XPost: alt.startrek, alt.tv.star-trek, alt.tv.star-trek.enterprise
XPost: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: anybody@anywhere-anytime.com
In article ,
"Steven L." wrote:
> Anybody wrote:
> > In article <2007072821042816807-thecroft@macunlimitednet>, Andrew
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2007-07-28 01:11:46 +0100, Anybody said:
> >>
> >>> In article , "Cubit"
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> 9 months ago, I posted a YouTube video urging that the original ST:TOS
> >>>> cast
> >>>> be replaced with new young actors. Maybe someone saw it. Maybe it was
a
> >>>> coincidence.
> >>> They aren't "replacing" anyone or doing some idiotic remake of TOS.
> >>> They are making a prequel to the original Star Trek series, which means
> >>> they obviously can't use Shatner and co. to play an 20 year olds.
> >>>
> >>> Having said that, they'll also be making lots of moronic changes and
> >>> ignoring stuff we already know, so the movie is going to be useless,
> >>> ill-fitting rubbish within the frame work of "Star Trek" as we know it.
> >> Not that you're pre-judging it at all.
> >
> > Since they haven't made it yet, all we can do is "pre-judge" on what we
> > currently know ... which is:
> >
> > - most prequels / reboots / reimaginings / remakes suck badly.
>
> For you, that's begging the question because while many fans think the
> reimagined Battlestar Galactica is way better than the original, you
> don't.
And I'm not the only one by any stretch of the imagination. The fact
that Ron Moore's new version is considered fairly successful is the
entire reason that the idiots at Paramount will almost certainly try to
do the same with Star Trek ... but you again come back to the fact that
by making all sorts of silly changes you get a different product that
is no longer "Battlestar Galactica" / "Star Trek" in anything but name
and basic core idea only.
If they want to make a different show, then make a different show and
give it a different name too.
> While many Star Trek fans thought that TNG eventually became a
> great show on its own, especially in its last few years, you probably
> don't agree either, right?
TNG was one of the few shows that actually succeeds in reviving a
franchise, and it does so without making lots of idiotic changes.
> > - re-casting of characters rarely actually works.
>
> It's worked great with the plays of Shakespeare for four centuries.
It's been done for four centuries. Whether it's "worked" is purely
opinion-based and that opinion will differ with each different actor
taking the roles and hence different characters (or "characterisations"
if you prefer). Everyone will have a different opinion on who was the
best person in each role, just as they do for characters James Bond, Dr
Who, etc. ... and the reason is that each actor creates a different
character, even though they have the same name.
This of course is that EXACT same thing as Ron Moore's new "Battlestar
Galactica". For some reason most of you see the same name / title and
can't actually see any differences ... some fools even go around saying
it's the "same". :-\
> Remember too that William Shatner wasn't even Roddenberry's first choice
> to play the captain of the Enterprise. His first choice had been
> Jeffrey Hunter, who I think was a better actor than Shatner. Hunter
> wasn't replaced because he did a poor acting job, but for other reasons.
Yes, and if Shatner hadn't been used we would have had a different
Kirk. That's the point.
> > - ignoring what's gone before is idiotically stupid.
>
> You have no proof that Trek XI will do that. J.J. Abrams says he's well
> aware of canon.
They have also said they aren't worried about changing what's come
before.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
