capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
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.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
Nah, but real measures are hardly of interest to the bean counters.
-------------------- ".mirrorS arE morE fuN thaN televisioN" - TEH PNIK FLAMIGNO
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
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
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.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
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?
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
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.
-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
That, and the icy ending.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
