Is Everyone Cool with the Idea of a Recast for Star Trek XI?

[pookha]

Re: Is Everyone Cool with the Idea of a Recast for Star Trek

i just turned fifty and grew up watching star trek on nbc.
i am a big fan and i agree with some of the others that to recast now is very different from say if they had tried to recast back 20 years ago for the movies.

we cant have stories with dee, doohan ect any more so i am fine with the parts now being played by others because i feel there are still stories to be told in the tos time period.

now how well the recasting will work i wont know until i actually get to see it.

some of them i think they have done well and have some conerns with some of the others.

as for the remastered.
some people have trouble with that because it is actually replacing some of the actual show and in their eyes replacing the work of the people who originally created those effects.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Re: Is Everyone Cool with the Idea of a Recast for Star Trek

Huge fan, cool with recasting. They've done a good or acceptable job with most of the recasting and as for the ones I'm skeptical about, I'll go into it with an open mind. Recasting TOS is the single best option for kick-starting Star Trek back into the cultural forefront (nerd division) where it belongs. Maybe I'd rather have a DS9 movie or even a real attempt at Birth of the Federation but I'd really rather have what's best for Star Trek as a whole and this is it.

 

[TigerOfDarkness]

I voted huge fan and accept the idea. Actually, I'm pleased that a recast TOS is being attempted - it's the only way we're likely to see more pre-movie era TOS stories at least until fully-CGI photo-realistic movies are possible.

 

[Lieut. Arex]

Re: Is Everyone Cool with the Idea of a Recast for Star Trek

Huge fan, don't really care. One way or another this will be a reboot of the concept, so while I will go see it and may well enjoy it, it'll be in the way I've viewed the better novels or comics, "Star Trek" but not "really".

 

[igrokbok]

Re: Is Everyone Cool with the Idea of a Recast for Star Trek

Huge fan of STar Trek...and NOT a huge fan of the other shows because they are so radically different from Star Trek in every way. Also, I've never been a fan of remakes, re-imagines or anything of the sort. I didn't like it when Dick Seargent replaced Dick York as Darren in Bewitched. I didn't like it when Pete Duel's character was replaced in Alias Smith and Jones and I didn't like it when Will Smith stepped into the shoes of Robert Conrad as James West. I didn't like Tim Burton's take on Planet of the Apes and I didn't like Jim Varney as Jed Clampet. I didn't like Chrisopher Lloyd as Uncle Martin and I don't like James Cawley as Jim Kirk. There so so many remakes that I didn't like that, if I could get my money back, I'd spend the day and Disney World and have much more fun.

Having said that, I am going to see this movie, then decide. Because I'm a sucker for going to see these remakes of some of my favorite shows...despite the fact that I always come out of the theater dissapointed. But Leonard is in this...and he likes the script, so I have to trust his judgment.

And ironically, it's Nimoy's involvement, as Spock, that will create the most problems. Without him it would just be new people stepping into these roles, for better or worse. But since Nimoy is in it, as Spock, these characters now become the very exact same characters of 1966 Trek. You can't have much of a new "take" on a character by a new actor because he or she will be interacting with Nimoy's Spock, therefore establising the other cast members as Nimoy Spock's Kirk, Bones, Scotty, etc.

The other reason I will go see this is, while I really am tired of bad remakes, I even MORE tired of what they have been churning out under the label of "Star Trek" for the past 15 years. In that regard, the change of behind the scenes personel and the choice to go back to the 23rd century are exciting enough to get me into the theater for yet, another remake...for better or worse.

 

[xortex]

Re: Is Everyone Cool with the Idea of a Recast for Star Trek

I still say they should have did this in 87. I was appalled at the casting and designs for TNG. A bald old Captain, a hideous ship, etc. etc.

 

[Joby]

Re: Is Everyone Cool with the Idea of a Recast for Star Trek

^There would have been lynchings if they did this back in 1987.

 

[The Doctor]

Re: Is Everyone Cool with the Idea of a Recast for Star Trek

I'm actually dissapointed there aren't more vocal dissents to the recasting of Trek. A few PineNotKirk sites would do wonders for this film's publicity. It certainly didn't hurt Casino Royale.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Re: Is Everyone Cool with the Idea of a Recast for Star Trek

Yeah people are being weirdly positive about the whole thing, even enthusiastic about some of the recasting (Quinto and Cross seem to be the fan favorites so far). Is there something in the water?

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Re: Is Everyone Cool with the Idea of a Recast for Star Trek

I have a laundry list of misgivings about this project but, oddly enough, the re-castings don't bug me. Seeing Quinto all eared up was kinda thrilling, actually.

 

[Jack Bauer]

Re: Is Everyone Cool with the Idea of a Recast for Star Trek

xortex said:
I still say they should have did this in 87. I was appalled at the casting and designs for TNG. A bald old Captain, a hideous ship, etc. etc.

The original cast was still alive and kicking and doing movies every few years so there's no way people would've accepted it. Harve Bennet's Starfleet Academy idea pissed off large segments of fandom. A recast back then would've gotten a lot of fans pissed off.

 

[xortex]

Re: Is Everyone Cool with the Idea of a Recast for Star Trek

You're right of course. I was grandstanding. If only we didn't have those terrible movies written by the actors, I mean great sci-fi writers.

 

[trevanian]

Re: Is Everyone Cool with the Idea of a Recast for Star Trek

The Stig said:
I'm actually dissapointed there aren't more vocal dissents to the recasting of Trek. A few PineNotKirk sites would do wonders for this film's publicity. It certainly didn't hurt Casino Royale.

What's even worse, the horrendously moronic, pretending-to-be-smart script didn't hurt CR either. Writing Bond as, maturity wise, a 16 yearold (or at most, A Tom Cruise in TOPGUN aged character) was ridiculous, but casting a guy who looked to be in his 40s to be playing this guy is stupid as well. The movie could have just been a bad try if they'd cast one of the director's 20something choices, but instead it becomes the first in a decade of CraigCrap, thanks to an undiscerning public who apparently equates killing spies for their cell phone info to be the pinnacle of the espionage game.

I agreed with the craignotbond folk, but in retrospect, I should have been more concerned with the screenplay; even if CR had been cast correctly, with Clive Owen or Christian Bale or any of a dozen other actors, it would have stunk with that script (I can NOT imagine how bad it must have been before they brought the CRASH guy in to 'fix' it for months.)

 

[ktanner3]

Re: Is Everyone Cool with the Idea of a Recast for Star Trek

What's even worse, the horrendously moronic, pretending-to-be-smart script didn't hurt CR either. Writing Bond as, maturity wise, a 16 yearold (or at most, A Tom Cruise in TOPGUN aged character) was ridiculous, but casting a guy who looked to be in his 40s to be playing this guy is stupid as well. The movie could have just been a bad try if they'd cast one of the director's 20something choices, but instead it becomes the first in a decade of CraigCrap, thanks to an undiscerning public who apparently equates killing spies for their cell phone info to be the pinnacle of the espionage game.

James Bond never was a realistic spy. A guy who drops his name at the drop of a hat,is so well known worldwide that everyone knows his favorite drink and appetite for the ladies,always has the most outlandish gadgets for every situation,knows every countrie's art,philosophy, martial arts as well as fine wines. etc...Sorry, but realistic spy he never was. The movies are succesful because they are a fantasy.

I agreed with the craignotbond folk, but in retrospect, I should have been more concerned with the screenplay; even if CR had been cast correctly, with Clive Owen or Christian Bale or any of a dozen other actors, it would have stunk with that script (I can NOT imagine how bad it must have been before they brought the CRASH guy in to 'fix' it for months.)

To each his own. I feel it was the best Bond movie since goldeneye.And millions at the box office agree with me.

 

[Kegek]

Re: Is Everyone Cool with the Idea of a Recast for Star Trek

Temis the Vorta said:
Yeah people are being weirdly positive about the whole thing, even enthusiastic about some of the recasting (Quinto and Cross seem to be the fan favorites so far).

You mean the recasting picks for Nimoy and Lenard, the two actors generations of fans sneered that the Vulcans-of-the-week on the new shows were pale imitations of?

Okay, that is weird. I can see people going mad for Pine (hypothetically, I know nothing about him), but shouldn't we all be like, 'Nimoy is Spock, and he knows it'?

Bit of casting I'm happiest about is Leonard Nimoy as Spock. He's the one guy I'm pretty sure is right for the part. Hey, I'm a cynic - if the other guys do great, I'll sing their praises, but none till then based on resumes of playing other roles.

Oh, yes, and I'm wholly behind the idea of a recast. As for the results, let me get back to you when I've seen the movie.

 

[trevanian]

Re: Is Everyone Cool with the Idea of a Recast for Star Trek

ktanner3 said:

What's even worse, the horrendously moronic, pretending-to-be-smart script didn't hurt CR either. Writing Bond as, maturity wise, a 16 yearold (or at most, A Tom Cruise in TOPGUN aged character) was ridiculous, but casting a guy who looked to be in his 40s to be playing this guy is stupid as well. The movie could have just been a bad try if they'd cast one of the director's 20something choices, but instead it becomes the first in a decade of CraigCrap, thanks to an undiscerning public who apparently equates killing spies for their cell phone info to be the pinnacle of the espionage game.

James Bond never was a realistic spy. A guy who drops his name at the drop of a hat,is so well known worldwide that everyone knows his favorite drink and appetite for the ladies,always has the most outlandish gadgets for every situation,knows every countrie's art,philosophy, martial arts as well as fine wines. etc...Sorry, but realistic spy he never was. The movies are succesful because they are a fantasy.

Didn't say it was supposed to be realistic, but there is a huge dif between 'exaggerated reality' the DIE HARD credo which also characterizes the best Bond films and buffoonery. Except for the last reel of LICENCE TO KILL and a particularly moronic sight gag at that film's midpoint, that Dalton pic is a good example of what I'm talking about, as is the best Bond, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE.

As to your point about fantasy equaling success ... that may well be, it would be the only explanation for why MOONRAKER and DIE ANOTHER DAY were such enormous hits, given that they are a few points below most Jerry Lewis flicks for intelligence and plotting.

 

[Mentalist]

Re: Is Everyone Cool with the Idea of a Recast for Star Trek

I'm a huge fan and I'm not keen on the idea of a recast. But at the same time I do tink that if everything else is good and the movie is solid I will eventually be able to come to terms with it. Hopefully.


I'm not a Trek elitist really but the idea of a recast worries me. It worries me because I feel there is a lot of potential to lose the sense of immersion that is vital in a movie like this.

Will it be Scotty as played by Simon Pegg or Simon Pegg as Scotty if you get my drift.

I'm just not keen on the premise either. Gene once said that the great thing about Star Trek is that the universe is the limit when it comes to storytelling. It's endless.

Do we need to keep the focus so narrow? Do Kirk and co even need to be revisited?

I'm really not sure how this is all going to work at the moment but I'm definitley open to the chance that is can be done if the passion and talent is there.


We shall see.

 

[misskim86]

Re: Is Everyone Cool with the Idea of a Recast for Star Trek

I think it smells of desperation, but hopefully it will lead to a new tng era show, with a whole new crew and a show that is more than just a alien of the week show

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: Is Everyone Cool with the Idea of a Recast for Star Trek

Mentalist said:
Will it be Scotty as played by Simon Pegg or Simon Pegg as Scotty if you get my drift.

Well yeah, but I wasn't buying James Doohan as Scotty in the last several TOS-based movies. These people became celebrities within the confines of fandom (at least) with well-known foibles of their own, and when I watched Scotty joshing back and forth with Kirk in "Generations" I was thinking "he hates Shatner's guts."

I'm just not keen on the premise either. Gene once said that the great thing about Star Trek is that the universe is the limit when it comes to storytelling. It's endless.

That was posturing on Roddenberry's part. The writers don't go out and explore the Universe or the future and happen upon some brand new idea - their ideas are drawn from the same well of experience and knowledge that they use to write any other kind of story. It's made in a Hollywood basement.

This is why the attempt to populate the modern Trek "universe" with new aliens every few weeks became repetitive and dull. No one was discovering aliens or coming up with new ideas. Just new names and new appliances to glue on the faces of the actors who had to play them.

The only thing that Trek characters ever discover that makes any of the stories memorable is one another.

 

[Franklin]

Re: Is Everyone Cool with the Idea of a Recast for Star Trek

Starship Polaris said:

Mentalist said:
Will it be Scotty as played by Simon Pegg or Simon Pegg as Scotty if you get my drift.

Well yeah, but I wasn't buying James Doohan as Scotty in the last several TOS-based movies. These people became celebrities within the confines of fandom (at least) with well-known foibles of their own, and when I watched Scotty joshing back and forth with Kirk in "Generations" I was thinking "he hates Shatner's guts."

I remember Siskel and Ebert both giving TUC good reviews on their show, but they said they could no longer separate the character from the actor. I think it was Ebert who said as he watched them in this last movie, he began to wonder about them driving to the soundstage for the last time, about them being in makeup, and so on.

Whatever "Star Trek" turns out to be, it was time to do this.

One thing Quinto, Pine, and Urban will have going for them is no one will expect the same chemistry that developed between and among Nimoy, Shatner, and Kelley. The relationship of the characters themselves will be too new to expect that level of familiarity.
I think a story that focuses on a very early time in their relationships actually eases some of the pressure of recasting.