Looking at the latest box office receipts, Nemesis made just $4.4. million this past weekend. That would bring its total to somewhere in the $20 million dollar range. I'm sorry to say it, but, regardless if the movie is good or bad, the movie probably won't make back its $60 million budget. It's a flop. And thus, it is the end of the Star Trek movies. For Now.
(But Lord of the Rings made $101 million since Wednesday! Can you say $ 1 billion?)
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I'm hardly surprised. I was quite let down by the movie. I hope it is the last film for a while. This franchise is headed for hell in a handbasket unless Paramount wises up and starts pushing Berman and Braga towards the door.
ENT still holds some small measure of promise, but they're handling it fairly badly at the moment. I can only hope that the coming seasons will bring more than the previous and current one have/are.
Man, it really sucks, because I truly love Star Trek. It's a sort of passion with me. And I cringe at the way its being maltreated these days.
And no, I won't stop whining about it.
-MMoM Posted by Kosa (Member # 650) on :
I guess the only hope for it now is DVD sales. They atleast seem to be making a first round effort in that regard compared to previous TNG movie DVD releases.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
I think Final Frontier made more than Nemesis will make.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I think Star Trek movies are never blockbusters, and tend to have their takes spread out over the entire course of their run, rather than making big chunks of cash on opening weekend.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
quote:Originally posted by Veers: (But Lord of the Rings made $101 million since Wednesday! Can you say $ 1 billion?)
Small quibble, but wouldn't 1 billion be 1000 million? Unless of course you're predicting that LoTR will eventually make 1 billion...in which case you're not really comparing apples with apples.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
Isn't a bit early to be calling Nemesis a flop? I mean, good lord, it's been out in theaters a grand total of nine days. It still has about three or four months left before it's pulled from all theaters.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Perhaps it won't be a big flop. It might make back $50 million or so...I personally don't think it'll make back its budget. But who can tell? And, in regards to LOTR, the original made $860 mil worldwide...since this one opened stronger, I'm guessing the Two Towers will make more. Maybe not $1 billion, but it'll be close.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Every movie makes back its budget. Every movie makes a profit. Waterworld made a profit, eventually. That is not so much the issue.
Note: There is hyperbole in this message!
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
Unfortunately, the way the system works there days filsm are pretty much written off after a week or two if the box office is low. Fact of the matter is, if the film is performing so poorly it'll be dropped off most screens to make space for other films.
Given the other big movies coming out or being re-released for the holidays, the competition will be murder. Also, as the reviews have been bad, and the word of mouth equally so (everyone I know who saw it didn't like it), I'd be suprised if it got anywhere near breaking even while in theaters.
And, contrary to what was said earlier, not every film turns a profit. Many films tank at the box office and don't sell well even on home video.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I'm willing to bet even Battlefield Earth made a profit.
The reason most films seem not to is because studio accountants are crooked.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
(No $$) ... Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
Well, isn't the fact that Nemesis is NOT showing worldwide have something to do with it?
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
Has it started anywhere else than just in the US and perhaps Canada yet? And this craze about opening weekend gross WTF? Here, we don't care so much about such things. Why does the opening weekend matter so much? The film doesn't get any better or worse if you wait a week or two...
The film will start here in mid-January. And I'm sure it will make quite some money here as well. It won't be a real flop worldwide. At least that I am sure of.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
It also didn't help that ST:X had competition from LOTR, that's what definately killed it this weekend. Although how that big-assed Jennifer Lopez movie did better is beyond me.
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Because big-assed Jennifer Lopez is in it, probably.
Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :
quote:Originally posted by Veers: I think Final Frontier made more than Nemesis will make.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
Number X's ticket sales dropped 72%, from what I'm hearing. It may well be the first Trek film not to make it's money back in the domestic market.
It is the first Trek film that I haven't gone to see in the first week, and only the second that I didn't see on the first day of release. Right now, I have no plans to se it at a theater.
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
People are fucking stupid. This is a good movie. Period. I hate to fucking see people who call themsevles fans say they "arnt going to see it". Makes me fucking sick.
And even if this one does 'flop', look at Star Trek V. Well, actually, look what came AFTER Star Trek V, Star Trek VI! One of the best Star Trek films came out only a few years after the worst one!
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
"Nemesis" has not tanked yet. Even *I* haven't gone to see it yet -- I saw "The Two Towers" first.
Frankly, though I do want to see "Nemesis" in the theaters, I wasn't as eager to see it as LOTR, and so I'm waiting.
Maybe this nose dive will help convince those idiots in charge that they're running Trek into the ground? Because (1) Pitting a Trek movie against three heavy hitters (Bond, Harry Potter, and Two Towers) is not a good idea, and (2) people just aren't as interested these days.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Well serves themselves right for releasing a movie in the face of several other similar-genre movies. Big movies. Now I know why it was delayed in Australia until January. And I heard a rumour - even longer.
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
quote:Originally posted by Proteus: This is a good movie. Period.
What exactly is your definition of "good," Proteus? I won't post any details as this thread is labeled "no spoilers," but I'll just state that I was not as impressed with this movie as I had hoped. To quote a man who watched the same showing as I did, "It's not the first one they made, and it's not the best one, either."
One lady even commented, "I almost fell asleep watching that movie."
On the lighter side, there was a woman sitting behind me who kept asking her partner, "What's he going to do, now?" at certain points...followed by "Oh my!"
NOTE: Perhaps the audience's less-than-enthusiastic response to the film had to do with the 15(!) minutes of junk they showed at the beginning like Lego commercials and previews for quite too many action movies...
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ace: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Proteus:
NOTE: Perhaps the audience's less-than-enthusiastic response to the film had to do with the 15(!) minutes of junk they showed at the beginning like Lego commercials and previews for quite too many action movies...
Trailers and adverts are the best part of any cinema going experience. Fact.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Such a statement threatens the future of your immortal soul.
Though I don't mind the previews, myself.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I don't mind when they show two, or maybe three if they're short. But, these days, fifteen minutes literally is about how long the previews last.
Posted by Fleet-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
I saw the movie at the openning day with a casual Trek viewer and both of us didn't like it. I didn't feel anything for the movie except when the Enterprise crashed into that other ship. This movie has no soul... even The Final Frontier had a soul when I watch it. I can't even think about buying this movie on DVD. Some people said that it has elements of Star Trek 2 in it. Fine. I don't mind that as long as it is executed well. I personally don't think the movie was executed well.
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
Hey you bunch of clown boats...
I said GOOD. PERIOD. YOUR OPINION MATTERS NOT!
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
I rather like the trailer for Warcraft III, the first time I saw it I thought it was an actual movie and not a PC game. Then I thought it'd make a bad-ass movie based on that level of CGI. Although if they ever did that, people would just call it a LOTR ripoff.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: I don't mind when they show two, or maybe three if they're short. But, these days, fifteen minutes literally is about how long the previews last.
I like it when there's lots of trailers. It's really cool to get a look at a wide array of upcoming films, even if they're not ones you'd necessarily want to see when they actually come out. (My hat is off to the folks who assemble/edit trailers and teasers. It's amazing how they can make even what may turn out to be the worst movie look really good.) The trailers are sort of a tradition, too. That used to be even more of a big part of the cinema experience before TV advertising came about.
Plus, that extra wait causes you to get even MORE excited about the picture you're about to see.
-MMoM Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Also, trailers contain all the good bits of really bad films, so that you don't have to see them. Which is probably good.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
The extra length means I don't have to rush so quickly to get to the theater before the show starts.
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
Regarding trailers, Mim suggests there used to be even more of them before a film than there are today. That isn't my recollection. It seems like it's more and more all the time. I sure don't recall even 10 minutes of trailers from when I saw films in the 70s. Anyone have different recollections?
If I'm recalling correctly, in ye olden days before TV, trailers were typically shown after the first film in a double bill, along with the newsreels and cartoons.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Regardless of precisely where in the showing schedule they were located, trailers were (probably) the most fundamental part of advertising upcoming movies prior to television. So I'm a-thinking there were probably more of them. Even though, needless to say, I never went to see a movie in the 1930s or 40s.
And regardless of whether there are more now than at other times or vice-versa, it still maintain the opinion that LOTS OF TRAILERS ARE A GOOD THING.
-MMoM Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Because they give you plenty of time to get snacks.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
quote:Originally posted by Proteus: Hey you bunch of clown boats...
I said GOOD. PERIOD. YOUR OPINION MATTERS NOT!
*sigh* Glad that's sorted out. We can all go home now.
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
Generally speaking, the moment the trailers (and, in many places, commercials -- ugh) start, that's when I make my pre-film bathroom run. Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I like the ads and previews - since it allows me 15 minutes lee-way - cause I'm always late!
"We're drawing up a plan for world domination - the key element... coffee-makers that think"
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrNeutron: Generally speaking, the moment the trailers (and, in many places, commercials -- ugh) start, that's when I make my pre-film bathroom run.
Well, commercials definitely = bad, but trailers = good. Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Well, commercials definitely = bad, but trailers = good.
Last time I checked they were both advertisements!
Merry Christmas to you.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Yes, but one is advertising movies. Can't you see? MOVIES! And movies = cool. (A good part of the time, any way.)
Happy holidays to you and your K & K.
-MMoM Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"And movies = cool. (A good part of the time, any way.)"
I suspect a fairly good arguement can be made against this.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Yes, but trailers can make even films like The Fifth Element look good.
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: Yes, but trailers can make even films like The Fifth Element look good.
I'm sure we can think of more pertinent examples. Nemesis, maybe? Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
But The Fifth Element is a great movie!
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
Yep.
And I also agree with Mim, I can't get enough of Trailers. Fortunately in all the cinemas I have been to, commercials come first (time to get snacks, visit the "Gents", etc) and after that the trailers start. Sometimes more sometimes less, but before every movie I went to there were at least two or three trailers. Once there were about eight which was GREAT!! Period.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I was appaled at the beginning of Nemesis. The theater I saw it in showed probably 6 non-movie related commercials before starting the trailers... then went on to show 3 or 4 trailers before starting the movie. I'm down with trailers... they're a part of the whole movie going experience... but when the heck did they start using MY money to bother me with pointless advertising that I just get mad at? People all around us were going, "What's with all the commercials?" It's just irritating. It's my dime... why do they get to talk on it?
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
I know that they show commercials (nontrailers) in theatres in the UK and Germany (where I've seen movies) and in Japan (where I live), but are they showing them now in the US? I don't think I've seen a commercial in a US theatre.
If they are showing them in the US, how do people act? Do they talk through them or sit in obedient silence?
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
I can recall non-trailer advertisments as far back as, oh, six years ago here in Canada. People don't really seem to react at all.
Posted by Epoch (Member # 136) on :
Yep we've started getting them here as well. Just means that you now have 15 minutes instead of 10 minutes of extra time to get to the theater and not miss any of the movie.
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Epoch: Yep we've started getting them here as well. Just means that you now have 15 minutes instead of 10 minutes of extra time to get to the theater and not miss any of the movie.
I've started writing to the theaters and telling them that I'm going to take my business elsewhere if they don't stop the commercials. Luckily, here in the San Francisco Bay Area there are a lot of theaters, and one right up the street from me doesn't do commercials. AMC chains are amongst the worst for ads. If people voted with their feet and let the theaters know they were losing business because of the ads, they'd wise up.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Ha ha, foolish optimist! Hope is dead.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Write an online petition. That will change everything.
quote:Originally posted by Topher: But The Fifth Element is a great movie!
In reverse-world, yes it was.
Posted by Warbadden Hawkins (Member # 905) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: Write an online petition. That will change everything.
quote:Originally posted by Topher: But The Fifth Element is a great movie!
In reverse-word, yes it was.
so thats "Movie great a is Element Fifth, the but."
Im so dumb and I know this also makes no sense. At least im consistent.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Looking at this week's results, Nemesis made just $4 mil, taking its total to $33 million. I'd say it's about to flop here in North America. BTW, Final Frontier made $50 million plus.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Curiously, I didn't see a trailer for Nemesis before any film I've seen recently - a first. It's certain to be shown at several of the cinemas I've visited - maybe I just haven't seen any other Paramount films this year! Then again, I did see the whole trailer on TV this evening, so maybe it is getting some promotion. It'll need it. . .
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
There was a trailer before Chamber of Secrets.
Apparently, it was also before The Two Towers, but that was replaced by the Daredevil advert this week.
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
About commercials in US cinemas: I was on holiday in Columbus/Ohio back in '97, and went to see several movies - every one of them had non-movie-commercials as well as trailers. Anyway I didn't mind as they were quite funny - one was one of those infamous Coke vs Pepsi commercials! ;-)
And about Nemesis: I went to see The Two Towers yesterday. At our local multiplex there's always a huge oversize movie poster on the outside over the entrance to promote a future "highlight". And guess what it showed this time - Nemesis!
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
I've only seen the Nemesis trailer once at the cimema, before Harry Potter. Seen it on TV a couple of times, though.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Veers: Looking at this week's results, Nemesis made just $4 mil, taking its total to $33 million. I'd say it's about to flop here in North America. BTW, Final Frontier made $50 million plus.
But is that a "real" comparison, or a comparison between a movie whose run has ended and whose video run has come and gone and might also have been counted, and DIDN'T come out at roughly the same time as HPtCoS and LotR:TTT?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I think it was intended as a comparison between what is regarded by many (too many, IMHO, but that's another issue) as the "worst" Star Trek film and the latest one.
IMO having been released in competition with other films such as LOTR is not an excuse for lousy box office performance. If the movie was good, it would actually compete for audiences against such films. Nemesis is a pale weakling in the face of much better-constructed alternatives, plain and simple.
And with Enterprise ratings way, waaaaay down, I'm anticipating that the franchise is going to be left to die by Paramount/Viacom over the next several years. Unless ENT turns around and starts shaping up, that is. Which it still very well could. But this dog's had her day, I fear.
-MMoM Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
quote:HPtCoS and LotR:TTT
i hope Mim found that thrilling as i did.
BTW, theyre still making cash from Trek, they just arent getting the high ratings and acclaim that seem to be requisite for 'success'.. the memorabilia industry is still alive and kicking and a single mixed drink at Star Trek: The Experience still costs more than my alcohol budget for this weekend, so god bless the franchise.
i think the re-examination that will be done here will be falling at the feet of Messrs. B and B, if any.
and i dont think a two week box office score is the real meaure of a films success.
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Nah, but real measures are hardly of interest to the bean counters.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
It would be hard for Enterprise to shake her reputatation, where that she could bring her ratings up within a year. Of course thw writers and producers are going to have to do something so drastic that no Trekkie/Trekker cannot complain.
Let me know about the non-complaint event. Yes, the internet will stop and glare at the Trek universe, as for the first time in the history of Trek, not a single Trekkie/Trekker has something to say abotu the series... It will be a sight to see, but then again it'll never happen.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Well, tomorrow comes the release of the box office results, and we'll see if Nemesis ranks in the top 20. It's sad, yes, that a Trek movie has flopped, regardless if you think the movie is good or bad.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I think they are idiots trying to put a new Trek movie in the same year as AotC, HPatCoS, tLotR:TTT and JB:DAD.
They are stupid. And Serve Paramount right for making such a rediculous move.
I mean they could have waited even till 2004. I wouldn't have cared. They would have gotten the Matrix movies and tLotR movies out of the way. HP mightn't be by that stage EVERY year. And SW:III will be out in 2005. And Stewart could have had proper time filming X2.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
"Ridiculous".
To try and be reasonable here, how do you know that waiting would be better? Perhaps Stewart and Spiner might not have wanted to do a Trek movie in 2004? Maybe X-Men 2 will be out in 2004? Maybe they'll release The Hobbit. Maybe Lucus will be early. Maybe there will be another amazing super smash film.
I can understand delaying a few weeks, or even months to avoid going up against something huge, but two years? A bit overkill, don't you think?
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
In a TV Guide interview, Brent Spiner said there was a struggle in getting this film to the screen. I would say the struggle has ended with no future Star Trek films. Disappointing yes, but hardly unexpected. The other two series are not conducive to being translated to the film format. DS9 was set on a station. This was difficult in realizing in tv, the common explanation for the introduction of a warship and the war arc, and doubly so on film. Solaris, for better or worse, relevant or not, could be used as evidence for this claim. As for Voyager, there are no further story arcs for the last episode ended the series and any future events on the starship as witnessed in Nemesis.
I haven't seen Nemesis. This was the first Star Trek film I decided on passing up. I chose this course when I first saw the previews many months ago. I thought this was a film for the die-in-the-blood Trek fans who need a fix of their addiction. From reading online bulletins, my guess was not far from the mark. I, also, thought Paramount was burying this film by placing it so close to the Two Towers. Think about it. If you are unhappy with the product, will you place the film in a secure spot with no excuse to fall back upon? No. You will place the film in an unsecure spot with an excuse for its failure; in this situation, the film Two Towers provided that excuse.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote: Solaris, for better or worse, relevant or not, could be used as evidence for this claim.
I fail to see how.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...die-in-the-blood Trek fans..."
That sounds unnecessarily violent...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by newark: Think about it. If you are unhappy with the product, will you place the film in a secure spot with no excuse to fall back upon? No. You will place the film in an unsecure spot with an excuse for its failure; in this situation, the film Two Towers provided that excuse.
Yeah. I see. They didint want to make millions of dollars just to prove they hated the movie. Clever of them.
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
Solaris is placed for the most part on an orbiting station.
I know my conspiracy theory is, well, silly. However, I have heard of companies who were willing to lose money on what they believed was a failed product. Consider this: If Nemesis had no rival in the Two Towers, the film might have done more business. In its first week, the film was neck-to-neck to J. Lo's romance comedy. If not fighting against Two Towers, the film might have edged out the romance comedy and become a number one movie. If this occured, Paramount would have to commit to a eleventh film. Now they don't have to.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Paramount wouldn't have to commit to anything. However, if the film did great, then they'd want to commit to another one. Because it would make them money. And that's what they want above all else.
Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: It also didn't help that ST:X had competition from LOTR, that's what definately killed it this weekend. Although how that big-assed Jennifer Lopez movie did better is beyond me.
It was a chick flick, what do you expect?
And the only reason why Titanic did so well, because it WAS a chick flick.
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
That, and the icy ending.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: "Ridiculous".
To try and be reasonable here, how do you know that waiting would be better? Perhaps Stewart and Spiner might not have wanted to do a Trek movie in 2004?
Maybe not.
> Maybe X-Men 2 will be out in 2004?
Set for this year.
>Maybe they'll release The Hobbit.
I wish - Peter Jackson has said 'no way' - yeah someone else could do it but - I don't think they'd have the rights.
>Maybe Lucus will be early.
Yeah right. Have you watched any of those TPM/AotC making ofs of the DVDs?
Maybe there will be another amazing super smash film.
That's a risk they should take, but they already KNEW going into the movie what was going to be out there at the time - and what would have already been on that year already.
Star Wars, X-men, LotR, Spiderman, Harry Potter.
It's what is wrong with Trek on TV now - the market is saturated. During TNG's day - the market was a barren wasteland and TNG was an oasis. Look at what has been pumped out since TNG finished in '94.
>I can understand delaying a few weeks, or even >months to avoid going up against something huge, >but two years? A bit overkill, don't you think?
No, otherwise I wouldn't have posted it. I see what you mean - but this is more in the realm of 'We need to make a Trek every few years'. Why? To give Gates McFadden and Michael Dorn a few minutes of screen time? I don't think so.
I read infact, that the cast doesn't have to work again - ever - cause they get such good residuals from TNG.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I sure hope Worf gets two checks!
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Yeah, he would. He'd get the equivalent of 11 seasons of Star Trek residuals. For many, many years to come.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Just went to see it again. . . Not easy! Very few cinemas are still showing it, and even then only a couple of screenings a day - whereas Die Another Day, Two Towers and even Like Mike (the highlight of UK cinema releases the day Nemesis opened in the States) continue to enjoy full daily programmes. This is after two weeks, so oh yeah, it's tanked. . .
Posted by Saiyanman Benjita (Member # 122) on :
The problem I have with many of these arguments is the corellation to other movies. Really, the only judge of whether a movie such as this has tanked is by comparing it to the other Trek movies.
Making $100 million in the first weekend should not be even a consideration. The best drawing Trek movie only accumulated about $110 overall! So, you shouln't even be comparing this with a LOTR or Star Wars, or any Pretty Woman-remake type chick flick.
The ratings are low for Star Trek movies, because they always have been. Star Trek movies are many times just two hour episodes with closed ends. The average 4-star rating for a Trek movie is about 1 1/2 stars. There is no surprise that Trek movies don't do well in the box office by comparison.
I think that if it flopps as a Trek movie, it is only due to two reasons: The watered-down Trek market that feels that it has to throw a movie out every 2-3 years, and the absolute atrocity known as Insurrection. Overall, the movie is at or slightly above average for a Trek movie. When the box office finally closes, it should make a profit enough to make Paramount happy.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Except it's been, what, thirty years since Insurrection came out?
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
thirty seven.
of course, many of those years were 2001, i can't tell.. i was pretty fucked up.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Score!
My point, anyway, is that there was a greater than usual gap between Insurrection and Nemesis, and thus, whatever faults Nemesis might have, being too close to the last film is not, I think, one of them.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I think a common factor in all of this might be Berman and Braga - although I'm beginning to wonder if it's not the but the Viacom suits. When they combined with Paramount - things went gah gah.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Oh yeah. Thank God First Contact wasn't produced or cowritten by either of those two knuckleheads.
Not to mention how involved Brannon Braga was with Nemesis.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I *SAID* I'm beginning to think it's NOT them - but the Paramount/Viacom suits. *sheesh*.
ANYWAY - I think the MAIN problem is when it was released. It was a BAD move - just after Harry Potter, and just before the Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers...
CRAZY move.
They should have put it on around now, or in the next few weeks. It seems to be a slow movie-release time at the moment. It starts here on February 6 - so for once being behind might have its advantages.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Their money.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I believe this is a slow period for film releases because nobody goes to see movies right now. Action films start in late spring. Dramas need to be released in the fall and winter or else the Academy forgets they exist. Of course, I suppose one could argue that no one sees movies in the early part of the year because the only movies released are bog-awful, but this would seem to be a cycle of debate not easily resolved.
quote: I think a common factor in all of this might be Berman and Braga
Who, as I pointed out, are not a "common factor" any way you slice it. You can scan the Nemesis credits for Brannon Braga for hours, but you won't find him there.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I think the thing is - that with Nemesis the 'semi-fans' didn't turn out to the movie because they were occupied with other movies like TTT and Harry Potter.
Nemesis NOW would have been the one shining light of action/adventure/space/sci-fi/trek-ness out at this time (well NEW out at this time).
Andrew
Posted by Obi Juan (Member # 90) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: It was a BAD move
Or perhaps just a bad movie.
My own personal feelings about the flick aside, critics didn't like it and it didn't seem to get that great of word of mouth from the non hardcore trek fan populace. Given those factors, I don't think it would've done that great no matter when it was released. That being said, I do agree that they couldn't have released it at a worse time.
Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
I'm thinking that the later release will perhaps doom Nemesis to the gutter. After hearing of the tank drop over at the Americas, I wouldn't be surprised if the delayed-release theatres start abandoning this film in droves. Perhaps the odd one with about 20 people inside per showing and that's it.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
WTF? ![[Smile]](smile.gif)