Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by VeryCherry, Jan 21, 2009.
...and we post at the same time...
When the movie was made Quinto was 31(!) not 21. When Nimoy was first cast for Star Trek he was 34. This is a mere 3 year difference which is clearly not significant. The fact that people whould assume Quinto is this much younger says a lot.
What you are neglecting here is that Anthony Hopkins had the acting scope that allowed him to do this (something that Lawrence Olivier identified in this actor even at the beginning of his career). Where is the evidence that either Quinto or Pine have anything comparable? Short answer: there is none!
Noone is neglecting anything. They are two young actors, at the beginning of their career.
Before we condemn them, lets see how they will do at their parts in Trek XI and in other future parts.
They don't need to be Anthony Hopkins level of age and ability to pull of Kirk and Spock in any case.
considering Shat's acting ability as Kirk doesn't require tremendous skill to convey to begin with...
I miscalculated Quinto's age, sorry. The photo of Nimoy was from 1952, and had the least wrinkliness to him in it, so I was hoping for a better comparison of them at younger ages. Any 10 year old photos of Quinto anywhere?
I'm not condemning them nor am I saying that Spock or Kirk should only be played by the very best. What I said was that Anthony Hopkins was always more distinguished than both Quinto and Pine, even when he was young. He stood out as a great actor even when he was just an understudy, as I indicated in my previous post. This makes the comparison one of categorical error.
Furthermore, both Shattner and Nimoy, regardless of what you may think of their acting ability, are very unique individuals with a lot of character, something that in my view greatly benefited their roles of Kirk and Spock. All I'm trying to say is that neither Quinto nor Pine strike me as being very distinct or interesting and I'm concerned they will come across as bland. As Quinto has done in the two roles I have seen him play up till now (Adam on 24 and a few episodes of Saylar on Heroes). Totally forgettable. Of course, one could blame this on the matrial he had to do, but how far can this rationlisation go?
It can go as far as...none of us are qualified judges until we have seen the movie?
Once again, noone was comparing Hopkins' acting skills with Quinto's and Pine's.
It was just a simple analogy about a situation, based on one particular role Hopkins played where acting made appearance not matter.
Your concern may be a valid one.
Personally, I can't judge them because I've never seen Pine in anything and I've only seen Quinto play Sylar where he did a pretty good job. At least back in season 1 when the writers knew what they were doing with his character.
I guess we'll see. For the time being I'm placing my faith in Abrams and his casting team to have done a good job.
Hopefully that faith will not have been misplaced.
One must also consider that some roles....just seems to surprise the hell out of you with what the actor does in portraying them compared to the actors previous performances. Give benefit of the doubt until you have the evidence in hand of having watched the movie.
Instead of a chance of being pleasantly suprised I would have prefered the casting of higher caliber, more famous and more liked actors such as Matt Damon as Kirk, which in this example would have been possible as Damon was interested in the role.
I dislike seeing the same faces in every second movie I see myself...makes it harder for me to 'believe'
I am comparing the SITUATION, not the actors
Thank you (and thanks to Lashmore as well).
and I am a "she"
the problems with casting a well-known face to play another well-known face are manifold. one, there's usually a lot more pressure of performance. two, JJ is a well-known director (at least, here in the US) and he might want his own stamp on the thing instead of it being called Matt Damon's vehicle. this way, it'll be JJ's baby, not Matt's (which would have happened, trust me). three, Matt isn't that great an actor, IMO. so you're sort of defeating your whole argument there anyway.
I much prefer it this way. both Quinto and Pine show promise. in fact, they're much more like Nimoy and Shatner were in the '60s... they show promise, have had a few interesting film and TV roles (Pine has had Smokin' Aces and Quinto his Heroes just like Shatner had The Brothers Karamazov and Nimoy had... well, maybe not so much). most importantly, they are both hungry actors (just like Shatner and Nimoy were back then). hungry (not in terms of food, but roles) actors are always a better bet in Sci fi than worn ones. Damon also does not fit the look. he's way too old, and way too familiar. we need a young Kirk and a young Spock we DO NOT KNOW YET. hopefully, we'll get to know them both, in a hurry, come May 8th.
Likeness is not THAT important... acting skill is.
For example, take a look at the movie "Ike", where Tom Selleck (!) plays Eisenhower. He looks nothing like the real Ike, but after only 30 seconds in the movie, you have completely forgotten what the difference is. Selleck really makes you believe he IS Eisenhower; that's the power of good acting.
I'll wait until I've seen the movie before I judge Quinto or any of the other actors.
I think Leonard Nimoy looks a lot like Leonard Nimoy, thank you very much.
I couldn't have said it any better myself, Jefferies.
Nope they don't loook alike. Slightly similar but you'd think they could find one actor, in this entire world of some-odd billion people, the looks like Spock. But I guess that's asking too much.
The real test comes when Quinto performs "The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins".
Separate names with a comma.