I wish the movie did have a big star. I like Bana but Russell Crowe as the villain would've been pretty huge. If I could replace anyone and put someone else in the cast it would be Bana for Crowe.
I think it is a mistake to not a have a big-name star.
- Thread starter Jayson
- Start date
^How about Ben Cross as Sarek?
Probably not big enough in the wide scheme of things. We're already seeing a lot of "Ben Who?" (remember Chariots of Fire was a quarter century ago) . I'd like to think Bana was pretty big. But I do agree there's no marquee name here. That's not necessarily a bad thing when you're trying to relaunch a franchise - you want to concentrate on the regulars.
All this said, surely Leonard Nimoy qualifies as a big name star? And if they DO end up bringing in Shatner, then they'll have two.
Cheers!
Alex
No on both counts.
Neither of them has ever been tapped to headline a big movie that didn't have "Star Trek" in the title. Why not, you ask? Well, because neither is or ever has been a "big star" in the movies.
There are two main reasons for casting an "A-list" actor: to secure financial backing and a distributor based on the actor's track record of "bankability" and in the attempt to ensure publicity and a big opening weekend for the film based on their demonstrated popularity with the moviegoing audience. A (yes, still) huge number of people go to a Tom Cruise movie because they like Tom Cruise - certainly not because they've heard that the character he plays is most excellent ("What's playing this weekend?/Oh, there's a new Tom Cruise movie/Great, I like him. Even if he's a whackadoodle he's still hot for an old guy. Let's go").
This has never been true of Shatner or Nimoy.
Possibly the closest to a "bankable" actor in this flick so far is Winona Ryder - but in fact that ship sailed years ago. She should be looking for work on the next Aaron Sorkin TV series (if any).
Laura Prepon from That Seventies Show has been cast.
Who's reporting that - or is this humor that's too subtle for a grey Monday morning? 
Re: TrekToday
.....employed by?
Well, you're right. I was out spending the millions of dollars of salary I get for modding the TNG forum. I guess I'll have to have my secretary notify me of these things.
MadBaggins said:
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!!!!
.....employed by?
Well, you're right. I was out spending the millions of dollars of salary I get for modding the TNG forum. I guess I'll have to have my secretary notify me of these things.
Re: TrekToday
A big-name star doesn't always equal a good or successful film. That said Bruce Greenwood may not be 'big named' but he didn't just beam down out of the oblivion either, he's a good actor. Ryder is well know, though now more so for her lack of judgment a few years ago. Who hasn't had one of those? Quinto & Morrison are well known for TV and Nimoy is well known for something. This is a very good cast JJ has thrown together and I look forward to seeing how they play off each other.
A big-name star doesn't always equal a good or successful film. That said Bruce Greenwood may not be 'big named' but he didn't just beam down out of the oblivion either, he's a good actor. Ryder is well know, though now more so for her lack of judgment a few years ago. Who hasn't had one of those? Quinto & Morrison are well known for TV and Nimoy is well known for something. This is a very good cast JJ has thrown together and I look forward to seeing how they play off each other.
Re: TrekToday
I like the cast as well for the most part. I do think it's a mistake though Kirk isn't going be played by Matt Damon or someone who is a major star. Trek tends to suffer when the lead is overshadowed by it's secondary characters. That is how DS9 failed to become a hit. Sisko was okay but everyone else was much more intresting for the most part. This movie should belong to Kirk IMO and i'm not sure you can do that with a unknown who will have to make people forget shatner.
Jason
I like the cast as well for the most part. I do think it's a mistake though Kirk isn't going be played by Matt Damon or someone who is a major star. Trek tends to suffer when the lead is overshadowed by it's secondary characters. That is how DS9 failed to become a hit. Sisko was okay but everyone else was much more intresting for the most part. This movie should belong to Kirk IMO and i'm not sure you can do that with a unknown who will have to make people forget shatner.
Jason
number6
Vice Admiral
Re: TrekToday
I don't see why we need a major star. No Trek series or film was built up around any "star power."
I'd prefer a screen full of unknowns. If the characters are believable, it almost doesn't matter who's playing them. Lesser known actors allow you to get pulled deeper into the story. Think about it.
I don't see why we need a major star. No Trek series or film was built up around any "star power."
I'd prefer a screen full of unknowns. If the characters are believable, it almost doesn't matter who's playing them. Lesser known actors allow you to get pulled deeper into the story. Think about it.
I don't know, I think most SF and action movie fans were familiar with John Rhys-Davies... and Elijah Wood wasn't exactly a nobody.
It's certainly an interesting cast, I'll say that. It's a mix of a few people I've heard of, a few people I've seen, and mostly people about whom I said "Who?" But having seen some of J.J. Abrams' other work, I figure he probably knows what he's doing for the most part when it comes to casting.
Dune had no Big names at the time and it flopped financially. Lord of the Rings had Christopher Lee and Ian McCleellan ( spelling) who were internationally big names unlike the other lesser names like Viggo and the elf dudes. The Phantom Menace had lesser knowns and was successful because of the Star Wars name as well as Rings. The Movie will either be a hit or miss and it will depend on a phenominal marketing campaign on the film and stars by Paramount. I dont even think I saw any Trek Stars hit the late night talk shows to promote Nemesis. Paramount used the TV show Enterprise during commercials to promote it thru trailers.
number6
Vice Admiral
When LOTR came out, people went out to see LOTR, not the new Christopher Lee film.
Having genre people in it certainly gave it some cred among geeks like us, but clearly the film did well because it was that good and LOTR is a classic tale.
John Travolta was in Battlefield Earth and it was a huge steaming pile of poo that flopped in a big way.
It can be argued that Tom Cruise ruined MI:3.
Star power is neither always a good thing or a necessary thing.
Having genre people in it certainly gave it some cred among geeks like us, but clearly the film did well because it was that good and LOTR is a classic tale.
John Travolta was in Battlefield Earth and it was a huge steaming pile of poo that flopped in a big way.
It can be argued that Tom Cruise ruined MI:3.
Star power is neither always a good thing or a necessary thing.
Would Trek movie writers know what to do with a big star?
Two main villains have been reasonably big names in previous movies - Montalban and Lloyd. Both died at the end. The main villain of XI could also be a big name, no problem there. But if the new Kirk were to be played by Damon or Cruise, how could the writers capitalize on that? The character would still be alive as the credits roll, but the odds of the actor returning for a sequel would be infinitesimally low. How to rewrite a recurring or regular character so that he or she can be played by a big name, again and again and again?
Timo Saloniemi
Two main villains have been reasonably big names in previous movies - Montalban and Lloyd. Both died at the end. The main villain of XI could also be a big name, no problem there. But if the new Kirk were to be played by Damon or Cruise, how could the writers capitalize on that? The character would still be alive as the credits roll, but the odds of the actor returning for a sequel would be infinitesimally low. How to rewrite a recurring or regular character so that he or she can be played by a big name, again and again and again?
Timo Saloniemi
Well, the star would have to have negotiated his contract so well that he eliminated the obligatory clauses regarding compulsory appearances in sequels.
There are hundreds of examples of stars who are compelled by contractual obligation to appear in more than the one sequel of a particular movie.
People haved used "Star Wars" and "Lord of the Rings" as examples of not needing big stars though I think that is kind of misleading because modern Star Wars did have big stars. Liam Neeson,Samuel Jacksons,Natile Portman etc. One of the things those movies had going for them was a brand name people were intrested in. People had been waiting years for "Star Wars" to come back and for "Lord of the Rings" to be made into a movie.
"Star Trek" is also a brand name but it is one that has lost's it luster in recent years. You can longer count on the Trek name being enough to get people intrested in seeing the movie. Matt Damon or a star like combined with the idea of reiventing "TOS" though I think would sound apealing to casual fans. I just don't see how without a big name as a star people will seperate this from the later Trek series and movies that didn't apeal to them. Will people see this a movie they got to see or will it be lumped togethr with Nemissis and Insurrection and Enterprise and Voyager as modern trek they didn't like.
Jason
"Star Trek" is also a brand name but it is one that has lost's it luster in recent years. You can longer count on the Trek name being enough to get people intrested in seeing the movie. Matt Damon or a star like combined with the idea of reiventing "TOS" though I think would sound apealing to casual fans. I just don't see how without a big name as a star people will seperate this from the later Trek series and movies that didn't apeal to them. Will people see this a movie they got to see or will it be lumped togethr with Nemissis and Insurrection and Enterprise and Voyager as modern trek they didn't like.
Jason
Re: TrekToday
No Trek film has ever made the kind of money that the studio is chasing with this film.
Certainly in any given year a number of films with well-known performers fail studio expectations (there are a lot of far more recent and better examples; reaching back two decades for "Ishtar" is silly). It doesn't follow that employing those actors is in any way a bad idea - the overall track record shows differently.
If one is looking at the history of "Star Trek" films as a guide to how this movie ought to be made, one is looking in the wrong place.
No Trek film has ever made the kind of money that the studio is chasing with this film.
Certainly in any given year a number of films with well-known performers fail studio expectations (there are a lot of far more recent and better examples; reaching back two decades for "Ishtar" is silly). It doesn't follow that employing those actors is in any way a bad idea - the overall track record shows differently.
If one is looking at the history of "Star Trek" films as a guide to how this movie ought to be made, one is looking in the wrong place.
Similar threads
