I don’t think most of those roles qualify as extras. The corridors of the Enterprise were teaming with extras in the first season. So I doubt budget was a problem.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
Then the amount of Twins/Triplets/Quadruplets/etc have become that much more common.
No. The folks in charge of casting just like certain actors.
Yeah, that's nothing particularly new (or particularly old).
James Gunn just likes certain actors as did Joss Whedon, Steven Spielberg, Tim Burton, etc.
Hell, a lot of the same people show up in Kevin Smith movies.
Mel Brooks movies too.
Are you suggesting all these actors offered 2 for 1 deals?
There's usually 2 reasons for this sort of thing.
1. A director is comfortable working with a group of actors and either trusts those particular set of actors are able to give the performances they know a project will need, or just likes hanging out with those actors on months-long projects and the vibe they bring to the work environment. A good example of someone who does this is Christopher Nolan. Almost every single one of his movies will work Michael Caine or Cillian Murphy into a role if they're available.
2. If the directors and producers aren't committed to a certain actor for the supporting roles, casting directors tend to go with supporting actors who are hot in the moment. This is why if you go back and watch a collection of movies from a certain era, you'll see certain actors who seem to always be cast in the "best friend" role, or as the "nerdy friend," or the "mean girl." And if they don't stand out from being typecast in those kind of roles, eventually they're phased out for the next, up-and-coming set of actors that casting directors think are possibly going to be big.
1. A director is comfortable working with a group of actors and either trusts those particular set of actors are able to give the performances they know a project will need, or just likes hanging out with those actors on months-long projects and the vibe they bring to the work environment. A good example of someone who does this is Christopher Nolan. Almost every single one of his movies will work Michael Caine or Cillian Murphy into a role if they're available.
2. If the directors and producers aren't committed to a certain actor for the supporting roles, casting directors tend to go with supporting actors who are hot in the moment. This is why if you go back and watch a collection of movies from a certain era, you'll see certain actors who seem to always be cast in the "best friend" role, or as the "nerdy friend," or the "mean girl." And if they don't stand out from being typecast in those kind of roles, eventually they're phased out for the next, up-and-coming set of actors that casting directors think are possibly going to be big.
Or they get "Preferred Status" treatment to show up as multiple characters.
They probably do. As mentioned, the folks in charge like their work.
I'm not sure if i'm brought this up in this thread or not, there's alot here. A recent post made me rethink of one... that is particularly dark, especially for Star Trek.
There is a notable lack of Asian people in Star Trek. I think some particularly dark lore may actually provide an explanation... WW3 may have been much worse for Asia than the West. There may not be so many Asians in Star Trek because... there just aren't all that many Asian people comparatively, due to receiving the brunt of the WW3 nuclear exchange and then the Post-Atomic Horror.
There is a notable lack of Asian people in Star Trek. I think some particularly dark lore may actually provide an explanation... WW3 may have been much worse for Asia than the West. There may not be so many Asians in Star Trek because... there just aren't all that many Asian people comparatively, due to receiving the brunt of the WW3 nuclear exchange and then the Post-Atomic Horror.
Check out this thread:
www.trekbbs.com
My gripes with Asian casting and character naming in Paramount+ Trek
Having more to do with space than race. I suppose it could happen by coincidence.
www.trekbbs.com
The fact that they were giving the Enterprise a "proper shakedown" is all the wiggle room needed to make the trip to Vulcan as circuitous and/or as slow as necessary to be compatible with pretty much any distance between Earth and Kronos established by any other adventure. The four days stated in TMP does not establish a benchmark for routine trips between Earth and Vulcan at any speed.
I'm watching Space Seed not sure if this counts but McGiver should have been in the brig at the end awaiting her court martial. Khan should have been in the brig waiting to be charged with multiple counts of attempted murder etc
That's how it should have ended
That's how it should have ended
He was on a ship called Botany Bay, the forces of nominative determinism made detention on Space Australia the only possible outcome.
Definitely. There is no reason to send them to Ceti Alpha V. It's a stupid, backwards, decision by Kirk that ignores all the harm done.
I think the reason why Kirk does it is that in "Space Seed" the characterization of Khan is supposed to be more nuanced than how he is described later. He's not talked about like he's a genetically engineered Hitler. It's not until you get to Wrath of Khan and arguably most decidedly in Into Darkness that they make him a tyrant that is said to have perpetrated genocide.
Before things go off the rails in "Space Seed," both Scotty and Kirk speak of Khan with a degree of admiration (although, that admittedly shocks Spock), where they think of him as a relic of a backwards time, but recognize his abilities and leadership.
One can say that's possibly indicative of being made in the 1960s, where maybe the recognition of colonialism and the more problematic aspects of American (and world) history weren't exactly at the forefront (e.g., Star Trek was on-the-air at the same time a lot of westerns were putting white actors in some brown face paint and calling them "Indians," while not exactly sweating the issues that had affected indigenous peoples in the Americas).
For example, if you switched out Khan for someone like Winston Churchill, and just imagined him being woken up in the 23rd century, there's a lot to admire. But he was also a politician that oversaw an empire that committed a whole lot of massacres and exploited multiple peoples and countries.
I think that was the kind of nuance they originally were going for with Khan.
Similar threads
- Locked
