Location: Dayglow, New California Republic
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....
.....Well, quite simply put, you are not a Star trek fan.
Nemesis at least contains humanistic scenes, as the one in the Romulan counsel chamber, between Picard and Shinzon.
The 2009 travesty contains no humanistic scenes at all, only an exaggerated 'slap stick' humor that was poorly executed, a completely out of context characterization of the crew, not to mention the out of context behavior of spock, kirk and scotty. I was not convinced these people were any of the above characters, at all. Not because I am familiar with the other actors portraying them more, but because these actors did not resonate a damned iota of the essence of these characters. You can use the alternate universe argument to justify this ad infinitum, but I still think they are horrible. Kirk ordering the destruction of the ship at the end was not only completely out of context for the kirk character but unnecessary, unneeded and quite simply stupid (considerations of the romulan ship possessing more advanced future technology aside. But that is also pretty absurd.)
Nemesis at least has scientific language in it, one of the things that star trek has been known for since day one. The original series had plenty of scientific references of the era, some of the terminology of which may have become out of date, but the majority of which still holds up pretty well by our knowledge today. The next generation obviously expanded on this, to the degree of including quantum dynamics and a lot of theoretical language in a lot of its techno-babble. Say what you want about 'techno babble' but it has always been a part of the star trek universe, more or less. Science in general has always been a part of star trek, and science was sorely lacking in the 2009 film. At least Nemesis had a little scientific output, theoretical or otherwise (sorry but 'red matter' does not count, since there is absolutely no explanation of what this is, or even a hint of how it functions in the 2009 movie=lazy writing).
And finally, the acting.
Sorry, but anyone who thinks the acting in the 2009 film is up to par with any previous trek (with the exception of 'enterprise' maybe. And yes I include even all the 'shatnerisms' of TOS) I would say they are sadly out of touch with reality. When I watched the 2009 film I could not suspend disbelief if someone paid me to. The acting was that sub-par in my honest observation.
That said, as an actual trekkie, and someone who likes star trek for what it is (that is the philosophical and scientific language of it, not for superficial reasons like space explosions and battles, which serve their purpose, but are not the real impetus of star trek) I must say that I find Nemesis much more in line with what star trek means than the thing they call 'star trek 2009', which in my observation bears resemblance in name and costume only to the truth of what star trek is about.
Okay, rant away now....
I’m a bit dumbfounded how you can (rather smugly) say you appreciate Star Trek for its philosophical merits, one of the primary being “Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations”; yet, in your very first statement in your original post you pointedly make an attempt to alienate anyone who disagrees with your point of view by saying they are not Star Trek fans. This, I think is the true intended goal of your post.
Your original post is divisive, judgmental, hostile, close-minded, and condescending. If this is what Star Trek represents to a “true” fan, I want nothing to do with it.
Do not use semantics to refer to someone criticizing a substance-less caricature that bears the namesake of star trek as being what, in fact, those who defend the tripe of this 2009 travesty are. Which is closed minded and ignorant of what the impetus of star trek is.
And that is (as a reminder to those who missed it) humanism, intelligence, philosophy, tolerance and science.
I find it quaint when someone attempts to dissuade the discussion by using reverse semantics to refer to people who question the merits of a mindless, substance-less movie as what they, in fact, are. Very quaint indeed.
STAR TREK: 1965-1965˝, 1966-1969, Jan. 21-23 1972, 1979-2001, 2003-2005, 2009-?