Or, just say fuck it and get the best actor possible.
Spoilers Strange New Worlds General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter NewHeavensNewEarth
- Start date
Or, just say fuck it and get the best actor possible.
I’m in agreement that they should cast whoever they want, and not be beholden to the visuals of the TAS appearance, but that doesn’t require throwing out the story itself.
Done. Who the fuck cares?
We have Homepage:
https://www.paramountplus.com/shows/star-trek-strange-new-worlds/
I'll tell you my first choice for April:
Michael Palin.
I'm not kidding, BTW.
Michael Palin.
I'm not kidding, BTW.
I recall Tom Hanks being on a talk show (I forget which one) a few years ago where they asked him how he felt about turning down First Contact, to which he denied ever being asked about it, and was subsequently surprised to see it pointed out on his IMDB page.
^ Thought so.
As for Eddie Murphy, my understanding is that it was Paramount itself which nixed the possibility of him appearing in ST IV, in order for him to do The Golden Child instead. I suppose this could also be an unfounded rumor, though.
As for Eddie Murphy, my understanding is that it was Paramount itself which nixed the possibility of him appearing in ST IV, in order for him to do The Golden Child instead. I suppose this could also be an unfounded rumor, though.
There are several reports that he turned down the part because he didn’t like the role as written (an astrophysicist at the time, not marine biologist, I believe) and chose Golden Child himself, but I’m not certain.
IIRC, Murphy would have played a college professor who is in attendance at the Super Bowl and sees the Bounty decloak. He's the only one who thinks it's real and not a halftime special effect.
If this is true, it was probably a blink-and-you'll-miss-it cameo which wouldn't have been all that important to the story. I couldn't blame him for turning down a small role like that.
If this is true, it was probably a blink-and-you'll-miss-it cameo which wouldn't have been all that important to the story. I couldn't blame him for turning down a small role like that.
I was under the impression that the role wasn’t a cameo but basically the same role as Gillian Taylor, only Murphy would have been an astrophysicist and obviously not a love interest for Kirk. I assumed Murphy turned it down because the notion of having him in a starring role in a Star Trek film was just a dumb idea, not to mention that he would have overshadowed the rest of the cast.
Unlikely. Murphy IS a Trek fan, I'm fairly sure of that.
I heard that in that version his role would have been key in fixing the power on the ship, can't recall where I heard that. Presumably the retrieval of the whales would be easy once they have full power, no relocation ticking clock?
That doesn’t mean that he wouldn’t have thought having the leading role in a Star Trek film would have been a good idea.
Do you really need the reminder that the only thing consistent with Klingon appearance is that it's been inconsistent since ST:TMP?
And for further reference Klingons in the SNW era should look like this (if you want 'visual consistency' - but yeah, that ship sailed the back in 1979 with ST:TMP):
And if anything, the Klingon makeup in that tweet is more akin to the Klingon look in STVi:TUC.
Just thinking, a lot of these Klingons almost look like they very well could have ridges under their hair.... lol.
I've never understood why anyone even cares about the idea of seeing Robert April at all, but if you get Idris Elba to play him I am 100% on board for the ride anyway.
TAS?
I've always kind of believed that story. It seems like the thing those producers would have done, goes right along with "this ain't your fathers Star Trek!" or whatever the catch phrase was at the time. It would have given a good reason for the massive redesign and firmly marked the departure point of the timeline. That said, I'm glad they didn't do it; I would have taken it as disrespect, and hated that movie even more than I already do.
You're definitely remembering correctly. I can't speak as clearly to Buck Rogers, but the pilot episodes of BSG (collectively entitled "Saga of a Star World") were edited together for a limited theatrical release. I remember seeing the movie in the little theater next to George Mason University in Northern Virginia - it was the only place I could find showing it back then, to my recollection. It had several different scene versions, including the part where the Imperious Leader has Baltar beheaded, as opposed to staying the Centurion's blade in the series, after which they introduced Lucifer as his new handler. IIRC, that was the only showing of episodes in a theater.
Several other notable re-edit telemovies were made, such as "Living Legend", assembled from both Pegasus/Cain episodes of the same name, "Mission: Galactica, The Cylon Attack", also taking bits from "Living Legend" and "Fire in Space" scenes and "Experiment in Terra", which is a HUGE tapestry of pieced together parts of "Saga of a Star World", "The Magnificent Warriors", "Fire in Space", "Experiment in Terra", and Galactica 1980's "The Super Scouts, Part I" and "The Return of Starbuck". The beginning act also has scenes spliced from "The Living Legend, Part I", in terms of closeups of the Pegasus. It also had a new scene of Earth Astronauts finding the Galactica's logbook floating in space, showing new footage of original reptilian Cylons:
The Battlestar Wiki has a list of all of them, including all the episodes that were used to build them. There were quite a few.
Glen Larson must have loved doing those things and so did Universal. Very little effort to make something ostensibly new. Much like an Eaglemoss model repaint.It would stand to reason that they did it for Buck Rogers as well.
Were the stories actually different? If you have only watched the actual episodes, is there any reason to actually watch the "movies" spliced together from them?
Who cares?
I've suddenly lost interest in Strange New Worlds, mainly because of opening up Twitter this morning and seeing Anson's take on the Oscars Will Smith thing. And I literally replied (something I almost never do with celebrities) with something like "violence isn't ever the answer. If there's a problem [with Chris Rock], call him out, file a complaint, and make sure he doesn't get to host these gigs again."
I know I've got to separate the art from the artist etc. You think that with his new hit show almost upon us, Anson would avoid getting dragged into twitter controversy. I guess it's personal for me since I've been hit by someone (my own brother), didn't hit back, and decided not to file charges as long as he and my mother stay away from myself and my wife on threat of restraining order. But even then, I never felt violence was the answer, because I've been on the receiving end of it.
Oh well. I'll just stick with Disco and Picard I guess. And Prodigy.
I know I've got to separate the art from the artist etc. You think that with his new hit show almost upon us, Anson would avoid getting dragged into twitter controversy. I guess it's personal for me since I've been hit by someone (my own brother), didn't hit back, and decided not to file charges as long as he and my mother stay away from myself and my wife on threat of restraining order. But even then, I never felt violence was the answer, because I've been on the receiving end of it.
Oh well. I'll just stick with Disco and Picard I guess. And Prodigy.
What was his response? Generally I don't do Twitter as much as possible.
Similar threads
- Poll
