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:
>
> You're putting Hollywood between a rock and a hard place. If their
> stated goal is to produce a remake that is faithful to the original,
> you're going to be waiting to pounce on every flaw to claim "it's not
> being faithful to the original."
>
> And if their stated goal is to re-imagine the original, then you're
> going to claim "it's not the original in anything but name." Either
> way, you make it impossible for the Trek saga to be continued with the
> famous characters once those actors are either dead or otherwise
> unavailable. And that's a self-defeating attitude. It would prevent
> all classic theater, from Antigone to Hamlet, from ever being performed
> in the present day.
"Flaws" are totaly different to "idiotic changes".
If they want to make something, then they should make THAT. If they
want to make a new show, then they should make a NEW show. Stealing the
name of an old show and slapping it on something barely recognisable is
simply beyond any common sense. It's also a slap in the face to the
fans who liked the original - Hollyweird are basically saying "sod you,
the version you like doesn't make enough money, so we're going to
butcher it. We don't care that you bought the books, DVDs, etc. that
kept the franchise alive and making ANY money".
Personally I don't think they should even be allowed to do "remakes" at
all within the lifetime of the original (which would vary depending on
how popular and long-lasting it is).
> >> 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.
>
> Really? That wasn't evident in the first two seasons. It appeared to
> be a pale, weak shadow of TOS, with bland plots and characters (Wesley,
> Deanna Troi) that fans didn't care about. It's a good thing Paramount
> stuck with it in the face of fan criticism till the show came into its
> own.
The show itself is still the same idea as the original and (almost)
sticks to the known facts created by the original series ... unlike
Enterprise.
> Those who dismissed it out of hand at first, like you're doing
> here with Trek XI, proved to be wrong.
I haven't "dismissed it out of hand". I have said that judging by what
we do know, it's likely to be garbage as a "Star Trek" movie ... it may
be well be the best sci-fi movie ever made, but (like Entperise) it
won't be "Star Trek" as we know it, simply some butched version to
stuff Hollyweird's greedy pockets.
> >>> - 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".
>
> Oh, please. There's a vast difference between a new actor interpreting
> the character of Hamlet but otherwise sticking 100% to the letter of the
> dialogue and plot, versus changing all that too and even changing much
> of the premise. (The original BSG premise had a strong analogy with
> those "ancient astronaut" theories--even the opening narration said
> so--and both the costumes and even some of the plots had constant
> allusions to that. The premise of the re-imagined version looks much
> more like an allegory of the current War on Terror--the uniforms don't
> look like futuristic Egyptians or Mayas, the first episode started with
> a "Never forget" scene with those ribbons, etc.)
>
> A real example of "re-imagining" Shakespeare was the sci-fi movie
> "Forbidden Planet," which was a re-imagining and updating of "The
> Tempest," but with all new dialogue, all new sets and a new ending.
Yes, and they had the decency to give their new versions new names ...
as I've said all along that they should be doing. Ron Moore's
"Battlestar Galactica" is a very different show to the original, and
should have had a different name to go with it - common sense.
> Now if you're going to claim that the new Trek XI movie is as much of a
> departure from TOS as "Forbidden Planet" was from "The Tempest," you're
> on very thin ice indeed.
I never claimed anything of the kind - we don't know enough to draw
that conclusion ... yet!
I said that they have said they aren't going to be worried about
sticking to the known facts, and that's a stupid thing to do with an
existing franchise and a slippery slope towards other idiotic changes.
> >> 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.
>
> Only "different" in hindsight. At the time, the description of the
> captain in Roddenberry's original series pitch was so vague and nebulous
> and wide open that it could have been applied to just about any
> actor--it was itself a re-imagining of Horatio Hornblower, but beyond
> that Roddenberry himself hadn't made any decisions. The whole idea
> behind the Kirk-Spock relationship emerged from NBC's arbitrary decision
> to get rid of the "Number One" character from the "Cage" pilot.
> Roddenberry still wanted a cold, calculating, computer-like personality
> advising the captain, so he took that personality from "Number One" and
> told Nimoy to act Spock that way.
>
> If Jeffrey Hunter had remained as captain, then it would have been
> exactly the same--a Pike/Spock friendship instead of a Kirk/Spock
> friendship. Only the name would have been different.
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
