Critics Pan Nemesis 1058
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."
can't be worse than (Score:3, Funny)
Re:can't be worse than (Score:3, Funny)
Check out Rotten Tomatoes (Score:5, Informative)
50%? (Score:4, Funny)
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)
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)
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)
IMHO the worst was definitely Generations, for three reasons:
-
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.
-
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...
-
Oh, and by the way, the plot sucked.
</SPOILERS>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.)
Re:the WORST? (Score:5, Funny)
NERD ALERT!! NERD ALERT!!
Re:the WORST? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not a chance (Score:5, Insightful)
And you must have missed where Spock pinched the punk with the boom box?
Seriously man, if you are going to dis the best trek movie of the TOS crew, you should watch it.
Re:Not a chance (Score:5, Funny)
You were looking for hard sci-fi in a Trek movie?
Isn't that like looking for filet mignon at McDonalds?
</joke>
Re:Not a chance (Score:5, Funny)
You were looking for hard sci-fi in a Trek movie? Isn't that like looking for filet mignon at McDonalds?
Exactly. More precisely, it's like looking for filet mignon and a nice salice salentino at McDonalds.
The idea behind Trek is that it's supposed to be fun. You want hard SF, or at least serious SF, look to Solaris (no, not that Solaris, Tarkovsky's Solaris), 2001, or Alien (maybe Pitch Black; though a lot of it smelled like warmed over Ridley Scott, it did have a good idea behind it and some very interesting performances). If the SF you want is filet mingon, remember that Trek is junk food. Filling, but lacking in sophistication.
Re:Not a chance (Score:5, Insightful)
A book.
Nuclear Wessels (Score:5, Funny)
Remember where we parked.
Ahh, the classics.
I don't even have your number.
Computer, on.
"Over-the-top environmentalist message"? (Score:3, Interesting)
If you didn't like The Voyage Home, then that's fine, but try to keep your criticism credible.
Re:The point of the movie (Score:4, Funny)
Everybody knows that alien energy beams aren't for vaporizing oceans: they're for anal probing. If species loss continues at its current rate, in 30 years nobody will be able to sit down. The ironic thing is that increased vaseline use will probably just accelerate the species loss...
Re:Not a chance (Score:3)
- Sam
Re:Can someone explain Star Trek V (Score:4, Funny)
People loathe it for many reasons, several of which include Sybok, Spock's supposed half-brother. But it's just a terrible film overall- the scene with Uhura dancing on the ridge was probably the nadir as far as I'm concerned.
However, Star Trek V did have what I thought was the best line ever delivered in a Star Trek film (well, there's a few contenders for the title, but I've always liked it): "Excuse me, but what does God need with a starship?"
Re:Can someone explain Star Trek V (Score:5, Interesting)
And no, a bomb threat isn't considered a lesser emergency; a bosun's call is sent over the standard PA, which has been used routinely since leaving harbour, and is therefore less likely to trigger the bomb than the general alarm which hasn't been used.
Re:Can someone explain Star Trek V (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Can someone explain Star Trek V (Score:5, Informative)
Canada's contribution during WWII in the North Atlantic was huge. From escorting transports to hunting U-boats, we kept the shipping lanes open. At the end of the war Canada had the 3rd largest Navy in the world after the US and UK.
And right now, Canadian warships are stopping and boarding anything that moves in the Arabian Sea looking for Taliban and Al Qaida operatives. One of our many contributions to the "war on terrorism".
So yes, we have warships.
I wonder how much of this is quality . . . (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:I wonder how much of this is quality . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I wonder how much of this is quality . . . (Score:3, Offtopic)
Re:I wonder how much of this is quality . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I'm sorry but I disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
GMD
Re:I'm sorry but I disagree (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:I'm sorry but I disagree WARNING: GEEKY (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:I'm sorry but I disagree (Score:3, Insightful)
I think at that point, with TNG winding down they really needed a new ingredient in the formula, and DS9 was at least a step in the right direction, what with its sustained focus on the Bajorins and Cardassians... (thankfully b5 provided some impetus for the change). It still had all the elements that made it Star Trek, but had a few new directions.
It's funny to here all the hype about Enterprise now, about how it's "going back to basics" when that's exactly the same thing we heard about Voyager when it was first coming on the air, and look how that turned out... not that Enterprise isn't many times better... Its just that with all this emphasis on updating the original series, what with all the cast members constantly harping on about how they're only familiar with Kirk and Spock and Bones, they seem to have given up on some of the underlying strengths of the other shows. Its turned out well so far, but I wonder if it can handle 6 more years.
As much as I like TNG, I still have to give props to DS9 for at least having an identity of its own.
Re:I wonder how much of this is quality . . . (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:I wonder how much of this is quality . . . (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:I wonder how much of this is quality . . . (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
My fave comment .... (Score:4, Funny)
The worst of the bunch? (Score:5, Funny)
"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.
Re:The worst of the bunch? (Score:4, Funny)
You're right and wrong (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:You're right and wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Shatner has talked about this often (more details [lapam.mo.it]):
Re:The worst of the bunch? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait a minute. How about GalaxieQuest?
And some folks even liked SpaceBalls.
Or Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxie. How could you not love Marvin the Paranoid Android?
Or Buckaroo Banzai beyond the 5th Dimension?
Re:The worst of the bunch? (Score:4, Informative)
HEY! First of all, that's "The adventures of Buckaroo Banzai: Across the eigth dimension", and second of all, its a docu-drama, not a comedy!
Making light of the exploits of the great Dr. banzai...for shame!
;- )
Re:The worst of the bunch? (Score:3, Funny)
Wow. Nearly-talented? You're really generous.
The Preview release (Score:3, Funny)
"It's not even a good two-parter," he sobbed.
It all went downhill when Gene died (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:It all went downhill when Gene died (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:It all went downhill when Gene died (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:It all went downhill when Gene died (Score:3, Funny)
Romulan Apples and Organian Oranges (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Romulan Apples and Organian Oranges (Score:4, Funny)
In other words, "Enterprise" and "Babylon 5", respectively.
Re:It all went downhill when Gene died (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:It all went downhill when Gene died (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
I.V.
Dichotomy of story type splits Trek fans (Score:4, Interesting)
The Wrong Gene. (Score:3, Insightful)
The Roddenbury years of Next Gen are utter garbage.
Sulu made it! (Score:3, Funny)
I believe that in "the Undiscovered Country", cheesy as it was, Sulu did get a captaincy (sp?). Checkoff... well he probably never made it 'cause he couldn't pass his written test:
Desired Rank: Keptain Experience: Starships and Nuclear Wessels
Worse than The Final Frontier? (Score:4, Informative)
The movie script was written by William Shatner during a Hollywood writer's strike. Shatner demonstrated quite clearly that he should stick to acting.
Re:Worse than The Final Frontier? (Score:3, Funny)
Highlander 2 - the original release
Escape from L.A.
ahem...
Battlefield Earth I
Hrm... (Score:5, Interesting)
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!?
John Logan and the DVD version (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
Since when have the critics ever been impressed with Star Trek? I take anything a critic says with a grain of salt.
Re:Critics (Score:3, Insightful)
Star Trek IV [suntimes.com] 3.5 of 4 stars
Star Trek V [suntimes.com] 2 of 4 stars
Star Trek VI (no review)
Star Trek VII [suntimes.com], 2 of 4 stars
Star Trek VIII [suntimes.com], 3.5 of 4 stars
Star Trek IX [suntimes.com], 2 of 4 stars
Star Trek X [suntimes.com], 2 of 4 stars
3 and a half stars is pretty damn good, too. That's better than As Good As It Gets [suntimes.com], Austin Powers [suntimes.com] or A.I. [suntimes.com].
I'm a techie and a trekie (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
ENGAGE!
Sounds like a good movie anyway (Score:5, Interesting)
I propose a Corollary... (Score:3, Insightful)
There -- now us geeks can go on with our lives.
Re:I propose a Corollary... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Triv
Rotten Tomatoes (Score:3, Informative)
okay ... seriously ... (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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)
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)
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...
READ THIS! Leaked portion of Nemesis script (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Of COURSE it Stinks... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why TNG Worked (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I guess there will be no eleven (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
You can aways trust Amazon.. (Score:5, Funny)
What about Worf? (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
At this year's Comic Con International [comic-con.org], 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)
Re:Listen..... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
I saw Nemesis on Wednesday night (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Too bad (Score:3, Informative)
Think about Star Trek V. Shudder. There ya go.
I don't want my pain taken away. I NEED my pain. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Too bad (Score:5, Funny)
But if it did happen, here's the plot synopsis:
Star Trek V (Never Happened): God and Kirk compare egos. God loses.
Re:Too bad (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds like the marketing people at Netscape used to work for Paramount too.
Re:Too bad (Score:5, Informative)
And there were some very very good reviews [nbc4.tv] of nemesis as well!
Re:Too bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Too bad (Score:3, Insightful)
Haven't we "experienced" this enough times to say enough is enough?
No, I think the review is probably right on. Trek is another of dozens of films that this has happened to. It's the current hollywood formula for sequels.
When goods movies like "The Mummy" or "Blade" come from out of nowhere and get lots of pay-per-support...Hollywood rehashes a crappy sequel as follows:
btw, this is the "..." in the 1)? 2)... 3) Profit!
1) Get cast from original movie.
2) Get makeup/costume people from MTV to work on people from step 1.
3) Get out the script to aliens.
4) Mix in the blender for 30 seconds.
5) Release movie.
This kind of recipe is easy for Hollywood execs to remember. They just keep thier production plan in the same drawer w/ the bourbon.
Even odd good bad: (Score:3, Insightful)
Good is good, bad is bad
Nunbers don't count (people do);
My working comspiracy is: Wednesday releases good, Friday releases bad.
It works like this:
If they figure that a movie is gonna get rave reviews they release it on a Wednesday so that the word of mouth can build and give good first-weekend results.
If they figure that the ads are better than the movie, they'll give it all the PR they can and release it on a Friday. That way, people won't find out just how bad it is until Monday. This way, they get the best possible first weekend numbers.
Since nemesis was released on a Friday, I suggested that my friends wait for the reviews before going to see it.
Re:Too bad (Score:5, Insightful)
You're kidding right? This was noticeably better than Star Trek 4? It wasn't even good!
What about the Borg scared the crap out of us when we first saw them? The hive mind. The collective. The lack of individual thought. The elimination of self...utterly. It was worse than servitude or slavery. It was the complete annihilation of everything you are, were, and ever would be. You are a number.
Then they introduce a "queen." The Borg isn't a hive mind anymore; It's an extension of the queen. Well then, just kill the queen (like in Voyager...ugh). I can't believe anyone is forgiving the script writers for things like Picard "forgot" about the queen and her wanting someone at her "side." Yeah, because with the chorus in her head, she's lonely. Yeah, after millions of worlds, now she could use some help. Yeah, after millions of worlds, she needs *Picard's* help.
The Borg became too...human. What would the Borg of the series have done when in contact with Data? Ohh! Neat technology. *sucking sound*
But no! In First Contact, the Borg sprouts a queen, she gets her nipples hard over Data, and allows her emotions (!!!) to mislead her. She was actually bitter because she lost Picard! She apparently is responsible for the cultural vacuuming of trillions of beings, but somehow Picard and Data were "special."
This is the Borg!! Why would they need love, companionship, reproduction, or sex? If they wanted to feel good, they can just flip a switch and have a collective orgasm.
But yeah, some dialog about Moby Dick and Troi getting drunk definitely made up for it. Puhleese!
Didn't anyone else notice that the movie neutered Star Trek's best adversary? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!
Re:Too bad (Score:3, Funny)
In First Contact, the Borg sprouts a queen, she gets her nipples hard over Data
In First Contact, the Borg sprouts a queen, she gets her nipples hard over Data
In First Contact, the Borg sprouts a queen, she gets her nipples hard over Data
Dude, you awnsered your own question you know...
Indeed. (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't outrun them. You can't destroy them. If you damage them the essence of what they are still remains. They regenerate and keep coming. Eventually you will weaken, your reserves will be gone. They are relentless.
And while I'm at it, from the same episode, same character, maybe the best quote of the whole series:
If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go home and crawl under you bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous. With treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid.
In my little world, the story of the Borg ended with "Descent". Nope, nothing after that. "First Contact" never bloody happened.
--grendel drago
Re:Too bad (Score:5, Funny)
Would this be... wait for it...
A borgasm ?
Re:Too bad (Score:5, Insightful)
TNG took the drama/storytelling that one step further by killing Tasha Yar (and proving that the crew is not immortal), allowing Picard to be assimilated (in TOS that would have been Spock, I bet) and being willing to deal with overreaching themes (like the conspiracy plotlines, etc.). The other series have failed to continue making the universe credible. Babylon 5 did an excellent job of picking up where TNG left off: you see a functioning crew - people get promoted, people die, people take other assignments, new people come in.
TNG had started to show that SF can be dynamic, but its successors (and the movies) have only proven to be static.
Re:BAH - Give Credit... (Score:4, Informative)
Gabe from Penny Arcade said this exact paragraph earlier in the week about Equilibrium.
Seriously, citing Gabe on this wouldn't effect the moderation you get, and it's pretty lame to steal words just to karma whore.
Re:BAH (in denial) (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow, are you in denial! You sound like one of those "fans" who think just because something has been branded with a franchise name, it can do no wrong.
You probably still defend Star Wars Episode I and II as "pretty good movies" when they were simply AWFUL. The most recent Austin Powers movie was sad and simply un-funny, although I am sure die-hard fans will say they liked it.
I don't get the devotion to things like this. I guess if people live through lives and events that are not their own, they get offended and embarassed when those things turn out to be disappointing.
Yes, they are only movies - but why can't everyone see that? Why cling to the illusion that something is better than it really was, simply because you hope and wish it to be so? Jeez, if you don't care what a reviewer says, and are going to go see a movie anyway, then why take so much stock in the reviewer? In my opinion, reviewers are sometimes nicer than they should be, instead of what you suggest. Every review of AoTC gave some praise to it, but I just didn't see it. I would put it up there with some of the most overhyped movies of all time (including Episode I). Stop clinging to your illusions and come back to reality. Why the hostility towards a reviewer when you haven't even seen the movie yet yourself? All you have on your side of the argument is that the person must have a hang up about Star Trek? Physician, heal thyself.
Re:Wesley could have saved it with Open Source! (Score:3, Funny)
You mean Earth would have been in safe mode
Re: cameo v. extra (Score:3, Interesting)
That, or they didn't want to pay him.
Re:I'm going to pretend I didnt read this... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm going to pretend I didnt read this... (Score:3, Interesting)
I still have at my parent's place a copy of the TV Guide from about a year before the TNG came out describing what the series would be like. Hell some of my first CAD projects were models of the Enterprise. In my office I have a model of the Klingon Bird of Prey. It has earned me names like "geek".
But then again, who on Slashdot really minds being called a geek? And while we are at it, who on SlashDot really gives a flying foo what anyone else really thinks?
Re:who believes critics (Score:4, Funny)
Nah, that happens in this movie [imdb.com].
Re:Ebert puts it nicely (Score:5, Insightful)
Whoever said only electricity causes sparks?
[from the link] life is too short to sit through 10 movies in which the power is shifted around on these shields.
Would he rather watch ships crash into fruit-stands? Everything is a cliche these days. I don't see him complaining that love scenes always involve kissing and humping.
stages an uprising, or something, against being made to work as slaves in the mines. Surely slavery is not an efficient economic system in a world of hyperdrives,
And the crew will probably be robots then also, but that would make a shitty movie. Perhaps slaves are a status symbol, like SUV's where practicality be damned. He is trying to hard to be logical and is not good at it.
I think it is time for "Star Trek" to make a mighty leap forward another 1,000 years into the future....when aliens do not look like humans with funny foreheads
I am not sure Jar Jar or Shrek-in-Space will compliment Trek.
He also complains about the "outdated" look of the ship and controls. A trully futuristic ship would probably be a cloaked sphere and would not need control panels because the ship would have a tie directly to the crew's heads and be controlled by thoughts or neuro interfaces. Not very visual in my book. I wonder what he has in mind? It seems he wants to totally gut Trek, but is vague about what he really wants.
Beam Ebert outta here, and his thumbs too.
Re:Data goes wiggy? (Score:3, Funny)
Lets see you can lose the ship to:
Imagine the fun if Dr. McCoy was with Next Generation folks. "Dammit Picard this is the third time in a month you've lost the Enterprise to (insert Data/Q/Holodeck/new life form/etc. here). You're a ships captain for godsakes, not a taxi driver!"