Not So Heavenly?

In the past, I've alluded to how perverse of a concept hell is and to how ridiculous it is for God and religious leaders alike to hold this as a threat over people. But, while I've held the common criteria for getting into heaven to be equally asinine, I've been fairly willing to go along with the idea that heaven would be a nice place if it actually existed. After further consideration, though, I'm not so sure.

Heaven is generally held to be the perfect afterlife destination filled with nothing but sheer joy and contentment. Paradise. Xanadu. Sounds quite fetching, doesn't it? But have you ever stopped to consider what it would take for such a place to be perfect for even one person, let alone untold billions?

Think about it. What would you want? I'm sure you'd want all your friends and family there, for starters. Well, we could have a problem already. What if some of your loved ones didn't make the cut? You'd miss them for all eternity. I suppose God could always make clones or illusions of them, but that wouldn't be the same. Or he could erase your memories of them, or simply make you not miss them. But then he'd be fiddling around with your mind, and you would no longer be you. Would you be okay with some alternate version of you getting to enjoy eternity when the real you had to earn it in the material world? Would you be okay with God deciding what makes you happy and what doesn't? Wouldn't that be nixing your free will?

Just gonna make a few minor adjustments...

Those are some of the problems that could easily arise when considering the desires of a single person. How rapidly would the problems multiply when you toss a crapload of other people into the mix? Each would face the same problems of coping with the painful absences. But what about conflicts of interest? To use a simple example of just one such conflict, imagine two men are in love with the same woman. Who gets her? Do they have to share her, and will their minds also be altered so that they don't mind the sharing? How does the woman feel about it? Does she prefer one? Both? Neither? Someone else?

What about sex in general? Is the desire for sex suddenly erased, or is it one giant orgasmic free-for-all? How would your spouse feel about you sexing everyone up? How would you feel about your spouse doing the same?

I suppose you could solve a lot of these conflicting desire problems by giving everyone their own personal, individual heavens. But then each person would be isolated, they'd be interacting only with fake versions of other people, and we start right back with that set of problems.

Well, dammit, it all seemed real enough just a minute ago...

As far as I can tell, any way you slice it, something would have to be fake. Either you would be fake, having your mind and desires altered, or your surroundings (e.g. the other people) would be fake. Heaven would be filled with illusions. Fantasies. Wouldn't it stand to reason, then, that heaven itself is nothing more than a fantasy?

This is a problem, of course, because fantasies never compare to reality. Ask Inception or Star Trek's holodecks. Hell, ask yourself. When does fantasizing no longer cut it for you? At what point do you have to have the real thing?

Now, believe me, I'm not at all against fantasizing. I do it all the time. It's a nice escape, and it can certainly be fun for a while. But it never trumps reality. And what I find most troubling about the heaven fantasy is that many people, "aided" by religion, try their damnedest to make it trump their actual lives.

In heaven, it never stops spinning

Yes, the world can be a rough place. Reality sucks sometimes. Retreating into fantasies can be a way of coping, but ultimately, it's only a delay. Sooner or later, you have to come back down to reality. Some people retreat so far into the heaven fantasy that they disregard their actual lives as meaningless. They allow the fantasy to become the true existence, effectively treating reality as the mirage. It's a total reversal--and a desperate one. Not only have they deluded themselves, but they also can no longer deal with anyone who challenges their delusions. They can only interact with people who play into their fantasies, and that may be the saddest state of all.

All of this fantasizing and enabling of others' destructive fantasies takes a lot of effort, and it's all in the wrong direction. Imagine how much better our lives could be if we concentrated those efforts on actually improving this world instead of trying to escape from it. Reality is often harsh, but it's not fixed. It can be improved if enough people focus their efforts in the right direction. Earth may never be heaven, but it could be a reality that isn't so terrible. And we know it actually exists. That's gotta count for something.

Atheism: A Primer

I told myself when I started this blog several months ago that I wouldn't turn it into a platform for my newly discovered atheism. I wasn't keen on losing friends (even of the purely Facebook variety), and I knew that most theists probably just wouldn't want to hear it. But I've already broached the subject in my last couple posts, it's foremost on my mind, and I need to get this blog kick-started again. I also think it's an important subject to talk about, and I feel some responsibility to dispel some common misconceptions perpetuated by organized religion. So if you read only one of my atheism-related posts, make it this one.

Okay. First of all, atheism is not a philosophy. It's not a cult. It's most definitely not just another religion, or the equivalency of one. There's no holy book to follow. There's no divine authority figure. There's no set of rituals to be practiced or specific rules to adhere to. Some atheists even shy away from the term, as there are many different varieties of atheists who may have little in common with each other. Atheism is merely a response to--specifically, a rejection of--theism. It's marked by a lack of belief in gods. And that's about it. There's much more to go into when you're talking about an atheist's specific philosophical position, of course, but as far as atheism as a whole goes, that's pretty much all there is to it.

Now, the whole "lack of belief in gods" thing. Notice the wording. First of all, "gods" instead of "God." I will probably slip out of this all the time myself, but here I'm being careful not to limit this to just Christianity or even monotheistic religions. Atheism is a lack of belief in any gods. God. Allah. Krishna. Zeus. Mantorok. The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Nope, none of 'em. Also important, though, is "lack of belief." This is no claim of knowledge or absolute certainty. Atheists don't believe in gods. They don't KNOW that there are no gods. And in my experience, most atheists are perfectly comfortable saying they don't know. Those who claim they do are just as guilty as theists who claim they KNOW that God (or gods) exists. Believe or disbelieve whatever you wish, but nobody KNOWS.

Don't F with FSM!

So atheists don't believe in gods. What are the repercussions of this? It depends on the person, of course. For me personally, my deconversion from Catholicism has made very little difference in my daily life. I don't go to church anymore, and I more regularly and openly criticize organized religion (more on why I feel it's important to do so later). That's about it. I suppose the difference would've been more pronounced had I been a fundamentalist, but I was a moderate. It wasn't a very long or painful trip. I'd been gradually falling out of my religion over the course of several years, and by the time I started actually exploring atheism, it didn't take much convincing. It's something my family still isn't quite sure what to do with, but thus far I have no regrets whatsoever.

I suppose you'll have to take my word for it, but trust me when I say I didn't go out raping and pillaging as soon as I realized I didn't believe in God anymore (or anytime since). There are still plenty of worldly repercussions to dissuade bad behavior without having to go to the ever-popular threat-of-hell well. Beyond those, though, I take comfort in the fact that I don't just behave as best I can simply to avoid punishment. Why would I want to go around being an asshole all the time, even if I could get away with it? I don't get my morality from religion, as I find religious morality to revolve around servility, submission, unquestioning obedience, authoritarianism, and selfish reward/punishment motivation. No thanks. There may indeed be some good ideas buried beneath the bad ones, but those good ideas aren't exclusive to religion and certainly shouldn't require adherence to the dogma surrounding them. Instead, I pull my morals from a variety of sources, including society at large, literature, philosophy, peers, and some good ol' common sense empathy (to name a few). I think it's important to come to your own conclusions about what's moral and what isn't and to be able to justify those decisions, as opposed to simply deferring to a set of questionable ancient rules. I make plenty of mistakes and sometimes fail to do the right thing, but I'd much rather make my own decisions, learn from my mistakes, and continue to develop and evolve my sense of morality than strictly adhere to an unchanging set of orders I often disagree with. Theists (and probably plenty of atheists) might not agree with my sense of morality, but they'd be seriously mistaken to suggest that I or any other atheist doesn't have one.

Another common misconception is that atheism is nihilism. The thinking is that without God, atheists must necessarily be all doom and gloom, insisting that life is pointless and meaningless. Yada, yada, yada. In a word, no. Though I can see how this assumption would arise from a theistic perspective. Theists are generally taught that God--and only God--gives life meaning, purpose, and goodness. But why can't people do this? Do you always need to be told why you're doing something or why it's good? Does life need to have a built-in meaning ascribed by an outside source?

It depends on how you look at it. Personally, I no longer see the appeal of the notion that we're all just pieces of a deity's master plan. Pawns in a game, if you will. That doesn't give meaning to life; it takes meaning away from life. With no God, on the other hand, there's autonomy. You give your own life meaning. You decide what you're going to do with it. You decide whether to be good or bad. Sure, you don't have the power of a god to do whatever you want, but if you did, wouldn't THAT actually make everything meaningless? We're here. We're alive. We live among each other and among other living things. We choose what we're going to do with it and how we're going to treat each other. How much more meaning do you need?

Okay, so atheists are just fine without religion. Then why don't they just shut up about it? I can't speak for all atheists, but I think many would agree with me when I say that religion may very well be the most harmful institution in human history. In fact, I'd even say it might be humanity's worst invention. Ever. The atrocities committed in the name of religion are too many to name. It is blatantly used as a political tool and as a means to control people and con them out of their money. It interferes with science and has held back human progress for centuries. Has religion done some good, too? Sure. But is religion, in any case, ever NECESSARY for the good to be done? In the words of Steven Weinberg:

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

Also, on a more personal note, atheists comprise another minority that no longer wants to be treated as second-class citizens. Or as non-citizens, even, if you ask George Bush, Sr. Recent polls have turned up some alarming, though not surprising, results indicating that atheists are the group people would most object to a family member marrying into and that less than half of Americans would even consider voting for an atheist president. That's just a sampling of some of the prejudices against atheists that would make homophobia proud.

And the bastard child, at that

Also of concern is the way religion has typically gone unchecked and unchallenged and how it has been regularly afforded special privileges. Everyone has the right to believe whatever they want to believe. Everyone has the right to speak their mind and share their beliefs. But no one has the right to force their beliefs on anyone else. Yes, parents, that includes you. In extreme cases that are far too common, some parents take religious indoctrination to the point of child abuse. If you don't believe me, watch Jesus Camp. Perhaps even more alarming is the number of people who want to turn the U.S. into a Christian theocracy. Apparently, it's not enough for some of these Christians that they already have an overwhelming majority in the country. They want to silence all dissent and force conformity by law. Maybe even go back to stoning people for apostasy. This type of insanity needs to be called out, and separation of church and state must be upheld to ensure everyone's freedom to believe or not believe whatever they wish. And I'll be happy to defend that all day long.

So, yes, I'm an atheist. I'm not a brainwashed cult member, I have morals, I don't feel lost without God, and I want to be treated no better or worse than anybody else. I criticize religion because I believe it's extremely harmful and entirely too powerful. I realize that I am in the minority, and my objective isn't to go around picking fights with theists or to take a source of comfort away from them. As before, I encourage everyone to go with whatever helps them be a better person. If that's religion, fine. If it's not, great. Whatever the case may be, I hope civility prevails. I don't know about you, but I always appreciate it when I can have a discussion with someone about a topic, completely disagree on virtually every point, and still be friends at the end of the day.

The Magician (Spoilerific Review)

Deception is so prevalent that those who speak the truth are usually branded as the greatest liars.

Just got done watching another solid film by the Swedish master, Ingmar Bergman, and figured I might as well toss up a quickie review while it's fresh in my mind. I've seen a number of Bergman films over the past couple years, and the guy never fails to deliver interesting material. The Magician, his 1958 piece about a troupe of...magicians, is no exception.

The film begins with said troupe (which includes Bergman favorites Max von Sydow and the always mesmerizing Ingrid Thulin) picking up a dying actor in the woods on their way to town to answer for the "supernatural disturbances" they've been reportedly causing. The actor becomes very important in their grand deception later on, ultimately proving their act worthwhile and saving them from punishment by the authorities.

Ingrid Thulin
(the woman who will come back from the dead to be my wife)

I'll skip the plot summary and go right to my thoughts on the most interesting aspect of the movie, the parallels Bergman draws between traditional magic and religion. The magicians here are nothing but entertainers, even con artists, who masquerade a bunch of simple tricks and nonsense as the supernatural. They play on people's desires to believe in these sorts of things and show them what they want to see, ostensibly for power, prestige, and profit. In other words, they're like priests.

The ending initially left me with a "that's it?" feeling, but I soon came to appreciate it after thinking about it for a few minutes. The magicians are stripped down and exposed for the frauds they are, left begging for a small amount of money and compelled to flee town before the authorities can arrest them. But when they fail to make it out in time, they are instead summoned to perform for the king (certainly a step up in their seemingly flagging career). I may be the only one to take it this way, and it probably wasn't Bergman's intent, but I saw this tying back to the priest connection. The magicians, like priests (if you ask me), could arguably be locked up for their cons and frauds. But because the magicians/priests are entertaining the people, showing them what they want to see, and feeding and enabling their fantasies, the magicians/priests are actually rewarded for their deceptions.

You damn fraud...

The curious thing, I guess, is that we're supposed to be happy about all this, as the magicians are positioned as the good guys in the film. The men of science are positioned as the jerks who want to mock and punish the deceivers that everyone else seems so fascinated by. Naturally, given my positions on these matters, I found myself siding with the men of science jerks, especially in light of the religious parallels.

Bergman, of course, was agnostic and frequently dealt with religion and doubt in his work. He was very good at walking the line pretty evenly and allowing for ambiguity and different interpretations. I just glimpsed someone else's mini-review on imdb.com, and he said he saw von Sydow's character as a Christ figure. Man. I didn't see that AT ALL. But that just goes to show how talented Bergman was and how thought-provoking his films always tended to be.

If you like deep stuff and haven't seen Bergman before, check out some of his films. He's sure to impress.

Fear...Fear is My Ally

Well I've been slacking again with the posting, so it's time to get back on the horse, at least for one day. So strap in, readers, as this one's bound to offend (hi, religious folk!).

If you recognize my title as a discarded quote from Darth Maul in The Phantom Menace previews, congratulations, you're as sorry as I am. But it seemed an appropriate one for the discussion at hand and a likely secret mantra of religious leaders around the world. Whenever their other methods of controlling you are in doubt, fear is their ace in the hole.

WTF, George? Jar Jar blathers the whole movie, and you cut my bad-ass lines?

As I've quite painlessly shed my belief in religious claims over the past few years, I've wondered more and more how such outlandish and fantastical superstitions have enjoyed such enduring success over the centuries. If they are so unlikely to be true, how can so many people continue to believe them? I think it has to do with a few main reasons: hope, ignorance, laziness, and...wait for it...fear.

Hope is one I can't really fault anyone for. As cynical and misanthropic as I tend to be, I wouldn't want to deprive anyone of all hope. It can keep you going when nothing else can. It can inspire you. It can give you something to shoot for. On its own, it would still make much of religion eye-rollingly silly but largely benign. The only problem comes when you're talking about false hope, which can really crush your spirit when you finally identify it as false after staking so much on it. If you become too dependent on it, and it fails you, you're left with nothing. Gotta watch out for that.

Ignorance is a pretty big one, and while it may be bliss for a time, it can't last forever. In many cases, I think people turn to religious explanations because they understand so little about reality, science, and how the world actually works. There are many things that we as a species still don't know (and probably plenty that we never will), but it staggers me how much we do know that people either ignore or consciously refuse to accept. Knowledge and understanding are good things; they allow you to better deal with reality. The only things threatened by them are institutions predicated on lies. And my biggest problem with ignorance isn't so much the inability to grasp real-life concepts as it is the willfulness of said ignorance.

Okay, George. Probably best that you cut this one.

This goes hand-in-hand with laziness. Many people are just not very intellectually curious. They may not care how things work or why things are the way they are. Or they may not care why something may be right or wrong in a given situation. They prefer to be given simple, pat, unchanging answers and rules that never have to account for context, and religion is more than happy to provide them. I can certainly understand the appeal of simplicity, don't get me wrong. But the world isn't black-and-white. Doing some mental lifting is often necessary, and it really doesn't hurt that much.

And now for the big boy: fear. Fear of the unknown is a real big problem for us humans, especially fear of death. What happens when we die? Religion assuages (see: preys on) that fear by pretending it has the answer. And that answer, be it accurate or (most likely) not, is thoroughly perverse. People come to religion with an uneasy fear of nothingness and leave with a paralyzing fear of eternal torment. Nice.

I gotta ask, how is hell not blackmail? And how is heaven not bribery? Why are so many people perfectly okay with these concepts and the abhorrent lack of morality implied? In all honesty, I suspect they aren't. Because torturing people forever, especially for such absurd affronts as failing to kiss your ass and failing to believe ridiculous claims without evidence, is not the standard operating procedure for a loving being. It's the behavior of an egomaniacal, bloodthirsty sociopath. And if that's the being you're choosing to worship, you either agree with that kind of moral bankruptcy or you're scared shitless of said being. I'm guessing that, by and large, it's the latter.

Kissing Hank's Ass

Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss his ass?

This is one of my many problems with organized religion. Any system based on fear is not a good one. Any institution that levels threats at you (directly or implied) for disagreeing with it is not a moral one. And anyone trying to sell you something without good evidence for its reliability is a bad salesman. There's nothing to see here, folks. It's all just emotional manipulation.

Alllllll that being said, I'm not trying to yell at anyone here or tell you what to believe. I'm just giving a take on religion and explaining some of my problems with it. If your system works for you, go with it. Just don't try to force it on anyone else (including your kids). If you're only pretending your system works for you, however, don't be afraid to open your mind and explore other possibilities. Other religions, science, philosophy, fiction (plenty of good ideas to be found there, too). Whatever helps you live a better life.

And if you still can't get past this fear of eternal torment business, consider this: the only just way to judge a person is by that person's character and actions. Treat other people (and all other forms of life) well. Be the best person you can be, and measure this by the real, tangible influence you have on other people and the world at large. Put reality first. If there's a just, omnipotent being waiting to judge you for this when you die, you've won. If there isn't, you've still lived a good life, helped others, and won. And if there's an all-powerful narcissist waiting to judge you on how enthusiastically you kissed his ass, why would you want to spend eternity with that prick, anyway?

RCT3: A Few More Pics

Well, I finally got my copy of RCT3: Soaked! the other day. I was kind of secretly hoping that would remedy some of my graphical and technological woes with the game via some magical under-the-hood updates, but that hasn't been the case so far. In fact, the in-game water, for one thing, actually looks worse. Which is a slight problem when the biggest new feature in the expansion pack is the ability to make water parks. Damn. I think I'm just gonna need a new computer for this kind of stuff, and that's all there is to it. Unfortunately, I won't be getting one for at least a few more years. So I'll have to make do with this game-retarded iMac for now. Hey, at least the hard drive hasn't crashed yet.

That being the case, I won't really be able to make any new videos for my current Kennywood re-creation. I guess the only thing left to try is plopping individual rides into mostly empty plots and just adding the scenery in the immediately surrounding areas, hoping to get a good video capture before I end up with too many objects onscreen. Though there's certainly no guarantee that'll work, either. My system might not be able to handle even mid-level graphical settings with any amount of objects onscreen. But I'll see what I can find out with some more experimenting. Even if I'm successful with that, though, I'd pretty much just be doing what I could do far more accurately with a coaster simulator like NoLimits. So it seems the joke's on me.

In any case, my first Kennywood re-creation here is basically defunct as far as sharing goes. So I snapped a few last photos with my added trees and scenery tweaks. Check 'em out below.

Jack Rabbit, Racer, and Log Jammer

Dirt under the very inaccurate Skyrocket

Overhead view of the park

I was also working on a Cedar Point re-creation a while back, but I put that on hold till I got my Kennywood one right. There were so many rides I had to split them across two plots of land, and I never even got to the second one. But since I don't have the technical capabilities to handle Kennywood, I obviously can't hope to take on Cedar Point. Especially since it's SURROUNDED BY WATER. Not gonna work.

Another Snag

The roadblocks to sharing my RCT creations never cease. In my previous post about the game, I was excited about finally gaining access to a proper video editor. With that problem finally solved, I was ready to go. So, naturally, now I'm having problems even recording the videos in the first place. Now when I play back a raw video (without any edits), it jumps ahead a second or two in the clip every few seconds. In other words, it skips. The time doesn't skip ahead, just the segments in the ride. Which must mean that those missing spots weren't recorded at all. And that renders my videos useless.

That about sums it up.

I didn't have this problem with my Jack Rabbit video, but I've added some more scenery to the park (mostly trees) since then. The only thing I can figure is I now have too many objects onscreen for my game-inept computer to handle. I was already having problems before with that damn flickering water, but I chalked that up to my video card. Now I just don't know. Even with my two-year-old iMac, I appear to at least double the recommended system specs in every category (and I would hope so, since the game's about six years old). But, apparently, that's still not enough.

Are Macs really THIS bad with games, or is the game still THIS buggy even with all the patches? Hell if I know. Gaming was about the last thing on my mind when I was looking to replace my dead-in-the-water Dell two years ago, but as I said, my hardware does measure up for RCT3 (at least on paper). I saw the other day that Atari is seriously considering making an RCT4 after all these years. I was initially excited at the news, until I realized I would need a computer from five years in the future to play the damn thing properly.

I'm mad as hell, and I'm...gonna continue to take it
till I acquire a computer from 2015.

So not sure what I'm gonna do about this one. I guess I can try deleting a bunch of scenery, but that kinda defeats the purpose of making a good, reasonably authentic-looking video. I'll give it some thought. And while I'm at it, I'll also think about why I didn't give up on this a long time ago.

Star Trek: Nemesis (Spoilerific Review)

It's been quite a while since I've written about any movies, so I figured I'd do a proper review for an underappreciated, if flawed, film I just rewatched: Star Trek: Nemesis. Releasing without much fanfare in late 2002, Nemesis arrived rather unexpectedly as the swan song for not only The Next Generation film series but for classic Trek in general. Sadly, in fact, it may have been the last true Star Trek movie we will ever see.

I've got a knife. A big, shiny knife.

Opening with a gruesome extermination of the entire Romulan Senate, Nemesis sets its dark tone early. You know right away the bad guys here mean business, and Picard and friends are in for an unprecedented ordeal. Moving through some mostly well-played humor, we learn that Riker and Troi are about to get married and that Riker is finally about to assume command of his own ship, the Titan. So, unless they yank that out from under us by movie's end, the crew will be splitting up. This really is the end.

It's not long before the crew detects strange readings on a planet just outside the Romulan Neutral Zone. Readings that indicate an android. An android like Data. Not far from where all those big-time Romulans were just assassinated. Hmm, something's afoot.

Beastly.

After recovering the dismembered android, a Data doppelganger, Picard and co. receive orders from Admiral Janeway (how wrong is it that Picard's taking orders from that dolt??) to hightail it to Romulus to play nice with the new Reman in charge. Yes, a Reman in charge of Romulus. Might this have something to do with that grisly opening scene?

First meeting with Shadowy Reman's beastly warship, the Scimitar, Picard and friends beam down to the planet to have their first creepy encounter with Shadowy Reman himself, some bald weirdo named Shinzon. Except he's actually human. And knows everything about the Enterprise crew, especially Picard. And is a CLONE of Picard. Whoa! Also, he likes to creep on Troi.

Can I touch your hair? And wear it as a wig?

After some phony offers of friendship, empty promises of peace, and telepathic Troi rapin', Shinzon abducts Picard to steal some juicy Picard blood, which Shinzie apparently needs to survive. Then he's gonna wipe out Earth and stuff with that green bioweapon he nullified the Romulan Senate with at the beginning. Not good. The Romulans pissed him off so much by forcing him into slave labor as a kid that he's gonna get them back by using his super-deadly weapon to wipe out...Earth? Hmm...

This all culminates in a slam-bang finale involving the Enterprise, the Scimitar, two Romulan warbirds, fancy green space gases, a flying Data, a vengeful Troi telepathically raping her telepathic raper('s helper) back, a creepy impalement (and creepier aftermath), and a heavy loss for Next Gen-ers. It's really quite the spectacle.

Now, I'll admit that I was a little disappointed with Nemesis when it first came out. It's not quite the sendoff that The Undiscovered Country was for the original crew, and it does have its problems. It seems like a pretty big stretch for Shinzon to be going after Earth when it's the Romulans he has a real beef with. I get that he doesn't like living in Picard's shadow and needs a full blood transfusion from him, but his plan to use the Romulans after luring Picard there (for what, exactly?) and to take out the Federation--which necessitates taking out Earth--all feels a bit convoluted. Cheesy moments manage to find their way into the proceedings (I'm looking at you, scene where Shinzon's viceroy takes a Palpatine-like plunge down a shaft somewhere in the bowels of the Enterprise). And the Remans suffer from a seriously bad case of Stormtrooper Syndrome throughout the entire movie.

Best to focus on Shinzon, Jean-Luc. They can't hit you.

For all its flaws, though, Nemesis does deliver. I always loved the underlying philosophical question it poses: how different of a person would you be if you were raised under different circumstances? To what degree is your life shaped by forces out of your control? It's something I've thought about a lot, and I still haven't come up with a good answer. Picard doesn't have a good answer in the film either, and he's clearly bothered by the thought that he could've turned out like Shinzon if he had been slave laborized. Data has some interesting input on the matter, as he relates it to his own contrast with his clueless android buddy, B4. Data and Picard endeavor to be more than they are; they strive to improve themselves. Shinzie and B4 don't. However differently their circumstances might be pushing them, that's the distinction. I confess that's a bit simplistic for my liking. It doesn't take into account the prospect that self-improvement is a luxury for the successful; if your potential is nurtured by favorable circumstances, you can reach it and keep going. But if unfavorable circumstances consistently block you from reaching your potential, how can you improve yourself? It's not quite so easy. At what point, though, does bad luck become an excuse to do bad things? I don't think there's a good answer, and while I'm intrigued by Data's, I did feel like it was a hasty attempt to brush the issue aside so we could move on to the lengthy final action sequence. I wish they would've delved into the question a little more.

Largely because of that question, though, Shinzon is a good villain. It's always interesting to see a corrupted, shadowy reflection of the hero, gazing through the proverbial glass darkly. Here's a dude with the exact-same genetic material as Picard, who at times has had the exact-same thoughts and dreams as Picard, and he's about to wipe out an entire planet (for starters). Under the right (wrong) circumstances, could Picard have ever reached a point where he would do such a thing? Picard himself isn't sure, and it haunts him throughout the film. He feels sorry for Shinzon and wants desperately to help him, but he can't. The toll this takes on Picard is abundantly clear when he drives a metal rod through Shinzon's stomach and watches him die inches away from his face. Picard stares ahead, motionless, frozen, as the bioweapon's firing sequence nears the end of its countdown. That, along with Data's timely arrival and wordless goodbye to Picard, plays extremely well. I've felt the impact more with each viewing.

Well, the memory download didn't work.
I think I'll just try stabbing you in the neck.

And let's talk about Data. Nemesis does a fine job of showcasing why he's such a great character. Without a second thought, he does everything possible to help B4, including sharing all of his memories with him. Without a second thought, he sacrifices himself to save Picard and the rest of the Enterprise crew. In fact, he disobeys Picard's direct order to remain on the Enterprise, without any hesitation, to ensure that he's the one to go down with the Scimitar in the process of destroying the bioweapon and that Picard can make it back safely. Now that's a stand-up guy.

Like Spock before him, Data is a character who is mentally and physically superior to humans. He's in a position that gives him every reason to look down on humans. But he doesn't. He's fascinated by them. Wants to feel their emotions. Wants to learn everything about them. Wants to actually become more like them. And, in the end, he dies for them without hope or expectation of anything in return. I can't begin to express how refreshing it is to see a higher-than-human character who focuses on the better parts of humanity, strives to understand what it is that makes them human, and celebrates their unique nature. This is infinitely more appealing than a higher-than-human character who expresses disgust for humanity, condemns them for their nature, and expects unconditional worship and obedience from them...but that's a topic for another day. In short, Data is awesome.

No worries, Captain. I got this.

When I first saw Nemesis, I thought Data's death was too abrupt and the aftermath was too rushed. I felt like there wasn't enough time to really feel the impact. But after subsequent viewings, I really appreciate the brevity with which it's handled. For long-time fans, there's no need to pound us over the head with how big a loss this is. It's huge. And the silent moments say more than any words could. Riker unwittingly demonstrates this when he tries to cheer everyone up with a funny story about his first meeting with Data. Data had been making a hilarious attempt to whistle a song, but Riker can't quite remember what the song was. This is an excellent illustration of how the crew members are fumbling to deal with the loss of their friend, struggling to find the right words and fighting to piece together the memories they suddenly have to rely on. This is also helped by B4's unexpected singing of Data's song from the beginning and Picard's subsequent smiling walk down the hallway. His friend's memories will indeed live on.

There were plenty of little touches I appreciated in the film, as well. The well-played humor. Shinzon's taunting of Picard during the final battle ("You're too slow, old man."). Picard telling Data to shut up during his toast. Mike Novick from 24 as a Romulan who gets uppity with Shinzon. The dark, sinister, foreboding quality of every shot on Romulus (I especially loved the POV shot of the Romulan chick peeking back through the senate chamber gate when Shinzon was having one of his episodes). It's good stuff, and the film didn't get nearly enough credit for it.

Though I didn't think so at first, Nemesis is a worthy goodbye to The Next Generation crew and a solid film in general. It has a few problems, but the good far outweighs the bad. If you weren't wowed by it the first time around, I encourage you to give it another shot. Come at it with a fresh set of eyes. In this age of mindless popcorn Trek, Nemesis is the last piece of classic Trek we'll be seeing for a long, long time (possibly forever). Like Data, its memory is strong enough to live on. So make it so.