Yes I wanted RLM to be more consistent and also to address some flaws of Trek XI, but more to the point, as I mentioned before:
Agreed.Yes I wanted RLM to be more consistent and also to address some flaws of Trek XI, but more to the point, as I mentioned before:
He did point out what he felt were flaws.
Yes, obviously he mentioned flaws in Trek XI. What I meant of course, was that there were many he could have addressed and didn't. RLM isn't a straight-forward movie reviewer, he's a comedic reviewer. So even movies that he may have liked should be picked apart for funny material. Yes he does that to an EXTENT here of course, but it is definitely toned down. Seriously, look back at his reviews of Trek VII-X, AND SW episodes I and II, and compare them to this one.
Now even if you say Trek XI is significantly better than any of those six films, there's no reason to lay off as much as he did.
Look, the reviews are mostly for fun anyway, interspersed with good points, so we're overanalyzing of course. I was just disappointed that it was less funny and less critical than his previous Star Trek/Star Wars reviews.
Yes, obviously he mentioned flaws in Trek XI. What I meant of course, was that there were many he could have addressed and didn't. RLM isn't a straight-forward movie reviewer, he's a comedic reviewer. So even movies that he may have liked should be picked apart for funny material. Yes he does that to an EXTENT here of course, but it is definitely toned down. Seriously, look back at his reviews of Trek VII-X, AND SW episodes I and II, and compare them to this one.
Now even if you say Trek XI is significantly better than any of those six films, there's no reason to lay off as much as he did.
Look, the reviews are mostly for fun anyway, interspersed with good points, so we're overanalyzing of course. I was just disappointed that it was less funny and less critical than his previous Star Trek/Star Wars reviews.
People seem to now have this expectation that this guy will just tear everything apart.
Yeah, I find it funny that people complain that Winona Ryder looked too young to be Sock's mom. So they're experts on 23rd-century Federation anti-winkle cream, are they?![]()
JJ Trek is shaking lots of stuff up... no reason it can't shake up anti-wrinkle cream efficiency while they're at it. And if the environment is so harsh, all the more reason for her to slather it on!Trek's been... "fair" with how old people are verses how old they look all things considered but Winona did look too young to be Spock's mom even with the, mild, aging they gave her even further considering she's living on a planet with much harsher solar radiation than her species is used to. (i.e. She's a human living on Vulcan.)
And they did try to age her as much as possible considering she's only like 6 or 7 years older than Zachary Quinto.
Why didn’t they just give the role to an age-appropriate actress?
Why didn’t they just give the role to an age-appropriate actress?
There's a deleted scene of young [pregnant] Amanda and young Sarek during Spock's birth, to sort of coincide with the birth of Kirk. They used Winona for both old and young Amanda
So find two actresses that look like the same person at different ages. For example, Leelee Sobieski and Helen Hunt.
Even in 2010, aging makeup seems to be something Hollywood hasn’t quite got a handle on. Every now and then they do a good job — F. Murray Abraham looks very believable as an old man in Amadeus — but usually they come off looking like young people in old makeup, especially if they’re trying to age the character by ~30 years.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.