*** Official "STAR TREK: NEMESIS" Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[JonZ]

Enterprise is a crappy idea and people are beginning to realize it.

Paramount should have been more patient and waited to do another show.

 

[Jason Seaver]

Well TNG hit is stride in Season 3 I don't know why Enterprise could'nt either.

TNG got a major overhaul behind-the-scenes about then. Ironically, that was about when Rick Berman showed up, along with Michael Piller (and Ira Behr, and, dangit, even Brannon Braga). I don't see that happening with Enterprise.

 

[Dewitte]

TNG got a major overhaul behind-the-scenes about then. Ironically, that was about when Rick Berman showed up, along with Michael Piller (and Ira Behr, and, dangit, even Brannon Braga).

Watch your copy of "Encounter at Farpoint" again. You'll notice a credit of Supervising Producer belonging to one Rick Berman. He was the corporate shill tasked with tugging on Gene's leash that first year.

De

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Patrick Stewart disappointed with fans' response to Star Trek

"I would have expected a more positive response to the theme of our film," he told the Berliner Zeitung newspaper.
"This may be because the real world has become too dangerous for us.
"Middle Earth or Hogwarts seem to be more attractive and more comforting in these times."

I have nothing but respect for Patrick Stewart but these comemnts sound like sour grapes. Is he really suggesting that NEMESIS represents "the real world"? And that LOTR is more popular because it is "comforting"? Have you considered, Mr. Stewart, that quality WRITING and ACTING have something to do with it??? Not that I had a problem with your performance, but most of your co-stars were sleepwalking through their roles. The script was boring, confused, and full of cliches.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Second viewing, further thoughts on Nemesis
By way of a bit of closure---"Ha!" you say?---some more on the details of the film, mostly based on prior posts.
[Text quoted below in blue is taken from the just released 3rd edition of the Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion, by Larry Nemecek, in whose chapter on Nemesis some of these objections are addressed, if not satisfactorily answered.]
Naming:

Quote:

And, that, as they say, is that.

 

[Mark Kalzer]

Sheesh, before I thought this film was just bad. After reading that, I realize it was a MESS.

It just feels too much like there was no vision for this film. It was just a film, because they need to make one. It sickens me reading how they made this. "You know, killing off Data would be cool." "Let's make it really dark and sinister." "More Romulans? Heck no...more special effects!"

And of course, "Logan had postulated that Starfleet would have wheeled vehicles to use where storms or gravitational fluxes negated antigrav craft." Ahem, there are SO many times they could've used it then. The Enemy Power Play, and that still doesn't explain why there's a freeken GATLING GUN on there. "We come in peace, just ignore that huge gatling gun on our off-road jeep."

"Picard's choice of battle tactics---leading to the first-time-ever failure of a self-destruct system---was meant to show that the Enterprise-E does not separate as some of its predecessors did." I mentioned this before, but this is why I've grown to hate the Enterprise E. No seperation, no special features, dark and military like atmosphere, this ship has NOTHING over the Enterprise D. I'm even ready to go out and say this is my least favorite Enterprise ever.

Not to mention the fact that the different people invovled can't agree on whether they want more special effects and less character drama, or whether the effects are too expensive and need more character drama.

This film has been a total mess creatively. And speaking as a Trek fan, the last thing I want to see is more cheap CGi effects (Which are SO terribly fake, compared to the specatular model work of before) and some more creativety. Nothing here seemed original.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Mark Kalzer wrote:


Quote:



It sickens me reading how they made this.





I wish Mr. Berman would realize how alienating many of his public remarks about his various Trek projects are to the dedicated fanbase of "the franchise". My opinion is, he should just stop giving interviews on the subject. And, again, I know the actors need something---in addition to the money---to keep up their interest in these projects, but, please, . . . stop them before they're allowed to (co)write the scripts, again! Always seems to bring bad results (*****The Final Frontier*****).



Quote:



No seperation, no special features, dark and military like atmosphere, this ship has NOTHING over the Enterprise D.






Quote:



"We come in peace, just ignore that huge gatling gun on our off-road jeep."





Your concerns about the "militarization" of Star Trek are noted. I'll just repeat what I've said before about it:

(1) It basically started with TWoK (Starfleet Academy, space battles, etc.). Harve Bennett, "the man who saved Star Trek", thought the public would take to it better than that "boring old science fiction stuff" that he said put him to sleep. He wanted to produce something his kids would enjoy.
(2) I understand your frustration with it. My main objection is not philosophical per se, but that it serves as a "crutch" of sorts, a distraction from pursuing truly interesting science fiction. But, I long ago---after The Final Frontier came out???---realized that Paramount would never allow its movie franchise to actually "boldly go where no man---no one---has ever gone before", so I quit expecting much.

In addition, it doesn't bother me as much as it does others because, if looked at from the view of the Star Trek world, it does, in a way, meet some test---mine, at least---of verisimilitude: the Federation is an expansionist power---however benign it views itself (remind you of any other "power" we know?)---that's literally rubbing up against other expansionist powers and that's gotta cause friction and antagonism, despite Roddenberry's vaunted optimism. It's all very well to "come in peace", but what if the "natives" don't want you to come at all?

I hope to soon have a new thread on Star Trek and the "space-action science-fiction genre" (if there is one) in the context of scientific verisimilitude and theories about planet formation and life elsewhere. The causes of the "militarization" would fit in as an aspect of such a discussion. I just have to figure out how to pull it off right.

 

[Sean Laughter]

"Picard's choice of battle tactics---leading to the first-time-ever failure of a self-destruct system---was meant to show that the Enterprise-E does not separate as some of its predecessors did." I mentioned this before, but this is why I've grown to hate the Enterprise E. No seperation, no special features, dark and military like atmosphere, this ship has NOTHING over the Enterprise D. I'm even ready to go out and say this is my least favorite Enterprise ever.

This is something I've never understood about the ship. I've seen drawings of the Enterprise-E showing how it separates (from when they were designing it for "First Contact"), so why wasn't it used here? I also find it unusual that Picard never said anything about evacuating the forward sections of the saucer prior to ramming Shinzon (unless I just missed it).

IMO, the military-feel in the films isn't too bad. However, this film was a complete missed opportunity to do some interesting political things with the Romulans. If you're not going to "boldly go" at least make whatever you do slightly interesting.