New movie Kirk and Spock pic.

[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.

[Hector]

[i]

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

Back at ya, buddy!

[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.

[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]

Mike...

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

[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!)

[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.

[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.

[Tyme2tyme]

When Sean Connery WAS James Bond, the concensus was that nobody else could play the part. Over the years many actors (George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan) played the part to varying success. I personally considered Mr. Connery as the true version of Bond. These days, I have to say that Daniel Craig has raised the bar and just may be better than the "original" Bond. I'm giving the new cast a chance!, JOHN

[darklord1967]

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?

Well two things:

1) My point about Trek purists not giving the new film a chance had nothing to do with an updated ship design. It had to do with their seeming inability to see anyone else but Shatner, Nimoy, and Kelly in the roles of the classic Trek characters.

However, as for ship, design, I understand (and to some extent agree with) a certain amount of logic regarding an insistence on continuity. I'm not sure that the new film should boast an all-new ulta modern Enterprise, especially if it's a time travel tale which features Leonard Nimoy as Spock (which is a clear indication that established classic Trek continuity should probably NOT be discarded... even if this IS a re-boot)





2) My objection to Batman wearing bulky (overly ornate) movie armor was rooted in two fronts:

A) Firstly, there was my belief that the character (as established in the comics) was not nearly as concerned about self-preservation as he was about mobility, speed, stealth, and agility... all of which I felt the armor seriously compromised.

Aesthetically, the character intended a very simple organic look to his uniform that was contradicted by the overly sculpted look of the movie uniforms (especially after Batman Returns).

So this first objection was based on a violation of the established character's psychological intent for his selected uniform when establishing a crime-fighting night persona.

Even if I had an issue with the "new" Enterprise design (which I do not, because I have not seen it), there would be no link between the design of the ship and the "psychological intentions" of the Trek characters.





AND

B) My belief that the "realistic" justifications for The Batman to wear armor in the movies simply held no water and were illogical since it was a surreal comic book based series of films to begin with. I did not believe that the rules of our "realistic" world necessarily had to apply in a Batman movie since it's a fantasy action film.

Also there was the issue of how little protection the armor seemed to afford the character in the films as evidenced by dog bites, fingernail stabs, etc... all of this, despite the fact that the kevlar armor is stated as being bullet, slash, and stab resistant.

So this objection is based on in-universe logic established by the filmmakers themselves.


I was clear to say, even then, that if necessary, I could have accepted the Batman movie armor IF the in-universe logic for its use were at least consistent with the "rules of realism" as established in the films themselves, and IF it aesthetically fit with the character's needs and aesthetic intentions (scare people, simple organic night-creature image... not "techy")

[darklord1967]

Kirk never existed before William Shatner.

Indiana Jones never existed before Harrison Ford either. But that didn't stop other actors from playing him and chronicling his adventures at other stages of his life.

[Iron_fox85]

kickass!!!

[Iron_fox85]

also you fans need to lighten up. this is for a new generation. images may look horrible for you but to me i am loving it i am gonna watch the film first then judge it for myself. fans really need to just sit back and enjoy what they got.

[Mikey]

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.

[The Bat]

Remember How Star Trek always tried to slip in a moral message? Didn't they try to teach tolerence, and open Mindedness? Well...it looks like they failed with Their very own Fans.