Agreed, and as much as I like Simon Pegg, personally, I just didn't get a strong Scotty vibe from his performance.
Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
Reconizable, yes, but I'm far from convinced that Quinto is this uncanny Nimoy look-alike and I wasn't even a fan of his performance.
Pine and Urban were great in their performances though.
The rest are pretty forgettable. Sulo did nothing, Chekov and Scotty were jokes and Uhura was the token female whose contributions rivaled TOS Uhura.
Well, James Bond aside, the point is that no one version of a character is more "real" than any other. Bela Lugosi's version of Dracula is no more real than Christopher Lee's or Frank Langella's or Gary Oldman's or whomever. (We'll just forget about BLADE: TRINITY, okay?) Ditto for Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan, Zorro, Perry Mason, Nancy Drew, and, yes, James T. Kirk.
No character is off-limits to reinterpretation over time.
No character is off-limits to reinterpretation over time.
True, but it is perfectly reasonable to have a preference of one performer over another. It's even perfectly reasonable to dismiss a performance entirely as you yourself just have with Blade: Trinity.
Oh, absolutely. I was just objecting to the idea, which one bumps into occasionally, that only Shatner can play Kirk or that certain performances are untouchable or irreplaceable. It's the difference between insisting that Shatner is the best Kirk or insisting that he's the only "real" Kirk (whatever that means).
I still remember being shocked to discover, many decades ago, that my youngest brother considered Roger Moore the "real" James Bond, but given that he was seventeen years younger than me, it made sense. Moore was the Bond he had grown up with.
Just wait. Fifteen years from now, fans of a certain age will be insisting that nobody will ever be able to replace Pine as the definitive James T. Kirk!
P.S. To be fair, I'm as guilty of this as anyone else. As a kid, I considered Julie Newmar the one, true Catwoman--and was bitterly disappointed when Lee Meriwether replaced her in the movie!
(I like to think I'm more open-minded now.)
Heh, just wait until Battlestar Galactica finally gets another treatment, and all the inevitable claims of sacrilege for recasting Adama, because EJO is the "Real" Adama (With no mention of Lorne Greene anywhere in sight) Or when they give Starbuck or Boomer a Sex-change and make her a guy
Starbuck a guy? Don't be ridiculous! That would never work.
It all evens out, because Katee Sackhoff is more masculine (in general) than Dirk Benedict was anyway.
There are some who would say that Benedict was "fairer of face" (read: prettier) than Sackhoff, although I'm not one of them.
It is possible to enjoy different actors playing the same character, and have a favorite, and know in your head there is only one person who truly personifies the character. I was in high school when the original Star Trek was first playing on NBC. I was reading three different scifi magazines at the time, and buying dozens of those Ace Doubles. I wonder how many of yall are old enough to remember those Ace Doubles?
But in any case, I get yalls point, and I understand it. Pine does a nice job, his character is much different from Shatner's Kirk, and it just doesn't seem like Kirk to me. But, it's Star Trek, and it's spaceships in outer space which is what I like.
But in any case, I get yalls point, and I understand it. Pine does a nice job, his character is much different from Shatner's Kirk, and it just doesn't seem like Kirk to me. But, it's Star Trek, and it's spaceships in outer space which is what I like.
Those are a little before my time, but I remember seeing them around, possibly in libraries and used bookstores. And Tor did a line of Tor Doubles back in the early nineties.
A brief digression: Tor recently revived the Doubles format to publish paired sf novellas by Walter Mosely. By sheer coincidence, I just happened to write the cover copy for next Double a few days ago . . .
Last edited:
Considering that the polytheism of the humans -versus- the monotheism of the Cylons was a recurring theme throughout the four season run of the show, I'm not surprised that theism in general played a part in the series finale.
My apologies if someone brought this up earlier in this 47 page thread, but to people who are bothered by the fact that these are alternate universe/timeline versions of the crew - would it have made a difference to you if they had just done a straight-up prequel? Like, set it in the prime universe, just doing a story we never saw before?
You couldn't do the same story at all. You couldn't blow up Vulcan, you couldn't kill Amanda and any danger you put the characters in wouldn't matter because you've already seen how their futures play out.
Either hard or soft, it had to be a reboot if they were going to do a Kirk/Spock origin.
Would it have to be a reboot if they just showed the original way prime Spock and Kirk met? I don't believe we've ever seen that on screen, and with careful plotting, surely they could've made use of whatever references have been made to it in existing media.
And would have left the "new" STAR TREK movies in the middle of the continuity minefield for every movie to come. "Wait? Why isn't Kirk serving on the Reliant now? Why isn't he dating Janice Lester . . . or Carol Marcus . . . or Ruth . . . ? What about the gas monster from 'Obsession'? Where does Kodos the Executioner fit in? Why is Chekov on the bridge already? Where is Dr. Piper? And Robert April?"
Like I said before, better to tear the "Canon" bandaid off in one clean swoop, rather than get nitpicked to death, continuity-wise, for the next ten years . . . .
For those eager for a prequel Kirk-meets-Spock film set in the TOS continuity and who don't mind awful acting, there's this fan film coming this year:
[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TL43D6RJUg[/YT]
[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TL43D6RJUg[/YT]
One could have easily avoided all that by not doing a TOS remake at all to begin with.
Similar threads
