I’ve never seen the re-make of ‘Battlestar Galactica’ but I love the original one and have the box set.

Guys, there is no supplanting or anything of that nature going on here. This is simply my playful style of writing, and nothing else. The new movie credits old Spock as “Spock Prime,” so I said, “okay, fine, I’ll call all the TOS characters ‘Prime’. That’s how I roll.”

There was no offense or “supplanting” intended. Shatner, Nimoy and the others will forever remain the originals no matter what whimsical label I give them. However, if you would prefer I go back to my occasionally-used labels like “He who played Kirk but no longer plays Kirk because he let his character get killed,” I will be happy to oblige. :)

And…yet again…the term “Prime Kirk” only has meaning to people who do choose to distinguish between the two—i.e. more “hardcore” fans.

And the average reader/poster here does not view the two as the same character—-but Kirk Prime/Shatner’s Kirk and new/alt/Pine Kirk.

“As a casual viewer, I wouldn’t know who “Prime Kirk” was…”

I still fail to see the point… what does the effect or meaning of the term “Kirk Prime” upon casual viewers have to do with anything?

It isn’t part of the film, nor is it likely to be. It is only a method of distinguishing between the two among more “hardcore” fans…people who have actually taken the time to analyze what it is which makes the two Kirks different.

It simply has no relevance to anyone else. Period….nor should it.

Even “Spock Prime” has very little more relevance to the casual viewer, as they would only know the term if they actually sat and read the credits and saw that this was the name of Mr. Nimoy’s character in ST09—-or if they checked in upon the conversations here (in which case, they are probably really skirting the borders of what constitutes a casual fan anyway).

“And this is exactly what is wrong with Star Trek fans.”

Why????

“If it were announced tomorrow that Star Wars was going to be rebooted to continue the adventures of the original characters, with new actors, do you think the fanbase would care, or demand Harrision Ford be in it?”

Since Mr. Ford would no doubt express zero interest in participating (unlike Shatner)—probably not… His interviews on the subject of SW suggest that he is almost embarassed that he was in it. It is clear that he sees himself as being above that sort of thing at this point in his career. I hardly believe that if Shatner had not indicated interest in (and publicly lobbied for) a role in ST09, that there would have been such significant “demands” that he be included in the film.

That aspect of the scenario, along with the acknowledgement of Nimoy’s presence in the film and later of the time travel element—-was what fueled those demands on the part of some of the fanbase…and I think you know that.

… But if you actually think that the similarly devoted SW fans are somehow more generally reasonable than the hardcore fans and canonistas here, then you’ve obviously never checked in on a SW fansite/message board!!!

Have a good rest of the weekend, RD.

And this is exactly what is wrong with Star Trek fans. LOL

I have never seen Bond as anything other than the same person played by different actors. I have never locked this fictitious character into a particular historical setting, nor needed too.

James Kirk has been placed by fans into an extremely specific fictional historical perspective. Would the character of James Kirk be any less interesting if set in the later 21st century, or the 22nd, or even 24th century? I don’t think so. If there had never been an Enterprise or TNG, would the fan community be nearly so obsessed with dates? Do you think the casual viewers drawn into the franchise by this film care what date it is? I doubt it, any more than they care if James Bond is set in a particular period or not. Roddenberry didn’t even want that, which is why there are un-decodeable stardates.

Dr. Who has been played by numerous actors over the years. Then there’s Luke Skywalker, does anybody actually remember Mark Hamil? If it were announced tomorrow that Star Wars was going to be rebooted to continue the adventures of the original characters, with new actors, do you think the fanbase would care, or demand Harrision Ford be in it? I doubt it. Star Trek is an extremely unusual precedent in entertainment. I am hard pressed to think of a series where the original actors are so inseparable to their characters. Probably attributed more than anything to the fact that the original actors had so few opportunities outside of Trek. It’s hard to imagine Tom Hanks ever appearing in a feature film version of “Bosom Buddies”.

Taking the James Bond idea, if MGM ever decides to do a time travel story (as portrayed for parody in Austin Powers), where Blofeld caused Bond’s life to change. Would audiences think the alternate Bond is not the same character as the the “Prime” Bond? Doubtful they would even care. Likewise, Pine’s Kirk to the casual audience is no different than Shatner’s Kirk, despite obviously having different experiences. They are the same character and perhaps that is the semantic difference I am making. The audience perceives both actors as the same character. To label Kirk’s performance in that character as “Prime Kirk” is to create a new “character” and I seriously doubt that is the intent of the producers in rebooting the franchise.

Ultimately what it does is for me is tell me there is some other Kirk than the one on the screen at the moment. It invites the same debates as Kirk vs. Picard, except now you have Prime Kirk vs. Kirk, or Shatner vs. Pine, which is not the same thing at all, because ultimately they are supposed to be the same character, just arriving at the same job by different means. As a casual viewer, I wouldn’t know who “Prime Kirk” was, and once explained, I might respond “oh you’re talking about the “other” Kirk, not the ‘Real Kirk’”.

The fact that he is perceived to be ‘biologically’ the same person is precisely what (among other things) distinguishes this scenario (the two Kirks) from the multitude of “Bonds”.

Sean Connery’s Bond and the others are not supposed to literally be the same person—biologically or otherwise. Instead, they represent the same conceptual character who can be depicted within whatever setting is deemed ‘contemporary’ at a given time.

But, to your point, no one is presenting Shatner’s Kirk at all to new audience members anyway. Once again, the only character afforded the term “Prime” as a distinguishing addition to his name is Spock—of which there are two presented to the audience within the film. Further use of the same modifier to distinguish the original characters from their current counterparts is something limited to the established fanbase in forums like this. Therefore, the notion that some general audience members would be somehow confused by the term “Kirk Prime” is rather irrelevant.

“These distinctions will serve only to inform the audience that time was changed, but that Pine is otherwise the same Kirk they’ve heard about for 40 years.”

I think the entire point of that particular dialogue between Spock Prime and the young Kirk serves to convey the opposite—that he is in fact not the same Kirk. And that is far from the only evidence within the film’s dialogue to that point.

“…in context of the new film, an audience without knowing Shatner’s Kirk’s entire history, will perceive Pine’s Kirk as the same one Shatner played, just not yet in command of the Enterprise, as Spock duly notes. As far as these new fans and casual viewers know, Kirk was always a rebellious slacker before being kick started into Starfleet, by his father or otherwise.”

I personally think that’s assuming too much—specifically that the “new fans” and “casual viewers” automatically subscribe to the approach that people (fictional characters or otherwise) are merely products of their own individual DNA makeup, and not also equally (if not even moreso) a product of their environment and life experiences.

I have to maintain that it is made quite clear in the dialogue that the characters’ “life experiences” have been different (even if only subtly so) than they were before.

“Nero’s very presence has altered the flow of history, beginning with the attack on the USS Kelvin, culminating in the events of today, thereby creating an entire new chain of incidents…Whatever our lives might have been, if the time continuum was disrupted, our destinies have changed.”—-Spock

Indeed. At that point, 25 years worth of their lives (which, in some cases, is all of it) have been altered as a result of Nero’s interference—-and more importantly, it’s right there in the dialogue.

Whether any viewer knows the history of Shatner’s Kirk or not—-it is still made clear that Pine’s Kirk’s life, as well as that of the other characters, has been different than it was absent Nero’s interference.

Whether that makes him “a different person”, I think, is in the eye of the beholder—-but I don’t think that is necessarily a viewpoint specific to established fans or new ones. It is simply a matter of how an individual views what it is that makes a person—-DNA, environment/life experiences, or a combination of the two.

Last time I checked, the only sounds involved with posting here come off my keyboard…but okay.

” No slight or offence intended, sir; just calling it like it is.”

Lol. None taken. You are hardly capable of giving me offense.

As for “calling it like it is”, that’s not exactly true. You may “call it as you see it”, but that’s not quite the same thing.

“Brevity is the soul of wit.”

If and when I decide to be “witty” with my keyboard, I’ll let you know.

In the meantime, I’ll continue to voice my opinions and viewpoints in civil discussion and/or debate.

And if my posts are too long for you—-just skip them.

What happen to the last 1200 years of English using old and new.

Just like in Clinton times Apperntious (~1500-1993) became Intern (1993…)

But it is a classic phrase since there is now Enterprise-none, A to M in shows, movies and fan films, not sure about books or comics. So it will become a double letter suffix or they will have to use years in service (like Enterprise 2364-2386)

The dates are only guess’s only 80% sure, thats from Pike to Kirk TV