Why Are We Accepting a Recast?

[Frontier]

Before we get side-tracked into a debate over the semantics of "is it a recast" or not, let's table that and look at the basic facts of things; new actors are playing Spock, Chekov, et cetera. While Nimoy may be reprising his role, thus putting the film into a gray area of "is it a recast?" the end of the day, we've got someone besides Koenig playing Chekov, someone besides Shatner going to play Kirk.

If they (TPTB) had tried to do anything like this; have other actors portray the characters in a substantial manner beyond the occasional flash-back or sci-fi induced guest star (Spock in TSFS, young Picard in 'Rascals') we would have thrown a RIOT! Pure and simple!

Now though... we're just swallowing it.

WHY?

I mean, the idea of Nimoy back again has me teeter-tottering on the fence, because that just seems awesome, but... the fact that someone else is playing Spock too, and that, it's quite likely that if the film is a financial success, those other people will go on to take OVER the role with no involvement of the original actors... it just makes me angry!

If after "The Motion Picture" the Paramount execs had said, "you know, we need a fresh new crowd for this" and forced a recast back then, making Kirk and Spock young again... it would have been a massive issue, and truth be told I don't think it would have worked. The loyalty at that time was so strong, and such attempt would have been met with hostility by the fans. So how come we're not fighting this now? It doesn't really make sense to me how we can just be ok with this.

If TPTB announced a new Next Generation film, featuring Michael Rosenbaum (Smallville's Lex Luthor) as Jean-luc Picard... would we just go along with that, too? Maybe Samuel L. Jackson as Benjamin Sisko? Where do we draw the line? If the actors don't really matter to us, why do we go to conventions? Why do we collect autographs? Why do we care about the other projects they do? Are we so willing to replace them when they're too old, or have passed on?

Somebody explain to me why we're now, today, open to what 20 or 30 years ago would have been a treasonous concept, inciting our Trekkie brethren of the day to action?

 

[seigezunt]

because the actors are really old now, and some of them are dead.

 

[ancient]

I'm over caring about it. Besides, it's this or nothing so I'll take it, because they seem to be respectful to it. Years ago there was no need to recast. They're doing so now because they HAVE to if they want to use these characters again.

 

[Sharr Khan]

I mean, the idea of Nimoy back again has me teeter-tottering on the fence, because that just seems awesome, but... the fact that someone else is playing Spock too, and that, it's quite likely that if the film is a financial success, those other people will go on to take OVER the role with no involvement of the original actors... it just makes me angry!

Remember Nimoy's involvement should tell you something about this film - only good things, that he respects it does alot for ME at least.

You have no reason to be angry, actually out of a world of things to get angry over new people playing the roles of the original Star Trek crew is actually something to be HAPPY about. It just means that Trek has iconic characters that can stand the test of time and will go on and aren't simply defined by those who play them - that there's more "There" there!

Sharr

 

[-Brett-]

Frontier said:
Somebody explain to me why we're now, today, open to what 20 or 30 years ago would have been a treasonous concept, inciting our Trekkie brethren of the day to action?

Because there's no alternative. If Star Trek is to be revived it needs the iconic characters and settings. The original cast is too old now, so a recast is necessary if the movie is to succeed.

A recast of a more recent series might still be a "treasonous" concept, since the actors are still able to perform those roles. In 20 years when half of them are dead or retired, people will soften to that idea as well.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

seigezunt said:
because the actors are really old now, and some of them are dead.

Yep, there is that.

Probably also because it makes sense and because we want to see those characters in their glory days again. We're not all "accepting" it - some of us are anxious for it.

 

[Deleted 2]

-Brett- said:
Because there's no alternative.

Yes there is. Bury the Franchise. Enough is enough.

 

[Balthier the Great]

Well, I don't see what the big deal is. Bond changes actors every 10-15 years, and it hasn't hurt anything. I believe they've recast Moneypenny at some point too. Dr. Who got a whole new cast, and it's not made things any worse. Hell, X-men was not only recast, but went from a TV cartoon to a live action movie -- no ill effects. I can't think of a single recasting that made the movie or redone TV show worse.

Besides, the original actors are either dead or in their 80's. I think it would be hard to make an origin story when "kirk" looks like he's ready for retirement.

 

[CaptJimboJones]

How about this? If you don't like the idea of a recast, don't see the movie. Use the money you saved to buy a DVD of Wrath of Khan and watch Shatner in all his glory.

 

[seigezunt]

(posted in TNZ)

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Zero Hour said:

-Brett- said:
Because there's no alternative.

Yes there is. Bury the Franchise. Enough is enough.

People don't think so, and people don't want to.

 

[Tamek]

Frontier said:
Before we get side-tracked into a debate over the semantics of "is it a recast" or not, let's table that and look at the basic facts of things; new actors are playing Spock, Chekov, et cetera. While Nimoy may be reprising his role, thus putting the film into a gray area of "is it a recast?" the end of the day, we've got someone besides Koenig playing Chekov, someone besides Shatner going to play Kirk.

If they (TPTB) had tried to do anything like this; have other actors portray the characters in a substantial manner beyond the occasional flash-back or sci-fi induced guest star (Spock in TSFS, young Picard in 'Rascals') we would have thrown a RIOT! Pure and simple!

Now though... we're just swallowing it.

WHY?

I mean, the idea of Nimoy back again has me teeter-tottering on the fence, because that just seems awesome, but... the fact that someone else is playing Spock too, and that, it's quite likely that if the film is a financial success, those other people will go on to take OVER the role with no involvement of the original actors... it just makes me angry!

If after "The Motion Picture" the Paramount execs had said, "you know, we need a fresh new crowd for this" and forced a recast back then, making Kirk and Spock young again... it would have been a massive issue, and truth be told I don't think it would have worked. The loyalty at that time was so strong, and such attempt would have been met with hostility by the fans. So how come we're not fighting this now? It doesn't really make sense to me how we can just be ok with this.

If TPTB announced a new Next Generation film, featuring Michael Rosenbaum (Smallville's Lex Luthor) as Jean-luc Picard... would we just go along with that, too? Maybe Samuel L. Jackson as Benjamin Sisko? Where do we draw the line? If the actors don't really matter to us, why do we go to conventions? Why do we collect autographs? Why do we care about the other projects they do? Are we so willing to replace them when they're too old, or have passed on?

Somebody explain to me why we're now, today, open to what 20 or 30 years ago would have been a treasonous concept, inciting our Trekkie brethren of the day to action?

Oh my gosh, you're absolutely right, I think we should put the final nail on the coffin and not ever have any Star Trek again, ever.

I demand that all TV stations stop showing any Star Trek reruns or movies.

I demand that we all stop talking about Star Trek.

I demand that TrekBBS be renamed to something else.

Pronto.

Ima get mah pitchfork, ma.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

A WELL-DONE recasting can work. A poorly done one could kill Star Trek permanently.

Doing "Star Trek" with Owen Wilson as Kirk and Ben Stiller as Spock, while potentially amusing, would kill it.

Doing "Star Trek" in a way that overtly contradicts stuff that came before... making Spock female or whatever... would kill it as well.

But a recasting, IF DONE WELL (and if not turned into a SERIES but as a one-off sort of thing) could, potentially work... given that (1) the production staff makes a quality movie that also honors what's come before, and (2) the actors play the same characters we've known, and don't try to "make it new and interesting and MY OWN..." but instead try to play the characters that already exist. (DON'T tell me that's not what actors do... a GOOD actor's job is to make us believe that he or she is someone else... oftentimes someone we're already familiar with.)

 

[cardinal biggles]

-Brett- said:
A recast of a more recent series might still be a "treasonous" concept, since the actors are still able to perform those roles. In 20 years when half of them are dead or retired, people will soften to that idea as well.

That's assuming there's any interest in remaking any of those shows 20 years from now.

 

[Kegek]

Because we're nice, reasonable people who won't condemn something till we've tried it?

Seriously, though, if I don't like Trek XI, I will be loud, boisterous and aggressive in my denunciations. But that torrential downpour of fan hatred has got to come after I've actually seen the movie - I keep an open mind, good press or bad press. If the film is a bad movie, it won't be because it was recast - but it might be because it was badly recast. So far, that doesn't seem likely, but I'm with-holding judgement on that too.

 

[Lord Garth]

seigezunt said:
because the actors are really old now, and some of them are dead.

This answer is perfect in its simplicity and is exactly why.

After 42 years -- which is almost half a century -- I think it's okay to do recasting.

 

[Chris_Moderato]

Because the producers just don't get Trek like you do, man.

 

[LegionMk59]

Somebody explain to me why we're now, today, open to what 20 or 30 years ago would have been a treasonous concept, inciting our Trekkie brethren of the day to action?

In answer to this question... I think its because Star Trek has lost its way in the last few years....the last two Trek shows kind of left a bad taste in the mouth of Trek fans and I do believe there is an unsaid want and need to have our Trek back and constantly creating new adventures.....Now the best way to do this after Enterprise? was the $64,000 question....personally I think they weighed it up and reasoned that it was best to go back to what brought most fans into the Francise....i.e. Kirk and Spock!! and reinvent and you know it probably is their best bet... One thing is for sure I'd rather see a film being made reinventing the time and characters then to see the franchise simply lie dormant like it was after Enterprise.....

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Now though... we're just swallowing it.

WHY?

I'll tell you the truth. I want a young, hot Kirk & Spock back on movies (and TV dammit). Our new cute Chekov is also a plus. Any degree of hottness in Scotty, McCoy, Sulu and/or Russell Crowe in full Klingon drag will be a bonus at this point.

And for you guys, don't worry, I'm rooting for a Uhura hot enough to melt dilithium.

If TPTB announced a new Next Generation film, featuring Michael Rosenbaum (Smallville's Lex Luthor) as Jean-luc Picard... would we just go along with that, too?

I would, but I've never been a big Stewart fan and I like Rosenbaum more. But I think a shaved-head Wentworth Miller would be a better choice. (We don't need to limit our choices to guys who already have shaved heads.)

If they went and botched the casting, I'd be screaming my head off, but frankly...so far, so good.

 

[Borgminister]

Throw in a Yeoman Rand(y) too and I'm set!