Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

[King Daniel]

Nerys Myk wrote:

---

There may be one James T. Kirk

O RLY?

Kirk
Mirror Kirk
Evil Transporter Duplicate Kirk
Android Duplicate Kirk

And now Alternate Kirk.

Star Trek is lousy with Kirks. They're everywhere.

[The Mirrorball Man]

King Daniel wrote:

---

O RLY?

Kirk
Mirror Kirk
Evil Transporter Duplicate Kirk
Android Duplicate Kirk

And now Alternate Kirk.

And Kid Alternate Kirk.

[BillJ]

The Mirrorball Man wrote:

---

And Kid Alternate Kirk.

And Baby Alternate Kirk.

[Dale Sams]

BillJ wrote:

---

And Baby Alternate Kirk.

And Mrs David Bowie Kirk
And Batshit crazy lady Kirk
And Reflection still in the Nexus Kirk.

[BillJ]

I think Pine, Quinto and Urban were clearly recognizable as the characters. The rest was hit and miss.

[LOKAI of CHERON]

BillJ wrote:

---

I think Pine, Quinto and Urban were clearly recognizable as the characters. The rest was hit and miss.

Agreed, and as much as I like Simon Pegg, personally, I just didn't get a strong Scotty vibe from his performance.

[Shazam!]

BillJ wrote:

---

I think Pine, Quinto and Urban were clearly recognizable as the characters. The rest was hit and miss.

Reconizable, yes, but I'm far from convinced that Quinto is this uncanny Nimoy look-alike and I wasn't even a fan of his performance.

Pine and Urban were great in their performances though.

The rest are pretty forgettable. Sulo did nothing, Chekov and Scotty were jokes and Uhura was the token female whose contributions rivaled TOS Uhura.

[Greg Cox]

Well, James Bond aside, the point is that no one version of a character is more "real" than any other. Bela Lugosi's version of Dracula is no more real than Christopher Lee's or Frank Langella's or Gary Oldman's or whomever. (We'll just forget about BLADE: TRINITY, okay?) Ditto for Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan, Zorro, Perry Mason, Nancy Drew, and, yes, James T. Kirk.

No character is off-limits to reinterpretation over time.

[Shazam!]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

No character is off-limits to reinterpretation over time.

True, but it is perfectly reasonable to have a preference of one performer over another. It's even perfectly reasonable to dismiss a performance entirely as you yourself just have with Blade: Trinity.

[Greg Cox]

Shazam! wrote:

---

True, but it is perfectly reasonable to have a preference of one performer over another. It's even perfectly reasonable to dismiss a performance entirely as you yourself just have with Blade: Trinity.

Oh, absolutely. I was just objecting to the idea, which one bumps into occasionally, that only Shatner can play Kirk or that certain performances are untouchable or irreplaceable. It's the difference between insisting that Shatner is the best Kirk or insisting that he's the only "real" Kirk (whatever that means).

I still remember being shocked to discover, many decades ago, that my youngest brother considered Roger Moore the "real" James Bond, but given that he was seventeen years younger than me, it made sense. Moore was the Bond he had grown up with.

Just wait. Fifteen years from now, fans of a certain age will be insisting that nobody will ever be able to replace Pine as the definitive James T. Kirk!

P.S. To be fair, I'm as guilty of this as anyone else. As a kid, I considered Julie Newmar the one, true Catwoman--and was bitterly disappointed when Lee Meriwether replaced her in the movie!

(I like to think I'm more open-minded now.)

[Sindatur]

Heh, just wait until Battlestar Galactica finally gets another treatment, and all the inevitable claims of sacrilege for recasting Adama, because EJO is the "Real" Adama (With no mention of Lorne Greene anywhere in sight) Or when they give Starbuck or Boomer a Sex-change and make her a guy

[Greg Cox]

Sindatur wrote:

---

Heh, just wait until Battlestar Galactica finally gets another treatment, and all the inevitable claims of sacrilege for recasting Adama, because EJO is the "Real" Adama (With no mention of Lorne Greene anywhere in sight) Or when they give Starbuck or Boomer a Sex-change and make her a guy

Starbuck a guy? Don't be ridiculous! That would never work.

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

Starbuck a guy? Don't be ridiculous! That would never work.

It all evens out, because Katee Sackhoff is more masculine (in general) than Dirk Benedict was anyway.
There are some who would say that Benedict was "fairer of face" (read: prettier) than Sackhoff, although I'm not one of them.

[DalekJim]

I dunno which was less satisfying a conclusion out of Galactica 1980 or the revived series' "A wizard did it!" ending.

[Spider]

It is possible to enjoy different actors playing the same character, and have a favorite, and know in your head there is only one person who truly personifies the character. I was in high school when the original Star Trek was first playing on NBC. I was reading three different scifi magazines at the time, and buying dozens of those Ace Doubles. I wonder how many of yall are old enough to remember those Ace Doubles?

But in any case, I get yalls point, and I understand it. Pine does a nice job, his character is much different from Shatner's Kirk, and it just doesn't seem like Kirk to me. But, it's Star Trek, and it's spaceships in outer space which is what I like.