I think that might've been it, biggles!
Problems with Nemesis
- Thread starter Phoenix
- Start date
I'd be quite willing to overlook the Enterprise blundering into that nebula (or whatever it was 
) if there had been an actual battle in there. You know, with cohesive maneuvers and a little competence on either side.
Instead it was just a few fancy disconnected moves by the various ships involved.
) if there had been an actual battle in there. You know, with cohesive maneuvers and a little competence on either side.Instead it was just a few fancy disconnected moves by the various ships involved.
But... but... they executed Attack Pattern Kirk Epsilon! (whatever the fuck that was) 
Disembodied voice: "Watch out for snakes,".
I find it interesting that this conversation continues five years after Nemesis came out, and I think it's telling of just how bad some people think the movie is, myself included. It also speaks to the fear in some of us that the next Trek movie will be just as bad, if not worse. (Count on it.) If Nemesis wasn't the final nail in the coffin, then another mismanaged movie certainly would destroy the brand forever.
I'm also surprised to see that some posters, like CaptainSpock, can still raise the level of the dialog a bit:
It seems to me that Gene would have considered every one of the TNG moves to be apocryphal, and this is the reason. No plot, no optimism, no life. Though he may have been unhappy about Nick Meyer making the TOS movies too "naval," I think the optimistic message of Star Trek was always present, even in death, aging and, finally, saying goodbye. Dramatic or silly, action-packed or contemplative, and yes, even good or bad, they were all Star Trek. There was a plot, there was a reason for the characters to be there, and it HAD to be those characters we knew and loved.
TNG was my favourite series, but I can make no such claims about the movies. Frankly, I've always been a bit confused when I hear people defending Nemesis. Especially loyal fans. Nemesis was more irritating than all previous TNG movies combined. It was worse than Insurrection. It was even worse than The Final Frontier. Hell, it could give Jaws 3 a run for its money in sucking.
And what's my objective basis for making this claim? How do I really add to this 5-year-old dialog? It's simple: Nemesis is a bad movie because it is a bad movie. Period. Now, I don't know the viewing habits of everyone on this board who enjoyed the film, but I've seen many hundreds of movies, including those widely considered classics and widely considered garbage. There is a difference between The Maltese Falcon and Star Wars: Episode II. And a difference between The Seventh Seal and Nemesis. And a difference between Awakenings and Riddick.
What I'm saying is...science fiction shouldn't be exempted from standards of quality for any film (or book or novella). If anything, it should be held to an even higher standard than the rest. To hold Trek to a different standard because it's sci-fi is to do it a disservice; but if you want to stick to sci-fi, then there is no reason Nemesis could not have been as refined as Blade Runner or Solyaris. But it was not.
A good film has skillful acting and well-crafted writing. It often makes less of more. It introduces strangers who we already know. It stirs the imagination; it continues long after the end-credits. Nemesis did none of this. And because it presented nothing optimistic about the future, and because it turned our old friends into strangers, it really wasn't Star Trek, either.
But if you really think Nemesis had these fine qualities, then I strongly suggest you renew your Blockbuster membership and start with the IMDB top 200. Maybe I'm making a false assumption, here, but I have a feeling that many of these arguments have taken place between those whose exposure is limited to Star Trek and Star Wars...and those who know who, say, Jimmy Stewart was. There's a lot out there to enjoy, both science fiction and stuff outside of the genre. And if you seek it out, you're going to understand why some of Star Trek has been so damned good, and why some of it, like Nemesis, is just unwatchable.
I'm also surprised to see that some posters, like CaptainSpock, can still raise the level of the dialog a bit:
It seems to me that Gene would have considered every one of the TNG moves to be apocryphal, and this is the reason. No plot, no optimism, no life. Though he may have been unhappy about Nick Meyer making the TOS movies too "naval," I think the optimistic message of Star Trek was always present, even in death, aging and, finally, saying goodbye. Dramatic or silly, action-packed or contemplative, and yes, even good or bad, they were all Star Trek. There was a plot, there was a reason for the characters to be there, and it HAD to be those characters we knew and loved.
TNG was my favourite series, but I can make no such claims about the movies. Frankly, I've always been a bit confused when I hear people defending Nemesis. Especially loyal fans. Nemesis was more irritating than all previous TNG movies combined. It was worse than Insurrection. It was even worse than The Final Frontier. Hell, it could give Jaws 3 a run for its money in sucking.
And what's my objective basis for making this claim? How do I really add to this 5-year-old dialog? It's simple: Nemesis is a bad movie because it is a bad movie. Period. Now, I don't know the viewing habits of everyone on this board who enjoyed the film, but I've seen many hundreds of movies, including those widely considered classics and widely considered garbage. There is a difference between The Maltese Falcon and Star Wars: Episode II. And a difference between The Seventh Seal and Nemesis. And a difference between Awakenings and Riddick.
What I'm saying is...science fiction shouldn't be exempted from standards of quality for any film (or book or novella). If anything, it should be held to an even higher standard than the rest. To hold Trek to a different standard because it's sci-fi is to do it a disservice; but if you want to stick to sci-fi, then there is no reason Nemesis could not have been as refined as Blade Runner or Solyaris. But it was not.
A good film has skillful acting and well-crafted writing. It often makes less of more. It introduces strangers who we already know. It stirs the imagination; it continues long after the end-credits. Nemesis did none of this. And because it presented nothing optimistic about the future, and because it turned our old friends into strangers, it really wasn't Star Trek, either.
But if you really think Nemesis had these fine qualities, then I strongly suggest you renew your Blockbuster membership and start with the IMDB top 200. Maybe I'm making a false assumption, here, but I have a feeling that many of these arguments have taken place between those whose exposure is limited to Star Trek and Star Wars...and those who know who, say, Jimmy Stewart was. There's a lot out there to enjoy, both science fiction and stuff outside of the genre. And if you seek it out, you're going to understand why some of Star Trek has been so damned good, and why some of it, like Nemesis, is just unwatchable.
Ah why? There is no reason to assume that at all given those resposable for producing Nemises have ZERO to do with this film. I'd say your simply projecting your own wants and desires onto JJ's film based on nothing.
Sharr
^I think Matt T. is just stating that there is some fear out there that if Trek XI is not a good film, it'll kill the franchise. If I read Matt T.'s post correctly, Sharr, Matt T. is saying that not as "wants and desires," but as a statement of what may be perceived.
Also, it's not so far out there to assume that if low quality of script refinement and rewriting got Trek through the tenth movie, TPTB (whoever they are at the given moment) would decide it's enough for the eleventh as well.
Is there any suggestion that TPTB of Star Trek would learn from past mistakes? Or have an actual interest in producing a movie of high quality as the tenth sequel in a series? Such things are not really a necessity in filmmaking. OTOH, trends, especially downward ones, might be trusted.
Timo Saloniemi
Is there any suggestion that TPTB of Star Trek would learn from past mistakes? Or have an actual interest in producing a movie of high quality as the tenth sequel in a series? Such things are not really a necessity in filmmaking. OTOH, trends, especially downward ones, might be trusted.
Timo Saloniemi
I guess I haven't kept up on this aspect of Trek, but is there anyone officially in charge of new Trek productions? Is Berman still holding the torch or has any notion of that kind of role existing quietly slipped away with the cancellation of Enterprise and basically TPTB just refers to the producer of the current film project?
That would be a concern for me if we were dealing with the same TPTB, but we're not. Rick Berman is gone. Brannon Braga is gone. Gail Berman (no relation), the executive at Paramount who greenlit Rick's four movies, is gone. There's several new sheriffs in town. And just because you're looking at it as Film #11 doesn't mean they are.
There is no overall head honcho of Trek, and the split of Paramount's parent company Viacom into seperate units only confuses things more. CBS Corp. controls the TV side of the franchise, while Paramount, a division of the new Viacom, controls the movies. So unless Abrams were to sign a separate deal with CBS Corp., he'd only be in charge of the movie side of the franchise. That's assuming he even wants to make more than one movie, though I'm sure Paramount will ask him back if Trek XI is a hit.
It's kind of doubtful that anyone will ever have the same level of total control Rick Berman had from 1994-2005. I think that's a good thing, though.
Why is that? For better or worse, it's always nice to know where the buck stops. No one would argue that Disney was at its creative and financial apex when Uncle Walt was in charge and the face, compared to the financial confusion and creative missteps when beancounters like Michael Eisner and a bunch of faceless shareholders called the shots. When major decisions regarding Star Wars are made, we all know the Flanneled One had a hand in it. Dispite the interference of suits from WB and TNT, Babylon 5 always has been J. Michael Strazcynski and we, as fans, wouldn't have it any other way. I think genre fans, as a whole, appreciate a given 'verse having a face who pursues his or her artistic vision while keeping the fans' best interests in mind to a point. At this point, I really don't have an idea on who the face of Trek should be, but I hope that he or she has the kind of creative muscle akin to the examples I cited.
My wife hated Nemesis. So did the kids - all big TNG fans as am I. TNG is my wife's favorite version of Star Trek - so much so that she doesn't think there is a bad ep. If she hates Nemesis, that tells me something.
The kids hated Shinzon impaling himself on that spear or whatever, Data's death and all the kewl violence and blood letting. I try to block it from my memory (the film), but was it rated PG-13? If not, should have been.
The Wrath of Sinzon's death of Data, ah, all that stuff that's been said a million times before - it and the TNG films in total were a muffed opportunity. They should have left well enough alone with AGT, but greed got the better of them. It wasn't like they didn't have DS9 and VOY (and later ENT) already going full throttle on TV for fresh Trek.
That's one main problem - oversaturation and greed. Who the hell were these TNG characters in the theatrical films? Certainly not the people we ejoyed on the series. The crew was there to fetch and moved along the plot for Action Hero Picard and All-Important Data/Spock. Yuck.
The kids hated Shinzon impaling himself on that spear or whatever, Data's death and all the kewl violence and blood letting. I try to block it from my memory (the film), but was it rated PG-13? If not, should have been.
The Wrath of Sinzon's death of Data, ah, all that stuff that's been said a million times before - it and the TNG films in total were a muffed opportunity. They should have left well enough alone with AGT, but greed got the better of them. It wasn't like they didn't have DS9 and VOY (and later ENT) already going full throttle on TV for fresh Trek.
That's one main problem - oversaturation and greed. Who the hell were these TNG characters in the theatrical films? Certainly not the people we ejoyed on the series. The crew was there to fetch and moved along the plot for Action Hero Picard and All-Important Data/Spock. Yuck.
The whole "count on it" implied to me, a desire to see JJ's film to fail. And if memory serves Matt T has been against the whole idea of this film.
But really there is no reason that this is going to be like any other Star Trek film be it TNG or TOS. Maybe closer in feel to TOS films... but I'm betting the style will be more like a regular [read real rather then "Trek film"] movie that will be more like a true blockbuster then the cookie cutter expections of how a Star Trek movie should be.
Sharr
Sorry about the late reply -- had unreliable Internets.
Sharr, I'm not sure if I've ever posted on the new Trek movie, but I don't think I have. I have posted a number of times on Nemesis, though, and my opinion hasn't changed since the ridiculous opening in the theater when I almost broke out in laughter at the crumbling Romulans. (Note, I had not read through spoilers, the script, etc.)
I have no wishful thinking toward seeing Trek fail, especially since I know little about the people currently guiding it. I do recall -- and I could be wrong -- that those in charge said it would be more "blockbuster-like", have more action, etc. I heard the same thing about every subsequent TNG movie. I've also heard it will be less based in Trek canon, which is probably good. But Enterprise took a steaming dump on Trek canon, and it didn't help that show any.
I also suspect that the prequel idea has been tested and it doesn't work out well. Not only will Star Trek fans have to accept a re-imagining of Trek, like Enterprise -- and many won't, like Enterprise -- but the general population will have to accept a Kirk who isn't Bill Shatner. And, oddly enough, everybody knows who Bill Shatner is, now.
All of this aside, my concerns for the movie stem mostly from entropy. As I see it, Star Trek has been getting worse and worse since TNG. I enjoyed DS9, but it had some problems. Voyager was a mess. Enterprise wasn't worth watching. One can say the same of the movies: progressive slide. All of these projects have involved a wide variety of people, and there have been many differences to be found among them. What isn't different, though, is that each successive incarnation of Trek, be it movie or show, has been decreasingly popular, and one might add, decreasingly good/enjoyable. Until we have something like Nemesis, which was frighteningly bad. Laughingly bad. Groin-grabbingly bad.
Will the next movie save Trek? It could. But I don't think I've heard any reason, yet, of just why it will. Much of the talk seems like variations on a theme, i.e. more action, less Trekish, more fun, etc. -- and aren't variations on a theme the problem, in the end?
That is, the greatest problem with Star Trek, I think, is that it's all dressed up with no place to go. This is seen easily in Nemesis, where so much money was spent for so little. The old ideas end up recycled over and over, and our beloved characters meekly go where everyone has gone before. Until Trek has some place to go, or, at least, those in charge admit it hasn't been going anywhere, you can "count on" disappointment. That's what I meant.
MT
It was awful. The plot was by far the weakest part of the movie, and if you have a poor plot you unsurprisngly will end up with a rubbish movie.
The Remans, led by a human clone of Picard takeover the Romulan Empire?
A race that spends most of their time digging in mines pulling of such a coup and building a badass ship is just silly. The Romulan senate and people of the Empire simply accepting Reman rule over them? Nonsense. The Romulans are meant to be one of the smartest species in Trek yet they were outwitted by a bunch of brutes?
And what happened to the Enterprise's quantum torpedoes? Picard mentioned a few times the inferior photon torpedoes but not once did we get a mention about the ships most powerful weapons! Did the writers forget all about them?
A poorly made movie, a terrible way for the TNG crew to sign off.
The Remans, led by a human clone of Picard takeover the Romulan Empire?
A race that spends most of their time digging in mines pulling of such a coup and building a badass ship is just silly. The Romulan senate and people of the Empire simply accepting Reman rule over them? Nonsense. The Romulans are meant to be one of the smartest species in Trek yet they were outwitted by a bunch of brutes?
And what happened to the Enterprise's quantum torpedoes? Picard mentioned a few times the inferior photon torpedoes but not once did we get a mention about the ships most powerful weapons! Did the writers forget all about them?
A poorly made movie, a terrible way for the TNG crew to sign off.
They used the quantum torpedoes only after Troi had given Worf a positive fix on the Scimitar's position by doing that stupid "Ouija board on the targeting display" crap. I guess even though they're more powerful, they also have less of them, and therefore don't want to waste them.
It is unfortunate that the TNG movie producers had this BIZZARE infatuation with TWOK. Every movie's nemesis, including Nemesis, was compared to Khan (Soran, Borg Queen, Ru'Afo, Shinzon). Both FC made direct connections with Moby Dick, TWOK's influence. NEM's writer and producers admitted openly they were carbon-copying TWOK.
I was also put off by the cheapness of the production. Remember George Lucas was in the middle of making his Star Wars FX orgy. Trek's producers decide to give us a sci-fi movie using cheap looking sets lit with NEON that harkened back to late-80's TELEVISION. It was as if they hadn't picked their heads up to see that the industry, and sci-fi in particular, had evolved from the early days of TNG, but still expected fans to drop $8.00 to see their movie despite it being cheap and an admitted rehash.
In hindsight I would say that attitude was a bit arrogant on their part, and they lost a bundle because of their miscalculation.
I was also put off by the cheapness of the production. Remember George Lucas was in the middle of making his Star Wars FX orgy. Trek's producers decide to give us a sci-fi movie using cheap looking sets lit with NEON that harkened back to late-80's TELEVISION. It was as if they hadn't picked their heads up to see that the industry, and sci-fi in particular, had evolved from the early days of TNG, but still expected fans to drop $8.00 to see their movie despite it being cheap and an admitted rehash.
In hindsight I would say that attitude was a bit arrogant on their part, and they lost a bundle because of their miscalculation.
