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

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 . . .

[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.

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?

[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!

;- )

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: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.

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

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."

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.

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: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

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!

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: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.

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

[burgburgburg]

What does God need with a starship?

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.

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.

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.

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: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...

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.

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 ?

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: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.

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.