Tom Hardy's Nemesis Screen Test

MrVestek

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6blOgs6r7MM

Had the directory not totally ****ed up this movie we could have gotten a much more empathic and emotional Shinzon.

Such a pity...

norrie rugger

Nothing could have saved that film from the clusterf**k that it was.

Remans appearing out of nowhere to take the senate. Remans building a ship that could take on Enterprise easily (and 3 new warbirds). Remans building a planet killing weapon. Reamens building a ship that has both cruiser and aircraft carrier capabilities. A ship that perfected cloak/fire tech. A ship that could outrun Enterprise, even though Romulan warp tech was not as advanced as the Federation. Remens accepting a human clone (badly cloned at that) as their leader. Romulans accepting a human clone as leader. Federation only sending 1 ship and not the full fleet that Enterprise was flag of. Them making a big deal about small emergency transporters, even though they had them for years. Enterprise knowing that they were being hunted and intentionally go into a patch that would mean that they lose contact with their fleet.

senordingdong

Not to mention all the footage that was cut from it.

Myrddin

The acting is certainly more humanly realistic in the screentest. But if we're to believe this human was raised on Remus, I think it's logical to conclude he won't be very well emotionally developed, & a certain 'sterility' in his character was needed.

That being said, only Nemesis would actively ask an actor to act worse than he can :rolleyes: The film was utterly terrible, & left the franchise in ruins.

Kirby

norrie rugger wrote: »

Nothing could have saved that film from the clusterf**k that it was.

Remans appearing out of nowhere to take the senate. Remans building a ship that could take on Enterprise easily (and 3 new warbirds). Remans building a planet killing weapon. Reamens building a ship that has both cruiser and aircraft carrier capabilities. A ship that perfected cloak/fire tech. A ship that could outrun Enterprise, even though Romulan warp tech was not as advanced as the Federation. Remens accepting a human clone (badly cloned at that) as their leader. Romulans accepting a human clone as leader. Federation only sending 1 ship and not the full fleet that Enterprise was flag of. Them making a big deal about small emergency transporters, even though they had them for years. Enterprise knowing that they were being hunted and intentionally go into a patch that would mean that they lose contact with their fleet.

Those are plot holes or inconsistencies. The lack of them doesn't make a movie good or bad. Nemesis only problem was the director. You don't get a person who doesn't like trek and has never even seen ONE episode of TNG to direct a TNG movie.

First contact was a good movie and it had an absolute ton of plotholes. Watch this highly entertaining summary of said plot holes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7Lr8cdZwHQ

Myrddin

Kirby wrote: »

Those are plot holes or inconsistencies. The lack of them doesn't make a movie good or bad. Nemesis only problem was the director. You don't get a person who doesn't like trek and has never even seen ONE episode of TNG to direct a TNG movie.

One might argue that you have to first have a plot, in order to have holes in it

But your dead right, the director was not the right man for the job at all. The story was also cack, the screenplay was cack, & the film was an amalgamated ball of cack that finished off an already flailing franchise.

I couldn't sit through ten minutes of that reviewers voice btw, ten mins of Nemesis I could do...but not that.

Kirby

It's a put on voice. And you get used to it. It's actually very entertaining. He does other stuff too. His review of the episode II is one of the funniest things on youtube.

Myrddin

Kirby wrote: »

It's a put on voice. And you get used to it. It's actually very entertaining. He does other stuff too. His review of the episode II is one of the funniest things on youtube.

Yeah he seems to be very popular, I've tried a few times to listen to him but I can't enjoy his videos, not really sure why

nyarlothothep

Tom Hardy is one of the best actors in recent years, but in that screen test I thought he wasn't so good, especially the hmming at the beginning. Stewart was completely believable, Hardy seemed like an acting student in comparison. However I find it hard to reconcile this with his performances in Bronson and TDKR (Bane was an unbelievable villain and the voice acting was spot on).

Myrddin

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Tom Hardy is one of the best actors in recent years, but in that screen test I thought he wasn't so good, especially the hmming at the beginning. Stewart was completely believable, Hardy seemed like an acting student in comparison. However I find it hard to reconcile this with his performances in Bronson and TDKR (Bane was an unbelievable villain and the voice acting was spot on).

The difference is Stewart had fifteen years of acting as Picard by that stage, & Hardy was only creating Shinzon in an acting sense.

nyarlothothep

EnterNow wrote: »

The difference is Stewart had fifteen years of acting as Picard by that stage, & Hardy was only creating Shinzon in an acting sense.

Well obviously but still, when Hardy speaks about the Romulan empire he doesn't come across as believing it whereas with Picard he actually convinces me that he believes in it.

Myrddin

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Well obviously but still, when Hardy speaks about the Romulan empire he doesn't come across as believing it whereas with Picard he actually convinces me that he believes in it.

As above

Its just business as usual for Stewart, but for Hardy its all new. Yes its acting, but its a new character. Youd have to really compare him & the Picard from Encounter at Farpoint

nyarlothothep

EnterNow wrote: »

As above

Its just business as usual for Stewart, but for Hardy its all new. Yes its acting, but its a new character. Youd have to really compare him & the Picard from Encounter at Farpoint

I think it's in the technique, Picard at farpoint was still convincing, although the character was slightly different, ie crankier. I think Hardy made some obvious mistakes, the hmming way too much in the first half, and believing in what he was saying would simply require him to temporarily believe in the universe, whereas I felt he was approximating a belief in it, perhaps as you say because he is fleshing out the role and was focusing on several different aspects of his performance as opposed to one.

Seph503

EnterNow you should give RedLetterMedia a chance IMO. The voice is difficult at first but he describes so well what's wrong with the films that it makes up for it.

His Star Wars Prequel reviews are utterly fantastic at describing exactly what's wrong with them. Star Trek ones are just as good IMO.

Anyone want a pizza roll?

Pride Fighter

They should have made Shinzon like his performance in Bronson, would have improved the film no end

nyarlothothep

Pride Fighter wrote: »

They should have made Shinzon like his performance in Bronson, would have improved the film no end

That made me laugh. Shinzon as Bronson would have been too awesome.

kitakyushu

Achilles wrote: »

Had the directory not totally ****ed up this movie we could have gotten a much more empathic and emotional Shinzon.

A while back I listened to the directors comm on Nemesis. I'd just like to say the guy (Stuart Baird) seemed to be one of the most clueless directors I've ever listened to on a comm. IIRC he he spent the whole comm talking about why he picked 'this gun' or 'that colour scheme' and didn't seem even vaguely interested in character or storyline.

I'm not exactly sure how he even got into directing (he was primarily an editor and quite a successful one) but it's interesting that he never directed another feature after Nemesis. I can't say I'm disappointed or surprised.