Really? Compared to the average Trek film villain, I thought he did pretty good. Certainly better than the TNG film villains.
I hope for more traditional space battles
- Thread starter Infern0
- Start date
Really? Compared to the average Trek film villain, I thought he did pretty good. Certainly better than the TNG film villains.
I say about the same, in terms of talent. But Bana edges out Hardy because he sold the character better--plus the character had a more believable motivation.
A Vulcan stranger arrives a few seconds too late to save Nero's wife's life. So Nero destroys the USS Kelvin for not knowing where Future Spock is (???), waits 25 years (????), chucks Spock on an ice planet, blows up Vulcan, and then plots to blow up Earth (???????).
WHAT. I DON'T EVEN.
WHAT. I DON'T EVEN.
I didn't find the battles in Star Trek that difficult to follow. However, one can clearly see the difference between the action displayed in Transformers and the one showed in Avatar, for example. One is a convoluted mess that defies comprehension, the other a masterffuly crafted sequence of events that doesn't leave you wondering what the hell just happened... I would rather have action sequences I can follow!
Or does anyone here thinks that James Cameron doesn't how to direct action movies? Or that Avatar had uninteresting action sequences?
Notice both movies were huge financial sucesses, with audiences praising the visual effects. (Btw, this fact flies against the proposed notion that audiences are somehow intelectual...)
I would say JJ stands more or less in the middle. I tend to like his action, though sometimes I do think he exagerates a little. So more Cameron, less Bay, please.
P.S.
I'm a little dismayed at people criticizing DS9's action sequences (and actors!). Unlike the ones from late TNG and most of Voyager (target weapons, shields at 60%, the enemy has been disabled, blablabla boring), they usually were well crafted and, more importantly, had emotion! You cared about what happened. In the end, that's the most important thing.
For example, in Babylon 5, I hardly cared about the battles of the Shadow War. The battles of the Earth Civil War, on the other hand, had me on the edge of the seat. The emotional stakes were much bigger (fighting against your colleagues and friends instead of misterious aliens). But they were presented in similar ways!
If people only care about the "visual intensity" of battle, then I'm afraid I'm even further away from the average moviegoer.
And to conclude, defending the sorry excuse of a villain that Nero is by saying that most villains in other Star Trek movies were like him, doesn't make it better! It just means the difference between the old and the new wasn't that big. Which happens to be my view. Star Trek 09 is neither better nor worse than the previous movies. It's still full of plot holes and nonsensical stuff. Yes, it was directed in a much modern way. Something which I appreciate. But I really do hope the next one has had some thought in its making. The way the battles were displayed is the least of my problems with the last one!
Or does anyone here thinks that James Cameron doesn't how to direct action movies? Or that Avatar had uninteresting action sequences?
Notice both movies were huge financial sucesses, with audiences praising the visual effects. (Btw, this fact flies against the proposed notion that audiences are somehow intelectual...)
I would say JJ stands more or less in the middle. I tend to like his action, though sometimes I do think he exagerates a little. So more Cameron, less Bay, please.
P.S.
I'm a little dismayed at people criticizing DS9's action sequences (and actors!). Unlike the ones from late TNG and most of Voyager (target weapons, shields at 60%, the enemy has been disabled, blablabla boring), they usually were well crafted and, more importantly, had emotion! You cared about what happened. In the end, that's the most important thing.
For example, in Babylon 5, I hardly cared about the battles of the Shadow War. The battles of the Earth Civil War, on the other hand, had me on the edge of the seat. The emotional stakes were much bigger (fighting against your colleagues and friends instead of misterious aliens). But they were presented in similar ways!
If people only care about the "visual intensity" of battle, then I'm afraid I'm even further away from the average moviegoer.
And to conclude, defending the sorry excuse of a villain that Nero is by saying that most villains in other Star Trek movies were like him, doesn't make it better! It just means the difference between the old and the new wasn't that big. Which happens to be my view. Star Trek 09 is neither better nor worse than the previous movies. It's still full of plot holes and nonsensical stuff. Yes, it was directed in a much modern way. Something which I appreciate. But I really do hope the next one has had some thought in its making. The way the battles were displayed is the least of my problems with the last one!
It wasn't just Nero's wife, he lost his whole planet, his whole culture, basically everything but his ship--at least from his POV. Did ya' pay attention to the movie? Cause the motivation for Nero is pretty clear: He's out to 1) Hurt Spock. Not just punish him, but hurt him. 2) Punish Vulcan and the Federation and in doing so (in his mind) save Romulus. He fired on Kelvin before he knew he was in the past--basically just coming out of the blackhole and fired on the first Federation ship he saw, and when he found out that he was in the past he raged and just destroyed the first thing in sight.
He was out for 1/2 revenge and 1/2, in his screwed up way of thinking, doing the right thing. He was motivated by loss, pain, grief, and anger.
Shinzon just came off as a spoiled child that needed a good ass kicking.
Yeah, that's Nero's motivation and actions through the film. Why the question marks? You do understand the idea that tragic events do lead to extreme actions and the desire for revenge directed at the person you feel is responsible.
Rage can make one act in a irrational and rash manner. But after 25 years he should've calmed down.
Nero's actions only make sense if he was batshit crazy. Which is quite possible. His crew, or at least his first officer would have to be insane as well. Also possible, though less likely.
Thing is, crazy villains tend to be uninteresting, at least for me. But then, we have the Joker in TDK. I guess it's all a matter of presentation.
Last edited:
You are not going to suggest he should have used the stun setting are you?
I wonder if whoever made those things even included a stun setting. I mean it kills people in a slow and extremely painful way, so it sounds like something designed for use by evil overlords who want some extra emphasis on why failing them for the last time is bad.
Actually I say Avatar had uninteresting story sequences and was kind of a meh film.
It's a shame they cut the Klingon prison scenes. They explain the 25 year gap quite well.
You are not going to suggest he should have used the stun setting are you?
I wonder if whoever made those things even included a stun setting. I mean it kills people in a slow and extremely painful way, so it sounds like something designed for use by evil overlords who want some extra emphasis on why failing them for the last time is bad.
Actually I say Avatar had uninteresting story sequences and was kind of a meh film.
Note I didn't say story sequences, I said action. The story was quite standard. Of course, you might think that the action was uninteresting as well. James Cameron is considered by many one of the best action directors, but I suppose there are people who aren't impressed with his work.
Would 25 years in a Klingon prison calm you down?
Nero could have just been an asshole. There are plenty on Earth, stands to reason the galaxy is infested with them. I don't think Trek as ever had an asshole as a villain other than that guy in The Voyage Home who let the whales go early.
Saying Nero "should have calmed down" in 25 years... haven't you people looked around at some of the mindless hate on Earth today? Rational, sane people see the error of their ways. Sadly there aren't enough of them on our planet, let alone Romulus.
When I first saw the film, I assumed that Nero had a way to travel through time at will, but with no particular precision as to when he arrives. That would have solved the 25 years problem and would also mean the Klingons don't get 25 years to study all that future tech (while still of course leaving the ship intact and stealable for Nero's escape 
). TBH it's only recently I've learned otherwise. If the actual film explanation (deleted scenes aren't canon IMO) is that he just hung around for 25 years, then I think I prefer my initial assumption.
Still seems weird that he wouldn't try to warn Romulus, though. I suppose the Federation probably will.
But on the issue of destroying the Narada:
There doesn't seem to be any doubt in Kirk's mind that the Narada is utterly boned. Ethically, since we're told the Narada's destruction is certain, I see no significant difference between watching it happen and helping it along. Beaming off other Romulans who may not share Nero's appetite for destruction - well, they'd have to drop their shields, wouldn't they? Sounds risky.
But of course the real reason they pull the trigger is that it's cooler that way. With no ethical barrier, I've no issue with it at all.
). TBH it's only recently I've learned otherwise. If the actual film explanation (deleted scenes aren't canon IMO) is that he just hung around for 25 years, then I think I prefer my initial assumption.Still seems weird that he wouldn't try to warn Romulus, though. I suppose the Federation probably will.
But on the issue of destroying the Narada:
Kirk said:
There doesn't seem to be any doubt in Kirk's mind that the Narada is utterly boned. Ethically, since we're told the Narada's destruction is certain, I see no significant difference between watching it happen and helping it along. Beaming off other Romulans who may not share Nero's appetite for destruction - well, they'd have to drop their shields, wouldn't they? Sounds risky.
But of course the real reason they pull the trigger is that it's cooler that way. With no ethical barrier, I've no issue with it at all.
But unfortunately presents its own set of problems.
"I'm not. No, I'm not."
Yes, I guess Nero "wins" if numbers are our primary concern.
It is not a case of whether the Narada could survive transiting a black hole (though that is itself extremely doubtful in the state we last saw it). It is a question of whether there was a black hole it was in a position to enter, rather than the reverse. Ie. It was the black hole that had entered the Narada, which makes going through it impossible, despite the halo effect (which is notably different to the first one we saw. This one was just a ring around the Narada. An optical effect. The other only showed the part of the Narada that had entered the alt universe, not the part still in the "wormhole").
And as yousirname made clear, Kirk knew the score:
True, someone should have checked on Khan, if only to put warning buoys around the system. But that one always came off as rather unofficial anyway. It says nothing about whether Starfleet followed up on the other occasions where it would be prudent to do so. In both "Taste Of Armageddon" and "The Apple", I think those episodes pretty much implied there would be follow up, though not by Kirk and co.
Of course not, it was effectively war and Kirk wasn’t the aggressor. If you want blood, that would be another "acceptable" way to get it. The most you can get Kirk on is "lying" to an enemy.
Without going case by case I can't agree that's fair. His job often stirred things up but there were usually problems to begin with. I would go as far as to say the "right solution" usually "coincided" with Kirk saving his ship and crew, but in the case of "Taste Of Armageddon" I believe the Enterprise and the bulk of its crew weren’t at risk by the time Kirk made his threat. As I said, he was prepared to sacrifice himself and those of his crew on the planet.
I am not saying Kirk couldn’t make mistakes, but I am not aware of him doing anything reasonably comparable to what nuKirk did.
Your conclusion is remarkably logical, but I think you are getting a little side tracked by the fact Nero and Co are such a nasty bunch of villains. I mean, would it be OK to "help it along" if the people on the Narada were in the same situation but innocent of any crime? I'm thinking not. So there is something a little dodgy about the principle that it is OK to kill someone (especially when at your mercy) if they are going to die soon anyway. Interesting ethical point though.
It's hysterical that people think it's worthwhile to nitpick and critique a movie made four years ago that's completely reinvigorated a dead franchise like Star Trek.
Similar threads
