Cho Fortunate To Land Sulu Role

[TrekToday]

According to John Cho, "everyone in town" was trying out for the role of Sulu.

As reported by Wired, it has been a strange year for Cho, going from playing a nerdy Asian American accountant seeking adventures, smoking pot and trying to get the girl in Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay (which opens on Friday, April 25) to playing a sword-wielding helmsman aboard the Enterprise.

"I'm really thrilled to be doing it," he said, referring to the Sulu role. "Most importantly because as a kid, the Sulu role was one of a very few Asian characters on television. It was a stand-up role and he didn't have an accent. He was doing something very cool. He was flying through space! It blew me away to be able to take part in that."

Cho feels fortunate to have landed the role. "Everyone in town" auditioned for the role of the Enterprise helmsman. "I acted my little tushy off for that role," said Cho. "Every little boy has dreamt of being an astronaut. To actually be able to do it is pretty cool.

Like most involved in the project, he wouldn't give specifics. "I wish I could talk about it," said Cho, "but part of the thing is, J.J. wants to make it a genuine surprise. In a general way, what we're trying to do with the movie is honor the original series, and yet push it in another direction and make it a little more active. The TV series is very thoughtful and meditative, and we've got a more active movie.

To read more, head to the articles located here and here.

[MattJC]

TrekToday wrote:

---

The TV series is very thoughtful and meditative, and we've got a more active movie.

In other words, "The original series was boring, so we are going to take that show and put alot of explosions and cool FX to make it fun to watch."

[Pioneer]

MattJC wrote:

---

In other words, "The original series was boring, so we are going to take that show and put alot of explosions and cool FX to make it fun to watch."

Thank You. Because, as we all know, Star Trek was always about action and explosions rather than about ideas and characters.
Anyway, I'm glad it's not just me.

[Augustus]

Oh quit your whining!!
The year is 2008, not 1966...
You think if Roddenberry had access to a larger budget and cool FX he wouldn't have used it?
Even after "the cage" he was told it needed to have more action and explosions and only then did it get put on the air...

[MattJC]

There was a point to what Gene was doing, and it wasn't blow up alot of crap.

[Augustus]

No, of course that wasn't his point, this isn't James Bond or Transformers, but he did blow up stuff or throw action into almost every story...

[MattJC]

Augustus wrote:

---

No, of course that wasn't his point, this isn't James Bond or Transformers, but he did blow up stuff or throw action into almost every story...

This movie sounds like it will be more like Star Wars then Star Trek. That doesn't surprise as Abrams has said that he prefers Star Wars over Star Trek. He can't get his hands on Star Wars, so he'll do the next best thing and turn Star Trek into something it's not.

[Augustus]

Well, I am glad you got this all figured out and wrapped into a nice little package without having seen the movie nor with knowledge of plot, etc...

Nope all we need now in days to form an air tight opinion is to see a couple of quotes from separate interviews on highly subjective subjects and we we have a clear picture of Abrams intentions and what the movie will be like...

[MattJC]

The fact that everyone involved in this thing, who has been asked about it in interviews, said that this will have more action then any other Star Trek tells me this is more like a Star Wars movie.

[Augustus]

If Sulu pulls out a light saber or if Bana shoots lightening from his hands, I'll concede the point.

[MattJC]

You know what I meant.
Star Wars was always more of a pure action/adventure then Star Trek ever was.

[Tralah]

I knew when I read the article that certain people would be jumping over that sentence. There's no reason to conclude that just because there's going to be a lot of action in this movie that we won't get anything else in ADDITION to that action. I find it hard to believe that we won't be getting ANY calm, thoughtful enjoyable character moments. When Star Trek arrives in theaters in, May 2009 if there's nothing but back to back explosions with a very thin plot, I'll gladly complain about it along with the rest of you. Until then it looks like some people are grasping at straws for ANYTHING that gives them reason to hate this movie. I don't understand why some people have already made up their minds without even seeing a full fledged trailer or reading critical reviews.

[ancient]

More action can't hurt. Trek could use more action.

I knew when I read the article that certain people would be jumping over that sentence.

I wonder if the alarmists will have enough energy to keep up their grump for a whole year.

[Augustus]

Tralah wrote:

---

I knew when I read the article that certain people would be jumping over that sentence. There's no reason to conclude that just because there's going to be a lot of action in this movie that we won't get anything else in ADDITION to that action. I find it hard to believe that we won't be getting ANY calm, thoughtful enjoyable character moments. When Star Trek arrives in theaters in, May 2009 if there's nothing but back to back explosions with a very thin plot, I'll gladly complain about it along with the rest of you. Until then it looks like some people are grasping at straws for ANYTHING that gives them reason to hate this movie. I don't understand why some people have already made up their minds without even seeing a full fledged trailer or reading critical reviews.

in total agreement

[MattJC]

ancient wrote:

---

I wonder if the alarmists will have enough energy to keep up their grump for a whole year.

Yeah, I can hold a grudge. 3 years later and I'm still annoyed about the cancellation of Enterprise.