Roddenberry though recast would be a good idea

[cardinal biggles]

What difference does it make whether the film/show takes place in 2151, 2265, 2370, or the 29th century? It's ALL "the future" compared to now!

The problem with Enterprise was not the setting. The problem was poorly written stories and characters, topped off by an uncharismatic lead (Bakula, who's amazingly good in everything else) and producers who'd been behind the wheel too long.

 

[blakbyrd]

What difference does it make whether the film/show takes place in 2151, 2265, 2370, or the 29th century? It's ALL "the future" compared to now!

The problem with Enterprise was not the setting. The problem was poorly written stories and characters...

Agreed.

 

[Rarewolf]

Of course back in the early 80s they'd never tried Star Trek without the characters of Kirk, Spock & co. Roddenberry later proved you didn't need them.

 

[CaptainJon]

Of course back in the early 80s they'd never tried Star Trek without the characters of Kirk, Spock & co. Roddenberry later proved you didn't need them.

I agree. There have been four spin-off series, each with various degrees of success. VOY and ENT didn't fail because Kirk, Spock & co. weren't in it. They failed (VOY to a certain creative extent, although it did have wonderful true-to-Trek moments) because of below average writing. TNG and DS9 succeeded without the original characters. It all comes down to the writing.

I think, though, that those "fans" who will only watch Trek if it features Kirk and Spock have kinda missed one of the key themes of Star Trek, and that's the open-mindedness and open-acceptance of everyone/everything, regardless of whatever differences exist. That's a key theme throughout all of Star Trek, and TNG succeeded because not only was it well-written, but people opened their minds and accepted that it was well-written and saw how good it was, and in some ways superior to the original.

I think that if fans open their minds, they can accept this recast if it truly is deserving of it. If it fails, it fails. But if it's wonderful and well-executed, it should be accepted and praised.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Roddenberry supported a recast!?

In "Chekov's Enterprise", Walter Koenig's published diary (Pocket, 1980) on the making of ST: TMP, he mentions how he was offered, by GR himself - when "ST: Phase II" was frantically evolving into TMP - the chance to play Chekov's father. At that point he may have been the only returning cast member; this was when the likes of Robert Redford and Paul Newman were being mooted for TMP, in the roles of Kirk and Spock (or Spock and Kirk).

Koenig didn't hear much more about it till the call that TMP was going ahead... with the original cast (still working on Nimoy, IIRC).

 

[seigezunt]

and a fanboy's head explodes somewhere...

 

[Balthier the Great]

and a fanboy's head explodes somewhere...

Somewhere around when Robert Redford was gonna be in it. I've never liked Redford though, so it might be just me.

 

[Kryton]

God, without the T on the end of "thought" in the title, I mis-interpreted it as:

"Roddenberry, though recast, would be a good idea."

and it was driving me BONKERS trying to figure how you recast GR let alone why anyone thought it would be a good idea!

Glad to see I was way off base on that one.

 

[Jon1701]

Yeah, my bad.

 

[Dusty Ayres]

Meh, I still would rather either have a show or movie go into the future rather then a prequel film.

What you said.