Simon Pegg: ‘F— You’ if You Think ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ Sucks

Simon Pegg: 'F— You' if You Think 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Sucks

The new Scotty is pretty irked at "Star Trek" convention purists who say the latest film of the franchise is the worst ever

Simon Pegg has a message for those who say that "Star Trek Into Darkness" is the worst movie ever made of the franchise: "F— You."

The comedic actor/writer passed along that sentiment during an interview with Mike Ryan of The Huffington Post. Ryan informed Pegg that at a "Star Trek" fan convention in Las Vegas earlier in August, attendees ranked "Into Darkness" as the worst of the "Star Trek" movies, ever.

Pegg was surprised, responding, "It absolutely isn't the worst 'Star Trek' movie," Pegg said. "It's asinine, you know? It's ridiculous. And frustrating."

See video: 'The World's End' Review: 12 Pints of Laughs, Heartbreak and Male Menopause

He continued, "To be subject to that level of sort of, like, crass f—ing ire, I just say f— you."

By most accounts, "Into Darkness" is not even close to the worst "Star Trek" film ever. It currently has an 87 percent "fresh" rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

The only explanation that Pegg could come up with for those negative feelings lies within a combination of nostalgia and how people occasionally treat an indie band that makes it big.

"I think it's like when you tire of an indie band that you love because, suddenly, they get a number one single," Pegg opined. "You don't necessarily start disliking their music, but you stop liking them because you're pissed off that they're famous."

Pegg was promoting his new film, "The World's End," which comes out Aug. 23.

  • TrekGuest

    Pegg doesn't get it. Abrams was so determined to create a new twist on Star Trek that what he produced ultimately is not Star Trek. That's why the original fans don't like the reboot and call it an alternate reality – one they wish would go away. It is unfortunate for the actors and actresses involved. Much like the reimagined Battlestar Galactica, it is actually a good story with enjoyable acting, but it is told under the false pretext of belonging to a universe where it is literally an alien. I think perhaps if there had been more attention given in the first reboot movie to creating this alternate universe – one that showed more appreciation of the regular continuity – fans might have greeted it with greater acceptance. But it came off as an almost arrogant, “I don't care what came before, I'm taking over this universe and doing it my way whether you like it or not.” Given that some of the fans have been fans longer than many of the cast and crew have been alive, that just didn't go over very well.

    • CPLWeeks

      Agreed. Into Darkness contained every single iconic moment from Star Trek (2009), just in a different order. To fill in the dead space they simply took events from Wrath of Khan and flipped the characters around. It has to be one of the laziest scripts I've ever seen in my life. I really like Simon Pegg's characters, and it hurts that he'd lash out at fans like this. I wish he could see it from another point of view.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=663669914 Sean Richardson

    Wow, I assumed from the headline that Pegg was overreacting, but “Into Darkness” is definitely not worse than “Final Frontier”, “Nemesis”, “Insurrection”, or “Generations”. An argument could be made about a few other ones. So the people who voted it the worst are overreacting more than Pegg.

    • Dean McIntosh

      Speak for yourself. At least when Shatner responds to criticism of “Final Frontier”, he does not take himself so goddamned seriously.

      • Dean McIntosh

        Oh, and add to that that I don't want to beat the living shit out of the directors of any of the films you name because of how much convulsing and vomiting their photography caused me. Thanks very much. *nod*

  • Dean McIntosh

    Wow, what a real mature and professional way to handle criticism, Pegg. My opinion of your “comedy” films is a case where I would have been happy to be proven wrong. But now I am very, very unhappy. You sir, are a complete moron, and you have convicted yourself here.

    First off the mark, people are allowed to dislike things if they feel the need to. I will not ask everyone in the world to regard Paul Verhoeven's works, even masterpieces like Zwartboek and RoboCop, as amongst the greatest things ever filmed. But if the people I am discussing it with can understand my reasons and I theirs in an intelligent and adult fashion, then that is good enough for me. Basically, Simon, what I am telling you here is to grow the fukk up.

    Next off the mark, I do not know how to tell you this, but the last time a Star Trek film was released that I respect as a great piece of story telling, it was in the year 1982. Into Darkness is not merely a piss-poor imitation of it, it is an attempt to Orwellian-like deny its existence. The 1982 film is the first and thus far only time in Trek's canon where actions are demonstrated to have consequences that resonate over decades. I have yet to see any JJ Abrams dump that leads me to believe long-term means anything other than five minutes from now to him. It has now been thirty-one years since a Star Trek film that I would recommend as something either as unintentional comedy or an example to other storytellers of what to never do was released. Thirty-one years, Simon. If I were in any way involved with a franchise that has that kind of record, I would be manning up and telling the decision-makers to lift their game or I am walking. But fukk me for pointing that out, right?

    Trek fans like to moan endlessly about how much more mature and adult their franchise is than competitors. Especially one that is still worth more money in spite of its creator's attempt to destroy it. But in reality, it is childish wish-fulilment at its worst, and the last two films are more resemblant of Punky Brewster In Space. Stephen King, a man long past his prime as a creative writer, could write better scenarios for these characters to act out. (Under The Dome contains many examples of that.) Hell, _I_, a failed writer who has never had a break, could write more adult science fiction than JJ Abrams and his trend-oriented “creative” team.

    As I intimated earlier, Simon, your toilet-humour comedies and obliviousnesses to the points of subjects under your purview defined you to me as a tosser who should not be employed in the creative industries because even I can do your job(s) better than you. I would have been happy to be proven wrong. But this tantrum directed at people who have the audacity to criticise not you directly, but people making the creative decisions on works you should also be demanding more of, proves me right.

    I frankly cannot wait for Hollywood to eat itself the way that pop has done if you are an example of what it expects us to be impressed by. Good day.

  • Rothschilld

    The new Star Trek Films have no political message, and If I see Spock kissing Uhura I will puke.