Timothy Olyphant appeared on the most recent episode of the “Happy Sad Confused” podcast and looked back at his failed audition for J.J. Abrams’ 2009 “Star Trek” reviv…
  • adroit balloon@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
    9·
    1 year ago

    I don’t think Abrahams was blaming Olyphant for his age, just that Kirk’s role needed to be cast with a young actor. Olyphant doesn’t meet that requirement. How should he have said that?

        • magnetosphere @beehaw.orgEnglish
          15·
          1 year ago

          A great deal of what we call “courtesy” involves not being completely honest at all times. Just because something is true doesn’t necessarily mean that it must be pointed out.

          • adroit balloon@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
            7·
            1 year ago

            edit: what does this have to do with courtesy?

            Olyphant would have been 40-41 when they were casting Star Trek (2009) and Chris Pine was 28-29. That’s a pretty meaningful age difference that comes off in both appearance and performance. It wasn’t just some minor detail— the actor who got cast had to play Kirk from the age of ~18-25, so it made a lot more sense to cast an actor much closer to that age. I don’t see the problem here or how explaining that is “mean”.

            edit: in fact, Olyphant didn’t think it was mean at all:

            FTA:

            “Auditioning sucks,” Olyphant concluded, “and the fact that I remember the audition process fondly says a lot about J.J. Abrams and what a wonderful man that guy is.”