And I think he did preserve something special all those years.
so does formaldehyde.
And I think he did preserve something special all those years.
What would Rick Berman say to explain why Star Trek Nemesis did so poorly compared to the new Star Trek movie?
Obviously, Rick had the whole Star Trek universe to work within. But Abrams clearly had a budget no Star Trek had before.
Berman's defense mechanisms must be working right now, if only internally. What would you say to defend Berman? What is he telling himself?
By the way, I respect Rick Berman and his work on Star Trek. I think both First Contact and Insurrection were good movies. And I think he did preserve something special all those years. I think his worst work was in ruining the great concepts that were Voyager and Enterprise with poor storytelling. Voyager's pilot was one of the best TV pilots ever and Enterprise had great potential which it finally showed in Season 4.
I very much want to hear what you think Berman must be thinking now, especially what reasons he'd be giving about why he couldn't bring Star Trek to such heights as Abrams has.
The two spin off shows he was in charge of esentially killed the franchise. Enterprise crapped all over canon far worse than this film ever did, not to mention how horrible it was.
The two spin off shows he was in charge of esentially killed the franchise. Enterprise crapped all over canon far worse than this film ever did, not to mention how horrible it was.
Except for the fact that Enterprise wasn't horrible.
You could make a case the first two seasons were slow, boring and uneven, but the last two season were far from horrible.
Frankly, it's apples to oranges; the way they released films in the '70s and '80s is totally different from how it's done now; films rolled out to the theaters in a more gradual way, but they also stayed at the theater all summer. The opening weekend for Star Wars would look anemic compared to what Trek XI did this weekend, but it was the #1 movie from June through December 1977, despite never being on more than 1,100 screens at its peak. Yeah, Trek exploded onto nearly 4,000 screens and pulled in $76.5 million between Thursday and Sunday, but you'll be lucky if you can find it in a movie theater six weeks from now, and they'll be lucky if they do half of this weekend's business next weekend.The interesting thing about these "adjusted for inflation" figures would be to also contrast them with the cost of making the movie similarly adjusted for inflation.BTW, for comparison purposes, here's how the other Trek openings did and it's adjusted for inflation.
Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979): $34,668,706 (opening weekend)/ $239,115,674 (cume)
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982): $35,038,451 / $192,290,437
Star Trek III: The Search For Spock (1984): $35,629,102 / $163,237,856
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986): $32,671,686 / $212,328,919
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989): $31,267,457 / $93,951,918
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991): $30,976,050 / $127,720,425
Star Trek: Generations (1994): $39,707,107 / $129,980,545
Star Trek: First Contact (1996): $49,896,339 / $149,493,266
Star Trek: Insurrection (1998): $33,761,058 / $107,451,468
Star Trek: Nemesis (2002): $22,918,195 / $53,387,173
Damn! Beat me to it!I'm sure he's say, "I'm sure they're all very pleased."
The opening weekend for Star Wars would look anemic compared to what Trek XI did this weekend, but it was the #1 movie from June through December 1977, despite never being on more than 1,100 screens at its peak.
yeah, he doesn't mind. I'm sure he's very pleased anyway.
Beatya to it.![]()
Who cares? If he's a mature adult I'm sure he's gotten on with his life and is probably glad Star Trek is profitable again.
What would Rick Berman say to explain why Star Trek Nemesis did so poorly compared to the new Star Trek movie?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.