No reason the current cast couldn't do a TV series.

[Cary L. Brown]

stj said:The family reunion of unrelated young people seems like a really bad idea. Slash was mentioned to emphasize how unusual the Kirk/Spock relationship was. Is it more annoying to be persistently misread as advocating a slash movie? Or more annoying to read this hysterical drivel?

To be fair, you have no idea what form of roles the "second bananas" in this film will serve. I don't expect to see very much of any of them. I expect lots of Quinto and lots of Pine. I expect a fair amount of pre-TOS Urban, too. As for the rest of 'em... I'd be stunned to see them get more than a couple of lines and a few minutes of screentime.

So THAT part of your concern I think is unfounded. Of course, if it DOES turn out that it's "Star Trek Babies" or whatever... I'll be right there alongside ya with my pitchfork and torch!

I read your post as advocating (no pun intended) "slash." But I did give you the opportunity to correct that impression. I was shocked by the implication of your post but instead of just absorbing what I BELIEVE you meant, I asked... so you'd have a chance to CLARIFY.

A slash movie would almost certainly be way too imaginative for Abrams whose character work on Lost is derivative.

I'd hardly consider it "imaginative." Quite the contrary in fact. I don't consider the plots of pornos, whether straight or gay (if I ever saw one of those) to be very likely to be particularly IMAGINATIVE. They're all about justifying why two (or more!) people are gettin' jiggy wit' it. Pornos tend to make every relationship, ultimately, about sex. And slash, frankly, strikes me as just being another form of porno. I don't consider it to be REMOTELY "imaginative." Quite the opposite, in fact.

Hell, even if Spock WAS gay... he only gets horny once every seven years! SHEESHHH!

I'm not a 'shipper nor am I into slash---I'm not into fan fiction generally---I don't even like the tie-in novels! But the remarks above came across as so arrogant and bigoted I now hope Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto show us how to do it in freefall.

"Arrogant?" "Bigoted?" I see neither of those. I see disagreement. And guess what? Disagreement is not "arrogance" or "bigotry."

I'm guessing you're gay. No need to clarify unless you want to. There's a fairly large number of gay folks on this board (close, probably, to the debunked Kinsey "10%" number, I'd guess... in other words, well above the actual national average!). But most of 'em, you'd never be able to tell. Which is as it should be. What's private is private. I may occasionally make a joke about wanting to see Kirk fighting zombies along with Mila Jovovich... ... but otherwise, I keep my OWN sexual preferences separate. (I'm suggesting that scene due to my interest in HER, not HIM, just FYI! )

My concern wasn't the suggestion that someone in Trek might be gay. Just that I find it inappropriate and derogatory to suggest that two male characters MUST be gay in order to feel any form of closeness towards each other... ie, that "feeling closeness" and "having sexual feelings" are synonymous.

They aren't. We all know that, I think. But your original post seemed to say exactly that.

 

[TorontoTrekker]

Kegek said:

StarMan said:
So, movie franchise to TV franchise, as opposed to the other way round? Is there a precedent for that?

Aside from Star Trek's previous metamorphsis from TVH to TNG?

Yup. Stargate. Buffy too I believe. Neither show used the same actors as the films, IIRC.

Not in the principal cast, though Alexis Cruz (Skaara) and Erick Avari (Kasuf) have both reprised their Stargate film roles in the TV series, and an argument can be made that Kurt Russell's Colonel O'Neil exists in the TV show's universe - there's an episode where O'Neill tells a reporter, "It's O'Neill, with *two* L's. There's another Colonel O'Neil with only one L. He has no sense of humor at all."

But yes, there are precedents for a franchise moving from the theatres to TV.