Worn out definitely, but older? The original cast felt older to me even by the time they even started the movies imo. The TNG cast were still looking alright overall by NEM.
Nemesis
- Thread starter heavylids
- Start date
Worn out definitely, but older? The original cast felt older to me even by the time they even started the movies imo. The TNG cast were still looking alright overall by NEM.
I actually think they look older and less energetic in Nemesis than the TOS gang did in The Undiscovered Country. It was one of the first things I noticed sitting in the theater watching Nemesis.
I definitely agree on less energetic. The TOS crew really felt like they were into pretty much every TOS movie, and gave them a lot of life. But to me they always looked old. That decade between TOS and TMP made a huge difference.
Original cast looked like they were still having a blast even up to the last movie.
TNG cast looked tired and worn out. Picard and Data looked depressed the entire frickin' movie. Everyone did. They must have hated Stuart Baird's direction. They probably hated the stinker of a script also.
TNG cast looked tired and worn out. Picard and Data looked depressed the entire frickin' movie. Everyone did. They must have hated Stuart Baird's direction. They probably hated the stinker of a script also.
Just watched it twice.
1. Can one person say "dark" or "darker" in two hours more than Bair does in the director's comments. Dude, I get it. You wanted dark. It was. Next.
2. It had possibilities - same theme as ST XI: fate/destiny, or can one make one's own life decision (Picard cf. Shinzon). Unfortunatelt the moment to go deep is lost and we ARE left with fate/deerminism: Picard DNA raised nice on a vinyard, dominant god guy; Picard DNA raised as a slave on Nosferatu-land: dominant bad guy. Determinism wins. (As it probably does in real life, but come on, this is supposed to be Hollywood!)
3. Tell me again, after two sittings: what is Shinzplint so mad about? Wants to free his Nosferatu oo-they're-creepy-looking-bad-guys brothers? Already done. So why is he still going to destroy Earth?
4. Parts of this flick are almost parody: the opening ooh-look-at-them-develop opening credits followed by barbaric tam-tam laden barbarism music; the ultra-crunchy spikey bad guy ship. Maybe they should use those again if they ever make a Star Trek movie again, say in 2009. Oh wait . . .
1. Can one person say "dark" or "darker" in two hours more than Bair does in the director's comments. Dude, I get it. You wanted dark. It was. Next.
2. It had possibilities - same theme as ST XI: fate/destiny, or can one make one's own life decision (Picard cf. Shinzon). Unfortunatelt the moment to go deep is lost and we ARE left with fate/deerminism: Picard DNA raised nice on a vinyard, dominant god guy; Picard DNA raised as a slave on Nosferatu-land: dominant bad guy. Determinism wins. (As it probably does in real life, but come on, this is supposed to be Hollywood!)
3. Tell me again, after two sittings: what is Shinzplint so mad about? Wants to free his Nosferatu oo-they're-creepy-looking-bad-guys brothers? Already done. So why is he still going to destroy Earth?
4. Parts of this flick are almost parody: the opening ooh-look-at-them-develop opening credits followed by barbaric tam-tam laden barbarism music; the ultra-crunchy spikey bad guy ship. Maybe they should use those again if they ever make a Star Trek movie again, say in 2009. Oh wait . . .
Just watched it twice.
1. Can one person say "dark" or "darker" in two hours more than Baird does in the director's comments. Dude, I get it. You wanted dark. It was. Next.
2. It had possibilities - same theme as ST XI: fate/destiny, or can one make one's own life decision (Picard cf. Shinzon)? Unfortunately the moment to go deep is lost and we ARE left with fate/deerminism: Picard DNA raised nice on a vinyard = dominant god guy; Picard DNA raised as a slave on Nosferatu-land . . . dominant bad guy. Determinism wins. (As it probably does in real life, but come on, this is supposed to be Hollywood!)
3. Tell me again, after two sittings: what is Shinzplint so mad about? Wants to free his Nosferatu ooh-they're-creepy-looking-bad-guys brothers? Already done. So why is he still going to destroy Earth?
4. Parts of this flick are almost parody of sci-fi adventure: the opening ooh-look-at-them-develop opening credits followed by barbaric tam-tam laden, barbarism music; the ultra-crunchy spikey bad guy ship. Maybe they should use those again if they ever make a Star Trek movie again, say in 2009. Oh wait . . .
1. Can one person say "dark" or "darker" in two hours more than Baird does in the director's comments. Dude, I get it. You wanted dark. It was. Next.
2. It had possibilities - same theme as ST XI: fate/destiny, or can one make one's own life decision (Picard cf. Shinzon)? Unfortunately the moment to go deep is lost and we ARE left with fate/deerminism: Picard DNA raised nice on a vinyard = dominant god guy; Picard DNA raised as a slave on Nosferatu-land . . . dominant bad guy. Determinism wins. (As it probably does in real life, but come on, this is supposed to be Hollywood!)
3. Tell me again, after two sittings: what is Shinzplint so mad about? Wants to free his Nosferatu ooh-they're-creepy-looking-bad-guys brothers? Already done. So why is he still going to destroy Earth?
4. Parts of this flick are almost parody of sci-fi adventure: the opening ooh-look-at-them-develop opening credits followed by barbaric tam-tam laden, barbarism music; the ultra-crunchy spikey bad guy ship. Maybe they should use those again if they ever make a Star Trek movie again, say in 2009. Oh wait . . .
To the points made by GalaxyX and J. Allen: ok, see, now it makes sense. Again, the issue of "which death scene was more depressing" is largely individual "feel" anyway, but I get what you're saying about the presentation SURROUNDING each scene in each movie, and how that would change the feel. Spock's death was pretty contrived, but I agree that Data's was more telegraphed. I do still like certain aspects of it, mainly the ready room scene with Picard and B4 at the very end (which I thought was well done partly because I got the impression from the scene that B4 WASN'T just going to suddenly become Data, but that some small part of Data would live on in him).
Ok, so they are going to try to ape TWOK to some degree for this last TNG movie. I don't think that's a great idea, but ok, fine.
Then you LEAVE OUT what was one of the key components of TWOK's formula - that Khan wasn't just a random dude, but was someone that both Kirk and the viewer had seen before.
As for the action: it was good at times... certainly the effects themselves were excellent. But it seemed like every potentially good action scene had something to ruin it.
When Picard and Data escape the Scimitar... sure, the fighter bit was cool, but the Scimitar crew was really THAT incompetent that all they could think of to do was shoot at the door? They couldn't get some kind of explosive or special equipment to force the door open? And Picard - badass though he may be - is not THAT badass; he held off like thirty of them while Data was trying to open said door. The space battle, of course, was deflated by the idiocy of the Scimitar, and the boarding party fight scene on the Ent-E was deflated by just being... boring. They encounter each other in the hall, and shoot at each other a lot, and Worf dives on the floor. It was just very straightforward and almost mundane, if a combat scene can be that. Riker's drawn out fight against the Viceroy was actually kind of cool... until it ended with him kicking the dude into a huge Star Wars style bottomless chasm. This chasm apparently had artificial gravity running within it, and despite the fact that they were on deck 29 (of a ship that had 24 decks in a previous movie), appeared to extend down for QUITE a long way.
I'm not sure about the former, personally... there's been enough time travel in Trek as it is, and I didn't think it was all that great of a story. "Relics", though, could be pretty interesting (not the Scotty story, since I don't think you could make a movie out of that, but the Dyson Sphere).
"Even"?! Hell, I think that's the one with the most movie potential out of the three you mentioned. Bring the Iconian tech back but with a movie budget for the concepts and effects, and actually make the "TNG Romulan movie" about, you know... ROMULANS. Coulda been amazing.
I'm ok with the idea - in and of itself - of Data dying, as long as it's done well and doesn't feel too contrived. It was done... ok... and felt moderately contrived in Nemesis, so they didn't exactly hit it out of the park on that one. However, I think Data's death (and the scenes surrounding it) were among the least of the movie's problems. Making it so he doesn't die but keeping everything else in the entire film exactly the same really wouldn't do much for it.
You know what's really hilarious about that?
Ok, so they are going to try to ape TWOK to some degree for this last TNG movie. I don't think that's a great idea, but ok, fine.
Then you LEAVE OUT what was one of the key components of TWOK's formula - that Khan wasn't just a random dude, but was someone that both Kirk and the viewer had seen before.
As for the action: it was good at times... certainly the effects themselves were excellent. But it seemed like every potentially good action scene had something to ruin it.
When Picard and Data escape the Scimitar... sure, the fighter bit was cool, but the Scimitar crew was really THAT incompetent that all they could think of to do was shoot at the door? They couldn't get some kind of explosive or special equipment to force the door open? And Picard - badass though he may be - is not THAT badass; he held off like thirty of them while Data was trying to open said door. The space battle, of course, was deflated by the idiocy of the Scimitar, and the boarding party fight scene on the Ent-E was deflated by just being... boring. They encounter each other in the hall, and shoot at each other a lot, and Worf dives on the floor. It was just very straightforward and almost mundane, if a combat scene can be that. Riker's drawn out fight against the Viceroy was actually kind of cool... until it ended with him kicking the dude into a huge Star Wars style bottomless chasm. This chasm apparently had artificial gravity running within it, and despite the fact that they were on deck 29 (of a ship that had 24 decks in a previous movie), appeared to extend down for QUITE a long way. Meh. To each their own, but I still don't see this. The performances by the main cast, and the level of energy in those performances, are not one of NEM's (myriad) problems if you ask me.
I've heard mixed things from the cast on both Baird and the script. I certainly didn't think much of either myself, but it doesn't seem like they all just hated every minute of it. Didn't get a "depressed" vibe from anyone, either.
I do think Star Trek: Nemesis and Star Trek 2009 have a lot more in common than most people want to admit.
The absolute worst performance this group ever gave. Made Encounter at Farpoint look worthy of an Emmy.
I was thinking along the same lines as the Iconian Gateways, which I think were an awesome concept that was unexplored in the Trek universe. However, you are completely correct, this would have involved the Romulans greatly as they also wanted the technology for themselves, and would put up a good fight with the Federation for control to it. So it would have made an excellent starting point to give us that "TNG Romulan movie" we were promised for the longest time.
I'm just not a fan of character deaths in movies. I find it's too arrogant, like trying to give a story this sense of self importance. I watch movies to be entertained. Movies that end in defeat do not entertain me. Movies that have the main character die, I would usually consider them defeats, even if they were victories (Terminator 2 was a defeat to me)
Holy fark, seriously?
I won't say I thought it was their best performance, but yeesh... Clearly we will never agree on this point.
Which is what Nemesis was billed as, but it ended up being this hodgepodge of Remans, Data and Picard doing things that didn't make sense, and some idiot named Shinzon.
*sigh*
The more I think about it, the more I realize how cool a movie about Romulans and Iconian tech could have been. I mentioned in an earlier post that one of the biggest missed opportunities was not using Tomalak and/or Sela. So here's an idea: the plot could revolve around this Iconian tech that has surfaced, with the UFP and two splintered factions within the Romulans all vying for it (Sela could lead the other faction and essentially take a role similar to that of Shinzon, only... not stupid). Eventually, after much drama and some space battles, Sela goes mad trying to possess some crazy powerful Iconian technology, and Tomalak - having played the role of a "I think he's not on our side, but I'm not always sure" character throughout the movie - ends up helping our heroes after it's revealed that the tech presents some huge threat to the survival of both the Federation and the Romulans, and ultimately sacrifices himself to destroy Sela and the tech.
It would have been epic. At least in theory...
Fair enough. Obviously I don't feel the same way about main character death, but on this point we're down to simple personal preference for what we like to see in our sci-fi.
You know, I've been thinking that for a while. They really DO have some amusing commonalities, and in particular, common flaws. In fact... personally, in terms of sheer "plot-holery" (I just made up a word: a combination of the number of plot holes and magnitude of said holes aggregated into some kind of net value... of fail), I don't even think STXI pulls ahead of NEM. They are both littered with lapses in logic. XI is just more well-executed in many other ways; it's still a damn FUN dumb movie, whereas Nemesis is not.
I do think Star Trek: Nemesis and Star Trek 2009 have a lot more in common than most people want to admit.
Still disagree on the music being in any way "barbaric" or "tribal", though.
Music is only hokey-barbaric right at the start after the credits. Which would make sense in a cheesy way if we were going to the Remus mines, but we go to the classy Romulan Senate. Much of the music is fine after that.
2. and aNOTHer thing re Baird: he didn't like the color scheme of LCARS panels, so he changed 'em!? More blue, less tan, he says. Direct the movie, don't mess with things that are bigger than you, buddy.
3. Who wrote it? I'm too lazy to go fire it up and look. Yeesh.
4. I don't find either deth scene depressing. The Data one is just so blase. Spock gets a great dying scene, Kirk is heartbroken, slumps to the ground, etc. In NEM, we get a cheesy countdown, five, four, three, two . . . phaser shot . . . BOOM. Gone.
5. WHY is there hope/"blue skies" at the end? Data's dead with a treacherous moron in his place. Even one dialog scene could have implanted in our minds why Picard has reason(s) to feel truly optimistic let's-go-explor-ey.
6. Other people have mentioned this, but Picard as action-hero. Why? And not just in THIS flick. In TNG he usually just stands and lectures, right? Seriously, little old Shakespearean actor swinging a Rambo-like automatic weapon. Doesn't come off that well imho.
7. But I like INS, flawed as IT is . . .
2. and aNOTHer thing re Baird: he didn't like the color scheme of LCARS panels, so he changed 'em!? More blue, less tan, he says. Direct the movie, don't mess with things that are bigger than you, buddy.
3. Who wrote it? I'm too lazy to go fire it up and look. Yeesh.
4. I don't find either deth scene depressing. The Data one is just so blase. Spock gets a great dying scene, Kirk is heartbroken, slumps to the ground, etc. In NEM, we get a cheesy countdown, five, four, three, two . . . phaser shot . . . BOOM. Gone.
5. WHY is there hope/"blue skies" at the end? Data's dead with a treacherous moron in his place. Even one dialog scene could have implanted in our minds why Picard has reason(s) to feel truly optimistic let's-go-explor-ey.
6. Other people have mentioned this, but Picard as action-hero. Why? And not just in THIS flick. In TNG he usually just stands and lectures, right? Seriously, little old Shakespearean actor swinging a Rambo-like automatic weapon. Doesn't come off that well imho.
7. But I like INS, flawed as IT is . . .
It's occurred to me too -- Star Trek '09 is actually a lot like Nemesis done right. Except it's an origin story rather than a finale. Well, they're quite similar anyway.
I do think Star Trek: Nemesis and Star Trek 2009 have a lot more in common than most people want to admit.
Harve Bennet and Jack B. Sowards, with some truly horrendous script doctoring by John Logan.
I couldn't help but notice the similarities when I first saw the 2009 movie. "Star Trek" was a weird experience. For the first half of it, I was getting really excited, thinking this seriously has a shot of emerging as the best Star Trek movie yet by the end. It was at the moment when Nero explained to Christopher Pike why he was doing what he was doing that those hopes died. I honestly thought to myself, "Really? THIS SHIT AGAIN? Have they learned NOTHING from 'Star Trek: Nemesis'?".
Nero was so much like Shinzon, it was a shock and a crushing disappointment. Another villain with a completely contrived back story trying to force on him some unconvincing motivation for a grudge against one of the main cast members. Nero & Spock = Picard & Shinzon. The main cast in "Star Trek" was great, but Nero's hatred of Spock and his red matter evil scheme reeks of a "Star Trek: Nemesis" retread.
I never really thought about it until you said it but it is amazing how similar the two movies are right down to the villians both being Romulan (or a Romulan made clone), bald, and they both had the Preator's staff. The only good thing Trek09 had going for it were no clones unless you take into account Prime old Spock and Alternate universe young Spock.
As I said in another post it should have been Lore instead of B4 and maybe Sela instead of Shinzon. Sela would have more reason to attack Earth since she is half human and thinks of her human mother as weak. As for Trek09 the alternate universe angle kind of removes any sense of danger since whatever they do like destroying Vulcan doesn't mean anything since the prime universe is still out there.
As I said in another post it should have been Lore instead of B4 and maybe Sela instead of Shinzon. Sela would have more reason to attack Earth since she is half human and thinks of her human mother as weak. As for Trek09 the alternate universe angle kind of removes any sense of danger since whatever they do like destroying Vulcan doesn't mean anything since the prime universe is still out there.
wow. that's eerie. That's very similar to the experience I had and where I thought Trek XI's story went off the rails.
Right on. Well you know what they say...great minds think alike! 
It still amazes me that people bash Stuart Baird, but don't assign as much blame to John Logan. His script was just awful. Baird may have left out a lot of stuff, but it doesn't change the fact that what he had to work with was just crap. John Logan, proof that you should never let a fanboy write a Star Trek movie.
Similar threads
