Why did they bother...

[Greg Cox]

I think you'll find most people who don't accept Pine and Quinto are 24th century Star Trek fans.
Raging that its not Picard or Janeway or Sisko on screen.

This ties in with my own (completely unscientific) pet theory that it's mostly TNG-era fans that have issues with the new movies, because they're not "intellectual" or "utopian" enough--as opposed to us old-school TOS fans who grew up on a STAR TREK that was both "cerebral" and good, old-fashioned space-opera adventure.

 

[Belz...]

Okay, so who "owns" the Doctor? Who "owns" James Bond? Who "owns" Batman? Dracula? Superman?

Well I don't have a horse in this race, but I'd like to point out some things.

If you ask people in general to, say, give you a picture of James Bond, you're likely to end up with a picture of Sean Connery ('iconic') or Daniel Craig (current). Likewise for the doctor you'll get Tom Baker ('iconic') or David Tennant (well-known recent).

The thing with some characters like Batman or Superman or somesuch is that they have a very distinctive appearance. Captain Kirk has none. So what do people imagine when you say "Kirk" ? William Shatner, probably. Now they'll think more and more of Chris Pine, I would hope, but unless the character has a particular look, you associate them with the actor or actress playing them.

Shatner has been Kirk in people's minds for 43 years, so it's normal to assume they'll associate him with the character more than Pine, who's done two movies so far.

My point is that you all have good points. On the one hand, the character is its own thing that often transcends the actors, but you still have people at large associating the two.

 

[Greg Cox]

And, of course, none of this is set in stone. Things can fall in and out of "iconic" status over the passage of time.

Basil Rathbone was Sherlock Holmes to an entire generation of moviegoers, but I'm not sure that applies anymore. Modern audiences are more likely to identify Robert Downing Jr, Benedict Cumberbatch, or the guy on ELEMENTARY as Holmes, while others will surely be along to insist that Jeremy Brett is the definitive Holmes . . .

Maybe Nimoy should title his next book: I Am A Spock.

 

[OpenMaw]

Okay, so who "owns" the Doctor? Who "owns" James Bond? Who "owns" Batman? Dracula? Superman?

Many of these characters were iconic when they first appeared, but many other actors have portrayed the same character throughout the years (Dracula is the oldest). However, people will have their personal favorites. It doesn't mean they can't appreciate the other renditions, though. But it's definitely NOT the actor that makes the show. If you are saying that it IS the actor that makes the show, that means that the show is rubbish, because the story can't stand without the original actors. But I've noticed that people want the original stories, NOT the original actors, and that they are miffed that the characters were put in an alternate universe.

See, just about all of those are very unlike the Trek cast. The Doctor had changes to his character within the original series run, before the show had a chance to be digested by longevity the idea of his face, his entire persona, changing was established. It's actually an active part of the excitement of Doctor Who, that he can and will change.

Superman, Batman, and Bond had so many changes and iterations even early on that again, it's not quite the same thing.

Whereas with Star Trek, you had the original series run for 3 seasons, then syndication, then the animated series, followed by more syndication, then the movies. It wasn't until the 4th TOS movie, nearly 20 years after the show had first aired, that an entire new set of faces were brought into Star Trek with TNG.

It's not that Pine and Quinto can't be iconic, it's that they are not yet iconic in these roles. Shatner and Nimoy are. If time is good to the new guys, and they get to do more stuff, then they probably will be. Lord knows they seem to be giving it their all in both movies. However, if it ends abruptly with movie three, it won't be Pine and Quinto who will continue to endure. It'll be the same ol' TOS run in syndication.

 

[Belz...]

And, of course, none of this is set in stone. Things can fall in and out of "iconic" status over the passage of time.

Yes, absolutely.

 

[marksound]

The new cast doesn't have to be "iconic." They have careers outside Star Trek.

 

[Greg Cox]

And, of course, none of this is set in stone. Things can fall in and out of "iconic" status over the passage of time.

Yes, absolutely.

"Who the hell is this Tyrone Power guy? Douglas Fairbanks is the only real Zorro!"

 

[Belz...]

"Who the hell is this Tyrone Power guy? Douglas Fairbanks is the only real Zorro!"

 

[Robert_T_April]

Why did they bother with the original Trek crew in these new movies? They could have easily created a new crew. There are only a couple of characters that act like their original counterpart from the original TV series. Spock stayed away from Christine Chapel in the original because he thought it was inappropriate. But this new Spock is all over Uhura. Kirk is promoted from "Cadet who is about to get expelled" to First Officer - completely bypassing Kirk ever serving on the Farragut. Karl Urban's got the McCoy-isms down pretty good. But Scotty is just a guy with an accent - even though Simon Pegg is pretty funny. So is Chekov - just an accent. And it's almost racist that they got a Chinese actor to play the part that a Japanese actor played on the TV show. Did I miss anybody?

They could have at least had Pine do a Shatner imitation.

I guess if it brings in the big bucks at the theater...

/rant

Any thoughts?

Thoughts?...
For one, you don't have much of an imagination. Other than that, the timeline was altered by the actions of Nero. So many ships/experienced officers were lost that Starfleet was considerably weakened.
Kirk being promoted to First Officer is believable considering the events. Field promotions during battle/wartime is not uncommon.
As for Spock, his whole life was altered with the destruction of Vulcan.

And to answer your question on why wouldn't they just use new characters?...
Because this isn't a new made for TV series...its a major motion picture that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to produce. Did you really need to ask that question?

 

[Franklin]

I think you'll find most people who don't accept Pine and Quinto are 24th century Star Trek fans.
Raging that its not Picard or Janeway or Sisko on screen.

This ties in with my own (completely unscientific) pet theory that it's mostly TNG-era fans that have issues with the new movies, because they're not "intellectual" or "utopian" enough--as opposed to us old-school TOS fans who grew up on a STAR TREK that was both "cerebral" and good, old-fashioned space-opera adventure.

And between the two, good old fashioned space-opera adventure translates better to the big screen. FC was the closest movie to that among the TNG movies, and I remember people criticizing "Action Picard" as being more or less out of character.

TNG was a fine show. TOS was a fine show. But they were mostly different shows. I can see also why some TNG fans who never followed TOS at all could look at it and wonder why folks found it so great. Then some TOS fans get overly defensive protecting the product. Bar fights break out. Hair pulling. Eye gouging. Name calling. Slapping. It gets nasty.

My own two cents on the "iconic" and "cerebral" and "made you think" part is if you grew up with TOS or grabbed onto it very early in syndication (as I did) -- that is, you've been a fan 40 years or more -- you take that stuff with a heavy grain of salt.

Through the mist of time, I also think TOS gets wrongly thrown in with all those truly "groundbreaking" shows of the early 1970s that did push limits, like "M*A*S*H", "All in the Family", "Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman", and so on. (Even "Laugh In".) Some of the bad reviews of STID said that while the action and characters were great, they didn't like the movie because it didn't reach the depth and scope of TOS. Whatever.

The first rule of politics is never start believing your own propaganda.

 

[Greg Cox]

TNG was a fine show. TOS was a fine show. But they were mostly different shows. I can see also why some TNG fans who never followed TOS at all could look at it and wonder why folks found it so great. Then some TOS fans get overly defensive protecting the product. Bar fights break out. Hair pulling. Eye gouging. Name calling. Slapping. It gets nasty.

And then some Klingon calls the Enterprise a garbage scow . . .

 

[Franklin]

TNG was a fine show. TOS was a fine show. But they were mostly different shows. I can see also why some TNG fans who never followed TOS at all could look at it and wonder why folks found it so great. Then some TOS fans get overly defensive protecting the product. Bar fights break out. Hair pulling. Eye gouging. Name calling. Slapping. It gets nasty.

And then some Klingon calls the Enterprise a garbage scow . . .

I also forgot to add that the true TOS geeks actually start trying Vulcan neck pinches.

 

[sj4iy]

Okay, so who "owns" the Doctor? Who "owns" James Bond? Who "owns" Batman? Dracula? Superman?

Many of these characters were iconic when they first appeared, but many other actors have portrayed the same character throughout the years (Dracula is the oldest). However, people will have their personal favorites. It doesn't mean they can't appreciate the other renditions, though. But it's definitely NOT the actor that makes the show. If you are saying that it IS the actor that makes the show, that means that the show is rubbish, because the story can't stand without the original actors. But I've noticed that people want the original stories, NOT the original actors, and that they are miffed that the characters were put in an alternate universe.

See, just about all of those are very unlike the Trek cast. The Doctor had changes to his character within the original series run, before the show had a chance to be digested by longevity the idea of his face, his entire persona, changing was established. It's actually an active part of the excitement of Doctor Who, that he can and will change.

Superman, Batman, and Bond had so many changes and iterations even early on that again, it's not quite the same thing.

Whereas with Star Trek, you had the original series run for 3 seasons, then syndication, then the animated series, followed by more syndication, then the movies. It wasn't until the 4th TOS movie, nearly 20 years after the show had first aired, that an entire new set of faces were brought into Star Trek with TNG.

It's not that Pine and Quinto can't be iconic, it's that they are not yet iconic in these roles. Shatner and Nimoy are. If time is good to the new guys, and they get to do more stuff, then they probably will be. Lord knows they seem to be giving it their all in both movies. However, if it ends abruptly with movie three, it won't be Pine and Quinto who will continue to endure. It'll be the same ol' TOS run in syndication.

Star Trek IS altered- the whole story is different. Exact same for all of those above. Changes have been made to each version to "fit" the time it was shown in. You can't say Star Trek is different than any of those others because it's not.

And I know many people who love Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan, too. I despised Moore, but he's my Mom's favorite. I don't like any of the Doctors up until Tennant, but Smith is my favorite. But it has nothing to do with the actors...it has everything to do with the stories they are given. Skyfall is now considered one of the best Bond movies by many, but neither of Craig's previous ones ranked very high. I loved Goldeneye, but none of Brosnan's other movies. Without a good story, the whole thing fails, despite the best actor in the universe.

It doesn't matter to me whether or not others find Pine or Quinto "iconic" or how many other movies they do, because to me, Into Darkness is the best Trek movie I've seen. Some will agree, some won't- just like some won't agree with me on who the best Doctor is, or the best Superman, or Batman, etc. Just a matter of taste.

 

[Captain Nebula]

For one, you don't have much of an imagination.

If I have to use my imagination, they call that a shitty movie. I think what you were poorly reaching for there is similar to a 'suspension of disbelief'.

Did you really need to ask that question?

15 pages of discussion about it so far pretty much says it was a question that needed asking.

 

[BillJ]

If I have to use my imagination, they call that a shitty movie.

 

[AnnLouise]

I think you'll find most people who don't accept Pine and Quinto are 24th century Star Trek fans.
Raging that its not Picard or Janeway or Sisko on screen.

This ties in with my own (completely unscientific) pet theory that it's mostly TNG-era fans that have issues with the new movies, because they're not "intellectual" or "utopian" enough--as opposed to us old-school TOS fans who grew up on a STAR TREK that was both "cerebral" and good, old-fashioned space-opera adventure.

I tried watching TNG, but just could not get into the characters. For me, they were very bland, and faded into the beige carpeting of the new Enterprise. But I did find the "less perfect" DS9 characters watchable; it helped that DS9 was set in a very un-utopian part of the Trekverse.

The nuTrek versions of Kirk, Spock, etc., have just enough of what I remember to make them watchable in their own way. I sure hope they don't get Utopianized into TNG-era blandness.

 

[shapeshifter]

"Why did they bother with the original Trek crew in these movies?"

Perhaps because it hadn't been done before.

No, TOS movies are NOT the same thing. Honestly, as much as I liked them when I got them there was always a sense of something missing.

To the best of their ability in these times, these films achieve what OS films never could, even in the best of times, recapture the spirit of TOS.

These are TOS adventures on the big screen like never before, IMO.

 

[Belz...]

If I have to use my imagination, they call that a shitty movie.

That... that's the oddest comment I've seen posted here... aside from the poster who said Paramount should CGI Scotty's mustache out in TMP.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Okay, so who "owns" the Doctor? Who "owns" James Bond? Who "owns" Batman? Dracula? Superman?

The BBC, EON, WB/DC, Public Domain, WB/DC.

I guess Leonard Nimoy will just have to write another book - this one called: "I am not Spock... Again."

Or how about: "For the last time, I am not Spock!."

Or maybe he could go the Borg route and call it: "We are Spock. You will be assimilated..."

He will start his own religion: "Everyone is Spock."

Self-help books: "You too can be Spock."

Shakespeare wrote Hamlet specifically for one man--even taking his parlance into consideration. He was probably the most recognized actor (in Europe) of the 17th century. The popular convention was "Burbage was Halmlet." Then he retired.

Since then countless men (and women!) have played the Prince of Denmark. None of them ever owned the character or was Hamlet any more than the others.

In fact the iconic image of Hamlet is of him holding Yorick's skull. His clothes, his face, all those other little things don't matter. But show a picture of someone kneeling holding a skull in his hand to people all around the world, and they know who it's supposed to be.

you're likely to end up with a picture of Sean Connery ('most familiar') or Daniel Craig (current).

FTFY

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I think you'll find most people who don't accept Pine and Quinto are 24th century Star Trek fans.
Raging that its not Picard or Janeway or Sisko on screen.

This ties in with my own (completely unscientific) pet theory that it's mostly TNG-era fans that have issues with the new movies, because they're not "intellectual" or "utopian" enough--as opposed to us old-school TOS fans who grew up on a STAR TREK that was both "cerebral" and good, old-fashioned space-opera adventure.

I've been on the Star Trek Online forums aka TNG-era central and there seems to be a lot of bashing of the JJ films, so yeah it looks like you guessed right.