ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Simon Pegg curses out disappointed trekkies

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this Aug. 26 2013, 6:50 am

I still don't get the whole "we should be thankful for new Star Trek no matter what" mentality.  Star Trek is not a gift from some benevolent source. It is a product. Star Trek is produced under the conditions of any other consumer product, supply and demand. It is driven by numbers and dollar signs. Why do you think Nimoy appeared in STID after very publicly "retiring" from acting? Out of the goodness of his heart? Or because Paramount dropped a big bag of money in his lap?


We are not "spoiled". We are consumers who spend dollars which affords us the right to give feedback and criticism. The fear of "oh if we complain they won't make more Star Trek" is ridiculous. Paramount is not your mommy who is going to take away something from you if you don't "appreciate" it.  If they don't make new Star Trek with this new cast that is because the majority of fans have voted with their wallets that they don't want anymore Star Trek with the new cast. The end. I don't buy a crappy product in the store in the "hope" that the company will eventually make a better version. 


As far as the OT, I haven't read the article in question, so I don't know the context.  I do know that I like Simon Pegg's work on a whole and i find him entertaining, but he is, in the end, an actor and a self professed nerd. That combination makes for a very over-sensitive, defensive type.  He's also been so widely embraced by nerd culture that he's probably used to people loving everything he does, so having his dream job on Star Trek being panned, he reacted childishly.  At the end of the day, actors are actors. They're overly sensitive, narcissistic artist types who process things differently than average people and they have huge egos that need to be coddled. That's not necessarily meant to insult them. That's just part of the personality is attracted to acting and is required to put yourself out there and perform. 

beej1300

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 12

Report this Aug. 26 2013, 7:24 am

My first experience with Star Trek was watching Star Trek IV on VHS.  I loved it.


They had a trailer on the tape for this new show.  Star Trek TNG.


I watched every episode from that point on. (I had only missed a few of season 1 that I eventually caught in reruns.)


I then watched every episoded of DS9 and Voyager...  But Enterprise rubbed me the wrong way from the very first scene of the very first episode.  In a show that was supposed to explain all the things we were supposed to take for granted in TOS, all the things that we only knew through exposition, we had a TNG Klingon in the opening scene!  They were either retconning TOS or only respecting TNG forward...  Either way...  I was not happy.


I skipped seasons 2 and 3...  But I was back for season 4 when they FINALLY started making the connections I'd been hoping for...  But, it was too little too late to save the show....  And I'll admit, watching it in reruns, it is a good show...  If I let my bias go.


 


All that being said...  I love the new Star Treks.  They respect what came before, but blaze a new trail with the characters we love.  They could've just wiped the slate clean, but they didn't.  There is a Spock who met Picard and Data running around.  The major events of TNG, DS9 and Voyager (Dominion War, etc.) are all things he still remembers happening.


They have made Star Trek popular.  I know so many people who used to mock Star Trek because it was "uncool" but now have gone back and give the old shows a chance because of these movies.


There is new Trek because of these movies.  It's not JUST old episodes and movies.  The franchise didn't get shelved.


 


My personal preferences aside...  If I had been in Vegas during that discussion about the movies, I too would have probably had choice words, then threw my hands in the air and stormed out of the room at those results.


 


Star Trek The Motion Picture - I know to some people it's heracy...  But it is SO boring.  I have never been able to watch it straight through.  It was so "good" that they scrapped everything from it and started all over again with Wrath of Khan.


Star Trek V - I loved this movie as a child...  and it was because it was the first Star Trek movie I saw when it was released... No matter how much my parents groaned about it...  I loved it.  Now that I'm older... It is painful to watch.


Star Trek Generations - Captain Kirk dies because a bridge collapses.  Nuff said.


Insurrection - Wasn't HORRIBLE...  but would've made an "ok" episode...  Not even a "good" episode.


Nemesis - While Into Darkness was a modernization of Wrath of Khan...  Showing that even in a new timeline some events are going to be unavoidable... Nemesis was a clone.  The captain has an enemy who is his savage equal come out of hiding and the popular "non-captain" character dies after leaving his memories in the body of someone else. Let's ignore the fact that someone is raped in their mind...


 


While I will readily agree that Star Trek 2009 and Into Darkness will not beat Wrath of Khan, The Voyage Home, First Contact, or The Undiscovered Country...  It is rude and disrepectful to say that it couldn't AT LEAST beat Star Trek V.... And possibly even more of the movies I listed above.


 


I have to agree with Mr. Pegg on this one.  It comes off as "nerd snobbery" to dislike it off hand.  To use his own example, it's like hating an indie musician you used to love because now everyone thinks they are "cool."

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this Aug. 26 2013, 7:40 am

 


I have to agree with Mr. Pegg on this one.  It comes off as "nerd snobbery" to dislike it off hand.  To use his own example, it's like hating an indie musician you used to love because now everyone thinks they are "cool."


 


That is very untrue. This is not the same product.  The old nerd/hipster nugget "I liked them before they were mainstream" doesn't apply here because STID is a completely different Star Trek. "Nerd Snobbery" would apply if one of the original versions of Trek, for instance TOS or TNG, had a second coming in some form or another and became "cool" and suddenly former fans rejected it because of that. That is not what happened here. We were presented with a new Star Trek and didn't like it.  You are not being a snob when you dislike something that has been gutted and reconstructed to be something completely different.


To use the same comparison, if you love a band, and they suddenly change singers and band members but are performing under the same band name, you're not being a snob if you suddenly don't like them. If Metallica replaced its lead singer, I doubt very very much that I would continue to listen to them after being a devoted fan for 25+ years.


No one is "disliking it off hand". Many fans, including myself, have specific, complex reasons why they dislike NuTrek.   And not everyone gives a damn about it being "cool". I could care less what's cool. I don't care if people think my interests are nerdy. I want something that's good. 

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this Aug. 26 2013, 7:45 am

At the end of the day, no one here is Simon Pegg's mother and therefore is not required to pretend to love everything he does just so he doesn't feel bad about himself.


 

Sora

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2606

Report this Aug. 26 2013, 8:51 am

Bunkey I have to say that even though I don't agree with all of your points you have made, I like that you take the time to explain why you feel that way. You get me to stop and think. Some points I agree with, and some I don't. But I do have to say kudos to you for sticking by what you believe and explaining it.


Too often people say things like, this is good just because. Or this sucks just because. Or I don't like it just because I don't or whatever. Not everyone gives valid reasoning.

beej1300

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 12

Report this Aug. 26 2013, 9:39 am

I'm not saying that EVERYONE has to love Star Trek Into Darkness.


I also understand not loving something just because it has Star Trek in the title. (See my previous post about Star Trek V.)


I'm also not just defending Simon Pegg because I enjoy the actor.


 


But some of the "old" movies are just plain bad.  I just can't wrap my head around why people would think this movie is worse than them.


It may not have had as deep a metaphor as we are used to, but it did touch on the use of drones.  It did touch on the negatives of being "pro-active" in preparing for war (that doing so will incite the war in the first place).


There was some character growth.  We saw Kirk become a more humble man and Spock realize that he is allowed to be Jim's friend.


It also made the point that Star Trek isn't supposed to be dark.  They were on the edge of starting down a dark path and turned back.  Instead of going to war they are going to explore.


 


These aren't as deep as we are used to.  They don't have the luxury of an entire TV season for subplots and character development.  But it is not like it is devoid of these things.


 


It is an entertaining movie that still held to the idea that our future can be bright.  The characters may not be how we remember them, but there is a "sci-fi" reason to that and what we know was not thrown out or ignored. If Spock Prime represents the fans...  This is the newest installment that takes place AFTER all the others...  It doesn't replace them.


 


I am not trying convince anyone or change anyone's mind about these new movies...


 


But on a scale based PURELY on Good/Bad.... Can you seriously say that it was worse than Star Trek V?

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 390

Report this Aug. 26 2013, 10:19 am

bunkey - I was speaking in the "we" sense as in "the majority of Trekkies". I was not speaking for any single person in particular but as the majority decision the collective group made. The majority chose not to support ENT, therefore it was canceled.  Simmer down.

First of all, I don't think that fan opinion had anything to do with the cancellation of ENT. The Abrams movies' existence proves that TPTB don't give a damn what fans think. Second, I think the "majority" you're talking about is actually just a handful of TOS purists and DS9 fans who were disappointed/upset that both VOY and ENT were more preachy and utopian like TNG despite their potential to be much darker like DS9.

But therein lies the irony. You can't really defend DS9 without using some of the same arguments you use to criticize the Abrams movies. They're darker, they're different, the focus is less on exploration and more on the characters, etc. As a fan of DS9, I think there is more for you to like about these movies than you are willing to acknowledge.

beej1300 - But on a scale based PURELY on Good/Bad.... Can you seriously say that it was worse than Star Trek V?

Yes, but I rank TFF above TWOK.

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this Aug. 26 2013, 11:49 am

 


First of all, I don't think that fan opinion had anything to do with the cancellation of ENT. The Abrams movies' existence proves that TPTB don't give a damn what fans think. Second, I think the "majority" you're talking about is actually just a handful of TOS purists and DS9 fans who were disappointed/upset that both VOY and ENT were more preachy and utopian like TNG despite their potential to be much darker like DS9.


I'm just curious as to what part of ratings, sponsors, upfront ad buys, money and viewership DON'T you understand?


Do you really think "a handful of TOS purists and DS9 fans" could possibly take down a show if it was otherwise successful, making money and drawing viewers?  Do you? Really, no do you? 


But therein lies the irony. You can't really defend DS9 without using some of the same arguments you use to criticize the Abrams movies. They're darker, they're different, the focus is less on exploration and more on the characters, etc. As a fan of DS9, I think there is more for you to like about these movies than you are willing to acknowledge.


Are you trying to prove that you know what I like more than I do?  Because that's what it sounds like. 


I'll break it down simply for you so you can understand it.


DS9 was new. It was a new direction, new characters and it was forward moving. 


NuTrek was not new. NuTrek retconned TOS. NuTrek changed existing canon.


Therefore, I like DS9. I do not like NuTrek. Is that simple enough for you?

queenuhura

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 114

Report this Aug. 26 2013, 12:06 pm

Quote: darmokattanagra @ Aug. 26 2013, 10:19 am

>bunkey - I was speaking in the "we" sense as in "the majority of Trekkies". I was not speaking for any single person in particular but as the majority decision the collective group made. The majority chose not to support ENT, therefore it was canceled.  Simmer down.

>
First of all, I don't think that fan opinion had anything to do with the cancellation of ENT. The Abrams movies' existence proves that TPTB don't give a damn what fans think. Second, I think the "majority" you're talking about is actually just a handful of TOS purists and DS9 fans who were disappointed/upset that both VOY and ENT were more preachy and utopian like TNG despite their potential to be much darker like DS9.


TV shows are usually cancelled based upon ratings. If the majority of people show their support by watching, the ratings are higher. They can like the show and have a high opinion of it but if they dont actually support it by watching, it doesnt make much of a difference. Obviously the majority did not support ENT. Some people think the death slot marked the cancellation of ENT, but the ratings had already slipped before it was moved from Thurs to Fri(just like TOS).


Oh sorry, this thread was about an actor telling fans  "f**k you". I got off track.


*Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations* *Live Long and Prosper*

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46327

Report this Aug. 26 2013, 1:28 pm

I could just imagine what my customers would do if I did the same thing to them...

Mugatu_for_Two

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 129

Report this Aug. 26 2013, 2:34 pm

All I can say to Mr Pegg is, lighten up bro. It's not like you're paying us to watch your films. We don't make the big bucks that you, Jar Jar and the others make but we are entitled to our opinions. So F U right back

sgt.bjh

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1

Report this Aug. 26 2013, 3:18 pm

The J.J.Abrams S.T. is not MY S.T.(I started watching when I was 14.I am now 60) THe use of alternate time line helps get past the mythlogy of S.T. Sorry, but I think J.J. did a cheap trick. Each of the first movies followed, I believe, teaching of Gene Roddenberry. I enjoyed Pegg's Scotty, it was comic relief.


 

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 390

Report this Aug. 26 2013, 4:50 pm

I'm just curious as to what part of ratings, sponsors, upfront ad buys, money and viewership DON'T you understand?

I understand they don't accurately reflect fan opinion.

Do you really think "a handful of TOS purists and DS9 fans" could possibly take down a show if it was otherwise successful, making money and drawing viewers?  Do you? Really, no do you?

No, I don't think they "took down" ENT, I think they like to think they did.

Are you trying to prove that you know what I like more than I do?  Because that's what it sounds like.

No, I'm just trying to point out that you can make some of the same criticisms of DS9 that you can of the Abrams movies.

I'll break it down simply for you so you can understand it.

DS9 was new. It was a new direction, new characters and it was forward moving.

NuTrek was not new. NuTrek retconned TOS. NuTrek changed existing canon.

Therefore, I like DS9. I do not like NuTrek. Is that simple enough for you?

Still not clear. Try being more condescending.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46327

Report this Aug. 26 2013, 5:19 pm

Quote: sgt.bjh @ Aug. 26 2013, 3:18 pm

>

>The J.J.Abrams S.T. is not MY S.T.(I started watching when I was 14.I am now 60) THe use of alternate time line helps get past the mythlogy of S.T. Sorry, but I think J.J. did a cheap trick. Each of the first movies followed, I believe, teaching of Gene Roddenberry. I enjoyed Pegg's Scotty, it was comic relief.

>
I'm wondering if JJ was actually thinking it was going to be an "alternate" timeline, or if after so many Trekkies complained, someone came up with that to excuse it.


But of course... he was supposed to be doing a "remake" or "reboot"... so why an alternate timeline?

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 390

Report this Aug. 26 2013, 5:31 pm

TV shows are usually cancelled based upon ratings. If the majority of people show their support by watching, the ratings are higher. They can like the show and have a high opinion of it but if they dont actually support it by watching, it doesnt make much of a difference. Obviously the majority did not support ENT.


Yes, but...


Although it was considered a major network by the Nielsen ratings, UPN was not available in every American television market. In some areas, UPN programming was shown off-pattern by affiliates of other networks or by otherwise independent stations, such as in the case of Honolulu's KIKU-TV. Some affiliates were also known to extensively preempt network programming in order to broadcast local sporting events.

In addition, in markets where Viacom had a CBS/UPN duopoly, the UPN station would air CBS network programs, pre-empting the UPN lineup altogether, while local sporting events or extended breaking news coverage would air on the CBS station as the CBS-owned outlets were usually the senior partner in the duopoly (the only exception being Detroit, where WKBD-TV is considered the senior partner to WWJ-TV due to WKBD being longer-established). One such event happened on September 26, 2004, when Hurricane Jeanne forced a scheduled NFL game between the Pittsburgh Steelers and Miami Dolphins in Miami to be postponed from its scheduled start time of 1 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. ET; the game aired locally on KDKA-TV and WFOR-TV while their respective UPN sister stations, WNPA-TV and WBFS-TV, aired CBS's regular Sunday night programming instead.

These factors led to the network struggling in the ratings over much of UPN's existence, with its later Star Trek franchise, Star Trek: Enterprise, perhaps suffering the most and ultimately being cancelled by the network in a controversial decision in February 2005.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UPN

Post Reply

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum