... and a bridge to nowhere in Alaska that needs selling.
MATT DAMON!
- Thread starter Plum
- Start date
To the best of my knowledge, Damon is not known to have a prima dona attitude.
My problem with Damon as Kirk was what others have said: and that is the distraction of a major star in what is (mostly) an ensemble cast. I fear the film would have been labeled by average moviegoers as "Star Trek starring Matt Damon as Kirk", rather than simply "the new Star Trek".
Last edited:
CaptainHawk1
Commodore
WTF???
Please enlighten us with your brilliant insight and explain how other than the fact the the characters are both assassins that Bourne and Bond films are anything alike.
Didn't Damon say in an interview that when he heard the rumor he called JJ and was told he was too (bleeping) old to play the part.
I wouldn't have minded seeing him and Adrian Brody on screen together along with Tom Cruise, Russel Crowe as Nero and Daniel Craig as Chris Pike. Oh well.
I wouldn't have minded seeing him and Adrian Brody on screen together along with Tom Cruise, Russel Crowe as Nero and Daniel Craig as Chris Pike. Oh well.
That is the first thing that came to mind when I saw this thread title. Thank you for linking it.
Agreed totally.
And I'm ashamed that there's been no reference to "I'm F*cking Matt Damon!" in two pages of this thread!
I don't know -- most "average moviegoers" know who Matt Damon is, but I think far fewer know who Zachary Quinto is. Heroes is not exactly a wildly popular show among the masses. I don't watch Heroes, so I didn't know who Quinto was until his name started coming up in the casting rumors.The thing I find most amusing about the reaction in this thread is that the main reason given for not liking the idea of Damon as Kirk is the same reason so many liked the idea of Quinto as Spock - name recognition.
I knew enough about Heroes to know there was a guy who cuts brains from people's heads, but I didn't know the actor's name.
Captain X
Rear Admiral
I don't watch Heros either, but since I hang out at boards like this one I still heard about the characters and who played them. I also remember excitement when Qunito was cast as Spock because some thought he would help draw in a more mainstream crowd due to being recognized for his role on Heros. 
^
^^I get your point now. Yeah, I think people thought his name would help draw an audience -- although I think that audience is a limited sci-fi/fantasy oriented audience, many of whom already were potentially part of Star Trek's built-in audience anyway.
^^I get your point now. Yeah, I think people thought his name would help draw an audience -- although I think that audience is a limited sci-fi/fantasy oriented audience, many of whom already were potentially part of Star Trek's built-in audience anyway.
I tend to think the general public prior to this had no clue who Quinto was, unless they watched 'Heroes,' and even then might only know his face. I have friends who still don't know who he is when they see his face (sans ears of course) until I tell them he's the new Spock.
I'm set to display 25 posts per page, putting the above post at the bottom of Page 1, so I think we're cool....
And I'm ashamed that there's been no reference to "I'm F*cking Matt Damon!" in two pages of this thread!
My guess, if Damon was really offered the part, is that he turned it down because he didn't want to sign a multi-picture deal and get locked in.
CaptainHawk1
Commodore
This whole story is bogus.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYxUfyITOUE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYxUfyITOUE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYxUfyITOUE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYxUfyITOUE
WTF???
Please enlighten us with your brilliant insight and explain how other than the fact the the characters are both assassins that Bourne and Bond films are anything alike.
I would agree that Bourne is a ripoff trilogy, but not just of Bond. To me it seems that the novels were crafted by lifting ever cliche story idea to appear in a spy novel and smash them into one ridiculous mish-mash.
I mean, he even has no memory! It's like Ludlum watched any one random anime, Rambo II, a couple of bond flicks, Enemy of the State, got high and played Splinter Cell, then sat down and popped out the convoluted and nearly unreadable Bourne Identity.
I know, it is considered one of, if not the best, spy novels of all time, but it still sucks. I think it is because, for the most part, spy novels suck.
CaptainHawk1
Commodore
WTF???
Please enlighten us with your brilliant insight and explain how other than the fact the the characters are both assassins that Bourne and Bond films are anything alike.
I would agree that Bourne is a ripoff trilogy, but not just of Bond. To me it seems that the novels were crafted by lifting ever cliche story idea to appear in a spy novel and smash them into one ridiculous mish-mash.
I mean, he even has no memory! It's like Ludlum watched any one random anime, Rambo II, a couple of bond flicks, Enemy of the State, got high and played Splinter Cell, then sat down and popped out the convoluted and nearly unreadable Bourne Identity.
I know, it is considered one of, if not the best, spy novels of all time, but it still sucks. I think it is because, for the most part, spy novels suck.
Now THAT I agree with.
WTF???
Please enlighten us with your brilliant insight and explain how other than the fact the the characters are both assassins that Bourne and Bond films are anything alike.
I would agree that Bourne is a ripoff trilogy, but not just of Bond. To me it seems that the novels were crafted by lifting ever cliche story idea to appear in a spy novel and smash them into one ridiculous mish-mash.
I mean, he even has no memory! It's like Ludlum watched any one random anime, Rambo II, a couple of bond flicks, Enemy of the State, got high and played Splinter Cell, then sat down and popped out the convoluted and nearly unreadable Bourne Identity.
I know, it is considered one of, if not the best, spy novels of all time, but it still sucks. I think it is because, for the most part, spy novels suck.
Now THAT I agree with.
Never read the books, never interested in spy novels at all... but the movies... don't knock the movies!
I read the first novel, as a kid, in the 1970s, and even I could see that J.B. was an Americanized knockoff of J.B., right down to the loss of memory being a plot point (Bond suffers amnesia at the conclusion of You Only Live Twice, if memory serves, and has tried to kill M by The Man with the Golden Gun). But whereas Fleming at least tried to develop Bond as a character, Ludlum was all endless dialogue and plot, murky as it was. I couldn't even listen to the book on tape, read by the late, great Darrin McGavin, because the narrative itself was so banal. But the thin framework that was the novel was great for a film that essentially is one big chase.
WTF???
Please enlighten us with your brilliant insight and explain how other than the fact the the characters are both assassins that Bourne and Bond films are anything alike.
I would agree that Bourne is a ripoff trilogy, but not just of Bond. To me it seems that the novels were crafted by lifting ever cliche story idea to appear in a spy novel and smash them into one ridiculous mish-mash.
I mean, he even has no memory! It's like Ludlum watched any one random anime, Rambo II, a couple of bond flicks, Enemy of the State, got high and played Splinter Cell, then sat down and popped out the convoluted and nearly unreadable Bourne Identity.
I know, it is considered one of, if not the best, spy novels of all time, but it still sucks. I think it is because, for the most part, spy novels suck.
Similar threads
