Rewriting the future? August 4, 2006
Posted by jackal in : Films, TV , trackback
We’ve all heard the Star Trek rumours bouncing around of late: JJ Abrams will direct the eleventh Trek film, it’ll be set around/before The Original Series, it will likely feature new actors playing Kirk and Spock, Matt Damon may have been cast, there’ll be a talking monkey sidekick … OK, I may have made that last one up, but after the Matt Damon news, it doesn’t seem all that far-fetched.
I come to this as a lifelong Trek fan. I’m not a complete geek (honest I ain’t), I just grew up with it - The Original Series and Next Generation in particular - and love it. I watched all the spin-offs that followed, even down to the last death throes of Enterprise. I’d kill to see a Star Trek XI, I really would, but another prequel? Re-casting Kirk and Spock? Are they f*****g kidding?
Star Trek should look forward, not back. It should chart new territory, not retread old. Why not bring back Jonathan Frakes and Marina Sirtis for a Titan spin-off show? I’m sure they’d love the work. Better still, why not bring back Nick Meyer (director of the fantastic Star Trek II & VI) to pen another Next Generation movie? But, cry Paramount, Star Trek: Nemesis made no money (well, that’s what you get for hiring a director with no understanding of the franchise), and so we must find *another* direction. What about the young guy who made our new Tom Cruise movie? Oh yeah …
I’m a big fan of JJ Abrams - Alias and Lost are (or were, in the case of the former) terrific TV shows - but he’s clearly not the right man for the job if all he can come up with is ”hey, let’s reboot the franchise!” Star Trek’s success derives from the original concept, and by returning to the start, recasting the familiar roles, fundamentally changing the central core of the franchise, you wipe that out. A new Trek prequel, done well, could be phenomenally successful, but would it be true to the franchise’s origins? N-o-p-e.
Some fans don’t seem to mind the possible recasting of Kirk and Spock, either. James Bond has been played by more than one actor; so has Sherlock Holmes, etc. What’s the big deal? The difference is simple: the original Trek characters don’t have their basis in literature. They’re not portrayals of existing characters, in the way that Bond and Holmes are; before William Shatner, Kirk didn’t exist. Shatner didn’t just portray a character, he created one, week in, week out, for 79 episodes. Same with Nimoy’s Spock and the rest of the cast. Over the course of six (or seven) movies they aged, progressed, grew old together, retired (or died) - essentially lived out a character’s life on screen. James T. Kirk isn’t just ‘a character’ who used to be played by William Shatner; without Shatner, there is no Kirk. End of story.
Whenever I read anything about the new prequel idea, I think of McCoy in Star Trek IV, upon being assigned the task of building a huge whale tank. Folding his arms resignedly, he mutters, “oh … joy.” Couldn’t have put it better myself.
_______________
As an afterthought, I must mention the fabulous documentary Mind Meld, released on DVD a couple of years ago. It’s basically just Shatner and Nimoy sitting in Leonard’s back garden, chatting for an hour; two old friends talking candidly about their lives, careers, personal demons, triumphs and disappointments … and an old show called Star Trek. It’s utterly fascinating, and essential viewing for all fans.
Comments»
no comments yet - be the first?