Re: [NEWS] - Quinto, Nimoy Trek Casting Confirmed
Cubit
be replaced with new young actors. Maybe someone saw it. Maybe it was a
coincidence.
"Stan Jensen" <sp...@wonderful.spam> wrote in message
news:g2qja3hr8k2nbm24t...@4ax.com...
> Quinto, Nimoy Trek Casting Confirmed
>
> J.J. Abrams, who is directing the upcoming Star Trek movie, confirmed
> the casting of Heroes star Zachary Quinto as a young Spock and
> surprised the audience with the announcement that original Spock actor
> Leonard Nimoy would also appear in the film. Abrams made the
> announcements at Comic-Con International in San Diego on July 26.
>
> "I certainly intend to bring my own spin" to the iconic role, Quinto
> told the audience of more than 6,000. "But it's nice to know [Nimoy's]
> behind it."
>
> For his part, Nimoy praised both Abrams and Quinto, saying it was
> "logical" for him to join the project, in which he will reprise his
> most famous role. He signed off: "Live long and prosper."
>
> Abrams said the movie will go into production in November. "The
> exciting thing for us, I think, is the ability to take this amazing
> world that Gene Roddenberry created ... and show [it] in a way that
> you haven't seen. ... And it's tricky, because this matters so much to
> so many people, ... and you can't screw it up."
>
> Abrams added that the filmmakers are trying to find a way to include
> William Shatner, who played the original Capt. James T. Kirk, in the
> movie. "The truth is, it needs to be worthy of him," Abrams said. "So
> we're on that."
>
> No one has been cast yet as the young Kirk. Star Trek is slated for
> release on Christmas 2008.
Anybody
<n...@not.not> 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.
Brian Thorn
>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.
That would be about three months after Star Trek XI was first
officially announced, featuring a movie poster showing TOS-era
insignia and uniform colors...
Abrams's inspiration, you ain't. :-)
BRian
seon ferguson
"Anybody" <any...@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in message
news:280720071211464356%any...@anywhere-anytime.com...
Most prequals are rubbish. Just look at Star Wars episode 1-3.
Brian Thorn
<se...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>Most prequals are rubbish. Just look at Star Wars episode 1-3.
Ugh! Do I HAVE to?
But I really liked "BATMAN BEGINS".
Brian
Andrew
Not that you're pre-judging it at all.
Kweeg
news:2007072821042816807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
That's our "Anybody" watched 10 min of the BSG mini and declared the entire
series "crap."
--
Qapla'
Kweeg
Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
"Half a gallon a'scotch!" Scotty (Spectre of the Gun)
1,079,252,848.8 km/h, not just a good idea, it's the law.
"So say we all!"
Anybody
<thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
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.
- re-casting of characters rarely actually works.
- ignoring what's gone before is idiotically stupid.
Not very good signs for a great "Star Trek" movie. :-(
Maybe they'll actually have some brains this time (EXTREMELY rare in
Hollyweird!!) and it will be an excellent "Star Trek" movie ... but
history doesn't make that a very likely possibility.
Anybody
<bth...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
One word: "Enterprise". X-(
The Merry Piper
<any...@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
> - most prequels / reboots / reimaginings / remakes suck badly.
Generally speaking, I agree most aren't all that great.
> - re-casting of characters rarely actually works.
I disagree with this opinion.
> - ignoring what's gone before is idiotically stupid.
Not if what went before was not entertaining. Much of modern Trek has
simply failed to engage even the long time fans.
>Not very good signs for a great "Star Trek" movie.
The next film will be good or it will not. You can believe either one
or the other. Until there is more evidence presented I would
personally say the signs are encouraging.
>Maybe they'll actually have some brains this time
I believe you are mistaken. I don't know anyone directly connected to
the film and television industry but I am going to imagine they are a
bright bunch of women and men.
--
The Merry Piper
[http://tmpiper.livejournal.com]
If you want to dance, you'll have to pay ... me!
Anybody
Piper <merry_pi...@COATyahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 10:14:34 +1200, Anybody
> <any...@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
>
> > - most prequels / reboots / reimaginings / remakes suck badly.
>
> Generally speaking, I agree most aren't all that great.
>
> > - re-casting of characters rarely actually works.
>
> I disagree with this opinion.
Each different actor brings their own slant on the character, thus
changing the character and making it different to the original.
Therefore recasting the ORIGINAL character rarely works because you end
up with a different character ... whether or not the new one is
"better" is purely opinion-based and not relevant.
> > - ignoring what's gone before is idiotically stupid.
>
> Not if what went before was not entertaining. Much of modern Trek has
> simply failed to engage even the long time fans.
That depends what you mean by "modern Trek".
The fact that Enterprise sucked is almost universally accepted. Of the
other shows, most people somewhat liked The Next Generation and then
liked either Deep Space Nine OR Voyager, and some liked both.
> >Not very good signs for a great "Star Trek" movie.
>
> The next film will be good or it will not. You can believe either one
> or the other. Until there is more evidence presented I would
> personally say the signs are encouraging.
As above, the signs are mostly pointing towards trash made solely to
squeeze more money out of the franchise ... which is of course all
Hollyweird is interested in.
> >Maybe they'll actually have some brains this time
>
> I believe you are mistaken. I don't know anyone directly connected to
> the film and television industry but I am going to imagine they are a
> bright bunch of women and men.
History proves you wrong:
- Enterprise
- Battlefield Earth
- Catwoman
- Waterworld
to name just four out of thousands. And then there's the idiocy of
"reality" TV shows. :-\
Andrew
> In article <2007072821042816807-thecroft@macunlimitednet>, Andrew
> <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
>
>> On 2007-07-28 01:11:46 +0100, Anybody <any...@anywhere-anytime.com> said:
>>
>>> In article <p4uqi.46176$YL5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, "Cubit"
>>> <n...@not.not> 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.
Except when they don't
>
> - re-casting of characters rarely actually works.
Except when they do
>
> - ignoring what's gone before is idiotically stupid.
Probably. but there is no evidence that this is the case here
The Merry Piper
<any...@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
>Each different actor brings their own slant on the character
Of course they do. This does nothing to prove your point.
>Therefore recasting the ORIGINAL character rarely works because you end
>up with a different character
Incorrect. You end with a different interpretation of the same role.
Anyone who has seen two productions of the same play knows how
different a character can be presented and yet still be recognizable
as the same character. Olivier's Hamlet (if memory serves) laughing
while uttering the line "I am dead, Horatio" comes to mind
>History proves you wrong:
No, the examples you picked might indicate to someone unwilling to
look deeper I am wrong. There are many very good, thought provoking
films and television series which are loved both by the critics and
the fans.
>to name just four out of thousands. And then there's the idiocy of
>"reality" TV shows. :-\
I am complete agreement with you here. I don't find a single
(so-called) reality series entertaining.
Dough
Then again, two more words: "Season Four"
Kweeg
Anybody
Piper <merry_pi...@COATyahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 11:22:46 +1200, Anybody
> <any...@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Each different actor brings their own slant on the character
>
> Of course they do. This does nothing to prove your point.
>
> >Therefore recasting the ORIGINAL character rarely works because you end
> >up with a different character
>
> Incorrect. You end with a different interpretation of the same role.
> Anyone who has seen two productions of the same play knows how
> different a character can be presented and yet still be recognizable
> as the same character. Olivier's Hamlet (if memory serves) laughing
> while uttering the line "I am dead, Horatio" comes to mind
"Different interpretation" = different character.
If it's different, then it's obviously not the same. :-\
> >History proves you wrong:
>
> No, the examples you picked might indicate to someone unwilling to
> look deeper I am wrong. There are many very good, thought provoking
> films and television series which are loved both by the critics and
> the fans.
Yes, and there's piles of utter crap as well.
Basically you want to see the "glass half full", but unfortunately
history teaches us that it's really "half empty" ... there's a reason
for the phrase "History repeats itself", something that Hollyweird
takes literally with it's silly remakes. :-(
> >to name just four out of thousands. And then there's the idiocy of
> >"reality" TV shows. :-\
>
> I am complete agreement with you here. I don't find a single
> (so-called) reality series entertaining.
Even quiz shows seem to be awful these days with constant blasts of
musak every few seconds. :-\
Anybody
<thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
> On 2007-07-28 23:14:34 +0100, Anybody <any...@anywhere-anytime.com> said:
>
> > In article <2007072821042816807-thecroft@macunlimitednet>, Andrew
> > <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2007-07-28 01:11:46 +0100, Anybody <any...@anywhere-anytime.com> said:
> >>
> >>> In article <p4uqi.46176$YL5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, "Cubit"
> >>> <n...@not.not> 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.
>
> Except when they don't
Very rare.
> > - re-casting of characters rarely actually works.
>
> Except when they do
Very rare.
> > - ignoring what's gone before is idiotically stupid.
>
> Probably. but there is no evidence that this is the case here
Yes it is. They've already said they're not going to worry about
breaking with the past - the "facts" we already know about the Star
Trek history. They've already called it a "reboot". This is the same
problem that caused some of the hopeless mess that was called
"Enterprise".
Anybody
<dhu...@charter.net> wrote:
Ah, so you think they could make 50+ awful movies and THEN get it right
(supposedly). Star Trek would be completely dead long before they got
to that point, even if you counted the last few TNG movies in the awful
category.
The Merry Piper
<any...@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
>"Different interpretation" = different character.
>
>If it's different, then it's obviously not the same. :-\
Different interpretations of the same character. The same? Obviously
not. The same character? Obviously it is. Hamlet is Hamlet no
matter who is filling the role.
>Yes, and there's piles of utter crap as well.
While true, that statement does nothing to change the point.
>Basically you want to see the "glass half full"
I don't know about glasses and such but I am an optimist.
>but unfortunately history teaches us that it's really "half empty"
History teaches us no such thing. You have chosen to take a
pessimistic look and you have found what you predetermined you were
going to see.
>... there's a reason for the phrase "History repeats itself",
> something that Hollyweird takes literally with it's silly remakes. :-(
There is a also a reason for the phrase "learn from one's mistakes" if
one chose to remember it.
Anybody
Piper <merry_pi...@COATyahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 14:40:27 +1200, Anybody
> <any...@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
>
>
> >"Different interpretation" = different character.
> >
> >If it's different, then it's obviously not the same. :-\
>
> Different interpretations of the same character. The same? Obviously
> not. The same character? Obviously it is. Hamlet is Hamlet no
> matter who is filling the role.
The same in name only - that's why they're DIFFERENT. :-\
> >... there's a reason for the phrase "History repeats itself",
> > something that Hollyweird takes literally with it's silly remakes. :-(
>
> There is a also a reason for the phrase "learn from one's mistakes" if
> one chose to remember it.
Except Hollyweird rarely ever learns from it's mistakes.
seon ferguson
"Brian Thorn" <bth...@suddenlink.net> wrote in message
news:5tima3ldlosl8h16l...@4ax.com...
seon ferguson
seon ferguson
They weren't all awful. I enjoyed nemesis and first contact.
Plus keep in mind if you want to "re vamp" Trek you don't have to make a
prequal.
Wouter Valentijn
"seon ferguson" <se...@iinet.net.au> schreef in bericht
news:46ac5f9f$0$31420$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
They could call it a Star Trek 2.0 or something like that.
Borrowing from JMS's proposal.
--
Wouter Valentijn
www.wouter.cc
www.nksf.nl
http://www.nksf.scifics.com/Nom20072008.html
www.zeppodunsel.nl
liam=mail
Wouter Valentijn
Only the last few?
It kicked *all* the movies that were made before straight out the window as
far as I'm concerned.
It was the best Batman movie ever made.
Rich Corinthian Leather
One word: Voyager <gagging>
RCL
The Merry Piper
<any...@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
>The same in name only - that's why they're DIFFERENT. :-\
I suppose we have reached the point at which we'll have to agree to
disagree. When I watch "Star Trek: New Voyages" I honestly have no
problem with seeing Cawley as Captain Kirk. Perhaps it is the degree
of imagination I possess, or perhaps acceptance. At any rate, unless
you have something new to add, I'm going EOL on this one.
>Except Hollyweird rarely ever learns from it's mistakes.
Hollywood has made its share of monumental blunders. They also
produce a lot of stuff which is meant to appeal to the mass market
which, to a discerning viewer such as yourself (that's not a snark, I
really mean that), might appear to an on-going series of blunders.
Such as the previously mentioned reality television series. Again,
however, we probably won't reach any agreement on this so unless you
have something new to add let's move on.
Brian Thorn
<inexpl...@mysterious.net> wrote:
>>>> Most prequals are rubbish. Just look at Star Wars episode 1-3.
>>> Ugh! Do I HAVE to?
>>>
>>> But I really liked "BATMAN BEGINS".
>>
>> One word: "Enterprise". X-(
>
>One word: Voyager <gagging>
Voyager wasn't a prequel, it was contemporary of DS9.
Brian
Anybody
<46ac5f9f$0$31420$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, "seon
ferguson" <se...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> "Anybody" <any...@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in message
> news:290720071446259736%any...@anywhere-anytime.com...
> > In article <K%Rqi.487$zJ5...@newsfe05.lga>, "Dough"
> > <dhu...@charter.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "Anybody" <any...@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in message
> >> news:290720071015215706%any...@anywhere-anytime.com...
> >> > In article <5tima3ldlosl8h16l...@4ax.com>, Brian Thorn
> >> > <bth...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 18:03:34 +1000, "seon ferguson"
> >> >> <se...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Most prequals are rubbish. Just look at Star Wars episode 1-3.
> >> >>
> >> >> Ugh! Do I HAVE to?
> >> >>
> >> >> But I really liked "BATMAN BEGINS".
> >> >
> >> > One word: "Enterprise". X-(
> >>
> >> Then again, two more words: "Season Four"
> >
> > Ah, so you think they could make 50+ awful movies and THEN get it right
> > (supposedly). Star Trek would be completely dead long before they got
> > to that point, even if you counted the last few TNG movies in the awful
> > category.
>
> They weren't all awful. I enjoyed nemesis and first contact.
>
> Plus keep in mind if you want to "re vamp" Trek you don't have to make a
> prequal.
In Hollyweird's limited brain capacity world they DO have to make a
prequel (and a "reboot") simply because everyone else is doing it. One
of them does something mildy new or successful and all the others
simply jump on the same bandwagon. :-\
Anybody
<li...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
If they change it as much as Ron Moore's so-called "Battlestar
Galactica", then it really needs and deserves a totally new name as
well.
Maybe "Galaxy Hiking". ;-)
Wouter Valentijn
"Anybody" <any...@anywhere-anytime.com> schreef in bericht
news:300720070903561699%any...@anywhere-anytime.com...
And borrow from Douglas Adams?
:-)
They might need a good towel. And some fish of course.
Steven L.
> In article <2007072821042816807-thecroft@macunlimitednet>, Andrew
> <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
>
>> On 2007-07-28 01:11:46 +0100, Anybody <any...@anywhere-anytime.com> said:
>>
>>> In article <p4uqi.46176$YL5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, "Cubit"
>>> <n...@not.not> 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. 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?
> - re-casting of characters rarely actually works.
It's worked great with the plays of Shakespeare for four centuries.
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.
> - 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.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Anybody
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
> Anybody wrote:
> > In article <2007072821042816807-thecroft@macunlimitednet>, Andrew
> > <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2007-07-28 01:11:46 +0100, Anybody <any...@anywhere-anytime.com> said:
> >>
> >>> In article <p4uqi.46176$YL5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, "Cubit"
> >>> <n...@not.not> 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.
Anybody
<li...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
I hadn't actually thought about Douglas Adams when I posted that. They
might have to find another name: "Universe Walks". :-)
Andrew
Works well for Shakespeare. And James Bond.
>
>
>
>>> - ignoring what's gone before is idiotically stupid.
>>
>> Probably. but there is no evidence that this is the case here
>
> Yes it is. They've already said they're not going to worry about
> breaking with the past - the "facts" we already know about the Star
> Trek history. They've already called it a "reboot". This is the same
> problem that caused some of the hopeless mess that was called
> "Enterprise".
Actually I thought Enterprise was rather good - especially Season 4. To
the case in point, however. It makes a greeat deal of difference which
"facts" (and remember this is a fictional scenario) we're talking
about. Some of the "facts" I saw bandied about when Enterprise was on
air were never part of canon, but were widely held to be true by
fandom. This especially held true for the relationship between humans
and Vulcans and Vulcan history. I would not like to see big variations
from well-established "back story"; but we cannot allow writers to be
bound by every little line that Nameless Ensign said to Yoeman
OneEpisode in the turbolift in Episode 94 of Season 58. To do so
produces a straitjacket that stifles creativity.
seon ferguson
"Wouter Valentijn" <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote in message
news:46ac7cc5$0$230$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>
> "seon ferguson" <se...@iinet.net.au> schreef in bericht
> news:46ac5ed7$0$31420$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>
>> "Brian Thorn" <bth...@suddenlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:5tima3ldlosl8h16l...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 18:03:34 +1000, "seon ferguson"
>>> <se...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Most prequals are rubbish. Just look at Star Wars episode 1-3.
>>>
>>> Ugh! Do I HAVE to?
>>>
>>> But I really liked "BATMAN BEGINS".
>>>
>> Good point it sure beat the last few Batman movies.
>
> Only the last few?
> It kicked *all* the movies that were made before straight out the window
> as far as I'm concerned.
> It was the best Batman movie ever made.
>
thankfully Batman begins came out.
seon ferguson
Wouter Valentijn
In the first and original and best Star Trek.
In a shadowy parallel universe maybe someone else. Someone who would (or
could) of course never replace Shatner's Kirk, but only walk on a parallel
road. Nothing more.
Wouter Valentijn
I guess I'm not a big Tim Burton fan.
With the exception of 'Sleepy Hallow', with Depp and Walken.
Al Smith
>> >
>
> In the first and original and best Star Trek.
>
> In a shadowy parallel universe maybe someone else. Someone who would (or
> could) of course never replace Shatner's Kirk, but only walk on a parallel
> road. Nothing more.
>
> -- Wouter Valentijn
We know that "Star Trek" takes place in an alternate universe.
Maybe someone else could play Kirk in this universe? They could
update the history to match our own ... which would mean no Khan,
or at least a later version of Khan.
-Al-
Steven L.
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.
>> 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. Those who dismissed it out of hand at first, like you're doing
here with Trek XI, proved to be wrong.
>>> - 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.
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.
>> 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.
>>> - 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.
Well, *some* things are going to have to change:
The antiquated TOS bridge instrumentation has to change--today's movie
audiences just aren't going to sit still for 1960s style push buttons
and rocker switches. The sick bay has to change for the same
reason--McCoy's medical scanner looked cool in 1966 but we've gone way
beyond it in 2007.
And *none* of the movies had the same Starfleet uniforms as they had on
the TOS TV show. You can't show Starfleet female crewpersons walking
around in micro-mini skirt uniforms in 2007.
Wouter Valentijn
"Al Smith" <inv...@address.com> schreef in bericht
news:OAmri.83770$xk5.1535@edtnps82...
>>> Nah Shattner is the only person I see as playing Captain Kirk.
>>> >
>>
>> In the first and original and best Star Trek.
>>
>> In a shadowy parallel universe maybe someone else. Someone who would (or
>> could) of course never replace Shatner's Kirk, but only walk on a
>> parallel road. Nothing more.
>>
>
>
> someone else could play Kirk in this universe? They could update the
> history to match our own ... which would mean no Khan, or at least a later
> version of Khan.
>
We even already know it's an entire multiverse.
Anything is possible. But TOS will always be TOS.
Anybody
<thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
Oh dear, here we go again - round and round explaining the same old
thing over and over yet again. :-\
> >>> - ignoring what's gone before is idiotically stupid.
> >>
> >> Probably. but there is no evidence that this is the case here
> >
> > Yes it is. They've already said they're not going to worry about
> > breaking with the past - the "facts" we already know about the Star
> > Trek history. They've already called it a "reboot". This is the same
> > problem that caused some of the hopeless mess that was called
> > "Enterprise".
>
> Actually I thought Enterprise was rather good - especially Season 4.
<snip>
Season 4 may or may not be any good, but by then you've had (at least)
three seasons of garbage. A movie company is NOT going to sit through
making 50 crap films in the hopes that the fans like number 51. The
franchise will be dead long before that.
Anybody
<inv...@address.com> wrote:
> >> Nah Shattner is the only person I see as playing Captain Kirk.
> >> >
> >
> > In the first and original and best Star Trek.
> >
> > In a shadowy parallel universe maybe someone else. Someone who would (or
> > could) of course never replace Shatner's Kirk, but only walk on a parallel
> > road. Nothing more.
>
> We know that "Star Trek" takes place in an alternate universe.
> Maybe someone else could play Kirk in this universe? They could
> update the history to match our own ... which would mean no Khan,
> or at least a later version of Khan.
We alrady have Kirk in this universe ... he's called George Bush. ;-)
Andrew
What was the point of snipping the main point of what I had to say in
order to answer an aside?
seon ferguson
seon ferguson
Batman Forever. Sleepy Hallow was good to though.
Al Smith
Kirk was competent, so he can't be George W. Bush ... not unless
this is the Bizarro World.
-Al-
Anybody
<thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
Your so-called "main point" wasn't relevant to the discussion about the
movies.
I said Enterprise was a hopeless mess, you said it got better in season
4, I replied that wading through three seasons of crap for a supposedly
good show isn't going to happen with movies.
Anybody
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> 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.
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.
The name, the attitude, the mannerisms, etc. - the entire character
would have been different, and that would have made the show different.
Just look at James Bond. Yes all the actors play the character named
James Bond, but each has a different Bond (one has a Scottish accent,
others don't is only the most obvious example). Some people prefer one
actor while other people prefer another, exactly because the different
actors cause differences in the character.
> >>> - 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.
>
> Well, *some* things are going to have to change:
>
> The antiquated TOS bridge instrumentation has to change--today's movie
> audiences just aren't going to sit still for 1960s style push buttons
> and rocker switches. The sick bay has to change for the same
> reason--McCoy's medical scanner looked cool in 1966 but we've gone way
> beyond it in 2007.
>
> And *none* of the movies had the same Starfleet uniforms as they had on
> the TOS TV show. You can't show Starfleet female crewpersons walking
> around in micro-mini skirt uniforms in 2007.
I'm talking about FACTS already defined, not fashion and special
effects. It's a prequel movie, so setting it 10 years before TOS may
well mean different uniforms and better movie-making may mean better
looking ships (something Enterprise at least tried to get right), but
it doesn't mean meeting the Ferengi 200 years early, it doesn't mean
making Kirk a woman, etc.
The Smallville show is an "excellent" example of this kind of
silliness. Smallville is a show about Clark Kent before he becomes
Superman ... and yet they've already had most of the characters he's
MEANT to meet later in his life turn up in Smallville. This makes the
show an illfitting mess within the Superman franchise.
Andrew
No - the point I was making is that if a show gets bogged down in every
little tiny detail of back-story, it becomes effectively impossible to
tell good new stories. Some level of "breaking with the past" is
inevitable and should be welcomed. That does not mean, however, that we
can ditch everything.
Anybody
<thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
It's nowhere near "inevitable". That's the entire reason that these
"remakes" are idiotic.
If a show is not worth continuing to be made, then don't make it.
If a show is worth contuning to be made, then make it as it's always
been done since that is what the fans like.
If they want to make a new show, then make a NEW show. Don't butcher an
older show and slap existing fans in the face with stupid ill-fitting
changes simply for the sake of stuffing Holyweird's pockets.
Andrew
There's nothing "idiotic" about them. They just don't have the
anally-retentive approach to continuity that some fans (present company
excepted of course) have to the minutiae of Star Trek, or other, past
history.
>
> If a show is not worth continuing to be made, then don't make it.
>
> If a show is worth contuning to be made, then make it as it's always
> been done since that is what the fans like.
And there's no point in trying to get new fans. Or in telling different
kinds of stories. But then again, IIUYC you liked TNG. That wasn't
making Star Trek as it had always been done. Did you like DS9?
> If they want to make a new show, then make a NEW show. Don't butcher an
> older show and slap existing fans in the face with stupid ill-fitting
> changes simply for the sake of stuffing Holyweird's pockets.
So tell me. If Star Trek hadn't been cancelled in 1969, and they had
followed your ideas here. What do you think the show would have looked
like?
Anybody
<thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
It's called being consistent. A muddled mess isn't of interest to
anyone ... except of course those with short attention spans who can't
remember the show that played last week, let alone a few years ago.
> > If a show is not worth continuing to be made, then don't make it.
> >
> > If a show is worth contuning to be made, then make it as it's always
> > been done since that is what the fans like.
>
> And there's no point in trying to get new fans.
The rubbish called "Enterprise" proves that trying to get new fans
doesn't work and is a pointless waste of time. People either like or
don't like a franchise, the only new fans you'll get are those few that
change their minds or are coming along fresh (usually these were too
young the first time around and are introduced to the franchise by
their parents).
The ones who do like it, like it because of the way it is. Changing it
is idiotic and slaps them in the face. The ones who don't like it
mostly won't even bother watching a new version straight off because
they see the name and say "yuck" (which is why Enterprise started off
without the "Star Trek" prefix).
Again, if the show isn't worth making, then don't make it. If you want
to make a new show / franchise, then make a NEW one. Do not butcher an
existing one simply to fill Hollywierd's greedy pockets at the expense
of the fans who like the franchise how it is.
> Or in telling different kinds of stories. But then again, IIUYC you
> liked TNG. That wasn't making Star Trek as it had always been done.
> Did you like DS9?
Yet again, TNG *is* the same and (mostly) consistent with the original
show, but it's also not attempting to be a "remake" reusing the same
name - hence "The Next Generation".
Deep Space Nine and Voyager are also (mostly) well fitting within the
Star Trek universe. Personally I don't like Deep Space Nine's
mumbo-jumbo about the Prophets, but at least that doesn't pee all over
established facts.
The franchise falls over with Beavis & Buttheads garbage ideas for
"Enterprise" where they started trying to ignore what has already been
established and use their own nonsense ideas. They didn't want to make
"Star Trek", they wanted to make their own show ... which at least one
of them later did do only to have that fall over as well.
> > If they want to make a new show, then make a NEW show. Don't butcher an
> > older show and slap existing fans in the face with stupid ill-fitting
> > changes simply for the sake of stuffing Holyweird's pockets.
>
> So tell me. If Star Trek hadn't been cancelled in 1969, and they had
> followed your ideas here. What do you think the show would have looked
> like?
Whether or not the original was cancelled is irrelevant. We've already
had shows that follow on the franchise properly: TNG, DS9 and Voyager.
The problem is that Paramount has no idea how to make "Star Trek" any
more and they've seen the new "Battlestar Galactica" (in little more
than name only) be fairly successful so they want to jump on that
bandwagon as well as the fad for making prequels.
Believe me, I hope I'm wrong and those in charge do not make stupid
changes, but from what we currently know and Hollyweird's history,
that's looking less and less likely. :-(
Jaxtraw
This argument keeps coming up, and it makes no sense. The only criteria for
whether something should be made is whether anyone will want to watch it.
That's it. There isn't some higher divine authority regarding what movies or
TV should be made. Neither is it the job of studios or anyone else to try to
honour the perspective of some people who define themselves as fans and gain
in the process some kind of proprietorial belief in whatever they're a fan
of.
Watching a TV show doesn't make you its premise's owner, or part owner, or
anything else. You have the TV show you enjoyed, the movie you enjoyed, to
watch any time you want. What authority do you have over what is then done
with the name, characters etc? You're not being slapped in the face. You
simply aren't part of the equation.
If "the version you liked" doesn't make enough money, it makes obvious sense
to instead make something that does make money, because if it makes money
(an end in itself) that means it is serving the desires of a new audience.
It has a market. People want it. That's all there is.
If you don't want to see the new movie, don't go and see it. Your
involvement with it goes that far, and that's it.
Ian
Wally...@nospam.nul
Let's remake Citizen Kane because we can....it will be gooderer, Vern.
Trekwriter
wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 10:14:34 +1200, Anybody
>
> <anyb...@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
> > - most prequels / reboots / reimaginings / remakes suck badly.
>
>
> > - re-casting of characters rarely actually works.
>
>
> > - ignoring what's gone before is idiotically stupid.
>
> simply failed to engage even the long time fans.
>
> >Not very good signs for a great "Star Trek" movie.
>
> The next film will be good or it will not. You can believe either one
> or the other. Until there is more evidence presented I would
> personally say the signs are encouraging.
>
> >Maybe they'll actually have some brains this time
>
> I believe you are mistaken. I don't know anyone directly connected to
> the film and television industry but I am going to imagine they are a
> bright bunch of women and men.
>
> --
> The Merry Piper
> [http://tmpiper.livejournal.com]
> If you want to dance, you'll have to pay ... me!
Hehehehe...so I get to the bottom of this message and I think, "Hey I
like this guy!" Then I saw it was YOU! Hi there!!! :D
marika
Anybody wrote in message
<010820071821498279%any...@anywhere-anytime.com>...
why worry, they'll make lots of money on it no matter what they do. People
will come see it
mk5000
-----Original Message-----
From: marika <marik...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.punk.straight-edge,alt.usenet.legends.lester-mosley
Date: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 8:17 PM
Subject: trek
>i had this one boss, the entire first months she stayed at the hotel, when
>she first arrived, she either had the guy down on
>the 2nd floor, the one that drives the executives, bring her to and from
>work. Someone
>told her this was one of the privileges of being a boss.
>On the days when he wasn't available for whatever reason, her coworker same
>status and grade would drive
>her in. From across the street. It is a shame that people lose their
>memories as they age. With the additional
>snowfall, the sidewalks were slipperier today and some had never even been
>shovelled
>in the first place.
>
>mk5000
>
>"it began last December, when I got an email from a friend saying that they
>were doing another Star Trek movie. It was right about the time my
>character started to emerge on heroes. So I started to talk about it a
lot,
>in interviews, with anyone. "--zachary quinto
>
Tim Bruening
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.
The young actors had better look like young versions of the original TOS cast!
Warchild
Tim Bruening <tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
Wow, it's like this newsgroup just fell through a time warp! Hey, maybe
they will use that in the plot of the new film! Hello! Mcfly! What
did I tell you about not coming in here? Hello? Hello?
Wouter Valentijn
"Warchild" <b...@bob.com> schreef in bericht
news:bob-424251.2...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
It's Tim. He sometimes brings back months old posts. Even older ones.
--
Wouter Valentijn www.j3v.net
"In this galaxy there's a mathimatical probability of three million Earth
type planets, and in all the universe three million million galaxies like
this, and in all of that, and perhaps more, only one of each of us. Don't
destroy the one named Kirk."
McCoy to Kirk, in the episode "Balance of Terror"
liam=mail
Your Name
>
> "Warchild" <b...@bob.com> schreef in bericht
> news:bob-424251.2...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> >
> > they will use that in the plot of the new film! Hello! Mcfly! What
> > did I tell you about not coming in here? Hello? Hello?
>
> It's Tim. He sometimes brings back months old posts. Even older ones.
By a strange coincidence, "Back to the Future" was shown on TV here last
night. :-)
("Back to the Future II" is next weekend.)
Wouter Valentijn
I think I'm hearing the Twilight Zone tune. :-)
TBerk
> Well, *some* things are going to have to change:
>
> The antiquated TOS bridge instrumentation has to
> change--today's movie audiences just aren't going
> to sit still for 1960s style push buttons and rocker
> switches. The sick bay has to change for the same
> reason--McCoy's medical scanner looked cool in
>1966 but we've gone way beyond it in 2007.
>
> And *none* of the movies had the same Starfleet
> uniforms as they had on the TOS TV show.
> You can't show Starfleet female crewpersons
> walking around in micro-mini skirt uniforms in 2007.
>
> Steven D. Litvintchouk
Later, a Whole Year later..
On Apr 24, 10:11 pm, Warchild <b...@bob.com> wrote:
> >
> >Wow, it's like this newsgroup just fell through a time warp!
And I got to thinking; Why couldn't Trek have miniskirts dammit!
Be sure to make them not _too_ tight and cast non-stringy women to
wear them, and emote, and kick ass as needed (balance is everything).
The day is coming when an average Joe can produce his own production
(well, we can do it now, but I don't have a barn...).
Still, somewhere between Kate Moss/the Olsen Twins & R. Crumb is a gal
who could turn out for muster in a miniskirt, Trek style. Bring it on.
TBerk
old threads never die, they just go to Google...
Your Name
"TBerk" <bayar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0707571d-97f2-4da0...@b6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>
> And I got to thinking; Why couldn't Trek have miniskirts dammit!
>
> Be sure to make them not _too_ tight and cast non-stringy women to
> wear them, and emote, and kick ass as needed (balance is everything).
>
> The day is coming when an average Joe can produce his own production
> (well, we can do it now, but I don't have a barn...).
>
> Still, somewhere between Kate Moss/the Olsen Twins & R. Crumb is a gal
> who could turn out for muster in a miniskirt, Trek style. Bring it on.
They did a surprise re-cast and have now got Lindsay Lohan playing Janine T
Kirk. ;-)
Your Name
> Your Name wrote:
> > "Wouter Valentijn" <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote in message
> > news:49f2dd8c$0$192$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> >>
> >> "Warchild" <b...@bob.com> schreef in bericht
> >> news:bob-424251.2...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> >>>
> >>> Wow, it's like this newsgroup just fell through a time warp! Hey,
> >>> maybe they will use that in the plot of the new film! Hello!
> >>> Mcfly! What did I tell you about not coming in here? Hello? Hello?
> >>
> >> It's Tim. He sometimes brings back months old posts. Even older ones.
> >
> > By a strange coincidence, "Back to the Future" was shown on TV here
> > last night. :-)
> > ("Back to the Future II" is next weekend.)
>
> I think I'm hearing the Twilight Zone tune. :-)
By a second strange coincidence, the "Twilight Zone" movie was on late last
night too. :-)
Steven L.
Only because Miley Cyrus turned down the role first.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Wouter Valentijn
> "Wouter Valentijn" <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote in message
> news:49f44a9f$0$184$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>> Your Name wrote:
>>> "Wouter Valentijn" <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote in message
>>> news:49f2dd8c$0$192$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>>>
>>>> "Warchild" <b...@bob.com> schreef in bericht
>>>> news:bob-424251.2...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> Wow, it's like this newsgroup just fell through a time warp! Hey,
>>>>> maybe they will use that in the plot of the new film! Hello!
>>>>> Mcfly! What did I tell you about not coming in here? Hello?
>>>>> Hello?
>>>>
>>>> It's Tim. He sometimes brings back months old posts. Even older
>>>> ones.
>>>
>>> By a strange coincidence, "Back to the Future" was shown on TV here
>>> last night. :-)
>>> ("Back to the Future II" is next weekend.)
>>
>> I think I'm hearing the Twilight Zone tune. :-)
>
> By a second strange coincidence, the "Twilight Zone" movie was on
> late last night too. :-)
<gulp>
Yikes!
</gulp>
kev
about...
> Your Name wrote:
>> "TBerk" <bayar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:0707571d-97f2-4da0...@b6g2000pre.googlegroups.com.
>> ..
>>> And I got to thinking; Why couldn't Trek have miniskirts dammit!
>>>
>>> Be sure to make them not _too_ tight and cast non-stringy women to
>>> wear them, and emote, and kick ass as needed (balance is
>>> everything).
>>>
>>> The day is coming when an average Joe can produce his own production
>>> (well, we can do it now, but I don't have a barn...).
>>>
>>> Still, somewhere between Kate Moss/the Olsen Twins & R. Crumb is a
>>> gal who could turn out for muster in a miniskirt, Trek style. Bring
>>> it on.
>>
>> They did a surprise re-cast and have now got Lindsay Lohan playing
>> Janine T Kirk. ;-)
>
> Only because Miley Cyrus turned down the role first.
>
>
Hmmm. So that would have been Hannah on the USS Montana?
kev
--
Trying to explain technology to a lawyer is like trying to teach
algebra to a cow. - Anon.
The Eeeevil Cabal's Nine of Spades.
Wickeddoll's on-demand FP guru.
Your Name
"kev" <k...@evilcabal.org> wrote in message
news:gt4j5n...@news.evilcabal.org...
> On 27 Apr 2009, the world was enlightened by Steven L.'s opinion
> about...
>
> > Your Name wrote:
> >> "TBerk" <bayar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:0707571d-97f2-4da0...@b6g2000pre.googlegroups.com.
> >> ..
> >>> And I got to thinking; Why couldn't Trek have miniskirts dammit!
> >>>
> >>> Be sure to make them not _too_ tight and cast non-stringy women to
> >>> wear them, and emote, and kick ass as needed (balance is
> >>> everything).
> >>>
> >>> The day is coming when an average Joe can produce his own production
> >>> (well, we can do it now, but I don't have a barn...).
> >>>
> >>> Still, somewhere between Kate Moss/the Olsen Twins & R. Crumb is a
> >>> gal who could turn out for muster in a miniskirt, Trek style. Bring
> >>> it on.
> >>
> >> They did a surprise re-cast and have now got Lindsay Lohan playing
> >> Janine T Kirk. ;-)
> >
> > Only because Miley Cyrus turned down the role first.
>
> Hmmm. So that would have been Hannah on the USS Montana?
Well they have said they're aiming for a "new audience" ... so now you know
they meant the under 14 year olds. ;-)
Tim Bruening
Wouter Valentijn wrote:
> "seon ferguson" <se...@iinet.net.au> schreef in bericht
> news:46ac5f9f$0$31420$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> >
> > "Anybody" <any...@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in message
> > news:290720071446259736%any...@anywhere-anytime.com...
> >> In article <K%Rqi.487$zJ5...@newsfe05.lga>, "Dough"
> >> <dhu...@charter.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Anybody" <any...@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:290720071015215706%any...@anywhere-anytime.com...
> >>> > In article <5tima3ldlosl8h16l...@4ax.com>, Brian Thorn
> >>> > <bth...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 18:03:34 +1000, "seon ferguson"
> >>> >> <se...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> >Most prequals are rubbish. Just look at Star Wars episode 1-3.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Ugh! Do I HAVE to?
> >>> >>
> >>> >> But I really liked "BATMAN BEGINS".
> >>> >
> >>> > One word: "Enterprise". X-(
> >>>
> >>> Then again, two more words: "Season Four"
> >>
> >> Ah, so you think they could make 50+ awful movies and THEN get it right
> >> (supposedly). Star Trek would be completely dead long before they got
> >> to that point, even if you counted the last few TNG movies in the awful
> >> category.
> >
> > They weren't all awful. I enjoyed nemesis and first contact.
> >
> > Plus keep in mind if you want to "re vamp" Trek you don't have to make a
> > prequal.
> >
>
> They could call it a Star Trek 2.0 or something like that.
> Borrowing from JMS's proposal.
Occuring in an alternate universe?
Warchild
Tim Bruening <tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
Somebody's not paying attention...
Wouter Valentijn
Obviously yes.
--
Wouter Valentijn www.j3v.net
"In this galaxy there's a mathematical probability of three million Earth
Your Name
In the usual Star Trek (and Stargate) "alternate universe" the characters
are still the same age (even if only because it's the same actor). In this
garbage movie they've got everyone at the Academy together from Cadet McCoy
to Cadet Chekov. It's not really even an "alternate universe", it's simply a
case of creating a younger version of "Star Trek" for the teen audience
brigade - those who watch Gosip Girl, One Tree Hill, etc. :-(