And my point is that the UK doesn't matter in terms of box office and wouldn't be a factor in deciding casting. For a film that is getting a worldwide release, the casting of one person because it might draw in a few more people in one country would be ludicrous.

I agree.

Can Simon Pegg Cut it as Star Trek's Scotty?



This was the point I was making earlier. If the film doesn't have a comic undertone I worry it's not going to work. If it does, Simon could be the highlight. If it doesn't and Simon puts in a knowing turn like in MI:3, he could be the weak link.

I would expect the film to have some humour in it, after all Trek always has, but I don't feel this outing is the right vehicle for a film with a comic undertone.

Star Trek IV worked as a comedy vehicle because the previous films (and TV series) had set up a group of credible characters. If they try to play what could be the first film in a new series with a comedic element I just don't see it working.

I'm also not convinced that a "comedy" Scotty would be a good move, you can laugh at lines like "Aye, the haggis is in the fire now!" forty years on, but a line would fall flat on its arse these days.

To be honest, even Scotty's trade mark lines, like "Ya canna change the laws of physics" and "The engines canna take anymore!" are going to be hard to sell, if they are used.

So if they do go the comedy route (and it doesn't work) as a comic actor, playing the most obviously comic role, Simon could come a cropper.

The trouble is I just can't imagine Simon playing it straight in a big budget Hollywood film, particularly a Star Trek film, so if they go the straight route he may well be a weak point (for me) as he was in MI:3.

So good, a lose/lose situation!

Let's hope they pull off a neat trick and get the balance just right... good luck Simon!

The problem is Star Trek, because of its militaristic setup, just doesn't lend itself to humour very well. Gung-ho and wry characters like Mal Reynolds and Han Solo just wouldn't exist within Star Fleet because they would have been booted out of the service.

In a lot of ways, Star Trek is too straight laced to poke fun at itself and if it were to be tried, I think it would take the franchise dangerously close to parody, and that's the last thing they should do.

Star Trek, when it has worked, has generally done so on a basis of good characterisation and solid stories - comedy and humour have played their part, but usually in a supporting capacity, and I believe that whilst this is quite often a strength of the series, it can also be a draw back.

... or when it totally took the piss out on itself.

I'm not a huge Star Trek fan, not any incarnation of it, but I loved the movie where they were trying to save the whales. The movie, I believe, was hugely popular and raked in a lot of money at the box office. The reason for that, I think, is because it was funny. It could make fun of itself, and spent the entire movie doing just that.

Star Trek IV worked, and worked very well, because it was a fish-out-of-water story - it wasn't the norm.

Seeing Kirk, Spock and Co. bumble around San Francisco in 1986 was amusing, and the light weight plot did make it more appealing to a general audience, but it wasn't the most successful Trek film, critically or commercially, and it wouldn't have worked if that had been the plot every time . . .

It also works well as the final chapter in what you could arguably call a trilogy (since the plots of II, III and IV are all connected). After the last two films in which a lot of heavy stuff happens - tangling with Khan, losing Spock, regaining him only to have Kirk lose his son, etc. - a more light-hearted entry was perfectly timed.

I can't imagine there won't be some humorous elements to this new script but I don't out-and-out distrust them to miscalculate the formula, either. But everyone's expectations are different. (Simon turning up in MI:3, for example, didn't feel jarring to me as I'm quite used to comic relief characters turning up in Jaybrams stuff; like Whedon, he has a fondness for certain character archetypes. Simon was essentially Marshall UK, and that worked for me.)

Personally, I'm not one to take the casting of an actor best known for comedy as part-and-parcel that the character is going to be "funnied-up," but maybe I'm just enough of a Trek fan and an Abrams fan to look forward what each half of that equation could bring to the mix. Karl Urban is now being talked about as the frontrunner for McCoy - far brawnier than DeForest Kelley, sure, but a fantastic actor and I don't really anticipate based on his CV that they're now going to find some creative way to get Bones into armor or a loincloth.

I don't personally believe that the casting of Simon is an indication that the character won't be treated seriously, Simon has done serious roles before now after all, he is simply better known for his comedy ones.

He isn't an obvious choice for the role, but I don't think that means he can't do it.

What I was saying earlier, to come extent - I fear they are going for the comedy role for simon, and wanting him to reprise his MI:3 direction.

If they have chosen him for his acting as you guys reckon, then clearly it won't be an issue.

And it's Pine.

Actually, it was the most successful of the star trek films ... if Wikipedia is to be believed. It had this to say about the box office on that movie ...

The film grossed $109,713,132 in the U.S. and $133,000,000 worldwide, against a $25,000,000 budget. In terms of absolute gross, it was the most profitable Star Trek movie of the ten released (as of 2007), and it sold the second highest number of tickets, behind only The Motion Picture.

I found a few other sites that back up that claim, too. Box office mojo has it as the 5th highest grosser of 1986, which is meaningless when the top grosser of that year was Top Gun -- which became a monster classic.

Critically, I couldn't say ... but it was endearing.

I'm much more interested in this news:



*rubs thighs*

I might be wrong about this, but I believe the overall box office take for First Contact was the highest of any Trek film, and that was what I was going on, not profitability (my source for this is the book Future Perfect by Jeff Greenwald, but it is a few years out of date now).

Either way, my point still remains - the film worked because it put well known characters into a situation that provided plenty of comedy, if the characters hadn't already been established the film wouldn't have worked.

Alas, lightning seldom strikes twice in the same place, and Star Trek V was simply arrogant and goofy.

I think arrogant is a bit harsh, I'd say more misjudged.

Mmmm. Yesyes.

I have a vision of John Simm saying this.

Funny, following the thigh-rubbing bit I heard it coming from Bob Mortimer on the other side of the set.


ETA: It just occurred to me, given the circumstances of the "comedy actor" debate... once upon a time, some might have felt the same way about old Poida, now wouldn't they? Not anymore.

Okay, maybe not arrogant, but vain. At least, Kirk's ascent of El Capitan (consider the name of the mountain, for one) during the opening of the film seemed a testament to Shatner's virility...

At least it wasn't as irritating as the campfire scene.

I think my cousin is married to Poida.

Did anyone else think 'wee hughie' when this was announced?

Heh... I didn't, but that's true.

Here - This is funny - hot from the press of the Orange web page - somebody has gone a bit mardy...!!!

Shatner snubbed by Star Trek filmmakers
Sci-fi hero William Shatner is fuming after being told he won’t get to appear in the new Star Trek movie.

The TV show’s original Captain Kirk, who first performed the role in 1966, is particularly annoyed for two reasons: first, the new film chronicles how the crew of the Starship Enterprise first joined forces (basically, it’s Star Trek: The College Years). And second, Leonard Nimoy, who played Spock in the original series, has got himself a cameo role.

“I can’t believe it. I’m not in the movie at all. Leonard, God bless his heart, is in, but not me,” raged Shatner. “It obviously is a decision not to make use of the popularity I have. It doesn’t seem to be a wise business decision.”
Shatner’s current profile is higher than that of any of his old Star Trek co-stars: a starring role in TV series Boston Legal, a cameo in Dodgeball and an unusual album of cover versions have kept his stock high.

But with filming on the new movie due to start next month, the Shatman had better start building his case. Newcomer Chris Pine is playing James T Kirk and Britain’s very own Simon Pegg will portray chief engineer Montgomery Scott, aka Scotty. Presumably if Shatner had it his way he’d be playing the young Kirk himself. And Scotty.

OH DEAR!
Love Zarria x

Get your applications in uglies!.

Damn! I'm going to be at the BFI!

Bruce Greenwood is Christopher Pike.

Awesome. A terrific character actor who always delivers.

I wonder how long it will be before he ends up rolling around the set in a box with a flashing light . . .

*Beep! Beep!*

Do you understand the charges?
One beep for yes, two beeps for no.
[Fry beeps once]
Yes, so noted. Do you plead guilty?
[Fry beeps twice]
Double yes. Guilty.

Winona Ryder joins 'Star Trek' cast.

Didn't see that one coming!

Neither did Gerdie LaForge! boom boom

Interesting choice. Being a human woman with a highly regarded Vulcan male must be a poser of a job top pull off though.

It seems to be getting better all the time.

-m0r

According to the above article she's going to be Vulcan.

Shh . . . Can you hear it? That's the Wailing of the Nerd . . .

EDIT: Looks like Digital Spy have inserted the "Vulcan" before mother, the original post on Sci-Fi Wire doesn't mention that at all.

EDIT II: Haha! Looks like the BBC have taken their story from DS, they have the same error too!

They must have fixed it at the beeb. Should have got a screenie

-m0r

Better watch out, or she'll steal the show.



Any Trekker worth their salt knows Spock's mother is a human, Amanda Grayson.

JFX Online has posted the first pics of Zachary Quinto in character and some other on-set shots. Get a look in now in case they get kibboshed by Paramount soon.

Alleged plot spoilers here:

http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_c...=3696&Itemid=99

I don't know... To these eyes, he looks more Romulan than Vulcan.

Funny you should say that . . .



They must have read my e-mail . . .

Is it just me or does the way her ^^ hair falls make her look like she's already got the vulcan ears going on?

Yes, but she shouldn't have them!

Ah riiight. I didn't know which one of his parents was human originally. Learn something knew everday.

More Trek casting.

Hmm, another young actor playing the parent of someone their own age.

What do you recon, flashbacks or - the bone Star Trek writers just can't drop - time travel?

Both? Either? The plot allegedly does involve time travel, y'know.

Clifton! Eyyyy.... el pinche Frankie Flowers!

As far as possible I'm trying to avoid plot rumours.

I'm trying to keep an open mind about the film, but if they start falling back on tired Trek clichés I'm not sure I'll be able to!

Ben Cross to play Sarek.

Leaked Teaser Trailer?

Someone's done a good spoof!

So the actual trailer is out on Monday?

I'm guessing that means next weekend - as in the 19th/20th - and that the trailer will officially be online on Monday 21st. If they are right though, pirated copies should be on line next Friday.

Official web site

and

The Cast Of Star Trek At Cloverfield Premiere - no sign of Simon.