Maybe a mix of youthful rebellion and trying to get in touch with his human heritage after finally being in an environment with more humans that allowed him to be more expressive without the social consequences that he would face on Vulcan. It's important to remember that Vulcans do have emotions, they just suppress them as a cultural belief. Spock being half human, might feel some desire to explore that side of himself. Later he goes towards a more Vulcan outlook, while still maintaining some emotions which was clear in TOS and the movies. Remember the scene where Spock goes increasingly concerned for Kirk's safety before breaking into a run calling for his friend in Devil in the Dark.
I'm sorry Greg, but I didn't say we should avoid divisive stories, or new talent, I was trying to diplomatically say (in a way that tried not to hurt people's feelings), that I have very little faith in this specific creative team's ability to handle a classic character. I hope I am pleasantly surprised and wrong. I wonder why I say anything here at all, because I just end up feeling bad for having spoken up half of the time. In real life, I am anxious and find it hard to speak up, let alone when people employ ridicule, as a couple of people replying to that post did, and get up-voted for it as usual by other members. But at the end of the day, it's just my opinion. I don't want to condemn the producers out of spite, just discuss the show as if I were among friends. That latter is perhaps my mistake. Also, you might not be right, despite your qualification, or up-votes. I'm sorry to put it that way, because I know they have feelings, and probably take pride in their work, but its my honest feelings on the matter. Akiva Goldsman hasn't got a great CV, nor Alex Kurtzman. I'm sure they would be fine working on something I don't care about, that does not require verisimilitude. I wasn't arguing that Harve Bennet or Nick Meyer were unqualified to give Star Trek a go. I was suggesting others didn't have prior knocks against their record. Lets look at that record. The 90s Lost in Space film with Matt LeBlanc. The Mummy reboot, which was meant to launch a Universal Monster shared universe. Tranformers. These are not critical darlings (to put it mildly), and are widely derided, even if they have been marketed to the point where they can't fail to earn millions. I don't take critics as gospel, but to quote Rotten Tomatoes consensus: "believable characters are hard to come by in Transformers" So, what, the entire point of a dramatist's career then, is missing from the film? The cynic in me thinks of a Hollywood clique that will have big budgets shoved at them no matter what they do, perhaps because they treat art purely as business, rather than people like Guillermo Del Toro who have to labour for every penny studios give them. With TV budgets being what they are, and short seasons being more like motion pictures, they, to put it another way, have had something like 7 times the length of Wrath of Khan, to tell a good story. People are unconvinced they have done so once. Tell me, since you brought him into this, what was Nick Meyer's record after one film? And I am not even a hardened social Darwinist who believes in writing people off. In a workplace, I'm not a fan of monitoring stats, or dismissing workers; we are all built differently, and everyone deserves a chance to earn a living. It's just we are not talking about someone who is on the poverty line, not flipping enough burgers for the corporation's next annual growth target. It feels like people who were handed the keys to apparently all of Star Trek, should be held to a higher critical standard. Maybe the politics is complicated enough the power of the writing team, and Kirsten Beyer, who I like in particular, can pull season two off, irrelevant of what directives or limitations they receive. Maybe Akiva Goldsman and Alex Kurtzman are being unfairly represented, and were themselves victims of Hollywood's notorious environment. But I was just trying to talk about these concerns, without hopefully anyone reading these forums and falling into despair at what we fans say amongst ourselves.
You may not have been referring to me here, but I would just like to make clear that, for my part, my aim was not to ridicule you. I may have taken a wry tone, as I often do, but I genuinely meant to reassure you that there may not be so much cause for anxiety with respect to the present state of Trek as you might think. We're all just giving our opinions here, for the most part. Please don't feel discouraged from speaking yours just because I or others may disagree with you! Inevitably, at least someone always will, but what would be the point of discussion if we all felt the same way about everything all the time? Be well! -MMoM
Still speaking of The Munsters, the pilot for that show had possibly yet another Marilyn, not to mention Lily had another name and was another actress and Eddie was another actor. Like Star Trek, lots of changes from the pilot to the series.
Heresy! Any change -- ANY change -- to any part of Trek, actors included, is a violation of canon!!11 Quinto was fine but they made him too much into an emotional wreck through all of the movies. I don't know how much of that is the actor's fault. Precisely. It's more important to capture the essence of the character than the look of previous actors, within reason. Unless, of course, the character was the most known and important character of the entire franchise. Clearly you don't think that's the case. If that's what CBS wants, they're missing out. You can't really keep a franchise fresh and alive with just old fans.
It's the logical way to look at it. If you only have a single movie or episode, it's either all good or all bad or all meh. With more, you get more crap, sure, but at least you've got more chances to get more good. For example, not all Bond movies have been great but I'd rather have more of them than just stick with the old good ones. I disagree. I was disappointed with it, aside from the pilot and the obvious exceptions, and was glad that things picked up in the second. DSC's first is better, in my opinion. TOS, of course, has a kick-ass first season. No, no. That's a terrible idea! Where are they going to get another character who's both doctor and bartender? I think you just proved his point. If they don't get it right within two years, they sink.
The idea almost creates itself. The ironic thing is it would be Roddenberry's original rejected idea coming to TV 50 odd years after it was rejected!
I don't know, acting as a Spock today is way way more difficult than when Nimoy acted as Spock years ago. Well, Nimoy acted like he was an Alien long time ago, but today actors must act to be Nimoy who act as an Alien.
No. The worst thing Peck can do is to try and act like Nimoy acting like Spock. Peck has to make the character his own.
That's what I agree. But people always seeing Nimoy when they see Spock. And the producers always looking at similarity to Nimoy when they cast Spock. And the bad new Spock is about not Nimoy enough. Not because of the acting.
Well he left DSC at the end of Season 1, we’re good there. Though he’s working on the Picard show. They already said that was part of the plan.
Peck has zero obligation to be anything like Nimoy or Qunito. None. The sooner everyone realizes that the sooner the franchise can move on (and will be better for it).
That's a fine mentality for a reboot or another universe. But if they continue to maintain that STD takes place in the world where Nimoy's Spock is from, it would be odd not to use Nimoy's Spock as a template. Kurtzman's typical Hollywood double speak of Spock being very similar, yet very different is quite telling that they want to go their own direction with Spock though. 'Bending canon without breaking it' I predict this Spock will be very flawed, emotional and seeking guidance, and big sis Michael Burnham will be the one who sets him straight.
James Frain's Sarek was spot-on in "Lethe", a story that perfectly encapsulated his character. "Will you take my hand" where he suddenly turns from a pacifist diplomat to advocating genocide against the Klingon was a complete and utter failure. (Not Frain's acting - but the writing). Mudd in "Chose your pain" as a prisoner who has an agenda, is untrustworthy and a huge dick was a pretty good characterisations. Him in "Magic makes the sanest man go mad" running amok around the ship and shooting trained security personal with his hand-gun was... a complete, utter failure at the character again (even if the episode itself was somewhat entertaining). So far, from the TOS characters that appeared, half the time they were really good representations - another actor tackling the same character - and half the time they completely missed the point of the character by miles and miles. I expect that to be the same with Spock (and to a degree Pike): That some of what we will see will perfectly fit and give us new insights to the character. And that the other half will be mind-bogglingly stupid so one has to ask how someone can misunderstand such an iconic character to such a degree.