So, who might our "A-List" villain be?
- Thread starter Star Treks
- Start date
This is from IMDB yesterday about the top money-making actors & actresses:
Damon Is Hollywood's "Best Value"
Matt Damon has been named Hollywood's best investment, giving the best box office returns for his salary. Damon, who plays a former CIA hitman in The Bourne Identity franchise, offers twice the value of Tom Cruise and Tom Hanks, making $29 for each dollar he is paid, according to Forbes magazine. Damon's role in the first two Bourne films have made $850 million, with the third now top of the US box office. Brad Pitt came second on the list, making $24 for each dollar of his salary, while Vince Vaughn was third, tying with Pirates Of The Caribbean star Johnny Depp. Rumor Has It star Jennifer Aniston was the highest-ranked actress on the list at number five.
The top ten is as follows: 1. Matt Damon; 2. Brad Pitt; 3. Vince Vaughn & Johnny Depp; 5. Jennifer Aniston; 6. Angelina Jolie; 7. Renee Zellweger; 8. Reese Witherspoon; 9. Ben Stiller; 10. Sandra Bullock.
Vince Vaughn or Johnny Depp would certainly be great.
Damon Is Hollywood's "Best Value"
Matt Damon has been named Hollywood's best investment, giving the best box office returns for his salary. Damon, who plays a former CIA hitman in The Bourne Identity franchise, offers twice the value of Tom Cruise and Tom Hanks, making $29 for each dollar he is paid, according to Forbes magazine. Damon's role in the first two Bourne films have made $850 million, with the third now top of the US box office. Brad Pitt came second on the list, making $24 for each dollar of his salary, while Vince Vaughn was third, tying with Pirates Of The Caribbean star Johnny Depp. Rumor Has It star Jennifer Aniston was the highest-ranked actress on the list at number five.
The top ten is as follows: 1. Matt Damon; 2. Brad Pitt; 3. Vince Vaughn & Johnny Depp; 5. Jennifer Aniston; 6. Angelina Jolie; 7. Renee Zellweger; 8. Reese Witherspoon; 9. Ben Stiller; 10. Sandra Bullock.
Vince Vaughn or Johnny Depp would certainly be great.
Johnny Depp would be frigging awesome.
Well, I'm sure that's true. But I know that people kept saying "beam me up" and stuff through the first X-Men movie when I saw it at the theater. For the general audience... they were watching "That bald Star Track dude!" through the whole movie.
Honestly, he didn't act any different, except for sitting in a wheelchair, as Xavier than he did as Picard.
I enjoyed both roles, but for the X-Men movies, it wasn't Stewart who made the movie "click" for me. And I never was able to forget, even for an instant, that I was watching Patrick Steward PLAYING Xavier. Same thing with Jean Grey and Storm... both were never anything but actors playing roles. I never had that issue with Logan, however... 'cause nobody'd ever heard of the actor playing him at that point! And Hugh Jackman was really the high-point of that first movie, IMHO.
How about they turn the tables on the Men in Black and get
Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones
Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones
^^ 
Maybe 'dinner-theater' draw.
The very idea that they would go to all the trouble of recasting and showing the young Kirk and Spock and then NOT to have a adversary to oppose them is so freakin' stupid I can't even believe people still chime in with ridiculous theory.
It's one thing in a series with 26 episodes a season to have shows with no adversary, but a movie to restart/reinvigorate the franchise???
Nobody says the villain can't be sympathetic or have a honest POV--as long as kirk opposes him/her for the greater good of the federation or whatever.
Think of Mark Lenard in BoT.
A solid opponent for Kirk without twirling his mustache.
Even dumber--calling the casting of a high-profile actor 'stunt-casting'.
This clearly showsthe person doesn't know the definition of the term.
It's usually used in TV when an often spoken about character turns out to be a famous actor in a fairly small part.
such as the idea Shatner would play 'chef' in the last episode of Enterprise or somesuch casting.
Hiring a major actor to play a major part in a major motion picture = stunt casting?
Was Kevin Spacey in Superman returns stunt-casting?
Hackman in Superman the Movie?
Plummer in ST 6?
Maybe 'dinner-theater' draw.
The very idea that they would go to all the trouble of recasting and showing the young Kirk and Spock and then NOT to have a adversary to oppose them is so freakin' stupid I can't even believe people still chime in with ridiculous theory.
It's one thing in a series with 26 episodes a season to have shows with no adversary, but a movie to restart/reinvigorate the franchise???
Nobody says the villain can't be sympathetic or have a honest POV--as long as kirk opposes him/her for the greater good of the federation or whatever.
Think of Mark Lenard in BoT.
A solid opponent for Kirk without twirling his mustache.
Even dumber--calling the casting of a high-profile actor 'stunt-casting'.
This clearly showsthe person doesn't know the definition of the term.
It's usually used in TV when an often spoken about character turns out to be a famous actor in a fairly small part.
such as the idea Shatner would play 'chef' in the last episode of Enterprise or somesuch casting.
Hiring a major actor to play a major part in a major motion picture = stunt casting?
Was Kevin Spacey in Superman returns stunt-casting?
Hackman in Superman the Movie?
Plummer in ST 6?
"Bat'leth - when you absolutely positively got to kill ever fucking redshirt in the room!"
Kevin Bacon would be a terrific Trek villian.
