Not just the price... the production would have to be something that they'd be comfortable with, as well. I think that if some other producer came along and turned it into "Star Kitsche - The Campy Picture" that neither of them would play along.
Recasting.....set in stone, or the start of something totally new?
- Thread starter gastrof
- Start date
Isn't it a bit premature to come to those conclusions based on a few pictures? I don't think we'll know for sure how bad or how good the recasting was until we see them in action.
number6
Vice Admiral
Indeed. It seems like the OP is really asking "Are we going to be stuck with Pine as Kirk, Urban as McCoy and Pegg as Scotty for the next 40 years or can we still hope for the people WE want in those roles?"
The answer is: If the film does well we will probably get at least one more film with the current cast. If the film doesn't do well, Trek is done for a while and the discussion is rendered moot (or is it academic--I always get them confused).
That's not what's being discussed.
Please don't try to hijack other people's threads.
If you need to ask a question like this, you can start your own thread.
No...
No, it doesn't.
What it seems like is that the OP was asking "If they change any of the actors in the TOS character roles, will you be able to enjoy the next film as well, or will that make the movie less enjoyable?"
I strongly suggest you read what I said, and avoid inventing fantasies about what others have in mind.
My meaning was spelled out plain as day, and nothing at all was said about "wanting other people in the roles". I asked how people would feel if any of the XI actors got replaced in XII or later. Nothing more.
number6
Vice Admiral
And you sent me a PM about this. I would prefer not to get my inbox cluttered with crap like this, especially since you posted the same thing here.
My point was pretty plain in my very first reply.
Why would they change the cast after in the first place??
People seem to offer reasons like "Oh, they'll recast if the actors they have now really stink up the place." and "They'll recast if the fans don't like the actors." It seems like you're making all kinds of suppositions based on Urban (that's his name by the way) simply stating "I'd like to play McCoy again." That is no way means that they might recast someone else. I don't know why you would make that conclusion. That's just not the way things are done. They all signed a 3-movie contract. If the film does well, he'll play McCoy again for sure. If the film doesn't, he won't. it's not like he's sooooo famous that he'd be too busy to play him again and from all counts the cast had a good time and good chemistry together. My conclusion that maybe you wanted someone else to play McCoy could easily be drawn here. It's not as much of a fanatical stretch as your premise seems to be.
It seems pretty simple. As far as my "overactive imagination" that you alluded to in your message to me... If you can't say it here, don't say it at all. You posted a message on a public forum and invited people to respond.
Don't expect everyone to respond to your liking. You have an opinion and I have mine. If you don't want people to offer opinions, then maybe posting in a public forum isn't for you.
Last edited:
This is really the whole crux of the "recasting argument."
The question is... is a character tied closely to the actor portraying him/her, or not?
For anyone who's not aware of my position... I'm on the record as opposing any ongoing "recast" but I'm on the record as being in favor of a "one time recast" to give us backstory on characters we already know. In other words, I want to see a "where they began" film, but I don't want to see "the 5-year-mission - REDEFINED." Add to the mythology, don't overwrite it.
As far as I'm concerned, Kirk looks, acts, and talks like I've known him to look, act, and talk for 42 years. No "recasting" will ever overwrite that... and I will be STRONGLY DISINCLINED towards accepting any "recasting" that shows us someone dramatically different, but supposedly "the same person." Of course, I'm not the same person today that I was when I was 12, or 17, or 22, or 28... and the further back you go, the less was I like my current self. So... the further backwards we go from the first time we saw the guy, the more acceptable seeing a "slightly different" character will be (in terms of performance and in terms of appearance!)
I'm not totally won over by some of the recasting... hell, I'm annoyed that we're seeing several of these characters at all, since I think that their presence seems contrived and inappropriate... and just "fanboyish." But as long as it doesn't "overwrite" what we already have, I can live with it.
NOW... given that argument ... that what's "set in stone" is Shatner, Nimoy, Kelley, etc... I have NO issues with any casting which honors and represents those same, essentially unchanged characters. And I DO have issues with treating the new cast as "a new, revised canon." However, I'm pretty happy with MOST of the casting. Pine can work, Quinto can work, Urban can work... and I have enough faith in Pegg to think that he can do Scotty justice even if he looks different. As for the others... well, Saldana looks the part, as does Cho, reasonably... Yelchin is a bad choice from an appearance standpoint but who knows how his performance will be?
But none of these people "are" the characters. They're simply representing already-existing characters. So, if three years down the road PPC decides to do another one, it shouldn't matter very much if the cast is entirely different... because the "target" isn't Pine, Quinto, etc... it's Shatner, Nimoy, etc...
I just can't think of anyone better suited to play McCoy or Spock than the guys that they've got, and I have a pretty good feeling about Pine as well. I can imagine Pegg doing the role of Scotty justice. The rest are purely background... "second bananas"... and I couldn't care less who plays them as long as they're doing decent (non-spoof-ish) representations of the folks in the original series.
I doubt that they'll recast any of the roles... IF they do more movies with this cast. But if they have to (over availability or whatever) I seriously don't see any problem with it, as long as they recast based upon the original characters rather than the new-movie versions.
On the otherhand if it was a small, but modest sucess, most of them are probably still 'small' enough to use on TV, either in a series, TV Movie or Mini-Series. That would require new contracts and I would have thought Simon Pegg would be the one that wouldn't want to commit to that.
Well, Simon Pegg almost certainly wouldn't want to move to the United States, much less to Los Angeles. You know, having a life and connections and all that... plus he's doing quite well in the British media circuit and there are plenty of films being shot in England (or in Europe within a couple of hour's flight time to his home). No need to move to the USA... and probably no DESIRE.
If you don't want me to reply, then don't give me anything to reply to.
Then why did you post again?
Why did they with Saavik? Why did the McCoy actor say what he did?
This has nothing to do with me or anything I said....
Move along....
I made no "conclusion". I asked a question. I never said "He won't be back as McCoy." I asked how people would feel if the cast changed as the new movies come along.
I don't know why you couldn't see so simple a thing.
Not without inserting MUCH between the lines. (I'll also add that contracts can be broken, people released, and three movies can end up being four or more...meaning additional films that have NOT already been contracted for.)
WHAT isn't a fanatical stretch? And since I HAVE no "premise", what in the world are you talking about?
Don't tell me what personal choices to make.
And you did so inappropriately.
I don't. I do, however, expect attention if one's replying to what I've actually said. I don't expect people to put words in my mouth because they have an over-active imagination.
I had no "opinion". I asked a question.
Again, stop putting words in my mouth.
And if you don't want people saying to you "But I didn't say that! Why are you making out I did? Apparently you didn't pay attention to what I actually said, and are imagining things" then DON'T imagine what people might mean, and go by what they've actually said. DON'T put words into people's mouths and presume to speak for them in relaying to others "what they actually meant".
I meant what I said, and will thank you to not quote me as saying something else, or even imply so.
C'mon... how could you miss something so obvious? Her father will be a Gungan!
People,
Well, it's possible that starring roles can be recast. Let's take a look at the Batman and Spider-Man movies, as two examples. After Batman, Michael Keaton made one more, Batman Returns. Since then, the role has been recast three times -- Val Kilmer, George Clooney, and now Christian Bale.
Then we have a major character from Batman Begins, Rachel Dawes, recast in The Dark Knight, turning from Katie Holmes to Maggie Gylenhaal.
Speaking of the Gylenhaals, there was talk that because Toby McGuire was holding out for a lot more money, the producers almost replaced him in Spider-Man 2 with Jake Gylenhaal.
So if the starring role in both sets of movies can be recast, so can the role of McCoy, or pretty much anyone.
As to whether a recast would make the road bumpy for me, it would depend on how well the initial actors do their roles, and if their replacement(s) are better or worse. In other words, only time will tell.
Red Ranger
Well, it's possible that starring roles can be recast. Let's take a look at the Batman and Spider-Man movies, as two examples. After Batman, Michael Keaton made one more, Batman Returns. Since then, the role has been recast three times -- Val Kilmer, George Clooney, and now Christian Bale.
Then we have a major character from Batman Begins, Rachel Dawes, recast in The Dark Knight, turning from Katie Holmes to Maggie Gylenhaal.
Speaking of the Gylenhaals, there was talk that because Toby McGuire was holding out for a lot more money, the producers almost replaced him in Spider-Man 2 with Jake Gylenhaal.
So if the starring role in both sets of movies can be recast, so can the role of McCoy, or pretty much anyone.
As to whether a recast would make the road bumpy for me, it would depend on how well the initial actors do their roles, and if their replacement(s) are better or worse. In other words, only time will tell.
Red Ranger
number6
Vice Admiral
Whatever, dude.
There are many decafinated versions of your favourite beverages out in the marketplace that taste just as good as the real thing. I really hope you go out and try some.
Whatever, dude.
There are many decafinated versions of your favourite beverages out in the marketplace that taste just as good as the real thing. I really hope you go out and try some.
If that's your only reply, I'd say it was time wasted.
number6
Vice Admiral
Then why waste your time replying to it, especially days later?Whatever, dude.
There are many decafinated versions of your favourite beverages out in the marketplace that taste just as good as the real thing. I really hope you go out and try some.
If that's your only reply, I'd say it was time wasted.
Similar threads
