Talk:Star Trek: Nemesis

How we face death is at least as important as how we face life

Removed claim that Nemesis was first Trek film about human nature. Star Trek II is about how we confront death, failure and old age, and how striving to do what we do best keeps us young and alive. That is also a look at human nature. So I took the claim out here. 74.73.74.241 01:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

"This film is widely regarded as the final Star Trek movie..." -- that's presumably based on the trailer saying "a generation's final journey" or something similar.

Also based on the fact the crew broke up and went their seperate ways

---

Why a related topics section with just a link to Star Trek? There's already a link to it in the very first paragraph of the article! —mhr 17:40, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hmm...I sense some evil here...

[1]

Romulan Ale

Season Seven of DS9 ("Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges") clearly estabishes that the lifting of the embargo against the Romulan government means that Romulan Ale is finally legal in the Federation. This point is established during a conversation between Dr Bashir, Admiral Ross and Senator Cretak. So, since this movie takes place AFTER the Dominion War, previous entries that suggested Romulan Ale was still illegal are incorrect. LaForges remarks to the contrary are one of the many plot holes in this movie.

Not necessarily. The Romulans were part of an alliance to fight along side the Federation and Klingons against the Dominion. They seem to end the alliance soon after the Dominion War ended. The reason I say this is because in Nemesis, Admiral Janeway orders Captain Picard and crew to Romulus in order to answer the new Romulan Preator's call for peace. Because of this, the alliance obviosly ended after the end of the Dominion War for Shinzon to even play at peace. If the Romulan Star Empire and the Federation had an alliance, and then the Preator calls for peace with the Federation, I believe that this would raise a red flag at the protocol office of the Federation President (if that office exists), not to mention a red flag in both Admiral Janeway and Captain Picard. This means that, with the alliance between the Federation and the Romulan Star Empire ended at the conclusion of the Dominion War, the embargo would have been re-established. Admiral Ross said that the embargo against Romulan Ale was lifted because of the alliance. Since the alliance is no more, the embargo was re-established. Therefore, Geordi's statment in Nemesis is correct. Mainphramephreak 09:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, Anal Journey?

Can anyone else confirm the trailer's kerning problem and it looking like it says "A generation's anal journey begins"? I Googled the line and found nothing but Wikipedia and Wiki-derived sites.

I could find two independent Usenet posts observing this: [2] and [3]. I'll grant you that that's not much in the way of references, and the fact isn't that important... though it's funny as all hell. :-) 82.92.119.11 16:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Endorsing Google?

why do people use Google all the time[?] Wikipedia should not be endorsing one search engine I found more results on yahoo Dudtz 8/25/05 2:09 PM EST

Also, can anyone confirm something happening to Worf that would make him change his mind about becoming Federation Ambassador to the Klingon Empire (Or was it Vice-Versa?) as was suggested at the end of Deep Space 9? If this is true, what was he doing on the Enterprise?

In a cut scene from the movie, Worf said that he decided that he did not want to continue being an ambassador. In the book Articles of the Federation, his son Alexander becomes the Federation Ambassador to Qo'noS Willie 08:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The Argo had WHEELS??

The year "was" 2379. Wouldn't we expect land vehicles to hover a few feet of the ground by then (like the Hoverboard of 2015)? --Shultz 23:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I liked the hovercraft chase in Serenity (film) better.. =P DrWho42 01:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

So what if the year was 2379? If you were to ask somone from the 1950's what cars would be like in the year 2006, they would have said they could fly or, at least, hovered. Since I don't see any hovercars zooming by outside my window, I think it is safe to assume that rubber tires are still the more practical means of off-road ground travel.

In TNG's "All Good Things..." when they show the Cambridge scene you can see a hover car speeding past. Also, I somewhat recall an early Voyager reference that talks about hover cars. My feeling on the Argo is that its a stylistic response to Voyager's return home and Starfleet's reaction to the design of the Delta flyer, probably spurning a whole slew of "Retro" Starfleet designs. I think in the more symbolic meaning however, the Argo scene represents a kind of "middle age crisis" for Picard, in that he's getting up there in the years, and takes a moment to relive his school boy antics just before seeing Shinzon and realizing just where that type of lifestyle may have lead him. Arkcana 00:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

In TNG's "All Good Things..."

Well if you can't trust a storyline about a possible future that didn't happen.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.6.18 (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Foot surgery

Is it true that during the commentary when Stuart Baird was informed the lukewarm box-office of Star Trek: Nemesis he went outside to kick a dumpster and had to get foot surgery thereafter? DrWho42 01:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Enterprise Image

The image of the E is from First Contact. Hopefully, someone with the Nemesis DVD can find a more appropriate image for this article. 68.41.122.213 10:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

A complaint about Nemesis.

There's one thing I didn't like about Nemesis that I don't see here. Nemesis did a horrible job on props and sets. Whereas the various series and the other movies looked like they were from the remote future (valid exception: DS9's station scenes), Nemesis looked like it was filmed with studio-built poor knock offs of expensive but already available gadgets. This wasn't a problem with technology catching up to TNG, but rather with them deciding to use technology that wasn't up to that level. I think the lighting in the movie also lowered its visual appeal, albeit to a lesser extent. --Steven Fisher 15:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, during the scene when the crew is riding in the rover picking up the pieces of B-4, the goggles they are wearing are identical to some that I bought from a tool shop for work. --70.156.89.28 04:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Burton/Sirtis video clip

I noticed that YouTube has removed this clip due to TOU. I've seen this clip many times but it does need to be properly sited. If anyone has a good link please edit.

Not that it matters a whole lot because there's still no link to the clip, but I undid a recent change that attributed the "That's because it sucked" quote to Marina Sirtis, not LeVar Burton as it was originally posted. Burton did, in fact, make that statement, although after the laughter died down, Sirtis did say, "It didn't suck as much as Insurrection."

Good grief, this article has been hacked to pieces. Although, I do agree that the reference to the Burton/Sirtis clip had to come out. for now. I'm sure many of us have seen the clip (I saw it about a year ago), but a broken YouTube link wasn't exactly a quality citation. Still, if it turns up, I think reading such candid observations from two cast members warrants a spot in the article.76.102.47.166 05:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Is Data organic?

In the movie, Dr. Crusher says that if the Enterprise is hit with the Thalaron beam, that everyone on board will be killed because of the radiation's ability to consume organic matter. When she said this, was she ignoring the fact that Data is not organic and would indeed survive the radiation. We see proof that Data is inorganic in First Contact when Data punctures the warp coolant tank releasing the coolant; as was mentioned earlier in the movie, the coolant also "liquifies" organic material, seeing as Data was not "liquified" when he is surrounded by the coolant, his status as an inorganic being is proved. So again, did Doctor Crusher just neglect to say anything about Data and focus simply on the rest of the organic crew, or was this a mistake on the part of the writers? Rajrajmarley 00:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC) I think she just couldn't be bothered to mention it. It's pretty obvious. He's not organic. Vegfarandi 15:32, 22 june 2007 (UTC)

Data is not organic, and there is no error either. She simply means that practically everybody will die. Were she to say that everyone would die "except Data," that would sound pedantically absurd, possibly even comical. In other words, it is so obvious that it goes without saying.--165.95.228.4 10:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I put up NPOV, but I also took out the Patrick Stewart interview link because....

...a message came up saying my edit was blocked because it was Blacklist Spam. I don't know what this meant but you can put the link back if I shouldn't have. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Occono (talk • contribs) 14:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

I'm removing the NPOV tag as this doesn't seem like a valid reason. Apologies in advance if I'm missing something here but it seems to me to be slim reasoning.--Lepeu1999 20:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear, the blacklist spam thing happened the first time I tried to save the page, so I took out the link it said was spam, and thought I sould mention it here. I put up the NPOV because the article feels a little bit POV to me, but you've better judgement then me.--Occono 15:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm far from an expert - but it doesn't feel too POV to me. It is positive in tone. I've added fact cites to many of the statements as well as the stuff that purports to 'interpret' the movie. If they can be sourced:great, if not they need to go based on WP:Orig Research. Either way I suspect that will take care of NPOV issues. If you disagree, by all means put the tag back on, I'd just ask that you detail what you find NPOV so that the editors that have been working on this can address & correct.--Lepeu1999 14:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge Scimitar here

The Scimitar (Star Trek) article is mostly trivia (e.g. stats) and plot summary. No real-world significance that's articulated in that article or that I've seen anywhere else (although, granted, I'm not looking all that much). Would it make sense to merge/redirect it here? --EEMeltonIV 12:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Definately not - the Scimitar page is all about the physical ship, whereas the Nemesis article is about the whole movie. Sure, part of the plot is the same, but is it really important to know that in Nemesis the romulan ship had 27 torpedo tubes? I think it fails that test, and thus is best presented on a seperate page. 58.7.61.127 00:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

...but it isn't important on Wikipedia to know that trivia about the Romulan ship at all. See WP:WAF and WP:FICT. The ship has no real-world notability; worthwhile non-plot content should be integrated elsewhere. --EEMeltonIV 01:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with 58.7.61.127, it should remain a seperate article. I think scimitar just needs some expanding. EvilHom3r 13:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It needs intergrating - it's just another NN spaceship - it's only purpose in the film is to go BOOM BOOM. --Fredrick day 12:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur with integration. I don't see the value in multple entries for particular fictional vehicles in movies. Particularly a single appearance ship, unlike the various incarnations of the Enterprise Gearyster 19:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Worf and Riker

I seem to recall reading somewhere that in an early draft it had been suggested that Worf would be takeing over the second in command of the Enteprise when Riker took command of the titan. Any one else hear of this or can provide proof? FLJuJitsu 28 Aug 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by FLJuJitsu (talk • contribs) 03:32, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Erroneous reference to DVD non-content

In early 2007 an "extended ending" clip appeared on YouTube. This clip featured two scenes not included in the DVD. The first was Picard talking to Dr. Crusher about her return to Starfleet Medical and Crusher remarking how she works with a bunch of young doctors who are ready to cure the entire quadrant. The second was Geordi and Worf packing Data's possessions in his quarters. As they are cleaning up Data's cat Spot jumps into Worf's hands and Worf states he is not a cat person. Geordi sees how Spot has taken to Worf and replies, "You are now." Immediately following this scene is the introduction of Commander Madden, which is included in the deleted scenes of the DVD. This clip can no longer be found on YouTube, as it was taken down in spring 2007.

Both the scene with Dr. Crusher and the scene with Worf and Spot are indeed on the DVD. I just watched them.

Remus?

I could have sworn that Admiral Janeway said "How'd you like a trip to Romulus?" and not Remus. PlayItBogart 01:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No colon in this movie's title!

Please note that the official title of this film is Star Trek Nemesis, *not* Star Trek: Nemesis. Please stop "fixing" this.

Sources:

• Movie poster
• Single disc DVD (double-disc erroneously adds the colon on the back of the box)
• Soundtrack
• TrekWeb
• TrekNation
• Memory Alpha discussion
• Gamer's Circle

--Roger McCoy/រ៉ាចើ (talk) 02:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you will find that none of the movie posters for the Trek films contain colons in their titles, but this does not mean that a colon cannot be inserted for encyclopedic purposes. This is a grammatical rule as the title of the franchise is simply used as a prefix. It isn't necessary to use a colon on the film posters because the specific title of the film is usually in a different size or style of font AND on a different line, therefore grammatical rules do not apply. Furthermore, your web sources are not official and are therefore not valid.79.66.103.19 (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, none of the TV series officially have colons in their titles either, but it is appropriate to use one when writing about the series, which is why you will find one on each of their relevant Wiki pages. The same is true of all of the Star Wars films, but colons are used for grammatical purposes on Wikipedia.Kookoo Star (talk) 03:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that Roger McCoy was referring to the credits list on the poster, DVD and soundtrack when he cited them as sources, not the logo. Those, as well as the other sources provided (and the official source I included in an edit summary yesterday [4]), indicate that there isn't a colon in the title of the film. RobWill80 (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I must agree with Kookoo Star here. At least some of the other Star Trek titles did not have colons in their titles (on screen, the posters, etc), but are listed as such in their WP articles. The same is true with the Star Wars films. WP has many articles that are not titled with the "official" name. For example "Liberty Enlightening the World" is a redirect to "Statue of Liberty".

Given the custom of abbreviating Star Trek titles (ST:TOS, ST:TNG, ST:DS9, ST:V, ST:E, ST:TMP, ST:TWOK, ST:TSFS, ST:TVH, ST:TFF, ST:TUC, ST:G, ST:FC, ST:I .....is the final film now abbreviated as STN instead of ST:N? I think this is an extremely big quibble over a minor technicality. I would suggest that asking for a WP:Third opinion if this is still a sticking point in editing, which given that this article has seen two back and forth moves over the past few days, it might. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to add that the original poster of this section (Roger) stated that there was indeed a colon used on the Special Edition double disc DVD cover of Nemesis but that it was done in error. There is absolutely no evidence this was an error - it is only his opinion - and Paramount may well have included the colon on the double disc set in order to CORRECT an error. Like it or not, the double disc DVD is an official product and is more up to date than any of the other sources given, which suggests that a colon should be used in this title. 79.66.21.204 (talk) 04:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. I really couldn't imagine why a colon would matter so much. But if we must continue this... With regards to the Special Edition DVD's packaging, you have presented nothing more or less than what Roger McCoy did - an opinion. I provided an official source that noted the lack of a colon in the title. That alone suggests that it may have been added to the cover in error, as opposed to a theory that the powers that be demanded its inclusion. My own opinion is that it was added to the cover by accident, and something so small wouldn't have been worthwhile to correct. And to keep things up to date, I'll point out that the UK version of the same DVD, an official product released just over 2 months later than the US version, doesn't have a colon in the title. RobWill80 (talk) 06:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

If it's such a minor issue then why are you so determined to revert edits that include it I wonder? Personally, I dont think it matters a great deal for the title of the article page because if people insert a colon whilst searching it will redirect them anyway. However, the sentence in the introductory paragraph that specifically states that the title should not have a colon in it should be removed since we have seen it on official product both with and without - and therefore nobody can claim it as a statement of fact. And the official source that you provided simply mentioned the lack of a colon, it didn't specifically state that's the way the title should have always been written.79.74.92.131 (talk) 23:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Horribly-written plot section

The entire plot section reads like it was written by a 14 year old and needs a major overhaul. Also it is full of glaring inaccuracies - i.e. the Enterprise was dispatched by Admiral Janeway to Romulus, not Remus. If no one chooses to redo it then I am in favour of killing the entire section and replacing it with a concise, 1-paragraph summary. Scott 110 (talk) 02:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Done! Check it out, and see if this is better. I agree that there were still some inaccuracies. Someone was trying to fit in every detail, and it made the wording unnecessarily cumbersome. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Kudos to you.Scott 110 (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Couple of Perhaps Interesting Questions

Just saw Nemesis last night for the first time. Loved it more than Wrath of Kahn. Saw it only once so my comment related to the Wikipedia article is in the form of questions. I'm not an expert on the movie yet.

1. Why didn't Data just go to the control station and turn the weapon off?
2. Did Picard order personel to evacuate forward compartments before ramming?
Rogerfgay (talk) 13:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Official Movie Website

Official Star Trek Nemesis web site

Website is "Unavaiable." "Service Temporarily Unavailable, The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later." Master Redyva ♠ 18:53, April 2, 2008 (UTC)

Budget Confusion?

In the table on the right side the budget is 80 million. In the text, it's 60 million. Will you make up your minds please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.51.169.186 (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, and included a page from the IMDb as a source. Axeman (talk) 03:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)