Is a modern-day big screen reboot of TNG inevitable?

[Greg Cox]

Batman, in Suicide Squad.

D'oh! Slaps head.

And the Joker, too, of course.

Me, I was watching the original 1933 version of Mystery of Wax Museum, which was successfully remade in 1953 as House of Wax and will probably be remade again one of these days. (We'll just forget about the Paris Hilton version, okay?)

One wonders: if the internet had existed in 1953, would fans have complained because House of Wax was a remake and not a sequel to the original 1933 film?

Don't laugh. Only twenty years separated the 1933 and 1953 movies, yet today fans complain because the new GHOSTBUSTERS isn't a continuation of a movie from thirty years ago. Or insist that nobody could possibly ever reboot TNG because fans from the nineties wouldn't accept it.

 

[BillJ]

Or insist that nobody could possibly ever reboot TNG because fans from the nineties wouldn't accept it.

I don't know if it is a relatively new phenomenon or not, but fans have an increasingly limited line of what they'll accept from entertainment they like? I know there were some bumps in the road with TNG replacing TOS, but it seemed to fade really quickly for the most part. Seems like the internet has made it possible for people to hang onto their grudges indefinitely.

Obviously, I have my preferences for what I want. To me, "Star Trek" is Kirk and Spock, they are the center of it all. But, I'll be there day one for Discovery and its new cast of characters. I want it to hook me.

 

[lurok]

TNG is my least favourite of the series, but I could actually see them re-rebooting the Trek movie franchise in the future with some form of TNG crew (even if they don't retain specific characters). As others have pointed out, it was basically TOS Phase II as a TV show anyway, so with a bit of retooling can't see why it wouldn't work movie-wise either once Pine, Quinto etc get too old or bored. Among my peers it has more brand recognition and popularity than all the other series too. Now my personal favourites as movies - DS9, VOY and ENT - not a chance in hell. But IF they were going to re-do them I'd much rather they were in a HBO/Netflix/Starz episodic format anyway. Maybe they can do VOY and ENT properly this time

ps: I would have hoped for Carice Van Houten as reboot Crusher. Though I guess they could put a red wig on any candidate.

 

[David Strickhouser]

Again you can move forward without jumping to a new ship or new crew. Using the established characters isn't rehashing or rebooting.

I am afraid I cannot move forward with established TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, or ENT characters if they are not portrayed by the actors that first "established" them.
I suppose this is a failing on my part; I have deep feelings on this situation.
By taking this stance means I would consign those characters to a "shelf" in memory never to be "played with" again.
I fundamentally understand these new actors are professional and can play these roles; but seeing different faces takes me out of the story, even a potentially excellent story.
Believe me, I did try with the 2009 film; however, when Leonard Nimoy as Spock faced a young, tow haired, blue-eyed man with a mole below his right ear as said, "It is good to see you, old friend.", I asked myself, "What? Is he kidding? Is he blind? That man's not the Jim Kirk you knew."
Again, a failing; but a wall I cannot seem to get through.

 

[BillJ]

I am afraid I cannot move forward with established TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, or ENT characters if they are not portrayed by the actors that first "established" them.
I suppose this is a failing on my part; I have deep feelings on this situation.
By taking this stance means I would consign those characters to a "shelf" in memory never to be "played with" again.
I fundamentally understand these new actors are professional and can play these roles; but seeing different faces takes me out of the story, even a potentially excellent story.
Believe me, I did try with the 2009 film; however, when Leonard Nimoy as Spock faced a young, tow haired, blue-eyed man with a mole below his right ear as said, "It is good to see you, old friend.", I asked myself, "What? Is he kidding? Is he blind? That man's not the Jim Kirk you knew."
Again, a failing; but a wall I cannot seem to get through.

I felt the same way for a really, really long time. I just think as I grew older (in my mid-40's now), and saw other characters with multiple interpretations by different actors, I began to get comfortable with the idea. But it wasn't easy with TOS. I had literally grown up with these characters on my TV every single day. Shatner and Nimoy were burned into my brain. Once I saw Star Trek (2009), I knew other actors could do my childhood favorites justice. Watching Pine and Quinto grow into the roles has been a lot of fun.

YMMV.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I am afraid I cannot move forward with established TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, or ENT characters if they are not portrayed by the actors that first "established" them.
I suppose this is a failing on my part; I have deep feelings on this situation.
By taking this stance means I would consign those characters to a "shelf" in memory never to be "played with" again.
I fundamentally understand these new actors are professional and can play these roles; but seeing different faces takes me out of the story, even a potentially excellent story.
Believe me, I did try with the 2009 film; however, when Leonard Nimoy as Spock faced a young, tow haired, blue-eyed man with a mole below his right ear as said, "It is good to see you, old friend.", I asked myself, "What? Is he kidding? Is he blind? That man's not the Jim Kirk you knew."
Again, a failing; but a wall I cannot seem to get through.

Yes it it is. The character is Jim Kirk, not William Shatner. There is no requirement that every actor to play Kirk look like William Shatner. Nowhere in Kirk's character description is there a mention of eye color, hair color or a mole count. If there was then the William Shatner of 1979 would have been rejected for the part. None of the Bonds after Connery should have gotten the part. And that skinny, brown haired Christopher Reeve should have been shown the door before he even read for Superman.

 

[Greg Cox]

I'm old enough to remember Julie Newmar turning into Eartha Kitt on the very same TV show.

And need I mention the two Darrins on BEWITCHED?

After that, a blue-eyed Jim Kirk is nothing.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I'm old enough to remember Julie Newmar turning into Eartha Kitt on the very same TV show.

And need I mention the two Darrins on BEWITCHED?

After that, a blue-eyed Jim Kirk is nothing.

I remember when they switched Hannibal Heyes on Alias Smith and Jones. Alas for a tragic reason.

 

[urbandefault]

I'm old enough to remember Julie Newmar turning into Eartha Kitt on the very same TV show.

And need I mention the two Darrins on BEWITCHED?

After that, a blue-eyed Jim Kirk is nothing.

Barbara Bel Geddes/Donna Reed as Miss Ellie on Dallas, too.

The soaps recast all the time, even for just an episode or three while an actor is indisposed. "The part of So-and-so is temporarily being played by Whatchacallit McSubstitute."

 

[urbandefault]

I remember when they switched Hannibal Heyes on Alias Smith and Jones. Alas for a tragic reason.

And this. Can't believe I forgot that one. I loved Pete Duel as Heyes.

 

[Greg Cox]

Heck, in original 1931 Frankenstein, the doctor's fiancee is played blonde-haired Mae Clarke. In the very next movie, The Bride of Frankenstein, she's played by brunette Valerie Hobson, who looks nothing like Mae Clarke.

And Dracula, of course, went from Bela Lugosi to John Carradine to Lugosi again over the course of the original Universal movies. And the Frankenstein monster was played by Boris Karloff, Lon Chaney Jr., Lugosi, and Glenn Strange in that order.

Some of us got used to the idea of recasting long before Shatner and Pine.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I'm hoping to be recast with Bradley Cooper.

 

[locutus101]

Heck, in original 1931 Frankenstein, the doctor's fiancee is played blonde-haired Mae Clarke. In the very next movie, The Bride of Frankenstein, she's played by brunette Valerie Hobson, who looks nothing like Mae Clarke.

And Dracula, of course, went from Bela Lugosi to John Carradine to Lugosi again over the course of the original Universal movies. And the Frankenstein monster was played by Boris Karloff, Lon Chaney Jr., Lugosi, and Glenn Strange in that order.

Some of us got used to the idea of recasting long before Shatner and Pine.

Well, the book was already close to a hundred years old when the first movie about it was even shot.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Well, the book was already close to a hundred years old when the first movie about it was even shot.

The book Dracula came out in 1897. The Universal film came out in 1931. So quite a bit less than a Century. Other non American films were released in the 1920s. The first stage adaptation came out prior to the book!

 

[locutus101]

The book Dracula came out in 1897. The Universal film came out in 1931. So quite a bit less than a Century. Other non American films were released in the 1920s. The first stage adaptation came out prior to the book!

I was speaking of Frankenstein. Published in 1818 if memory serves.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I was speaking of Frankenstein. Published in 1818 if memory serves.

Hard to make a movie when even photography was in it's infancy. Though Frankenstein was adapted for the stage in 1823.

 

[locutus101]

Hard to make a movie when even photography was in it's infancy. Though Frankenstein was adapted for the stage in 1823.

The thing is that when they made the first Frank. movie, the author was already dead for a long time and couldn't protest that her story was so badly distorted, which maybe explains why that was the case.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The thing is that when they made the first Frank. movie, the author was already dead for a long time and couldn't protest that her story was so badly distorted, which maybe explains why that was the case.

I'm sure the play in 1823 took liberties as well. Most adaptation to a different medium do.

 

[JeffinOakland]

The movie is almost always (99.9% of the time) different from the book.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The movie is almost always (99.9% of the time) different from the book.

Sometimes they're 99% different than the book.