RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,765
Posts: 5,433,891
Members: 24,839
Currently online: 596
Newest member: mrcptuk

TrekToday headlines

The Art of John Alvin Book Review
By: T'Bonz on Sep 23

Episode Four of The Red Shirt Diaries
By: T'Bonz on Sep 22

Star Trek: The Compendium Review
By: T'Bonz on Sep 22

Orci Drops Rangers Project
By: T'Bonz on Sep 22

Retro Review: Image in the Sand
By: Michelle on Sep 20

Star Trek: Shadows Of Tyranny Casting Call
By: T'Bonz on Sep 19

USS Vengeance And More Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Sep 19

Trek 3 To Being Shooting Next Year
By: T'Bonz on Sep 19

Trek Messenger Bag
By: T'Bonz on Sep 18

Star Trek Live In Concert In Australia
By: T'Bonz on Sep 18


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 29 2013, 01:15 AM   #151
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Why did they bother...

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
I do think the word "icon" tends to get thrown around pretty loosely these days. Back when I used to lurk on comic book boards, it was not uncommon to see Martian Manhunter or Blue Beetle described as "iconic" by hardcore comics fans . . . which is probably pushing things a little.

If I had my way, the words "canon" and "iconic" would be expunged from the internet.

We need a "like" button here.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29 2013, 01:16 AM   #152
sj4iy
Commander
 
sj4iy's Avatar
 
Location: US
Re: Why did they bother...

Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
Greg Cox wrote: View Post
I do think the word "icon" tends to get thrown around pretty loosely these days. Back when I used to lurk on comic book boards, it was not uncommon to see Martian Manhunter or Blue Beetle described as "iconic" by hardcore comics fans . . . which is probably pushing things a little.

If I had my way, the words "canon" and "iconic" would be expunged from the internet.

We need a "like" button here.
/LIKE
sj4iy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29 2013, 01:19 AM   #153
Third Nacelle
Captain
 
Third Nacelle's Avatar
 
Location: The Denorios Belt
Re: Why did they bother...

The new dress uniforms look nice, and much dressier than the prime ones, but they're just too.... 21st century Earth.

I can look at the old dress uniforms and imagine that they're 150 years in the future and that they might be influenced by alien fashions. And I never found them "comedic."
Third Nacelle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29 2013, 01:22 AM   #154
sj4iy
Commander
 
sj4iy's Avatar
 
Location: US
Re: Why did they bother...

Third Nacelle wrote: View Post
The new dress uniforms look nice, and much dressier than the prime ones, but they're just too.... 21st century Earth.

I can look at the old dress uniforms and imagine that they're 250 years in the future and that they might be influenced by alien fashions. And I never found them "comedic."
My opinion only, of course, but I did. I nearly laughed out loud the first time I saw them. My friend and I joked that they decided to do arts and crafts with their dress uniform, and that they clearly liked glitter.
sj4iy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29 2013, 01:56 AM   #155
CorporalClegg
Admiral
 
CorporalClegg's Avatar
 
Location: Land of Enchantment
Re: Why did they bother...

sj4iy wrote: View Post
Ever since My So-Called Life came on in the 90s, I have been told by almost every stranger I meet that I looked like Claire Danes (I do have an uncanny resemblance to her- this poster picture could easily be me). When lived in Japan 10 years ago, even Japanese people would tell me that I looked like her, and I'm pretty sure she wasn't an iconic character in anything as popular as Star Trek. The actors are not the icons...the characters are. I bet that if you showed those same people a poster from the new Star Trek, they would still say that those characters were Kirk and Spock.
I've always had a huge crush on Claire Danes.

Just sayin'.
__________________
Konnichi wa!
CorporalClegg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29 2013, 02:00 AM   #156
TREK_GOD_1
Fleet Captain
 
TREK_GOD_1's Avatar
 
Location: Escaped from Delta Vega
Re: Why did they bother...

sj4iy wrote: View Post

Elmer Fudd started out as an offensive stereotype of a black man, but very few people even know about that today. Even though that was his "original" form, I don't see anyone arguing that he should be changed back to what he was, because it would not work in today's society (it didn't even work for very long after that cartoon was aired, and has been banned for a long time). Same with Kirk and Spock...their original characters don't fit into today's entertainment, and evolving them was the best thing to do. Example of the original Elmer Fudd.
That is an absolutely horrible comparison.

Horrible. Inapplicable.

A racist character unfit for modern times has no parallel in TOS Kirk and Spock--the latter being characters who in their original form--stood the test of time, and remain pop culture fixtures to this day.
__________________
"...to be like God, you have the power to make the world anything you want it to be."
TREK_GOD_1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29 2013, 02:11 AM   #157
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Why did they bother...

The characters have stood the test of time, and are now played by different actors.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29 2013, 02:16 AM   #158
Captain Nebula
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Why did they bother...

sj4iy wrote: View Post
The actors are not the icons...the characters are.
Which is why I wondered why they bothered using the names of the original characters since their personalities are no where near the personalities of the original characters.

I think Zachary Quinto is a good actor, but just having pointed ears, funny hair, and a monotone voice doesn't make him Spock. Leonard Nimoy projected that character. I get none of that with the new movies. Spock is/was a scientist. nuSpock is an administrator.
__________________
In space, no one can hear you Die Hard.
Captain Nebula is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29 2013, 02:23 AM   #159
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: Why did they bother...

Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
The characters have stood the test of time, and are now played by different actors.
YES!

Captain Nebula wrote: View Post
sj4iy wrote: View Post
The actors are not the icons...the characters are.
Which is why I wondered why they bothered using the names of the original characters since their personalities are no where near the personalities of the original characters.

I think Zachary Quinto is a good actor, but just having pointed ears, funny hair, and a monotone voice doesn't make him Spock. Leonard Nimoy projected that character. I get none of that with the new movies. Spock is/was a scientist. nuSpock is an administrator.
You're mileage may very (sorry I didn't abbreviate that, I'm old and still type out entire words ). They are all are spot on to the characters. Scarry so. Whatever the weaknesses people think Orci et al have in storytelling, they've been very true to the characters, and the actors have been, too. Again, in my opinion.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain
Franklin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29 2013, 02:25 AM   #160
CorporalClegg
Admiral
 
CorporalClegg's Avatar
 
Location: Land of Enchantment
Re: Why did they bother...

Captain Nebula wrote: View Post
I think Zachary Quinto is a good actor, but just having pointed ears, funny hair, and a monotone voice doesn't make him Spock.
Yes it does.

Spock is the "Vulcan science officer of the Starship Enterprise." Anything beyond that is subject to interpretation.

Just like Hamlet is "The Prince of Denmark." Within those confines, there have been countless interpretations of everything from portraying him as a lecherous sociopath to a whimsical comedian. None is more "right" or "wrong" than another.
__________________
Konnichi wa!
CorporalClegg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29 2013, 02:27 AM   #161
TREK_GOD_1
Fleet Captain
 
TREK_GOD_1's Avatar
 
Location: Escaped from Delta Vega
Re: Why did they bother...

CorporalClegg wrote: View Post
CommishSleer wrote: View Post
I bought a friend of mine a TOS cast t-shirt because he loved TNG. Loving my gift he took it away on a holiday to climb the Himalayas where he would be camping and staying in huts without running water and electricity.
He came back and he told me that he was amazed how many people recognised the people on the shirt. In places without TV or movie theatres where they didn't speak English, people would come up to him and say 'Kirk', 'Spock'.
So you claim they're not icons but a lot of people around the world recognise them.
Aside from being an anecdote and thus proof of nothing, this gives no indication of how many people walked by who had no idea who they were.

Non the less, note they said "Kirk" and "Spock" not "Shatner!" "Nimoy!"

Dollars to donuts, your friend could paste Pine and Quinto's faces onto said shirt and get a similar reaction.
Conjecture. Notice how quick you were to dismiss a real experience as proof of nothing, meanwhile some perform message board gymnastics trying to pretend history did not play out a certain way.

The experience the member recalled is fact (unless you have evidence to render it a lie), just as i've experienced the same thing with people who do not count themselves as ST fans.

Take stills from the Fleischer cartoon and MoS and walk around public asking "Which one's Superman?"

Good grief...
Oh, for.... Another silly comparison--almost as out there as the Elmer Fudd post.

For the moment, i'll play...

If I take a pic of Karloff as the Monster, then set it next to stills of Michael Sarrazin & De Niro as the same character, and say, "which one's Frankenstein's Monster?"

Let's see how honest you are about which one will get the nod.

Hint: it will not be the 1973 or 1994 versions.

The same applies to Shatner and Nimoy. They have cut a deep path into the road of pop culture--elevating and in some ways, transcending it, so at best, all you would get in a side by side is John Q. Public looking at nuTrek like a fan film, or cosplay.

Can you even define "icon?"
It has been defined, but if some wish to protect something that (more than likely) will not have TOS impact, then such things do not exist.
__________________
"...to be like God, you have the power to make the world anything you want it to be."
TREK_GOD_1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29 2013, 02:39 AM   #162
TREK_GOD_1
Fleet Captain
 
TREK_GOD_1's Avatar
 
Location: Escaped from Delta Vega
Re: Why did they bother...

CorporalClegg wrote: View Post
Captain Nebula wrote: View Post
I think Zachary Quinto is a good actor, but just having pointed ears, funny hair, and a monotone voice doesn't make him Spock.
Yes it does.

Spock is the "Vulcan science officer of the Starship Enterprise." Anything beyond that is subject to interpretation.
So, if Jack Black....yes that Jack Black--as is--slipped on the pointed ears, delivered his lines in a monotone voice and sported the haircut, he would be Spock, just as much as Nimoy?
__________________
"...to be like God, you have the power to make the world anything you want it to be."
TREK_GOD_1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29 2013, 03:54 AM   #163
Captain Nebula
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Why did they bother...

Franklin wrote: View Post
They are all are spot on to the characters. Scarry so. Whatever the weaknesses people think Orci et al have in storytelling, they've been very true to the characters, and the actors have been, too.
Not even close. Spock would never have a relationship with his subordinate. He would have thought it inappropriate. And I really can't blame it on the actors because they did try. But it just wasn't written into the story for them to act like they were the original characters. I can see how this could affect Kirk as he had a father in the original and didn't for more than a few minutes in the nuTrek. But did the destruction of the Kelvin really affect that much? I can mostly chalk it up to it being a parallel universe as the reason that they are acting that much different. But as I said, a character like Scotty, the personality just wasn't there. It was all just his accent. Or maybe it was the apparent intelligence that wasn't there. Both Scotty and Spock stick out the most in that. They were supposed to be the smartest ones on the ship and then Chekov was doing his "Wesley Crusher with a Russian accent" imitation in the first movie.

TREK_GOD_1 wrote: View Post
So, if Jack Black....yes that Jack Black--as is--slipped on the pointed ears, delivered his lines in a monotone voice and sported the haircut, he would be Spock, just as much as Nimoy?
I wish they had a clapping Smilie just for this post.
__________________
In space, no one can hear you Die Hard.
Captain Nebula is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29 2013, 04:22 AM   #164
RPJOB
Commander
 
RPJOB's Avatar
 
Re: Why did they bother...

TREK_GOD_1 wrote: View Post

So, if Jack Black....yes that Jack Black--as is--slipped on the pointed ears, delivered his lines in a monotone voice and sported the haircut, he would be Spock, just as much as Nimoy?
Sadly, yes. Yes he would.

The problem is that Star Trek is a franchise. Star Trek is not defined by what it says, how it looks or who the actors are. Star trek is whatever the owner of the franchise says it is. If they did a Jack Black as Spock comedy movie, that would be Star Trek. If the did a Quinten Tarantino bloodfest, that would be Star Trek.

Star Trek exists for one reason, to make money for the trademark holder. That's it. It's not there to push the boundaries of science fiction or to tell little morality plays in a space setting. It's to make as much money for Roddenberry or Desilu or Paramount or CBS as possible. If what they do is popular, that makes them more money. If it's not, they make less money and they try something else, either a new setting line TNG or DS9 or a reboot like JJ's version.

So the answer is yes, Jack Black could be Spock. I don't think he'd make a good one but my opinion doesn't matter. If enough people like him as Spock then he's Spock until they get tired of him and Star Trek moves on to something else.

Such is the entertainment industry.
__________________
We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill - today! - Kirk - A Taste of Armageddon
RPJOB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29 2013, 04:25 AM   #165
CorporalClegg
Admiral
 
CorporalClegg's Avatar
 
Location: Land of Enchantment
Re: Why did they bother...

TREK_GOD_1 wrote: View Post
Notice how quick you were to dismiss a real experience as proof of nothing, meanwhile some perform message board gymnastics trying to pretend history did not play out a certain way.
I merely pointed out she was citing an anecdote, and a second-hand one at that. It would be inadmissible evidence. Why? Because it doesn't prove anything relevant to the argument.

All it proves is she has a friend who says he met some people in a far-away land who knew who Kirk and Spock were. That only suggests they're familiar. It does not prove they're iconic.

The experience the member recalled is fact (unless you have evidence to render it a lie)
Now you're just piling fallacy on top of fallacy. But I'm not going to indulge any further. This is really side-stepping the topic, and I'm starting to lecture--I don't want to make Shar angry.

Oh, for.... Another silly comparison--almost as out there as the Elmer Fudd post.
sj's Fudd analogy was a sound one. I'm sorry you didn't like it.

However, calling the Superman comparison "silly" only proves you still don't understand what an icon is.

Icons:

Each is a different image, but the vast majority of people in the world know they all mean the same thing. The person wearing it, be him/her real or drawn, is irrelevant.

If I take a pic of Karloff as the Monster, then set it next to stills of Michael Sarrazin & De Niro as the same character, and say, "which one's Frankenstein's Monster?"

Let's see how honest you are about which one will get the nod.
Aside from calling me a liar, you're basing your conclusion on a false premise.

The "iconic" Frankenstein's Monster is a derivative composite of the Dawly, Testa, and Whale films combined with various re-imagings of the period.

As such, there have been plenty of dolls, posters, paintings, etc. that are all clearly Frankenstein's monster and look nothing like Karloff specifically.

Certainly, the Whale films influenced the modern image heavily. But the traits that people associate with the Monster have nothing to do with Karloff or his face.

More to the point, I used Charlie Chaplin as an example way up-thread. How many people actually know what Chaplin looked liked?

I could post side by side pictures of Chaplin, RDJ, and the guy from the 80s IBM commercials (who I think might have even been a woman), and I bet a lot of people wouldn't be able to tell them apart. Unfortunately, I couldn't find three that were close enough to make a valid comparison without heavy photoshopping, and I didn't want to bother.

As far as the whole De Niro thing, I think most people would be able to figure it out. You don't give them enough credit.

Funny thing though, Branagh based his on the Shelly cover. It was the definitive image of Frankenstein's Monster for a century. You've just proved Greg Cox's point.

The same applies to Shatner and Nimoy. They have cut a deep path into the road of pop culture--elevating and in some ways, transcending it,
Oh please...

Trying to think of the number of pop figures that have actually reached this level of iconic status. The Mouse and Supes have already been mentioned. Bats is close, but not quite. No other comic book hero even comes close.

The only others I could think of were Elvis and a Beatle.

Now the iconic image of Elvis is most likely "old" Elvis, and that begs the question was it created by him himself or by the last 40 years of Vegas impersonators?

And by "a Beatle," I don't mean any one specifically, but a generic composite--like one of those photoshop scramble thingies of mop-top John, Paul, and George. (Sorry Ringo.)

It has been defined, but if some wish to protect something that (more than likely) will not have TOS impact, then such things do not exist.
I have no idea what this means.

So, if Jack Black....yes that Jack Black--as is--slipped on the pointed ears, delivered his lines in a monotone voice and sported the haircut, he would be Spock, just as much as Nimoy?
Could be awesome.

People need to stop lobbying for Nimoy's ownership of a character. He has stated it's not his.
__________________
Konnichi wa!
CorporalClegg is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.