Why The Star Trek Reboot Cast Is Better Than The Original Series'
With J.J. Abrams' Star Trek reboot came a new host of actors, and the Kelvin timeline's cast is actually better than that of Star Trek: The Original Series. Celebrated as a pioneer of modern sci-fi, Star Trek: The Original Series challenged the conventions of its day, proving itself a groundbreaking piece of television in the process. Its cast of characters became as iconic as the show itself, and their lasting impression on pop culture cannot be understated.
However, by the time Star Trek was given its first movie franchise, its actors were aging. The resulting films vary in quality, but they continued the franchise and kept the fans' interest in Star Trek alive, eventually paving way for new shows with new casts. However, in 2009, J.J. Abrams rebooted Star Trek, bringing the story of Captain Kirk and the crew of the Enterprise to life for a younger (and wider) audience.
Related: It's Too Late For Star Trek 4
Naturally, with its new timeline, the Star Trek reboot got a new cast. This cast was made up of younger stars, including a number of A-listers and celebrated character actors that rekindled audiences' interest in the franchise. In many ways, these new cast members are actually better for Star Trek and its characters than The Original Series' cast was. This might sound like sacrilege to many Star Trek fans, but there are a number of reasons both on and off the screen that the Star Trek reboot's cast is better than that of The Original Series.
In the roles of three of Star Trek's main characters, Abrams secured Chris Pine, Zoe Saldana, and Karl Urban for Captain James T. Kirk, Lieutenant Nyota Uhura, and Dr. Leonard «Bones» McCoy, respectively. At the time of their casting, Pine, Saldana, and Urban were three of
Read more on screenrant.com
