Trek XI could be one of the weirdest awkward movies ever made.
Can paramount save their foundering Star Trek franchise?
- Thread starter kirkstheman
- Start date
Why will it look silly? Are fans too stupid to accept the notion that actors and characters are two different entities?
If the producers are smart, then the movie will (re)introduce Spock and the other characters so prior knowledge won't be necessary. Judging by their previous statments, that does seem to be the case.
Shatner as Kirk is about as unique to a role as you can get.
everyone loves to dance around that here.
There's basically no way it can be recast without doing a comical portrayal or a radical redefining.
So, why so insistent on redoing TOS when there's no way you can do it without changing it to something else?
everyone loves to dance around that here.
There's basically no way it can be recast without doing a comical portrayal or a radical redefining.
So, why so insistent on redoing TOS when there's no way you can do it without changing it to something else?
James Bond is an international spy. The movies are heavily action oriented with continual romantic and gadget lines. The movies are in a small subset, not to be equated with Trek. The Trek universe is too large for that type of repeat plot. In that context, the recasting of Bond is accepted without question by the general public. It has gone into the vernaculr that Bond is timeless and people enjoy comparing the actors that played Bond.
On the other hand James T. Kirk is not a timeless character, he was supposed to have a 5 year mission. That in and of itself creates constraints on what can be done with the character.
On the other hand James T. Kirk is not a timeless character, he was supposed to have a 5 year mission. That in and of itself creates constraints on what can be done with the character.
Why is it unique? Because Shatner does those goofy long pauses and over-emphasizes words? Sorry, but as much as I like Shatner, I'm not going to let that get in the way of seeing another actor give us a fresh perspective on the character.
The only one I see dancing is you, trying to come up with a new reason each day why this movie can't be made.
In your limited imagination, yes.
You haven't read a script, you haven't seen the film, so you're talking out your ass. You don't know what's going to be changed, and you don't know whether those changes are going to be bad or good. I don't either, but I'm trying to see the glass half full because I'd like to see a new Trek project that Paramount is actually 100% supportive of. You'll still have your TOS DVDs with Shatner's original performances, and nobody's going to send jack-booted thugs in helicopters to steal them away in the middle of the night, so quit your bitching.
I for one never poked fun at Shatner's portrayal of Kirk, he was masterful and delivered Captain Kirk the way Captain Kirk should have been delivered.
If they wish to persist in the idiocy of this TOS movie then they NEED Shatner to lend credibility to the Kirk character.
Apparently Trek cannot be saved if Paramount keeps doing what they are doing. Trek is not a goose that lays golden eggs on demand. Trek needs to expand and explore new concepts to discover new gold.
You wouldn't go into a boarded up mine expecting to strike it rich, would you?
If they wish to persist in the idiocy of this TOS movie then they NEED Shatner to lend credibility to the Kirk character.
Apparently Trek cannot be saved if Paramount keeps doing what they are doing. Trek is not a goose that lays golden eggs on demand. Trek needs to expand and explore new concepts to discover new gold.
You wouldn't go into a boarded up mine expecting to strike it rich, would you?
What a stupid discussion this is... People will be "disappointed and confused" to see different actors as Kirk and Spock when they go back to TOS after Trek XI? Those two entities are 40 years apart. And look at all the theatrical reimaginings of old franchises that did work and also increased people's appreciation for the original... I'm certain, for example, that many folks got "Mission: Impossible" to check out on DVD after they saw the Tom Cruise film. And only an idiot would've wondered why he wasn't in that series...
And this is even more stupid. By that reasoning, there couldn't be another Indiana Jones movie because he always fought the Nazis (a limited era), or another James Bond, because he was a Cold War agent (limited era)... As many people have said before, TOS left plenty of stories to tell before, during, and after the 5-year mission. We're not talking about Lord of the Rings or such where it's all one story. It was episodic, and at the end of each episode, things were pretty much the same as they were before and the stories were still worth watching.
And this is even more stupid. By that reasoning, there couldn't be another Indiana Jones movie because he always fought the Nazis (a limited era), or another James Bond, because he was a Cold War agent (limited era)... As many people have said before, TOS left plenty of stories to tell before, during, and after the 5-year mission. We're not talking about Lord of the Rings or such where it's all one story. It was episodic, and at the end of each episode, things were pretty much the same as they were before and the stories were still worth watching.
L
Lord Garth
Guest
Back in 1986 when Paramount was looking to make a second series they had two choices: recast the characters or replace the characters. The original movies were still going strong, so they decided to replace the characters. Made sense. Why see new adventures of Kirk and Spock in the cinema when you can see them on TV? Plus it was economical. If TNG took place further down along the line, they could reuse props from the movies with minimum difficulty because it's all set in the same fictional universe.
Over the next 15 years, they introduced three more sets of characters. With me? Four new crews in the span of a decade-and-a-half. To most people that was too much. Yes, a huge part of what went wrong with ENT was that by the time it was created most average people who heard about it thought "They're making another one?!" That's not the reaction you want to have when you're releasing a new series. Like it or not, 2001 was the wrong time to introduce a new crew. If ENT had come out in 1997, the year after FC, as the fourth series, it would've run seven seasons for sure.
Either way, interest in new crews was becoming less and less. TOS had an even/odd-film curse but the only one outright disliked was TFF. With TNG it seems the only movie that was critically liked was FC. That's critically. Financially, TOS was kept at low budgets and so could get away with grossing $70-80 milliion. TNG's budgets kept on going up and up and when NEM tanked the bottom gave way completely and the TNG films collapsed underneath their own weight.
Now, if TNG wasn't working out in the theaters, if there's little if any demand for a new set of characters, and you still want to continue making Star Trek movies, what would you do?
Seriously, what would you do?
Paramount decided to go with what they know, with what they remember working, and decided instead of replacing the characters this time they'd recast them. Hence the new TOS movie.
Over the next 15 years, they introduced three more sets of characters. With me? Four new crews in the span of a decade-and-a-half. To most people that was too much. Yes, a huge part of what went wrong with ENT was that by the time it was created most average people who heard about it thought "They're making another one?!" That's not the reaction you want to have when you're releasing a new series. Like it or not, 2001 was the wrong time to introduce a new crew. If ENT had come out in 1997, the year after FC, as the fourth series, it would've run seven seasons for sure.
Either way, interest in new crews was becoming less and less. TOS had an even/odd-film curse but the only one outright disliked was TFF. With TNG it seems the only movie that was critically liked was FC. That's critically. Financially, TOS was kept at low budgets and so could get away with grossing $70-80 milliion. TNG's budgets kept on going up and up and when NEM tanked the bottom gave way completely and the TNG films collapsed underneath their own weight.
Now, if TNG wasn't working out in the theaters, if there's little if any demand for a new set of characters, and you still want to continue making Star Trek movies, what would you do?
Seriously, what would you do?
Paramount decided to go with what they know, with what they remember working, and decided instead of replacing the characters this time they'd recast them. Hence the new TOS movie.
You know, I can't put my finger on it without rambling on about it right now, but as a geezer who can remember the latter half of the 1960s, of all Trek out there, something about the choice of TOS and Kirk and Spock for this movie just fits the times we're in now.
Properly carry the themes and feeling of TOS, and you'll carry the characters along no matter who plays them.
Of all Trek possibilities, I find what they're doing inspired and daring. Two words not associated with Trek in recent years.
Properly carry the themes and feeling of TOS, and you'll carry the characters along no matter who plays them.
Of all Trek possibilities, I find what they're doing inspired and daring. Two words not associated with Trek in recent years.
Inspired and Daring? I don't think so. What's inspiring about going to the oldest trick in the book? What's daring about making ANOTHER character centric Trek film (Nemesis anyone) set in 2 eras (Generations anyone). Paramount is going with formulas on this one and is trying to bank on a big name. It wasn't a big name that made Trek what it was, TREK made the names larger than life. The characters are not recycleable.
This Trek project is even less inspired and daring then Enterprise was.
This Trek project is even less inspired and daring then Enterprise was.
L
Lord Garth
Guest
Inspried? This is a story that JJ Abrams has wanted to tell for a while. I know you don't believe it but I don't see anything that points to the contrary. There's no need to reduce this to JJ's word versus yours.
Daring? Since you and others consider Kirk and Spock to be Shatner and Nimoy only, yes it could be considered daring to recast them. Daring as in "How dare you recast them!" is still daring. True daring means that not everyone is going to approve.
Could the movie still be bad? Certainly. Absolutely. But if it were then why would Leonard Nimoy be interested? Leonard Nimoy is a notoriously harder sell than William Shatner. Based on pure mathematics, I think ST XI will be at least better than GEN which, in turn, means that it'll be better than NEM and the reaction will definitely not be indifferent the way it was with INS.
Daring? Since you and others consider Kirk and Spock to be Shatner and Nimoy only, yes it could be considered daring to recast them. Daring as in "How dare you recast them!" is still daring. True daring means that not everyone is going to approve.
Could the movie still be bad? Certainly. Absolutely. But if it were then why would Leonard Nimoy be interested? Leonard Nimoy is a notoriously harder sell than William Shatner. Based on pure mathematics, I think ST XI will be at least better than GEN which, in turn, means that it'll be better than NEM and the reaction will definitely not be indifferent the way it was with INS.
Yes only because its been done before... and often with success. You are making a judgment based solely in your own limited imagination.
Sharr
No it isn't. Kirk is a variation on a well-known heroic archetype: he's Flash Gordon/Buck Rogers but with more a touchy-feely emotionally voluable aspect that was influenced by that whole 60s hippie thing Roddenberry was into.
Far from being a manly-man type, Kirk was the John Wayne hero with more of a girly-man aspect, and that's just what people then wanted (and I think they'd respond well to it now) because the stoic Wayne-esque hero is less transparent and therefore less interesting. Plus Spock's there to be the stoic one (and I would be a lot less optimistic about this movie if Spock weren't in it - the contast between Kirk and Spock is at the heart of Trek, maybe you could toss McCoy in there too, but really it's all about the opposition of types than just one character in isolation).
Shatner had his interpretation of the role. The new guy will have another, and will have to avoid some of Shat's more comical mannerisms, but it's well within the capabilities of a talented actor to pull off. Getting an actor who, if possible, looks like Shatner should help a bit.
What the new guy will have going for him: to most of the audience, Kirk will be a new character. They might have seen a TOS episode here and there and they certainly will have heard of the guy, but their impressions of Kirk will be shaped by the new actor, not by Shatner.
Of course he's a timeless character. He's based on a timeless archetype that has been with us in one form or another since ancient times and he's a successful modern variation on that character. The fact that people are still interested in making stories about him demonstrates his timelessness.
The length of the plotline he was originally placed in has nothing whatever to do with whether he is a timeless character. If his mission had been open-ended, would it have changed who he was or his appeal to audiences? Did the fact that we only saw three years suddenly make him unappealing?
DAYAMMM!!
Thanks for reminding me to go register www.baileyisnotkirk.com!!! Beat the rush!!!
Okay this is grasping... if that were true GR would never have considered a Phase II or made "The Motion Picture". There wouldn't have been any movies at all even using this logic.
People who actually understand fiction know characters can and do have lives both before and after the first time we meet them. This is no different.
Sharr
I called it inspired and daring for several reasons given some of the other options:
1. Another TNG cast film with Berman. Apparently, no one at Paramount saw merit in this. Certainly it would've been the safest route. The sentimental route. Give them a chance to go out on top.
2. A mixed-cast TNG-era film. There might be novelty value to it, but that's all. Nothing new here to pull in fans. Rather safe to play some more in the most well-known Trek period.
3. An entirely new time period with an entirely new cast. Kind of daring to go off in a new direction. But there'd also be lot of time and effort needed in introducing new characters and whole new premises AND relaunch Trek with a good two hour story. Apparently, Paramount rejected this idea, too, when it rejected Romulan wars.
So --
Go back to the beginning. The germ of it all. TOS. It takes big brass balls to say that you're not only going to reintroduce Kirk and Spock in their primes, but you think you have a story that will pull it off.
Bring it on, I say.
If it fails, it will be GRAND failure. One for the ages. Hell, it'll cost me only ten bucks (well $40 for the family, and there's popcorn and soda to consider) and two hours of my life. It'll cost Paramount tens of millions of dollars to have been wrong. So, are they being daring? Damn straight. (JJ, you better be right.
)
1. Another TNG cast film with Berman. Apparently, no one at Paramount saw merit in this. Certainly it would've been the safest route. The sentimental route. Give them a chance to go out on top.
2. A mixed-cast TNG-era film. There might be novelty value to it, but that's all. Nothing new here to pull in fans. Rather safe to play some more in the most well-known Trek period.
3. An entirely new time period with an entirely new cast. Kind of daring to go off in a new direction. But there'd also be lot of time and effort needed in introducing new characters and whole new premises AND relaunch Trek with a good two hour story. Apparently, Paramount rejected this idea, too, when it rejected Romulan wars.
So --
Go back to the beginning. The germ of it all. TOS. It takes big brass balls to say that you're not only going to reintroduce Kirk and Spock in their primes, but you think you have a story that will pull it off.
Bring it on, I say.
If it fails, it will be GRAND failure. One for the ages. Hell, it'll cost me only ten bucks (well $40 for the family, and there's popcorn and soda to consider) and two hours of my life. It'll cost Paramount tens of millions of dollars to have been wrong. So, are they being daring? Damn straight. (JJ, you better be right.
)
I actually don't think it's "daring" at all - I think it's the ahem logical thing to do, if they want to take the best shot at resurrecting the Star Trek brand. Maybe Abrams has some daring ideas, but the general outlines - resurrect a brand via known elements - is really playing it safe.
Since I want Trek back, I'm happy to see them playing it safe in a general sense.
Since I want Trek back, I'm happy to see them playing it safe in a general sense.
I don't think the era matters as much as people think. It might help, but the only help an era can really give is to get someone to say "That might be worth a movie ticket".
What matters is whether they bring the A game -- a great movie with a great story. If they did something like this no one will take it seriously. And it wouldn't matter what they do afterward. If they leave the audience thinking "this is the coolest thing I've ever seen" they'll make trek bigger than it's been in 20 years.
What matters is whether they bring the A game -- a great movie with a great story. If they did something like this no one will take it seriously. And it wouldn't matter what they do afterward. If they leave the audience thinking "this is the coolest thing I've ever seen" they'll make trek bigger than it's been in 20 years.
Similar threads
- Locked
