Simon Pegg Told To Make Star Trek 3 Script "More Inclusive"

StewShearerOld

Geekdad News Writer
Jan 5, 2013
5,449
0
0
Simon Pegg Told To Make Star Trek 3 Script "More Inclusive"


Actor/writer Simon Pegg believes the film industry focuses too much on "dumbing down" for wider audiences.

One of the biggest complaints levied against <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escape-to-the-movies/7335-Star-Trek-Into-Darkness>Star Trek: Into Darkness was the fact that it took the thoughtful science fiction of the original series and reduced it down to a mindless action flick with more explosions and cleavage than logic and sense. Now, if comments from <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/tag/view/simon%20pegg>actor/writer Simon Pegg are any indicator, franchise fans may want to ready themselves for more of the same from Star Trek 3.

Pegg, who helped write the next film, recently discussed its script in an interview where he described an exchange with the film's studio that left him feeling somewhat disheartened. "They had a script for <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/tag/view/star+trek>Star Trek that wasn't really working for them,"he said. "I think the studio was worried that it might have been a little bit too Star Trek-y." As a result of this supposed deficiency, he was asked to modify the draft to make it "more inclusive." He would go on to elaborate that this basically meant making "a western or a thriller or a heist movie, then populate that with Star Trek characters."

Speaking about the film industry in general, Pegg expressed concerns that the movies, over the past several decades, have become overall too dependent on spectacle over substance. "Before Star Wars, the films that were box-office hits were The Godfather, Taxi Driver, Bonnie and Clyde and The French Connection - gritty, amoral art movies." While he affirmed that he likes "genre cinema" as much as the next nerd, he worried that too many movies are "dumbing down" toward the goal of being friendly to wider audiences.

Source: <a href=http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2015/may/19/simon-pegg-criticises-dumbing-down-of-cinema>The Guardian



Permalink
 

Product Placement

New member
Jul 16, 2009
475
0
0
So the studio is complaining that a Star Trek film is too... Star Trek-y.

Well, and here I thought that was supposed to be the whole damn point.
 

Stupidity

New member
Sep 21, 2013
146
0
0
Product Placement said:
So the studio is complaining that a Star Trek film is too... Star Trek-y.
Well, and here I thought that was supposed to be the whole damn point.
Movies are 100% a business, they exist only to make money.

Really, this doesn't qualify as news anymore. No one should be even a little surprised that Hollywood is obsessed with lowest common denominator "Risk Free" movies. Ironically I believe it's their aversion to risk that is costing them so much money and feeding their aversion to risk.

The problem is simply it's hard to get X billion dollars for an art project.
 

martyrdrebel27

New member
Feb 16, 2009
1,320
0
0
Stupidity said:
Product Placement said:
So the studio is complaining that a Star Trek film is too... Star Trek-y.
Well, and here I thought that was supposed to be the whole damn point.
Movies are 100% a business, they exist only to make money.

Really, this doesn't qualify as news anymore. No one should be even a little surprised that Hollywood is obsessed with lowest common denominator "Risk Free" movies. Ironically I believe it's their aversion to risk that is costing them so much money and feeding their aversion to risk.

The problem is simply it's hard to get X billion dollars for an art project.
you know what though? that's a bullshit cop out. it's only the movie (and game) studios that are enforcing this false narrative of what sells and what doesn't. say disney was as creatively bankrupt with their view towards the MCU, there's no way Guardians of the Galaxy would have ever gotten greenlit. but they trusted their fanbase to not just want something easily digestible, and it paid off.

i see them doing the same with star wars. star wars could have taken the bland mass appeal approach, the way i feel the new trilogy did, but instead, so far at least, it looks like they're just putting out stuff that made star wars popular in the first place. obviously this is conjecture, but the point remains.

i'm always reminded of Dead Space when this discussion comes up. first game came out and people liked it, it had a following, made some money. so the corporate idiots said, "shit, lets try to make more money!" and systematically ruined everything that made the game loved in the first place, and were left holding their dicks saying "i don't understand what happened, the algorithms and cost/benefit analysis and decades of market research said this should have sold billions!"

point being, the necessity of blandness and mass appeal is a false narrative only adhered to by corporate tools with no love for their product.

EDIT: rereading my post, it made it seem like i was telling you your opinion may have been bullshit, and that's not what i intended, i meant that the need for mass appeal is bullshit. and counter-productive.
 

Orga777

New member
Jan 2, 2008
197
0
0
Stupidity said:
Product Placement said:
So the studio is complaining that a Star Trek film is too... Star Trek-y.
Well, and here I thought that was supposed to be the whole damn point.
Movies are 100% a business, they exist only to make money.

Really, this doesn't qualify as news anymore. No one should be even a little surprised that Hollywood is obsessed with lowest common denominator "Risk Free" movies. Ironically I believe it's their aversion to risk that is costing them so much money and feeding their aversion to risk.

The problem is simply it's hard to get X billion dollars for an art project.
I agree fully there. It is just like the game industry these days, it seems, too.
 

Plinglebob

Team Stupid-Face
Nov 11, 2008
1,815
0
0
StewShearer said:
Speaking about the film industry in general, Pegg expressed concerns that the movies, over the past several decades, have become overall too dependent on spectacle over substance. "Before Star Wars, the films that were box-office hits were The Godfather, Taxi Driver, Bonnie and Clyde and The French Connection - gritty, amoral art movies." While he affirmed that he likes "genre cinema" as much as the next nerd, he worried that too many movies are "dumbing down" toward the goal of being friendly to wider audiences.
The problem I have with comment is that by saying they aren't box office hits, he seems to be indicating that they aren't being made. Considering last year we had Gone Girl, Birdman & Whiplash, to name 3, this is obviously false. The problem is they aren't making as much money because no-body wants to see them.
 

Pyrian

Hat Man
Legacy
Apr 21, 2020
1,399
8
13
San Diego, CA
Country
US
Gender
Male
martyrdrebel27 said:
say disney was as creatively bankrupt with their view towards the MCU, there's no way Guardians of the Galaxy would have ever gotten greenlit. but they trusted their fanbase to not just want something easily digestible, and it paid off.
I just don't see this characterization of GotG. It's an action movie. Space opera anti-heroes. Lead by basically Han Solo. With some quirky sidekicks. One is a hot chick, one is furry, various endearing traits. Stock MacGuffin-driven save-the-worldgalaxy plot. Where's the big risk here? I don't see it.

There's all these memes floating around about DC not making a Wonder Woman movie while Marvel gives us a talking raccoon, but GotG is still fronted by a white male protagonist, and they didn't exactly invent the furry comic relief sidekick, to put it mildly.
 

Orga777

New member
Jan 2, 2008
197
0
0
Pyrian said:
martyrdrebel27 said:
say disney was as creatively bankrupt with their view towards the MCU, there's no way Guardians of the Galaxy would have ever gotten greenlit. but they trusted their fanbase to not just want something easily digestible, and it paid off.
I just don't see this characterization of GotG. It's an action movie. Space opera anti-heroes. Lead by basically Han Solo. With some quirky sidekicks. One is a hot chick, one is furry, various endearing traits. Stock MacGuffin-driven save-the-worldgalaxy plot. Where's the big risk here? I don't see it.

There's all these memes floating around about DC not making a Wonder Woman movie while Marvel gives us a talking raccoon, but GotG is still fronted by a white male protagonist, and they didn't exactly invent the furry comic relief sidekick, to put it mildly.
Yeah. Pretty much this. The real risks will be Black Panther and Captain Marvel. Those are going to be the two Marvel movies to look out for to change the game if they are big hits.
 

Stupidity

New member
Sep 21, 2013
146
0
0
Orga777 said:
Yeah. Pretty much this. The real risks will be Black Panther and Captain Marvel. Those are going to be the two Marvel movies to look out for to change the game if they are big hits.
I find it morbidly hilarious that a movie starring an attractive blonde women or black man in a popular genre could be considered Risky .
 

Sniper Team 4

New member
Apr 28, 2010
5,433
0
0
His statement that the suits were too worried about the Star Trek film being too Star Trek-y comes as no surprise to me. I still remember a trailer for the first Star Trek reboot movie. The tagline was, "This is not your father's Star Trek". And my first thought was, Then it's not Star Trek. I was never a huge fan of Star Trek. I was, and still am, heavily on the Star Wars side. But I appreciated the shows and I did like how they weren't constant action, but more thoughtful. I knew that these movies were in trouble from a Star Trek standpoint when they chose that tagline.
 

PunkRex

New member
Feb 19, 2010
2,533
0
0
It's almost like he's a legit artist or something, SHUT YOUR MOUTH AND OIL THEM COGS WITH YOUR TEARS, GREASE MONKEY!
 

Hairless Mammoth

New member
Jan 23, 2013
1,595
0
0
Eh, for all the executive meddling that the Hollywood big shot idiots have pulled over the last the few decades, they are starting to actually be correct to dumb things down. But only because their meddling has pushed the thinking audiences away from cinemas more and more. It's a damn self-fulfilling prophecy.

Even the first Avengers movie seemed to me like it was dumbed down more that it needed to be, when it had the banking power of the current top movie franchise. It could have had Matrix level (ok maybe not quite that much) sudo-philosophical BS jammed in it and it still would have made around the same amount of money.

Even so, we're talking about a well established franchise that is over 5 decades old. They can find the right combination of blood and tits for the lowest common denominator crowd and sci-fi technobabble plus actual smart dialog and story telling for the thinking crowd, especially with Simon Pegg writing some of the script. The execs are just too scared of losing money from the very few idiots that will walk out if they hear "reverse the polarity" or are actually surprised by who the villain really is or what their motives are.

It might be time to try to get a Star Trek series going again. Maybe just a mini-series for now. TV execs are still shortsighted, but not as bad as movie execs. (Though, some should be ground up into Torgo's Executive Powder.)
 

P-89 Scorpion

New member
Sep 25, 2014
466
0
0
Plinglebob said:
The problem I have with comment is that by saying they aren't box office hits, he seems to be indicating that they aren't being made. Considering last year we had Gone Girl, Birdman & Whiplash, to name 3, this is obviously false. The problem is they aren't making as much money because no-body wants to see them.

I think what he is saying is that big budget films are not being allowed to be in anyway thought provoking those films you mention have budgets of $61, $18 and $3.3 million and Gone Girl had a big director behind it from the beginning.
 

Laughing Man

New member
Oct 10, 2008
1,715
0
0
I'm beginning to think Star Trek was better off dead.
It would have been, end of the day it was a popular franchise if they had given it maybe another five years, allowed some of the fan made REAL Star Trek stuff to gain traction then perhaps the studios would have seen that their was still a dedicated fan base out there and maybe perhaps we would have at least gotten a new TV series, it may have been a kickstarter or similar crowd funded effort but at least we would have gotten something. Instead we got the reboots and because they dumbed them down they appealed and made the money and now we are stuck on this road until the third one is done, and then assuming that we don't get any more we have at least five to ten years to wait before the franchise will get revisited.

I am just hoping the new Stargate movies don't pull the same bullsh*t but given that the cash revenue is all that matters I am guessing that's exactly what they are going to have to do.
 

octafish

New member
Apr 23, 2010
5,137
0
0
Well well well, a western with Star Trek characters, so sort of like Wagon Train to the stars? Or even Hornblower in space, which is how the series turned out despite Roddenberry's initial pitch. Hell they even stole the music! Most of the Star Trek movies were pretty much character exercises anyway so it doesn't mean it would be a bad film.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,629
990
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Hmm...

Okay, I admit it, I actually like the Abrams films. The 2009 film was my first real introduction to the series. Both 2009 and STID rank highly on my list of Star Trek films that I've seen, and I actually think that STID was better than 2009.

On the other hand, while I do like the films, "introduction" is the key word, and I've come to like the TV shows and some of the other live action movies more (oh, and SFDebris helped). So...yeah. I will admit that this bums me, but I don't want to harp too long.

Oh, and super hero films aren't risky. They haven't been risky for years. And Guardians of the Galaxy was most certainly NOT a risk. Pyrian's put it better than I can. Marvel is about as risk-averse as you can get. Yeah, you have a "talking raccoon," but you have a stock plot, stock villain, stock characters, stock setting, and zero self-awareness about the clichés on display.
 

Oroboros

New member
Feb 21, 2011
316
0
0
Wasn't Pegg a big defender of the last two Trek movies? Kinda funny that he'd air these sorts of concerns now, considering how much of a generic shlocky action fest the last two movies were.

Makes me wonder just what sort of problems the third reboot movie is heading towards if the current direction has him 'disheartened' but the last two movies didn't set off his 'mindless action flick' detector.
 
Jan 12, 2012
2,114
0
0
Oroboros said:
Wasn't Pegg a big defender of the last two Trek movies? Kinda funny that he'd air these sorts of concerns no, considering how much of a generic shlocky action fest the last two movies were.
I know. My first thought reading this was, "Is this a ploy to trick us into seeing the next Star Trek with the promise that it will be more like the traditional Star Trek and less 'generic conspiracy plot and action scenes with a really patchy coat of Star Trek paint?'" No way to prove it either way, I guess we'll have to see how it turns out and whether or not future statements are, "We're doing it right this time," or "The studio strong-armed me."

Also, Pyrian, that was an excellent summary of Guardians of the Galaxy. I got so sick of people talking about how risky it was, and how daring and boundary-pushing Marvel was being; The average person saw a comedy sci-fi film starring that guy from The Office, they would neither notice nor care about whether or not it was accurate to the original comic or characters (and I was one of them).