Kirk definitely in Star Trek XI

Seems we'll definately see a re-cast Kirk in the next movie. Although, my finger's are crossed for a least a few mins of The Shat.

Meh.

A. It's not news
B. If it ain't the Shat, it ain't Jim.

^ Oh please

Oh please what?

Roger that. Looks like I can save my $9.00 on this one.

As an aside, despite the fact that until recently "Michael" was the most popular boy's name in the States (recently bumped by "Jacob"), does it strike anyone else as intriguing how many Sixties media heroes had the first name "James"?

Bond, Kirk, Phelps, to name a few...

I'm surprised at the lot of you. You should "give it a chance". This will be Trek for 21st century audiences. Leave your popcorn and 1960's sensibilities behind and get with the program.

I think part of the reason for the backlash against a Trek reboot is that, in many fans' minds, not enough time has passed since the original. Not so much TOS, but those characters. It's not like other remade/rebooted series like BSG and Lost in Space where a lot of time had passed since we last saw those characters. The last time we saw Kirk was less than thirteen years ago.

I'll probably give it a chance, but my expectations aren't low because it's a reboot. They're low because it's modern Trek.

I'd at least wait to see what they actually produce before foreswearing it. I was highly skeptical of Daniel Craig being Bond and, lo and behold, not only is he outstanding in the role, the movie was one of the best of the Bond series.

So why can't Kirk and co. be like Bond (or Superman or Batman or...) and be renewed by new actors every decade or so? We want more stories with these characters--else why buy the novels, video games, etc.?--but the reality is that the old cast (the ones still alive, that is) are far past ever playing their roles again. It's time to give a new team a shot.

Yes, Star Trek could go with a different concept, but it would inevitably be compared to the original; it makes more sense IMO just to do a fresh take on the original.

I remember the same sturm and drang when Next Generation came along...not to mention with the latest Bond.

If done well, like Daniel Craig's Bond and BSG, we could well see a Trek Reniassance. I'll reserve judgement for when the thing comes out and I actually see it.

Hey, New Voyages is already a recast out there that I dig.

The dentist who plays the new Mcoy is my favorite. And he's not trying to be Deforest at all, he does his own thing with it.

And TNG sucked. In fact, it still does.

By contrast, the old BSG was corny beyond description. nuBSG quite literally blows it out of the sky.

As for Bond and Superman, the replacements happened so soon and in such rapid succession that they kind of became part of the character. And each of us has our favorite among the numerous actors.

Blaphemey!

Agreed.

Get a fucking life.

Agreed. Old ones were cool but it's time to move on to a new group.

Edited for accuracy.

Plus don't forget Batman.

So, how did you ever give DS9 a chance?
And did you take to it right off, or catch up on DVD like a lot of folks?

I really, really, tried to dig NuBSG but it just didn't take.

Written well, acted well, I'm at a loss to explain it.

Falling back on the character of Kirk reeks of laziness. They better do it right, and not make it Trek in name only.

JJ Abrams really should have learned from the mistakes of ENT and set it further in the future.

I don't want them to turn it into the BSG reboot either. We already have one of those, and it's doing just fine.

I dunno, one could apply that to the 007 series, and then it's a slippery slope to being "lazy", that Kirk was the star of each episode of TOS.

I don't think it applies to the 007 series, because that was kind of its shtick.

What I meant was, instead of introducing a new cast of characters, or rebooting the old cast, JJ et al will probably be falling back on already well established characters. I don't think they should do that, nor do I think they should reboot Kirk.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Trek is about moving towards the future, not getting stuck in the past.

Oh, lord, don't make me get into the whole argument that the future leaps in Trek are utterly meaningless from a storytelling POV again.

With every leap forward past TOS, the suck factor increased.

TOS sucked to begin with, except for a handful of episodes.

DS9 > TNG > VOY > TOS > ENT, IMHO.

They neg me because they agree with me.

Literally? Who are you and what have you done with garamet?

Oh, wow, you're just flat out objectively wrong with a flag stabbed into the fabric of the universe that says "wrong".

Heck, I even gave VOY and ENT a chance, up to a certain point. With VOY, I think it was the first two seasons. With ENT, it was the first two episodes, then skipped to the two near the end that Jack was in.

I always watch the pilot of each new Trek just to give it a chance. "Emissary" made me go Hmm, different. Not locked into a ship, but set on a station with a host of interesting non-human characters, beginning with the "Prophets." And I took to Sisko right away (cemented in the episode where he socks Q in the jaw), not to mention Odo and, to a lesser extent Bashir. Kira took some getting used to - way too aggressive in the beginning, but I understood why. And Terry Farrell surprised me. Never liked the Ferengi, and Worf annoyed me beginning with "Farpoint," but hey, can't have everything.

Was also impressed with the number of theater-trained actors they used as guest stars - Louise Fletcher, Philip Anglim (whom I'd seen as the original Elephant Man on B'way), etc.

By the time we got to "In the Pale Moonlight," DS9 was my second-favorite Trek, and always will be. The test is in whether I can stand to watch the episodes again. VOY, TNG - fuggedabout it. ENT - never bothered in first run. Bleccch!

It's very, very dark and, I dunno, some things are too dark, I think, to be considered "entertainment." They require a degree of emotional energy that we sometimes don't have left over at the end of the day. Matter of fact, I still haven't seen Season 3.

I blame James Callis. He was giving interviews all summer about how S3 was "Oh, so much, much darker than what's gone before," and I'm thinking

There were some dark things going on for me IRL at the time, and I thought, Pass for now. I'll get back to this another time.

nuBSG doesn't command my loyalty the way TOS always will, maybe because I'm not 16 anymore, but unless it totally screws the pooch, it'll be in my TV Top 10.

I will know instantly whether I want to deal with this or not the moment I see my first trailer.

Until then...

Aw, you didn't see the Mirror universe, and Eugenics Wars ones?
Tsk, missed out.
Those and the Vulcan ones you mentioned almost redeemed the whole show.

Phooo, yeah...it was rough stuff, not sure if you'll dig it.