Critics Pan Nemesis

CgiJobs writes "The critics aren't much impressed with the new Star trek: "The 10th entry in the Star Trek movie franchise ... is the dullest and drabbest of the lot"; "this ship-bound and lackluster entry tells a rather harebrained story"; "suffers from a nasty case of the cutes"; More at Google News. Of course, I'll still be going to see it." Calling this movie the worst of the series is a pretty harsh criticism...

Reader NCC1701E submitted a short write-up on the movie:

"First, the executive summary: wait for the video. Now, the Gory Details, in all their splendor. I somehow received an email invitation to an advance screening to the Paramount Theater in Times Square, here in NYC. I had to wait in line for 30 minutes, and there was some confusion in swapping my email print out for a pass. But they didn't even check names against a list; it was basically first-come, first served among those who had been inveigled there through various means. In the end, there were even some empty seats. The movie itself? Basically disappointing. IMHO, the weakest entry yet in the series. Production values and special effects were excellent. And it was great to see the movie in a big theater with Dolby sound. But NEMESIS is little more than a Western type "shoot out" movie. The bad guys attack. The good guys fight back, Then, there's more attacking and more fighting back. Then it happens again. And again. You get the idea. I'm a sucker for the hokey humanism that was the hallmark of Star Trek at its best. There was very little of that on display here. In fact, there was very little in the way of a plot. Just some mildly amusing cutesy scenes, plus some murky musings about the nature vs. nuture debate re: a Picard clone. So I didn't much care for the movie. And judging by the subdued response in the theater, neither did the audience. BTW, NY audiences can be cruel. This one snickered at corny lines that weren't supposed to be funny. The phrase "derisive laughter" leaps to mind. I predict NEMESIS will be a huge box office hit. But long-time fans may be as disappointed as I was."

Comments

I wonder how much of this is quality . . .

[Badgerman]

. . . and how much is culture.

I think that the general public is kind of tired of Star Trek. Some of the reviews I saw sounded like the same negative comments made about the "First Gen" cast.

We've also had plenty of other sci-fi series to come around - Babylon 5, Farscape, X-files. Maybe Star Trek doesn't hold the same place in people's hearts.

Sounds like a good movie anyway

[Mothra the III]

I am not sure what these reviewers are looking for in a Star Trek movie. It has good special effects and a lot of action and thats what I want to see on the big screen. If you want a bunch of character development you can watch the 10 years of back episodes they show every day on TV. These movies are supposed to be fun. If you would rather see a movie with more depth I am sure they will be churning out another 4 hour Jane Autin novel movie in the near future

okay ... seriously ...

[SuperDuG]

Calling this movie the worst of the series is a pretty harsh criticism... Have you not seen The Wrath of Kahn. Revenge, Emotion, and of course destroying a ship. I'm happy to no hear any reports of the enterprise being destroyed in this movie, I was really afraid as time progressed we'd see the Enterprise 1701-AA and that'd just be weird.

But anyways back to Star Trek, here's the thing people, there's one thing to being a fan and there's another to dedicate your lifestyle to it. Fans enjoy watching the films and know the characters and MIGHT own some memorabilia. HOWEVER, if you dress up in star trek outfits, and would consider yourself a Dorn Groupie, then you are no longer a fan, you are obsessed with it all. Fans won't correct if I'm right or wrong about Star Trek facts.

Star Trek may not follow the same plot/storyline as its previous movies, but for a series of movies and television shows this long, wouldn't it be absolutely boring if all they did was rescue disparaged refugees all the time??

I'm going to see it, probably two or three times because this one looks like a story builder where you can get more into the movie and there's not just unexplainable things (IE: Q) that can just make things unexplainable acceptable. New aliens, new weapons, and new characters will make this one a good edition to the Star Trek series.

Lastly, what the hell did you expect from a movie called Nemesis (enemy of equal power), them to go hug and kiss? NO! there gunna fight because that's what they do.

Re: cameo v. extra

[MacAndrew]

I think his cameo was shopped out because the film was over 3 hours, and that now he merely appears -- no lines.

That, or they didn't want to pay him. ;-) Although how much does an "extra" -- or whatever a star who doesn't talk is called -- get paid, anyway? I guess CleverNickName can tell us.

What about Worf?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, reviews be damned, I'm seeing it tomorrow. However, it occurs to me they've opened up another continuity hole with Worf. At the end of DS9, Worf was appointed Federation ambassador to the Klingon Empire. Now he's back on board the Enterprise.

I saw a brief red-carpet interview with Michael Dorn (who plays Worf) who said, "You know, they never addressed that..."

Which makes me wonder...

Re:What about Worf?

[lostboy2]

Slightly OT:
At this year's Comic Con International, Marina Sirtis mentioned that Michael Dorn didn't have a real good time making parts of this movie -- particularly the ones where they were tooling around in a dune-buggy thing. Apparently, he was in the back seat all the time and got bounced around a lot.

She also mentioned that Dorn joked that this movie should be named "Star Trek: Narcissist" and coyly said that we could figure out who he was talking about ourselves. ;-)

Re:the WORST?

[p3d0]

IMHO the worst was definitely Generations, for three reasons:

1. The "plot dev^H^H^H nexus" was the most contrived thing I have ever seen. It was a construction whose sole purpose, it seems, was to allow the plot to unfold as it did.
2. They gratuitously wrecked practically every feature of the Star Trek universe they could get their hands on:
   • Data got emotions.
   • Geordi got eyes.
   • The Enterprise was destroyed.
   • Kirk was killed.
   • Lursa and Betor died.
   • et cetera...
3. Oh, and by the way, the plot sucked.

</SPOILERS>

To go from that dreck to First Contact (IMHO the best movie of them all) was a triumph, and Jonathan Frakes deserves a lot of credit. (I think he also deserves credit for making the best odd-numbered movie, Insurrection. Yeah, it wasn't very good, but look at the other odd-numbered movies.)

Re:Can someone explain Star Trek V

[aridhol]

I've always been curious: on modern warships, does the "battlestations klaxon" keep sounding at maximum volume so no one can think, or do they just sound it for a few seconds and figure that everyone now has a clue what's going on?

I don't know how it's done on American ships, but in Canada, we get a five-second alarm, a PA announcement saying the nature of the emergency (action stations, man overboard, fire, etc), and a single repeat. For lesser emergencies, or for a bomb threat, there's a bosun's call "still" (3-second whistle), an announcement, and a repeat.

And no, a bomb threat isn't considered a lesser emergency; a bosun's call is sent over the standard PA, which has been used routinely since leaving harbour, and is therefore less likely to trigger the bomb than the general alarm which hasn't been used.

"Over-the-top environmentalist message"?

[cje]

Let me get this straight .. you honestly believe that a statement like "At present rates of hunting, humpback whales will become extinct in the next 50 years" is an "over-the-top environmentalist message?" You're kidding, right? If you don't care about the whales, that's your business, but the whole humpback sub-plot was not about the crew of the Enterprise chaining themselves to trees or railing about the evil of "multinational corporate polluters." There's a world of difference between conservation and radical, over-the-top (as you say) environmentalism.

If you didn't like The Voyage Home, then that's fine, but try to keep your criticism credible.

Criticism VS Box Office

[stickyc]

I read a fascinating bit in Time where they listed the box office gross of all the ST movies. ST1, which was widely panned by critics (and audience) is by far the leader, $145m ahead of the next best grossing film (ST4).

ST1 - $370m
ST2 - $194m
ST3 - $159m
ST4 - $225m
ST5 - $104m
ST6 - $127m
ST7 - $147m
ST8 - $174m
ST9 - $131m
(all figures in adjusted 2002 dollars, worldwide gross)

uhg. trek.

[EvilAlien]

This is not a troll, but over-sensitive Trek geeks might think it is...

Are there are reviews by NON-fans of the whole Trek thing? The only thing that attracts me about Nemesis is that I hear that it is about as non-Trek as you can get in the franchise. I'd like to know what someone who doesn't want to see Yet Another Trek Movie thinks. I'm sick of the preachiness of Star Trek and would like some Sci Fi that is a little bit innovative.

Does anyone remember a sci-fi short story from the 70s called "Common Denominator" or something like that? It had excellent descriptions of ship-to-ship combat in space, used rocket propelled missles, some sort of nasty beetle creatures were the enemies. I can't remember exactly what the story was called or who wrote it, but I think it would make an excellent flick. There is just something very tired and "blah" about the whole Star Trek thing that makes me crave something new...

Re:Listen.....

[dswensen]

You can't make a Star Trek movie that you guys will like. Nothing will ever live up to the stuff you saw as a kid.

No, but I'd settle for something that lived up to what I saw in 1996 when First Contact came out. And I assure you, I was not a kid.

There has barely been a single year since the premiere of TNG in the late 80s when Star Trek has NOT been on television or the big screen in some form or another. Indeed, there was a time, not so many years ago, when there were two Trek series AND a movie available all at the same time! So it isn't as if good Trek is some kind of distant memory that's had 25 years to accumulate unrealistic expectations, like Star Wars has.

Trek is capable of being good, and it has been capable of being good quite recently, by comparison -- at least to my mind. I have not been "building up" any image of Trek -- it's always been there, from TNG up on to Voyager and Enterprise. And if I feel it's declined in quality, that isn't necessarily nostalgia talking.

I recently purchased a couple seasons of TNG on DVD, and while it's not perfect, it's every bit as good as I remember. And if Enterprise had the same caliber of writing, I would not be panning it. Instead I'm just not watching it.

So, I'm sorry, but I don't think the "oh you were but a wee lad when you liked Star Trek" argument holds water. Star Trek: The Motion Picture came out when I was a kid, and I thought it was junk even then. And I think First Contact is right up there with Wrath of Khan -- they're both excellent.

Time has no meaning with Trek -- either it's good, or it isn't. I don't know a single person who liked Trek V because they happened to be young when they saw it.

Dichotomy of story type splits Trek fans

[Reziac]

The dichotomy really is that TOS, TOS, and Voyager are all PLOT-driven. DS9 is CHARACTER-driven. This makes them appeal to completely different audiences, both of whom generally think that the other's guy's taste sucks.