Who will play Mitchell, Piper, Alden, Kelso and Smith?
- Thread starter ACE
- Start date
I think Ashton Kutcher played Kelso...wait wrong topic! 
Here's another vote for Connor as Kelso. It's a no-brainer! At least for non-Hollywood types like us.
How about Mark Wahlberg as Gary Mitchell.
Laura Allen (Lily from The 4400) as Nurse Chapel.
Alyson Hannigan (Buffy, American Pie) as Colt.
Ed Quinn as Sarek. He'd be great.
How about Mark Wahlberg as Gary Mitchell.
Laura Allen (Lily from The 4400) as Nurse Chapel.
Alyson Hannigan (Buffy, American Pie) as Colt.
Ed Quinn as Sarek. He'd be great.
...that's IF this film takes place during Kirk's time at the Academy. If Chekov is really in this (the latest rumor which has not yet been denied), then this probably takes place around the time of TOS -- maybe Kirk's first missions as Captain of the Enterprise. Mitchell could be there too, depending on whether this is set before or after 'WNMHGB'.
Of course, even in a TOS time-era film, there may be some scenes of Kirk at the Academy. But I don't think you need to portray them as teenagers if you want to show them doing something "goofy" together that Spock would disapprove of...they can do this as adults on the Enterprise.
For "Number One" Amanda Mealing - from Holby City over here in the UK, would be great.
Number One : http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/2/2c/200px-Number_One_(Trek).jpg
Amanda:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/wk3/images/155_holby.jpg
I think she looks very similar to Marjel, and has an amazing screen presence
Number One : http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/2/2c/200px-Number_One_(Trek).jpg
Amanda:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/wk3/images/155_holby.jpg
I think she looks very similar to Marjel, and has an amazing screen presence
I wouldn't be surprised at all. If this film is taking place around the same time as WNMHGB, then it would be very easy for Abrams to give some of the background characters these names. Why not? If he is going to have tertiary characters anyway, then why not name them Alden, Kelso, and Smith. It would be a nice "Easter Egg" for the hardcore fans. And I believe Abrams is looking to include "Easter Eggs" for the fans wherever he can without being too obvious and cheesey.
As for Mitchell, I think he would be a "major secondary" character -- if this takes place sometime between Kirk taking command and WNMHGB. His absence would be noticed.
I don't see how they can introduce those characters plus Uhura, Chekov, McCoy within 2 hour movie.
I haven't seen WNMHGB to make any judgment if they are needed in the movie. Correct me if i am wrong but wasn't Michell character only in one episode. I guess Abrams will just ignore WNMHGB episode and focus more on Kirk TOS crew instead, however I wouldn't object having them as background characters..
I would rather suggest have Number one, M. Leigh Hudec played by Majel Barrett from the Cage as First Officer and Spock as Science Officer in XI movie..
Main reason M. Leigh Hudec character was dropped was because, the NBC suits didnt want WOMAN to be second in command.
Here's the thing... I actually largely agree with what Vejur said, above. Any attempt to "give each character a spotlight" (whether you're talking pre- or post-WNMHGB) is going to come off as ... well, "wankish." It'll turn off the overwhelming majority of the audience.
The most important thing to realize is that these characters are all... ALL... incidental. Only a few characters will really be central to the story. One will be the focus of the story, one will be a key supporting character to him (as well as being the "storyteller") and there will be some in there to provide points of conflict. But characters like the above-mentioned are all trivial, really.
I've been convinced for a long time, for reasons of my own, that this film will be told as a "flashback" from the perspective of "old Spock." And that while the majority of the action will take place in one particular setting, we'll also see several shorter vignettes in different timeframes.
Wouldn't it be something if this "new Chekov" only got about three minutes of total screentime, two lines (one of which might be "Aye, Sir"), in a vignette that's maybe eight minutes total length, and that's ALL?
I'll be honest, I truly hope that in the telling of this story, we don't get the traditional "give every character their moment" fanboyishness. I have a VERY hard time reconciling the presence of Chekov with the idea of a story before the Kirk and Spock we already know... and I'd see any attempt to "shoehorn" him into that timeframe as being exactly the sort of "tiny universe" thinking that's so hobbled Trek in recent years.
It's a big galaxy, and it's a big Starfleet. What, are we going to be told that everyone who served on Enterprise attended nursery school together?
I've moved around a lot during my life... and have had to establish new relationships each time. That's how the life of a military type is, and that's how Trek should feel. You stay in contact with the really IMPORTANT people, but most of 'em, you meet, you get to know, and you move along...
The most important thing to realize is that these characters are all... ALL... incidental. Only a few characters will really be central to the story. One will be the focus of the story, one will be a key supporting character to him (as well as being the "storyteller") and there will be some in there to provide points of conflict. But characters like the above-mentioned are all trivial, really.
I've been convinced for a long time, for reasons of my own, that this film will be told as a "flashback" from the perspective of "old Spock." And that while the majority of the action will take place in one particular setting, we'll also see several shorter vignettes in different timeframes.
Wouldn't it be something if this "new Chekov" only got about three minutes of total screentime, two lines (one of which might be "Aye, Sir"), in a vignette that's maybe eight minutes total length, and that's ALL?
I'll be honest, I truly hope that in the telling of this story, we don't get the traditional "give every character their moment" fanboyishness. I have a VERY hard time reconciling the presence of Chekov with the idea of a story before the Kirk and Spock we already know... and I'd see any attempt to "shoehorn" him into that timeframe as being exactly the sort of "tiny universe" thinking that's so hobbled Trek in recent years.
It's a big galaxy, and it's a big Starfleet. What, are we going to be told that everyone who served on Enterprise attended nursery school together?
I've moved around a lot during my life... and have had to establish new relationships each time. That's how the life of a military type is, and that's how Trek should feel. You stay in contact with the really IMPORTANT people, but most of 'em, you meet, you get to know, and you move along...
My point is this...If this film is taking place around WNMHGB time, then why not give those names to the incidental background characters (what I called the "tertiary" characters). We know they were on the bridge during WNMHGB, so why wouldn't they be on the bridge during a film that possibly takes place (say) a month before WNMHGB.
There's no need to spotlight these characters, but if Kirk gets a status report from some young pretty blond yeoman, he could say "thank you, Yeoman Smith". It's not hard to include at least one or two of these names. They took the time in the 1 hour long second pilot to give names to these minor characters, I think they could do the same in a 2 hour movie. It's better than saying "hey you".
Yeoman Smith and Mr. Alden are just examples...they could just as easily name a couple of the incidental characters Mr. Leslie, Hadley, Brent, Lemli, or Kyle. Why pick a new name for a third-tier character when there are plenty of known crew-members names to chose from.
There's no need to spotlight these characters, but if Kirk gets a status report from some young pretty blond yeoman, he could say "thank you, Yeoman Smith". It's not hard to include at least one or two of these names. They took the time in the 1 hour long second pilot to give names to these minor characters, I think they could do the same in a 2 hour movie. It's better than saying "hey you".
Yeoman Smith and Mr. Alden are just examples...they could just as easily name a couple of the incidental characters Mr. Leslie, Hadley, Brent, Lemli, or Kyle. Why pick a new name for a third-tier character when there are plenty of known crew-members names to chose from.
^
^^Yes. Seriously.
If there is a scene in the transporter room, and the transporter operator is some incidental background character but the script has a good reason to refer to him by name, then by all means, call him "Mr. Kyle". It could be a simple line such as "Energize, Mr. Kyle". These are simple little "Easter Eggs" that Abrams can include that the long-time fan will appreciate. I know if I was in the theater, and they referred to the transporter Chief as Mr. Kyle, It would get a smile from me -- and probably many other fans, too.
I don't care who plays him, but he should be blonde and British.
^^Yes. Seriously.
If there is a scene in the transporter room, and the transporter operator is some incidental background character but the script has a good reason to refer to him by name, then by all means, call him "Mr. Kyle". It could be a simple line such as "Energize, Mr. Kyle". These are simple little "Easter Eggs" that Abrams can include that the long-time fan will appreciate. I know if I was in the theater, and they referred to the transporter Chief as Mr. Kyle, It would get a smile from me -- and probably many other fans, too.
I don't care who plays him, but he should be blonde and British.
And we have a role for Daniel Craig!
