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

[Shamanic Rhythm]

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.

Guardians of the Galaxy IS easily digestible, though.

My cousin, my uncle, my Mom AND myself all enjoyed it. This would not have happened with anything particularly gritty or artsy.

If it had been particularly risky, my Mom would have hated it. If it was particularly gritty, I would have hated it. If it was particularly artsy, my cousin would have hated it. If it had a non-conventional message, my uncle would have hated it.

I'm not calling Guardians of the Galaxy pap, but I've never seen it as a particularly risky or artsy thing.

Exactly. Everytime I hear someone going on about how the existence of a Guardians of the Galaxy film proves something about Hollywood being prepared to take risks all of a sudden, I just can't take it seriously. It was one of the most bog-standard superhero/comic style action films I've ever seen: it had all the cliched misfits, all the narratives of teamwork and putting aside differences, the ridiculously unlikeable villain, and all the tension easing wisecracks and subtle allusions. The only risky thing about the film was the decision to choose five protagonists most people have never heard of.

That's not to say it wasn't good, but let's not kid ourselves that it proves there's some kind of renaissance in Hollywood. It just means that the eternal quest for more money has been extended as far as 'can we turn this formerly obscure IP into a successful action movie?'

 

[irishda]

I watched a lot of Star Trek: the Next Generation, several of the older movies, and a few of the original episodes. I would characterize Star Trek as thoughtful the same way I would characterize Sesame Street as thoughtful. More often than not the show was just ham-fisted spiels drubbed up to look more philosophical than it actually was. In fact, I enjoyed it specifically because of the action. Wasn't like there was a lot of other shows with spaceship battles and phasers and aliens back in the dark days before cable.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

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.

Hold on a minute...is this film being produced by EA?

What he says is true and possibly observable by anyone who's watched movies in the last few years. It is a lot of style over substance, spectacle over story and special FX over drama. The same trend is happening on TV too, with shows like The Flash. It is so inane add to be laughable, yet is immensely popular.

 

[ChaoGuy2006]

Whelp. If the film is "dumbed down", I'll avoid it.
Into Darkness was fun, but the story of Wrath of Khan was SO much better! Turning Khan into an "Evil superman who hates the goverment-esque entity" was such a bummer. It took Benadict Cumberbatch to make it interesting.

More importantly, what does JJ think about all this? I know he's getting paid by the metric ton, but (in his own words) he is a treky, and would he tolerate any dumbing down?

This may be the first time I look up reviews for a movie; spoilers be damned. I ain't wasting my money on "Generic Action Movie #4 with Star Trek Flavoring."

The only time I might tolerate that is with "Julian Bashir, Secret Agent".

 

[Atmos Duality]

Well, Mr. Pegg; I can't say I disagree with that assessment.
But Hollywood Hackywood is just following the first rule of showbiz: "Give the people what they want."

I don't entirely respect it; the last remotely 'cerebral' film I saw from Hackywood was way back in 2009 (it was also the last good horror film I saw). Everything since hasn't been BAD per say, but nothing that really made me think or feel much at all.

Now, I just see flicks for some cheap thrills or laughs (especially Simon Pegg's work; I admit, I'm a mark), but that's basically me just lowering my expectations to the very lowest I can and hoping.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

The global box office is a huge part of the trend in dumbing down. Things like humor, subtext, and other more nuanced aspects of storytelling don't translate exceptionally well into different languages. When you're spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a film, you really can't afford to leave that international take on the table. The fastest way to do so is to inject your movie with a lot of complicated/interesting/challenging non-visual stuff.

 

[Winnosh]

I find it odd that they would ask Simon Pegg to do this if they wanted it Less Trekky. I mean my problem with the new movies is that they were almost Anti Trekky.

Pegg is one of the people I'd hire to make it more like old trek not less.

 

[TallanKhan]

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.

While I don't necessarily agree that GotG wasn't easily digestible - the final product to my mind was aimed at fairly broad appeal - I do agree with the point, that the greenlighting of the project itself was a departure from the safety blanket: sci-fi setting, more obscure IP with much smaller existing fanbase and less name recognition. All of this would have fallen squarely into the "reasons not to take this movie" column.

I am actually rather inclined think that Marvel's solid, formulaic approach to their previous movies was likely the reason they were willing to go out on more of a limb to produce a movie that was less of a "sure thing" off the bat. The Marvel movie machine by this stage had enough momentum, that, even if the gamble didn't pay off and the movie flopped it wouldn't do serious damage to the franchise or future film performance. Even if GotG had been a Green Lantern level failure, it was never going to pose a real risk to the franchise, Age of Ultron was still going to gross $1billion+ at the boxoffice, and people who liked the Winter Soldier would have still turned up for Cap 3.

 

[Darks63]

Well looks like i can safely skip this one like I did Into Darkness. It sad that the trek universe has become so stagnant the last thing trek i enjoyed was DS-9.