STAR TREK BEYOND co-writer Simon Pegg is back in a new interview from CinemaCon earlier this month, speaking to Collider about not just to the status of the film’s post-production standing – including those reshoots last month – but also coming to a vigorous defense of director Justin Lin’s leadership.

A salient portion of the interview was about the March reshoots in southern California, which Pegg cleanly calls a routine endeavor – contrary to some online chatter of “damage control” we’ve seen in many discussion groups.

This always happens in filmmaking. Often, when you get into the edit and you look at the movie and think, “Oh, it’s a shame we didn’t get that reaction shot” or, “Maybe in this scene we could have brought in [some] aspect of the developing plot.”

So, having a cut of the movie, we were able to assess – and thankfully, given the freedom – to go in and do touch-up kind of things on what we already had, which is a great opportunity.

Of course, when you write a screenplay and you film the whole thing, [the running time] is usually a lot longer than you anticipate it being, and invariably it’ll have to come down. When you cut stuff out of a movie, sometimes you have to go back in and make sure the [story flow] is all shored up.

It was just a bit of that, really. A very routine, very quick, and fun thing to do since we got to see each other again.

I think the term ‘reshoot’ often feels like “Oh, you’ve got to do it again?” When in actual fact it’s more like pickups, more like looking for moments where the film can just be finessed.


In addition – while admitting to Lin’s well-versed knowledge of stunt and action production – Pegg spoke directly to the detractors focusing on the director’s previous films.

Justin had clear ideas about a few of the set pieces in the movie, and we would work with Justin to make sure the story tracked through those moments so if there was a big event, Doug and I would make sure we tracked every character in that event and make it track with Justin’s idea for the visual spectacle, which he is very good at.

I hate people saying that because it’s Justin Lin it’s just going to be “Fast & Furious in Space!” It’s a kind of reductive, asinine criticism.

Justin’s history as a filmmaker started off with a Sundance movie called ‘Better Luck Tomorrow.’ He’s a smart, sensitive guy.

The fact that he was able to energize the ‘Fast & Furious’ series is a testament to his smarts as a filmmaker. He’s not just the car chase guy.

Pegg also confirmed that Justin Lin’s mystery photo from the set was actually from the first day of shooting in Vancouver, all the way back in June 2015.

A last thoughtful moment allowed Pegg to comment on the nature of how Star Trek is represented in this July’s picture:

Being given the keys to the Star Trek universe was an extraordinary privilege. It was extremely important to me that we did it justice. I know Star Trek means a lot to a lot of different people. It means an enormous amount to some people.

And at the same time, it should be something that everyone can enjoy as well, so you have to look at the means of writing a screenplay as well, which is an invitation to the un-inducted of the Federation Fan Club, and those who have been watching the show for fifty years and knowing it and loving every element of it. And also what’s available to us now and the state of cinema now, and the spectacle to bring people in.

Let’s combine the philosophies and tenets of the Star Trek universe with bigger set pieces and exciting stuff. Let’s see Kirk and the guys doing stuff we haven’t seen them do before because we just literally haven’t been able to do that – but that’s not at the expense of the other stuff.

Star Trek is a very thoughtful story. It’s a very intelligent, hopeful projection of our own futures, and that’s something we have to hang on to.

The full interview with Pegg, including discussion of next year’s Mission: Impossible 6, can be viewed here.

  • Loved the article, but the last link is linking right back here.
    I keep up my optimism, can’t wait July!

  • worth noting that the marvel films almost always do late reshoots and right now the MCU is (for better or for worse) the gold standard for big franchises

  • kadajawi

    Not worried that it’s going to be Fast and Furious in Space, it’s that it’s going to be Guardians of the Galaxy with Trek characters. I would actually like to see that, too, but with a new crew, where it makes sense. It could be fun, having a new set of flawed, perhaps non-Federation characters come together in the Star Trek world. Just not with the Enterprise and crew.

  • Pegg is saying all the right things; it makes me cautiously hopeful!

  • Locutus

    I’m glad Pegg is willing to tackle the naysayers and specific criticisms directly. Goes beyond the usual rosey picture quips. He is right to characterize the criticism of Lin as unfair. If only the teaser hadn’t reinforced them so literally with the Beastie Boyz and motorcycle schtick.

    But I remain optimistic. Hopefully, the trailer will put out a better vibe for the fans.

    • Brian Thorn

      Well, Pegg lied through his teeth about Khan being in Into Darkness, so only a fool would take what he says as Gospel.

      • ¡David Oakes! 

        Which he did to preserve the mystery and surprise of the cinema experience. Everyone wants to know everything nowadays.

        To the point that people actually ACTUALLY want to know why in the Force awakens – c3po has a red arm. Instead of just go ” oh ok – it’s been thirty years since we last saw him – stuff has happened “.

        • Brian

          That doesn’t negate my point that we can’t trust the guy. Hey, I like Pegg alright. But no, I don’t believe a word he says. That ship sailed three years ago.

        • pittrek

          Really? I actually didn’t notice C3P0 has a red arm until you just mentioned it 🙂

  • bbock

    To be fair, the criticism of Fast and Furious Trek was the fault of the first trailer which emphasized the Fast and Furious connection in text, in music and in the ridiculous action sequence they showed. Pegg has nobody to blame but themselves for allowing that trailer out if it was not indeed an accurate reflection of the movie.

    • Zarm

      Then’s not fair, though. The promotional department works, for all intents and purposes, independently of the filmmakers (from everything I understand). Pegg and Lin don’t get the final say; the executives do. So they couldn’t control the image the studio chose to project for them film.

      • bbock

        It’s fair for us to judge a movie on its marketing. Its purpose is to be judged. Whether or not the marketing is fair to the end product is an entirely different matter. Had Pegg said “The marketing is unfair!” he might have a valid point. Instead he chose to whine about how people were asinine in criticizing it as “Fast and Furious Trek”. He should whine about the marketing instead.

        • Eric Cheung

          He did say the marketing was unfair soon after the trailer was released. He gave the trailer a bad review in an interview within a week.

          • Ace Stephens

            I was about to mention this. It seems some do not wish to follow the rationales behind these things because it doesn’t allow them to continue to feel upset about certain elements. Which is baffling to me. If something one loves is being handled with discernment – even if an immediate given thing does not suit one’s preference – shouldn’t that be cause for celebration (or at least calm) rather than concern?

            The marketing people thought that approach best (generally for “casual audiences”) and the person who wrote it thought it was important to assure the people who got the wrong impression that it wasn’t reflective of their film within the context of the fandom. Sounds like everyone’s heart is in the right place which, in terms of a starting point, is exactly where I imagine most would hope for them to be.

        • Zarm

          It’s not fair to criticize Lin or Pegg based on that marketing, however. Which was the point being addressed.

    • Eric Cheung

      The Fast and Furious comparisons flew as soon as Lin’s name was discussed as a possible director. Thus far, the only Justin Lin film I’ve actually seen is “Better Luck Tomorrow.” So when I heard he was directing I thought more about that than Fast and Furious.

      And I don’t think Pegg or Lin have enough clout to stop Paramount from releasing a trailer they don’t want out there.

      • Ace Stephens

        I don’t understand what makes people think that if someone’s apparently good at one thing, that’s all they’re good at (the same goes for actors – “Oh, you’re funny. You can’t do drama.” or vice versa or…whatever). In this case, regarding the idea that someone’s only good at directing “one genre.”

        To me, it’s just like in one’s everyday life where, if someone tells a funny joke about one subject – does one then think they only know funny jokes about that one subject or do they then think that individual is capable of being quite funny? Typically the latter (and that usually doesn’t mean that they aren’t capable of great emotional depth, awareness, etc. as well). Does that mean every joke they tell will be great? No. But does it mean that they have a better shot at nailing a joke than somebody who’s stumbling into it or has an iffy track record with jokes in general? Of course.

        • Zarm

          “”Oh, you’re funny. You can’t do drama.””
          Heck, that’s why we never got ‘He Walks Among Us,’ with Milton Berle, in TOS. That kind of assumption has always held Trek back- and when that kind of assumption is ignored, we end up with stellar actor-directors like Lenard Nimoy, Levar Burton, Jonathan Frakes, and Roxann Dawson.

      • Maya Quinto

        Yeah, but Kirk’s motorcycle jump didn’t help. I was pleased to read that Lin did a humanistic indie film in his early years.

    • Ace Stephens

      You mean the first trailer which emphasized the music, bike-riding and action of the Star Trek reboot (’09) by mirroring it (to such a point that, in my view, it was excessive rather than complimentary, yes)? I don’t know why people would jump on the case of a marketing team (or those behind the thing being marketed) simply for emphasizing the elements that many (particularly casual) fans seemed to think worked previously (in terms of the marketing and/or final film) – such as the action, alien races, “Sabotage” sequence, etc. .

      So where does “fault” there lie with this fixation on Lin as “just the Fast and the Furious director” (when he’s clearly directed other things)? I might suggest it rests on the kneejerk cynicism of some who, particularly as/if fans of Star Trek, one might expect to be more considerate. At least considerate enough to see what the trailer was clearly mirroring from the ’09 film and to be aware of Lin’s work to the extent that they know he’s not just someone who does Fast and Furious movies (even though that’s the most obvious thing to “market” about him).

      …But there’s me thinking Star Trek fans should be able to “do better” than many fans of other big properties. Damn me for paying attention to the more optimistic themes of the franchise and hoping most other fans would too.

      • Ace Stephens

        You know nothing of the Space Jam sequel’s quality as it’s not even in production yet. You sound like what someone may have said decades ago about “Cameron thinking he can make an Alien movie” or similar. Just an utter lack of perspective.

  • Dasjerm

    It’s going to be a great film. Some Trek fans are their own worst enemies.

    • Dasjerm

      When I hear old school Trek fans complaining about these new movies I’m always reminded of this old Onion News video from 09 –

    • Brian Thorn

      Maybe, but how on Earth can you possibly know that? It could end up being like Generations… a great premise very poorly executed. Or it could be like Final Frontier… a fiasco. I’m hoping it will be the next Wrath of Khan or Voyage Home (always hoping!) but seriously, how can you proclaim it will be great? Talk about fans being their worst enemies….

      • Dasjerm

        It is a simple matter of choosing to be optimistic instead of pessimistic. Also as someone who loved both JJ films I’m inclined to believe I will also like this one. If you didn’t like the last two you may not like this one. There are some who love Deep Space Nine. I hated that show. Not all Trek is liked by all Trek fans but unlike some, I stay positive until I have seen the film or show and can make a judgment based on having seen it, not what I hope/wish/fear it may or may not be

  • Newdivide1701

    In short, polishing the chrome AFTER they made sure it was working.

    He’s right when he says that reshoots are routine. I’m betting it’s rare to have every single shot go according to plan.

    I seem to recall from Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan, which many including myself still deem one of the best if not the best Star Trek of all time, added the “Remember” scene afterwards with Leonard Nimoy doing the voice over as a hint that Spock may not be permanently dead — despite the fact that Nicholas Meyer said he would have kept Spock dead.

    • Zarm

      It’s sadly similar to the criticisms of ‘universe-breaking’ technology in ’09 and STID… the reboot Trek gets raked over the coals for doing the same things that original Trek and TNG did all the time; there’s a lot of bias-based negativity. (Which isn’t to say people don’t have valid complaints about the JJ films… just that it can go a little overboard and lump in extra ‘flaws’ that all Trek shares, and only this version is being called out on… just like the reshoots).

      • Ace Stephens

        I think when people have “bigger” (in terms of immediate scope) and more concentrated works they’re exposed to, these concerns become more prevalent to them…so I think that’s a part of that. It’s waiting years as opposed to months (or even just a week) so there’s a level of expectation that is for something bigger, more cohesive, etc. overall – which may, as you note, sometimes drift into the realm of being overboard.

      • Muzer

        I’m not *too* bothered about the universe-breaking technology in ’09 and STiD (it’s annoying but something I’m willing to gloss over — it’s other parts of the films that make them both a flawed experience for me). But what technology in Wrath of Khan is universe-breaking? If this were, say, the Firefly universe, having technology to instantly terraform planets WOULD be universe-breaking. But I’m not sure the same can be said about the Star Trek universe. It wouldn’t really significantly change the status quo, except for perhaps making Sherman’s Planet easier to develop 😉

        Hmm, I suppose maybe there’s the issue of the Federation suddenly really easily being able to set up self-sustaining terraformed outposts on their outer territories, making their land much easier to defend and making expansion much quicker. Perhaps this could even explain some of the changes that had happened by the TNG era. But the problems we encounter day-to-day in the show would still, by and large, be there. Perhaps a few times in TNG where we see people who have struggled to terraform a planet, perhaps those times shouldn’t have happened with this new technology. But the other thing with Wrath of Khan is that it was treading new territory for the franchise, so really, they CAN do anything as long as it is for a good cause (story/plot-wise) and doesn’t stretch suspension of disbelief too much.

        Compare this to Scotty’s magic transporter stuff from ’09/STiD. The thing that he apparently invented, which I would presume would have been in the TOS era (unless we’re saying TNG-era Scotty would have managed it). That literally makes Starships obsolete. The whole of TNG shouldn’t have need to happen, and what’s more, if I recall correctly, the way this is phrased in the film, this should have happened in the original universe. You can handwave it away by saying it was classified and then forgotten or something, but ultimately, this is a poor explanation given how much of an advantage it would have given people.

        Now, as I say, in the grand scheme of things, this stuff doesn’t really matter to me, and I can gloss over it if the rest of the film is good. But it’s here another symptom of the writers not really understanding fundamental aspects of the universe, which, IMHO, is ALWAYS important.

        I’m hoping (cautiously optimistically!) STB won’t make similar mistakes.

        • Zarm

          I was thinking primarily about Genesis, yes- instant terraforming (which, as you note, is beyond Federation capabilities per ‘Home Soil’), but also instant planetary/nebular destruction… true, the Federation wouldn’t use it that way (though I’d think they might try pulling out a Genesis Device and aiming it at the incoming Borg cubes in BoBW and FC, or perhaps using it against the Dominion- Section 31, if no one else.

          But realistically, other powers with less restraint would immediately be looking to steal this info and/or develop their own. Yes, we saw a brief tussle with Kruge, but honestly, this should be the Trek equivalent of developing the atomic bomb… the beginning of a decades-long, spy-based cold war between the Federation and ALL unaligned powers. Seeing that it doesn’t work would not keep the Klingons and Romulans from wanting it. Even in TNG, it ought to be about spy games and scientific races to develop new Genesis technology and defenses. (And yeah, that’s just extrapolating the implication- but so is the ‘magic blood’ and ‘transwarp beaming’- both of which, incidentally, seem to have been confiscated by Starfleet as restricted technology rather than being put to common use- at least, I assume Kahn only had a module because he had a mole inside Section 31 and/or was working with Admiral Marcus on classified stuff).

          But either way, TWOK is far from the only example. Why does Soran need to mess around with trilithium to blow up a star when Dr. Timicin’s very public research can do that (Half a Life)? What about rebuilding a person from pure energy and a transporter trace (Lonely Among Us), or de-aging using a single existent DNA sample (Unnatural Selection)? Should Metaphasic shielding strong enough to enter a star’s corona (Suspicions, Decent Pt. 2) change the way combat works? And let’s not even start on ‘before 16 hours, nanoprobes can resurrect the dead…’

          There’s a lot more where that came from- all of which can affect aging, mortality, combat, the destruction of entire planets and stars… all of which could theoretically affect future episodes and scenarios (especially when someone dies, or during the Dominion War), but are just forgotten. For better or worse, I see it as a part of Trek- hence (whatever other issues STID may have), why I think it’s wrong to blame them for doing that, unless TOS and TNG are simillarly reviled. That doesn’t mean STID or ’09 are above reproach, mind you… just not to be castigated for that *particular* reason. 🙂

          For the transwarp beaming, btw, I veyr much got the impression that this was invented by elder Scotty in the post-Nemesis, pre-future Spock era; clearly we did not see it in TNG, but we have not seen anything canonical set in that period. I would also suggest that it doesn’t make starships obsolete; one must reach and scan a planet for a safe destiantion, the possibility of not being able to get back, or of lacking immediate support staff nearby if anything interferes with transporters, having insufficient sensors to really explore a planet or nearby space… yes, the function of starships as couriers would be rendered largely obsolete, but there are still a great many things- from combat to stellar exploration to planetary surveys, all the sorts of things Starfleet is supposedly for- that can’t be replaced by the transwarp beaming. It may eliminate the function of starships as taxis for diplomats, and with a comprehenisve long-range scanner/probe system, perhaps you could simply beam over to unexplored planets… but that still leaves a lot of diplomacy and exploration that requires a ship. So, while I can see a strong effect on the nuiverse, if the technology were made public, I don’t think it is any more universe-breaking than Genesis, or metaphasic shielding, or transporter de-aging; something written into a story- needlessly or not- and forgotten… perhaps illogically, but not universe-breakingly or credibility-strainingly… and certainly not in any way that its trek breatheren haven’t already.

          Of course, that’s just the way I see it; I understand that others differ. I’m just trying to play the Farpoint-Picard role; “If they’re going to be damned, let them be damned for what they really are”- things they do uniquely wrong, rather than issues inherent to the whole of Star Trek like aberantly-powerful technology with unconsidered implications.

    • Shane

      Exactly and some fans forget that at the time Wrath of Khan was hastily rewritten in 14-16 days and then directed by a non-fan ! Imagine the abuse Nick Meyers would be getting if that was today.

  • Dudeman

    I love the positive comments here! Very suprised about that though! Thank you everyone for that! I was wondering: Was that a little totally earned dig at the trolling, whining part of the fanbase (currently not present here, apparently) that hates everything new and just loves complaining and waiting for things to fail (such a star treky-attitude by the way), when he said, that the making of TOS was, when Star Trek was “fundamentalized”? I love how he “formalized” that, he probably didn’t mean it that way, but I often see the comments here and on other fan-sites and think exactly that: “WOW – FUNDAMENTALIST STAR TREK FANS!”

    If Jesus message of compassion and forgiveness can be used for hate of others, why not a beloved sci-fi show that encourages us to grow out of our petty human egos and prosper in a global, stars encompassing state of peace? Well, being mean-spirited arm-chair directors / marketing executives, etc. won’t get us there anyway … this trend of fans hating on stuff is not limited to the star trek universe though, its like the internet brings out the worst in everybody …

    this is a great article about how mean fans ruin stuff: Maybe we can one of the star trek kid-fans turned scientist, maybe a sociologist get on this and research where all this negativity in fans of entertainment comes from …

    • Maya Quinto

      For awhile we called them “Talifans” but that was roundly condemned.

      It’s nice to come here compared with other sites, where the “purists” are the loudest and shoutiest and sometimes rudest TOS/TNG fans ever.

      What, if I like the new movies I’m not a real Trek fan? Pssssht.

  • Sincerely

    “Let’s combine the philosophies and tenets of the Star Trek universe with bigger set pieces and exciting stuff. Let’s see Kirk and the guys doing stuff we haven’t seen them do before because we just literally haven’t been able to do that ”

    But making trek in 2016 doesn’t mean, though, you can just get better action scenes and special effects than you did in the 60s. Does he get that trek being made in the 60s didn’t just limit the ‘spectable’ aspects of it and the technology used to make it, it also limited, due to cultural dynamics of the era, the way the characters were developed and the stories they could tell.
    Making a ‘modern’ trek where you can do stuff you couldn’t do in the 60s means, for example, having a Spock/Uhura relationship that Roddenberry wanted too but couldn’t have in the 60s because it was interracial, and sexism and racism put an enormous limit on what he could do or not with the characters. Making a trek now in 2016 means you are allowed to be contemporary and make it relatable to nowadays people who can’t, anymore, consider trek progressive because it has two poc in the main crew, or because the lead make character is (barely) allowed to kiss the black woman while he is being forced to.

    One can be a trek fan but still recognize it wasn’t perfect and that many things would come across outdated today, and those ‘things’ are not just a matter of special effects and the technology used to make a movie.

    • RA

      Another aspect of Trek is using it as finding a vehicle to discuss those very things you couldn’t do or would be comfortable to do… hence the first inter-racial kiss on screen. I also regret that they nixed the original Spock concept (making him look devilish), that certainly would have added some interesting discussion (and also had the show end after 1 season).

  • The Fox


  • archer923

    I’m hoping this movie works out good. I just want it to be fine/okay. It doesn’t need to reach OMG levels. Just not a rehash, or anything dumb. I really don’t care who directs Star Trek. I wouldn’t care if Vin Disel was in the movie. I will hate that marketing team for the trailer. Thanks guys. You just needed Kirk jumping out an airlock, catching the alien, midair. And you would of been spot on for pitch forks.

  • RA

    It took me a while to come around to the new movies. There is a certain level of shallowness to recent Trek (and I am going beyond just the new movies) than has been a trend for many years. I’m in the middle of a DS9 Season 7 rewatch. There’s lots of action there; I’d be lying if I said I didn’t enjoy the more violent episodes. There’s so much more under the action though: questions of morality, the consequences and costs of our actions, issues of belief, etc.
    While I don’t agree with the “Truther” movement, I wish STID focused more on the actual story than PANDERING to old school fans by constant reference dropping (were we supposed to flap our hands in excitement when they mentioned Harry Mudd or the Ketha Lowlands?). It had the opportunity to really get us thinking about the role of persons and governments in the problems in our world, but instead we got caught up in issues of white-washing, magical transporters, and who yelled “Khan”/died best. Star Trek does mean a lot of things to a lot of people, but at the end of the day it’s about exploring humanity, not blowing up humanity. Yes, you can have action and excitement at the same time as reflection and depth.
    There are SO MANY THINGS new Trek can explore: polarized society, isolationism, extremism, LGBTQ issues, etc. Let us not forget that courage should be a value not of just the film characters but also of the film makers.

  • Shane

    It must be annoying for Simon, Doug Jung and Justin Lin to see stupid negative comments on the net from so called fans that just troll and know nothing about the new movie. They were called in at the last hour and have obviously had to work their butts off to get the film ready in time and it could have gone a lot worse. But we got two writers that know trek and are fans and an experienced director that only took the job due to been a fan. What did they replace? Bob Orci (no problem with Bob) writing with two other guys who at the time everyone was who? and a director that’s never directed! Give the movie a chance then make your minds up.

    • Darkthunder

      I’ll flip that on you…

      It must be annoying for Simon, Doug and Justin to see stupid positive comments on the net from so called fans that just troll and know nothing about the new movie.

      Basically, neither you nor I nor anyone else (negative commentator, or positive) know anything about the movie. None of us have seen it. So I’d say your positive comments are just as stupid as anyone’s negative comments. And equally trollish.

      • Shane

        Yeah im sure there annoyed to see people been positive for the movie after the hard work they put in! But really as a fan Id rather be positive and give it a chance if it’s bad when i see it i’ll hold my hands up and admit it! But if it’s great how many haters will admit it?

        • Two cents?

          Yeah, but if you are a fan of these movies and this team gives bad vibes in some aspects that make you think they don’t care about some things, it’s legit people voice their concern. Being worried and scared someone can ruin something you like is just a human thing. Again, separate the trolls from the frustated fans, it’s not the same thing. A new team is often a bad thing and honestly this team had made no effort to tell the fans of abrams’ trek that this movie is for them, too, and they didn’t just come and made a reboot of the reboot.

          • Shane

            Concerns is one and yes people can voice them, but my point is more at the haters there’s been too much oh it’s gunna suck bad, awful, boycott, reshoots etc when no one has seen the movie or really knows what it’s about. Im saying give it a chance, my remarks about the team are I think we’re actually in better hands experience wise with the team that was brought on last minute than the team that were shut out. Now i’m a fan of Tos, Tng and Ds9 all the movies and reboots. Voyager and Enterprise are absent because i just was not a fan of those especially Enterprise which highlights up the reasons and problems of making a prequel.

    • Two cents?

      I get being annoyed at the so called trek fans that indeed troll and just want to ruin the party for everyone, when we all now by now (2009 called…) that they will never like this reboot on principle and the writers cannot win with them.

      Reboot fans, though, who are concerned that a new team might ruin everything and kill this trek itineration that they like (and probably defended it for years in arguments with fans from the above mentioned group), and just honestly wanted to see a decent continuation of, deserve some understanding here because their concerns are a tad more legit and they come from a place of genuine worry rather than gratuitous negativity. They are worried because they care. Tos purists and elitists (trolls) still have their tos DVDs to watch to their heart’s content and can rejoice if the reboot indeed fails like they so DESPERATELY want. But the reboot fans, be it either new fans or trek fans who liked these movie, will get the short end of the stick if this movie is bad and this team ruined any good the other did.

      • Shane

        I appreciate where you coming from with this maybe i’ve been reading too much of the negativity on the Trekmovie site.

        • Maya Quinto

          Ditto, Shane.

  • pittrek

    Pegg has my respect. Paramount tries to market the movie as a big dumb action movie but Pegg still tries to persuade us it will be a good Star Trek movie. I hope he is correct

  • Section31


    I have read you only post reports which you have double checked with CBS/Paramount and you won’t publish any rumors, which I appreciate. But I will continue to post rumors with the hope that you will double check some of them as well with official sources Maybe you are able to find out if there is any truth it it. 😉

    Here the newest gossip:

    Star Trek 2017 to be set 50 years after TNG.


    • Section31

      Ok, seems it really only was what I wrote: A rumor. The mention of the timeframe has been withdrawn.

      • TrekCore Admin

        We check the rumors that seem credible. There won’t be any confirmation or denial about production (and consequently, the time period the show is set in) until the process starts up.

  • But so far it HAS been at the expense of the “other stuff.” That ship already sailed.