# Sylar to play Spock in JJ Abrams' Star Trek re-make!



## F5 (Jul 27, 2007)

Zach Quinto (AKA Sylar from Heroes) is signed on to play Spock's younger self in the new JJ Abrams-directed Star Trek movie.  Nimoy will have a "meaty cameo", but Quinto will be playing him in the flashback/new origin story that the movie will focus on.

I think...cool?

http://www.eonline.com/news/article...m_medium=rssfeeds&utm_campaign=rss_topstories

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i3d0f320aaf6dea3150739497b0bcd75b

No word yet on who plays Kirk or Bones.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 27, 2007)

My first thought is... eh?  The problem being that the character was defined by an actor, rather than by written fiction.  We are quite thoroughly conditioned to specific nuances, and I don't know if Quinto can do them.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jul 27, 2007)

I'm not sure wether the casting was before Heroes or not but my problem is that Sylar is such a defining role as well that I am going to be thinking why is Sylar in Star Trek whenever he is on screen. That is if I even watch this abomination.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 27, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> My first thought is... eh?  The problem being that the character was defined by an actor, rather than by written fiction.  We are quite thoroughly conditioned to specific nuances, and I don't know if Quinto can do them.




James Bond, BSG, Doctor Who ... it can work.  It's risky, but if they can pull it off, and have a little luck, it could work very well.  The mistake would be making it a "remake" rather than a "reinterpretation".  They shouldn't try to copy old Star Trek, they should, like with BSG, make a new one.


----------



## F5 (Jul 27, 2007)

I thought Quinto was really good as Sylar, that he is able to give a pretty nuanced performance.  

He said in one of the interviews that he was looking forward to working with Nimoy, and that when asked how much of Nimoy's style he would put into his Spock, Quinto said something to the effect of "He'll be involved in the production, so, as much as he lets me".  He also said he wanted to show his own take on Spock.  Frankly, I think that's a good thing...he's got respect for the original, but recognizes that he's not it.

I suspect that lots of people will hate this.

I suspect that lots of other people will love this.

I also suspect that, whatever else happens, Sylar's got geek cred for life.


----------



## jaerdaph (Jul 27, 2007)

F5 said:
			
		

> Zach Quinto (AKA Sylar from Heroes) is signed on to play Spock's younger self in the new JJ Abrams-directed Star Trek movie.  Nimoy will have a "meaty cameo", but Quinto will be playing him in the flashback/new origin story that the movie will focus on.




Heh - RangerREG suggested Quinto for Spock several months back. 

I think he's a great choice. And glad to hear Nimoy will appear as well. 

Is Gary Sinise still playing Bones? That was another good casting choice.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 27, 2007)

Morrus said:
			
		

> James Bond, BSG, Doctor Who ... it can work.




Thinking about it, I cannot really address Bond - by the time I started watching Bond flicks, the part had already been played by more than one actor.  The idea that Bond wasn't one man was already in my head.

Doctor Who - has changing actors as an explicit potential written into the character, including the understanding that his whole personality changes each time, so this one hardly counts. 



> They shouldn't try to copy old Star Trek, they should, like with BSG, make a new one.




Unfortunately, given that Nimoy is also in the movie, unless they do some really cheesy alternate universe work, this looks to be a vision into the past of the Spock we now know. 

I, personally, think that full reimagings are fine - it is done with Shakespeare, Arthurian legend, and so on all the time, to wonderful effect.  But, I think they're a really, really hard sell while a particular version has a strong and living fanbase.  If you want to re-image, you have to wait for the corpse of the old version to cool - like it did with BSG.  I don't think Trek is ready for this treatment.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jul 27, 2007)

They better do it really really well. As a major Trek fan (having seen all of the TV episodes including enterprise and the cartoon as well as Nemesis) they are seriously risking losing their base. Unless I hear this is stellar I won't bother (and I have seen some mind numbingly bad episodes and movies to keep my streak going). 

As for the Spock casting. I wasn't complaining that they cast someone else in the role. It was who they cast. If someone else is in the role I don't want to be thinking "watch out, he'll eat your brains."


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 27, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> My first thought is... eh?  The problem being that the character was defined by an actor, rather than by written fiction.  We are quite thoroughly conditioned to specific nuances, and I don't know if Quinto can do them.




If more than one person can play Hamlet or Henry V, I have a feeling there is a second person capable of pulling off the oh-so-challenging parts of Kirk and Spock.

For that matter, how many times has Bond been cast? Superman?

And yeah, they were books first, but not to me, and I would wager not to MOST people. Christopher Reeve is Superman to me. Connery is Bond. 

Parts are recast. It's the nature of film franchises. 

Also, the notion that "Shatner is Kirk" is disproven in part by Shatner's ability to play other roles. 

If the character and actor were really that joined at the hip, wouldn't folks be wondering why Kirk was working at a law firm and suffering from a disease McCoy could easily cure? 

Audiences are actually pretty smart. They realize the actor is not the character and vice versa.

If the casting is done well, if the movie is compelling, in other words, if it's GOOD, folks will see it and accept it.


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 27, 2007)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> They better do it really really well. As a major Trek fan (having seen all of the TV episodes including enterprise and the cartoon as well as Nemesis) they are seriously risking losing their base.




Losing? Don't you mean lost? It's not like Nemesis and Enterprise were doing such bang-up jobs that they should feel encouraged to play it safe.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 27, 2007)

Morrus said:
			
		

> James Bond, BSG, Doctor Who ... it can work.  It's risky, but if they can pull it off, and have a little luck, it could work very well.  The mistake would be making it a "remake" rather than a "reinterpretation".  They shouldn't try to copy old Star Trek, they should, like with BSG, make a new one.




Or just do a story in the Star Trek universe that isn't Kirk & Spock.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 27, 2007)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Or just do a story in the Star Trek universe that isn't Kirk & Spock.



 That's what I'd prefer, but sadly we aren't getting it in movie form yet. 

But I'll keep my eye on this. JJ Abrams has a good track record IMO, so I like to think he can do a good job with this and maybe breathe new life into Trek.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 27, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Thinking about it, I cannot really address Bond - by the time I started watching Bond flicks, the part had already been played by more than one actor.  The idea that Bond wasn't one man was already in my head.
> 
> Doctor Who - has changing actors as an explicit potential written into the character, including the understanding that his whole personality changes each time, so this one hardly counts.
> 
> ...




One of the key differences between BSG and Startrek might be that Startrek had considerably more than just two season. If they had decided to make a reimagination instead of a continuation when they decided to continue (or rather: begin) the Startrek franchise, it would have worked. Now, as it stays, the fans have invested to much that it would probably hurt a lot to reimagine it. 

But on the other hand, maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea. I think sometimes Startrek is a bit overblown - to many stories, to many "established" facts that sometimes even contradict itself, inconcistent technology and so on... On the other hand, there are so many cool things that have been done that I don't want to see re-imagined. I want something new, but based on what we know...


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jul 27, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> If more than one person can play Hamlet or Henry V, I have a feeling there is a second person capable of pulling off the oh-so-challenging parts of Kirk and Spock.
> 
> For that matter, how many times has Bond been cast? Superman?
> 
> ...




I disagree and think that TV especially merges actors and thier roles far more than other media. In a play the roles are written to be played by anyone (with very few exceptions), in movies the roles are primarily written for anyone to play the part. But even in movies this starts to break down with comedies since a share of them are written for one comedian in particular and just don't work for others. Plays and movies also have only about 2 hours of time total to work on the characters and so only a limited amout of that character can be based on the actor unless written specifically for the actor. Even in long series (5 movies) this comes out to 10 hours of character and actor to find syncronicity. Now with TV things get different. Characters are written generically at first so various actors can play them and this often shows in the first few episodes of a series and sometimes as long as the first year. But the longer a show runs the more a character starts to be written for the actor and less for character. Writers begin to see what an actor can pull off or not and start writting the characters to wiork to the actors strengths (well hopefully as many a failed show often demonstrates). This is then developed over a 100 or more episodes and over that time the characters become less generic and more tied to particular actors.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> Also, the notion that "Shatner is Kirk" is disproven in part by Shatner's ability to play other roles.




Well that is a poor choice to use as I disagree with the notion that Shater can play any role at all. Kidding aside TJ hooker has sometimes been considered Kirk as a cop. His current job in Boston Legal works because Shatner as an actor is an old man now and doesn't resemble his Kirk years anymore. This also only deals with "Shatner is Kirk" which is his ability to play other roles as oppsed to "Kirk is Shatner" which covers other peoples ability to play the Kirk role. 



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> If the character and actor were really that joined at the hip, wouldn't folks be wondering why Kirk was working at a law firm and suffering from a disease McCoy could easily cure?
> 
> Audiences are actually pretty smart. They realize the actor is not the character and vice versa.




I will take this as I hope you intended and not as it reads. Just because I think certain roles are defined by certain actors and just because I see someone in a movie and am reminded that they played something else elsewhere (to varying degres of distraction) that in no way means that I in any way lack the ability to diferentiate reality from fiction or one fictional character from another.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> If the casting is done well, if the movie is compelling, in other words, if it's GOOD, folks will see it and accept it.




It needs to be beyond good in my opinion. Hollywood has over the last decade had a really poor track record producing movies based on old TV shows (which is different than making movies as an expansion of a series using the same cast). Sure they might make something of a profit, but there has been nothing released that I can remember as good or doing a TV show justice. As a fan of 450+ hours of Star Trek I really don't want to see Star Trek suffer this same fate.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 27, 2007)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> As for the Spock casting. I wasn't complaining that they cast someone else in the role. It was who they cast. If someone else is in the role I don't want to be thinking "watch out, he'll eat your brains."




Don't you see?  It's a circular reference!  It's _revenge_!







-Hyp.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Jul 27, 2007)

Well, I gotta admit I already hate the subplot where during pon'farr Spock eat's a cadet's brains.


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 28, 2007)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> In a play the roles are written to be played by anyone (with very few exceptions), in movies the roles are primarily written for anyone to play the part.




In actuality most theater parts are written for a specific actor.

But even later actors can cast long shadows, especially when the part is immortalized in some way (usually through a film version).

I'm guessing you never spent much time around theater folks. When word got out that Branaugh was going to make a movie of Henry V, many people instantly wrote him off. Olivier's performance was considered the gold standard, and many MANY people ticked off how Branaugh's performance differed beat by beat with an exactness that would make some trek fans blush.

There's plenty of harder roles, and many of those have been successfully recast in the past. 



> This is then developed over a 100 or more episodes and over that time the characters become less generic and more tied to particular actors.




Sure, but that bond that comes from actor as character being a weekly "guest" in our homes certainly doesn't apply to Shatner/Kirk anymore.

If this were being tried in 1978, I'd call it crazy. But 1978 was 30 years ago. Time makes things acceptable.

The fact is, Kirk is an amazing character. He was as likely to be recast as Bond, Hercules, Spider-Man and Superman. Did you really think there was never going to be another movie about James T. Kirk?

I would characterize that opinion as naive in the extreme. 



> Well that is a poor choice to use as I disagree with the notion that Shater can play any role at all.




Wasn't Shatner nominated for an Emmy as best actor for Kirk *and* Denny Crane? He may be stylized but that's a legitimate form of acting and one that many audience members obviously find appealing. 

Gielgud was stylized too and he was knighted, and packed theaters until the day he died. 

Shatner clearly has "it" and "it" clearly transcends character and time. He's the opposite of typecast. How many people have been the lead character in three successful TV shows? (Hint: Less than five actors)



> I will take this as I hope you intended and not as it reads. Just because I think certain roles are defined by certain actors and just because I see someone in a movie and am reminded that they played something else elsewhere (to varying degres of distraction) that in no way means that I in any way lack the ability to diferentiate reality from fiction or one fictional character from another.




There you go. You just agreed with me that it CAN work. You just admitted that if the movie is good and the parts are well cast, that audience members are savvy enough to roll with changes. 



> It needs to be beyond good in my opinion. Hollywood has over the last decade had a really poor track record producing movies based on old TV shows (which is different than making movies as an expansion of a series using the same cast). Sure they might make something of a profit, but there has been nothing released that I can remember as good or doing a TV show justice. As a fan of 450+ hours of Star Trek I really don't want to see Star Trek suffer this same fate.




Well, I might be wrong, but I don't think many of those other remakes turning TV shows into movies had both a writing team (Transformers- $465 million worldwide) and a director (MI:III- $400 million worldwide) who have proven big summer event movie credentials.

And oh yeah, they're also the minds behind a bona fide TV phenomenon. 

Usually, TV shows get turned into movies by McG (Charlie's Angels) and he's one of the BETTER ones. 

And again, it's not the like the franchise was cruising along doing great. Sometimes, you have to roll the hard 7.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jul 28, 2007)

jaerdaph said:
			
		

> Heh - RangerREG suggested Quinto for Spock several months back.



Thank you! Thank you very much!   

Honestly, who here is surprised about the Spock casting announcement?



			
				jaerdaph said:
			
		

> I think he's a great choice. And glad to hear Nimoy will appear as well.



It has been a while since we've last seen him as Spock on _The Undiscovered Country_ film and the _TNG_ "Reunification" TV episodes.



			
				jaerdaph said:
			
		

> Is Gary Sinise still playing Bones? That was another good casting choice.



He does have that gravel voice. Just need to darken his hair though.


----------



## Arkhandus (Jul 28, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> It has been a while since we've last seen him as Spock on _The Undiscovered Country_ film and the _TNG_ "Reunification" TV episodes.




And somwhat more recently (a few years ago was it? or a bit further back?) in Futurama.  I think that was quite possibly the best Futurama episode EVAR!


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 28, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Sometimes, you have to roll the hard 7.



  I agree with very many of your points above.  I can't really add much more and I'm  a little torn on the topic but not in any way against this film.  I'm looking forward to it.  

That said ... what the heck is a hard 7?!

I'm assuming you are talking about craps/dice where the combo of doubles (ie. two 3's = a hard 6) makes the term.  But seven is an odd number...

It's not like the Kobayashi Maru Scenario where you can cheat to win...


----------



## Alzrius (Jul 28, 2007)

I'm so happy for Zachary Quinto. First a great role on Heroes, which turned into a breakout success, and now this. He's finally made it.   

The only downside about this is that this means Sylar's going to be gone for a while; he's a kickass villain. At least we know we'll get to see him at least part of the time in season two!


----------



## Ranger REG (Jul 28, 2007)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> Well, I gotta admit I already hate the subplot where during pon'farr Spock eat's a cadet's brains.



A cortex-lingus?


----------



## Ranger REG (Jul 28, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> And somwhat more recently (a few years ago was it? or a bit further back?) in Futurama.  I think that was quite possibly the best Futurama episode EVAR!



Only saw the _Simpson_ episode where he narrates.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 28, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Shatner clearly has "it" and "it" clearly transcends character and time. He's the opposite of typecast. How many people have been the lead character in three successful TV shows? (Hint: Less than five actors)




Out of curiosity, how do you define "successful", and how do you define "lead", and who are your five?

Can a show be successful if it only ran one season?  Ted Danson, for example, starred in Cheers, Ink, and Becker... does Ink's one season make it a successful series?

John Ritter starred in Three's Company (and the spin-off series), Hooperman, and Eight Simple Rules For Dating My Teenage Daughter... I've never heard of Hooperman personally, but it ran a couple of seasons...

Can someone be considered the lead character if they don't have top billing?  Heather Locklear was a 'special guest' for six years seasons on Melrose Place, for example, and appeared in more episodes than anyone except Thomas Calabro.  She was the female lead in Spin City for a couple of seasons - would that count?  John Larroquette wasn't first billed on Night Court, but would it count?  What about shows with two 'stars' - Moonlighting, Jeeves and Wooster, The Dukes of Hazzard - can either one count it as a tick?

Does voice work count?  David Jason played Danger Mouse - unquestionably the lead character - in Danger Mouse.  Does it count as one of his three?

Do 'The Dick Van Dyke Show' and 'The New Dick Van Dyke Show' count as separate series, given that apart from the name, the two were entirely separate sitcoms?  How about 'Mission: Impossible' and 'The New Mission: Impossible', where the premise is the same, but only one character overlaps?

-Hyp.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jul 28, 2007)

I think Zack Quinto is a thoroughly excellent casting decision.  I might even go so far as to call it the best casting decision for the role they could have made.

Seriously - if you are determined to reset the series and recast the roles - who would have been a better choice as a young Spock than Quinto?


----------



## Silver Moon (Jul 28, 2007)

F5 said:
			
		

> I suspect that lots of people will hate this.
> 
> I suspect that lots of other people will love this.




I find the whole notion that "Nobody other than Shatner and Nimoy can ever play Kirk and Spock" to be rather silly.    There was a TNG episode which had flashbacks of Picard right after graduating from Starfleet Academy that were played by another actor - and Voyager had various episodes featured flashbacks with younger versions of Chakotay, Tuvok, Tores and Kes - all played by younger actors - without any fans objecting.    Heck, a DS9 episode even featured Tony Todd (who frequently played Worf's brother Kern) playing an older Jake Sisko despite the fact that the actors bore little-to-no resemblence to one another and in fan polls that episode consistantly ranks as a top one of that series. 

I think that it will work fine, especially if Nimoy and Shatner are there to "bookend" the story - similar to that Young Indiana Jones episode about Chicago in the 1920's that Harrison Ford bookended.    What else do the fans want?   Nimoy and Shatner could in no way now play young versions of themselves - heck, it was enough of a stretch to accept Frankes and Sirtis playing 12-year-younger versions of their characters in the "Enterpirse" finale.

So you can put me in the "People will love it" camp, I welcome a chance to see Kirk and Spock on screen again.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 28, 2007)

My report from the 40 years of Star Trek panel at Comic Con:

http://comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=11325


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 28, 2007)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> I agree with very many of your points above.  I can't really add much more and I'm  a little torn on the topic but not in any way against this film.  I'm looking forward to it.
> 
> That said ... what the heck is a hard 7?!
> 
> ...




It's something Adama said in the first season of the new Battlestar Galactica that was also quoted by showrunner Ron Moore. I dont think anyone knows what it means on the show either


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 28, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, how do you define "successful", and how do you define "lead", and who are your five?




Wow, way too many, way too technical questions in there. 

Anyway, I said less than 5. I read an article awhile back that placed the number of men to lead three different series at two: Shatner and Chiklis.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 28, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> It's something Adama said in the first season of the new Battlestar Galactica that was also quoted by showrunner Ron Moore. I dont think anyone knows what it means on the show either



 Ah, google failed me at finding an explanation.  Danke.


----------



## Fast Learner (Jul 28, 2007)

I'm really looking forward to this, and think it's a great casting choice. I stopped watching all things Trek about 10 years ago, as it felt like the overall quality went down and the life had been pretty drained from the whole franchise. Yes, there were a few DS9 episodes that I caught and thought were decent, and an Enterprise or two, but overall it all just felt like the same-old same-old.

Here we'll have production and direction that are from a whole new angle. No Brandon/Braga, none of the post-TOS actors or characters. I'm geeked.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Jul 28, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> That's what I'd prefer, but sadly we aren't getting it in movie form yet.



I feel similar - but it's probably true, that much more people associate Star Trek with Kirk, Spock and Bones, than with the idea of Star Trek or TNG/DS9.

This said, I think Quinto could do really well as Spock - and as for the note, that people will see Sylar... I don't think Heroes has as much type-casting as that statement infers - after all, Patrick Stewart was a good Professor X, despite being Jean-Luc Picard, and ST:TNG ran muuuch longer than Heroes.

So, while I'm a bit miffed about the presence of Spock (because I'm more on the TNG side), I still have to say that it looks promising - there is definitively the effort and direction a revitalized big screen TNG needs.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 28, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Sometimes, you have to roll the hard 7.



Well, Adamas saying is actually "Sometimes, you have to roll the hard six". And nobody knows what it means. In the second season, Apollo uses the words and and someone asks him what it  means. The answer was something like. "Don't know, it's something my father uses to say".


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 28, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Wow, way too many, way too technical questions in there.
> 
> Anyway, I said less than 5. I read an article awhile back that placed the number of men to lead three different series at two: Shatner and Chiklis.




Well, if Boston Legal counts for Shatner - where he's credited as "and William Shatner" at the _end_ of the credits sequence - it opens up a whole lot of options for other people.  (You can't call him the lead in the series when his Emmy nominations are for Best Supporting Actor!)

If instead they're counting Rescue 911 as his third (after Star Trek and TJ Hooker), it opens up a-whole-nother set of options for people "as themselves" in hosting roles.

As for Chiklis, he can have The Commish and The Shield, but if he can have Daddio, with a six-episode first season and cancelled a few episodes into season 2, then why can't Richard Dean Anderson have Legend?  That brings him up to 3 with MacGyver and SG-1.  I laready mentioned Ted Danson, whose Ink aired more episodes than Daddio, to go along with Cheers and Becker.

How about Bill Cosby, with I Spy, The Cosby Show, and Cosby?

How about Robert Wagner, with It Takes a Thief, Switch, and Hart to Hart?

Lorne Green, with Sailor of Fortune, Bonanza, and Battlestar Galactica?

If Shatner makes the list, it should be for Star Trek, TJ Hooker, and For The People!

-Hyp.


----------



## Silver Moon (Jul 29, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If Shatner makes the list, it should be for Star Trek, TJ Hooker, and For The People!



Gee, am I the only one who remembers "The Barbary Coast" which ran for 13-episodes in the 1975-76 season and also starred Shatner?  Seriously, it wasn't a bad show (set in 1870's San Francisco) but I would never call it successful.   

TJ Hooker clearly counts - it ran for something like 6 or 7 seasons with Shatner in the top role.   The star of Boston Legal is James Spader, Shatner is in a supporting role just as he was in the TekWar series.  

As for ratings hits, you won't find anybody who tops Lucille Ball who had the hit shows:
I Love Lucy (1951-1957)
The Lucy-Desi Comedy Hour/Westinghouse Desilu Playhouse (1957-1960)  [very different format than 'I Love Lucy' but still Lucy Ricardo]
The Lucy Show (1962-1968) [playing Lucy Charmichael] and
Here's Lucy (1968-1974) [playing Lucy Carter].  

So aside from the short 18-month of so hiatas during her divorce she had a quarter-century of ratings successes playing three different (albiet similar) characters.


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 29, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Well, if Boston Legal counts for Shatner - where he's credited as "and William Shatner" at the _end_ of the credits sequence - it opens up a whole lot of options for other people.  (You can't call him the lead in the series when his Emmy nominations are for Best Supporting Actor!)




I can and I will. Boston Legal could be called the "Bill and Jim" show imo. It's all about the relationship between the two main characters.

In fact it frequently ends with Shatner and Spader sitting on the balcony.

As for where he's placed in the credits, I thought the two prime spots in credits were the beginning and the end? 

And aren't the only two characters who moved from the Practice to Boston Legal those played by Spader and Shatner?

You can nitpick all you want (and apparently that's quite a bit).

My point was that Shatner clearly isn't so associated with the character of Kirk that he can't get work or critical acclaim, that he's talented, and that people clearly respond to him regardless of the character he's playing. 

I only made that point to demonstrate that, while he may have been so closely associated with the Kirk character for a time that he couldn't get other work, that time seems to have passed. 

Chuck


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 29, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> It's all about the relationship between the two main characters.




I'd call it the relationship between the main character and his sidekick, myself 



> And aren't the only two characters who moved from the Practice to Boston Legal those played by Spader and Shatner?




Those played by Spader and Rhona Mitra.  Shatner was a guest on The Practice - his role was more in the nature of a crossover from an as-yet-nonexistent series, rather than a cast member who moved from one to the other 



> My point was that Shatner clearly isn't so associated with the character of Kirk that he can't get work or critical acclaim, that he's talented, and that people clearly respond to him regardless of the character he's playing.




Okay.  My point was there seem to be more than five actors who have played a lead role in three series.

-Hyp.


----------



## Richards (Jul 29, 2007)

There's also Bob Newhart, star of "The Bob Newhart Show," "Newhart," and "Bob."  (The last one definitely wasn't as long-lived or as well-done as the first two, but still.)

Johnathan


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 29, 2007)

How about actors like Robert Atzorn (Unser Lehrer Doktor Specht, Tatort, Oh Gott Herr Pfarrer, "Die Affäre Semmeling, among others), or Manfred Krug (Sesamstraße (German Sesame Street),Tatort, Liebling Kreuzberg, Auf Achse)

Ah, well, that's German TV, it probably doesn't count. 

And either way, it's not really on topic - the question is, is Shatner somebody else than Kirk? (I tend to think he is, even if I didn't follow his other shows much - if at all)


----------



## BrooklynKnight (Jul 29, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> I can and I will. Boston Legal could be called the "Bill and Jim" show imo. It's all about the relationship between the two main characters.
> 
> In fact it frequently ends with Shatner and Spader sitting on the balcony.
> 
> ...




Actually James Spader is the only primary Actor. William Shatner was in the last 4 or 5 episodes of The Practice and was never in the credits. Lake Bell, also a guest star on the same episodes of the Practice, was a named cast member on Boston Legal for the entire first season and a guest star for the first few episodes of the second. Finally Rhona Mitra was a cast member with opening credits in the final season of The Practice that was in Boston Legal for the entire first season and a few episodes into the second. 

William Shatner IS in a lead roll for Boston Legal, it the entire show revolves around Alan Shore and Denny Crane. They are the two bookend characters. Was Spader nominated for the Lead Actor award? That would explain Shatner getting Supporting actor.


----------



## BrooklynKnight (Jul 29, 2007)

Oh, and if you ask me Denny Crane is IS James T Kirk....40 years older and working as a Lawyer.


----------



## wingsandsword (Jul 29, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Doctor Who - has changing actors as an explicit potential written into the character, including the understanding that his whole personality changes each time, so this one hardly counts.



Explicit potential written into the character now. . . but the concept didn't even appear until the 4th season in 1966 when it was clear that William Hartnell was becoming quite ill and wouldn't be able to continue as The Doctor.  So, they came up with the idea that since he's an alien, he could do things completely unexpected to humans like the whole regeneration concept.

It's more a tribute to good writing and acting that they were able to pull off the concept well and make it believable to the audience that The Doctor would be able to completely change form periodically.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jul 30, 2007)

BrooklynKnight said:
			
		

> Oh, and if you ask me Denny Crane is IS James T Kirk....40 years older and working as a Lawyer.



Nah, Denny Crane is the guy who hallucinates about gremlin outside the airplane.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jul 30, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Nah, Denny Crane is the guy who hallucinates about gremlin outside the airplane.




Thats only because he didn't ask the fortune telling machine the right questions in the diner and ended up on the wrong flight.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jul 31, 2007)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> Thats only because he didn't ask the fortune telling machine the right questions in the diner and ended up on the wrong flight.



He's too exhausted after chasing young blonde women (except recently he went after Murphy Brown, but she's blonde).


----------



## Elf Witch (Jul 31, 2007)

I have said before that I have little interest in this project. I would have loved a new Trek movie if it had gone forward instead of backward. 

I have a very specific way I view these characters and I am really afraid that to make the show more popular with today's auidences that it will ruin it for me. I want Kirk to be the same way he was in the TV series and movies. I want the basic personality of Kirk to shine through. 

I don't want a Battlestar Galactica. The characters in the new shows are miles apart and have nothing in common which really annoyed me at first. Now I watch the new show but I don't consider it Battlestar Galactica it's just a show with the same name.

But I have been a Trek fan since I was 7 years old watching the orginial show with my dad. And I don't want to see these characters changed in way that they are not recognizable to me the way the Battlestar Galactica characters were.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 31, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I have said before that I have little interest in this project. I would have loved a new Trek movie if it had gone forward instead of backward.




Me too.  The Star Trek universe is huge, I guess they don't have the writers who can do a good story in it without involving the Enterprise crew.  So now we have a reboot or just early days or whatever it is.  I'm not really interested.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jul 31, 2007)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Me too.  The Star Trek universe is huge, I guess they don't have the writers who can do a good story in it without involving the Enterprise crew.  So now we have a reboot or just early days or whatever it is.  I'm not really interested.




I am starting to wonder if some of these young producers can really come with any thing new.


----------



## Fast Learner (Jul 31, 2007)

What gives you the impression that the characters' basic personalities will be changed?


----------



## Elf Witch (Jul 31, 2007)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

> What gives you the impression that the characters' basic personalities will be changed?




I guess seeing what every other show that has a reboot has done. Is leaving me a little wary.


----------



## Mallus (Jul 31, 2007)

I'm all for reinterpreations (and reboots). Happens with opera and Shakespeare all the time. Frankly, it makes me a little sad when we're stuck with a single version of a good story/set of characters. Unless a wad of money changes hands. 

For instance, it would have been a crying shame if there was only the 1970's version of Battlestar Galatica. Terrific premise, disco kid's show execution. I'm really glad that got revisited.

Of course, TOS is vastly different from oBSG, seeing as it's actual good, in fact, one of the seminal SF televsion series. All I can say about Sylar, err, Quinto, is that I he looks the part, and can probably imitate Nimoy well enough to pull it off, though his playing Spock will put more the burden on whoever plays Kirk.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jul 31, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> I'm all for reinterpreations (and reboots). Happens with opera and Shakespeare all the time. Frankly, it makes me a little sad when we're stuck with a single version of a good story/set of characters. Unless a wad of money changes hands.
> 
> For instance, it would have been a crying shame if there was only the 1970's version of Battlestar Galatica. Terrific premise, disco kid's show execution. I'm really glad that got revisited.
> 
> Of course, TOS is vastly different from oBSG, seeing as it's actual good, in fact, one of the seminal SF televsion series. All I can say about Sylar, err, Quinto, is that I he looks the part, and can probably imitate Nimoy well enough to pull it off, though his playing Spock will put more the burden on whoever plays Kirk.




To a lot of fans the orginial BSG was a good show and they wanted to see a show that used the same characters. Fans for years signed petitions and wrote letters to any studio that showed an interest in picking up the show. 


I watch the new show but it is not Battlestar Galactica to me its just a show with the same name. 

I don't want to see a reboot of Trek if it is going to be in name only. If you are going to do a movie with Kirk and Spock then make sure they are Kirk and Spock not just characters with the same name.

I know this can be done I watch soap operas  And they often recast characters you tune in and one day and the old actor is there and the next you get the Role of is now being played by.

These new actors don't try and mimic the actor before they bring their own style of acting to the role but the writers don't suddenly change the characters so it is not a huge shock and you are not left wondering who is this character.


----------



## Mallus (Jul 31, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> To a lot of fans the orginial BSG was a good show and they wanted to see a show that used the same characters.



Don't get me wrong, I loved oBSG when it first ran and I was 10 years old. I so wanted to be that little boy with the robot dog who lived on a big spaceship with some other people who had really bad hair but great day jobs flying tiny spaceships that could turbo-reverse. 

As an adult, all I can get out of it in a brief rush of nostalgia, and mainly for the opening score.



> I watch the new show but it is not Battlestar Galactica to me its just a show with the same name.



For me its the better verison. Like the ones the kids in Heaven watch when God's asleep.

edit: Which goes to show the value of remakes; a single premise can be spun out in _very_ different ways that have totally disimiliar fans.



> If you are going to do a movie with Kirk and Spock then make sure they are Kirk and Spock not just characters with the same name.



Kirk and Spock are good characters, and like any good characters, there are a lot of potentially interesting interpretations. I hope Abrams and co. find two. To my mind, only shallow and uninteresting characters have a single 'correct' portrayal.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jul 31, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Don't get me wrong, I loved oBSG when it first ran and I was 10 years old. I so wanted to be that little boy with the robot dog who lived on a big spaceship with some other people who had really bad hair but great day jobs flying tiny spaceships that could turbo-reverse.
> 
> As an adult, all I can get out of it in a brief rush of nostalgia, and mainly for the opening score.
> 
> ...




I saw the orginal when I was 20 and pregnant with my first child. I became very involved in BSG fandom. I still enjoy the old show sure some of the epsidoes are really cheesy and if you watch a bunch at one time you can tired of the same stock footage. But I still read the new comics based on the older series and I still collect fanfic. I have read and enjoyed Richard Hatch's books set in the old universe. And I will get in a mood for a BSG day as matter of fact last weekend I watched both pilots. 

I have no problem when someone says I like the new show better what tends to get my back up is when some of the fans of the new show just rag and rag on the old show and insult the fans of the old show. Hey show a little frakking respect because if it was not for the old show and the fans of the old show you wouldn't have the new show.

As for Kirk and Spock you can do different aspects of their personalities but if you make Kirk a woman with an abused past who drowns her sorrows in booze then it is no longer Kirk it is just a character with the same name.


----------



## Mallus (Jul 31, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Hey show a little frakking respect because if it was not for the old show and the fans of the old show you wouldn't have the new show.



You have a point there. The next time I go out I'll raise a glass of ambrosia in honor of oBSG. 



> As for Kirk and Spock you can do different aspects of their personalities but if you make Kirk a woman with an abused past who drowns her sorrows in booze then it is no longer Kirk it is just a character with the same name.



See, I think you could pull that off. I've always suspected Kirk is hiding some pain behind all that swagger, and drinking is surely true to the character. Besides, Kirk already got turned into a woman in Turnabout: Intruder. I say the precedent is there.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 31, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I have no problem when someone says I like the new show better what tends to get my back up is when some of the fans of the new show just rag and rag on the old show and insult the fans of the old show. Hey show a little frakking respect because if it was not for the old show and the fans of the old show you wouldn't have the new show..



I liked the show when it came on TV then, but today, I definitely prefer the new BSG. I think some of this disrespect might come from the early BSG TNS haters that popped up in the beginning of the new show. I visited the IMDB form for BSG and there wear some pretty bad people there. I guess a lot of fans of the new show got pretty pissed by guys like these, and now despise everything about the old show. Though, on the other hand, I think most fans these days are pretty sensible on this matter. It was only bad in the beginning. (But my view on the situation might be skewed that I basically gave up on the IMDB forum and otherwise only visit EnWorld - one of the most civilized places in the (online) world I know, and the SciFi forum (which is naturally pretty pro-BSG-TNS)

But your talk about a female Kirk got me thinking - it would be a nice twist to set a new show / movie after the current movies and series, with a new Captain Kirk - but this time, a female one. His Grandgrandgrandgranddaughter. (Unfortuantely, the canon so far implies that Kirk left no children. Which is too bad...)


----------



## drothgery (Jul 31, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I guess seeing what every other show that has a reboot has done. Is leaving me a little wary.




I haven't heard anyone even suggesting that this movie is a 'Trek reboot'; it's in the same continuity, it's just the lead characters are a somewhat younger-than-TOS Kirk and Spock (who, for obvious reasons, can't be played by Nimoy and Shaetner).

Now, I think it'd be halfway decent idea to have no Trek for five or ten years and then actually do a reboot to knock out some of the sillier premises. So...

- anything that's supposed to be able to breed with humans should be decended from the Preservers, have red blood, and have internal organs set up pretty much like humans
- there should be money in the 24th century
- there should be a galactic map with a reference table for travel times at various warp factors rather than all travel being at the speed of plot
- the immediate future should be a 'dead zone' as far as the story is concerned (no time travel between any point after the first episode airs and 2150 or so and no major, universe-changing events happen in that time either), so that real life doesn't trample all over your future history in twenty years
- there should not be impossible tech other than warp drive and transporters, and no psi other than limitted telepathy
- Starfleet may do a lot of other things, but nobody tries to deny that it's the Federation's military

... but that's not what they're doing.


----------



## Mallus (Jul 31, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> ...Kirk left no children...



Fat chance.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 31, 2007)

I wrote an article on the 40 years of Star Trek panel from Comic-Con that discusses this issue briefly.  The guy who plays Sylar was also at a party I attended at the Con, but I didn't get a chance to talk to him.

http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=11325


----------



## Elf Witch (Jul 31, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I liked the show when it came on TV then, but today, I definitely prefer the new BSG. I think some of this disrespect might come from the early BSG TNS haters that popped up in the beginning of the new show. I visited the IMDB form for BSG and there wear some pretty bad people there. I guess a lot of fans of the new show got pretty pissed by guys like these, and now despise everything about the old show. Though, on the other hand, I think most fans these days are pretty sensible on this matter. It was only bad in the beginning. (But my view on the situation might be skewed that I basically gave up on the IMDB forum and otherwise only visit EnWorld - one of the most civilized places in the (online) world I know, and the SciFi forum (which is naturally pretty pro-BSG-TNS)
> 
> But your talk about a female Kirk got me thinking - it would be a nice twist to set a new show / movie after the current movies and series, with a new Captain Kirk - but this time, a female one. His Grandgrandgrandgranddaughter. (Unfortuantely, the canon so far implies that Kirk left no children. Which is too bad...)




I was there for the wars on several boards. I will not deny that some old BSG fans would not let it go and it got old real quick. But on the other hand some of the new BSG fans were equally rude they could not understand why some of the older fans were upset. 

If 9/11 had not happened then Bryan Singer would have made his version which was a continuation. It didn't help that before the show ever aired Olmos was going on the record telling old fans not to bother to watch the new show. 

And it really didn't help when the new fans would make ignorant statements like the old show got canned becuase the rating were awful. Not true the old show is one of the few shows thay was canned not because the rating were in the toilet but because the ratings were not high enough to warrant the show being shown on Sunday night where the networks got the most money. It was a very expensive show to make.

Or my favorite from people who never saw the old show the characters thought they were superheroes which is why they fought the cyclons in capes.

I think it has changed but it still has its moments like when David Elik made the comment about dropping ratings that it was the fault of the name BattleStar Galactica because people could not take it seriously becuase of the old show. That stirred the hornet's nest.

I would love to see a show or a movie about the first female Captain. And who knows maybe Kirk's son had a child. I don't think that would break the canon much.


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 1, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I have said before that I have little interest in this project. I would have loved a new Trek movie if it had gone forward instead of backward.
> 
> I have a very specific way I view these characters and I am really afraid that to make the show more popular with today's auidences that it will ruin it for me. I want Kirk to be the same way he was in the TV series and movies. I want the basic personality of Kirk to shine through.



You make it sounds like as if Shatner is the only one that can do Kirk. That's like saying only TSR can make _Dungeons & Dragons._

"There is an old Vulcan proverb: Only Nixon can go to China."


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 1, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> To my mind, only shallow and uninteresting characters have a single 'correct' portrayal.



And they tend to be aliens or villains on the show.


----------



## Elf Witch (Aug 1, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> You make it sounds like as if Shatner is the only one that can do Kirk. That's like saying only TSR can make _Dungeons & Dragons._
> 
> "There is an old Vulcan proverb: Only Nixon can go to China."




That is not what I am saying at all. I said that I am afraid that to make the movie for todays youth the demograph they will be aiming for they will have to change the characters make them darker less heroic. The same with the theme of the movie.

Look at both BSG and Bionic Woman the producers feel that the only way they could be made for viewers todays is to go with darker characters and themes. 

In an interview at Comic con there was talk about making Trek more adult whatever that means. Some of the themes Trek tackled like racism were imo adult themes.

I like both Stargate and Stargate SG1 Richard Dean Anderson brought a different aspect of O'Neill to the screen. But he was still O'Neall. Col Tigh from the orginial BSG and Saul Tigh are not the same character at all. They just share a name.

I don't want see Kirk or Spock or any of the other Trek characters given the same treatment as the characters did in BSG. 

It has nothing to do with who plays the character but how the character is written.


----------



## Mallus (Aug 1, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> And they tend to be aliens or villains on the show.



Right.

And even a villain can benefit from a splash of color (and depth) applied to his black hat. Say like Gul Dukat on DS9, or Gaius Baltar on nBSG (though I'm not so sure Gaius counts as a villain, despite his villainy. He's more protagonist than antagonist. Plus, he's tres cool, even when being pathetic).


----------



## Mallus (Aug 1, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I said that I am afraid that to make the movie for todays youth the demograph they will be aiming for they will have to change the characters make them darker less heroic.
> 
> Look at both BSG and Bionic Woman the producers feel that the only way they could be made for viewers todays is to go with darker characters and themes.



I'll reserve judgment on the nBW until I see it, but I don't think it's right to say that the changes made in the nBSG had anything to do with making the show more palatable to the 'youth market'. Mainly because none of the changes made actually _do_ that.



> In an interview at Comic con there was talk about making Trek more adult whatever that means. Some of the themes Trek tackled like racism were imo adult themes.



Sure, TOS was always an 'adult' show. In fact, one of the first pieces of televised SF that wasn't meant for children (along with anthology shows like The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits). It was a big break from earlier fare like Tom Corbett, Space Cadet, and contemporaries like Lost in Space. 

I guessing by 'adult' they mean they're going to make the character's lives messier, show a fuller spectrum of human behavior than just 'heroic', 'noble', or in Kirk's case, 'swaggering and super-competent'. 



> But he was still O'Neall. Col Tigh from the orginial BSG and Saul Tigh are not the same character at all. They just share a name.



True. But one of those characters is hardly a character at all; just a dignified-looking guy standing around in a (then) high-tech looking ship's bridge. The other is a spectacular wreck of a man, by turns exhilerating and painful to watch, with the full flush of that essential human messiness on him (ok, I'm done gushing now...).

I suppose it all comes down to how you view people. I'm far more convinced by nTigh than oTigh, he seems more like a real man, albeit a highly melodramtized one, therefore I feel much more strongly about the character. 



> I don't want see Kirk or Spock or any of the other Trek characters given the same treatment as the characters did in BSG.



I do. 

Mind you, Abrams might make a terrible mess of it, but that's part of the excitement with art. You never know what's going to result in a trainwreck or a masterpiece.


----------



## PhoenixDarkDirk (Aug 2, 2007)

Here's a fun reaction to this news, http://www.sorethumbsonline.com/d/20070727.html.


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 2, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> That is not what I am saying at all. I said that I am afraid that to make the movie for todays youth the demograph they will be aiming for they will have to change the characters make them darker less heroic.



So, what you're saying is that you cannot accept a dark _Star Trek_ story set in the 23rd Century, but you can accept a dark _Star Trek_ story set in the 24th Century?

???  ???


----------



## Elf Witch (Aug 2, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> So, what you're saying is that you cannot accept a dark _Star Trek_ story set in the 23rd Century, but you can accept a dark _Star Trek_ story set in the 24th Century?
> 
> ???  ???





 No I am not saying that at all. I am confused with where you got that could you explain?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Aug 2, 2007)

I don't think its fair to compare this new Star Trek to the new BSG series or anything in that vein.

Those are COMPLETE remakes. The point is to update, change, and alter them slightly in places but keep the basic IDEA the same. Some changes end up more than others, and they are definitely distinctly separate series.

But this Star Trek movie is a prequel. Its the same Star Trek, just set before TOS. Same Kirk, same Spock, just younger. At least, that's how its supposed to be, and, at this point, there's nothing to say otherwise. Comments about Nimoy playing Spock(even in a cameo) push it more to the realm that this is not a reimagining at all.


----------



## Elf Witch (Aug 2, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> I guessing by 'adult' they mean they're going to make the character's lives messier, show a fuller spectrum of human behavior than just 'heroic', 'noble', or in Kirk's case, 'swaggering and super-competent'.
> 
> 
> 
> Mind you, Abrams might make a terrible mess of it, but that's part of the excitement with art. You never know what's going to result in a trainwreck or a masterpiece.





 I don't have a problem with them giving the character more depth. Like they did with Sisko.

But I don't want a BSG treatment that seems to asume that messier more human equates to being an alchoholic , druggie or even have dysfunctional relationship with your father. Or that if you are the last of your race and face being wiped out what you are going to do is start a blackmarket and one of the things being sold is children into sexual slavery. Sometimes I feel that BSG just lays on the evils of humanity with trowel instead of being more subtle. Half the time I find myself rooting for the cyclons because they are not killing and screwing each other over.

You know that there are people who are very human who don't have to resort to booze or drugs to handle their messy lives. And you know that some families actually get along.

If they want to show that Kirk swaggers to cover up his insecurities about his ability to command or he whores around because he is afraid of commitement that fine but if they want to show him a man who can't through a day without drinking then no I don't want to see that.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 3, 2007)

You know, maybe I'm in the minority here... But I was a lot more excited about this when I thought it _was_ a remake/reimagining, as opposed to a prequel.

I don't want the characters changed _too_ dramatically, no. But I also don't want to see the new movie constrained by the old cannon. I want there to be room to experiment, to re-envision. And frankly, I don't much care about the Adventures of Young Kirk and Young Spock. I want to see _Captain_ Kirk, on the bridge of the _Enterprise_, boldly going where no man has gone before, and occasionally seducing and/or blowing stuff up in the process.

If this is truly a prequel, solidly set in the cannon of the pre-existing series, it's gone from a "must see" to a "wait and see" for me.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Aug 3, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Well, Adamas saying is actually "Sometimes, you have to roll the hard six". And nobody knows what it means. In the second season, Apollo uses the words and and someone asks him what it  means. The answer was something like. "Don't know, it's something my father uses to say".




A "hard six" is a term from the dice game *craps*. It means making your mark by betting the hard six. You make your point only if you roll a pair of threes.

Soft six: 5+1, 4+2, 3+3
Hard Six: 3+3 *only*

"Hard six" is, literally, harder than a soft six.

So yes - the term certainly does have meaning.


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 3, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> No I am not saying that at all. I am confused with where you got that could you explain?



Well, you just stated that in order to attract this new generation of potential _Trek_ audience, the story have to be darker.



> I said that I am afraid that to make the movie for todays youth the demograph they will be aiming for they will have to change the characters make them darker less heroic. The same with the theme of the movie.




Either set in the 23rd or 24th Century, in order for the new _Trek_ film to attract the large demograph, the story will most likely be darker and less heroic, and that would irritate you if it means we'll see the darker side of Kirk. (Not like we haven't seen it before in one _TOS_ episode where a transporter accident split him, or that he does have a mirror universe counterpart.)


----------



## Milagroso (Aug 3, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Well, you just stated that in order to attract this new generation of potential _Trek_ audience, the story have to be darker.
> 
> 
> 
> Either set in the 23rd or 24th Century, in order for the new _Trek_ film to attract the large demograph, the story will most likely be darker and less heroic, and that would irritate you if it means we'll see the darker side of Kirk. (Not like we haven't seen it before in one _TOS_ episode where a transporter accident split him, or that he does have a mirror universe counterpart.)




First point to make: Quinto as Spock = Good Move, IMO. He certaintly has the look and I don't doubt he has the skill to pull it off. 

I agree that with today's audience, a new _Trek_ movie will likely be stylized to produce characters that are darker and grittier. I think that they are trying to appeal to a market that has become desensitized to the "noble hero" and prefers the darker, brooding, Punisher-like heroes. I think that it would be a mistake to revamp Kirk in this way. Recast - well, obviously yes. The notion that only Shatner can play Kirk is truly naive. 

A good actor can take a character, add a slight flair to it that is distinctly theirs, play off the cues by the those who have made the role legendary and ** most importantly ** make the character believable to the viewers. If the viewer doesn't believe that the actor is Kirk, then they will not see him as Kirk but instead see him whoever they most identified that actor with. Say for example, Sean Connery. First movie that will pop in anyone's head is James Bond, but when watching The Medicine Man nowhere does my mind think of his character (was it Dr. Crane?) as Bond. He made himself believable in the role. I believed that Dr. Crane was walking on the roof of the Amazon looking for the cure for cancer and not about ready to seduce his research assistant, shoot someone with a PBwhatever, and order a vodka-martini (shaken, not stirred). So, in my opinion, whoever they get to play the role of Kirk will be fine for me as long as he does a good job at making me believe he is Kirk. 

Now as for re-writing his character with a dark side... honestly, they don't need to. The character of James T. Kirk was written and portrayed with enough problems and quirks to satisfy that need. It may not be apparently obvious, but it is there. The character is fleshed enough. With his temper, his arrogance, his wrath, his lust. Jeez, he isn't a saint. That was the best thing about Sci-Fi back then. The stories then were not about how man interacted with his sci-fi setting. They were about how man interacted with himself in a sci-fi setting. 

Oh, and I love the nBG. 

Elf Witch... HI!!     (remember me?)
Hypersmurf: And I thought I was the only one still around today who remembers Danger Mouse.


----------



## Elf Witch (Aug 3, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Well, you just stated that in order to attract this new generation of potential _Trek_ audience, the story have to be darker.
> 
> 
> 
> Either set in the 23rd or 24th Century, in order for the new _Trek_ film to attract the large demograph, the story will most likely be darker and less heroic, and that would irritate you if it means we'll see the darker side of Kirk. (Not like we haven't seen it before in one _TOS_ episode where a transporter accident split him, or that he does have a mirror universe counterpart.)




I think you are missing my point I don't have a problem with some level of darkness like when Kirk got split or when Admiral Ross conspired with section 31 to ruin a romulan's career even possibly cause her death.

I don't mind gritty like the crew facing overwhelming odds and lots of death and destruction as long as in the end some of our heroes live.

I just don't want Trek to go as dark as BSG, Deadwood, Sopranos because at that point to me it will no longer be Trek.

This is just how I feel. If that is the direction Trek goes off in I won't watch it. But it is no big deal I have 29 seasons of TV shows and 10 movies and hundreds of books.

If some people like the idea of a really dark trek then maybe they will get what they want. 

There is no right or wrong here it is a matter of taste.


----------



## Elf Witch (Aug 3, 2007)

Milagroso said:
			
		

> First point to make: Quinto as Spock = Good Move, IMO. He certaintly has the look and I don't doubt he has the skill to pull it off.
> 
> I agree that with today's audience, a new _Trek_ movie will likely be stylized to produce characters that are darker and grittier. I think that they are trying to appeal to a market that has become desensitized to the "noble hero" and prefers the darker, brooding, Punisher-like heroes. I think that it would be a mistake to revamp Kirk in this way. Recast - well, obviously yes. The notion that only Shatner can play Kirk is truly naive.
> 
> ...




Wow you just said what I have been trying say but did it so much better..

I don't    refresh my memory?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 3, 2007)

Milagroso said:
			
		

> Hypersmurf: And I thought I was the only one still around today who remembers Danger Mouse.



No, you're not. Boy, that must be even longer ago for you then for me, because I watched in on German TV...


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 4, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I just don't want Trek to go as dark as BSG, Deadwood, Sopranos because at that point to me it will no longer be Trek.



What about _DS9_?

It's about as dark as it can go without losing what is Trek is all about. (And please don't crap on me because a story about a station space outpost is not _Trek_.)

I mean we have Sisko who conspired with a simple tailor Garek to lure the Romulan Empire into the Dominion War.

We have Section 31.

We have former terrorist Kira Nerys.

We have the lengthy Dominion War arc, which is by far the best story arc I've seen coming out of any _Trek_ series.


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 4, 2007)

Milagroso said:
			
		

> Now as for re-writing his character with a dark side... honestly, they don't need to. The character of James T. Kirk was written and portrayed with enough problems and quirks to satisfy that need. It may not be apparently obvious, but it is there. The character is fleshed enough. With his temper, his arrogance, his wrath, his lust. Jeez, he isn't a saint. That was the best thing about Sci-Fi back then. The stories then were not about how man interacted with his sci-fi setting. They were about how man interacted with himself in a sci-fi setting.



It's possible he could be a member of Section 31.   

Not that I would knock on guys who came from Security to command a starship. (Yes, he used to be a redshirt, if I recall his bio.) He's also the youngest to obtain both rank and position.

He also "cheated" on the Kobayashi Maru scenario. Technically, he cheated when he altered the simulation so that he _can_ win. Yet the Academy give him high mark for ingenuity.

Makes you wonder. Perhaps we romanticized the characters up to the point of purposely blinding ourselves to their other "skeletons in the closet."


----------



## Elf Witch (Aug 4, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> What about _DS9_?
> 
> It's about as dark as it can go without losing what is Trek is all about. (And please don't crap on me because a story about a station space outpost is not _Trek_.)
> 
> ...




DS9 is my favorite Trek and yes it was darker than the other treks and I would have no problem with that.

But tell me if the Trek characters ever supported rape of an enemy or commiting genocide. Sure section 31 tried but they are considered the bad guys not the heroes and Sisco, Bashir, and O'Brian stopped them. On BSG the Admiral and the Presdient of the colonies okayed the use of a bioligal weapon that would have committed genocide. Now on BSG I don't have a problem with that the show is dark .

I don't want to see Trek go that route. Trek's message was always about hope for the future. I would like to see that message kept.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Aug 4, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> But tell me if the Trek characters ever supported rape of an enemy or commiting genocide. Sure section 31 tried but they are considered the bad guys not the heroes and Sisco, Bashir, and O'Brian stopped them.




On BSG, the rapists were not presented in a good light - the heroes of the show were disgusted by the behaviour.

Doesn't Janeway deliberately unleash a genocide weapon on the Borg in the Voyager finale?

-Hyp.


----------



## Elf Witch (Aug 4, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> On BSG, the rapists were not presented in a good light - the heroes of the show were disgusted by the behaviour.
> 
> Doesn't Janeway deliberately unleash a genocide weapon on the Borg in the Voyager finale?
> 
> -Hyp.




You are right they were not presented in a good light but it was done by members of the colonial fleet sanctioned by the commanding officer. If it was starfleet officers presented going rogue like that it would be bad because the world that Rodenberry envisioned was a world where most humans had evolved and matured as a species.  And Starfleet officers were the cream of the crop in the epiaode Bread and Circus a comment is made these are not ordinary men and woman they are starfleet officers they are the best of the best. 

Yes Janeway did and this was the subject of much debate on Voyager boards. And later on BSG boards. The Borg are not a natural species they can't exist without stealing humanoid bodies against the will of the humanoid and conscripting the body for their use. It would have been one thing if the borg had found way to exist without the need to force other species into what was basically slave labor.

The cyclons while machines don't need humans to make more cyclons. 

As I have said before I grew up on Trek and I like the message that there is hope for the human race that we evolve that we eventually put aside our racism , tribalism. I know a lot of people don't find Trek realistic and maybe it is not but it is a nice dream.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Aug 5, 2007)

I truly think you're worrying WAY too much about this.

By comparing this new Trek to the new BSG, you're getting an off picture of things. Again, the new Trek is a prequel, and the same universe and timeline as all of the other Trek series so they aren't going to completely change everything. BSG was a COMPLETE reimagining of the show.

There is no evidence at all that this Trek movie will change things like that. In fact, as was mentioned before, the fact that Nimoy is playing Spock at least for a short amount of time pushes the fact that this movie WILL be true to the spirit of Trek. That, and I trust JJ Abrams on that end of things.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 5, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> I truly think you're worrying WAY too much about this.
> 
> By comparing this new Trek to the new BSG, you're getting an off picture of things. Again, the new Trek is a prequel, and the same universe and timeline as all of the other Trek series so they aren't going to completely change everything. BSG was a COMPLETE reimagining of the show.
> 
> There is no evidence at all that this Trek movie will change things like that. In fact, as was mentioned before, the fact that Nimoy is playing Spock at least for a short amount of time pushes the fact that this movie WILL be true to the spirit of Trek. That, and I trust JJ Abrams on that end of things.




Exactly.

The writers and director of this movie have said again and again that it will be in continuity, it's an untold adventure of Kirk and Spock's early missions. 

Yet despite that being one of the FIRST, and most repeated things they say, as soon as people heard it was Kirk and Spock they started screaming OMFG NUBSG-style TREK!!!!!!

That isn't what this is. We've got a huge trekkie (one of the writers), a big fan of the original series (Abrams) and a total-non fan (the other writer).

That's a perfect trio to make new TOS adventures of Kirk and Spock imo.


----------



## Elf Witch (Aug 5, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Exactly.
> 
> The writers and director of this movie have said again and again that it will be in continuity, it's an untold adventure of Kirk and Spock's early missions.
> 
> ...




Just a little nitpick if you read the transcript from Comiccon Abrams said he was more a Star Wars fan than a Trek fan. But we all can't be perfect.  

I also read in that interview that he didn't write the script. That he saw the script and showed it to his wife and she liked it. 

I am a little confused one site says one thing another says another.

The only thing that gives me some hope that it won't be bad is that Abrams did a great job with Mission Impossible he made it feel like Mission Impossible something the other two films didn't seem to get right.

I am going to be wary until we actually know more and the film comes out. I would rather be pleasantly surprised than disappointed.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 5, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Just a little nitpick if you read the transcript from Comiccon Abrams said he was more a Star Wars fan than a Trek fan. But we all can't be perfect.




Right, but he has also said, repeatedly, that he was a huge fan of the original series. What is it about everyone who works on Trek having to establish their bonafides? No one asked Christian Bale how big a freaking Batman fan he was, and the movie was fine. 



> I also read in that interview that he didn't write the script. That he saw the script and showed it to his wife and she liked it.




Right, the script was written by his two close friends, who are also writers and producers on his TV Show lost. He was already attached as a producer at that point, and had a lot of input on the script before it was written.

He just waited to commit himself to direct. But this has been his movie since day one.

JJ Abrams is the REASON for the movie. It was the studio's desire to work with him, and his passion for this movie, that we have to thank for it being made in the first place.



> I am going to be wary until we actually know more and the film comes out. I would rather be pleasantly surprised than disappointed.




Everyone all along as stressed that it is not a remake. It's a story starring Kirk and Spock set in the TOS era that we haven't seen, in the established continuity, by a creative team with a passion for Trek.

It's also being made by a director and writing team with a enough juice, that for the first time in several decades, serious blockbuster type money is being spent on trek. They've cast a great young Spock from one of the hottest shows on TV, and gotten Nimoy on board. 

And you're freaking "Wary"?

We should be freaking dancing. A real director, and a real writing team got a big-budget trek movie out of a studio that wanted to let the property lie fallow for a decade.

If that doesn't make a trek fan happy, or at least something better than freaking "wary", we obviously don't freaking deserve a movie.


Nimoy has read the script and has great things to say about. He also is the one man who has walked away from money for Trek in the past, because he didn't like the script (he turned down a part in Generations, for example). 

Sure it could be dumb. But it's hard to see what else we could ASK from the movie at this stage. 

Anyway, call me an optimist. I'd rather look at the very hopeful signs we've seen so far and be hopeful, rather than trying to be as pessimistic as possible so I don't need to endure the stinging pain of disappointment later on.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Aug 5, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Right, the script was written by his two close friends, who are also writers and producers on his TV Show lost.




That is not reassuring to me. I have no respect anymore for the writers of Lost.


----------



## Milagroso (Aug 5, 2007)

Well I for one am looking forward to it.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 5, 2007)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> That is not reassuring to me. I have no respect anymore for the writers of Lost.




Actually I mis-spoke- they were producers and writers for Abrams' show Alias, not Lost, as well as Transformers ($541 million) and Mission Impossible III ($397 million).

In other words, a couple of guys with chops for writing hit TV shows as well as hit TV movies.

I say again, what exactly do people want for staff on this movie.

Maybe they can resurrect Shakespeare? Ooops, sorry, he was never a Trek fan, he's out. 

Sheesh.


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 5, 2007)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> That is not reassuring to me. I have no respect anymore for the writers of Lost.



Why?  :\ 

I'm not expecting them to develop a five-year series. I just want one good story for that one _Trek_ film.


----------



## Elf Witch (Aug 6, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Right, but he has also said, repeatedly, that he was a huge fan of the original series. What is it about everyone who works on Trek having to establish their bonafides? No one asked Christian Bale how big a freaking Batman fan he was, and the movie was fine.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




An actor does not need to be a big fan of a character to do it justice but I would hope the writers and producers were fans so that they actual get what the fans like about the show. 

Besides that was a joke about being a Star Wars fan mav be you are to young to remember the good natured feud between Star Wars fans and Trek fans back in the 70s. I was playing homage to that.  

You know I have watched so many of the shows I enjoy made into movies or reboot TV series and most of them have just sucked. Mission Impossible 1 they make Phelps the bad guy.  Starsky and Hutch was just stupid. Red Dwarf the american version, Coupling the american version  :\  

I am such a trek fan that I a pain in the butt kind. I know canon and it bugs me when they make major changes Morrus posted on CM the SAG report of what they are looking for in actors and some of it makes me go huh. First of all the main characters are going to be around the same age. About mid 20 early 30s. My problem with that is both Bones and Scotty were older and had a history because of that. They describe Bones as danger seeker.   Uhura needs to be a playful tomboy instead of the classy lady she was. 

Kirk was special because he was the youngest captain in Starfleet well now he is joined by the youngest chief medical officer , youngest head engineer. What 's wrong there are no actors in their middle 30s early 40s who would like to be in Trek? Or did a plague wipe out all the older people in the Trek Universe so its left to the younguns to run the ship.   


Stuff like this makes me just go okay not sounding like something that will interest me so I am going to take a wait and see attidue.

As a member of one of the longest running BSG club formed way back in 1978 I was very disappointed that they went with a reimagining of the show. I have read the script of the reboot and it was great. It took the show in a darker direction was also going to be going with a different type of cylon a human/cylon cyborg. We would have goten to see how the characters had evolved after 20 years. Tigh was supposed to be a harder worn out Commander of the Galactica, Apollo had been missing for years, The colonist had given up looking for earth and had settles against the military's advice on a planet leaving the Glactica in orbit to protect them but slowly over time not giving them the material and supplies they needed to be kept first rate. Then the new hybrids show up.

It does not matter that I watch and enjoy the new BSG that is the one I would rather have been watching.

As for bitching and speculating on an internet board about something new coming out its what fans do. Just look at all the 4E threads.


----------



## Elf Witch (Aug 6, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Actually I mis-spoke- they were producers and writers for Abrams' show Alias, not Lost, as well as Transformers ($541 million) and Mission Impossible III ($397 million).
> 
> In other words, a couple of guys with chops for writing hit TV shows as well as hit TV movies.
> 
> ...




As I said before the fact that Abrams is involved is the one thing that makes me have some hope that he will make a Trek movie that feels like a Trek movie like he did with Mission Impossible.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 6, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I am such a trek fan that I a pain in the butt kind. I know canon and it bugs me when they make major changes Morrus posted on CM the SAG report of what they are looking for in actors and some of it makes me go huh. First of all the main characters are going to be around the same age. About mid 20 early 30s. My problem with that is both Bones and Scotty were older and had a history because of that. They describe Bones as danger seeker.   Uhura needs to be a playful tomboy instead of the classy lady she was.
> 
> Kirk was special because he was the youngest captain in Starfleet well now he is joined by the youngest chief medical officer , youngest head engineer. What 's wrong there are no actors in their middle 30s early 40s who would like to be in Trek? Or did a plague wipe out all the older people in the Trek Universe so its left to the younguns to run the ship.




Well, that casting list looks legit, but then again, the source is AICN, which has been glaringly, stunningly wrong, in the past. 



> As a member of one of the longest running BSG club formed way back in 1978 I was very disappointed that they went with a reimagining of the show.




Yes, I realize the re-imagining of BSG has left a deep scar in all sci-fi fans, forever, but again, the production team has said again and again that this isn't the case here.

There's a huge gap between "the characters aren't the exact same ages as the actors on the original show and there's some minor personality quirks that are different" (and this is assuming the AICN story is true) and "Starbuck is a girl now". 



> As for bitching and speculating on an internet board about something new coming out its what fans do. Just look at all the 4E threads.




It's not a matter of the bitching to me, it's the nature of it. A new trek movie, with a proven director and a proven writing team, are making a new trek movie with a budget of over $100 million dollars, and people are bitching about Uhura being a tomboy and McCoy liking danger. 

I guess everyone would REALLY be happy if they weren't bothering to make the movie at all.


----------



## Elf Witch (Aug 6, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> I guess everyone would REALLY be happy if they weren't bothering to make the movie at all.




You do need to chill a little. We fans love nothing better than to put our two cents in. As I said to speculate espically on internet forums. If we didn't we would have little to talk about.  

How anyone one of us feels will have no bearing on what is made. Do you remember all the worries being banded about when LOTRs was being made. Or the fans in shock and outrage over MR Mom Michael Keaton being cast as Batman?

The one that I had to eat my words like so many other fans and the author of the book was when Tom Cruise was cast to play Lestat. Oh my god the fun drama of that. There was no way a pretty boy like him could play the bisexual vampire. Anne Rice was having kittens over it. But the movie came out and we were blown away. Anne Rice took out a full page apology to Tom Cruise.

Trek is very important to me and because of that I feel very protective about it and being a fantic about the world the Rodenberry and others created I am nervous about it being done wrong. So for me I am going to take a watch and see attidue. If it turns out to be great I will be the first to stand up and cheer and laugh at how worried I was. But this way I won't get my hopes up and be full of exictment like I did when after 20 years BSG was coming back. Only to be let down because like BSG it is Tek in name only.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Aug 6, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> I guess everyone would REALLY be happy if they weren't bothering to make the movie at all.




I don't know about everybody, but from what I have seen so far I would rather there be no movie than this particular movie.  And I really want the franchice to continue as well, but I want it to contune, not be prequaled or rebooted.


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 6, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> An actor does not need to be a big fan of a character to do it justice but I would hope the writers and producers were fans so that they actual get what the fans like about the show.



I dunno. Nicholas Meyer wasn't a fan of _Trek_ when he took the job of helming _The Wrath of Khan._


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 6, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> How anyone one of us feels will have no bearing on what is made. Do you remember all the worries being banded about when LOTRs was being made. Or the fans in shock and outrage over MR Mom Michael Keaton being cast as Batman?



Up until _American Psycho_ Christian Bale (who was just a kid in Kenneth Braugher's _Henry V_), I thought Michael Keaton is the better actor for Bruce Wayne/Batman.

Val Kilmer looks too young to be Bruce when compared to Chris O'Donnell playing Robin.

George Clooney got the chin but nothing else going for him, in or out of the batsuit.


----------



## Elf Witch (Aug 6, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> I dunno. Nicholas Meyer wasn't a fan of _Trek_ when he took the job of helming _The Wrath of Khan._




That's very true but there were people who had been involved in Trek before helping him out. 

He also had the orginial actors to work with the ones who created the roles so they brought their knowledge to the project.

And the movie was forward in the timeline.


----------



## Elf Witch (Aug 6, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Up until _American Psycho_ Christian Bale (who was just a kid in Kenneth Braugher's _Henry V_), I thought Michael Keaton is the better actor for Bruce Wayne/Batman.
> 
> Val Kilmer looks too young to be Bruce when compared to Chris O'Donnell playing Robin.
> 
> George Clooney got the chin but nothing else going for him, in or out of the batsuit.




I really really like the new movie and Bale did such a great job as Bruce Wayne. I liked all the Batman movies even the one with George Clooney but then I like George Clooney.

I thought he was better with Chris O'Donnell because as you said Val Kilmer seemed to young.


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 7, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> That's very true but there were people who had been involved in Trek before helping him out.



Really? Where were they when Scott Baird took the job helming _Star Trek: Nemesis_?

 :\

Where were they when the Shat helmed _Star Trek V: The Final Frontier_?


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 7, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I thought he was better with Chris O'Donnell because as you said Val Kilmer seemed to young.



Yeah. Young enough to be Robin while Chris can be Batman.  

If Val Kilmer work for law enforcement, he can be the perfect narc (along with Johnny Depp in _21 Jumpstreet_).


----------



## Elf Witch (Aug 7, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Really? Where were they when Scott Baird took the job helming _Star Trek: Nemesis_?
> 
> :\
> 
> Where were they when the Shat helmed _Star Trek V: The Final Frontier_?




Which only goes to prove that even with help crap can still be made.


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 7, 2007)

Speaking of help, JJ Abrams is about to make his first biggest mistake in _Trek_ film history, if the rumor is true:

He's wooing Tom Cruise to play Christopher Pike.


----------



## Elf Witch (Aug 7, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Speaking of help, JJ Abrams is about to make his first biggest mistake in _Trek_ film history, if the rumor is true:
> 
> He's wooing Tom Cruise to play Christopher Pike.




Actually I can see that. It makes me fel just a litle bit better hearing that he is going to have Christopher Pike in the movie after all he was Spock's first captain.

I don't dislike Tom Cruise I have enjoyed most of his movies and I tune out his real life stuff when I go to see one of his movies.


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 8, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Actually I can see that.



I can't. Besides, he's too short to be Pike. JJ is better off casting Katie Holmes.   

I swear, I'd dress Tom up as Sonny Bono, or one of them Sackville-Baggins hobbit.


----------



## horacethegrey (Nov 27, 2007)

Little bit o' thread resurrection right here, but I thought I'd interest all of you in this:







Take note that this is indeed the confirmed cast for the new _Star Trek_ film. While I do have some reservations on some of the choices (Chris Pine as Kirk? Having not really seen this guy's work I can't really say I'm sold), I must admit overall that is some inspired casting on the producers part (Zoe Saldana!  Bruce Greenwood as Pike? Brilliant!  And Winona Ryder as Spock's mom? This I gotta see!). 

But oh, such a long wait. Stardate 12.25.08 can't come fast enough.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 28, 2007)

horacethegrey said:
			
		

> Take note that this is indeed the confirmed cast for the new _Star Trek_ film. While I do have some reservations on some of the choices (Chris Pine as Kirk? Having not really seen this guy's work I can't really say I'm sold),



He has the eyes and chin. He needs to lighten (and thin) his brows. He and the cast could pulled it off if they go to boot camp with the US Navy and NASA.

I see Jennifer as a Romulan (though I will dream of her as my Klingon lover).

I see Rachel as Christine Chapel.


----------



## horacethegrey (Nov 28, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> I see Jennifer as a Romulan (though I will dream of her as my Klingon lover).



I'd rather she play Janice Rand, one of my favorite supporting characters from TOS. It's too bad Grace Lee Whitney was fired during the first season. But then again, after what happened to her back then(being sexually assaulted by some sleazy ass TV exec), perhaps her being sacked was a blessing.



			
				Ranger REG said:
			
		

> I see Rachel as Christine Chapel.



Oooooh... Nurse Chapel. Another fave. Despite the fact that she was Gene Roddenberry's wife, I always thought Majel Barret played this character very well.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 28, 2007)

horacethegrey said:
			
		

> I'd rather she play Janice Rand, one of my favorite supporting characters from TOS. It's too bad Grace Lee Whitney was fired during the first season. But then again, after what happened to her back then(being sexually assaulted by some sleazy ass TV exec), perhaps her being sacked was a blessing.



At least they brought her back into the fold, last seen on Captain Sulu's ship, _USS Excelsior_ on _Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country_ and a part of _Voyager_ episode, where Tuvok once served under Captain Sulu.




			
				horacethegrey said:
			
		

> Oooooh... Nurse Chapel. Another fave. Despite the fact that she was Gene Roddenberry's wife, I always thought Majel Barret played this character very well.



I'd liked her better as raven-haired Number One in the pilot Kirk-free episode, "The Cage."


----------



## Mark (Nov 28, 2007)

Thanks for the update!  I think some of the casting choices are inspired.  Still not sure about the Kirk thing which could make or break the show.


----------

