chrisa@azure.UUCP (Chris Andersen) (06/12/85)
Here's a serious question. With the killing of Spock in STII, the public outcrying and the subsequent resurrection of Spock in STIII, I'm beginning to wonder just how dependant the Star Trek stories are on the current cast. Could Star Trek survive if the old cast members were steadily weaned out of the show for (for lack of a better word) new blood? In other words, are Spock, Kirk, McCoy, etc., really THAT essential to the nebulous being known as "Star Trek"? Chris Andersen
merchant@dartvax.UUCP (Peter Merchant) (06/13/85)
> In other words, are Spock, Kirk, McCoy, etc., really THAT essential to the > nebulous being known as "Star Trek"? > > > Chris Andersen Well, everyone has their own definition of "Star Trek." By my definition, the stories are about Jim Kirk and his buddies. Thus, with no Jim Kirk, the show kind of falls apart. Kind of like James Bond without James Bond. Now, obviously, other stories could be written about other people in the "Star Trek Universe." Probably very good stories. And I would definitely go to see them and probably enjoy them greatly. But they wouldn't be "Star Trek" without Jim. I think Spock could disappear (in theory, Jim's the star so everything else could fall apart) and everyone else could, too. As Gerrold said, the shows center around "Jim has a decision to make." As long as our boy keeps making those decisions, we have "Star Trek." At least, that's what I think... -- "Comin' on like a Megaforce..." Peter Merchant
cjbiggin@watmath.UUCP (Colin Biggin) (06/15/85)
In article <257@azure.UUCP> chrisa@azure.UUCP (Chris Andersen) writes: > >Here's a serious question.... >...Could Star Trek survive if the old cast members were steadily >weaned out of the show for (for lack of a better word) new blood? > >In other words, are Spock, Kirk, McCoy, etc., really THAT essential to the >nebulous being known as "Star Trek"? > Chris Andersen I personnaly think that the time has come to get rid of the old crew and bring in a new bunch... preferably unknowns. I don't know about anybody else, but the movies are becoming pretty worn. Kirk doesn't seem believable with that "new" hair of his and Scotty and Bones look old. The only ones that comes off as not having changed is Chekov and Sulu... I would like to see a new TV series developed based on the Star Trek universe. Completely new cast and new stories with maybe the occasional visit by one of the old regulars... cheers, -- Colin Biggin Univperversity of Wonderloo Waterloo, Ontario "They were the best of times, they were the worst of times. No, I think they were probably the New York Times."
cjbiggin@watmath.UUCP (Colin Biggin) (06/18/85)
Chris Andersen writes: >> In other words, are Spock, Kirk, McCoy, etc., really THAT essential to the >> nebulous being known as "Star Trek"? >> Chris Andersen Peter Merchant responds: >Well, everyone has their own definition of "Star Trek." By my definition, >the stories are about Jim Kirk and his buddies. Thus, with no Jim Kirk, >the show kind of falls apart. Kind of like James Bond without James Bond. > >... I think Spock could disappear ... At least, that's what I think... > Peter Merchant I have to disagree... My definition of "Star Trek" is the *universe* or the setting of the show. Your analogy with James Bond is not applicable... Star Trek is NOT the Jim Kirk show... I agree with you that the show does revolve around Jim Kirk and his buddies but I don't think that this is the only criteria on which it should be based. As I have stated in previous postings, I think a show could be recreated with totally new characters and new stories. You said that you think Spock could disappear. If anything, Spock is more essential to the series than Kirk is (Spock was an officer on board the Enterprise before Kirk was reading StarFleet manuals). One of the most notable things about Star Trek (especially when it was first released) was the idea of an alien working with humans. NBC was totally against the idea of Spock during the first couple of episodes and only overwhelming, positive response to the character prevented them from telling Gene Roddenberry to axe him... I don't know about the rest of the readers but I am not to happy about the rumours of Eddie Murphy being in the next movie. In my mind, this only detracts (ridicules ??) Star Trek. One of the many good points about the show is that it didn't have to rely on "hollywood" gimmicks such as big name stars but relied on believability, interesting stories, and of course, its small but loyal number of fans... This latest crap coming out of Paramount reeks of big time studio overdoing a good thing... Well, that's what I think (for what it's worth) !!! -- cheers, Colin Biggin Math Faculty Computing Facility University of Waterloo "I woke up, blinked my eyes, and it was two hours later !!!"
chrisa@azure.UUCP (Chris Andersen) (06/18/85)
> I don't know about anybody else, but the movies are becoming pretty > worn. Kirk doesn't seem believable with that "new" hair of his > and Scotty and Bones look old. The only ones that comes off as > not having changed is Chekov and Sulu... > > I would like to see a new TV series developed based on the Star Trek > universe. Completely new cast and new stories with maybe the occasional > visit by one of the old regulars... > > Colin Biggin I remember hearing George Takei (sp?) at a sci-fi convention once say that he was willing to help put on a Star-Trek related show if the other cast members weren't willing to do it. I have heard that one of the reasons for promoting him to captain was to leave this possibility open in the future.
zaphod@deepthot.UUCP (Lance Bailey) (06/18/85)
your analogy to James Bond without James Bond proves interesting
by bringing up the point that no SINGLE actor has 'been' J.B.
David Niven, Connery and Moore to name a couple. What are the
feelings about slowly introducing new actors to replace the
currents. Even though I have the greatest of respect for Bill
Shatner, he isn't the greatest actor in the world (go ahead, watch
a full episode of Hooker, I DARE YOU! [:-) ] ). BUT then again
I'm not sure if'n Kirk could be the same without Bill.
thoughts? flames?
--
4 222
4 4 2 2
4 4 2 would you say that this is a result of
44444 22 the "do-it if it feels good" generation?
4 2 -- i've got five bucks riding on it
4 2
4 22222
decvax!{utzoo|watmath}!deepthot!zaphod
(Lance Bailey @ UWO Comp Sci, London, Canada)merchant@dartvax.UUCP (Peter Merchant) (06/18/85)
> Chris Andersen writes: > >> In other words, are Spock, Kirk, McCoy, etc., really THAT essential to the > >> nebulous being known as "Star Trek"? > >> Chris Andersen > > Peter Merchant responds: > >Well, everyone has their own definition of "Star Trek." By my definition, > >the stories are about Jim Kirk and his buddies. Thus, with no Jim Kirk, > >the show kind of falls apart. Kind of like James Bond without James Bond. > > > >... I think Spock could disappear ... At least, that's what I think... > > Peter Merchant > > I have to disagree... My definition of "Star Trek" is the *universe* > or the setting of the show. Your analogy with James Bond is not > applicable... Star Trek is NOT the Jim Kirk show... > > I agree with you that the show does revolve around Jim Kirk and his > buddies but I don't think that this is the only criteria on which it > should be based. As I have stated in previous postings, I think a > show could be recreated with totally new characters and new stories. > Oh, a show could definitely be "recreated" within the Star Trek Universe. But I really don't think that it would be "Star Trek." Take any story and it has a central character who, in theory, has a decision to make. In "Star Trek", that character is Jim Kirk. If it were Bob MacKenzie ("I say we go pick up some beers, hoser...") on board the Federation Starship Gazornaplatz, it wouldn't be Star Trek. It would take place in the same "universe" as Star Trek and the two shows might actually meet ("The universe is a big place.") but it ain't Star Trek. Star Trek is the voyages of the starship Enterprise and, in theory, Jim Kirk. > You said that you think Spock could disappear. If anything, Spock > is more essential to the series than Kirk is (Spock was an officer > on board the Enterprise before Kirk was reading StarFleet manuals). > One of the most notable things about Star Trek (especially when > it was first released) was the idea of an alien working with > humans. NBC was totally against the idea of Spock during the > first couple of episodes and only overwhelming, positive response > to the character prevented them from telling Gene Roddenberry to > axe him... > Spock is a funny case. He became more important as the show went on because he is an interesting character and people wanted to see more of him. But he is still only the advisor! Jim's the one who makes the decisions. -- "Two cents plus two cents.." Peter Merchant
bccarty@whuts.UUCP (CARTY) (06/24/85)
> In article <257@azure.UUCP> chrisa@azure.UUCP (Chris Andersen) writes: > > > >Here's a serious question.... > >...Could Star Trek survive if the old cast members were steadily > >weaned out of the show for (for lack of a better word) new blood? This would in essence transform Star Trek into a continuing drama, or (dare I say it?) a soap opera. Well, they did bring Spock back from the dead...