That these actors got to be a part of a franchise with their first movie while all the others had to go through either a 3 or 7 year run on TV before they hit the silver screen?
Discuss !
Discuss !
That these actors got to be a part of a franchise with their first movie while all the others had to go through either a 3 or 7 year run on TV before they hit the silver screen?
Discuss !
They got the gig. Seems fair enough to me.
That's one good point.Since when is life ever fair?
...there is no 3- or 7-year TV run in the offing. CBS-Paramount Television is not interested in making or airing a new Star Trek series at this time. Paramount Pictures -- for all practical purposes a separate entity -- is interested in making and putting on the big screens a movie (and is doing so now) so that's what we're getting.That these actors got to be a part of a franchise with their first movie while all the others had to go through either a 3 or 7 year run on TV before they hit the silver screen?
I'm really not sure what there is to discuss. At this point, the very same question has been asked and answered again and again, and the answer continues to be exactly the same: we're not going to get a series (unless the animated one somehow comes back from its current limbo); we are getting a movie. Debating whether or not that's fair is kind of an empty exercise.Discuss !
You are aware that just about all of these actors already have at least a few films under their belts? I don't think this is anyone's "first movie".That these actors got to be a part of a franchise with their first movie
I think what is trying to say is that instead of having a series they get to start in the star trek universe on the silver screen. Where as Picard and friends, and Kirk and friends had to deal with being on TV before getting to the silver screen. I think the problem with the argument is that TV actors seem less willing these days to go from TV to SS, and visa versa for movie actors.You are aware that just about all of these actors already have at least a few films under their belts? I don't think this is anyone's "first movie".That these actors got to be a part of a franchise with their first movie
Or are you trying to say that you think its unfair that their first Star Trek movie is a... um... well... a Star Trek movie?!? 'Cause it would be damn difficult for it to be anything else.
Huh? I don't know a TV actor who won't take a movie gig if he can get it, and the idea of "stepping down" to television, while still there for the biggest movie stars, is much less than it used to be. Most actors are just looking for a good role, no matter where it is.I think the problem with the argument is that TV actors seem less willing these days to go from TV to SS, and visa versa for movie actors.
DING! DING! DING! We have a winner!Since when is life ever fair?
So, are you suggesting that Paramount/CBS should first create a TV series starring Pine, Quinto, Urban, et al just to be fair to Shatner, Nimoy, Stewart and the others?That these actors got to be a part of a franchise with their first movie while all the others had to go through either a 3 or 7 year run on TV before they hit the silver screen?
Discuss !
I think what is trying to say is that instead of having a series they get to start in the star trek universe on the silver screen. Where as Picard and friends, and Kirk and friends had to deal with being on TV before getting to the silver screen. I think the problem with the argument is that TV actors seem less willing these days to go from TV to SS, and visa versa for movie actors.You are aware that just about all of these actors already have at least a few films under their belts? I don't think this is anyone's "first movie".That these actors got to be a part of a franchise with their first movie
Or are you trying to say that you think its unfair that their first Star Trek movie is a... um... well... a Star Trek movie?!? 'Cause it would be damn difficult for it to be anything else.
I guess one answer to that would be that Star Trek was not originally conceived as a movie project, either; it was an idea for a TV show, from the very beginning and it wasn't ever intended to be anything but a TV show. The idea of a movie didn't come along until quite a few years after the original series' cancellation and the growing popularity of the show in syndication.I think what is trying to say is that instead of having a series they get to start in the star trek universe on the silver screen. Where as Picard and friends, and Kirk and friends had to deal with being on TV before getting to the silver screen. I think the problem with the argument is that TV actors seem less willing these days to go from TV to SS, and visa versa for movie actors.You are aware that just about all of these actors already have at least a few films under their belts? I don't think this is anyone's "first movie".
Or are you trying to say that you think its unfair that their first Star Trek movie is a... um... well... a Star Trek movie?!? 'Cause it would be damn difficult for it to be anything else.
Yes, that is it, exactly. I'm not saying they are bad actors/actresses or anything of that nature, and in fact I don't really care if they started Star Trek in the SS while the others started with a series (and I do realize too that there is no TV offering at this point) it was a question I had. I asked because the original actors had to make their way through a series, then animated series before entering the silver screen. That's all.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.