Earlier today we reported some recent comments from Simon Pegg about Star Trek Beyond, but the actor and writer has some more to say about the next Trek film as well, including clarifying his potential role. In an extended interview with the Happy Sad Confused podcast, the subject of a possible Quentin Tarantino Trek film came up and Pegg opined on that and revealed that, contrary to what has recently been reported, he doesn’t have a competing script in the mix.
Pegg knows about two scripts, neither of them his
In recent weeks, the big news about the next Star Trek movie has been around the idea that there are multiple scripts in consideration. Much of the focus of attention has been on the one being written by Mark L. Smith, based on an idea pitched by Quentin Tarantino. In addition, there is the one to be written by J.D. Payne and Patrick McKay, announced in July 2016, which would involve Chris Hemsworth reprising his 2009 Star Trek role as George Kirk.
Then last week Zachary Quinto suggested there is a third script being written by the Star Trek Beyond writing team of Simon Pegg and Doug Jung. The Wrap subsequently reported a source told them “three ‘Star Trek 4’ scripts are, indeed, in development.” However, if a third script is actually in development, it isn’t being written by Simon Pegg, who now tells Happy Sad Confused that while he and Jung are working on a project with J.J. Abrams’ Bad Robot, it isn’t for Star Trek:
Doug [Jung] and I were never going to write the fourth [Star Trek]. That was never the deal. Doug and I are doing something together at Bad Robot, which I probably can’t talk about just yet. So, [J.D.] Payne and [Patrick] McKay, who wrote the abortive third [Star Trek] script with the previous director [Roberto Orci], they are writing a fourth one. That as far as I knew was the kind of Hemsworth thing. That is as much as I know.
To add yet another wrinkle, when asked if he would be interested in returning to write another Star Trek movie, Pegg replied “Yeah, 100%.”
Doesn’t expect Tarantino would direct Trek film
Pegg also noted that if the Tarantino pitch does become the next Trek movie, he doesn’t think Tarantino would actually helm it:
We all got an email a couple of months ago from J.J. [Abrams] saying “Quentin Tarantino came into the office with an idea, so we are putting it into a writers room.” I don’t think Quentin is going to direct it because he has got his [Once Upon a Time in Hollywood] movie to do and I think he is only going to do one more movie after that. I doubt he would be able to get around to directing a Star Trek movie until two or three years.
Pegg also clarified that he didn’t know the details about the pitch Tarantino made to Abrams, but he does remember talking to him about a Trek idea in the past:
I have a vague memory of him talking about it years and years ago. He sort of adopted me and Nick [Frost]. He was so lovely to us and we hung out at his place and watched loads of films and I am sure he mentioned that. I am sure it is an idea that he has hung onto for some time. But, I don’t know and J.J. hasn’t told us.
There is a chance the idea discussed with Pegg years ago is the same one Tarantino talked about on the Nerdist podcast in 2015, which was using a classic Trek episode as the basis of a movie, citing as examples the TOS episode “City on the Edge of Forever” and the TNG episode “Yesterday’s Enterprise.”
Pegg also dismissed how some feel a film based on Tarantino’s idea would be full of the profanity and violence often associated with his films:
I think that is an incredibly reductive way of approaching Tarantino’s work. He’s a big fan. As a very smart filmmaker and writer I think he would approach it with the respect it deserves. I don’t think it is going to be all “When you absolutely have to stun every motherf—ker in the room.”… And doesn’t Kill Bill start with a Klingon proverb?
Stay glued to TrekMovie.com for all news, whispers and more about the future of Star Trek movies. You can keep tabs on all updates on the next movie via our Star Trek XIV category
The Hemsworth idea and a Tarantino-story along the lines of Yesterdays Enterprise sound like you could actually merge both ideas. You could literally remake Yesterdays Enterprise, with the Kelvin instead of the Enterprise-C going to the future. Doing Yesterday’s Enterprise as a TV episode and not as the feature film debut of the TNG cast was the biggest missed opportunity in Star Trek history, I guess.
Also the swansong should have been All Good Things. 100%. What a send off. Nemesis could have worked as a season finale. And might have been received better.
Absolutely. Insurrection as the season 6 finale, Nemesis as the season 7 finale (with the destruction of the Enterprise-D), then Yesterday’s Enterprise as the first feature film, then First Contact, then AGT as the trilogy finale. Even though we would have had three time travel movies in a row. But then, it’s what Star Trek does best. :)
I think the first TNG movie should’ve been written by Jules Verne with assistance from Thomas Hardy. Missed opportunity.
By definition, that would NOT “literally” be Yesterday’s Enterprise.
Why does no one ever know how to use the word “literally?”
The said part is Webster’s actually had to redefine the definition of “literally” because the bulk of English-speaking individuals use it incorrectly. So just remember kids: if we all do it wrong for long enough, it becomes right.
While I do enjoy things well-written and have been pleased that STAR TREK, at times, could be included in that, I’ve never been so presumptuous as to lose the sound fact that language originated orally and existed, as such, long before either writing or printing came along.
Your premise, “if we all do it wrong for long enough”, implies that humans didn’t start talking until some central authority defined all the rules from which such a conclusion, such as yours, could be justly derived. This is simply a notion as false as your posit that we, who speak English could “…all do it wrong.”
A spoken language, such as English, is not static but rather, dynamic, and it has always been the case that those attempting to codify such a thing, i.e. dictionary authors, grammarians, etc., take their leads from those actually putting it to use and NOT the other way around. This is why Webster adapts to the way English is actually being put to use, rather than attempt to appease some imagined God of English which handed it all down from on high.
No doubt, the same God of English of the very polite people that knock on my door and tell me that I should take every word of the English translations of translations of translations of ancient Hebraic religious oral poems that they identify as THE BIBLE, literally.
I think the TPTB back in 93′, 94′ really dropped the ball when they dismissed making Yesterday’s Enterprise into what Generations turned out to be, wherein the TOS crew would have come through the rift to meet the ENT-D. Epic missed opportunity to properly pass the torch. Kirk could have died properly on one of the Enterprises, and the characters from both eras could have had some proper moments and interaction, with a great story attached. Instead, we got Yesterday’s Enterprise as a TNG episode(which was classic in it’s own way), and the film Generations (which is berated to this day – but I like it).
One of the biggest missed opportunities in Trek history, imo.
You could be right but you can’t blame anyone writing the film or working on the production for that because Paramount was never going to go for that (unless of course you mean TPTB as Paramount).
Ron Moore along with Rick Berman said the studio DIDN’T want to use the TOS cast at all for Generations. They wanted a strictly TNG film. The only way they even got it if they promised to use most of the cast for 15 mins of the film and why we only saw Scotty and Chekhov at the beginning. And Kirk was only used because they promised to kill him off. And my guess is they probably didn’t want to pay everyone what they got for a full film but if you reduced them all to cameo roles then you don’t have to pay them that much which is why so many decided not to do even that..
But this idea was never going to happen probably for that reason alone, $$$$. Of course the idea probably could’ve been used still but it wouldn’t be with the TOS cast.
I hear you, Tiger. Yes, I meant Paramount. It’s not about blame at this point anyway – it’s just about a missed opportunity for what could have been a really good torch-passing crossover. Ah well.
I thought the same thing and figured thats why JJ was so open to it.
I find it interesting that Orci’s partners on the rejected Trek 3 script(s) were tapped to do the 4th. Arent their rules about using elements of other works?
I think Bob already made remarks implying elements of his story made it into Beyond…given the rumors of some “time elements” from the rejected script and 2 of the 3 writers coming back to write a script that clearly includes something similar, I wonder if Bob would end up with a writing credit
No. to get credit I would have to arbitrate, and I wouldn’t do that to my friends.
Bit if the Kelvin was pulled in to the future, then the kelvin timeline would be gone and back to canon. We can dream.
I recall a hint that Orci’s story involved some sort of meeting between young and old Kirk & Spock not a “real, physical” meeting. Maybe he used the Nexus and Paramount had a fit lol
Tremmovie should reach out to Bob to do an interview…and ask him some of these questions!
I did have them meeting, but not using the Nexus.
The other funny part is that when I spoke to Shatner about being in the movie, he called me “Bobby boy”, and assumed I had leaked word of his possible invovment to get press. Not the case.
They can still do it. The anomaly happened once so it can happen again.
Have some other ship (bad guys) also go through into the future and want to take the advanced tech back.
Also, Nero’s ship was sucked into the same kind of red matter anomaly right? So who’s to say it was destroyed and not sucked into another time/universe?
I agree wholeheartedly with the last quoted part of his statement (i.e., that Tarantino can do more than violence and cuss-filled films). Just skimming his filmography, he was an uncredited writer on “The Rock,” “Crimson Tide,” “It’s Pat” (apparently true lol), and also had a story credit for “CSI.” And he’s not even writing the potential Star Trek script – it was just based on a story idea he had.
In this tangled mess of who’s writing what, all we can really get from this is that Paramount is in no hurry to greenlight a project. Hurry up and write a script so we can get something, anything on the big screen in 2020 does not seem to be driving this conversation at all. Paramount is still broke, after all….
Just think, if there isn’t another Kelvin Trek film, we’ll never find out who Jaylah’s parents are.
I got a good chuckle out of that, Galt. :)
I’d honestly be shocked if we ever see another Kelvinverse film. Between the careers of the cast going in different directions making timing difficult, JJ clearly more interested in Star Wars (seems like that’s been the case since the beginning), declining box office returns, the impending merger, etc I just don’t see it. It’s a shame too. In hindsight I really wish they just straight up rebooted the series, starting with Kirk taking command of the Enterprise. Speaking of the grey lady, I wish they’d gone with something similar to the Discoprise instead of that hot rod abomination. Loved the unis though.
If Beyond was indeed the end, I wonder how the series will be viewed in a decade or so.
It will likely be forgotten by everyone but the fans. That’s my prediction, and we mostly have Into Darkness to blame for that
Didn’t Into Darkness get rave reviews/ratings from the general public? It’s the fans (and not all of them, of course) who didn’t like it. So, I don’t see how your statements fit together. I think that overall the three Kelvin-timeline films have done nothing but engender goodwill with the ‘public,’ I believe they’ll be well thought of in a decade.
It is crazy how STID is probably the biggest film of the franchise in turns of revenue and yet others say its what killed it off lol. It is a head scratcher. I get what people are saying though but I think its more complicated than that and I think most casual fans liked it just fine. If you know nothing about Khan then it works (mostly). But then the crazy part is Khan was only put in the film for the hardcore fans so its tricky.
The people that went to STID, other than Trekkies, were people that came on board with ST’09. Trek needs Trekkies to go 2 or 3 times, but we didn’t like it enough. We liked Beyond, but it was too Trekkie for the new fans, so it got bad word of mouth. This is probably too confusing, but my point is Trek needs a mainstream audience as well as Trekkies to be a success at the box office. Star Trek IV and ’09 are the two Trek movies that were successful doing this.
But I don’t really buy that either because 09 wasn’t a big money maker. It basically bombed overseas (STID is still the biggest Trek film abroad although because most Trek films didn’t focus much on overseas until the Abram movies). Yeah it do very well in America but its a reboot of Kirk and Spock with Leonard Nimoy returning to the role after nearly 20 years, it was going to get interest anyway just like TFA was going to get interest bringing back the old SW characters.
Again I get your point, I just don’t think there was a big difference in overall fan reaction between 09 and STID. If you actually study the BO take between them, they had the same drops week to week the first month in theaters, under 50% which is very good and why they both did over $200 million in America.
Its really Beyond where you see BIG drops week to week meaning as you said the word of mouth was not strong enough or there wasn’t enough repeat viewings. I’m just looking at it objectively. I think Beyond was definitely a better film than STID but BO STID actually resonated because it KEPT people coming back week after week even though everyone claim to hate it. But oddly people claim to love Beyond but it couldn’t hold people and why it did so much worse than the first two.
Ultimately these reboots will probably be looked upon like TAS. Some will like them, but generally it won’t be part of the same legacy just because it used star trek intellectual property. Same with those star wars prequels.
People come up with silly ideas to make money but mess up the recipe because they havn’t got the soul of the franchise at it’s heart. They like to think they do, and even when it’s collapsing in front of their eyes they start tinkering with the ingredients and screw up the recipe even more.
It gets even worse when you bring in these pop culture movie makers. All they do is the same story time and time again in various franchises, but all they change are the character names and the setting, believing that their proven recipe of zero to hero works everywhere, until it doesn’t.
Well the good news for fans who like to wrap their brains around the totality of the franchise as one continuity, the JJ films only prime canon are what happened with Spock and Nero in the far future and the existence of the Kelvin, two things unlikely to ever really be (or need to be) touched on again.
Engendering good reviews and popular reaction is a very different thing from maintaining that good will in a decade, particularly with the massive amount of content that comes out now.
And that’s not even assuming that attitudes change. Well-loved movies of their time get viewed in the present with a different perspective. Movies that use whitewashing are increasingly being called out for their lack of imagination and laziness in casting that Into Darkness, in particular, will suffer with age, even among members of the general public who liked it at the time.
Mwz I agree, but trekfans online are known for their gatekeeping culture so once some people decide that one thing must be the truth, they’ll pretend it is… forever. And you can’t disagree, or you aren’t a real trek fan.
That applies to talking about how successful movies are or not, but also canon.
I’m a Star Trek fan since the late 70s and I’m sure as hell going to forget them. The first one was average at best, the second one was awful with a laughable ending, and the third one has to be the most overrated Star Trek film of all time— it wasn’t awful, but it sure as hell wasn’t worth the raves it was getting from all corners of the Trek fandom.
I think as a trilogy, it works well enough. There were a lot of huge missed opportunities. But then again, what constitutes failure? Kelvin Trek brought the franchise back to life. As long as more Trek gets made, there will always be the chance for it to be as big a hit as we all want it to be.
I wouldn’t say it bought it back to life. It made a new star trek for a new generation, and it didn’t work. The pre-existing fanbase just gave up on it. Then the powers that be thought it would be a good idea to use the same failed model in a subscription tv show, again for new fans, and again disregarding the existing fans.
When all is said and done, history will decide. A flopped movie trilogy and a dubious “tv” reboot has absolutely no where near the legacy of Trek in the previous 45 years. The only people singing it’s praises in 30 years are the kids of today who like Star Trek: Marvel.
It’s a shame they have to destroy what’s come before, rather than moving in to something new. I don’t think many people will reflect upon the cash grab as of benefit to Trek, if anything it’s fractured in just a few years what was solid and capable for decades, with hundreds upon hundreds of hours of successful story telling, and all for what? a few hundred million for Paramount and a non-tv show designed solely to promote CBS’s online streaming objectives?
I would have rather 2009-2017 were erased from the franchise, it’s just vandalised an intergenerational classic to make money, rather than being made by people who believe in Star Trek, as far as I’m concerned.
Kim Jirk, I get you are not happy with any Trek since Enterprise ended (and I’m not overly happy with it but I accept it) but what would you have liked to see? You seem genuinely upset over the Kelvin movies and Discovery and obviously you’re not alone in that but what would you have done differently? Would it be more TOS like or would it go farther in the future? I get you don’t like the AA subscription but do you think you would have a better show if it was on a network?
You could be right. I was never a fan of another prequel/TOS redo but I love Star Trek and give everything a chance. I have to say I generally liked all three films but never loved of any of them. I think the Tarantino idea is a real thing but my guess is that’s kind of what the big push of even making another Kelvin film meaning if that doesn’t happen they may be done for good as there doesn’t seem to be a huge interest from the fanbase in general.
STID is one of the best Trek films IMHO. Whilst not the most profitable, its the one that made most money and its at 90% audience and 86% critics on Rotten Tomatoes. I like it because like VI, its allegorical.
The movie acts as a metaphor for America’s descent into moral ambiguity following the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The hunt for John Harrison is analagous to the search for Bin Laden and the debate about whether to launch photon torpedoes at the Klingon home world is relevant to current debates regarding the morality of drone strikes.
The film concludes with Kirk realising that he lost perspective following the terrorist attack on Starfleet. He then rededicates himself to science and peaceful exploration and begins the famous five year mission, to explore strange new worlds and to seek out new life. The title “Into Darkness” refers to the moral state of American foreign policy following 9/11 (fear, vengeance, anger, and violence) and the final scenes state that it’s time row back from this.
Star Trek Into Darkness opens with Kirk debating on whether to violate the prime directive in order to rescue Spock whose life hangs in the balance as he tries to save an entire civilisation from an erupting volcano. Roddenberry would be proud of these aspects of the film.
All in all though, I think that STID is JJ Abrams best directed movie, and the story flowed very well. I felt that the vignettes in the opening sequences of ST09 led to a staccato feel to that film. Star Trek Into Darkness was an action romp in the vein of Indiana Jones rather than the bleak and brooding Dark Night that the trailers had suggested.
Yes it was a well made movie, but the premise was ridiculous to Trek fans. It was almost comical. When a “fan” is in the audience saying are you effing kidding me? We got a problem.
I think some reviewers called STID a “good-looking mess,” which I agree with whole-heartedly. I can’t sit through that film again.
I agree STID had a great premise. It felt like a DS9 film in many ways, only with TOS characters. The problem is mostly the second half when it goes away from the terrorism debate and turns into the Khan show.
But I had no problem with the story line in general. Its a morality play Trek loves to do. But I will probably agree maybe it wasn’t something you do in the second film but in the third since people wanted to see them out there exploring and not just another Earth centered story. I always thought if you made Beyond second and STID third it may have been better received.
But the story had LOTS of problems frankly. So much of it was nonsensical. Forget the WOK ending, you had things like the Enterprise being underwater just because? Could they have not just done what they needed to do above orbit like every other Federation ship? Khan can transport to the Klingon planet from Earth? Maybe he got there with the help of mushroom spores too. People go on and on about having stories post 24th century as technology too advanced and yet they are doing it in the 23rd century anyway. And then of course once he gets there he just sits there literally waiting for someone to come and arrest him. Did he have a plan B after trying to kill everyone in Starfleet? Marcus literally hands Kirk all their criminal evidence when he could’ve destroyed the torpedoes on his own quietly since no one knew he had them. How did the Enterprise get sabotaged exactly? A pivotal plot point never explained. And yes, magic blood.
So again, I like the premise but the film was sloppily written. I’m sure there are some valid reasons why they did some of those things but a lot of it was head scratching. Its sci fi, plot holes will always exist but some of these are big enough for a black hole.
There really was no terrorism debate. Khan (the terrorist) was justified in mass murder (9/11) because the big bad government Cheney et al started it.
Nothing nuanced about it.
Not only highly insensitive and offensive but not even well executed as the bad guy (Marcus) was such a shallow villain. You have to make his position relevant in order to defeat it. They didnt do that.
Yeah I think that was the other problem, there was no real debate about it. But I don’t think anyone agreed with what Khan did or thought it was justified. It was mostly how they went after him that was discussed and even that wasn’t a big deal because Kirk basically agreed with Spock the minute they got on board the Enterprise.
The film could’ve used another scene where they at least debated what Khan did after they learned why he did it.
But I disagree about Marcus, I think his motives were pretty sound. In many ways he didn’t do anything all that wrong outside of waking up Khan and holding him hostage. But I actually had no problem with Setion 31 trying to militarize Starfleet more after what Nero did. And he was convinced the Klingons were looking for a war. He was obviously paranoid about it but he wasn’t just trying to wipe them for an evil reason, he was genuinely worried about the Federation. Again though the film could’ve been amazing if was about Section 31 trying to start a pre-emptive war like Iraq. There was definitely a great idea in there it just got sidelined to be more about Khan.
@Tiger – they also manufactured conflict in unrealistic ways. Such as Kirk/Scotty. A better idea would have been Scotty being suspicious and Marcus re-assigning him…then Scotty lamenting his poor treatment and thinking something was up.
They tried to make Khan sympathetic. The problem was, the character was actually pretty shallow. Not to mention we saw him manipulate a guy into committing a mass terrorist act, then he’s crying and talking about his people and Kirk teams up with him…then he’s back to bad and mad. Very uneven.
I agree that Marcus has a point. But the point was hidden behind his twirling mustache. There was no one else to say “hey, maybe he has a point”. We didnt learn why Marcus felt the way he did.
We needed a scene with Marcus and Pike discussing issues so we could have a moral debate. And Marcus was better than Khan so more Marcus, less Khan.
Khan had a plan for vengeance on Marcus that included absolutely no regard for collateral damage but there was no indication that he ever planned to kill everyone in Starfleet. Although, that might have made for a more intense action feature along the lines that Paramount wanted.
@James – I agree that that was the metaphor but it was poorly executed because it took a one sided opinion of the evil Cheney and sympathetic terrorists. That was part of the problem.
Personally, I don’t think the Kelvin trilogy will be looked at whatsoever a decade from now. 09′ was a fun ride, maybe that’ll get a little more mileage than the others.
Thats probably true, especially since they exist in another universe everyone can just avoid canon wise. Didn’t like that Kirk became Captain in four days or that Spock and Uhura are together, well it happened in that other universe no one talks about anymore so not a big deal. Discovery on the other hand though…
Oh yeah, the Discovery “We Insist This Is Prime Universe” thing, even though it’s clearly not. That’s a whole different story, and a contentious one at that. If they would just call it an alternate universe, I could get into the story so much more, and no harm done.
Agreed. I think people would like Discovery more if it was another alternate universe. But then I guess that is exactly the fear that people can just ignore it or say it doesn’t count. It is weird how we think about this stuff lol since its ALL just made up but yeah.
It doesnt matter to the majority of people. No one is saying “Discovery sucks as a prime timeline show but is really good as an alternate universe show”. That wouldnt even make sense.
The complaints about the timeline is just people not liking it and pointing to something concrete (the look) as “see how they ruined it”. Generally those people dont express anything interesting about the story or characters.
The show isnt “insisting its prime”. it is. They were asked…I think they’ve said it like three times in a year. There is no insisting. It is Prime.
Yet another JJ Abrams-produced Trek movie… That’s the beginning and the end of it for me. Might as well be a Michael Bay movie starring Vin Diesel. The prospect of QT directing had piqued my interest, as it seemed possible that such a strong director could override Abrams’ signature badness. But without QT at the helm, I’m out.
Though, it’s become clear that Trek is no longer being made or marketed for the likes of me, anyway. The movies are not for me, and the TV show is not for me, which makes it much easier to avoid becoming interested and invariably disappointed.
Vin Diesel’s a pretty good actor, who at least goes for a pretty broad range of characters, like the robot in The Iron Giant, Groot, and Giacomo DiNorsico in Find Me Guilty (which I haven’t seen, but got well-received).
Yeah, I didn’t mean to cast blame on any actors. It’s rarely their fault.
“…it’s become clear that Trek is no longer being made or marketed for the likes of me, anyway.”
Same here, Cygnus. I’m happy for the hundreds of hours of programming we have to fall back upon.
The way I look at it is that anything that gets people to look at the old shows is probably a good thing. There are folks that looked at the TV shows because they started watching Trek with the Kelvin films or Star Trek: Discovery.
Good point, Eric. There’s a lot of great stuff (and admittedly some not-so-great stuff :), in those 50 years of content.
Agreed Eric. I have always said even if you hate the Kelvin films A. Their success will only spawn more Trek (like you can argue happened with Discovery) and B. Yes it will get people to look at the other stuff. I’m on reddit a lot and I see that exactly happening. A lot of people who tried the Kelvin films have asked about TOS or started watching TNG. It does get them curious especially when so many realize just how vast the Star Trek library is. I always envy people who now have all those shows and films they are watching for the first time.
You know what else would get people (and probably more of them) to check out the older shows? Trek movies that are faithful to the original spirit and values of TOS (or at least make an honest effort to be), which don’t ruin the brand!
TOS at its best was a thoughtful show about people thinking through situations, often involving relatable character flaws, that show us something about the human condition. You could spend an hour or more in a a college class discussing an episode of TOS at its best. JJ Trek is almost the exact opposite——people running around, shooting lasers, going where the plot instructs them to go, doesn’t really matter, with characters that show us almost nothing of the human condition, with no ultimate meaning, edited together at a fast pace for the illusion of esoteric complexity. Why would a fan of JJ Trek enjoy TOS, when they’re almost exact opposite types of shows, with only names and likenesses in common? And, if SO many fans of JJ Trek really do go back and love TOS, then why not make new movies that are similar to TOS in spirit and values, that appeal to both audiences?
A QT story without him directing would be a step in the right direction but without his creative flare behind the camera, it wont live up to its promise.
At the very least, QT would have to be involved as a hands-on producer, as much as possible, choosing the director and being a consultant. So much of what makes his best films so great is the direction and atmosphere he brings, even with music (in fact, music is a big part).
I totally agree.
I would like to see Vin Diesel play Picard in a rebooted TNG.
Ha! How about a swap, with Patrick Stewart leading the F&F franchise?
I can see it.
I wonder what’s the other project him and Jung are working for.
Big screen adaptation of “Red Dwarf”!
Oh that’s going to fail.
Get so tired of the good guy/bad guy movies everywhere. Where did all the cerebral drama go?
After two movies with the bad guys trying to attack earth with big ships, the best they could come up with for the 3rd was a bad guy with lots of little ships wanting to destroy proxi earth. Come on, at least the Whale movie tried to mix it up a bit, the bad guy was just a probe trying to talk to whales. The way to win was to get whales, not to blow the probe up.
That’s what Star Trek is. Nobody is going to pay to see a Trek movie about a bunch of people standing around and talking for 2 hours.
Re: people standing around and talking for 2 hours.
Nobody? Because I could swear there were reviewers in 1979-1980, while I was watching STAR TREK — THE MOTION PICTURE for the very first time, contending that’s exactly how that picture ended up grossing $179 million?
‘a bunch of people standing around and talking for 2 hours.’
some people like that- its called drama.
and we have seen that the best of ‘trek’ is more than ‘bad guys trying to attack earth with big ships’
and I think current movie sf is cerebral and gets box office.
‘trek’ movies should be the same.
its sad that the franchise is at dead stop again even after a boost from j j.