While I agree they probably could have gotten away with dropping Uhura, Sulu and Chekov, dropping Scotty would have been an abomination. Just because. You don't drop Scotty.
Should TMP Have Been Recast Young?
- Thread starter 2takesfrakes
- Start date
beam me up..um...er...spocky?
Was 'Beam me up Scotty' in any script? 
Why? A lot more adults went to movies regularly then than they do now, and viewers were not turned off by middle-aged actors. Shatner was younger than Clint Eastwood, Paul Newman, James Garner, Robert Duvall, Sean Connery, Roger Moore, Robert Shaw and Gene Hackman, and less than five years older than Burt Reynolds, Roy Scheider, Michael Caine and Donald Sutherland. None of whom had trouble attracting audiences in those years.
As far as recasting the second-tier regulars, again, why? Unless to cut payroll, because otherwise they didn't have enough screen time to make a difference. You might as well have recognizable faces delivering their few lines as unknowns. Also, I would agree that Doohan was almost as indispensable as the big three; even then his Scotty characterization had entered the public consciousness as associated with Star Trek.
As far as recasting the second-tier regulars, again, why? Unless to cut payroll, because otherwise they didn't have enough screen time to make a difference. You might as well have recognizable faces delivering their few lines as unknowns. Also, I would agree that Doohan was almost as indispensable as the big three; even then his Scotty characterization had entered the public consciousness as associated with Star Trek.
Well, if we're going to play the mental game of whether we as "executives" would recast...All I can say is that, had I been an executive in charge, I would have wanted the original crew back for a few reasons.
I could be wrong, but I think part of the appeal that exists in recasting young is the longevity of the franchise. (Which, in hindsight wouldn't have been the advantage it at first appears. The original crew performed ably until 1991.)
It also, in effect, assumes that Star Trek had to become a successful franchise, and that was by no means a certainty. At the time, there was no franchise - only a 3 season TV show with a small, intensely loyal fanbase. You don't know - and it would be fallacy to assume - that there would be ST:II, III, etc.
These actors weren't yet able to command high salaries. Your lead star was taking any job that would come along. Nimoy was doing TV movies. Most of the rest of the cast didn't have much of a career at that point. The fanbase is going to the theatre in part to see the original cast.
Paramount (and by extension, me as an executive) would be hoping simply to ride the coattails of Star Wars as long as it could. What are you saving by recasting? You aren't saving money, and you run the risk of lowering the box office return (even slightly).
Finally, I think the idea of recasting is also born out of looking at the question through the prism of today's media market that caters excessively to the under-30 crowd. This hyperfocus on that age group didn't exist.
I could be wrong, but I think part of the appeal that exists in recasting young is the longevity of the franchise. (Which, in hindsight wouldn't have been the advantage it at first appears. The original crew performed ably until 1991.)
It also, in effect, assumes that Star Trek had to become a successful franchise, and that was by no means a certainty. At the time, there was no franchise - only a 3 season TV show with a small, intensely loyal fanbase. You don't know - and it would be fallacy to assume - that there would be ST:II, III, etc.
These actors weren't yet able to command high salaries. Your lead star was taking any job that would come along. Nimoy was doing TV movies. Most of the rest of the cast didn't have much of a career at that point. The fanbase is going to the theatre in part to see the original cast.
Paramount (and by extension, me as an executive) would be hoping simply to ride the coattails of Star Wars as long as it could. What are you saving by recasting? You aren't saving money, and you run the risk of lowering the box office return (even slightly).
Finally, I think the idea of recasting is also born out of looking at the question through the prism of today's media market that caters excessively to the under-30 crowd. This hyperfocus on that age group didn't exist.
I seem to recall reading somewhere that Shatner said they believed each Star Trek movie would be the last (although, I think certainly in the case of IV they expected there to be a V even before IV hit theaters). At the time of TMP, ongoing film series were pretty rare, and it was pretty much always expected that there would be diminished box office returns with each installment. That's why, despite TMP's big box office, Paramount wasn't going to do a sequel unless it was a lot cheaper.
I think most of the people involved expected TMP to be a one-shot deal. If you're only doing one, you've got to bring back the original cast.
^This is in fact the reason the subtitle of the film is The Motion Picture. The initial assumption was that it was going to be the only one. Imagine fans' collective surprise three years later to learn a second film was coming to theaters.
I don't quite remember it that way. Paramount never said there wouldn't be another Trek film, even after the somewhat underwhelming critical (and to a lesser extent box office) disappointment of TMP. For a while, I believe that made for TV movies were considered (TWOK was produced under the television division, although it was intended for theatrical release).
It's also a fact that Shatner, himself, refused to star in TVH unless he could direct TFF, so this would've been as early as TSFS. Paramount knew it could make a reasonably certain hundred million off every picture, so this talk of always threatening the movies doesn't ring exactly true. If cost overruns threatened to eat into that hundred million, then, maybe Paramount might've stepped in and something would've happened. But Harve Bennett and Ralph Winter seem to have been on top of things, as far as that went ...
No, that wouldn't have worked. The strength of the TOS movies is Kirk and especially Spock's growth across the six films and acceptance of who they are and what they've become. Spock finally accepting his human side and Kirk struggling with getting older. Recasting younger would've required the six movies to be entirely different.
three thumbs down on that idea, Paramount was making a movie to draw in the folks who'd made the show a monster hit in syndication, too bad they missed the mark, while I love TMP it lacks the charm of the show, its a floundering cold fish joylessly going about its stolid business
I did conjure up a "what if" scenario where V'Ger abducted Spock on the bridge and not Ilia. Kirk and McCoy they tried to reconnect with Spock-Probe and when they went out to meet V'Ger in person it was Kirk who opted to explore the universe with his friend, leaving Decker once again in command of the Enterprise. After the mission McCoy retired once more (Chapel resumed her post as Chief Medical Officer) whilst the ship took on Commander Thelin as the new XO and Ensign Saavik as Science Officer.
Who?
^ The Andorian Science Officer from the TAS episode "Yesteryear".
Xon was ostensibly already in place, or at least already in mind.
Was 'Beam me up Scotty' in any script?
Sort of. But not the exact phrase.
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/10/beam-scotty-never-said-original-star-trek/
Quentin Tarantino's Star Trek: The Motion Picture! Starring Samuel L. Jackson as Willard Decker and Uma Thurman as Ilia. I'd watch the shit out of that, even with the NuTrek cast.
