The original crew lasted 15 years. 3 years on the TV show and 12 years doing movies (TMP->TUC). If the new crew do all of the three movies in their contract, that alone will take about 9 years.
Can this new crew last as long as the original crew?
- Thread starter Phaserman
- Start date
The original crew lasted 15 years. 3 years on the TV show and 12 years doing movies (TMP->TUC). If the new crew do all of the three movies in their contract, that alone will take about 9 years.
I know plenty of Adam West 60s TV "Batman" fans who said they'd never accept the 1989 film with Michael Keaton.
They did.
Last edited:
I became a ST fan in December 1979 due to TMP. I was told by many fans I met over the next decade that TMP was not "true Star Trek" and, because I hadn't "lived and breathed and bled" ST since the 60s just like them, I'd never know what it was like to be a "true fan". Many of those people walked away from ST fandom in the early 80s. So even "in spirit' wasn't enough for them to accept me, or TMP.
That's "Keaton".
I'm all for the James-Bondification of the original characters. It's worked for Superman and Batman - why not Captain Kirk? And, frankly, I'm not too concerned with canon. I want a new reboot of the original formula, but let them go on and have all kinds of adventures consistent within their own frame of reference. Just maintain all the basic elements, the 'wagon train to the stars' and Roddenberry's humanistic vision.
I agree wholeheartedly. I also suspect that, despite the proclaimed "total separation" between CBS-TV and PPC, that we're talking about a prime-time, major-network TV series. With, as you said, occasional guest-appearances by Kirk, Spock, and the posse...
Logical fallacy there. I don't know of ANYONE who complained about Keaton based upon him not being like Adam West. The people who complained about Keaton were complaining because he wasn't like BATMAN (in the comics). But then again, neither was West. West's "Batman" was a total spoof, so it was easier to keep the two totally separated.
The first real "faithful to the comics presentation" of Batman was "Batman Begins." This is faithful according to the really old books (the 1930s/1940s stuff), as well as to the more recent stuff from about 1970 (the Denny O'Neill years) forward. Batman as a driven, somewhat antisocial guy whose whole method of operation is FEAR... but who uses it to terrify the daylights out of society's predators. Batman works best set in the real world, because he's so "out there." In Burton's vision, he "fit in." Batman should NEVER "fit in." That's part of why he's terrifying.
I could be wrong and there MIGHT have been a few folks complaining about the Burton "Batman" not being in grey leotards and dancing the Batusi... but I never heard anyone. The people who complained, complained because they thought it would be TOO MUCH like the 1960s show... silly and campy, rather than dark and "real." As it was, we got the "dark" bit but didn't get the "real" bit 'til Nolen and Bale came along.
So I lied?
There were plenty of letters to editors that reflected the opinions of people I met through the Batman club I ran. Some fans trusted the promised darker directions. Some were bewildered at the casting of Keaton, while others thought it was a clever move: casting a comic actor in a darker role. There were even people campaigning to cast Adam West instead. Including Adam West, IIRC.
How is my experience a logical fallacy? It was an observation, and I felt it contributed to the discussion.
number6
Vice Admiral
So I lied?
There were plenty of letters to editors that reflected the opinions of people I met through the Batman club I ran. Some fans trusted the promised darker directions. Some were bewildered at the casting of Keaton, while others thought it was a clever move: casting a comic actor in a darker role. There were even people campaigning to cast Adam West instead. Including Adam West, IIRC.
How is my experience a logical fallacy? It was an observation, and I felt it contributed to the discussion.
You're not alone there. I heard the same complaints when Keaton's casting was first announced. I also heard about fans wanting Adam West. This I heard from friends and people I met at Trek conventions at the time.
Well, here's what I was trying to say:
So I lied?
There were plenty of letters to editors that reflected the opinions of people I met through the Batman club I ran. Some fans trusted the promised darker directions. Some were bewildered at the casting of Keaton, while others thought it was a clever move: casting a comic actor in a darker role. There were even people campaigning to cast Adam West instead. Including Adam West, IIRC.
How is my experience a logical fallacy? It was an observation, and I felt it contributed to the discussion.
You're not alone there. I heard the same complaints when Keaton's casting was first announced. I also heard about fans wanting Adam West. This I heard from friends and people I met at Trek conventions at the time.
1) Lots of people complained about Keaton as Batman.
2) Most of the complainers were hardcore Batman fans.
3) Most hardcore Batman fans think of Batman as the comic version, who is quite dark (borderline psychotic) rather than the campy, mocking version seen in the 60s TV show.
I never heard of anyone complaining about it not being Adam West. Including Adam West. I do remember seeing stuff from him where he complained that the old show he did wasn't what he'd hoped it to be, and he wished he could have done a "serious" Batman as opposed to the spoof version that he ended up doing. I think that, back in the 60s, he might have been able to pull off a "realistic" Dark Knight portrayal... but I don't think he was ever really serious about stepping into the role in the late 80s, more than twenty years later, was he?
The reason I said "logical fallacy" is that I believed (and really still believe) that the argument made really falls down when you lose #3 from the above list. It's not the hardcore fans who think of the Adam West era... that's mainly the folks writing for TV Guide.
The reason that, in particular, the third and fourth "Batman" movies of that era failed so miserably was because the people making them tried to do "darker parodies" of a show that was really a parody in the first place. And the reason that "Batman Begins" was so successful was that instead of trying to do yet another parody of a parody of a parody, it went back to the source material.
I never really had a major problem with Keaton... he has a dangerous quality that I thought would work. (I did have a massive problem with Nicholson, and pretty much the whole rest of the cast for that matter, but not with Keaton.)
But most of the objections I heard were about Keaton's miscasting, about him not being "right" for Batman. And it was only in poorly-written TV Guide articles where I saw this "interpreted" as being "because he's not enough like West."
He was, then, recognized as a comedic actor, almost exclusively. So for those who wanted the show to be a spoof, a campy flick (in the vein of "Johnny Dangerously" or "Men in Tights" or whatever), they generally LIKED the idea. It was those who wanted it to be dark and realistic who didn't like the idea... because they assumed he was going to play it for laughs.
It ended up being Nicholson and everyone else who played it for laughs, and who mocked the source material. Keaton treated it seriously.
FYI.. re: Nicholson, I disliked his "Joker" because it was a "darker spoof" of the Caesar Romero version. So far, I'm liking the Ledger portrayal, though... the Joker is not supposed to be FUNNY (except to himself, I s'pose).
I wasn't calling anyone a liar... I was saying that you were making a mistake.
Okay, I'll grant that maybe you met a FEW folks out there who were dedicated to an "Adam West/Burt Ward revival," but I doubt that there were enough of them to make a blip on the radar. Certainly not remotely enough to cause the "uproar" that the Keaton casting decision caused.
So when you stated that people were upset about Keaton's casting because he wasn't like West... I really do think that's a false statement. Not a LIE... a misinterpretation or misunderstanding or just plain mistake. I can't imagine more than a HANDFUL of people throughout the world wanting the 60s version back... other than the folks who did the third and forth movies (which were abortions!).
I have my doubts, all the cast/crew have been pretty damn good but TOS was lightening in a bottle. This is the time though to be all Glass Half Full.
Trek will be with us till the end of western civilization.
Is that like peroxide?
D'Ohh you got me! Hello...spell check!
