Matt Damon as Kirk in Star Trek XI?

GiggidyGiggidy writes "Our friends at IMDB.com are reporting that Matt Damon has been cast to play a young James T. Kirk in the new Star Trek Movie directed by J.J. Abrams. Is this the end of the Star Trek series we fans know and love, or the beginning of something bigger and better for the series?"

Oh, Yes!

Other casting???

• Ben Affleck - Bones McCoy
• Chris Rock - Computer Voice
• Jason Mewes - Mr. Spock
• Kevin Smith - Montgomery Scott

honestly, isn't it time for a real good laugh [stonetrek.com] at this tired old series?

Re:Oh, Yes!

If you were your age now, and introduced to the original series as an adult with no prior Star Trekkiness, you, like me, would be under the impression that it sucked bad.

Lousy acting, lame plots, almost no finish. Sorry, but it simply doesn't live up to today's standards.

I thought DS9 was the gem in the group, but almost no one agrees there; oddly, some geeks just can't handle a coherent plot.

Re:Oh, Yes!

I think the horrified look of the alien in the Sci-Fi logo next to the story sums this up pretty well. Not that Matt Damon probably couldn't play a good Kirk, just that they're actually making a prequel movie like this to begin with. They really need to wait 5-10 years, and then start a new TV series in the 24th or 25th century. Just tack 50 years onto the end of the Voyager series, and go with that. Heck, go back to the Delta Quadrant with a new super-duper engine. In fact, send two ships (two crews for double the story possibilites) and have them go re-explore that region of space together. I think there were enough interesting possibilities there that could refreshen the franchise. But the important thing is to wait for 5-10 years.

Re:Oh, Yes!

Not that Matt Damon probably couldn't play a good Kirk, just that they're actually making a prequel movie like this to begin with.

exactly, i can't believe that we're arguing over whether or not an actor could live up to the legacy of William Shatner. grab *any* actor in Hollywood, make him unlearn anything he's ever learned about acting, send him out there, and you've got at least as good of an actor as Shatner was. the real story here is whether this movie is going to be complete crapola because the real charm of the old show was that it was "sci-fi on a nickel budget" and the main body of Hollywood can't seem to find it in themselves to make a non-comedy movie with less than $100M spent on special effects

Re:Oh, Yes!

Just tack 50 years onto the end of the Voyager series, and go with that. Heck, go back to the Delta Quadrant with a new super-duper engine.

Why not make a series where a crew get to go out of the galaxy. In the Star Trek Universe our galaxy was seeded with life that would generally turn out humanoid. That saves on special effects, but now that is not a problem.

Here is my idea: Star Trek: Magellan - named for the great traveller. Set decades after Voyager; a colony fleet is sent to the Large Magellanic Cloud - a satellite galaxy of our own. Take a vast and fast carrier ship (The Magellan), running on autopilot for, say 50 years. The crew wake up, ready to explore and terraform and colonise. The crew is interesting. Holograms now have sentient rights, and there are borg members (like the Klingons in TNG, they are no longer enemies). Communication with our galaxy is slow and difficult. They meet real aliens, not just humanoids with different foreheads.....

Re:Oh, Yes!

Personally I am tired of the ST Universe. I want Science Fiction, emphasis on science. Phasers are just blasters from 40s or 50s pulp fiction, warp speed is a tired imitation of the WW2 Navy movies, where the captain had to think hard about the fuel/delta t trade off where the drag is proportional to velocity cubed. Warp is not Science fiction, it is elves in middle earth fantasy. I am tired of "subspace" communication (someone just heard the word in his linear algebra course before he dropped out and became a screen writer), tired of every planet being "class M", having a gravity of 10 m/s/s and a breathable atmosphere. I am especially tired of low budget aliens. Makeup does not make an alien, any more than assigning them the characteristics of some earth culture makes them alien. We've had Viking/Moslem warrior aliens, Seidenstraße aliens, Greek mythology aliens (and also vomitous magical "Q" aliens that remove the need for any coherent SF) ... Aieee!!! ...

Remember when science fiction was fun and the characters two dimensional? Remember when they travelled at sub light speeds around the solar system where there was no artificial gravity? Clarke's 2001, A Fall of Moondust, Rendezvous with Rama, Heinlein's "The Rolling Stones" and many more. We have the technology to make a coherent near future SF TV series, using the actual properties of our planets, with Lagrange colonies, pioneer colonies, mining operations on Mercury, slow freighters and liners using economy orbits and fast (expensively anti-matter powered) "Federation" ships busy about the system.

How many of us learned the basic (incorrect) properties of the planets from those books? Now let's do it again with Mercury's real day, and a non-tropical Venus. Settle the moons and adventure in space.

It is not for us. It is for that Aspergers 14 year old guy who is awkward with girls but knows the ABCs of Relativity; the one in the generation coming up fast behind us. Let us relive SF through his (yes his) eyes.

There can still be a 7 of 9 character so that he will have an imaginative, once removed from reality, sex life.

Re:Oh, Yes!

Yeah. It was called Firefly, then Serenity.

It got cancelled, and the movie did really poorly at the box office.

As geeks, we should'a been out there supporting Joss and his "new sc-fi series, with new characters and new stories and it is not based on a universe that lasted for 40 years".

I personally feel bad that I only saw the movie twice at the theatre.

We bitch about nothing good on, but then don't support it when it shows up.

Re:Oh, Yes!

As geeks, we should'a been out there supporting Joss and his "new sc-fi series. We bitch about nothing good on, but then don't support it when it shows up.

Amen. Notice how most people talk the talk, but have second thoughts about walkin' the walk? In my hometown, many people complained about there not being any 'real' cinema. I actually went out and did something about it, screening films in a local cultural center once a week, with no admission cost.
Guess what? NONE of the people, both men and women, who complained about lack of options in town, have shown up during the ten months I've been screening films, sheepishly delivering a barrage of chronic excuses:
- "I was busy"
- "I forgot (and went out on the town)"
- "I don't have time" (but they do have time to go out on the town on that same night, week in and week out)
- "Etcetera"

Fortunately, I have built up a modest but loyal audience, mainly composed of college science students (astronomy and oceanography).
But if I hear any more complaints from poseurs, I'm gonna laugh in their face, spit in their eye and piss in their ear.

I liked DS9.

Except for the final couple of seasons. Then it sucked.

And TOS was damn good when it was released. It doesn't look that as cutting edge now, because the edge has moved on.

The problem is that the Star Trek franchise has not kept up with the edge. Now they're afraid of the edge. They don't want to make a show that small core will love for years and years and years. They want a show that almost everyone will sort of like and probably watch every week. They want "Friends" ... but in space. With the foam head of the month "alien".

They want "episodes", not stories.

They want light, cute actors, not developed characters.

Re:I liked DS9.

What I think this particular story means is that the Star Trek universe wants to stop moving forward. In time, I mean. The creators of Star Trek have - starting with Enterprise and continuing until now - lost the guts to do anything but cash in on past glories and old history. There's no drive to create NEW history. Old Star Trek is popular still - yeah, because it's old. New Old Star Trek will get nowhere. "Rebooting" the Star Trek universe from Kirk and Spock will get nowhere. They need to go forward. REALLY forward. Five hundred years beyond TNG. Build an absolutely perfect Federation and then hurl seriously gigantic threats at it. Go to the limits of current science fiction and use the cream. Transhumanism and stuff!

There's one Problem with that.

The only producer that would ever do that is dead.

That was the original idea behind "Andromeda"

Andromeda was originally intended to be about the last Federation starship after the collapse of the Federation. Roddenberry's ideas were turned around a bit because the current keepers of Star Trek didn't want to "destroy" the universe and damage their cash cow.

If you watch the show, especially the episodes when they were still using one of the writers from Bab 5, you can even see how some of the "Andromeda" aliens mapped to the Star Trek species they were based on.

In short, Roddenberry WANTED to trash the Federation and run the universe from a point of collapse and chaos. What happened was that his notes got used to start a new show, the "Federation" got renamed the "Confederacy" and it was treated to a decent special effects budget and not much else.

If you watch it as a post Federation show, and mentally map some of the alien species to their Trek counterparts, the show actually becomes watchable.

After all, Shatner taught all of us to look beyond the acting. :)

Re:I liked DS9.

They want "episodes", not stories.

I'm sure Ron Moore was in agreement with that, and that's why he moved on to Battlestar Galactica. You can't skip and episode of that show or you will be pretty lost. It also is pretty edgy, dealing with modern day ideas of terrorism, military power, and political espianage. And although this point gets argued, I'd say it has the best FX of any Sci-Fi show on TV right now.

Re:I liked DS9.

You just boggled my mind. How can you say you hated the final seasons of DS9, and then immediately below that talk about how the franchise wants episodic television instead of story arcs and developed characters? An ongoing story arc and significant character development was precisely what happened to DS9 toward the end! On the other hand, early DS9 was very similar to TNG: episodic vignettes that can be neatly wrapped up when the hour is through, and everything is the same at the end as it was in the beginning. After seeing the success of Babylon 5, the writers and producers of DS9 started experimenting with the concepts you claim to like, and the result was the very thing you claim to hate.

Mod parent up.

I have to agree on the "plot device" bit.

Particularly with how Dax was killed by evil ghosts while on a quest to save the Orb of Prophecy so The Emissary could perform the Rite of X and seal the Portal of Y.

They ran out of real story so they tried to stitch in a DnD plot line and they ended up with the standard fantasy cardboard characters.

Re:Oh, Yes!

DS9 was a "gem" because of competition. Babylon 5 was airing during the same period as DS9, thus Star Trek started to look a bit lame (compared to what it was before... ?). So they stepped it up a notch. And when B5 ended its run, they stopped competing and went back to... well, Voyager.

Re:Oh, Yes!

Jason Mewes - Mr. Spock

At least that would mean he could be the first motherf**ker to see new galaxies... Or find a new alien lifeform... and f**k it.

Re:Oh, Yes!

Or find a new alien lifeform... and f**k it.

Doesn't Shatner have this pretty well covered?

Re:Oh, Yes!

"Ben Affleck - Bones McCoy
Chris Rock - Computer Voice
Jason Mewes - Mr. Spock
Kevin Smith - Montgomery Scott"

My thoughts EXACTLY. This HAS to be done. I'd pay BIG money to see this.

You need to get Alan Rickman in there as well though. He is after all the only one with experience in space.

****, ****, ****, ****
Mother****, ****
.
.
.
My Jungle loooooooooooove.

Re:The rest of the Cast

Yakov Smirnoff as Chekov

In Soviet Star Trek, Enterprise drives you!

Meanwhile, aboard the Millenium Falcon...

Obi-Wan Kenobi looks pained.

Luke: What's wrong?

Obi-Wan: I felt a great disturbance in The Force, as if millions of voices cried out in terror. I fear something terrible has happened.

When paradigms collide...

Obi-Wan: I felt a great disturbance in The Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.

Seven of Nine: That was merely a spurious fluctuation in the tachyon matrix containment field. I have compensated.

I know...

I mean could Matt Damon possibly live up to William Shatner's dominant acting talent?

Almost there!

Getting closer to Star Trek XII: So Very Tired!

Re:Almost there!

Getting closer to Star Trek XII: So Very Tired!

I think Rick Berman's motto should be: "Never Give Up! Never Surrender!" [imdb.com]

Joss Whedon would be a good writer for it

As I understand it, TOS used different SciFi writers all the time, for different episodes, and usually created a three-act play. They got the best SciFi writers for their day.

Why not use Joss Whedon as chief writer and use the gang of two to fill in "Star Trek" details and to organize it into three-acts?

My goodness, Firely/Serenity were so good!

Don't skimp on space, ethics, and phaser fire, though....

Durka-Durka-Stan

Matt Damon.

Now, get Sinise.

I just read a few weeks ago about Damon being discussed as Kirk for JMS's now-gone Star Trek project. I thought it sounded like a good idea, and (for better or worse) the Shat himself approved of the choice.

Now they need to sign Gary Sinise as McCoy. Hopefully, they can keep Affleck out. He has the superficial look and the emotionless demeanor necessary for Spock, but brings nothing else.

superficial look and emotionless demeanor?

If you're looking for a nice solid wood Spock, there is only The One choice: Keanu.

Affleck has nothing on Little Buddha.

Re:superficial look and emotionless demeanor?

If you're looking for a nice solid wood Spock, there is only The One choice: Keanu.

I think Keanu lacks the personality and range of emotion required for the Spock role...

Re:superficial look and emotionless demeanor?

If you're looking for a nice solid wood Spock, there is only The One choice: Keanu.

Kirk: Spock any readings on the enemy vessel?
Spock: Whoa!

Re:superficial look and emotionless demeanor?

This is the funniest thread I've read in a long time. Starting off with "The Shat" and proceeding through "whoah."

Even Better

Kirk and Spock exploring an alien planet, monster emerges from the bushes.

Kirk (drawing his phaser): Phasers on Stun!

Spock: Not necessary Captian. . . I know Kung Fu.

Re:superficial look and emotionless demeanor?

> If you're looking for a nice solid wood Spock, there is only The One choice: Keanu.

I dunno, this could be the role Hayden Christansen was born for! He could use BOTH of his facial expressions...

Re:At first.

I agree. Ben Affleck is the only reason for negativity of Matt Damon. Matt, by himself, is a good actor.