Reconsidering Nemesis...

[eyeresist]

I don't know why B&B would have needed to make any sort of "statement" about Romulans in movies.

There were Romulans (and Remans) in ENT season 4. (And a Romulan ship in season 2 ep "Minefield".)

 

[Dukhat]

I don't know why B&B would have needed to make any sort of "statement" about Romulans in movies.

Because the movie bombed and they assumed it was because nobody wanted to see a movie about Romulans. They only showed up in ENT after Nemesis.

 

[eyeresist]

But what do you mean by "statement"? I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have issued a press statement about NEM. Was it in an interview at the time? I'd be interested in seeing the source.

 

[Dukhat]

Yes, it was an interview I remember reading. No I don't remember the source. Feel free to Google it if you want.

 

[eyeresist]

... Couldn't find anything.

 

[Phantom]

1. Make a bad movie.
2. Make the bad movie longer.
3. ?
4. Profit!

The open question is would the full-length movie have been bad.

There's not a film made that could lose 33% of itself to time cuts and not come out the worse for it. Keeping in the extensive character development would only have strengthened the film by improving it's through line.

 

[Dukhat]

The open question is would the full-length movie have been bad.

The length of the movie wasn't the problem. The plot of the movie was the problem.

 

[Karzak]

1. Make a bad movie.
2. Make the bad movie longer.
3. ?
4. Profit!

The open question is would the full-length movie have been bad.

There's not a film made that could lose 33% of itself to time cuts and not come out the worse for it. Keeping in the extensive character development would only have strengthened the film by improving it's through line.

I would have been perfectly happy if The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King had lost 33% of it's approximately 2,663 endings.

 

[horatio83]

The ironic thing is that after Nemesis bombed, Berman & Braga made a statement something to the effect of "I guess the fans didn't want to see a movie about Romulans." Which was not only untrue (since Nemesis wasn't actually about Romulans), but was not even close to the real reason why the movie bombed. Although to their credit, I'm sure they really felt that way and weren't just making up some BS as an excuse, just like I truly believe B&B meant well when making TATV. But it also showed just how out of touch they were about Trek and the fanbase at the time.

Must have been an interview about ENT as Braga was not involved with NEM. Berman, Logan and Spiner are to blame (and Stewart for his constant demands for more sex&action for his character) for this mess of a script which is, as you pointed out, not about Romulans. If it had actually been about Romulans, if it had taken the numerous Romulan stories from TNG as a benchmark, it would most likely have been a superior movie.

About being out of touch with the fanbase, first of all nobody who works on a piece of art should care one iota about the stupid fans. Second of all, Berman and Braga have done a lot of work during these years. Like the work of all other producers and writers it varies in quality. I find it dubious to judge their work on ENT via analyzing merely one of several episodes they wrote. I also like to point out that Berman wanted to set the first season of ENT on Earth, i.e. the image of Berman as this risk-averse manager is wrong.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

This wasn't likely the only reason the movie was cut down for time. Movie theaters generally frown upon films being more than two hours. The reason is very simple: the shorter the film = the more times they can show it = the more money they can make in ticket and concession sales.

Which is why most of these movie exhibitor companies are crap, and are not as half as good as the theaters that are independently run and owned, IMHO.

 

[Firebird]

This wasn't likely the only reason the movie was cut down for time. Movie theaters generally frown upon films being more than two hours. The reason is very simple: the shorter the film = the more times they can show it = the more money they can make in ticket and concession sales.

Which is why most of these movie exhibitor companies are crap, and are not as half as good as the theaters that are independently run and owned, IMHO.

Yup, so crappy, they've managed to stay in business for well over 50 years, since they were forcibly divested from the film studios in 1948.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

^I'm sorry, but having to cut a movie just to make sure that they can maximize profit is short-sighted and foolish, and wrecks movies that could benefit from a longer time to tell a story.

 

[BillJ]

^I'm sorry, but having to cut a movie just to make sure that they can maximize profit is short-sighted and foolish...

They're in business to make money. I've grown fond of Nemesis over the years, but I don't think the deleted scenes being added back in would've made it a blockbuster, not ever sure it would've raised it in any appreciable way from its $67 million dollar global take.

The only thing that might have appreciably increased its take would be to go back in time and fire Berman and Logan, and tell Stewart and Spiner to go fuck themselves if they aren't happy just being actors.

 

[Gary Mitchell]

I have a list of movies to recut, and here is my entry for NEM:

-Dune buggy scene: replace first shot of Picard et al in buggy with one from later, with Picard looking less enthused. Recut to reduce general 'fun factor'.
-Mind rape: use deleted elevator scene instead, as much toward the end of the film as possible (when Shinzon's hostility is overt).
-Remove Riker/viceroy fight, just intercut shipboard battle when a beat is necessary.
-Showdown: foreshadow spikes. Maybe grab a shot from elsewhere of Picard quickly looking off-camera to insert before he grabs the spike. Push in on Shinzon as he pulls himself along spike, add squishy noises.
-Use subtle slow-mo and push-ins to heighten Data's emotion rescuing Picard and killing self.
-?Remove wake scene, replace with Worf/Spot deleted scene.
-Remove animated window view from final Picard/B4 scene.

But yeah, by 2002 the public was sick of Trek, as represented by an overabundance of drab, apparently interchangeable series on TV, and the shittiness of INS in terms of story, humour and visuals. At that point, commercial failure was inevitable - arguably.

.

Yeah, adding squishy noises would have really helped.

 

[Maurice]

It was a scattershot "who cares?" story with a bunch of dumb moments. And, I think a lot of people gave up on Star Trek movies after the lameness of Insurrection. I know I did.

 

[dub]

I've said it before, but the one thing that would have transformed this film for me would have been if Patrick Stewart played the role of Shinzon.

 

[TheAlmanac]

I've said it before, but the one thing that would have transformed this film for me would have been if Patrick Stewart played the role of Shinzon.

I'm of the same opinion--I know the casting of Nemesis seems prescient now since Tom Hardy has become that much more famous, but Patrick Stewart as Shinzon would've made the "Evil Picard" aspect of Shinzon considerably more effective.

 

[wulfio]

Franchise fatigue is something studio's/networks say when they continually put out a garbage product and people finally stop buying it.

 

[BillJ]

Franchise fatigue is something studio's/networks say when they continually put out a garbage product and people finally stop buying it.

Problem being, you can only put out so much material before it all starts looking much the same and your audience leaves.

I think the quality between the various series and movies is marginal, at best. If Enterprise had debuted in 1987, it would've been a hit in the same vein as TNG. If TNG had debuted in 2001, after 600 episodes and 9 movies had been produced, the reaction would've been tepid.

I think franchise fatigue is very real and something Disney may run into when oversaturating the market with super hero movies and TV shows over the next half decade.

 

[wulfio]

Franchise fatigue is something studio's/networks say when they continually put out a garbage product and people finally stop buying it.

Problem being, you can only put out so much material before it all starts looking much the same and your audience leaves.

I think the quality between the various series and movies is marginal, at best. If Enterprise had debuted in 1987, it would've been a hit in the same vein as TNG. If TNG had debuted in 2001, after 600 episodes and 9 movies had been produced, the reaction would've been tepid.

I think franchise fatigue is very real and something Disney may run into when oversaturating the market with super hero movies and TV shows over the next half decade.

VOY was taking a step back. ENT was taking a further step back. It's going to feel like more of the same because they tried to do the same thing, but just not as well. That's not franchise fatigue. That's called producing lower quality material.

If you're going to use the same formula for 2000 that you used in 1991, except not execute as well, of course it's going to fail.

You are not talking about franchise fatigue. You're talking about people who were in charge, whos ideas became stale.

Marvel movies will begin to fail if in 10 years they are still giving us black hat villains, and they continue to recycle the same tropes they've been using. But if the Russo's are any indication, they are evolving. If Marvel decides in 5 years to go back to the phase 1 formula, but just not do it as well as they did, that is not franchise fatigue. That is just a case of Disney needing to get fresh ideas and talent, instead of the stagnant creatives they have kept in their employ for 2 decades.

Franchise fatigue is a blanket statement used without considering circumstance. It's complete bs. If you evolve, and innovate, there is no such thing as fatigue. It's not the franchise the audience get tired of, it's the people in charge.