But the movie wasn't about the Romulans. It was about Picard's clone. The Romulans were just a plot device to move the story forward about how Shinzon was such an asshole.
Last edited:
Is Nemesis unfairly criticized?
- Thread starter Shinzon4u
- Start date
But the movie wasn't about the Romulans. It was about Picard's clone. The Romulans were just a plot device to move the story forward about how Shinzon was such an asshole.
Nemesis gets beat up by fandom for a number of reasons.
1) It tanked at the theatre
2) It was the last TNG film and gets blamed for 'killing' the franchise.
3) It is not that good of a movie, has oots of holes, and the director made a lot of bad decisions.
#3 & #1 are legit. #2 causes all the internet piling on.
For me, for all the flaws, I am OK with Nemesis (and Insurrection) because they get Picard mostly right while Generations & FC get him mostly wrong. Weepy and then bent on revenge is NOT Picard.
I will take all of I-X over the JJ films, save for maybe V. Those do not feel like Trek to me. Just action films with Trek characters. No issue exploration at all.
Top tier: TWOK, TSFS, TVH, TUC, FC
OK: TMP, Gen, Insur
Poor: Nem, ST, ST2, ST3
Awful: TFF
1) It tanked at the theatre
2) It was the last TNG film and gets blamed for 'killing' the franchise.
3) It is not that good of a movie, has oots of holes, and the director made a lot of bad decisions.
#3 & #1 are legit. #2 causes all the internet piling on.
For me, for all the flaws, I am OK with Nemesis (and Insurrection) because they get Picard mostly right while Generations & FC get him mostly wrong. Weepy and then bent on revenge is NOT Picard.
I will take all of I-X over the JJ films, save for maybe V. Those do not feel like Trek to me. Just action films with Trek characters. No issue exploration at all.
Top tier: TWOK, TSFS, TVH, TUC, FC
OK: TMP, Gen, Insur
Poor: Nem, ST, ST2, ST3
Awful: TFF
The TOS films have always seemed to me to have something missing. Like they don't have to try so hard anymore! The brilliance of the TV series sort of isn't there!
JB
JB
The deep storytelling from the series isn't available on the big screen where strong action and light dialogue is a requirement for 90-120 minutes of popcorn shoveling it's just a pity the movies ingredients last year transitioned to the small screen.
you have a really messed up idea of how Picard should deal with his emotions if you call his portrayal in GEN "weepy"
Picard even being interested in a high speed jeep is NOT really Picard either!
I really liked the movie when it came out but now +15 years later I can understand why some fans see it as a missed opportunity. By turning TNG into 1,5 hour movie, everything that made the show great had to be dropped for action and explosions because the suits probably think (and perhaps they are partially right) that that’s the only thing that will get people to see a sci-fi movie.
I'd rather watch Final Frontier over any of the Next Generation movies, even though Next Generation is far and away my favorite television series. I watched Nemesis last year again and oh I was so unhappy, it's like if you're going to eat a slice of cheesecake and once in your mouth it tastes like brussels sprouts and onions?
I had a friend show me a review for Nemesis by a YouTube comedy group called RedLetterMedia, and I feel he explains everything so very perfectly.
I had a friend show me a review for Nemesis by a YouTube comedy group called RedLetterMedia, and I feel he explains everything so very perfectly.
No, it's not. Patrick Stewart loves driving jeeps. Jean-Luc Picard wouldn't have had the slightest interest in that. That's what happens when you give creative control to an actor and he decides that he wants to play himself instead of the fictional character he's supposed to be.
RedLetterMedia's Star Trek movie reviews are the greatest. He is absolutely spot on with his reviews of the Next Gen films.
It's conceptually ok, in places, but falls on its ass in others. A lot of material that would've added heart to it was left on the cutting room (some of it even before filming commenced) and while the idea of handing a Trek movie over to someone who doesn't know Trek has paid dividends elsewhere I can't help but think what Jonathan Frakes might have brought to the table. Baird expressed disdain about having 15 years of history which rather dampens the mood in scenes that are supposed to be love letters to TNG's legacy in what everyone suspected would be their swansong. It needed someone else at the helm, someone with a greater feel for the material. The material itself was not, necessarily, bad.
Sounds like we've discovered a formula for disaster. You know your film is going to be bad when you write around the lead actor's indulgences.
Absolutely.
Unfortunately the TNG movies frequently came to be written around the indulgences of Patrick Stewart and Brent Spiner, and it shows. It's one thing to let your actors have input or make script notes, but when you have to be antiethical to the consistency of their character in order to do so then it's time to take them aside and remind them to pull their head in. I don't think anyone on the Star Trek team felt they could do that, not with Sir Patrick certainly because by that point the only bargaining chip they could've used on TV ("we'll just make it without you") was powerless, because Pat, then riding high on X-Men and it's sequels, would now be able to call their bluff.
Same with Brent Spiner singing
I remember going to see this when it was out about a week in a almost empty cinema, and this was the first Trek movie where i was conscious about the time i was sitting watching it, was it terrible, no, was it meh for me, yes, just plain old meh, and i think that is because it felt like a two actor movie rather than a full cast movie which had been the stable diet of the first three movies with TNG cast.
And the less said about B4 the better, as i was noting in my head during the movie, oh this should be intresting, they brought back lore.........oh how that dream was dashed quickly afterwards. Lol
And the less said about B4 the better, as i was noting in my head during the movie, oh this should be intresting, they brought back lore.........oh how that dream was dashed quickly afterwards. Lol
Same and I left thinking what the hell was that?well
The prototype android with superior ability to the final model :?
Yeah, I actually thought it was an average Star Trek movie when I saw it. I was actually kind of surprised when I started reading the vitriol directed toward the film later on. I was like, hmm, I didn't think it was that bad.
And of the 4 TNG movies, Nemesis and First Contact were the two I can honestly say had a theatrical feel. The other two TNG films felt more like TV episodes than movies to me.
I've got to partially disagree with you here - for me there's only the sets at on Veridian III that looked really small-scale TV in Generations. I remember being disappointed with it at the cinema, thinking 'this is the climax of the movie?' All the scenes in the Enterprise looked fantastic in my view - totally different to the series and very cinematic. Combined with the excellent visual effects in the movie, I thought Generations was a superb-looking film, and worked well on the big screen.
I think there's a lot more cheap looking sets in First Contact personally but that film tends to get a pass as it's generally more popular than it's predecessor. I actually found some of the FX to be inferior to Generations too.
Insurrection looked and felt like a TV production from start to finish. Worst visual effects out of the 4 TNG movies. No wow factor whatsoever, yet cost 70 million dollars to make - the most out of the four. How did they manage that.
Nemesis, again barring a couple of poor sets (Scimitar mainly) was lit and filmed like a big screen production at least.
Part of the feel was the story itself. Generations and Insurrection's stories felt like they could have fit in with the television series. I'll admit part of my seeing Generations as a TV episode is that the sets and the uniforms were from the TV series with a few enhancements (granted, half the time they used the DS9 uniforms). That skewed it a bit. That's not to say I didn't like it to some extent. I thought it was nice to see the Enterprise-D on the big screen, and a bit ironic. When I first saw the ship I hated it. It grew on me as the years went by, and the special effects improved in the show as well, which helped. Ironic because I hated that they destroyed it. But I didn't hate Generations either. The only part I really hated was how they handled Kirk's death. I thought the Nexus was a unique plot device, something that really has no comparison other than it's sort of time travel element.
I actually liked the special effects in Generations, First Contact and Nemesis. The sets on First Contact didn't bother me too much. I loved the portrayal of the Borg in that movie. As creepy as they appeared in Q Who? they actually made them look more foreboding in First Contact. Some of the scenes on Earth were hit or miss, but overall I thought it hit the mark.
Insurrection was ok. I didn't think it was horrible. The story was sort of plain, it didn't break a lot of new ground I thought, except maybe leading the way for Riker and Troi to finally become an item (it was about time IMHO). But it was a missed opportunity. On DS9 they were in the midst of the Dominion War, which only got a token mention in Insurrection. You'd think the flagship of Starfleet would be deeply involved with that. I thought they could have had a Dominion War movie involving the Enterprise. I'm sure they could have come up with a story that would not require you to be a DS9 fan to understand it. I agree the Special Effects weren't the best. They weren't TFF bad. I mean, they get a passing grade, but they took a step back from TUC, Generations and FC. But one thing I will give Insurrection is I always thought they had some beautiful cinematography on the planet. I loved some of the views along the mountains, the lake, and even the sunrise (I know, it's not unique, but it was well shot).
Similar threads
