Nemesis

[lurok]

^^ I did love number 5: When beaming aboard an adversary's (highly advanced and extremely well-armed) ship, the away-team should consist of your entire senior officer staff.

I know it's an old trek trope, but it really bugged me in NEM. I could just about buy Troi and Data accompanying Picard (for obvious reasons). Perhaps even Worf at a pinch. But there was no reason for Riker other than to give Frakes something to do OK, you could argue it was a 'diplomatic' mission and no direct threat to Enterprise, but the whole scenario is undercut by preceding tension of 'she's a predator' scene (arguably best in film). You'd think Picard might have said: look there's no real threat Will, but just to be on the safe side...

oy vey

 

[GeneHunt]

I won't defend it, but I'll defend my enjoyment of it. I know it's horribly flawed, yet I still like it.

^ What he said....

 

[M-Red]

NEM had all the elements for a great --even classic --sci-fi adventure and Star Trek film.

But they got in their own way...just too many unnecessary major points in the story.

Get rid of the Remans -- focus on the Romulans in this Romulan movie.

Get rid of any and all clones -- both human and android. B4 was a disaster and the Young-Picard-Clone-overthrows-the-Empire story was hideously overdone.


They wanted a Romulan Julius Caesar/Napolean type....they should have just done it.

 

[M-Red]

That said, at least NEM does at least try to be a great film.


Said it before but...I'm not sure why INS was ever made. I go back and forth on which one bugs me more....maybe NEM because there was so much potential and so much at stake for the TNG saga.

But INS just feels like a glorified 2-parter that doesn't really try to advance the story of our beloved crew. Not anything terrible...just not ambitious or adventuresome for me.

 

[Gojira]

NEM had all the elements for a great --even classic --sci-fi adventure and Star Trek film.

But they got in their own way...just too many unnecessary major points in the story.

Get rid of the Remans -- focus on the Romulans in this Romulan movie.

Get rid of any and all clones -- both human and android. B4 was a disaster and the Young-Picard-Clone-overthrows-the-Empire story was hideously overdone.


They wanted a Romulan Julius Caesar/Napolean type....they should have just done it.

I don't completely hate the movie but I really think you nailed it here. We were promised a Romulan movie but got Remans. I wouldn't have minded the Remans too much except that I didn't like their design.

 

[Tomalak]

That said, at least NEM does at least try to be a great film.

No, it tries to replicate a great film, without offering any really new or interesting ideas. It's Trek-by-numbers, and it feels tired and predictable.

I don't hate the movie, I just don't think it was very good. It was boring more than anything.

 

[BillJ]

That said, at least NEM does at least try to be a great film.

No, it tries to replicate a great film, without offering any really new or interesting ideas. It's Trek-by-numbers, and it feels tired and predictable.

I don't hate the movie, I just don't think it was very good. It was boring more than anything.

Gotta agree.

 

[Salvek]

NEM had all the elements for a great --even classic --sci-fi adventure and Star Trek film.

But they got in their own way...just too many unnecessary major points in the story.

Get rid of the Remans -- focus on the Romulans in this Romulan movie.

Get rid of any and all clones -- both human and android. B4 was a disaster and the Young-Picard-Clone-overthrows-the-Empire story was hideously overdone.


They wanted a Romulan Julius Caesar/Napolean type....they should have just done it.

Fully Agree But Im a Romulan Fan so Bias

 

[Salvek]

Sorry Where is Rape of Tasha Yar stated? A Romulan General took her as a consort in exchange the other survivors of the Enterpise C lived.

Well by definition she didn't do it willingly, it was part of a transaction, to use a very clinical term. You use the phrase "took her", which is key. The fact that she attempted to escape suggests she wasn't in it for love...

I'm sure that if I caught wind that Denise Crosby was going to be in Nemesis, I would've steered clear of the theater.

That makes two of us.

Hi Tomalak

Ok I see what yiour saying about whats implied by her attempting to escape 4 years later-just too little to go on

Can I ask was it Denise Crosby that bad an actress in your opinion?, or is the character of Sela that would drive you away from the film?

 

[BillJ]

Can I ask was it Denise Crosby that bad an actress in your opinion?, or is the character of Sela that would drive you away from the film?

A little from column A, a little from column B.

 

[Tomalak]

^What he said!

 

[ShatnersToupee]

A movie is only as good as its script, which is why John Logan deserves more blame than Stuart Baird for how Nemesis turned out. Yes, Baird directs like an editor and yes, Baird didn't bother to do his homework on Star Trek. But does anyone really think Nemesis would've been much better had Jonathan Frakes directed it? OK, so Frakes would've kept a lot of the character moments in and perhaps dialed back on some of the action. But in the end, Nemesis would still have been a poor remake of TWOK. Insurrection is proof that you can have a good director and still end up with a bad Star Trek movie.

I think people let John Logan off the hook because he's a fan and they're quick to criticize Baird because he wasn't one. But neither were Harve Bennett and Nick Meyer prior to Star Trek II. The difference is that Bennett and Meyer took the time to learn it. What also helped is that Meyer was a good writer and knows how to tell a good story whereas Baird's strength seems to be in action and editing. Bennett and Meyer brought a fresh set of eyes to Star Trek, something that a fan like Logan couldn't. Bryan Singer learned this lesson when he directed Superman Returns. He wasn't a fan of X-Men which allowed him to look at the source material objectively. But when it came to Superman, not only was he a big fan, he was also a fan of Richard Donner's 1978 Superman film. So it's no surprise that he ended up doing a remake. In fact, when asked if he would ever want to direct a Star Trek movie, he said no saying that he was too big a fan and that he'd just end up making TWOK all over again.

Logan, for all his claims about loving TWOK, clearly missed the point. Khan wants revenge on Kirk for what he did to him 15 years prior. But what did Picard do to Shinzon to warrant revenge? Shinzon's motivation is almost as bad as Nero's. Then there's the death of Data. It's there only because Spiner wanted to be killed off whereas in TWOK, Spock's death actually serves the story by furthering the themes of the no-win scenario and the needs of many outweighing the needs of the few. Spock's death even helps bring about character growth for Kirk. After cheating death so many times, he finally realizes there really is such a thing as a no-win scenario. But who grows as a result of Data's death? Lastly, there's the Genesis device. It's a cliche in science-fiction movies that the villain has some doomsday weapon. But in TWOK, it isn't just there for the villain to use. Because it's used to create life, it ties in nicely with the movie's themes of death and old age. So basically, Logan recycled ideas from TWOK without digging deeper to discover their true meaning.

 

[sonak]

That last paragraph of analysis of why TWOK worked where NEM failed was awesome.

 

[Too Much Fun]

Personally, I thought all three were gloriously insightful, but they also make me angry because they show how easily "Star Trek: Nemesis" could have been good if people hadn't made such unbelievably inept errors in judgment during the writing process.

I've never been able to figure out why Bryan Singer did such a bang-up job on "X2" (still the best film adaptation of comic book source material of all time, there I said it ) yet dropped the ball so badly on "Superman Returns". This is the best explanation I've ever read. Kudos to you, sir.

 

[Expo67]

It certainly broke the mold about the even numbered movies being the most successful. Especially since it tried to be TNG version of both The Wrath Of Khan and The Undiscovered Country.

A huge mistake on the parts of John Logan and Rick Berman.

 

[Captrek]

I do find it funny that the only planet he destroys is the only one to develop the technology that can save his world.

I never thought of it that way.

Also, he was resentful toward Picard because by nature of Shinzon being his clone, he felt that he was in his shadow, lacked a strong identity of his own, etc.

A human being, laboring in the mines since childhood, emerges to become Praetor of the Romulan Empire, leader of the Remans, and captain of the biggest badassest warship in the history of the Alpha Quadrant—and he thinks he’s living in Picard’s shadow? Sheesh!

I was stunned in the senate of the most paranoid police state established in trek with the feared Tal Shiar so scary the dominion wanted them taken out first-A senator leaves a blatantly odd device and bingo the romulan senate is gone-hello security?

We’re not talking about a lone wolf terrorist. The coup was, I would assume, a massive conspiracy. Security may have been in on it, or may have been taken out by other conspirators.

 

[GalaxyX]

Logan, for all his claims about loving TWOK, clearly missed the point. Khan wants revenge on Kirk for what he did to him 15 years prior. But what did Picard do to Shinzon to warrant revenge? Shinzon's motivation is almost as bad as Nero's. Then there's the death of Data. It's there only because Spiner wanted to be killed off whereas in TWOK, Spock's death actually serves the story by furthering the themes of the no-win scenario and the needs of many outweighing the needs of the few. Spock's death even helps bring about character growth for Kirk. After cheating death so many times, he finally realizes there really is such a thing as a no-win scenario. But who grows as a result of Data's death? Lastly, there's the Genesis device. It's a cliche in science-fiction movies that the villain has some doomsday weapon. But in TWOK, it isn't just there for the villain to use. Because it's used to create life, it ties in nicely with the movie's themes of death and old age. So basically, Logan recycled ideas from TWOK without digging deeper to discover their true meaning.

Inspired!!! I couldn't have written it better. I do have one thing to add:

Fuck you, Brent Spiner!!

 

[ShatnersToupee]

Also, he was resentful toward Picard because by nature of Shinzon being his clone, he felt that he was in his shadow, lacked a strong identity of his own, etc.

Which ultimately makes him seem silly. A lot of people feel like they're in the shadow of an older sibling. Oh my brother or sister is more successful than me, more popular, better looking, blah blah blah. But no matter how jealous you might be of them, you eventually learn to forge an identity of your own. As for him wanting to destroy the Federation, Logan twists himself into a pretzel trying to rationalize it. But it's obvious why it's there. It's because that's what the fans have come to expect from Star Trek. It's not enough that the ship be in jeopardy. No, you have to raise the stakes. So let's have the Earth or the entire Federation be in danger. But why? How many times do you have to do that before it becomes a cliche?

Personally, I thought all three were gloriously insightful, but they also make me angry because they show how easily "Star Trek: Nemesis" could have been good if people hadn't made such unbelievably inept errors in judgment during the writing process.

Thank you. Nemesis made me appreciate TWOK even more than I had previously. It made me realize just how much Meyer did with his story. It's not just an action movie with a story about revenge. There's so much going on there that you might not pick up on the first viewing.

 

[sonak]

Also, he was resentful toward Picard because by nature of Shinzon being his clone, he felt that he was in his shadow, lacked a strong identity of his own, etc.

Which ultimately makes him seem silly. A lot of people feel like they're in the shadow of an older sibling. Oh my brother or sister is more successful than me, more popular, better looking, blah blah blah. But no matter how jealous you might be of them, you eventually learn to forge an identity of your own. As for him wanting to destroy the Federation, Logan twists himself into a pretzel trying to rationalize it. But it's obvious why it's there. It's because that's what the fans have come to expect from Star Trek. It's not enough that the ship be in jeopardy. No, you have to raise the stakes. So let's have the Earth or the entire Federation be in danger. But why? How many times do you have to do that before it becomes a cliche?

Personally, I thought all three were gloriously insightful, but they also make me angry because they show how easily "Star Trek: Nemesis" could have been good if people hadn't made such unbelievably inept errors in judgment during the writing process.

Thank you. Nemesis made me appreciate TWOK even more than I had previously. It made me realize just how much Meyer did with his story. It's not just an action movie with a story about revenge. There's so much going on there that you might not pick up on the first viewing.

Oh, I agree it's rather silly. Shinzon does come across as rather petulant, immature, and poorly adjusted. They keep trying to drive home the point of Shinzon being a possible "mirror" for Picard and stuff, but it fails. I see so little of Picard in Shinzon and vice versa, that the whole theme is pretty much undermined. They could have just used a random Reman ex-slave who takes over, had the same plot, and it'd have functioned about the same.


I was just defending what I saw as the film's ATTEMPT to give an explanation for Shinzon's "revenge."

 

[Aldo]

I don't know if this was ever more than a rumor, but it still begs the question:

Would the film (as if) have played better if Patrick Stewart played Shinzon as well?