Tom Cruise Still Not In Star Trek |
jump to navigation

Tom Cruise Still Not In Star Trek March 29, 2008

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Rumor , trackback

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.


1. Mr. Poopey face(formerly known as Closettrekker) - March 29, 2008

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

2. Anthony Pascale - March 29, 2008

I put up this article because I was getting people emailing me links to cruise in trek stories.

However, this is not an excuse to attack, flame, etc Mr. Cruise and/or his beliefs.

3. CmdrR - March 29, 2008

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.

4. Garovorkin - March 29, 2008

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.

5. The Vulcanista - March 29, 2008

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 }:-|

6. Mr. Poopey face(formerly known as Closettrekker) - March 29, 2008

#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.

7. The Vulcanista - March 29, 2008



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 }:-|

8. Izbot - March 29, 2008

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 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!”

9. Garovorkin - March 29, 2008

#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.

10. Izbot - March 29, 2008

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.

11. Izbot - March 29, 2008

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

12. snake-o - March 29, 2008

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

13. Jim - March 29, 2008

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

14. Keith R.A. DeCandido - March 29, 2008

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

15. Hat Rick - March 29, 2008

Cruise in Trek? Mission improbable.

16. fred - March 29, 2008

#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.

17. Viking - March 29, 2008

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.

18. JGC - March 29, 2008

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

19. SillyBob - March 29, 2008

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.

20. Izbot - March 29, 2008

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’.

21. Thelin - March 29, 2008

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

22. James Heaney - Wowbagger - March 29, 2008

14: “Snorfle?”

23. That One Guy - March 29, 2008

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

24. AJ - March 29, 2008

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

25. Maurício - March 29, 2008

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

26. Garovorkin - March 29, 2008

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

27. bobfred - March 29, 2008

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

28. Ensign Ro- (Short for Roland) - March 29, 2008

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.

29. Balock - March 29, 2008

WTF does trek need that guy?

30. Gornorrhea - March 29, 2008

I love you Anthony but…

lose count…not loose count

31. [The] TOS Purist aka The Purolator - March 29, 2008

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.

32. Irish Trekki - March 29, 2008

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

33. Garovorkin - March 29, 2008

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.

34. Evan - March 29, 2008

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

35. Garovorkin - March 29, 2008

#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.

36. Ensign Ro- (Short for Roland) - March 29, 2008

#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.

37. Warptek - March 29, 2008

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…)

38. Xai - March 29, 2008

12. snake-o – March 29, 2008

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

Catsup with that?

39. robtek - March 29, 2008

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

40. The Vulcanista - March 29, 2008

#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 }:-|

41. Green-Blooded-Bastard - March 29, 2008

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.

42. Trekboi - March 29, 2008

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.


43. Jeffery Wright - March 29, 2008

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!

44. 7 of 5 - March 29, 2008

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

The only bright spot on MSNBC.

45. Fleet Captain Kor'Tar - March 29, 2008

Well this must mean Shatner is it!

46. Dick Weed - March 29, 2008

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

47. bobfred - March 29, 2008

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

48. The Vulcanista - March 29, 2008


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

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

49. Anthony Thompson - March 30, 2008

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.

50. The Last Maquis - March 30, 2008

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.

51. trekee - March 30, 2008

It’s very odd they put this story out though… I suppose Cruise is more of a ‘star’ than anyone else attached to the film so it’s the biggest ZOMG Wowee Celeb Goss story there has been attached to the film for the tabloids?

Ah well, all publicity is good publicity one must assume.

Now that filming has wrapped and JJ has wiped the memories of everyone on set, there will be a news vacuum to fill, so expect lots more made up stories as we get nearer launch.

52. Irish Terran - March 30, 2008

Tom Cruise can’t be in the new movie cause that’d suck and JJ knows it!!!!

53. Gustavo - March 30, 2008

despite everything people say…I would like to see Tom Cruise in a Trek Movie, I admire much of his work and he’s a fine actor…..It’s a rumor, of course, but I would be pleased to see him on Star Trek

so…..May 9th is still far away…………….

Live Long and Prosper

54. Mr. Bob Dobalina - March 30, 2008

I can’t help but think of the extra on myspace, who had a pic of himself, in the red cadet uniform, who blogged about being in the film and being present for some filming with an A-list guest star who was having some difficulty with the dialog. Cruise was never mentioned BUT it just happened to show up around the time of Cruise’s reported visit to the set. Then, of course, the entire myspace page dissapeared.

Just sayin’.

55. Johnny Ice - March 30, 2008

Why would Tom Cruise want to be in Star Trek. He is more popular then Star Trek will ever be. He dosent need to be in Star Trek because he can get bigger role to play :)

56. Dick Weed - March 30, 2008

#48 “You seem familiar”

Your propensity for enjoying my last name is well documented, but I can’t speak for your familiarity factor pertaining to my first name….

57. Garovorkin - March 30, 2008

For Cruise being in the Trek movie would benefit him as well and as I have said it would help increase the audience for the movie. The guy has been a nominated for an academy several times and I believe he has won a couple of Golden globes, how we not have an actor of his caliber involved in trek. Trek attracting Cruise and other big stars would not be a bad thing at all and I will wager more then a few of Hollywood’s elites would love to be in a Trek movie, his participation might make it the hip thing to in Hollywood and I don’t think it would be to the detriment of the franchise.

58. Wrath - March 30, 2008

Tom Cruise is probably the biggest movie star of all time. We should be so lucky to have him in Trek, ‘cos he’s a good actor to boot.

59. Chirs M - March 30, 2008

If Tom Cruise was in Star Trek it would just about ruin the movie!

Although he is a bit of a space cadet so maybe he would fit in quite nicely after all!

Besides having big name actors doing cameos is just a way to cover up for a bad plot/movie etc. Does anybody remember Austin Powers: Goldmember?! Tom Cruise himself was one of the actors that played a cameo and the only reason they got him, Kevin Space etc is because the movie sucked!

Star Trek does not needs those kinds of gimmicks and will be a successful movie on its owen merits!

60. Garovorkin - March 30, 2008

#59 How? first off If Mission Impossible 3 produced by Abrams with Cruise was a really good film. I don’t think there would be any problem because Cruise has respect for Abrams and his work. Abrams and Cruise would both give their best efforts to make sure it is a good film.

61. AJ - March 30, 2008

58: He’s the “biggest movie star of all time?”

How about Robert DeNiro as an admiral? Jack Nicholson as a villain?

Now THOSE are big stars.

62. Wrath - March 31, 2008

In terms of commercial success/longevity, Cruise is comfortably the biggest star of all time. Of course De Niro and Nicholson are great actors (two of the greatest in their prime, though lazy now) they will never, and have never, approached the above-title star wattage that Cruise has had for two decades. The guy has made so many hugely successful movies, as well as some pretty good ones.

63. Chris M - March 31, 2008

#60 I just don’t like Tom Cruise as an actor.

What I should have said is that it would just about ruin the movie for me!

And I still think that having cameos with famous actors can be a desperation move which Star Trek doesn’t need!

I know Christian Slater made a cameo in Star Trek VI however that was a bit of a different story.

And whether you like it or not a lot of people have varying views on Tom Cruise and seeing his face on the screen may be too much of a distraction for the audience!

64. Garovorkin - March 31, 2008

#63 maybe, but the positive would far put weigh the negatives in this case. Cruise is proven commodity at the box office, he delivers audience numbers and big box office revenue, thats always an asset when your trying to sell a movie and most people don’t care about the negatives regarding Cruise.

65. Jamie - March 31, 2008

I don’t want Cruise having anything to do with Trek. First and foremost because he’s just far too well-recognised and his presence would overshadow the film. But also because he’s just too controversial, and famous for his personal beliefs. We need more unknown people, detached from the present day, so we can truly believe they are part of Rodenberry’s vision of the future.

66. Garovorkin - March 31, 2008

#65 one could make the argument that Simon Pegg is well recornized to as is Zach Quinto from Heroes. Look Trek is Entertainment not a blue print of the future. Audiences are less likely to turn out for lesser known actor, you might want to keep that in mind as well.

67. JL - March 31, 2008

RE: Title of this thread


68. Izbot - March 31, 2008

As a follow up to my comment in #20, just to put a little more emphasis on the notion that the news media wants to connect Tom Cruise (“Weirdo!”) with Star Trek and its fans (“Weirdos!”) here’s a little something from the latest issue of Newsweek (April 7, 2008 issue). The magazine is interviewing (briefly) Patrick Stewart on his current role in “Macbeth” and couldn’t help themselves from taking some cheap shots at, well, us.

Newsweek: When you’re onstage, aren’t you worried about weird Trekkie fans in the audience?

Stewart: Oh, come on, that’s just a silly thing to say.

Newsweek: But they are weird.

Stewart: How many do you know personally? You couldn’t be more wrong. Here’s the thing: if you say the fans are weird, that means there is something essentially weird about the show, and there is nothing weird about it. I’m very passionate when people like you snigger.

69. They call me Stasiu - March 31, 2008

It would be amusing if Cruise had a part as minor as what Christian Slater did in The Undiscovered Country.
Better yet, cast him as the first red-shirt to be killed!

70. star trackie - March 31, 2008

#59 “Star Trek does not needs those kinds of gimmicks and will be a successful movie on its owen merits!”

..sorry, but considering Trek’s current state of decay, I respectfully disagree. It needs all the help it can get to escape the shadow of mediocrity that Berman and company has cast upon it. Cruise, even in a cameo would be media buzz, and that’s a good thing.

71. AJ - March 31, 2008

They can put a big ridgy mask on him so that no one will notice him.

72. Garovorkin - March 31, 2008

Why can’t Trek movies have a few big named stars in them?Why is this notion so damned unthinkable to so many fans? Imagine someone like Johnny Depp or Anthony Hopkins or why not Charlize Theron. It could be a boon to the franchise and not the distraction that some might worry about. For all of Treks popularity in scif circles among the elites of hollywood actors and director trek is not heald in high regard I know people are going to disagree with me on this, Fine. But before Abrams and with the exception of Robert Wise , no alist directors would touch trek or list actors for that matter.
Tom Cruise is an A list actor and having him in the film will give it that respectability that trek could actually use, It mightalso help dispell some of the geekiness steriotype that the media has unfairly hung on the franchise. Tom Cruise has done science fiction in the past has anybody forgotten Minority Report?

73. Jordan - March 31, 2008

I think Tom Cruise in Star Trek would be absolutely brilliant and it would do a lot to boost the franchise’s credibility which has waned since the commercial failures of Enterprise and Nemesis.

74. Mr. AtoZ - March 31, 2008


75. Xai - March 31, 2008

I want Cruise to have nothing to do with this. It MUST live or die on it’s own merit. Trek as a whole has respectablilty enough to be a movie again without Cruise, Hanks etc. I may be proven wrong, but I feel that A listers in this film is a distraction to the story. I am going because it’s Trek, it’s a story I want to see, not because Tom Cruise smirked in it somewhere.

No thanks.

And I disliked being censored eariler in this thread just because I commented on another poster’s juvenile critique of Cruise using a four-letter word. But the rules are not made be me…

76. Garovorkin - April 1, 2008

#75 Xai I do see what your seeing but I am still convinced that the benefits of having A lister participation in Trek far outweighs the potential risks.

77. RoobyDoo - April 1, 2008

My take is that he was referring to Tyler Perry. I don’t recall if he used the term “A-lister”; if so, that would perhaps be stretching things a little.

78. Miguelito - April 2, 2008

Cruise in Star Trek, Hell NO!

Please no fundamentalist cult memebers in a Star Trek movie.
BTW he was fired by Paramount

79. Garovorkin - April 2, 2008

#78 If it translates into Big box office for the studio I don’t think his firing or his beliefs would or should be an issue.

80. AJ - April 2, 2008

Whom would TC play? I think someone mentioned Captain Garth a while back. Could be cool.

81. Opal Keay - September 13, 2010

I think Tom is hot and attractive what he does in his movies and wife really she should keep him handsome men tom you rock

82. Georgine Cyganiewicz - September 24, 2010

Tom Cruise daughter Suri is so cute and adorable. What a lucky child to have beautiful and famous parents. I wonder if some day she can also be a famous star.

83. nike air jordan jumpman pro - October 7, 2010

Tom is hot and attractive what he does in his movies and wife really she should keep him handsome men tom you rock is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.