What sunk the TNG movie franchise: Insurrection or Nemesis?

[Allyn Gibson]

Dream wrote:

---

Also since TVH was a huge hit, Paramount decided to go ahead on making TNG on tv.

No, the timetable doesn't work.

Development of TNG overlapped with the production of The Voyage Home considerably. TNG was a reaction to Star Trek II and Star Trek III that rode the publicity wave of Star Trek IV and the 20th-anniversary.

It was after Star Trek III that Paramount decided they wanted a new Star Trek series. They asked Harve Bennett to produce and he passed. They asked Nimoy and he passed. They asked Greg Strangis, and Strangis said yes. (The little we know of Strangis' work is documented in David Alexander's Star Trek Creator; riffing on Star Trek II, it was apparently cadet-centric.) In any event, Roddenberry came in late to the process; either Paramount found Strangis' proposal unworkable or Roddenberry made a political move to get himself dealt back in at the table and Strangis shown the door.

While Roddenberry's work on TNG began in 1986, the intent by Paramount went back well before the film. It's only the coincidence of the calendar that makes it appear that TNG was a reaction to the most recent of the films at the time, Star Trek IV.

[gottacook]

Interesting. When I saw Roddenberry speak at the University of St. Thomas (St. Paul, MN) in 1986, he didn't let on in any way that a new series was under discussion. (I have a printed program somewhere with the exact date; the talk ended with the showing of a black-and-white print of "The Cage.")

[Bry_Sinclair]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

Trek 2009 sunk it.

Yup, ticking off a lot of fans was just a great way to go

[Peach Wookiee]

^Speaking as a fan, I wasn't ticked off. But perhaps I am a more casual fan.

[sonak]

Bry_Sinclair wrote:

---

Yup, ticking off a lot of fans was just a great way to go

considering the box office numbers, there couldn't have been THAT many ticked-off fans.

[Greg Cox]

Bry_Sinclair wrote:

---

Yup, ticking off a lot of fans was just a great way to go

But also delighting many more fans.

Lord knows I've seen the new movie more times than I've seen either Nemesis or Insurrection.

[Bry_Sinclair]

I am by no means a hardcore TOS fan (Kirk irritates the hell out of me), but why go through all that effort to repackage characters with "hot" new actors?

It would have been just as easy to have cast the same people but as totally new characters with a new ship, etc. Reworking TOS was always going to get the backs up of the series' fans, after which they'd have a fine line to walk, either in retelling old stories with new twists (thus branding the writers/director as being unoriginal), or doing totally new stuff (thus branding the writers/director as having no commitment to the original series).

A fresh new crew would allow them to tell whatever stories they so wished, without the added pressure. Anyways, that's just what I wish they'd done. No going back now.

[CorporalCaptain]

If you're going to use the brand Star Trek at all, you had better not live in denial, but embrace Kirk and Spock.

When it comes to Star Trek, the general public doesn't care about any other set of characters than those on TOS.

[Greg Cox]

Bry_Sinclair wrote:

---

It would have been just as easy to have cast the same people but as totally new characters with a new ship, etc. Reworking TOS was always going to get the backs up of the series' fans.

Well, not to rehash this issue for the umpteenth time, since, as you said, done is done, but I was just objecting to the (oft-stated) assumption that rebooting TOS was bound to "get the backs up" of us old-school fans.

Here's the thing: enjoying a remake or reboot does not mean rejecting or replacing the original version. I grew up on TOS, but I don't take the very existence of a new version as a personal affront, anymore than a new version of TARZAN or SINBAD offends those of us who grew up on Johnny Weismuller or Ray Harryhausen.

So we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that rebooting TOS was inevitably going to tick off the long-time fans. Sure, some fans took issue with the idea, but most of us didn't. (Any more than Bond fans rejected SKYFALL because it didn't star Sean Connery and wasn't based on an Ian Fleming novel.)

It's not like the new movie only appealed to non-fans . . . unlike what some people like to think.

[RAMA]

While I feel Nemsis gets the blame for this, it is totally likely that Insurrection, with it's unassuming story that was unable to capitalize on FC's popularity that really killed the market for the next film. Without resoundingly good word of mouth Nemesis had no hope. It's really a minor miracle that Nemesis made $120+ million from all sources.

[mos6507]

BillJ wrote:

---

But the 2009 film did well because for the first time in a long time, it made Star Trek fun.

Plus audiences had proven to enjoy nonsense like transformers with wrecking-ball testicles, so taste had changed.

[Greg Cox]

mos6507 wrote:

---

Plus audiences had proven to enjoy nonsense like transformers with wrecking-ball testicles, so taste had changed.

As opposed to the glory days of the sixties, when audiences enjoyed such sophisticated science fiction classics as LOST IN SPACE, BARBARELLA, and THE GREEN SLIME?

[sonak]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

As opposed to the glory days of the sixties, when audiences enjoyed such sophisticated science fiction classics as LOST IN SPACE, BARBARELLA, and THE GREEN SLIME?

hey! I like "Lost in Space." I even liked the movie.

[CorporalClegg]

Bry_Sinclair wrote:

---

It would have been just as easy to have cast the same people but as totally new characters with a new ship, etc.

No it wouldn't. Why do people keep saying this?

[Greg Cox]

CorporalClegg wrote:

---

No it wouldn't. Why do people keep saying this?

"Hey, let's do The X-Files, but without Scully and Mulder! That's sure to work!"

Granted, it worked for TNG, but it was definitely a gamble. And we'd been waiting nearly two decades for a new TREK tv series . . . .

(Not counting the cartoon series.)