Also not one of my faves.
Nemesis is better than Insurrection: Convince me otherwise.
- Thread starter Mr. Friscus
- Start date
Death by facelift…
It's interesting that in the scenes when Picard urges Shinzon to "become a better person" etc., he speaks purely from a soft religious, morality based definition of "better" as in being compassionate, helping others, etc. and automatically assumes that Shinzon, who was raised entirely in the Romulan Empire, is familiar with this definition of "better". I was half-expecting Shinzon to say, "Dude, I'm literally Praetor of the Romulan Empire and you're an old guy who's still just a captain, I'm already a better person than you".
Nemesis had a great space battle. Still too short I think. The Scimitar was a little over powered. I didn't mind Shini's malevolence against the federation, he conquered Romulus, and now the big fed was the looming power he had to respect. Although an anti bio weapon is a bit rough, he's just a psychopath, nothing deeper, which is a shame being a Picard counterpart. Every Romulan ship after the D(cant remember the name) class is disapointing. Hellboy had great moments.
In Insurrection, it annoys me that another race is on par techno wise with the federation. I liked how Admiral Doughty was not completely diabolical. Some of the jokes land. I liked the leader's darkseid outfit. Holoships feel underused.
In Insurrection, it annoys me that another race is on par techno wise with the federation. I liked how Admiral Doughty was not completely diabolical. Some of the jokes land. I liked the leader's darkseid outfit. Holoships feel underused.
If Nemesis was directed by someone besides Stuart Baird, someone more familiar with Trek lore, it would definitely be more watchable. When I do rematch it, it is usually just the last third of the movie or so.
Just think how different Nemesis would've been if directed by Jonathan Frakes or Nicholas Meyer!
Just think how different Nemesis would've been if directed by Jonathan Frakes or Nicholas Meyer!
I gotta say, the only Star Trek TNG-Movie I don't like wholeheartedly is "Generations" - but that comes with the ending of Kirk kicking the bucket. The other movies are pretty solid.
I don't care for the space battle in Nemesis. Not at all. I thought it was just a cookie cutter, by the numbers bit of sci-fi action. I think the space battles in DS9 are far, far superior.
The effects were good. Was it missing emotional drive? I think it lacked that slow battle of wits. But it didn't resort to unusual moves like throwing asteroids which I liked. It looked good and felt fair I thought.
Nemesis is more problematic in that Shinzon really has no reason to hate the Federation. They've done nothing to him. He should hate the Romulans and the movie should've been Picard trying to stop Shinzon from committing genocide against the Romulans. It would add a moral dilemma where Picard and especially Worf have to grapple with trying to save their historical enemy because allowing them all to die just because of past Tal Shiar (who aren't the entire Romulan population) atrocities is morally wrong. It could've been TNG's counterpart to the Undiscovered Country, where Kirk has to grapple with saving the Klingons instead of letting them die, even though the Klingons hate him.
Shinzon would have a stronger argument against Picard by saying, "Why are you stopping me from killing the Romulans? They killed Worf's parents and r---- Tasha Yar. I won't force you to help me commit genocide, just look the other way while I do it and you don't have to get your hands dirty". (Picard's done similarly in the past in regards to Worf's stepbrother's adopted people in the name of the Prime Directive in that one TNG episode) These would be compelling ethical dilemmas that would be tackled that would make Nemesis more than just a dumb action movie by dealing with questions that are still relevant today.
If they were REALLY thinking ahead and planning everything out, Nemesis would've ended with Picard stopping Shinzon's massacre of the Romulans only for a post-credits scene to reveal that he sabotaged Romulus' sun, setting up the supernova storyline that's the basis for Star Trek 2009.
Shinzon would have a stronger argument against Picard by saying, "Why are you stopping me from killing the Romulans? They killed Worf's parents and r---- Tasha Yar. I won't force you to help me commit genocide, just look the other way while I do it and you don't have to get your hands dirty". (Picard's done similarly in the past in regards to Worf's stepbrother's adopted people in the name of the Prime Directive in that one TNG episode) These would be compelling ethical dilemmas that would be tackled that would make Nemesis more than just a dumb action movie by dealing with questions that are still relevant today.
If they were REALLY thinking ahead and planning everything out, Nemesis would've ended with Picard stopping Shinzon's massacre of the Romulans only for a post-credits scene to reveal that he sabotaged Romulus' sun, setting up the supernova storyline that's the basis for Star Trek 2009.
Well...the films really lacked that.
THIS was essentially the Scimitar and why I found the climax of the film ridiculous. Hey, we still have, like, twenty minutes before it fires!!
Nemesis for me sits in the same bracket at the Star Wars PT - provided exactly what I wanted from a film and was the first Trek film I saw in the cinema.
It's no Wrath of Khan, Undiscovered Country (my favourite I think), of FC but it hit a spot for me, continued some things set up in DS9 (closer ties with the Romulans) and added to it (telling us that Remans were used as cannon fodder - wonder what the Federation thought about that eh....) and was a fun sci fi action film.
You could easily fault it for the fact that it could easily have been told outside the Trek universe as it wasn't that lore heavy but that also helped it to not feel like a feature length episode.
Insurrection is also very watchable for me - and I do enjoy the Gilbert and Sullivan bit (wonder if HMS Pinafore is better in the original Klingon) - and I like that it has such a heart warming conclusion and moral around reconciliation but it just doesn't quite hold the same soft spot in my memory
It's no Wrath of Khan, Undiscovered Country (my favourite I think), of FC but it hit a spot for me, continued some things set up in DS9 (closer ties with the Romulans) and added to it (telling us that Remans were used as cannon fodder - wonder what the Federation thought about that eh....) and was a fun sci fi action film.
You could easily fault it for the fact that it could easily have been told outside the Trek universe as it wasn't that lore heavy but that also helped it to not feel like a feature length episode.
Insurrection is also very watchable for me - and I do enjoy the Gilbert and Sullivan bit (wonder if HMS Pinafore is better in the original Klingon) - and I like that it has such a heart warming conclusion and moral around reconciliation but it just doesn't quite hold the same soft spot in my memory
Insurrection, aside from Shaw's jab (which doesn't match up with Admiral Dougherty himself saying the Prime Directive doesn't apply despite Shaw's claim of Picard disregarding it) is completely ignored in subsequent Trek material. Traveling to Ba'ku is never once mentioned as a potential option for Picard's irumodic syndrome in Season 1. Ba'ku being the place of Jack's conception could've been used as an explanation for how Beverly could still be fertile at her age, but it isn't and it's said he was conceived on Casperia Prime. For that matter taking Riker's son to Ba'ku isn't mentioned as a possibility to save him either. Ba'ku itself ends up being that one-episode only magical Trek tech that shows up once and is never seen again.
maybe there's leftover conditioning from whatever the heck the Romulans' original plan for him was before it fell apart and they dumped him on Remus and it's just been stewing the whole time.
Once a trope is used it's hard to put back. It's a bit like Pandora's box.
On to another point:
Why should Shaw take Dougherty's word for it? Because he's an admiral? (Insert Down Periscope meme here). Admirals are clearly shown time and again to be wrong in Trek, including Admiral Picard.
Shaw is a captain, theoretically capable of some measure independent thought, so might have done some research and disagreed with the good ole' admiral based on an interpretation of the Prime Directive.
Similar threads
