zondag 29 mei 2011

Hilarious or Serious?

Sometimes it is particularly difficult to cast a role. And if the obvious is no longer an option, the outrageous actually gets attention. In a recent interview actor/director Clint Eastwood said he had been approached to play both James Bond (which is true, as when Sean Connery wanted to leave the part after YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, the producers actually had Eastwood called for the part) and Superman.

For Bond, Clint actually suggested that Bond should be British. Which was pretty much on the money, considering the days. Still, it would be interesting to create at least a visual idea of how he would have looked.

"Do you feel lucky, punk?"

As for Superman, once Richard Donner was starting up the production of SUPERMAN THE MOVIE in 1976, his intention was at first to have an unknown actor fill in that part. Yet, the studio wanted to have all kinds of big names tested. So, here too, Clint was asked.

Clint found it easy to walk away from both parts. He felt "they were for somebody but not for me." A good judgement on the part of Clint Eastwood, who might have looked fairly ridiculous in the Superman outfit. After all, figure this:

"For the people, the country and mom's apple pie. Even if mom's apple pie stank."
Now if you have the gall to think, what if? A lot of possibilities that boggle the mind could come to mind.

But in my view, Clint was right on both counts. Thanks, Clint.

zaterdag 7 mei 2011

STAR TREK : Where to go boldly from here?


Personally, I have been a fan of Star Trek since the first time I laid eyes on it, way back in 1970 or so, when Dutch television started to show the show with some regularity. The funny thing was, the Belgian TV Channels and the German ones decided to do just that, as well, at just about the same time, so we basically saw an episode three times back then. (And of course, one of the three times was in German. I can hear you groaning right now, but when you are a child of 4 years old, you are not complaining about that. But you’d be right in saying I would not watch them like that anymore.)

In any case, I liked what I saw at the time from the first episode onward and did not mind seeing it again. If the term ‘couch potato’ was already in use back then, one might have called me one for I watched a lot of television in those days. At first of course with mom and dad and my brother and two sisters, but later on I also grew more discerning in what I liked to see and what not. For me the 1970s were pretty much all the way in the shadow of this television show that came to mean a lot for me. But then in 1980, something unusual happened. STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE was released in the Netherlands.



Star Trek The Motion Picture , no matter how good or bad the film was, started the idea that a television show could go into movie theatres (most of the time in the past it had been the other way around). Of course, the original show was no longer in production and when you did see the actors in other parts, they grew considerably older than in the original show. But the 1980s sort of belonged to the STAR TREK MOVIES, because from this one film, that easily could have been all, came a movie franchise that I still love.

The Original Cast ended their very successful Movie Franchise with Star Trek VI The Undiscovered County in the early 1990s. But that was not the end of that: in the meantime Star Trek The Next Generation had appeared on television and was making good progress into becoming the number one Sci Fi TV Show of the times. And when Star Trek The Next Generation was finished, the people involved in the production immediately when on to make movies of this series.


The Star Trek TNG movies may not be as great as the first 6 Star Trek Movies. I usually put the blame on the fact that the same people were writing these films and therefore what you ended up with was basically a television plot worked out to feature format: ST Generations and ST Insurrection really show this to great effect. ST First Contact sort of arose above that. ST Nemesis unfortunately plays the part that Star Trek V plays in the Original Cast Film Franchise. Nobody set out to make a bad movie and really, it isn’t all that bad, but the timing was wrong for it and it was no longer fresh and exciting so Nemesis got the short end of the stick. Out went the ST TNG cast.

But I would like to point out that the money was indeed on the screen and on the soundtrack: special effects and sets and props were tops, as well as the musical score by the late and legendary Jerry Goldsmith.) Still, Nemesis was the end of the TNG Movie Franchise. And after 7 years of TNG on television, followed by 7 years of Deep Space Nine (in my eyes an even better show), 7 years of Voyager and unfortunately into the 2000s only 4 years of Enterprise, Star Trek seemed to also be finished on television. (Also here I wish to note that Rick Berman may have made mistakes but 17 consecutive years on television with 4 television shows is not at all a bad effort. Mr. Berman, thank you for your efforts.)

Star Trek The Next Generation

Star Trek Deep Space Nine

Star Trek Voyager

Star Trek Enterprise

So from 2004 on, it seemed that Star Trek was dead. However several behind the scenes attempts were made to bring the concept back to television. In the last few months, some quotes have been released on the internet that Jonathan Frakes entered a bid on the franchise. He was apparently given a straight no for an answer. Other names were also mentioned (William Shatner, Bryan Singer, maybe others too) but not all of them may have been accurate, but nevertheless, attempts were made to bring Star Trek back. And the answer to that, was NO. While I do agree, a few more years of silence might be useful before bringing back a show of that type, I do wonder why the powers that be said no to what may have seemed like good ideas, maybe in need of more development but still, good ideas.

J. J. Abrams probably felt it was time to reintroduce the audience to the kind of Star Trek he always liked and would want to see. This was not a continuation of what we had seen before with new characters but he decided he wanted to see Kirk, Spock and the classic Star Trek characters back in action. Of course, in casting this would mean we would start to look at young, new actors in established roles. Sort of like James Bond, who has also been re-cast numerous times. Of course, Abrams must have thought, wouldn’t it really be great if we could ground it in some way by having one major character of the old generation present, and even more, make him crucial to the whole storyline!!!

And indeed: Leonard Nimoy played Classic Trek Spock at a high age, who inadvertently is involved in the creation of a deviation in the original timeline, therewith rewriting established Star Trek history.

In other words: sophisticated REBOOT !!!

I must admit it was a clever script that succeeded on many levels but I do say I find it a shame if that will mean that the original timeline will henceforth forever be abandoned. You see, for me, the moment you see a film or episode or read a book, is the moment that it takes place. As the writer or director you can determine on how many levels you want the information given to the audience to be of importance. What I mean to say is: I think it would not have been necessary to negate the previously established Star Trek history in order to introduce new actors in the known roles. Just as with James Bond, new fans would have been able to accept new actors in the roles of Kirk, Spock and McCoy and the rest.



(If I were to go on in my criticism of the film, I would most certainly say something derogatory about the somewhat exaggerated Enterprise itself, which looked like a hotrod of the 1950s and not a sleek spacecraft of the 1960s and I might say something to the effect that keeping open the option to return to this timeline or the old timeline might actually work to our advantage later on. But that is not the goal of this article.)

You see, at this moment, knowing that the powers that be at CBS / Paramount have said NO to several attempts at a new series, it is pretty clear that the thinking concerning the failure of Star Trek Nemesis and the Star Trek Enterprise series is that it was too much at the same time, causing franchise fatigue. And so seemingly they want their upcoming Star Trek 2 project to be unfettered by any television project along the same lines. I find that a shame. You see, STAR TREK started on television. Its emphasis should also still be on television. It is on television that you build up a more extensive storyline and background. Not in 6 films over 12 years.

With the current pressures on J.J. Abrams, in order to greenlight his Star Trek 2, I also fear that in the foreseeable future, it might be that interest in his take on TREK will also wane with the audience. And then Star Trek might really turn out dead. So, Mr. Abrams, I ask you: where do we boldly go, from here?

Will Star Trek continue only in Abrams’s universe or will CBS / Paramount allow someone else later on perhaps another look at the prime timeline (the one that got jettisoned in Abrams’s film)? I do accept that you got to go with the times for as Spock used to say: “It is illogical to assume that things will remain the same.” But that does not mean I do not care to see Star Trek remain on a high level of quality in my book.

Unfortunately, I doubt someone at CBS / Paramount or Mr Abrams will be willing to inform me about any plans they have for what may be their oldest franchise. So, if anyone from CBS / Paramount is reading this, or Mr. Abrams perhaps, please, do not forget your fans. Let us know, please, what you intend to do.

Where do we go, boldly, from here ?