logo Sign In

Abrams is Destroying Star Trek like Lucas has Destroyed Star Wars — Page 13

Author
Time
Post link

LOL, I like that this has become the official thread for discussing the new ST film, and its own dedicated thread with a title not dripping with hatred has vanished into obscurity.

 

So, I went to see Watchmen today, and during the Star Trek trailer before the beginning of the film, when the name "from J. J. Abrams" flashed up on the screen, a large white guy with one of those pubic hair beards (you know what I am talking about) who was sitting directly in front of me held up his hand and gave a well know obscene hand gesture toward the screen. It was pretty funny.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

Even this trailer says it is a different star trek by nero's line of "James T Kirk was a great man.  But that was another Life".  Obviously referring to the real star trek and real Shatner Kirk.

Yes the third trailer is a huge improvement over what has been shown so far.  This movie is going to be Fucking EPIC.  and probably be the biggest grossing Trek of all time.

I'll watch it in the mindset that it is a rebooting of the franchise and has nothing to do with any other trek except in name, and of course there is an enterprise starship,lol.

Funny thing is Bana's Nero is everything Shinzon should have been.  This movie critics will say is everything nemesis should have been.

I am getting a Batman Begins, or Casino Royale feel from this new trailer.

How was Watchmen, can't wait to see that movie.  When's the dvd come out?

“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

 HotRod Said:
Hunter...Just for you man..
New trailer - Which looks pretty darn good!!! (Sorry dude, I know you're gonna hate it)


skyjedi2005 Said:
Even this trailer says it is a different star trek by nero's line of "James T Kirk was a great man.  But that was another Life".  Obviously referring to the real star trek and real Shatner Kirk.

Yes the third trailer is a huge improvement over what has been shown so far.  This movie is going to be Fucking EPIC.  and probably be the biggest grossing Trek of all time.

I'll watch it in the mindset that it is a rebooting of the franchise and has nothing to do with any other trek except in name, and of course there is an enterprise starship,lol.

Funny thing is Bana's Nero is everything Shinzon should have been.  This movie critics will say is everything nemesis should have been.

I am getting a Batman Begins, or Casino Royale feel from this new trailer.

 

I would think that Star Wars Fans (like my self) could not fall for a trailer like this after the prequels.

This new trailer made the "I Like this Ship" scene look epic. The new trailer is edited to look epic. The movie it self will more likely not be epic (or good).

I am getting an EP II and EP III feel from this new trailer.

"James T Kirk was a great man,  but that was another Life" .... Yeah, and those were better Trek films by better film-makers.

Don't be fooled by This "Emo" edit trailer. 

 

 

 

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link
skyjedi2005 said:

How was Watchmen, can't wait to see that movie.  When's the dvd come out?

Check out the Watchmen thead. It was good. Seriously, don't wait for the DVD, see it in the cinema, it is worth seeing on the big screen at least once.

 

Hunter6 said:

I would think that Star Wars Fans (like my self) could not fall for a trailer like this after the prequels.

...

Don't be fooled by This "Emo" edit trailer. 

It is amazing how a trailer can be designed to put different spins on a film. Honestly, had this trailer been the first one I saw, I'd be really excited about the movie right about now. I'd still be skeptical, but I'd be planning on spending a ticket price to see it in the theater, rather than planning to hold off on the DVD release so I can barrow it from one of my friends.

The whole time that new trailer was on the screen, I couldn't stop thinking about the line, "I like this ship... it is exciting!"

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

 

It looks like it's going to be a fun movie no matter what, so I'll spend my money on a ticket.

If it's real good, and the effects are well done as they look to be, then I'll see it a second time on the big screen.

I hated, bad mouthed, and still to this day loath "ST:Nemesis", but somehow the DVD is still in my colection. So, the same will most likely hold true for this Trek as well, except it will be in Blu-ray format.

“First feel fear, then get angry. Then go with your life into the fight.” - Bill Mollison

Author
Time
Post link

The new trailer is better than the 2nd trailer, the first trailer with the Enterprise begin build is better then both.
The new trailer bugs me because it shows me that the movie will be bad. I have watched The new trailer many times and at first like it, but then I Re-watching it and it started to bug me. The New trailer can be designed to put a different spin on the film, but the thing is that the New trailer has less dialog then the last one. The Last trailer and The Prequel comic (countdown) shows how the dialog (and story-telling) will be in this movie.
Watchmen was good, but it does not mean This Star Trek film will be the same.
Being skeptical is Wise, but I would wait to read reviews (by fans would be the best) on this film before spending a ticket price to see it in the theater.
Remember the best thing of Star Trek Nemesis was it's trailers (which looked like a Mirror-verse TNG movie).  
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Side Note:
Just Re-watched the 1998 Lost in Space movie which was a So-So movie (bad but had some Ok parts). The one of the OK part was Gary Oldman as Dr. Smith. Gary Oldman play it like Jonathan Harris' Dr. Smith (mainly the Dr. Smith from the pilot).
It is odd that a big and known actor like Gary Oldman played Smith like the Classic Smith, but then a little and unknown actor like Chris Pine is not playing Kirk like the Classic Kirk (WTF).

Author
Time
Post link

Errr..Hang on a sec dude...Classic Kirk from the TV shows was pretty bad. Even now, he is ridiculed for his Ov-ER pron-oUN-CING - of certain phrases. If anyone tried to imitate that, they would surely be slated for doing so.

 

I'm not defending something I've yet to see, but going by the new trailer, it does look like a fun ride!! And for a Star Trek film, that's saying a lot!!

 

 

http://www.facebook.com/DirtyWookie

Author
Time
Post link
Hunter6 said:

Watchmen was good, but it does not mean This Star Trek film will be the same. 

 

Just to clarify, my comment on Watchmen being good was in response to sky's asking me if Watchmen was good in response to my saying I saw the trailer when I went to see Watchmen. I in no way feel that Watchmen being good has any bearing on Star Trek in any way, I am still certian ST will be pretty lousy.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link
HotRod said:

Errr..Hang on a sec dude...Classic Kirk from the TV shows was pretty bad. Even now, he is ridiculed for his Ov-ER pron-oUN-CING - of certain phrases. If anyone tried to imitate that, they would surely be slated for doing so.

William Shatner's Kirk has been around for 42 years.

The Classic Kirk is just that.... a Classic Character. The Classic Kirk actions of Over Pronouncing phrases are Classic Too. 

The Classic Kirk is a icon for being a good hero Character.

Dr. Smith on the other hand is a icon for a joke Character.

A great and well known actor like Gary Oldman worked with The Classic Harris' Smith Character.

on the other hand, we have a little unknown punk named Chris Pine who is playing kirk not like Shatner's Kirk.

Now the last time I looked Harris' Dr. Smith was a big joke then Shatner's Kirk.

HotRod, I do not know if you know Lost in space or not. The 1998 Lost in space movie was bad, but the only good part was Gary Oldman's  Dr. Smith which was like The Classic Harris' Smith.

The Truth, more likely is that Chris Pine is a bad actor and does not acting chops to do a good version of Shatner's Kirk like Gary Oldman did with Smith. I think this is the true reason why Chris Pine said he did not play like Shatner's Kirk.

 

Author
Time
Post link

I just can't see William Shatner addressing anyone as "Man" outside of his T.J. Hooker role.

I'm not sure I am buying this new actor as Kirk.  If they can't pull off Kirk, this film is doomed

“First feel fear, then get angry. Then go with your life into the fight.” - Bill Mollison

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

Hunter6 you are forgetting that this is a reboot, or reimagining of star trek as if the world is seeing it for the very first time.  They had to do away with 40 plus years of continuity because it was baggage as far as creativity goes, or at least that is what i Get from JJ.

Yes it is confusing that i still has links to the next generation and original trek via Nero and Older Spock.

They want it to be a reboot and continuation of the original series at the same time, i would just as soon they reimagined the entire thing.

William Shatner is an actor, James T Kirk is a fictitious character and is not real.  Therefore they can and did get a younger actor to play him.  You don't seriously think they are going to make a 150 million dollar movie following the surviving original cast who are in there sixties and seventies?  That is as ludicrous as a sixty year old Harrison Ford playing Indiana Jones and surviving the stuff he survives in crystal skulll.

 

This is the beginning of Universe B.  Universe A becomes universe B by Neros tampering with the timeline.  A lame excuse for continuity reset but i don't know what i would have done in JJ's shoes.  The thing is people are saying JJ is ruining star trek and this is terrible but nobody is offering any alternatives or ideas.  And i mean for a healthy and vibrant alive resurgent franchise Like the Original Motion Picture did for trek, or trek II that is arguable.  What we don't need is for Roddenberry Pastiche up on the big screen aka James Cawley and Phase II with bad trying to sound like William Shatner. 

Shatner has worked with Chris Pines father and has given his blessing to chris there is no animosity there.  Only that Shatner is now sorry he turned down a cameo role because he wanted the starring role.

Yes they are doing the James Dean Rebel without a cause type character again for Kirk, just like was done for Anakin in the star wars prequels and mutt in indiana jones IV.  Shia also played a rebel in i robot and in transformers though not necessarily of the james dean mold.

One of the original inspirations for the space Pirate  Han Solo was James Dean.  If done well it could work out well.  And Haydens screentest was better than his own screen performance so there is plenty of blame to go around namely a certain mr lucas who can't direct actors.

In the orci comics supposedly Romulas is destroyed so to get revenge Nero blows up Vulcan.  Seeing the blown up planet in the trailer a bit too much like the death star and Alderaan.  and Enterprise already ripped off star wars with the Xindi superweapon.  So JJ is now copying copies.

So like Nero tries to Change the destiny of Kirk.  But even though Tarsis IV and Kodoss the excutioner do not happen nor the farrugut missions, history still takes the same course and James Kirk still comes out a great man.  I wonder if this is Orci and JJ idea?

“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

How about somebody in hollywood having the guts to work with TOS and trek canon. 
The James T. Kirk of Classic trek canon has a bigger backstory.
Kirk needs his Canon past. Tarsus IV massacre with Kirk witnesses Governor Kodos' eugenics philosophies alone is key to future events.
This new movie is really about alternate version then JJ should have the guts to do it fully and name it something like "Star Trek: Alternate" or "JJ Abrams' Star Trek". The Kirk in this movie is an alternate version with a different backstory and even looks different but I bet he will secretly reprogrammed the simulation computer on Kobayashi Maru scenario.

Rebooting is fine, but do it right.
Look at Batman Begins, Most of Bruce Wayne's past of the comics is in the reboot film. The death of Bruce Wayne's parents and his past is key to batman just as much as James T. Kirk's past is key to him.

nobody is offering any alternatives or ideas?
Here is one: Captain Robert April
Captain Robert April oversaw construction of the USS Enterprise components and commanded USS Enterprise for it's first five years before Pike. Captain Robert April is like the father of the USS Enterprise NCC-1701 and his missions are untold. I like Star Trek: Enterprise, but This is what Star Trek: Enterprise should have been.
A Pre-Cage NCC-1701 with her first captain and crew... Here is a new start for Star Trek which is Canon.

Author
Time
Post link

I think this is why they decided to go back so far for Star Trek: Enterprise, rather than doing something like a pre-Cage NCC-1701, because they didn't want to have to worry about messing with pre-established characters, vessels and events. By going back so far, they avoided, for the most part, exactly what we see going wrong npw. Had Enterprise been with April or Pike's crew, we'd be saying that the Enterprise looks nothing like the one from the cafe and so on.

This is a reboot, that essentially lacks the balls to take itself as a reboot. Some sort of separation anxiety perhaps? Afraid to let go of the hand of pre-existing Trek and fly on its own. That doesn't bode well for it. Superman Returns was the last reboot I can remember that couldn't quite bring itself to let go of pre-existing canon and truely start over, and the end result was a disaster to say the least.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
Post link
C3PX said:

I think this is why they decided to go back so far for Star Trek: Enterprise, rather than doing something like a pre-Cage NCC-1701, because they didn't want to have to worry about messing with pre-established characters, vessels and events. By going back so far, they avoided, for the most part, exactly what we see going wrong npw. Had Enterprise been with April or Pike's crew, we'd be saying that the Enterprise looks nothing like the one from the cafe and so on.

if they did Apri's missions, the NCC 1701 would not have too look like the NCC 1701 we know from TOS.

one of the problems with ST: ENT is that in the 4 seasons it never changed or grew. On ST: ENT, The NX-01 never was retrofitted to look and feel more like a TOS ships, The Uniform never Change from all blue to all TOS colors or even from the One-piece jump suit to a two-piece uniform like TOS and so on. It was like the people working on the show (1-3) were bull-headed and trying to force thier visions on to fans (sounds like Abrams). The 4th season saw story change, but it was too little, too late. After The time War ended the show needed Big change not little.  The time-line reset in Storm Front pt. 2 was the best time to have ST: ENT change to become more like TOS, but the writers miss it.

This is a reboot, that essentially lacks the balls to take itself as a reboot. Some sort of separation anxiety perhaps? Afraid to let go of the hand of pre-existing Trek and fly on its own. That doesn't bode well for it. Superman Returns was the last reboot I can remember that couldn't quite bring itself to let go of pre-existing canon and truely start over, and the end result was a disaster to say the least.

yes, my thoughts are the same.

It lacks the balls to take itself fully as a reboot, It lacks the balls to take itself fully as a Prequel, It lacks the balls to take itself fully as a re-imaged and It lacks the balls to take itself fully as a Sequel.

Abrams' trek seems so half-a**, messy and weak.
no wonder why, I see Abrams as a wimpy punk.

ST: ENT had way more balls then Abrams' trek.
ST: ENT was a Prequel (no ifs, ands or buts about it) and NOT some odd mix of reboot/Prequel/Sequel/re-imaged like the Abrams' trek or Superman Returns.  

 

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link
C3PX said:

This is a reboot, that essentially lacks the balls to take itself as a reboot.

That's the core of the problem I have with this thing. From the beginning, I had no problem with them doing a re-whatever-they-wanted-to-call-it, because it makes the most sense. But the production spent months communicating with fan sites and message boards, saying "oh no, it honors and respects the continuity of what has come before, you will see Kirk and Spock's first mission together, its Casino Royale with James T. Kirk", raising a lot of hopes and expectations, when they knew all along they weren't being straight. All that Clintonian "it all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" bullshit, saying its one thing in the face of every indication that it isn't ... it just shows contempt for the audience, i.e. me, and that's not working for me. Its left a sour taste in my mouth and has really soured me on the film. Abrams obviously is not a fan of the original series. He likes the movies, he likes in particular Star Trek - The Motion Picture because his daddy got him on the set when he was a kid, and he likes Star Wars. And he's got his dorky screenwriters to go online and sweet talk some Trek-related websites into essentially doing their P.R. work for them. And I'm just not into it. Abrams is saying "oh its not for the Trekkies, its for the Trekkies of tomorrow" - okay, fine. I'm taking him at his word that he's not making a movie for me and I'm staying home. I'll look at the DVD six months down the road, but I'm not spending my money on a flick the director has expressly excluded me from, I'm not buying the merchandise, blah blah blah. He can reboot Star Trek: The Corporate Franchise for the 21st Century without me. Truth be told, Star Trek, Inc. and I probably parted ways about 12 years ago anyway.

 

The new screens held!

Author
Time
Post link
Gaffer Tape said:

You know, Abrams's comments there really didn't bug me at all.  I know I'm a nerd, and it's a fact I appreciate while trying to maintain a sense of humor about myself.  Therefore, being called an "insane fanatic" doesn't insult me.  It either humors me or actually compliments me.  And that said, I can understand what he's talking about.  With any kind of adaptation, a balance needs to be reached between serving the purists and serving the new medium. 

 I'm the same way.  I'm aware of my lifetime of nerdiness.  However, at the same time I also have a healthy sense of humor about it, as well as keeping one foot in reality.

Besides, Abrams is right.   You don't have to look any further than this very thread - people knowing for a fact this new Trek film is terrible (even though they haven't seen it yet) - asking fans to boycott the film - posting hate messages from other boards - comparing photographs of different actors' facial expressions - claiming a TV show from 43 years ago is being destroyed, etc.

Clearly, for a select group of fans, there's only their way or the wrong way. Abrams knows what he's up against.

I'll be seeing this in the theater.  It's nice to have Trek back and for me this new film is very welcome after the last couple of offerings.  Anyway, it's just a movie - it's not disease, foreclosure, unemployment, or bankruptcy.

 

Worst case scenario - I go see it, I don't like it, I leave the theater, and I go get something to eat - because it will probably be lunch time when the movie is over.

Best case scenario - I go see it, I like it, I eventually buy it on DVD, and my Star Trek film library doubles in size.  ;-)

 

 

 

Forum Moderator
Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link
Anchorhead said:

Besides, Abrams is right.   You don't have to look any further than this very thread - people knowing for a fact this new Trek film is terrible (even though they haven't seen it yet) - asking fans to boycott the film - posting hate messages from other boards - comparing photographs of different actors' facial expressions - claiming a TV show from 43 years ago is being destroyed, etc.

I love all things Star Trek (even ST:5,ST:10) and this is the first time in my life that i have fought something "Star Trek" just like I loved all things Star Wars before the SE and The Prequels came along.

I do not had to see this jj trek movie to tell it is on the wrong foot.

Trailers, Plot details, pics, clips and so on are made to sell movie on what they show.

When you have alot of Trek fans saying what Abrams is doing is wrong how can someone say he is right.  

I had seen This ST:09 film rip the Trek fan-base into two groups: for it and not for it. The Same has happen to the star wars fan-base because of the SE/prequels. the star wars fan-base now is in two groups : SE/prequels lovers with sites like TF.N and OOTP fans with sites like this site I'm on. Star Wars Fans V.s Star Wars Fans and now The Star Trek Fan base is broken apart with Trek Fans V.s. Trek Fans. 

What People do on this Star Trek thread very much like what People on this site about Star Wars SE/ prequels.

People on TF.N would say Lucas was right for making the prequels like he did, just you are saying Abrams is right....

But, with both Fan-bases having in-fighting I would say both Lucas and Abrams are wrong.

 

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link
Hunter6 said:

I do not had to see this jj trek movie to tell it is on the wrong foot.

 

So - don’t go see it. Save yourself $10.00 and take a stand that means something.  Belching out hate on a message board isn’t going to do anything other than raise your blood pressure.

 

I’m a huge fan of the 007 franchise, been following it since 1973.  When the latest – Quantum Of Solace – came out, I went to see it as soon as I could, just as I have all the others. I was very disappointed. Only saw it once and I won’t be buying a copy.  That still leaves me 21 other films to watch.  It didn’t ruin anything – it can’t. It’s only a movie - only one out of 22 films.

I’ve also been a huge Star Wars nerd since 1977.  The original film is all I really like.  Because I'm not a fan of altered versions of films, I haven't seen the SEs.  Because Phantom was so bad, I didn't bother with the last two prequels.  Yet, that one film - Star Wars 77 -  is plenty to keep me as big a nerd as anyone here, as big as I’ve ever been.  The 1977 film moved me that much. For crying out loud – I post on a Star Wars board and I only like one film! – I’m in a really small group. ;-)

So it looks like you won’t be seeing this new Trek film. That leaves you 10 other films and over 700 TV episodes of Star Trek to watch.  Why in the world is that something to mount a crusade over? Is 720 hours of Star Trek not enough?

 

the star wars fan-base now is in two groups : SE/prequels lovers with sites like TF.N and OOTP fans with sites like this site I'm on. Star Wars Fans V.s Star Wars Fans and now The Star Trek Fan base is broken apart with Trek Fans V.s. Trek Fans. 

 

Fans vs fans? – who gives a shit?

Why would you worry about which side you’re on, which side is more popular, which side is correct, etc?  I don’t give a fuck if there are 10 groups of Star Wars fans – I’m the only group that matters when I put the DVD in.  The other groups aren’t in my living room watching the film with me. I'm just glad the folks around here haven't run me off after all these years. They probably think I'm some sort of far out old man, but they don't berate me for my views - at least not openly.  ;-)

You speak of the groups as though they were some sort of governing bodies – N. Korea vs S. Korea – Union vs Confederacy – Israel vs Palestine. Man, they’re just people going to the movies, that’s all. There’s no war - nothing to win.

 

 

People on TF.N would say Lucas was right for making the prequels like he did…..

 

And for what they want in a film, he did. For people who don’t care about continuity or story – he did. For people who want style over substance – he did.

 For what I want in a film - he didn’t, so I didn’t go see the last two.

 

 just you are saying Abrams is right....

 

I only said he was right about the insane fanatics.  As far as whether or not he was right about the film itself – I’ll have to see it first.

 

Forum Moderator
Author
Time
Post link
Hunter6 said:
HotRod said:

Errr..Hang on a sec dude...Classic Kirk from the TV shows was pretty bad. Even now, he is ridiculed for his Ov-ER pron-oUN-CING - of certain phrases. If anyone tried to imitate that, they would surely be slated for doing so.

William Shatner's Kirk has been around for 42 years.

The Classic Kirk is just that.... a Classic Character. The Classic Kirk actions of Over Pronouncing phrases are Classic Too. 

The Classic Kirk is a icon for being a good hero Character.

Dr. Smith on the other hand is a icon for a joke Character.

A great and well known actor like Gary Oldman worked with The Classic Harris' Smith Character.

on the other hand, we have a little unknown punk named Chris Pine who is playing kirk not like Shatner's Kirk.

Now the last time I looked Harris' Dr. Smith was a big joke then Shatner's Kirk.

HotRod, I do not know if you know Lost in space or not. The 1998 Lost in space movie was bad, but the only good part was Gary Oldman's  Dr. Smith which was like The Classic Harris' Smith.

The Truth, more likely is that Chris Pine is a bad actor and does not acting chops to do a good version of Shatner's Kirk like Gary Oldman did with Smith. I think this is the true reason why Chris Pine said he did not play like Shatner's Kirk.

 

If the bloke playing Kirk done a Shatner impression everybody would laugh their arses off and you lot would moan.

Also, I'm sure he was directed on how to act it - go easy on the guy man, shit.

 

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link
Yoda Is Your Father said:

If the bloke playing Kirk done a Shatner impression everybody would laugh their arses off and you lot would moan.

Also, I'm sure he was directed on how to act it - go easy on the guy man, shit.

I agree. Besides,  if I wanted to see a Shatner Kirk, I have countless hours of that already available.

 

In fact, Pine said he intentionally stayed away from doing a Shatner impression.  Here's an interview in Variety where he addresses that very subject;

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117994644.html?categoryId=3289&cs=1

"They're that iconic. They left that indelible a mark on the social psyche," Pine says of Kirk, Spock and the rest of the crew.

In jumping full throttle into cramming sessions with "Trek" lore encyclopedias and watching the original series, however, Pine decided midway that he was doing himself an injustice.

"All I was doing was heaping upon myself an incredible amount of responsibility, weighing myself down with 'You must remember to act this way' and such," explains Pine, taking over a part whose mannerisms, as embodied by William Shatner, have become instantly recognizable. "That's when I was really able to let go and accept the parameters that J.J. set forth in the beginning, which was to bring what was special and unique about us to the roles."

That meant embracing Kirk's descriptors -- charming, funny, leader of men -- rather than a predigested image.

"Just try to be human," Pine clarifies. "I got to do everything: yell, shout, cry, laugh, take charge and be vulnerable. I pulled the lucky straw."

 

Forum Moderator
Author
Time
Post link

Lets just hope Chris Pine does not turn out to be the Hayden Christensen of Star Trek, or we will be spending the next ten years hearing how JJ raped our childhoods,lol.

“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.

Author
Time
Post link
Yoda Is Your Father said:

If the bloke playing Kirk done a Shatner impression everybody would laugh their arses off and you lot would moan.

 

Exactly. Hell, I even laugh my ass off when Shatner does it, someone else doing it would be just too much. It is suppose to be a serious movie after all, not a comedy. Simon Pegg as Scotty and the guy from Harold & Kumar as Sulu already has this thing dangerously close to being extremely comedic (wonder why they didn't get Adam Sandler or Jim Carrey to play Bones?), you really want to see Pine running around making a lousy attempt at imitating Shatner?

 

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
Post link
skyjedi2005 said:

Lets just hope Chris Pine does not turn out to be the Hayden Christensen of Star Trek, or we will be spending the next ten years hearing how JJ raped our childhoods,lol.

 

You did notice the title of this very thread, right?

 

;)

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

 

I don't think that they had to find an actor who would do a flat out Shatner impression, just someone who would have that Shatner like attitude, movement, and speaking style in general.   When SW: episode 1 came out, I was very impressed with the choice of Ewan McGregor as a young version of Obi-wan.  You see, for me he fit the mold set by the original actor, and had enough similarities to help me believe (within the context of the storytelling experience) that this was a younger version of the same character. From what I have seen so far, I don’t buy Pine as Kirk. When there was this rumor that Matt Damon was in consideration to play Kirk in this film, I felt he was a good choice and had a good Shatner like quality. I think Zachary Quinto has that Vulcan factor, but will he be a good Spock is still up in the air for me.  One of the reasons ST: III is so low on my list of Trek films is solely due to the actress who replaced Kirsty Alley.  She was NOTHING like Alley, and I had a hard time accepting the new actress (Robin Curtis) in the same role.  I would have rather they just had made her an entirely new Vulcan.

 

“First feel fear, then get angry. Then go with your life into the fight.” - Bill Mollison