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

can't be worse than

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't be any worse than Star Trek XXIV - Scotty passes a stone

Re:can't be worse than

[Aqua OS X]

Sounds like GeriaTreK to me ;)

the WORST?

[SomeGuyFromCA]

If it's worse than Final Frontier - which, according to official continuity, never happened, it's gotta be pretty bad at that.

Then again, the plot reads like they're merging the "Picard's son" ep of TNG with the plot of Wrath of KHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNN! So it just might be that bad.

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.)

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.

Re:I wonder how much of this is quality . . .

[bravehamster]

Maybe Star Trek doesn't hold the same place in people's hearts.

And it's about time. Fans have become disillusioned with both Star Wars and Star Trek in recent years. Former strongholds of geekdom, they identified us to the general public, they labelled us. I hate being labelled. And there is so much better Science Fiction out there (most of it in written format), and now some people may discover that. I always hated hearing someone call themselves a Star Wars or Star Trek geek and then I ask them "Have you read Asimov, Heinlein, Bear, Benford, Brin, Adams, Niven, Pournelle?" And the answer was invariably "Huh?". Sad. So much more out there.

Re:I wonder how much of this is quality . . .

[evilpenguin]

While we're at it, there's a lot of other good writing out there. Have you read Voltaire, Dickens, Bronte, Shelly, Twain, Crane, Poe, Swift, Doyle, Hemingway, Steinbeck, Morrison, Moliere, Angelou, Morrow, Shakespeare, Chaucer, Milton, Pope, Perleman, Woodhouse, Dahl, and thousands of others writing every kind fiction, illuminating every corner of human experience. Sure, there are some great writers of science fiction, there are even some great works of science fiction that stand up well alongside the whole body of world literature, but skip around a few genres. You'll be surprised by what you get out of it, including a deeper appreciation for some of your favorite genre fiction which was written by people who read things besides science fiction.

Re:I wonder how much of this is quality . . .

[Otter]

Two thoughts:

1) If you hate being labelled, who is this "us" and why are so concerned about what products it should consume?

2) My impression is that obsessive Star Wars or Star Trek fanboyism fills a niche that has nothing to do with that fulfilled by reading Lucifer's Hammer or Foundation. Star Wars, especially. It's about familiarity and shared experience.

Re:I wonder how much of this is quality . . .

[evilpenguin]

Chaucer isn't old English. It is what some folks call Middle English. It's post-Norman. It has modern grammar (non-inflected). The vocabulary is pretty old and the spelling is totally "pre-standard." Old English is very much harder to read than Middle English. (It really must be learned like a foreign language, but Middle English you can fight through.)

I don't think "easy to read" in any way correlates with quality. By analogy, McDonald's would be gourmet food because it easy to eat.

I also do not feel a compulsive need to categorize literature into a single specific genre. For example, I think Heinlien's "Double Star" can be put in both the "SF" genre and the "adventure" genre along with its literary cousin, "The Prisoner of Zenda" by Anthony Hope.

I don't recall seeing a manual that dictated what constitutes each genre. A novel like "Frankenstein" crosses many genres. Its also a damned good book.

Another writer I love who is, I think, underappreciated is Kipling. He's the "Mark Twain" of British Imperialism.

Someone took me to task for mentioning Doyle. Read some Doyle besides Sherlock and The Lost World. Read Micah Clarke or even the Gerard books. No, they are not great literature, but they are great fiction. I'd put most of the good SF out there in the same category. There are only a few SF novels that I would call "great" in the "Huckleberry Finn/Cannery Row/The Sea Wolf/Heart of Darkness" kind of great. (Feel free to disagree with me, like I need to give you folks permission, but I would put "Dune," "Stranger in a Strange Land," and the original "Foundation" trilogy in that category -- Asimov can't write real human beings, but neither could Dickens and I still think he's great).

For those moderators who think this is offtopic, the subject of whether Star Trek: Nemesis is good or bad opens up the whole topic of what "good" versus "bad" means. This is all very much on-topic. So nyah! Digression is the soul of wit.

The worst of the bunch?

[ar1550]

"The 10th entry in the Star Trek movie franchise ... is the dullest and drabbest of the lot

So I take it that I'm not the only one who has repressed the horrible memory of seeing Star Trek V.

...gently down the stream...

Re:The worst of the bunch?

[JPelorat]

There was a fifth one?

Re:The worst of the bunch?

[cellocgw]

>Humour in sci-fi = bad.

Wait a minute. How about GalaxieQuest?
And some folks even liked SpaceBalls.
Or Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxie. How could you not love Marvin the Paranoid Android?
Or Buckaroo Banzai beyond the 5th Dimension?

Re:The worst of the bunch?

[gamgee5273]

the nearly-talented Marc Singer

Wow. Nearly-talented? You're really generous.

Re:The worst of the bunch?

[Scrameustache]

Or Buckaroo Banzai beyond the 5th Dimension?

HEY! First of all, that's "The adventures of Buckaroo Banzai: Across the eigth dimension", and second of all, its a docu-drama, not a comedy!

Making light of the exploits of the great Dr. banzai...for shame!

;- )

The Preview release

[Punk Walrus]

The preview release they sent out to the reviewers was apparently so bad, that one of my best Star Trek fan (he has a ship/club thing, leather jacket with logo on it, etc) friends said it was a embrassing as watching your best friend get drunk and try to get a date with a stripper.

"It's not even a good two-parter," he sobbed.

It all went downhill when Gene died

[LostCluster]

There's a rather clear and definable moment where Star Trek's quality suffered a containment breach. The moment Gene Roddenberry died.

The original series was a classic, and he led TNG well. However, after his death Deep Space Nine spun out of control, Voyager was an ugly stepchild from the start, and now Enterprise can't keep its story consistant with the events of the Kirk era that happen 100 years later.

Re:It all went downhill when Gene died

[evilpenguin]

Aw, baloney. Gene Roddenberry was the author all that was hokum in Star Trek. He was the force that winnowed the soul out several stories. He was the gloryhog who constantly took credit for the work of others. He had no control over any of the movies except for the dismal first one. I would say that the quality of TNG leapt forward upon his death. That it is spirialing down now is more a measure of idea exhaustion than the lack of the "Great Bird of the Galaxy."

Gene loved being benevolent head of a benign cult and would tell lie upon lie to maintain that position. See Harlan Ellison's book version of his script "The City on the Edge of Forever" for an unvarnished look at Trek Trough.

Believe what you will, but tell the truth you know.

Re:It all went downhill when Gene died

[Twirlip of the Mists]

...now Enterprise can't keep its story consistant with the events of the Kirk era that happen 100 years later.

Far be it from me to be an "Enterprise" apologist, but I remember reading somewhere that there's an official explanation for this in the writers' guide or something. The story goes that when the events of "First Contact" happened, the time line forked in a serious way, due to the fact that Zephram Cochrane (or whatever his name was-- you know, Farmer Hoggett) was exposed to 24th century technology. The time line of "Enterprise" isn't the same as the time line of the original Star Trek, "The Next Generation," and so on.

That's actually kind of a neat idea, and a new and different way of pressing the reset button on the whole Star Trek universe. I really wish they'd taken that idea more seriously, tying the series premiere closely to "First Contact," instead of doing the tired and nonsensical "temporal cold war" thing.

Not that "Enterprise" wouldn't still suck, but at least it would make a little more sense in context of all the other Star Trek stories out there.

Re:It all went downhill when Gene died

[Anonvmous Coward]

"....Deep Space Nine spun out of control..."

Careful. DS9 was probably the best series of all of them. It had a direction to go, it did so, and the fans were satisfied. Unfortunately, the people who didn't/couldn't keep up with it were the ones that were burned. So I can see why you say that about DS9.

"...and now Enterprise can't keep its story consistant with the events of the Kirk era that happen 100 years later."

Have you paid any attention? I mean, you'd think that the fact that the NX-01 wasn't hanging on the wall in the Enterprise's ready room next to the space shuttle and aircraft carrier would be a big clue as to what's going on: The time line has been tampered with. One need not look any further than First Contact to see what happened. Cochrane named the NX-01 after the Enterprise, which he got a chance to see thanks to LaForge and a telescope.

Sadly, that revealed more of my geekiness than I'd typically allow on Slashdot. However, it bothers the shit out of me that I can see this, but the people I know that know which deck the only bathroom on the Enterprise is don't.

Let's get to the real crux of the consistency matter, though: Nobody could follow the timeline that TOS had laid out and then make it interesting to watch. The whole point of the TV show is to be new and interesting, it's no fun if it's all spoiled because Spock made an unimportant reference to meeting the Romulans.

Where's the fun in seeing things in the past if you can't see how familiar things have changed?

Re:It all went downhill when Gene died

[gamgee5273]

Are you saying that Enterprise may be the beginning of the Mirror Universe? Scott Bakula needs to grow a goatee...

Re:It all went downhill when Gene died

[InfoVore]

Have you paid any attention? I mean, you'd think that the fact that the NX-01 wasn't hanging on the wall in the Enterprise's ready room next to the space shuttle and aircraft carrier would be a big clue as to what's going on: The time line has been tampered with.

Since the premier episode of Enterprise ("Broken Bow"?), it has struck me that their is one really elegant way that they could explain the continuity differences between the original Star Trek and Enterprise:

Let the series run its x number of years, occasionally building and developing the Suliban/Temporal Cold War story arc. At the end, have Cpt. Sam Becket, er Archer face the decision to wipe out the current time-line, including the development of his Enterprise, in favor of a timeline without the Suliban and the Temporal Cold War. If he doesn't, then the Suliban win and everyone suffers. Archer chooses to sacrifice his own existence and the existence of everyone he loves to safeguard humanity. His actions set up the Federation timeline which eventually spits out the Enterprise NC1701 captained by our favorite over-actor and his crew on a five year mission to "seek out new life and new civilizations...".

It resolves all the "hey they are messing up the timeline" griping using Star Trek's favorite plot device: mucking around with the time continum. It also lets Archer and company make the ultimate heroic sacrifice - to be completely eliminated from existence so that the essence of what they love will survive.

Do that and title the two part series closer "For the Greater Good" and you have a good ending to an average series.

I.V.

Re:It all went downhill when Gene died

[Twirlip of the Mists]

For that matter, why did Data have to get that stupid emotion chip? I never thought his whole quest to become human thing was all that interesting.

While the way it was handled in the end days was dreadful, Data's fascination with and envy of humanity was the most interesting thing about him. Without that aspect of his character, he's literally just a robot.

I think that's why Picard is such a good Captain, for that matter - that slightly inhuman quality he has, the almost limitless self control and focus.

Oh, balls. Some of the very best episodes-- "Darmok," "The Inner Light," "Family," "The Perfect Mate," "Sarek"-- were the ones where Picard let down his guard. In those episodes we saw friendship, love, grief, rage, the whole gamut that flesh is heir to. The fact that he's stoic doesn't mean he's emotionless. Quite the contrary, in fact.

Also, time travel violates causality. It shouldn't be allowed. Period.

Never lose sight of the fact that Star Trek is meant to be entertaining. That's all, that's where it starts and ends. If a time-travel story is entertaining, tell it. Hell, "The City on the Edge of Forever" was arguably the very best episode of the original series, and up there with some of the best science fiction ever. What shouldn't be allowed is stories that fail to entertain, for whatever reason. If time travel is entertaining, go with it. If it's not, don't. That's the rule.

Re:Too bad

[JPelorat]

It's easy to remember:

Think about Star Trek V. Shudder. There ya go.

Re:Too bad

[Jucius Maximus]

Yes, it's odd == bad, even == good.

And there were some very very good reviews of nemesis as well!

Re:BAH - Give Credit...

[c_jonescc]

...where it's due damnit.

Gabe from Penny Arcade said this exact paragraph earlier in the week about Equilibrium.

Seriously, citing Gabe on this wouldn't effect the moderation you get, and it's pretty lame to steal words just to karma whore.

Critics

[MoonFacedAssassin]

The critics aren't much impressed with the new Star trek...

Since when have the critics ever been impressed with Star Trek? I take anything a critic says with a grain of salt.

Re:Critics

[Neuracnu Coyote]

Have a look at the top critic out there, Mr Ebert:

Star Trek IV 3.5 of 4 stars
Star Trek V 2 of 4 stars
Star Trek VI (no review)
Star Trek VII, 2 of 4 stars
Star Trek VIII, 3.5 of 4 stars
Star Trek IX, 2 of 4 stars
Star Trek X, 2 of 4 stars

3 and a half stars is pretty damn good, too. That's better than As Good As It Gets, Austin Powers or A.I..

I'm a techie and a trekie

[Nevermore-Spoon]

Let me start with something that seems trollish....Reviewers (in general) are full of CRAP. Reviewers hardly ever seem to review a movie in a way that reflects public opinion.
They have thier reputation at stake, and that reputation is among a snobbie group of follow-the-common-review-sentiment. I will not allow a reviewers opinion affect my enjoyment of the movie.
May I also liken a "Movie Critic's" review of a startrek movie to a M$ employee's review of the latest linux kernel. I'm a techie and a trekie and those outside those worlds don't often understand me.

*yawn*..

[D-Cypell]

Ensign... set a course for bargin bin at local video store...

ENGAGE!

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

I propose a Corollary...

[Rayonic]

...to the even-odd Star Trek movie rule. Here is a revised summary:

• Even numbered Trek movies are good.
  
• Odd numbered Trek movies are bad.
  
• The last movie of a "generation" is always bad.
  

There -- now us geeks can go on with our lives.

Re:I propose a Corollary...

[Triv]

The last movie of a "generation" is always bad.

I dunno dude, I thought ST:VI was one of the tightest in the franchise - Kirk's immense hatred of the Klingons for killing his son played out really well in that flick, the special effects were good and the zero-g scene was pretty flippin' awsome. ('Course, ST:II holds the special place in my heart.)

All I'm sayin' is you can't really generalize from the one particular. I'll wait and see what happens when I hit the theater tonight.

Triv

Rotten Tomatoes

[klasker]

I think "panned" is a relative concept here. Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 51% positive rank and concidering the SF-bias in the media, I think it's probably safe to assume this is an entertaining movie for the average Star Trek fan. I'm sorry to see the Next Generation go.

You're right and wrong

[MacAndrew]

It is BECAUSE they've repressed the memory that they FORGET that V really was the worst Star Trek of all time, arguably in serious competition with bad movies in general.

Leonard Nimoy versus William Shatner as directors -- the choice is logical.

V was so bad it made the fairly forgettable III and VI look epic and skillful. Apparently Shatner did not get to do in the climax of V what he's wanted, and if he had, the movie would have at least been funny.

Re:You're right and wrong

[MacAndrew]

The final battle when they meet the "God-alien" was to have been this furious battles of angels and devils and what have you. The studio put the kibosh on it partly out of fear of religious riots, but I think taste would have been enough. I shudder to picture Shatner's rendition of the battle, and the whole film was already SO arrogant -- and boring. I don't doubt that the studio interference didn't improve the film, either. Maybe they just didn't want to have to pay God residuals.

Shatner has talked about this often (more details):

William Shatner: "An awesome Godlike image appears, surrounded by angels, and demands that the Enterprise transport him back toward more populated sections of the universe. Kirk then challenges 'God,' and an argument ensues. As it escalates, 'God' begins showing his true colors and his image begins to transform, ultimately becoming unmistakably Satanic. The angels simultaneously change into hordes of gargoyles, the Furies of Hell. At that point, Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, still suffering from the effects of their first real adversarial relationship, split up, with each man running in a separate direction. McCoy falls, breaking his leg, and is surround by the Furies, as is Spock. At the same time, however, Kirk has broken free, but even with a clear path toward escape, a last look back at the fates of his friends convinces Kirk to go back, risking his life in an effort to save them. Spock is first, and when he's been successfully freed, the pair immediately joins forces in an attempt to save McCoy, who's already been carried away by the minions into Hell. Descending together into the river Styx, Spock and Kirk fight off their hideous attackers and save their injured friend, with Kirk carrying McCoy on his shoulders as they flee."

Re:You're right and wrong

[susano_otter]

No one has mentioned ST II: Wrath of Khan...

That's because no one needs to. While we may disagree on the worst of the movies, and the relative merits of the movies, we all agree that this, at least, goes without saying: II was the best, by far.

The first movie has always been my second choice, though, which makes me pretty unique in these parts.

Re:Wesley could have saved it with Open Source!

[ForceOfWill]

they'd set off a Blue Screen of Death and earth would have been safe!

You mean Earth would have been in safe mode :-)

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.

Don't Complain

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, if the movie stinks, it's largely the fault of people who say "oh well, I know the plot stinks, but I'll go and see it anyway." The only thing Hollyweird really comprehends is money... if people keep flocking to the theaters to watch computer generated explosions, well, by golly, Hollywood will keep delivering more of the same.

If you want the quality of stories to improve, tell it to Hollywood in the language they understand. If the writing stinks, and you KNOW in advance that it stinks, don't bother with the theater, DVD, or merchandise.

And in the end... it... it... well, it won't make a bit of a difference. Sadly, the bulk of the population is quite happy with Things Blowing Up.

Moron movies are for a moron populace. Find a better use for your time.

Re:BAH (in denial)

[gosand]

I feel there are some inherent problems with movie criticism. The problem is that most people who review things are the very people who seem to have the most hang ups about that thing. This makes their reviews worthless to the rest of us who simply enjoy watching movies or reading books. So Mr. Moviereviewerman, you think Nemesis had a "derivative, punch-the-keyboard plot." You think it was "crude, but occasionally laugh-out-loud funny, merely for its sheer ridiculousness." You think that a movie like Nemesis is just too far below your standards. Well I bet you twenty bucks you have a painting in your house that you bought because it matched your couch, how pedestrian.

Wow, are you in denial! You sound like one of those "fans" who think just because something has been branded with a franchise name, it can do no wrong.

You probably still defend Star Wars Episode I and II as "pretty good movies" when they were simply AWFUL. The most recent Austin Powers movie was sad and simply un-funny, although I am sure die-hard fans will say they liked it.

I don't get the devotion to things like this. I guess if people live through lives and events that are not their own, they get offended and embarassed when those things turn out to be disappointing.

Yes, they are only movies - but why can't everyone see that? Why cling to the illusion that something is better than it really was, simply because you hope and wish it to be so? Jeez, if you don't care what a reviewer says, and are going to go see a movie anyway, then why take so much stock in the reviewer? In my opinion, reviewers are sometimes nicer than they should be, instead of what you suggest. Every review of AoTC gave some praise to it, but I just didn't see it. I would put it up there with some of the most overhyped movies of all time (including Episode I). Stop clinging to your illusions and come back to reality. Why the hostility towards a reviewer when you haven't even seen the movie yet yourself? All you have on your side of the argument is that the person must have a hang up about Star Trek? Physician, heal thyself.

Characters

[Helpadingoatemybaby]

Here's an experiment you can try at home with your friends:

I always liked the first Star Trek, you know, the REAL Star Trek. With distinct, individual characters who had distinct, individual personalities. Bones screaming at Spock that he wasn't a doctor, he was an ocean sponge and Spock death gripping him to the floor.

Now here's the experiment: take any of the scripts from any of the subsequent rip... err... sequels and pick a line. Now read the sentence to your friend and see if they can guess which character said it. They won't be able to figure it out which character it is 90% of the time. Why? All the lines are the same between the characters, there is no significant distinctions, personalities, or flavors to the characters.

If you do that with an ORIGINAL Star Trek script, you can't help but pick out "Dammit Captain I'm a doctor not a floor wax!" goes with Bones!

Forget "it's good science fiction" -- without good characters you have nothing. Before you get mad at my post, try the experiment yourself during your next drinking party. If you pick the wrong character, you take a drink...

READ THIS! Leaked portion of Nemesis script

[Anonymous Coward]

PICARD: Good God! We're caught in a temporal quake caused by Nemesis' evil mind powers! We'll be torn to pieces for sure! It's curtains for us! Will, can you think of anything that might save us?

RIKER: I'm so goddamned drunk I can't even see straight. Give me another gin and tonic.

PICARD: Make it so. Mr. LaForge, do you have any ideas?

GEORDI: Well, we just might be able to decouple the iambic pentameter from the refrombulatory cryo-units in order to cause a temporonucleic disturbance that just might break us free.

PICARD: Good god, Geordi, that's the craziest goddamned idea I've ever heard! No, strike that. Pure genius! Capital! Do you think we can actually make it work?

RIKER: Gin and tonic, God damn it!

GEORDI: I don't see that we have a choice, Captain. We have to try.

PICARD: Make it so. Mr. Worf, please accompany Mr. LaForge to Engineering in order to try out that crazy idea of his. And make sure to shut the watertight doors so that the water doesn't spill over the top of the bulkhead at E deck.

WORF: Roger.

WESLEY: I sure hope that this works, captain!

TROI: The fuck are *you* doing here?

[ Worf and LaForge leave bridge ]

PICARD: Data, what do you calculate our odds are at getting out of this situation alive?

DATA: I'm afraid they don't look good, Captain. The computer is claiming that they are only 5% or so.

PICARD: Jesus jumpin' Christ! I told you we should have upgraded to Mandrake 12.0.

RIKER: Who do I have to blow to get a gin and tonic around here?!?

GEORDI (on tricorder): Captain, I think we've done it! If you yell "Warp one, ENGAGE" right now, we will escape from Nemesis with approximately 0.01 seconds to spare!

PICARD: Holy moly! What are the odds? Helm, warp one, ENGAGE!

[ Enterprise zooms off. ]

[ Credits roll ]

Straight from the desk of Brannon Braga.

Re:Too bad

[compupc1]

It's too bad that someone had to pick out the two worst reviews out there to post on Slashdot. Most people that have seen it agree that while it probably isn't the best movie of the bunch, it's near the top. Don't judge something until you've experianced it for yourself. In this situation, Slashdot was presented with a minority opinion. I can't believe how many people took it as fact. Skeptecism, always!

Romulan Apples and Organian Oranges

[codefool]

... now Enterprise can't keep its story consistant with the events of the Kirk era that happen 100 years later

Woah - hold on there Captain. Let's see. The Original Star Trek (OST) was written in 1965 and spoon-fed to NBC as a "wagon train to the stars", which means NBC viewed it as a futuristic western; and westerns dominated that era's television programming (hence the incredible number of bare-knuckled fist fights). OST was episodic and disjunct, with many writers doing as they pleased with the characters within a very gray scope (see Whitfield and Roddenberry, The Making of Star Trek, Bantam Books). In fact, they were making it all up as they went along, especially when it came to matters of science.

Then the Star Trek franchise happens quite by accident, so that all subsequent efforts are placed very carefully under the control of the Great Overseer of the Grand Story Line. In fact, all of Star Trek goes through a single office, including books, movies, and television shows to keep the product, well, pure. Now, trying to take what was in the OST and blend it into what is makes for no easy task. In fact, there of those of us who would be happy if OST were basically ignored, except for a few basic concepts and events.

I could go on, but I've already revealed the extent of my Star Trek Geekdom.

Re:Romulan Apples and Organian Oranges

[susano_otter]

It would be like a TV producer pitching a show today as "'Friends' in space," or "a sci-fi 'West Wing.'"

In other words, "Enterprise" and "Babylon 5", respectively.

Of COURSE it Stinks...

[LordYUK]

I mean, come on, its Star Trek. Its SUPPOSED to be above the average idiot reviewers head. If it got a GOOD review I'd be surprised! But isnt that what we love about it?? I mean, have you all ever watched some of the episodes (early TNG, like, pre Yar dieing), they are horrible (the acting, special effects) when compared to the later episodes, but by god every time TNN does a marathon I'm right there watching them because for all the campiness and whatnot, the show is DAMN GOOD and the pinnacle of GEEKINESS. I've spent more than one rainy day watching my columbia house ST:TNG VHS collection. I love Star Trek. I love the Next Gen cast. I wouldnt replace any of them. But I dont expect it to have a story line to rival LOTR or something, nor do I expect the actors to be given praise for their performances. Its a campy sci-fi flick, with over used plot devices and over used character templates. And I wouldnt have it any other way.

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.

Why TNG Worked

[GS11_Pus]

I have never been a fan of the original series or Voyager/DS9/Enterprise. I could hardly be called a Trekker or Trekkie or whatever. But I do love The Next Generations seasons 3 through 7, and in my opinion, that show ranks as one of the top ten of the past 20 years.

What worked so well with TNG was a blend of an ensemble cast and fantastic writing. The viewer cared about the relationships between the characters -- Geordi and Data forging a friendship despite the latter's inability to love, Jean-Luc's unwielding stoicism in the face of his crew's attempts to humanize him. Furthermore, the scripts were just great -- they came up with interesting ideas and stuck to a space trek, rather than try to create some sort of epic battle of good vs. evil and sprinkle in one-liners. Who didn't cringe in Insurrection when Data said, "Saddle up. Lock and load?" He didn't say those sorts of things in the TV series because each episode was (as much as can be expected) consistent and well planned. Data's role was that of artificial life desperately trying to grow in a manner impossible. That, in itself, is epic.

These movies continually attempt to appeal to a broader audience and insist on childish humour instead of intellectual wit. The result is a frustrating mix of my favorite cast and crew with a pedantic, immature script.

Finally, the TV series worked well because it was only an hour long and there were 20-25 episodes a season. With that format, you can devote an entire episode to Worf hurting his back or Geordi turning invisible (twice). Each character could be featured for an entire episode, such that at the end of seven years we had a closeness with each. These movies clear emphasize Data and Picard, and the rest are sadly shoved to the background.

I already have my ticket for Nemesis which I'll be watching in about six hours and I'm excited. I suspect there will be plenty to be disappointed about, but I still care about these characters and will watch them until they stop making movies. But in retrospect, it would have been so much better to have a few more years of the TV series than these movies. And as for critics -- well, they assured me that Attack of the Clones was good. And I have died a little each day since wasting that eight bucks.

Re:Not a chance

[saskboy]

Well you are clearly laying out flamebait, because anyone who's watched the Voyage Home IV knows it was a very good movie. "Vhich vay to the nuclear wessels?"
And you must have missed where Spock pinched the punk with the boom box?

Seriously man, if you are going to dis the best trek movie of the TOS crew, you should watch it.

You can aways trust Amazon..

[MoriarGryphon]

Well, it can't be that bad, the "Reserve your copy" on Amazon.com gives it five stars!

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:Not a chance

[Bishop923]

You were looking for hard sci-fi in a Trek movie?

Isn't that like looking for filet mignon at McDonalds?
</joke>

Re:Can someone explain Star Trek V

[Cyclometh]

People loathe it for many reasons, several of which include Sybok, Spock's supposed half-brother. But it's just a terrible film overall- the scene with Uhura dancing on the ridge was probably the nadir as far as I'm concerned.

However, Star Trek V did have what I thought was the best line ever delivered in a Star Trek film (well, there's a few contenders for the title, but I've always liked it): "Excuse me, but what does God need with a starship?"

Re:Ebert puts it nicely

[Tablizer]

Fearsome death rays strike the Enterprise, and what happens? Sparks fly out from the ceiling and the crew gets bounced around in their seats like passengers on the No. 36 bus. This far in the future they wouldn't have sparks because they wouldn't have electricity,

Whoever said only electricity causes sparks?

[from the link] life is too short to sit through 10 movies in which the power is shifted around on these shields.

Would he rather watch ships crash into fruit-stands? Everything is a cliche these days. I don't see him complaining that love scenes always involve kissing and humping.

stages an uprising, or something, against being made to work as slaves in the mines. Surely slavery is not an efficient economic system in a world of hyperdrives,

And the crew will probably be robots then also, but that would make a shitty movie. Perhaps slaves are a status symbol, like SUV's where practicality be damned. He is trying to hard to be logical and is not good at it.

I think it is time for "Star Trek" to make a mighty leap forward another 1,000 years into the future....when aliens do not look like humans with funny foreheads

I am not sure Jar Jar or Shrek-in-Space will compliment Trek.

He also complains about the "outdated" look of the ship and controls. A trully futuristic ship would probably be a cloaked sphere and would not need control panels because the ship would have a tie directly to the crew's heads and be controlled by thoughts or neuro interfaces. Not very visual in my book. I wonder what he has in mind? It seems he wants to totally gut Trek, but is vague about what he really wants.

Beam Ebert outta here, and his thumbs too.

Listen.....

[Chanc_Gorkon]

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. I bet if Star Trek II: TWOK would come out today you guys would pan it. First, most of us have not seen the movie yet. Most of the "real" reviews have not come out yet. It has not even had the chance to speak for itself and you guys are panning it and that's not being very fair. Personally, I rather believe/hope that this will be another rock em sock em trek movie like First Contact was. I rather liked that one. Insurrection was bad also. Also, saying that one is not a true Sci-Fi fan because they have not read Asimov, Heinlein, Bear, Benford, Brin, Adams, Niven, Pournelle and others is not fair either. I am also tired of seeing Sci Fi be over ridden by the fantasy stuff. Fantasy may have come from Sci-Fi or Sci-Fi from Fantasy but Fantasy type books are different, to me, to not be Sci-Fi. I like seing shows that take place on starships and I like Star Wars. Just because it does not stand up to the image you have built up from Star War over the years does not mean that other folks with better expectations won't like it. It's just like the Linux zealots who don't care about making their programs easy to use for others because they think that their way is better. If they made a trek movie that sounded like it was wrote by these supposed better writers, noone else would go see it!

Re:Listen.....

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

Nothing will ever live up to the stuff you saw as a kid.

I agree with this. I saw Star Wars (err, now Star Wars: New Hope) when I was 6 or so when it first came out in the theater. I used to think it was the best movie ever, saw it again when I was 13 or so. Still good. Now I'm on the + side of 30, decided to show it to my gf - she's a foreigner, never saw the original - and it sucked. I almost turned it off. All the stuff about we say now regarding Attack of the Clones and Lucas not being able to tell a story was present in the first film as well, it was just too new and cutting edge for us to care. Now that we have better examples of movies that weave together science fiction and storyline (the original Terminator comes to mind) it seems kind of feeble in comparison.

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.

I don't want my pain taken away. I NEED my pain.

[burgburgburg]

What does God need with a starship?

I saw Nemesis on Wednesday night

[digidave]

I was at a preview screening at Toronto's Paramount theater. Nemesis is not a great movie, but it's not bad.

There are at least 3 parts to this movie that are outright stupid. The whole audience actually laughed out loud at times. Other than that, it's a decent movie. I just don't think it lives up to the series. I'd rather have spent my 2 hours watching a couple TNG episodes instead.

Re:Not a chance

[kalidasa]

You were looking for hard sci-fi in a Trek movie? Isn't that like looking for filet mignon at McDonalds?

Exactly. More precisely, it's like looking for filet mignon and a nice salice salentino at McDonalds.

The idea behind Trek is that it's supposed to be fun. You want hard SF, or at least serious SF, look to Solaris (no, not that Solaris, Tarkovsky's Solaris), 2001, or Alien (maybe Pitch Black; though a lot of it smelled like warmed over Ridley Scott, it did have a good idea behind it and some very interesting performances). If the SF you want is filet mingon, remember that Trek is junk food. Filling, but lacking in sophistication.

Sulu made it!

[phorm]

Sure there was some expansion here and there, but in general the feelings for the characters never changed. Checkov never really "rose through the ranks" like Wesley did

I believe that in "the Undiscovered Country", cheesy as it was, Sulu did get a captaincy (sp?). Checkoff... well he probably never made it 'cause he couldn't pass his written test:

Desired Rank: Keptain Experience: Starships and Nuclear Wessels

Re:Not a chance

[Jahf]

You want hard SF, or at least serious SF, look to

A book.

Nuclear Wessels

[burgburgburg]

Where are the nuclear wessels?

Remember where we parked.

Ahh, the classics.

I don't even have your number.

Computer, on.

Re:Too bad

[ttfkam]

Star Trek: First Contact (8)!?!

You're kidding right? This was noticeably better than Star Trek 4? It wasn't even good!

What about the Borg scared the crap out of us when we first saw them? The hive mind. The collective. The lack of individual thought. The elimination of self...utterly. It was worse than servitude or slavery. It was the complete annihilation of everything you are, were, and ever would be. You are a number.

Then they introduce a "queen." The Borg isn't a hive mind anymore; It's an extension of the queen. Well then, just kill the queen (like in Voyager...ugh). I can't believe anyone is forgiving the script writers for things like Picard "forgot" about the queen and her wanting someone at her "side." Yeah, because with the chorus in her head, she's lonely. Yeah, after millions of worlds, now she could use some help. Yeah, after millions of worlds, she needs *Picard's* help.

The Borg became too...human. What would the Borg of the series have done when in contact with Data? Ohh! Neat technology. *sucking sound*

But no! In First Contact, the Borg sprouts a queen, she gets her nipples hard over Data, and allows her emotions (!!!) to mislead her. She was actually bitter because she lost Picard! She apparently is responsible for the cultural vacuuming of trillions of beings, but somehow Picard and Data were "special."

This is the Borg!! Why would they need love, companionship, reproduction, or sex? If they wanted to feel good, they can just flip a switch and have a collective orgasm.

But yeah, some dialog about Moby Dick and Troi getting drunk definitely made up for it. Puhleese!

Didn't anyone else notice that the movie neutered Star Trek's best adversary? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

Re:Too bad

[AndroidCat]

Star Trek V never happened! No way! They went straight from IV to VI. It was all a numbering mistake.

But if it did happen, here's the plot synopsis:
Star Trek V (Never Happened): God and Kirk compare egos. God loses.

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.

The Wrong Gene.

[RatBastard]

Right concept. Wrong man. Gene L. Coon was what made the original Star Trek shine.

The Roddenbury years of Next Gen are utter garbage.

Re:Too bad

[grumpygrodyguy]

Don't judge something until you've experianced it for yourself.

Haven't we "experienced" this enough times to say enough is enough?

No, I think the review is probably right on. Trek is another of dozens of films that this has happened to. It's the current hollywood formula for sequels.

When goods movies like "The Mummy" or "Blade" come from out of nowhere and get lots of pay-per-support...Hollywood rehashes a crappy sequel as follows:

btw, this is the "..." in the 1)? 2)... 3) Profit!

1) Get cast from original movie.
2) Get makeup/costume people from MTV to work on people from step 1.
3) Get out the script to aliens.
4) Mix in the blender for 30 seconds.
5) Release movie.

This kind of recipe is easy for Hollywood execs to remember. They just keep thier production plan in the same drawer w/ the bourbon.

Re:Too bad

[TheAlmightyQ]

No way! They went straight from IV to VI.

Sounds like the marketing people at Netscape used to work for Paramount too.

"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.

We have a winner!

[RatBastard]

Yep. I've seen five movies in the theatres in the last two years. I'll bee seeing only one more this year: The Two Towers. I won't be seeing Nemesis as I do not feel the need to throw my money away to see third-rate bilge.

Most movies these days are garbage because, as you said, people don;t seem to want good movies. All critisisms of movies are refuted with a "Dude, get a life! It's just a movie!". These people who put up with the constant flow of "XXX", "Charie's Angels", "Batman And Robin", etc... are the ones responcible for the total lack of worthwhile movies out there.

Re:Too bad

[Scrameustache]

You're kidding right? This was noticeably better than Star Trek 4? It wasn't even good!

In First Contact, the Borg sprouts a queen, she gets her nipples hard over Data

I can't believe anyone is forgiving the script writers

In First Contact, the Borg sprouts a queen, she gets her nipples hard over Data

Didn't anyone else notice that the movie neutered Star Trek's best adversary? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

In First Contact, the Borg sprouts a queen, she gets her nipples hard over Data

Dude, you awnsered your own question you know...

Even odd good bad:

[Black Copter Control]

How about:

Good is good, bad is bad
Nunbers don't count (people do);

My working comspiracy is: Wednesday releases good, Friday releases bad.
It works like this:

If they figure that a movie is gonna get rave reviews they release it on a Wednesday so that the word of mouth can build and give good first-weekend results.

If they figure that the ads are better than the movie, they'll give it all the PR they can and release it on a Friday. That way, people won't find out just how bad it is until Monday. This way, they get the best possible first weekend numbers.

Since nemesis was released on a Friday, I suggested that my friends wait for the reviews before going to see it.

Re:Too bad

[gamgee5273]

Man...you're not looking for anything other than brain candy, are you (looking at the words "dumb fun" I'm assuming not)? I've never trusted Trek, especially the TOS crew, for great storytelling. With TOS, you can always count on that the crew will live on to the next flick, and, of course, the other folks are either: a) dead; b) bad guys; or c) not coming back in the next movie.

TNG took the drama/storytelling that one step further by killing Tasha Yar (and proving that the crew is not immortal), allowing Picard to be assimilated (in TOS that would have been Spock, I bet) and being willing to deal with overreaching themes (like the conspiracy plotlines, etc.). The other series have failed to continue making the universe credible. Babylon 5 did an excellent job of picking up where TNG left off: you see a functioning crew - people get promoted, people die, people take other assignments, new people come in.

TNG had started to show that SF can be dynamic, but its successors (and the movies) have only proven to be static.

Re:Not a chance

[Kiwi]

You are welcome to your opinion, of course, but keep in mind that Star Trek IV was the first really sucessful Star Trek film with the general public. It has the best adjusted-for-inflation box office success for any Star Trek film. It was the film that was sucessful enough that it became possible to make Star Trek: The Next Generation.

- Sam

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)

Re:The point of the movie

[sigwinch]

Are you suggesting that environmentalists actually believe this? That some freaky alien ship is going to come to Earth and kill us all if the whales disappear?

Yeah, that's just silly.

Everybody knows that alien energy beams aren't for vaporizing oceans: they're for anal probing. If species loss continues at its current rate, in 30 years nobody will be able to sit down. The ironic thing is that increased vaseline use will probably just accelerate the species loss...

Maybe it's me

[DarkHelmet]

But am I the only person who finds it sad that Janeway made it to the position of Admiral before Picard?

"You get the easy missions Jean Luc."

Sure Janeway... "Now tell me Kathryn, how many lights do you see?"

"THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS!"

Re:Can someone explain Star Trek V

[mph]

c'mon, are you kidding? Canada has warships?!?!?!

When I was visiting Seattle a few years ago there was one docked there. As far as I can tell, the invasion did not succeed.

Re:Too bad

[barawn]

While it's true that occasionally there were hand gestures, in general, you actually saw the drones do what the queen wished without her actually doing anything (except her eyes looked in that direction).

I'm not sure that it really was that poor a representation of the Borg. The fact is that this was a unique situation - the Borg were building a collective, rather than part of one already, so there had to be a way to transfer the previous cube collective to a smaller group, and the best way to do that is to have a queen carry the collective along.

Think of it this way. The Borg don't use a queen when dealing with ships with a Cube ship, right? That's because there're thousands of beings on the ship, and they can sustain the "group mind" on their own. However, when the Cube ship is destroyed, and the small sphere escapes, there are only a few Borg - say 4 or 5 - and in those small numbers, the individuality of each Borg becomes a real problem, so the Queen acts as a unifying mind until there are enough Borg again.

As per why the Borg abducted Picard: think about it. Do the Borg know about Q? Probably not - Q probably wouldn't bother with them. They're very single minded (heh). All they saw was the Enterprise arrive out of nowhere, rushed over to see what the hell it was, then poof, disappear away from them. What were the Borg probably thinking? "Holy S***... this race is probably significantly above us." so they planned to kidnap one individual to understand the capabilities better. Once they did, it was a whole new ball game, so even if they did realize that humans weren't that powerful, things had changed.

Consider I Borg: what did Hugh do by himself? Nothing. He fell back on "search for access port" routines, then "search for food" routines, then - nothing. Individual - or few - Borg simply don't have the capability to have the abilities of the full collective, so to function as well as one, you need something else - a queen.

Re:Not a chance

[susano_otter]

Whatever. There's more shitty SciFi published in book form every year than in film form. Sure, there's also more good SciFi published every year in book than movie form, but it's still like looking for a needle in a haystack. With movies, there's less needles, but the haystack is a lot smaller.

Trek is politics and social issues, not sci-fi

[raehl]

I never really looked at Trek as being science fiction. It's an opportunity to comment on big-system politics and other social institutions, in a world sufficiently removed from this one that you don't have to worry about anyone protesting your network or studio.

Kirk could get away with kissing Uhura because it's just damned difficult to take something like that seriously when there's a Russian at the helm and guy with pointy ears in the near vicinity. It never would have happened on a sitcom first.

The politics thing is especially true in later seasons of DS9, when things changed from "The enemy is evil" to "The enemy is just like you, only you just don't realize that yet."

Or that episode where Bashir (how embarassed am I that I remember these character names of a show I havn't seen in years) has to deal with Dax getting a new symbiot? (Or was Dax the symbiot? Whatever, new body, different gender.) There's a like the person/like the body + like the person/like the gender + homosexual issues metaphor all rolled up into one.

There are plenty of people out there exposed to messages like that through Star Trek who would never get them any other way.

Indeed.

[Grendel Drago]

Absolutely. I've tried to explain this to actual Trek fans who loved the movie, and failed miserably. "But... but they don't have a queen!" Heck, Q himself said it best in TNG 2x16, "Q Who":

You can't outrun them. You can't destroy them. If you damage them the essence of what they are still remains. They regenerate and keep coming. Eventually you will weaken, your reserves will be gone. They are relentless.

And while I'm at it, from the same episode, same character, maybe the best quote of the whole series:

If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go home and crawl under you bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous. With treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid.

In my little world, the story of the Borg ended with "Descent". Nope, nothing after that. "First Contact" never bloody happened.

--grendel drago

Re:Too bad

[rworne]

they can just flip a switch and have a collective orgasm.

Would this be... wait for it...

A borgasm ?

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:Can someone explain Star Trek V

[thechink]

I know you're trying an old joke at we Canadians expense, but the truth is Canada has a strong naval tradition.

Canada's contribution during WWII in the North Atlantic was huge. From escorting transports to hunting U-boats, we kept the shipping lanes open. At the end of the war Canada had the 3rd largest Navy in the world after the US and UK.

And right now, Canadian warships are stopping and boarding anything that moves in the Arabian Sea looking for Taliban and Al Qaida operatives. One of our many contributions to the "war on terrorism".

So yes, we have warships.

Re:You, AC. You're kidding, right?

[saskboy]

AC, go watch the movie, and then come back with your head hung in shame.

You P'Tak!

And no I didn't look up that Klingon, so if the spelling is wrong, I don't want to hear about it!

Re:Can someone explain Star Trek V

[cybermage]

I do agree with you that overall STV wasn't as corny as IX, let alone IV (notwithstanding the rocketboots)

Just remember, you asked for it:

Row, row, row, your boat
Gently down the stream
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily
Life is but a dream

STV is, by far, as bad as it ever got.

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.