Now that the full crew of the Enterprise has been cast in JJ Abrams Star Trek prequel/reboot, we thought it would be a good time to take a look at the talent involved. The photo above is obviously photo-shopped (poorly in fact) by myself to show you what JJ Abrams’ on deck line-up may look like. Click on the photo to enlarge. Let’s take a look at thee new crew of the Starship Enterprise.
Captain James T. Kirk had a distinguished career in Starfleet Academy, becoming the first person to defeat the Kobayashi Maru test that stymied cadets for many decades. Whereas any situation would be met by the simulator’s overriding dictate that the cadet lose, Kirk won by rewriting the program to allow him to rescue the Kobayashi Maru’s crew. For this, he received a commendation for original thinking. Kirk became the youngest captain in Starfleet to date at 34.
Original Actor: William Shatner
New Actor: Chris Pine
Age: 26
Filmography: The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement, Just My Luck, Blind Dating. Smokin’ Aces
Spock is one of the few aliens in the permanent cast: half-Vulcan, half-Human, and serves as the science officer and first officer of the USS Enterprise, under Captain James T. Kirk. His personal struggle between the Vulcan logical self and his human emotional self is the centerpiece of the character and created some evocative drama.
Original Actor: Leonard Nimoy
New Actor: Zachary Quinto
Age: 30
Filmography: Heroes, So noTORIous, 24
Sulu (first name: Hikaru) served as helmsman of the USS Enterprise, during which he held the rank of lieutenant.
Original Actor: George Takei
New Actor: John Cho
Age: 35
Filmography: American Pie, Better Luck Tomorrow, American Pie 2, American Wedding, Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle, In Good Company, American Dreamz, Smiley Face, Kitchen Confidential
Montgomery Scott, better known as “Scotty“, is the chief engineer of the Enterpise. He retains a reputation as a “miracle worker”, and is renowned for his technical skill, knowledge, determination and resolve.
Original Actor: James Montgomery Doohan
New Actor: Simon Pegg
Age: 37
Filmography: Shaun of the Dead, Mission: Impossible III, The Good Night, Hot Fuzz, Run Fatboy Run, Spaced
Pavel Chekov is a young and naïve ensign who first appeared on-screen in The Original Series’ second season as the Enterprise’s navigator. The Russian Starfleet officer also substitutes for Mr. Spock at the science officer station when necessary.
Original Actor: Walter Koenig
New Actor: Anton Yelchin
Age: 18
Filmography: Charlie Bartlett, Alpha Dog, Hearts in Atlantis, Along Came a Spider, House of D, Huff
Nyota Uhura is from the United States of Africa and speaks Swahili. She joined the crew of the USS Enterprise in 2266 as a lieutenant, serving as chief communications officer under Captain James T. Kirk.
She is significant as one of the first major black characters on an American television series.
Original Actress: Nichelle Nichols
New Actress: Zoe Saldana
Age: 29
Filmography: Guess Who, The Terminal, Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, Drumline, Crossroads, Get Over It, Center Stage
Leonard McCoy, better known as “Bones“, is a physician of considerable skill, capable of successfully treating creatures whose physiologies he is unfamiliar with. He is suspicious of advanced technology, especially the transporter, which he regards with distrust and outright dismay, and occasionally is bigoted with regard to Spock’s half-Vulcan ancestry.
Original Actor: DeForest Kelley
New Actor: Karl Urban
Age: 35
Filmography: Pathfinder, Doom, The Bourne Supremacy, The Chronicles of Riddick, The Lord of the Rings, Xena: Warrior Princess, Hercules: The Legendary Journeys
Leonard Nimoy (age: 76) will return to play an older Spock, in some capacity. William Shatner (age: 76) is also expected to return as an older Kirk, although the studio and Shatner are both denying these claims.
Eric Bana is signed on to play a new Romulan villain named Nero
Age: 39
Filmography: Black Hawk Down, Hulk, Troy, Munich, Lucky You
October 18th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Nice photoshop job on all those pics!
Vic
October 18th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Thanks Vic, they certainly took long enough :P
October 18th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Yeah, that’s the problem with some posts… they take so bloody long to craft, especially when you want a nice graphic to go with it. I’ll bet these will end up on other sites. :-)
Vic
October 18th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
I’m very pleased that this article was put together to get a visual of them all together, now we just need to know what the movie’s about so we can get an idea of how much good acting to expect from everyone.
October 18th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Very nice job on this post.
October 19th, 2007 at 12:51 am
NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! NO NO NO NO!!!! WHAT THE HELL!!!!!!!!!! FUCK NO!!!!!!!!!! FUCK NO!!!!!!!!! well the casting seems kinda neat…but seriously…what the fuck im soo mad right now…i fucking hate this shit…the old school should remain as such….fuck….what the fuck…….FRAK THIS NOISE!
October 19th, 2007 at 1:20 am
Can we add Poiter to Eric Bana’s exploits? That guy cracks me up. I’ve never been able to take him seriously as an actor because I always expect a punch line. It’s like watching Johnathon Lithgow in Cliffhanger when you’re so used to him in 3rd Rock From The Sun.
October 19th, 2007 at 1:55 am
itz Good Job carry on
October 19th, 2007 at 4:58 am
It’s a little wierd that Bones is now tough enough to rip both new Kirk’s and Spock’s heads off while getting the nasty on with the new Uhura.
BTW, I’ll watch it hoping that the new Uhura will do a fan dance… rowr…
October 19th, 2007 at 5:32 am
Stupid. There’s no going home. Trying to recreate Star Trek with todays “pretty boy” actors just won’t work. What made Star Trek amazing is that it dealt with issues and values that Americans related to. How is Hollyweird going to do that?
October 19th, 2007 at 5:48 am
They have done a good job with the recasting, most of the new actors do look quite similar to their older counter-parts.
I just wonder if its going to be any good, the last few films have all been DOA. Last Contact was the last film of any particular quality.
I really don’t know why they didn’t just try their luck with a voyager inspired movie (forget about DS9!).
October 19th, 2007 at 5:51 am
doh. that should read “First contact”
October 19th, 2007 at 6:09 am
Bones isn’t old enough, Scotty doesn’t look right and the rest I’m just praying for a solid cast.
October 19th, 2007 at 6:35 am
I hate to put on my Trekkie/geek hat, but if this is a prequel, how can Eric Bana play a Romulan? Didn’t ST:TOS make a big deal about the first face-to-face meeting with them and that nobody knew what they looked like?
October 19th, 2007 at 7:30 am
i dont like eric bana very much …
may except munich … that was good …
i dont think he can pull this off …
October 19th, 2007 at 7:38 am
ST:TOS did make a point that this is the fist meeting of the Romulans. So, either that will just be conveniently ignored, or JJ has a plan. Maybe The Hulk doesn’t refer to himself as a Romulan during the movie, or the Enterprise crew gets their memories wiped at the end of the movie. It’ll be interesting to see how JJ deals with it.
October 19th, 2007 at 7:40 am
best photoshop EVER!!!
October 19th, 2007 at 8:52 am
Well done mate!
October 19th, 2007 at 9:37 am
Excellent work! Nice to see the side by side comparisons. This post points out one of the things that’s been confusing me for a while: Many of the characters are different ages and at different points in their military careers. How are they all going to be at Starfleet academy at the same time?
October 19th, 2007 at 9:48 am
balance of terror—- looks like spock’s father remember..whoa to these new one that don’t know the old
October 19th, 2007 at 9:54 am
excellent post, but, why am I hearing about this only now?? bah, lost my trekkie badge now..
thanks for taking the time to give us all a good side by side of all the actors.
October 19th, 2007 at 10:02 am
The new Chekov looks like he’s 12.
October 19th, 2007 at 10:37 am
sounds incredible
October 19th, 2007 at 10:59 am
I first noticed Karl Urban in Riddick. I think he’s going to be huge soon.
October 19th, 2007 at 11:46 am
Karl Urban is hot so I’ll watch any movie he’s in.
October 19th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
So does this mean Paul McGillion isn’t Scotty? WTF?! WHY NOT?!
October 19th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
I dunno why everyone is bitching about this…
While I know this is not a reboot ‘ala Batman Begins, but still you have to treat it like such..
This has potential writen all over it..
and By GOD I hope you die hard fans will be cut mostly out of the loop or you just might ruin this :)
October 19th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
I appreciate the info and all, but I’m just taken aback by Zoe Saldana as Uhura. For whatever reason, I cannot stand her in Pirates of the Caribbean. In fact, she ruins the film for me. Ugh. Blech. Ptooie.
October 19th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
just want to know when it is coming out. i love star trek & want to see it very much
October 19th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
i also want to say that it is great that someone took the time to want to bring star trek back to life & it is awesome that William Shatner & Leonard Nimoy is gonna appear on it
October 20th, 2007 at 5:33 am
Simon Pegg as Scotty!!!
This movie will be great for that alone.
October 20th, 2007 at 5:48 am
Isn’t Kirk dead? How can the “older” Kirk make an appearance?
October 20th, 2007 at 9:25 am
In the original series the enterprise makes contact with the romulans and it is stated that its the first time anybody has seen them for some years. It couldnt have been the first meeting or the first time anyone has heard of them as Spock would know the vulcans and the romulans are the same species.
I cant wait for this film i just hope they dont fuck up the actual enterprise, as DS9 proved no matter what you call it , it just aint star trek without the enterprise.
October 20th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
When I heard the casting choices I couldn’t agree more. When revitalizing a great movie classic like this the audience will never be fully satisfied unless these roles are played by the original cast. Great photo editing!
October 22nd, 2007 at 6:34 am
The weirdest thing about this article is the shot of Uhura wearing a gold uniform.
October 22nd, 2007 at 8:51 am
I think the whole setup looks cool and I’m sure as someone has already said, if it’s a prequel the actors are going to have be young.
Also I really hope that they get the remaining crew of the Enerprise A back for another film or two. They were the originals and in my book the best.
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:31 am
I would have liked to see singer Samantha Mumba as Nyota.
October 22nd, 2007 at 12:47 pm
I think it is stupid, none of them look at all like the original crew, (actually neither do the original Kirk or Spock) they should call it something else other then Star Trek, because it is NOT Star Trek
Steve
October 22nd, 2007 at 11:38 pm
I don’t like where this is going. I think they should have just left TOS alone…
October 23rd, 2007 at 7:58 am
Old School Trekkies need to give it a rest. I heard the whining about TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise. If we wish the Star Trek Universe to continue, we as fans must adapt and look forward to being entertained. Each series started slow, after learning the cast and crew they were all quite enjoyable.
Forget the concept that this is some sort of historical documentary. All of the original crew are too old or dead to continue, unless you wish to watch Star Trek, The Nursing Home.
If you have no interest in the new features, stay in your basement and watch DVD’s. I am looking forward to the new movie.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:56 pm
It may turn out to be good…All I meant is that I don’t like their casting choices…But I guess we will see how it pans out. I may be pleasantly surprised…Or maybe not…
October 24th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Very interesting and talented bunch they’ve brought together–So wot if they don’t look EXACTLY like their older ’selves’? Can’t wait for the film!!!
October 26th, 2007 at 8:52 am
Someone asked, with the characters’ different ages, how could they all be in Starfleet Academy at the same time? Easy. People go back to school all the time to change careers. Scotty could have spent 10 years or so in private industry and then decided to join Starfleet. Same with McCoy in private medical practice. And that’s just those two, off the top of my head. Surely the writers can come up with suitable backstories to make it all fit together.
Some might remember that they first floated this “prequel” idea nearly 20 years ago, back when all the original cast members were still hale and hearty enough (and willing) to keep doing films. The idea was shot down then. Now, it just might work. I am willing to reserve judgment until I see the finished product.
October 26th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Abrams is an idiot if he leaves Shatner out.
October 27th, 2007 at 12:35 am
Are they on a 5 yr mission and they all forgot to take along there razors? I just dont think the grundge thing is going to work.
Why remake Star Trek ? There were other star ships, 13 I think.
Anyway if you look back at Star Trek the original. I think you will find everyone was neat and clean. They had a some what military look about them. From the photos listed these guys look bad.
There uniforms look like they were slept in, way to baggie. People are going to notice this and it will make a difference. If your going to remake a movie go the extra mile and do it right. Star Trek was magic. And like any good magic trick you have to have a great presentation. The greatest trick in the world preformed poorly will never be any good. Think about it, first impressions matters. You know what people expect.
October 27th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Star Trek is unique in the world of entertainment. It has spawned more people to make something of their lives and contribute those inventions and services to the world then any other TV/Movie ever created. Gene Roddenberry was most responsible but the interaction of the cast, their chemistry and the meaningful messages in the episodes carried the torch as well as so many other factors.
Perhaps this is just a ploy by JJ Abrams, the studio and Shatner to generate publicity. If so, you’ve done the job well. If not, then this is a mistake to not include Shatner. As far as him being “dead”, he was in the Nexus so he is still alive. Another way around it is Kik and Spock could have time travelled back during an earlier time period. In any case there are plenty of ways a writer can come up with a story when you are dealing with science fiction.
Generations was a disgrace how Kirk died. JJ…you should resurrect James T Kirk/William Shatner and by combining his role with Spock/Leonard Nimoy this film has more potential to be a huge success. But… only if accomplished by following the original ideals of Star Trek. If you wonder into some foolish plot or silly unsophisticated writing, it will fail no matter who is in it!
October 27th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
I’m concerned that even though Kirk died in Generations, that Spock could not be sitting on Vulcan and “remember”ing one of thier last conversations in a flash back. That would allow Mr. Shatner to be in the new Trek film (announced today that JJ Abrams was not using him). We don’t have many of the Original cast left to enjoy on the screen and when one of the main Original Characters are not utilized, it seems a major mistake on Abrams part. I know that if Mr Shatner will not be in the film, I’ll wait until the film in sent to NetFlix and I’ll put it my my “Q”. Mr Nimoy is Great, and he was given opportunities in the growth of the franchise with appearances in the new series. I was very disappointed in Generations when I did not see him. The concept of the new film with the fisrt mission seems fun.
Thanks for reading.
October 31st, 2007 at 4:43 pm
My congrats on a great post. I am an old trekkie; a fan from the very first episode. I was wildly excited when I heard there was going to be another film. Casting doesn’t mean filming and sometimes the wheels fall off, but it would be great if it happened. For all the hype, the series has always represented hope, and a nerdy faith in mankind. I’m fine with the cynical and tightly editted films of today, but once in a while it is nice to see a film with a vision of a future where friendship and valour count for something. LLAP!
November 6th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
To William above:
You should look into medication if you don’t understand that the photo above is not from the new movie.
Scary.
November 6th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Abrams is a charlatan.
These actors are NOT actors. They are face-paint.
I’m sick of philistinism being passed off as entertainment. Everyone defending this against the “old guard” is being naive.
Abrams will leech this of any life it had. The film will be slick, snappy, urbane, sexy and utterly forgettable, like the soft, shapeless, designer bestubbled faces of his new cast.
This is a FRANCHISE that he’s messing with here. Everything he does with it becomes canon, and limits the possibilities of further, worthwhile explorations of the ST franchise. Remember The Final Frontier? The “give it a break” attitude is unwise.
Quinto has admitted he hasn’t watched much Trek before, isn’t interested in it really, won’t be watching any Trek for his character, won’t be basing his character on Nimoy’s and will be going off on a creative (read banal & unstructured) tangent, where Spock is more “emotional, you know.”
These people are actually STUPID. They are not performance artists, like Shatner or Nimoy.
I’m not a fan of the original series, but at least it had the courage to be cheesy, and actually DO something.
JJ Abrams will ring in the OC era of ST, as if Enterprise wasn’t bad enough.
An end to this folly.
November 12th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
I agree with Fionn on this one…Hollywood is trying to leech what it can out of all the old films and shows we loved because the majority of writers today are incapable of original thought…Everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY, thinks they can write a better version, take, slant, whatever you want to call it on original ideas…they toss around words like “reboot” or “re-imagined”, instead of creating something of substance or exploring new territory in a franchise such as Trek…in my opinion, Star Trek died with Roddenberry…Everything that followed was like watching an Elvis impersonator…sure he looks and sounds like the king, but deep down you know Elvis was gone…what amazes me is in a vast universe of the future where they can go anywhere and have some really cool adventures, they choose to focus on telling us things about these characters that are common knowledge or stuff that neither adds and usually takes away from the character…the original series began with boldly going where no one has gone before, and yet, here we are, going where we’ve already been…I won’t pan the film because the story may be awesome, I just won’t get excited over watching TOS on the big screen, when it has been done so well on the small screen…
November 28th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Simon Pegg and Karl Urban should swap roles.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
I cant wait to see the movie. I agree with earlier comments though. Lets be serious, can anyone ever play kirk without some disconnect or sneering about how he isnt cheasy or over actorish enough. That goes for the whole crew. This is an opportunity to let the franchise live to be enjoyed for another decade to come. THe old cast is old, james doohan is dead, and george takei has no interest. We need to be open to a new story and crew or be complacent with watching the same dvds over and over. I love them all as much as the next but I dont think I can even make it through wrath of khan all the way. be a lame ass puritan or dare to be open to let the story breath.
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Come on, people, it’s a movie - not a religion. I think it’s going to be great fun and the casting is brilliant! So what if some of the actors don’t look quite like their characters (for example: Simon Pegg as Scotty). That’s what make-up artists are for. And who are we to assume that Karl Urban can’t pull off the humor of Bones. Give the guy a chance to step out of the box and work those acting chops. I’ll be at the first showing, you can be sure. And if you aren’t there because it offends your narrow and pristine view of OST purity, then you won’t be missed. Lighten up, for Pete’s sake, and allow yourself to be entertained.
December 6th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
THE NEW JJ ABRAMS STARTREK IS NOT A REMAKE IT IS A PREQAL
IT TAKES PLACE AS A FLASHBACK AT DIFFERENT TIMES BEFORE THEIR HISTORIC 5 YEAR MISSION.
THE CASTS ARE GOOD ENOUGH AND WITH NEW DIGITAL TECH.
IT SHOULD BE A WELL DONE FILM ( TRUE TO THE WHOLE STERTREK IMAGE).
NEMOY AND SHATNER WOULD NOT PARTICIPATE OTHERWISE.
THE WHOLE CONCEPT HAS BEEN ALREADY DONE IN BOOKS.
STAR TREK :FIRST BEST DESTINY IS A GOOD EXAMPLE.(ITS ABOUT A YOUNG JIM KIRK WHO JUST ENTERS STARFLEET ACADAMY)
December 6th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
THE CAPTAIN WILL BE CHRISTOPHER PIKE AND ALL THE CORE CAST WILL BE IN THE ACADAMY AS CADETS! ( EXCEPT FOR SPOCK BECAUSE HE WAS SERVING ON THE ENTERPRISE UNDER PIKE.)
THE MCOY CHARECTERWILL BE A STAR FLEET DR. ( NOT ON THE ENTERPRISE)
December 6th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
i AGREE WITH DRAMAMAMA !
December 7th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Dramamama, that was exactly my point.
The casting is AWFUL.
They’re just not the same kind of thesp as Nimoy or Shatner.
Bana is good.
Pegg is intelligent, and versatile, and a good casting decision.
Ryder, directable.
Urban, perhaps…
But Quinto is a churl. He doesn’t understand his craft. He doesn’t understand most things, based on the anodyne nonsense he lets spill from his mouth whenever he’s asked for a soundbyte.
And Pine…
These people are rom com actors…teenage-television fare at best.
Abrams has made a name for himself using that kind of actor in interesting contexts, but there are only so many ways you can use so limited an artist, and Abrams’ strategy has become formulaic, and predictable - and everything that initially seemed good seems superficial these days.
And now he’s going to homogenize Trek EVEN MORE than it already was, and specifically the least originally homogeneous of the Treks, the Trek that was supposedly safe from that sort of status-diminishing retcon.
The sad thing is that this sort of superficial, formulaic approach to the screen is so well respected by a vast swathe of people who are willing to remain complacent in the platitudinous lie that Abrams is a “genius”, simply because they are too lazy in their aesthetic tastes to be inspired to see how much better television and cinema can be, and are willing to float wistfully, nay reverently, into the artistic malaise that is Abrams’ (unrepentantly thinned) vision of Star Trek.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:18 am
Okay, Fionn, let me get this straight.
You make a blanket statement that the casting is “AWFUL”,
then go on to object to two of the six actors, one based on his
inability to deal glibly with the media, and the other based on
three dots after his name. Your specific objection to Pine is unstated, but I have to give the guy snaps for Smokin’ Aces. I
thought he acquitted himself admirably.
That all aside, I will agree to disagree with you on film quality and what is judged worthy or unworthy by whatever arbiter of taste you decide to go with:Oscar, Cannes, Golden Globe, Sundance, People Magazine… Just kidding on that last one. I have this same argument with two of my four children (all actors/writers). They think that if a film is not “Oscar-worthy” then it is a waste of their time and their box office dollars. I love a well-made film as much as the next person, but I think the underacheivers have value as well.
Rocky Horror was never a great film, but it was, and still is. great fun.
I am of the opinion that they can’t all be award winners, and neither should they be. And the simple truth is that no OST film, regardless of how stellar a cast might be put together, is ever going to go home with a trophy for Best Picture. Never. But that’s okay.
And I don’t really think the OST was going for “cheesy” when it was in production.
And cut Quinto a break on the soundbytes. He’s relatively new at the game and needs a little more practice.
And it’s not nice to call people “STUPID.”
And yes, actors are people too.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
I say the casting is awful because it seems to me that there is a predominance of casting decisions where a preference was made for people whose connection to the practice of acting is more comparable to the similar connection of Britney Spears to musicianship than, say, John Williams’ connection to same.
All of them aren’t bad. But there are among them more that I wouldn’t consider actors than those I would consider worthy of the name.
As someone trained as an actor myself, and also enjoying the privileges of personhood, I am more than aware that actors are people.
As someone with a relatively stable claim on being thought intelligent, I am, I think, somewhat justified in making an inference from an inability to speak intelligently to the media to a conclusion concerning his (Quinto’s) intelligence. I may be on shaky grounds here, but it’s all I’ve got, and it certainly isn’t an encouraging sign. (As for glibness, I wouldn’t think that was a virtue either. An inability to deal glibly with the media, in my reckoning, signifies an admirable tendency to treat the media with the contempt they mostly deserve. As it stands, Quinto has neither, though.)
On top of which, it’s not nice to call clever people stupid undeservedly; on that I would agree. But whether or not a healthy respect for matters of arguable fact ought to be trumped by a concern for social niceties is another matter. As far as I’m concerned, he’s a good looking guy, but he doesn’t have the intelligence for this line of work. And all those second chances are only screwing up more screen time.
I would have thought my objection to both actors was more clearly stated in the sentence that followed the three dots. That was where I intended you to look, anyway. They’re just not the right kind of people to play these characters - they don’t even have the ability to acquit themselves in the kind of drama that ST originally exemplified. (They’d fit right in in Enterprise; an equivocal accolade!)
I don’t really have an arbiter of taste. I don’t read industry-related media. To be honest, my presence on this blog is a direct result of my hearing about this film, and wanting to vent. I have the same feeling about this as I did about Jackson’s awful Lord of the Rings, and I wasn’t wrong about that. I stick to my own counsel on aesthetic matters. My taste relating to the narratival dramatic arts draws more on a consideration of and respect for the instances where I have seen it done exceptionally well.
Some of Roddenberry’s work sits among these instances. (I don’t think it was brilliant, but it was unique, it fought a corner for SF, and had some substance to it. It was modestly good.) I seriously consider Roddenberry to have laboured in a different line of work to Abrams. By this I mean that Abrams is in the entertainment business, whereas Roddenberry, while also making that compromise, had something else about him. His actors were already initiated into a literary humanism towards which TOS made the often thwarted attempt to go boldly. It may not have been going for ‘cheesy’, but it did come out that way at times. But that didn’t matter. An odd, stiff, awkward Shakespearean quote here and there, a naive iota of utopian political philosophy there, a healthy respect for and debt to the narratives of the classics; Roddenberry’s work tried to endorse intelligence, insight and understanding. Incongruous, comical even, though it often was, Shatner’s Shakespearean rhetoric actually meant something.
Compare this to Abrams version of the same thing: the pithy, mystic quotes of “John Locke” in LOST, which indicate a world of meaning that is always just about to heave into view… but won’t, because it’s not there, because it’s written simply to SOUND intelligent, with little enough substance to it, on closer examination. Abrams sentimental moments of sagacity are the work of someone with a marginal intelligence and not a little guile, and no real idea of the difference between the content of self help manuals and the vast and valuable history of the human intellect. (And why should he? He’s works in the entertainment industry. Right?)
It’s the equivalent of an online signature, selected at random from a “Famous Quotes of Wisdom” generator: snatches of words that SOUND intelligent to a whole load of people who don’t have a university education, or who do, but sailed through it blissfully unaware.
And in the “entertainment industry” that’s enough, because “hey! it’s entertainment! ” It’s not supposed to mean anything! As long as it seems as if it does, that’s ok! That’s all you have to do to be a genius. And let’s kiss a collective goodbye to any aspirations of intellectual stimulation in the moving images we watch, because once it sounds as if it’s clever, then it must be, right?
I’d disagree with your children too. Academy Awards don’t mean very much at all. Actually, I’d think they mean the opposite. But the Rocky Horror Picture Show? Is “fun” the only criterion upon which aesthetic choices ought to be made or broken? I don’t think so. I think Trek is a franchise which is, as it stands, already heaving under the weight of exploitative retcons, and the continuance of its lifespan well beyond saturation point, all at the hands of a bunch of people disappointingly short of Roddenberry’s idealism and intellect.
So I’m not worried about this not getting a Best Picture award. No. I’m annoyed it’s getting made at all. It can only dilute ST’s already thin universe, and bring us further from the idea of ever seeing a Trek which is even engaging or interesting in the same way again. Now, we’ll likely never see Trek wise up rather than dumb down, since, if it is popular (it’s Abrams. Why wouldn’t it be? Every churl in the quadrant will be out of his cave to coo at it!) that’ll be seen as positive reinforcement for more of the same.
Star Trek doesn’t need Abrams. Who cares if it’s going to be “fun”? Star Trek Nemesis was “fun”, with beach-buggy chases a go go, and plenty of Vin Diesel-like ‘lock and load’ one-liners, but it was also the lowest point of Star Trek in recent history (overall: The Final Frontier, but don’t get me started!), and actually managed to undermine forever, in its anti-Trek bravado, the perfect last episode of TNG. The people responsible for these mistakes really ought to feel guilty for making other people’s work look bad by association, and for diminishing the mythical essence of the characters they mishandled.
Star Trek doesn’t need Abrams, his pseudo-intellectual “poetic grammar of television” and a bunch of mediocre, fashionably disheveled faces. Star Trek, if anything, needs a rest. For perhaps 10 years. That’s the only thing that will ‘invigorate’ it.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
fionn you are overcomplicating the whole subject
December 11th, 2007 at 6:26 am
Believe it or not, Vic, this kind of thing is actually there in any piece of artistic endeavour worth its salt. There will always be a discourse behind it, a reasoning of why to do this thing rather than that, of what works and what doesn’t, of what is and is not desireable. The worst movies are those where it the people involved don’t even know that that discourse is part of the process.
Whether or not, upon watching it, you notice that at all, doesn’t really impinge on the fact that it’s there.
The issue is complex. I’m simply choosing not to ignore it.
If this sort of overcomplication is what enables me to put my finger on exactly why I “feel” that Star Trek The Wrath of Kahn is infinitely better than Star Trek Nemesis, then I’m happy with “overcomplication”.
December 11th, 2007 at 11:46 am
I’m with you, Vic. You seem to be confusing making movies with making art. Movies are not about art. They are about money. No film studio ever released a picture thinking “This movie is going to lose us money big time, but what wonderful artisitic merit it has!” It is all about the box office and ticket sales and opening day figures. Money, Fionn, not art. That is why it is referred to as show BUSINESS and/or the movie INDUSTRY. If the movie happens to contain what some may see as artistic merit, then great. But the bottom line in today’s world is the almighty dollar. Harsh reality, but true.
After reading your long discouses on the subject, though, I have come to realize, albeit a bit slowly, that reasoning with you is rather like butting one’s head against a brick wall. And frankly, my head has had enough. Think whatever you want. I don’t really care. Use as many big words as you want, tell everyone how very intelligent you are, boast, brag, and listen to yourself talk on and on and on…
I have better things to do.
Anyway, I think your opinions on this subject
December 11th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
“You seem to be confusing making movies with making art. Movies are not about art. They are about money.”
I’m not confusing anything of the sort. I have, in everything I’ve said, taken care not to conflate the two.
The film industry is what supervenes on the artistic side of filmmaking. That there are studios whose notion of intrinsic value in the film itself has never been, at its best, any better than paltry, doesn’t diminish the fact that movies, good movies, the only ones that really matter, ARE about art.
I wouldn’t expect most studios to know what a good movie is. When a studio goes through a period of actually having some sense about this, it’s normally fleeting. What normally happens when something worthwhile is made, is that it’s made in defiance of the studio.
“No film studio ever released a picture thinking “This movie is going to lose us money big time, but what wonderful artisitic merit it has!—
No. But to state it like that is to misconstrue what actually happens. Often whatever artistic merit the film has is ignored by studios.
It’s true that many movies with genuine artistic merit don’t get made because of worries about financial return. But it’s also true that a great many awful, inadvisable and stupid changes are made to otherwise good films because of studio concerns.
Whether or not the studio thinks a movie is bankable ought not really to confuse us when we’re talking about whether or not it’s good, right?
“It is all about the box office and ticket sales and opening day figures. Money, Fionn, not art. That is why it is referred to as show BUSINESS and/or the movie INDUSTRY.”
The fact that you’re explaining this to me as if I was naive of this point is ironic, since that’s exactly the problem I’m complaining about here.
Sure, that’s what the movie industry is about; and that’s the movie industry that would happily churn out nonsense like Star Trek Nemesis, as long as it has an audience.
If a movie has a good box office take, do you automatically like it? Because if that’s all there is to it, then you really ought to.
Look at Alien. That was a film of obvious artistic brilliance made despite the money motivated ministrations of industry professionals to shut it down, and cut it off, and bring it to screen prematurely. So much more than cynically working out what sells, and putting it into the movie went into Alien.
It was a GOOD movie.
It’s not really an elevated sense of the word “art” I’m talking about here, really. Let’s face, Star Trek ain’t “art”. But it IS good. And it’s not good simply because “GOOD” is what sells - it’s good because the people who were involved in it when it was good made it their art to make it.
It’s industry-thinking the sort of which you’re talking about that gave the world the catastrophe that was Alien VS Predator. That was made based on a facile idea of what would sell, a cynically minded enterprise intended to cash in in a formulaic way on what had made Alien successful, and guess what? It didn’t sell. Because it wasn’t good - because there was no artistic thinking behind it.
So it’s not just money that makes films. It’s art too - art in the sense that someone has to make it, and the best films are made by people who make it an art.
And Abrams is just the wrong kind of director for this. He’s the equivalent of a studio director - he’ll kill everything that was Trek about Trek, and we’ll get Dawson’s bloody Creek in space, the same way we’ve had Dawson’s Da Vinci Code SpyCreek, Dawson’s Creek on a nightmare island, and SuperDawson’s HeroCreek.
December 29th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
These actors are wonderful talents. Okay then, so now I’m hooked…
January 5th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Have you tried buttcakes?
January 5th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Have you tried coherency?
(ie. communicative language use.)
I assure you, the benefits are inestimable.
January 18th, 2008 at 11:43 am
I wonder if J.J. will include the scenes where the bully Finnegan(?)
beats Kirk like a drum: hard and often.
January 22nd, 2008 at 6:24 am
Steve writes:I think it is stupid, none of them look at all like the original crew, (actually neither do the original Kirk or Spock) they should call it something else other then Star Trek, because it is NOT Star Trek
I TOTALLY AGREE!! Why have them recast as the original crew anyways? Maybe call it The Alternate World of Star Trek where on a different plane this Star Trek crew exists or something along that line. Leave the original crew alone…Let them die in our memories…
January 28th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Ok, here goes…
First of all, we should NOT be looking for cast members who looks exactly like the original ACTORS, but just good enough to look like the CHARACTERS!! If they look somewhat like the actors too, then that’s a bonus. Having said that…
Chris Pine as Kirk looks like a good enough choice, especially since he knows not to try and emulate Shatner’s mannerisms in the role. I’m also kind of intrigued by the coincidental similarity of names between Chris Pine and Chris Pike! (Good omen, perhaps?) I just hope he brings enough to the table.
Zach Quinto couldn’t be better cast as Spock! I’m totally psyched about that!
As for the other cast members.. it looks like I have some video renting to do….
Don’t know enough about John Cho, other than the fact that he’s done a few movies that they’d have to pay ME to watch, but I hope he plays the role seriously and smartly, with glimpses of Sulu’s leadership qualities as a bridge officer and future captain showing through.
I can’t say Simon Pegg is a good fit as Scotty, but I’d have to wait to see his performance and, of course, see what he looks like in full costume and make up. I hope the writers take Mr. Scott’s leadership qualities and absolute devotion to the ship into consideration and not make him just a comic relief. After all, he is third in command! Pegg executive produced and/or directed some of the films he is in, which means he takes his craft seriously… so I hope he takes this role just as seriously.
Karl Urban as Dr. McCoy.. I suppose that could work. Still, he does seem a bit bigger than Bones was, physically. But Urban is quite a talented actor in his own right with an impressive resume, and I’m interested to see how he approaches the role.
Zoe Saldana looks to be every bit the type to play Uhura.. no complaints there. I hope they give her a bigger part than Nichelle had. From what little I’ve seen in Pirates, she deserves it.
As for Anton Yelchin as Chekov, although I haven’t seen him act either, his age is just about right, and he is really Russian, so he obviously should know how to pull off a convincing Russian accent. Add to that some good tongue-in-cheek delivery on his part, and Chekov’s subtle eagerness to make a positive impression on the Captain, and he’s got it down.
Having Eric Bana as a Romulan is all well and good, except for the point one of you guys made earlier about how TOS had established that Romulans and humans never made visual contact with each other until Kirk’s encounter with them in the episode “Balance of Terror” which, in the timeline of this new movie, would not take place for at least another few years. However, in the interest of revitalizing the franchise after the disaster that I call the REAL “Enterprise” incident (the Bakula years), I’m prepared to grant them some leeway. Besides, how many other inconsistencies within the entire Trek universe have we all chosen to ignore at one point or another? As Bill Shatner said on SNL… “It’s just a tv show, damn it, it’s just a tv show!!”
Long live Star Trek!!!
….or should I say…
LIVE LONG AND PROSPER!!
January 29th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Starfleet didn’t let Captains date until they were 34? Wow, I guess throughout the series, Kirk was just making up for lost time. ;-)
February 16th, 2008 at 10:27 am
I been a big star trek fan since the beginning with kirk and spock and scotty however to try and make a new star trek on all new actors is not logical for need of all trek fans out way the need for people to try and steal the magic that made star trek what it is and i will say it will failed and nothing will ever replaced the great capt. kirk so watch the reruns i do and evety time i do they are like new to me.
live long
March 2nd, 2008 at 12:10 am
I hope this new star trek flick will not be a comedy
March 14th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
It seems like a lot of focus went into picking the face and not the talent of these new actors. Likely, picking people for their looks will only result in another bad rehash of a great original series. I wish Hollywood would start coming up with new ideas instead of remaking movies and series that were already done well the first time. If not, maybe its time for a remake of The Matrix trilogy with some new 20-something actor. After all Keanu Reeves is already 43.
March 22nd, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Just don’t disappoint Mr. R. Keep the timeline where it should be and characters where they should be. And don’t go crazy with crappy Transformers like CGI. Good luck!
April 9th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
My gawd - I can’t believe some of the comments, “they don’t look like the original crew”, etc.
This isn’t SUPPOSED to be a copy of the original series…
This is a RE-BOOT - for some it’ll be better - for some it’ll be worse.
There is NO way every person could be happy with it
LET IT BE!!!
April 9th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Way too many people are assuming that the intent of this story is to replace and/or copy the original in some way (as Dennis said). I have seen no evidence of this.
Also, its hard for many people of the younger generations to watch and appreciate much of the original series because of the style of the writing and ’60s “feel” it portrayed. It’s hard for newer generations to look at the actual stories of the original series and fully understand what it meant when it was first aired.
To this effect, I believe, if the new movie is to portray Star Trek, as the original idea did in the ’60s, to a younger crowd, they need to bring the writing and feel to the new generation.
For those who grew up with TOS, or at least understand what it was all about, I can understand if you don’t like the idea. However, I ask you to give this movie a chance to bring the Star Trek Universe to a younger crowd. Even if its not the star trek you remember, it might end up being a good film anyway.
I am hoping that they do not ruin the idea that is Star Trek, but I will reserve judgment for after its release.
April 10th, 2008 at 12:44 am
It’s going to be awful, and it’s nothing to do with it being a reboot, or with it the actors not looking like the original.
It’s going to be awful because JJ Abrams is a witheringly mediocre creative force in American entertainment, because he makes of everything he touches a hype-platform with damn-all content. We can expect more (yawn) viral advertising for this, probably, and then, we can expect to go and see an utterly superfluous diversion of a movie, a mere popcorn banality, filled with ineffectual young people who have been convinced to call themselves “actors” on account of how pretty they are.
April 13th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
I definitely understand where your coming from, but I don’t know much about JJ Abrams previous works, so I have no real opinion of him. The few actors I’ve seen in this line-up seamed to be able to act well enough, I mean the original cast was not exactly the cream of the crop to begin with, but I admit quite a few I’ve never heard of. Even so, to condemn a movie before it has even come out is a little on the naive side in my opinion. So I am not gonna argue about it until I see it.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:15 am
This cast looks ridiculous! They got an almost bald red head playing the dark haired Scotty? Abrams must be smoking dope!
What kind of idiot would go see this mess? Oh yeah they are called brain dead get a live Trekkies!!
Get a life losers!
April 17th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Beam me up Scotty! Abrams has spent to much time on his “Lost” island. I think he’s caught in one of those time shifting things and has forgotten who and what Star Trek is all about. Mr. J.J. Abrams, set your phasers to kill and kill this movie before the “real” Star Trek is “Lost” forever.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
I would have enjoyed looking forward to a movie with the cast of “Enterprise” more than this current sham.
April 26th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
i was looking forward to seeing a continuing from star trek nemesis. maybe the cast didn’t want to move on, but i think they owe their fans one more. when they did data in that was disappointing. i was excited about the new movie until i seen the new crew. i don’t think it will go over as well as the others. i am really disappointed.
May 1st, 2008 at 2:20 am
Well I’m sitting at home, watching Star Trek on DVD’s, all of them. I’ve enjoyed the original show since first airing in 67, over and over again. And now I feel rather disappointed in that my favorite actors are being replaced. It’s like me saying to my wife, hon life has ended for our generation, and we should step down now. Well I’ve been swept away under the carpets all my bloody, asthmatic life, and now my hero’s as well. If this doesn’t beat us all…. I’d rather see digital shots of TOS tied together to make a new movie, than watching us being replaced. Enterprise could’ve been continued in film, I feel cheated, by life! Maybe next time they decide to replace the cast, the show will only be 20 years old, instead of 40, you know. Batman gets replaced every other movie, so does Superman, why not Star Trek? It’s like real life, except my wife got a job with her present company in 79, when the first movie came out. We’re not gone yet, just forgotten! And to all those people I’ve known who are no longer apart of us, I’ll see your faces live long, in the TOS.
May 27th, 2008 at 6:34 am
I think everyone is pre judging the film. I am at least willing for it to come out and see it before I make any judgements about it. The trailer doesnt give that much information and its so short that its hard to telll if the film will be any good or not. I’ve heard that they have changed the Enterprise and that does concern me a bit. Even in the TOS episode “The Menagerie” the ship was the same and that was well before Kirk took command. But you know engineers, they love to change things. So lets wait till the film comes out and see what its like. Live long and prosper
June 5th, 2008 at 7:41 am
Good for a new old Star Trek movie. I don’t like most of the new actors. Most of them don’t look like their old counterparts (but Sulu and Uhura). I think Jude Law was the best option for Kirk.
June 5th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Jude Law????? Your a tard. The only decent replacement for kirk is NO replacement, but since there is one I think they did okay except for the actors comment about putting a harrison ford Indiana Jones twist to kirks sense of humor.
What should have happened was a spin of with George Takei as captain of the Excelsior but production was scrapped because of their bomb with voyager.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:10 am
usa steven red deliver red
August 11th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Has John Cho become the guy that studios go to if they need a young Asian male. I remember when Harold and Kumar came out the big deal was about opening more doors for Asian actors. But now it just seems to be about casting the same guy for different race related roles. I like John Cho, but we need to give more actors a chance.
August 11th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
I definitely hope that Bones and Uhura hook up. They would make a hot Enterprise couple.