If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

[trek_futurist]

.....Well, quite simply put, you are not a Star trek fan.

My reasoning?

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 The original series had plenty of scientific references of the era, some of the terminology of which may have become out of date, but the majority of which still holds up pretty well by our knowledge today.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....

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I would have liked Nemesis a lot better if Shinzon had actually been played by Patrick Stewart. And if it had had more space battles.

[King Daniel Into Darkness]

I actually really like Nemesis - but Star Trek XI was a FAR superior movie. That you can't recognize STXI's humanistic core, and want for more meaningless babytalk technobabble (exactly when did TOS explain it's weapons or technology?), is kind of sad.

[Jeyl]

Hey, I didn't like Trek09 all that much either. But Nemesis, while it aspired to do many goood things for TNG, just failed to deliver them.

The biggest mistake was Rick Berman. While the idea of bringing in new talent to write and direct the film was not at all a bad idea, he still left himself in charge. John Logan's script comes off more like a story written specifically to showcase how awesome Picard and Data are at the gruelling expense of every other character. And indulging Patrick Stewart's love for driving by including one of the most pointless car chases I've ever seen in a movie just showed how detached this movie was in tyring to be about the characters.

But the biggest fundamental screw up that kills Nemesis for me was ignoring one of the most important character growths Picard ever had. The storty behind his artificial heart. The film goes on and on about how Shinzon thinks that Picard is capable of doing the things he does, even to the point where Picard discusses with Data about how the events of one's early life does indeed shape that person's future. Does Picard tell Shinzon about how he was a carefree, arrogant a-hole who learned his lesson the hard way when he was stabbed through the heart? No. He actually tells Shinzon that his heart is the same as his.



Yeah, I don't like Nemesis, but I don't like Trek09 either. Yet I'm still a huge Star Trek fan regardless. Still, don't you think it's funny that Trek09 and Nemesis share many similar elements with each other?

- Both reference Wrath of Khan.
- Both have a self-indulging car chase moment that doesn't do anything important.
- Both tried to appeal to a wider audience (One worked, one didn't)
- Both feature a villain who is bald, worked as miners for the Romulans, have a ship with superior technology, a vendetta against a particular crew member on the Enterprise and a planet destroying weapon that is later used against them.
- Both feature a piece of transporter technology that should change the very nature of space travel, but will most likely be forgotten in the next installment.

[Jeyl]

KingDaniel wrote:

---

That you can't recognize STXI's humanistic core, and want for more meaningless babytalk technobabble (exactly when did TOS explain it's weapons or technology?), is kind of sad.

Technobabble baby talk is fine. It's Technobabble Dues Ex Machinas that are the bane of Star Trek's writing, and Trek09 is FULL OF THEM.

- Red Matter does whatever the plot needs it to do.
- The Transwarp Equation elminiates every single rule that the Transporters had.

[trek_futurist]

Mr. Laser Beam wrote:

---

I would have liked Nemesis a lot better if Shinzon had actually been played by Patrick Stewart. And if it had had more space battles.

Space battles were sometimes used as a backdrop in the star trek universe but they were never the bread and butter of it. Star Trek was always more of a thinking persons franchise, and had some action to augment this, but never to replace it. The space battles were a tool for story telling, not a replacement to the story itself as in starwars. That said, I think the moderate space battle we see in nemesis is just fine by star trek standards. I mean the enterprise rams the scimitar, what more can one ask for in that department?

[trek_futurist]

KingDaniel wrote:

---

I actually really like Nemesis - but Star Trek XI was a FAR superior movie. That you can't recognize STXI's humanistic core, and want for more meaningless babytalk technobabble (exactly when did TOS explain it's weapons or technology?), is kind of sad.

What humanistic core? A completely ruined context of once beloved characters? Imposter kirk destroying a sitting duck ship and then patting himself on the back for it? The arrogance of the enterprise crew?

Mind you, TOS had a few somewhat arrogant characterizations from time to time, but they were always augmented with humanistic virtue and the sentiment that 'I am learning something about myself right now, about my brethren, about my species, about other species'.

The 2009 thing contained none of that.

[Greg Cox]

[QUOTE=trek_futurist;5422903].....Well, quite simply put, you are not a Star trek fan.QUOTE]

Okay, I don't have time to defend the new movie for the umpteenth time, but, sorry, you don't get to tell me I'm not a Star Trek fan because I don't agree with you. I've been watching the show since its original run on NBC, I have driven hundreds or miles, or stood in line in the pouring rain, to see each new movie on opening night, I've been spent much of my adult life being a professional Trekkie, have spent countless hours discussing Trek with my fannish friends and associates, have developed lifelong friendships through Trek fandom, spent way too many hours attending Trek conventions all over the country, etc.

Nothing personal, 'cause you're hardly the only person who does this, but can we please declare a moratorium on the "You're not a real Trek fan if . . . ." bullshit. Nobody gets to rule on who is really a fan--and I'll put my Trekkie credentials up against anyone.

(To be fair, it's not just Trekkies who do this. I've run into the same schtick on comic-book message boards. "You're not a real Superman fan if you like SMALLVILLE" or whatever.)

To be honest, I'm not quite sure why it seems so important to some people to establish who the real fans are . . .

[King Daniel Into Darkness]

^well said!

trek_futurist wrote:

---

What humanistic core? A completely ruined context of once beloved characters? Imposter kirk destroying a sitting duck ship and then patting himself on the back for it? The arrogance of the enterprise crew?

Mind you, TOS had a few somewhat arrogant characterizations from time to time, but they were always augmented with humanistic virtue and the sentiment that 'I am learning something about myself right now, about my brethren, about my species, about other species'.

The 2009 thing contained none of that.

I'm kind of bewildered that you can't see Spock's lifelong struggle with emotions, Kirk's drive to succeed against all odds, the tragedy of Spock Prime's faliure to save the Romulans, Nero's want to save his world and his wife.

Spock learned to be himself, not live a lie (blatant "coming out" analogy). Kirk learned that there can be so much more to life than being a petty criminal. They weren't the cheesy "wow, the rock monster was just a mother protecting it's young" plots of TOS, nor the pretentious Berlin wall anology of STVI. But they learned about, and bettered, themselves.

[sonak]

It's funny, because I think they're a lot more similar than people think. Star Trek XI is better because it's more competently executed, but they're both pretty much cut from the "Trek action movie" cloth. Nemesis isn't nearly so bad as it's made out to be, it just came out at a bad time for Trek and didn't get the marketing effort.

[trek_futurist]

[QUOTE=Greg Cox;5423218]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

.....Well, quite simply put, you are not a Star trek fan.QUOTE]

Okay, I don't have time to defend the new movie for the umpteenth time, but, sorry, you don't get to tell me I'm not a Star Trek fan because I don't agree with you. I've been watching the show since its original run on NBC, I have driven hundreds or miles, or stood in line in the pouring rain, to see each new movie on opening night, I've been spent much of my adult life being a professional Trekkie, have spent countless hours discussing Trek with my fannish friends and associates, have developed lifelong friendships through Trek fandom, spent way too many hours attending Trek conventions all over the country, etc.

Nothing personal, 'cause you're hardly the only person who does this, but can we please declare a moratorium on the "You're not a real Trek fan if . . . ." bullshit. Nobody gets to rule on who is really a fan--and I'll put my Trekkie credentials up against anyone.

(To be fair, it's not just Trekkies who do this. I've run into the same schtick on comic-book message boards. "You're not a real Superman fan if you like SMALLVILLE" or whatever.)

To be honest, I'm not quite sure why it seems so important to some people to establish who the real fans are . . .

Star trek IS an established fictional universe with established characteristics, established technology, established time lines, established canon and an established chain of command (another thing the 2009 namesake defecated on. And I feel really bad to anyone who can suspend disbelief in the face of 'cadet kirk' becoming 'captain kirk' on a training mission, no less).

As such, star trek must adhere to some of these basic established parameters in order to be consider star trek, and not a parody of such or a namesake reboot that bears little similarity to the real thing.

The argument that you cannot write within established parameters is really silly. By that logic we may as well blend the star wars, babylon 5 and star trek universes into one amalgam universe so we don't have to 'adhere to established canon'.

It is the approach of lazy writing and even lazier reasoning.

[trek_futurist]

sonak wrote:

---

It's funny, because I think they're a lot more similar than people think. Star Trek XI is better because it's more competently executed, but they're both pretty much cut from the "Trek action movie" cloth. Nemesis isn't nearly so bad as it's made out to be, it just came out at a bad time for Trek and didn't get the marketing effort.

You don't really see the degree of human arrogance on the part of the crew in nemesis as you do in the 2009 thing.

Yes, Picard rams Shinzons ship, but what is the context? what is at risk? Compare that to imposter kirk destroying a sitting duck ship in the 2009 thing, and there is no comparison. It was a very weak move to turn kirk into a space fairing terminator. That's part of the reason I refer to him as imposter kirk.

[Satyrquaze]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

.....Well, quite simply put, you are not a Star trek fan.

[horatio83]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

.....Well, quite simply put, you are not a Star trek fan.

My reasoning?

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....

The acting in NEM is horrible. Baird deserves a lot of blame but even with poor directing the seven could have portrayed their characters far better. The new actors in ST09 played very well, Pine is easily as good if not better than Shatner.
I also don't think that the humour in ST09 is bad, together with TFF it is actually the only Trek movie which comes close to the goofiness of TOS.
I do agree though that ST09 was pretty brainless and ignored some important Trek principles. Orci should not write for Trek which is not meant to be stupid blockbuster terrain.

In my opinion everything about ST09 except for the script is top notch whereas NEM is abysmal in every way (and I say this as someone who cherishes the other three TNG movies) ... and I don't mind to be a fake Trek fan in your eyes.

[matsuiny2004]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

What humanistic core? A completely ruined context of once beloved characters? Imposter kirk destroying a sitting duck ship and then patting himself on the back for it? The arrogance of the enterprise crew?

Mind you, TOS had a few somewhat arrogant characterizations from time to time, but they were always augmented with humanistic virtue and the sentiment that 'I am learning something about myself right now, about my brethren, about my species, about other species'.

The 2009 thing contained none of that.

alternate kirk gave Nero a chance to live despite how he felt. Nero refused help and insulted him. So kirk blew him up.