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."
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.
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)
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Apes is good sci-fi with bad special effects.
ST is bad sci-fi with good special effects.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
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.
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
Not only is Star Trek your daddy's sci-fi, but Berman also released it way too close to Harry Potter and The Two Towers. Most of all, Rick Berman is no Gene Roddenberry.
How ya like dat?
I think the problem with Insurrection was that if felt like a two hour episode of the series (and a fairly mediocre epsisode, too).
Yet Another Web Site
I think I'm probably a good example of why it tanked, whether it was good or not. Before this article popped up I had honestly forgotten that it existed. Now, I liked a lot of TNG fine, I've certainly seen most of the episodes at least a couple of times, and I saw the previous TNG movies, although I wasn't thrilled by either. It came out, I thought, oh, new Star Trek movie, I'd see that. But there was a lot of other stuff out that came higher on the list, I had no sense from the very light media coverage of what the movie was about, and the next thing it had disappeared and I forgot all about it. Maybe they got the idea that TNG fans are a captive audience and all they have to do is release the thing and sit back, maybe they were worried about it tanking and did the usual self-fulfilling low promotion thing. Its presence simply failed to make a sufficient impression on me, so it's probably destined to become a non-new-release rental some time in the future.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
SPOILERS BELOW
(in case you haven't seen it yet)
It didn't fail because they killed Data. It failed because they killed Data, and five seconds later, replaced him with stupid Data (aka B4).
In ST II, when Spock was killed off, we were given a grieving period, and treated to a respectful funeral. Kirk told us that Spock was the most human person he'd ever known, etc. In this movie, Data is gone, we get not even ten seconds of crying, and Picard is talking to stupid Data, and it's like Data was never gone.
They cheapened his death so much that it wasn't even funny.
Not to mention that they pretty much threw out every tenet of Star Trek TNG (no beaming through shields, etc.), and it just didn't work. Also, absolutely no attempt was made to pay attention to physics! When two ships crash into each other in space, they would each move back... they don't go through each other like that!! There would have to be something behind the ships to force them into each other, or they would both have to have their engines going.
libertarianswag.com
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
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.
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.
Funny. I'm in the same boat, and there are others in the thread who said the same thing. We're Star Trek fans and we've all decided, simultaneously, to give up.
That's not necessarily the reason the movie tanked. We're not really its core audience anymore. They've been trying to make it more mainstream for some time. My guess is that the mainstream heard, "Well, if the Trekkies aren't going to see it, why should we?"
That's not the media reviews. That's their friends. I'm the biggest Trekkie of my group. If I'd gone, others would have come.
Why did we all give up simultaneously? I think it's a combination of sub-par TNG movies and the sub-par Voyager and Enterprise series. When there were only 79 episodes of TOS, you _had_ to see the movies: you'd seen everything else. You even had to see Trek V. But if you gave up after Voyager, as I did, and never got into Enterprise, you're already out of the loop. It's not that you're afraid you won't get it. It's that you no longer have that drive to see 100% of Star Trek.
I don't think that LotR at the same time was the problem. If it had been very good, or if we were all still dedicated fans, we'd have made time. We weren't spending that time watching LotR again. We were doing something else, out of the theaters entirely.
I don't believe the Trek franchise can be salvaged. Certainly not as long as Berman doesn't understand why the last one tanked. But even if he did, he's lost an awful lot of potential fan base. He might be better off starting a new series of his own.
He could turn it over to the Deep Space 9 crew instead. The series didn't develop the cult that TOS did, but it did have a devoted following. They too would have a hard time digging out of the hole the franchise has dug itself, but they've got the best chance.
If not that, then just let it rest. I loved the series, but none of the other things I love are immortal. Someday I will find something new to love; indeed, I already have. I will remember Star Trek fondly, and that means I probably won't see Nemesis until I catch it, wistfully, on DVD, and remember better days.
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
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
You forgot about Deep Space Nine reruns. They recently played the final season again locally and, I'm sorry, but that's some of the best mainstream sci-fi writing I've ever seen, since this was when they were competeing with, and emulating, Babylon 5. I have this dread feeling that they're going to jump the movie franchise straight to Voyager, the suckiest of the suck, and ignore finishing the hanging threads of DS9 entirely.
Maybe it tanked because Star Trek is dying out in mainstream culture.
I think it's the opposite - Star Trek is distancing itself from mainstream culture. Consider the original series. Kirk and his crew roamed the galaxy exploring the frontier, basically doing good, but they wouldn't back away from a fight and they weren't afraid to break the rules in the service of a greater good. That's not just entertaining TV, it resonates deeply with the way Americans see themselves.
Next Gen was California in the 1990s - the Captain took his therapist with him on board and no-one made a decision without getting a consensus from everyone that their feelings wouldn't be hurt. And Voyager - Janeway wasn't a captain, she was a self-loathing Democrat senator, never hesitating to put every other species' interests ahead of her crew's. Californians don't realize it, but they're held in contempt throughout the rest of the world - when some actress announces she's converted to Buddhism or taken to a macrobiotic diet or started wearing crystals, the rest of the world just rolls its eyes.
Essentially, Star Trek is dying because the people making it make it for people like themselves, not the fans and not the general public.
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.
If I was a mod today I'd definately hit this one up. You've hit the nail on the head. It's really sad when the best trek since the original series was made not by Paramont but by a guy with a digital camera and too much time on his hands...
http://homepage.mac.com/starshipexeter/
I'll take good knock down drag out fight with an old style, evil, klingon and those futuristic miniskirts over self-introspective psychobable crap anyday of the week.
Maybe because we've now been exposed to truly exceptional television sci-fi, like B5 and Farscape, the same old recycled cliched Trek plots just seem so vacant and derivative.
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
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
Yes, I think Gene Roddenberry's spirit is missing in Nemesis. What disappointed me was that there was just one storyline and that this storyline was pretty straight rather than containing twists that would have made the movie more interesting. Surprisingly, aside from a new wonderweapon and a second "Data" there was not much going on in the technical sector, too.
And yes, I did feel a little disappointed in the end.
where's all that Karma?
Try Babylon 5. The first season is out on DVD now. Some of the earlier episodes are weak, but by the time you hit Season 3, it becomes some of the best SF ever made. The buildup over several seasons is subtle and amazing. Check out Walter Koenig as Bester, he proves that he is a good actor that was given nothing to do in ST.
--
The internet is the greatest source of biased information in the history of mankind.
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!
Star Trek: The Next Generation got a whole lot better around season 3, when Roddenberry pretty much lost control of the show and let Berman take over. Remember that "Bones with tits" season-2 doctor? That was a direct result of Roddenberry insisting that Dr. Crusher be written out. He made a lot of those kinds of bad decisions, and the show was better off without his input.
When I hear people talk about "the spirit of Gene Roddenberry" in a Star Trek project, I usually think "oh, you mean this one is a heavy-handed and preachy humanist morality play that insults our capacity for reason?" Sadly, the answer to that is usually "yes."
Enterprise and Voyager sucked due to piss-poor writing and a lack of fresh ideas, not because they somehow strayed from the Roddenberry fold.
Of the three post-TNG shows, Deep Space Nine was the farthest from Roddenberry's vision, and it's not only the only watchable show of the three, but it was often better than TNG.
I think the movie failed simply due to horrible timing. The previews had me interested in seeing it, but by the time I had seen The Two Towers three times, I wasn't very interested in hitting the theater for a week or two, and by then Nemisis was out of the theaters. If it came back to a big screen this week, I would probably go out and see it. I'm sure that's true of a lot of geeks. If they had opened this Friday, they just would be going up against the tenth week of TTT and a lot of crap like Darkness Falls and Two Weeks Notice. They would have made piles of money that way. What the fuck were they thinking?
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Please. The original Star Trek concept in both the shows Roddenberry had direct involvement in were presentations of socialist utopias, and that's precisely the way he wanted it. The only capitalists we saw in the first two series were buffoons and pirates. If there was any overriding theme in "Trek," it's the theme of being "post-epic," where humans have moved past things like global warfare and, from most appearances, monetary-based economics. If you check any history of the "Trek" franchise you'll see that there were only weapons on the first Enterprise because the network insisted it have more of a military feel.
While there may be a lot of blame to lay at the feet of Berman and Piller as executive producers, being "out of sync with American culture" is not one of them. The original "Trek" was in sync, all right--in sync with the late '60s. It was far more stereotypically Californian than Deep Space Nine, which dared to do things Roddenberry would never have allowed--volatile, conflicted main characters, ongoing story arcs involving interstellar war without clearcut villains, and characters who changed over time. (As Harlan Ellison noted with respect to his "City on the Edge of Forever" script, Roddenberry was deadset against the idea of stories that would have affected characters permanently.)
Lastly, your whole equating of "Trek" to California tells us a whole lot more about your attitudes than it does about Trek, or for that matter, about California. News flash: not all of California is Hollywood. Not all of Hollywood is Hollywood, for that matter. As shocking as it might be, Ronald Reagan was not governor of Oklahoma before becoming president.
Wild idea: maybe "Voyager" sucked teabags because the writers had no talent, not because of their political affiliation.
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.
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.
Maybe. I didn't go see it because the trailers made me think it was hackneyed, confused, effects-driven, and cliche. I don't know if any of that is true, because I haven't felt one iota to go see it now, or to await its release on DVD. The Trek movies have been getting steadily worse and this one just failed to convince me it would rise above the threshhold.
Besides, haven't they destroyed the Enterprise in, like, every Next Generation movie?
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
And lets all recall the wonderful TNG movies. You know classics like the wrath of^H^H^H^H^, er Generations.
And never credit market timing where damn crappy commercials explain it better. The Ad's where Vapid action sequences tied together with hackneyed lines. I had to call in favors to drag my wife out to it, she thought from the ads that it was going to suck.
And don't forget, it was Roddenberry who was working against the tide to bring a cancelled series first back from the dead, then into the movies, and finally back on the air. That takes a hell of a lot more Chutzpa than takine am established franchise and running it on autopilot until it is utterly forgettable.
That's my story and I'm sticking with it.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Great post. You are absolutely on point about Rodenberry holding back TNG and Berman being the inspirational source for TNG best years. Many fans either forget this or never knew it to begin with.
:)
I disagree about Enterprise and Voyager sucking though. Both are/were better than 90% of the schlock on TV. Enterprise hasn't quite found its stride yet, but I wouldn't say it's truly bad TV. There are some really interesting story arcs going on there.
Voyager was actually fairly watchable after season 1 I though. Unfortunately, most people had tuned out by then AND it was on UPN. I still catch reruns late night sometimes and find myself enjoying the show. Or maybe I was just that starved for Star Trek (pre Enterprise, remember)...
And you're on point about the timing of the movie release as being the cause for its failure. Hmm, lets see - lets release it between Harry Potter and The Two Towers. Utterly brilliant guys, geeze. If he honestly thought that Star Trek would do well next to competition like that (somehow I doubt he truly believed this), he is more out-of-touch than even his most mean-spirited critics say he is.
I was sorely disappointed after all the buzz about Nemesis being similar to 'Wrath of Kahn'. It held NONE of the dramatic acting, and none of the sheer POWER of that movie.
They (Berman & Crew) keep screwing up by trying to tell a sci-fi story rather than telling a HUMAN story. The REAL issue is, they try to focus on too many characters at once, at the expense of the story. When the series (TNG) was running, I LOVED all the character-building episodes. They'd pick out one character, and base the entire episode around that character, with the rest of the crew in 'fringe' roles, which added continuity.
I personally think to retire the Trek series would be a serious mistake. The things Trek 'stands for' still exist. The opportunities to tell incredible stories are immense - if for no other reason, than because they don't have to spend any amount of time detailing the history behind the characters anymore. I would recommend they take the time to examine classic literature (for story ideas), and classic films (for editing), pay more for the 'movie' crew (director, editors, etc.) than the cast (to improve attention to STORY rather than EFFECTS), and get back to telling simpler, more human stories.
Old. Technophobic. Cranky. Cynical. Hates using the transporter. Arguing about humanity with Spock/Data. The list goes on and on. Pulaski was the exact same character as McCoy, with two differences: 1. Female. (Actually, "sexless" would be a better description) 2. Not entertaining.
Crusher, on the other hand, a widow, a single mom, an awkward romantic history with her commanding officer, these were all very new elements to Star Trek, and allowed for stories which were not warmed-over "Bones vs. Spock" arguments.
To call her a "Stepford Wife" shows that you have as big of a problem with normal maternal figures as Gene Roddenberry did. Crusher was a military doctor who happened to like being a mom, and liked the idea of being in a relationship. She was actually one of the more interesting characters on the show.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
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 -
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.
>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.
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
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.