From Rod Roddenberry interview http://www.trektoday.com/content/2009/03/roddenberry-dad-would-love-star-trek-xi.html ...
How does Rod know this before seeing the movie or reading the script?
I wholeheartedly agree here.
IMO, I don't think TMP went deep enough for a movie that was suppose to be cerebral and intellectual. I've been waiting ever since for a deeper sequel, on the level of Darren Aronofsky or Kubrick/Clark caliber. It's a sign of the times though, if they could accomplish it successfully (profitably), that they'd never be able to market it as such. One of TMP's taglines was "It will challenge your intellect." Can anyone imagine them marketing anything that way in the current anti-intellectual culture?
Shinzon was a "black and white bad guy"? There's been a lot of criticism over his ill-defined motives for wanting to commit genocide against humanity, but he did give a strategic reason to his better "half" (a pretext, really) that serves the impetus for establishing Reman dominance: get rid of the quadrant's superpower. Now, the fact that he sought to invert the dynamic and liberate Remans by establishing their dominance at the expense of anyone else's liberty is misguided enough, because in doing so the oppressed simply become no better than the oppressor; they use their own past subjugation, and ascribed status, as an excuse to subjugate their former masters or anyone they ascribe with the status of "former master" (like the changeling Founders vis-a-vis all "Solids"). To exploit a sense of "nationalist" Reman entitlement, defined by their common bonds of oppression and a will to conquer, as justification for exterminating humanity is about as close as anything gets to being classified as "evil."
But for Shinzon it was even worse. On a psychological level, I'd say he wanted to exterminate his genetic kinsmen as a way of proving he was actually Reman, not human. That's why I'd say his professed strategic motive was at least partially a pretext for taking out his petty resentments against an entire species and their homeworld in order to assert his own political identity and Reman allegiance.
However, I saw no indication in Nemesis that Shinzon wasn't sincerely informed by an ingenuous desire to liberate Remans from oppression, but this laudable goal was twisted and intrinsically tied into his megalomaniacal goal of being a Reman whose "name will echo through eternity" whereas Picard's would be forgotten (jealousy comes into it too). I really think he reconciled his personal and political goals through deluding himself into thinking his actions were entirely motivated by the liberation of his "Reman brothers."
I accept that Shinzon was essentially Reman, not human, because his socialization and upbringing matter far more than his ancestry, as does his acceptance as Reman by Remans themselves. Shinzon grew up under the same conditions as the Remans and was treated identically by the Romulans (well, they gave him extra-special attention, actually). But was he really a reflection of the typical Reman? We don't really know because the Remans (other than Shinzon and the Viceroy) weren't portrayed at all, much less in a "black and white" way. We saw no indication of any dissent or free-thinking among any of Shinzon's followers as we did with the Romulan commander, but we can't assume they're all "black-and-white" evil simply because they didn't challenge him. Hitler duped a lot of Germans into accepting, or being complicit with, an ideology that mandated conquest and murder as a means of nationalist liberation---after a long period of economic suffering and despair. The Viceroy actually had a hint of good in him, adopting young, defenseless Shinzon and protecting him from the Romulan taskmasters. And it's hard to see that the Viceroy had any motivation other than compassion here. But then they rape Troi's mind, and I can only conclude that they had no compunction against this because they were operating under a belief in Reman superiority and a concomitant devaluation of other sentient life. Evil for sure, but the roots of this evil for Shinzon are complex and not "black and white". For him to have been a "black and white" villain would imply a villain simply born evil, but the concept of a Picard clone itself debunks that notion.
I highly doubt that Nero and the Romulans will be presented as innately or irrevocably evil, based on the Countdown comics, anyway. But the truly shallow portrayls of antagonists in Trek movies, those who were shown to be more-or-less venal and out for themselves without much, if any, ideological or deeply tragic personal impetus (my definition for essentially "black and white" villians), would be Commander Kruge (though he did eventually have his Targ to avenge) and Leatherface from Insurrection.
How does Rod know this before seeing the movie or reading the script?
I wholeheartedly agree here.
IMO, I don't think TMP went deep enough for a movie that was suppose to be cerebral and intellectual. I've been waiting ever since for a deeper sequel, on the level of Darren Aronofsky or Kubrick/Clark caliber. It's a sign of the times though, if they could accomplish it successfully (profitably), that they'd never be able to market it as such. One of TMP's taglines was "It will challenge your intellect." Can anyone imagine them marketing anything that way in the current anti-intellectual culture? Shinzon was a "black and white bad guy"?
There's been a lot of criticism over his ill-defined motives for wanting to commit genocide against humanity, but he did give a strategic reason to his better "half" (a pretext, really) that serves the impetus for establishing Reman dominance: get rid of the quadrant's superpower. Now, the fact that he sought to invert the dynamic and liberate Remans by establishing their dominance at the expense of anyone else's liberty is misguided enough, because in doing so the oppressed simply become no better than the oppressor; they use their own past subjugation, and ascribed status, as an excuse to subjugate their former masters or anyone they ascribe with the status of "former master" (like the changeling Founders vis-a-vis all "Solids"). To exploit a sense of "nationalist" Reman entitlement, defined by their common bonds of oppression and a will to conquer, as justification for exterminating humanity is about as close as anything gets to being classified as "evil." But for Shinzon it was even worse. On a psychological level, I'd say he wanted to exterminate his genetic kinsmen as a way of proving he was actually Reman, not human. That's why I'd say his professed strategic motive was at least partially a pretext for taking out his petty resentments against an entire species and their homeworld in order to assert his own political identity and Reman allegiance.
However, I saw no indication in Nemesis that Shinzon wasn't sincerely informed by an ingenuous desire to liberate Remans from oppression, but this laudable goal was twisted and intrinsically tied into his megalomaniacal goal of being a Reman whose "name will echo through eternity" whereas Picard's would be forgotten (jealousy comes into it too). I really think he reconciled his personal and political goals through deluding himself into thinking his actions were entirely motivated by the liberation of his "Reman brothers."
I accept that Shinzon was essentially Reman, not human, because his socialization and upbringing matter far more than his ancestry, as does his acceptance as Reman by Remans themselves. Shinzon grew up under the same conditions as the Remans and was treated identically by the Romulans (well, they gave him extra-special attention, actually). But was he really a reflection of the typical Reman? We don't really know because the Remans (other than Shinzon and the Viceroy) weren't portrayed at all, much less in a "black and white" way. We saw no indication of any dissent or free-thinking among any of Shinzon's followers as we did with the Romulan commander, but we can't assume they're all "black-and-white" evil simply because they didn't challenge him. Hitler duped a lot of Germans into accepting, or being complicit with, an ideology that mandated conquest and murder as a means of nationalist liberation---after a long period of economic suffering and despair. The Viceroy actually had a hint of good in him, adopting young, defenseless Shinzon and protecting him from the Romulan taskmasters. And it's hard to see that the Viceroy had any motivation other than compassion here. But then they rape Troi's mind, and I can only conclude that they had no compunction against this because they were operating under a belief in Reman superiority and a concomitant devaluation of other sentient life. Evil for sure, but the roots of this evil for Shinzon are complex and not "black and white". For him to have been a "black and white" villain would imply a villain simply born evil, but the concept of a Picard clone itself debunks that notion.
I highly doubt that Nero and the Romulans will be presented as innately or irrevocably evil, based on the Countdown comics, anyway. But the truly shallow portrayls of antagonists in Trek movies, those who were shown to be more-or-less venal and out for themselves without much, if any, ideological or deeply tragic personal impetus (my definition for essentially "black and white" villians), would be Commander Kruge (though he did eventually have his Targ to avenge) and Leatherface from Insurrection.
yeah, probably more than Shinzon---or more than John Logan---deserve. I guess if someone wanted to, they could even over-analyze a character as shallow as Commander Kruge on the basis of Klingon militarism and nationalism, but there's scarcely anything in the script to extrapolate it from, other than a reference to the Federation flag fluttering in the breeze. I think Shinzon was comparatively complex and Logan did consider at least SOME of what I glean from his character, although it's not treated explicitly in the script or connected coherently.
