Clarke: Am I In The Movie?

[TrekToday]

Noel Clarke, who portrays an unnamed character in Star Trek Into Darkness, is not at all sure that his character will make the final cut of the movie. If cut, it wouldn’t be the first time for the actor, who was cut from Ghost Rider 2. “Probably better off with [being cut] that one to [...]

More...

[Spock/Uhura Fan]

Very interesting. I wonder why he's worried all of a sudden. Maybe he was supposed to be called back for something, like voice overs, and it didn't happen? Well, he and the little girl and wife he's supposed to have in the movie made a cute family, FWIW.

[C.E. Evans]

I think Clarke is speaking based on his experience with Ghost Rider 2. It's always possible for someone who doesn't have top billing to be cut from the movie in the final edit. These days, they generally wind up in the deleted scenes on the DVD/blu-ray release.

[Therin of Andor]

Spock/Uhura Fan wrote:

---

Very interesting. I wonder why he's worried all of a sudden.

Prominent actor Victor Garber probably got a surprise when his role vanished from the last film.

[CorporalClegg]

^
I didn't even know Garber was involved. I love him. That kinda makes me sad now.

OTOH I have no idea who this Clarke guy is, so I doubt I'll miss him.

I just hope they got paid for their time.

[Therin of Andor]

CorporealClegg wrote:

---

I didn't even know Garber was involved. I love him. That kinda makes me sad now.

That's what bonus deleted scenes on DVDs are for.

http://io9.com/5377622/victor-garber...eams-come-true


Victor Garber - halfway transformation as a Klingon by Therin of Andor, on Flickr

I just hope they got paid for their time.

Of course! That's what contracts are for.

[serenitytrek1]

KIND OF WORRIED...THE MORE CHARACTERS ARE IN A FILM....THE MORE THE FILM GETS 1 DIMENSIONAL

[Therin of Andor]

serenitytrek1 wrote:

---

KIND OF WORRIED...THE MORE CHARACTERS ARE IN A FILM....THE MORE THE FILM GETS 1 DIMENSIONAL

Huh?

The cast list for the new movie looks to be no longer or shorter than any other Star Trek movie. And the length of a cast and the calibre of its actors has no correlation to how many lines they all get or how dimensional some characters will be.

Look how many featured speaking parts were in ST II.

[ralph]

if noel clarke is in doubt because his character is not as important to the plot

[Spock/Uhura Fan]

C.E. Evans wrote:

---

I think Clarke is speaking based on his experience with Ghost Rider 2. It's always possible for someone who doesn't have top billing to be cut from the movie in the final edit. These days, they generally wind up in the deleted scenes on the DVD/blu-ray release.

Therin of Andor wrote:

---

Prominent actor Victor Garber probably got a surprise when his role vanished from the last film.

Well then, I'm glad he's not pinning his hopes on being in the fillm. Too bad, though. I'm always in favor of just making the film longer, but I know that's not always possible. After all, this isn't Titanic.

[Therin of Andor]

Spock/Uhura Fan wrote:

---

Well then, I'm glad he's not pinning his hopes on being in the fillm.

Who knows how he feels? Not every actor is a fan of Star Trek, or even of movies. They act to work, get paid, go home, then onto the next audition and hopefully the next job.

Too bad, though. I'm always in favor of just making the film longer...

Longer stories are not necessarily better stories. Nothing worse that a good film slowed down by extraneous, gratuitous scenes that end up doing absolutely nothing to advance the plot.

[Spock/Uhura Fan]

Therin of Andor wrote:

---

Who knows how he feels? Not every actor is a fan of Star Trek, or even of movies. They act to work, get paid, go home, then onto the next audition and hopefully the next job.

I supposed only he and anyone he talks to about his feelings knows how he feels. Based off of the quotes in the article, it does not appear that he'll be devastated if he's cut. I'd imagine that no one wants their work to end up on the cutting room floor, but that's the business, as you've mentioned.

Longer stories are not necessarily better stories. Nothing worse that a good film slowed down by extraneous, gratuitous scenes that end up doing absolutely nothing to advance the plot.

Aaand that's why I said (and you cut that part out of my quote) that I can understand that that's not always possible. I said that for the very reason that sometimes length can interfere with quality, and then also, sometimes there are budget constraints that don't allow for it either. Conversely, nothing's worse than a 90 minute film that really needed to be 2 or even 2 1/2 hours long to do the story justice.

[Therin of Andor]

Spock/Uhura Fan wrote:

---

I can understand that that's not always possible.

It's never really on the cards. What director is going to leave in unnecessary scenes that slow down the narrative and add nothing to the story?

That's what Bonus Scenes features are for on DVDs and Blu-Rays.

Conversely, nothing's worse than a 90 minute film that really needed to be 2 or even 2 1/2 hours long to do the story justice

It's still the director's and the studio's call. You might disagree with their choices, but you're not really going to know what's missing till the DVD comes out. Movies aren't as restricted on length these days due to cineplexes and multiple screens (and no newsreels, serials or shorts), but directors don't chop out 30 mins, or add 30 mins, just for the fun of it.

[Spock/Uhura Fan]

Therin of Andor wrote:

---

It's never really on the cards. What director is going to leave in unnecessary scenes that slow down the narrative and add nothing to the story? That's what Bonus Scenes features are for on DVDs and Blu-Rays.

You're assuming that every scene Mr. Clarke is in is slowing down the narrative and unnecessary for the story. We don't know that the same way he doesn't know whether he's going to make it into the film or not. If it were obvious that his scenes were unnecessary and slowed down the plot of the movie, then I doubt they would have been filmed in the first place.

And I'm still not quite sure what your quote has to do with me saying "that's not always possible." It's almost like you just want an argument for the sake of it. I don't know what's up with that.

It's still the director's and the studio's call. You might disagree with their choices, but you're not really going to know what's missing till the DVD comes out. Movies aren't as restricted on length these days due to cineplexes and multiple screens (and no newsreels, serials or shorts), but directors don't chop out 30 mins, or add 30 mins, just for the fun of it.

I don't think you're paying attention to what I said. The 90 minute film I was talking about as a figurative example mostly has nothing to do with the director. It all starts with the story. If the story has to be cut for budget constraints, or because the story is based off of a book (like Harry Potter), then it may have to be cut to make the movie a decent length. This can backfire when too much is cut. I think the HP people realized this in the nick of time for the 7th book and decided to give that story enough time, as in 2 films. Twilight seems to be following suit. As soon as the books skyrocketed to 7-800+ pages, it probably should have been 2 films per book from then on out, but they learned... It's not like their audience wouldn't have been okay with that. That has nothing to do with the director, at least not that I can tell. It's the script.

Sometimes you have a story that just wasn't long enough to cover enough content to begin with. The best example I can think of is the first X-Men movie because Bryan Singer (the director) also wrote (in-part) the story for the film. One major complaint was that not enough time was spent building up some of the characters and that the film's length should have been increased for that. He acknowledged that saying that the film should have been longer.

So again, I'm not just talking about the director and the studio. (And trust me, the studio would have been ALL for making more money off of HP ) It's the over all process. Sometimes people make mistakes; that's all I was saying. It seemed like that's all you were saying too, so I'm not sure where the disagreement seems to be coming from.

[Therin of Andor]

Spock/Uhura Fan wrote:

---

You're assuming that every scene Mr. Clarke is in is slowing down the narrative and unnecessary for the story.

No I'm not. I was disputing your seeming claim that all scenes should be left in movies because you don't mind watching long movies, ie: "I'm always in favor of just making the film longer."

It's almost like you just want an argument for the sake of it. I don't know what's up with that.

Your blanket statement seemed to not consider the commercial and directorial needs of the movie.