View Poll Results: What did you think of Star Trek: Nemesis?
31
39.24%
22
27.85%
16
20.25%
Have not seen it
10
12.66%
Voters: 79. You may not vote on this poll
Star Trek: Nemesis
#328
DVD Talk Reviewer
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: WAS looking for My Own Private Stuckeyville, but stuck in Liberty City (while missing Vice City)
Posts: 15,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For me..
ST II: Wrath of Khan
ST IV: The Voyage Home
ST: First Contact
ST VI: The Undiscovered Country
ST III: The Search For Spock
ST: Generations
ST: Nemesis
ST V: The Final Frontier
ST: The Motion Picture
ST: Insurrection
ST II: Wrath of Khan
ST IV: The Voyage Home
ST: First Contact
ST VI: The Undiscovered Country
ST III: The Search For Spock
ST: Generations
ST: Nemesis
ST V: The Final Frontier
ST: The Motion Picture
ST: Insurrection
#329
DVD Talk Legend
Here's my list in order of favorites...
1. ST II: The Wrath Of Khan
2. ST VI: The Undiscovered Country
3. ST III: The Search For Spock
4. ST IV: The Voyage Home
5. Generations
6. Insurrection
7. Nemesis
8. First Contact
9. ST: TMP (tie)
9. ST V: The Final Frontier (tie)
I like First Contact, but there are several things about that one that bug me. For the sake of brevity I won't list all of those reasons - but, like I said, I do still like the movie... just not as much as most Trek fans seem to.
1. ST II: The Wrath Of Khan
2. ST VI: The Undiscovered Country
3. ST III: The Search For Spock
4. ST IV: The Voyage Home
5. Generations
6. Insurrection
7. Nemesis
8. First Contact
9. ST: TMP (tie)
9. ST V: The Final Frontier (tie)
I like First Contact, but there are several things about that one that bug me. For the sake of brevity I won't list all of those reasons - but, like I said, I do still like the movie... just not as much as most Trek fans seem to.
Last edited by B5Erik; 05-28-03 at 02:10 AM.
#330
DVD Talk Legend
Star Trek NEMESIS: Why The Negative Reviews?
OK, I finally got around to seeing Star Trek: Nemesis last night, and I really enjoyed it. There were a lot of little touches -- the wedding scene, Data speaking with B-4, Riker's send-off aboard the Titan -- that I really appreciated as a long-time fan of the series.
Were there some soft spots? Sure. If you're looking at the film with a hypercritical eye, there's some real boners here -- two ships are in a brutal dogfight in deep space, and the suddenly and for no reason they just stop firing at each other for 5-10 minutes at a time -- but by and large, the plot was 2-3 times better than a typical Trek movie. (Compared to, say, Star Trek: Insomnia...)
But by and large the movie got hateful reviews, and some harsh user comments, and I do not know why. Is it the 2nd coming of 2001: A Space Odyssey? No. Is it better than any film in the series? No, several films are better (Khan and First Contact come to mind). But does it deserve to be savaged? I think not. I really think this is one of the very best Next Gen movies out there.
Am I wrong? Why or why not?
Spoiler:
Were there some soft spots? Sure. If you're looking at the film with a hypercritical eye, there's some real boners here -- two ships are in a brutal dogfight in deep space, and the suddenly and for no reason they just stop firing at each other for 5-10 minutes at a time -- but by and large, the plot was 2-3 times better than a typical Trek movie. (Compared to, say, Star Trek: Insomnia...)
But by and large the movie got hateful reviews, and some harsh user comments, and I do not know why. Is it the 2nd coming of 2001: A Space Odyssey? No. Is it better than any film in the series? No, several films are better (Khan and First Contact come to mind). But does it deserve to be savaged? I think not. I really think this is one of the very best Next Gen movies out there.
Am I wrong? Why or why not?
#331
DVD Talk Legend
You're not wrong, but that's my opinion.
I think that this movie came out too long after the last Trek movie. The typical cycle was two years, this one was four years, and in that time frame Star Trek got less "cool" in the eyes of casual fans. That's just my .02
I think that this movie came out too long after the last Trek movie. The typical cycle was two years, this one was four years, and in that time frame Star Trek got less "cool" in the eyes of casual fans. That's just my .02
#332
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
The review of the film on IGN perfectly sums up my feelings on the film.
http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/380/380136p1.html
The trouble with Star Trek...
December 12, 2002 - "Star Trek is dead!"
So proclaim legions of fans who doubt the continued solvency of this thirty-six-year-old franchise. Such sentiments were even echoed by people attending Tuesday morning's Austin screening of Trek's newest theatrical installment, Nemesis.
As a lifelong Star Trek fan, I've had discussions about this very notion with friends, colleagues, and even people closely associated with the various permutations of Gene Roddenberry's long-lived juggernaut. Understandably, everybody has their own opinion on "the trouble with Trek," but all evaluations reflect one common theme: at best, the franchise is in serious trouble, perhaps catastrophic trouble. But what are these "troubles" exactly? And, how can they be undone?
Some say Star Trek should be put out to pasture, and that the series is suffering from over-exposure and burnout. This would be shameful: diminishing audiences and lackluster box office do not necessarily denote the oversaturation of a title, or disinterest in a franchise. The James Bond movies prove this out nicely: audiences may waffle over one style (or theme) of Bond movie, but when the formula is shaken-up in a subsequent film, crowds often turn out in droves. In short: that a franchise has chugged along for two or three decades – in any permutation – may be, more or less, irrelevant. At the end of the day, audiences want to be entertained. So, the question becomes: defining what entertains viewers, and figuring out how to give it to them what they want within parameters and guidelines already laid out in the franchise's history.
And this, for my money, is where Star Trek has recently failed: it has ignored quantifiably successful elements from previous feature films and television series, and failed to generate new material that is in any way compelling to either fans or laymen. On television, and in film, the franchise has repeatedly embraced modes of storytelling that are awkward and unfocused at best. It has relied upon "A" plots and "B" plots that often do not intersect (if you can't figure out a way to drive a story with just one through-line, then it's not a story that should be told at all), revelations that challenge (or utterly dismiss) previously established history or continuity, stories that regurgitate previous Star Trek adventures, and demonstrated a repeated – indeed, pitiful – unwillingness to take chances with its style, characters, or concept. In short: Star Trek is now content to be bland.
Anyone regularly tuning into Trek's most recent TV incarnations – Voyager and Enterprise – knows exactly what they are going to get, substantively and narratively. And there's rarely, if ever, any deviation. This "sameness" cuts across the board, and permeates nearly every technical element of the franchise as well: editorial sluggishness, photographic stagnancy, and musical repression run rampant. Recently, word has leaked about how such dastardly decisions have come about, and all fingers point to two individuals: franchise overlords Rick Berman and Brannon Braga.
Observant fans may have noticed an increasing stream of comments from Star Trek staff members regarding the behind-the-scenes machinations that drive Trek's creative policy. Composers have publicly commented on producer's insistence that episodic scores be "toned down" and restrained, which inherently diminishes viewer perception of the intend on-screen emotion (whether it be urgency, tension, romance, etc.) There is scuttlebutt that Jonathan Frakes – director of the feature films First Contact and Insurrection – was repeatedly ordered to restrain his visual style and camera movements during the production of those films.
Across the board, the franchise looks the same, sounds the same, and feels the same. Motionless, lackluster, uninspired, physically and emotionally colorless, texturally and conceptually tepid, and almost completely lacking in dramatic truth. And all of these shortcomings are being deliberately engineered by The Powers That Be, who insist that their vision is the proper vision, regardless of dwindling audiences and returns. People often point to the oft-overlooked Star Trek: Deep Space Nine as the boldest and most palpable embodiment of what Star Trek ought to be. Not-so-surprisingly, DS9 is also the recent Trek product least impacted by Berman and Braga, as evidenced by recent public comments from other producers on the series.
All things being equal, it seems the trouble with Star Trek lies not in the nature of Trek itself, but with the people whose vision is guiding it, and their apparent inability comprehend the most basic tenets of narrative convention or compelling artistry. Star Trek is about "boldly" going "where no one has gone before". There is nothing bold about Star Trek anymore – it has been artistically and stylistically neutered (it's a pretty sad state-of-affairs when the original television series – filmed in the 1960s – seems more stylistically refined (camera movements, shot compositions, score usage, etc.) than a considerably more high-tech and "enlightened" series made today). It has been beaten into a mushy, lifeless visage of a once daring and vital franchise.
Which brings us to Star Trek Nemesis – the first feature film to shatter the age-old adage that "even numbered Trek movies are always good". The tenth theatrical Star Trek adventure, Nemesis is an important film in many ways – mostly because its success or failure may determine a great deal about where the franchise heads from here.
In an effort to capitalize on the same success found when Paramount drafted producer Harve Bennett and director Nicholas Meyer – both Trek virgins brought in to helm Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan in the early 1980s – legendary editor-turned-director Stuart Baird was brought-in to wrangle Nemesis. The theory was this: bring in some fresh blood, someone who can re-interpret Star Trek with a fresh perspective. It worked with Bennett and Meyer, maybe it will would work again with Baird...
But someone didn't think this through too carefully: Bennett and Meyer were very thorough, very thoughtful, and very contemplative about how they approached Star Trek. They did inject fresh sensibilities to the equation, but they also researched the original series very carefully when doing so. Bennett, for example, watched every original series episode before commencing work on The Wrath of Khan. In fact, as a Trek newbie, it was Bennett's idea to bring back Khan in the first place – so obviously he got something out of his crash course. Stuart Baird did no such research: reports from the set indicate he repeatedly called LeVar Burton's Geordi LaForge character "an alien" (he is extremely human), and referred to Trek's signature "phasers" as "ray guns". This is like sending someone who knows nothing about money to represent a major corporation on the floor of the stock market, and nowhere is Baird's lack of familiarity with Star Trek: The Next Generation more evident than in how its characters are approached.
There's a moment in the film's conclusion in which two characters say goodbye to each other – for all we know, this may well be the last time they see each other. There are no knowing expressions, no pauses of unspoken appreciation or understanding – nothing. These people have been friends and associates for decades, yet the departure is cursory and uninvolving, like someone we've known forever is getting on a bus to ride across town. Nemesis is riddled with missed opportunities and dramatic insincerity. One has to wonder how things would have turned-out if Baird actually had context for the material he was directing – if he'd cared enough to figure it out in the first place, or had been made to do so by the people in charge.
Nemesis is a big, sloppy, floundering mess. performances are generally tepid and uncertain – the main TNG characters seem aloof and unclear about what they are doing, and their interaction with each other. Dallas Puett's editing is sluggish, filled with inexplicable lag time between cuts, lending every scene a muddy and ponderous quality – an astounding deficit considering director Baird was once editor of films like Superman: The Movie, The Omen, and Lethal Weapons 1 and 2. Cinematography by legendary lensman Jeffrey Kimball is awkward and tacky, often opting for angles which place solid walls of blandness behind character's faces, when simply reversing the angle would have revealed a deeper, more textured background. Color schemes evoke Roger Corman's Battle Beyond the Stars, rather than a big-budget feature film. Jerry Goldsmith's electronic-heavy score overpowers the on-screen action, sometime to absurd results.
Visual effects by Digital Domain – making their first foray into the Star Trek universe – are consistently top-of-the-line, but what they represent is generally uninspired. No matter how well produced DD's work may be, it's difficult to be impressed by three ships on screen at one time, when the recent The Lord of the Rings and Star Wars movies have upped the ante by putting tens-of-thousands of fighting things in front of us in a single shot. Hope shines brightly when Patrick Stewart's Jean-Luc Picard hatches a diabolical plan to lure evil Shinzon (Tom Hardy) into Federation space, where a Starfleet armada is waiting to ambush the badguy. But such a glorious notion is never delivered: Enterprise never makes it to Federation space...never reaches the armada...and we're only given a slightly-larger-than-TV shootout between a meager three or four ships. A tantalizing hint at what could have been.
Which pretty much describes the whole movie: it's a bait-and-switch. Scriptwriter John Logan (Gladiator), who has repeatedly indicated he wrote Nemesis for the fans, has mistaken trivia for heart. To reference Captain Kirk, or make an aside regarding a previous Star Trek adventure, is not the same thing as understanding the soul of a concept. A self-professed Star Trek II fan, Logan would have been better advised to follow in Bennett and Meyer's footsteps...and comb the archives for unresolved Next Generation storylines...instead of cheaply mimicking Wrath of Khan's "opposing geniuses collide & big ships shoot" motif. In Nemesis, we should have seen things we have never seen before, or followed-up on stories still waiting to be resolved. We should not have been given pale imitations of someone else's ideas.
There is a perceptual/emotional blueprint in place here, but writing, performances, and direction do not follow through on the template that's presented. In Nemesis, there are no moments as sublimely truthful as Kirk's vulnerability showing through at unexpected instances in The Wrath of Khan or The Search for Spock for example, or even his chilling comment in Star Trek V: The Final Frontier referencing a foreknowledge that he will someday "die alone". No moments as primally satisfying as the Klingon torpedo flying through Enterprise's saucer section in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country – a sequence which was, what, five or ten seconds long?
All of this isn't an effort to exalt the original series (or their movies) over The Next Generation – this is an effort to illustrate a point. It's not that hard to figure out what makes Star Trek work. Episodic ratings and box office returns pretty much bare out the illustration: for the most part, Trek is best-received, most effective, and most noteworthy, when it takes chances. Risk taking is what propelled the original series towards legendary status – would anyone have even noticed Star Trek if there hadn't been an element of controversy or edge about it – if it hadn't served as a well-intentioned surrogate for a repressed societal voice that was waiting to be heard? If it hadn't made us think about issues like abortion, racism, and censorship? Would The Next Generation episode "The Best of Both Worlds" have become one of the most popular episodes ever if the series lead hadn't been kidnapped and turned into a Borg, and for one brief moment, made a supervillain? The answer to all these questions is: no.
Genre entries like Xena, Hercules, Farscape, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and even the much-maligned Andromeda have repeatedly demonstrated that chances can be taken with a franchise, to positive and intriguing results. Berman and Braga assert they are merely following a re-definition of Star Trek, which was laid out before franchise progenitor Gene Roddenberry passed away. If this is so, one has to ask: is it honoring a dying man's legacy to remain so devoted to his vision that the legacy itself collapses under its own deadweight? Isn't it possible that Roddenberry's re-definition may not have been the proper definition? Is it doing a legacy justice to muffle its voice and stifle its vitality? Tantalizing...and compelling...questions.
Star Trek is not dead, but the ability of its shepherds to properly protect the flock may be irreparably compromised. Whether or not there are more Star Trek stories to tell is not an issue – such potential is as vast as the universe itself. Whether or not the people in charge can tell such stores is a concern. This attrition has been happening for a long time, but only now is the full extent of Paramount's remiss complacency becoming evident. Give Star Trek its balls back. Take chances. Think out of the box. Put some color into the shows – good God, who wants to look at murky gray tones every week? Add visual dynamic and kinetics. Pump-up the sound. Above all, let the characters be human, and unpredictable. Let them make mistakes, and compromise their ideals – because Trek is about humans, and humans can be inconsistent. Let our characters not always do the right thing, and let us not always agree with them. Make it...well...real.
Let Star Trek be a youthful child, filled with energy, quirkiness, driven by a sense of experimentation, exploration, and wonder. Something needs to be done here – bravely, and with extreme prejudice. I walked out of Star Trek Nemesis – whose promotional tag line is "A generation's final journey begins" – with the words of Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country's Chancellor Gorkon echoing in my head: "Don't let it end this way." Not for The Next Generation, and not for the franchise in general.
Make it so...
-- Glen Oliver
http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/380/380136p1.html
The trouble with Star Trek...
December 12, 2002 - "Star Trek is dead!"
So proclaim legions of fans who doubt the continued solvency of this thirty-six-year-old franchise. Such sentiments were even echoed by people attending Tuesday morning's Austin screening of Trek's newest theatrical installment, Nemesis.
As a lifelong Star Trek fan, I've had discussions about this very notion with friends, colleagues, and even people closely associated with the various permutations of Gene Roddenberry's long-lived juggernaut. Understandably, everybody has their own opinion on "the trouble with Trek," but all evaluations reflect one common theme: at best, the franchise is in serious trouble, perhaps catastrophic trouble. But what are these "troubles" exactly? And, how can they be undone?
Some say Star Trek should be put out to pasture, and that the series is suffering from over-exposure and burnout. This would be shameful: diminishing audiences and lackluster box office do not necessarily denote the oversaturation of a title, or disinterest in a franchise. The James Bond movies prove this out nicely: audiences may waffle over one style (or theme) of Bond movie, but when the formula is shaken-up in a subsequent film, crowds often turn out in droves. In short: that a franchise has chugged along for two or three decades – in any permutation – may be, more or less, irrelevant. At the end of the day, audiences want to be entertained. So, the question becomes: defining what entertains viewers, and figuring out how to give it to them what they want within parameters and guidelines already laid out in the franchise's history.
And this, for my money, is where Star Trek has recently failed: it has ignored quantifiably successful elements from previous feature films and television series, and failed to generate new material that is in any way compelling to either fans or laymen. On television, and in film, the franchise has repeatedly embraced modes of storytelling that are awkward and unfocused at best. It has relied upon "A" plots and "B" plots that often do not intersect (if you can't figure out a way to drive a story with just one through-line, then it's not a story that should be told at all), revelations that challenge (or utterly dismiss) previously established history or continuity, stories that regurgitate previous Star Trek adventures, and demonstrated a repeated – indeed, pitiful – unwillingness to take chances with its style, characters, or concept. In short: Star Trek is now content to be bland.
Anyone regularly tuning into Trek's most recent TV incarnations – Voyager and Enterprise – knows exactly what they are going to get, substantively and narratively. And there's rarely, if ever, any deviation. This "sameness" cuts across the board, and permeates nearly every technical element of the franchise as well: editorial sluggishness, photographic stagnancy, and musical repression run rampant. Recently, word has leaked about how such dastardly decisions have come about, and all fingers point to two individuals: franchise overlords Rick Berman and Brannon Braga.
Observant fans may have noticed an increasing stream of comments from Star Trek staff members regarding the behind-the-scenes machinations that drive Trek's creative policy. Composers have publicly commented on producer's insistence that episodic scores be "toned down" and restrained, which inherently diminishes viewer perception of the intend on-screen emotion (whether it be urgency, tension, romance, etc.) There is scuttlebutt that Jonathan Frakes – director of the feature films First Contact and Insurrection – was repeatedly ordered to restrain his visual style and camera movements during the production of those films.
Across the board, the franchise looks the same, sounds the same, and feels the same. Motionless, lackluster, uninspired, physically and emotionally colorless, texturally and conceptually tepid, and almost completely lacking in dramatic truth. And all of these shortcomings are being deliberately engineered by The Powers That Be, who insist that their vision is the proper vision, regardless of dwindling audiences and returns. People often point to the oft-overlooked Star Trek: Deep Space Nine as the boldest and most palpable embodiment of what Star Trek ought to be. Not-so-surprisingly, DS9 is also the recent Trek product least impacted by Berman and Braga, as evidenced by recent public comments from other producers on the series.
All things being equal, it seems the trouble with Star Trek lies not in the nature of Trek itself, but with the people whose vision is guiding it, and their apparent inability comprehend the most basic tenets of narrative convention or compelling artistry. Star Trek is about "boldly" going "where no one has gone before". There is nothing bold about Star Trek anymore – it has been artistically and stylistically neutered (it's a pretty sad state-of-affairs when the original television series – filmed in the 1960s – seems more stylistically refined (camera movements, shot compositions, score usage, etc.) than a considerably more high-tech and "enlightened" series made today). It has been beaten into a mushy, lifeless visage of a once daring and vital franchise.
Which brings us to Star Trek Nemesis – the first feature film to shatter the age-old adage that "even numbered Trek movies are always good". The tenth theatrical Star Trek adventure, Nemesis is an important film in many ways – mostly because its success or failure may determine a great deal about where the franchise heads from here.
In an effort to capitalize on the same success found when Paramount drafted producer Harve Bennett and director Nicholas Meyer – both Trek virgins brought in to helm Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan in the early 1980s – legendary editor-turned-director Stuart Baird was brought-in to wrangle Nemesis. The theory was this: bring in some fresh blood, someone who can re-interpret Star Trek with a fresh perspective. It worked with Bennett and Meyer, maybe it will would work again with Baird...
But someone didn't think this through too carefully: Bennett and Meyer were very thorough, very thoughtful, and very contemplative about how they approached Star Trek. They did inject fresh sensibilities to the equation, but they also researched the original series very carefully when doing so. Bennett, for example, watched every original series episode before commencing work on The Wrath of Khan. In fact, as a Trek newbie, it was Bennett's idea to bring back Khan in the first place – so obviously he got something out of his crash course. Stuart Baird did no such research: reports from the set indicate he repeatedly called LeVar Burton's Geordi LaForge character "an alien" (he is extremely human), and referred to Trek's signature "phasers" as "ray guns". This is like sending someone who knows nothing about money to represent a major corporation on the floor of the stock market, and nowhere is Baird's lack of familiarity with Star Trek: The Next Generation more evident than in how its characters are approached.
There's a moment in the film's conclusion in which two characters say goodbye to each other – for all we know, this may well be the last time they see each other. There are no knowing expressions, no pauses of unspoken appreciation or understanding – nothing. These people have been friends and associates for decades, yet the departure is cursory and uninvolving, like someone we've known forever is getting on a bus to ride across town. Nemesis is riddled with missed opportunities and dramatic insincerity. One has to wonder how things would have turned-out if Baird actually had context for the material he was directing – if he'd cared enough to figure it out in the first place, or had been made to do so by the people in charge.
Nemesis is a big, sloppy, floundering mess. performances are generally tepid and uncertain – the main TNG characters seem aloof and unclear about what they are doing, and their interaction with each other. Dallas Puett's editing is sluggish, filled with inexplicable lag time between cuts, lending every scene a muddy and ponderous quality – an astounding deficit considering director Baird was once editor of films like Superman: The Movie, The Omen, and Lethal Weapons 1 and 2. Cinematography by legendary lensman Jeffrey Kimball is awkward and tacky, often opting for angles which place solid walls of blandness behind character's faces, when simply reversing the angle would have revealed a deeper, more textured background. Color schemes evoke Roger Corman's Battle Beyond the Stars, rather than a big-budget feature film. Jerry Goldsmith's electronic-heavy score overpowers the on-screen action, sometime to absurd results.
Visual effects by Digital Domain – making their first foray into the Star Trek universe – are consistently top-of-the-line, but what they represent is generally uninspired. No matter how well produced DD's work may be, it's difficult to be impressed by three ships on screen at one time, when the recent The Lord of the Rings and Star Wars movies have upped the ante by putting tens-of-thousands of fighting things in front of us in a single shot. Hope shines brightly when Patrick Stewart's Jean-Luc Picard hatches a diabolical plan to lure evil Shinzon (Tom Hardy) into Federation space, where a Starfleet armada is waiting to ambush the badguy. But such a glorious notion is never delivered: Enterprise never makes it to Federation space...never reaches the armada...and we're only given a slightly-larger-than-TV shootout between a meager three or four ships. A tantalizing hint at what could have been.
Which pretty much describes the whole movie: it's a bait-and-switch. Scriptwriter John Logan (Gladiator), who has repeatedly indicated he wrote Nemesis for the fans, has mistaken trivia for heart. To reference Captain Kirk, or make an aside regarding a previous Star Trek adventure, is not the same thing as understanding the soul of a concept. A self-professed Star Trek II fan, Logan would have been better advised to follow in Bennett and Meyer's footsteps...and comb the archives for unresolved Next Generation storylines...instead of cheaply mimicking Wrath of Khan's "opposing geniuses collide & big ships shoot" motif. In Nemesis, we should have seen things we have never seen before, or followed-up on stories still waiting to be resolved. We should not have been given pale imitations of someone else's ideas.
There is a perceptual/emotional blueprint in place here, but writing, performances, and direction do not follow through on the template that's presented. In Nemesis, there are no moments as sublimely truthful as Kirk's vulnerability showing through at unexpected instances in The Wrath of Khan or The Search for Spock for example, or even his chilling comment in Star Trek V: The Final Frontier referencing a foreknowledge that he will someday "die alone". No moments as primally satisfying as the Klingon torpedo flying through Enterprise's saucer section in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country – a sequence which was, what, five or ten seconds long?
All of this isn't an effort to exalt the original series (or their movies) over The Next Generation – this is an effort to illustrate a point. It's not that hard to figure out what makes Star Trek work. Episodic ratings and box office returns pretty much bare out the illustration: for the most part, Trek is best-received, most effective, and most noteworthy, when it takes chances. Risk taking is what propelled the original series towards legendary status – would anyone have even noticed Star Trek if there hadn't been an element of controversy or edge about it – if it hadn't served as a well-intentioned surrogate for a repressed societal voice that was waiting to be heard? If it hadn't made us think about issues like abortion, racism, and censorship? Would The Next Generation episode "The Best of Both Worlds" have become one of the most popular episodes ever if the series lead hadn't been kidnapped and turned into a Borg, and for one brief moment, made a supervillain? The answer to all these questions is: no.
Genre entries like Xena, Hercules, Farscape, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and even the much-maligned Andromeda have repeatedly demonstrated that chances can be taken with a franchise, to positive and intriguing results. Berman and Braga assert they are merely following a re-definition of Star Trek, which was laid out before franchise progenitor Gene Roddenberry passed away. If this is so, one has to ask: is it honoring a dying man's legacy to remain so devoted to his vision that the legacy itself collapses under its own deadweight? Isn't it possible that Roddenberry's re-definition may not have been the proper definition? Is it doing a legacy justice to muffle its voice and stifle its vitality? Tantalizing...and compelling...questions.
Star Trek is not dead, but the ability of its shepherds to properly protect the flock may be irreparably compromised. Whether or not there are more Star Trek stories to tell is not an issue – such potential is as vast as the universe itself. Whether or not the people in charge can tell such stores is a concern. This attrition has been happening for a long time, but only now is the full extent of Paramount's remiss complacency becoming evident. Give Star Trek its balls back. Take chances. Think out of the box. Put some color into the shows – good God, who wants to look at murky gray tones every week? Add visual dynamic and kinetics. Pump-up the sound. Above all, let the characters be human, and unpredictable. Let them make mistakes, and compromise their ideals – because Trek is about humans, and humans can be inconsistent. Let our characters not always do the right thing, and let us not always agree with them. Make it...well...real.
Let Star Trek be a youthful child, filled with energy, quirkiness, driven by a sense of experimentation, exploration, and wonder. Something needs to be done here – bravely, and with extreme prejudice. I walked out of Star Trek Nemesis – whose promotional tag line is "A generation's final journey begins" – with the words of Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country's Chancellor Gorkon echoing in my head: "Don't let it end this way." Not for The Next Generation, and not for the franchise in general.
Make it so...
-- Glen Oliver
#334
Suspended
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: 5 Point West Side
Posts: 2,171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To sum it up, this is the most boring Star Trek movie yet, given they'll release another one base on a different ST generation. I felt asleep half way through 'cause the acting was so bad and the action was non-existence until the very end, when I was dreaming about the couselor getting busy w/ herself.
#335
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Fascination Street
Posts: 6,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still feel slightly dizzy when I hear anyone say that Nemesis was anything but bloody awful. And this is coming from someone who hated Generations and Insurrection as well, and has grudgingly come to sort-of-like The Final Frontier over the years.
Not one single thing in the film worked, not one visual aspect, not one character, or story point, nothing. I left the theater actually feeling cheated and angry. The bottom line is that the regime that currently runs Trek is extremely lazy. They hire writers and directors who have no distinct visions, (paging Nicholas Meyer, paging Leonard Nimoy, aw hell page Shatner while we're at it) and will not fight the studio on anything, and they nickel-and-dime everything but the salary for Patrick Stewart.
In today's marketplace where the masses are finally beginning to get a taste of real, well-produced sci-fi and fantasy, the Trek franchise stands NO chance. It should be taken off life-support.
Not one single thing in the film worked, not one visual aspect, not one character, or story point, nothing. I left the theater actually feeling cheated and angry. The bottom line is that the regime that currently runs Trek is extremely lazy. They hire writers and directors who have no distinct visions, (paging Nicholas Meyer, paging Leonard Nimoy, aw hell page Shatner while we're at it) and will not fight the studio on anything, and they nickel-and-dime everything but the salary for Patrick Stewart.
In today's marketplace where the masses are finally beginning to get a taste of real, well-produced sci-fi and fantasy, the Trek franchise stands NO chance. It should be taken off life-support.
#336
Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a longtime Star Trek fan, I'm sadden to see the franchise going down to toilet. The last decent Star Trek movie that I've seen is "The First Contact". Both "Insurrection" and "Nemesis" are horrible. There are no substance and quality in those movies. The characters are hollow. We don't cheer for them and we don't care for them. There is no thought provoking idea and there is no chanllenge to the human mind. With the TV series "Enterprise", this franchise is going down.
#337
DVD Talk Legend
I agree that the Star Trek franchise desperately needs an infusion of new blood, but I cannot help but think that die-hard Trekkies had their perception of Star Trek: Nemesis poisoned to some degree by the current direction of the Star Trek television series, and by continuing hostility toward Berman and Braga for the theme-park territory into which they have steered the aloof franchise. To some degree, I also think that Star Trek may have begun dying off when it became more mainstream, more commerical -- when it was no longer such an exclusive club.
Taken on it's own merits, I just cannot agree with IGN's scathing review of Nemesis. First of all, there's not a lot of substance to it; three-quarters of the review focus on the past, present and future of Trek, bemoaning the dearth of quality scripts and storylines and original visions. Only at the very end does the "review" begin focusing on the movie itself.
The review talks about a dearth of emotional moments -- based on the standard of depth and complexity that is Bill Shatner's performance in Star Trek V: The Final Frontier. I dunno, maybe we saw different movies, but I saw several moments that seemed to ring true:
While I agree they could have done more -- more action, more special effects, more drama, more depth -- what remains is still far better than the vast, vast majority of films churned out today. Could anybody say that Star Trek: Nemesis is not better than, say, The Hunted? Or Die Another Day? Or Lost in Space?
For that matter, I found Nemesis far better than the odd-numbered films that preceeded it -- Insurrection, Generations -- and for God's sake, better than The Final Frontier.
Taken on it's own merits, I just cannot agree with IGN's scathing review of Nemesis. First of all, there's not a lot of substance to it; three-quarters of the review focus on the past, present and future of Trek, bemoaning the dearth of quality scripts and storylines and original visions. Only at the very end does the "review" begin focusing on the movie itself.
The review talks about a dearth of emotional moments -- based on the standard of depth and complexity that is Bill Shatner's performance in Star Trek V: The Final Frontier. I dunno, maybe we saw different movies, but I saw several moments that seemed to ring true:
Spoiler:
While I agree they could have done more -- more action, more special effects, more drama, more depth -- what remains is still far better than the vast, vast majority of films churned out today. Could anybody say that Star Trek: Nemesis is not better than, say, The Hunted? Or Die Another Day? Or Lost in Space?
For that matter, I found Nemesis far better than the odd-numbered films that preceeded it -- Insurrection, Generations -- and for God's sake, better than The Final Frontier.
#338
DVD Talk Hero
I too agree with the IGN review. I've stated in other threads that I think it's an entertaining action film but a horrible Trek film. If you care enough, you can search for my comments in the numerous threads on this topic, as I've already expressed them in severe detail multiple times.
I'm a lifer, a fan from the beginning. I've marched with Bjo Trimble, and I've fought for the show. I was at the biggest convention ever and proudly attended the Sit Long and Prosper tour. I don't insist on less dorky sounding works like "Trekker" ... I am a Trekkie, to the core, and it genuinely pains me to see Trek's vision so completely and hopelessly lost.
The franchise didn't survive this long and return from the dead so many times because the phasers were neato and spaceship battles were kewl. The acting was average, and the special effects were laughable, but there was a vision, a romantic idea of what we can do when we strive for something greater. It shined a light on our humanity, pointing out our glaring flaws and embracing out most beautiful strengths. Through these characters, we learned about ourselves and were forced to take accountability for our own hypocrisies. We explored the possibilities of our humanity and were limited only by our imagination.
Nemesis gave no hint of any of this. At best, it's a bad retread of The Wrath of Khan. At worst, it's a paint-by-numbers summer action flick. It's an excuse to toss a bunch of familiar characters into an action film in hopes we'll be tricked into believing it's Trek. It's a hodge-podge of "oh, this will be cute" moments while Logan pats himself on the back for how clever he thinks he is. In the process, Picard's character is demeaned into taking orders from a callous mass murderer, the Romulan Empire is twisted into a clubhouse as menacing as Our Gang, and every character or theme not named Picard, Data or Explosion is pushed aside and tossed a bone from a distance.
Now you've gone and gotten me all riled up. Monkey Angry!!! SMASH!!!
Despite the assertions of some, we don't want to hate this film. We don't want to be unhappy with Trek. There's nothing "cool" or "bandwaggon" about these feelings. It's just the sad truth I've had to wake up and accept. These opinions are not knee-jerk reactions and they come with a heavy heart.
das
I'm a lifer, a fan from the beginning. I've marched with Bjo Trimble, and I've fought for the show. I was at the biggest convention ever and proudly attended the Sit Long and Prosper tour. I don't insist on less dorky sounding works like "Trekker" ... I am a Trekkie, to the core, and it genuinely pains me to see Trek's vision so completely and hopelessly lost.
The franchise didn't survive this long and return from the dead so many times because the phasers were neato and spaceship battles were kewl. The acting was average, and the special effects were laughable, but there was a vision, a romantic idea of what we can do when we strive for something greater. It shined a light on our humanity, pointing out our glaring flaws and embracing out most beautiful strengths. Through these characters, we learned about ourselves and were forced to take accountability for our own hypocrisies. We explored the possibilities of our humanity and were limited only by our imagination.
Nemesis gave no hint of any of this. At best, it's a bad retread of The Wrath of Khan. At worst, it's a paint-by-numbers summer action flick. It's an excuse to toss a bunch of familiar characters into an action film in hopes we'll be tricked into believing it's Trek. It's a hodge-podge of "oh, this will be cute" moments while Logan pats himself on the back for how clever he thinks he is. In the process, Picard's character is demeaned into taking orders from a callous mass murderer, the Romulan Empire is twisted into a clubhouse as menacing as Our Gang, and every character or theme not named Picard, Data or Explosion is pushed aside and tossed a bone from a distance.
Now you've gone and gotten me all riled up. Monkey Angry!!! SMASH!!!
Despite the assertions of some, we don't want to hate this film. We don't want to be unhappy with Trek. There's nothing "cool" or "bandwaggon" about these feelings. It's just the sad truth I've had to wake up and accept. These opinions are not knee-jerk reactions and they come with a heavy heart.
das
Last edited by das Monkey; 06-13-03 at 08:24 PM.
#340
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 4,551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the movie was just flat out disapointing. I've been a Trek fan, perhaps not a huge fan, but definately a fan. I think this movie was better than Insurrection...that movie was awful IMO, but this one at least had some entertaining moments. but really, was this a Star Trek movie? Did it add anything to the Star Trek legacy or show us anything new? Or was it a mediocre action scifi movie ripping off a good trek movie, the Wrath of Khan? That's what I saw, a bland fairly uninteresting movie. Two ships facing off in a final battle? Geesh, haven't we been there before? Haven't we seen Picard struggle with...whatever...in every movie so far? It's just tired...it's nothing new, and while on its on it would be an ok action flick, though nothing really great, as the tenth Star Trek it was a MAJOR let down. Nonetheless, they are movies that need to be more than just decent...they are continuing a legacy and should aspire to something more, not less. Telling a mildly amusing story that doesn't really expand this universe is a waste of theatrical time. These are the movies...be cinematic...be big...be something more than a 2 hour episode.
#341
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: So Cal
Posts: 7,071
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't liked a single Star Trek movie since VI; i saw it in theaters when i was a wee lad, but i loved every minute of it. It was quite possibly one of the few Star Trek movies that can be enjoyed by non-fans, as the movie fills in many of the plot elements along the way.
It's ironic that Nemesis was supposed to be the movie to infuse Star Trek with new blood after the disaster that was Insurrection.
It's ironic that Nemesis was supposed to be the movie to infuse Star Trek with new blood after the disaster that was Insurrection.
#342
DVD Talk Legend
I think everyone is being a bit harsh to Nemesis. I found it a great movie that tied up TNG storyline very well. However, one cannot deny the fact that all Trek movies are three star films at best; they never offer anything exceptional, just solid movies. That is why I think it is good to end the series with Nemesis, a solid movie with nothing exceptional.
#343
DVD Talk Hero - 2023 TOTY Award Winner
All I know is that I watched about the first ten minutes on a plane before taking the earphones off and doing the crossword puzzle in the back of the in-flight magazine instead.
#344
DVD Talk Hero
Originally posted by JustinS
All I know is that I watched about the first ten minutes on a plane before taking the earphones off and doing the crossword puzzle in the back of the in-flight magazine instead.
All I know is that I watched about the first ten minutes on a plane before taking the earphones off and doing the crossword puzzle in the back of the in-flight magazine instead.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I'm a lifelong Trek fan and I love Nemesis. Could I ask for more? Clearly, I could say the same of any Trek film. Did I like what I did get? Absolutely . I didn't wade through that 68 page review above, but to address some comments made that it haas no emotional moments, I must disagree. Nemesis is the only Trek movie that I've actually teared up and slightly wept while watching (and not because it was bad ). Sure, I had downed a few Jack 'N Cokes at the time, but it happened nonetheless. And it wasn't on my first viewing. I think this is one of those movies that grows on you. Also, most of my favorite movies are love 'em or hate 'em films (2001, A.I., et al) and the fact that Nemesis polarizes its audience reinforces my support for it.
I'm sad that it will probably be the last Trek (or at least Next Gen) film, but, if so, I'm satisifed with this swan song.
#345
DVD Talk Legend
Numanoid: my sentiments exactly!!!
The ending with Picard and Riker had me emotinal as well. Why? Because it was about saying goodbye and moving on for the sake of change. In a way, and I have argued this before, the audience is personified on-screen as Riker. We have been with these people for over 15 years and now we are ready to move on with our lives.
I don't know about others, but when I left the theater, I had the feeling that I had seen the last Trek movie I would pay money for in the theaters. Because it was bad? By no means. More or less it was because I honestly felt that Trek had served its purpose in my life.
Bare in mind that while I saw some of the old generations TV episodes and movies, it was TNG that got me hooked into being a fan of Trek lore. Granted, I wasn't a total Trekkie, but it was time well spent from ages 12-26. I went through a lot of adventures in my life during that time frame, and now I could move on with them as fond memories, much like Riker.
I need to lay off the Shiner Bock before I post.
The ending with Picard and Riker had me emotinal as well. Why? Because it was about saying goodbye and moving on for the sake of change. In a way, and I have argued this before, the audience is personified on-screen as Riker. We have been with these people for over 15 years and now we are ready to move on with our lives.
I don't know about others, but when I left the theater, I had the feeling that I had seen the last Trek movie I would pay money for in the theaters. Because it was bad? By no means. More or less it was because I honestly felt that Trek had served its purpose in my life.
Bare in mind that while I saw some of the old generations TV episodes and movies, it was TNG that got me hooked into being a fan of Trek lore. Granted, I wasn't a total Trekkie, but it was time well spent from ages 12-26. I went through a lot of adventures in my life during that time frame, and now I could move on with them as fond memories, much like Riker.
I need to lay off the Shiner Bock before I post.
#346
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Fascination Street
Posts: 6,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Dr. DVD
I think everyone is being a bit harsh to Nemesis. I found it a great movie that tied up TNG storyline very well. However, one cannot deny the fact that all Trek movies are three star films at best; they never offer anything exceptional, just solid movies.
I think everyone is being a bit harsh to Nemesis. I found it a great movie that tied up TNG storyline very well. However, one cannot deny the fact that all Trek movies are three star films at best; they never offer anything exceptional, just solid movies.
#347
DVD Talk Legend
Originally posted by Jepthah
Speak for yourself. I'm hardly alone when I say that several of the Trek films are great, especially II, VI and VIII; I, III and IV are very good. Trek has done well as a film franchise when it has been in the hands of people who understood how to make films.
Speak for yourself. I'm hardly alone when I say that several of the Trek films are great, especially II, VI and VIII; I, III and IV are very good. Trek has done well as a film franchise when it has been in the hands of people who understood how to make films.
#348
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Eugene, OR
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by jaeufraser
Two ships facing off in a final battle? Geesh, haven't we been there before? .
Two ships facing off in a final battle? Geesh, haven't we been there before? .
#349
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 4,551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Face/Off
So I guess for you, intrigue would come with two dueling ships who never see or hear each other?
So I guess for you, intrigue would come with two dueling ships who never see or hear each other?
#350
DVD Talk Legend
I'll agree with das in the sense it's a good movie, but not really a good Trek movie.
In their attempt to bring in fresh blood behind the camera, they turned to a writer who was a fan of Trek but didn't really get Trek and a director who knew nothing about Trek. They made an action movie and that's about it.
I like watching it, but don't get much Trek related enjoyment out of it.
In their attempt to bring in fresh blood behind the camera, they turned to a writer who was a fan of Trek but didn't really get Trek and a director who knew nothing about Trek. They made an action movie and that's about it.
I like watching it, but don't get much Trek related enjoyment out of it.