Yeah, I know. Thinking about someone else playing Picard is the only thing that gives me pause about this whole endeavor, really.
But I've been totally pro, and that's much of why I saw the movie, even though I don't really know TOS. Allowing other actors to play the characters--to have new interpretations on them--doesn't invalidate the original performances; it just elevates the role to an even more legendary level, and allows you to see things you didn't necessarily see before, even if you like a different actor better. Like I feel like seeing Edward Petherbridge's performance enriches my understanding of Lord Peter Wimsey, even though Ian Carmichael's is so great. The same principle applies to a new director/technology/era/vision taking on the basic Star Trek story.
So that's why I felt like it was kind of a cop-out to set the whole thing in an AU; like they're not really doing a new version or new reading of the Star Trek text, they're just adding to the existing Star Trek canon. I also feel like it gives them a level of freedom to go in their own direction that I think makes the whole thing less fun; I'm less interested in the original ideas of the writers and J.J. Abrams than I am in seeing a respectful rendition of canon. What I'd like, I guess, is the Peter Jackson version of Star Trek TOS.
But I can see why they did it the way they did, why they felt that doing a new performance of the existing canon was too limiting, or that it would feel like an invalidation of TOS in some way. I think it would be the opposite, it would be a celebration of TOS, J.J. Abrams's TOS like John Gielgud's Hamlet (I think I'm stealing the Hamlet metaphor from another LJ post I read when the ST movie was announced, don't remember whose). But I can see (more so when I think about Picard) how fans would feel uncomfortable.
Okay, that didn't respond to your comments so much as it did respond to mine. But, yeah.
Kirk is VERY cheesy, and it's excellent. He uses bad pickup lines, pulls faces, and acts nonchalant in a fun, John Sheppardy kind of way. (He's more Sheppardy than Shatner's Kirk, even, I think. Actually, I think I like Pine more than I like Shatner--but I'm admittedly a whippersnapper whose hardly seen any TOS.) Also, there is a green girl.
Quinto is a decent Spock. But he only raises his eyebrow once, and it's not as fabulous as it could be. (They kept the eyeshadow look, which I think was a good move.) Also, when he says "Fascinating" (which they had to do once in the movie, of course), it's referring, essentially, to a swivel chair. Of all things! Of course "Fascinating" is best when it refers to some foible of Kirk's, but at least it should have been about something, you know. Fascinating.
no subject
But I've been totally pro, and that's much of why I saw the movie, even though I don't really know TOS. Allowing other actors to play the characters--to have new interpretations on them--doesn't invalidate the original performances; it just elevates the role to an even more legendary level, and allows you to see things you didn't necessarily see before, even if you like a different actor better. Like I feel like seeing Edward Petherbridge's performance enriches my understanding of Lord Peter Wimsey, even though Ian Carmichael's is so great. The same principle applies to a new director/technology/era/vision taking on the basic Star Trek story.
So that's why I felt like it was kind of a cop-out to set the whole thing in an AU; like they're not really doing a new version or new reading of the Star Trek text, they're just adding to the existing Star Trek canon. I also feel like it gives them a level of freedom to go in their own direction that I think makes the whole thing less fun; I'm less interested in the original ideas of the writers and J.J. Abrams than I am in seeing a respectful rendition of canon. What I'd like, I guess, is the Peter Jackson version of Star Trek TOS.
But I can see why they did it the way they did, why they felt that doing a new performance of the existing canon was too limiting, or that it would feel like an invalidation of TOS in some way. I think it would be the opposite, it would be a celebration of TOS, J.J. Abrams's TOS like John Gielgud's Hamlet (I think I'm stealing the Hamlet metaphor from another LJ post I read when the ST movie was announced, don't remember whose). But I can see (more so when I think about Picard) how fans would feel uncomfortable.
Okay, that didn't respond to your comments so much as it did respond to mine. But, yeah.
Kirk is VERY cheesy, and it's excellent. He uses bad pickup lines, pulls faces, and acts nonchalant in a fun, John Sheppardy kind of way. (He's more Sheppardy than Shatner's Kirk, even, I think. Actually, I think I like Pine more than I like Shatner--but I'm admittedly a whippersnapper whose hardly seen any TOS.) Also, there is a green girl.
Quinto is a decent Spock. But he only raises his eyebrow once, and it's not as fabulous as it could be. (They kept the eyeshadow look, which I think was a good move.) Also, when he says "Fascinating" (which they had to do once in the movie, of course), it's referring, essentially, to a swivel chair. Of all things! Of course "Fascinating" is best when it refers to some foible of Kirk's, but at least it should have been about something, you know. Fascinating.