First off I read an interview with one of the writers that pledged to keep a very close eye on continuity and make sure that elements of the franchise 40 years in the making would not be altered or forgotten. Sure, there has been some necessary retconning along the way, but there's a difference between retconning and blatantly ignoring or altering something.
Second, all of the rumours of big name stars and outrageous casting choices seem to be as false as the producers have always assured us they were. After a running list that included Ben Affleck and Adrian Brody as contenders for Spock, an announcement was just made at the San Diego Comic Con that Heroes actor Zachary Quinto (Gabriel Gray, AKA Sylar) will play the younger Spock. What's more, Leonard Nimoy has confirmed his involvement as Spock as well, signifying that a 24th Century (TNG-era) Spock will also make an appearance.
Looking at him in publicity shots and from roles other than Sylar, I think Quinto has the right look. Here's a picture of him off the set, not looking all creepy-Sylar like:
And since the movie is supposed to be set in the early days of Kirk and Spock serving together, here's what Spock looked like in the pilot "The Cage":
I'd say it's a pretty good match. We'll still have to wait to see who they find for Kirk, but overall I'm satisfied with their decision on Quinto and I have a little more faith in the project than I did before. I think Shatner is still in talks with the producers who are still trying to figure out a way to include him as an older Captain Kirk without ignoring the events of Star Trek Generations, though I would be even happier if they found a way to undue the character's poorly written death in that movie. Come on - between the Nexus, Genesis Planets, Guardians of Forever, time travel, and everything else, James T. Kirk is not supposed to go out like a chump. I doubt that they will change anything about that, but it's just a suggestion.
All that being said, I'm looking forward to Star Trek in 2008 just a little bit more now than I was before.
12 comments:
Casting can be such a problem. I heard someone say Ewan McGregor for Scotty and Matt Damon for Kirk ... which, I don't know. I love Matt Damon something fierce, but I don't know if he's Kirky enough.
Then again, I was pleasantly surprised with him in the Bourne movies so far, so one never knows.
But still, eek.
The Matt Damon as Kirk rumour has been going around from a variety of sources for a while, but I think at this point all parties have given good cause to consider it false. While no new candidate for Kirk has been talked about, there is increasing buzz about James McAvoy taking on the role of Scotty.
Nerd.
"Weary of J.J. Abrams at the helm" or wary of J.J. douchebag at the helm? Have you ever seen anything for which Abrams has been responsible? Alias? Lost? Mission: Impossible III? It's wall-to-wall garbage.
The proposed title - Star Trek, unadorned - should tell you that this will not be Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek but something entirely new, entirely of Abrams's invention, and entirely crummy. For shame, Brad.
You're right, TLAM, I did mean to type "wary" instead of "weary". Of Abrams' work I have only seen Mission Impossible 3 and a few early episodes of lost, but at the time was not watching either under the critical eye of wondering what the person who made them would do with Star Trek. Given how God-Awful Mission Impossible 2 under Jon Woo was, I don't think I had clear perspective on the quality of MI:3... anything would seem decent after MI:2.
I certainly do not endorse the current direction Star Trek is going in. I would have much preferred to see things turned over to Ira Stephen Behr, or seen a push to make a made-for-TV Enterprise movie, or continued the movie series in the 24th century with either an all TNG cast or a mixed cast with DS9 and (if necessary) Voyager characters.
When Abrams' name and the early Kirk and Spock concept first came out, I tried to will it away and believe that it was not really the direction things would go in. But try as I could to deny it, eventually it became official. I still don't like it, but I don't want to be one of those fans who refuses to accept anything before it's even been made. I got a bit of a sense on how all the Transformers purists were condemning the movie before it came out, and now everyone's loved it.
My opinion on the new Star Trek movie is guarded. I won't outright condemn it, but I require a great deal of proof to the contrary that it won't be a disaster. The idea of going back to a young Kirk and Spock has been around ever since Harve Bennett pitched a Starfleet Academy story after Star Trek IV but was vetoed by Gene Roddenberry.
I still say we should scrap the whole thing and get Nicholas Meyer back to do the next movie, but I doubt that's going to happen.
Nerd alert!
I, for one, am already weary of J.J. Abrams and his fucking hackery.
Oh, my kingdom for a DS9 movie!
DS9 is great tv if you have the flu or are really hungover. Seriously. Can you think of a show that requires less thought, more completely bland entertainment value and yet, still you feel like you've gotta watch it in a small, dark room so no one will know?
DS9 4evar!
Spoken like a true Spartan.
Mike, exactly.
Ivy League of the Midwest? Phft! Watch 3 straight episodes of DS9 and try and find a pulse above 40.
Go ahead.
Post a Comment