I have to say up front, I'm a big fan of Simon Pegg. I have been for years now. I remember when he was on Big Train and Brass Eye (the Paedophile sketch in particular was cutting and hilarious), I loved Spaced which he co-wrote and co-starred in with the wonderful Jessica Stevenson (now Hynes - and something of a *soft* prequels defender - which is to say she's admitted to liking them), I enjoyed his appearance on Doctor Who, own both Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead on DVD, and am very much looking forward to his next flick.
That being said every statement he makes about Star Wars, including the one above, is crap. He's little more than a bitter fanboy when it comes to this particular topic. He didn't like episode's I-III, thats fine, but there seems to be a real sourness to him in relation to this, and as a fan of his it really disappoints me. In fairness, he isn't blind to it, he did take the piss out of himself in the second season of Spaced for it. But not without getting a few licks in against Lucas. So we needn't be too fair.
As for the new Star Trek. I haven't seen it yet. I'm a huge fan of Trek (and I mean a proper book buying, list making, OCD fighting FAN) and when I was offered tickets to a preview a couple of weeks ago, my reaction was - and I hate this term, so forgive me but - *meh*.
Now in the intervening weeks I've come round. It actually looks like a good fun, action, adventure flick. I still hold reservations: Kirk's character seems drawn from the consensus caricature, rebel-without-a-cause misconception of who Kirk is, rather than the man William Shatner actually played. Young Kirk was always described as bookish, academic, and ambitious; not reckless, callous, and (at least to begin with) directionless, as he seems to be in this movie. In fact the Kirk I'm seeing in these trailers seems more akin to how Jean-Luc Picard was supposed to have been in his youth.
One old friend of Kirk's actually described him as being "a stack of books with legs" while at the academy.
Should this matter? Not really. No. Its been a bit of a pet peeve of mine that the character has been consistently misread over the years, and I do find the original version more interesting, but this shouldn't affect the quality of the movie.
The other thing though, is the tone I'm picking up off the trailers. This feels - dare I say it - like Star Wars in Star Trek's clothing. For all the nonsense rivalry between the two franchises they are, but for having Star in their titles and being set in space, completely different. I got the impression that Abrams (who I like) is making the Star Wars picture he's always wanted to make, but calling it Trek.
Star Trek always had that Cowboys & Indians flavour to it, that was part of its appeal. But it was always more sedate, cerebral (Star Wars goes more for the heart, the blood, at least up front), and majesterial. This film seems not to get that. Of course you need the sturm and drang to get the joe soapers interested. I just hope there's a bit more substance in there when all's said and done.
My favourite thing about Star Trek is the sense of exploration. If humankind ever does it; launches massive, three and four hundred staffed starships into the depths of unknown space, just to see what's out there, it will be the best thing we ever do. That feeling, that sense of seizing the future, of 'boldly going where no one has gone before', that is what Star Trek is about. Explosions, and outer space battles... these things are nice, but not really part of the program.
In the end Lucas's saga might aim to get the blood pumping, but it's not only concerned with that. There are deeper themes at work. I hope that Abrams, in trying to map some Wars onto Trek, remembered that at least.
no subject
That being said every statement he makes about Star Wars, including the one above, is crap. He's little more than a bitter fanboy when it comes to this particular topic. He didn't like episode's I-III, thats fine, but there seems to be a real sourness to him in relation to this, and as a fan of his it really disappoints me. In fairness, he isn't blind to it, he did take the piss out of himself in the second season of Spaced for it. But not without getting a few licks in against Lucas. So we needn't be too fair.
As for the new Star Trek. I haven't seen it yet. I'm a huge fan of Trek (and I mean a proper book buying, list making, OCD fighting FAN) and when I was offered tickets to a preview a couple of weeks ago, my reaction was - and I hate this term, so forgive me but - *meh*.
Now in the intervening weeks I've come round. It actually looks like a good fun, action, adventure flick. I still hold reservations: Kirk's character seems drawn from the consensus caricature, rebel-without-a-cause misconception of who Kirk is, rather than the man William Shatner actually played. Young Kirk was always described as bookish, academic, and ambitious; not reckless, callous, and (at least to begin with) directionless, as he seems to be in this movie. In fact the Kirk I'm seeing in these trailers seems more akin to how Jean-Luc Picard was supposed to have been in his youth.
One old friend of Kirk's actually described him as being "a stack of books with legs" while at the academy.
Should this matter? Not really. No. Its been a bit of a pet peeve of mine that the character has been consistently misread over the years, and I do find the original version more interesting, but this shouldn't affect the quality of the movie.
The other thing though, is the tone I'm picking up off the trailers. This feels - dare I say it - like Star Wars in Star Trek's clothing. For all the nonsense rivalry between the two franchises they are, but for having Star in their titles and being set in space, completely different. I got the impression that Abrams (who I like) is making the Star Wars picture he's always wanted to make, but calling it Trek.
Star Trek always had that Cowboys & Indians flavour to it, that was part of its appeal. But it was always more sedate, cerebral (Star Wars goes more for the heart, the blood, at least up front), and majesterial. This film seems not to get that. Of course you need the sturm and drang to get the joe soapers interested. I just hope there's a bit more substance in there when all's said and done.
My favourite thing about Star Trek is the sense of exploration. If humankind ever does it; launches massive, three and four hundred staffed starships into the depths of unknown space, just to see what's out there, it will be the best thing we ever do. That feeling, that sense of seizing the future, of 'boldly going where no one has gone before', that is what Star Trek is about. Explosions, and outer space battles... these things are nice, but not really part of the program.
In the end Lucas's saga might aim to get the blood pumping, but it's not only concerned with that. There are deeper themes at work. I hope that Abrams, in trying to map some Wars onto Trek, remembered that at least.