New movie Kirk and Spock pic.

[cdhall]

Red

Spock does look a little ghastly doesnt he....missing his yellowish tinge.

You know, this was their opportunity to make him Red like they wanted to in the first place but didn't for lack of enough color TVs in the country...

Wouldn't have hurt I don't think. Ick. I didn't like that movie.

[jds1911a1]

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.

Tim russ also played a terrorist who tried to hijack the enterprise b and picard (can't recall the episide TNG season 5 maybe).
in confilct with your star wars points

FIRST I am a huge fan of both star wars and star trek and I hate when either franchise get's messed with

Bulloch is also cast as part of the tantive 4 crew in ep 3
Tim Russ is also a terrorist who tries to Hijack the enterptrise b and Picard (can't recall the episode) it is around 5 or 5 worf is still on the ship in yellow
re actor replacement
SO ah how did you feel when Bulloch's voice was replaced by Temoa Morrisson on the dvd releases of Empire and Jedi as Boba Fett
Did you like it that Greedo shoots first to make Han Justified in killing him?

[jds1911a1]

You haters will be eating crow when this new Trek flick makes well over $200 million...eclipsing the highest grossing Trek...the Voyage Home's paltry $120 domestic box office take.

So much for the old classic Trek crew...couldn't even go beyond $120 million.

Hec not to pcik a fight here but with movie tickets more than 3 times what they were when voyage home was made is that really a meaningful guide? Unless the box office #'s are price adjusted compainr earnings with a film made more than 5 years ago don't mean much. I always prefer to compare attendance to attendance.

[jds1911a1]

Mike---I'm admittedly probing ya here---but is it any bit significant
that the "Trek people" are all involved with this movie...
meaning most all other "TV show rip-off" movies aren't connected with
the TV shows except only in name.

I know I would've been much more excited about the DUKES movie if
the original creator was involved.

Roddenberry has passed yes---but the "Trek creative collective" (excuse
the Borg implication!) is helming this...isn't there a chance
it could be a tight project for even the most jaded Trek fans to view?

didn't that same group do the enterprise show?

[The Bat]

If the characters are engaging, and the story exciting people wouldn't even CARE about the switches and blinking lights.

It aint gunna happen because Gene Roddenberry is dead ... and Star Trek no longer has someone to watchover it and stop it from making an azz of itself.

I know Roddenberry watched over it...but He didn't write all the stories. And Berman & Bragna are GONE(thank God!)!!! One thing made Star Trek so great...was that They brought in different Writers all the time.

[Iron_fox85]

fans really need to just sit back and enjoy what they got.

If I was starving and offered a spoonful of ****, I still wouldn't eat it.

guess i'm thwe only one with an open mind and a hope for the franchise to be reborn for a new generation of children.

[ctc]

>It aint gunna happen because Gene Roddenberry is dead

Well, you're probably right; but it's not NECCESSARILY the case.

>Star Trek no longer has someone to watchover it and stop it from making an azz of itself.

I think part of the problem is that the folks running the show for the last little while really hate the original. (I know the one guy did, but I can't remember his name....) But that's not NECCESSARILY the case.

The changes for me suggest this is gonna be more of the same, but I don't think that's how it always has to be. And it's possible that the new film won't suck. (I'm gonna wait to hear some reviews before I go see it though.)

Don C.

[Mikey]

When you really get down to it, I think the classic bridge looks more futuristic than this movie's bridge.
This movie's bridge reminds me of the classic series MOVIE bridges --- which imo, didn't look too futuristic.
For one thing,
Sci Fi movies LOVE touch screen monitors.
We're already IN REAL LIFE there.

The new movie bridge ......
Looks like poor Uhura don't get a chair .....
No bridge chairs for control stations ?
Sounds like another show I know.

It's the same old thing that we've been fed for 20 years now.
They're just trying to rehash it using classic characters names to make it seem more legit.

If the characters are engaging, and the story exciting people wouldn't even CARE about the switches and blinking lights.

It aint gunna happen because Gene Roddenberry is dead ... and Star Trek no longer has someone to watchover it and stop it from making an azz of itself.

[ctc]

>I don't believe it will be the Sets that make or break this Movie.

I agree, BUT the idea of using the firmly established characters kinda irks me 'cos it looks like right from the get go they're playing it safe. Same with the set designs; they're setting the story in the old continuity but making a lot of it conform to the current standard of "correct" for sci-fi. It MIGHT be a really good movie, but I'm already seeing symptoms of the same old same old.

>Star Trek has never been about the background

Also true; but changing the background kinda shows a preoccupation with it. There's nothing wrong with the old switches and blinking lights. Who's to say that's NOT what the future's gonna look like? Besides, it's been established that this is what the Star Trek future is gonna look like. Why monkey with it if not to play it safe by conforming to the current standard? Hell; back in the 90's the Jules Verne thing was super popular. Call it "SteamPunk" and it's shiney and new.

If the characters are engaging, and the story exciting people wouldn't even CARE about the switches and blinking lights.

Don C.

[jaypiscopo]

There are those of us that absolutely LOVED The Legend of the Lone Ranger.

It was beautifully faithful to the legend. It had great cinematography, a wonderful supporting cast: Jason Robbards as President Grant. Christopher Lloyd as Butch Cavendish. And it featured some really good performances... yes even from the two unknown leads.

A HIGHLY underrated film that was made with a lot of love, reverence, and respect for the character, the legend, and the original source material.

sorry if i hurt your feelings- and anyone else who loves The Legend of The Lone Ranger-
to be honest- if i could find it on vhs, id put it right next to my damnation alley and megaforce- lovable sucky- movies for me, as well
it just shows to go ya how personal this stuff can get
and be completely relative.

[AUSSIE-Rebooted-AMM]

You are all worng. . . Star Trek at its most basic level is about Chicks in Mini Skirts with boots on. Uhuru looks great. . . .this is gonna be a big HIT!!!!!!! I especially liked the Okonor episode in TNG with a young pre-Lois and ClarTerry Hatcher in her Mini!

[The Bat]

But ultimately Mike...I don't believe it will be the Sets that make or break this Movie. Star Trek has never been about the background...but about the Characters, and a well told thoughtful Story.

[Mikey]

But each generation's vision of the future is totally different.
This movie's bridge tells me they're still using a 90's verson of our future.

Nobody ever gets the future right anyway ... but at least make an effort to do something different --- even if it's to go "retro" future.

[The Bat]

Look...I'm not sold on the New Trek Movie either. I have plently of reservations, and I'm biting My Nails that They "get it right"!!

I'm EXREMELY happy with casting of Zackery Quinto as Spock! I'm a big Fan of Heroes, and having seen Him act...I totally believe He can pull it off!!

On the negative side...Chris Pine is an unknown quality to Me. I haven't seen Him act...and feel He doesn't look enough like Kirk.

The redesigned Bridge doesn't bother Me...because it reminds Me of the Motion Picture Bridge....and let's face it...the blinking Bulbs & push down levers of TOS, would look totally WRONG in Todays technological World...after all...Star Trek is supose to be set in the Future!

[darklord1967]

Remember "The Legend of The Lone Ranger" with Clinton Spilsbury- I knew that was going to suck based on the stills-
Throw me a parade!

There are those of us that absolutely LOVED The Legend of the Lone Ranger.

It was beautifully faithful to the legend. It had great cinematography, a wonderful supporting cast: Jason Robbards as President Grant. Christopher Lloyd as Butch Cavendish. And it featured some really good performances... yes even from the two unknown leads.

A HIGHLY underrated film that was made with a lot of love, reverence, and respect for the character, the legend, and the original source material.