Spiner Questions Trek’s Appeal December 21, 2006
by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Star Trek (2009 film), TNG , trackback
Brent Spiner (TNG: Data) is already on record as being against the prequel concept for Star Trek XI and now he is also questioning the ability for Trek to again break out to the mainstream. In an interview with FilmFocusUK, Spiner jabs at JJ Abrams and Paramount saying that they spent too much money on Mission Impossible III. He then questions whether they will do the same on Trek XI
And that’s the big fear with this Star Trek movie because this new regime at Paramount; I don’t know that they understand the franchise. Maybe [Abrams] will be able to do it, maybe he’ll be able to bridge the gap between the fans and the general public, but everyone’s tried to do that – that’s always been the intention – and they’ve never been able to do it. They’ve realised that if you spend any more than fifty million dollars on one of these movies you’re going to lose money. There are only so many fans that are going to go. If they come along and make an one-hundred and fifty million dollar movie they’re going to have problems. But I think he could be the guy to do it. He’s a perfectly capable guy and his shows are fun and he seems to know what he’s doing.
Even though he questions the films premise, its creators and the executives supporting it, Spiner is still open to playing a part…any part.
FilmFocus: Would you like to be involved in more Star Trek? I know Data had something of a goodbye in the last movie.
Brent Spiner: Well I wouldn’t necessarily have to play Data… I could play Worf! *laughs* I could play Counsellor Troi! I’d be happy to be in more Star Trek but I don’t think I could play Data again because I think I might look a bit ridiculous.
Spiner co-wrote the story on the last film, Star Trek Nemesis and it understandable why he has doubts. That film clearly couldn’t not break into the mainstream, however that does not mean it is not possible.
For the record, Nemesis cost Paramount a bit less than half of what M:I:III cost them, but M:I:III made 6 times as much. M:I:III is the 7th highest grossing film of 2006, outgrossing many films that cost much more (like Superman Returns). Any problems that Paramount has with making a profit off the last Mission is entirely due to Tom Cruise’s double wammy of a ridiculously lucrative contract combined with being a drag on domestic sales due to his behaviour. Paramount certainly saw this because after the film returns came in they signed Abrams to a multi-year deal and fired Cruise.
See the full interview at FilmFocus
Loading ...
Comments»
They spent too much money on him. I mean he got 5mil for Insurrection??? I never liked him.
Um, hello? “M:I 3″ cost $150 million to make and earned back nearly $400 million worldwide, plus who kows how much on DVD. Please don’t make me “Mojo” the results for “Nemesis” to compare.
That’s not to say that Abrams would spend the same amount on “Trek XI.” Given the success he had launching “Alias” and “Lost” and making them seem like mini-movies on the small screen each week, I’m sure he could pull off the same for XI with a relatively paltry amount (when compared to most studio tentpoles).
As for Spiner still being open to being in the film or other Trek, … it is a tad hypocritical. No, not hypocritical. Whorish? No, too strong. Sad? Maybe.
I’m just glad we didn’t end up with Justice League of Star Trek! Spock at least had to die and be reborn! How lame would it be for Picard to pull Data through a time tunnel just before his death? JLoST would have been the most appalling piece of ‘fan-wank’ ever made!
Spiner talks about bridging the gap between fans and the public. The TOS films did do that! Hopefully they can again.
To be honest, these comments sound like sour grapes because the film he co-wrote flopped and he isn’t being offered millions to play Data again. Daft thing is, since he is every member of the Soong family who ever existed, he, of all the TNG team, might yet get a shot at appearing in a TOS-redux movie!
Do I even have to comment???
#3 – On the “Justice League” version of “Star Trek” …
You are very correct. Watch the “New Voyages” episode “In Harm’s Way” for an example. It features elements from “The Doomsday Machine” and “City on the Edge of Forever,” it has on the screen at one time, Pike’s Enterprise, Kirk’s movie-era Enterprise-A, and an alternate Kirk’s TOS-era Farragut. And it’s plot spins all over the place from Pike’s accident on the training vessel to Earth with Commodore Decker to the Guardian of Forever planet and a starship-sized portal …
It’s a huge mess.
Spiner wouldn’t know good Trek if it bit him on the ass.
Spiner is the most overpaid actor in Trek history. I’ve never seen any evidence that HE understands the franchise.
Abrams is going to Kirk and Spock and hopefully will fix Generations by giving Kirk a future. That would be the ULTIMATE example of understanding the franchise.
Nice work with Insurrection moron!
Spiners done,
Move along, nothing to see here.
I feel bad for the guy though.
Maybe he could do some broadway shows or something…
How about Pinochio?
He already has the necessary montrous facial appendage, and he DID play Robo-Pinochio for almost 10 years.
Or how about a one man show; “Data, we hardly knew ye”
Or maybe he should just shut the F%#K up, move into a trailer, and smoke a few blunts with Blossom, Doogie Houser, Bob Sagat , and all of the other annoying 80’s has beens who just WONT, go away.
Brent Spiner is a decent actor who portrayed his role very well – he just got caught up in a very poorly executed film. I’ve always contended that it wasn’t the film (so much) but rather the political atmosphere that currently exists.
IF Nemesis didn’t come across as being so dark and instead was more of
a adventure driven film like Star Wars (The New Hope) was then we’d all be singing a song of cheer rather then one of doubt and despair.
Personally….I’d say that Brent Spiner has more then enough skills to do any role assigned to him IF he wanted to do it. I’d love to see him in Star Trek again so we should all remember for his past accomplishments in ST.TNG rather then the last film which he did well….just a poor story – atmosphere.
Spiner is right about Star Trek not attracting a mainstream non Trek fan audience to the theaters. If you compare any Star Trek film to good scifi films made by Lucas, Cameron, Spielberg or Scott youll see that they pale in comparison. Paramount has used 3rd rate producers, special effects and puny budgets on most of the films. Its often embarrassing for me to admit to people that im a Trek fan because of how bad and corny some of these films are. I dont expect much from the new one.
I may not agree with Spiner’s apparent bias behind his comments, but the man has a point: If you spend upwards of $150 million on a movie, you’re taking a big gamble.
The article Anthony published a few days ago, showing a graph of how each film did in terms of attendance (not money, but bodies in seats) shows that Star Trek has not been reaching the mainstream in the theaters for a long time. It’s going to take a lot to jumpstart the franchise with the mainstream audience. If Star Trek XI breaks $100 million domestic, that should be viewed as a very strong resurgence. People expecting grosses over $150 million are ignoring past trends, which I believe are essentiall and relevant to the discussion.
I don’t know that I see any bias in Spiner’s comments – I may not agree with them, but they’re well-reasoned and explained. It’s easy to think of reasons that he may be biased – several folks have already listed them – but they’re not evident in what’s quoted above.
It’s also entirely possible that “Mission Impossible III” made a great deal more money than “Star Trek” generally does because it was MI and not Trek.
I think Spiner has got it completely bass-akwards. Star Trek Nemesis sucked because it was trying too hard to be a “main-stream” box-office movie. Star Trek has become stale exactly because it has lost it’s cult/fan appeal. Before TNG being a Trekker was like knowing about a small hip boutique. In the 90s that store became a sausage factory cranking out indifferent product for the mass market.
Star Trek does not need to be lavishly produced. It needs an imaginative story that engages people like best episodes of TOS.
#12 DB,
By “bias” I mean that Spiner is insinuating that Nemesis failed at the box office because the mainstream doesn’t want to see Star Trek movies. He’s passing the buck for that movie’s failure onto the audience. I think that implication is biased to protect himself from (as being a co-writer and star) taking any blame for the movie’s huge failure to make money. In Hollywood, you have to cover your own rear in situations like that. I doubt Paramount and Spiner are close buddies given the way Nemesis played out.
I do agree that the mainstream has grown apathetic towards Star Trek (but I disagree as to who’s to blame for that being the case). Insurrection and Nemesis are meaningless adventures (that pushed away casual fans and a few loyalists like myself too), and Spiner was instrumental in planning both of those projects.
The ORIGINAL series managed to get the mainstream. Kirk and Spock are as mainstream as any franchise. It’s the TNG movies that only attracted the die hards, while Berman was pissing the die-hards off until they quit.
You want mainstream? Get Shatner and Nimoy as Kirk and Spock, fix Generations, while doing a parallel story with the younger versions of the same characters.
Well said, Mr. Spiner. Well said.
These TNG guys just hate the fact that they are out of work. They loved those ST movie paychecks!
Thank God some one gets it. Still Kirok is right on the money!! Star Trek got the mainstream and still has the mainstream. I wish people would stop lumping the failed Next Gen era of Star Trek into the same category as Classic Trek. They were and are two totally different animals. Brent Spiner’s Trek may have been a flash in the Pan with the mainstream but STAR TREK (No Bloody B, C, D, or E) has been socially relevant and mainstream for 40 years. Hell they even did a Hummer commercial homage to it. South park regularly parodies Original Star Trek, Xbox is showing original Star Trek to hollywood’s number one target audience. Shatner may be gameshowless but he is a larger culteral icon than ever with the mainstream. Brent Spiner, who i thought was supposed to be such a good guy has turned out to be a sour grapes weasel.
Amen #3. I’ve heard about enough of this moanfest from the TNG cast. Frakes is about the only one to have taken the high road since this project was announced. I’ll give him points for that. And from what I’ve gleaned from Internet gossip, his career is the only one of all of the TNG cast that could be considered a commercial post-TNG success, Patrick Stewart not withstanding. Spiner and Dorn should just guzzle a nice tall glass of STFU and get on with their lives.
Kudos to Data, uh, Brent.
I liked a lot of pieces of the STX, but the film as a whole seemed to focus too much on the effects (some of which looked pricey, but dull.)
Hey, maybe in STXI, they could journey to the planet that Tom Cruise comes from and that would explain his behavior.
(I know, I know, the planet Scientology is just too scary.)
Nemesis was also a disaster because John Logan’s script just wasn’t that great. The plot actually reminded me a lot of Gladiator. It was just to brooding and self-reflective. The TNG movies (especially Generations) were all too self-reflective and tended to be a little narcisstic (First Contact excluded) because of it.
Let’s keep the plot focused on adventure and the unknown.
Whatever else they do in STXI, they MUST bring back go-go boots and mini’s!
So let me get this straight,
Star Trek XI is a gamble and J.J. Abrams producing and directing could potentially be a mistake = Im out of work and I suck.
Alright, point taken Spiney.
Yea, I figured walking into this thread would become one big feast for the vultures that peck and peck at anything Non-TOS.
I will grant that Spiner has sour-grapes. I’d get tired of hearing about my failures too… over and over again on fan-sites, etc.
However, I do think that #9 Duane said it best.
On another note…
Josh,
Did you read the whole article?
“But I think he (JJ) could be the guy to do it. He’s a perfectly capable guy and his shows are fun and he seems to know what he’s doing.”
Point taken?
more sour grapes from yet another tng actor
24 – LOL! Well said. What’s with those guys, anyway? Live and let live, why not.
#23, Hey Josh, how goes it?
I commented above about Brent, so I won’t repeat the whole thing, but basically whenever a studio spends over $100 million on any movie (aside from a hot franchsie like Harry Potter or Spider-Man) there’s going to be a gamble. I do agree that Spiner is probably motivated by sour grapes to make that comment, but objectively, I think its clear that blockbusters are less common than 20 years ago, and people prefer to watch movies at home more and more.
Goofy Bastards, TNG is a product of the 80’s. Kind of like the one hit wonders on the radio at that time. Great to hear a Tears for Fears song but “Mexican Radio” by who? By the time people want to see TNG again the cast will all be dead. I like how the secondary cast talks smack about Insurrection and Nemesis but their pie holes were shut at the time to collect a paycheck. Same with Spiner, what a jackass!
Darth “Open your Mouth” Ballz
Darth Ballz – best poster name yet!!!
Totally unrelated to Trek but a little cinema heads-up to the gang:
I saw Rocky Balboa last night and I was pleasantly surprised. It was very gratifying to see a movie that treats an iconic character with real human emotion. Stallone did a great job acting wise and the movie is a proper send-off to a character that has been a part of my cinema life for well, all of my life. Check it out!
Hopefully Trek XI will equally imbue the beloved characters of Kirk and Spock with the same love and care.
Bash, bash, bash, bash, bash!
Must we be so mean? Mr. Spiner was only answering a question. He was relating his thoughts, just as we all do here. Let’s not skewer the man just because he has an opinion.
Star Trek XI isn’t anything until the film is finished. Until then it’s just an abstraction, an idea. Let’s see how it develops before we get all wiggy (or not) about it. Sure, Spiner’s comments might sound a bit harsh, but overall he isn’t incorrect. Traditionally, the Star Trek feature films have had a tough time breaking the ceiling into the mainstream. TMP, THV, and First Contact were the only ones to really do so. Despite having iconic characters and a setting almost everyone is familiar with, at its core Trek is still a cult phenomenon. Paramount’s choice to put JJ Abrams at the helm is, financially at least, a good start for the new film. He has a knack for developing properties from a cult status into mainstream consciousness. His two shows, Alias and Lost, are perfect examples of this. He also knows how to interweave and layer character interaction in a dramatic, interesting way. And he creates wonderfully textured villains that the audience can despise yet still relate to. If Abrams is allowed to do what he does best, and if he sticks to concepts already embedded in the Star Trek mythos, I believe he can make one hell of a terrific movie. One that Trek fans will love and the general public will embrace as well.
Until 2008, however, we’re all just talking heads venting our spleens over soundbites and snippets of print. We’re starting to sound like the overstuffed pundits on CNN or FOX News. As Trek fans, let’s try to take the higher road and try to keep things civil. We’re all hoping for the same thing here, a return to greatness for Star Trek. Let’s remember that.
Does anyone remember that Nemesis openned just 5 days before The Two Towers. It may not have been the best Trek film, but part of the reason it lost money was because of the ill-timed release date.
Data is also not dead. They pulled the old Spock trick from Trek II. “Remember?” Data’s “katra”, if you will, is in B-4. All they have to do is upgrade B-4 or find a way to build a new android. It also goves the writers a way to bring him back even if they don’t bring back Spiner.
All of that said, I am more than happy to see a new direction for Trek. I do not think Mr. Spiner is out of line with his comments. The new movie will have to be exceptionally good to bring in more than your average Trek fan.
Data doesn’t have a katra. He’s just a computer program. So yeah, all they have to do is download him into his B4. But who really cares? Not like anyone saw Nemesis anyway. On to more important things, like the return of Kirk.
33 Oh, like you don’t talk enough about that as it is. (Rolls eyes)
32 Absolutely right about Two Towers, and it was a very packed release schedule throughout that holiday season.
At least with someone like Abrams behind Trek XI, there’ll be enough of a newness factor to Trek again that it’ll be able to compete for the public’s attention against other movies. Here’s hoping it’s a great success (but more importantly, that it’s great Star Trek).
I saw Nemesis when it came out and instantly forgot about it. I have little or no recollection of anything that happened in it. It was that forgettable. I don’t really blame anyone because I’m not sure what I would be blaming them for.
I do really hate thinking about how horrible the next one will probably be. The whole idea of other actors playing the classic roles is bad enough, but in all likelihood it will deviate too far from the original style in production design, costuming, music and style of filming to hold any interest for me.
I really don’t care how much or little they spend on it.
I know people bash Nemesis, but I really enjoyed the battle sequences. The dune buggy and B-4 should have been left out…and it should have delivered on its promise to delve into the romulans more. Movie trek is always klingons klingons klingons here they pulled a slight of hand of sorts as all the advance stuff made it clear it was about the severly underused Romulans..and yet it really wasnt. and that is the biggest crime of Nemesis.
Spiner had been moaning about growing old and playing Data for years, and here he had the chance to go out gracefully and they pull the rediculous B-4 crap. If B-4 and dune buggys are understanding the francise I think I’ll pass. Oh and showtunes too, lets not forget how well Patrick Stewart knew the francise when he had Picard sing showtunes in the ever dreadfull Insurrection-which he was very much involved in creatively. I’ll take Shatner’s Rockmen over showtunes any day.
I think i’ve rambled enough
re 36 (and previous posts)
As much as I like the characters of Picard and Data, I think the actors egos had a huge part to play in what was wrong with both insurrection and nemesis.
I believe Patrick Stewart and Brent Spiner were creatively involved with both scripts, and the scripts were filled with clones and twin robots of who else? Silliness. Terrible movies both.
Doug
This is a TOS blog only. Enjoy your new audience.
TNG was Roddenberry’s vision just as the TOS was. They actually do nicely contrast and compliment each other. Seriously. Some of my favorite Trek of all time are 2nd and 3rd season TNG. Then the Great Bird died and Berman ran all things Trek into the ground. During TNG’s zenith, my wife and I looked forward to Saturday nights to see new episodes with glee. By the time Nemesis came out, we left the theater both depressed and sad for what TNG had become. Spiner is wrong. There is a huge potential for Trek to crossover with the right script, the right cast and the right product. Now that Berman and his loyalists are out, there is hope again.
#31: Buckaroohawk – well said!
Although I’ve been a Trek fan since the early seventies, and seen every episode of every incarnation, I have little faith that the Powers That Be can pull off a mainstream Trek XI. (Of course I could be wrong – after all, the Doctor Who TV series was successfully rebooted after years of hiatus.)
But to me Trek seems quite spent. I loved both TOS and TNG, and can attest that today’s high school students still recognize references to each of those series. But the franchise slowly unraveled. DS9 was an interesting, if quite uneven, dark re-imagining. Voyager was derivative and Enterprise was simply desperate. Even the movie franchise fell apart when we finally had a disappointing “even-numbered” picture.
The XI concept of recasting a young Kirk and Spock is as disturbing to me as was infantilizing the Warner Brothers cartoon characters in their more recent incarnations. And it would be a mighty struggle to successfully integrate the look and feel of a 2008 theatrical movie with that of a 1960s low-budget TV show. The movies had an immense advantage in being allowed to assume that future styles and technology had progressed past TOS. I have never bought into Harve Bennett’s Star Fleet Academy concept: Shatner, Nimoy, and Kelley – not just Kirk, Spock, and McCoy – were what made TOS work so well.
Frankly, Trek just seems increasingly hokey compared to the technology of today, something that is unavoidable for a 40-year-old show. I find myself drawn much more to the dark glories of the new Battlestar Galactica. Trek is from another era, and I have grave doubts it will translate well into new movies. But here’s hoping I’m very very wrong!
Galactica Schmalactica
#34 You forgot to put the word “Sucks” between Trekweb and forever.
Anyway, since Roddenberry died I have been concerned about ANYONE understanding Star Trek. Say what you will about Roddenberry but at least when he was alive he could throw a fit and have at least SOME pull since he created Trek.
Nevertheless, I am holding out hope that Trek XI will be good….I am just not going to judge it until I see it. The fact that the old Paramount regime is gone — to me — is a positive until proven otherwise.
TTM
#14: “By “bias” I mean that Spiner is insinuating that Nemesis failed at the box office because the mainstream doesn’t want to see Star Trek movies. ”
Well, I don’t know that he’s wrong. Trek fans can complain about the movie all they want on the premise that they *know* why it failed, but pretty bad “Star Trek” films have made money in the past.
Spiner works about as much as he wants. I’ve always liked his attitude toward Trek and his own “celebrity;” he has a very dry wit and seems completely unimpressed with the Importance Of It All. He’s just about the opposite of the Trek supporting players who suck up to fans, usually by going on about the Meaning of Trek (but occasionally by making a practice of dissing those behind-the-scenes folks that they know fans don’t like).
I can’t dislike a guy who once listed his plans for a season’s hiatus as “touring with a one-man show as Lorne Greene reading the works of Graham Greene, with incidental music by Verde.” :lol:
OK…The Two Towers took a bite out of the box office for Nemisis. But remember…it didn’t even win it’s opening weekend. It came in second to a Jennifer Lopez movie for heaven’s sake! Bad movie? Fan ambivilence? Retread of TWOK? Whatever. It was a stinker.
40 – I completely agree with what you said about it being difficult to reconcile the look expected of a 2008 blockbuster with that of a 1960s low budget tv series.
I wonder if this is something TOS purists are really prepared for. If Trek XI is really going to take place in TOS era, and if Paramount is actually going to spend the kind of money Spiner is talking about here, there is NO way that the studio is going to allow replicas of the old bridge sets and passageways to fill up the screen. Yes, the old sets are classic, but if any Trekkers or Trekkies here think that the old style look will put butts in the seats opening night, you’re sadly deluded.
Keep in mind Abrams was willing to make significant revisions to the Superman mythos, back when he was working on that project (before it was stopped in favor of Bryan Singer’s version). Now while everything I hear makes it sound like Abrams is willing to keep this new movie in line with canon, I’m positive that only extends to the “history” of the Trek universe, not the look.
When the new movie comes out, it’ll be imperative that Paramount and everybody involved hits everyone between the eyes with the fact that this Trek is new and different. Heck, I wouldn’t be surprised if their ad campaign was something along the lines of “This isn’t your daddy’s Star Trek,” or something to that effect. Key to that effort will be showing people images of the Trek universe as they have never seen it before–radically different bridge, reflecting updates in current technology, different ship designs, and so on. Whatever new regime is out there has absolutely no vested interested in hanging on to the same old look and feel.
Brace yourselves, folks. It will probably turn out that TOS era looks nothing like we remember, come 2008.
Great, another commentary in which most of posters either ignored or misinterpreted what was said in the original article, skipping common sense and decency and moving right on to the ignorant bashing. At least READ and UNDERSTAND what the interviewee is saying first before commenting, rather than just glancing over the first few line and screaming “foul!”
Yes, I’m sure Spiner is sour that his movie wasn’t successful. We have all had major projects planned and have been greatly disappointed if they don’t work out well. I doubt Spiner is reeling too much, however, since he can pretty much come back to Trek whenever there is need for him (i.e. the Augment Crisis arc on Enterprise). He wasn’t putting the blame of the film’s failure on audiences, he was merely stating fact: there are only certain people who will leave the comfort of their own homes to see a Star Trek movie. In this day and age, it will take a LOT of effort for a non-Star Wars science fiction film — especially one without a name star — to bring in a large audience. Recent films such as “The Island” and “Serenity” suffered for much the same reason “Nemesis” did — there just wasn’t a huge enough audience out there interested in that type of film. Granted, poor reviews and word-of-mouth most certainly didn’t help it, but the main reason is a lack of audience — and it is this which Spiner fears may lead Abrams and Paramount to great disappointment should the spend a buttload of money on the next film.
Nowhere in the quotes above does Spiner put the blame for the failure of his film on the audience, he is merely stating that recent Trek has not been mainstream and that past efforts to make it mainstream (”Nemesis” included) have failed, and he thinks that Abrams may be able to accomplish that feat. But apparently some of you (but certainly not all, don’t get me wrong) are too dense to see that, and instead just go to the bashing just because you didn’t like the last movie. There’s a term for some of the comments I’ve seen here: they’re called temper-tantrums. Please. Grow up.
45 “there is NO way that the studio is going to allow replicas of the old bridge sets and passageways to fill up the screen. Yes, the old sets are classic, but if any Trekkers or Trekkies here think that the old style look will put butts in the seats opening night, you’re sadly deluded.”
I know one butt that won’t be in the seat any night if it deviates too far from the real thing.
People don’t want to see a Stra Trek movie because ther are …Bad.
STII & STIV were good movies and that’s want got the “Cross over” crowd to come and see them.
The Next Gen movies became increasingly about Picard, Data and Worf. If you were to edit out all the scenes in ‘Nemisis’ that did not include Picard, Data or Shinzon, the movie would be the same. it was their movie. Brent and his boyfriend wrote the story and no one wanted to see it, because it was bad, not ‘Too dark’ or ‘Too Star Trek’ just ‘Bad’. I can see why he is negative on Star Trek after pretty much everyone rejected his creative input into the franchise.
I make the point about Brent bringing in his boyfriend not to ‘Out’ him- as if everyone didn’t already know ala George Takei, but to make the point they became vanity projects for the main stars and the stories became weaker and weaker as a result. There was no creative force behind the scenes just accountants.
Star Trek as it stands now is one giant mossaic of 500 hours (there are a few good ones in there) of balnd story telling. J.J. Abrams has deminstarted his ability to tell agreat story AND have clout to to have final say over his story, and that is a very important piece of the puzzel.
47 And I’m saying Paramount will happily accept that outcome if they think they can capture a big piece of the mainstream audience by changing things up. Since the core fanbase is dwindling anyway, the studio will be more willing to gamble on developing a newer, younger fanbase from which to draw its cash flow from. Right now they’re hoping they can keep the old fans while drawing in new ones–but if it looks like they can’t have both, trust me, they’ll ditch the old ones.
They will back their money truck right over your prone body lying in protest if that’s what it takes to get to the bigger sacks of cash.
The “crossover crowd” didn’t really show up for ST:TWOK after the opening weekend. The film eventually made about 83 million dollars on first release, which was pretty good but beaten by a number of other skiffy films opening that Summer. After ST:TSFS made a little less than TWOK in first release, Bennett remarked that “the audience for ‘Star Trek’ doesn’t grow.” Of course, then came ST:TVH, which got butts into the seats because it was actually a great funny popcorn movie.
#46 ChuckAmuck
I am a lifer, a Star Trek fan to the core and I was very reluctant to see Nemesis in the theaters. After Insurrection, which was pure fluff, and after reading about the Nemesis plot, I realized the movie was derivative crap. It offended me to see TNG go down in this fashion. And Nemesis was crap– uninspired, forgettable and a waste of time. The Two Towers was irrelevant to Nemesis’ performance because after what I saw in the theaters, there was no shot I would go back and see it again, nor could I recommend that movie to anyone (fan or mainstream moviegoer) in good conscience. Spiner failed to bridge the gap because he helped make some bad movies. His quote implied (the word I used in my earlier posts) that their efforts were sound but the audience simply wasn’t there for them. You are correct, he never outright blames the fans for those movies not working. But he also fails to recognize that Nemesis and Insurrection were not good movies either. TNG died by its own hand.
Why is it that when hard core Next Gen fans try to spin it’s shortcomings they only mention and defend Nemesis?? Insurrection was even more awful and almost as critically disapointing. In fact First Contact (which I thoroughly enjoyed because they finally removed the bug from their butts and let Patrick Stewart do some wonderful Kirk like swashbuckling.) was their only real cinematic hit. DB you are in error, The Wrath of Khan cost about 12 million to make, had grossed 83 million domestically and god knows how much world wide and in video release. It is regarded from a cost to produce to profit standpoint as the second most profitable film in the franchise. And Darth Ballz is still the greatest poster name!!
Okay here goes… rebooting TOS is NOT the way to go. Enterprise was a similar attempt… I knew it then and I was proven right when it flopped. For JJ to even have the arrogance to try is the same as BB. I don’t care how good he is in what he’s doing presently, it’s still arrogance and audacity to think it can be duplicated and updated where it’s not necessary. Want to jump start Trek make it your own… don’t try to fix something that wasn’t broken to begin with TOS. Yeah, sure BSG was rebooted and worked because frankly the original was lousy. The premise was good and that is all it had. But to recreate Kirk, Spock, and McCoy is like trying to redo the 3 Stooges (no pun intended). It was THOSE actors, THOSE writers, and THOSE production teams that made the legend… not what they represented on film.
Want to kick off Trek again? Make something new, fresh, and if it’s that darn good you have something that is yours and can last. Try to recreate something as magical as the original and you’re doomed at conception.
Much like Enterprise it wasn’t the name of the bleeding ship that made it great Trek… it was those actors with those character, and that production team then that made it special. Sorry to repeat myself, but at what point will people start to actually get it?
There is only one thing bigger than Brent Spiner’s nose and that is his ego (secondly his pay cheques which swallowed most of the budget for the last few trek films).
the above argument is something that is often repeated that I feel it deserves a comment. The ENT failed therefore a TOS prequel will fail sounds great until you look at the facts
1. after being promoted as a prequel to TOS Ent had higher ratings than VOY for the first half of season 1
2. the entire team behind STXI is different and far more successful than those behind ENT
3. STXI will be a ‘true prequel’ featuring actual characters from TOS, ENT was set before TOS but bore little resemblence to TOS, especially for the first 3 years of the show
” DB you are in error, The Wrath of Khan cost about 12 million to make, had grossed 83 million domestically and god knows how much world wide and in video release.”
No, I’m not. I noted the 83 million dollar figure, in fact. However, that’s quite a different thing than suggesting that the film was a huge hit with the general audience in its initial release. It had a good opening weekend and then tailed off. “Star Trek” fans made it a profitable film in first run, but it was hardly a blockbuster.
#54: “There is only one thing bigger than Brent Spiner’s nose and that is his ego (secondly his pay cheques which swallowed most of the budget for the last few trek films).”
Neither of those things is true, of course. I’m sorry that you don’t like what he said in this case.
DB don’t make me send Darth Ballz after you. I never said it was ablockbuster I said it is considered the second most profitable film in the franchise and was indeed in a time when tickets cost $3.00 and not $10.00 a hit. Anyway all this is mute TOS is back, Rick Berman , Brent Spiner and TNG era is over.
My point being it’s not Trek purse that makes TOS so lasting… it was those people then that made it special. In the context of the program it wasn’t the name of the ship or the world they lived in as much as what that crew did in it that made it special. There were dynamics by those people that cannot be duplicated using those same characters now. If the franchise is to be revitalized it has to be fresh, inventive, and stand on its own merits. That’s what’s so special about TOS. Granted you can’t help but kick-off of the loral they made for themselves which is Trek, but you can’t sustain it unless it’s original. Those actors and production staff then was original, and there simply is no substitute.
I don’t give a rat’s booty what the ratings were from Enterprise or Voyager. This is about what started it all and reinventing TOS isn’t the way to go if Trek is to endure. It’s like the fan film eluded to earlier… any other persons no matter how passionate the fandom or pure the intent, and as much as you hang the name they will never be Kirk, Spock, or McCoy. You can only homage those characters played by those actors that established them, and the production crews that supported their representation. Regardless of the talent or intent behind such an attempt it can only be a mockery when it was so well done to begin with.
All through the descending series it’s been a filtering of what TOS established, not a distillation. It just became apparent to me that maybe Trek should only be let go? With so much time, and so many of the original persons involved having fallen away… there can no longer be new Trek? Certainly no more Jim, Spock, or Bones. I for one want to remember them as they were, and not someone trying to imitate them. If a new cast with new characters and situations are good enough… I and many others will embrace them in the same way regardless.
There can be no substitute.
Well, two things:
More like 4.50 than 3.00 dollars, and “moot.”
More to the point: Spiner observes, for example, that he doesn’t know that the new folks running Paramount understand “Star Trek.”
That’s a reasonable observation, and he’s probably right. The hope in the current situation is that [i]Abrams[/i] understands and cares about “Star Trek.”
Nothing about the behavior of the studio executives toward “Star Trek” in the recent past really gives any reason to believe that they wouldn’t have been just as willing to turn it over to Michael Bay or Uwe Bolle if they saw a little money potential in that.
#50 DB.
Please refer to the chart provided by Anthony Pascale which shows Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was the third most attended movie in the entire run of Trek films, with Star Trek: The Motion Picture first and Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home second.
http://trekmovie.com/wp-content/uploads/trekfranchisegraph.JPG
And Star Trek II’s gross, adjusted for inflation, would equal approximately $170 million in today’s numbers. That’s a bigger take than Mission: Impossible III, Casino Royale, and The Fantastic Four. A studio would absolutely love to have a movie do that business nowadays. Brad Pitt’s Mr. and Mrs. Smith did around $180 million domestic and that movie was considered a huge hit. DB, also remember that in the early 1980s people went to movies a heck of a lot more than they do nowadays. Now, instead of seeing a movie 4-5 times in the theater, people wait for the DVD and watch it at home.
Oh and referring back to Anthony’s chart above, approx. 27 million people went to see Star Trek II, whereas 7 million went to see Nemesis. There was once a mainstream audience for Trek, a 20 million person difference, in fact.
If Trek has taught me anything, it’s that if you pull at any of the threads of your past, you run the risk of unravelling the tapestry of your life.
To all of the TNG, DS9, VYG, and Ent haters out there, you have NO idea what state Star Trek would be in right now without those shows. Maybe better…. maybe worse. You may have opinions, but you don’t have those facts.
Maybe you should show a little more appreciation for those shows. It may very well be that without them, Trek would have died as the original cast passed away. There might be no interest in a new movie, and this site would be as relevant as the “Greatest American Hero Ultimate Fan Site”.
So lighten up… let people enjoy whatever version of Trek they enjoy, and stop all the bashing. Just because you prefer something doesn’t make you right.
IDIC
Sorry John they all had some nice moments but were mostly ungodly boring. DS9 NOT INCLUDED AND VERY MUCH NOT A NEXT GEN ERA SHOW IN TONE!!! If you mean that it took the Next Gen era to fall on it’s face for the world to realize how much it missed the fun of Kirk and Spock then they did indeed serve a purpose. The true spirit of Star Trek would have endured quite nicely and had already been a mythic phenom long before the decided to put little children and poetry jam sessions on Star Fleet’s flagship. In fact there was a wonderful show by the name of Babylon 5 that captured the spirit of Star Trek WAAAAAAAAY better than any of the spinoffs and it aired during the spinoff era of Trek. And again the Next Gen era is dead and gone so you are correct in that there is no point to argue. TOS is back (although it never really went away and JMS is filming new Babylon 5 stories with Captain Sheridan. Rejoice brothers and sisters
There was an irrelevant post above that said a Jennifer Lopez movie ‘beat’ (whatever that means) Nemesis at the box office.
By that logic, Paramount should make a new Jennifer Lopez movie instead of Star Trek since that **obviously** is what the public is “craving” and the whole point is (apparently) to cash in on a large audience.
62 – Well said. It amazes me that fans of TOS–a show that repeatedly made the point that we had to find ways to move past hate–are so willing to be controlled by their own hateful feelings toward everything not TOS.
They’re really just afraid that Trek and the world in general is moving on and sweeping them off to the side. Well, why not accept your obsolescence gracefully, guys.
#62 John… said it best. Add an IDIC for me.
Additionally, I feel confident in saying that had the article said “Spiner fully supports TOS script for XI”
… most of you would still bash him for his part in the Treks you hate.
If you truly read the article, you can see a bit of sour grapes… we’d all have them in his shoes… but he didn’t bash XI or anything else.
Give it a break…
O
Well I’ve been saturated with TOS since I was 2 when it first aired. Probably so ingrained that it’s perhaps almost too cherished down into my subconscious… something always there and comforting. But aside from that I’ve enjoyed all incarnations of Trek… even Enterprise somewhat. I don’t begrudge anyone for liking one over the other. But I do have an instinctual distaste and a reasonable expectation of what will happen in changing what inspired all that came after TOS. So why on earth try to reinvent something that isn’t broken? TOS inspired all the diluted later versions that broke Trek… some more than others. Why not take it into a fresh direction, or let it live only in our memories… you don’t have to reinvent history to create a desired future. What about the old adage “you can never go back”? Why even try in this case?
I simply cannot get my head around a reasoning that says “hey, TOS is so great let’s go change it”. To me that is just crazy, and illustrates very poor creativity on everyone’s part.
The only reason “Maid in Manhattan” topped “Nemesis” at the box officer (by less than $200,000, mind you) is because general movie-going audiences are morons. Of course, it would have helped had both “Insurrection” and “Nemesis” been better movies. That said, while you may think “Nemesis” is bad, trust me — “Maid” is FAR worse. Hell, that’s not really even an opinion, it’s fact. Pretty much every JLo flick out there is nothing more than a waste of celluloid. I can’t believe audiences were stupid enough to sit through that crap. Oh, well, I guess it shouldn’t surprise me, after all, look how well films like “The Grinch” and the “Star Wars” prequels performed. Get ready for the “Bratz” film to be a major blockbuster.
Captain’s Log. Stardate: Armageddon.
I’m sorry the masses didn’t embrace Spiner’s story, but I’m not at all convinced it was because it was a stinker of a movie. It died the opening weekend, long before word of mouth had time to kill it. I think the public, after years and years…and evem MORE years of TNG style Trek, simply tired of it. Even if it had been First Contact 2, or Voyager: The Movie, I don’t think people would have showed up. The mainstream public is just sick of Star Trek, in that incarnation anyway, and have no interest in re-visitng these characters again. It wasn’t a rotten movie, and people didn’t stay away in droves due to a dune buggy sequence. It seems to me, folks that go to the movies just don’t wanna watch TNG anymore.
Will they warm to the decidedly different storytelling style of TOS? Will JJ even try to adapt the storytelling style of TOS? The stigma of 20 years of Berman style Trek will be hard to break, but the source material for this movie is radically different from Berman Trek and since JJ is a big fan of TOS and admits to not watching the later series, I think this movie could be different enough to do very well. But yes, the public’s honeymoon with TNG ended long ago.
#69
Anecdotally, I have seen every Star Trek film opening day, but I didn’t bother to see Nemesis until it was already out in the theaters for 2 weeks (until a friend finally convinced me to “be done with it already”). The buzz around that movie was bad. It was obviously a rehashing of The Wrath of Khan and other plots. So, yes, while I may have been personally worn down by TNG at that point (I saw Insurrection once), I was fully aware going into Nemesis that the movie itself was a poor effort. And I was correct.
Nemesis was a movie that sounded good when pitched and didn’t
look bad on paper but then having Stuart Baird direct almost assured the film would fail. Not a single frame nor one word of
dialogue is memorable.The film actually broke even domestically.
So as a film it did OK but as a Trek film it failed astronomically.
No fan wants to see these films fail. If the films don’t work the studio will cease making them. There are enough Trek fans to
make a film profitable. The bringing in of the general movie goer
is nothing but a bonus. Even a good cast can’t save something so
poorly conceived. So with StarTrek XI if J.J. Abrams can raise the
bar and make a “Better” trek movie then the fans will return and
so will the general movie going audience.
#71 Cafe5, where are you getting those figures?
According to boxofficemojo.com, the production budget (not including distrubution costs and marketing) was $60 million. The final domestic take for Nemesis was $43 million. It didn’t break even with its domestic take. It fell short by a sizeable amount.
It failed as a film, period.
Two words. Dune buggy.
Re: Insurrection
Five words: Worf singing showtunes with Picard.
And Trek fans wonder why non-Trek fans hate Star Trek.
TNG is still the best
I took the time to read all 75 comments on this subject.. The majority got it right – Brent’s talking out of his positronic ass. It is Brent that truly doesn’t understand.
Most of us know Trek has been failing for many years.
The best move Paramount made with the upcoming Trek movie was to bring someone new and with a fresh perspective.
Harve Bennett did it with bringing in Nick Meyer who new nothing about Star Trek. Look what happened – Star Trek II was a success and regarded as one of the finest trek movies of all times. (It didnt make the most money but it did well)
Mr. Berman is gone – finished with Star Trek. Its time for something new. I look forward to see what JJ Abrams will do to Rev up the franchise. The new movie has to appeal to the non-fans as well as the fans in order to have any success.
Nemesis tried to hard to be Star Trek II…but it was boring!!!
It was a boring and tired attempt to be Star Trek II…face it. But the real proof of that pudding was the way Data “died”. I can’t think of character death that was less resounding…oh..except maybe when Braga and Moore killed Kirk in Generations.
Lame.
And “Picard Clone” Shinzon was BORING!!! OMG…Nemesis and Insurrection are the most unmemorable “episodes” of Trek ever. They just are not fun to watch.
They are boring. The stories are boring. The direction is boring. The music is (God love, Jerry Goldsmith…but..) EVEN BORING!! And it was F-ing Jerry Goldsmith!!!!
I guess he was as uninspired as I was when he had to score the film. He was probably like, *snooze*…”Another boringly choreographed and tedious jeopardy-free space battle…ok, I’ll just repeat the same notes over and over sometimes make them louder when a phaser hits something…but yeahhhhh…*yawn*…I’m bored. Worf again. Sonic wallpaper with slight reference to my excellent Klingon theme from ST:TMP…yeah, mail it in. This is just a check.”
LMAO!! Come on guys…you know I am right!
TTM
Trying to count the posters to see if all the venom has been spit.
You all owe Anthony a huge thank you for running this article and the one on Berman so you can get all that hate out of your systems before Christmas.
Please refer back to #62,#66 and the first paragraph of #65 for a sensible post.
I thought the best part of Nemesis was the Scimitar, actually. If the film wasn’t so dark and did not have a gun in your mouth ending, things would be different. That and releasing it up against Harry Potter and Lord Of The Rings was bad idea as well.
46, 65, 66, 68, and 78 – thank you. It was nice to read something written by actual Star Trek fans rather than people that say they are fans and then spends countless hours deriding the entire franchise online.
The TNG cast were well established, well written, and well developed characters. The problem with Nemesis was that the writers came up with a story that, as someone else put it, “ejected the philosopical core” of Star Trek in favor of SFX and only the window trappings of Star Trek. The movie had a weak plot that was contrived solely for the purpose of fostering combat, killing Data, and tearing up the Enterprise.
Paramount attempted to attract a mainstream audience at the expense of the characters themselves. Non-fans (casual moviegoers) had no patience, desire, or opportunity to learn the backstory of the characters and there were simply too many characters. The characters were unimportant to them and the plot was extremely weak.
The movie wasn’t violent and didn’t have sexual tension like “Starship Troopers” and it definitely didn’t feature the ideallic “ghetto fabulous” urban, suburban, and X-urban street life that Gen Y has fallen in love with (thanks to years of successful target marketing).
If Paramount wants to attract a mainstream audience, make another movie with Jennifer Lopez or Beyonce, have Jay-Z do the soundtrack, have someone chase her with a gun in a sports car nobody can afford, dress her up in spandex with no bra, and have average young men help her, dance with her, and make out with her on screen. It will be huge, guaranteed.
Meanwhile the Trek franchise was run into the ground by a studio that saturated the market with the product. That’s called commoditization and it has the universal characteristic of driving the value of the product downward. (Lord of the Rings, 3 movies, high value) Perhaps its true that the market for thoughtful science fiction is a mature market in decline. That isn’t any excuse for Paramount to piss all over it’s legacy by remaking it into something it’s not. Not with Nemesis or with the new movie. Remaking something is supposed to be an homage, not an insult.
Oh and one last question. These last two threads about Berman and Spiner chosen by the author of this site……was it hard to find the absolutely worst photos of Berman and Spiner you could possibly find to paste at the top, or were they just really convenient when it came time to post?
I have been reading posts from hear along time. I had a thought and I would like to share it. I am not a die hard fan, however I loved TOS. I grew up watching the reruns. Kirk, Spock, and McCoy were the guys I liked and wanted to emulate. I do not dislike the other forms of Treklore. This is about the cultural connection of the original.
Of all the movies the one that made the most money was ST4. I have to admit when I first heard that it was more on humor less on space travel I was not excited about it. I was 16 at the time. I wanted another ST2. I however convinced my cousins, that it looked entertaining.They were not too thrilled. Hell my brother and my father were telling me I was going to get worked over for pushing to see it. By the time the Enterprise A warped into credit land my family loved it , for once. The elements worked. They all knew about Spock and the nerve pinch, and to see it used on a noisy punk got them. I think we all had times we wished we could silence someone without violence and pain. Plus it was just funny! The scene with Pavel getting arrested in an American navel yard was just priceless , a Russian during the cold war trying to convince cynical soldiers that he was not a soviet spy was funny! ANYONE COULD GET THE HUMOR!
I think that although ST2 was my fav, ST4 was the one that used the classic treklore that even non Trek fans could relate too. Ironically , it was goofy, the time travel angle had tremendous holes, and neatly gave Kirk a captain’s chair. At the end the crew were together again and on the Enterprise. That could have seemed a bit contrived. This all could have seemed like a parody of itself.The acting and the directing was handled masterfully. At the end no one cared.
Everyone here seems to think that in order to get Trek rolling we need to adhere to certain ideas .I felt that way when I thought that ST4 was going to fail because it was not going to have epic battles, there was going to be no interstellar travels,although there were some cool space scenes most of the film was done on good ol earth! The whole probe from space was kinda similar to the story in ST:TMP It could have sucked. It made the most money out of all the treks. Even “”First Contact” was close.
OK what am I saying here? I think that trek or any sci-fi property can connect to the main stream. I think you need a good cast. You need a decent story and something that connects most of us. Whether it be humor, action or thought provoking themes, it can be done. I am a witness and to this day my cousins still cannot believed they enjoyed a Trek film. Given the last 4 I would agree.
Re#81: Good post… and so true.
Yanno, that went somewhat likewise for TOS, at home, when I watched it on the family television, my dad, who probably never read anything but the paper his entire life, was often paying more attention to it than he’d admit to. My mom about outright hated it, but for no sane reasons. ;-)
If the “New” Trek is engaging, it will recoup fan losses and then some, especially, if the reboot is able to win new fans. If it sucks, we can and should only blame the product.
I won’t even speculate on Spiner, it’s just not as relevant as it seems. I wouldn’t mind him back in Trek in future, but it would have to be as a space hillbilly, ie, like his character on NightCourt… heh,heh… *evil laugh*
People complaining a bout the pay check Spinner received for Nemisis is actually a pitence when you compare what Shatner and Nimoy got for any of the Trek films that made if you compare them in relative terms [a dollar bought a hell of a lot mome in the seventies and eighties than it does today]. Also If yuo were to release any of the original films today one wonders just what audience they would attract. The poroblem is more and more people these days simply aren’t going to cinimas.
I hope Trek VI will attract a large audience, but I’m not holding my breath.
Hi guys. I actually downloaded one of those Star Trek New Voyages episodes the other day. It’s written by DC Fontana, focuses on the Chekov character and guest stars Walter Koenig. And y’know what? It’s pretty good. For a low-budget fan project, it’s very good.
The actors aren’t big names and they’re (sensibly) not trying to imitate the performances of the original cast (that said, the guy playing young Chekov looks like a bloody clone of Walter Koenig!)
But the storytelling comes through. With a solid, well-written, script and mostly solid direction (as a TV editor, I’d question one or two of the shots and cuts, but that’s simply my opinion!) I found myself quite engaged by this intriguing mix of classic TOS and movie TOS style.
What I do think this production shows is that other actors can make the roles their own and that it is possible to make new TOS Trek, even on a very low budget.
I remain convinced that, marketed correctly to get enough people into the cinema and possessed of a great story that will spread positive word-of-mouth, people will want to see a new TOS Trek film.
…You know, it never ceases to amaze me how Spiner thinks he has any room to talk about problems with the franchise. Half of the reason that Insurrection was a flop was that he insisted on pulling a “Nimoy Stunt” and have Data get killed. But what the frack? Rick Berman thinks he did nothing wrong, and that it was everyone else’s fault – especially the fans – that the franchise died off the way it did, so why not Spiner?
[shakes head in utter dismay]
RE #83: Trevok, your comparison between Nimoy and Spiner misses one important point: Nimoy’s work was *worth* what he was paid. What Spiner did with INsurrection wasn’t worth a plug nickle, and the studio – and the fans – should have demanded a refund.
Well, if you’re so intent on putting the blame for Nemesis failure on someone, Logan and Berman had more to do with the story than Spiner. If I recall correctly, Spiner was mainly responsible for helping to write the action sequences and for suggesting that Data died in the movie. The rest was Logan and Berman’s doing. And hey, there’s always Stuart Baird (whom I mostly blame for the poor atmosphere and chemistry I observed in the film).
Let’s face it… we can play the blame game all day and not get anywhere. Personally, though, I think if Nemesis had been directed by someone like Bryan Singer (X-Men) or, say, Edward Zwick (The Last Samurai), we likely wouldn’t be having this discussion. Paramount and Berman were insistent that someone unfamiliar with working on the franchise be assigned to the film in order to have a fresh perspective, but they could have done a lot better than Baird, with much better results.
On the other hand, they could have done a lot worse, as well… can you image how Nemesis would have been in the hands of someone like Mike Mitchell (Deuce Bigalow, Surviving Christmas), Martin Brest (Meet Joe Black, Gigli), Barry Sonnenfeld (Wild Wild West, Men in Black II), Brett Ratner (Red Dragon, X-Men The Last Stand), or… *GULP* … William Shatner?! Yowza… THAT woulda been bad.
#88
Don’t forget Jan de Bont (Speed 2, Lara Croft)!
#88
Oh, and Joel Schumacher (Batman & Robin)! You definitely don’t want him handling a franchise again. :-P
Those last two were meant as a reply to #87, not 88…
Bah. I’m tired. I’m done now. G’night.
Star Trek: Nemesis was a terrible movie. Period! Can a terrible movie be even worse? I guess, but what’s the point of speculating about that? And it’s not just Stuart Baird’s fault. The script by John Logan (of “Bats” fame) was pure drivel. And the producers were so perfunctory in their execution, its as if they didn’t care either way what was going up on the screen. And Spiner and Stewart are not writers, so why let them in on creating the story? The misadventures behind the scenes are readily apparent when watching the movie. Nemesis is the worst of the lot.
All they’ll need to do to get people in Cinema seats is deliver an awesome trailer and make sure it says from the creator of Lost……
Even though I’m not a fan of Lost I don’t hate it I just never got into it, however there is no denying how popular it is.
I actually liked Nemesis. On the other hand, I was also disappointed with it. It’s an odd thing, really. I can certainly see how flawed the movie is and can definitely see how troubled things were behind-the-scenes. But it kept me entertained, at least. As Leonard Maltin said, it’s not a great film, but it is an entertaining one. That’s something that’s hard to come by nowadays.
But, while I found it entertaining as a film in general, as a Trek film… and especially as the last Trek film to feature the TNG cast (most likely) … I found it a major disappointment. Many of the things that define Star Trek were lacking from the film. The morality was there (bettering oneself, what it means to be human, and whatnot)… but everything else was just kind of non-existent. At least Insurrection had that family feel, the feeling that these characters were not just a crew but a family. That was something definitely lacking in the final film.
And that’s my two cents on the subject. I’m out now. Merry Christmas, everybody.
I’m not a hardcore fan of Star Trek but I think Abrams will do fine.
He can write a decent story, as evidenced by Lost, which has a lot of mystery and the characters exploring and trying to figure things out. TOS has similar elements, the crew is usually confronted with some mysterious entity that puts them in jeopardy and must figure a way out. Though what I just said is a rather simple and broad comparison, I think that similar elements can be found in both Lost and TOS and a more articulate/observant person could probably explain it better than I am attempting to.
I think the more relevant point then, is not what Paramount should or should not be doing with Star Trek, it is already a fact that Abrams is doing it, but rather if Abrams is being overworked. Does he have time to write a great story with all the other stuff he’s doing? Cause to me, the bottom line is if the story is compelling and draws you in, the other stuff will follow, i.e. positive fan reception, more widespread appeal, etc.
This horse is dead and continues to be beaten…. time to move on folks.
I wonder where we’d be if TNG had not happened and TOS movies had continued… or would they have?. Would Nimoy and Shatner have quit by now? Or be writing (suggesting) more storylines where they are killed, lost or ???? Would we now be complaining about their lack of creativity or their paycheck?
Nemesis was the only Star Trek film that I didn’t see at the theater. The buzz was so bad that I decided to wait for it to come out on home video. And, unfortunately, all the buzz was correct. I don’t even own a copy of it in my Trek Movie collection. Or Insurrection, for that matter. The TNG movies were just BAD (they got lucky with First Contact). Hopefully, some love and care will be put into the next one (crosses fingers).
#94
For the record, Abrams is not writing the story or the screenplay for Trek XI. He is letting his Alias/M:I3 pals Alex Kurtzman and Robert Orci handle that. Abrams is only producing the film and will direct it pending the outcome of the final script.
#94
Sorry, that’s Roberto Orci, not Robert Orci.
Orci goes by Robert, Roberto and Bob
otherwise I am not sure where you are getting your info but I can assure you that Abrams worked on the story. As for the script, we have reported here that Orci/Kurtzman are doing the bulk of the work on the first draft, but they are working with Abrams. In the end he may end up with just a story credit or both. Regardless Orci and Kurtzman are writing under the supervision of Abrams…the script will be what he wants
#99
Well, yes, I know the script will be done under Abrams’ supervision. And while I know it was originally reported that Abrams worked on the story, later reports left out Abrams’ name as a co-writer. Thanks for correcting me on that, though, I shall update the necessary pages at Memory Alpha immediately. :)
ChuckAmuck:
on the TrekMovie.com Star Trek XI crew page it has always stated that Abrams is a co-writer. It also states that he may only get story credit but the default assumption for now is that he is a full co-writer. Bear in mind that on MI3 all three got writing credit. It may be that Abrams works on the story…then they do the first draft, then he works on the rewrite…who knows. For now we will continue to assume he is a co-writer until we hear otherwise…but it is something we have been loking at.
by the way I took a quick look at the memory alpha Trek XI page and it is kind of strange…it is just a series of news reports but no actual info. I am surprised to see that the Wkipedia page is much more up to date. Feel free to take info from the TrekMovie.com Trek XI Info pages (which the wiki does a lot of as well) Anything from TrekMovie.com is available to Memory Alpha. Even the IMDB page is more up to date that Memory Alpha
#101
The Wikipedia page is more up to date? That is strange; it was what I used to fill in some of the missing information on Memory Alpha’s page. At present, I think the article at Memory Alpha has all the major information regarding the movie — but I could be wrong. Exactly what parts of the article do you feel are out-of-date?
Having asked that, I’ll check out the Trek XI info pages here and see if there’s anything missing, but I would also appreciate further input from you. Also, I’ll try to fix up MA’s Trek XI page a bit in the future.
Cheers!
By the way, thank you for allowing us to use information from TrekMovie.com at Memory Alpha. It is much appreciated. :)