Comments on: Abrams to direct Star Trek – Official

By: shane razey

shane razey — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 02:29:30 +0000

What if the Enterprise, let’s say, ah, “Transforms” if you will,
into a large f-ing “Robot”. That would be sweet.
.
Well all kidding aside, no matter what end result each film does,
I will for 2 hours be a little 10 year old kid again, with no worries
about bills, or politics, or my crappy job. That, my fellow movie
friends, is why I pay $10 for a film. For a good time, and peace of mind.

By: Jay

Jay — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:47:44 +0000

Rodney,
I’m just telling you guys what IGN put on their site yesterday. They say they have inside sources that say Matt Damon is in the mix.
– “Confirming rumors that have been making the rounds for some months now, IGN has learned that Oscar winner Matt Damon is indeed in talks with Paramount about playing the role of Jim Kirk” –
and they go on to add -
“Those are the three actors that our studio insider advised us were the closest to being cast, with Damon’s talks said to be further along than the rest” -
Are you trying to tell me that actors are never non-committal about things that they ARE in talks for? And like this site never perpetuates rumours. Not to mention that I wasnt basing this on anything Damon said. This came from “studio sources” at Paramount, so Damon’s statement has no bearing on what I said or why I said it.

I dont base what I think on what John says.
Sorry to disappoint you, but he is not my main source of information.
And, I never said it was a done deal. If you’ll notice, the first line in my post was “IGN is CLAIMING” and that they were the “closest” to being cast. What about any of those statements suggests confirmation?
Relax Rodney,
I am in no need of being pointed to “John’s take”. I have my own “take” or opinion and I’m very happy with it, thank you very much.

By: Rodney

Rodney — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:25:08 +0000

Jay, allow me to point you to John’s take on the whole Matt Damon as Kirk theory. (use the search feature to the left, “Damon Star Trek”)

Matt made a non committal statement neither admitting or denying it. That doesn’t mean he is “closer than you think”. It means he is an actor.

Just like Abrams, we wont know for sure until pen hits paper, but unlike Abrams Damon hasn’t been saying he is on board and moving forward.

By: Kaneda979

Kaneda979 — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 08:30:38 +0000

“My lil’ o’ thought on Rodney’s idea/concept for the “Reboot”:

FUUUUCKIIIING SSWEEEEEEEEEETT.

Rod, please get hired on as script supervisor.”

Agreed. :) He does have an awsome concept there. I would love to see this on the big screen. I would hope that whatever it is they change would effect the technology development some aswell. And in turn that new technology giving the series a little more of a cool factor and complexity to the story line.

I’ve never been that big of a StarTrek fan, but I love the Next Generation series. And some of the older movies I thought were great. I welcome a new movie that gives a new start to the series that resparks people’s intrest in the franchise, as well as my own. As long as it lives up to Gene Roddenberry’s basic idea of StarTrek and makes the series fun and exciting again by today’s movie standards, I’m all for it and can’t wait. :)

As for J.J. Abrams, I think he’ll do a good job. He’s no Bryan Singer, which is who I wish was going to do it, but I’m more glad Singer is doing another new Superman insted. I still think Abrams is a good 2nd choice though.

By: Jay

Jay — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 05:29:38 +0000

Ign is claiming that the three actors closest to nabbing the roles are -

Matt Damon – Kirk – They say he’s closer to signing than you might think.
Adrian Brody – Spock
Gary Sinese – Bones

IGN says they are all in the negociations stage.

By: James

James — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 03:22:45 +0000

I had always kind of hoped that they would have done a Voyager movie. Tell me who wouldn’t want to see Seven of Nine on the big screen?!

By: Jay

Jay — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 00:04:30 +0000

Darren,
They didnt really alter history.
They went back and grabbed 2 whales. The species was still extinct when they got back to the future. They just had the 2 they brought back with them.

Geek correction aside,
I’ll see it either way because I am a Star Trek fan (not Trekkie, just a casual fan. Not thet there’s anything wrong with being a Trekkie), but I would prefer the reboot idea over the just plain ol’ prequel idea. I want them to be able to go in new directions and not be beholden to an already established continuity. It takes away any dramatic elements of tension and suspense if you know the way the story ultimately unfolds. Sure, it’s kinda neat seeing how they got there (ala Star Wars prequels) but I would like to see them be able to branch out into new and uncharted territory.
Like I said, I’ll go see it either way but I would prefer an idea like Rodney suggested that takes away the possibility of following the same timeline. Something that forces them to go in a completely different direction.

By: Mr Stay Puft

Mr Stay Puft — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 22:44:39 +0000

I’d rather see another Serenity/Firefly movie.

By: shane razey

shane razey — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 22:21:48 +0000

My lil’ o’ thought on Rodney’s idea/concept for the “Reboot”:

FUUUUCKIIIING SSWEEEEEEEEEETT.

Rod, please get hired on as script supervisor.

By: Kneon Transitt

Kneon Transitt — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:30:40 +0000

It’s going to take more than this to get me interested in Star Trek again. The show/movie series has pretty much been on life-support since Gene Roddenberry’s death.

Everything has that “been there, done that” feel.

What it really needs is to BOLDLY GO and EXPLORE STRANGE, NEW WORLDS.

What it’s been doing is retreading all-too-familiar territory.

Using Spock and Kirk again… sounds like more of the same to me. Sounds like just another time travel episode of TNG, honestly.