Simon Pegg Talks More Star Trek + Does Star Wars Parody + Paul Premiere Video/Photos

Simon Pegg is still out promoting his new film Paul. We have more comments from the new Scotty talking about Star Trek, plus a new Star Wars parody video, and video and photos from the Hollywood Paul premiere. Check it all out below.   


Pegg on nerd thrill of playing Scotty and striking balance with Star Trek 2009

Pegg spoke to the official Star Trek site and it is worth reading the full interview, here are a couple of excerpts

Pegg on the thrill of playing Scotty

That was great fun. I was a Star Trek fan growing up, so to be integrated into that universe was extraordinary. And to act alongside Leonard as Spock was… it was almost distracting to the point of forgetting my lines. I wasn’t just meeting Leonard Nimoy, but I was meeting him being the character that he’s most famous for playing and in that world again as well. So there were, with that and the Tribble and everything else, there were a whole host of bizarre nerd distractions going on.

…and on how well Star Trek balanced pleasing fans and general film goers:

What they did very clearly was to inject Star Trek, which had become slightly burdened with its own kind of technical mythology, with a dose of the mojo that Star Wars had lost. Oddly, it’s like J.J. Abrams found the discarded energy from the first three Star Wars films and pumped it into Star Trek. So you got this very aspirational, very momentum-driven film which is a thrill ride, and there’s less stuff about calibrating dilithium crystals and more stuff about shooting Romulans in the face. And I think, for today’s cinema audience, that struck the chord that had been missing from the previous installments. More hardened Star Trek fans might disagree, but for it to succeed on this level, on the level it had to succeed on, that was necessary, and I think J.J. really pulled it off. It’s kind of “farm boy finds adventure in outer space.” We’d seen that before, but it worked very, very well.

Pegg and Frost Star Wars scene

Simon Pegg and Nick Frost recreated a scene from the original Star Wars for College Humor. Check it out.

Video and photos from Paul Hollywood premiere

Last night was the big Hollywood premiere for Paul, with all the stars in attendance. Here are some video clips and photos from the event.


Pegg on Tonight Show

Tune in to the Tonight Show with Jay Leno tonight (Tuesday) to catch Simon Pegg promoting Paul.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments


Peace. Live long and prosper.

“it’s like J.J. Abrams found the discarded energy from the first three Star Wars films and pumped it into Star Trek.” Hit the nail right on the head.

I can’t wait to see Paul, it looks great!

Hopefully if, or when we get to the 4th new ST film, it will have the same feel as the 1st. I know it’s jumping the gun, but it’s going to be a tall order. SW had 3 great films, SW TESB, SW ANH and SW ROTJ in that order had it, but 2 of the 3 newer SW films, didn’t. How many films are really good beyond the 3rd film. One I can think of obviously is ST 1, ST TWOK, ST TSFS and ST TVH.

Just food for thought.

Sorry there a few others, LOTR, Harry Potter, which I only watched the first 3 HP films.


Actually, “Shrek The Fourth” was really good, and “Fast And Furious” (fourth installment in the “Fast And The Furious” series) was a whole lot of fun. “Live Free And Die Hard” was better than the second and third.

On the other hand, “Alien Resurrection” was utter crap. Should have been titled “Alien 4: The Final Insult”.

Shooting Romulans in the face. Yeah!

That’s my man Simon!!!

Injecting, pumping and shooting in the face…I’ve seen quite a few movies of that ilk…

“with a dose of the mojo that Star Wars had lost.” Very well said.

“…less stuff about calibrating dilithium crystals and more stuff about shooting Romulans in the face. And I think, for today’s cinema audience, that struck the chord that had been missing from the previous installments. More hardened Star Trek fans might disagree, but for it to succeed on this level, on the level it had to succeed on, that was necessary…”

Dead on, Simon. I’m a hard core Trekker and in my own fanboyish way would have done Nu-Trek a little differently but even I knew that for Trek to suceed again it had be exactly the way that JJ presented it.

Personally, I’d like to see both the dilithium crystals (and the warp core!) and Romulan face-shooting, myself. :)

I’d say the balance should be something akin to the Bond movies when it comes to balancing the cool, heck getting some of the cool from the sciencey gadgets and the action scenes.

Star Trek’s scientific design was on point, many of the show’s concepts did come to form of real life fruition. Sliding doors, bluetooth, Ipad…

This standard should continue on in the franchise. Shoot, just use the scanning of the Borg design as an excuse to push it beyond TOS’s original concepts and keep it forward-thinking.

The actual film shouldn’t be heavy enough to be Primer complicated, nor light enough to be 80’s cartoon movie remake of the reboot, the sequel brain-numbing.

Thanks for the shout out, Simon.

We call him “the new Scotty”, yet he has now been Scotty longer than James Doohan after the original 79 TOS episodes.

Okay, checking my math…yes. I stand by it. Simon Pegg was selected as Scotty in mid-2007, so 3 1/2 years…James Doohan became Scotty sometime in 1965 for the second pilot, and was was done filming in early 1969…it checks!

But Doohan was Scotty not for just the years of TOS and TAS production, but for all the years inbetween… nearly 40.

OK! … Simon Pegg ROCKS, too! … and talks! :-) :-)

I want to see “Paul” ….

Sergeant Angle Angel is looking cute. :9

I wonder if my strikethrough tags will work…

15 Maltz

I think you’re forgetting the movies.

I will still be the lone voice saying it would’ve been better to show the original background of James T. Kirk which included a stay on Tarsus IV and avoiding mass genocide. I think it would add an aspect of Kirk that was never dealt with beyond a few lines from the episode “Conscience of the King”. It would give an incredibly interesting insight into one of science fiction’s most prominant characters. Writers are always looking for reasons of motivations for their characters, what better story to explore than a man who “doesn’t believe in the no-win scenario” to have witnessed mass extinsion at the hands of a governor, and at the same time show Anton Kordian’s viewpoint, that he wasn’t a monster, but a bureaucrat doing that best he can but being in a postion where he was in over his head, not a monster, but he did monstrous things. Maybe there can be a flashback in future movies or something. I know the JJ, the producers and the writers mission wasn’t to show the entire background of all the historic characters, but to reboot the franchise. I still think that story about young Kirk could and should be told in some meaningful way.

15. Maltz – March 16, 2011

No, your math is wrong. Doohan was Scotty from 1966 up until his death. 30plus years. Seven movies, most episodes from TOS, “Relics” from TNG, and also the animated series.

Pegg was Scotty for 1/4 of one movie.

Not only that, but Doohan was the better Scotty, IMHO.

Doohan FTW!

There are over 100 hours of Star Trek featuring Doohan as Scotty (TOS, TAS, movies, TNG). Two and a half hours of Pegg. Doohan wins.

I like Pegg, but the casting of Scotty was seriously mishandled by Abrams.

I’ve tended to stand in line with those people who’d like to see Trek get back to the exploration and mystery of the unknown, something along the lines of TMP, but definitely not so ponderous. The newest film has set the tone of where further Trek movies are going, but I think whatever the story of the sequel is will depend on precisely when the next movie is taking place. I think this was something Bob Orci alluded to in another post. In order to get the Enterprise out on an exploratory mission, I believe a significant amount of time will have had to go by so that the events of the first film are, to some extent, behind them. If the Court is doing a conventional trilogy, the next film would probably have to follow up the events of the first film. Just guessing…

20. John
Along the lines of my last comments, I feel what you are describing is more of a dramatic film — something that goes deeply into character. I don’t think this is something that would work with a Star Trek film. IMO, a Star Trek film has to focus on plot first, then characters. To some degree, we all know the basic elements of these characters anyway, and I don’t think they will be all that different from the characters in TOS. I believe this gives the writers some space to build a detailed story, rather than having to spend a lot of screen time exploring the characters.
I think (and I won’t say I’m 100% certain) that most movie-goers are looking forward to a great action-adventure romp. In any case, we’re all just looking forward to more Star Trek, eh?

….I don’t f***ing know…..

We don’t talk about that!

I guess Star Wars has as many continuity problems that ST has. Funny stuff…

Thank you Simon for saying that the new Star Trek is just the old Star Wars!

Have to disagree with you there about Pegg- Loved his take on the role.
But it really doesnt matter what you or I think.
Pegg has the signed contract with Paramount.

Its funny how history repeats itself. A lot of the hard core trekkers were vehemently against TNG back in 1987. I remember seeing tshirts that read: “Trek Classic- Who needs a next generation?”
I purchased my first Enterprise D model at a convention as TNG came out. I got tore up by a lot of “true fans”.
One of the genre mags at the time (Starlog I think) had a great editorial.
It went something like this: Hey it may not be the Trek we were hoping for but Trek is back on TV EVERY WEEK- lets embrace it.
Lets do the same thing for the next film- Hey it may not have all the elements of the Trek we are familiar with but hey its a BIG BUDGET Hollywood film- let’s embrace it.
I’m looking forward to the next film.
I think Simon Pegg is one of the best ambassadors out there right now talking the new movie up.


Agreed. Pegg as Scotty was the one casting error by Abrams. But, in all fairness, the part as written in the film was rather buffoonish and not faithful to the character as envisioned by Roddenberry and developed by Doohan. So not all of the blame can be placed on Pegg.

“I guess Star Wars has as many continuity problems that ST has. Funny stuff…”

Actually, SW has only three continuity problems. They even numbered them. I, II, and III.

28. CmdrR – March 16, 2011

Oh, don’t forget the little flying robot. Air R2D2 in 4, 5 and 6 raises all sorts of questions…



All this criticism of how Scotty was portrayed in this film seems to ignore the fact that this takes place before Scotty became Chief Engineer on the Enterprise. Scotty, as seen on TOS and the movies, was clearly shown to have a good sense of humour. All we have seen in Star Trek 09 is a younger Scotty with a humourous side. He was fine. I think that Keenser was a bit of a distraction and seemed to bring out that buffoonish behaviour. How do we know that Scotty, when he was younger, was not something of a buffoon anyway?

Too much is made of what Roddenberry is supposed to have envisioned Scotty as being. I doubt anyone actually knows what Roddenberry envisioned, if he, himself, actually visualised much at all. Scotty was simply an engineer and a Scotsman – if people had any doubts, they had the name Scotty “screamed” at them, with the character played by a Canadian pretending to be a Scotsman. God, he didn’t even get a genuine Scots name like McManus or something. Such is the confusion that people have called Simon Pegg’s Scottish accent out for not being like the “real” Scottish Scotty. Never mind, that Simon Pegg is married to a Glaswegian, comes from the north of England himself, and that the film’s first assistant director, Tommy Gormley, is also Scottish coming from Scotland originally.

Chris Doohan – BTW, I think that James Doohan was fantastic as Scotty. He was wonderful to watch. Simon Pegg has some “big shoes to fill” but I think he’s doing fine so far. Your father, James Doohan’s take on the Scotty character was so essential to those Star Treks. He may not have had much to say or do sometimes, but I truly believe that his character would be missed if he was no longer there. We would have been asking, “Something’s wrong. What or who is missing? It’s Scotty! Bring him back, NOW!”

27. Anthony Thompson – March 16, 2011

I think I’d disagree with that observation. Doohan’s Scotty during the TOS years was portrayed as an exceptional engineer, but he also tended to be a borderline alcoholic, displayed plenty of times when he was thinking with the little engineer when he was sharing screen time with a skirt, was frequently insubordinate, and had no issues barroom brawling. It really wasn’t until the movies came along that be began to evolve into the all business MacGyver engineer type that could fix anything with bailing wire and chewing gum. I don’t think Pegg’s Scotty is that far off the mark.

Star Trek 4. Young minds fresh ideas be tolerant.
I like what the court did in Trek 09. They took it from our basement and brought it to the masses. That is the only way Trek could survive and then prosper. As a Very Hard core Star Trek fan. I will head the words of One Captian James.T. Kirk.

The last thing Star Trek needs to be is more like Star Wars. Maybe once these “Trek-for-dummies” movies are done somebody will move the franchise back to the “prime” universe where it belongs.

NuFan I should of said a re imagining of the old Star Wars, a reboot per say, just change the names Kirk to Luke, Pike to Obi-wan, Uhura to Leia and Han(Spock) and Nero to Vader! Instead of Lars homestead you have Iowa. Nero’s ship destroys planets like the Death Star.

Nick Frost in the sequel.

34. Oh No, Odo – March 16, 2011

Trek 09 sold 33 million tickets (and another 100 million in rentals.DVD sales. Nemesis sold 7 million tickets. Undiscovered Country sold 18 million tickets. Looks to me like the franchise is right where it belongs.

Yeah, you guys are right. “The Supreme Court” is one of the greatest marketing—I mean, creative teams in Hollywood today.


I enjoyed Star Trek 09 a lot. I am no Mensan but nor am I a dummy. Lose the “Trek for dummies” comment. It is rude. There is no more reason for Star Trek to be shown being in the “prime universe” than where it is right now.

I would place Trek ’09 somewhere in the big middle when it comes to intellect. It’s not “Spock’s Brain” or “Threshold” kind of craziness, but it’s far from “City on the Edge of Forever” or “The Inner Light” either.

#31. Well said! I think Scotty probably was a bit of a buffoon in his younger days. This film takes place before TOS so how do we know that Scotty didn’t have a sense of humor.

#32. I agree. Scotty was sometimes insubordinate and enjoyed drinking and brawling. That said, he is also a brilliant engineer. Pegg’s portrayal of Scotty in ST 09 wasn’t too far off in my opinion.

Paul looks fantastic. The trailers are really funny. Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz are two of myt favorite films.

I don’t mind that the Supreme Court has added some “Star Wars” to “Star Trek”. “Star Wars” is the most popular and familiar sci-fi brand in the world. “Star Trek” can never hold a candle to it. Even the prequels appeal to more people than “Star Trek” ever will. Let’s face it, “Star Trek” owes far more to “Star Wars” than vice versa. Without “Star Wars”, “Star Trek” would not have become the phenomenon it is today. “Star Wars” was the wave that made sci-fi accesible to the mainstream and popular. “Star Trek” rode on it’s wave. We would have had only TOS, and instead of J.J Abrams’ brilliant film, we would have had a cheap cash-in that would have bombed at the box office made by some Michael Bay-type director.

Some people, for whatever reason, seem to hold a grudge against “Star Wars” and George Lucas.

One of my absolute favorite lines ever from James Doohan’s Scotty was in the TNG episode Relics (wherein he told many of the funniest of his stories to Geordi) when he drunkenly ordered the holodeck computer to show him the USS Enterprise NCC 1701… No Bloody A, B, C, or D. That was classic Trek right there, he also created the line “It’s Green” as a response when asked what a bottle contained and finding he was too drunk to read it. Data used the same line for the same reason in Relics.

The point of all that is that Scotty knew how to enjoy himself, even in ST TWOK he stated he had a “Wee Bout” with Shore leave, the scene implying that he had been hung over severely when he returned to the Enterprise.

I think Pegg’s Scotty captured a lot of that spirit, and infused it with the caustic wit that Pegg is known for and that James Doohan displayed many times.

I felt the “Wee Bout” was the shore leave itself, that being away from the Enterprise made him feel sick.

#44 Yeah right! LOL

Star Trek is not Star Wars. Star Wars is fantasy. Star Trek is science fiction. Star Wars (Episode IV) was a simplistic space adventure with a villain who was literally dressed in black. And I liked Star Wars but it’s not science fiction. Star Trek strived to be thought provoking. As Roger Ebert put it in his review of the 2009 movie, Star Trek is about ideas; scientific and philosophical.

The problem is if Bad Robot and Paramount decide to turn Star Trek into Star Wars. Then it ceases to be Star Trek. If new Trekkers believe that Star Trek 2009 is Star Trek, will they respect a great episode like “The City on the Edge of Forever?” Or will it be too “talky-gooey” for them? The question I raise constantly is what is Star Trek?

I say we go to the creator of Star Trek and look to what he wanted for the show. And while some Trekkies hate Gene Roddenberry, let’s face it he did create the show. Rodenberrry wanted a show that was accessible but had substance. (link below) Leonard Nimoy has says Star Trek works on many levels. In the convention story below, he says the show was entertainment, thought provoking and uplifing. I rephrase it as saying Star Trek is adventure, heart and intelligence.

1. Roddenberrry letter defending “The Cage”, wants a show of substance
2. Nimoy describes what is Star Trek; end of video.

#46 City on the Edge of Forever was/is a great piece of television, period. It is a beautifully filmed, acted, crafted piece of dramatic film. It not only constitutes classic Star Trek, but truly classic in terms of the entire television medium.

However, while it was a good story, I would hardly call it saying anything of great scientific or philosophical import or depth. To a little girl, it sounded wow, but now, as an adult, its message is pretty ho-hum. Maybe, when it first screened, it might have had import, but not now. It is similar for most of the other TOS episodes.

I can just remember some of the other television programmes on offer coming out of the USA at the same time as Star Trek. I cannot fathom to this day how shows like “The Fugitive” rated more highly than Star Trek. The premise might have been OK but the execution stunk, mainly because of the actor David Janssen, who, well, could not act. He was as slow in real life as on the show and he was supposed to be playing a doctor! (Choosing Harrison (lazy drawl) Ford to play Dr Kimble in the movie did not really help the character. Tommy Lee Jones was the star of that movie) I know other shows were as bad, even worse, but fortunately, I can’t remember them.

So I guess, when a show like Star Trek comes, it is going to appear far more cerebral and adventurous with more rounded and interesting characters, because it was, for the time, ie the 1960s. However, it would never enter the annals of what could be truly deemed “in-depth” anything.

Star Trek 09 actually presents as many thought (even conscience) provoking situations and ideas as any other Star Trek, not less. It was just done at a faster pace than what had been done in the past with Star Trek. Perhaps JJ Abrams and team may need to consider slowing the pace a little for the next movie. Not all (action) movies have to go at break-neck speed all the way, all the time. Besides, Star Trek is not just about action, it is about exploration…”…to EXPLORE strange new worlds, SEEK out new life…” (my caps. for emphasis).

@ 47 Keachick says, “However, while it (The City on the Edge of Forever) was a good story, I would hardly call it saying anything of great scientific or philosophical import or depth.”

I can’t agree with that. “The City on the Edge of Forever” had ideas of time travel and sacrifice. If you remember McCoy goes back in time and messes up the timeline. Now that maybe not how it works, because frankly there is no human today that has traveled back into time. But it is a scientific idea. Kirk then lets his true love die for the good of the many. Sacrifice.

Star Trek (TOS) covered anti-war. “A Taste of Armegeddon” It covered the Viet Nam War. “A Private Little War.” It covered arms control. “The Doomsday Machine>’ I could go on.

Star Trek (2009) was about Kirk and Spock getting together. It was not made to be a philosophical film as you seem to say. And here’s the proof. From Entertainment Weekly, 5=8-09; pg. 32.

“”Pine, for one, is happy to hold off on metaphors, at least for now. …

(Chirs Pine says,) “Exploring grand social issues can wait for the next movie. … The goal this time was to make a Star Trek that wasn’t alienating to nonfans. We mainly wanted it to be accessible.”

The more you turn Star Trek into Star Wars, the more it ceases to be science fiction. And the more it ceases to be Star Trek.