Pegg: Not A Nerd
1 min read
Simon Pegg would like to move past his supposed reputation as a nerd.
The actor is appearing in Man Up as a romantic lead, which a nice change for the actor more known for comedy.
“I’m not quite the nerdy man-child that everyone thinks I am,” said Pegg.
“I mean, I still love genre cinema, and I’m very excited to be in the Star Trek films. But at home, I’m not this toy-collecting, comic-book reading, video gaming…I’m just not, you know?
“And I’m kind of feeling like it’s time to move on from that, like that phase of my life might be coming to an end.”
“I’d quite like to do some more films that aren’t necessarily, er…set in space,” added Pegg.
About The Author
Not with that face and hairline.
> “I’d quite like to do some more films that aren’t necessarily, er…set in space,” added Pegg.
I read that as “I’d like to start distancing myself already from everything Star Trek long before the next movie I’m involved in is released”.
Something about this dude just rubs me wrong
“Don’t believe him! Don’t trust him!”
Your series, er, Spaced, was to a significant extent based in geek culture (your contribution), and your first film was a tribute to zombie movies. Sorry, Simon, but that ship sailed long ago.
“I’m not quite the nerdy man-child that everyone thinks I am,”
He says this as if it were a bad thing…
According to you and others like that hate the new movies because they don’t feel like the ‘true’ Star Trek (wheater that fuck that means), yes. But I don’t think that’s what he meant.
http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/010/692/19789999.jpg
And you know this, how? He played a perfect supercop in Hot Fuzz, and (I presume) was somewhat buff for that role. Maybe he can pull it off.
He can’t be nerd, otherwise he wouldn’t have taken on the role of Scotty. Any nerdy actor would have known that this movie (and the rest of the Jar Jar productions would damage the real franchise beyond repair. A nerd would have respected the original franchise and not taken part in the new Trek movies. Since he obviously had and has no idea what Trek is about he has proven beyond doubt that he is not a nerd.
Of course he’s not a nerd. Just one look at the man and it’s obvious.
He’s a dork.
There. Kang has settled this for you.
It’s certainly how it comes across though.
And yes, I hate JJ-Trek/NuTrek (or whatever they’re generally referred to) and I don’t hide it. I like Star Trek for what it is Gene Roddenberry was trying to convey, and these have nothing to do with it.
The only thing Gene Roddenberry was doing was trying to provide a piece of entertainment; he wasn’t preaching sermons on the mount, or any of the bullshit he came to believe and let himself confuse with reality while being feted at conventions in the 1970’s. Star Trek isn’t a religion; it’s a TV show/entertainment franchise, and the new movies remembered that. If you can’t see this (blinded by bullshit delusions about Roddenberry’s ‘vision’) that that’s your problem. But like it as not you’ll have to put up with it and face reality, because many of the episodes of the original series were ;like the 2009 and 2013 movies.
Have you ever watched Star Trek? I think you have no idea what you’re talking about. Star Trek is not a religion, of fourse, no one said that, but it’s far from what those movies depict. Star Trek is not a super hero franchise, nor an action franchise, as those dreadful abrams movies are trying to tell the audience; Star Trek is primarily a science fiction franchise. And those movies are not just bad Trek (or rather not Trek at all), they are also bad science fiction. I strongly urge you to look how real Trek (at least TOS) is made by watching the independent production Star Trek Continues (or any other official trek series). Those are TV shows, otf course, and somewhat different from the movie format, nevertheless they are conceptually much closer to what trek is and ought to be. I get the impression that you’re one of those JJ Abrams apologists.
I don’t care. He sucks as Scotty, though.
I have watch just as much Star Trek as many of you (born in 1968, discovered the show at the age of five in the mid 70’s), and I think I know what Star Trek is. What I do know is that it isn’t a religion with tenets that must be followed, nor is a serious document of the future-it’s an action adventure franchise set in space. People like you have misinterpreted what Roddenberry supposedly ‘said’ to make it more profound than it actually was, and to say that these movies aren’t Star Trek.
Guess what; they are Star Trek-the original series, with all of what used to happen every episode. I think that you people have mistaken this version of Star Trek for Star Trek-TNG, which you all got accustomed to. Well, I’m sorry, but that isn’t what the new movies are (and I don’t see you people upset about the action-filled TNG movies like Generations, First Contact, Insurrection,, and Nemesis -the last of which had a big honking space battle and a bad guy just like Nero and Khan!) So, your collective hand wringing over how the ‘spirit’ of Star Trek was/is being ‘violated’ is a load of bullshit, and not borne out by what happened on the original series.
Somebody said it best recently on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/joe.kalicki?fref=nf
I’d also add this: You also don’t have to keep commenting about it, either.
Gene Roddenberry’s ‘message’ was just bullshit he made up at conventions back in the 1970’s (and when his mind was most likely drug-addled.) He didn’t have one when TOS was in production, and I don’t know how he even had one during the TNG era, to be frank. Again, you’ve just proved my point that this has become a religion for most of you, and that you are foundamentalists trapped in the founding moment of Star Trek.
Many straw men died to bring us this information.
Just because JJ-Trek deviates wildly from what Roddenberry had to say doesn’t mean I view Trek as a religion, thank you very much.
It *is* all entertainment, but entertainment can also convey a message. JJ-Trek is just dumb popcorn flicks. If you like the merging of Trek and the Fast and the Furious, go ahead and spend your money on that. I won’t.
And many eyes started rolling when people like you took Star Trek so seriously that nothing new anybody else does with the property would please you due to being a bunch of horse-faced exasperating over-demanding whiny idiots.
So a message to ‘not seek revenge when something happens’ as exemplified by Mr. Scott’s position in the movie and by what Captain Kirk said at the eulogy for the dead at the end of Into Darkness (a position that relates to 9/11, the ill-advised war On Terror and any other terrorist event-and is something that Roddenberry [when he wasn’t non compos mentis] would have approved of and even written) is just part of ‘a dumb popcorn flick’? If that’s a ‘dumb popcorn flick’I want more of it.
Fortunately, the world wants it too, and it will leave so-called ‘fans’ like you in the dust where you belong.
So, 1968, huh?
Tell me, did it take the entire 47 years for the chip on your shoulder to grow that large, or did you only begin cultivating it when Bad Robot started making shitty parodies of Star Trek movies?
Since when did my birth year and my mentioning how long I’ve been a Trekfan have anything to do with my previous comment?
And how is an action-adventure (what Roddenberry meant Star Trek to be from 1964-65 onwards) movie violating the ‘spirit’ of Roddenberry’s ‘vision’?
> [STID]
All of that amounts to what, a few lines of dialogue in the movie that are only there to move from one action sequence to the next. None of it is much more than an afterthought; the rest of it is all lens flares and explosions. *That* is what makes the type of dumb popcorn flick I’ll never feel compelled to watch more than once.
> Fortunately, the world wants it too, and it will leave so-called ‘fans’ like you in the dust where you belong
You might think “the world wants it”, but remember that JJ-Trek and the rest of those types of movies end up in the bargain bin 6 months after release. They’re disposable; it’s mindless entertainment. Roddenberry’s Trek not only has been selling for 40+ years, but to this day still sells at a premium. JJ-Trek will never get that sort of mileage. I prefer my entertainment to have longer lasting value.
You’re a melodramatic child. Grow up.
But you’ve been compelled to watch all of the previous moves that had said ‘mindless action’ as well as the TV show it was based on that also had said action (and no, Star Trek TOS wasn’t as ‘cerebral;’ as you and the other deluded historians have made it out to be-it was just as action-adventure as these two movies. What’s getting you and the rest of the silly fools trapped in nostalgia is (most likely) that it isn’t Star Trek: TNG, which you’ve confused it with.) So what’s the big difference now? I’ll bet that it’s because the actors ‘are too young’, the movies all combined made shitloads of money, and got the average people to like Star Trek-a sin to people like you that view it as a religion.
I would love to know, who would be better than Abrams to make a Star Trek movie? And give me a realistic person who can do this, because if you don’t I’ll just completely trash it like the bullshit it is.
> Star Trek TOS wasn’t as ‘cerebral;’ as you and the other deluded historians have made it out to be
“Cerebral”. Your word, not mine. I’m not sure why you’re bringing it up in this thread.
Also, if you want to have a discussion worth having, you can tone down the insults, before they turn into personal attacks. I’ve been enjoying this, but there’s no reason for things to take a nasty turn.
> who would be better than Abrams to make a Star Trek movie? And give me a realistic person who can do this, because if you don’t I’ll just completely trash it like the bullshit it is.
Trash away then, because I’m not going to suggest *anyone at all* for the simple reason that I see no reason to continue milking the franchise to make these movies. And this is what it comes down to; my beef with it is the fact that the name is simply used nowadays for an easy buck. If they want to make action movies that happen to be set in space, then great, go ahead and make these movies–sounds like they could actually be fun and entertaining. But as I keep saying in just about every JJ-Trek thread I get involved in on this site, these movies would’ve been just as successful–perhaps moreso–without these characters being named Kirk, Spock and Bones, as they have little in common with the original. On top of that, they wouldn’t be bound by any of Trek’s long-established rules that people keep pointing out as huge plot holes when violated (first example that comes to mind that keeps coming is that if your transporter technology can work over lightyears, you might as well not bother with starships then).
Frankly I’d rather read posts about a new franchise trying to *copy* Trek, rather than pretending to *be* Trek. Remember that we live in a world where there’s room for both Star Trek *and* Star Wars.
Like it as not, they are sci-fi films-just not your kind based on and due to how you see Star Trek. As for not having anything in common with the original series, millions of people (and many major film critics) that aren’t Trek foundamentalists stuck at the founding moment of the franchise disagree, to the tune of millions of dollars in grosses, and the revitalization of a franchise.
With regards to being insulted, you’ve been insulting the writers and the director of this movie a lot, as well as the people who watch the movies (by extension); why should I care about insulting you?
Quite simply, since he’s become successful he’s vanished up his own arse.
He’s varnished his arse? Shiny!
> With regards to being insulted, you’ve been insulting the writers and the director of this movie a lot,
Here, in this thread? I see I’ve written “dumb popcorn flick” (multiple times), but that’s describing the final product, not anyone in particular. *I* could come up with dumb ideas. Doesn’t make me dumb.
> as well as the people who watch the movies (by extension);
That’s quite a leap you’re making there.
> why should I care about insulting you?
You’re probably revealing more about yourself saying this than you’d like to show.
In any case, you might care because you and I are having a one-on-one conversation (in a public forum, but nonetheless you and I are talking directly to one another at this point). The writers/directors aren’t here, and are never gonna read these messages, nor are they *intended* to ever reach them and thus aren’t expected to respond or even react to them. Whereas you know I’m right here and you know you’re going to get a reaction one way or another. If I’m “insulting” the writers/directors, whereas you’re actually insulting me, it’s obvious the intent is not the same. If this was an in-person, face-to-face discussion between you and I over a beer, I wouldn’t change a word I’ve written. I don’t know about you though, but I’m still going to give you the benefit of doubt. Could be one of those “hiding behind the keyboard” things.
That said, since this conversation now seems to be about *us*, I think I’m just about done here.