Winona Ryder as Spocks mom, a vulcan not a human

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I don't even like Star Trek and that seems completely wrong to me. Having him be half human was an important part of his character.

I don't really have a problem with Winona Ryder, but she's too young for the part.
 
She can be a good actress at times. She was actually pretty good in Little Women and was exceptionally good with the most tender scenes; based on that film alone I would say she'd be great with very delicate and loving scenes. Of course that's if she's human.

Oh and by the way, Spock was half human? :rolleyes: Huh. Well, you learn something old everyday. :cool:
 
She's about 40 now...

Just checked, 36, she looks like she's 20


winonarypq0.jpg
 
an interesting choice. imo, she's past her better days of acting. i really don't know what to think about the casting for the new trek. but the entire success of the movie can hinder on one bad casting. (bakula in enterprise). although i really enjoyed enterprise and warmed up to bakula by the end of the series, it would have done alot better with a different casting of archer. i fear the new trek is heading down the same road. i know special effects will be great but ryder put a big exclamation point to the end of the alien solo movie franchise. it took predator to resurrect it. looks like she'll kill this one too.
 
If the character is human then the age difference will make no sense. She is only six years older than Zachary Quinto. (Assuming that she isn't present in some sort of flashback or dream sequence.)

I can see her playing a Vulcan, because they could explain away her appearance because of the lifespan difference. That would make sense from a casting perspective but upset a lot of the fans. On the other hand, making her a human would match the established canon but would require an older actress. The character is 20 years older than Spock and Jane Wyatt was older than Leonard Nimoy by that much.

Since the article has been edited, I am going to assume that the character is human and therefore appears in a flashback sequence with a child Spock.
 
Since the article has been edited, I am going to assume that the character is human and therefore appears in a flashback sequence with a child Spock.

That is what I was thinking as well. It would be interesting to see her as the "present" day spock's mother too. Either way, should be an interesting movie.
 
If the character is human then the age difference will make no sense. She is only six years older than Zachary Quinto. (Assuming that she isn't present in some sort of flashback or dream sequence.)

I can see her playing a Vulcan, because they could explain away her appearance because of the lifespan difference. That would make sense from a casting perspective but upset a lot of the fans. On the other hand, making her a human would match the established canon but would require an older actress. The character is 20 years older than Spock and Jane Wyatt was older than Leonard Nimoy by that much.

Since the article has been edited, I am going to assume that the character is human and therefore appears in a flashback sequence with a child Spock.

or they could use makeup to make her look older. ah, hollywood magic.
 
Sean Connery is only 12 years older than Harrison Ford - I know he was probably a viril teenager, but that's pushing it.

I'm sure they have a reason for casting Amanda that young, probably for flashbacks, but I'm sure it makes sense.

As for this film killing the franchise - you didn't see Nemesis, did you? :monkey3
 
Sean Connery is only 12 years older than Harrison Ford - I know he was probably a viril teenager, but that's pushing it.

I'm sure they have a reason for casting Amanda that young, probably for flashbacks, but I'm sure it makes sense.

As for this film killing the franchise - you didn't see Nemesis, did you? :monkey3

i know someone that would swear that nemesis was the best ng film. i guess beauty is in the eye?
 
Well, it wasn't the worst. Insurrection IMO was the worst of the NG films. First Contact was the best of course. :D

Insurrection is tied with Nemesis. Picard doesnt need a NEW love interest, that's what Beverly is there for. Nemesis.. just ugh. First Contact was the superior film, then Generations.
 
Personally I thought Insurrection FAR superior to Nemesis, although Generations almost achieves that level of badness. But First Contact is my favorite of the TNG films.
 
I think the reason Insurrection was my least favorite of them all (besides the overall story) was that it didn't feel like I was watching a movie but rather an extended TV episode. All the rest of the NG films felt and looked like a motion picture (even if Nemesis and Generations were so so....don't get me started on the whole plot with Data in Nemesis or the horrible death scene of Kirk in Generations...argh!!!).
 
Insurrection was great, people didn't like it because it wasn't really epic in scale and no Earth interest was in danger. I didn't like it at first because the teaser and trailer made it out to sound like we'd be seeing a Federation Civil War. What we got was Picard and company disobeying orders (just like they did in First Contact, and several other times before).
 
All of the TNG films are terrible except for First Contact, which is the best of all the Trek films imo.
 
Back
Top