Why Are We Accepting a Recast?
- Thread starter Frontier
- Start date
Yea, we NEED to go so far forward that folks start talking like this.....
Chief Engineer Whatshisface : Captain, we need to repolerize the phase induction coils on the Nualultramicroscopicsilovolcanoconious generators to bypass the Antidisastablishmentmentarisum nodes to get out of this mess.
Captain Whoishisguyanyway : Huh ? What ?
Yea, THAT'S just what Star Trek needs now, to be even MORE geeky and far over Joe 6-pack's head, riiiiiiiight.
- W -
* Rolls His Eyes *
Chief Engineer Whatshisface : Captain, we need to repolerize the phase induction coils on the Nualultramicroscopicsilovolcanoconious generators to bypass the Antidisastablishmentmentarisum nodes to get out of this mess.
Captain Whoishisguyanyway : Huh ? What ?
Yea, THAT'S just what Star Trek needs now, to be even MORE geeky and far over Joe 6-pack's head, riiiiiiiight.
- W -
* Rolls His Eyes *
FRY: "On the show someone would think of a solution, then explain it with a simple analogy."
LEELA: "If we ...[Technobabble]...It'll overload his eletroquantum matrix!"
BENDER: "Like putting too much air in a balloon!"
FRY: "Of course, it's so simple!"
LEELA: "Oh no, it's not working! our weapon is making him even stronger!"
FRY: "Like a balloon! And something bad happens!"
LEELA: "If we ...[Technobabble]...It'll overload his eletroquantum matrix!"
BENDER: "Like putting too much air in a balloon!"
FRY: "Of course, it's so simple!"
LEELA: "Oh no, it's not working! our weapon is making him even stronger!"
FRY: "Like a balloon! And something bad happens!"
Why are we accepting a recast? Because if you want to go back to the TOS era you simply have no choice. The original cast is now simply too old or deceased.
But actually you don't have to accept anything. I'm already predisposed against this whole project and nothing I've heard so far has encouraged me otherwise in the slightest. If the film manages to garner unusually positive feedback and reviews then I just might give in to curiosity. But if the word is anything less than stellar then I'll keep my wallet closed.
I'd actually have more interest in this project if they would just stand and say honestly that this is a restart and/or a different interpretation because I simply can't see it working any other way.
And so in that light you needn't accept anything from them. If it bothers you enough then just don't see the thing or make a point of seeing/doing something else.
Hell, I don't accept pretty much most of everything after TMP.
But actually you don't have to accept anything. I'm already predisposed against this whole project and nothing I've heard so far has encouraged me otherwise in the slightest. If the film manages to garner unusually positive feedback and reviews then I just might give in to curiosity. But if the word is anything less than stellar then I'll keep my wallet closed.
I'd actually have more interest in this project if they would just stand and say honestly that this is a restart and/or a different interpretation because I simply can't see it working any other way.
And so in that light you needn't accept anything from them. If it bothers you enough then just don't see the thing or make a point of seeing/doing something else.
Hell, I don't accept pretty much most of everything after TMP.
That's not true at all. You can easily go back to the "TOS Era" without recasting. Just give us another crew set in the same era.
Quibbling? Not really... people keep referring to ERA as a catch all.. but within any era, there are almost limitless settings to choose from... and given any setting, there are almost as many possible "ship/crew/mission" combinations to come up with.
The pallet is much broader than people seem to keep assuming. Which is sad...
Warped9 --
I'm not trying to be a troll here, but you have stated that you haven't liked anything Star Trek has done in the past 28 years, including the last 9 films and last 4 TV shows. You have also told us that you have no intention of seeing this next film. So why do you find it necessary to repeatedly return to, and post in, this forum -- a forum NOT dedicated to TOS and TMP, the only Star Trek in which you say you have any present or future known interest.
I have no intention on seeing the new 'Mr. Bean' movie, but I would never consider going to a Mr. Bean board (?
) to tell that to Mr. Bean fans. What I think about that film would be irrelevant to them. It would not be proper for me to comment on it. So why do you feel it is relevant for a self-described non-fan of anything to do with Star Trek for the past 3 decades to repeatedly tell us that you won't like this film, either.
I, too am a big TOS fan, and grew up watching it throughout the early 1970's (I never even heard of Star Trek when I started watching at 7 years of age...I kept watching it because it enthralled me, not because someone suggested I watch it). I love TOS because of the characters. I think Abrams' idea of going back to those characters, especially the triumvirate of Kirk/Spock/McCoy, is the absolutely right direction to go with the franchise. That's why I feel that this film has the potential to be a great Star Trek film, and possibly a great film in general -- as long as Abrams can well-execute this idea of returning to these iconic charaters.
Again -- I'm not trying to be a jerk here. It's just that you seem very vocal for someone who has had absolutely no interest in the direction Star Trek has taken since 1979.
...and for the record, I think Mr. Bean is harmless fun, but a whole Bean film is just not my cup of tea.
I'm not trying to be a troll here, but you have stated that you haven't liked anything Star Trek has done in the past 28 years, including the last 9 films and last 4 TV shows. You have also told us that you have no intention of seeing this next film. So why do you find it necessary to repeatedly return to, and post in, this forum -- a forum NOT dedicated to TOS and TMP, the only Star Trek in which you say you have any present or future known interest.
I have no intention on seeing the new 'Mr. Bean' movie, but I would never consider going to a Mr. Bean board (?
) to tell that to Mr. Bean fans. What I think about that film would be irrelevant to them. It would not be proper for me to comment on it. So why do you feel it is relevant for a self-described non-fan of anything to do with Star Trek for the past 3 decades to repeatedly tell us that you won't like this film, either.I, too am a big TOS fan, and grew up watching it throughout the early 1970's (I never even heard of Star Trek when I started watching at 7 years of age...I kept watching it because it enthralled me, not because someone suggested I watch it). I love TOS because of the characters. I think Abrams' idea of going back to those characters, especially the triumvirate of Kirk/Spock/McCoy, is the absolutely right direction to go with the franchise. That's why I feel that this film has the potential to be a great Star Trek film, and possibly a great film in general -- as long as Abrams can well-execute this idea of returning to these iconic charaters.
Again -- I'm not trying to be a jerk here. It's just that you seem very vocal for someone who has had absolutely no interest in the direction Star Trek has taken since 1979.
...and for the record, I think Mr. Bean is harmless fun, but a whole Bean film is just not my cup of tea.
dkehler said:
Yeah, millions of people want to see Captain Nobody and crew of the starship Obscure.
Roddenberry himself once said that if there was a better crew, captain, and ship than the U.S.S. Enterprise, then "Star Trek" would have been about those people and not James T. Kirk.
Yep, I know exactly what you mean... who'd ever want to watch a TV show with some French ponce and a teenage kid among the leads, on a ship that looked nothing at all like the "real" Enterprise... sheesh... that would SUCK, huh?dkehler said:Yeah, millions of people want to see Captain Nobody and crew of the starship Obscure.
Oh, wait... didn't they do that once or twice? I can't seem to recall if it was as much of a total disaster as you make out THAT time... help me out, willya?
Same here, except it was the 1960s and I was a little older. Most of the TOS-Onlies are simply obsessive, unimaginative nuisances.
Cary L. Brown said:
Yep, I know exactly what you mean... who'd ever want to watch a TV show with some French ponce and a teenage kid among the leads, on a ship that looked nothing at all like the "real" Enterprise... sheesh... that would SUCK, huh?dkehler said:Yeah, millions of people want to see Captain Nobody and crew of the starship Obscure.
Oh, wait... didn't they do that once or twice? I can't seem to recall if it was as much of a total disaster as you make out THAT time... help me out, willya?
Those were TV shows before major motion pictures, don't forget. People didn't have to pay 10 bucks to see characters they'd never heard of.
A recast is one thing. A new, unfamiliar starship and crew in a movie called Star Trek is another. The latter being very unlikely to do well at the box office while the recast at least has a chance.
Why are we accepting a recast?
I don't remember them asking us if we would accept it, actually.
Peace
Worfmonger
I don't remember them asking us if we would accept it, actually.
Peace
Worfmonger
L
Lord Garth
Guest
A lot of posters in here are in favor of ST XI -- as am I -- but I know where things will eventually lead if I let the problem grow, so I might as well address it now.
This question is both legitimate and benign even though it deals with the poster instead of the actual topic.
This, OTOH, isn't helping at all. "Attack the post not the poster." Thank you.
This question is both legitimate and benign even though it deals with the poster instead of the actual topic.
This, OTOH, isn't helping at all. "Attack the post not the poster." Thank you.
It's either a recast or a movie featuring all new character than only Trek fans will give a crap for. And that's the road to failure right there.
I'm not sure it's a "road to failure." It is, however, a massive risk, and as we all know, Paramount is treating this film as a "proof of concept" to see if Trek is still viable as entertainment. So the "low-risk" (as they see it at least) approach is inevitable. I agree with you on this point.
I'm not convinced that a film with all-new characters would be a failure. Seriously, think about how many films you've seen in the past few years that involved character you'd never heard of before.
Before "Pirates of the Caribbean," nobody had ever heard the name "Jack Sparrow," had they? And very few people had ever heard the name "Jason Bourne" prior to "The Bourne Identity." The list goes on... having UNFAMILIAR characters in films is far more common than having familiar ones.
Why should Star Trek, NECESSARILY, be treated differently? I mean, isn't Star Trek more of a SETTING than a specific cast and crew?
The arguments I'm hearing now are VERY familiar... I heard all of them in the mid-late 80s...
But history has shown that WELL WRITTEN, WELL ACTED CHARACTERS and COMPELLING SITUATIONS makes for good entertainment, not "sticking to formula." Give the audiences some QUALITY "new stuff" and I think that they'd be all over it.
The thing is, it's just "safer" (on the surface) to go for the "known quantities." But there are, to my perspective at least, just as many risks going this way... they're just DIFFERENT risks (alienating an existing audience... and I'm not talking just about the "hardcore fans," I'm talking about everyone who's familiar with the original show).
There's no shortage of risk involved here... and I'm open to the risks that they're taking in this approach. I'm just dismayed that so many people are so strongly opposed to OTHER risks that have the potential to produce great results, too. (sigh)
~ Not so long ago, in a galaxy not so far away ~
Fans : We'd accept a new crew and a new ship.
Paramont : You didn't accept Voyager, You didn't accept Enterprise, tell you what, we'll just stop listening to your demands, we've had it with you.
Fans : Uhm....
Paramont : We'll do whatever we want to do with Star Trek.
Fans : Now wait just a second....
Paramont : Let's start from scratch, screw what the fans want anymore.
Fans : I don't think they'er listening to us anymore.
~ Now ~
Fans : This new movie is going to suck, why are they recasting, why are they going back to TOS, why ?
Paramount : How soon they forget....
- W -
* That's why we have to learn to live with a recast, any questions ? *
Fans : We'd accept a new crew and a new ship.
Paramont : You didn't accept Voyager, You didn't accept Enterprise, tell you what, we'll just stop listening to your demands, we've had it with you.
Fans : Uhm....
Paramont : We'll do whatever we want to do with Star Trek.
Fans : Now wait just a second....
Paramont : Let's start from scratch, screw what the fans want anymore.
Fans : I don't think they'er listening to us anymore.
~ Now ~
Fans : This new movie is going to suck, why are they recasting, why are they going back to TOS, why ?
Paramount : How soon they forget....
- W -
* That's why we have to learn to live with a recast, any questions ? *
But Star Trek HAS NOT been 'treated differently' for 10 feature films (six featuring the original TOS actors; and four featuring TNG actors). Also, that last film Star Trek: Nemesis BADLY BOMBED.
As for stories with a 'new' cast. That's been tried on television; and only really met with major succes with TNG. From DS9 on, overall viewership dropped over the next 12 years, until it hit a point where the studio felt it was no longer a viable bussiness to produce new episodes. Given that (that the audience seems to have tired of the 'new cast/different ship/setting' formula, WHY try that on the big screen?
In effect what they are doing with this may seem just as risky; but in a way, I think it's less risky in that OTHER franchises (Dukes of Hazzard; Mission Impossible to name two) did VERY well with the main TV character parts recast; and it's not hirt the James Bond franchise either. PLUS - one of the original actors (Leonard Nimoy) is HEAVILY on-board and 100% behind this new project; and even came out of retirement to do it - and if you know the history of Leonard Nimoy and Star Trek, he doesn't just jump into any Star Trek project.
Thus - Star Trek is NOT being treated differently. I'm just amazed they are attempting it so soon; but that's probably because JJ Abrhams WENT to Paramount and said, "This is something I want to do, now." and since Paramount had a development deal. they said "Okay."
But please - after 28 TV season over 40 years (18 years of the consecutive); and 10 feature films featuring the original TV series over 25 or so years; I don't see how anyone can claim 'Star Trek' was treated 'differently'.
Huh? Did you think as you were posting that that you're disagreeing with me, or that you're agreeing with me? It sounds like you THINK you're disagreeing... but I'm not sure what you think you're disagreeing with.
I said that the "Trek" setting is only that... a SETTING. And that a film with new characters and new situations, set in that same setting, is really not all that different than a film with new characters and new situations set in any other situation.
I said that to dispute the claims that, evidently, it's not possible for "Star Trek" to succeed on the big screen unless the characters and situations are ones we already know. I DO dispute that, quite strongly.
I see no reason to assume that you couldn't, for instance, have set the movie "Minority Report" in the Trek Universe rather than our near-future and have had it be almost the exact same movie, no better and no worse.
So... I'm not clear... based upon your last comment (re the films having constant casting, and the last film being considered a box-office failure)... are you agreeing with me, or disagreeing?
You're equating this one factor... new cast... with being the SOLE REASON that a show succeeds or fails?
I think that's pretty seriously flawed logic. I think that the "new cast or existing cast" argument falls near the BOTTOM of the list of "things which went wrong with Star Trek" over the years.
Again, every show... INCLUDING TOS... started off as a "new ship with a new crew in a new situation." True or false?
"Dukes of Hazard" did well? Okaaayyyyy...
And M:I was effectively unrelated to the original show in the first two movies...only to BEGIN to feel like the original again this last go-round. And it was never a "recasting" anyway. Tom Cruise didn't play Jim Phelps. He played a new character, set in the same universe.
Which, as you may have noticed, is what I was just arguing IN FAVOR OF. So I'm not sure I see the point of your comment.
Well, that's debatable... some Bond films have done better than others, haven't they? So SOME "recastings" were "good" and some were "not so good." And the "franchise" really did see some pretty serious downturns from time to time.
Again, I'm trying to figure out how you think what you're saying in any way contradicts what I said. Let me say it just ONE MORE TIME for you...
1) Most films have all-new sets of characters in all-new situations and that is never considered a liability.
2) The conversation here implies that a number of people here believe that, UNIQUELY FOR A TREK FILM, an all-new set of characters in an all-new situation WOULD be considered a liability.
THAT IS THE "BEING TREATED DIFFERENTLY" THAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT.
Get it now?
No "probably" involved... that is what happened, according to the people involved.
Only if you have NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE RESPONDING TO. You are arguing against some imaginary point you seem to have invented in your own imagination which has NOTHING to do with anything I was saying.
Just to clarify, what, exactly do you think that you're arguing against? It would sure be helpful for you to explain, because I literally can't imagine what you think I said which you're apparently trying to argue against.
Huh - the way that you wrote you're original post, I took it to mean that you thought that recasting the existing characters using new actors in the roles played by William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelly, etc. was MORE of a risk than just going with yet another 'new ship' and 'new crew' scenario (which is what they did with the TV franchise for the past 18 years); andI was trying to explain why I think is isn't a bigger risk.
I also inferred that you were implying that by doing this recasting you felt Star Trek was suddenly being treated differently then other similar franchises - but after seeing your reply, I guess that isn't what you were trying to say.
Just because YOU think you stated something so 'crystal clear'; doesn't make it so, I DID read your entire post.
Fair enough, but let me requote, here, the relevant passage:
See? I would have thought that the whole bit about Jack Sparrow and Jason Bourne would have made that obvious..
But oh well... at least it's clear now, huh?
Similar threads
