Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies Media

Rick Berman Doesn't Know Why Nemesis Tanked 1210

Posted by Hemos
from the well-'cuz-it-sucked-for-one dept.
Steve Krutzler writes "Star Trek producer Rick Berman broke his silence today on the debacle that was the North American box office for STAR TREK NEMESIS. The film grossed $18.5 million in its opening weekend in mid-December, the lowest of any TREK bow, and its current domestic total stands below even that of the much-lambasted STAR TREK V. Read more at TrekWeb. Berman says he doesn't know why the movie failed and the future of more TREK movies is uncertain."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Rick Berman Doesn't Know Why Nemesis Tanked

Comments Filter:
  • by Kefaa (76147) on Tuesday February 04, 2003 @03:11PM (#5224941)
    Rick Berman's First Post-NEMESIS Interview: Future of Feature Franchise Unclear
    Posted: 12:22:56 on February 04 2003
    By: Steve Krutzler
    Dept: Star Trek: Nemesis
    In his first interview since the debacle of STAR TREK NEMESIS at the North American box office, producer Rick Berman says the future of the feature franchise is uncertain and he and the studio are not ready to jump back in immediately.
    "I don't think this is like falling off a horse, and you want to jump right back on it," he told Sci-Fi Wire. "There's a theory that there was too much time [between Insurrection and Nemesis]. There's another theory that there wasn't too much time. I, along with the people at Paramount, need a few months of perspective and thinking about it to then decide what's the best thing to do next."

    The exec is also cautious about explaning the film's poor performance.

    "There's no way of telling what happened," Berman said. "I'm convinced that we made a very good movie, and I'm also convinced that the movie was promoted properly. I thought the trailers and the television spots were all excellent. It's easy to blame that sort of thing, but I don't think we can in this situation. I think that the competition of other films may have played some part in it, but I can't be certain of that, either. It's very, very hard to tell."

    STAR TREK NEMESIS debuted in U.S. and Canadian theatres on December 13th and went on to the #2 spot in its debut weekend with $18.5 million, the lowest opening weekend gross of any STAR TREK picture. The film's domestic total currently stands well short of $50 million. 1989's STAR TREK V: THE FINAL FRONTIER was the previous record-holder for lowest domestic box office with $52 million.

    Check out the original article here.

    It then linked to:
    ScifiWire Nemesis

    Trek Film Future Unsure

    Star Trek Nemesis executive producer Rick Berman told SCI FI Wire that several factors likely contributed to the film's lackluster box-office performance, and he added that the future of the film franchise remains uncertain. "There's no way of telling what happened," Berman said in an interview. "I'm convinced that we made a very good movie, and I'm also convinced that the movie was promoted properly."

    Berman added, "I thought the trailers and the television spots were all excellent. It's easy to blame that sort of thing, but I don't think we can in this situation. I think that the competition of other films may have played some part in it, but I can't be certain of that, either. It's very, very hard to tell."

    Berman sounded disappointed. "Obviously, you want a film to do well," he said. "You work for a long time, and you work for a long time, and if it doesn't do well, it's not fun."

    Berman went on to say that he's not sure what the future will hold for the Trek film franchise. "There's a theory that there was too much time [between Insurrection and Nemesis]," he said. "There's another theory that there wasn't too much time. I, along with the people at Paramount, need a few months of perspective and thinking about it to then decide what's the best thing to do next. I don't think this is like falling off a horse, and you want to jump right back on it. But we'll see."
  • Re:doomed (Score:3, Informative)

    by PeterChenoweth (603694) on Tuesday February 04, 2003 @03:30PM (#5225169)
    Correct. Odd's are generally bad, Even's are generally good. ST1: Uh, big cloud wants to find it's maker. Bad. ST2: Kahn wants revenge and we get lots of nice battles and decent effects. Good! ST3: Spock's growing pains and watching a planet fall apart. Wake me when it's over. ST4: Most inventive plot, good comedy ("Double dumb-ass on you!"). Very decent. ST5: Ah, what *does* god need with a starship? Terrible. ST6: Shakespeare in space. Good battles, awesome effects. What's not to love! ST7: Well, not awful, but not the greatest. Odd story line, parts don't make sense. ST8: Ooh. Borg and Time travel. Lots of nasty Borg, a few jokes. Pretty good. ST9: Again, not terrible, but pretty lame. Mostly a love story. Icky face stretching aliens but with really cool ships.
  • by Santos L. Halper (591801) on Tuesday February 04, 2003 @03:30PM (#5225176)
    No, Data wasn't retarded when he died. At the beginning of the movie, the crew found pieces of an earlier version of data and assembled him. He looked like Data, of course, but had trouble understanding very basic concepts.
  • by Evro (18923) <evandhoffman&gmail,com> on Tuesday February 04, 2003 @04:03PM (#5225515) Homepage Journal
    -Assuming Picard's clone-guy is at least 25 or so, that means they had to start cloning Picard back when he was just some random captain of a random ship (Stargazer?) Why'd they pick him?
    They advanced the clone's age, he was born while Picard was captain of the Enterprise. His advanced aging was why he was getting sick, I believe.

    I agree with you about Lore and Wil.
  • by NetFu (155538) on Tuesday February 04, 2003 @05:10PM (#5226128) Homepage Journal
    Roger Ebert had a REALLY funny review [suntimes.com] of Nemesis and why he's not interested in Star Trek any more. It had me laughing for at least 15 minutes. Here are a few choice quotes in case the page gets Slashdotted:

    "There might have been a time when the command deck of Starship Enterprise looked exciting and futuristic, but these days it looks like a communications center for security guards."

    "Fearsome death rays strike the Enterprise, and what happens? Sparks fly out from the ceiling and the crew gets bounced around in their seats like passengers on the No. 36 bus. This far in the future they wouldn't have sparks because they wouldn't have electricity, because in a world where you can beam matter--beam it, mind you--from here to there, power obviously no longer lives in the wall and travels through wires."

    "I've also had it with the force shield that protects the Enterprise. The power on this thing is always going down." ... "I'm thinking, life is too short to sit through 10 movies in which the power is shifted around on these shields. The shields have been losing power for decades now, and here it is the Second Generation of Star Trek, and they still haven't fixed them."

    "I tried to focus on the actors. Patrick Stewart, as Capt. Picard, is a wonderful actor. I know because I have seen him elsewhere. It is always said of Stewart that his strength as an actor is his ability to deliver bad dialogue with utter conviction. I say it is time to stop encouraging him."

    "There is a scene in the movie in which one starship rams another one. You would think this would destroy them both, and there are a lot of sparks and everybody has to hold onto their seats, but the "Star Trek" world involves physical laws which reflect only the needs of the plot. If one ship rammed another and they were both destroyed and everyone died, and the movie ended with a lot of junk floating around in space, imagine the faces of the people in the audience."

    "I think it is time for "Star Trek" to make a mighty leap forward another 1,000 years into the future, to a time when starships do not look like rides in a 1970s amusement arcade, when aliens do not look like humans with funny foreheads, and when wonder, astonishment and literacy are permitted back into the series. Star Trek was kind of terrific once, but now it is a copy of a copy of a copy."

    AMEN.
  • Re:My dot oh two. (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 04, 2003 @06:46PM (#5226931)
    Posting undoes your moderation (unless you post anonymously). I'm suprised you didn't know that.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 04, 2003 @08:14PM (#5227565)
    Old misconfigured teletype terminals, and some UNIX programs, used to echo control characters such as backspace (which has the same ASCII code as Ctrl-H) to the screen instead of acting on them. Thus, pressing the backspace key on such a misconfigured terminal would print a "^H" to the screen instead of moving the cursor back one space.
  • by Glytch (4881) on Tuesday February 04, 2003 @08:17PM (#5227580)
    My friend, I have just the series for you. It's called Babylon 5. Life, death, fate, redemption, saving the universe, saving one's soul, a righteous rebellion, a holy war, heroism, realistic characters, realistic physics, and three-edged metaphorical swords of truth. It's all there, and it's all good. Hell, even the made-for-TV movies weren't bad. Not exactly Shakespeare, but not nearly as awful as Nemesis or V.

    (And you sound like the kind of person who will absolutely love Marcus Cole.)

    In conclusion, "Woo hoo?"
  • Re:Well (Score:3, Informative)

    by barawn (25691) on Tuesday February 04, 2003 @10:51PM (#5228325) Homepage
    What the hell is it with everyone thinking that the starship collision scene was wrong? Here's a hint - it wasn't. It was fine. Two ships colliding in space, if they have a SERIOUS amount of structural integrity (bulkheads and the like) will be fine. They'll crush until the impulse is burned out (f delta t = m delta v and all that), and afterwards, when one pulls away from the other, they will rip up each other as the poor joints fail to communicate the large amount of stress imposed upon them.

    I saw one or two film reviewers try to bash the physics in that scene based on "there's no friction in space!" or "they would've just kept going, and not crushed into them!"

    Here's a brief reminder:

    Friction exists between any two bodies that have a force that's perpendicular to their surfaces as well as a force that's parallel to their surfaces. The frictional force is parallel to the surface, directed against the force being applied, and is proportional to the force perpendicular to the surface. You don't need gravity. You need a normal force. And any two objects that aren't perfectly parallel to each other that are forced against each other will exhibit that.

    Also, inertia works the same in space as it does on Earth. An inelastic collision will dissipate a large amount of energy in the form of heat and vibration.

    Two massive ships colliding in space will act just like two massive ships colliding on the ocean. The only difference is that when one of the ships tries to pull away from the mass of jumbled metal, on Earth, they won't be able to (very easily) because gravity provides a normal force on all surfaces that are touching. In space, they will pull away somewhat easily (which is what happened), but friction will still rip portions of the ships to shreds wherever two materials collide.
  • by gmhowell (26755) <gmhowell@gmail.com> on Tuesday February 04, 2003 @11:17PM (#5228450) Homepage Journal
    Sorry, I can't remember when it was...

    Okay, okay, just looked it up:

    This is about his scenes got ripped out:
    http://www.wilwheaton.net/mt/archives/001089 .php#0 01089

    And that wasn't enough, he was further fucked over by Paramount:
    http://www.wilwheaton.net/mt/archives/ 001165.php#0 01165

    Who cares if you like Weasley, the latter is no way to treat an actor.

It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster. - Voltaire

Working...