Why Are We Accepting a Recast?
- Thread starter Frontier
- Start date
Exuse me, but that's quite arrogant statement.
Do you think, that fans of any (not just Star Trek) show ARE in position to actually place demands on how it is made or what is to be made?
Sorry if it sounds harsh, but TPTB make movie/TV and if you like it, you ARE a fan, if you don't like it, you ARE NOT a fan.
Fan who doesn't like his "favourite" show is almost a contradiction in terms.
SO, let them make the movie. If it;s good, everyone will be happy, if it;s not, than you can remain a FAN of OLDER series and you WILL NOT BE A FAN of the new movie.
It's that sometimes I;ve got a feeling that some fans think, they OWN their favourite series/movie... fortunately for many other, less vocal fans, NO FAN OWNS Trek, Paramount Pictures does.
All of those comments are... ahem... disputable at best. (I'm guessing you're a Kent State kiddie, aren'cha?)
The above-quoted pile of horseshit is completely off-topic, anyway, and thus appears to me to have been posted in an attempt to "troll"... that is, to steer the thread off-topic by throwing out inflammatory bull intended to stir up an argument, rather than to discuss the topic at hand.
Abrams *is creating his own Trek movie* - not so unlike how Mayer and Benett *created their own Trek movie* actually.
But what you are really saying is: "wouldn't be more exiting if they started with a 'blank slate' in some Century like say the 31st or something..."
NO. I myself have little interest in seeing some unknown crew on some new ship.
At least I have an emotional attachment to Kirk and co... plus the very fact a whole new behind the scenes crew is at work here intrigues me.
This isn't gonna be the by the numbers Star Trek movie in either its feel or story telling format.
So yes this is something NEW!
Sharr
Yes, God forbid anyone should remind us to put things in perspective. It's only a movie, after all. If it tanks, the world will not spin off its axis, the universe will not collapse, the economy will not crash, and the terrorists will not win. Life will go on, same as it did before.
Did somebody miss the whole point of Cary's post? Yes, Sci did make a point about real-world issues being more important than a movie, but Cary's accusation of a troll came from Sci's statements of real-world "issues" that are all symptomatic of a heavily leftward bias. I appreciate his statement that reality should trump fiction, but the fact that he made that point by dragging highly polarizing politics into it was patently unnecessary. Cary's post was in no way saying that the movie was more important than these issues, simply that the point could've been made without involving a lot of highly liberal invective.
Like Cary's response was any better. "I'm guessing you're a Kent State kiddie, aren'cha?" 
I still would have responded the same if Sci were making right-wing statements about real-world issues, and Cary accused him of being a "Liberty University kiddie" or something.
People are taking the film too goddamn seriously, so I think any attempt to poke a hole in that overinflated balloon is a good thing.
I'm sure Cary will be along shortly to say something about how I'm a shitty, biased mod who isn't obligated to read or respond to anything outside his forum, and I honestly don't care. There's more important things in the world than this board and this movie.
I still would have responded the same if Sci were making right-wing statements about real-world issues, and Cary accused him of being a "Liberty University kiddie" or something.
People are taking the film too goddamn seriously, so I think any attempt to poke a hole in that overinflated balloon is a good thing.
I'm sure Cary will be along shortly to say something about how I'm a shitty, biased mod who isn't obligated to read or respond to anything outside his forum, and I honestly don't care. There's more important things in the world than this board and this movie.
But Cary's statement was in no way refuting the statement that the movie doesn't matter in the grander scheme, which is why I make the assertion that you didn't even pay attention to what he wrote, if this is part of your justification.
And again, the tiresome dragging-out of political statements had nothing to do with poking "a hole in that overinflated balloon" either, so why bother defending that part? Sci could have made his point just as easily without having any political statement in his post, which is the part that Cary was challenging.
As for the topic at hand, I personally am accepting a recast because I'm wholly excited at the prospect of getting to see the Original Series (or a reasonable facsimile) on the big screen. I've shared here before that I've not yet seen a Trek movie in the theater, but I can't think of a more fitting way than with a movie that will have the original gray lady up there in all her glory. I am a bit apprehensive about recasting somebody that doesn't effectively capture Kirk, just as I'm a little apprehensive about retconning. But we've recently seen new big-screen impressions of Batman, James Bond, Spider-Man, and Rocky (even though that wasn't a reimagining, it was still a bit of a "redux"), and frankly, at this time, especially with Nimoy's backing, I'm optimistic that we're in a good period for movies in general, and that this movie is going to be a part of that trend. I'd rather hope that this movie is going to work out, even though the recasting will seem a bit strange at first, then spend the 400-some odd days pitying myself about how much it's gonna suck. People are excited! I can tell my friends, "Hey, you know the guy that does Lost, and the writers of Transformers, and the villain from Heroes? They're all gonna be involved with the new Star Trek movie!" Star Trek is coming back, and I'm thrilled!
That's why I'm accepting a recasting, because I'm caught in the wave of optimism that this movie is going to freakin' rock, and I'm excited to experience that, even if it means a (very) slight sacrifice.
Of course, I think this question will be a bit more relevant after Kirk is cast. I mean, look at the widespread appreciation for Quinto's casting. After Kirk is cast, each of us will either say "this guy is TEH SUXXORS!" (notice that we haven't heard that at all about Quinto), or "meh," which some people are bound to say, or "wow, this guy actually seems quite fitting, and I think he'll do the character justice." If the latter response is the case, then that, in itself, is why we're accpeting recasting; because the recasting is good. If we don't like the casting, and we decide we're not gonna watch the movie because of it (I, personally, am gonna watch the movie even if Carrot Top plays Kirk), then we would, in fact, not be accepting it. At this time, though, for those who haven't already made up their mind one way or the other, I think it's probably too close to call yet.
That's why I'm accepting a recasting, because I'm caught in the wave of optimism that this movie is going to freakin' rock, and I'm excited to experience that, even if it means a (very) slight sacrifice.
Of course, I think this question will be a bit more relevant after Kirk is cast. I mean, look at the widespread appreciation for Quinto's casting. After Kirk is cast, each of us will either say "this guy is TEH SUXXORS!" (notice that we haven't heard that at all about Quinto), or "meh," which some people are bound to say, or "wow, this guy actually seems quite fitting, and I think he'll do the character justice." If the latter response is the case, then that, in itself, is why we're accpeting recasting; because the recasting is good. If we don't like the casting, and we decide we're not gonna watch the movie because of it (I, personally, am gonna watch the movie even if Carrot Top plays Kirk), then we would, in fact, not be accepting it. At this time, though, for those who haven't already made up their mind one way or the other, I think it's probably too close to call yet.
That was funny. Can I read the rest of it?
"WE" obviously are NOT accepting a recast.
"YOU" apparently have a very large problem with it.
"I" prefer to NOT be rightously judgemental, about something "I" know very little about and have not seen the final results of yet.
"THEY" so far, have not done anything that "I" can overtly object too in the making of this new Star Trek movie.
It seems to "ME" that what "THEY" have done so far and have allowed "US" to be privy too, is up to this point, quite exciting and is actually keeping ALL of "US" (including "YOU") interested and constantly talking about "THEIR" efforts.
Now..., convince "ME" that "YOU" dispite "YOUR" fancyful objections, aren't going to go see the fruits of "THEIR" efforts when STAR TREK once again hit's the big-screens on Christmas Day in 2008!
"YOU" apparently have a very large problem with it.
"I" prefer to NOT be rightously judgemental, about something "I" know very little about and have not seen the final results of yet.
"THEY" so far, have not done anything that "I" can overtly object too in the making of this new Star Trek movie.
It seems to "ME" that what "THEY" have done so far and have allowed "US" to be privy too, is up to this point, quite exciting and is actually keeping ALL of "US" (including "YOU") interested and constantly talking about "THEIR" efforts.
Now..., convince "ME" that "YOU" dispite "YOUR" fancyful objections, aren't going to go see the fruits of "THEIR" efforts when STAR TREK once again hit's the big-screens on Christmas Day in 2008!
Frankly, the "Kent State Kiddy" jab killed whatever remaining respect I had for the poster. How old is he, anyway, and what does he know?
True, it was an ad hominem attack, and I'm not really in favor of those myself. But, are you saying that you've never made an ad hominem attack?
Okay... which the hell not? I'll answer your question... which, I'm sure, is something you weren't expecting. I mean, it's not like I wrote a short story that got turned into a really awful episode of TNG once or anything...
I'm in my early 40s and live about 30 miles away from Kent State.
Kent State is an Ohio based college. It is well-recognized, certainly in the Northeastern Ohio area, as being a place where conservative students are openly mocked by professors in class, and routinely given lower grades.
A nice little anecdotal bit that anyone who wants to look into it can review easily enough, because it got a LOT of press not all that long ago. There was an openly "Jihadist" professor there who was using Kent State facilities to run a website which, among other things, was a clearing house for information and a routing site for funds used to support terrorist operations. And before you go off on "freedom of speech," realize that (1) he was doing this with STATE TAX DOLLARS, and I'm an Ohio state resident who pays taxes, so he was spending MY money on that, and (2) "freedom of speech" is about stating opinions, not about coordinating and funding known terrorist organizations.
Kent State is WAAAAAY on the "neo-communist" side of the political spectrum, and any student who attends who doesn't toe the line is either going to have to learn to suppress his or her opinions and "go along," or will simply have to leave.
The poster I was responding to identifies himself as a student in Northeastern Ohio. It wasn't an "ad-hominem attack" so much as an assumption based upon fact. He's a student in the area and he posts leftist inflammatory stuff... this is typical for any of the kids at Kent State. It's not 'til they get out into the real world and get punched in the face repeatedly that they start to realize that they really shouldn't behave that way...
So, Dennis... that answer your question?
Almost beside the point. People who think that what happened at Kent State is fodder for political insults are... well, they have an unfortunate misimpression.
Dennis, Dennis, Dennis... do you HONESTLY think that Kent State is an EVENT?
Kent State is a REAL PLACE in the REAL WORLD. It's just a few miles from where I live. It's most likely the place that Sci goes to college. And it's even more liberal than UC Berkeley.
You're guilty of a VERY SILLY mistake. You're assuming that you know more than you actually do.
Go look up Sci's profile on here. Go look up MY profile on here. Look up where Kent State is located at. See if you can connect the dots.
The fact that you seem so certain that you know what you're talking about, and that you're so utterly mistaken, is something you might want to think about.
You think of "Kent State" and you think of one event that occurred decades ago. I think of Kent State and I think of a real place in the real world. And my comment has to do with the REAL LIFE, MODERN DAY political climate at this REAL UNIVERSITY, and had absolutely NOTHING to do with any made-for-TV docudrama you may have watched at some point.
(sigh)
To reiterate... the REAL Kent State is a very liberal college which treats any student who is NOT liberal as a second-class citizen at best, punishes those who break with the established on-campus orthodoxy, and rewards the behavior of people who engage in willfully inflammatory and discriminatory behavior against those whose political beliefs are not "acceptable" to the faculty and administration.
In this area, it is very common to see young folks going around trying to "confront the forces of hate." Of course, "forces of hate" is a code-phrase for anyone who doesn't agree with their personal orthodoxy. And naturally, they are extremely agressive about showing their personal hatred and contempt for these so-called "forces of hate." It's postively Orwellian.
So, Sci pops a politically-inflammatory (and totally off-topic) point into a thread... and I know he's a student in the area where Kent State is located. So, I find myself curious if he's yet another example of the "tolerance" shown by this so-called "Institution of Higher Learning."
I didn't even THINK about any Neil Young songs... clearly, though, you did.
Similar threads
