Hypothetical situation ...

Let's say Paramount has decided to bring the primary timeline Trek back. They've decided to go with a TV series showing Kirk's second 5YM. Basically the years between TMP and TWOK. Who would you cast as our heroes?

The Abramsverse actors are out, they're committed to the movies and in any case we want to keep the two timelines separate by using two entirely different casts.

So who could you see as Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty and the rest?

Let's have some fun with this.

 

I think the movie cast was so well-chosen, for the most part, that it's hard to think of good alternatives. Also, if you're going with a new cast anyway, why go back to the old continuity? That would be rather limiting, since we already know the characters' future.

However, if we're talking post-TMP, that makes them at least 15 years older than they are in the new movie, so Gary Sinise as McCoy definitely springs to mind. Although the older cast would seem to rule out Paul McGillion as Scotty, the other obvious suggestion.

 

My personal reason is that I hate NuTrek. Although I like some of the cast. Particularly Pine, Quinto, and Urban.

For the sake of argument though, let's assume that the studio recognizes that there are some follks who weren't happy with the Abramsverse, and want to try and tap into that market. But they don't want to spend "major action movie" levels of money doing it, or create a competing series of movies. So they've decided to go to the small screen and good quality CGI to do it.

I agree with you about Gary Sinse. I'm not sure about Paul McGillion, he's 41 now, a little gray in his hair and I could buy him as an early 50s Scotty.

Any ideas about Kirk and Spock? We're looking for around 40 years old. Sulu and Uhura should look early 30s while Chekov should be mid 20s. Figure Chapel for mid to late 30s.

 

^Whether you liked the movie or not, the simple logic stands: making a new series about the Prime-universe Kirk, Spock, etc. would be unfairly restrictive on the storytellers because their future is already dictated. That's why Abrams decided on a new timeline in the first place -- because of the creative freedom. It stands to reason that the creators of a new TV version of TOS would do the same, whether by following the Abrams timeline, creating their own independent timeline, or just doing a full-on reboot, a separate continuity without the pretense of branching off the old one.

And if you're recasting the roles anyway, which is the premise of this thread, then what difference does it make which timeline or reality the show is in?

 

Since this is a fantasy thread...

Kirk: Ben Browder
Spock: John Hamm
McCoy: Josh Holloway
Scotty: Ricky Gervais
Sulu: Daniel Dae Kim

 

Christopher, in this situation, for the purposes of the scenario that I've described, this is simply the way things stand. If that's not to your taste then don't participate.

Please, I have no desire to get into an argument with you about it. Nor do I wish to get into an Old Trek/New Trek discussion. You asked me a question that I now realize I shouldn't have answered. I didn't want to open this can of worms. I'm just trying to have a little fun with the idea of a recast here. So please, let it be. Thank you.

 

Interesting choices, Kelso. Although I'd be more inclined to swap Browder and Hamm. I've always seen Spock as about 5 or 10 years older than Kirk.

 

Vulcans age slower...

I can't get behind the swap, I can't see Ben Browder as Spock at all.

Shouldn't it be more of a problem with Holloway/Browder? I always thought of Kirk and Spock as about the same age, but McCoy has to be a few years older than Kirk, not younger.

 

Yeah, technically my "big three" are the wrong ages to play those roles together. However... I don't care. They'd be marvelous.

It wouldn't matter anyway, Browder hasn't aged since 1995.

 

I'm amused, because that's basically my position too -- I want this thread to be about casting and was concerned that it might end up being just an excuse for another Abrams-bashing thread. So since neither of us wants to argue about it, that means we can both let it drop.

But I still think you're missing my point. My point is not about Old Trek vs. New Trek. It's about the storytelling logic that would most likely apply to a new TOS series even if the Abrams movie had never existed. So my point shouldn't open that "can of worms" at all, because it's really an independent issue. So if you think my intent was to debate the merits of the Abrams film, then you've misunderstood me.

 

Don Cheadle as M'Benga.

My work here is done!

You know now I want to see that, considering it's about as far from John Crichton as you could possibly get while staying in this sci-fi business thing.

The casting of Browder is interesting as I would never have pegged him as Kirk per the Abrams film; but Chris Pine's Kirk made me think of Crichton more readily then Shatner came to mind.

 

I'd love to see the second 5-year mission. I agree with Christopher up to a point but there are many novels set in TOS era that are popular and well-liked and I've watched all the movies on multiple occasions even though I know the outcomes. If the story is good, I don't think I'd be overly concerned that I know the future of the main characters. The key to making it exciting would be to have some recurring third-tier characters (like in BSG or B5) who we see enough to care about but whose fates are not written in stone.

Best hope for this to happen would be in animated form but it would be fun to think about a live action version.

 

^But the issue isn't what the fanbase (or a certain segment of it) would like, it's what would work best for the needs of a television series and give its creators the most freedom. It's hard to come up with a season's worth of new stories every year, and anything that restricts that process is a problem. If such a series were bound by the continuity of the movies, then far too many otherwise worthwhile pitches would have to be rejected on the grounds of "We can't do that because it would contradict such-and-such from the nth movie."

Look at just about any TV series based on a movie, and you'll see they make changes to its continuity and premise to suit the needs of the series. Look at most any prequel series and you'll see it retcons and updates all sorts of things. Remember all the continuity issues people complained about in Enterprise? At least that show dealt with an unseen era and characters whose futures were undetermined. Imagine how much worse the continuity complaints would be in a series about Kirk and his crew in the era and continuity of TMP/TWOK. Unless it were explicitly in a distinct continuity from the start.

 

If they developed stories around the alien races featured in the Phase II background they'd have dozens of potential stories that have never been touched upon. Instead of Vulcans, Klingons, and Romulans, do Andorians, Deltans, Arcturians, Beletgeusians, Rhaandarites, Orions, Saurians, Rigellians, K'Normians, Caitians, Edoans, etc. Babylon 5 milked 5 years out of fewer races than that. Flesh our Chapel, Rand, Uhura, Sulu, and Chekov. Saavik's origin story could be told properly. McCoy's daughter could finally feature and contradict all the contradictory non-canon stuff...

 

But would the larger audience that a TV show needs to succeed be interested in a show that marginalizes Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and Scotty and focuses only on minor characters? Fans tend to forget that what interests them isn't necessarily what's going to interest the broader public. Those kinds of side stories can work for novels, which can succeed with a much, much smaller audience base, but a commercial television show needs more general appeal. This is just the way the business works. The fantasy of a new show filling in the TOS movie era is just that, a fantasy. So we should just talk about fantasy casting rather than trying to argue that something like this has any chance of actually happening.

 

I will admit that I always preferred shows that featured varied landing parties over just Kirk and Spock. While I love those characters, there are only so many times you can rehash the same material. Shows like Buffy have a central character and a roughly equal supporting cast plus regular recurring guest stars. DS9 managed to pull this off too. I always thought one weakness of Voyager and Enterprise was their failure to strengthen many members of the supporting cast and/or their weak cast of tertiery characters. Instead of sending geologist Smith a fiesty red-head with strong views about alien colonisation, we get Harry Kim, who studied one semester of geology in college but he didn't inhale.

NuBSG went a different way, with a core of central characters, a bunch of high profile secondary, and a slew of recurring tertiery characters who were a step above random guest stars so you had time to feel for them before they got offed. The advantage here is that if a teriery character is popular or if a gap opens up in one of the ranks above, you can elevate them (like O'Brien) instead of bringing in a new replacement (like the awkward change over between Kes and 7of9 or the way that replacing the security chief with a bartender destroyed any hope of gender equality in the female dynamic).

So, I'm not suggesting marginalising Kirk and Spock per se. What I'm saying is that if you make the supporting cast interesting and detailed, then fans would warm to them and not be so obsessed with Kirk and Spock all the time. Compare how 7of9's coverage overtook many of the longer established characters. Characters need depth and flaws and none of the TOS supporting cast was given much of a chance to be like that. Modern story-telling is more sophisticated.

 

^There's no point in arguing this further, because we've dragged the thread off-topic enough. The question is, who would you like to see playing the TOS cast in the imaginary scenario of a TV remake? Whether that scenario could actually work is a different topic altogether.

The problem I'm having with the casting question is that the hypothetical premise is a show set in the post-TMP era, in which most of the cast would be in their 40s or late 30s. So an idea like, say, Kristen Bell as Rand runs up against the fact that she's too young. Although it works for Daniel Dae Kim as Sulu. Hmm, Angela Bassett as Uhura?

 

Selling a show with a cast of actors pushing or past 40 might be a hard sell. ( at least we know the CW will pass. )

 

Just to indulge my compulsive list-making tendencies, here are the ages of the actors and characters at the time of ST:TMP (1979 in reality, 2273 in fiction):

Shatner: 48; Kirk: 40
Nimoy: 48; Spock: 41 by Memory Alpha, 43 by Okudachron
Kelley: 59; McCoy: 46
Doohan: 59; Scott: 51
Takei: 42; Sulu: 36 or so
Nichols: 46; Uhura: upper 30s
Koenig: 43; Chekov: 28
Barrett: 47; Chapel: near 40?
Whitney: 49; Rand: 41

Of course, the discrepancies come from the fact that TMP was made 10 years after the series ended but set only 4-5 years later. Plus there's the fact that during TOS, Koenig was 9 years older than Chekov.

So anyway, for this hypothetical movie-era series, we're looking for fortyish actors for Kirk, Spock, Chapel, and Rand; fiftyish types for McCoy and Scott; upper thirties to fortyish for Uhura and Sulu, and upper twenties for Chekov. Does that help narrow down anyone's casting ideas?

 

KIRK-Chris O'Donnell
SPOCK-Eli Roth
MCCOY-Gary Sinise
SCOTTY-Gregor Fisher
SULU-James Kyson Lee
UHURA-Tempestt Bledsoe
CHEKOV-Enver Gjokaj