Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 Posted:   Apr 21, 2013 - 4:11 PM   
 By:   SchiffyM   (Member)

The script was heavily derived from THE WRATH OF KHAN, even more so than any of the other TNG movies, which is saying something. Still, I think a less lethargic movie could have been made from it, and the film commits the unforgivable sin of being thoroughly dull.

Agreed. The cast (as directed, presumably) seems to be confusing gravity and sleepiness.

As for the "Wrath of Khan" thing, the irony is the story is a poor, pointless clone of the great original just as Shinzon is a poor, pointless clone of Picard. This script and the 2009 "Trek" also share a very strange villain problem -- both Shinzon and Nero are bent on oddly misdirected revenge. Khan had a legitimate beef with Kirk. You understood it innately. Shinzon's anger toward Picard is derived from what, exactly? His mistreatment by the Romulans makes him want to destroy the Federation? Nero, meanwhile, is out to destroy Spock (and the Federation, natch) because Spock failed to prevent Romulus from being destroyed by natural causes? He's got anger management issues, doesn't he?

As long as the Federation Council refuses to regulate access to planet-destroying superweapons, this sort of thing is going to just keep happening.

 
 Posted:   Apr 21, 2013 - 4:46 PM   
 By:   LeHah   (Member)

Nemesis and Die Another Day were released the same year and suffer from the same problem: they're pastiche of a bunch of other plots from within its own franchise.

(I'd go further into it and suggest that Wrath Of Khan has done more harm than good for Trek films, and we're still reaping that field but that's a whole 'nother discussion.)

 
 Posted:   Apr 21, 2013 - 5:10 PM   
 By:   Jeff Bond   (Member)

But Baird did a pretty good job on Executive Decision. Maybe that was just a foolproof script. I agree about the villains in Nemesis and Trek 2009--certainly ranking as the worst in the series. But Trek 2009 got away with it I think because the real trick was reinventing the cast and to an extent the Trek universe. It's always entertaining, and in its midsection in the action around Vulcan actually compelling. But Nemesis was always painfully dull, everything preordained and charmless. But there are still many fans that will prefer it over 2009 because Nemesis got the "canon" right and 2009 willfully disobeyed those details.

 
 Posted:   Apr 21, 2013 - 5:56 PM   
 By:   LeHah   (Member)

The villain in Nemesis stinks because they hired a really inappropriate (bad?) actor to play him... who later stumbled into Meth addiction after the film bombed. (And now he's Mad Max! Greeeeeeeeeeat.)

The villain in the 2009 reboot stinks because the screenwriters (or director) didn't do a damn thing with him. It's kind obvious Bana wanted to do more (the weirdo, Christopher Walken style "HELLO" when he answers a hail is definitely acting improv) but in the end, he was just the McGuffin to get the bridge crew together to shoot at.

Same problem, different sources.

(Personally, I can't pick one over the other, I find them equally terrible as neither attempts to do anything "Star Trek"ish)

 
 
 Posted:   Apr 21, 2013 - 6:04 PM   
 By:   Nicholas_DW   (Member)

Good god, I came here to read about Giacchino's score to Star Trek Into Darkness and was instead greeted by post after post shitting on Nemesis. What year is this?

 
 
 Posted:   Apr 21, 2013 - 6:15 PM   
 By:   zooba   (Member)

NEMESIS-

Didn't Howdy Doody write the script?




Oh no, sorry, silly me. It was John Logan. Don't know why I always get those two mixed up?

 
 
 Posted:   Apr 21, 2013 - 6:25 PM   
 By:   zooba   (Member)

"Yeah, that's "Really Funny" Zooba, Ha Ha Ha..... you idiot!"

 
 Posted:   Apr 21, 2013 - 6:43 PM   
 By:   Miles (MerM)   (Member)

The villain in Nemesis stinks because they hired a really inappropriate (bad?) actor to play him... who later stumbled into Meth addiction after the film bombed. (And now he's Mad Max! Greeeeeeeeeeat.)

Hey, give Tom Hardy some credit. He's a fine actor, but Shinzon wasn't particularly well-written. Post-Nemesis, he managed to crawl out of that drug addiction and give damn good performances in things like Bronson, Inception, Dark Knight Rises (all of which I'm sure you hate, but still).

 
 Posted:   Apr 21, 2013 - 6:49 PM   
 By:   mastadge   (Member)

Hey, give Tom Hardy some credit. He's a fine actor, but Shinzon wasn't particularly well-written. Post-Nemesis, he managed to crawl out of that drug addiction and give damn good performances in things like Bronson, Inception, Dark Knight Rises (all of which I'm sure you hate, but still).

Yeah, he really impressed me in Bronson. Also good in Warrior, Lawless and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. Guy's got chops.

 
 Posted:   Apr 21, 2013 - 6:57 PM   
 By:   LeHah   (Member)

Hey, give Tom Hardy some credit. He's a fine actor, but Shinzon wasn't particularly well-written. Post-Nemesis, he managed to crawl out of that drug addiction and give damn good performances in things like Bronson, Inception, Dark Knight Rises (all of which I'm sure you hate, but still).

Admittedly, I haven't seen Brosnan but the only thing with Hardy I've enjoyed was Band Of Brothers and he's only in it for 5 minutes of the last episode.

He's a very "self-aware" actor, which I find impossible to watch. Others are worse but he's gotten a lot of exposure lately, so it's more "obvious".

 
 Posted:   Apr 21, 2013 - 7:52 PM   
 By:   Advise & Consent   (Member)

Babling fat guy: your opinion about Nemesis score is dead wrong.

big grin LMFAO! big grin RICH!

 
 Posted:   Apr 21, 2013 - 7:57 PM   
 By:   SchiffyM   (Member)

Babling fat guy: your opinion about Nemesis score is dead wrong.

I may be fat, but I never bable!

 
 Posted:   Apr 22, 2013 - 8:48 AM   
 By:   Superman1701   (Member)

But Baird did a pretty good job on Executive Decision. Maybe that was just a foolproof script. I agree about the villains in Nemesis and Trek 2009--certainly ranking as the worst in the series. But Trek 2009 got away with it I think because the real trick was reinventing the cast and to an extent the Trek universe. It's always entertaining, and in its midsection in the action around Vulcan actually compelling. But Nemesis was always painfully dull, everything preordained and charmless. But there are still many fans that will prefer it over 2009 because Nemesis got the "canon" right and 2009 willfully disobeyed those details.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought Nero was an awful villain! And I agree with you about Nemesis. While the film is dull in many ways, it was still canon and in the universe folks are familiar with. What SHOULDVE been the 2009 film was the "prequel" comicbook series called "Countdown". This story sets up the whole 2009 film, and involved the TNG crew, old Spock, Nero and everything else. Although that in itself is a problem, because one shouldnt have to read a comic book miniseries before watching a film to understand the details about the happenings during the film.

And yall can shoot on Nemesis all you want...but it did have a Jerry Goldsmith score. Not to mention one of the best (musical) moments in the film was the shot of the Enterprise-E orbiting Romulus. Another was towards the end when the Enterprise-E was back in drydock (a nice nod visually and musically to The Motion Picture).

 
 Posted:   Apr 22, 2013 - 9:39 AM   
 By:   solium   (Member)


I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought Nero was an awful villain! And I agree with you about Nemesis. While the film is dull in many ways, it was still canon and in the universe folks are familiar with.


Face Tattoos and snarling at the screen does not make one a great villain. wink
Nemesis is actually my second favorite NG movie. Though that's not actually saying much.

 
 Posted:   Apr 22, 2013 - 9:44 AM   
 By:   Trent B.   (Member)


And yall can shoot on Nemesis all you want...but it did have a Jerry Goldsmith score. Not to mention one of the best (musical) moments in the film was the shot of the Enterprise-E orbiting Romulus. Another was towards the end when the Enterprise-E was back in drydock (a nice nod visually and musically to The Motion Picture).


Regarding Nero, I too didn't really care for him as a villain. Hopefully the villain John Harrison will be better and a bit more entertaining compared to Nero.

Regarding the movie for Nemesis, I do have to agree that parts of it are a bit dull but over all it's a good popcorn flick.

For the score I think those who say they don't like it only have listened to the OST and not the unmentionable. I love the cue "Battle Stations" from the unmentionable. I think the OST was hyped up to much by Robert Townson and just plain was not a good listening experience. As I said before A LOT of good music was left off the OST and the unmentionable really helps it.

 
 Posted:   Apr 22, 2013 - 9:53 AM   
 By:   SchiffyM   (Member)

For the score I think those who say they don't like it only have listened to the OST and not the unmentionable.

Nope.

 
 
 Posted:   Apr 22, 2013 - 9:57 AM   
 By:   zooba   (Member)

NEMESIS went a bit Shakesperian with Picard and Shinzon, which got dull. Holding the mirror up to one's self. The conflict between them became too "talky" and so that did not work in that film for me, but actually worked better between Kirk and Khan in STAR TREK II along with the great ship battles.

I liked the look of the film and a couple of Goldsmith's Themes, especially Data's was powerfully touching in places. Didn't care for the Data / B-4 parallel story to Picard and Shinzon's. We kind of already been there done that with Lore in the series. I liked The Viceroy character and the Romulan stuff at the beginning was cool. NEMESIS and INSURRECTION were two of the weakest NEXT GEN Features for me. Even GENERATIONS which I really didn't like first time around, seemed a bit more entertaining, but for sure FIRST CONTACT was the Best of the NEXT GENS.

Just my thoughts. smile

Back to original topic of this thread, I liked Michael Giacchino's STAR TREK score alright. Maybe more than the film itself. Look forward to hearing his INTO DARKNESS music.

 
 Posted:   Apr 22, 2013 - 10:02 AM   
 By:   SchiffyM   (Member)

And I agree with you about Nemesis. While the film is dull in many ways, it was still canon and in the universe folks are familiar with.

Not nearly enough folks. That's why Abrams and company had to abandon canon. "Star Trek" was well, well past its peak in 2009. Fans were abandoning it in droves. To put it frankly, they simply could not create new Trekkies. (Or Trekkers. Let's not fight over words.) The true believers will always spin this with all sorts of excuses, but the numbers are clear: The television shows were failing, the movies were landing with a thud at the box office. "Star Trek" was widely perceived, except among a shrinking core of hardcore fans, as something for other people. I mean no disrespect, Superman1701, but I'm not surprised that somebody with a complete Captain Sisko uniform (I assume that's you in your avatar) knows when Romulans revealed their identities to the Federation, and that shields have to be down to beam, and the literally thousands of "facts" that make up Star Trek canon. But that information, which literally fills encyclopedias, is a huge barrier to entry for new viewers. And so they didn't come.

Meanwhile, all this canon was preventing them from telling stories. A friend of mine was a senior writer on one of the later series (I won't say which, because I don't need anybody guessing his identity -- these were private conversations), and he said they were constantly getting their heroes into jams that already had technical solutions presented in the hundreds of "Trek" episodes that had preceded theirs. So they'd have to invent some more nonsense (a particle field or a magnetic fluctuation) just to justify the plot points.

The new filmmakers seem to have a general respect for the "Star Trek" mythos, but are not so strict that it keeps them from presenting a compelling story.

All that said, I didn't find the 2009 film very compelling. But audiences flocked to it, and it was the first "Star Trek" hit in well over a decade. There comes a time when you have to abandon your "Trek" orthodoxy.

 
 Posted:   Apr 22, 2013 - 10:30 AM   
 By:   OneBuckFilms   (Member)

SchiffyM is correct, IMHO.

The funny thing is though, is that Star Trek (2009) did not actually abandon trek Canon, as many claim.

Fundamentally, it was an in-universe reboot (the whole Alternate Reality thing. If your not familiar, don't ask - it gets complicated to explain it, and really beyond the score of this thread).

In the end, Star Trek was never about the "Canon". Never should have been.

It was, and is, about telling stories.

Trek 2009 was about getting the crew to where they should be to tell those stories in a way that was entertaining, and introduced the non-fan to the basic concepts in terms of where/when/who. It did that extremely well, and I personally loved it.

Now with THIS one, we get to see a truly original story, something new, with the crew, and not be bogged down by the sheer weight of Star Trek Canon post Stardate 2233.04.

 
 Posted:   Apr 22, 2013 - 10:33 AM   
 By:   Jeyl   (Member)

- But there are still many fans that will prefer it over 2009 because Nemesis got the "canon" right and 2009 willfully disobeyed those details.

Oh, Jeff. Take a seat over there and listen to what I got to say. Do you recall the TNG episodes "Samaritan Snare" and "Tapestry"? Each episode dealt with Picard's artificial heart. In the first story, Picard explains that when he got into a fight that resulted in him getting stabbed, he laughed out loud. He could never recall why he laughed, but it happened. In Tapestry, Q offers Picard a chance to redo the part of his life after he was stabbed but with his real heart intact, but doing this results in Picard being a much laid back person who is assigned to a much lower position. To make matters worse, the crew who respected him and once called friends now looks down on him saying he's not the command type. After this, Picard tells Q that he would rather die as the man he was with the artificial heart than the one who didn't learn his lesson. And when Q puts things right, Picard literally relives the fight and gets stabbed through the heart. Picard, knowing that this will set things right, purposefully gives out a laugh. It was one of the most impressive story arcs for Picard and it really defined how much his character had changed in the course of his life.

In Nemesis.... we get this line.

PICARD: Look at me, Shinzon. Your heart, your hands, your eyes are the same as mine. The blood pumping within you, the raw material is the same.

.....NO! Shinzon's heart is not the same as Picard's! It's such a blatant disregard of one of Picard's most prominent developments that you wonder how this film was even catered to Picard's character in the first place. What makes it's absence worse is how perfect his artificial heart would have fit in with the film's theme that even Data was talking about earlier.

DATA: Although you share the same genetic structure, the events of your life have created a unique individual.

Picard's heart would have been TANGIBLE proof of such events affecting one's life. Picard could have told Shinzon that he still has his original heart and that if he continues to become everyone's enemy, he probably won't have a second chance the way Picard did. Or something... anything...

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2014 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.