Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Matt Damon as Kirk in Star Trek XI? 594

GiggidyGiggidy writes "Our friends at 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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Matt Damon as Kirk in Star Trek XI?

Comments Filter:
  • Oh, Yes! (Score:5, Funny)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Thursday August 03, 2006 @01:56PM (#15841198) Homepage Journal

    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 [] at this tired old series?

    • Damon is ok with me.

      Affleck, though...

      I can't stand that smug sack of shit! How about him playing "Ensign Ricky"?

    • You forgot:

      Khan Noonien Singh -- Mel Gibson

    • Re:Oh, Yes! (Score:5, Funny)

      by InsaneCreator ( 209742 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @02:40PM (#15841615)
      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! (Score:5, Funny)

      by rs79 ( 71822 ) <> on Thursday August 03, 2006 @08:34PM (#15843784) Homepage
      "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.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Kevin Smith as Spock
    Jason Mewes as Scotty
    Ben Affleck as Bones
    Ophrah Winfree as Uhura
    John Cho is Sulu
    Yakov Smirnoff as Chekov

    Imagine the dialoge.

  • 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.

  • What on eart are they thinking?
  • by sharkey ( 16670 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @01:57PM (#15841210)
    Getting closer to Star Trek XII: So Very Tired!
  • by roman_mir ( 125474 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @01:57PM (#15841211) Homepage Journal
    Matt Damon.
  • Now, get Sinise. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by krell ( 896769 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @01:58PM (#15841215) Journal
    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.
  • At first. (Score:2, Insightful)

    I thought what a terrible idea, but he has acted well in both action movies (bourne idenity) and drama movies (the talented mr. Ripley). As young Kirk I think he would do really well.
    • by thewiz ( 24994 ) * don't...understand. Matt..Damon..can't pull off...the hammy...overacting of...William Shatner.
      • You just did that pretty well, I think Matt Daemon can also do it... Kirk is like the easiest person in star trek to emulate.
    • Re:At first. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by FortKnox ( 169099 ) * on Thursday August 03, 2006 @02:14PM (#15841373) Homepage Journal
      I agree. Ben Affleck is the only reason for negativity of Matt Damon. Matt, by himself, is a good actor.
      • "Matt, by himself, is a good actor."

        No, Matt by himself plays one good role and he plays it in every frickin movie he's ever been in. He's like John Wayne or Kevin Costner (sans Bull Durham). You model your screenplay around Damon, not the other way around. And knowing the Damon part, I have my doubts as to how good a Capt Kirk he can be.

        Affleck on the other hand is a bordeline decent actor and can play different roles to some degree but like Chevy Chase, he doesn't seem to know how to turn down a part.
    • by hcob$ ( 766699 )
      As young Kirk I think he would do really well.
      Dont't you mean:

      "As... a... young Kirk, I.... believe... he would..... do... really well! ARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAA.... SPahhhhhhhhhhhhhK!
  • by PIPBoy3000 ( 619296 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @02:00PM (#15841233)
    All they had him say was "My crew, my ship." and he got the part.
  • by Goalie_Ca ( 584234 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @02:00PM (#15841239)
    I really don't care that it was Matt Damon. He's proven that he can at least do some acting but here's the thing. Enterprise failed because it was too Hollywood. Was it season 3 when they were in the void? What a horrible season because you could tell marketing had a big checklist for all the various "demographics" it was meant to appeal to. The last season finally figure out that a good storyline and real character development is what drives a show. They had already been canceled though and didn't even know it. What a tease! Back to the main point... if matt damon was chosen because he's a famous celebrity this movie is already doomed.
  • Too Old!!! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Randolpho ( 628485 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @02:00PM (#15841241) Homepage Journal
    Matt Damon can look young, yes, but he's 35 -- as old as Shatner was when he started playing Kirk originally! If Damon is supposed to be younger Kirk in his Academy days... I dunno, it just doesn't work for me.
  • by Bryansix ( 761547 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @02:01PM (#15841247) Homepage
    Matt Damon: Matt Damon, Matt Damon
  • by ExE122 ( 954104 ) * on Thursday August 03, 2006 @02:01PM (#15841253) Homepage Journal
    So I've got mixed feelings:

    Beam me down:

    IMHO, Matt Damon has become so typecast that he plays the same character in every movie. I don't think he's changed his style in any role from Mr. Ripley, Mr. Bourne, Mr. Loki, Mr. Hunting, and Private Ryan. Matt Damon fans can argue till they're blue in the face, but I just cannot see him joining the ranks of George Takei, Leonard Nimoy, and Patrick Stewart. What next, playing the role of Lance Armstrong?


    Beam me up:

    So Matt Damon will always be Matt Damon. So what? William Shatner will always be William Shatner and its worked for him! Now the question remains: will Matt Damon be able to follow the framework of Mr. Shatner's drawn-out, studdering, overacting character? Lets go to the footage!

    William Shatner [Star Trek]: You.... killed my... son... you... Klingon... bastard
    Matt Damon [Team America]: Maaaaatt Daaaamon

    Maybe Damon will make an excellent Kirk. Besides, this being an odd-numbered Star Trek movie, it has every right to be a steaming heap of Ferengi dung and still keep the movies going strong. So maybe I should just watch the previews, eat my popcorn, take a nap, and wait for the sequel.

    "A man is asked if he is wise or not. He replies that he is otherwise" ~Mao Zedong
  • How dare someone defile Shatner's amazing theatrical work with the sad case that is Matt Damon?

    What's next, Steve Buschemi as McCoy?
  • by mrpeebles ( 853978 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @02:04PM (#15841282)
    Damon would seem to me to be fine as Kirk. But casting Spock is the hard part. Not many people have been able to play Vulcans that aren't boring as hell.
  • by ToxikFetus ( 925966 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @02:06PM (#15841293)
    Can we get Shatner to revisit all of Matt Damon's rolls?

    Will: Do you LIKE... apples?
    Clark: Yeah.
    Will: Well, I GOT... her number how... DO you like... THEM... apples?

  • by fullphaser ( 939696 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @02:06PM (#15841299) Homepage
    I mean seriosly, this was not the direction that the next movie even needed to go, what part of abysmall failure did they not pick up from the enterprise series, unlike star wars, Star Trek doesn't make money when going backwardcs, what ever happened to the idea of oh I don't know a ship that not only made sence, but something with emotion, how about a story about an akira class starship with an unkown crew in the dominon war? how about a series about the aftermath of the enterprise/romulan encoutner, something to shed some light on the worst cliff hanger ever, something to pick up what has so clearly been left off. Star trek doesn't need to go backwards, they need to do what they have always been good at, movies for action, and series for science and ethics they keep to that motto and they will get somewhere, they also need to stop playing with the timeline that is established as cannon, and just add on to it rather than confuse it

    just my thoughts ;)
    • by PCM2 ( 4486 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @03:13PM (#15841888) Homepage
      they need to do what they have always been good at, movies for action

      I dunno about you, but for me, the appeal of Star Trek was always the interaction between the characters of Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and to a lesser extent, Scotty and the other bridge crew. Their friendships felt genuine and it was fun to watch them tested by various forms of ridiculous melodrama. "Next Generation" was a decent show from time to time but I never got that feeling from it, and all the other series and all the movies since "Khan" -- especially when they started playing it "for action" -- seemed like mindless fanboy garbage.

  • Don't trust IMDB (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BenClueless ( 973871 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @02:06PM (#15841300)
    IMDB is rarely ever accurate until after a movie is released. They'll put anything up! Some Spider-Man 3 fan even submitted his own synopsis and had it posted to prove this. Aunt May was listed as Carnage for a while too..
    • by blamanj ( 253811 )
      IMDB notes that info in pre-production is subject to change. Plus, it's not like they're the only ones [] speculating about it.
    • Re:Don't trust IMDB (Score:5, Informative)

      by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve ( 949321 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @02:36PM (#15841569)
      IMDB is rarely ever accurate until after a movie is released.

      People connected with Star Trek (not fans, but insiders who actually work for Paramount) have said that it is not true that Damon has been cast. Given that the story line is supposed to either take place at Star Fleet Academy or maybe just afterwards and those at Star Fleet Academy would be 18-22 years old, this seems highly unlikely. Somebody may be pulling IMDB's leg. IMDB does not always get things right and just because they say it's true, that doesn't mean it really is, especially for a film that hasn't even started shooting yet.
  • The idea was born here. I mentioned reusing Kirk and Spock.

    It would be nice if the producer would acknowledge it.

    Go ahead and slam me.

  • Maybe we could learn a bit more about JT Kirk. His horse, his live on the farm.


    ...they can.... include a small storyline about.....

    ...the delayed speech....

    .....maybe too many Romulan Ales?

  • Given what Rick Berman had managed to do with the franchise between Voyager, Enterprise, and the last several movies, it would be pretty hard for Star Trek to get any worse. Unless Abrams goes completely insane and makes it into a soft-core porn flick about Matt Damon and space unicorns, this will probably be better than anything we'd be getting if the same old crew kept cranking out movies.
  • ...(was it something about the article logo?)

    Matt Damon will be much better than MacCauley Culkin.

  • by zymurgy_cat ( 627260 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @02:23PM (#15841445) Homepage
    Then maybe he can mind meld with Matt and get some acting skills......
  • on this subject. Look here. []
  • New Voyages (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Rob T Firefly ( 844560 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @02:37PM (#15841581) Homepage Journal
    I've already got my personally accepted spinoff continuation of the original "Star Trek," and it's written, produced, and acted by real fans with talent []. Those guys produce winning, pro-grade Star Trek while Paramount has displayed a complete lack of knowing what the hell to do with it.
  • by Oronar ( 942125 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @02:53PM (#15841726) Homepage
    No roles have been confirmed for Star Trek XI, nor is there any credible information definitely pointing to any actor or actress in any part in the movie. There have been a number of rumors and some well-sourced speculation, however. - Wikipedia []

    There's also this. -imdb-entry-for-trek.html []
  • I want Ben Affleck (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Ranger ( 1783 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @06:04PM (#15843131) Homepage
    No, Dammit! I want Ben Affleck. He is every bit as bad an actor as William Shatner. Let's see who do I want for Spock? Hmmm. Here is the cast I want.

    Kirk - Ben Affleck
    Spock - Tom Cruise
    McCoy - Matthew McConaughey
    Scotty - Hugh Jackman
    Uhura - Halle Berry
    Yeoman Rand - Tricia Helfer
    Nurse Chapel - Pamela Anderson
    Checkov - Wil Wheaton
    Sulu - Daniel Dae Kim
  • he's already got the eyebrow raise

    brings new excitement to the vulcan nerve pinch move

    "do you smell what the spock is cooking!"
  • by master_p ( 608214 ) on Friday August 04, 2006 @04:14AM (#15845149)
    Star Trek is about the future of humanity...a future where humans have grown out of their primitive instincts, have overcomed materialism and greed, religion and general stupidity.

    Star Trek is about exploration of space...exploring new interstellar mysteries, new star configurations, new planets, new formations.

    Star Trek is about science...its advantages and disadvantages, and what limits there exists in science, and if machines can be made to reach human status.

    Star Trek is about relations between humans evolve, what new structures can society have, how science affects the structure of society.

    Star Trek is about we destroy a planet because there are the bad guys (and take a whole new ecosystem down) or we find other ways to solve the problem?

    Star Trek has lost all the above after DS9! It all became an mindless adventure in space in Voyager/Enterprise...and thus the audience lost interest.

    A Star Trek show does not need to be dumbfounded or appeal to the lowest common denominator in order to be successful. A Star Trek show needs to be intelligent and thought-provoking.

    The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine series where exactly that. Through clever story telling, the following subjects were negotiated:

    -god and religion (in the episode where Picard was thought to be a god).
    -language and the process of thinking (Darmok; one of the best episodes of TNG)
    -if machines have rights (the episode where Lt Cmdr Data was on trial)
    -if machines can interact with people (when Data was in a relationship)
    -terrorism (many episodes, including TNG where the terrorists could appear out of thin air)
    -political systems (many episodes, especially in DS9, from imperialistic Cardassia to semi-socialist Bajor)
    -economic systems (the double episode in DS9 where Sisko goes back in time and gets sheltered in a homeless area)
    -spying (the role of Darak in DS9)
    -new races (many of episodes)
    -new interstellar phenomena (for example a Dyson sphere)
    -relationships (father-son in Picard-Crusher, Sisko and son, O'Brien and wife etc)
    -war and its consequences (too many episodes to list)
    -archeology (when Picard chased ancient artifacts)

    All the above topics, and many more, were presented, some times naively, but most of the time in a very clever way, within a clever story. And Then Star Trek was successful.

    What did we get with Enteprise, for example? and endless stream of save-the-world adventures, with none of the essence presented in TNG and DS9. And a silly story about an alien race hellbent to destroy Earth (the Xindi), no matter least the Borg wanted to assimilate us, and that was interesting.

    So, here is a message to Star Trek producers: if all you want is a cash cow, don't bother and let it die. If you want to share a message (along with profit, I don't deny that), then bring in interesting people to write the show and let them deploy their ideas.

    And don't be politically correct, for Christ's shake! remember that the first interracial on screen kiss was between Kirk and Uhura!

  • by Fantastic Lad ( 198284 ) on Friday August 04, 2006 @08:01AM (#15845606)
    J.J. Abrams would be producing this monster.

    That's right! The producer of such wonders as the CIA recruitment video, "Alias" Where the guy playing the psychopathic creep father of the main character just 'happens' to look [] like Bush [] when made up and lighted just so, (and always at those emotionally intense points where the insertion of subliminal ideas works best!) Ah, Alias! The CIA boasted merrily of the sudden huge spike in the number of resumes received from young people wanting to look pretty and act like psychopaths for the American government after Abrams' dippy spy show started airing.

    And "Lost", Abrams' other wonder-show where, like "Alias" the story idea is kinda neat and fun to watch, (like eating high MSG corn chips), but where the writers' collective grasp of and insight into the human condition is weak and shallow at best and where the emotional hooks are so incredibly obvious and formulaic, I could found myself actively complaining to the television set.

    So, Homeland Security sellout and purveyor of shallow Walmart characters. . , do we want this man contributing to Star Trek?

    I know my answer.


An elephant is a mouse with an operating system.