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

[Ranger REG]

I have said before that I have little interest in this project. I would have loved a new Trek movie if it had gone forward instead of backward.

I have a very specific way I view these characters and I am really afraid that to make the show more popular with today's auidences that it will ruin it for me. I want Kirk to be the same way he was in the TV series and movies. I want the basic personality of Kirk to shine through.

You make it sounds like as if Shatner is the only one that can do Kirk. That's like saying only TSR can make Dungeons & Dragons.

"There is an old Vulcan proverb: Only Nixon can go to China."

 

[Ranger REG]

To my mind, only shallow and uninteresting characters have a single 'correct' portrayal.

And they tend to be aliens or villains on the show.

 

[Elf Witch]

You make it sounds like as if Shatner is the only one that can do Kirk. That's like saying only TSR can make Dungeons & Dragons.

"There is an old Vulcan proverb: Only Nixon can go to China."

That is not what I am saying at all. I said that I am afraid that to make the movie for todays youth the demograph they will be aiming for they will have to change the characters make them darker less heroic. The same with the theme of the movie.

Look at both BSG and Bionic Woman the producers feel that the only way they could be made for viewers todays is to go with darker characters and themes.

In an interview at Comic con there was talk about making Trek more adult whatever that means. Some of the themes Trek tackled like racism were imo adult themes.

I like both Stargate and Stargate SG1 Richard Dean Anderson brought a different aspect of O'Neill to the screen. But he was still O'Neall. Col Tigh from the orginial BSG and Saul Tigh are not the same character at all. They just share a name.

I don't want see Kirk or Spock or any of the other Trek characters given the same treatment as the characters did in BSG.

It has nothing to do with who plays the character but how the character is written.

 

[Mallus]

And they tend to be aliens or villains on the show.

Right.

And even a villain can benefit from a splash of color (and depth) applied to his black hat. Say like Gul Dukat on DS9, or Gaius Baltar on nBSG (though I'm not so sure Gaius counts as a villain, despite his villainy. He's more protagonist than antagonist. Plus, he's tres cool, even when being pathetic).

 

[Mallus]

I said that I am afraid that to make the movie for todays youth the demograph they will be aiming for they will have to change the characters make them darker less heroic.

Look at both BSG and Bionic Woman the producers feel that the only way they could be made for viewers todays is to go with darker characters and themes.

I'll reserve judgment on the nBW until I see it, but I don't think it's right to say that the changes made in the nBSG had anything to do with making the show more palatable to the 'youth market'. Mainly because none of the changes made actually do that.

In an interview at Comic con there was talk about making Trek more adult whatever that means. Some of the themes Trek tackled like racism were imo adult themes.

Sure, TOS was always an 'adult' show. In fact, one of the first pieces of televised SF that wasn't meant for children (along with anthology shows like The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits). It was a big break from earlier fare like Tom Corbett, Space Cadet, and contemporaries like Lost in Space.

I guessing by 'adult' they mean they're going to make the character's lives messier, show a fuller spectrum of human behavior than just 'heroic', 'noble', or in Kirk's case, 'swaggering and super-competent'.

But he was still O'Neall. Col Tigh from the orginial BSG and Saul Tigh are not the same character at all. They just share a name.

True. But one of those characters is hardly a character at all; just a dignified-looking guy standing around in a (then) high-tech looking ship's bridge. The other is a spectacular wreck of a man, by turns exhilerating and painful to watch, with the full flush of that essential human messiness on him (ok, I'm done gushing now...).

I suppose it all comes down to how you view people. I'm far more convinced by nTigh than oTigh, he seems more like a real man, albeit a highly melodramtized one, therefore I feel much more strongly about the character.

I don't want see Kirk or Spock or any of the other Trek characters given the same treatment as the characters did in BSG.

I do.

Mind you, Abrams might make a terrible mess of it, but that's part of the excitement with art. You never know what's going to result in a trainwreck or a masterpiece.

 

[PhoenixDarkDirk]

Here's a fun reaction to this news, http://www.sorethumbsonline.com/d/20070727.html.

 

[Ranger REG]

That is not what I am saying at all. I said that I am afraid that to make the movie for todays youth the demograph they will be aiming for they will have to change the characters make them darker less heroic.

So, what you're saying is that you cannot accept a dark Star Trek story set in the 23rd Century, but you can accept a dark Star Trek story set in the 24th Century?

??? ???

 

[Elf Witch]

So, what you're saying is that you cannot accept a dark Star Trek story set in the 23rd Century, but you can accept a dark Star Trek story set in the 24th Century?

??? ???

No I am not saying that at all. I am confused with where you got that could you explain?

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

I don't think its fair to compare this new Star Trek to the new BSG series or anything in that vein.

Those are COMPLETE remakes. The point is to update, change, and alter them slightly in places but keep the basic IDEA the same. Some changes end up more than others, and they are definitely distinctly separate series.

But this Star Trek movie is a prequel. Its the same Star Trek, just set before TOS. Same Kirk, same Spock, just younger. At least, that's how its supposed to be, and, at this point, there's nothing to say otherwise. Comments about Nimoy playing Spock(even in a cameo) push it more to the realm that this is not a reimagining at all.

 

[Elf Witch]

I guessing by 'adult' they mean they're going to make the character's lives messier, show a fuller spectrum of human behavior than just 'heroic', 'noble', or in Kirk's case, 'swaggering and super-competent'.



Mind you, Abrams might make a terrible mess of it, but that's part of the excitement with art. You never know what's going to result in a trainwreck or a masterpiece.

I don't have a problem with them giving the character more depth. Like they did with Sisko.

But I don't want a BSG treatment that seems to asume that messier more human equates to being an alchoholic , druggie or even have dysfunctional relationship with your father. Or that if you are the last of your race and face being wiped out what you are going to do is start a blackmarket and one of the things being sold is children into sexual slavery. Sometimes I feel that BSG just lays on the evils of humanity with trowel instead of being more subtle. Half the time I find myself rooting for the cyclons because they are not killing and screwing each other over.

You know that there are people who are very human who don't have to resort to booze or drugs to handle their messy lives. And you know that some families actually get along.

If they want to show that Kirk swaggers to cover up his insecurities about his ability to command or he whores around because he is afraid of commitement that fine but if they want to show him a man who can't through a day without drinking then no I don't want to see that.