Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Paramount Casts New James T. Kirk

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the finally dept.

Sci-Fi 244

Tycoon Guy writes "TrekToday reports that Paramount is in talks with 27-year old actor Chris Pine to play the role of Captain Kirk in the new 'Star Trek' film. Pine is almost completely unknown, but he's also being courted to star opposite George Clooney in 'White Jazz,' so he's being called "the hottest new actor in town." In addition, 'Hulk' actor Eric Bana was cast today as Nero, the main villain of Trek XI."

cancel ×

244 comments

Shatner is out? (5, Informative)

Zymergy (803632) | more than 6 years ago | (#20943225)

Chris Pine: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1517976/ [imdb.com]

Eric Bana: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0051509/ [imdb.com]
There is one true James TIBERIUS Kirk! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_T._Kirk [wikipedia.org]
Is Paramount trying to do with Kirk what has been done with the various flavors of "007" or "Batman"?

Re:Shatner is out? (1)

Dhraakellian (665509) | more than 6 years ago | (#20943341)

There is one true James TIBERIUS Kirk! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_T._Kirk [wikipedia.org]
Is Paramount trying to do with Kirk what has been done with the various flavors of "007" or "Batman"?

Well, we already know that James Bond is a Time Lord [wikipedia.org] . Are you saying that the same is true of Kirk?

That's Christopher PIKE (4, Funny)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 6 years ago | (#20943895)

...you insensitive clod!

Re:Shatner is out? (4, Funny)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 6 years ago | (#20943355)

Ummm, didn't they say they wanted a 27 year old Kirk? Come on, I think Shatner is closer to 127... His youth has already boldly gone!

Re:Shatner is out? (3, Funny)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 6 years ago | (#20943951)

not to mention expensive wide-angle optics needed to get all his potbelly in the frame

Re:Shatner is out? (4, Funny)

Farmer Tim (530755) | more than 6 years ago | (#20944677)

His youth has already baldly gone!

Fixed that for you...

Re:Shatner is out? (2, Informative)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 6 years ago | (#20943373)

Uh, that's the entire point of Trek XI- like http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/ [startreknewvoyages.com] 's fan fiction, this movie fits into the continuity between the original series and the movie- therefore they need YOUNGER actors!

I just hope that they learn something else from New Voyages and we get Newtonian-physics-accurate battle scenes in normal space.

Re:Shatner is out? (2, Informative)

hawaiian717 (559933) | more than 6 years ago | (#20943983)

From everything I'm hearing, the consensus seems to be that the movie will actually be before the original series, not after it. You're correct about New Voyages though, it's essentially "Season 4".

Re:Shatner is out? (3, Informative)

dougmc (70836) | more than 6 years ago | (#20944011)

and we get Newtonian-physics-accurate battle scenes in normal space.
Considering that their impulse drives can get them to significant percentages of c, and warp drive is much faster -- and people don't get splattered across the bridge every time they make a course change, I'd say probably not.


Babylon 5 is over there ...

IDF (5, Interesting)

Radon360 (951529) | more than 6 years ago | (#20944527)

FWIW, Google: Inertial Dampening Field [google.com]

This sci-fi device is supposed to counteract such fatal changes in motion. Gene Roddenberry and his gang tried to come up with scientific explanations for a lot of things portrayed in Star Trek.

Re:IDF (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#20944649)

FWIW, Google: Inertial Dampening Field

Wanna tell me exactly how that fits into the OP saying we need "Newtonian-physics-accurate battle scenes"?

Re:IDF (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 6 years ago | (#20944851)

I was referring to the motion of the ships in battle scenes- something done on New Voyages with CGI. Even Babylon 5 had inertial dampeners of various effectiveness. In Star Trek Enterprise and TOS story lines, the inertial dampeners are so bad that they're fooled by quick changes in direction- which gave us all the funny scenes of people being thrown out of their chairs (why they never thought about seat belts is beyond me), but they do exist.

Now having said that- my OP comment was in relation to how the ships moved, not how the people within the ships moved. In New Voyages, we've actually got a navigator who is good enough to fly the ship like a fighter jet (and in the first episode, actually threaded the ship through a huge version of the Guardian at the Edge of Forever- after diving through several miles of atmosphere).

Re:Shatner is out? (4, Funny)

halcyon1234 (834388) | more than 6 years ago | (#20943403)

I think we can all agree on a response:

Piiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine!

Re:Shatner is out? (3, Funny)

flyingsquid (813711) | more than 6 years ago | (#20943445)

All I can say is, after his performance in 'Hulk', hearing about Eric Bana being cast in anything makes me cringe. Unless he's being cast in to a pit of boiling lava.

Re:Shatner is out? (1)

Rallion (711805) | more than 6 years ago | (#20943621)

I really don't think that's fair. Might want to check him out when he's playing a part that wasn't written by a very very stupid monkey. Munich's pretty good. After all, I can't really think of any actors or actresses that haven't been bad in something. (Look to the Star Wars prequels for examples.)

Re:Shatner is out? (1)

Elemenope (905108) | more than 6 years ago | (#20943625)

He was decent as Hector. Also, there was that one where he was a Mossad agent...that one was good too.

Point being, even Al Pacino had his Gigli. One poor performance does not an actor break.

Re:Shatner is out? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20943659)

Unless he's being cast in to a pit of boiling lava

Funny you should say that, it turns out he is. Then, after he becomes hideously deformed and ugly (played by William Shatner) he'll drop a bombshell in "Khan Strikes Back":

...it'll be revealed that Kirk is Spock's father.

Re:Shatner is out? (2, Interesting)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#20944161)

Try watching Chopper instead then, I think that's the film that got him noticed. He's a pretty good actor.

Re:Shatner is out? (2, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | more than 6 years ago | (#20943493)

Really, who even cares? The only dead horse that has been beat more than Star Wars is Star Trek. Let it die already. Good grief.

Re:Shatner is out? (0, Troll)

ultranova (717540) | more than 6 years ago | (#20943851)

The only dead horse that has been beat more than Star Wars is Star Trek. Let it die already. Good grief.

The horse that is Star Trek is long dead. But haven't you ever heard of... zombies ?-)

Re:Shatner is out? (1)

edmicman (830206) | more than 6 years ago | (#20944765)

Here's hoping for an eventual crossover movie. Star Wars vs. Star Trek....yeah! Or Star Wars vs. Star Trek vs. ALIEN vs. Predator!

Re:Shatner is out? (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 6 years ago | (#20944841)

"Really, who even cares?"

You cared enough to go into this thread and spend at least 20 seconds posting this.

Re:Shatner is out? (2, Interesting)

HaloZero (610207) | more than 6 years ago | (#20944621)

I always treated the character 007 more as a title than an actual person. The line of work is hazardous, and surely there was more than one, because the last guy took a bullet or forgot that the pen was poison and not antidote.

Re:Shatner is out? (1)

rlbond86 (874974) | more than 6 years ago | (#20944901)

More like fatner

Good Job, but (5, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 6 years ago | (#20943259)

Now. He has to learn. To talk. Like this.

Chris Pine? That's one letter away from Chris Pike! [memory-alpha.org] Coincidence? I don't think so!

Re:Good Job, but (1)

servo335 (853111) | more than 6 years ago | (#20943301)

Why not use the cast from Star Trek New Voyages. They are already doing Trek and do it well i might add...

Re:Good Job, but (1)

AdmiralWeirdbeard (832807) | more than 6 years ago | (#20943321)

I still think that Ryan Reynolds would be perfect for a young kirk. Same handsome yet roundish face, aptitude for. silly. line. delivery.

Re:Good Job, but (1)

shotgunsaint (968677) | more than 6 years ago | (#20944085)

You know, Weirdbeard, you may be on to something there. I've mainly seen him in comedic roles (a la Van Wilder), but he seems to be a pretty decent actor, too. Looks a bit like young Shatner.

Re:Good Job, but (3, Informative)

polyomninym (648843) | more than 6 years ago | (#20943419)

Somewhere between Pike and Pine lies the Seattle Convention Center.

Re:Good Job, but (1)

neo-mkrey (948389) | more than 6 years ago | (#20943933)

He actually looks more like Pike than Kirk.

The real question is... (5, Funny)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 6 years ago | (#20944429)

Now. He has to learn. To talk. Like this.

Well... Sure! HE - can - ACT...

BUT!

The REAL question IS...

can he SING?

Picture yourself. In a boat. On a river.
With Tan-gerine dreams, and MARMALADE skies!
Somebody -- calls you... you anssswerrr quuuiiitee sllllowwwwllllyyyy,
A GIRL! with kalEIIIIDOscope eyes...

Actually, the actor is named Chris Pike (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20943267)

The guy is so good at acting, he only needs a blinking light to convey his emotions.

Re:Actually, the actor is named Chris Pike (1)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#20944309)

I'm just mad at the shitty PHB manager that kept the programmers from finishing the job.

PHB: "Hey, is that wheelchair program done yet? I've got another project for you."

Code Monkey: "Almost, I've got it where we can recognize whether it's a yes or no, now I just have to plug it into the Hawking program and he can start to talk again."

PHB: "Just make some lights blink or something, we've got too much work to do for you to spend that much time on a project with no recurring fees."

Interesting name (0, Redundant)

thewiz (24994) | more than 6 years ago | (#20943289)

IIRC, the first captain of the Enterprise was a Christopher Pike.
Chris Pine, Chris Pike, hmmmmmmm.

Re:Interesting name (1)

servo335 (853111) | more than 6 years ago | (#20943337)

The first captain of the Enterprise was Captain April (sorry just had to show my geek trekie side..)

Re:Interesting name (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20943461)

The first captain of the Enterprise [wikipedia.org] was Capt. Paul.

Re:Interesting name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20943561)

Go get a life!

Archer was the first recorded to captain (5, Informative)

DigitalReverend (901909) | more than 6 years ago | (#20943643)

If you go by Star Trek Canon,

Archer was the first recorded Federation captain of a ship named Enterprise (NX-01)

Capt April was the first captain of the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) followed by Christopher Pike, James T. Kirk and then Willard Decker. Spock was captain occasionally.

Then on the Enterprise B (NCC 1701-B) John Harriman, and later Demora Sulu who was the daughter of Sulu from the original series.

Enterprise C was captained by Rachel Garrett.

And the Enterprise D was captained by Picard, although Riker, and Edward Jellico captained the ship at least once during it's commission.

There was one other Enterprise, the USS Enterprise (XCV 330) but little is known about it and there is no record of who it's captain was.

Hows that for a geek trekker side.

Re:Archer was the first recorded to captain (1)

laffer1 (701823) | more than 6 years ago | (#20943929)

You forgot the Enterprise E.

Re:Archer was the first recorded to captain (2, Informative)

hawaiian717 (559933) | more than 6 years ago | (#20944107)

Demora Sulu as captain of the Enterprise-B isn't canon.

NX-01 was a pre-Federation Starfleet vessel. In "These Are the Voyages..." the ship was heading to Earth for both the retirement of the vessel as well as the founding of the Federation. As such, XCV 330 would also be pre-Federation.

Re:Archer was the first recorded to captain (1)

DigitalReverend (901909) | more than 6 years ago | (#20944239)

You are correct, I mis-stated. The NX-01 was a Starfleet vessel, not a Federation vessel.

Re:Archer was the first recorded to captain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20944189)

Not very good! You forgot the 'J' as well as the 'E' not to mention the various alt universe Enterprises.

Re:Archer was the first recorded to captain (2, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#20944747)

If you go by Star Trek Canon,

And if you go by all things holy then Enterprise, like Voyager and Star Trek V, never really happened.... at best it was a Holodeck malfunction.

In fact, come to recall, the lame ass series finale of Enterprise was literally a holodeck program on the Enterprise-D! I find it very easy to think that Voyager, Enterprise, and every TNG movie were just horrible holonovels written by somebody with a sick and twisted mind. It's the only thing keeping me from losing ALL faith in Star Trek....

Hey, Wars fans, is this how you felt when the prequels came out? I'm sorry for mocking you.... I just didn't understand at the time :(

Let it die (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20943303)

Seriously. Let Trek die. It's been my favorite scifi show since I was a kid, but please, for the love of all that is green-blooded and logical, let it die. It's been a good run, but adding on more BS things like this just makes the series more deplorable than it's been lately with the "Enterprise" series and the latest movies.

Please...Paramount.......just let it die.

Re:Let it die (4, Insightful)

The Good Reverend (84440) | more than 6 years ago | (#20943587)

Just don't go. Problem solved. Let the rest of us enjoy it. The end, everyone wins.

I've never understood why some people think their memories of some sort of media will be ruined if a new product, one they don't have to go see or experience, is released.

Re:Let it die (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20943777)

I've never understood why some people think their memories of some sort of media will be ruined if a new product, one they don't have to go see or experience, is released.


What about cases such as the Star Wars Special Editions where it isn't only about memories and the original product is discontinued and replaced with something different?

They're meddling with Trek episodes from the original series by changing the special effects, and given the trend (e.g. Hayden retconned into Return of the Jedi) maybe there is good reason for concern?

What if in 2050 every Star Trek movie ever made with Kirk now stars Chris Pine, through the magic of editing?

Re:Let it die (3, Insightful)

The Good Reverend (84440) | more than 6 years ago | (#20943961)

What if in 2050 every Star Trek movie ever made with Kirk now stars Chris Pine, through the magic of editing?

Well, that's really Paramount's decision - they own Star Trek, not us. Second, fan outrage brought the original versions back for Star Wars (mostly because Lucus saw more money there, I'm sure). Every episode of Star Trek currently exists on DVD as it originally aired. Through the magic of the internet, now they'll never go away, regardless of what products new are released. And you'll still be able to avoid/ignore any new franchise efforts, just as you can today.

Re:Let it die (1)

Jarjarthejedi (996957) | more than 6 years ago | (#20944191)

*whisper* Hey, yeah you, you over there. The one with the comment. I'll let you in a little secret of mine, don't spread it around to much. You ready? It's called 'You don't have to buy the new stuff'. It'll solve all your problems right there, don't want to see Pine as Kirk in Generations? Just hang on to your old copy of Generations which I'm sure you have since you care about who the actor is. Wrath of Khan too. Same goes for Star Wars. You can thank me later for this tip, preferably with cash. *whisper*

I've never really understood the controversy around the Special Edition. If you actually care enough about it to not like the new stuff then you definitely have an old copy, watch that. No one can take away something you like if you've already bought it (Until DRM because even worse than it is now) so just keep living in a world where the only Kirk is The Shatner and don't watch the new movies or buy old ones with a photoshopped in Pine.

Re:Let it die (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20944457)

If you actually care enough about it to not like the new stuff then you definitely have an old copy, watch that. No one can take away something you like if you've already bought it (Until DRM because even worse than it is now)


I had the original Star Wars movies on VHS, but the tape became worn over the years. I didn't want to break the law and pirate it, and was essentially left devoid of options until the official release of the unaltered versions (which, despite fan protest, didn't have to happen).

And what about the "next generation"? I have my memories, sure, but is it right that others could conceivably never be able to legally see the unaltered original versions of certain properties?

Remakes and reimaginings are symptoms of a lack of creativity and I'm not sure why anyone would even bother to defend those practices, the Ministry of Truth issue aside.

Re:Let it die (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 6 years ago | (#20944059)

but it does make a problem when talking to younger generations. Like if I try to talk about the Grinch cartoon to my daughter, she'll be thinking of a manic-depressive on LSD in a costume with cgi effects. This hurts.

Re:Let it die (3, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#20944911)

I've never understood why some people think their memories of some sort of media will be ruined if a new product, one they don't have to go see or experience, is released.

Well, for starters, this guy [slashdot.org] had a very good point [slashdot.org] .

Beyond that though, I'm just disgusted at low Star Trek has gone. Seriously. We've gone from the golden age of TV Sci-Fi, with shows like TNG, DS9, Babylon 5 and SeaQuest all airing new episodes, to Paramount milking the cash cow that is Star Trek, putting out one crap release after another, banking on the "Star Trek" name to sell it.

You realize that Stephen Hawking of all people took TNG seriously enough that he made a tour of the set, asked to sit in Picard's chair and even did a cameo? You find me something on TV today that even comes close to what TNG was it's hayday. Or Babylon 5 for that matter. Yes, both had their downpoints (TNG Seasons 1-2 and 7, Babylon 5's last season and parts of the first), but I don't think you can find something on TV today that's anywhere near as good as either of them on a bad day.

And don't come back with Firefly, the standard /. answer. It's not in production anymore, who knows how good or bad it would have been if it had remained, and I don't consider it Sci-Fi like Bab 5 or TNG. It's more like a western in space. And before the Firefly fans all rush to click "reply" and flame me, I liked Serenity and the back story to Firefly. I just don't think you can point at a show that didn't even make one season as justification for why modern Sci-Fi doesn't suck.

And Battlestar Galactica, while an awesome show, is no where near as mainstream as TNG or even Bab 5. And while that's not entirely a bad thing, it doesn't exactly help make the case for Sci-Fi on TV either.

Let you die. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20943617)

Seriously. Let Trek die. It's been my favorite scifi show since I was a kid, but please, for the love of all that is green-blooded and logical, let it die. It's been a good run, but adding on more BS things like this just makes the series more deplorable than it's been lately with the "Enterprise" series and the latest movies.

Please...Paramount.......just let it die.


Enterprise was underrated and the latest movies weren't any worse than the earlier ones.

There's no logical reason to let a popular franchise like Star Trek "die". If you want it dead based on general quality of episodes, you were probably calling for its death in the first season of TOS, or the first season of TNG.

Any real "fan" would be calling for the series to be made better, not for it to die.

Re:Let it die (2, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#20943813)

Actually I think this has a reasonably good chance of working, and is precisely what they should have been doing all along. Rather than the Next-Next-Generation or the Previous-Previous-Generation, they should have gone back to ToS to begin with. The actors would be different, but the characters familiar. The writers, like the rest of us, would have known them for forty years.

If anything has a chance of reinvigorating Trek, it's this.

Re:Let it die (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20943955)

precisely what they should have been doing all along. Rather than the Next-Next-Generation or the Previous-Previous-Generation, they should have gone back to ToS to begin with. The actors would be different, but the characters familiar.

The original Star Trek is hopelessly dated, and not just in terms of technological advances. The show was structured around one-off science fiction premises which are now considered stale or anachronistic, and social premises which are no longer relevant.

The writers, like the rest of us, would have known them for forty years.

In terms of ratings and mainstream popularity, The Next Generation dwarfed the original series. In every respect, that milieu is better as a basis for a restart.

Re:Let it die (1)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 6 years ago | (#20944123)

Rather than the Next-Next-Generation or the Previous-Previous-Generation, they should have gone back to ToS to begin with. The actors would be different, but the characters familiar. The writers, like the rest of us, would have known them for forty years.
*cough* [startreknewvoyages.com]

Re:Let it die (1)

CyberLord Seven (525173) | more than 6 years ago | (#20944237)

Just in case you haven't seen it, do a Google for J. Michael Straczynski & Bryce Zabel, Star Trek: Re-Boot the Universe.

It's a proposal, in .PDF form, to create a new Star Trek series based, loosely, on the Original Series, but with a new mystery added to it.

pine vs. elm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20943323)

TrekToday reports that Paramount is in talks with 27-year old actor Chris Pine to play the role of Captain Kirk

With Johnny Outlook playing the new Sulu.

Make up your mind (2, Informative)

Snowgen (586732) | more than 6 years ago | (#20943405)

The headline said the role was cast, and the summary said "in talks". Make up your mind, and don't get back to me until you have an answer.

Chris Pine... is there nothing he can't do? (1)

farker haiku (883529) | more than 6 years ago | (#20943421)

I mean, Captain Kirk, ruby programmer, author [pine.fm] .

What a stud.

Today's rumor is tomorrow's career obituary (4, Interesting)

xPsi (851544) | more than 6 years ago | (#20943443)

Condolances went out today to Chis Pine, his family, and his career after he formally accepted the offer by Paramount to play James T. Kirk in the upcoming Star Trek movies.

Re:Today's rumor is tomorrow's career obituary (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 6 years ago | (#20944131)

I realize you're going for the funny, but Shatner's had a long and varied career, and even now, in his late seventies, is still getting regular work. Hardly a career-ender.

Pike & Pine... (1)

gbulmash (688770) | more than 6 years ago | (#20943467)

Two streets that run parallel to each other in downtown Seattle. Coincidence???

Re:Pike & Pine... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 6 years ago | (#20943525)

Two streets that run parallel to each other in downtown Seattle. Coincidence???

Probably, yeah. :-P

Re:Pike & Pine... (1)

Orange Crush (934731) | more than 6 years ago | (#20943607)

They also both intersect 5th avenue--the very same road as the Scifi Museum!!

Re:Pike & Pine... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20943701)

They also both intersect 5th avenue--the very same road as the Scifi Museum!!

Which, coincidentally, sucks about as much ass as most of the Star Trek movies!

Re:Pike & Pine... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20944117)

The Soviets have captured the King Dome! Fall back to 5th Avenue and regroup!

Re:Pike & Pine... (1)

gbulmash (688770) | more than 6 years ago | (#20944145)

They also both intersect 5th avenue--the very same road as the Scifi Museum!!

And the Paramount Theater is on Pine street... while the Star Trek movies are made by Paramount Studios.

This is getting spooky.

- Greg

Re:Pike & Pine... (1)

An ominous Cow art (320322) | more than 6 years ago | (#20944285)

They also both intersect 5th avenue--the very same road as the Scifi Museum!!
And 5 is the number of years in TOS's mission.

The Law of Fives is everywhere...

Re:Pike & Pine... (1)

StevisF (218566) | more than 6 years ago | (#20944259)

Streets run parallel to each other in downtown Seattle?! Can lines be parallel when then change direction and inexplicably stop for periods?

Frozen peas (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20943469)

Yay! I got the first post. I'm so glad.

Hawt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20943489)

So they're casting a porn star as the ne--oooooooooh, White J*A*zz. Sorry.

Hay Bill (1)

drewzhrodague (606182) | more than 6 years ago | (#20943585)

Hay Bill Shatner. Hope you're, reading *this* thread. Lots of us, miss you, except on reruns.

I sure hope the new actor does a service to Star Trek, and to the history. Lots of us rabid ST fans will be waiting and watching. You have to remember that Star Trek has been around for *40 years*, and has been watched by generations of people. I also expect Star Trek to be around for another 40 years, with all of the styrofoam rocks, clitorus-foreheaded space-aliens, and freeze-frame phaser attacks. Oh, and hot model science-officers, gotta have those.

Of course I'll watch any variety of Star Trek (or any Sci-Fi for that matter) even if it is totally terrible. Just keep it coming.

Odd numbered trek movies, good or bad? (1)

fotbr (855184) | more than 6 years ago | (#20943657)

I forget, is it the odd-numbered trek movies that are good, or are they the ones that suck? /hangs trekkie hat up in shame, although in all fairness, the shows were almost always better than the movies.

Re:Odd numbered trek movies, good or bad? (1)

k_187 (61692) | more than 6 years ago | (#20943739)

Even good, odd suck. But its all been downhill since 6. Although 8 wasn't completely horrible.

Re:Odd numbered trek movies, good or bad? (1)

mrxak (727974) | more than 6 years ago | (#20943855)

The Even Rule generally regards even-numbered movies as being good. Odds aren't necessarily bad, and Star Trek X pretty much destroyed the Even Rule anyway... Anyway, I tend to like most of them. The only ones that I can say I really disliked were The Final Frontier and Nemesis. So I have invented a new rule, the Multiples of Five Rule. If the movie is a multiple of five, it's non-canon horrible crap.

Re:Odd numbered trek movies, good or bad? (2, Funny)

Otter Popinski (1166533) | more than 6 years ago | (#20944313)

Let's hope we never have the chance to put your theory to the test. Star Trek XV: Captain Wesley Crusher, now in command of the USS Voyager, spends a week-long holiday on Risa. Nothing much happens, but there are lots of nude scenes.

Re:Odd numbered trek movies, good or bad? (1)

discord5 (798235) | more than 6 years ago | (#20944217)

is it the odd-numbered trek movies that are good, or are they the ones that suck?

From what I gathered it's odd-numbered trek movies that suck.

  • 1. A probe returns to earth, lots of "visual effects", some fusion between man and machine and the universe is happy. After watching this movie, you'll find yourself wondering "What did I just watch?" and "Did I pay money for that DVD?"
  • 3. Spock respawns, thus making nearly as good as Jesus but with the mental capacity of a peanut. Near the end of the movie he tries to turn water into wine with Saavik (who decided to change her appearance completely, because the previous actress was insulted when trekkies referred to her as "Vulcagirl"). Kirk gets upset when the Klingons kill his son (the one he'd never seen until in the previous movie) and decides that blowing up the Enterprise is the solution to all of his problems and provides a neat fireworks display down on the planet. He then steals a Klingon bird of prey, sails off to Vulcan and they live happily ever after (until the next movie)
  • 5. God is pretty mad with the Enterprise crew for Spock respawning out of nowhere. He kindly asks that Kirk hands over his brand new Enterprise, but Kirk refuses. Why does God need a starship? (Especially one whose captain won't hesitate to blow it up).
  • 7. Kirk somehow gets stuck in an eternal happiness vortex of fun. When Picard show up, Kirk bakes some eggs, decides it's time to leave his newly found utopia, and kicks some Malcolm McDowel ass. Famous last words: Captain on the bridge... I mean, bridge on the captain. (I'm assuming the metal thing that fell on his head was some sort of bridge like construction, please excuse the pun if it was a staircase)
  • 9. Data does something really odd, which induces long talks about the prime directive by various crewmembers of the enterprise. By the time Picard decides to kick ass, half the movietheatre is asleep, while the other half finds themselves complaining what a waste of money that ticket was in the pub.

The worst part was that movie #10 didn't bring balance to the trek universe. Data dies, nobody cares.

This is once again an odd-numbered trek movie, and from the looks of it, it won't break the rule. Prequels suck, george lucas proved it (although that has more to do with George Lucas than with the concept of a prequel), Enterprise proved it (although that has a lot more to do with certain writers, whom I won't name to avoid starting a flamewar).

I think Trek needs a long holliday. 10 years sounds about right. Make some room for other scifi, then give those shows a run for their money. That way, people will want to see it again, now everyone is just waiting for the release so they can say "That was horrible".

Re:Odd numbered trek movies, good or bad? (1)

mrxak (727974) | more than 6 years ago | (#20944883)

They should have stopped making movies at #9. I happened to like Insurrection (it wrapped things up fairly neatly for most characters), but that's besides the point. Nemesis was atrocious, never should have been made, and Enterprise was poorly managed so while I liked a fair portion of it, it should have not existed.

If they want to take another 10 year break and then do something in the 25th century, I will gladly watch. But right now I'd rather watch more original sci-fi than the same stuff rehashed in prequel after prequel.

Other cast options.... (5, Funny)

russ1337 (938915) | more than 6 years ago | (#20943789)

They were going to cast Keano Reeves as Spock, but found during auditions that he doesn't have the range of emotions required for the role.

Re:Other cast options.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20943877)

KeanuSpock: Whoa, fascinating.

Re:Other cast options.... (4, Funny)

laffer1 (701823) | more than 6 years ago | (#20943959)

How would the lines for that go?

Kirk: Spock what do you think?
Spock: I know kung fu!

Re:Other cast options.... (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 6 years ago | (#20944105)

Perhaps if they do another generations movie, he can play data instead?

Re:Other cast options.... (1)

Mr. Sketch (111112) | more than 6 years ago | (#20944719)

You might be on to something there, he could really make the Spock character more hip to appeal to a modern audience. Consider the following changes:

Spock: Facinating.
Keanu: Whoa!

Spock: That would be illogical.
Keanu: That would be most unexcellent!

Spock: Their shields are no match for us.
Keanu: I know kung-fu!

I'm sure there are other obvious changes, feel free to contribute your own.

No fancy celebrities allowed! (0, Insightful)

They_Call_Me_Spanky (83478) | more than 6 years ago | (#20944047)

"Pine is almost completely unknown"

Good
I think a well known celebrity would have detracted from the movie and characters because their personalities are so well known.
If they're gonna reboot Star Trek, bring on fresh faces.
I'm all for it!

So. . . Many. . . Pictures. (4, Interesting)

Fantastic Lad (198284) | more than 6 years ago | (#20944187)

The IMDB has a tidy little slide show [google.ca] of Hollywood's new It Boy.

I'm glad they didn't go for a look-a-like. There's a couple of shots which suggest this actor might have enough screen presence and charisma to pull off the arrogant super-leader several-times savior of the galaxy.

Good luck to you, Mr. Pine! Them's big shoes. --It's a case of creating a character who is, (on and off the screen) ultra arrogant, skilled enough to deserve acting that way, and charming enough not to piss everybody off while doing it. If you follow Shatner's lead, then you will also be a really kind, light-hearted and giving soul, but that usually comes with age. If you don't get blasted by photon disrupters first. Is this Pine kid also a Canadian like old Bill? I'm not sure it's possible to achieve all of those goals otherwise. We'll have to see. Like I said, good luck to you, man!

And I have gotta say, this is the first time in forever, (with the exception of the recent and sadly disappointing Superman film), that I've been excited about an upcoming movie. With a good writer and good direction, this could be a really awesome film.

When, oh, when will I accumulate enough jaded cynicism to not let my hopes get the better of me?

I am SUCH a sci-fi geek!


-FL

Remake of Nemesis? (1)

wiredlogic (135348) | more than 6 years ago | (#20944227)

With such an original classical villian name like "Nero" we can only hope that whis will be a remake of the remake that was Nemesis. Bonus points if they have scenes on Ceti Alpha IV.

The Bigger Story (1)

Traiano (1044954) | more than 6 years ago | (#20944257)

Is that there is a web page (TrekToday) that is dedicated to daily updates on this franchise. As Shatner said on SNL many years ago: "Get a life!"

But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20944431)

can he sing Rocket Man?

Re:But... (1)

Farmer Tim (530755) | more than 6 years ago | (#20944875)

can he sing Rocket Man?

Does it matter? Shatner couldn't, and he released a record to prove it!

Bugger Kirk, I want Pirk! (3, Interesting)

Nim82 (838705) | more than 6 years ago | (#20944589)

They should replace Kirk with Pirk and get Samuli Torssonen and his crew on-board.

Star Wreck was better in every way that matters: Better Battles, Better Humour, Better Plot and most importantly prettier girls. The acting was about equal as well.

Imagine what they could do with a budget?

McCoy? (4, Interesting)

FranTaylor (164577) | more than 6 years ago | (#20944613)

Is there any truth to the rumor that Gary Sinise is going to play Dr. McCoy? I mean, how could they possibly give it to anyone else?

Re:McCoy? (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 6 years ago | (#20944825)

I never thought of it but Sinise would make a great McCoy. Is this really the rumor?

Hottest New Actor (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 6 years ago | (#20944623)

He may be the Hottest New Actor in town -- until he's typecast as James R^HT Kirk for the rest of his career.

Almost Obligatory... (1)

Applekid (993327) | more than 6 years ago | (#20944633)

Shater disagrees. [ytmnd.com]

auditions (1)

garlicbready (846542) | more than 6 years ago | (#20944641)

I can imagine the auditions

(dramatic pause) KKKKKHAN.... (thrusts fist towards sky in one last desperate motion)

... Next

Big whoop (1)

VonSkippy (892467) | more than 6 years ago | (#20944689)

They should have made a big change, like Battlestar Galactica did, and made Kirk a women.

A hot cylon/bionic women.

Re:Big whoop (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 6 years ago | (#20944789)

They should have made a big change, like Battlestar Galactica did, and made Kirk a women.

Shatner's not a woman? Damn, he had me fooled. I always thought he was just a very ugly woman.

CleverNickname (1)

AnalogDiehard (199128) | more than 6 years ago | (#20944783)

So who will be cast in the role of CleverNickname?

This is gonna sound silly, but... (1)

Perseid (660451) | more than 6 years ago | (#20944847)

...after looking at the slideshow on IMDB that guy's eyes just creep me out. It's like he's got zombie contact lenses on, but he apparently does not.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...