The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > The original actors. What do you really think?
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 03-24-2008, 05:32 AM
Chris Fawkes's Avatar
Chris Fawkes Chris Fawkes is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,729
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tejdog1 View Post
If there has been different actors originally, you'd be saying the same about them.

John W really portrayed Kirk the way it needed to be.
Steve M did Spock to a T

etc...
I thought that Richard Prior was totally miscast as Kirk
and what were they thinking casting roseanne as Mr Spock?
Adam West as Dr McCoy just never worked for me either.

Just thinking out loud. Not so sure i can agree with you.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-24-2008, 06:09 AM
Zardoz's Avatar
Zardoz Zardoz is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere In The Future
Posts: 31,432
Default

I do think casting Dolph Lungren as Kirk was a bad move...
Who thought Paulry Shore would make a good Spock?...
Larry The Cable Guy As McCoy??...Who did that???
__________________
"High Priestesses Of Zardoz" By Eliza's Starbase Of Avatars Copyright 2009."
"Zardoz Speaks To You, His Choosen Trek Fans."
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-24-2008, 09:54 AM
Berengarius7 Berengarius7 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,143
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zardoz View Post
Personally I feel Star Trek New Voages/Star Trek Phase 1-Prooved you could do TOS with diffrent actors, and make it enjoyagble. WHile I admit those folks look nothing like the original actors, they embody the basic spirit of them. This is a fan effort.

Besdies, the originals are far too old to try it again...we'd be calling this "Geriatric Trek." LOL
I never said they should try it again. My whole point was that they were the right people for that series at that time.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-24-2008, 09:57 AM
Zardoz's Avatar
Zardoz Zardoz is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere In The Future
Posts: 31,432
Default

Oooo, I see your point now Berengarius7. It's a real yes/no question for me.
__________________
"High Priestesses Of Zardoz" By Eliza's Starbase Of Avatars Copyright 2009."
"Zardoz Speaks To You, His Choosen Trek Fans."
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-25-2008, 01:51 AM
Livingston's Avatar
Livingston Livingston is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Along the Kessel Run
Posts: 4,962
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Berengarius7 View Post
That hadn't ocurred to me Livingston. But it's true. Without the chemistry of the original cast, there would have been far less interest in the show, and it would have failed at the end of the second season. The fan letter writing campaign never would have taken place. But it's like you said, lightning in a bottle. The right people, the right idea, the right time. And when Star Trek was winding down, we were launching our first man to the moon. What a thought!
No kidding! I can only imagine what it was like to see that show when it first came on, but I find it every bit as thrilling as any other show I've seen and it's cause of the casting. I grew up with TNG, so to me that's always the most familiar Trek, but there is something about the Shatner, Kelley, Nimoy dynamic that is undeniable, it's all luck, if they hadn't came to that show when they did, who knows if we'd have this vision of the future, who knows if Trek would've caught on and spawned six movies. It was just the right elements coming together at the right time.

Incidently, always felt the same way about the first Starwars movie!
__________________


"Death, delicious strawberry flavored death!"
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-25-2008, 02:14 AM
Chris Fawkes's Avatar
Chris Fawkes Chris Fawkes is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,729
Default

I liked TNG but there was never the chemistry between the cast that existed in TOS
Even the potential sexual chemistry between Picard and Crusher (I mean beverly guys, c'mon) was almost non existent. That relationship could have been something but i don't think anyone cared that nothing much really happened.
I know there are a lot of factors in TNG not working on the big screen but i think in part it was a lack of this dynamic that kept TNG a tv show and note movie material.
First contact had a strong relationship but that was Picard's relationship with the Borg and how that effected his character. After that...
Data's relationship seemed more between him and the viewing audience. More a data does show and tell with his emotions. A few knowing smirks from fellow crew is nor real chemistry.
More than anything i think if Abrams can recapture the Kirk, McCoy, Spock dynamis that will determine wether the new movie is a real success or not.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-25-2008, 02:51 AM
Zardoz's Avatar
Zardoz Zardoz is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere In The Future
Posts: 31,432
Default

Chris-

See what your saying, totally do. But keep in mind there's 20 years between these shows and TV changed alot in that time. For the 60's, these charaters were as close and detailed as TV of the time allowed.
__________________
"High Priestesses Of Zardoz" By Eliza's Starbase Of Avatars Copyright 2009."
"Zardoz Speaks To You, His Choosen Trek Fans."
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-25-2008, 04:51 AM
DS9TREK DS9TREK is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London, England, UK
Posts: 172
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tejdog1 View Post
If there has been different actors originally, you'd be saying the same about them.

John W really portrayed Kirk the way it needed to be.
Steve M did Spock to a T

etc...
I don't think so... I mean, you don't hear that sort of thing said about every show do you? Even with the other Trek shows I can think of actors that may have been able to pull off certain characters better. The Shat & Co really clicked, both with their characters and each other. Especially the Big Three.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-25-2008, 10:57 AM
MissionTrek08's Avatar
MissionTrek08 MissionTrek08 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,562
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zardoz View Post
See what your saying, totally do. But keep in mind there's 20 years between these shows and TV changed alot in that time. For the 60's, these charaters were as close and detailed as TV of the time allowed.
Which brings up a good point: given the budget and technological limitations of TOS, not to mention TV drama standards of its time, the original series really HAD to rely on the chemistry and interaction of its characters because they simply couldn't afford to show much "out there" or a plethora of aliens and worlds. By its nature the scope of the show was quite small and contained, and so the writers emphasized character interaction, humor, conflicts and quirks in scripts because they could film all that easily (and cheaply). To their credit, the scripts and actors made the best of this condition, resulting in a classic show.

TNG and beyond enjoyed a much greater luxury of showing the "out there" more than the "on bridge" and by that nature, I think those same deeply evolved relationships between characters didn't grow as much, generally speaking.
__________________

MISSION:TREK's in-depth review of STAR TREK


Proud member of the Friends of Zardoz Association. Avatar courtesy of Eliza's House of Avatars with three convenient locations near you. Free balloons for the kids!
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-25-2008, 11:09 AM
Zardoz's Avatar
Zardoz Zardoz is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere In The Future
Posts: 31,432
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissionTrek08 View Post
Which brings up a good point: given the budget and technological limitations of TOS, not to mention TV drama standards of its time, the original series really HAD to rely on the chemistry and interaction of its characters because they simply couldn't afford to show much "out there" or a plethora of aliens and worlds. By its nature the scope of the show was quite small and contained, and so the writers emphasized character interaction, humor, conflicts and quirks in scripts because they could film all that easily (and cheaply). To their credit, the scripts and actors made the best of this condition, resulting in a classic show.

TNG and beyond enjoyed a much greater luxury of showing the "out there" more than the "on bridge" and by that nature, I think those same deeply evolved relationships between characters didn't grow as much, generally speaking.

You sir, hit the nail right on the head!

I mean in alot of ways TOS had the bridge and each other to imply drama (pre TOS-R) or action alot of times. TOS also had the benefit of many charater actors (Doohan, Nimoy) who had been acting for years at that point even.

TNG had the benfit/curse of TOS movie era effects. Nobody was gonna watch a Trek show now without that seeming level of effects they had come to enjoy in the films.

TNG did have alot of "group moments" during it's run, way more than other SF shows of the era, it reiled too heavily at tiems on it's special effects to the detriment of the story. Not all the time, but enough.
__________________
"High Priestesses Of Zardoz" By Eliza's Starbase Of Avatars Copyright 2009."
"Zardoz Speaks To You, His Choosen Trek Fans."
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:24 PM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.