Jan 05 | Palm Digital Media reports that the STAR TREK NEMESIS novelization was the #3 selling e-book in December 2002.

Jan 05 | Wigglefish has reviewed DS9: Rising Son and The Brave and the Bold, both 4/5 stars.

Jan 05 | The L.A. Times analyzes William Shatner's acting career.

Jan 04 | TREK novelist Peter David sounds off on the state of the franchise at his web site.

Jan 03 | Australia's TV1 will air a MAKING OF STAR TREK NEMESIS special on January 11th during its SCI-FI SECTOR @ 8p. (Thanks to 'Joe' for this)

Jan 03 | Cinescape has reviewed Pocket Books' THE BRAVE AND THE BOLD, giving it an A- in its full review.

Jan 02 | FilkJerk and BattlestarGalactica.com have ripped into Ronald D. Moore's BATTLESTAR GALACTICA script. (Thanks to 'Beth' for the tip)

Jan 01 | Dean Valentine, former UPN exec, has purchased a 49.9% stake in the Jim Henson Company with his investment group, according to Reuters.

TREKWEB TALKBACK (223 comments)

Sort Controls: Newest Posts First Oldest Posts First Threaded Posts Nested Posts Flat Posts No Comments Start New Thread | Help! Why NEMESIS failed... By DUPDUP69 (DUPDUP@psu.edu) at 13:54:24 on December 19 2002 URL: | User Info Check out my post here to find out why NEMESIS failed: link Scroll down to find it. It's a bit lengthy, but I think it summarizes it pretty well. Later!! Yours, DUPDUP69 [ Reply to This | Parent Comment ] Warning, random thoughts By Noxmagic () at 22:14:19 on December 18 2002 URL: | User Info I'm not sure that there is any one reason why Nemesis has faired poorly at the box office. Of course, for those fans who don't care for the movie, it is easy to say that its low box office draw is simply because Nemesis is a bad movie (I loved it, by the way). I suspect that America's overall sluggish economy had something to do with it. Certainly, this is not the main reason for Nemesis' poor showing so far, but probably a huge factor. Most people aren't Trekkers, and from my friends' reaction to Trek in general, anything Trek intimidates them. For better or for worse, Trek is stigmatized as not only being for nerds, but very complicated. With over 30 years of history, its easy to understand why a non-Trekker would be scared off by Trek's history. So, with the economy being weak and holiday shopping that still needs to be done, main stream America (non-Trekkers) is not going to want to spend what disposable money it has on a movie that it assumes wasn't created for them. Plus, with Lord of the Rings around the corner, a lot of people are probably waiting to spend their fun money on seeing that movie. Sure, when Rings opens, it will do gangbuster business, but then this movie franchise doesn't have the problems attached to it that I just listed for Nememsis. Whatever the reasons for Nememsis' poor showing (I doubt it will come close to breaking even at the theaters) there are two basic bright spots. First, I'm sure it will do very well once it is released on VHS/DVD. Keep in mind that most of the roughly 5 billion (that's billion people) that Paramount has made over the years from Trek comes not from the t.v. shows or movies, but merchandise tie ins. Be the it DVDs or toys or cloths, merchandise is where Trek makes its money. I'm willing to bet this is why Paramount made Nemesis, and will continue to make Trek movies and t.v. shows. They probably percieve the movies and shows as long, complex commercials for merchandise. So my bet is that Paramount's head people aren't as worried by Nememsis' poor showing as we Trekkers are...they know they'll get the movey back, and then some. Secondly, perhaps Nemesis' poor showing will convince Paramount not to make any more Trek movies for some time. I know I'm contridicting myself here, after just writing that the Paramount people probably view Trek as commercials for merchadise, but I'm hoping that for the sake of Trek on a long term basis, they will cool it with new Trek. I think part of Trek's problem is that there has been too much of it since TNG went on the air back in '87. Since then, we have constatnly had a Trek show on the air, non-stop, along with movie after movie. While we Trekkers love it, main-stream America may slowly be saying enough. I think the best way to re-energize Trek is to let it take a rest. Lets have a decade or so before the next movie. Likewise, after Ent. leaves the air, lets let roughly a decade go by before a new Trek show is created. If this is done, mainstream America will have gotten over its possible Trek fatigue, and we Trekkers will truly appreciate having new Trek around. Plus, perhaps some of the old, tired people associated with putting Trek together will have moved on, so that Paramount will be forced to bring in some fresh blood to handle new Trek movies and t.v. shows. Even a poor ratings (Enterprise) and poor box office results (Nemesis) can be a good thing for Trek. [ Reply to This | Parent Comment ] NEGATIVITY TOWARDS NEMESIS! By 11001001 () at 16:35:24 on December 18 2002 URL: http:// | User Info I think it is bad that there has been so much negativity towards STAR TREK: NEMESIS! In my opinion NEMESIS is a dam good movie! IMPORTANT: One of the critics said on GMA that he did not understand why all the action took place on the ship. How dumb can you be?! It is called STAR TREK (Because they are Trekking Through The Stars!) not Planet Trek! One critic said that STAR TREK should take a lesson from george lucas! Clearly this person does not know the difference between STAR TREK and star wars! NEMESIS was made for the fans! IN MY OPINION NEMESIS IS THE 2ND BEST TNG MOVIE! GO SEE IT! [ Reply to This | Parent Comment ] Just curious here... By one_2_three () at 03:13:19 on December 18 2002 URL: | User Info It amazes me how on Wednesday, a majority of people said 8 to 10 on the poll in terms of Precious Cargo. It also amazes me that ever since Nemesis was released AND these topics have been opened up for discussion, that the poll has found it's way to a majority of 1 (Bad). Amazing, considering the conditions. Why do "those" people vote anyways? Is it to make Trek look really bad? Is it to make yourself feel better because you didn't like NEM when you went to see it? Or is it just because you HEARD a lot of HEARSAY and never actually went and WATCHED the show? Give me a break [ Reply to This | Parent Comment ] RE: Just curious here... by Steve Krutzler @ 10:33:32 EDT on 18 Dec RE: Just curious here... by one_2_three @ 13:58:48 EDT on 18 Dec RE: Just curious here... by Steve Krutzler @ 18:49:41 EDT on 18 Dec Bermans Master Plan By USS Less () at 17:26:55 on December 17 2002 URL: | User Info Is is part of Bermans' Master Plan to destroy TNG and have 'HIS' creation, Enterprise replace it on the big screen? - even though Enterprise is crap! [ Reply to This | Parent Comment ] RE: Bermans Master Plan by Cryoplasm @ 20:12:20 EDT on 17 Dec I won't be seeing this movie - Good or bad By powellfamily () at 17:03:32 on December 17 2002 URL: | User Info The Time article on the direction of Trek as 'action and sex' could not be more right and it sickens me. I haven't liked any of the TNG movies. The scripts have never used any of the comraderie that 7 years of TNG engendered. Action with no heart and plots with no soul do the ideas of Trek a diservice. I can't even watch Trek shows on free TV, Enterprise is so far from what Trek was in its prime. Picard has been watered down into Rambo on Viagra; Crusher, who for 7 years was Picard's devil's advocate on issues, has been reduced to a cameo role. Worf, who I actually liked better on DS9, might as well be a card-board stand-in. Ditto for Geordi. I believe that TWOK was a wonderful movie because the characters grew from what we knew of them in the series-- they weren't turned into parodies of themselves or completely different characters. It's script didn't ignore their past histories or interactions; the characters showed true emotions. Generations had an overly sappy Picard, terrible villian, weak plot overall and killed off Kirk horribly. FC twisted the Borg storyline into something unrecognizable,had a useless female lead whose every word should have gone to Crusher, and had Picard go nuts, when we had already dealt with the post Borg trauma issue in "Family". Insurrection had boob jokes and Riker and Troi in a tub. Quite enough reasons alone to hate it. I have always loved Trek for the characters and the timeliness of its storylines that dealt with issues. Of course, Trek movies don't always have time for deep morality plays, but they should always have time for great characterizations. I will not reward bad writing and abandonment of good characterization by watching Nemesis or, especially, watching Enterprise, which I am ignoring completely as an alternate universe gone amok. I refuse. I love Trek too much. (I met my prom date at a convention, for goodness sake.) I'll stick to watching old TOS, TNG, and DS9 eps. For even when the 'effects' on TOS are a Windex spray bottle, Kirk (who I didn't like..respected.. but did not like till the movies), Spock and McCoy still rivet. Anton Corridian still haunts, Obsession still makes you uneasy for Kirk, and The Trouble with Tribbles still makes you gaffaw out loud. For even when the technobabble is flying fast and furious on TNG, I'll still watch for the pleasure of Chain of Command part 2, or Worf's death scream for K'Ehylar or Crusher telling Picard off for giving the drug addicts back to their pushers in Symbiosis (yes, I even like a few first season eps :-) For even when the mysticism of the Founders has driven me to distraction, I will watch Kira fighting with her own pain when sticking up for a wrongly acused Cardassian, or cry with Sisko when he learns what a grown-up Jake has done for him in The Visitor, or sympatize with Odo in almost any situation. That's Trek for me. Not what we have now. [ Reply to This | Parent Comment ] RE: I won't be seeing this movie - Good or bad by El4short @ 23:17:53 EDT on 18 Dec Critical Reviews have become so depressing... By Tbar (tbar@divertigo.com) at 14:50:22 on December 17 2002 URL: | User Info I was at a BP Connect today getting gas in Orlando and they have a new LCD monitor setup at each gas pump showing news, headlines and movie reviews. So I started pumping my gas and a "movie reviews" page pops up. It has three sentences. Something to the order of this: "Gangs set to be big favorate with Oscars" "If Star Trek Nemesis is a generation's last voyage, then they are going out with a wimper" "Main in Manhatten has JLo as new take on Pretty Woman" That was just so depressing to me. To be getting gas and see that crap about Nemesis. No wonder no one went to see it. Everone I talked to said they heard it sucked. I asked them if they saw it and they said no, they just heard that from the news. That just sucks!!! [ Reply to This | Parent Comment ] the cool thing to do... by DarthSpock @ 19:09:06 EDT on 17 Dec RE: Critical Reviews have become so depressing... by psp1 @ 16:51:05 EDT on 17 Dec RE: Critical Reviews have become so depressing... by AX @ 16:01:33 EDT on 17 Dec RE: Critical Reviews have become so depressing... by Iron Helix @ 15:36:11 EDT on 17 Dec RE: Critical Reviews have become so depressing... by Steve Krutzler @ 15:34:58 EDT on 17 Dec Give it a chance By Neilbucket (neilbucket@aol.com) at 13:04:43 on December 17 2002 URL: www.geocities.com/neilbucket | User Info Give Nemesis a chance at the box office. Too many people are putting together a coffin for the franchise because Nemesis got shot in the leg at the box office on opening weekend. Let us see how id does through it's domestic run and how the international audience receives it. See me review @ www.geocities.com/neilbucket [ Reply to This | Parent Comment ] RE: Give it a chance by Cryoplasm @ 20:22:29 EDT on 17 Dec RE: Give it a chance by Trekforever @ 15:51:04 EDT on 17 Dec Longer Movie and Dead Trek By Dukat () at 10:43:36 on December 17 2002 URL: | User Info Well- These results should show at least that Paramount was right about shortening the movie. There are still a lot of people saying that "if all those scenes were not cut..." but the fact is if that had been the case, you would not have increased how many screens were showing the film, you would have just decreased the number of showings. Therefore, The friday and saturday showings that were sold out would have decreased by about 50%. And Nemesis would not have come close to Maid (only missed by $200k, and ST did better per screen). Also, take a look at Box office Mojo history of the other Trek weekends since Generations. This was surely the toughest weekend any Trek film has had. Had my wife been 10 years younger, I know that my butt would have been trying to sit through Maid in Manhattan, but in addition to that, there was another new movie "Drumline" which took in 12 million. And The Hot Chick also came out, but I cannot believe that got any ST business. But Insurrection only faced Jack Frost, which I cannot even remember, First Contact went up against Jingle All The Way, which how great could that be! You know going against a Arnuld comedy you could put out a turd of a movie and still get #1. As far as dead Trek as some people say below, I think that Trek does have a problem with getting kids excited about it. You got a major coolness problem if you begin to be identified with the losers putting on costumes and going to conventions. A kid also is just not going to be interested in a show that his parents watched as kids, just like they don't want Simon & Garfunkel or the Grateful Dead. This ignores the B&B issue, and there is one. B&B have given us 300+ hours of Trek (I will kindly deduct the last 5 seasons of DS9, the first 3 of TNG, and all of TOS)-- however you stack it, Berman has been in charge of about 3 times the Trek as Roddenberry was even alive for. If Roddenberry was in charge the whole time, he would have grown bored as he did and we would have had about 5 seasons of TNG and that would have been it for another long time. We would have also had "Changeling" retold about 10 times, and the Picard vs Computer retold about 30 times. Also we would have had a bit more Q stories, but they would not all be called Q. What is the solution? 2 possibilities I see -- 1) Let it die. Hopefully it can be brought back in 10 years. Paramount is unlikely to do this I think. They still need Enterprise for the UPN, and will need a Trek series for that. 2) Bring back the DS9 team, let Berman go do other things, and be only in charge as an overseer as he was for DS9. Ira is important, so is RDM. The DS9 team had the most respect and admiration for original Trek, even though it was the biggest departure. That won't happen either. What will happen? Berman retires from Trek, and leaves Braga in charge. Berman has kids & a life, and has spent a lot of time doing this, he has got to feel burned out. Braga is still pretty young, and needs to be able to provide actresses work and bigger roles in order to get what he--ah-hemm-- needs. Nobody else is gonna want someone who had just done bad Trek and nothing else for 15 years. [ Reply to This | Parent Comment ] RE: Longer Movie and Dead Trek by Assimilator @ 13:06:30 EDT on 17 Dec Disagreed by prometheus 59650 @ 11:41:20 EDT on 17 Dec RE: Disagreed by Dukat @ 13:45:46 EDT on 17 Dec You misunderstand me on some points. by prometheus 59650 @ 15:29:32 EDT on 17 Dec RE: You misunderstand me on some points. by Dukat @ 17:38:46 EDT on 17 Dec RE: Longer Movie and Dead Trek by Steve Krutzler @ 11:14:37 EDT on 17 Dec Braga? you are kidding... by Dukat @ 13:52:52 EDT on 17 Dec RE: Braga? you are kidding... by Steve Krutzler @ 15:38:27 EDT on 17 Dec While I don't agree... by prometheus 59650 @ 15:38:10 EDT on 17 Dec nemesis By USS Less () at 00:12:03 on December 17 2002 URL: | User Info Following all the responses, articles and the like which have appeared all over the web and including this site regarding Nemesis, I wish to add the follwing. Firstly I have not seen the picture as it has not hit the theatres here in Australia (we have to wait another month). It seems to me that after all the talk, discussion and reviews that the picture is a good one - perhaps not perfect - but a good solid Trek Film. Why does a movie need to be No 1 at the BO to be a hit? Many great movies of the past have not all been smash hits. Having not seen the movie, my impression from all that I have read has just got me even more desperate to see it and hopefully other Trekkers around the world are too! I feel that this is time that we (trekkers) worldwide need to get together and see Nemesis as many times as possible all over the world to prove to the powers that be that Trek is NOT dead! [ Reply to This | Parent Comment ] RE: nemesis by steveleenow @ 06:17:29 EDT on 17 Dec You all have gotten your wish By Captain J R Kirk () at 00:06:07 on December 17 2002 URL: | User Info Several months back, during a rather heated exchange over a lame Trek review that was posted here, I postulated on what would happen to the franchise if Nemesis tanked. All the Trek bashers were out in force, decrying the worthlessness of Enterprise, and praising just how good Nemesis was going to be. It was going to "revitalize" Trek, and send Enterprise packing. I asked them what the future would hold for Trek is Enterprise did indeed fold and Nemesis was a flop. Well Enterprise has tanked my friends. All those self hating trekkies have managed to kill it. And now Nemesis has gone where no Trek film has gone before, opening at number 2, with no hope of ever getting to be number one. So what happens from here on out? Well we'll get the misfits that want Berman and Braga hung. Claiming that it's there fault that Trek has tanked. Remember these were the same folks that a few months ago were running off at the mouth over how great it was the Logan was going to write the script for Nemesis, and Stuart Baird was going to bring a new sense of direction to the franchise. Didn't happen did it. Logan's script is weak, and Bairds direction is mundane at best. Enterprise at the same time is dieing. A hundred reasons for it, and you know what, a lot of those have to do with how the "fans" have desereted the franchise. Why do you think they have to "sexy" up the show? Because we as fans have decided that we have better things to do than watch Enterprsie. Is Enterprise Great Trek? No. Is it better than most second season Trek's are, except the Classic series? Yes. Go take a look at the second season of TNG, or DS9. Look at any season of Voyager, Enterprise is better. So the self loathing fans have won. By this time next year, I predict, we will have no Trek to fight over, except the reruns. THe franchise has not been killed by Paramount, or Berman, or Braga, or Baird or Logan. No, it's been killed by fans that have forgotten what it's like to have no Trek at all. We either support Trek, warts and all, or we lose it. We are going to lose it. I hope your satisfied. The vocal minority, that has never done anything creative to help Trek, has shouted long and hard, and has voted with their pocket books. Let me know in 10 years what it's like after you haven't seen any new trek how your feeling then. I know, I've been there. I'm a first generation Trekker, unlike the little trekkies that are running around these boards, and I know what it's like to go 10 years with just watching reruns and reading really horrible novels. We either support Trek, warts and all, or we lose it. We are going to lose it people, and that saddens and disgusts me. So after being an active member of Fandom for over 30 years, having attended many conventions, and small gatherings. Having spent more money on Trek than most peopple spend on their first new car, I am walking away from Fandom. I will still love and support the show, but the people who are the fans now share nothing in common with me, or the first generation fans I know. They do nothing but trash Trek but have nothing to offer to improve it. These are not fans, they are people who nothing but a negative view on life, and I am tired of hearing them grouse. As a final parting statement. Everytime I post, and Steve reads them, the first thing he does is attack me for posing under a fictious name. I point out to him, ad nauseum, that the email addy I use is my real, main addy, and I'd love to hear from him. Let me take it a step furthur, because I want people here to realize just how ernest I am about this. MY Name Is James Durdan I Live in Berlin, NH. My Phone Number is listed under that name, so if you want to call me and discuss this, I'll be here. Am I still Hiding? [ Reply to This | Parent Comment ] RE: You all have gotten your wish by Hbasm @ 06:38:33 EDT on 20 Dec RE: You all have gotten your wish by Noxmagic @ 22:45:27 EDT on 18 Dec RE: You all have gotten your wish by Cryoplasm @ 20:39:33 EDT on 17 Dec RE: You all have gotten your wish by cooper2000 @ 12:33:04 EDT on 17 Dec RE: You all have gotten your wish by Captain J R Kirk @ 14:59:11 EDT on 17 Dec RE: You all have gotten your wish by lnformed @ 11:36:46 EDT on 30 Dec RE: You all have gotten your wish by Blok_Narpin @ 10:50:02 EDT on 17 Dec RE: You all have gotten your wish by timmer33 @ 09:34:22 EDT on 17 Dec RE: You all have gotten your wish by AX @ 15:10:50 EDT on 17 Dec RE: You all have gotten your wish by Assimilator @ 13:16:31 EDT on 17 Dec RE: You all have gotten your wish by one_2_three @ 12:18:32 EDT on 17 Dec RE: You all have gotten your wish by Daniel @ 09:12:54 EDT on 17 Dec hits the nail on the head By cooper2000 () at 19:49:21 on December 16 2002 URL: | User Info This is the best review I've read of the film and it's implications on Star Trek: link December 12, 2002 - "Star Trek is dead!" So proclaim legions of fans who doubt the continued solvency of this thirty-six-year-old franchise. Such sentiments were even echoed by people attending Tuesday morning's Austin screening of Trek's newest theatrical installment, Nemesis. As a lifelong Star Trek fan, I've had discussions about this very notion with friends, colleagues, and even people closely associated with the various permutations of Gene Roddenberry's long-lived juggernaut. Understandably, everybody has their own opinion on "the trouble with Trek," but all evaluations reflect one common theme: at best, the franchise is in serious trouble, perhaps catastrophic trouble. But what are these "troubles" exactly? And, how can they be undone? Some say Star Trek should be put out to pasture, and that the series is suffering from over-exposure and burnout. This would be shameful: diminishing audiences and lackluster box office do not necessarily denote the oversaturation of a title, or disinterest in a franchise. The James Bond movies prove this out nicely: audiences may waffle over one style (or theme) of Bond movie, but when the formula is shaken-up in a subsequent film, crowds often turn out in droves. In short: that a franchise has chugged along for two or three decades – in any permutation – may be, more or less, irrelevant. At the end of the day, audiences want to be entertained. So, the question becomes: defining what entertains viewers, and figuring out how to give it to them what they want within parameters and guidelines already laid out in the franchise's history. And this, for my money, is where Star Trek has recently failed: it has ignored quantifiably successful elements from previous feature films and television series, and failed to generate new material that is in any way compelling to either fans or laymen. On television, and in film, the franchise has repeatedly embraced modes of storytelling that are awkward and unfocused at best. It has relied upon "A" plots and "B" plots that often do not intersect (if you can't figure out a way to drive a story with just one through-line, then it's not a story that should be told at all), revelations that challenge (or utterly dismiss) previously established history or continuity, stories that regurgitate previous Star Trek adventures, and demonstrated a repeated – indeed, pitiful – unwillingness to take chances with its style, characters, or concept. In short: Star Trek is now content to be bland. Anyone regularly tuning into Trek's most recent TV incarnations – Voyager and Enterprise – knows exactly what they are going to get, substantively and narratively. And there's rarely, if ever, any deviation. This "sameness" cuts across the board, and permeates nearly every technical element of the franchise as well: editorial sluggishness, photographic stagnancy, and musical repression run rampant. Recently, word has leaked about how such dastardly decisions have come about, and all fingers point to two individuals: franchise overlords Rick Berman and Brannon Braga. Observant fans may have noticed an increasing stream of comments from Star Trek staff members regarding the behind-the-scenes machinations that drive Trek's creative policy. Composers have publicly commented on producer's insistence that episodic scores be "toned down" and restrained, which inherently diminishes viewer perception of the intend on-screen emotion (whether it be urgency, tension, romance, etc.) There is scuttlebutt that Jonathan Frakes – director of the feature films First Contact and Insurrection – was repeatedly ordered to restrain his visual style and camera movements during the production of those films. Across the board, the franchise looks the same, sounds the same, and feels the same. Motionless, lackluster, uninspired, physically and emotionally colorless, texturally and conceptually tepid, and almost completely lacking in dramatic truth. And all of these shortcomings are being deliberately engineered by The Powers That Be, who insist that their vision is the proper vision, regardless of dwindling audiences and returns. People often point to the oft-overlooked Star Trek: Deep Space Nine as the boldest and most palpable embodiment of what Star Trek ought to be. Not-so-surprisingly, DS9 is also the recent Trek product least impacted by Berman and Braga, as evidenced by recent public comments from other producers on the series. All things being equal, it seems the trouble with Star Trek lies not in the nature of Trek itself, but with the people whose vision is guiding it, and their apparent inability comprehend the most basic tenets of narrative convention or compelling artistry. Star Trek is about "boldly" going "where no one has gone before". There is nothing bold about Star Trek anymore – it has been artistically and stylistically neutered (it's a pretty sad state-of-affairs when the original television series – filmed in the 1960s – seems more stylistically refined (camera movements, shot compositions, score usage, etc.) than a considerably more high-tech and "enlightened" series made today). It has been beaten into a mushy, lifeless visage of a once daring and vital franchise. Which brings us to Star Trek Nemesis – the first feature film to shatter the age-old adage that "even numbered Trek movies are always good". The tenth theatrical Star Trek adventure, Nemesis is an important film in many ways – mostly because its success or failure may determine a great deal about where the franchise heads from here. In an effort to capitalize on the same success found when Paramount drafted producer Harve Bennett and director Nicholas Meyer – both Trek virgins brought in to helm Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan in the early 1980s – legendary editor-turned-director Stuart Baird was brought-in to wrangle Nemesis. The theory was this: bring in some fresh blood, someone who can re-interpret Star Trek with a fresh perspective. It worked with Bennett and Meyer, maybe it will would work again with Baird... But someone didn't think this through too carefully: Bennett and Meyer were very thorough, very thoughtful, and very contemplative about how they approached Star Trek. They did inject fresh sensibilities to the equation, but they also researched the original series very carefully when doing so. Bennett, for example, watched every original series episode before commencing work on The Wrath of Khan. In fact, as a Trek newbie, it was Bennett's idea to bring back Khan in the first place – so obviously he got something out of his crash course. Stuart Baird did no such research: reports from the set indicate he repeatedly called LeVar Burton's Geordi LaForge character "an alien" (he is extremely human), and referred to Trek's signature "phasers" as "ray guns". This is like sending someone who knows nothing about money to represent a major corporation on the floor of the stock market, and nowhere is Baird's lack of familiarity with Star Trek: The Next Generation more evident than in how its characters are approached. There's a moment in the film's conclusion in which two characters say goodbye to each other – for all we know, this may well be the last time they see each other. There are no knowing expressions, no pauses of unspoken appreciation or understanding – nothing. These people have been friends and associates for decades, yet the departure is cursory and uninvolving, like someone we've known forever is getting on a bus to ride across town. Nemesis is riddled with missed opportunities and dramatic insincerity. One has to wonder how things would have turned-out if Baird actually had context for the material he was directing – if he'd cared enough to figure it out in the first place, or had been made to do so by the people in charge. Nemesis is a big, sloppy, floundering mess. performances are generally tepid and uncertain – the main TNG characters seem aloof and unclear about what they are doing, and their interaction with each other. Dallas Puett's editing is sluggish, filled with inexplicable lag time between cuts, lending every scene a muddy and ponderous quality – an astounding deficit considering director Baird was once editor of films like Superman: The Movie, The Omen, and Lethal Weapons 1 and 2. Cinematography by legendary lensman Jeffrey Kimball is awkward and tacky, often opting for angles which place solid walls of blandness behind character's faces, when simply reversing the angle would have revealed a deeper, more textured background. Color schemes evoke Roger Corman's Battle Beyond the Stars, rather than a big-budget feature film. Jerry Goldsmith's electronic-heavy score overpowers the on-screen action, sometime to absurd results. Visual effects by Digital Domain – making their first foray into the Star Trek universe – are consistently top-of-the-line, but what they represent is generally uninspired. No matter how well produced DD's work may be, it's difficult to be impressed by three ships on screen at one time, when the recent The Lord of the Rings and Star Wars movies have upped the ante by putting tens-of-thousands of fighting things in front of us in a single shot. Hope shines brightly when Patrick Stewart's Jean-Luc Picard hatches a diabolical plan to lure evil Shinzon (Tom Hardy) into Federation space, where a Starfleet armada is waiting to ambush the badguy. But such a glorious notion is never delivered: Enterprise never makes it to Federation space...never reaches the armada...and we're only given a slightly-larger-than-TV shootout between a meager three or four ships. A tantalizing hint at what could have been. Which pretty much describes the whole movie: it's a bait-and-switch. Scriptwriter John Logan (Gladiator), who has repeatedly indicated he wrote Nemesis for the fans, has mistaken trivia for heart. To reference Captain Kirk, or make an aside regarding a previous Star Trek adventure, is not the same thing as understanding the soul of a concept. A self-professed Star Trek II fan, Logan would have been better advised to follow in Bennett and Meyer's footsteps...and comb the archives for unresolved Next Generation storylines...instead of cheaply mimicking Wrath of Khan's "opposing geniuses collide & big ships shoot" motif. In Nemesis, we should have seen things we have never seen before, or followed-up on stories still waiting to be resolved. We should not have been given pale imitations of someone else's ideas. There is a perceptual/emotional blueprint in place here, but writing, performances, and direction do not follow through on the template that's presented. In Nemesis, there are no moments as sublimely truthful as Kirk's vulnerability showing through at unexpected instances in The Wrath of Khan or The Search for Spock for example, or even his chilling comment in Star Trek V: The Final Frontier referencing a foreknowledge that he will someday "die alone". No moments as primally satisfying as the Klingon torpedo flying through Enterprise's saucer section in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country – a sequence which was, what, five or ten seconds long? All of this isn't an effort to exalt the original series (or their movies) over The Next Generation – this is an effort to illustrate a point. It's not that hard to figure out what makes Star Trek work. Episodic ratings and box office returns pretty much bare out the illustration: for the most part, Trek is best-received, most effective, and most noteworthy, when it takes chances. Risk taking is what propelled the original series towards legendary status – would anyone have even noticed Star Trek if there hadn't been an element of controversy or edge about it – if it hadn't served as a well-intentioned surrogate for a repressed societal voice that was waiting to be heard? If it hadn't made us think about issues like abortion, racism, and censorship? Would The Next Generation episode "The Best of Both Worlds" have become one of the most popular episodes ever if the series lead hadn't been kidnapped and turned into a Borg, and for one brief moment, made a supervillain? The answer to all these questions is: no. Genre entries like Xena, Hercules, Farscape, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and even the much-maligned Andromeda have repeatedly demonstrated that chances can be taken with a franchise, to positive and intriguing results. Berman and Braga assert they are merely following a re-definition of Star Trek, which was laid out before franchise progenitor Gene Roddenberry passed away. If this is so, one has to ask: is it honoring a dying man's legacy to remain so devoted to his vision that the legacy itself collapses under its own deadweight? Isn't it possible that Roddenberry's re-definition may not have been the proper definition? Is it doing a legacy justice to muffle its voice and stifle its vitality? Tantalizing...and compelling...questions. Star Trek is not dead, but the ability of its shepherds to properly protect the flock may be irreparably compromised. Whether or not there are more Star Trek stories to tell is not an issue – such potential is as vast as the universe itself. Whether or not the people in charge can tell such stores is a concern. This attrition has been happening for a long time, but only now is the full extent of Paramount's remiss complacency becoming evident. Give Star Trek its balls back. Take chances. Think out of the box. Put some color into the shows – good God, who wants to look at murky gray tones every week? Add visual dynamic and kinetics. Pump-up the sound. Above all, let the characters be human, and unpredictable. Let them make mistakes, and compromise their ideals – because Trek is about humans, and humans can be inconsistent. Let our characters not always do the right thing, and let us not always agree with them. Make it...well...real. Let Star Trek be a youthful child, filled with energy, quirkiness, driven by a sense of experimentation, exploration, and wonder. Something needs to be done here – bravely, and with extreme prejudice. I walked out of Star Trek Nemesis – whose promotional tag line is "A generation's final journey begins" – with the words of Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country's Chancellor Gorkon echoing in my head: "Don't let it end this way." Not for The Next Generation, and not for the franchise in general. Make it so... [ Reply to This | Parent Comment ] RE: hits the nail on the head by garak8 @ 00:05:25 EDT on 17 Dec RE: hits the nail on the head by Steve Krutzler @ 08:02:21 EDT on 17 Dec RE: hits the nail on the head by Steve Krutzler @ 23:28:25 EDT on 16 Dec RE: hits the nail on the head by cooper2000 @ 12:49:59 EDT on 17 Dec RE: hits the nail on the head by Steve Krutzler @ 13:57:30 EDT on 17 Dec RE: hits the nail on the head by CaptainO @ 03:14:50 EDT on 17 Dec RE: hits the nail on the head by AX @ 16:47:08 EDT on 17 Dec Good call. by viking5150 @ 02:54:57 EDT on 17 Dec RE: hits the nail on the head by Robnhud @ 23:32:50 EDT on 16 Dec RE: hits the nail on the head by Daniel @ 22:44:16 EDT on 16 Dec RE: hits the nail on the head by compupc1 @ 22:43:09 EDT on 16 Dec Can't be further from the truth by XtremeFan @ 21:35:20 EDT on 16 Dec RE: Can't be further from the truth by Assimilator @ 13:29:39 EDT on 17 Dec RE: Can't be further from the truth by SkinOfEvil @ 22:29:46 EDT on 16 Dec RE: Can't be further from the truth by DarthSpock @ 22:21:16 EDT on 16 Dec RE: hits the nail on the head by SkinOfEvil @ 20:06:52 EDT on 16 Dec Face it, it's as simple as pie... By one_2_three () at 19:40:41 on December 16 2002 URL: | User Info Television, movies and media are the things dying out, not the fame or fortune of a franchise or two. The "years" for television in the last 20 years were the years of 1984 to 1994, they included Cheers, Night Court, Roseanne, Star Trek: TNG, L.A. Law, Cosby Show....the list goes on and on of shows that were super popular and had characters and actors in them that FIT in to their roles. All of the shows above made something, put a stone in television history. Same can be said with movies and even professional wrestling for god's sake....even CARTOONS can be used in this arguement. Pokemon and Digimon is what is growing our kids up? Give me a break. Notice how after around '94 (not for all, but for most of the above mentioned), it has been downhill...shows debut, movies, etc. that only do a very small chunk of what the older media has done. Professional Wrestling was at it's prime in 1990 to 1995, it started failing after that. Trek was popular until around '99 (DS9 ended), and has been crap since. Movies that come out are half-baked and use pathetic people in them. Example. The Rock in Scorpion King, J'Lo making her own movies, Spears making her own movies. These are wrestlers and god damn singers, not actors!! They may bring in mega box office hits, but they are nothing that people will remind 20 years down the road like we do with movies from the 1980's and early 90's. Face it, media has it is, especially fantasy, sci-fi, "wanna be a hero" type things just can't/won't be original anymore and a lot of what we see can and probably will become true one day, it's not even funny. People are giving up on media and i wouldn't be surprised if Roddenberry "pre-announced" the destruction of such entertainment (as we see in 24th century Trek). Sci-Fi, Fantasy and "wanna be a hero" on the television and movies is slowly become science-non fiction, reality and "i can be a hero" in real life itself. What we see on the tube now a days isn't unrealistic enough to keep us wanting more, as we can almost all think of a way that our society could do that one day, whereas even in the 1980's and early 90's when computers were not in full force, people wouldn't have thought up the kinds of things we are doing even in the early 21st century. As much as I would love to see ENT and Trek itself improve, it's just going to follow the same path that many and all sci-fi shows will eventually take...the path to destruction. [ Reply to This | Parent Comment ] Um...no. by AX @ 17:13:15 EDT on 17 Dec RE: Face it, it's as simple as pie... by timmer33 @ 23:55:48 EDT on 16 Dec RE: Face it, it's as simple as pie... by one_2_three @ 12:11:23 EDT on 17 Dec RE: Face it, it's as simple as pie... by one_2_three @ 12:20:10 EDT on 17 Dec Fade Out By Insurrectionist () at 19:36:40 on December 16 2002 URL: | User Info The only consolation left, after having been disappointed by Nemesis this past weekend, is that by next weekend it will be a faded memory. [ Reply to This | Parent Comment ] More problems.... By SkinOfEvil () at 18:34:49 on December 16 2002 URL: | User Info Well there is a pretty nice bootleg floating around on the warez places. I wonder how much this will hurt Nem? I think its a given that a good portion of people who like star trek, know a thing or two about computers. With the mixed reviews I bet a large number of people will just download it. From the sheer number of servers and queues I have seen, its quite a lot. And just to clarify I will NOT be downloading it, if i want to see it again I will pay money to see it. I have not nor will I bootleg star trek movies, I just downloaded a "sample" to see the quality. [ Reply to This | Parent Comment ] RE: More problems.... by one_2_three @ 19:24:37 EDT on 16 Dec Looking at the numbers By BorgQueen () at 16:53:18 on December 16 2002 URL: | User Info The only problem with everyone's bleak outlook is the amount of money that the number one film made. Nemesis wasn't that far behind. Even J-Lo's film didn't rake in the money first contact did. Case in point - the economy isn't doing so well - just look at the Nasdaq and the stock market. People aren't going to the movies as much otherwise J-Lo would have raked in lots of money. I have a feeling all the x-mas movies this season will not do as well as projected and that will compensate. --- "I rather believe that time is a companion who goes with us on the journey, and reminds us to cherish every moment because they will never come again." Jean-Luc Picard [ Reply to This | Parent Comment ] This was J-Lo's biggest opening... by Matt Rojanakiathavor @ 17:28:36 EDT on 16 Dec RE: Looking at the numbers by Steve Krutzler @ 17:15:26 EDT on 16 Dec RE: Looking at the numbers by garak8 @ 18:52:01 EDT on 16 Dec The Bottom Line By mohap () at 16:30:04 on December 16 2002 URL: | User Info The bottom line is only people who had an affinity for these characters from the beginning would like this picture. Only TNG fans. Otherwise the film doesn't hold up on its own right. Nemesis was my favorite Star Trek movie but I'll tell you why it wasn't the best one: IT DID NOT APPEAL TO GENERAL AUDIENCES. It's a pretty good estimate if we assume only trekkies and scifi fans went to see this picture. The one good thing Paramount will gain from this is : How much revenue are we able to generate if ONLY trekkies went to see a Star Trek picture? That way in the future, they'll know what the baseline revenue is. I even think that if they make a little profit on Nemesis then there will be another TNG movie. [ Reply to This | Parent Comment ] RE: The Bottom Line by covetom @ 18:14:38 EDT on 16 Dec Good but missing something... By cooper2000 () at 13:23:55 on December 16 2002 URL: | User Info Good movie but when John Logan said in an interview that this was an homage to TWOK, he wasnt kidding. Sad that Trek is ripping itself off so much lately and blatantly too. This movie was essentially TWOK with a bit of Star Trek TUC thrown in. Good character scenes but not enough of them to offset the contrived action scenes that just didnt seem to belong in Trek in the first place. Would have loved to see some more moments with the crew and hey, what happend to Worfs part? No wonder Michael Dorn almost didnt do the movie. Hes basically set decoration as is Beverly. And what does Riker really have to do other than his little Fight Scene towards the end? Geordi gets a few Techno Bable scenes and he's wasted too. I know not everyone is going to get equal screen time but the whole Data plot thread just didnt do it for me. You can tell that Spiner had story credit because he not only gets to play one character, but two. Picards whole clone thingy was ok but not as compelling as I would have hoped for. Schinzon was more like Chang from Star Trek 6 than anything. He didnt seem menacing enough although Hardy did do a good job. I felt cheated with the whole Data thing at the end because low and behold there is B4 still there. Very convenient! I thought the whole story in the first place was because Spiner was saying he was too old and wasnt sure if he wanted to do Trek anymore. Or was that something he just said during salary negotiations? Though it was great to see the characters I enjoy back again, I think that it's quite possible that they took a lot of the Meaty scenes out in favor of Action which I think was a mistake, but then again the powers that be at Paramount keep approving underwear clad plotlines every week on Enterprise, so... The movie could have kept a good additional 10-15 minutes of the movie easily and not hurt it. Would have hurt to have the Wesley scenes left in or more scenes with Beverly et all? Where is it written that Picard and Data are the only ones that get big roles? Maybe we will get some of this back on the DVD integrated into the film.I think it needs it. It would make it much more of a Rich film and give the movie some more resonance that I will the film lacked. Not a perfect film but enjoyable, and still light years ahead of the last two Star Wars movies which are more of an excercise in special effects technology than anything. My main beef as most people seem to be stating as well is that they chopped a bunch of character scenes out to appeal to a wide audience and it left the Real Trek fans wanting more of that, myself included. They gambled and lost by doing this and with TTT coming up among other films, things arent going to get any better. Id give it a B- [ Reply to This | Parent Comment ] RE: Good but missing something... by covetom @ 18:31:40 EDT on 16 Dec Something was off By sid () at 12:37:24 on December 16 2002 URL: | User Info Since a few days have passed, I have been trying to coalesce the reasons why I felt unfulfilled after seeing Nemesis. I liked the movie but to paraphrase Scotty, the engines just don't feel right. For a movie about family/friendship, it seemed to focus more on action than family. The heart of Trek is having the characters, who are friends, go through some experiences and come out the other side closer than when it started and taking us along for that ride. With Nemesis, the experiences and loss did not pull at my heartstrings that strongly (and I am easy) and did not appear to strengthen the bond these characters have with each other; in fact, that they were heading in separate ways did not help. For an action movie, it did not give me the thrills I'd expect. I was more at the edge of my seat during Harry Potter Chamber of Secrets 'chase' scenes (the flying car ride and the rogue bludger chase) than during the dune buggy chase scene. Not even close. And I knew the HP story backwards and forwards and still found it more exciting. I don't know if these are the reasons Nemesis did not feel right to me, but I do know I came out of that picture missing what I've come out of every other Trek picture feeling (though #5 was weak). Now if only I could define it. Essense de Trek. [ Reply to This | Parent Comment ] Maybe ... by Sim @ 17:14:12 EDT on 16 Dec To Absent Friends... By c.p. () at 11:18:56 on December 16 2002 URL: | User Info It pains me to no end to say, I think NEMESIS was the second worse of all TNG movies, just behind INSURRECTION. I feel really bad for the cast and crew. They've been an extended part of my family since '88 or '89, and I know they did the best they could. Stewart is magnificant, as always, and the special effects were the best ever, but I just think they've "lost the magic" as it were. Unlike Ebert and other outspoken critics, I don't think it's a fault of the STAR TREK formula itself. But the sense of awe and wonder, and drama is now completely gone. I think poor direction made NEMESIS play out like an exercise in apathy—apathy for characters and situations that should have been anything but. It had all the right parts, but somehow that's all it was in the end. The whole didn't exceed it's parts. When the movie ends I don't feel like I've been on an emotional and physical journey like I did at the end of FIRST CONTACT or the best of the original cast movies. I love these folks, but it's time to let them ride into the sunset. I want to remember them at their height, when they were the critics' darlings, when every week was better and more surprising than the last. When the show's slick production and originality inspired me personally. I still have hope that the producers of ENTERPRISE will wake up to what's been happening, and figure out a way to capture the wonder and surprise that STAR TREK has been missing for a while. Beyond that, it has to be shelved until a new group of producers and writers ARE INSPIRED—not simply paid— to take it off the shelf, dust it off, and mold it into something new. [ Reply to This | Parent Comment ] RE: To Absent Friends... by Steve Krutzler @ 11:22:43 EDT on 16 Dec RE: To Absent Friends... by PretendToDream @ 18:44:51 EDT on 16 Dec RE: To Absent Friends... by Stroker Ace @ 16:55:00 EDT on 16 Dec RE: To Absent Friends... by cooper2000 @ 13:35:18 EDT on 16 Dec RE: To Absent Friends... by picard10 @ 17:20:52 EDT on 16 Dec RE: To Absent Friends... by Robnhud @ 23:17:35 EDT on 16 Dec RE: To Absent Friends... by Steve Krutzler @ 17:49:13 EDT on 16 Dec RE: To Absent Friends... by picard10 @ 10:40:36 EDT on 17 Dec This is The End... By Dukat () at 10:19:33 on December 16 2002 URL: | User Info ... maybe it is the end, and maybe it is not. Clearly Paramount is unpredictable when it comes to Trek. Give us a superb ST-TNG DVD, and then a slightly lesser ST2, and then nothing with ST3, ST4, ST5.. The wonderful TNG DVD sets. Release a Trek movie 5 days before the biggest movie of the year? Why not just cram it between Spiderman and SW:ATOC? Maybe release it the same day as MIB2. The real test will be staying power, if word of mouth can keep it going for a few decent weeks-- maybe by mid-January it can make 80 million. Internationally it will probably do 50-100 million. DVD will be strong, easily as strong as any of the other DVDs. But, if after all that, Paramount decides to not make another, it will suck a bit, but what a movie to go out on. It would be much better to stop with Nemesis then to make another stinker like Insurrection. However, I have had another thought. With Data dead-- they could easily not have B-4 in the next film, and then save $10 million making it. I for one, would not miss him. I have for a long time, while liking him a little, found him to be a cute, corny version of Spock (especially during seasons 1 & 2 and all the movies). I still have nightmares about the evil Data sings during the shuttle chase in Insuckrection. Another possibility is to make a DS9 mini-series or TV movie, possibly bringing in the Titan-- or end Enterprise at 4-5 seasons and start up Series 6 with the Titan. What would be really neat is if Paramount decided to do a Trek head-to-head with Berman & Braga heading up the Enterprise effort, with Behr & Moore working on Series 6 with the ratings & critical winners getting the next movie. I do not think that Nemesis will be the last movie. It might be the last TNG movie, might not. It may also be the last movie until there has been no new ST episodes for 3, 4, or 8 years. [ Reply to This | Parent Comment ] bad reviews By Daniel () at 09:52:03 on December 16 2002 URL: | User Info The bad reviews don't speak so much about this film as just a general boredom with Star Trek. There is NO WAY this movie is as bad as Trek V or Insurrection. It is at least as good as First Contact, maybe better - I'll have to see it a few more times before I can really make that determination. I do agree that too much was cut from the movie. [ Reply to This | Parent Comment ] RE: bad reviews AND... by CaptainO @ 12:39:11 EDT on 16 Dec RE: bad reviews AND... by JagMan @ 13:45:48 EDT on 16 Dec RE: bad reviews by Capt. D @ 10:57:13 EDT on 16 Dec It's time! By cherno72 () at 09:41:30 on December 16 2002 URL: | User Info Well the movie was awful, so it deserves what is happening to it. You know when Ron Moore was "let go" and talked of fifth series was going on, he said that the worst thing that could happen to Trek would turn out to be the best thing for it. He said something to the effect that the frachise would fail and it would be put away. Later it would be picked up with new vision and new interest from the fans. Well, guess what--we've finally reached that point. Now we wait and see how bad it gets for Enterprise. It has started with the re-tooling to make it hip and sexier (always the beginning of the end for a series that isn't working.) Like Nemesis, it will be difficult to go through. I think Berman and company did well for their background. I agree with many of the complaints about them, especially the true Nemsis--Braga. (I realize he had little to do with this movie, but his tainting of all things Trek is everywhere.) We've complained about them long enough, but there's nothing like losing money and a dying