No reason the current cast couldn't do a TV series.

I'm confused by these comments.

1) re: Lost "not being a success 'til it's done." I don't think that's how it works. It's a success if lots of people watch it, if advertisers pay top-dollar to advertise on it, if it keeps bringing in more money than it costs to make (including all overhead).

By that argument, Lost has definitely been successful. Whether it has a satisfying finale means NOTHING, unless you're trying to be an art critic. Don't believe me? Look at the finale to "The Sopranos." The fact that people universally seem to hate the series wrap-up doesn't mean that the show wasn't a success, does it?

Well, look at the ages of the actors. And bear in mind that we ALREADY KNOW, CONCLUSIVELY, that this film is set in multiple timeframes. All the presence of these characters means is that we'll see them, perhaps very briefly, at some point in the film. It in NO WAY tells us that we'll see them throughout the entire film.

Perhaps there's going to be a short section of the film... mere minutes' worth of screen time... set during TOS. And you've got actors playing Uhura, Chekov, Sulu, and Scotty present on the bridge during that brief vignette.

As for McCoy, well... the actor playing the part is VERY suitable to play McCoy at roughly the same age as we saw him in TOS, as well as several years younger... he has a very similar facial structure to De Kelley, and although he's more muscular than Kelley ever was, that's not really a problem, I think, if he can get the vocal patterns and mannerisms reasonably close. Remember... De Kelley as we saw him in the later films was pretty old... go back and watch TOS episodes, without being too flavored by how he had aged, and you might be surprised by the comparison.

So we may see McCoy in that hypothetical brief scene set during TOS... and may also see a lot of him well before then. Don't jump to too many conclusions.

Okay... THIS part just seriously freaks me out.

Are you suggesting that Kirk and Spock had to be having sex to be friends???

I sure hope you don't buy into that attitude... that's sorta creepy.

I dunno about you, but in MY life, I find it quite easy to be close to people without necessarily having any interest in having sex with them. I think that most healthy people think that way.

For someone to suggest that two men can't be close friends, and care about each other, unless they're buggering each other... that's just INCREDIBLE.

To me, that attitude implies that it's not really "caring about each other" at all... but pure selfishness. Damned nearly the OPPOSITE of truly caring about someone. "I like this person because I experience physical pleasure with them." Hell, if that's the case... prostitutes should be the most beloved people on the planet, huh?

 

No new TV series!

 

Why not!

 

^^^Oh I feel perfectly relaxed. The people racing off to cast the new TV series seem a tad overexcited.

 

That would be me! I started this thread!

 

Paramount is not taking ST back to the small screen, at least nothing from the TOS era, which is what this is.

As I commented on the Other Forum, Paramount can make scads of money from hitting two demographics: baby boomers who grew up with TOS Trek and new fans who are somewhat aware of the franchise having been beaten into the ground by B&B. In addition, there is a whole universe of new young fans who have never heard of ST's early years and who are dimly aware of Trek.

An exciting film with good pacing and a good story can capture any fan. Basic moviemaking.

 

No new Trek series unless William Shatner is the "Special Guest Star" every week as Kirk - a la Jonathan Harris on "Lost In Space."

 

Sorry to have overlooked this.

I haven't seen a minute of Sopranos but it is possible that copping out on the ending undercuts the whole series. Not saying it did, now, but it might have. Since Lost is so much about the mystery of the island, if they don't have a coherent explanation, well yeah, the series as a whole is a bust.

When they do the movie of my life, there will be no good reason to cast young versions of my coworkers today.

Spock is not someone to become anyone's friend. There is a tale to be told. Slash was a popular explanation, but it's not mine. Nor I imagine is it the movie's. However, the story of how Kirk and Spock became friends is the only interesting backstory to be told about any of the characters. Every single one of the other characters is superfluous and any brief appearances are just fanwank.

Of course it's perfectly possible for two men to be close friends without sexual motives. You're so freaked you forgot that Spock is supposed to be an alien. But even if Spock were just another forty year old virgin, being bosom buddies with a stud muffin like Kirk is still a little unusual.

(By the way, you could use some real science and have Spock be a product of highly complex genetic engineering instead of unprotected sex. The story of why they'd do that might be interesting. But science is a dirty word with the supposedly good writers. )

 

To be fair, I think McCoy is also an important character, both as part of the troika dynamic, and how he relates to Spock. The other characters are pretty superfluous, I'll agree, and it remains to be seen how the film will handle them.

As far as Spock's birth is concerned... who knows? I don't think it was ever stated that he was a wholly natural birth. It's an interesting avenue to explore in theory, but I don't really see how it could relate to the plot of the film at all. Care to elaborate?

 

This is the TV revival fans are waiting for:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MabtkVg_Gs

 

I'm still waiting for the Dr. Shrinker revival. It's been far too long.

 

As comical as this is, I still feel sorry for Dr. Smith and the kid since they are lost in space "millions of light years from our galaxy".

 

A practical approach would be: No set cast. Let's explore this new universe Abrams helped to re-energize. Each episode could have a different setting. One could be all Klingon, one all Romulan, or even all Tholian. Or you could even set it in Starfleet Academy, or Starfleet Command. Command is monitoring the situation of a starship, and we get to see what space combat is like on the other side of those communcations to Starfleet. Kind of like 24 meets Star Trek. Each story, however, affects the universe. A Ship explodes, and three stories in, the characters could be discussing that situation. We could even go back to the new movie cast once in a while, and see whats been happening with the characters. The finale of the show could have the Enterprise going in for re-fit prior to TMP.

 

i can think of million$ of reason$ why they will not do a TV series.

 

"It is too soon to regard Lost as an artistic success (you have to see the end of a serial to tell that,)"

Nope. Do not pass go.

"how Kirk and Spock got to be such friends. That's the only interesting character backstory. The whole thing sounds like an abortion."

Geez, you never read 'Enterprise the First Adventure' did you?

Oh wait...sorry...

Babylon 5 SUCKS!!!!

Firefly SUCKS!!!!

 

I think that's a good point.

Some bullshit US Network contract isn't gonna cut it.

The old 7 season Trek series is gone, thank the gods. Let's imagine a reasonable, say, 3 season production. A real vision, something classy. Perhaps bringing in top writers from todays younger stable. Hey, still think Orci would be an ideal show runner.

Residuals my friend. It's a frellin' pension for actors in Star Trek.

 

The actors are more than likely on a 3 film deal or something similar, getting them to switch to a TV series would be prohibitively expensive.