Slashdot Mirror
Paramount Casts New James T. Kirk
Tycoon Guy writes "TrekToday reports that Paramount is in talks with 27-year old actor Chris Pine to play the role of Captain Kirk in the new 'Star Trek' film. Pine is almost completely unknown, but he's also being courted to star opposite George Clooney in 'White Jazz,' so he's being called "the hottest new actor in town." In addition, 'Hulk' actor Eric Bana was cast today as Nero, the main villain of Trek XI."
Chris Pine: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1517976/
Eric Bana: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0051509/
There is one true James TIBERIUS Kirk! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_T._Kirk
Is Paramount trying to do with Kirk what has been done with the various flavors of "007" or "Batman"?
Now. He has to learn. To talk. Like this.
Chris Pine? That's one letter away from Chris Pike! Coincidence? I don't think so!
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
The guy is so good at acting, he only needs a blinking light to convey his emotions.
The first captain of the Enterprise was Captain April (sorry just had to show my geek trekie side..)
The headline said the role was cast, and the summary said "in talks". Make up your mind, and don't get back to me until you have an answer.
I mean, Captain Kirk, ruby programmer, author.
What a stud.
Your sig(k) has been stolen. There is a puff of smoke!
Condolances went out today to Chis Pine, his family, and his career after he formally accepted the offer by Paramount to play James T. Kirk in the upcoming Star Trek movies.
i\hbar\dot{\psi}=\hat{H}\psi
The first captain of the Enterprise was Capt. Paul.
Two streets that run parallel to each other in downtown Seattle. Coincidence???
Start a happiness pandemic
Hay Bill Shatner. Hope you're, reading *this* thread. Lots of us, miss you, except on reruns.
I sure hope the new actor does a service to Star Trek, and to the history. Lots of us rabid ST fans will be waiting and watching. You have to remember that Star Trek has been around for *40 years*, and has been watched by generations of people. I also expect Star Trek to be around for another 40 years, with all of the styrofoam rocks, clitorus-foreheaded space-aliens, and freeze-frame phaser attacks. Oh, and hot model science-officers, gotta have those.
Of course I'll watch any variety of Star Trek (or any Sci-Fi for that matter) even if it is totally terrible. Just keep it coming.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
Just don't go. Problem solved. Let the rest of us enjoy it. The end, everyone wins.
I've never understood why some people think their memories of some sort of media will be ruined if a new product, one they don't have to go see or experience, is released.
If you go by Star Trek Canon,
Archer was the first recorded Federation captain of a ship named Enterprise (NX-01)
Capt April was the first captain of the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) followed by Christopher Pike, James T. Kirk and then Willard Decker. Spock was captain occasionally.
Then on the Enterprise B (NCC 1701-B) John Harriman, and later Demora Sulu who was the daughter of Sulu from the original series.
Enterprise C was captained by Rachel Garrett.
And the Enterprise D was captained by Picard, although Riker, and Edward Jellico captained the ship at least once during it's commission.
There was one other Enterprise, the USS Enterprise (XCV 330) but little is known about it and there is no record of who it's captain was.
Hows that for a geek trekker side.
I read Slashdot for the headlines, because the headlines, unlike the articles, are usually original and never duplicated
I forget, is it the odd-numbered trek movies that are good, or are they the ones that suck? /hangs trekkie hat up in shame, although in all fairness, the shows were almost always better than the movies.
They were going to cast Keano Reeves as Spock, but found during auditions that he doesn't have the range of emotions required for the role.
Actually I think this has a reasonably good chance of working, and is precisely what they should have been doing all along. Rather than the Next-Next-Generation or the Previous-Previous-Generation, they should have gone back to ToS to begin with. The actors would be different, but the characters familiar. The writers, like the rest of us, would have known them for forty years.
If anything has a chance of reinvigorating Trek, it's this.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
...you insensitive clod!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
What if in 2050 every Star Trek movie ever made with Kirk now stars Chris Pine, through the magic of editing?
Well, that's really Paramount's decision - they own Star Trek, not us. Second, fan outrage brought the original versions back for Star Wars (mostly because Lucus saw more money there, I'm sure). Every episode of Star Trek currently exists on DVD as it originally aired. Through the magic of the internet, now they'll never go away, regardless of what products new are released. And you'll still be able to avoid/ignore any new franchise efforts, just as you can today.
but it does make a problem when talking to younger generations. Like if I try to talk about the Grinch cartoon to my daughter, she'll be thinking of a manic-depressive on LSD in a costume with cgi effects. This hurts.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
I'm glad they didn't go for a look-a-like. There's a couple of shots which suggest this actor might have enough screen presence and charisma to pull off the arrogant super-leader several-times savior of the galaxy.
Good luck to you, Mr. Pine! Them's big shoes. --It's a case of creating a character who is, (on and off the screen) ultra arrogant, skilled enough to deserve acting that way, and charming enough not to piss everybody off while doing it. If you follow Shatner's lead, then you will also be a really kind, light-hearted and giving soul, but that usually comes with age. If you don't get blasted by photon disrupters first. Is this Pine kid also a Canadian like old Bill? I'm not sure it's possible to achieve all of those goals otherwise. We'll have to see. Like I said, good luck to you, man!
And I have gotta say, this is the first time in forever, (with the exception of the recent and sadly disappointing Superman film), that I've been excited about an upcoming movie. With a good writer and good direction, this could be a really awesome film.
When, oh, when will I accumulate enough jaded cynicism to not let my hopes get the better of me?
I am SUCH a sci-fi geek!
-FL
*whisper* Hey, yeah you, you over there. The one with the comment. I'll let you in a little secret of mine, don't spread it around to much. You ready? It's called 'You don't have to buy the new stuff'. It'll solve all your problems right there, don't want to see Pine as Kirk in Generations? Just hang on to your old copy of Generations which I'm sure you have since you care about who the actor is. Wrath of Khan too. Same goes for Star Wars. You can thank me later for this tip, preferably with cash. *whisper*
I've never really understood the controversy around the Special Edition. If you actually care enough about it to not like the new stuff then you definitely have an old copy, watch that. No one can take away something you like if you've already bought it (Until DRM because even worse than it is now) so just keep living in a world where the only Kirk is The Shatner and don't watch the new movies or buy old ones with a photoshopped in Pine.
There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
With such an original classical villian name like "Nero" we can only hope that whis will be a remake of the remake that was Nemesis. Bonus points if they have scenes on Ceti Alpha IV.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
It's a proposal, in .PDF form, to create a new Star Trek series based, loosely, on the Original Series, but with a new mystery added to it.
We have always been at war with Eurasia!
Is that there is a web page (TrekToday) that is dedicated to daily updates on this franchise. As Shatner said on SNL many years ago: "Get a life!"
Now. He has to learn. To talk. Like this.
Well... Sure! HE - can - ACT...BUT!
The REAL question IS...
can he SING?
Picture yourself. In a boat. On a river.
With Tan-gerine dreams, and MARMALADE skies!
Somebody -- calls you... you anssswerrr quuuiiitee sllllowwwwllllyyyy,
A GIRL! with kalEIIIIDOscope eyes...
Bow-ties are cool.
SHATNER IS KIRK
FWIW, Google: Inertial Dampening Field
This sci-fi device is supposed to counteract such fatal changes in motion. Gene Roddenberry and his gang tried to come up with scientific explanations for a lot of things portrayed in Star Trek.
They should replace Kirk with Pirk and get Samuli Torssonen and his crew on-board.
Star Wreck was better in every way that matters: Better Battles, Better Humour, Better Plot and most importantly prettier girls. The acting was about equal as well.
Imagine what they could do with a budget?
Is there any truth to the rumor that Gary Sinise is going to play Dr. McCoy? I mean, how could they possibly give it to anyone else?
He may be the Hottest New Actor in town -- until he's typecast as James R^HT Kirk for the rest of his career.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Shater disagrees.
More Twoson than Cupertino
I can imagine the auditions
... Next
(dramatic pause) KKKKKHAN.... (thrusts fist towards sky in one last desperate motion)
They should have made a big change, like Battlestar Galactica did, and made Kirk a women.
A hot cylon/bionic women.
So who will be cast in the role of CleverNickname?
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
...after looking at the slideshow on IMDB that guy's eyes just creep me out. It's like he's got zombie contact lenses on, but he apparently does not.
can he sing Rocket Man?
Does it matter? Shatner couldn't, and he released a record to prove it!
Blank until
Well, for starters, this guy had a very good point.
Beyond that though, I'm just disgusted at low Star Trek has gone. Seriously. We've gone from the golden age of TV Sci-Fi, with shows like TNG, DS9, Babylon 5 and SeaQuest all airing new episodes, to Paramount milking the cash cow that is Star Trek, putting out one crap release after another, banking on the "Star Trek" name to sell it.
You realize that Stephen Hawking of all people took TNG seriously enough that he made a tour of the set, asked to sit in Picard's chair and even did a cameo? You find me something on TV today that even comes close to what TNG was it's hayday. Or Babylon 5 for that matter. Yes, both had their downpoints (TNG Seasons 1-2 and 7, Babylon 5's last season and parts of the first), but I don't think you can find something on TV today that's anywhere near as good as either of them on a bad day.
And don't come back with Firefly, the standard /. answer. It's not in production anymore, who knows how good or bad it would have been if it had remained, and I don't consider it Sci-Fi like Bab 5 or TNG. It's more like a western in space. And before the Firefly fans all rush to click "reply" and flame me, I liked Serenity and the back story to Firefly. I just don't think you can point at a show that didn't even make one season as justification for why modern Sci-Fi doesn't suck.
And Battlestar Galactica, while an awesome show, is no where near as mainstream as TNG or even Bab 5. And while that's not entirely a bad thing, it doesn't exactly help make the case for Sci-Fi on TV either.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I've got to agree with you there - Star Wreck was a great find.
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
None of this makes any difference if you don't watch the new stuff, and just keep your memories of the old stuff you like.
Speaking of memories, my friends who watched Star Trek the first time around (or early in reruns in the 70s) generally prefer it to any of the new shows. I grew up on TNG, DS9 and VOY. My friend's son likes Star Wars Episode 1 better than the first 3, because he saw it first. We all view the world with rose tinted glasses, and think the things we like are necessarily the best. That's fine - but let people enjoy the new stuff if they want - if we let the fans of old stuff decide, we wouldn't have ever had a TNG at all, and it's generally considered the best of the 5 series.
Chris Pine has a Bacon number of 3:
Chris Pine was in Smokin Aces (2006) with Ray Liotta
Ray Liotta was in Comeback Season (2006) with Rachel Blanchard
Rachel Blanchard was in Where the Truth Lies (2005) with Kevin Bacon
There's an ENTERPRISE rent-a-car on Pike Street.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Well, that's really Paramount's decision - they own Star Trek, not us. Fuck no, 83 years after the fact, we should own it.
You can't take the sky from me...
At least Chris won't have to sit in the head-bump and pointy ear attachment chair.
Carefully polishes Geek Badge...
The reason there isn't any good current SciFi today is because we don't need it anymore.
Good SciFi tackled issues that people didn't want to address at the time, but did it in a semi-fantastical way that removed us and our prejudice from the equation. Now, people are more open-minded to such issues so we don't need the trappings anymore. We explore this ethical space through shows in the present day.
SciFi was never about the science, it was about the humanity. That's also why a lot of SciFi today sucks. It's all about flux capacitors and laser beams.
My twitter
Yeah, but Hawking decided to *host* that "Masters of Science Fiction" series recently, and I thought it kind of sucked.
Not too long ago, you had Stargate SG1, Stargate Atlantis, and Battlestar Galactica all on (the same night even). That was mini-golden age then I guess, particularly if you include Lost. I think in the same time frame you had Eureka, which is a decent little show, and Dr. Who, which has a following I think.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by mainstream, but my wife who is not really a sci-fi person, likes Stargate SG-1 the best.
...clitorus-foreheaded space-aliens...
Geez, some guys can't even find it in the dictionary!
(But I'll give you credit, that's a funny term!)
I thought the Hulk's alter ego was Bruce Bana.
I'm a doctor, not a casting director, however, he doesn't look like someone capable of banging any life form in the galaxy.
C'mon, Star Trek was new and fresh 40 years ago. It isn't anymore. It's tired and played out. But the sci fi section in the bookstore is full of great material if you're looking to film a new series. How about "The Mote in God's Eye" by Niven and Pournelle? Why watch S.T. recycle old plots yet again? I won't be bothered to watch any new S.T., I'm bored to death of it.
Tell that to Disney.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
By mainstream I mean it's something that almost anybody would recognize. I suspect that if you stopped 100 random people on the street and showed them a picture of the Enterprise-D they'd think of TNG. Or if you asked them what role comes to mind when they think of Patrick Stewart, most would probably say Jean-Luc Picard. By contrast, I doubt nearly as many would peg to stuff from any of the series that you mentioned. Of course, to be fair, even though Bab 5 is one of my favorites, most people on the street probably wouldn't know what a Starfury is either.
TNG was the closest thing to a water cooler show that Sci-Fi has ever had. Even people who didn't particularly like Star Trek were at least somewhat familiar with it. I'm glad it ended when it did, because Season 7 was starting to show some of the stuff that made Voyager unwatchable (tech babble to the extreme and bad science), but even at that, TNG had a MUCH better send-off with "All Good Things" then any other Trek series.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
If they had any guts at all they'd cast James Cawley as Kirk. His performance on Star Trek: New Voyages evokes Shatner's hamminess occasionally, but more often you forget it's someone else playing Kirk and you're just watching Star Trek again. If you've soured on the franchise like some posters have I encourage you to watch some episodes:
http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
Yeah, all (reasonably) current scifi is a real piece of gosa.
Sure, just point me to his freezer.Tell that to Disney.
You can't take the sky from me...
dude, that was excellent
"Laugh while you can a-monkey boy!" - Dr Emilio Lizardo
It also explains why he never went up in rank no matter how many times he saved the queen/world. The inherited (on merit) identity of James Bond includes the number 007.
You can't take the sky from me...
"Christopher Reeves"? ;-)
Libertas in infinitum
What happened to Matt Damon?
Just out of curiosity, how close are we to being able to superimpose a digital representation of Kirk from the original series onto an actor? I know this is already done in some movies for stunt-filled action sequences, but is the technique is still too "sloppy" for close-ups? Also, what's the state of the art in digital voice mimicry? Can we simulate an actor's voice digitally?
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
" Picture yourself. In a boat. On a river.
With Tan-gerine dreams, and MARMALADE skies!
Somebody -- calls you... you anssswerrr quuuiiitee sllllowwwwllllyyyy,
A GIRL! with kalEIIIIDOscope eyes..
Ugh. I'm gonna have to slaughter a pig to get that out of my head now.
Whosever brings up Spocks "record" dies.
Need Mercedes parts ?
I'm somewhat surprised that this crowd hasn't picked up that there is also a Chris Pine who was lead programmer for Civilization III, author of Learn to Program, and a current Opera employee.
http://virtuelvis.com/
depends on the country you live in you insensitive American clod! ... now how did I guess you were American?
Just don't go. Problem solved. Let the rest of us enjoy it. The end, everyone wins. Criticizing a movie is not the same as preventing people from watching it. What, do you think your fellow
Now we know the answer.
Simon Pegg.
Yes. Him off Shaun of the Dead, sometime Doctor Who villain, and fondly remembered for his portrayal of a gloriously geeky comic store employee in Spaced.
Now THAT rocks.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Can someone from the navy tell us about any instances of 27 year old ship captains? i'm seriously skeptical.
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
Not saying there aren't issues that need addressing, but we can address them more directly than before. We don't need to hide it behind confrontations between alien species.
My twitter
By movie #4 the cast was in the groove; director Nimoy was in the groove. This movie was both good scifi and funny.
Number ten was about a Picard-clone trying to take over the Romulan empire. It was humorless. They put too much action into it. A car-chase scene in Star Trek - my God. They had all these 50-something actors fist-fighting and running all time, which was another joke. I only saw it once and never saw it on cable tv which are haunted by the first seven trek movies.
geeze....
A goal is a dream with a deadline
Imagine what they could do with a budget?
Umm....
Buy more beer?
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Although it's from the late 90's, and certainly doesn't fit the popularity contest, Cowboy Bebop was a great sci-fi show. Check it out if you haven't already seen it. Also I would recommend watching at least the first 6 episodes before making any judgments. Cheers, endxv
All glory to the Hypnotoad!
Umm, and who is to say that you wouldn't have a DEFENSIVE fleet around your home planet and thus have a battle between opposing fleets? Granted, it's not a deep space battle, that part I'd tend to agree with you about. Bab 5 always had it's battles around areas of importance (planets or the station), not deep space.
Note that we do not envisage similar battles with aircraft today, due to the same energy restrictions.Uhh, again, says who? Dogfighting isn't as common as it once was, but it still happens. Most of the air-to-air engagements in the Falklands were within visual range. And I would make the argument that the only reason you haven't had dogfighting happen in modern combat is we haven't fought anybody with our level of technology. We've had the luxury of picking them off from outside their own weapons range. I'm sure a large enough aerial engagement involving two first world powers would stand a decent chance of closing to visual range once the long range weapons had been expended.
Even the F-22 still retains the ability to use short range IR missiles (Sidewinders) and still has a gun.
The strategic manoeveuring we see for the big battles are copied from the Naval battles of WWI and WW2 - such as Jutland.WW1 is a better point. By the time WW2 rolled around you didn't have sea battles anymore, you had air-sea battles involving aircraft and ships. But even at that, you still had ship to ship engagements. Look at the Bismarck. Look at the night fighting around Guadalcanal. Look at some of the engagements in the Battle of Leyte Gulf.
A better question to ask about space combat is do fighters really serve a purpose at all or are they just eye candy for the big screen and something to make it one-on-one for the main characters? One argument says that there's no line of sight issues in space and fighters would be pointless. Another argument says that fighters can probably accelerate faster, get close to the big ships and strip them of weapons and sensors (even if they lack the firepower to destroy them outright).
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.