, 07:07:39 PM
Quote from: bbmike on May 20, 2015, 06:27:38 PM
Ok, -1 to that last mirth post. Neither reboot movie was Star Trek. :uglystupid2:
I wasn't trying to say the first one was. Just that it was an enjoyable film on it's own.
Alright, I can agree with that. ;)
Crisis averted.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.quickmeme.com%2Fimg%2Fcd%2Fcd6171ec17cbf843c652404015e5b7c649d2a156938960eff3415d005325ae27.jpg&hash=c981fecdc6c5788d51d64d3bc41b5cdf8e731837)
Quote from: Nefaro on May 20, 2015, 04:15:21 PM
Quote from: OJsDad on May 20, 2015, 01:18:30 PM
Quote from: mirth on May 20, 2015, 12:33:21 PM
Just make a decent goddamned Star Trek movie!!! >:(
How do define a decent Star Trek movie?
Star Trek ship battles, with sparks shooting, people flying over consoles, short but brief references about killing/vengeance, and mostly just sequences of ships maneuvering & shooting the piss out of each other for two hours.
Wrath Of Khan is the only one that came near. The Undiscovered Country was only slightly in the vicinity. The rest were BLECH, especially after the original cast was gone.
Frankly, a sizable portion of the Star Trek writing after TOS/C has been saddled with enough fantastical Space Hippy Society nonsense to set off the Believability Detectors. It often seemed to be focused more on moralizing than a fun sci-fi romp filled with conflict. :-\ We need more of the latter. The last two were okay but still missed something.. especially the last one that pillaged the best of the bunch and didn't turn out as well as the original. >:(
Oh, you want the later seasons of Deep Space 9. Yes, I totally agree.
There's always been a fair amount of moralizing in Star Trek. That started with Roddenberry. He never wanted Star Fleet portrayed as a military organization. They were explorers, not soldiers.
He didn't like the more militaristic tone in Wrath of Khan.
Quote from: mirth on May 20, 2015, 07:55:25 PM
There's always been a fair amount of moralizing in Star Trek. That started with Roddenberry. He never wanted Star Fleet portrayed as a military organization. They were explorers, not soldiers.
Didn't he stop having much input when TNG happened? The moralizing just seemed to shoot up and continue onward. It coincided quite well with ever increasing political correctness over the years.
I'm certainly not a rabid ST fan, but I've enjoyed some bits & pieces when the writers weren't making me eye-roll with their regular flourishes. Stopped watching much of it long ago, though.
Quote
He didn't like the more militaristic tone in Wrath of Khan.
That's just sad. The best of them all. Maybe he should've been booted earlier? :knuppel2:
With so many disparate factions & races in the ST universe, I expect it to be quite tense and Cold War-ish in the overall sense. Despite everyone else in the galaxy following such tendencies, the Federation (in the later stuff) just came across as too Utopian Fantasy in a simple black & white style that made the background feel too thin too often. Made me cringe sometimes.
Anyway.. I'll stop trampling on everyone's idols before the pitchforks come out. I just wanted to emphasize how much I'd like to see a different direction taken. Maybe they'll finish
Axanar sometime in the next decade and I can get my 'splody ship porn fix without infringing on the establishment. ^-^
if ya want great ship to ship combat just watch the newer BSG. nothing has topped that yet.
As crazy as it sounds I've always thought the worst thing for Star Trek (certainly post TOS) was Roddenberry. In TOS Star Fleet was portrayed as both a military organization AND explorers. The way it should be. I still visibly cringe when I see kids and families on the Enterprise in TNG. :idiot2:
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on May 21, 2015, 12:57:34 AM
if ya want great ship to ship combat just watch the newer BSG. nothing has topped that yet.
Quoted for much truth! O0
You forget in the first reboot Star Trek film, they offed several billion (pretend) humanoids when Vulcan imploded upon itself. I thought that was kind of a ballsy storytelling choice to make and was totally off the entire Star Trek MoralityTM thing.
I didn't much like Into Darkness myself, at least at first. Cumberbatch grew on me when Sherlock came out, and I had higher respect for him as an actor, which then made Into Darkness a better movie for me.
No, the reboots are not Star Trek. Star Trek is TOS, ST II, IV*, and IV, and to an extent, TNG/DS9/Voyager. Everything else is pretty much hoping it can be caught in the orbit of that massive storytelling machine and by proxy be considered canon or at the very least, legitimate.
*Yes, I said ST IV is Star Trek. Yes, it's a hippy-dippy 'save the whales' romp, but it was entertaining and a great save after the yawn-worthy ST III.
I liked STIII. I thought it was a nice follow-on to Wrath of Khan and showed how much they were all willing to do for one another. Watching the Enterprise explode and burn up over the Genesis planet was gut-wrenching.
"My God, Bones. What have I done?"
It's the most underrated entry in the series, imho.
Quote from: mirth on May 20, 2015, 07:55:25 PM
There's always been a fair amount of moralizing in Star Trek. That started with Roddenberry. He never wanted Star Fleet portrayed as a military organization. They were explorers, not soldiers.
He didn't like the more militaristic tone in Wrath of Khan.
But he's dead and I'm alive, and I want photons, phasers and explosions! I loved the last season of DS9. If the next ST movie stars Kirk, Spock & McCoy and does not involve hostilities with Klingons, Romulans, or Gorn (hell, I'll even settle for Tholians) then they've betrayed TOS. If they want colour then they can paint the ships up like whores!
Quote from: mirth on May 21, 2015, 07:29:22 AM
Watching the Enterprise explode and burn up over the Genesis planet was gut-wrenching.
"My God, Bones. What have I done?"
It's the most underrated entry in the series, imho.
OK, I concede that point. True. Though not seeing Kirstie Alley as Saavik was very jarring for me and made STIII less engaging overall. It had its moments but it's not up there among the originals for me.
Quote from: mirth on May 21, 2015, 07:29:22 AM
I liked STIII. I thought it was a nice follow-on to Wrath of Khan and showed how much they were all willing to do for one another. Watching the Enterprise explode and burn up over the Genesis planet was gut-wrenching.
"My God, Bones. What have I done?"
It's the most underrated entry in the series, imho.
Seconded. It also served as a nice bridge between II and IV (as well as setting up a distant callback for VI).
OK let's right some wrongs in this thread. :P
First and foremost: The reboots are very much Star Trek. "Moralising" is what makes Star Trek superior to, say, Star Wars which is essentially a kids' film. Any idiot can film a giant starship battle. Star Trek portrays a utopian future in which considerations such as race and money have long been cast aside, and Humanity is finally exploring space properly. It's Trek because it lives up to the ideals. In the first reboot, two captains go aboard the Romulan vessel without a second thought for personal safety. Both know they're unlikely to return. Both give their second officers plans to ensure the losses aren't in vain. On both occasions, the crews jump into action and carry out the plans to the best of their abilities. And it's all done under fantastic direction from JJ Abrams via a cast who for the most part absolutely nail the roles they're effectively reprising.
I think the reboots are fantastic, and I say this as a lifelong Trek fan. They're exciting, dramatic, expertly directed, amazingly well cast and acted, and they superbly walk the fine line between fan service and making a generally good film.
Let's take it a step further.
I think we can all agree that Flash Gordon > Star Trek and Star Wars.
If we're going to devolve into making absurd statements, then I'm going to add my own and say that Kanye West is a better performer than Bob Dylan. ::)
zOMG ABSURD?!?!?!?!11 >:(
Quote from: Huw the Poo on May 30, 2015, 07:37:10 PM
OK let's right some wrongs in this thread. :P
First and foremost: The reboots are very much Star Trek. "Moralising" is what makes Star Trek superior to, say, Star Wars which is essentially a kids' film. Any idiot can film a giant starship battle. Star Trek portrays a utopian future in which considerations such as race and money have long been cast aside, and Humanity is finally exploring space properly. It's Trek because it lives up to the ideals. In the first reboot, two captains go aboard the Romulan vessel without a second thought for personal safety. Both know they're unlikely to return. Both give their second officers plans to ensure the losses aren't in vain. On both occasions, the crews jump into action and carry out the plans to the best of their abilities. And it's all done under fantastic direction from JJ Abrams via a cast who for the most part absolutely nail the roles they're effectively reprising.
I think the reboots are fantastic, and I say this as a lifelong Trek fan. They're exciting, dramatic, expertly directed, amazingly well cast and acted, and they superbly walk the fine line between fan service and making a generally good film.
Huw the Poo, I say this with the utmost respect- put down the crack pipe. :2funny:
Brant, if he doesn't put down the crack pipe....did we add the 'ignore user' option yet? :P
I still want a Star Trek war movie.
I can't be bargained with. I can't be reasoned with. And I absolutely will not stop, ever, until that is done.
:))
I'd even settle for one with the Klingons as the main focus of the film. ^-^
Quote from: Nefaro on May 31, 2015, 08:37:41 PM
I still want a Star Trek war movie.
I can't be bargained with. I can't be reasoned with. And I absolutely will not stop, ever, until that is done.
:))
I'd even settle for one with the Klingons as the main focus of the film. ^-^
YES!!!
+1 on a Klingon focused movie, though I think the time to that was when TNG films were still going and Worf was a popular and known character.
I want the next film to have Klingons as the prime adversaries. Just please knock-off the lens flare!
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic2.stuff.co.nz%2F1377054156%2F185%2F9070185.jpg&hash=3287e10dd8bbf8f9e0dbcaae25c529a23d8b40c7)
Interestingly, Michael Dorn is still pushing for a "Captain Worf" show
http://screenrant.com/captain-worf-star-trek-tv-show-michael-dorn-interview/
Quote from: mirth on June 01, 2015, 07:40:10 AM
+1 on a Klingon focused movie, though I think the time to that was when TNG films were still going and Worf was a popular and known character.
Agreed, on both counts.
I wouldn't mind a dark, gritty movie on the first Romulan war (with the caveat that non of that TV show Enterprise stuff is included).
As Martok mentioned, this is our great hope for a '"classic" Trek movie. And it'll be a war movie too!
Don't care what kind of Star Trek story is done, assuming it's "in the milieu", so long as:
1a.) they either make a good case for the Starfleet Ethic (which TOS did the best on, in my opinion, though still somewhat shakily);
or
1b.) they critique the Starfleet Ethic while still respecting the general ideal (best done in my opinion on DS9);
and
2.) they don't stoop to aggressively stupid plot contrivances or things that merely look nifty but make no sense -- which has haunted the series, whether TV or films, from day one, up to the current day;
while
3.) a cast of interesting and entertaining characters work out aspects of personal interrelationships while solving problems scientifically (which is pretty standard for sci-fi ensemble shows, but the point is that ST probably should be a sci-fi ensemble show).
Other than that I don't really care, aside from some attachment to pre-established characters (including the original TOS-era Enterprise).
Quote from: JasonPratt on June 02, 2015, 01:27:11 PM
Other than that I don't really care, aside from some attachment to pre-established characters (including the original TOS-era Enterprise).
Original movie series
Enterprise sexiest
Enterprise.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F5%2F54%2FUSS_Enterprise_%28NCC-1701-A%29.jpg&hash=47a5e149793596ef0a9b44351990a7529a15329e)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbasementrejects.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F12%2Fstar-trek-ii-the-wrath-of-khan-uss-enterprise-billboard.jpg&hash=42283b46461335f97296f3d0f9724ebaecf4c833)
Not too antique sci-fi looking, with the nutty kaleidoscope engine cowls, but still resembles original. Also doesn't look like a half-melted Salvadore Dali slug like the later ones. :P Nearly all the ships from that period looked awesome (Reliant, Excelsior, Birds of Prey, etc).
NERD FIGHT!
I never cared for the Excelsior class myself. I did like the lines of the Sovereign-class 1701-E.
But I agree they got the 1701-A and the Miranda-class Reliant right.
Quote from: mirth on June 01, 2015, 02:27:38 PM
As Martok mentioned, this is our great hope for a '"classic" Trek movie. And it'll be a war movie too!
Yeah, I'm really looking forward to the full production. It can't come soon enough!
Quote from: JasonPratt on June 02, 2015, 01:27:11 PM
Don't care what kind of Star Trek story is done, assuming it's "in the milieu", so long as:
1a.) they either make a good case for the Starfleet Ethic (which TOS did the best on, in my opinion, though still somewhat shakily);
or
1b.) they critique the Starfleet Ethic while still respecting the general ideal (best done in my opinion on DS9);
and
2.) they don't stoop to aggressively stupid plot contrivances or things that merely look nifty but make no sense -- which has haunted the series, whether TV or films, from day one, up to the current day;
while
3.) a cast of interesting and entertaining characters work out aspects of personal interrelationships while solving problems scientifically (which is pretty standard for sci-fi ensemble shows, but the point is that ST probably should be a sci-fi ensemble show).
Other than that I don't really care, aside from some attachment to pre-established characters (including the original TOS-era Enterprise).
Agreed, in full. Well said, Jason.
Dont get me started on the shit design of the new Enterprise.... :knuppel2:
What'd you call it? A Space Sperm?
That might have been the nicest thing I said about that pile of shit.
http://www.idigitaltimes.com/star-trek-3-2016-plot-plenty-star-trek-y-shooting-approaches-claims-screenwriter-446400
I hope the hell they don't bring Shatner back. I like him, but enough already.
Sigh. Pegg's going with the hipster beard and glasses, huh? He's turning into a douchenozzle.
Nimoy's dead, so they'll slot-in Shatner. Wait 'n see.
Quote from: Centurion40 on June 03, 2015, 12:43:55 PM
Nimoy's dead, so they'll slot-in Shatner. Wait 'n see.
You're probably right. Kinda defeats the purpose of a reboot if they keep bringing back the originals.
Quote from: mirth on June 03, 2015, 01:01:37 PM
Quote from: Centurion40 on June 03, 2015, 12:43:55 PM
Nimoy's dead, so they'll slot-in Shatner. Wait 'n see.
You're probably right. Kinda defeats the purpose of a reboot if they keep bringing back the originals.
Not if they bring in Shatner to play a janitor.
(https://dostuff-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/property_asset/19137/tumblr_m4zrv2jOML1qkcm6fo1_500.gif)
Quote from: Centurion40 on June 03, 2015, 01:09:07 PM
Quote from: mirth on June 03, 2015, 01:01:37 PM
Quote from: Centurion40 on June 03, 2015, 12:43:55 PM
Nimoy's dead, so they'll slot-in Shatner. Wait 'n see.
You're probably right. Kinda defeats the purpose of a reboot if they keep bringing back the originals.
Not if they bring in Shatner to play a janitor.
If they put him in as Denny Crane, I'm good with it.
;D Denny Crane XIV
If anyone could find away to live into the 23rd Century, it would be Denny Crane!
Because, mandatory boobs post:
http://www.thegeektwins.com/2014/06/7-bizarre-facts-about-deanna-trois.html#.VW9WV8-6c-U
Quote from: Banzai_Cat on June 03, 2015, 02:33:07 PM
Because, mandatory boobs post:
http://www.thegeektwins.com/2014/06/7-bizarre-facts-about-deanna-trois.html#.VW9WV8-6c-U
Good thing that she never had cleavage and a short skirt w/boots at the same time. ^-^
Marina Sirtis breaks down Troi's wardrobe history
I saw her back in 1991 or so in San Antonio at a Star Trek convention...she was there, as was Majel Barrett, and Brent Spiner. Marina Sirtis has THE most mesmerizing eyes I've ever seen up close and in person. :smitten:
Quote from: Banzai_Cat on June 03, 2015, 08:58:35 PM
I saw her back in 1991 or so in San Antonio at a Star Trek convention...she was there, as was Majel Barrett, and Brent Spiner. Marina Sirtis has THE most mesmerizing eyes I've ever seen up close and in person. :smitten:
Lucky $%&&$!!!
Quote from: Banzai_Cat on June 03, 2015, 08:58:35 PM
I saw her back in 1991 or so in San Antonio at a Star Trek convention...she was there, as was Majel Barrett, and Brent Spiner. Marina Sirtis has THE most mesmerizing eyes I've ever seen up close and in person. :smitten:
You've never gazed into mine. ^-^
When have I had the chance to?
You have my skype info.
(1) Yes, the movie version of TOS Enterprise is what I was thinking of, though not without reference to the TV version (since duh).
(2) Marina Sirtis had a temporary guest star role on NCIS two years ago, taking the place of now departed (but not dead just retired) agent Ziva David's dad (now dead and departed) as THE HEAD OF MOSSAD!!
Which was super-great. I kept hoping they'd bring her back, but naturally that plot option has dwindled with fewer ties to Mossad now.