Monday, May 11, 2009

Star Trek Babies: The Next Generation

Comparing the USS Enterprise crews is the hot topic du jour given the outstanding box office Star Trek (my review) grossed over the weekend. Wired does so and includes this obvious but discussable observation
The original cast of the U.S.S. Enterprise was mature and seasoned — well into their five-year mission when fans caught up to them. The new cast is filled with rookies, forced into action because Earth is in dire need — and because film executives decided moviegoers can't stand to watch anyone over 25.
I've been thinking a lot about this. I worry what Star Trek XI's success will do to actors over 40 (will it be like the Muppet Babies effect of the 80s all over again -- everyone suddenly wanting "baby" versions of everything?) but in truth the new cast isn't that much younger than the old cast... people forget that Shatner, Nichols, Nimoy weren't always senior citizens. They were approximately 35ish when Star Trek began. The new cast -- with the exception of the 20 year old Anton Yelchin -- are approximately 30ish.


Still, I worry that Hollywood will learn the wrong lesson, the one it already likes to learn: People won't watch OLD people. (Never mind that Up starring a grumpy old geezer will soon be a massive hit and Meryl Streep is more popular than ever at 59).

People learn the wrong lessons all the time. Take Cinematical, which marked Trek's new popularity with a list of 7 franchises JJ Abrams should reboot. Cinematical thinks just like Hollywood. No wonder they're so popular. "If you liked ___ you'll love ___." JJ Abrams should not be rebooting everything. Let him stick to Star Trek. He did well. Why must everything be the same? See also previous gripe: The Blockbuster Loop. I'm starting to feel like I'm the only movie fanatic that craves variety. Prove me wrong in the comments. Or if you love it when everything is the same, explain yourself.

10 comments:

brianmaru said...

I couldn't agree with you more. Look at the resurgence of Robert Downey Jr., who is by no means that old but certainly isn't a young guy.

adelutza said...

My opinion is that it all boils down to loving movies. Of course that we like new things. Of course that we like Bette Davis and Vivien Leigh. Of course that we like glamor.i still have to see a better movie then The Scarlet Letter or , oh, so many others. These days big studios go for "the formula". I really think that audiences will go for the real thing iF confronted with it. Sadly, the really good films run in limited releases and the rest are left with Ghosts Of Girlfriend Past or even Star Trek. Really. The audiences are there, just try them.

Jim T said...

offtopic: I love the poster thing in the Cannes festival. So many! My only problem is: Why do The Lovely Bones have practically nothing?
Shutter Island's poster is nice.

Dame James said...

You sound like you just realized that Hollywood and people like seeing the same movie over and over again. Hello, remakes, franchises and summer blockbusters have been dominating Hollywood for the past 35 years. And I'm sure you realize that, for the most part, anyone reading this site is going to agree that variety is the spice of life at the cinema; so why bother asking the question?

NATHANIEL R said...

which side of the bed did you wake up on?

Mr. B said...

I'm disappointed in you saying that we just want to watch the same thing again and again. I really wanted another good Star Trek film. I love Star Trek and want to see fresh stories. Its when they become formulaic that I stop enjoying. Why do TV shows run so long? Because the writers are able to take the characters through something new and exciting. I would hope that all the additions to the Star Trek universe would mean a similar thing.

Wayne B. said...

I appreciate variety because my mood is ever-changing. Some days I enjoy watching a thought-provoking film that communicates foreign feelings and others I just wanna see a light comedy with pretty scenery (thank you Kate & Leopold). When everything is similar, it's too easy to become bored.

Anonymous said...

As far as the Star Trek thing is concerned, I think (honestly) it had a lot to do with really really attractive guys. I mean, seriously. Zach Quinto (age 35, I think) and Chris Pine (27?) can and will eventually bring in the young teenage girls. I was recently a teenage girl and I can assure you, this will happen.

NATHANIEL R said...

Quinto is 31 (about to turn 32) and Pine is 28 (about to turn 29)

and yes, you're probably right. Not that Shatner wasn't a looker back in the 60s though, mind.

Past Expiry said...

I guess I'm "old school". I prefer the original star trek series, back
in the day when doing endorsements was unheard of. But if Kirk did
do endorsements, would it be like this cartoon??
http://pastexpiry.blogspot.com/2009/05/cartoon-star-trek-endorsement.html

*CARTOON*