• Handles@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Oh, ugh. No shade on Paul Wesley’s acting chops but the whole NuKirk thing makes me whince.

    1. The character already had a decades-spanning arc from 1966 to 1994. I do not see what else we can or need to add.

    2. Star Trek proved in the '80s and '90s that it has more to offer than the exploits of a single starship crew. There’s a whole fleet of ships out there, allowing for very different takes and interpretations of the larger philosophy and canon.

    3. The nostalgia trip of returning to the Kirk/Spock/McCoy trifecta is deeply worrying on a franchise level, because it shows that the current generation of execs and producers don’t really acknowledge or care for the massive world building and modernisation that went into the TNG/DS9/VOY series.

    Finally, 4. Just my own niggle concerning Paul Wesley’s casting as Kirk — when TF was Kirk ever this slim, this square jawed? Yes, I see Shatner’s fluctuating waistline as Kirk canon, okay? 😆 Clearly, I don’t agree with the choice of bringing Kirk back in the first place, but let’s be honest — Kirk needs to be a bit of a butterball.

    Edit: added a word for clarity.

    • flamingmongoose
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      The writing of Kirk in SNW is fine but I just don’t think the casting is right.

      • Handles@leminal.space
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        The writing is fine? I guess yeah, at least the dialogue covers up strenuous plot contrivances for the cast to meet Kirk (but not really). There is colossal reluctance to commit on display in those time travel episodes.