Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
May 12, 2009
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Which Star Trek cast member gets the biggest bump from this movie's performance?
Josh Spiegel: Chris Pine and, to a slightly lesser extent, Zachary Quinto. I was never too thrilled at either actor being cast as Kirk or Spock (mostly based on their past work, as sparse as it may be), but both actors were not only phenomenal as the two most recognizable characters from the series, but they could easily fit into other big movies. Pine, especially, would seem to fit the typical leading man role, and I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up with some high-end projects in the future. Quinto also was great as Spock; he might not fit the same leading man mold as Pine, but I would be surprised if he doesn't capitalize on this film's success for some other projects.
David Mumpower: Zachary Quinto is never going to be a box office draw. He's a weird looking dude who has the bushiest eyebrows in North America. He's not TV-pretty, which means he's certainly not movie-handsome. He's a role player or a villain, not a frequent male lead. If someone does see a spike from this, and I'm not willing to cede anyone will, it's Chris Pine. He is a handsome guy who has already played a romantic lead opposite Anne Hathaway and Lindsay Lohan. He has the looks and now he has a blockbuster on his resume. If he picks his next couple of projects (prior to Star Trek 2) correctly, he could become a big name. Otherwise, it's the Paul Walker scenario from The Fast and The Furious where he does completely forgettable work in between popular Trek films. The other folks I could see getting a bump from this are Zoe Saldana, already destined for greatness thanks to being a major player in Avatar, and Anton Yelchin, the Hearts in Atlantis kid who is all grown up and a couple of weeks away from another monolithic title in Terminator: Salvation. Star Trek is a great example of casting people who are less famous now than they will be a couple of years from now.
Pete Kilmer: Saldana and Yelchin stand to gain big from this. I agree with David, Quinto will never be a lead actor. But he will be a great support actor or lead bad guy from here on. He really nailed the role of Spock and played really well off of Pine. Pine, who had a great role in Smokin' Aces, I'm not sure about. It will all depend on scripts for him, of course.
Tim Briody: Everybody in the main cast apart from Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto. They had to understand this coming in, but they're going to be forever known as (the second) Kirk and Spock until audiences get tired of these movies or they get tired of the role (which would be career suicide). I expect some pretty big things from Anton Yelchin, Zoe Saldana in the future.
Max Braden: Without having seen it I have trouble imagining Pine as being a draw in other movies, but based on reaction I'm hearing about what he brought to his performance he's certainly going to be getting a lot more offers than he was getting a few months ago. Quinto is just creepy.
Reagen Sulewski: I'm looking for big things from that Ewok looking thing that Scotty had as a pet.
Sean Collier: I think Quinto might just have been good enough to make a long career for himself - I agree that it won't be as a lead, but I see lots of supporting roles and perhaps some indie flicks in his future. Pine could go either way, I'm not convinced. I do wonder if this'll be a mainstream boost for Simon Pegg - while he's recognizable, films he's carried other than Shaun of the Dead have only been middling performers in America. I'm curious to see if his next comedy gets a bump.
Les Winan: Karl Urban. He showed his acting ability, humor and range. Since he was actually the most recognizable face to most people (if one they couldn't quite place), the success of Trek may provide him with opportunities outside of Doom-esque mindless action movies.
Jamie Ruccio: I think the clear winner is Pine here. I think he'll get many, many offers from this performance and the box office success of the film. What he does with it will determine, however, if we're still talking about him in three years. And I was glad to see Urban so easily capture the humor of Bones. I've always thought he was under-appreciated so I was happy to see him in this movie.
Well, JJ will need a show to replace Lost...
Kim Hollis: If you were a Paramount exec, would you be firing up a new Star Trek TV show, or would you be sticking exclusively to movies right now?
Josh Spiegel: Movies, definitely. As a TV series, Star Trek has never been bigger than back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when The Next Generation was a relatively big show. Most people may want to see these characters again, but I don't see people like Zoe Saldana, Simon Pegg, and Karl Urban forgoing film careers for a TV series with a lower budget and what may end up as a retread of all other Star Trek TV series. If J.J. Abrams or someone else can come up with an inventive way to bring Star Trek back to the small screen, I'm all for it, but for now, Paramount should stick with the film franchise.
David Mumpower: I am of two opinions on this. The reality is that television money is hard to ignore if the possibility exists. This is the mistake that cost the Star Trek franchise so dearly over the past 15 years. First, there was a spin-off in Deep Space Nine that went against the basic premise of flying around in space and finding new battles each week. Then, there was an attempt to kickstart the franchise by returning to its roots of exploration with Voyager, but the show lacked any imagination, creativity or intriguing villainy. Finally, UPN's debut pressured Paramount to make their flagship franchise a linchpin program on the fledgling network. It tried to return Star Trek to its roots, but the implementation was poorly received. Meanwhile, all of the movies (as well as Enterprise's finale) focused on what is widely regarded as the best Trek, Next Generation. It seems as if Star Trek has been trapped in the Picard era for over 20 years now.
Having acknowledged that, we are also in an era where mythology television, something for which Star Trek was a forerunner, is the end all be all. Were J.J. Abrams to produce a new program that took some of the talent from Lost and Alias as well as some disciples such as Drew Goddard, I have no doubt that this show would be a huge hit. The question becomes whether it could exist independently of the movies without diluting the product. I would imagine discussions exactly like this one will be taking place at Paramount from now until the second film is released in 2011. That's about the earliest I would expect a new Trek TV show to appear. If done right, it could be a juggernaut, just as the new movie is. If not done right, it could do much more harm than good to the Star Trek brand, with regards to movies as well as the tv series.
Pete Kilmer: Former Trek Writer/Heroes producer/creator of Pushing Daises Bryan Fuller has let it be know that he wants to run a new Trek TV show. I think Paramount could easily do it, but it wouldn't be about the crew of the Enterprise at all, it'd have to be another ship set in the same time period. It's something that could be done, but if it is, we're five or six years away from that at the earliest. I suspect that if Paramount gives the go ahead for it we'll see some kind of setup in the second Trek movie that would make for a natural spin off for TV.
David Mumpower: Pete's comments lead me to another key point. Ron Moore has mentioned time and again that one of the key problems with Star Trek is that it's trapped under the weight of its own structure and history. I know Pete, a comic book store owner, has mentioned the same issues with DC Comics in the past. It's extraordinarily difficult to tell new stories that fit within existing canon. A new Trek serial would only work were it to be liberated from such conventions.
Tim Briody: Just put a new movie out every two years and be happy about it. The failure of Enterprise should have been a lesson learned.
Max Braden: Movies. A Trek TV show sounds like a high cost endeavor with weak prospects for a decent share of viewers, especially in an environment of poor ad revenue and heavy competition from reality TV. I could maybe see the SciFi channel fielding some Starfleet Academy show looking for ratings similar to Eureka, but really, the next movie should be the priority.
Reagen Sulewski: I think a Star Fleet Academy series would do about as poorly as the 90210 sequel series. There's no way I go with that concept. But then again, Smallville has run eight years now so what do I know?
Jamie Ruccio: I honestly don't think it matters what the vehicle (movies or TV) is provided it's done by good and creative people. I think, if I remember correctly, the creative forces of the franchise of the last 20 years have come from within the work done before it. There was a feel to the finished product that it was stale, unimaginative and repetitive. But what also helped this movie was that the creative team clearly understood the mythology and character of the universe they were playing in. That they turned the almost mocking jokes we'd heard about Star Trek into amusing little parts of the movie from Red Shirts to Green Chicks.
So I don't think it matters if they do a movie or a series next just as long as what they come up with is good science fiction. The audience is generational at this point and well established. Those that create product from this universe just need to produce something worthy of the audience.