Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by Captain Nebula, May 26, 2013.
Wait, _never heard_ ? Are they interested in movies at all ?
Your reply is what is called a dodge. Any culture not well-exposed to the popular culture of another country, yet some of its citizens instantly recognize actors/characters means the subjects have reached that rare status of transcending the medium (and culture) which brought them to the attention of the public. Few actors and their signature characters are so successful--certainly not going on 5 decades.
It was not: as Carcazoid pointed out to sj, Fudd did not start out as described, but was based on another character altogether. Already the historically inaccurate analogy earned holes large enough to sink it.
Icon as used in popular cultural terms is not limited to a person, image or object with a passing resemblance, but a defined image which made a cultural, artistic and historical impact that is not handed off like a baton in a race.
This should not need to be explained.
If it simply passed on, then--for example--the characters from the remake Planet of the Apes films would be held to the same iconic standard as the original characters. Try finding anyone believing that.
We are talking about the actor (Karloff) and his character, not watered down ancillary products which were anything except accurate for decades.
Karloff was hired for the role in large part due to his facial structure, which suited the strange direction of the makeup (including removing the bridgework from his mouth to make the cheeks appear sunken--or corpse-like).
Every Universal Frankenstein film to follow was based on the physical characteristics Karloff gave to the character. Without a doubt, the emotional end--which also made the Karloff version timeless--was not to be found in Chaney, Lugosi or Strange, hence the easily ridiculed "performances," and their glaring inability to reach Karloff's status as a performer and the character he defined.
This is the perfect comparison to Shatner/Kirk and Nimoy/Spock.
The problem with that theory rests in facial features--like the Karloff example. Chaplin had a very distinctive set of eyes and smile, whether playing the "tramp" character or not. Similarly, RDJ's eyes are his own--you cannot mistake him for anyone else, which was the case long before he became globally famous as Iron Man.
Side by side (Google it, if you care to), there's no resemblance stronger than one playing dress up in a fan film.
His appearance is not only mundane (as far as movi man-made monsters go), but can you find anyone who even remembers the role
Although the story was quite famous pre-film, the numerous prinitings did not have a universal (no pun intended) image of the creature. I've seen a few of the early editions, and much was left to the reader's imagination. The cinema age granted the ability to form a single vision, which just so happened to strike film and cultural lightning, hence the reason the Karloff portrayal hard-defined a character born on the printed page, with no other filmed version (even if adhering to the novel description) coming close...
..or recognized at all.
If by old you're talking about the white, sequined jumpsuit period, Elvis made that famous in the last few years of his life, which inspired the impersonators to go overboard with that version as a tribute--of a kind--to the last living image of the man.
Nimoy is free to say that, but his cultural effect cannot be erased. He's being the good soldier to help J.J. out, but if he's not capable of racing back through time to alter key events (First Contact Borg style), he's out of luck. To play on Nimoy's own sequel book, he is Spock...and Spock is Nimoy.
The characters are the intellectual property of Paramount Pictures to do with as they please. As is the show, and all associated material. They are not works of art being altered, they are names and details on a page that others can bring to the screen as fits any new production.
*That* should not have to be explained.
Nope. The actor plays a character- the character ISN'T the actor. Otherwise nothing would ever be revived. Mozart wrote parts of his opera for certain performers based on their abilities, but his operas are still performed all over the world over 200 years later. As long as someone can convincingly perform a part (in a play, opera, tv show or movie), then it doesn't matter what the name of the actor is. I see no reason to let a story like Star Trek and the original characters die out completely when it can (and has) been successfully revived. And I will never hear the singers who sang in the first ever performance of Mozart's "The Magic Flute"...but I know the story and I know the music well- I even know the history of it because I've read about it. Why let a tv show like TOS die out just because some people are attached to the original actors? It makes no sense.
Are you sure?
Is this guy Spock?
[He's hotlinked from web space which is not yours. Converting to link. M']
How about this guy?
[Hotlinked. - M']
Or this guy?
[Hotlinked. - M']
Or even this guy?
[Hotlinked. Please refer to FAQ section concerning posting of images. - M']
You can say you are whoever, but not everybody has to like it.
Somebody give that last Spock a sandwich...!
There are other things on TV and at the movie theaters. Plus there's a huge backlog of prior Trek to enjoy.
If the Abrams films don't work I don't understand the point of hanging around to complain about them. It's time that could be used to enjoy other things in life.
Well, wanting them to work is one reason. Being a long time Trek fan is another.
It can be challenged. It's reasonable to doubt the idea that a particularly strong "cultural effect" even exists in this respect. Because you assert it to be so doesn't mean it is so.
The opposite can be said with equal vigor, and no firm footing can be found from either position if the only consensus anyone can reach is "It's your opinion."
The facts remain. Star Trek, the original series and it's characters, did in fact play a large part in influencing culture and the paths of many hundreds if not thousands of people over the decades. This, to many of those inspired, was attributed specifically to the actors. (Kelley, Takei, Nichols, Doohan, and Koenig have all relayed stories on this manner time and again.
Eh. "Leonard Nimoy doesn't own Spock," is a fact.
Exactly so. And the problem is...?
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.
Not really - its still your opinion.
I think Nimoy 'owns' Spock. My definition of 'owns' may be different from yours - fact.
You know they could have rebooted TNG and I would have said Patrick Stewart still 'owns' Picard and Brett Spiner 'owns' Data. Thats because they had 7 seasons and 4 movies.
A new cast may eventually 'own' them but not after just 2 movies. The original portrayals are still quintessential to me. To the people who haven't seen the original TV series and movies then this is their Kirk and Spock - I understand. And to people who never liked TOS well here's something better.
And yes you can dismiss me with saying I'm going to be dead soon .
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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."
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.
Separate names with a comma.