*** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread - Page 22

You may not care about the individuals but you know what they represent. Hitler's Third Reich and the atrocities they committed are all known quantities. Their evil deeds are well documented and tangible. You walk into Schindler's List very aware of what's going on and what's at stake, and you know what the Nazis are capable of. Nero's character is a complete fabrication and doesn't have the luxury of that historical gravitas. If I don't care about him in some way or buy into his motivations he becomes just another one dimensional character running around blowing stuff up because he's pissed off and is throwing a tantrum. I don't find that the least bit interesting. I'm just saying that in my opinion the filmmakers presented a weak, "been there done that" kind of generic villian. I think that Star Trek would have been a much better film if Nero hadn't been so monochromatic.
Edited by dpippel - 1/3/10 at 10:14am

 On the whole, I would have to agree with your assessment of Nero as a one dimensional character. There was more back story that was either cut out or not filmed. He was essentially an element used to get the plot going and the main focus of the film was to introduce the new Kirk, Spock and the rest of the crew.

I've been thinking for some time though what a mass audience would have thought of Khan in Wrath of Khan. I think that as a long time fan, I already know of the gravitas that Khan has, I know he's a genetically enhanced superman. Thinking back on Star Trek 2, I think they did a good job of establishing him as being really pissed at Kirk for the death of his wife, so a mass audience not familiar with Space Seed could get into his head for marooning him on Ceti Alpha. But the only issue I have is that at the end of Space Seed, I had the sense Khan was actually okay with the challenge of Ceti Alpha. But I guess after Marla died, he blamed Kirk. So in a sense Orci and Kurtzman and Abrams didn't work very hard to create an original character we could sympathize with. Nero was again, a cheap copy of Khan. 

The comicbook that came out right before the film establishes who Nero is much better.

I loved this film but I agree the execution of Nero was flawed.

You can go one of two ways with a villain: you can make him complex/interesting (like Khan or Hannibal Lecter) or you can make him an absolute (i.e. absolute evil/malice like The Joker in The Dark Knight).

With Nero, Abrams and company clearly wanted to make him complex and interesting, and attempted to give him a compelling back story. But as others have stated, just brief mentions of his family and world dying were not sufficient to get most audiences to care about him. No one in my party who went to see the film (and we all loved it) particularly cared for Nero or thought he was a compelling bad guy.

Clearly there was more filmed (there are references in the commentary about it) but their decision to excise that from the film weakened the Nero character. Although who knows, without seeing that footage, perhaps it was better left on the cutting room floor if the director didn't feel like it merited being seen onscreen.

I own an iPhone, and the "Star Trek - Countdown" Graphic Novel is available for that device in four separate chapters, optimized to take advantage of the iPhone screen.  I can tell you that not only does the Graphic Novel completely flesh-out Nero's backstory, but it also provides some decent closure for fans of ST: TNG.  The story takes place post-"Nemesis" and does a great job of tying up multiple plot threads that were left dangling from the end of that poorly-constructed movie ...



  

This is another reason why I think this film is a bit of a failure. I shouldn't have to read a comic book or a novelization to get a proper backstory for the villain in the film. I should be able to get that from watching the film. Abram's failure to establish Nero's backstory properly within the context of the film is a major weak spot.

Agreed. Kind of puts in my mind the crazy guy's rant who did the 70 minute Phantom Menace review and his view on SW novels, games, etc. and their role as a substitute to actually showing it onscreen!

i think i didn't explain myself very well...

my point is precisely that hitler, stalin, fiennes' character in Schindler's list, pol pot, and whichever other genocidal maniac you care to name are monochromatic: there is absolutely nothing complicated about them or their motivations, at least not in any way that is intelligible to people that don't share them.

look: hitler wanted to kill all the jews and gypsies and homosexuals and a lot of catholics and so on; pol polt wanted to kill intellectuals; stalin saw fit to exterminate millions of ukrainians; robespierre went bananas and killed at will. what's polychromatic about that? i have absolutely no idea what it's like to have anything happen to me that would make me want to kill millions of people, and as a result, any character - either historical or fictional - who does want to and attempts to annihiliate an entire people or planet or country or whatever, is utterly and completely opaque to me from both a narrative and emotional point of view. it's simply impossible for me to relate to someone like that, to empathize with him, no matter what the backstory that is provided to ground the particular mania.

but so what? i wasn't moved by schindler's list because (or in any even small manner) the camp commandant had any "depth" or more than one dimension: he was a moral monster that killed people without compunction because they were jewish. period. there's nothing more one-dimensional than that. schindler's list worked because - given the presence of such a sociopath - of how other people chose to act.

so how is nero any different? i care for him equally as much as i care for any other genocidal sociopath in human history - fictional or actual - which is to say, not at all. what would it even mean to "care" for someone that is capable of killing 6 billion people out of hand, and who wants to kill billions more?  

and, incidentally, i know no more about stalin, robespierre, pol pot, or hitler than i do about nero: they were men who killed a lot of other people for no other reason than that they belonged to some class that they deemed unworthy of life. and that is simply and straightforwardly a motivation with which it is absolutely impossible for me to engage or empathize or connect or whatever.

where the rubber hits the road, i guess i find it impossible to understand how "hating jews", or "hating intellectuals", or "hating religious people", are any more compelling motivations for mass-murder than "being pissed off and throwing a tantrum".

for that matter, i don't really understand how it's not possible to redescribe stalin, hitler, and pol pot's respective genocides as the result of their just "being pissed off and throwing a tantrum".

Well John, perhaps "care" wasn't the best word for me to use. Let's change that to I had nothing INVESTED in Nero's character. He was bad because Abrams showed him destroying Vulcan. All the audience saw of BILLIONS of people being killed though was the High Council rescue by Spock in which his mother died. Then the planet imploded. While I knew intellectually that Nero had just annihilated an entire race, the drama (or lack thereof) in it wasn't all that compelling to me. There was little emotion in the entire affair.

 

You have a different impression and a different definition of acceptable character development. That's fine. But it seems to me that you're spending an awful lot of time trying to point out why you think I'm wrong. I'm not wrong and neither are you. Film interpretation is a very subjective business, and I just happen to have an opinion that doesn't agree with yours.

P.S. For the record I hate this new forum software.

i don't think you're wrong - i just don't understand your point of view and am having a conversation trying to point out what it is i find difficult to understand about your perspective.

something about the way nero's character was (under)developed left you cold and detracted from your enjoyment of the movie - that's cool. but when you try to explain why (i.e. your reasons for your feelings), they just don't make sense to me, and i just tried to articulate precisely why they don't.

that's all. 

The other problem was there were too many villains.  The main protagonist is Kirk and the main goal is to get him to be captain of the Enterprise.  In a very real sense, Spock is the biggest villain in the movie as in preventing the protagonist from reaching his goal; trying to get Kirk expelled from the academy, marooning him on an ice planet, and then giving him the 3rd degree when he beams onto the Enterprise while at warp.  The amount of conflict between Kirk and Spock was too much such that it took away all of the usual screen time devoted to protagonist / antagonist (theoretically the main villain) interactions.

The other huge villain is the Narada itself.  The ship is so uber-powerful that we will never see the Enterprise anywhere near it so we don't get a good give and take between Kirk and Nero, the supposed main villain.  They have to stay so far apart from each other that we really have two independent plot lines going on at once.

There were not too many villains in Star Trek

The Narada certainly has a powerful screen presence and aura of mystery, but it doesn't direct the action. Nero wields its weapons. It's not a villain.

Spock is not a villain either. In fact, most of the plot and character development hinges not on Kirk overcoming Spock but on Kirk learning how to respect and work with him - and Spock doing the same. It's not until these two can acknowledge their inner demons and the value of the other's POV that the whoole thing finally gels. The development of the relationship between these two, and Kirk's earning the respect of the rest of the key crew members, how they all work together as a team to defeat a seemingly insurmountable enemy - this is the main story in the movie. As an origin story, Nero & the Romulans are the McGuffin, and as such a bit more interesting than they might've been, given their limited screen time. I actually thought Bana was very effective in the role.

But the big deal in this movie is the story of how these people all got together and became the people we know (more or less) from TOS.

Spock and Kirk's relationship is quite like the one in classic romatic comedies - protagonists meet cute, hate each other on sight, clash, have change of heart, form lasting realtionship.

Then any external force would have done and we didn't need a villain if the story was going to be 90% about the conflict between Kirk and Spock.  But that is almost beside the point as there didn't need to be conflict between Kirk and Spock.  There is nothing in TOS that indicates Kirk and Spock were ever anything but friends.  Spock respected Kirk because Kirk was a damn fine leader, officer, and captain.  Kirk respected Spock because he was an excellent science officer and helped balance out some of his more rash thoughts and decisions.

The goal of this movie is to get Kirk to the captain's chair and we are starting at the academy time frame with a little time at the start for the setup.  J.J. Abrams decided to go for the conflict between Kirk and Spock angle to create the respect and friendship.  Fine but then the external force that creates the extreme battlefield promotions, i.e. "the villain" won't be anything but what we got on the screen.  A one-dimensional caricature of a villain and it could have been anything.  Why not just choose some force of nature as the external force and then we don't need to care or have explained the motivations.  Why "waste" a good humanoid villain especially now that there is talk of bringing back Khan for the second movie, yet another humanoid villain "Doing the same thing we do every [movie].  Try to take over the world!"?  Oh wait, wrong show.

I hope this talk of bringing back Kahn is just that: talk. We don't need another take on Kahn. Let these writers come up with their own villains instead of wrecking the creations of others. It is bad enough what they did with the original characters in this movie: Kirk and his Looney Tune hands; Spock with an ill-conceived and poorly executed "love interest"; and Scotty being the usual buffoonic comedy relief. The only one they didn't shit on was "Bones" McCoy. Obviously, the writers must have had great love and respect for that character.

Now they want to use Kahn. Hey, maybe they can have him fall off a cliff like Wile E. Coyote. That should be good for some yucks.

Edit: I just thought of something. I was wrong about "Bones". They even shit on that character by having him inject Kirk and then cast doubts on his competence as a doctor by having him run around behind Kirk, injecting him repeatedly as he willy nilly tried to correct his boneheaded move of injecting the man in the first place. In reality, these writers probably respected "Bones" the least, because they made him look like an irresponsible idiot, prone to rash action, and barely competent as a physician.
Edited by Edwin-S - 1/5/10 at 2:05pm

Fangirls everywhere are happy Spock has a love interest, me included.

But I'm with you on Khan. I would not like to see another take on that in a future film - it's already been done, and done well.

Chuck, I don't think a personality conflict makes Spock and Kirk "enemies". And I think it added a richness to the story that will end up making them even closer friends. TOS relationships have already been explored and this alternate time line offers a fresh take on beloved characters. I'm just fine with this, and I've been a Trek fan since Spetember 1966.

I'll just have to disagree with you all about this film. I thought it was a terrific and enjoyable reboot, quite my favorite popcorn movie of the year. Flawless? Nope, fun and well crafted? Definitely.

On the contrary, Bones was ready to correct for any reactions that SOME people get to the medications. Only some people get the numb-tongue.

I thought this was the only well-done slapstick scene in the movie. The "Scotty in the tubes" scene was terrible, and I seem to recall one other comedy moment that just didn't fit.

Maybe it was something involving Scotty and Dobby?

I've seen real life allergic reactions that make Kirk's hands seem mild. And we all know Kirk has a history of allergies. Retinax V ring any bells?

As for McCoy's competence, he's damn good, but not infallible. "Operation Annihilate!" being a good example of when he messed up.

I have no problem with Spock's girlfriend, as they clearly got the idea from an early episode where Uhura flirts with him. Maybe there will be trouble later on if a certain nurse falls for him too.

They really ought to have Klingons in the next movie. I've long wondered about Koloth and Kirk's first encounter. They were very familiar towards each other in the Tribble episode.

I enjoyed the film a lot.  Saw it two times in the theater and just watched it again on Blu-ray.  I was just pointing out that the paper-thin villain was inevitable given the real conflict was between Kirk and Spock and the creators really should have recognized that from the beginning and handled it better.  I personally would have chosen a different path but I am fine with the direction the movie went.

I imagine after the script was finished a conversation went something like this.
"Wow this doesn't suck and it actually damn good.  Excellent way to tie together old universe and new universe without resorting to the usual mumbo jumbo."
"The only problem is the villain is really weak.  With so much time devoted to the conflict between Kirk and Spock we don't have time to flesh out Nero."
"I know but we want Kirk and Spock's relationship to be built upon an initial conflict so Nero is what he is."
"Okay.  Let's film it."

As a whole they did a really good job with casting and acting.  I am going through the TOS season sets and occasionally I see Pine or Quinto on the screen.  In Amok Time as Kirk was getting his ass kicked, I had a flash of him looking like Pine, who also got his ass kicked the entire movie.  There are also times in TOS when Spock speaks and I here Quinto.  I do think that Quinto needs to make more of an effort to play logical as flat and matter of fact rather than looking like he is stifling anger but close enough.

Chuck,

I heard Shatner a few times when Pine spoke, and Spock (Nimoy) when Quinto spoke.  Those scenes were heartwarming for me.

Silverwook,

I wouldn't mind seeing Klingons in the next film.  I know some people think they're overdone, but I think there is much room for some of their earlier backstory to be included in a subsequent film.

That animated Klingon propaganda short got my hopes up. Many thought it might be early viral marketing for the sequel, before the fan who made it came forward.

It's also about time we had another animated Trek series.

With Batman III scheduled for a few weeks after the next movie, and Spider-Man IV for a few days after the movie, could it be time to move the release date to make sure it isn't overshadowed by two highly anticipated - and sure to be over-hyped - franchise releases?

 Why?  Don't you think a lot of people will go to all three?

It could be the 80's all over again when a Trek film is killed by the competition. While a JJ Abrams Star Trek could fair much better, it sounds like it will be a busy summer. Trek 2009 did do very well against some stiff competition. Granted the competition didn't live up to the hype. But Batman 3 does have some expectations. Spidy 4 I'm guessing could flop, but they probably learned from that last film.

 If it is good, it will do fine.  The target audience for all three films will not avoid one just because another one is showing.  If anything, it'll probably mean a lot of flow-through traffic for that two week period (if cinemas are smart--assuming film lengths are not too out of proportion, they'll stagger the showings in such a way that the overflow for one will simply go to the other and return soon for the first one).