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

[Mouseferatu]

You know, maybe I'm in the minority here... But I was a lot more excited about this when I thought it was a remake/reimagining, as opposed to a prequel.

I don't want the characters changed too dramatically, no. But I also don't want to see the new movie constrained by the old cannon. I want there to be room to experiment, to re-envision. And frankly, I don't much care about the Adventures of Young Kirk and Young Spock. I want to see Captain Kirk, on the bridge of the Enterprise, boldly going where no man has gone before, and occasionally seducing and/or blowing stuff up in the process.

If this is truly a prequel, solidly set in the cannon of the pre-existing series, it's gone from a "must see" to a "wait and see" for me.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Well, Adamas saying is actually "Sometimes, you have to roll the hard six". And nobody knows what it means. In the second season, Apollo uses the words and and someone asks him what it means. The answer was something like. "Don't know, it's something my father uses to say".

A "hard six" is a term from the dice game craps. It means making your mark by betting the hard six. You make your point only if you roll a pair of threes.

Soft six: 5+1, 4+2, 3+3
Hard Six: 3+3 only

"Hard six" is, literally, harder than a soft six.

So yes - the term certainly does have meaning.

 

[Ranger REG]

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

Well, you just stated that in order to attract this new generation of potential Trek audience, the story have to be darker.

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.

Either set in the 23rd or 24th Century, in order for the new Trek film to attract the large demograph, the story will most likely be darker and less heroic, and that would irritate you if it means we'll see the darker side of Kirk. (Not like we haven't seen it before in one TOS episode where a transporter accident split him, or that he does have a mirror universe counterpart.)

 

[Milagroso]

Well, you just stated that in order to attract this new generation of potential Trek audience, the story have to be darker.



Either set in the 23rd or 24th Century, in order for the new Trek film to attract the large demograph, the story will most likely be darker and less heroic, and that would irritate you if it means we'll see the darker side of Kirk. (Not like we haven't seen it before in one TOS episode where a transporter accident split him, or that he does have a mirror universe counterpart.)

First point to make: Quinto as Spock = Good Move, IMO. He certaintly has the look and I don't doubt he has the skill to pull it off.

I agree that with today's audience, a new Trek movie will likely be stylized to produce characters that are darker and grittier. I think that they are trying to appeal to a market that has become desensitized to the "noble hero" and prefers the darker, brooding, Punisher-like heroes. I think that it would be a mistake to revamp Kirk in this way. Recast - well, obviously yes. The notion that only Shatner can play Kirk is truly naive.

A good actor can take a character, add a slight flair to it that is distinctly theirs, play off the cues by the those who have made the role legendary and ** most importantly ** make the character believable to the viewers. If the viewer doesn't believe that the actor is Kirk, then they will not see him as Kirk but instead see him whoever they most identified that actor with. Say for example, Sean Connery. First movie that will pop in anyone's head is James Bond, but when watching The Medicine Man nowhere does my mind think of his character (was it Dr. Crane?) as Bond. He made himself believable in the role. I believed that Dr. Crane was walking on the roof of the Amazon looking for the cure for cancer and not about ready to seduce his research assistant, shoot someone with a PBwhatever, and order a vodka-martini (shaken, not stirred). So, in my opinion, whoever they get to play the role of Kirk will be fine for me as long as he does a good job at making me believe he is Kirk.

Now as for re-writing his character with a dark side... honestly, they don't need to. The character of James T. Kirk was written and portrayed with enough problems and quirks to satisfy that need. It may not be apparently obvious, but it is there. The character is fleshed enough. With his temper, his arrogance, his wrath, his lust. Jeez, he isn't a saint. That was the best thing about Sci-Fi back then. The stories then were not about how man interacted with his sci-fi setting. They were about how man interacted with himself in a sci-fi setting.

Oh, and I love the nBG.

Elf Witch... HI!! (remember me?)
Hypersmurf: And I thought I was the only one still around today who remembers Danger Mouse.

 

[Elf Witch]

Well, you just stated that in order to attract this new generation of potential Trek audience, the story have to be darker.



Either set in the 23rd or 24th Century, in order for the new Trek film to attract the large demograph, the story will most likely be darker and less heroic, and that would irritate you if it means we'll see the darker side of Kirk. (Not like we haven't seen it before in one TOS episode where a transporter accident split him, or that he does have a mirror universe counterpart.)

I think you are missing my point I don't have a problem with some level of darkness like when Kirk got split or when Admiral Ross conspired with section 31 to ruin a romulan's career even possibly cause her death.

I don't mind gritty like the crew facing overwhelming odds and lots of death and destruction as long as in the end some of our heroes live.

I just don't want Trek to go as dark as BSG, Deadwood, Sopranos because at that point to me it will no longer be Trek.

This is just how I feel. If that is the direction Trek goes off in I won't watch it. But it is no big deal I have 29 seasons of TV shows and 10 movies and hundreds of books.

If some people like the idea of a really dark trek then maybe they will get what they want.

There is no right or wrong here it is a matter of taste.

 

[Elf Witch]

First point to make: Quinto as Spock = Good Move, IMO. He certaintly has the look and I don't doubt he has the skill to pull it off.

I agree that with today's audience, a new Trek movie will likely be stylized to produce characters that are darker and grittier. I think that they are trying to appeal to a market that has become desensitized to the "noble hero" and prefers the darker, brooding, Punisher-like heroes. I think that it would be a mistake to revamp Kirk in this way. Recast - well, obviously yes. The notion that only Shatner can play Kirk is truly naive.

A good actor can take a character, add a slight flair to it that is distinctly theirs, play off the cues by the those who have made the role legendary and ** most importantly ** make the character believable to the viewers. If the viewer doesn't believe that the actor is Kirk, then they will not see him as Kirk but instead see him whoever they most identified that actor with. Say for example, Sean Connery. First movie that will pop in anyone's head is James Bond, but when watching The Medicine Man nowhere does my mind think of his character (was it Dr. Crane?) as Bond. He made himself believable in the role. I believed that Dr. Crane was walking on the roof of the Amazon looking for the cure for cancer and not about ready to seduce his research assistant, shoot someone with a PBwhatever, and order a vodka-martini (shaken, not stirred). So, in my opinion, whoever they get to play the role of Kirk will be fine for me as long as he does a good job at making me believe he is Kirk.

Now as for re-writing his character with a dark side... honestly, they don't need to. The character of James T. Kirk was written and portrayed with enough problems and quirks to satisfy that need. It may not be apparently obvious, but it is there. The character is fleshed enough. With his temper, his arrogance, his wrath, his lust. Jeez, he isn't a saint. That was the best thing about Sci-Fi back then. The stories then were not about how man interacted with his sci-fi setting. They were about how man interacted with himself in a sci-fi setting.

Oh, and I love the nBG.

Elf Witch... HI!! (remember me?)
Hypersmurf: And I thought I was the only one still around today who remembers Danger Mouse.

Wow you just said what I have been trying say but did it so much better..

I don't refresh my memory?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Hypersmurf: And I thought I was the only one still around today who remembers Danger Mouse.

No, you're not. Boy, that must be even longer ago for you then for me, because I watched in on German TV...

 

[Ranger REG]

I just don't want Trek to go as dark as BSG, Deadwood, Sopranos because at that point to me it will no longer be Trek.

What about DS9?

It's about as dark as it can go without losing what is Trek is all about. (And please don't crap on me because a story about a station space outpost is not Trek.)

I mean we have Sisko who conspired with a simple tailor Garek to lure the Romulan Empire into the Dominion War.

We have Section 31.

We have former terrorist Kira Nerys.

We have the lengthy Dominion War arc, which is by far the best story arc I've seen coming out of any Trek series.

 

[Ranger REG]

Now as for re-writing his character with a dark side... honestly, they don't need to. The character of James T. Kirk was written and portrayed with enough problems and quirks to satisfy that need. It may not be apparently obvious, but it is there. The character is fleshed enough. With his temper, his arrogance, his wrath, his lust. Jeez, he isn't a saint. That was the best thing about Sci-Fi back then. The stories then were not about how man interacted with his sci-fi setting. They were about how man interacted with himself in a sci-fi setting.

It's possible he could be a member of Section 31.

Not that I would knock on guys who came from Security to command a starship. (Yes, he used to be a redshirt, if I recall his bio.) He's also the youngest to obtain both rank and position.

He also "cheated" on the Kobayashi Maru scenario. Technically, he cheated when he altered the simulation so that he can win. Yet the Academy give him high mark for ingenuity.

Makes you wonder. Perhaps we romanticized the characters up to the point of purposely blinding ourselves to their other "skeletons in the closet."

 

[Elf Witch]

What about DS9?

It's about as dark as it can go without losing what is Trek is all about. (And please don't crap on me because a story about a station space outpost is not Trek.)

I mean we have Sisko who conspired with a simple tailor Garek to lure the Romulan Empire into the Dominion War.

We have Section 31.

We have former terrorist Kira Nerys.

We have the lengthy Dominion War arc, which is by far the best story arc I've seen coming out of any Trek series.

DS9 is my favorite Trek and yes it was darker than the other treks and I would have no problem with that.

But tell me if the Trek characters ever supported rape of an enemy or commiting genocide. Sure section 31 tried but they are considered the bad guys not the heroes and Sisco, Bashir, and O'Brian stopped them. On BSG the Admiral and the Presdient of the colonies okayed the use of a bioligal weapon that would have committed genocide. Now on BSG I don't have a problem with that the show is dark .

I don't want to see Trek go that route. Trek's message was always about hope for the future. I would like to see that message kept.