Simon Pegg: New Star Trek Films “result of execs favouring familiarity” + New Paul Trailer February 23, 2011
by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Celebrity, ST09 Cast, Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback
Earlier today Star Trek’s new Scotty Simon Pegg made a comment that the recently rebooted Star Trek films were examples of how Hollywood has run out of new ideas. More details below, plus the red band trailer for Pegg’s Paul.
Pegg talks Star Trek vs. New Ideas
Earlier on Wednesday Star Trek’s new Scotty Simon Pegg tweeted a link to an article in GQ Magazine with the endorsement "Brand recognition is the death of ideas. Great article about the state of the film industry". The article he linked to was "The Day the Movies Died" by Mark Harris, which is a critique on how "bad things are in Hollywood" and how today’s marketing-driven and demographic-obsessed studio system chooses franchises and brands over new ideas. The GQ article even cites the 2012 Star Trek sequel as one of the examples, deriding it as a "A sequel to a reboot of an adaptation of a TV show." Shortly after linking to the GQ article, Pegg posted the following comment on the new Trek films, seemingly to both indict and praise them at the same time:
Many of Pegg’s followers had pointed out to the actor that he has played a part in appearing in franchise films, including Star Trek and Mission Impossible. Pegg replied back saying that he has appeared in both of these franchises "Because of JJ [Abrams]"
While it is true that Star Trek was a known brand, it still took some intestinal fortitude for Paramount execs to go ahead with a big budget reboot of the franchise so soon after the disappointing returns for Enterprise and Nemesis.
New Red Band Paul Trailer
In other news, Simon Pegg’s new movie Paul is a big hit in the UK. The sci-fi comedy is headed to the US on March 18th. On Thursday Universal released a ‘red band’ trailer for the R rated film. Check it out
Loading ...
Comments»
I like Simon Pegg.
I can definitely see both sides of the argument — the lack of, or unwillingness to try, fresh ideas versus the desire to reinvent, reinvigorate and hopefully deepen an existing property. As with everything else, however, one really has to examine each work independently of the others. Star Trek 2009, and hopefully its spawn, is a resounding success in its rebooting or re-imagining. I’d say the same about BSG 2005, Batman Begins, and Casino Royale. Sometimes, the earlier works simply did not take full advantage of the richness inherent in the material. On the other hand, there’s always the dross: Lost in Space (1998), The Avengers (1998), Alien versus Predator, and countless others.
Love the new Paul movie. Keep on going Simon…. Say hi from me to JJ.
Well isn’t his own new movie basically “ALF” on a road trip?
The article that he linked to is very true of Holywood these days, they would rather play it safe than take a chance with something new.
That is why there are too many reboots and remakes in Hollywod these days, more so than ever before. They are out of ideas.
Not all of them are bad Batman was rebooted spectacularly and, despite my gripes with some of the changes he made, Star Trek XI was a great in getting Star Trek big again.
But we have also had pointless remakes such as The Day The Earth Stood Still. I loved the original Robert Wise movie but Hollywood crapped on it when they did that awful remake with Keanu Reeves.
The lack of ideas in Hollywood is why I am worried that Khan will be redone. It is my fav Trek movie and one of my fav episodes and Khan is one of my favourite villains but I feel a redo would not be as good and sully the original to a new generation.
The thing I hate most about remakes is that for some of the younger mainstream kids they will have no interest in seeing the original.
Wow, an actor speaking out against gutless execs.
Just one of many reasons I like this guy.
I didn’t like his take on Scotty, but I do like the way this guy thinks. But for him (and the article he linked to) to point out that Hollywood lacks originality is rather obvious, isn’t it? I remember an article here on TrekMovie about a Paramount exec’s comments to investors about the studios success with it’s many ‘franchises’. Not a word was said about anything new, original or exciting!
Speaking of which, there are many here who want to take it a step further and have old Star Trek episodes rehashed! That is why Hollywood is so creatively bankrupt. Moviegoers are not demanding originality!
He’s got a point and I totally agree with it. But…..don’t bite the hand that feeds you!
Well I loved the reboot does that mean Simon Pegg didn’t like the new film:/
I don’t see this as biting the hand that feeds him. Above all else he’s fan and is just as entitled to comment, from that perspective.
Paramount seeing Nemesis and Enterprise as failures. Sure I can accept that. I don’t think the lack of any turn out for TNG’s last film can be disputed. I was very fond of ST:ENT and could dispute that all day long, by holding up other sci-fi shows which kept on going with just 3-4 millions tuning in each week.
It’s too separate things of course: the conservatism of *executives* vs the creativeness of well, *creatives*.
To say that a film like Star Trek is easier to get greenlit by executives due its familiarity is a completely different thing from saying the people creating it are somehow lazy.
People in business make safe business decisions, no shit.
Or does Harris live in a world where people throw out multi millions of dollars on a gamble all the time.
It’s like these goons who refer to a particular movie as a cash grab. Do they seriously think everyone is out to lose their money instead?
After reading the article, I gathered that it’s best to stay home if you want quality (HBO, AMC, etc.); and if you want spectacle, go to the theater. Works for me, I guess.
But I wonder if certain audience members would be willing to pay more at the box office for an old-fashioned drama, science fiction or independent film with lots of “talkin” and a carefully crafted story instead of a string of special effects sequences with lots of *ahem* lens flares. You pay more for a bottle of wine (The King’s Speech) than say a bottle of Coke and some PopRocks (The Green Hornet). Give those filmmakers who care a little extra green and a little extra incentive to make more quality films. Well, just an idea.
Anyway, I know I would be willing to pay more for quality than… 3D Eye-strain-D, Surround Sound, Smell-O-Vision, Cinemascope, with a wire up the kazoo to let you really know when to be shocked at what you’re seeing… uh, Vision.
Harry Plinkett of Red Letter Media made the same point about brand recognition in his review of Star Trek (2009) (TrekMovie link below.) And Hollywood does look at the demographics of who goes to movies. Let’s face it, they can count on one audience for the multiplex: teenagers. (NPR story below.) That’s why we are going to get flooded with a bunch of superhero movies.
That doesn’t mean the death of quality cinema. If they release a dog based on a franchise, I’ll bet it won’t do good at the boxoffice. Okay, G.I. Joe did well enough for another sequel but if they make another dog, my guess is that there won’t be another. Remember “Van Helsing” based on the Dracula movies? And where’s Van Helsing 2? By the way, I didn’t hate that one but the critics did. But I digress. I won’t judge the brand recognition movies until I see them. One more thing, not every studio is going to be able to go to a brand and make a movie out of it. There is always room for original movies that can be a new franchise to a studio. That may be worth the risk.
1) TrekMovie story with Harry Plinkett’s video review. His discussion of brand recoginition starts with part one at 6:30,
http://trekmovie.com/2010/09/01/red-letter-media-takes-on-star-trek-2009-and-likes-it/
2) NPR article on who Hollywood makes movies for; TV is smarter
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130612646
@ 13 Vultan
I loved eating popcorn while watching “The King’s Speech.” :-) i think too often the bean counters influence too much on what gets made and what is to put in movies. Too often, filmmakers use the term “modern movie audience” as a euphenism for the masses. But they should realize that intelligent movies can make a lot of money. See “Inception.”
Some of this year’s nominees for Best Picture have done well at the boxoffice. “The King’s Speech” has commerical appeal but it doesn’t go for the lowest common denominator. So, let’s hope these “artsy” films continue to do well. By the way, “The King’s Speech’ is just remarkable. Holds your interest with just dialouge. Warm and inspiring. Fellow Trekkers, if you have not seen it, make it so.
USA Today article on the nominees doing well at the boxoffice.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/movieawards/oscars/2011-02-23-oscarboxoffice23_ST_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip
@12 — Hollywood is a business, yes, but it is one based in creativity. No one here is expecting the suits to fund the truly experimental — and when I say truly experimental, I mean something like “Eraserhead” — because that is the domain of indie, small budget productions. I don’t think it’s unrealistic to expect Hollywood to look out for fresh *and* commercially viable ideas. A little risk-taking is good for any business, really, as it keeps the consumers happy by preventing stagnation (not that the consumers don’t also fall for the tried and true, but the bottom will fall out of any formula, sooner or later).
Case in point: Christopher Nolan was a nobody, came up with Following, and wowed enough people with that fresh take on narrative and neo-Noir that he got to make Memento. That, in turn, wowed enough people that he got to do bigger budget fare like Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and then Inception. Inception is a truly fresh work, in the same vein as Nolan’s earlier movies, so that’s a good example of risk taking that pays off.
7
Same way I feel about Simon Pegg. He was not Scotty to me but I think Simon Pegg is a great comedy actor.
9
Nothing wrong with loving the reboot, a lot of us do like the new movie.
I can say I like it even though I prefer the prime universe.
——————————————
But Hollywood is playing it too safe and doing reboots and remakes instead of taking a chance on something new.
The article that Simon Pegg linked to was stating how the studio acknowledged that Inception was a big hit but it is NOT encouraging Hollywood to do more films like that, a more thinking film, they see Christopher Nolan more as a brand name because of The Dark Knight. The Hollywood executives won’t acknoweledge that there is an audience for the more ‘high brow’ film.
It’s a shame.
There is the saying that 97% of movies are mediorce and crap but that 3% is great. I do find there are more bad films out than good films.
There’s another blog writer who took a slightly different take on this same question: Have movies gotten worse in the last ten years? For my money, absolutely!
I remember enjoying trips to the theater to see great movies and, later, adding them to my laserdisc and DVD collection (yeah, I was a laserdisc early adopter. Anyone want to buy my 25th Anniv TOS movie collection?) But lately? Movies worth paying to see in the theater once are now few and far between. Good storytelling has been replaced with 3D gimmickry and nonsense. Good characters and good writing have been replaced with constant rehashes of sex jokes and vampires. Its amazing to me that anything creative and different, such as movies produced by Pixar, ever see the light of day.
Alas.
The problem is how do make something fresh and new, while respecting the old? As good ol’ JJ.
I have to agree with Simon Pegg. First it was sequels, then remakes, now reboots and sequels to the reboots. Look at Superman. We had 3 sequels, then a sequel to the first 2, now a reboot. How about Spiderman.
I remember Data saying in TNG “The Neutral Zone” that TV died out by the mid 21st century. I’m starting to think that might be possible. People eventually are going to get bored with the constant recycling of old ideas, plots and movies. Eventually they are going to say “Didn’t I see that about 50 times before?”
What I liked about Star Trek (2009) in this age of reboots is that it managed to reboot the franchise without ignoring what came before. It gave a fresh start to allow new fans to come on board while at the same time being a sequel for older fans, and giving us some insight into how these characters began (though Nero’s incursion obviously caused differences from how they originally began).
21
Agreed
It’s a reboot but it’s aparalle universe that allows what cam before to remain intact. And therefore adds to it rather than take away from it.
This is all undeniably true, but commerce has always had a hand in art — always, going back through the centuries. The only pure artist is a starving one, people.
Even Inception took it’s inspiration from a Scrooge McDuck comic. Look it up.
Pegs new movie is just like ET but more funny
Reboots of Reboots and remakes is most of what we see. But there are a few movies out there that are fresh. But not many. But. As long as Star Trek is on. That is all I care about.
Trek certainly did its share of borrowing… but, we love it because it got the mix right. Something new came out of all that borrowed stuff. That’s not the problem. The problem with the Hollywood studios is that once something succeeds they grab it whole and make the same exact thing over again. Seriously, how many sequels do we have to see that have the same exact lines built in. Yikes. (Even the Trek movies did that.) Once a franchise is born, it needs to grow and change… somewhat.
Of course, I’m dreaming.
27.
I don’t think you get it. The whole concept of ‘franchises’ is the problem, not the lack of creativity within them.
I have to take the other side on this.
I don’t know of anyone who complained each time a Doc Savage book was released, and it’d be rare for many here to moan that ‘another Star Trek book is too much. One is enough.”
The problem is not that we get new chapters every few years of franchises we enjoy, it’s that the studios get sloppy: Superman I & II, then III and, um, IV, STV, Batmans 2-4 (pre-current series), Spiderman 3, X-Men 3, Jaws 3-D, Meninblack 2, Robocops 2 & 3, the SW prequels, etc.
I like seeing my favorite characters re-appear every few years on film, but studio execs will let bad scripts pass more often based on previous successes. It’s either to milk the premise until it dies, or a misguided feeling that the unwashed masses will show up anyway (and they do).
star trek is a brand that was ruined by JJ Abram’s monstrosity.
even though the brand was familiar, the film was unrecognizable as star trek.
it was a reinvention in many ways and did not play to the expectation of fans. it was rushed, sloppy, convenient, and more like star wars than anything resembling trek.
i have very low expectations for the sequel – another butchering by abrams.
There are no original ideas anymore.
Agree with Pegg entirely.
30.
You speak for yourself buddy! I loved it, brewery an’ all ;-)
#30:
the budweiser brewery? yeah – lame.
worst trek movie ever.
#30
Your opinion. I respect it but, you know, a lot of hard-core fans loved the movie, me included!
And, to #33, the first time I saw the brewery I thought: “wow, this is an original take on the same old clean, aseptic engine rooms”.
The point of his tweet was to critque the article… read what he wrote again and understand the context. Pegg is not speaking out against franchises, he speaks in support of them.
#31. Never were.
maybe so, but for new ideas hey i know lets make a movie about some blocks, but one of them is an alien instead..
Did Simon Pegg have a peak at the story of the new sequel ? Hence he makes these comments ? I’m getting worried about the story of the sequel now. Can Boborci weigh in on this ?
Pegg: “Doesn’t mean JJ didn’t make an amazing film though.”
What? A movie you’re a part of is amazing? What a shocker. I think most, if not all movies had it’s creators and actors go into them with this frame of mind. Heck, listening to the commentary tracks for Battlefield Earth, Boondock Saints II and every Uwe Boll movie always showcase how they think their movie is amazing. Not saying that this is bad, but I do wonder if the crew are completely oblivious or unwilling to see any fault in their own product.
When it comes to Star Trek, give the commentary track on Trek09 a listen and take note on how the participants constantly praise each other and declare almost everything they’re watching brilliant. I’m not holding my breath that the next Trek film will be any better.
30. Captain Braxton – February 24, 2011
Really? How so? TNG was unrecognizable from TOS, and you could argue that every series and movie moved away from the TOS model.
This has been argued ad nauseum, but really, when you call an effort “a monstrosity” how was it unrecognizable from TOS? Abrahms and crew were tasked with revitalizing a brand that had, in fact, become boring. That they have done – and they have the box office to prove it. The fan base is just going to have to accept that means some changes, and for the most part they have been good ones.
39.
You’re kidding, right?
“I’m not holding my breath that the next Trek film will be any better.”
Neither am I, though comments from the producers give me some hope that it might at least be more substantive.
Pegg just won some points with me. :)
40
The difference between J.J Abrams and Uwe Boll is talent. “Star Trek” is an amazing film, there can be NO DEBATE. Uwe Boll’s movies are crap. And his crew needed the work, so they aren’t going to say anything bad about him and his movies. J.J Abrams’ respect was earned. His films and shows are generally praised and well-recieved by critics and audiences alike.
And since you seem to know a lot about the tracks for those awful movies you mentioned, it seems to me that you are the sucker for paying to see those movies, let alone be willing to listen to those commentaries.
@24. “Even Inception took it’s inspiration from a Scrooge McDuck comic. Look it up.”
Sorry, never heard of this comic. So I doubt Nolan knew about it as well.
@41 “This has been argued ad nauseum, but really, when you call an effort “a monstrosity” how was it unrecognizable from TOS? Abrahms and crew were tasked with revitalizing a brand that had, in fact, become boring. That they have done – and they have the box office to prove it. The fan base is just going to have to accept that means some changes, and for the most part they have been good ones.”
WELL SAID, PHIL !!!
If Pegg wanted to, he could certainly have refused to do the ALF reboot…whoops, I mean his new “original” movie that is coming out.
;-)
45. Red Dead Ryan – February 24, 2011
I’m guessing Roger Corman and Ed Wood (and Uwe Boll) have their fans, too. It’s a free country.
Paul? Isn’t that Roger from American Dad?
“Star Trek” itself would never have been made as TV in this climate. Movies really aren’t made for US audiences anymore; more money is usually made in foreign markets so action replaces story. And doing new stuff means paying different people for rights — as opposed to producing a sequel of property the studio already owns. Also, I’m not sure Trek 2009 is going to help the property long term. The merchandising hasn’t succeeded, for one. And was this movie very profitable? ( I mean profit vs. cost of production and marketing) They just sold all Trek series to Netflix, so that back catalog continues to show strength. TOS continues to sell products to this date.
@45: “Star Trek” is an amazing film, there can be NO DEBATE.”
/laughs. Comments like that are funny.
@45: “And since you seem to know a lot about the tracks for those awful movies you mentioned, it seems to me that you are the sucker for paying to see those movies, let alone be willing to listen to those commentaries.”
Uh, yeah. I pay for the stuff I want to watch. Isn’t that how it should be? I paid for Trek09 on BluRay, and bought Space Mutiny without MST3K riffing on it. I’m getting exactly what I paid for out of them, so how does that make me a sucker? I like to watch all sorts of movies. Good, bad and ugly. I even remember specifically wanting to go see Battlefield Earth in the theaters because everyone kept saying how terrible it was. I had lots of fun with that one. I even bought The Last Airbender and watched it with Rifftrax. 110% entertaining value right there!
And while Uwe Boll certainly lacks quality in his movies, there is a degree of respect that can be given. For one thing, the man is living his dream of making movies. He’s like a kid playing with all these toys and having a blast with them. Even though everyone else just labels his work as dumb, poorly made garbage, I get a lot of entertainment value out of it. I would listen to any one of his commentaries than Trek09’s commentary.
@42
Yup, big time.
48. I don’t think ALF was ever really all that big here in the UK for some reason. I can just about remember him, but he was massive in the US. The nearest comparable muppet-like character we had was probably Roland the Rat! LOL!
Okey, so does anybody think it’s jsut plain hillarious that this time around the Scotsman was not only an engineer, but his Engine room was a brewery? I wonder if anyone thought of that during production.
#46
I would not doubt that in the least but isn’t Inception kind of similiar to another movie called Dreamscape or am I wrong about that?
I like Pegg’s honesty.
#30:
I’m a fan and the movie went above and beyond my expectations, lol.
Well now Mr Scott will help himself to some whiskey now lol :)
I’m also a lover of the new film and I
hope the following movies will do well :)
Well, of course the article is correct. Doesn’t mean the Trek movie wasn’t good, though. :-)
Uh, oh. Pegg is going to piss off TPTB. Maybe it’s time for another round of……………….
PAUL MACGILLION FOR SCOTTY!!!!!!!!!!11!!!
What ever the debate.Old vs new rebootes not withstanding, The movie did get the franchise up and running again, although Trek in my eyes realy would have never died, to many of us keeping the spirit alive in books comics, fanfilms. The movie did breath new life into Trek, opened to new possibilities, helped to keep the dream not just alive but kicking too
I don’t think Simon is saying anything contradictory. He is correct. Brand recognition is a blight on the crop. At the same time, we probably wouldn’t be seeing any Star Trek sequels if it were not for brand recognition so it’s difficult to be a fan of Star Trek and have a purely scornful attitude toward the practice, at least not without being hypocritical.
And brand recognition does not mean a poor product is guaranteed. It may be an important factor determining which movies do and do not get made, but the question of the skill and quality with which those selections finally do get made is a separate issue entirely.
So it is possible to both lament the sound of the marching reboots AND to praise a reboot when it is done very well. Thus do I join Simon in praising ST.09. There are plenty of reboots that were a waste. ST.09 was a jewel.
He’s getting older, but back when I was fantasizing about rebooting TOS, my choice for Scotty was Dougray Scott.
Hollywood being lazy and doing remakes doesn’t neccessarily mean the film is doomed.
Some remakes and reboots are pretty good. But at the same time it proves that there is nothing original out there anymore.
The average mainstream film has car chases, shouting, explosions, sex and killings and sometimes really bad humour and at times cliched sex jokes. In a lot of movies the script is an after thought.
But within that there is always a diamond in the rough.
To me this is the Hollywood mentality and it is a reason why I like to steer away from the mainstream. To me making a thing mainstream means dumbing it down. When it goes away from this then it is something more interesting.
I’m glad the magazine had the guts to go out there and put down the constant bad recycling of ideas. While I think ST 09 came out not too bad the way it pulled it off, almost all the other reboots out there from the much overrated Bat to the much overrated Bond are examples of creatively screwing oneself over by “restarting” a series into a dead end in order to simply make a lot of money for a little while before back in the same hole-making sequels that critics claim are inferior to what came before.
nothing wrong with nookie in movies…
#61 Couldn’t agree with you more!!!
There is also no reason why you can’t do both. Its not like Paramount is only making Star Trek films. Star Trek is a great thing and if they can keep it going, then do it. And with the CBS division in charge of the Television series..its a nice split of the load. Its been 6 years…another 3 or 4 years, id like to see this next generation have a crack at a TV series.
“mutate and survive.” love this. :)
@16.
Well said and good point made. I just don’t begrudge a studio when they make a safe choice and as someone else points out the movie still has to be decent to succeed.
#68
You are obviously a person of great wisdom and intelligence, not to mention excellent taste and most likely, good grooming.
And one can still wish, can’t one?
52
“And while Uwe Boll certainly lacks quality in his movies, there is a degree of respect that can be given. For one thing, the man is living his dream of making movies.”
So is J.J Abrams, yet for some reason, you like to bash him and his writers at every possible opportunity.
“He’s like a kid playing with all these toys and having a blast with them.”
He’s like a kid who wrecks his toys and doesn’t care because he knows someone will always be there to give him new ones. J.J Abrams on the other hand, knows that the box of toys, in this case, “Star Trek”, is NOT his and treats everything with respect while still having fun and experimenting.
“Even though everyone else just labels his work as dumb, poorly made garbage, I get a lot of entertainment value out of it.”
All the power to you. If you like Uwe Boll, that’s fine. But J.J Abrams is clearly the superior director/producer. Just because YOU don’t think so doesn’t change that fact.
52. Jeyl
You have been smacked down! : )
perhaps there is too much familiarity…. perhaps we should do less familiar things, like having Simon sucked out into space never to be heard from again in the first five minutes.
I keeeed, Simon!
Ha….Amazeballs…
Last night I watched Deepstar Six on Netflix. By the end, the Miguel Ferrer character was screwing up so often and so tragically that it sort of became funny. So they are hunting for the sea monster and Ferrer is given the least harmful weapon so he doesn’t do something incredibly stupid with a shotgun, because at this point in the movie nobody trusts his competence.
So they give him this spear thingy that has a CO2 canister, and you stab something and it injects gas into it, blowing it up.
So then the monster attacks and they’re shooting at it and panicking, and somehow or other the incompetent Ferrer character somehow manages to get his spear stuck into the back of the crew member nearest to him, and he inflates this huge gas bubble in his chest.
It was comedic. But no, I’m not suggesting that they have gas powered spear-sticks on the Enterprise or that Scotty would get stabbed in the balls by one, leading him to scream amazeballs.
I’m not suggesting that at all.
@52: You just admitted to getting entertainment out of a Uwe Boll movie.
I suppose it’s the first step to recovery…
Boborci I loved the film :) I thought it was amazing looking forward to where you take us in the sequel I will be there first in line
@ 75 Bob Orci
Hey, you could kill off Scotty. This is an alternate reality. You did destroy Vulcan. ;-) And he does wear a red shirt.
If that happens Keenser (Deep Roy) becomes chief engineer!
Simon Pegg, you are wonderful.
But “Paul” isn’t coming to Japan! Bummer. I need to see Jane Lynch at the theartres like, now. Alf is extremely popular here, why not bring it… is it because there aren’t any famous award winning actors in it?
Two so called ‘artsy’ film threatres in Tokyo are closing this month. It’s a harsh world. But this doesn’t mean we’ll be deprived of small budget films or Amazon, so I’m content in buying my occasional batch of indie films there, and sometimes strolling down to the local theatre to watch a blockbuster movie.
Please no more destruction of iconic planets in the next movie.
I don’t want to see Andor or Qu’nos being destroyecd nect just to make a point that this universe is different and anything can happen.
Was never happy with Vulcan being destroyed in the last movie.
52: “I like to watch all sorts of movies. Good, bad and ugly. I even remember specifically wanting to go see Battlefield Earth in the theaters because everyone kept saying how terrible it was. I had lots of fun with that one.”
“And while Uwe Boll certainly lacks quality in his movies, there is a degree of respect that can be given. For one thing, the man is living his dream of making movies. He’s like a kid playing with all these toys and having a blast with them. Even though everyone else just labels his work as dumb, poorly made garbage, I get a lot of entertainment value out of it.”
Now that’s a revealing series of comments, right there. So you CAN and DO enjoy what you think of as “bad movies.”
Let’s not forget that the word “fan” is the prettified, mini-skirted version of “fanatic.”
Some of us are not so serious. We call ourselves fans but we are no fanatics. With regard to Star Trek, you appear to be the full girdled fanatic.
Why? You just admitted to being able to enjoy terrible films that by any measurable standard of quality are far inferior to ST.09. You can give Uwe Boll — a terrible director — some respect, but for JJ Abrams you have nothing but scorn. You can watch Battlefield: Earth, and be entertained, but ST.09 is an irritant for you.
How to understand that inconsistency? How can you appreciate bad films but not appreciate a good film like ST.09?
I think the answer is that you take Star Trek so seriously that any deviation from your mental image of what Star Trek MUST be, causes a strong negative emotional reaction in you.
You can’t relax and enjoy ST.09 the way you can enjoy movies that are crap, because the seriousness with which you approach Star Trek — and do NOT approach lesser films — is present in your viewings of Star Trek, and absent in your viewings of the other films.
You sit down to watch ST.09 and all you can think of is how JJ Abrams peed in your box set of TOS bluray holy wafers.
83
“You sit down to watch ST.09 and all you can think of is how JJ Abrams peed in your box set of TOS bluray holy wafers.”
Unless she pees in it first. :-)
I don’t think I’ve ever read Jeyl say anything positive about any of previous Trek films or series either. It’s just been one complaint after another.
@83, 84: Actually, it’s cause we didn’t get the Special “male chauvinist pig” Edition Director’s Cut, like Jeyl did. ;)
Seriously, I think Jey’s ideal Trek movie would be 2 hours of every male in the Federation lining up and apologizing to Uhura for the grievous sin of having a Y chromosome — and Jeyl would STILL think it was sexist!
Just like to point out, BTW, that I ALSO have a set of TOS bluray holy wafers. And they are kept in a secure and undisclosed location where nobody — and especially no cat — can pee on them.
80. Basement Blogger – February 26, 2011
Warp Speed, Mr; Keenser!
Nice one. Thanks
Simon has a point… I just read another article about Hollywood wanting to produce up to SIX avenger movies….. SIX?!?! REALLY!?!? do we need 6? Are you that out of ideas that you’re not only rebooting old franchises but 6 times?!?! Hollywood is clearly out of fresh ideas… Sad sad. Sadly, I fear we may be seeing a reboot of “khan” in this next movie too…although I hope not.
@89: Six movies in a series, not six reboots. It’s not automatically a bad thing — a halfway-decent little movie called “The Undiscovered Country” comes to mind… :)