A word to Bill Shatner....

[Alidar Jarok]

I don't think there's any principle involved here. Shatner isn't in because of money. If they can find the right price and he can tollerate the script (Nimoy wanted revisions to Generations, its possible Shatner might feel the same way about the new movie), he'll be in. The writers will find a part for him. But I don't think respect for preserving the original is Shatner's biggest concern.

 

[Computer]

No Chip your not odd, but apparently your a Heretic for even including any other series and not trying to bash them while stating something as simple as your favorite show.

 

[Mallory]

I think it might be time to dial back the rhetoric just a tad Computer, OK?

 

[Proximity_Phaser]

Computer said:
^^ Having the original actors in it for me reminds the public (non-trek fans) what the term "Has Been" is all about.

They had their time to shine now its over.

"Has Been" is one of the Shatman's best recent efforts!

 

[AC84]

Kryton said:
Boston Legal and The Practice don't count for "serious roles", IMO.

In your opinion is right.

Granted Denny Crane isn't exactly an exclusively dramatic role, but the character isn't all laughs. Anyone who says the character is, either hasn't seen many episodes of Boston Legal (especially “Son of the Defender” which aired recently) or makes an effort not to catch the last few minutes of the show's balcony epilogues. As for the Emmy award for "The Practice", why should it be discounted or ignored? Did someone deserve it more than Shatner?

And how many for playing Kirk?

Who made the claim he won one for Kirk? I was talking about his entire career and the point I was making is that William Shatner isn't a bad actor. He isn't Spencer Tracy or Laurence Olivier, but he isn't Ben Affleck either.

Computer said:
In all honesty I find TOS to be comical and not at all interesting.

So what are you doing here in the TOS forum if you think the show is shit? Just to insult all TOS fans and call them narrow-minded?

Ronald Held said:
Why should a much younger Kirk act exactly as he did in TOS?

The new actor doesn't have to. Just like actors playing in a musical production of Les Misérables don't have to sing with a French accent if it's too much for them to handle and will interfere with their performance. But it would be a nice plus if done right and a good challenge for the actor.

 

[pookha]

really if they were going by tos a young kirk depending on his age wasnt the same as he was in tos.
remember what mitchell said. evidently kirk did a little evolving from the time he was a lt till he took command of enterprise.

 

[igrokbok]

Computer said:

The only reason TOS is alive today is thanks to all the other Trek series you dismess as "trying to reinvent the wheel"

Oh really?

The less said about this the better.

 

[DrTaylor]

igrokbok said:

Computer said:

The only reason TOS is alive today is thanks to all the other Trek series you dismess as "trying to reinvent the wheel"

Oh really?

The less said about this the better.

Just for the heck of it, let's say it. Let's say that we go back in time to the '70s and look at Star Trek gaining in syndication. Let's look at the complete lack of effect the early cancellation of the Animated Adventures had on the upward curve in syndication viewing.

Now tell me Star Trek would be dead without the later incarnations. We don't know that. We have no evidence of that. Star Trek was... "unspoiled", if you will, through 1979 when the movie came out. Things were only going uphill. One could argue that the movies and later series actually made things worse.

At the very least, I would say that Star Trek would have a "gone but not forgotten" status similar to I love Lucy or some other show of that era.

Now, a final statement and then my rant will be over. They were trying to reinvent the wheel. Every sequel show after NextGen was a whole new premise. The validity or interest of those premises is unimportant in this discussion. Star Trek without a starship. Star Trek does Lost in Space. Star Trek before there was Star Trek. That is changing the concept of the show, and to me that is the very definition of "reinventing the wheel".

 

[Computer]

AC84, im not insulting TOS fans at all, theres a difference between TOS Fundamentalists and the average TOS fan.

Also no where did I say TOS is "shit" so please don't put words in my mouth.

Finally I have the right to participate in a public discussion even if I have an opposing view. Thats why Im here.

 

[Trekwatcher]

pookha said:
really if they were going by tos a young kirk depending on his age wasnt the same as he was in tos.
remember what mitchell said. evidently kirk did a little evolving from the time he was a lt till he took command of enterprise.

I'm sure he did a ton of evolving, and if they are smart they will find a way to develop that in the movie. Just think of all the personal and professional development that JTK had to have gone through as a cadet, junior level, and mid-level officer before being promoted to captain and given command. If they are smart, IMHO, they will go out of their way to show us a plausible version of young JTK who could develop into the man we first saw in Where No Man Has Gone Before.

 

[Kryton]

I hope there's a Gary Mitchell in the movie.

 

[AC84]

So I should be allowed to go into the TNG or VOY forum, call their show comical and not interesting and start name-calling some of the fans just because I don't agree with them being exclusive to their show? Rather than simply being objective and civil by debating their posts/argument, I can also be presumptuous?

I may be allowed to do that, but I wouldn't. I would try to be more respectful than that. People might think I was trolling.

 

[David cgc]

AC84 said:
So I should be allowed to go into the TNG or VOY forum, call their show comical and not interesting and start name-calling some of the fans just because I don't agree with them being exclusive to their show? Rather than simply being objective and civil by debating their posts/argument, I can also be presumptuous?

When I first joined this board, shortly before Enterprise started, that's exactly what it was like in the DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise forums. Things have mellowed considerably in those fora (excepting the Enterprise forum, which looks like a barely-contained inner-city gang war between the 'shippers), while the TOS forum has become considerably more reactionary (I blame the creation of the Movies forum for diverting some discussion and leaving TOS in the hands of the die-hards). It's started to swing back to a middle ground thanks to the influx of posters brought in by TOS-R, but some people still valiantly work to preserve the "Damn kids, get off my lawn! I'm gonna get my rifle!" atmosphere the TOS forum enjoyed from '03 to '06.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

David cgc said:(I blame the creation of the Movies forum for diverting some discussion and leaving TOS in the hands of the die-hards).

Good observation. I hadn't thought about that. Focusing the ST XI talk in "Future Of Trek" probably hasn't helped either.

TOS-Onlies don't get to tell other TOS fans how to think about the show, what was great about it or how it compares to other Trek shows. There are folks on the Internet who do the TOS Uber Alles thing who aren't old enough to remember "Star Trek" when it was nothing but a single TV series with nothing to rank it against.

 

[pookha]

AC84 said:
So I should be allowed to go into the TNG or VOY forum, call their show comical and not interesting and start name-calling some of the fans just because I don't agree with them being exclusive to their show? Rather than simply being objective and civil by debating their posts/argument, I can also be presumptuous?

I may be allowed to do that, but I wouldn't. I would try to be more respectful than that. People might think I was trolling.

things can be said about a show if it is done in context, there is a reason given.

but not say things about the other posters who are fans of the shows.

i dont like a lot of the stuff said about enterprise but i just walk away from it a lot of the time.

as for the movie.. we dont even know yet who haa been cast as kirk or exactly what period of his life will be covered,''

for me i dont see prejudging it until we know at least about those two things.

 

[Photoman15]

Warped9 said:


And finally TPTB have burnt away so much credibility over the years as far as I'm concerned that I have ZERO trust in their judgment in regards to Trek. Yes, they just might pull a miracle out of their ass, but it would indeed be a freaking miracle and I wouldn't bet a goddamned dime on it happening.

There was a time long ago when I couldn't imagine getting enough Trek. But now I'm older and hopefully somewhat wiser and I've had my fill of so much crap done in the name of Trek that I'm no longer willing to grant TPTB any measure of credibility.

TBTB are not TBTB that had any responsibility of TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT. Even the suits that were in place at those respective times have been changed.

 

[Photoman15]

Warped9 said:
I never thought I'd hear myself say this, but I hope this film TANKS. Then hopefully we'll no longer see them trying to reinvent the wheel. Then just maybe we'll get something fresh and move forward.

If it tanks, it is most likely you (or me) will not see another "TREK" in our lifetime. So that's a very selfish wish. Let people who will enjoy it, enjoy it and you can go about your business and watch something else.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Warped9 said:
There is a difference. Superman didn't originate with Reeves. Superman originated in literature.

While I agree with the difference between other actors playing Superman vs Kirk, I have to say...Action Comics #1 was hardly literature. But I get your point. :-)

 

[Noname Given]

Warped9 said:
There are those who are predesposed to like this forthcoming project and good for them and thats their right. Or maybe they just haven't seen enough shit in life or come accross enough broken promises.

1) I'm not 'predesposed' to like this project; BUT, that said, I'm also not predisposed to hate it out of hand because one or more of the original actors were not given a caneo role.

2) I've seen MORE than enough shit from the Star Trek franchise, thanks; but again, I try not to pre-judge and wait until the final product is finished, and is being advertised before I make up my mind as to:

a) Do I even want to bother watching this?

b) If the answer is yes, actually WATCHING the finished project before I judge it; and make such a judgement after watching it.

I don't pre-judge based on rumors of casting sheets, and whether they used leaked version 3 or version 4 of the script, etc.

And BTW Waroped9; don't go setting yourself up as a target and then cry foul. You even admitted you never expected William Shatner to see the letter you wrote; so in the end, this is another loud proclamation from you that 'NEW STAR TREK SUCKS!'; and further, that if someone's opinion differs, then they must not know what 'true shit' is.

Personally, I don't know how I'll feel onece I see the finished product. It could create a renewed interest in seeing more Star Trek of this type; or it could be the worst piec e of crap from the Star Trek franchise since Star Trek V: The Final Frontier; but again, I'll have the decency to let the producers of the project finish it, and base my judgement on the FINISHED product.

Personally, I hope JJ Abrahms and crew are allowed free reign to make the Star Trek film they want to make first, and IGNORE the hard core fanbase and others (including studio heads) who want to micromanage the project to death; or make sure certain 'signature' things are 'in' REGARDLESS of what it may do to the flow of the film.

But, again, in the end; I'll judge the FINISHED product (and based on the advertising I may also decide to mgive it a pass; but I'll wait until it's done) before I start casting stones.

 

[seigezunt]

um, moderators, doesn't this thread belong in the Future of Trek forum?

I can only take the "Trek XI is faux Trek" shite with a large dose of Pepto, and I didn't expect to find that in this forum. Now I got agita.

(And I say that as a TOS devotee who has completely lost interest in the rest of the franchise over the years.)

They're not even done with the movie, folks. Let's see it before we condemn it. I'm happy it touches on TOS, as it's the only kind of Trek that has had an enduring appeal to me. And I have no problem with letting new actors give it a crack. Love Kirk, Spock, et al. as characters, but the actors are just too old to play the parts now.

I find writing an open letter to the Shat quite laughable, particularly because the original rumor is pretty suspect, IMHO.