I wonder that for some people not even in Star Trek. Ronaldo for instance. (He has money. Who bets clone shop in brazil? I do. )
And his style is as different from any of the others mentioned as theirs were to any of their predecessors. And he too will be supplanted by others soon enough. (Cue snarky jokes along the lines of: "Not soon enough for me!") -MMoM
WHOA THERE, little tyke! Just because you aren't familiar with the founding classic films of the sci-fi and horror genre, doesn't mean no one else is. Anyone with even a remote interest in cinema/monster movies/history will know who Boris is.
Okay, I don't get this. Since when were you required to log in umpteen hours of STAR TREK before you're allowed to do anything new or interesting with the more "established" characters. Harve Bennett and Nicholas Meyer had made exactly zero previous Trek episodes or movies before they killed off Spock and gave Kirk a hitherto-unmentioned son. They hadn't "proven" themselves either. And to address your latter points: Since when has the goal been to carefully avoid doing anything "divisive" by (gasp!) actually telling a story that has an impact on the character? The idea is to tell exciting NEW stories about Spock and Picard, not to wrap the characters carefully in bubble wrap like sacred relics that have to stay preserved exactly as we remember them. We would prefer that the new shows steer clear of "major" stories about the more "iconic" characters and tell inconsequential stories instead? Just to avoid scuffing our precious memories?
Now imagine if "The Naked Now" was fifteen episodes. Yes, TNG did lean a bit on TOS, but it was the first TV Trek after TOS. Some "look! this is Star Trek!" was to be expected, they were working against the idea that all Star Trek was, was Kirk and Spock. So they had to give those crumbs to long-time fans who were pissed that their Trek was being replaced. Even if "The Naked Now" wasn't your thing, you weren't locked into it for the entirety of a season. There were 24 other episodes to look forward to.
Why would they be inconsequential? I don't buy the idea that the story can only be important if it rides on the coattails of the rest of the universe. As far as major stories about iconic characters, I think TNG got it right. Build your own legacy, your own place in the universe then come around and do the major stories about iconic characters from other parts of the universe. "Sarek" seemed special because we waited so long for it, it was special because TNG was a phenomenon in its own right.
Whether they should be bringing Spock and Picard back so soon is another issue. I was addressing RedDwarf's concerns that any "major" stories about Spock and Picard might somehow change the characters and prove "divisive." They seemed less concerned about what's best for the new TREK shows and more concerned about protecting the old characters from the new creative team--who apparently cannot be trusted with any "established" characters yet. Again, my brain keeps going back to 1981. "What the heck, Nick and Harve. You newbies have never made any STAR TREK before and you want to kill Spock, give Kirk a son, bring back Khan AND portray Kirk as older and more world-weary? Don't you realize how divisive that could be? Maybe you should prove yourself first before you do anything that major?"
That just hurts. Although, just to stay OT, the Frankenstein monster was played by at least four different actors over the course of the original Universal movies, and an older Karloff eventually returned to the series to play a mad scientist in HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN, opposite Glenn Strange as the Monster. And speaking of THE MUNSTERS . . . at least three different actresses played Marilyn back in the day. Not counting the various reboots and revivals.. In short, recasting is just standard operating procedure and always has been . A third Spock is just par for the course.
One thing is constant in this universe: Trek fans will complain about Trek. And complain when that fact is pointed out.
The new creative team really has nothing to be proud of at this point, no matter how much homer cheerleading Sullivan tweets.
I'm in my early 30s and I knew who he was, I'm pretty sure I've known since I was around 10 or younger. I'm more of a Lugosi fan though.
Hey, now, Stephen Manley is a fantastic dude who did a great job. Don't you be mouthing off on Stephen Manley!
I'm expecting this Spock to be far more akin to the volatile ST'09 Spock than the reserved TOS Spock. Maybe they'll go into full-on fanwank explosion mode and it'll be the story of how Spock went from smiling in "The Cage" to not in TOS proper. Because the red dots/Iconian angels broke his heart and gave him a forever sad.