Rick Berman Doesn't Know Why Nemesis Tanked 1210
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."
Wake up movie people (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wake up movie people (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wake up movie people (Score:5, Insightful)
I saw all three of those movies, but it was suicide to release Nemesis that close to LOTR:TTT, the hard core fans will go see Nemesis, but the mildly-geeky will go see LOTR, and forget all about Nemesis.
Timing, Timing, Timing.
I did enjoy Nemesis, though I have a few nitpicks, mild SPOILER WARNING.
-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?
-Not even one throw-away line about Lore? What happened to him? You have a whole plot about another model of Data, and you don't mention Lore? What the hell? Even a line like "Lore's body was destroyed when the Enterprise D crashed." would have been appreciated.
-Having Wil seen in the movie, but not talked to was rather distracting, they should have left his scene in.
All in all, I enjoyed it, and I'll get the DVD when it comes out. It wasn't crap on the grand scale of Star Trek V by any means, but releasing a "decent" Trek when Paramount did was nuts. They should have put it out a month sooner or in January, when there was a distinct lack of geek-friendly movies.
Get a Real SF Writer to write a ST Movie!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
ttyl
Farrell
Re:Get a Real SF Writer to write a ST Movie!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
"Amok Time"? Written by Theodore Sturgeon.
"Trouble with Tribbles"? David Gerrold.
"City on the Edge of Forever?" Harlan Ellison.
Further, the "franchise" needs to take more chances. You have to take risks before you can produce something as good as "Darmok" or "The Inner Light".
Re:Get a Real SF Writer to write a ST Movie!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Emperor Norton would finance his own movie using his own minted cash, playing himself as the star, but in this case, protector of the federation, and emperor of Orion, or some such. And he would very likely make it a better film than Nemesis.
Planet P Blog [planetp.cc] - Liberty with Technologuy.
Re:Wake up movie people (Score:4, Insightful)
Cross between James Bond and ST (Score:5, Funny)
The problem with Nemesis is that the movie was directed by a action movie director who is not an Startrek fan (Stuart Baird) and he directed it like an action film. SO here goes to Paramount. THIS IS NOT JAMES BLOODY BOND!
In one scene my friend (who is not a St fan and do not know the chars) leaned over to me and said "Picard, Jean luc Picard". That said it all.
That said, the movie was not THAT bad. I really liked Shinzon's "I was lonely" line and of course, Deanna Troi in that skimpy little thing. Hmmmmm. I mean, this ST actually had an MPAA rating for "scene of sexual content". And its not Kirk porking aliens either.
Data singing was a little embarassing. No wonder they killed him off
Re:Wake up movie people (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know who wrote that POS, but it was not Star Trek material. Don't axe star trek because some idiot thought it would be a good idea to clone Pickard. It's the dumbest Star Trek ever. You can get away with stupid teen movies or stupid girly movies or even stupid action movies because people don't go to see them for their intelligence. Star Trek is about people being smart. They didn't need a damn clone if they had a kick ass weapon. A doomsday weapon and a clone and a retarded robot do NOT make a plot.
I haven't even got to the ending. WTH? Data dies, the ship is nearly destroyed, and the romulans came to help??? It's a contrived and forced "Suprise" ending.
Don't make dung and call it Star Trek, and people will come see it. People haven't stopped liking star trek, star trek has stopped being star trek. It's no longer new and political. People watch Star Trek because it shows them how it is possible to achieve a good bit of a Eutopia by not being stupid (at least in the original series).
Star Trek has always been politically racy. The censors would scream at rodenberry quite often. Then he would just make the plot make fun of stupidity even more... like the half-black/half-white planet. What happened to those kinds of plots? Can you just imagine a story like that with todays technology so that it doesn't look cheesy?
It's not dead, creativity is dead. It's dieing with the creator. It's quite sad actually.
Re:Wake up movie people (Score:5, Funny)
hard working American who pored their hearts and soles
Ah, the mental picture of Rick Berman alternately poking holes into his chest and shoes......
.....maybe that explains why the movie sucked....
....or maybe is was just yet another trek movie in a series hanging on to the stories of a dead man.
Whatever
Lack of Wesley... (Score:5, Funny)
Top 10 Best (Worst) Ways to Kill Wesley Crusher (Score:4, Funny)
10. After slugging down six Shirley Temple's in 10-forward, Wes stumbles to the holodeck, which he commands to "take me to hell." His broken body is later found on the empty holodeck in a pool of vomit.
9. Wesley gets gang-raped by a group of female Klingons.
8. Riker gets carried away executing an order from Picard to "knock the little snot around a bit."
7. Data catches him tossing off. Uncomprehending, he requires a detailed explanation from Wesley, who dies of embarrassment.
6. Extensive lab analysis of a green slime found on one of the control panels uncovers the fact that our favorite ensign has, once again, been picking his nose. He is summarily fired and commits suicide.
5. Wes gets gang-raped by a group of male Klingons.
4. On an earlier episode, Wes got to kiss a girl who turned into a Chewbacca-like creature. Here, she returns, and they once again get involved. (Un)fortunately, once she gets really heated, she mutates back into a wookie and forces Wesley to be her cringing sex slave. She then tears him limb from limb and eats him.
3. In a rare episode involving characters from both ST and ST:TNG, Spock attempts a Vulcan mind-meld with Wesley. Wesley's head explodes. Spock barely survives, spending the next several days scratching himself and whining.
2. Worf notices a Romulan ship on the scanners, and sends Wesley down to clean out the photon tubes. Later, someone makes a comment about the needs of the many having outweighed the needs of the few.
1. Wes gets involved in a deviant sexual practice known as "tribble stuffing," not realizing that tribbles multiply any where. Even an emergency laser enema by Dr. Crusher fails to save him
You forgot the best one. (Score:5, Funny)
Magnus.
Maybe Star Trek is dying? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Maybe Star Trek is dying? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Maybe Star Trek is dying? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's the opposite - Star Trek is distancing itself from mainstream culture. Consider the original series. Kirk and his crew roamed the galaxy exploring the frontier, basically doing good, but they wouldn't back away from a fight and they weren't afraid to break the rules in the service of a greater good. That's not just entertaining TV, it resonates deeply with the way Americans see themselves.
Next Gen was California in the 1990s - the Captain took his therapist with him on board and no-one made a decision without getting a consensus from everyone that their feelings wouldn't be hurt. And Voyager - Janeway wasn't a captain, she was a self-loathing Democrat senator, never hesitating to put every other species' interests ahead of her crew's. Californians don't realize it, but they're held in contempt throughout the rest of the world - when some actress announces she's converted to Buddhism or taken to a macrobiotic diet or started wearing crystals, the rest of the world just rolls its eyes.
Essentially, Star Trek is dying because the people making it make it for people like themselves, not the fans and not the general public.
Re:Maybe Star Trek is dying? (Score:5, Insightful)
http://homepage.mac.com/starshipexeter/
I'll take good knock down drag out fight with an old style, evil, klingon and those futuristic miniskirts over self-introspective psychobable crap anyday of the week.
Re:Maybe Star Trek is dying? (Score:5, Insightful)
Please. The original Star Trek concept in both the shows Roddenberry had direct involvement in were presentations of socialist utopias, and that's precisely the way he wanted it. The only capitalists we saw in the first two series were buffoons and pirates. If there was any overriding theme in "Trek," it's the theme of being "post-epic," where humans have moved past things like global warfare and, from most appearances, monetary-based economics. If you check any history of the "Trek" franchise you'll see that there were only weapons on the first Enterprise because the network insisted it have more of a military feel.
While there may be a lot of blame to lay at the feet of Berman and Piller as executive producers, being "out of sync with American culture" is not one of them. The original "Trek" was in sync, all right--in sync with the late '60s. It was far more stereotypically Californian than Deep Space Nine, which dared to do things Roddenberry would never have allowed--volatile, conflicted main characters, ongoing story arcs involving interstellar war without clearcut villains, and characters who changed over time. (As Harlan Ellison noted with respect to his "City on the Edge of Forever" script, Roddenberry was deadset against the idea of stories that would have affected characters permanently.)
Lastly, your whole equating of "Trek" to California tells us a whole lot more about your attitudes than it does about Trek, or for that matter, about California. News flash: not all of California is Hollywood. Not all of Hollywood is Hollywood, for that matter. As shocking as it might be, Ronald Reagan was not governor of Oklahoma before becoming president.
Wild idea: maybe "Voyager" sucked teabags because the writers had no talent, not because of their political affiliation.
Re:Maybe Star Trek is dying? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is dying... (Score:5, Insightful)
So DS9 comes around and that was pretty good, and at it's peak, it was better than ST:TNG IMHO. But then, comes voyager, and that had its moments but really went down the tubes. Now we've got Enterprise which had great premise, but not nearly as well executed as it could be.
The other thing is that Star Trek has tended to be somewhat saccarine. It's in this future where humanity has made the utopian society and there's just enough bad guys around to give the good guys somebody to fight with. It's a very black and white universe and after a point, that gets pretty dull.
Compare this to something like Babylon 5. There you've got a head of security who's an alcoholic, and his alcoholism actually becomes a serious problem. You've got the good guys and the bad guys but then you find out the good guys are actually just as bad as the bad guys, they just dress better.
Because It Had Been Done Before.... (Score:5, Interesting)
It was retelling of Wrath of Khan without the great characters.
Just as "Generations" sucked, where they tried to put every element into one movie (destroy the ship, cold character gets emotions, major character dies, etc.), so did Nemesis.
Serves 'em right for leaving Uncle Willy out! (Score:5, Funny)
Seriously, Wil [slashdot.org], got any comments?
My dot oh two. (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, I was going to burn my mod points in this thread, but I'll give it a shot:
I think that the release date was incredibly stupid. It's almost like Paramount wanted to "bury" this movie. I have no idea why they released it when they did.
But the release date shouldn't matter. If the story is strong enough, people will go to see it over and over again. As far as I can tell, this is where Paramount fumbled this movie.
When Star Trek is good, it's about people. That's why my favorite episode is Inner Light. That's why I loved working on First Duty and Final Mission.
The script that I read for Nemesis was about people. John Logan is a HUGE fan, who knows every detail about TNG. He infused the characters and plot with detalis that would make a Trekkie drool. He understood why people cared about these characters, and told an incredible story. I still haven't seen the final cut, but everything I've read indicates that they got away from that. I have heard that on more than one occasion the director proclaimed that he didn't care about Star Trek history and continuity. It seemed like he really didn't respect the fans or the franchise, so they ended up with yet another action movie with robots and laser guns.
Sadly, I think that an action movie in space is exactly what Paramount wants.
Marketing a Star Trek movie is insanely difficult. Mainstream audiences think it's just for nerds. They think that they need to watch seven seasons of TNG to know what's going on. Paramount knows that the hardcore fans will show up no matter what, so they focus their attention on convincing the mainstream audience that they'll like this movie.
The trap they seem to fall into when they do this is to cut up the movie, take out stuff that's too "fan-specific," and focus on themes that appeal to a broader audience: babes and bombs. This usually alienates the hardcore fans, and doesn't excite mainstream audiences enough to see it more than once -- and that's where a movie makes money: on repeat sales.
The few times they've managed to hit both audiences -- Star Trek IV and Star Trek II -- they've focused people.
I'm hearing that this is the end of TNG, and it probably is. From what I've heard, some of the actors aren't interested in doing it any more, which is understandable, considering that they've been playing those characters for over 15 years.
But I don't think it's the end of Star Trek movies. TPTB aren't stupid. If they were, they wouldn't be running this franchise. I think they've just gotten away from the heart of Star Trek. If they find that heart again, and hire some very good SF writers to defibrillate it, Star Trek will be fine. There's still some life in the old girl.
Look No Further Than The Competition (Score:5, Funny)
My God, what was Paramount thinking of!
Obvious? (Score:5, Interesting)
That, and the movie before that, Star Trek - Insurrection wasn't good at all. Remember: Once fooled, shame on you. Twice fooled, shame on me.
The public might be stupid, but not THAT stupid
Re:Obvious? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the problem with Insurrection was that if felt like a two hour episode of the series (and a fairly mediocre epsisode, too).
Followed by the RIAA... (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps they'll eventually learn that a good script with an original story line even off a commonly used theme (see Big Fat Greek Wedding) will make more money than a rehashed overdone clone.
Not to Berman, et. al. (Score:5, Funny)
(1) The plot wasn't worthy of the talent arrayed; and,
(2) The plot was nothing more than an episode turned feature length;, and,
(3) It was all hype, no substance; and,
(4) People don't want to see a main character (Data) die in a lame way, give the man some respect, will you?; and,
(5) Retarded androids aren't funny.
You're insulting the episodes. (Score:4, Interesting)
Remember when the Borg were actually scary? When the crew didn't have to blow up the ship/have Data swear/have every character do something memorable? When they actually had decent SF plots ("Cause and Effect", "The Inner Light") instead of trying to pretend it was a non-geeky action movie? See what happens when you forsake me, Berman! I said you'd come crawling back, and now you have!
Oh, the show had its stinkers, too, but I think it had a much, much higher hit rate than the movies have. I'm just going to pretend that they never mentioned the Borg after "Descent", and let them go gracefully.
--grendel drago
What made them think it was good? (Score:5, Interesting)
2) The actors had all aged a good decade since the last episode and aren't as appealing anymore.
3) The plot had more holes than swiss cheese.
4) Better movies were released at the same time.
5) The previous movie was going downhill, why see another if the previous one wasn't worth paying for.
Dumb story? (Score:5, Funny)
A super ship owned by a sect of the Romulan empire?
Picards clone leading them?
RAMMING SPEED???
Bah, I've seen better on sites like this [startrekstories.de.vu] and many other sites like it.
Here is the text for those /. the server... (Score:4, Informative)
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."
Because... (Score:5, Insightful)
Berman: Give Star Trek a 5 year hiatus, and come back with something fresh.
oh , come on guys! (Score:5, Funny)
It's good to see Star Trek follow the quality ideas of such exciting shows as Andromeda, and StarHunters.
Too much competition (Score:5, Insightful)
UHF was going up against Batman and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade in the summer of '89. Plus, it's a weird movie. But it deserves more credit than it gets!
out of theaters to fast (Score:5, Insightful)
Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Ummm... because it sucked?
Seriously though, it's not that hard to figure out why this movie didn't do well
Granted most of those points exist for ANY Star Trek production you can name, but we expect more in movies. Or should.
why it sucked (Score:5, Insightful)
So the next time I wanted to see Nemesis, I dusted off my VHS copy of The Wrath of Kahn and watched it instead. At least Spock comes back.
How dare they allude to this being the last episode of the next gen crew and have Data die.
For shame.
Re:why it sucked (Score:5, Insightful)
Particularly since Berman/Paramount already made the final episode of the ST:TNG series in which we see that Data survives to a ripe old age and becomes a professor at Cambridge after retiring from Star Fleet. That's why the fans don't care: we're not invested at all in the fate of the characters, because we know that the producers will just change it afterwards anyway. And no amount of CGI can save you if the audience fundamentally don't care what happens next.
The Trek contradiction (Score:5, Insightful)
I think what may be going on is "going for the big score" as opposed to "targeting the geeks". When you're doing a weekly series, you can target a higher IQ / continuity awareness / suspension of disbelief because you know your base. When you produce a major film, you necessarily (because of a greater budget) try to bring in a larger audience, so you are inclined to lower the bar for the audience.
This doesn't explain Enterprise, which is dismal, nor does it explain Star Trek II, which is both the greatest movie success (whether it pulled the biggest box office or not) and HEAVILY dependent on continuity, IQ, suspension of disbelief.
I liked Nemesis, it's just that we've done 4 movies on Picard and Data now, and that vein is dry. Unlike TOS, TNG was SUPPOSED to be much more balanced with respect to the entire cast. Are you telling me that a movie with Worf as the central character wouldn't work? I think it's worth a try.
What??? (Score:4, Funny)
Jeez, there was a new Star Trek movie? (Score:4, Interesting)
The question is the answer (Score:5, Insightful)
I think Rick Berman not knowing why the movie tanked is pretty much the reason it tanked. If the producer of a movie is so out of touch with an established fan base that he can't see why they didn't flock to see the movie, then perhaps it is time for somebody who does understand the fans and the story to take the lead.
I like Star Trek, and now that it has found its feet a bit I am enjoying Enterprise (though I still don't know all of the characters' names), and I was planning on seeing Nemesis. But, after friends who are big Trek fans came back and told me not to bother, or catch it on DVD, I really lost all interest.
NEW. (or lack of) (Score:4, Insightful)
There needs to be some life breathed into the franchize. Right now, it seems to be on artificial respiration. Who, or what, can breath life into Star Trek? I have no answer.
Also, the reason, I didn't go see the movie, is that I thought the previews looked like an action movie, not a trek movie. And I'm not going to take my kids to see it when it shows sexual action in the previews.
Nemesis failed for three reasons (Score:4, Interesting)
2) The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers 3) Star Wars Episode II IMAX
Now, I know Berman is thick, but to ask this question and to wonder why it happened outdoes any of the insipid things he's done since Gene's death. Paramount opened the movie smack-dab in the middle of two major, highly anticipated openings and one major "event" release (I think AOTC IMAX made more than Nemesis did, even). Berman needs to be replaced with someone who has a strong sense of SF and storytelling. J. Michael Straczynski and Harlan Ellison would be a great team to take on the franchise.
That said, I found Nemesis to be fairly strong. My expectations were low when I went in, but I was pleasantly surprised by the movie. I think it sets up a Star Trek XI that could, truly, be a massive hit (or mess), involving the TOS, TNG, DS9 and Voyager crews and could tie up the Romulan thread (especially considering that Scotty is still tooling around out there and Spock is still on Romulus!).
Reasons star trek is dying (Score:5, Interesting)
Why? Well, it isn't the characters, but most definately is the plot. Star Trek lacks history. It had it with TOS and TNG. Technology had advanced, and we could see that. Story lines were still based on the premise that people and aliens have feelings and personal demons to battle.
With the advent of DS9 and Voyager, Star Trek left the historical line and issues between peoples and personal demons for outrageous story lines that included the borg chasing but never defeating a small ship in the middle of no where- neglecting the history of the borg as almost undefeatable. And a space station of mixed people. So much potential in that series, but it lost because they could not create enough internal issue stories.
Star Wars had a huge following not only because of its ground breaking fx, but also because it had history. 1000 years of jedi rule. Empire that was how old? Jedi master was how old? Clone wars? Obi Wan knew Vader before The Fall? History was loud in the ears of Star Wars fans. I cared less for the post ROTJ books. I wanted more history. It was finally granted- and I was sickened.
I think another area is culture. Star Trek was a 'perfect culture' that worked well in TNG, and was still rough and being learned in TOS. But there was culture. It was neglected in the newer series. Again, DS9 had the opportunity, but the ball was dropped in favor of a huge war that left me thinking 'eh'.
I loved the culture of star wars- so many peoples, and yet corruption, love, hate, revenge, politics, all together loosely in a republic and empire. It works for me.
I think that the rules were perverted so severely in Star Trek that it wasn't funny. Suddenly in one episode the tachyon field can be adjusted to deflet energy fields, while in the next they can't stop weapons from smashing the shields to '12%' and 'surrender'. Star Wars allowed for everyone to be able to die- and the heroes are either gifted or lucky- not suddenly supremely good at manipulating technologies and even nature.
Time travel and cloaking devices should go. Why does it work here, but not there. Suddenly we can track a cloaked ship, but next time we are completly caught off guard. I understand the element of surprise, but people, come on.
Rick, Star Trek is dying because you neglected what made it great. Sure, some story lines were campy, but until the end of TNG, it worked. Culture, history were enough to keep the story fresh. But you trashed those along with technology and left it utterly unwatchable.
The Wrath of Wil -- Somebody send this to Berman (Score:5, Funny)
After years of being abandoned at the academy and getting dumped in trash cans and toilet swirlies, Wil wants nothing more than for Captain Picard to grovel at his feet as he gives him the galaxy's worst wedgie! "Ha ha ha! That's right Picard! Feel my pain! You could have been a father figure to me, but you kicked me off your ship!" In a shocking twist, Wesley's own mother shoots him with a phaser.
"Et tu Mother?"
"You know, I never like that little brat anyway."
The only thing sadder than Nemisis will be the lackluster number of posts on Slashdot about the movie that no one went and saw.
_____________
As a former Trekkie... (Score:5, Interesting)
The TNG Universe (and Enterprise) is formulaic, over-produced, slick to the point of featurelessness, and so politically correct it is painful to watch.
In other words, it sucks. I have not seen it; nothing in the previews gave me any sense as to why I'd want to see it.
I've been watching Trek since the original series. The original was fun, quirky, politically-incorrect for its time, and just plain fun. The dynamic of Kirk-McCoy-Spock was fun and stimulating.
TNG started off good, and sank into mediocrity, boring characters, and political correctness. The Federation had gone from being an adventure to being a boring bureaucracy filled with faceless people who remind me of white bread. DS9 had some good moments, most of which were lost in Voyager and the movies. Where is the passion, the joy of exploration, the diversity of cultures? Bah, Berman's Trek is mostly about destroying any sense of individuality or culture or faith or initiative.
Enterprise is an example of everything that is wrong with Trek. These are not bold adventurers; they are simpering fools who wouldn't last fiv minutes in the universe of Kirk and Spock. The only character I have any fondness for is the Chief Engineer, who exudes some personality (when he's allowed to).
I do not want to live in the Star Trek envisioned by Berman and Braga; in my opinion, they destroyed the series with blandness.
Nothing interesting ever happens. (Score:5, Insightful)
Babylon 5 understood this. You never could be sure at the beginning of each episode and season whether the characters were going to pull through, as it seems they almost always do in the Star Trek films. You know they're going to win. That's why I'm sick of it.
They blew an incredible opportunity with Voyager. Wouldn't it have been interesting if Voyager returned home only to find the earth completely assimilated by The Borg and the entire Federation being decimated? Or maybe just have the Borg follow them home, to add a bitter note to their return?
What about a Star Trek film which details the birth/genesis of The Borg - how they came to be? Star Trek films also have got to start killing characters and *losing* sometimes.
And they really have to get a grip on their incessant need for cute humor. Humor once in a great while is fine, but they seem to really want to pack that into movies, and I'm just not interested in that. When I watch Star Trek, I want *epic* struggles. I want multilayered plots with twists and turns and powerful moral challenges (Picard trying to get his reign on his hatred of The Borg is the kind of thing I'm talking about.)
The characters are too perfect, and they are too at the center of the Star Trek universe. The emotion chip for Data was one of the stupidest ideas ever; they completely ruined his character.
I'm speaking generally of all of the Star Trek movies of course. Trek needs less action, and more cerebral plots. The shiny, bright Federation needs fascist factions and political problems within. More espionage, and most importantly - the *death* of some of the main characters. I want to
It's always disappointing watching Star Trek because I know going in everything's going to end up fine. It didn't at the end of Star Trek 2, and Kirk lost his shit and let the hatred boil, adding a rough, imperfect edge to his character. No wonder that movie is most peoples' favorites.
I'm just tired of the perfectly lit, wall-to-wall carpeted, Dudley Do-Right shit that makes up Star Trek films. I would hope the future would be partly that, but that should stand in contrast and struggle against darkness, greed, hatred, and fascism.
I want to see The Borg infilitrate the federation and eventually earth. I want to see a Star Trek movie end with a helpless crew watching as Earth or Vulcan is assimilated.
I want to see starships blowing up, and captains of them being pushed to the edge and sometimes losing it and acting immorrally.
I want to see guerilla rebels resisting the Federation like the Maquis. And I want to be on their side.
I want to see characters die. I want to see an end to all time travel plots, and want to see more plots that - as on Enterprise - require the characters to use cunning rather than tech to get out of scrapes.
I want to see no more hippie political crap like in Star Trek IV. I wouldn't mind them dealing with political issues we have not yet faced, but this whole Trek-as-metaphor-for-present-social problems stuff is played out; it was played out after the first series where they dealt with all of the 60s problems like race, space hippies, etc. Star Trek 4 was a travesty.
I want to see more darkness and less humor. All of this will make the victories of the main characters that much more interesting to watch, rather than just assuming that they'll triumph. Movies need to be treated as serials; plots need to continue from movie to movie and they have to leave us hanging. I don't want to see it all wrapped up at the end of the movie. That just ruins is and wrecks the tension. "Oh who cares that they're hanging off of a precipice, we know that can't be the end; there's still 17 minutes left to the movie."
Most or all of this applies to the television series as well.
Watching Star Trek in any form is an infuriating thing; if you're a hardcore fan, you grit your teeth and get through it for some reason; but my teeth have been ground down to powder. Berman needs to sit down and watch Babylon 5, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Space: Above and Beyond, and get some ideas.
I think Roger Ebert nailed it (Score:5, Interesting)
" 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."
Is he smoking crack? (Score:4, Insightful)
The reason they have a franchise in the first place is because there is a long history of positive, intelligent writing. The writing on the latest installment could as well have been for a TV special. Heck, they produce a script a week for the TV show. Did they spend a week or two working on the movie script?
The producers need to do something better to pull movie audiences in. Solicit top-quality writers and spend the time and money to produce an original, engaging, and intelligent script that is not simply a formulaic, rehashed TV episode, then surround it with top-quality production values, and audiences will return.
If they continue to try to extract profits by minimizing cost and effort in the short term, they will find their franchise dwindling and will end up sacrificing profits in the long term.
Momentum (Score:4, Insightful)
If you make a really good movie and then a really bad movie, people will show up at least one more time. (Example: STAR TREKs IV, V, and VI.)
If you make a mediocre movie, fewer people will show up next time. (To some degree, a really bad movie is less harmful, since people hope it's a fluke, and the film makers might try harder afterwards.) Two in a row, even more so.
If you make a movie where I have to turn my brain off in order to ignore the inconsistencies -- if you think shiny things and loud noises are enough to keep me in my seat -- somebody may show up next time, but it won't be me.
This side up (Score:5, Funny)
It didn't make sense (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the movie failed because it wasn't satisfying, nor it it seem to make much sense.
And no, I'm not talking the dumber-then-hell physics nonsense that usually permeates ST. I'm talking about the plot.
Cuts. Check IMDB for the movie's quotes. How many of those were actually in the movie? The cut out a lot of background stuff that explained why this stuff was happening, and what the character's motivations were.
For instance: That Romulan commander (woman). At first she appears she's going to be a toady for Shinzan. She was asking that Romulan admiral some pointed questions after the big ship goes to zap Earth, like she was trying to see if the admiral was going to betray Shinzan. Then, all of a sudden, she's betraying Shinzan? What? Why did she change her mind? Did we learn enough about her character to understand why she might change her mind?
Over and over the point of the movie is that people are good when they aspire to be better than themselves. That's what is supposed to make Data better than B4. It's a fine sentiment, but where is it actually shown in the movie? Saying it is fine for a book or something. But you've got to have it be a central part of the movie, or it is just a plattitude.
And how did Deanna learn to fight back against Shinzan and the Chancellor? Why didn't she do that the first time?
Oh yeah, and as for physics... Ships with impulse drive can go like 0.99c. If you decide to ram another ship, you're going to end up with a big cloud of plasma and debris, not some lame "crunch".
And the cloaking... why couldn't the Enterprise's brilliant engineers program the weapons to shoot right back at anything shooting at the ship? It doesn't matter if the Romulan ship is cloaked, it's shooting you right now! Right over there! Sheesh.
Rick Berman IS the problem. (Score:5, Interesting)
Star Trek fans have been sick of Berman for over a decade. His stewardship has done nothing but run Star Trek shows and films into the ground while Paramount marketing made it a commodity. Perhaps the failure of Nemesis will finally wake up Paramount and Rick Berman will get the boot.
Rick Berman Doesn't Know Why Nemesis Tanked (Score:4, Funny)
And Bowie J. Poag Doesn't Care Why Nemesis Tanked.
It didn't matter; they'd already killed it. (Score:5, Interesting)
See, the big thing about the Next Generation series is that a lot of people really felt for the characters. They all had their own individual battles or things that made things difficult for them, even though this was supposed to be a utopian future. The ones that come to mind immediately are Data, who struggled to be human, and Geordi, who had no natural vision. And Picard, of course, with the Borg. (And his other little quirks..)
So instead of seeing some real character development over those first few movies, with each of them struggling with their impediments or against them, and triumphing over them, which is what being a hero's all about, we see them getting them handed to them deus ex machina. LaForge--bam--has these newfangled eyes. Data--bam--emotion chip got fixed. Picard... is a special case; I'll get to him in a minute.
Data, they should've done the following; stretched out the problems he had with his emotion chip. We see him responding poorly to it when he first gets it, but very quickly he overcomes this--and here's the kicker--in such a way that the audience never actually sees him overcome it. We, the audience, don't get to see this happen, and thus, we aren't able to really root for him. He has many minor struggles, but we never really see the big one, as it were.
So when Data dies in Nemesis, he's no longer the same entity we know and love; we can't even tell what emotions he's feeling in a lot of those scenes where he finds B4, because we feel no empathy for this feeling Data. To the audience, he's totally different. So when he goes bye-bye, we feel a sense of loss, but not because Data overcame all and gave of himself, but because the writers took our Data from us, and never let us get to know him before kicking him out the airlock.
LaForge, I don't really know what to say.. there just should've been more to his ocular upgrade. It just happens too quickly, and without cost.
Worf---What the heck is he doing there!?!? The fact that he's there, doing the same old job, just screams TV episode to everyone in the audience. Especially after all that he went through in DS9, regaining the respect of his fellow Klingons... to treat him like the Worf from TNG is just unacceptable.
Finally, the biggie; Picard. He's the one character that you've admired through the whole series. You sympathized with his problems with talking to kids. (Because he had to tell Wesley his father was dead.) You respected him because he was the voice of reason in times of war, conflict, strife. He's been the source of nobility in times of uncertainty. And you sympathized with him when he personally experienced what it was like to have his humanity ripped away from him by the Borg, and cried with him as he struggled to regain something of that humanity from his brother.
Then the movies started.
Generations started off the work on him by throwing him into the Nexus, and having him meet up with Kirk for some good 'ole fashuned cowboy-style fun. Okay... so it's his first movie in this role... but still, they managed to completely ruin the Guinan/Picard dynamic, and kill off his family. The former wrecked a very delicate and interesting relationship between the two; the latter destroyed something about the nobility of the man--from here-on he's lost something of his humanity, of his nobility, that his brother was providing him. Now, he just fights for the federation; his links to the average man have been severed, and he's now just another member of the military arm of the federation. This is a sad turn of events.
Next comes First Contact. One word; borg queen. Whaaaaaa...?? Okay, if it, like, explained something about why the borg were doing what they were doing, or gave us some better piece of the bigger puzzle, then okay. Instead, she's just the new voice for the borg, who has the hots for Picard. (Huh???) And Data. (Double huh????) Other than that and the fact that it's a time travel plot, though, it was the most credible of all the movies.
Then came Insurrection, and Picard's been reduced yet again. Now he's off on some planet playing hokey mind-magic... I think everyone's starting to suspect by now that Picard's really off his rocker. First his family's gone, then this borg queen shows up again, and now this mind-magic fountain of youth crap he's playing with some old hag....!?!? It's just ludicrous..! Remember how he cried after Best of Both Worlds? That's what we needed to see; him struggling with what he's lost, and trying to build on what he's gained, and instead we get.. this?!?
Why Nemesis failed is because Picard was no longer the emotionally strong man he was in the series--and yet they pretend he still is. They've torn away at what makes him tick so much that to have him act like none of this ever happened--or that he came to grips with it all while we weren't looking, and hey, no biggie, nothing changed as a result--is just insulting the audience.
So when you see Picard saying crap throw-away lines that use the words "unsafe velocities" or you see him laughing like a crazy man on the desert planet, so at ease with himself that it's beyond belief, you just can't help but realize that this isn't the same man from the series, or even the movies. This is someone completely different, who has more in common with someone like Storm from X-Men. ("Know what happens when a toad gets hit by lightening?") And that just plain sucks.
I'm not even going to bother going into Riker, Troi, Crusher, or anyone else at this point because they haven't been the focus for any of these movies anyways. The problem with the movies for TNG has been that they've just destroyed the characters we've cared about too completely.. and any time they spend on any of the other characters would certainly finish the rest of 'em off.
Berman, I hope you're reading this..
Ahem. Earth to Berman. (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Plot holes suck. I saw Nemesis with some friends of mine. After it was over, the most rabid Trekkie in the group announced, "It never happened. I never saw it." Yes, it is fiction, but that doesn't mean we won't be angry if your writers completely destroy our ability to suspend our disbelief. Worf, as a member of the crew? How did this happen? Wasn't crusher with the Traveler? And why put him in at all, if he doesn't even have any lines? We don't need a label telling us what garbage is; our noses can detect it just fine.
3. Idiotic notions. How many times have we heard this line: "You're the only ship in the area..." I'm starting to get the impression that there is only one ship in the entire Federation.
4. Terminal pacifism. Sit up, get the wax out of your ears, and listen up: people want to see the Federation kick A$$. A lot of us are tired of the "Oh, but we can't possibly hurt anyone" attitude. If the Federation was run by the USA, believe me, each ship would be loaded for bear with the biggest, baddest, nastiest weapons and gizmos imaginable. A lot of us on the east coast have thicker skins, so spare us the pacifism. Ever heard of Darwinism? The Federation would have been annihilated by now, and good riddance.
5. Two (what am I saying?) ONE-dimensional characters. Ever watched Farscape? You should. The characters are dysfunctional. They have issues and problems. Like the rest of us. They're just as neurotic as the rest of us, and we can relate. We can't relate to the cookie-cutter folks you keep putting before us.
Open Letter to Berman: Rick - here's a clue! (Score:5, Interesting)
The screenplay was horrible! The writing for Voyager and TNG was wonderful. I remember plots within plots and sideplots and twists and turns.
Nemesis was so one-dimensional, it hurt my head. I kept waiting for the "retarded" Data to turn out to be Lore or for some new technology to be introduced or for Troi to get pregnant... or a million things that might have been interesting with that much raw acting talent on hand.
You gave a cast of superb actors the worst screenplay I think I have ever seen. It looked as though every interesting idea got tabled by committee or something. We ended up with a really flat uninteresting story. Whatever happend with Wesley going off with the traveler?
Where are the other members of the crystalline entity's species? How about Species 8472? How about Janeway and Picard gettig together? What about the Voyager crew on Earth.. what about the reunion therE? For crying out loud, this could have been SO cool! It just plain sucked because it didn't live up to its potential. DAMN it could have been awesome! Instead it was just disappointing.
The machine that has been Star Trek still has the capability of producing heart-pounding, thought-provoking and deeply interesting entertainment worthy of the cast and worthy of Roddenberry. Hop to it! We expect more.
- a Star Trek fan
Vortran out
At the very least... (Score:5, Funny)
Thank you! Thank you! I'll be here all week, drive safely.
It tanked because... (Score:5, Funny)
Everything Wrong with Star Trek in 2002/2003 (Score:5, Informative)
"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 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.
Holy Mother of God! (Score:5, Insightful)
I was watching an episode of enterprise; the one with the Klingons abusing the subdued duterium miners. Well heads blowing up all around, phaser fire filling the sky, Klingons on the hunt, and the total fatalities: 0
I mean good god I was sitting there screaming about how I was expecting Mr. T to come around the corner at any second. A visit to bureau42.com only reaffirmed that situation when someone with a similar sensation stated "I pity the fool who messes with duterium miners!"
In the end they trap the Klingons in a ring of fire, not one with a signed eyebrow and what do my ears behold. Did that Klingon just say, "We don't want your dueterium anyways!" and stomp off like a small child back to his ship (teleported out anyways...)
The Klingons I know would have teleported up, then back down directly behind the unsuspecting enterprise crew, slit their necks before they knew what happened, slain have the duterium miners as a lesson, and demanded the same yields. The two writers of that episode should have been hung up and bled dry for that sorry excuse of an episode.
Nope Star Trek is just a T&A show now (thats TITS and ASS)... so anyways I digress. Rick Burman, obviously needs to pulls his ****ing head out of his ****ing ass.
Go ahead mod me down for troll. But it's true. Star Trek was great. How the mighty have fallen.
Surprise, Suspense and Common Sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Star Trek has the classic problems of any television series that refuses to change. It has become stagnant. Bremen refuses to hire decent writers and let them run loose. He won't allow any cliffhangers that can't be resolved in 2 or 3 episodes. He also won't allow major characters to die, or fail, or turn evil, or just plain disappear from sight for more than 1 short story.
Once you have a setting (which Gene provided for you), and a cast with some chemistry (DS9 and Enterprise, not Voyager), all you need to do is get some good solid writing. What makes good sci-fi? What makes good writing!
Surprise! If I can predict how the episode will turn out before the first commercial break, it's not really that much fun to watch. Yes, I enjoy seeing T'Pol bounce around in her jumpsuit... but that's not enough.
Suspense! If I know that everything will all turn out O.K. in the end, because the next episode will be out in a week... why do I care? In good writing, you are never quite sure if any character or endeavour will work out. Major characters can die too. They can also become evil, or just disappear without a trace. Watch Babylon 5 someday... see how the characters evolve, and see who survives and who doesn't.... and why.
Common Sense! Enough with the time travel out of your ass already. There's a difference between asking us to suspend our disbelief and go with the idea of phased particle weapons, or warp drive; and smacking us with technobabble just to see how much blood pours out of our ears. Cause and Effect work well together, and can do wonders for finding holes in a plot.
While I'm at it, might I also suggest not only sticking with it (don't change the direction a show is headed just because a week or two were unpopular), but letting the characters evolve over time? The Piccard of "All Good Things" was a vastly different man than the one in "Encounter at Farpoint"... and that evolution was part of the show's charm. You got the sense that he'd learned from his experiences, and that he had become a hero.
Many people have complained about Enterprise... it certainly isn't a "Next Generation", but the chemistry is already better than TNG was for several seasons. If they would just toss them a few really GOOD scripts, I think we'd all be impressed with the results.
*sigh* It will never happen though, it's too risky. B & B have grown too accustomed to their regular paychecks to risk failure. If they keep to the formula and let the show die a whimpering death, they can blame the fans, or competing TV shows, or sunspots. If they dare produce real stories, they might get blamed for those that don't do well.
I think ST can be saved, if B&B will keep their damn hands off it. Hire writers who have proven track records, tell them they can do whatever they want -- but they have to ask before they can kill off major characters, and let the stories flow and stretch across seasons. See the "Thieves World" set of novels as a great example of cooperative and competitve storytelling in a common universe.
I know why it tanked! (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously, I mean, if producers knew that the movies they were producing were going to suck, do you think they'd produce them? (Well, maybe some of them.)
So, when you take a producer, writers, and director who don't know how to make something good, they're very likely to make something awful, and that's what happened with Nemesis.
The movie had no plot. Everything that happened in the movie that might have been interesting (like the naked wedding) was glossed over for a main plot-line that didn't go anywhere. Literally. The primarly segment of the plot happened in damaged ships in the Romulan neutral zone.
And of course, the Remans were just a BAD idea. Talk about YASTPOTW! (Yet Another Star Trek Particle Of The Week.) It was a plot devices pulled out of someone's nether regions. They used it because they thought it was cool, but they never stopped to consider if it was a bad idea or try to develop it into something interesting.
I have hated the last two Star Wars movies. Lucas totally sold out, and it's completely tainted my feelings about the three movies that came before. BUT, at least we get a proper introduction to some of the creatures. I mean, we actually get to see some interesting things about the Gungans.
Of course, it's possible that I missed some of the character development. I was bored and maybe didn't pay attention well.
The bottom line is that Star Trek has been going down-hill (except maybe Enterprise, but it's got problems too) since Roddenberry died. It's a case where other people just do not understand Roddenberry's vision but are arrogant enough to believe they can continue on with it. I don't know a small fraction of what it is that made Star Trek Star Trek when Roddenberry was around, and I have a feeling that, while Berman may know a lot more, he doesn't know it all either. And by 'know', I mean 'grok'.
What the Star Trek Universe needs. (Score:4, Interesting)
How about Star Trek: Obsidian Order? A sci-fi Alias-like show that follows an agent or two from the Obsidian Order? Or how about a show from the Romulan's perspectives? I'm tired of watching a show about the high-minded Federation who is always perfect. I want to see shades of grey instead of black and white. I want to see some depth to the universe.
Vampires, man. Vampires. (Score:4, Funny)
The answer is Rick Berman (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course not because the answer is, "Rick Berman".
Fans left in droves over the last decade because of his constant attempts to transform Star Trek into a touchy-feely franchise about emotions that occasionally had some adventure from time to time, instead of the other way around like it originally was under Roddenbery.
Look at these two ideas that *sound* like a great setting for an awesome sci-fi series, but in practice they fell flat: 1 - A federation ship on it's own stuck too far away from home to get any help has to find it's own way home and make it's own repairs by hook or by crook in a totally alien section of the universe. Great idea, right? Yeah, on paper. But in practice we got some stupid show about a crew we don't like, who we wouldn't care if they all died tomorrow because they are that annoying.
Okay, but how about this one: 2 - The adventures of the very first enterprise ship, back in the days before Earth had become powerful, back when it was just getting it's feet wet and making mistakes and learning the hard way how to make it in space. Sounds great, right? Yeah, but then Berman, putz that he is, instead gave us a show about feelings, and how humans are all stoopid, and where they actually spent an entire episode trying to learn what one crewman's favorite food was. (No, I'm not kidding!). It's like one of those terribly boring episodes in the middle of an anime series where all they do is eat and go shopping, but stretched across the entire series instead of just one episode.
The best way for Berman to save Trek would be for him to quit and give the helm back to people who know how to entertain.
Re:It failed... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nemsis was an alright movie, it certainly didn't 'suck'. There was plenty for fans to enjoy. Whether or not it survives long term is a seperate debate.
The problem is it went up against too many other hyped movies. The truth of the matter is that the average person can only see so many movies in a month. (budgetary and time concerns)
There were movies I didn't get to see in December. Nemesis was a priority for me, but I doubt it was a priority for a lot of other people out there with LoTR and Harry Potter out.
Re:Easy (Score:4, Interesting)
That doesn't explain a bad opening weekend. It 'sucking' (geez, is that the most sophisticated opinion of the movie you could muster?) would explain a sharp falloff after opening weekend.
The truth of the matter is that it didn't have a lot of people rushing to theaters to go see it. It kind of fell off the radar with all the other movies out.
Personally, I can't help but think people wanted to avoid crowds. You know those LoTR fans, casting spells and rolling dice and shit.
Re:I'd say the future of Trek movies *is* certain (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately, Firefly got cancelled. It was 10x better than Nemesis or Enterprise. And there are no mid-season sci-fi replacements.
Re:I'd say the future of Trek movies *is* certain (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'd say the future of Trek movies *is* certain (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'd say the future of Trek movies *is* certain (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'd say the future of Trek movies *is* certain (Score:5, Insightful)
And yes, I did feel a little disappointed in the end.
Re:I'd say the future of Trek movies *is* certain (Score:5, Insightful)
Star Trek: The Next Generation got a whole lot better around season 3, when Roddenberry pretty much lost control of the show and let Berman take over. Remember that "Bones with tits" season-2 doctor? That was a direct result of Roddenberry insisting that Dr. Crusher be written out. He made a lot of those kinds of bad decisions, and the show was better off without his input.
When I hear people talk about "the spirit of Gene Roddenberry" in a Star Trek project, I usually think "oh, you mean this one is a heavy-handed and preachy humanist morality play that insults our capacity for reason?" Sadly, the answer to that is usually "yes."
Enterprise and Voyager sucked due to piss-poor writing and a lack of fresh ideas, not because they somehow strayed from the Roddenberry fold.
Of the three post-TNG shows, Deep Space Nine was the farthest from Roddenberry's vision, and it's not only the only watchable show of the three, but it was often better than TNG.
I think the movie failed simply due to horrible timing. The previews had me interested in seeing it, but by the time I had seen The Two Towers three times, I wasn't very interested in hitting the theater for a week or two, and by then Nemisis was out of the theaters. If it came back to a big screen this week, I would probably go out and see it. I'm sure that's true of a lot of geeks. If they had opened this Friday, they just would be going up against the tenth week of TTT and a lot of crap like Darkness Falls and Two Weeks Notice. They would have made piles of money that way. What the fuck were they thinking?
Re:I'd say the future of Trek movies *is* certain (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe. I didn't go see it because the trailers made me think it was hackneyed, confused, effects-driven, and cliche. I don't know if any of that is true, because I haven't felt one iota to go see it now, or to await its release on DVD. The Trek movies have been getting steadily worse and this one just failed to convince me it would rise above the threshhold.
Besides, haven't they destroyed the Enterprise in, like, every Next Generation movie?
Re:I'd say the future of Trek movies *is* certain (Score:4, Insightful)
And lets all recall the wonderful TNG movies. You know classics like the wrath of^H^H^H^H^, er Generations.
And never credit market timing where damn crappy commercials explain it better. The Ad's where Vapid action sequences tied together with hackneyed lines. I had to call in favors to drag my wife out to it, she thought from the ads that it was going to suck.
And don't forget, it was Roddenberry who was working against the tide to bring a cancelled series first back from the dead, then into the movies, and finally back on the air. That takes a hell of a lot more Chutzpa than takine am established franchise and running it on autopilot until it is utterly forgettable.
That's my story and I'm sticking with it.
Dr. Pulaski ruled (Score:4, Interesting)
The reason people stupidly prefer Dr. Crusher is because she is a likeable character, whereas Pulaski could be a real bitch at times. But she was human and she was interesting. Dr. Crusher was just like a Stepford Wife, or a 50s TV "Welcome home, Jean Luc, how was your day at work?" kind of stupid thing.
graspee
Re:Dr. Pulaski ruled (Score:4, Insightful)
Old. Technophobic. Cranky. Cynical. Hates using the transporter. Arguing about humanity with Spock/Data. The list goes on and on. Pulaski was the exact same character as McCoy, with two differences: 1. Female. (Actually, "sexless" would be a better description) 2. Not entertaining.
Crusher, on the other hand, a widow, a single mom, an awkward romantic history with her commanding officer, these were all very new elements to Star Trek, and allowed for stories which were not warmed-over "Bones vs. Spock" arguments.
To call her a "Stepford Wife" shows that you have as big of a problem with normal maternal figures as Gene Roddenberry did. Crusher was a military doctor who happened to like being a mom, and liked the idea of being in a relationship. She was actually one of the more interesting characters on the show.
Re:Dr. Pulaski ruled (Score:5, Funny)
And in my view, the single hottest.
If given a choice between Crusher and Troi, I'd pick Crusher any day.
Crusher: Smart, skilled, attractive, long red hair, when she saved the ship it was with her BRAIN. Real sexual tension with Picard.
Troi: Decent rack but beyond that a source of obvious, any child could tell you that, "Insight." When she saved the ship it was because the writers couldn't think of a better story that week. Lame, cold turkey parody of sexual tension with the Kirk wannabe.
That and we all know which actress has aged better.
Re:Dr. Pulaski druled, Big Red Ruled! (Score:5, Funny)
Wes: Bye, Mom!
Bev: Bye, Wes!
(door closes)
Squadronmate Tom Paris: Damn, Wes! Your mom is one hot piece of ass. I would pound the holy hell out of her for hours on end.
Wes: Shut up!
Tom: I'm talkin' about burying a diamond class erection to the hilt inside old Big Red!
Wes: Shut up you ass!
Tom: I mean, what more could you want out of life? Is she a natural redhead, if you know what I mean?
Wes: Shut up now!
Tom: Damn, I'd like to go to sleep with her stink on me. I'm just gonna take this little genetic sample over to the bioclone lab and run a little...experiment.
Berman Gets Way Too Much Credit (Score:4, Insightful)
>better around season 3, when Roddenberry pretty
>much lost control of the show and let Berman
>take over.
Berman had a lot of help. Michael Piller came in as co-executive producer for Season 3, working beside Berman and writing a considerable number of episodes himself (far more than Berman ever wrote or co-wrote). As Roddenberry was increasingly ill by that point, there were several producers and co-producers working on the show as well, including writers like Ira Steven Behr. They'd also attracted a stable of excellent writers by that point, particularly the brilliant Ronald Moore, who wrote classics like "Yesterday's Enterprise," "Sins Of The Father," and "The Defector" for Season 3.
Giving Berman all (or even more than a little) credit for the success of TNG would be like giving Al Gore all the credit for inventing the Internet. I'm sure Berman was very effective at getting money out of the suits, but it's obvious the man doesn't have a clue when it comes to forging a compelling story. And that's precisely why Trek is in the trouble it's in today.
Re:I'd say the future of Trek movies *is* certain (Score:5, Insightful)
They (Berman & Crew) keep screwing up by trying to tell a sci-fi story rather than telling a HUMAN story. The REAL issue is, they try to focus on too many characters at once, at the expense of the story. When the series (TNG) was running, I LOVED all the character-building episodes. They'd pick out one character, and base the entire episode around that character, with the rest of the crew in 'fringe' roles, which added continuity.
I personally think to retire the Trek series would be a serious mistake. The things Trek 'stands for' still exist. The opportunities to tell incredible stories are immense - if for no other reason, than because they don't have to spend any amount of time detailing the history behind the characters anymore. I would recommend they take the time to examine classic literature (for story ideas), and classic films (for editing), pay more for the 'movie' crew (director, editors, etc.) than the cast (to improve attention to STORY rather than EFFECTS), and get back to telling simpler, more human stories.
Re:I'd say the future of Trek movies *is* certain (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'd say the future of Trek movies *is* certain (Score:5, Insightful)
Rick Berman and Brannon Braga are the reason Trek is failing. These guys are the overseers and the authors of most of the really bad Trek episodes. Voyager could have been the best Trek series ever but Berman and Braga couldn't break away from the same canned plots. Enterprise is about to be canceled for the same reason although Paramount has promised a sexier Enterprise - Yeah! That's why I watch Star Trek, for the T&A. DS9, which most hard-core trekkers think was the best series since TOST, was lucky because Berman and Braga abandoned it early on to work on Voyager.
For some hilariously insightful reviews of Enterprise that, I think, sum up many of Trek's problems, check out this site: http://www.firsttvdrama.com/enterprise/index.php3
Re:I'd say the future of Trek movies *is* certain (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I'd say the future of Trek movies *is* certain (Score:5, Funny)
"This week on Voyager, Choke-a-Chicken and Feelix the Cook encounter a Multi-Phasic-Quadratic-Warp-Tribble which threatens to add an element of plot to the series, and is promptly destroyed by the dread Berman Beam."
Re:DS9 is the best series? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I'd say the future of Trek movies *is* certain (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this says it better than most of the other comments I was going to reply to.
Like most television series, after a certian number of seasons, they just are no longer interesting.
Now Trek has been lucky to be able to do a number of spinoffs.
But at this point, they've done just about everything there is to do in the universe. C'mon, what else can you do? They've had to fight every different kind of alien, or advanced alien. We've encountered aliens with just about every possible motivation. We've explored politics and religions (DS9).
Sure, you can make up new enemies and make friends with past enemies. But then you're just doing the same old thing. Nothing is new.
It was much better to see some old plotlines resolved, as in past movies. Like when the two klingon bitches were killed. The Enterprise D destroyed to make room for its successor. Kirk finally dies. etc. That was nice to bring more closure than the original series's had done.
Maybe they could have a movie, that incidentially, touched on whatever happened to Wesly Crusher. Just as an example. But really, is there anything else new that they could relaly do? The Trek universe is pretty much filled.
In fact, that's initially why I got so interested in Babylon 5. Then I discovered that there was a much bigger underlying story going on, and was really hooked.
Re:I'd say the future of Trek movies *is* certain (Score:4, Insightful)
ST is bad sci-fi with good special effects.
Re:I'd say the future of Trek movies *is* certain (Score:4, Interesting)
No. We need death. We need strife. We need chaos. Heroic actions that lead to horrible consequences. Ala Lord of the Rings (sorry to insult LTR by comparing it to trek). But the trek series was never very serial to begin with, so this format might not work at all. I hate the fact that the Klingons kept getting beat down by the humans. Let's face it, a warrior race, based on strong tactical skill (al Queda) facing off against a strong enemy with powerful weapons, strong moral code (for the sake of argument) (U.S.A), etc. etc....
-Chris
Re:I'd say the future of Trek movies *is* certain (Score:5, Informative)
(And you sound like the kind of person who will absolutely love Marcus Cole.)
In conclusion, "Woo hoo?"
Re:A Battle of Wits (Score:5, Funny)
The most famous, of course, is never get involved in a bidding war with Dreamworks.
But only SLIGHTLY less well known is this:
Never go in 5 days ahead of LORD OF THE RINGS when the franchise is on the line!
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Ha ha ha ha --
Re:Killing Data (Score:5, Insightful)
(in case you haven't seen it yet)
It didn't fail because they killed Data. It failed because they killed Data, and five seconds later, replaced him with stupid Data (aka B4).
In ST II, when Spock was killed off, we were given a grieving period, and treated to a respectful funeral. Kirk told us that Spock was the most human person he'd ever known, etc. In this movie, Data is gone, we get not even ten seconds of crying, and Picard is talking to stupid Data, and it's like Data was never gone.
They cheapened his death so much that it wasn't even funny.
Not to mention that they pretty much threw out every tenet of Star Trek TNG (no beaming through shields, etc.), and it just didn't work. Also, absolutely no attempt was made to pay attention to physics! When two ships crash into each other in space, they would each move back... they don't go through each other like that!! There would have to be something behind the ships to force them into each other, or they would both have to have their engines going.
Re:Killing Data (Score:5, Interesting)
If you watch the last ST:TNG episode, "All Good Things..." Picard is jumping between the present, past and the future. In the future Data is alive and well other than the rediculously overdone grey streak on one half of his head.
So how would Data survive? Many ways!
- Q could bring him back easilly.
- Time travel, after all this is Sci-Fi
- Beamed out by the other Romulan ships in the area and help captive for a time for study.
- Since he uploaded himself to B4 (think Spock grabbing McCoy's head and saying "Remember!") they could potentially rebuild Data and reload him from the image stored in B4. (I can just see "Star Trek, Search for Data!")
- I suppose even the nanites which Wesley created in one of the episodes could stumble upon the wreckage and rebuild him from vaporized particles.
- And the most likely and to revive him: Random annoying Star Trek plot device.
Why is this modded Funny? It's Insightful (Score:5, Interesting)
Ask Slashdot why Nemesis failed. You just know you'll get a ton of insightful and intelligent answers out of a question like that.
I got no indication that the poster was trying to make a joke. I think Paramount, Berman and Braga would do well to listen to the fans for a change instead of ramming standard sci-fi with the Trek label slapped on down our throats. The size and imagination of the Trek fanbase is legendary. There is TONS of free information out there for them to consider. Obviously, the studio wouldn't want to take some fanboy's idea verbatim or even hire fans to provide input. All they would have to do is cruise a few forums and get an idea what the fans want. Nemesis is a classic example of what happens when a studio is completely out of touch with their fans and thinks they can figure out what the fans want more than the fans themselves.
It doesn't have to be slashdot. There are plenty of free forums where the so-called creative talent behind the Trek franchise could go cruising for inspiration and insightful analysis. After 30+ years of Trek, there's really no excuse for them the studio to get it wrong.
GMD
Re:Wesley Crusher? Get real. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I wanted to see it... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not necessarily the reason the movie tanked. We're not really its core audience anymore. They've been trying to make it more mainstream for some time. My guess is that the mainstream heard, "Well, if the Trekkies aren't going to see it, why should we?"
That's not the media reviews. That's their friends. I'm the biggest Trekkie of my group. If I'd gone, others would have come.
Why did we all give up simultaneously? I think it's a combination of sub-par TNG movies and the sub-par Voyager and Enterprise series. When there were only 79 episodes of TOS, you _had_ to see the movies: you'd seen everything else. You even had to see Trek V. But if you gave up after Voyager, as I did, and never got into Enterprise, you're already out of the loop. It's not that you're afraid you won't get it. It's that you no longer have that drive to see 100% of Star Trek.
I don't think that LotR at the same time was the problem. If it had been very good, or if we were all still dedicated fans, we'd have made time. We weren't spending that time watching LotR again. We were doing something else, out of the theaters entirely.
I don't believe the Trek franchise can be salvaged. Certainly not as long as Berman doesn't understand why the last one tanked. But even if he did, he's lost an awful lot of potential fan base. He might be better off starting a new series of his own.
He could turn it over to the Deep Space 9 crew instead. The series didn't develop the cult that TOS did, but it did have a devoted following. They too would have a hard time digging out of the hole the franchise has dug itself, but they've got the best chance.
If not that, then just let it rest. I loved the series, but none of the other things I love are immortal. Someday I will find something new to love; indeed, I already have. I will remember Star Trek fondly, and that means I probably won't see Nemesis until I catch it, wistfully, on DVD, and remember better days.
Re:I'm a Star Trek fan... (Score:5, Insightful)