JJ Abrams considering Khan in next movie?
- Thread starter Feofilakt
- Start date
Sounds like a job for Tom Hanks *cough Da Vinci Code cough*
Ha!Maybe they can bring in the actors who were screwed over for special effects in the Star Wars prequels. Liam Neeson, Natalie Portman, Ewan McGregor and Samuel L. Jackson can show what they can really do in a sci fi movie and flip off Star Wars.
Samuel L Jackson as Captain Terrell
Natalie Portman as Carol Marcus
That's exactly why I mentioned him. Admittedly, much of the success of that film had to do with the huge success of the book on which it was based, but Hanks himself is a proven draw even in bad films. He's a Trek fan, he was nearly signed for First Contact - what a perfect opportunity to bring him in.
Plus if we're looking to noted Trek fans who wanted to be involved in the past, there's Sean Young (who wanted to write a TNG episode) and Robin Williams (who had a role written for him but proved to be unavailable).
Hell, there's even Eddie Murphy to get the chance he missed with IV, but we're really stretching the box office draw potential now...
wow i sure disagree with this. i want good films, i dont' care who acts in them as long as they make it a good film. And if it doesn't make money when its good, the public doesn't deserve them. Let the idea lie dormant until it can be appreciated even if it takes years. Unwashed rabble
^ If it turns out that Wolverine makes more money than Star Trek despite vastly different reviews, then I think they will have to look at the cast. It's either that, or admit that the Star Trek name is a ceiling on box office potential, in which case they may be more reluctant to produce sequels.
This is a new era for Star Trek, and needs to be considered in a different way to past films. If they want them to truly be blockbusters, then they need to consider making some big moves.
This is a new era for Star Trek, and needs to be considered in a different way to past films. If they want them to truly be blockbusters, then they need to consider making some big moves.
The closest cast member to a "star" that this movie had was Winona (I like Nimoy a lot, but he's only a huge drawcard for Trekkies) - and the last time I checked box office mojo, the combined US-International taking was already $165m - so there's no problem casting unknowns, as long as the unknowns are appearing in a well-written movie with great action and effects.
Two other interesting things:
Considering that ST has been in release for a week less than Wolverine, it's doing comparably well - at least in the US market.
It almost beat Angels and Demons this weekend - and that stars the much-lauded Tom Hanks. So clearly Pine, Quinto, et. al. can hold their own against him and don't need him or his ilk to survive at the BO.
Angels and Demons had simply terrible reviews, compared to the near universal acclaim of Star Trek. I don't think we can count on the same gap for the next film.
Wolverine is over $US100 million ahead of Star Trek worldwide, and has a far greater percentage of its box office from foreign markets (nearly half, compared to less than 30% for Star Trek). Star Trek will never reach Iron Man, which also has close to half its money from outside the US. Three "genre" films, the same advisory rating, similar budgets, yet Trek's superior reviews have not put it ahead.
Outside the US is a massive untapped market, and they need to think of ways to reach out to them. Obviously having Abrams tour numerous countries and hold the world premiere in Sydney was not enough.
I'm not saying a "name" actor will save a bad film, nor that Hanks is necessarily the one. However, it is certainly something that should be considered.
Wolverine is over $US100 million ahead of Star Trek worldwide, and has a far greater percentage of its box office from foreign markets (nearly half, compared to less than 30% for Star Trek). Star Trek will never reach Iron Man, which also has close to half its money from outside the US. Three "genre" films, the same advisory rating, similar budgets, yet Trek's superior reviews have not put it ahead.
Outside the US is a massive untapped market, and they need to think of ways to reach out to them. Obviously having Abrams tour numerous countries and hold the world premiere in Sydney was not enough.
I'm not saying a "name" actor will save a bad film, nor that Hanks is necessarily the one. However, it is certainly something that should be considered.
As an Aussie, I think I can explain part of the problem here - promotion. I don't recall seeing any television ads, posters on bus shelters, billboards, etc. in the same way I did with Wolverine/IronMan etc. A more concerted promotional campaign outside of the US would've, I am sure, resulted in a MUCH stronger Box Office.
Consider it, yes. But not for the sake of promoting the film. The actor would have to be right for the role - and IMHO this doesn't mean writing a part for a certain actor - but finding the right actor to fill a well-written role for a well fleshed-out character.
I know Therin will disagree, but I likewise didn't see much in the way of paid advertising. However, it got stacks of unpaid ads though huge articles in major newspapers, and generally positive reviews across Australia. I think a lot of the problem was a lack of appeal to children (who have barely made up any of the audience when I've been) and the inability to completely convince people to try Star Trek without knowledge of the series (aside from negative and ignorant perceptions).
Incidentally, we already know Reece Witherspoon can do the Vulcan salute. Anyone say arranged marriage? Forget Space Seed, let's relive Amok Time, with Uhura and Reece battling it out for Spock...
Zefram Cochrane was written for James Cromwell once Tom Hanks was unavailable, and I doubt that's the only example. I would think that the part would at least have to have the actor in mind during writing, and that is not necessarily a problem if the writing is still good.
"Star Trek XI" was already a re-make of "Khan," with a villain seeking out revenge against the person responsible for his wife's death on a doomed planet.
While it would be interesting to see Khan played by an actual Asian actor rather than a Mexican actor ("Harold and Kumar" reunion, anyone?), there's really nothing more they can do with the character, considering they've already done the revenge plot in this movie.
I also think the Romulans and Klingons have run their course as villains.
There are so many other cool aliens that are available in the Trek canon, including the Gorn, Tholians, Jarada, Sheliak, Cardassians, and Breen, who actually look like aliens, not just humans with rubber ears and foreheads.
I would like to get back to the political intrigue of my favorite film, "Star Trek VI," rather than more of this "one über-villain vs. the whole Galaxy" which has become the formula of the last five films, as well as "Star Trek II."
Or, actually get back to exploring strange, NEW worlds, as Spock's voiceover promised at the end of this film. We can assume that the 79 TOS episodes didn't depict EVERY interesting planet in the quadrant.
If "Star Trek: Insurrection" could get green-lit based entirely on a story about the Baku, surely Abrams and friends can come up with at least one interesting story about one new alien race on one planet somewhere in the Galaxy.
There's no need for them to start re-making old episodes with new versions of familiar characters. That's what the Mirror Universe is for.
That said, I wouldn't mind seeing Shatner again. Maybe something involving the Guardian of Forever. Many may disagree with me, but I never get tired of time travel stories.
But if they simply must bring back over-the-top villains from old episodes, may I suggest Richard Kind as Harry Mudd.
While it would be interesting to see Khan played by an actual Asian actor rather than a Mexican actor ("Harold and Kumar" reunion, anyone?), there's really nothing more they can do with the character, considering they've already done the revenge plot in this movie.
I also think the Romulans and Klingons have run their course as villains.
There are so many other cool aliens that are available in the Trek canon, including the Gorn, Tholians, Jarada, Sheliak, Cardassians, and Breen, who actually look like aliens, not just humans with rubber ears and foreheads.
I would like to get back to the political intrigue of my favorite film, "Star Trek VI," rather than more of this "one über-villain vs. the whole Galaxy" which has become the formula of the last five films, as well as "Star Trek II."
Or, actually get back to exploring strange, NEW worlds, as Spock's voiceover promised at the end of this film. We can assume that the 79 TOS episodes didn't depict EVERY interesting planet in the quadrant.
If "Star Trek: Insurrection" could get green-lit based entirely on a story about the Baku, surely Abrams and friends can come up with at least one interesting story about one new alien race on one planet somewhere in the Galaxy.
There's no need for them to start re-making old episodes with new versions of familiar characters. That's what the Mirror Universe is for.
That said, I wouldn't mind seeing Shatner again. Maybe something involving the Guardian of Forever. Many may disagree with me, but I never get tired of time travel stories.
But if they simply must bring back over-the-top villains from old episodes, may I suggest Richard Kind as Harry Mudd.
BINGO.
Unless said "Khan" reboot were about finding the Botany Bay all over again and combining elements of the TOS episode and the second film all in one new picture.
TWOK's missing a Nokia ad. Fuck knows we can't let a movie that has no product placement be considered legitimate in this day and age.
Well, that's more than most of the movies and a good part of the TV Franchise were able to accomplish utilizing "forty years of backstory"...so, yeah.
Well, that's more than most of the movies and a good part of the TV Franchise were able to accomplish utilizing "forty years of backstory"...so, yeah.
QFTFT!
Similar threads
