Oh jeez, after the last few Star Trek films being so gawdawful, I’m afraid to get my hopes up. Kind of like being with a spouse who keeps letting you down over the years and now says, “Don’t worry, I’ve changed.” Yeah, right!

NICE.

Thanks for the update trekmovie.com really is the best for news on [b]Star Trek XI[/b]

P.S. FIRST

Hey, wait a minute, why the possibility of London? It’s pretty expensive to shoot at Pinewood Studios and this would usually signify employing a British cast, at least in part. Other than Scotty, I don’t want to see any Brits playing the leads THIS time! Patrick Stewart was great in his time, but COME ON!! The actor playing Kirk SHOULD come from North America!

Great news! The casting essentially is unknown. That means we have at least a 33% chance of a No Brody film. That’s great news.

Still hoping it doesn’t run something like:
Kirk - Kevin Pollack doing Shatner doing Kirk
Spock - Adam Sandler (because they just keep letting this turd do film)
McCoy - Matthew McConaughey (because he’s been awful in everything else so by Hollywood logic he’s ready for something new)

I am so curious what lead has been cast! I gotta know!!!

London!
Let the Doctor Who crossover rumors begin.

#3 Michael Appleton
Shooting in London doesn’t imply anything about who is playing a part. Shooting in London inplies one thing to me, the potential use of a very large stage or set.

I was initially very excited about this film project and the direction it was taking but now I’m feeling less so by the day. The casting rumours aren’t very encouraging. Most reboots seem to be for a new audience but not very satisfactory to the older ones. I guess if I don’t expect anything wonderful then I can’t be disappointed.

guys…if you couldnt tell I was kind of dismissing the London rumor, just pointing out that things arent totally nailed down and that there is a bit of rumoring going on around Paramount.

 

and danny

not sure what you are saying, but the article above points out that the latest casting rumors are at least somewhat incorrect, and it also notest hat the film \’embraces canon\’ which is the official line at Paramount. So you concerns about reboots and casting rumors should be put to rest. 

I will greedily slurp up rumors–plausible or otherwise–when it comes to Star Trek 11. Keep up the good work, Anthony!

When the casting news does hit moderators at several of Star Trek BBS’s will be pulling overtime to maintain order. Thats just going to be a given.

As far as budgetar concerns maybe the writers cant afford as many explosions as they originally thought. It might be just a wise move on there part Thats sounds like a blessing. Making them realize story and character first then add some action so you dont bore out the short attention span audience. If you dont have a story to grab your audience then your pretty much finished.

I’ll play devils advodcate on the issue of British actors. Some of them can carry an american accent quite well. But thier is this thing that our North American actors can take these vehicles called planes to film in England so no worry there.

Micheal A. Personally I dont find Trek like a wife at times the last two movies I find Trek film franchise like a ex wife sucking whatever money and self respect as a fan out of me.

#9 Anthony, thanks for the clarification on all counts.

People are getting excited or dismayed over pure rumor.
Until facts are reported, people need to take all they hear with a grain of salt. Guessing and hoping are ok… but nobody should be basing opinions on any facet of this film until all is known.

X

Michael A — even if the filming did happen in London, it doesn’t imply that more of the primary cast would be British. The Star Wars and Indiana Jones films were predominently shot on London sets, but that didn’t affect Indy’s or Luke Skywalker’s accents, right?

And about Pinewood being expensive… actually, one reason that above films were shot there was because it was more economical at the time. I’m sure that would be Paramount’s main consideration for set location.

As long as we’ve brought up sound stages and sets… I’d love to put in two cents, because I know JJ Abrams reads every word I write…

Please, as much on location as humanly possible. As recently as First Contact, staged exteriors looked staged. It’s a distraction in this day and age.

Please, no fake caves. Insurrection used fake caves. It looked fake. There are real caves and, as Batman Returns proved, cameras fit into them.

Please can we have at least one window that looks out over the bulk of the saucer section. The prospective would be breathtaking… imagine looking out any window of the tower of an air craft carrier. You don’t just see sky. You see ship and sky. Let’s see the curve of E’s sexy hull and some stars!

One more, then I’ll hush up… It’s always been a pet peeve about Trek that there is an enormous amount of the ships devoted to corridor life. It’s like the part of the overpriced apartment you never use. If we have long walking scenes through the corridors, can technicians actually have work stations and not just be walking back and forth? STVI did an excellent job showing us parts of the ship that don’t have pretty paneling but are working areas. MORE of that, please.

OK, tirade over. (for now)

I am happy to get something new as far as news thanks! I wonder if the person cast is that friend of Abrams who wants to play a vulcan like was reported a while back…

If one of the major parts has been *signed* then it’s likely that rumor and leakage on the identity will beubiquitous within a week or so.

Given the rumors a higher-than-ever budget, I wonder if the new Enterprise sets will be as elaborate as TMP’s and left standing after production, as they were after TMP.

Wait… let me run and get a copy of the Midnight Sun to confirm.

Yep… Bat Boy is playing Spock. His agent says it’s a three picture deal.

Who’s bat boy? Christian Bale?

Gawd! People are really on a downer tonight! We know absolutely nothing. All that has been said above is that some of the past rumours about the film are incorrect (don’t know which!) and that someone yet unnamed has been cast as an as-yet-unconfirmed character!

Yet judging by to the above posts, people seem to think they know all the details. How can people such as dannyboy get depressed about something we know nothing about?!!

What with this and people being down on a sped-up trailer for The Tholian Web, I’m feeling quite annoyed as I get ready for bed!!

So many people are so pessimistic. This movie cant be as bad as the last 2 films. So that has to be good. Right?

I cannot wait until they announce the cast.

#22 “this movie can’t be as bad as the last 2 films”
Well, yeah, but compared to those two pieces of cowdung, where can you go but up?

#23 Stanky, I don’t understand your comment. Based on all your comments, you won’t be happy unless they cancel the film or use a time machine to have the original cast in their prime.
What gives?

this is probably the first step in the movie eventually not being set in TOS era

With casting in progress, let’s see what comes up when it get’s to the guest star/cameo elements. I do not know what guest aliens/officers they have in mind, but I would love to see Wiiliam Dafoe or a Hugo Weaving as Vulcan ambassadors, or Nick Nolte or Tommy Lee Jones as “grizzled” Klingons…or how about Kurt Russell or Bill Paxton as Starfleet admirals…and give ‘em a square…I loved the old style of movie posters where you had the small squares at the bottom of the one sheets with the stars faces in them…

just a thought…

I hope JJ give us lots of little surprises…

Notice the wording, “at least one of the leads has been cast”. Does this refer to Kirk, Spock and McCoy and not one of the other lead characters in the script? If we speculate, for a moment, that this is true, then it would seem to refer to Kirk or Spock as the McCoy role should likely be a “lock” with Sinise playing the part (and if not shame on you Abrams!). God, there’s still hope that these iconic parts will be played by someone other than Damon and Brody! Thank the sweet baby, Jesus!

Adrian Brody looks like the illegitimate love child of Jimmy Durante and Betty Boop for cryin’ out loud! For those of you unfamiliar with these two names, this not a good thing!

re: 25. Xai

Ahhhh, just seeing if anyone was paying attention.

If this ends up like “Lost in Space” did, I will NEVER watch a JJ Abrams show again.

Has anyone given any thought to the fact that there was a book written by Vonda N. McIntyre in 1986 called “Enterprise - The First Adventure”. the story line is the first mission of Kirk as Captain, metting Spock and McCoy and Scotty as experienced starfleet oficers who think Kirk is to young and not ready for the job. It takes place before the 5 year mission is ordered.
Do you think this may be considered? Even for just some filler material

Hey, I liked the Lost in Space movie,and I’m a huge Lost in Space fan. I love the serial type adventures and camp fun of Smith and the robot….but I knew the movie was not going to be Lost in Space as I knew it…there was absolutely no way it could be. Without the original magic of Jonathan Harris and the Irwin Allen style, it can’t be, it’s impossible…..sooo…. no reason to expect it to be. It was what it was…a new take on Lost in Space. It would never replace the show I enjoy watching and I never expected it to. The movie was highly imaginative and fun, great eye candy and I enjoyed it for what it was, a different take on Lost in Space.
My approach with the new Trek movie is exactly the same. It will NEVER be Shatner and company…it will NEVER replace the classic Trek that I love so much…that is an impossibility. But I can still watch it and, if it’s a good story and well done, I’ll enjoy every minute of it. Sure, it won’t be my Star Trek…but it doesn’t have to be.

Novels aren’t considered part of the canon, so I don’t believe anything from McIntyre’s book would be looked at.

Perhaps I’m being a stuffed shirt, but I am perfectly content to wait and see what Mr. Abrams & Co. have in store for us…..

It’s very interesting when you consider our arguments concerning recasting the main characters comes down to one thing; Which is fundamentally more important, the characters and stories or the actors who personified them the first time around? I’d, at first glance, be willing to side with Shatner and cast, but then I thought of another series I watched growing up. I was a HUGE fan of the old Sherlock Holmes movies starring Basil Rathbone when I was a kid. As I got older I still fostered the notion that nobody would ever take the place of, let alone surpass

Hmm someone cast but not the big 3, could that add credence to to Jennifer Garner rumor?
LLAP

(cont’d) ,this thespian’s take on such an iconic character. Then Jeremy Brett came along. Wow! Maybe, just maybe, we should give the “chosen few” the benefit of the doubt concerning this new film. Mind you, Jeremy Brett “knocked it out of the park” based on sheer talent and we would expect no less from the new cast of our reborn Trek adventure!

#32 Redshirt. Highly unlikely.
They paid writers to write and not to borrow from a novel… even a good one. And writers tend to like being paid for their work and protect it mightily… McIntyre included. Even derivitives can be considered intellectual property or violation of copywright… a big no-no. Studios tend to look thses things over pretty well to avoid being sued.

#30 Stanky.
So you found the time machine, eh? Give my regards to De Kelley and Jimmy D.

Call James McAvoy up! Maybe he’s the one who’s been cast.

Speaking of, I just caught “The Last King of Scotland” and I have to reverse my earlier position on the guy- McAvoy is charismatic and extremely talented, depsite his diminutive stature. He may not be Jimmy Doohan’s Scotty, but he’s a great actor and I would be happy to see him involved in this movie. And ” Last King” was a very good movie as well.

jonboc (#33): Nice to see the Lost in Space film getting some love for a change. I like the movie, too. Don’t get me wrong, the film has some huge flaws: it falls apart toward the end with the whole time portal thing, John Hurt seems to be deliberately trying NOT to act, and the kid who played Will Robinson was just plain awful. I can overlook all of that, though, because most of the story is a ripping good adventure, the production design (especially the look of the Jupiter 2), were amazing, and the special effects were fantastic. Furthermore, Matt LeBlanc showed how versatile an actor he really is; there is absolutely no hint of Joey from “Friends” in his performance as Major Don West. Gary Oldman turned Dr. Smith back into the conniving, dangerous man he was supposed to be. Also, Apollo 440’s rendition of the main title theme rocks big time. It’s not a great movie by any means, but it’s a lot of fun.

Oh, and Heather Graham is in it. That alone justifies its place on my DVD shelf.

Hey Buckaroohawk, good to see you posting! I’d be curious to get your feedback on my musings of # 35+37.

“art department should be starting up in April with construction slated to start around June or July”

I wonder how the design of the Enterprise is going to turn out. So far in Trek, all of the varations of the Enterprise have been “new” designs A, B, C, D …etc (yes even the horrendus NX).

The Enterprise has become a character unto it’s self, and it doing to be a delicate balancing act to stay true to the original, while also updating it.

With April just a few weeks away, there’re should be a few napkin sketches by now.

I feel they should look for unknowns for the major roles rather than to try to shoehorn top-tier actors into them. Use the money saved from paying those high salaries to get the special effects right.

However, for the supporting cast, do whatever you want. I would love to see John Cleese as Harry Mudd.

Right now I think we’re all in Wait-and-see mode. We do know a few things about this movie, but there is a lot more that we don’t know. I’m excited by the possibility of new Good Star Trek, but I’m also nervous that it will turn out the way the Star Wars Prequels or the Narnia movie did: someone putting out a half-hearted franchise piece in an attempt to grab some money.

I heard they are using stages 4, 8, 15, 16, 23 and 42.

They need the very large stage for that very large actor William Shatner.

#45 nice subtle humor Sith. perhaps there’s a hatch or two on the set also? Or a wild polar bear?

#42 Ed D
“the horrendus NX”…
I realize this is your opinion and you are entitled… but I really tire of the constant Trek vs. Trek pissing contests in the threads. Yours isn’t the only one.. just the most recent.
I don’t belittle anyone else’s Trek, why do it to any of mine?

Michael (#41): I don’t have any problem with recasting any of the original Star Trek characters. I actually proposed that very idea to a friend quite a few years ago. He jokingly called it blasphemy, so I PhotoShopped a mock movie poster that introduced a new cast in the TOS roles. You can see it here:

http://www.comics2film.com/DCG/DispArt.php3?f_id=10568&f_ssn=&f_fooble=108

Please don’t go all crazy about my casting choices. At the time (I think it was 2002 or so) these were the best choices I could find.

Anyway, when it comes to choosing new actors for these parts, the main critereon for me would be “NO IMPERSONATIONS.” I don’t want to see anyone doing Kevin Pollack’s caricature of Shatner as Kirk. It would turn the film into “Star Trek: The Brady Bunch Movie,” and that would be bad. I’ll give an example. James Cawley (from Star Trek: New Voyages) generally doesn’t try to do Shatner’s Kirk, and the few times he has it’s come off as forced and truly artificial. He plays Kirk his own way, and that’s just how whoever wins the role should do it as well.

We must remember that Shatner and the other actors INTERPRETED these roles, bringing their own experience and expertise to them. The new actors will do the same thing. Yes, the performances will be different, but if the new actors are able to focus on the essence of their character (i.e. Kirk’s love of the Enterprise and the thrill he feels about exploring the unknown), then we will see Kirk there even though it isn’t Shatner on the screen.

You mentioned that you couldn’t see anyone else but Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes until you saw Jeremy Brett play him. Brett’s Holmes was radically different from Rathbone’s, yet the essence of Doyle’s creation as a man of keen intellect and unshakable tenacity is readily apparent in both portrayals. The same thing can happen with the characters in Trek; Abrams and his crew just have to find the right actors, people who are willing and able to get to the root of Kirk, Spock, et al, and bring them to life again.

I’m not concerned with it at all at this point. I have faith that Abrams will make the right choices. He knows full well what he’s dealing with and I’m sure he’s conscious of the imapct of his decisions. I’m excited to see how all of this develops.

I hope this answers your question. Oh, and if I had to choose one, I’d pick Jeremy Brett over Basil Rathbone as Holmes. His portrayal was frighteningly awesome.

Buckaroohawk, very good points, as always. Thanks!

p.s. I agree with your saying that Casper van Dien is the right “kind” of actor to portray Kirk. I just finished posting on the Justman site that the actor chosen to play the part should have a strong jawline. Casper van Dien exemplifies the physicality of that.

#48 Very cool image, I WOULD MUCH RATHER see Casper Van Dien and Billy Zane play the respective roles, as opposed to Damon and Brody!!!

Forget Billy Zane at this point. He’s gained so much weight and lost so much hair he looks like a blowfish!

I think Christian Dale as Capt. Kirk…

If you mean Christian Bale who plays Batman, that’s a bit tricky. Having the same actor play two iconic superhero roles, going back and forth every other year to each one, gives me kind of a…eeyewww feeling about the whole thing. I’d half expect Kirk to step off the turbolift wearing a cowl at some point! Blecchh!

#33- jonboc-
I, too, really liked the Lost in Space movie. Apples and oranges from the original, but I strongly suspect that Trek XI will be much closer in concept to the original than that movie was.
However, my respect for Abrams hinges an awful lot on how he resolves “Lost”- is a worthwhile yarn being spun, or are we into Twin Peaks territory?

I like #27’s casting ideas. They’re all familiar faces in the genre, to varying degrees. I also am especially excited to see how Abrams is going to use the budget and 21st century FX he has at his disposal to update the uniforms, ships, and general tech (a la the new Galactica) without really knocking things into a cocked hat, canon-wise. If he’s got $100m to toss around, there shouldn’t be any reason to have the principals running around in 1960’s velour jammies and pushing glowing jellybeans on a plywood panel. It’s kinda like the new Ford Mustang - stay true to your roots for the sake of the purists, but attract a whole new base with the more musclular lines and raw power of it all.

#56 Viking, I like the Mustang analogy..good point

I agree with what you’re all saying, but I gotta tell ya, when I saw the old Defiant depicted on Enterprise, I was jazzed! Imagine if they spent the money to give us a revamped, polished upscaled version of what we loved watching as “eye candy” from TOS’s original run? Sure, make the uniforms look a lot better, but otherwise give us the bridge and corridors (refined) we all know and love!

My biggest problem with this whole TOS concept is due to the fact that “new” actors are going to have to play the roles of the characters. It’s just like when each new series was first airing and I wondered if I would like the characters or the people that played them. Of course I did end up liking all of them but I had seven years in which to do so, this is one movie, two hours. I just don’t feel that’s enough time.

What I really want is a DS9 movie. i want to know what happened to all the characters after “What You Leave Behind.”

Michael (#58): I’m right with you, buddy. I really believe that the set concepts from TOS can be updated without betraying the original designs. Subtle changes can go a long way toward adding realism to those designs. I’m looking forward to seeing what they come up with.

Geoff (#59): I understand your trepidation, but look at it another way. When each new Trek series premiered, there was no guarantee how long they’d be on the air. We were fortunate to have such a long time to get to know the TNG, DS9, and VOY characters. Perhaps if you thought of Trek XI as a (very) big budget pilot film, one which will re-introduce familair characters to us in a new way, that might help alleviate your concerns.

And I’d love to see a DS9 movie, too. Ben Sisko’s ambiguous fate is the great unresolved plotline in Trek and I’d like to know what became of everyone. It will never happen, though, at least not on the big screen. Perhaps a made-for-TV or direct-to-DVD movie someday, but that’s probably the best we can hope for.

I think it would very DARING, PROVOCATIVE and BRILLIANT of Abrams to go retro with the look of the “new” Star Trek. Everyone on the planet, fan or not, has seen the “look” of TOS over the many years. Why not give the audience a refined version of what they’re already conditioned and accepting of, coming full circle back to the most beloved and revered Trek of all?! Yeah, baby!!

No! No reboot! The last thing Star Trek need is a reboot. Star Trek should be going forward, not backward as Abrams and his preaccessors - B&B - had done. I had said it before and I will say it again - the next Trek movie should take place in TNG era, post UFP war, onboard a new ship with grand new characters, technologies, discoveries and stories. Then we will truly and “boldly go where no one had gone before.”

I hope they breathe new life into the original Trek theme the way they did with Mission Imposssible.I always felt that the trek movies should have made more use of (in expanding on)the original TV score

Digifan (#62): Trek XI isn’t going to be a reboot. From all accounts, it’s supposed to be an original story set within TOS continuity with new actors in the TOS roles. Haven’t you been reading ANY of the articles posted here?

It doesn’t matter how many times you “say it again,” the next Trek film will not take place in the TNG era, it will not be post UFP war (whatever the hell that is), and it will not be set aboard a new starship with a new crew. Time to face the facts. You’re not going to get what you want. Accept it.

Star Trek most certainly can go forward by looking back to TOS. In fact, that’s precisely what it is going to do. The one not moving forward is you, I’m afraid. Stop pouting and embrace the new Trek.

#64 Buck
I think he means the Dominion War and you are absolutely correct otherwise.

Xai (#65): Thanks for backing me up. Much appreciated.

For some reason Aaron Lohr, currently 30 years old, just looks very Kirky to me:

http://www.geocities.com/cscmonkeefan/headshot.jpg

#67- Not a bad choice at all. Aaron Lohr looks a hell of a lot MORE like Kirk than Matt Damon!!!!!!!!

balok #67): There is definitely some Kirk in Aaron Lohr. Looks-wise, he’d make a great choice, but he’d have to do something about those eyebrows.

Lohr does seem to play more Mediterranean ethnic characters, but then Kirk doesn’t HAVE to be blond. He had dark curly hair in the ’80s. Check this out, Kirk at 50 from TWOK and Lohr at 25 from a publicity photo:

http://www.kabeleins.de/imperia/md/images/film_dvd/k1_filme/s/star_trek2_galerie/star_trek2_03_500_375_ParamountPictures.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/cscmonkeefan/headshot.jpg

(Whose brows don’t match here really?)

Here’s another pair of photos, Kirk at 35 doing a different facial expression, and Lohr at 24 or so:

http://isitbeertimeyet.ca/gallery2/d/775-2/kirk.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Academy/8529/micky2.jpg

Lohr’s IMDB page is http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0517909/

Again (#70) Lohr would be a much better choice that Matt Damon (who in my opinion should NOT even be in the running. Having said that the question still remains — will the story revolve around young Kirk in the academy/Farragut OR his first mission on the Enterprise???