A couple of First Contact criticisms.
- Thread starter Gojira
- Start date
For you, it isn't. For me, it is. It's subjective. Convincing has nothing to do with it. No story works for everybody.
So how about that First Contact, huh?
So how about that First Contact, huh?
I'll say one more thing on the matter - it would have been much better if Shinzon's plan was to wipe out Romulus, not Earth, and Picard felt a moral obligation to stop him. Shinzon would feel he's doing the right thing from his skewed point of view, and expected to impress Picard and win his allegiance - and when Picard not only disagrees but moves to stop him, the similarities vs. differences in their upbringing could be better analyzed...
That still doesn't make much sense. For some reason Shinzon became the Praetor of the Empire (I'm not sure how that works, but whatever - the story told me that's how it works, I'll just roll with it). Why would he then decide to wipe out the planet? And why would he invite someone who would more than likely try to stop him? Again, Shinzon's character and motivations are so poorly thought out that it's hard to make any sense of them.
I do think your approach would have been the better one, Anti, and would have definitely allowed for a bit more character difference exploration, but I think the basic construction of this movie is still so flawed that not much could have saved it.
I do think your approach would have been the better one, Anti, and would have definitely allowed for a bit more character difference exploration, but I think the basic construction of this movie is still so flawed that not much could have saved it.
The same way any conquest works. Shinzon won the respect of the Romulan military due to his phenomenal combat record in the Dominion War. He won the support of an expansionist faction within the military, a faction that resented the sitting government's policy of detente with the Federation. By manipulating that military faction, he convinced them to help him assassinate the Praetor and the Senate and take their place. As the mastermind of the revolution, he naturally ended up the leader of the new state. The Romulan military probably saw him as a means to an end, a figurehead they could control while taking advantage of his charisma as a leader (since, after all, he is genetically Jean-Luc Picard). But he in turn was using them, making them false promises to back their revanchist policies when he actually had a more personal agenda.
Well, I was thinking that he would do so out of a motivation of revenge for how the Romulans treated the Remans; and that he would invite Picard because he expected that his (notably successful) identical-flesh-and-blood would understand him or join him. Maybe he would be seeking some sort of personal validation by trying to win his clone-ee's approval; a child trying to impress his father, but in the end, the father has to spank the child.
Really, though, I was just casting out ideas in an attempt to describe how one could salvage a fundamentally flawed premise. It isn't worth it, in the end.
No, I get what you were going for - and again, it's much smarter than anything that was shown in the film - I even see where the Picard invitation would make some sort of sense in your scenario - or at least it would work better in my opinion. I also would have completely dropped the Data/B4 subplot to increase the focus more on the Picard plot.
But ultimately, you're right - the film really is just so basically flawed that it's hardly worth trying to figure out how to make it work.
But ultimately, you're right - the film really is just so basically flawed that it's hardly worth trying to figure out how to make it work.
Yeah, me too. It didn't really connect with anything else in the narrative. I think it was an attempt to (further) crib the plot from TWOK - B4 was a mechanism to mirror the Spock Katra thing.
Well, it was a parallel with the Picard/Shinzon plot. The commercial realities of TNG movies required that Picard and Data be the stars of the film -- and Brent Spiner contributed aspects of the film's story (and I believe he brought John Logan in to write it). So the idea was to have two parallel plotlines, both Picard and Data dealing with their mirror images. Thematically, the plotlines paralleled each other because neither Shinzon nor B-4 was capable of the growth and self-improvement that Picard and Data had embraced. The "mirror image" theme was played up heavily in the promotions for the film. Even the main title design, err, reflects the mirroring theme, what with the two mirror-image "E"s and such.
As for the "Spock katra thing," that was an afterthought. Spiner wanted Data to be dead and gone, period. He was getting too old to keep playing an immortal android and he wanted to put an end to it. If anything, the film goes to considerable lengths to establish that B-4 can't become another Data, that he's too intrinsically limited and flawed a prototype. However, the studio wanted to hedge their bets. If the film was a huge hit and there was a clamor for another TNG film, they didn't want to close the door to bringing back the second-most popular character. So they insisted that B-4 should show some sign of possibly retaining Data's knowledge/memories, as a back door for bringing Data back just in case the opportunity arose.
For that matter, when they made TWOK and inserted the "Remember" mindmeld and the intact torpedo tube, they didn't actually have the already-formed intention of bringing back Spock in the next movie. Nimoy hadn't decided to come back yet. Those were just introduced to make the ending a little less dark, to give the audience a ray of hope so they wouldn't be too depressed leaving the theater. It wasn't until afterward, when Nimoy agreed to return in exchange for a directing gig, that they took that vague ray of hope and turned it into an actual plan for resurrecting Spock.
The problem is that Star Trek no more does subtext than it does irony - they're not in the DNA. When the characters are required to talk endlessly, ruminate and take one another's emotional temperature regarding every thought, action and implication of events - in other words, in a typical Star Trek story - subtext is just bludgeoned to death.
Again, TWOK is something of an exception to this - it was put together, of course, by producers and writers who hadn't done Trek before and were bringing experiences elsewhere in TV and movies to the table.
Wonder what modern Trek would have been like if producers other than those who'd created the original series had done TNG?
You mean like Rick Berman, who was brought in by Roddenberry because he was younger than the rest of the team and had no knowledge of Star Trek?
Nope - he was a Roddenberry hire, brought on to a show being created and run by long-time Trek folks. Try again. Try going a little bit off of the reservation, you know? Roddenberry had very little to say (basically, nothing) about how TWOK was made - and obviously, no input into the most successful version of Trek, Abrams's movie.
It would have been fun if people with the kind of imagination and attitudes that went into the creation of Farscape had done Trek.
It would have been fun if people with the kind of imagination and attitudes that went into the creation of Farscape had done Trek.
I think it's sort of strange that you're holding up TWOK of all the movies, pretty much a straight action blockbuster with a cardboard, one-dimensional villain who quotes Moby Dick and says "I will chase Kirk around the rings of Saturn!" as a model of subtext.
While I enjoy TWOK, it's not exactly the most TOS-esque of the movies, and it's pretty much lacking in subtext.
I mean the themes are pretty much spelled out with Kirk referring to how old he is and feels throughout the film, AND we have David Marcus come out and say "you've never faced death before." (not true for Kirk anyway, but what the heck, right?)
And I'm amused by the constant mockery of Shinzon's motivations, which are positively Shakesperean compared to the AWFUL motivations of Nero in Trek XI.
Again, we overlook flaws in films we like and obsess about ones in films we don't.
I think he's probably holding it up as a better film mainly because it's a better film. It was just a smarter movie all together. It was about getting older, seeing things change, realizing you're older than Playboy centerfolds and NFL quarterbacks, and trying to figure out your place amongst that change and learning to deal with those changes. It was ultimately a more human message than anything Emesis had to say and it managed to say it with much more skill and finesse.
You're very hung up on comparing and bashing Trek XI. See, no one has said that Nero had great motivations in Trek XI. Sure, they made a little more sense than Shinzon's did, but they were still largely nonsense. Here's a simplified breakdown.
Shinzon: Human boy chucked into a Reman mine to die. Remans take to him and raise him. Somehow he gets a supership (that I'm pretty sure my friends and I designed when we were in the 3rd grade) and assassinates all the Romulan senators and takes over as Praetor to free the Reman people. Then decides he wants to wipe out Earth with his insta-kill-radiation-machine.
Nero: Romulan miner who for some reason has a supership (based on my superior 5th grade designs) who got sucked back in time after Spock stopped the supernova, but failed to do so in time to save Romulus and Nero's wife. Nero goes batshit and blames Spock for not saving his wife. Decides to blow up Vulcan and make Spock watch in a tit-for-tat bit of genocide. Then decides to blow up earth with his insta-kill-black-hole-machine.
Now, how exactly is either one of these Shakespearean in nature?
The difference is that Star Trek 2 is a pretty flawless from an objective point of view. Nemesis is a pretty big mess from that same point of view.
I really don't think that "star trek 2 is pretty flawless from an OBJECTIVE point of view," or it would be much more highly regarded as a classic work of cinema.
If you meant "star trek 2 is one of the best of the TREK FILMS" then I'm with you on that.
But... none of your points on it had much to do with subtext. Dennis was saying that Trek films usually lacked SUBTEXT, then used TWOK as a counter-example.
I was pointing out that's kind of a flawed example.
Again, I was NOT bashing Star Trek XI. I was pointing out how fans of a film become apologists for the flaws in those films, and yet harp incessantly on the flaws of films they DON'T LIKE, EVEN IF THOSE FLAWS ARE EXACTLY THE SAME IN BOTH FILMS!
(In my example, the flaw was poor motivation for the villain)
Now Christopher's going to come and slap us on the wrists for diverting this from NEM to TWOK instead of focusing on FC .
Well, then, I'll let Dennis answer for himself if he wants to.
My point is still that TWOK is a smarter, better put together film that is pretty much flawless when compared to the plot hole riddled Nemesis. And the "message" is far more human than the one in Nemesis. That's more subjective, but I think the fact that TWOK resonates with FAR more people than Nemesis does kind of proves that point anyway.
My point is still that TWOK is a smarter, better put together film that is pretty much flawless when compared to the plot hole riddled Nemesis. And the "message" is far more human than the one in Nemesis. That's more subjective, but I think the fact that TWOK resonates with FAR more people than Nemesis does kind of proves that point anyway.
Whereas I think TWOK is a ludicrous film that's anything but smart. It is, in a lot of ways, extremely stupid. Genesis is a completely nonsensical concept, replacing any semblance of credible futurism with sheer magic. Khan, who was an intriguingly nuanced and admirable antagonist in "Space Seed," is reduced to an insane, scenery-chewing caricature. Nothing is done with any subtlety, everything is blown up to the level of operatic melodrama -- even if it's completely nonsensical and makes the characters look incompetent, like Scotty pointlessly bringing the injured Peter to the bridge instead of sickbay.
Sure, the film has an emotional resonance that people respond to, but that doesn't make it smart or technically flawless. Rather, it makes it a film that people enjoy enough to overlook its flaws. Just as most people enjoy ST 2009 enough, and engage with it enough on a character/emotional level, to overlook its comparable flaws. For me, NEM is the same way -- I'm cognizant of its flaws, but I'm engaged enough by the central character conflict between Picard and Shinzon to forgive them (well, most of them -- I always just fast-forward past the damn dune-buggy chase).
So there's nothing to "prove" here. You can't claim it's an objective fact that one film is better than another, and it's petty to try. All films have their flaws. Hell, the modern Hollywood blockbuster system is pretty much designed to dumb films down, to strip them of nuance and depth and overload them with noise and nonsense. It's just a question of whether they manage to retain enough substance at the end of that process that audiences are willing to overlook the flaws. And since it's a matter of individual willingness, there's no single "right" answer. I'm more willing to forgive NEM's flaws than TWOK's, while you're the other way around. No right or wrong, just differences of taste.
Sure, the film has an emotional resonance that people respond to, but that doesn't make it smart or technically flawless. Rather, it makes it a film that people enjoy enough to overlook its flaws. Just as most people enjoy ST 2009 enough, and engage with it enough on a character/emotional level, to overlook its comparable flaws. For me, NEM is the same way -- I'm cognizant of its flaws, but I'm engaged enough by the central character conflict between Picard and Shinzon to forgive them (well, most of them -- I always just fast-forward past the damn dune-buggy chase).
So there's nothing to "prove" here. You can't claim it's an objective fact that one film is better than another, and it's petty to try. All films have their flaws. Hell, the modern Hollywood blockbuster system is pretty much designed to dumb films down, to strip them of nuance and depth and overload them with noise and nonsense. It's just a question of whether they manage to retain enough substance at the end of that process that audiences are willing to overlook the flaws. And since it's a matter of individual willingness, there's no single "right" answer. I'm more willing to forgive NEM's flaws than TWOK's, while you're the other way around. No right or wrong, just differences of taste.
^That's my point. You keep talking about your position as though it's something that can be "proven" true, which I find to be dismissive and condescending toward those who disagree. I've agreed to disagree, but it sounds like you still have some need to assert that you're objectively more right than everyone else and try to "convince" others of same.
Similar threads
