First - I am completely convinced by you that the recasting is FOR REAL. I never said otherwise in my previous message
You asked Jan if she was sure of her facts, and then explained your question by saying that what she was saying made no sense to you and that surely the financial people would not act that way. Which part of this am I supposed to read as meaning, "But I believe what Jan is saying"?
Look, I probably should have made it clearer that my post was not
only a reply to your particular post, but a comment on the tons of similar posts that have repeatedly appeared here and elsewhere. My apologies if I caused offense without meaning to.
While you may not "know" Jan, if you've been reading this board at least as far back as last November you
would know that this effort has been going on for some time. Given that, I wish you had credited those making the effort with at least enough common sense to have thought of (and dealt with) so obvious an objection as the one you expressed.
And no, I didn't forget the
Trek films. The first one was an outgrowth of an attempt to revive the TV series, with Shatner in the lead and other of the old regulars involved. When they converted that TV project directly into a theatrical film (in part to cash in on the success of
Star Wars and its imitators, in part because Paramount was running into problems with its plan to launch a fourth TV network in 1979) the cast, many of the designs, costumes, props and even some of the scripts came along for the ride. Apples and oranges. If Paramount's feature film division had conceived of doing
Trek seven or eight years after the series went out of production without the intervening attempt to revive the show for television, there is ever chance that they would have recast it, with a 30-something James T. Kirk, just as Gene R. originally envisioned the show.
Regards,
Joe
