Greenwood Compares Playing Pike to JFK November 15, 2007
by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: ST09 Cast , trackback
Bruce Greenwood, the new Captain Pike, is getting ready to dive into the pond that is Trek fandom. In an interview with Blackfilm.com, the actor stated that taking on the role of Pike is a “similar dilemma” to his role as President John F. Kennedy in Thirteen Days, noting “No matter who you are playing or what you are playing. You do a movie and people criticize it.” But when asked which role he thinks would be harder, Greenwood said Pike was “riskier” than JFK because “the Trekkies are more likely to have expectations that are cut marble.” Read the rest at Blackfilm.com
Loading ...
Comments»
first!
“The Trekkies are more likely to have expectations that are cut marble.”
He must read the comments on this site.
That’s not fair… *any* Trek site right now, really.
“the Trekkies are more likely to have expectations that are cut marble.”
Damn right……
#4
To quote Q, “What justifies that smugness?”
Just a question.
Cool stuff. At least he knows the fanbase! I’m really looking forward to the movie now.
Thanks Anthony.
yup…as a history geek as well as a Trek geek, I can say my friends into Trek are harsher than anyone I know in the world of history.
I have NEVER once heard anyone say “Robin Williams was the WORST Teddy Roosevelt EVER!” or “Bowie looks NOTHING like Tesla” …
Commodore Redshirt [formally "Redshirt and NEVER "Red Shirt"]
Greenwood… I will give you a chance.
We are an evil, and hard to impress bunch.
But then again, Greenwood is an impressive choice for Pike IMO. Besides, he’s from Vancouver, so that’s a +100 in his column.
(Imagine Stewie from Family Guy as I say this)More flames for the Enterprise!
RE:#8
“Imagine Stewie from Family Guy as I say this)More flames for the Enterprise!”
I don’t know…but this made me L O [f-in'] L
Oh, and I was watching “The Prisoner” disc 2 last night and you don’t know HOW HAPPY I AM that I was #6!!!!!!!!!
[WAY BETTER than the #1 thing...I hope I'm never first...]
BG: “I’ve got a lot of homework to do. Having said that, the script, which I can’t talk about, is pretty good and quite different from the last few Star Trek movies.”
a fascinating titbit…?
I can see his point. This group of actors are replacing a legendary cast with the majority of them still living. The expectations will be high. We have all (myself included) made our opinions known about how this movie should be and whether Shatner will be involved or not. To me, this is one of the biggest risks that Paramount has ever taken replacing a cast that has been associated with Trek for 40 years. I am hoping for the best and have been impressed so far and am still hoping for a Shatner appearance.
He’d better be good as Pike..
#10 – A fascinating tidbit, indeed! And even better, the comment implies that he has actually seen the last few Star Trek movies: a good sign.
I think he will do just fine.
Hah. Good call Bruce. The only fanbase worse is that other Star something or other one.
Greenwood is right, of course.
Half the people here are going to hate the movie simply because Greenwood has different color hair than Jeffrey Hunter.
#15 – different eye color. >;>}
Bruce Greenwood is a good actor, and if given a good opportunity, will do good in this. He does not really look like Pike, but he’s so good maybe even us purists may not mind >;>}, hopefully. There will probably be other worse things to pull us out of the movie. >|>{
15 – I concur, take to AICN…not here….
#4 I saw no smugness, just a fact that either he picked up on (it’s hard not to, even just from gross charicatures) or was informed strongly by JJ and Co how hard it might be to please fans..
I admit, it’s going to be hard to accept the pod people replacements as the beloved characters I have grown up with. I’ll just have to pretend that they are the same characters, not easy!
Check out this picture of Jeff Hunter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jeffrey_Hunter.jpg
Tell me they did not do a great job finding someone with similar looks
I have no expecatations about the Pike character at all. He’s a minor character that appeared “twice” if you count the pilot as once.
#6
Robin Williams was the WORST Teddy Roosevelt ever, tied with Tom Berenger. Best TR? Brian Keith.
And if STXI starts to tank, Bruce Greenwood can always call in his brother, Lee, for a rousing round of “Proud to be an Andorian.”
or some such — it’s early — i need caffiene.
When’s the NEXT William Shatner-related thread due Anthony?… ;)
Cervantes: Shatner’s become too much of a buffoon in recent years. No one would be able ot take him seriously as Captain Kirk…is he gonna run around saying I’m Jim Kirk, I’ve got the mad Cow? (watch Boston Legal in case you don’t get it)
#24 FSUGuy
Wait for the right thread…it’ll be along shortly…
#15
Count me in the other half.
I bet that JJ Abrams and crew just love the buzz this film is creating (good and bad) and it is just 2 weeks into production. At this rate, when it is “in the can” it should do very well. I for one am glad that my favorite characters are not going to die when the original actors that portrayed them pass. I am actually surprised that they didn’t recast the major roles at the time of “The Motion Picture”. After all, at that time they were pretty much all out of work TV actors and Star Trek was moving to the big screen. Anyway, can’t wait to see this movie, just wish it were not so secret.
Now I don’t know much of Pike outside of the show.. but havn’t we seen so little of the character that he (and the writers) pretty much has alot of latitude in which to work?
Oh and since we’ve been talking so much about continuity lately.. can someone explain how the Zefram Cochrane continuity works? I mean, First Contact is NOT the first appearance of the character.. Did anyone complain about Glenn Corbett’s resemblance to James Cronwell?
Ugh.. Did anyone complain about James Cromwell’s resemblance to Glenn Corbett.
Need more coffee…
Commodore Redshirt… “I have NEVER once heard anyone say “Robin Williams was the WORST Teddy Roosevelt EVER!” or “Bowie looks NOTHING like Tesla” …”
No, but two recent World War II movies were lambasted by historians… “U-571″ and “Pearl Harbor”. Remember the howls of protest about FDR standing on his own two feet in PH? Or our British friends having a fit because U-571 seemed to indicate that the Americans, not the Brits captured the Enigma decoder?
The only complaint I have about casting so far is Pegg as Scotty, who seems very far from the mark, but I’ll keep an open mind.
Shatner has become a laughable caricature and would eliminate the chances of this film appealing to a broader audience. If Abrams panders to the Trek fanboys and gives Shat a significant role, then you’ll see a movie that will gross less than $100 million and will be a financial disaster, finally killing the franchise. Only the hardcore fans will watch it (several times) and then come here to nitpick over every perceived canon and hairstyling error. Almost everyone under 40 knows about Shatner only as a smirking, chubby, sarcastic buffoon from his recent TV commercials and series’ roles. They don’t know him as the confident and passionate leader who inspired scifi fans in the 60’s and 80’s. The only reason they can get away with having Nimoy in the movie is that he maintained a level of dignity after leaving TOS and didn’t become a pathetic clown as did Shat.
If you guys absolutely must see Shat in the movie, I hope they cast him as Harry Mudd – now THAT would be the only role that would remotely match his current standing in the entertainment business.
“The script is pretty good”
I’m not sure how to take that.
Too bad this guy has no idea about the Trek Universe, it might prove to be fatal. I think he has just about the olny major role, where the fans will not be harped on a previous version of the character. He has an opportunity to make Pkie all his, the original character played by Hunter was undeveloped and pretty much failed, resulting in the recasting from the pilot. If he gets caught up in recreating Hunter or not focusing on his role in the film, it will show.
#32… not to worry… he also said it’s different from the last few movies…. which is a very good thing.
#31
Agree that the Shat has become kind of a buffoon lately. I think it all Started with ST V and VI, maybe even a little in ST IV. Don’t get me wrong though, I still love the guy for his work in TOS, TMP, and TWOK.
I think Greenwood will be an excellent Pike!
33 – First, the captain was recast for the second pilot because Hunter refused to do it. It wasn’t because the character was a failure.
And, I think his unfamiliarity with the Trek universe could be a good thing. We’ve had actors in the prior Trek spinoffs who were complete fans, and turned in lackluster performances.
Even though there was no Trek universe at the time, TOS was stocked with actors who had little or no Sci-fi experience (Shatner was probably the most experienced), but all were good, solid, dramatic actors.
I like this is how the new movie is going, following that path to a degree.
#33 Huh? Bruce is a quality actor, who does his research, and has already expressed previously his knowledge of the role, and of Jeff Hunter, and now even knowledge of the last few movies. This is superb. We are expecting him to be portraying Pike 11 years or so after Talos, so agewise, he’s spot on. With hairstyling, makeup, and colored contacts, he’ll be able to “interpolate” between the post-Rigel-weary Pike of the Talos incident and the blinking-lights-in-a-chair-Pike. The character likely went through a lot, and I’m sure the script reflects an even wearier Pike, sustained by the fascination with exploration shown by his young half-Vulcan First Lieutenant… anyway…
#29 The best “fanex” (fan explanation) “retcon” of Glenn Corbett and Cromwell as Cochrane is this…. we know the Companion “rejuvenated” Cochrane. I imagine the 100 or so year old Cromwell was put through quite a lot of DNA resequencing, and whatever else the Companion did, perhaps even cloning him…. to achieve the Corbett look. *Big note! That would assure why Kirk and Spock were so very skeptical and disbelieving: Corbett didn’t look like the Cochrane statue in Bozeman that Geordi spoke of! Some have guessed that the Cromwell-era Cochrane also might have been suffering from radiation-related illnesses and such (he did sneeze a few times, yep.)
Greenwood’s a good match for Hunter at the same age of 51 or so…. because at 51 or so, Hunter was a corpse…
#31 “Almost everyone under 40 knows about Shatner only as a smirking, chubby, sarcastic buffoon from his recent TV commercials and series’ roles”
Absolute poppycock. Im under 30 and when I was growing up Star Trek was being shown at peak times on reruns.
Oh my God! People… it is A MOVIE! Get over it! I have been a trekkie since I was 3 years old watching the original episodes air and I am looking forward to this new movie to bring some life back into the old girl. Do we really want to see a bunch 60 something actors playing their original parts as geriatrics? Yes, I am a big fan of the original Trek movies with Shatner and the gang.. but honestly, give this new bunch a chance to shine. This new movie gives me hope of the future of the original Trek. The pure diehard “fanboys” should stay away from this movie and just stay in their basements watching the original episodes on VHS.. this way nothing is changed and their “childhood won’t be raped.”
We need a new version of Godwin’s Law which replaces “Kirk” for “Nazi” and “Shatner” for “Hitler”… The article’s about Pike and Greenwood.
BTW I got the Trek Remastered DVDs…surprised how many episodes were on the set that haven’t been run in syndication yet, and eps like “A Taste of Armageddon,” “Operation–Annihilate!” and “Court Martial” have some pretty cool stuff–you will finally find out where the “ion pod” is located for one thing…
33. Riker_doing_Troy – November 16, 2007
” Too bad this guy has no idea about the Trek Universe, it might prove to be fatal. I think he has just about the olny major role, where the fans will not be harped on a previous version of the character. He has an opportunity to make Pkie all his, the original character played by Hunter was undeveloped and pretty much failed, resulting in the recasting from the pilot. If he gets caught up in recreating Hunter or not focusing on his role in the film, it will show.”
I am glad he has no idea of the Trek Universe….Nick Meyer had no idea of the trek Universe and he created the most succesful Trek movie of all time.
#24 Spot on, I love the shat, but he has become a “buffoon” of sorts in his later years. Not sure he would work as Kirk anymore. If he’s not in the movie, I really don’t care.
Greenwood will be excellent as Pike. he is a great actor. He will do the research and play the character very well. So far Abrams has done a great job casting this movie. What a great time to be a Trek fan!!
#41
I have seen Operation Annihilate off of I-tunes but I am really looking forward to A taste of Armageddon and Return of the Archons. Question: Did they clean up the phaser effects in Archons?? Some of the worst phaser fx in the entire series run.
#31, 35
People like me who watch Boston Legal regularly are surely able to comprehend the depth of the Denny Crane character. Two Emmys are only one acknowledgement of this portrayal. And one can demand of a grown audience to distinguish between different parts acted by the same actor. Actors keep doing this all the time – it’s their job.
STIV is a fantastic movie and it is the most popular ST movie. But, it has a different approach; it’s humorous. This is not everyone’s cup of tea. The humour was delivered beautifully, and action as well as character-driven storytelling weren’t missed out. But if you don’t like the humorous approach or don’t understand that the most severe moments are often hidden behind humour or sarcasm, I suggest you either try harder or watch something else instead.
If an actor is able to portray different characters, to show the audience different sides – confidence and passion as well as burlesque qualities – and to do this very successfully, this only demonstrates his versatility and not his being a buffoon.
PS: I’m under 40.
@Anthony: no thread hijacking – I didn’t start the fire but I’ll take care to behave;-)
Iowagirl, it’s too late. I don’t think we will ever be able to have a thread here without the conversation turning to Shatner.
Are there any more spy pics? Maybe of some with Bruce in his Pike get-up? Wonder what Shatner’s opinion is on Greenwood?
Does anybody have an opinion on Shatner?
I’m officially launching the BBK movement – Bring Back (Sean) Kenney as Pike.
Not.
“and eps like “A Taste of Armageddon,” “Operation–Annihilate!” and “Court Martial” have some pretty cool stuff–you will finally find out where the “ion pod” is located for one thing… “
Jeff,
Any truth to the rumor that we get to see the Intrepid in “Court Martial”?
#45 — I don’t think Bruce starts filming yet….not for another week or so, IIRC.
“the original character played by Hunter was undeveloped and pretty much failed, resulting in the recasting from the pilot”
Yeah, he was definitely undeveloped, but I wouldn’t call it a failure. Hunter wasn’t let go from the second pilot, he was asked to return, but instead chose to focus on his film career.
Greenwood rules!!!! We are soooo lucky to have him cast as Pike. He is a professional actor, nominated several times for his outstanding performances, has nearly 100 acting credits under his name not to mention theatre credits….and people here are going to question his abilities?!?!?!?!
I cannot believe it. Here we have been given this great gift to Trek, Bruce Greenwood, and some doubt it. Give the guy the credit he is due.
p.s. by “abilities” i meant his ability to do the research, create a well rounded character and deliver a spectacular performance…which Greenwood has done over and over again.
#44
Get it through your head. This film is about the CHARACTERS of TOS and the UNIVERSE and the PHILOSOPHY of Star Trek.
It IS NOT a memorial to the hoary old actors who played the roles in TOS. Whether or not Shatner is the greatest actor in the universe is immaterial. He carries way too much typecasting baggage and the majority of the movie-going public, especially the younger public, will not accept him. It’s a good thing that most of the parts are being played by relatively young and lesser-known actors. It will allow the audience to focus on the story and not the real-life antics and personalities of the actors.
For similar reasons that I don’t want Shat (or even Nimoy for that matter) in the movie, I wouldn’t want to see any A-list actors either. They would serve as nothing more than a distraction. Star Trek needs fresh faces and a major reboot.
Also, please read my post more carefully. I said “MOST” people under 40. I did not say “ALL” people under 40. The fact that you and dalek are under 40 and enjoy TOS is admirable but it’s also an exception to the general rule. TOS and all of its progeny have a pitifully small viewership amongst younger people. There is a direct relationship between the popularity of Star Trek and the age of the viewer. I am in my 50’s and was one of the thousands of high school kids who wrote NBC pleading with them to renew TOS for another season in the late 60’s. However, amongst a typical group of teenagers and 20-somethings today, Star Trek is as nerdy and uncool as it gets….. just ask my 22 and 24 year old daughters and all of their friends.
The ONLY way that this new film will succeed and establish a new series of films and hopefully television series is to present a fresh look, fresh faces, and fresh stories. So far, that seems to be happening. I only hope that Abrams does not yield to the temptation to ruin it by adding Shat to the mix.
@29 no we complained more about his portrayal of the character and that Cochrane was from Alpha Centurai.
You know, we’re all having a chuckle over what Mr. Greenwood said about our opnions being “cut marble,” but there’s a deep underlying problem that we need to address as fans. The problem is: He’s right.
More than anything else, Star Trek is about an optimistic future where we overcome our petty squabbles and accept and embrace the differences between us. Change and forward momentum are not looked upon with suspicion and trepidation, they’re the catalyst that push us onward.
The general perception of the Trek fan base is the polar opposite of that, however. We publicly bicker over an actor’s height, weight, and eye color. We deem costume designs unacceptable from a few blurry photographs. Someone claims to see the design of the new Enterprise, he decides he didn’t like it and we howl that they’re denigrating us and insulting Trek because they’re not leaving it untouched.
Trek has always been at its best when it’s been fluid and adaptive. When it changes successfully, it brings new people to Trek fandom. Those newcomers never replace established Trek fans, they’re simply added to the ranks and they make all of us the better for it. Whether you prefer TOS, TAS, the TOS movies, TNG, the TNG movies, DS9, VOY, ENT, the Trek Novels, or any combination of the above, there’s a Star Trek for you and loving Trek makes you a part of Trek fandom. The fanbase is incredibly diverse, yet you’d never know it from looking at the public perception of us as a whole. We’re seen as stubborn, nit-picking, closed-minded and unwilling to embrace change.
That’s not something we should be laughing about. I’m not saying everyone should get behind this new movie and accept any changes blindly. That’s just as bad as what I’ve described above. All I’m suggesting is that we look forward to these upcoming changes and allow ourselves the opportunity to embrace them instead of closing ourselves of from them. If it turns out that this new film isn’t your cup of tea, then thankfully you still have all the other incarnations of Trek to remind you why you’re a fan.
In so many ways, this new movie truly represents “the final frontier.” It’s presenting us with something potentially different and largely unknown, and that’s a little scary. The challenge for us as Trek fans is how we determine to face it. Will we “boldly go,” or are we going to hide behind our safe, comforting wall of fandom, unable to accept or even believe that the coming changes might in fact be good for Trek?
If we don’t work to change the public perception of Trek fandom, then we’ll never live up to the tennants of Trek that we fervently claim to hold so dear. Let’s show Mr. Greenwood that his opinion of us (and the opinion of the public at large) is false by embracing the potential for change and a willingness to face this unknown with excitement and a sense of wonder.
Trek has endured because it CAN change and adapt. We should reflect that ourselves as fans. Let’s try to be a little more open, a little more optimistic, and less close-minded and judgmental. That’s all Trek has ever asked of us. It isn’t too much to ask, is it?
He was outstanding as JFK- did he do a dead on impersonation? No, not even close. But we dont want impersonators. His version of JFK came across as a leader and a quick and wise decision maker. That is exactly what we need in Pike.
Rest easy Trek fans, this was a good casting choice.
BTW, I dont see Pike as a great Star Trek captain. I mean, the guy was about to throw in the towel in the only episoide he ever appeared in! And when he was brought back, he needed to see the entire trip to Talos IV again before he changed his mind and decided to go!
I just don’t think its that hard to deal with different actors. I watch the New Voyages stuff (which is really alot of fun!) and I have no problem whatsoever seeing them as the characters they portray. JC as Kirk is fine with me, so I am sure this new guy will be too. Did you see how tall the guy that plays Pike was on the Doomsday ep of NV? Looked like a basketball player! Really liked that Quinn guy as Spock and both Uhuras are really hot.
I can hardly wait until Xmas next year!
yes but jeffery hunter hardly smiled like the publicity photo shows, I hope this isnt all paramount had to go by.
In a nutshell, Buckaroohawk, I would like to echo your feelings by adding that Trek fandom carries with it a personal sense of ownership. Probably because a lot of us are isolated from other fans and are without the trappings of conventions or perhaps because we are afraid to be mocked for our devotion to a TV show, series of books and movies, etc. This sense of ownership can sometimes manifest itself in a strange form of greedy behavior such as “my Trek is better than yours”, “you’re not a real fan like me because I was there from the beginning”, or my favorite, “I can recite all facts from all Star Trek without Google or some other sort of help.” This can make us fans start to bicker about so much minutae that we start to lose sight of the bigger picture. Throw in such polarizing things as the pro and anti Shatner people that has become such a big phenomenon as of late, and like Anthony says, we can’t seem to agree that water is wet.
I say let your Trek freak flag wave proud. The less hung up about ourselves we are perhaps the more readily we are to have an open mind about that which is unfamiliar, or “scary” to us. Like change.
Except don’t change the Enterprise. That would be scary.
I hope Star Trek is made at the highest level of literature cum Hollywood: the script crisp and tight; the acting based on classical techniques (even Shakespearean); the characters archetypical (even Shakespearean); the exposition deliberate and meaningful with a moral at the end.
I want Star Trek to be a classic for the ages, with something important to say to us, you know, like actual drama.
More than anything, it must not be snarky and wannabe hip like “Planet of the Apes” or some SciFi channel film school project.
If it’s taken seriously as literature (within Hollywood’s reality mind you), it will be a good film no matter what the Enterprise looks like or whether or not canon is observed.
Greenwood seems to have the dramatic background for a serious project. I’m not too sure about many of the others (especially the MILF dude and his buds) but in any case, JJ will set the tone.
Greenwood has nothing to worry about. There’s so many other things that will prob go wrong with this film.
^
Here we go again with the shatner LOVERS
#60-”I’m not too sure about many of the others (especially the MILF dude and his buds) but in any case, JJ will set the tone.”
Excuse me, what? You had me, you lost me. I am totally not following you here. Are you perhaps misusing the acronym MILF, or has that changed without my knowledge?
A comment in a related vein: People are griping about whether or not the characters will be believable in this new movie. However, I also have read lots of comments on these boards lauding “New Voyages” and how great it is that they’re continuing with new story lines of the crew from TOS, etc., etc., but I haven’t heard anyone criticize how unlike the original actors these new actors look. I mean, c’mon, Cawley as Kirk, looks-wise, is not that believable (nor are the other actors), but people are eating it up. I realize, of course, the difference that this movie is a big budget production and clearly has more resources and what not. Just my two cents, for what it’s worth.
Bravo, #55! Bravo!!!
55 & 59. I totally agree with you both. We want Trek to continue and thrive, but we need to let it go and change so that it can continue.
63 – Suspension of disbelief works better on the net.
I do applaud Cawley and company. But, frankly, a good part of that is that they are SO much better than my expectations. Perfect? Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelllllllllll no!
But, it’s good fun that only costs you zero quatloos, and infinite patience when the servers jam like Atlanta’s Downtown Connector during a Hooter’s convention.
Think I’m exagerating how “good” “World Enough and Time” is? Check out HiddenFrontiers. (On the other hand, Starship Exeter is fine for the net, too. I love that fans can do this much.) I slam Hidden, because of its chromo-sets, desperation casting, and decidely sublight pacing. I want fans to have fun, but editors are a Godsend.
#31, 53
- They don’t know him as the confident and passionate leader who inspired scifi fans in the 60’s and 80’s. –
- Whether or not Shatner is the greatest actor in the universe is immaterial. -
By saying the above, you confirmed that Shatner’s convincing portrayal of Kirk as the confident and passionate leader gave us the image we have of Kirk. So, your statement that whether or not Shatner is the greatest actor in the universe is immaterial is a direct contradiction to that.
- He carries way too much typecasting baggage and the majority of the movie-going public, especially the younger public, will not accept him. –
This “typecasting baggage” statement is a further contradiction, as in this case it was exactly Shatner’s typecasting that helped give Kirk his high recognition value to this day. If the younger public will not be able to recognize and accept Shatner’s typecasting that led to the character as he is known the world over, it will not be able to recognize and accept Kirk as a character at all. Apart from that, Nimoy’s typecasting made Spock one of the most iconic characters of pop culture, as well. The younger public will not be able to recognize and accept him, either. What a mess!
As for the fresh casts, I’m in favour of them. Never spoke out differently. I just want both, original and new, and I’m not in favour of disregarding the original. The younger public will have their fresh casts and we should have a bit more faith in their imagination.
PS: I’m not that much interested in the Pike character, but I even like Greenwood – although he isn’t that “fresh” anymore.
#45
You’re right – it’s too late. But on the other hand, if it was too late, we would give up. And I don’t want to give up; I still have some hope that this film can mean good ST although my doubts prevail.
I remember Greenwood from Nowhere Man. And I saw him in that movie where he played JFK. He’s a fine choice for Pike.
Now, I’d love to see that teaser Mr. Abrams is working on……
I really like Bruce Greenwood for this part, so much so that I hope Capt. Pike has a very large role. I see much of the back and forth in this post is about actor choices, including a knock on the Harold and Kumar guy. I don’t think a comedic actor is a problem at all. Many Shatner haters try to make a point that because he has lampooned his own legend, he cannot be taken seriously. Unbelievably stupid point of view. I do though feel that have the acting chops is very very important to make quality science fiction. Some fans criticism the technobabble of TNG or the over emotional DS9, but these shows had terrific actors, not simply pretty faces. That was my concern on this movie, that by needing to cast younger actors, Abrams was in fact lowering the acting experience bar. One problem I had with Voyager and Enterprise was that the casts often played down the intelligence of the characters. I mean, Harry Kim could do anything on the ship technical-wise, but they made him into a constant cry baby. Given J.J.’s resume (Felicity, Alias, Lost, MI:III) you’re going to see more character interaction and emotions, which is fine, but I hope that he doesn’t dumb down the dialogue for the sake of the mallrats.
^62
I’m not sure playing a college boy who wants to “do” moms is a good vitae for a serious role. I mean, for all [the actor that shall remain nameless]’s recent buffoonry, his stuff is not as offensive or demeaning as “Now there’s a MILF”.
But then I think of Kingdom of the Spiders and I get nauseous. Whatever. I just hope the actors are up to the material and I hope the material is first rate, not “American Pie in Space”.
today I’m choosing to be indifferent about this guy as Pike.
Anybody looking forward to Indiana4? i really am. And that ain’t taking forever to cast, shoot and put out there!
Captain Pike was an interesting character. I think given enough time we could have seen a difference in peformance. The show could have been canceled in 1 season instead of 3 or 4 seasons instead of 3. Spock was undeveloped until Nimoy was given time to settle in the role and make it his own. I hope that Greenwood will give the character a nice touch almost making us believe that we are looking at Hunter in some ways!!
This Captain was tired and stressed! He needed a rest from his duties, he was a complex person from what we gather about him. Shatner is legendary for being Captain Kirk, however can we digest him with the same seriousness we give to Nimoy automatically as Spock. We can only wait and see what they do with this film. I read rumors about there being a change in the Enterprise appearance! DONT be stupid and cause a riot! Roddenberry wanted the Enterprise under Pike to look the way we all remember it. So I hope they dont alter HISTORY!!
Pike = Qui Gon = Ras Al Gul
In other words, I bet Pike is the “wise mentor” figure to a young spock.
…so you have now closed commentson my debate eh Anthony?
your a narrowminded geek anti shatner shit head mouth peice for abrams nimoy andf their ilk…
you and your site make me puke!
“I’m not sure playing a college boy who wants to “do” moms is a good vitae for a serious role. I mean, for all [the actor that shall remain nameless]’s recent buffoonry, his stuff is not as offensive or demeaning as “Now there’s a MILF”.
But then I think of Kingdom of the Spiders and I get nauseous. Whatever. I just hope the actors are up to the material and I hope the material is first rate, not “American Pie in Space”. ”
Yes, Frank Cho has done some low brow comedies. I’m not trying to be rude, ya’ll our entitled to an opinion, but can we all get over this now? People have this tendancy to assume that the one thing we’ve from an actor is the only thing they can do, and that’s usually not the case.
Harold and Kumar was one of the better stoner comedies (I dare say it had intelligent crude humor) and Cho’s character had a real arc a grew as a character by the end. He was actually quite confident and heroic at times in the film. I think he will do just fine.
Anthony, #75 is why was need a ‘penalty zone’ thread. I’m against censorship, but something like so-called William Shatner’s (ugh) comment make this look like other, less evolved blogs.
my two cents.
Shatner is Star Trek, as the passion here demonstrates.
This whole thread was supposed to be about the new guy playing Captain Pike, but yet again Shatner dominates even this conversation.
Shatner would create such a huge buzz around the new film the writers + producers would be foolish to keep him out in the cold.
#77
Agreed – but look, he even didn’t manage to spell his name correctly.
#73-pcumby
..WHOA WHOA WHOA….you mean Bruce Greenwood is REALLY modern screen legend and award winning actor LIAM NEESON in disguise.??!?!??!!???…..whoa that’s deep. who knew…who knew…
OK, I’ll go one further. Since I’m as guilty as anyone of missing the point of a given thread, how about the “penalty box” consist of entries that are off-topic… in addition to those that contain personal attacks. (Flaming? I’m slow on jargon.) Anyway, I don’t want to see anyone shut up, no matter how much I disagree with him. But, they could be shunted off to another place. Dunno. Whatcha think?
#76 — I agree. I think Cho did a fine job in the episode of “House” he was in (I think it was called “Love Hurts” or something), and that was a far cry from low-brow comedy.
#71 –
It took them 5 years to write the script. They already had 75% of the principal cast established and returning.
Is that what you would call a fast turnaraound?
Yes, once they began shooting the film, it was a relatively quick production in Hollywood standards, but Spielberg has directed dozens of films…this is JJ’s second big budget directing job.
Hmm interesting #81.. but isn’t your post off topic? :P
yes. no penalize me, coach! (i love pain)
Actually, there should be a separate penalty box for all off-topic entries that talk about the wonderfulness of Shatner.
FUKC – For Unwanted Kirk Comments.
Greenwood looks the part, he has shown chops in several roles and I don’ t remember him giving a bad performance in anything.
I think this is one of the best casting moves they’ve made.
#85 “Actually, there should be a separate penalty box for all off-topic entries that talk about the wonderfulness of Shatner.”
As well as for all the bashers, who are every bit as vocal, but without all that pesky positivity.
On topic: Saw The Menagerie on the big screen last night. Coolness. Greenwood will own.
-SF2K (also well under 40)
Shatner has posted here folks. Didn’t you see it? He even said ‘eh’. Only true Canadians say ‘eh’…it’s proof.
yea agreeing with alot of people on the site , i mean there is no worries about greenwood, he can act , and while i am not sure about some of the other actors i can see them growing into the roles (hope there are a few movies) but he will be good from day one , hope there is alot of pike in the movie now
Who said Shatner would generate a huge buzz around the film.
^
Hey this is the huge buzz!!!!!
If shats in picture it will be a comedy
Only a few people have commented on Greenwood saying that the script is “pretty good.” All the other actors who have commented on the script have been pretty emphatic about it, but him not so much. I wonder if that has to do with the fact that he’s not a Star Trek fan.
And speaking of off topic, I just encountered this incredibly funny (and catchy) music video starring Picard:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6oUz1v17Uo
#91
No offense but who cares about Greenwood? He is just another actor playing a role in a Star Trek project.
While on the other hand William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy are Star Trek.
It will be a sin if Shatner is not allowed to be involved.
#92 – Get Over It
Greenwood is a great actor and not just another actor.
A sin you say if Shatner isnt in the movie? ‘Pull My Finger’
OH much dismay and shock… an actor with an opinion.
#93
This is Greenwood subject and nobody is talking about him. Nothing against him, but they simply don’t care.
They want Shatner back
I am really pissed about this casting choice. Bruce Greenwood looks NOTHING like Sean Kenney!
I officially gave up on this movie when they decided not to resurrect Chuck Clow so we can see him onscreen with Leonard Nimoy one last time. Recasting is a disaster.
Just wondering: has anyone photoshopped a pic of Greenwood as Pike?
I refuse to see the film if Chuck Clow isn’t in it. He IS trek.
#55- Buckaroohawk-
Thank you for a thoughtful, fair-minded, mature, and wise post. Last week I put up a post mocking the mindless rage that pervades the comments at this site at times. So I am truly appreciative of your words. For only when darkness is manifest, light can truly sparkle with great zest.
Two quotes from TOS in relation to the upcoming movie come to mind. Perhaps, just perhaps, fans might consider heeding them.
Kirk- ST VI- “People can be frightened of change.”
Spock- Let That Be Your Last Battlefield-
“Change is the essential process of all existence.”
No free rides for the movie, but how about an openness to change, while honoring the past too? Are we capable of that?
#99 And #55
I think we should start swaying. “Kumbaya…”
76 – His name’s John Cho, not Frank Cho.
This man is a fine actor and will do good things with the part he’s taking on. I found Hunter to be wooden and more Vulcan than Spock. There’s a lot that can be done with this character.
*****************************************************
Regarding Shatner…
For those of you with strong opinions either way… you don’t think we already know what you want? Both sides keep hammering away to gain what? Respect? Influence over the story or casting?
But none of you dares let up…the other side may “win”..
What a bunch of BS. Grow up boys and girls.
While Bruce Greenwood’s appraisal is undeniably true — canon is a subject that gets discussed a lot by the posters on this site, myself included — it may not be the best PR move on his part to immediately start in commenting on the “Trekkies” (probably should have said “Trekkers” to be safe, not that I care). It would behoove him to engross himself in the role, and take cues from Hunter’s performance but not go so far as to “impersonate” him, as others have already said, and just forget about the fans (who, after all, are not of one mind on just about anything) until after the film premieres.
101 – Yeah, you’re right, its John Cho. My mistake. Frank Cho is the guy who writes and draws the comic Liberty Meadows if anyone cares.
103 – I don’t expect Greenwood to know the difference between “Trekkies” and “Trekkers”.
Greenwood will do an excellent job. His essay of JFK in Thirteen Days was at least to me more compelling than the William Devane essay of JFK in The Missles of October.
At any rate, what is the point of hiring Greenwood anyway? To produce a cloned imitation of Jeff Hunter? Or to provide more insight into the character of Captain Pike? I would think most viewers of the upcoming Star Trek film would prefer the latter. They don’t give a damn about what Jeff Hunter looked like in 1964, ok??? Remember that.
Without Shatner as Captain Koik, only Kirk Douglas should play him!
#105: “103 – I don’t expect Greenwood to know the difference between “Trekkies” and “Trekkers”.”
No one does – they’re not actually closely defined terms. One man’s trekker is another man’s trekkie.
I wonder….could it be that they (the producers) might use a variation of the Enterprise – J and the one from Star Trek Phase II?
Apparently, those who have seen it say it has a contemporary trek look (whatever that means), and that is has been updated. It’s ‘very federation like’, so at least there is hope.
Here’s a prayer for those fans out there, like me who want to retain the essence of the past:
Dear Lord,
Please giveth us an Enterprise worthy of the Great Bird,
Two nacelles to carry her to the heavens,
A Saucer, Secondary Hull and Deflector Dish of equal and divine proportions,
And may her size not exceed a crew standards compliment of 430.
Amen.
And sadly, despite our false hopes, it does not have wings or flames on the side *sigh*.
Contemporary Trek look means lots of needless pastel colours, flashing lights and multi-coloured hulls. Yuk.
#82 – Ooh, that was him in that House episode? Okay, I take it all back. I was really worried about John Cho as Sulu but now I’m happy.
I’m glad that the Enterprise will have a “contemporary look”. The Federation ships have always been by far the most boring amongst the space-faring peoples of the Trek universe. Bland, featureless, grey hulls. Clunky, ugly nacelles which in any real engineering sense, would make the vessel structurally unstable and vulnerable during a firefight or other forms of internal/external stress.
Insisting on an exact replica of TOS Enterprise. complete with toggle switches, pushbuttons, and cathode-ray tube computer screens; is as foolish as insisting that the new actors look like clones of the original actors.
This movie is all about TOS characters, universe, and philosophy. As far as I’m concerned, they can totally redesign/repaint the Enterprise, as long as they keep the most basic design features: nacelles, saucer, engineering section, deflector; and it makes sense within the context of technology and engineering principles which are two centuries more advanced than our own time.
113.
You got it all wrong, brudda.
#113
Unfortunately, this boring, ugly and – despite its unstable structure and vulnerability – undefeated ship is the most glorious and iconic representative of the TOS universe the movie happens to be about.
#113 – No way. While the Sovereign-class Enterprise-E is my favorite, the refit Constitution class 1701 is my second favorite, and the pre-refit Constitution class 1701 is a close third place (The Excelsior, Galaxy, and Ambassador classes don’t do it for me at all; I like the NX-01, but only in its place in pre-Federation history). The Constitution class, in both its original and refit versions, is an elegant ship design, and what is more, it is highly distinctive.
Also, from an engineering standpoint, the fact that the nacelles keep the engines away from the living areas is exactly correct. It’s true that, if they were providing thrust, they should be directly behind the center of mass of the ship and not at an angle to it, but I can live with that for the sake of the aesthetics. And, actually, if you want to get really technical, the whole concept of “Warp” should not be equated with propulsion in the Newtonian sense of the term. So, if you really want to complain, you should point out that the ship should not be moving forward when it goes to warp, and instead adopt the reimagined BSG approach to FTL drive, where the ship disappears from one location and reappears in another. But that would be a reimagining too far for Star Trek in my book.
Addendum — From an engineering point of view, about the only fictional spaceship that is accurate is the Discovery One from 2001: A Space Odyssey. Don’t get me wrong, I love that ship, but do you *really* want Star Trek to be thinking in those terms, a vision of the future very rigorously extrapolated from the realities of spaceflight as we understand them today?
Bring back the original Enterprise!
Ah well, it makes a change from you know who… ;)
However, in the spirit of this thread’s true intent, can I just say that I hope we see a LOT of the excellent Bruce Greenwood on screen in this role.
I, for one, am excited to see to see the new incarnation of TOS-era Trek. Unlike some fans here, I actually enjoyed “Enterprise” (once I was able to view it on DVD) more than the other spin-offs. For this to work for anyone other than TOS purists (and for the film to be financially successful it has to), the special effects will have to impress, and the technology will have to pass as 23rd century. Thank God we won’t see a washed-up Shat (are there fat star fleet officers in the 23-24th century? I hope not). Let’s see why Captain Kirk became a starship captain at age 34, what the Enterprise NCC-1701 was like with a crew of only 203 during the Pike years, and how a younger Spock carried himself and his conflicting human-vulcan blood. How will Sulu, Uhura, Checkov, and Scotty fit into a story set prior to Kirk’s command (or will it be?). I can’t wait.
Enterprise E is too much a post Star Wars influenced design.They need to go back to TOS design and elaborate on that.Star Wars infuenced Trek too much making them seem like also rans.Star Trek needs to stand on it’s own visually.
…Oh yeah,and Greenwood’s gonna be great.
#117
Glad you brought up 2001, I’ve been waiting for a chance to mention that…
Actually, the Discovery was modified from it’s original design. Kubrick chose to leave huge solar panels off of the ship because he felt it would confuse the audience (get this):
“Our audience had enough to figure out besides having to wonder why a spaceship needed wings.”
-from “The Lost Worlds or 2001″ by Arthur C. Clarke
#122 – With big solar wings, the Discovery One would look so much like the ISS (or rather, the other way around), it would be funny.
#120 – Sorry, but the Enterprise-E looks like nothing out of Star Wars. I am as big a fan of Star Wars, prequels included, as I am of Star Trek, so you’ll have to be pretty specific: name one ship type it looks like out of Star Wars.
The wonderful thing about the design of the original TOS enterprise, is how understated it is. Perhaps this was budgetary, but I don’t think it could all be attributed to that. Matt designed the Enterprise with ‘the future’ in mind. Now, some folks idea of the future may be different from mine, but I tend to agree with Gene’s philosophy that technology will not be apparent. Look around at some of the technology we have today and compare it to technology of the last 10 to twenty years! Cell phones, ipods, laptops…look how sleek and clean they have become, but the power they have is hardly given away by their appearance. If you go even further back, look how much automobiles have changed to become less bulky. That’s the genius of the original design, it’s simplicity. Everything was restrained, and contained within the ship. There was no hints of weaponry, but when the time came…the ship was more than able to represent itself.
I think JJ and crew would do very well to rethink their position, and try to stay closer to the original aesthetic. It doesn’t have to be a complete replica of the original ship, that would be unrealistic…it does have to change a bit. My only true fear is that they’re going to take the same tired route and pimp the Enterprise with gaudy panels and a bulky, design which completely removes the 23rd century sensibilities of the original.
In my opinion, Jefferies allowed himself to think like a 23rd century designer (taking some creative liberties for aesthetics of course), the current designers need to do the same.
Oh, but I forgot to say, as much as I like the Sovereign class, I want the Enterprise to look like the pre-refit Constitution class 1701 in Star Trek XI, only with attention to fine details (hull details, seeing into the interior through windows, etc.). Also, maybe it can have a metallic skin instead of white (like it hasn’t been painted white yet – this would also give continuity with the NX-01). But in its overall shape, it should be largely the same as what we see in the TOS TV show.
The tricky thing with re-imaginings or fresh approaches in order to reach a new target group is the risk of losing relation. They’re walking a tightrope – one step too far and the new, young public won’t be able to relate the film to the established universe; in fact, they won‘t be able to relate the film to anything at all. There will be no reliable references. They will see something that’s actually “new” to them, so the primary goal is attained, but the film won’t fit in the ST line, won’t be coherent. IMO, messing with one of the, maybe THE most recognisable symbol of the established lore, the grand old Lady, will cut across that fine line.
Who cares what the ship looks like?
S.T. is at it’s best when it focuses on it’s great characters and humanity in general.
I hope that tptb don’t turn this into a fx driven film that has little to do with the characters.
I should add that I don’t think that will be the case.
#116 I always felt the nacelles were simply the warp field generators (however you want to explain what that is), and it was the impulse engines that provided the actual thrust or momentum. How many times had The Enterprise E generated a “static” warp field for various reasons? In those instances there was no movement. It was their spacing and placement that allowed the field to encompass the ship.
127. VOODOO -
“Who cares what the ship looks like? ”
Uhm..me, and many others? The original design has never gotten a true big screen treatment. The recent screening of “The Menagerie” was the closest we have gotten, and the ship looks magnificent on a larger screen. They really put a lot of detail into that CGI model.
Would be nice if they did a special screening of ST:TMP as well. I would love to see that on the big screen for once.
#127
Voodoo, I certainly share your doubts concerning the film – but I still think that the main TOS characters have that virtually symbiotic relation with the Enterprise, so that you cannot talk about TOS without considering the ship‘s importance, particularly with respect to Kirk.
Greenwood portrayed JFK in Thirteen Days, not Thirteen Day, you freakin’ morons.
I think the ‘big screen” NCC-1701 will look much as it did in TOS. The beauty of this is, there was never a true close-up of the TOS era Enterprise (unless you consider the DSN episode “Trials-and-Tribblations” brief shot to be a close-up), so the “modern” look should be in its detail, and the overall look is unlikely to be tampered with.
I am more concerned with the keeping of a canon storyline, particularly in regards to the characters we all know and love. I am certain that Abrams is aware of the “tightrope” he is walking, but the rope gets no tighter than when it comes to characters and plot. Will the subplot be a story which takes place in between “The Cage” and “Where No Man Has Gone Before”, with the main plotline involving a 24th Century Spock racing to defeat time-travelling Romulans? Will the involvement of the TOS-era characters predate Kirk’s command, and if so, how is the involvement of Sulu, Scotty, Uhura, etc. justified? This will either be an astonishing success(Wrath of Khan), or an abhorrent failure(The Final Frontier), and much more of it rides on characters and plotlines than on the detail of the NCC-1701 model. I am afraid that the life or death of the franchise could be in the balance this time around.
I would like Enterprise to be white, but they could do alternating pearlescent / flat panels ala TMP Enterprise.
#129 and #132 — You coud NOT have stated it any better!!!! Keep it up!!!
Figured this was as good a place as any to post this:
The WGA strike has postponed production on Angels and Demons, the “Da Vinci Code” prequel starring Tom Hanks. It was scheduled to start shooting in February.
What does this mean for Trek? It means that Hanks now could be available to play the “Federation Captain” role that’s confirmed for the film, if the scenes required for the character were being shot during February or March.
It’s interesting to point out, however, that curiously enough, Hanks wasn’t publicly attached to any project that was scheduled to film from now until February. He could already be in the film for all we know.
#127 ‘Nuff Said. I take it you have come to the party late, and do not remember the many story lines revolving around saving the ship. She was, and is still considered by many, to be an equal character in the series.
While the Next Gen and subsequent series played down how important saving the ship was (Kirk’s impassioned speeches could never be matched), the TOS era saw the ships as a massive investment, and literally were more important than their crews.
#131
Joe Mama you need to lighten up. The lack of an ’s’ is enough to drive you to call people ‘morons’?
Lighten up and make your comments count, please. Insults don’t reflect well on you.
All I care about is if Shatner is in the film as Kirk post nexus. Nothing more, nothing less.
With the “Guardian of Forever” of as the “Mcguffin” it would be very easy to get Shatner in the film as Kirk.
If Shatner does not showup it is simply because he was not wanted by Abrams and co.
4 18 15 16 23 42 .#123.I think the ship that was destroyed by Kruge in ST 3 is a good example of post Star Wars influenced spaceship design.Star Wars ships have that cladding that the Enterprise E had in comparison to the smooth futuristic shapes of TOS.
the enterprise was upstaged for cinematic impact by the imperial star destroyer from SW 4 : A New Hope.That ship was impressive because of it’s sheer mass and the way it was photographed.The new E needs to make some kind of impression.I think they should go for beauty and detail while for the first time showing it up close(directional thrusters and other minute details).
#135
You won’t have to worry about Trek during this strike. The script is locked, plus as you all know, filming has started. Even if they wanted to make changes, they can’t. Even if they do figure out a way to get Kirk in the film, they can’t write it in because of the strike. That said, overall, Trek will not be affected and it will not be postponed or pushed back. I think everyone feels confident that the script is great and no changes will be necessary.
re:141
“I think everyone feels confident that the script is great and no changes will be necessary.”
Not everyone shares that confidence.
142 – I said nothing about changes to the script. I said nothing of negative effects on Trek. I said that Tom Hanks’ schedule is now freed up, and if the role of the “Federation Captain”, which Anthony has confirmed to be its own role in the script, has not been cast yet, then Tom Hanks is now available to fill that role no matter when the scenes for that role are to be filmed.
> Here’s a prayer for those fans out there, like me who want to retain the
> essence of the past:
Isn’t “prayer” a rather inappropriate response to anything related to the defiantly atheistic nature of ‘Star Trek’?
Not that I disagree with your actual point about the ship…
Praying is always appropriate. Especially for an atheist…lol!!!!
145–Star Trek, in my opinion, is not so much atheistic, as all-inclusive. The Federation welcomes everyone, as long as they do not harm others. So essentially every conceivable spiritual belief is represented.
Great choice for Pike!
But where is Anthony? 2 days with no news?
#141 Oh no, I disagree. The star destroyer was shot from an interesting angle to convey its size at the beginning of SW, but it always looked like a flying iron.
The Enterprise of TMP was, and is, the finest looking space ship ever filmed. From a technical viewpoint, the model was the high water mark of the craft, and could be filmed believably from about 1/8″. Aesthetically, no other fictional vessel packs the same emotional punch as the Enterprise. I would further argue that no factual vessel ever built is as recognizable as the Enterprise. The refit was subtle enough to still say it was Kirk’s ship. And the TMP Enterprise was the best lit, most massive looking, and overall most impressive version of a federation ship ever filmed. Trumbull or Dykstra were quoted as saying that they approached the lighting problem of the Enterprise in deep space (no nearby sun) to that of an ocean liner at sea at night, providing her own illumination. Too bad they never got it quite right again.
And the reveal in TMP remains the most poignant few minutes ever devoted to a ship. (btw, ST 2008 may be well advised to avoid a similar reveal as it would be hard pressed to match TMP). Nothing in SW is as touching, or memorable.
Oh, and don’t get me started on 2001. Puh-leeze.
What #149 said, both re/TOS 1701 and the refit 1701 from TMP. I studied engineering and ship design because of that film, and that reveal sequence.
Hey Lostrod,
Suck on my enormous warp engine nacelle. You freakin’ MORON!
JC, I have to respectfully disagree. It seems to me what you’re saying is that surface detail (”cladding”, which I take to mean pronounced hull plating) is a Star Wars trait. It is not. Star Wars made it famous, because it helps to give its ships a sense of scale and an “industrial” look, but the folks who did “Silent Running” (1972) — special effects team includes Dykstra (of Star Wars fame) and Douglas Trumbull (who was part of the visual effects team of Star Trek: The Motion Picture) — made ships that feature a great deal of pronounced hull plating and fine surface detail (in the kit-bash vein). The visual effects revolution that blossomed in the seventies has made an all-around impact because it lends credibility to the spaceships in terms of scale in relation to the “mass” of the ship. This is a feature that is not going away, because it is unilaterally superior to the older method. I still say you can take the pre-refit Constitution class 1701 shape and give it very SUBTLE fine surface detail (”Wow, who knew there was a porthole just there?” or “What is that little panel just above the forward window for?”) without compromising its overall shape.
You have to respect the Enterprise, because the Enterprise is a character, just like Kirk, Spock, etc.
#31. “Shatner has become a laughable caricature and would eliminate the chances of this film appealing to a broader audience. If Abrams panders to the Trek fanboys and gives Shat a significant role, then you’ll see a movie that will gross less than $100 million and will be a financial disaster, finally killing the franchise. ”
Perhaps the most absurd shatner related post I have ever read here-ever.
Just another Shatner basher.
117… “Addendum — From an engineering point of view, about the only fictional spaceship that is accurate is the Discovery One from 2001: A Space Odyssey. ”
I think the most realistic fictional spacecraft seen to date are the Eagles from “Space: 1999″. They just look RIGHT. The Messiah from “Deep Impact” was a pretty damned good design, too. A lot of thought clearly went into both of those.
I haven’t seen Deep Impact, but I will grant you that the Eagles from Space: 1999 are extremely realistic — they are clearly very closely inspired by Apollo-era designs. In terms of being both realistic and futuristic, however, 2001’s Discovery One still wins for me.
I can’t see Hanks in a Star Trek film unless its a comedy.
Go! Greenwood!
#151
Joe Mama – are you, what? 10 years old?
Anthony – can you do something about the hate mongering here?
Thanks.
Boy, I go away to Las Vegas for a week on business, come back, start reading some of the many posts made while I was gone and, lo and behold, the yogurt has hit the fan!! Can’t you kiddies play nice while Daddy is gone for a few days?? Jiminy Tiberius Crickett!!
Some would say Trekkie, some would say Trekker
Hell, at this point, you can call me Captain Decker
Let’s get on with the show
Come hell or more dough
If the movie stinks, they can kiss my….
……jingle bells, jingle bells……………………..
I wondered where you went Mr. Ballz.
Oooh, it’s nice to be missed!
#135 – Let’s hope not.
Stanky
You ain’t gonna like it, so just don’t go.
What are we arguing about again?
There once was a fella by the name Stanky
Who couldn’t let go of old Trek, quite frankly
He huffed and he blustered
On some days he flustered
But, soon made clear we deserved a spanky!
i need more trek movie news
#156 “I can’t see Hanks in a Star Trek film unless its a comedy.
Go! Greenwood!”
You must’ve been absent the day Hanks starred in Philadelphia, Forrest Gump, Apollo 13, Saving Private Ryan, Road to Perdition, etc, etc. I don’t think he’s made a straight up comedy since Big in 1988. Is there any room left on Khan’s sleeper ship?
Y’know, I was just thinking (watching the repeat of the TOS-R “Doomsday Machine”) that Hanks would make a great Commodore Decker.
167, so true. Tom Hanks in a comedy now would almost be like squandering his dramatic talent.
#167 Hanks should have been Cochrane in First Contact. He could have brought some of the best aspects of the characters he has played so well in his other films into the role.
Let’s hope he gets a good role in the new film.
#154 I agree 200%-the Eagles were very believable as an all-purpose vehicle. And the first season of Space:1999 is one of the most compelling programs ever broadcast, before Fred Frieberger “Americanized” it in Season 2. He’s the same guy who presided over the last year of TOS, BTW.
Just wondering. Isn’t Bruce Greenwood a bit old to be playing Pike in the time that This is supposed to take place.
I think JJ made a mistake not casting an “A” list actor in this role.
#172 pg
‘A’ list isn’t always the best way to go. Bruce is a very fine actor, and won’t be distractingly ‘famous’…
Test post
Lostrod,
I’m actually only 9 years old. Hate mongering? HA HA HA! Don’t flatter yourself. I only dislike you lots, you’re not worth hating.
Have a nice day.