Agreed. 

Even the worst Star Trek movie of them all (well, I guess that title¹s about
be moved) had one such excellent look into Spock¹s inner conflict. Meaning,
even the worst Star Trek movie did not ignore Gene Roddenberry¹s vision.
Even ³Enterprise² didn¹t go this far. Why not just get the cheerleader girl
from Heroes, cast her as Amanda, and call it a day? Why is sticking to the
premise of the show so difficult for Paramount?
 

On 11/9/07 2:29 PM, "James Landrith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  
>  
>  
> 
> This is brazen ass-clownery of the highest order.
> 
> Spock's bi-species (is that a word?) heritage was a recurring plot device
> and was responsible for more than one excellent look into his character's
> inner turmoil and struggle with his dual heritages.
> 
> WTF is wrong with Abrams?
> 
> From: Daryle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:yokozuna%40globalsoulmedia.com> ]
> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 1:41 PM
> To: SciFi Noir
> Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Winona Ryder Becomes a Vulcan
> 
> Well, that makes it official. This movie sucks. Time to give Woody Allen
> movie #12 so we can just pack it in and go home. They may as well have left
> Berman in charge. Has JJ Abrams SEEN Star Trek? Anyone who has seen half a
> season of TOS knows Amanda is human. Why not put Sarek in the movie?
> 
> On 11/9/07 12:46 PM, "Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor)"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:tdlists%40multiculturaladvantage.com>
> <mailto:tdlists%40multiculturaladvantage.com> > wrote:
> 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > For Winona Ryder, it's a fine line between pixie-like and Vulcanesque.
>> > 
>> > The actress has become the latest boldface name attached to J.J. Abrams'
>> > highly anticipated reboot of the Star Trek franchise, signing on to star
>> > as mother to a young Spock.
>> > 
>> > It will be Ryder's biggest studio film since 2002, when the two-time
>> > Oscar nominee costarred in Mr. Deeds with Adam Sandler and S1m0ne with
>> > Al Pacino. Ryder laid low for several years following her shoplifting
>> > arrest and has only appeared in a handful of mostly independent films,
>> > most notably in Richard Linklater's 2006 rotoscope-animated feature, A
>> > Scanner Darkly.
>> > 
>> > Variety reports the erstwhile Heathers star will play the Vulcan mother
>> > of the Starfleet logician, sending Trekkers into a tizzy. Abrams is
>> > messing with a key element of the Star Trek canon: In all previous
>> > installments of the franchise, Spock's mother was human, not Vulcan (the
>> > pointy ears come courtesy of his father's side of the family).
>> > 
>> > As conceived by Trek mastermind Gene Rodenberry, Spock's mother was
>> > Amanda Grayson, a teacher who met and married Sarek, the Vulcan
>> > Ambassador to Earth. The two later decamped to planet Vulcan. Spock's
>> > maternal unit was first introduced in a 1967 episode of the original
>> > series and portrayed by actress Jane Wyatt. Wyatt reprised the role in
>> > Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home.
>> > 
>> > The 36-year-old Ryder will mother Heroes' Zachary Quinto, an actor just
>> > six years her junior. It's unclear whether movie makeup magic will make
>> > up the age difference or whether Ryder's character will only appear in
>> > flashback. Original Spock Leonard Nimoy is also slated to appear in a
>> > cameo role, though it's unclear in what capacity.
>> > 
>> > No official details have been released about the film's plot, other than
>> > it will revolve around the Starship Enterprise crew's first mission
>> > together.
>> > 
>> > Ryder's addition signals the end of casting. In recent weeks, Abrams
>> > beamed up Chris Pine (Kirk), Karl Urban (Dr. McCoy), Simon Pegg
>> > (Scotty), John Cho (Sulu), Zoe Saldana (Uhura), Anton Yelchin (Chekov)
>> > and Eric Bana (the nefarious Nero) to the film.
>> > 
>> > Shooting is scheduled to begin on the film this month and is expected to
>> > last through March 2008. The film is slated for a Christmas 2008 release.
>> > http://tinyurl.com/yv57sh
>> > 
>> > 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
>  
>     




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Reply via email to