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?