Pegg: NOT Less Star Trekky
3 min read
In a new interview with Nerdist, Star Trek Beyond Co-writer Simon Pegg explains a statement in an interview which had angered some fans, and gives insight into and hints about what to expect in the film.
“Something I’d like to clear up,” he said. “I got misquoted recently, saying that I was brought on to make it less Star Trekky, which is not what I’d told that journalist. What I meant was there has to be a degree of universality when you’re dealing with something like that. Which means you can’t alienate the people for whom it’s their very first Star Trek.
“If they come into it and it’s indecipherable because there’s a lot of stuff that you have to have prior knowledge to understand, then you’re left with something which is a little bit exclusive. It’s always the trick with these properties. Making it at once something that the fans can enjoy and take a lot from, but also knew people can come in and see it as a one-off and go, ‘Hey, I’ve got fifty years of this I can go and watch now!’ Which is a great thing for kids. I love the idea when you used to discover a band and then discover they’d had six albums out before. So that was what I meant by that.
“The idea of it not being Star Trek is anathema to me. This has to be in every way and every fiber of its being Star Trek.”
“Star Trek‘s had to evolve in order to exist in the current marketplace,” Pegg added. “A film that was totally in the mood of the original series would not be made today, or make money today. Because people want event cinema. They want [things] to be a little more brash and a little more action-oriented. So we’ve had to dial that into the Star Trek brand. But at the same time that doesn’t mean that can’t be fundamentalized by all the tenants of what Star Trek is, and how those characters have evolved over the years, and to really give its DNA a kind of authenticity. So that’s been a really interesting thing, and that’s something we really wanted to do.”
In Star Trek Beyond, the crew is on their five year mission. “Well, we felt that the first two films, chronologically, take place before the five-year mission. As we’ve said with this one, we want it to be about them on that five-year mission. In fact, two years into that five-year mission, and how that impacted them personally and what it meant to be out in space that long.
“And we liked the idea of also, on the fiftieth anniversary, looking at Roddenberry’s original vision and questioning it. The whole notion of the Federation and whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing and how productive is inclusivity and what is the true cost of expansion. That kind of stuff. So we went in with some big philosophical questions to ask.
What can fans expect in the new movie? “There will be things in there for every Star Trek fan,” said Pegg. “It is the same world, and so some of the points of reference will be the same. But they are off in a part of the galaxy that they’ve never been before. They’re far away from the usual suspects I think. As such it’s not like they’re meeting up with an old adversary or someone they’ve met before.”
Fans of McCoy and Spock will be happy to hear that there will be some interplay between the two characters, which fans saw a bit of in the trailer that was just released. “I really love the dynamic between Bones and Spock, so that’s something we’ve kind of concentrated on a little bit with this one,” said Pegg.
Pegg views Star Trek as “very bright and optimistic. There are some fabulous comic touches in the original series,” he said. “When you watch some of the interplay between Kirk, Bones, and Spock particularly there’s some lovely stuff. So we want this film to have a sense of fun and a levity which never impacts on the tension and never takes anything away from the bad guy.”
About The Author
Once again he side steps the issue. I really don’t think he has any idea what a big deal the 50th Anniversary is. Wait until the next movie in the next year or two to get into them being on their own. This is the 50th Anniversary and it deserves to have Shatner in it at the very least, as an essential part of the story. To neglect that doesn’t do the 50th Anniversary any justice because this new crew has not been around 50 years. They could have easily used The Guardian of Forever for Shatner, Takei and Nichols to come thru or Pine and his crew to see them doing something in a battle thru the Guardian and that would benefit them in some way. Hundreds of ways to incorporate Shatner and maybe the others. But Shatner is the icon of Star Trek and deserves more than just a mere mention – he needs to be on film there. If he isn’t, this is one fan who will not be getting a ticket.
No.nnStar Trek’s over and I, for one, am glad that Shatner isn’t giving NuTrek any sort of legitimacy by being part of it.
But as I said, this is the 50th Anniversary of Star Trek. NuTrek has not been around for 50 years so it deserves to be recognized and celebrated with some TOS characters or something in the movie, it is a 50th. Anniversary movie or should be and without Shatner and some TOS crew, it doesn’t do the anniversary any justice. Let NuTrek stand on it’s own with the next one.
‘skyfall’ served as a better anniversary film for 007 than ‘die another day’ by not referring too much to the past history of the series.nBeyond’ should do the same.
Since I am use to being spit on for my opinions, here I go again…nnI like these comments coming from Mr. Pegg, I now feel more and more, that I m going to love this movie. If?? this movie makes money,…Paramount keep them coming and DON’T listen to TOS Fans like myself…nnIf it does not make money: Paramount again don’t listen to us and make them less trekky even more, but don’t stop producing them or better yet sell the franchise or bring back JJ.
How many James Bonds were there? How many James T. Kirks? Skyfall had a cameo wrote in with Sean Connery then was yanked just like Shatner’s Cameo. The Bond movies never had Canon to mess with, Trek does. Plus if there was ever a 50th anniversary of James Bond you can bet Connery would be in it somewhere or there would be full of references to him and past Bonds. Star Trek is different, I don’t see how a person can even compare the two.
What Bond had was the Aston Martin as a classic “character”, and it worked well in context. But Trek having to resurrect Kirk in anything other than a cameo would mean a story like Generations. It’s been done, and I think it would be seen (correctly) as stunt casting if just a cameo. I, too, am heartened by Pegg’s comments even though I don’t fully trust his story-telling instincts (Hot Fuzz anyone?). We’ll see.
I think what Pegg said is perfectly reasonable. Though, I don’t think being more ‘brash and actiony’ means it can’t also be smart and cerebral. And the writers of the movie certainly shouldn’t be tied to somebody else’s idea of what should happen when the Earth has revolved around the sun half the number of the number of fingers we have squared times since the beginning of the franchise.
Well, I’ll concede a little, I would settle for a cameo of Shatner, at least that would be a nod to the past 50 years. Otherwise, I’ll still not waste my money. I feel (just my feelings) that Paramount will lose a lot more of their core fan base if Shatner is not in it to acknowledge or celebrate 50 years. UNLESS CBS has plans on making a TV movie with them all in it which seems very unlikely.
I think Pegg is right when he says they need action for today’s audiences, but wrong if he thinks simple explosions and (?) motorcycle tricks fit the bill. They have been too conservative on Trek in these movies — what they needed was more dramatic beam downs into dangerous planets, energetic deflections and explosions off the Enterprise’s screens, potent phasers, and maybe super powerful adversaries who could provide new kinds of effects. Imagine the knock-down, drag out battle they could have mounted between the Enterprise and a Klingon battlecruiser — if they wanted to deliver action. They need to show more imagination. What about Kirk-fu? Kirk could have demonstrated extraordinary hand to hand fighting skills if they wanted action — a perfect extension of TOS Kirk’s physicality. STIDs truncated Enterprise/Vengeance — sorry, don’t exactly remember Marcus’ (?) ship name — battle was only seconds long. Where’s the action? They’re not giving the audience anything new. But of course new stuff would cost money.
Sounds like the “big philosophical questions” are once again based on 9/11. Is that all JJ-Trek can question?
Came expecting the comments to shit all over the new films. Was not disappointed.
Totally agree with you and we are not alone; Paramount should make all new ST films not suck, be very wow to see and they will continue to make money for them; (yes my TOS type ST is dead for the cinema and only a streaming service-any- can make ST like Dowson’s Creek and get away with it), but not on the big screen.nnParamount knows this, is to bad that most fans do not…
Do people want “event cinema” or do the big studios want it? I fully disagree that there is not money to be made from niche markets, which frankly where Star Trek is at it’s best. I know a lot of fan may disagree, but Star Trek has always been a minority franchise. It’s not Star Wars (dare I say it) or comic books or Jurassic Park, but that’s OK. Before the Abram’s film, Star Trek never had the highest budgets in Hollywood, yet with some minor exception, still made money. Being a big budget event film is not in it’s DNA.
Not everything has to be an event.
Do people want event cinema or do the studios want it?nnBoth!nnlooking at people…some don’t go to the movies, some go to see art in the form of a movie and some want comedy and only comedy; yet others MUST take there children to Frozen and such.nnMost people want event cinema, studios want to make as much money as Avatar and Trek loyalist like myself and probable most that write in this forum want TOS in the movies and TOS on the small screen; but studios want Avatar, so who gets want they want? Only non complainers like me and many others are truly happy; with both ST and SW!!, in form or shape…, yet when you try to make TOS fans happy, you get into darkness…
What the hell do you expect? They were complete garbage aimed at a “broader audience” and not hardcore Star Trek fans. Good luck getting a “broader audience” to post comments on a site called Trek Today.
I’ve seen every movie and episode, and enjoy Trek sites. I also enjoy many other movies. The fact is the two new movies were big financial successes that also received widespread critical acclaim. In fact, more movie critics liked them than almost all of the old Trek movies (which by and large were also heavily action-oriented). Much of the Star Trek online fan community lives in a bubble that suffers from group-think and idiosyncratic expectations.
When you look at the movies from all countries from the start of time itself, only 1% is good…, everything else is garbage.nnMe as a Star Trek fan feel that out of all original episodes of The Original Series, only 10% is good and the other 90% can be safely be consider garbage. Out of all ST movies only 30% is good and without seeing the latest ST movie I say 60% is good stuff but not Star Trek; DS9 for me was not Star Trek. I consider this NuTrek the same.nnExamples of the 10% are Elaan of Troyious; The Voyage Home, The Devil in the Dark and Mudd’s Women, but Space Seed and Wrath of Kahn is garbage TO ME!! Not trying to troll anybody its just me, You all may have a different opinion and I would respect that.nnI truly feel the ST beyond will be good… nnAnd that The CBS series will be also excellent for the most part…, ST is The Menagerie, Star Trek is not Bread and Circuses. TO ME!!
Well said, could not agree more…
“big financial successes”nnNope, they were mediocre financial successes at best. Paramount was trying to bring “Bayformers” crowd and they failed. Look how much money real blockbuster make and then compare to J.J’s $tar Trek: “Into dakrness” had a budget of $185 millions, ,made $467 million worldwide, “The dark knight” also had a budget of $185 million , but it earned $1.005 billion worldwide…See the difference? “The dark knight rises” $1.084 billion, “Avatar” over 2 billion $, “Avengers” $1.518 billion, “Bayformers 4”, $1.104 billion, for pity’s sake, animated fairy tale like “Frozen” made $1.274 billion! Even “The amazing Spider-man 2” – also written by Orci&Kurtzman – made 709 million worldwide and it’s considered to be a failure.There is absolutely nothing to brag about – by blockbuster standards those new $tar Trek movies are commercially mediocre at best.
I’ believe and many in Star Trek fandom can and should agree with you, because the numbers are there as you have smartly pointed out, but big money as you have also pointed out should not and cannot be use to label what is good or not good; Eventually some movies will make 10 billion dollars I hope a Star Trek movie circa 2050 will make 5 billion and that is better then First Contact or Wrath of Khan, even if the movie is like INTO DARKNESS.
The two JJ Trek movies have produced a worse return on investment than any of the orginal TOS and TNG movies up to First Contact. Generations made 3.37 times its budget, First Contact made 3.2 times its budget worldwide. Star Trek 2009 made 2.57 times its budget. Into Darkness made 2.46 times its budget.
He wants to be in the new trek, and was a part of the original “Beyond” script before paramount stepped on it.
100% correct. By molding it into event cinema you are taking away the quality that gave it it’s staying power and loyal, unique following (which ironically gave them the chance to make these and kept the whole thing going for 50 years). At the end of the day you can put a spin on these movies as much as you like, the first two, especially Into Darkness,lacked the intelligence that Trek had when it was at it’s best. With the resources these movies have had at their disposal I find that inexcusable.