Why Are We Accepting a Recast?

[Kegek]

Though that being said, I still have a bad feeling that Trek fans may outdo the Bond fans when the new Kirk is announced.

Look on the bright side: If he turns out as well as Craig did as Bond, they'll be eating their words. And if he's terrible, well, then he deserved it. Either way I don't really care about the net reaction... I want a good performance!

Edit: Did I just say I don't care about my opinion, just that I should think the movie is good? Damn, that came out all wrong, didn't it? :P

 

[Sulu_Love_child]

I'm not thrilled with new actors but if they can capture the look and mannerisms of the characters we enjoy it may work out. I'm willing to give them a chance.Star Trek New Voyages does an ok job of this and I'm sure a bug budget movie and a possible new series could do much better. I'll wait until we learn more to form my final opinion.

 

[Vulcanian]

I don't mind if other people play Kirk or Spock. As long as they act out the part well.

Ohhhh heresy

 

[Beyerstein]

There's no way a TOS recast will work.

It's just going to look like a fancy costume party and come off incredibly weird and awkward onscreen.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

It is inevitable that IF we ever see more "TOS" stuff, it will not be performed by the original actors.

Give it a few decades and the parts can be "virtually performed" by nearly flawless digital versions of the originals.. so they'll look and sound the same. However, they'll still be PERFORMED by someone besides the original actors (whether we're talking motion-capture acting like Andy Sirkis or just a CGI artist with no "real" actor at all).

For NOW, we're talking about recasting. I am cynical of a true TOS-era recast... though I have been hopefully optimistic about a "pre-TOS recasting." I have heard tidbits of each perspective... no idea which is REALLY the case anymore. The idea that Chekov is going to be present really throws a wrench in the idea of this being a "pre-TOS" show, but stuff said by our "nuSpock" say that it definitely is....

So, we'll see.

 

[Mysterion]

Why Not a Recast?

Have never understood this particular blindspot of Trek fandom.

Other characters have appeared being portrayed by numerous different actors over the years (James Bond, Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan, to name a small few).

sure, sometimes this works (i.e. Sean Connery as Bond), sometimes it doesn't (i.e. Roger Moore as Bond). But, shouldn't we be open to the possibility that this will work?

So a new actor might not have precisely the same interpretation of James Kirk as Shatner does. Not necessarily a bad thing. If the actor is good, maybe we learn something new about James Kirk that we never did from Shatner.

Not saying we should blindly embrace anyone who steps into these very familiar roles, but I do think we need to keep an open mind and see what happens.

 

[Franklin]

Beyerstein said:
There's no way a TOS recast will work.

It's just going to look like a fancy costume party and come off incredibly weird and awkward onscreen.

Never say never.
But there's a kernel of truth in your second statement, especially if the story turns out to be weak.
Now, I'm open to recasting, but when the movie starts, I admit I'll probably need a couple of minutes to get my bearings before I can enjoy it. Like it or not, it will probably be jarring at first to see Quinto as Spock (especially to finally hear him called Spock) and to hear someone other than Shatner called, "Jim Kirk."
IMO, the story will need an early hook to convince get folks to believe these characters. Jerk viewers into the movie, if you will.
If twenty minutes into it a lot of folks are still uncomfortable with what they see, or find themselves occupied by looking for differences and discontinuity rather than following the story, that may not be good.

 

[cardinal biggles]

Beyerstein said:
There's no way a TOS recast will work.

It's just going to look like a fancy costume party and come off incredibly weird and awkward onscreen.

Been there, heard that, got the T-shirt. Don't you have any new arguments?

 

[Beyerstein]

the difference between recasting Kirk and any other character is:

1) In all those other franchises the precedent for recasting came much earlier on.

2) Kirk was invented on screen by Shatner and not in a novel or comic.

3) Shatner as Kirk is one of the most quirky portrayals of a main character on a tv show. It's hard to think of someone more unique to a role than him.

The whole argument that they need to recast to go back to Kirk cause he's the most known character permeated into anyone's brain that's ever heard anything about Star Trek is dumb because if someone else plays Kirk it won't be anything like the Kirk we've ever known.

You can't imitate Shatner without looking comical,
and w/out Shatner's mannerisms is it still Kirk?

So what is the benefit to recasting?

 

[Sharr Khan]

This is such a cicular argument. Recastings happen all the time and WORK, SHATNER IS NOT KIRK. There isn't one good reason this shouldn't work.

Shatner as Kirk is one of the most quirky portrayals of a main character on a tv show. It's hard to think of someone more unique to a role than him.

That seems more of a failing of yours then someone being able to recast a character. Soap Opera characters also originate only onsceen but are routinely recast quite suddenly at that.

The whole argument that they need to recast to go back to Kirk cause he's the most known character permeated into anyone's brain that's ever heard anything about Star Trek is dumb because if someone else plays Kirk it won't be anything like the Kirk we've ever known.

Honestly you don't know at all. Remember they joe schmoe cares about KIRK not SHATNER. They'll figure it out and move on and enjoy themselves.

Sharr

 

[Beyerstein]

the movie will probably flop especially on christmas day

 

[Holytomato]

Pavel Chekov could been a Academy cadet and assigned to the Enterprise or whatever ship Kirk and Co. are on, as part of his training cruise.

Have you read "Enterprise: The First Adventure" or "Vulcan's Glory"? There is nothing from the TOS or TAS episodes that suggest Pavel, Nyota, Hikaru, Scotty, Bones, Jim, and Spock were not on the Enterprise before we first see them. Same with them having met each other.

Having an Older Spock (Leonard Nimoy), in the prologue will help audiences accept the recast. :thumbsup:

 

[Dar70]

The new Voyages episode seems to be well liked in the TOS community. So why would a recast be so disliked. Isnt that what New Voyages did? When so many fans downloaded eps,paramount probably took notice. TPTB probably thought this is what many fans want. I guess some should watch what they wish for or like for that matter,it may just influence something in the future. I have no prob with a recast myself.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

cardinal biggles said:

Beyerstein said:
There's no way a TOS recast will work.

It's just going to look like a fancy costume party and come off incredibly weird and awkward onscreen.

Been there, heard that, got the T-shirt. Don't you have any new arguments?

It's not an "argument" - it's an unsupported assertion and it's wrong.

Some folks don't want to accept the fact that there won't be more 24th century Trek for many years if ever - the further the studio goes toward redirecting the Franchise, the less impetus there ever will be to go back and recreate the creative and ratings cul-de-sacs they got into.

IOW, no more 24th century ever. Live with it, guys.

 

[Sharr Khan]

Spock btw isn't the first real recast of an Original Series character.

Sarek was there first as a "young Sarek" played by Jonathan Simpson appeared in Star Trek V. I know someone's going to blame that for the reason Trek V bombed! LOL!

Sharr

 

[PowderedToastMan]

UWC Defiance said:

cardinal biggles said:

Beyerstein said:
There's no way a TOS recast will work.

It's just going to look like a fancy costume party and come off incredibly weird and awkward onscreen.

Been there, heard that, got the T-shirt. Don't you have any new arguments?

It's not an "argument" - it's an unsupported assertion and it's wrong.

Some folks don't want to accept the fact that there won't be more 24th century Trek for many years if ever - the further the studio goes toward redirecting the Franchise, the less impetus there ever will be to go back and recreate the creative and ratings cul-de-sacs they got into.

IOW, no more 24th century ever. Live with it, guys.

but instead of just admitting that they only want one kind of trek and reject all others...they confabulate these 'ironclad' logics that are essentially saying 'i think this way and therefore everyone on planet earth will too so do what i want'

 

[cardinal biggles]

Beyerstein said:
the movie will probably flop especially on christmas day

If we all had your mentality, we'd still be living in Europe fighting off plague rats, engaged in petty wars over miniscule fiefdoms.

 

[Captaindemotion]

Sharr Khan said:
Spock btw isn't the first real recast of an Original Series character.

Sarek was there first as a "young Sarek" played by Jonathan Simpson appeared in Star Trek V. I know someone's going to blame that for the reason Trek V bombed! LOL!

Sharr

You forgot about the various actors who played regenerating Spock at different ages in STIII:TSFS!

 

[-Brett-]

cardinal biggles said:

-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.

I hope there won't be. I understand the necessity of it in this case, but I still don't like the idea of rehashing an old series. In 20 years Star Trek, if it still exists, should be doing something new.

I'm just saying that if someone suggests it, and I'm sure someone will even if it's just a fanboy with no imagination, then the fans won't be as opposed as they would be today.

 

[Sharr Khan]

Captaindemotion said:

Sharr Khan said:
Spock btw isn't the first real recast of an Original Series character.

Sarek was there first as a "young Sarek" played by Jonathan Simpson appeared in Star Trek V. I know someone's going to blame that for the reason Trek V bombed! LOL!

Sharr

You forgot about the various actors who played regenerating Spock at different ages in STIII:TSFS!

That's true! I'd forgotten them!

And to Brett, just because there are "new characters" in some new setting (Chances that setting would be some kind spaceship - with the name "Enterprise") it does not therefore follow that it would either be "new" or original.

Any plot they could come up with has likely been done in one form or another. Even during ToS they'd borrow stories from other genres, riff on Shakespear that sort of thing.

Simply re-using old characters does not equal being uncreative or unoriginal. Its how you use them that counts and how you tell the story they're in.

"The Wizard of OZ" is one of the most reinterpreted stories around each retelling is different from the source in some major ways and none of them lacking creativity or originality! There's no reason the same doesn't apply to Star Trek.

So if someone wants to try redoing Picard and crew I'm all for it.

Sharr