Once Again, Trek Plays "Lets copy Star Wars" | Report this post to moderator
By: Bizarro_Batman (Odo's file, contact) @ 18:46:59 on May 09, 2006 | (1)

I'm one of the biggest TOS fans here, and I don't like this idea. My disgust doesn't stem from the whole "Nobody should play Kirk or Spock other than Shatner and Nimoy" outcry (although I sure as hell don't like the possibility of Ben Afflect as a young Jim Kirk), nor the "This will end up being 90210/Dawson's Creek in space" complaints by fans (although they do have a point).

My indifference is towards Paramount wanting to do a prequel dealing with already famously established characters when they were young in an attempt to cash in on the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy. The prequel idea didn't work the first time when Rick Berman and Brannon Braga did it, and I can't help but shake my head that now.....NOW PARAMOUNT PICTURES WANTS TO USE HARVE BENNETT'S ORIGINAL PITCH FOR A STARFLEET ACADEMY MOVIE STARRING THE TOS CREW AS CADETS. Now that Lucas' Star Wars Prequels have proven to be a financial gold mine, now they pull out Bennett's old outlined proposal and dust it off. Why? Because they want to play it safe. They could have taken the initiative back in the early 90's when the idea was fresh, original, and creative. And instead of trying something freash and original this time, they fall back to "the sure thing."

Wow.

Reply

Quote

J.J.'s stock | Report this post to moderator
By: vyger (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 21:19:59 on May 06, 2006 | (1)

Abrams's stock just went up ten points. I saw MI3 tonight, and I left very happy with spending my 9 bucks. Bring on STXI

--------

"I’m worried about an opponent who uses nation-building and the military in the same sentence."

George W. Bush, 2000



Get busy living, or get busy dying.

Scott's Journal

Reply

Quote

Prequelize it and they're riffing on Star Trek: New Voyages | Report this post to moderator
By: Michael X. Maelstrom (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 16:57:26 on May 06, 2006

Unless you want to inject the possibility that he was lying or answering through his hat, it looks like he just let slip a confirmation that they're re-casting the seminal Trek roles.

If anyone wants to see for themselves whether re-casting Spock, Kirk and McCoy can be done effectively (or if you prefer, what your personal reaction is to _an_ re-casting) visit www.newvoyages.com and download an ep.

As an Trekkie, I would 'ave to say, that ST:NV displays (to me) that it can be done, in that it was able to surmount my apprehension _against_ an re-casting.

Introspectively, it works primarily because it meets 3 criteria.

1. it's very respectful of the original TOS

2. the (re)cast members are unknowns.

3. It captures the look'n'feel of TOS down to recreations of original sets.

While 3 is not necessary for a new Trek movie, in that an TOS early-years movie need only 'look'n'feel' contextually like TOS (we've seen some excellent art posted here on Trekweb where uniforms look consistent with pre-TOS/post-Naval)

Myself, I would submit that criteria 1 is absolutely essential, and criteria 2 is preferable.

Abrams has vocalized his respect for the original series (and fans) so assuming he's not engaging in a feat of linguistic legerdemain and a degree of intrepidity, that's one down.

I'm now 'opeful.

Michael X.


--------



--------

Michael X. Maelstrom, The Avante Guardian, Tag.

--------

M o n t r e a l, Q u e b e c, C a n a d a, E a r t h, S o m e t i m e s.

Reply

Quote

Caution & Hope | Report this post to moderator
By: c.p. (Odo's file, contact) @ 12:17:26 on May 06, 2006

First, I don't think we should get in too much of a hissy over the "humanize" comment. He was just speaking off the cuff and I think the real point he was trying to make is that Abrams' Trek will be (still be) character driven. I think from their perspective they want to stave off the notion that this is an effort to take a precious pop icon and turn it into mindless Hollywood junk...again.

It's a lofty, noble goal to resurrect a dead cultural phenomenon in a way that is both popular with today's audiences and respectful of its soul. It's also very hard. Whether they can achieve it of course is way up in the air. But at least they seem to be taking the task seriously for once. As fans, we are right to be cautious, but AS FANS we must be open to new ideas. It's hard to believe now, but some old-timers still can't accept a crew other than the originals manning a ship named Enterprise. TWOK was originally decried by fans as well. The list of misplaced trekkie outrages would reach from San Francisco to Alpha Centauri. But we're dead in the water here people. It's either evolve or die. We should all thank God that someone somewhere had enough sense to rescue our beloved Star Trek from the reaper's clutches in this, her eleventh hour (sniffle). For the first time in 10 years--maybe longer--there's a real sense of hope that Star Trek could finally be realized on the big screen in the way we've always known it could be.

Reply

Quote

Interesting | Report this post to moderator
By: Hunter (Odo's file, contact) @ 06:09:28 on May 06, 2006

Either this guy is being told to say things that lead everyone off the real plot track for XI or he just got caught off-guard here and had no idea what to say. I mean, this director is going to "humanize" Star Trek? It was one of the most cerebral and humanized shows on TV! It seems more likely that Mr. Abrams is going to bring gratuitous explosions and special effects to the franchise.

I still think they are shooting for a new Star Trek audience. They know we (the long-time fans) are all going to come out and see this movie out of curiosity, but I think the big goal is to get a younger generation hooked.

This all should prove interesting but ultimately, if a Kirk character is in the movie and it's not William Shatner...well, it just doesn't seem right.

Reply

Quote