Matt Damon in a recent interview has stated that he will not be playing Kirk in Trek XI, saying Abrams is looking for someone "younger."
Interview here
Interview here
Matt Damon Debunks Kirk Rumours Once And For All
- Thread starter The Wormhole
- Start date
Yeah I think Abrams is going for 30ish TV actors - at least moderately high profile, proven talent - for both roles. Zach Quinto for Spock, and I dunno who for Kirk but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it were Michael C. Hall.
That's unfortunate. Matt Damon was the best idea I've heard in a LONG while that would've brought Star Trek into the mainstream.
This, coupled with the rumors of Sylar playing Spock (an unknown outside of the sci-fi community, in one of the major roles), does not bode well for Star Trek XI's success.
This, coupled with the rumors of Sylar playing Spock (an unknown outside of the sci-fi community, in one of the major roles), does not bode well for Star Trek XI's success.
^^ Also, though Quinto might not be 'A-List' (assuming he even has the role), his face is certainly recognizable from a hit new TV show that attracts the sort of big mainstream sci-fi audience that TPTB will want Star Trek to attract. TPTB will want this new movie to be compared to shows like 'Heroes' and 'Lost' far more so than the previous ST series' IMO, and casting recognizable and more to the point popular young actors from shows like these is just as viable commercially and less 'stunt-casty' than casting a big name for the sake of it.
^^^ 100% Correct !
Familure genre type folks We'd see long before A-List types, after all a lot of A-List types don't care much for Trek, so we're better off with genre types anyway
Granted there are a few A-Listers who's love to do Trek, Tom Hanks, Ben Stiller, Jason Alexander, and so forth.
But the list is short compaired to the folks who wouldn't be caught dead doing Trek as it's 'below' them.
- W -
* What rumor was next on the list anyhow ? *
Familure genre type folks We'd see long before A-List types, after all a lot of A-List types don't care much for Trek, so we're better off with genre types anyway
Granted there are a few A-Listers who's love to do Trek, Tom Hanks, Ben Stiller, Jason Alexander, and so forth.
But the list is short compaired to the folks who wouldn't be caught dead doing Trek as it's 'below' them.
- W -
* What rumor was next on the list anyhow ? *
"Transformers" was sold as a mindless, summer action flick. People saw it for the special effects. That's not the strategy they're going to want to use for "Star Trek." And it's not the kind of film we want "Star Trek" to be, anyway.
Show an average person on the street a picture of Matt Damon, and they'll recognize him instantly as a big movie star. Show an average person on the street a picture of Quinto, and they'll go "Who is that?" They'll not only not know his name, they'll also not recognize him as an actor.
He's well known among the sci-fi types. But that's not a big enough market for the expensive, mainstream movie that Paramount is going to want. It's not just about winning back lost Star Trek fans - it's about making "Star Trek" seem not so shameful anymore to the average viewer.
That way, the big-name actors won't believe it to be "beneath them."
It's like Batman. After "Batman and Robin," no serious actor would've done a Batman movie - or any comic book movie. But after the "Batman Begins" reboot, with excellent writing, directing, and big name acting, suddenly it's highly respected - and the comic book movie genre is taken much more seriously now, as well. Part of that was its ability to appeal to the mainstream audience, with its big name stars and its serious approach.
Which is exactly what "Star Trek" needs.
Why are you suggesting that they want a movie to be compared to a television series? That's exactly the problem - it needs to be considered "larger" than a TV show. After this movie, people need to think of "Star Trek" as a film franchise with a future - not a TV series with a future.
"Star Trek" needs to be compared to movies like "Casino Royale" and "Batman Begins" - great genre movies taken seriously and considered to be excellent movies. Not TV shows.
And I object to your use of the term "stunt casting." It's not "stunt casting" to star a big name in your movie - it's using a big star, both for his name appeal and for his acting. Is it "stunt casting" to use Matt Damon in "The Bourne Identity?" We may not be used to big names in Star Trek movies, but if they star in one, that's just part of the reboot - its not a stunt.
Had they cast Tom Hanks in Zefram Cochrane's role in "First Contact" or Eddie Murphy in "Star Trek IV," THAT would have been stunt casting - using a big name in a minor part, while the true stars are known only for Trek. But put a big name in the spotlight - in Captain Kirk's chair - and it's not longer stunt casting.
I don't think ALL A-list actors are anti-Trek. Show plenty of them an excellent script and production, and I'm sure they'd love to be a part of it. Obviously, give it to someone who can get enthusiastic about the material. If someone really thinks it beneath them, then don't use them. But if not, then why not? Don't let some bad apples spoil the bunch.
And Jason Alexander is NOT an A-list type. He could never star in a big movie. His only claim to fame was playing backup to Jerry Seinfield.
Do you really think he couldn't have pulled off playing Kirk just a few years younger than on the TV series?
Honestly, I don't think most viewers, aside from the hardcore fans, would've noticed.
Damon was and is the best choice to play Kirk. Who wants to see a kid as Kirk anyway ?
No Shatner, no Damon ... but a bunch of youngsters playing cowboys in space ... this is not for me. It spells AVOID !
They planned this movie to death I fear.
No Shatner, no Damon ... but a bunch of youngsters playing cowboys in space ... this is not for me. It spells AVOID !
They planned this movie to death I fear.
If the actor isnt 30 years old, he'll certainly be able to play 30. Although the film will probably show Kirk at different periods in his life - I dont think we want to see Kirk played too young. We dont want a teen Kirk or an early twenties Kirk. Thats the wrong end of the spectrum. It would be hard to relate to that.
Every guy in the movie needs to walk out thinking:
"Fuck, I wish I was Captain Kirk! :thumbsup:"
The same way everyone wants to be Han Solo, James Bond or Bruce Wayne. Simply put, every man should want to be him and every woman should want to fuck him.
Every guy in the movie needs to walk out thinking:
"Fuck, I wish I was Captain Kirk! :thumbsup:"
The same way everyone wants to be Han Solo, James Bond or Bruce Wayne. Simply put, every man should want to be him and every woman should want to fuck him.
Every single one of the Seinfeld alumni (besides Jerry) - including Jason Alexander - went on to try and launch shows of their own.
And every single one of them failed utterly. It was made very clear then - none of these guys were stars. "Seinfeld" was magical, but after that, none of them could hold a TV show - much less a big budget movie - on their own.
Even if they could have been considered A-List, they certainly couldn't be considered so after "Seinfeld," and certainly not now.
And since "now" is all that counts with regards to the new Star Trek movie, I wonder...why are you arguing this?
I just assumed that "we" all want "Star Trek" to succeed and continue living, after this second chance it's being given. Am I wrong?
The best chance it has of doing this is if it can go main-stream and appeal to everyone, while mantaining an intelligent plot, containing intelligent dialogue, written by intelligent writers.
Or did you want "Star Trek" to just become a mindless space opera? Fantasy action with phasers and spaceships and explosions.
Transformers WAS sold as a mindless action film. All of the publicity materials sold it as such - big, giant, robots, hurtling at each other, duking it out and destroying everything around them. It was continuously described as a summer, popcorn film before it came out. I can't see how you could possibly argue otherwise.
I don't know whether it ended up being a mindless action film or not - I never saw it. But I did see the trailers, the posters, the TV spots, the on-line advertisements, the film reviews. And I know what it was sold as.
Just because you like a movie, doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to admit either what it was or, at the very least, what it was sold to the public as.
And whether it was a mindless action film or not (again, I don't know), I don't want "Star Trek" to either be sold as one or to be made as one.
Do you?
He's gonna have to be Adonis on a Popsicle Stick to distract my attention from Spock, especially if Spock's played by who I think he's gonna be played by.
But that's lonstanding Trek tradition. The ladies have always preferred Spock to Kirk, and I don't see that changing in the near future...
Probably not. That said, your opinions about what will accomplish that and what will threaten it are just that - one person's opinions.
The notion that an "A" list movie star is necessary in order for a movie to succeed - or for the movie to be good and succeed - is indefensible.
The most that can be said about hiring bankable stars is that they improve the likelihood that a lot of people will give the movie a look, all other things being equal.
That's exactly the reaction I had when I saw Firefly.
Well then, both of you will have missed some real good stuff. 
Similar threads
