• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Why not a Trek movie with "A" List actors?

M

Mr. Scott

Commander
Howdy!

That's the question. Why not a Trek film with A listers?

I ask the question because I have read on the internet that Tom Hanks once met Patrick Stewart at a dinner or function and that Hanks was enamored with Stewart and talked nothing but Star Trek this and that.

Why not have a big budget Trek. Just another ship, on another mission. Beats having a bunch of 90210 kids making dreck now.

Suggestions:
Captain-Tom Hanks
First Officer-Kelsey Grammar
Engineering-Philip Seymour Hoffman
Chief Petty Officer-John C. Reilly
Klingon Captain- Samuel L. Jackson
Doctor-Gweneth Paltrow

Senor
 
1) They probably wouldn't ever have the budget
2) No A-List actor would probably ever do it because sci-fi is so maligned by "mainstream" audiences.
 
Wasn't Tom Hanks at one point going to play Zephram Cochrane in First Contact?
 
Piper said:
Wasn't Tom Hanks at one point going to play Zephram Cochrane in First Contact?
Click to expand...

Yep. Hanks is a huge Trekkie and wanted to do it. However his commitment to making That Thing You Do! eventually forced him to withdraw.

Other A-listers I'm aware of:

- Robin Williams was going to do TNG's episode - A Matter of Time, I think. He would have played Berlinghoff Rasmussen. I don't know why he had to bow out, though.

- Eddie Murphy was up for a role in ST IV. He would have played a college prof who sees the Klingon vessel decloak right in the middle of the Super Bowl (he is the only one who thinks it's real and not a halftime special effect). After he dropped out to do The Golden Child his role was heavily rewritten and eventually became Gillian Taylor.
 
I'd love 2 see one of guinans kids in a movie.How about Chris Rock as the one who wouldn't listen from a species of listeners
 
Mr. Scott said:
Beats having a bunch of 90210 kids making dreck now.
Click to expand...
Because you've seen the new movie in its completed state, and you know for a fact that it's dreck, right? ;)

From time to time over the years there may have been some actors who seemed miscast in their Trek role, but putting an A-lister in their place wouldn't necessarily solve the problem. If anything, it would draw unnecessary attention to the actor and possibly overshadow the character and the story. Sure, a good actor like Tom Hanks will eventually make you forget he's Tom Hanks, but there's still that initial "OMFG TOM HANKS!!1!" moment that takes you out of the story.
 
NO on stunt-casting, please. It leads to films where the celebrity of the actor overshadows the character. Keep that out of my Star Trek, thank you very much. Can you imagine Tom Cruise playing Jim Kirk. BLECH.
 
I would prefer that they write great characters and then hire the best actor or actress to bring the character to life. '"A"-List actors' aren't necessarily the best actors, just actors who can command higher salaries. You also presume that Star Trek (2009) will be "drek". I prefer to wait and see the finished film before making a comment about the casting choices.
 
It really depends on the actor and how it's handled. An A Lister like Hanks could pull off a role in Star Trek without taking much of the attention away from the movie. He's a popular actor whose presence would be extensively covered well before the movie's release. That should take out the "Wow! It's Tom Hanks." moment from most movie goers.

Other A Lister's would be a distraction. Actors like Tom Cruise could pull people out of the film, due the still lingering ill feeling towards him. Christian Bale, had he been in the new Star Trek movie, would have been a real negative to the movie due to his recent well publicized rant.
 
Captain X said:
1) They probably wouldn't ever have the budget
2) No A-List actor would probably ever do it because sci-fi is so maligned by "mainstream" audiences.
Click to expand...

Well I don't know about the second point. All the biggest grossing films of recent times have all been sci-fi and fantasy. Star Trek films though, haven't gotten anywhere near those kinds of numbers. I think it more a budgetary choice. There's plenty of A-grade talent to go around, not necessarily on the A-list.
 
I just don't think it would work. Star Trek has always been better with unknown actors. It helps with the fantasy.

I mean, Simon Pegg's in the new movie, he's not exactly an A-lister but I'm not sure it's gonna work on the same level as before.

I say: KEEP A-LISTERS OUT!!
 
I really dont see the point of this thread, Star Trek has always been a launching ground for actors careers, look at how many actors who started in various trek series and have gone on to be A or B list. its quite extensive.

plus if you have a cast of all A list talent you have a really over inflated budget, which trek XI allready has an over inflated budget, so just imagine if you had a cast full of A list talent. its ok to have one maybe two A list people but anymore than that and you risk future installments not happening(or being contiously recast), cause the cost is to great.
 
Oh and John C. Reiley is a FU@#ing tool. that guy is one of the most unpleasent concieted Jerk Offs you could ever meet.
 
I think it would take me out of the movie...I'd be saying.."Oh look, it's Matt Damon in a Star Trek uniform! Oh wow...Angelina Jolie as a Vulcan!" and all that.

It's sort of like the "Cast the Novel Characters" thread in the Trek Lit forum.
 
My guess is it's because, by necessity, the FX budgets of sci-fi films tend to be much higher than your generic action flick/romantic comedy/thriller/whatever flick. What's left isn't enough to hire "A-listers".
 
I can happily say I've never gone to see a movie just because of who was in it! I like my Trek without high profile actors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top