Crew age and nu-Trek

[BillJ]

RPJOB wrote:

---

If I can accept a 55 year old James Cromwell playing a mid 30's Zephram Cochrane then I think I can manage accepting a 13 year old year old Chekov plated by a slightly older actor. It certainly makes the "I can do that" running through the ship scene much easier to accept. Just think of him as Wesley Crusher who actually went to the Academy instead of becoming an acting ensign.

But he would seem to be a 13 year old Academy graduate. I seriously doubt he'd be on starship duty even if he was able to accomplish it.

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Franklin wrote:

---

I was only being facetious in making up my reason for the difference in ages. I mean, if one wants one, any reason works, really. It's sci-fi.

Not only that, it's Star Trek.

Back in the 1970s and 1980s, Star Trek fans got very creative in rationalizing the potential issues with TOS continuity as presented on screen to make it fit their ideas of canon. Some fans today are a lot less creative and a lot more strict when it comes to relating AbramsTrek to the TOS universe.

[DarthTom]

RPJOB wrote:

---

If I can accept a 55 year old James Cromwell playing a mid 30's Zephram Cochrane

Heavy drinking ages your appearance.

[thumbtack]

Paramount has said that Abrams Trek was their Hail Mary Pass. The final chance for the Star Trek franchise. It was not expected to generate any sequels. As such, it was mandated that it end with the family of characters in their familiar positions.

Even Chekov.

[BillJ]

When did they say that?

[Jackson_Roykirk]

thumbtack wrote:

---

...It was not expected to generate any sequels...

I find this hard to believe.

The cast all signed 3-picture deals -- and while I understand that is often SOP and does not necessarily guarantee sequels, I think in this case sequels were part of the master plan, as long as the first film did relatively well.

[Christopher]

thumbtack wrote:

---

Paramount has said that Abrams Trek was their Hail Mary Pass. The final chance for the Star Trek franchise. It was not expected to generate any sequels.

There's no way that could possibly be true. They were trying to revitalize the franchise, to make it a big tentpole property. That's the whole reason they gave it to Abrams, Kurtzman, and Orci -- they wanted them to duplicate their success with Mission: Impossible III, to make ST as viable an ongoing franchise as its fellow Desilu-legacy series had been.

There's also the fact that they signed all the cast to three-film contracts. And the fact that they deliberately cast young actors in the leads, just the sort of thing you do when you're trying to launch a film franchise that you hope will endure for years and years.

So yeah, it might be valid to say that if this movie hadn't done well, they would've been unlikely to do any more, but it can't possibly be right to say that they didn't expect it to do well enough to generate sequels. That's got to be a misinterpretation of whatever you're alluding to. The whole point was to revitalize it as a cash-cow tentpole that they could profit from on a continuing basis.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Jackson_Roykirk wrote:

---

I find this hard to believe.

Just as well, because it's not true.

[thumbtack]

Christopher wrote:

---

they signed all the cast to three-film contracts.

The cast of everything is signed to three films. SOP.

Christopher wrote:

---

launch a film franchise that you hope will endure for years and years.

Make up your mind. Is Star Trek 3 the last with this cast or not?

Didn't mean to start a panic. If you prefer to believe that Star Trek is permanent, then do so.

[Christopher]

thumbtack wrote:

---

The cast of everything is signed to three films. SOP.

Because the studio wants to be prepared for the possibility of sequels. Also, it has to be considered in context with the other evidence, all of which together makes it overwhemingly clear that Paramount did hope the film would be the first of a new series of movies.

Make up your mind. Is Star Trek 3 the last with this cast or not?

A meaningless question. Obviously signing people to 3-film contracts does not preclude signing them to further films beyond the third, so there is no contradiction.

Didn't mean to start a panic.

You didn't, because everyone else in this thread is fully aware that your assertion was completely untrue. Also, why would the allegation that they weren't expecting a sequel four years ago possibly create a panic now, when the sequel has already been shot and is four months from premiering?

[BillJ]

Didn't Paramount green light the sequel before the first film came out?

[thumbtack]

"There was no pressure. Expectations were very low. It's completely different this time." -Alex Kurtzman

I'll look for more as time permits.

[Christopher]

And you're misunderstanding that quote. That line doesn't mean they had no expectation of sequels. Of course they were hoping for sequels. They just weren't sure whether it would succeed. They were taking a chance, and they were realistic enough to know there were no guarantees, but it's not like they would've given the franchise to Abrams if they didn't think there was a reasonable chance the film could spawn sequels. Your problem is that you're taking something that's in the middle ground -- the studio being realistically prepared for it going either way -- and interpreting it in all-or-nothing terms, assuming that just because they didn't assume it would succeed, that meant they expected it to fail.

[thumbtack]

Okay, fine. I can't find the "Hail Mary" quote now anyway, so unless someone with google and time wants to look, I'll drop it.

I don't believe for a minute that Star Trek wasn't in big trouble, however.

[Christopher]

^Of course it was in trouble, which was the whole reason they wanted to reboot it and get it out of trouble! The 2009 movie was not intended to be a last gasp, but a new beginning. Of course they knew they were taking a risk, but that doesn't mean they planned it to be the last Trek film ever. Hell, just about every Trek film was made without any certainty that there would be another.