Would you say you're a truth champion? When it comes to fictional TV shows, that perspective can create some rigid ways of thinking that miss the bigger picture. But you do you.
Spoilers Strange New Worlds General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter NewHeavensNewEarth
- Start date
The ‘90s Batman films had a single continuity, sharing actors/versions of Alfred, Comissioner Gordon, and Dick Grayson/Robin. In spite of this, the three actors portraying Bruce Wayne/Batman don’t particularly resemble one another, and they’re playing the same character regardless of that fact.
Similarly, and more recently, in the MCU the role of James “Rhodey” Rhodes/War Machine was recast. Terrence Howard and Don Cheadle don’t look a thing alike to me, but I have no problem recognizing that they’re portraying the same character.
Similarly, and more recently, in the MCU the role of James “Rhodey” Rhodes/War Machine was recast. Terrence Howard and Don Cheadle don’t look a thing alike to me, but I have no problem recognizing that they’re portraying the same character.
Last edited:
Young Alec Guinness didn't look that much like Ewan McGregor.
Ewan works for the role because he embodies Obi-Wan so well. When recasting a well established character, I imagine they're looking for an actor that suits the character in every aspect, and appearance is just one. Things like body language and intonation can enhance the resemblance quite a bit. On the other hand, characters with just one or two appearances, like Dr. M'Benga and Robert April, were probably treated as blank slates who only need to convincingly embody the basic idea of the character.
Saavik went from looking like Kirstie Alley to looking like Robin Curtis in a matter of days or weeks in-universe. Star Trek is no stranger to characters being recast.
And she nearly then looked like Kim Cattrall until Roddenberry vetoed the idea.
And none of them look like Hoagie Carmichael.
Because it was wrong.
Go rewatch TOS. He bent the rules all the time.
Yeah but the media often mess up things when talking about fiction because they're not familiar with it. I mean, not as bad as tech or science, but still.
Kirk wasn't as by-the-book as Picard was, but he was a far cry from how he's portrayed in Trek parodies, or the reboot movies. He was essentially a super-officer who could pretty much replace any other officer except McCoy.
That Kirk is brash and impulsive is the pop-culture image of Kirk. That is not how he was portrayed in TOS.
"Note to self: Ignore positive headline, focus on 1 incorrect word that got deleted anyway."CNN published a review of the season premiere of Strange New Worlds and called it a "reboot".
Interesting that this is what the reviewer thought of it.
They have since changed the title.
Akiva Goldsman doesn't know Kirk and Star Trek.
Exactly. He was a great leader, an expert tactician, an accomplished diplomat, a deadly fighter, and a man who knew when to keep within the rules, when to bend them to his advantage, and when to break them for the greater good.
In short, the Ace.
He-he Post on page 420 made at 4:20.
A lot of the reviewers have gone out of their way to crap on the Kirk character to embiggen Pike, who doesn't really need embiggening, basing their portrayal of Kirk on the rulebreaking fratboy caricature of pop culture myth and Chris Pine's portrayal rather than the actual character Shatner portrayed onscreen in TOS.
It's the typical lazy hot-take framing of barely-informed media reporting.
It's the typical lazy hot-take framing of barely-informed media reporting.
Is that your counter-argument? :P
hm, why did they cast quinto and pine and urban in those specific roles...? or anson mount XD
apparently that's because the colorizer was colorblind
so they could've kept the original shape, which is the point here. who do you think is trying to fool anyone, and why?
