 Click on CAPCon Alert image for explanation |
A service to our youth through you, their parents and grandparents, in His name by His Word MAR22129 Star Trek: Nemesis (2002), PG-13 Analysis Date: December 13, 2002 CAP Score: 70 CAP Influence Density: 0.69 MinMax: -91 |
 |
 NO service charges. All donations are tax deductible. | To subscribe to (or unsubscribe from) our FREE text-only versions of our Entertainment Media Analysis Reports as they are calculated, visit our Mailman. If you experience difficulty with Mailman, send us your request. Your email address will NOT be given or sold to other parties. |
 |
STAR TREK: NEMESIS (PG-13) -- Farewell, my old friend. Production: Paramount Pictures Distribution: Paramount Pictures Director(s): Stuart Baird Producer(s): Rick Berman, Glenn Richard Côté, Marty Hornstein, Peter Lauritson Written by/Screenplay: Gene Roddenberry (television series Star Trek). John Logan (I), Rick Berman. Brent Spiner (story). John Logan (screenplay) Cinematography/Camera: Jeffrey L. Kimball Music: Jerry Goldsmith Film Editing: Dallas Puett Casting: Junie Lowry-Johnson, Amanda Mackey Johnson, Cathy Sandrich Production Design: Herman F. Zimmerman Art Direction: Cherie Baker, Donald B. Woodruff  It is a long trek to Star Trek: Nemesis from the TV Star Trek episode, "Balance of Terror" where the Enterprise crew meets for the first time its not-seen-in-generations enemy, the then Vulcan-looking Romulans. It has been a weary trek of 36 years. And a now failing one I fear. I am, or at least was, an avid Star Trek(tm) fan from way back, from its early years with Kirk, Spock, Scotty, Uhura, Chekov, Sulu, Janice, Bones (one they could have done better without) and the Star Trek creator's wife, Nurse Chapel. I was so excited that Star Trek: The Movie (Star Trek I) was being made from the TV series. I even remember uttering "There she is" as the first scenes were of the refitted Enterprise and the music played the now famous dah -- dah -- dah, dah-dud-da-dah.. But appears not the confident and commanding Kirk (William Shatner) but an insecure, self-doubting Kirk being usurped and shamed left and right by a second in command with an attitude. From there, the disappointments began. And have not stopped. Then came the Star Trek: Next Generation TV series. Feeling as though I must watch them to honor my unwritten and by then almost desperate commitment to support Star Trek, I did. And the "second in command with an attitude" continued. When womanizing, filled-with-attitude, perpetually teenaged walking libido Riker (Jonathan Frakes) showed up along with the new age aspects such as full side nudity, heavy sexualization (both hetero- and homosexual) and three/four letter word vocabulary is when the name that used to stir excitement started its forever downhill slope for me. But then, comes maybe to the rescue the Captain Janeway of the TV Star Trek: Voyager. It seems the old Kirk/Star Trek signature had been lost and maybe successfully replaced with a promising Janeway in Star Trek: Voyager. But always in the background was the Next Generation crew in the movies. And Riker. And Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Both about equal caliber. Maybe Star Trek will stop now that it has hit bottom. This tenth installment of the Star Trek movies is clearly an attempt to squeeze a few more bucks out of the market before moth balling NC-1701. Now, Star Trek is just something to watch when there is nothing else better to do such as get a root canal or clean the rain gutters. I suspect this tenth installment, which is proclaimed to be "a generation's final journey" will be Star Trek's final journey into where no man (no one) has gone before into the final frontier. The shields are down. Scotty is gone. Resistance is futile. Farewell, my old friend. I ... have had ... enough ... of YOU! Under pretense of peace, Picard (Patrick Stewart) and company travel to Romulus. On Romulus, the entire Senate is dried up, literally, by a new kind of lethal radiation, put there by one of them who asks to be excused to attend pressing business after a heated debate with representatives of sister planet, Remus. Remus is headed by Shinzon (Tom Hardy), a human, unlike his dead-lizard-looking compatriots who worked his way up through the mining ranks. Aiding Shinzon with his plot to rule the universe - er - to at least destroy Romulus and Earth, is his Viceroy (Ron Perlman). The Viceroy is capable of giving Deanna Troy (Marina Sirtis) a piece of his mind and a piece of Shinzon's mind. And, of course, it is sexual. Rape sexual. Upon arrival of Picard at the Romulus Senate, he is met not by the Senators but by Shinzon. The commonality of Shinzon with Picard I won't reveal since you may want to set through this movie. But I will tell you Shinzon is the leaving of a long-abandodned attempt of the Romulans to infiltrate the Federation using the best possible technique known. To soak up some film time, Picard, Data (Brent Spiner) and Worf (Michael Dorn) search for the sources of some strange positron energy readings from a planet. Faint but present. On the surface of the planet, intense in light and faint in color, Picard gets to head the away team for a change in spite of the regulations regarding Captains being placed in dangerous situations. Here is where present meets future in a glorified dune buggy as Picard uses excessive velocity to garner some thrill out of the away mission. Finding the first of six energy spots, Worf gets a surprise as it finds his leg. A robotic severed arm grabs him from under the dirt. Once five of the six spots are located, it is obvious they are fragments of another android much like Data, disembodied but an android nonetheless. Finding the sixth piece, they meet B-4, another Data but a version B-4 Data. While Star Trek: Nemesis is yet another sci-fi formula save-the-universe movie, it does have top notch special effects and visual appeal for the sci-fi fan. Attention to detail is magnificent but there are a few items that might raise the eyebrows of many parents. Violence is the top presence [Ps. 11:5]. Sexual immorality [Gal. 5:19] has been added to draw attendance from the largest market in the world - the adolescents. While violence typically serves only to escalate conflict rather than solve it, sexual immorality in and as entertainment serves only to perpetuate it. Rather than speak to a selected few of the issues of ignominy as I typically do, I will let the listing in the Findings/Scoring section, the heart of the CAP Analysis Model, speak all that needs to be spoken. SCRIPTURAL APPLICATION(S) If needed to focus or fortify, applicable text is underlined or bracketed [ ]. If you wish to have full context available, the Blue Letter Bible is a convenient source. If you use the Blue Letter Bible, a new window will open. Close it to return here or use "Window" in your browser's menu bar to alternate between the CAP page and the Blue Letter Bible page. ***Selected Scriptures of Armour against the influence of the entertainment industry*** As always, it is best to refer to the Findings/Scoring section -- the heart of the CAP analysis model -- for the most complete assessment possible of this movie. |
 Wanton Violence/Crime (W): Impudence/Hate (I)(1): Sex/Homosexuality (S): Drugs/Alcohol (D): Offense to God (O)(2): Murder/Suicide (M)(3): |
 NO service charges!!! Donations to the CAP Ministry are Tax Deductible!!! |
 |
 |
 |
 Christian Media News |
 A Singles Christian Network |
 |
 |
 |
|
| NOTE: The CAP Analysis Model makes no scoring allowances for trumped-up "messages" to excuse or for manufacturing of justification for aberrant behavior or imagery, or for camouflaging such ignominy with "redeeming" programming. Disguising sinful behavior in a theme plot does not excuse the sinful behavior of either the one who is drawing pleasure or example from the sinful display or the practitioners demonstrating the sinful behavior. This is NOT a movie review service. It is a movie analysis service to parents and grandparents to tell them the truth about movies using the Truth. |
| "There are some in the entertainment industry who maintain that 1) violent programming is harmless because no studies exist that prove a connection between violent entertainment and aggressive behavior in children, and 2) young people know that television, movies, and video games are simply fantasy. Unfortunately, they are wrong on both accounts." And "Viewing violence may lead to real life violence." I applaud these associations for fortifying 1 Cor. 15:33. Read the rest of the story. From our nearly seven years of study, I contend that other aberrant behaviors, attitudes, and expressions can be inserted in place of "violence" in that statement. Our Director - Child Psychology Support, a licensed psychologist and certified school psychologist concurs. For example, "Viewing arrogance against fair authority may lead to your kids defying you in real life." Or "Viewing sex may lead to sex in real life." Likewise and especially with impudence, hate and foul language. I further contend that any positive behavior can be inserted in place of "violence" with the same chance or likelihood of being a behavior template for the observer; of being incorporated into the behavior mechanics and/or coping skills of the observer. In choosing your entertainment, please consider carefully the "rest of the story" and our findings. |
