Star Trek XI in 2008 Written/Directed by JJ Abrams
10-15-07, 06:47 PM
#253
DVD Talk God
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 130,212
Received 602 Likes
on
486 Posts
If this is a First Mission, are they going to cast a 2nd Officer Gary Mitchell character?
I guess we are supposed to believe that junior officers like Chekov and Sulu started their service under Captain Kirk on the Enterprise and continued serving on the same ship for 10-15 years?
I guess we are supposed to believe that junior officers like Chekov and Sulu started their service under Captain Kirk on the Enterprise and continued serving on the same ship for 10-15 years?
10-15-07, 08:39 PM
#254
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by Red Dog
If this is a First Mission, are they going to cast a 2nd Officer Gary Mitchell character?
I guess we are supposed to believe that junior officers like Chekov and Sulu started their service under Captain Kirk on the Enterprise and continued serving on the same ship for 10-15 years?
I guess we are supposed to believe that junior officers like Chekov and Sulu started their service under Captain Kirk on the Enterprise and continued serving on the same ship for 10-15 years?
10-15-07, 09:30 PM
#255
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 648
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Red Dog
...I guess we are supposed to believe that junior officers like Chekov and Sulu started their service under Captain Kirk on the Enterprise and continued serving on the same ship for 10-15 years?
10-15-07, 09:45 PM
#256
DVD Talk Hero
Originally Posted by Red Dog
If this is a First Mission, are they going to cast a 2nd Officer Gary Mitchell character?
Continuity has never been one of Trek's priorities.
10-16-07, 05:50 PM
#257
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Karl Urban as Bones? 
I'm not doubting JJ with the casting choices, it's just a bit of a jolt trying to imagine the ass-kickery of Eomer as mild-mannered McCoy
I'm not doubting JJ with the casting choices, it's just a bit of a jolt trying to imagine the ass-kickery of Eomer as mild-mannered McCoy
10-16-07, 06:10 PM
#258
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Leandro/San Francisco
Posts: 7,422
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Possible new Kirk too.
Niceee!
Pine To Go Where Shatner Went Before
Writer-director Joe Carnahan (Smokin' Aces) has indirectly revealed that actor Chris Pine has landed the role of Captain James Kirk in the next Star Trek movie. It had been reported earlier that Pine was weighing whether to co-star with George Clooney in Carnahan's next movie, White Jazz, or take the Kirk role. But on his blog Monday, Carnahan wrote that Pine "has opted to 'go where no man has gone before' and thus had to bow out of White Jazz. I've been talking to him this past week and knew how tough the decision had to be for him. I don't envy ever being in that spot, but I gave him my full support, even if it meant he didn't do Jazz. I get it. You don't get opportunities like that often."
Chris Pine
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1517976/
Niceee!
Pine To Go Where Shatner Went Before
Writer-director Joe Carnahan (Smokin' Aces) has indirectly revealed that actor Chris Pine has landed the role of Captain James Kirk in the next Star Trek movie. It had been reported earlier that Pine was weighing whether to co-star with George Clooney in Carnahan's next movie, White Jazz, or take the Kirk role. But on his blog Monday, Carnahan wrote that Pine "has opted to 'go where no man has gone before' and thus had to bow out of White Jazz. I've been talking to him this past week and knew how tough the decision had to be for him. I don't envy ever being in that spot, but I gave him my full support, even if it meant he didn't do Jazz. I get it. You don't get opportunities like that often."
Chris Pine
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1517976/
10-16-07, 09:54 PM
#260
DVD Talk Hero
"I've got a bad feeling about this."
10-17-07, 11:27 AM
#262
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by B5Erik
I'm still nowhere near sold on the idea. Reboot & rehash rather than go forward and do something new? Come on....
10-17-07, 12:42 PM
#263
DVD Talk Limited Edition
I guess Karl Urban is playing Bones. Not sure how I feel about that.
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/34463
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/34463
10-17-07, 01:51 PM
#265
DVD Talk Godfather
Originally Posted by Superboy
This is worse than people criticizing Star Wars: Episode III before it even came out!
and we all know how THAT turned out.
and we all know how THAT turned out.
10-17-07, 02:19 PM
#266
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Leandro/San Francisco
Posts: 7,422
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Interesting article from http://www.themovieblog.com/
One of the most common chants coming out of the camp of current and existing Star Trek fan bases is “You have to please the fans”. It sounds nice. Power to the people and all that good stuff… but does it really make any sense? No. No it doesn’t. Saying the makers of the new Star Trek film should try to please Trekkies is sort of like saying a battered woman should go out of her way to make a nice dinner for her abusive husband.
No my friends, the makers of the new Star Trek film need to respectfully find a way to subtly disassociate themselves from the current crop known as Trekkies (and please keep in mind as you read this that I myself and a Star Trek fan. I wouldn’t call myself a Trekkie, but a fan of the franchise nonetheless).
It’s much like how most of the current Republican nominees for President are disassociating themselves from George W. Bush. They are still Republican, but they know when there is a dead horse in the stable, and they don’t want the stench of the carcass to get on them too. Bush’s popularity amongst his people is beyond low, and although Republican nominees would like Bush supporters to vote for them, they don’t want to risk his “unpopularity” rubbing off on them too. And so it is with the new Star Trek.
Like the Bush analogy, the new Star Trek franchise does indeed want existing “Trekkies” to get on board with them and drop their money to hit the movie theaters. HOWEVER, what they don’t want attached to the new movie is the stigma of being just another Star Trek movie… because Star Trek has never been more unpopular than it is now (even the most die hard of Trekkies will tell you so).
They want to make a new Star Trek with new potential and a basically a clean slate… but they want to avoid the current stigma of Star Trek. Then don’t want to general public perception to be that this is just another Star Trek movie. They want a much LARGER audience than the previous incarnations were able to produce. They want the appeal of this new Star Trek to go well beyond the traditional “Trekkie” fans… who haven’t been able to prevent Star Trek from decaying over the past decade.
Like most fan groups, Trekkies vastly overestimate their size and influence. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting that there aren’t respectable numbers of Trekkies out there, there are. However, they’re not the world moving army that they seem to believe they are. The number of Trekkies have consistently shrank over the years without ever adding new blood to their numbers. It is a movement that has been losing old fans… while failing to add new ones.
If we want a more concrete example of why Paramount and the new Star Trek movie aren’t all that concerned with appealing to the status quo Star Trek fans, one need look no further than the box office result of the last 5 Star Trek films:
1989 - Final Frontier: $53 million
1991 - Undiscovered Country: $74 million
1994 - Generations: $75 million
1996 - First Contact: $93 million
1998 - Insurrection: $70 million
2002 - Star Trek Nemesis: $43 million
The last Star Trek movie to break $100 million was over 20 years ago with Star Trek IV The Voyage Home in 1986. And as you can see, the last Star Trek film crawled in with just over $40 million. So where are they? Where are these legions and armies of Trekkies we keep hearing about? They’re there… but they’re just not large enough to carry and sustain a major sci fi motion picture. The studio needs to not break away from current fan… but rather break beyond them if they want to reinvigorate and breath new life into the franchise. The best way to do that, is to ignore what old status quo Trek fans have to say. I know it hurts to say that… but it’s true.
To go back to the Republican illustration for a moment. The new Star Trek movie is still republican, they’re still called “Star Trek” and they still have all the mainstay characters in there. But this will be a new Star Trek, and that will be tough for the old Star Trek guard to accept.
True Star Trek fans will be there to see the new movie regardless (for the most part… there will obviously be exceptions). The key here is not to appeal to those people… but rather the vast majority of other people… namely people who AREN’T already Star Trek fans… and to do that… they need to ditch the “Trekkie” image. I’m not saying that’s the way the world should be… but that’s the way it is.
Live long and prosper.
One of the most common chants coming out of the camp of current and existing Star Trek fan bases is “You have to please the fans”. It sounds nice. Power to the people and all that good stuff… but does it really make any sense? No. No it doesn’t. Saying the makers of the new Star Trek film should try to please Trekkies is sort of like saying a battered woman should go out of her way to make a nice dinner for her abusive husband.
No my friends, the makers of the new Star Trek film need to respectfully find a way to subtly disassociate themselves from the current crop known as Trekkies (and please keep in mind as you read this that I myself and a Star Trek fan. I wouldn’t call myself a Trekkie, but a fan of the franchise nonetheless).
It’s much like how most of the current Republican nominees for President are disassociating themselves from George W. Bush. They are still Republican, but they know when there is a dead horse in the stable, and they don’t want the stench of the carcass to get on them too. Bush’s popularity amongst his people is beyond low, and although Republican nominees would like Bush supporters to vote for them, they don’t want to risk his “unpopularity” rubbing off on them too. And so it is with the new Star Trek.
Like the Bush analogy, the new Star Trek franchise does indeed want existing “Trekkies” to get on board with them and drop their money to hit the movie theaters. HOWEVER, what they don’t want attached to the new movie is the stigma of being just another Star Trek movie… because Star Trek has never been more unpopular than it is now (even the most die hard of Trekkies will tell you so).
They want to make a new Star Trek with new potential and a basically a clean slate… but they want to avoid the current stigma of Star Trek. Then don’t want to general public perception to be that this is just another Star Trek movie. They want a much LARGER audience than the previous incarnations were able to produce. They want the appeal of this new Star Trek to go well beyond the traditional “Trekkie” fans… who haven’t been able to prevent Star Trek from decaying over the past decade.
Like most fan groups, Trekkies vastly overestimate their size and influence. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting that there aren’t respectable numbers of Trekkies out there, there are. However, they’re not the world moving army that they seem to believe they are. The number of Trekkies have consistently shrank over the years without ever adding new blood to their numbers. It is a movement that has been losing old fans… while failing to add new ones.
If we want a more concrete example of why Paramount and the new Star Trek movie aren’t all that concerned with appealing to the status quo Star Trek fans, one need look no further than the box office result of the last 5 Star Trek films:
1989 - Final Frontier: $53 million
1991 - Undiscovered Country: $74 million
1994 - Generations: $75 million
1996 - First Contact: $93 million
1998 - Insurrection: $70 million
2002 - Star Trek Nemesis: $43 million
The last Star Trek movie to break $100 million was over 20 years ago with Star Trek IV The Voyage Home in 1986. And as you can see, the last Star Trek film crawled in with just over $40 million. So where are they? Where are these legions and armies of Trekkies we keep hearing about? They’re there… but they’re just not large enough to carry and sustain a major sci fi motion picture. The studio needs to not break away from current fan… but rather break beyond them if they want to reinvigorate and breath new life into the franchise. The best way to do that, is to ignore what old status quo Trek fans have to say. I know it hurts to say that… but it’s true.
To go back to the Republican illustration for a moment. The new Star Trek movie is still republican, they’re still called “Star Trek” and they still have all the mainstay characters in there. But this will be a new Star Trek, and that will be tough for the old Star Trek guard to accept.
True Star Trek fans will be there to see the new movie regardless (for the most part… there will obviously be exceptions). The key here is not to appeal to those people… but rather the vast majority of other people… namely people who AREN’T already Star Trek fans… and to do that… they need to ditch the “Trekkie” image. I’m not saying that’s the way the world should be… but that’s the way it is.
Live long and prosper.
10-18-07, 12:30 AM
#267
DVD Talk Hero
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Somewhere between Heaven and Hell
Posts: 34,055
Received 716 Likes
on
521 Posts
Dammit Jim, this isn't Mordor!
Urban, Pine join Abrams' 'Star Trek'
New Kirk opts out of Clooney-Carnahan 'Jazz' Film
By Borys Kit
Oct 18, 2007
Karl Urban is strapping on a stethoscope to play Leonard "Bones" McCoy, the Starship's Enterprise's medical officer, in J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek" feature for Paramount.
Chris Pine, meanwhile, closed his deal to star as the young Captain Kirk. He had been in talks to play Kirk as well as a role opposite George Clooney in Joe Carnahan's "White Jazz" (HR 10/10). The two movies overlapped, and Pine was forced to choose between them, opting to make the "Trek."
Abrams has been furiously casting "Trek," with John Cho, Simon Pegg and Eric Bana joining the film last week.
Also on board are Zoe Saldana as the young Uhura, Anton Yelchin as the young Chekov and Zachary Quinto as the young Spock. Leonard Nimoy, who originated the role of Spock, also will be part of the film.
The movie is expected to shoot from November-March.
Plot details are begin kept under wraps, but it is understood that the movie chronicles the early days of the Enterprise crew.
The character of McCoy, originated by DeForest Kelley, didn't trust advanced technology and frequently sparred with Spock in debates of logic vs. emotion. Bones also was responsible for several of "Trek's" catchphases, including "He's dead, Jim" and "Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not a ...," ending in a profession in which he had no training.
Urban, from New Zealand, played Eomer in "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy. His feature credits include "The Bourne Supremacy" and "Pathfinder."
He is repped by Endeavor, the Firm and Colden, McKuin and Frankel.
New Kirk opts out of Clooney-Carnahan 'Jazz' Film
By Borys Kit
Oct 18, 2007
Karl Urban is strapping on a stethoscope to play Leonard "Bones" McCoy, the Starship's Enterprise's medical officer, in J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek" feature for Paramount.
Chris Pine, meanwhile, closed his deal to star as the young Captain Kirk. He had been in talks to play Kirk as well as a role opposite George Clooney in Joe Carnahan's "White Jazz" (HR 10/10). The two movies overlapped, and Pine was forced to choose between them, opting to make the "Trek."
Abrams has been furiously casting "Trek," with John Cho, Simon Pegg and Eric Bana joining the film last week.
Also on board are Zoe Saldana as the young Uhura, Anton Yelchin as the young Chekov and Zachary Quinto as the young Spock. Leonard Nimoy, who originated the role of Spock, also will be part of the film.
The movie is expected to shoot from November-March.
Plot details are begin kept under wraps, but it is understood that the movie chronicles the early days of the Enterprise crew.
The character of McCoy, originated by DeForest Kelley, didn't trust advanced technology and frequently sparred with Spock in debates of logic vs. emotion. Bones also was responsible for several of "Trek's" catchphases, including "He's dead, Jim" and "Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not a ...," ending in a profession in which he had no training.
Urban, from New Zealand, played Eomer in "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy. His feature credits include "The Bourne Supremacy" and "Pathfinder."
He is repped by Endeavor, the Firm and Colden, McKuin and Frankel.
10-18-07, 01:44 AM
#268
DVD Talk Hero
One of the most common chants coming out of the camp of current and existing Star Trek fan bases is “You have to please the fans”. It sounds nice. Power to the people and all that good stuff… but does it really make any sense? No. No it doesn’t. Saying the makers of the new Star Trek film should try to please Trekkies is sort of like saying a battered woman should go out of her way to make a nice dinner for her abusive husband.
10-18-07, 07:17 AM
#269
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
So where are they? Where are these legions and armies of Trekkies we keep hearing about? They’re there… but they’re just not large enough to carry and sustain a major sci fi motion picture. The studio needs to not break away from current fan… but rather break beyond them if they want to reinvigorate and breath new life into the franchise. The best way to do that, is to ignore what old status quo Trek fans have to say. I know it hurts to say that… but it’s true.
10-18-07, 12:21 PM
#270
DVD Talk Hero
Originally Posted by Article
They want the appeal of this new Star Trek to go well beyond the traditional “Trekkie” fans… who haven’t been able to prevent Star Trek from decaying over the past decade.
Originally Posted by Article
Like most fan groups, Trekkies vastly overestimate their size and influence. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting that there aren’t respectable numbers of Trekkies out there, there are. However, they’re not the world moving army that they seem to believe they are.
Originally Posted by Article
If we want a more concrete example of why Paramount and the new Star Trek movie aren’t all that concerned with appealing to the status quo Star Trek fans, one need look no further than the box office result of the last 5 Star Trek films:
1989 - Final Frontier: $53 million
1991 - Undiscovered Country: $74 million
1994 - Generations: $75 million
1996 - First Contact: $93 million
1998 - Insurrection: $70 million
2002 - Star Trek Nemesis: $43 million
1989 - Final Frontier: $53 million
1991 - Undiscovered Country: $74 million
1994 - Generations: $75 million
1996 - First Contact: $93 million
1998 - Insurrection: $70 million
2002 - Star Trek Nemesis: $43 million
Originally Posted by Article
So where are they? Where are these legions and armies of Trekkies we keep hearing about?
Quite simply, if the Trek fanbase is as inconsequential as this guy suggests, why bother making a Trek film in the first place? Just go make a badass space-based action movie and rake in the dough. But they're not doing that. Why? Because you can make a steaming pile of shit of zero merit, slap the Trek title on it, and still make $40 million in domestic box office. This new film may be awesome, or it may suck. I have no idea. But two things are certain:
1) It can be guaranteed a good $40 million in domestic box office alone solely because of Trek loyalty, regardless of what the movie is about or who is in it.
2) It will make more money if it pleases the core Trek fans.
Making an entertaining film for the masses and pleasing the core fans are not mutually exclusive things. I'd like to believe the Bad Robot team understands that and is trying to achieve both.
das
10-19-07, 04:07 PM
#271
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm really shocked that they cast Chris Pine as Kirk. He showed about zero charisma in Just My Luck and I don't see him being able to carry the lead in a big budget action movie.
10-19-07, 05:34 PM
#272
Originally Posted by NitroJMS
I'm really shocked that they cast Chris Pine as Kirk. He showed about zero charisma in Just My Luck and I don't see him being able to carry the lead in a big budget action movie.
10-20-07, 12:45 PM
#274
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Leandro/San Francisco
Posts: 7,422
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by calhoun07
I'm real shocked somebody took the time to watch Just My Luck.
I have never seen him in any roles but he certainly has the look.
10-20-07, 02:23 PM
#275
DVD Talk Special Edition
chris pine was one of the tremor bros. in Smokin' Aces, the 'leader' actually.* Of course, that role really isn't something to base a Kirk performance on, other than he can play characters.
