Why Are We Accepting a Recast?

[The Doctor]

Why are We Accepting a Recast?

Because it frankly doesn't matter one whit what Trek fans accept or not.

Actually, scratch that.

It may actually be better for this movie if the hardcore fans make a huge fuss and boycott it. That'll mean free publicity and fuel the general opinion that this movie is maybe worth seeing.

This movie isn't being made for us, nor should it be.

 

[voss749]

Because Its happened before

1) Superman(Christopher Reeve was the third live action superman)
2) James Bond
3) Batman
4) Shakespeare
5) All the Jane Austen books
6) The bible
7) Every major world figure depicted in film or tv more than once has been played by more than 1 person.
Sherlock Holmes

The fact that Kirk has only been portrayed by one person so far...is matter of chance.

 

[cardinal biggles]

Cary L. Brown said:
Look, I'm not fundamentally opposed to anyone else ever playing the part of Kirk... but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE STOP THROWING OUT THIS TOTALLY UNRELATED "SUPPORTING ARGUMENT."

James Bond was a work of prose, based loosely upon a real British agent. The movies are actually two steps away from the source material.

Superman is a comic book character.

In neither case was the original representation "recast" as we're describing here.

Fair enough. But at this point, how many people's mental image of Superman is shaped by the comics, versus those for whom it's shaped by Christopher Reeve? How many people think of the literary Bond before thinking of Connery, Moore, or Brosnan? I was recently listening to a couple of Jane Austen scholars on an NPR talk show, and they mentioned that even at academic conferences, most discussions of Pride and Prejudice eventually turn to Colin Firth within ten minutes.

We live in a culture where, for good or for ill, popular adaptations on TV and in movies supplant the original source material in the minds of the general public. So in a way, Kirk is on equal ground with Superman, Bond, Holmes, Mr. Darcy, etc. It's only because Trek chose to reinvent itself in a different way -- new shows, new characters, new ships -- that we're just finally getting to the first recast of Captain Kirk.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The James Bond argument makes a lot of sense. When Connery first left the role many fans of the series considered him irreplacable - and most of them knew Bond only from the movies, so the source material was irrelevant to their feelings.

 

[Holytomato]

TOS Trek recasting has also happened for the Peter Pan records and the books and tapes for the movies.

Oh heck. Star Trek is "Hornblower in Space".

Richard Sharp was based on Hornblower, and played by Sean Bean from 1993-2006.

Stop the recasting!

Contemporary Hornblower has failed.

1993-2006

The last actor to play Horatio Hornblower was Ioan Gruffudd (1998–2003)

Stop the recasting!

Contemporary Hornblower has failed.

1998-2003

Going in further back it was Gregory Peck.

Stop the recasting!

Contemporary Hornblower has failed.

1951

 

[Broccoli]

Let us not forget our good friend, Obi-Wan Kenobi. He wasn't based on any literature character and was recast when they did the prequels and most people feel that Ewen McGregor was one of the finer parts of the prequels. Recasts can work fine as long as they get the right person.

 

[Captain Mike]

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.

so what,....after this fiasco of bringing in the normal John/Joan Q to "like" the "old" Star Trek, when they never liked it at all is some assinine attempt to kill it for good.

 

[Captain Mike]

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.

Also saying that You have to rethink your "assumption" knowing that the film will be a "success",....Just wished I could be there when you eat crow.

 

[cardinal biggles]

Captain Mike said:
so what,....after this fiasco of bringing in the normal John/Joan Q to "like" the "old" Star Trek, when they never liked it at all is some assinine attempt to kill it for good.

So that means two possibilities:

1. Let it die forever.

2. Keep plodding along with still more spinoffs that appeal to no more than 3 million people and call it a great moral success, because at least there isn't some pretender trying to usurp the Great Shatner's throne.

I know this will sound cynical, but it's all about money in the end... there's no money to be made in letting Trek die. And Paramount seems to be of the mind that letting a hot producer-director tap into cultural nostalgia has the potential to bring in more bucks than Yet Another Goddamned Star Trek Show.

If the movie fails, what'll happen? The franchise becomes more dead?

Captain Mike said:
Also saying that You have to rethink your "assumption" knowing that the film will be a "success",....Just wished I could be there when you eat crow.

I'll be interested in seeing how many of the naysayers willingly step up to eat their own helping of crow if the film turns out to be a big hit, both critically and financially.

 

[number6]

cardinal biggles said:
I'll be interested in seeing how many of the naysayers willingly step up to eat their own helping of crow if the film turns out to be a big hit, both critically and financially.

I'm sure they'll find some flimsy nugget of "evidence" that supports their argument and proclaim victory nonetheless.

 

[Jack Bauer]

Beyerstein said:
and big budget Hollywood action movies all turn out so well! The new Star Trek movie is by the guys who wrote TRANSFORMERS. We saw all the great character development in that right?!

So what. The requirements for writing Transformers are different than for someone writing a War and Peace movie. You're not going to have the same level of writing for Trek as you would in a movie about giant robots kicking the shit out of other giant robots. Who gives a shit about character development in a movie about giant robots fighting giant robots?

 

[DarthPipes]

My thought on this whole recasting thing is get over it.

 

[number6]

^ My thought exactly.

 

[Woulfe]

Q : Why are we accepting a recast ?

A : TOS fans are not getting any younger.

- W -
* Old Fart TOS Fan, geturfmuhlawn dangnabbit whppersnappers *

 

[Sci]

"Why are we accepting a recast?" The OP makes it sound like Paramount somehow needs our permission, or as though it's the sort of thing that's worth getting upset over.

It's not.

Right now, the United States and the United Kingdom are embroiled in a quite-possibly illegal war that's killed thousands of our citizens and thousands more Iraqis. Al Qaeda and Osama bin Ladin are still at large. Vladimir Putin has moved the Russian Federation back to the old Soviet model of operation and damn near re-awakened the Cold War. There's a potential oil crisis, and environmental crisis. New Orleans hasn't been rebuilt yet and is still incredibly vulnerable to hurricanes. FEMA is a joke. The Attorney General is quite possibly a crook. And there's a presidential campaign going on.

Those are things that people ought to devote their energies to.

Not whether or not Paramount hires new and talented actors to play favorite old roles in a genuine attempt to breathe new life and energy into a beloved franchise and beloved characters.

 

[Woulfe]

^ On top of all that, what we need at this point is something HOPEFUL with all that mess going on in the world, more then ever the world needs Star Trek to tell us, we will make it past all that garbage that's going on.

Isn't that what Star Trek is all about after all ?

- W -
* We so need that in this doom & gloom age, don't we ? *

 

[Beyerstein]

The question is how is a recast/prequel not a bigger gamble than trying something new?

If Abrams was creating his own Trek movie, wouldn't it sound way more exciting?

 

[Professor Zoom]

He is creating his own Trek movie. He's just using the characters that he likes.

He was the one that came to Paramount, not the other way around. He brought the story. This is the story he wants to tell.

So, in other words, I'm excited. I'm interested. And I'll see it.

Just like every other naysayer is going to see it...

 

[PowderedToastMan]

Beyerstein said:
The question is how is a recast/prequel not a bigger gamble than trying something new?

If Abrams was creating his own Trek movie, wouldn't it sound way more exciting?

well as has been pointed out...this is the story Abrams, Lindelof, Orci and Kurtz wanted to tell. For them it wasnt about bankability...it was what they wanted to do...to 'fill in a gap' as they say in trek history.

But from Paramount's point of view this seems the least risky thing to do following the last two dissapointing films.

They essentially had three choices
1. Another TNG/crosover
2. new crew/new era
3. back to basics TOS prequel

the first just seems like a stupid idea after Nemesis. The second idea is risky because 'spinoffs' only work when your brand is strong and can support expansion...Trek is clearly not in that position right now. So based on the precedent of the star wars movies, Casino Royale and Batman Begins....option 3 is the best. Plus Paramount has a lot of faith in the team pitching that one. There was a pitch by Berman/Spiner/Logan for the first...of course they have no faith in them. And Kerner/Jendresen in the second (the romulan war movie). Even though it was a good script, Kerner didnt have the respect and pull at Paramount to make it happen...and Berman was still attached contractually and that didnt help.

So 'back to basics' with a new respected team is by far the least risky thing for Paramount to do.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

I can't help you with why you personally should accept a recasting -- that's up to you. But I know that I can accept a recast -- as long as it is done right, and I think it CAN be done right.

'Will they do it right' is the question that I have. I'll accept -- or not accept -- this particular recast once the whole project has but put on film, edited, and presented on the big screen at my local theater...with me sitting in a big soft seat with a tub popcorn, an oversized soda, and my family at my side.

At that point I will be able to tell you if I accept this recast.

As to your question: 'Why are we accepting a recast'...well, that's totally up to you whether or not you are accepting and what your reasons are.