20% off Everything At FandangoNOW

Tom Cruise Still Not In Star Trek

It is easy to lose count on the “Tom Cruise will be in Star Trek” rumors, but they are back again. On Thursday MSNBC reported Tom Cruise visited the set of Star Trek (something we reported in January). Even though the article noted it was “just a social call” the headline “Tom Cruise joining ‘Star Trek’ cast?” was very misleading (they also refered to Nimoy as ‘Dr. Spock’…geez).

Other supposedly legit news sites picked up on the MSNBC story and some even removed the question mark, creating the headline “Scoop: Tom Cruise Joining ‘Star Trek’ Cast.” These stories of course led to more speculation and rumors spreading across the interweb.

So once again…Tom Cruise is not in Star Trek. He is friends with JJ Abrams and a Trek fan. Like many other Hollywood folks he wanted to visit the set (more than once). That’s that…moving on.

Sort by:   newest | oldest
Mr. Poopey face(formerly known as Closettrekker)
March 29, 2008 12:19 pm

No news. I couldn’t see it happening anyway.

CmdrR
March 29, 2008 12:28 pm

Not even just an eensy-weensy flaming attack? Awwww. OK.

Actually, I’m sure Spock has more doctoral degrees than I have hairs, so you could give MSNBC a pass on that one.

I’ll also throw out this: When Cruise ‘acts,’ he’s quite good. When he appears as a ‘star,’ I’d just as soon pass. I think he did great work in ‘Collateral.’ If he’s willing to not mug for the camera, then throw an admiral’s smock on him and let him be in this movie… or the next one.

Garovorkin
March 29, 2008 12:33 pm

for a time there was a rumor of him being considered for the role of Christopher Pike and you know what. He would not been a bad choice at all, Tom Cruise is a really good actor.

The Vulcanista
March 29, 2008 12:39 pm

It’s astounding how a major new outlet got this “scoop” so wrong. I mean, aside from the rumor being waaaay past its expiration date, the movie’s principal production wrapped days before this started popping up again.

Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|

Mr. Poopey face(formerly known as Closettrekker)
March 29, 2008 12:47 pm

#5—-Cruise is big news all the time. Any excuse to the major media outlets is a good excuse. And to be fair, there probably were not many outsiders who knew that he had even visited the set. Whoever wrote the story at MSNBC was probably short on good stuff this week and needed a filler. Anything with the name Tom Cruise in it is probably acceptable to the editors for that purpose.

The Vulcanista
March 29, 2008 1:04 pm

#6

Sad.

I guess it’s pointless to ask major media outlets for some journalistic integrity, like fact-checking, before putting a story out there. Trekmovie could teach ’em a thing or two about what these yahoos should have learned in Journalism 101.

Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|

Izbot
March 29, 2008 1:05 pm

Yeah I couldn’t help but send the link, Anthony. Sorry. Still, I hope Tom appears in this film or its’ inevitable sequels. I still think he’s a fine actor and an undeniable box office draw. I saw another article yesterday on imdb.com that says Tom and Viacom chief (and therefore Paramount bigwig) Sumner Redstone have buried the hatchet in their very public feud. I can’t help but wonder if there is maybe some possibilty that Tom will be making one of the high profile cameos Greg Grunberg hinted at recently. As noted elsewhere just because pricipal photography has wrapped doesn’t mean that extra scenes can’t be filmed in the next few months. Peter Jackson was doing pick-up shots on the LotR films with pricipal actors long after pricipal photography had officially ended.

As for Dr. Spock’s appearance in the film I find it troubling. First, he was a baby doctor (a doctor for babies not a baby who was a doctor). Second, I believe he’s dead. I hope there will be no paternity ward on the Enterprise. Everytime I see one of these gaffs made by the media I’m reminded of Patrick Stewart’s hilarious opening monologue on SNL many years ago where he got everyone on TOS’s name wrong. “Space! The last frontier! These are the trips of the Star Trek Enterprise!”

Garovorkin
March 29, 2008 1:12 pm

#8 I agree having Cruise in a Trek film would be a very sound move because his box office clout couldn’t. If anything he could huge draw for the movie.

Izbot
March 29, 2008 1:14 pm

6. “Whoever wrote the story at MSNBC was probably short on good stuff this week and needed a filler.”

This news item was from gossip columnist Courtney Hazlett’s regular column The Scoop. It usually is comprised of rumors and notions that are fairly insubstantial and lacking in detail or verification of any kind. In other words: Yes, a slow week and this came from the slush pile. Must be hard to come up with stuff to write about since Lindsey Lohan stopped drinking and Britney Spears is taking her meds.

Izbot
March 29, 2008 1:16 pm

I just noticed in my little spiel in #8 I managed to misspell “principal” three times. There’s an ‘n’ in there!

snake-o
March 29, 2008 1:17 pm

i bet hes in it in a cameo as Captain April or someone..

c’mon hes a fan…hes mates with abrams..starred in MI 3…and he visited the set for a day

He’s BOUND to be in it…

Hanks as well

I’ll eat my trek movie dvd collection if Cruise isnt in it

Jim
March 29, 2008 1:22 pm

If you had the power to visit any set in Hollywood (because you were Tom Cruise) wouldn’t you visit the Star Trek set?

March 29, 2008 1:32 pm

This is officially my favorite headline ever on this board. *snorfle*

Hat Rick
March 29, 2008 1:40 pm

Cruise in Trek? Mission improbable.

fred
March 29, 2008 1:49 pm

#6 True, but why involve Star Trek? Why not just write a new “Tom Cruise is still a freak” story. It’s certainly more believable.

Viking
March 29, 2008 1:52 pm

I’m not here to slam Cruise or his beliefs – he yam what he yam – but thank you, Jesus. It would be like wearing purple socks with brown shoes – distracting.

JGC
March 29, 2008 2:12 pm

Tom Cruise could have been a Ferenge character twenty years ago, before he had his teeth done.
Harsh but true.

SillyBob
March 29, 2008 2:28 pm

I like Tom Cruise as an actor, I think he’s a very good actor, I’m not gonna talk about what I think of him outside the entertainment world, but I will say that no matter how much I enjoy him as an actor I enjoy Star Trek more and would never want to see him in it.

Izbot
March 29, 2008 2:33 pm

16. “True, but why involve Star Trek? Why not just write a new “Tom Cruise is still a freak” story. It’s certainly more believable.”

I hate to point this out but a lot of those media types thing Star Trek is for weirdos who live in their moms’ basements. They also think Cruise is a weirdo who believes in alien overlords. They want to say, “See? Star Trek is wacky sci-fi, Scientology is wacky sci-fi and now Tom Cruise (representing Scientology) is endorsing Star Trek by appearing in it. Star Trek = Scientology! Gene Roddenberry and L. Ron Hubbard were probably college roommates!”

If you don’t believe me just read the Simon Pegg interview that appears ahead of this article. The LA Times goes out of its way to belittle Star Trek as a ‘total nerdfest’.

Thelin
March 29, 2008 2:40 pm

MSNBC is clueless. I thought FOX News was bad, but MSNBC is worse.

March 29, 2008 2:59 pm

14: “Snorfle?”

That One Guy
March 29, 2008 3:05 pm

I should be crying about him NOT being in Trek because……?

I cannot think of one logical, plausible reason why I should. I’ll be just fine if he remains out of it. Actually, I’ll be be filled with glee if he stays out.

-Lord Xenu

AJ
March 29, 2008 3:42 pm

Who the hell is “Dr. Spock?” Did he go back to school? ,-)

Maurício
March 29, 2008 3:46 pm

And I couldn’t care LESS about that. After all, what the purpose?

Garovorkin
March 29, 2008 3:49 pm

#24 A J I believe that the late Dr Spock wrote probably the most famous baby book of all.

bobfred
March 29, 2008 4:14 pm

I hate tom cruise, so glad he’s not in it
on another note, I once had a teacher call him dr. spock also

Ensign Ro- (Short for Roland)
March 29, 2008 4:18 pm

I may not share Mr. Cruise’s beliefs or care for the way he conducts himself during interviews, but I will say I have enjoyed a majority of his acting work. Even in some of the lesser-quality movies…whuch I won’t name…his acting was still on par. I thoroughly enjoyed him in Minority Report. However, Cruise in a Star Trek film? I just can’t picture it.

And as I have stated in a previous post…everyone knows Dr. Spock is a character on Star Track. ;-)

And to Anthony…as always, great job with this site. I don’t envy you trying to appease all these fans for the next 400 plus days. With the premiere delayed and no news on future trailers or promo pics, you do indeed have your work cut out for you. Best of luck, my friend. And thank you for expanding this site to include so many other great topics. I particularly enjoy Kayla’s articles. Once again, thank you to you and your talented crew.

Balock
March 29, 2008 4:20 pm

WTF does trek need that guy?

Gornorrhea
March 29, 2008 4:41 pm

I love you Anthony but…

lose count…not loose count

[The] TOS Purist aka The Purolator
March 29, 2008 4:56 pm

We all know that Cruise is a little wacky, but does that really give us any reason to dislike his acting skills purely on that basis? Some people do, which I think is unfair. Like any other actor, he can be very skilled in the art when he’s given a good script, or rather poor if given a bad script.

I don’t think it would have hurt if he had been in Abram’s Star Trek, but he might have been a little distracting since he’s such a big star.

Irish Trekki
March 29, 2008 4:57 pm

Ok I get it but it probably doesn’t help that he keeps turning up on the day!

Garovorkin
March 29, 2008 5:13 pm

With regardto Tom Cruise, the only thing i pay attention to is his acting career what movies he either producing or staring in. His personal life with all he gossip doesn’t interest me in the least. Him being in a trek movie would be a huge coup for Abrams and for Paramount because he has a lot fans who will see him in any movie he’s it. It win win situation for all.

Evan
March 29, 2008 5:23 pm

That image of Tom Cruise in the Pike chair is funny.

Garovorkin
March 29, 2008 5:48 pm

#34 He could do Pike with no problem at all and quite convincingly, Hell, if he is in the next movie, why not have him play the main villian? After his performance in collateral I am convinced that he would be quite an impressive bad guy.

Ensign Ro- (Short for Roland)
March 29, 2008 6:07 pm

#35 – I stand corrected on my previous statement. I said I couldn’t picture Cruise in a Trek movie…but after your Collatoral reference…yeah, I could see him as a villian in one of the future movies. Maybe a Eugenics War refugee ala Khan? Or maybe, an original storyline…a completely original one. I have to admit, I’ve grown tired of time travel stories, temperal rifts, et al…although the Mirror Universe stories have shown up repeatedly, they still hold far more interest for me.

Warptek
March 29, 2008 6:11 pm

Would Cruise interject some Scientology into a Trek role? I can see him incorporating his memory “engrams” into an M5 computer.

(For Scientology’s definition of engrams see Dianetics. Or maybe NOT…)

Xai
March 29, 2008 7:20 pm

12. snake-o – March 29, 2008

“I’ll eat my trek movie dvd collection if Cruise isnt in it.”

Catsup with that?

robtek
March 29, 2008 7:29 pm

if they put him in it it will suck i HATE TOM CRUISE

The Vulcanista
March 29, 2008 8:00 pm

#36 A rogue starship captain, mad with power, perhaps? Say what you will about the weirdness that is Tom Cruise, he does have a certain Starfleet-y vibe about him.

Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|

Green-Blooded-Bastard
March 29, 2008 8:06 pm

I’m glad Cruise is not going to be in this movie. I think he’s an ok actor, but I don’t want him in a Star Trek movie. He would always be Lt. Cruise or Admiral Cruise. No matter how well he can bury himself in a role, I wouldn’t believe it.

March 29, 2008 8:15 pm

not a cruse fan- but dont hate him- always believed the gay conspiricy theorys for the fun of it- dont have issue with his beliefs as scientology seems no less silly than any other religion- but would help box office- n as a fan he would get kick from it!

i assume his well publicised split with paramount is the only reason he’s not doing it.

pitty.

March 29, 2008 8:45 pm

i wonder if he thinks trek fans are easy marks for the Co$ to assimilate?

scientology is far more dangerous and insidious than ‘other religions’ with the glaring exception of islam, of course.

xenu lives!

xenu.net

7 of 5
March 29, 2008 9:11 pm

You must always consider the source on rumors. But, if Keith Olbermann had said it………….. gospel.

The only bright spot on MSNBC.

March 29, 2008 9:16 pm

Well this must mean Shatner is it!

Dick Weed
March 29, 2008 10:55 pm

I, for one, am so pleased that Tom Cruise is NOT in the movie!

bobfred
March 29, 2008 11:31 pm

#31- tom cruise doe not have any acting skills!!!

The Vulcanista
March 29, 2008 11:42 pm

#46

You seem familiar. Don’t I know you from somewhere?

Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|

Anthony Thompson
March 30, 2008 12:21 am

Tom Cruise is one of the good guys in Hollywood. His beliefs are certainly not more “bizzare” than anyone else’s. ALL religions are bizzare, including Christianity. It would be nice to have him in it but I think Abrams chose to go the non-celeb route, which I think is the correct one. Any celebrity actor would have been a distraction from becoming immersed in the story.

The Last Maquis
March 30, 2008 12:31 am

Tom Cruise in Trek?, Hell No!! What are they Gonna put Brad Freakin’ Pitt in the sequel? George Clooney in Trek 3??? nobody out Pimps kirk. Nobody.

wpDiscuz