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.
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
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
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.
...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.
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
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.
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?
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.
...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.