Check out Aether Theater's newest podcast!

It's called Screen Shots.  You can find it by selecting "Radio" in the menu at the left.  Or you can click here.  Smile 

Screen Shots Episode 1 Comments

Yay!  It looks like the comments section on the podcast host site is fixed!

Click here to access the forum.  There is also a little bit of a discussion related to the podcast on the Aether Theater Facebook page.

Old Star Trek/New Star Trek

This morphing of the actors faces is making the rounds.  Kirk does actually make me see the resemblance between Shatner and Pines. 


Very nice.

First Episode of Screen Shots

I had never thought about the fact that William Shatner's acting was stage acting and that might be misread sometimes in the TV context.  I'm not sure if this is true or not, but my impression is that DeForest Kelly might have had the most TV experience and maybe that has to do with what a great job he does.

I think of all the Trek series, it's the original that's the most character-driven.  There's something really fundamental about the Spock-Kirk-McCoy dynamic and also about Spock's story on it's own that are both about the question of what it is to be human.  I don't think any of the other series had that.  Maybe the closest for me was the Dax character on DS9, but that was a single character rather than a relationship between characters.

Hmm, lack of manly contemporary actors--I dunno.  I can think of a bunch, but maybe Scott wouldn't agree:

Daniel Craig
Bruce Willis
Clive Owen
Idris Alba
Javier Bardem
Jason Statham
Denzel Washington
Ed Harris
Robert Duvall
Samuel L Jackson

And then there are the action hero guys like Dwayne Johnson and Vin Diesel.

I don't see Chris Pines as feminine at all; he does look boyish.  But then so did William Shatner.  I think that's supposed to be something about Kirk--that he has this boyish, "let's go have an adventure" outlook.  Also, I thought Pines is supposed to be playing him at a younger age than Kirk is supposed to be as played by Shatner.  But then again, I didn't get the whole "lots of time has supposed to have gone by" in the second movie.  I didn't connect the appearance of the tribble to the idea that an adventure that they had had with tribbles had already taken place.

I do think there's something to the idea that men who are chosen as leads in romantic movies tend to look more feminine (however the culture is defining that at the time)--I'd actually say that about Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart as well (versus, say, Clint Eastwood or Lee Marvin or Robert Mitchum).  And yeah that's probably more pronounced today because they're also younger.

Generally, actors today look less like grown-ups I think, and that's just as true for women.  Look at the women from he same time period as Grant and Stewart and Bogart--Hepburn, Stanwyck, Davis.  Even Bacall, who was really young in "To Have and Have Not" still comes across like a grown-up.

I liked both the reboots more than either of you did, but I can see the problems you're talking about, especially with the ending of the second movie. Weirdly, I never thought about the inappropriate casting of Benedict Cumberbatch.  I think I had completely forgotten that Khan was supposed to be Indian.  Maybe the first casting choice of Ricardo Montalban put me in an extended state of suspended disbelief (I wonder if they have special suspended disbelief chambers).

Why use the characters?  A short answer would be what Scott said earlier--money.  However, I'm one of those people who likes reboots and likes somebody picking up characters and telling new stories about them.  It can be done poorly because there's a temptation to be lazy, but I think it's the same thing that drives myths and legends.  There's an iconic meaning (and/or emotional one?) attached to these figures and it's appealing to see what more can be said about them.

The cut of his jib

I can't help but speak to the notion that the way culture defines a "real man" has changed with time.
I remember my father telling me Bruce Willis was not a real man.  He was convinced that Pink Cadillac was going to be a better movie than Die Hard the year those movies came out because in his opinion Clint Eastwood was the manly man by comparison.  In all fairness, he only had Moonlighting to go on with Willis, but I think you know which movie won out in the end.
What it comes down to is that it's not really about looks per say. If we're going old school it might be more appropriate to say in regard to Chris Pine - "I don't like the cut of his jib!" 
It's really about first impressions including looks I suppose, but also mannerisms and style.

I can't help but think the actors people harken back to like Cary Grant came off as having a purpose and values... they were driven and you could really trust them because the values came first and then the feelings followed. 

To me Chris Pine's Kirk seems to be shooting from the hip, and acts out a lot in rebellion, which seems to me to be immature and untrustworthy.  He's what I'd call an emo Captain Kirk.  When Pine's Kirk has feelings it seems to me that they're not really tied back to a solid sense of his values other than "you're on my side today".  Couple that with his apparent attitude that "rules were meant to be broken" and it doesn't leave you with the sense that when he's not feeling good about you for whatever reason that it would be a safe relationship to invest your trust in.

Real men have discipline, real men are responsible and can do those things and still be fun and have flair.  Somehow that's been lost with movies today, in my opinion.

Re: The cut of his jib

Excellent points, DL.

Plus this.  Smile

the cut of his jib

Oh yeah.  Laughing

I miss those web comics!  Can't wait until the next series!!!