TOS rethunk...

[Steven Of Nine]

I admit I can't get past this. I can get rebooting or resetting the franchise for a newer audience and admittedly one that doesn't include me.

And this is the point. They've milked you and your crotchetty old mates.

Time to refresh the material.

OK, we get it, you don't like anything since 1979. Now, go back there and stop rehashing the same complaints. If there was a market for what you want, they'd be making it.

 

[Forbin]

I guess it comes down to how much people really liked Kirk/Spock/Bones as opposed to how much they loved Shatner/Nimoy/Kelley.

That's the thing - there's no difference to me. The actors ARE their parts, the characters ARE those actors. I don't see how they can be replaced.

I showed the available pictures to a friend who's another old-time trekkie, and he said "Oh my. This really isn't for us, is it."

 

[Warped9]

^^ Well said.

OK, we get it, you don't like anything since 1979. Now, go back there and stop rehashing the same complaints. If there was a market for what you want, they'd be making it.

Someone pissed in your cereal this morning?

And evidently you haven't read all my posts or you'd know that there has been stuff since '79 I have liked. Just not consistently.

 

[RobertScorpio]

^^ Well said.

Well said..well said..

the movie is aimed at a whole new crowd, no matter what JJ says. And I'm cool with it. I have been around for the ride since TOS, and I will go see the 'new' TOS because..well, why not???

But what if the unexpected happens? What if this movie is actually pretty good and a whole new batch of fans tell us old farts that the new TOS is better. Wow...that will be an interesting turn of events...you never know...it could happen..

Rob
Scorpio

 

[Warped9]

^^ Well, goody-goody for them. Hope they have fun.

I'm just a little sad that the kind of space adventure that I like is quite possibly (likely?) dead and gone.

Which, of course, overjoys a lot of folks out there.

 

[Outpost4]

But Warped9, some of those actors are also dead and gone.

Yes, the actors in the roles you remember will never come back. And that is sad. I have great fondness for William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley, Nichelle Nichols, George Takei, Walter Koenig and James Doohan. I thought they played their roles perfectly. But their time has gone, through a combination of old age and death. Shatner is hardly in heroic form anymore. None of them are, really. Could you make a passable movie staring Star Trek - The Old Guys? Certainly, but frankly, right now the franchise needs more than just a passable movie. It needs a big hit and if what we are reading is true, ST XI might well be that.

I will invoke the great traditions of Europe and say, "The King Is Dead. Long Live The King." I can also invoke the great tradition of Captain Kirk and say, "Gallivanting around the cosmos is a job for the young." Both work.

Look on the bright side. At least we'll get to see Nimoy play Spock one more time this way. That's something I thought I'd never see again.

 

[Mallory]

I'll admit that I have a few reservations about Trek XI, but I'm willing to give it a chance. For me, Star Trek was always about the stories. Sure, the characters were an essential part of that. But I'm hoping that the new film captures the essence of the original series.

 

[Warped9]

But Warped9, some of those actors are also dead and gone.

Yes, the actors in the roles you remember will never come back. And that is sad. I have great fondness for William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley, Nichelle Nichols, George Takei, Walter Koenig and James Doohan. I thought they played their roles perfectly. But their time has gone, through a combination of old age and death. Shatner is hardly in heroic form anymore. None of them are, really. Could you make a passable movie staring Star Trek - The Old Guys? Certainly, but frankly, right now the franchise needs more than just a passable movie. It needs a big hit and if what we are reading is true, ST XI might well be that.

I will invoke the great traditions of Europe and say, "The King Is Dead. Long Live The King." I can also invoke the great tradition of Captain Kirk and say, "Gallivanting around the cosmos is a job for the young." Both work.

Look on the bright side. At least we'll get to see Nimoy play Spock one more time this way. That's something I thought I'd never see again.

My friend it isn't that simple. Of course I know that some of the actors are gone and that the remaining ones are too old for the parts. I also am well aware that TOS will never again be what it once was because all the creative people behind the scenes are also gone or too old.

I'm talking about a feeling, a perception of how Star Trek's type of space adventure storytelling was done. That's missing because the current crop of folks (or many of them) don't look at space adventure that way anymore.

I saw it in first season Earth Final Conflict. I saw it in much of Babylon 5. I've seen it in Stargate at times. I've even seen it in occasional episodes of TNG and early DS9. I've often enough seen it in SF literature. I saw it bright in bold in Master And Commander: The Far Side Of The World.

At it's most basic it's a deft balance of enthusiasm and intelligence. Enthusiasm for the subject matter and style of storytelling balanced with an intelligence in trying to make it all somehow more credible.

It's something of a distinct style and approach to storytelling that I've often found lacking in SF since TOS.

Things change and that's just the way it is. Marketing today is aimed at an audience I'm just less and less part of.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I will give the new movie a chance.

But I hope it isn't a 'reboot' (there's that dreaded word again).

It really cannot be anything but. There will be just too many differences from TOS in terms of continuity as well as the visual departures. It may well fit in with ENT, but that's a whole other can of worms since ENT didn't gel with TOS either.

.

TOS didnt gel with TOS a lot of the time!

 

[Outpost4]

At it's most basic it's a deft balance of enthusiasm and intelligence. Enthusiasm for the subject matter and style of storytelling balanced with an intelligence in trying to make it all somehow more credible.

It's something of a distinct style and approach to storytelling that I've often found lacking in SF since TOS.

Agreed in spades, Warped9. They just don't make movies like this anymore, as shown by the lack of a sequel to Masters and Commanders.

To be successful, the movie has to be Star Trek 2009.* Let's just hope it has some 1966 thrown into the mix, too.


* Did I just accidentally stumble over the long sought after abbreviation for the new movie? I hereby nominate the movie be nicknamed ST'09. It's accurate, clear, short and simple, plus it's easy to type.

 

[doubleohfive]

Trek 90210? I was thinking more like Melrose Space...

I live right off Melrose and named my apartment this when I moved in last year!

 

[gastrof]

I guess it comes down to how much people really liked Kirk/Spock/Bones as opposed to how much they loved Shatner/Nimoy/Kelley.

That's the thing - there's no difference to me. The actors ARE their parts, the characters ARE those actors. I don't see how they can be replaced.

I showed the available pictures to a friend who's another old-time trekkie, and he said "Oh my. This really isn't for us, is it."

Have you guys ever tried watching the NEW VOYAGES films? Different actors, same sets, same look to the ship and tech...

It really IS the original Star Trek, just being done with different actors, and it works.

That's why I've been saying on the "XI" board that I wish they'd changed the bridge no more than they've changed the uniforms. The change in character faces is a given, if we want more Kirk and Spock in their TOS years.

And you CAN have other people playing them and have it still be familiar TREK.

The uniform changes, tho', aren't that extreme. That type of minor change I could sort of absorb. The drastic change to the look of the bridge, tho'...

Too much. It's very difficult to passively accept that as the original Star Trek with Kirk and Spock. Of course, we only know that the bridge looks like that IN THAT SCENE. With the time-jumping and attempts to change the timeline, who knows how things will look at the end of the film.

I'm waiting before deciding just what the movie will be. We all should really do the same. See the film and THEN decide. Until you've seen it, you never really know. (Even a friend who's seen it telling you really isn't enough.)

 

[Warped9]

In regards to the ship what bugs me is that the current Trek producers are buying into that Star Wars look for SF hardware that's become basically de rigeur since the '70s. The idea that advanced science and tech is supposed to look industrial and festooned with extraneous detail.

But if you look at our own world more advanced tech tends to look more streamlined and less cluttered. That's the basic mindset Matt Jefferies had for his designs. Particularly in regards to a starship where you expect your personnel to be spending months upon months or more sealed in a can with no guarantee they'll be walking on real earth and beneath a real sky anytime soon. The austere submarine look works fine for a planet bound naval vessel or a military starship with a strictly combat role, but it's just so unconvincing for a far future exploratory starship. I don't find the new look bridge more convincing, but rather I find it looks more like something out of an arcade computer game.

TOS was constrained by budget and resources from doing what they really would have liked to do. But it's evident from MJ's designs what he had in mind. Why not use that as a jumping off point rather than rewriting the approach? The Defiant bridge and sets seen in ENT's mirror universe episodes wasn't a bad example.

But all that is beside the point. A reboot is wholly entitled to make the changes they want to reflect the overall approach to the subject. Trek XI isn't a rebirth of TOS with a more contemporary facade. It's a reinterpretation marketed with a wholly different perspective and aimed at a completely different audience.

When I look at the cast of TOS even from the beginning I see a mixture of adults and young adults. The new cast all look like young adults topping out at around thirty.

Shatner's Kirk looks like a mature adult in his early to mid thirties even in WNMHGB. McCoy and Scotty are definately in their forties. Indeed all of them, save perhaps Chekov in the beginning, convey a sense of maturity. But the new cast doesn't seem to convey that. Indeed Chris Pine as Kirk looks like he's no more than his late twenties.

That's why I said the new cast shot made me think of TOS 90210.

 

[A beaker full of death]

When I look at the cast of TOS even from the beginning I see a mixture of adults and young adults. The new cast all look like young adults topping out at around thirty.

Shatner's Kirk looks like a mature adult in his early to mid thirties even in WNMHGB. McCoy and Scotty are definately in their forties. Indeed all of them, save perhaps Chekov in the beginning, convey a sense of maturity. But the new cast doesn't seem to convey that. Indeed Chris Pine as Kirk looks like he's no more than his late twenties.

But that seems to be the overall trend in movies today. Kudos to the Bond franchise for hiring a grown man, but most of today's movie stars - even the ones now entering their 40s - look like teenagers. I busted a gut at the prospect of little Leo DiCaprio playing a romantic lead, let alone Howard Hughes. The most popular movie comedians consistently play overgrown children, such as Will Ferrell and Adam Sandler (Ron Burgundy not withstanding). It just seems the popular culture is devoted to perpetual adolescence.

 

[Forbin]

Have you guys ever tried watching the NEW VOYAGES films? Different actors, same sets, same look to the ship and tech...

Yup, and I watch it knowing full well it's a loving fan tribute, just like the super-8 trek films I made in my yoot, and NOT an official production to be read into the, you should pardon the expression, canon.

 

[Warped9]

When I look at the cast of TOS even from the beginning I see a mixture of adults and young adults. The new cast all look like young adults topping out at around thirty.

Shatner's Kirk looks like a mature adult in his early to mid thirties even in WNMHGB. McCoy and Scotty are definately in their forties. Indeed all of them, save perhaps Chekov in the beginning, convey a sense of maturity. But the new cast doesn't seem to convey that. Indeed Chris Pine as Kirk looks like he's no more than his late twenties.

But that seems to be the overall trend in movies today. Kudos to the Bond franchise for hiring a grown man, but most of today's movie stars - even the ones now entering their 40s - look like teenagers. I busted a gut at the prospect of little Leo DiCaprio playing a romantic lead, let alone Howard Hughes. The most popular movie comedians consistently play overgrown children, such as Will Ferrell and Adam Sandler (Ron Burgundy not withstanding). It just seems the popular culture is devoted to perpetual adolescence.

It's giving the term "pretty boy" a whole new meaning.

Yes, folks are gradually living longer and thus retaining youthful looks longer. But if you want a leading man for the serious position of command of a frontline starship then he should look like a man of some maturity and seasoning. He shouldn't look like some youth who just came out of a dance club or just off the beach surfing. Yeesh!

 

[3D Master]

Well, the problem is, they want the same actors to portray Starfleet cadets, lieutenants during earlier times of their careers, and finally the iconic crew of the Enterprise.

Pine is 28 years old. So if there's 2 years between this movie and a potential next, he'd be thirty and could look mature enough for the rest of the reboot series.

But him being 30+ now, would make portrayal of his younger self impossible.

 

[Vonstadt]

Its funny, I am looking forward to the new film, yet as i was reading the posts Warped pointed out something about a film that made me say in the middle of it...

"God finally something that would've made an excellent Star Trek film"

That was of course Master and Commander, the whole dynamic and atmosphere took me right back to the good old days and showed me such writing and acting is possible.

I used to think the same to a lesser extend whenever I watched those A&E Horatio Hornblowers. Master and Commander, the roles just clicked and it hit all of the nostaligia triggers for me.

In a sense I had been hoping that the new film might capture some of the same feeling. Who knows maybe they will, I am holding out hope for this very thing.

If not then someone will really have missed a golden oppurtunity.

New casts can certianly play the roles, bringing new life and new dimensions to the character, yet they should tend to fit them age wise and to a degree appearance wise...to a degree.

We will have to see

Vons

 

[ST-One]

Well, the problem is, they want the same actors to portray Starfleet cadets, lieutenants during earlier times of their careers, and finally the iconic crew of the Enterprise.

Pine is 28 years old. So if there's 2 years between this movie and a potential next, he'd be thirty and could look mature enough for the rest of the reboot series.

But him being 30+ now, would make portrayal of his younger self impossible.

Two words: Tom Welling.

 

[3D Master]

Two words: Tom Welling.

You think Tom Welling looks like a man, or do you want him to play 20-year-old Academy Kirk instead of Chris Pine?