When you saw Winona Ryder’s Amanda in the new Star Trek movie was your first thought about how much she reminded you of Jor-El from Superman The Movie? Well we have her thoughts on that, plus Kevin Smith talking about how Star Trek proves JJ Abrams is the man for the next Superman, plus a scientific look at
Krypton Vulcan, and more.
With the birth of Spock scene cut from the movie, Winona Ryder’s role as Spock’s mother Amanda was reduced to just a couple of scenes and a brief glimpse. In an interview with Empire [via Digital Spy], Ryder says saw her cameo like one in another origin story of a classic character:
I really don’t have much more than a cameo [in Star Trek]. I was [kind] of thinking I’d be like Marlon Brando in Superman. Not that I’d ever compare myself to Brando!
Winona and Marlon with their alien babies – similarities end there
Kevin Smith says Star Trek proves Abrams should do Superman
Speaking of what is next for the man of steel, geeky director Kevin Smith was the first to give Star Trek a review, and he is a big proponent of the movie. Kevin Smith and JJ Abrams are friends and they also have in common that both wrote drafts for a potential Superman reboot before Superman Returnswas given over to Bryan Singer. Now Smith tells MTV that thinks Star Trek proves that JJ should be given another shot at Superman.
Of course there is the whole thing about JJ having a contract with Paramount for feature films and Superman being controlled by Warner Bros, but whatever, sure give JJ another go, but not until after the Star Trek sequel.
Scientist quibbles with Vulcan + more deep thinking
Was the destruction of Vulcan an homage to the destruction of Krypton? OK maybe not but I need some kind o transition to this next tidbit.
Earlier in the month TrekMovie posted a scientific review of the Star Trek movie by Phil Plait of the Bad Astronomy Blog, but it appears he isn’t the only expert giving the new Trek some scrutiny. In a new article for SciFiWire, author and rocket scientist (literally) Wil McCarthy, takes Trek to task over the implosion. His main beef seems to be the speed at which the planet sucks itself into a black hole, noting:
Even if you drop a bomb or fire a death ray powerful enough to reduce a whole planet to rubble, you still have the problem of gravity; that rubble is going to stay where it is, or at worst, fly apart and then fall back together again. The resulting planet would be loose rather than solid—picture a pile of sand or a dump truck full of gravel—but it would still be round, it would still have gravity, and you could still orbit your spaceship around it.
McCarthy concludes that the result of the black hole would also create a large debris cloud and ring system, and he adds this morbid bit of analysis:
And here’s the funny part: some of the debris in that ring might be living people. Close to the event horizon the tidal stresses are enough to tear a person apart into component atoms, but a hundred kilometers farther out, the stresses would be felt but would not be lethal. Such a disaster would be a rough ride indeed, but anyone wearing a spacesuit, or holed up in a submarine, or trapped in a bank vault or an underground military bunker, would have a small but possibly nonzero chance of surviving.
Wonder if any Vulcans survived by ducking into refrigerators at the last second (caption supplied by TM reader Edward O’Connor)
And that isn’t the only deep thinking that the new Star Trek is inspiring, here are some more new articles taking a close look at the Star Trek movie and franchise and how it relates to religion and politics:
- io9 asks: Is Star Trek a religion?
- Counterpunch: Star Trek and the continuing mission of American Imperialism
- CNN: Why our ‘amazing’ science fiction future fizzled
Well that’s it for the last tidbits of the week. TrekMovie wishes you all a great weekend. And we have some interesting ST09 stories lined up for Saturday and Sunday, so you’all come back now.