Why did they bother...

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by Captain Nebula, May 26, 2013.

  1. Greg Cox

    Greg Cox Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Location:
    Oxford, PA
    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.
     
  2. Belz...

    Belz... Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Location:
    In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
    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.
     
  3. Greg Cox

    Greg Cox Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Location:
    Oxford, PA
    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.
     
  4. OpenMaw

    OpenMaw Captain Captain

    Joined:
    May 26, 2013
    Location:
    Everett, Washington
    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.
     
  5. Belz...

    Belz... Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Location:
    In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
    Yes, absolutely.
     
  6. marksound

    marksound Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    Location:
    Planet Carcazed
    The new cast doesn't have to be "iconic." They have careers outside Star Trek.
     
  7. Greg Cox

    Greg Cox Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Location:
    Oxford, PA
    "Who the hell is this Tyrone Power guy? Douglas Fairbanks is the only real Zorro!"
     
  8. Belz...

    Belz... Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Location:
    In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
    :techman:
     
  9. Robert_T_April

    Robert_T_April Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Location:
    Yesterday's Enterprise
    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?
     
  10. Franklin

    Franklin Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Location:
    In the bleachers.
    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.
     
  11. Greg Cox

    Greg Cox Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Location:
    Oxford, PA
    And then some Klingon calls the Enterprise a garbage scow . . .
     
  12. Franklin

    Franklin Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Location:
    In the bleachers.
    :lol: I also forgot to add that the true TOS geeks actually start trying Vulcan neck pinches.
     
  13. sj4iy

    sj4iy Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    May 17, 2013
    Location:
    US
    Star Trek IS altered- the whole story is different. Exact same for all of those above. Changes have been made to each version to "fit" the time it was shown in. You can't say Star Trek is different than any of those others because it's not.

    And I know many people who love Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan, too. I despised Moore, but he's my Mom's favorite. I don't like any of the Doctors up until Tennant, but Smith is my favorite. But it has nothing to do with the actors...it has everything to do with the stories they are given. Skyfall is now considered one of the best Bond movies by many, but neither of Craig's previous ones ranked very high. I loved Goldeneye, but none of Brosnan's other movies. Without a good story, the whole thing fails, despite the best actor in the universe.

    It doesn't matter to me whether or not others find Pine or Quinto "iconic" or how many other movies they do, because to me, Into Darkness is the best Trek movie I've seen. Some will agree, some won't- just like some won't agree with me on who the best Doctor is, or the best Superman, or Batman, etc. Just a matter of taste.
     
  14. Captain Nebula

    Captain Nebula Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2010
    If I have to use my imagination, they call that a shitty movie. I think what you were poorly reaching for there is similar to a 'suspension of disbelief'.

    15 pages of discussion about it so far pretty much says it was a question that needed asking.
     
  15. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Per Ardua
    :wtf:
     
  16. AnnLouise

    AnnLouise Lieutenant Junior Grade Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2006
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    I tried watching TNG, but just could not get into the characters. For me, they were very bland, and faded into the beige carpeting of the new Enterprise. But I did find the "less perfect" DS9 characters watchable; it helped that DS9 was set in a very un-utopian part of the Trekverse.

    The nuTrek versions of Kirk, Spock, etc., have just enough of what I remember to make them watchable in their own way. I sure hope they don't get Utopianized into TNG-era blandness.
     
  17. Keeper

    Keeper Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2007
    Location:
    Land of Illusion
    "Why did they bother with the original Trek crew in these movies?"

    Perhaps because it hadn't been done before.

    No, TOS movies are NOT the same thing. Honestly, as much as I liked them when I got them there was always a sense of something missing.

    To the best of their ability in these times, these films achieve what OS films never could, even in the best of times, recapture the spirit of TOS.

    These are TOS adventures on the big screen like never before, IMO.
     
  18. Belz...

    Belz... Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Location:
    In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
    That... that's the oddest comment I've seen posted here... aside from the poster who said Paramount should CGI Scotty's mustache out in TMP.
     
  19. CorporalClegg

    CorporalClegg Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2001
    Location:
    Land of Enchantment
    The BBC, EON, WB/DC, Public Domain, WB/DC.

    ;)

    Shakespeare wrote Hamlet specifically for one man--even taking his parlance into consideration. He was probably the most recognized actor (in Europe) of the 17th century. The popular convention was "Burbage was Halmlet." Then he retired.

    Since then countless men (and women!) have played the Prince of Denmark. None of them ever owned the character or was Hamlet any more than the others.

    In fact the iconic image of Hamlet is of him holding Yorick's skull. His clothes, his face, all those other little things don't matter. But show a picture of someone kneeling holding a skull in his hand to people all around the world, and they know who it's supposed to be.

    FTFY :techman:
     
  20. Hartzilla2007

    Hartzilla2007 Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Location:
    Star Trekkin Across the universe.
    I've been on the Star Trek Online forums aka TNG-era central and there seems to be a lot of bashing of the JJ films, so yeah it looks like you guessed right.