New movie Kirk and Spock pic.

[AUSSIE-Rebooted-AMM]

DarkLord. . . .not disagreeing with you, but observing. . . didn't you have a problem with Batman wearing an armoured suit. . . as it just didn't fit with your beloved classic Batman. Aren't trekies by that logic intitled to the same with the ship design?

I watched a few of those fan made Star Trek New Voyages, continuing the 5 year mission. Sure the actors were completely different, and hammy cheesy as hell, but you can accept them, the more you watch.

This movie could be great. . . if we give it a chance.

[Mikey]

Mike...

You loved George Reeves as Superman...yet you managed to accept Christopher Reeve.

But I don't count Superman or Batman in THIS catagory.
They were characters long before Reeves and West touched them.
They might be my personal fav's, but I think there's enough room in our universe for more interpretations.

Superman and Batman are almost in the same catagory as Shakespearian characters --- open for the world to interpret as they please-- depending on generation.

Captain Kirk is just too limited.
Kirk never existed before William Shatner.

[huedell]

I think the best of both world would be if major actors
of franchises "the grandpas" could play supporting roles
in these movies with the youngins playing the lead roles.

Yeah---it didn't work in Indiana Jones' latest but I blame the
poor script----not the casting.

By having Nimoy in this one they're attempting this even thouygh they
recast Spock---that's the advantage of having a time-travel plot I guess.

Would I accept other actors in beloved roles? I've already said "yes"

but

I see nothing wrong with "Indy and Mutt" "Old Ghostbusters
and new Ghostbusters" or "Han Solo and Han/Leia Jr." in the same movie
as well.

Also---I'm looking forward to the day where it's readily affordable
to make computer generated movies to include CG versions
of actors in their prime and voice replicators to copy their speech patterns
to make "those" type of movies.

Until then---a reboot with all new actors is way more affordable
like this new STAR TREK is doing---and I'm fine with that.

(Plus--in this new Trek you get the "first" Spock as a bonus!)

[Hector]

Mike...

You loved George Reeves as Superman...yet you managed to accept Christopher Reeve.

[Mikey]

I's not so much of a new ship design or even tinkering with the uniforms ....
I could live with that if I had too

For me, I just can't see anyone else playing Kirk.

Kirk is so much like Shatner, you really can't tell the difference.

Anyone else in the role would be just immitating Shat --- and if they didn't, they wouldn't be Kirk.... so why bother ?

It's a catch 22.

[Hector]

This new Trek flick will be more successful than all the previous Trek movies.

It will bring in a whole brand new young fan base thanks to the revised Trek...new young fans will relate to the younger actors.

Young kids just don't follow grandpa Shatner and grandpa Nimoy.

[Hector]

[i]

That's a matter of opinion not many people share with you.

Back at ya, buddy!

[fallensaviour]

When STAR TREK: The Next Generation was first introduced in the late 1980's, STAR TREK purists cried "foul!!" because the show featured an all new Enterprise and an all new crew set in an all-new time-period.

Well guess what? Some of the STAR TREK franchise's best days were still ahead of it at that point.

That's a matter of opinion not many people share with you.

I know I hated TNG still to this day its a big crapfest as far as I'm concerned.
Especially given the whole dallas type ending....ZZZzzzzz!?!?!? sorry I nodded off talking about TNG.

But I'm pumped about this new flick.

[Mikey]

When STAR TREK: The Next Generation was first introduced in the late 1980's, STAR TREK purists cried "foul!!" because the show featured an all new Enterprise and an all new crew set in an all-new time-period.

Well guess what? Some of the STAR TREK franchise's best days were still ahead of it at that point.

That's a matter of opinion not many people share with you.

[Hector]

Well said, Darklord.

[Hector]

I'm reading all the postings from all you guys that REFUSE to see this movie based on some pre-existing image of what some fictional caracters should look like (or the bridge). I have been a devoted fan(atic) of TOS forever and hope this movie brings life the the "characters" I love. Shatner, Nimoy, Kelley and the rest of the original cast will always get the utmost respect, But I can't see trashing a movie you haven't even seen. I saw an interview with JJ Abrams and really felt that he wanted to honor the original series. I also heard that the people at Paramount felt the franchise had gotten "lost" and wanted to get back to what made Star Trek GREAT. I for one plan to see the movie with an open mind and I'm hoping to leave the theatre in jazzed for Trek agian, JOHN

I couldn't agree with you more.

[darklord1967]

It's no secret that I'm much more of a STAR WARS fan than I'll ever be a STAR TREK fan.

I watched the original '60's TV show and enjoyed it's cheesy appeal.

And later on when Kirk and Spock and co made it to the big screen, I followed along, sometimes thrilled... sometimes bored to death.

This is the first time in a LONG time that I'm actually excited to see a STAR TREK film on the big screen.

Without any real emotional investment or loyalty to Bill Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelly and the gang, I am totally able to see a new generation of actors playing these characters, and bringing new interpretations, new sensibilities, and new perspectives to them all.

I think it's only good, and healthy for the franchise to be re-booted and re-freshed... especially since it had clearly run it's course, even among many of its devoted followers.

However, in light of all this, I decided to ask myself an honest question:

As a devoted die-hard STAR WARS fan, could I accept other actors in the roles of Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, and Princess Leia in a STAR WARS "update" film?

The answer for me is a resounding YES.

To me, compelling writing, interesting plots, engaging storylines, awesome visuals... these things count a LOT more for me than requiring a specific actor in a specific role.

This holds true for me for virtually any property, wether it's Batman, James Bond, STAR WARS or STAR TREK.

I remember how upset Adam West was when Batman was being re-booted for the big-screen in the late 1980's and he was not included.

Up until that point, the live action perception of that character in the minds of the public was basically Adam West trading campy quips with Burt Ward.
West didn't believe that the audience would accept anyone else but him and Burt in those roles. Many die-hard fans of the 60's Batman TV show felt the same way.

Well ultimately West was wrong, and so were many of those die-hard fans.





I'll tell you what I think the most ironic thing about all this is:

Most TREK purists that I run into seem to cling to a strong belief that only Shatner, Nimoy, Kelly, Nichols, Doohan, Takei, and Koenig could ever play those characters.

And yet there are more than a couple of instances in the TREK universe where either:

A) A single actor played various characters (re: Mark Leonard as Sarek, AND as a Romulan Commander in "Balance of Terror", AND as a Klingon in ST: TMP. Tim Russ playing Tuvok on Voyager, but ALSO playing a Tactical Leutenant on Enterprise B in STAR TREK: Generations. Merritt Butrick playing Kirk's son David Marcus in ST II and III, but ALSO playing T'Jon in a "Next Gen" episode )

OR

B) The same character was played by more than one actor (Re: Lt. Savik played by both Kristy Alley AND Robin Curtis).

So it seems to me that exclusivity between actors and characters does NOT seem to be as big a deal to STAR TREK producers as it is to some of the die-hard "Trekker" fans.

By comparison, in the STAR WARS universe, character / actor flexibility seems to exist only to a much, much lesser extent.

Sure Anthony Daniels (C-3PO) had a brief background bit in EP II in the "cantina' scene".

Sure Jeremy Bullock (Boba Fett) filled in as an Imperial Officer "extra" escorting Leia and Chewie through Cloud City, and later on he played the bit part of Captain Colton in EP III.

But, by and large, Lucas seemed determined to cast the same actors in the same roles wherever possible. He could have gotten any little person to waddle around inside of R2-D2. But he insisted on using Kenny Baker... through six films.

The same for Darth Vader and David Prowse.

The same for Chewbacca and Peter Mayhew.

The same for C-3PO and Anthony Daniels.

I just think this new STAR TREK film should be given a chance to stand on its own merits rather than being judged by a (frankly melodramatic and hammy) Bill Shatner / Leonard Nimoy yardstick.

When STAR TREK: The Next Generation was first introduced in the late 1980's, STAR TREK purists cried "foul!!" because the show featured an all new Enterprise and an all new crew set in an all-new time-period.

Well guess what? Some of the STAR TREK franchise's best days were still ahead of it at that point.

And some of the finest, most compelling Trek tales were produced after the introduction of that show.

Give this new film a chance, Trekkers. You might be pleasantly surprised.

[Tyme2tyme]

There's no sense in making up Your Mind about this movie...until You've actually seen it!

I'm reading all the postings from all you guys that REFUSE to see this movie based on some pre-existing image of what some fictional caracters should look like (or the bridge). I have been a devoted fan(atic) of TOS forever and hope this movie brings life the the "characters" I love. Shatner, Nimoy, Kelley and the rest of the original cast will always get the utmost respect, But I can't see trashing a movie you haven't even seen. I saw an interview with JJ Abrams and really felt that he wanted to honor the original series. I also heard that the people at Paramount felt the franchise had gotten "lost" and wanted to get back to what made Star Trek GREAT. I for one plan to see the movie with an open mind and I'm hoping to leave the theatre in jazzed for Trek agian, JOHN

[UnderdogDJLSW]

So here's a question. If The original series is called Classic Trek or TOS, What would a new series of the old original characters be called? The new original trek? Neo-trek? Not to hijack a thread, but what should the acronym be?

By the way, Chris Pine is a pretty good actor, so even though he is not Shatner, I'm interested to see him in the role. My only worry, to elaborate on what I wrote before, would be that the "feel" of the universe would be different. Using the James Bond reference again would be both Sean and Roger are British, working for M and her Majesty, etc. rather than creating a new Bond who is American and drinks malibu. If Abrams keeps the optimism of the future like Roddenberry/original authors had, then I'll be OK with the movie. He says so in the article and I hope it is true. I'm tired of the dark and gritty science fiction. But for personal tastes I wish the bridge looked more retro.

[Timothy2251]

I'm being cautiously optimistic, based on what I've seen/read so far. I'd really like to see this flick take off, restart/reboot the franchise, and become very successful.

If not, no biggie. Still got my DVD collections and, thanks to EMCE Toys (praise Doc Mego. PRAISE HIM!!!!), my Mego repros of the Classic crew. I win either way!