I think it is a mistake to not a have a big-name star.

[Jayson]

I know you have the issue of people seeing Matt Damon and not Cpatain Kirk or whoever would have been picked to play the role but I think that is overated. That is like saying people can't enjoy "Bourne Identy" because they keep thinking he is Will Hunting.

Anyways by not having a big name star you basically have Nimoy as the most familiar name to most of the audience. Doesn't this basically give off the impression this will be more of the same Trek they grew tired of in the first place? We nerds might know the truth but most people won't and Abrams isn't a big enough name to casual fans either. I mean they have all proably seen "Lost" but do they really know the name of the guy who created it?


Jason

 

[pookha]

there really wasnt a big name star in star wars.
guiness had the acting chops and awards but outside of kwai how well was he known.

 

[ralph]

Angels and Demons has been delayed to May 2009.
Tom Hanks, a trekker, maybe can play a cameo in Star Trek XI. Who knows?

 

[pookha]

hanks would make a good admiral

 

[ralph]

pookha said:
hanks would make a good admiral

Or a "federation capitain".
Orci said that this federation capitain couldn´t be Pike, but another one.

 

[Spider]

The Nov 26th issue of Time magazine says on page 24 (in their People section) that Winona Ryder has been cast as the mother of a young Spock in the movie.

Not that she's that big a star, or that I believe Time magazine.

 

[DeafPoet]

People may not be familiar with JJ as such, but I bet the trailer's going to have an ominous trailer-guy voice saying 'From the director of Mission: Impossible III...'

As far as not having any huge stars in there, it's not really a big deal. How many of the actors from LOTR were the public really familiar with? Shit, I'd say most of the actors from that trilogy with the exception of Orlando Bloom and maybe Viggo Mortensen are still anonymous several years later. And those movies made piles of money.

People will go see something that looks cool, stars or no. So, all that remains for JJ is just to make it look cool.

Which should be easy

 

[Arlo]

The only thing that matters is a good script, competent production, and quality acting. A big name-star will not improve the film if those aren't achieved.

 

[Wesson]

I kinda feel there really should be a big hollywood name in the picture somewhere in a small role. Somebody like, say, Gene Hackman as Admiral Robert April.

 

[ChristopherPike]

Somebody with a long established track record (not just recent or genre only) would've been nice, even if they're not a main character. I still think not getting Ray Liotta for Pike was a missed opportunity, both in physical resemblance and acting chops. Catching Copland again on the telly last night probably hasn't helped my point of view...

 

[Outpost4]

Maybe there are still some leftover Marlon Brando voice tracks from Superman: The Movie they could use.

 

[MadBaggins]

Re: TrekToday

Spider said:
The Nov 26th issue of Time magazine says on page 24 (in their People section) that Winona Ryder has been cast as the mother of a young Spock in the movie.

Not that she's that big a star, or that I believe Time magazine.

Do you even READ this website that you are employed by!? It has been well known by TrekToday, the world's premier Star Trek news site, that Winona Ryder will be playing Amanda Grayson for over ONE MONTH!!!!

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Re: TrekToday

The idea that any film requires "name stars" to be successful says one of two things:

1) if TRUE, it says that human beings are incredibly stupid creatures, driven solely by heard instincts. "These half-dozen people are the ones I'm told are cool today so I only wanna see them, nobody else. BAAAAAAAHHHHHH...."

2) if FALSE (as I believe is the case), it says something about the tendency to underestimate OTHER PEOPLE. "I get that a movie can be good if there's no 'big name' star, but I believe that most other people are incredibly stupid and unable to see things as clearly as I am, so they need a 'big name' in order to bring them into the theater. Come on, sheeple, form a single file line..."

Look. NO "BIG NAME ACTOR" WAS ALWAYS A BIG NAME. Were they? No... every "big name" became a "big name" because they did something that got them attention. Sometimes something really good, sometime they were the only good spot in something mediocre, and sometimes they get the attention because watching them is like watching a train wreck... you know they're pathetic but you just can't look away (Brittney Spears, for instance?).

This film has, in fact, more RECOGNIZABLE people in it than I'd prefer. I would have really liked actors who were entirely unknown to American audiences (and thus largely unknown to worldwide audiences, most likely). Greenwood's face is very well-known (even if he's seldom been a "leading man"). Seldana et-al... all the "second banana" characters... they're all recognizable if not "a-list" yet. Pegg is VERY well-known, though a bit less so in the USA than in Europe. And as for our new Spock... well... heroes IS one of the most popular shows on TV, isn't it?

The only one who I've seen who met my original "unknowns" desire, really, is Pine. And from what I've seen of him, I think he'll pull off a FINE Kirk.

This movie doesn't need "the latest kewl stars and starlets" in order to be a good film. It needs the BEST ACTORS FOR THE PARTS. And so far, my shock over Pegg and my dismay over our apparent new "Amanda Grayson" notwithstanding, I think that casting is actually quite good.

In fact, if this movie is a good one, it may be a "star-maker" for several of the key players. Pine, for instance, may become one of those "A-list" actors AS A RESULT OF THIS.

Ya'ever think 'bout that?

 

[AvBaur]

Re: TrekToday

Eric Bana has three high profile projects ("The Other Boleyn Girl", "The Time Traveler's Wife", "Romulus, My Father") coming out before ST XI, so he might actually still become more of a big-name star.

Other than that I do not think bigger names are necessary to make a sci-fi adventure flick a huge success. Spock, Kirk, and Star Trek alone are big enough to create a lot of buzz in my opinion.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

Re: TrekToday

Actually I was pretty happy so many actors I know are a part of Trek now.... I thought Eric Bana was a big-name star of sorts.

Anyway, I second the Star Wars and LOTR argument- no big names (or hardly), but still highly successful.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Re: TrekToday

Eric Bana has three high profile projects ("The Other Boleyn Girl", "The Time Traveler's Wife", "Romulus, My Father") coming out before ST XI, so he might actually still become more of a big-name star.

I don't think any of those are going to catapault him into Tom Cruise-level fame. I liked Bana in Munich but he didn't give me the impression of someone who will ever be a Movie Star(TM) of the sort this thread is talking about.

However, I don't think this movie needs a Movie Star(TM). We have Star Trek(TM). That, and some good reviews and word of mouth, should be enough.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: TrekToday

Jayson, I agree that they'd have been on safer ground commercially with an "A list" actor.

It didn't work out that way, and I'd give a lot to know whether this was entirely a free choice on the part of the producers and studio or whether they just weren't able to land one.

 

[ClayinCA]

Jayson said:
Anyways by not having a big name star you basically have Nimoy as the most familiar name to most of the audience. Doesn't this basically give off the impression this will be more of the same Trek they grew tired of in the first place?

Well, technically, the "Trek they grew tired of in the first place" would have been the last several Trek movies, right? And Nimoy hasn't appeared in Trek on screen since what, 1991? So this "Trek they grew tired of..." would apply to the new flick only if Frakes or somebody was in it.

 

[Stone_Cold_Sisko]

Jayson said:
Anyways by not having a big name star you basically have Nimoy as the most familiar name to most of the audience. Doesn't this basically give off the impression this will be more of the same Trek they grew tired of in the first place? We nerds might know the truth but most people won't and Abrams isn't a big enough name to casual fans either. I mean they have all proably seen "Lost" but do they really know the name of the guy who created it?

Yes, especially to the Nimoy thing. one of the reasons I was excited for this was it felt like a new beginning for Star Trek... then we started casting old actors... then we have fanwanky storylines about time travellers killing kirk and creating alternate realities so we *GASP* Don't Violate Continuity!

It seems like they're catering the whole movie to the hardcore "nerds" - hopefully some of this leaked information is wrong (and it could be - its early)

But a dynamite first trailer can help make up for it.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

ClayinCA said:
Well, technically, the "Trek they grew tired of in the first place" would have been the last several Trek movies, right? And Nimoy hasn't appeared in Trek on screen since what, 1991? So this "Trek they grew tired of..." would apply to the new flick only if Frakes or somebody was in it.

Not really. The reason that Paramount wanted to replace the TOS crew with the TNG folks in the movies to begin with was that the film series was on a downhill slope in terms of popularity and profitability. It peaked with the fourth film, but continued for two more.

Arguably the studio finds themselves in a parallel situation now, having carried on the TNG film series for two films past its prime as well.