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

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: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.

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.