Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

Crusher Crushed from Nemesis 460

Posted by CmdrTaco from the sorry-bout-that-wil dept.
Ant sent in a link to Wil Wheaton's weblog where he writes a surprisingly heartfelt piece on being cut from ST:Nemesis. Its a strangely bittersweet little entry that really speaks volumes, especially considering Wil's fairly public disagreements with Rick Berman. Apparently Wil's bit was cut along with 48 whole minutes of the flick- its just the nature of filmaking. But I guess if nothing else, they've got tons of stuff for the DVD now!
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Crusher Crushed from Nemesis More

Crusher Crushed from Nemesis

Comments Filter:

  • Wait for it (Score:3, Funny)

    by sben ( 71467 ) on Thursday August 15, 2002 @07:25PM (#4079706)
    Snarky comments about Wheaton and/or Crusher in 3... 2... 1...
  • Er, pardon my ignorance, but who is Wil Wheaton?
  • Damn, that's a long movie. It takes the GodFather to pull that off. Granted I'm a Trek fanboy, so I'd have enjoyed the 3 hours, but I don't think my wife would have.

    BTW, I saw the trailer before K-19, and it looks pretty good. It appears they've made a return to some good quality action!

  • Wishful thinking... (Score:4, Funny)

    by CMiYC ( 6473 ) on Thursday August 15, 2002 @07:28PM (#4079723) Homepage
    they've got tons of stuff for the DVD now!

    Yeah because if Paramount has shown anything, it just loves to pack extras into their Star Trek DVDs.

    • Re:Wishful thinking... (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Yeah, like the NEW star trek II dvd... it has what, an extra 30 seconds of footage?

      Now, if the Star Trek V dvd had 30 minutes LESS footage, that would be good.

      • Just as long as the wheel ruts on the God Planet are clearly visible. I noticed those things when I was watching it in the theatre. "What does God need with a 4x4?"

        You can't seem them on the widescreen LD because there isn't enough resolution, but I could clearly see them on a pan & scan TV broadcast.

    • Re:Wishful thinking... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ncc74656 ( 45571 )
      they've got tons of stuff for the DVD now!

      Yeah because if Paramount has shown anything, it just loves to pack extras into their Star Trek DVDs.

      That won't stop them from doing a plain-Jane release now and a director's cut (or whatever) later. (The director's cut of TWOK kicks ass, but I'm guessing that the people who forked over $$$ for the DVD set are a bit miffed that they're not getting the extra goodies. The added scenes improve the movie more than you'd guess.)

  • Take it out on Barney, Will! (Score:4, Funny)

    by StefanJ ( 88986 ) on Thursday August 15, 2002 @07:33PM (#4079755) Homepage Journal
    The EFF is holding a fundraiser in San Francisco on August 22nd at which Will Wheaton will take on the Purple Menace:

    "The night features world-class electronic music artists and a special treat: celebrity boxing with Wil Wheaton and Barney! Wil Wheaton, of Star Trek: The Next Generation and Stand By Me fame, will take on Barney in a celebrity boxing matchup for the history books. Watch and see if Wil with his backing from EFF can protect free speech and parody on the Internet and defeat Barney and his team of corporate lawyers."

    http://www.eff.org/cafe/2002/

    Give that vomitous terrycloth reptile hell, Will!

    Stefan Jones

  • Shut up Wesley! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Dr_LHA ( 30754 ) on Thursday August 15, 2002 @07:34PM (#4079760) Homepage
    Stop talking on your mobile phone while you're driving through residential neighbourhoods!
      • Stop talking on your mobile phone while you're driving through residential neighbourhoods!

      Uh, yes. I really feel for the guy, but I kept thinking "Existential angst and epiphanies later, but keep your eyes on the road now."

      But hey, no worries. It always happens to some other bozo, right?

    • Re:Shut up Wesley! (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Dude, doesn't he have like.. a communicator or something? I mean... just tap that little badge on your lapel, Wil. Hands free, baby!

      But I have to say, I'm disapointed for him. I'm not a big trek fan and haven't really watched any star trek since ST:TNG, but it would have been nice to tie him in -- even to a small scene -- in something new.

      If there are any current star trek series in production, it'd be interesting to have him return and play a completely different character. Sort of a Tom Paris kind of hero guy... only nerdier and maybe not so good with the girls.

      He could be Captain Slashdotticus.
    • Somewhere in Brooklyn, Wesley Crusher falls silent forever.

      Driving in New York? While talking on a cell phone? Tsk tsk.

      And yes before people scream, I'm aware Wil does not live in New York.

    • Re:Shut up Wesley! (Score:5, Funny)

      by extrasolar ( 28341 ) on Thursday August 15, 2002 @09:07PM (#4080179) Homepage Journal
      That was the first thing I was thinking as I read the article.

      The people on the street are lucky Wesley took the news as good as he did :)
    • The light turns green and I sit there for a moment, reflecting on the conversation.

      [snip]

      The dog-walking couple smile and wave to me.

      The light changes.

      Doesn't this man live the life of danger. Sitting through a full cycle? Suicide!

  • New Crusherism (Score:3, Funny)

    by cybermace5 ( 446439 ) <g.ryan@macetech.com> on Thursday August 15, 2002 @07:34PM (#4079762) Homepage Journal
    Quote from the article:

    Of course, I tend to not put a whole lot of stock in what I read online...if I did I'd be overwhelmed with the sheer amount of hot teen bitches who want to get naked for me right now, and I'd be rolling in Nigerian money.

    Exactly, Will. Most bigshot, part-in-Star-Trek-gettin' movie stars already have those problems.
  • it would have been better if Mr. Crusher could have made a little appearence somewhere in the background or in another portion of the movie. Last night's "Enterprise" rerun had a lot of people from the Deep Space 9 playing different characters. They want the crossover. What was even funnier is when Trip said "What are you going to do? Program a holographic doctor?" An obvious poke at those who watched voyager. It's stuff like that which makes Star Trek interesting.

    But a 3 hour star trek!?! Jeez, talk about long!
    • That's not a bad idea; dress him up to the point where only the die-hards would catch it (too bad there are no Narn in Star Trek)...

      Of course, I think they need to be very careful not to ruin Enterprise, which I think is easily the most entertaining, unique and mature Trek since TOS. I think they do an excellent job of making the crew seem like actual pioneering explorers rather than just another ship in the fleet.

      Of course, I also think they could bear to get their asses beaten by the Klingons once or twice, but I'm sure that's around the corner someplace.

      • Are you sure? To me, it seems like "Voyager with darker sets" so far. They haven't been limited by their technology once, not once has their moralizing and humanness not saved them, and otherwise everything is just too pleasant. How hard would it be to write a plot that isn't completely resolved by the end of the episode? Or have some real characterization. So far, the most endearing and interesting part of the show is that the captain has a dog.
      • I look foward to Andromeda each week. Everyone comes over to my place for Enterprise, we dread it, yet feel compelled to watch.

        They don't seem like pioneers, AT ALL.

        Captain Archer is an awful character. Earth's first mission, and instead of making new friends and allies, hes imposing his morality on those around him. Earth has no new friends because of him, and hes pissed off the one they started with.

        WTF?

        Alex

        • Wait a sec... (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Critical_ ( 25211 )
          Maybe its a stretch but don't you think the very fact that he is going around and imposing his morality on others has only led to pissing people off is indicative of the what happens in real life? Case in point...

          While doing research on perceptions of the World's only superpower (the U.S. -- I'm American) in the eyes of outsiders I found the very same thing. The U.S. goes around (along with some of its western europeann allies) and imposes its morality on others. Many times, that morality is just differing opinion but it leads to a lot of people who get pissed off and say "who the f*** is America to tell me how i live my life?". Maybe that isn't the central theme of Enterprise, maybe its not even intentional but I think it gives it a very real flavor. I would think that humans would act like that if they went to space.

  • He's *30*?!? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Skyshadow ( 508 ) on Thursday August 15, 2002 @07:37PM (#4079781) Homepage
    [Checks birth certificate, counts on fingers]

    Oh fuck, I feel old. This is all I needed after finding my first grey hair last week.

    Overall, I suppose anything that makes the end film better is a Good Thing. Still, it sucks that it had to happen -- I can't imagine the weirdness of putting, what, 7 years of my life in as a particular character and then having my last chance to play him yanked out.

    At least Wil seems very grounded about it. Unless, of course, he just omitted some drinking-drug-and-wife-beatin' binge he went on after the end of the blog.

    • Blockquoth the poster:

      I can't imagine the weirdness of putting, what, 7 years of my life in as a particular character and then having my last chance to play him yanked out

      I suppose. On the other hand, in the final season of ST:TNG, they promoted him to godhood , which might be an ego-rush.

    • Re:He's *30*?!? (Score:4, Funny)

      by Golias ( 176380 ) on Thursday August 15, 2002 @08:25PM (#4080011)
      You raise a good point. Wheadon is quoting himself in the story, so it's the reaction that he remembers having.

      If Rick Berman had a blog (yea, right), who knows what his version of the story would be...

      So, when I gave him the bad news, he just went ballistic. "What!?" he shouted into the phone, "don't you know who the fuck I am? I'm Wesley Fucking Crusher, the only reason anybody watched your lame-ass fucking show! I will destroy you, Berman, along with everyone and everything you have ever loved! That's right, I'm on my way over right now to go all "Wolf 359" on your ass! I'm bigger than Star Trek! I'm bigger than all you pricks! You will rue the day when... Oh, wait... I gotta go. I think I just ran over some lady who was out walking her kid."

  • Can't they catch this sooner? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by GuyMannDude ( 574364 ) on Thursday August 15, 2002 @07:39PM (#4079791) Journal

    Maybe I'm being horribly naive or stupid or both but I can't understand how they managed to find 40+ minutes of unimportant material to cut out AFTER they've already filmed it! Shouldn't they be trimming stuff out of the story while they're refining the script? Whenever I write something I start by letting my ideas flow onto the paper (actually word processor). Then I make several passes through the story to make the logic and dialogue stronger. I also cut out non-essential stuff if I feel the story is too long. It's not difficult at all. Given how much money it costs to make a movie, shouldn't these guys in Hollywood work hard to make sure the script is really "tight" and there's no fluff in it BEFORE they start the shoot?

    As I said, I know nothing about the filmmaking business but the fact that they were able to find 40+ minutes of stuff they could cut out it sounds an awful lot to me like they didn't plan things very well and were just in a rush to get another poorly-thought-out Trek product to market.

    Insightful responses welcome...

    GMD

    • Well, in their defense, the script on paper and the actual filmed movie are usually only vaguely related.

      One of the guys I went to college with does post-production work. He was working on some effects for a effects-heavy movie (post-production isn't always post, interestingly) when the director and one of the actors sat down and rewrote the script, invalidating not only my friend's work of several months but several scenes that had already been shot.

    • Ask anyone who has produced any sort of video media.... heck, even school projects. The big advantage to having a ton of extra footage that may get cut from the final version is that, in editing and post-production, the filmmakers have more power to make a film that will please audiences. Think about some of the past trekkie films... They shot extra junk like Scotty teaching the engineers how to make some sort of new polymer or whatnot. It's that type of work that gives a film it's character and the ability to connect to an audience. When you have more material to work with for a final cut, the odds are that the movie will be better for it, even if certain actors had their entire chunck of work aborted.

      One movie that didn't quite do this was "Not Another Teen Movie". Apparently they were able to spice up the ending by having Molly Ringwald do an extended cameo. This probably cost a significant chunk of change to reshoot when compared to the rest of the rest of the movie. Unfortunately, it resulted in replacing one crappy ending with a slightly more expensive crappy ending featuring star power.
    • This happens to lots of movies, and many of them turn out great despite (or even because of) the cuts. Witness The Gladiator, which had at least 40 minutes cut out. (Most of those scenes appeared on the DVD btw.) Not to mention LoTR: FoTR, which will have 30 minutes of previously cut material reinserted for the DVD in November.
      • This was 40 minutes cut from the inital rough cut. There are probably hours, if not days of footage that were actually shot. Only the best of the day's shoots are actually sent to the editor, and of those only a portion make it to the final cut. Actors don't nail scenes on the first try, stuff gets rewritten, buildings get blown up (ie, WTC) so they have to cut scenes with them as not to offend people, executives/audiences don't like the first cut, stuff has to get trimmed to fit music, etc.

        Now with this said, some directors are tighter than others - Spielberg storyboards his films, essentially editing before he shoots. Other directors go out into the field and don't even have shot lists, and end up just chewing through raw stock trying to make the film up as they go along.

        Would it be cheaper to do it Spielberg's way? Hell yes! Every minute while the crew is standing around waiting for the director to make up his mind about what to shoot and how to shoot it is expensive time. Every can of film represents an investment in time to set up a shot, load and unload the camera, break down and set up, lighting, and prop rentals. Loading and unloading alone can take up to 20 minutes, and even if you're shooting 1000' of film, that's only about 11 minutes of footage that's going to get spent on retakes.

        Lucas saved a shitload of time using tape on EP2, though he probably should have spent that extra time rewriting his script and rehearsing his actors. Better technology doesn't necessarily make for better films.

    • Re:Can't they catch this sooner? (Score:5, Informative)

      by CaptainCarrot ( 84625 ) on Thursday August 15, 2002 @08:15PM (#4079966)
      My sole direct experience in the film industry is a few days working as an extra for the movie Copycat [imdb.com], which was my first foray into an ultimately futile attempt at an acting career. But I've also researched the filmmaking process in some detail, so that's not all I have to go on.

      Much of the shape of the final story is worked out in the editing process. Directors typically shoot not only extra scenes that may or may not make it into the final cut, but they might also shoot a half-dozen or so versions of each scene, each acted a bit differently. (Or lit, or with different angles, etc.) With so much raw material to work from, the editor and director can take the film in almost any direction they choose long after shooting is completed and without having to drag the actors back in front of the cameras.

      For a good example of what I'm talking about, go get the Big Trouble in Little China [imdb.com] DVD. (As a /. reader you should own a copy of this film anyway, so if you don't have it you should buy it immediately or risk the loss of your nerd credentials.) Check out the deleted scenes, which include a number of alternate versions of scenes that actually appeared in the final cut. The director, John Carpenter, chose to make BTiLC a very fast-paced action-oriented film that almost never gives you a chance to take a breath. However, with the material at his disposal, he could have created a slower more dramatic film that was much more character-oriented.

      Part of the reason for this is because very often even an experienced director can't tell how a particular script is going to work until he actually sees it on film. All this extra material allows him to pick and choose among entire scenes and subtle re-interpretations of scenes until the film conveys exactly the effect he's aiming for. Other times, I think it's because the director honestly doesn't know what will work better or what final product he's going for, and all the extra footage allows him to defer that decision until he's in the editing booth.

    • If only it were that logical.

      In most Hollywood productions, the writer usually has little or no control over what finally makes it onto the screen. The producer can add or subtract anything he wants, because he's paying the bills. And producers don't revise for clarity or coherence, they make business decisions. (Well, most. Some break this mold, but they're usually the writer/producer/director auteurs.)Directors and A-list stars also have enough clout to change things around, depending on what their contract says.

      Also, stuff that looks good on paper or in the mind's eye might not be practical to shoot (for whatever reasons), or just not look as good when it comes out. Someone might decide that the odd Gilbert & Sullivan reference was just a little too cute to be the crucial clue that solves the puzzle, or that the attacking mushroom people looked cool, but not cool enough to divert the Enterprise to their homeworld.

      That's not to say what gets cut just to make it PG-13. Take one exploding head out, and you might have to rewrite every scene that character was in.

      So a writer who's aware of that will add stuff that will make a four-hour movie, knowing that not all of it will be shot, and knowing that not all of it that gets shot will make it past the cutting floor. When you get down to it, the plot is almost like the music, in that composers don't write symponies for movies, they write themes and bits that can be inserted into the movie at numerous points. The long and the short of it is, draft screenplays are almost always different, and often radically so, from the final product.

      (P.S., didn't I read somewhere that Lucas rewrote the light saber fight between Obi-wan and Vader after shooting had begun? The original had him survive, and Guinness fought against having him sacrifice himself. Of course, George is one who'll rewrite a movie twenty years after releasing it, so maybe that's not the best example.)

    • From a technical standpoint, you always have much more footage than will be used in the final cut. This is called the "shooting ratio" and is usually 6:1 or 8:1 or more. 3:1 is considered very low, while some very unusual movies (like Apocalypse Now) ended up being more like 100:1.

      From an aesthetic standpoint, it's impossible to tell beforehand how all the parts of the movie will come together. There has to be a lot of leeway for postproduction to make adjustments. Walter Murch [amazon.com] tells of a scene that he decided at length to omit. Coppola, the director, agreed with the cut but mentioned (with some regret) that the deleted scene was one of the reasons that he made the movie. Coppola didn't think anything more of it, but Murch took this lesson to heart: scenes may serve purposes other than simply "being in the film." In this case, the scene served as context, backstory, and inspiration to the director, and as such it probably influenced every other shot that was filmed.

      ---
      Dum de dum.

    • Re:Can't they catch this sooner? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Golias ( 176380 ) on Thursday August 15, 2002 @08:37PM (#4080057)
      Some directors, like the guy who made "Amilie", carefully story-board and prep before filming, and end up getting a film that is almost exactly the length that they want.

      Most directors don't do it that way, though. They film lots and lots of extra footage, even some scenes that have overlapping dialogue and plot exposition. That way, when they get to post-production, they can chose to the clips that came out the best, and dump scenes where the director doesn't like the final product without losing the narrative.

      If you watch the deleted scenes in a lot of DVD's, this process becomes a little more obvious.

      The Jabba scene that Lucas put back into Star Wars for the "special edition" is a classic example. The conversation is almost word-for-word the same as the one that Han had with Greedo. When it was originally filmed, Jabba was played by a fat guy in a fir coat, and Lucas didn't care for it, so he chose the Greedo showdown instead to reveal the Han Solo subplot (owes money to gangsters for dumping his contraband on a recent job). Personally, I think Lucas never should have put it back in; but having done so, he should have cut the Greedo scene. Instead, he kept both scenes, which slowed down the movie, and ruined the Greedo scene by adding a first shot by Greedo before Han killed him, convincing Star Wars fans everywhere that George Lucas's mind has finally broken.

    • Because movie making is not like writing a story. Specifically, you never know what a movie will look like until you get it into post-production, because before that it's just too large of an undertaking to hold together in your head. Once in post, you see things - how an actor did a scene, how a camera angle captured a shot, etc. - which can change how the movie works. You put all this together in a rough cut, and then you edit some more.

      Look at it this way: the post production process is the movie version of revisions. When I write my work tends to get tighter and tighter as I go along, which involves a lot of the delete button. All the scraps which end up in the cutting room floor are the movie version of the delete button.

      FYI, rule of thumb for a feature film is to shoot for a 6:1 ratio, which means you shoot six feet of film for every foot you end up using. Some directors (George Lucas comes to mind) are known for shooting 10:1.

  • ...Wil need to update his FAQ [wilwheaton.net]?

    Will you be in any of the movies?
    I sure will. Look for me in Star Trek X (Star Trek OSX.1, if youre a Mac user) .

  • To Will (Score:2)

    by xinu ( 64069 )
    Sorry bout Nemesis. :( It's a shame it wasn't more directly related to the plot. But I gotta admit, I hated what was done with your character in ST:TNG though. But until the day I die 'Stand By Me' will be one of my all time favorite movies

    And I have to admit, with you hanging out amongst the throngs of hardcore geeks I have to respect some of your hobbies also. ;)

    You'll always have the jerks that will associate you directly with that character for years to come, but your number one in my book man.

  • He puts in a good plug for Lindows and Mandrake. The article itself is great, Wil seems like a fellow who hasn't let Hollywood go to his head. Kudos for not putting your happiness in the hands of others, Wil.
  • I mean, the guy called him "kid".

    Do you not think that Trekkers & Trekkies would gladly sit through 3 hours...heck they would probably sit through 4 hours! Look at the first Movie...nothing can be as boring as that...and it made a great deal of money!

    Speaking as a Trekker myself, I would gladly sit thorugh 3 hours of good action, story, etc to be in the Trek Universe on a big screen with a super sound system. And I think that I would love to see a resolution of Wil's charactor from the Trek universe...

    ttyl
    Farrell

    • trekkies will watch 3-4 hour, no problem, but they alread have the trekies. If the cut it to 90 minutes, how many trekkies won't go? 0
      how many non trekkies wont go to a 3-4 hour movie? most of them.

      Finally, I'd like to slap the first person who started using 'trekker' to describe trekkies.
      sheesh.
  • I have a feeling we might see a deleted Wesly scene.... Hell, this may be one of the first DVDs that includes deleted scenes that aren't complete wastes of time.

    • Get Anti-trust (Score:3, Interesting)

      by alexhmit01 ( 104757 )
      I picked up Anti-trust, because I have a habit of buying movies that I want to see when they are $10 or under. Its nice, no trips to Blockbuster and I have a bunch of films lying around.

      The storyline didn't make any sense. Watched the deleted scenes, where a MAJOR part of the plot was cut. Makes more sense.

      Some of the deleted scenes from Dogma gave a LOT more insight into the characters.

      Alex
  • I think Will should go to each and every one of the people on here that have bad mouthed him and show up at their house and beat the crap out of em. Jay and Silent Bob style.

    Youz guys are in so much trouble now.

  • He had one scene. They cut it.

    I mean, that's pretty much a cameo. It's not as though there's never been one shoehorned into a Trek film for any other actor [imdb.com] before, right?

    Was this decision taken by someone who actually gives a damn about what Trek fans want, who understands that we love to be thrown a little treat every so often? Or was it taken by a self important accountant-slash-IP-lawyer wearing a straggly pony tail and trying to pass himself off as one of the creative crew?

    It's not as though they couldn't read the script and do some basic storyboarding to work out how long the thing was going to be. Harsh, harsh cut.

  • ST:N will suck. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Lethyos ( 408045 ) on Thursday August 15, 2002 @08:01PM (#4079910) Journal
    That's pretty bold, given that I have only seen the trailer, but here's why I think it'll be bad.

    First, the trailer makes it out to have wanna-be horror elements. It's too dark for StarTrek; even First Contact and other encounters with the Borg (by far, the most powerful enemy the Federation knows) are nowhere near as intense. If it hadn't been for familiar characters, I would have said that the trailer was for a budget-hyped Babylon5 episode from the Shadows series.

    Second, it seems too action oriented. Yes, we all love the StarTrek blow-up-the-other-ship action. If done well, battles are good and add a lot to the story (DS9 had a few episodes with epic battle scenes with Cards - incredibly cool). This movie just seems to have lots of fighting action without meaningful substance. There's also this ATV with guns driving around on rough terrain, then later jumping into another vehicle much better suited for transportation. That makes little sense to me (I can see arguments, but why?)

    My third reason will get me flamed by all the horny geeks out there. The movie appears to have an explicit sex scene. While sex between two characters had been implied frequently in the past, it was never explicitly shown. This destroys an element of the StarTrek universe that I've always found charming: it's always had a childish innocence. A fun element. This kind of subject matter seems to turn ST into a different animal. (This reason is purely subjective.)

    Fourth and last, all this spooky, "don't fear..." nonsense that just seems way to ominous to be believable (and quite cheesy - I laught when that bald guy says that in the trailer). This sort of ties into part of reason one. Again, the movie is trying to be something StarTrek isn't.

    Overall, I get the strong impression that Rick Berman is not targeting geeks, but rather, the mainstream gun/sex/action oriented entertainment. "Blow stuff up and fuck the girl!" That seems great in a lot of ways, but I've always turned to ST for entertainment of a more intellectual sort.

    Rick Berman is pulling a Lucas and not staying loyal to the fans.
  • I mean, how old is that guy now running the Romulan Empire? 12? Who you do think is going to defeat this cross between Peter Wiggum and Scott Evil? Data? Picard? Pshaw, as if.

    No way, it'll be the annoying little punk with phenominal cosmic powers (as taught by the Traveller).
  • is a God!!!

  • When Did We Become So Cynical? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by KrancHammer ( 416371 ) <GunseMattNO@SPAMhotmail.com> on Thursday August 15, 2002 @08:11PM (#4079955)

    When did it happen? Or is it just the usual array of socially inept geeks, snickering behind the cuffs on their black trenchcoats that make it seem that way? This guy poured his guts into this essay of his. He was obviously stunned by the news, disappointed, hurt even, though he denied it in his story. He had to know it was coming, but it sounds like that knowing didn't help. I was sincerely touched by this.
    I was just as annoyed as anybody at Wesley Crusher, but I think Wil Wheaton did the best he could when he was handed what were, frankly, pretty insipid lines. I grew more and more fond of the character as the show and character matured, most particularly the last show he was in regularly.."Final Mission" I think it was. And his character grew even more intriguing with his guest appearances, like the fascinating "The First Duty." At any rate, I looked forward to seeing him in Nemesis. I wish he could have been more a part of it. I wish him the best in finding a successful adult career, and I hope that he puts the unfortunate image that Wesley Crusher has given him through no fault of his own, behind him.

  • Letter-writing campaign (Score:3, Insightful)

    by AgentCooper ( 167258 ) on Thursday August 15, 2002 @08:13PM (#4079960)
    I only need to know one thing -- where to send my pleading fan letter. I'll gladly sit through a longer Trek film if it gives me what I want -- character development, backstory, FEELING. I grew up with ST:TNG -- this is part of my long-lost childhood they're cutting goddamnit.

    We know Nemesis is probably gonna be weak, and we know it'll be the last TNG film -- of which not one to date has lived up to the Trek movie franchise. Why can't they leave in the few things that might make it a really special gift to the fans??

    I mean really -- Christian Slater gets his cameo but Wil-fucking-Wheaton gets chopped? This breaks my heart. Even ten seconds of Wesley Crusher dying in a space-battle -- even a glimpse of Wesley in the background as an inside joke -- would delight the fan in me.

    Case in point: Tasha Yar. How popular was that? 'Nuf said.

    - Sean
  • He works as a writer but doesn't know the meaning of the word "admonish".

  • Wesley's Powers (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Pyrosophy ( 259529 )
    Actually it's more of a sin that he wasn't more incorporated into the script. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Wesley was supposed to be some super-navigator who unified space, time, and thought, wasn't he? By the time his character would have been 30, I'll bet some damn interesting things would have happened to someone as gifted as him.

    That would be a GREAT story line for a movie -- Wesley ending up in super-secret Starfleet intelligence and dabbling in deep 23rd century metaphysics, but something going wrong which required the attention of the Enterprise and maybe more Vulcan philosophy....

    It's too bad they just turned him into a Starfleet Academy throw-away and left that whole great plot line. If anyone has any more details about the plot line, I'd be curious to learn them.

  • All you newbies should read this about Wil Wheaton (Score:4, Informative)

    by Mustang Matt ( 133426 ) on Thursday August 15, 2002 @08:29PM (#4080028)
    http://interviews.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/1 0/29/173252&mode=thread&tid=129

    He's actually a pretty cool guy. It's a shame to hear that he got cut, but it happens.

    I have a feeling that was his last chance to be part of Star Trek and I'm sure he'll miss it.
  • Even though I couldn't stand Wesley Crusher on STNG, I think Wil Wheaton is a great dude. I'm bummed for him but glad he's not in the movie all at the same time. Somebody needs to write him into a better role somewhere because I really do hope he finds more success.
  • Somewhere on Wheaton's website he referes to an "accident" at Waffle House which he referred to as the "pigs-in-a-blanket-fiasco".

    But I couldn't find out what this was...can anyone enlighten as to 1) what this guy did at Waffle House, and 2) What was the supposed fiasco ?
  • Hilarious. The reason Berman gave Wheaton for the cut, it "didn't advance the story." Since _WHEN_ is that an applicable rule for editing a Star Trek movie?! Wil, you're cool, have a great attitude and I really wished you'd been given even a small amount of screentime. You're _owed_ that much. But don't for a _second_ believe that shit. Just watch some of the previous ST: TNG movies for proof that that isn't a valid reason. Star Trek: Insurrection is a prime example.

    The one good thing about this movie that I can tell from the trailer - they seem to have discovered 'cinematography'. Finally. But how many movies did it take?

    Another character I'd like revisited: Guinan. (yeah, good luck)
  • It's obvious from his weblog that he's now more family-oriented, etc. And I think the best acting I've ever seen him do was in Stand By Me.

    So why is he still trying to be some space guy? If he still wants to act, why doesn't he get into something dramatic, or family-oriented, etc.? Something that says a lot more about his ideals, etc.

    Wil, I know you're reading this article... whaddya say?
  • Wesley was annoying, but it's depressing to think that Wesley will not be present in the final TNG movie. Hate him or not he was a fundamental part of TNG especially in the earlier seasons.

    I have extremely low expectations for this movie. Berman and Bragga(sp) have continously shown us that they don't know what ST is.

  • Wil Switched to Linux (Score:4, Interesting)

    by sessamoid ( 165542 ) on Thursday August 15, 2002 @09:59PM (#4080390)
    The update before the bit about his being cut from Nemesis talks about his dumping his Windows install for for Lindows, then Mandrake.

    Crossing Over

    Boy, I just don't update these days, do I?

    I was thinking about that on my way home from work today, moving along a few feet at a time on the 10 freeway.

    I think a big part of it is that it's summer, and I'd much rather be outside, and I've been travelling A LOT since the middle of July. I've been to SLC, New York, Chicago, Atlanta, Vancouver, Alaska, Sacramento (twice) and I'll be heading to San Francisco next week for the EFF event.

    So when I have some "free" time, I've been giving it to my wife and family, and when I have some creative energy, I'm giving it to Arena.

    It's not like I don't have stories to tell...there's the trip to Alaska, the trip to Chicago, Camping with Anne and the boys last week....and boy do I ever have NEWS!

    I'm going to give the news items their own entries over the next couple of days, because we just finished 2 episodes of Arena and I'll have time while Anne's at work (the boys are with their dad for his part of summer vacation.)

    However, here's a very exciting New Thing In Wil's Life(tm):

    A few weeks ago, my computer blew up. Smoke and everything. So I freaked...and just as I was about to go run the damn credit cards up to get a new machine, one arrived in the mail...this cool Sony VAIO thingy, that has a cool story all it's own, that will get told later on, too. Trouble was, it wouldn't start up. Or more correctly, it wouldn't load Windows. It'd just choke.

    So as I was starting to freak again, another computer arrived in the mail. This time it was a gift from many, many people, who all pooled their resources together to replace the old POS 5000 that had recently blown up.

    This new computer was a gift, and it worked as soon as I plugged it in, internet and everything.

    The thing is, it was running Lindows.

    Now, I've been toying with dumping Windows for almost a year. The Open Source movement really appeals to my anarchistic and individualistic tendencies, and everyone I know who uses Linux tells me that I won't miss Windows at all. I don't really use any software that's windows-specific, except Dreamweaver, and I'm told that I can run that under WINE, or find a comparable OS editor.

    So I'm running this Lindows for about 3 weeks, and a couple of days ago, I break it. 100%. I messed up some dependencies, and even with the help of some really smart propeller heads, I just couldn't fix it.

    So last night, I crossed the rubicon and installed Mandrake 8.2.

    This install was the easiest thing I have ever done, and there wasn't one single problem. The only glitch came when I was trying to get my soundcard to work, which was hammered out quickly and painlessly, thanks to the monkeys in the soapbox.

    I'm using Gnome, and I've never been happier.

    I am now going to become the world's number one Linux cheerleader.

    I'm off to Think Geek to get a sticker for my car, and a T-shirt for my huge pectoral muscles.

  • Let's not take any chances now... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Mulletproof ( 513805 ) on Friday August 16, 2002 @12:44AM (#4080953) Homepage Journal
    Beyond Wil Wheaton being axed from Nemesis, it's really a tragety for anybody looking for a real story when they go to the theaters, not the chopped and boxed two hour edit. So many movies out there could have been great if the man with the axe had only shown a bit more restraint and a bit more faith in his fanbase. They're basically saying we as an audiance can't handle a deep plot and don't have the attention span to sit through three hours of movie. It annoys the crap out of me.

    A good example and everybodies favorite here on Slash-- Lord of the Rings. Damn near 3 half hours and I loved every single minute of it . I didn't get bored. I didn't wince at the complex plot. I was thrilled that a director actually broke from the pack and lengthened the movie, ultimately making it a par excellent experience. I can't imagine how a two hour Cambells condensed soup version would have added up. Makes you wonder what how the extended edit will fair if the movie is this good now...

    Back to the point, I've been waiting for a decent Trek series/movie for years. TNG? Booorrrring... They were the UN of outer space. DS9? Better. It depicted the edgier side of the Trek universe, but it was still pretty damn sanitized. Personnally, it only got good when large quantities of ships began blowing up... Anyway, Voyager? It had it's moments. Too bad they were far and few between. The movies? Wrath of Kahn. Hands down. Undiscovered Country? It was OK filler until the next great movie... Which was... Umm... Sorry, but I wasn't inspired by any of the TNG movies, though First Contact and Insurrection were OK. It wasn't anything that you hadn't seen in the series before. It comes down to this- I'd be willing to bet an extra hour would do the new movie a world of good. The Trek universe is rich and full of plot and the fans want to see it. It's the reason it's been kept going all these years. For once, I wish they'd take break the mold and create an experience, not just a movie.

    On Wil Wheaton, it is kinda too bad. Just a hunch, but I'm betting he'd actually be good in something other than that "annoying naive teen" roll he was cast in for 90% of the series. It's a misjustice all the way around....

Slashdot Top Deals

Software production is assumed to be a line function, but it is run like a staff function. -- Paul Licker

Close