Simon Pegg Prepping (Body & Mind) For Star Trek Sequel December 27, 2011
by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Celebrity, Star Trek sequel (2013) , trackback
Simon Pegg, Star Trek’s new Scotty, will be joining his fellow new crewmates on board the USS Enterprise when the sequel starts shooting next month. And the actor is now getting ready for the role, revealing some of his prep work. Details below.
Pegg prepping for Star Trek sequel
As first reported here at TrekMovie.com, the Star Trek sequel production kicks off on January 15th. The whole team are getting ready for the big moment, including the actors. That includes the new Scotty Simon Pegg who in the last couple days has been tweeting some of his prep. Yesterday Pegg sent out a tweet saying that he is running to get into "Starfleet" shape.
And today Pegg tweeted that he has been running his own Star Trek movie marathon to get his mind into Starfleet shape as well.
Pegg is of course referring to the famous Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home scene, when the original Scotty (James Doohan) is back in time in the 1980s trying to use an Apple Macintosh.
Hopefully Simon (and other Star Trek stars on Twitter) will keep us up to date on their progress before and during production. However, don’t expect too much as the infamous JJ Abrams cone of silence is likely to be implemented to control any spoilers.
Simon Pegg running around the engine room in "Star Trek" (2009) – actor
now training to get into Starfleet shape
Loading ...
Comments»
For 3 years I’ve been coming to this site and this is my first ……….
FIRST!
there! I said it!
now that’s out of the way ………
Why would Simon Pegg consider ST IV as a “Guilty pleasure”? Final Frontier or Insurrection could be considered guilty pleasures for their cheesy dialogue, inconsistent plotting and overall corniness but Voyage Home is just about the perfect Trek film. It brought in new fans and appealed to a wide audience that hadn’t previously bothered to see a Trek movie at the cineplex.
It had wit, plotting, character arcs and was the first Trek movie in ages without a villian or death. I loved it in 86 when it came out and I still love it 25 years later. There’s nothing guilty about the pleasure I get from TSIV:TVH.
Is this a clock on his left wrist?
@2: Simon’s been saying a few times lately that he wouldn’t mind if it Scotty were a bit more serious the next time around, and Scotty was very much comic relief in Voyage Home, much like in Trek 2009. That’s probably why “guilty”.
Pegg was great in Ghost Protocol. Although he did play it for laughs… There needs to be a more serious Scotty this time around. Pegg’s name is definitely on the rise.
While the scene in that particular movie was actually funny, some of the ‘Nu-Scotty’ scenes in the reboot were just ridiculous and annoying. (Mind you, so was the moment Doohan’s ‘Prime Scotty’ was made to ‘hit his head’ on part of the Enterprise)
I hope his character’s moments are toned down in this one. The TOS ‘Scotty’ was a generally a figure of great respect and authority most of the time, rather than ‘buffoonish clown’.
So he’ll be running around the engine room a lot, I take it.
I hope when he is running around the Engine Room it is not a Brewery.
Exactly why call The Voyage Home a guilty pleasure, it’s a great movie and I still think it’s a better movie than Abrams one.
I hope he wil become more like the Scotty we know and love, I remain adament in my thoughts that Simon Pegg was entertaining in the last movie but to me he just WAS NOT Scotty.
In TOS I loved it when Scotty was in command, he was bad ass when he challenged a Klingon ship and then it ran. I cannot picture Pegg’s version in comand. He was exactly what I thought he would be when I heard he was announced, comic relief to the extreme.
I hope he has some more serious moments mixed in as althoug he will never be my Scotty as that is James Doohan.
I tend to think “guilty pleasure” is when you’ve seen a film or tv show an absurd number of times. The not-we generally think of it as “the one with the whales”.
#11 “Guilty pleasure” is when you feel guilt for enjoying something – and usually the guilt involved is your friends/peers finding out that you enjoy it. It has little to do with how many times you’ve seen or done something.
I dislike the phrase as it usually means that someone is self-conscious about something they enjoy. In this case I see no need for ANYONE to be self-conscious about IV. Maybe V, but seriously, for a supposed geek who is happy to be bringing ST back, Pegg should have picked a better/different phrase. I thought he was proud to be a geek/nerd/whatever? Isn’t that what that book he wrote was about? I think his membership card should be revoked. =p
More serious Scotty indeed, I want the Scotty who recognises Kirk’s voice is not his own, the Scotty who thinks the ship ‘doesn’t feel right’. He had an innate intelligence when in command, and was very convincing in the big chair. Not sure if Simon Pegg can pull that off, but I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Of course, Doohan saw real action in WWII, no doubt his forces experience informed his acting when in command.
I wouldn’t mind a little homage to ‘up yer shaft’ from III in the next movie.
Pegg is great and proves it film after film.
Catching up on his technical manuals.
P.S. I’m glad that someone else thinks 4 is a guilty pleasure!
Only on this site will you wind those who take exception even at someone enjoying Star Trek…
The way I read it, Mr Pegg is saying that reviewing IV is a guilty pleasure because it’s *supposed* to be part of his work ‘duties’ but he enjoys it so much it’s just a joy.
^ *find (not wind)
I wonder if it would be cool for the third one to have the new TOS crew go back into time again and see Scotty trying to work one of today’s computers?
I’d love to see Scotty commanding the Enterprise for a period of time. Scotty in charge was always some of my favourite scenes in TOS.
Why Abrams needed to have Scotty’s typical seriousness be replaced w/ Chekov’s buffoonery is beyond me. This man is in charge of keeping the starship running for god’s sake. The orig Scotty had light hearted moments, but was never a clown. Scotty in the cmd. chair was always full of authority and no BS! Let the young Russian act the fool as a young man might…but Scotty @ his age should be well past juvenille school boy antics and jokes.
#10 I agree. I like Simon, but he is never different in any movie or show he appears in. You know exactly what you are going to get with him.
And that ‘hello computer’ scene is still a delight. I’m really coming to realise just what a great actor Jimmy was. He could go over the top just a little at time’s but i’ve definitely found a new appreciation of him lately.
Maybe Simon just need’s another 30 years and i’ll come to find him equally as talented?
I assume that by training, he means he’s chomping on some donuts?
12. You’ve clearly never inadvertently forced a loved one out the house. The last thing from her lips, “Christ almighty! You’re NOT watching that again? I’m off out!” :p
@20
My favorite *Scotty in Charge* scenes are in “The Apple” where Kirk, Spock , McCoy and Chekov (along with a mess of dead Red Shirts) are stranded planet-side with the ship being slowly pulled down.
No laughs, no comic relief–just great drama. The way he gets after Lt. Kyle for those calculations…love the urgency.
…and he gets fired by Kirk for failing. Great drama!
Scotty needs to be more like the one we see in “The Doomsday Machine” then the one in Star Trek V. Make the guy part of some serious drama, not just a guy with a quippy comic line.
That kind of treatment of the character has become stale and diminishes the dramatic moment.
It goes something like this, Scotty: “Look! I just beamed Kirk off the imploding ship and saved his life and his coffee cup hasn’t spilled a drop!”
Kirk runs out of the transporter room in a dead run to the bridge.
Scotty: “Hey, were are you going, didn’t you see that??? No coffee stains!”
….this kind of stuff. Junk.
#9 Wow, I can’t disagree more. Voyage Home was ok, but overall very corny. In 1986 it had appeal to a general audience because of the time period it was released. People were tired of the Cold War. Of conflict. In terms of Star Trek, tired of the good versus bad (West vs Soviet) stories in most movies. This was a light hearted and fun story that was very much a “feel good” movie. Not deep. Not emotional.
I’m certain that is what he means by guilty pleasure. Voyage Home is by no means considered a great movie. It’s a fairly simple feel good movie with a environmentalist, save the world, kind of message. In other words, not a very serious movie. That’s general what is meant when someone refers to a movie as a “guilty pleasure”.
It’s certainly not the worst Star Trek movie, but I would not put it anywhere near TWOK or 2009 Trek.
Star Trek IV was for ME- for al loooooong tim – no Trek when it came in the cinemas. It is indeed the only movie I have never ever seen in a cinema! II was good, III was even better, V was okay, VI was glorious. But IV … is not really what I expected of a Star Trek movie. Later I borowed the movie out of a library and enjoyed it so much. Now, years later, I just l do just regret, the next gen was never in the year of 2000. Would have been fun, too!
#21 Not sure what you or some other critics of Pegg’s performance are talking about. Scotty in 2009 Trek was never a clown. He had a couple of brief moments of comic relief, but was never clownish.
He did save the ship in the end…. sounds like some of you should go back and watch the movie again.
Its funny that Voyage is reference when talking about Scotty being more serious. It was with that movie that the Scotty character became solely a comic relief character, and more of a loveable old clown. From that point on with the original cast, that was all Scotty was.
He has never been as “serious” as he was in TOS. Although, he had comic relief moments there as well.
I do think he showed more of his engineering brillance in 2009 Trek and that foreshadows him being more serious in the next movie, while still having some funny moments.
#9
I agree with you, Captain.
For me, “Voyage Home” is the better movie. More heart, with just as much action, humor, and ideas as TOS, and broke away from the traditional bad guy angle.
Just a fun time at the movies.
I did enjoy Kirk punching out Kirk in trek 6.
I think i’ll add Pegg on twitter.
Great we can always count on Simon Pegg to tell us… “a little bit of nothing”… yeah, but I like this ship…………… :-) :-)
LOL… I can’t believe some of what I’m reading. Guess there are all kinds.
I for one thank the maker Abrams isn’t making movies like Voyage.
There was very little to no action at all in Voyage. Very simple feel good, put a smile on your face and make you feel good about yourself story. No drama what so ever. Never a moment where the audience was on the edge of their seat or holding their breath. It was just a pleasant, everybody is happy, utopian story.
Like I said before, it was done at a time when the real work was all about bad news stories, and alot of movies reflected that in good versus evil stories. That’s why it had such appeal.
If that movie were relased today, it would be about on par with Tim Allen’s Santa Claus.
2009 Trek was by far more dramatic and action packed. Had far better and more complicated story, with far more emotional impact – exploring the highs and lows of the human emotion. All while being filmed in such a way as to produce the most realistic and epic Star Trek movie made. There is no other Star Trek movie that comes close to feeling as epic and real with such scale as JJ’s.
But of course I’m not the only one that has said this. Just about every movie critic in the country did also in 2009.
I’m not trying to say Voyage sucked, but if that is what you want to see…. well, I’m just glad it’s not going to be what we see in 2013.
You know I don’t think Simon Pegg needs to worry about getting into shape in order to play Scotty. Just sayin…
I think we will see more action involving all the main characters, such as Scotty.
In TOS he often went on away missions. I imagine we will see some of that in this movie that will result in some physical action scenes with Scotty.
Just considering Pegg’s growing profile in Hollywood, I seriously doubt he will just hang out in engineering in this movie.
#34
Take it easy. Saying we like “Voyage Home” more isn’t going to erase Trek ‘09 from the timeline. It’s okaaay. Just take a deep breath. There ARE other opinions out there. Some like charming, slower-paced films over whiz-bang action flicks. Or vice versa. Nothing wrong with it.
Star Trek VI was the first ST movie I watched. I tried to keep from laughing as Leonard Nimoy swam by in his Vulcan underwear…
Ehem.
Anyways, looking forward to more Scotty. MORE Scotty.
So is Zachary Quinto doing a lot of running as well. Star Trek: Athletes for the Win.
Scotty was fine, although there was a moment where he played it a little over the top in Star Trek 09, but then again, the young Scotty was thrown in the deep end on this movie, in case some of you hadn’t noticed. Scotty saying the line “I like this ship. It’s exciting” was perfect in the context of the scene.
The Voyage Home showed that having a sense of humour and being very good at one’s job don’t have to be mutually exclusive. Although the scene where Scotty is talking to the computer in Voyage Home was funny to us (or some of us), what it showed was how much technology had changed.
Scotty was not being a clown or anything else in Voyage Home. He was simply attempting to do what he had been tasked to do by his commanding officer, Admiral Kirk.
What I find *interesting* is that Scotty still knew how to effectively use an old fashioned computer keyboard. Gosh, that one is even older than my 20 year old IBM keyboard.
Does he really need to get in shape to be the Jar-Jar of the next movie?
When I said Scotty was being a clown in Voyage, i was referring to those saying he was being a clown in 2009. My point is that in Voyage is when the character Scotty moved decidedly more toward comic relief and clownish behavior that continued in the subsequent films.
So, for people to cite Voyage Home in the same breath while criticizing 2009 Trek’s Scotty as being too much of a clown and not serious enough is just a contradiction in logic. You can’t have it both ways.
I’m not sure what “following Admiral Kirk’s orders” has to do with anything either. Kirk didn’t order him to be funny.
There is no doubt that Voyage was funny. That is precisely what I don’t get about the criticism of Scotty in 2009. The same people that are saying that Voyage home was a much better movie than 2009 are also slamming 2009 Trek because Scotty was a “clown”.
As for liking “charming, slower paced” movies. That’s fine. But that’s not what I, or most fans of Star Trek want to see. It’s certainly not what today’s movie audiences that like sci-fi/action adventure movies want to see.
I liked Voyage in much the same way that Pegg did. It was a guilty pleasure. A feel good movie that didn’t require much serious thought.
Not what I call Star Trek though. More of a movie commentary on the 1980’s than a real Star Trek movie.
#36…The correct terminology is:
TOS – Landing Party
TNG – Away Mission (As opposed to a “Here Mission” I guess)
So, everyone is definitely prepared for XII. But an actor is only as good as the script at the end of the day.
I rather enjoyed TVH for was it was; a lighter, breezier ST movie than what had gone before. After all that life/death/sacrifice stuff, the franchise needed it.
It’s a very ’80s fish-out-water comedy (and there were BUNCHES of those in those days; Crocodile Dundee, Splash, Trading Places, etc). So, not only is it a more humorous ST movie, it’s also an interesting time capsule into the 1980s.
The Scotty/mouse scene still makes me chuckle today, perhaps even more than it did in 1986 (when computers were still very mysterious devices). It’s so funny that the once ’state of the art’ Apple of 1986 is almost as laughably archaic to audiences now as they were to Scotty from his 23rd century perspective. It’d be a bit like a modern day newspaper editor trying to work Guttenberg’s printing press…
I wonder how dated the Mac-inspired (and beautifully realized) bridge of ST09 will look 20 years from now…
As for the sequel? More Simon Pegg is never a bad thing. And I hope he gets to show some of the other shadings of this character this time out as well.
#42 lol… doesn’t matter
#44 Well said.
I just can’t compare a feel good “fish out of water” comedy (as you described it) to a much more serious, epic and realistic space drama of 2009 Star Trek and say it was better.
It’s completely apples to oranges.
#41
Well, I’m not going to speak for every Trek fan out there, but I think most fans are aware that Trek—and science fiction in general—traditionally makes some sort of commentary on society. TOS did this over and over again, sometimes subtly, other times about as obvious and stark as black and white (”Let That Be Your Last Battlefield”).
But that sort of storytelling is in its DNA, just as Roddenberry and Coon and all the other show runners, for good and bad, intended.
I have said it before and I will say it again. All of the funniest moments in TOS came from either Scotty or McCoy. Now this is just my opinion but Scotty was always a comedic guy, even in the “Jack the Ripper” episode he was hilarious (mostly before he gets charged with murder). I never saw Chekov as being especially funny (aside from the “samples” line in the ep when everyone except him was ageing), Shatkirk is just an overblown windbag with a speech impediment. In fact the only character on TOS that ever felt “dramatic” and “serious” to me was Spock. All just my opinion of course, and it doesnt mean I didnt love the show every minute, despite its flaws. Just like every ST series and movie (except Enterprise, I only liked the last season) including ST 2009.
I remember going to see Aliens in the late 80’s at the movies. Now of course, it looks dated today, by today’s movie making standards.
However, at the time when I was watching that movie, in particular the technology scenes, as a Star Trek fan, I was lamenting how much more realistic and large scale it seemed. The space scenes and ships had such a much larger and realistic feel than Star Trek.
I kept saying, “wow…. i wish the people making Star Trek would use these special effects techniques and make Star Trek look like this.”
When you watched Aliens at that time, if FELT like you were really in space and all the technology FELT real. In stark contrast to Star Trek IV and the subsequent movies that came out at the same time and later.
It wasn’t until JJ Abrams’ film came out that I said “FINALLY… a Star Trek movie that really feels like it’s in space and dealing with a real universe!!”
@#21 Michael
I liked Chekov just the way he was in ST 2009. They’d have to up the slapstick in order to make him like Scotty in ST 2009. That, I’m not in favor of.
@#39 Keachick
I’d love to see photos of Zachary running to get into Star Trek Spock-like shape. :-) :-) :-)
#48 Yeah, trying to compare TOS to the movies fails on so many levels. But what you point out is definately one of them. The comic relief, the goofy fight scenes (half the time I expected to see “POW!!” super imposed over the screen when Kirk would hit someone), the always “Oh… you’re so funny Mr. Spock” at the end of an episode when he doesn’t get some joke Kirk or McCoy says.
Plus, throw in the fact that you are telling a different story every week.
No one would ever be able to make a movie that encompassed all the range of type of stories found in TOS. It’s just not possible. So, no matter what the movie is like, there are going to be those that liked a particlar type of story in TOS that will criticize it because it didn’t have that in the movie.
27. Agreed. Scotty and Chekov were a little too fish-out-of-water. Kirk, an avid historian and reader, as his character had previously been written, know about profanity (although, yes, dumbass doesn’t appear in Shakespeare).. An engineer would presumably know the general state of late-20th century computers. Chekov, and the rest, would know how to avoid violating the Prime Directive (tossing his phaser at the agents) in any new culture. There was a bit of buffoonery that paved the way for the mess in V. The characters don’t need to be (for Keachick) Mary-sues or superheroes, but they should be competent.
It was fun. And a break, tonally, from the previous heavy films.
Not knowing how to drive a 30s standard in a piece of the action made sense, arguably.
Even in Trek VI, Chekov was a bit dim (why not simply waporize them, if the shoe feets, etc.)
I would think ‘training’ for Scotty’s role would involve lots of 12oz. curls and whiskey benders. Maybe Pegg is speaking in metaphors.
Anthony, how many more “Simon Pegg ready for Trek sequel” news stories do you have stored on your hard drive ready to use when there is no real news? :-) Seems like this is at least the 3rd “Simon Pegg ready for Trek sequel” story here in the last couple of months.
Can you instead try to milk your sources to see if either Ramirez or Molla has been signed in the villain role? Given the are going to start shooting in 2 weeks, I challenge you all at Trekmovie.com to come up with more than this!
#51
“No one would ever be able to make a movie that encompassed all the range of type of stories found in TOS. It’s just not possible.”
Um, you’re veering off course a bit. I didn’t say one movie should encompass the entire series. I was simply pointing out that “Voyage Home” was in keeping with the spirit of TOS by making social commentary, which that show did time after time.
And which the other TOS movies did… to one degree or another.
#55 I was comenting on another common complaint about JJ’s movie.
I never said that Star Trek didn’t make social commentary. Not sure why you are telling me that TVH did as well. Of course it did.
I just said that the movie as a whole was less Star Trek movie than a comentary on the 1980’s. A sarcastic commentary on the 1980’s with a healthly dose of preachy environmentalism as well. That doesn’t mean I’m saying Star Trek shouldn’t make social commentary, or hasn’t in the past. Just that TVH was mostly that, and not so much Star Trek. It focused mainly on social commentary.
#55 Just to clear up the “encompass an entire series” comment.
I was refering to criticisms about JJ’s Trek in areas like Scotty being “too much comic relief”.
We often see on here comments like”
Scotty can’t be that funny – or clownish – because in episode X, Y, and Z in TOS he was serious.
Or, this character can’t be like that, or that character can’t be like this, because in this episode or that episode of TOS they weren’t.
Or, Star Trek shouldn’t always have a bad guy, because in this episode or that episode there wasn’t one.
My point is that you have one movie to tell a story every 3 or 4 years. Unlike in TOS, or TV in general, where you tell a new story every week. In that medium you can explore a wider range of story types…. from intelectual “why does the cloud hate us?”, to action “kill the bad guy”.
When you are making a movie you have to pick one and you pick the one that you think will have the widest appeal to the largest possible audience so that you can come back in 3 or 4 years and tell another story.
and just a side note on that, our oppinions and feelings and wishes on Star Trek on this blog site probably represent less than 1% of the general Star Trek fan, or especially the general sci-fi/adventure movie going public. So someone like JJ and crew have to take what they think those people want into account more than what some of us want.
#56
Oh geez, it was commenting on the ’80s because it was made in the ’80s. The same reason TOS was commenting on issues in the ’60s and “Undiscovered Country” was commenting on the end of the Cold War in the early ’90s. It’s the same reason H.G. Wells’ “War of the Worlds” commented on colonialism in the Victorian era, etc., etc…
I think the fans should begin a vigorous exercise program at once!
54:
MJ wrote: “Seems like this is at least the 3rd “Simon Pegg ready for Trek sequel” story here in the last couple of months.”
Sometimes it simply helps to post a new talkback thread to keep us all talking. The threads get stale quickly, especially when the most recent article pertains to comics or Christmas trees.
The opposite phenomenon also exists: “Trekmob.com posted that Simon Pegg watched Star Treks 3 & 4. Why can’t Trekmovie keep up with the news?” blah blah….
You’ll also find that, during the holidays, any real news is tough to find.
#58 Yes I know. I said that.
It was far more obvious and in your face about it than War of the Worlds.
I don’t know what your point is. I know that was what it was trying to do.
When I say it was a commentary on the 1980’s, i don’t mean it’s intended effect at the time, but also as an example of the stream of light hearted, “fish out of water” comedies coming out of Hollywood at the time. It exemplified the movies of the time also.
I never said it didn’t do that stuff. I’m saying it did it to extreme. It was mostly trying to be a fish out of water comedy, telling the audience about the importance of saving the environment than it was about being Star Trek.
Over analyzing Pegg’s comment on “guilty pleasure” does seem to be a new level of nitpicking, especially because Pegg is certainly a card-carrying fan and geek.
But if you must, then I see Pegg’s comment on STIV as being relative to other Trek films which are considered more serious like TMP, TWOK, TUC. STIV is the most light-hearted of all the Trek films and certainly had the most mainstream appeal of all the films prior to the 2009 film. And for that reason I think Simon is talking about it being (for a geek Trek fan) a guilty pleasure. Personally, I rank STIV in the middle of the pack of Star Trek films. I like it, but it still feels somewhat like a mashup of a Star Trek film and an 80s screwball comedy. Especially with that very 80s soundtrack.
True… guilty as charged in over analyzing Pegg’s comment. I think i was more reacting to those that took offense to it because they thought TVH was such a great Star Trek movie. I guess as a fan of sci fi and adventure movies, I’ve always wanted more from Star Trek than a comedy that portrays my favorite characters as comedic side kicks.
By the way, I thougt they were suppose to case Del Toro’s replacement by Christmas. I haven’t seen anything about that in a couple weeks.
Also, is that the last major character to be cast?
For those of you who can’t imagine Pegg as “kick-ass” Scotty, I recommend (believe it or not) “Hot Fuzz.” For much of the movie he was the straight man, and I can definitely see that character telling a Battle Cuiser to back off.
- Harry
The Voyage Home is to TOS Trek movies what The Trouble with Tribbles is to TOS episodes. It is a light heated take on Trek. Nothing wrong with that, and it fit perfectly for me after the seriousness of Trek II and III.
64:
Jay: Orthodox Christmas is January 7th.
#66 I agree. I never said it was a bad movie. It was perfect for it’s time. I just would not say it was as good a movie as 2009 Trek. Not only story wise, but technically. 2009 Trek was obviously more serious, to me a more hard core sci fi movie, and it was larger in scope and feel. To me TVH was mostly a comedy, that was entertaining, but never explored emotions like 2009 Trek, or had any meaningful suspense or drama.
So, while it was good for what it was, it’s apples and oranges to 2009 Trek. Personally I much perfer the type of Star Trek that was JJ’s.
#50 – “I’d love to see photos of Zachary running to get into Star Trek Spock-like shape. :-) :-) :-)”
I bet you would…LOL
I came up with a little scene that had all three of our younger manly leading cast members (CP, ZQ, KU) running and hanging etc wearing next to nothing, their clothing all ripped and torn sort of thing. Ah, the image… a hetero girl’s dream, I can tell ya…:)
Then, of course, you would have guys screaming “homoeroticism” and getting their undies all in knots! Hell, I could not even suggest a scene with some of the characters in a spa pool together with health giving mineral water bubbling around their chests without some male getting knotted up…Dear, oh dear, oh dear.
NB: Bob Orci – Any Star Trek needs to have one totally gratuitous scene. Last time it was the gratuitously violent fight scene in the bar. This time, let’s see these guys in as close to their gorgeous natural physical state as can be managed. I could handle butt-naked, although I am more a front and centre girl myself. Do a scene that is totally, awesomely, gorgeously, gratuitously sexy!!! Yeah! Make it so!
I wonder if Simon Pegg would be up for such a scene. Keep up with doing those marathon runs, Simon, m’ laddie!
Also, Orthodox U.S. Independence Day is July 11th.
You do know that Zack is gay right?
@69. I could live with that scene you mentioned, provided we also get a locker room scene with a scantily clothed Uhura and Nurse Chapel following their aerobics workout session, which I would pay the extra $$ to see in 3D.
@71. What does that have to do with his appearance as a handsome male character?
lol… i guess…. just thought it funny the way some women on here are lusting after him. thought maybe they didn’t know.
“Orthodox Christmas is January 7th”.
Do you mean those following the Eastern Orthodox Christian traditions?
Jews do not celebrate Christmas, since they believe their Saviour is yet to be born. My understanding is that those following the Jewish faith are meant to do voluntary, charitable works on Christmas Day while the Gentiles celebrate their Saviour Jesus’ birthday.
I am not sure how the above quote has to do with the casting of the villain. As far as I know, JJ Abrams is Jewish, by race and religion, and it is more than likely that the two actors (Spanish and Venezuelan) being considered for the role now, have a Catholic-Christian background, whether or not they still practice.
Yeah, we know about Quinto’s personal sexual orientation, but that still does not stop him from not only being attractive (and attracted) to some men, but also to some women. As you all know, I am a CP girl, but Zach has some attractive qualities, as does Karl Urban.
#72 MJ – I have no problem with seeing such a scene, none at all, but it is not me you have to convince…
Bob Orci – Are you getting all this and taking note here? Make it happen.
Good man.
Oh and Happy New Year to you!
@74. I don’t think is matters to most chicks — a lot of believe that they are so attractive and charming that they could turn a gay into the a straight guy. LOL
@77. Not talking about anyone on these boards with my remark here.
Oh no, I know, Jay, and that’s why I’m a Spock/Uhura fan and not a Zach and his personal intimate life fan. I admire the actor and his talents, but really, the actors’ personal lives are theirs. No need for me to be too bothered with who they are personally seeing. And as for Zach, it’s not like even if he were straight we would be dating. That’s why they call it ‘eye candy’ and a ‘fantasy’. I am perfectly happy with that. :-)
#69. Keachick…
Well, the last pic I saw ZQ he was at a party in Aspen, Colorado… it was last week… maybe he decided to go skiing instead of running… ok I’m just kidding… a bit…. :-) :-)
55. Wait, which other TOS movies did social commentary? (other than, say, the premise of Trek VI, but what point was it actually making, other, than, maybe, old attitudes die hard).
I still think the idea of Trek as metaphor for current social issues gets overemphasised. Yep, many were morality plays. And a couple referenced current events… like that vietnam episode…but what were they really saying? Human issues and age-old moral dilemmas, sure… but Roddenberry overplayed the social allegory card. Yes, there were a handful of message episodes (war is bad, racism is bad) with good messages. I keep emphasizing this because I worry that Trek could be turned into a clunky Avatar retread if we believe that it was all about allegories.
Like I’ve said on here before, just showing an international crew working together with no concern for race, religion, ethnic origen etc. (alas, the genders still weren’t quite equal) was a far more powerful message. Showing a United Earth, where it’s suggested that there is no poverty, racism, conflict , environmental destruction etc. etc., is a pretty darned big deal.
And yes, Trek IV was kind of in the tradition of those comedy episodes, but I think the laughs didn’t need to be at the expense of our crew. Amd, heck, Trek 09 had some great light moments, in that tradition, and many here blast that movie for not being serious enough.
Hey Simon, why not try looking at some episodes where Scotty isn’t a comic relief character, but a competent, reliable, and head strong officer?
“A Taste of Armageddon”
THAT is a good Scotty episode.
69. Trek still hasn’t had a shower scene. A little starship troopers style co-ed action?
Yep, should be news about the casting/not casting of Edgar Ramirez soon.
Ironically, his lates movie is “Wrath of the Titans” ….
Regards.
Cool, I just did a 5K. I almost placed in my age group. I really want to get my time to less than 20 minutes.
#71. Jay…
Jay if you do not know, we talked a lot here about it when ZQ decided to speak about his sexual orientation …
and let me say ZQ is an attractive man and having fantasies about him not depend on his sexual orientation… also because gay guys fantasize about straight guys… so why girls can not fantasize about gay guys? … just saying …
:-) :-)
“Run, Fatboy, Run”!
My 2nd favorite Pegg movie after “Shaun of the Dead”
#81
The other movies weren’t as heavy-handed as VH’s “Save the Whales” message, but there was some commentary, as I wrote, “to one degree or another.”
TMP had a spiritual message about the relationship between creator and creation, TWOK and TSFS was about the consequences of man playing God (Genesis), FF [attempted to] comment on religion, TUC was about the Cold War (Gorkon=Gorbachev). And I’ll stop there, because, for me, the movies since then have been more or less about Star Trek looking at itself instead of the outside world, particularly the last two movies—”The Greatest Hits Collection: Volumes 1 and 2.”
And like it or not, science fiction, from Twilight Zone to Star Trek to Futurama, often comments on society. It’s simply the nature of the beast.
75:
Keachick, it was meant as a joke…another reason for a delay…
The comedy worked in The Voyage Hom. After watching Star Trek XI more times now, scenes I found funny once are now no longer funny to me.
Scotty talking into the mouse of a Mac is hilarious, Scotty beaming into a water pipe is NOT funny and felt forced in my opinion.
Star Trek XI is a good film but I don’t get the its more complicated and confusing thing from as to me it has a more simplified plot that has been done so the mainstream gets it.
62
Fair enough in your rating but I def put it higher than the Abrams movie which I put into just below the middle of the pack. Voyage Home is fourth place for me.
Can’t really tell how Pegg means “guilty pleasure”, but I think STIV’s enviromental message is becoming more relevant every day. They took some heat for that “save the whales” theme at the time, also.
#83 Jack, honey, as I said to MJ – it’s not me you have to convince…:)
I’m all for a nice shower scene, showing a full length view of either Kirk by himself going in butt-naked and/or coming out of the shower before he reaches for the towel…
Or – male and female crew members showering together
because, by this time (the 23rd century), adults have grown past being anxious about seeing or being seen naked. It is not that there would not be private shower cubicles – there are certain times when one needs a little privacy (speaking as a woman) but it is not that necessary most of the time.
Being naked does NOT necessarily equal sex!
I cannot say I am totally in favour of the direction JJ Abrams is taking Trek in. But he seems to know what the mainstream non Trekkies want and in Hollywood’s eyes that the main thing.
The humour to me works in IV because the crew are out of their comfort zone but a lot of umour in the last movie doesn’t work for me on repeat viewings like the humour did on TOS et all.
Some great funny lines from Pegg but as I said a few messages ago the water pipe and also the numb tongue are actually a little painful for me now. Also Kirk grabbing Uhura’s breasts seems to ride off that cheap gag that the mainstream loves. Yet with IV there is a charm to the humour.
I think Simon Pegg is saavy enough to know Scotty isn’t a clown.
@83 “69. Trek still hasn’t had a shower scene. A little starship troopers style co-ed action?”
Huh, don’t you remember Ilaya in TMP?
perhaps Pegg was merely referring to the fact that it was a guilty pleasure because he should really have been working out more rather than sitting down watching cool movies.
why you crazy kids……….
If they go ahead and make a lot of JJ Trek films and they progress into the 2270s and 2280s, makes me wonder if Simon Pegg’s training regime will involve putting on weight?
83. Jack “Trek still hasn’t had a shower scene”
Oh, great! Now you’ve done it! The title for the next movie will now be…………….
STAR TREK: THE BATH OF KHAN
#99 And that will have me barfing…
Uh, why, Keachick?
Just a play on words…
I guess I don’t really want to see Khan again, nor do I want to see him bathing. Perhaps Khan drowns this time round…Nah, still don’t want to see him.
Jack – I hope you are not offended by me calling you “honey”. I had no intention. For some reason (not sure why) you just seem like that sometimes. Anyway, pay no attention if it bothers you.
#102
Khan drowning in the bath? Now that would be funny!
Maybe Chekov could be the murderer. Khan’s last words:
“I never forget a face!—[gurgle, gurgle]“
#103 Yes, the opening scene of the sequel. So they did have Khan in the movie. The problem is that I keep seeing Walter Koenig’s Chekov doing the awesome deed, not Anton’s. What to do. Anyway, word comes from Spock prime calling for Chekov’s exhoneration. All’s well that ends well.
Moving now to the scenes where an original story unfolds…!
Again folks, Ilia had a shower scene in TMP.
Yeah, I think that while “The Voyage Home” is still a good movie with good character moments, a relevent theme (even to today), and humor, it is quite dated, and cheesy. The outfiit worn by Shatner, and the robe worn by Spock were ridiculous, although I guess because of the circumstances they were in they had no other clothing options. Gillian Taylor as a character was okay, though not particularly memorable. The music was cheesy, and not on the same par as what had been created by Jerry Goldsmith and James Horner. William Shatner began acting as himself in this film, which he would continue to do in V, VI and “Generations”.
#93.
So, you’ve been to the 23rd century? How would you know that men and women (non-couples) crew members would share showers together? That’s a bit presumptous. I would think, women in particular, would not want to be seen naked by the opposite sex. Especially women, who are much more modest than men, and would be obviously concerned about their personal privacy and safety.
I really doubt that the male gender will be any more mature in the twenty-third century. I mean, men are programmed to think sex when they see an attractive young female even with their clothes on.
Plus, I think we are already bombarded with images of sex and nudity anyway. Don’t need to see any more of it in Trek.
#105.
Yeah, since you keep reminding us about it, that scene seems to have been very FORGETTABLE!
A shower scene with Persis Khambatta forgettable?
Never.
No we are not bombarded with genuine sex, as in LOVE making, or nudity. We are bombarded with titilation, sniggering and prurience (Two and a Half Men) about the whole issue. If there is any nudity, often those parts of the anatomy are pixalated out and we are supposed to be adults, for God’s sake.
Other people manage to have a greater maturity when it comes to matters like this, for example, most people from the European continent. Sure they are not going around in the nude or anything, except on some beaches perhaps. However, in any of the foreign movies I have seen, they have shown a much more mature approach to sexuality and/or nudity than what is presented in a large part of the English speaking world, especially the USA.
No, I have not been to the 23rd century and neither have you. Perhaps it was presumptuous of me to write what I did. I did not entirely discount the need for privacy though. I mentioned the likelihood and necessity of having private shower cubicles, especially for women. Modesty has little to do with whether one is naked or not, or allows themselves to be seen naked.
I do wish people would read all that I write in a post.
Simon, stop at 4… don’t… go…. to…. 5. :)
@106. Now you’ve done it, suggesting that nudity might be age appropiate.
@#106 Ryan
They can show as much nude Spock as they want in the next film, and I will not complain. Hubba Hubba. 8-)
But seriously, a well done Spock and Uhura shower scene would be nice in my opinion. It could be meaningful if the set up is right and not just gratuitous, and both men and women get something nice to look at. Of course I’d hope they keep the camera on Mr. Spock as much as possible. ;-)
Wait, wasn’t Abrams’ Trek meant to attract a new generation of fans—meaning… young people?! Kids?! And some of you folks are wanting shower/nude scenes in the next flick?
Eh… no thanks.
I’m not so sure that the last film was exactly made for ten year olds. I take ‘new generation’ to mostly mean the 18 and up crowd. Still there is a way to add in a shower scene and still get a PG-13 rating if that’s what they want. I’m hoping for something rated R, but PG-13 can be okay if they need to go that route. Last thing I want is a Disney film, though. I think the next film should go deeper into the depths of the stories they can tell, and how they can tell them. That’s just me though.
If a shower scene has something to do with the plot, like the one in TMP, then go ahead with it. But if it’s there just for the sake of being there, then don’t bother. You know, kinda like a wacky trip through a ship’s water pipes. Paging Doctor Freud… ;)
Vultan, I wouldn’t have it any other way. Sexually intimate contact with no meaning is something like a soft core adult film. That’s the last thing I would want for Spock and Uhura, which I think would likely not be the case going forward because we already know they love each other. So all the scene would need is a good set up within the film.
So I take it that children never see any adults or even other children naked at any time in their lives. Seriously?
Perhaps I do go on a bit about seeing Pine/Kirk in a nice shower scene and/or (semi) naked romantic liaison with his love (*with the camera kept on him as much as possible) but it is only because such activities are also a part of life and what’s more a healthy positive aspect of living. Of course, life can be also full of obstacles, messiness, corruption and dishonesty and violence as well unfortunately. Our Kirk and Spock will get to deal with this aspect of life as well. I doubt the writers have gone easy on them in this movie either. Just want some balance – health and beauty – for our heroes to experience also. It is logical. It is the human thing to do.
*SUF – you and I think alike. I would like the same for my Pine/Kirk.
On the IMDb board for the untitled Star Trek movie, the rating is already classified as PG-13. Of course, this could change once the movie is made, but I doubt it. Paramount/Bad Robot will make sure it adheres to the requirements of a PG-13 classification, which means they can show all sorts of scenes of violence, gore, explosions, unconscienable behaviour on the part of a character(s) but it’s a no-no to genuine love making or seeing a person nude. God forbid we get shown someone who is just as they are, or people doing a little of something that is positive, loving and life-affirming.
Sorry, but I find this kind of hypocrisy (if that’s the right word) so morally defunct – dishonest and conceited.
It’s funny how nobody worries about whether a kick-ass, Kirk-fu scene is necessary or that it might be gratuitous. No one cares how big the battle scenes might be, how many ships get destroyed, or the number of casualties and those left maimed with shocking phaser burns etc. I am not sure if those who are angry that the planet Vulcan got destroyed are the same people wanting to see big space battles. Only those people will know. Even I want to see Kirk beat someone at least once in a kick-ass, good knock-’em-out Kirk-fu type encounter with a real a-hole who has had it coming to him for a while – a kind of natural justice happening.
Perhaps if we could pay even more attention to scenes of violence, bullying and generally bad behaviour than some do to scenes of (partial) nudity (which is, of itself, neutral) and/or sexually intimacy, then we might actually get somewhere in terms of better writing and artistry and maybe even provide better role models for people.
It’s interesting how prophetic that scene with Scotty talking into the mouse of a Mac was. Today we have iPhones, Siri, VoiceDial and iPads…not to mention the iBridge;)
I’d prefer it if the entire film meant something. I don’t want anything *just* for the sake of it being there. That’s what I loved about how Spock and Uhura’s alone time scenes were established in the last film. It wasn’t just ‘let’s get it on’, it was about Uhura being there for the man she loved to support him during a very difficult time. That was beautiful to me. That, and his love for her.
@120 NuScotty
Such is the way of science fiction. Submarines, cloning, even functioning artificial organs were in sci-fi before they made their way into real science. Pretty cool, eh. :-)
These days it isn’t shown much, but PG-13 technically allows the bare butt and breasts. At least it did in 1996 for Titanic… These days it might just be bare butt.
@122–I know;) I just find it even more prophetic since, um, all the above except iBridge, actually happened in the same company as the computer Scotty tried to talk into was made by:)
@#123
As long as it’s Spock, that works for me. ;-)
@#124
Conspiracy time! Do you think the iBridge was made to look that way as a silent homage to Star Trek/Apple history? Probably not, but it’s possible. ;-)
Also the guy who created the mp3 format said he was inspired by a scene in TNG when Data was listening to multiple songs in his quarters. There have been numerous attempts to create the hand scanner McCoy used in sickbay and many more things from Trek have inspired real things. BTW Kudos for including the Submarines.
“engine room”??
ROFLMFAO
#119
Get off your high horse already. I don’t want gratuitous violence in Trek any more than I want gratuitous sex.
As for an R-rated Trek, yeah, don’t hold your breath on that one, guys.
But how about something rated T—T for Thinking, contains gratuitous use of ideas? Yeah, a summer flick that makes you think! Oooo… sounds dangerous…
Batman will make you think. As will anything by Nolan.
#129
Agreed. Funny how most of the big ideas and social commentary in big budget movies these days are being done with… a comic book character in a bat suit.
Hey, you think Bats will try to save some whales in the next one? ;)
Well as I said before, everything I’d need to get out of the film can happen within a PG-13 rating. That is what the last film was rated as, so I think they’ll stick with that. It makes sense for being able to watch the movies together.
As far as social commentary is concerned with Batman, I think Begins did a better job than TDK. TDK for me was more about exploring the mind of a killer and what Bruce was willing to sacrifice for Gotham. That’s commentary too, just not so much ’social’.
#131
Oh, I think TDK did a fair job in the social commentary area. Remember the scene where Bats essentially spies on all of Gotham through cell phones in order to catch the Joker, who’s pretty much a terrorist? A very timely subject, and exactly the kind Trek should be doing. Because in that scene, for the first time, I’m not entirely sure I should be rooting for Batman. It makes you think, anyway.
It was still about what Bruce was/wasn’t willing to do as a private citizen that had the resources, as opposed to something like a 1984 story where it’s about Big Brother watching you (although that could easily be included) and people being brainwashed to think it’s okay (what a tie-in that has for reality these days…). One of these is social commentary (1984), and one isn’t but had the real potential to be (TDK).
#133
Okay, it’s 1984 Lite. But it’s still making some commentary on our current times, namely the war on terror. And from the looks of TDKR trailer, we can probably expect some commentary on the protest movements of the past year.
No nudes is BAD nudes!
I wouldn’t compare it to 1984 much at all. So no, not really. The film wasn’t about a network of terrorists (like Begins was, in that movie there were at least 2) wreaking havoc on Gotham (Falcone crime family) and the world (League of Shadows) and how they affect society and in turn, how society affects and shapes them. Personal stories, such as Bruce’s and his father’s are also added for increased depth.
I’ll give you that the Joker was a terrorist, but he was a man working alone. Society didn’t really shape him as much as an abusive father and, in my opinion, mental illness. Of course the police went after him, but that’s what the police are for, so no groundbreaking commentary there. The social commentary film was Begins.
But I agree that the next film has a strong likelihood of coming back to being more rooted in social commentary.
I meant to type in my 1st paragraph, “how they affect and shape society and how society affects and shapes them (or at least accommodates their existence).”
#136
No, I think the cell phone spying is very Big Brother-ish—or Big Batman. ;)
Like I said, it’s ‘84 Lite… but not much more.
And the Joker wasn’t working alone really. He had a gang of thugs and psychos helping him. Not sure why anyone would want to work for him though. He seemed to enjoy turning on them, or using them as bombs (as terrorists do).
“The Dark Knight” was a commentary of the War On Terror. The scene where Batman assembled the cell phones into a sonar locator was a riff on the authorizing of the wiretapping of phones by the Bush administration.
The Joker was inspired somewhat by Osama Bin Laden, a rogue who has no morals to abide by, nothing to lose, and and attempts to push Batman over the edge into self destruction by resorting to tactics that make him look like he is the one obsessed with power and control.
The Joker attempted (and partially succeeded) at making Batman the true enemy of Gotham by forcing the Dark Knight to resort to extreme tactics that would endanger the civillians, or take away their freedoms and rights as individuals.
#138.
The Joker knew that the criminals were one-dimensional, desperate, and unable to see the big picture outside of their own greed and lust, thus making them the perfect stooges for the Joker’s schemes. Batman was kicking the gangsters’ asses, and the Joker knew it. The criminals had no other choice but to join forces with him, even though they had no understanding of the Clown Prince Of Crime. Exploiting the criminal underworld was merely the means to an end for the Joker. His only goal was to see Gotham fall into anarchy.
#140
Good points, RDR.
And yeah, remember Alfred’s story of the bandit and the line: “Some men just want to watch the world burn.” That has Bin Laden (and his stooges) written all over it.
The technology for the use of the cellphones to spy and pry can be associated with the book and that’s why I said not much at all instead of not at all, but the use (for the benefit of one individual) was not. You can call what Bruce did creepy, but not Big Brother which implies spying on everyone with their brainwashed consent (which could have worked in the film, but Batman was above it) for their own good. He was using the phones to go after one person, not to gather information from and to spy on each person that had a phone. That would have been Big Brother.
Just leave it up to Big Brother and he’ll think for you and make your choices for you. That is what Raz Al Ghul was becoming but he couldn’t see it.
Again, I do not disagree with the fact that the Joker was a terrorist, doing what terrorists do – using low brow individuals on a one-off basis as a way to achieve an end while covering their tracks in the process, but that’s hardly a terrorist network. The League of Shadows, that was a terrorist network.
@#139 Ryan
And a movie about Osaka Bin Laden, the man and his tactics, would not be a social commentary. A movie about the Taliban and how they overran and terrorized an entire country, welcoming nut-job opportunists like Bin Laden, and how the eventually became somewhat of a global terrorist force, and the efforts against them would be. My point to Vultan is that there’s a difference.
@#139
And on your last paragraph, again, the mind of a mentally ill killer. Him wanting anarchy to fulfill his own personal agenda is not a social commentary.
I think the idea of Batman assembling all the cell phones into a giant sonar surveillance tool was to show the first step to a Big Brother police state. What Batman did might have seemed well-intended and noble in of itself, but that is usually how totalitarianism starts. Lucius Fox knew this, and is why he resigned at the end of the movie.
“The road to hell is paved with good intentions”.
@#145 Ryan
Now that, I agree with.
@#145,
And to add to what you said, that’s also why the technology was destroyed by end of the film. Yea! :-)
That’s why I said it was Big Brother-ISH!
ISH! Not directly from the book but definitely Orwellian in spirit.
Look, you can split hairs about this all you want, but the simple fact is both BB and TDK had more food for thought than the last three or four Trek movies combined.
Now bring on TDKR!
Save us from mediocrity, Batman! Save us!
It’s not splitting hairs, it’s making a clear distinction. I said, again, that the technology could be associated with what happens in 1984, not the use. The sonar surveillance tool, i.e. the TECHNOLOGY, can be seen as a “first step to a Big Brother police state” IF it were used that way, which it was not. Again, it was used by one person, privately. Had it been the Gotham city police or some government agency/state using it, then it would have been Big Brother. That did not happen, so no, no Big Brother.
The technology is orwellian in spirit, but not how it was used, not if you’re going off of the book. Sorry.
And to add to what i just said, the reason why the technology was destroyed by the end of the film was because Fox and Bruce knew how it could be used and they didn’t want anyone to use it that way, not even themselves.
Yes, YES! That’s what I’m saying! Orwellian in spirit. Orwellian being an adjective. As in it’s kinda like it but not exactly like it. It stands on its own. Again, more about the war on terror than anything else—ah, never mind.
It’s about Batman and the Joker. No subtext there. Nothing below the surface. Just shiny things bouncing around the screen. Pass the popcorn. More shower scenes, please.
No, it’s not about the war on terror more than anything else. Half of the movie was about Harvey Dent being the man the people could believe in even though that was a lie. That’s not about the war on terror and it’s not a social commentary.
You said that the movie was a social commentary and that the movie was 1984 lite. The ‘movie’ is not. I agreed that the technology was ‘like’ (and yes I understand the term) technology used in 1984. There’s a big difference there that you don’t seem to get. Nevermind, indeed… : -/
Correction: Half of the movie was about Harvey Dent becoming the man people could believe in, and that became a lie.
No, there was a War On Terror commentary during the movie. It was pretty obvious. Christopher Nolan even said so himself.
Also, Harvey Dent was brought down by the Joker. The Joker set up Dent’s downfall. Dent then blamed Commisioner Gordon and Batman for the loss of Rachel Dawes since a) Gordon had aligned himself with bad cops who were also working with the Joker, and b) felt Batman had betrayed him when Dawes was killed. He thought Batman allowed her to die on purpose. The Joker fed his paranoia.
#152
I get that you’re arguing and being stubborn—for what reason, I have no idea. It’s pretty well established that Nolan likes to inject these sort of issues in his films.
But let’s be clear: social commentary is portraying certain aspects, usually timely and controversial, of society within, usually but not always, a fictional setting. It can be a work of metaphor, like TDK, or be completely obvious, like with the TOS episode “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield,” where the issue of race relations (very timely in ’60s America) is literally a black and white issue.
It doesn’t have to play by a certain rule book or blueprint. There are different degrees, some subtle, others not so much.
Thanks for playing.
@#154 Ryan
A short commentary within a movie does not make the movie itself a social commentary. Where and when did Christopher Nolan say that the movie was a commentary about the war on Terror??? Please link.
Ad for your second paragraph, you pretty much prove what I have been saying – that the movie was more about individuals than social commentaries, the war on terror, or society at large.
@#155
Adhering to the facts is not being argumentative or stubborn. It just is whatbit is. I think you know you are wrong and you just don’t like it so you’re throwing in calls for showers and popcorn and accusations as a distraction. Hey, whatever floats your boat…
Oh, no wonder why we’ve had an issue. Simply portraying certain aspects (and what falls under your categorizement of ‘certain’), even controversial aspects, of a society is not social commentary. A little bit more is required, dear padawan. If that were the only requirement for ‘certain’ aspects, just having them there, then anything containing said aspects would be a social commentary which may not be true when the whole is considered. You have to look at the whole thing to determine if it is a social commentary or not. Looking at the whole film, TDK is not a social commentary.
I don’t feel like writing too much more, so here’s a link that might help you: http://www.reference.com/browse/social%20commentary
And you have to portray “certain aspects” of society within a film. If you portrayed EVERY aspect—the whole big picture—the film would be 20 hours long… or more. That’s why authors, filmmakers and the like usually pick one issue for a story (racism, poverty, social injustice, save the whales!, the war on terror) and run with it.
From a profile on Christopher Nolan, “The Director As Social Commentator.”
“Nolan went a step further with The Dark Knight, trusting audiences to digest heavy contemporary issues that were barely disguised in the caped crusader’s cowl.”
http://www.askmen.com/entertainment/special_feature_500/569_the-most-influential-man-in-film.html
@#157 & #158 Vultan
You did not answer my question, and now you’re just spinning wheels. I did not say that every aspect of society has to be shown in any given film. I asked you what “certain” aspects were you referring to because you said that as if there is a limit or criteria. Looking at your response, I’m guessing not. And I think that while some authors/filmmakers may chose one main topic to focus on, usually other subjects/aspects/topics (however you want to phrase it) are included for the sake of illustration at the very least.
A film that has racism or poverty (etc.) in it does not necessarily make that film a social commentary on those issues. Again, you have to look at what was done in and with the film and how it was done. And there’s no limit on time for a film maker that has something to say. There are documentaries, shows, and films that are several hours long, coming in multiple parts (think of Alex Haley’s Roots, that’s something like 10 hours long). Isn’t Begins, Dark Knight, and DK Rises a trilogy? So how many hours does this particular story end up being? You’ve already negated your own point there with the current Batman frachise being your example.
For post #158, nice try. I asked Ryan when did Christopher Nolan say that with TDK he was making a social commentary about the war on terror, and you link to an article written by someone at what I am guessing is an online men’s magazine saying basically what I have already agreed to, and no direct quotes from Nolan stating that TDK was made as a social commentary about the war on terror. What you have with this article is someone drawing their own conclusions, and even they don’t come out and say that the film is a full on social commentary about the war on terror, so what does that tell you?
As I have said, Batman Begins was or could be seen as a social commentary, but TDK was not. I can appreciate that there was a bit within the movie, but again, that does not make the film itself a social commentary. Some say the devil (or God) is in the details, and I think that’s where you’re having an issue.
Here’s an example, if you watch a play, and part of it is sad, that does not make the play a tragedy. Even if the whole play is sad, that does not make the play a tragedy. It just means it was sad. More is required for it to be a tragedy. You can’t just say that certain aspects of society need to be depicted in a film and that instantly makes it a social commentary. Again, more is required.
I’m done talking about this because I’m tired of the subject. We don’t have to agree. Take care.
Well, apparently one of my posts was deleted. Not sure why. Probably because of the numerous links I provided.
But in it I said: Do a search with the words “Dark Knight,” “social commentary,” or “war on terror,” and you’ll find quite a few (thousands) of reviews, by both professionals and regular folks that more or less agree with what RDR and I have said.
Yes, the devil is in the details, because I wasn’t saying TDK was a PURE social commentary like Animal Farm or 1984. If it came across that way, that’s my fault, and I apologize for not being more clear. But the film definitely has elements of social commentary in it and was trying, perhaps failing on some levels, to say something about the world beyond the movie theater. It’s more than just Batman fighting the Joker… again.
Films—stories—can have multiple messages in them, and some of them, like the TDK (and Star Trek IV), can be difficult to categorize because of it. But thank goodness there are artists out there willing to go beyond the textbook definition of things and imagined genre limitations.
I’m a little tired of this too. It’s a total none-issue.
Apology accepted, and it’s nice that we’re past this now. I’m a bit of a stickler for things falling under certain categories, how, and why. Everybody that knows me knows that that’s just me.
I, like you, look foward to the next installment of the Batman franchise. :-)
160. Vultan “It’s a total none-issue”
Speaking of nuns, did you hear the one about the nun who chased the priest around the church until she caught him by the organ?
#162
Good one, Harry!
#161
Well, categorization works for mathematics.
Art… not so much. It’s messy. Like society.
Two nuns, Sister Mary and Helen, are sitting on a park bench enjoying the day. A man wearing a raincoat walks up to them, pulls open the coat, revealing his naked body to them. The police are called. The officer taking the report asks, “So, what happened when this man flashed you?”. Sister Helen replies, “Well, as soon as we saw his naked body, Sister Mary had a stroke!”. The police officer shakes his head in disgust and asks, “And you?”. Sister Helen replies, “Uh, no, I wasn’t sitting close enough!”
#165
:D
Even better!
Thanks, Vultan! These are old jokes. I would think you’ve heard them before…
By the way, Happy New Year!
#165 Good one, Harry…LOL!
#167
Thanks, Harry. Happy New Year to you too!
I had heard the first one before but not the second.
Amazing what you learn here, huh? It gets nun better than trekmovie. ;)
God help me—I do love bad puns.
168.
Thanks, Keachick!
169.
Love bad puns? How about….
The scientist who tries to clone himself, but the clone is flawed, swearing and screaming at everyone. The scientist, at his wit’s end, decides he must kill the copy of himself. Knocking the clone out, the scientist dumps him in the back of his van, drives to the top of a mountain and pushes the clone over the edge to his death. Driving back down the mountain, the scientist is stopped by police and promptly arrested. The charge?
Making an obscene clone fall!
#170
Love it!
Send in the clones.
#170 Oh jeepers, Harry. That was a bad pun, so why am I laughing?…LOL
171+172
(chuckles like Beavis and Butthead)
Heh…heh, heh…heh, heh, heh…….
@#164
Categorization works for art just as well as it does for math. Let’s not get started on math, which can be quite messy in the categorization field. You were doing good to let the discussion go. I don’t want to have another go ’round if we can avoid it. I don’t have the time for it today.
@Harry
:-)
#174
The day IBM builds a computer that can be as creative and wonderfully, spontaneously messy as a human being, I’ll agree with you.
Until then…
Happy New Year, Felix Unger… wherever you are….
;)
@#175
Deflection much?
What does a compter have to do with art (a subject) versus math (another subject) on terms of categorization. And when were talking about humans???? Of course a computer us not as complex as a human. To a good extent, the human brain, our central processing unit, isn’t even fully mapped or understood. Please stop adding things in whenever we are talking about something.
Anyway, happy New Year, dear padawan, red herrings and all. :-/
#176
Oh, don’t take it personally. Just a little ribbing to those favoring the left side of the brain. But you folks are all right. If it were up to us right brains, nothing would get done… and all the can labels would be facing opposite directions. Madness!
;D
@#177
:-)
#3: That’s a wrist communicator, kind of like the simple wrist comms we saw in Wrath of Khan. You see the top side of it briefly during the scene right after Enterprise rises from Titan’s atmosphere and Kirk and Spock are going to the engine room to beam out. The camera shows a shot behind and above Scotty when he’s working the controls and talking with Sulu and you see the comm speaker on the wrist watch-style strap.