Has Paramount made a big mistake?

[Ssosmcin]

James Bond and Batman are iconic pop culture characters that are larger than the actors that play them, while Don Adams IS Maxwell Smart, Don Johnson IS Sonny Crockett. So the question is - are the characters of Kirk and Spock like Bond and Batman, or are they more like Crocket and Maxwell Smart?

Honestly, if you're going to compare apples to apples, then Kirk and Spock are like Crockett and Maxwell Smart.

Bond is a literary character who was created and physically described by a particular author. The actors simply portrayed a pre-existing character, same with Batman. He's been played by different actors from day one, like Tarzan and Sherlock Holmes. People will accept them based on whether or not the actor "makes a good Bond" or "is a great Batman." These actors are playing characters pre-made and work to fit the personalities.

Kirk and Spock (and therefore Crockett & Smart) were created by the actors. The characters, because of the hectic schedules of filming, wound up basing much of the personalities on the actors. James Kirk WAS William Shatner, because he brought everything we saw to the role. Sure, he was created on the page by writers, but by the time we saw the finished product, it was delivered and represented by the actor. It is a much stronger image, because a literary character is formed in the pages of the book but also in the mind of the reader. Different readers will conjure up different images. However, Shatner was ON TV. We saw exactly what he looked like, what he sounded like, how he walked, talked, laughed, ran, etc. No imagination was needed on our part. In order to be true to the character, the actor would have to be playing a young Bill Shatner. Shatner wasn't "version of" the character, he was the actual character.

Instead of comparing Kirk (or whomever) to other literary characters, you should compare Shatner to an AUTHOR who creates the character. Do you like Bond novels written by the authors after Ian Fleming? Does Bond sound the same? Is his character in line with Fleming's version or is it different? And do you like those differences or not? It's up to the individual.

Nobody but the original actors will bring all of the things we loved to the characters. That's fact, because every actor is different and the actors created the characters. Chris Pine might make a "good Kirk", but he will never be the Kirk we knew. He will be "New Kirk" or "Chris Pine's Kirk."

Other people can play the characters, but they are not in the same category as the Bond or other literary / print characters. Over the decades, at least seven people have played Superman in live action productions. There have been three David/Bruce Banners, eight Batmen and so on. But in all of the years from 1966 until 2009 there has only been one James Kirk, one Spock, and so on (I do not count the New Voyages fan flicks - sorry).

They new actors can be accepted, absolutely. But whether or not the Star Trek characters should be considered timeless classic creations to be reinterpereted over the decades is something else.

 

[Gary7]

James Cawley has done a very impressive job of bringing believable Star Trek fan fiction to life. Greg Schnitzer and others have worked tirelessly to recreate the sets, props, and costumes so as to be indistinguishable from the originals. So you can appreciate how dedicated Cawley is to the original spirit of the series.

Why do I bring this up? Well, Cawley had the incredible priviledge of meeting Abrams and spending quite a bit of time with him, including sitting beside him on the set during filming of the movie. At first he was taken aback by the differences he witnessed, particularly of the bridge. But after all was said and done, he walked away extremely impressed, not only with the tasteful upgrades to the look of sets, props, and uniforms, but to the acting, directing, and production values.

If someone like Cawley is blown away by what's forthcoming with ST:XI, I have to believe that this is going to be one helluva movie, no matter when it comes out.



One other thing... regarding portrayal of the characters. Remember that with old movies remade many decades later, you have new actors with their own interpretations. And many of them have been very good, enough to be embraced by the public to make for financial successes. I'll admit that it's harder to stand up to a TV series that has become legendary, and not invite criticism on character interpretations... but there comes a time when a new generation will rise to the occasion and reenact roles. They will always be different. You have to expect it, actually. But this is all well and good as long as the "spirit" of the character is kept intact. Frankly, I'm looking forward to some fresh interpretations.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Bond is a literary character who was created and physically described by a particular author. The actors simply portrayed a pre-existing character, same with Batman. He's been played by different actors from day one, like Tarzan and Sherlock Holmes.

Not to me. That argument has no relevance in my case. I'm a child of the 1960s and 1970s and the first Bond I ever heard of was Sean Connery's. I later discovered that Bond existed in novels, but to this day I've never read one of them. In my mind Sean Connery created James Bond with his portrayal. The literary version could not even exist as far as I'm concerned. And even though Sean Connery's version of Bond was the only Bond I ever knew, it didn't bother me too much when Lazenby and Moore took over.

I bet there are many people such as myself who have absolutely no idea what the literary James Bond is like and the first Bond they ever knew was Sean Connery.

It just doesn't compute with me how some people can't seem to separate an actor from a character. Sure, William Shatner protrayed James Kirk in the manner that we are all familiar with, but why in the world does that mean that no body else could possibly do the character justice?

To me it's simple. James Kirk is just a fictional screen character. William Shatner is an actor who partrayed him. Chris Pine is another actor who will portray him. Am I saying that any actor could be a believable Kirk? No -- I'm not saying that. However, what I am saying is that it is NOT the case that NO OTHER actor besides Shatner could possibly play a believable Kirk.

 

[miraclefan]

From all the buzz, I think Paramount did a pretty good job releasing this movie in may!

 

[trevanian]

Bond is a literary character who was created and physically described by a particular author. The actors simply portrayed a pre-existing character,

That's a gross oversimplification, one that does a disservice to at least one of the actors and gives way too much credit to at least one of the others.

Whether you think the literary Bond is cardboard or interesting, you do have to see that there are different parts (or if cardboard2d, different sides) to him. If you've read the books, it is easy to see Dalton took a lot from the first and also from the last few, when Bond is his most conflicted and interesting. I think Brosnan also takes something from the novels, but it is from when Bond is least interesting, and when Brosnan pushes to go beyond, it doesn't work, because the writing for Brosnan was absolutely miserable outside of GOLDENEYE.

Moore took a couple paragraphs from GOLDFINGER and based his take entirely on that, though for my money that is maybe 5% of his performance, most of the rest being ludicrous smirking buffoonery. Even when he didn't have writing better suited to a Burt Reynolds flick, Moore still dragged the films down to that level; it is hard to see him as interpreting Fleming at all, he is just offering his shtick.

Connery read Fleming, but his Bond is his own instincts and charisma guided by the absolute genius of original Bond director Terence Young. All of that completely overwrites Fleming (plus the early scripts by Maibaum actually enhance the novels.)

I'm not going to even mention Craig, because it doesn't matter whether he read Fleming or not, he simply doesn't belong in the role. It is the same as casting DeNiro as Bond, you need more than acting talent, you need a certain look, and Craig is utterly and completely wrong (though amazingly almost watchable in QUANTUM OF SOLACE, something I attribute to Marc Forster's alchemy act: transforming the aftermath of that schizophrenic turdfest CASINO ROYALE into a very watchable little action pic last year.)

So this isn't really about actors interpretting a character created in novels, it is about actors playing what is in the script and in their own screen persona.

 

[USS Renegade]

One big question is - will fans and non-fans alike be able to accept new actors playing iconic characters. I believe this film will be a decent standalone sci-fi action flick, but will it be a Casino Royale / Batman Begins type film, in that it relaunches a franchise; or will it be more like Miami Vice and Get Smart, which were decent enough movies, but were more a nostalgic nod to an old TV series, and little more...

James Bond and Batman are iconic pop culture characters that are larger than the actors that play them, while Don Adams IS Maxwell Smart, Don Johnson IS Sonny Crockett. So the question is - are the characters of Kirk and Spock like Bond and Batman, or are they more like Crocket and Maxwell Smart?

For me, Kirk and Spock are bigger than Nimoy and Shatner. Bill Shatner is in his 70's. Jim Kirk kicks ass. Shatner is too old to Kirk anymore.

Everyone should be used to role switches by now, with all the remakes that have been done. Besides, I don't want to be in any camp labeled a purist. The purists died convinced the earth was flat. The purists scoffed at horseless carriages and died riding animals. The purists said "talking pictures" were a vulgar fad. Being a purist is being destined to go to your grave convinced the people who are right are wrong. I'll pass on that, thanks.

I have said it before and I'll say it again, I have seen Superman re-booted TWICE, and he had already been rebooted before I was born. Take the fact that Star Trek lasted as long as it did as a compliment. I could whine that Trek is a changin' and refuse to watch the movie, but instead I'm gonna enjoy watching James Kirk kicking ass on the big screen again! Booyah!

 

[USS Renegade]

That's what I am worried about as well. Personally, i think the movie is a mistake because I dont have enough faith that the general audience likes trek enough to go see this remake. That said, it does seem as if this movie is finally getting the studio backing that trek deserves, so hopefully that will change things. Time will tell I suppose. At the very least, I will be able to go into theaters and watch trek one last time.

The general audience doesn't HAVE to like Trek. The general audience likes spaceship battles and kicking ass in space!

The Trekkies have more to do with the success of the film than most people realize. Trekkies doomed Nemesis to lose out to Maid in Manhattan on it's opening week. Now, don't get me wrong, I liked Nemesis, sort of. It was bad Trek but fun Sci-Fi. It was still good to see the TNG crew again. But here is what doomed it. We hated Berman/Braga. ALOT! We hated them for making Voyager crap, instead of fulfilling it's potential to be the best Trek show EVER. We hated Enterprise. We were full of hate for Trek at that time.

I'm an obvious Trekkie. I have a Tribble. And when people who knew I was a Trekkie asked if I was hyped about Nemesis, they got a tirade on how little faith I had in the producers of Trek. And then they said, "Um, I guess I'm gonna wait for it to come out on DVD and rent it then." I caused atleast 6 people to not go see it. Not that that was my intention, but when they asked, I answered, and they decided to skip it. I mean, how many people DIDN'T go see it because a dedicated Trekkie they knew wasn't even enthused about it? And most of these people probably would have liked it, not being as deep into Trek as we are.

But I don't think even the nay-sayers will doom this one. It looks like action packed awesomeness wrapped up in a spaceship. A new Kirk too? Yeah, it will get people's curiousity up and most will enjoy it, I think. It will do well.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

The general audience doesn't HAVE to like Trek. The general audience likes spaceship battles and kicking ass in space!

I disagree with the specific points you make, but agree with the overall point you're making.

The general audience wants good entertainment. They don't care if it's "Star Trek" or not, as long as it's good entertainment. (I question whether "spaceship battles" and "kicking ass in space" make for good entertainment... there are plenty of examples of absolute crapfests which relied on that flawed assumption.)

The Trekkies have more to do with the success of the film than most people realize. Trekkies doomed Nemesis to lose out to Maid in Manhattan on it's opening week.

Oh, c'mon... audiences wanted to see J-Lo's butt more than they wanted to see Marina Sirtis's butt... I think that sums up the extent of most of THOSE decisions, don't you?

Now, don't get me wrong, I liked Nemesis, sort of. It was bad Trek but fun Sci-Fi. It was still good to see the TNG crew again.

I agree. It was a deeply flawed movie, but I, personally, enjoyed it FAR more than, say, "Insurrection" or a great many episodes of TNG for that matter. I put it in the middle as far as Trek films go, and well above the average Trek TV episode. Even with its rather significant flaws and defects.

But here is what doomed it. We hated Berman/Braga. ALOT! We hated them for making Voyager crap, instead of fulfilling it's potential to be the best Trek show EVER. We hated Enterprise. We were full of hate for Trek at that time.

Not sure I entirely buy that, though it certainly didn't HELP.

Rather... what you had (in THIS case) was undeniably "Trek Overload" among audiences. There was nothing SPECIAL about that movie. The airwaves were just chock-full of tons of Trek, and you could flip through the cable on any given night and see these same characters on two or three channels.

SO... audiences... GENERAL audiences... really didn't care. At all.

And that, combined with the fact that "Trek fans" were all up in arms about it being "bad" just pushed them over the edge into the "don't care, don't want to pay to see it, don't want to be associated with these losers" realm.

It was a very average movie. And the reason it did below-average box-office is largely because of those two things... "media overload" and "arrogant dorky fans up in arms." Yeah... exactly the things that Berman and Co. were saying. They were right.

Doesn't change the fact that Berman and team really did drive Trek into the ground with formulaic storytelling and lack of innovation in look or "feel" of the shows, along with just going to the well WAAAAY too often, and not really "getting" what audiences (fan and non-fan alike) really wanted from their entertainment.

Nemesis, and Enterprise, both suffered from this... but neither were nearly as bad as some of the more arrogant/dorky "fans" would like to present them as.

But I don't think even the nay-sayers will doom this one. It looks like action packed awesomeness wrapped up in a spaceship. A new Kirk too? Yeah, it will get people's curiousity up and most will enjoy it, I think. It will do well.

I suspect that this flick will, in the end, do pretty decent box-office. It won't be the "blockbuster" the studio is hoping for, nor will it "create a whole new era of fandom" (as translated into studio-speak as "people willing and able to buy whatever licensed crap we put out") but it'll get fairly full theaters for several weeks and a few more weeks of half-full ones... enough to make back its budget and provide sufficient profit to convince the studio that it's not "Star Trek" that's dead, just the old, stale approach to Star Trek.

The big issue, with fandom, is that what we're seeing now is an all-new approach to it (complete with heavy revisionist elements) rather than what many of us hoped for, an all-new approach to it (without flushing the stuff we like which came before).

I liked the original storyline I'd been made aware of, didn't like some of the stuff I learned about later, and now that I've learned a bit more, I see how the original ideas and the later stuff fit together. But generally, I've never had major heartburn with any version of the story I've seen, so far. And with the first part of the story already being told (albeit in inked form rather than film), I'm much more positive about the overall story again, since I can see how it all fits together.

I'm NOT happy with the look changes... nor with the rationale behind them. But... as I say, over and over and over... that's "set dressing," not central to the storytelling itself. And we all know that general audiences won't care about that unless it just looks stupid (which is my MAIN criticism of many of the interior set design choices) and brings them out of their ability to ignore the set-dressing and pay attention to the story.