Star Trek 3 with a script by Scotty

[Alberon]

Star Trek 3 (or is it 13?) has got two new writers - Doug Jung and Simon Pegg.

The film has been having a bit of trouble lately behind the scenes. After Abrams buggered off to do Star Wars Robert Orci took over directing duties. However, he's now given that up (or been removed) and his script (which was probably about time travel) has either been binned or is going to be heavily rewritten.

Doug Jung has some writing and producing credits to his name and Pegg is a Trekkie.

So is that a good thing or not? Either way time is moving on. The film has a release date of July 2016 (which will be Trek's 50th Anniversary year[nb]though strictly speaking the first pilot was made in 1965, so this could be said to be the 50th year.[/nb].)

[Bad Ambassador]

They've actually found a way for me to be less enthusiastic about this.

[great_badir]

The day(s) Pegg said in every single interview before the film came out "the new Scottie is no comic relief character", to then be proven completely wrong, confirms that this will almost certainly be a disaster. 

Not that I'm much of a Trek fan, but the series does not need to be turned into a sci-fi Spaced.

[Leo2112]

I thought Pegg was quite irritating in his defence of the last Trek film, especially since he has been happy to make similar criticisms about other franchises such as Star Wars.

"You know what ... it absolutely isn't the worst Star Trek movie," he said. "It's asinine, you know? It's ridiculous. And frustrating, as well, because a lot of hard work and love went into that movie, and all JJ wanted to do was make a film that people really enjoyed. So, to be subject to that level of sort of, like, crass fucking ire, I just say fuck you." - http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/aug/23/simon-pegg-star-trek-into-darkness

Although to be fair it wasn't the worst Trek ever it did have serious weaknesses, and if he can't recognize those then it doesn't bode so well for the next film.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Hated the Star Trek reboot. Void of all the charm of the Shatner/Nimoy era films. And when I use the word charm, I'm not being euphemistic or seeking to look past their faults, of which were many. I mean that they were void of the tension, human values and basic tenets of story telling that made them interesting. For all its visuals it had no atmosphere. It was shit, and failed even in making me care about the survival and outcome of the big crashy explosions and fighting which were the only things happening.

[biggytitbo]

For this new film is Pegg going to put on a great deal of weight and look nothing like he did originally?

[El Unicornio, mang]

I really liked the last Star Trek film.

[Canted_Angle]

I liked the last Star Trek film but it shouldn't have been called Star Trek. It was a fun space romp which would have been better suited to be a reboot of Lost In Space. It had none of the heart or moral compass of the original films.

That being said I'm curious as to what Pegg will bring to the script, he seems like a good guy if somewhat drowned and blunted by a load of Americana shite. I'd like to see him meet Tim from Spaced.

[Alberon]

Star Trek isn't really Star Trek in the cinema. It needs to get back on the small screen, though hopefully without becoming as tediously boring as Voyager and Enterprise did.

The boss of the CW[nb]It's predecessor network UPN, showed the aforementioned two Trek series.[/nb] network apparently wants a new Star Trek show, but at the moment the talk is about films, not a TV show.

Once the third film is out though I think that will change.

[Ignatius_S]

I thought Pegg was quite irritating in his defence of the last Trek film, especially since he has been happy to make similar criticisms about other franchises such as Star Wars...

There's rather a big difference, I would say. With Star Wars, he's talking as a fan – with Star Trek, he's talking professionally. If he starting saying 'Yeah, they're absolutely right... it was terrible', he isn't going to be doing himself any favours – actors routinely have to be positive about things they would rather not. In Pegg's defence, he was being interviewed about his new film and may not have been expecting being asked about this – or even aware of the poll – so could have been caught on the hop.

Also, I don't think he was being as bad as you say – but in any case, I think it's better to look at the entire interview: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/21/simon-pegg-the-worlds-end_n_3787056.html That Guardian interview was cherry-picking somewhat and the tone (e.g. saying he was "spluttering") feels a little snide to me.

[greenman]

They've actually found a way for me to be less enthusiastic about this.

Than Roberto Ocri writing and directing? you could probably crush the DVD of that film and snort it like coke.

[Two Headed Sex Beast]

I liked the first film and parts of the second one, but I get the impression from this point on that nobody really wants a third film that badly. The franchise runner leaving to do a 'rival' franchise that gets much more hype, changes in writers and directors, actors who don't really need this as a vehicle - it's hard to see any real enthusiasm for it.

[Blinder Data]

I liked the first film and parts of the second one, but I get the impression from this point on that nobody really wants a third film that badly. The franchise runner leaving to do a 'rival' franchise that gets much more hype, changes in writers and directors, actors who don't really need this as a vehicle - it's hard to see any real enthusiasm for it.

Which is why they should sack off the films and get someone big like Vince Gilligan to script a new 13-part TV series.

Fucking imagine!

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

Yes, between new Star Wars and Guardians of the Galaxy, another Trek film seems kinda pointless (unless you're a Paramount accountant[nb]A Paracountant[/nb], presumably). Pegg taking on script duties is the only interesting thing about it for me.

On the subject of Star Wars, I've never really got the idea that that's what Abrams' Trek films were aping. I understand that they're not particularly faithful to classic Star Trek, but they don't feel like Star Wars either.

[greenman]

Yes, between new Star Wars and Guardians of the Galaxy, another Trek film seems kinda pointless (unless you're a Paramount accountant[nb]A Paracountant[/nb], presumably). Pegg taking on script duties is the only interesting thing about it for me.

On the subject of Star Wars, I've never really got the idea that that's what Abrams' Trek films were aping. I understand that they're not particularly faithful to classic Star Trek, but they don't feel like Star Wars either.

Lets be honest there really a lot closer to Transformers than they are Star Wars.

[Mister Six]

I liked the first film and parts of the second one, but I get the impression from this point on that nobody really wants a third film that badly. The franchise runner leaving to do a 'rival' franchise that gets much more hype, changes in writers and directors, actors who don't really need this as a vehicle - it's hard to see any real enthusiasm for it.

Yep. I really liked the first film for what it was - a charming, pleasingly light-hearted action oasis in a desert of grimdark bullshit. I also really loved the scope and scale of the space scenes - made me wonder what a Culture movie would look like. But they took so long to make the second one that the momentum drained right away. This'll be the last one, I think, unless it has a fucking fantastic script and achieves Guardians of the Galaxy-level word-of-mouth. Then Star Trek'll head back to telly, where it really belongs.

[Rolf Lundgren]

I'd love to see Pegg go power mad with this and write it so that Scotty becomes captain of the Enterprise, sleeps with loads of women, have every character comment on how handsome he is and save the day in every scene.

[kidsick5000]

I'd love to see Pegg go power mad with this and write it so that Scotty becomes captain of the Enterprise, sleeps with loads of women, have every character comment on how handsome he is and save the day in every scene.

I can easily see Scotty getting a love interest. Pegg's role in World's End was pretty-much un-ironically meant to be the good-looking cool character[nb]Arguably but the messages in that film are so messed up you could end up arguing with yourself[/nb].

If a third part doesn't happen, nobody would be that distraught, would they?
The two so far have been pretty great (okay, great and pretty good). But as was mentioned before, the gap has taken the dillithium out of the engines.

Not rehashing an old Trek story would probably help this time around.

[non capisco]

I'd love to see Pegg go power mad with this and write it so that Scotty becomes captain of the Enterprise, sleeps with loads of women, have every character comment on how handsome he is and save the day in every scene.

(Bones exits medical bay, pale faced and astonished) "Damnit, Jim, he had the biggest dick I've ever seen!"
Spock: I fancy him.

[Replies From View]

I really liked the last Star Trek film.

Are you in the future?

[greenman]

The main thing I think "the gap" did was give people longer to wake up to the idea that the formula for the first film really wasn't that great either, entertaining to a degree but in a Michael Bay like nonsensical AHDD fashion with people shouting and things exploding in quick cuts as often as possible. On release it had a certain amount of good will simply because it was a better watch that the last couple of aweful TNG films.

[Blumf]

Still don't get why they didn't go for the Klingons as the main enemy in either of the reboot films.

Don't like Pegg. Always comes across as insincere, acting all matey, but would happily step on your neck if there was five quid in it for him. I don't believe he understands Trek other than it being a geek brand to wrap himself in.

[checkoutgirl]

Don't like Pegg. Always comes across as insincere, acting all matey, but would happily step on your neck if there was five quid in it for him. I don't believe he understands Trek other than it being a geek brand to wrap himself in.

I've always wondered about Pegg. Is he the real deal or does he just pretend to like skateboards and Zombies and Star Wars/Trek so that he can latch onto it and get success from it? I'm pretty sure he's a real geek. He's just very successful and has a family now. In that RHLSTP interview he said he gave up drinking so he could hang around with his daughter and that, so that's the mindset you're dealing with. I reckon he would still watch the odd bit of Star Wars as well nowadays but the old family and being a Hollywood film star would eat into his nerd time significantly I'd say. He's a bit like Charlton "Charlie Charles Charl" Brooker in that respect.

[checkoutgirl]

And regarding the which writer is writing the writing for Star Trek 3, could not give less of a shit. Enjoyed the first reboot one in the cinema, the second one I saw on DVD and it was fine but preferred the first one. I can't imagine going to the cinema to see Star Trek ever again. It seems an irrelevance. The first couple were fine but hardly enough to inspire any kind of loyalty. I don't understand the posts saying how great the original Star Trek films were. It was my understanding that apart from Wrath of Khan and a few other fleeting moments that the original films were absolute shite. Sure Shatner and Nimoy might have had chemistry but wasn't that chemistry framed inside feature length turds?

And the Next Generation feature films were bobbins as well. Abrams deserves a break here. I know he's responsible for Lost but these reboot films are superior in most aspects to the other Star Trek films surely? Don't quote me on that, I'm not a Trekkie. This is just my general understanding from what I've picked up.

Wrath of Khan was badass though. I must dig that out for a rewatch.

[biggytitbo]

The other films aren't shite.


The first one is actually rather good, just a bit serious minded and austere. The 2nd is obviously still the best. The 3rd is a bit of a mess but has its moments, the 4th is very strong but takes a turn towards comedy. 5 is rubbish. 6 is a real return to form and has a nice elegiac quality to it. More hits than misses i think.

[checkoutgirl]

The other films aren't shite.


The first one is actually rather good, just a bit serious minded and austere. The 2nd is obviously still the best. The 3rd is a bit of a mess but has its moments, the 4th is very strong but takes a turn towards comedy. 5 is rubbish. 6 is a real return to form and has a nice elegiac quality to it. More hits than misses i think.

The first was a critical failure and the second one was great. Compare that with Abrams two attempts which got 95% and 87% on Rotten Tomatoes. We could argue all day about which was what and wherefore and all the rest of it but all I'm saying is that the new ones aren't bad at all and don't deserve the collective CaB arsecheeks squatting over them and letting fly with the usual waterfall of stinky bum dung.

[Blumf]

The problem is, the reboot films aren't 'Star Trek', they're space action movies. Star Trek (when done properly) is more interested in ideas, in particular the idea that humanity can evolve intellectually and emotionally.

Spock twatting Bumbledunk Clunderbotch about whilst everybody runs and shouts isn't Star Trek, and that's what people don't like. If it was Capt. Zarg of the spaceship Wazzo giving Lord Xenu a good drubbing nobody would have a problem (indeed Guardians of the Galaxy was popular for exactly that reason). Instead we've had something culturally important taken away from us and replaced with generic pulp, that leaves a bad taste. Star Trek is supposed to have an conceptual grounding a little deeper than the average space romp.

Yeah most the Trek films have been crap, especially the TNG ones, in general it's probably safe to say it doesn't work on the big screen, but at least the original ones were true to the show (not the TNG ones, they are worse than the reboot)

[checkoutgirl]

Well I wouldn't be readily able to differentiate between "real" Star Trek and a space adventure film because frankly there aren't enough hours in the day. I do know where you're coming from though. Star Trek is about the exploration of space and the meeting of new previously unknown cultures and what the differences between cultures means to the human race. And it is clear that overall the Star Trek films have been a bit pants with an exception here and there.

Unfortunately you won't be seeing a Star Trek that stays true to the original ethos (such as we have agreed right now) any time soon. Films are only going to get more homogenised and aimed at the Asian market. Hence Spock punching aliens and Benedict Cumberland Sausage being a really ace super soldier with a big gun, brilliant aim and bags of stamina. You'll get the odd nod towards Trek with time travel, photon torpedoes and Scotty saying he can manage the full speed required but not in the correct time frame or a slower speed but in good time, but not both at the same time.

For the average viewer like me who has no investment in Trek at all the new films were fine and reflected a need to balance a decent enough story with a shite load of action and snazzy suits. If you want it to be about ideas you're going to have to get Christopher Nolan who at least aims for depth. There's an idea, Nolan puts his treatment on the Star Trek saga. That might be interesting.

[greenman]

I'm not sure you can really pin down what "Real Trek" is that simply as I would say the original cast films differed significantly from the TV series(well maybe DS9 being somewhat similar). From Wrath of Khan onwards I would say the sci-fi setting in the original cast films becomes more an excuse for character focus which outside of the comedy of the 4th film wrapped up in more of a cold war submarine film kind of atmosphere.

For all the talk of Abrams Trek being influenced by Star Wars I would say its clearly lacking in either franchises ability to have any kind of prolonged focus on character or general building of atmosphere in favour of cheap shouty drama and quite cut explosion action sequences.

[The Region Legion]

The first reboot is a flawless piece of big budget film-making. The opening 5 minutes are just about the most powerful, exciting and affecting scenes in Trek history. The entire film takes risks with the setup and while die-hard fans who wanted a new Next Gen film and a ret-con of Shatner's Kirk's death weren't happy, it's a Trek for a new generation, and at least keeps the name alive long enough that a show or film series more in-keeping with the tone of the past is possible.

The 2nd is, despite the 4 year gap, a bit of a rush job and Cumberbatch's Khan defies all logic and reason as far as casting is concerned.

The film is over once Khan is on the Vengenance[nb]Vengeance for what, anyway? Why name it that - there are a thousand other words that sound formidable without not making any sense... the USS Formadible, for example[/nb] - there's just nowhere left for it to go.

Up to that point, I think it's pretty outstanding. There's a heavy anti-war allegory to Kirk refusing to just bomb him from orbit, which is precisely what Trek should be pushing, unlike Enterprise's "WE GOTTA DO WHAT WE GOTTA DO" post-9/11 attitude. It's an anti-revenge piece disgused in an action film.

Seeing Kirk and Khan work together - even if it's only in character name - is a new approach. The whole scene of them entering the ship from space works great (although the movie starts to unravel in that scene where Scotty is stalling for time with a gun pointed in his face for a full 10 minutes or something - why is the guard just standing there and letting him stall?).

The fact that the ending is just a highly emotional Spock beating the shit out of Khan is a real anti-climax. I don't know why Abrams and co. were so desperate to make Spock not a cooly logical character but a repressed psychopath but it was a mistake. The original series always said that Spock HAD emotion, but he was able to control it, as were all Vulcans. There would have been something a lot more satisfying in having Spock go after Khan very calmly, and perhaps recreate that moment from the end of Amok Time where Spock believes Kirk to be dead and has a positive emotion reaction to discovering he is not. I also thought the shoe-horning of Old Spock into the film was a total waste and kind of devalues his contribution to the first film. They now have to include him in the 3rd, because that was a shit scene to be "the last".


That said, I've got faith in Pegg to write something better than Orci though, and I'm glad that he's not directing too. I'm less glad that the guy who did the Fast & The Furious movies is.