Why Is Nemesis Unpopular?

[Amaris]

The apparent ignoring of previous facts by the writers (Where's Lwaxana, why's worf in uniform, what's Wesley doing,) was fixed in the books, which is great, but should have been in the film.

Ive not read those books, how do they explain it?

Spoiler: Spoilers for "A Time To..." novels

I don't remember why Lwaxana wasn't there. Worf decides after a string of events (including a terrorist attack on the Federation embassy on the Klingon Homeworld) that he isn't fit for the role of ambassador, resigns, nominates Alexander to take his place, and gets reinstated in Starfleet. He's supposed to be Riker's first officer on the Titan, but after the events of Nemesis, Picard asks him to stay. As for Wesley, he's still a Traveler, but he shows up to the wedding naked (thinking that this is the Betazoid wedding), so Picard has them beam down some random guy's dress uniform. Most of this comes from the TNG "A Time To..." series, which I can pretty highly recommend.

Yes! I just finished reading the "A Time To..." series for the first time, and I loved it. Also, I read these long after I've read the Titan series, which is why I'm reading the Titan series again so that it makes more sense.

 

[Mr Light]

Shinzon wanted to destroy Earth in order to defeat the Federation, which is the campaign promise he made to the Romulan military in order to overthrow the Senate.

I never understood why blowing up Earth is supposed to cripple an alliance of thousands of worlds, personally

 

[Maurice]

I think someone mentioned it on the first page, but here's The Facer's annotated Nemesis screenplay, which I found lurking in a dark corner of my hard drive.

download PDF

That "annotation" is juveline tripe worse than the screenplay it flaccidly attempts to skewer. I didn't bother beyond script page 1.

 

[sonak]

2. How "Trek" would it have been if Picard were fighting Shinzon to save Romulus? Stopping the genocide of their sworn enemy by risking their lives. That risk, in the end, brings peace between two worlds. Beautiful.

But no one would've cared. That is the problem with Trek movies, people want to see Earth in danger not some fictional place they've never heard of before.

exhibit A Insurrection

Even taking away the dilemma, and making it a straight "save the Baku!" movie the audience is left with "WTF are the Baku and why do we care about a group we've never seen before and won't see again?"

 

[JarodRussell]

2. How "Trek" would it have been if Picard were fighting Shinzon to save Romulus? Stopping the genocide of their sworn enemy by risking their lives. That risk, in the end, brings peace between two worlds. Beautiful.

But no one would've cared. That is the problem with Trek movies, people want to see Earth in danger not some fictional place they've never heard of before.

exhibit A Insurrection

Even taking away the dilemma, and making it a straight "save the Baku!" movie the audience is left with "WTF are the Baku and why do we care about a group we've never seen before and won't see again?"

Why did people care about the Na'vi?

Was Earth in danger in TWOK? Or TSFS?

When was Earth in danger in Star Wars?

Is Middle-Earth really enough Earth so that people suddenly care?

 

[The Old Mixer]

But no one would've cared. That is the problem with Trek movies, people want to see Earth in danger not some fictional place they've never heard of before.

Judging by the box office, nobody cared anyway. They would have had nothing to lose if they'd taken the no-Earth approach.

 

[Dale Sams]

Is there anything in this movie that's more out-of-the-blue than Shinzon's decision to destroy Earth?

Apparently it's a tradition going by ST (2009)

 

[gottacook]

Well, this is the dilemma, isn't it? You try to make a movie that's not about a threat to Earth, and you end up with the who-cares-about-these-people? aspect of Insurrection. You do threaten Earth, and diminishing returns are the result: Nemesis, AbramsTrek 1, AbramsTrek 2 (or perhaps all three are equally bad, storywise).

Those three all have villains. But the non-villain threat to Earth plot has already been done twice (TMP and Voyage Home).

I'm just tired of threat-to-Earth stories, and if that means no more Trek feature films I'd want to see, then so be it.

 

[USS Triumphant]

I think the Romulans are probably well enough known by the general public for people to have had a sense of empathy for their homeworld being in danger. Moreso than the boring Baku, anyway.

 

[arch101]

Nemesis is yet another example of why you don't let the actors get involved in writing and producing, no matter how much they threaten to walk out. At least the Abrams films are capable of being "Big 3" centric while still giving the rest of the ensemble cast plenty of good scenes, proving that it CAN be done.
I read the leaked Nemesis script, as many folks here did, and feared for the worst if it was real. I went in hoping to be surprised and was probably more surprised at the fact that the film was EXACTLY made to the leaked script. Nemesis and TFF remain the only Trek films I've seen only once in the theatre. Too many scenes seemed contrived for some kind of never produced video game. The dumb 4X4 chase and the fighter in the maze-like corridors come to mind.
On the bright side, I did think the starship battle at the films end was pretty good. I thought the idea of an Enterprise captain shocking and surprising by ramming another ship was quite novel. And, of course, Jerry Goldsmith didn't disappoint (he never has)

 

[Nebusj]

Well, this is the dilemma, isn't it? You try to make a movie that's not about a threat to Earth, and you end up with the who-cares-about-these-people? aspect of Insurrection.

To be fair, it was hard to care about the Baku not because they weren't from Earth, but because they were desperately boring people.

 

[gottacook]

To be fair, it was hard to care about the Baku not because they weren't from Earth, but because they were desperately boring people.

Well, yes, true. With or without the apostrophe.

This does pertain to Nemesis in that if Frakes' second feature had done as well as his first - if he'd been given a decent script to begin with - he might have gotten a third chance to direct, and it might have come earlier than 2002; Nemesis might not ever have existed as such.

Sure, Goldsmith's contribution to these late TNG movies was worthwhile; he was the sort of pro who does some of his best work in response to a downright bizarre story (see also: Planet of the Apes); likewise George Duning and his music for "The Empath" and "Is There in Truth No Beauty?" (written almost simultaneously).

 

[The Transformed Man]

Nemesis is yet another example of why you don't let the actors get involved in writing and producing, no matter how much they threaten to walk out. At least the Abrams films are capable of being "Big 3" centric while still giving the rest of the ensemble cast plenty of good scenes, proving that it CAN be done.
I read the leaked Nemesis script, as many folks here did, and feared for the worst if it was real. I went in hoping to be surprised and was probably more surprised at the fact that the film was EXACTLY made to the leaked script. Nemesis and TFF remain the only Trek films I've seen only once in the theatre. Too many scenes seemed contrived for some kind of never produced video game. The dumb 4X4 chase and the fighter in the maze-like corridors come to mind.
On the bright side, I did think the starship battle at the films end was pretty good. I thought the idea of an Enterprise captain shocking and surprising by ramming another ship was quite novel. And, of course, Jerry Goldsmith didn't disappoint (he never has)

DING DING DING!!! We have a winner!

As much as the actors have groused that director Stuart Baird didn't "get" Star Trek, the reality is most of Nemesis' problems rest squarely at the feet of the script and story which were developed by Spiner with later script revisions/suggestions handed down by Patrick Stewart. Baird wasn't the issue at all, and relatively speaking Nemesis was one of the better looking Trek films and had a great pace (which shouldn't be surprising since Baird began in Hollywood as an editor).

The story/script problems could likely have been addressed with a rewrite.


Yancy

 

[Dale Sams]

Well if Baird cut the film then he is part of the problem. See: Youtube cut of Nemesis.

 

[arch101]

I think Baird has returned to full-time editing, where his talent really is (see: Skyfall)
Addendum to my post: Whomever figured out to put the main bridge set on a gimbal should be given a Nobel Prize. Action scenes on that set were much more realistic than in any previous Trek production (and made the possibility of Uhura falling "up" impossible)

 

[Lance]

Well, this is the dilemma, isn't it? You try to make a movie that's not about a threat to Earth, and you end up with the who-cares-about-these-people? aspect of Insurrection. You do threaten Earth, and diminishing returns are the result: Nemesis, AbramsTrek 1, AbramsTrek 2 (or perhaps all three are equally bad, storywise).

Those three all have villains. But the non-villain threat to Earth plot has already been done twice (TMP and Voyage Home).

I'm just tired of threat-to-Earth stories, and if that means no more Trek feature films I'd want to see, then so be it.

This is one area where I think the movies created 'format decay'. A little theory of mine...

The original Star Trek Writer's Guide from the 1960's stipulated quite clearly, and I quote:

What is Earth like in STAR TREK'S CENTURY?

For one thing, we'll never take a story back there and therefore don't expect to get into subjects which would create great problems, technical or otherwise.

Gene Roddenberry's feeling about Star Trek, as a format, is that the Enterprise exists in an autonomous zone, far away from 'central command' back at Earth. The Star Trek format is about exploring the strange and wonderful "out there" of space. The Star Trek format was not intended to use Earth as some kind of central base from which the Enterprise begins and ends every mission, as do so many other science fiction franchises.

THE MOTION PICTURE constitutes a breaking of this rule. But it is very much set up to be the exception rather than the norm. Earth is threatened in this story, but the only reason that Earth is even in the story at all is as a means to an end. The Enterprise is newly refit, and what we see here is something we never got to see in TOS: the ship leaving spacedock on her 'first' mission. That alone gives Earth a justification to be the central location of the story and, by extension, for the script to put the Earth (the center of the Federation itself) under threat. Nice dramatic premise, even if on paper it isn't necessarily very 'Star Trek'.

The problem begins with subsequent movies. THE WRATH OF KHAN uses a similar modus operandi to TMP, but this time because the Enterprise is 'attached' to Starfleet Academy, ergo a Earth-bound ship. Besides, it borrows from TMP the conceit of Admiral Kirk as a desk jockey at Starfleet Command, so by necessity an Earth setting was required.

But each subsequent movie, Earth is the starting point, a fixed location in the Enterprise's mission. She returns 'home' in THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK, a new Enterprise is relaunched in THE VOYAGE HOME, and our crew are recalled from Earth in both THE FINAL FRONTIER and THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY. On many of these occasions, by dramatic necessity Earth and it's surrounds are central locations, and on two of them Earth itself is directly threatened.

The movies basically took Star Trek into a different zone of storytelling. One fixed upon Earth. Now, I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but it was clearly a contradiction of the original Star Trek format. A justified contradiction in it's way. But by 2002, when NEMESIS was being made, I think "Earth is threatened" is just accepted as something Star Trek movies 'do'. Certainly the modern JJverse movies have done nothing to dispell the cliche.

 

[2takesfrakes]

I suspect that the movies insist on bringing Earth back into the mix, because they are trying to appeal to everyone, not just fanboys. And having Earth in it, or being threatened in it, offers something relatable and definitely worth caring about. I don't know why this attitude exists, I think even Joe the Plumber can wrap his mind around the concept of aliens and other worlds and could even be moved to care about them, without this over-reliance on recognizable touchstones in each picture.

 

[milojthatch]

I wish that Shinzon had been handled differently. In fact, I'll go so far as to say it would have been better had he been a character from the seven year run of the show rather then a character in a bottle for just this film. I realize that the writer had hoped that Shinzon would be Picard's "Kahn," but a big reason why Kahn worked in Star Trek II was because he was original in an episode of the show. There was a history there for both the characters and the audience to build off of.

Dido B4. It would have been better if it had been Lore, who is not dead, but dissembled. What if the Romulans had somehow gotten their hands on Lore and instead of B4, that is who Data and the Enterprise crew face off against? That would have linked better with the show to and I think would have been more intresting to have Data traversed to Lore instead of B4. Is he Data? Is he a good guy now? Or is he Lore and is he going to do bad things? Bring Lore in would have linked the film to the show a lot better as well.

I also think the cast would have done a better job had Frakes been allowed to direct. Baird was in my mind as bad a choice for a Star Trek film as JJ Abrams. I agree there were times the cast looked tired, and somehow I have the feeling that they just didn't have the same good time they normally do together, and much of that is due to the director. I also wish that some of the moral discussions Picard and Data had that were cut for the film had been kept in favor of timing some of the action scenes.

Lastly, I agree that I wish the Romulans had actually been the focus instead of being pushed aside for the Remans. While I wish that the Remans had been established pre-Nemesis either on TNG or DS9, at the very least their focus should have been shifted to second status behind the Romulans.

Now then, after admitting the things I didn't like about the film, there is much I loved about it. I loved the attempt at studying the idea about nature vs. nurture. As "good" as someone like Kirk, Picard, Data, Archer, etc. are, had their lives been different, could any of them become a villain? How easy is it for any of us to do good or bad? I felt there was some great stuff there.

I also enjoyed the wedding and the classic TNG humor found there as well as the cameos. I really wish the Wesley cameo had been saved and wish they had been able to put a few more cameos in there. How awesome would it have been to have O'Brian or Barclay in there? That said, I enjoyed what was saved.

I really enjoyed Dina Meyer and wished we had see more of her.

I also enjoyed seeing the Enterprise-E crew one last time. I'll admit a decade+ ago, I took it for granted. I didn't see it as the last time we saw the TNG crew in action, I honestly thought there would be more. A decade later and well into the JJ-Trek era, I now realize that a very special time period is gone and probably won't make a come back.

As for Data's death, like Kirk's, I was ok with it. For me, it was the completion of the "Data wants to be human" story arc that started all the way back in 1987 with "Encounter at Farpoint." By sacrificing himself for the good of his friends, he finally discovered his humanity. Plus, I agree with Brent Spiner, he could not keep playing Data forever. For an ageless android, he was starting to look old.

The only thing I didn't like about Data's death, just like Kirk's, was HOW he died. In the case of Kirk, I wish his death had been at the hands of a bigger foe with the stakes being more than a planet of the week. Ok, I agree, saving Earth has been done to death, but why not have Kirk die to save Vulcan or Betazed or some other major Federation planet that we care about? Or, dare I say it, maybe he dies saving Qo'NoS? How cool would THAT have been? Kirk dying to save the planet of his greatest enemies? It would have been a better end to the story arc in the TOS films dealing with Kirk's bigotry of Klingons.

As far as Data, why he died didn't bother me so much as how sudden in was. There wasn't really time to morn or prepare like there was for Spock, it just happen *boom*, and then it's done.

I agree that the films (even the JJ-Trek ones) seem really obsessed with Earth. But it's hard I think the write amazing Star Trek as a feature film rather than a tv shows. Both are different kinds of story telling and Star Trek's strengths are really with tv episodes. I think for me, the best Star Trek films are the ones that directly connect to pre-established stories from the tv shows.

Anyway, just my thoughts, one fan to another. Regardless, I enjoy all ten of the original Trek films for what they are: more of the Star Trek I fell in love with!

 

[Mr Light]

When Geordi helps Data jump ship to the Scimitar, did he KNOW Data was going to kill himself?

That's a great idea. "B4" should have been evil Lore in disguise! That would have been so much better! Then you would have had evil clones of Picard and Data working together! When they discover him he acts stupid and innocent, then halfway through reveals his true colors! And he could have been running the thalaron chamber at the end and Data has to fight him and kill them both!

 

[Relayer1]

Nemesis may not be great, but I enjoyed it, and held up against the dismal Generations and Insurrection, and the hugely over-rated First Contact it does not compare at all badly.