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

[Greg Cox]

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.

And does anybody else find it funny that the OP is attacking the new crew for too being "arrogant"--while declaring that anyone who disagrees with him is not really a Star Trek fan?

Again, some of us like the new movie. Some of us don't. Fair Enough. But can we please stop arguing that this means some of us are more Trekkie than others.

As I've written before, Star Trek was never supposed to be some kind of exclusive club intended only for true believers.

 

[Alrik]

Not taking the bait.

But you already have, as evidenced by...

loved STAR TREK (09).

WHAT the hell is that supposed to mean?

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

Says you. They'll never suspect its me in my full on Gorn costume. I WILL GET MY TREK CRED BACK!

 

[Dukhat]

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.

Sorry, Trek Futurist, but you personally have no say as to what Star Trek must or must not do. That's not your call to make. It's also not your call to tell people that they are true fans or not, based solely on your own personal feelings about two movies.

Now if you want to state your own opinions as to whether the new movie was great or lousy, fine. We all do that. But to flat-out come in here and tell us all what we need to believe is crossing the line. I certainly hope a moderator comes along and sees this blatant attempt at flaming.

 

[horatio83]

While playing the real fan card is of course utterly pathetic pointing out that there is a core set of Trek principles which the last movie has not really cared about is a valid point. McCoy being robbed by his ex-wife, a bunch of Starfleet cadets brawling like Klingons after a gallon of blood wine, a Vulcan deserting a fellow officer instead of putting him into the brig, the movie had some disturbing vibes.

 

[Galileo7]

I actually really like Nemesis - but Star Trek XI was a FAR superior movie. That you can't recognize STXI's humanistic core, and want for more meaningless babytalk technobabble (exactly when did TOS explain it's weapons or technology?), is kind of sad.

Agree.

 

[Greg Cox]

While playing the real fan card is of course utterly pathetic pointing out that there is a core set of Trek principles which the last movie has not really cared about is a valid point. McCoy being robbed by his ex-wife, a bunch of Starfleet cadets brawling like Klingons after a gallon of blood wine, a Vulcan deserting a fellow officer instead of putting him into the brig, the movie had some disturbing vibes.

Well, we already argued this ad nauseum in another thread, but I still think you're applying a bit of double standard here. I recall Starfleet officers brawling in "Shore Leave," "The Trouble with Tribbles," Picard's run-in with the Nausicaans, etc. Just to cite one issue. And don't get me started again on how Vulcans have always been capable of behaving badly. (Hello, T'Pring! Really, Sarek, you haven't spoken with your son in eighteen years? Just because he joined Starfleet?)

The new movie was set in an optimistic future in which beings from diverse backgrounds and planets came together in common purpose to defend an Earth that was NOT a post-atomic wasteland or authoritarian dystopia. Kirk and Spock and the others overcame their differences to set out into the final frontier together--with lots of pulpy fun and adventure along the way.

Seemed like Star Trek I grew up on.

And now I really need to get some real writing done!

 

[trek_futurist]

.....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.

Do not use semantics to refer to someone criticizing a substance-less caricature that bears the namesake of star trek as being what, in fact, those who defend the tripe of this 2009 travesty are. Which is closed minded and ignorant of what the impetus of star trek is.

And that is (as a reminder to those who missed it) humanism, intelligence, philosophy, tolerance and science.

I find it quaint when someone attempts to dissuade the discussion by using reverse semantics to refer to people who question the merits of a mindless, substance-less movie as what they, in fact, are. Very quaint indeed.

 

[trek_futurist]

The new movie was set in an optimistic future in which beings from diverse backgrounds and planets came together in common purpose to defend an Earth that was NOT a post-atomic wasteland or authoritarian dystopia.

If this is true, why are the characters portrayed as 20th century throw backs with knee jerk reactions to everything?

Wait, kirk went from a cadet to captain on a training mission....

ugh, nevermind.

 

[Opus]

This thread may be thinly veiled, but flame baiting just the same. You get two Tek fans together in the same room, you're going to get three different opinions of what constitute being a "true-Trek fan". Get off yer' high horse, true. At the end of the day, it's still just a TV show/movie. I'm not about to go and bury all my Trek stuff in my back yard because of your proclamation.

I award ye your new Romulan name: T'roll

 

[Dukhat]

ugh, nevermind.

That's the most agreeable thing you've said so far.

 

[Alrik]

Seemed like Star Trek I grew up on.

^
This.


I remember leaving the theater thinking that this one really felt like the TOS grew up with. On the other hand (and I love TNG) I remember leaving the theater after NEM, and thinking to myself, 'wow, that really sucked'.

 

[trek_futurist]

I'm not about to go and bury all my Trek stuff in my back yard because of your proclamation.

Are you sure?

 

[Nerys Myk]

There was more "humanity" in the first 10 minutes of ST09 than the previous 10 films combined.

The new movie was set in an optimistic future in which beings from diverse backgrounds and planets came together in common purpose to defend an Earth that was NOT a post-atomic wasteland or authoritarian dystopia.

If this is true, why are the characters portrayed as 20th century throw backs with knee jerk reactions to everything?

Wait, kirk went from a cadet to captain on a training mission....

ugh, nevermind.

What would that have to do with what Greg wrote?

 

[horatio83]

While playing the real fan card is of course utterly pathetic pointing out that there is a core set of Trek principles which the last movie has not really cared about is a valid point. McCoy being robbed by his ex-wife, a bunch of Starfleet cadets brawling like Klingons after a gallon of blood wine, a Vulcan deserting a fellow officer instead of putting him into the brig, the movie had some disturbing vibes.

Well, we already argued this ad nauseum in another thread, but I still think you're applying a bit of double standard here.

As I like all other aspects of the movie I don't belong into the ST09 basher faction. It's not a double standard, these few scenes simply made me feel uneasy. If you can thoroughly enjoy the movie that's great.

About your examples, the key difference to "Tapestry" is that Picard learned from his experience with the nice dialectic twist that he had to go through it to, to the edge of life and death to understand his foolishness. Kirk on the other hand is basically rewarded by Pike for brawling and encouraged to continue along his path. You are the writer so tell me, in a conventional Bildungsroman aka coming-of-age story (last one I read was Auster's "Moon Palace") the protagonist goes through some experiences that significantly change him such that he is a real adult at the end of the story, doesn't he?

Or take the cadet with whom Kirk brawled and who later arrested Kirk in engineering seemed to have held a grudge over years ... just because he does not like a farm boy in his exclusive club?

 

[22 Stars]

I call troll on the OP and will now hide all posts by him/her/it.

 

[Alrik]

I award ye your new Romulan name: T'roll

I nominate this for post of the week.

 

[Greg Cox]

As I like all other aspects of the movie I don't belong into the ST09 basher faction. It's not a double standard, these few scenes simply made me feel uneasy. If you can thoroughly enjoy the movie that's great.

About your examples, the key difference to "Tapestry" is that Picard learned from his experience with the nice dialectic twist that he had to go through it to, to the edge of life and death to understand his foolishness. Kirk on the other hand is basically rewarded by Pike for brawling and encouraged to continue along his path. You are the writer so tell me, in a conventional Bildungsroman aka coming-of-age story (last one I read was Auster's "Moon Palace") the protagonist goes through some experiences that significantly change him such that he is a real adult at the end of the story, doesn't he?

Or take the cadet with whom Kirk brawled and who later arrested Kirk in engineering seemed to have held a grudge over years ... just because he does not like a farm boy in his exclusive club?

From a narrative standpoint, I don't see Kirk being rewarded for brawling. I see it as the point where Kirk hits rock bottom and realizes that he wants to do more with his life. Pike wasn't saying, "Wow, you kick ass. You should be a Starfleet captain." Pike was saying "You're better than this and I'm going to give you a chance to prove it."

As for that other cadet . . . well there are always going to be jerks in any organization, even Starfleet. Remember Ben Finney? Now that was holding a grudge!

And Finnegan and Captain Styles and the racist guy in "Balance of Terror. Nobody ever said that everybody in Starfleet is perfect and gets along perfectly with everybody else.

Remember all the squabbling among "The Galileo Seven"?

 

[Gojira]

I would have liked Nemesis a lot better if Shinzon had actually been played by Patrick Stewart. And if it had had more space battles.

My sentiments exactly. I do like Nemesis but Star Trek 09 was much better.

 

[horatio83]

As I like all other aspects of the movie I don't belong into the ST09 basher faction. It's not a double standard, these few scenes simply made me feel uneasy. If you can thoroughly enjoy the movie that's great.

About your examples, the key difference to "Tapestry" is that Picard learned from his experience with the nice dialectic twist that he had to go through it to, to the edge of life and death to understand his foolishness. Kirk on the other hand is basically rewarded by Pike for brawling and encouraged to continue along his path. You are the writer so tell me, in a conventional Bildungsroman aka coming-of-age story (last one I read was Auster's "Moon Palace") the protagonist goes through some experiences that significantly change him such that he is a real adult at the end of the story, doesn't he?

Or take the cadet with whom Kirk brawled and who later arrested Kirk in engineering seemed to have held a grudge over years ... just because he does not like a farm boy in his exclusive club?

From a narrative standpoint, I don't see Kirk being rewarded for brawling. I see it as the point where Kirk hits rock bottom and realizes that he wants to do more with his life. Pike wasn't saying, "Wow, you kick ass. You should be a Starfleet captain." Pike was saying "You're better than this and I'm going to give you a chance to prove it."

As for that other cadet . . . well there are always going to be jerks in any organization, even Starfleet. Remember Ben Finney? Now that was holding a grudge!

And Finnegan and Captain Styles and the racist guy in "Balance of Terror. Nobody ever said that everybody in Starfleet is perfect and gets along perfectly everybody else.

Remember all the squabbling among "The Galileo Seven"?

I agree, your reading of the scene is far better than mine.

 

[Greg Cox]

As I like all other aspects of the movie I don't belong into the ST09 basher faction. It's not a double standard, these few scenes simply made me feel uneasy. If you can thoroughly enjoy the movie that's great.

About your examples, the key difference to "Tapestry" is that Picard learned from his experience with the nice dialectic twist that he had to go through it to, to the edge of life and death to understand his foolishness. Kirk on the other hand is basically rewarded by Pike for brawling and encouraged to continue along his path. You are the writer so tell me, in a conventional Bildungsroman aka coming-of-age story (last one I read was Auster's "Moon Palace") the protagonist goes through some experiences that significantly change him such that he is a real adult at the end of the story, doesn't he?

Or take the cadet with whom Kirk brawled and who later arrested Kirk in engineering seemed to have held a grudge over years ... just because he does not like a farm boy in his exclusive club?

From a narrative standpoint, I don't see Kirk being rewarded for brawling. I see it as the point where Kirk hits rock bottom and realizes that he wants to do more with his life. Pike wasn't saying, "Wow, you kick ass. You should be a Starfleet captain." Pike was saying "You're better than this and I'm going to give you a chance to prove it."

As for that other cadet . . . well there are always going to be jerks in any organization, even Starfleet. Remember Ben Finney? Now that was holding a grudge!

And Finnegan and Captain Styles and the racist guy in "Balance of Terror. Nobody ever said that everybody in Starfleet is perfect and gets along perfectly everybody else.

Remember all the squabbling among "The Galileo Seven"?

I agree, your reading of the scene is far better than mine.

Thanks. For what it's worth, I appreciate that we can debate this stuff on a literary level, without arguing about which of us is a bigger Trekkie!