ST: From 007 to ... NCC-1701???

[Ranger REG]

As a Trek fan from the time it first showed on NBC when I was six I will not go see a movie or watch a new Trek if they take it and make it dark and gritty ala Battlestar Galatica (unless it is set in mirror universe or Romulan War) One of the things that always attracted me to the Trek universe was the message of hope. That we do evolve as a species.

My gawd, you're older than me. (Born in 1969, seen Trek in syndication when I was 10).

But in all of my viewing, Trek have never been darker nor grittier. Granted, DS9 went beyond what Trek is about by doing a very long Dominion War story arc. (Not to mention, a Trek series that took place on a space station rather than a starship.) But from what I have seen of Ron D. Moore's BSG, the franchise would never go down that deep, dark path. Trek's too clean to go there.

I also have to wonder how many of these restarts and remakes have been that succesful? Lost In Space sucked, Starksy and Hutch awful, Bewitched stank, BSG dying in the ratings though it had a great start.

Lost in Space film was okay, just not as blockbuster as the original series.

Starsky and Hutch have taken the comedic route, deviating from the original series.

Bewitched use a different story (doing a show about Bewitched and finding an actress who is secretly a withc) from the original series.

BSG too dark, yet you want Trek to go there?

The only two I can think of are the Batman and Bond movies but both of those have always had different actors playing the rolls.

Well, Batman did start off as a TV series and a whole slew of animations (including Super Friends), but the film version directed by Tim Burton have taken the franchise from light and campy to dark and gothic.

As for Bond, it was a movie-based-on-novel franchise to begin with.

As far as I am concerned William Shatner is James T Kirk.

William Shatner is also TJ Hooker, and lately Denny Crane (who slept with 5 NOLA hookers).

It would be sad to think that the character is tailor-made for or attached to one actor. I mean considering that the original cast are slowing disappearing, I don't think we can end the franchise because he is no longer with us.

The Trek universe is huge I can't believe that it is impossibe to come up with a new part of it to explore and if they can't then maybe it is time to just let it go.

It's possible, but it won't draw mainstream audience in if you don't include an iconic. I mean, could George Lucas do the Prequels without having Anakin/Darth, Palpatine, and Obi-Wan characters in the story?

 

[Elf Witch]

That whole message of hope thing was pretty much retconned in by Roddenberry in the 80's with TNG after he started believing the hype people were saying about Star Trek. The Original Series was about guys in ripped shirts killing evil aliens. The aspect of a better future was kinda there in TOS, but it played second fiddle to fight scenes.

Yes it was an adventure series no doubt about it. But there were a lot of messages about hope. You had Kirk's speech about today we choose not to kill. You had a starship that had people of color and woman in important jobs.

You had the Frederation and a Untited Earth. Yes these were often subtle but they were very important messages of hope. Whoppi Goldburg has talked about how Trek meant so much to her because of Uhura a woman of color who was on TV and not a maid.

If you ever read the Harlan Ellison version of The City On the Edge of Forever you will see it is much darker with drug abuse in it. Roodenberry changed because Starfleet officers were the brightest and the best.

Growing up I wanted to live in the future that was TOS.

 

[Elf Witch]

My gawd, you're older than me. (Born in 1969, seen Trek in syndication when I was 10).

But in all of my viewing, Trek have never been darker nor grittier. Granted, DS9 went beyond what Trek is about by doing a very long Dominion War story arc. (Not to mention, a Trek series that took place on a space station rather than a starship.) But from what I have seen of Ron D. Moore's BSG, the franchise would never go down that deep, dark path. Trek's too clean to go there.



Lost in Space film was okay, just not as blockbuster as the original series.

Starsky and Hutch have taken the comedic route, deviating from the original series.

Bewitched use a different story (doing a show about Bewitched and finding an actress who is secretly a withc) from the original series.

BSG too dark, yet you want Trek to go there?



Well, Batman did start off as a TV series and a whole slew of animations (including Super Friends), but the film version directed by Tim Burton have taken the franchise from light and campy to dark and gothic.

As for Bond, it was a movie-based-on-novel franchise to begin with.


William Shatner is also TJ Hooker, and lately Denny Crane (who slept with 5 NOLA hookers).

It would be sad to think that the character is tailor-made for or attached to one actor. I mean considering that the original cast are slowing disappearing, I don't think we can end the franchise because he is no longer with us.



It's possible, but it won't draw mainstream audience in if you don't include an iconic. I mean, could George Lucas do the Prequels without having Anakin/Darth, Palpatine, and Obi-Wan characters in the story?

I said I would not watch Trek if it went dark and gritty unless it was a mirror universe story or maybe a romulan war story. Lets face it the mirror universe is not a nice place and the romulan war happpened before TOS so I could see it being a little gritty.

If they made it like the new BSG I would be sick at heart. I don't want to see fraked up selfish addicts as heroes in my Trek. I would watch it if they went that route.

All those movies I mentioned did not do well in the box office nor did they do well with the critics they bombed. I don't want to see another Trek movie bomb.

Batman did not start off as a TV series it started off as comic so the first Batman you see was not interpreted by an actor but by a writer and illustrater.

Yes William Shatner has played other roles that is not by point. My point is that he helped create Kirk and to me it would bother me to much to see someone else play the roll. Especially if they want to keep it has cannon and part of the timeline of trek.

I watch BSG both versions and while I will freely admit I wanted a continuation not a remake I can watch it because it so different than BSGTOS. For example to me Capatin Apollo and Lee Adama are not the same character at all the same with Commander Adama and Admiral Adama and while I know it pisses off the new fans to say this but to me the new show is Galatica in name only. I think it is an good show but as a fan of the old show it is not the same at all and to me it is not even set in the same universe.

I don't want to see that happen with Trek.

You don't neeed to end the franchise because the old stars are as you put it leaving. There are four other casts that could be used if you are worried about that. Also the Trek universe has several series of books that do quite well with orginal characters.

I think Trek is well enough known that you don't need a familiar name to get people to watch it.

As for the prequels of Star Wars well that is not the same. Lucus wanted to tell how the Empire came about and how Skywalker became Vader and how the twins were separated. So it would have been silly not to have the characters in it. Besides if you watch Ewan Macgreor he studied the mannerism of Alec Guiness and they even made him look like him as he aged.

 

[Vigilance]

I guess my problem with that is simply that those characters originated in fiction the personality coming from the author.

Where as the personality and mannerism of Kirk and Spock had a lot to do with the actors who created the rolls.

What about Dr. Who?

I mean, what you're basically saying is every iconic character that starts on screen is inviolate and can never be played by anyone else.

I've asked this before, but did anyone really think Kirk would never appear on screen again?

I mean really?

The Trek universe is huge I can't believe that it is impossibe to come up with a new part of it to explore and if they can't then maybe it is time to just let it go.

Yes yes, 1000 times yes.

There's a million things they COULD do.

But this is one of them.

Why is every movie idea BUT a TOS remake good? I am eager to see anything other than the TNG era.

It's been. Done.

25 seasons of freaking TV. 4 movies.

Im sick of TNG. And DS9 is my favorite series.

But something new excites me.

And yes, this isn't totally new. But it's a hell of a lot more new than another TNG show or movie.

Also, this is far from the only thing being pitched. There's a clone wars style cartoon idea floating at CBS tv for a "fall of the federation" animated series.

That also sounds cool to me.

 

[Ranger REG]

Yes William Shatner has played other roles that is not by point. My point is that he helped create Kirk and to me it would bother me to much to see someone else play the roll. Especially if they want to keep it has cannon and part of the timeline of trek.

I dunno. I'm not that attached to the whole actor-character symbiotic thing (as in "only actor X can play character Y").

Besides, if there are more stories to be told about Kirk, wouldn't you want it? And don't tell me "only in print." I don't see why it cannot be made into motion picture.

As for the prequels of Star Wars well that is not the same. Lucus wanted to tell how the Empire came about and how Skywalker became Vader and how the twins were separated. So it would have been silly not to have the characters in it. Besides if you watch Ewan Macgreor he studied the mannerism of Alec Guiness and they even made him look like him as he aged.

And you think no other actor can study Shatner to play a younger version of Kirk? Even if the Shat took the actor under his wing?

 

[Vigilance]

And you think no other actor can study Shatner to play a younger version of Kirk? Even if the Shat took the actor under his wing?

Or even just do something totally DIFFERENT.

Nicole Williamson and Laurence Olivier are VERY different Hamlets but they are both excellent Hamlets and each brings out a different dimension to the character.

Heck, Kevin Kline was also an excellent Hamlet and again, brought something totally different to the role, while still being Hamlet.

Oh and Hamlet was a role originated by an actor.

I guess we're lucky audiences in the 16th century weren't like audiences today, or else we'd have a play on paper and some stories about how great that Burbage guy was, so great in fact that no one else was ever allowed to play the role.

 

[Elf Witch]

I dunno. I'm not that attached to the whole actor-character symbiotic thing (as in "only actor X can play character Y").

Besides, if there are more stories to be told about Kirk, wouldn't you want it? And don't tell me "only in print." I don't see why it cannot be made into motion picture.



And you think no other actor can study Shatner to play a younger version of Kirk? Even if the Shat took the actor under his wing?

Sure if they want to show Kirk as a young man younger than his days at the helm of the Enterprise but don't screw anymore with the continuity of the timeline.

Kirk and Spock were not the academy together as students Spock is older as is McCoy and Scotty where as Sulu and Chekov are younger.

IMO I don't want to see restarts and new actors in old rolls. If they do it I won't be watching it. I want to see the Trek universe do something new with new characters. There are 12 other Constellation style ships of that era how about telling their stories or how about a story set after Kirk's time but before Picard or what about after the time of Voyager and DS9.

We have had stories set in the Gamma and Delta sectors how aboit stories set in the Beta sector.

Like I said this is how iI feel if you want to see more Trek stories with Kirk then that is what you want.

I am sure whatever they do they won't satisfy everyone but they will give tons of fodder for internet debates.

 

[Elf Witch]

Or even just do something totally DIFFERENT.

Nicole Williamson and Laurence Olivier are VERY different Hamlets but they are both excellent Hamlets and each brings out a different dimension to the character.

Heck, Kevin Kline was also an excellent Hamlet and again, brought something totally different to the role, while still being Hamlet.

Oh and Hamlet was a role originated by an actor.

I guess we're lucky audiences in the 16th century weren't like audiences today, or else we'd have a play on paper and some stories about how great that Burbage guy was, so great in fact that no one else was ever allowed to play the role.

To me it is not the same thing. Yes they are playing Hamlet but not a new Hamlet with a new story. It is the same character in the same play saying the same dialogue telling the same story.

A new TOS Trek movie would not be the same as Hamlet because they would not be (I hope) redoing the old scripts.

I go to the theatre all the time. I have seen Phantom of the Opera several times with different actors and have enjoyed the shows. I have opinions who did the better job. It is the same with the A Chorus Line and Grease.

Its like the movie The Philadelphia Story with Cary Grant and Katerine Hepurn and High Society they are the same movie, same story mostly same dialogue.

It is not the same as a three year TV show and seven movies with the same actor playing the same character. At least to me.

I don't want to see a BSG reimaging with Trek.

 

[Elf Witch]

What about Dr. Who?

I mean, what you're basically saying is every iconic character that starts on screen is inviolate and can never be played by anyone else.

I've asked this before, but did anyone really think Kirk would never appear on screen again?

I mean really?



Yes yes, 1000 times yes.

There's a million things they COULD do.

But this is one of them.

Why is every movie idea BUT a TOS remake good? I am eager to see anything other than the TNG era.

It's been. Done.

25 seasons of freaking TV. 4 movies.

Im sick of TNG. And DS9 is my favorite series.

But something new excites me.

And yes, this isn't totally new. But it's a hell of a lot more new than another TNG show or movie.

Also, this is far from the only thing being pitched. There's a clone wars style cartoon idea floating at CBS tv for a "fall of the federation" animated series.

That also sounds cool to me.

Dr Who a favorite of mine is not the same either. Each time another actor came in to play the doctor his personality and mannerism changed due to the regeneration. For example Peter Davison did not emulate Tom Baker but added some of the whimsy of Troughton's doctor. Colin Baker added the crankiness of Hartnell.

 

[Silver Moon]

I'd rather watched the episodes BEFORE Jeri Ryan/Seven of Nine joined the cast. And episodes spotlighting either the Doc or B'Elanna.

Actually I'd say that Season Four, which is the one after she joined, is actually the best season of the series. She added an interesting twist but the show still remained an ensemble-cast theme at that point. A while back fans rated their favorite five episodes from each Star Trek series - from the Voyager list (which included two 2-part episodes) five of the seven hours selected were from Season Four.

And despite the show's flaws, Kate Mulgrew made an excellent Captain.