Star Trek XI Movie!?!!

lexesbenz wrote:

No way costner could play kirk you cant be 50 years old and be in the academy, how about brandon routh the new superman, he might be good

as spock not kirk

kevin costner as spock

he is real good at keeping straight faced, and plays a stiff  with  the personality of a door knob real good too

As a Trekker with 20 years in a Trek fan club, I am SO not going to touch THAT set of speculations with someone ELSE's wisecrack!

Joaquin Phoenix is a good actor . . . but he is NEVER going to be a Jim Kirk.

Keanu Reeves is an okay actor, good enough to earn a living . . . but I would be a MUCH better Spock (and I'm 54, fat, and short!).

On the other hand, Scarlet Johannsen as Ruth, Kirk's Academy hottie . . . OH YEAH!!!

Jim Kratzer

The mad yank

More likely to end with this casting

Joaquin Pheonix as Kirk "Hel-l-l-l-o there. I'm Jimmy Kirk"

and Spock will be played by Keanu Reeves, "Jim...Whoooh"

Of course if they can sign Scarlet Johansen as Kirks squeeze......I'm there!

Bgrigg wrote:

StevenQ wrote: I wouldn't even cast Affleck as a shuttlecraft!! There are rocks with more personality!! That is an affront to shuttlecraft. And rocks!

StevenQ wrote:

I wouldn't even cast Affleck as a shuttlecraft!! There are rocks with more personality!!

StevenQ wrote:

I wouldn't even cast Affleck as a shuttlecraft!! There are rocks with more personality!!

on today's news i heard they might have ben affleck to play the lead in the new star trek movie

girls might go just to see him but i bet true trekkies won't

i think it an awful choice

cassibill wrote:

I'll start a PM then.  What exactly is the beginning? Production order with Kirk and Co. or chronologically series wise with Archer or straight chrono starting with the Big Bang (A Q playing hide and seek with another Q hid there and took Voyager with him.  The Guardian of Forever exists with time itself.)

And I know too much.  Want to take this off thead into a PM or leave it here?  Where to you want you Trek education to start?  We could do a history of Romulans.

I'm such a Trekkie geek, it's sad. Photographic memory and next to every book and DVD on Trek don't mix. I only had to double check a couple of those dates and how to spell "Klach D'Kel Brakt (You'd think I'd have learned how to by now.  My dog's name is Kor. Had we taken his brother as well, he would have been Kang.)". I actually edited it down.  I'm a history of the fictive future.

 The Romulan problem has existed a long time and shows no sign of ending. That's why Section 31 has a long-term, deep-cover operative in the Tal Shiar.  Any other Trek history you interested in while I'm rambling?

That was the later one, also a good idea.  The Klingons and Romulans were sparing over their broken alliance when the Romulans went after Narendra III in 2344, about 70yrs after Kor mauled them at the Battle of Klatch D'Kel Brakt. The C stepped in and was lost defending the Klingons.  The Klingons were naturally impressed that a human could have such honor.  This lead to the later version of the Khitomer Accords.  "Yesterday's Enterprise" was what would have happened if the Federation hadn't cemented its alliance with the Empire so strongly (that and rumors said the Rom. to prisoners and displayed the C's hulk on Romulus).  That is why the Rommies attacked Khitomer with the help of Ja'rod, father of Duras later as revenge for the Accords. 

The Romulan War of 2156 was the one I was talking about.  It is the one that happened right at the birth of the Federartion.  The Romulans tried to stop the Humans, Vulcans, Andorians, and Tellerites(the Fed.'s core four) from making alliance.  When Archer kept them from it, they attacked the humans.  The four banded together and founded the Fed.  The Romulans actually attacked Earth.  The Borg and Breen did later, but the destruction from the Rom/Earth war nearly destroyed both races.  The war ended in 2160 and the Fed. and the Academy were founded the next year.  It is what was skipped in the fast forward to the last ep. of Enterprise.

lexesbenz wrote:

They never made a Voyager movie all it was, was 2 episodes back to back, Im talking about a theatrical release. I honestly dont see how a movie about kirk when he was younger could be very interesting. Dont get me wrong im a huge trek fan.