PT Simon Pegg's Recent Comments

I'm sure that some of you have read Pegg's recent comments about the Prequels, and how he doesn't respect anyone that defends/likes them. In his comments he says the prequels fundamentally misunderstand what Star Wars is about. Here's where I think he's flat out wrong if what he's talking about is what I think he's talking about. I'm pretty sure he's referencing things like the midichlorians, Yoda having a lightsaber, the Jedi order's rules about relationships, etc.

Here's why I think that even though those aspects of the prequel trilogy that fly in the face of Yoda's Empire Strikes Back teachings exist - to some extent... he did of course warn Luke about being too attached to his friends, even if it meant their deaths - the prequels aren't wrong for exploring them:

1. The shift that happens between the prequels and the originals, in terms of how the story arcs from one trilogy to the other is really mirrored in Yoda's development. At the end of ROTS he's a pretty humbled dude, and I think in the 20 years after Palatine's victory, Yoda and Obi-Wan, possibly somewhat through the guidance of Qui-Gon, realize a deeper and more meaningful connection to the force. They become less about the rules of a organized order of knights, and attuned to what the force is really about. This is further developed when Luke disagrees with them about Vader's potential for redemption. (Side note: I love that the series begins with Qui-Gon's actions leading to Anakin starting his journey and Luke's actions ending it. I've always seen Luke as Qui-Gon's spiritual successor.)

2. OK, midichlorians. I see the midichlorians as an interesting little note about how the force works, but only a part of the greater whole. One thing that others have pointed out about Phantom Menace specifically is that the overarching theme of the film is symbiosis, and the circle of life. The midichlorians are symbionts with the people they inhabit. This is a REALLY strong theme for a fantasy adventure film imo, and I think it's one of the most under appreciated things in all of Star Wars, and ultimately VERY Star Wars-ish to look at life in these terms - and all of this without changing one aspect of the mystical energy field itself. That's a tough tightrope to walk, kudos to Lucas. So, the Jedi had discovered these little guys over the millennia and as an organized group of intelligent beings, with lots of technology at their fingertips, I think the idea that they had figured out at least HOW they were able to communicate with a still mystical thing is interesting. But I think Lucas created them as a way to show the growth of the Jedi. The fact is, when the Jedi were extinguished knowledge of the little force attuned bacteria was all but lost. Yoda and Obi-Wan obviously knew about them, but I think the point is that by the time of Luke's training Yoda's wisdom and connection to the aferlife had made he and Obi-Wan realize that the midichlorians are just a small aspect of the force, and not nearly as important as they thought. Maybe a little strange of a reference, but if you're a Dragon Ball fan you know that characters like Vegeta stop using their energy scouters at a certain point because they become able to accurately detect peoples' power levels just by reaching out and sensing ki. I think the same thing happened with the Jedi, and Qui-Gon, though he does reference midichlorians regarding little Anakin, represents that new way of thinking because of his deeper connection to the force and maverick ways.

3. Yoda using a lightsaber is just another shade of what I'm talking about. In exile Yoda realizes that wielding a lightsaber is an early baby step for a Jedi. The path of the Jedi is to eventually leave behind the 'warrior' and realize a deeper aspect of the force beyond the physical. He only realizes this in exile and it takes his ill fated battle with Sidious to bring this to light. Of course Yoda once had a lightsaber! Honestly, if Yoda was going to be at the same level of wisdom in Phantom Menace or Attack of the Clones that he was in Empire then there would be no character development for him. He'd be less interesting. He's actually even more interesting to me when I watch Empire now, knowing that in the prime of the Jedi his thinking wasn't nearly as evolved.

4. My rule about sequels/prequels is that you only ever make one if you plan to explore themes that expand your understanding of the world of the story. A good example is the shift that happens between A New Hope and Empire. In the first film we see Luke destroy the Death Star and win a major battle in heroic and glorious fashion. The next movie is all about how little those victories matter when compared to understanding of the force and making the right choice even when it might lead to death (fascinating irony when thinking about that lesson in light Anakin's decisions).

Again, there's no reason in my mind to make the prequels if you're not going to explore this sort of arc where we see how characters like Yoda got to where they are spiritually in the OT. Pegg can hate the movies all he wants, but I don't see movies that fundamentally misunderstand what Star Wars is about. What I see is Lucas exploring new and interesting ideas, creating a story about a galactic culture that was in desperate need of someone like Sidious to come in, clean house, force the Jedi to look themselves in the face and discover deeper levels of the force, because they clearly weren't doing it otherwise - Qui-Gon would have been on the council otherwise.

Thoughts?

 

I've never given a care what Simon Pegg's opinion of the prequels was, and comments like those aren't worth getting worked up over. Although, I do find it laughable that he somehow thinks he understands what Star Wars is about better than Lucas, who, you know, came up with the whole thing in the first place.

But anyway, yes, George definitely took a whole bunch of risks with the prequels that turned out to alienate parts of the fan base. I for one am glad that he at least tried to explore SW in new ways though. Whether or not those new elements were expressed in the best way is a matter of opinion of course.

 

I disagree with this statement. I feel Lucas didn't take risks. He tried to give us the same stuff - the same characters that didnt need to be in the prequels (boba fett, jabba, chewie, i cant believe he even put greedo in there - deleted scene or not) & he also put the same plot and just told his team that the films are suppose to 'rhyme'. Anakin destroys Trade Fed Ship, Luke destroys Death Star. He really believed that nostalgia would be the trilogy's success. People love the Jedi - so lets give the audience thousands of Jedi. People liked Boba Fett so much even though he was a minor character, lets give the audience a thousand boba fetts and call it Jango. People loved lightsaber fights, so lets put FIVE of them in ROTS. People loved Vader and became a cultural icon - so lets make him the chosen one, most powerful Jedi ever. I felt that instead of introducing new characters with character arcs and real emotions - he stuck to the the CT as his blueprint for the prequels but by adding more CGI, more ships, more scope, bigger bigger bigger.... It doesn't equal better. The fundamentals of why Star Wars CT is the greatest films of all time is because of the character arcs and character depth. People will say SW CT was great because it had a great plot - but the plot was simple. It was just about Empire trying to destroy the Rebellion. But the characters and what they went through during this galactic war and how one father was on one side and the son was on the other. Real emotion and fantastic dynamic in the story. It wasn't the plot, or any specific scene. It was the character struggles. The prequels lacked that.

I feel Lucas had some decent ideas in the prequels, but like CT - Lucas needed to be filtered. He needed people to challenge his ideas to make them better. If you are all powerful and you say the sky is green, and no one around you corrects you because they fear you - you will always go on thinking the sky is green. You need some people that will correct you. Take a look at Episode I. The look and feel of Star Wars was there. The tone was good. It had that adventure feel. Darth Maul was an interesting character. Silent, mysterious and deadly. Very cool villain. And the fans bought it. It was a decent idea by Lucas. But that goes overshadowed by his mistakes with Jar Jar Binks, Jake Lloyd bad acting, and midchlorians (the Force is not germs). If you had that filter, more people would be talking about how cool Maul was instead of talking about how dumb Jar Jar was.

On this forum, there are lot of Prequel fans that really feel PT & CT are one of the same on equal level. But man, with Force Awakens, every article that pops up annihilates the Prequel Trilogy. Always insinuating that TFA will redeem Star Wars because the PT were just so bad. And some of the comments on these articles are so harsh on the Prequels. If you were a casual movie goer and read those, you'd think PT was as bad as Joshua Trank's Fan4stic Four.

For Simon Pegg, he is a very talented actor. And he has already been in two major successful franchises - Mission Impossible & Star Trek. The guy is a Hollywood player and holds A LOT of credibility.

Lucas has changed his mind and opinions about Star Wars so many times, I feel he really doesn't understand Star Wars despite him creating it. And its really not fair that he gets all the credit for CT. He had a lot of help and a lot of filters like Gary Kurtz who is responsible for Star Wars.

 

So? Why the heck does him being an actor who supposedly has credibility matter one bit? It's just his opinion. At the end of the day, his opinion doesn't mean any more than any other fan's. You present this point like it's some sort of trump card that validates your own opinion in some way over an opposing view.

 

Not true. You associate themes with giving the same stuff, which is not the same thing. And seriously, you give three characters that have short cameos as evidence of Lucas giving the same thing? Do I need to point out how ridiculous those exemples are?

You can't be serious. Nostalgia is not a character destroying something.

That was never done for the audience. It was done because the Jedi have always been established as the guardians of the Republic. Since the prequels are set during the Republic, seeing the existence of thousands of Jedi was a given.

?!

The fights in RotS were all done to serve the story, not the audience. Each fight had a reason for being there and a meaning.

That's not Darth Vader. You see the Darth Vader that people love for a minute. That's an example of Lucas not catering to the audience, otherwise the prequels would be about Darth Vader slashing Jedi left and right.

That's BS and you know it.

That they are the greatest films of all time is a matter of debate and irrelevant.

No, they don't. If there something that's part of the prequels is struggle. If you decided to ignore that or pretend it's not there, it's your fault.

'Needed' to be filtered? Since when is that a requirement?

And who gets to decide what's better?

What exactly was there to correct?

You're saying that an whole movie gets overshadowed by secondary characters and a dialogue reference? And I'm already ignoring you calling original characters with a purpose and story arc, the acting of a child and an expansion of what was established in the OT as 'mistakes'.

Jar Jar was dumb. That's part of his character. That doesn't make him a bad character. And what people like to focus on has nothing to do with any creative filter.

Debatable.

Define credibility.

Where's the correlation between his change of opinion about certain things and his understanding of something he created? It's like claiming you don't understand yourself. It's ridiculous.

Gary Kurtz is not responsible for Star Wars. He didn't create it and he's not a filter. Also, every single movie is a collaborative effort. Not sure what you're getting at.

 

Which comments of his are you referring to? If it's a new interview, can someone share a link?

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertai...m-wipe-bad-prequel-memories-article-1.2427964

Specifically:

"I don't really have any respect for anyone who thinks those films are good. They’re not,” he told the News. “(They’re) a monumental misunderstanding of what the (original) three films are about,” he said. "It's an exercise in utter infanticide ... (like) George Lucas killing his kid."

His comments are ignorant, offensive, divisive, and show an entitled attitude that is extremely unseemly for someone that works in the entertainment field, never mind a guy who has worked for Lucasfilm (including in an ad hoc "advisory" capacity on "The Force Awakens"), no less!

And before anyone gets the wrong end of the stick, he can, technically, have any opinion he likes. The problem -- chiefly -- is the way he has gone about expressing his views, as above. It's not good enough for him to have ranted on the prequels "n" number of times before. No, he has to bring them up yet again, on the eve of a new Star Wars movie, and personally attack people for liking something he doesn't.

It's shameful. Pegg's ridiculous arrogance gives fuel to bullying; particularly when, as a forty-five-year-old man, he must know, by now, that: a) opinions on art are subjective, b) these films actually do have fans, and c) people expressing a fondness for them have been hatefully attacked for years online.

And then there's the small matter of Pegg's vituperative remarks in 2013 about Star Trek fans who had the nerve to dislike "Into Darkness". He got very pissy about it, condescended about fans needing "time" to adjust, slammed then a second time by accusing them of struggling to like the film simply because it was popular with a wide audience, and said how abhorrent it was to be "subjected" to such "crass ******* ire", on the basis that J.J. Abrams and everyone else worked really, really hard on it. Oh, those ungrateful, loyal Star Trek fans -- how dare they trash another person's work for not meeting their personal standards! The man is not just a bigot, but a flaming hypocrite. Instead of slinking quietly into the night, he continues to make an ass of himself with comments like the above.

I enjoyed your brief take/rebuttal, however. I think you raised many good points. Ironically, key themes still seem lost on some people; like Simon Pegg.

Well, really, everyone is left to guess. He doesn't really seem to care about articulating his animosity toward the films; they're just "monumental" in their "misunderstanding". More than likely, he wasn't just referring to story points, but also acting, scripting, imagery, and tone. More or less everything and the kitchen sink, basically. Because you're not cool unless you hate every jot and tittle of the prequels with every fiber of your being. And if Pegg called for calm and understanding, now (even if that would be a step forward), where would his own ego be?

It's very lazy and incredibly hackneyed -- not to mention tacky -- to bash the films as Pegg has continued to do. He finally reveals his true colours above by immediately denigrating people with a different taste/opinion to himself. He's a callow bloviator and obnoxious imp. Sadly, though, the media still runs with an anti-prequel narrative, so is happy to report his comments and shine them out like a beacon.

If Pegg has no respect for people with a different opinion about a bunch of space movies, why should anyone respect him; least of all someone who indirectly endorses bullying and abuses their celebrity in this way?

 

I'm sure someone will link it for you, but he basically said the prequels are bad and he can't respect anyone who thinks they are good, becasue they are bad.

To be fair, I think he was exaggerating for fan boy effect, though I now he doens't like the Prequels.

 

So he has NO respect for Rian Johnson, Kevin Smith and Dave Filoni (with whom he did voice work on Clone Wars....and I assume he got a paycheck)

uh-huh.....he surely would tell all three of those guys that to their face.

All the stereotypes of the whiny internet OT fanboy rolled into one.

 

This man is clearly insane and should be allowed nowhere near Star Wars. This only furthers my distaste for TFA, the Disney Wars as a whole, and J.J. Abrams in particular. He tries to stay civil and suck up to George in interviews, but openly promotes his friendship with this guy and the role he gave him in the new film? J.J. is basically silently approving of everything this jackass regurgitates out of his worthless mouth. I can't believe Disney is allowing for such bad publicity...

 

Which is why I am glad Abrams is done with the saga after his one... (Here is what Return of the Jedi SHOULD have been)... movie.

 

He's kinda like the Star Wars equivalent of dental caries.

Love that!!! And your signature:

Come join the Internet~!!.....its a great place to meet people who hate everything you like.

 

It pains me to see that some people here seem to be giving in to fear, into anger, into hatred, into suffering and into the dark side here. Despite of how obnoxious Pegg is, that does not necessarily reflect on this movie itself. If people start hating on the movie in advance that kind of puts you in the same alley as Pegg and co, though I think(/hope) most people here are not that extreme.

 

Well said!

 

That's a fair point......and I'm sure I will like TFA.

Its the way it is being presented (by some) as the SAVIOR of the franchise.....instead of a continuation of the Saga, I think it what is giving some folks pause.

 

Most people are clever enough to separate the background noise (media BS, idiots like Pegg) from the reality. That is we're about to see the 7th episode of Star Wars. If you're a fan of any of the earlier episodes you'll be on board & fascinated to take another trip to the GFFA. When the music blares in your ears & you see the gold writing crawling up into the star field who's going to give a **** about Pegg or some media report? Not me.

 

Agreed.....at the time, it wont matter one bit....and of course, we will all be on board.

But you wont be able to read a review, see a TV report.....anything media related afterwards that wont take pot shots.....and for fans of the PT, it just gets tiresome.

 

Perceptive comment.

A back-handed attack about people's intelligence. Nice.

Some are just more sensitive about these things than others.

Ideally, external remarks shouldn't interfere with one's enjoyment of a movie, no.

Unfortunately, in the curious case of Simon Pegg -- yes, a nerd who's aging in reverse -- we have a man who insinuated himself into the production of "The Force Awakens", has been mentioned in interviews on this basis by J.J. Abrams himself, and was shown grinning ear-to-ear, in a behind-the-scenes reel featured in a conspicuous piece of marketing to whet people's appetites before a serious trailer giving any hint of substance had yet materialized.

Certain elements of this film are a bit tawdry, frankly. The marketing campaign, at least. And not everyone can overlook that at the first instance. Cool that you can (even though you are always there to confront people over it). Personally, I was going to move past Pegg, and had semi-forgotten about him, already... then this. It's just nasty. Marketing is meant to entice and generate anticipation and buzz. It's done that quite well for many; but you'll have to forgive some people for feeling a little deterred.

 

I wonder if Simon Pegg appreciates the irony. He's bitching about the prequels killing Star Wars or what have you, when there are people saying the same thing about the new Star Trek movies that he was involved in. People have even compared his take on Scotty to Jar Jar. Aside from his fame, he's no different from his detractors. This is what he had to say about people who don't like the latest Star Trek:

"You know what … it absolutely isn't the worst Star Trek movie," he said. "It's asinine, you know? It's ridiculous. And frustrating, as well, because a lot of hard work and love went into that movie, and all JJ wanted to do was make a film that people really enjoyed. So, to be subject to that level of sort of, like, crass ****ing ire, I just say **** you."


He's just as bad as the folks to whom he's saying "**** you". Pegg says he doesn't respect anyone who likes the PT? Well, fortunately, I can live without your respect, Simon. Oh, and for what it's worth, I torrented your Cornetto Trilogy. At the time, it was because I didn't have a great deal of money to spend on movies, but now, I'm glad I did. After-the-fact spite, I suppose.

 

wow......did not know that he said that about Trek. Was that in response to ST'09 or Into Darkness?

Either way.....extremely hypocritical, but typical for a loudmouth of his type.

 

This kind of "misunderstanding the story" quote is thrown at the prequels all the time and every time it's just as wrong. As True Sith said, who understands Star Wars better than the creator himself? Pretty ridiculous, actually and just goes to show how stuck-up Pegg is.

 

And, at the same time, he thinks J.J. Abrams understands Star Trek. Or worse, if anything, maybe he doesn't, but hey, he put his heart and soul into those movies!

He seems to lack any sense of self-awareness. Which is pretty terrible; especially for a comedy writer/performer.

 

He was talking specifically about Into Darkness, but it's probably safe to assume his comments cover the haters of both movies. I liked Into Darkness. It was a good movie. Let's not pretend, though, that it didn't borrow a lot from previous installments. Hell, in my opinion, improved, but still a less than original piece.

For what it's worth, what I really liked about JJ Abrams' Star Trek is that for the first time for me, Star Trek felt believable as the future. Everything that had come before, to me, felt more like it could almost have been set in a galaxy far, far away, with little to do with Earth, or any fictional universe in which Earth exists or is relevant.

 

Trying to give a positive swing to all this, I've been doing some googling and Pegg's comments have been picked up by a lot of different sites and blogs now. I have to say I am positively surprised at how many people commenting on his remarks actually express their appreciation for the Prequels. On quite a large number of sites there are more people defending the Prequels than there are attacking them.