Who should play Kirk and Spock in the next movie?

[Ovation]

And Paramount has wonderfully snuffed out Gene haven't they?

Oh please. Roddenberry created Star Trek to make money. The current owners of Star Trek put out more product to make...money. It's not any more complicated (or noble) than that.

Oh I forgot, Since Greed is a Virtue that makes it all alright.

And whether or not Roddenberry had ONLY making money on his mind it became more than that.

No, it didn't. The quality of the product (good and bad) did not alter the goal of making money from it.

That is what Paramount is CASHING in on.

even as they snuff it out...

It's not a charity for "the fans"...it's a business. As such, considering the studio is publicly traded, the primary responsibility of Paramount is to be profitable. The studio can do what it likes with its intellectual properties to accomplish this. As these are forms of entertainment, the hope is that it will not only make money but that it will be of decent quality (the creative side of things). Again, you are free to disagree with the direction they chose to pursue the profitability of the property, but to suggest that Star Trek is somehow NOT like all other commercial entertainment properties, with the primary goal of making money, is, at best, naive.

 

[Starbreaker]

And Paramount has wonderfully snuffed out Gene haven't they?

Gene left after Season Two for the most part. Majel had more involvement in Trek when it was all said and done. There's no magical universe to protect here.

 

[Vassa]

Oh please. Roddenberry created Star Trek to make money. The current owners of Star Trek put out more product to make...money. It's not any more complicated (or noble) than that.

Oh I forgot, Since Greed is a Virtue that makes it all alright.

And whether or not Roddenberry had ONLY making money on his mind it became more than that.

No, it didn't. The quality of the product (good and bad) did not alter the goal of making money from it.

That is what Paramount is CASHING in on.

even as they snuff it out...

It's not a charity for "the fans"...it's a business. As such, considering the studio is publicly traded, the primary responsibility of Paramount is to be profitable. The studio can do what it likes with its intellectual properties to accomplish this. As these are forms of entertainment, the hope is that it will not only make money but that it will be of decent quality (the creative side of things). Again, you are free to disagree with the direction they chose to pursue the profitability of the property, but to suggest that Star Trek is somehow NOT like all other commercial entertainment properties, with the primary goal of making money, is, at best, naive.

Aren't I just the Knave? Because of your scorn I now understand that Art and Creativity are just Business Models and Ethical is whatever makes money.

Thank you for your wisdom.

I guess I should have seen it for myself?

I mean look at the glorious results of the last ten years of unbridled Greed...

 

[Michael Chris]

Actually the last ten years had more to do with generosity than greed. It was an attempt to put people in housing that they, unfortunately, could not afford. It was done as essentially a humanitarian gesture.

 

[Vassa]

Actually the last ten years had more to do with generosity than greed. It was an attempt to put people in housing that they, unfortunately, could not afford. It was done as essentially a humanitarian gesture.

snicker

 

[Ovation]

Oh I forgot, Since Greed is a Virtue that makes it all alright.

And whether or not Roddenberry had ONLY making money on his mind it became more than that.

No, it didn't. The quality of the product (good and bad) did not alter the goal of making money from it.

That is what Paramount is CASHING in on.

even as they snuff it out...

It's not a charity for "the fans"...it's a business. As such, considering the studio is publicly traded, the primary responsibility of Paramount is to be profitable. The studio can do what it likes with its intellectual properties to accomplish this. As these are forms of entertainment, the hope is that it will not only make money but that it will be of decent quality (the creative side of things). Again, you are free to disagree with the direction they chose to pursue the profitability of the property, but to suggest that Star Trek is somehow NOT like all other commercial entertainment properties, with the primary goal of making money, is, at best, naive.

Aren't I just the Knave? Because of your scorn I now understand that Art and Creativity are just Business Models and Ethical is whatever makes money.

Thank you for your wisdom.

I guess I should have seen it for myself?

I mean look at the glorious results of the last ten years of unbridled Greed...

You are being obtuse. Where did I say all art and creativity are just business models (though they are exactly that far more often than some people wish to believe--read some art history of the Renaissance period for but one example of many). COMMERCIAL art and creativity, of the kind Star Trek has ALWAYS BEEN and CONTINUES TO BE, however, does have making money as its PRIMARY goal. If that disturbs you, that's too bad. Reality does not simply bend to one's personal views. As for "ethical", you either have a poor understanding of the term or you are attempting to apply it incorrectly. Nothing about this production is "unethical". Paramount owns the property, they hired Abrams and told him to do what he wants--end of story. The property was not acquired by theft, fraud or other illegal means. It is not a public good that requires the approval of non-owners to be employed.

And the "great bird of the galaxy" tripe? The delusions of grandeur of someone who did steal credit unfairly from many of the creative talents he had working for him (for reasons of greed--do the lyrics of the TOS opening theme sound familiar to you? No? Well, that's because they're so crappy no one wants to hear them. However, they exist SOLELY so Gene "great visionary and moral philosopher" Roddenberry could horn in on Courage's earnings from the music he'd composed).

There are all sorts of legitimate ways to criticize Paramount's handling of Star Trek as an intellectual property. There are elements of Abrams' work on it that are also open to criticism. But the idea that they've 'STOLEN' Star Trek and treated it "unethically" is laughable.

 

[Vassa]

I'm not quite sure how pointing out more Greed is a defense of Greed. What Gene did was pretty nasty. Doesn't make what Paramount is doing now any more Wholesome and Virtuous.

Paramount has been making money off the Star Trek Franchise for 40 years! Why? The fans. Now they are using that 40 years of investment to launch a completely NEW product by completely destroying the old.

This story did not have use any 'old' crews in it.

 

[Michael Chris]

For which we should be thankful!

 

[seigezunt]

And Paramount has wonderfully snuffed out Gene haven't they?

Oh please. Roddenberry created Star Trek to make money. The current owners of Star Trek put out more product to make...money. It's not any more complicated (or noble) than that.

Oh I forgot, Since Greed is a Virtue that makes it all alright.

And whether or not Roddenberry had ONLY making money on his mind it became more than that.

That is what Paramount is CASHING in on.

even as they snuff it out...

I, and the crowded theater that applauded, cheered, laughed, and sighed, did not witness a snuffing last night.

It's a movie based on a TV show. It's not sacred writ, for as much some of the previous films were paced and acted like bible movies.

 

[Kelso]

Jimmy Bennett and Jacob Kogan

 

[Ovation]

I'm not quite sure how pointing out more Greed is a defense of Greed. What Gene did was pretty nasty. Doesn't make what Paramount is doing now any more Wholesome and Virtuous.

Paramount has been MORE ethical than Roddenberry in that regard. Or do you think business should not make any money?

Paramount has been making money off the Star Trek Franchise for 40 years! Why? The fans. Now they are using that 40 years of investment to launch a completely NEW product by completely destroying the old.

This story did not have use any 'old' crews in it.

They are NOT "completely destroying the old". That's absurd. They are trying to do something new going forward, true, but that in no way, shape or form rationally implies the "destruction of the old". Anymore than Batman Begins "destroyed the old". Or perhaps you'd have preferred Paramount just left Star Trek to gather dust. As a fan since 1973, I'm rather happy they did not.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Kal Penn for Kirk, and Phillip Seymour Hoffman for Spock!

The Bridge filled with smoke.
Kirk: "Whoa, whoa, duuuude. You're pubes look like an Evergeen."
Spock: "DO YOU THINK I'M PLAYING?"

 

[Vassa]

They are NOT "completely destroying the old". That's absurd. They are trying to do something new going forward, true, but that in no way, shape or form rationally implies the "destruction of the old". Anymore than Batman Begins "destroyed the old". Or perhaps you'd have preferred Paramount just left Star Trek to gather dust. As a fan since 1973, I'm rather happy they did not.

Well "Batman Begins" doesn't have scenes with Jack Nicholson showing up to hand the keys to the Bat Cave to Christian Bale so I'm not sure if the comparison is fair.

No, I didn't want the franchise mouldering on the shelf. I wanted Paramount to introduce a brand new Crew. Build a brand new story.
Instead I am seeing them banking Kirk and Spock.

 

[CaptainStoner]

This story did not have use any 'old' crews in it.

You must not be talking about STXI, then, since it has Leonard Nimoy, as Spock, in a considerably larger role than a cameo, in fact a pivotal character.

I'd hate to see any of the STXI crew recast for XII; they really have done an excellent job with XI.
And no, it doesn't "destroy" any previous ST work.
It's a quantum reality... I'm starting to wonder if a common link in people who are having trouble with this wonderful film are those who also dislike Star Trek episodes centering around alternate universes?

 

[Ovation]

They are NOT "completely destroying the old". That's absurd. They are trying to do something new going forward, true, but that in no way, shape or form rationally implies the "destruction of the old". Anymore than Batman Begins "destroyed the old". Or perhaps you'd have preferred Paramount just left Star Trek to gather dust. As a fan since 1973, I'm rather happy they did not.

Well "Batman Begins" doesn't have scenes with Jack Nicholson showing up to hand the keys to the Bat Cave to Christian Bale so I'm not sure if the comparison is fair.

No, I didn't want the franchise mouldering on the shelf. I wanted Paramount to introduce a brand new Crew. Build a brand new story.
Instead I am seeing them banking Kirk and Spock.

Their property, their choice. It's fine to disagree on the wisdom of that choice but accusing Paramount of "unethical" behaviour or "completely destroying the old" makes any such disagreement appear ridiculous. As noted above, it's not a "sacred text" that can suffer no deviations. It is entertainment.

 

[Vassa]

As noted above, it's not a "sacred text" that can suffer no deviations. It is entertainment.

But it is those so called "Sacred Texts' that are the foundation of Star Trek's 40 years of popularity.

Pretty lights can be entertaining as well.

At least for a little while...

 

[M'Sharak]

Since Star Trek is all about Kirk and Spock it is important to get just the right people to play the roles.

Keanu Reeves would be a perfect Spock but which actor out there could truly bring Kirk to life?

Are Chris Pine and Zach Quinto out of the question?

No, they're not. Both are under contract for up to two additional films.

Vassa, since this isn't really about the current movie, I'll close the thread.