Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 Posted:   Dec 16, 2010 - 9:28 PM   
 By:   Sigerson Holmes   (Member)

  • Winona Ryder as Amanda. Ryder and Quinto are roughly the same age, and she is supposed to be his mother?

    Well, that's an easy one, I think.

    Winona was cast for a role that originally included this scene, with the infant Spock:



    Easier to cast someone young and age her than the alternative, right?
    You can see the deleted "Aw, he has his father's ears" scene in the DVD extras.



  • The design of Nero's ship, the Narada. Why would anyone design a mining vessel to look like a Bloomin' Onion from Outback Steakhouse?

    What bothers me about the Narada is how huge a simple mining ship is. The design is sort of a desperate attempt to justify the ridiculous size, if you ask me. The annoying implication is that this is such a "supertechnology" which built this vessel, we just simply wouldn't understand why it looks that way. To me, it's just another "V-ger." "Huge is scary." The difference is that the hugeness of V-ger's design was explained in the course of the plot. ST:TMP also had the technical advice of Isaac Asimov and Jesco von Puttkamer, among others. Who was the science advisor on this new one?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolyn_Porco

    Not bad, I guess. At least they had one. wink Interestingly, she was one of the Voyager scientists.

  •  
     Posted:   Dec 17, 2010 - 5:16 AM   
     By:   Scott M (Oldsmith)   (Member)

  • The design of Nero's ship, the Narada. Why would anyone design a mining vessel to look like a Bloomin' Onion from Outback Steakhouse?

    Because originally the time ship was supposed to look like a plate of Castle Mountain Cheese Fries from Boulder Creek. That got lost in later drafts.

  • Winona Ryder as Amanda. Ryder and Quinto are roughly the same age, and she is supposed to be his mother?

    I wasn't as bothered by their closeness in age as I was by the crapulence of her performance. She was very badly miscast. To be honest, I wasn't thrilled with Ben Cross as Sarek, either. These were the only two casting choices I didn't agree with, although I wasn't necessaryly thrilled by John Cho and Simon Pegg. Hey, if they give Karl Urban more to do, the film will already be a hit with me. He was the best one in the cast.

    The more time that passes since the film, the less positive I feel toward it. I guess I'm just old, but it doesn't feel like "my" Star Trek. That's fine, my Star Trek ended in 1991 and I'm happy to know that Kirk, Spock, and the rest are now appealing to a new generation. Hopefully, the sequel will be entertaining and with fewer shortcuts in story logic. At least, not so much that they pull me out of the film.

  •  
     Posted:   Dec 17, 2010 - 5:34 AM   
     By:   LeHah   (Member)

    The design of Nero's ship, the Narada. Why would anyone design a mining vessel to look like a Bloomin' Onion from Outback Steakhouse?

    The backstory is that - sigh - the ship was modified with Borg technology before the Romulan homeworld was destroyed in the "Main" timeline.

     
     Posted:   Oct 4, 2013 - 1:26 PM   
     By:   Mr. Marshall   (Member)

    ......BECAUSE THE BEST THING ABOUT THE RE-BOOT WAS SEEING ALL the original characters as young men and women. It was truly a delight to see the "origins' of all the characters
    and made the film the success it deserved.

    But re-watching it recently i was struck by the weakness'.

    The action was good in spots, not so good in others. And ST isn't really about action anyway!
    It had more of a INDY JONES feel than TREK. i AM AFRAID THE SEQUEL IS GOING TO BE FLAT OUT ACTION which would be a big mistake.

    I do not see how they can get Nimoy into this one - it wasn't done that smoothly in the first one - which will be a loss.

    I hope i am wrong, but the novelty of the first one will be gone and the new film will have to succeed or fail on the quality of the script.

    here's hoping...
    bruce



    Boy was i right on (though they did manage to jam Nimoy into it . poorly)

    I realy, really. really wanted to be wrong.
    Maybe a new director can bring it back to a more cerebral approach

    AND, DAMN THOSE EFFIN' flares
    enuf is enuf, JJ

     
     Posted:   Oct 4, 2013 - 1:52 PM   
     By:   Mr. Marshall   (Member)

    Oh, just one more thingy.....


    what's with the RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK opening scene?
    Is this a new ploy in product placement (both films are Paramount productions) ?

     
     
     Posted:   Oct 4, 2013 - 2:07 PM   
     By:   Ado   (Member)

    Oh, just one more thingy.....


    what's with the RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK opening scene?
    Is this a new ploy in product placement (both films are Paramount productions) ?


    I like parts of the film, but..

    why were Kirk and Bones running around on red planet?

    why did they go into that village and take that scroll?

    why did Spock beam into the volcano?
    I mean they beamed him out so the transporters worked, so why could they not beam in the cold fusion bomb?

    IE they could have beamed in the cold fusion bomb from orbit without ever touching the planet at all.

     
     
     Posted:   Oct 7, 2013 - 8:35 AM   
     By:   Joe E.   (Member)

    On the one hand, I actually liked Star Trek Into Darkness quite a bit more than its predecessor. On the other, it's still my second least favorite Star Trek movie, after said predecessor. Oh, well.

     
     Posted:   Oct 7, 2013 - 8:38 AM   
     By:   solium   (Member)

    Why the STAR TREK sequel might not be that great..

    Because the first one sucked!

     
     Posted:   Oct 7, 2013 - 12:36 PM   
     By:   Mr. Marshall   (Member)

    i just had a depressing thought....
    the only really good STAR TREK films are II, III, IV......with the original cast*!!!!
    brm


    *FIRST CONTACT was half a good film - the BORG half

     
     
     Posted:   Oct 8, 2013 - 11:23 AM   
     By:   Octoberman   (Member)

    When emoSpock yelled "Khaaaaaaaan", the Missus burst out laughing.

     
     Posted:   Oct 8, 2013 - 12:08 PM   
     By:   Mr. Marshall   (Member)

    When emoSpock yelled "Khaaaaaaaan", the Missus burst out laughing.

    he yelled "Cannes" as in film festival

     
     
     Posted:   Oct 8, 2013 - 12:09 PM   
     By:   Octoberman   (Member)

    When emoSpock yelled "Khaaaaaaaan", the Missus burst out laughing.

    he yelled "Cannes" as in film festival



    Made me laugh!

     
     Posted:   Oct 8, 2013 - 5:55 PM   
     By:   Sigerson Holmes   (Member)

    Why is this Spock yelling about anything anyway? Just for the cheap gimmicky idea of "Look who's yelling 'Khan' THIS time, you ol' time Trek fans"? It's another lame character-defying "in-joke" which only ends up irritating the people who remember how good a Trek movie once could be, IMHO.

     
     Posted:   Oct 9, 2013 - 12:44 PM   
     By:   Mr. Marshall   (Member)

    Hey!
    the reason i resurrected this thread was NOT to bash the new STAR TREK movie.
    it was to celebrate the brilliance of my foresight (see original post)

    Now, if you wish to make further contributions to this thread, please limit your comments to things like "you were right Bruce, how did you know?" "Bruce you are amazing" " What a prophet you are , Bruce"
    thank you for your cooperation
    brm

     
     
     Posted:   Oct 9, 2013 - 12:57 PM   
     By:   Octoberman   (Member)

    This guy's got NOTHING on you, B!

     
     Posted:   Oct 10, 2013 - 11:29 AM   
     By:   Mr. Marshall   (Member)

    This guy's got NOTHING on you, B!




    Damn right!

     
     Posted:   Oct 10, 2013 - 3:21 PM   
     By:   Ron Pulliam   (Member)

    Bruce, you were full of shit! I LOVED the new Star Trek movie!

     
     Posted:   Oct 11, 2013 - 1:27 PM   
     By:   Mr. Marshall   (Member)

    Bruce, you were full of shit! I LOVED the new Star Trek movie!

    If you are referring to STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, dare sir
    I protest>
    That is NOT a STAR TREK movie. It is a STAR WARS movie that uses ST character names to try and fool you. Apparently, in your case , they were successful in their deception
    brm

     
     Posted:   Oct 14, 2013 - 7:21 AM   
     By:   RoryR   (Member)

    I'm a big fan of almost everything Star Trek, but the reviews for this were enough to keep me away from the theatre -- the first ever Star Trek movie I didn't go see.

    When I finally rented it on DVD, I saw just how right the negative reviews were. I felt the movie started out OK (even with all the annoying lens flare and characters acting like big kids), but around the one hour mark, the movie really took a slide into self-parody, then ten minutes after that a direct nose dive into the toilet, where it eventually reached up and flushed itself down -- I mean, like WOW! Talk about how a film franchise commits suicide, this movie does it.

    Still, I believe in the concept and think Star Trek will survive, but I really hope the suits at Paramount realize they need to find someone else to helm the franchise.

     
     Posted:   Oct 14, 2013 - 10:35 AM   
     By:   Jeyl   (Member)

    Still, I believe in the concept and think Star Trek will survive, but I really hope the suits at Paramount realize they need to find someone else to helm the franchise.

    Everyone, including the writers and producers say that Star Trek is still JJ's baby even when he's doing Star Wars. Plus Paramount has hired Roberto "enough crack smoking" Orci and Alex Kurtzman to write for the series again. Orci even said “Star Trek has called me, and I’m going to serve” like he's doing the franchise as a whole a big favor, even though all he's done is help write two movies a lot of time indulging on things that came before it instead of telling a coherent story.

     
    You must log in or register to post.
      Go to page:    
    © 2014 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.