A couple of First Contact criticisms.

[sonak]

I agree with a lot of that, but I disagree that Nemesis didn't have a message of its own, namely that of nature vs. nurture, what forms a person's character, etc. (B4 vs. Data, Shinzon vs. Picard, both superficially similar, etc.) If anything, Trek XI is more of a straight-forward adventure flick with almost nothing of a deeper message.

And I didn't like the "Ahab-esque revenge" arc of FC for Picard, because it ignored his behavior in "I, Borg" and "Descent," but of course they needed their character arc for that movie, consistency goes out the window.

 

[Bishop76]

I think it was trying to say something about nature vs. nurture, but failed in every way possible. There was absolutely nothing to take away from that attempt.

 

[Christopher]

I agree with a lot of that, but I disagree that Nemesis didn't have a message of its own, namely that of nature vs. nurture, what forms a person's character, etc. (B4 vs. Data, Shinzon vs. Picard, both superficially similar, etc.)

Indeed. NEM had one of the strongest, clearest philosophical throughlines of any Trek movie, which is why I think it works so well as a Star Trek story. It's a classic Trekkian exploration of the human condition and its betterment: are we damned by our nature or do we have the power to choose to make ourselves something greater? Not many Trek films have such a strong philosophical core. Let's see:

TMP: Broadly about the search for our meaning and purpose in life, and the idea that it takes emotion to give life meaning and enable us to grow.

TWOK: Some stuff here and there about coping with mortality. Largely about stuff blowing up.

TSFS: Uhh, friendship is good? And more stuff blows up.

TVH: Save the whales.

TFF: The main philosophical thread seems to be about accepting our pain as a learning experience rather than denying it by embracing false prophets and easy answers. Surprisingly, one of the clearest philosophical threads in the Trek movies, though not developed extensively or very cohesively.

TUC: Largely a topical, political theme about accepting change and not being afraid to let go of old hatreds.

GEN: Similar to TWOK, an exploration of fearing mortality vs. accepting it.

FC: Uhh, obsession is bad?

INS: Learn to stop and smell the roses.

NEM: Would we be the same people if we'd been raised differently? How much of our essence is intrinsic and immutable? Does our past limit who and what we can be, or can we transcend it?

ST'09: Friendship is good. And stuff blows up.

So not really a lot of deep philosophical themes in the Trek movies. Which isn't necessarily a criticism; a lot of stories are more about character or plot than theme. TWOK and ST'09 are light on theme but are acclaimed for their character studies.

The films that are most driven by philosophical questions are TMP, NEM, and to some extent TFF. INS tries to be a thoughtful, introspective story, but the script they ended up with didn't have a particularly strong driving idea. TVH and TUC have topical messages, but they're more concrete, social and political ideas than abstract philosophy.

And NEM's exploration of its philosophical question is perhaps the most intensive of any of the films, as it drives both of the core conflicts and is examined in practically every scene between Picard and Shinzon. NEM is also the only Trek film where there's such a strong, nuanced personal connection between the captain and the antagonist, so that focuses it even more.

 

[Bishop76]

I still fail to see how Nemesis succeeded in conveying that message well. Picard had a normal upbringing and turned out just fine and Shinzon lived in a dark mine with monsters and became a monster. This is hardly deep stuff here.

Moreover, the character of Shinzon is such a scattershot character - a rapist in one scene, introspective in another, genocidal in the next - that there's no real baseline for the character. In a few scenes we're led to believe that he's trying to be better than what he was raised as, but then in the next scene we realize that was just a part of his plan to screw the Enterprise/Picard/the Federation over and that he never really was trying to be a better person.

I see the thought that was there, but I just can't agree that it was executed even slightly capably.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Of all the movies, TWOK probably was the closest to being an engaging story about human beings as human beings. It's also the movie in which the thematic aspects are most competently developed in the script. It's not the best of the Trek movies, IMAO, but there are respects in which it's the strongest and these are a couple of them. Bishop76 is right in saying that there's nothing terribly thoughtful or compelling about the superficial "we can rise above our beginnings" message that Nemesis supposedly articulated. It's just a mediocre movie.

 

[sonak]

I think you're short-changing it, which you can do with any theme really. The interaction of environment, circumstances, genetics, etc. in shaping identity is an area that has great potential story-wise. And how well the movie turned out has nothing to do with the underlying message.

As I mentioned, Trek XI is probably one of the shallowest of the Trek movies yet people overlook that because it was a fun, exciting adventure film.

 

[Bishop76]

Of course nature/nurture has great POTENTIAL story telling value. My argument is that Nemesis was incapable, either as a failure of writing or directing, to convey anything meaningful about that subject matter.

I'm not even really sure where the rip on Trek XI came from, but again, I'm not going to claim that it was a highbrow arthouse flick. It was a pretty shallow, fun romp of a movie. At the same time, though, I'm not going to pretend that Nemesis had some deep, navel-gazing message that only the smartest of the nerds can understand.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I think you're short-changing it, which you can do with any theme really. The interaction of environment, circumstances, genetics, etc. in shaping identity is an area that has great potential story-wise.

Not really. It may have great potential as a subject of debate.

 

[Christopher]

I'm not going to argue subjective perceptions of films. NEM worked very well for me. But that's me. It didn't work well for others, and that's just the nature of art. It's pointless to argue about matters of taste as if there were an objective truth to be determined.

 

[sonak]

Of course nature/nurture has great POTENTIAL story telling value. My argument is that Nemesis was incapable, either as a failure of writing or directing, to convey anything meaningful about that subject matter.

I'm not even really sure where the rip on Trek XI came from, but again, I'm not going to claim that it was a highbrow arthouse flick. It was a pretty shallow, fun romp of a movie. At the same time, though, I'm not going to pretend that Nemesis had some deep, navel-gazing message that only the smartest of the nerds can understand.

I think you misunderstood my point. I was saying that people don't care that Star Trek XI had no message or theme because it was a fun film. It wasn't a "rip" on that movie.

Nemesis had a coherent, thoughtful message but wasn't a very good film. I certainly don't think it was a deep, philosophical film, but it had a definite theme to it. And yet that gets overlooked because the film is regarded as such a colossal disappointment.

 

[Bishop76]

Nemesis had a coherent, thoughtful message but wasn't a very good film. I certainly don't think it was a deep, philosophical film, but it had a definite theme to it. And yet that gets overlooked because the film is regarded as such a colossal disappointment.

Well, Nemesis really was a failure in every way possible.

That said, can you concisely tell me what exactly the message of Nemesis was? I mean, it certainly did point out that two identical people raised in drastically different environments would turn out drastically different (shocking, I know), but was there anything beyond that? I mean, that's certainly as shallow as anything you want to attribute to STXI.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Most of what Star Trek has to say, most of the time, about essential human experiences like love or death has always been slightly less platitudinous than a greeting card - that's doubly true for their attempts at social commentary. It's only been occasionally, in the hands of unusually thoughtful writers like Theodore Sturgeon, that the Franchise has achieved any better than that.

 

[Anticitizen]

I mean, it certainly did point out that two identical people raised in drastically different environments would turn out drastically different (shocking, I know)

And Trek itself has already addressed such what-if scenarios more adeptly in the past - 'Mirror, Mirror', Data contrasted with Lore, Thomas Riker, 'The Enemy Within' (not exactly the same, but similar)... etc. I'm sure I could come up with many more examples; those just come to mind immediately without having to even really think about it.

 

[Christopher]

That said, can you concisely tell me what exactly the message of Nemesis was? I mean, it certainly did point out that two identical people raised in drastically different environments would turn out drastically different (shocking, I know), but was there anything beyond that? I mean, that's certainly as shallow as anything you want to attribute to STXI.

You're grossly oversimplifying. That was just one facet of it. Shinzon believed that a person was defined by his past. So he used his past as an excuse for his selfish and immoral actions. What made Picard better than Shinzon, what has made humanity better in the 24th century, is the belief that we don't have to be limited by our past or our failings, but can choose to strive to become more than we are. And that's the core message of Star Trek itself -- that we can better ourselves if we make the effort to do so and stop hiding behind excuses to remain limited.

This is, of course, parallelled by the Data/B-4 subplot; Data has striven to better himself, but B-4 is incapable of doing the same. Shinzon and B-4 are both trapped by their own limitations. You're reading the film completely backward if you think the actual message was simply that Shinzon was different because of his upbringing. That was merely Shinzon's excuse. He believed his upbringing entitled him to be petty and vindictive and cruel, but Picard recognized that he was wrong -- that we aren't trapped by our past but can make ourselves better people if we choose to. It wasn't Shinzon's past that made him different from Picard, it was his inability to transcend his past.

 

[Anticitizen]

That said, can you concisely tell me what exactly the message of Nemesis was? I mean, it certainly did point out that two identical people raised in drastically different environments would turn out drastically different (shocking, I know), but was there anything beyond that? I mean, that's certainly as shallow as anything you want to attribute to STXI.

You're grossly oversimplifying. That was just one facet of it. Shinzon believed that a person was defined by his past. So he used his past as an excuse for his selfish and immoral actions. What made Picard better than Shinzon, what has made humanity better in the 24th century, is the belief that we don't have to be limited by our past or our failings, but can choose to strive to become more than we are. And that's the core message of Star Trek itself -- that we can better ourselves if we make the effort to do so and stop hiding behind excuses to remain limited.

This is, of course, parallelled by the Data/B-4 subplot; Data has striven to better himself, but B-4 is incapable of doing the same. Shinzon and B-4 are both trapped by their own limitations. You're reading the film completely backward if you think the actual message was simply that Shinzon was different because of his upbringing. That was merely Shinzon's excuse. He believed his upbringing entitled him to be petty and vindictive and cruel, but Picard recognized that he was wrong -- that we aren't trapped by our past but can make ourselves better people if we choose to. It wasn't Shinzon's past that made him different from Picard, it was his inability to transcend his past.

That's the implied plot, the one-that-could-have-been - but in practice, it was a missed opportunity. It failed to play out the story as a real what-if scenario; sure, they TELL us that this guy is a 'parallel Picard', but failed to show any similarities that would relate the two as beings to be compared at all. You can test this by watching the movie and selectively omitting the whole idea that Shinzon is a Picard clone, and the movie plays out pretty much the same.

Then there's the weakness of motivation and plot; Shinzon rightfully resents his Romulan oppressors and wipes them all out with a doomsday device. Awesome! So what to do next? Destroy all life on Earth, for no f***ing reason!

It just made no goddamned sense. None of it did. If there was a Big Story hiding in that mess somewhere, it was buried in nonsense.

 

[Bishop76]

I agree with Anticitizen.

That was the message they were going for, but how do you get that by comparing a guy who has everything and succeeds to a guy who has nothing and fails? I mean, Picard can go on all day about how Shinzon should have been a better man. I bet it's really easy to say that when you were raised in the Federation without a single want in the world.

You just can't have that be your message when, as was just said, their lives don't compare AT ALL.

Don't even get me started on Shinzon's motivation... what a joke.

 

[Christopher]

That's the implied plot, the one-that-could-have-been - but in practice, it was a missed opportunity. It failed to play out the story as a real what-if scenario; sure, they TELL us that this guy is a 'parallel Picard', but failed to show any similarities that would relate the two as beings to be compared at all. You can test this by watching the movie and selectively omitting the whole idea that Shinzon is a Picard clone, and the movie plays out pretty much the same.

On a surface level, maybe. But on a subtextual level? No way. The subtext of the Picard-Shinzon relationship is emphatically a father-son dynamic. Shinzon is a prodigal son rejecting his father, resenting him for having a better life. Picard reaches out to Shinzon like a father, trying to offer guidance. Stewart and Hardy play that father-son subtext very nicely, and it's a key part of what makes the film for me. So I can't agree that removing the genetic connection would make no difference.

Then there's the weakness of motivation and plot; Shinzon rightfully resents his Romulan oppressors and wipes them all out with a doomsday device. Awesome! So what to do next? Destroy all life on Earth, for no f***ing reason!

Again, it's all subtext. Shinzon hates Picard and what he represents. He hates his humanity. He hates the fact that he's just a shadow, a reflection, of the great Picard. The only way he can truly feel like his own man is by destroying Picard and everything he holds dear -- and by leaving his own mark on the galaxy that will be remembered long after Picard is forgotten. Destroying Earth, the cradle of humanity and the world Picard has saved more than once, lets him achieve both goals.

It just made no goddamned sense. None of it did. If there was a Big Story hiding in that mess somewhere, it was buried in nonsense.

Sure, there was some nonsense there. The dune-buggy chase was stupid. The made-up-particle-of-the-week weapon was lame (why do they have to keep inventing new ultimate weapons when they already have antimatter?). And yes, even though there was a character justification for it, having the villain threaten Earth was cliched. But I had no trouble seeing the big story, and I quite enjoyed it. I'm not saying you have to. I respect your right to perceive it differently. Like I said, no sense arguing over taste. I'm just describing what I saw in the film.

Besides, this is a First Contact thread. This really isn't the place to go back and forth about Nemesis.

 

[sonak]

I agree with Anticitizen.

That was the message they were going for, but how do you get that by comparing a guy who has everything and succeeds to a guy who has nothing and fails? I mean, Picard can go on all day about how Shinzon should have been a better man. I bet it's really easy to say that when you were raised in the Federation without a single want in the world.

You just can't have that be your message when, as was just said, their lives don't compare AT ALL.

Don't even get me started on Shinzon's motivation... what a joke.

Well they had a tough route to take because Shinzon was supposed to be somewhat similar to Picard for the purposes of the set-up yet also was going to turn out to be the villain of the movie, and a would-be mass murdering villain at that.

So he has to be both something like him and very much unlike him.

Yes they probably should've established more similarities before Shinzon turned purely villainous, which was what they were trying to do with the "looking up at the stars" moment between them.


As to your point about Shinzon, as Christopher pointed out, we do not have to be defined by our past.

Shinzon had bad breaks and was treated cruelly, but there are plenty of examples all across the world of folks who were abused and mistreated and don't turn out to be abusers themselves.

Shinzon didn't care about rising above his past oppression as Data mentioned in his line about how Shinzon doesn't aspire to be better than he is.


The Shinzon motivation thing is brought up frequently in criticisms, but he goes after Earth as the traditional enemy of the Romulan Empire, NOT because he seeks "vengeance," because Earth and the Federation had nothing to do with his oppression.

 

[Bishop76]

Well, I think we're all watching different versions of the movie or seeing subtext where others are perceiving none or very little. Which is what people do with movies and other forms of entertainment, so obviously it can't be right or wrong. But I do think you're stretching a bit beyond credibility on Shinzon's reason for wanting to blow up Earth.

I just didn't feel that subtext existed at all or that you really have to work hard to find it and have a lot of faith in the writers of this movie. All other indications throughout this film (plotting, dialogue, pacing, motivations, etc) gave me no reason to give the writers the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Christopher]

^Well, all I can tell you is that I had little trouble seeing the subtext. Granted, it did take me some thinking to figure out what Shinzon's motive for attacking Earth was, but I think it's there in the dialogue. "And as Earth dies, remember that I will always, forever, be Shinzon of Remus! And my voice shall echo through time long after yours has faded to a dim memory." True, they could've found a less corny way to dramatize the creator-clone conflict, but the motive, however tenuous, was there. I would've liked the film better without the gratuitous attack on Earth, I'll grant you that, but a lot of movies suffer by being forced to conform to action-blockbuster formulae. NEM has a lot of problems, but to me, the core character dynamic between Picard and Shinzon was compelling enough to make the film worthwhile. I'm not saying you have to agree, but there's no way you'll convince me otherwise. I liked the film, you didn't, so let's leave it at that and not derail this First Contact thread any further.