The nominations for the 61st Annual Primetime Emmy Awards have been announced, and naturally, a large number of Star Trek alumni have been named. Many are those who have been nominated many times in the past, including William Shatner, Damon Lindelof, Ronald D. Moore, Gary Hutzel, and Vanessa Williams. Read below for the complete details.
The big news is that William Shatner (Kirk Prime) has once again been nominated as Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series for his role as Denny Crane on Boston Legal, which ended its run back in December. This is Shatner’s sixth consecutive nomination for his portrayal of Crane. Of those six nominations, Shatner has won two (2004 & 2005). Among those the Shat has to contend with is his Boston Legal co-star Christian Clemenson.
In the other acting categories, Vanessa Williams (Arandis in DS9’s “Let He Who Is Without Sin…”) has received her third nomination for her role on Ugly Betty. Meanwhile, Sharon Lawrence (Amelia Earhart in VOY’s “The 37’s”) is up for Outstanding Guest Appearance in a Drama Series for Grey’s Anatomy, while another Voyager guest star Sarah Silverman (Rain Robinson in VOY’s “Future’s End”) has been nominated for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Comedy Series for The Sarah Silverman Program. There’s also Len Cariou (Admiral Janeway in VOY: “Coda”), who’s been nominated for his portrayal of Franklin D. Roosevelt in the TV movie Into the Storm.
Shatner in the Boston Legal Season 5 episode "True Love"
Lost, co-created by ST09 producers J.J. Abrams and Damon Lindelof, was again nominated for Outstanding Drama Series. Lindelof was nominated (along with Lost co-creator Carlton Cuse) in the Outstanding Writing for a Drama Series category for the episode “The Incident.” Also nominated in the drama writing category: Andre and Maria Jacquemetton, writers of three episodes of Enterprise, who are receiving recognition for an episode of Mad Men.
Family Guy, created and produced by and featuring the voice of Star Trek: Enterprise cameo-maker Seth McFarlane, is the first animated series since 1961 to be nominated for Outstanding Comedy Series. McFarlane himself is also nominated for Outstanding Voice-Over Performance on Family Guy, while McFarlane’s other show, American Dad, is up for Outstanding Animated Program.
Lastly, Ronald D. Moore is among those nominated in the Outstanding Special Class – Short-format Live-Action Entertainment Programs category as executive producer of the internet series Battlestar Galactica: The Face of the Enemy.
Abrams and Lindelof with their Emmys for "Lost" in 2005
Visual effects nominations
In the visual effects category, Trek vets Gary Hutzel, Sean Jackson, Kyle Toucher, Pierre Drolet, and David Morton have all been nominated for their work on Battlestar Galactica. They are up against fellow Trek fx artists Kevin Blank and Steve Fong for Fringe, Armen Kevorkian and Arthur J. Codron for Ghost Whisperer, and Mark Spatny for Heroes.
Effects shot from BSG "Daybreak, Part 2" – nominated for Emmy
A number of Star Trek vets are up for Outstanding Prosthetic Makeup for a Series, Miniseries, Movie or a Special: Clinton Wayne (ST09) has a nomination for CSI; husband & wife team Bari Dreband-Burman and Thomas R. Burman (Star Trek III) are up for both Grey’s Anatomy and Nip/Tuck; and Vincent Van Dyke (ST09) is also up for Grey’s Anatomy. As for the non-prosthetic make-up categories, there’s Debbie Zoller (Star Trek Generations, Enterprise) and Ron Pipes (Star Trek V) up for Mad Men, while Todd McIntosh, David DeLeon, and Steve Anderson (Enterprise) up for Pushing Daisies.
- Veteran Star Trek casting director Junie Lowry Johnson and Trek casting assistant Libby Goldstein have been nominated for Outstanding Casting for a Drama Series for their work on HBO’s True Blood. Star Trek VI casting director Mary Jo Slater is up for the same award for her work on The Tudors.
- Veteran Trek costume designer Robert Blackman was nominated, along with Trek wardrobe supervisor Carol Kunz, for an episode of Bryan Fuller’s Pushing Daisies.
- There’s also Star Trek: Voyager art director Michael Mayer, who’s up for Outstanding Art Direction For a Single-Camera Series for his work on Bones.
- Two Enterprise guest actors, Tom Bergeron and Padma Lakshmi, are nominated for their hosting duties on Dancing with the Stars and Top Chef, respectively.
- Al Jones, who was Christopher Lloyd’s stunt double on Star Trek III, and Generations stuntman Merritt Yohnka are both nominated for Outstanding Stunt Coordination — Jones for My Name Is Earl, Yohnka for Chuck.
- Paul Williams, who appeared as Koru in the VOY episode “Virtuoso”, has been nominated in the Outstanding Original Music and Lyrics category for the songs he wrote for A Muppet Christmas: Letters to Santa. Meanwhile, DS9 sound editor Sean Callery has been nominated for the music he composed for an episode of 24 and for the movie, 24: Redemption.
Winners for those in the technical categories will be announced at the Creative Arts Emmy Awards ceremony on Saturday, September 12th. The winners for the main categories will be announced at the Primetime Emmy Awards ceremony on Sunday, September 20th starting at 8pm EST. Both events will be held at the NOKIA Theatre in Los Angeles, with the Primetime Emmy Awards being telecast on CBS.
More info and the full list of nominees available at emmys.tv
Congrats to all the nominees!
And yes, Shatner is still THE man!! May a 3rd emmy rest on his mantle very soon!
Congrats to The Shatman, he desrves it.
Way to go big Bill! Woo Hoo!!!!
You go Shatner.
And this may be the only shout out Paul Williams gets on a Trek site. He has a poet’s heart. Anybody who writes “Rainbow Connection” is alright with me.
Big congrats to Shatner :-)
They should make a special category just for Trek: Best Movie That Started From a Syndicated TV Program.
One-time only category. Nominate Trek, let Trek win it, and then close the category to all future nominations.
Trek is just that good.
I hate the “Prime” thing you know. I prefer Kirk and “New Kirk”. Not that it’s at all important.
Shat will win!…That last season and especially the finale showed awesome performances as Denny Crane…Shat is tops and deserves another Emmy….In many ways his finest role..though he will always be
It’s too bad Shat was never nominated for an Emmy when he was playing Kirk. But it’s good to see him getting the recognition he deserves now.
Mr. Shatner, I hope that you get a third, well-deserved win. And they need to give you a lifetime achievement award soon.
I don’t dig Kirk “Prime”.
He’s Kirk. Simply.
Congrats and excellent work. Aces.
Family Guy’s nomination for best comedy is a joke. Firstly, that honour (i.e, being the first animated program since 1961) should have gone to The Simpsons when it was in its prime. Secondly, Family Guy is being nominated for its worst season. This season was nothing short of terrible with only a few decent eps and the rest being just plain unfunny.
I like McFarlane and I don’t mind older Family Guy episodes (pre-cancellation is better than post) but this is wrong.
The only consolation is that there is no way it’ll win (the Emmy voters are just plain in love with 30 Rock at this point).
Watch the nominations announcement: http://wcbs880.com/-30-Rock–Leads-61st-Emmy-Nominations/4815926
#11—-“I don’t dig Kirk ‘Prime’.
He’s Kirk. Simply.”
I don’t mind. It is not as if it is disparaging in any way. I don’t think it is any different from using the acronym “TOS” vs simply calling the 1960’s television series “Star Trek”. It is simply a way of being specific. Until 1987, there was no need to call it anything else. Of course, by now, if you say “Star Trek”—-you could be referring to many different things.
And until Pine was cast as the young JTK in ST09, there was no need to be specific as to which version of Kirk is being referenced. There is now.
I think we could do alot worse than “prime”.
Congratulations to Bill, and to Damon as well.
“I think we could do alot worse than ‘prime’.”
I obviously agree. :-) I think “Prime” is kinda cool. Sounds much better than “old & new.”
#14 – Hmmmm. Since there are two Spock’s in ST09, one must distinguish between them. However, since there is no other character from the “Prime” universe, there is no reason to label Shatner’s Kirk as anything else.
It’s kind of like James Bond. There’s only one James Bond and I rarely hear a distinction being made between them, unless a person is talking about their favorite. The character is merely “Bond” no matter which actor is playing him.
I don’t really hear anyone referring to Quinto’s Spock as “Alt” Spock. He’s simply Spock and credited that way.
What I sense happening here is that TOS characters are in danger of being supplanted as the originals. In other words, in 20 years kids who grow up on Pine as Kirk may think of him as the real Kirk and dismiss all the old stuff, not caring a lick for Shatner’s seemingly stilted performances, or even knowing who he is. He will be “Prime” Kirk to Pine’s Kirk.
I prefer ” The one and only Kirk ” or ” Thee Kirk ”
Congrats William, hope you win.
#17—” However, since there is no other character from the “Prime” universe…”
But there was, and thus the need to differentiate. The fact that, unlike Nimoy, Shatner isn’t still portraying the character is rather irrelevant.
“It’s kind of like James Bond. ”
There is no “alternate Bond” with any sort of in-universe explanation of how he got to be that way from the way he was before.
Beyond that, Bond is a totally different concept—and something which has been rebooted again and again for different generations of moviegoers. Bond can appear again at any time and be accepted as the same conceptual character.
“What I sense happening here is that TOS characters are in danger of being supplanted as the originals.”
Why would you sense something like that? That’s impossible. The very fact that they appeared first precludes them from ever being supplanted as the “originals”. They will always be the “originals”—even if the new cast were to keep playing their versions of those characters for 50 more years. Nothing can change that.
“…in 20 years kids who grow up on Pine as Kirk may think of him as the real Kirk and dismiss all the old stuff…”
I don’t think that is any different from my own generation generally seeing Christopher Reeve as the “real” Clark Kent/ Superman, despite the fact that he wasn’t the original. But I wouldn’t think any more of George Reeves’ portrayal of the character if Superman: The Movie had never been released.
“…not caring a lick for Shatner’s… performances…”
Would those who might ‘grow up’ on Pine’s Kirk care any more for Shatner’s performances otherwise? Presumably, most (with likely exceptions) aren’t watching them now, and weren’t watching them before either, so what’s the difference?
If anything, the introduction of a new cast in these roles probably puts them in *less* danger of being eventually forgotten than they were a year ago.
19. Closettrekker wrote: But there was, and thus the need to differentiate.
So why is it Nimoy’s and Shatner’s characters get the modifier? Why not instead “Alt Kirk” & “Alt Spock” for Pine and Quinto?
Because they are replacing the originals for all intents and purposes going forward. This may be an alternate universe, but as far as re-building the franchise, they are the “prime” characters for newly attracted fans and evidently for the old.
Only the pre-existing fans care whether there’s a Prime Kirk or not. What Paramount has pulled off is the ability to re-boot Kirk anytime they want with a new actor for new audiences and achieve the exact same effect as Bond. In fact we have discussed at length the fact that this film can be perceived as MWI QM or traditional linear time travel. We have also discussed that anyone who is not familiar with Orci’s explanation, which is just about anybody who has never really watched Trek before and quite a few fans evidently judging from the confusion show on this forum alone, that they will assume the latter. In which case, there is no “Prime Kirk” anymore. He was wiped out when the timeline was changed (yes I know he did exist the first go-around but that is a technicality). As far as the general audience is concerned, Pine is “Kirk”, not bloody “A”, “B”, “C”, or “D”. Assuming traditional time travel, he is the same Kirk that Shatner played. Therefore, it’s exactly like Bond. In particular, despite the year not changing, “Casino Royale” took us back to Bond’s very first assignment, pre-dating “Dr. No”, effectively resetting the timeline for Bond. The Connery stuff still happened, but for a new audience “Daniel Craig” is now Bond from day one, despite the year not being 1962. Likewise, Pine is now Kirk from day one for a new group of fans and audiences. There will come a time, when the Shatner fans die away and the group that were born after 1990 will come to see Pine as Kirk, but considering Shatner, just like Connery and Moore after him, may be far more accepting of future character replacements without the elaborate pretense we have had to endure this time around. Calling Shatner Prime Kirk does nothing for those new fans and does everything IMO to lessen Shatner’s importance to the role. Sure “Prime” is better than “Old”, but neither is better than just “Kirk”.
Personally, if I cared about maintaining both timelines and considered the “Prime” timeline as the one true one, then I would be lobbying for “Alt Kirk” rather than passively accepting the modification to the original.
#20—“So why is it Nimoy’s and Shatner’s characters get the modifier? Why not instead “Alt Kirk” & “Alt Spock” for Pine and Quinto?”
I think it is as simple as the writers considering the timeline with which we are all familiar to be the “primary” timeline—which makes sense, considering the general view is that 5 live-action series and 10 previous feature films took place in that setting. I think that is from what the term “Prime” is most likely derived, and the name was catchy and just stuck.
“This may be an alternate universe, but as far as re-building the franchise, they are the ‘prime’ characters for newly attracted fans and evidently for the old.”
Going forward, there are the *only* versions of those characters. But I think the application of the term “Prime” has to do with the fact that the original characters have been around for so long, and almost all of the 23rd Century Trek library is centered around them.
“What Paramount has pulled off is the ability to re-boot Kirk anytime they want with a new actor for new audiences and achieve the exact same effect as Bond. ”
That is true in principle, but it is yet to be determined if that will actually happen with anything resembling the regularity with which it happens with the Bond brand. No one actor was the single face of Bond for more than four decades, so it is not a good analogy to me in determining the value of the application of the term “Prime” to any of the original characters in Star Trek.
“yes I know he did exist the first go-around but that is a technicality”
A pretty big one if you ask me—especially considering the fact that “the first go-around” lasted such a long time.
“Assuming traditional time travel, he is the same Kirk that Shatner played. ”
Not if they have actually seen the movie… It is made quite clear in the dialogue that one of them grew up with a father and the other did not. I don’t think it is a stretch for me to contend that it is easy for adult (and even teenaged) audience members to deduce that the development of the character would have been altered as a result.
“Calling Shatner Prime Kirk does nothing for those new fans…”
The only one who has been officially given that distinction is Nimoy’s Spock, and even then only in the credits. I’m not sure why we should be looking for some benefit other than merely differentiating between the original versions and altered versions of the characters amongst ourselves.
“…and does everything IMO to lessen Shatner’s importance to the role.”
Without the introduction of Pine (representing a successful recasting) to the role of altered Kirk (the reason for the desire to be specific), what “non-lessening” importance to the character itself was there going to be—to say nothing of Shatner’s own importance to it?
Shatner’s Kirk, as far as a generation of potential new fans is concerned, was already lessening in importance…long before the film was even greenlit.
“I would be lobbying for ‘Alt Kirk’ rather than passively accepting the modification to the original.”
And indeed some (albeit relatively insignificant number of) fans here have adopted that philosophy.
My thought is that Pine is Kirk going forward, and “Prime” is a rather reverant (but better sounding than simply “original”) modifier to use in order to differentiate between the two in any discussion. Considering the huge disparity between stories involving Shatner’s Kirk and Pine’s Kirk, along with the unlikelihood that Pine’s (or anyone else’s) portrayals of the character will ever outnumber those of his predecessor, I feel comfortable with the term “Prime” being added to the name of Shatner’s Kirk—-especially since it would be consistent with the way Nimoy’s character is listed in the credits of ST09.
I certainly see no reason to be inconsistent. Obviously, if the producers of ST09 felt differently, they could have listed Nimoy’s character as “Spock”, and Quinto’s character (or the others, for that matter) as “Alt Spock”. Equally obvious is the fact that they did not.
Any lobbying after the fact wouldn’t change the facts from the ground. Leonard Nimoy is still listed as “Spock Prime”. Zachary Quinto is listed as “Spock”. Chris Pine is listed as “James Tiberius Kirk”.
And of course, in the interest of being consistent (as I suspect is the reason)—most fans have adopted the same practice for the purpose of being specific in reference to the various characters.
21. Closettrekker wrote: “#20—’Assuming traditional time travel, he is the same Kirk that Shatner played.’ Not if they have actually seen the movie… It is made quite clear in the dialogue that one of them grew up with a father and the other did not. I don’t think it is a stretch for me to contend that it is easy for adult (and even teenaged) audience members to deduce that the development of the character would have been altered as a result.”
You are making a literal semantic distinction, which misses the point.
In “Back To The Future II” when Doc & Marty went back to the alternate 1985, the ran into the same Biff they knew from the previous 1985, albeit now a significantly different personality – but he’s the same Biff under different set of circumstances, because there’s only one timeline. The same is true of Kirk, from Nero’s and Spock’s perspective (assuming linear timeline) he is more or less the same set of atoms that made up the Kirk he knew, but raised under different circumstances. More importantly to the point I was making, 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. In fact, all Spock actually notes is that Kirk is not yet captain of the Enterprise, which he would not have been anyway in Prime Spock’s timeline of 2258, and that his father did not die. 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.
If ever a man was in love with the very long-winded sound of his own voice, its our friend, Closettrekker. No slight or offence intended, sir; just calling it like it is. Brevity is the soul of wit.
whats up with original Kirk and original Spock.
#24, either your thinking along similar paths as me, or you saw my comment a few topics ago on Scotty saying the bloody comment from ST:TNG episode Relics.
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
And this prime suffix, is this only a new word for people that is scared of age.
What happen to the last 1200 years of English using old and new.
Just like in Clinton times Apperntious (~1500-1993) became Intern (1993…)
#23—“If ever a man was in love with the very long-winded sound of his own voice, its our friend, Closettrekker.”
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.
#22—“You are making a literal semantic distinction, which misses the point… he is more or less the same set of atoms that made up the Kirk he knew, but raised under different circumstances.”
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.
28. Closettrekker wrote: “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.”
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'”.
#29—“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.”
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.”
“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.
All this for a simple label? Holy crap!
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. :)
Shatner should win the Emmy. Boston Legal was a great show.
I’ve never seen the re-make of ‘Battlestar Galactica’ but I love the original one and have the box set.
Congrats to Bill – The Kirk and…”Denny Crane”. :)
Criminal the dis that BSG got. If it were set on an aircraft carrier or in the White House with the same actors and much of the same plot it would be Emmy bait. The bias against sci fi is ridiculous. Granted 90% of filmed sf is middling or crap (like most everything else on Sy Fy-Farscape, Dune, BSG excluded), but there are more and more exceptions out there.