TMP, CGI, and Stephen Collins

[TrickyDickie]

There is the suggestion that at some point in the future, CGI and audio capabilities will reach a level at which artificial will be very difficult to be distinguished from real. New movies featuring the images and voices of stars long since deceased, etc.

With that in mind, some have suggested to completely replace Stephen Collins in TMP just as soon as it is possible to do so.

Should things be left alone and off-screen lives be completely ignored no matter the content?

Two versions of TMP for people to choose from?

Opinions / ideas ?

 

[Greg Cox]

That way madness lies. Do we then remove Bill Cosby from every movie or TV episode he was ever in? Retroactively remove Errol Flynn from "The Adventures of Robin Hood" because of that statutory rape business, or his alleged Nazi sympathies? Remove O.J. Simpson from the "Police Squad " movies and "Capricorn One"? Robert Blake from "In Cold Blood" or "Baretta" reruns? Or Jeffrey Jones from "Ferris Bueller's Day Off"? Victoria Vetri from "When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth"?

 

[2takesfrakes]

For one thing, I find these claims that CGI in entertainment's going to become so unbelievably realistic in the future to be foolishly optomistic. It's been around for a very long time, already and it's still a very hit, or miss, proposition. It's really just Hollywood hyping itself up, as usual. And sound has become so distracting, it's like I'm just bombarded with it, in the cinema. More is not better.
As to Stephen Collins' portrayal in STAR TREK: The Motion Picture, look ... it's tough. Especially when he's mugging for the camera. It's like, I don't want to look at him, because Decker "just so happens" to look so much like him. But there's absolutely nothing of Collins' true nature in TMP, in fact, Decker's painted pretty thin. But yes, it did take me a long time to warm up to TMP, again, after the news broke out, but I certainly wouldn't support any future projects Stephen Collins got involved with. And that's for certain.

 

[BillJ]

Opinions / ideas ?

Don't watch TMP if it bothers you that badly. But I'm against erasing people from the work they've done.

 

[Khan 2.0]

Replace him with who? a 1979 Christopher Reeve? Keir Dullea? Robert Redford?

I'd be more for alternate versions of the JJ films with CG deaged original cast

 

[Christopher]

There is the suggestion that at some point in the future, CGI and audio capabilities will reach a level at which artificial will be very difficult to be distinguished from real. New movies featuring the images and voices of stars long since deceased, etc.

I think people are overestimating the technology there. Doing that sort of thing well depends on the talent of the artists using the technology. You couldn't just punch some buttons and let the machine create a convincing performance. You'd need a real human being to give a vocal performance that could presumably be modified to sound like a different voice. Visually, even performance-capture animation requires animators to mediate and interpret the original performance, refining it to fit the new character's appearance and proportions better, and so forth; I'm sure a similar degree of mediation would be needed for an equivalent voice-substitution technology. People who assume it's simply a matter of having powerful enough computers don't understand how much work, creativity, and artistry goes into it. The computers are just tools, and a tools is only as good as the wielder.

And no, we shouldn't erase the past work of actors who've done bad things. The past is what it is, and trying to rewrite it to fit the way we wish it had been is dangerous and wrong. That's what oppressive regimes do -- try to destroy evidence of the things in the past that don't fit their preferred narrative. Effacing those parts of the past that remind us of bad things may not be as malicious in intent, but it's still lying to ourselves and to our children. We need to be honest about the past so we can learn from it.

I mean, there's a lot of bad stuff in the fiction of the past. There are many movies, books, cartoons, etc. that are blatantly racist. Should we erase Rudyard Kipling and H.P. Lovecraft from the history of literature because of their racial beliefs? Should we erase Fleming's James Bond or The Tale of Genji because of the dreadful misogyny? The past needs to be accepted, understood, and taken in context. Trying to hide from its darker truths is cowardly and only hurts us in the long run.

 

[TrickyDickie]

Personally, I made peace with the whole thing a while after the OJ case.

But I was thinking about the colorization of black and white films. It was unnecessary, but they did it anyway. Then there was talk about removing everything to do with smoking from older movies. Edit out the cigarettes from the hands, the smoke from the rooms, all of it. Pretty extreme, right?

Well, this would be more of same, taken to the next higher level.

Would it reach the level of revising history like with Winston Smith in Orwell's 1984? Probably not.

But if companies think there is enough money to be made from people who are offended by content of one kind or another in movies, rest assured that they will trot out alternatives for those buyers if they are able to do so.

Even right now, there are two versions of certain music albums marketed: explicit version and censored version.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Whatever Stephen Collins may have done IRL, the fact remains, he was in this film. Everyone knows he was. Removing him from the film wouldn't accomplish anything. It wouldn't erase what he's done. If people are offended that he's in it? Fine. LET THEM be offended.

Again, this is NOT intended to diminish the effect of whatever crimes he's committed. People who commit crimes deserve to be punished. But this film has absolutely nothing to do with any of that. It's ACTING, for crying out loud. Nobody has the right not to be offended - and certainly not by acting.

As for monetary incentives? Anyone who's offended by Collins still being in the film, and who refuses to buy the Blu-Ray (or whatever format) because of it, is insignificant in the long run. For everyone who doesn't buy it, there'll be ten thousand who will.

And to be honest...I'm fine with Decker. I got no problem with that character, or how Collins played the role. Does this mean I support what Collins did IRL? Oh hell no! Those are completely separate issues.

Would it reach the level of revising history like with Winston Smith in Orwell's 1984? Probably not.

Actually, I think it would. What's next? Where does it end? When will studios start censoring actors out of films when the actor expresses an unpopular opinion, or contributes to an unapproved political candidate, or engages in a demonstration? Slippery slope, people. Slippery slope.

 

[Greg Cox]

Personally, I made peace with the whole thing a while after the OJ case.

But I was thinking about the colorization of black and white films. It was unnecessary, but they did it anyway. Then there was talk about removing everything to do with smoking from older movies. Edit out the cigarettes from the hands, the smoke from the rooms, all of it. Pretty extreme, right?.

Not sure that actually happened, though. Desi Arnaz smokes all through the colorized "l LOVE LUCY" tv specials that show up in prime-time occasionally. And Rod Serling is still smoking in TWILIGHT ZONE reruns as far as I know.

Heck, Keri Russell was smoking on this week's episode of THE AMERICANS and that's a new show, albeit one set in the 1980s.

 

[Tosk]

Anyone who can't separate the art from the artist is never going to be satisfied anyway. I have enjoyed movies that star rapists and killers, and while I won't pretend that the thought doesn't occur to me when I re-watch them, it doesn't ruin the art itself. What about something like Powder? How would you "CGI" a new director for it?

It's an utterly stupid idea.

 

[TrickyDickie]

What seemed at the time like a big push for colorization dimmed down....not enough interest and thus not enough profit to make it worthwhile to colorize everything. Likewise, I think the anti-smoking thing faded....thankfully before it could start rolling.

Quite a lot of people edit out ex spouses from photos by one method or another. It just goes to show that there is a segment of the population that will eliminate images from the past that they don't like when they are able to do so.

It remains to be seen when and if the technology becomes available whether the segment will be large enough to spur companies to offer a revised product. People in business always look for new ways to make money. The yes or no of whether or not it will happen depends only on that.

 

[Christopher]

I admit, though, there are cases where I have trouble separating the performer from the reality. I don't know if I'll ever be able to enjoy Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids again. I take the Bill Cosby thing kind of personally, because he and Fat Albert were a large part of my moral compass in my formative years, along with Star Trek. So I feel rather betrayed.

As for the smoking thing, I'm conflicted. On the one hand, I dislike seeing people smoke; I find it kind of disgusting. But it's actually kind of interesting sociologically to watch old shows and movies where people smoked constantly and it was so integrated into the culture in some ways, like how a woman could invite a conversation by holding an unlit cigarette and waiting for a man to come and light it for her. Or how a character could pass another character a message written inside a matchbook.

 

[Kor]

But if companies think there is enough money to be made from people who are offended by content of one kind or another in movies, rest assured that they will trot out alternatives for those buyers if they are able to do so.

Even right now, there are two versions of certain music albums marketed: explicit version and censored version.

But it's still not common practice to release inoffensive versions of more explicit movies, despite certain groups' efforts to that effect. There's some online petition to get a PG-13 version of "Deadpool," but there's no chance the studio will actually do it.

I can only think of one official release of that type, The King's Speech (which really didn't deserve the R rating it got in the US ). The PG-13 cut was critically ridiculed, didn't make much money, and therefore wasn't released on DVD/blu-ray.

It more often goes the other way, with some movies that were theatrically released as a PG-13 version getting "harder" versions for home viewing. IMO, this is generally (but not always) either in response to low box office performance and criticism that the theatrical version sucked, or because the director insists that the theatrical version stifled his true "vision," but not out of a desire to market separately to "family" and "mature" audiences.

Anyway, as far as removing Collins from TMP.... in my mind, I always completely separate an artist as a person from the work that they do. So if an actor is a major jerk, or supports ideologies I strongly disagree with, or has even admitted to, been accused of, or been convicted of some heinous conduct, it really has nothing to do with their fictional role in a movie.

The comment above about directors also makes a good point. I don't feel compelled to boycott Roman Polanski's films because of his personal behavior and fugitive status, for instance.

I am also against smoking. But yes, it was a big part of the cultural landscape of the past. Mad Men would have been pretty bogus and unauthentic without ubiquitous smoking (and its sad consequences depicted toward the end of the series). And smoking is still a defining aspect of some modern-day characters, even if as a vice. Can you imagine Wolverine without his cigars?

Kor

 

[WarpFactorZ]

Where's that Cumberbatch "Nope" meme when you need it?

 

[TrickyDickie]

Back in the day, I regularly watched Fat Albert.

I guess the way I look at it is this:

What we enjoy that has someone playing a role is almost like a different universe. We don't have to mix that together with whatever they do in the prime universe of real life. If we choose, we can look at it as two different people. Or even a split, like Kirk in 'The Enemy Within'.

Works for me....

 

[Firebird]

To start, I would be immensely against using any means to erase Collins needlessly out of the movie. I'm uncomfortable when older movies are "corrected" in any form later on, including the reinstatement of blacklisted writer's credits. In a way, it's an attempt to sweep history under the rug, like how Disney edits out the racist caricature of an African-American unicorn in Fantasia, or keeping Song of the South locked in their vaults. I wish to see the films in the version originally released.

On the other hand, the budget manner in which Paramount has treated the film franchise ensures they'd never be bothered to do this. They flat out wouldn't pony up the cash for it.

 

[TrickyDickie]

Paramount is under the umbrella of CBS right now, but who knows what the future holds? Nobody can say exactly what things will be like on down the road.

The Edsel was going to be a big hit, but it didn't work out that way.

Predictions can go either way....

 

[Nerys Myk]

Paramount is under the umbrella of CBS right now, but who knows what the future holds? Nobody can say exactly what things will be like on down the road.

The Edsel was going to be a big hit, but it didn't work out that way.

Predictions can go either way....

I believe they're both under the National Amusement umbrella. CBS doesn't tell Paramount what to do. They're separate companies.

 

[TrickyDickie]

From Memory Alpha:

Movies, DVDs - Paramount Pictures, Viacom (new) (2005 – present)
In the 2005 Viacom/CBS split, the old Viacom became the CBS Corporation and a new Viacom was created. This new company owns Paramount Pictures which owns the Trek films. Paramount Pictures produced Star Trek , Star Trek Into Darkness and Star Trek Beyond under license from CBS Television Studios. Paramount continues to also distribute DVDs of the TV series on behalf of CBS. The split marked the occasion that the former Paramount Television was formally separated from Paramount Pictures; until this point in time the television company had always been a subsidiary division of Paramount Pictures.

Gets a bit confusing, but my point is that these things change from time to time.

 

[Firebird]

Gets a bit confusing, but my point is that these things change from time to time.

Sounds like a hefty bit of wishful thinking.