U.S.S. Kelvin pic! (and more -- large images)

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

That was before TMP, and even then he had concerns about the actors being too old for a prequel!

GR was always open to recasting. He assumed TMP would be attracting acting teams such as Paul Newman and Robert Redford as Kirk and Spock (or was that Spock and Kirk?). The first Walter Koenig knew of ST:TMP in pre-production was when GR invited him to consider playing Chekov's father in the movie. (See "Chekov's Enterprise" by Koenig.)

Exactly. In the Making of TMP book, it's even stated that GR knew a day would come when the parts would be recast. The only reason he objected with Star Trek: The First Adventure (the Bennett Academy movie) is because he thought he should have a hand in the film and its recast. That and he probably felt that he had better clot with TNG up and running.

 

[Kelso]

None of the "classic tv show remakes with new actors" have worked so far! The Avengers: Failed. Starsky and Hutch: Failed. Miami Vice: Failed.

... Maverick: Succeeded. The Addams Family: Succeeded. The Untouchables: Succeeded. The Fugitive: Succeeded. Get Smart: Succeeded.

 

[ST-One]

None of the "classic tv show remakes with new actors" have worked so far! The Avengers: Failed. Starsky and Hutch: Failed. Miami Vice: Failed.

... Maverick: Succeeded. The Addams Family: Succeeded. The Untouchables: Succeeded. The Fugitive: Succeeded. Get Smart: Succeeded.

Yes, but you know... they were all different...

 

[JuanBolio]

None of the "classic tv show remakes with new actors" have worked so far! The Avengers: Failed. Starsky and Hutch: Failed. Miami Vice: Failed.

... Maverick: Succeeded. The Addams Family: Succeeded. The Untouchables: Succeeded. The Fugitive: Succeeded. Get Smart: Succeeded.

Yes, but you know... they were all different...

Plus, Trek, unlike most of those others, is going to be a huge-budget sci-fi action flick. Possibly THE movie to see next summer. Its going to be huge on the strength of that alone.

 

[ancient]

None of the "classic tv show remakes with new actors" have worked so far! The Avengers: Failed. Starsky and Hutch: Failed. Miami Vice: Failed.

... Maverick: Succeeded. The Addams Family: Succeeded. The Untouchables: Succeeded. The Fugitive: Succeeded. Get Smart: Succeeded.

Add Transformers and Mission Impossible to the list. They both made money like crazy.

 

[Qonos]

'The Raped My Childhood'.
That is the essence of your post.
Sorry. That is how I see it.

That's not what I meant. I can always choose to ignore the new movie if I don't like it.

What I meant is that it's the wrong choice to make remakes, remakes and even more remakes. None of the "classic tv show remakes with new actors" have worked so far! The Avengers: Failed. Starsky and Hutch: Failed. Miami Vice: Failed. nuBSG has nothing to do with the old series, they could as well have renamed the characters and given it a new title.

Even Mission Impossible - even though it was a huge commercial success - was a failure. It had absolutely nothing to do with the series! And the recasting of Jim Phelps didn't exactly help ... most people didn't even notice that Jon Voight was supposed to be the same guy as Peter Graves.

Let's just face it: The actors take a huge part in the success of a tv series and its characters. You can't just simply replace them and make people believe they are supposed to be the same characters.

What I'm trying to say is that they could have done a sequel set into the post Nemesis era just as well, and even better. Why bother with recasting characters that we have known for about 40 years when you can create new characters upon the rich background of the Star Trek franchise?

I'm still looking forward to the new movie somehow ... but I really hope that its sequel will be set into the future, not the past.

If it succeeded commercially and had three movies it's not a failure.. If it had failed it wouldn't have made money. People embraced it, as they did Transformers.(Yeah I keep coming back to that yet nobody gets it) The reason Starsky and Hutch failed and the Avengers Failed was because they went against what the shows were. They tried to make the Avengers too serious and preachy when it had alwasy been a light-hearted and campy spy series. They turned Strarsky and Hutch intoa comedy when it was a police drama show.

The MI series wasn't a failure because it kept the spy thriller action aspect of the original.

 

[Eric Cheung]

Oso Blanco's point is that it failed creatively, not commercially. But that's a purely subjective point of view and therefore one can't argue against it, nor defend it, in any meaningful way. It's outside the parameters of debate.

 

[Qonos]

Oso Blanco's point is that it failed creatively, not commercially. But that's a purely subjective point of view and therefore one can't argue against it, nor defend it, in any meaningful way. It's outside the parameters of debate.

no it's not. If something is a creative failure it is unable to capture the intrest of it's audiance. Obviously with the money it made and two sequels it captured a large enough audience and was something people wanted to see. It was a new story and not really a remake anyway as they passed the torch from Phelps to Hunt, with the twist of Phelps becoming Dirty, and in a job like that I could see the turn. A thankless job with your life on the line and nothing to fall back on. Phelp's resolve slipped and turned him because he wanted to be able to live a comfortable life for once.

 

[BenRoethig]

Re: U.S.S. Kelvin pic!

I believe they're phaser turrets. They do kind of look like a step between ENT and TOS.

I like to think they're what the ball turrets would have been if the effects technology had been there.

 

[JuanBolio]

Re: U.S.S. Kelvin pic!

We have laser ball turrets today.

Oops.

 

[Saul]

It will be. It'll be set in the 23rd century.

But anyway, post-Nemesis and it's too far removed from our own time I think. That and the whole point is to reintroduce the franchise to the masses. If someone had never tried Trek before a sequel to all that's come before would be extremely intimidating. Sometimes I find even new serialized TV shows that I didn't start with to be intimidating. I could only imagine where someone would start now given there's nearly 800 hours of Trek.

However except for DS9 most Star Trek episodes were stand alone allowing the viewer to jump in at any point. Watching from the 60s to present isn't required. However if this were BSG or Lost then you are almost required to watch from the Pilot episode to keep track of things even though these shows have fewer episodes. Watching a random episode of Lost and you will not be able to fully understand what's going on. Watch an episode of Star Trek and you have a self contained story for that episode alone.

 

[Gagarin]

If the idea of what Star Trek is cannot survive it's external features changing, it does not deserve to live.

I think it can survive

 

[ALF]

If the idea of what Star Trek is cannot survive it's external features changing, it does not deserve to live.

Outstanding, amazing quote, and my hat's off to you, sir. You sang the truth in one sentence.
Bring the good people down to Earth.

 

[Oso Blanco]

I think you all misunderstood the point I was trying to make about Mission Impossible! I don't deny that it was a huge commercial success. It may even be considered to be a success from the creative point of view by some people, although that is beyond my comprehension. But my point is, that it had NOTHING to do with the tv show of the same name.

If the movies had a different title and a different theme music, would any of you have guessed that they were sequels to Mission Impossible, the tv show? The only connection was Jim Phelps, and the way they handled him was an insult to anyone who even remotely liked the tv show.

 

[M'Sharak]

If the idea of what Star Trek is cannot survive it's external features changing, it does not deserve to live.

I think it can survive

I have an idea you're right.

 

[Qonos]

I think you all misunderstood the point I was trying to make about Mission Impossible! I don't deny that it was a huge commercial success. It may even be considered to be a success from the creative point of view by some people, although that is beyond my comprehension. But my point is, that it had NOTHING to do with the tv show of the same name.

If the movies had a different title and a different theme music, would any of you have guessed that they were sequels to Mission Impossible, the tv show? The only connection was Jim Phelps, and the way they handled him was an insult to anyone who even remotely liked the tv show.

I liked the TV show, both runs, and I loved the movies.. Your opinion is not fact...

 

[Sector 7]

What I am certain of is that he would never have made another TOS era movie or prequel in the first place!

Actually, Gene Roddenberry had ideas for a possible prequel in mind when coming up with ideas before TMP.

That was before TMP, and even then he had concerns about the actors being too old for a prequel!

Star Trek has so much potential, I still don't see the point in going back and to ruin TOS. The new movie might be a good movie and a major blockbuster, but it will never feel like being a part of TOS. They should have done a sequel, not a prequel!
*************
Let's just face it: The actors take a huge part in the success of a tv series and its characters. You can't just simply replace them and make people believe they are supposed to be the same characters.

I'm sorry to inform you, but some of those actors are no longer with us. We've lost Jimmy Doohan (Scotty) and DeForest Kelley (Dr. McCoy). None of the actors are young enough to be believable as action heroes anymore, as much as I love them.
The only choice is to recast the parts. Since you are recasting the parts anyway, why not go back to when they met? It really makes practical sense.
The Mission Impossible movies were NOT a failure. As you said they were a commercial success. That, my friend, is what Paramount looks at when they decide to do a movie.

 

[Sector 7]

I think you all misunderstood the point I was trying to make about Mission Impossible! I don't deny that it was a huge commercial success. It may even be considered to be a success from the creative point of view by some people, although that is beyond my comprehension. But my point is, that it had NOTHING to do with the tv show of the same name.

If the movies had a different title and a different theme music, would any of you have guessed that they were sequels to Mission Impossible, the tv show? The only connection was Jim Phelps, and the way they handled him was an insult to anyone who even remotely liked the tv show.

Sorry, but I have to take a shot at this one.
Peter Graves was not interested in the part. Jon Voight was interested and did it well. While in your opinion, the script went in the wrong direction; most disagreed and enjoyed the movie.
The Mission Impossible television series had cast changes and no one complained. Perhaps you did and I missed it. It survived those changes and remained a good show.

 

[Qonos]

I think you all misunderstood the point I was trying to make about Mission Impossible! I don't deny that it was a huge commercial success. It may even be considered to be a success from the creative point of view by some people, although that is beyond my comprehension. But my point is, that it had NOTHING to do with the tv show of the same name.

If the movies had a different title and a different theme music, would any of you have guessed that they were sequels to Mission Impossible, the tv show? The only connection was Jim Phelps, and the way they handled him was an insult to anyone who even remotely liked the tv show.

Sorry, but I have to take a shot at this one.
Peter Graves was not interested in the part. Jon Voight was interested and did it well. While in your opinion, the script went in the wrong direction; most disagreed and enjoyed the movie.
The Mission Impossible television series had cast changes and no one complained. Perhaps you did and I missed it. It survived those changes and remained a good show.

Off topic... MI fits into the Oracle of Nimoy... (Seeing as he was on the original Mission Impossible)... oh and Phelps was the second man to lead the IMF..... He replaced Dan Briggs

 

[trevanian]

If the idea of what Star Trek is cannot survive it's external features changing, it does not deserve to live.

Outstanding, amazing quote, and my hat's off to you, sir. You sang the truth in one sentence.
Bring the good people down to Earth.

Keep us earthbound,you mean.

If it doesn't deserve to live, that is fine, something smarter can eventually replace it once dumbass scifi runs out of gas again. Why perpetuate glossy lowbrow in the name of trek? Why not call it what it is, instead of clothing it in something VAGUELY appearing to be trekgarb?