Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Movies Media

Critics Pan Nemesis 1058

CgiJobs writes "The critics aren't much impressed with the new Star trek: "The 10th entry in the Star Trek movie franchise ... is the dullest and drabbest of the lot"; "this ship-bound and lackluster entry tells a rather harebrained story"; "suffers from a nasty case of the cutes"; More at Google News. Of course, I'll still be going to see it." Calling this movie the worst of the series is a pretty harsh criticism...

Reader NCC1701E submitted a short write-up on the movie:

"First, the executive summary: wait for the video. Now, the Gory Details, in all their splendor. I somehow received an email invitation to an advance screening to the Paramount Theater in Times Square, here in NYC. I had to wait in line for 30 minutes, and there was some confusion in swapping my email print out for a pass. But they didn't even check names against a list; it was basically first-come, first served among those who had been inveigled there through various means. In the end, there were even some empty seats. The movie itself? Basically disappointing. IMHO, the weakest entry yet in the series. Production values and special effects were excellent. And it was great to see the movie in a big theater with Dolby sound. But NEMESIS is little more than a Western type "shoot out" movie. The bad guys attack. The good guys fight back, Then, there's more attacking and more fighting back. Then it happens again. And again. You get the idea. I'm a sucker for the hokey humanism that was the hallmark of Star Trek at its best. There was very little of that on display here. In fact, there was very little in the way of a plot. Just some mildly amusing cutesy scenes, plus some murky musings about the nature vs. nuture debate re: a Picard clone. So I didn't much care for the movie. And judging by the subdued response in the theater, neither did the audience. BTW, NY audiences can be cruel. This one snickered at corny lines that weren't supposed to be funny. The phrase "derisive laughter" leaps to mind. I predict NEMESIS will be a huge box office hit. But long-time fans may be as disappointed as I was."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Critics Pan Nemesis

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 13, 2002 @12:45PM (#4881301)
    Can't be any worse than Star Trek XXIV - Scotty passes a stone
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 13, 2002 @12:47PM (#4881321)
    Wow, talk about picking out the bad reviews. At, the movie stands at about 50% positive reviews, with over 85% of the more popular reviewers thinking it was good.
    • 50%? (Score:4, Funny)

      by Galvatron ( 115029 ) on Friday December 13, 2002 @01:19PM (#4881642)
      So, that'd be an average of something like 2 and a half stars, then? Actually, probably lower because I doubt anyone gave it the full 4, and I'm sure some reviewers gave it a 1. So yeah, that's not very good.

      For comparison, Star Trek IX, Insurrection, got 59%. So basically, if you loved Insurrection, you'll like Nemesis. If you thought Insurrection was crap, Nemesis will make your eyes bleed.

      • Re:50%? (Score:4, Informative)

        by Elwood P Dowd ( 16933 ) <> on Saturday December 14, 2002 @05:55AM (#4886258) Journal
        The only reason I'd disagree is... I just saw Nemesis. It was pretty good. I mean, as a non-trek movie, it was total crap.

        It was miles, miles better than Insurrection. Insurrection was fantastically bad. It was like a bad episode that had enough extra budget that they could emphasize... all the worst parts. The day-time TV acting/directing/screenwriting was in full effect. Nothing was interesting about the plot, villains, action, characters, etc.

        Nemesis still has daytime tv acting in parts. It also has some fantastically lame humor. But, occasionally, the humor plays. This is new for star trek: next generation movies. Also, I felt they were better at exploring a few things that couldn't be explored in the TV show. Here they can actually change characters a little. They also seem as if they paid for a decent script. Somewhat decent. The space battles are miles, miles better than anything I can remember in a Trek movie. It was interesting to watch. It's not like it was great action directing, a la black hawk down, where everything that occurs is clear to the audience, and makes tactical sense, but it was certainly kindof neat.

        Iduno. I'm really really picky about movies. This one has hilarious, glaring flaws. Bad makeup, half the acting, some of the script. But it also had everything that made the series interesting, plus some other cool shazz. I'd say Insurrection was like one of their worst TV episodes, with the bad elements emphasized. Nemesis was like one of their best TV episodes, with the best stuff emphasized, and some semi-innovative elements added as well.

        So if you liked the ST:TNG show, you'll probably like Nemesis. If you didn't like the show, certainly don't bother. If you liked Insurrection, then apparently you'll enjoy anything. Watch a pinwheel. It's cheaper, and you won't notice the difference.
  • the WORST? (Score:5, Funny)

    by SomeGuyFromCA ( 197979 ) on Friday December 13, 2002 @12:47PM (#4881326) Journal
    If it's worse than Final Frontier - which, according to official continuity, never happened, it's gotta be pretty bad at that.

    Then again, the plot reads like they're merging the "Picard's son" ep of TNG with the plot of Wrath of KHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNN! So it just might be that bad.
    • Re:the WORST? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by p3d0 ( 42270 ) on Friday December 13, 2002 @02:37PM (#4882308)

      IMHO the worst was definitely Generations, for three reasons:

      1. The "plot dev^H^H^H nexus" was the most contrived thing I have ever seen. It was a construction whose sole purpose, it seems, was to allow the plot to unfold as it did.
      2. They gratuitously wrecked practically every feature of the Star Trek universe they could get their hands on:
        • Data got emotions.
        • Geordi got eyes.
        • The Enterprise was destroyed.
        • Kirk was killed.
        • Lursa and Betor died.
        • et cetera...
      3. Oh, and by the way, the plot sucked.

      To go from that dreck to First Contact (IMHO the best movie of them all) was a triumph, and Jonathan Frakes deserves a lot of credit. (I think he also deserves credit for making the best odd-numbered movie, Insurrection. Yeah, it wasn't very good, but look at the other odd-numbered movies.)

    • by Quarters ( 18322 ) on Friday December 13, 2002 @03:17PM (#4882661)
      which, according to official continuity, never happened

  • by Badgerman ( 19207 ) on Friday December 13, 2002 @12:47PM (#4881328)
    . . . and how much is culture.

    I think that the general public is kind of tired of Star Trek. Some of the reviews I saw sounded like the same negative comments made about the "First Gen" cast.

    We've also had plenty of other sci-fi series to come around - Babylon 5, Farscape, X-files. Maybe Star Trek doesn't hold the same place in people's hearts.
    • by bravehamster ( 44836 ) on Friday December 13, 2002 @01:06PM (#4881510) Homepage Journal
      Maybe Star Trek doesn't hold the same place in people's hearts.

      And it's about time. Fans have become disillusioned with both Star Wars and Star Trek in recent years. Former strongholds of geekdom, they identified us to the general public, they labelled us. I hate being labelled. And there is so much better Science Fiction out there (most of it in written format), and now some people may discover that. I always hated hearing someone call themselves a Star Wars or Star Trek geek and then I ask them "Have you read Asimov, Heinlein, Bear, Benford, Brin, Adams, Niven, Pournelle?" And the answer was invariably "Huh?". Sad. So much more out there.

      • While we're at it, there's a lot of other good writing out there. Have you read Voltaire, Dickens, Bronte, Shelly, Twain, Crane, Poe, Swift, Doyle, Hemingway, Steinbeck, Morrison, Moliere, Angelou, Morrow, Shakespeare, Chaucer, Milton, Pope, Perleman, Woodhouse, Dahl, and thousands of others writing every kind fiction, illuminating every corner of human experience. Sure, there are some great writers of science fiction, there are even some great works of science fiction that stand up well alongside the whole body of world literature, but skip around a few genres. You'll be surprised by what you get out of it, including a deeper appreciation for some of your favorite genre fiction which was written by people who read things besides science fiction.
      • by Otter ( 3800 ) on Friday December 13, 2002 @01:21PM (#4881665) Journal
        Two thoughts:

        1) If you hate being labelled, who is this "us" and why are so concerned about what products it should consume?

        2) My impression is that obsessive Star Wars or Star Trek fanboyism fills a niche that has nothing to do with that fulfilled by reading Lucifer's Hammer or Foundation. Star Wars, especially. It's about familiarity and shared experience.
    • by GuyMannDude ( 574364 ) on Friday December 13, 2002 @01:10PM (#4881551) Journal

      I think that the general public is kind of tired of Star Trek. Some of the reviews I saw sounded like the same negative comments made about the "First Gen" cast...Maybe Star Trek doesn't hold the same place in people's hearts.

      Hmmm. Interesting comments but I beg to differ. I think people would like to see a good Trek film or series (my opinion is that everything after TNG has been crap) but they're tired of being let down. And now they're getting pissed. Remember how much all of us were looking forward to Star Wars Episode 1 a few years ago? Now a lot of us are really sick of the franchise -- but that's only because our hopes have been dashed and we've lost faith in the creative individual behind the story. I believe the same thing is happening with Trek. In a way, we're like the die-hard fans of a sports team who root and root for our team yet scream obscenities whenever one of our players screws up. We feel betrayed and express this in the form of personal attacks on the players. It's not that we hate our favorite team or the players or Trek or the actors. We're just tired of being let down by expecting the level of quality we're used to seeing.

      As for the effect of B5, Farscape, etc.,I can't comment on that because I honestly haven't seen those shows. But they all occupy a much smaller niche in popular culture then Trek does. I think any effect the success of those shows has had on Trek would be minimal.

      Feel free to disagree but my feeling is that most people are not tired of Star Trek per se. They're tired of half-assed sci-fi crap that's being sold to us under the Trek label.


      • Now a lot of us are really sick of the franchise -- but that's only because our hopes have been dashed and we've lost faith in the creative individual behind the story.

        Well, this is the essence of the problem. In the case of Star Trek, the creative genius was one Gene Roddenberry, deceased since 1991. Now, Gene did some goofy things here and there, but he an aesthetic vision of Star Trek that allowed it to become what it did. I think as soon as he died, the spirit of Star Trek died with him.

        Anyway, I completley agree with you otherwise. People are not sick of Star Trek, they are sick of what Paramount and Rick Berman have done with the name since Gene died.
      • (my opinion is that everything after TNG has been crap)

        My view on this is as follows: In ST7 (Generations), there is little thing called the nexus. If you get caught in the nexus, you can never leave (unless ripped out by transporter like Guinan was), and while in the Nexus all your wishes, concious or not, are fulfilled.

        Picard gets caught in the nexus, and somehow wills himself out (without being ripped out), only to then live out his fantasy (being the hero, the captain, surving difficulty, etc).

        So my personnal opinion is that Picard never left the nexus and that everything since the nexus has only been a Picard hallucination.

        Crappy DS9, crappy Voyager (had a few good eps, but a LOT of awfull ones)...all of that is just good old Jean-Luc having a freakout in the nexus.

    • by LostCluster ( 625375 ) on Friday December 13, 2002 @01:11PM (#4881552)
      Star Trek was never a mainstream hit. The original series got canceled 3 years into its run because of simple low ratings.

      TNG and DS9 survived because the requirements for syndication in the late 1980s to early 1990s were lower than network TV in the 1960s... there finally were enough TV channels so that a show aimed only at the sci-fi fans could work.

      Voyager was created expressly to launch the UPN network and provide it with a stable program to anchor an otherwise week lineup of programming. Enterprise appears forced to air by the fact that if it wasn't accepted, the Star Trek TV franchise would be suspended.

      Quanity is more important than quality now... that's a problem we're seeing all over TV.
      • The original series got canceled 3 years into its run because of simple low ratings.

        Actually, Paramount and the network might not have cancelled except for the fact that ratings at the time only reflected the entire audience. When after the fact, the analyzed the ratings and subdivided among demographics (which was becoming the new standard practice during the 70s), they realized their mistake in that the show was doing phenominal among the desired key 18-49 male range (which it continued to perform well against in syndication).

        It was this realization, among with the whole Star Wars thing, that led Paramount to build up ST Phase 2, which eventually settled down to just become the first movie.

      • Star Treks ratings were low because they put it in the worst time slots, and shifted the bloody program around so it was difficult to catch the broadcast.

        The NBC exec who made the decision to cancel it probably is camping with Jimmy Hoffa.

        People may not like Star Trek, I happen to (other than Enterprise) DS 9 was hitting into a great stride right before they shelved it, and Voyager really did hold my interest (even though the finale sucked).

        OTOH I find Star Wars to be marginally entertaining, and with the new plot lines and the new explanations for the force - I'm starting to find it annoying. I'd sorta wish Lucas would just quit cranking them out.

        I guess it all depends on your point of view.
    • by taniwha ( 70410 ) on Friday December 13, 2002 @01:39PM (#4881818) Homepage Journal
      In this morning's paper - 'caution: contains sex scenes and SciFi romance"
  • by ar1550 ( 544991 ) on Friday December 13, 2002 @12:47PM (#4881329)

    "The 10th entry in the Star Trek movie franchise ... is the dullest and drabbest of the lot

    So I take it that I'm not the only one who has repressed the horrible memory of seeing Star Trek V.

    ...gently down the stream...

    • by JPelorat ( 5320 ) on Friday December 13, 2002 @12:52PM (#4881368)
      There was a fifth one?
    • by MacAndrew ( 463832 ) on Friday December 13, 2002 @01:00PM (#4881458) Homepage
      It is BECAUSE they've repressed the memory that they FORGET that V really was the worst Star Trek of all time, arguably in serious competition with bad movies in general.

      Leonard Nimoy versus William Shatner as directors -- the choice is logical.

      V was so bad it made the fairly forgettable III and VI look epic and skillful. Apparently Shatner did not get to do in the climax of V what he's wanted, and if he had, the movie would have at least been funny.
  • by Punk Walrus ( 582794 ) on Friday December 13, 2002 @12:48PM (#4881332) Journal
    The preview release they sent out to the reviewers was apparently so bad, that one of my best Star Trek fan (he has a ship/club thing, leather jacket with logo on it, etc) friends said it was a embrassing as watching your best friend get drunk and try to get a date with a stripper.

    "It's not even a good two-parter," he sobbed.

  • by LostCluster ( 625375 ) on Friday December 13, 2002 @12:49PM (#4881342)
    There's a rather clear and definable moment where Star Trek's quality suffered a containment breach. The moment Gene Roddenberry died.

    The original series was a classic, and he led TNG well. However, after his death Deep Space Nine spun out of control, Voyager was an ugly stepchild from the start, and now Enterprise can't keep its story consistant with the events of the Kirk era that happen 100 years later.
    • by evilpenguin ( 18720 ) on Friday December 13, 2002 @01:04PM (#4881497)
      Aw, baloney. Gene Roddenberry was the author all that was hokum in Star Trek. He was the force that winnowed the soul out several stories. He was the gloryhog who constantly took credit for the work of others. He had no control over any of the movies except for the dismal first one. I would say that the quality of TNG leapt forward upon his death. That it is spirialing down now is more a measure of idea exhaustion than the lack of the "Great Bird of the Galaxy."

      Gene loved being benevolent head of a benign cult and would tell lie upon lie to maintain that position. See Harlan Ellison's book version of his script "The City on the Edge of Forever" for an unvarnished look at Trek Trough.

      Believe what you will, but tell the truth you know.
    • by Twirlip of the Mists ( 615030 ) <> on Friday December 13, 2002 @01:15PM (#4881592) Enterprise can't keep its story consistant with the events of the Kirk era that happen 100 years later.

      Far be it from me to be an "Enterprise" apologist, but I remember reading somewhere that there's an official explanation for this in the writers' guide or something. The story goes that when the events of "First Contact" happened, the time line forked in a serious way, due to the fact that Zephram Cochrane (or whatever his name was-- you know, Farmer Hoggett) was exposed to 24th century technology. The time line of "Enterprise" isn't the same as the time line of the original Star Trek, "The Next Generation," and so on.

      That's actually kind of a neat idea, and a new and different way of pressing the reset button on the whole Star Trek universe. I really wish they'd taken that idea more seriously, tying the series premiere closely to "First Contact," instead of doing the tired and nonsensical "temporal cold war" thing.

      Not that "Enterprise" wouldn't still suck, but at least it would make a little more sense in context of all the other Star Trek stories out there.
    • ... now Enterprise can't keep its story consistant with the events of the Kirk era that happen 100 years later

      Woah - hold on there Captain. Let's see. The Original Star Trek (OST) was written in 1965 and spoon-fed to NBC as a "wagon train to the stars", which means NBC viewed it as a futuristic western; and westerns dominated that era's television programming (hence the incredible number of bare-knuckled fist fights). OST was episodic and disjunct, with many writers doing as they pleased with the characters within a very gray scope (see Whitfield and Roddenberry, The Making of Star Trek, Bantam Books). In fact, they were making it all up as they went along, especially when it came to matters of science.

      Then the Star Trek franchise happens quite by accident, so that all subsequent efforts are placed very carefully under the control of the Great Overseer of the Grand Story Line. In fact, all of Star Trek goes through a single office, including books, movies, and television shows to keep the product, well, pure. Now, trying to take what was in the OST and blend it into what is makes for no easy task. In fact, there of those of us who would be happy if OST were basically ignored, except for a few basic concepts and events.

      I could go on, but I've already revealed the extent of my Star Trek Geekdom.

    • by Anonvmous Coward ( 589068 ) on Friday December 13, 2002 @01:23PM (#4881682)
      "....Deep Space Nine spun out of control..."

      Careful. DS9 was probably the best series of all of them. It had a direction to go, it did so, and the fans were satisfied. Unfortunately, the people who didn't/couldn't keep up with it were the ones that were burned. So I can see why you say that about DS9.

      "...and now Enterprise can't keep its story consistant with the events of the Kirk era that happen 100 years later."

      Have you paid any attention? I mean, you'd think that the fact that the NX-01 wasn't hanging on the wall in the Enterprise's ready room next to the space shuttle and aircraft carrier would be a big clue as to what's going on: The time line has been tampered with. One need not look any further than First Contact to see what happened. Cochrane named the NX-01 after the Enterprise, which he got a chance to see thanks to LaForge and a telescope.

      Sadly, that revealed more of my geekiness than I'd typically allow on Slashdot. However, it bothers the shit out of me that I can see this, but the people I know that know which deck the only bathroom on the Enterprise is don't.

      Let's get to the real crux of the consistency matter, though: Nobody could follow the timeline that TOS had laid out and then make it interesting to watch. The whole point of the TV show is to be new and interesting, it's no fun if it's all spoiled because Spock made an unimportant reference to meeting the Romulans.

      Where's the fun in seeing things in the past if you can't see how familiar things have changed?

      • Have you paid any attention? I mean, you'd think that the fact that the NX-01 wasn't hanging on the wall in the Enterprise's ready room next to the space shuttle and aircraft carrier would be a big clue as to what's going on: The time line has been tampered with.

        Since the premier episode of Enterprise ("Broken Bow"?), it has struck me that their is one really elegant way that they could explain the continuity differences between the original Star Trek and Enterprise:

        Let the series run its x number of years, occasionally building and developing the Suliban/Temporal Cold War story arc. At the end, have Cpt. Sam Becket, er Archer face the decision to wipe out the current time-line, including the development of his Enterprise, in favor of a timeline without the Suliban and the Temporal Cold War. If he doesn't, then the Suliban win and everyone suffers. Archer chooses to sacrifice his own existence and the existence of everyone he loves to safeguard humanity. His actions set up the Federation timeline which eventually spits out the Enterprise NC1701 captained by our favorite over-actor and his crew on a five year mission to "seek out new life and new civilizations...".

        It resolves all the "hey they are messing up the timeline" griping using Star Trek's favorite plot device: mucking around with the time continum. It also lets Archer and company make the ultimate heroic sacrifice - to be completely eliminated from existence so that the essence of what they love will survive.

        Do that and title the two part series closer "For the Greater Good" and you have a good ending to an average series.


      • by Reziac ( 43301 ) on Saturday December 14, 2002 @03:23AM (#4885912) Homepage Journal
        The dichotomy really is that TOS, TOS, and Voyager are all PLOT-driven. DS9 is CHARACTER-driven. This makes them appeal to completely different audiences, both of whom generally think that the other's guy's taste sucks.

    • The Wrong Gene. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by RatBastard ( 949 )
      Right concept. Wrong man. Gene L. Coon was what made the original Star Trek shine.

      The Roddenbury years of Next Gen are utter garbage.
  • by javacowboy ( 222023 ) on Friday December 13, 2002 @12:51PM (#4881360)
    I seriously doubt that this could possibly be worse than Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, which was one of the worst movies OF ALL TIME, if not THE WORST.

    The movie script was written by William Shatner during a Hollywood writer's strike. Shatner demonstrated quite clearly that he should stick to acting.
  • Hrm... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by autopr0n ( 534291 ) on Friday December 13, 2002 @12:52PM (#4881378) Homepage Journal
    Of course, all the geeks around here will buy the DVD so we can see Wil Wheaton's deleted scene... :P

    It's to bad it didn't turn out so well. They seemed to really have something with First Contact. I mean, with all the money they spend on special effects why can't they hire a good writer create an interesting world to put them in?

    It's to bad, too. I'm not a huge star-trek fan, but I was hoping this would be good, and at least worth seeing, given this is going to be the last one with this cast, and thus the last one worth seeing ever (probably)

    I mean, who want's to see a Deep Space 9 movie, or *gag* voyager!?
    • I am a fan, and plan on trying to see the movie tonight... but I'm not sure about your good writer bit, John Logan has a rather good pedigree (IMHO) and is a Trek fan as well... combined with a director who knew bugger all about Trek so he could focus the movie on being a movie (rather than Just Another Star Trek MovieTM and to challenge the actors more. Although I will reserve my judgement until I've seen the movie, but the potential for it to be good has been there since the beginning (not counting the odd/even rule).

      You're right about the DVD, they cut (AFAIK) around 45 minutes of stuff that *would* have made it into the film, but the orders were for a length of about 2 hours (rather than nearing 3). And Paramount have been quoted as saying there will be an extended DVD (not a Directors cut, because Stuart Baird was happy with the end result).

      DS9 was good, but it has a new direction in the books (which I just finished the first one called "Avatar", which is quite good). And Voyager was seriously let down by the writers and producers, i.e. look how they watered down the Borg, and their constant pressing of the "Continuity Reset" button. As well as Enterprise, I watched most of the first season, but have completely given up on it now... it is complete pants (although not as shit as Andromeda).

      Oh well, at least my Science Fiction appetite is whetted by Stargate SG1 and the announced season 7.

  • Critics (Score:5, Informative)

    by MoonFacedAssassin ( 539728 ) on Friday December 13, 2002 @12:53PM (#4881382)
    The critics aren't much impressed with the new Star trek...

    Since when have the critics ever been impressed with Star Trek? I take anything a critic says with a grain of salt.
  • by Nevermore-Spoon ( 610798 ) on Friday December 13, 2002 @12:54PM (#4881391)
    Let me start with something that seems trollish....Reviewers (in general) are full of CRAP. Reviewers hardly ever seem to review a movie in a way that reflects public opinion.
    They have thier reputation at stake, and that reputation is among a snobbie group of follow-the-common-review-sentiment. I will not allow a reviewers opinion affect my enjoyment of the movie.
    May I also liken a "Movie Critic's" review of a startrek movie to a M$ employee's review of the latest linux kernel. I'm a techie and a trekie and those outside those worlds don't often understand me.
  • *yawn*.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by D-Cypell ( 446534 ) on Friday December 13, 2002 @12:55PM (#4881409)
    Ensign... set a course for bargin bin at local video store...

  • by Mothra the III ( 631161 ) on Friday December 13, 2002 @12:55PM (#4881413)
    I am not sure what these reviewers are looking for in a Star Trek movie. It has good special effects and a lot of action and thats what I want to see on the big screen. If you want a bunch of character development you can watch the 10 years of back episodes they show every day on TV. These movies are supposed to be fun. If you would rather see a movie with more depth I am sure they will be churning out another 4 hour Jane Autin novel movie in the near future
  • by Rayonic ( 462789 ) on Friday December 13, 2002 @12:57PM (#4881431) Homepage Journal the even-odd Star Trek movie rule. Here is a revised summary:
    • Even numbered Trek movies are good.
    • Odd numbered Trek movies are bad.
    • The last movie of a "generation" is always bad.

    There -- now us geeks can go on with our lives.
    • by Triv ( 181010 ) on Friday December 13, 2002 @01:10PM (#4881548) Journal
      The last movie of a "generation" is always bad.

      I dunno dude, I thought ST:VI was one of the tightest in the franchise - Kirk's immense hatred of the Klingons for killing his son played out really well in that flick, the special effects were good and the zero-g scene was pretty flippin' awsome. ('Course, ST:II holds the special place in my heart.)

      All I'm sayin' is you can't really generalize from the one particular. I'll wait and see what happens when I hit the theater tonight.

  • Rotten Tomatoes (Score:3, Informative)

    by klasker ( 861 ) on Friday December 13, 2002 @01:00PM (#4881452)
    I think "panned" is a relative concept here. Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 51% positive rank [] and concidering the SF-bias in the media, I think it's probably safe to assume this is an entertaining movie for the average Star Trek fan. I'm sorry to see the Next Generation go.
  • by SuperDuG ( 134989 ) < minus distro> on Friday December 13, 2002 @01:04PM (#4881498) Homepage Journal
    Calling this movie the worst of the series is a pretty harsh criticism... Have you not seen The Wrath of Kahn. Revenge, Emotion, and of course destroying a ship. I'm happy to no hear any reports of the enterprise being destroyed in this movie, I was really afraid as time progressed we'd see the Enterprise 1701-AA and that'd just be weird.

    But anyways back to Star Trek, here's the thing people, there's one thing to being a fan and there's another to dedicate your lifestyle to it. Fans enjoy watching the films and know the characters and MIGHT own some memorabilia. HOWEVER, if you dress up in star trek outfits, and would consider yourself a Dorn Groupie, then you are no longer a fan, you are obsessed with it all. Fans won't correct if I'm right or wrong about Star Trek facts.

    Star Trek may not follow the same plot/storyline as its previous movies, but for a series of movies and television shows this long, wouldn't it be absolutely boring if all they did was rescue disparaged refugees all the time??

    I'm going to see it, probably two or three times because this one looks like a story builder where you can get more into the movie and there's not just unexplainable things (IE: Q) that can just make things unexplainable acceptable. New aliens, new weapons, and new characters will make this one a good edition to the Star Trek series.

    Lastly, what the hell did you expect from a movie called Nemesis (enemy of equal power), them to go hug and kiss? NO! there gunna fight because that's what they do.

  • Don't Complain (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 13, 2002 @01:05PM (#4881506)
    Hey, if the movie stinks, it's largely the fault of people who say "oh well, I know the plot stinks, but I'll go and see it anyway." The only thing Hollyweird really comprehends is money... if people keep flocking to the theaters to watch computer generated explosions, well, by golly, Hollywood will keep delivering more of the same.

    If you want the quality of stories to improve, tell it to Hollywood in the language they understand. If the writing stinks, and you KNOW in advance that it stinks, don't bother with the theater, DVD, or merchandise.

    And in the end... it... it... well, it won't make a bit of a difference. Sadly, the bulk of the population is quite happy with Things Blowing Up.

    Moron movies are for a moron populace. Find a better use for your time.
    • We have a winner! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by RatBastard ( 949 )
      Yep. I've seen five movies in the theatres in the last two years. I'll bee seeing only one more this year: The Two Towers. I won't be seeing Nemesis as I do not feel the need to throw my money away to see third-rate bilge.

      Most movies these days are garbage because, as you said, people don;t seem to want good movies. All critisisms of movies are refuted with a "Dude, get a life! It's just a movie!". These people who put up with the constant flow of "XXX", "Charie's Angels", "Batman And Robin", etc... are the ones responcible for the total lack of worthwhile movies out there.
  • Characters (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Helpadingoatemybaby ( 629248 ) on Friday December 13, 2002 @01:08PM (#4881525)
    Here's an experiment you can try at home with your friends:

    I always liked the first Star Trek, you know, the REAL Star Trek. With distinct, individual characters who had distinct, individual personalities. Bones screaming at Spock that he wasn't a doctor, he was an ocean sponge and Spock death gripping him to the floor.

    Now here's the experiment: take any of the scripts from any of the subsequent rip... err... sequels and pick a line. Now read the sentence to your friend and see if they can guess which character said it. They won't be able to figure it out which character it is 90% of the time. Why? All the lines are the same between the characters, there is no significant distinctions, personalities, or flavors to the characters.

    If you do that with an ORIGINAL Star Trek script, you can't help but pick out "Dammit Captain I'm a doctor not a floor wax!" goes with Bones!

    Forget "it's good science fiction" -- without good characters you have nothing. Before you get mad at my post, try the experiment yourself during your next drinking party. If you pick the wrong character, you take a drink...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 13, 2002 @01:09PM (#4881535)
    PICARD: Good God! We're caught in a temporal quake caused by Nemesis' evil mind powers! We'll be torn to pieces for sure! It's curtains for us! Will, can you think of anything that might save us?

    RIKER: I'm so goddamned drunk I can't even see straight. Give me another gin and tonic.

    PICARD: Make it so. Mr. LaForge, do you have any ideas?

    GEORDI: Well, we just might be able to decouple the iambic pentameter from the refrombulatory cryo-units in order to cause a temporonucleic disturbance that just might break us free.

    PICARD: Good god, Geordi, that's the craziest goddamned idea I've ever heard! No, strike that. Pure genius! Capital! Do you think we can actually make it work?

    RIKER: Gin and tonic, God damn it!

    GEORDI: I don't see that we have a choice, Captain. We have to try.

    PICARD: Make it so. Mr. Worf, please accompany Mr. LaForge to Engineering in order to try out that crazy idea of his. And make sure to shut the watertight doors so that the water doesn't spill over the top of the bulkhead at E deck.

    WORF: Roger.

    WESLEY: I sure hope that this works, captain!

    TROI: The fuck are *you* doing here?

    [ Worf and LaForge leave bridge ]

    PICARD: Data, what do you calculate our odds are at getting out of this situation alive?

    DATA: I'm afraid they don't look good, Captain. The computer is claiming that they are only 5% or so.

    PICARD: Jesus jumpin' Christ! I told you we should have upgraded to Mandrake 12.0.

    RIKER: Who do I have to blow to get a gin and tonic around here?!?

    GEORDI (on tricorder): Captain, I think we've done it! If you yell "Warp one, ENGAGE" right now, we will escape from Nemesis with approximately 0.01 seconds to spare!

    PICARD: Holy moly! What are the odds? Helm, warp one, ENGAGE!

    [ Enterprise zooms off. ]

    [ Credits roll ]

    Straight from the desk of Brannon Braga.
  • by LordYUK ( 552359 ) <(jeffwright821) (at) (> on Friday December 13, 2002 @01:19PM (#4881635)
    I mean, come on, its Star Trek. Its SUPPOSED to be above the average idiot reviewers head. If it got a GOOD review I'd be surprised! But isnt that what we love about it?? I mean, have you all ever watched some of the episodes (early TNG, like, pre Yar dieing), they are horrible (the acting, special effects) when compared to the later episodes, but by god every time TNN does a marathon I'm right there watching them because for all the campiness and whatnot, the show is DAMN GOOD and the pinnacle of GEEKINESS. I've spent more than one rainy day watching my columbia house ST:TNG VHS collection. I love Star Trek. I love the Next Gen cast. I wouldnt replace any of them. But I dont expect it to have a story line to rival LOTR or something, nor do I expect the actors to be given praise for their performances. Its a campy sci-fi flick, with over used plot devices and over used character templates. And I wouldnt have it any other way.
  • Why TNG Worked (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GS11_Pus ( 578643 ) on Friday December 13, 2002 @01:27PM (#4881724)

    I have never been a fan of the original series or Voyager/DS9/Enterprise. I could hardly be called a Trekker or Trekkie or whatever. But I do love The Next Generations seasons 3 through 7, and in my opinion, that show ranks as one of the top ten of the past 20 years.

    What worked so well with TNG was a blend of an ensemble cast and fantastic writing. The viewer cared about the relationships between the characters -- Geordi and Data forging a friendship despite the latter's inability to love, Jean-Luc's unwielding stoicism in the face of his crew's attempts to humanize him. Furthermore, the scripts were just great -- they came up with interesting ideas and stuck to a space trek, rather than try to create some sort of epic battle of good vs. evil and sprinkle in one-liners. Who didn't cringe in Insurrection when Data said, "Saddle up. Lock and load?" He didn't say those sorts of things in the TV series because each episode was (as much as can be expected) consistent and well planned. Data's role was that of artificial life desperately trying to grow in a manner impossible. That, in itself, is epic.

    These movies continually attempt to appeal to a broader audience and insist on childish humour instead of intellectual wit. The result is a frustrating mix of my favorite cast and crew with a pedantic, immature script.

    Finally, the TV series worked well because it was only an hour long and there were 20-25 episodes a season. With that format, you can devote an entire episode to Worf hurting his back or Geordi turning invisible (twice). Each character could be featured for an entire episode, such that at the end of seven years we had a closeness with each. These movies clear emphasize Data and Picard, and the rest are sadly shoved to the background.

    I already have my ticket for Nemesis which I'll be watching in about six hours and I'm excited. I suspect there will be plenty to be disappointed about, but I still care about these characters and will watch them until they stop making movies. But in retrospect, it would have been so much better to have a few more years of the TV series than these movies. And as for critics -- well, they assured me that Attack of the Clones was good. And I have died a little each day since wasting that eight bucks.

  • by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Friday December 13, 2002 @01:30PM (#4881754) Journal
    If the last two are box-office bombs, then we can probably kiss Trek movies goodbye. Before, the good ones made up for the bad ones (sales-wise). But after two back-to-back money-losers, it is less likely that investers will gamble on a 3rd.

    I would just like to see Klingons versus the Borg or Klingons versus Volcans (sp?) in a war/skirmish before they pull the plug. Klingons are a real hoot, especially the females with their teeth and boobs. A Klingon bedroom scene is ideal for the big screen.
  • by MoriarGryphon ( 599643 ) on Friday December 13, 2002 @01:32PM (#4881765)
    Well, it can't be that bad, the "Reserve your copy" on gives it five stars!
  • What about Worf? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 13, 2002 @01:32PM (#4881771)
    Well, reviews be damned, I'm seeing it tomorrow. However, it occurs to me they've opened up another continuity hole with Worf. At the end of DS9, Worf was appointed Federation ambassador to the Klingon Empire. Now he's back on board the Enterprise.

    I saw a brief red-carpet interview with Michael Dorn (who plays Worf) who said, "You know, they never addressed that..."

    Which makes me wonder...
    • Re:What about Worf? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by lostboy2 ( 194153 )
      Slightly OT:
      At this year's Comic Con International [], Marina Sirtis mentioned that Michael Dorn didn't have a real good time making parts of this movie -- particularly the ones where they were tooling around in a dune-buggy thing. Apparently, he was in the back seat all the time and got bounced around a lot.

      She also mentioned that Dorn joked that this movie should be named "Star Trek: Narcissist" and coyly said that we could figure out who he was talking about ourselves. ;-)

  • Listen..... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Chanc_Gorkon ( 94133 ) <> on Friday December 13, 2002 @02:15PM (#4882114)
    You can't make a Star Trek movie that you guys will like. Nothing will ever live up to the stuff you saw as a kid. I bet if Star Trek II: TWOK would come out today you guys would pan it. First, most of us have not seen the movie yet. Most of the "real" reviews have not come out yet. It has not even had the chance to speak for itself and you guys are panning it and that's not being very fair. Personally, I rather believe/hope that this will be another rock em sock em trek movie like First Contact was. I rather liked that one. Insurrection was bad also. Also, saying that one is not a true Sci-Fi fan because they have not read Asimov, Heinlein, Bear, Benford, Brin, Adams, Niven, Pournelle and others is not fair either. I am also tired of seeing Sci Fi be over ridden by the fantasy stuff. Fantasy may have come from Sci-Fi or Sci-Fi from Fantasy but Fantasy type books are different, to me, to not be Sci-Fi. I like seing shows that take place on starships and I like Star Wars. Just because it does not stand up to the image you have built up from Star War over the years does not mean that other folks with better expectations won't like it. It's just like the Linux zealots who don't care about making their programs easy to use for others because they think that their way is better. If they made a trek movie that sounded like it was wrote by these supposed better writers, noone else would go see it!
    • Nothing will ever live up to the stuff you saw as a kid.

      I agree with this. I saw Star Wars (err, now Star Wars: New Hope) when I was 6 or so when it first came out in the theater. I used to think it was the best movie ever, saw it again when I was 13 or so. Still good. Now I'm on the + side of 30, decided to show it to my gf - she's a foreigner, never saw the original - and it sucked. I almost turned it off. All the stuff about we say now regarding Attack of the Clones and Lucas not being able to tell a story was present in the first film as well, it was just too new and cutting edge for us to care. Now that we have better examples of movies that weave together science fiction and storyline (the original Terminator comes to mind) it seems kind of feeble in comparison.
  • by digidave ( 259925 ) on Friday December 13, 2002 @02:21PM (#4882171)
    I was at a preview screening at Toronto's Paramount theater. Nemesis is not a great movie, but it's not bad.

    There are at least 3 parts to this movie that are outright stupid. The whole audience actually laughed out loud at times. Other than that, it's a decent movie. I just don't think it lives up to the series. I'd rather have spent my 2 hours watching a couple TNG episodes instead.

Kill Ugly Processor Architectures - Karl Lehenbauer