That’s not because they just happened to get the right part with mediocre acting skills, either. If Star Trek hadn’t had good actors, it would’ve been dead on arrival. So who do you get to replace them? Matt Damon was already rumored for Kirk, but he’s on record as saying that he doesn’t want to play characters that already have a strong interpretation. I would generalize this to all big-name actors… they want, and can get, the leeway to play the character however they want. And if they brought in somebody who didn’t play Kirk like Kirk or Spock like Spock, there’d be a minority that would praise the “bold new interpretation,” but most people who grew up watching TOS would be pissed.

So they basically have to go out and find somebody who’s willing and capable of doing a Shatner or Nimoy impression. They have to strike a precarious balance between the old and the new, since you’re not going to get a general audience in the doors without telling a compelling story, and a compelling story means conflict and character development. But we already know where these characters develop, and deviating from that for the sake of spicing the story up will piss off the core fanbase (and rightfully so). There are possibilities, but there are also more fertile areas for story development than the immediately pre-TOS era.

I would welcome a prequel story about Captains April or Pike, where recasting is less of a minefield and there’s plenty of new interpretation for the actors to do, or even the long-overdue Captain Sulu story, where the actors are still available and might reasonably look convincing in their roles. Even beyond that, the “forward not backward” crowd is becoming something of a cliche on Trek message boards, but it would blow the possibilties for storylines wide open (so long as a few established characters are kept on hand so we don’t have to be introduced to a whole new crew… not going to be possible in a movie).

But a TOS era movie with Kirk and Spock is by far the easiest concept for the marketing department to hype. The Internet controversy alone is enough to raise significant awareness for such a movie. I honestly think that’s why Abrams hasn’t said anything more than he has. The basic details of the story in the original Variety press release were probably correct, and he’s relying on fevered speculation and discussion to build buzz. Free marketing. It’s not like he’s unfamiliar with the power of the Internet, either. Part of the reason “Lost’s” complicated story arc is so successful is because it is well-documented and discussed on the Internet, so if you miss an episode, it’s easy to catch up. That wasn’t so even 10 years ago.

But I am pessimistic enough to think that it would be a one-shot deal. It will be very, very hard to please the diehard TOS fans with new versions of their beloved characters, and even if that works out, the real potential for an ongoing story lies elsewhere anyway. Perhaps they’re not even considering that, since the TV rights are still with CBS. But it’s a shame, because part of Star Trek’s strength is that it has managed to be mostly a continuous story over the course of 40 years, only derailing just recently when comparatively few people were watching. It’s kind of a catch-22: In order to really reinvigorate Star Trek, it would be best to follow a top-notch film up with a new TV series that continues the same plotline. But the film they presumably find easiest to market already had its follow-on TV series… 40 years ago.

A movie about young Kirk is a somewhat different consideration. The obvious objection is in recasting the characters. Sure, Kirk and Spock are “iconic characters,” for whatever that phrase is worth. But I can’t think of any other characters that originated in a video medium that are so widely popular and have been defined by the same actors for such a long period of time. Obviously, you guys here don’t really care about it, but I can’t help but think that a significant portion of the old-time TOS fanbase that forms the core audience for this movie would balk at a recasting. Plus, if they pick popular young actors, will the middle-aged (or older) audience necessarily connect? I don’t think you’ll get a lot of the all-important 18-35 demographic to come out unless the movie has actors they recognize.

Even then, what will the story tell us about the characters that we don’t already know? We already know that young Kirk was brash and unafraid to take risks, since that was his later command style; if this takes place at the Academy, it’ll likely show us Kirk rigging the Kobayashi Maru simulator. But that’s all just details. Either show us a side of the character we haven’t seen before (Kirk’s fear of aging in TWOK) or grow the character in a new direction (death of David Marcus in TSFS, getting over hatred of the Klingons in TUC). I don’t see how very much can be done with the character of Kirk at that point in his life besides filling in spurious details that non-fans and casual fans wouldn’t care much about. On the other hand, there’s a wealth of material for Spock. Perhaps him dealing with his half-human heritage, his father’s disapproval (although that’s been done to extent), or even openly exhibiting emotions as was hinted at in “The Cage.” But if that has to share time with Kirk acting like a rebellious badass, then I don’t think it will work as well. Plus, I’m going to go so far as to say that Spock is a deeper character than Kirk, and Nimoy lent him a lot of that depth. Thus, Nimoy would be a lot harder to replace than Shatner. And the most important question, if they wish to resurrect Star Trek as a marketable franchise: where do you go from there? You can’t tell too many “Young Kirk and Spock” stories before you’re running up against the series itself.

It definitely won’t be a reboot, though. That would be at least 86 different kinds of stupid. JMS’s reboot proposal that Dave linked didn’t really have anything other than “OMG ICONIC CHARACTERS!” (completely ignoring the nigh-unbreakable link between those characters and their actors) and the promise of the search for the “Progenitor Race,” which is a concept ripped straight out of TNG: “The Chase.” Perhaps JMS’s attempted revenge for Deep Space Nine? It’s an interesting plot idea, but it was already set up in the TNG era, if somebody wanted to pick it up and run with it. And it wouldn’t be burdened by the need to live up to the original version of the show. Just as an aside, didn’t that article about the TNG comics imply they had done a survey and found that TNG had the largest fanbase out of all the series? I see plenty of people on other message boards jonesing for a Titan series with Riker as captain.

Stewart Star Trek = greasy pork sandwich served in a dirty ashtray chased with ammonia mixed with bleach- followed by a bag of doritos that have sat on the shelf 17 years and hot beer.”

I would have thought that the Stewart Star Trek would be the caramel sundae “with no nuts.”

Shatner Star Trek had plenty of nuts, if you know what I mean.

Because, as you pointed out, the movie is coming out in summer 2008, not during the holiday season.

If they started the film in January 2008 with a target release date of summer 2008, that would be half the production schedule of previous Trek films.

If you look at your statement again closely, you will see that the production schedule for Trex XI is approximately the same as that of the previous films; only the seasons are shifted.

That’s actually rather unoriginal, I’m assuming someone said it to you just prior to your posting. I may have expected a bit too much I guess from you.

Oh BTW, mom says hi and hopes the alimony checks are still arriving?

You should go and read the PDF file I linked to again. It doesn’t render them non-existant. It branches out into an alternate universe with something more going on than random adventures. The five-year mission arc that is described in that document holds more than just a passing intrest for me regardless of who is playing the roles. The storyline has more than a little bit of intrigue.

If Paramount WAS really intrested in keeping Trek fresh AND alive this proposal would have been the best way of doing it based on some of the other proposals that had been floating around.

Stewart Star Trek = greasy pork sandwich served in a dirty ashtray chased with ammonia mixed with bleach- followed by a bag of doritos that have sat on the shelf 17 years and hot beer.

No comparison.