That makes no sense. It's 2012, not 1978 or whenever. You're not going to use the images of the old version when there's a new version up and running. And who in their right minds targets a cartoon series at nostalgic old folks like us? Today's kids are going to expect today's Kirk, and a tv series that reflects the current STAR TREK movies, not some old version from before they were born. It would be insane to do anything else.
Most cartoons derived from movies actually don't use the exact same character likenesses, but rough approximations (Ghostbusters and Men In Black come to mind right now). The reasons vary from animation purposes to simply an arbitrary creative decision. I think a new animated Trek series will feature a Kirk that looks like neither William Shatner or Chris Pine, especially if its target audience are kids, but will still be recognizable as Kirk as a brown-haired man in a gold shirt with the name.
There's a value to using Pine's image - to tie it to the movies and their PR value - but not knowing how much that image could cost to use, it's hard to determine whether it would be worth it. The Clone Wars seems to make the decision on artistic reasons. Natalie Portman and Samuel L. Jackson are recognizable, but Obi-Wan seems to be mostly Alec Guiness, decades younger, and Anakin looks like a grown up Jake Lloyd, but more Hollywood handsome. That doesn't seem to be financially or PR motivated, but motivated maybe by how the show creators choose to see those characters.
I remember that Marvel's old PLANET OF THE APES comics did not have the rights to use Charlton Heston's image, so they had to draw Taylor as a generic leading-man type, with a scruffy beard. Ditto, I think, with their short-lived LOGAN'S RUN comic, whose "Logan" was more generic than Michael York-ish.
I think one could make a reasonable point that the versions of Kirk and Sulu from TAS look almost as much like Chris Pine and John Cho as they look like William Shatner and George Takei anyway. You could almost say the same thing about the TAS versions of Spock and Uhura. The only TAS regular characters, in my opinion, that are dead ringers for their TOS counterparts are McCoy and Scotty.
Chris Pine looks like an old school buddy of mine named Thomas. I think they should do a new series with Pine as James T. Kirks grandson Thomas Kirk. As for remakes, animated or with actors, if they want to continue with lousy remakes of good series and by doing that alienate old loyal fans of the show, well let them do it! Then we will see if their new fans will be as loyal in the long run. Personally I don't like the current direction of Star Trek at all. Not the new movies and definitely not the books.
You know, I remember being shocked, many, many years ago, when I discovered that my youngest brother considered Roger Moore the "real" James Bond. I was appalled at first, but then I realized that he had grown up on Moore just as I had grown up on Sean Connery. That's just the way it works. Fifteen years from now, irate fans will be insisting that Chris Pine is the "real" Kirk and that the new Kirk is an imposter whom the fans will never accept . . . . Time moves on, and one generation's "irreplaceable" icons are eventually supplanted by new versions for a new generation. And if you live long enough, you get the fun of seeing multiple versions of your favorite shows and characters. George Reeves was the iconic face of Superman when I was growing up, but then there was Christopher Reeve, who eventually gave way to Dean Cain and Tom Welling and Brandon Routh and now Henry Cavill. And speaking as someone as watched the old b/w show religiously as a kid, I don't feel "alienated" by that. I'm looking forward to seeing Cavill's take on the character, and I certainly don't expect any new Superman cartoons to feature an animated George Reeves! : Like I said, time moves on and there's no point in preserving the old versions in amber.
And when talking about fans, keep in mind that where the show appears will determine which fans are important. The Cartoon Network advertises to kids. It's more important to get those kids to watch this week, and then the next week, etc, than to worry whether they will be loyal a year from now, or five, or want to see the next movie or buy the next book. The Cartoon Network would consider it more important that they like other (non Star Trek) shows on that network than that they buy books or whatever. And on a different network, there's a different set of priorities.
Great post, Greg. I'm 24, and I'm already seeing this in quite a few things. As the years roll on by, it's going to fade into a blur of time and tempers.
Thanks! One more point: accepting new and different versions of our old favorites doesn't mean rejecting the previous versions. I still enjoy watching (and writing) TOS. But I'm also open to new and different takes on the material.
Agreed. I admit that my preference, as far as Kirk and Spock goes, will always be Shatner and Nimoy, but just because I prefer them, that doesn't mean that I'm not open to seeing what Pine and Quinto do with the characters. As for Superman, same thing. I like all the versions, except for Brandon Routh, who I still feel got hired not to play Superman, but to play Chris Reeve playing Superman. I wish Cavil better luck.
Well, I just hope that I'm not around if and when a Voyager remake hit the screen. If I am, then I won't watch it. Now, if they could come up with some decent books instead of the current "relaunches" where too many good characters are missing.
How did you ever cope seeing the great Cesar Romero replaced after his highly-regarded stints in the first colour "Batman" movie and TV show? A look authentic to the comics of the era, an unforgettable and icon laugh, and a trimmed mustache cleverly hidden by his clown makeup.
And how dare the old GREEN HORNET tv show cast Bruce Lee as Kato? Everyone knows the only true Kato is Keye Luke! (Yeah, I've been watching the old serial on TCM.)
I didn't watch the original Batman movie from 1966 until the mid-nineties but I found it entertaining. A bit goofy here and there with that shark which obviously was made of rubber. But it was fun to watch and Romero was great as The Joker. It's hard to compare him with Nicholson because the movies were so different.
But, just for the sake of argument, doesn't that apply to Heath Ledger as well? Batman (1989) and The Dark Knight are very different in tone as well, so why compare Ledger to Nicholson? Or Romero? Three different Batmans. Three very different takes on the Joker. Like I keep saying, you live long enough, everything gets remade. It's no big deal.