As in so many other areas, Philip K. Dick turned out to be prescient (perhaps despite himself) about this topic as well: In Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said, a "captain kirk" is a movie genre. (This novel came out in 1973 when the future of live-action Trek was quite uncertain. Perhaps it was logical to assume that if Trek did reach the movies, other actors would be involved. Indeed, Shatner and the others at the time were trying to move beyond those roles, despite a few days' work doing voices for the animated series, the Kirk-and-Spock anti-drug-abuse radio ad, etc.)
Star Trek is dead – long live Star Trek
- Thread starter AudioBridge
- Start date
Actually, Dick uses "captain kirk" that way in a much earlier story - "The Electric Ant," published in 1969!
There is a minor flaw in your analogy as well. While Bond, Batman, etc, existed in other forms, the vast-vast majority of people only know them from their cinematic\T.V. appearances. Let's be honest, how many people actually read a Fleming novel? How many read comics?
For most people Bond was Connery, Superman was Reeve and so on. That didn't stop Hollywood from recasting them multiple times.
Also, Shatner and the gang haven't played their Trek characters in a major production for almost 20 years. If you show a picture of Shatner to Joe-six-pack, he'll tell you that's the guy from Boston Legal, not Captain Kirk.
I, for one, would love James Bond/Batman to appear on Trek.
I will NOT be relegated to fanfiction!
There's no obsession or emphasis on canon if there's any at all with Bond or Superman for anyone to be bothered with anyone rebooting it or each incarnation having nothing to do with each other.
Not the case with Star Trek. If this is a reboot then it would mean we would have 2 different Star Treks.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
And that is a problem how?
Why? Because they can, and because, legally, it is. If it doesn't fit into your criteria, you have the choice not to see it. But then, if there are people like yourself who will follow suit, the film may fail. Thereby killing any chance of a Trek revival and it will be relegated to the dustbin of pop culture obscurity. But hey, if that's the cost of putting Trek's "integrity" and "legacy" (two very emotional and unprofitable concepts) over any realistic longevity (which, I imagine, what Abrams is shooting for), then go for it.
Bur will it have an underlying message? Will it be allegorical?
That seems to be missed so much on these boards.
ST4 - 'Judging by the pollution content of the atmosphere, I believe we have arrived in the latter half of the 20th Century'.
I got it. I loved it. Did anyone else?
That seems to be missed so much on these boards.
ST4 - 'Judging by the pollution content of the atmosphere, I believe we have arrived in the latter half of the 20th Century'.
I got it. I loved it. Did anyone else?
Re: Star Trek is dead – long live Star Trek
"Call Western Union."
I got it, but then it was obvious. I found it passingly amusing.
"Call Western Union."
I got it, but then it was obvious. I found it passingly amusing.
I think messages are going to have to be a little more subtle for the next few decades. They seem to annoy people now. I know one reviewer that was annoyed by Wallee, and that's sad, I think. I like morality and I don't mind being lectured. I loved TNG for it. I loved encounter. It's part of being human and being alive and not just animals that walk on their hind legs and talk.
I'm up for watching the new movie and then deciding whether it's worth supporting, or whether it's an embarrassing piece of shit that we should pretend never existed.
Where did I say I wasn't going to see the film? I simply asked the question if you throw out everything we know and start over from scratch (As best I can tell, this movies is NOT doing that), then wouldn't it be something different, and shouldn't it be called something else?Psion has already responded by saying he/she sees Star Trek as not a title but more as a concept not tied to characters, actors, etc. Whereas I simply see it as the title to a specific TV series, that specifically stars certain actors and certain characters. To me, if you really truly start over with new "stuff" but still call it Star Trek, it would be like if Bocho decided to call his show NYPD Blues by the name of his first show, Hill Street Blues. Similar concepts, but two different shows.
I feel if you really want to blow it up and start over, that fine, but it's not Star Trek anymore, it's something else. AND THAT'S OKAY.
Nicely put AudioBridge. I am one of those rare fans that did like Enterprise even for it's faults and was hoping ST XI would have slightly differents designs to the technology but feel like Star Trek. Can't tell a whole lot from still pics but I am hopeful the story will be as good as we've heard.
Re: Star Trek is dead – long live Star Trek
Most of the really good Trek shows are stories that are ambitious enough to draw some inspiration from - the heavy "message" shows were always awful.
"The Doomsday Machine," for example, was a story about an obsessed character. That it bore the standard observation that people shouldn't play with big things that go "Boom!" is trivial.
As for the new movie being a potential embarrassment...if I were really capable of being embarrassed by "Star Trek" I'd have never looked back after "Patterns Of Force."
Most of the really good Trek shows are stories that are ambitious enough to draw some inspiration from - the heavy "message" shows were always awful.
"The Doomsday Machine," for example, was a story about an obsessed character. That it bore the standard observation that people shouldn't play with big things that go "Boom!" is trivial.
As for the new movie being a potential embarrassment...if I were really capable of being embarrassed by "Star Trek" I'd have never looked back after "Patterns Of Force."
As for the new movie being a potential embarrassment...if I were really capable of being embarrassed by "Star Trek" I'd have never looked back after "Patterns Of Force."
My point is that, while I am entirely open to a new spin on the Star Trek universe, I am also not betting all my chips on a movie that few have seen.
I don't begrudge people their excitement. In fact, I think it's great. But some people are already clearing off space on their DVD shelves to make room for the next 700 episodes of Trek that this new movie is certain to usher in. That seems a little premature.
Re: Star Trek is dead – long live Star Trek
Oh, I might be making some space on my coffee table for the sequel (I'm a terribly housekeeper; I just stack things). But that's about it.
I don't begrudge people their excitement. In fact, I think it's great. But some people are already clearing off space on their DVD shelves to make room for the next 700 episodes of Trek that this new movie is certain to usher in. That seems a little premature.
Oh, I might be making some space on my coffee table for the sequel (I'm a terribly housekeeper; I just stack things). But that's about it.
Oh, I might be making some space on my coffee table for the sequel (I'm a terribly housekeeper; I just stack things). But that's about it.
Yeah, the sequel is pretty much a given, unless the thing totally bombs. Aside from that, we'll see.
I'm certainly not in the Reject the New Movie Because It's Not Canon camp.
But I'm not in the Old Star Trek Is Dead camp, either.
Probably depends upon your age. I'm guessing I'm a LOT older than you.
Superman for example was a character I knew long before the movie came out.
Well, they do call you The Camp Straddler!Oh, I might be making some space on my coffee table for the sequel (I'm a terribly housekeeper; I just stack things). But that's about it.
Yeah, the sequel is pretty much a given, unless the thing totally bombs. Aside from that, we'll see.
I'm certainly not in the Reject the New Movie Because It's Not Canon camp.
But I'm not in the Old Star Trek Is Dead camp, either.
Sorry. Couldn't resist it.
Yeah but Shakespeare's plays were all performed long before they were published, and many were written with specific actors in mind.
Do we say that Romeo and Juliet isn't any good because Richard Burbage isn't in it anymore?
I think it's a generational thing.
The sad fact is, humans are finite. Some of the original crew have long since passed away.
If we still love the characters, then at some point we have to embrace new people playing them, or Trek dies.
Similar threads
