TOS rethunk...

[ST-One]

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?

He plays a twenty-something Clark Kent. He is 31 now. He can (barely) pull it off. If it works in his case, why shouldn't it work in Pine's.

But what is the argument here?
Pine looks young and good enough to play a 20-year-old Kirk. And he is old enough to play a 30-year-old Kirk.

Hell, when Charlton Heston could play a twenty-something, thirty-something, forty-something, eighty-something Moses, why shouldn't Chris Pine be able to do the same thing with the Kirk-character?

 

[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?

He plays a twenty-something Clark Kent. He is 31 now. He can (barely) pull it off. If it works in his case, why shouldn't it work in Pine's.

But what is the argument here?
Pine looks young and good enough to play a 20-year-old Kirk. And he is old enough to play a 30-year-old Kirk.

Hell, when Charlton Heston could play a twenty-something, thirty-something, forty-something, eighty-something Moses, why shouldn't Chris Pine be able to do the same thing with the Kirk-character?

Reread the post that I commented to. You'll also understand why Welling would never be able to pull it off.

 

[ST-One]

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

He plays a twenty-something Clark Kent. He is 31 now. He can (barely) pull it off. If it works in his case, why shouldn't it work in Pine's.

But what is the argument here?
Pine looks young and good enough to play a 20-year-old Kirk. And he is old enough to play a 30-year-old Kirk.

Hell, when Charlton Heston could play a twenty-something, thirty-something, forty-something, eighty-something Moses, why shouldn't Chris Pine be able to do the same thing with the Kirk-character?

Reread the post that I commented to. You'll also understand why Welling would never be able to pull it off.

I don't care about Welling (well, actually I do ).
My point is that Pine can - with his looks - cover the age range you set (20 - 30) very good.

 

[3D Master]

He plays a twenty-something Clark Kent. He is 31 now. He can (barely) pull it off. If it works in his case, why shouldn't it work in Pine's.

But what is the argument here?
Pine looks young and good enough to play a 20-year-old Kirk. And he is old enough to play a 30-year-old Kirk.

Hell, when Charlton Heston could play a twenty-something, thirty-something, forty-something, eighty-something Moses, why shouldn't Chris Pine be able to do the same thing with the Kirk-character?

Reread the post that I commented to. You'll also understand why Welling would never be able to pull it off.

I don't care about Welling (well, actually I do ).
My point is that Pine can - with his looks - cover the age range you set (20 - 30) very good.

Yes, that's what I said.

No go back to my first post, than read the post ABOVE that.

 

[Lord Garth]

Kirk looks a bit too young for Captain. Then again, we're going from Cadet to Captain, so you need an actor who can play a character from 20-30. I'm willing to let it go under those circumstances.

Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Uhura, and Chekov look the ages they're supposed to be.

Sulu looks a little too old. Kirk and Sulu's ages should be switched.

 

[Lord Garth]

I busted a gut at the prospect of little Leo DiCaprio playing a romantic lead

Yes, but considering he and the actress were playing 17-year-olds, they were supposed to look young.

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.

I'm not too fond of that myself but neither Ferrel nor Sandler look like teenagers, despite how they act.

I think the entire concept of adolescence has gotten out of control. Once upon a time there was no such thing as adolescence, you were either a child or an adult. Then compulsory education through grade 12 and child labor laws gave us adolescence. I'm not saying we should go back to the 1800s but adolescence should only be considered age 12-17, IMO. I've recently started to believe it does anyone over 17 a disservice to be thought of as adolescents (whether or not they really are) because then they think they're not expected to be more responsible or mature.

But that's going off-track. TV and movies have always been biased in favor of youth because they're easier to market to than people who are older and more likely to say "wait a minute..." for a variety of reasons. So it makes sense to have actors that are either young or young-looking.

 

[kissthestar]

The only way we will get stories based on TOS now is to do backstory, the original casts' past. That means a young cast.

 

[Warped9]

The more I see of this the more I cringe.

 

[ST-One]

The more I see of this the more I cringe.

And that is, because...?

 

[Warped9]

^^ They look like kids trying to pretend being grown up. What they go right from academy straight to Enterprise? Oh, yeah, like that's credible.

 

[ST-One]

^^ They look like kids trying to pretend being grown up. What they go right from academy straight to Enterprise? Oh, yeah, like that's credible.

If they look like kids to you, then HOW old are you?

 

[Warped9]

49. And, yes, they look like kids. The only one who looked remotely that age in TOS was Chekov, and that was only in early second season.

And the more I see of the uniforms the more I think they look silly. Hell, Nimoy didn't look that young in The Cage when he was supposed to be rather young.

Well, I'm not of the target audience anyway.

 

[Mallory]

^^ They look like kids trying to pretend being grown up. What they go right from academy straight to Enterprise? Oh, yeah, like that's credible.

Maybe they aren't actually on the Enterprise.

 

[Nerys Myk]

^^ They look like kids trying to pretend being grown up. What they go right from academy straight to Enterprise? Oh, yeah, like that's credible.

Look like people in their late 20s to me. What about them is childlike? The 5 o'clock shadow on Quinto? The creases on Pine's forehead? Zaldana's bustline?

 

[ST-One]

49. And, yes, they look like kids. The only one who looked remotely that age in TOS was Chekov, and that was only in early second season.

None of them look like kids.
I think you are trying to find fault where none exists.

And the more I see of the uniforms the more I think they look silly.

Of course you think they looks silly, because the uniforms are the one thing we have seen so far that looks the most like the original.

Hell, Nimoy didn't look that young in The Cage when he was supposed to be rather young.

Yeah, is was (what?) 34, 35 back then. Quinto is 31.

Well, I'm not of the target audience anyway.

The general audience it the target.

 

[Warped9]

^^ That you do not find fault does not mean someone else who disagrees is automatically looking to find fault. All the Trek series and films did something or other that I may have liked, and if I did then I said so even if I thought the overall end result was crap. Overall I have little positive to say about the Star Wars movies new and old, but there are individual elements in each film I thought were noteworthy.

The production quality of this film will undoubtedly be good because that's where things are today in terms of feature film f/x resources. What they do with those resources is an entirely different issue.

 

[ST-One]

What they do with those resources is an entirely different issue.

That I agree with.

But then, we do not know yet, what they have done with those resources.
That is why I think decrying Star Trek now, six month before its release, is ... premature

 

[xoEJox]

That's the thing - there's no difference to me. The actors ARE their parts, the characters ARE those actors.

No, they're not. They never were.

It's attitudes like that that prevented the OT stars from being cast in other high profile roles for so long (or at all), and give many Trekkers a bad name.

Look, I'm as enamored of the original cast in their roles as anyone else, but I'm also willing to admit that it could be interesting to see other people's take on them. I adore Nimoy's Spock (and am glad I'll get to see it again), but I'm going to hold out some hope that Quinto will do him justice.

As for everyone being young, well...they're the ages they're supposed to be. The original cast wasn't old by any means during the OT, and these guys are supposed to be X years younger. They're in their late 20s to mid-30s, which is perfectly realistic for lieutenants and new commanders in the military. It's certainly more realistic than the ages and ranks we saw in the movies.

The movie may be bad, it may not reflect the spirit of the OT. It could be utterly fantastic. There's really no way to know now. But I'd be willing to bet that the ages of the cast won't be what makes or breaks it.

Here's hoping it's a good flick.

 

[MoonlightSinatra]

I don't really post too often, but lurk incessently.

I have no problem with this "reboot" concept. It is an attempt to give one last breath into Star Trek. i say why not go back. So it may rewrite canon. Who cares? Keep the two continuties seperate then. What we've seen until now is one continuity, and this may represent another.

The actors look young. Ok. Today, people look younger at their age than they used to. It's reasonable to assume that in the 23rd century, people will look younger than their age as well.

I understand the attchment to TOS. Heck, it's the only Star Trek that matters to me, and I watch it too much. My 2 year old daughter begs me to put on "Captain Kirk" when I get home from work. So, as far as this whole movie/reboot is concerned, just roll with it, and enjoy it (or don't) on it's own merits.

 

[Forbin]

That's the thing - there's no difference to me. The actors ARE their parts, the characters ARE those actors.

No, they're not. They never were.

Of course they are, and always were.

Has someone else ever played them since 1966? Until now, that is.