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

[trek_futurist]

KingDaniel wrote:

---

I found the characters likable, familiar (although modernized) and the film itself true to Trek's ideals. There was more racial diversity in this film than any prior Star Trek. A UNITED Earth, going out into space.

Sorry it didn't work for you.

Modernized? I found them antiquated actually. I found the characters of TOS, TNG, VOY and DS9 modernized, civilized, evolved and in keeping with the ideals of the original star trek vision for humanity. These characters? Found them to be idiotic grunts from the past.

[trek_futurist]

horatio83 wrote:

---

Shinzon's motivations are as vague as Nero's. Of course you can explain them, Shinzon should hates the Romulans but he also hates his humanness because this was the case for his mistreatment so he tries to blow up Earth. Nero hates the guy who tried to save his planet ... because he failed? Because he is a Vulcan?

While I agree that the movie had its dumb moments and while I prefer Trek that gets the right mixture between interesting themes and a thrilling plot (TWOK, TUC and FC being the best examples) I think you largely overstate the problems of ST09.
Sure, it might have been more interesting if Kirk had more in common with the few notes about his background we learnt during the first season of TOS but once you accept the premise of him being a maverick he is a fine character in ST09. Spock was a more problematic character as he threw Kirk off the ship and basically said that revenge is good.

One can and should criticize ST09 but not in a biased, overblown fashion. Despite its questionable script and the lack of what I would call the Trek spirit it is undeniably the Trek movie with best effects and overall prduction, not to mention that all the actors played very well.
Take it as what it is, a decent, shallow summer blockbuster that captures not the intelligence but the fun of TOS.

Everything you say here is the same unsupported refrain I hear from adopters of the 2009 film. And it is completely illogical and non-sensical.

The 'fun' of star trek?

The FUN of star trek was always in exploring not only new worlds, but the scientific understanding of these new worlds, and of seeing how we have bettered ourselves as a species compared to how we are today.

If you find nothing but endless bombast 'fun' you

1-Are 10 years old

2-Will just as easily like transformers

3-Probably hate the majority of all the high minded star trek films and shows that have been released, which, like it or not, were the very essence that made it what star trek has been come to be known for.

I won't even address the Shinzon non-sense you spewed because it is completely unfounded. He was a romulan clone of picard who was programmed to reach a point of malevolence toward picard and the federation at a certain point of his life. That is all I will say about that, put the rest of the pieces together yourself.

[King Daniel Into Darkness]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

Modernized? I found them antiquated actually. I found the characters of TOS, TNG, VOY and DS9 modernized, civilized, evolved and in keeping with the ideals of the original star trek vision for humanity. These characters? Found them to be idiotic grunts from the past.

That same DS9 that went out of it's way to show that humans aren't nearly as civilized at they want the galaxy to think? The one where the Federation permits murder and genocide?

[trek_futurist]

The Dominion wrote:

---

No, I just meant they had already ended the show with All Good Things the same year which was a great end, then they release Generations which is another "conclusion" to the series but worse.

They would have been much better off leaving us with All Good Things and ST VI as the last big adventures of Kirk and Picard, instead of puking all over both of them simultaneously with Generations.

Edit: *Facepalm* I thought I was talking Generations here today. But to my point, Generations was the first "re-concluding" of TNG I was referring to. Both it and Nemesis tried to be a big farewell movie for TNG (and in the case of Generations, TOS as well) and both were terrible, especially when compared to All Good Things.

Even generations was better than this heaping pile of manure called star trek 2009.

Even if it seems like a two part episide, and even if the death of kirk was not as noble as we would have liked, it is a far better movie philosophically and intellectually, than this thing called star trek 2009.

The only thing that I will say upsets me about the film is the fact that scotty appears in it, which should not have been the case since when he appeared in TNG episode 'relics' and he emerges from the transporter pattern buffer he makes a comment that kirk must have sent the enterprise himself. Now it could be that he was momentarily disoriented but if not it is a serious contradiction since he witnessed kirks death in the beginning of generations.

But other than this one little thing, far better trek film than star trek 2009 (which really wasn't even a trek film). And generations has never ranked as one of my favorite trek films, so it shows how much I really hate this thing that bears the trek namesake called star trek 2009.

[trek_futurist]

KingDaniel wrote:

---

That same DS9 that went out of it's way to show that humans aren't nearly as civilized at they want the galaxy to think? The one where the Federation permits murder and genocide?

No, the humans in DS9 were still as civilized as they were in TNG. You are confusing the fact that they had to deal with a dominion war, the cardassians and a Ferengi who was constantly trying to pull the wool over their eyes, with them not being civilized. At no point in the show did they behave with malevolence or cowardice toward other humans or other species. They always tempered their judgment with logic and seriously considered their actions, and never did captain sisko and company shoot down a sitting duck ship!

[King Daniel Into Darkness]

Everything you say here is the same unsupported refrain I hear from adopters of the 2009 film. And it is completely illogical and non-sensical.

The 'fun' of star trek?

The FUN of star trek was always in exploring not only new worlds, but the scientific understanding of these new worlds, and of seeing how we have bettered ourselves as a species comparedto how we are today.

If you find nothing but endless bombast 'fun' you

1-Are 10 years old

2-Will just as easilyliketransformers

3-Probably hate the majority of all the high minded star trek films and shows that have been released, which, like it or not, were the very essence that made it what star trek has been come to be known for.

I won't even address the Shinzon non-sense you spewed because it is completelyunfounded. He was a romulan clone of picard who was programmed to reach a point of malevolence toward picard and the federation at a certain point of his life. That is all I will sayabout that, put the rest of the pieces together yourself.

By your conduct here, repeatedly insulting those who believe differently to you, you've repeatedly shown how little you truly understand Star Trek's philosophy - "Live and let live".

[King Daniel Into Darkness]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

No, the humans in DS9 were still as civilized as they were in TNG. You are confusing the fact that they had to deal with a dominion war, the cardassians and a Ferengi who was constantly trying to pull the wool over their eyes, with them not being civilized. At no point in the show did they behave with malevolence or cowardice toward other humans or other species. They always tempered their judgment with logic and seriously considered their actions, and never did captain sisko and company shoot down a sitting duck ship!

Watch "In The Pale Moonlight" and "The Siege of AR-558"

[trek_futurist]

KingDaniel wrote:

---

By your conduct here, repeatedly insulting those who believe differently to you, you've repeatedly shown how little you truly understand Star Trek's philosophy - "Live and let live".

We're not talking about beliefs, we're talking about objective facts.

Objective fact 1-Star trek was made popular by those quirky little things like philosophical ideas, scientific explanations, showing alien customs, the fact that humanity was portrayed as better than it currently is, etc.

Objective fact 2-NONE of the above appeared in this thing called star trek 2009.

[King Daniel Into Darkness]

We're not talking about beliefs, we're talking about objective facts.

Objective fact 1-Star trek was made popular by those quirky little things likephilosophicalideas,scientificexplanations, showing alien customs, the fact that humanity was portrayed as better than it currently is, etc.

Objective fact 2-NONEof theabove appeared in thisthing called star trek 2009.

Those aren't facts, sorry. They're merely what YOU like about Star Trek, and what YOU believe is lacking in the 09 film.

[trek_futurist]

KingDaniel wrote:

---

Those aren't facts, sorry. They're merely what YOU like about Star Trek, and what YOU believe is lacking in the 09 film.

No, they are what made star trek popular and what was DEFINITELY and WITHOUT A SHRED OF DOUBT lacking in the thing called star trek 2009.

Not to mention something called logic. Star trek always had logic, at least with regard to human interactions, ideology and chain of command.

How the HELL can anyone just shrug off imposter kirk being promoted to captain from cadet so haphazardly?

Quite simply, if you think star trek 2009 is a star trek movie you are obviously more a fan of bombastic action films than actually star trek itself.

[horatio83]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

Everything you say here is the same unsupported refrain I hear from adopters of the 2009 film. And it is completely illogical and non-sensical.

The 'fun' of star trek?

The FUN of star trek was always in exploring not only new worlds, but the scientific understanding of these new worlds, and of seeing how we have bettered ourselves as a species compared to how we are today.

If you find nothing but endless bombast 'fun' you

1-Are 10 years old

2-Will just as easily like transformers

3-Probably hate the majority of all the high minded star trek films and shows that have been released, which, like it or not, were the very essence that made it what star trek has been come to be known for.

I won't even address the Shinzon non-sense you spewed because it is completely unfounded. He was a romulan clone of picard who was programmed to reach a point of malevolence toward picard and the federation at a certain point of his life. That is all I will say about that, put the rest of the pieces together yourself.

TOS was often incredibly goofy. TFF and ST09 are the two movies which come most close to it.
Strange, most of the time I hear that I am an irrational ST09 basher.

Seriously, I tried to be moderate and reasonable with you, despite the "real fan" nonsense with which you started this thread, despite your constant use of the the word objective in a discussion about art/entertainment. No more second chances, if you behave like a total jerk and call other people infantile (while, what sweet irony, not even caring about decent capitalization) just because they dislike NEM more than ST09 and view ST09 as not utterly bad you can talk with yourself.

[The Overlord]

The thing is while on the surface Nemesis and Star Trek 11 similar, but if you dig deeper Star Trek 11 is a superior film.

Let's compare the villains for example, on the surface both Shinzon and Nero seem the very similar, both associated with the Romulan empire and both new villains with a genocidal desire for vengeance. However I think below the surface Nero is a way better villain due to consistency. There was a method to Nero's madness, since Spock failed to save Romulus Nero blames Spock for Romulus' destruction, he may even think Spock intentionally did not save Romulus. That's not rational, but it does make sense in a certain way.

With Shinzon I don't understand his motives at all, its like he changes his mind every 5 minutes and he is totally incompetent. He's mad that the Romulans enslaved the Remans, so he wants to destroy Earth. That makes no sense. He wants to capture Picard because he needs a blood transfusion, but he wastes a lot of time at the beginning of the film, instead of trying to capture Picard right away. Nero is a better villain because his goals don't change every 5 minutes.

Also the TNG crew did a lot of foolish things in Nemesis, if we are going to count mis-characterization against a film. Picard breaks the Prime Directive and guns down some aliens for no good reason and at the end of the film he endangers the entire ship by going over to fight Shinzon on his ship, instead of sending Worf or Date who would have a greater chance for success then Picard would. I wouldn't call Nemesis a crowning moment for characterization of the TNG crew.

[King Daniel Into Darkness]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

No, they are what made star trek popular and what was DEFINITELY and WITHOUT A SHRED OF DOUBT lacking in the thing called star trek 2009.

Not to mention something called logic. Star trek always had logic, at least with regard to human interactions, ideology and chain of command.

How the HELL can anyone just shrug off imposter kirk being promoted to captain from cadet so haphazardly?

Quite simply, if you think star trek 2009 is a star trek movie you are obviously more a fan of bombastic action films than actually star trek itself.

Without a shred of doubt in your mind. You're not a god, your opinion is only that - your opinion. Does that mass of support for the movie not show you that maybe others' viewpoint could have some validity? That your narrow-minded way may not be the only one?

Fans shrug off the sillier aspects of this movie the same way fans have shrugged off the implausible nonsense in other Star Treks. Genesis? Spock's resurrection? The Nexus? The various portrayals of time travel? V'ger, a probe with godlike powers that never thought to wipe the muck of it's own name plate?

Heck, we even saw another cadet-turned-captain in DS9's "The Valiant". And that one didn't have Pike's glowing recommendation and a Vulcan from an alternate future on his side!

[trek_futurist]

horatio83 wrote:

---

TOS was often incredibly goofy. TFF and ST09 are the two movies which come most close to it.
Strange, most of the time I hear that I am an irrational ST09 basher.

Seriously, I tried to be moderate and reasonable with you, despite the "real fan" nonsense with which you started this thread, despite your constant use of the the word objective in a discussion about art/entertainment. No more second chances, if you behave like a total jerk and call other people infantile (while, what sweet irony, not even caring about decent capitalization) just because they dislike NEM more than ST09 and view ST09 as not utterly bad you can talk with yourself.

The humor in TOS was a lot more subtle and interesting than the gratuitous and generic 'slap stick' garbage witnessed in the 2009 thing.

So, when someone makes an argument you cannot diminish with points or logic you simply claim they are calling other people names? Typical of people who have no counter arguments.

I may have made a generalized statement regarding the mindset of a person who enters into such a film, but I did not call a single individual a name, once. Nice try at diversion though.

Fact is the 2009 thing sucked and nobody can substantiate why they think it is good, other than make unfounded statements about how the characters are true to their original counterparts (With no actual examples of how this is so, I might add) and equally arbitrary comments about effects, or something.

Effects and bombast do not a good trek movie maketh.

[The Overlord]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

The humor in TOS was a lot more subtle and interesting than the gratuitous and generic 'slap stick' garbage witnessed in the 2009 thing.

So, when someone makes an argument you cannot diminish with points or logic you simply claim they are calling other people names? Typical of people who have no counter arguments.

I may have made a generalized statement regarding the mindset of a person who enters into such a film, but I did not call a single individual a name, once. Nice try at diversion though.

Fact is the 2009 thing sucked and nobody can substantiate why they think it is good, other than make unfounded statements about how the characters are true to their original counterparts (With no actual examples of how this is so, I might add) and equally arbitrary comments about effects, or something.

Effects and bombast do not a good trek movie maketh.

Saying Star Trek 11 sucked is not a fact, its your opinion, one I disagree with.

I think there is more compelling evidence that Nemesis sucked, in my opinion.