March 30, 2007

Whew! No Affleck!

Todd Seavey forwards this Star Trek XI casting scoop.

Matt Damon as Kirk, Adrien Brody as Spock, Gary Sinese as McCoy.

That sounds pretty right on to me. More importantly, if they can get these guys, it must mean they have a good script.

Well, Sinese would probably do any old crap, but not the other two.

Brody learned his lesson after King Kong, right?

Well, it's still good casting no matter what.

Unconfirmed: Daniel Dae Kim from Angel (and Lost, yeah) as Sulu. Japanese, Korean, whatever.

Posted by Daniel Radosh


I am hoping this movie features the green lady.

Or the enhanced version thereof.

>>More importantly, if they can get these guys, it must mean they have a good script.

It means no such thing. Actors love themselves a franchise. Guaranteed multi-picture $$$.

Did you see Hollywoodland? Not a good movie, but Affleck was really quite good in it. Not hammy at all.

Well, well, Captain James T. Kirk. I had to see this for myself... and... I told you if you were ever a Starship Captain, I'd be your first mate. Well, here I am; I am a man of my word.

Not a good movie, but Affleck was really quite good in it.

My reaction exactly. It actually could have been a good movie with, um, a better script and director. I mean, the story had great pulp noir potential.

I just hope they bring back the Ewoks. That's right biotechs, stuff it!

ps: JarJar = Scotty? Discuss.

Much as I enjoy these kinds of rumors, the more I think about it, the more utterly impossible this list is.

First off, as far as I understand it, the premise of the new Star Trek is that it's about the YOUNGER days of the original crew (probably at Starfleet Academy), so the idea of hiring expensive stars (Damon's gotta be at least 10 mil, probably more) for an already brand name franchise with young leads makes no sense. Even if you could afford Damon for the first one, imagine what he'd cost for the sequels (just remember how peeved people got the last time they killed off Kirk)

But more importantly, the math is all wrong. William Shatner was 35 when Star Trek first went on the air; Matt Damon is now 36.

Leonard Nimoy was 35; Adrien Brody is 34.

DeForest Kelly was 47; Gary Sinise is fifty freaking two (too old to play Dr. McCoy? That's gotta hurt).

Those don't sound like Starfleet Academy ages to me.

P.S. Any word on when Landesman's movie's coming out?

Yeah, that sounds like the kind of thing Hollywood gives a shit about.

My understanding is that it's the first voyage of the Enterprise, not Starfleet Academy. The ages are fine. The money is a real concern, but it makes sense if they're rolling the dice on a major general-interest franchise, not a second-rate geek one.

If it is indeed the first voyage (and I'd much prefer that to the Starfleet Academy idea, which always sounded lousy), I could buy that casting.

But unless Matt Damon's an uber-Trekkie (the way Nic Cage is a big enough comics geek to name his kid Kal-El and star in a turkey like Ghost Rider) and cut his fee, I can't see them spending A-list star money on a new Captain Kirk. Josh Hartnett seems affordable. Damon, not so much.

Please please please. NOT Matt Damon. I'd rather see Bill Shatner with 80 pounds of flab AND spackling suit up again rather than to have to endure Matt Damon as James Tiberius Kirk. With any luck, Damon will be too expensive and will pass.

If it is a Starfleet Academy script, find an unknown, save some money and launch a face that can then be used in the franchise for a while.

I think Damon's good for the same reason he works as Bourne (and Ripley). I want someone with that Shatneresque Canadian blandness.

Post a comment

Powered by
Movable Type 3.2