Simon Pegg is cowriting Star Trek 3.

[The Romulan Republic]

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/ja ... tar-trek-3

Simon Pegg has confirmed that he will co-writer of the third entry in the rebooted Star Trek franchise, set for release in 2016.

Pegg, who plays miracle-working, Enterprise-anthropomorphising chief engineer Montgomery “Scotty” Scott in the films, will pen the script alongside Doug Jung, whose past work includes crime caper Confidence.

Pegg’s only solo cinematic writing credit to date is Run, Fatboy, Run, which received lukewarm reviews, although he co-scripted the Cornetto trilogy - Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz and The World’s End - with Edgar Wright.

I think I mostly liked Shaun of the Dead and had mixed feelings about The World's End. I don't think I've seen anything else he's written.

[Enigma]

I wonder if he'll try to give Nick Frost a part in the movie.

[The Romulan Republic]

Maybe this means the next film will have more humour, the reboot's Star Trek IV if you will.

[DaveJB]

This gives some credence to the rumours that Roberto Orci has been effectively pigeonholed into the same sort of role that Gene Roddenberry was after TMP, and that Paramount are taking a much more hands-on role with this film. I'm just hoping it doesn't turn out that for all his batshit political views and other personality issues, Orci was the person keeping ST09 and STID from going completely off the Trek rails.

[Borgholio]

Maybe this means the next film will have more humour, the reboot's Star Trek IV if you will.

Well "Into Darkness" was supposed to be their version of TWOK, so as long as they avoid The Search for Spock it'll be ok. ST-4 is pretty much the funniest ST movie ever so if they payed homage to that it would be worth watching.

[Lord Revan]

compared to something like the Final Frontier (aka William Shatner's love letter to himself) or the (slow)motion picture neither ST09 or In to Darkness aren't that bad, sure they're not master peices but they're not the new standard of bad, people make them up to be either.

so it's not like people working on the new films cannot make an enjoyble Star Trek movie, though if there's more humour I hope it comes organically from the story and isn't just gags "glued" to the story, that's I disliked about Nemesis and Insurrection was the alot fo the humour seemed really forced in the sense of "and now we'll have a joke here", while in the new movies for the most part is seemed to part of story that just happend to be silly.

[Havok]

Final Frontier is awesome, you shut your pie hole.

ST09 and Into Darkness are steaming piles of shit, for a myriad of reasons. They are only enjoyable if you turn off your brain and rely on the TOS to establish relationships.

• Shaun of the Dead
  Hot Fuzz
  Paul
  The World's End

I'm much more confident that the third movie will be better now.

[Batman]

Final Frontier made The Motionless Picture look 'good'. The only things that sorry excuse for a movie had going for it were having the TOS crew, the TWOK+ era uniforms and the humour, and half of that last was forced as hell. NuTrek has its problems (especially the first one) to be sure but so far it beats that abomination by a pretty fair margin.

[Baffalo]

I haven't seen any of Simon Pegg's movies. I feel really bad saying that but I don't get a chance to watch movies that often. When I do it's usually on and off as I'm doing something else.

I'm fairly confident that, assuming you add in Galaxy Quest as an unofficial Trek movie (Thanks to SFDebris for that), then Into Darkness was an odd movie so we're due a good movie. Given that it's also supposed to tie into another Trek anniversary (which produced good results with Undiscovered Country), I think you'll see some genuine good stuff. Especially as Pegg is a confirmed Star Trek fan, so he's going to give the script the work it needs without making it forcibly funny.

Now, I'm going to be honest. I've seen far, far worse than Final Frontier. I can stomach a viewing of Final Frontier, unlike some which I turn off five minutes in. However, about the only good it did for the Trek franchise was redo the sets that were then reused in Undiscovered Country (mostly the bridge sets). Other than that? Nada.

Final Frontier's biggest flaw, which I think everyone can agree on, is that it was a vanity project. Almost all vanity projects end up going belly up simply because the lead actor (often also the lead producer AND director) is too close to the project and can't see the flaws until they're set loose and critics, who aren't exactly known to let an actor's ego get in the way of telling someone their opinion. I think we've all seen some horrible vanity project at some point (Battlefield Earth, anyone?), so I think if you step back and look at the project through the lens of other vanity projects, you'd see that Final Frontier could have been far, far worse.

[DaveJB]

I think TFF was pretty much a three-way collision between Shatner's ego, the humour being poorly crowbarred into what was originally supposed to be a serious script, and special effects that were only one step above what we had on Star Trek: TOS. Weirdly enough, I think that was what happened with Insurrection, too; the same forced humour, weak even for the time SFX, and the story getting bogged down in Michael Piller's personal politics.

Nemesis, on the other hand, was just the result of no-one giving a crap.

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't think Final Frontier is that bad. I mean, its not good- I'd say its in the bottom half of Star Trek films (which are rarely much better than mediocre). But its problems, as far as I recall, mostly boil down to some dumb jokes, one big continuity error, a premise that may offend people, and Spock shooting "God" being a bit anti-climactic.

[Eternal_Freedom]

The one and only time I watched TFF it honestly felt like one of those fan-made ST films that just happened to have the actual actors.