XPost: alt.startrek, alt.tv.star-trek, alt.tv.star-trek.enterprise
XPost: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: anybody@anywhere-anytime.com
In article , The Merry
Piper wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 07:53:46 GMT, "RuPEDski"
> wrote:
>
> >No. James Bond, Batman etc. existed BEFORE an actor "created" them.
>
> Yes. For many persons, these characters did not exist until they were
> portrayed on the big or small screen. This point is therefore without
> merit.
With James Bond you can at least pretend that each new actor is in fact
a different agent and "007" is always given the alias "James Bond" in a
similar way to the Men in Black having their names changed when they
become an agent.
> >created in large part by Shatner and Nimoy's portrayal of them. After 30+
> >years, they are for Star Trek fans indelibly linked. When you see a drawing
>
> In your mind, they may be. Nothing wrong with that but it doesn't
> mean the general public shares your views.
The general public aren't the ones that keep a franchise going.
> >Can you hire new actors to play them? Sure. They are doing just that.
> >However, this represents a radical change in the very nature of Star Trek
>
> Each recreation of the franchise has done the same, with both good and
> poor results. I further question your categorizing the recasting of a
> familiar role as a "radical" change.
A new actor will ALWAYS bring their own ideas and characteristics to
the role, no matter how hard they try not to ... whether that's a
"radical" change is questionable and depends on how good the
replacement is at imitating the original.
The "radical" changes in this new movie will almost certianly come from
the idiots ignoring everything that's gone before in some inane and
pointless attempt to "re-boot" the franchise. :-(
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
