Should Star Trek just give up?

[Nightcreature]

Sharr Khan said:

So just because it may be better then Enterprise makes it an an automatic success? Understand that it can be better then Enterprise yet still terrible overall compared to quality Trek.

Who has low standards? You maybe not me. I actually have pretty large expectations of this film. This is also the first Trek film being treated like a real movie and not... a part of the "Franchise".

Just because Nimoy supports the script doesn't make it ok either.

Actually it does or at least lends crediability to the notion that it might be you know good. It says a-lot because we know he just doesn't do anything that might be labeled "Star Trek". Recall he was retired but this brought him back. We know this in regard to Generations. Plus outside of Abrams (and the writers) he has you know read the script. His endorsement DOES TELL US TONE regarding the quilty of this film. At the moment that leans in the good if not great direction.

Using some faceless friends to back up an argument just doesn't fly. More over if they're "casual" at the moment there isn't much reason for them to be interested - the ad campaign hasn't begun yet to hook them.

If Abrams marketing for "cloverfield" is any clue we can expect some creative ways of spreading word of Trek XI which will likely catch the interest of "casual fans" as well as those who have never paid attention to Star Trek.

Sharr

Ok, the main problem I have with the new Trek movie is the following. You can recast timeless characters like Sherlock Holmes and James Bond with some success because they are based off of an established archetype in a novel. However, in recasting James T. Kirk, you aren't following a description of a character in a novel. You are trying to imitate an actor's performance in this case William Shatner and with Shatner's distinct way of talking, the new Kirk will come off more as a parody not to be taken seriously. I mean SNL, Mad Tv and Jim Carey have all made hilarious imitations of Shatner so will we add the new Kirk to that list? The same goes for Spock. Imagine the laughs an new Scotty would get??

And let's say the new Kirk doesn't try to imitiate Shatner and does his own thing. Well, then that isn't Captain Kirk then. In my mind, Kirk is Shatner and no one else can play him. It's just so wrong and silly for them to try to do this.

 

[cardinal biggles]

There's some people who probably won't accept the new Kirk, but then there's also people to whom Bond will always be Sean Connery, Sherlock Holmes will always be Basil Rathbone, etc., etc.

And even though I'm in favor of the new film, I'll probably be mentally comparing all the actors to their TOS counterparts, for better or worse. If the story is good and the performances are good, though, I'll probably stop comparing them after the second reel and just enjoy myself.

 

[Aragorn]

If Star Trek were to give up, what would the lifeless losers do who spend 24/7 bitching and moaning about the next Trek and are prepared to take either side of any argument as long as its against it?

Nightcreature said:
A few of my friends are casual fans of Star Trek and not one person I know in real life supports this movie.

Well there you go! You can't possibly make a Star Trek film now! 100% of Nightcreature's friends (both of them?) are against it, which is completely and undeniably a representative poll of this planet.

This reminds me of Alec Baldwin saying he doesn't know anyone who's on the other side of whatever political debate he's ranting about (namely because he refuses to be friends with anyone who thinks differently politically than him).

 

[Woulfe]

Maybe Star Trek fans should give up instead, seeing as we can't all agree on anything in this day and age.

- W -
* It's the truth yanno *

 

[Sharr Khan]

they are based off of an established archetype in a novel. However,

As has been discussed elsewhere: Kirk, Spock, and MCcoy are indeed human archetypes.

Most James Bond Fans didn't learn about him from books but from MOVIES your argument though better still falls flat. People reference the 007 character by his on screen portrayal and not as he appeared in a book. The same will apply to Kirk. They're (the viewer) smart enough to figure out what's going on and move on...

Trust me William Shatner's performance of Kirk isn't so special that some new actor isn't able to step into those boots provided they're a reasonably good actor.

Sharr

 

[Nightcreature]

Aragorn said:
If Star Trek were to give up, what would the lifeless losers do who spend 24/7 bitching and moaning about the next Trek and are prepared to take either side of any argument as long as its against it?

Nightcreature said:
A few of my friends are casual fans of Star Trek and not one person I know in real life supports this movie.

Well there you go! You can't possibly make a Star Trek film now! 100% of Nightcreature's friends (both of them?) are against it, which is completely and undeniably a representative poll of this planet.

This reminds me of Alec Baldwin saying he doesn't know anyone who's on the other side of whatever political debate he's ranting about (namely because he refuses to be friends with anyone who thinks differently politically than him).

Well, I think my friends and I deserve to be an "undeniably representative poll of this planet" if aliens came to do a poll and had to choose between my friends and I or you. We would be the more intelligent choice.

I see the new Trek movie may be perfect for you. It's aimed to draw casual fans of Trek or non fans and the majority of your posts are in "Future of Trek" or "General TV and Media."

 

[Aragorn]

^ What's funny is that you're completely serious about your overblown, overrated view of yourself (and your elitist -- and ultimately self-defeating -- Star Trek mentality).

I guess a TRUE HARDCORE Trekkie would be posting his master thesis 24/7 about all the TV episodes and movies he's seen 85,000 times each?

I'd be posting about the latest brand new episode of Star Trek that's on this week... if there were such a thing.

 

[Woulfe]

^ So three more seats for folks that WANT to see the film ?
I'll take my friends, i'm sure they'll love to see it.
They saw Star Trek 5 with me and loved it !
- W -
* Really, they did, didn't have the heart to tell 'em *

 

[Nightcreature]

Sharr Khan said:

they are based off of an established archetype in a novel. However,

As has been discussed elsewhere: Kirk, Spock, and MCcoy are indeed human archetypes.

Most James Bond Fans didn't learn about him from books but from MOVIES your argument though better still falls flat. People reference the 007 character by his on screen portrayal and not as he appeared in a book. The same will apply to Kirk. They're (the viewer) smart enough to figure out what's going on and move on...

Trust me William Shatner's performance of Kirk isn't so special that some new actor isn't able to step into those boots provided they're a reasonably good actor.

Sharr

Sharr, I'm still not sure whether you understand my point or not. When you have Bond or Sherlock Holmes, those characters are more open to interpretation and actors can develop their own version/style of those characters. Connery, Moore, Brosnan and all the Bonds formed their own version of Bond because the character of Bond is not strictly defined. Same applies to Holmes.

Kirk is different though. Shatner's unique and great performance as Kirk leaves any actor wishing to follow in Shatner's footsteps much less room for interpretation then Bond or Holmes. If the actor deviates too much, then it isn't James T. Kirk anymore. If the actor tries their hardest to imitate Kirk, then it becomes more like a parody.

And yes, I think Shatner's performance was very special and cannot be duplicated without encounting the issues I discussed above.

The best Trek post TOS has always involved a brand new crew and/or idea. I don't like remaking and recasting what's already been done.

 

[Nightcreature]

Aragorn, see that post wouldn't have been necessary if you didn't feel the need to selectively pick out one sentence out of all my posts and make a sarcastic response to it or to put words in my mouth.

I am far from the hardcore Trek fan, but I won't take sarcastic remarks at my expense lightly.

 

[Aragorn]

^ Translation: It's okay for you to dish it out but you can't take anything that comes back your way.

 

[Nightcreature]

I can take it just fine. I haven't dished out anything in this topic besides my views against the new movie until your remark.

Isn't it just about time to post in "General TV and Media" again? Let me know how that goes.

 

[Aragorn]

^ Wow, good thing you're not an elitist Star Trek snob.

So you're not a hardcore Trek fan, but your idea of an insult is to talk about General TV & Media posts, yet you have a Trekkie God complex because of the forums you post in?

 

[Sharr Khan]

Kirk is different though. Shatner's unique and great performance as Kirk leaves any actor wishing to follow in Shatner's footsteps much less room for interpretation

No I categorically disagree with you. Shatner and Kirk aren't one and the same being and a good actor can do KIRK justice and bring new things to the character as well as make him familiar. This thinking is limited at best. Nor is any charcter so unique that they can't be replicated just not how fiction works.

And my point is most people who watch 007 know him *only from his onscreen portrayal* - where the character came from is irrelevant to them since they only know him as a movie spy who gets recast every once in awhile.

Your argument only works if everyone first met 007 in book form but chances are they first saw him in a movie. The extension of your logic is then that only the first person to play Bond is the one true version but we know that's not true.

The best Trek post TOS has always involved a brand new crew and/or idea. I don't like remaking and recasting what's already been done.

That's debatable. I think Trek as has been declining steadily as "good entertainment" since "Encounter at Farpoint" where it completely became a foreign creature to what it was originally.

And this isn't a "retread" its a New Adventure its not as if they're redoing an episode or something.

Sharr

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Nightcreature said:
Well, I think my friends and I deserve to be an "undeniably representative poll of this planet" if aliens came to do a poll and had to choose between my friends and I or you. We would be the more intelligent choice.


I see the new Trek movie may be perfect for you. It's aimed to draw casual fans of Trek or non fans and the majority of your posts are in "Future of Trek" or "General TV and Media."

Let's hope these aliens don't consider proper grammer when gauging your intelligence -- in the phrase "between my friends and I or you" the pronoun should be in the objective case, since it is the object of the preposition "between". Therefore the proper grammer is "between my friends and me or you". "I" is a subjective pronoun, and should only be used as such.

**Preemptive note to moderator...I'm not personally attacking nightcreature's intelligence -- I'm just saying what an alien might think.**

 

[seigezunt]

I love it when we get down to debating who's the bigger fan. It cracks me up. Mocking somebody for posting in non-Trek forums. :-))

It bears repeating: the franchise was dead. Let them have another ride around the block. What'll it hurt? The actors are geting to old to play these characters, and these characters are indeed to only iconic ones a general audience may care about/recognize. Let's see if they make a good movie. If they don't, we can all go home and bitch some more over the corpse of Trek.

 

[Nightcreature]

Aragorn said:
^ Wow, good thing you're not an elitist Star Trek snob.

So you're not a hardcore Trek fan, but your idea of an insult is to talk about General TV & Media posts, yet you have a Trekkie God complex because of the forums you post in?

If you are so sensitive to take it as an insult, then I can't do anything about that. It was an observation and I am assuming you are a casual fan and so this movie is perfect for you.

Oh yea, how can Aragorn be from Endor?? It just sounds funny.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

^
^^
This reminds me of one of my favorite South Park scenes:

Cartman: ...why don't you go back to Endor you stupid wookie?!
Kyle: Wookies don't live on Endor!
Cartman: [In a mocking voice, imitating Kyle] Wookies don't live on Endor.

I truly laugh out loud everytime I think of that repartee!

 

[Nightcreature]

Sharr, so now we are focusing on Bond and forgetting about Holmes because many fans of Holmes have read Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's stories first before watching the movies. Are you saying that since they met Holmes in book form, my argument works there but not for Bond?

In any case, I still disagree about Kirk. Please try to understand Shatner IS Kirk. Any actor who tries to play Kirk again is essentially going to have to imitate Shatner's mannerisms and his unique way of speaking. And if they have to do that, most likely they will end up sounding like a parody of Kirk which has been done on comedy shows like SNL, Mad Tv etc... If they don't imitate Shatner and do their own Kirk, well then it isn't really Kirk in my opinion but maybe that would be the better choice of the two.

So 20 years from now, are we going to have a recast of Captain Picard originally played by Patrick Stewart?? I mean really... It just seems like a silly idea.

That's debatable. I think Trek as has been declining steadily as "good entertainment" since "Encounter at Farpoint" where it completely became a foreign creature to what it was originally.

And this isn't a "retread" its a New Adventure its not as if they're redoing an episode or something.

Most Trek fans have throughly enjoyed TNG, DS9 and VOY. Even Enterprise has its fans. You can argue TOS was revolutionary and the best so the other series are declining but even if they were, they were still really fun to watch. Personally, I liked DS9 over TOS.

 

[Nightcreature]

Jackson_Roykirk, you are referring to the Chewbacca defense by Johnnie Cochran. Yes, another one of South Park's funniest moments .

Cochran
Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, Chef's attorney would certainly want you to believe that his client wrote "Stinky Britches" ten years ago. And they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself! But, ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!

Gerald Broflovski
Damn it!

Chef
What?

Gerald
He's using the Chewbacca Defense!

Cochran
Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, [approaches and softens] does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.