Star Trek

Comment by Monty (Guest)

Monty (Guest) — Wed, 13 May 2009 23:41:58 +0000

I was never a huge Trek fan. I watched them, but never got caught up in the series, and this movie definately did appeal to me. I didn't feel left out, or like I was missing anything with my rudimentary Trek background.

Also, I saw this today and it is mildly amusing:
My Favorite Movie (Star Trek vs. Star Wars)

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1910892

Comment by Ken

Ken — Wed, 13 May 2009 00:15:12 +0000

Okay, so I had to look it up.

In 1966: Shatner 35, Nimoy 35, Kelley 46, Doohan 46, Nichols 33. Average 39.

In 2009: Pine 28, Quinto 31, Urban 36, Pegg 39, Saldana 30. Average: 32.8

So you're right, the real age difference is only about six years (five if you include Sulu and Chekov in the mix). But I think the new cast members were specifically chosen for their youthful appearance; I don't think you can really make the same assertion about the original cast.

Comment by John C (Guest)

John C (Guest) — Tue, 12 May 2009 22:54:14 +0000

I find your 10-15 years younger comment interesting. On average this new cast is a just few years younger than the original cast was when the series started. The problem is if you were 30 in 1967, you looked like a man. If you are 30 in 2009, you look like a boy.

Star Trek

Ken — Tue, 12 May 2009 08:57:24 +0000

Star Trek 11? Star Trek Zero? Whatever it's called, this movie is clearly the start of a new franchise, with a hot young cast and a clean slate for future story lines.