news Simon Pegg Says People Don’t ‘F*cking Need’ ‘Shaun of the Dead 2:’ ‘Move On’

Since its release in 2004, Edgar Wright’s “Shaun of the Dead” has grown to become one of the century’s most beloved comedy films. But as popular a touchstone as the film remains, co-writer and star Simon Pegg has made it clear that a sequel to the zombie rom-com isn’t on his to-do list in the future.

“If I ever do an Instagram Live or whatever, people are always like, ‘I need ‘Shaun of the Dead 2’ in my life,’” Pegg said in a recent interview with The Guardian. “And I’m like, ‘No, you don’t fucking need ‘Shaun of the Dead 2!’ The last thing you need is ‘Shaun of the Dead 2!’ It’s done. Move on!’”

The original “Shaun of the Dead” starred Pegg as the titular Shaun, a slacker salesman who gets dumped by his girlfriend right before the onslaught of a zombie apocalypse. The film was a sleeper success upon release, grossing $30 million worldwide on a $6 million budget. Although a sequel was never officially made, it did form the first in what became an unofficial trilogy of films directed by Wright and starring Pegg and Nick Frost. The other two in the “Three Flavours Cornetto” trilogy, “Hot Fuzz” and “The World’s End,” were released in 2007 and 2013, respectively.

Pegg, who was interviewed by The Guardian to promote his upcoming role in “Mission: Impossible — Dead Reckoning Part One,” further revealed that he and Wright spent a week last summer brainstorming working on a fourth feature film together. Pegg admitted that progress on creating a fourth film was “slow,” although he claimed it was because Wright’s dog was a distraction, but said they came up with a few ideas. Pegg didn’t reveal further details of their plans, but said the film won’t be a followup to the Three Falvours films, and will be very different from those three genre parody films.

“Whatever Edgar and I do next, we’re not going to rely on what we’ve done before,” Pegg told The Guardian. “I like the idea of pissing people off. There’s something fun about torching everything. Everything that people think we are, that’s what we won’t be. We should just do something that no one’s expecting.” Pegg laughs, “But no one wants!”

Since “The World’s End,” the pair — who also created the TV series “Spaced” together — have yet to make another film together. Wright has since directed “Baby Driver” and “Last Night at SoHo.” Pegg has acted in several films, most prominently the “Mission: Impossible” franchise, which he joined with the fourth installment “Ghost Protocol.” “Dead Reckoning Part One” — starring series lead Tom Cruise along with Hayley Atwell, Esai Morales, Ving Rhames, Simon Pegg, Vanessa Kirby, Henry Czerny, and Pom Klementieff — releases in theaters July 12. “Part Two,” which is billed as the last film in the franchise, releases June 28, 2024.
 
“I like the idea of pissing people off. There’s something fun about torching everything. Everything that people think we are, that’s what we won’t be. We should just do something that no one’s expecting.” Pegg laughs, “But no one wants!”

Great here comes another Thor - Love and Thunder
 
Well, he's wrong and he's right. You can do worse than to try and think outside the box a bit, but at the same time, if someone orders a hamburger and you give them a topiary, they aren't going to love it. A balancing act I think.
 
if youre literally saying "audiences don't want this!" while youre making a film, youre being a jackass
I'm getting confused here, that's exactly what every studio has been doing for 5 years, surely they know what they're doing. (sarcasm)

The reason I said it needed to be balanced at all, is this. One of the things people really value in entertainment is novelty, something new. But when you take a survey of what people want, they can only use things they've seen before as a reference. How do you know if you'll like something you've never tried. You don't. So why would anyone ask for that over something they know they like. So studios produce the same stuff over and over. And then people complain, "This is just recycled garbage". So to keep content fresh, it is kind of significant to strike a balance between doing what makes sense on paper, and taking some risks.

When Star Trek came out, nobody really wanted it. If you took a survey, you'd have likely gotten "10 more seasons of Bonanza". The show got cancelled, like Family Guy, and South Park, and a lot of people who tried new things that nobody really asked for, but many of them bounced back and became really successful, and I think it's because they did deliver something people wanted, but simply didn't know they wanted until they had a chance to see each concept mature.

These days Star Trek is one of the biggest franchises in history, Family guy is one of the longest running shows on television, and Fight Club is a legendary film that absolutely no one asked for, whereas Rambo 3, which people did ask for, is a laughable footnote
 
Last edited:
clearly audiences wanted more of star trek or it would have been canceled after the first season

I wanted to see fight club too, i went to see it in theatres after work , i still remember the drive there and exiting the theatre, idk what youre talking about
 
I think you just misunderstood what I said. I said people want new things, like Fight Club, but they don't ask for things that they haven't seen yet. Since studios try to determine what to create next based on market research, they end up getting results centered around things people already know about. How do you ask for something you've never seen? They try to get around it mostly by saying, this new thing will be like this old thing. They do understand the problem, and try to get around it, and so once in a while we get something new, such as Fight Club, or The Matrix, both of which I also saw in the theaters. So the misunderstanding is that I said they didn't ASK for Fight Club, not that we didn't want it.

Star Trek was looked down on by the studios, even though it perfectly fit the success formula, at around 80% old and 20% new. It was mostly a rehash of old westerns, but set in space, on a ship instead of a boat, with colorful costumes instead of drab ones, etc. TNG for example was based a lot around "Horatio Hornblower" a series of classic adventure tales centering around a highly moral ship's captain.

In February 1966, before the first episode was aired, Star Trek was nearly cancelled by Desilu Productions. In it's second season, they talked about cancelling it again, and it was cancelled in it's third season. Basically some people had it out for them from day one, the public only had a mid response, and it was deemed a 3 season show, which is respectable, but not really good.

Later it was recognized that this show they gave a shorter run than Quantum Leap, was actually hundreds of times larger in it's appeal, eventually spinning off into a dozen shows, many of them running the full distance, which for a tv show is about 7 years. Just in general, greenlighting a show for a second season is quite common, and doesn't mean that they really thought it was anything special. Many, many shows that you've never heard of and don't matter, have lasted 5 seasons. It's not even all about quality or potential. If your show costs twice as much as another show, and people like your show better, it can still get cancelled because a worse show that costs less money is more profitable for the network. Also, it costs money to shut a show down after one season, because of all the one time costs to start it in the first place. If they cancel every bad show every year, they have to rebuild all those sets every year, do the hiring, the casting, and on and on, and if a show can just break even, they will usually give it time to grow, since shows stack advantages over time, like gaining fandom.

The whole point is, we want Fight Club, we want There Will Be Blood, people like surprising new creativity that re-imagines how we look at entertainment. It's just not on the survey cards. Check your youtube preroll surveys. So Simon's thinking is extreme, but there's a seed of truth there. You do need to take risks at times to keep things from getting stale, and just doing whatever we did before is safe, but moves the needle steadily towards the stale side. We've now seen almost 40 movies about comic book superheroes in the last few decades, and I did like some of them, but financially, it's a zero sum game, so we do have to cancel 10 films like "The King's Speech" or 6 movies like "Casino" every time we make a "Spiderman goes to France" or "Spiderman goes to the Library"

Which movie would you like to see next

A. Fast and Furious 11
B. Star Wars part 16
C. Clint Eastwood in a movie about an old man who acts like a dick but then turns out to have a heart of gold.
D. Justin Beiber biopic

not

Which movie would you like to see next?

A: something completely new
B: A movie that challenges our understanding of consumerism with a story about crashing support groups and forming a terrorist organization.
C: A long movie where an old man transports oil through a pipe to the sound of detuned violins playing a single note.
D: An 80 hour long story about a lady who rides a dragon by an author you've never heard of.

Basically things have gotten a bit stale due to an overreliance on this type of digital survey data, and a studio system that has become more risk averse.
 
I think you just misunderstood what I said. I said people want new things, like Fight Club, but they don't ask for things that they haven't seen yet.

Well thats completely different than the topic of the thread IMO
What the audiences wants, what they think they want, are two different things.

If you made a movie that "nobody wants" its code for a shit movie
 
Last edited:
Nate: that's exactly what every studio has been doing for 5 years, surely they know what they're doing. (sarcasm)

This, from William Goldman's vastly entertaining book: Adventures in the Screen Trade

But did you know that Raiders of the Lost Ark was offered to every single studio in town—and they all turned it down? All except Paramount. Why did Paramount say yes? Because nobody knows anything. And why did all the other studios say no? Because nobody knows anything. And why did Universal, the mightiest studio of all, pass on Star Wars, a decision that just may cost them, when all the sequels and spinoffs and toy money and book money and video-game money are totaled, over a billion dollars? Because nobody, nobody—not now, not ever—knows the least goddam thing about what is or isn’t going to work at the box office.
 
Last edited:
Well thats completely different than the topic of the thread IMO
What the audiences wants, what they think they want, are two different things.

If you made a movie that "nobody wants" its code for a shit movie
I think it's just a semantics thing.

To me, from my perception, Simon is saying something that a lot of artists, including myself would say. You'd hear it all the time with bands. "Play your greatest hits" and the band is trying to play some new thing they think is just as good or better, and the crowd doesn't really want it, and there's some drunk guy yelling "play free bird" And like many bands do on stage, Simon eventually got angry and started yelling back "We're doing the new album tonight, this isn't a greatest hits concert"

Basically you summed up what I was trying to say pretty well in that second line. Semantics aside, I think we're on the same page and just talking about it in different ways.
 
Don't think we're on the same page, as pegg quote sounds like the words of a jackass to me.

A movie is an enormous endeavor and the end result is about the AUDIENCE and what the audience gets out of it, and if you're INTENTIONALLY making something the audience doesn't want, you're being a jackass. Just like Taika in Love and Thunder, making a movie that NOBODY WANTED

Maybe have some fuckiong repsect for the priviledges that life has bestowed you.
Now if he said what nobody EXPECTED then it would be different, but thats not what he said. he said a film nobody wants.

Edit: to say that music analogy, really doesn't work for me at all, because we're talking about creating something new, not living the past and rehashing the same old creative venture for decades in a row
 
Last edited:
This, from William Goldman's vastly entertaining book: Adventures in the Screen Trade
Yeah, this is correct. It's complicated, but basically they are all just guessing, and gambling, and trying to bet skillfully based on whatever data they can scrape. That's Hollywood, That's the stock market. Plenty of dispirate indicators, but at the end of the day it's just a dice roll at some level.

I think everyone already knows this, but studios are not actually great gamblers, they just have enough money to manage the odds effectively.
 
Don't think we're on the same page, as pegg quote sounds like the words of a jackass to me.

A movie is an enormous endeavor and the end result is about the AUDIENCE and what the audience gets out of it, and if you're INTENTIONALLY making something the audience doesn't want, you're being a jackass. Just like Taika in Love and Thunder, making a movie that NOBODY WANTED

Maybe have some fuckiong repsect for the priviledges that life has bestowed you
He is being kind of a jackass, but I'm just pointing out that there's a point of view from which his words can be seen in a more sympathetic light. I don't think he really means "I'm going to make a film people hate". It sounds like that on the surface, but I think he's just sort of joking, and that his real message is. "You like me because I was creative, so let me create! If you want a cover band, hire a cover band"

I'm reading between the lines, but IMO that's what he was trying to communicate, even if it's not exactly what he said. But maybe I'm just biased toward Simon Pegg. I think Taika Wahiti is a part of a whole different mentality, where it's become temporarily popular to intentionally troll the audience. I think I understand where that comes from as well, though like yourself, I'm not even remotely sympathetic to it.

Do you think people like getting angry and hating each other? Me niether, but do you know who does think that? The engagement optimization algorithm. So when you use a computer to tell you what movie will get talked about the most, it's going to start telling you that movies that make people angry and start arguments are "the best". People who can't see the forest for the trees think that more page clicks mean better movie, and they make movies people hate because it drives page clicks.

As far as really successful artist being grateful for what they have. Some are, some aren't. It's definitely cooler if they are. Still, I'd have to walk a mile in their shoes before I really understood their point of view, or why they say the things they say. He certainly could have been more gracious about it, but it might not even run as deep as all this. There was this guy screaming at Sarah Silverman online, and being a dick, and she asked him what he was so angry about. He calmed down and explained that he had terrible back pain, and just tended to yell at everyone when he was in pain. It wasn't about her, it wasn't that he was always a dick. He was just in a bad mood on one particular day when the pain was bad.

Or maybe Simon is a Gene Simmons style arrogant prick. Not enough info to make a solid call.
 
He is being kind of a jackass, but I'm just pointing out that there's a point of view from which his words can be seen in a more sympathetic light. I don't think he really means "I'm going to make a film people hate". It sounds like that on the surface, but I think he's just sort of joking, and that his real message is. "You like me because I was creative, so let me create! If you want a cover band, hire a cover band"

He's not joking, and you're putting words in his mouth with a 'real' message and ignoring what he ACTUALLY said lol.

Here in case you missed it last year, is the EXACT SAME LANGUAGE BEING USED by Taikia



Hes bored of his old shit and gives ZERO shits about the audience, just his ego, and intentionally made a movie with complete disregard for what the audience wants.
 
He's not joking, and you're putting words in his mouth with a 'real' message and ignoring what he ACTUALLY said lol.

Here in case you missed it last year, is the EXACT SAME LANGUAGE BEING USED by Taikia



Hes bored of his old shit and gives ZERO shits about the audience, just his ego, and intentionally made a movie with complete disregard for what the audience wants.
Ok, so I read both those articles, and on a verbal level, I actually understand what Taika was thinking. I didn't really like the movie, but in the article he's basically going through the same thought process I described. "They want something new, and I can only give them something new by disregarding what they expect (want)"

Maybe I'm putting words in Simon's mouth, but simultaneously, you're putting words in Taika's mouth.

Here's a quote from one of those articles.

“For me, it’s good to give the fans something they don’t know that they want. With ‘Ragnarok’ especially, when I signed on, a lot of fans were freaked out by that. They were like, ‘Who is this guy? He’s going to take our precious Thor and ruin it.’ And I was like, ‘Yeah. Exactly. That’s exactly my intention. And I’m going to make it better, you just don’t know it yet.’”

And I actually did like Thor Ragnarök. He's not saying "it's all about me", though I think there's some of that at play here, always is. He's saying, I think I can't improve this thing without taking some risks that are going to annoy some people that were expecting more of the same"

And with Thor: Love and Thunder, I think there were more elements at play than just his itch to push the envelope (which he did basically fail at, I agree). I think that film came out at a time (the present) when Hollywood does try to troll people, does try to force the politics of it's individual executives onto the whole world without caring whether they like it or not.

Do you think Rian Johnson actually wanted to turn Luke Skywalker into a sniveling coward who needed to be taught a lesson by a teenage girl? No Kathleen Kennedy wanted that. So I'm just saying that some bad results we blame on individuals are actually a result of many unseen factors.

After reading these articles, I'm actually less annoyed by Taika. You can have a good idea that doesn't turn out well. Doesn't always mean that the thinking is flawed.

I'm not out to make a film the audience hates, but I might say something similar to these two, and I guess it could be unfairly reduced to meaning "Fuck em". I can't speak for them, but if I was saying something similar, I would mean "we have to be willing to take risks in order to break new ground. Things will never get better if we lean too heavily on the status quo"

Flipside, they are both kind of saying "Fuck em" and I think that's somewhat understandable from people who have to deal with 300 million backseat drivers. Certainly it's going to lead to some blunders, but then the tale of the tape is that every direction leads to some blunders, so I'm not quite ready to shackle all the creatives just based on a few movies that didn't turn out well.

"And I’m going to make it better, you just don’t know it yet.’” Doesn't really strike me as meaning "I hope they hate this, because it's all about me" To get that, you need to go straight to Kathleen.
 
Yeah ragnarok was great, but he was trying to give fans something they wanted, and didn't know they wanted.
For Love and Thunder, he was sick of thor.

Bottom line is this, if ANYONE, even james cameron, said "I'm making a movie audiences don't want" I would not invest my money.
Thats just me. To each his own.
 
Last edited:
Yeah ragnarok was great, but he was trying to give fans something they wanted, and didn't know they wanted.
For Love and Thunder, he was sick of thor.

Bottom line is this, if ANYONE, even james cameron, said "I'm making a movie audiences don't want" I would not invest my money.
Thats just me. To each his own.
Well, we're all a little sick of Thor, lol. But yeah, Ragnarök was way better than Thor: LAT. We can definitely agree on that.
 
Back
Top