Last week brought news that Paramount was working on two different Star Trek films, with one being a follow-up to Star Trek Beyond, and another being a separate film based on an idea from Quentin Tarantino. In two separate brief interviews, Scotty actor Simon Pegg talks about how he feels about the future of Star Trek movies, including the news that director S.J. Clarkson has been tapped for the Beyond sequel, which would make her the first woman to direct a Star Trek film.
Pegg excited about S.J. Clarkson
LRM caught up with Simon Pegg at the Newport Beach Film Festival and asked him about the news that Paramount is looking to sign S.J. Clarkson to direct the follow-up to Star Trek Beyond. Pegg said of the news:
Fantastic. I think that is just great. I was really excited when I heard about that news. What a great thing for the franchise, I think. It’s about time and I’m excited.
Simon Pegg on the set of Star Trek Beyond with irector Justin Lin
Ready to take a bite out of Tarantino Trek too
And speaking at CinemaCon last week (before the S.J. Clarkson news broke), Pegg was asked about the Quentin Tarantino Star Trek project by PopCulture. Once again the actor expressed enthusiasm for the project, saying:
It’s exciting. I know Quentin is making a movie at the moment, his 60s thing. I know that he had an idea that was tossed around. I love Quentin’s work and think he is a great director and a great story writer. So, whatever fruit that may bear, I would be interested to take a bite out of it.
Pegg’s note about Tarantino currently working on a “60’s thing” is referencing the film Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, which will be released at the end summer 2019. This Trek film is expected to come after the ‘Star Trek 4’ follow-up to Star Trek Beyond. It is still unclear what role – if any – Pegg or any of his Kelvin-verse actors would play in this film, as it is reportedly something “separate” from the Kelvin-verse films.
See Pegg talk about S.J. Clarkson’s Star Trek project.
…and the Tarantino Trek Project.
To keep up with all news about the future of the Trek film franchise, check out the TrekMovie Upcoming Movies category.
Why is it good or bad? Shouldn’t they just get the best person for the job regardless of who they are?
Hope she does well and makes it one for the fans! Time for the movies to return to the prime universe.
Because Mars needs women.
It’s a good thing that women get more opportunities behind the camera. Especially when, as the article notes, it’s a historic first. Don’t see what’s so complicated about that.
Amen!
Exactly! :)
I don’t care what a director has between their legs. I care what they have on their resume. And frankly, looking at her’s… I’ve seen better. She has basically spent twenty years making worthless TV fluff. In a way, it’s worse than hiring a newbie nobody, because even a newbie might be a hit or miss, a hidden gem. She’s not. She’s already long established as an experienced artisan of mediocre TV, with zero experience in big blockbuster projects.
We’re on a speeding jet plane and the pilot’s only prior flying experience is a Rogallo glider. But she’s also a woman, so rejoice, because the world needs more female pilots. Yay, progress!
Someone who’s been in demand for 20 years on TV, you don’t think that counts for something? I guess you missed entirely the point of my original comment while you were focused on the things between people’s legs.
Holden,
Not only did Dyonesse miss your point but also missed the point that for the past 20 years the television industry and NOT the motion picture industry has been the only arena open to hiring women to direct and advance their craft in numbers closer to their percentage of the population, i.e. closer to being NOT irrationally negatively biased against their being hired, and in television big blockbuster budgeted productions are rare.
Criticizing her for applying for the director gig after her only directing TV “fluff” is down right sexist given that males are given the reigns to motion picture blockbusters after only directing such fluff as Rock music videos, TV commercials, or not anything at all but writing scripts.
Look at here IMDb page. She’s directed 100 episodes of TV with some of it genre stuff, and the rest of it hard hitting drama or crime stuff. I guess watch Defenders and Collateral before making a judgement call.
I’ve never heard of her but she seems to have directed TV shows I like so I’m quite excited by the appointment. I like Beyond, it was a step in the right direction in terms of feeling a bit more like Star Trek but it’s underwhelming performance at the box office might indicate that they’re looking for somebody who can work with a smaller budget. I’m hoping that she can add a little maturity to the Kelvin saga.
“She has basically spent twenty years making worthless TV fluff”
This is such a biased, emotional statement, the rest of your argument can be safely dismissed.
She is a well-respected, talented director. End of story.
If I am on that plane, my priority will be avoiding sitting next to you.
Exactly. Like, duh!
I get you, but I would like to see Simon (and everybody) more excited because of her directing chops than because she has a vagina instead of testicles. The next director being a woman in itself its nothing to be excited about, I’ve never heard of her and her IMDB page its nothing to be excited about. I want a good movie, I don’t want a equality statment.
Adama,
Odd. I recall you posting in these chains back when Bob Orci was given the directing reigns by Paramount. I recall no such “directing chops” concerns expressed by you then?
Wow, a week or more and still no reply on this one. I’d say you scored, Dis.
I did try emailing Clarkson right after the news broke, but never got a response. I did see that even the dread trekbbs linked to my interview with her though.
Discovery is in the prime universe. Leave the movies to explore the different avenues of Star Trek.
I’m good if they create another universe with the Tarantino film. But no I don’t want yet another TOS rehash though. That would feel frankly boring and all it will do is invite comparison to the Kelvin films.
So I hope they at least go a different way in terms of crew and ship. But I’m fine to have a prime universe, Kelvin universe and the Tarantino universe (until they call it something better), especially if that one gets spins off as well.
Personally, I’d more than welcome Tarantino NOT setting his version of Star Trek in the ‘Kelvin universe’, no matter what.
Ideally, I’d like a return to the ‘Prime universe’ for whatever his storyline is, with a lighter touch regarding re-design modifications of the likes of TOS’s Enterprise, uniforms, bridge, handphasers, transporter, etc. etc. – but all certainly updated somewhat for today’s visual expectations.
And even if he envisions his version of Star Trek as being an unseen mission continuing on from the original TOS show episodes, then fine by me.
A more moderately upgraded TOS environment certainly wouldn’t hinder Tarantino from making a potentially terrific movie, at the end of the day, if he wishes to get back to the classic source material.
In the meantime, I wish S.J. Clarkson all the best with her own upcoming mission.
My guess is Paramount is probably not allowed to make their films in the prime universe and hence why the Kelvin films were partly made in another universe. Just based on what has been reported.
And I’m praying its not another TOS rehash. We’ve clearly gotten enough of that lately but I can understand why hardcore TOS fans would want it. But I’m hoping its not even in the TOS time period.
Nope. I was allowed to pitch whatever I saw fit. That’s what I did.
OK good to know. But then you have to wonder why QT’s movie would be set in a different timeline? I don’t get it, just do it in the prime universe. But maybe he wants to just completely change the canon around, ie, a reboot. And again I’m good with that. I would feel much better about Discovery if they just called that a reboot as well.
I have nothing to do with new series.
The Hollywood reporter says, “Paramount is also developing a separate Star Trek movie that Quentin Tarantino would direct. The latter is understood to be set in a separate timeline.”
Could ‘timeline’ be a misunderstanding?
I personally hope that the Tarantino movie is set in a separate time PERIOD….
If given the opportunity today, I wonder what Trek story Bob Orci would pitch.
It’s neither good nor bad until the film’s out. S.J. Clarkson should be judged by her ability, not by her gender. And I think this should be a no-brainer.
Furthermore, I think if one really wants to be progressive, one should start referring to her by her full name rather than the initial. But as it stands, it would seem that Clarkson herself doesn’t want her first name to become public knowledge. Which is a bit of a bummer, since the “pen-initial” is really one of those last vestiges of sexism in the art community. I don’t know how many Harry Potter novels J. K. Rowling had to sell until you could finally read the name Joanne K. Rowling on the covers. And in a Trek-context, I wonder how many people will recognise Dorothy Fontana as the proficient veteran Trek-writer D.C. Fontana.
Of course I might be misinterpreting things. It might just be personal choice, as in the case of JJ Abrams…
Trek’s had female directors before though? Not for one of the films though, Roxann Dawson (Torres from Voyager) directed a few episodes of Voyager and Enterprise.
I think Roxann Dawson should have at least been considered, now I am not saying that Mrs Clarkson will do a bad job, but Mrs Dawson has much more Trek Experience and she directed some solid American TV shows. I think she is one of the rare Trek helmers who also helmed an episode of Lost.
She has also directed at least one episode of THE AMERICANS.
Dawson is incredibly busy, she’s made a great career out directing TV. It’s entirely possible she was considered. The Discovery producers have said that they’re interested in getting her to direct, but again she’s in demand, so they haven’t been able to make it work.
Also directing a feature film versus coming and directing an episode of a TV show is an entirely different time commitment, 4-6 months of actual shooting, plus at least a 1 year of meetings and preproduction, versus 1-2 weeks on a typical TV show. Dawson may prefer to keep her options open, and not want to be tied down.
Thanks Matt, I hope she gets to direct Discovery.
Me too!
Furthermore, I think if one really wants to be progressive, one should start referring to her by her full name rather than the initial.
—
I thought J.C. stood for social justice
…just kidding.
Says the due with the acronym for his ID here.
Whoops! LOL
Clarkson has great ability but inclusion requires deliberate focus against bad habits of the past, when women were not considered in spite of ability. It’s still that way. I’m glad Trek is taking the lead for women.
So Luke… up till this point and time you really think the “best person” has always been chosen to direct Star Trek movies, regardless of sex? You really think that there was no one better than say, David Carson or Stewart Baird, who happened to be female, but maybe wasn’t considered because, ya know… they didn’t happen to be a dude? It isn’t time to give good, experienced female directors a chance after about a century of a male-dominated profession? No? Try and consider it from a point of view that doesn’t directly benefit your own chromosomes.
Hahahaha I sense the butt hurt in you fool, Baird was terrible and had no business going near Star Trek, nice try in hijacking an innocent opinion and turning it into something it wasnt.
Carson I can’t comment on too much, I didn’t mind Generations.
So no I don’t think the best person has always been chosen.
You clearly only read half the post and missed the part where I said I hope she does a good job.
You should be put on notice for flaming/trolling.
“Hahahaha I sense the butt hurt in you fool”
Seriously???
You should re-attune your force sensitivity there, Luke.
Maybe Luke has too much force sensitivity in some area of torso, going by butt hurt comment, which sounds rude to the point of being actionable.
But he’s right that Baird had no business taking on TREK … going back US MARSHALS and EXECUTIVE DECISION, Baird had no business EVER being behind the camera of anything, except maybe a second unit shoot where the main director has given him very specific storyboards to execute.
Carson was a very good choice, and I believe he was instrumental in luring the GEN cinematographer aboard, which is one of the biggest wins for that film. The clash between the line producer and Carson was a number-crunching thing that hurt the film artistically. And I think the way Carson reveals Picard within the nexus is genuinely stunning (I still remember in the theater feeling mindblown for about 30 seconds seeing the out of focus stuff around him as he rides the carousel), given that there was no way to do it in a super-pricey-VFX approach like most directors would demand.
Just because you’re a guy doesn’t mean you’re not being sexist. It just means you have a weird agenda instead of being motivated for selfish reasons.
Either way, talk to someone about adjusting your meds.
If you have to ask then question, then I pity you.
Could be a good thing…beyond failed because that idiot director tried to put In way too much fast and furious shit….also I know it’s early but I hate this tatentino trek idea….so is hopefully a little Ray of sunshine
Beyond failed because Paramount did nothing to market it and they didn’t take advantage of the 50th anniversary.
I think it’s both these issues…
Agreed. Its probably a little of both. At least what scared off the hardcore fans.
Have you even watched Beyond? As a matter of fact it had wayyy less “fast and furious shit” in it than the two preceding movies, regardless who directed.
I have seen Beyond. Justin Lin has clearly injected a vibe akin to Fast and Furious. And that is not just about the actual explosions and battles. It’s the vibe of the film. It feels like a film made exclusively for teenagers… we even get a stupid motorcycle scene with Kirk… which maybe was the intention… but for me Star Trek should appeal well across a larger demographic.
Huh??? LOL Just no.
DataMat,
I don’t think Kirk’s thrills with the infernal combustion engine was in and of itself a bad trope to stroke, but it shouldn’t have lasted any longer than the laughs with the flivver in A PIECE OF THE ACTION. Instead, they turned it into frickin Indiana Jones, a character created in homage to B level action serials – a genre from which STAR TREK was trying to extricate its science-fiction narrative, i.e. Flash Gordon, Buck Rogers, etc.
Weird thing is, it was the most Star Trek of all the abramsverse movies. ;)
Nothing weird about it, Jung & Pegg & Linn all ‘got it’ — but they came on so late that without a Meyer-level 12-day rewrite, BEYOND was not going to be able to address all the various story issues inherent, so you have the antagonist suffering badly as a result, plus an ending (the section after the FRANKLIN surfaces and impales the attacking ships) that goes on WAY too long with unnecessary VFX.
On the plus side, you got the ‘killing the enterprise’ segment, which could have been done for a ton less money, but with considerably less rewatchable results (I find myself watching that stretch of the film a lot on its own, much like the way I am always rewatching the ‘escape from the Wavekrest’ in LICENCE TO KILL, which is among my favorite set-piece sequences in the Bond series — still the only time since the laser in GOLDFINGER that I can recall feeling any sense of suspense or anticipation about how Bond would escape a situation.)
The stuff Lin said pre-release about rewatching CORBOMITE and then having his writers put in a Kirk intercom announcement in that show’s vein — his dialog about the unknown — is also a good indicator that Lin really did get the show (probably because he semi-inhaled it as a kid.) I think Lin is often a little cut-happy, but I believe that about most 21st century directors (hard to believe, coming from a guy who made 45 minutes of a Super-8 movie in 1983 that contained something over 1300 cuts in it, but then again, I was cutting around amateur performances and trying to make sure nobody noticed the plywood parts of the spaceship.)
I don’t usually invoke the ‘but it had its heart in the right place’ defense for movies — I reserve that for ST5-TFF — but I do think that was the case on BEYOND.
And the least popular.
And when you apply the ‘least popular’ standard to SF movies of 1982, then BLADE RUNNER and THE THING are probably the ‘winners.’ Doesn’t change the fact that they are better films than some (or for me, all) of those others that cleaned up that summer.
I’m not saying BEYOND is all that, but when you play a numbers game like popularity rather than judge a picture on what it does and doesn’t deliver to a filmgoer, then you’re shortchanging the very intangible that most people take away from the experience. Why not keep it focused on the movie rather than the movie business?
Beyond supposedly had a very long script and perhaps what was lost is that we don’t really care that much about the antagonist. Clearly the “Vampire” aspects of his character were not clear enough, or scary enough, and that could be because scenes were cut or never even shot. And after the screening, my friend wondered if TPTB demanded the death of the opponent “to satisfy” the box office. She was offended that we only “realize” he is black right before he is about to be killed. She and many old school fans like myself appreciate “the Kirk” because he doesn’t necessarily kill his opponent. This dampened word of mouth. Watching it a second time with headphones, I found it very enjoyable and some motivations became more clear, but it made me realize that the drone ships should have been operated by an army of people: it would have shown that the antagonist is someone who inspires. The film was almost there – after all this time had a Star Trek movie that was like a TOS episode – to me, the best of the Kelvin films yet. Kirk was not a man-boy, he was a man. And so my fear about this new script is that all those man-boy issues will have to be dealt with again, instead of “what does it mean to command” from a very mature place, which TOS always came from.
Give us a woman villain, so Kirk can battle n boink!
Careful what you say, people get up in arms over everything these days :))
Like John Gardner giving us Blofeld’s daughter in one of his early Bond-relaunch novels?
Did she…..never mind
I think it would be great to have a female Scotty. It’s about time. Oh we already do
Annoying comment. Is that supposed to be a put down to Simon Pegg because being a woman is somehow not a good thing???? It only works as a snarky comment if one accepts that absurdity to be true and not merely a reflection of your own male insecurities about losing your head start and booster chair in life just for being male. It’s 2018, and thankfully that garbage is being stripped away. This is part of the backlash to more progress towards gender equality. So in that sense, inane sexist comments like this are a great sign! :)
Lol @ Luke
Over sensitivity, defensiveness, and lashing back over such a little comment does nothing but make all the hype around non-issues like this hilarious.
Yeah, a guy calling out another guy for making a sexist comment is “over-sensivity.” Then here’s to being over-sensitive about sexism which diminishes women’s lives, curtails their opportunities and holds the human race back by advancing the voices of less-qualified and more-stupid men in positions of esteem and power… because it’s always great to have the dummies be heard and advanced simply because they have a penis. Awww, scared that you will now longer have your artificial step up without sexism holding women down? :)
Warning to G66. That’s trolling. Do it again and you’ll be banned.
Pegg lied to us about Khan, so his opinion is discounted.
Women make up almost 51% of the human population. The only explanation for 13 out of 13 Star Trek films being directed by men is the lie of male supremacy. Glad to see a little chip in this absurdly stupid glass ceiling men culturally perpetuate to maintain our cheating head start in life and the kids’ booster seat that moves us up higher artificially. Sexism is for wimps who need half the competition eliminated artificially. It’s primitive, boring, dumb and, thankfully, dying. Here’s to the backlash to progress that is the best sign of that progress! :) #TheFutureIsFemale
People like you really are the problem. You don’t want equality at all. Sexism is most certainly not dying, your man-hating rant is evidence of that.
#Tissues4YourIssues
I’m a guy. So you’re saying I want to be unequal and I hate myself? Is reading comprehension and clarity of thought not your strong suit? Take a sip from your juice box and calm down, son.
“out of 1,000 people, 504 are men (50.4%) and 496 are women (49.6%)”. That’s from the UN. Population does even out eventually because more men die than woman, earlier in life. Women tend to live longer lives.
Yeah, Luke. Um….Relax. Perhaps a Xanax might be a good idea.
Ha! I love all these fearful men, not confident in their own capacity, arguing for women to be kept down because they enjoy their artificial position of privilege they have inherited from the stone age that gives them a leg up. Your slamming of feminism and equality is only an indication that you are afraid of losing your “cheat sheet” that sexism gives you in life. So sad :)
So you are saying that just because I have a penis that I am some evil guy? Huh, this is progress? I respect what women are doing and they have my support, but I don’t like terms like “toxic masculinity”. This is term is too general, it categorizes all the men, it shows masculinity as being wholly bad. I think many people would be more appreciative and would give more support if we don’t start using terms that generalize or categorize others. Also I don’t believe in blindly following any agenda without looking at all the sides of the argument. It is to label and categorize people, much harder to empathize with them.
I have a penis too. I’m a guy. What’s your rambling incoherent point?
So you rather have no men at all? How is that a more progressive world? Not all men are evil you know. I get sick and tired of people like you who want to put all men into a single category. It is people like you that is destroying the spirit of cooperation between men and women.
Reread my comment. Where does it say anything about having “no men at all.” When you have to construct a false argument maybe it’s an indication that you have no argument? Hmmm. Messy little mind lashing out in confusion. So sweet. It’s like we have a bunch of old grandpas on here who forget that Star Trek is about equality and our on-screen heroes have been fighting oppression in all it’s forms for 50 years. Have you ever watched Star Trek? Or do you just like the blinking lights and phaser fights? :)
I watched Star Trek and it always preached equality, what you are preaching is not equality. I didn’t cheat in life just because I am a man, I was born this way. Progression requires understanding and looking at the issue from both sides. Star Trek always did this, but you are not looking at it from both issues. You made up your mind that men are inherently bad. I respect what the women are doing and yes I believe there are horrendous men out there, but what you are doing is you are putting all the men in the same box. There is no empathy in blindly giving labels to everything. You have to analyze the issue from all sides.
Us men have a rigged advantage that sexism gives us over women. If you are not fighting that unfair rigged cheat sheet/booster chair/head start then you are perpetuating it for yourself and the next generation of men. No one said men are “inherently bad.” But me do inherit male privilege that is based on the devaluation of women to their benefit. Super simple. There are not “two sides” to sexism. It benefits men. Men have a responsibility to tear it down because it is clearly oppressive. You’re welcome.
This is quickly devolving, let’s move on shall we?
It would be nice to see ST 4 return to the beginning of the temporal anomaly to bring the Kelvin Timeline full circle, and give Tarantino a clean slate to do something different in whatever era….something even past 2409, in a time when black and white explodes into a full electromagnetic spectrum of possibilities. Track is always better than its best when it’s about ideas rather than clashes With a villian.
One thing I would like to see the end of however is the idea that Star Trek needs one “Strong Bad” in each movie. That’s really only worked in “The Wrath of Khan”, although you might be able to make a case for it working with Admiral Marcus as the big bad in “Star Trek Into Darkness”.
Good to see a female director do star trek, hopefully this will mean more characters interplay , for both male and female,good luck s.j Clarkson fans can be great also so so bad,I am hoping you get A great script
Anything that lowers the testosterone and leads to more thoughtful and balanced storytelling (which is hopefully what S.J.s hiring will bring) can only be a good thing.
Stop it. Lower testosterone levels among the writing staff did nothing to improve the unbalanced writing in Discovery. The series still kept speeding through plot points like there was no tomorrow.
No matter if man or woman – there are good writers and there are bad writers, just like there are good directors and bad directors. It’s really as simple as that.
Not to cast more aspersions on Fuller, but, well, this will cast more aspersions on Fuller. These folks he picked as his lead writers who succeeded him as showrunner … why would he have picked them when their output is so bad? Was it just to generate copy so he could then rewrite all of it into something workable? That doesn’t make any sense. Or is it they are capable of better writing, but instead are being told what to write, or how to write it?
I suppose you could wonder about the quality of the spaceship VFX too — the VFX vendors are capable of much much better work, and yet we get mediocre to outright bad ship shots that climax with the seaQuest-like mess of the emperor’s ship. Seems like somebody is telling them to do their job in a deliberately inferior way (not counting the fine-looking creature work.)
And … how much did they pay Meyer that he isn’t speaking up about his experience on the show? And what does it say about him that he isn’t speaking up, regardless of what he was paid? Silence as a professional courtesy, or just misguided sense of loyalty? Presumably he knows something about ethical behavior (sit down with a copy of CONFESSIONS OF A HOMING PIGEON, written right before TWOK, to get a good read on Meyer, and how he probably evolved beyond being like the child-lead in that story, an admittedly part-autobiographical tale.)
Hmmm… Pure conjecture at this point. No reason to dwell on that, if you ask me. No one really knows what Fuller was thinking and how things evolve from now on remains to be seen. As far as the impact of male and female writing is concerned though: I for one know for sure that Fuller chose the (male) team of Jesse Alexander and Aron Coleite who wrote “Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad” – arguably one the best episodes of DSC S1, wheras the (female) team of Bo Yun Kim and Erika Lippoldt wrote “Into the Forst I Go”, which was also deemed one the season’s stronger episodes, but were they handpicked by Fuller or were they a later addition? – Absolutely no idea.
So if you meant to point out that the show’s generally troubled production had more to do with its unbalanced nature than the writers’ sexes, I’m inclined to agree. The point still stands that there were some capable writers associated with the show and some decidedly less capable ones, both male and female. Hence finding that sort of gender-balance does not equal a balance in talent. But I’m running circles here…
go back and read the statements from Fuller about Discovery when he was putting it together. He talked about wishing he could have a woman captain and first officer. The man obviously wanted a more feminine Trek which lead to the hiring of the current show runners and writer staff. There is nothing wrong with the approach if it’s an underlying concept. The problem with this staff is that they have brought it to the forefront and seem to go out of their way to accomplish this.
I don’t think Nick Meyer is the kind of guy that can be bought into silence, more than anything I think he is keeping silent as a professional courtesy or NDA’s are very popular these days. They could have made him sign one. I also think that rumour about another Trek project being worked by Nick Meyer was just a rumour to shut people up otherwise we would have heard something concrete by now.
kmart,
Sounds to me as if you’re describing a Fuller who saw the handwriting on the wall, knew he was on the way out, and decided to raid the best talent around in the immediate vicinity for his next gig?
From what little I know of Moonves, it seems to me that, like Trump, he telegraphs that you are on his $#IT list before he lands the first blow.
Dis,
To be honest, I hadn’t gamed the thing out to the degree you indicate, but I can’t dispute your idea, it sounds like a more than reasonable possibility. If Fuller is sufficiently Ellisonian, then he wouldn’t care about the show succeeding financially or creatively after he left (Ellison happily gave up nearly 100 grand when bailing on THE STARLOST, which wasn’t chump change back then.)
Fuller is an overrated “fake-genius” who is good at generating moods and looks in his shows, but is an average writer (who couldn’t plot out a coherent story if his life depended on it) and and abysmal show-runner. That’s why he can’t hold a job anymore — the producers of major shows now get this.
It’s funny how “his legend” continues with fanboy and cinema-elitist types. Just watch – he is going to disappear from relevance in a manner similar to Bob Orci.
Jesus, lighten up. For a Trek series first season, it was pretty decent. Ton’s better than TNG, Voyager and Enterprise Season 1. It’s about on par with DS9 Season 1, but not as good at TOS Season 1.
I don’t think there’s five seconds this season that could rival DUET or even TEARS OF THE PROPHETS, so the DS9 comparison doesn’t work for me, outside of both having unwatchably bad stuff in them.
Outside of few Lorca scenes and some Tilly stuff, I don’t even remember any detail of stuff that I liked on DSC (hence no desire to ever rewatch, which lowers my overall impression even further), which puts this down at or below VOY and ENT (the latter at least had the Andorian show and a Phylox ep with two civs on one world. Those must have been 1st season, because I stopped watching halfway through ep1 season2.)
Hmm, dunno. The last two times a Brit directed a Star Trek film didn’t turn out too well.
Disclaimer: No. While I sincerely didn’t like Generations and Nemesis, this doesn’t reflect my view on British people… but rather my view on people who will find a reason to predict doom and gloom for the franchise no matter what.
Technically Stuart Baird was more of an editor than a director anyway and he had absolute horrible rapport with the TNG crew, I don’t think that will happen here. I can’t say anything about Carson or Generations except for the fact that whose frigging idea it was to have a legendary captain die by having a bridge falling on him.
Well, either Ron Moore or Brannon Braga. Which doesn’t detract from the fact that those guys wrote some of the best Trek episodes in existence… as well as some of the worst.
Well, Carson didn’t write Generations.
I wish Roxann Dawson could have gotten a crack at this.
Agreed, she should have at least been considered.
Which, to be fair, she may have been. I probably shouldn’t assume she wasn’t.
I’m confused, it’s good why? Because she’s a woman? How utterly patronising to women. How about citing her talents or her past experience?
It’s a very “diverse” hiring – what else do we need to know? While they keep beating us over the head about gender (real and perceived) being meaningless, they “celebrate” when folks are hired based on their (in this case, biological) gender. Maybe she’ll turn the film series more “Discovery” like, we can have f-bombs, Klingons with 2 penises, etc., wouldn’t that be special?
Star Trek has made diversity a hiring priority since the mid-sixties. Complaining about it is indicative of a lack of knowledge about the show (and, frankly, basic humanity).
Bryant: I’m not complaining about diversity.
I love that Trek got there before Star Wars.
I would love that the errors (courtesy of Kathleen Kennedy) of the last three Star Wars movies are avoided.
ALSO – Star Trek 4 means that we get to see an all new Enterprise on screen. I’d love it to look a bit closer to the TMP movie Enterprise OR Discovery Enterprise. The 1701-A from Beyond was *alright* but could be better…If that ship still exists in Star Trek 4 – i’d like TMP style interiors. That’d be cool.
Can anyone answer this? How did the QT and Umma Thurman thing shake out? Last I heard, she was not very happy with him over a car scene from Kill Bill. I just haven’t heard. Maybe she was lying? Maybe he is too important? I remember what happened to Weinstein, but QT seems to have dodged the #MeToo bullet.
She was not lying. They were and still seem to be friends. There is info about this on the net. I think the fallout is not as bad as some of us suspected because in fact, in the end, he went out and found the footage that was incriminating and seems to have realized what he did in terms of excessiveness. However, my read on this is that this story was conflated with the terrible things HW did. This is not a story of sexual abuse.
As far as I can tell it was more of an issue of bad and unsafe working conditions rather than anything sexual, although I did expect some opportunists to rise up and smear the name of Tarantino, but so far that did not happen and hopefully it won’t.
Una was injured doing stunt driving which Quentin insisted she do herself. This injury still causes her problems. Quentin acknowledged what he did, and said it was one of his biggest mistakes as a filmmaker, both Quentin and Uma have expressed their respect and affection for each other, and there was no sexual anything involved.
I could really care less what the gender is of the person directing the movie. As long as they’re capable and worthy of the job. Just please, can we leave The Beastie Boys out of this one?
“I could really care less”
Hint: That means you care. I think you mean, “couldn’t care less.”
True, VoR. Thanks. Let me rephrase – the gender of the director is irrelevant to me, as long as they’re a good director.
It really doesn’t matter as much as everyone wants it to. Would the movie be better or worse based on the gender of the director? No, and being a good movie is what really matters.
I have an awesome idea….how about Simon Pegg STFU? I am kind of tired of him acting like he holds all knowledge that is Trek. He plays Scotty and prolly has no idea what the matter/anit-matter phase inducers are! And didn’t his Trek movie, um bomb? Oh yeah thats right it was so bad I only saw it once and don’t own it. Its the only one I have only seen once and don’t own I might add. He should go back to playing Unkar Plutt and leave real scifi to the grown ups.
So since you only saw Beyond once and don’t own it, this is proof that the movie bombed. I deduce then that it’s not Simon Pegg that has « all knowledge that is trek », it’s you!
Simon plays a character on Star Trek and co-wrote a Start Trek film. What is your involvement and stake in creating Star Trek? Why would anyone interview you and ask for your perspective and inside knowledge? Why should he be the one to STFU? ;)
“leave real scifi to the grown ups.”
Umm, is that…is that you?
I seriously doubt James Doohan, Levar Burton, Colm Meaney, Roxanne Dawson, or Conner Trineer have any idea what a matter/antimatter phase inducer is either.
Why is he excited about this director? Because she’s good, or because she’s a woman? The comment “it’s about time,” suggests this is all about political correctness and a quota rather than qualifications. Comments like that actually diminish her accomplishment should she get the job, because it makes gender an issue when it shouldn’t be.
This is hardly ground breaking should it happen. Women have been major contributors to Star Trek since the 1960s–see DC Fontana for example. And women have been directors for decades too.
Pegg’s comment is more like saying, “we want a woman director, and this little woman can have the job,” before patting her on the head. It’s demeaning. If she gets the job, my only hope is that she understands Star Trek better than previous people in her position, and makes a better movie.
Yeah, this issue is all over the place, I am not even going to bother commenting because people deal with absolutes when it comes to these issues. Anything we say can be and do get misinterpreted or we are labeled as some bs. I want nothing more than woman succeed more in everything but not by resorting to extremism or not by blindly following any agenda. Apparently looking at and analyzing all the points of view here are wrong too.
I’ll take a crack at this. Diversity is a good thing, it lends more perspective and brings in new ideas to a collaboration regardless of industry. The problem is people conflate one individual with all the weight of that diverse perspective.
I don’t think it’s diminishing of SJC to be hopeful that she may bring something new tot he franchise as the movies have all had male directors before. I can see how it can be construed that way, but I don’t think that is at all the intent.
The problem is that any step, any small progression towards a more representative and diverse group is put down so quickly as ‘pandering’ or ‘sjw bs’. I think it’s more just a mark of the times we live in, growing pangs of a society coming to terms with it’s past and perceived future, and some people just do not like any change.
The fact is the world is changing and Women are now gaining more power and influence in every aspect of our society. Most would agree this is a positive thing and something to be happy about that irrespective of gender, everyone has the same chance. There is a bit of a rush of feminism because of the political forces in play, but hopefully in the coming years this will settle and people will simply ‘get on’ based on their skills and so forth.
DataMat, I salute you. Your analysis has been much more clear headed and thoughtful than I see in many corners of the internet. To the point and clear and you definitely managed to say what I wanted to say in much more clearer and simple manner. This issue is important, and I believe it warrants a discussion without resorting to generalizing, labeling and extremism.
When will they officially say who the director is, production start or release date?
Excited to see the Enterprise A take flight.
Well, if I remember correctly, the other article about SJ Clarkson said that Paramount was in talks with her so it doesn’t seem to be a done deal, yet. Once they hire her the next question is how much creative input do they give her? Do they insist on the script they probably have (or is it still only a story idea) or are they willing to change it if she has any good ideas? Sometimes movies start with a release date and then work their schedule backwards. However, Paramount doesn’t seem to be in too much of a hurry so they will probably defer announcing any dates until they have a director and a script that they’re happy with.
He may not be so excited about the Tarrantino Trek project when he finds out that he and his Kelvin cast are not going to be in it.
He’s always so….excIted!!!
There have been great female directors for decades. Ida Lupino, for example, who formed her own film company in the late 1940s, and made almost a dozen feature films, several of which she produced, wrote, co-starred in, and directed. So this is really nothing new, after all. As a 60-something male, I’m glad to see the glass ceiling shattered further by even more talented women.
About Ida Lupino: http://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/news-bfi/lists/ida-lupino-director
It is good to see a woman take a director’s role in the film franchise.
On the Tyranny of Canonicity
Why should canonicity matter?
Aside from legal reasons arising from royalty and copyright laws, I would argue in this piece that what is “canon” is neither a necessary nor a sufficient reason for the future to be constrained by the past insofar as Star Trek is concerned.
Note well the above caveat.
Moving ahead, whether canon dictates, for example, that George Kirk died in the Narada incident, or that he survived, should be utterly irrelevant in the world of fiction. I think that it is.
George Kirk, James’ father, may have perished in self-sacrifice, or he might have been beamed off the ship just prior to impact, or he might have been in suspended animation (or otherwise) based on the proximity to the red matter or whatnot. Really, it is only a matter of imagination that we can “rescue” him from death.
The larger point is that most of what happens in fiction is completely unconstrained by “canon,” however defined. “Canon” is what we deem it to be within ourselves.
I will give you an example: I do not consider TNG to be “canon” if it is said to be an extension of TOS, strictly speaking. No matter what references are made from TNG to TOS, the two are in reality two separate television series produced a significant period of years apart. And thus, if there are similarities, then that is fine and there are continuities. But there are probably a great number of inconsistencies between the two series such that “canonicity” is neither desireable nor necessary.
For example: What happened to the events of TAS, which were never referenced in TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, or DSC as far as I can recall?
Canonicity does work – until it doesn’t.
Continuity works, until it doesn’t. The galley of the Enterprise in ST VI looks extremely unlike what we, or at least some of us, could have imagined to exist aboard a mighty starship.
The fact is, I think, that fiction dictates its own manner of development. What the writers say is what we should care about, rather than some artificial construct we deem to be “canon” at any point.