Now, c'mon... if this movie is an unmitigated disaster...
Just curious, do you think that's a realistic possibility? I can see the film not drawing the kind of money it needs to be labeled a success in light of its budget, but an unmitigated disaster? I'll be very surprised if this film doesn't do at least as well as TVH.
Not one of us has seen the movie, so of COURSE I think it's a "realistic possibility."
I remember the hype (and the money) behind the remake of "The Wild, Wild West."
I remember the hype (and the money) behind the remake of "Lost in Space."
I remember the hype (and the money) behind the film version of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy."
And there are the non-remakes that fall into the same general theme. For instance, I remember the hype (and the money) behind "Waterworld."
Finally... hell, I remember the pre-release "buzz" about Nemesis.
So of COURSE I think it's a possibility. This isn't the same as saying that I'm predicting it WILL happen. I'm saying that nobody really knows how it will turn out.
If it's a success... and if there are multiple films in a "mini-series" with these actors and the "altered-timeline/altered-look" scenario...we'll more than likely see (as I described earlier in the thread) a "branching" where these stories are in an alternative spin-off continuity... somewhat akin to stories set in the "Mirror Mirror" universe in that sense. There will be the "Trek Universe" and there will be the "Trek-Prime universe"... Earth One and Earth Two... it's been done before.
A few of us are old enough to remember back when DC comics really was into the "alternate Earths" concept... I have several books from when I was a kid where the "Earth 1/Earth 2 Crossovers" took place, with both Supermen, both Batmen, etc, fighting side-by-side. This was after DC realized, having ATTEMPTED to "replace the old with a new version," that there were too many people who preferred the old versions.
EVERY time that someone has ever tried doing this "forget what you know, accept the new version" there's been a resulting schism in the fan base. And once you go down that path, it's pretty much impossible to fix the damage.
As a rule, it's smarter to have the old characters move on, retire or whatever, and introduce new characters.
If I'd been in charge of the Trek franchise back in 1979, I'd have insisted that Decker and Ilia not be "poofed into swirly lights" at the end, I'd have insisted on keeping Xon around, etc, etc. Introduce new characters and let things evolve. Let characters leave, move on or die or whatever, and introduce new ones. Keep it interesting, rather than stagnant.
The problem with this movie, to me, isn't that it's going back to the classic characters, but that it's (evidently) REDEFINING them. There may be a way to make that fit (the classic Trekkian "reset button," basically) but it still bugs me from what I've seen so far. I don't mind the recasting (for the most part) but I see missed opportunities and missteps here which worry me.
Still, if this movie is a one-off... and I remain convinced that's a better-than-even likelihood... it can be made to "fit" easily enough, I'm sure. It need not "redefine" what we know. And, given that, shots of a "young Kirk" can look like this guy while shots of "mature Captain Kirk" can be Shatnerian, I suppose. Hell, they may morph something half-way in between (I'd be shocked if nobody has seriously tried that already, actually!)
