Star Trek

[Valka]

Nemesis isn't anything that benefited my life for having seen it. It just confirmed my opinion that no matter how hard they tried, they would never be able to pull off a decent TNG movie.

Wait...

Are you saying First Contact wasn't decent? 

First Contact was barely tolerable. I absolutely hated the actor who played Cochrane, and how he was written. Zephram Cochrane was not a drunken buffoon.

If you want a better characterization of Zephram Cochrane, read Federation by Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens.

I liked the music in First Contact, and I liked Lily Sloane. The rest of it was ridiculous.

[Unorthodox]

Oh, it didn't live up to your preconceived expectations from the EU.

I see that a lot from the Star Wars crowd as well, and can understand to a degree.  However, if you're truly going to critique a film, you have to set aside those preconceptions and judge it on it's own merits or lack thereof. 

(And you can't pay me enough to read scifi that is not horror tinged.) 

More to your point, I found everything in that movie that happened on Earth cringe-worthy, myself.  Having no idea who Cochrane is/was going in, it was just annoying how the crew blatantly disregards anything we've ever been taught about time-travel, and we're expected to believe they are "fixing" the timeline.  Fortunately, the Earth-side stuff is but a small sideshow.  Meanwhile, this was easily the best Borg we ever got, and the shipside scenario was quite compelling and well directed.   Taking direct clues from Aliens was perfectly suited and played well, IMO. 

[Valka]

Oh, it didn't live up to your preconceived expectations from the EU.

I see that a lot from the Star Wars crowd as well, and can understand to a degree.  However, if you're truly going to critique a film, you have to set aside those preconceptions and judge it on it's own merits or lack thereof. 

(And you can't pay me enough to read scifi that is not horror tinged.) 

More to your point, I found everything in that movie that happened on Earth cringe-worthy, myself.  Having no idea who Cochrane is/was going in, it was just annoying how the crew blatantly disregards anything we've ever been taught about time-travel, and we're expected to believe they are "fixing" the timeline.  Fortunately, the Earth-side stuff is but a small sideshow.  Meanwhile, this was easily the best Borg we ever got, and the shipside scenario was quite compelling and well directed.   Taking direct clues from Aliens was perfectly suited and played well, IMO.

I don't think of the novels as a grand unified "EU" (whatever that is - "expanded universe"? That's a Star Wars term that doesn't apply to Star Trek). They take place in so many different alternate novel canons that most of the earlier ones are pretty much standalones. There are a few exceptions - the Diane Duane books, for example, or the "duology" novels of A.C. Crispin, Jean Lorrah, and even those abominable Diane Carey books.

First Contact failed to live up to my expectations of a good Star Trek movie. Period. They didn't have to follow the Federation plotline to please me (though I'd have been ecstatic if they had, as it's one of the very best ST novels out of all the hundreds written). They just had to make Cochrane consistent with how he was presented in the episode "Metamorphosis." Of course they had to use a different actor as Glenn Corbett is dead, but they could have found someone who resembled him, and not made him a buffoon. The Cochrane in the movie is someone I wouldn't trust to put together a Kinder Surprise toy, let alone a warp-capable spaceship.

How do you know if a novel isn't "horror-tinged" unless you at least read a description of it? The main villain in Federation was someone that horrified me, considering that he was hell-bent on turning himself into a cyborg and figured that would be just fine for the rest of humanity.

[Buster's Uncle]

Uno, this isn't going to turn into one of those arguments about ST continuity you're not familiar with, is it?

Valka and I never had the opportunity to see the film not knowing what was being contradicted...

[Valka]

@BUncle: Do you mean that we didn't have the chance to see the film knowing spoilers, or not knowing spoilers? (please excuse my confusion)

When I sat down to watch it, I had no idea what it was going to be about, other than time travel, Zephram Cochrane, and the Borg. That's it. The stuff that really disappointed me was the actor who played Cochrane, how his character was written, how the Enterprise crew cheerfully broke every rule about not contaminating the time line with future knowledge, and the sloppy mess that was Marina Sirtis' "performance."

If I'd known more about this beforehand, I wouldn't have had such high expectations, I think.

Not that spoilers are a good thing. After all, my favorite Star Wars character's fate was spoiled just a couple of days ago here, so now I'm not sure if I want to see the movie. Maybe by the time it comes to TV or Netflix I'll change my mind.

Of course marketing films is a balancing act between too little information and too much. I've seen people complain that every major plot point was spoiled in some movies' trailers, so why bother seeing it?

Well, hopefully the in-between stuff is worth the viewing. And of course not everyone likes the same movie for the same reason.

[Unorthodox]

First Contact failed to live up to my expectations of a good Star Trek movie. Period. They didn't have to follow the Federation plotline to please me (though I'd have been ecstatic if they had, as it's one of the very best ST novels out of all the hundreds written). They just had to make Cochrane consistent with how he was presented in the episode "Metamorphosis." Of course they had to use a different actor as Glenn Corbett is dead, but they could have found someone who resembled him, and not made him a buffoon. The Cochrane in the movie is someone I wouldn't trust to put together a Kinder Surprise toy, let alone a warp-capable spaceship.

Your complaint boils down to "I didn't like this character so the whole thing sucks".  I don't personally find that a reason to not like a movie as a whole. 

I agree it would have been nice from a purely story perspective if had they replaced the GIRL with Cochrane, had him getting healed, then running about the ship with the Captain, and quoting Moby Dick while Picard is trying to get him back to the surface in time for launch.  Presents him in a better light, perhaps overcome by all this crap going on, but would fit much better. 

However, I think there was a real conscious effort to ADD the GIRL, because Trek had a perception problem at the time of being a bit behind the times in that respect.  The GIRL, coupled with the inebriated Cochrane implies maybe SHE had a bit more to do with that first drive, even if Cochrane gets the credit, and provides Picard a strong female foil, since Beverly never lives up to that. 

Meanwhile, Cochrane provides the comedy relief, which Trek desperately needs, and their normal outlet of Spock/Data (lets face it, they serve the same purpose) was taken to a much more interesting dark place in this movie, so needed a fill in. 

Canonically it fits, as well, since the Cochran from Metamorphosis is what, 200 years old and had lord knows what done to him by space magic?  We have no semblance of what he was before.  It's not much of a stretch to think the guy who just saw his life's work bombed from space and thinks the apocalypse is coming didn't decide to go get drunk.  Nor do we even bother to sober him up before telling him ALL ABOUT the future (which makes no sense to do). 

How do you know if a novel isn't "horror-tinged" unless you at least read a description of it?

You're assuming I didn't.  My tolerance for reading scifi is very low, and Lovecraftian it does not come off as. 

[Buster's Uncle]

@BUncle: Do you mean that we didn't have the chance to see the film knowing spoilers, or not knowing spoilers? (please excuse my confusion)

I'd seen Metamorphosis more than a few times, and knew what continuity the usual suspects of fake were threating with contempt - as usual.  Nothing to do with spoilers, everything to do with being long-time fans of the real thing.

I can never see that movie for the first time on its own isolated merits.  I no longer feel as strongly as you do about Cochrane, but I had a major problem with it at the time, yes.

I CAN see that if you didn't know Star Trek -as in, whether you knew TNG or not but not the Spock stuff- it worked reasonably well as an action movie in isolation.  Uno is right that the Borg worked better in that than anywhere before or after, and Picard's arc was a fairly effective rape survivor metaphor story.

[Unorthodox]

Uno, this isn't going to turn into one of those arguments about ST continuity you're not familiar with, is it?

I'm not INVESTED, doesn't mean I'm not FAMILIAR. 

Valka and I never had the opportunity to see the film not knowing what was being contradicted...

I have this 'problem' with 90% of the horror that comes out.  It's either remakes (usually of foreign or low budget films with very few knowing the source) or derivative. 

I'm usually able to judge the movies on their own merits despite this. 

Except for Peter Jackson's King Kong.  He should be ashamed of that. 

Not for it being horrible, really.  For it being SO CLOSE to being iconic and he blew it because he doesn't know the meaning of the word "edit".  Trim that down 45 minutes to an hour (start with the laborious TRex scene, the iconic ONE is enough, and the extended bug nonsense) and it would be marvelous. 

[Valka]

First Contact failed to live up to my expectations of a good Star Trek movie. Period. They didn't have to follow the Federation plotline to please me (though I'd have been ecstatic if they had, as it's one of the very best ST novels out of all the hundreds written). They just had to make Cochrane consistent with how he was presented in the episode "Metamorphosis." Of course they had to use a different actor as Glenn Corbett is dead, but they could have found someone who resembled him, and not made him a buffoon. The Cochrane in the movie is someone I wouldn't trust to put together a Kinder Surprise toy, let alone a warp-capable spaceship.

Your complaint boils down to "I didn't like this character so the whole thing sucks".  I don't personally find that a reason to not like a movie as a whole.

Okay, simmer down. If I wanted a TrekBBS-type of interaction, I'd go there. And very likely I'd get sneered at with the same words as you just used, because it's apparently some kind of blasphemy to say that I didn't like some post-TOS movie.

Please re-read my earlier posts. I think I made it clear that while I did not like MOST of this movie, there were parts that I DID like. 

I agree it would have been nice from a purely story perspective if had they replaced the GIRL with Cochrane, had him getting healed, then running about the ship with the Captain, and quoting Moby Dick while Picard is trying to get him back to the surface in time for launch.  Presents him in a better light, perhaps overcome by all this crap going on, but would fit much better. 

However, I think there was a real conscious effort to ADD the GIRL, because Trek had a perception problem at the time of being a bit behind the times in that respect.  The GIRL, coupled with the inebriated Cochrane implies maybe SHE had a bit more to do with that first drive, even if Cochrane gets the credit, and provides Picard a strong female foil, since Beverly never lives up to that. 

Meanwhile, Cochrane provides the comedy relief, which Trek desperately needs, and their normal outlet of Spock/Data (lets face it, they serve the same purpose) was taken to a much more interesting dark place in this movie, so needed a fill in. 

Canonically it fits, as well, since the Cochran from Metamorphosis is what, 200 years old and had lord knows what done to him by space magic?  We have no semblance of what he was before.  It's not much of a stretch to think the guy who just saw his life's work bombed from space and thinks the apocalypse is coming didn't decide to go get drunk.  Nor do we even bother to sober him up before telling him ALL ABOUT the future (which makes no sense to do).

What is this "GIRL" stuff? Lily Sloane was the only part of the movie I actually liked.

Lily Sloane is an adult WOMAN. She's not a child. She's not there as mindless sexy eye candy; she's got dignity.

[Buster's Uncle]

Uno, have you seen Metamorphosis?  Had you already seen it when you had first contact with First Contact?

I've wondered the same point about the Companion having possibly done some space magic on Cochrane beyond the explicit making him young and immortal, but can't figure out why an energy cloud person would make him shorter and handsomer - and yes, duller.  Just doesn't manage to compute.

I submit that we love you, but suggestions that perhaps we may have reacted foolishly given what we took into the theater when we saw the film are not being received well at all and don't really follow from your different history with [ugh] the franchise.  Nerds should know better than to go there with each other...

[Unorthodox]

Uno, have you seen Metamorphosis?  Had you already seen it when you had first contact with First Contact?

yes and yes, (my best friends dad was a super serious trekkie with a shrine and all, all episodes VHS off the tele) but I'd seen it 1-2 times ages ago.  The correlation of the two characters did not immediately compute in my head on seeing FC, no. 

I've wondered the same point about the Companion having possibly done some space magic on Cochrane beyond the explicit making him young and immortal, but can't figure out why an energy cloud person would make him shorter and handsomer - and yes, duller.  Just doesn't manage to compute.

none of it computes, to be honest.

I submit that we love you, but suggestions that perhaps we may have reacted foolishly given what we took into the theater when we saw the film are not being received well at all and don't really follow from your different history with [ugh] the franchise.  Nerds should know better than to go there with each other...

Hey, I hated everything planetside in the movie.  I'm not even disagreeing the character was mishandled.  I just find everything shipside makes up for it. 

That doesn't mean it's a great movie either. 

What is this "GIRL" stuff? Lily Sloane was the only part of the movie I actually liked.

Lily Sloane is an adult WOMAN. She's not a child. She's not there as mindless sexy eye candy; she's got dignity.

I wasn't meaning to disrespect women there.  I should have looked up the name but am too lazy.  She was one of the better parts of the movie (falling into the shipside love).  However, since we have no history with her, and she was written in as being fairly critical to the construction of that first ship, even caring more than Cochran, it feels really off that no one knows who she is, logic fails.  Thus, she feels somewhat tacked on for the specific purpose of having a strong female heroine (something the TNG cast is sorely lacking there), despite being one of the better parts.

IMO, it would have made more sense from the history to eliminate her and have a better written Cochran fill that role shipside.  Leave the ground crew struggling with old tech as the comedy relief. 

[Buster's Uncle]

Hmm.  Alfrie Woodard (wasn't it?) was not unattractive, without looking like she was there for sex appeal/Picard love interest, yet those possibilities added a tiny bit of subliminal flavor to the narrative.  -Also, the movie did violence enough to TNG continuity that putting Cochrane in her place aboard that current version of the Enterprise would have made it decidedly worse.  She was, somewhat, nobody by comparison and less potential harm...

I DID start this with mentioning First Contact as one I liked, recall...

[Valka]

Alfre Woodard did the part justice, I think. She was a capable scientist/engineer in her own right, and I do think that in this version of the story, Cochrane took a lot of credit for work that was actually hers. Certainly the Enterprise crew didn't know about her contribution, so it's obvious that Lily didn't make it into the history books.

Mind you, that's a reverse continuity issue, since Lily hadn't been thought of at the time when Metamorphosis was written.

And yeah, I do get the impression that she was brought in as the female guest character for Picard to play off of, but at least she's age-appropriate and a professional in her own right.

I disagree with replacing Lily with Cochrane on the ship, because all the Borg would have had to do to change history would have been to take one look at him and either shoot or assimilate him. That would have made for a much shorter movie, and it would have been a rather messy scenario for the Enterprise crew to either un-assimilate him or un-kill him. They already did the "oops, the historical figure's dead so someone will have to impersonate him to preserve history" thing in the DS9 story about the Bell Riots.

[Unorthodox]

The way I see it they already broke continuity all to hell with the whole "you're gonna have a statue right here, mr idol" BS.  Can't make it much worse.

Trek makes the least sense every time they muck with time.  Leave that to Marty...

[Buster's Uncle]

Yeah; the real thing wasn't so great with that, and TNG and post weren't any better.