DS9 Movie...
- Thread starter Marie1
- Start date
Not bad. I'm guessing since you have Gul Dukat listed for a character it would take place prior to the end of the series.
True, I guess.
I've got to agree, that's some pretty good casting - I'm not sure how Odo would work out, but I'd be interested to see how that would work out...
It has surprised me that Trek never did a direct-to-DVD thing, considering the successes of Family Guy, Futurama, B5 and even SG1... it's not like it's never-been-done-before super-risky-territory. All you need is a small but fearsome group of people who live and breathe the material and you've got your audience sorted
As far as I'm aware, Trek's always had more international appeal than some of the series I mentioned, so you're not even limited to English speaking audiences.
Like the other guys said though, we've still got Trek XI to look forward to
It has surprised me that Trek never did a direct-to-DVD thing, considering the successes of Family Guy, Futurama, B5 and even SG1... it's not like it's never-been-done-before super-risky-territory. All you need is a small but fearsome group of people who live and breathe the material and you've got your audience sorted
As far as I'm aware, Trek's always had more international appeal than some of the series I mentioned, so you're not even limited to English speaking audiences.
Like the other guys said though, we've still got Trek XI to look forward to
Until recently direct-to-DVD was considered the dumping ground for content that couldn't make it anywhere else. Why would CBS want to trash their multi-million dollar franchise when they still have hopes for a resurgence at some point.
Also, Family Guy never did direct-to-dvd, it's DVD sales of old series was what convinced Fox to bring it back. Futurama also didn't go direct-to-dvd until they had a network agreement also.
Also, Family Guy never did direct-to-dvd, it's DVD sales of old series was what convinced Fox to bring it back. Futurama also didn't go direct-to-dvd until they had a network agreement also.
There is more of a shot for a mixed cast DTV movie or miniseries,but who know paramount is always looking to make money off Trek; usually DTV is a nice way to make money without completely needing to put it in theaters, with a 100% profit back from each dvd sale
Except DTV is also a good way to ensure a property never returns to movies(and before Futurama never returns to TV). Sure if you want to milk the last few dollars out of a dieing franchise go DTV. But if you ever hope to get a new blockbuster out of it don't kill your shot for a few million.
Well, they could still do it with DS9 as a side project (milking the last buck out of DS9, not the whole franchise) while focussing on the Abrams Trek movies on the big screen as their flag ship (no pun intended). Not that I see that happening any time soon, but I definitely don't see a big screen DS9 film happening because:
-DS9 always seemed to be the 'black sheep of the franchise' as some poster said.
-There has afaik never been any hint even of the possibility being considered of a DS9 feature.
-It's a long time since the series ended. As someone mentioned most sets and such are therefore gone by now.
-The Star Trek franchise is still producing other material. It's not like the resurrection of TOS in movie format, or of Farscape, or the B5 direct-to-dvd thing last year, where the franchise was basically dead for some time, but the fan base survived (or grew even) and then they produced some more material. No, the franchise is still there and alive, it only chose a different direction for future material.
-This has also been said before, but the serialised nature of DS9 make it a less likely movie candidate. Consider as a comparison the B5 movies. There were a few that tied in directly to the show's storyline, but they were made when the show was still on the air, if I'm not mistaken. All the stand alone movies that came afterwards didn't really get people very excited. Consider the X-Files movie, the one that came out when the series was at its high point was made a vital part of the overarching story of the series and it was a reasonable succes. The new one, made six years after the series ended, was a stand alone one and people were less than impressed by it. I guess making a movie that directly ties into storylines from a television series that ended years ago is too risky for most (but there are exceptions, need I say TWOK and FC?). And if a tv series relied heavily on a serialised story arc, if this story is absent from a movie based on the series, the fans will be disappointed.
-DS9 always seemed to be the 'black sheep of the franchise' as some poster said.
-There has afaik never been any hint even of the possibility being considered of a DS9 feature.
-It's a long time since the series ended. As someone mentioned most sets and such are therefore gone by now.
-The Star Trek franchise is still producing other material. It's not like the resurrection of TOS in movie format, or of Farscape, or the B5 direct-to-dvd thing last year, where the franchise was basically dead for some time, but the fan base survived (or grew even) and then they produced some more material. No, the franchise is still there and alive, it only chose a different direction for future material.
-This has also been said before, but the serialised nature of DS9 make it a less likely movie candidate. Consider as a comparison the B5 movies. There were a few that tied in directly to the show's storyline, but they were made when the show was still on the air, if I'm not mistaken. All the stand alone movies that came afterwards didn't really get people very excited. Consider the X-Files movie, the one that came out when the series was at its high point was made a vital part of the overarching story of the series and it was a reasonable succes. The new one, made six years after the series ended, was a stand alone one and people were less than impressed by it. I guess making a movie that directly ties into storylines from a television series that ended years ago is too risky for most (but there are exceptions, need I say TWOK and FC?). And if a tv series relied heavily on a serialised story arc, if this story is absent from a movie based on the series, the fans will be disappointed.
i don't think the original cast is too old/doesn't look the part to resume their roles
afterall, they'd been wanting it for a long time. it'd be insulting to recast them, i think. was there recast consideration for TMP?
afterall, they'd been wanting it for a long time. it'd be insulting to recast them, i think. was there recast consideration for TMP?
Sorry, but I hate the idea of Knepper as Dukat... he's just completely... wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
No offense to him, he is a very fine actor, and can play complex villains convincingly and chillingly... but that's not enough. He's good at being slimy and creepy and occasionally pitiable, but I'm afraid am too used to Dukat who is not just self-deluded and arrogant but also charismatic, imposing, powerful, charming, seductive...sexy. At the very least, I'd need to see someone who could convince me that the character is a Cardassian military leader.And really, if there ever was a DS9 movie made, why would you need to recast Dukat, Garak or Odo at all, as long as the actors would still willing to play those roles? It's not like you could ever guess their age under all that makeup, and unlike some other Trek actors, they don't seem to be prone to getting fat in old age.
Last edited:
Not bad. I'm guessing since you have Gul Dukat listed for a character it would take place prior to the end of the series.
I've been inspired by the Trek XI approach and would simply re-do the whole shebang in the JJverse. It's perfect, you keep what you like and ditch what you don't.
Dukat dies at the end, sure, but no red-eyed nonsense. That kind of thing.Hol-ee crap that post was from last Oct. No wonder I couldn't remember making it. Nice to see #1 on my wish list has occurred.
He's a very good actor, don't pigeonhole him with the T-Bag persona. He played a very different character for instance in Carnivale. I'd bet Knepper is on par with Marc Alaimo in terms of talent. We'll get to see him on Heroes, but I don't know if that will tell us much, they'll probably shoehorn the poor guy into T-Bag-ism. I don't have much faith in that show's writers' imaginations...
However, I do have an interesting alternative: Christopher Gorham. If not Dukat, I'd create a Romulan role just for him. Talk about perfect looks.
My laundry list of wants will take 10-15 years to actually happen, and by then the actors will be too old for the roles. I think Alaimo is already retired from acting, isn't he? Since I'm taking the JJ approach and just romping thru the story again, they'd all have to be pretty much the ages they were when the story originally begin, perhaps younger.
More casting ideas:
Kira Nerys. Obvious choice: Katee Sackhoff. Oddball (but I think could pull the role off) choice: Elizabeth Moss.
I'd be tempted to give Jadzia to Sackhoff just to see her do something different.
O'Brien: Alan Tudyk
Weyoun: Zachary Levi. This is probably the toughest role to recast, but I think he would be a hoot and I have a hunch he could nail the tricky menacing/oblivious/sleazeball personality combo that makes Weyoun so unique.
Damar: If Levi is Weyoun, I might not be able to resist the temptation to hand over Damar to Adam Baldwin, but lemmee think about this...
Quark: clearly Michael Emerson can perform any role, and he'd probably like something very un-Ben-like.
Last edited:
Bad examples. Those two movies were intended to be stand alones. It wasn't until they were huge successes that they developed the sequels.
Another Weyoun nominee: Vincent Kartheiser.
Another Damar nominee: Timothy Olyphant.
Sisko: Harry Lennix.
Female Founder: Mary McDonnell.
Another Damar nominee: Timothy Olyphant.
Sisko: Harry Lennix.
Female Founder: Mary McDonnell.
Absolutely Right(TM).
Oh, I've seen Knepper in Carnivale. I even remember him from his gs stint on TNG. I don't dispute that he's a good actor, I just think he's wrong for Dukat. Even physically. You do realize that your Dukat would be barely taller or more physically imposing than your Quark?
Anyway, if, hypothetically, a DS9 movie was to be made in 10-15 years time (which of course, it won't, but hypothetically...), we'd need younger actors. Some of those mentioned, like Knepper or William Fichtner, aren't that much younger than the original actors (no more than 10-15 years).
I just love the idea of Mary McDonnell as the Female Founder, though.
I don't really have any particularly good casting suggestions right now... lemme think. But we're using the "I just can't resist" casting principle, then with Katee Sackhoff as Kira, you just have to cast Callum Keith Rennie as Dukat just for the sake of it.
I have one casting idea for the hypothetical "if DS9 were made in 20 years time": Elizabeth Mitchell as Kai Winn. She'd be so good at acting like a smug bitch and being annoyingly self-righteous and patronizing. It would be so cool to see her as a villain, and she's talented enough to still make her character somewhat ambiguous and even sympathetic at times rather than a one-dimensional baddie.
He can wear lifts in his shoes, what's the problem. This reminds me of people complaining that Chris Pine's eyes are blue rather than Kirkian hazel.
Eye color is not the same thing at all. Eye color has got nothing to do with a role. And I don't think that there were many people complaining about Pine's eyes. But how many people would have accepted a shortish, somewhat plump Spock?
Would a small, fragile-looking man be your first choice for Sisko, or a big guy your choice for Quark?if you're auditioning and someone is awesome in an audition for a particular role, it makes sense to try to hide or just disregard physical traits that aren't matching... but as this is just hypothetical 'casting', it makes sense to suggest and comment on who just seems or doesn't seem right for a certain role, as we know it. Robert Knepper just doesn't seem right for Dukat at all, to me. It's not just the height, it's the voice, it's...everything. Since he does to you, why don't you try to convince me by explaining what makes him right for the role, apart from just being a good actor? There are plenty of good actors around (those you suggest for other roles are presumably also good). Why him? What exactly about him in any of his roles makes you think "Dukat"?
Last edited:
Similar threads
