If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

[matsuiny2004]

What humanistic core? A completely ruined context of once beloved characters? Imposter kirk destroying a sitting duck ship and then patting himself on the back for it? The arrogance of the enterprise crew?

Mind you, TOS had a few somewhat arrogant characterizations from time to time, but they were always augmented with humanistic virtue and the sentiment that 'I am learning something about myself right now, about my brethren, about my species, about other species'.

The 2009 thing contained none of that.

alternate kirk gave Nero a chance to live despite how he felt. Nero refused help and insulted him. So kirk blew him up.

Despite how he felt?

Real kirk would never have felt that way! And this is the point that goes unnoticed. Yes kirk has spoken with distaste for klingons, but he would never destroy a sitting duck space ship if another alternative were available, such as boarding and imprisoning the captain.

Imposter kirk was intended to appeal to action hero fans. That is the only explanation. Real kirk could also appeal to action hero fans, but his actions and reasoning require some participation from the audience, rather than being neurologically numbed by bright, powerful explosions because imposter kirk is just such a 'bad asss' like Brice Willis in the die hard movies, or the terminator, or what have you.

Nero is too dangerous to imprison and Nero is not a helpless sitting duck. He lost a fight that he had the chance to win. There was no viable alternative Nero refused to be taken prisoner. end of story

 

[F. King Daniel]

Nero murdered 6 billion. Kirk Prime (and Chris Pine's is just as "real") never came up against ANYTHING like that - not from anyone accountable (i.e. not the doomsday machine)

 

[trek_futurist]

Star trek IS an established fictional universe with established characteristics,established technology, established time lines, established canon and an established chain of command (another thing the 2009 namesake defecated on. And I feel really bad to anyone who can suspend disbelief in the faceof 'cadet kirk' becoming 'captain kirk' on a training mission, no less).

As such, star trek must adhere to some of these basic established parameters in order to be consider star trek, and not a parody of such or a namesake reboot that bears little similarity to the real thing.

The argument that you cannot write within established parameters is really silly. By that logic we may as well blend the star wars, babylon 5 and star trek universes into one amalgam universe so we don't have to 'adhere to established canon'.

It is the approach of lazy writing and even lazier reasoning.

Since when has any Trek "adhered to established canon"? Take off your nostalgia specs and see Trek canon and continuity for what it is: Broad strokes. This incarnation is no different in that reguard. In fact, there is precent for everything seen in STXI in a prior Trek episode, movie or novel.

There have been continuity errors, but these were usually made by mishap, or were explained in novels (I.E the broader trekverse).

What we're discussing here has a greater magnitude than just continuity mishaps, what we are dealing with is

1-The intentional defecation on canon, unprecedented than in any pre-ENT star trek show (yes, enterprise set the precedent for this intentional abuse of canon) and

2-The intentional abuse of character continuity, behavior traits and basic essentials of what made a character who they were (back to kirk destroying neros ship when it was a sitting duck in space), which was a major part of the trek universe, and a big part of what made it unique and special. Having the characters act no different than any other generic action hero from any number of films condescendingly derides the original essence of them.

Now, call me a trek purist, but I cannot comprehend how someone can be a star trek fan if they deride everything that made it unique and and entity unto itself. That is, the philosophy, the characterization (humans being portrayed as essentially better than they are by todays standards) and, perhaps most importantly, the pursuit of science!

 

[trek_futurist]

Nero murdered 6 billion. Kirk Prime (and Chris Pine's is just as "real") never came up against ANYTHING like that - not from anyone accountable (i.e. not the doomsday machine)

non-sense.

Khan had every intention of killing billions with the genesis device, kirk still did not blow him out of the sky when the reliant was a sitting duck. That is the character of kirk, and the mark of a good starfleet officer who practices the principles espoused by the federation.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

.....Well, quite simply put, you are not a Star trek fan.

Sorry, been a fan since 1966.

My reasoning?

Doesn't matter, as your conclusion is indefensible based on any reality-based premises and/or criteria.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Star trek IS an established fictional universe with established characteristics,established technology, established time lines, established canon and an established chain of command (another thing the 2009 namesake defecated on. And I feel really bad to anyone who can suspend disbelief in the faceof 'cadet kirk' becoming 'captain kirk' on a training mission, no less).

As such, star trek must adhere to some of these basic established parameters in order to be consider star trek, and not a parody of such or a namesake reboot that bears little similarity to the real thing.

The argument that you cannot write within established parameters is really silly. By that logic we may as well blend the star wars, babylon 5 and star trek universes into one amalgam universe so we don't have to 'adhere to established canon'.

It is the approach of lazy writing and even lazier reasoning.

Since when has any Trek "adhered to established canon"? Take off your nostalgia specs and see Trek canon and continuity for what it is: Broad strokes. This incarnation is no different in that reguard. In fact, there is precent for everything seen in STXI in a prior Trek episode, movie or novel.

There have been continuity errors, but these were usually made by mishap, or were explained in novels (I.E the broader trekverse).

What we're discussing here has a greater magnitude than just continuity mishaps, what we are dealing with is

1-The intentional defecation on canon, unprecedented than in any pre-ENT star trek show (yes, enterprise set the precedent for this intentional abuse of canon) and

2-The intentional abuse of character continuity, behavior traits and basic essentials of what made a character who they were (back to kirk destroying neros ship when it was a sitting duck in space), which was a major part of the trek universe, and a big part of what made it unique and special. Having the characters act no different than any other generic action hero from any number of films condescendingly derides the original essence of them.

Now, call me a trek purist, but I cannot comprehend how someone can be a star trek fan if they deride everything that made it unique and and entity unto itself. That is, the philosophy, the characterization (humans being portrayed as essentially better than they are by todays standards) and, perhaps most importantly, the pursuit of science!

I'm afriad *I* can't see how someone can be so judgemental of others and still be a Trek fan.

I gave you my take on the characterizations and morals of the film in a prior post.

And, frankly, you're wrong about the continuity of Trek. Massive and deliberate retcons have been going on for it's entire run -just look at the Klingons in TMP! Look at fundamentally incompatible episodes like "The Q and the Grey" and "True Q" or "The Immunity Syndrome" and "Where Silence has Lease". Galaxy-spanning warp speeds in TOS, TAS, STV, TNG, DS9 and ENT vs the far slower warp speeds in Voyager. Trek's continuity had always been an illusion, albeit a good one.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Nero murdered 6 billion. Kirk Prime (and Chris Pine's is just as "real") never came up against ANYTHING like that - not from anyone accountable (i.e. not the doomsday machine)

non-sense.

Khan had every intention of killing billions with the genesis device, kirk still did not blow him out of the sky when the reliant was a sitting duck. That is the character of kirk, and the mark of a good starfleet officer who practices the principles espoused by the federation.

You mean like when Kirk offered to help Nero and his crew, even over Spock's objections?
What you see as a crime, I see as Kirk ensuring that there was NO CHANCE Nero or any part of his ship could survive to reek havok further in the past. Something he only did AFTER his offer of mercy was rejected.

 

[trek_futurist]

Since when has any Trek "adhered to established canon"? Take off your nostalgia specs and see Trek canon and continuity for what it is: Broad strokes. This incarnation is no different in that reguard. In fact, there is precent for everything seen in STXI in a prior Trek episode, movie or novel.

There have been continuity errors, but these were usually made by mishap, or were explained in novels (I.E the broader trekverse).

What we're discussing here has a greater magnitude than just continuity mishaps, what we are dealing with is

1-The intentional defecation on canon, unprecedented than in any pre-ENT star trek show (yes, enterprise set the precedent for this intentional abuse of canon) and

2-The intentional abuse of character continuity, behavior traits and basic essentials of what made a character who they were (back to kirk destroying neros ship when it was a sitting duck in space), which was a major part of the trek universe, and a big part of what made it unique and special. Having the characters act no different than any other generic action hero from any number of films condescendingly derides the original essence of them.

Now, call me a trek purist, but I cannot comprehend how someone can be a star trek fan if they deride everything that made it unique and and entity unto itself. That is, the philosophy, the characterization (humans being portrayed as essentially better than they are by todays standards) and, perhaps most importantly, the pursuit of science!

I'm afriad *I* can't see how someone can be so judgemental of others and still be a Trek fan.

I gave you my take on the characterizations and morals of the film in a prior post.

And, frankly, you're wrong about the continuity of Trek. Massive and deliberate retcons have been going on for it's entire run -just look at the Klingons in TMP! Look at fundamentally incompatible episodes like "The Q and the Grey" and "True Q" or "The Immunity Syndrome" and "Where Silence has Lease". Galaxy-spanning warp speeds in TOS, TAS, STV, TNG, DS9 and ENT vs the far slower warp speeds in Voyager. Trek's continuity had always been an illusion, albeit a good one.

Those 'galaxy spanning' warp speeds were usually the result of an extraneous source, often resulting in near compromise of structural integrity.

No, most of the blunders between TOS and TNG were either mistakes or lapses in memory on the part of the writers. Nothing that intentionally devours canon as in ENT and the 2009 thing.

 

[trek_futurist]

Nero murdered 6 billion. Kirk Prime (and Chris Pine's is just as "real") never came up against ANYTHING like that - not from anyone accountable (i.e. not the doomsday machine)

non-sense.

Khan had every intention of killing billions with the genesis device, kirk still did not blow him out of the sky when the reliant was a sitting duck. That is the character of kirk, and the mark of a good starfleet officer who practices the principles espoused by the federation.

You mean like when Kirk offered to help Nero and his crew, even over Spock's objections?
What you see as a crime, I see as Kirk ensuring that there was NO CHANCE Nero or any part of his ship could survive to reek havok further in the past. Something he only did AFTER his offer of mercy was rejected.

That logic is silly. Mercy was 'rejected'? Real kirk would have taken him prisoner and seen that justice was met without destroying his sitting duck vessel like a coward. Regardless of whether his 'mercy was rejected'. And by the way, I find imposter kirks 'mercy' quite condescending and arrogant in those final moments.

My take is that the writers were trying to appeal to people who think it's okay to destroy other people in times of war, that some 'gung ho' behavior is acceptable. This more closely resembles todays awful political climate when it comes to moral acts in times of war. It's sickening.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I'm afraid, if you can't even acknowledge Trek's endless parade of rewrites and retcons ( Gene Rodenberry himself had admitted he's a revisionist), I've got nothing else to say

 

[Greg Cox]

.....Well, quite simply put, you are not a Star trek fan.QUOTE]

Okay, I don't have time to defend the new movie for the umpteenth time, but, sorry, you don't get to tell me I'm not a Star Trek fan because I don't agree with you. I've been watching the show since its original run on NBC, I have driven hundreds or miles, or stood in line in the pouring rain, to see each new movie on opening night, I've been spent much of my adult life being a professional Trekkie, have spent countless hours discussing Trek with my fannish friends and associates, have developed lifelong friendships through Trek fandom, spent way too many hours attending Trek conventions all over the country, etc.

Nothing personal, 'cause you're hardly the only person who does this, but can we please declare a moratorium on the "You're not a real Trek fan if . . . ." bullshit. Nobody gets to rule on who is really a fan--and I'll put my Trekkie credentials up against anyone.

(To be fair, it's not just Trekkies who do this. I've run into the same schtick on comic-book message boards. "You're not a real Superman fan if you like SMALLVILLE" or whatever.)

To be honest, I'm not quite sure why it seems so important to some people to establish who the real fans are . . .

Star trek IS an established fictional universe with established characteristics, established technology, established time lines, established canon and an established chain of command (another thing the 2009 namesake defecated on. And I feel really bad to anyone who can suspend disbelief in the face of 'cadet kirk' becoming 'captain kirk' on a training mission, no less).

As such, star trek must adhere to some of these basic established parameters in order to be consider star trek, and not a parody of such or a namesake reboot that bears little similarity to the real thing.

The argument that you cannot write within established parameters is really silly. By that logic we may as well blend the star wars, babylon 5 and star trek universes into one amalgam universe so we don't have to 'adhere to established canon'.

It is the approach of lazy writing and even lazier reasoning.

Er, where did I say that one could not write within the established parameters? Or that Babylon-5, Star Trek, and Star Wars are all one and the same?

I was just objecting to the tendency on the part of some fans to declare themselves the sole arbiters of what constitutes a Star Trek fan (or a Batman fan or a Buffy fan)--and to insist that anyone who disagrees with them is not really a fan. Because, of course, only they understand what Star Trek is really all about . . . .

Please. Enough with the more-Trekkie-than-thou attitude. People can like the reboot, and prefer it to NEMESIS, without being clueless, heretics, or traitors to the cause.

 

[Alrik]

Sorry, huge Trek fan since '72. Loved STAR TREK (09). Not taking the bait.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Sorry, huge Trek fan since '72. Loved STAR TREK (09).

Sorry. You're not a Trek fan.

We decided it via committee.

Didn't you get the memo?

 

[trek_futurist]

Not taking the bait.

But you already have, as evidenced by...

loved STAR TREK (09).

 

[Greg Cox]

Perhaps we should set up some sort of McCarthy hearings?

"Have you or have you ever been a fan of the imposter Kirk?"

Something has to be done about all those imposter "Trekkies" posing as Star Trek fans even though they liked the new movie!

 

[BillJ]

Nero murdered 6 billion. Kirk Prime (and Chris Pine's is just as "real") never came up against ANYTHING like that - not from anyone accountable (i.e. not the doomsday machine)

non-sense.

Khan had every intention of killing billions with the genesis device, kirk still did not blow him out of the sky when the reliant was a sitting duck. That is the character of kirk, and the mark of a good starfleet officer who practices the principles espoused by the federation.

I'm lukewarm to Star Trek 2009 but Nemesis is fecal matter to be perfectly honest.

We have no idea what Khan planned to do with the Genesis device. And comparing the Kirk's really doesn't cut it, we have no idea what Prime Kirk would have done with Nero. We have no idea because the situations are different, Reliant was trashed and not sitting on a possible escape route when Kirk's help was refused. Khan had not just committed genocide and had not killed Kirk's father.

If you can't see that Kirk made the right decision in regards to Nero then you're just allowing your dislike of the movie to override your common sense.

 

[Alrik]

Sorry, huge Trek fan since '72. Loved STAR TREK (09).

Sorry. You're not a Trek fan.

We decided it via committee.

Didn't you get the memo?

Aw man! Completely missed the memo. Does that mean I have to turn in my comm badge, decoder ring and Sirtis nude pics too??!! I never get to have any fun.

 

[Greg Cox]

Sorry, huge Trek fan since '72. Loved STAR TREK (09).

Sorry. You're not a Trek fan.

We decided it via committee.

Didn't you get the memo?

Aw man! Completely missed the memo. Does that mean I have to turn in my comm badge, decoder ring and Sirtis nude pics too??!! I never get to have any fun.

And don't try to show your face at a convention again. The bouncers have been given your name and photo!

We can't have you deluded nuTrek lovers rubbing shoulders with real Trekkies . . . .

 

[Satyrquaze]

.....Well, quite simply put, you are not a Star trek fan.

My reasoning?

Nemesis at least contains humanistic scenes, as the one in the Romulan counsel chamber, between Picard and Shinzon.

The 2009 travesty contains no humanistic scenes at all, only an exaggerated 'slap stick' humor that was poorly executed, a completely out of context characterization of the crew, not to mention the out of context behavior of spock, kirk and scotty. I was not convinced these people were any of the above characters, at all. Not because I am familiar with the other actors portraying them more, but because these actors did not resonate a damned iota of the essence of these characters. You can use the alternate universe argument to justify this ad infinitum, but I still think they are horrible. Kirk ordering the destruction of the ship at the end was not only completely out of context for the kirk character but unnecessary, unneeded and quite simply stupid (considerations of the romulan ship possessing more advanced future technology aside. But that is also pretty absurd.)

Nemesis at least has scientific language in it, one of the things that star trek has been known for since day one. The original series had plenty of scientific references of the era, some of the terminology of which may have become out of date, but the majority of which still holds up pretty well by our knowledge today. The next generation obviously expanded on this, to the degree of including quantum dynamics and a lot of theoretical language in a lot of its techno-babble. Say what you want about 'techno babble' but it has always been a part of the star trek universe, more or less. Science in general has always been a part of star trek, and science was sorely lacking in the 2009 film. At least Nemesis had a little scientific output, theoretical or otherwise (sorry but 'red matter' does not count, since there is absolutely no explanation of what this is, or even a hint of how it functions in the 2009 movie=lazy writing).

And finally, the acting.

Sorry, but anyone who thinks the acting in the 2009 film is up to par with any previous trek (with the exception of 'enterprise' maybe. And yes I include even all the 'shatnerisms' of TOS) I would say they are sadly out of touch with reality. When I watched the 2009 film I could not suspend disbelief if someone paid me to. The acting was that sub-par in my honest observation.

That said, as an actual trekkie, and someone who likes star trek for what it is (that is the philosophical and scientific language of it, not for superficial reasons like space explosions and battles, which serve their purpose, but are not the real impetus of star trek) I must say that I find Nemesis much more in line with what star trek means than the thing they call 'star trek 2009', which in my observation bears resemblance in name and costume only to the truth of what star trek is about.

Okay, rant away now....

I’m a bit dumbfounded how you can (rather smugly) say you appreciate Star Trek for its philosophical merits, one of the primary being “Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations”; yet, in your very first statement in your original post you pointedly make an attempt to alienate anyone who disagrees with your point of view by saying they are not Star Trek fans. This, I think is the true intended goal of your post.

Your original post is divisive, judgmental, hostile, close-minded, and condescending. If this is what Star Trek represents to a “true” fan, I want nothing to do with it.

 

[horatio83]

)
In my opinion everything about ST09 except for the script is top notch

Yea, everything but the actual substance of it, or should I say, lack thereof, it is really good.

As far as the acting in nemesis goes, I find it far superior to that of the 2009 thing. And stewart and company were not even making the best effort. But Tom hardy alone could act circles around anyone on the 2009 film. And he does so in Nemesis.

Yep, FluffyTrek lacks substance and I fear potential long-run damage, that the folks who are currently at the helm redefine what Trek is.

Yet a movie is not merely constituteD of ideas, concepts and themes (unless it is a sleeping pill called TMP). In my eyes ST09 is a stupid summer blockbuster and a mediocre Trek movie. There have been better and there have been worse ... like the one in which Picard drives a buggy. Talking about violating a character, there you have it.

As Jeyl has pointed out, ST09 is to some degree as remake of NEM, just with better acting, effects and overall production.