• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Bana's Make-up in Star Trek XI

They're under the helmet.

Exactly.

Unless you're opposed to all retcons (which even the original Star Trek was guilty of), this seems like a fair compromise. Basically, it suggests that some TOS Rommies had ridge and some TNG Rommies do not. It helps make Unification make more sense and can allow any future Trek production to pick and choose whether or not to have ridges.
 
^^^

Mark Leonard has forehead "ridges" in those photos -- look at that perpetually furrowed brow. He frowns so much throughout the episode that half the time it does look like he could have "ridges" on his forehead.
 
Perhaps, but if so its very subtle. More like exaggerated brows, not unlike some humans have. Not what I'd call "ridges".
It's not so much that it's "subtle" as it's "not what you're looking for." You're thinking, I think, in terms of the 'hard lines" on the forehead... which are NOT present, I agree. But he's wearing a MAJOR prosthesis nevertheless.

Here's Bana's un-made-up face...
banaws2.jpg


Here he is in "Nero" mode...
neroeeargy7.jpg


Now, here I've highlighted the entire area on his forehead which is clearly prosthetic, and I've outlined the area where the most obvious change from his natural facial structure is present.
nerohighlightgu9.jpg


THAT is what I've been talking about, and what I think others have been as well. That particular element... the "bridge of the nose flaring widely into the brows" thing... is something which has been very common on Klingon makeups,


Sorry, but I very strongly believe you're looking for things that aren't there, or seeing what you want to see. What you highlighted was an area from a crease on his forehead down to where his nose starts bend out. Also the little area that goes across his eyebrow toward his nose IS a facial feature of his anyway which you can see in good up close pics of him, like (to a lesser extent) this pic: http://www.iballer.com/wallpaper/celebs/a_c/bana/images/bana1_1024x768_jpg.jpg

Don't you think it would be a little more obvious than that if they were going to bother doing it at all?

Also, I will refer you to this:

http://trekmovie.com/2008/05/16/star-trek-villain-spoilers/

It has also been confirmed that the Romulans in the new Star Trek do NOT have the extra forehead ridges seen in the TNG era (both on film and TV).
 
Sorry, but I very strongly believe you're looking for things that aren't there, or seeing what you want to see.
Ummmm... you do realize that you're making claims, not about what we're seeing, but about what I'm thinking. Which, for the record, I know a hell of a lot more about than you do! ;)

Please discuss the images and the character, not me. You have no idea what I am, or am not, "looking for," much less what I "want to see," except insofar as I SAY what I'm looking for or what I want to see.

What I want to see is Romulans who look like Vulcans. So, how, exactly, does that coincide with what you just concluded? It doesn't, does it?
What you highlighted was an area from a crease on his forehead down to where his nose starts bend out.
You're welcome to think that, and there ARE people out there who have big, bulgy sloping brows just like that... but it's 100% clear, in the image I posted of the non-made-up Bana that his forehead has no such "heavy-brow-ridge" features. He could frown as hard as he wants, but that won't add the additional "bulge" in the way it's shown there.
Also the little area that goes across his eyebrow toward his nose IS a facial feature of his anyway
Bana's nose bridge is quite narrow, though it does protrude by a fair amount (what's sometimes referred to as a "romanesque" nose).

But if you actually can't see that, where Bana's nose bridge is narrow, the "Nero" nose bridge flares widely... well, it's so obvious that I'm almost inclined to conclude that your own "looking for what you've already decided that you want to see" is in play there.
which you can see in good up close pics of him, like (to a lesser extent) this pic:
The pic you mention is giving me a "404" error... so I have no idea what you're trying to present here.
Don't you think it would be a little more obvious than that if they were going to bother doing it at all?
No.

First off, it's VERY obvious to me (and, it seems, to other people as well). So the entire premise of your comment is invalid. However, I guess it all depends on what you mean by "obvious." Sometimes, "obvious" means "big rubber monster mask," I 'spose. If that's what you're looking for, well... I'm glad we're not going to see that, at least. But his makeup is clearly, to me and to some others, quite extensive.

It's just DIFFERENT than what you're expecting, it seems. No "TNG-ridges." But a lot more than you'd seen on a Vulcan.
Also, I will refer you to this:

http://trekmovie.com/2008/05/16/star-trek-villain-spoilers/

It has also been confirmed that the Romulans in the new Star Trek do NOT have the extra forehead ridges seen in the TNG era (both on film and TV).
Which says absolutely NOTHING about what we're discussing here, does it?

Let me be very clear... since you seem to be trying to connect dots which have no connection. THE MAKEUP SEEN IN THIS IMAGE IS NOT THE TNG-ERA MAKEUP. BUT THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT MAKEUP APPLICATION THERE, NEVERTHELESS. IT'S JUST A DIFFERENT MAKEUP.

Clear now, I hope?
 
Well, Vulcans and Romulans ARE supposed to be the same species, soooo.... ;)

SHOUTING ROMULANS...ahem, I mean shouting Romulans are not canon, unless it was the presence of ridges by the TNG era that rendered them non-shouty. In that case, the nice ridgeless Romulans in Trek XI can SHOUT ALL THEY WANT. :D
 
Well, Vulcans and Romulans ARE supposed to be the same species, soooo.... ;)

SHOUTING ROMULANS...ahem, I mean shouting Romulans are not canon, unless it was the presence of ridges by the TNG era that rendered them non-shouty. In that case, the nice ridgeless Romulans in Trek XI can SHOUT ALL THEY WANT. :D
Well, then, in the case of this new movie, we're either looking at SHOUTING NON-PROSTHETIC ROMULANS... non-shouting "Ruffles Romulans," or... hmmm... what could the new "lumpy-brow Romulans be like?

I know! "Hey Mo! Nyuk-nyuk-nyuk!"
 
I see the ridge on the Bana-in-character image.

Has anyone ever wondered why some of the Romulans in TOS wear those helmets in the first place? To signify their lesser status? To protect their heads in case of falling plaster? ;-) ...which begs the question, why not everyone? Something other than rank or protection could be the reason they wear them.

Are they covering up or, looking at the prominence of 'ridges' on the helmet itself; emphasizing some underlying facial feature, ridges, perhaps?

In TNG's "The Neutral Zone", why did the 'ridged' Romulan say regarding their long absence, (paraphrased) something else required their attention?

Perhaps that something was War between the ridged and non-ridged Romulans which the ridged Romulans won? Just thinking out loud.
 
Ummmm... you do realize that you're making claims, not about what we're seeing, but about what I'm thinking.

I'm glad you figured that out.

Which, for the record, I know a hell of a lot more about than you do! ;)
Oh, I'm sure you do then..

Please discuss the images and the character, not me.
Please get a grip, I wasn't discussing "you" but discussing that you're seeing what you want to see.

What I want to see is Romulans who look like Vulcans.
Umm okay.

So, how, exactly, does that coincide with what you just concluded?
But I don't believe that is what you said in that post I was replying to though. You posted three pics to show us that there was "clearly MAJOR/obvious prosthesis" there. I posted a reply suggesting that you're seeing what you want to see or seeing things that aren't there, and showed that there were no ridges and that TrekMovie didn't report of "anything else." You also seem to suggest that you suspect he's a Klingon maybe when we KNOW he's not.

What you highlighted was an area from a crease on his forehead down to where his nose starts bend out.
You're welcome to think that,
Umm, the proof is in your post of what you did. I don't have to "think" anything. But glad you approved.

and there ARE people out there who have big, bulgy sloping brows just like that... but it's 100% clear, in the image I posted of the non-made-up Bana that his forehead has no such "heavy-brow-ridge" features.
Really? So what's this?
banacomp.gif


First off, it's VERY obvious to me (and, it seems, to other people as well).
Power of suggestion. I'm sure I could find stuff in the other photos and make things out of nothing and people would be convinced it's there. You may as well be showing the Zapruder films then.

So the entire premise of your comment is invalid.
How so? I responded that you're finding things that aren't there and convincing yourself and a couple of others that they ARE. If my response is invalid, then so is your post.

But his makeup is clearly, to me and to some others, quite extensive.
Also, I will refer you to this:

http://trekmovie.com/2008/05/16/star-trek-villain-spoilers/

It has also been confirmed that the Romulans in the new Star Trek do NOT have the extra forehead ridges seen in the TNG era (both on film and TV).
Which says absolutely NOTHING about what we're discussing here, does it?
Go on to read what else there is in the article then. If you can show me where Anthony confirmed some sort of prosthesis is used to make the bridge of Eric Bana's nose bigger (I mean, really?), then I'll concede. But he didn't. Bald, no ridges. Simple.

Let me be very clear... since you seem to be trying to connect dots which have no connection.
If that's true, that's because there's no prosthesis there.

THE MAKEUP SEEN IN THIS IMAGE IS NOT THE TNG-ERA MAKEUP. BUT THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT MAKEUP APPLICATION THERE, NEVERTHELESS.
If it's "significant" and "obvious" then why did you have to draw that out for everyone? "Significant and Obvious" is his mangled ear on the side.
 
Last edited:
For what its worth - I don't see any ridges on Bana's head. Nor do I think we will see them in the movie.

Those lines on that photo are part of the mans face. Anything other than that is a trick of the lights. He's got crazy swept up eyebrows, but I honestly can't see anything else.
 
First the fabric discussion, then the uniform color incident and now the freakin' ridges on Eric Bana's forehead ... What have we gotten down to? :p
 
I think we need to start discussing the handle in the turbolift.

If there is no turny handle in the turbolift I shall boycott this movie.

ABRAMS YOU LISTENING!

TEH HANDEL MUST TURN!!!

:mad:
 
First the fabric discussion, then the uniform color incident and now the freakin' ridges on Eric Bana's forehead ... What have we gotten down to? :p
Well, despite the fact that this exchange is being set up as yet another "let's pick a fight over something" issue, I've made my point, and I think I've made it as fully as is necessary for anyone who's actually approaching things from an open mind.

The unwarranted, overly confrontational tone of the response is something I'm used to around here. Personal attacks are order of the day. But I'm not going to play along.

Guys, if you can't see anything, fine... good for you... and if you can... fine, good for you. I can see it. What I'm finding FASCINATING is the idea that there are people who are, once again, getting so personal over this... and that there are people who are, evidently, so convinced that it "CAN'T POSSIBLY, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, BE THE TRUE (tm)" that they're unwilling to even consider the opposite perspective. :rolleyes:

You guys want to think that Eric Bana's nose bridge, instead of narrowing between his eyes (as is very clearly the case in the un-made-up image I posted), actually flares to wider than his nostril width at that point... fine. I think you're wrong. Guess we'll all know soon enough, huh?
 
The unwarranted, overly confrontational tone of the response is something I'm used to around here.
You have to be pretty sensitive if you thought my initial response was some how "unwarranted and overly confrontational." In fact you're still going on and on about the fact that I suggested anything at all.

actually flares to wider than his nostril width at that point...
See my post above with the photo. Can provide bigger similar angled photos that shows the exact same facial feature. What you think is a prosthetic (a crease in his forehead, must have been grueling in that make-up chair) and a facial feature above his eye (the make-up dept really went over the top didn't they) are all nothing more than natural parts of his head. Simple as that. No conspiracy theories or anything. Shouldn't even be an issue.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top