Amph Star Trek Beyond

Is it really possible to build such a world when all you've got to work with is two hours' worth of screen time for each film? Seems to me like action and adventure is the only route to take when you're making a movie.

 

http://deadline.com/2015/01/star-trek-3-simon-pegg-1201355170/

 

That's... interesting.

Clearly he's done not really anything this "big" before, but his writing ability on the Cornetto Trilogy shows he understands source material well, even when he's skewering it...

 

I like pretty much everything I've seen that Pegg has co-written so I'm down! It does sound slightly like they're scrambling to make a deadline, though. But, hell, Wrath of Khan was an utter mess until Nick Meyer took, like, 7 drafts and mashed them together in a week so it actually doesn't bother me.

 

I really hope this film is worthy of the 50th anniversary in a similar vein to Skyfall.

 

It's hard to be certain after only two films, but a Star Trek actor writing a Star Trek film is usually a good thing since they understand it from the inside.

 

It's not even that; they replaced the director for, what they claimed, was it was too big to replace the writer with... someone who's never done something this big.

BUT, even without him being in Star Trek, Pegg's usually got a good understanding of source material (look at how many things they skewer, and well, in Hot Fuzz in particular) so it's an interesting gamble.

 

I didn't see this back when it was posted. Apologies for the late reply.

As a fan of Trek's utopian vision (as opposed to the mostly neutral or dystopian sci-fi out there), I don't think humanity should be perfect. (Roddenberry did sometimes, and I don't agree with that.) I think they should be better. That's why earlier in this thread I said I hated the misogynistic crap that peppers the franchise from TOS all the way to STID. I think humans are capable of moving beyond petty bigotry, and I like that a vision of the future was made with the intention of those things being eradicated. There's plenty of conflict and drama to be had without that.

 

I just hope for the third film that they really get into the "5 year mission" aspect of Star Trek and maybe not try SO hard to tie it the TOS or the original movies. I loved both new 'verse movies but there were times in STID that they seemed to be over the top with the whole Khan thing. Hard to put into words as I don't necessarily just want a 2-hour episode of Star Trek but at the same time....a new baddie, seemingly impossible situation, Kirk being Kirk....maybe I do want that. I don't know, I'm so confused.

 

Right, see and it makes sense why you are a Trek fan based on your viewpoints (though I'm curious... do you like Trek because it matches those viewpoints of yours, or do you have those viewpoints because you were raised on Trek?) But as for me, I hold more to the Star Wars view of the universe which is essentially that there will always be evil and hatred amongst people because people are capable of that, however the good news is that on an individual level you can change the hearts and minds of people and thus change the course of history for the better.

You can certainly write stories with a crew that isn't racist. But I think the Roddenberry vision goes so far beyond that, it seeks to have stories with a crew that's not racist, selfish, morally ambiguous, etc. I don't like the notion of everything being gritty just for the sake of it, but as a dramatist I certainly can't let go of 2000 years of western dramatic tradition. Like I said, I think it makes for a great and interesting book, it's just not very dramatic (in the traditional sense referring to the dramatic arts of plays, operas, ballets, film, and television).

 

Trek probably influenced my social and political leanings, yeah, though I'm not sure how much.

 

"There will always be those who mean to do us harm. To stop them, we risk awakening the same evil within ourselves. Our first instinct is to seek revenge when those we love are taken from us. But that's not who we are."

 

I like the idea of Roddenberry's ST universe, but I doubt it will ever really exist. Especially if we don't get replicators or Warp Drive.

The idea of abolishing money & humanity working simply to benefit itself is something to aspire to.

 

One (of many) things I liked about Into Darkness is that it's really Kirk's movie and story, like all of TOS really was in the end. Yes, a lot of that gets written off as being Shatner's ego trip but TOS, in a lot of ways, was really about how Kirk solved the problem with McCoy / Spock being the ones he would bounce ideas off of and then he takes care of it. "Star Trek" is a movie where I see it as Kirk and Spock are co-leads of the film (heck, Spock is in it twice!) but Into Darkness I actually like how Kirk is kind of screwing up as he tries to lead the way. The conundrum when he first accepts the mission to assassinate John Harrison as Spock badgers him about how it is morally wrong is very much in tone of the series of taking a social issue, having the character's in Trek examine it, and eventually Kirk decides the right decision. Eventually, the flat-out only way Kirk can save everyone by sacrificing himself.

But then, y'know, Spock becomes the hero of the movie for the final action scene. Super-blood. Etc, etc. However, I will say while the idea that a blood-transfusion can save Kirk's life takes it into plot-excuse magic, I do totally buy the idea that the genetically superior Khan could shake off a case of radiation poisoning like a mild cold. How that saves Kirk? Eh... McCoy does say how the blood transfusion knocked him out for two weeks. Also it does lead to the great line delivery by Karl Urban: "Tell me, are you feeling homicidal, power-mad, despotic?" "No more than usual."

 

Another thing. I know how hokey the idea of Khan's blood saving Kirk may seem, but for all we know, Khan's blood could've helped in Wrath of Khan as well, if not for the fact Khan was on the Reliant when it was destroyed.

 

I think Spock Prime in TWOK got a heftier dose of rads than JJ-verse Kirk did in Into Darkness.

Spock was like, y'know, kinda melting.



Kirk just sorta died.



That is another thematic thing about the JJ-verse flicks that I actually do like. Stuff that happened in the original Prime reality is going to eventually happen in the JJ-verse. Everybody who was on that bridge in the Prime-verse eventually got there in the alternate reality. They eventually ran into Khan, bad things happen involving radiation leakage on the Enterprise. There is an element of destiny to the JJ-verse flicks but it's going to get mixed up slightly. It doesn't seem like a straight, shameless, unoriginal rip off to me because that's how the alternate reality continuity has been established.

 

Any chance Carol will be pregnant in the next film?

 

Any chance that Kirk won't be a deadbeat dad in the film after that?

 

So you think the fact that Leonard Nimoy having kicked the bucket will affect ST3 in any way? What happens to Spock Prime in-universe now that his actor's gone...does he get killed off, or will they keep him around to make appearances in novels or perhaps animation?

 

I suspect we'll get both a "For Leonard" at the beginning and potentially an in-universe message similar to Picard receiving the news of Sarek's death.

 

This. Yeah, the characters will get a message that the other Spock has just died on New Vulcan, sort of like that one episode of Doctor Who where the Eleventh Doctor received a phone call about the Brigadier passing away, just after the actor who played him passed away.

 

The Federation council goes after Kirk when he goes rogue to escape child support payments.

Star Trek: The Wrath of the Mom

 

Sorry, already taken:

 

WTH?