Why did they bother...

[Locutus of Bored]

It is my considered opinion that casting actors according to their ethnicity is the worst part of Affirmative Action. Not casting the best actor for a role because he is not the right race is the definition of racism.

Disagree if you like, but it won't change my opinion.

That is neither a "considered" opinion, the worst (or any) part of Affirmative Action, or the definition of racism.

And since you apparently choose to wallow in your own ignorance without any desire to change when presented with new information according to the last part, why don't you just keep your charming views on race considerations in casting out of the forum and restrict your commentary to the quality or lack thereof of the movie, mmkay?

 

[FreddyE]

Sulu isn't a Japanese name, for the record. There is no "l" in Japanese (many Japanese can't even pronounce it), but "Hikaru" is (it means "light").

Actually, there is no "r" either. It´s actually a sound that could be described as "between l and r" (if you look at the tounge position), when beeing transcribed into our writing system it can be written as "l" OR "r". To our western ears it sounds like "l" or "r" or it can even seem to alternate between both.

 

[YARN]

Regarding TV Westerns

Let's note...

1. sj4iy deprecated the quality of TOS: "Oh please, even TOS was far from artistic. It was a western set in space."

2. I responded by noting that Westerns occupy their own category of art. I also asked if Gunsmoke, the Rifleman, and Bonanza featured the progressive social commentary we saw on Star Trek.

3. Other posters jumped in claiming progressive features of 60's TV westerns.

If #3 is correct, then great. If so, Star Trek has laudable features in common with TV westerns. Both were engaged in substantive social commentary. If art can serve a moral function (i.e., allow us to explore moral questions and allow artists to take moral stances), then both Star Trek and TV Westerns appear to share this facet.

NOTE: It is still my contention that Star Trek did more than the TV westerns. It was very multi-racial/multi-ethnic for it's time. The bridge of the Enterprise was rainbow of men and women working in unison. In addition, Trek could get away with stories that other shows could not, because it was in a fanciful setting. It could make direct comments about race hatred and segregation (i.e., it's stupid), because the message more easily slid past the censors.

 

[nightwind1]

I found the Schumacher batflicks to be embarrassing in storytelling and visually, but not nearly as much as the Abrams with the lens flares and such. Yet for all his faults, Schumacher somehow made FALLING DOWN, which is probably among the top 5 films of the 90s for me, so it isn't just him. Also, if the first Schumacher was so reviled at the time, why was he retained for the real disaster that followed?

Honestly, I don't find the Burton batfilms much better (which puts it in the Abrams category, where others rave and I disagree heartily), though the second one had some moments. I don't find much of Burton's to be all that enjoyable, though I'm sure he has won his ticket to heaven with ED WOOD, which is just wonderful beyond belief.

The Nolans just feel right to me ... except for Katie Holmes, that is.

Of course, the thing about all three of the franchise restarts is that I am a major devotee of Bond and Trek, whereas BATMAN is just something I go see. Perhaps that is why I have been utterly appalled by two of the three Bondfilms (and only fitfully impressed with the middle one) and both Abramspics, while I've been fine (or more than fine) with all the Nolan Batfilms, with BEGINS prid near perfect, TDK very very good and TDKR good with signs of acid rain.

I think he works at a level that is well above these other guys, but maybe I'll be proved wrong in a couple of years. If as rumored Nolan actually does agree to do the next Bond, it will be the ultimate pushme/pullyou for me, as I am quite impressed with nearly all of his work, yet am convinced that there is no way I will see another Bond film until the ugly guy passing as 007 gets put out to pasture and they actually start making the films about Bond instead of about another orphan with neuroses (Bond was an orphan but the neurosis seem clearly linked to the BatRestart.)

Ugly guy?

You mean Daniel Craig, widely regarded as possibly the best James Bond in the franchise's history?

 

[marksound]

It is my considered opinion that casting actors according to their ethnicity is the worst part of Affirmative Action. Not casting the best actor for a role because he is not the right race is the definition of racism.

Disagree if you like, but it won't change my opinion.

That is neither a "considered" opinion, the worst (or any) part of Affirmative Action, or the definition of racism.

And since you apparently choose to wallow in your own ignorance without any desire to change when presented with new information according to the last part, why don't you just keep your charming views on race considerations in casting out of the forum and restrict your commentary to the quality or lack thereof of the movie, mmkay?

Thanks, but no thanks.

A. Whether or not my opinions are "considered" is not for you to judge.
B. Unless I'm breaking a forum rule, you don't get to tell me to sit down and shut up.

But hey, it's been great talking to ya. Have a nice day.

 

[BillJ]

The Dark Knight trilogy puts me to sleep, I'd rather watch the 1989 Batman film any day of the week. Simply because its fun.

I like TOS because its a fun show to watch. I like the Abrams films because they're fun to watch and tickle the kid inside of me.

 

[The Old Mixer]

NOTE: It is still my contention that Star Trek did more than the TV westerns. It was very multi-racial/multi-ethnic for it's time. The bridge of the Enterprise was rainbow of men and women working in unison. In addition, Trek could get away with stories that other shows could not, because it was in a fanciful setting. It could make direct comments about race hatred and segregation (i.e., it's stupid), because the message more easily slid past the censors.

I never watched many westerns when I was younger, so I was surprised when watching some in recent times just how much they were doing the same sort of thing. Whereas Trek could do allegorical stories because it was in a futuristic setting, westerns were able to do them because they were in an archaic one...but often more on the nose because, to use the example of stories about bigotry/intolerance, they were using actual ethnic groups and putting authentic-sounding racial slurs in the mouths of the intolerant. Trek definitely deserves its credit for the future it depicted and the stories that it told, but it wasn't doing so in a vacuum.

(On a completely off-topic note, Trek fans who aren't familiar with The Rifleman might be interested to know that Paul Fix--Dr. Piper from "Where No Man Has Gone Before"--was a regular on the show, and much better utilized as the marshal of North Fork.)

 

[sj4iy]

Sulu isn't a Japanese name, for the record. There is no "l" in Japanese (many Japanese can't even pronounce it), but "Hikaru" is (it means "light").

Actually, there is no "r" either. It´s actually a sound that could be described as "between l and r" (if you look at the tounge position), when beeing transcribed into our writing system it can be written as "l" OR "r". To our western ears it sounds like "l" or "r" or it can even seem to alternate between both.

It's between an r, l and d sound in my opinion. And it's always Romanized as an 'r'. My Japanese teacher who spoke English well struggled to pronounce the word auxiliary. Doesn't change the fact that Sulu isn't a Japanese name. "Suru" is the most important verb in Japanese, though (as well as several other verbs).

 

[Belz...]

Why did they bother with the original Trek crew in these new movies?

Because it sells more to have the best-known cast of characters associated with the venerable franchise.

Why would people want Pine to do Shatner-isms? Pine's Kirk is fantastic and a breath of fresh air. Let him be his own man.

No Shatnerisms, but I want some Kirk Karate Chops !!

 

[sj4iy]

I found the Schumacher batflicks to be embarrassing in storytelling and visually, but not nearly as much as the Abrams with the lens flares and such. Yet for all his faults, Schumacher somehow made FALLING DOWN, which is probably among the top 5 films of the 90s for me, so it isn't just him. Also, if the first Schumacher was so reviled at the time, why was he retained for the real disaster that followed?

Honestly, I don't find the Burton batfilms much better (which puts it in the Abrams category, where others rave and I disagree heartily), though the second one had some moments. I don't find much of Burton's to be all that enjoyable, though I'm sure he has won his ticket to heaven with ED WOOD, which is just wonderful beyond belief.

The Nolans just feel right to me ... except for Katie Holmes, that is.

Of course, the thing about all three of the franchise restarts is that I am a major devotee of Bond and Trek, whereas BATMAN is just something I go see. Perhaps that is why I have been utterly appalled by two of the three Bondfilms (and only fitfully impressed with the middle one) and both Abramspics, while I've been fine (or more than fine) with all the Nolan Batfilms, with BEGINS prid near perfect, TDK very very good and TDKR good with signs of acid rain.

I think he works at a level that is well above these other guys, but maybe I'll be proved wrong in a couple of years. If as rumored Nolan actually does agree to do the next Bond, it will be the ultimate pushme/pullyou for me, as I am quite impressed with nearly all of his work, yet am convinced that there is no way I will see another Bond film until the ugly guy passing as 007 gets put out to pasture and they actually start making the films about Bond instead of about another orphan with neuroses (Bond was an orphan but the neurosis seem clearly linked to the BatRestart.)

Burton Batmans - Fun, a step away from the silliness of the original show

Schumacher Batmans - Oh god make it stop

Nolan Batmans - BB was okay, a fresh take but not a great story, TDK was awesomesauce best comic book movie ever, and TDKR was a letdown, although it was fun to see it filmed in the city everyday where I work, even if it did eff up my commute).

Bonds, in order of best to worst - Sean Connery, Daniel Craig, Pierce Brosnan, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton. Obviously my opinion, but that's the frequency with which I will rewatch their movies.

Star Trek, best to worst- TNG, DS9, Voyager, TOS, Enterprise. The new movies rank up there with TNG and DS9 on terms of what I like the most.

 

[Anticitizen]

Spock had a relationship with a human woman six years prior to season one of TOS per "This Side of Paradise".

No, he didn't. Relevant quotes:


ELIAS: You've known the Vulcanian?
LEILA: On Earth, six years ago.
ELIAS: Did you love him?
LEILA: If I did, it was important only to myself.
ELIAS: How did he feel?
LEILA: Mister Spock's feelings were never expressed to me. It is said he has none to give.

...

LEILA: I love you. I said that six years ago, and I can't seem to stop repeating myself. On Earth, you couldn't give anything of yourself. You couldn't even put your arms around me. We couldn't have anything together there. We couldn't have anything together anyplace else. We're happy here. (crying) I can't lose you now, Mister Spock. I can't.
SPOCK: I have a responsibility to this ship, to that man on the Bridge. I am what I am, Leila, and if there are self-made purgatories, then we all have to live in them. Mine can be no worse than someone else's.

Clearly it was a one-sided 'relationship' in which Leila pined after Spock, but her affections were not returned due to his Vulcan stoicism.

I agree with the original poster. These characters do not resemble the originals. They are one-dimensional parodies and don't even get the basic character traits right.

 

[BillJ]

I agree with the original poster. These characters do not resemble the originals. They are one-dimensional parodies and don't even get the basic character traits right.

I disagree. I think they're bang-on what I imagine these characters were like a decade prior to TOS. Except for Kirk, who grew up in entirely different circumstances.

And just because Spock couldn't put his arms around Kalomi in an affectionate manner doesn't mean he wasn't banging her. Folks seem to forget Spock went through quite a metamorphosis between The Cage (which was roughly a decade earlier) and who he was during the five-year mission.

 

[Anticitizen]

And just because Spock couldn't put his arms around Kalomi in an affectionate manner doesn't mean he wasn't banging her.

I'd think that this line you passed over heavily implies that that is not the case:

LEILA: Mister Spock's feelings were never expressed to me. It is said he has none to give.

Folks seem to forget Spock went through quite a metamorphosis between The Cage (which was roughly a decade earlier) and who he was during the five-year mission.

That's because that clip is from the unaired pilot (later reworked into The Menagerie), in which Majel Barett's 'Number One' is supposed to be the logical, unfeeling character, not Spock. I think the viewer is just supposed to pretend that Spock isn't smiling in that scene.

 

[BillJ]

That's because that clip is from the unaired pilot (later reworked into The Menagerie), in which Majel Barett's 'Number One' is supposed to be the logical, unfeeling character, not Spock. I think the viewer is just supposed to pretend that Spock isn't smiling in that scene.

We have a smiling Spock in Where No Man... and was never an unfeeling character. And since pilot footage from The Cage is included in an episode of the regular series run, you simply can't ignore it because it's inconvenient to your argument.

 

[The Old Mixer]

It's harder to pretend that he doesn't shout, "THE WOMEN!!!!!"

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

These characters do not resemble the originals. They are one-dimensional parodies and don't even get the basic character traits right.

No, they're actually a good deal more dimensional and lively than the old versions became over the years. These kids are better actors than the old guys - for the most part - and I'm looking forward to seeing what they do in times to come.

 

[YARN]

No, they're actually a good deal more dimensional and lively than the old versions became over the years. These kids are better actors than the old guys - for the most part - and I'm looking forward to seeing what they do in times to come.

DeForest Kelley's filmography would like to have a word with you.

William Shatner? Not a great actor, but he was great in that role. And what he did was in the style of male leads on television at that time. He owned that role.

Leonard Nimoy? Granted, it took a few episodes to find the character (kind of hard when the writers don't even know who/what you're supposed to be and they're making it up every week), but when he did, he had it locked. His character was reserved, but deep - his calm masking an intensity beneath the surface (Quinto always looks like he's about to yell).

Walter Koenig. OK, not so much.

George Takei was just fine.

Nichelle Nichols. She was OK. Many actresses could have pulled off her role.

James Doohan. A lovable, but rather two-dimensional character.

Yes, the background players were rather shallow, but they were in the background of the trio that really defined the show. It's OK for background characters to be simple, because they provide a simple reference frame for the rest of the action.

We should keep in mind as well that producing a TV show in 1960s involved getting a script slapped together and throwing it into the hands of actors who were still memorizing lines when shooting started.

If you think that anyone could have walked into those roles in the original series, I would refer you to the many fan productions of the original series. The sets usually look OK (at least as good as they did in the 60's). The stories are usually OK. The special effects are much better than the original series. And yet these productions are terrible, because the acting is terrible. Every time a watch a few minutes of one of these fan productions I am struck by how good TOS really was.

RLM ask a valid question of nuKirk and nuSpock's bromance - "Why are these two people friends?" I can't figure it out myself, apart from the fact that Shatner and Nimoy established the relationship for them and that relationship still resonates in our cultural memory.

It's not the fault of the actors in either case. I am not a fan of Pine's Kirk so far, but then again, it's not his fault that thev're written him as a womanizing jock with no regard for duty. I'm sold on Quinto's and Pegg's acting chops. I'll throw Urban in there too. The rest of the cast could be replaced with no harm done.

The talent level is comparable, but the chemistry of the original cast took it to another level. I'm not saying that the new cast isn't capable of generating that chemistry, but it's hard to do that when the characters are involved in general calisthenics and firing hand phasers.

 

[Belz...]

I agree with the original poster. These characters do not resemble the originals. They are one-dimensional parodies and don't even get the basic character traits right.

First off, Vulcans, as I said before, are VERY emotional. They just have an ironclad discipline to control that nature. Second, cast new actors and hire new writers and a new director, and you get different characters. Even the original cast during TOS acted differently from one episode to the next, depending on the plot. It's nothing new. I, for one, find them fresh while being quite similar to their original selves.

 

[BillJ]

They're obviously friends for no discernible reason in Where No Man... yet I've never seen anyone complain.

 

[Belz...]

If you think that anyone could have walked into those roles in the original series, I would refer you to the many fan productions of the original series.

Most of those guys aren't professional actors, and no one said "anyone could have". He said the new ones are better actors "for the most part".

I'd think that this line you passed over heavily implies that that is not the case:

LEILA: Mister Spock's feelings were never expressed to me. It is said he has none to give.

I think you are the one who missed a line, namely that this does not preclude private feelings or other shows of caring. STID makes that very clear.