My point exactly!
The END of Trek?
- Thread starter Gaith
- Start date
My point exactly!
I wouldn't mind seeing another take on Voyager. It wouldn't have to be the ship Voyager, or any of the same characters, or even be in the Delta Quadrant. Merely re-use the "Stranded years away from home" concept, and learn from the what Voyager didn't do so well on. One way, might be to set it further ahead in time, where Slip-Stream or other new travel method is more common, and strand them a few Galaxies away (Maybe an exoeriment worked too well getting them somewhere, but, not getting them back), and they could explore several Galaxies on the way home. Make it a little tighter of an arc, show the resource problems and the consequences and replenishment, if the ship gets banged up, let it take time to fix, and show quick flashes each week, that someone is actually working on fixing it, rather than the ship being all beat to hell at the end of an episode and looking brand spanking new at the beginning of the next one.
Whatever the future of live-action Trek is post-Abrams, I doubt it will look like anything anyone here can envision.
As for my opinion: I can see them rebooting TOS with new actors for a new television series. I can see them doing another prequel, like Enterprise. I can even see Trek never returning to television (whether it be broadcast, cable, or streaming.)
What I can't envision them doing is anything that looks like any of the Trek that came before it. That style of television is very old-fashioned.
As for my opinion: I can see them rebooting TOS with new actors for a new television series. I can see them doing another prequel, like Enterprise. I can even see Trek never returning to television (whether it be broadcast, cable, or streaming.)
What I can't envision them doing is anything that looks like any of the Trek that came before it. That style of television is very old-fashioned.
I like to pretend that entire movie never happened. Romulans and Feds being "allies" apart from ventures which benefit the Empire just seems...wrong. And when there are adversaries, there are plenty of stories to tell...
I liked Nemesis.
*crickets chirping*
*crickets chirping*
Nemesis could have been a really good movie, if they'd spent a little more time and care on it. It's just such a shame that TNG ended on such a weak note.
I don't think you'll ever have to worry about any of those roles being recast.
How was Heath Ledgers Joker a disaster? He's pretty much now the definitive take on the role, in a movie that broke records and pretty much made people forget that Nicholson ever played Nicholson with Joker make up on.
And I think you meant to say that Heath looked like a "grunge rocker with make up on" because as someone who's been to plenty of punk shows, I can honestly say that I rarely, if ever, saw anyone who looked like Heath did in TDK. Grunge shows, yeah.
Not really. The audience can clearly understand the difference in the two different Batman series of movies. Mainly because they started it all over in a movie called "Batman Begins", but also because stylistically, they were as different as the Batman cartoon from the 70's and the one from the 90's.
People can pick up on those stylistic differences and understand that they're watching a new take on the character set within it's own fictional universe.
As I said above, I don't think you'll ever have to worry about that happening.
With the exception of Stewart, the rest were pretty much "Lifetime Movie Of The Week" quality actors, and it'd be no trouble at all finding qualified actors to play those characters. It's not like they've done anything of note since they lost the Trek gig. They were big fish as long as they stayed in a small pond.
At any rate, as Greg has pointed out, Star Trek has been updated as any number of other classic works have. This is what ensures it's continued existence.
Exactly. Sometimes I think people don't give the audience enough credit. This isn't as confusing as it's sometimes made out to be.
Even as a clueless, unsophisticated ten-year-old, I understood that the Johnny Weismuller TARZAN movies, the newer films with Gordon Scott and such, the tv series with Ron Ely, the Saturday morning cartoons, the comic books, and the original novels by ERB didn't share the same continuity--and I didn't expect them, too. Trust me, my childish brain did not explode just because TARZAN'S GREATEST ADVENTURE didn't feature Jane and Boy. "Oh, this is a new version. I get it."
There are no continuity glitches between Burton's Batman films and the new ones because they're not set in the same continuity. And most everybody understands that.
I have to disagree. In most cases, the reboots are weak copies of the original. There are exceptions but they are few.
In fact, I've recently watched some episodes of the original BSG and found them being better than doom-and-gloom NuBSG.
As for Batman, the results are mixed. I really enjoyed the first movie with Jack Nicholson as The Joker but the second appearance of The Joker in that other movie was a disaster with the character looking more like a punk rocker with bad makeup than the more realistic Nicholson Joker. As for Bond, that series is the real exception with a dozen or so actors during the years. Obviously the whole Bond thing is a phenomenon of its own.
As for Trek, when I think of Kirk, I always think of Shatner in the role. When I watched the new movie, it was like "oh there is my old school buddy Thomas pretending to be Kirk". The actor does look like an old school buddy of mine. Not to mention that I really dislike that they screwed up established Trek history and had to destroy important planets of the Trek Universe.
The continuity seems to suffer the most when it comes to those reboots, like The Joker being killed off in one movie, then resurrects in the shape of a punk rocker with bad makeup in another. A bit confusing, isn't it.
And I simply can't imagine any future actors replacing the original TNG, DS9 and Voyager actors.
So I rather watch the old DVD:s and re-read "The Black Shore" for the umpteenth time.More fun than to see Trek being screwed up beyond recognition.
I thought the first theatrical Batman movie came out in 1966
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_(1966_film)
As for the Bond films we'll have had 23 films in 50 years or almost one every two years on average. Sure "Casino Royale" could be set to reinvegorate it, but the same could also be said of "Goldeneye" as for the recasting Part to many Connery is Bond even to those that grew up with the others. And the actor changing is all part and parcel of it's long life as it's the character we've invested in rather than a particular actor.
It could have been worse, the series could have ended with, ugh, Insurrection.
Alongside THAT mess, Nemesis is a masterpiece.
"Insurrection" wasn't that good but I do find it better than "Nemesis".
As for re-boots and remakes, the only thing i could possibly accept is an animated remake of some old series. In that case we would at least have characters on screen who looked like the original characters.
As for re-boots and remakes, the only thing i could possibly accept is an animated remake of some old series. In that case we would at least have characters on screen who looked like the original characters.
If its an animated series, then odds are good that it will feature the Abrams movie characters and their likenesses, to capitalize on the PR of the movies, without needing to lure the movie cast to do TV, which would be difficult. Maybe Quinto would voice act his character, but the other characters could be done by professional voice actors. The obvious template for success would be The Clone Wars, meaning put it on The Cartoon Network and pitch it to kids but without alienating the adult audience, as much as that's possible.
if live action, it's more likely it will be new characters, but set in the 23rd C. Maybe they could get movie actors to do guest shots for the sake of ratings every now and then. But the question of where that show would live, is still wide open. An animated series has the advantage of an obvious home on The Cartoon Network, not to mention the budget.
if live action, it's more likely it will be new characters, but set in the 23rd C. Maybe they could get movie actors to do guest shots for the sake of ratings every now and then. But the question of where that show would live, is still wide open. An animated series has the advantage of an obvious home on The Cartoon Network, not to mention the budget.
I'm actually kind of surprised that there hasn't been a new animated series by now. I mean, Star Wars and Batman and Iron Man have all had multiple cartoon series.
And, yeah, where TOS is concerned, it would be silly to use the images of the original actors at this late date, especially if you have hopes of recruiting some of the new cast for voice work.
Imagine how weird it would be to have Simon Pegg's voice coming out of a cartoon version of Jimmy Doohan!
And, yeah, where TOS is concerned, it would be silly to use the images of the original actors at this late date, especially if you have hopes of recruiting some of the new cast for voice work.
Imagine how weird it would be to have Simon Pegg's voice coming out of a cartoon version of Jimmy Doohan!
I disagree with you, they should do a remake of Voyager. Hell, even use the same actors and this time do it right and fix some of the problems with the story. Voyager's entire story should have been like the episode "Year of Hell" and Voyager should have been a wreck when (or if) it made it back to the Alpha quadrant. Also, Voyager shouldn't return to Earth's solar system, it should have to fight it's way into Federation space.
Just my two cents...
Just trying to drive a stake into the heart of Trek?
Unless you count the b/w movie serials in 1943 and 1949!
Which makes all subsequent Batman movies reboots by definition!
I would be surprised if an animated series would feature the Abrams movie actors. I mean, Shatner, Nimoy, Takei and the others ARE the TOS characters for millions of people so it would be logical to have their faces in an animated series. The same for TNG, DS9 and Voyager.
And the new guys are probably recognizable in those roles for just as many new people if not more going by Trek XI's box office take.
Similar threads
