I'm not going to write a novel here. The last two films, while financially successful, have been popcorn flicks for the masses. I'm not saying that Insurrection and Nemesis were perfect by any means. Give me a break though. If they would have made money, we would have had a little sci fi wet dream. There is no perfect Trek film. However, I see more "Star Trek" in these flawed films as opposed to anything that came after. Come on guys. Star Trek didn't make an impact in society because of what we have seen in the last two films. Wake up.
Would you prefer me to say that INS and NEM were the epitome of TNG? I defend the right to criticise all Star Trek films equally (including NEM and INS and ST09 and STID). And I do. But its out of love. Well mostly.
Nemesis was okay, Insurrection was flat awful for reasons I've went over in other threads through the years.
Bitching about movies does not get Studio's attention. Not going to see movies does. Thinning out their pocketbook is how to let them know of your displeasure, under no uncertain terms. And with NEMESIS, boy, did fans ever get Paramount's attention! No turning around and heading right back in to see NEMESIS again ... word of mouth got around and so Paramount was made to rethink STAR TREK movies. And you know what? Am I ever glad they did! The result has been fantastic! It's cool to be a STAR TREK fan, for the first time in decades and the fun has returned, in spades! And Paramount's bean counters couldn't be happier ... nor could I! This is how The Original Series was meant to be! How it should've been, all along. But no matter ... and as for INSURRECTION, I am definitely a fan of this movie! I love how people complain about Picard's Piece of Crumpet in this one, I thought she was quite charming and one of the many pleasures this movie offers.
Insurrection is a fine film. The best thing about it is the moral decision Picard makes in a situation that is not just black and white. Those who do not have the same opinion hate the film, those who agree with Picard are okay with the film. Nemesis is just like the Abramstrek movies, with lower budget and poorer execution. I never liked it.
I disagree with Picard's decision but there's much more wrong with the film. The S'ona are the most tepid bad guys in the history of Trek and that's saying something, the humor didn't work, the S'ona/Ba'ku backstory didn't make much sense, "Action-Picard" rears his bald ugly head again and Picard's actions seem more driven by trying to get up Anij's skirt than trying to save the Ba'ku. For me, the film was a let down on almost every level.
I think people should be free to criticize (and indeed, praise) movies and television as they see fit. The first indication of a truly open mind is a person's ability to analyze something that they love in a critical way, to see beyond their love for a product and instead talk about it's flaws. This is a very healthy thing. In my opinion. I'm not sure that 'love' isn't too strong a word for my feelings about Insurrection. But I do love TNG as a whole, and both Insurrection and Nemesis were below par adventures for the TNG crew. I'd stick a knife in 'em as quickly as I would, say, season one's "Code Of Honor".
I just couldn't be made to give a shit about what happened to the Ba'ku. This story could have been a 45 minute episode buried somewhere in season 4 of TNG and you would have never thought it an epic plot worthy of a movie. In a movie I want to see a plot that changes the landscape of the Star Trek universe as we know it. Insurrection was an episode in a bottle that somehow ended up on the big screen.
Interesting you should say this. The most ironic thing about Insurrection is that it actually had a bigger budget than First Contact (hence all of that location filming in the countryside rather than being cooped up on sound stages). And yet Insurrection STILL feels more like a bottle episode to me than does the mostly shipbound FC. :facepalm: Insurrection should feel epic. It doesn't. Even all these years later I still can't quite put my finger on exactly why, though. It's just my gut feeling, "It feels wrong".
Insurrection was 24th century Prime Universe spiraling out of control, and Nemesis was it smashing into the ground. The reality in which a continuation of that could have been profitable does not in any way coincide with our own. Furthermore, say we had gotten more of the same. Then, wet dream wouldn't have been apt. If we must use a penis metaphor, then erectile dysfunction would probably better describe it. No thanks. No way, Jose.
Well first off whilst they might have eventually made money due to TV rights and DVD/BR sales. They were box office flops according to boxofficemojo.com NEM had a production budget of US$60m, it made only US$67.3m INS repordtly cost US$58m and made only US$112.6m It's debated but a rule of thumb is that in order to return a profit at the box office it has to make twice what it cost. Due to the cinemas (and other parties) having to take a cut of the box office. INS was basically a very expesnive two-parter. NEM despite it's flaws at least attempted to be a big screen adventure rather than an expensive TV adventure.
Insurrection was definitely a missed opportunity to tie in with the then raging Dominion War. Nemesis, as I have said many a time, should not have involved a clone of Picard. Rather, I think the "Nemesis" should have either been Tomalok, Sela,pr Tom Hardy as his own romulan villain, any of which being "wronged" by Picard in some way, and tied in with a plot of some TNG episode somehow
the two are often lumped together as "bad Trek," but I think Nemesis gets a bad wrap for being a box-office bomb and coming at the end of an era when the franchise as a whole wasn't doing well. Nemesis is actually pretty similar to Star Trek XI, the latter just feels fresher and more fun. INS, on the other hand, is just a mess, right near the bottom of all the Trek movies, for reasons that BillJ already covered well.
Those films had more Star Trek: The Next Generation. The new films have more Star Trek: The Original Series. I'm guessing you're a fan that considers TNG and not TOS to be the ultimate incarnation of Star Trek?
It doesn't matter. All that matters is that you enjoy it. Michael Dorn isn't losing any sleep over this.
I enjoy Insurrection, but gods does it have issues. 1) We shouldn't have had the S'ona. We should have had a full on Enterprise versus the Federation / Starfleet story. Not 1 Admiral, but a Starfleet ship or two, and make it much clearer that the Federation was in a desperate situation cause of the war and the rings' energy was vitally needed. You know, an actual "insurrection" against Starfleet and the Federation. 2) Dr. Crusher and maybe one or two others of the crew should have stood against Picard. They've just been through the worst war in the Federation's history. Troi's homeworld was invaded by the Dominion. How many friends and loved ones have they lost? 3) 600? Not even from the planet? Fuck 'em, beam 'em up Scotty. Make it a few million, few billion, some number that couldn't be easily moved by one starship or even a squadron of ships. Make it were taking the rings will kill them all out and that there's something about the planet that keeps them from being moved to another world or for that matter even being beamed off the planet (some immunity factor missing in their blood or some such). The Enterprise's crew was on the wrong side on this one. And the "message" isn't there.
Speak for yourself. INS I was just meh about. NEM I had no interest in going in, and felt I'd wasted my time and money walking out. The box office only supported my own feelings about these films.
Nope. Box office results has no bearing on whether I like a film or not. I've seen plenty of films (besides Star Trek) that I've loved that bombed at the box office, and plenty of films I completely disliked (besides Star Trek) that had revenue in the hundreds of millions. Same goes for reviews from critics.
I personally don't like either of Abrams' Trek movies -- they're just not for me -- but they actually have high stakes, whereas the highest stakes in "Insurrection" are Picard's feelings. The arguable crapness of the last couple Trek films has no bearing on the monumental crapness of "Insurrection" and "Nemesis." I don't see much Star Trek in either of those films, especially "Nemesis" which seemed to try hard not to be Star Trek. And let's not even bring up "Generations..."
I never got why the story of a feature film needed to have high stakes. Why the conscious decision to like a film less than a TV episode? There are A LOT of successful and highly rated movies out there that have little stakes and are not about universe saving stuff.