If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009.... - Page 5

Alrik · December 14 2011, 08:39 PM

Greg Cox wrote:

horatio83 wrote:

Greg Cox wrote:

From a narrative standpoint, I don't see Kirk being rewarded for brawling. I see it as the point where Kirk hits rock bottom and realizes that he wants to do more with his life. Pike wasn't saying, "Wow, you kick ass. You should be a Starfleet captain." Pike was saying "You're better than this and I'm going to give you a chance to prove it."

As for that other cadet . . . well there are always going to be jerks in any organization, even Starfleet. Remember Ben Finney? Now that was holding a grudge!

And Finnegan and Captain Styles and the racist guy in "Balance of Terror. Nobody ever said that everybody in Starfleet is perfect and gets along perfectly everybody else.

Remember all the squabbling among "The Galileo Seven"?

I agree, your reading of the scene is far better than mine.

Thanks. For what it's worth, I appreciate that we can debate this stuff on a literary level, without arguing about which of us is a bigger Trekkie!

Speak for yourself. I was the biggest Trek fan around....until I got booted from Trekdom a couple of pages ago.

As to your assessment above, I'd say it is very much spot on.

Satyrquaze · December 14 2011, 08:40 PM

trek_futurist wrote:

Satyrquaze wrote:

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.

Thank you for re-iterating my point by basically repeating yourself. We're done here. You're a troll, nothing more.

EDIT: I appreciate that you cite: humanism, intelligence, philosophy, and tolerance as hallmarks of Star Trek. Since your posts exhibit none of those.

horatio83 · December 14 2011, 08:42 PM

Greg Cox wrote:

horatio83 wrote:

Greg Cox wrote:

From a narrative standpoint, I don't see Kirk being rewarded for brawling. I see it as the point where Kirk hits rock bottom and realizes that he wants to do more with his life. Pike wasn't saying, "Wow, you kick ass. You should be a Starfleet captain." Pike was saying "You're better than this and I'm going to give you a chance to prove it."

As for that other cadet . . . well there are always going to be jerks in any organization, even Starfleet. Remember Ben Finney? Now that was holding a grudge!

And Finnegan and Captain Styles and the racist guy in "Balance of Terror. Nobody ever said that everybody in Starfleet is perfect and gets along perfectly everybody else.

Remember all the squabbling among "The Galileo Seven"?

I agree, your reading of the scene is far better than mine.

Thanks. For what it's worth, I appreciate that we can debate this stuff on a literary level, without arguing about which of us is a bigger Trekkie!

Guys usually stop comparing the size of their "trekkies" once they reach the age of reason.

I think a good discussion motto would be: debate intensely but never narcissistically.

J. Allen · December 14 2011, 08:46 PM

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....

Nope.

Greg Cox · December 14 2011, 08:50 PM

horatio83 wrote:

Greg Cox wrote:

horatio83 wrote:

I agree, your reading of the scene is far better than mine.

Thanks. For what it's worth, I appreciate that we can debate this stuff on a literary level, without arguing about which of us is a bigger Trekkie!

Guys usually stop comparing the size of their "trekkies" once they reach the age of reason.

I think a good discussion motto would be: debate intensely but never narcissistically.

Good motto. It does sometimes seem like a lot of internet criticism is basically self-congratulatory in nature.

"Well, it may be good enough for the unwashed masses, but I know better . . .. "

M'Sharak · December 14 2011, 08:52 PM

trek_futurist wrote:

If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009.... .....Well, quite simply put, you are not a Star trek fan.

My reasoning...

...is fatally undermined by your premise.

M', Star Trek fan (whether you think so or not)

Alrik · December 14 2011, 08:58 PM

Greg Cox wrote:

horatio83 wrote:

Greg Cox wrote:

Thanks. For what it's worth, I appreciate that we can debate this stuff on a literary level, without arguing about which of us is a bigger Trekkie!

Guys usually stop comparing the size of their "trekkies" once they reach the age of reason.

I think a good discussion motto would be: debate intensely but never narcissistically.

Good motto. It does sometimes seem like a lot of internet criticism is basically self-congratulatory in nature.

I completely agree.

"Well, it may be good enough for the unwashed masses, but I know better . . .. "

You know, this makes me kind of wonder. I had always figured that TBBT's Sheldon was supposed to be a caricature of a sci-fi geek. But when you look around these boards, he could actually be based on several real life posters.

J. Allen · December 14 2011, 09:03 PM

I remember seeing Sheldon for the first time and he immediately reminded me of at least 3 posters.

Herkimer Jitty · December 14 2011, 09:03 PM

trek_futurist wrote:

Satyrquaze wrote:

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.

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.

Reverse-reverse semantics!

/winning

CorporalClegg · December 14 2011, 10:17 PM

I'm not going to wade through all the posts, but in case someone hasn't mentioned it yet, OP seriously needs to research "humanistic."

matsuiny2004 · December 14 2011, 11:12 PM

_

matsuiny2004 · December 14 2011, 11:16 PM

trek_futurist wrote:

KingDaniel wrote:

Nero murdered 6 billion. Kirk Prime (and Chris Pine's is just as "real") never came up against ANYTHING like that - not from anyone accountable (i.e. not the doomsday machine)

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.

He still lead him into a field that disabled his shields and left him to die in an explosion. I think he gave khan another chance just like this kirk did with nero it was refused and khan was ditched there. Very simmilar to 2009 kirk.

XFozzboute · December 15 2011, 04:13 AM

trek_futurist wrote:

If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009.....Well, quite simply put, you are not a Star trek fan.

If it means not having to act like I've got sand in my vagina. I'll gladly turn in my Star Trek fan card.

Starbreaker · December 15 2011, 04:16 AM

trek_futurist wrote:

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

Welcome to the board.

DakotaSmith · December 15 2011, 05:04 AM

As is usually the case, Harry S. Plinkett explains my views on Nemesis better than I can.

Dakota Smith

December 14 2011, 09:03 PM	#68
J. Allen Probably Satan™ Location: A Quantum State	Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009.... I remember seeing Sheldon for the first time and he immediately reminded me of at least 3 posters. __________________ “In all of the time forward, and backward, throughout the universe, we have all been alive and dead, and all at the same time.”

December 14 2011, 10:17 PM	#70
CorporalClegg Vice Admiral Location: Nuevo México	Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009.... I'm not going to wade through all the posts, but in case someone hasn't mentioned it yet, OP seriously needs to research "humanistic." __________________ Hola!

December 14 2011, 11:12 PM	#71
matsuiny2004 Lieutenant	Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009.... _

December 15 2011, 05:04 AM	#75
DakotaSmith Fleet Captain Location: Redfield, Iowa, USA	Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009.... As is usually the case, Harry S. Plinkett explains my views on Nemesis better than I can. Dakota Smith __________________ "No human being has the right — under any circumstances — to initiate force against another human being, nor to threaten or delegate its initiation." - The Zero Aggression Principle

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US