Patrick Calloway (11:59 AM on Thu Oct 16, 2008)

According to comments from JJ Abrams, the black shirt is a Captain's shirt, and it's part of the plot as to why it's black. Whether said plot reason will make sense or not, we'll have to wait and see...

Josh Wigler (12:37 PM on Thu Oct 16, 2008)

Can't say I'm wild about the all black look for Kirk, but I'm pleasantly surprised with the rest, especially Karl Urban as Bones. I thought that was very weird casting, but he really looks the part in these pictures. On the flip side, it's gonna be hard for me to divorce Sylar from Quinto's portrayal of Spock. I hope they can sell me on it.

Vinnie Bartilucci (1:01 PM on Thu Oct 16, 2008)

It was dropped in the animated series for the most obvious of reasons - it would have cost more money for model sheets and character designs to use different insignias for different ships. Only in ST:TMP was the move to a unified insignia made canonical.

I notice that some characters have the insignia (Spock, Scotty Uhura and Sulu) and some don't. It's possibly just the angle thy're being photographed at. They seem to be positioned ever so slightly differently on the chest - a little to the left.

MJ (8:38 PM on Thu Oct 16, 2008)

"Those shows aren't bad and have decent replacements for the original actors. "

Wow. They're so bad they're AWESOME. In how bad they are. I highly recommend the Rifftrax audio commentary for the episodes with real Chekov and real Sulu. Or just watch and supply your own jokes with some buddies.

One shouldn't compare a real attempt at relaunching Star Trek with the online efforts of a well-meaning Elvis impersonator.

Dave (9:09 PM on Thu Oct 16, 2008)

My point is that I don't feel the new movie is any more "well-meaning" than the online versions. One can complain about the merits of the online episodes (or many of the TV episodes) but it doesn't indicate the people involved don't mean well. Shoot, many of the original series episodes were extremely awful ("Spock's Brain") but I doubt they would shoot themselves in the foot by intending episodes to be bad.

Personally, I've like the online episodes. Maybe I'm being charitable because they do what they do while meeting the requirement to be completely non-profitable, but thay are nowhere near as bad as you've said - I never said the actors were great, just decent. If they had the resources that this movie has, they would be as good as any of the existing TV series.

Anyway, the reason I brought up the online shows to begin with was to point out that some people are ready to accept new actors as the original crew. But no matter who plays the characters in any venue (online, TV, or movies) there will be people who say, "They're so bad they're AWESOME in how bad they are." One person's "worst" actor is another person's "best" actor.

Finally, I'm not sure this movie is any more of a "real attempt" at relaunching Star Trek than any of the past attempts - Star Trek: The Animated Series or Enterprise anyone? If it's not a financial hit (and I don't think it will be) then it will be years before Paramount is willing to try again.

Anonymous (9:57 PM on Thu Oct 16, 2008)

Hmm... for some reason comicmix isn't recognizing my password. Anyway, the common denominator here isn't being well-meaning. (I was just acknowledging the online guy had his heart in the right place.) It's talent, or lack thereof. You can't compare a 150 million dollar film with proven talent that was re-positioned for a May release with the efforts of fans who got their buddies together.

Ed Wood was well meaning. And I enjoy the online Star Trek episodes for the same reason I enjoy Plan 9.

MJ

Dave (10:12 AM on Fri Oct 17, 2008)

Apparently I haven't done a very good job at making my point here.

Bottom line: While there will definitely be customers for this film, I don't think it matters how proven the talent is or when the movie is released, I don't see it becoming a big enough financial success to spawn another film - let alone a new Trek TV series.

But it doesn't really matter how either of us view this situation. We're just voicing our opinions and won't know whose prediction is right until next summer. Frankly, I hope I'm wrong as I'd love to see more good Star Trek stories. For now, let's just agree to disagree.

Dave (7:28 PM on Thu Oct 16, 2008)

We haven't had 42 years of the public only seeing one actor as Batman. This is going to be harder to pull off than some people think.

Even so, the online episodes have been received positively, so there are certainly people who won't have a problem with the change. But will it be enough for the movie to be a financial hit?

Steve Chaput (5:49 PM on Sat Oct 18, 2008)

Lots of folks grew up with only George Reeves in their minds as SUPERMAN, but easily accepted Christopher Reeve as Clark. I think it will be more how the entire cast gels that will make or break the film.

Personally, I think a big mistake will be having Leonard Nimoy appear at some point (from what I have read) alongside his younger self. There it will just shove the fact that these are two different people in the face of the audience.

Dave (6:29 PM on Sat Oct 18, 2008)

The different actors playing Superman (separated by decades) is not the same as the same actors being known as the only actors to ever play the characters in Star Trek and whose likenesses appear on every book cover, comic book (except the times when the characters weren't allowed to look like anyone at all), piece of merchadise ever made.

Anonymous (7:02 PM on Fri Oct 17, 2008)

That's ridiculous. You are seriously over-estimating the buying power of Trekkies, or their percentage of the film's potential audience, as you call it. In fact, the entire Trekkie community could collectively decide to boycott this movie and it could still be a financial success. It's the non-Trekkies the studio has to win over in order to make this a financial success. Spiderman was not the hit it was because of its comic book fans. The general public is way more powerful than any niche fan set could ever be.

So I totally disagree with you. There is no fourth element here. If the movie tells a good story (and even that scale is set pretty low), has good actors, and has good effects, it will work just fine. It has to succeed with the non-Trekkies. So basically, it has to succeed with fans of JJ Abrams and build from there. So just take a look at the numbers he's raking in on Lost and Fringe - that's a pretty good estimate of the audience you're going to get.

Plus, because of the writer strikes in Hollywood, the Summer '09 season is decidedly weak on tent-pole movies (big action movies that studios plan their summers around), so it won't have that much competition.