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

[Greg Cox]

[QUOTE=trek_futurist;5423263]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

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.

Er, where did I say that one could not write within the established parameters? Or that Babylon-5, Star Trek, and Star Wars are all one and the same?

I was just objecting to the tendency on the part of some fans to declare themselves the sole arbiters of what constitutes a Star Trek fan (or a Batman fan or a Buffy fan)--and to insist that anyone who disagrees with them is not really a fan. Because, of course, only they understand what Star Trek is really all about . . . .

Please. Enough with the more-Trekkie-than-thou attitude. People can like the reboot, and prefer it to NEMESIS, without being clueless, heretics, or traitors to the cause.

[Alrik]

Sorry, huge Trek fan since '72. Loved STAR TREK (09). Not taking the bait.

[Herkimer Jitty]

Christmas Clark wrote:

---

Sorry, huge Trek fan since '72. Loved STAR TREK (09).

Sorry. You're not a Trek fan.

We decided it via committee.

Didn't you get the memo?

[trek_futurist]

Christmas Clark wrote:

---

Not taking the bait.

But you already have, as evidenced by...

Christmas Clark wrote:

---

loved STAR TREK (09).

[Greg Cox]

Perhaps we should set up some sort of McCarthy hearings?

"Have you or have you ever been a fan of the imposter Kirk?"

Something has to be done about all those imposter "Trekkies" posing as Star Trek fans even though they liked the new movie!

[BillJ]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

non-sense.

Khan had every intention of killing billions with the genesis device, kirk still did not blow him out of the sky when the reliant was a sitting duck. That is the character of kirk, and the mark of a good starfleet officer who practices the principles espoused by the federation.

I'm lukewarm to Star Trek 2009 but Nemesis is fecal matter to be perfectly honest.

We have no idea what Khan planned to do with the Genesis device. And comparing the Kirk's really doesn't cut it, we have no idea what Prime Kirk would have done with Nero. We have no idea because the situations are different, Reliant was trashed and not sitting on a possible escape route when Kirk's help was refused. Khan had not just committed genocide and had not killed Kirk's father.

If you can't see that Kirk made the right decision in regards to Nero then you're just allowing your dislike of the movie to override your common sense.

[Alrik]

Herkimer Jitty wrote:

---

Sorry. You're not a Trek fan.

We decided it via committee.

Didn't you get the memo?

Aw man! Completely missed the memo. Does that mean I have to turn in my comm badge, decoder ring and Sirtis nude pics too??!! I never get to have any fun.

[Greg Cox]

Christmas Clark wrote:

---

Aw man! Completely missed the memo. Does that mean I have to turn in my comm badge, decoder ring and Sirtis nude pics too??!! I never get to have any fun.

And don't try to show your face at a convention again. The bouncers have been given your name and photo!

We can't have you deluded nuTrek lovers rubbing shoulders with real Trekkies . . . .

[Satyrquaze]

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....

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.

[horatio83]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

Yea, everything but the actual substance of it, or should I say, lack thereof, it is really good.

As far as the acting in nemesis goes, I find it far superior to that of the 2009 thing. And stewart and company were not even making the best effort. But Tom hardy alone could act circles around anyone on the 2009 film. And he does so in Nemesis.

Yep, FluffyTrek lacks substance and I fear potential long-run damage, that the folks who are currently at the helm redefine what Trek is.

Yet a movie is not merely constituteD of ideas, concepts and themes (unless it is a sleeping pill called TMP). In my eyes ST09 is a stupid summer blockbuster and a mediocre Trek movie. There have been better and there have been worse ... like the one in which Picard drives a buggy. Talking about violating a character, there you have it.



As Jeyl has pointed out, ST09 is to some degree as remake of NEM, just with better acting, effects and overall production.

[Greg Cox]

Satyrquaze wrote:

---

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.

And does anybody else find it funny that the OP is attacking the new crew for too being "arrogant"--while declaring that anyone who disagrees with him is not really a Star Trek fan?

Again, some of us like the new movie. Some of us don't. Fair Enough. But can we please stop arguing that this means some of us are more Trekkie than others.

As I've written before, Star Trek was never supposed to be some kind of exclusive club intended only for true believers.

[Alrik]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

But you already have, as evidenced by...

WHAT the hell is that supposed to mean?

Greg Cox wrote:

---

And don't try to show your face at a convention again. The bouncers have been given your name and photo!

Says you. They'll never suspect its me in my full on Gorn costume. I WILL GET MY TREK CRED BACK!

[Dukhat]

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.

Sorry, Trek Futurist, but you personally have no say as to what Star Trek must or must not do. That's not your call to make. It's also not your call to tell people that they are true fans or not, based solely on your own personal feelings about two movies.

Now if you want to state your own opinions as to whether the new movie was great or lousy, fine. We all do that. But to flat-out come in here and tell us all what we need to believe is crossing the line. I certainly hope a moderator comes along and sees this blatant attempt at flaming.

[horatio83]

While playing the real fan card is of course utterly pathetic pointing out that there is a core set of Trek principles which the last movie has not really cared about is a valid point. McCoy being robbed by his ex-wife, a bunch of Starfleet cadets brawling like Klingons after a gallon of blood wine, a Vulcan deserting a fellow officer instead of putting him into the brig, the movie had some disturbing vibes.

[Galileo7]

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.

Agree.