Pegg: Star Trek Getting Back To What Made It Good August 27, 2008
by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: ST09 Cast, Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback
Simon Pegg is definitely the geek insider of the new crew for JJ Abrams Star Trek. of the bunch. Although others are fans, Pegg knows his franchises, just recently correcting the record on if the film is a ‘remake.’ In a new interview with our friends at Hardcore Nerdity, Pegg goes into more detail on his approach to Scotty and how the film works within Trek.
LISTEN TO THE INTERVIEW at the Hardcore Nerdity podcast
some select quotes
Pegg on taking on Scotty
Was he intimidated or is it just like taking on Hamlet?
James Doohan, he owns that role and he always will. He was an amazing, a brilliant character. Such a sort of layered and interesting guy…it is not like Hamlet, there has only been one Scotty, really. I thought the best thing I can do as a tribute to him was to approach it from scratch and try and figure out the same thing he did when he picked up a script for the first time. I didn’t want to do an impression of him as that would be disrespectful and also not only to James, but to the franchise and to the show, so like everyone, we got back to the roots of the character and we all did our portrayals like that. I think Zach Quinto as Spock, for him he obviously had to study Leonard Nimoy’s character just a little bit because he is such a specific character and also because Leonard is in the movie, so there has to be that similarity. But for the rest of us, we just took it from from the description of the character up.
Trek optimism works today? + comments on production design
Does Pegg agree that Trek’s optimism didn’t work in the post 9/11 world…
I don’t know, I think it’s a shame if that’s the case, because I think that is what marked it out when it first started. Gene Roddenberry created this vision of an integrated universe–it was way ahead of its time. It had the first interracial kiss, on television, was on Star Trek. The very notion of — I love the fact that the engineer was Scottish, because Scotland has a history of incredibly innovative engineers. And he did paint this really clever future-verse. I think that to suggest that we can’t still get there is just kind of giving up. So, I hope that’s not the case. Obviously, JJ [Abrams]’s Star Trek is going to have JJ’s stamp on it. It’ll be be contemporary, and gritty, but it’s very much Star Trek. The bridge was the bridge, it was incredible, but somehow it didn’t look like it was built in the ’60s. The production design was so cleverly pitched, in that it was completely credible, but still very much like you’d expect. It’s very clever.
Bringing back Trek + getting the details right
Will Star Trek revitalize the franchise like Casino Royale and Batman Begins?
I think it’s very much in that vein. It’s very much about getting back to what made it good in the first place. That’s what both those films have done, in Casino Royale and Batman Begins. They stripped it back down to the beginning and what appealed at the very conception. What happens with things that exist for a long time is they become augmented and gimmicky, and things change, and they kind of–they’re added to and added to–to try and make them better–and it ends up just toppling over under the weight of its own sort of self-parody. Whereas this is really getting back to it. I know there’s some consternation within the fan base, but they’re going to see new Star Trek with the original [characters]. I don’t know what’s not to be fucking excited about! I am, and I’m in it. And it’s in the hands of a person who really cares about it. We had advisors on set the whole time. If we needed to know what happened on a–if there was an away mission and only a certain amount of people went, then who carried the tricorder–we got it all from the people that really know. And JJ was absolutely at pains to make sure that it’s totally and utterly–and there’s a lot in it for the fan. There’s a lot of little ironies in there that you’ll pick up on if you know the series and you know the mythology. It’s going to be crackin’!
More from Pegg on Sean of the Dead and Trek at hardcorenerdity.com.
Pegg cleans up on some swag at an 02 Silver Clef Awards party
in London in July
Loading ...
Comments»
I’m excited for this movie!
“You know, at first I didn’t think I was going to like him.” - Odo
I love Pegg talking about the film. It’s always something positive.
“Och. T’be or not t’be. That be’s the question. The answer is always inflated by a factor of four t’help enhance ye reputation as a miracle worker!”
for the horde!!
dammit jim , im a doctor not an Orc
I really like this guy, he knows what he’s talking about.
It’s interesting to read what the actors are thinking and relate it to their first interviews about Star Trek.
I’ve purposefully avoided watching Pegg’s movies, or Quinto’s, or Cho’s, or Pine’s, and so on, with the hope I can watch the new Star Trek without picturing them in other roles. After I see the new Trek, I’ll probably go watch ‘em in something else.
But I have to admit, Pegg’s the most impressive of ‘em thus far. I can’t tell you how much I’m looking forward to seeing him as Scotty.
if james doohan owns the role and always will then why attempt it? i still believe all these good intentions are destined to crash and burn.
you. can. not. recast. icons.
Sean Connery will always own Bond but that doesn’t mean other actors haven’t done a fine job with the role and made great 007 films.
I also remember in 1987 when people said the the Next Generation could never live up to the TOS.
#9
That’s. Your. Opinion.
10-I liked TNG, but it really did not live up to TOS in my humble opinion. What could? Then again there are those who hate TOS and love TNG. To each his/her own. Hope JJ gets this right.
#11—And one which has no basis in truth whatsoever.
#9
Yes.they.can.
See: Superman. Batman. James Bond. Battlestar Galactica. Bewitched [just the Darrins from the series, the movie was bad]. Lassie. The Griswold kids.Dumbledore- the list goes on and on…
The only thing you don’t mess with is Coca-Cola [see: Coke 2]
The more the new Trek actors tell us how good this film is going to be, the more I don’t believe them. Instead of posting these stupid interviews on trekmovie.com, why not just show us a real trailer! Come on JJ, let’s see it!
It’s not about the actors, it’s about the characters.
If the characters can be portrayed right and show a resemblance to the characters we already got to know this movie will work and then it doesn’t matter which actors play them. At least that’s my opinion… and I’m also aware that when the characters are supposed to be younger… they’ll not be exactly like the characters we got to know in TOS, because they’re still lacking some of the experiences that made them to who they are in the series. People change over time, it’s not any different for Kirk&co.
I’m mildly reassured, but I’m still waiting for them to SHOW US THE DAMN SHIP ALREADY!!
Ya know James Doohan lost a couple of fingers on D-day 1944..and he/Roddenberry avoided filming his hands all the time…just like JJ avoids
letting out any secrets about the plot of this movie…I can’t wait
Mr. Pegg does a lot to keep the faith. Glad to know there are people at work on this who truly love and respect TOS.
#8 …lighten up. They’re ACTORS for a reason. Hey, I’ve got an idea…see Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. Pegg is totally different and very funny in those.
#12 - I agree. TOS is my personal favorite. But TNG did become a great show in its own right.
And I can remember the speculation at the time that Star Trek fans would never be able to accept a new crew.
I sure miss Doohan and Kelley. Such fine gentleman and it’s a shame they didn’t get to see Trek live on.
And I think they ought to let Pegg do the talking from now on…this is the best comment I’ve heard so far:
“It’s very much about getting back to what made it good in the first place. That’s what both those films have done, in Casino Royale and Batman Begins. They stripped it back down to the beginning and what appealed at the very conception. What happens with things that exist for a long time is they become augmented and gimmicky, and things change, and they kind of–they’re added to and added to–to try and make them better–and it ends up just toppling over under the weight of its own sort of self-parody.”
#22—-That bit was great, but this part really made me smile:
“I know there’s some consternation within the fan base, but they’re going to see new Star Trek with the original [characters]. I don’t know what’s not to be f***ng excited about! I am, and I’m in it. And it’s in the hands of a person who really cares about it. We had advisors on set the whole time. If we needed to know what happened on a–if there was an away mission and only a certain amount of people went, then who carried the tricorder–we got it all from the people that really know. And JJ was absolutely at pains to make sure that it’s totally and utterly–and there’s a lot in it for the fan. There’s a lot of little ironies in there that you’ll pick up on if you know the series and you know the mythology. It’s going to be crackin’! “
Although I hope they don’t say “away team” instead of “landing party”.
>.That bit was great, but this part really made me smile:
Yup. I like the “going to be crackin” line but then I like Pegg’s sense of humor in general. Course “consternation” might be the PC way of putting it. Hee!
This movie needs to be totally accessible for the average movie-goer but it would be nice if it’s got some goodies for die-hards like me.
#9- Recasing roles sucessfuly has happend and will happen with Star Trek! #14 I aggre with everything you have said on this post….an #23 I agree.
“The bridge was the bridge, it was incredible, but somehow it didn’t look like it was built in the ’60s. The production design was so cleverly pitched, in that it was completely credible, but still very much like you’d expect. It’s very clever. ”
WOW!
Sounds like it’s gonna be the same basic design, just with a good amount o’ tweaks in all the right places!
EXCELLENT!
#25–”This movie needs to be totally accessible for the average movie-goer but it would be nice if it’s got some goodies for die-hards like us”.
I can’t imagine that (being written by fans,especially) it would not, and Pegg seems to confirm that with those comments. And you are right…he should be out in front doing quite a bit of the talking (at least when the “talking” is being aimed at geeks and Trekfans).
There are going to be two or three very different marketing strategies, IMO:
1) aimed at established fans to comfort them over their fears
2) aimed at dispelling decades of preconceived notions about Trek on the part of average moviegoers
3) aimed at enticing young movigoers with the promise of special effects and action sequences beyond what they have seen before
Of all the articles and interviews I’ve read re: this movie this is the first one that genuinely excited me.
Doubters doubt all you want. Something special is going to happen next May.
Can’t wait, can’t wait, can’t wait, can’t wait, can’t wait, can’t wait, can’t wait, can’t wait, can’t wait, can’t wait, can’t wait, can’t wait, can’t wait, can’t wait, can’t wait, can’t wait, can’t wait, can’t wait…..
#10
George Lazenby and Daniel Craig were better.
9. Decious
You convinced yourself. Don’t like the thought of it, don’t see it. Simple.
Wake up. Bad day. Come home. Check trekmovie.com.
“Another Pegg… hmmm….” (reads article)
“Oh yeah… thats why the world doesn’t suck! Star Trek is coming out in seven months!”
I think I need a life…
When I read Mr. Pegg’s remark “They stripped it back down to the beginning and what appealed at the very conception,” it made me think of how much Star Trek had really changed over the years. There was certainly NOTHING in the first Star Trek films that looked like the series — the ship changed a little, the bridge changed quite a bit, the uniforms were entirely different, even the actors were looking more “grown up.” There are some people who are worried about JJ and Company doing anything to change Star Trek, yet, if we look at TOS thru ENT, you might wonder how the name Star Trek remained on it. I think this “back to the egg” idea is the best thing that could happen to Star Trek.
I’m simply curious as to how it all works in the end.
What I’ve seen/heard so far looks good.
34.
I agree. With every subsequent series, Trek moved a little further away from its’ core values, and became endlessly repetitive. This sort of “back-to-basics” approach with a new creative team is what Trek has sorely needed for so long.
# 14. (Bob Tompkins).
LOL! That’s great!
#36—”This sort of “back-to-basics” approach with a new creative team is what Trek has sorely needed for so long”
Without a doubt.
“James Doohan, he owns that role and he always will.”
Pegg is shaping up to be my fav. person, in regards to his honoring of the original, in all of his comments, he actually has reverence for the old guys unlike some of the others….. But, he still looks nothing like James Doohan (take that you anti Nemesis/Picard doesnt look like Shinzon people! LOL!) But, Pegg along with Quinto, I am hoping will get some notice because of the movie. But, I wish Pegg would come to a convention, because, Quinto, no matter how well intentioned is a very boring public speaker, which makes a perfect Vulcan but, not a good speaker for a convention.
27. “Sounds like it’s gonna be the same basic design, just with a good amount o’ tweaks in all the right places!”
The tweaks must be metal, plastic, and fiberglass materials, PCs/Macs, and digital monitors. And the movie might show the bridge doing things involving force fields and nanotechnology - for example, a control panel reconfiguring itself or the chairs conforming to the bodies of people sitting on them.
#36 “Trek moved a little further away from its’ core values, and became endlessly repetitive”
Totally agreed. You can have very talented directors and writers (Moore and so on), but in the long run, things have to change to find some fresh air. Trek had become old and repetitive and Enterprise, despite some good ideas, suffered (maybe unfairly) from the inevitable, natural death.
Trek was no more, so we have to thank Abrams for at least trying to revive it.
A TOS movie, with a “back to the roots” approach is (imo) the best thing to do: no useless heavy reference to thousands of races, empires, events, characters and son. Just some fresh, plain Star Trek.
40. “And the movie might show the bridge doing things involving force fields and nanotechnology - for example, a control panel reconfiguring itself or the chairs conforming to the bodies of people sitting on them.”
That is, the movie might retcon that the bridge props which seemed static in TOS were actually always dynamic - sort of like the exterior of the TARDIS.
42. “That is, the movie might retcon that the bridge props which seemed static in TOS were actually always dynamic - sort of like the exterior of the TARDIS.”
For those who do not follow the BBC TV show Dr Who, the TARDIS is the spacetimeship of the show’s main character, the Doctor. Because of a faulty Chameleon Circuit, the exterior of the TARDIS is stuck in the form of a London police call box from the 1960s.
Pegg is, I think, the best overall spokesman this movie has. They need to keep this guy front and center when the time comes for the real public attention.
[…] Full article addthis_url = ‘http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sarkle.net%2Fscifi%2F2008%2F08%2F28%2Fpegg-star-trek-getting-back-to-what-made-it-good%2F’; addthis_title = ‘Pegg%3A+%26%238216%3BStar+Trek%26%238217%3B+Getting+Back+To+What+Made+It+Good’; addthis_pub = ”; […]
Away team!!!! what the….
Simon Pegg is a class act. JJ is lucky to have Simons geek cred front and centre. And I can’t wait to see all the wonderful and eciting changes that are being brought to the world of Star Trek!!!!
I love these Pegg interviews. He talks plain!
Star Trek has simply shown the natural life cycle of all such ideas.
The show starts off with the characters already established, then moves on to those characters getting older. Inevitably a new scenario has to be created when they get too old - prequel, reboot or Children of Trek - so we get a future generation of characters to follow*.
Eventually the second generation wears out so the list of options comes back again - prequel, reboot or Children of TNG. Another generation in the future is straying too far from the source, so we get a prequel**.
When the prequel is done and dusted, what do you do? You’ve built up so much complex continuty, a reboot is really the only logical option. We’ve seen it happen in novels, movies, comics and TV shows and now Star Trek, having played out every possible option, is going back to basics.
With luck, even though there’s going to be an in-continuty expanation for any deviations, TOS, the movies, TNG and its counterparts will be seen as a self-contained continuity and the new Star Trek will lead to a slightly different, alternate future with its own next generations until the cycle goes full circle again!
(*although normally you would expect a genuine ‘Next Generation’ to have included characters such as Saavik on the Enterprise-A a few years down the line, so all the original characters could still appear, older, once in a while!)
(** The prequel suffers though, because the guy in charge openly admits he’s never watched all of TOS, so we end up with a peculiar prequel that acts as an overture to TNG for three years, ignoring a lot of TOS!)
“We had advisors on set the whole time. If we needed to know what happened on a–if there was an away mission and only a certain amount of people went, then who carried the tricorder–we got it all from the people that really know.”
I also hope those experts made sure those away missions were carried out by a landing party and not an away team! The wrong terminology will invoke the wrong feeling, and yes it is all about how it feels as TNG does feel 100% different than TOS. Everything else Pegg mentions, about Trek needing to get back to the basics of TOS, how this recasting is NOT like Hamlet and how the aestetics like the bridge is still the bridge,just tweaked is right on the money. All in all, very encouraging stuff.
to give everyone a clue as to if star trek’s still credible as something we can actually get to in a post-9/11 world…in enterprises 4th season episode ’storm front, part 2′ (the 2nd part of the nazis-in-new york episode) as archer was with daniels in daniels’ temporal observatory watching time reset itself, a pic/vid of the planes hitting the world trade center was seen.
I’d go watch this movie, even if I wasnt’ a die hard fan of Trek, which I am, only to see the Peggster! I am so thrilled that he’s in it!!
#39—-”…he actually has reverence for the old guys unlike some of the others…..”
Qunito and Urban (in particular) have both shown an ample degree of reverance for the originals, but the truth is—none of them need to in order to deliver a good performance. They just need to do exactly what Pegg suggested here:
“…so like everyone, we got back to the roots of the character and we all did our portrayals like that. I think Zach Quinto as Spock, for him he obviously had to study Leonard Nimoy’s character just a little bit because he is such a specific character and also because Leonard is in the movie, so there has to be that similarity. But for the rest of us, we just took it from from the description of the character up.”
“But, he still looks nothing like James Doohan”
What difference does that make? Is your imagination so handicapped that you are not capable of believing their performances if they are not look-alikes?
Perhaps you would prefer a less than stellar acting job on the part of a virtual body double (like in Superman Returns), instead of a good performance by someone who might look different from the previous actor.
I am not afraid of change. Every series has change in it. All each series had some great points, and great episodes. Even Voyager *Gasp* had some great character moments. The episodic arcs in fourth season of enterprise (Klingon arc, eugenics arc, romulan arc, mirror universe arc) were put together beautifully. I had a problem with Enterprise for a long time because of some of the continuity errors, but after a while, I really got into the show and enjoyed the characters and stories. Tripp and Malcolm were great characters, played by great actors. The episode where they are stuck on the shuttle, assuming Enterprise was destroyed, is a great show, pure character driven.
going on a rant here.. just really excited about this movie, Simon has been great in everything I have seen him in.
It’ll be like Star Trek but with “more cowbell.”
Cool!
Who were their advisors on the set, telling them everything about the tricorder etc.?
22: “I sure miss Doohan and Kelley. Such fine gentleman and it’s a shame they didn’t get to see Trek live on.”
So do we all… they were class acts….
a shame?
Who says they didn’t? TREK was in its heyday when they both passed on… and with some luck it will again (although I think TREK losing its luster was more in the eye of a very vocal part of the fandom than in most of us fans’ view).
Yes!! More cowbell!!
I got a Star Trek fever…and the only cure…..is more cowbell!
You know, after two years of talking on this site, I find it hard to say anything new. Not that anything I said before was particularly relevent or interesting, I just want to keep it fresh.
But Pegg comes along and calms all the over anxious bunnies right down. I agree with whoever said before that JJ should put him front and center as a great PR rep for the film when it comes time to fire up the marketing engine. Dude’s geek cred and intelligence blows me away. He is going to be a great Scotty no matter what kind of film we end up with. I just know he will be eminently watchable.
And to think that at first I thought he was poorly cast. Boy, I don’t know nuthin’.
(And I’m glad that the uber geeks are giving him a pass on the away team bit. Really, it ‘aint that big of a deal.)
as if the recasting isn’t bad enough, the script is by the writers of ‘transformers’ for chrissakes. stop drinking the kool-aid!!!
i agree: the more the cast keeps saying how ‘awesome’ it is, and now that prequel-loving Kevin Smith has chimed in, i’m more convinced than ever that…
you. can’t. recast. icons.
Recasting is a compliment to the original actors who portrayed their characters so well and endeared their characters to us so well that we can’t let them go.
Had they been lousy characters and poorly acted we would have forgotten all about them and would never want to see them again. Instead we were left with such fondness for them that we want to see more!!
#31
I’m fully on board (have been from Day 1) with these recasts, but surely you jest about Lazenby?! That’s a prime example of a recast NOT working, in my estimation. Lazenby better than Connery? Not by a long shot.
In response to #27
The bridge was the bridge, it was incredible, but somehow it didn’t look like it was built in the ’60s. The production design was so cleverly pitched, in that it was completely credible, but still very much like you’d expect. It’s very clever. ”
Clever? They changed the colour schem to gold! Gold!?!
BTW: According to James Cawley..”I like the set. The bridge is spectacular, absolutely stunning, but it is not what I would have done. ”
That summons it up for me, this film is deveating too far from the original.
#61. no, george… recasting is *not* a compliment to the original actors. i mean, pegg himself says in essence that no one will ever play scotty as well as doohan. if you and pegg and JJ and others love TOS so much… then honor it by letting go of the urge to eff it up by recasting, however *fond* you are. or, uhm, well paid with gross points.
Why is Pegg imitating me in his photo up thar’?
Arrrrrrrr…
actually #65, that first pic, the small one at top looks kinda like a mug shot…
- as in charged for pathetically trying to steal an iconic role from its rightful owner…
#60—”you. can’t. recast. icons.”
Why not? It was done quite successfully in 1978, with the recasting of Christopher Reeve as Superman (an even bigger icon). No one stood up and yelled, “That’s not Superman!”
A more than substantial portion of this film’s target audience was not even alive or not old enough to even see the last Star Trek film starring the original actors when it premeired. That statement is absurd.
Sometimes people who, like me are established fans of the original, tend to overestimate their own worth to the future of the franchise.
It is not you or me who will determine if the recasting successfully translates to TOS-era Trek having a future, so much as it will be my kids and their peers. The budget alone dictates that the older fans cannot determine its success on their own, and many even have merely a miniscule impact. My kids could not care less that Kirk and company will be portrayed by younger actors.
any. character. can. be. recast…
The success of a recast depends only upon how well it is executed. If it’s good, people will like it.
OK, Decious, I get your point. This movie ‘aint for you. You don’t like the idea of recasting iconic characters. I personally am not put off by the idea right now. Of course, we will all be upset if they don’t do well, but only a fool would pre-judge without having seen the final product. I would say that Hamlet is an iconic character and I believe he was recast. The old argument that Sherlock Holmes was recast successfully has been made around here too.
So what else about this do you not like? Is it not possible for you to just ignore this whole thing entirely? Face it, things change. Star Trek can stop after The Undiscovered Country, or Generations, or Nemesis, or the last episode of Enterprise depending on where your tastes lie. But some of the fans want to see more. Like me. And time has dictated that a new set of actors be cast. I’m game for that. If you’re not, that’s cool. But I am no less of a fan for it. Don’t pre-judge those of us who look forward to this with much anticipation.
#60, 66 Decious,
So far you’ve insulted the writers (#60), the actors (#66) and other posters, based on what? The movie that’s not yet out of the editing bay?
According to Memory Alpha, the term Away Team was preferred to Landing Party in the 22nd and 24rd Centuries. Landing Party was the preferred usage in the 23rd Century only. Simon Pegg prefers ST:NG or Enterprise over TOS?
Jeez, we’re not going to start getting hung up on minutiae like ‘landing party’ or ‘away team’ are we?
#64 You will always have Paris - they can’t take the original TOS with its original characters away from you. For the rest of us who loved the characters so much - we want more, it shouldn’t bother you, just don’t watch the new movie.
If I had a bad experience with somebody, I’d never want to encounter that person again. But if I had a good experience, I’d love to encounter them again. For me it is the same with the original series characters. They left a good taste in my mouth. so I want to see more of them. Once bitten, twice shy. I really enjoyed TOS so I’m not shy or afraid.
Certainly recasting can be done. But more often than not, the new actor pales in comparrison. Will Smith as Jim West? Nah. Jim Varney as Jed Clampett? uhhh….no.. Cloris Leachman as Granny? Better, but still way off the mark. Raul Julia as Gomez Addams? Fantastic. Christopher Lloyd as Uncle Fester? Nope. Fran Langella as Dracula? GAry Oldman as Dracula? Nah…75 years later, Bela Lugosi remains as the definitive Dracula. Yes it’s possible. But it’s not a guaranteed success, not by a longshot.
star trackie
They’re not recasting to guarantee success. They’re recasting because the remaining actors are a bit old for this flick. And two of them have passed to the great beyond. Will Smith and Jim Varney may have been victims of horrible, horrible scripts. I disagree with your opinion of Christopher Lloyd’s Fester. I think he was great. Frank Langella was a great Dracula, but I agree that Oldman’s wasn’t my cup. But I didn’t like that movie at all.
My point being is that it really boils down to what one likes and dislikes. And if the material that the recast actor is in is good or shite.
Fine set o’ teeths there, Mr. Pegg.
53: “But, he still looks nothing like James Doohan”
What difference does that make? Is your imagination so handicapped that you are not capable of believing their performances if they are not look-alikes?
Perhaps you would prefer a less than stellar acting job on the part of a virtual body double (like in Superman Returns), instead of a good performance by someone who might look different from the previous actor.”
Yeah it is! especially when they are supposed to be the same people at the beggining of the 5 year mission! This entire thing with these ridiculous prequels has been such a fad. I believe that you should continue forward not back. I think that the closest thing that we can equate the replacement of the original Trek people with is when Yul Brinner died and they replaced him with some other guy from the King and I, and it was never the same and never better. Superman Returns was good, I dont get why everyone is so down on it. I loved the credits, and it was a good movie. I just find it funny how every fan complains and will complain about the decks of the Enterprise, etc. and yet they wont complain about the look of the actors or the way they act, that seems to be off limits… In addition, it sounds like they are ‘reinventing’ the roles, so, as far as I am concerned they should have had Zoe Saldana as Scotty and Pegg as Uhura!
Recasting has happened loads of times before everywhere else in the media and sometimes it’s worked and sometimes it hasn’t! The problem with some people is that they think that Star Trek is in some way special and is different from Bond, Superman, Spider-Man, Batman and all the other franchises out there.
Wake up call! It isn’t any different: it’s there to make money for the studios who own it. This is a film made for lots and lots of money to draw in big mainstream audiences.
Trekkers are seen as a rather mouthy interest group that Paramount need to keep a lid on so that the majority of non-Trekkie/Trekker viewers won’t be put off by Trek’s current nerd ghetto image. This is a film for everyone, folks, not just people who slaughter sheep on an altar overlooked by an autographed photo of Scott Bakula!!
TL (63) said: “According to James Cawley.. ‘I like the set. The bridge is spectacular, absolutely stunning, but it is not what I would have done.’
That summons it up for me, this film is deveating too far from the original.”
But James Cawley still agreed to appear in the film and, since doing so, has revamped New Voyages to include a number of new designs and concepts never before. Furthermore he said he liked it! I guess you won’t be watching any Phase II either!
Decious (60) said: ‘you. can’t. recast. icons’
Except for Hamlet, King Lear, Macbeth, Lady Macbeth, Richard III, Henry V, Superman, Superboy, Spider-Man, Batman, Indiana Jones (four times so far), The Doctor from Doctor Who, James Bond, Django, Obi Wan Kenobi (sucky films but MacGregor was great!), Dick Tracy, The Saint, Sherlock Holmes, Dr Watson . . .
The only amazing thing is that it took this long to recast the lead actors of Star Trek.
#73—-No movie is guaranteed success. Casting the “original” actor in a role does not guarantee success either. There are far too many factors involved to pin it down to a casting decision in many cases. There is the director, the writing, the editing…I could go on and on.
I hate STV: The Great Trek Turd Of ‘89…These same iconic characters were portrayed in that film by the same actors who did so for 23 years before that!
#77 Dom
“Trekkers are seen as a rather mouthy interest group that Paramount need to keep a lid on so that the majority of non-Trekkie/Trekker viewers won’t be put off by Trek’s current nerd ghetto image. This is a film for everyone, folks, not just people who slaughter sheep on an altar overlooked by an autographed photo of Scott Bakula”
Holy crap! You owe me a new monitor, Dom. I just spewed coffee all over this one.
#77—”The only amazing thing is that it took this long to recast the lead actors of Star Trek.”
Absolutely.
I have been waiting over two decades for the great TOS characters to be recast.
I have never felt that any actors “owned” the characters. I always felt that the characters belonged to the fans, and still do.
Here we have a couple of “fans” (Roberto and Alex) who wrote a script that allows these characters to come back to life for a new generation.
The script was put into the hands of a uniquely talented and up-and coming director who even hired a couple of “fans” to play two of its bigger roles (McCoy and Scotty). He went even further in hiring “technical experts”, as if he were filming a war movie and needed to bring in retired Capt. Dale Dye as an advisor. Starfleet isn’t even real, and yet JJ has a team of such advisors!
JJ even thought enough of the opinion of Star Trek’s most notorious “purist” to bring him on set and actually give him a part in the film. He went out of his way to court the original actors and seek their advise, and in the case of the late James Doohan, it was his son, Chris (who also has a role in the film).
This film may be targeting more mainstream audiences, but these guys have gone out of their way to honor the fans and the original actors (as if resurrecting their characters after all this time wasn’t enough to begin with).
The characters belong to the fans, and so far, Abrams and co. have done the fans right, IMO (sorry, Shatner die-hards).
I have no doubt that the actors’ performances will be any different.
Hi Closetrekker (78): not forgetting the awfulness of Sean Connery in Never Say Never Again!
Wes (76) Interesting that you support Superman Returns. While I liked it in a nostalgic kind of way, it was essentially a reheat job: Brandon Routh playing Christopher Reeve playing Clark Kent/Superman, Kevin Spacey playing Gene Hackman playing Lex Luthor. It was an early-80s Superman film that ignored that the world had changed and Superman itself had changed. It was seen as a failure because it brought nothing new to Superman. Kind of like the way Star Trek was kept in a 1980s time bubble for the better part of a decade and a half, ignoring new shows like Twin Peaks, 24, The X Files, Buffy/Angel, Alias, Lost, The West Wing and countless others which had changed the TV scene!
star trackie (73) You’re forgetting the wonderful Christopher Lee as Dracula in there. And surely Peter Cushing was the definitive interpretation of van Helsing in his era?
#81—Yeah, he definitely should have said “never” that time…
Hi MONGO (79) Sorry, I have a rather colourful way of putting things sometimes! I hope it wasn’t expensive coffee! ;)
End of the day, I’m realistic about the TV shows and movies I like.
I didn’t engage (excuse the pun) particularly with late-Roddenberry/Berman Trek, so I stepped away for a long time. They disappointed me, because they didn’t have enough of the things I liked in Star Trek: conflict between the characters, sex, semi-naked women, fistfights, space battles, demented bad guys, romance, acting that trod the line of flamboyant, cool psychedelic music.
Nevertheless, the accepted view in the 1990s was that this was a good thing, so I shrugged my shoulders and accepted that the Star Trek I liked was over!
I accept that change is inevitable and not everyone will go for it. The polite thing to do is step away at that point. I mean, I loved Doctor Who, but I don’t like the current ‘nu-Who’ series, so I keep it at a distance and don’t hover round message boards ruining things for the many people who do like it!
Similarly with Star Trek, I dutifully went to the TNG movies, but generally left disappointed or appalled in a couple of cases. When I heard that the guy who created Lost and Alias was going to make a Kirk, Spock, McCoy film, I almost jumped for joy! I’m thrilled about the film and was shocked to see the torrents of abuse that flew around. TNG fans who couldn’t accept that Nemesis was one critical flop too far, fanatics who were against recasting.
All I could think was ‘Wow! I’m going to see Kirk, Spock and McCoy again!’ I’m still prepared to be disappointed. I’m still aware that the film might not work or that it will be a success that I won’t enjoy. But for me, I feel like I’m reconnecting with the show that in my childhood got me into science fiction and horror, the show that captured my imagination and made me want to work in movies (being a Brit, I’ve had to settle for TV and making my short films on a hi def camera!)
For me, my favourite shows, movies, comicbooks and novels have always been about the characters. Good actors bring these characters to life. Star Trek has some good actors and a a major up-and-coming director, very capable writers who can easily write to order (if you didn’t like Transformers, check out Kurtzman’s and Orci’s work on TV), along with a talented music composer who is becoming a force to be reckoned with, as we move on to a new generation, following the sad loss of Jerry Goldsmith, Basil Poledouris, Michael Kamen and Shirley Walker.
In a sense this film is really ‘Star Trek: The Next Generation!’
#83—”I didn’t engage (excuse the pun) particularly with late-Roddenberry/Berman Trek, so I stepped away for a long time. They disappointed me, because they didn’t have enough of the things I liked in Star Trek: conflict between the characters, sex, semi-naked women, fistfights, space battles, demented bad guys, romance, acting that trod the line of flamboyant, cool psychedelic music.
Nevertheless, the accepted view in the 1990s was that this was a good thing, so I shrugged my shoulders and accepted that the Star Trek I liked was over!”
I love the way you put that, and it represents my feelings then as well.
The difference with me is, I did not dutifully go to the TNG-era movies. i only “came back” to Trek when ENT became available on dvd, and I actually felt it was much more like “my Trek”. The characters were still somewhat lackluster, but it did have that “Wagon train to the stars” type feeling that was sorely lacking in 24th Century Trek.
Jesus H Christ!! What the hell is all over my computer screen?
I have GOT to lock my office door.
Y’know, I keep hearing about this vaunted “conflict between the characters” that was supposedly such a key element of TOS and so lacking in the later series… and I wish someone would tell me what the frak it is. Is it just McCoy occasionally calling Spock a green-blooded halfbreed or something?
#87—McCoy was always quite willing to do a whole lot more than that. He would openly challenge Kirk, and not just on soft issues, but critical ones. It wasn’t just McCoy and Spock arguing philosophy and trading thinly veiled (or not so veiled) insults. Bones was quite capable of telling the captain or the first officer what to go do with himself. It was the three very distinct personalities which made for natural conflict, but yet as a whole, made up an extremely powerful entity known as the Big 3.
“you’ll always have Paris”
funny. that’s where i live. i guess i’m destined to be on the cynical Left Bank of this argument. i really didn’t like TNG or any of the other incarnations, either. the features were hit-and-miss. the top 25 TOS episodes are better than the rest of the canon combined.
cela est l’amour de façon va
As Joe Michael Straczynski and Bryce Zabel said in their proposal for a Star Trek reboot series: Kirk, Spock and McCoy represent three great dramatic archetypes - warrior, priest and doctor.
There were constant arguments between these characters because they represented extreme ends of the spectrum as characters.
#89
If you, like many of us, didn’t care for TNG and the others as much, you should be glad they went back to the original!! We know what doesn’t work, but since this has not been attempted before, perhaps recasting will. I hope it does. I much prefer Kirk, Spock McCoy et al over all the other character crew presented to us. If it doesn’t work it won’t take anything away from you that you don’t already have.
If they don’t recast all future material associated with the original crew is gone forever and there will be no more stories about them. The old cast is finished due to age and death.
#87
Not only did McCoy hammer Spock, Scotty called him a freak and Kirk called him a disloyal, traitorous, computerized, half breeed who should be in a freak show next to the dog faced boy. Spock definitely thought he and the Vulcans were superior to Humans - in spite of IDIC and expressed it. McCoy disobeyed regulations when he chose (as did Kirk) and all the main characters had flaws and could be jerks. Created tension between the characters which later series lacked. Their differences were real, not just misunderstandings that communication would resolve. Some of their difference were never resolved still we knew they would die for each other.
#91
would you at least concede that the task of rising to the level of greatness of TOS is a very, very steep order? and i’m curious, (especially since we agree on Paramount’s post-TOS track record), if the film turns out to be anything less - even ‘just good’ - will you still “be glad” you got ‘new’ TOS material?
i mean, jesus christ, what makes you think that the writers of ‘Transformers’ and ‘Zoro’ and a third-rate ‘Mission Impossible’ - however well intentioned - are going to even come close?!? Abrams, who really only has a ponderous tv series to his credit and not any feature work that gives me any confidence, couldn’t tweak the shooting script because of the strike.
and as we all know, ILM can’t save a bad script. i know all you fanboys want to jump up and down like kids on christmas eve to see the new fx and sets and Saldana’s new short red skirt, but Santa is here with a nugget of coal: the die was cast a long time ago by a couple of hack writers, so don’t come crying when you pull it out of your stockings.
Decius
I’m not sure I follow your logic. You would rather have nothing than something bad? Please explain why? It is not you who will lose something should this film fail - rather Paramount stands to lose $$ and the writers, directors and actors stand to lose their reputations.
STV was a bomb. I just didn’t buy the DVD and only saw it once. But it didn’t ruin TOS or the earlier films. I could still enjoy watching them, just not STV. The biggest problem I foresee should this film fail is that there will be no future Trek movies. But this is what you want already so I don’t know why you are complaining. Perhaps you are more afraid of it succeeding and eclipsing the old Trek so people won’t be watching TOS as much?
Don’t insult the actors, writers or directors until you have seen the film. Should the film fail and I get coal in my stocking - I will only be out about $10 - the price of a movie ticket. I am excited that they finally are giving me back the characters I grew so fond of.
Test, cos my post won’t appear . . .
93. Decius is Stonn, Stonn is Decius said: ‘i mean, jesus christ, what makes you think that the writers of ‘Transformers’ and ‘Zoro’ and a third-rate ‘Mission Impossible’ - however well intentioned - are going to even come close?!? Abrams, who really only has a ponderous tv series to his credit and not any feature work that gives me any confidence, couldn’t tweak the shooting script because of the strike.’
So you’re talking about the same JJ Abrams, who can write, produce or direct pretty much anything to order. Romantic drama? Regarding Henry and Forever Young. Psycho on the road thriller? Joyride/Roadkill. Trashy, explosive, entertaining blockbuster? Armageddon!, Cloverfield. Sitcom? Felicity, What about Brian? Spy thriller series? Alias. Psychological fantasy thriller? Lost.
You also have to remember that Hollywood writers are at the mercy of other forces. Very few writers just churn out a script and sell it to a studio. Writers are hired in to put together a shopping list of requirements handed down by producers, studio bosses, marketing teams and countless others. It’s a good talent that can perform all of these tasks and stay sane. In the case of Star Trek, they have the chance not to as JJ is running the show and has final cut!
I think you probably don’t really understand what a hack writer actually is. If you go by the definition ‘a writer who is paid to write quickly put-together articles, books or scripts to order, often with a short deadline,’ then you’re talking about the majority of writers anywhere. In the UK journo types nickname themselves hacks. ‘Hack writing’ is an art form and a skill.
Very few writers run around calling themselves ‘artists’ unless they’re deeply pretentious. But by any standards, where you’re coming from, Star Trek was created by a hack writer and written by hacks. So are most TV shows and movies. Many writers will admit that ‘hack work’ takes up a lot of their time and often pays well.
So if the ‘hacks’ have put together the new Star Trek film with their encyclopaedic knowledge of lots of different types of drama, they’re probably on to a winner.
Decius, you might very well be an ‘independent writer’ yourself (ie someone no one wants to publish) but don’t bother dissing people who’ve made a film you’ve yet to see a frame of until you find out a little more about what sort of business Hollywood and the media in general is!
oh, dom, dom, dom… i’m retired, which is why i can afford the luxury of saying whatever the hell i want. even if i am stuck in the ’60s. err… ‘66-’69, we’ll say for the sake of this discussion.
if you only knew, child.
The bickering between Kirk, Spock, and McCoy wasn’t any deeper a conflict than anything seen on the later series. It comes off as affectionate banter. If that’s all people are talking about, then I call nuts on the lack of same in TNG-ENT.
97. Decius is Stonn, Stonn is Decius
Funny how, for someone retired, you write like a kid in pre-school! Sure you can say whatever you want: so can the rest of us, since age is no issue as long when it comes to the ability to handle a keyboard!
You also didn’t bother to address any actual points I made, before making a bunch of insults! Clearly you live under a bridge!
Since you can’t even be bothered to find out anything about the makers of the new film before slagging them off, what possible point is there of you being here as you have no knowledge with which to contribute to the discussion?
Stuck in the 60s? We’re all stuck somewhere dealing with something. It’s called life!
If you only knew, ‘old man!’ :p
98 The Underpants Monster.
You never read about ‘The Roddenberry Box’ did you? Look up Ron Moore’s interviews on this site!
97. Decius is Stonn, Stonn is Decius - August 28, 2008
” i’m retired, which is why i can afford the luxury of saying whatever the hell i want. ”
“if you only knew, child.”
You may think retirement allows you greater freedom of expression, but it never grants anyone the right to insult. And you seem to make a habit of it.
—–
ByGeorge, Dom…
Argue it if you want, but I don’t see it going anywhere.
Yeah Xai (101) I’m probably gonna get wet if I keep peeing in Decius’ wind! :)
re: away team and landing party.
I think Pegg just spoke off the top of his head. The writers know the terminology of the (trek) eras. I have no doubt.
#90 Dom
I forgot about the Straczynski and Zabel proposal. Wasn’t that an alternate reality story line (too)?
98. The Underpants Monster - August 28, 2008
“The bickering between Kirk, Spock, and McCoy wasn’t any deeper a conflict than anything seen on the later series. It comes off as affectionate banter. If that’s all people are talking about, then I call nuts on the lack of same in TNG-ENT.”
I disagree a bit. Not all was roses on DS9… at least early on
#94—”Abrams, who really only has a ponderous tv series to his credit and not any feature work that gives me any confidence, couldn’t tweak the shooting script because of the strike.”
Regarding Henry? Forever Young? MI3 may have been hampered by the continuity of the 2 previous films in the series, but it certainly was the better of the 3. I didn’t care at all for the first two, but at least I found the 3rd installment somewhat entertaining.
Cloverfield was good for what it was supposed to be. Millions enjoyed Felicity (not my cup of tea). Alias developed a solid following as well. Lost is one of the only current shows on television which I enjoy at all.
And I hope you are not slamming the guy for showing solidarity with the Writer’s Guild during the strike. If you are simply noting that as a handicap to STXI, you are assuming the script actually needed to be “tweaked”. For that matter, there was still plenty of time between the end of the strike and the wrap up of principle photography for any “tweaking” that may have been needed.
There have not been any of the usual rumblings from the studio about reshoots and alternate endings associated with big budget films which are disappointing in rough-cut viewings. Paramount seems genuinely pleased, and anyone and everyone who has seen any piece of the rough-cut (even without special effects and score) has been amazed, including independent sources like Harry Knowles from AICN. Kevin Smith’s joyous opinion of the rough-cut doesn’t have me placing bets on the Oscars, exactly, but it doesn’t hurt either.
You mention the writers’ credits, including Transformers. What did you expect from a film based upon a toy and a 1980’s cheesy cartoon?
On The Waterfront? The Godfather, Part II? Patton? The Ten Commandments?
It (Transformers) was exactly what it was supposed to be, and was enormously successful!
I love these characters. I believe that the writers love them too. I am excited that my kids will be introduced to the same characters I fell in love with as a kid myself.
Making negative judgements about this film before even seeing a frame is ignorant and pointless.
“…would you at least concede that the task of rising to the level of greatness of TOS is a very, very steep order?”
I love TOS, and couldn’t care less for 90% of what came afterward (starting with TNG). Of course it is a tall order. But let’s face it. TOS was hit and miss, so let’s not get carried away. There were about 25-30 episodes that are still as good as anything in television history, IMO, but the rest ranges from mediocre to bad.
But STXI doesn’t have to be the greatest thing since TiVo. It just has to be another good story told around the wonderful characters of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy.
“and i’m curious, (especially since we agree on Paramount’s post-TOS track record), if the film turns out to be anything less - even ‘just good’ - will you still “be glad” you got ‘new’ TOS material?”
I cannot answer for him, but for my part—absolutely! I have been waiting (since the day TNG disappointed me at Farpoint) for a time when the iconic characters I love would be recast and Star Trek would return to the more romantic 23rd Century. That time will soon be upon us…
No holodecks, ship’s counselors, children on the bridge, captains who drink Earl Grey tea and sing, Klingons in Starfleet, or android pinnochios in a uniform…just good old fashioned neck pinching, “phasers on stun”, thought provoking, “warp speed”, fist-fighting and fornicating across the galaxy type action aboard the NCC-1701.
As long as Scotty is “givin’ er all she’s got”, Spock is cocking an eyebrow, and Bones is slumped over a redshirt saying, “He’s dead, Jim”, I can’t imagine being too disappointed.
#98—The “lack of conflict” is generally directed at the early years of TNG, when the “Roddenberry Box” prevented such genuine interaction and conflict amongst the major characters unless they were under the influence of some outside force, like a disease or something to that effect.
Even later on (post-GR), the writers of TNG had to fight in creative meetings to get that sort of conflict (how about hat for irony) and still complain about “the box” to this day.
The conflict was there to some degree in DS9, VOY, and certainly in ENT. It just wasn’t as interesting, IMO. But then again, neither were the characters. It never got as good as the iconic original.
#101
did you READ the reviews of ‘transformers’ ???
108 Did you SEE Transformers to make your own judgment? Or are you just a good little poodle who goes along with whatever the bigger guy standing next to you says?
#109—Yeah. What do reviews really amount to? It made a ton of money, and was never supposed to be anything but a run-of-the mill, rather shallow action flick…in another words, a cash cow!
IMO, Orci and Kurtzman did about as much with that movie as could reasonably have been expected. The same with Abrams in MI3.
Star Trek (with the A team of Kirk/Spock/McCoy) has far more potential.
yeah i saw it and it was abysmally bad which is why i have the legitimate, real concerns about orci/kurtzman. fair?
108. Decius is Stonn, Stonn is Decius - August 28, 2008
#101
“did you READ the reviews of ‘transformers’ ???”
Did you see the movie? For that matter…did you READ my post?
Get out of the habit of talking as a superior or insulting people. A point can be made without those things.
As for Transformers, Closettrekker said it best in #106 in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8…go read.
you guys are far too forgiving. there’s nothing i can do about that. sorry.
112. Xai
Yeah, Closetrekker said it right! This Decious guy is just some troll who’s trying to drag out non-existent arguments. Best everyone ignore him so he can go away to think up yet another identity to use when he comes back to cause more trouble! Loser!
#113—There was nothing to forgive. The movie was exactly what it was supposed to be.
If you thought it was “abyssmally bad”, then you are in the minority. It was one of the most successful films of the year.
I can’t stand “The Sound Of Music”. I love TMP. It’s a good thing I didn’t decide beforehand that TMP was going to stink it up just because it was directed by the same man. Most people liked TSOM, and it is even considered a classic, so obviously, my opinion did not determine whether it was actually any good—only that it is not my cup of tea. I would submit to you that Transformers is simply not your cup of tea. It doesn’t have anything to do with Star Trek.
115.
I agree with you. You don’t have to like every movie a particular writer/director/producer makes. Just because I liked Steven Spielberg’s work on Raiders of the Lost Ark doesn’t mean I liked his work on The Color Purple. It depends on how the material is handled. That alone can make all the difference.
GOOD LORD!
Some of you guys are mincing words like “away team” vs. “landing party,” are you kidding me? If you’re that anal about Trek, there’s no way you’re going to like the movie. You guys are setting yourselves up for heartbreak, and you know it, and you continue to do so. You must like to suffer.
Wish I could help you more.
And as for those who say that the more the actors praise the movie, the less you believe them, what the hell do you want? So if they say the movie sucks, you’re going to think it’s good?
Stop being dorks. These people don’t have to say any of this. They’re offering these opinions because they really believe it. Why don’t you just go away and fester silently in your bitterness? Better yet, figure out why you’re so bitter and do something about it. Get some sunlight.
Anybody dismissing this film at this point, with no actual footage having been seen, looks like an idiot, in my opinion. I know I’ll be jumped on for saying that, but I don’t suffer idiots very well and I can’t be diplomatic about it.
Decious - I’m no young buck, so take it from an old man when I say your attitude is superior, while your logic is inferior. Your pathological attachment to TOS and the need to have a new film perfectly mimic the series is a sign of deep inflexibility.
On top of that, your insistence that this film will be bad without any true evidence shows that you are prematurely judgmental and passive aggressive as well. You may well be an old man, but your mental state is that of a petulant child who has had his chocolate bar taken from him.
i believe they are calling it “away party”, #50.
#81 “star trackie (73) You’re forgetting the wonderful Christopher Lee as Dracula in there. And surely Peter Cushing was the definitive interpretation of van Helsing in his era?”
My apologies to Christopher Lee! He was great and for my money, scarier than Bela ever was. Those wonderful, moody Hammer films did, in fact, bring a new Dracula to many horror fans. And Peter Cushing is, without a doubt, the Van Helsing that all others are measured against.
“There have not been any of the usual rumblings from the studio about reshoots and alternate endings associated with big budget films which are disappointing in rough-cut viewings. ”
Ah but the Test Screenings with Joe Average haven’t happened yet. Heaven help us. A couple of comments on a card can throw studio execs into a tizzy. How many movies have been ruined by this process? I’ve participated in these things. It’s an odd process to me.
“No holodecks, ship’s counselors, children on the bridge, captains who drink Earl Grey tea and sing, Klingons in Starfleet, or android pinnochios in a uniform…”
The over-use of the Holodeck was my biggest pet peeve with the new Treks. Even the ones I liked. Here these people were out in a big, exciting galaxy…and they kept spending all their dang time role-playing in a room.
ok, let’s get back on trek
#118 so much for your bitchy, self-styled ‘flawless’ T’Pring logic. i never said anything about wanting a new film to mimic TOS. there should be NO new film that attempts to recast the icons, and my concerns are fully warranted and well-considered given the filmmaker’s pedigree. the pushback i’m getting isn’t a surprise to me, since i’ve seen sub-par ST that makes people happy for a long time now. i didn’t like it, so of course i’m going to get flamed. the only incarnation to ever receive an Emmy nomination - the industry’s own standard of excellence, not mine - in a non-technical category was TOS for Best Dramatic Series, for the first two seasons. TNG, DSN, Voyager and Enterprise were largely weak at acting, directing and writing.
that’s fine, i suppose… at least the new canon provided those who are less forgiving something new to look at, but at least this mediocre path largely steered clear of the genius of the original characters. now along comes two screenwriters whose credits, in my and many other’s estimation - their proven track record NOT in box-office, but in regard to their skills as artists - are mediocre at best. and these people want to go digging on hallowed ground…? wtf?!?
forgive me for caring!! what’s *really* passive aggressive is the degree to which the post-TOS canon apologists shrug off the unpleasant reality.
it’s evokes, appropriately enough, the borg… the sad day is likely here: TOS is about to be aborbed by the Mediocre Collective. you people single-mindedly want more ST, even if it means snuffing out the life that started it all.
and spare me the LOST bs. it has grown into a gimmick, and i’d hazard that it’s not even science fiction… it’s supernatural mumbo-jumbo, more thriller than thought-provoking. - can you name the characters? will it be a beloved cultural phenomenon 40 years from now? it operates at the level of a soap-opera.
soap opera…
huh.
“hey, let’s go do flashback scenes of Kirk’s parents! and, hey, Spock’s parents, too! what about McCoy’s wife? didn’t she die or something? c’mon… let’s explain EVERYTHING so it makes sense!! who needs a little mystery when we can shake down every acorn on this story!! who says they DIDN’T all meet at Starfleet?! throw in Carol Marcus, too! i bet she was there, checkin’ it out!! she’s hot!! and for Kirk… can we get a former soap day player to set him up like the new stud in town?! but, uhm… how’re we gonna pull all this off in one movie??? TIME MACHINE!! yeah, put everything in LIMBO, kinda like that crazy island on LOST!!!”
#123—What would “snuff it out”?
For the record, I am a TOS fan, and not a fan of the Berman-era Trek.
How will a revisitation to the iconic TOS characters “snuff out the life” of anything?
And this is NOT TOS. It is a movie. How in the Hell is TOS about to be absorbed by anything?
TOS will still sit on my DVD shelf, regardless of whether this film is good or bad.
Just out of curiousity, did you harbor the same animosity toward Harve Bennett prior to TWOK or is it strictly reserved for the actual fans of the show who wrote this script?
And again, how are their skills as “artists” already decided to be mediocre, based soley upon the fact that the studio commissioned them to write a blockbuster kids movie? Sometimes you set out to paint The Mona Lisa, and sometimes you are just painting the fence. The only thing Transformers did was exactly what it was supposed to do. It wasn’t supposed to be Ben Hur …
By that measure, everything they have done thus far has been a success. They have yet to fail.
#124—Given his prowess with the ladies in TOS, “the new stud in town” is probably exactly what a young Jim Kirk would be.
I think you are being overly-dramatic, for someone who seems to possess an aversion to soap-operas…lol.
The good thing about this is, no one will force you to see this film. You can ignore it.
There is certainly no reason for you to exhibit such fear of STXI trampling upon the integrity of a 1960’s television show. No matter what is depicted in the film, it will not affect the next episode of TOS you go back and watch. “City On The edge Of Forever” will still play out contrary to the way Harlan Ellison wrote it, the doors will still go “swoosh” on the bridge, Scotty will still work engineering “miracles”, Bones will still be a smartass, and the score from “Amok Time” will still be glorious…
Just stay home…
Really tired of the cheap shots and name-calling from either side of the fence. Please step above it, people.
123. Decius is Stonn, Stonn is Decius - August 29, 2008
Calm down. You aren’t the injured party here.
First. This is all a moot point. No one got your memo about recasting. the. icons. It’s happened and it had to happen. Vote with your dollars (euros, pesos) and don’t see it.
Its. that. simple.
And get your facts straight or be more accurate in stating them.
From StarTrek.com…”Star Trek: The Next Generation became the first syndicated series in history to be nominated for an Emmy Award for Outstanding Drama. In all, the series won 16 Emmy Awards and, with a total of 55 Emmy nominations, remains one of the most-nominated dramatic series of all time. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine garnered four Emmy Awards and 31 nominations, and Star Trek: Voyager won five Emmy Awards and landed 26 nominations..”
Yeah..horribly weak acting and such…how dare they get awards from the folks with those standards of excellence.
You’ve proven several times now that you want to have your tirade, enflame the boards, insult posters, actors, directors and writers… and have yet to see one frame of the film to warrant it. Some people will at least get facts on the actual subject before the critique.
from a leaked, online script review of the latest, greatest effort by ABRAMS, ORCI and KURTZMAN, the new Fox series, “Fringe” …
“Being a big JJ Abrams fan, I was pretty excited to hear that the script for the pilot episode to his new series, Fringe, had made its way across my desk. I ran to my office, eager to feast on the Abramsey goodness I knew had to be waiting for me. Would this be another Alias or Lost? A series I would return to week after week with an ever-increasing respect and devotion?
But when I got to my desk, I couldn’t find it.
There were pens and pencils. A mug. Paper clips. All the regular desk-fare that belonged where it was.
“Oh!” I said, spotting something new, “Maybe it’s underneath this festering pile of crap!”
Wait a minute…
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Fringe is a miserable effort that I can’t imagine beginning to appeal to anyone. It sort of plays like an awful 80’s low-budget series that would have run for just a few episodes and whose real starring moment would have been being remembered fondly by nostalgic 20-somethings in a bar decades later and then quickly discarded. Except this one doesn’t quite have the charm of being low-budget or being from the 80’s. But it’s got awful. It’s got that in spades.”
wow. (shudder) imagine that.
#129—Forgetting the fact that “Fringe”, has nothing to do with STXI…who is the osurce of this so-called “leaked online script review”? Is it you?
If “Fringe” is a flop, it will be the first Abrams project to be such. I have no reason to believe, however, that it will not be successful like every other project touched by JJ Abrams. “Leaked online script reviews” are crap…it means nothing.
You seem to put alot of stock in these “reviews” that obviously do not reflect the opinions of the masses. You talked about the “reviews” of Transformers (a kid movie), and yet those reviews were obviously wrong. The movie made millions and millions of US dollars.
It is not some self-proclaimed “critic” who determines the value of film art. It is the collective response of the public and the money they are willing to spend on it.
A perfect example is the fact that, although you and I may share an opinion about Berman-era Trek, the overwhelming response was positive. As Xai pointed out, TNG was nominated for 55 Emmy Awards and won 16 times. It also captivated enough fans to run for 7 seasons and spawn two additional spinoff series (not including ENT) which did the same and found its own appreciative audience.
I am beginning to think that the others are correct. Perhaps you are just a troll with an agenda to flame the makers of STXI anyway you can for no purpose other than to be a pest. It is only a matter of time before Anthony and the crew at trekmovie.com pull your plug and force you to ply your agenda elsewhere…
129. Decius
Funny how you never really come back to address things you bring up.
Anyway… I’ve not seen Fringe, but plan on it and will make my own determination… WHEN I see it. Your post isn’t clear… have YOU seen it or are you relying on someone else’s opinion again? You didn’t reference who wrote the critique.
Your need to be the “herald of failure” for a movie no one has seen yet and the careers of writers and directors, has been noted. Anyone reading this thread can honestly say they were warned by you and you have earned complete “I told you so” rights.
If you se the movie… do not sit beside someone who actually cars…k?
129. Decius
Funny how you never really come back to address things you bring up.
Anyway… I’ve not seen Fringe, but plan on it and will make my own determination… WHEN I see it. Your post isn’t clear… have YOU seen it or are you relying on someone else’s opinion again? You didn’t reference who wrote the critique.
Your need to be the “herald of failure” for a movie no one has seen yet and the careers of writers and directors, has been noted. Anyone reading this thread can honestly say they were warned by you and you have earned complete “I told you so” rights.
If you se the movie… do not sit beside someone who actually cares…k?
pardon the double post
morning Closet
Here with bells on, as always…
The source if his “leaked review” is IESB.
http://tinyurl.com/2vdz65
Caution, the rest of the “review” maintains the same level of … er… journalistic “quality” as the portion excerpted in #129.
-Dave
It’s funny that “Decious” points to a bad review of the Fringe series pilot…
“The Cage” was a flop…Even after a second pilot was granted, our own beloved TOS only survived a 3 year run, and barely at that.
So much for the value of reviews on the part of so-called “experts”.
I don’t know if Fringe will have an appeal or not, but I do know this.
A vast majority of television pilots don’t work, regardless of who is behind them. Of the ones that do get put on the air, only a small portion of them ever become as successful as Abrams past work. The success or failure of Fringe has no bearing upon STXI or any future production on the part of Bad Robot. Nevertheless, the two-hour premeire of Fringe will be on September 9th…so someone seems to believe it has a shot.
Geez you folks sue go on alot for a film that could easily be nothing more than a one shot movie. We may never see PIne as Kirk again after this movie. The cast of Lost in Space signed on for 3 sequels too…and the movie did alright, it removed Titanic from numbher one, opened well and did great business on DVD. But the sequels never saw the light of day. I wouldn’t herald JJ’s Trek as a new era just yet.
#138—”I wouldn’t herald JJ’s Trek as a new era just yet”
I don’t think that even the most optimistic fan who do that at this point. However, it would be equally senseless to declare it a failure or even a “one shot movie” without it even having been released yet. Just as it might be “all she wrote” for Trek, it may very well open new doors for the franchise instead. It has more potential to do so than any previous ST film, that’s for sure.
Typonians got me too…
That sentence should read:
“I don’t think that even the most optimistic fan would do that at this point.”
Sorry.
I can accept cautious optimism or cautious pessimism… but not out right hate and bile for a product no one’s seen yet.
136. DaveO - August 30, 2008
thanks Dave…. I read it.
sounds either incomplete (rough draft) or a hoax. What screewriter has to use f*cking over and over to make a point?
Hoax
138. Mr. Bob Dobalina - August 30, 2008
Won’t know until we see it.
dam typonians
#142 -
You’re welcome, Xai.
I linked to that “review,” but that’s not an endorsement.
“dam typonians” <- love it. you have a crafty sense of irony.
:)
- Dave
to see Pegg’s personal sci-fi geekyness credentials you should check out the channel 4 (UK) sitcom he wrote and stared in, Spaced. Its choc full of in jokes and ironies to all kinds of stuff, though interesting whilst theres plenty of star wars references star trek doesn’t get a look in….
#123-
Decius, wild dogs run in packs for strength, and bark far more loudly. Wolves, on the other hand, run alone.
Every wolf suffers fleas, though; but it’s easy enough to scratch.
Hoopla, and Pegg [a good guy] aside, that movie’s not going anywhere. I doubt it’ll break 50 million opening weekend and that’ll probably fall off 30-50% after that, and many of the those here and elsewhere awaiting this movie like the Second Coming, will be the first to jump into the escape pods when it bombs and begin bleating:
“See, I told you they should’ve made a [FILL IN THE BLANK] movie…” Count on it.
Sit back and wait…
#147
Chumming the water again?
You should get a flea collar if things are bothering you.
Just another uninformed opinion barking again