Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Television Media

The Business of Star Trek 256

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the rolling-in-the-bucks dept.
angkor writes "Paramount claims merchandise sales have exceeded $4 billion over Trek's lifetime; 470 people have actually paid $5,000 apiece for a life-size replica of the villain Locutus." And that my friends, is why Nemesis didn't even have to be a really good movie.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Business of Star Trek

Comments Filter:
  • by Jace of Fuse! (72042) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @11:06AM (#4891665) Homepage
    A life sized Beverly Crusher... Maybe.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 15, 2002 @11:06AM (#4891666)
    At least they found a new way to skill the red-shirt guy on the bridge.
  • Uh huh... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by djupedal (584558) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @11:08AM (#4891675)
    ...and what was that industry claim, again, about how pirate DVD's are hurting the industry...and why anyone should care?

    Or does the USD$4bil include estimates of perceived gain as well (as opposed to projected loses)?
    • by AKnightCowboy (608632) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @12:14PM (#4891936)
      ...and what was that industry claim, again, about how pirate DVD's are hurting the industry...and why anyone should care?

      Are you really that stupid? Of course pirate DVDs are hurting the industry! Have you seen the utter shit they've been putting out recently? If they had had the money lost to the pirates they could've produced some good quality movies instead of the garbage cast upon us. Mr. Deeds was a personal "FUCK YOU" to the movie pirates of America for stealing from the MPAA. You spend a few hours downloading that piece of crap and end up deleting it since it's such a waste of space.

      • To me, the release of "Mr. Deeds" was an IQ test. Anyone stupid enough to pay for it or download it or otherwise expend any kind of resource in acquisition of that movie, after seeing the trailer, deserves what he gets, and gets no sympathy from me.

        If you want a movie worth watching, why not get the original [imdb.com], starring a real actor [imdb.com], directed by a real director [imdb.com], who is a 1000 times better than the room-temperature-IQ-mouth-breathers behind most current movies. Not to mention that it's also the inspiration for the excellent Rush song, "Cinderella Man".

      • Re:Uh huh... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by noewun (591275)
        There is absolutely no connection between pirating movies and quality. Hollywood has been making absolute shit for decades, long before any pirating existed. Mr. Deeds sucked because 95% of what comes out of Hollywood always sucks.

        For perspective, 1999 was considered one of the best years in Hollywood history because there were FOUR really good movies (American Beauty, Sixth Sense, Magnolia, and Matrix) out of the hundred or so released. So, a good year has less than five good movies.

        What do you think a bad year has?

        And, BTW, you should know better than to see an Adam Sandler movie. . .

        • And, BTW, you should know better than to see an Adam Sandler movie. . .

          Unless it's directed by P.T. Anderson, of course. (:
      • by curunir (98273)
        If they had had the money lost to the pirates they could've produced some good quality movies instead of the garbage cast upon us.

        The poor quality of movies has nothing to do with lacking money. In point of fact, it is a new DRM solution that the MPAA is experimenting with. It's already been proven that DRM solutions applied to the finished product do not work (I won't rehash the DeCSS fiasco, but suffice it to say that it didn't work for the MPAA). They've therefore shifted to applying their DRM solution to the screenplay. They're hoping that the screenplay encoding format (known in some artistic circles as the "filmmaking process") will prove too difficult for the pirates to crack.

        And it *does* to be working. Had the original script of "Mr. Deeds" been made into a movie, there would have been rampant piracy. However, I have yet to see a single pirated copy of "Mr. Deeds." No other DRM technology has yet proven this successful. Like it or not, you should expect to see more of this technology in the future.

        However, the MPAA cannot relax yet. Hackers are said to be hard at work on cracking the screenplay encoding format. It's rumored that a fully functional, Keanu Reeves simulation already exists, though most believe that it is incapable of encoding any line other than, "Whoah!"
    • Re:Uh huh... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by MacAndrew (463832)
      A curmudgeon's critique:

      (1) Against those silly people who spend $$$ on silly movies;

      (2) Against those silly people who pirate silly movies while insisting how silly they are.

      At least group 1 is honest about what they like and how they acquire it.

      And if the franchise is making "too much money," and deserves to be knocked down a notch by piracy, then let's not forget those productions that make "too little money," who deserve our subsidies. That seems symmetrical, and thus queerly moral, though few of us are going to send checks to money-losing moviemakers.

      At least we could help people who can't afford these movies to see them. the folks complaining that the studios are making too much money or that the products are too exapensive are often those who can afford them. Either way, science fiction isn't really a nutritional need up there with the four food groups. If I was going to steal something, it would be food first. If you just have to have a Picard figurine and insist on stealing it, well you have issues..... most of use scrape by without a Picard figurine, or personal copies of the movies for that matter.

      Outside of the US, esp. the developing world, the DVD prices must seem outrageous. (I have no ideas as to the foreign prices of figurines, lunchboxes, "fake" phasers, and so on.) Perhaps the industry will work out a multitier price scheme as do the drug companies. That was the whole point of regional DVD's?

      Of course most of these arguments are just a bit silly, as are all of the rationalizations for Robin Hood piracy of this fluff. Sobriety first.

      The Star Trek series would have ended earlier if its profits has been just a bit thinner. Ok, maybe it should have ended earlier, but I like many see value in some of the later work -- and we pay our way. True, the grosses are grosser [the-numbers.com] than many realize! But are they out of proportion to the success and likability of the series? Hell, they hit the jackpot over and over (every other film maybe) and deserve it, it's not coming out of anyone else's pocket who didn't ask to see it.

      On Trek -- I love the bald slant in MSNBC Nemesis review subtitle [msnbc.com]: "It's good enough for Trekkers but not for rest of us." What are Trekkers, a brainwashed subspecies? (well, maybe.) Should I trust a review by someone who confesses bias as "the rest of us"? (Just an editorial thing.)

      I really really really want to see a bold successor to Trek that develops a whole 'nuther universe without cheats like transporters and phasers and Spock. I thought I was seeing that emerge in the bio-universe of Farscape, one of the first non-derivative space operas in a long time. Oh well, I may have to wait for Farscape: The Next Generation.
      • A troll mod? Why, did I offend the modder?

        Might be a good time to think about the term troll. My comment was sincere and weighted to provoke thoughtful debate. I don't see these issues aired at all often (I assume the first half of the comment offended). I also won't drop the remark and run; the comment is not there to inflame.

        I don't give a damn about losing a point of karma. I do dislike some anonymous twerp doing the equivalent of yelling "shut up." That's the real troll.
  • by loggia (309962) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @11:08AM (#4891677)
    There are so many serious problems with that article that it is hard to take it seriously.

    First of all, it refers to Rick Berman as the "new" honcho of Star Trek. Huh? He has been the honcho for more than a decade.

    Second, it "buries the lede." That is a journalism phrase to indictate that the most important element of the story has been pushed to the bottom. At the end of the article you will find that "Enterprise" is the lowest rated Star Trek show in history, achieving one third of the ratings of Voyager. And Voyager's ratings were always quite low.

    Sometimes an editor gets an idea for an article and it remains despite the article no longer representing the headline. The headline wants you to believe Star Trek is continuing to be lucrative for Paramount, but when you read the article you begin to scratch your head. The box office chart is not adjusted for inflation and if it was, you'd see each movie seems to do basically less worldwide box office with each iteration.

    Etc etc

    • What was that saying about Editors? They're the ones that come down off the hill, after the battle, and shoot the wounded...

      Your point about adjusting for inflation is well taken. All the more reason for fan-consumers to ignore the hype, since that is all any of the chatter is any more.
    • by rtos (179649) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @11:32AM (#4891770) Homepage
      Yes, adjusting for inflation and COL is always important when comparing monetary amounts from different years. Good call! Here's the woldwide gross for each Trek movie in adjusted 2002 dollars:
      ST1 - $370m (Highest)

      ST2 - $194m
      ST3 - $159m
      ST4 - $225m
      ST5 - $104m (Lowest)
      ST6 - $127m
      ST7 - $147m
      ST8 - $174m
      ST9 - $131m
      FWIW.
      • Ticket prices also (Score:3, Insightful)

        by dachshund (300733)
        Here's the woldwide gross for each Trek movie in adjusted 2002 dollars

        Even adjusting for inflation doesn't do it. You have to adjust for changes in ticket prices, which have accelerated well beyond inflation. Throw that in, or look at the actual number of tickets sold, and the picture gets even grimmer.

        • by Alsee (515537)
          You have to adjust for changes in ticket prices

          I dissagree. They are measuring the comercial value of the movies. It doesn't matter if half as many people see it if they are willing to pay twice as much.

          -
          • I dissagree. They are measuring the comercial value of the movies. It doesn't matter if half as many people see it if they are willing to pay twice as much.

            If average theatre attendance also dropped by half during that period, then drops in Trek attendance wouldn't mean a lot. If, on the other hand, Americans were still turning out for other movies in droves (despite the price increases), while Trek ticket sales plummeted, then Trek would have a problem.

            Or put it as a question: why should a multiplex waste a screen on a half-full showing of Trek when it can use that resource for a full showing of Harry Potter? And why should Paramount put money into Trek if it can get better attendance on another film?

            • And why should Paramount put money into Trek if it can get better attendance on another film?

              If they don't make a Trek movie (which WILL make money) then are going make another movie, and not every movie is a "Harry Potter". The "other" movie they make could very well wind up being a Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within or The Adventures of Pluto Nash. Those two movies were boc office flops. Definitely getting a theater half full is better than maybe getting a theater completely empty.

              -
      • ST9 - $131m

        Which is a pity, because it was the only movie which came close to the core of what Star Trek was all about. Ie, not just space battles. But many of the kids doesn't like it (not enough action presumably)
    • From just above the box office charts in the article:
      The Box Office
      Trek films often escaped the sci-fi niche to become mainstream hits.
      Worldwide gross in 2002 dollars:
      Which part of 'worldwide gross in 2002 dollars' do you interpret as being not adjusted for inflation? In fact, since the numbers actually are inflation adjusted, the numbers do indeed support the notion, that Star Trek still makes Paramount loads of dollars.
    • by coaxial (28297) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @02:07PM (#4892423) Homepage

      There are so many serious problems with that article that it is hard to take it seriously.


      Okay Comic Book Guy [snpp.com] , it's time for you learn how the outside world works.


      First of all, it refers to Rick Berman as the "new" honcho of Star Trek. Huh? He has been the honcho for more than a decade.


      So the "serious" problem is that Berman is described as "new"? Let's examine this.

      Most people don't know who he is. They know that Gene Roddenberry created "Star Trek". They know that Roddenberry is dead. They have no idea who took over after his death. Couple this with the fact that Berman has replaced the famous man that led Star Trek for 25 years until his death, I'd think a relative nobody that has lead for less than half that time would still be described as "new", espcially since "new" is a relative term.

      Or is your real problem that Berman isn't described as "the antichrist who destoryed 'Trek"?

      Second, it "buries the lede." That is a journalism phrase to indictate that the most important element of the story has been pushed to the bottom.

      At the end of the article you will find that "Enterprise" is the lowest rated Star Trek show in history, achieving one third of the ratings of Voyager. And Voyager's ratings were always quite low.


      Apparently you have a very different view of what the "lead" is in this story, than everyone else. Afterall, it's so easy to think that the main point of the article is "Rick Berman sucks, and so does Enterprise", given that the article has a solid gold (or at least gold-plated) 1701-D wizzing by $100 bills.

      Or perhaps your main problem with the article is that it points out that Paramount doesn't really give a damn what the freakish fans think, because they make gobs and gobs of money from the the casual fan.

      The headline wants you to believe Star Trek is continuing to be lucrative for Paramount, but when you read the article you begin to scratch your head.

      Really? I'm left scratching my head on what article you read, since it the article points out that even though Nemesis "won't make as much as, say, Spider-Man. Yet Star Trek has outlasted other brands over the years. (Suck a phaser, Batman.)".

      The point of the article is that Star Trek is long running, continous, steady revenue stream. Sure it might not make bursts of money like some of the more trendy movies, but it has a staying power (and therefore merchandising lifespan) many time greater.

      The box office chart is not adjusted for inflation and if it was, you'd see each movie seems to do basically less worldwide box office with each iteration.

      Perhaps you'd like to reread the article, this time without your Berman Hating Goggles(tm) on, because you are completly, and demonstrably, wrong.

      Allow me to quote [time.com]:


      The Box Office
      Trek films often escaped the sci-fi niche to become mainstream hits. Worldwide gross in 2002 dollars:

      Star Trek: The Motion Picture
      INIT 1979 -- $370 million

      Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
      LOSS 1982 -- $194 million

      Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
      LOSS 1984 -- $159 million

      Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
      GAIN 1986 -- $225 million

      Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
      LOSS 1989 -- $104 million

      Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
      GAIN 1991 -- $127 million

      Star Trek: Generations
      GAIN 1994 -- $147 million

      Star Trek: First Contact
      GAIN 1996 -- $174 million

      Star Trek: Insurrection
      LOSS 1998 -- $131 million


      So "basically less" now means that that three of the last four movies each made more than the previous one? Hmm...


      Etc etc


      I couldn't have said it better myself.
      • You seem to be very angry.

        The term is "lede" not lead. Try a google search for "buried the lede."

        Paramount is not happy with Star Trek currently.

        Star Trek: Nemesis is looking at the weakest opening numbers of any Star Trek film in the franchise's history.

        Enterprise has the lowest ratings of any Star Trek series. This is extremely bad as they need to recoup all the money they spend (almost $2 million per episode) in anticipation of syndication. That is all that matters to Paramount - how much they can strip the series for later.

        The article is strangely misrepresentative of the current situation with the francise and really sounds like it was spoonfed by Rick Berman to the reporter, who is trying to justify his job in light of Paramount's current unhappiness.

        That is how "the outside world works" as you put it.

        • You seem to be very angry.

          And you seem to have issues.

          Star Trek: Nemesis is looking at the weakest opening numbers of any Star Trek film in the franchise's history.

          First off, as of yet, there are no numbers since the weekend isn't over, so you where are you getting your information? Second, you destoryed your credibility when you were exposed for lying about the article you supposably read, so why should anyone believe you?

          Enterprise has the lowest ratings of any Star Trek series.

          And the article said so.

          This is extremely bad as they need to recoup all the money they spend (almost $2 million per episode) in anticipation of syndication.

          Wow. A whole 2 million?
          TNG spent $1.5 million per episode [bbc.co.uk] during its first season. Factoring in inflation, that's a deal.

          That is all that matters to Paramount - how much they can strip the series for later.

          As opposed to how they've kept TOS so virginal?

          • Strip means to syndicate. Weekend box office estimates are in by Sunday morning.

            Your rhetoric makes it difficult to talk to you.
            • Weekend box office estimates are in by Sunday morning.

              I stand corrected. [slantmagazine.com]

              Opening weekends for every "Star Trek" film starring Patrick Stewart: 1998's Insurrection ($22 million), 1996's First Contact ($30.7 million) and 1994's Generations ($23.1 million). The latest even-numbered sequel, Star Trek: Nemesis, has garnered the requisite good reviews. Taking inflation into account, Nemesis stands a good chance of surpassing First Contact's opening cume. Paramount will release the film in over 3,000 theaters and hopes to snag the number one spot with an estimated $32 million.


              However you remain undenyably, indigently, and utterly completely wrong. And that is why it is impossible to talk to you.

              You spout these things like you know what you're talking about, but each one is demonstably false. Why do you continue to do this? All it does is make you look like you at best an idiot, or at worse like you have some sort of agenda that involves spreading FUD about 'Trek.

              • The opening weekend box office estimate for Nemesis is about $19 million. I have no idea what that is you linked to.

                You seem to think having a discussion is about poking someone in the eye or being "right" or "wrong." Or rather, I don't even know what you are trying to accomplish.

                My opinion is that Star Trek is in trouble. I have that justified that well enough, even I misread a box office chart in a Time article. How you take that and turn it into "exposed for lying" is just bizarre. You are bizarre. Goodbye.
                • You seem to think having a discussion is about poking someone in the eye or being "right" or "wrong."

                  First off there has never been a discussion. You complelty mischaracterized the article. You have repeatedly put out falsehoods as "facts", and I've pointed them out. There is nothing to discuss, you have not been correct even once.

                  Excuse me for getting pissed off when someone spouts things that knowingly spouts things that are easily proven incorrect as if he is some master that has come down from off the mountain to enlighten us all. That is why you've been flamed. If you don't like it, I'd suggest you get your facts straight before spouting off half cocked.

                  You are bizarre.

                  *tear*

                  Goodbye.

                  *PLONK*
  • by nuintari (47926) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @11:09AM (#4891679) Homepage
    Why would someone pay that kind of money for a big giant borg doll when Realdoll sells one that actually looks pleasent. If you need companionship due to your nerd induced ugliness and low social status, don't compound your unnattractiveness by screwing a giant borg man. Go buy a sexy lingerie doll and pretend its a real girl, its good practice for pretending you actually have a life.
  • Locutus?! (Score:5, Funny)

    by OS2_will_prevail! (630613) <ianh@@@rica...net> on Sunday December 15, 2002 @11:10AM (#4891684)
    Wow, a life sized LoB model? And here I was happy with my Borg Cube Christmas ornament! "We are the Borg, Enjoy your hollidays, Resistance is Futile!"
    • by Mish (50810)
      Should I be scared or amused that my first thought when I read your post was "That is *SO* cool, I want one".

    • And here I was happy with my Borg Cube Christmas ornament! "We are the Borg, Enjoy your hollidays, Resistance is Futile!"

      That's not a Borg Cube, it's a fruitcake. The rest still applies, though.
    • in actually buying one of these, in the Las Vegas Hilton in their Star Trek wing [startrekexp.com] (seriously) they have a store where you can see the life-sized locutus for real (and other such rich-folks collectibles), and buy them if you like.

      Maybe it's just me, but I'd never buy anything like that unless I've seen it up close in real life.

      ... Also for $12,000 you can have them (the paramount wardrobe department) custom make you a Klingon Warrior Uniform [startrekexp.com].
  • is pre- or pro- Roddenbury?
  • by PhreakOfTime (588141) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @11:13AM (#4891697) Homepage

    I wonder why they didnt use the RIAA method of calculating sales. I bet the 'actual' number would be around 300 trillion.

    Lets see, you have to count lost sales as 'stolen revenue', so every time someone looks at an episode of star trek without watching commercials, lost revenue. Every utterance of a copywrighted line from any star trek, lost royalties...you get the idea...

    Shut up...its funny to me, but Ive been up since the day before yesterday doing networking layouts...

  • What about the fans? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Nefrayu (601593) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @11:13AM (#4891699) Homepage
    Intel has made lots of money off of computer processors, but to say that they can release a substandard chip and not care about it is wrong.
    It's the same way with Nemesis. I've sworn off seeing these Treks in the theaters anymore. After Insurection and now this turkey of a movie, I've decided it just isn't worth it. I'll wait until someone else buys the DVD, or I'll download it from Kazaa. If you take into account that I saw the STII:TWOK in the theater three times and STIV:TVH twice, I think it's safe to say that Paramount stands to lose money from bad movies.
    • by Murdock037 (469526) <tristranthorn@hotma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Sunday December 15, 2002 @12:02PM (#4891898)
      Unfortunately, I think you're in the minority.

      It seems to me that the quality of the Trek movies, on the whole, is negligible to most of the audience. Did you read the comments [slashdot.org] from the review [slashdot.org] here on Slashdot a few days ago?

      So many people have said that they'll disregard what they hear, from critics or friends, and go see it anyways. "And I'll probably enjoy it, no matter how bad it is." Why is this? Star Trek has become like the McDonald's of film franchises. Bland, predictable. You just sort of... go. When was the last time you really looked forward to a meal at McDonald's?

      I'm not really one to talk, I guess-- I kinda sorta look forward to the new Star Wars movies, despite myself. Same idea.
      • It's noble that you can admit you have a problem - that you've been somewhat owned by a cultural franchise, that is in turn owned by a media conglomerate. I don't know if being self-conscious about it alone about it makes it a lot better - but if people went to see, say, Solaris (which is flawed, but at least it *wants* to be a good movie) or even non-science-fiction films like the latest Dogme movie, then you are making an effort, and more importantly creating a stronger financial incentive to make high-quality, intellectually ambitious films.

        I'm not part of fan culture; I look at it from the outside. On one hand, I can see both a kind of carnival atmosphere in it - there's some shred of creative expression in soaking in the meta-narratives of these popular culture franchises. And at least some of the fans really contest ownership of those franchises, in fan art and fan fiction and the like - there's something valorous about that. But the other side of it is that it's one of the more primitive ways to related to narrative art: almost total focus on diagesis, a neurotic escapism that often appears as an express desire to inhabit the worlds constructed by the stories, etc. I don't need to go on about the absurdities and stupidities of fan culture: I'm sure you've all seen it, and all of us have engaged in it a little to varying extents as a guilty pleasure.

        I think it is best if people try to put the fan-epoch of their lives behind them at a certain point, as part of their personal-cultural adolescence. I think there's a developmental process in the appreciation of artworks and stories that has somehow become stunted particularly in American culture, which leads me to suspect that it could be an educational failure.

        • I think it is best if people try to put the fan-epoch of their lives behind them at a certain point, as part of their personal-cultural adolescence.

          A big, in fact possibly the major component of 'geek culture' is the state of arrested adolescence. It comes out of the geekdom of the 70's and 80's that spawned all the geek mythos.

          It's near impossible for some people to put aside the culture of their youth and move on.

          And that isn't a particularly new phenomenon. My father is still stuck on the big-band music that he grew up with. His glory days were those years in the Navy in San Diego when Bob Crosby's Bobcats were in all their glory.

          The big difference is the durable, almost shrilly persistent 'youth culture' of the 70's and 80's. 'Drug culture' just reeks of irresponsible adolescence type living. And look at all the heros of 'geekdom': people like Stallman and Raymond, a couple of offbeat counter-culture types. Sure, there's room for responsible Adult types like Larry Wall, but not on center stage.
    • I actually liked Nemesis. It wasn't my favorite ever, but it was quite enjoyable. I cross my fingers in hopes of more Next-Gen movies. The ticket was worth every penny.
  • A different view (Score:3, Informative)

    by skroz (7870) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @11:21AM (#4891726) Homepage
    I'm a pretty big trek fan, as trek fans go, and I REALLY liked the film. I'm terrible at writing reviews without giving away plot hints, but I'm here to say that it was probably my #3 favorite trek film.

    One thing, though. I can see people interested in Locutus, Borg Queen, Khan, or a few other star trek-related bad guys. But this film's bad guy? He's just picard with a narrower, younger head. He was still a good bad guy, I thought, but I don't think he has the sinister style that sticks with people like the other bad guys I mentioned.

    But anyway, go see the movie... it was excellent.
    • by Nefrayu (601593) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @11:25AM (#4891744) Homepage
      Yeah, it was nice to see that the british accent is genetic, because obviously growing up in the dilithium mines of Remus didn't affect that in the least. What a good villian and great writing... for me to poop on.
      • Re:A different view (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Drachemorder (549870) <brandon@NoSPAM.christiangaming.org> on Sunday December 15, 2002 @12:04PM (#4891904) Homepage
        "Yeah, it was nice to see that the british accent is genetic"

        I'd expect that the Romulans would have been training him to speak with a British accent before they gave up the infiltration plan and abandoned him on Remus. He looked about 10-12 in the flashbacks that showed him being thrown into the dungeons, so it seems reasonable that he'd already developed his accent by that time.

        Not that I'm saying I thought he was a good villain --- he wasn't really --- but the accent certainly isn't any less believable than the idea of a universal translator that can even make aliens' lips move like they're speaking English...

      • by sql*kitten (1359) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @12:24PM (#4891979)
        Yeah, it was nice to see that the british accent is genetic

        Actually, it is genetic. If you have two British parents, you also get the rules of cricket, all the Beatles' lyrics and an assortment of Monty Python quotes too. The sense of humour has to be learnt, tho'.
      • It's even funnier when you remember that Jean Luc Picard is supposed to be a friggin frog. So did England conquer France in the future or maybe the entire EU?
        • It's even funnier when you remember that Jean Luc Picard is supposed to be a friggin frog. So did England conquer France in the future...?

          No. France surrendered preemptively to the Brits.

    • When Data dies, he goes, calmly, logically, into the breach, to save his Captain and his friends. There is a story brewing in me about his last conversation with Geordi as they went to send him over to his ship - a conversation that would've added depth to the film, if someone had thought about it. But is he dead? Or does he live on in B4? The fanworld may debate this one for a while...

      Some problems though:
      -- No mention of Spock. Would it have killed them?
      -- Brief glimpse of Wesley, but no explanations.
      -- Cameo of Guinan. Nice, short, and sweet.
      -- All the technobabble in the film made me realize that Enterprise has done fairly well at keeping it to a minimum.
      -- Romulans can now fire while cloaked. Oh, goody...
      -- Another Romulan we could've seen but didn't: Tomalok.

      It was an average film for average geeks. C+.
    • by k-0s (237787)
      I'm a pretty big trek fan, as trek fans go, and I REALLY liked the film. I'm terrible at writing reviews without giving away plot hints, but I'm here to say that it was probably my #3 favorite trek film.


      One thing, though. I can see people interested in Locutus, Borg Queen, Khan, or a few other star trek-related bad guys. But this film's bad guy? He's just picard with a narrower, younger head. He was still a good bad guy, I thought, but I don't think he has the sinister style that sticks with people like the other bad guys I mentioned.

      But anyway, go see the movie... it was excellent.


      This too, was my 3rd favorite Star Trek behind #2 and #8. I also think this was the 3rd best bad guy behind the two in the previously mentioned movies. No sinister style? *PLOT SPOILER, DON'T READ IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE* This guy was sinister. He wanted to destroy an entire planet and then the entire Federation, he killed the senate of an empire, had one of his own guys shot for messing up, mind raped Troi, sacrificed his own life to beat Picard and when he was inpaled he pulled the bar through him to try to strangle Picard.
  • Breasts? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Nefrayu (601593) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @11:33AM (#4891775) Homepage
    Star Trek, it seems, will now hang its future on a reliable formula: explosions and breasts.
    Isn't this the same formula that caused all those lawsuits against the implant manufacturers?
  • 463 of these people are regular /. readers... :-)
  • by carb (611951) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @12:11PM (#4891923) Homepage
    470 people have actually paid $5,000 apiece for a life-size replica of the villain Locutus.

    I think they're forgetting those of the 470 who bought two dolls to watch them make out with one another.

  • I still wonder why they bother with phaser shoot-out when you can usually just use the transporter and cause an 'accident' (telefrag)
  • nemesis (Score:2, Troll)

    by in_ur_face (177250)
    i'm sorry but nemesis was a good movie.
    • I saw it, and loved it.

      I was appalled by the review that R. Ebert gave it. I can't trust him to dis bad movies anymore because he "shit the bed" on his remarks about Nemesis. He might plug some pretty good ones, but how can we trust a critic who spoils one of the best scenes late in the movie? Don't trailers do enough of that!

      As for this article, people have already pointed out how flawed the research is.
  • by sacrilicious (316896) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @12:26PM (#4891989) Homepage
    And that my friends, is why Nemesis didn't even have to be a really good movie.

    Precisely. Churning out these heavily advertised schlock movies is no longer about quality, and hasn't been for quite some time. Back when Star Wars prequel 1 was in the works I was working in the special effects industry, and a full year in advance of its release date I remember hearing from the higher-ups at Lucas that the movie was already guaranteed profitability, because of all the merchandising follow-ons and themed advertising partnerships that were already in place. It made me feel ill, and I have refused to go see prequel 1 or 2, and in fact will not see another star wars movie. I'd rather have the time for other experiences.

    .

  • by DavidBrown (177261) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @12:38PM (#4892042) Journal
    Seriously. If people are spending money on Locutus of Borg dummies (how much would a lifesize, vibrating 7 of 9 go for?), you know that they would buy a PCS phone that looks like a classic trek communicator. Paramount can't be so much above being greedy that they cannot have figured this one out.

    Then again, maybe that would push the creation of the Church of Star Trek, and if you watch Futurama, you know what that means...

  • two reasons even their built-in audience might give this a miss:

    one [treknews.de] and two [trek5.com]

    the people who own/write/act/produce trek are bored with their cash cow
  • I thought it was halfway decent -- better than all the odd-numbered movies and not as good as the even-numbered movies. The biggest problem I had with Nemesis is that it was a little too haughty -- it stepped on too many sacred cows:
    • It incorporated the theme from the TOS movies. While the original TV theme is a requirement, the TOS movie theme is the domain of the TOS cast, in my opinion, and shouldn't have been used in a TNG movie.
    • The Star Trek logo was changed in a way just for this movie. While it might have been appropriate to change the Star Trek logo for a genre of movies, such as all TNG movies, or a trilogy of TNG movies at the smallest subset, changing it for just one movie is just too haughty.
    Brent Spiner obviously put his heart and soul into this movie. But he wasn't humble about it, for the above reasons, and because he went through the whole movie with that p***ed off look. I can't believe I haven't read the comment on Slashdot yet, "Why was Data constipated the whole movie?"

    Every appearance of this movie was not that it wasn't intended to be just another movie in the franchise (as suggested by this article, being published at the time of the movie release), as Insurrection was (it was just a TNG episode, not an epic). This was intended to be a good movie, and I might have even thought it better than ST8 if it hadn't been for the haughtiness.

  • by mao che minh (611166) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @02:17PM (#4892490) Journal
    Before Nemesis, I had never seen an actual Star Trek movie. I have only seen an episode of the newest version, and as a kid I saw about 10 episodes of "The Next Generation". So, as someone without any pre-disposition to like or dislike the film, here goes:

    I thought that over all, it was a good scifi movie. It had the visuals, cools toys, and special effects that looked good. The acting was actually far better then I thought it was going to be, especially the bad guy Shinwa (or however they were saying the name) and Picard. The way that the film makers made you think about origins and the way one turns out in life was cool. However, I had a hard time believing that a human that grew up with a bunch of aliens would have an English accent, but whatever. He was still a dark and ominous character. I do remember some of the series plotlines and character relationships, so it was nice to see the way that some of them have evolved. This aspect seemed well done, especially when you consider that this is the last film. I also liked the way that Data went out, that was pretty suprising.

  • And they still havent made any money [billfitzhugh.com]
  • 470 people have actually paid $5,000 apiece for a life-size replica of the villain Locutus

    While I'm sure there are some trek weirdos and collectors that have these sort of things... how many were collected by theatres, conventions, and other businesses/events that wanted to promote some $tar Trek cash inflow?

Lisp Users: Due to the holiday next Monday, there will be no garbage collection.

Working...