Hanks to go Trek?

Errr ... Christopher Plummer?



And what of poor, dear Kirstie Alley?

Reply

Oh jeez, let it go already! The various series were fun and maybe even boundary-expanding in their time, but that time is over. The Star Trek universe was been explored and re-mined to death.



And most of the Trek films never came close to approaching the story quality of the TV series - they just featured more expensive eye-candy and a smattering of more expensive actors. Since any 13 year-old kid with a PC can crank out dazzling eye candy, the focus has to shift back to that of plot and character and, sadly, there's just no meat left on those old ST bones.

Reply

and not to forget Whoopi Goldberg

Reply

It should also be pointed out that Shatner picked up an Emmy last year.

Reply

I guess more definition needs to be given to "legitimate actor".



Ashley Judd, Teri Hatcher, Kelsey Grammar, John Glover, James Cromwell, Stephen Collins, Scott Bakula, Jason Alexander, Kristie Alley and many others have appeared in a Star Trek series/episode in one way or another. Depending on what the definition of a 'legitimate actor', some of those could be eliminated.



At any rate, no, I don't think this would be good for the series. While having Tom Hanks in the movie alone might put a few butts in the seats, I somehow doubt if it would single handedly determine whether or not the movie succeeds. The movie needs to focus on the actual plot and story, rather than the special effects and who the physical actors will be. First Contact was miraculous - and they've been trying to copy its formula over and over again to no success.



Put Hanks in place of Murray Abraham as Ru'afo in Star Trek: Insurrection. Sure, Hanks might have done a little more with the role, but would it have made the plot any better? Of course not.



I believe this was also the reasoning behind bringing Bakula in to play Johnathan Archer in Enterprise. No matter how well Bakula played his part (which he did), in the end the plot still sucked. Granted it did get better toward the end of the series, but Bakula couldn't save the show himself. It’s certainly a risk for Hanks, since if the movie implodes at the box office he'd take a reputation hit.



The writers, instead, need to focus on how to make the movie seem less-TV like (since Nemesis and Insurrection seemed like over-extended television episodes rather than motion pictures). That's my take, though.

Reply

Don't Forget Scott Bakula or Ricardo Montobon (?)

Reply

Tom Hanks i s truly a big star but there have bee n many a-list stars since its beginngs in September, 1968

Reply

KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHN!

Reply

Malcolm McDowell, David Warner?

Reply

Star Trek and the Simpsons will be around long after you aren't.



They don't need 'legit' actors, but it can't hurt.

Reply

I'd say this post landed on its face. Hanks is certainly a talented and celebrated actor but the comments you've received thus far have cast reasonable doubt that he and Stewart have been the only legit actors to join the franchise.



Star Trek has enjoyed a strong following of viewers over the years but in the end, I can't see why Hanks would even bother, and I certainly don't think even the most popular actor could change the fact the by and large, Star Trek is nerdsville. Only a massive overhaul to the concepts and themes could dig it out of the niche trench it's been in.

Reply