And Star Trek V failed because...

[Kemaiku]

I own a fair amount of films and shows in B/W, half of the Christmas specials and movies I watched today where from that era.

Actually when I first hooked my PS2 up to my HDTV, for some reason the scart doesn't transmit the colour, I found I have a way of watching any movie I like in B/W even if it's a colour DVD. It's been a fun while checking out most of my horror collection that way.

 

[Orphalesion]

I'm often kind of creeped out by black and white movies, they have an...unsettling quality about them. Te first black and white movie I actually enjoyed was Rebecca (probably because the creepiness I associate with b and w movies worked well with the horror theme), beyond that... not too much.

 

[Warped9]

Like a lot of people my first experiences with television was with b&w and it was that way until 1970 when we got our first colour set. But even then many reruns and rerun films were b&w throughout the '70s and into the '80s.

Another big difference was having only one television in the house and no alternatives like a computer or laptop or tablet to watch something else while my parents watched TV. As such we were exposed to a lot of older stuff we might not have watched on our own. I think that experience is largely missing today. Even having two TVs in the house makes a difference, but that wasn't the case for most people.

Maybe that's why years later I could easily get into a station like TCM with its huge variety of b&w films. I'm not bothered by the lack of colour and can enjoy the rest of a film on its own terms. You quickly learn that they had a lot of imagination, creativity and talent back in the day.

 

[PCz911]

Some of the film noir movies were lit so well. Also, watch Casablanca some time and just enjoy the dp's work! I love tos star trek because they played with color so much. It was really a part of the show. In a strange way, maybe that's why the movies didn't work for me. Everything was so "ordinary" and shot like a modern tv show.

I went out to the location of stv but I was working a pr shoot and didn't have time to match up shots from the movie and actual location.

 

[Maurice]

Actually if you turn off the color on TOS it looks just like it was shot for black and white, in part because the cinematographers in those days were trained to shoot for black and white in terms of contrast levels, etc., and they knew many of their viewers would be viewing even color shows on black and white sets, so they had to ensure everything would "read".

 

[Amaris]

I love a good black and white show or movie. Hell, I loved the black and white screens on the Enterprise in TFF! <brings it all back around>

 

[Warped9]

Actually if you turn off the color on TOS it looks just like it was shot for black and white, in part because the cinematographers in those days were trained to shoot for black and white in terms of contrast levels, etc., and they knew many of their viewers would be viewing even color shows on black and white sets, so they had to ensure everything would "read".

Exactly how I first started watching TOS.

 

[PCz911]

Actually if you turn off the color on TOS it looks just like it was shot for black and white, in part because the cinematographers in those days were trained to shoot for black and white in terms of contrast levels, etc., and they knew many of their viewers would be viewing even color shows on black and white sets, so they had to ensure everything would "read".

These are all very good points I hadn't thought of before. This makes total sense to me.

 

[CoveTom]

While many good points have been made here regarding generational changes in actors portraying characters, and who is "definitive" in a role, I would still argue that both William Shatner as Kirk and Christopher Reeve as Superman are a bit different than the norm.

Understand, I'm not talking about which performance you prefer or which episodes/films you prefer. I know very well that there are many people who, for example, prefer the George Reeves television series to the Christopher Reeve films, and that's fine. I know there are people who prefer the Chris Pine portrayal of Kirk to the William Shatner portrayal. Also fine.

What I'm talking about is who the public thinks of when a character is mentioned. To this day, despite the success of subsequent efforts, I would stake large sums of money on the fact that a majority of the public still associates William Shatner with the character of Kirk. And I would venture to say the same is true of Christopher Reeve as Superman.

James Bond, Batman, Sherlock Holmes, Doctor Who... all of those are examples of characters that have been played by many different actors, but the difference is that I don't think one particular portrayal has ever "stuck" in the public consciousness at a significantly higher level than the others. As much as Christian Bale has been lauded for his portrayal of Batman, so was Michael Keaton. And I'm willing to bet a nice sizeable portion of the public still thinks of Adam West when someone mentions Batman.

But for Kirk and Superman, there's something different. Something iconic about those particular portrayals. Something that's "stuck." Not saying they're the best portrayals. Just that they are embedded in the public consciousness in a way many other portrayals are not.

IMHO, of course, worth exactly what you paid for it.

 

[Smellmet]

While many good points have been made here regarding generational changes in actors portraying characters, and who is "definitive" in a role, I would still argue that both William Shatner as Kirk and Christopher Reeve as Superman are a bit different than the norm.

Understand, I'm not talking about which performance you prefer or which episodes/films you prefer. I know very well that there are many people who, for example, prefer the George Reeves television series to the Christopher Reeve films, and that's fine. I know there are people who prefer the Chris Pine portrayal of Kirk to the William Shatner portrayal. Also fine.

What I'm talking about is who the public thinks of when a character is mentioned. To this day, despite the success of subsequent efforts, I would stake large sums of money on the fact that a majority of the public still associates William Shatner with the character of Kirk. And I would venture to say the same is true of Christopher Reeve as Superman.

James Bond, Batman, Sherlock Holmes, Doctor Who... all of those are examples of characters that have been played by many different actors, but the difference is that I don't think one particular portrayal has ever "stuck" in the public consciousness at a significantly higher level than the others. As much as Christian Bale has been lauded for his portrayal of Batman, so was Michael Keaton. And I'm willing to bet a nice sizeable portion of the public still thinks of Adam West when someone mentions Batman.

But for Kirk and Superman, there's something different. Something iconic about those particular portrayals. Something that's "stuck." Not saying they're the best portrayals. Just that they are embedded in the public consciousness in a way many other portrayals are not.

IMHO, of course, worth exactly what you paid for it.

You've made the point I was trying to make earlier, just so much better. Then again I was drunk...

 

[plynch]

Shatner in 79 eps shown 5 days a week for years plus 7 films. Plus the huge phenomenon in the 70s. Pine, 2 films. Clearly one's gonna stick. The other is a different actor playing someone else's role. And Kirk as written in the new films is a smaller person, brattier, though some like seeing growth. I prefer a more stalwart hero, but I am of a different age.

Reeve was terrific, really. I know it's kind of circular logic, but he was just so good. That's why he is remebered for being good. In the first blockbuster modern superhero film. And it's a great movie in general, with a good sequel. Both from when blockbuster sci fi was a new thing. Recipe for owning a role.

 

[enterprisecvn65]

Shatner in 79 eps shown 5 days a week for years plus 7 films. Plus the huge phenomenon in the 70s. Pine, 2 films. Clearly one's gonna stick. The other is a different actor playing someone else's role. And Kirk as written in the new films is a smaller person, brattier, though some like seeing growth. I prefer a more stalwart hero, but I am of a different age.

Reeve was terrific, really. I know it's kind of circular logic, but he was just so good. That's why he is remebered for being good. In the first blockbuster modern superhero film. And it's a great movie in general, with a good sequel. Both from when blockbuster sci fi was a new thing. Recipe for owning a role.

Reeve is the reason why I haven't been to enjoy another Superman show or movie, besides the fact the films sucked, since Superman II.

He absolutely fucking nailed the role. He looked the part, he had the perfect mix of noble, heroic good guy, whose ideals were beyond reproach, yet still be convincing when it came time to kick some ass. He was and is in my mind Superman, there is noone else who can play that role, and I don't think there will be another actor in my lifetime that will make me think otherwise.

It's actually remarkable the 007 series was able to survive Connery's departure because so many people felt he was James Bond and noone else could ever play that role. I know Roger Moore gets grief for his lighter portrayal of the role, but the fact is he was able to successfully replace an icon and keep the franchise rolling along and now it's an accepted fact Bond will be replaced when the current actor starts to age. That is a pretty impressive feat.

 

[PCz911]

It's actually remarkable the 007 series was able to survive Connery's departure because so many people felt he was James Bond and noone else could ever play that role. I know Roger Moore gets grief for his lighter portrayal of the role, but the fact is he was able to successfully replace an icon and keep the franchise rolling along and now it's an accepted fact Bond will be replaced when the current actor starts to age. That is a pretty impressive feat.

Don't give roger too much credit. He essentially just played "the saint " instead of bond. And,besides, England had already developed a habit of replacing the lead insuch shows as Dr who.

 

[enterprisecvn65]

It's actually remarkable the 007 series was able to survive Connery's departure because so many people felt he was James Bond and noone else could ever play that role. I know Roger Moore gets grief for his lighter portrayal of the role, but the fact is he was able to successfully replace an icon and keep the franchise rolling along and now it's an accepted fact Bond will be replaced when the current actor starts to age. That is a pretty impressive feat.

Don't give roger too much credit. He essentially just played "the saint " instead of bond. And,besides, England had already developed a habit of replacing the lead insuch shows as Dr who.

I'm no expert on Dr. Who so I don't know how hard it was replace characters and have the public accept it.

The thing is though Bond was not just an English show...it was a worldwide sensation and Sean Connery was, in many people's mind, absolutely irreplaceable as 007. They'd tried it once and it failed miserably.

You can argue about how Moore pulled it off but the fact is he was able to successfully carry on the franchise and get enough people to buy into him being 007. Is he as popular or will ever be as popular as Connery? Of course not. But he kept Bond alive and has quite a decent following of his own. To me that is impressive.

And on a personal note everything I've seen and read about leads me to believe that Moore is a HELL OF A LOT nicer and more decent person in real life where as Connery is a complete ass who has treated many people, including the people involved in Bond who gave him his big break and fought for him when studio execs wanted a "bigger" name for 007, like dog crap over realtively minor issues.

 

[PCz911]

.

And on a personal note everything I've seen and read about leads me to believe that Moore is a HELL OF A LOT nicer and more decent person in real life where as Connery is a complete ass who has treated many people, including the people involved in Bond who gave him his big break and fought for him when studio execs wanted a "bigger" name for 007, like dog crap over realtively minor issues.

I agree with you here! I've read similar comments on Connery. As a fan, I try to separate out the art from the artist although I'm not always terribly successful at it. I'm not in a position to know all the circumstances around any artist so I won't make excuses for any of them. I can well imagine the pressure that athletes and artists are under, but it doesn't condone bad behavior.

 

[Smellmet]

I'm a massive fan of Moore as Bond, I class the four movies from Live and Let Die through to Moonraker in the 70's as the holy trinity of Bond movies, and would watch them over any of the others, Connery and Craig included. They are just so much fun to watch.

 

[The Old Mixer]

I've elaborated on the point elsewhere in these parts, but I'm of the same opinion as enterprisecvn65 regarding Moore. It was thought by some that the Bond films would die off as a 60s thing after the departure of Connery...and the producers flirted with some potential casting choices that might have put the final nail in the coffin (*shudder*Burt Reynolds*shudder*). Regardless of what fans think about his choices in playing the character, Moore's films were highly successful and kept the franchise alive and well for another decade and a half, firmly establishing the longevity and versatility of the film franchise. Plus, however far he may have taken things from Fleming, Moore was just damned entertaining in his own right. I always enjoyed his films, even while I longed for a more Flemingesque take on the character. In hindsight, I'm grateful that Moore kept things going long enough for us to get that with later Bond actors.

 

[Smellmet]

It was simply a franchise adjusting itself for the time it was in, and the seventies meant big flowery collars for Moore, great theme tunes, OTT baddies and submersible Lotus's.

I thought Moores 80's outings were mostly crap though and he looked too old by the time View to a Kill came out. The underrated Dalton seemed to serve as a bridge between him and Brosnan and thought both of his movies were decent. Brosnans movies were all solid too but things were getting decidedly silly by Die Another Day. Craig is a great Bond but I find, bar a few really good action sequences in all 3 films, I find them a little dull and lacking something.

Each time the Bond franchise has reinvented itself and remained massively strong though. Star Trek needs to take note...

 

[Captrek]

and the producers flirted with some potential casting choices that might have put the final nail in the coffin (*shudder*Burt Reynolds*shudder*).

Long and fascinating list of actors considered for the role: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_actors_considered_for_the_James_Bond_character

Reynolds turned down the role, as did Clint Eastwood and Adam West. Dick Van Dyke was also considered for the role but not chosen.

 

[Warped9]

Ironically Roger Moore was one of the original potential candidates for the role along with Connery. But originally he was thought to be a bit too much of a pretty boy.

Worked out all right because Moore was tailor made to play Simon Templar, the Saint.