The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Thread
LibrarianThorne
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
http://time-blog.com/nerd_world/
New casting announced for the Star Trek movie, and I couldn't find the last Trek thread, so here's the new one.
Most shocking thing? No Spock.
Also, I agree with the blogger that Firefly's Nathan Fillion would be a fuckawesome Kirk.
New casting announced for the Star Trek movie, and I couldn't find the last Trek thread, so here's the new one.
Most shocking thing? No Spock.
Also, I agree with the blogger that Firefly's Nathan Fillion would be a fuckawesome Kirk.
LibrarianThorne on
0
Posts
The hell? I thought Zach Quinto pretty much had the role and Nimoy was going to do a cameo as older Spock. :?
Fillion? No. Fillion is Mal.
Ng Security Industries, Inc.
PRERELEASE VERSION-NOT FOR FIELD USE - DO NOT TEST IN A POPULATED AREA
-ULTIMA RATIO REGUM-
I'm hoping that the AICN guy just forgot to list Spock, or something. I mean, the rest of the listing is pretty much awesome, but no Spock is worrisome.
So, no Fillion, then who should play Kirk? Besides Shatner, of course.
The article in the OP links to another listing Quinto (and Nimoy?) as Spock. It's the link talking about Chekov.
Thats because they already found a Spock. I like Nathan Fillion too, but I can't see him as Kirk. Ooooo, I can see him as a Harry Mudd though!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zachary_Quinto
Ng Security Industries, Inc.
PRERELEASE VERSION-NOT FOR FIELD USE - DO NOT TEST IN A POPULATED AREA
-ULTIMA RATIO REGUM-
But I too am excited about the new movie.
Hopefully my concern is completely unfounded and it will be fuckawesome and I'll be pleasantly surprised. But the whole idea of re imagining the original crew just doesn't sit right with me, the original actors are (for me) intrinsically linked with those roles, Shatner is Kirk, Doohan is Scotty etc.
I agree, but to be honest old Trek doesn't play well to most kids these days. It's hard for, well, just about everybody to get past the '60s sci-fi conventions if they didn't grow up with it.
I'm all for this movie just so Trek can be experienced by a new generation.
Who else is hoping that the film opens with Kirk taking the Kobayashi Maru? Wasn't he the only one to ever win that scenario?
That would be pretty awesome. In the novels he isn't the only one to 'win' the scenario.
If by "win" you mean "cheated," then yes, according to the films he's the only one to ever win at the Kobayashi Maru.
I see someone's bitter about Kirk's abundance of awesome.
They should leave Star Trek alone. That's right...I said it.
You just blew my mind. :^:
Didn't Kirk simply ignore the Kobyashi's distress call and avoid the neutral zone altogether?
Ng Security Industries, Inc.
PRERELEASE VERSION-NOT FOR FIELD USE - DO NOT TEST IN A POPULATED AREA
-ULTIMA RATIO REGUM-
Nope. He reprogrammed the simulator to provide a way to win. In doing so, he got a commendation for original thinking.
He also probably got yelled at.
"I don't believe in the no win senario" was the quote from Search for Spock I believe.
Nicely done.
As I recall, he programmed it so the Klingons recognized him and retreated when they realized who he was.
Goddamn, that's one of my favorite Kirk moments.
But his argument for 'cheating' was that it was unfair to present a no-win scenario so he leveled the playing field.
Sulu was the one that ignored the distress call and the neutral zone because he thought it was a trap.
Scotty used his badassery to write out an equation on paper that bypassed the klingon ships' shields and transported explosives over to them.
Someone else crashed their ship into the klingon ships and killed all the ships. I think that's how I'd do it. You know, take them all with you.
The franchise needs non-retarded producers at the helm.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
We agree this takes place early in everyone's life and therefore before the original series began? Chekov first appeared midway through the first or second season.
Respecting the canon means not having a reboot.
The only reason to have a reboot is to retcon. If you're not retconning, it's not a "reboot," it's a "remake."
The reason this pisses me off is because there's no shortage of great ideas floating around for a new Trek series. From the last thread:
They don't want to move ahead with the franchise. They think that the fans want the same stories rehashed over and over. That's the only explanation for their behavior.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
That's exactly what it is. It's a reboot in that it's beginning anew with sold-old-it's-fresh material set before anything we know.
So, operationally, it's a prequel which happens to be behaving like a reboot.
Can anyone not wait to see how production designers with a big, non 1960's budget are going to handle this era?
Also:
If Enterprise was any indication, yes, I can wait. But if by reboot, you also mean complete re-imagining, the way RDM and Nolan completely reset Battlestar Galactica and the Batman franchise, then it could work. Long shot though.
God yes
Seriously, I was having a hard time thinking about a good candidate, but he would be perfect.
Also: the existence of this movie doesn't preclude the production of any new TV show.
I still don't understand how you can "reboot" a franchise by doing a "when we were kids" movie of the first iteration of it.
...okay, "kids" isn't quite accurate, but you know what I mean.
Then don't do any more stories with the original characters. Let them rest in peace.
You know what would be even better? A good new Star Trek movie with new characters and a new story.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
What, for a movie series? Really? You think Viacom is champing at the bit to sink many tens of millions of dollars into something with neither known characters nor known actors? Not to mention, it's not like the franchise's last couple at-bats with original casts and premises set the world on fire critically or commercially.
Seriously, the nerdrage here is a waste of perfectly good spittle. They're not going to make a Section 31 or "Romulan War" movie. Ever. Ever ever ever. No member of the general public, which is to say, the audience that any big-ticket movie needs to bring in, is walking around right now going "man I want some star trek with time travel and totally obscure continuity porn."
But Captain Kirk and Spock? Two fictional characters that hundreds of millions of non-nerd people around the world can recognize? That's a business proposition. Not to mention that, from a Trek fan standpoint, the original series has always been far more its own beast than anything like the other four shows - more adventuresome, more stylish and/or campy, less preachy. These are things that translate well to movie form, whereas the (comparatively) nuanced characterization and continuity-laden storytelling of TNG was never really able to make the jump.
And again, none of this precludes them doing something on TV if they've a mind to.
No, I really don't think they are. Yes, I'm aware that recycling old characters and stories is almost always a better business move than working from new content. Unfortunately, what makes good business sense doesn't necessarily make good movies; beyond that, I don't think that a Star Trek movie is a good business or artistic move that this point in time, for reasons that I mention below.
Maybe they should hold off on doing another movie until they've got a good TV series to base it off of.
Look, I know that Viacom is going to drive the franchise straight into the ground no matter what I or anybody else wants them to do, because their market research department apparently has all the directional sense of Woodstock (the bird, not the concert) after a whiskey bender. I still reserve the right to think that, even if it makes lots of money, a reboot (or prequel or whatever you want to call it) with new actors playing Kirk and Spock is an incredibly stupid idea.
Time travel? I'm with you on that one. Nobody actually likes Star Trek time travel stories.
But you're telling me nobody wants continuity? Tell that to all the Heroes/Lost/24/BSG fans. And, yes, I know we're talking about movies and not TV shows. But guess what? Movie ticket sales are declining while TV viewership is going up, largely driven by shows with continuity and complicated storylines. So why is Viacom sinking dollars into a movie instead of riding the Tivo wave while its still hot? (Rhetorical question, I know the actual reason why, and it's stupid.)
Except for the small problems of money and manpower being finite, and I seriously doubt that they're terribly keen to engage in two simultaneous Star Trek projects at the same time. Hey, maybe I'm wrong, I really hope I am.
The other problem is that if this tanks, Viacom will say, "Well I guess Star Trek isn't a hot franchise any more," and that reduces the likelihood of any new Star Trek coming out at all for a while. If it's successful, they'll say, "Kirk and Spock are what the fans want! Let's make some more campy, adventuresome Star Trek!"
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Nothing's forgotten, nothing is ever forgotten
"You should never tell the same lie twice."