Slashdot Mirror
Rick Berman Doesn't Know Why Nemesis Tanked
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."
NO MORE.
Thank goodness. Give the franchise a nice tombstone and lay it to rest already.
The Star Trek previews sucked. It had no 'new' plot, it seemed like an extension of any normal weekday movie. You weren't going back to earth, you weren't doing anything original. Didn't seem to be an exciting movie, so I skipped it. Get a better plot and people will watch Star Trek again.
I don't know why it tanked, either, it's easily one of the best. Probably has more to do with the box office competition or aging of the ST generation. ToS had a strong following, which I don't think TNG ever developed.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
It was a bad movie. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.
It failed because they killed Data, IMO.
Obviously its because they cut Wil Wheaton's scenes out of the movie.
Maybe it tanked because Star Trek is dying out in mainstream culture. We still have Enterprise, which is interesting, and Voyager reruns, but I can't imagine that they get good ratings. Sure the cultists still worship Star Trek, but I imagine most people have become less entralled with it.
Success of trek (proportional to) minutes of wheaton. eh???
I read his site. He wasnt even called for opening night.
wilwheaton.net
(repruhsent!)
-- -- --
Help my mini cause: My journal
The only people who watch it are geeks, geeks dont reproduce so they are slowly dieing out. You can tell how many geeks are left from the box office takings of bad sci-fi films.
I'm no trekkie, but I do enjoy watching the movie/tv show. The main thing I noticed, is this movie was more like a longer episode of Star Trek, than a movie about star trek.
Even if I say something insightfull or inteligent, it doens't matter cause I'm an ass.
It failed because it sucked - plain and simple. It felt like an extended episode rather than a "film" (e.g., compare it with something like LoTR).
Nae bother
It must be because they screwed Wil Wheaton... Wait a minute... what the hell am I saying? His blog might have made me realize he's a nice guy and doesn't deserve to be hated for his portrayal of that whelp Crusher, but that doesn't mean that Wesley didn't suck like Courtney Love all hopped up on goofballs. It must have been the curse of that awful character being committed to film, even if they did cut him. Shudder.
-Greg
personally liked this episode of TNG, but $17 mil in the first weekend for any movie that's up to part > 10 is not bad at all
Ask Slashdot why Nemesis failed. You just know you'll get a ton of insightful and intelligent answers out of a question like that.
in a better way, in previous Star Trek adventures.
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.
Basicly they had a decent idea and they went nowhere with it... I just didn't believe that Picard's clone really hated Picard.
Maybe they should get rid of Rick Berman...
MG
Randomly distributing Karma whenever possible.
Marina Sirtis: old
Gates McFadden: old
Put Jeri Ryan in the movie, and box office ratings will go up again.
My guess is that there just wasn't enough theater space devoted to it. On opening weekend, there were 2 screens in town (out of 30) showing Nemesis. Showtimes were about every 4 hours... It made it difficult to work seeing the film into my schedule. In addition, I never saw it make it to the 2nd run "dollar theaters" in town either. They would have sapped another 2 or 3 bucks from me if it had. I guess the other "big" films of the season just pushed it right out of the way.
Love,
Jay and Silent Bob
They'll eventually figure out the deep, dark secret of the ST:TNG series: Wil Wheaton was the glue that held that show together. He was the driving force that kept us all watching. His creative spirit guided the series, and to leave him out of a project is to incur the Wrath of Khan.
Seriously, Wil, got any comments?
maybe they should bring wesley back.
then again... maybe not.
Didn't it open the same weekend as Rob Schneider's The Hot Chick?
My God, what was Paramount thinking of!
I went in with VERY low expectations and was pleasantly surprised. I definitely thought it was better than IV/V/VI/VII.
This was only a few weeks ago; it was a second-run theater but it was PACKED.
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
I don't go to see very many movies at all. Only films that are really really interesting to me. Maybe, 6 movies a year, tops? I'm guessing that puts me as part of the crowd that you have to draw in for the big numbers. (The swing viewers?!)
The previews were kind of interesting. I've seen every Trek movie in the theater. Just the plot didn't quite capture me. Something about Romulans and an evil bad guy. Looks like lots of action, but nothing that really piqued my interest.
In the end, I think the large part of my decision not to go to theaters was the DVD. Since I didn't have an immediate need to see it, I'm more than happy to watch it in the comfort of my own home. Plus the bonus material on the DVD. Not that I have a great home theater, but the "movie experience" isn't a draw for me.
saying something along the lines of "we don't know why the kids aren't buying more albums. This last boy band album was just like the others we've released, and they made millions."
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.
- gtaluvit (prnc. GOT-tuh-LUV-it)
A lot of the movie was just... missing. IT was edited out to reduce the runtime. But that left huge gaps in the story. I actually have come to like the movie even more since rewatching most of the earlier movies and picking up bits and pieces of the storyline. If there's a good DVD edition, I'll quickly buy it.
Simple: It was released at the worst possible time. There was too much competition during christmass, Lord of the Rings alone must have hurt Nemesis seeings a LOT... Which reminds me, I havent seen Nemesis yet... what a bad Trek fan I make. Is it still in theaters?
If thou dost not know why it tanked, then thou hast confirmed that you're long overdue for a job-swap with the Paramount Studios janitor...
Why ST: Nemesis "tanked":
(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.
If my memory serves me well, it did open right around LOTR and I'm sure that didn't help. But I'd say that the mair reason it "tanked" probably had more to do with the current state of affairs of the TV series. It didn't have a monster promotion machine of a hit (read HIT) series running on TV to drive fans and other folks to theatres. The series is tired, so I would bet most folks thought the movie would be "tired."
But the film was terrible!
The marketing was fine. But its when you get past that marketing that makes a film truly earn its keep. The "legs" of the picture as it were. And as soon as everyone got the word it was crap, and even when die-hard fans hated it, you knew it was too late.
This sounds like William Shatner's lamentation on the train wreck that was Part V. He was sure he made a great film, despite being angry about Paramount pulling funding for his grandoise ending (which wouldn't have made up for the awfulness of the film anyway).
Some day Berman will see what a terrible film this was and hopefully realize what went wrong...
Too many of these things go on far too long. Like friends, it was great, and now, the last few seasons have sucked.
It's been shown to death. The original series has lost its 'camp' appeal. TNG milked all the loyalty out of trekkies it could. DS9, Voyager and Enterprise are all -1:Redundant.
Add to the fact that every movie with the TNG cast sucked, it opened against LOTR:TT, and I'm frankly surprised at his shock.
Not even Wil Wheaton himself could make Star Trek interesting. It's over.
I'd pay to see Short Circuit 3 long before Star Trek 22 (or whatever number they're up to). Johnny 5 is a MANS robot. You hear me, Mr Spiner?
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
1) The actors hadn't played the parts in so long, they had forgotten their characters.
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.
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 and many other sites like it.
The above post is an editorial, the poster cannot and will not be held responsible for all or in part for it's contents
It tanked because movie goers are conditioned to expect that Star Trek movies are "rentals" and not movies that require the full, wide-screen cinema experience. Make an excellent movie and the word-of-mouth will draw in crowds. Yes, I saw it in a theatre, and the 10 or so other people I heard murmuring after the show said words to the affect of, "I could have waited" (for it to appear on video).
That series became pretty interesting in the last couple years and left some unfinished story lines. I would rather see movies based on that series coming up with weak plots like the one for Nemesis.
Worst. Sig. Ever.
Rick Berman's First Post-NEMESIS Interview: Future of Feature Franchise Unclear
Posted: 12:22:56 on February 04 2003
By: Steve Krutzler
Dept: Star Trek: Nemesis
In his first interview since the debacle of STAR TREK NEMESIS at the North American box office, producer Rick Berman says the future of the feature franchise is uncertain and he and the studio are not ready to jump back in immediately.
"I don't think this is like falling off a horse, and you want to jump right back on it," he told Sci-Fi Wire. "There's a theory that there was too much time [between Insurrection and Nemesis]. There's another theory that there wasn't too much time. I, along with the people at Paramount, need a few months of perspective and thinking about it to then decide what's the best thing to do next."
The exec is also cautious about explaning the film's poor performance.
"There's no way of telling what happened," Berman said. "I'm convinced that we made a very good movie, and I'm also convinced that the movie was promoted properly. I thought the trailers and the television spots were all excellent. It's easy to blame that sort of thing, but I don't think we can in this situation. I think that the competition of other films may have played some part in it, but I can't be certain of that, either. It's very, very hard to tell."
STAR TREK NEMESIS debuted in U.S. and Canadian theatres on December 13th and went on to the #2 spot in its debut weekend with $18.5 million, the lowest opening weekend gross of any STAR TREK picture. The film's domestic total currently stands well short of $50 million. 1989's STAR TREK V: THE FINAL FRONTIER was the previous record-holder for lowest domestic box office with $52 million.
Check out the original article here.
It then linked to:
ScifiWire Nemesis
Trek Film Future Unsure
Star Trek Nemesis executive producer Rick Berman told SCI FI Wire that several factors likely contributed to the film's lackluster box-office performance, and he added that the future of the film franchise remains uncertain. "There's no way of telling what happened," Berman said in an interview. "I'm convinced that we made a very good movie, and I'm also convinced that the movie was promoted properly."
Berman added, "I thought the trailers and the television spots were all excellent. It's easy to blame that sort of thing, but I don't think we can in this situation. I think that the competition of other films may have played some part in it, but I can't be certain of that, either. It's very, very hard to tell."
Berman sounded disappointed. "Obviously, you want a film to do well," he said. "You work for a long time, and you work for a long time, and if it doesn't do well, it's not fun."
Berman went on to say that he's not sure what the future will hold for the Trek film franchise. "There's a theory that there was too much time [between Insurrection and Nemesis]," he said. "There's another theory that there wasn't too much time. I, along with the people at Paramount, need a few months of perspective and thinking about it to then decide what's the best thing to do next. I don't think this is like falling off a horse, and you want to jump right back on it. But we'll see."
I didn't go see it because I hate movie theaters, they suck, filled with noise. I love ST:TNG, I'll buy it when it comes out on DVD.
The only 2 movies I've gone to see in theaters in years (matinee) are Fellowship and the Two Towers. Just had to see those on the big screen.
I'm sure I'll like Nemesis, I just didn't want to go to a theater.
JB
The heat from below can burn your eyes out
Nemisis was the greatest movie of the year! What better plot than to have evil mirror images of the Star Trek Crew. This idea is so deep and spiritual, that surely they deserve more credit. And what's more, the survival of Earth was at stake! It sure doesn't get more exciting or original than that I can tell you.
It's good to see Star Trek follow the quality ideas of such exciting shows as Andromeda, and StarHunters.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
Nemesis tanked for the same reason that UHF did in 1989... too many other good movies for the fanbase to watch. The Two Towers was still in the theaters, the James Bond flick was playing, and so was Harry Potter. All of these movies have a good "sci-fi geek" following, so people just didn't have enough money or time to see Nemesis. That's how it was for me, I would have rather seen Two Towers multiple times than see Nemesis once.
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!
In his opinion it's either:
- The competition Nemesis had at the time
- Too much time between Insurrection and Nemesis
- Not enough time between Insurrection and Nemesis
He goes on to say that it's probably not also the meaningless advertising that gives the audience no real idea what to expect (other than kewl exploshuns)..
Cause no one cares about trek anymore. It used to be a geeky haven, now it's typical TV soap opera drivel.
And I mean come on.... Scott Bakula? In a star trek series?
How is anyone going to care about trek if the maintainers of the franchise care that little about it.
...still do. But it looks like this is the first trek movie since #1 that I won't be seeing in the theatres, as it's about gone from my area now.
There were a lot of things going against it, for me -- a busy holiday season, a busy holiday MOVIE season (bond, potter, lotr are three I remember off the top of my head). Add to that some lackluster reviews, not a lot of strong promotion (so I wasn't as likely to remember, oh yeah, there's a ST movie out!), and a general feeling that what I had seen looked more contrived and forced than most, and I just basically forgot all about it.
I think one thing I was concerned about was that it seemed (from the previews) to be shaping up as a kick-ass action movie, which ST has never been. If they'd been offering something with more meat, storywise, then I might have been more tempted. Maybe. As it was, the main reason I wanted to see it was just because it was there.
....to watch this movie. I even saw it on opening night. It was the worst movie I saw all year. I was pre-warned by my favorite local critic, Arch Campbell, that this was a "0" film, something he rarely does. I should've listened. It's almost 2 hours out of my life that I'll never get back. It was that bad. It needed much, much better writing. For a movie of a TV series to be an event, things must happen - i.e. a plot must occur. -Marc
It stopped showing in my area to soon. There were 3 movies on my list to see over xmas holidays. Harry Potter, LOTR, and Star Trek. I saw the first two as they came out first. By the time I was able to see ST it was gone. It was in the theaters for 2 weeks and then gone. No wonder it bombed! My friends and I were PISSED! I could not belive that it left that quick. The nearest theater showing it was 1-1/2 hours away. Guess I'll have to wait for it to be on DVD in 6 months now, where it will probably do real well.
Only 'flamers' flame!
Sorry, make that TOWERS.
There is only so much of the Geek Movie Dollar(tm) to go around, especially to be spent at the theatre itself. Going up against LotR 2T was just too much of a challenge.
It was also a very competitive holiday movie market for sequels in general with Harry Potter and James Bond also releasing new franchise entries.
Work for Change & GET PAID!
Because it was opposite The Twin Towers, maybe?
Because the plot was thin?
Because Berman and the other chucklehead refuse to deliver plots of the quality of TNG's when it was in its stride?
Need I say more?
He is the best sailor who can steer within fewest points of the wind, and exact a motive power out of the greatest obsta
...that make them seem like two-hour-long television episodes.
Do others agree? Why do you think this is?
My brother and I were debating this a little bit. We couldn't put our fingers on what it was, but we had theories like poor sets, poor lighting, the pacing of the stories, or something about the cinematography.
We both agreed that they are making a mistake in trying to give all the cast members a chance to shine, because the tightness of the stories have suffered as a result. They have too many parts to fill. But neither of us thought that this was the reason for the movies' "TV-ness".
Anyone have any theories?
Accountability on the heads of the powerful.
Power in the hands of the accountable.
One of the (many) reasons it tanked so early out of the gate is due to the internet. When Star Trek V was out in theaters, people still went to see it before they knew just how dumb it would be. Now, with the wonders of the internet - everyone can check reviews, see Joe Commoner's opinion, read tons of rants, etc.
The word of mouth on this movie was so bad, I'm sure it kept many people at home.
But I didn't see it opening weekend or soon thereafter, because Berman & Co. have been churning out so much crap lately (Voyager, Enterprise) that I did not have high expectations for the movie.
And even though I enjoyed this one, I have no particular burning desire to see another. You can't miss something if it refuses to go away -- give the franchise a rest for a while, and then people might care about seeing a new feature file.
Subscribers can see articles in the future? So what? Everyone gets to see them in the future.
It takes more than one strong character (Picard) to make a good movie nowadays.
The timing of its release was also horrible. With this economy, if anyone had to choose between Star Trek and LOTR:TTT, I think it is obvious which was picked.
In the old days, real science fiction writers wrote episodes of Star Trek. Excellent wrting made for a compelling show.
Unfortunately, since Next Generation, it seems the writing has suffered and "special effects" and a preachy political correctness has been more a focus for the producers.
Star Trek was charming because it told good stories. It hasn't in a while. No quantity of Vulcan or Borg hotties in decon showers can fix the fact that the writing has been lame for years.
Yeah yeah karma whore and all that, but I couldnt resist :)
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
Anataka suki desu. Itsumo. Itsumademo.
Nemesis was easily one of my favorite Trek movies. Say what you will about parallels to James Bond or Wrath of Khan, it was a couple hours of good, fun entertainment.
Its predecessors were not.
Star Trek 7, 8, and 9 were miserable, hippy-like mockeries of Star Trek. Star Trek 9 might as well have had a soundtrack by the Grateful Dead, it was so frickin' hippy-infested. They may as well have had the uniforms replaced with tye-dye hemp, and had Crusher start prescribing some ganja for "medical purposes."
Rick Berman doesn't realize why Nemesis failed? Rick Berman and his "I sure do love beating this dead horse" mentality made Nemesis fail. He's a bit like Saturday Night Live -- If he doesn't have a good idea, he just resurrects some tired old idea that used to be good, and does it a quarter million times until he finally thinks of something.
Personally, I find myself enjoying the TV series more, because they have more time to develop the characters and storylines. A character can evolve over the course of a series, and threads of stories can continue to emerge over the length of the show. Movies, on the other hand, need to tell one compelling story in a short amount of time. That's also why short stories tend to translate well to movies, but novels don't.
Too often poor movies are not punished at the box office. But the internet age, word of mouth is replaced by word of net, and the word of net was that it clearly sucked. Trek Fans are certainly overrepresented on the net. Q.E.D.
It certainly wasn't the competition. I was strongly tempted to see it, but I heard how weak it was and didn't. My friends also; most didn't bother.
Rick Berman is an idiot, and the article makes this clearer than ever. If someone with some talent can't step in, then let the franchise die.
A one person movie. Brent Spiner portays B4 in his search of himself, the real Data. In the end, Data manages to be fully integrated into B4's neural network. Cheap to make. Lots of storyline possibilities.
Also, Star Trek 12: The Search for William Riker. What happened to him during his time in Cardassia? Is he dead? Leading a rebel force of some sort? Was he taken by the Dominion?
Maybe Star Trek is suffering from a lack of good Science Fiction writers. If Rick Berman would hang out at a World Science Fiction Convention, or a WesterCon, or (fill in any fan run convention) and met some real SF authors (Niven, Pournell, Vinge, etc) instead of the type of mold that inhabits Hollywood he might hire somone who knows SF and can write.
(Please note: the authors I mentioned were the ones I could come up with quickly because they are all local to me...)
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.
These are my personal reasons as to why it failed as I am a hardcore trekker.
1) Lack of storyline. I enjoyed the premise but it was like 1 giant episode.. not a movie. $18.5 million is pretty crappy. Im sure at least $10million was for Brent Spiner's role alone. This movie could be one of them that will stay in the red as far as profits go.
2) Whil Weaton. WTF: I thought his ass was shifting through dimensions last time I checked.
3) ST isnt popular anymore. I still hold it dear in my heart but it isnt as widespread as it use to be. Its starting to turn into a niche thing. Red Dwarf here I come! Its failed for many reasons: Gene died, needed better scriptwriters. I give Rick Berman Credit on all he's done to continue the journey.. I just feel like Star Trek is finally on its last leg.
4) Deanna troi wasnt nake enough
-Hidari
It's dead, Jim
Well, mostly because of Rick Berman. In my /. journal entry after I saw the film I said: "Well, now that I have seen Nemesis I can positively state, without fear of contradiction, that someone really needs to kick Rick Berman's ass. There is probably a line forming as I speak. If the people that own the franchise want to keep it viable they will make certain he has nothing ever to do with another Star Trek film."
- -
Are you an SF Fan? Are you a Tru-Fan?
Perhaps the reason that the results are a bit
slow for Star Trek is that there was so much that
was a very large selection of movies to see during
the last holiday season.
I think that the biggest hits (those that occupied
the most screens at the local multiplex) were
the new Harry Potter movie and the new Lord Of
The Rings movie.
For my own preferences, I chose to stay away from all of the 'blockbusters' and was selective in what I saw. One that was really good was the one about the culture behind linux and the Free Software movement. I can't remember the title,
bit it was a full length movie shown at a real
movie theater and it starred the likes of Stallman, Linus, and Raymond. Others I saw included The Fast Runner and Chicago.
This brings up another rant of my own. It seems that the bigger the 'blockbuster' you see, the more time you waste seeing ads and previews. I counted 7 ads and 7 previews when I saw the new James Bond movie. That admission was $9.00.
When I saw The Fast Runner, there was only one
preview. That admission was only $6.00. Go
figure.
Cleara
Maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but the flop might have something to do with opening it in the middle of the Lord of the Rings rush.
In general, I wasn't all that happy. Next Gen was always my favorite of the series, and I really hoped to see the entire crew get some serious screen time, not just Picard and Data as per the previous movies. As it was, I was disappointed on that front--moreso knowing it was the last chance to get it right.
I also fell asleep in the middle. That's never a good sign.
I hate to see it do badly, and I hate for the Next Gen crew to go out on this note, but so it goes.
This has been a topic of much discussion among my friends and I, and here is my list of why the reason ST has become a laughing stock. 1. The ship is one of the characters in the ST universe. When the new 'Big E' was just put up on the screen, no nothing, it severed a lot of the emotional ties us long time fans had to the ship. 2. Time Travel as the Dues Ex Machina ending. It was over done in the series and the Wayback machine endings just smack of poor writing, and fan's won't put it up with it. 3. ST used to pay attention to basic military protocols. Picard should have been tried twice for his efforts in the movies so far. 4. Stories. The movies 2,3,4 all referenced each other and actually had a feeling of continuity. The ST:TNG movies could have happened in any order, and don't have any flow. Episodic versus Epic as my good buddy The Illuhminator would say. I got more, but Berman will never listen and never change. I didn't see Nemesis in the theater and I quit watching Enterprise. Trek is dead, and I have only the ST:TNG re-runs to remind me of the good old days(tm).
I enjoyed the movie. However i had a hard time
getting excited before hand, due to anticipatshion
for The Two Towers. Which opened one week after
ST X.
When the bad guy was cold and evil and had it in for the captain specifically I felt like I was watching The Wrath of Khan. When the Enterprise was damaged beyond belief I felt like I was watching The Wrath of Kahn. When Data downloaded his mind, I felt like I was watching The Wrath of Kahn. When Data died to save the Enterprise, I felt like I was watching the Wrath of Kahn.
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.
This is my sig. Its pathetic.
Fire the Star Trek writers and hire the ones from Alias. More happens in one Alias episode that five Star Trek movies combined.
Star Trek should fire their entire staff of writers every two years just to get new ideas into the mix. It's like the current writers can only come up with one plot idea a year and they have to stretch it into two movies and three episodes.
Enterprise is just remakes of other Star Trek episodes. It's lame and I don't even watch it any more.
Bottom line: put more content in the shows.
when i was younger (before high school), I watched TNG and loved it. I bought the technical manuals and read them, and loved the whole universe. I thought First Contact was the bee's knees. Then, sometime before Insurrection (which was the nail in the coffin for me), it lost it's luster, and it started to seem simplistic and uninteresting.
Maybe i just grew up, and my tasted evolved, but to say that insults adult Trek fans everywhere.
For my money, it just doesn't hold my interest. I'll rent Nemisis to out of curiousity, but relatively little about it piqued my interest from the previews.
I don't know about anyone else, but my favorite TNG episodes were built around some sort of mystery, where something really odd was happening and the crew slowly unraveled it. It had the element of surprise, and kept me engaged. To me, a traditional "the earth is threatened and we have to stop the bad guy" movie is neither interesting nor very Trek.
--
fight global cooling
Yes, I agree. Berman fell victim to one of the classic blunders.
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 --
I think the answers are faily straightforward:
1) It was actually a pretty good film, though it was damaged at the box office by being released around the same time as "The Two Towers" and the second Harry Potter installment. Hindsight being 20/20, it shouldn't have been released during the holiday season.
2) Although audiences certainly knew who the Romulans were, audiences had no connection with either Shinzon or the Remans. So why should they care? Once people actually saw the movie they got to see some of the best space battle scenes in the entire series, but in terms of getting people into the theatres the movie would have been better served by dispensing with the Remans entirely, substituting a rogue faction of the Romulan military in their place.
3) Frankly, the whole "this-is-probably-the-last-film" vibe from the cast and crew just sounded like loser talk. Far from luring fans into the theatres, I think it turned people off.
Why did it tank? Well pretty much all the exciting parts were in the previews, in fact I thought the previews were better then the movie after I saw it. The movie felt rushed, and pieces of the plot just seemed absent. Ok, wedding with Riker, that was what a whole five mins when they have been working on that relationship since the original series? The whole he's your clone thing, face your demons was really kinda lame IMHO. I had a hard time believing that this was penned by a 'fan' of the series who knows Star Trek inside and out. When we left the theater it was like I having watched a lame episode of the series on TV (which happened from time to time). For it to be a final chapter in the movie series (ya right) it went out with a wimper and not a bang. But its not just this movie, the last couple have felt incomplete and rushed. The last Trek movie that I felt was really well done was 'First Contact'. ah well, my 2 cents.
Does anyone even care about ST aymore?
That's why it tanked.
It tanked Due To Lack Of Interest.
This
Ever since Star Trek VI, each movie has had less character advancement, plot, etc. than a typical episode of TNG, and any episode of DS9.
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.
If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
What? There was a new Star Trek movie?
Business News and Resources: www.usasource.net
Berman is just wrong about the quality of the trailer. It sucked. That's why I didn't see the movie. That's why other people didn't see it.
I'm a Trek fan. If there had been NO trailer I would have seen the movie by default. The fact that the trailer sucked resulted in a conscious decision NOT to see the movie.
It was terrible, and I think it was mostly the director's fault. He wasn't familiar with the Trek universe, and it showed. Even the doors didn't make the right noises.
Nothing is so smiple that it can't get screwed up.
It's basically a fantasy film (in space), and they released it amidst far superior genre competition: Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, not to mention lots of other late year Oscar candidates. They should've picked a deader time of year to release it.
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
Man, do I feel dumb. I don't even remember there being a Star Trek movie out over Christmas. Weird. They apparently only marketed it in media I don't pay attention to. Or maybe it's just the fact that there have been so many Star Trek movies that it just wasn't possible for my subconcious to register "Nemesis" as having an existence of it's own. Kind of like James Bond movies. My brain doesn't seem to be able to register the existence of new episodes of that series either. I'm just too damn old to waste brain cells trying to keep track of a dozen different Bond or ST flicks.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Recent Star Trek storylines seem to boil down to:
1) Someone tries to steal the ship
2) Crewmember goes bad
3) Prime Directive gets violated (but in a good way)
4) Time travel paradox is narrowly avoided
5) Combination of the above
So, Rick, if you want the next movie to be better attended, avoid all of the above.
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.
... and I had no compulsion to see this movie. It was a TV show wrapped in the typical hollywood "Blockbuster" action-plot-effects formula. Bad combo. Star Trek II didn't have effects all that spectacular, but goddamnit, it had character development and dialogue and suspense and tragedy. You know, things that make a good story regardless of medium.
Know what the next ST Movie I'd like to see is? An epic-length, well-written, character-driven drama (with some action) in the DS9 branch of the Star Trek universe, with special attention paid to the complex (and Hard SF) relationship between species, cultures, and individuals that defined that show. Maybe even make it dangerous to be R-rated. THAT would be different, and interesting.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
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.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
-- The Doctor, "Doctor
As a long term Trek fan the obvious answer as to why Star Trek has failed is quite simple, Rick Berman. There has been no creativity in the TNG storylines and plots in years. The fact that several of the actors from ToS refuse to have anything to do with Berman...Leonard Nemoy being the obvious, tells alot. It's well known that Berman has an insecurity complex with the actors and writters of ToS/movies 1-5. Look at Enterprise, its politically correct and sterile storylines make it the laughing stock of everything that Gene envisioned!!!
... everybody thinks they're a movie director.
"Well, if I had written the movie, I woulda made the good guy shoot the bad guy, thus saving us all from lots of that talking stuff that keeps happening in these movies!"
That I *saw* the movie, and I can't remember that Data died. How did he die, again?
Must've not made much of an impact...
The quote is -
'Fool me once, shame on you, fool me, cant fool me again'
I'm a huge fan of Patrick Stewart and some of the other TNG cast, but I'm tired of seeing them as Capt. Pichard, et. al. I think their characters have been played out; all their demons have been exposed. The only reason the original crew were able to make so many movies is because the series only lasted a few seasons.
Please Paramount, don't inflict a DS9 movie on us or lose Voyager again! An entirly new set of characters is needed for a successful Star Trek movie.
A scary [insert technobabble here] is going to destroy Earth and the Enterprise prevents it.
How many times can they make the same movie and expect people to pay for it? If you haven't noticed, the James Bond films ain't tearing it up lately either. Same reason (a scary _blank_ is threatening the West, and Bond stops it).
Maybe someday they'll make science fiction again (like in TOS), y'know with a plot? The kind you used to get before "science fiction" became synonymous with "special effects movie".
Is there any other character from TNG (other than maybe Data) that had the potential for a more interesting future than that of Wesley!?!? He apparently had the ability to become a "Traveler," which opens up a ton of possibilities. Wil Wheaton is a decent actor and there's no reason to think a 20 something Wesley would be anything like a teen Wesley. I think Berman has screwed the pooch by not exploting the Wesley character in the TNG movies.
Ruger
I desribed the film to my friends thus:
"Like Star Trek 2. Only crap."
I disagree that there have been no good Trek movies. I thought First Contact was VERY well done (ESPECIALLY for a non-trekkie audience), and though I haven't seen it, Khan is supposed to be a good movie period, not just a good Trek movie. As far as Nemesis goes: I was expecting a good movie what with the whole even/odd thing. I almost think Nemesis was worse than Insurrection. I couldn't really put my finger on it, but it just didn't have the spark that seperates mediocre/poor movies from good/great ones. Maybe it would have fared better with a director's cut. Maybe they needed another screenwriter. I don't know. But I'm of the opinion that something drastic needs to be done if ST has a chance of surviving as a franchise. I don't think any of the post-TNG series are ripe for adaptation. My hunch is that the best thing to do would be to create a new franchise for the big screen. I'm not sure if it will work, but it will likely be more compelling than the last STrainwreck I saw in theaters.
The Gumball Rally called.
They want their Dune Buggies back!
You suck ass.
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!).
I have been a long time Trek fan, but not to the point that I don't have a real life.
I have put off seeing it to the point there is no theater around showing it now.
So maybe renting it on DVD, when it comes out.
I few friends said they thought it was ok, not as bad as expected. But they also like MST2K, not much for taste there.
I seen the previews for it and the plot it just did not jump out at me. Though my wife also wanted to see it... not going to complain about her taste, she married me so.
I think it has been a problem with a lot of sci-fi today thin plots.
Makes me think the TV exec's think we are all mind numb robots who only care about sex and violence. Not that I don't like a little of both, I have to get in my Quake time in every so often and blow things up and the wife takes care of the other.
Wise men speak because they have something to say, Fools because they have to say something!!!!
HA HA, made you look.
Star Trek = teh suck!! Yuo geeklies wondar why jooz nevar get laid!!111!!!$$*$(@)@
1 part - Destroy an Enterprise NCC1701-?.
1 part - Old rehashed plot lines.
2 parts - Kill a main character.
1 part - Miserable love story.
3 parts - Dry "DADA" humor.
Mix thouroughly
Bake on 350 for 1 1/2 hours
Remove and chill.
Serves Rick Bermans ego for 3 months.
Star Trek anything gets made is indicative of why Sci-Fi blows so much now. Way to many sequels and franchises have just sucked the creativity out of the genre. It was nice to see LOTR done properly and The Matrix sequels may be promising, but I am truly tired of all the "properties" that the major studios keep milking. Thanks George Lucas, for perfecting the marketing and trending that has sucked the life from the genre.
I have read the article, seen the comments, and have decided that releasing this movie around other blockbusters is probably a good thing. To wit, to suggest somehow, that just because a huge movie arrives, somehow that squeezes out another movie is absurb. When I go shopping for a shirt I may buy several: a button-down dress-shirt, a shortsleeved polo, a pack of undershirts, and a pullover. Does the purchase of one shirt preclude the buying of another...common sense says no. So the 'released around the two-towers' argument doesn't hold water.
Secondly, I think deep-winter is a great time to release a movie. People are in the mood to spend some time watching a flick and staying warm. If you want to sell Christmas trees, you'd better sell them near Christmas.
The only argument for this, or any, movie doing poorly is the trailer. (Stand on soap box). I really only have two information points when making a choice on seeing a movie these days: the trailer, which is becoming more and more like reading the first ten chapters of a book, and what other people say. If I'm watching Bond, or two-towers, and I see the Star Trek trailer, it should get me excited. But this one, alas, did not. I'm not a must-go-see Star Trek fan, but if it looks good (rescuing humpback whales), then I go see; plain and simple. When I saw the trailer, you can just tell it's going to suck, and suck hard (the part about running dune-buggies over the desert made me laugh -- why are they still using rubber wheels in the future?). As for what other people say -- well, it's Star Trek, whose opinion can you trust there?
"This isn't a study in computer science, its a study in human behavior"
...with the entire franchise in one word: "Berman"!
the quality of a movie rarely has anything to do with it's first day grossing, hence the fact that no one has seen it yet. The problem is that it wasn't hyped properly, advertisement is the key to a good opening day. Or people today hardly can tell what a good movie is. Look at 25th hour, it's an amazing movie, every critic I have found gives it a great rating, but it hasn't done very well, and a lot of theaters aren't even carrying it.
Anonymous Cowards - Oh God, How I hate you
10 tips for living in the 24th century...
1. Never get a cabin in the front of the saucer section
2. Always carry a knife. You never know when the other guy will have a knife.
3. If you are in a hurry, the ventilation ducts in the walls of the ship are large enough to drive a tank through.
4. They might be full of aliens, though.
5. Ignore Counselor Troi. She may just be having her period.
6. Anyone who looks remotely like you is probably your evil twin, a robot, or both, and should not be trusted.
7. There is no complicated political scenario so complex that it cannot be resolved by two men beating the crap out of eachother followed by a giant explosion.
8. If anything remotely interesting happens on a nearby planet, take the entire command crew to investigate, even if it means leaving the ship's janitor in command of a multi-billion dollar starship.
9. Anything with lots of veins showing is probably not very nice.
10. Never wear a red shirt.
If I missed any cliches, rest assured Nemesis didn't.
Two: It goes: Fool me once...Shame on...Shame on you...Fool me...Can't get fooled again.
come for the naked robots, stay for the zombies
It's hard to get good writing when Those In Charge willingly sacrifice continuity and quality for apecial effects and out of character jokes. Rick Berman is the problem. Firing him is the solution.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
"I, for one, do not think that the problem was that the band was down tonight. I think the problem may have been that we had a monument of Stonehenge on stage in danger of being trampled BY A DWARF."
Seriously - the Trek franchise has been hashed into regurgitated crap since the halcyon days of Next Gen, and some people would argue even further back than that. They can't seem to get away from the same old tired dynamics.
The progression of reactions goes something like this:
During the series: "Yippie! Picard and Data!"
Generations: "Oh hey, Picard and Data."
First Contact: "Ah. Picard and Data."
Nemesis: "FUCK! Picard and Data!"
Next movie: "Please kill Picard."
And no amount of resynthesizing Picard and Data into other characters in other shows will get away from all that Picard and Data floating around.
GMFTatsujin
When will Star Trek end? The original show was good, and TNG was good, but these new shows and movies sux0rz! Stop milking the dead cow! --- bad mixed metaphor...
In engineering, finance or medicine for example, the 'why' something works can be known, not always, but often. Not in ShowBiz. That's why the business is what it is, big money commited to a pure crap shoot.
I was a trekkie when younger - also a star wars fan. I am much less the 2 now, even though sci fi and sci fantasy still capture my interest.
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.
They stuck me in an institution, said it was the only solution, to...protect me from the enemy, myself
Wesley suggests to `Q' that Q might stand for Queer. The all-powerful being takes offense, turns Wesley into a giant testicle and hits him with a hammer, thus extinguishing him in the most painful way possible.
Magnus.
(For those who don't know, this was the episode where Q sends Picard foward and backwards through time to help him prevent the destruction of mankind.)
I think if this 2 part episode was made into a movie instead of well, a 2 part episode, it would of done great at the box office. This was better than any of the movies IMO.
Because it was opposite The Twin Towers, maybe?
That would be The Two Towers.
Its really spooky how often that mistake is made...
Yes, Nemesis sucked. I'm not surprised it tanked.
Reasons it sucked:
-Everyone looked SO old! Even Data.
-No sexy characters.
-Too much borrowed from ST Generations. (Ramming scene/Enterprise crash landing. Evil genius almost destroys planet with superweapon.)
-Phaezon, though acted well, just wasn't a convincingly written character.
-Shakespeare, shakespeare... remind me that these guys are actors by having them quote shakespeare. Great idea!
Clearly, the only way for the Star Trek series to get itself out of this rut (the only way it's EVER gotten itself out of any rut) is to bring back an old character and make him evil! Do I mean evil Khan? Evil Kirk? Evil Spock's brother? Evil Lor? No! I'm talking about Evil Wil!
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.
_____________
Too many screenwriters only know SF as film & TV...you need a good SF writer to create a story, and help on the script.Too may cycles of recycling has made the ST universe boring...
ttyl
Farrell
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
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
watch this
A) LOTR
B) Harry Potter
C) People who are laid off can't afford to go.
D) People who still have jobs are too busy doing the work of those laid off.
E) LOTR
If it had come out last week it would have done much better. The current selection is dismal.
"What's the point of going abroad, if you're just another tourist..."
I could enjoy 2 hours of watching Jeri Ryan and company beating some Borg ass.
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
Simply put, the recent ST movies are simply too much like the TV shows -- just blown up onto a big screen. There is nothing different visually and the plots aren't far removed from TV either. Compare that to two successful movies: Star Wars had FX that weren't seen anywhere else, Matrix the first had FX and a good plot that wasn't run of the mill. The question is whether the new Matrices will be tank or not. Mr, Berman if you don't bring something new to the table you won't have a block buster.
Many of the plot lines were quite odd, but that has already been mentioned.
The thing that bothered me the most is it seemed almost like they were trying to meld ST with LOTR. The Remans looked so much like orks it wasn't funny.
The other thing that has bothered me about the last few fantasy movies, is there are so many chase scenes that look like they were made for a video game. Well, ok, they probably were... The dune buggy jumping out of the shuttle? C'mon. Is Paramount trying to make a ton of money off of video games of the dune buggy part? (It goes for the recent Star Wars movie too).
As in 6 weeks ago? Never heard a thing about it. Could that have something to do with it?
Forget them ole Next Gen'rs, that Starship Exeter movie had better acting and a superior plot.
Seriously, I enjoyed watching that fan-based production as much as I enjoyed Nemesis. They both sucked equally and one cost a lot less to make.
I only mod up parents of "mod parent up" posts...
1. Sex: Nobody wants to see any of the old flabby asses of TNG crew anymore. They are too old. Get a new sexxy crew if you want to direct a porno.
2. Crazy Psychic Sex: Even worse, some guy sees a girl for the first time and has psychic sex with her. Doesn't make a good plot.
3. Buggys (aka toys): Ok, must they introduce a new toy in every movie? I don't think that makes sense.
4. Obvious plot continuations: Data will return, at least with spock you had to guess.
5. No character development: Picard's clone wasn't developed very well. I felt nothing for him. The sex scenes should to have been cut and turned into scenes where this character was developed. Also, the exploration of 'would Picard turned out like this if he were raised in a death camp.' Was weak and not very thought provoking.
Personally, I would have written a movie that involved Q.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
Notice what Berman talks about more than anything else: The Marketing
The movie and music industries are of a universal mindset (I've been dealing with them for the last 3 years.. that's another story) that if they Advertise it, They will come!!
Magic formula. Make cr@p. Make Cr@p look like chocolate mouse on the cover. Then run an ad with a bunch of beautful women eating cr@p, saying how wonderfull it is. Hey it's worked for Coors all these years!
That in a nut shell is why they hate P2P so much, it's not because it's letting kids burn out mix tapes. It's about control. They may pay through the nose for Clear Channel, but CC will push any brand of cr@p they pay for, and they can save all that money on developing talent (ie QUALITY)
Hey, Hollywood, Berman, if your listening (yeah... I laughed too) It's the QUALITY STUPID!!
Sherlock's Axiom: When you've elminated all the other possiblities, even the unlikley must be true.
For example: If you dumped half the budget into advertising, and you have an army of customers with no social life and oodles of disposable income. Then when the movie comes out it spikes for a moment, before the reviews come out.... Hmm... must be the length of time inbetween the nearly identical sequals.
Berman thinks it's a formula.
M is the amount of money he (Paramount) spends
A is Advertising
S is the StarTrek name, that still evokes images of it's Golden Age.
C is the cast, that on their own are brilliant
R is wrighters (yeah), less you spend the better,
after all no one watches a movie for the
wrighters.
A more advertising (I'm running out of variables)
P is the period between movies... err.. what is this? Who came up with this idea? Yeah, cause the timeing behind LOTR sequals is what's driving them in the theater..
M+A*S+C/R+A+P!= $$$$$$$$$$$
woo hoo!
morons...
To quote Douglas Adams "Their so unhip, I'm supprised their pants don't fall off!"
I would rather be ashes than dust!
As a fan of the Star Trek OTS movie franchise, here's some suggestions to Mr. Berman and how to make Trek better. Figure out the characters. The best OTS Trek moments came from knowing the characters well and seeing how they behaved in unique situations. The interaction between Kirk, Spock and McCoy was priceless. You have some pretty good characters in Next Gen. Re-familiarize yourself with them and how they interact and make a plot that is based around characters, not "let's blow some crap up and chase a villain". Get a hold of Nicholas Meyers and pick his brain. Maybe he will suggest to you, watch all the Next Gen Trek episodes in a marathon sitting and figure out some plot themes and arcs that span the series. You also have a really great actor in the form of Patrick Stewart. Give him something worthy of his talents other than shooting a laser gun. For example, in Nemesis, why didn't you let Stewart play Shinzon? He was a clone, right? You could have had some great acting moments there, plus a little nod to the Original Series "Good Kirk Bad Kirk" parallel universe episode. Lastly, I dread seeing a Deep Space Nine or Voyager Movie. Your last great hope would be to ring Nicholas Meyers and see if he has any decent ideas. If not, let it end.
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.
All about me
lizard-men in dune buggies
just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand!
In the beginning of the movie, Will and Deanna are to be married and as everyone knows from the episode where Troi's mother gets married on ST:TNG, the participants in Betazed weddings are nude.
So the whole movie, we're waiting to see how much better plastic surgery has become in the 24th century as Troi has grown a full two bust sizes since the beginning of TNG. Instead, we get stuck looking at the shiny heads and crooked teeth of Picard and his evil clone.
Star Trek writers, listen up: more nudity, sex, and explosions, in that order and you'll have a box office success. Some Klingon orgies would guarantee at least a few more movies. And stop with the 'holier-than-thou' moral of the story in these movies. Go out and explore shit.. go where no man has gone before and bag one for the team, eh?
There seems to be this consistent need to preserve everything from film to film; plots get wrapped up too neatly at the end. At least at the end of Star Trek 2, it looked like Spock bought it.
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.
A quote from his Nemesis review:
" 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."
I know it didn't get my money because movies cost $9 per ticket now, and you have to watch advertisements (I'm not talking about previews) before the show. Perhaps if they cost $6 and had ads, or $9 and had no ads I'd have gone, but unless the pricing changes I'm done seeing movies in the theatres.
Since I skipped it in the theatres, I can watch it at home on my giant television (Which cost about as much money as I used to spend on movie tickets each year back when it cost $7/ticket) after I buy the DVD for $15. I'll still have saved $3, and I'll be able to watch it as many times as I like.
--
BTW, before any of you reply to this saying theaters have to show advertisements to make money because the studios take all of the ticket revenue, bon't bother. There's so much money that changes hands at the box office that if the theaters and the studios can't figure out how to make everybody profitable based on that money alone they need to go out of business and let somebody else figure it out.
And yes, I used to spend over $700 a year seeing movies, which isn't hard at $7 a ticket. Just buy two tickets every weekend for a year and you're there. I don't even want to think about how much money I actually spent if you figure in refreshments and quarters at the arcade before the show...
...and there's a loudspeaker counting down at the end as the "laser" powers up to destroy Our Heroes. I won't give away what happens just as the countdown is reaching 1. It's my own damn fault for subsidising this crap every time. I love written science fiction, and the $8 sci-fi-whore part of my brain can't seem to accept that movie makers mostly don't understand the genre.
Easy. No nudity. They had it all setup with the betazoid wedding mumbo jumbo, then left you hanging worse than a nervous virgin.
You shouldn't frustrate geeks like that.
They have a tremendous selection of fresh juices
It's unfortunate that Berman can count on diehard fans to defend even the worst Star Trek imaginable. Instead of correcting the problems or hiring new writers, he'll just get the fans to start another letter writing campaign or Internet petition.
I wonder if his latest comments aren't a hint to get that ball rolling.
I'd say that, if Berman doesn't know what went wrong, he isn't thinking any too clearly or seeing any too well. Star Trek reached the end of its road a decade or more ago, and Hollywood hasn't been willing to let it lie.
I didn't see Nemesis -- it never occurred to me to go. I haven't seen a decent Trek movie since Star Trek IV, and quit going after Star Trek VI. Fortunately, there is good SF and fantasy out there, and I prefer to spend my money on it.
Star Trek -- RIP. Please.
Catherine
Ok, what's up with the 10 posts or so I've seen with sentiments along the lines of "Not even Wil Wheaton could make this movie good" ?
/. is being overrun with off the chart levels of irony, or some of ya'lls are a bunch of mouth-breathing hypocrites.
Wil Wheaton, however great a guy he might really be, had a lame, lame character in TNG.
Therefore,
Either
Cheers!
I read the script off the net some time ago. I recall, as I was reading it, cringing in agony at some of the bad, bad, bad, bad, puns and jokes. I was relieved when I finished reading it. The ONLY reason I went to see it was to find out how truely bad it was. And it was. Truely bad. It's just like watching Jerry Springer, you know it's bad but you've just got to hold on to see how bad it can be. The theater was full of moans, groans and towards the end, sighs in sheer exasperation and, dare I say it, wails of pain. It followed NONE of the star trek story standards. E.g. 1. Somehow Data is able to 'back himself up' to another android that magically got found. Somehow they were never able to do that in TNG. 2. Extreme violation of the prime directive, 3. Dune buggies (WTF were they thinking?) 4. A Picard clone? 5. A Data clone? 6. Yet another Enterprise gets destroyed. What are we on to now? Enterprise-Q? 7. The Romulans and Federation working together? The only saving grace was that they took out the line "Is that your final question?". 8. Transferring Data's 'catra' to B4? WTF? The actors knew how to play their parts, it just seemed that they didn't want to. After reading the script, I'm not surprised. There's only so much you can do with special effects (did ANYONE like Star Wars: AOTC?). I hear the director didn't even read any of the tech bibles.
Admiral Kathryn Janeway.
Did anyone else want to gag while watching Captain Picard take orders from her?
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." - Oscar Wilde
The problem with the film was the sentimental crap in the first 15 minutes. All that: "It is my greatest honour to conduct this ceremony..". "Oh look, we're getting married..", "Oh! I don't want to be in the nude in the ceremony on Mars..", "Will, you're the best damn First Officer I've ever had.." blah blah fucking blah was just painful!
When Worf finally looked at his monitor thing and said "Captain we're getting some unexplained yada yada from that planet over there", I turned to my friend and said "thank God for that".
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
Star Trek has sucked terribly since they got rid of Deep Space Nine - it was the best Star Trek because... wait for it... it had ORIGINAL PLOTS!
ST: Enterprise is just a complete waste of time and will be axed very soon because it just plain sucks.
I think people are just bored with Star Trek, it's turned into one big soap opera. Bring back the TNG crew or restart DSN (difficult I know), figure out some original plots, for gods sake reanimate Data and the ratings will go back up.
I kept waiting for Picard to shout into the blown out view screen: 'SHINZAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNN'
They are not kidding about waiting too long... Way too long, and it damaged the excitement. Star Trek is first and foremost a television show. It is a serial adventure. This is not like Star Wars, you expect a quick succession of episodes. Also the fact that Next Generation has been off the air for quite a while has, I think diminished some of that excitement and surprise that you expect of any new episode, especially one for the movies. Also the cast is getting older and are still locked into their roles of many years, unchanged. I think these factors and others contributed to the poor turn-out of Nemesis. Then, when you top that with a lackluster script and a main character (Picard's clone) who I found uninteresting, unrealistically motivated and capable of more than I think is possible, like taking over the whole Romulan Star Empire, it's even worse. The script broke no new ground. It absolutely re-hashed old ideas and I thought it pandered to what they thought fans would like and accept. They made a mistake of hiring a screen writer who was too much of a Star Trek fan and a director who was not enough of one. The movie did not advance anything or put a new twist on anything enough to make you want more and come back for another.
I guess he didn't watch it.
A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein
will retire and make room for a much more creative team to come in and revive a near dead Trek storyline.
I've been a Trek fan for over 25 years. I do love the TV shows but the movies are lacking. I think we've all had enough of Enterprise being 'the only ship that can save/defeat/whatever whoever.
The focus needs to change. What I would like to see for the next movie is an in-depth account of the final battle with the Dominion. They could show the leadup and the actual battle from all sides (Federation, Klingon, Romulan, Cardasian, etc.).
Get away from the plodding one-on-one battles and do a full engagement.
The GEEK shall inherit the earth...
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.
-- My choice of computing platform is a symbol of my individuality and belief in personal freedom.
It's because they cut Wil's scene. :)
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Damnit Rick Berman I am a /.'r not a critic!
g
a bad movie. I mean if they were going to have Picard's clone, why not do something interesting like have the evil Picard from the Parallel dimension where the Federation is evil.
My vote would be for #2.
"The Search for Lost Data"
Get Symantec/Norton to underwrite it.
In the SAME exact way that Spock died. In fact, much of that (piece of crap) Nemesis movie was directly ripped off from previous movies and older episodes (which I haven't even watched in about 10 years, and I STILL saw all kinds of old episode rip-offs)
Berman should just be told, "You can't shine shit."
Also, expect Data to make a comeback (if ever they make more of this garbage); he downloaded himself into someone else before he died (just like Spock; how original)
"It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
What a politically correct sack of shit. In the real world, real men have to make real sacrifices, like fighting and dying on the beaches of Normandy, or the sands of Iwo Jima. When was the last time anyone had so much as a nose bleed on Star Trek?
Even Jolene Blalock's silicone tits aren't enough to make me want to watch anymore, and that's saying a lot.
I guess Berman should have stopped when he couldn't best Jackson's spaniard huh?
This sig has no nutritional value...
It tanked because it sucked Maybe they'll realize that a movie neeeds more than just the Star Trek name on it to be successful At least it wasn't as bad as V, not that that is saying much
Babylon 5.
Babylon 5 showed audiences that they can expect a long story arc to keep their interest in a show. DS9 almost had it. Andromeda could have had it but through it away. Enterprise doesn't even come close, and the films just can't have that kind of plot line in only 2 hours. Sci-Fi traditionally appeals to the higher intellectual bracket, but most modern TV and Film Sci-Fi seems to have been written by soap-opera writters. Why?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Remember, there wasn't much sci fi or fantasy out while TNG was on the air.
When later Star Trek series came out, they all managed to eclipsed it (Voyager, DS9, and Enterprise). The plots were better, the characters more interesting, and while I'm not against romance, the sappy cheese that TNG liked to serve up was ridiculous. And every time I watched an episode where Data went crazy and endangered the ship, I would cringe. Picard kicked ass, tho.
And then Hollywood realized that geeks were a marketable demographic, and they started making good sci fi.
To sum up, TNG didn't get worse, the competition got better, and TNG just couldn't hack it.
The biggest problem with Nemisis was that it felt like a TV season finale. Well, that and the retarded android...
And in Bambi, guess what? They killed Bambi's mother!
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Ok people...Forget the future. Between the actions of Kirk and Picard and to an extent Sisko, the future is bright and shiny and getting brighter and brighter as time goes on. Borg are not as great a threat as they once were, Klingons are allies, Romulans are now talking to us, Dominion is not a threat, the cardassians are worse than the bajorans were. There's nothing left to 'darken the future'
What needs to be done if you want movies is to cover things in the ST Past. The Romulan war, the first war with the klingons...all sorts of things that can be done.
If the authors of the Star Trek Novels can keep putting out good stuff, there has to be something that the scriptwriters can bring to a big screen.
Or the best idea of all...
Give it a rest for another 15 years, keep it in syndication, THEN come out with stuff after the new blood gets behind the wheel.
You know...kinda like what happened with ST:TNG.
Phoenix
-- Wiccan Army, 13th Airborne Division "We will not fly silently into the night"
One reason why Trek is taking is because the writers are afraid to take chances with the characters. Since the TNG movies began - the crew of the enterprise has been stagnant. Nobody's been introduced, nobody has died, nobody's even been promoted (until this outing).
Why should I care about the the latest "danger" if I know they'll just hit the reset button at the end of the movie? They couldn't even kill off a main character this time without making up some horribly improbable way to bring him back from the dead.
If you make a really good movie, people will show up next time.
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.
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
Instead of taking what was in the box, Star Trek should have stuck with the red snapper. Verrrry tasty!
I think you finally understand!
(2) is an insult to the best of the series. Who could forget "The Best of Both Worlds" (Season 3 finale / Season 4 premiere), "Yesterday's Enterprise" (middle of Season 3) or "Cause and Effect" (middle of Season 5)?
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
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Maybe if there's a next movie episode they could slip through a wormhole into an alternate universe where all spaceships don't fly "right side up" in space. Just think of the possibilities in a reality with an extra, third dimension!
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
What it all comes down to is it's just a bad movie. Plain and simple. I figured after Star Trek VI that Star Trek movies were going to get really good, really exciting, filled with a good plot and characters coming out of the closet and being vibrant. Instead what I got was terrible humour, and update on the soap opera tidbits of the series, some explosions and one dead android. I think those responsible for the story (and it's approval) and the direction of the movie have forgotten what Star Trek was about.
It almost seemed like they were taking the ST:TNG cast, the universe they belong to, and sold out to make a typical Hollywood movie. I'll continue watching Enterprise because it's a great series, and Ensign Hoshi Sato makes me get wood the likes of which God has never seen. But to go see another movie? I don't even think the $13.50 is a concern at this point, it's the one and a half hours of my own time I could be using for something more useful like gutting myself and playing with my insides.
I think as a joke someone should ship a bottle of scotch to Rick with this post attached to it.
"It's here, but no one wants it." - The Sugar Speaker
They might need to demote Admiral Janeway back to Captain (a la Kirk) in order to get her out of her office. Possible, but now we're really running in circles with the Trek franchise.
I wanted to see this movie. Being an odd-numbered ST, I was sure it'd be worth sitting though (unlike the last ST travesty). But I never saw it. Didn't see Two Towers, for that matter - another one I was excited to see.
For me, it was just a bad time of the year. Too much going on with Thanksgiving and Christmas, too many other things to buy, I didn't have the $8 for a seat in the theater in the evening. Kept meaning to see a mantinee, but it just never happened.
Star Trek fans have grown up, and have responsibilities. Movies just don't have the priority for me they once did (but you bet your ass I'll be there opening day for the next Star Wars). When at just about any hour of the day I can find some Star Trek show or movie on cable somewhere, it looses its thrill.
"The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away" -- "Step Right Up", Tom Waits
Several people have pointed out that Nemesis tanked because it sucked.
I didn't watch the movie because I knew it was going to suck.
Every review I read said that it was totaly devoid of any plot. That's not necessarily a bad thing but other movies without plot do well by providing something else.
If the reviews had said, "It had no plot but you've got to check out the killer special effects." people would have watched it.
If the reviews had said, "Not much plot but I laughed so hard I pissed myself." people would have watched it.
People complain that the movie was just like a series episode but I say that exactly the opposite is true. A large part of what sets Star Trek apart from other crappy SciFi series is that the TV episodes use the story as a form for discussing real issues. They discuss politics, religion, sociology, racism.
Noone wants to watch a crappy shoot-em-up with so-so special effects.
That's why it sucked, and that's why it tanked.
Spock downloaded himself into someone else before he died? Well, that's news to me!
No Comment.
Go back and watch "All Good Things". Pretend the series ended there. Take a deep breath, and feel at peace with the Star Trek universe.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
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.
Ok, what will be the next movie?
Enterprise (NX-01) goes into the future to destroy DS9 before the series starts, thus preventing Voyager from getting started.
The 'nemesis' bad guy was totally unconvincing and had no depth, and hence I vote that this episode tanked because there was no emotional connection with the audience. Perhaps the original plot was better, but the final meme-bleached version felt totally contrived.
Special effects won't save an awful plot.
Fool me once, shame on... shame on you....... Fool me-- you can't get fooled again.
What's wrong with the gay Wil we already have?
Being evil in the eyes of the Lord isn't enough for you?
....that the whole thing was just a re-hash of stuff from previous TV episodes and movies. The was no originallity what-so-ever. I've been a Star Trek fan for a looooooooong time, but I'm wondering if they've just completely run out of fresh ideas.
To make the kind of cash that movie studios dream of, you need to appeal to either the public at large or at least to a large demographic. Nemesis had an absurd and weak plot, just acceptable fx, undistinguished acting and characters, slow pacing. Sometimes quality does count, Mr. Berman. This movie could only have appealed to die hard fans.
To find out why the movie performed so poorly, he should consider opening his local newspaper and reading the reviews.
My cat can eat a whole watermelon
no u
Eighty-two bucks apiece from North American DVD.
See? All seven seasons. Knock yourself out, dude.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
i saw uhf for the first time in my life just recently. i would highly reccomend it to anyone who is skeptical... being a janitor type mabye i just feel more represented, or something~
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
They had a chance to do something really cool and original. Instead, they chose to do "Evil guy wants to blow up Earth, the crew must stop him at all costs!" They basically took the whole Romulan/Reman aspect of the movie and flushed it down the toilet. This is evident in that you could pretty much s/Romulan/RandomAlien/g and get the same exact movie. The movie would have even been better if it had been anything other than Enterprise Vs. Badguy - a full scale war would have been nice, though kind of tight in a 2 hour movie. Not to mention that I don't see how Earth is such a great target; I mean sure it has Federation HQ but I imagine if earth was destroyed it wouldn't be the end of the federation, there are trillions of people in the Federation, and wiping out a planet with a population of maybe 9 billion (in Star Trek land) isn't going to be as catastrophic as they always imply. The whole "blow up earth" thing is really old and dumb now, IMO.
Also, I found Data's death to be a pathetic ripoff of Khan and also to be rather pointless. And what happened to Data's emotion chip? When did that get written out of the Star Trek world?
Anyhow, stupid, tired plot, stealing blatantly from previous movies in this very series, and the age of the actors are all reasons for the tanking of Nemesis. The age thing mostly applies to Data, mostly because they seemed to be making him supposedly ageless, whereas if they simply had Data say "I want to look like I'm aging" and age relative to Brent Spiner's actual age then the makeup could have accommodated it better. Anyway, it was very disappointing.
Oh yeah, and "ramming speed" was indeed dumb.
rooooar
is that the trailer left me thinking:
a) I now know the entire plot
b) Didn't they already do the enterprise crashing before?
c) They blew the whole effects budget on the crash, and I've seen that sequence about 3 times in the trailer already.
The trailer simply didn't give me any compelling reason to go see the film.
Another point is that films are getting trailed far too early, there are about half a dozen films that I know I want to see in the future, and I go to the cinema about 6 times a year. I've not adjusted to the fact that I can now have more than 6 films in the queue.
For me Nemesis was competing against the next 2 LOTRs, 2 Matrices, Xmen 2, Terminator 3 and Harry Potters 3 through 7 for a place in the queue.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
Isnt the whole point of soap operas the continuous storyline? Nobody would watch 2 episodes of a soap opera if not to find out what happens next. I get what you're saying about intellectual level, but for a complaint about lack of consistency/continuity, your argument sure isnt consistent.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
And I'm a trekkie/trekker/trekkite (according to different series) from way back. Only one I haven't watched religiously was Enterprise, and that's cause I have preschoolers who monopolize the tv to watch Barney and Treehouse. I repeat: There's a new Star Trek movie out??
Visit us at http://www.iblist.com!
Alternatively, _All Good Things_ is just an alternature future? Which would be consistent with the Enterprise-D (albeit with three warp nacelles and a BFG(TM)!) still existing after Troi crashed it at the end of Generations.
You are wrong - and right...
Try this little experiment:
Chain yourself to a locomotive with tinfoil in a free fall environment. Now, back up (fire your engines) and you will move away from the locomotive and the tinfoil will break. The locomotive will not move.
It is entirely within the realm of possibility that either event could have taken place - depending on how 'attached' they were from the impact and how much mass is involved on either ship.
If the attachment of interconnecting metal was strong enough to move the mass of the Enterprise, then it would have remained attached. If, on the other hand, the interconnecting metal was not strong enough to move the mass of the Enterprise, it would break at some point - as we saw in the movie.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
Rick Berman needs to go. Rick Berman has needed to go for a very, very long time. Under Rick Berman Star Trek went from cutting-edge Sci-Fi to recycled plots and characters. The most refreshing thing Berman did was make Captain Janeway a woman, which would have been interesting were there not already female admirals. The most exciting thing Berman has done with Star Trek is cheesy sexual innuendo on "Enterprise;" other television shows broke that barrier in the 1980s.
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.
It had a mediocre plot with poor subplots and subtexts (not to mention holes the Enterprise would fit through), bad release timing, genre competition, and unimpressive villains. And no Wesley.
Personally, I found it mildly entertaining, but I went in expecting a silly romp. Which is pretty much what it was. Unfortunately, it was shot down early and the 'peripheral' geeks chose to see LOTR:TT instead, so it had little to no chance of recovery. I think a better test of how good it really was will come from rental returns.
R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
...except for "Enterprise." That show returns to the original ST way of telling a story without any real technobabble or trying to push bad science. It's just story with a good set of characters that have neuroses, strengths, and, most of all, humor.
I normally go see the ST movies like Hilary climbed mountains. Not anymore. I knew what TNG would offer me, and I chose my time to see "Two Towers" twice. (Damn fine movie.) Never mind that I've never read Tolkien, but I enjoy it nonetheless, and look forward to reading it in full. I have read the Harry Potter books, and enjoyed the movies all the same because it simply told a believable, intriguing story.
Perhaps I just switched to things more tasteful and artful. Like WB and the bad Superman and Batman sequels, Berman and Paramount don't realize that self-parody and camp, along with just piss-poor story making, does not mean that ST fans are going to see their movies like a herd of lemmings. The original fans are much older and want better. There are other good fantasy and SF that demands our attention and our money. (Yes, even the Star Wars prequels.)
That, and I, too, believe that Paramount is driving the ST world into the ground faster than the lamented Shuttle Columbia...and with far less interest as to why.
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
Twit. Everything you mention has been a problem since Spock was serving under Captain Pike. You've just suddenly stopped suspending your disbelief.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
"I sentence each and every person in the United States to one viewing of "Coupon: The Movie." And may God have mercy...on your souls. Who wants to go Friday?"
http://www.unoriginal.com/mrshow/2_6.html
We have all those clones and nutjobs in Star Trek trying to destroy the earth, and those blasted whales and their mega whiny ship from that stupid Voyage Home movie aren't helping out! Lazy fish! Its bars of soap made from you if you don't start pulling yer (fish) finger out...
Star Trek (the business) and Paramount had come to take the films for granted. The film was produced with the assumption that no matter what sort of film they make, they could expect consistent business for it. I have heard Star Trek employees speak about this, "The fans will all see it in the first few weeks the way they always do and we'll make x dollars"(I think they were projecting in the $75 million range). They were also convinced that, regardless of quality, the films will never attract significant business outsid of their fan base.
As a consequence, the production was driven by decisions to maximize profit from the film, not to make the best ST movie possible. They picked an average script, were given a conservative budget, and proceeded to construct a ST film in a paint-by-numbers way.
When the final film proved to be way too long, they excised huge chunks to get it down to an appropriate length. Perhaps the missing sections provide all of the excitement, tension, and depth that are missing from the final film? Nah, don't bet on it. Nemesis was directed by Stuart Baird. Baird is studio-approved mediocrity. Most of his career has been as an unremarkable editor, in the past decade he has become a hack director as well. Baird (who has always struck me as a loud, blustering idiot every time I met him) was considered to have "saved" Tomb Raider at the last minute. IMHO, all he did was rearrange deck chairs at the last minute, and the crap film was accitdentally successful on name recognition alone. Regardless, Paramount felt he was very safe director (and maybe they even felt they owed him a directing gig after Tomb Raider).
So the ST franchise was put into mediocre hands with little consideration for anything but budget. After all, the ST fans would never abandon the series no matter how much it might suck, right?
Right?
Hmmm...well, it appears that this unsinkable franchise, whose fans will be there through thick and thin, has finally expressed a little too much contempt for those fans. And those fans reacted by showing little interest in the film.
Let's face it - the characters are at the end of the line. They don't do anything interesting any more. I don't want to see Picard cry, I don't want to see Data die, I don't want to see the Enterprise destroyed (again). I want to see Q, I want to see the characters branch out. Riker should have moved on to his own command the first ST:TNG movie that was out. We already "know" the characters after 7 years of TV - let's see some good stories to go along with them! I'll always be a fan of Star Trek but it's hard when they can't get it right.
I nominated this post for the best post of the day. It is truly brilliant. I wondered in Nemesis why God-Wesley didn't go on the ship with them... he must be plotting something...
The PLot didn't interest me, so I didn't go.
I figured I'd wait for the DVD
It just wasn't interesting. I saw the movie when it came out, and it wasn't that interesting. I'm sure to a full-on Star Trek fan, it presented some very interesting plot developments, but for a regular guy, it wasn't that good.
Have any of them won, say, a Hugo, or a Nebula?
Next time they need to get, say, Neal Stephenson, Vernor Vinge, Brian Sterling, or Orson Scott Card. Or maybe one of the folks who wrote good ones in the past, like Ellison.
Then they might get some interesting story lines.
- "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
when Babylon5's first season was just released
This is the first Trek movie that I have not seen in the theater. I really like TNG, and will flip to TNN and have about a 80% chance of catching a rerun.
I've been a Star Trek fan (not a rabid one) since I first watched ToS with my dad in the 70s.
I think that I am a good rep of most of the people who would see this movie - grew up watching TNG (late teen years), have watched Voyager (grudgingly) and Enterprise (not bad). Never really took to DS9.
Anyway, the common disposable income argument is true, though I make enough money I could squeeze a few movies in a month.
However, I have two kids. Finding someone trustworthy to babysit so my wife and I can go to the movies, dinner or anything is sometimes hard to do. So, we have to pick and choose what movies we go to see.
When we were able to go, there were three choices, Bond (first one since View to a Kill I've missed), Nemesis and Two Towers.
Two Towers was good...one day I'll find out about the others.
And Bowie J. Poag Doesn't Care Why Nemesis Tanked.
Bowie J. Poag
It didn't matter how good they made it; thanks to the string of bad movies before it, the characters had completely lost credibility by the time they got to Nemesis.
:(
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..
If you make it R-rated for tits and ass, you're cheapening the show. If you make it R-rated for naughty words, you're breaking continuity with the show.
If, on the other hand, you make it R-rated for complex and adult motivations, disturbing content and scads of gore, then I'd go for it.
I remember pointing out "Insomnia" as a perfect example of what really should be an R-rated movie. Compare it to, say, "Not Another Teen Movie"---the violence was obscured or offscreen, there was no sex or nudity at all. Why was it rated R? Adult themes, and I don't mean that as a porn euphemism.
Damned good stuff.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
1. Lose the Political Correctness. Seriously. We don't appreciate being preached to. We watch Star Trek for the science fiction, not to have some leftist Californians tell us how great their sensibilities are. I stopped watching Enterprise in the middle of the first season for this reason (go Farscape!!)
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.
I liked Star Trek for the same reason I liked watching Apollo 13 and the Space Shuttle launches -- imagination, wonderment, the sense that there's something greater that we can aspire towards. The latest Star Trek with the Quantum Leap guy is like watching something from MTV. I *don't* want to hear about the communications officer that needs to overcome her fear. I don't want to hear the whiny, piece-of-shits complaining every episode. Sure, this might be to show the "human" side of space travel but I can get that watching the neighbors and listening to them argue about feeding the dog and cleaning up its shit.
I don't want some all-powerful Q to come in at episode end, a high-tech deus ex machina, to save the day. I don't want to be preached about emotions being more useful than logic and reason.
Movies are not supposed to preach. If there are lessons to be given, a good movie will couch them in such a way that you can still watch the damned movie without feeling like you're in Sunday school. Here's a clue, don't wear the freaking lesson on your sleeve. What was Apocalypse Now about? A journey down the Amazon or something more? How about American Beauty? The latest Star Trek felt like the cinematic version of "A Pilgrim's Progress".
This is the Star Trek I want:
No more humanoid aliens. No more one-dimensional Klingons; especially one-dimensional Klingons that can't fight. No more techno-babble; at least pay your science folks to have a semblance of reality (graviton waves, out of phase universe, come on!). No more steam vents exploding. No more sparks. My AMD K6/2 had a desk fall on it and it didn't steam. If the Enterprise does steam, excute the stupid engineers who built the sauna right next door. Give the Enterprise better weapons for God's sake!
No more fucking whales saving the world.
I'll bet it tanked because the economy is so bad. Unemployment, particularly in tech sectors is very high. Consumer spending in general is way down.
In boom times, even a bad Star Trek movie is worth $7-$20 bucks -- for it's value as camp, if nothing else. Other posters have remarked that they are prioritizing -- seeing LOTR instead, for example. That's a symptom of thin wallets.
But, hey, the blockbuster isn't the future. Small independent films are. The way to make money from the franchise is to make it a, well, franchise. License independents to use the ST universe (but none of the hollywood characters). Give them budgets and a technical assist on effects. Be liberal enough to allow some R rated content. A flurry of films for a $1M or three combined with all that latent creativity in the world, early DVD collections of the best-of-breed: paradise! (Well, film-wise, anyway.)
I saw Nemesis on the evening it opened. How I wish I could get those however-many-hours back. When people asked me, and even if they didn't, I recommended that no one go to see the movie. Not even if the theater offered to pay them. The movie was just that bad. I think there might even have been people who were going to see it on Saturday or Sunday but caught the putrefaction of the movie on the wind from the people who emerged from the stinking theaters on Friday night.
Ravi
When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
My god. The trailers looked so lame to me I ended up waiting till the last day to go it was showing to go and see it. I finally crumpled, I'm only a medium star trek fan, but a big Sci-Fi one - I went to see a couple of ST movies the day they were released in the past (to put this boycott in perspective).
And then I had to sit through 2 hours of made for TV crap. Hey, Wil, if you are reading this, and get Rick's attention, try getting him to watch his own movies 3 or 4 times before releasing it. If he doesn't fall asleep then he might check it out on his broad fan base first.
You know, I'm sure I couldn't do better, but I hate sitting through a movie thinking, jeez, what was the director thinking...
You know, any random single episode of Babylon 5 was better than that movie.Actually probably any random episode of any Star Trek show (well apart from Voyager perhaps) would have been preferable.
Winton
I know why.
/. grew a backbone and started thier protest of the DMCA by not spending money on this film.
The readers of
It wasn't the best ST movie, it wasn't the worst. It went head to head with some powerhouses and lost the fight. Pretty simple.
Only time will tell how well it does as extending the 'tradition'..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Go watch "All Good Things", the series finale. For that matter, watch "Tapestry" and "Q Who" while you're at it. Then be thankful that Rick Berman hasn't decided to butcher Q like he did the Borg in "First Contact".
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
The problem I saw is it didn't have all the crap and fluff needed to draw in the sci-fi soap opera audience (which is precisely why I loved it). Love scenes and character interaction where at a minimum, plot, story and action where at a maximum.
:). It's the first Star Trek movie I'm gonna buy since Wrath of Khan.
And besides, who cares if it tanked, it'll still do great in video sales
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Whats up with the stupid car thingie on the planet??! That reminded me of the chase in Diamonds are Forever. I mean, a dune buggy with Picard and Worf riding shotgun (Ok, riding Phaser) is NOT what I'd expect from an ST movie, somehow. For one, why the hell did the Enterprise not just beam them up when they were under fire??!!
:)
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
The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
I am a huge trek fan, but I didn't go to Nemesis, because I am boycotting MPAA etc since beginning of the year. How is that as a new year's resolution?
ato
Dear Rick
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
Knowledge is like ignorance.. too much can be just as bad as not enough.
The Data plot was old and badly done. And yes, without Data there is not any way you can make a Trek movie. So the future is uncertain. They will make one more, but if that tanks say good bye. Picard should have taken a back seat for this outing. As said before, nothing thing to see here folks, keep moving. Oh and someone explain hew Riker got married? I thought Whorf had Troy already. Oh well, to much Anime to keep up with such things.
The thing is that the original Star Trek series was something fresh and new. The Next Generation was a well done revival of the Star Trek universe that allowed things to play out for more than just a handful of seasons. But then they tried to take a good thing and exploit it.
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.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Some spoilers follow:
It failed because the first 20 minutes or so was nothing but a big tease. Riker and Troi get married. The Betazoidian wedding is where all the participats are naked! WhooHoo, we finally get to see the councelar naked! Wait! Huge crisis follow. Solve crises. End movie, What? No naked Troi? Arg!
The best works are usually from an individual, writing their vision. The marketing types will tell them it won't work. For examples, see Roddenberry and the original Trek TV show, or Lucas and the original Star Wars. With this method you also have to accept that, a lot of the time, this lone writer's vision actually does suck. It's a risk. Perhaps something great, perhaps something that sucks.
With a market research approach, however, you're basically guaranteed something mediocre. Nothing visionary is designed by committee. I promise you that Shanghai Knights was created by the studio's marketing department.
I gave up on the Star Trek franchise after 'Star Trek: Insurrection', in 1998. Insurrection was pathetic. The writing and production values were sub-tv-par, well below what I expect from a feature-film. I only paid $1 to see ST: Insurrection on the big screen and, even then, I didn't get my money's worth -- I want that dollar and my 90 minutes back!
I can't speak for many, but most of the folks I used to catch Star Trek movies with couldn't
care less about ST:TNG movies. The whole point seeing the older movies was to revisit the
familiar faces of the original cast. It's not that they were better actors (Shatner is obviously
less talented than Stewart), but that they felt like old friends. You knew they weren't going
to amaze you, but you put up with them because they made you feel good. I don't get that
feeling about ST:TNG and I wager there are others who feel similarly. When the point of
seeing the movie changes focus from the people to the plot, the plot has to be able to hold it's
own. Very few of the Star Trek plots, past or present, can do so. The only one I can think
of is possibly #6. #2 was my favorite, but the plot wasn't the reason, it was Kahn. The
plot in #5 was so bad that it killed the movie despite the cast.
They'll have to come up with -worthy- movie plots if they want to attract the non-hardcore-trekkie
folks who flocked to the older movies.
"A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself."
(Based on your UK web address, I realize you may not know how diverse a state it is.)
Why did Nemesis tank? same reason Firefly got cancelled just when it was starting to get good: Richard Berman!!! hes doing the same thing to the Star Trek franchise that he did to his wife to get her to cancell Firefly, fucking it hard and thuroughly. Send his bosses a message, treat anything with his taint on it (including what his wife touches)like it was covered in leper's piss, avoid like the plague. Maybe after the two of them are begging for dollars off the freeway exit the franchise will start to recover.
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise. -Fight Club
Berman says that he believes the promotion was done correctly, but I disagree. I couldn't make heads or tails of any of the trailers and commercials I saw. That's not surprising because I had about the same reaction to the movie itself.
My understanding came from integrating all the bad reviews I read later (I enjoy reading bad reviews) with what I remembered from the "film." Nemesis purported to be about a slave revolt grown out of control. And Earth was Threatened, but what's the connection? Picard? None? The Enterprise arrives and helps the Romulans put down the revolt. What happens to the Remans now? They go back to enslavement? Or are they all dead? A great victory for the Federation!
It's too bad DS9 wasn't more popular. At least it was complex. TNG and Voyager weren't complex, just complicated.
Ravi
When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
to newer shows like DS9, Voyager and Enterprise. Don't believe me? It has been years since ST:TNG has been on mainstream TV, and it seems that when you get basic cable, some of these channels get dropped. I speak from the point of view of someone who got downgraded from family cable to basic in NY city. It really sucked but I had to move on and forget completely about cartoon network's shows (DBZ, Dexter...), SCIfi's whole lot of series and Comedy Central. Um, and of course, TNG and ST, which for some monetary reason have been the only trek shows pushing out movies.
;)
Apparently normal people have less exposure to the aliens and people in weird makeup while channel surfing, because their cable is blocked and thus they can't get TNN's reruns of TNG. And also, SciFi's original Star Trek eps.
But if mainstream people are watching startrek, they don't remember Picard well already, the same way you start to ignore Bill Cosby or stars from the eighties. They think of the trek and hear all of us rambling, but they dont even realize that we ramble about the old shows, which like good programming languages or OS's won't pique our interest forever, or we are mute about the ones that nongeeks would actually be exposed to on syndicated TV.
I may be wrong, and even I thought I was farfetched writing this, but youre welcome to Reply. I wont slap your hands if your keystrokes seem to come from a different character-set
"Wireless : LAN
Use the Mirror Mirror universe.
Oh, and our good friend Wil Wheaton ended up on the cutting room floor.
"To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." -Stephen Hawking
It was "The Trouble With Tribbles" that established Gerrold as an SF writer; unlike Sturgeon and Ellison, he was pretty much an unknown before he wrote for Star Trek.
I agree completely with your point, of course. If there's anything that could resurrect ST, it's good, original writing.
Hey, the poster looked interesting, and the trailers were OK, but let's face it: Star Trek Movies have been more than a bit uneven in quality.
So it went on the list below Two Towers and Harry Potter. Christmas is a busy time, so I only got to see the first two films on my list. By the time I got around to Nemesis after Christmas, I had a hard time finding a theater that was still showing it.
I like Star Trek--and especially the New Generation cast--well enough that I wouldn't intentionally miss a ST film. Yet I nearly did because of the poor timing. It doesn't surprise me that it failed to rope in a general audience. A Star Trek movie simply does not qualify as a genre blockbuster for Christmas--it would be better suited for summer.
I expect that it will do quite well on DVD, if that's any consolation.
The whole thing was lit and shot like an 80's nightclub. There's only so much green and purple the human eye can stand.
"The human body's design spec is: A spacesuit for a fish." -Ken MacLeod's 'The Cassini Division'
TNG was the first Star Trek *anything* that really went mainstream. But a LOT of the fans were really young -- I'm 33, love the original series because I grew up with it, but you can only stretch that so far. I love Enterprise (so far) because it's so much like the original series, but I never liked TNG for a lot of reasons. The TNG fans I knew were almost all teenagers, and that was in the early to mid-90's. And you know how quickly the tastes and attitudes of teenagers change -- maybe the demographics of the TNG fans has changed massively???
Also, even though I never liked the TNG series much, most of the TNG movies were good enough for me to go see. I paid for Insurrection, I thought it was very, very weak, and that had a big effect on my not going to see Nemesis -- for whatever reason, the previews didn't make me decide I wanted to go see it enough to risk wasting my time again (on a side note, if movie trailers suck so bad that they don't tell you what the movie is about, I will not go to see the movie). I think it's likely a lot of the hard-core Trek fans like me who were left after most of the teen TNG fans lost interest felt they were screwed by Insurrection.
The bottom line is I think the people who made this movie did NOT do their homework. $52 million is nothing to sneeze at, but if you spent $70 million to make the movie (according to IMDB.com), you got screwed. If you have a small target audience, you'd better damn well limit the budget.
Maybe those same people need to WATCH the damn movies they are making (do your homework!). According to IMDB.com, Insurrection's budget was $58 million and it made a total of about $81 million. Maybe they didn't notice that Insurrection sucked and they stupidly gave the next movie a higher budget.
I think this all comes down to business, and Paramount made some bad business decisions because $52 million in revenue is not a bomb, IMHO, unless you make dot-com-like business decisions.
And I can't remember how Spock died. I think all the movies kind of sucked (Khan was ok), so I have a hard time keeping track of which was which.
Sex and the City, now that's a series that can go on forever. Kim Catrel is the Shit
The whole thing looked like it was shot in an
80's nightclub. There's only so much green and purple you can get past an audience these days.
"The human body's design spec is: A spacesuit for a fish." -Ken MacLeod's 'The Cassini Division'
and I even liked The Next Generation.
Then they sucked for so long, that I stopped watching...
and finally Enterprise. I think that its actually decent. The cinematography is better, for one, and the stories are a little less conventional.
in any case I think that The Next Generation was good because of the strength of the characters of Data and Whorf and Q, Moriarty, and the Borg. oh and that geeky nervous engineer
deepspace nine doesn't have any really memorable characters. mayby modo (is that his name?)
voyager had the doctor. beyond that it was all mediocre.
sex appeal is sex appeal and its nice, but trek has started to depend on it too much.
Logic, macros, and more
was because the last one was just awful. Laughably bad at times. I was personally embarassed to be a fan of the series. I didn't really want to see this one based on the trailers and the experience with the last one, but I wound up going on opening weekend anyway. Fairly enjoyed it, although it is way too ambitious to succeed in 2 hours and has several key script mistakes. Will buy the DVD though.
but it felt more like the Search for Spock. The minute that they found another brother it and Data uploaded his matrix I knew that Data was dead.
The whole clone thing with Picard was better but the whole I have to have your blood thing was stupid. What I thought would have been better is if the Remans went ahead of the plan of going after Earth. It felt too preachy beyond most Trek episodes.
And I usually like the Trek films (Except #5 - again too preachy) Besides that - if your even going to show Wesley then why not tell us what he's doing...I always thought that him and the Traveller taking off into different realms was interesting but here they bring him back and no one talks to him?
I heard that the studio had the film re-edited and it seems that every time they do that they take a lot away from the Movies. They wanted action but Trek episodes usually had some intelligence behind them. Ever since the 1st movie it's been all action, or as much as they can muster, and very little detail about new characters or technology.
Save Pangaea!! Stop Continental Drift!!
No scene with Troi's wedding - from the vicars point of view. With a tree infront of Riker.
Rick Berman, YOU are the problem here. You ruined what Voyager could have been and you ruined what Nemesis could have been. You are the problem. You are a talentless fsck with not a creative bone in your body. It's hilarious that YOU would be wondering why the movie didn't do so well.
There's just tno reason for JMS to touch Star Trek, he's got a better world already in B5! The only thing ST has going for it is the Borg, but they've been stripped from "mega menacing opponents" to just another random enemy, easily defeated by the end of an episode. :-\
Well, if the studios would promise him a B5 movies or series after rescuing ST... but no.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Okay, so a bunch of people have pointed out that Nemesis was released with competition from Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. Clearly, when you feel like a movie (in the theatre), you pick the one you think is best of those currently playing.
Yet, whenever there's a post about DVD region coding and international movie releases, people mod up the "release it everywhere at the same time" comments. You can't have it both ways.
e.g. I'm looking forward to seeing Hero from Hong Kong or China (wherever it was made) that was just released over there. But it's up for Cannes or something and so they are not releasing it in the U.S. until Winter 2003 since they can certainly get better results by tacking on the "Best Foreign Film" award in the trailers and commercials.
I can appreciate this, and I don't think there's anything wrong with it. On the other hand, I'm planning to purchase a region-free, whatever region-whatever DVD player so I can play imports.
Starfleet intelegence sources tell us the movie tanked because the movie was as they say... not so good (aka Sucked). Not quite as bad as Star Trek II (The mistake), but worse than Star Trek III (The Apology). -- Ross
Ross Youngblood
Perhaps if Berman went and saw the movie he'd understand.
Yeah I saw the writing credits, Berman, Data,... But geez! You'd think they never saw the show. They meet ANOTHER twin of Data's and give him full run of the ship like they didn't remember the arch-villain Lore. Ages ago when Picard was NOBODY Romulans took his DNA and cloned him to infiltrate the Federation blah blah blah. Huh? Then the baddies have SHIPS THAT CAN FIRE IN WARP and FIRE WHILE CLOAKED. Who needs a clone? They concede they can get a few feet away from any Federation craft and blow it away. Oh yeah, Data was on the crew because he went through Starfleet training, so why is retard DataII now part of the crew? AAAAAAAHHHH!
Why not deal with all those interesting loose ends ST:TNG left like Tasha Yar's going back in time to command Enterprise B and leaving Half Romulan Tasha Yar Jr. to be Picard's real Romulan Nemesis or the ecological fact they discovered that unseen warp drive pollution will make the entire galaxy uninhabitable in less than 50 years. The list goes on and on of what they could have done.
Oh yeah, the director sucked ass too.
Going up against Harry Potter, and all the other holiday seasons wasn't probably a great idea...
I bet they would have made a better profit if it had been released in January...
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm sick of TNG(The Next Generation) movies, I really want to see a DS9(Deep Space 9) movie. DS9 was imho a good series, and I can't even find it on anymore, it really needs more support, or have all the actors of DS9 gone......
Nemesis reinforced just how important it is to remember to backup your Data.
Thank you! Thank you! I'll be here all week, drive safely.
And that's sad for a Star Trek. What did the previews make it look like?
Hellraiser Nazis in Space.
Also it seemed to not go for any of the interesting content-drama-adventure that ST is known for. It was more of just an action movie... which everyone smirks at if you mention it in the same sentence with Star Trek ("That bald dude... an action hero? pfff!").
Hell even *sigh* Star Trek V had an... interesting presence. Sure, they blew up God with a photon torpedo but that's not the point. The point was that it was thought provoking SF, in line with what David Brin always touts, not space opera.
Trying to make it that will always turn people away from Star Trek.
What is music when you despise all sound?
A year ago they showed previews at some movie I went to, and the styrofoam props turned me completly off. They spend all that money on special effects and the props are a joke. Not to mention that these actors tend to need 3-4 years working to gether before they're any good. If they had the cast from boston public (including Jerri Ryan as 7 again) or the sapranos, then I would go see it. Idea for next start trek movie (or series): 95% Klingon - I bet a lot of people would go see it then.
Star Trek makes good money in the box office when there is a major lack of new SciFi/Fantasy movies coming out. But lately the situation is exactly the oposite. S.T. was going directly up against The Two Towers and Harry Potter in the theaters. There are (b>two Matrix movies, Xmen2, Hulk, Daredevil and Terminator 3 expected out in 2003. Fellowship of the Rings had recently been released in the extended version. If I'm not mistaken, MiB2, Spider-Man and Star Wars: AotC had recently came out on DVD as well. 2002 and 2003 (will) have no room whatsoever for modiocre SciFi/Fantasy filmmaking.
Which brings us to the plot. I've seen every Star Trek movie, most of them on the day they came out in the theaters. The trailers did not make me want to see the movie any more than if you said 'New Star Trek movie coming out in December'. I'm tired of movies where a person is cloned from their DNA and the clone is supposed to have some sort of supernatural understanding of the original. Maybe they should have just cloned Worf so they would have a better excuse for his sudden return from DS9 to the Enterprise. I'm tired of bad lighting as a replacement for set design. What's up with dune buggies jumping off a cliff into a shuttlecraft? The trailer made it look like the movie would have the required cool special effects, but there are lots of other choices now that would give me a good story to go with them.
Of course, there is also the problem of tying it into the existing TV series. The only new shows are Enterprise, which is set a good 150(+?) years before TNG (and 3 spinoffs later). Enterprise is not consistently carried in many markets. Locally I receive 2 Fox stations that carry it, but they move it around so much that I never know when it will be on. One tends to put it after Third Rock re-runs late on Wednesday night. These two Fox stations both have 9pm slots for Voyager re-runs. I can't find the main slot for the other station. They ocasionally re-run it late Saturday night if they have room after sports. Berman should have worked on getting better market penetration for Enterprise.
I still like all things Trek, so I'll buy it when it comes out on DVD. I've just lost any urgency to go see it right away.
I wasn't in it!
If you crash a moving airplane into a stationary airplane, the stationary one will be forced backwards.
I don't see your point. Perhaps the Romulan ship was forced backwards, but there really is no frame of reference to clearly see that. In your plane example, I assure you both planes would be quite smashed together.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Some Reasons (in no particular order)
1. It's the FUTURE?? How come the advanced technology is a dune buggy?
2. Killing Data. Guess what? Data is alive in the future; not dead. Transfering his memories into some old prototype version wasn't enough to preserve him IMHO.
3. Romulan takeover. It just wasn't convincing to me how easy it was for them to simply take over a the massively powerful Romulan government.
4. Ending Scenes. Not that exciting. Something I read said there was suppose to be a "surprise" ending. Was the surprise suppose to be the ramming of the Enterprise? I guess so.
6. The preview didn't match the movie. Because of that morphing special effect in the preview I was convinced that Shinzon was an alien who could morph. When we found out that he really was a clone, I kept waiting for him to accelerate to the same age at Pickard...waiting...waiting...Then the movie ended. Don't add special effects that aren't in the movie to the preview.
In the end, the biggest problem wasn't what Nemesis had, it's what it didn't have. IMHO, the acting was good (all things considered), the dialog was below-average (cheesy jokes) and the plot was just below-average.
Remember the way the Enterprise was getting blown apart from a cloaked Bird of Prey and they figured a way to track it? There is no exciting event that compares to that in Nemesis. It just didn't work.
This is the greatest comment of all time. A 4 dosent do it justice.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
OTOH, Voyager and Enterprise were and are dreck. What's the point of continuing to make Star Trek shows? I've loved Trek in the past, but I also love SF, and all I really want is a good show. Trek shows haven't been good because they were Trek, but because they were good. Babylon 5 didn't need to be Trek to be a good show... can everyone see where I'm going with this? If there are any people working on Trek for Paramount who actually care about SF, for god's sakes, leave the sinking ship, and make us some good SF shows.
I have great memories of Star Trek; I hate having them ruined by Berman and Braga's need to drag out a dead horse and beat it, year after year. They keep (trying) to make movies and TV shows because they have secure positions at Paramount, and they need to produce content. But we don't need content from Paramount. We just need SFnal content, period, and hopefully someone more talented then Berman (not that that's difficult...) will step in and fill this need.
Rick Berman Doesn't Know Where His False Teeth Are...
They're sitting right by his bathroom sink... but with the onset of senility, he can't seem to see a lot of very obvious things these days...
The movie was bad. It had excellent potential at the beginning then after the first quarter. Rule number one Bergman. Develop all the characters individually. Show some facet of their personalities that we haven't seen before. Then pit them against a true enemy with the power to exploit those flaws. Some will overcome and some die but there will be true change. Shizon (?) had potential but ended up be a whiny kid in the end. Also the editing and lack of pace put the final blows on this cast. Bring back some old school Star Trek blood like Captain Sulu and have him mix it up proper. I know time travel has been done to death but find a way. Where is the controversy and the drama Star Trek was know for.
My wife and I went to see LOTR but that theater was full so we took in STAR TREK NEMESIS. I wouldn't say that it sucked but I did find myself wishing that there were two open seats in the other theater.
I think that it probably did more poorly than it would have because of the timing of its release. That's what really sucked.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
The old Star Trek was good enough that it created brand-name recognition. It created a certain faith that the next Star Trek installment would be good. The movie producers understood this brand-name recognition, and figured that trekkies would go see anything with Star Trek on the label, which was true. So the content creators released a slew of shitty Star Trek movies and TV series. They abused, and eventually destroyed, the Star Trek brand. When I heard about this movie, I assumed it would be terrible, prior to reading any reviews about it.
The same thing is happening with Star Wars. There was huge brand-name recognition. But now there's been two shitty movies in a row; the faith is teetering and about to collapse. Star Wars cannot withstand another shitty movie, or nobody will see the subsequent one.
Actually, I enjoyed Nemesis, despite its many plot flaws:
- Wonderful seeing the actors breathe life into their characters, particularly Patrick Stewart, who got to ham it up.
- Tom Hardy, who plays Shinzon, is a bad guy worthy of the moustache-twirling baddies of old.
- Great ships. Loved the Remen Scimitar and its shuttle--and I'm not usually a hardware geek.
Pity about the zero-dimensional plot.
SPOILER ALERT! Do not read this review if you don't want the movie to be spoiled for you! SPOILER ALERT!
A vengeful character with a connection to the captain's past surfaces to draw the Enterprise, and her crew, into a long battle in space that climaxes during an apparently-hopeless situation where a doomsday weapon goes through an agonizingly long warm-up sequence that is just about to conclude when an emotionless friend and crewmember tragically sacrifices himself for the good of the many, but not before he manages to make a backup copy of his consciousness and secures a compatible replacement body on which to install it for the rebirth of his character in a future film.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
It was short.
It had not one, but 2 twin/clone oh so boring plots.
Most of the supporting characters were ignored.
Little addition Series/Lore Continuity was given.
It seemed like a long episode, instead of a Big SciFI Picture.
It should been a big three hour movie that took risks and that rocked general scifi/sf fans and shook up the Trek Universe to grab in Trekkers/Trekkies.
Heck, this turkey didn't just have small plot holes. They were big enough to Drive V'ger and his ship through from ST:TMP. Probably the worst story and script for a Star Trek of any kind!
There was no Jar-Jar Binks.
You know where you are? You're in the $PATH, baby. You're gonna get executed!
Yes, I agree. Berman fell victim to one of the classic blunders.
He started a land war in Asia????
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
Further up in this thread, I saw two rather interesting posts. One said basically "stop being about characters and give me a setting and history and culture!" The other said "Screw this, give me characters that keep changing and getting challenged!" If the fan base can't make up its mind, how is Berman going to? :-)
That said, Nemesis was a HORRID movie. I rank it as the worst Trek movie, and yet another reason that Berman needs to be as far from Trek as possible.
For my part, Trek is not about characters, or setting. It's about questions of morality. It's not an accurate representation of the future. Here is Trek in a nutshell, as Roddenberry saw it: Humanity has finally achieved nirvana, a perfect future in which we HAVE solved all our problems. Now use that as a MIRROR to examine other cultures and in them, we see ourselves. In so doing, we can ask the questions, we can stop and think, we can challenge our own morality and consider questions of the universe.
There WAS character development in TNG. But it was very very subtle. Compare any of the characters in season 1 to what they were like in season 7. They changed a great deal, but it was so subtle that you didn't really see it in any given episode, which is far more realistic. (Data babbling in Season 1 to Data as almost human in Season 7, Riker going from the young upstart to the "seasoned" officer, Picard in anything, etc. Of course, it helps that TNG had a SUPERB cast from the get-go.) Compare that to DS9 or (ugh) Voyager where they tried to make big moving character changes the central focus, and it failed more often than not. There were exceptions, like "Duet" (DS9), but for the most part it just didn't work.
I'm in a group that every month gets together to watch an episode or two of Trek and then use that as a springboard for social/moral/ethical/political/religious discussion and debate. You can't do that with any other show. It's just not there. And you an only rarely do that with DS9 or Voyager (and it usually involves the holo-doc, Voyager's only good actor). Roddenberry knew how to make people think. Berman doesn't. Berman is trying to be Babylon 5, which is a completely different branch of Sci-Fi. (As is Star Wars. They're all three different areas that can't be directly compared.)
Berman couldn't even keep from destroying the best villan ever created; the Borg. The original Borg were scary, because that is where we are headed! Technology permiates our lives more and more, we wear more and more of it on our bodies, we're starting to put it inside our bodies..... the Borg IS our future. To see that end result coming back on us is SCARY! Berman turned them into the slime zombies from Planet X. (The queen was the beginning of the end for the Borg, utterly rediculous idea.)
Star Trek is not about realism. It's about thinking. It's about morality. It's about hope. It's about looking at another and in the process seeing something of yourself. It's about growing. It's about learning. Star Trek is a thinking man's show.
It's too bad that Berman isn't a thinking man.
--GrouchoMarx
Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?
I thought it was one of the better recent star trek movies (not that that's saying much.) I particularly like the way they poked fun at Star Trek 5.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
Supporting mass-murdering thugs the world over.
Berkeley is full of hypocritical assholes. Never confuse press releases with reality.
http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe Better a smartass than a dumbass.
It tanked because most the sci-fi fans are the more likely to have bigscreen televisions and home theatre setups and don't mind waiting a few extra months for DVD release. This trend is getting more popular every day.
The theatre experience sucks thesedays. Jerks in theatres with cell phones, food spills, drinks thrown at screens, bad lighting, babies crying, idiots who can't shuttup, the list goes on, all contribute to diminishing if not ruining the movie experience.
Turn on the 56" widescreen monitor, warm up the 5.1, unplug the telephone and turn down the lights. There is no theatre that gives a better total experience.
1) Dune buggies, They do not belong in Star Trek
2) Killing Data... 'nuff said
3) Plot holes
1. 'Star Trek - Planet of the Hippies' (Insurrection) left a bad taste in everyone's mouth.
Not even Oscar Winner F. Murray Abraham could have saved this movie. This movie should have never been made. Horrible Story, horrible script. Jonathan Frakes (Commander Riker) did a pretty good job directing with what he had to work with. It took me a long time to decide on wether or not to go see Nemisis based on the terminal putridness of this movie.
2. Very Poor Script Selection for the Entire ST:TNG movie series.
Let's face it, most of TNG movies should have been ditched in pre-production. I can't beleive there weren't better movie scripts to choose from. If I were the producer, Nemesis, Insurrection, and First Contact would have never been made.
3. Expectations from Star Trek 2.
I don't know about all of you but, 'The Wrath of Kahn' was the best Trek movie. It made the best use of all elements of the Trek world. (Bringing a character back from a single episode, Space battles, classic Kirk dialogue, scenes at home, training scenes {Kobiashi Mauru test}). I think nemesis tried too hard to set new expectations for Space battles based on the final battle in Trek 2.
4. Evolution of Characters/TNG World.
The only character evolutions in the ST:TNG movies were Data, Jordi, and Riker/Troi's revisit of their relationship. What about the other characters? What about the evolution of the ST:TNG world? What happened to the sexual tension Between Capt. Picard and Dr. Crusher?
How do the character development in the movies move towards the characters portrayed in the final TV episode of TNG?
In the Original Star Trek Movies Characters, there were attempts to show evolution of characters/the Trek world (Sulu's own command, Kirk's promotion, and Klingon Peace).
5. Q. Not one movie even touches on Q. A great movie could be made from this character.
6. Use Movie Screen writers instead of Trek TV writers.
ST:TNG is notorious for it's anti-clamatic endings, most books (Non ST books) on the market today are written this way. You'd get a great story, great character development, great build up....but the ending really sucked and left you scratching your head on how this ending came to be.
7. The Mistique of the ST:TNG TV series hasn't been transferred to the big screen. It seems like the actors are just going through the motions in the films.
8. Let Nicholas Meyer Write/Direct again!
This is the man who directed ST 2 (The Wrath of Kahn) and 6(the Undiscovred Country) and wrote ST 2, 4 (The Voyage Home), and 6.
Nicholas Meyer seems to have a grasp on a good story and character development.
I think the people at Paramount have some serious thinking to do before another Trek movie is made.
Dolemite
Save the World! Use a Quote!
1. The computer graphics looked like awesome computer graphics, not like a ship in space as we have grown accustomed to seeing them. It detracted from the show.
2. The trailer sucked. I did not want to see the movie after that.
After seeing a few episodes of Enterprise, I am not at all suprised that Rick Berman doesn't understand why Nemesis tanked. Now, I am not bashing Enterprise at all. It is a half decent series. Nevertheless, it isn't Star Trek.
Watch the shows from both the orginal series and STNG. The strength of the series was excellent and original writing. The best episodes of both of the series had character developement but it often, if not always, took second place to the story. The Captains did come across new civilizations: ones that inspired thought about the morality and philosphy of such civilizations. The captains had principles and a clear understanding of right and wrong and they acted on those views whenever appropriate(rather than the blind child-like morality of Janeway who always followed the rules because hey, they're the rules...) The captains took action not for the sake of action and not because it was always the last resort but because, at the time, it was their best option. Most importantly, they were 20th century human beings, they only lived in the 23rd century. They acted like human beings would act, not like saints would. You could relate to them. You could relate to lines such as:
"If nothing else, I want to make sure we kill the klingons."
"Revenge, Captain?"
"What else is left."
Now we get characters that seem to have no morality other than 'let's follow the rules' and 'why can't we all just get along.' More often than not, the characters are portrayed more like saints and angels who pity the rest of humanity rather than flesh and blood human beings. And in the odd times when a character does falter and actually does something a real person might(such as Tom Paris saving the artificial ocean), they are oftened considered having fallen from the angelic philosphy they all follow. The orginal captains were grounded in reality, they understood other peoples motives because they themselves were 'real' people. These new people go around the universe more as missionaries than explorers and are constantly unable to understand (only pity) the people they find on their journeys. The old Star Trek had an optimistic future of brave people going forward to champion their principles and learn what the universe had to offer. It had a deep understanding for what it was to be human and it was reflected in the episodes. The new Star Trek has a optimistic future of sort-of-brave people going forward to champions everyones right to follow whatever principles that suits them no more how atrocious and to feel sorry for everyone else in the universe because they don't hold the perfect morality that they do. It has a deep contempt for what it is to be human. The orginal Star Trek crews were like astronauts, daring to go where no one man has gone before just to see what's out there(though they peformed scientific study, it was not the sole reason they were there, the main reason was wonder at was was out there.) The new star Trek crews are more like Lucifer before the fall, marveling in their own imagined perfection and going out into the universe for either purely scientific pursuits or to take part in their ongoing mission... to dispense humanitarian aid and universal peace. As for the story lines, they are often recycled,(if not from an early Star Trek series then from another sci-fi series) and like modern recycling what you get isn't as good as the orginal.
And now Berman tries to make 'Star Trek - The Action Movie'. Proving that the writers for Star Trek are completly out of ideas, they attempt to steal from (of all things) their own franchise (namely ST:II). Showing their usual contempt for humanity, this time with respect to their audience, the writers create a story that neither inspires feeling nor any form of thought. It is as if the writers, feeling rejected since there stories of angelic missionaries have consistently fallen flat, have decided to punish us with a movie that is more like a sequel to Die Hard than Star Trek. 'Joe Sixpack can't understand how great my stories are so he must be ignorant. Let's give him a story that's more on his level.' It was only through the heroic efforts of the actors and actresses of the film that saved it from completely flopping.
Now there are undoubtfully other reasons why the movie failed(market saturation - its like eating chocolate, the first piece is good, the hundreth will make you puke), bad timing (most people go to see the movies to take a break from reality, watching the news were war is looming and then going to see a movie full of futuristic type battles), and incredible compettition(If you could only watch one, which would you have gone to see LOTR: Two Towers, or ST:10). But given that ST:9 bombed too, it seems more likely that it's the philosphy of the people who make the show and less the situational factors.
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
Roger Ebert had a REALLY funny review of Nemesis and why he's not interested in Star Trek any more. It had me laughing for at least 15 minutes. Here are a few choice quotes in case the page gets Slashdotted:
... "I'm thinking, life is too short to sit through 10 movies in which the power is shifted around on these shields. The shields have been losing power for decades now, and here it is the Second Generation of Star Trek, and they still haven't fixed them."
"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.
I don't understand the whole thing that just happened. I read everything people said about Nemesis on here (before and after it came out), and all the bad reviews online. As is my usual habit, I ignored them all, then went to see it in the theatre a couple of weeks ago (small town Alaska, it took a while to get here).
I was blown away.
After everything people have said I was expecting it to be about on par with Insurrection or Generations or First Contact, none of which were very strong movies. In my not so humble opinion, Nemesis was much better. I'm not the kind of person that cares about any ST series after TNG, so it's not like I'm just going ga-ga over Nemesis because it's a ST movie. I simply found it very enjoyable because it was halfway interesting story about some of my favorite people; the ST:TNG characters.
And did you *see* those special effects? FX don't make the movie, not by a long shot. There have been far too many movies in the last decade with fantastic FX and *no* discernable plot. I always leave those with a rather empty feeling inside, and forget all about them 30 minutes later. But FX can certainly help a story along when they're done well, and when there *is* a story. And the FX in Nemesis were amazing.
I'm sure it helped that every rumble of the ships could actually be *felt* through the seats in that particular theatre, but even visually all the FX in Nemesis were more visceral, more real, than anything I've seen to date. ST or otherwise. And then there was the directing style itself. It was very different from what I've seen in other ST movies, and certainly made it stand out from being "just another long TV episode".
Maybe my imagination projected more subtlety onto the characters than was actually there, but I liked ST:TNG and I found Nemesis to be a very satisfying movie. All the rest of you, I don't know exactly what you were expecting, but as other's have said already, "for Pete's sake, it's a Star Trek movie!"
And one last thing: If you're all so clear on what would make a "good" or "great" ST movie, go make one of your own. I'm sure we'd all love to see it.
And the rest of the writing team.
How about Paramount get people who can actually do drama to write the show?
What's wrong with the current one?
Where's the passion?
Where's the suspense?
Where's the drama?
Why is there dialogue for the sake of dialogue?
Why does the audience feel no tension in times of supposed danger?
To get a good show going:
Everything in the show should be driven by the story. No dialogue or other things happening for the sake of having things happen.
Villains should be extremely competent. Battles should be lethal. Dangerous environments should be unforgiving. Ship to ship battles should reflect speed, suddeness, lethatlity, etc. Look to the Hunt for the Red October not Star Wars for inspiration.
The unthinkable should happen but happen infrequently. So should miracles.
No fuzzy wuzzy feelings. No complete evil.
Dialogue, when it's there, should be poignant, even ferocious.
Of course, if somebody could do all that they'd be doing NYPD Blue not Star Trek. This should change.
I think we know all too much about standard operating procedure in the 24th century or whenever it is the STNG crew work in. Let's see how we get there from the 21st century.
Let's not forget the last we saw (ok, the last I saw) of Wesley was him going off with the Traveller as he vanished into thin air.
If that's not "god-like" for Wesley, I don't know what is.
Vortran out
Knowledge is like ignorance.. too much can be just as bad as not enough.
It would be interesting to correlate the popularity of the series running at the time with the amount of money each movie brought in. If everyone was watching the series, they'd be more likely to go see the movie even though it isn't the same characters. If people don't like the current series, why would they go see a move in that franchise? (rhetorical question)
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
(mostly spoiler-free) For filmmakers the only audience reaction worse than disappointment must be indifference. And I'm afraid that's exactly what I experienced after watching "Star Trek: Nemesis" this evening. I felt like I had seen almost all of it before, several times, and sadly by the end of the movie even the fates of my favorite Star Trek crew didn't seem to matter as much anymore. Four years is a long time to wait between installments and it felt like too much time had passed since their last big screen appearance. Things I had waited to see for years finally happened and I was left with an ambivalent shrug afterwards.
There were definitely some nice moments in the film, despite some stunningly weak parts of the plot which resembled non-sequiturs without explanations more than holes. And I sucessfully avoided reading spoilers about the movie so the big surprise did catch me off guard and it had emotional impact. But I was hoping for more than a mere rehash of the best Star Trek film or at least some more closure concerning the destinations of the less visible members of the crew. I have since read that those scenes were filmed, edited and then left on the cutting room floor along with Wesley Crusher's cameo. It's funny how I am starting to prefer the DVD director's cut editions of films over the versions which are initially released. To me, the additional material is usually worth some intermittent pacing and after watching a fully fleshed out story I still walk out of the cinema wanting more.
Star Trek as a concept is very interesting. The shows propose challenging problems that we must face when we go into space (or have aliens visiting us).
As you watch it feels fine but suddenly it's time to hurry up and finish the story. Usually the wackiest solutions are given. You're left with the feeling that the scenario should have been foreseeable, perhaps through a prior holodeck simulation.
One of the attractions of action movies is the sheer speed that events are forced on the characters. They don't have time to think. They have to show that they have skills or luck.
Star Trek is different - people have to think. That's fine, but where is the genius? And how/what does the audience learn?
The shows bite off more than they can chew. One can imagine ongoing war with the Borg lasting to Star Trek: Lots of Generations After the Next One.
I like Star Trek as a portrait of the future even if the problems are left without full solutions. I would enjoy a movie/show if it deals with what aliens might look like or behave. There was an episode where the Enterprise is sucked into a Dyson sphere. That was fascinating even though there was no final solution.
A movie that shows the development of one future technology would be nice to see regardless of some imagined leaps of technology for the intermediate steps. What could have led to the invention of a warp drive, a time machine, an android, a phaser, a holodeck, a shield, or even a tricorder?
Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
Speaking as someone who was born *in* LA, I can tell you that even many of us find the antics of the "stars" to be rather obnoxious. You know, I've never been told that I was hated by several billion people just for being born here. I think the only thing that will happen, is that I will roll my eyes at people who make this kind of idiotic generalizations.
To get back on topic, Star Trek isn't dying because it was made for us left-coast liberals, it's dying because it can't grab the attention of the pulic in a way it once did. Voyager was weak--Janeway didn't have that presence that Kirk, Picard or even Sisko had. The aliens were weak, and because of the overriding plot to get home it was difficult to develop any real significant story arcs since you're constantly moving into/out of someone's territory.
Enterprise should haven't even been made. Questionable casting, even worse writing and it's no wonder you're driving the fans away.
Nemesis had a convulted and rather lame plot that turned me off just in the previews.
When a series loses it's stamina, it loses fans, and movies fail at the box office, and that's what Bergman needs to realize.
I've been a Star Trek fan since ST:TNG, but think that the season finales/premieres were much, much, much better that any of the movies. I did enjoy Galaxy Quest.
I don't think it has much to do with how good or bad the movie really was. I think that it was because of the following reasons:
1. Interest in Star Trek is fading. The last couple of Trek TV show offerings has not really done a good job of pleasing fans. I think a lot of on-and-off Star Trek fans are getting tired of Berman's crappy TV offerings, and are looking elsewhere for Science Fiction.
2. They released it at the wrong time. They were directly competing with Harry Potter, a James Bond flick, and Two Towers. I think that a lot of people would have checked Nemesis out, except for the fact that there were probably three or four other movies that they'd rather see.
I skipped out on Nemesis myself. It isn't that I didn't want to see it, but I rarely go to the movies nowadays. The first chance I had to go to the movie theater, I naturally went and saw the Two Towers.
But I've heard that Nemesis isn't really all that bad. It might not be as good as Star Trek 6 or First Contact, but it is definately on my TO RENT list. I think that the home video release will see a lot more acceptance than the theatrical release.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
"I got no indication that the poster was trying to make a joke."
The indication was everybody and their mother thinking they're the first to say "because it sucked!".
" I think Paramount, Berman and Braga would do well to listen to the fans..."
That, by itself, is a fair comment, but the second part of that sentence isn't so insightful...
"... for a change instead of ramming standard sci-fi with the Trek label slapped on down our throats"
I'm sorry, but who's ramming anything down anybody's throat? They're producing a TV series and a string of movies. At what point do you have to sit down and watch? They're feeding an audience, not expanding a monopoly. Please, gain some perspective here.
Obviously there's a segment that's still watching Enterprise, and it's quite lucrative for Paramount. If it's not providing the audience they want, they'll fix it. Don't believe me? Ask any Deep Space Nine fan.
Seriously, the most common complaint I heard was "enough with the Star Trek already." Maybe if Berman had kept the quality up all along, things would be different, but after Voyager (which shamelessly exploited the Borg, as well as the last refuge of the incompetent producer: tits and ass), Insurrection (where not even the actors believed the premise, see here), and Enterprise (which shatters existing history, as well as throwing in more T&A), is it any surprise that people are sick of the series?
I didn't see Nemesis, because quite frankly, I don't feel like seeing an average Star Trek movie anymore. Hell, I'm not even sure I'd want to see a good Star Trek movie. I'm soured on the franchise. Maybe I would see an excellent Star Trek movie, but all in all, you'd have an easier time selling me on an all new sci-fi movie.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
First, Nemesis didn't tank because of competing films. Nemesis could have been released at any point in the year, however clear the schedule, and it would have tanked. I agree with most of the previous comments as to what's wrong with the ST franchise, including the political correctness, plot holes, cute humor, and Left Coast touchy-feeliness.
..bruce..
Second, I think the real demise of the (movie) franchise came after ST3:TSFS. At that point, you had the Enterprise destroyed and Kirk, Spock, and McCoy on the run from the Federation in a Klingon cruiser. Stop for a moment and think what a killer movie you could make with that setup, going off on a completely different tangent from anything seen in ST movies or shows, but still true to form to Kirk's approach to problems. Instead, we got ST4:TVH, which put everyone back in their neat little boxes and made everything all better again (and threw in some gee-whiz eco-sensibility about whales). (Did I mention that my wife for Christmas got me a t-shirt that says "Nuke the gay whales!"? And I'm a registered Democrat.)
Anyway, while individual episodes and movies have shown promise, the whole franchise is sinking down to heat death; Nemesis and Enterprise are likely to be the end of the Star Trek franchise. It's been a nice run, but let it go, folks.
Bruce F. Webster (brucefwebster.com)
I want to advance my idea of why Insurection stank:
Site-to-Site transport ruined the suspense and made the whole movie feel slow.
I understand the major points brought about by others (idiot androids are NOT funny) but I think the lack of the standard plot device of transporter room rush killed some elements.
1. Threat presents itself while on bridge
2. You, you, your're with me
3. Turbolift crisis assesment catches us up on missed plot elements, builds suspense.
4. Line up on transporter deck, give terse "engage"
5. Watch beam-in, hilarity does not ensue on planet surface/in alien ship.
These devices pace the situation for you, and I felt that there were usually a couple of steps missing which threw off the timing.
Rule of the open mind
People who are resistant to change cannot resist change for the worst.
When did Star Trek jump the shark?
First Contact gets my vote. What do you think?
Seriously, Wil, got any comments?
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.
He doesn't know why? He doesn't know why? I hope he reads this site so I can clue him in on it.
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.
star trek needs bruce campbell, to be the best again.
The Similarities between the former greatness of both star trek and star wars are astounding when put in regards to their current demise. Both Series initiated with a great breadth of depth and intricacies in either plot or charcters. However they've devolved into explosions on the screen in place of humanity threatening wars of grander scales.
Granted the first star wars movis and star trek series had their fair share of campy and goofy moments, but these were almost always counter-baleneced by an enormous weight of responsibility to mankind. And never the grandois responsibility of saving humanity, but the responsibility of LEARNING to do whats right in your small piece of the universe and hope that the effects of that piece of good will ripple out to the benefit of all.
Look deeply into the better aspects of both series and you will find the characters and struggles alike are all centered around our heroes fighting with themselves or with their respective goverments to save only a small portion of the universe, which turns out to do more good than ever expected.
But now both series are more about the adventure, and how cool it looks to go along. How much resonance is there after their missions are acomplished? almost none. The darkness of struggle and REAL pain are almost non-existant, and the brutal consequences of failure are rarely made a reality in either series. Why is this?
Marketing
a bunch of marketting clowns got their hands on both enterprises and said to themselves "short time gain, short time gain". They figured out how to pack the most glitz onto the least amount of "dangerous" themes to provide the greatest immediate bang to their bucks. What we have been consistently handed are pre-packaged formulated products with little more soul in them than green money can fill in.
Darkness and potential evil crowd our lives everyday, the majority of us have trained ourselves in how to be good. We ARENT good, we just act good. And we are Painfully aware of how easy it is for us to "go to the dark side". Yet we dont, and what we look for in all our stories and films alike are the reasons WHY we dont go over. These franchises are supposed to serve to remind us of our own innate good which is only apparent after realizing how easy it is not to be good.
Star trk and star wars no longer remind us why our moral compasses are unexplainably good for the most part. And as such they present no significant worthwhile struggle thats memorable for the satisfaction of vanquishing the darker aspects of life. They are just explosions in space with pretty women on the hood.
In other words... Star marketing
--Idiots, Every single one of YOU, A flaming mass of conglomerated morons, hey wait a second, isnt that how RAID works?
I've been a Star Trek fan for a long time but I still haven't seen the latest movie. I just wasn't interested.
What we need is a movie plot where the whole thing takes place on the holodeck. I always loved those episodes (yes I am being sarcastic).
No matter how good a movie might be, if the critics mostly agree that a movie is bad, then people are less likely to see it. There are some "pop" movies that obviously violate this theory, but that's explained simply because they're targeted at pop culture. I wouldn't place too much emphasis on this theory, but I know that I have skipped several movies based on prejudices generated by a review, or a friend's opinion, etc... If someone has a reason to believe that it isn't worth their time/money, they'll pass.
...any more than he knows why VOYAGER's ratings were so low even after they added the pneumatic Borgette sex bomb, or why ENTERPRISE is starting to tank, even with the crew dropping trou every other episode. Just like he doesn't know why people are champing at the bit for the DS9 DVDs, even though the show was all but ignored by Paramount after VOYAGER launched.
It's the vision thing. It's about building and drawing on a consistent, well-thought-out universe: movies II, III, IV, and to some extent VI, and FIRST CONTACT all drew on preceding episodes/installments, and were the best received and/or most successful of the movies. The others pretended not to remember the episodes whose plots they were recycling, and therefore sucked, even if the first movie did OK at the box office--people were hungry for fresh Trek, after all.
Sometimes, I get the feeling that Berman (and Brannon Braga, for that matter) are basically contemptuous of not only the fans, but of the franchise itself, and not only don't understand the Trek universe's basic appeal, but don't WANT to understand. Just throw in some (PG) sex, a few new spaceships, blow some shit up, and people will dig it, right?
If Berman were fired tomorrow, I don't know that it would be soon enough to save the franchise. And I'm not sure that I care any longer.
I looked into the abyss, and the abyss looked into me--and we both winked.
2. Get James Cameron to write script
3. Get Jerry Bruckheimer to produce
4. Get M. Night Shyamalan to direct
5. ???
6. Profit
Will the result resemble a Star Trek movie? Of course not. But at this point I don't think that's a bad thing.
I got no indication that the poster was trying to make a joke.
Then you have a lousy grip on sarcasm.
Whether or not you thought the words were meaningful, people who can think would look at the subject, the usual quality of slashdot posts, and the 'attitude' of the poster, and correctly conclude: joke.
I definitely thought it was better than IV/V/VI/VII.
Saying Nemesis was better than IV/V/VI/VII is like saying being Wesley Crusher and getting an enema from your mom is better than being gang-raped by Klingons. It doesn't change the fact that both are still a major pain in the ass to sit through.
Get Avery Brooks to do one, dumbasses. And make sure Wheaton's scenes don't get cut.
-oZ
ST was just a space setting for a good story. Most of the stories were not even science fiction. Look at the story names of TOS.
"Let that be your last battlefield." This is quality stuff. It should be studied in English Lit.
I was at work and this cat came in showing off his new PALM Tungsten. He had the whole movie on a bunch of SD cards. So I watched it. It wasn't bad. I would have rather seen it on my iPaq's screen.
MadOgre.com
On the contrary, I thought the war was an excellent piece of writing. ST: TNG had, to me, sterilized the entire existence of life in the Federation. The entire value space of the characters seemed to me to be filled with this "my shit doesn't stink" air of utopian hypocrisy. It made me really look at the Federation as being full of complacency. The Dominion War was downright promethian, and it was full of the dirt, sweat, and blood not only of life, but of life in a military body.
In addition to that, I found DS9 to be very personal. The characters were filled with their own issues...Dax's murderous past...Sisko's reluctance to accept his destiny as the Emissary...Bashir's hidden tale of genetic tampering...and don't even get started with Garak. Really, these characters were far more accesible to me than those from TNG or even TOS.
On top of that, the characters' personal crosses to bear were being repeatedly manifest throughout the war. War is, in some ways, an easy plot device. It gives you a chance to expose the passions and flaws of your characters...war brings out extreme circumstances which can polarize people in their thoughts and actions. That's right where the Dominion War took the story, and I applaud the writers for their handling of it.
My only gripe was the rather abrupt ending to the series. The struggle between Sisko and the possessed Gul Dukat should have been more prolonged, IMHO.
I think... it was because it sucked, maybe?
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Yup! And if you think Spock gave McCoy a headache when he was alive, that's nothing compared to the headache he gave him dead!
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
It certainly wasn't as bad as ST: The Motion Sickness or STV: The Final Frontier (in which the only redeeming feature was Kirk's line "What does God need with a starship?"), but it seemed like barely enough material for a one-hour TNG episode, and it wouldn't have been exceptionally memorable even for that.
You don't want to live in their Star Trek universe? Are you crazy? Because it is bland, predictable, and safe... those are the exact reasons why you'd want to live there. You don't want to live in interesting times.
"There's no way of telling what happened," Berman said. "I'm convinced that we made a very good movie..."
Ahh, so there's the problem.
It's not really that hard to see why the entire Star Trek Empire is falling... the Eastern and Western Emporers (B&B) have put such a tight stranglehold on their creation, that it can't breathe.
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.
The fact that Berman doesn't know why it tanked is the reason it tanked.
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'.
It's simple. We need a new perspective. The first five shows were from the perspective of the Federation, from a human perspective. Why not change the perspective to mix it up a bit?
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.
It's just possible it tanked because the series already had every scrap of plot you'd need to create an evil trek series without having to pull an entirely new one out of Berman's ass? We couldn't possibly build off the alternate dimension scripts from DS9 or some of the novels, now could we? Naw, we had to throw in a few clones for current events, break-away soviet republics, a race we had never seen before but has mysteriously been present for every trek series, and of course, a super monsterous battleship that escaped even the infamous Rombulan intelligence...
Gee, I couln't have done any better:
Throw in an evil crew piloting an evil supped-up Enterprise blowing things in the Picards good name, dispatch starfleet to torch the Enterprise, picard and crew escape track down evil enterprise, chaos ensues as crew must masquerade as evil to gain access to otherwise impenetrable evil Enterprise, finds out how twisted things are, etc, etc, etc....
That was five minutes. You get the idea. And it would have been 10x better than what we got, simply because we turned the what-ifs of an already laid foundation into reality, not because we created a clone and it was evil. And stuff.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
You mean there was another movie out this winter besides Kangaroo Jack?
Trek movies have had a tradition of either excellent directors or at least "in-franchise" directors.
Choosing a director who came off of a flop (IMHO) special-effect-heavy plot-lite movie like Tomb Raider doomed the project from the get-go.
Oh, and I agree with others and place the blame squarely on Rick Berman's shoulders. Kitsch, fist-fights, and good sci-fi writers made Trek great. Run-of-the-mill plots, hooters, and heavy special effects will kill it.
It was the subject line "Yeah, smart..." that really gave it away.
I thought the story of this one was cool, but the direction was really amateurish. First, they could probably have trimmed out 30 minutes just by removing the pauses in the dialogue. I have never studied drama, yet even I know that's the first thing you learn about dialogue: remove the "beats", or pauses between lines, to make it look more natural.
The clone-of-Picard thing was cool, and it looks to me like the script handled it really well, but the execution tanked. Between the dinner they shared, the conversation in the ready room, etc., there was obviously supposed to be some conflict within Shinzon about fighting with his own "brother" (ie. clone). But it ended up just being really limp and boring because of the poor timing of the director.
The battle at the end had a very naval feel to it that I really liked. However, like everything else, it was TOO SLOW. Furthermore, Shinzon was headed toward Earth, so they had the perfect excuse to have that battle with Earth as the backdrop. Instead, they had it in the middle of space, next to some kind of nebula. How dull.
Finally, the commercials looked kind of dumb. I went to see it because I like movies---even a mediocre movie is fun to see---but I was surprised how interesting the story and the back-story were, because there was no hint of them in the ads.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
Yeah, okay. Let's listen to the fans. Like the fans who wrote Kirk on Spock gay fan fiction and obsess over why Khan doesn't have a beard, even though he's a Sikh? Uh huh. Being a trek fan myself, there is a far too vocal sector of trek fandom that would like to see episodes explore beards and whether or not the CO wants to have sex with the XO... oh wait... I guess they did that (Janeway/Chakotay).
Anyway, nothing's wrong with shaking up the establishment, but I for one would rather see Trek go away and left as it is... for the same reason Jordan should have stayed retired this time.
Well more than twice I suppose.
Why did Nemesis tank? Simple, it sucked. Rick Bermen has finally succeeded in breaking the even-odd chain of good-vs-crap Star Treks. He managed to make an even numbered movie suck. After Insurrection, ST needed one hell of a comeback but instead we got another movie of the same caliber.
It takes a bit of skill to paddle so many Star Trek spin-offs up &#!?creek with consistancy. Seems that Rick Bremen has just the required skill.
Maybe Berman doesn't know why it tanked, but the rest of us sure do. The franchise is boring, modern Star Trek productions are, as Roger Ebert put it so well, "a copy of a copy of a copy." There's nothing new, it's all the same material rehashed over and over again, except with less and less detail to consistency and more emphasis on technobabble and deus ex machina.
Take the latest installment: A cloned Data! Wow, what a revolutionary concept! Wait, we had that going all the way through the Next Generation; he was called Lore. From the trailer alone you can write the (boring) script from extrapolation easily enough.
It's time to stop making copies, and make something else.
"Remember that "Bones with tits" season-2 doctor? That was a direct result of Roddenberry insisting that Dr. Crusher be written out."
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
Maybe its time to really shake things up...all through DS9 they sort of pointed to the Federation being on the verge of colapse...
Maybe its time that happened, perhaps we need to have "Star Trek:It all goes to Hell!"
I think its also about time they started thinking along the lines of what shows were the best...do those point to good movie Ideas...lets face it ST:II was just an extention of one of the best series episodes....
We had the Borg in a movie that was good, the best of the NG movies in fact...perhaps we need a "Q" movie.
Or maybe an Updating of the Genesis stuff would make a good Movie?
How about Mirror Universe? The NG has never delt with mirror universe except in books...(Deep Space 9 did, but thats not NG)
Maybe some of the cooler bad guys from Delta Quadrant found a way to follow Voyager?
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
Unwatchable.
I tried watching TNG and couldn't. If it wouldn't have lasted 3 seasons I wouldn't have watched a show.
Even then, the technobabble, the nonsense. I watched the original in its first run. It was a little corny. But this is "Star Drek".
They're churning out so many crappy ST books that its forcing bookstores to squeeze out real science fiction. I wonder how many rainforrests Pocket Books has wiped out so far?
Eric
Eric Aitala
www.f1m.com
Data Sings!
Never thought of 2 ships hitting each other to be an elastic collision...
What the hell are you talking about? Voyager was one of the worst shows in the history of television, not just Trek. They had to stick Jerri Ryan in a skin-tight suit _just to get the geeks to watch_! It had New Age spirit guide crap that had to have Roddenberry whirling like a turbine in his grave! Voyager had nothing to do with Star Trek. I don't even consider it part of the franchise.
Voyager was Gilligan's Island in space, but not as well written or acted as Gilligan's Island. If you think Nemesis failed at the box office, just _try_ putting a Voyager movie out. The world really doesn't need another "Plan 9 from Outer Space".
I'm a big B5 fan, but that "children of the egg" crap (however well executed) would probably make Nemesis look really good as far as entertainment goes.
Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
The film isn't available for download because nobody gives a crap about it.
LOTR:TT was available for download, but what's the point of watching a VHS quality copy? You see it in the movies, and maybe you'll get the ultra-director's high-speed edition with twin turbos version they'll release in June sometime.
But it availability is more an indication of popularity; it certainly didn't *hurt* the movie.
Even considering that it came out around the same time as LOTR, that doesn't mean people can't watch more than one movie a weekend. I know i sometimes watch something Friday and Saturday night. I also thought the movie was pretty good.
www.samuraidreams.com - My Blog
www.samuraifiles.com - Get Some Videos Here
Thought it was the low point of the TNG series.
Well, if they need to take a break from movies...maybe it is time for a Star Trek MMORPG. EverTrek, anyone?
1. A movie is a much bigger investment of the viewer's time & money than a hour TV program. Therefore it has to be about something much bigger, much more important, or much more ... something ... than this week's episode of Whateverville.
The Star Trek universe is basically stable. Gradually the Federation expands, or gets stomped for a while by the Dominion; gradually Voyager goes home. There's a lot of characters who over the course of a couple of years develop characters with a few lines per show.
Movie universes have to be unstable. Blow up the Death Star or the Rebellion is crushed. But what if the Enterprise doesn't stop the Great Space muffin from engulfing the earth? We know that it'll be back next week. ST is basically not movie material, despite the most fanatic fans ever.
2. ST writing really really sucks for movies. On TV it is ok for Picard to look at the Awefully Big Romlan Ship and say, "That's a predator" because you've got a small screen and rely on sound to communicate more. In a movie you have a bigger screen, more opportunity for acting; Picard would no more say "That's a predator" than Data would reply "There is no fecal matter in that statement, sir".
3. I felt especially ripped off because the publicity pretended the movie would tell us about the Romulans. The ongoing exposition of Klingon culture throughout the later TV series was a real pleasure! But this movie focussed on the Remans, wholly made up ugly guys, and gave only a few sets to the Romulans.
If you want to do a Trek movie, do "Reunification" about the Vulcans & the Romulans. Don't screw around - make it a major change in the universe so we take it seriously. And get a real science fiction writer/movie writer in there. Actually ST has some good actors, they've just got lousy materials to work with
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
The last really bad movie. I saw this because I am a TNG nut but only because I was a TNG nut. The movie I though was on the good side of ok (6 or 7 out of 10). The last move was SOOOOOOO bad it was really hard for me to drop the money to see this one. My hopes were it would be good enough to wash the last one out of my mind but it did not. The only Good TNG movie was Fist Contact.
crap CGI. Stuff from Star Wars(BLATANT ripoffs in several spots). The scimitar looked like a shadow ship. Data as superman! so much crap. I've got to analyze this in detail to put a review on my blog... will make interesting reading. Its a bunch of other stuff, poorly imitated, dressed in starfleet uniforms.
I always wanted "Star Truck", about space merchants. Unfortunately, somebody did "Space Truckers", and it really sucked, killing off attempts at that genre for a while. The rotating diner space station was the best concept in it.
Come on... bite... just a little??
And Paramount has nothing to do with it. Some snippets from their website.
"Star Trek: Renaissance is a collaboratively written fan fiction project depicting events in the Alpha Quadrant after the Dominion War with an original ship and crew. The series is a mixture of political intrigue, exploration and character driven drama with a definite story arc running in the background.
A new Star Trek series written with the same industry standards as a real TV drama, but from the fans, to the fans, by the fans - most of them people who were disappointed to the lack of ingenuity in Star Trek: Voyager. Like its canon cousins, the series is written in standard script format and divided into seasons, each lasting for 26 episodes."
"The Dominion War has been over for a quarter of a century, but the painful scars of the conflict still run deep. The Alpha Quadrant rebuilds but in the process, a lot of compromises are made. Idealism and principles of the old are sometimes bent, sometimes broken.
Alliances forged in the fires of war buckle as the galaxy looks for the troubled new century, a time of isolationism and prejudice. New and old enemies rise, both without, and within. It takes a resolved crew to face the challenges of this era. A new Captain. A new ship. The USS Enterprise."
We've got a Captain that's flawed, alien shipriders that we're not sure we can trust and a Federation that could be withering from internal corruption. I've read the first few, and they have been GOOD. Easily better than the last 2 TV series AND movies to come out of Hollywood. If you've been thirsting for new Trek but with the same qualities that endeared you to the old Trek then you should stop reading this and click the link.
must be piracy.
or people are tired of trek?
or people like shatner better?
its like asking why do people eat mayonaisse on french fries? they just do...
"but they dont taste like apples!"
-fucking apple jacks commercial.
Um, I think that was one of the "deeper" points of the movie, that Shinzon didn't hate Piccard, he envied him and hated himself. Which is why he wanted to destroy all humanity, he couldn't be part of it.
Rick Berman and Rick McCullum(Star Wars) both need to die. They are the worst producers ever!
You know, I got to see this movie on Christmas Day with a free movie pass. I left at the end wanting my money back. As it was, the original up-front cost (that is, free) was the only motivation I had for attending.
Perhaps they should have given Wesley Crusher the role of Captain of the Enterprise, and picked another worn out plot that ST has abused before. Maybe with the Feringi as something other than the Kobolds of ST.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
Because next gen sucks.. let's get some voyager or enterprise movies happening..
----------------------------
Esobofh - Currently drinking fresh mango juice.
Rick Berman has his head so far up his *ss its like it was sucked in by a black hole. But I will also say that what he's done is because he tried to cater to the desires of the viewing audience. Understandable, but the viewing audience for the most part are idiots when it comes to good SCI-FI. They always want ray guns and battles with aliens. That crap only goes so far. If thats what you want go rent Starship Troopers ( book is soooo much better BTW ).
...please, rent the Steve Martin movie, "The Jerk". There is a scene when The Jerk is set to leave his family home for the first time. His father, a poor black sharecorper takes him out back to teach him an importment lesson before he leaves....
..."
"Son, this is Shinola", he says, pointing to the shoe shine in his hand. Then he points to a pile of manure on the ground and adds, "and son, this is
Learn this lesson, Mr. Berkman, learn it well. Then maybe you will not destroy another culteral icon.
I mean sure, the plots of the stories are a bit thin sometimes and definitely rehashed, but the same could be said of TOS. I think Enterprise is great because it has that good chemistry between the characters. The characters are interesting and it is fun to see them learning and growing. It's not the plots that make good fiction (whether it be in books, television, or movies), it is the characters. I think that Enterprise will succeed if they stay away from Suliban temporal cold war references and just focus on the characters going boldly where no man has gone before.
Smeghead every day of the week.
The movie failed cause the damn poster was so damn ugly.
So, Rick Berman doesn't know the answer to, "Why did Star Trek do badly?
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.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
The top 3 reasons it sucked
3. The previews were disconnected, and uninteresting.
2. The ending will be the same as always. The crew survives impossible odds, and then goes home on a damaged ship.
1. The Federation is much like the U.N.
Get a free ipod.
Peter David could write a good ST script, I'm sure. Some of the best ST novels are his.
I'd suggest you don't use Slashdot as your only news source, or you will suffer permanent brain damage.
However, with Star Trek, you have a generally more educated, somewhat more intelligent, and MUCH more demanding (read: geeky) fan base that doesn't want their star trek to be the same steaming pile of horse crap that the studios typically release.
What was actually in the movie? Did it advance the story at all? No. Character development? No. They need to learn that trek fans expect different things from their movies than the typical moviegoer.
Bottom line is they tried to appeal to a mass audience, probably assuming that 1) star trek fans alone wouldn't support the movie, and 2) star trek fans will come anyway. Well, I would disagree with 1) based on history, and 2) was obviously just disproved by the moviegoing public.
So, what does the studio conclude? Can't possibly be anything wrong with their movie, of course...so they figure if this one didn't succeed, no trek movie will. Disney thought the same thing with their non-CG animated movies - their standard animated movies were tanking, while pixar was doing great. Conclusion? Standard animation is dead. Except then they released Lilo and Stitch, which did extremely well. Now standard animation isn't dead. Of course, it wasn't the crappy movies they released before L&S, no.... And Paramount is making the same mistake.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Nemesis was garbage. There was nothing redeeming about it. I've never fallen asleep during a movie before but between the inane dialogue of Picard and Shinzon, the absolutely pointless sideplot about Data/B4, and the terrible action sequences, it knocked me out. Berman is truly delusional if he thinks he made a very good movie. First Contact was quite successful because it built on something that the fans appreciated but at the same time it didn't alienate non-Trekkie movie goers. Insurrection was weaker and drew very little from the Trekkiverse, but entertaining nevertheless. Nemesis was a story pulled out of someone's ass with characters whom you couldn't give a rat's ass about. Give the franchise to Wachowski Brothers - let them inject some life back into it. Certainly, your tenure is over Berman.
Substance, not fluff... that is what many want. So why not try a series aimed at the fake universe (as in the "Star Trek universe") instead of a particular ship, crew, time, or other limiting factor (outside the scope of the "universe" of course) where you may not even have the same actors again. This is much like "the Outer Limits" will do on occassion. If you want to revisit a time or place then go ahead and bring some or all of the actors back. Hell, maybe even go along the lines of "unrealized consequences" and have the same event take place but this time you have secretly replaced the universes foldgers with a decaff 50 years prior and have a "divergent timeline." In other words, use what made good episodes as an entire series... keep it open.
However, if you can not even get interactive entertainment to do such a thing then how can you ever expect TV to do it? Hmmm, the electronic entertainment industry seems awfully familiar now that I think about it!
How about a miniseries on Klingons... maybe a history of the Klingon Empire?
"Under the spreading chestnut tree, I sold you and you sold me."
Beneath contempt.
The suits have been spending WAY too much time in Southern California reading the trade mags and following micro-trends in television entertainment.
It's over. I mourn.
Movie idea 1
.
1. Start with Picard/Riker/Data/Troi in a federation ship attack (yes attack) a colony or another ship.
2. Everyone goes WTF? and blames the real Picard/Riker/Troi (wait for it...)
3. Turns out the evil others are from the mirror universe!
4. Evil Data gets captured, wiped and uploaded with good dead Data's memories (et viola back from the dead!).
5. Big battle crossing both the mirror universe and the ST one, Good Picard vs Evil Picard, Good Riker vs Evil Riker (maybe with some help from the transporter created Thomas Riker...3 Rikers!)
6. Good wins, Data's back, everyone goes home happy.
Movie Idea 2
1. A solar system gets wiped out for some mysterious reason and the Enterprise is set to investigate.
2. Find nothing (literally nothing) and then hear of another system being destroyed.
3. Investigate that, runs into a war zone of.....the Q!!!!
4. Find out the Q are warring over the right to award fledging civilisations to join the Q's once they get past a certain level. Some want it to happen to inject more variety into their humdrum continuum, some dont, and some dont care. John De Lancie Q doesnt care and gets Picard & Co to sort it out. It turns out the Q's who dont want it would rather wipe out the universe then allow the 'lower pond scum' join them. So theyve developed a universe bomb which destroys the ST one and replaces it with another one(could have some cool shots of the new universe invading the ST one with different laws of pyshics etc).
5. Picard goes and tries to convince the bad Q's but they materialise an alien race which will be the new dominent race in the new universe and it basically turns into a fight for survival
6. Picard wins but doesnt destroy them, the bad Q's take pity on Picards compassion to the alien enemies and decide not to destory the ST universe and branch the new universe so they both can exist.
7. Everyone goes home happy, Q looks at Datas retard clone, goes 'I hate closed minds' and repairs his brain to what Datas was. Hey preto Datas back!
Not bad for 15 minutes. Jeez Bergmann how can you not think creatively?
Nemesis had a number of problems. I thought it was a great movie, but when I rented the Wrath of Kahn the next day I realized that it was the same movie. Movies are expensive these days. Here in Canada it's close to $15 a ticket. I think the studios have to realize that they need to put out better movies if they expecy people to pay that kind of money. So the least they could have done was written a new plot.
:-)
I think they also did a bad job of marketing. I didn't see previews on TV until a week or two before it opened. They needed to do a better job of building up the hype. The other problem was the previews had a shot of Enterprise crashing, and Picards clone saying resistence is futile. It might as well have been a preview for every other TNG movie. Enterprise crashing in Generations was cool, but I think people are tired of them destroying the ship in every movie.
Finally I liked the comment that Ebert made when he was reviewing the movie. He said he has been watching Star Trek movies where ships are firing on eachother and the shields slowly give out, etv. for 20 years now. His idea was to jump another 200 years into the future where these common problems have been overcome and we can see a new type of space battle.
As far as I'm concerned Star Trek is not as realistic anymore. I mean the Borg are so powerful that they should have assimilated Earth years ago
What does hawkish behavior have to do with evolution? There are many ways to survive. Picking fights with everyone might work... if you are bigger and meaner than everyone else.
Besides, it's survival of the fit, not the fittest. Only the unfit don't survive.
Seriously. Let's look at the comparisons:
- The Captain faces a difficult, headstrong, and menacing character from his past, bent on destruction.
- A crew member is working against their will for the opposition, sort-of.
- An apocalyptic battle ensues, leaving both ships very crippled, but still working, floating in space.
- A weapon of mass destruction is pointed at the Enterprise. (Okay, in Khan it would've destroyed Khan's ship too.)
- Wesley Crusher appears at the wedding, but is robbed of even a single spoken line.
- The ever-logical first-in-command sacrifices himself in order to save the ship.
- ...But not before "mind-melding" to possibly (probably) save his soul from actually being gone!
My prediction: Star Trek XI: The Search for Spo^H^H^HData.--
Disclaimer: The above statement probably includes half-truths, because real truth is too complicated.
Eutopia...I'm guessing that's an advanced perfect society located in Europe.
>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.
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.
How about because the plot sucked? I'm a serious trekkie, but come on, you've got to have some story. Flashy space battles are cool, but without a backstory it's not going to make a hit movie. Now if they had done a piece on the actual romulans like we thought they were going to do, could have been really cool.
Remember in Airplane II, how they made such great fun of the general Sci Fi and specifically Star Trek method of overdoing the gadgets, technobabble and future "stuff" there for its own sake? This might have caused laughs in many and perhaps anger in some, but it was not heeded obviously. If you wanted to tell a story, like in Dune, that simply had to be set in the future because of the circumstances then you will need to provide a backdrop that includes some history. (we obviously do not have 10 thousand years of detailed history about industrialized society, much less I can't recall ever hearing about any colony on another planet) However, this would be to SUPPORT your STORY as opposed to simply finding fluff and filler to give excuse to fire the latest cool looking beam/particle weapon, hear (as in "HEAR" hahaha) the latest big, cool, aerodynamic and multicolored ship, see the neat effects of the transporter for this movie and see some nifty "uniforms" that often would not pass for a prisoner's work clothes, much less a dignified uniform of a professional group of military entities (hmmm, as opposed to the vast array that the DoD produces of well tailored (if not often fat) dandy's with no more the military mind than is had by a 4 year old girl playing house... hmmmm).
I enjoy special effects. Often I will browse the web looking for those nifty fantasy and sci-fi paintings and graphics, bookmark the site and go back when it strikes my fancy again. However, when I read a book or watch a show I want a story. I care nothing about the gadgets unless the story is actually centered around gadgets (perhaps a Star Trek episode or movie staring folks who are Star Fleet's ordinance gang, that would be rather cool)
the really sad thing is that in the past you had many sci-fi content producers that expanded the horizons of your imagination even to the point of being "correct" in their colorful pseudo-predictions of things to come (and how they will actually be utilized and integrated in society). This had a chain reaction of ideas and inspiration for many. Now we are inspiring sloth and pretty words over actual hard facts and engineering. Technobabble is the literary buzz fest and it is only getting worse. Even before the Columbia was tragically lost many had simply lost faith in the idea of space travel as well as just lost interest in anything related to it as well. Yet if you walk the halls of NASA you will find more empty degrees, suits and plaques of buzz... no real innovation, dedication or vision exists there. Vigilance has been replaced with complacent acceptance of policy. Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson would be sick... were their bodies not already dust I suppose. They were great thinkers and DO'ERS. You didn't ever hear of Ben Franklin backing out of his latest passion because of worry over who could possibly be pointed to if something goes a bit wrong... even though it is R&D. The common theme between the obvious government/big business system I allude to here and story writing is that they are just the same. It is a result of laziness coupled with more laziness and then covered by a thick coating of policy and credentialism.
The solution isn't easy... vigilance never is but it is one of those cheesy things involving each individual doing what they believe in regardless of worrying more about what they will look like. Hell, what we call Founding Fathers in the US were once labled as Rebels and Traitors. Yet I believe that the idea of republican democracy caught on even to a degree (haha, j/k) in the UK.
I seek not only to follow in the footsteps of the men of old, I seek the things they sought.
i'm a scifi fan in genral i loved tos and tng
ds9 well that was just some sit com in outer space but i watched it.
voyager watched it again even though i hated every singel caracter and 9/10 shows had a weak plot watched it again
now we have ENT in a lot of ways ENT is waaaaaayyyy better than voyager, for me that is
i'm not going to mention ds9 simply becauze you could call it bold and the beautiful the next generation.
(but then there is some scifi out there now that is so much better that has nothing to do with trek)
back to the point
why did nemesis fail. sure there was the O SO wrong release time, not to mention the teeeeeennny weeeenny point that unlike the rest of this xmas seasons releases only the US got to see it my country isnt going to get it in theaters before march.
ofcourse i didnt wait to see it, and well i'm sorry i did. was the storry writen by someone who never saw any trek?
some one wrote that trek isnt bond, where the xxxx is the action? i was bored during the entire screening.
yes movie 5 was worse
but so were both lotr movies
trek has to stop
ent can go on but not under the franshise of trek
sorry about this flame but thats how i feel
I think that says more than anything else.. Rick get some perspective, you ahve been on the inside of the creation process for too long.
Its one thing to remain inside established conventions of the created universe.. something else entirely to throw out cliche story line after cliche storyline and then create new conventions whole cloth with no explinations and run roughshod over everything built up over the years of the series..
TNG episodes built on each other. There were some running storylines that lasted the entire run of the program and they just seemed to toss it all out withthe movies.
To tell ya the damn truth I am willing to yell do over and let them say hey we fouled up and start over with the movie timeline.
The movies storylines didn't logiclally flow from the series. Your crystalized certain aspects about the characters and froze growth and then at the same time introduced entirely new chracteristics without letting us take the journey to those changes with them, just sprung them on us full grown and broke many fans ties that had been developed over the years.
When the movies came out it felt like running into your highschool classmates after not having seen them for 20 years and never having any explinatation of what occured in between. No stories, no explinations. So you create these changed characters who we didn't journey with through those changes and then have them react in ways consistent with those changes while we are still left thinking they are the same people we knew before. Very disconcerting and not conducive to a good movie.
I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
Quite frankly, I wasn't moved by either the previews nor the reviews from CNN and other places, and there was zero word-of-mouth from colleagues about it (and we like to talk about movies a lot waiting for people to show at our weekly staff meeting).
:)
What I saw in the previews was a lot of "Enterprise vs Big Enemy Ship" and this random Picard-like enemy human. Yawn. What I saw from reviews was a lot of "Boldly going where we've gone four or five times before." Yawn.
Timing of the release was actually good; I saw a bunch of movies between Christmas and New Years. But frankly, no matter WHEN it was going to be released, I wouldn't have seen it. Their promotion and execution didn't appeal to me.
Really, all it would have taken for me to go would be to have some kind of interesting story that changed The Universe (not necessarily even the characters, but that would be nice) in a meaningful way. The Remans vs Romulan occupation / Federation mediating / everything going wrong / not the best outcome when we're done could be _extremely_ meaty (and look a lot like Israel / Palestine, as ST VI looked like US / USSR and the USSR's collapse).
BTW: I do like sci-fi and tend to prefer those types of movies to things like Two Weeks' Notice or Julia Roberts fare. My wife differs, but c'est la vie.
After the first showing of Nemesis, a guy comes out of the theater and says, "Whoa, Data got wiped out!" Half the geeks in the ticket line turned pale, checked their beepers, and left in a panic.
I think one of the problems with Star Trek is the fact that in 30-some years it really hasn't changed while the world has.
Modern sci-fi shows like Farscape and Firefly are showing the underbelly of the human condition. Farscape is about a lost astronaut on a ship with escaped convicts and one deserter. Firefly shows people who lost their big war for independance and are dealing with a universe willing to crush them beneath its heel.
But these are just characters in a situation we can relate with. We all can relate with Crichton's desire to return home...D'Argo's plight at being wronged and suffering for it...Firefly's Malcolm Reynolds for having his beliefs abandon him. We've all been lost, been wronged, and been abandoned before...and most of us have overcome them in our ways. We've never been as lost as Crichton, but we understand. That's the difference between heroic and personal writing...the hero is suffering the extreme of something and conquers through it. That was never exemplified more than in Picard during TNG.
When Picard had his humanity ripped away but his consciousness remained intact...we can understand. We've all felt moments where our feelings have been stripped away for whatever reason...but they've been physically removed as Picard's was. His confrontation about those events with his brother back on Earth was one of the poignant moments of TNG...here is our brave and unwavering captain...crying. And it made sense...I personally would be a quivering mass of Jell-O if half of what happened to Picard happened to me. But we're not telling the story of a yellow-belly, we're telling the story of a Hero...who through this one act is not so far removed from the common folk. Picard was not a hero because he was better than us...he was a hero because he was exactly what we are.
Roddenberry understood this to be the necessary ingrediant to a show about a ship travelling among the stars. If you show characters who are human, flawed, but are willing to be better than what they are...to show compassion, tolerance, understanding, and ability to recognize when none of three attitudes would solve the problem...that made us watch weekly. We would see Kirk, Spock, and McCoy overcome adversity by being human, not by being super-human.
ST forgot this. B5 reminded us of what ST had forgotten. B5 was a show about hope, transcendance, doing what was right, and above all be willing to make your own future. Watching the final episode of B5 after seeing the whole of the series, Ivanova's parting words do not feel like preaching...it feels like the wisdom of someone who endured hardship and adversity. B5 showed us a very possible future with people who felt as real to us as we do. Even characters who seemed like comedic relief (Vir) eventually came to be something completely different...and did it gradually.
I've said before that Data is the best sci-fi character on TV. We saw an android in the first episode who was befuddled at the SIMPLEST slang eventually become someone who so understoof humanity that he realized he would never achieve it...but that didn't stop him from trying. Watch the final episode of TNG and see the ocean of difference between the first year Data and seventh year Data...then ask yourself when he changed. There was no single point...he changed gradually and believably. The seventh year Data was the sum of his experiences, even learning to simply shake his head when reporting a tragic death instead of blurting it out.
DS9 tried to tell us a story about people in the 24th century, and even with its failures it managed to do its job. It was dark, depressing, featuring angst-ridden leads like Sisko and Odo, but it worked. The only real failure DS9 was its inability to let a problem linger...I call it the DS9 Syndrome: you build up a big problem for 50 minutes that seems impossible, then solve it quickly in the last 10 minutes.
B5 showed us what sci-fi on TV could be like. I think a line spoken by Ivanova in one early spisode sums it up best: This isn't some deep space franchise, this place is about something. Even the writer who wrote that couldn't believe they'd use it.
I wish Farscape had been allowed to finish its story, it's been one hell of a ride up to now. Firefly was beginning to tell us an intriguing story in a universe that seems very familiar. Sadly...I think the biggest problem is the audience.
TV is just not the best medium for thought-provoking fiction. Even movies fall flat too...personally, I think GATTACA would've been a better book than movie. As a book, a writer can explore ideas to their bitter end. The truly revolutionary sci-fi is being done in novels and some comic books: Rising Stars and Midnight Nation by JMS is some of the best sci-fi in comics in years...and stuff like Preacher would never survive the mass-market of TV. Thought-provoking science-fiction will remain in the written word. The audience in television who truly wants shows to mean something or try to enlighten us about the human condition is instead fed shows like Andromeda and the crap Sci-Fi channel churns out. Ahh...Sci-Fi channel...they had a chance to be a shining star among the black sky that is TV programming.
There's just no money in telling good stories.
All this discussion reminds me of that episode where the crew of the Enterprise gets in trouble with those, you know,... aliens, and then they have to figure out some way to fix things without getting into a big fight, and without messing up the alien's culture.
I think it might have even had the doctor struggling to find out the cause behind a mysterious ailment that made the crew sick/behave strangely that turned out to be caused by aliens/time loops.
And if I remember right, they were trying to do this while suffering some sort of problem with their engines/computer.
I just can't remember which of the series this was from. Can anyone help me out here?
(insert other sarcastic references to every freaking star trek episode here)
Seriously, I don't even go to movies, but if they made THAT into a movie, i'd see it at least 3 times.
Give us Borg Pr0n. 7o'9 will pack the house.
Ed Wood could never understand why no one liked his movies.
It's real simple, no one like the movies because they sucked!
-- Will program for bandwidth
Can you rewrite the same movie with comically aging actors and expect audiences to still show up? I think we're just about 2 "episodes" away from seeing "Star Trek.. The Conquest Of The Vegas Strip", complete with a full musical score. Producers have to realize that often, too many cooks spoil the broth.
-Cnik
My brother gave me a 30 second run down on the movie. It was enough to change my "must go see" into "ahhh...maybe someday I'll add it to my Netflix queue...probably".
Maybe I don't have the story straight. The Romulans clone Picard for a big secret mission. But, they say "nah..." and forget about the clone, locked up in a prison somewhere. OK, today, in real-life...if you're in prison you get computer time and porn. Newspapers, too, but no prisoner cares about those. Apparently in Romulan prison colonies, you get everything you need to become a genius, learn you are a clone, learn about Picard (meanwhile, Romulan's main intelligence agency can't learn this much), learn how to be a brilliant starship captain / war strategist...and then escape and get yourself a crew and ship. Amazing for a prison colony dude.
So, normally, I *prefer* that SciFi movies are kinda unbelievable. It's fun. But this one sounded pretty darn weak. And...the motivation seemed dumb. Maybe more dumb than all of Star Wars stemming from a trade treaty violation on some pointless planet that nobody cares about.
OK, I've convinced myself...I'll put it near the top of my queue and see how sucky it is (or not).
On the positive...my brother did tell me he thought it was more entertaining than "Insurrection"...which I thought was a plenty alright rental.
I think the Romulans knew about Picard in advance because of the existance of Sela, even though the Picard that sent Yar back was from another reality, it might have just been enough to have peaked the Romulans interest.
Plus, I can't remember if Logan initially tried to bring Sela back, but it didn't pan out (I may be completely wrong there), and with what happened in Unification she would either have been executed or imprisoned.
Funny thing about Nemesis being the first Trek film to really feature the Romulans, but it was more about the Remans instead... so much for building on existing foundations. I left the movie theater completely blown away... from the complete lack of imagination and continuity discrepancies that turned a possible good Trek movie into a mild yawn.
As for Enterprise, I watched most of the first season, got through a 1/3rd of Shockwave II and it really dawned on me that the current Star Trek offering is complete shit (along the lines of Andromeda) and changed the channel... the writing is soooooo terrible, as well as the continuity fuckups that get sugar coated up as part of the 'temporal cold war', I haven't watched an episode since. I'm probably too being spoiled by other good Sci Fi shows like Farscape and Stargate (where interesting stuff actually happens), I guess the only Trek stuff I'll be buying in future will be DS9 DVD seasons 4-7.
One more thing about Enterprise, knowing The Powers That Be(tm) are trying to milk the franchise for all it's worth, and their attempts to sex things up... they might slap two huge prosthetic breasts on the Enterprise hull and call them 'boob armor'. Sex works in certain circustances, but with Enterprise there are supposed to be bigger issues at stake. When I wrote that last sentance, the idea of sex in a series that works (because there is something underneath, i.e. a plot) is Sex In The City, plus I've get the scene in my mind with Kim Cattrall having fun on an indoor 'swing'.
Well this post was just to try answer your question, but I've turned it into a rant... sorry about that, but then again it was good to get that off my chest (so to speak, and no not the 'boob armor' ;-P ).
Are you local? There's nothing for you here!
Lord of The Rings: The Two Towers
Harry Potter and The Chamber of Secrets
Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
I'm a huge TNG fan, and of most Star Trek in General, and I thought the movie wasn't well done. They just didn't do much with the story. Of the TNG movies it ranks just above Generations. They shoulda stuck with Jonathan Frakes directing and perhaps it woulda been better. That and a better story.
"Hard work never killed anyone." -- Some Dead Guy
The decline of Star Trek, both in quality and marketability can be explained through simple principles of marketing and good storytelling. The following are not meant to be an exhaustive list...
First, it is obvious that the Star Trek brand has become diluted. From The Next Generation to Deep Space Nine to Voyager and now Enterprise, it is difficult for the average person to define what Star Trek means to them. Star Trek as a brand does not consistently own a uniform image in the mind of the consumer. This results simply in confusion. If the consumer is confused, they are less likely to buy. People view James Bond movies because they know exactly what they are going to see, however Star Trek movies historically have had a great deal of variation (albeit not with respect to their plot).
Secondly, creative products (and to some extent high-end consumer products) tend to maximize their profit margins by relying on the principle of exclusivity (i.e. think Apple). With the market saturated by the many Star Trek series and the high rate of syndication, people are less likely to feel compelled to view a new episode, or even a new movie. One of the reasons that ST:TNG was so well received in the beginning years was that it was previously impossible (or very difficult) to acquire the product. Today, it is difficult not to find a Star Trek episode on the television.
Finally, in terms of marketing, Paramount has greatly weakened the strength of the primary series brand, by extending the brand to other products (i.e. Voyager, DS9, Enterprise). As such, the overall franchise is less marketable and less profitable than competitors who have had a more focused message, for example Bablylon 5.
Another example of this concept is Miller Brewing. Miller enjoyed approximately a 40% market share with it's Miller beer. This was in a large result from the "It's Miller Time" marketing campaign. However, when Miller introduced Miller Lite, sales of Miller (regular) declined (and continues to decline) annually. The problem is that light beer makes up only 30% of the entire domestic beer market and Miller Lite accounts for only 60% of that.
In terms of a decline in creativity, the transition can be explored by examining the basic plot mechanics of our favorite episodes/movies and the majority of Star Trek. The most compeling plots in Star Trek revolve around either person to person struggle or a person to environment struggle. The best incorporate elements of both (ST:The Wrath of Khan). However, increasingly Star Trek has relied upon technology to prop up an otherwise weak plot. Nemesis was not that bad of a movie, and in some respects was similar to the Wrath of Khan, but in the end, technology was the victor, not human ingenuity. Technology has become a cure-all solution in Star Trek and it has limited our emotional involvement in the series. In the original Star Trek movies, there was great emotional attachment to the Enterprise (Search for Spock), Spock (the Wrath of Khan), and to the legacy of the crew (The Voyage Home). When the Enterprise is destroyed in the TNG movies, there is no attachement, as there is always a newer and better ship in the next movie.
There are more points that could be made, but this post has already become long-winded.
They lost the opportunity of making a movie about the Romulans. We trekkies were ready for it. We expected it. We wanted it.
So far, almost all of Star Trek has been shown from the human, Federation, US perspective. Since Star Trek is supposed to be about humanity's interaction with foreign life and cultures, Star Trek should be shown from the foreigners' perspectives.
One standard which would improve Star Trek tremendously would be to familiarize the audience with a foreign culture enough so that by the time the Federation interacts with it, we'll already know, and often agree with, how the foreign culture will react.
Deep Space Nine came closer to that ideal than any other Star Trek. It had the least amount of space travel, but probably the most development of secondary characters. It devoted several episodes each to the Ferengi, Cardassians, Changelings, Jem Hadar, Klingons, Bajorans and the alternate universe.
But Star Trek now needs to do better than that. They need to devote entire movies to the other races and whole seasons, if not to their view of themselves, then their view of humans. A Klingon opera could make a great movie, if not for sheer Peter Jackson-esque artistic value then at least for All Your Base-style campiness, probably both. Voyager and Enterprise have really only been about Starfleet's reaction to the universe, but Star Trek must now be about the universe's reaction to Starfleet.
We need an unfiltered look at The Other.
k...I'll be honest. I knew of Star Trek, but I never really watched much of it. I didn't even know it existed until the second last season of TNG. I couldn't stand Voyager, I watched DS9 from time to time, and I have to admit I enjoy the new Trek from time to time. I have seen every TNG based movie, with the exception of Nemesis. So I can't tell you who played who, which episode was the best, who the best villain was, or things like that. But I can tell you this. I can't envision a world where there is no Star Trek on TV or in theatres. Sure, they may be sucking lately, but give them a chance. Star Trek is one of those shows that has to go on and on, until it becomes truly 100% painful to watch. Think of some truly new situations. How about Star Trek WAAAAY into the future. Make Klingons nearly extinct or something. Have the Federation seperated. Who knows. Give us a whole new universe to be amazed by!
Defender of Microsoft and Communism!!!
One Fine Day At The Academy
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.
"Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
I'll tell you why it tanked. Because the plot sucked and THEY KILLED DATA. OH MY FUCKING GOD THEY KILLED DATA!@!#$!@#
:(
How many times has Data saved their assses! In the series finale, when Picard tells Data "Mr. Data you are a clever man, in any time period." it just makes me grin every time. Data in many ways the heart and soul of the crew, but in this movie he was practically falling over himself to get killed!@#$!@
No way in hell I would pay again to see a movie that they killed off my favorite character in. NO...WAY!!
RIP DATA!
Stupid technology: how many story years have passed between all the various Trek Tv shows and movies, and the technology is basically all the same. Ships are bigger and faster, that's about it. No new inventions. You'd think they'd have new weapons and such, or maybe implants or wearable computers.
And what is with Picard always saying "Earl Grey, Hot"..? Can't the computer remember prior orders, so that Picard could say "Tea" and it would give him his usual order?
How about the 'conveniently avoided' "transport directly" feature. They rarely use it, even when they are in a hurry they usually walk down to the transporter room. Why the hell do they even need a transporter room in the first place?
What about the holodeck? You can't tell me that that place wouldn't be pr0n heaven.. That stupid episode where Riker fell in love with that skanky dog holodeck chick was a joke. In reality, the men of the ship would be in there with 10 naked holodeck babes every time their turn came up.
And is there any situation that Geordi can get out of?? just once I'd like to hear him say, "No Captain, I have no solution and no ideas either. We're fucked.". It's always "well, if we reroute the floobinator thru the cachafarber we just might be able to override the woozlefart; of course we'll have to re-phaze the blurfer." "Make it so."
Remember that time Picard and the others turned into children? Wouldn't it have been more realistic for all hell to break loose, scientists sent to the location to study the effect, and put it to use to prolong human life, possibly indefinitely? You don't think humans would want that? No, they just fix it and forget all about it.
Similarly, what about the time the ship went to the planet that was an automated weapon sales place. Of course once they get out of the trouble they were in, they LEAVE! Instead of swarming the place, learning about the technology, they JUST LEAVE IT.
Ok I'll stop ranting now.
http://www.fractal-recursions.com
The problem is that Roddenberry (not Berman!) learned his moral sensibilities from Leave it to Beaver. Inexplicably, he thought that 50's US prudeness is a universal virtue, and in his fantasy, it would remain with us for centuries. Instead of the grungy Rock and Roll, Star Trek characters would love cliche classical music (or: "wild guys" like Riker favored castrated "Jazz"). Instead of Sade or Nabakov, the future would read... oh yes, Shakespeare and Conan Doyle. Like Leave it to Beaver, it seems nobody has ever gone to the toilet on the Enterprise. It's not clear whether they even have any. Maybe they use the transporters for that? We are never told. That would be "dirty."
You know, if there is ever going to be a communist revolution, you can count me out if as a result, we'll all end up in some sort of a prude navy. Life is Roddenberry's world seems so fucking stale because nobody pushes the envelope. That's no accident. That's written into the show by Roddenberry himself, who spent his life trying to show how the hippies will not win. The coolest concert to ever take place on the Enterprise is ... what? Data's poetry reading?
As far as the rest of what happens in the future, it's all about the Protestant work ethic. By the time we get to the point where human labor is not necessary for sustaining our species in comfort, you would think that many of us would pursue pleasure, crazy art, group sex, drugs, body modification, etc. But no! In Roddenberry's world, we rush to sign up for the space-navy. If we're "lucky", we get uniforms and duty shifts and we spend our time taking orders from some Wald Cleaver pinhead while praying to be promoted a rank.
Notice that Rick Berman went some ways towards undoing this "50's anti-beatnik" attutude on the shows. Can you imagine Roddenberry agreeing to Enterprise-style coed decontamination scences? Ha! The whole point of Enterprise is to spice up Rodenberry's pristine, prude world with some sex, grime and humanity. Now if they only got better characters and scriptwriters, there might be hope!
To make vivid how totally dull (for example) TNG characters are, imagine what they would say if they took out a personal ad. I'll do one for Troi; you can do the rest on your own.
I am a SWF seeking a special someone with whom to share my feelings. My hobbies are yoga, collecting vases, reading books you were probably assigned in High School, going on long walks in the holodeck, attending staff meetings, eating chocolate and annoying people. Just kidding! Did I mention I have a great sense of humor? Send me a message in Box 4251
...as to why 'Nemesis' was a flop, then no amount of explanation from Trek fandom, or any other fandom community for that matter, will make things clear for him.
I agree with others. The 'Trek' franchise should never have turned into a franchise to begin with. Give it a rest (and I say this as someone who grew up with the original series).
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
I'm afraid we're going to continue to see the great shows get canceled and the crappy stand alone episode shows continue. Perhaps Farscape could of made it if they had shown more early reruns or if a big network picks it up and starts from the beginning. I still think SciFi did a poor job in promoting it. I'm surprised that Babylon 5 ran to completion since it had such a big running plot and was a little slow at times. Perhaps a miniseries like Taken/Dune is the only way we'll see new long epic's come to life and if that's the case I want my Farscape miniseries.
Star trekers are technology lovers, and by
definition have more academic preparation,
SO THEY ARE LOT LESS THAN FANTASY LOVERS
BUT just wait for DVD sales, because of increased income and well furnished TV, DVD, stereo equipment sales on DVD are going to be high
Simple. No Wesley Crusher. That is all. And the #2 reason it tanked was that it didn't "feel" like a proper Star Trek plotline. The overall theme of the movie was not similar to previous Treks. Also Data dies, and that sucks. They failed to use or killed off my two favorite characters. Other than that, it just wasn't up to snuff.
If the writers had submitted this in English 101, they would have flunked. Thin characters, no tension build-up to a climax, and no satisfying wrap-up. Perhaps the ideological constraints imposed by the Bush regime were impossible to work around.
Star Trek turned one of my friends into an idiot that thought communism could actually work. Now all he does is talk about how bad globalization is. Gee thanks!
I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class. Especially since I rule. -Randal, Clerks
When Star Trek is good, it's about people. That's why my favorite episode is Inner Light.
Ahhh, yes, The Inner Light is indeed the best episode ever. Probably the only episode that brings emotional tears of empathy to so many viewers, especially at the end when Picard is alone in his cabin, with the ship speeding off into space to the penny-whistle flute music playing as the credits roll.
I'd always wished that the absolute final TNG episode ever should be a revisit of this story. Something like this:
Picard is old and retired, alone and mostly forgotten. He picks up the old flute and begins playing it, reminiscing, and decides to do something about it. Steals a ship single-handedly to do the slingshot-around-a-star trick to go back in time to try to save some of the people of Kataan and bring them back to the future. Something goes wrong and he gets back in time, but crashlands on Kataan, the ship destroyed and unrepairable. He lives for a while with the people there, meets the real Kamin, Eline, Batai and the rest, telling his side of the story of encountering their probe and how in the future they are indeed remembered. He accepts that he's powerless to do anything about the situation and is content to live out his days with them on the doomed planet when Q appears, reminding him that humanity is still on trial, and asks Picard if he would like to be able to snap his fingers and save Kataan, and return back to the future, everything being magically made A-OK. Picard then tells Q, no that he was wrong for trying to come back in the past to save some of Kataan and that it's not a decision for any human or humanity to make, and that he is content to simply accept his life as it's been and to live out the remainder of his days with the Kataan people and accept his fate, and that Q can do whatever he pleases, that it makes no difference to Picard. Q smiles at him, informs him that charges are dismissed, snaps his fingers, and Picard suddenly finds himself back on the Enterprise alone in his ready-room, immediately after leaving Farpoint Station, a young man again but with the lifetime of his memories completely intact. Q appears one more time, saying only one thing, "Remember... Always think of the possibilities!", and disappears. Picard suddenly finds a penny-whistle flute in his hand, as Riker (unseen) comes over the intercom advising the captain that they are on course to Kataan to pick up their ambassador.
But the real reason good trek was produced was Bob Justman who was the one who found all of the good writers that made Trek what it was. He also had a LOT of creative input. One of the best of those writers was Gene Coon who perhaps did more to shape what we now know as Trek than Gene R. or Bob! Coon did write the WORST of all TOS eps "Spock's Brain" - BRAIN BRAIN!!! WHAT IS BRAIN!!! - (sorry, couldn't help myself there) under a nomme de plume but let's not forget that he was the man who invented the Klingons (the non brussel-srpout headed kind) in addition to penning some of the best eps while helping to stave of declining ratings (in what is now known as the flawed system for ratings they were using at the time).
But the episodes that Roddenberry wrote were usually pretty bad to downright AWFUL. Turnabout Intruder is basically an hour of enduring Shatner playing - no - NOT the role of Captain Kirk but that of AN HYSTERICAL FEMALE. Woops! Did I say that Spock's Brain was the worst episode? My bad! What a truly inauspicious way to end that fine series! And "Charlie X"? C'mon! The episodes that he wrote were usually pondeous morality plays or worse.
And Gene Roddenberry certainly wasn't the reason that any of the movies were any good. After TMP, the studio basically rested control from him and placed stewardship of the franchise in the hands of Harve Bennet. And if you ask me Nicholas Meyer is actually the wunderkind of the movie franchise!
Roddenberry's involvement in the movies (after TMP) was minimal and mainly consisted of him firing angry memos at Meyer, Bennet and the studio brass about how they were murdering his creative lovechild! His solution? The movie he proposed for Star Treks II THROUGH VI (and I swear I am NOT making this up) consisted of the Enterprise crew travelling back in time to save JFK from being assasinated! He proposed it EVERY...SINGLE...TIME the issue of a new Trek movie came up.
So Star Trek does have moments of greatness, but I don't really think they had much to do with Roddenberry. Star Trek at its BEST was a co-creation between Roddenberry-Justman-Coon.
And I would agree that TNG actually picked up for a while after Berman grabbed the reigns from G.R. But his performance over time is dodgy at best. I really think that if you want to save the future of Trek, you either have to
- Find someone new - or -
- Bring back the creative team of Meyer and Benet
As the creative team of Berman and Braga clearly isn't cutting the mustard at this late date.Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Perhaps its because everyone I know could not wait and downloaded a crappy DIVX version and then could not be bothered to go to the cinema to watch it again.
The movie industry business model is now flawed.
They should release movies on DVD for $5 world wide or just give up now. (How did that downloadable Harry Potter release go?)
The internet gives everyone (nVOD) Near Video on Demand. Its time they wised up that people can and will go around their staggered releasing schedules and outdated publishing zones.
Like it or not - Movies are the new 0day w4r3z!
It sucked.
Why bother.
A consideration I haven't yet seen mentioned on here: negative pre-release Internet reviews, combined with geek word-of-mouth.
There were several very negative reviews of the flick on AICN before it came out -- and for all I know other fan sites as well --, and I'm sure word of that travelled quickly among the on-line community. Those reviews were a decisive factor in my own case (I haven't seen Nemesis, and have no plans to do so).
This, combined with the plethora of other geek-friendly movies in theatres at the time, took a huge, huge chunk out of that opening weekend.
"He'd be a broader guy if he had dropped acid once." - Steve Jobs on Bill Gates
/spoiler warning
Plain and simple, the movie was borrible. It would have made a mediocre episode. As is, it certainly shouldn't have been "made" into a full feature. Come on! What we they (not) thinking... killing off Data is unexcuseable! They should have thought long and hard B4 they released that crap. : (
TNG: was the last series that was _any_ good. At least they had a few aliens that weren't bipeds (remember the oil pit of evil that ate Tasha Yar?)
Voyager: concept was promising, but:
Enterprise: was also promising, intially. By the 2nd (this) season, however, they'd fallen into the same traps Voyager had:
DS9: I didn't watch the latter seasons (anything past the 2nd), so take the following with a grain of salt. Most noticeable problems:
Again, my opinions only. (But I know they're right...)
But then, maybe I've been desensitized from watching Voyager and Enterprise episodes. I mean come on, even something as silly as Buffy the Vampire Slayer has better plotlines and character development.
Even posting anonymously undoes your moderation unless you "log off" Slashdot and then toss all your cookies (and maybe clear cache too, depending on your browser) before hitting the webpage again.
...can be read in this post. I think I was pretty close to the mark.
This movie was never made for its fan base. It was created for the masses. It's lack of intellect failed to attract the fans and because it was a Star Trek movie, it failed to attract the masses that it targeted.
Stupid director. So, was I close?
Why bother.
Back in the heady days before Enterprise was released / revealed / rehashed, there was an interesting theory that the reason one would do a prequal to ST:TOS was because there would be an inherent frailty in the crew and in the technology that would be utilized to build dramatic tension and put everyone into genuinely interesting and complicated situations. Knowing the future of Star Trek, we could have longer story arcs revealing in detail the depths which necessitated the creation of the federation and the failures of early human explorers from which this glorious and successful universe would expand.
ST:TNG started with an episode proving that human beings were frail, weak little things subject to the whims of godlike aliens, and the wars of those stronger than us. The Borg dominated Trek lore for so long, due to their indestructable nature. And legend of the Klingon tenacity in pre TOS days is far and wide.
So when Enterprise turned out to be more boring happy-happy nothing bad ever happens stuff, people realized that it wasn't resonating with them. Spiderman not only took people on a fantastic, original journey, but turned what could have been a stock kissy kissy ending into something complicated and real. Insurrection? They took something that by definition should have been complicated and painful (the reprocussions of the crew's actions WRT what was basically an order from starfleet), and turned it into a glossed over kissy-kissy ending. First Contact? Started the movie by destroying the indestructable Borg, ended the movie by destroying indestructable Borg lore, and in the middle destroyed the Borg several more times. Generations? Picard wasn't even slightly torn, Soren wasn't even slightly torn, Guinan wasn't even slightly torn...
It's almost like Star Trek has been too afraid to be tense. It's too valuable a property to the studios to allow anything controversial, interesting, or potentially unpopular to come of it. You can't get much further away from the "Star Trek" formula than collecting whales in a modern day Monterey, but it is that sort of creativity and willingness to explore what defines the characters and the universe they find themselves in that made TOS so great. Wrath of Kahn? Very human scale with an epic presentation. Undiscovered Country? A truly epic scale brought focus in a human way. Insurrection? A good episode, but not worth 8 bucks. The Search for Spock? No dramatic tension at all.
Sadly the 3 movies preceeding this one have all been duds. No disrespect to Frakes, who directed the last two movies and who did a decent job of turning badly underwritten scripts into something watchable, but there has been no return on the moviegoer's money since the Undiscovered Country over 12 years ago. Why does Berman feel he deserves the moviegoer's money? What has he done for us lately? All of the memorable Star Trek scenes have taken place in person to person shots, yet the past 3 movies have all emphasized spaceship crashes, explosions, and easy exits. "From hell's heart I stab at thee," was a beautiful line delivered by a man about to kill himself in order to destroy his enemy. To save the crew from the explosion a much beloved character is forced to give his life. The modern filmmakers took that to mean crowds like big, ringed explosions, and narrow escapes.
Hire writers that value human interactions over plot convieniences, know what a federation is and how to work one into a script, and can utilize pain and suffering to resonate with an audience. Underbudget the movie so that it is forced to rely upon plot rather than effects. Capture human responses to events, rather than jumping into scenes directly after the painful part.
And after all, if Star Trek goes on a 20 year hiatus... who cares? There will always be science fiction epics about man's interactions with the unknown. Star Trek has been dominating that scene for too long now, keeping more original shows like Andromeda or Babalon 5 relegated to the backwaters of TNN. Perhaps it is time, like Kirk dramatically stepping down for the captain of the new Enterprise, for the series to be laid to rest... for now.
This Sig is a mnemonic device designed to allow you to recognize this author in the future.
they blow there online ad budget stupidly, nearly every trek site I went to was carrying nemesis ads, I mean coem everyoen who visited these sites new fine well nemesis was coming out, I never seen an online ad outside a trek site.
They could have spent some of that $35 advertising budget on flooding the net with banners at 10 cents a cpm.
My problem was that I just don't care about these people any more. It has been years and years. Maybe it is that the actors are getting older, like many of the /.ers have been saying, but in my case I think it is that I am getting older. I've seen these characters far too much. I think I just have lost interest.
God is real unless declared integer
Could they slap a Star Trek label on the show Firefly and keep it around (as it was before it got canceled)? I'd love to see where 2-3 seasons of that show would go -- excellent writing, compelling story lines, and "realism" (kinda like Star Wars:A New Hope - things were allowed to be dirty).
Actually, when I think about it, Star Trek Nemesis was even much worse than Star Trek 5. ST5 engaged in a lot of self-parody, but unlike with STNG characters, people might actually laugh at it. But the pretentiousness of Nemesis, considering the lack of a plot much less an intelligent one, was what put it in "Plan 9 from Outer Space" territory. Having the U.S.S. Enterprise blow up and take its wrinkled, dull, technobabble spouting crew with it would might have increased ticket sales somewhat. But considering the hype the movie got and the crummy production values in addition to the shit-sandwich script, it did pretty well.
Make a movie from another point of view. The story of survival of some non-human species with the obligatory 5-minute meddlesom intervention from the Federation. Maybe splitting the Enterprise crew as they move on to other career paths within the Federation (or are these people committed to living with the same crew for their entire career?!?) Maybe an endearing story of a ship-cleaning bot falling in love with Data but contracting a worm-virus via an ancient protocol for database software. Anything but the straight-laced sanitized Enterprise surviving with the key crew-members intact and smiling at each other on the bridge.
m.mmm..myyy
It was a sad, sad day when Roddenbery died. The philosopher captain, the morality dilemmas, humans as good people free from conflict -- these were all the themes he wanted for TOS. They wanted a cowboy show but he still managed to get a black woman on the bridge, a russian, the incredible spock character, all kinds of examination of what it means to be human. He finally got what he wanted with TNG. The philosopher captain, the android struggling to be human, the moral dilemmas, the quest for understanding. These are all themes that came out from roddenbery.
/any/ other TV, /ever/ because no one else has been principled, visionary and good at producing TV at the same time.
People who think that these themes only developed after he died, should really go and watch Encounter at Farpoint again. After that, the series struggled for a while. It finally hit its stride in season 3, and 3 and 4 were the best. After his death, the loss of his vision was slow because is was imprinted on the cast crew writers etc. By the time it ended, I wasn't watching any more because the spirit was gone. Voyager made an attempt to revive it, well, they had a female captain, that's something but they never recaptured the spirit.
It was Roddenbery that made TOS, especially TNG, unlike
home page
"I liked this movie a lot, but I liked it even more the first time I saw it...when it was called Wrath of Khan.
A desperate man, abandoned on a desloate planet gathers together his band of warriors and plans revenge. He acquires a ship, and a doomsday weapon. The Enterprise crew foils the villain's plan to by a desperate battle in a nebula, which cuts off all communication. As a final gesture to his enemy, he activates the doomsday weapon within range of the crippled Enterprise. The most logical crewperson decides that the safety of the crew is more important than his own life, and sacrifices himself to save the ship. Fortunately, he dumped all of his memories into a less advanced life form where they can live on and be discovered on another day.
Now, the million dollar question. Which movie am I talking about, Nemesis or Wrath of Khan???
Rick, if you're reading this here's why people hated the movie. We've seen it already! Do something different. ANYTHING. If you make ST:TNG The Search for Data, don't say you weren't warned.
Weaselmancer
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Back in the '60s, TOS was edgy, cool and worth watching even though the props all looked like the styrofoam they were. Star Trek was hot shit in the 1960s, and I remember that from watching every show as a kid.
This ain't the 1960's no more and Liberals In Space is not cutting it. The writing wasn't good enough to rescue the flawed concept. In fact, there's many a TNG episode written better than that movie.
Which is annoying, given the ammount of money they spent. Hollywood movie management needs basic literature and art lessons, they really do.
(Assuming . . . reasonably faithful plotlines- no gay Wesley, no Wesley's really a romulan hybrid)
Well, that vast library of fan fiction is right out, then.
What happened was a complex combination of the following:
1) The economy sucks. My 'disposable income' is low. Basically I stay in and read, watch TV, hang out on Slashdot, and when the girlfriend is off work, I get to see a movie that we both agree on...
2) We both wanted to see LOTR: Two Towers, Harry Potter, and Star Trek... LOTR is a 3 hour movie for $10 that's actually unbelievably good - so we got more bang for our bucks there and saw that... Harry Potter was a gotta see, so we went to a late night and saw that... Guess what - no more $10 movies that month so ST: Nemesis lost out - it's basically the same ole shit as the rest, and we'd love to see it given that we're trekkies, but given the opportunity to see something new, we figured that we'd watch Nemesis on pay-per-view in a couple of months for $3...
3) Did I mention the economy?
If they want to cancel future ST movies because of one poor start in the middle of a fucked up economy going head-to-head against other kick ass movies, then fine... whatever. Fucken morons...
I don't normally write reviews about Star Trek films, as I usually don't feel strongly about them -- I consider them to be an entertaining way to waste a few hours and some of them are even somewhat decent -- usually the even-numbered ones. However, after having my intelligence insulted for two hours straight as I watched this abomination that is merchandising in action, I felt compelled to warn others that might want to waste $10 and 2 hours of your life that you'll never get back, and say "stop!".
Star Trek Nemesis succeeds at being a 2-hour rollercoaster of action that is about nonsense. Nothing in the movie makes the least bit of sense, and the more you try and think about what you just saw, the more you realise that Paramount has just given up, and they figure if that if they make enough stuff blow up, the fans will still buy the crap at the conventions.
Okay, so here's the plot (what little plot I could pick up). The Enterprise finds some pieces of an android that looks like another "Data". It is another Data, but it's a crude prototype of Data - more like an autistic child. This actually has nothing to do with the plot (much). The plot is, The Enterprise gets sent to Romulus, because the Romulans want to talk peace. Actually, they don't, but they have a new government, one that is controlled by people from Remus, which is a twin planet of Romulus.
Now, listen carefully, here's where it gets complicated (and apparently, two more pages into the script, the writers forgot everything they tell us here). The Remuns are slaves to the Romulans, mining Dilithium, but their planet doesn't rotate, so they live only on the Dark side because the light side is too hot (huh, isn't Romulus in nearly the same orbit? (nevermind!)). Okay, so, these guys look like Nosferatu and they have extreme sensitivity to light (feel a plot point coming? Uh, no sorry, it was just gas...).
Anyhow, their leader is a guy claiming to be a clone of Picard, and all through the movie, you're told these two look very similar. Except that they DONT look similar at ALL! (close your eyes, now they look similar, right?) I mean, yeah, they are both bald, but that's about it.
Okay, so these guys also have a spaceship about the size of the Enterprise times 4, armed to the teeth with 80 gazillion photon thingies and 27 bazillion phaser guns and stuff. It also has a cloak. This guy sez he wants peace and to free his people on Remus, and he needs the help of the Federation. And Picard doesn't trust him.
Wait a minute. This guy just overthrew the Romulan government and controls a spaceship big enough to defeat 5 Borg cubes, hasn't he ALREADY freed his people? (don't think, don't think!).
AT this point, the copy of Data comes back into the story, and downloads some data from the Enterprise into himself. The Real Data is onto him of course. In the meantime, Jordy figures out that the spaceship is one giant weapon that can shoot a ray of some kind of super deadly radiation -- so deadly, the a human will die instantly from even the tiniest exposure to it (remember this point, because the writers forget it as well).
So, turns out the bad guy Picard clone is with Romulan hard-liners that want to destroy the Federation by killing everyone on Earth with this Radiation. And, using the data from the copy of "Data", they can cloak, fly by Federation fleet ships and Radiate them too.
Oh yeah, and Docter Crusher figures out that the clone is dying unless he gets a transfusion of blood from Picard -- how this is crucial to the plot, I was never able to figure out.
So the Enterprise takes off and races back to Earth to warn them of the doom that is about to befall the Federation unless they act quickly. However, Picard is captured but escapes with the help of the Data Copy, who turns out to be the "real" Data, who switched with the copy and provided the bad guy with false information about the Fleet. Picard and Data make their escape rather easily (and pointlessly -- it feels like this part of the movie got made to fill up some time).
Foolishly, the Enterprise flies right into a section of space where long range communication is impossible (but just about everything else works), and it's here that they get attacked by the cloaked ship the bad guy has. Now the movie goes from just plain silly to downright insulting stupid.
The Enterprise can't target the bad guys because they are cloaked. Nevermind that Scotty figured out who to do that several trek movies ago, the Enterprise gets the shit kicked out of it because the bad guys have that super-duper array of weapons and they can fire while cloaked. Some bad guys beam onto the ship, presumably, to take Picard becaue they need his blood. So, do they beam onto the bridge? No, they beam into some hallway. So Worf and Riker go to stop the bad guys.
Now, the bad guys are sensitive to strong light, remember? If Riker had said "Computer, raise light level in hallway to 250 percent" and blinded the bad guys, I would have never written this review. But Noooooooo, instead, we are treated to a stupid firefight in the hallways of the Enterpise, and yes, the bad guys are using lazer guns that shoot bright beams of light and cause blinding explosions to everything those beams touch, and not a single bad guy has any vision problem with that!
Meantime, two Romulan warbirds show up. They are here to help the Enterprise kill the bad guy. They don't want to have the blood of everyone on earth on their hands. Sure, sure.... Great, first Star Trek ruined the Borg, now they ruin the Romulans. The Romulans are now nice guys. Yeah.
The Bad guy dispatches both Warbirds pretty quickly, and then, in the one cool scene of the film, blows out the front portion of the bridge of the Enterprise, sucking Esign Red-Shirt into space before a force-field seals the breach. The Bad guy de-cloaks so he can gloat. At this point, the Enterprise has little power and no weapons. So Picard orders ramming speed.
Now, if both ships had been destroyed and the movie ended with everyone dead, I would have said this was the best Star Trek film ever, and I would not be writing this review. But Nooooooo, instead, the ships do a little damage to each other, just their front sections are crumpled and intertwined. In fact, they do a nice effect to show you that the two ships SEEM locked together. But I guess the writers forgot that as well 2 more pages into the script (can I even call it a script at this point? Maybe I should say "Napkin")
Now, if Picard had lead a team of commandos through the damaged sections and into the bad guys ship, since they are now joined, I would not be writing this review. But Nooooooo, instead, the bad guy just backs out, and the Enterprise just sits there and is "stuck to space" because the two ships come apart. Okay, you've just have millions of tons of metal crashing into each other and the two ships come apart like they are greased. Hasn't anyone in California ever been in a car accident? (forget it, don't try and think, this is a Star Trek movie)....
So, the bad guy now has his ship crippled, none of the weapons work -- except, of course, for the big radiation gun. That's undamaged. Sure.... So, he decides the fire the big gun at the Enterprise. But guess what, it takes 7 minutes to charge up the big gun. Can anyone say Death Star? When are the bad guys going to learn that your main weapon should always be ready to fire instantly? And isn't everyone tired to death of this type of plot?
So Picard beams over to kill the bad guy and stop the weapon. Except that the Transporter dies right after, so he's got no way of getting back. So Data decides to jump out an open hole in the Enterprise (caused by the crash earlier), and catches a handy-dandy protrusion on the bad guy's ship. Data's got some emergency Transporter gizmo that was shown earlier in the film.
Meantime, the Enterprise starts trying to get away from the bad guys so that they don't get fried by the radiation gun. So Picard beams over and does battle with the bad guy but loses his hand phaser as they roll and tumble about. After Picard kills the bad guy with some sharp piece of spaceship, Data shows up, beams Picard out and then points his own hand-phaser at the radiation beam just as the ship is about to fire.
Wait a minute. These guys were fighting right next to the Radiation beam building up to fire. Didn't they say that the slightest exposure was instantly fatal? Sorry, my mistake. I guess I was listening earlier to the dialog instead of just ohh'ing and ahhh'ing at the effects.
So Data shoots the radiation beam just before it fires. The ship instantly explodes. Data dies. Isn't the Enterprise still in danger from the radiation? Ahh forget it, there's no science in Star Trek anymore.
Everyone drinks a toast to Data, and then Picard has a heart-to-heart talk with the autistic version of Data from earlier in the film. -- i.e. the cheap copy of Data. And that's the end of the film.
Bad. Bad. Bad. Bad.....
What's so sad about this film is that there were several germs of ideas that were never followed through on.
#1) Germ of an idea one is that with this clone, Picard was supposed to be doing battle with himself. Several times, each one says about the other "I know how he thinks" -- except that they don't. Neither predicts the other's moves in the slightest. This germ of an idea was handled FAR BETTER in the Original Series Episode "Balance of Terror" and was done with one one-millionth of the budget.
#2) Germ of an idea number two is that both the Picard Clone and the Data Clone can't seem to rise above what they are, and do more than is expected, and become "human", even though Picard makes impassioned pleas to both to do so. Neither does so, so the audience learns nothing from this exploration of our humanity. What was the point of introducing this concept if there's no follow through? Data shows a glimmer of hope at the end, but what they should have done was have the Data clone progress throughout the film, so that HE rises to the occasion and sacrifices himself to kill the bad guy. That would have made a nice irony as well, since the bad guy built the Data clone, and if his creation had killed him, that would have made for a better script, and I would not be writing this review.
#3) Germ of an idea number three was all the build up about who and what the Citizens of Remus are like, and how harsh their world is, and how they are slaves, and how they are sensitive to light, etc. Yet, there was zero follow through on that, and in the end it seemed like a waste of time to even talk about it in the film. For that matter, how the hell did a slave civilization build a spaceship bigger than god without anyone noticing?
Ah screw it. The MOVIE SUCKS -- PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
#8, #9 omfg
Laugh at my Lisp and I keeell you.
this obsession with destroying earth?
I know you are psychotic, but please make an effort.
That, and the movie before that, Star Trek - Insurrection wasn't good at all.
No offense, but now here I am wondering if I'm one of the few who actually liked Insurrection and perhaps the only one who would put it atop of the Star Trek heap.
It's long been recognized that Star Trek movies tend to alternate between more action-oriented fare and movies with more philosophical themes. I generally like the action flicks tho they don't wear particularly well with me. Further, it's not hard to identify examples of both genres that have fallen short, but IMHO Insurrection is not one of them.
Insurrection has the idealism that lies at the heart of the franchise and puts that idealism to the test. The scene in which Geordi is able to see a sunrise "as we see it" for the first time is pivotal and powerful.
I intended a more passionate defense, but instead I just say that I think Gene Roddenberry would have liked Insurrection very much.
Every rule has an exception (except this one).
Maybe when the Slashdot community is done telling Rick Berman how to make a movie that appeals to the mass market, Rick Berman can explain how the Slashdot community can go about making an OS that appeals to the mass market.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
Oh, you mean "casting couch". Go ahead, say it.
Bergman seems lost when he talks about this. Nemesis and Final Frontier are the two lowest grossing ST movies ever. They each have stinking scripts. These facts are not unrelated. Bergman says he thinks he made a great movie, what is he smoking? He didn't make a movie, he made a big Star Trek episode.
All that shit about a clone, who gives a crap if it's Picard's clone, BFD. Even then DO something with it. Geeze infiltrate Strafleet, give the guy and army, do something. All the freak had was a ship with a nasty weapon that took 7 minutes to fire and a blood disorder requiring Pickard's juices. Both of these are useless and contrived plot devices that treat the audience like fools. Who came up with this crap? Most fans could do better.
At least I think it's an "even" film...
Maybe the film sucked.
There's the obvious problem of how a clone working in a mine (what? no power equipment in the Romulan Empire?) somehow gets the access to the life experiences of someone not generally accessible to the Empire.
And that it's another Kobiyashi Maru plot at the end...
Why do they keep renewing Picard and Riker's Driver's Licenses -- all they seem to do is take the Big E on a joyride (the wedding..something forgotten about in the "plot") and wreck the ship.
Data wasn't even able to soft land the sand rail in the shuttle.
Stupid movie - compare to things like Spiderman and it's even more obvious that Paramount's got some turds in charge of the "franchise".
(Yeah, yeah, "But tell us how you really feel!")
What do you guys think? Gene R's probably doing about 7200 rpm when this waste of film was printed.
When I read the review of this, I could not even want to watch it. The plot stinks. The premise has so many contrivances that I can't just suspend disbelief.
This Picard clone grows up in a Romulan slave mine and ends up becoming the leader of Romulus? Would any self-respecting Romulan ever accept a former slave, or a human as their leader? It is far more likely that the clone would never get out of slavery.
This just has no credibility as a plot device. Since politics in the ST reality is just a mirror of today's geopolitics, just try this idea and see if you could believe it. Imagine some nation like China making a clone of a caucasian US Navy captain, and put him to work hauling dirt. Then when the Chinese leadership gets decimated, they have this caucasian clone take over. Name one person who would buy this for a minute!
Give me a break, Berman! Not even the Raelians believe anything that stupid!
Right on.
I liked Nemesis. My favourite part had to be the two ships ramming together. WTF! Even self destruct didn't work. Now that was tense. Wooh!
I'd have to place Nemesis somewhere between Insurrection and First Contact. I still think First Contact was the best Trek ever made, and I also still think that Insurrection was horrible. The plot was something I didn't care enough about to see a whole movie surrounding it.
What could have been better with Nemesis? Maybe less blatant humour. It's often better delivered dryly I think. Less "emotional" scenes shall we say? As a die hard fan, I thought it was okay, but for the average mainstream viewer I think it would have looked kinda sappy.
They could have added some interesting new things about certain characters. Like how about Cmdr. Data doing something blindingly fast on camera? Or Geordi doing something you never knew he could? etc.. those kinds of things are what make a movie more memorable and stick with you after the movie so you're just bubbling to tell someone else about it.
Anyway, all in all I felt entertained and I'll be buying the DVD when it comes out. I feel fortunate that they even made another movie - I didn't think they would. Great to see the TNG cast again!!! In my mind I think they'll always be the best.
I was very excited to see the Nemesis trailer when it came out, being somewhat of a fan.
Then I saw the dune buggy. I knew at an instant I would not be seeing this movie. I don't care what excuse they used, a dune buggy does not make sense in the 23rd century.
I had only one thought:
<cartman>god damn you guys</cartman>
So, there's sixteen bucks they didn't see in Box Office revenue, and I saw the eleven previous on the big screen.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Not sure if this would be considered bad taste, but they might think of re-releasing Nemesis after all the focus on NASA lately.
The biggest problem with Nemises: Councellor Troy lived, Data died. Data was one of the best characters on the show! If they wanted to kill someone it would have been a perfect opportunity to kill off Troy. They love affair between Troy and Number 1 was always so lame--neither of them could act. I hated when they had whole episodes devoted to them.
That and there were whole parts of the movie that were never explained, like half thought-out ideas. E.g. what was the whole mind meld/sex scene/mind healing all about?
"The movie he proposed for Star Treks II THROUGH VI (and I swear I am NOT making this up) consisted of the Enterprise crew travelling back in time to save JFK from being assasinated! He proposed it EVERY...SINGLE...TIME the issue of a new Trek movie came up."
Dood! Haven't you ever watched Red Dwarf? That episode was hilarious. Gene is a genius!
None of this star space stuff. What it needs is EDGE, know what I'm sayin? Extreme Dialogue, Guns, and EDGE! Get my drift?
Here, try this:
Picard is tied up in a chair in a Klingon torture room, see? And this Klingon guy is walking around him with a Bat'leth, get it? Picard's all sweating and whimpering, and then you see the Klingon life his blade to his face, see? Except that instead of SHOWING the cut, the camera cuts away, you see? It's fucking great!!
...it's the voice. Gates McFadden has the most beautiful voice I've heard on television (with the possible exception of Jack Palance's daughter on the old 'Ripley's Believe it or Not!' show). I don't think I'd get bored hearing her read a phone book.
;)
Oh, she's also beautiful and I'd love to see her on all fours, but that's beside the point.
Which version? The really good one that Harlan actually wrote or the Roddenberry-bastardized version that was actually filmed?
Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
The reason the movies were made was for higher profits - a film every 2 years is worth more to them than a series.. maybe people said screw that - the movies are never as good anyway!
... who gives a flying fsck why any movie with a title like "Star*????*" fails?
Maybe it's because the sorry-ass fans of such movie franchise finally got kicked out of their mom's basement at the tender age of 30-40 and now cannot afford a $10 movie ticket?
(Disclaimer: I don't think I am a trekkie...I watched TNG becuase it was most days after school (not that I didn't like it)...and I watch DS9 whenever I see it on (wish I could've seen more)...can't remember the last *trek movie I saw before Nemisis).
;)
I think the basic premise for the next *trek would need a drastic departure from the current "feeling" of the movies and series...that last movie felt like a (not so great) normal episode....
How about the next movie (after at least a year and a half) would feature the return of Wes as a Q-like God. The movie could explore the issues of personal failure, fear and (unimaginable) success. The climax could focus on a menage-en-trois battle between a Q, starship and Wes....
People would freak if they saw Wes in the trailer....this would be just the spark *trek needs to demonstrate to it's fans it can give them something that they've never seen and will enjoy swallowing....
Email me if you want a screenplay
I'm a trekker. I read Wil Wheaton's site on occassion, and so I have some sort of connection that doesn't exist with the other cast members. I'd have liked to see him have a part in the film. When I read he'd been cut, and more about Berman, I just wasn't terribly inspired to watch the film. It came and went. I doubt I'll rent the DVD.
TNG became a doodly doohickey crap thing. human emotions and morality are the whole point of science fiction, art, and star trek the old version (ok except for some weird stuff)
and 'bones with tits', thats some cruel shit to say.
--Most of the "main" Trek characters that have "died" in-series, have come back in one way or another:
...and God rest his soul, DeForrest Kelley, as Bones.
Spock
Tasha Yar (Romulan)
Dax
Data (b-4)
Janeway (different timeline)
Not returning:
Kes, from Voyager
Kirk
Khan (we KNOW he's dead, but O what an excellent job R.Montalban did with him!)
--If I forgot any, gimme the hookup...
.
== WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
Wow, over a thousand comments already - nice to see that Slashdot isn't just a vast wasteland of "In SOVIET RUSSIA" and anti-MS jokes, we can still do old-skool nerd stuff, too :)
Okay, I'll skip the TNG vs. DS9 vs. TOS and Berman vs. Roddenberry debates that seem to be filling up this discussion, and concentrate on the movie itself.
For me, the thing that made the movie less enjoyable than it could have been was that it felt so contrived... like the movie had been cobbled together from bits of other movies, plus focus groups and coproate memos. One in five scenes in that movie felt like it was either cribbed from another movie, or been written by a corporate flack who was afraid of 'rocking the franchise' too much.
In short, it feels like the franchise is steering the movies, instead of the other way around.
My idea to save ST: 1. Multi-year over arcing plot. 2. "Real" character development. 3. A budget for F/X. 4. Interesting script writers. (try s/f writers!) Start with a low-level klingon house. A bunch of dangerous but honorable sort with nothing to lose. Hell, the first year could be them just "aquiring" a ship! Think about it... Politics, violence, romance, intrigue, and more violence. These are klingons, remember? None of this mamby-pamby morality bullshit. There could be weeks of shows spent just aquiring ships/armys/followers/money! At the end of the last year i want to see that dirt-urchin hero assume the throne on Qo'noS!
Did moderators only start reading /. yesterday? At least give credit when plagiarizing something that's already been plagiarized in two previous /. stories. Just because Berman stole "Back up your logical unit who struggles with humanity" from Wrath of Khan, we don't have to need an example of plagirism in every Nemesis thread.
This is what's wrong with Star Trek. It sounds too much like "Law and Order: Extra Profit Unit", "Law and Order: Originality Needed", "Law and Order: Dead Horse Intent". Andromeda is more like what Gene intended for Star Trek. The Universe did not stay the same with all loose ends neatly tied up. 300 years have passed. The Federation has fallen. Nothing is familiar. Everyone is hostile. How do you survive and rebuild?
"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."
We've got ourselves quite a mystery here. A very good movie, properly promoted, yet the public didn't want to see it. Hmmmm... Can't be that it wasn't a very good movie. Rick's convinced it was a very good movie. No problems with promotion either. People just didn't like it. Hmmm, yeah, he's right, there's just no way to figure it. This one's got me stumped.
Okay, so we're going on the assumption that TNG is comatose and that the best work will have to come some time years from now when new decison-makers are able to "defibrillate it".
Let's say you get approached by a consortium that is looking to help this happen. They're worried about the (nothing personal) aging of the actors and losing any chance of building more good TNG-derived work. They want you and as many other cast members as possible to shoot a big ol' stack of fuzzy scenes without even knowing what they will eventually do with them. The theory being that if they've got enough footage that has never been seen before of you, Spiner, Stewart, and co., someday they'll be able to do a Forrest Gump/Natalie w/ Nat King Cole kind of fusion.
So they come to you and say that they want to shoot you against ST-ish backgrounds in uniform walking and talking with somebody, doing long shots with adaptable lines like "I've always wanted to do that", "It's good to finally meet you. I've read some of your work", or "Captain, I think that you'ld better come down here right now." They also want some unique but dialogueless reaction shots. In other words, semi-generic grist for the ST mill that will certainly be useful for something, someday but nobody knows what.
So, would you perhaps say yes? Would you be willing to have footage of you floating around with rights assigned without knowing what it will someday be used for?
I've been curious about this kind of thing since seeing Mark Hamill post-car crash. We're assuming, btw, that the money is reasonable and the terms otherwise (unlike a certain gaming show) amenable.
Rustin
Data is the lever, rigor the fulcrum, brains the force that drives it all.
They've tried to regain their youth by returning to the earlier days of Star Fleet, why not take it the other way?
;)
The Culture series by Iain Banks has basically done this already: Exploring an extremely advanced 'utopian' culture. And with great success.
Going back to the old days might have worked a bit, but watching shuttle craft bump into things while docking and starships flying through 'liquid atmospheres' put me off a little
... isn't it always the first time you laugh all day in a day?
the computer is online
i am not at it
what a waste of ressources
My favorite trek movies are Wrath of Kahn and First Contact. Why? Because they built on the amazing amount of material already contained within the Star Trek universe. (Why create an enemy when there's so many to choose from.) I can't count the number of things wrong with Nemesis and I find myself amazed that I liked Insurrection better! (Nemesis should've kicked ass.)
The wedding stuff was fruity, nobody goes to a Trek Flick for car chase scenes, not once did the enterprise or it's crew seem to be in danger (Even when it rammed the other ship!), and my mid was throbbing with how much they tried to make this movie like Kahn.
Data died sacrificing himself for everyone, leaving behind a bit of himself in another android. (Sound familiar?) There was a drawn out final battle with lots of close ups that ended with both ships getting totaled and the bad guy blowing himself up with some amazing destructive weapon. (Where did I see that before?) Picard found (something close to) his son. Etc, etc, etc.
I think Star Trek needs a little outsider influence. Let's get Joss Whedon, Sam Raimi, M. Knight Shyamalan or anyone else with some vision!
Actually the reason TNG took off in season three was because Gene Roddenberry brought in Michael Piller as the showrunner. Berman never had much to do with the writing. Piller is the one who guided TNG to a best drama Emmy nod for its 7th season, not Berman.
-Steve Krutzler TrekWeb.com -- THE source for everything TREK
the Borg are a clever metaphor for Western consumerism, and that is why they struck such a chord with audiences. whether they realised it or not. the best metaphores are sublime. they also were cool cos there were about the only aliens who were not just people with wrinkly foreheads.
the best sci-fi is allegorical. think robocop as an allegory for the corporate excesses of the 80's, think starship troopers as an allegory for US corporate fascism, think ST:TMP as an allegory for the unintended dangers that emerge from even the most benign seeming technology (as the unabomber so wizely warned us.)
the worst sci-fi is tv-spin-off lamo effects driven drivvel. this unfortunately is where the ST and SW franchises both languish right now.
I used to have a better sig than this, but I got tired of it
but real nerds use ^W which is delete word
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Maybe we could convince Berman that Nemesis was selected as the first boycott target to protest the various outrages committed by the MPAA. He'll believe it, becuase he's desperate believe any explanation whatsoever other than "I made a lousy movie".
The only catch is that the fiasco reduces his credibility with anybody else in the industry.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
A number of people are giving babylon 5 and farscape as examples of good sci fi, in their critisism of why Nemisis was a box office failure.
Since neither of these serieses achieved financial success, this seems like a bad comparision. While they may be good science fiction, and Nemisis may have been bad, there doesn't seem to be evidence that Bab-style or Farscape-style writing would make for a profitable Star Trek movie.
---
I support spreading santorum
Apart from all the "D was destroyed in Generations!", am I the only one who remembers "Time's Arrow"?
Or perhaps I don't remember it right... or maybe playing with time travel there just brings up too many screwy possibilities, but at some point in time Data's head was sitting around in a cave near San Francisco. Heck, I think it was sitting there for about 500 years...
*honk*
This is my sig. It's prescription, I swear. I need it for reading things... on the other side of things
Voyager was GREAT! It mostly has a serial plot line where you wanted to see the next episode that tied into one of the previous ones. The series 2 hour ending was great. It opened up with Janeway on earth and her turning on the monitor about the anniversary of the completion of Voyagers return home and then abrupty ended about her court martial. I was screaming, "COURT MARTIAL? WTF? Noooooooo, I want to hear more!" It was cool to see some great futuristic anti-borg technology and the hive qeen again. But, didnt' she die in a ST movie? Anywho, I liked Voyager a lot more than ST:TNG and DS9. BTW, I love the Enterprise series.
Yeah, I skipped it because it looked like a made-for-TV action movie that happened to star the TNG cast.
Make a Trek movie that requires some intelligence from the audience and I'll pay money to see it.
The last two SF movies I've paid to see have been Solaris and Minority Report. Come up with something that intelligent in the Trek universe and I'm there.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
The movie failed for a compound reason, not a simple one: it wasn't that good, and it had some heavy-hitting competition like LOTR and others.
Consider ST4... many people's favorite ST film, yet if you really think about it, the movie wasn't *that* good... a cute concept, but not much more than a Greenpeace commercial. Nevertheless, it did well because of its timing.
If Nemesis had been put on hold for 2 or 3 months -- and they waited for the Harry Potter, James Bond, and LOTR mania to die down... releasing at the end of January or so, It would have fared much better. As a movie, I'd rate it about on par with ST4 -- a cute story, but not good enough at a time when there's almost half a dozen other films that people are wanting to see.
Now if movies only cost a coupla bucks a head like they used to, things probably woulda been different again, but with movie prices as high as they are, people have to pick and choose. Most people I know see no more than one movie in a single calendar month, *maybe* two... Nemesis was up against no less than three movies with big draw, and wasn't a good enough movie to make the trailers "wow" enough to draw people in with all the competition.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
One thing I found interesting about Nemesis is how the politics of the Federation were inverted. Historically, the Federation would stand up in support of an oppressed people and fight against dictatorship. If we believe the plot, the Romulans had been oppressing the Remans for many years. The line, "You've got a friend on Romulus" after helping the Romulans re-establish their oppression and restoring the Remans to slave status says it all:
The Federation now supports dictatorship.
Heck with proven writers, let some maverick unprovens in there to smack it around. Star Trek has never really struck me as getting along well with what most consider to be "good sci-fi". Proven sci-fi writers wouldn't jive with the series. B&B's problem is that their "proven" writers are those "proven" within the series. There doesn't seem to be any kind of accountability for them. Even if/when they stop producing, they'll never get dumped. "They did good once, so they can never be bad, right?" No, take unprovens. Literate unprovens. Unprovens that love the franchise, and/or grew up on it. People that love it, and aren't too close to see what they love about it, will play to those strengths. *honk*
This is my sig. It's prescription, I swear. I need it for reading things... on the other side of things
...Star Trek movies have been progressively getting worse and worse as they come out. Personally... I like them all. They are great 'entertainment'. However.. the bulk of their fan base are fanatics. They search for incontinuity of plot, question the real life physics of it all and much much more. That is what seperates the Fans from the Creators. It seems as though the Creators look at is entertainment designed to attract viewers. Fine by me.. not so good if Star Trek is your life or at least a slight passion. This.. is why it didn't do well. I have no doubt it will at least pay for itself once it hits video stores but thats also a product of cost. Nobody wants to pay $10 for admission and another $10 for popcorn and a pop to see a sci fi movie series that is getting constantly bad reviews by people who live for Star Trek. Hollywood is going to need to realize this if they expect to survive in theatres in the future.
- Jimbob
Excerpt sent to frinds after watching Nemisis: Last night I decided to brave the after Christmas crowds to see Star Trek: Nemesis hoping that based on the dismal sales, 28.6 Million, this particular showing would be relatively empty. For the most part I was right. Now I want everyone to know that I came to the theater knowing that John Logan wanted to capture the rivalry of The Wrath of Khan movie. This is of course what I have been trying to tell my Trek friends for years. The intelligence, cunning and out right hatred that Ricardo Montalban had towards William Shatner was sheer pleasure to watch and view. These two opposing forces clashing!!! I get giddy just reminiscing the first time I seen it in the movie theater, but I digress... So you ask, "What was my first impressions after the credits start to roll?" "In one word "Plagiarism" That's right plagiarism!! Let me elaborate with the key points that were in the Wrath of Khan that seemed to show up in Nemesis: Genetically engineered villain "foreign" accent death of a Key member of the crew Hopeless Odds where it becomes necessary for one to sacrifice himself (Who didn't know that when Laforge went to escort Data to the Landing Bay after the wink that Data wasn't toast?) Science Officer Dies The possibility for Science officer to be reborn This is just the few issues that I can think of off hand that showed blatant plagiarism, I feel confident that there are more of theses "flattery's" as well. I feel that Nemesis left Non-Trekkies in a lurch because a lot of the dialog required knowledge of the Next Generation universe. Betaziods and there marriage rituals. Data's musical inclination. Picards adolescent past. Riker and Deanna's relationship. As a "Junior" Trekkie I cannot see how Original Trekkers as well as STNG Trekkies could enjoy the overt plagiarism. I was also unhappy with the lack of dialog from some of our favorite characters: Worf, "Can I raise the shields Captain?", "Yes "Captain?" "Right away sir!" Wesley Crusher: " " What about the people of Remus, did you look at them? Albino Bat people with leprosy... As a fan I know that there was a rift in the Vulcan people, the peaceful ones stay on the Vulcan Home world the War Lovers go to Romulus and Remus. So why do they look so different? Living in the dark that long can't do that to you, can it? Was it me or did the whole telepathic rape scene seem out of touch and a reach for something found in the Star Trek universe? Where did Deanne learn to be a psychic locater anyway? Picard could have used that little ability on many a mission.. B4 was not very believable as well. It was just a little to convenient to create another Data as well as let Data, a Star Fleet officer, download all of his memories / classified information to B4. With Remus being a race of warriors why did they have only 1 ship? How did Janeway become an Admiral and Picard is still only a Captain? Ah............ Questions, questions Next up The Two Towers
You ever notice you cannot kill a star in star trek? Its only a new person that dies. except for spok he just keeps comeing back to life lol. And you just got to love some of the music in the movies. row row row.............lmao But the main reason star trek movie did so poorly at the box office is p2p rips that are all to easy to get. Have a nice day Borgdrone1of2 .
Okay, so here are some problems that I had with the new Trek film.
/hot/. Screwing with Troi did nothing but give the good guys even more reason to fuck your shit up. And it seems like the Remans would have a lot more power if they were, in fact, psychic. I will admit that the Ouiji-board targetting was kinda neat, but it seems like it would have been a hell of a lot easier, say, for Data to have stayed on the ship to transmit its location to the Enterprise.
/care/ about any of the characters. Look at the writing that, say, Whedon and Straczynski do. You care about their characters and if something happens to them, it evokes some emotion. And in addition to that, you can actually believe that something might happen to them. All sorts of people died on Babylon 5 and Buffy, and they die because it works with the story, not because of contract issues. When Data dies, the feeling evoked was simply 'Okay, he was a robot. And you've got a full backup, too. If you can figure out why R2-B4's such a dink, you can fix him up and Data will be back again good as new. Incidentally, this is nearly the exact plot of Star Trek III with s/Spock/Data/g.
1) Where the hell did R2-B4 come from? Was he actually made by Soong, or did the Romulans figure out how to make their own androids?
2) When the little car jumps into the shuttle, given how capable and fast Data is at doing such things, why didn't Data he some quick physics and move the ship forward such that they didn't slam into it so hard? Having the ship stationary risked whiplash for everyone but Data and R2-B4. Not clever. Sub point: Where the fuck did those aliens come from? Picard is concerned enough about Prime Directive considerations that he wouldn't land anywhere near people. And if he absolutely had to, he would spend some time to make sure that he looked like the locals so he wouldn't freak 'em out.
3) The scene where Picard and Data are talking about what makes Picard Picard. Picard was saying, basically, "If I had had Picard-Lite's life, I would be exactly like him" and Data is responding "I disagree. It's our life experiences that make us different." followed by "I'm different from R2-B4 because I strive to be better". Now, what this argument boils down to is Data saying that what makes us us is determined neither by nature nor nurture. Which is just plain stupid. And trivializes the really quite good plot idea of showing what Picard would be like if he'd been raised evil.
4) Okay, when data pretends to be R2-B4 and goes over to the Romulan ship to rescue Picard, he brings a transportamajig with him. Picard decided that he and Data should work together to get out together instead of just using the transportamajig. Now, lets consider the possibilities if Picard had just gone back to the ship like a good captain:
a) Picard would be safe.
b) Data would still have his cover as R2-B4. Judging by the reception that the Reman guard gave him, the people on the ship assume that R2-B4 is doing something authorized when he does something, so Data could have mined all sorts of information about the ship and its crew. Picard-Lite didn't even question the fallen guard to find out what had happened, so Data wouldn't even need to kill him to maintain his cover.
c) Data is a high-ranking starfleet officer. In addition to being more book-smart than just about anyone else in the federation, he has a huge amount of practical experience. He could find his own damn way out. Especially if, given that the bad guys were expecting an android to be walking around, he weren't tied down by the need to shoot at everything that moves.
d) While we're at it, Data can mimic Picard's voice (cf. the fourth-season episode "Brothers", where Data is recalled by Soong and locks out the bridge with a complicated lock sequence), so presumably he can do Picard-Lite's just as well. If the Romulan computers are at all like the Federation ones, he could lock out their computer system and take over the doomsday weapon.
e) Or, even, blow it the fuck up.
5) While we're on the subject of poor tactics, what the fuck do you mean "This is something the Captain has to do on his own"? This is not a matter of the Captain's personal pride, you jackasses. This is the fate of OUR ENTIRE PLANET. What if Picard-Lite gets the drop on him. Or one of the Remans accidentally ricochets a disruptor blast off a wall and manages to hit Picard (since, not unlike stormtroopers, they can't shoot straight to save their life, planet, or empire). Hell, Jean-Luc's getting on in years. What if his fucking hip broke? With all that was at stake here, and with all of the things that could go wrong, sending Picard in without backup was just fucking stupid. Hell, if Data had just gone with him the first time, Picard could have dealt with Picard-Lite while Data tried to turn off the doomsday weapon without outright blowing the ship up. If they needed to blow up the ship, they still could have done so while using the Reman transporters to get both of 'em safely home.
6) Okay, what was with Picard-Lite and his buddy mindraping Troi? What did they hope to accomplish with that? Download some damn porn if you need it. Or even take that Romulan Captain-hoochie's offer. Pointy ears are
7) Point that my girlfriend brought up: I really just don't
Berman could bring out a movie which was nothing but two hours of Spiner, Frakes, and Shatner playing naked robber in the basement of Patrick Stewart's mom's house and I'd still go see it, 'cause I'm a fanboy. But it just annoys me how poor the writing is nowadays. And, judging by most of the crap they they smear all over a spool of film and call "Star Trek: Enterprise", it's not getting any better.
--AC
Captain Sisko and the crew are visited at Deep Space 9 by the Maqui who are expressing overtures of peace, but when word gets out of their secret weapon to destroy the federation, Odo, deciding that the needs of the many are greater than the needs of the few, decides to kill himself to destroy the weapon and save the universe. Meanwhile, a conflict between Sisko and the mysterious maqui leader ensues. The leader, who turns out to be none other than SPENCER FOR HIRE!!!! OMG! AVERY VS AVERY!!! How cool is that? lol
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
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.
The troll says, overlooking that for most of season two there was a writers strike. Since you also have no idea of how television is made, we must point out that nobody ever claimed that Roddenberry wrote everything, nor that he was a good writer. But he had a good and popular look (what some call a "vision", perhaps that is what provokes you) - he told Berman how the universe was supposed to be, gave him some rules - and Berman mostly followed them in TNG (but most writers hated them), Berman always pretended to accept it but he probably didn't and as soon as he could he started to distance himself from it and pretended that all was great (like doing an "Aids" metaphor about 10 years too late is somehow ooh so great).
Remember that "Bones with tits" season-2 doctor? That was a direct result of Roddenberry insisting that Dr. Crusher be written out.
He didn't insist she be written out. Lying on your part. The studio didn't think she had the right "chemistry".
He made a lot of those kinds of bad decisions, and the show was better off without his input.
That's an opinion, another is that its because of him the show became a success, because they followed his directions, his lifeview for their universe. Although ratings say nothing about quality, their constant decline since TNG ended seems to suggest a lot of people agree with his "vision" (even though you disagree with a better future for mankind).
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?"
Probably because you are a mean spirited little person who are just envious that you aren't famous.
Enterprise and Voyager sucked due to piss-poor writing and a lack of fresh ideas, not because they somehow strayed from the Roddenberry fold.
Your use of the word "somehow" shows you are not competent on the topic of StarTrek - of course since you just loathe Roddenberry that's hardly surprising. Those two shows very much "strayed" from the concept, much of it wasn't StarTrek at all, this is undoubtedly caused a lot of people to tune out (especially people with some kind of mental maturity) - though you are right the writing isn't likely to win many fans.
Of the three post-TNG shows, Deep Space Nine was the farthest from Roddenberry's vision,
You got that right - But
Is again your opinion, and DS9 had much lower ratings than TNG. If they wanted to make another show they should have gone and done that instead of making something that wasn't StarTrek - drowes of fans left then and didn't look back.
I think the movie failed simply due to horrible timing.
I think it failed because of lousy story telling which had nothing to do about StarTrek - Roddenberry didn't want to have shows about space battles, he wanted stories about the human condition (you know, the kind of stories that adults like but the kids hate). Berman has forgotte that he doesn't know shit about Star Trek and forgot that all he ever knew about Star Trek Gene Roddenberry told him.
They would have made piles of money that way. What the fuck were they thinking?
They had the blueprint for a universe that millons of people loved to visit - but they started to move away from that, simply because the people involved didn't like it and didn't believe in it - and woops went the money - what the hell were they thinking?
... does Avery Brooks have all the melodramatic ham quality that Shatner once possessed? He's more an action hero than any of the other captains. Let him loose on a grand 3-hr. Trek, I say. Get Peter Jackson to direct.
-oZ
McCoy wasn't entertaining either. I'm sorry, but I don't find neoluddite idiots amusing at all.:)
Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
Are you sure M. Sirtis was hot in the first place? I don't recall any particularly hot characters ever being on TNG (though Tasha Yar, Ensign Ro, and Geordi's crush had a certain appeal).
Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
Three great scientific theories of the structure of the universe are the ... A fifth
molecular, the corpuscular and the atomic. A fourth affirms, with
Haeckel, the condensation or precipitation of matter from ether -- whose
existence is proved by the condensation or precipitation
theory is held by idiots, but it is doubtful if they know any more about
the matter than the others.
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...