Why Star Trek Nemesis failed to reach the heights of TWOK

[Broccoli]

John Logan's script was simply weak despite the fact that he claimed that he was a huge fan and watched every single TNG episode before writing the script.

You, sir, have just described every piece of fan-fiction ever made.

 

[The Overlord]

A "taboo subject" how? Since when does any subject become "taboo" in Trek? I've seen rape - real physical rape in the sense it actually happens - as a subject in many TV shows and movies.

Just because it's "taboo" can't mean it can't be used in a fictional story. And here we're talking about a "mind rape," not a physical rape. And I've only seen people here refer to it as a "rape." In the movie, Troi calls it a violation, if I remember right.

Shinzon didn't physically rape Troi. He put himself in her mind, having her see him instead of Riker, and for a brief time.

And as I said it does become part of the plot, when Troi uses it to turn the tables on Shinzon and find his ship. I thought that was wonderfully done.

Just because rape is "taboo" doesn't take away from the power of the scene.

I see that you only focused on one of the many reasons he gave for why it was a stupid plot element.

It was totally irrelevant to his plan, and tipped off the ENT crew that he was a bad guy.

Maybe because I didn't feel like commenting on the other remarks?

And it's pretty common for men to be foiled by their base instincts and urges. Troi might have been the first non-Romulan, non-Reman woman he'd seen in his entire life.

Shinzon's plans seemed to be nebulous and in flux, anyway, with his viceroy having to remind him to stick to objectives. He was impulsive.

But Shinzon is supposed to be a master strategist, Picard's equal. Having him do things like this makes him seem like a moron, there have been rapists who choose their victims carefully, but Shinzon is too stupid to do that and flushes away all the work he did to make himself look like a good guy. How I am supposed to believe he is Picard's equal when he does bonehead things like this?

Just because it's "taboo" can't mean it can't be used in a fictional story. And here we're talking about a "mind rape," not a physical rape. And I've only seen people here refer to it as a "rape." In the movie, Troi calls it a violation, if I remember right.

Shinzon didn't physically rape Troi. He put himself in her mind, having her see him instead of Riker, and for a brief time.

And as I said it does become part of the plot, when Troi uses it to turn the tables on Shinzon and find his ship. I thought that was wonderfully done.

Just because rape is "taboo" doesn't take away from the power of the scene.

Rape has always been taboo and again with good reason, its perhaps the most damaging thing one human can do another. Its an act of evil that causes extreme psychological damage to its victims, its not something that should be used. Its frankly been misused in many movies and TV shows, because they use it in an exploitative manner more often then not. I'm not saying rape should be never used in fiction, but you have be careful using it. It was used exploitative manner in Nemesis, you could have cut that whole scene, the movie would have better for it. Rape should not be some minor plot point used to make the bad guy seem more evil.

And what Shinzon did was rape, he was taking over Riker's body and Trio could sense he was doing it and then Shinzon continued to force him himself on Troi even when she tried resist. Forcing someone to have sex with you, against your will, is rape.

 

[Maurice]

The trouble with portraying rape of any sort is that it's difficult to do without sensationalizing it for at least part of the audience. So it's almost always tasteless to at least part of an audience no matter how it's portrayed.

 

[inflatabledalek]

Whilst I don't think rape is necessarily a topic Trek can't deal with and deal with well in at least an allegorical way the problem is it's such a big, difficult and weighty subject there's simply no way it can be dealt with properly in a film where Troi is only a minor player. It effectively just becomes a plot device to let them shoot at Shinzon in the climax.

As for if it counts as being equal to a physical rape... Well that's a grey area but I personally would say that, based on what happens on screen, it is. Troi experiences those events as if they were happening and it almost certainly would leave the same psychological damage.

 

[BriGuy]

I see that you only focused on one of the many reasons he gave for why it was a stupid plot element.

It was totally irrelevant to his plan, and tipped off the ENT crew that he was a bad guy.

Maybe because I didn't feel like commenting on the other remarks?

And it's pretty common for men to be foiled by their base instincts and urges. Troi might have been the first non-Romulan, non-Reman woman he'd seen in his entire life.

Shinzon's plans seemed to be nebulous and in flux, anyway, with his viceroy having to remind him to stick to objectives. He was impulsive.

But Shinzon is supposed to be a master strategist, Picard's equal. Having him do things like this makes him seem like a moron, there have been rapists who choose their victims carefully, but Shinzon is too stupid to do that and flushes away all the work he did to make himself look like a good guy. How I am supposed to believe he is Picard's equal when he does bonehead things like this?

Just because it's "taboo" can't mean it can't be used in a fictional story. And here we're talking about a "mind rape," not a physical rape. And I've only seen people here refer to it as a "rape." In the movie, Troi calls it a violation, if I remember right.

Shinzon didn't physically rape Troi. He put himself in her mind, having her see him instead of Riker, and for a brief time.

And as I said it does become part of the plot, when Troi uses it to turn the tables on Shinzon and find his ship. I thought that was wonderfully done.

Just because rape is "taboo" doesn't take away from the power of the scene.

Rape has always been taboo and again with good reason, its perhaps the most damaging thing one human can do another. Its an act of evil that causes extreme psychological damage to its victims, its not something that should be used. Its frankly been misused in many movies and TV shows, because they use it in an exploitative manner more often then not. I'm not saying rape should be never used in fiction, but you have be careful using it. It was used exploitative manner in Nemesis, you could have cut that whole scene, the movie would have better for it. Rape should not be some minor plot point used to make the bad guy seem more evil.

And what Shinzon did was rape, he was taking over Riker's body and Trio could sense he was doing it and then Shinzon continued to force him himself on Troi even when she tried resist. Forcing someone to have sex with you, against your will, is rape.

I would say murder tops rape as being more damaging.

And Shinzon did not take over Riker's body. If that's what you think happened, then you really misunderstood the scene and maybe by extension the entire movie - it really brings your observations and comments into question. Shinzon put himself into Troi's mind; Riker was still there, she just didn't see him, she saw Shinzon. That's why Riker didn't understand Troi's reaction once she stopped seeing Shinzon in his place.

Rape is wrong and a crime, no question. But I think people are letting too much of their college-infused, PC, "no means no" and "sometimes yes means no" ideology color their comments on a movie and a work of fiction, in which what occurred on screen, as far as we know, does not and can not happen in our real lives.

 

[gottacook]

But Shinzon is supposed to be a master strategist...

Well, so was Khan. If the villain doesn't make any bad/stupid decisions, he defeats our captain - and then where are we?

No one in this thread has yet mentioned the strengths of Ricardo Montalban in the role of Khan - something I'm attuned to at the moment because last night while working at the computer I was listening to TWoK with the Nick Meyer commentary track (at listentoamovie.com) and he carefully explains what Montalban brought to the role. Tom Hardy, whatever his strengths as demonstrated elsewhere, hadn't (and perhaps still hasn't) a fraction of the experience on stage and screen that Montalban had circa 1981.

Moreover, Khan wanted to avenge himself on Kirk, not on the whole planet Earth, which makes considerably more sense given what happened during those 15 years. (Of course, if there had been no orbit-shifting explosion and Marla had lived, perhaps he and she would have been at each other's throats by year 15 and he'd want to avenge himself on Kirk for a different reason.)

 

[The Overlord]

But Shinzon is supposed to be a master strategist...

Well, so was Khan. If the villain doesn't make any bad/stupid decisions, he defeats our captain - and then where are we?

No one in this thread has yet mentioned the strengths of Ricardo Montalban in the role of Khan - something I'm attuned to at the moment because last night while working at the computer I was listening to TWoK with the Nick Meyer commentary track (at listentoamovie.com) and he carefully explains what Montalban brought to the role. Tom Hardy, whatever his strengths as demonstrated elsewhere, hadn't (and perhaps still hasn't) a fraction of the experience on stage and screen that Montalban had circa 1981.

Moreover, Khan wanted to avenge himself on Kirk, not on the whole planet Earth, which makes considerably more sense given what happened during those 15 years. (Of course, if there had been no orbit-shifting explosion and Marla had lived, perhaps he and she would have been at each other's throats by year 15 and he'd want to avenge himself on Kirk for a different reason.)

The thing is Khan did not do extremely stupid things like Shinzon did. Shinzon was dying if he didn't get a blood transfusion from Picard and yet when Enterprise arrives Shinzon has ship cloak for 17 hours and then decides to show himself. Then he invites him on his ship and during this meeting, he suggests he and Picard have dinner the next day. He is dying from a disease that this transfusion can cure him of, but he seems to have no problem pointlessly wasting time. I never saw Khan be this wasteful with his time. Khan seems like a far more intelligent foe then Shinzon, who came off as a low rent Bond villain.

Tom Hardy is a good actor, Shinzon was just a bad character. He was good in Bronson and Inception and he will likely be great as Bane in the new Batman movie. Its a shame he hit the bottle after Nemesis failed.

 

[Charles Phipps]

Poor Tom Hardy got a lot of flack for this but I think it's important to note I don't think anyone really blamed his PERFORMANCE for it and I wished he hadn't taken it personally. Shinzon is an extremely well-acted part. It's just the writing is terrible and the plot nonsensical.

SF Debris does a better job deconstructing it but the plot holes and confusion is pretty glaring. A short list of the ones I agree with (and a few additions):

1. The Remans are treated as a huge big-bad terrible force with advanced technology and power despite being oppressed slaves.

2. Shinzon is going to genocidally wipe out the Federation despite the fact he has objective reasons to hate the Romulans much more.

Actually, he has no reason to wipe out the Federation whatsoever.

3. The "mind-rape" scene (which is literally what it is, so let's call it this) is tasteless and felt out of place in a Star Trek movie.

4. B4's inclusion was out of nowhere and didn't really add much to the plot.

5. The Dune Buggy scene was just bizarre (not necessarily bad but the definition of a "Big Lipped Alligator" moment).

6. A full-body transfusion makes less sense than usual technobabble since the body MAKES blood.

Shinzon could get 8 pints of blood from Pichard over a month (maybe sooner if the Federation's technology has improved) or so probably by ASKING.

What's amazing is, even if the whole "evil Clone plot" is crazy and out there, what's amazing is that Shinzon and the Remans are actually still interesting to me. I'd love to learn more about the Remans and their culture. I even like Shinzon as a character. It's just, honestly, none of his actions make a lick of sense.

Hell, if the issue was Brent Spinner aging, why not just say:

"Data, you look...terrible."
"I'm artificially adjusting my face to show signs of aging to make humans more comfortable."
"Why?"
"I thought I just said."

 

[Marc]

I still don't understand the hatred for the "mind rape" scene. I thought it was one of the most effective plotlines of the movie. And it made perfect sense to me.

Say what you will about Shinzon's juvenile "desires," but he apparently has longings for human or human-appearing companionship. His fascination with Troi starts when he first sees her and wants to touch her hair. He then commits the mental violation.

And it's not something that comes up that one time and then never has any repercussions.

It comes back to bite him big-time when Troi turns the tables on her attacker, and uses their "link" to find the cloaked ship.

I thought that was well-done.

There are numerous problems with that scene.

Rape is really a taboo subject and with good reason, its something that should be handled carefully. Here it just seems rather exploitative, it doesn't really further the plot and exists only to prove that Shinzon is evil.

Also it makes Shinzon look stupid, the crew of Enterprise didn't know he was evil, he could have continued his ploy of seeming to be a peaceful leader and then lure the Enterprise into a trap or catch them with their guard down. Instead he reveals he is evil almost right away and throws away all the work he put into creating this ploy, for reasons that have nothing to do with his master plan. A pretty bone head move for someone who is supposed to be a tactical genius.

A "taboo subject" how? Since when does any subject become "taboo" in Trek? I've seen rape - real physical rape in the sense it actually happens - as a subject in many TV shows and movies.

Just because it's "taboo" can't mean it can't be used in a fictional story. And here we're talking about a "mind rape," not a physical rape. And I've only seen people here refer to it as a "rape." In the movie, Troi calls it a violation, if I remember right.

And it's not for the first time it's come up with TNG - in fact it was the basis for an episode in the 5th season

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violations_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation)

 

[BillJ]

Poor script, weak acting by an over-aged cast and terrible choice in the directors chair. What's not to love?

 

[Balrog]

Low budget for a sci-fi movie added to a weak script and a plot already done in Star Trek.

Let's face it, if TWOK was never made, NEM probably would have been received better.

 

[BillJ]

Let's face it, if TWOK was never made, NEM probably would have been received better.

I don't think so. Many of the issues would still exist even if The Wrath of Khan didn't.

 

[Alrik]

Low budget for a sci-fi movie added to a weak script and a plot already done in Star Trek.

Let's face it, if TWOK was never made, NEM probably would have been received better.

Problem is, if TWOK had never been made, TNG might not have ever been made. TWOK was pretty much the re-birth of Trek. NEM was simply a bad movie. I'm a big TNG fan, but NEM is the only Trek movie that I have no interest in re-watching.

 

[BillJ]

Low budget for a sci-fi movie added to a weak script and a plot already done in Star Trek.

Let's face it, if TWOK was never made, NEM probably would have been received better.

Problem is, if TWOK had never been made, TNG might not have ever been made. TWOK was pretty much the re-birth of Trek. NEM was simply a bad movie. I'm a big TNG fan, but NEM is the only Trek movie that I have no interest in re-watching.

Every couple of years I go and rewatch to see if it's as big a trainwreck as I originally remember it being... it always is.

 

[Alrik]

Low budget for a sci-fi movie added to a weak script and a plot already done in Star Trek.

Let's face it, if TWOK was never made, NEM probably would have been received better.

Problem is, if TWOK had never been made, TNG might not have ever been made. TWOK was pretty much the re-birth of Trek. NEM was simply a bad movie. I'm a big TNG fan, but NEM is the only Trek movie that I have no interest in re-watching.

Every couple of years I go and rewatch to see if it's as big a trainwreck as I originally remember it being... it always is.

I was just about to take a sip before I read this...fortunately, I waited.

I hear ya. Outside of the 'kewl' sfx and finally bringing closure to the Riker/Troi relationship (after 15 years), there is just nothing that makes me want to revisit it. And this is coming from a guy that has seen every ep of TNG more times than I can count. NEM=Trainwreck might be an understatement.

 

[Trek Survivor]

Problem is, if TWOK had never been made, TNG might not have ever been made. TWOK was pretty much the re-birth of Trek. NEM was simply a bad movie. I'm a big TNG fan, but NEM is the only Trek movie that I have no interest in re-watching.

Every couple of years I go and rewatch to see if it's as big a trainwreck as I originally remember it being... it always is.

I was just about to take a sip before I read this...fortunately, I waited.

I hear ya. Outside of the 'kewl' sfx and finally bringing closure to the Riker/Troi relationship (after 15 years), there is just nothing that makes me want to revisit it. And this is coming from a guy that has seen every ep of TNG more times than I can count. NEM=Trainwreck might be an understatement.

I know its not the "popular" view, but as a massive TNG fan, I rather like "Nemesis". Part of it stems from the fact that I like supporting the underdog, esp. when much of the hate seems to be bandwagon-jumping, but the other part...

I just think it's okay. Oh, not a wonderful story to be sure. Certainly not a great send-off for the crew that I love. But is it as bad as some people round here make out? Hardly.

 

[RyanKCR]

Every couple of years I go and rewatch to see if it's as big a trainwreck as I originally remember it being... it always is.

I was just about to take a sip before I read this...fortunately, I waited.

I hear ya. Outside of the 'kewl' sfx and finally bringing closure to the Riker/Troi relationship (after 15 years), there is just nothing that makes me want to revisit it. And this is coming from a guy that has seen every ep of TNG more times than I can count. NEM=Trainwreck might be an understatement.

I know its not the "popular" view, but as a massive TNG fan, I rather like "Nemesis". Part of it stems from the fact that I like supporting the underdog, esp. when much of the hate seems to be bandwagon-jumping, but the other part...

I just think it's okay. Oh, not a wonderful story to be sure. Certainly not a great send-off for the crew that I love. But is it as bad as some people round here make out? Hardly.

Nemesis is still my favorite of the TNG films. I "know" the problems that people say plague the film but I don't find them any more absurd then some of the problems in the other Trek films.

 

[Alrik]

I was just about to take a sip before I read this...fortunately, I waited.

I hear ya. Outside of the 'kewl' sfx and finally bringing closure to the Riker/Troi relationship (after 15 years), there is just nothing that makes me want to revisit it. And this is coming from a guy that has seen every ep of TNG more times than I can count. NEM=Trainwreck might be an understatement.

I know its not the "popular" view, but as a massive TNG fan, I rather like "Nemesis". Part of it stems from the fact that I like supporting the underdog, esp. when much of the hate seems to be bandwagon-jumping, but the other part...

I just think it's okay. Oh, not a wonderful story to be sure. Certainly not a great send-off for the crew that I love. But is it as bad as some people round here make out? Hardly.

Nemesis is still my favorite of the TNG films. I "know" the problems that people say plague the film but I don't find them any more absurd then some of the problems in the other Trek films.

I guess I should have ended with "IMHO." I am all for 'to each his/her own, and by no means believe that just because this is how I see it, everyone else should agree. However, you have to also understand that I have seen every Trek movie, starting in '79, during their first run, at a theater, usually on opening weekend. Nemesis was the first and only time that I left wanting to like what I had just watched, but was left feeling, WTF?

To be perfectly honest, I left Insurection much more satisfied. I know it gets its own share of hate, mostly for being an overblown episode. But at least it felt like TNG and all of my favorite characters, that I have come to know and love over the years, were in character. As far as I'm concerned, TNG probably should have just wrapped right there. In my eyes, Nemesis did more harm than good, then again, that's just my opinion.

 

[BillJ]

I could forgive most of the issues in Nemesis, if the cast hadn't come off as so disinterested. It really kills the film. If they aren't interested in the product, why should I be?

 

[Alrik]

I could forgive most of the issues in Nemesis, if the cast hadn't come off as so disinterested. It really kills the film. If they aren't interested in the product, why should I be?

To be fair, IIRC, I believe much of that rests at the feet of Stewart Baird. I believe it was Sirtis (who tends to be pretty candid) that said he didn't have a clue as to who the characters were, or what they were about. That it was his directing/direction that kept the characters/actors so out of character.

And upon further reflection (because, to be perfectly honest, my disappointment in Nemesis was so great, that I haven't put a great deal of time reflecting on it,) I think you are absolutely correct. Had the cast been allowed to play their roles as they had for years, I believe I could had been able to get past it's other issues.