I liked Routh as well. You've got to cast for type - he was the same mix of awkward and attractive as Reeve was; the new Kirk has to be charming and yet masterful as well as charismatic. He's got to be someone guys would like to be and women would like to have access to! I honestly think Ackles has the lot, so far, when I've IMDB'd the others you've suggested, they've not hit all the spots - though I confess I haven't seen all of them in action so I'm just going on photos.
Okay, who will portray Kirk?
- Thread starter Doomsday
- Start date
They cast an actor for Spock who looks remarkably like Nimoy. That strongly implies that looks are a big factor. If the Spock actor looked nothing like Nimoy, I wouldn't necessarily complain but it would certainly imply something very different about JJ Abrams' approach.
I doubt that they'll get him, but the more I think about it, the more I like Leonardo DiCaprio as Kirk.
The physical resemblance is better than most, but DiCaprio does tend to look younger than he is.
Consider the following:
http://www.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0338751/CN-004-13.jpg.html?seq=18
and
http://www.imdb.com/gallery/granitz/6151...nardo&seq=5
The rounded face in the last pic only helps the resemblance IMO. Add to that, he's the right height, and most importantly can play any part thrown his way. I'd love to see what he could do with the role.
Side note: anyone think, with a more rounded face, that Daniel Craig would be spot on for Bones? Or am I crazy...
The physical resemblance is better than most, but DiCaprio does tend to look younger than he is.
Consider the following:
http://www.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0338751/CN-004-13.jpg.html?seq=18
and
http://www.imdb.com/gallery/granitz/6151...nardo&seq=5
The rounded face in the last pic only helps the resemblance IMO. Add to that, he's the right height, and most importantly can play any part thrown his way. I'd love to see what he could do with the role.
Side note: anyone think, with a more rounded face, that Daniel Craig would be spot on for Bones? Or am I crazy...
I tend to agree. DiCaprio and Matt Damon have a history for taking parts the other is touted for, however... but this is all a pike dream.
The only way I think he could be persuaded is if, like Daniel Craig was with Casino Royale, he accepts a role he would otherwise refuse due to the quality of the script (if it is indeed all that Nimoy makes it out to be).
Daniel Craig by the way, has said that he would like to do a Star Trek film. I suggest that casting someone of his talent and popularity would be something of a coup. I don't know why... I just want him as Bones. :P
The only way I think he could be persuaded is if, like Daniel Craig was with Casino Royale, he accepts a role he would otherwise refuse due to the quality of the script (if it is indeed all that Nimoy makes it out to be).
Daniel Craig by the way, has said that he would like to do a Star Trek film. I suggest that casting someone of his talent and popularity would be something of a coup. I don't know why... I just want him as Bones. :P
Re: Patrick Flueger (4400) as young James T Kirk??
No, but it is a huge factor. Anyone who thinks it isn't is only kidding themselves. This isn't a flat-out remake, this movie will take place before TOS and in the same universe. Nimoy is comming back as Spock. J. J. Abrams chose Zachary Quinto because he was a good actor that was lesser known to the media AND because he has a strong resemblance to Leonard Nimoy. Bryan Singer did the same thing for Superman Returns because he wanted his film to be a true sequel to the first two Superman movies. If this was a complete reboot starting from scratch like Casino Royale or Batman Begins, then you could cast anyone as Kirk and Spock. Guys like Ving Rhames could audition for those roles. You could even make them female. And I also am not surprised Daniel Craig has Sean Connery's nose and mouth.
That said, Kevin Connolly is still my favorite pick for Kirk. He's the spitting image of a young William Shatner, a good actor and the B-list celebrity that would bring in more tickets to Star Trek and launch him into the A-list. Even if he is a tiny tyke. Look what they did for Tom Cruise and Sylvester Stallone. My little brother is bigger than them.
I've already talked about Connolly's size in the paragraph above. There are all sorts of Hollywood tricks that can be applied and have been in the past for small A-list movie stars. I don't think he looks like a dweeb, but even if he did, it validates the lines of Gary Mitchell and others from Kirk's past about him being an awkward "walking stack of books". The producers could also have him work out. I see no problem with him as a lead-in to what Kirk will one day look like in TOS.
In fact, I just looked at Lumen's Boston Legal avatar above and saw Kevin Connolly's future.
No, but it is a huge factor. Anyone who thinks it isn't is only kidding themselves. This isn't a flat-out remake, this movie will take place before TOS and in the same universe. Nimoy is comming back as Spock. J. J. Abrams chose Zachary Quinto because he was a good actor that was lesser known to the media AND because he has a strong resemblance to Leonard Nimoy. Bryan Singer did the same thing for Superman Returns because he wanted his film to be a true sequel to the first two Superman movies. If this was a complete reboot starting from scratch like Casino Royale or Batman Begins, then you could cast anyone as Kirk and Spock. Guys like Ving Rhames could audition for those roles. You could even make them female. And I also am not surprised Daniel Craig has Sean Connery's nose and mouth.
That said, Kevin Connolly is still my favorite pick for Kirk. He's the spitting image of a young William Shatner, a good actor and the B-list celebrity that would bring in more tickets to Star Trek and launch him into the A-list. Even if he is a tiny tyke. Look what they did for Tom Cruise and Sylvester Stallone. My little brother is bigger than them.
I've already talked about Connolly's size in the paragraph above. There are all sorts of Hollywood tricks that can be applied and have been in the past for small A-list movie stars. I don't think he looks like a dweeb, but even if he did, it validates the lines of Gary Mitchell and others from Kirk's past about him being an awkward "walking stack of books". The producers could also have him work out. I see no problem with him as a lead-in to what Kirk will one day look like in TOS.
In fact, I just looked at Lumen's Boston Legal avatar above and saw Kevin Connolly's future.
But that's what Superman has been like for closing in on a century worth of comics.
Superman SHOULD be "larger than life." He's not "guy next door who just happens to be super-strong." His PRESENCE should be enough to make people back down, without him having to actually DO anything.
The whole point of Superman is that he's superior in every way to us, yet (due to how he was raised) he's chosen to use his powers not to RULE us, but to help us.
Reeves really got that, even though he wasn't quite as physically massive as Superman has been portrayed over the years. You could imagine Reeves' Superman, had he not been "raised right," as the guy sitting on the throne ruling the world.
I see Routh didn't have that intense, powerful vibe. He had a creepy, slimy vibe... part of this was just his own characteristics, part of it was the script... I mean, for CRYIN' OUT LOUD, SUPERMAN IS NOT A PEEPING TOM!!!
The whole characterization was just creepy...
If you're uncomfortable with the Alex Ross version of Superman, it's because you're uncomfortable with Superman, period, because his rendering is as close as you're ever going to see to what Superman, for nearly a century, has been SUPPOSED to be.
I, personally, find a stalker-peeper-metrosexual version of Superman to be pretty damned repulsive.
The best way to think of what Superman should be... is that he's a Greek God who doesn't WANT to be one. Someone who's better than us, but who doesn't see it to be his right to act that way.
This is what's made Smallville "work" despite it being outside of "normal" canon. It's really been the whole point of that series.
I'm not uncomfortable with the concepts of Superman or what he represents. I simply chalk it up to aesthetics. We will all see a different version of what the artist portrays. While I can appreciate the realistic representational technique that Alex Ross uses (I actually like most of his work), I simply don't care for his style in the majority of his Superman imagery. Or most of his masculine superhero portrayals for that matter. For the record his Shazam dude creeps me out even more.
I grew up on Superman from the 60's (my brother's comics) 70's, and 80's; 3 of the near 7 decades that Superman has persisted. And while there has been a constant theme behind the Man of Steel mythos, the mantel of writing his stories and portraying him artistically has passed through a number of people all with different styles.
I won't make excuses for the "stalker-peeper-metrosexual" Supes, but he was certainly the tragic character akin to Greek myth. And as far as Routh taking over Reeve's portayal in an ambiguous sequel, I thought he did an excellent job. Reeve had his peeper moments too... purse contents and Lois lungs for starters. Oh, and "pink." For a man that can hover over the planet and hear the screams and pleads of all of humanity, hanging out at the home of someone he has shared intimacy with in order to learn what all has changed and where he stands may be creepy, but tragically understandable. And he left the moment he heard the not so faithful "no" of Lois's response to Richard. Maybe it was shock to his system he needed to return to his humble mode. Superman in general, and especially of movie lore, is NOT flawless, if he were, he'd would be far more content being that Greek God.
Well, there I go making excuses... You have good points and I will consider them, but the Jim Kirk issue awaits.
I grew up on Superman from the 60's (my brother's comics) 70's, and 80's; 3 of the near 7 decades that Superman has persisted. And while there has been a constant theme behind the Man of Steel mythos, the mantel of writing his stories and portraying him artistically has passed through a number of people all with different styles.
I won't make excuses for the "stalker-peeper-metrosexual" Supes, but he was certainly the tragic character akin to Greek myth. And as far as Routh taking over Reeve's portayal in an ambiguous sequel, I thought he did an excellent job. Reeve had his peeper moments too... purse contents and Lois lungs for starters. Oh, and "pink." For a man that can hover over the planet and hear the screams and pleads of all of humanity, hanging out at the home of someone he has shared intimacy with in order to learn what all has changed and where he stands may be creepy, but tragically understandable. And he left the moment he heard the not so faithful "no" of Lois's response to Richard. Maybe it was shock to his system he needed to return to his humble mode. Superman in general, and especially of movie lore, is NOT flawless, if he were, he'd would be far more content being that Greek God.
Well, there I go making excuses... You have good points and I will consider them, but the Jim Kirk issue awaits.
I think James Franco, the guy who plays Harry Osborne in Spider-man, would be a good choice.
I could kinda see him as a young Kirk. Of course, I've only seen him as Harry Osborn, so I don't know what kind of range he has. Not sure if he has the command presence.
