Do a search on "das Monkey" and "Voyager" and you'll turn up more than one rant by das about how the series finale betrayed all that is sacred to Trek. And I agree with him.

I think if anything, they chopped a lot of the good stuff out so that it would reach a wider audience and their plan failed. They alienated the fans that have made Trek successful and the other people, overall dont seem to care.
Whos fault is this? Why approve the script and then cut out a hunk of character stuff and then make the film seem choppy overall and the central theme of Friendship seem hackeyed and the villians motivations not really believable.
Could be Berman. Could be Paramount.
The action scenes seemed there for nothing else other than Box office potential and big numbers. The buggy scene seemed nedless as did the little ship racing through the corridors as did Rikers fight scene. The only one that made half sense was the one at the end and I still find it hard to believe that the Enterprise couldnt have gotten more backupships to help them?
I also agree with the other poster that said, Data was killed but, not really, because all his files are transfered to another android that looks exactly like him? Not very emotional if you ask me when you know they will throw a few more bucks at Spiner if they do another Trek movie.
Maybe it was too many hands in the pot. You have Logan PLUS Spiner and Berman writing the script and then Berman making choices as to what stays and what goes in the final cut.
If just Logan had written it we may have had a better movie instead of an Actor who should just act (Spiner), helping write a movie, and another guy (Berman) who has clearly shown from Enterprise and Voyager that he doesnt have a creative bone left in his body.

My question is, if you didnt like it, why go back and see it for a second time?

cooper2000 - that was me. Data is my favorite character in TNG. But, there was just no sense of loss. Part of it being Trek is NOTORIOUS for never really killing a character. Just completely anticlimatic. Particularly with Picard sitting there in the end explaining to Data's "brother" how great a person he was.

It's Star Trek, man!

Seriously, though -- I didn't dislike it. I thought it was OK the first time, and approaching good the second time. More to the point, my wife always, since time immemorial, sees Star Trek movies on opening night. I always, since time immemorial, see Star Trek movies with my friend Rob. Since Rob wasn't available opening night, we decided to keep both traditions and see it twice -- once on opening night, and once on Sunday when Rob was back in town.

What I didn't like about Nemesis was the lack of logic, such as:



How can people making an $80 million dollar movie overlook huge mistakes like this?

This is the best review I've read of the film and it's implications on Star Trek:

http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/380/380136p1.html

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

Actually, I immediately connected that scene with the climax of Excalibur. There are quite a few (obviously intentional) similarities between the King Arthur/Mordred and Picard/Shinzon stories, and I'm convinced this is what the writers had in mind for that shot.

The IGN article said it all very well, I think. Thanks for posting.

Maybe the second scene was also an intentional choice.

I'm not sure why you guys are using spoiler tags, since SPOILERS is in the thread title. Anyway:

No, I don't think he does (or rather he's aware that they must be sacrificed). This is what Shinzon would NEVER expect him to do, which is why he must do it -- to catch him off guard. There are bigger stakes to consider (stopping Shinzon before he gets to Earth).

Umm..maybe? Not having all the available evidence for shield design, I really can't say. Maybe they're like Dune, where the slow blade penetrates the shield.



Yeah, that bothered me too, and I bring it up to everyone who's seen the film. Simple solution: Shinzon should have engaged a reverse tractor beam to repel the Enterprise at the same time he backs away.

That's a mystery for the ages. If the studio would hire 5 Trek nerds from real life (non-Hollywood) to look over scripts and storyboards, just about every incongruity in Trek history could have been avoided. Comes down to arrogance and apathy, I'm afraid.

• Quoth AmazingColossalPumaMan •<HR SIZE=1>On to that Admiral Janeway thing, it didn't bother me that much. So what if they created an entirely new character who was an admiral for the movie? She wasn't in any of the three ST series, so I assume she must be a completely new character.<HR SIZE=1>

Well played!

das

Wow. Very well written and pretty much said it like it is.
Trek has become boring and which show is still on air, Enterprise. Which show was cancelled and was much more interesting to watch? Farscape.

What crew? Seems like there were only about 12 or 13 people on the Enterprise total in this film.

I liked the movie. Some of the Trek fans need to relax and get a life.

• Quoth SIUmark •<HR SIZE=1>I liked the movie. Some of the Trek fans need to relax and get a life. <HR SIZE=1>

Good to see having differing opinions translates into needing a life.

das

Excellent article. It helped me figure out why so much stuff didn't make sense-

For example:

I was wondering why Shinzon said Dianna Troy was empathic and telepathic, when she never was tp before (except when communicating with her mother and Riker). Now all of sudden it becomes a plot device for later on in the movie, regardless of the fact she never had this ability before.

Stuart Baird didn't know the difference and to Rick Berman continuity no longer matters (we knew that) so that makes it ok.

I can honestly say I am very relaxed right now and I do have a life, a home I bought this year and a Boyfriend. Oh a dog too but that doesnt stop me from having an opinion, especially Trek.
Glad you liked it SIU but you should really learn to be a little more choosy about your Entertainment.

Great direction is what made Star Trek 2, 4 and 6 so great. (Six has the most AWESOME direction.. it's incredible)

Das, I'm sorry, but you're just going to HAVE to miss Farscape. That's all there is to it... and you MUST film this, I'm sorry, but you must...

As for what Janeway did...

http://wescnet.tripod.com/janeway.html

http://trekbbs.com/ubb/Forum19/HTML/001789.html

More there.

Someone did a REALLY good list of every questionable act she did, and I can't find it damnit.

I pretty much agree with that article.

SUImark - let's see, we can look past that it's just Trek, anaylyze this the way we would any other movie, we're Trek fans who are tired of medicore entertainment and because you liked the movie we need to relax and get a life? Mods, I think we have a Troll here. Can you send in an exterminator please? It's one of the mindless zombie kinds that Berman/Braga and Paramount like because they can slap the Trek name on anything and these zombies will watch it. Thanks!

Biz - thanks for bringing us up to speed on Janeway.

das - after reading what Biz posted, I agree. If she did all that, she should have been made to answer for it, not promoted.

Hey all!

Okay... dyed-in-the-wool Trek-fan here. (And yes.. I have a life thank you...snicker)

Two things that have been bugging me.

1. It's KHan... not KaHn. (Okay... so I'm being anal...)

2. (Here is where I demonstrate what a geek I am ) It was established in TNG, in the episode with Data's "mother", that Dr. Soong actually created 3 "prototype" androids prior to the creation of Lore and Data. I'd have to guess that it's safe to assume that this is where B4 came from. Which means that there are at least two more Soong-type androids (which probably bear a remarkable likeness to Brent Spiner) out there somewhere.

• Quoth CanadianKnight •<HR SIZE=1>1. It's KHan... not KaHn. (Okay... so I'm being anal...)<HR SIZE=1>

Technically, it's neither (I thought you said you were a real fan). This page gives a pretty good explanation.

das

You guys might have a point, because during the movie I felt something was missing. As for the directing, I'm going to way till the DVD, but I think they should have shown Shiznok destroy some Starfleet to make him more opposing force to everyone than Picard.

But overall, I'll give it a solid "B". Should be some interesting deleted scenes, since I heard the rough cut was three hours plus.

Elektra, I read a good article with Moore where he actually went off on how crazy her actions were in the episode I quoted. You should uhhh... read... more about it...

"Equinox" was the episode. It was a two parter where Voyager finds another ship stranded in the delta quadrent (which ALSO was brought there by the caretaker... yet had NEVER been mentioned before! someone forgot the first episode's script when they wrote this!)

It's actually a half decent episode for the first half, as most Voyager two parters are. The second half is of course, unbareable crap though, as most Voyager two parters are.

The paragraph I quoted was not an exageration. You see, the crew of the Equinox were using the bodies of an alien species to power their ship to make it get home faster. As a result, this alien species was attacking both the Equinox and Voyager.

Janeway found it and of course, FLIPPED. So she actually TOOK ONE OF THE CREW MEMBERS AND TIED HIM UP IN A CARGO BAY. She then activated some technobable to make the aliens appear in the cargobay. She then REFUSED TO LET HIM OUT until he "talked." Chaotix had to stop her with FORCE to save the life of this crew member.

Janeway then of course, sent him to his quarters...

You see, Janeway was MAD because these crew members violated starfleet directives by killing these beings. And violating the prime directive.

Just like she had done countless times before.

But NO ONE on Voyager kept track of what happened.

I actually kind of liked Voyager's first three seasons. They weren't half bad. Yes, compaired to the rest of trek they were ****, but they still seemed like Trek.

However, when Braga took over as Exec Producer, EVERYTHING changed. Suddenly everything that was good about the show was thrown out, every thing the show was based on was thrown out. Seven of Nine came into the picture, so they were no longer a poor ship that had to grow it's own food. Seven of Nine, just magically was able to replicate everything. Before season 4, the ship would not use torpedos except on rare occasions, because they couldn't get resupplied. But after Braga came on? that rule was gone.

I still didn't love those early seasons, but at least they weren't the crap of the later seasons.