Urban Confirmed as Bones for STAR TREK

Yet another mistake by JJ Abrams.

We'll all just have to see.Personally, I think they should have given this franchise a rest.
Don't get me wrong I love Star Trek,but it's gone on too many years-it needs a breather.

They cast this muscle man Fabio look alike as Bones??? You know this is going to be a mess!!!

I guess I’m confused about what the intention is here. I thought the new Star Trek was not going to ignore cannon, but the casting choices would seem to imply the cannon has been thrown out in favor of a testosterone-fueled action movie, which doesn’t make any sense at all.
I saw the original series when it came out and I loved the central theme of the series: in the future we are smarter and rather than using violence to solve every problem, our species had evolved to meet problems with intelligence and understanding. Of course, this is the opposite of what our current administration is doing today, so this message is even more important today.
Bones is a case in point. He’s older, more mature than Kirk, and ever ready to object when people’s lives are threatened. He’s the voice of reason. Kirk, on the other hand, is willing to take chances when he feels the goal is worth it. It was this conflict between Bones and Kirk that was one of things that made this series so compelling and relevant.
I just don’t see Karl Urban is this role.

------in the future we are smarter and rather than using violence to solve every problem, our species had evolved to meet problems with intelligence and understanding.-----

Are you sure you saw the original series? Because this might have been the INTENT of the show, but there was an awful lot of action in it, including guns, knives, and straight fisticuffs.

Well, the show was alot more civil than the direction of how things seem to be headed, from real life to film and television, there is a sick obsession with violence...but when people employ strong sexual themes in the medium, those depictions are often censored, or completely redacted. Two cases in point: Remember the first Robo Cop...and Terminator film??? Both movies had nudity, sexuality, and or, sex in them. Well, after they became successful...their sequels went without nudity or sexuality and began pandering to the teen audience. And the same is true of Star Trek. The original show was very sexual...with heaps of implied sexuality and sexual liberation, however...flash forward to the Star Treks films and all the latter day television shows...and the sex went right out the window...replaced by violence as the immediate stand-in for that missing sexual tension.

Anyway, in terms of the new movie, this whole prequel thing is just plain miscast and misguided. When I think Karl Urban and Eric Bana...I don't think "Movie star"...or "Event Film"...and I certainly don't think..."Well, I'd like to buy a ticket to see them in a movie!!!"

At the end of the day STAR TREK IS NOT REAL it is ENTERTAINMENT and the primary concern of Paramount is making money. The real problem with Star Trek has been the expectations of FANBOYS who get wet dreams about orion slave girls. This is the 21st Century and in order for Star Trek to survive it has to abandon the Roddenberry vision which worked fine in the sixties but today no movie audience is going to go for that. That was the problem in the Next Generation movies with the exception of First Contact. That movie provided a formula that worked and then when the pathetic fanboys whined they compromised and sank the franchise. A Star Trek film should supercede what you see on TV every week and Rick Berman failed miserably with that when he ran the franchise. A reboot with fresh young actors is the only way this will survive. MISCAST AND MISGUIDED is not a fair statement by someone who hasn't seen a script. It makes perfect sense to NOT cast established hollywood actors who will come in and demand more money and muck up the movie with their egotictical interpretations. Young actors are hungry and they want this to work. This movie will be the begining of many if they pull it off right and if it is a continuity a la Crisis on Infinitie Earths type of film then even better. A LOT OF YOU GUYS ARE HATERS. You want the film to fail cause your punk asses have nothing better to do. Dude it's a movie. It's entertainment. The original series actors are dead or dying. Leonard Nimoy is in it and that says a lot. He would not do it if it didn't work. He has a decent track record. He refused to do GENERATIONS and he tried to tell them the movie didn't work and they did not listen to him or others who could have tweaked that movie to work. I like the fact that JJ is keeping it under wraps and I like the fact that he is bascially giving the fanboys the middle finger. Give the man a chance. You are judging it based on the casting of Actors. THEY ARE CHARACTERS. Why would you cast someone that looks just like Deforest Kelly. A Reboot or Retcon allows you to remold the image of the universe. Paramount has A LOT OF MONEY vested in Star Trek. They remastered all thos original episodes to make money and bring in a New Generation of viewers. Star Trek can't go back to the sixties or the nineties that tried to emulate the sixties. No one is interested in deep thought. People want to see Kirk kick ass and ships blowing up. Remember where philosophy got Star Trek V. Hopefully that will be wiped from continuity. Spare me your commentary on violence. Whatever. If they make this movie without action and full of philosophical thoughts about aliens it will tank. Star Trek works when it has action and drama. Wrath of Khan and First Contact worked and that is what they need to remember. DS9 worked when they got into a war. This movie is a year out. FANBOYS GIVE IT A REST.

What's the problem with Karl Urban?? Didn't any of you people see LOTR?!?! Quit whining already!

As for the one who whined about a "testerosterone filled action movie" -WTF? How you contrive that is beyond me.

In regard to Karl Urban and Eric Bana being cast in this movie...and force fed to us--all I can think is that Paramount is attempting to turn these guys into stars...using the Star Trek reboot to accomplish that task. Why??? It is no secret that Paramount wants to relaunch the Mission Impossible franchise, but they need a bankable Hollywood leading man to do it...or at least someone that can be alleged to be one. How do you accomplish that task when people like Brad Pitt refuse to take on such a role??? Both he and Will Smith being close friends of Tom Cruise, takes them out of the running. And of course, George Clooney is signed to an exclusive contract with another film studio--that, and the fact that he is not exactly a major box office draw when he is the sole star in a film. Denzel Washington is too old...and is losing his box office appeal...and lastly, Russell Crowe has lost his box office drawing power thanks to being perceived as an ass. Owen Wilson tried to kill himself. Keaunu Reaves hasn't had a hit for years--and Johnny Depp is too eccentric--he would refuse the role on the principle that it isn't whimsical enough. Matt Damon is Jason Bourne...so that ain't gonna happen. Ben Afleck is damaged goods. Colin Farrell has repeatedly tanked at the box office...and Jamie Fox is tanking--hence the void.

Let's face it, there is a crisis in the Hollywood leading man department in terms of males who can open up a film to huge box office numbers on opening weekend. So, what you do if you are Paramount, if you trying to create buzz around someone whom you think has potential to be a star...a person you want to star in one of your decapitated franchises--that being none other than the now star-less Mission Impossible film franchise??? You cast that person in a major starring role within a high concept...and hopefully, blockbuster headed tentpole film, in order to boost their level of public recognition among audiences and the media. You can bet that Paramount now has Karl Urban and Eric Bana signed to Studio System like "first look" film deals in preparation for announcing such a move. But if they are indeed looking for a new leading man for The Mission Impossible franchise, I think Gerard Butler and or Josh Duhamel...would be a better choice.

But enough of my casting ideas--just don't be too surprised if we hear that Karl Urban or Eric Bana are in the running to lead the cast of the next Mission Impossible film!!! It is the only thing that can explain such bad casting in respect to the new Trek film...with the studio trying to force square pegs into what are clearly round holes!!!

Hey, speaking of Gerard Butler...he's make a great Scotty of Dr. Bones McCoy.

Now here's my Star Trek cast: James McAvoy, from The Last King Of Scotland as Spock...Matt Damon heading the cast as Kirk...Giovanni Ribisi as Bones, and Gerard Butler as Scotty.

Now, that is a f'king blockbuster!!! People would be talking about the perfect casting for years to come!!!

"The original series actors are dead or dying."

That's a little harsh, I think. Two TOS actors, DeForest Kelly and James Dohann, are deceased, but others the others are alive, well and, in at least two cases, still working. Bill Shatner is delivering some of the best performances I've seen in his career on Boston Legal, and George Takei has a recurring role in Heros on NBC.

As for casting, the only roles I see as potentially being snafus right now are Urban as Bones and Pegg as Scotty. Urban, while capable, just doesn't seem to fit as Bones. I know nothing about Pegg, but based on looks alone the guy isn't Scotty.

Yes, the looks are a factor. Whether it's fair or not it's inevitable these actors will be compared to their predecessors. You can either tolerate a certain amount of bitching about it or this thread can degrade into a flame war.

The plot still doesn't do it for me. Time travel's been done time and again in this franchise, and I'd prefer not to see it again. The Next Generation movies didn't do so hot, so I'm not sure I'd jump to see another sequel there, but the DS9 series never made the jump to the big screen. There is a wealth of unexplored material there tailor made for the big screen, so I'd rather we move forward instead of backward.

However, I've seen how the reboots of the Batman and Bond franchises have worked out and, while admitedly a hater when those projects were announced, I've got to admit there is a potential this reboot could be a shot in the arm for the struggling Star Trek franchise.