Sylar to play Spock in JJ Abrams' Star Trek re-make!

[Flexor the Mighty!]

James Bond, BSG, Doctor Who ... it can work. It's risky, but if they can pull it off, and have a little luck, it could work very well. The mistake would be making it a "remake" rather than a "reinterpretation". They shouldn't try to copy old Star Trek, they should, like with BSG, make a new one.

Or just do a story in the Star Trek universe that isn't Kirk & Spock.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Or just do a story in the Star Trek universe that isn't Kirk & Spock.

That's what I'd prefer, but sadly we aren't getting it in movie form yet.

But I'll keep my eye on this. JJ Abrams has a good track record IMO, so I like to think he can do a good job with this and maybe breathe new life into Trek.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Thinking about it, I cannot really address Bond - by the time I started watching Bond flicks, the part had already been played by more than one actor. The idea that Bond wasn't one man was already in my head.

Doctor Who - has changing actors as an explicit potential written into the character, including the understanding that his whole personality changes each time, so this one hardly counts.



Unfortunately, given that Nimoy is also in the movie, unless they do some really cheesy alternate universe work, this looks to be a vision into the past of the Spock we now know.

I, personally, trink that full reimagings are fine - it is done with Shakespeare, Arthurian legend, and so on all the time, to wonderful effect. But, I think they're a really, really hard sell while a particular version has a strong and living fanbase. If you want to re-image, you have to wait for the corpse of the old version to cool - like it did with BSG. I don't think Trek is ready for this treatment.

One of the key differences between BSG and Startrek might be that Startrek had considerably more than just two season. If they had decided to make a reimagination instead of a continuation when they decided to continue (or rather: begin) the Startrek franchise, it would have worked. Now, as it stays, the fans have invested to much that it would probably hurt a lot to reimagine it.

But on the other hand, maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea. I think sometimes Startrek is a bit overblown - to many stories, to many "established" facts that sometimes even contradict itself, inconcistent technology and so on... On the other hand, there are so many cool things that have been done that I don't want to see re-imagined. I want something new, but based on what we know...

 

[Brown Jenkin]

If more than one person can play Hamlet or Henry V, I have a feeling there is a second person capable of pulling off the oh-so-challenging parts of Kirk and Spock.

For that matter, how many times has Bond been cast? Superman?

And yeah, they were books first, but not to me, and I would wager not to MOST people. Christopher Reeve is Superman to me. Connery is Bond.

Parts are recast. It's the nature of film franchises.

I disagree and think that TV especially merges actors and thier roles far more than other media. In a play the roles are written to be played by anyone (with very few exceptions), in movies the roles are primarily written for anyone to play the part. But even in movies this starts to break down with comedies since a share of them are written for one comedian in particular and just don't work for others. Plays and movies also have only about 2 hours of time total to work on the characters and so only a limited amout of that character can be based on the actor unless written specifically for the actor. Even in long series (5 movies) this comes out to 10 hours of character and actor to find syncronicity. Now with TV things get different. Characters are written generically at first so various actors can play them and this often shows in the first few episodes of a series and sometimes as long as the first year. But the longer a show runs the more a character starts to be written for the actor and less for character. Writers begin to see what an actor can pull off or not and start writting the characters to wiork to the actors strengths (well hopefully as many a failed show often demonstrates). This is then developed over a 100 or more episodes and over that time the characters become less generic and more tied to particular actors.

Also, the notion that "Shatner is Kirk" is disproven in part by Shatner's ability to play other roles.

Well that is a poor choice to use as I disagree with the notion that Shater can play any role at all. Kidding aside TJ hooker has sometimes been considered Kirk as a cop. His current job in Boston Legal works because Shatner as an actor is an old man now and doesn't resemble his Kirk years anymore. This also only deals with "Shatner is Kirk" which is his ability to play other roles as oppsed to "Kirk is Shatner" which covers other peoples ability to play the Kirk role.

If the character and actor were really that joined at the hip, wouldn't folks be wondering why Kirk was working at a law firm and suffering from a disease McCoy could easily cure?

Audiences are actually pretty smart. They realize the actor is not the character and vice versa.

I will take this as I hope you intended and not as it reads. Just because I think certain roles are defined by certain actors and just because I see someone in a movie and am reminded that they played something else elsewhere (to varying degres of distraction) that in no way means that I in any way lack the ability to diferentiate reality from fiction or one fictional character from another.

If the casting is done well, if the movie is compelling, in other words, if it's GOOD, folks will see it and accept it.

It needs to be beyond good in my opinion. Hollywood has over the last decade had a really poor track record producing movies based on old TV shows (which is different than making movies as an expansion of a series using the same cast). Sure they might make something of a profit, but there has been nothing released that I can remember as good or doing a TV show justice. As a fan of 450+ hours of Star Trek I really don't want to see Star Trek suffer this same fate.

 

[Hypersmurf]

As for the Spock casting. I wasn't complaining that they cast someone else in the role. It was who they cast. If someone else is in the role I don't want to be thinking "watch out, he'll eat your brains."

Don't you see? It's a circular reference! It's revenge!

-Hyp.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

Well, I gotta admit I already hate the subplot where during pon'farr Spock eat's a cadet's brains.

 

[Vigilance]

In a play the roles are written to be played by anyone (with very few exceptions), in movies the roles are primarily written for anyone to play the part.

In actuality most theater parts are written for a specific actor.

But even later actors can cast long shadows, especially when the part is immortalized in some way (usually through a film version).

I'm guessing you never spent much time around theater folks. When word got out that Branaugh was going to make a movie of Henry V, many people instantly wrote him off. Olivier's performance was considered the gold standard, and many MANY people ticked off how Branaugh's performance differed beat by beat with an exactness that would make some trek fans blush.

There's plenty of harder roles, and many of those have been successfully recast in the past.

This is then developed over a 100 or more episodes and over that time the characters become less generic and more tied to particular actors.

Sure, but that bond that comes from actor as character being a weekly "guest" in our homes certainly doesn't apply to Shatner/Kirk anymore.

If this were being tried in 1978, I'd call it crazy. But 1978 was 30 years ago. Time makes things acceptable.

The fact is, Kirk is an amazing character. He was as likely to be recast as Bond, Hercules, Spider-Man and Superman. Did you really think there was never going to be another movie about James T. Kirk?

I would characterize that opinion as naive in the extreme.

Well that is a poor choice to use as I disagree with the notion that Shater can play any role at all.

Wasn't Shatner nominated for an Emmy as best actor for Kirk *and* Denny Crane? He may be stylized but that's a legitimate form of acting and one that many audience members obviously find appealing.

Gielgud was stylized too and he was knighted, and packed theaters until the day he died.

Shatner clearly has "it" and "it" clearly transcends character and time. He's the opposite of typecast. How many people have been the lead character in three successful TV shows? (Hint: Less than five actors)

I will take this as I hope you intended and not as it reads. Just because I think certain roles are defined by certain actors and just because I see someone in a movie and am reminded that they played something else elsewhere (to varying degres of distraction) that in no way means that I in any way lack the ability to diferentiate reality from fiction or one fictional character from another.

There you go. You just agreed with me that it CAN work. You just admitted that if the movie is good and the parts are well cast, that audience members are savvy enough to roll with changes.

It needs to be beyond good in my opinion. Hollywood has over the last decade had a really poor track record producing movies based on old TV shows (which is different than making movies as an expansion of a series using the same cast). Sure they might make something of a profit, but there has been nothing released that I can remember as good or doing a TV show justice. As a fan of 450+ hours of Star Trek I really don't want to see Star Trek suffer this same fate.

Well, I might be wrong, but I don't think many of those other remakes turning TV shows into movies had both a writing team (Transformers- $465 million worldwide) and a director (MI:III- $400 million worldwide) who have proven big summer event movie credentials.

And oh yeah, they're also the minds behind a bona fide TV phenomenon.

Usually, TV shows get turned into movies by McG (Charlie's Angels) and he's one of the BETTER ones.

And again, it's not the like the franchise was cruising along doing great. Sometimes, you have to roll the hard 7.

 

[Ranger REG]

Heh - RangerREG suggested Quinto for Spock several months back.

Thank you! Thank you very much!

Honestly, who here is surprised about the Spock casting announcement?

I think he's a great choice. And glad to hear Nimoy will appear as well.

It has been a while since we've last seen him as Spock on The Undiscovered Country film and the TNG "Reunification" TV episodes.

Is Gary Sinise still playing Bones? That was another good casting choice.

He does have that gravel voice. Just need to darken his hair though.

 

[Arkhandus]

It has been a while since we've last seen him as Spock on The Undiscovered Country film and the TNG "Reunification" TV episodes.

And somwhat more recently (a few years ago was it? or a bit further back?) in Futurama. I think that was quite possibly the best Futurama episode EVAR!

 

[John Crichton]

Sometimes, you have to roll the hard 7.

I agree with very many of your points above. I can't really add much more and I'm a little torn on the topic but not in any way against this film. I'm looking forward to it.

That said ... what the heck is a hard 7?!

I'm assuming you are talking about craps/dice where the combo of doubles (ie. two 3's = a hard 6) makes the term. But seven is an odd number...

It's not like the Kobayashi Maru Scenario where you can cheat to win...