An insult if they never used the original characters again?

[Savoy 1984]

Something I've thought about recently in regard to remakes but is it kind of an insult if they didn't used the classic characters again, (at some point) Kirk and Spock plus the rest of the gang, people don't mind using Dracula and the like plus Shakespeare so why not modern mythology.

What do you think?

 

[MisterPL]

I've always been a strong proponent of not allowing these venerable characters to be interred with the performers who originated them. I've read enough fiction that leads me to believe that their on-screen adventures should be far from over.

That said, I wouldn't want this franchise to turn into James Bond either, with a completely new cast every three or four flicks. Of course I think Trek belongs on TV rather than cinema so there's some bias in that regard.

Bottom line for me is that Trek should be about the voyages of the starship Enterprise, whatever she looks like.

 

[M'Sharak]

Something I've thought about recently in regard to remakes but is it kind of an insult if they didn't used the classic characters again, (at some point) Kirk and Spock plus the rest of the gang, people don't mind using Dracula and the like plus Shakespeare so why not modern mythology.

What do you think?

I think that, if none of the original characters are used, it isn't really a remake and should described with another term which (one would hope) would be more accurate and less nebulous* than "reimagining" or "reboot" are.

Insult? Meh, I think people spend far too much time looking for things by which to be insulted.

YMMV


* "Reimaging," on the other hand, is an utterly stupid term, the use of which should be grounds for a serious flogging for offenses against the English language and all-around good sense.

 

[number6]

^^Pretty much agreed..

With certain fans it becomes a no-win scenario.

Fans will get offended if they don't use the original characters, and some will if they do.

That's why Paramount is trying to get new fans.

And they should.

The old guard has become Trek's own worst enemy.

 

[Captain59]

Maybe they could use James R. Kirk and start from scratch that way?

 

[Classic Fan]

I dont know if im offended that the characters are being used again in a prequel with different actors.

However, instead of a prequel, i wouldve prefered if it either be a gap bridge between TOS and TMP with Starfleet going through a massive technological overhaul, or something like, using a different cast and characters etc.

But, i wouldve prefered if any prequel were to be done, to not have it on the Enterprise with Kirk etc and Pike and crew, thats been done, leave the rest to our imaginations.

I wouldve liked a risky prequel, with new experi-'Not phase pistols'-mental equipment, no transporters, death, destruction, disfiguration, rape and pillage, fire, bombs, Jerry Bruckheimer explosions and Charlize Theron.

 

[M'Sharak]

Because everything goes better with Charlize Theron.

 

[erastus25]

Something I've thought about recently in regard to remakes but is it kind of an insult if they didn't used the classic characters again, (at some point) Kirk and Spock plus the rest of the gang, people don't mind using Dracula and the like plus Shakespeare so why not modern mythology.

What do you think?

It's interesting that you cite Dracula as that character was basically reinvented by Bela Lugosi (his film depiction is a fairly dramatic departure from Stoker's book). In that case, it worked because it was an adaptation of the book, and not a sequel which was designed to jive perfectly with the book. On the other hand, the creators of Trek XI seem to be a little more vague. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that it has been referred to as a reimagining, but also very respectful of canon. Thus, it almost seems like they are trying to satisfy both sets of fans. Those who believe it should fit perfectly within the Star Trek mythos can be referred back to the fact that it has respect for canon, and those who prefer to look at it as a Lugosi-esque reinvention can look at the reimagining quotes. Hopefully within the next 18 months it will become more clear which path this movie is taking and put an end to these debates about whether it should be viewed as a true prequel.

As for it being an insult, I don't think so. Star Trek has already been imitated by a large number of movies, book and TV shows. Every time a show like the Simpsons shows something like a Voyager farewell party, we are getting what could be regarded as the equivalent of an adaptation of Shakespearan themes in a piece of modern literature.

 

[Kegek]

An insult to whom? To Gene Roddenberry, who replaced them on his sequel series? To the actors who have had their roles recast? To the writers who shaped them that are in no way involved?

It boils down to one narrative approach to the material; in this case going back to the source material of the franchise, as opposed to a different approach. It doesn't really insult the original crew not to use them any more than it insults the TNG characters (as much as their actors and fans may be miffed they won't get a fifth whirl on the big screen). It's essentially unpersonal and professional. Kirk and Spock are big draws and that's the way the cookie crumbles.

This said, I think if the film is a success then the future of the Trek franchise is in Bond-style reinventions every few years, for better or ill.

 

[Baldus885]

Something I've thought about recently in regard to remakes but is it kind of an insult if they didn't used the classic characters again, (at some point) Kirk and Spock plus the rest of the gang, people don't mind using Dracula and the like plus Shakespeare so why not modern mythology.

What do you think?

Insult to who? They are fictional characters, how can you insult them by not making a movie about them?

 

[Jack Bauer]

Something I've thought about recently in regard to remakes but is it kind of an insult if they didn't used the classic characters again, (at some point) Kirk and Spock plus the rest of the gang, people don't mind using Dracula and the like plus Shakespeare so why not modern mythology.

What do you think?

Insult to who?

The fans I guess.

 

[Classic Fan]

Because everything goes better with Charlize Theron.

Yep.

She made The Italian Job remake bearable.

I even watched Aeon Flux a couple of times, forget what happens every time though.

 

[Baldus885]

Something I've thought about recently in regard to remakes but is it kind of an insult if they didn't used the classic characters again, (at some point) Kirk and Spock plus the rest of the gang, people don't mind using Dracula and the like plus Shakespeare so why not modern mythology.

What do you think?

Insult to who?

The fans I guess.

So we're insulted by characters not being in a movie? I'm not insulted. And Shakespeare didn't write Trek, did he? And Dracula definitely wasn't in it. I don't get it.

 

[SeerSGB]

It has always been a unrealistic expectation of the fanbase to assume that these characters wouldn't be recast at some point, and new stories told. After all the general thinking is that these are "iconic characters", and once you elevate a character to such a state, then that character exists independent of any given character playing him or her. Sure, they'll be stand out actors and stories that "define" a character, but truly iconic characters exist in a state beyond being claimed by any singular performer.

Anyone thinking that "X can't be played by anyone by Y" is limiting 'Trek and sowing the seeds of its demise by saying that the characters can't exist to anyone but a small handful of selfish fans.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

It has always been a unrealistic expectation of the fanbase to assume that these characters wouldn't be recast at some point, and new stories told. After all the general thinking is that these are "iconic characters", and once you elevate a character to such a state, then that character exists independent of any given character playing him or her.

That only becomes true once you have recast them and had some level of success in the process. If you try it and it doesn't work, the thinking then becomes that Kirk is only Shatner and Spock is only Nimoy.

We'll see soon enough.

 

[SeerSGB]

Regardless of the financial success or failure of the movie, they'll always be a segment of the fanbase that will say that X actor in Y recast was better than the original actor of a given character. The movie might tank, and tank hard, but I guarantee you'll have fans that'll embrace the new characters as rabidly as hardliners embrace the original actors.

And, unfortunately or fortunately-- depending on your POV, Nimoy and Shatner and all the rest will be overshadowed by a string of recasts. As the characters take on a James Bond component to them: Where the character exists independent of the actors themselves.