Anyone's opinion of NEM improve because of "Star Trek: Picard"?
- Thread starter Lord Garth
- Start date
For me, it's the other way around: Nemesis wasn't improved by Picard, rather Picard was a series that could have been much better if Nemesis had never happened or just been completely ignored.
Seriously, screw that movie. It's the ONLY Star Trek movie or show I actively HATE. Jerry Goldsmith's score was wasted on that film, and it's an insult to him that it was his swan song for Star Trek.
Seriously, screw that movie. It's the ONLY Star Trek movie or show I actively HATE. Jerry Goldsmith's score was wasted on that film, and it's an insult to him that it was his swan song for Star Trek.
No. I still think Nemesis sucks and Picard just doubles down on all the dumb shit that film had. Nemesis could have been a cool film when Michael Piller was using the exact same concepts about androids and Romulans in his Star Trek: Stardust concept for Star Trek 9 but all that was vetoed by Patrick Stewart and other higher ups because apparently the Romulans weren't interesting enough. So if anything my opinion of both 9 and 10 has gotten worse over the years.
Fairly certain the color was for MPAA rating reasons
For entirely selfish reasons, I'm very glad the blood was pink in Star Trek VI. I was 12 at the time, and if it was rated R, there's absolutely NO WAY my mother would've allowed me to see it. And especially not in the theater. And seeing Star Trek VI in the theater for the first time (I saw it three times in the theater total) is one of my favorite childhood memories.
Anyway, even getting her to let me see Terminator 2 on cable (on Pay-Per-View) the following spring was a fight. As my first R-rated movie, that was quite an experience too. But that's a whole other topic.
EDITED TO ADD: If someone wants to point out that middle-age has turned me into a complete and total hypocrite, in regards to my having the exact opposite point-of-view with Picard, feel free. I already know.
That's what being middle-aged is all about.
Anyway, even getting her to let me see Terminator 2 on cable (on Pay-Per-View) the following spring was a fight. As my first R-rated movie, that was quite an experience too. But that's a whole other topic.
EDITED TO ADD: If someone wants to point out that middle-age has turned me into a complete and total hypocrite, in regards to my having the exact opposite point-of-view with Picard, feel free. I already know.
That's what being middle-aged is all about.
Last edited:
For entirely selfish reasons, I'm very glad the blood was pink in Star Trek VI. I was 12 at the time, and if it was rated R, there's absolutely NO WAY my mother would've allowed me to see it. And especially not in the theater. And seeing Star Trek VI in the theater for the first time (I saw it three times in the theater total) is one of my favorite childhood memories.
Anyway, even getting her to let me see Terminator 2 on cable (on Pay-Per-View) the following spring was a fight. As my first R-rated movie, that was quite an experience too. But that's a whole other topic.
EDITED TO ADD: If someone wants to point out that middle-age has turned me into a complete and total hypocrite, in regards to my having the exact opposite point-of-view with Picard, feel free. I already know.
That's what being middle-aged is all about.
The irony is that there is no blood in Terminator 2.
I was fairly positive on Nemesis, and while I've elected not to watch Picard (having taken a wait-and-see attitude for the current generation of Trek after I was extremely disappointed in Discovery's second season after a promising start), what I've heard has actually made me take a dimmer view of Nemesis. I still think the movie was fine (the distant-second-best of the TNG films), but clearly, I'm wrong if it led to a multi-million-dollar fix-fic culminating in (checking... yes, it's been more than six months) bringing Data back to life just to immediately give him a more elaborate, maudlin death scene. Like, how can I enjoy the movie knowing that, if there hadn't been a poor editing decision excising the early scene foreshadowing Data's death and blunting the thematic unity of that arc, this wild, bizarre show would've instead been something that wasn't the Trek equivalent of The Rise of Skywalker?
It was... disappointing.
Because everyone must think the same way.
Well, if you can get past the stupidity and the implausibility of the plot. The incompetence of the Villain, the nuttiness of the "good guys" (e.g. driving like a madman on an alien planet in brutal violation of the prime directive and shooting the locals who were only defending their territory... ) Plus about a thousand other things... then I suppose there are worse ways to waste two hours of your life...
Well, when you put it like that...why does anyone watch anything?
And some people enjoy this.Because many things are much much better than that...?
I just rewatched all of the TNG movies, and I gotta say, hell yes my opinions on ALL of them have changed. The new series (Picard, Discovery, or anything else) have little to do with that, though. If anything, perhaps my latest viewing of Nemesis has caused me to rethink my stance on the Picard series, which I have had conflicted feelings about. As a coda to Data's fate in Nemesis and what he meant to Picard, I think that what they did there made sense, but then again there's all this other stuff that I can't figure out. Probably takes another viewing.
Now as for the TNG films: Two have suffered (FC and INS), and for a rather simple reason IMO. Jonathan Frakes. Heresy, I know! But I think what is clearly visible to me now is how “TV“ they are. Frakes of course directed only television before FC, and mostly (or only?) Star Trek too. Only to a TV producer (Berman) could these credentials look good on paper. The films have very little cinematic scope to them and they end with the characters essentially in the same place where they began. They are therefore like TFF in that aspect, the only TOS-era movie that didn't change the status quo in any way. Nice enough stories, competently written, but with a TV sensibility – and the fact that they were also directed with a TV sensibility merely underscores that weakness.
By contrast, both GEN and NEM are cinematic and they do change the status quo. In both cases, you can argue with details and certain choices. Both definitely suffer somewhat from a “laundry list“ approach to writing („Kirk needs to die in this one/Let's destroy the Enterprise/gotta have a subplot for Data“ and „Data needs to die in this one/ I want the Enterprise to ram another starship/Let's make this feel like TWOK“ etc.) that doesn't lend itself to particularly organic storytelling. But to me, both of these are super fun to watch, exciting, and the characters moments that are there (NEM sadly left too many of them on the cutting room floor: watching the deleted scenes is painful knowing how much they could have elevated the film itself) are sometimes profound if you're a fan of the show, often bittersweet, but in any case they advance the characters' stories.
I confess I never understood the intense dislike for NEM, but after this most recent rewatch of all four (and all within one week), I can't fathom how one could prefer the limp, cringey and tone-deaf INS to this.
Now as for the TNG films: Two have suffered (FC and INS), and for a rather simple reason IMO. Jonathan Frakes. Heresy, I know! But I think what is clearly visible to me now is how “TV“ they are. Frakes of course directed only television before FC, and mostly (or only?) Star Trek too. Only to a TV producer (Berman) could these credentials look good on paper. The films have very little cinematic scope to them and they end with the characters essentially in the same place where they began. They are therefore like TFF in that aspect, the only TOS-era movie that didn't change the status quo in any way. Nice enough stories, competently written, but with a TV sensibility – and the fact that they were also directed with a TV sensibility merely underscores that weakness.
By contrast, both GEN and NEM are cinematic and they do change the status quo. In both cases, you can argue with details and certain choices. Both definitely suffer somewhat from a “laundry list“ approach to writing („Kirk needs to die in this one/Let's destroy the Enterprise/gotta have a subplot for Data“ and „Data needs to die in this one/ I want the Enterprise to ram another starship/Let's make this feel like TWOK“ etc.) that doesn't lend itself to particularly organic storytelling. But to me, both of these are super fun to watch, exciting, and the characters moments that are there (NEM sadly left too many of them on the cutting room floor: watching the deleted scenes is painful knowing how much they could have elevated the film itself) are sometimes profound if you're a fan of the show, often bittersweet, but in any case they advance the characters' stories.
I confess I never understood the intense dislike for NEM, but after this most recent rewatch of all four (and all within one week), I can't fathom how one could prefer the limp, cringey and tone-deaf INS to this.
This is a pretty good, honest post. I must say though...I don't totally agree that FC lacks cinematic scope. While I do think it is somewhat overrated (I'm not sure it's even in my top 5 Trek movies...let alone top 3 where a lot of fans seem to put it)...I sill think it looks and sounds pretty nice. The new Enterprise is gorgeous, lots of location shooting, a really amazing (for the time) opening shot, lots of extras and costumes....I thought it was pretty good from that angle.
INS I agree was just so unremarkable that it's criminal. I agree entirely that NEM is light-years better than INS.
GEN is cinematic in some respects (cinematography, score) but comes up woefully short in others (re-use of sets, visual fx, costumes, etc) and Carson's TV roots are as apparent as Frakes' at times.
I can't forgive NEM for having Deanna Troi get raped just to give her character something to do. I'll never watch that movie again. So no, even if PIC had been good it wouldn't have changed my opinion of NEM.
And boy was PIC not good. Such horribly-written tripe: the plot is driven mainly by the actions of the Zhat Vash and Bruce Maddox, yet both constantly do nonsensical things that are in direct conflict with their stated goals so the plot can happen. And the final Picard/Data scene that everyone says is so good is just more of that tired "Dying is the most human thing of all" crap that's not nearly as profound as it thinks it is. No wonder the super-AIs from PIC and DSC season 2 were trying to kill everybody! Humans are always going on about how great it is to be human and nothing is more human than dying--the AIs probably think that all humans want to die! They're just trying to help!
And boy was PIC not good. Such horribly-written tripe: the plot is driven mainly by the actions of the Zhat Vash and Bruce Maddox, yet both constantly do nonsensical things that are in direct conflict with their stated goals so the plot can happen. And the final Picard/Data scene that everyone says is so good is just more of that tired "Dying is the most human thing of all" crap that's not nearly as profound as it thinks it is. No wonder the super-AIs from PIC and DSC season 2 were trying to kill everybody! Humans are always going on about how great it is to be human and nothing is more human than dying--the AIs probably think that all humans want to die! They're just trying to help!
Similar threads
- Poll
