Should Star Trek just give up?

[Jackson_Roykirk]

I'm actually a big fan, but I choose to spend my time in "Future of Trek" because I really want to know about the new film, but I don't have a lot of time to devote to this forum.

I grew up on Star Trek TOS, and in fact I started watching it quite by accident, not even knowing what Star Trek was, or even hearing of it before. I started watching it and said to myself "this is pretty good -- I'll have to keep watching." Lucky for me that first episode I saw was 'Space Seed'.

I don't think it is fair to measure a person's knowledge or love of the show based on the forums in which they respond most often.

 

[Sharr Khan]

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?

Not exactly my point is simple: A Character is an idea, and as such is open to new ways of telling its story. A character really loses life when it become ultimately bound up in *who is portraying them*, yes the first actor can inform about the nature of character but if the character itself is truly iconic they will outlive the first to fill the role. Kirk is iconic. Shatner is replicatable, his skills aren't so beyond another that Kirk can't be done again - I've seen it on "New Voyages" and when I'm watching it ITS KIRK I am thinking of not the actor involved...

Speaking of which, now they did a good job in finding a new Spock so your arguments are all for naught. Most seem pleased at the choice.

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.

I'm for it, but I don't think Picard has the same iconic status as Kirk or Spock.

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.

I liked DS9 as well, not more then TOS my liking comes mostly because it didn't seem so cookie cutter - though at times it was hindered by the 24th Century mentalities to be found in that era of storytelling. Sisko and Kirk are my favorite Trek Captains.

Sharr

 

[Aragorn]

Nightcreature said:
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.

Trust me, you're not exactly someone who can insult anybody. Especially when you act like some sort of self-appointed authority figure on a movie no one knows anything about yet.

You can go all Aubrey McClendon you want to, but it doesn't change that it was your pathetic attempt at an insult and proof of your non-hardcore Trek god complex of a hardcore Trek god complex by pointing out how special you are in Trekdom with your posts. What's really funny is how you threw Future of Trek posting into the equation, considering how all the other Trek forums by default are Trek Past.

A lot of my posts during Enterprise's run were on that board, but don't let facts get in the way. Like I already said, I'll gladly post about the latest brand new episode of Star Trek that was on this week and everyone just watched...

 

[RAMA]

blockaderunner said:
Not give up as in closing shop and not making a lick of filmed Trek ever again. But give up trying to get that elusive mainstream audience.

Let's face it. At this point, Trek has become, as it was in the 1970's prior to TMP, a niche franchise in a niche genre. It had its time in the sun throughout the 80's and 90's. A rather impressive run, might I add. But that kind of reign had to end eventually. And in the past 5 or six years, the attempts to try to reach that lofty status has pulled Trek further and further away from its core ideals. Instead of telling thought provoking tales that often merit discussion, it has tried to keep up with the Joneses with wall to wall action pieces and paying lip service to relevant issues, often outdated (ENT's "Stigma"). And when a show like nuBSG comes along and actually tells stories in that thought provoking manner that Trek once did so well, Trek looks like an aging, pulverized prizefighter in the ring trying to be something it once was but not longer is by comparison.

As I said before, this observation doesn't mean that it should be the end of Star Trek. But it does mean that it's the end of Star Trek as a pop culture cornerstone. And how bad is that? Whoever will be in charge of Star Trek in the future ('cause it's not set in stone that JJ will be), they should make Trek at a modest budget, an intimate style, and not cowtow to any preconcieved fan notions. In fact, they should just concentrate on making great stories. Period. As if there wasn't a such thing as a "Trekker" or "Trekkie". And not worry about pop culture conquest. With calenders, Hallmark ornaments, and other knick-knacks steadily selling well, it's not like it's losing money, so why not just go the other way from bigger and louder? A scaledown might be the best thing to happen to Star Trek.

Give up production.....no....but they probably will never get more than a few extra million of the mainstream audience. STIV and STNG are good examples of increasing the appeal by a small margin, and a big mainstream production with some big names will probably set some franchise BO records, but I doubt it will translate into a flood of new members into fandom.

Am I ok with that...yeah!

RAMA

 

[Jack Bauer]

I'm tired of this idea that Shatner's and Nimoy's portrayal of their characters is so special that the role cannot be recast. James Bond, Batman, Superman well those guys are nothing and can have multiple actors play them. bt noooooooooooooo not Kirk and Spock. They're too special, too iconic. So impressed on the public consciousness that any attempt to recast those roles is near unto blasphemy. C'mon, it's not that special where it's wrong to recast the roles.

 

[Nightcreature]

Maybe it's not fair but it's also doesn't make sense why a random, casual Trek fan would develop a grudge against me just because I'm expressing my opinion of this movie. Furthermore, he adds nothing of value to this discussion except his little sarcastic comments addressing one line out of all my posts/points. He can only address that one line because the rest of it is too much for him to comprehend.

The Chewbecca defense doesn't make sense so we should make the Aragorn defense - a poster on the Trekbbs boards who does not make sense.

 

[Nightcreature]

Aragorn, you still need to answer a few of my questions.

1. How does Aragorn come from Endor and then somehow make his way over to the Trekbbs boards??

2. How did your posts go over at the "General Media and TV" board??

Please answer these questions??

Oh yea, just because something is newer doesn't not make it better. This isn't true for Star Wars (prequels vs original) and it's definitely not true for Star Trek. Though it has some fans, I thought Enterprise was absolutely horrible. Voyager was enjoyable but not as good as TNG or DS9 and TOS is arguably the best. This is why I rather post in forums of Trek's Past because the peak of Trek greatness is in the past.

 

[Woulfe]

Jack, I don't get that as well, it's allmost like "let's wait 'till they'er all dead then we can recast them" then they turn right around and say "oh they have to pass the torch to the new folks" well how are we to pass the torch after they'er dead, it's illogical !

You can't have it both ways.

I'd rather they recast while the old gaurd is still around to say you need to play my character this way or that way, as well get a better role out of the new folks then and a better film as well.

Also it'll fit into the timeline better as you won't have Kirk & Spock behaveing radicaly diffrent from whenever the film takes place along TOS's timeline.

- W -
* Trying To Think Locgicaly About All This Mess *

 

[Aragorn]

Nightcreature said:
Maybe it's not fair but it's also doesn't make sense why a random, casual Trek fan would develop a grudge against me just because I'm expressing my opinion of this movie. Furthermore, he adds nothing of value to this discussion except his little sarcastic comments addressing one line out of all my posts/points. He can only address that one line because the rest of it is too much for him to comprehend.

You and your friend are allowed to form whatever conclusive opinion you want to based on the next to zero information we all have regarding the next movie. It doesn't matter what you or anyone on this board things about anything, really.

I just think it's funny how you quantify what is and what is not a Trek fan to elevate your level of Trekdom god, despite claiming not to be a hardcore Trekkie. You're trying to have it both ways. Just like how you thumb your nose at posting in Genral TV & Media, then say it's not an insult, then use it as an insult again. If you're not a hardcore Trekkie, then why would you try to put someone else down on the basis of not talking enough Trek on here?

seigezunt and Jackson_Roykirk are right.

 

[xortex]

Shatner's Kirk is not bigger than Gene's universe. Heck, by your own admission, Star Trek can be done without him (the character)at all. In my opinion the story comes first followed by the music then the actors (characters have already been established) then the special effects and what not. Note - I think bad music could actually sink it all, IMO. Also if they can't approximate 60's production values at their budget they should be ashamed of themselves. J.J is not bigger than Star Trek either. Gene Roddenberry is Star Trek. Shatner is just a better actor, that's all.

 

[seigezunt]

nightcreature, it's not just the "casual" fans (whatever the hell that means..does that mean you're a professional fan?) who are going to see this movie. I started watching the show in, um, 1972 or something like that (it was before the animated series, by my recall), and was and am a huge Shatner fan. I can still quote you the date, Oct. 13, 1976, when I saw him do his one-man show at a local college.

I'm a huge TOS fan, and recently came back to interest in Trek through Solow and Justman's book and the Crucible series, and the DVDs, after being completely burnt out on a crappy succession of series and movies. I've made peace with the fact that I love TOS over the other series. I love the Shatnerverse novels, and have no problem placing them in my personal continuity above stuff in the TNG universe. I wasn't a TOS-only person (couldn't stand them) to start, but I stopped caring about the other series when it was clear the production people stopped caring. My opinion, though, I won't hold it against TNG fans (and I like DS9 better than the rest).

I can't wait to see this movie. And you know what? I think it's a fine idea to try recasting the characters. Shatner is NOT Kirk. He certainly put his stamp on the role, but he is an actor, AND KIRK IS A FICTIONAL CHARACTER.

As far as it stands, the franchise is dead, and there is no harm in trying for a go around the block with the original iconic characters. Kirk and Spock, Friday and Gannon, James Bond, Holmes, whatever. It's FICTION. They have the right to give it a try, and it could very well work. If it doesn't, fine. But they have nothing to lose in trying to do something different. If it doesn't work, the dead franchise will stay dead, and the haters can stay content.

Nimoy and Shatner will die some day (and, bless their hearts, it's hopefully a ways off). But with other actors (or CGI, New Voyages, etc.), we can continue to tell these stories about these characters that we care about, if we wish. And someday, somebody who cares about Picard et al. might try their hand at that as well (though I feel those characters have played out.)

For the love of Mike, get off the high horse about who is a better fan, and who isn't, though. We're all a bunch of geeks getting our jollies from years-old television programs.

Now I'm all grumpy. I need a donut. Anybody got a cruller?

 

[Sharr Khan]

Gene Roddenberry is Star Trek.

Hasn't been that way for awhile, and even way before he passed away - for the most part Trek has been creatively better for it.

Sharr

 

[Cary L. Brown]

xortex said:Shatner's Kirk is not bigger than Gene's universe. Heck, by your own admission, Star Trek can be done without him (the character)at all. In my opinion the story comes first followed by the music then the actors (characters have already been established) then the special effects and what not. Note - I think bad music could actually sink it all, IMO. Also if they can't approximate 60's production values at their budget they should be ashamed of themselves. J.J is not bigger than Star Trek either. Gene Roddenberry is Star Trek. Shatner is just a better actor, that's all.

Your points are largely correct, but NO WAY is it accurate to call it "Gene Roddenberry's creation" or to say "Gene Roddenberry IS Star Trek."

He gave birth to it, this is true. And he was always a formative factor in the series. But, despite Roddenberry's shameless self-promotion and his tendency to belittle or ignore the contributions of anyone else, he was JUST ONE VOICE IN A CHOIR.

I, personally, attribute most of what made TOS great not to Roddenberry but to Gene L. Coon. And the list of names of people who REALLY influenced Trek is pretty damned extensive as well.

Roddenberry is just one of those names.

 

[Balthier the Great]

I'll just wait til I see the trailer on Heros. It has to be better than the Resident Evil 4 movie that they were pitching last Monday.

I don't see a big problem with new spock, so why the hystronics?

Maybe I'm not big on the history, but who exactly came up with the idea anyway? Somebody had to decide to make a space TV show. Yeah it's a colleration, but they could have collaberated on a musical or a horror movie. (I can't imagine anyone would *watch* their musical)

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

xortex said:Gene Roddenberry is Star Trek.

Nope. He passed away quite a while ago.

 

[Noname Given]

Nightcreature said:
However, in recasting James T. Kirk, you aren't following a description of a character in a novel.

I see you've never read a Horatio Hornblower novel, or 'Master and Commander' by Patrick O'Brien.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Some Star Trek Fans...

 

[Sec31Mike]

I think they are barking up the wrong tree with their movie idea. Perhaps they should go on a 10 year hiatus. A big ticket movie is not an activity that rejuvenates a franchise. It is the result of an organic growth and explosion of a franchise.

 

[Sharr Khan]

Sec31Mike said:
I think they are barking up the wrong tree with their movie idea. Perhaps they should go on a 10 year hiatus. A big ticket movie is not an activity that rejuvenates a franchise. It is the result of an organic growth and explosion of a franchise.

No its not...

Sharr

 

[Vektor]

On the matter of whether or not Kirk and Spock can be successfully recast, it is true that both characters are almost 100% identified with Shatner and Nimoy, excepting some of the fan produced stuff like New Voyages. However, just because they are so closely identified does not mean they are inseparable. The people who are claiming otherwise are making the classic mistake of hardcore Trek fans in assuming that everyone else’s opinions, preferences and sensibilities are the same as theirs, and if they’re not, they should be. Most people outside the ranks of Trek fandom are simply not so obsessive about these characters that they care one way or the other, they just want to be entertained. And even within fandom, a lot of people like myself are at least willing—and even eager—to give them a chance just to be able to see these characters in action once again.