Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watmath.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!cjbiggin
From: cjbiggin@watmath.UUCP (Colin Biggin)
Newsgroups: net.startrek
Subject: Re: disposable cast?
Message-ID: <15099@watmath.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 17-Jun-85 18:45:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: watmath.15099
Posted: Mon Jun 17 18:45:16 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 18-Jun-85 04:08:22 EDT
References: <1802@ut-ngp.UUCP> <257@azure.UUCP> <3242@dartvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: cjbiggin@watmath.UUCP (Colin Biggin)
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 51

Chris Andersen writes:
>> In other words, are Spock, Kirk, McCoy, etc., really THAT essential to the
>> nebulous being known as "Star Trek"?
>>                                       Chris Andersen 

Peter Merchant responds:
>Well, everyone has their own definition of "Star Trek."  By my definition,
>the stories are about Jim Kirk and his buddies.  Thus, with no Jim Kirk,
>the show kind of falls apart.  Kind of like James Bond without James Bond.
>
>... I think Spock could disappear ... At least, that's what I think...
>                                 Peter Merchant

I have to disagree...  My definition of "Star Trek" is the *universe*
or the setting of the show.  Your analogy with James Bond is not
applicable...  Star Trek is NOT the Jim Kirk show...  
    
I agree with you that the show does revolve around Jim Kirk and his
buddies but I don't think that this is the only criteria on which it 
should be based.  As I have stated in previous postings, I think a
show could be recreated with totally new characters and new stories.
    
You said that you think Spock could disappear.  If anything, Spock
is more essential to the series than Kirk is (Spock was an officer
on board the Enterprise before Kirk was reading StarFleet manuals).
One of the most notable things about Star Trek (especially when
it was first released) was the idea of an alien working with
humans.  NBC was totally against the idea of Spock during the
first couple of episodes and only overwhelming, positive response
to the character prevented them from telling Gene Roddenberry to
axe him...  
    
I don't know about the rest of the readers but I am not to 
happy about the rumours of Eddie Murphy being in the next 
movie.  In my mind, this only detracts (ridicules ??) Star
Trek.  One of the many good points about the show is that
it didn't have to rely on "hollywood" gimmicks such as big
name stars but relied on believability, interesting stories,
and of course, its small but loyal number of fans...  This 
latest crap coming out of Paramount reeks of big time studio
overdoing a good thing...  

Well, that's what I think (for what it's worth) !!!

-- 
cheers,
Colin Biggin
Math Faculty Computing Facility
University of Waterloo

"I woke up, blinked my eyes, and it was two hours later !!!"