Star Trek XI- Official now- 12.25.2008 (merged) - Page 3

Kevin Grey · 03-02-2007, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Kevin...if Sinese is signed to play McCoy, don't you think CSI would give him a bit of a break? After all, CSI is produced by CBS/Paramount, the same folks doing the movie. I'm sure filming could be moved up to get some episodes in the can before Sinese takes off for three months or a new "fill in" character could be brought in for a while.

I just don't see Sinise himself as being important enough to jump through hoops on the scheduling of the movie. The film will be expensive, probably require a lot of shooting time, and maybe even need reshoots later and I just don't see Sinise, as great a casting fit as he might be, adding enough value to put additional complications on filming, especially if they can get a big name like Damon attached.

And the flip side is that CSI is pretty darn important to CBS and I'm not sure that the gain in having Sinise in Star Trek as Bones is worth writing his CSI character out for a while or at least dramatically reducing his screen time. Of course if it's important enough to Sinise that he be in the film then CBS may let him do it just to make him happy for any upcoming contract renegotiations.

**HTF Ads**

Jason_V · 03-02-2007, 09:32 AM

Paramount is already jumping through hoops for this movie. It's got an A-list director. It has a plum release date (staked out nearly 2 years ahead of time). If the casting rumors are right, then they're going for the big guns and not unknown actors. They are pouring lots of money into this project.

In the grand scheme of things, when syndication and DVD's are added in for CSI and every ancillary revenue stream for ST XI, my gut feeling is that Trek is more important. Books, comics, action figures, conventions, mugs, t-shirts, DVD's, calendars...the list goes on.

I do rationalize a lot of things, so I could be completely off the mark on this one. But having (rumors, obviously) Damon, Brody, McAvoy, Abrama and Kim all "attached" signifies they are serious about restarting this franchise. Why have someone with small screen and genre cred like Daniel Dae Kim in a "minor" role if you're going to cast a nobody as one of the big three?

Lou Sytsma · 03-02-2007, 09:55 AM

Chris, I hear you but on the other hand most of the time travel episodes have turned out to some of the best episodes across the board for all the series.

Time travel is one scenario, parallel/alternate universes is another. I am sure that clever writers could come up with something new.

It is a no win scenario whatever route they decide to take. Perhaps having it take place in the second half of the original 5 year mission is an approach that would ruffle the fewest feathers.

Given the age of the current rumoured casting choices I find it difficult to believe that the storyline would take place in a preTOS time frame.

Tim Glover · 03-02-2007, 10:50 AM

Not to imply that JJ Abrams is not capbable of putting out a bad film. I think any director can do that: (1941 anyone

)..

I can't even remember the last Trek film I saw in the theater? But, when news hit that Abrams is involved...suddenly this extremely distant Trek fan became rather excited and hopeful.

I have high hopes.

DaveF · 03-02-2007, 11:20 AM

Recent Star Trek movies have been weak in my estimation, because they did not connect to the TV series well. The TV series was the "true" Trek, from which the characters were developed and made three-dimensional. The movies for me were a way to bring them to the big screen with a big budget (and hopefully) tell a great 2-hour story in the context of the overall series.

To me, only First Contact (for TNG) achieved that. It built on the Borg stories, fleshed out history referenced by the series and was true to the characters from the series.

Since then, the movies seem to have largely ignored the series and developed mediocre stories, rather than building on the interesting unresolved tensions and plot concepts from the series.

And so a new movie is coming along, and I wonder if it will be of any particular interest? Or will it just be random Trek story #1056?

Sam Favate · 03-02-2007, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Grey

I just don't see Sinise himself as being important enough to jump through hoops on the scheduling of the movie.

According to TrekMovie.com,

Spoiler:

.

Kevin Grey · 03-02-2007, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Favate

According to TrekMovie.com,

Spoiler:

.

That would do it then.

Spoiler:

Chris Lockwood · 03-02-2007, 02:02 PM

> I'm really excited about it, but why release this on Christmas day? I never go to the movies on Christmas. It just seems too weird to me.

Couldn't you go the next day? I think the film will still be playing...

> Shatner and Nimoy have confirmed that they have been contacted by Abrams to appear in ST11. It is still conjecture as to the size of their roles and even if they will be reprising their characters, though it would be a major surprise if they did not.

Hmmm... I assumed Shatner would be in the film as Denny Crane or possibly an elderly TJ Hooker.

Jason Seaver · 03-02-2007, 02:23 PM

Nah, have them play admirals. Shatner as the Vulcan one and Nimoy as the human one.

Sean Bryan · 03-02-2007, 04:36 PM

I think the best thing to do if they want to play in the original series era is to set it in the second half of their first 5 year mission (as has been suggested above).

That way, they can basically do anything as long as it doesn't make what we know will come years later impossible. The years of the second half of their five year mission and the time after that up to the events of "The Motion Picture" are wide open.