RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,935
Posts: 5,389,997
Members: 24,724
Currently online: 496
Newest member: shrivishk

TrekToday headlines

New Trek-themed Bobble Heads
By: T'Bonz on Aug 21

IDW Publishing November Trek Comic
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Pegg/Wright Trilogy In The Works
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Star Trek: The Compendium Rebate Details
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Gold Key Archives Volume 2
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Takei Documentary Wins Award
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Cumberbatch To Voice Khan
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Shaun And Ed On Phineas and Ferb
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

New Ships Coming From Official Starships Collection
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

Trek Stars Take On Ice Bucket Challenge
By: T'Bonz on Aug 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 30 2013, 05:32 AM   #196
OpenMaw
Commander
 
OpenMaw's Avatar
 
Location: Everett, Washington
Re: Why did they bother...

CorporalClegg wrote: View Post
Eh. "Leonard Nimoy doesn't own Spock," is a fact.
Well, certainly, but it's not really about who "owns" the character. It's about who defined the character and who has resonated with the audience for 50 years. Yes, the original cast are, by that definition, internationally known and iconic.

Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
Exactly so. And the problem is...?
None at all. I just find it an amusing situation, and with the one noted exception, that while I don't agree that the new cast can't become icons themselves, that anyone would suggest the original cast doesn't fit that definition is, well, rather suspect.


Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post

Back when TNG premiered, the TOS-only fans predicted that it would fail. When it didn't fail, they started predicting instead that no one would remember it in twenty years. Essentially, what happened was that they found themselves on the losing end of the argument where things could be measured quantitatively - current success and public acceptance - so they asserted a position that was based entirely on opinion and speculation and therefore couldn't be factually challenged.

Of course, they turned out to be wrong about that too, twenty years later.

All of these TOS-only assertions about the "iconic nature," primacy and durability of the original portrayals of Kirk and Spock are the same kind of thing - since the new version of Star Trek is more successful on the big screen than the old version by those standards which can be measured and compared objectively, it's necessary to retreat into claims and opinions that can 't be proven one way or the other to try to dismiss nuTrek.

There's really no reason to believe that in a decade or so these claims will hold up any better than those made against TNG.
I think there's a big difference between those who say "They can't because the originals are unbeatable super awesome" and "It remains to be seen, because the originals have big shoes." I don't think it's impossible, or even unlikely that Quinto and Pine will become synonym's for these characters. It just depends on the ability for the new film series to endure and leave a lasting impression. If it peeters off in four years after the next film, and they don't come back again, then the original cast will probably maintain their status, while the new guys will become something of an interesting diversion. I'm very interested in seeing what happens for them in the near future.
__________________
"Paradise protests too much." SFDebris
OpenMaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2013, 01:50 PM   #197
sj4iy
Commander
 
sj4iy's Avatar
 
Location: US
Re: Why did they bother...

OpenMaw wrote: View Post
CorporalClegg wrote: View Post
Eh. "Leonard Nimoy doesn't own Spock," is a fact.
Well, certainly, but it's not really about who "owns" the character. It's about who defined the character and who has resonated with the audience for 50 years. Yes, the original cast are, by that definition, internationally known and iconic.
Okay, so who "owns" the Doctor? Who "owns" James Bond? Who "owns" Batman? Dracula? Superman?

Many of these characters were iconic when they first appeared, but many other actors have portrayed the same character throughout the years (Dracula is the oldest). However, people will have their personal favorites. It doesn't mean they can't appreciate the other renditions, though. But it's definitely NOT the actor that makes the show. If you are saying that it IS the actor that makes the show, that means that the show is rubbish, because the story can't stand without the original actors. But I've noticed that people want the original stories, NOT the original actors, and that they are miffed that the characters were put in an alternate universe.
sj4iy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2013, 02:07 PM   #198
Captain Nebula
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Why did they bother...

Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
Captain Nebula wrote: View Post
Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
Quinto is Spock now
Are you sure?
Yes.
I guess Leonard Nimoy will just have to write another book - this one called: "I am not Spock... Again."

Or how about: "For the last time, I am not Spock!."

Or maybe he could go the Borg route and call it: "We are Spock. You will be assimilated..."

He will start his own religion: "Everyone is Spock."

Self-help books: "You too can be Spock."

__________________
In space, no one can hear you Die Hard.
Captain Nebula is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2013, 02:14 PM   #199
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Why did they bother...

CommishSleer wrote: View Post
And yes you can dismiss me with saying I'm going to be dead soon .
So will I. I've been watching this thing since 1966 and I have no trouble at all accepting Pine and Quinto as Kirk and Spock; I really like their versions better than I liked the originals as they "evolved" in the TOS-based movies. Those were too often a case of "as long as we have Shatner and Nimoy the fans will buy anything they say or do."
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2013, 02:26 PM   #200
CommishSleer
Fleet Captain
 
CommishSleer's Avatar
 
Location: Way back of nowhere
View CommishSleer's Twitter Profile
Re: Why did they bother...

I think you'll find most people who don't accept Pine and Quinto are 24th century Star Trek fans.
Raging that its not Picard or Janeway or Sisko on screen.
CommishSleer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2013, 02:36 PM   #201
Greg Cox
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Oxford, PA
Re: Why did they bother...

CommishSleer wrote: View Post
I think you'll find most people who don't accept Pine and Quinto are 24th century Star Trek fans.
Raging that its not Picard or Janeway or Sisko on screen.
This ties in with my own (completely unscientific) pet theory that it's mostly TNG-era fans that have issues with the new movies, because they're not "intellectual" or "utopian" enough--as opposed to us old-school TOS fans who grew up on a STAR TREK that was both "cerebral" and good, old-fashioned space-opera adventure.
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com
Greg Cox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2013, 02:52 PM   #202
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Why did they bother...

sj4iy wrote: View Post
Okay, so who "owns" the Doctor? Who "owns" James Bond? Who "owns" Batman? Dracula? Superman?
Well I don't have a horse in this race, but I'd like to point out some things.

If you ask people in general to, say, give you a picture of James Bond, you're likely to end up with a picture of Sean Connery ('iconic') or Daniel Craig (current). Likewise for the doctor you'll get Tom Baker ('iconic') or David Tennant (well-known recent).

The thing with some characters like Batman or Superman or somesuch is that they have a very distinctive appearance. Captain Kirk has none. So what do people imagine when you say "Kirk" ? William Shatner, probably. Now they'll think more and more of Chris Pine, I would hope, but unless the character has a particular look, you associate them with the actor or actress playing them.

Shatner has been Kirk in people's minds for 43 years, so it's normal to assume they'll associate him with the character more than Pine, who's done two movies so far.

My point is that you all have good points. On the one hand, the character is its own thing that often transcends the actors, but you still have people at large associating the two.
__________________
And that's my opinion.

The Onmyouza Theatre: an unofficial international fanclub dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2013, 03:00 PM   #203
Greg Cox
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Oxford, PA
Re: Why did they bother...

And, of course, none of this is set in stone. Things can fall in and out of "iconic" status over the passage of time.

Basil Rathbone was Sherlock Holmes to an entire generation of moviegoers, but I'm not sure that applies anymore. Modern audiences are more likely to identify Robert Downing Jr, Benedict Cumberbatch, or the guy on ELEMENTARY as Holmes, while others will surely be along to insist that Jeremy Brett is the definitive Holmes . . .

Maybe Nimoy should title his next book: I Am A Spock.
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com
Greg Cox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2013, 03:16 PM   #204
OpenMaw
Commander
 
OpenMaw's Avatar
 
Location: Everett, Washington
Re: Why did they bother...

sj4iy wrote: View Post
Okay, so who "owns" the Doctor? Who "owns" James Bond? Who "owns" Batman? Dracula? Superman?

Many of these characters were iconic when they first appeared, but many other actors have portrayed the same character throughout the years (Dracula is the oldest). However, people will have their personal favorites. It doesn't mean they can't appreciate the other renditions, though. But it's definitely NOT the actor that makes the show. If you are saying that it IS the actor that makes the show, that means that the show is rubbish, because the story can't stand without the original actors. But I've noticed that people want the original stories, NOT the original actors, and that they are miffed that the characters were put in an alternate universe.
See, just about all of those are very unlike the Trek cast. The Doctor had changes to his character within the original series run, before the show had a chance to be digested by longevity the idea of his face, his entire persona, changing was established. It's actually an active part of the excitement of Doctor Who, that he can and will change.

Superman, Batman, and Bond had so many changes and iterations even early on that again, it's not quite the same thing.

Whereas with Star Trek, you had the original series run for 3 seasons, then syndication, then the animated series, followed by more syndication, then the movies. It wasn't until the 4th TOS movie, nearly 20 years after the show had first aired, that an entire new set of faces were brought into Star Trek with TNG.

It's not that Pine and Quinto can't be iconic, it's that they are not yet iconic in these roles. Shatner and Nimoy are. If time is good to the new guys, and they get to do more stuff, then they probably will be. Lord knows they seem to be giving it their all in both movies. However, if it ends abruptly with movie three, it won't be Pine and Quinto who will continue to endure. It'll be the same ol' TOS run in syndication.
__________________
"Paradise protests too much." SFDebris
OpenMaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2013, 04:41 PM   #205
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Why did they bother...

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
And, of course, none of this is set in stone. Things can fall in and out of "iconic" status over the passage of time.
Yes, absolutely.
__________________
And that's my opinion.

The Onmyouza Theatre: an unofficial international fanclub dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2013, 04:50 PM   #206
marksound
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Planet Carcazed
Re: Why did they bother...

The new cast doesn't have to be "iconic." They have careers outside Star Trek.
marksound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2013, 04:58 PM   #207
Greg Cox
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Oxford, PA
Re: Why did they bother...

Belz... wrote: View Post
Greg Cox wrote: View Post
And, of course, none of this is set in stone. Things can fall in and out of "iconic" status over the passage of time.
Yes, absolutely.
"Who the hell is this Tyrone Power guy? Douglas Fairbanks is the only real Zorro!"
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com
Greg Cox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2013, 05:04 PM   #208
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Why did they bother...

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
"Who the hell is this Tyrone Power guy? Douglas Fairbanks is the only real Zorro!"
__________________
And that's my opinion.

The Onmyouza Theatre: an unofficial international fanclub dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2013, 05:32 PM   #209
Robert_T_April
Captain
 
Robert_T_April's Avatar
 
Location: Yesterday's Enterprise
Re: Why did they bother...

Captain Nebula wrote: View Post
Why did they bother with the original Trek crew in these new movies? They could have easily created a new crew. There are only a couple of characters that act like their original counterpart from the original TV series. Spock stayed away from Christine Chapel in the original because he thought it was inappropriate. But this new Spock is all over Uhura. Kirk is promoted from "Cadet who is about to get expelled" to First Officer - completely bypassing Kirk ever serving on the Farragut. Karl Urban's got the McCoy-isms down pretty good. But Scotty is just a guy with an accent - even though Simon Pegg is pretty funny. So is Chekov - just an accent. And it's almost racist that they got a Chinese actor to play the part that a Japanese actor played on the TV show. Did I miss anybody?

They could have at least had Pine do a Shatner imitation.

I guess if it brings in the big bucks at the theater...

/rant

Any thoughts?
Thoughts?...
For one, you don't have much of an imagination. Other than that, the timeline was altered by the actions of Nero. So many ships/experienced officers were lost that Starfleet was considerably weakened.
Kirk being promoted to First Officer is believable considering the events. Field promotions during battle/wartime is not uncommon.
As for Spock, his whole life was altered with the destruction of Vulcan.

And to answer your question on why wouldn't they just use new characters?...
Because this isn't a new made for TV series...its a major motion picture that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to produce. Did you really need to ask that question?
Robert_T_April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2013, 05:34 PM   #210
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: Why did they bother...

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
CommishSleer wrote: View Post
I think you'll find most people who don't accept Pine and Quinto are 24th century Star Trek fans.
Raging that its not Picard or Janeway or Sisko on screen.
This ties in with my own (completely unscientific) pet theory that it's mostly TNG-era fans that have issues with the new movies, because they're not "intellectual" or "utopian" enough--as opposed to us old-school TOS fans who grew up on a STAR TREK that was both "cerebral" and good, old-fashioned space-opera adventure.
And between the two, good old fashioned space-opera adventure translates better to the big screen. FC was the closest movie to that among the TNG movies, and I remember people criticizing "Action Picard" as being more or less out of character.

TNG was a fine show. TOS was a fine show. But they were mostly different shows. I can see also why some TNG fans who never followed TOS at all could look at it and wonder why folks found it so great. Then some TOS fans get overly defensive protecting the product. Bar fights break out. Hair pulling. Eye gouging. Name calling. Slapping. It gets nasty.

My own two cents on the "iconic" and "cerebral" and "made you think" part is if you grew up with TOS or grabbed onto it very early in syndication (as I did) -- that is, you've been a fan 40 years or more -- you take that stuff with a heavy grain of salt.

Through the mist of time, I also think TOS gets wrongly thrown in with all those truly "groundbreaking" shows of the early 1970s that did push limits, like "M*A*S*H", "All in the Family", "Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman", and so on. (Even "Laugh In".) Some of the bad reviews of STID said that while the action and characters were great, they didn't like the movie because it didn't reach the depth and scope of TOS. Whatever.

The first rule of politics is never start believing your own propaganda.
__________________
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
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 11:37 AM.

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