Well, I'm really sure, you already made your opinion about this and so your question doesn't seem to be honest. And sorry, but where I'm feeling prejudiced, I'm out of the discussion.
Last edited:
Sean Connery as Sybok
- Thread starter Khan 2.0
- Start date
Well, I'm really sure, you already made your opinion about this and so your question doesn't seem to be honest. And sorry, but where I'm feeling prejudiced, I'm out of the discussion.
I don't think doing television necessarily means you're not A-list. To quote Al Pacino here https://www.digitalspy.com/tv/ustv/a31008353/hunters-why-al-pacino-took-tv-role/ :
"It doesn't matter whether it's on stage, or in the theatre, or on television. I missed out on some great television offers I had in the past because the whole thing was: 'You don't do television.' That's what the advisors would say early on. I'm talking 30 years ago."
The issue with Hanks was scheduling. If Paramount could have pushed the film to 1997 instead of wanting it for the anniversary....
Or, maybe not. Cochrane as written would have been a waste of Tom Hanks.
I think hanks would have done well, and it would have certainly put some more bums on seats.
It would've been quite surreal seeing Hanks in FC .. such a big star especially then post Gump/Apollo13.. In a way it would've added to the Cochrane role this mythical mystical figure the TNG characters were in awe of probably like the actors would've been of Hanks
Of course Cromwell was fantastic in the role but Hanks would've really been a big deal. I guess hed have been featured prominently in overseas promotion: posters, trailers etc and added a decent chunk in extra box office (similar to Connery had he been in TFF - foreign audiences probably would've been intrigued enough to check it out and make it bigger than TVH!)
Oh, he'd certainly have done well. I can imagine Hanks quite easily in the "Zefram Cochrane attempts to escape" scene, and his performance would probably have been a bit of a throwback to his off-center 80s comedy roles (The Burbs and The Money Pit come quickly to mind). I can "hear" Hanks delivering the "You all are some kind of astronauts on some sort of star trek" line, and in my head it sounds much more natural than Cromwell's delivery.
When I described Cochrane as a "waste" of Hanks, though, I meant how insignificant the role is. Cochrane has what? About fifteen lines of dialogue across the entire film? He's in about four scenes. It's a glorified cameo, though Hanks may have been fine with that; it would've been about a week's worth of work and he'd have gotten a Star Trek credit for the kicks.
There were quite a few A list talents tipped to be in Star Trek that never quite came off. From Eddie Murphy in TVH, Connery in TFF and Hanks in FC. Didn't Russell Crowe also turn down the role of Nero in the Abrams movie?
He most certainly is. Even though I thought he wasn't used properly.
You couldn't even tell it was him until the end of the film. A total waste.
Connery definitely made the right choice taking Indiana Jones. I think Luckinbill was fine. Watching the movie again years later, he definitely was one of the best things about it, creating a character that actually manages to be likeable and engaging. Sybok is a character who deserved a better story.
I thought Elba was wasted in Beyond. His character didn't have the same billing that Khan got in Into Darkness, it was almost like he was an afterthought - we need a villain and he'll do rightly.
His character felt like a by the numbers villain when Elba should have been given much more to work with.