As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Thread

LibrarianThorneLibrarianThorne Registered User regular
edited August 2007 in Debate and/or Discourse
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.

LibrarianThorne on
«1

Posts

  • FallingmanFallingman Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Would he be a good Kirk? Or would people just get frustrated that it wasn't another Serenity movie?

    Fallingman on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • DynagripDynagrip Break me a million hearts HoustonRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2007
    I think if you're getting typecast as a spaceship captain you might as well give up acting.

    Dynagrip on
  • NexusSixNexusSix Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    http://time-blog.com/nerd_world/Most shocking thing? No Spock.

    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.

    NexusSix on
    REASON - Version 1.0B7 Gatling type 3 mm hypervelocity railgun system
    Ng Security Industries, Inc.
    PRERELEASE VERSION-NOT FOR FIELD USE - DO NOT TEST IN A POPULATED AREA
    -ULTIMA RATIO REGUM-
  • LibrarianThorneLibrarianThorne Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    NexusSix wrote: »
    http://time-blog.com/nerd_world/Most shocking thing? No Spock.

    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.

    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.

    LibrarianThorne on
  • FunkyWaltDoggFunkyWaltDogg Columbia, SCRegistered User regular
    edited August 2007
    NexusSix wrote: »
    http://time-blog.com/nerd_world/Most shocking thing? No Spock.

    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.

    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.

    FunkyWaltDogg on
  • LondonBridgeLondonBridge __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    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.

    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

    LondonBridge on
  • NexusSixNexusSix Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    I've heard the Matt Damon rumor a couple of times for the Kirk role. That's a possibility and I'd probably be happy with him in the role.

    NexusSix on
    REASON - Version 1.0B7 Gatling type 3 mm hypervelocity railgun system
    Ng Security Industries, Inc.
    PRERELEASE VERSION-NOT FOR FIELD USE - DO NOT TEST IN A POPULATED AREA
    -ULTIMA RATIO REGUM-
  • FellhandFellhand Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    From the title I was hoping that we were going to discuss the second movie and how it has one of cinema's greatest hero moments.

    But I too am excited about the new movie.

    Fellhand on
  • -SPI--SPI- Osaka, JapanRegistered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Am I the only one who really doesn't see this new film working at all? No part of me when I read anything about it thinks "This sounds great!" Now sure, we basically know nothing about it apart from a few scant details, but I just don't get a good feeling about it.

    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.

    -SPI- on
  • LibrarianThorneLibrarianThorne Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    -SPI- wrote: »
    Am I the only one who really doesn't see this new film working at all? No part of me when I read anything about it thinks "This sounds great!" Now sure, we basically know nothing about it apart from a few scant details, but I just don't get a good feeling about it.

    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?

    LibrarianThorne on
  • FellhandFellhand Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    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.

    Fellhand on
  • Brian888Brian888 Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    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?


    If by "win" you mean "cheated," then yes, according to the films he's the only one to ever win at the Kobayashi Maru.

    Brian888 on
  • LibrarianThorneLibrarianThorne Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Brian888 wrote: »
    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?


    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.

    LibrarianThorne on
  • CoJoeTheLawyerCoJoeTheLawyer Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    There is only one man deserving of the role of Captian James Tiberius Kirk.

    captain-kirk.jpg

    They should leave Star Trek alone. That's right...I said it.

    CoJoeTheLawyer on

    CoJoe.png
  • NexusSixNexusSix Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    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?

    You just blew my mind. :^:

    Didn't Kirk simply ignore the Kobyashi's distress call and avoid the neutral zone altogether?

    NexusSix on
    REASON - Version 1.0B7 Gatling type 3 mm hypervelocity railgun system
    Ng Security Industries, Inc.
    PRERELEASE VERSION-NOT FOR FIELD USE - DO NOT TEST IN A POPULATED AREA
    -ULTIMA RATIO REGUM-
  • TachTach Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    NexusSix wrote: »
    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?

    You just blew my mind. :^:

    Didn't Kirk simply ignore the Kobyashi's distress call and avoid the neutral zone altogether?

    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.

    Tach on
  • chamberlainchamberlain Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Tach wrote: »
    NexusSix wrote: »
    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?

    You just blew my mind. :^:

    Didn't Kirk simply ignore the Kobyashi's distress call and avoid the neutral zone altogether?

    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.

    chamberlain on
  • Brian888Brian888 Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    I see someone's bitter about Kirk's abundance of awesome.


    :lol:

    Nicely done.

    Brian888 on
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Fascinating.

    spock.jpg

    MKR on
  • LibrarianThorneLibrarianThorne Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Tach wrote: »
    NexusSix wrote: »
    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?

    You just blew my mind. :^:

    Didn't Kirk simply ignore the Kobyashi's distress call and avoid the neutral zone altogether?

    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.

    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.

    LibrarianThorne on
  • TachTach Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Where was that? Novel? Sounds like a Kirk-ish thing to do.

    Tach on
  • OctoparrotOctoparrot Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    You people sure love canadian bacon.

    Octoparrot on
  • FellhandFellhand Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Kirk reprogrammed the computer to have the klingons think he was 'The James T. Kirk'. He explained it as that he planned to build such a reputation. :)

    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.

    Fellhand on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited August 2007
    The Star Trek franchise does not need a reboot.
    The franchise needs non-retarded producers at the helm.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • LondonBridgeLondonBridge __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    I'd feel more than insulted if they didn't hire a Jew to play Kirk and Spock. Gotta represent!!!

    LondonBridge on
  • GlyphGlyph Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    A real Russian playing Chekov? I was really pulling for Peter Stormare.

    Glyph on
  • Original RufusOriginal Rufus Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    They've called this a reboot that respects the canon, which means technically, Chekov shouldn't appear at all.

    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.

    Original Rufus on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited August 2007
    They've called this a reboot that respects the canon, which means technically, Chekov shouldn't appear at all.

    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:
    Richy wrote: »
    Ideas rejected by the Star Trek people:

    * Section 31
    * Time War
    * The Dominion (every week the writers had to lie and say "yeah, we're ending it next week, promise")
    * Starfeet/Maquis conflict on the bridge of Voyager
    * The Romulan War
    * The founding of the Federation

    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.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • FellhandFellhand Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Can't it be a prequel?

    Fellhand on
  • Original RufusOriginal Rufus Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Fellhand wrote: »
    Can't it be a prequel?

    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?

    Original Rufus on
  • DanHibikiDanHibiki Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Threre's only one man capable of playing Kirk other then Shatner:
    Bruce_Campbell.jpg

    Also:
    hes-dead-jim.jpg

    DanHibiki on
  • GlyphGlyph Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    I was going to suggest that they make a Brisco County Jr. movie, but then I remembered they already tried (and failed) with Wild Wild West.
    Fellhand wrote: »
    Can't it be a prequel?

    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?

    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.

    Glyph on
  • Al_watAl_wat Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    DanHibiki wrote: »
    Threre's only one man capable of playing Kirk other then Shatner:
    Bruce_Campbell.jpg

    God yes

    Seriously, I was having a hard time thinking about a good candidate, but he would be perfect.

    Al_wat on
  • JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited August 2007
    I don't see how anybody could be upset about this. The original cast members are dying - we weren't going to get any more stories with them. Maybe I'm more flexible with this because I read comics, so I'm used to multiple versions of characters, reboots, and reimaginings, but look at it this way: if the movie is good, then excellent, we have a good new Star Trek movie. And if it's terrible, it doesn't somehow erase the stuff we liked before.

    Also: the existence of this movie doesn't preclude the production of any new TV show.

    Jacobkosh on
    rRwz9.gif
  • Target PracticeTarget Practice Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Feral wrote: »
    The Star Trek franchise does not need a reboot.
    The franchise needs non-retarded producers at the helm.

    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.

    Target Practice on
    sig.gif
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited August 2007
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    The original cast members are dying - we weren't going to get any more stories with them.

    Then don't do any more stories with the original characters. Let them rest in peace.
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    if the movie is good, then excellent, we have a good new Star Trek movie

    You know what would be even better? A good new Star Trek movie with new characters and a new story.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited August 2007
    Feral wrote: »
    You know what would be even better? A good new Star Trek movie with new characters and a new story.

    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.

    Jacobkosh on
    rRwz9.gif
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited August 2007
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    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?

    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.
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    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.

    Maybe they should hold off on doing another movie until they've got a good TV series to base it off of.
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    Seriously, the nerdrage here is a waste of perfectly good spittle.

    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.
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    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."

    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.)
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    And again, none of this precludes them doing something on TV if they've a mind to.

    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!"

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • RohanRohan Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    I always hoped for a show with Sulu when he was captain of the Excelsior. God, fans lobbied so hard for that, and it never came to pass. The cast were willing to do it, too.

    Rohan on
    ...and I thought of how all those people died, and what a good death that is. That nobody can blame you for it, because everyone else died along with you, and it is the fault of none, save those who did the killing.

    Nothing's forgotten, nothing is ever forgotten
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    This thread needs more Garak:

    garak.jpggarak.jpggarak.jpg

    "You should never tell the same lie twice."

    Azio on
Sign In or Register to comment.