Plinkett's review of Nemesis

[Indysolo]

I place the blame on it solely on Baird himself. I mean,..someone who NEVER watched Trek in his life and only directed two films in his life...

Star Trek II was Nicholas Meyer's second film and he'd never watched Star Trek.

Leonard Nimoy and Jonathan Frakes were first time theatrical directors when they made their movies, though of course they had some knowledge of the universe.

J.J. Abrams was not really a Trek fan and the 2009 film was only his second theatrical feature.

Stuart Baird is an Oscar-nominated industry veteran. He knows how to make a movie and tell a story effectively. His editing on genre films like Superman - The Movie and Casino Royale is electric. The script for Nemesis is a nonsensical mess and while the director should have had some input in it to improve it, those knowledgable in Trek lore (no pun intended) should have stepped in even more.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Fair review. Nothing there about Nemesis that I didn't think of myself. But I pushed it all into my subconscious mind, because the film sucked so much. And there's no excuse for Star Trek sucking so much.

Kudos to Stoklasa et al. for being able to keep from blocking the film from their conscious minds long enough to compile a review about it. I would be unable to do that.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

I can completely understand being annoyed by the guy's schtick, but it's hard to deny that nearly all of the points he makes in his reviews (Trek and SW prequels) are pretty much dead on the mark.

 

[DeafPoet]

Cool down there dude. So sorry it pisses you off that I am putting RLM down....NOT
I don't like it in case you can't tell..and what you may call entertaining I can call crap...

You can like or dislike anything you want there, Chief. Nobody was suggesting otherwise. It was this comment that really rubbed me the wrong way:

In your own opinion..AND to my dismay, several "boat-jumpers" that simply agree with the assnine so-called "media critic"....

The implication that anybody who could share the opinions outlined in those reviews "are simply agreeing" with something you characterize as asinine without any critical thought of their own is incredibly condescending. Subsequent comments haven't shed any new light on your attitude.

 

[Captain Mike]

I place the blame on it solely on Baird himself. I mean,..someone who NEVER watched Trek in his life and only directed two films in his life...

Star Trek II was Nicholas Meyer's second film and he'd never watched Star Trek.

Leonard Nimoy and Jonathan Frakes were first time theatrical directors when they made their movies, though of course they had some knowledge of the universe.

J.J. Abrams was not really a Trek fan and the 2009 film was only his second theatrical feature.

Stuart Baird is an Oscar-nominated industry veteran. He knows how to make a movie and tell a story effectively. His editing on genre films like Superman - The Movie and Casino Royale is electric. The script for Nemesis is a nonsensical mess and while the director should have had some input in it to improve it, those knowledgable in Trek lore (no pun intended) should have stepped in even more.

Let me start out by stating that I have NOTHING against Baird the EDITOR,...He did edit some of the best movies he did (Superman [that he had to basically edit down two movies into one], Outland, the first two Lethal Weapons flicks, but being an editor does NOT a director make.
The things mostly I read were he NEVER took advice from the actors on NEMESIS who obviously KNEW Star Trek. A recent article from Patrick Stewart stated it needed a "special cut"...NOT a Directors cut.

Fair review. Nothing there about Nemesis that I didn't think of myself. But I pushed it all into my subconscious mind, because the film sucked so much. And there's no excuse for Star Trek sucking so much.

Kudos to Stoklasa et al. for being able to keep from blocking the film from their conscious minds long enough to compile a review about it. I would be unable to do that.

I'm sorry the films didn't suck that much as to organise a "review" just mostly picking out the sucky points.

I can completely understand being annoyed by the guy's schtick, but it's hard to deny that nearly all of the points he makes in his reviews (Trek and SW prequels) are pretty much dead on the mark.

And yet again I find that I am in opposition of his "review".

 

[Gaith]

I don't mind the cymbals - musicians have been known to use goofy-looking instruments at times... but his whole routine on "there's no foreseeable danger" is pretty damn funny-spot-on.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Fair review. Nothing there about Nemesis that I didn't think of myself. But I pushed it all into my subconscious mind, because the film sucked so much. And there's no excuse for Star Trek sucking so much.

Kudos to Stoklasa et al. for being able to keep from blocking the film from their conscious minds long enough to compile a review about it. I would be unable to do that.

I'm sorry the films didn't suck that much as to organise a "review" just mostly picking out the sucky points.

Dude. The topic here in this thread is a particular review of one film, Star Trek: Nemesis, which is a pretty awful piece of shit, and I happen to agree with the review.

Like I said, I'd already thought of every point RLM made about the film. I happen to have payed attention while watching Star Trek for the last forty years. Nemesis has almost no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Except maybe that I thought Commander Donatra was pretty hot.

I haven't watched the RLM reviews of any other Star Trek film.

Next.

 

[Captain Mike]

Fair review. Nothing there about Nemesis that I didn't think of myself. But I pushed it all into my subconscious mind, because the film sucked so much. And there's no excuse for Star Trek sucking so much.

Kudos to Stoklasa et al. for being able to keep from blocking the film from their conscious minds long enough to compile a review about it. I would be unable to do that.

I'm sorry the films didn't suck that much as to organise a "review" just mostly picking out the sucky points.

Dude. The topic here in this thread is a particular review of one film, Star Trek: Nemesis, which is a pretty awful piece of shit, and I happen to agree with the review.

Like I said, I'd already thought of every point RLM made about the film. I happen to have payed attention while watching Star Trek for the last forty years. Nemesis has almost no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Except maybe that I thought Commander Donatra was pretty hot.

I haven't watched the RLM reviews of any other Star Trek film.

Next.

To each his own I suppose....

 

[AJBryant]

Of course in that context popping into a thread for the primary purpose of stating that makes no sense.

In your opinion.






For the record, it's mine, too. What's more, I think the Plinkster is on point on all counts.

 

[Sean Aaron]

I don't mind the cymbals - musicians have been known to use goofy-looking instruments at times... but his whole routine on "there's no foreseeable danger" is pretty damn funny-spot-on.

I don't mind the cymbals either, but that bit was so hilarious the way he went on at length I just had to share my amusement.

The TNG films as a whole were such a disappointment, it's nice to see them skewered in an amusing fashion. I only wish the reviews were longer! I think I'll re-watch them today since I'm working from home...

 

[GNDN]

Agreed that the TNG film series was ultimately disappointing. I'm still a fan, and I own them all on blu-ray, and can still find enjoyment by watching them, but they are far from perfect or even well-conceived, and none really approach the best of either the TOS films or even TNG the series. There was too much of a self-conscious attempt to amp up the action and create cartoonish villains.

So yeah, part of the joy of re-watching even films I like is to discover and expose their flaws, and the Plinkett reviews are entertaining examples of doing just that. The guy obviously knows his Trek, but at the same time isn't so beholden of it that he's above exaggerating his "character's" complaints for comic affect.

One may not like the message or the method of his reviews, I happen to enjoy them for the most part. His prequel reviews nearly double as essays of films and concepts gone wrong. All of this is done with tongue-in-cheek, from an intentionally narrow point of view, for the sake of entertainment. Either you like it or you don't. I find 'em hilarious and sadly true in many instances.

BTW, the Plinkett review of ST '09 is quite good!!

 

[Sean Aaron]

Agreed across the board - well except for the bit about owning them or caring if I ever see them again. I think what's most disappointing about the TNG films is they're so formulaic and that formula is now so engrained that we have threads regarding the next film speculating who the villain will be. I can also guarantee we'll have at least one space battle. And this potentially is what Trek will be for the foreseeable future.

At least I have dozens of DVDs from the TV shows, but it would be nice for someone to take a lesson from Star Trek IV that's it's possible to have a Star Trek film that lacks space battles and even lacks a villain (at least an antagonist with a face).

 

[GNDN]

Hear, hear

I'm in no rush to see the films again, and I prefer the series across the board to any of the films. I like the look of the Ent D both inside and out in GEN, and the crash scene is well done technically, but holds none of the emotional impact of the scuttling in TSFS.

I really don't give any weight to the stories and adventures of the TNG films, and consider them as largely outside my personal canon of Trek history. They're all rather simplistic adventure yarns that I'll pop in for pretty pictures, and not for any story substance.

I don't blame these films specifically, but the state of Hollywood Blockbusters in general that Trek 12 will undoubtedly contain all the cliches you've referenced.

 

[sonak]

Agreed across the board - well except for the bit about owning them or caring if I ever see them again. I think what's most disappointing about the TNG films is they're so formulaic and that formula is now so engrained that we have threads regarding the next film speculating who the villain will be. I can also guarantee we'll have at least one space battle. And this potentially what Trek will be for the foreseeable future.

At least I have dozens of DVDs from the TV shows, but it would be nice for someone to take a lesson from Star Trek IV that's it's possible to have a Star Trek film that lacks space battles and even lacks a villain (at least an antagonist with a face).

that's a point I've wondered about too. TVH was the most succesfull of all Trek movies until the '09 movie, and yet they never went back to that formula. (sure they made movies like INS which had a lot of "comedy," but they never went back to the "no real villain, just a crisis to solve" plot.

 

[Sean Aaron]

And the best thing about a crisis without a villain is that more of the story can be about the characters we like! Woe oh woe!

 

[CorporalCaptain]

And the best thing about a crisis without a villain is that more of the story can be about the characters we like! Woe oh woe!

I just got through watching Plinkett's review of Star Trek: The Star Trek, which he actually likes. Using a weak villain in it was offered as a good thing, since JJTrek was an origin story and the throwaway villain allows more time to focus on the characters.

 

[AJBryant]

And the best thing about a crisis without a villain is that more of the story can be about the characters we like! Woe oh woe!

It might be an interesting challenge to make a two-hour, big-budget "bottle show."

 

[HAL.9000]

The one thing Plinkett brought out that was right on:

Deanna Troi's character slowly became less and less Troi, and more and more Marina Sirtis. Her natural English accent slowly began showing up...which is a sign of poor direction by not keep your actors focused.

 

[Psion]

I'm sorry the films didn't suck that much as to organise a "review" just mostly picking out the sucky points.

Dude. The topic here in this thread is a particular review of one film, Star Trek: Nemesis, which is a pretty awful piece of shit, and I happen to agree with the review.

Like I said, I'd already thought of every point RLM made about the film. I happen to have payed attention while watching Star Trek for the last forty years. Nemesis has almost no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Except maybe that I thought Commander Donatra was pretty hot.

I haven't watched the RLM reviews of any other Star Trek film.

Next.

To each his own I suppose....

You're probably just mad because you didn't get your pizza roll.

Either.

That sonuvabitch is always making promises he can't keep. And now he wants me to send money to the casino? Hah! He won't get more than one or two bucks outa me this time!

 

[Captain Mike]

Dude. The topic here in this thread is a particular review of one film, Star Trek: Nemesis, which is a pretty awful piece of shit, and I happen to agree with the review.

Like I said, I'd already thought of every point RLM made about the film. I happen to have payed attention while watching Star Trek for the last forty years. Nemesis has almost no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Except maybe that I thought Commander Donatra was pretty hot.

I haven't watched the RLM reviews of any other Star Trek film.

Next.

To each his own I suppose....

You're probably just mad because you didn't get your pizza roll.

Either.

That sonuvabitch is always making promises he can't keep. And now he wants me to send money to the casino? Hah! He won't get more than one or two bucks outa me this time!

Fuck pizza rolls,..I would buy him a years supply if he would STFU.....