View Single Post
  #13  
Old 01-09-2009, 10:15 PM
CDH-313's Avatar
CDH-313 CDH-313 is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 302
Default

OK, I'll play along . . .

I am only 45, so I guess I'm the youngster in this alleged "Old Timers' Club." No AARP card yet. I have been a fan since the very early 1970s and I do think the original is something special. I'd like to point out one difference between Bond & Trek: Bond originated as literary fiction, Trek was born as a TV show. For Bond, even the Sean Connery portrayal was only "based on" the original, who was a character in a novel. James T. Kirk was never anything other than a TV character played by William Shatner. Therefore, the Trek actors are more closely connected to these parts than the actors who have played Bond.

Still, I don't have any problem with new, younger actors playing these parts. As has been mentioned here, they are playing younger versions of the characters. Also, as it turns out, they are probably "alternate timeline" versions. And besides, even Gene Roddenberry predicted and embraced the probability that this would happen. As long as JJ and company tell a good story that is true to the spirit of Star Trek, I'm totally OK with it.
__________________
. . . just an old-school Trekker getting by in a newfangled galaxy.
Reply With Quote