Evan, IN New Trek Movie Update - Chekov Is Cast - Maybe Capt. Pike

The actor Anton Yelchin is said to have been cast as a very young Pavel Chekov.

The actor Tom Cruise has been approached to play Capt. Christopher Pike

My Take On These Items-

Not much to say about the Chekov news. However I do think Cruise is a big mistake. Instead they should cast Ray Liotta (Goodfellas) as Chris Pike. Liotta looks like he is related to actor Jeffrey Hunter (original Chris Pike).

 

Interesting.

I just read an article yesterday that was about the "Supposed" casting call, and Chekov and Pike weren't on it. The articles author did say he wasn't sure it was the "real" casting call, just a rumor.

Don't like Tom Cruise.

 

Here is what I've heard in regards to Trek casting-

a. Dr. McCoy - Gary Sinise (sic)
b. Spock - Zachary Quinto
c. Chekov - Anton Yelchin
d. Pike - Tom Cruise
e. James T. Kirk - Mat Damon
f. Sarek - Leonard Nimoy
g. George Kirk Sr. - William Shatner
h. Uhura - Holly Berry
i. Scotty - James McAvoy (name correct?)

The plot seems to be in part about Jim Kirk's long-lost father - George Kirk Sr. Jim Kirk's father was Captain Robert April's security officer and possible XO. He went MIA during an undisclosed Starfleet mission. Finding his father was one of the motivations for Jim Kirk to join Starfleet. If true this plot idea fits with the few leaks circulating the Internet. It also fits J.J. Abrams story-telling style. He seems to want to make the original Trek characters more 'interpersonal' - less archetypical. A son seeking the whereabouts of his father via joining a powerful organization fits the bill.

 

Plain and simple: There will not be that many big names in it. Not only would it be too expensive, the formula in which they use at least some unknowns works better for Sci-Fi/Fantasy.

Gary Sinise
Tom Cruise
Mat (Matt) Damon
Leonard Nimoy
William Shatner
Holly (Halle) Berry

No way they will all be in there. 2 cents.

 

I can see Nimoy and Shatner doing it, no problem.

I like the idea of Gary Sinese being McCoy. I never realized how similar he and DeForest Kelly look untill now. Plus Sinese is a good actor.

I could see Berry as Uhura, especially since she's no stranger to Sci-fi/Fantasy type movies.

Sylar as Spock? Not that he's a bad actor, but I have trouble picturing him as Spock. Need someone taller and thinner.

And I will boycott if Cruise has any part! He just needs to go away and live under the rock of obscurity, as does Matt Damon.

 

Lets make Cruise some Redshirt background character that gets killed off in the first 5 minutes!

[image=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/94/STObsession.jpg]

 

Oh, whatever, I decided to come out of retirement (a retirement prompted by too much Trek Bashing that made me feel like I did in High School P.E. class) to offer some ideas.

I'm siked about this show. I will admit it. The Tom Cruise bit gives me pause but I am excited about this movie. I miss the days of walking into Walmart and seeing Trek goodies a plenty. So I hope that will comeback.

I also miss you guys and gals, but that is another tale.
So, there you go.

I've been keeping busy. Painting and such. I am also working on a writing project that came to me in a dream.

Peace,
Edric

 

Can we??????!!!!!?????!!!!

Saaawwweeeeeeet!

 

That'd be a great cameo... Cruise as a dead redshirt in the background!!!
bwahahahaha!

 

Good to hear from you Steve!

 

Good to have you back Steve!

... even if you do have a soft spot for Trek.

Actually, I need to have myself some sort of Trek-a-thon and get myself caught up in that universe.

 

Wouldn't it be cool if they turned Tom Cruise into a little styrofoam dodecahedron?

 

YES!!1! And then crushed him into little bits!

 

YAY! Steve is back!!!! *hugglepounce* Have some chocolate bundt.

 

^^Thanks for the kind words.
Edric

 

Hugglepounce? Would this be some new contact sport? Better yet can you demostrate the 'hugglepounce'?

 

Yup, something like that. Everyone will be demonstrated upon when I get a chance to make a roadtrip back for a visit.

Speaking of which... who wants Goldstar, and who wants Skyline?

 

I hope they find some way to tie in "Enterpise" in the movie. I've been catching up with the series on Sci-Fi and I'm really starting to dig it. [face_alien_1]

 

Yeah, I love Dr. Floxx.

 

Despite my extreme dislike of Trek I admit the last season of Enterprise had SOME merit. It seems the producers of Enterprise were finally getting the message that Babylon 5, Farscape, Battlestar Galactica (new version) were doing high concept sci-fi better and beating Trek on every front. Here are the elements that made the last season of Enterprise worth watching...

1. Temporeal Cold War

This sub-plot gave the producers a cop out solution for the mounting continuity issues. Mistakes made during production (forgetting to use the right type of ship for the correct kind of job - or the writers forgetting that in-universe developments in the other shows might conflict with the story elements they were presently wanting to use for a given episode - too many others to remember). By saying that production mistakes were evidence of a bigger cross-generational conflict spanning multiple realities the producers had a narrative loop-hole.

2. Creation of the UFP

This sub-plot was suggested when hints of a coalition of allied planets began to be given lip-service by the characters. According to Classic Trek the UFP was founded as a result of the Romulan War. Enterprise began to build a precursor to the UFP before a declared war with the Romulans could begin in earnest. However this I don't consider a continuity error. After all after WWI the League of Nations was created, but failed. Then after WWII a better League was developed in the form of the United Nations. So it is arguable that a precursor to the UFP formed and after the Romulan War evolved into the UFP.

3. Classic Trek aliens

Something the other spin-off shows lacked was heavy amounts of connective tissue to the sights and sounds of the classic Trek show. The producers of Enterprise opted to 'introduce' classic Trek aliens into plots. So we got to see Tellerites, Andorians, Orions, and etc.

4. Eugenic War legacies

Like the 'introduction' of classic Trek aliens the producers delved into the Eugenics War. Not so much the conflict itself, but the details of it. Again striving for connective tissue with the other spin-off shows the producers established the younger Dr. Soong and his legacy of tampering with genetics and thus revisiting the idea of genetic 'supermen' like the historical Kahn Noonian Singh.

5. Klingon head bumps

I prefer the Romulans as antagonists. Too much attention was given to Klingons. However Enterprise did FINALLY give us a explaination for the lack of Klingon head bumps on classic Trek. So that was a winning number for the producers.

If the producers had brought these five things into an earlier season Enterprise might have lasted a bit longer. But, it became a textbook example of too little - too late. Word has it the new Trek movie will be closer in time to the original five-year mission of classic Trek. We might be given a kind of coda to Enterprise. A mention of Archer and his contribution to the franchise.

 

Ulkesh2,

For some who does not like Trek, you seem like you have watched quite a bit.

Anywho, here we go.

With regards to your comment about the last few years of Trek being not so good, I beg to differ. It was good, just not great. A lot of this, for me, is that I remember Trek when I was just getting into it. It was fresh and new - much like me. This is the same way as the Star Wars prequels have been good, but not great. Both had a lot of missed potential - as you pointed out with Enterprise.

Now, as far as Farscape, BG and B5 beating Trek on all fronts, that is simply an opinion. Ratings wise, Trek was in more markets so it got higher numbers, it was just a lot more expensive to make. One reason being that, save for B5, the other two are made out of the country. Enterprise left the airways because of that fact as well as the now defunct UPNs internal power changes.

Now, I know you will disagree on this, and that's good. BG IS going off after 4 years. They have barely 80 episodes. Enterprise was 2 shy of the magic 100. I know you'll say quality over quantity. BUT, this is tv - the execs could care about that. They want the magic 100 so that they can make the real money in Syndication. With that being said and seeing how BGs ratings are not as good as they would want (did not TV Guide call it the best show no one is watching) the powers that be probably encouraged the producers to wrap up the story. And frankly, the producers probably do not think in terms of quality over quantity. IF the money is there, they will come up with stories.

Bottom line. What is good or not is subjective. I enjoyed all the Treks and will enjoy the new movie. I also enjoyed the other shows you mentioned - although I missed Farscape. And yeah, I am looking forward to seeing how Galactica ends.

The really bottom line, a show will appeal to different people in different ways. This is good.

So, peace be with you.

Edric

 

Sure I keep up with what is happening in Trek-land. You know that old concept about knowing one's enemy (that being Trek). You are correct in pointing out that my calling Trek lackluster is my opinion. You may also be correct about the business side of things such as episode number and ratings. But I'll take QUALITY sci-fi over QUANITY sci-fi any ol' day. Sure each Trek show has had more episodes than Babylon 5, Farscape, or the new version of Battlestar Galactica. But how many of those Trek episodes are rehashes and how many of those episodes end with major character and/or show changing impact - few if any? Trek nearly always ends with the status quo reset. The most glaring example goes back to ST-TNG's 'The Best Of Both Worlds'. The first part was a stride in the correct direction - shake things up with some real consequence, BUT what then happened in the second part? The producers/writers scuttled the overall drama by getting everything back to normal. Oh sure Picard had a hissy-fit in the next episode while visiting his brother, but so the frak what. My point is the producers/writers had a grand opportunity to turn ST-TNG on its ear and to really have us all on the edges of our seats with a show changing threat and they dropped the ball. That is only one small example of a very large volume of opportunities missed in Trek-land. This inability to evolve is one of the factors that helped spark J.Michael Straczynski to create Babylon 5. He realized the fans wanted to see drama with lasting consequences. So to did the producers of Farscape. Also in the case of Farscape they wanted to divorce themselves of always using humanoids for aliens. Farscape began to really explore the alien factor versus the human factor. Trek's impression of aliens consisted of just giving an actor some head bumps and maybe a accent. Ronald Moore was a writer/producer for Trek, but has stated he felt so boxed in by Paramount's insistence on maintaining Trek's status quo that the new BG is written in reaction to what went South and sour with Trek. Yes Edric much of these things are subjective. You like Trek - warts and all - it would seem. That's your choice. But as for me I gravitate toward entertainment that makes an effort to be high concept and out-of-the-box in its narrative angle and production design. I want a show that is written and designed by someone who really loves sci-fi. Not somebody with just a passing fancy for sci-fi or a entertainment legend. As I've said before - Trek has had it's day, but the 'Barbarians' are at the gate now. Smaller more ambitious shows that see the weak points in the aging Trek franchise and are now pouncing with fresh narrative vigor.

 

Hey. Hope all is well.

Good points all, Ulkesh2. However, part of the charm of Star Trek is that things are back to normal at the end. Makes no sense, but some people like that stability in their shows. No doubt, it is the same reason these crews stuck together for so long. In any para-military organization, a First Officer who stays such for 15 years having turned down several promotions would not be offered one so late in his career (ala Riker in Nemesis)

Now, the Trek fans being the enemy is kind of silly. They are no more or less fanatics than fans of other sci-fi programing. Sci-fi has very intense fans. But, Trek fans are not evil. As I said, a bit silly to think so. But, whatever. I hope a Trekker did not steal your lunch money as a 'ittle Ulkesh2.

Finally, whether or not Star Trek has had its day remains to be seen. I do think its popularity peaked in the 1990s. But, it will always be around in some form or another. Star Wars is in the same boat. I do not think it enjoys the same popularity as it did back in the day. I liked the prequels a lot, but, you have to admit, they are no where near as great as the original trilogy. My idea, of course, influenced by me being a little more seasoned.

Mostly good thoughts, Ulkesh.
Peace,
Edric

 

Just some clarification needed. In my essays today I indicated I think Trek is the enemy to better fresher high concept science fiction. I was not saying the fans of Trek are the enemy. Though I think Trekkies/Trekkers do themselves a wrong by not being more outspoken about Paramount's botching of the Trek franchise. The only time I've ever been angry with Trekkies/Trekkers was during the B5 versus DS9 dabate. There is documented proof that Babylon 5 was first in development. Paramount 'borrowed' from Straczynski's 1987 B5 draft to help fashion the DS9 show in 1993. It is also interesting to note that as B5 began to unfold and started to invoke a grand scale conflict (example being large depictions of CGI space fleets engaged in combat) the DS9 producers suddenly seemed to take notice of B5's creative cunning. Suddenly DS9 began to use multiple episode story-arcs and large space navy actions - thus following in B5's footsteps. Paramount realized B5 was a threat to Trek's near monopoly on far-future sci-fi televsion. Farscape would further this threat. I suppose Stargate can also be included, but it is so closely modeled on the Trek formula that it does not count in my book. As I've stated Edric I'm not at war with you or your Trekkie/Trekker brothers/sisters. I'm at war with poor narrative writing and creative blandness with no dramatic consequence. Trek is the epitome of these problems. Someone once compared B5 and Trek in the following way - Trek is like a sandwhich made of two bread slices and nothing else - a hint of ketchup...maybe...if you be lucky. B5 in contrast is a footlong with everything. I'd say the same applies to Farscape being the footlong with everything. The new Battlestar Galactica is a study in retro-tech and minimalism. So it does not have the level of eye candy as does B5 or Farscape. BUT what it does have is rich deep drama with consequence.

 

My brother and sister Trekies That is funny. LOL I really think that is clever.

Once again, all of this is your opinion, which as always is well articulated and appreciated. DS9 and B5 did share a lot of similarities. But, it would be the same as two different networks have a series based in a police department or a high school. There's gonna be some cross polination.

B5 wasn't all originaly, btw. The Rangers were basically Jedi sans the force and the Interstellar Alliance was basically the United Federation of Planets.

And frankly, I don't see the bland narrative. Being around for over 700 hours of film, Trek had its highs and lows. You've got to admit, the first and fifth seasons of B5 were not as great as 2, 3, and 4. I mean, some of the attempts at humor in season 1 were a little off.

As always, good points all. When next we meet, I might even teach you our secret signal we use at the secret Trek enclaves! LOL

Good thoughts, again,
Edric