Movie News

Alexandra DuPont Gets Downright Unladylike Regarding STAR TREK: NEMESIS!!

Published at: Dec. 12, 2002, 6:56 a.m. CST

Hey, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab.

I don’t mean to make Rick Berman cry. Harry... he may well have meant to make Rick Berman cry. But me? I’m innocent, man. I’m just the messenger. After all, I haven’t even seen NEMESIS. I’m just here to present the always lovely and charming Alexandra DuPont, who wants to spit on...

... actually, why I don’t I let her explain it to you?

ALEXANDRA DuPONT's NOTES TOWARD A REVIEW OF "STAR TREK: NEMESIS" — with ACCOMPANYING MANIFESTO of UTTER DISGUST and CALL to ACTION

This is it, "Star Trek" fans. The party's over. The streak is broken.

Star Trek: Nemesis is the first-even-numbered film in the series to sport flaws that actually make it a bad, uninvolving film.

Think about that. Think about the middling standards the series has set for itself over the past few years. This is different. Now you "Trek" fans have two lousy films in a row — coupled with two mediocre TV series in a row — combined with slipping box office and ratings and the increasing marginalization of your audience.

I'm sort of a lapsed-Catholic Trekkie. I think "Star Trek" used to be great, that it used to court something like a mainstream audience, that it tapped into something special and universal. It was sexy and funny and passionate and goofy and dumb. It swelled with beef-fed ham actors arching their eyebrows and women in go-go-boots and bright colors and just the right mix of pretension, ideals, sex, and violence. No longer. Having seen "Nemesis"; having walked out of the theater numbed and bored, despite wanting the film to succeed; having realized that the series has been marginalizing itself for a while; and having felt my apathy turn to annoyance and then anger over the past few days; I feel compelled to address fans with something like a rallying cry.

Your beloved science-fiction series is at a crossroads, Trekkers — it's in a major state of crisis — and this is true no matter what Rick Berman says about the loyalty of his "core audience." We're talking last-two-seasons-of-"The X-Files" here. We're talking red alert with the warp core dripping antimatter on Geordi LaForge's head.

I know, I know: Fanboys and -girls have been saying this sort of thing about "Trek" for a while — ever since Insurrection and Voyager spread a marmalade of blandness over what used to be a passionate, ambitious, flawed franchise. This is different. This is sadder. And, I'd argue, this could be damn near fatal for "Star Trek"'s future.

Writing the above gives me no joy. Despite a reputation culled by my Star Wars prequel reviews, I actually, genuinely want all genre entertainments to succeed — as entertainment, as fantasy, as thematic riff, as pure cinema. I love big, bold fantasies the way little girls love ponies. (It's why I started submitting essays and reviews to Ain't It Cool News instead of, say, the letters page of the Cokono County Gazette.) And as a film writer and fan, there are few things I find more exasperating than a once-great series that's lost its way.

Ergo.

* * *

So what's wrong with Star Trek: Nemesis? Frankly, there's not much I can write here that Harcourt Fenton Knowles didn't express with more blind, passionate, three-dotted rage a couple of days ago; I agree with almost everything he wrote, and the less said about the film, the better. Suffice to say that Nemesis tries very, very hard to be Star Trek II — which I consider to be one of the great American movies, no joke — and in failing to actually be Star Trek II, it reveals every way that the series has gone to seed.

Where Wrath of Khan killed a major character and explored the cost of sacrifice, Nemesis kills a major character and immediately provides a perfect, albeit dumber, replacement — denying the audience some pleasant dramatic catharsis, playing it safe, making sure no one's too terribly traumatized, and boring the living piss out of every single person in the audience as a result. (All the dramatic betrayals of Star Trek III in the last five minutes!)

Where Wrath of Khan sketches a strong, motivated villain, Nemesis sketches an admittedly charming pretty boy who wanders in and talks about being evil. And Nemesis surrounds this pretty boy with a gaggle of back-stabbing co-conspirators, but never explores the Shakespearean proportions of their treachery.

Where Wrath of Khan is funny, Nemesis is occasionally goofy and mostly bland. Where Wrath of Khan has a propulsive, linear plot, Nemesis meanders through subplots about androids and weddings and gratuitous psychic rape — feeling more like a collection of set pieces the filmmakers wanted to string together than an actual story.

Where Wrath of Khan is clean and terse and memorable, Nemesis is entirely too chatty for its own good — and its story is propelled by just the sort of technobabble that pretty much every "Star Trek" fan but Rick Berman has had his or her fill of. (I mean, come on; the Enterprise is drawn into the story by detecting a bunch of android parts lying in pieces on a far-flung planet's surface? What the hell kind of booby trap is that? This from a series that produced the Genesis Device?! That produced V'ger?!)

Both movies are kind of cheap-looking. Nemesis is cheap-looking and poorly lit.

Most critically, where Wrath of Khan climaxed in a space battle that was painful and funny and kind of cheap-looking but nevertheless laced with dramatic beats and structure, Nemesis climaxes in a much more convincing and elaborately staged battle that nevertheless lacks something essential — that little extra bit of dramatic passion that distinguishes a film sequence from a video-game cut-scene.

I'm probably being too harsh. Maybe hard-core fans will find something to recommend here. There are some good ideas and shots and performances here, particularly from ever-reliable Patrick Stewart. Tom Hardy is sexy and well-spoken as Shinzon. Geordi looks surprisingly cool. The new Romulan warbirds are graceful and swooping and long, and I've always had a soft spot for the treacherous look of the Enterprise-D. But the whole thing just utterly fails to hang together, to compel. The result is a sort of brown noise that made me feel something that even the worst Star Trek movie never made me feel — a real sense of waste.

* * *

The reason I'm writing so "angry," BTW, is because I know what "Trek" has been. The original series wrestled with Big Ideas on paperboard sets, and it was positively dripping with sex and charm. (That fab "Deep Space Nine" episode where they travel back to the "Trouble with Tribbles" episode riffed on the series' lost sensuality at some length.)

"Classic Trek" also had a real sense of showmanship; the actors, to a thespian, just dove right in and made that nonsense sing. Sure, every other planet looked like a high-school staging of "I, Claudius," but it didn't matter; there was so much good will on display, so much goofy liberal idealism underpinning everything, that when George Takei ripped off his shirt and twirled a fencing sword, you just sort of rolled with it. And for God's sake, it featured television's first interracial kiss — and it was a damned good kiss, to boot.

After a rough start, the film series carried the standard. The Motionless Picture had the Big Ideas, but the paperboard sets were gone, and with them went the sex and violence. The whole thing felt like a glorious floating board meeting. But then Wrath of Khan poured all the passionate camp back in, along with some big-screen tragedy — and the result was a remarkable scene chew.

As the film series chugged and sputtered along — often flawed, occasionally stupid, but always fascinating — "The Next Generation" reinvented small-screen "Trek" as a terrific maritime soap opera, all of it shouldered by some of the most charming (and, in Stewart's case, versatile) actors ever to grace the small screen.

At this point, which probably marks "Star Trek"'s true Golden Age, the series was firing on all pistons; like the best James Bond movies, "Trek" made its audience feel "sophisticated" even as it indulged certain base desires. Bond indulged a need for sex and violence while making you feel cool; "Trek" indulged a need for sci-fi thrills while making you feel like you were grappling with something, you know, "profound." (AND it threw in some sex and violence, to boot.)

And then things started to dilute.

As a casual fan, I never really got into "Deep Space Nine," but I hear it ended up being pretty good and mammoth and Shakespearean, and it starred Hawk from my favorite TV show ever, "Spencer for Hire." But excuse me while I climb the lofty slopes of Mt. Obvious and write that "Voyager" and Insurrection are where "Star Trek" really, genuinely lost it — where "Trek" started looking like it was set in a Sheraton hotel lobby and the series became obsessed with maintaining its "universe" and the story editors started piling on temporal anomalies and other ass-forged deus ex machina in a blatant underestimation of their audience and nobody ever got their shirt ripped during a fight or got dirty or drunk or laid. The series, which had started out glorying in all that was human and raw and sexy, confined its "sexuality" to icy bondage queens like Seven of Nine and T'Pol.

I really think, in latter-day "Star Trek," that this confinement of "sexuality" to closed-off, repressed women in S&M bodysuits is more telling about the failure of the series than people realize. (Nemesis has the same problem; the only real sex in the film involves a fairly graphic psychic rape perpetrated on Deanna Troi that's just plain ugly. And Picard asks her to submit to it again for the sake of the crew!) On the other hand, Classic "Trek" was omnivorously lustful — everyone always looked like they were about to rip off their clothes and tumble into bed with one another, sweating and arguing all the while. It was human, in other words, and that was comforting.

* * *

When you see, Nemesis, you may feel the same way I did — appalled, but only because you've loved "Star Trek" and want good things for it. I throw down the gauntlet: What are you, the true fan, going to do about it?

Here's what I propose: Cancel "Enterprise." Take a year off. Create a new series set on the original, 1960s NCC-1701, commanded by Robert April (who, according to "Trek" lore, preceded Captains Kirk and Archer on the paperboard bridge). Cast a cheesy, over-emoting, handsome actor as Capt. April; a friend wisely suggests Cary Elwes. Bring back the bright colors, the curvy women in big hair and boots, the beefy men who profess Jeffersonian ideals while punching their enemies and arguing with their friends and drinking to excess. For God's sake, put the Hemingway back into "Star Trek."

I'll be happy to write the pilot episode on spec.

Warmest, Alexandra DuPont.

dupont@dvdjournal.com

Readers Talkback

comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Dec. 12, 2002, 7:08 a.m. CST

    Ahhh, Alexandra....

    by Spacesheik

    You ravenous looker! Nice review, dahling. I haven't seen NEMESIS but I am looking forward to it (I am a Trekker and, for the record, hated INSURRECTION and disliked GENERATIONS). Obviously, Rick Berman needs to be replaced. I say bring back the Nick Meyer and/or Harve Bennet to take over this movie franchise. ENTERPRISE is dying and losing thousands of fans a week, its ripping into the advertising revenues of UPN (yes it is that damaging a show). Obviously, the movies are going nowhere. Bring back new blood to take over the franchise not just hired hands to direct and write the story. It's a pity that Trek goes out with a whimper like this; a potentially damaging film with mediocre reviews at best and a flop tv show. I liked the Cary Elwes idea - that would rock.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 7:25 a.m. CST

    Um, and what about...

    by bowendesign

    Enterprise? I think that's pretty good, puts some of the character back into a dull universe. Even my girlfriend watches it! Although, have to say that I agree with Duponts views on Voyager and the god-awful Insurrection... I fell asleep. Let's get a good Enterprise movie out next, with some kick ass action sequences and true hard grit. WHO'S WITH ME?

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 7:26 a.m. CST

    ALL THOSE WITH ME SAY

    by bowendesign

    AYE! Enterprise the movie, please!

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 7:29 a.m. CST

    Stop flogging a dead horse.

    by The Outlander

    Go watch Firefly in stead and maybe checkout the new Battlestar Gallactica series as well.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 7:36 a.m. CST

    Shot in the arm

    by Baba-Lou

    You know who's cheaper than Cary Elwes AND looking for a job? How's about Ben Browder? He could easily handle the "ham factor". Plus I've been saying from the beginning that Enterprise needs red railings and turbolift doors. She's right! bring in the color! The escape pod they showed in last night's ep. was probably the most realistic thing the show has done in terms of trying to show how dangerous and cumbersome the tech should be on this show. (and it wasn't even OUR tech)

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 7:50 a.m. CST

    But what about THESE reviews?

    by wyldwolf

    FlickVille.com's Hollywood Reviews: "Touted as the possible final journey for the Enterprise-E, this is quite simply the best of the four "Next Generation" films thus far, a whiz-bang mix of action, drama, humor, and ultimately tragedy." Slant Magazine: "Nemesis is genuinely intriguing and its plot points have been nicely woven together in a compelling fashion...with its concern for such issues as cloning and rape victims lashing back at their victimizers, this latest Star Trek film seems to show more respect for the intelligence of its audience than others in the series." rottentomatoes.com: "The film

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 7:54 a.m. CST

    "Trekkers - set your phasers on action"

    by Qwerty Uiop

    Now that is fucking funny!

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 7:58 a.m. CST

    You see my point, right?

    by wyldwolf

    Fanboys and girls want Berman to screw up so bad they're extra critical. Those reviewers I posted have nothing invested in Trek. They don't want Berman fired. They're not arrogant to think they could do a better job. They saw the movie and gave their opinion.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 8:40 a.m. CST

    i see what you mean wyldwolf

    by kiki370

    There are so many reviews out there, good and bad. Why are we only seeing the bad ones on AICN...interesting.... because I'm a fan of TOS I always check out the new Trek films. Sometimes I'm happy, sometimes I'm not but I prefer to make my own judgement. I'll be seeing Nemesis tomorrow night and will be sure to return...

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 8:43 a.m. CST

    So what you're essentially saying is - watch reruns!?!

    by dastickboy

    Then what's the point. You're not furthering the already created continuity or establishing a new one, you're just rehashing. And isn't that what's got Trek to this position in the first place; trying to recapture old glories?? I liked DS9 for trying to establish a new story in an existing universe. Sure, the first few seasons sucked like the big one, but as it drew on it forged it's own path. That's what a new Trek series must do. Hell, even drop any kind of Starfleet connection if you need to - there's so many races with rich cultures that have been created, why not mine those?

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 8:43 a.m. CST

    new OLD writers

    by Garko

    Hmmmm. Alexandra says we need to go back to source for the sake of the series - well I'm for that! Why do we get Stan Lee to pen a few episodes, before his signature becomes expensive on e-bay. Or what about Kevin Smith? (hah) You could have Jhay and Silent Bhab as ferengi in a few episodes. In any case I am always for more sex and violence on TV, especially if it is wrapped in sci-fi goodness.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 8:44 a.m. CST

    'ass-forged'? whaaahahahahahaaaa... oh man...

    by MartinBlank

    That's the funniest thing I've read on here since 'Count Chocula Vs. the Puppet.' ...'ass-forged'.... ~hahaha*cough*snicker*ha~ ...fuck, that's just vintage. Now I'm gonna be at work today and randomly think of it and start roaring for no explicable reason. Gee thanks Alexandra. ...'ass-forged.' I love that so very very much...

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 8:52 a.m. CST

    It's about PRODUCT

    by pothers

    Shame eh ? They've already confirmed another film knowing full well they'll never lose money. I agree totally with Alex, the original series did have something extra, a little more 'human' than the diluted followers. I enjoyed DS9, lots of good stories and some excellent TV (from series 3 onwards..) I'm not going to see the new film and that's the only way I can think of of stopping this rubbish from continuing. But anyway, it's all about PRODUCT. shame eh ?

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 9:04 a.m. CST

    shame eh? Hope you like TV Land

    by wyldwolf

    Fine. DON'T see this movie. It will stop Trek if enough whiney fanboys like you boycott it. Then, you can grow old clutching your TOS DVDs and watching reruns on sci-fi and TNN. Babbling in that old man voice: "I wrecked Trek! Reruns rule!"

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 9:15 a.m. CST

    Make a "Deep Space Nine" movie already!

    by Kauzi Sezso

    That'll fix all the troubles. No finer actor than Avery Brooks has ever been in the Federation. And this show had the best crew of any series! Every actor, regulars on down, was top-notch. So make these movies and save the franchise already!

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 9:20 a.m. CST

    Whole New Universe

    by DarkZero

    Personally, I think that what Star Trek really needs to do is take a page from its Japanese near-mirror-image, Mobile Suit Gundam, and just shelve all the old continuity and create an entirely new universe. The people behind the Gundam franchise seemed to realize that the franchise's quality storytelling and real appeal came from its ideals and themes, rather than its original characters and lengthy history that were very quickly moving in a completely different direction, and decided to try out a couple of alternate universe series and movies with the same themes, but different characters and events. They got off to a rough start when they tried that out in the early to mid-nineties, but after awhile it really picked up and Mobile Suit Gundam went from being an old favorite to something that still endures and thrives. As long as Star Trek has the same races, the same continuity that has to affect all the Star Trek stories that take place in the past and present (relative to ST or ST:TNG), and the same exact Federation limits on every single episode and movie, the franchise is just going to get more and more bogged down, and that's not what we're really watching the show for. Star Trek touched on that when it replaced the brash-but-idealistic Captain Kirk and his emotionless campanion Spock with the reserved-but-idealistic captain Picard and his emotionless, but still VERY DIFFERENT companion Data, but since then the entire franchise has just gotten more and more bogged down in continuity and familiar storylines and can't even seem to branch out that much any more.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 9:33 a.m. CST

    Trek Reruns -DO- Rule!

    by Cygnus

    Hey, we all grow old... but I'd rather grow old watching what Star Trek was, than having my senses further dulled by more mind-numbing tripe that Berman spews out! I'd sooner eat the contents of my adult diapers! Why the HELL would I want a bad thing to continue only to watch it get worse?? It is precisely because I LOVE what Star Trek WAS, that I'm now willing to join the cause and throw down the gauntlet and send a message to Paramount by no longer supporting the franchise. ONLY THEN, will we have a chance at saving our beloved Trek down the road. For those who don't give a rip about the future of "Star Trek", go ahead and see the movie and continue to support the franchise. Your minds have already become too numbed by the mediocrity of it all, and it's likely that merely having "Star Trek" in the title is all that you really matters to you. As for this former hardcore Trek fanboy, I will require more... and until Paramount makes positive changes... RERUNS RULE!!

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 9:34 a.m. CST

    jeeeebus

    by deftone

    Word to jpx--I'm tired of the "histronic" reviews too, especially when half the other sites I hit up for reviews are being positive about the film. There's only one day left--and I have my tickets already (god bless the internet) so ::shrug:: who cares what AICN thinks?

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 9:40 a.m. CST

    One statement tells all...

    by AkiraKaneda

    Reading about DuPont's disinterest in DS9, easily the best Trek ever, and her desire to see ENTERPRISE cancelled and replaced with a show set in a timeline already covered just made me discount everything she said. Honestly, the problem with anything TREK is that there are radically differing viewpoints on virtually everything within the TREK community. Go see it, enjoy it, and try not to be so arrogant as to think the world owes you personally every time you step into a theatre.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 9:51 a.m. CST

    Must....act...like...William...Shatner....must...star...in APE..

    by KingKarll

    That made no sense. But then again neither did half the movies. I think that this might be somewhat better than AICN's giving it credit for-but that wouldn't take too much now would it? Certainly the last Trek flick was poopoo. They can do better. I am one of those who wishes they'd just put it out to pasture for 5 years.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 9:55 a.m. CST

    unfortunately, what Trek is...

    by TV CASUALTY

    ...is a dead horse, that is being continuously and mercilessly whipped.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 9:57 a.m. CST

    Star Trek isn't lacking anything a good shot to the head wouldn'

    by sofalord

    Let's face facts. This show died when Gene Roddenberry died. The "curators" (hatchetmen) put in place by Paramount to strip mine this franchise have been doing just that for the last decade and frankly the mansion is pretty bare now, having been slowly looted and demoralized -- the vision slowly soaped over and perverted. So hang the "For Sale" sign up and the last one out, please turn off the light.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 10:03 a.m. CST

    Problem with TREK

    by Merry Slander

    The problem with Star Trek is that it has devolved from something enjoyable by hoards of causal fans and only appeals to its core fandom audience that will love it no matter what. I am along time fan of the series and can pretty much enjoy all of the original cast films, although V is pretty darn dreadful. Generations was the last Trek I bothered to see in theaters. It blew chunks and wasted the big-money concept of getting the two crews together as well as all the momentum the NG cast had coming off the TV series. The rest were mroe and more embarrassing. I was very dissapointed in First Contact when I caught it on cable. I have yet to sit through all if Insurrection. I'll take anyone's dare not to see Nemesis. I have no doubt that Harry and Alexanda are right on the money. I'd take their opinions, which I trust based on their previous reviews, over what some other industry jerk-off website says. If you are a hardcore fan who's going to see it anyway why would you bother to worry about Alexandra's review? Its not like she could hurt attendance, as only Star Trek conventioneers are likly to attend this flick anyway. The general audiece has lost its facination and interest with "STAR DORK." a shame but its true. Berman et al have really run this ship aground and its been sinking for years. Nemesis might be our last look before the whole thing goes below water.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 10:10 a.m. CST

    What would have made DS9 better

    by sofalord

    OK, I admit I never watched DS9 that much (I actually had things to do back in those days..not that I don't now...but that's another topic) anyway, I thought that what they should have done to really get folks feathers in a bunch would have cast Terry Farrell's replacement with a male actor. I mean Dax flip-flopped back and forth between men and women hosts right so what would be the difference to her/him/it? And if Worf hadn't minded making the beast with two backs with a guy in a woman's body before he probably wouldn't have minded. Of course being a true Klingon he would have to cut his nads off at that point. Although frankly the producers of Nemesis pretty much have already done that to his characters in the movie. What a big whoopsie they make him out to be. A big Nancy-Klingon. Never heard of a Klingon getting a hangover before.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 10:21 a.m. CST

    Holy shit! Excellent review, Alexandra. Thanks!

    by WarDog

    Although I think we're way past going retro in Star Trek. Look how Enterprise is doing with that. Ugh. Revisionist Trek history. Like Cygnus, I say just enjoy the past as we all loved it and let it go. Stop making MORE if they're going to simply be drek, not Trek. Anyway, thanks to Alexandra I now have more detail to look out for when I see Nemesis Saturday with my friends, who still want to go since they're such diehard Trekkers. Well, I am, too, pretty much, but reserve the right to call a lump of shit just that. And reading how much Nemesis seems to be a lump of shit from both Harry and Alexandra (two solid Trekfans who only wished for the best in any future Trek film) has now actually made me curious enough to endure the horror, the uber-schlock that it is. I hate paying money to film-making idiots who are too stupid to avoid insulting the intelligence of the fans, but I think I'd like to see just how BAD it is. Just for argument's sake, so I can tear down the wimpy defenses of the apologist fans out there. Too bad that Paramount will probably make enough moolah off this that they will make another and another and... Ugh. They've become like Disney and its animated movies--THEY DON'T FUCKING WELL KNOW HOW TO TELL A GOOD STORY ANYMORE! Damn Paramount for ruining yet another classic SF series. They cut off their TV series at seven seasons each to go out on a high note and avoid seeing them go to seed. Obviously they don't get it that that applies to the movie series as well.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 10:23 a.m. CST

    So Alexandra, while you were at it you should have mentioned som

    by Blacket-Man

    With Fire Fly and Farscape being such good shows and in such grave danger of dissapearing entirely, we should always end Star Trek/Wars bashing on a positive note. Let people know that while Star Trek/Wars is dead to us, there are still some great outlets for us sci-fi geeks. Everyone sacrifice one hour of your Friday night to save Fire Fly!!!!!!

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 10:32 a.m. CST

    I SAW THE MOVIE AND I THINK I HAVE TO AGREE WITH HER.

    by daveydmc

    I left the theater feeling very used, like i sat through something that was nothing it was like watching a student film, painful. One thing i think is true is that when others (non fans of trek) reviewed this film they saw it as a wonderful epic with all the stuff they said it had. But for me as a trek fan it was sorta crap, i after all i have seen like all the eps and movies so this one (nemesis) in that context was not that impressive. it felt a lot like kahn. right down to the last battle. the over all feel/ look of the film was insurrection all over again. so I would not be so fast to say that she is just trying to bash Berman. but I do think something should be done with star trek maybe a few years break or something to heal the wound that was Nemesis.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 10:35 a.m. CST

    Problems

    by AARRGGHYLE

    It's not that I won't see Nemesis (hell, the only thing I might hesitate to see would be when Berman finally whores the franchise out to the Ice Capades, and even then I'll probably buy the DVD of it), but the essential thing the Star Trek franchise has lost is a sense of risk. It's all too safe, no one drinks or smokes or fucks. It's too sanitary, all wrapped up in 45 minute bites and there are no overlapping consequences. The future's too lilly white. Not that I won't watch it, but give us some humanity.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 10:42 a.m. CST

    "Submit to it again for the sake of the crew!"

    by Three Quarks

    My hope is to someday be in a situation in which that line is appropiate.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 10:44 a.m. CST

    Would you get laid allready?

    by asucolin

    Get some and then come back and review Nemesis. I am sure it will be less negative.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 10:45 a.m. CST

    My Two Cents

    by Viper-GunClan

    I recall Roddenberry saying that Star Trek was supposed to be like the wild west in space. Ive done some research on screenwriting and they stress conflict to create drama. Any conflict that ST has had lately has been relatively safe, too fucking high minded or bland. Kill some characters, bring in new ones. Break up the federation. Absolutely rend the federation inert. In other words...TAKE SOME FUCKING RISKS! Everyone is so worried about how one episode will affect another in the history of trek. Break the mold. Let man stand alone against a dark and scary universe of possibilities. And when you do this, set it up on a 3 picture story arc and on an immense scale. Actually have a $budget$ in the LOTR realm. Make humans dirty, cunning and evil again. Betrayal in the federation, deception wouldnt hurt either. Star Trek could so easily be on par or exceed classic Star Wars(minus the ewoks). After AOTC, it should really be easy. Give us some characters that actually bleed, have faults, and that we can give a damn about. That is the problem w/the new SW, nobody really gives a damn about the characters, its just eyecandy. There is no central character we can latch onto and put all our money on. But thats another can of worms. Back to ST. LOTR has raised the bar for movies so think grand spectacle with swashbuckling memorable characters so actually spend some $ this time. Ease off on the highminded crap too. The main character should rarely have his phaser set on stun. In order to excorcise the yourselves completely from the wretched past few flicks and comatose Voyager tv series, get new blood. Bye bye Berman and crew. Is hollywood so bankrupt of ideas and talent to shake up the status quo for a series that has all the potential to be reborn in a new and exciting way. And one last gripe before I sign off. Why do all of the aliens on ST have to be humanoid? why for the love of god does every alien have to be man in suit w/mask? Take a page from Alien or The Thing. Is the ST universe that generic? BREAK THE RULES!! Im out.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 10:48 a.m. CST

    She's sooooo right

    by bryboy23

    Everyone's getting all up in arms about how Alexandra's being too tough on a movie that they haven't seen, but the thing is she's right. I remember watching Star Tek when I was a kid and feeling a sense of awe. Heroes going out into space, having fabulous adventures, the technology, the aliens and the campy acting. From ages eight to fourteen it all had me hypnotized. To a certain dgree, it still does, but it's almost like the series has gotten gentrified as it has gotten older. It is now so white washed, so politically correct -- basically the series takes itself seriously, and it often seem that the fans of the series do too. It's fiction; it's science fiction. Whenever I watch something Trek-related now it seems like they're making a a very concious effort to avoid the partfalls that TOS made. I got this feeing even while watching TNG. But it was taken to a new extreme in the post VI movies, DS9 (which occasioanlly flirted with the potential to be good), Voyager (good that show sucked. If Janeway gets any kind of good scene in the new movie -- god help us all) and the new Enterprise (which I have only watched once or twice because, frankly, it bores me to death, and admit it, Scott Bakula is goofy). They were making an effort not to look day-glo, or cheap, or antiquated. They didn't want to create a series that, thirty years down the road would look laughable in it's presentation of a future universe. But, as a bad as the special effects were, as sexist as the men were, as hideous as the clothes and furniture were, TOS could rise above that by making points and raising issues that weren't often introduced in mainstream entertainment. That and there was an adventure, new plantes and people to meet, frontiers to conquer, babes to bed et. al.. Even now, the TNG has started to look dated and silly -- an 80's vision of the future as much as the TOS was the sixties. Now after a complete saturation of everything TREK, I'm so burned out on phrases like 'causal temporal loop' that I could barf. I mean really, where do they get this shit that they try to peddle as a dramtic script. There's no heart in it anymore. In an effot to be cool, scientifically accurate and no-offensive they've just become bland and dull -- repeating the same story line so many times... In the abscence of Gene Roddenberry, Rick Berman is the supposed creative leader of the Trek universe, and he needs to have all control and power taken away from him. He has done a horrible job, and now only the most fringe fans still hang on to the series -- the rest of us having departed to wtach the occaisonal rerun or DVD, but for the most part content to let a good thing end. If they make another movie, I say put them on a low G planet -- have them do some spying, get Troi and Crusher slimmed down and into some black cat suits (hell, maybe it's time to put some new pussy on the ship), give Data a good reason to kill, and get some awesome wire fights going. If the story's going to suck (and let's admit it, unless they take a creative breather, it will) at least give us some special effect to look at. The creative brainchild's devotion to a formula that they thought worked is backfiring on them. Something has to shake up the trek universe in a mojor way.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 10:55 a.m. CST

    Alexandra, I love you.

    by numberface

    Your writing makes me feel warm and gushy inside.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 10:59 a.m. CST

    It's unfortunate that people are given such a forum to whine.

    by dorfer

    But I only blame myself for visiting the site and reading the reviews. I understand that Alexandra DuPont is upset at the current state of the Star Trek legacy. However, NOTHING CAN BE DONE. "Why so pessimistic, dorfer?" Well, because this is 2002 (soon to be 2003) NOT 1966. Writers don't write television series the same way now as they did then because people don't VIEW television the same way now as they did then. The "raw sexuality" of yesteryear was fitting for the times. Bold, new, fun... now it wouldn't set the show apart from any other one on the tube. And I must agree with fettastic... there was plenty of sexuality in the later series (although I think it was Janeway and Paris, not Chakotay...I digress). The newer series have gained a younger audience in addition to the core audience that has been there the whole time. The newer series try to be slick and play to the 21st Century idea of "tech". It builds ratings. The newer viewers don't want to see camp! They would probably TOTALLY HATE the look of the original series if it were current and not viewed as retro-kitsch. "Khan would probably be better if ILM had done the effects," they might (and probably would) say. You can never go home. You can never go back to the beginning. Every cult series experiences it. People are crying for the glory days of THE SIMPSONS for Christ's sake!! Alexandra DuPont's diatribe is poetic yet moot. You can never go back. That's why the new Star Wars don't really jive with those of the late 70's/early 80's. (I bitched long and hard for some of the camp of the eps 4 and 5 until I realized that others would probably just bitch about the excess of camp otherwise.) We should feel lucky that the Trek world is so grand that it goes BEYOND the movies. True fans don't necessarily have to turn to the tube or the screen for their fix... although it would be nice. It takes a remarkable group of people to reinvent and reissue icons on the big and small screens. As fans, I think we've seen a great streak of luck with Spiderman, The X-Men and the Lord of the Rings installments (I have faith here). It's a fine line to walk between past and present, fantasy and accessibility. We should feel lucky when people do get it right, and not constantly bitch and moan when we feel they don't. I trust that the Star Trek team WANTS to deliver something for the fans. And I know damn well that I couldn't do any better in their shoes right now._______________________ If you made it this far, you must be bored silly. --d

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 10:59 a.m. CST

    Cool

    by CashCrowe

    I think I'll probably enjoy the movie, but I think she is absolutely right. It's time for Star Trek to take some serious time off, the world is waaay too saturated with it. Also, even though this thought may be extremely cliched, a lot of this blame falls to Berman and his cronies. Paramount should have taken Trek from them right after Insurrection did so poorly and Voyager ended.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 11:36 a.m. CST

    Hey... What's wrong with Enterprise? I like Enterprise.

    by Halloween68

    It's actually the only Star Trek I've cared for since the Captain James T. Kirk, Bones, and Mr. Spock were seen dooking it out with the Romulans in future time and then phasering gangsters in the timewarped past. Don't get rid of Enterprise. It's the closest thing we've had to the original series yet. Archer doesn't just outthink, he actually brings some serious but whooping to the table as well. Granted, he's no Kirk... But he's the best we've had since. And I'm sorry but T'Pol and the little Asian chick are freakin hot as shit. They can run around half-naked on my ship all they want. Not since those drug-induced sexy O'hura episodes and the dance of that green-skinned belly dancer episode have I been this yee-hah.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 11:37 a.m. CST

    What ruined Star Trek?

    by riskebiz

    The answer: Neelix.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 11:44 a.m. CST

    What ruined Star Trek?

    by wyldwolf

    fanboys with no girlfriends who tried to elevate a TV show to biblical status then were disappointed that Berman wasn't the saviour to lead them to the promised land.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 11:49 a.m. CST

    finally, a movie Dupont can handle..

    by Silver Shamrock

    because she was out of her depths with that last one. Although I would like to one day see her write one review that doesn't refer to a movie a series of set pieces, this review was at least coherent and free of her lazy cut and pastes from previous reviews, or her too-many-adjectives-as-crutches disease. Granted, the "ass forged deus ex machina" phrase was inspired. She makes important and surprising lucidpoints about the franchise. Funny that she mentions Hemingway as she could learn a thing or two from him about cutting out unneeded words. Although I think it's too late for a call to action as most of the ST fans are as passionless as the characters they watch.

  • Say what you will about TPM and AOTC, with all their dramatic missteps and wasted potential and general listlessness. At least you could detect some faint stirrings of life in those flicks, if you were willing to get off your fanboy-Lucas-raped-my-childhood-high horse for a second and look. Despite Lucas' almost uncomfortable fascination with digital technology (it's pursued in Star Wars these days with a strange zeal that I find vaguely akin to a sexual fetish), Star Wars at least occasionally approaches what made the ANH and ESB great films. Just look at the climaxes of the last two films...I know it's buried under a sheen of technological trickery, but it's there. On the other hand, Star Trek is just plain dead, lifeless, mechanical, dull. There hasn't been one iota of honest-to-goodness dramatic tension in either of the last two films. Oh, and I'd just like to add that Alexandra's "where "Trek" started looking like it was set in a Sheraton hotel lobby and the series became obsessed with maintaining its "universe" and the story editors started piling on temporal anomalies and other ass-forged deus ex machina in a blatant underestimation of their audience and nobody ever got their shirt ripped during a fight or got dirty or drunk or laid." is the single best line of criticism I've ever read on this site. Sharply observed in a way most critques aren't, f---ing genius and more entertaining than the film.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 12:09 p.m. CST

    STAR TREK NEM-A-MESS REVIEW

    by Neutral_Density

    I saw "Nemesis" on Wednesday, December 11. Let me start off by saying, I was eagerly anticipating this film. "Nemesis" is not "Khan", or "Undiscovered Country" (the best Trek films in my opinion). The film doesn't have any urgency to it. It doesn't have that "this is the film that is going to wrap up the franchise" feel. It is not epic in scope like "Khan" or "Undiscovered Country". Actually, I think that if you are to make a direct comparison, it is trying to be more like "Undiscovered Country" but fails spectacularily. Let me explain: In "Undiscovered Country" there is a lot of political talk. This is also true in "Nemesis". The only difference is that there isn't any intelligence behind the politics, there is nothing at stake for the so-called revolution led by Shinzon. It all too quickly degenerates into a vendetta (literally, in every sense of the word). But even this has no reason. There are no reasons for anything that happens in this film. There is no reason for Shinzon to be an enemy of either Picard or the Federation. This is the first Trek movie in which I didn't care about the characters. There weren't any scenes that delved into the characters. Which is sad, because the end of the film could have been far more poignant had they given us some small scenes to allow us to empathize with our old friends once again. After all, they have been off the TV now for eight years. Even Jackass had more character development. Picard using ICQ to talk to Troi was a load of bullshit. Kirk didn't plan strategy with the com on to Khan. People laughed when the inevitable "there go the transporters" scene occurred. It's truly a funny moment (however unintentional it may be). Also, if Shinzon is a clone of Picard, we should be able to have the greatest space battle in the history of Trek. There should be strategies, counter strategies etc. since they are the same person- Picard vs. Picard. Instead, what you get is a bunch of blind shots at a cloaked ship. What made "Khan" memorable was the strategy, and the WAIT for the implementation of the strategy on both sides. All we have in "Nemesis" are badly paced action sequences and poorly done CGI (the textures on the ships looked like something out of a Nintendo 64 game... Give me back my models!) The ONLY redeeming scene in the film is when the Enterprise collides into the Scimitar. Which as you mentioned, doesn't make any sense. The only shot in the movie that gave me slight goosebumps was the slow and silent arc (thank God for that reprieve from Jerry Goldsmith's aural laxative of a score) around the two ships pulling out of each other, staring dead on into each other's destroyed bows (the one pictured in the ad in Variety a couple weeks back, asking for "Nemesis" to be considered for various Oscars. Insert your own witty joke here________).. and that's really scraping the bottom of the barrel. I HATE TO SAY THAT I DIDN'T LIKE THE MOVIE. But at least I got in for free. Oh well, as the old adage goes "You get what you pay for". Neutral Density

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 12:10 p.m. CST

    hey, Zippyzim...

    by TV CASUALTY

    Nothing I love more than someone criticizing someone else's writing style, yet doing it with a post full of typos and poor grammar. Jackass.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 12:16 p.m. CST

    STAR TREK NEM-A-MESS REVIEW (SPOILER FREE)

    by Neutral_Density

    A friend of mine won passes to see "Star Trek: Nemesis" on Wednesday, December 11. Let me start off by saying, I was eagerly anticipating this film. "Nemesis" is not "Khan", or "Undiscovered Country" (the best Trek films in my opinion). The film doesn't have any urgency to it. It doesn't have that "this is the film that is going to wrap up the franchise" feel. It is not epic in scope like "Khan" or "Undiscovered Country". Actually, I think that if you are to make a direct comparison, it is trying to be more like "Undiscovered Country" but fails spectacularily. Let me explain: In "Undiscovered Country" there is a lot of political talk. This is also true in "Nemesis". The only difference is that there isn't any intelligence behind the politics, there is nothing at stake for the so-called revolution led by Shinzon. It all too quickly degenerates into a vendetta (literally, in every sense of the word). But even this has no reason. There are no reasons for anything that happens in this film. There is no reason for Shinzon to be an enemy of either Picard or the Federation. This is the first Trek movie in which I didn't care about the characters. There weren't any scenes that delved into the characters. Which is sad, because the end of the film could have been far more poignant had they given us some small scenes to allow us to empathize with our old friends once again. After all, they have been off the TV now for eight years. Even Jackass had more character development. Picard using ICQ to talk to Troi was a load of bullshit. Kirk didn't plan strategy with the com on to Khan. People laughed when the inevitable "there go the transporters" scene occurred. It's truly a funny moment (however unintentional it may be). Also, if Shinzon is a clone of Picard, we should be able to have the greatest space battle in the history of Trek. There should be strategies, counter strategies etc. since they are the same person- Picard vs. Picard. Instead, what you get is a bunch of blind shots at a cloaked ship. What made "Khan" memorable was the strategy, and the WAIT for the implementation of the strategy on both sides. All we have in "Nemesis" are badly paced action sequences and poorly done CGI (the textures on the ships looked like something out of a Nintendo 64 game... Give me back my models!) The ONLY redeeming scene in the film is when the Enterprise collides into the Scimitar. Which as you mentioned, doesn't make any sense. The only shot in the movie that gave me slight goosebumps was the slow and silent arc (thank God for that reprieve from Jerry Goldsmith's aural laxative of a score) around the two ships pulling out of each other, staring dead on into each other's destroyed bows (the one pictured in the ad in Variety a couple weeks back, asking for "Nemesis" to be considered for various Oscars. Insert your own witty joke here________).. and that's really scraping the bottom of the barrel. I HATE TO SAY THAT I DIDN'T LIKE THE MOVIE. But at least I got in for free. Oh well, as the old adage goes "You get what you pay for". Neutral Density

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 12:21 p.m. CST

    In response to Wyldwolf ...

    by Dawn O' the Dead

    Yeah, what *is* up with those reviews you posted? I'm a reviewer at a largish metropolitan newspaper, and I'm as far from a Trek fangirl as you can get. Like you said of the critics whose reviews you offered up, I had nothing "invested" in this film when I went to review it on Tuesday evening. You know what? It sucks on ice. This is a terrible, terrible movie. Audience members were LAUGHING during some of the more "serious" scenes. I'm at a loss as to why the reviews you shared were so good, frankly. Because "Nemesis" is absolutely dreadful. I often disagree with Harry's reviews, but everything he wrote about this film -- and everything Ms. DuPont wrote, as well -- is right on the money.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 12:42 p.m. CST

    Look, people--why are any of you surprised?

    by Noriko Takaya

    If this was, say, Rocky X, would any of you be shocked that it sucks ass, let alone be bothering to defend it? Like I said the other day, Trek has turned into the Rolling Stones: a bloated parody of the greatness that was. They need to just shut it down for 3 or 4 decades or better yet FOREVER and just move on to something new. And the people who rip on Harry's review are pathetic. If he had liked or even been lukewarm about the film you all would have shredded him because of all the Nemesis adverts on his page. I agree that he needs to seperate who does the reviews with who goes on the studio junkets but give the guy a break; I think he and Alexi-chan are being honest about this film. It's sad; I would love to see a great, epic Star Trek movie again but I guess it's not to be. All things have to end sooner or later. Toppu o Nerae!

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 12:47 p.m. CST

    Fi-ah Phay-sahs!

    by Creflo A. Dollar

    What I truly miss is what ppl are calling the "grit" or the "rawness" that defined TOS. Best example is the phaser play. When someone got stunned, the WHOLE SCREEN went green and he crumpled like a sack of potatoes. I still sit and go "OHHHHHH!!" when it happens. And when someone got vaporized, he froze, turned bright for like 3 seconds, and then VAPORIZED!! and I still sit and go "OOOOHHHHHH!!" when it happens. It was personal, it was kickass, it was FUN to watch. There is none of that anymore. Something has been lost.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 12:57 p.m. CST

    But "sucks on ice" describes it perfectly.

    by Dawn O' the Dead

    "You're a reviewer at a 'largish metropolitan paper' and the best you can do is, 'sucks on ice'?" -- Well, no, it's not the *best* I can do. But it's a perfectly good descriptive phrase that 's more than adequate for use in AICN Talkback. For the newspaper review I used big words like "preposterous" while deriding the silly, made-up science, the terrible plotting and the bored, puffy mien of the cast. Hey look -- I just used "deriding" and "mien" in one sentence!

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 1:25 p.m. CST

    Wow, couldn't agree more!

    by ewem

    Harry and Alexandra have both written Holy Scripture on this subject as far as I am concerned. Absolutely perfectly said Alexandra. Thank you for saying it for a lot of us. I'll be seeing this film out of duty, if nothing else. I feel like I am going to a wake tomorrow (Friday the 13th. Go figure.) This is going to be very sad and frustrating to watch. I have been watching the DVD of TNG and it really is mind blowing to see how far down things have gone. What the hell happened? Berman, Piller, and all of them USED to turn out good stuff! Is it as simple as burn out? Who knows, but I think a new "Save Star Trek" campaign is in order.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 1:25 p.m. CST

    zzzzz

    by cyber

    Ive been crusing the webthe last few and Ive seen both good and bad reviews of nemesis, but AICN only publishes the BAD reviews. Makes you think, doesn't it?

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 1:27 p.m. CST

    zzzzz

    by cyber

    Ive been crusing the web the last few days and Ive seen both good and bad reviews of nemesis, but AICN only publishes the BAD reviews. Makes you think, doesn't it?

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 1:59 p.m. CST

    Watch Farscape, dammit ! You want Hemingway? They've got Hemingw

    by SpacePhil

    Characters who believe in things, will die for each other, fall in love, and more often than not fall out of it. It's back on Scifi starting this January -- come and see what Star Trek has lost.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 2:05 p.m. CST

    "The result is a sort of brown noise"?

    by Kent Allard

    That would get messy. I think you mean "white noise," Alexandra. Also, not to be too much of a continuity geek, but April did not precede Archer. He preceded Pike, but not Archer. Meanwhile, all these sucky reviews have me going into the movie with such low expectations that maybe I might even end up liking some of it.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 2:39 p.m. CST

    A.DuP. responds with a couple of corrections....

    by Alexandra.DuPont

    First off, Kent Allard is correct on both counts -- it was Pike, not Archer, that I was referring to, and yes I probably should have written "white noise," but isn't "brown noise" more evocative? Also, I should note for the record that Mr. Will Wheaton is not totally deleted from the film -- you can see him in a couple of long shots during the Riker/Troi wedding. All is not lost, young man, even if you weren't invited to the premiere!

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 2:43 p.m. CST

    Ah, Ms. DuPont, I was nodding in agreement through....

    by Smugbug

    the entirety of your review. Very good (and true) words, indeed!

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 2:46 p.m. CST

    Wow. I totally have to bust myself.

    by dorfer

    Not that anyone cares, but before someone can point out what a fool I am for my last post, ILM DID do the effects for Wrath of Khan. Holy shit. That's a hoot.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 2:50 p.m. CST

    A.DuP. responds, Part II: Another correction (or two).

    by Alexandra.DuPont

    Yes, "harkarvey," I meant to write Enterprise-E, not -D. (Are you really going to dismiss my ENTIRE review because of that? How utterly telling!) I guess I should also note that I misspelled the title of my favorite TV show ever, "Spenser: For Hire," while I'm at it! I would have posted these corrections sooner, but trying to plow my way through the clogged AICN server is a bit like water-skiing through Cream of Wheat at the moment....

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 3 p.m. CST

    At the risk of piling on....

    by HDB

    "Ass-forged deus ex machinas" is one of the funniest fragments of language I've stubbed my toe on in a long time. Were you thinking of Blake's "mind-forged manacles?" Inquiring English professors want to knowe.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 3:04 p.m. CST

    Age of franchise shouldn't make any difference - look at Bond

    by sofalord

    The James Bond franchise has been around even longer than the Trek franchise yet it stays as fresh as ever because they simply hire new actors to play him whenever the old one gets too big for his britches and demands more money. And the fans don't say a word about it...ok, they do, but the movies still rake in big bucks at the box office. Perhaps its time to recast Kirk, Spock, McCoy, et al. and try a big budget old style Trek movie from '60s? Couldn't be any worse than what they are dishing up hot now.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 3:17 p.m. CST

    Harkavey...

    by dorfer

    ...stop, really. Please. Just stop. Your grammar and spelling are far worse than the reviewer's. By attempting to ridicule her, you are simply making yourself look like a fool. And we all know you're not a fool, right? --d

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 3:22 p.m. CST

    Whatever, "harkavey"....

    by Alexandra.DuPont

    No, let ME break it down for YOU, "harkavey": (1) Anyone who writes the typo-addled sentence "First, if You [SIC] spelling and grammer [SIC] are this uneducated, what are we to think of your review?" without irony doesn't get to take me to task for grammatical minutiae. Your misuse of "its" and "it's" alone -- coupled with your hormone-fueled juvenile ravings about panties and one-night stands -- arguably disqualifies you from critiquing ANYONE's writings on any grounds. (2) You write: "Should I listen to someone who doesn't even pay enough attention to detail to spell their favorite TV show correctly?" You don't HAVE to listen to me at all, young man, but I'll tell you what: When someone actually PAYS me to write an AICN review, I'll hire a copy editor post haste, and that person will most likely not be you. Also, unlike, say, you, I actually bothered to issue a correction. I'll tell you what: Re-post to this forum with every one of your typographical errors in your previous post corrected, and we'll continue this discussion. Eagerly awaiting a new crop of typo-addled attacks on my virtue, Alexandra DuPont.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 3:30 p.m. CST

    hey harvavey....

    by tensticks

    Worried about losing your job, Rick--er, Mr. Berman? you should be... gave up on star trek about the time of DS9. Have wanted great things for it forever but it keeps getting my hopes up and then disappointing. Come on flameboys & girls...this is the part where i even MENTION Babylon 5 and you all attack me...oh well. Death to the Berman era.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 3:33 p.m. CST

    Harkavey... enlighten me.

    by dorfer

    What does "H.E.R.B." mean? And you're not fooling anyone with all the non-alpha characters in your words, so why not write what you mean? As for my comments, I'm just saying that you should be wary of your own failings when you attack those of another. Alexandra DuPont wrote a well-written review. I may not agree with her content, but I certainly can't attack her grammar and spelling when I screw up as well. Man, if only more people had as much passion as you seem to be exhibiting toward this sci-fi franchise. --d

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 3:34 p.m. CST

    oh yeah, regarding Harkavey and Ms. Dupont...

    by tensticks

    One other thing. Ms. Dupont expressed her views clearly, precisely and eloquently...summing it all up beautifully. You attacked her with petty sexual remarks. Dude, I'd still much rather be in a dark theatre watching STAR TREK with a cool and intelligent chick than you and a bunch of bitter geeks...

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 3:40 p.m. CST

    An admonition

    by Raulman

    Christ, opinions are like assholes! Star Trek's recent shittiness warrants this bemoaning, but the decline and fall of Trek needs to be put into a broader perspective. We don't all of a sudden find ourselves in a Satanic universe where the Muses have abandoned mankind and aesthetic greatness is finished and done. Star Trek continues, lacklustre and torpid, while all about it the miracle of the universe is explored and expounded in innummerable forms. Others achieve ever unfolding greatness, while if we confine our search for it to Star Trek, we feel the here and now to be a time of desperation and of lost opportunity. This is what fanboy-ism brings about, a limited vista of the arts; to laud only one particular series, no matter how expansive or actually great it may be, is not so much to praise that series, as it is to slight every other instance of greatness. Greatness may be rare, but it is also multifarious, appearing in infinite manifestations. When it is observed, ascending to heights thought impossible with seemingly little effort, we become knowing of the purpose of art in life, and become better artists ourselves in as much as we are receptive to the great secret it reveals.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 3:40 p.m. CST

    "Enterprise" isn't all that bad, kids

    by SPY-der

    I think everyone is being a little harsh on "Enterprise." Admittedly, I missed a few episodes along the way, but I really liked the stuff with the Vulcan monastery and the Temporal Cold War. I thought all that was really cool, and that overall the series has been pretty good. I think they should have kept T'Pol as T'Pau as a little Easter Egg for the real fans, but I don't mind that they're spending their money on FX instead of extra royalty payments. I loved the first contact with the Klingon empire in the pilot, and I think "Enterprise" has all the potential Trek-ness that Alexandra lusts for. However, like all Trek series, it is still in it's first season. If we go back and look at the first season of TNG, we have to admit that it was kind of lame. However, a season or two later, they really hit their stride and we got five seasons of pretty good sci-fi, and very good Trek stuff. I think the biggest problem is that when we lost Gene Roddenberry we lost the soul, heart, and voice of Trek. Berman may be the keeper of the flame, but I think Alexandra is right in pointing out that Trek lost it's focus and appeal. The "core audience" that Berman depends on is loyal, but if you keep feeding them crap they will abandon your new endeavors and simply live in the past, now available on DVD and at Trek conventions the world over. -- SPYder, out.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 3:43 p.m. CST

    "Enterprise" follow-up

    by SPY-der

    Oh yeah, there is one thing that pisses me off about "Enterprise": It's that god-damned opening song. Dump that, get a decent theme that I can whistle in the shower and that'll help tremendously. When I watch "Enterprise," I was the opening teaser and hit the Mute button on my remote as soon as the opening credits start. I understand why they went the direction they did, but we need a freakin' march for cryin' out loud! Get us a real theme. Something between Classic Trek and the Next Gen theme (hell, even DS9 had a theme, even though it was softer than TNG). Fix the music! -- SPYder, out.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 3:43 p.m. CST

    Harkavey , consider yourself officially bitchslapped...

    by TV CASUALTY

    'cuz Dupont just fucked you UP on this talkback. Now stop posting before you make yourself look like an even bigger fool. AD, you rock. And Harkavey, your pathetic "battle rap" bullshit is just a waste of time for everyone here, including yourself. You're a self-indulgent, sub-literate, puerile halfwit, and you've managed to convince this entire board as such. Throw away the shovel and go home before you dig your hole any deeper.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 3:45 p.m. CST

    Been there (yawn), slept thru that...

    by Hjermsted

    Trek, like Bond, needs a shake-up. Hand the series reigns (or at least a writer/director job) over to someone with a different perspective. Berman is obviously out of ideas/skills. I want to see David Lynch do a Bond or Trek movie. Now that would be interesting to me. I like the Kevin Smith suggestion. How about Q. Tarantino? Joss Whedon, undoubtedly, could make Star Trek Anything more interesting but doesn't need to. Have you guys checked out Firefly yet??!! The buzz is back, baby! Sci fi to get excited about. If you are missing it, I feel sorry for you. There may be no need to resuscitate Trek at all with Firefly here. Get your ass over to Fox on Fridays. Grrrrr. Arrrgh!

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 3:51 p.m. CST

    Pots and Kettles...

    by Kevin

    I think it's funny when geeks here on these AICN boards, or on any other comics/sci-fi/film online forums for that matter, start in on their fellow geeks with the old "get out of your parent's basement" insult. You know who you are. You, too, took the time to sign up and post on a site devoted to geekdom, yet you blast others for their devotion to the same genres you enjoy. Fucking hypocrites! I'm a geek, but I'm not about to label other fans with lame and overused stereotypes. We're all geeks, that's why we're all here to begin with!

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 3:52 p.m. CST

    Nobody would want to step in.

    by dorfer

    Lynch, Tarantino... even Smith? None of them would step in as director/writer/whatever for these long-standing iconic movie franchises. They make their own way, blaze their own trails. That's what they like to do. There is no way in hell that any of these guys would want to try to shake up the Star Trek or Bond series. It wouldn't leave enough room for their own individual styles. The series would have to be dead for years before a writer/director of that type would want to step in and revamp a mythos. --d

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 4:08 p.m. CST

    unfair to Voyager, old girl!

    by Hud

    Alexandra, you're laying it on Voyager a bit thick, aren't you? I'd say the only thing wrong with it was they never figured out at the start how the darn thing should end. As for the characters, all the archetypes from the original show were there; the writers just diluted the focus too much for the tensions (sexual and otherwise) among crew members to really warm up. Belaana Torres, that fiery little half human/half Klingon engineer was as lusty and vital as Shatner ever was. Kes should have unraveled the male crew members as Snow White unraveled the seven dwarfs (and wouldn't that have been a funny running joke?) if the writers had had that much wit (and taken her out of those godawful Ivanhoe outfits!). And Seven's coldness could have been exploited for its sexual majesty if the writers ever wanted to go that way. And all this is assuming that what the show lacked was randyness. I don't say the show didn't fall short of its potential, but on the occasions when it hit its mark, it was very good. It was at least satisfying space opera.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 4:24 p.m. CST

    Just a bit of a correction

    by maxwelll demon

    It's been months and months since I was moved to actually respond to a post on AICN. But having read the exact same talkback a few days ago attached to Harry's review of "Nemesis," I somehow feel obliged to just pipe up for a minute and make a correction about something. Hardcore Star Trek fandom is not composed of beings possessing both the "X" and "Y" chromosomes. On the contrary, go to any remaining Star Trek convention in the country and you'll see who's still propping this calcifying franchise up - not teenage boys who can't score with the ladies, rather it's bulbous, cellulite collecting housewifes who all want to bang Tom Paris and spawn with Cmmdr. Tucker. Y'know - the only people left on the planet who still make stretch polyster fabrics "every-day" wear. As for the teenage boys locked in their basements masturbating over genre actresses - namely Natalie Portman - well they're all Star Wars geeks. But you already knew that . . .

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 4:25 p.m. CST

    What the bloody hell...

    by XTheCrovvX

    I really didnt want to get off of my self-imposed TB hiatus for something this fucking ignorant, but I've been left no choice. First, to the actual substance, to the garrulous Ms. DuPont: My dear, I do not always agree with you, especially on all matters Star Wars, but i've always respected your willingness to express your opinions truthfully and without biases of any sort, evenm going so far as to stick around to explain things more clearly to the disagreeable types. This is one of those rare times when i agree entirely with one of your reviews, and for the call to action, for the heartfelt explanation of what has gone wrong with Trek since the inception of Voyager, i do thank you, and stand with you completely on this issue. Well done. With that bit of academic ass-kissing done, I must now turn my vitriol to a few people. First, ive been seeing a strange, disturbing trend in TBs since I stepped away a few months back....this weird band of fanboy manic assholes who now disagree with anything a reviewer writes, seemingly just to stand out from the crowd. If its a "different" viewpoint, these dipshits will take it, without thinking. If a reviewer on this site liked a movie? "PLANT!" If s/h hated it? "Oh, what do they know, they probably work for (choose from list: George Lucas, Peter Jackson, Hulk Hogan)". All of a sudden, its cool to hate without thinking. Its a retarded trend, and its neither cool, nor is it new. I saw it in high school, on these old black and white newsreels from the early 40's....i'd tell you more about them, but they were a little hard to understand since the narration was in GERMAN. Follow the teachings of Reverend Maynard, and THINK FOR YOURSELF, fuckwits. Lastly, to this waste of sperm called harkavy. The very fact that you just referred to ANYBODY as a "nigga" just destroyed any credibility you had as a Trek fan, a TBer, and as a halfway competent excuse for a homo sapien. The next time you feel the urge to post here, save yourself some time and energy, have a friend bend you backwards and PHYSICALLY shove your head up your ass. I know, it'll be confusing, not knowing which end the shit's coming out of and all, but im sure youll get used to it in due time, and it'll save the rest of us the time of having to read the intellectual vomit of a eugenics experiment gone horribly wrong. That goes for any other unworthy trouser stain who can't come here and compose themselves like they have more than their dicks to think with. Now, in the paraphrased words of Brick Top, stop me again while I'm on hiatus, and i'll cut ya fookin' jacobs off. Revolution is still my name.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 4:47 p.m. CST

    CUNT!

    by Looptid

    Is it just me or is Data starting to look like the fucking mask from the Halloween movies?

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 5 p.m. CST

    sofalord, I stand corrected.

    by Noriko Takaya

    You are so right; in fact I thought of the Bond series right after I posted my comment. But that just leaves Berman and Co. with even less of an excuse. Personally I would like to see just one final movie after this involving the TNG, DS9 (my fave) and Voyager crews vs oh, say about 385 Borg cubes. It would be darker then Loki's asshole, Rated R, hella gothic and end with the entire Next Gen, DS9 and Voyager crews either dead or insane, the Federation destroyed and the Romulans under Imperial Majestrix Sela conquering the whole of the Alpha Quadrant. Then shut the whole thing down and give us a Farscape movie, dammit! Oh yeah, and last and certainly least, harkavey is probably just some 12 year old suburban gangsta wanna-be who thinks he's a hard banger 'cause he got some mp3's of Snoop Dogg's latest jam. Ignore his pathetic ass. Toppu o Nerae!

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 5:14 p.m. CST

    Ghetto Biscuits

    by Looptid

    SPY-der said, "However, like all Trek series, it is still in it's first season." First off: The possessive form of it is "its." No fucking apostrophe. Second: Are all Star Trek series in their first season?

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 5:33 p.m. CST

    Like Star Wars, the Force(creativity) has surely died out for St

    by Viper-GunClan

    Back to the drawing board with a whole slew of "talented" people would be nice. There out there, just gotta look. Okay, Paramount? Sheesh!

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 5:45 p.m. CST

    ...all of this just makes me tired.

    by deftone

    Honestly, I love how everyone is either "attacking" or "agreeing" with Alexandra without having seen the film yet. I mean, hello? WATCH THE FUCKING FILM FIRST, THEN GIVE YOUR OPINION. Because opinions without facts aren't really much at all. That said, I'm excited. If I want to be sad and mad after the film I will be, but right now? I'm going to figure out for myself. That and I've managed to be excited about it since I found out there would be another one.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 5:48 p.m. CST

    from the depths of Talkback we cry out for the Sarcastic Lesbian

    by Tall_Boy

    praytell, DuPont?

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 5:59 p.m. CST

    In answer to Tall Boy: The Sarcastic Lesbian Filmmaker (TM) has

    by Alexandra.DuPont

    Her comments (as "Dawn O' The Dead") are in fact quite a ways down this Talk Back....

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 6:05 p.m. CST

    by BornAmazing

    I'm a long time Star Trek fan...some may scoff at that remark, as I'm only 23 years old and my fascination with Star Trek only began in 1988 when I fell In love with The Next Generation, but as I see it that time accounts for about half my life. SO TRUST ME when I tell you...///////////// Star Trek 10 is not as bad as the reviews I've read on this site so far. In fact I

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 6:21 p.m. CST

    You want passion? Bring back the deal. Yes ladies and gentleman

    by DARTH VOODOO

    You say you want passion, you say you want a guy who will shoot first and ask questions later, You say want a guy who will bang any green chick in the universe? THAT MAN'S NAME IS JAMES T KIRK AND HE IS ALIVE AND WELL IN THAT FUCKING STUPID NEXUS THING JUST WAITING FOR A QUALITY WRITER TO SAVE HIM AND THE DYING STAR TREK FRANCHISE IN THE SAME SCRIPT. KIRK IS THE ONLY CHANCE THIS TIRED SERIES HAS TO BE VITAL (nobody cares about the new characters)AGAIN. What the hell if Rocky Balboa is coming back why not the most popular character in the history of Trek? Who gives a shit about Enterprise,Voyager or Ds9? I WANT THE REAL THING BACK. BRING ME JAMES T KIRK

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 6:26 p.m. CST

    Thanks for the suggestions, Alexandra

    by MyNameDoesn'tFit

    But April (who isn't "real," but anyway...) preceded Pike, not Archer.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 6:40 p.m. CST

    sex and violence

    by jorson2

    Yeah, that's the answer to improving every movie for you people. More sex and violence. And you think conservatives are narrow-minded?

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 6:43 p.m. CST

    SPENSER FOR HIRE - My Favorite Too!

    by Thorn MS

    Man I loved that show... I ended up reading of Parker's books, because I loved that show so much. Urich is deceased, but Spenser lives on in print. Parker is still writing them, and they're as much fun as they can be, sans the Urich presence, but if you picture Urich in the lead role in print, he lives on, too. - but we digress. I guess I'm going to have to see this one at a matinee with absolutely no expectations... Alas, poor Trek, I knew him well.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 6:57 p.m. CST

    Uhhhh. . .yeah.

    by Noriko Takaya

    Crack and LSD don't mix, anal-na-thrack. 0.o

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 7:06 p.m. CST

    Anybody read HYPERION?

    by GreatWhite

    Great sci-fi novel (series) by Dan Simmons. This is the kind of sci-fi movie I wish Hollywood would make--sexy, violent, mature. (Sigh) Can't anything NEW come out of LA? Don't get me wrong, I can't wait for King Conan and Mad Max 4, but why can't something new come along? And yes I know the answer is Hollywood's risk-avoidance system. Well I say we should boycott Star Trek crap and show Hollywood that it's riskier to make bad movies than to try something new. Just a thought.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 7:07 p.m. CST

    Tarantino's True Calling...

    by tensticks

    personally I'd rather see Quentin Tarantino's UNDERDOG, Lynch's STAR WARS and...well anyone's TREK but Bermans...oh yeah, and Speilberg's retirement....

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 7:09 p.m. CST

    *bows down*

    by burningbabyfish

    You...rule, Alexandra. Insightfully written, and I think you nailed the things that are wrong with Trek today. I could get in the corner of your suggested campaign, believe me. Things just haven't been the same since TNG went off air - it was the more cerebral cousin of TOS, but it dealt with some deep stuff in its later seasons. It's a shame to see the movies come down to that. And someone please tell me - Data doesn't say "Is that your final answer" in the movie like in a script I saw online, does he? I'd just choke.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 7:57 p.m. CST

    Good Show my Lady!!!!

    by 20th Century Fox

    Alexandra nailed this too...Trek has become PC bland crap. Thank you Rick Berman...

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 8:18 p.m. CST

    Yeah, THAT's a good idea...

    by Respect The Cock

    Are geeks actually suggesting Tarantino (*cough*HACK*cough*) Trek?!? Time to get a freaking grip, you sad sacks. ("Do you know what they call Romulan Ale on Romulas? They just fuckin' call it Ale," says Data, sporting a retro-70's haircut.) Trek already HAS a "prequel" (ENTERPRISE), Alexandra...it doesn't need another one. Trek needs to go FORWARD, not back -- but I'm all for Trek getting a sense of humor about itself and upping the camp factor. Kirk/Shatner SCREAMED campiness, which is what made it fun/funny. Nothing feels faker in a movie than characters who act like they've never SEEN movies...and the same goes for Trek. Have some self-reverential fun with it, Berman...for Christ's sake.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 8:21 p.m. CST

    Play it again, Sam...

    by The End

    Good grief, after 3 TNG sequels even a chimpanzee could review Nemesis sight unseen. Berman & Co. are that predictable. So are the feckless cheerleaders of this D.O.A. franchise installment.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 8:22 p.m. CST

    Ten Words Would Fix It

    by Darth Brooks

    Right after the first commercial break, ten words spoken by Scott Bakula would fix the entire sentiment of the series: "Enterprise is filmed in front of a live studio audience." And then play some kind of Odd Couple bumper music. Oh, and every time a series regular walks in from the turbolift, have the audience go wild for 15 seconds.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 8:43 p.m. CST

    New Star Trek (DS9,VOY,ENT) SUCKS AND THE 25 PEOPLE WHO LIKE IT

    by DARTH VOODOO

    I can't stand people who will tell you that the newer versions of Star Trek are as good as the real versions of Star Trek. ROGER EBERT PUT IT BEST WHEN HE SAID "NEW STAR TREK IS JUST A COPY OF A COPY OF A COPY"

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 8:51 p.m. CST

    Trek Is Dead. Long Live Babylon 5.

    by DIRESKY

    Folks Trek died a long, long time ago. It died when it became a 'cash cow' for Paramount Pictures. In fact I'd say the time of death came when Paramount Pictures rejected Star Trek: Phase 2 back in the late 1970's. If you are looking for a science fiction television series that is truly about big ideas, serious drama, and balls-to-the- wall action go watch Babylon 5. Why? Babylon 5 was created by a man who really understands big ideas, serious drama, and balls-to-the-wall action. Babylon 5 has far more self consistency in its production design and character development. Babylon 5 has a main 5-year storyline loaded with juicy sub-plots. Babylon 5 feature films controlled by the original T.V. series creator would breathe fresh air into sci-fi cinema. Do yourself a favor do not waste any further money on Trek trash. Instead invest your time wisely and watch every Babylon 5 episode in order. The pay off is well worth it. A close second to Babylon 5 in scope would be Farscape.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 9:06 p.m. CST

    I've had it!

    by Duck of Death

    Y'know, I've spent the past few months actually dreading the new Trek movie, yet still planning on seeing it. Every time I imagine myself trudging to the theater like a Russian peasant to the potato fields, I cringe. I ask myself "Why??? Why do I mindlessly wolf down every morsel of crap Berman & Co. doles out??" Out of nothing else but the dregs of my loyalty to Trek, I guess. But you know what...I've had enough. After reading Harry's and Ms. DuPont's reviews, I can't imagine myself wasting time on this drivel. As much as we all whine and piss and moan about how lousy Trek is, nothing will ever happen unless we vote with our dollars. I've been there opening day for every Trek movie since TMP, but this time I'm skipping it entirely. They've finally gone and killed my interest in Trek -- new Trek, at least -- and I hope every other abused Trekker out there stays home and sends the message to Paramount that we want real change, not just a fresh coat of whitewash on the odiferous turd that Star Trek has become.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 9:19 p.m. CST

    60's Trek is the coolest

    by KONG33

    ahhh, 60's Star Trek. I agree the shows are too dark, too dull and need color, sex and violence. Enough techno-talk. I hate how Trek is composed of only moments of a completely devoid of personality/character and then there are those lumps of goofy characterization. Like, Oh here we go, 'OVER-THE-TOP CHARACTER MOMENT!' Trek was always about personalities clashing and cool junk, it's just not cool anymore. Today, they hire hunky actors, but they have (or show) no personality! Someone fire the nerd writers, too. Star Trek will be dead within decades if somebody doesn't do something. ST really is something of a board meeting, get back to the dungeons on imaginative hostile planets, and someone ditch all the alien make-up designs post 1986. The aliens have to be COOL, not wrinkly or spotty. Have more fun, be less serious all the time...

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 9:30 p.m. CST

    Amazing review

    by ManosTHOF

    Summed it up better than I could ever have. I'll take 60's Trek anytime, for example "City On The Edge of Forever" is true sci-fi and a wonderful story on a human level too.****** Remember the Voyager ep where 7of69 uses parts from a 300 year old Mars explorer (in another "anomaly", no less, or was it some kind of "creature") to fix her Starfleet issue ship. That is as preposterous as trying to fit Lexus parts into a Model T, and this is what we are forced to swallow as Star Trek fans.***** I wish Sam Beckett would leap into Berman's body and get him to retire. Next, leap into Archer's body and steer the ship into a black hole. You tried Scott, you tried. A lot of the cast is, but the writers are trying to reinvent the wheel and underestimate those die hards that are left watching still. Tragedy.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 9:33 p.m. CST

    ***

    by McCormic

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 9:46 p.m. CST

    Resistance... is futile.....

    by ManosTHOF

    ****harkavey Subject: Whatever, Alexander... Comment: Let me Break it down for this narrow- minded reviewer Alaxender.... First, if You spelling and grammer are this uneducated........****....harkavey, do you mean Kelsey Grammer, "Frasier Crane" himself, is uneducated? He sure seems cultured and intelligent on and offscreen..... curious. And correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't "Alaxender" Worf's kid?

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 9:50 p.m. CST

    calm down fools, harkavey's just trolling

    by kojiro

    Pretty good job of it too.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 9:58 p.m. CST

    The only butt whooping Archer ever sees is his

    by Raptorman101

    own, When are we going to get less of the wimps and more of the iron fist in the velvet glove type of writing ! The Enterprise is going is more or less like Boooooreyger I dont know about the rest of the folks here but I am tired of turning on startrek and watching the captain get the shit kicked out of him by somebody that old Bones would have stepped on in his day the bottom line is the writing is total crap !

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 10:05 p.m. CST

    Yes! Sarcastic Lesbian Filmmakers (tm) should get her own AICN c

    by Tall_Boy

    hahahha, I'm trying to picture the graphic for that right now...

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 10:25 p.m. CST

    New Farscape

    by Roj Blake

    Um, 11 new episodes of Farscape will begin to unravel on Jan. 10th on Sci Fi. And don't forget the Christmas Eve-day marathon of the first 11 of S4. FYI. (I have nothing to add to the Trek conversation; I'm simply hijacking this talkback momentarily - and since I admit it, it's OK.)

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 10:49 p.m. CST

    Star Trek, I don't think we should see eachother anymore...

    by Pagz

    It's always hard when something you love goes wrong, for whatever reason. Alexandra knows it, you know it, I know it. Star Trek used to be something that, while not always pretty, was at least genuine. TNG went a step further and made the genuine seem truly very grand and impressive. DS9 started weak, picked up steam, and save for the occasional dip into camp which it was all too prone to take in my eyes, ended strong. Then it just all went to hell. Voyager, in my eyes, is the cotton candy of the star trek universe. All spun sugar, no substance. It took all that was cool about trek, marginalized it, and mass produced it to such a degree that there was no hope of ever finding anything fresh or exciting again. I mean, this is the series that turned the borg into pussies. the freakin borg! Enterprise? Well, I just won't even go there. I feel for all of us right now. Star Trek is like a sick friend you know isnt going to get better without help. Star Trek needs an intervention. It needs a good long stay in a rehab clinic where it can get its shit back together. Than, one day, when the time is right, maybe trek can come back and be the entity we all used to know and love.

  • Dec. 12, 2002, 11:52 p.m. CST

    Ooh, ooh! I want to rank the Trek films!

    by The Hillbrothers

    Here's my personal opinion on the ranking, from Best to Worst: 1) Wrath of Khan (classic characterizations) 2) The Motion Picture (classic weirdness) 3) The Voyage Home (it's got heart & humor in spades) 4) Search for Spock (Lloyd= best Klingon Villain + "Klingon Bastards killed my son...") 5) First Contact (Scary Borgs) 6) Insurrection (all filler) 7) Voyage Home (could've been my #5 just as easily. Saved from utter Crapdom by character interaction between Kirk/Bones/Spock) 8) Undiscovered Country (way over-rated generic spy thriller in space, complete with sniper-on-the-balcony assassination attempt. I guess authorities will never get hip to THAT tactic) 9) Generations (failure on every level). It's really more fun to talk about why you hate something than to talk about why something is so great. I myself am baffled as to why I like The Motion Picture so much.

  • Dec. 13, 2002, 12:18 a.m. CST

    To GreatWhite

    by Mafu

    Right on, Alexandra. Star Trek sucks, officially and unofficially now. The old-school-style of Trek story-telling is dead and buried. Yeah!!!!! Can we fucking move on from this diseased, anachronistic melodrama of sci-fi now? In response to GreatWhite: The book "Hyperion," which I doubt has been read by many people doing this talk-back, has been written as a screenplay for one or three movies. Leonardo DiCaprio is championing it, and he would ostensibly play Raul Endymion in the movie. Amazingly, the director would be Martin Scorcese, even though he hasn't ever directed a massive-scale sci-fi epic. Three studios are bidding on "Hyperion" right now. Check out www.dansimmons.com for all the information. Star Trek, R.I.P.

  • The only way to save Star Trek is to do one of 2 things OR BOTH! 1. Fix the awful mistake of killing off Kirk in Star Trek-Generations by bringing him back!! 2. Cancel Enterprise and do a series based on Excelsior starring Captn. Sulu George Takei.

  • Dec. 13, 2002, 1:04 a.m. CST

    that is a terrible solution

    by 9 Fingered Frodo

    Trying to recreate the original 1960s TV is the most ridiculous idea I have ever heard. Created a brightly colored 1960s era Star Trek is the worse thing that the franchise could possibly do. Besides being blinded by nostalgia, Alexandra deosn't realize that the original star trek series fit the times. It worked. By turning the franchise into a parody of itself and making star trek a sit-com that would ruin the whole concept of star trek in the first place. It is meant to play on the energy of the times, to reinvent itself and be a commentary of the human experience. And a side note, Enterprise was meant to serve the function of the series Alexandra mentions. With Scott Bacula, quite successfully, playing the type of captain that should be on Star Trek. Just look at Archer compared to Sisco and Janeway--blows them out of the water.

  • Dec. 13, 2002, 1:31 a.m. CST

    HahHAHahaha Tarantino Star Trek hehawehe haha cough hack ughh

    by IAmJacksUserID

    "It's the phaser that sez bad mother fucker on it!" "Denebian slime devil is a filthy animal too... " "Yeah, well I don't eat Denebian slime devil either." "...and he threw that motherfucker from the top of the turbolift. Mother fucker fell 4 decks and kinda developed a speech impediment." "We're all gonna be three little Spocks - and what was Spock?!""Cool?" "Correctomondo!" " Whoa... whoa... whoa... stop right there. Eatin' a bitch out, and givin' a bitch a Ferengi ear massage ain't even the same fuckin' thing."

  • Dec. 13, 2002, 1:50 a.m. CST

    Trek

    by Indiana Clones

    I like Trek but... Fuck it. Kill it. Just kill it.

  • Dec. 13, 2002, 1:59 a.m. CST

    TREK died after The Wrath of KAHN

    by tritium

    I absolutely agree with the proposition put forward by a few posters here...remake the original series (universe, not remake each episode) with Captain Kirk, Spock and McCoy played by new actors. Bring back the red, gold/green and blue color uniforms with the original insignias--but with a modern touch. MOST IMPORTANT: HIRE established SF writers to pen new episodes. What we need is a Leader, like a Roddenberry, or a Peter Jackson to provide inspiration and motivation to a team of developers, artists, writers, etc. This could WORK people. As someone already mentioned...we accept different actors for the role of James Bond. Off Topic: Does anyone know the status of the movie adaption of Greg Bear's "The Forge of God" and "Anvil of Stars". These movies will rock if done correctly. The key here is to not dumb it down, but have some respect for the audiences intelligence.

  • Dec. 13, 2002, 2:45 a.m. CST

    the magic is gone from startrek/starwars

    by jactor007

    Over marketing the material and squeezing every drop of blood out of these franchises in my opinion have them both on life support. Both these series were magical at one time. Epic stories with lots of action and a cast of characters that you could actually care about. There weren't 4 series of star trek, just 2 series and 6 movies and after each movie they said it would be the last, but you still couldn't help but love it, that was the last time I remember startrek being great, I think first contact was a fluke because the had not yet squeezed the borg dry for story plots. The more material that came out, the more it became just another show. You run out of ideas, steam. The only thing that could make it great again? It needs to die for a few years. Same is happening with starwars. It started with the Timothy Zhan books, then the flood gates opened up, then the rumors of the prequels, then the massive marketing, then the movies. I wish it was 1993 again,,The last original crew startrek was released and there were still 3 starwars movies.

  • Dec. 13, 2002, 6:16 a.m. CST

    don't have much to say...

    by Mithril

    except that the Cary Elwes suggestion is a stroke of perfect, uncanny genius.

  • Dec. 13, 2002, 10:35 a.m. CST

    This is a GREAT movie!!!

    by LordZanthos

    Both Harry and Miss DuPont are so incredibly wrong in their assessment of Star Trek: Nemesis that I have no words for how badly their diatribes read after having seen the movie myself last evening at a theater

  • Dec. 13, 2002, 12:47 p.m. CST

    Corrolary to the odd-even rule: Trek V was what sent it all on a

    by empyreal0

    Trek V was the sin that killed the series, that doomed it to fail. It was the tragic failure, like in any Shakespearean tragedy, that sends the mighty falling. ST5 was so atrociously bad, that it infected all movies after it. Trek VI, you see, was good but not as good as its preceding even-numbered treks. VII had a plot hole the size of a planet. VIII was good, mostly, except for the fucking Borg Queen, who I regard as being part of the poison created by ST5, this virus that infects and destroys all things Trek by changing the rules and fucking up everything that worked. IX was a really BAD episode of TNG, blown up, put on the big screen, and while it tried to have the charm of IV, it was so false that it never even came close. Trek was the series that never took itself too seriously even while it came up with some of the coolest fucking concepts ever. V'Ger, the Genesis Device, The Borg. What do we have now? The Ribbon, the fucking Borg Queen bullshit that ruined the Borg, infantile quibbling about the Prime Directive, and now, ooooh, an EVIL TWIN!! Jesus H. Christ. This is a low. A real low. Forget it. I'll stop ranting. Nobody's reading anyway.

  • Dec. 13, 2002, 1:04 p.m. CST

    What Enterprise should have been was not "Enterprise" at ALL!!!.

    by empyreal0

    It's not the fucking ship we care about. It's the universe. It's the high concepts. It's the foreshadowing of things to come, even though we know it's all bullshit anyway. Enterprise should have been similar to Space: Above and Beyond. It shouldn't have been called Enterprise, nor put on that particular ship, nor put together with the same power-ranger style ready-made character roles that we've had since TOS, nor should it open with that GOD-AWFUL SONG! It should have been about HOW WE GET FROM OUR FUCKED UP WORLD INTO THE STAR TREK UNIVERSE. I wanted so bad to see it all start out climsily, with a hastily assembled crew that has to learn their roles because we've never dealt with space exploration of this magnitude before. I want to see mistakes being made, human error with long term results that we have to fight and stumble over to get to the idealic world of TOS. Bring in the familiar elements of political conflict, crime, poverty, less-than-perfect technology, human frailty, whatever. Things we see in our own world. Then, write me a myth, a series about how we got to the Star Trek world of grand adventures, a unified Federation, alien races we saw in TOS and how we coped with meeting and adapting to their ways. Write me a myth about how we discovered new Star Trek technologies, their unpredictable results, the strange ways we used them before we actually mastered things like "beaming". I wanted to see a story about humanity taking its baby steps into space. What I got was a weak, tired reflection of a space opera with no humanity, no character, forced dialogue, no development, and no over-arcing storyline. Enterprise sucks.

  • Dec. 13, 2002, 1:17 p.m. CST

    The hell with Trek, the hell with Babylon 5, the hell with all o

    by empyreal0

    Now that is a space opera done right.

  • Dec. 13, 2002, 5:37 p.m. CST

    TROTSKY&CO.

    by frank cotton

    hey, i'll stalk her. any old loser can stalk a hollywood starlet. it's been done. stalking is an art; why waste the effort on the unworthy?

  • Dec. 13, 2002, 5:41 p.m. CST

    Saw it just now--it was a fun movie

    by DrFrankenevil

    Not the best, but far, far from the worse. Better than Insurrection or Generations but not better than First Contact. I don't know what Knowles and DuPont are so up in arms about.

  • Dec. 13, 2002, 5:59 p.m. CST

    Hey, Idiots!

    by Barron34

    For those of you who claim to be fans, its "Wrath of Khan", not "Wrath of Kahn"! "Wrath of Khan" is a cool Trek movie with a genetically engineered superhuman madman. "Wrath of Kahn" is what happens when you anger the proprietor of your local Jewish deli. Get it straight.

  • Dec. 13, 2002, 9:40 p.m. CST

    My 3 cents

    by Bizcotti

    A few thoughts after reading this long talkback. 1. Cary Ewles would be a kick ass captain. He is very Kirk like with looks, humour, and athleticism. Archer should be the ship's accountant and not its captain. 2. Destroy All Bermans! 3. The Star Trek and Pulp Fiction combinations are killing me! LOL!This could go on forever. Can you imagine Kirk and Spock sitting in the front seat of the shuttle and accidently blowing off Neelix's head with a Phaser or Starfleet contacting Kirk at the end of ST2 to ask what happened and Kirk saying "Khans dead baby, Khans dead," 4. Having a lone Intrepid class ship repeatedly defeat the Borg did suck big time, and made them as menacing as Harry Mudd. 5. I cant spell for shit! So please excuse me for being competant challenged. Long live the two fisted beatdown!

  • Dec. 14, 2002, 1:09 a.m. CST

    If you want Trek

    by indyhu

    the way it should be, it is already out there. Under lock and key .A few years back, D.C. Fontana wrote several TOS episodes for Interplay. they were making a game called Secret of Vulcan Fury. They got all of the original 7 from TOS(before D. Kelly passed away) to record their voices for computer generated versions of themselves. If you saw the trailer for this game, you saw that they capured the essence of the original series. They knew what Trek was about. But alas, Interplay shelved the game because at first they had trouble with the game play engine and then they didn't think anyone wanted to see it! Computer generated TOS... I could deal with that alot better than what we are getting lately.

  • Dec. 14, 2002, 1:30 a.m. CST

    Just call it crap

    by Messyjoe

    None of the Star Trek movies have been been good. This will just be the worst of them all, and probably the first not worth seeing at all. ST is very 'low cal.' people, and it's a shame that it has been allowed to stick around so long. Why? because there has not been any better available, so people who would like to see some sf don't have any choice. There are many great sf novels with amazing vision and stories. There are probably even a few screen writers who can do a half assed good job of adapting a novel to the screen. Why these two simple components can't come together is beyond me. One can only hope.

  • Dec. 14, 2002, 1:36 a.m. CST

    Ok, I've never talked back in a movie review but...

    by Goody2shoes

    I couldn't resist this one. I found the movie quite enjoyable. It reminded me a lot of the last DS9 episode. I don't get the whole comparing it to the Wrath of Khan thing, though. Let me put it like this. When I was a kid, Wrath of Khan was my favorite ST movie, hands down. I thought everything about it was cool. When First Contact came out, I put it up there with Khan. And I still think it's cool to some extent. But I watched it a couple weeks ago for the 1st time in years and you know what? Some of it kinda sucks. A lot. Mainly the acting. But so what? Judge a movie on its own merits. Whether you think it has any or not is up to you. But the franchise is pushing 40, you can't expect to love everything that comes out of the gate and you know you'll be sad the day they actually stop.

  • All critics and people alike try to emphasize the negatives in things and not the positives. Trek this and Trek that. Blah, blah, blah. It makes me sick. First, Harry mentions the makeup sucks and the sets are cheap and stuff. Oooooh, I am so scared of you Harry. I mean, I am shaking in my chair right now because of what you said. And Alexandria DuPoint also had somethings negative to say. Oooooh, I cry while reading your words because they hurt me so much. Both of you can take a hike because you don't have any power over me. I am Z0D, and you shall KNEEL before me. KNEEEEEEL ---->Oh, I enjoyed the film because I didn't try to dig out any negatives. I wanted to be reacquainted with my old 'friends' - mission accomplished. I wanted to remember the good ol days - mission accomplished. Harry - The Reman makeup was very well done. I couldn't tell who the fuck it was under it until I read the credits. DuPont, it will never happen. It won't. Give it up because your flimsy ideas won't hold today. It's people like you and Harry who help in trying to make things worse, not better. Whatever.

  • Dec. 14, 2002, 2:57 a.m. CST

    Data/B4 and Enterprise

    by Dudley228

    I think that B4 can become Data once he evolves like Data. Data did transfer his programming such as his thoughts and memories into B4. The crew is on the NCC-1701-E not the NCC 1701-D which was mentioned in her review. You start nitpicking a good movie you bettter make sure you get your review right because people will nitpick your review. -Jason

  • Dec. 14, 2002, 9:45 a.m. CST

    Vendetta

    by karnajj666

    I think Mr Knowles uses this Web site to blast movies made by personnal enemies, and give high praises to movies made by his friend (Del Toro, Rodriguez, etc.) It's obvious here that his crusade against the last Star Trek movie is directed against someone and not against the movie itself. Harry is a sellout and he's not even talented enough to be subtle about it.

  • Dec. 14, 2002, 12:05 p.m. CST

    You folks hit it on the head with this one

    by AlrightGuy

    After my wife returned from seeing Nemesis, I traded off the kids and went to catch it myself. What a god awful mess. You would think after 15 years, these actors would have some sense of who their characters are and how to relay their emotions. Instead we get Jonathan Frakes mugging it up every time he's on camera, Marina Sirtis "sobbing" embarrassingly as if someone just off screen were saying, "aaaaaaand CRY!", Michael Dorn shaking his head in disgust (probably the one true emotion in this movie, but for different reasons) at the sounds of Cole Porter--like a Klingon in the 24th century would even know who the hell that is, and Brent Spiner giving not one but two bad performances! Sad when the second best perfomance in your movie is from Whoopi f@*&ing Goldberg. All in all, this movie accomplished only one thing for me: I now want the Star Trek II DVD worse than ever. Santa had better already have it packed or it's his ass.

  • Dec. 14, 2002, 12:27 p.m. CST

    Thank God I'm not one of these lame TOS fans

    by magic_ninja

    because I was able to enjoy Nemesis. TOS sucked ass.

  • Dec. 14, 2002, 2:45 p.m. CST

    OH RUBBISH. READ THIS.

    by Wolfman3

    I am SO TIRED of reading these posts about starting YET another weak Star Trek spinoff. Every nutty Trek fan has one. RUBBISH. I love TNG cast. Still do. The problem is with the producing and the writing... not the acting. I would be tedious on-screen too if I had to put up with some of the same ridiculous plot holes every two years. The producers keep coming up with the SAME movie formulas that sent the first set of movies off into mediocrity and recycling them over and over again. I remember after getting past the whole ridiculous "Generations" movie (after the old crew had ALREADY had it's big send off in the previous film), that fans were looking forward to TNG films. My question is this. Where the hell is Q? He was supposed to be one of the big villians / thorns in everyone's sides. If the TNG cast is tired of doing Star Trek, then perhaps they need to hire some good writers, bring Q back in and tie the whole thing together. I keep waiting for them to tie the end of the television series or the last two seasons in with the films. The last episode of TNG was great, leaving so many open doors as far as THE FUTURE. It tied back into the first episode. Aside from the Borg plots, there are other possibilities. Everyone keeps talking about The "Wrath of Khan, The Wrath of Khan." People, that was 20 years ago!!!! TNG needs to stop trying to formulize like the older mediocre films, and keep with the things that made it successful. So bring back Patrick Stewart for another sequel. Keep Brent Spiners hands off the script... bring some new blood in with the other actors who don't want as much screen time, and go out and kick some ass not ending in a whimper.

  • Dec. 14, 2002, 3:58 p.m. CST

    If you read this....

    by CMBat

    So many people have posted talkback points already, I seriously doubt anyone is reading at this point. I have to say that in regard to the review that started this talkback, I think she's completely lost. Enterprise-D? This is the E. If you don't even know that, what difference do you make? I also sense from your post that you are someone, probably late 40s or older, who was around for the original Trek the first time it aired. I've watched them all, but those in reruns, and original Trek was about themes that don't matter as much today. Some things hold true universally, but mostly, Trek was a show for the 60's. The fact that Kirk made it into the 90's before finally removing himself from the scene is actually problematic. Here's my view. Voyager is horrible. As a TV series, Trek probably peaked in the late TNG years, fourth through sixth season (with certain parts of seven also standing out...Lower Decks...All Good Things...), and then in DS9, possibly the best sci-fi show as a whole that's ever run more than a year. Voyager was an awful premise to begin with and was never a good show. It had maybe 20 out of 175 worth watching (and believe me, I saw them all). Enterprise, well, the jury is still out for me. I like Bakula, and the premise certainly opens doors for greatness, but it had a better first season than second. The problem with TV Trek, something that Voyager had built-in and Enterprise is doing even though it doesn't need to, is that Paramount doesn't spend enough time anymore on core storylines. Voyager couldn't have one besides "keep heading home" and Enterprise has gone half a season without mentioning the intruguing Temporal Cold War that took up FIVE hours of the first 26. This is TV in the 2000's. TNG and DS9 had backstories. Romulans, Cardassians, the Dominion (the ONE enemy that the Federation actually had to defeat instead of humanizing them), etc. Networks cancel shows that require people to know anything about backstories anymore, especially sci-fi. Firefly could probably be a great show over 7 years, but it may not make it 15 episodes for this exact reason. FOX won't give it the chance. They even made Whedon promise to "keep down" the story arcs until they had a core audience nailed down, which is counter-productive. At any rate, Nemesis did what Star Trek does best. Yes, there were a few overly-comical moments. It took an issue at the forefront of today's world (we are now in the 21st century), cloning, and explored it. Could the same person in a different environment be so different than Picard? Would they need to think alike at all? How much of it is a personal violation? They wrap these issues in a storyline that features the best space battle in Trek movie history (the First Contact battle early was fun, but this rocked), tons of continuation of existing characters storylines (Riker's promotion, they FINALLY made use of Troi even if you don't like how, etc.), threw in a few nice cameos (Janeway, even if I don't like her, Guinan, etc.), and there's the movie. My favorite Trek moveis? First Contact, then a tie between Khan and Voyage Home, then Nemesis, then Undiscovered Country (yes, all the evens), then the first, then Insurrection, then Search for Spock, then the nightmare that was Generations, then that 5th thing. Nemesis is NOT a perfect movie, although certainly, the effects are good, the issue is important, the storyline doesn't have gaping holes, so it's hard to point to exactly why it isn't perfect. But it will do in a pinch. I'd be happy to watch it a few more times in my life, maybe even once before Wednesday when you-know-what comes out. But the bottom line, back off. Give me an actual review that doesn't have factual flaws and tell me what exactly was so WRONG with the film, or go away.

  • Dec. 14, 2002, 5:15 p.m. CST

    Just go see it, for fuck sakes

    by MikeInMoncton

    Look....get off your computer chairs and take your ass to the movie and judge it for yourself. And DON'T take some middle-aged lady's view of the movie that can't get the Enterprise D and E straight. I challenge the naysayers to actually see the movie and pay attention to it before slamming it. And drop the fucking holier-than-thou egos and admit that this movie is one of the top 3 in the franchise.

  • Dec. 14, 2002, 11:04 p.m. CST

    Alexandra's a ST poser

    by cyber

    She doesnt even know which letter the enterprise is up to. Just got back from Nemesis. It was much better than what has been reported. While its not Khan, it is leagues better than Insurrection, with a cameo by a certain voyager crewmate and a very shocking death. Troi's psychic moment is not as bad as people in the tbs say it is. Her eyes DO NOT LIGHT UP! Instead there is a light focused on them, but the eyes themselves dont light up. Go see this movie already. The odd number films being better have not broken their streak.

  • Dec. 14, 2002, 11:04 p.m. CST

    Alexandra needs to brush up on her trek lore

    by cyber

    She doesnt even know which letter the enterprise is up to. Just got back from Nemesis. It was much better than what has been reported. While its not Khan, it is leagues better than Insurrection, with a cameo by a certain voyager crewmate and a very shocking death. Troi's psychic moment is not as bad as people in the tbs say it is. Her eyes DO NOT LIGHT UP! Instead there is a light focused on them, but the eyes themselves dont light up. Go see this movie already. The odd number films being better have not broken their streak.

  • Dec. 14, 2002, 11:05 p.m. CST

    Alexandra needs to brush up on her trek lore

    by cyber

    She doesnt even know which letter the enterprise is up to. Its E, not D! Just got back from Nemesis. It was much better than what has been reported. While its not Khan, it is leagues better than Insurrection, with a cameo by a certain voyager crewmate and a very shocking death. Troi's psychic moment is not as bad as people in the tbs say it is. Her eyes DO NOT LIGHT UP! Instead there is a light focused on them, but the eyes themselves dont light up. Go see this movie already. The odd number films being better have not broken their streak.

  • Dec. 14, 2002, 11:15 p.m. CST

    Sorry about the triple post

    by cyber

    My computer is acting up again. Anyway, see above.

  • Dec. 15, 2002, 12:09 p.m. CST

    People get so angry at Alexandra DuPont!

    by dorfer

    And all she did was ridicule a movie. I think that's so funny. And to discount her because she accidentally substituted for "E" with "D" is ridiculous. People need to loosen up. I was playing Devil's Advocate to BOTH sides before I saw this movie yesterday. "Maybe it's good. Maybe it's really the worst in Star Trek lore. Maybe that's OK...." Honestly, I didn't think that this was a GOOD movie. I've seen far worse movies. But, standing alone, this was not a good movie. Some talkbackers want a 'real' review that discusses what's 'wrong' with the movie. I can only speak personally. I did not feel the intense emotions that the movie was supposed to ellicit. When I was to be excited, I was blah. When I was to be sad, I was blah (except with Data... and you guys know why. Data rocks). When I was supposed to laugh, I sure as hell didn't. I miss the old days when the Enterprise was actually a formidable ship, without having to resort to ramming speed. I was just waiting for shields to die and for transporters to be useless. Lo and behold, there they go! As for the talkbacker who called for all naysayers to "drop the fucking holier-than-thou egos and admit that this movie is one of the top 3 in the franchise," well, I guess I'm just a naysayer. This movie is NOWHERE NEAR the top three in my book. Khan, Undiscovered and First Contact... with Voyage Home so very close. But, I don't think it's right to compare ALL the Trek movies together. The best comparisons must be made to the movies with the new cast. And, WHADDAYA KNOW!!! It IS in the TOP 3!! First Contact, Generations, Nemesis. Wow, that's just great. Now I can lose my holier-than-thou ego and become one with the franchise. I've already forgotten what Insurrection looked like... Nemesis may stick around in my head just a little longer due to some of the fight visuals. But that's about it. --d

  • Dec. 15, 2002, 1:23 p.m. CST

    short rant

    by frank cotton

    e, d, who freakin' cares. if you're going to a sci-fi film looking for emotional depth, there's something wrong with you. i've said it before, i'll say it again: you want to be emotionally manipulated, GET MARRIED. sci-fi is supposed to be about ACTION, and IDEAS. i've never heard anyone complain about the lack of 'feeling' in TOTAL RECALL. the main problem with sci-fi films today is the stupid attempt to make them 'meaningful', and 'human'. read a romance novel, or rent THE COLOR PURPLE. this pathetic need for emotional validation is what is fucking up sci-fi. hell, i'll go out on a limb here and say that emotions have fucked up the whole world. the intellect is what sets us apart from the animals. the sooner we evolve beyond our dependence/obssession/addiction to emotions, the better. the VULCANS had the right idea. DATA is a throwback. flame away, girls!

  • Dec. 15, 2002, 1:46 p.m. CST

    short rants are popular.

    by dorfer

    lord garth, I think the problem with treating Star Trek as simply sci-fi is that it's always been regarded as more. The creators have always tried to add social commentary and "human" plotlines. Many times it has worked. But even if I were going to see a "sci-fi" movie purely for the action scenes, Nemesis didn't deliver for me. It wasn't enough. In fact, some of the human/personal aspects helped the film save face, in my mind. There's no way in hell that the captain would beam to an enemy's ship alone. Send the android who is far faster, far stronger and much more resiliant. But, I bought this plot point because I know Picard and his character had been developed over the years. Star Trek is NOT Starship Troopers; we are supposed to care about the characters and feel as though we know them. (I actually liked Troopers... pure action and you didn't have to care about ANY of the characters. Dumb at its best.) And, lord garth, why so down on emotion? Did you break up with someone recently? It's tough, I know. Try to stay away from the J-Lo movies for now, as they're probably a bit too emotionally charged for a suffering soul as yourself. You'll be fine. --d

  • Dec. 15, 2002, 4:16 p.m. CST

    best ... review ... ever

    by symon

    I sincerely believe this is the most insightful review I've ever read on this sight (although harry's review of requim for a dream was close). And Cary Elews(sp?) is the perfect man for the job in a new series. While I never caught Spencer for Hire, Quantum Leap has always been my favorite show (don't laugh at me...) so I was initially exstatic when I heard he would be helming Enterprise. I even watch the show most Wednesdays, but it hurts. It hurts like Nemesis hurts. Bad movies I can live with - bad movies in a series that used to great is too much. It's like watching the "new" Twilight Zone on UPN. The magic is gone....

  • Dec. 15, 2002, 5:39 p.m. CST

    Well said, Ms. DuPont

    by NuclearMothman

    I couldn't agree more with Alexandra DuPont's suggestion about cancelling "Enterprise" and bringing back Gene Roddenberry's original premise. Therein lies the problem with current Trek. Rick Berman and Brannon Braga are arrogant enough to really think they are such geniuses that they can "re-invent" the Trek universe. They really believe that their ideas are better than what the original creator came up with. "Enterprise" was their chance to prove just how smart and original they are. Instead, all they've really shown is their loathing and contempt for anything and everything Gene created.

  • Dec. 15, 2002, 6:47 p.m. CST

    DORFER

    by frank cotton

    it is true that STAR TREK has always been character driven, and that has been a driving force behind it's popularity. i have no problem with that. it's the lack of ideas that bothers me. the biggest difference between the series and the films is that the films are more or less void of ideas (the lack of which is 'compensated' for with technobabble), and seem to focus almost exclusively on the character's personal problems. i want an adrenaline rush from my sci-fi, not tears. intelligent concepts, not hallmark sentimentality. a lot of my favorite films are emotionally involving, but a little goes a long way, and while it might be appropriate to tv, where you have the time to spare, it's just a waste of film. look at KHAN: plenty of drama, without the baggage. and don't let me even get started on the 'PC' quotient. all i'm saying is i want to be ENTERTAINED, not preached to or drowned in sap, especially if it's sci-fi. if i need a good cry, i'll check my bank balance.

  • Dec. 15, 2002, 6:54 p.m. CST

    GEEK CHICKS

    by frank cotton

    are a rare breed.

  • Dec. 15, 2002, 7:36 p.m. CST

    Nosferatu Jones...you've got it!

    by crkellogg

    Nosferatu Jones...I have been dreaming of a Star Trek series almost exactly as you described. My main beef with Voyager and DS9 was that they ended up cluttering and screwing up the whole lore of Star Trek. The original vein had not been completely mined before they started throwing out non-essential series after non-essential series that in my opinion has dilluted the whole shebang. The reason the original series had all the sex and charm was because it was on at time when this country was waking up sexually and most subjects other than farming and God had never been presented to the American audience before. These days, Americans are strapped into a moral baby seat in the back of a car with baby safe windows. Part of what made the original so good will never return because that America will never return. However, the idea posed by Nosferatu Jones is a good one because it would give us our Trek back the way it should be.

  • Dec. 15, 2002, 7:37 p.m. CST

    Have to agree with empyreal0

    by NuclearMothman

    If Berman and Braga were really as smart as they pretend to be, the "first" starship (call it something other than Enterprise. My personal choice would have been "Independence") should have been much more NASA-like, with the only futuristic element being the warp-drive. (Though the first crew would have called it the Cochrane Drive). No transporter, no "phase pistols" or torpedoes, none of the usual plot crutches the writers have overused before. No Vulcan "sub-commander." And no Starfleet. Just an international crew of hand-picked, well-trained human professionals who discover they are totally out of their depth once they get out into deep space. Make it a continuing story arc over an entire season; make the captain a Russian woman (think the Russian captain in "2010"), a kick-ass Ripley-type from Leningrad, instead of yet another WASPy American male, and that would have brought some much needed new blood into the Star Trek universe.

  • Dec. 15, 2002, 8:21 p.m. CST

    lord garth, good point. Also... Search for Spock Revisited

    by dorfer

    I definitely see your point regarding feature film vs. television series. TV series have 22 hours in which to develop characters. The feature films should then use that development to full a plot on a grander scale, especially in the sci-fi genre. That was one of my biggest beefs with X-Files The Movie. (still kinda liked it, though) Speaking of bank accounts, I really wish I had a dime for every time somebody said, "aft/foreward shields are failing, Cap'n." ------------- Oddly enough, I was able to purchase Wrath of Khan VHS for $4 recently. I was stoked. Watched it twice already. Today I returned to the store to return a rental and Search for Spock was on sale for $4. Oh joy. I had forgotten just how much I liked that movie. I feel it's underrated. The action isn't as great as it could have been, but the events surrounding and including the theft of the Enterprise by its very crew were so entertaining. --d

  • Dec. 16, 2002, 1:42 a.m. CST

    I don't get it - what's with all the idiots coming out in full f

    by empyreal0

    Did you people see the same movie I did? Spoilers here, like it matters. For a movie like this, I think it's more accurate to call the spoilers "warnings." The movie I saw had a badly hammed up 'pre-wedding announcement' (not even the wedding itself, which would have been funnier). It featured a whiny arrogant little shit of a bad guy who never really felt remotely threatening. Honestly, Shinzon was like that annoying fuck you knew in Junior High, the one who was friends with all the huge jocks who would "kick your ass" if you looked at him the wrong way, but would shit his pants if ever genuinely threatened with a pounding. Sure there was some interest in his being a clone, and the idea that Picard might have been the same, but it started to sound like he was whining about how "if you walked in my shoes, you'd be just like me." That's a pissant, cowardly little argument. Not only that, Shinzon's entourage made no effort to hide his ailments, nor anything else that might have made him look more powerful. Shinzon was just BEGGING to be taken out, and frankly, I couldn't figure out why nobody did. Additionally, STX featured a space battle with a pointless ship-ramming sequence. (Ooooh, special effects.) Who else noticed that Picard's first thought was "hey, let's blow up the ship again, it worked last time! oh shit, you mean we can't blow it up and we actually have to think about this, well, fuck... ram him!" It also featured the death of a major character done COMPLETELY wrong and devoid of any drama whatsoever. In WoK, Spock's death felt meaningful. It was the only option left, Spock never thought twice, and the crew's reaction was ours - that what was logical in Spock's mind was an outrageous sacrifice to the rest of us. When Data says goodbye, it feels like a waste. There was no reason for him to remain on the ship, except to die. Did he NEED to be there to fire the gun? Why didn't the Romulans beam him aboard their ships? Even afterward, the toast to Data felt forced and completely barren of emotion, with the absolutely cringe-worthy story about Data trying to whistle. Did nobody care? I certainly didn't, not with the piss-poor writing and acting. Where was the grand send-off, the long faces, the confusion and anger after losing a dear friend? Troi was the only one who seemed to be taking it rough, and even then it didn't feel like she was really crying. Oh well, Data's dead. Moving on. What a fucking waste. What else was shit? The psychic rape and the horrid, godawful bedroom sequence that immediately precedes it. Nobody wants to see Riker on top of Troi, please, for God's sake. Some of the action was good (fighting in the hallways with phasers and the ship), some was terrible (more explosions and people leaping from their stations all around the deck). The makeup was weak, but forgivable if the rest of the movie was better. Ditto for the sets. Ditto for the lame lighting on Troi's eyes. A note on Trek movies of late in general - why must they always start out with a hyper-stagey reintroduction of the characters? They always play to the camera during those first few scenes and it bugs the shit outta me. And my last rant is, where the fuck has any continuity gone? Star Trek 2, 3, and 4 all felt like they flowed together, like they were a single story being told in parts. Since 5, every movie has felt episodic; stories told in a vaccum. This is especially true of the TNG movies, which only features contuinuity in the form of Data acquiring new features and the crew getting new ships. That's it. So, Empy, you ask... did anything NOT suck? As a matter of fact, yes. The Romulan ships kicked much ass. The political subterfuge, especially the idea that Shinzon was created as a puppet replacement for Picard, at least on a conceptual level was very cool. Shinzon's ship, while a bit over the top, was very cool in its design. Lemme see... hmm... that's about it. Art design and one story element. At least the movie felt short so as to lessen the pain. Trek has gone the way of Data - it's died and been replaced by a piss-poor replacement android, let's see if you notice the difference.

  • Dec. 16, 2002, 1:54 a.m. CST

    Nuke mothman, you said it better than me

    by empyreal0

    Personally, I don't think the Vulcan crewmember was such a sin (after all, why wouldn't the Vulcans want to babysit humanity a little?) But other than that, I think you described in far better detail precisely what I was hoping for. So much for science fiction in the Trek world, eh?

  • Dec. 16, 2002, 4:32 a.m. CST

    just some comments

    by Mithril

    Alright Guy: okay, I don't know why I'm bothering with this, but Worf was raised by a Russian couple. Add that and the fact that for some reason, the Enterprise crew keep putting on music shows and plays and holodeck programs based on 19th and 20th century material, and him knowing a Cole Porter song ain't that unlikely. Anyway, who cares? ***Just to add a comment on a debate that's going on in the TB, the Borg to my mind were brought down by Voyager. Hell, one Borg cube lays waste to pretty much the whole Federation fleet in "Best of Both Worlds" and kicks major ass in "First Contact", but the Voyager crew kept coming up against several Borg cubes at once and kicked their butts without any difficulty, even with a small crew, a small ship and limited supplies. WTF?!? It was just impossible to take the Borg seriously as a threat after that. ***And am I the only one who's still puzzled by whether there's some strange connection between Data and Khan (the constant Khan/Nemesis comparisons reminded me again)? Let's see: Khan Noonian Singh is a genius supervillain, and Noonian Soong is a crazed genius who builds Data. Maybe Roddenberry is honoring some friend or idol of his, but the name similarity just always throws me. Should Data have been created by a direct descendant of Khan, it would be kinda interesting. Of course, if some of the more crappy scriptwriters around thought about it, they might come up with a dumb "Oh, Khan didn't really die. He escaped at the last moment/That was just a clone. He slightly changed his name and became Soong... That's why Lore had those delusions of grandeur and tried to take over the world..." Whatever.

  • Dec. 16, 2002, 3:13 p.m. CST

    Congrats, Sherlock, you are obviously the coolest person no this

    by Moe Syzslak

    Or so you'd like to think. You seem to believe that we give a shit about what you say and think. Where on earth did you get that idea? Everyone here is a geek. Quit picking on people you sanctimonious prick.

  • Dec. 16, 2002, 6:51 p.m. CST

    Time for Rick Berman to step down

    by UltraC97

    I have to agree with Alexandra's review. She hit all the points on why this film sucks: BORING, UNINVOLVING, and POORLY LIT! This film had some lofty goals but somehow, it never translated to the final product. It happened during shooting or editing but either way it's the director's fault. How come we don't care more about Deanna and Riker's wedding or Data's death? The whole B-4 plot was just pointless and makes Data's death count for nothing! I think with the current state of Star Trek, it's time for some new blood to helm this series. Rick Berman and Brannon Braga has to go, they've had their day in the sun. First, they should cancel Enterprise and next they should tell a story on an epic scale that would involve as many characters from every Star Trek show as they can. Seven of Nine should play a lead role and they should cast some young-er guy who can be an action hero. And most of all, it should be fun, dramatic, intense, thrilling, romantic, everything a good show should be. They should do it either as a trilogy or limited TV series.

  • Dec. 16, 2002, 6:53 p.m. CST

    If you want all that was the old trek

    by rmh32495

    you should have watched farscape until scifi kills it this year

  • Dec. 16, 2002, 8:08 p.m. CST

    COOL NEWS UPDATE

    by jackburtonlives

    this is jackburton talking to you from the porkchop express. it seems like harry has abandoned www.aintitcool.com for other projects, as there hasn't been an update for days. moriarty is busy working on script projects. in the meantime, in order for the site not to go to hell, i have decided to take over. here's the latest updates ***********(1) Golan has resurrected Golan Globus from chapter 11 and has started various new film projects, many of which you will not believe!!! check them out at www.newcannoninc.com. the best one involves a hip hop werewolf musical. **************(2) it has been confirmed that the HULK will be a trilogy involving a variety of MUTANTS. in other words, expect a really downmarket version of the XMEN. ******(3) rumours that charlie sheen has been cast as lex luthor in the new superman film are yet to be confirmed. that's all for now. jack burton out.

  • Dec. 17, 2002, 3:32 a.m. CST

    Well said.

    by DemonBroadsword

    While I have not seen Nemesis, I must say that your words were spot on. Its also refreshing to read something that isnt overblown hyperbole (read: HK's usual spouting).

  • Dec. 17, 2002, 3:36 a.m. CST

    Footnote:

    by DemonBroadsword

    My praise is for Alexandria's review of the current state of Star Trek. Just clarifying that.

  • Dec. 17, 2002, 6:20 a.m. CST

    A new guys opinion

    by mrfan

    My biggest fault with the movie is the editing. I heard quite a bit of stuff ended up on the cutting room floor. This may have helped make the flow of the picture better. Instead I found it to be choppy. My recommendation is read the novel of the movie. Skimmed through it last night at the local bookstore. If this novel was made into a movie it would have ROCKED!! Hopefully, the DVD will restore the glory. Can they get that out soon?:) Have a good day everyone.

  • Dec. 17, 2002, 12:34 p.m. CST

    YUCK!

    by PamelaJ

    I COMPLETELY disagree about Tom Hardy. One of my biggest problems with the film is that he in no way resembles Patrick Stewart and has NONE of his charisma. If they HAD to persue the clone plotline, they should have had Patrick Stewart playing Shinzon.

  • May 8, 2009, 8:05 a.m. CST

    Orcus remembers this

    by orcus