Oh and a Nurse chapel 
McCoy wasn't called Bones for nothing you know 
McCoy wasn't called Bones for nothing you know 
Why Are We Accepting a Recast?
- Thread starter Frontier
- Start date
Hayden Panetierre just turned 18, isn't that about Rand's proper age if Spock's about 30? See how generous I am? 
Nobody's got a gun to your head forcing you to watch this movie. It can be dead to you - just decide it is.
Or fat.
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?
Think James Bond, Spiderman, Dick Tracy, Batman, Superman, Hulk, Flash Gordon, Buck Rogers, DOctor Who....and you have your answer....this is still entertainment you know, accept with a suspension of disbelief.
RAMA
"I hate they recast Roddenberry!" :grrrr:
"Justman didn't look like that!" :snarl:
"The role of George Washington is being recast!? Noooo!"
"Hamlet isn't being played by Mel Gibson in the new movie!? Boycott!"
:end sarcasm:
"Justman didn't look like that!" :snarl:
"The role of George Washington is being recast!? Noooo!"
"Hamlet isn't being played by Mel Gibson in the new movie!? Boycott!"
:end sarcasm:
well because its either this movie or nothing.
they arnt going backwards for nothing, if they wernt making THIS movie they wouldn't be making any other number.
on a side note I think the various fanfilms, have opened the door to this, not all the way, but some of it, and Nimoy being around helps soften the blow.
they arnt going backwards for nothing, if they wernt making THIS movie they wouldn't be making any other number.
on a side note I think the various fanfilms, have opened the door to this, not all the way, but some of it, and Nimoy being around helps soften the blow.
"Why are we accepting a recast?", spoken like someone who thinks we fans have some sort of a veto
Except I knew the guy when he had hair... his mom lived next door to me right after her divorce, and I knew Mike and his little brother before Mike ever became famous. He had a typical "midwestern mop-head haircut" back then. People think of him as being bald, but that's something he's done for the part... anytime they're not filming, he lets it grow back. I don't think Mike wants to be bald for the rest of his life!
Why ask why? If you're serious, please seek help...
Abrams is doing this with dignity so far... compare against the later B&B years... would you rather have THEM continue to write *over* the Star Trek universe?
The decision to cast Quinto, who both can act, and has a spooky resemblance to the Leonard Nimoy of 1964's first pilot, shows this is not really a recast.
A recast refers to the replacement of an actor who could still appear in the role: something like Saavik, or Darrin of Bewitched, or your average soap opera actor change...
This needs a new term, something like precast? After all, Hollywood's always had this "Young X" actor portraying a younger character "X".
Did it take away for you in the Chris Reeve Superman that he didn't portray young high-school age Clark Kent? I wouldn't be surprised that some people don't realize that it was a different actor!
Abrams is doing this with dignity so far... compare against the later B&B years... would you rather have THEM continue to write *over* the Star Trek universe?
The decision to cast Quinto, who both can act, and has a spooky resemblance to the Leonard Nimoy of 1964's first pilot, shows this is not really a recast.
A recast refers to the replacement of an actor who could still appear in the role: something like Saavik, or Darrin of Bewitched, or your average soap opera actor change...
This needs a new term, something like precast? After all, Hollywood's always had this "Young X" actor portraying a younger character "X".
Did it take away for you in the Chris Reeve Superman that he didn't portray young high-school age Clark Kent? I wouldn't be surprised that some people don't realize that it was a different actor!
S
Stone_Cold_Sisko
Guest
QFT.
I know. That's like suggesting that anyone would ever revive a clunker like "Battlestar Galactica."
Okay, you've got me there, Dennis.
What I meant was if the new movie is a hit, and it eventually inspires its own spinoffs, are the spinoffs required to be remakes of TNG, DS9, etc., or couldn't these new spinoffs be separate concepts unto themselves?
What I meant was if the new movie is a hit, and it eventually inspires its own spinoffs, are the spinoffs required to be remakes of TNG, DS9, etc., or couldn't these new spinoffs be separate concepts unto themselves?
Why? If it'sossible to continue to tell intriguing stories with these same characters in the same fictional universe and entertain people while making a profit, why not do it?
If you feel it's a bad idea and don't like it or want to support it; it's not like you are being forced to go see/acknoledge/accept the new feature film.
NOTHING JJ Abrhams does will in any way change the 700+ hours of TV episodes; or 10 other feature films that have been produced in ears past.
Any return to TV doesn't have to be anything. For all we know it'll be the adventures of thet guy who gives Kirk a paperclip before he boards the Enterprise at the start of the movie. ('The Paperclip Trekker', a smash HBO hit, I have no doubt...)
Star Trek may not even return to TV ever, or at least for a long while, having downscaled to a film series. Obviously if it returns to TV soon that will be due to this movie's success, but even that doesn't mean a connection... TNG was made due to TVH's success, and it has no connection to that film even in terms of creative crew.
Star Trek may not even return to TV ever, or at least for a long while, having downscaled to a film series. Obviously if it returns to TV soon that will be due to this movie's success, but even that doesn't mean a connection... TNG was made due to TVH's success, and it has no connection to that film even in terms of creative crew.
He was born in '72. Maybe he'll be naturally balding in ten years.Cary L. Brown said:
Except I knew the guy when he had hair... his mom lived next door to me right after her divorce, and I knew Mike and his little brother before Mike ever became famous. He had a typical "midwestern mop-head haircut" back then. People think of him as being bald, but that's something he's done for the part... anytime they're not filming, he lets it grow back. I don't think Mike wants to be bald for the rest of his life!
Actually, I'm glad the recasting has been so far met with positively. It's nice to see Trek fans not treating Zachary Quinto the way Bond fans treated Daniel Craig last year.
Though that being said, I still have a bad feeling that Trek fans may outdo the Bond fans when the new Kirk is announced.
Though that being said, I still have a bad feeling that Trek fans may outdo the Bond fans when the new Kirk is announced.
Shall I register www.baileyisnotkirk.com as a pre-emptive strike to keep it out of the hands of evildoers?
Similar threads
