Can JJ Abrams Jurassic Park Trek out of the sciece fiction Fossil Bed?

[Garovorkin]

When I first heard that Mr JJ Abrams was going be doing the next trek film. I thought to myself that this was great day for the Trek franchise, which after the dismal disappointments of both Nemesis and series Enterprise was heading for the scifi scrap heap. That he was doing a prequel with younger actors cast in the role of those familar roles I thought wonderful, a retelling a re imagining by Abrams, this should be great. and Leonard Nimoy was going to be playing old Spock to Zachary Quinto's young Spock and we would get a story with Captain Pike, cool I though. Abrams doing a trek film this was really to good to be true, Most trek fans that I have talked to, on line and other place are all for it. But there seem to be a lot of die hards and cannon fanatics who want to see this project fail, because they can't bear to see anyone other the Shatner and company play these iconic roles. I think that is absolutely foolish. The Cannon fanatics don't like the fact that the new film may vary from the original cannon or so called cannon from the 1960's, a film made in the 21st century wedded to a cannon drone in the 60's, I mean that is ridiculous. Trek needs this film in order to viable again. The original trek right now can be seen on TV land with all the other venerable vintage antique shows of the past. to me if you science fiction show that is not necessarily a good development. It means your no longer cutting edge but Quaint. Abrams and company are going to honor the the original but they are not making this film just for trek fans , its for everyone.

 

[Alluveal]

I don't necessarily think the Trek films did that poorly. Considering the cost to make them, I would imagine they all pulled in a profit.

And I think the new Trek will bring in new viewers, absolutely. My faith in Abrahms was next to nothing until I got into Lost again. The only issue is that when he has more than one iron in the fire, his work tends to suffer. We'll see.

Still miffed about Alias. Always will be. He definitely pulled a Chris Carter on that one.

 

[Garovorkin]

I have faith in him as well Alluveal but, I cannot fathom why there are trekers who want this movie to fail, don't they seem to realize that if they get their wish it could be a long time if ever before the studio even thinks about either a Movie or even a series for that matter. This to me is Trek best chance to get itself back on it feet.

 

[Garovorkin]

The biggest question to ask is without the film what future does the franchise really have, outside maybe fan made projects and books and maybe Comics, There are no plans on the horizon for any kind of a series the Abram movie is basically it. So why can't these die hards be content with what they are getting?

 

[Alluveal]

Well, this material is sacred to the Trekkies, same as B5 is to us. If they were going to do a prequel for B5 and Tom Cruise was up to play Sheridan, some of us might lose our minds (and declare all-out war on Xenu.)

I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Part of me thinks they need to just give it a chance. Another part of me understands the reverence and love you feel for a work of art (i.e. television show in this case,) and the desire to have it untainted by Hollywood poo.

 

[Ranger1]

alias was cool, i guess. i respect lost but find it somewhat boring, however he seriously slipped up with MI:3, it was a pile of arse. this does suggest he does well when he invents his own world but falls on his harris when he works within the confines of someone else's creation.

 

[Garovorkin]

Here is a question for all of you, How relevant is trek in scifi circles? You get hard core trekies steamed over the fact that someone else play these iconic leads? Hello its a prequel type of movie, second its not like the original cast can play these characters forever.they are old and two of them are now deceased. Lets look at the fact that multiple actors have played Dr Who an Iconic character, nobody is complaining here, also how many actors have played James bond or Sherlock homes, no one raises an objection, New actor playing KIrk, Spock, McCoy and Scotty ect. I have no problem with that at all. Inthe New Voyage fan episodes, James Cawley plays Kirk, I have no problem with this, true he's not William Shatner but so what. Trek is dead in the water right now, it needs this film and thats all there is to it. It will launch a new era in Star trek and maybe save the trek Franchise from extinction which is where its heading right now. Besides the film has already been shot and is post production.

 

[GaribaldisHair]

I guess the problem is that having a different actor playing the role doesn't necessarily mean you will get the same character. A new actor will bring a new dynamic to a role, and if that dynamic is different to William Shatner or Leanord Nimoy's dynamic then the argument is that they have actually changed the charater, not jus the actor.

Doctor Who is a poor analogy really, since there is an in-story reason for the actor to change and part of the renewal and refreshment of the show over time is exactly what new dynamics a new actor brings to the a regeneration of the character. When there is a whiff of a regeneration in the offing, Doctor Who fans love to speculate on who it might be (no pun intended) and what they would bring to the new version.

As for Bond, I think because the focus of the movies is essentially on one character, with new bad guys and supporting cast every time the scripts can play on the strengths of the lead actor. Roger Moore Bonds were written to suit his character in the main, and were different from Connery's. The Living Daylights (for example) is said to have fallen flat because it was written for Moore but Dalton took over. Goldeneye, likewise, was (as I understand it) written for Dalton's Bond, but Prosnan took over.

The flexibility allows the audience to take to a new version of the character more easily and 40+ years on from Dr No, there is now an audience expectation that Bond will change actor every few movies and an acknowledgement among fans that this has to happen for the series to continue.

Trek, on the other hand, is an ensemble show and the chemistry between the characters is an important part of that and that will inevitably be different with different actors in the roles. There is also an argument, like with B5, that there are plenty of stories to tell in the Trek universe without having to change or re-boot the characters of Kirk, Spock, etc.

However, I think you have hit the nail on the head ... this was probably the only way Trek was going to continue in the short to medium term. Fans, therefore, need to decide whether having no new Trek at all for the foreseeable future is better than seeing their favourite characters reinterpreted by new actors.

This is also different from the outcry over possible re-casting of the B5 characters during the TMoS debates. In that case, there was no practical reason for re-casting, it was just (allegedly) proposed because someone thought they would get more bums on seats with better known "movie" actors.

Personally, I don't care enough about Trek to give a damn one way or the other.