Paramount Casts New James T. Kirk 244
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."
Re:Shatner is out? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Let it die (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Let it die (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
No fancy celebrities allowed! (Score:0, Insightful)
Good
I think a well known celebrity would have detracted from the movie and characters because their personalities are so well known.
If they're gonna reboot Star Trek, bring on fresh faces.
I'm all for it!
Re:Archer was the first recorded to captain (Score:3, Insightful)
And if you go by all things holy then Enterprise, like Voyager and Star Trek V, never really happened.... at best it was a Holodeck malfunction.
In fact, come to recall, the lame ass series finale of Enterprise was literally a holodeck program on the Enterprise-D! I find it very easy to think that Voyager, Enterprise, and every TNG movie were just horrible holonovels written by somebody with a sick and twisted mind. It's the only thing keeping me from losing ALL faith in Star Trek....
Hey, Wars fans, is this how you felt when the prequels came out? I'm sorry for mocking you.... I just didn't understand at the time :(
Re:Let it die (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, for starters, this guy [slashdot.org] had a very good point [slashdot.org].
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.
Re:IDF (Score:1, Insightful)