So the fact that Geordie had virtually no lines, yet we got to watch a jeep wheel turn round for a full minute never bothered you?
Hadn't really noticed... I did love the Argo though.
Speaking of Nemesis, I was just starting to watch Nemesis, then Windows had to run through that weekly system assessment tool thing and it froze my computer, because I had 3ds max open, but I disabled it so it didn't do that again, unless I wanted it to... lol.
AMD Ryzen 9 5900X Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB 1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD 32 GB RAM Windows 11 Pro
Not even an ardent Trekkie myself, I happen to enjoy Nemesis much more than JJ Trek. I think some people fail to realise that Nemesis is a thematically very different film. It's more self-contained, intimate and personal (not exactly blockbuster-like but it worked for what it was), whereas the 2009 movie was bombastic, superficial and over the top.
For me, JJ Trek is simply SFX eye candy and that's all there is to it. While I could make do with this alternate timeline/universe business, what I don't like about this "reboot" is how comtemporary the whole film feels like. The film is set in the future and yet everybody speaks and behaves like they would nowadays, particularly the Vulcans and Nero and his gang (don't even get me started on that Orion bimbo). They're supposed to be aliens but there really isn't much distinction between us and them. Their mannerisms are the same and they speak the same, which make the Vulcan dialogue seem forced for instance.
Set designs were abysmal to say the least. The bridge is a cosmetics parlour that's what it is. And the engineering...to think that a united federation of a dozen advanced civilisations they still have ships with ugly, exposed pipes and bolts and steam and humidity running everywhere and liquid on the floor, not to mention poor crowd management. For those who'd argue that's what an engineering is supposed to be like, considering an infusion of the knowledge and technology from a dozen worlds and they still have work hazards like that, don't you think it's a little pathetic?
Last but not least, I know the film is supposed to focus on the adventures of young Kirk and co. For a reboot a little bit of exposition on what exactly the Federation and Starfleet are and what role Earth plays in this interstellar community wouldn't be too much to ask, would it? Abrams kept saying the reason he wanted a reboot was to bring in new audience who were otherwise unfamiliar with the Star Trek universe. Honestly if I were one of them I'd be dumbfounded by what the hell Starfleet is and what business Earth has with these alien races. Mind you, with Vulcan, one of the founding members of the UFP, destroyed, all they care about at the film's end is Kirk getting his medal and command of Gayterprise?! There's no mention of what the fallout would be after such a tragedy and how that'd impact the Federation. The whole film just lacks substance. It seems to me as if Kirk's heroic acts of destroying Nero's spiky (can't remember the name) and saving Starfleet's brand-freaking-new flagship from becoming scrap metal are enough to make up for the complete annihilation of a world of 6 billions and a good chunk of the fleet, which I know is not the case, but the film doesn't show that, does it?
What Abrams did was he simply hijacked the name "Star Trek" and passed it off with a generic sci-fi action adventure, mixed it up with the obligatory "character development" but omitted the philosophies and moral values so prominent in all of the Trek incarnations, which I think tarnished the franchise and reduced it into one of those money-making machines we're so used to nowadays. Having seen the 10-minute preview of Into Darkness, I can say that it didn't change my opinion of JJ Trek at all. The direction and dialogue were just as forced and pretentious. At least the TOS and TNG films had more heart and felt more natural, since the cast had been playing the same characters for years already. The new Trek is sadly all about action set-pieces and sappy melodrama while Kirk and co are there for the sake of being there just so Abrams can still call it "Star Trek".
Nemesis was a failed attempt to r̶i̶p̶ ̶o̶f̶f̶ pay homage to The Wrath of Khan.
In both we have villans that spend a long time living crappy lives. (Khan: Marooned on Ceti Alpha V. Shinzon: Living in the Reman Dilithium mines).
They both get access to a ship and a loyal crew, and instead of sensibly getting on with their lives they decide to take control of an unstoppable superweapon. (Khan: Genesis device. Shinzon: Thaeleron radiation beam thing or whatever it was)
Then they both pick a fight with the Enterprise in a nebula which disrupts their communications and where they can't accurately shoot at each other.
At some point the villain's hubris allows the captain to talk to him as a distraction while he prepares an attack. (Kirk entering the command codes to drop the Reliant's shields, Picard preparing to ram the Scimitar)
At the end the second most important character sacrifices himself to save his comrades from the aforementioned superweapon, after transferring elements of his consciousness into someone/something else for safekeeping. (Spock's mindmeld with McCoy, Data's memory transfer into B-4)
At the end, the remaining crewmembers have a wine toast to 'absent friends'
Wrath of Khan did all of these things better than Nemesis and it did it in true classy Star Trek fashion. It wasn't a dark and scary space-horror action film full of monsters, it didn't have the Romulan senate being dissolved in acid, it didn't have telepathic mind-rape in it, it didn't have a deus-ex-machina bad guy who comes from nowhere with a deus-ex machina superweapon spaceship that also comes from nowhere, it didn't have the villain gradually dying of a freakish disease before being impaled and pulling the metal spike through his own guts like the Terminator, and it didn't have a myriad of broken/useless characters and massive plot holes.
Yes, a massive warship with 5 times the armament of any other ship, faster than the Enterprise, with a planet-killing superweapon and a 'perfect' cloak, built by a slave race of uneducated miners in total secret in the middle of the Romulan Empire without getting discovered by the Tal-Shiar, yeah right. But I guess that makes about as much sense as Shinzon getting his hands on an ultra-rare Soong type android prototype, leaving it in pieces on a planet with hostile aliens on it, and expecting the crew to assemble the android so that it can gather intel on Star Fleet's strategic deployments and report back to him. It sure was lucky that only the Enterprise picked up that positionic signature, had a dune buggy chase, and assembled B-4 while they were on route to Romulus.
Even the space battle was better in Wrath of Khan. Each phaser hit changes the situation, in Nemesis you've got ships firing endlessly at each other for what seems like forever until they run out of ammo. Also the Enterprise was en route to rendezvous with a Federation task force, but that task force doesn't come looking for the Enterprise when it fails to arrive, instead the only help that turns up are the Romulans who shouldn't have even known where the Enterprise was going.
Wrath of Khan had better character motivation and development. Kirk has to face his no-win scenario and loses his best friend. Picard only discovers that he'd have grown up to be an asshole if he'd lived in a dilithium mine all his life. The villain's motivation and plan also makes sense in Wrath of Khan. Khan is simply a genetically augmented megalomaniac bent on revenge against the man who marooned him. Shinzon... I don't even know. He wants to free his Reman Brothers... by eradicating all life on Earth and starting a war with the Federation just after the entire quadrant has been fighting in the Dominion War? Why does he hate the Federation and not the Romulans who enslaved him? He has accomplished his stated goal of freeing his Reman brothers before the film even starts. Does he want Picard's blood transfusion or not? He doesn't seem bothered about the 'procedure' that will apparently save his life.
Speaking of characters lets go through the characters in Nemesis:
Picard: The wise, diplomatic, tea drinking, flute playing, archaeology enthusiast, gleefully razzing around on an alien planet in a dune buggy like a redneck. Could that be any more out of character?
Worf: Wasn't he made an ambassador at the end of the last film? Why is he even on the Enterprise?
Troi: She has steadily lost her accent and her character seems to have completely dissolved into nothing.
Jordie: Didn't really do anything in the film at all
Riker: Pointless fight with a monster... otherwise he does nothing too.
Not to mention the fact that they all look old, fat, bored and tired.
Wrath of Khan
Worldwide Gross: $96,800,000
Budget $12,000,000
Not even adjusted for inflation
So in conclusion, Nemesis, and all the other TNG movies, were B-grade space action movies that didn't make any sense, and had none of the elements that made the TV show great.
Meanwhile you're all criticizing the JJ reboot for being an action movie! Despite the fact that it's actually a better action movie than any of the TNG films. Christ!
Also
Star Trek (2009)
Worldwide Gross: $385,680,446
Budget: $140,000,000
Sorry, but anyone who says they like Nemesis is not allowed to have their opinion taken seriously.
"Sorry, but anyone who says they like Nemesis is not allowed to have their opinion taken seriously."
Whatever, seems a bit arrogant... I'm a Star Trek fan, I like the good and the bad, I'm not a conformist... I may like Nemesis, big deal, I never said it was the #1 Star Trek film or the best Star Trek film... I said I preferred over JJ's movies... now in terms of the first 10 movies, Nemesis is not my #1 pick... it's not even on my top 5...
Star Trek isn't supposed to be an action movie... people who think JJ's movies represent Star Trek, are sorely mistaken...
... as they say, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Their revenue means little to me... JJ's movie did good because it's sensationalist... in my opinion.
AMD Ryzen 9 5900X Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB 1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD 32 GB RAM Windows 11 Pro
"Star Trek isn't supposed to be an action movie... people who think JJ's movies represent Star Trek, are sorely mistaken...
Did you ever actually watch the series that took place before the movies?
The original series of star trek was nothing but action, 20 years before Picard and crew debated their way through every episode and running level 3 diagnostics, Kirk was flying with two feet into the chest of every bad guy around, and shagging everyone woman he met, and when all else failed, he was pretty damned handy with a phaser.
And if Jafit never mentioned Beverley Crusher, dont worry the director never bothered with her either.
Chris. You say that Star Trek isn't supposed to be an action movie, and yet the last 4 TNG films were indeed (bad) action movies, the worst of which you say you actually like and would watch by choice... Why do you like Nemesis? What redeeming qualities does it have?
Biotech, I've seen every single Star Trek movie and TV series at least a dozen times, except JJ's movie... and yes, there was action, but it wasn't the center of the episodes or movies, which seems to be in JJ's movies, if not the most prevalent in this teaser trailer... and I've seen a lot of people who agree, they ask "Where is the Star Trek?"
I don't get the same feelings watching JJ's movies as I do watching the rest of the Star Trek franchise... something is missing from JJ's movies... but I can't put my finger on it...
Chris. You say that Star Trek isn't supposed to be an action movie, and yet the last 4 TNG films were indeed (bad) action movies, the worst of which you say you actually like and would watch by choice... Why do you like Nemesis? What redeeming qualities does it have?
Yes, they had action, but it wasn't the gung ho action in JJ's movies...
There were only 4 TNG movies... so there is no "last" TNG movie... at least when recounting more than one... you could say "the last TNG movie..." but there is no "last 4" since there were only 4.
Generations, First Contact, Insurrection, and Nemesis... to say First Contact is bad... would make me take the same stance you take when I say I like Nemesis... many people consider First Contact second to Wrath of Khan... but you have a right to your opinion...
I like Nemesis, for reasons I'm trying to put into words... I simply love it, I don't know any specific reasons why, I just do.
AMD Ryzen 9 5900X Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB 1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD 32 GB RAM Windows 11 Pro
Biotech, I've seen every single Star Trek movie and TV series at least a dozen times, except JJ's movie... and yes, there was action, but it wasn't the center of the episodes or movies, which seems to be in JJ's movies, if not the most prevalent in this teaser trailer... and I've seen a lot of people who agree, they ask "Where is the Star Trek?"
I don't get the same feelings watching JJ's movies as I do watching the rest of the Star Trek franchise... something is missing from JJ's movies... but I can't put my finger on it...
Yes, they had action, but it wasn't the gung ho action in JJ's movies...
You're confusing bad action with action not being the focus of the film. The TNG movies were action films, bad ones, because the characters and actors were not suited to action. At the end of the TNG films, 65 year old Jean Luc Picard always beams over to have a one-on-one shootout and/or fistfight with the final boss... He's Captain Picard, not Bruce Willis, he belongs in uniform around a conference table using his tact and wisdom to resolve an intractable diplomatic issue, not fighting in close quarters with a superweapon wielding nutjob while wearing a dirty vest. This will usually take place after a long and convoluted drawn-out series of events that make very little sense.
The JJ film is about re-establishing the characters, putting them in their pre-destined places, making sure they live up to their pop culture reputations, and making something that can be marketed to a mainstream audience. As a consequence there's no techno-babble to give it a nerdy stigma, and all the characters have had their commonly recognizable character traits exaggerated so that the non-trekkie luddite plebian audience can recognize them. It's a well directed film that accomplishes exactly what it sets out to do. The film flows, mostly makes sense with a simple plot and a simple villain, and it doesn't leave the audience bored or confused at any point. Star trek isn't usually like that, and that's probably what's confusing you.
Generations, First Contact, Insurrection, and Nemesis... to say First Contact is bad... would make me take the same stance you take when I say I like Nemesis... many people consider First Contact second to Wrath of Khan... but you have a right to your opinion...
First Contact is certainly the best of the TNG films, but it's still an action film and the cast is still not suited to action. I'm not going to write an essay on every point that I don't like about it, but the biggest thing is that it was the start of the Borg's irreversible decay as villains. They went from a cold, sinister manifestation of mankind's fear of advanced technology and the unknown, into bumbling cyborg henchmen under the command of a queen who was altogether too human and with too many human failings. Voyager would go on to spend the next few years running circles around the Borg, further stripping them of what had made them such menacing antagonists.
For most I have to agree with Jafit. He's perfectly right that especially Nemesis is the worst of all movies. It's plotline is shallow, the continuity is unstable, the interaction between the characters themselves and the ideals of Trek are weak, and the characters are visibly aged - which is unavoidable however, given the real-life timespan between the original TNG-series and the movie, even Kirk looked fat and aged in Generations (yet he still kicked butt even then).
However, I find it most unfair and insulting to claim that anyone saying he likes Nemesis automatically disqualifies himself to be arguing seriously. I liked Nemesis. I found it terrible to watch in the aforementioned terms (and with Jafits nitpicks), but beyond that it's a good scifi. Be a bit more tolerant, Jafit....
Not even an ardent Trekkie myself, I happen to enjoy Nemesis much more than JJ Trek. I think some people fail to realise that Nemesis is a thematically very different film. It's more self-contained, intimate and personal (not exactly blockbuster-like but it worked for what it was), whereas the 2009 movie was bombastic, superficial and over the top.
For me, JJ Trek is simply SFX eye candy and that's all there is to it. While I could make do with this alternate timeline/universe business, what I don't like about this "reboot" is how comtemporary the whole film feels like. The film is set in the future and yet everybody speaks and behaves like they would nowadays, particularly the Vulcans and Nero and his gang (don't even get me started on that Orion bimbo). They're supposed to be aliens but there really isn't much distinction between us and them. Their mannerisms are the same and they speak the same, which make the Vulcan dialogue seem forced for instance.
Set designs were abysmal to say the least. The bridge is a cosmetics parlour that's what it is. And the engineering...to think that a united federation of a dozen advanced civilisations they still have ships with ugly, exposed pipes and bolts and steam and humidity running everywhere and liquid on the floor, not to mention poor crowd management. For those who'd argue that's what an engineering is supposed to be like, considering an infusion of the knowledge and technology from a dozen worlds and they still have work hazards like that, don't you think it's a little pathetic?
Last but not least, I know the film is supposed to focus on the adventures of young Kirk and co. For a reboot a little bit of exposition on what exactly the Federation and Starfleet are and what role Earth plays in this interstellar community wouldn't be too much to ask, would it? Abrams kept saying the reason he wanted a reboot was to bring in new audience who were otherwise unfamiliar with the Star Trek universe. Honestly if I were one of them I'd be dumbfounded by what the hell Starfleet is and what business Earth has with these alien races. Mind you, with Vulcan, one of the founding members of the UFP, destroyed, all they care about at the film's end is Kirk getting his medal and command of Gayterprise?! There's no mention of what the fallout would be after such a tragedy and how that'd impact the Federation. The whole film just lacks substance. It seems to me as if Kirk's heroic acts of destroying Nero's spiky (can't remember the name) and saving Starfleet's brand-freaking-new flagship from becoming scrap metal are enough to make up for the complete annihilation of a world of 6 billions and a good chunk of the fleet, which I know is not the case, but the film doesn't show that, does it?
What Abrams did was he simply hijacked the name "Star Trek" and passed it off with a generic sci-fi action adventure, mixed it up with the obligatory "character development" but omitted the philosophies and moral values so prominent in all of the Trek incarnations, which I think tarnished the franchise and reduced it into one of those money-making machines we're so used to nowadays. Having seen the 10-minute preview of Into Darkness, I can say that it didn't change my opinion of JJ Trek at all. The direction and dialogue were just as forced and pretentious. At least the TOS and TNG films had more heart and felt more natural, since the cast had been playing the same characters for years already. The new Trek is sadly all about action set-pieces and sappy melodrama while Kirk and co are there for the sake of being there just so Abrams can still call it "Star Trek".
Sorry for the long post...
Gayterprise? Really? If you don't like the movie, fine don't watch it but I think calling it Gayterprise is NOT appropriate.
Granted Nemesis was not a perfect film by any measure, no Star Trek film ever was, not even Wrath of Khan. And it did share a number of parallels with the latter, but many of your criticisms were explained or at least implied in the film.
First of all Nemesis was not an homage to/rip-off/imitation of WoK. Shinzon was nothing like Khan. I would describe him as someone who was suffering from identity crisis and was subconciously pursuing a course of self-destruction. He hated humans, the Federation and particularly Picard because they represented something which he had never been given the opportunity to attain. He probably didn't hate being born/made a human, but he certainly hated what he was denied as well as the life manifested in Picard which he could've had, had he been properly sheltered and nurtured. THAT was his motivation for attacking the Enterprise and the Federation, so that he could enforce his worldview of hardships and disgrace onto the ignorant masses.
Yes, a massive warship with 5 times the armament of any other ship, faster than the Enterprise, with a planet-killing superweapon and a 'perfect' cloak, built by a slave race of uneducated miners in total secret in the middle of the Romulan Empire without getting discovered by the Tal-Shiar, yeah right.
Actually the Scimitar was kept secret from the Romulan senate. Shinzon and the Remans were acting in cahoots with the Romulan military in staging the coup.
Even the space battle was better in Wrath of Khan. Each phaser hit changes the situation, in Nemesis you've got ships firing endlessly at each other for what seems like forever until they run out of ammo.
I thought the battle was done rather well, esp. how the Scimitar made the U-turn after knocking the Enterprise out of warp. Also the way they dealt with cloaked ships was pretty neat.
Also the Enterprise was en route to rendezvous with a Federation task force, but that task force doesn't come looking for the Enterprise when it fails to arrive, instead the only help that turns up are the Romulans who shouldn't have even known where the Enterprise was going.
As far as the task force was concerned, the Enterprise was still en-route cos they had no way of knowing what was happening inside the nebula. The Romulans already knew of Shinzon's plan. They were probably already tracking him soon as it became apparent he was going to attack the Federation.
Picard: The wise, diplomatic, tea drinking, flute playing, archaeology enthusiast, gleefully razzing around on an alien planet in a dune buggy like a redneck. Could that be any more out of character?
He was being adventurous as a Starfleet officer, what's wrong with that?
Worf: Wasn't he made an ambassador at the end of the last film? Why is he even on the Enterprise?
He was hitching the ride to attend Riker and Troi's wedding on Betazed, where the Enterprise was originally headed.
Jordie: Didn't really do anything in the film at all
Cos there wasn't much for him to do?
Riker: Pointless fight with a monster... otherwise he does nothing too.
Yes, but then again, the film was more about Picard and to some extent Data than any of the cast.
Not to mention the fact that they all look old, fat, bored and tired.
I would say they were more mellowed and relaxed, but to each his own.
And yes, liking Nemesis means an automatic gtfo isn't the best way to appeal to people of your opinions.
Gayterprise? Really? If you don't like the movie, fine don't watch it but I think calling it Gayterprise is NOT appropriate.
Sorry about the choice of words, but I couldn't think of a word more representative of my impression of the new Enterprise. While my comment lacked tact and political correctness, I hope you appreciate that I was being honest with my opinion.
However, I find it most unfair and insulting to claim that anyone saying he likes Nemesis automatically disqualifies himself to be arguing seriously. I liked Nemesis. I found it terrible to watch in the aforementioned terms (and with Jafits nitpicks), but beyond that it's a good scifi. Be a bit more tolerant, Jafit....
I don't think it's unreasonable to think that liking terrible films* somewhat undermines a person's credibility when commenting on the merits of a film, which is what this thread is about. Especially if you can't even rationalize why you hold that opinion.
(*unironicly liking them, there are a lot of 'so bad it's good' films)
Would you watch a literature review and discussion TV program hosted by a panel of Twilight erotic fanfiction authors for any reason other than morbid curiosity? Probably not. Why? Because you can't bring yourself to respect their opinion on literature. You're not obliged to automatically respect or tolerate their clearly awful opinion simply because they have one.
Well, mostly because Twilight is by definition a vampire romance (up until that time, I thought the only romantic vampire was Louis de Pointe du Lac), which is only a small fraction of literature anyway.
If you have a specialised group of people talk about the general topic, it can only fail. It's like asking a astro-physicist teach you about electrodynamics. Both are a part of physics, but barely related to eachother. Doesn't make it any more unreasoable as every astrophysicist also needs to learn at least the basics of thermodynamics.
Nemesis is Trek, it's canonically accepted, so it doesn't matter how bad it's made, how incredulous the story is, it is fact. Only because you like it, doesn't mean your arguments are more off. There are plenty of people who consider ENT to be the worst of all shows. So what? It's canon, live with it. I didn't like amy of ENTs basic ideas either, but it's still a good show for itself.
TNG as a show was always about the ensemble, TNG as movies was always the Picard and Data show, it hurt the stories, and it hurt the series.
The original crew managed six movies on their own, the TNG crew barely made it to four, and the last one fared so badly that it ruined any chances DS9 had for movies of their own.
If anyone likes Nemisis, that's fine, that's thier opinion, but saying the JJ movie is not star trek is a smack in the face to people like me who watched the original show in first run, who watched when there were no movies, who watched the sucky animated series, because at least it was new star trek, who watched as the series spun off new series, and then despaired as the last two ran the franchise into the ground.
After several sucky movies, and disappointing shows, star trek came back, like I remembered it, only better.
I have seen the JJ film half a dozen times now, and it still never fails to entertain.
Believe me, I never wanted insurrection and nemesis to suck, but I can't help the fact that they did.
But he certainly hated what he was denied as well as the life manifested in Picard which he could've had, had he been properly sheltered and nurtured. THAT was his motivation for attacking the Enterprise and the Federation, so that he could enforce his worldview of hardships and disgrace onto the ignorant masses.
So he's bitter and angry about not having a human childhood, and he's more angry about that than being 'under the lash' of the Romulus for his entire life. That's a really bad motivation for a villain and it doesn't make a lick of sense.
Imagine 400 years ago an African slave escapes from his slave masters in the West Indies and gains access to a galleon and a loyal crew. Instead of engaging in piracy or a guerrilla war against the British Empire's Atlantic trade lanes or attacking British colonies, or even going to Britain and causing trouble there... he decides instead to go and massacre the tribes of West Africa because he's mad that he didn't get to live there with them.
That story makes more sense than Shinzon's villainous motivation to destroy Earth.
Actually the Scimitar was kept secret from the Romulan senate. Shinzon and the Remans were acting in cahoots with the Romulan military in staging the coup.
Remind me why the Romulan military made a pact to stage a coup with a Human/adopted Reman slave who has spent his entire life mining instead of just staging a coup themselves with all the warships that they already have? Actually, don't. I doubt that it would make any sense.
Meanwhile 400 years ago, the Royal Navy has concocted a villanous plot to overthrow the Crown by allying themselves with an escaped negro slave, who for some reason has access to a Vanguard class nuclear submarine equipped with Trident missiles (built at a secret base of course), but the Navy lose heart when they learn of his plan to nuke West Africa.
I thought the battle was done rather well, esp. how the Scimitar made the U-turn after knocking the Enterprise out of warp. Also the way they dealt with cloaked ships was pretty neat.
There's nothing wrong with liking the special effects, however it can easily drag on and become uninteresting from a storytelling perspective.
As far as the task force was concerned, the Enterprise was still en-route cos they had no way of knowing what was happening inside the nebula. The Romulans already knew of Shinzon's plan. They were probably already tracking him soon as it became apparent he was going to attack the Federation.
Just before they enter the rift, they say that they are 40 minutes away from the taskforce. I don't know if it was my perception of time, but the battle certainly seemed to drag on for longer than 40 minutes. To suggest that the taskforce would just sit there and wait would suggest that all other Starfleet vessels are commanded by dullards with no semblance of tactical awareness or initiative. And how were the Romulans tracking Shinzon when he has a perfect cloak?
He was being adventurous as a Starfleet officer, what's wrong with that?
What's wrong with that? What's wrong is that he has an established character and that character is not a thrill seeker. in TNG, Captain Picard spends his spare time reading books and studying archaeology, his holodeck time is spent riding horses and being a 1930s private detective. His most dangerous hobby is apparently fencing. Razzing around in a jeep is out of character and adds nothing to the story. It was simply an indulgence for Patrick Stewart (who loves driving in real life) and a way to shoehorn in a pointless action sequence
By the way, the Argo, a shuttle that carries a jeep... 75% of the volume of a trans-orbital shuttle capable of landing anywhere is dedicated to housing a ground vehicle. This jeep carries 3 people, can't traverse mountains or cross rivers, offers no protection from the environment, has no visible storage capacity, and has a turret mounted on the back apparently for the very specific circumstances of being chased by other jeeps, it's also way slower than the shuttle dedicated to carrying it. The jeep is a vehicle that's about an order of magnitude less useful than the shuttle that's dedicated to carrying it around. "What's wrong with that?" - a lot. it's stupid.
Nemesis is Trek, it's canonically accepted, so it doesn't matter how bad it's made, how incredulous the story is, it is fact. Only because you like it, doesn't mean your arguments are more off. There are plenty of people who consider ENT to be the worst of all shows. So what? It's canon, live with it. I didn't like amy of ENTs basic ideas either, but it's still a good show for itself.
It's canon, therefore I am obliged to like it? Even while admitting that it's terrible?
TNG as a show was always about the ensemble, TNG as movies was always the Picard and Data show, it hurt the stories, and it hurt the series.
The original crew managed six movies on their own, the TNG crew barely made it to four, and the last one fared so badly that it ruined any chances DS9 had for movies of their own.
If anyone likes Nemisis, that's fine, that's thier opinion, but saying the JJ movie is not star trek is a smack in the face to people like me who watched the original show in first run, who watched when there were no movies, who watched the sucky animated series, because at least it was new star trek, who watched as the series spun off new series, and then despaired as the last two ran the franchise into the ground.
After several sucky movies, and disappointing shows, star trek came back, like I remembered it, only better.
I have seen the JJ film half a dozen times now, and it still never fails to entertain.
Believe me, I never wanted insurrection and nemesis to suck, but I can't help the fact that they did.
Agreed, I've watched it several times and I really enjoyed it. I don't see what all this arguing is about? If you don't like something, don't watch it.
It's canon, therefore I am obliged to like it? Even while admitting that it's terrible?
This must be what going mad feels like.
Essentially, yes. It's all generally accepted, whether we like it or not. Saying Nemesis never happened only because you didn't like it is like denying periods of our history because we didn't like.
If anyone likes Nemisis, that's fine, that's thier opinion, but saying the JJ movie is not star trek is a smack in the face to people like me who watched the original show in first run, who watched when there were no movies, who watched the sucky animated series, because at least it was new star trek, who watched as the series spun off new series, and then despaired as the last two ran the franchise into the ground.
Well, at the very least, it's not the Star Trek I've grown to love... JJ's movies don't invoke the same response in me, as the rest of the franchise does... something is just off... it's more than just being different, something else is off, because I was able to get into DS9 and Voyager even though they were different from TNG, but they all shared something in common that I don't feel with JJ's movies...
I think Gene made it clear he didn't consider TAS cannon...
Remind me why the Romulan military made a pact to stage a coup with a Human/adopted Reman slave who has spent his entire life mining instead of just staging a coup themselves with all the warships that they already have? Actually, don't. I doubt that it would make any sense.
I can believe that... especially in this day and age, which is what most of the episodes and movies mimicked... current issues of our time, only in a futuristic setting... they still took some artistic license...
Just before they enter the rift, they say that they are 40 minutes away from the taskforce. I don't know if it was my perception of time, but the battle certainly seemed to drag on for longer than 40 minutes. To suggest that the taskforce would just sit there and wait would suggest that all other Starfleet vessels are commanded by dullards with no semblance of tactical awareness or initiative. And how were the Romulans tracking Shinzon when he has a perfect cloak?
Perfect as far as the Enterprise sensors were concerned, we don't know if the Romulans are able to track him through the cloak... remember it was developed with assistance from the Romulans, most likely the same Romulans who were tracking him, e.g. Commander Donatra... so it's possible they knew how to track him through his cloak... even if it was dodgy tracking like the Enterprise had with the old D'Deridex class warbirds...
It's canon, therefore I am obliged to like it? Even while admitting that it's terrible?
No, but the way you reacted to my liking Nemesis over JJ's movie's is a bit illogical... you didn't see me do that to your opinion, you like JJ's Trek movies... but I didn't say your opinion reduces your credibility... did I?
AMD Ryzen 9 5900X Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB 1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD 32 GB RAM Windows 11 Pro
Essentially, yes. It's all generally accepted, whether we like it or not. Saying Nemesis never happened only because you didn't like it is like denying periods of our history because we didn't like.
I didn't say that Nemesis never happened, I said that it's terrible, makes no sense, and is not entertaining as a film. I'd also say that the only thing spinning faster than the Argo's wheels is Gene Roddenberry in his grave.
Saying that you actually have to like something just because its a canonical part of something that used to be good, that is the epitome of delusional fanboyism.
No, but the way you reacted to my liking Nemesis over JJ's movie's is a bit illogical... you didn't see me do that to your opinion, you like JJ's Trek movies... but I didn't say your opinion reduces your credibility... did I?
It's perfectly logical. You're simply unable to articulate the reasons why you hold certain opinions, how does that not reduce your credibility?
I've explained why I like the JJ reboot, and why I dislike the TNG films. All you've said is "something is just off..." which is the kind of vague hand-waving response that Councillor Troi would be proud of.
because I was able to get into DS9 and Voyager even though they were different from TNG, but they all shared something in common that I don't feel with JJ's movies...
I think the problem is that you've come to like Rick Berman's producing over Gene Roddenberry's. He has been the driving force behind Star Trek's decline since Gene died. The change between Gene's style and Rick's style starts to become noticeable towards the end of TNG as the technobabble starts to creep in more and more, and then it just completely takes over in Voyager, also you can watch Star Trek escalate and ultimately burn out over the course of the Dominion War saga in DS9.
TNG as a show was always about the ensemble, TNG as movies was always the Picard and Data show, it hurt the stories, and it hurt the series.
The original crew managed six movies on their own, the TNG crew barely made it to four, and the last one fared so badly that it ruined any chances DS9 had for movies of their own.
If anyone likes Nemisis, that's fine, that's thier opinion, but saying the JJ movie is not star trek is a smack in the face to people like me who watched the original show in first run, who watched when there were no movies, who watched the sucky animated series, because at least it was new star trek, who watched as the series spun off new series, and then despaired as the last two ran the franchise into the ground.
After several sucky movies, and disappointing shows, star trek came back, like I remembered it, only better.
I have seen the JJ film half a dozen times now, and it still never fails to entertain.
Believe me, I never wanted insurrection and nemesis to suck, but I can't help the fact that they did.
I believe it was mentioned by Patrick Stewart that Nemesis failed in large part due to economics as it was released in the same time slot as Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter and that hurt its chances of earning a good box office receipt.
The quality of the film itself notwithstanding, you've got to appreciate that it was at least marginally better than Resurrection, if you want to be pedantic about it, and thus should've fared much better than it actually did.
I'm part of the generation who grew up watching the TNG shows, so I like my fix of moral and philosophical dilemmas. That's the Trek I've known. Before you all go "that explains it", do realise the fandom got to grow to such extent because of TNG and the movies (TOS and TNG alike). Before it was quintessentially a large cult following. It was when Trek went international the fans started to love TOS retroactively. But their first exposure is still TNG and that's what Trek is to me. That was the reason I didn't like JJ Trek cos it lacked the core values and characteristics found in the past iterations. What we have now is a run of the mill sci-fi actioner. You take away Kirk, the Federation or the Enterprise, you'd still have a solid sci-fi movie on your hands. Try that with any of the past Trek films and it wouldn't make any sense. The conflict and the wonder would lose their meaning. As far as I'm concerned JJ Trek is blind entertainment without the intellectual stimulation I found appealing in the "old Trek".
Same as most of you respecting me and others for liking sucky Nemesis, I have no problem with people liking JJ Trek and its success was UNDERSTANDABLE. Personally I simply don't think it deserves to be grouped into the same realm as the Star Trek which came before.
So he's bitter and angry about not having a human childhood, and he's more angry about that than being 'under the lash' of the Romulus for his entire life. That's a really bad motivation for a villain and it doesn't make a lick of sense.
Imagine 400 years ago an African slave escapes from his slave masters in the West Indies and gains access to a galleon and a loyal crew. Instead of engaging in piracy or a guerrilla war against the British Empire's Atlantic trade lanes or attacking British colonies, or even going to Britain and causing trouble there... he decides instead to go and massacre the tribes of West Africa because he's mad that he didn't get to live there with them.
That story makes more sense than Shinzon's villainous motivation to destroy Earth.
From Shinzon's perspective, the cruelty of his circumstance was the norm which he was willing to tolerate. That was what made him who he was. What he couldn't accept was a completely different alternative which contradicted with his own being and everything he had known.
Your analogy is flawed since Shinzon considered Remus as his home and himself more Reman than human. But he couldn't deny the fact he was human and as a human one could live a life free of misery and distress. It was inequality in his view so he thought if he couldn't have such a life, he would make sure no human could either.
What's wrong with that? What's wrong is that he has an established character and that character is not a thrill seeker. in TNG, Captain Picard spends his spare time reading books and studying archaeology, his holodeck time is spent riding horses and being a 1930s private detective. His most dangerous hobby is apparently fencing. Razzing around in a jeep is out of character and adds nothing to the story. It was simply an indulgence for Patrick Stewart (who loves driving in real life) and a way to shoehorn in a pointless action sequence
By the way, the Argo, a shuttle that carries a jeep... 75% of the volume of a trans-orbital shuttle capable of landing anywhere is dedicated to housing a ground vehicle. This jeep carries 3 people, can't traverse mountains or cross rivers, offers no protection from the environment, has no visible storage capacity, and has a turret mounted on the back apparently for the very specific circumstances of being chased by other jeeps, it's also way slower than the shuttle dedicated to carrying it. The jeep is a vehicle that's about an order of magnitude less useful than the shuttle that's dedicated to carrying it around. "What's wrong with that?" - a lot. it's stupid.
Whether Picard is a thrill seeker is in the eyes of the beholder. Remember he was quite reckless and arrogant when he was a cadet. How he conducts himself as an adult and indeed a Starfleet captain has little bearing on his personal nature, which can be described as curious and adventurous, as opposed to cultured, cautious and diplomatic by profession. He's had his fair share of dangerous away missions, so I don't see why it's so difficult to accept the want of excitment where, as he said: "there's no foreseeable danger."
As for the dune buggy, I'm sure you can think of a lot of ways where a wheeled vehicle would be employed. For instance situations where it's not practical to fly with the shuttle, or where discretion is needed etc etc.
It's perfectly logical. You're simply unable to articulate the reasons why you hold certain opinions, how does that not reduce your credibility?
I've explained why I like the JJ reboot, and why I dislike the TNG films. All you've said is "something is just off..." which is the kind of vague hand-waving response that Councillor Troi would be proud of.
I can't explain it in detail, I just like the pre-JJ Star Trek in all its facets, nothing in particular, I just like the cerebral feeling and the overall overtone of them... 99% of the episodes are not fast paced, it's a nice steady pace... the only time it's fast paced is during battles, which is to be expected...
I think the problem is that you've come to like Rick Berman's producing over Gene Roddenberry's. He has been the driving force behind Star Trek's decline since Gene died. The change between Gene's style and Rick's style starts to become noticeable towards the end of TNG as the technobabble starts to creep in more and more, and then it just completely takes over in Voyager, also you can watch Star Trek escalate and ultimately burn out over the course of the Dominion War saga in DS9.
Thankfully he has nothing to do with the reboot
Well, TNG really took off in Season 3... Gene died during Season 5... however, Voyager and DS9 to me, while being a new crew, etc. still had the same overall feeling as TNG post Season 3.
I don't mind the technobabble... because to me, while many of the terms, etc. were either made up or used improperly, I was still able to follow along and comprehend what was being done, etc.
From the TNG Season 1 Blu-ray bonus features, an excerpt:
Picard Narration: [Space, the final frontier...]
"The opening to Star Trek is pure poetry. 'These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise...'" - David Gerrold, Program Consultant, Star Trek: The Next Generation
Picard Narration: [... it's continuing mission, to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations and...]
"'... to boldly go where no one has gone before.' Now, to me... that's Star Trek. That's the essence of the entire series in one sentence. It's pure poetry to me, it's awe inspiring and the people who came to Star Trek, inspired by that vision, gave us great stories!" - David Gerrold, Program Consultant, Star Trek: The Next Generation
I feel the same way, that sums up Star Trek, in my opinion... be it TNG, Voyager, Enterprise... DS9 meh, kinda sorta... but nevertheless...
AMD Ryzen 9 5900X Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB 1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD 32 GB RAM Windows 11 Pro
The only TNG movie I liked was First Contact. The others weren't very good. I did like JJ Trek. Rick Berman destroyed Star Trek especially with Enterprise. I'd like to see a new series as long as they don't let Berman anywhere near it.
I also think that you can get your point across without insulting anyone or using derogatory comments.
Posts
So bitter.
Reading some of the responses it's almost as if Star Trek Nemesis never happened.
Well, to be honest, I enjoy Nemesis more... I'm being 100% frank.
Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
32 GB RAM
Windows 11 Pro
It's nice when people discredit themselves so I don't have to argue with them anymore
I fail to see how my liking Nemesis discredits myself?
The only thing I really hated about Nemesis was the fact that Data died...
Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
32 GB RAM
Windows 11 Pro
Hadn't really noticed... I did love the Argo though.
Speaking of Nemesis, I was just starting to watch Nemesis, then Windows had to run through that weekly system assessment tool thing and it froze my computer, because I had 3ds max open, but I disabled it so it didn't do that again, unless I wanted it to... lol.
Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
32 GB RAM
Windows 11 Pro
For me, JJ Trek is simply SFX eye candy and that's all there is to it. While I could make do with this alternate timeline/universe business, what I don't like about this "reboot" is how comtemporary the whole film feels like. The film is set in the future and yet everybody speaks and behaves like they would nowadays, particularly the Vulcans and Nero and his gang (don't even get me started on that Orion bimbo). They're supposed to be aliens but there really isn't much distinction between us and them. Their mannerisms are the same and they speak the same, which make the Vulcan dialogue seem forced for instance.
Set designs were abysmal to say the least. The bridge is a cosmetics parlour that's what it is. And the engineering...to think that a united federation of a dozen advanced civilisations they still have ships with ugly, exposed pipes and bolts and steam and humidity running everywhere and liquid on the floor, not to mention poor crowd management. For those who'd argue that's what an engineering is supposed to be like, considering an infusion of the knowledge and technology from a dozen worlds and they still have work hazards like that, don't you think it's a little pathetic?
Last but not least, I know the film is supposed to focus on the adventures of young Kirk and co. For a reboot a little bit of exposition on what exactly the Federation and Starfleet are and what role Earth plays in this interstellar community wouldn't be too much to ask, would it? Abrams kept saying the reason he wanted a reboot was to bring in new audience who were otherwise unfamiliar with the Star Trek universe. Honestly if I were one of them I'd be dumbfounded by what the hell Starfleet is and what business Earth has with these alien races. Mind you, with Vulcan, one of the founding members of the UFP, destroyed, all they care about at the film's end is Kirk getting his medal and command of Gayterprise?! There's no mention of what the fallout would be after such a tragedy and how that'd impact the Federation. The whole film just lacks substance. It seems to me as if Kirk's heroic acts of destroying Nero's spiky (can't remember the name) and saving Starfleet's brand-freaking-new flagship from becoming scrap metal are enough to make up for the complete annihilation of a world of 6 billions and a good chunk of the fleet, which I know is not the case, but the film doesn't show that, does it?
What Abrams did was he simply hijacked the name "Star Trek" and passed it off with a generic sci-fi action adventure, mixed it up with the obligatory "character development" but omitted the philosophies and moral values so prominent in all of the Trek incarnations, which I think tarnished the franchise and reduced it into one of those money-making machines we're so used to nowadays. Having seen the 10-minute preview of Into Darkness, I can say that it didn't change my opinion of JJ Trek at all. The direction and dialogue were just as forced and pretentious. At least the TOS and TNG films had more heart and felt more natural, since the cast had been playing the same characters for years already. The new Trek is sadly all about action set-pieces and sappy melodrama while Kirk and co are there for the sake of being there just so Abrams can still call it "Star Trek".
Sorry for the long post...
Brings dishonor to our families.
Nemesis was a failed attempt to r̶i̶p̶ ̶o̶f̶f̶ pay homage to The Wrath of Khan.
Wrath of Khan did all of these things better than Nemesis and it did it in true classy Star Trek fashion. It wasn't a dark and scary space-horror action film full of monsters, it didn't have the Romulan senate being dissolved in acid, it didn't have telepathic mind-rape in it, it didn't have a deus-ex-machina bad guy who comes from nowhere with a deus-ex machina superweapon spaceship that also comes from nowhere, it didn't have the villain gradually dying of a freakish disease before being impaled and pulling the metal spike through his own guts like the Terminator, and it didn't have a myriad of broken/useless characters and massive plot holes.
Yes, a massive warship with 5 times the armament of any other ship, faster than the Enterprise, with a planet-killing superweapon and a 'perfect' cloak, built by a slave race of uneducated miners in total secret in the middle of the Romulan Empire without getting discovered by the Tal-Shiar, yeah right. But I guess that makes about as much sense as Shinzon getting his hands on an ultra-rare Soong type android prototype, leaving it in pieces on a planet with hostile aliens on it, and expecting the crew to assemble the android so that it can gather intel on Star Fleet's strategic deployments and report back to him. It sure was lucky that only the Enterprise picked up that positionic signature, had a dune buggy chase, and assembled B-4 while they were on route to Romulus.
Even the space battle was better in Wrath of Khan. Each phaser hit changes the situation, in Nemesis you've got ships firing endlessly at each other for what seems like forever until they run out of ammo. Also the Enterprise was en route to rendezvous with a Federation task force, but that task force doesn't come looking for the Enterprise when it fails to arrive, instead the only help that turns up are the Romulans who shouldn't have even known where the Enterprise was going.
Wrath of Khan had better character motivation and development. Kirk has to face his no-win scenario and loses his best friend. Picard only discovers that he'd have grown up to be an asshole if he'd lived in a dilithium mine all his life. The villain's motivation and plan also makes sense in Wrath of Khan. Khan is simply a genetically augmented megalomaniac bent on revenge against the man who marooned him. Shinzon... I don't even know. He wants to free his Reman Brothers... by eradicating all life on Earth and starting a war with the Federation just after the entire quadrant has been fighting in the Dominion War? Why does he hate the Federation and not the Romulans who enslaved him? He has accomplished his stated goal of freeing his Reman brothers before the film even starts. Does he want Picard's blood transfusion or not? He doesn't seem bothered about the 'procedure' that will apparently save his life.
Speaking of characters lets go through the characters in Nemesis:
Picard: The wise, diplomatic, tea drinking, flute playing, archaeology enthusiast, gleefully razzing around on an alien planet in a dune buggy like a redneck. Could that be any more out of character?
Worf: Wasn't he made an ambassador at the end of the last film? Why is he even on the Enterprise?
Troi: She has steadily lost her accent and her character seems to have completely dissolved into nothing.
Jordie: Didn't really do anything in the film at all
Riker: Pointless fight with a monster... otherwise he does nothing too.
Not to mention the fact that they all look old, fat, bored and tired.
Lastly, lets look at the numbers:
Nemesis:
Worldwide Gross: $67,312,826
Budget: $60,000,000
Wrath of Khan
Worldwide Gross: $96,800,000
Budget $12,000,000
Not even adjusted for inflation
So in conclusion, Nemesis, and all the other TNG movies, were B-grade space action movies that didn't make any sense, and had none of the elements that made the TV show great.
Meanwhile you're all criticizing the JJ reboot for being an action movie! Despite the fact that it's actually a better action movie than any of the TNG films. Christ!
Also
Star Trek (2009)
Worldwide Gross: $385,680,446
Budget: $140,000,000
Sorry, but anyone who says they like Nemesis is not allowed to have their opinion taken seriously.
Whatever, seems a bit arrogant... I'm a Star Trek fan, I like the good and the bad, I'm not a conformist... I may like Nemesis, big deal, I never said it was the #1 Star Trek film or the best Star Trek film... I said I preferred over JJ's movies... now in terms of the first 10 movies, Nemesis is not my #1 pick... it's not even on my top 5...
Star Trek isn't supposed to be an action movie... people who think JJ's movies represent Star Trek, are sorely mistaken...
... as they say, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Their revenue means little to me... JJ's movie did good because it's sensationalist... in my opinion.
Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
32 GB RAM
Windows 11 Pro
Did you ever actually watch the series that took place before the movies?
The original series of star trek was nothing but action, 20 years before Picard and crew debated their way through every episode and running level 3 diagnostics, Kirk was flying with two feet into the chest of every bad guy around, and shagging everyone woman he met, and when all else failed, he was pretty damned handy with a phaser.
And if Jafit never mentioned Beverley Crusher, dont worry the director never bothered with her either.
Ah, I knew I forgot one of them. Thankfully not much needed to be said about her either.
I don't get the same feelings watching JJ's movies as I do watching the rest of the Star Trek franchise... something is missing from JJ's movies... but I can't put my finger on it...
Yes, they had action, but it wasn't the gung ho action in JJ's movies...
There were only 4 TNG movies... so there is no "last" TNG movie... at least when recounting more than one... you could say "the last TNG movie..." but there is no "last 4" since there were only 4.
Generations, First Contact, Insurrection, and Nemesis... to say First Contact is bad... would make me take the same stance you take when I say I like Nemesis... many people consider First Contact second to Wrath of Khan... but you have a right to your opinion...
I like Nemesis, for reasons I'm trying to put into words... I simply love it, I don't know any specific reasons why, I just do.
Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
32 GB RAM
Windows 11 Pro
You're confusing bad action with action not being the focus of the film. The TNG movies were action films, bad ones, because the characters and actors were not suited to action. At the end of the TNG films, 65 year old Jean Luc Picard always beams over to have a one-on-one shootout and/or fistfight with the final boss... He's Captain Picard, not Bruce Willis, he belongs in uniform around a conference table using his tact and wisdom to resolve an intractable diplomatic issue, not fighting in close quarters with a superweapon wielding nutjob while wearing a dirty vest. This will usually take place after a long and convoluted drawn-out series of events that make very little sense.
The JJ film is about re-establishing the characters, putting them in their pre-destined places, making sure they live up to their pop culture reputations, and making something that can be marketed to a mainstream audience. As a consequence there's no techno-babble to give it a nerdy stigma, and all the characters have had their commonly recognizable character traits exaggerated so that the non-trekkie luddite plebian audience can recognize them. It's a well directed film that accomplishes exactly what it sets out to do. The film flows, mostly makes sense with a simple plot and a simple villain, and it doesn't leave the audience bored or confused at any point. Star trek isn't usually like that, and that's probably what's confusing you.
First Contact is certainly the best of the TNG films, but it's still an action film and the cast is still not suited to action. I'm not going to write an essay on every point that I don't like about it, but the biggest thing is that it was the start of the Borg's irreversible decay as villains. They went from a cold, sinister manifestation of mankind's fear of advanced technology and the unknown, into bumbling cyborg henchmen under the command of a queen who was altogether too human and with too many human failings. Voyager would go on to spend the next few years running circles around the Borg, further stripping them of what had made them such menacing antagonists.
And that's why I'm afraid I can't bring myself to respect your opinion.
However, I find it most unfair and insulting to claim that anyone saying he likes Nemesis automatically disqualifies himself to be arguing seriously. I liked Nemesis. I found it terrible to watch in the aforementioned terms (and with Jafits nitpicks), but beyond that it's a good scifi. Be a bit more tolerant, Jafit....
Gayterprise? Really? If you don't like the movie, fine don't watch it but I think calling it Gayterprise is NOT appropriate.
First of all Nemesis was not an homage to/rip-off/imitation of WoK. Shinzon was nothing like Khan. I would describe him as someone who was suffering from identity crisis and was subconciously pursuing a course of self-destruction. He hated humans, the Federation and particularly Picard because they represented something which he had never been given the opportunity to attain. He probably didn't hate being born/made a human, but he certainly hated what he was denied as well as the life manifested in Picard which he could've had, had he been properly sheltered and nurtured. THAT was his motivation for attacking the Enterprise and the Federation, so that he could enforce his worldview of hardships and disgrace onto the ignorant masses.
Actually the Scimitar was kept secret from the Romulan senate. Shinzon and the Remans were acting in cahoots with the Romulan military in staging the coup.
I thought the battle was done rather well, esp. how the Scimitar made the U-turn after knocking the Enterprise out of warp. Also the way they dealt with cloaked ships was pretty neat.
As far as the task force was concerned, the Enterprise was still en-route cos they had no way of knowing what was happening inside the nebula. The Romulans already knew of Shinzon's plan. They were probably already tracking him soon as it became apparent he was going to attack the Federation.
He was being adventurous as a Starfleet officer, what's wrong with that?
He was hitching the ride to attend Riker and Troi's wedding on Betazed, where the Enterprise was originally headed.
Cos there wasn't much for him to do?
Yes, but then again, the film was more about Picard and to some extent Data than any of the cast.
I would say they were more mellowed and relaxed, but to each his own.
And yes, liking Nemesis means an automatic gtfo isn't the best way to appeal to people of your opinions.
Sorry about the choice of words, but I couldn't think of a word more representative of my impression of the new Enterprise. While my comment lacked tact and political correctness, I hope you appreciate that I was being honest with my opinion.
I don't think it's unreasonable to think that liking terrible films* somewhat undermines a person's credibility when commenting on the merits of a film, which is what this thread is about. Especially if you can't even rationalize why you hold that opinion.
(*unironicly liking them, there are a lot of 'so bad it's good' films)
Would you watch a literature review and discussion TV program hosted by a panel of Twilight erotic fanfiction authors for any reason other than morbid curiosity? Probably not. Why? Because you can't bring yourself to respect their opinion on literature. You're not obliged to automatically respect or tolerate their clearly awful opinion simply because they have one.
If you have a specialised group of people talk about the general topic, it can only fail. It's like asking a astro-physicist teach you about electrodynamics. Both are a part of physics, but barely related to eachother. Doesn't make it any more unreasoable as every astrophysicist also needs to learn at least the basics of thermodynamics.
Nemesis is Trek, it's canonically accepted, so it doesn't matter how bad it's made, how incredulous the story is, it is fact. Only because you like it, doesn't mean your arguments are more off. There are plenty of people who consider ENT to be the worst of all shows. So what? It's canon, live with it. I didn't like amy of ENTs basic ideas either, but it's still a good show for itself.
The original crew managed six movies on their own, the TNG crew barely made it to four, and the last one fared so badly that it ruined any chances DS9 had for movies of their own.
If anyone likes Nemisis, that's fine, that's thier opinion, but saying the JJ movie is not star trek is a smack in the face to people like me who watched the original show in first run, who watched when there were no movies, who watched the sucky animated series, because at least it was new star trek, who watched as the series spun off new series, and then despaired as the last two ran the franchise into the ground.
After several sucky movies, and disappointing shows, star trek came back, like I remembered it, only better.
I have seen the JJ film half a dozen times now, and it still never fails to entertain.
Believe me, I never wanted insurrection and nemesis to suck, but I can't help the fact that they did.
So he's bitter and angry about not having a human childhood, and he's more angry about that than being 'under the lash' of the Romulus for his entire life. That's a really bad motivation for a villain and it doesn't make a lick of sense.
Imagine 400 years ago an African slave escapes from his slave masters in the West Indies and gains access to a galleon and a loyal crew. Instead of engaging in piracy or a guerrilla war against the British Empire's Atlantic trade lanes or attacking British colonies, or even going to Britain and causing trouble there... he decides instead to go and massacre the tribes of West Africa because he's mad that he didn't get to live there with them.
That story makes more sense than Shinzon's villainous motivation to destroy Earth.
Remind me why the Romulan military made a pact to stage a coup with a Human/adopted Reman slave who has spent his entire life mining instead of just staging a coup themselves with all the warships that they already have? Actually, don't. I doubt that it would make any sense.
Meanwhile 400 years ago, the Royal Navy has concocted a villanous plot to overthrow the Crown by allying themselves with an escaped negro slave, who for some reason has access to a Vanguard class nuclear submarine equipped with Trident missiles (built at a secret base of course), but the Navy lose heart when they learn of his plan to nuke West Africa.
There's nothing wrong with liking the special effects, however it can easily drag on and become uninteresting from a storytelling perspective.
Just before they enter the rift, they say that they are 40 minutes away from the taskforce. I don't know if it was my perception of time, but the battle certainly seemed to drag on for longer than 40 minutes. To suggest that the taskforce would just sit there and wait would suggest that all other Starfleet vessels are commanded by dullards with no semblance of tactical awareness or initiative. And how were the Romulans tracking Shinzon when he has a perfect cloak?
What's wrong with that? What's wrong is that he has an established character and that character is not a thrill seeker. in TNG, Captain Picard spends his spare time reading books and studying archaeology, his holodeck time is spent riding horses and being a 1930s private detective. His most dangerous hobby is apparently fencing. Razzing around in a jeep is out of character and adds nothing to the story. It was simply an indulgence for Patrick Stewart (who loves driving in real life) and a way to shoehorn in a pointless action sequence
By the way, the Argo, a shuttle that carries a jeep... 75% of the volume of a trans-orbital shuttle capable of landing anywhere is dedicated to housing a ground vehicle. This jeep carries 3 people, can't traverse mountains or cross rivers, offers no protection from the environment, has no visible storage capacity, and has a turret mounted on the back apparently for the very specific circumstances of being chased by other jeeps, it's also way slower than the shuttle dedicated to carrying it. The jeep is a vehicle that's about an order of magnitude less useful than the shuttle that's dedicated to carrying it around. "What's wrong with that?" - a lot. it's stupid.
It's canon, therefore I am obliged to like it? Even while admitting that it's terrible?
This must be what going mad feels like.
Agreed, I've watched it several times and I really enjoyed it. I don't see what all this arguing is about? If you don't like something, don't watch it.
Well, at the very least, it's not the Star Trek I've grown to love... JJ's movies don't invoke the same response in me, as the rest of the franchise does... something is just off... it's more than just being different, something else is off, because I was able to get into DS9 and Voyager even though they were different from TNG, but they all shared something in common that I don't feel with JJ's movies...
I think Gene made it clear he didn't consider TAS cannon...
I can believe that... especially in this day and age, which is what most of the episodes and movies mimicked... current issues of our time, only in a futuristic setting... they still took some artistic license...
Perfect as far as the Enterprise sensors were concerned, we don't know if the Romulans are able to track him through the cloak... remember it was developed with assistance from the Romulans, most likely the same Romulans who were tracking him, e.g. Commander Donatra... so it's possible they knew how to track him through his cloak... even if it was dodgy tracking like the Enterprise had with the old D'Deridex class warbirds...
No, but the way you reacted to my liking Nemesis over JJ's movie's is a bit illogical... you didn't see me do that to your opinion, you like JJ's Trek movies... but I didn't say your opinion reduces your credibility... did I?
Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
32 GB RAM
Windows 11 Pro
I didn't say that Nemesis never happened, I said that it's terrible, makes no sense, and is not entertaining as a film. I'd also say that the only thing spinning faster than the Argo's wheels is Gene Roddenberry in his grave.
Saying that you actually have to like something just because its a canonical part of something that used to be good, that is the epitome of delusional fanboyism.
It's perfectly logical. You're simply unable to articulate the reasons why you hold certain opinions, how does that not reduce your credibility?
I've explained why I like the JJ reboot, and why I dislike the TNG films. All you've said is "something is just off..." which is the kind of vague hand-waving response that Councillor Troi would be proud of.
I think the problem is that you've come to like Rick Berman's producing over Gene Roddenberry's. He has been the driving force behind Star Trek's decline since Gene died. The change between Gene's style and Rick's style starts to become noticeable towards the end of TNG as the technobabble starts to creep in more and more, and then it just completely takes over in Voyager, also you can watch Star Trek escalate and ultimately burn out over the course of the Dominion War saga in DS9.
Thankfully he has nothing to do with the reboot
I believe it was mentioned by Patrick Stewart that Nemesis failed in large part due to economics as it was released in the same time slot as Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter and that hurt its chances of earning a good box office receipt.
The quality of the film itself notwithstanding, you've got to appreciate that it was at least marginally better than Resurrection, if you want to be pedantic about it, and thus should've fared much better than it actually did.
I'm part of the generation who grew up watching the TNG shows, so I like my fix of moral and philosophical dilemmas. That's the Trek I've known. Before you all go "that explains it", do realise the fandom got to grow to such extent because of TNG and the movies (TOS and TNG alike). Before it was quintessentially a large cult following. It was when Trek went international the fans started to love TOS retroactively. But their first exposure is still TNG and that's what Trek is to me. That was the reason I didn't like JJ Trek cos it lacked the core values and characteristics found in the past iterations. What we have now is a run of the mill sci-fi actioner. You take away Kirk, the Federation or the Enterprise, you'd still have a solid sci-fi movie on your hands. Try that with any of the past Trek films and it wouldn't make any sense. The conflict and the wonder would lose their meaning. As far as I'm concerned JJ Trek is blind entertainment without the intellectual stimulation I found appealing in the "old Trek".
Same as most of you respecting me and others for liking sucky Nemesis, I have no problem with people liking JJ Trek and its success was UNDERSTANDABLE. Personally I simply don't think it deserves to be grouped into the same realm as the Star Trek which came before.
From Shinzon's perspective, the cruelty of his circumstance was the norm which he was willing to tolerate. That was what made him who he was. What he couldn't accept was a completely different alternative which contradicted with his own being and everything he had known.
Your analogy is flawed since Shinzon considered Remus as his home and himself more Reman than human. But he couldn't deny the fact he was human and as a human one could live a life free of misery and distress. It was inequality in his view so he thought if he couldn't have such a life, he would make sure no human could either.
Whether Picard is a thrill seeker is in the eyes of the beholder. Remember he was quite reckless and arrogant when he was a cadet. How he conducts himself as an adult and indeed a Starfleet captain has little bearing on his personal nature, which can be described as curious and adventurous, as opposed to cultured, cautious and diplomatic by profession. He's had his fair share of dangerous away missions, so I don't see why it's so difficult to accept the want of excitment where, as he said: "there's no foreseeable danger."
As for the dune buggy, I'm sure you can think of a lot of ways where a wheeled vehicle would be employed. For instance situations where it's not practical to fly with the shuttle, or where discretion is needed etc etc.
I can't explain it in detail, I just like the pre-JJ Star Trek in all its facets, nothing in particular, I just like the cerebral feeling and the overall overtone of them... 99% of the episodes are not fast paced, it's a nice steady pace... the only time it's fast paced is during battles, which is to be expected...
Well, TNG really took off in Season 3... Gene died during Season 5... however, Voyager and DS9 to me, while being a new crew, etc. still had the same overall feeling as TNG post Season 3.
I don't mind the technobabble... because to me, while many of the terms, etc. were either made up or used improperly, I was still able to follow along and comprehend what was being done, etc.
From the TNG Season 1 Blu-ray bonus features, an excerpt:
I feel the same way, that sums up Star Trek, in my opinion... be it TNG, Voyager, Enterprise... DS9 meh, kinda sorta... but nevertheless...
Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
32 GB RAM
Windows 11 Pro
I also think that you can get your point across without insulting anyone or using derogatory comments.