I have been a star trek watcher since the 70s and have seen all of the movies several times with the exception of ST nemesis which I have seen only twice, the 1st time was to see what it was all about the 2nd time was because my friend wanted to see it and didnt want to watch it alone so that time was not by choice, this movie was so bad I was ashamed the next generation cast was even in it, the only other ST movie with the original cast I was not fond of was ST 5 and it was directed by shatner himself but i did like it much better than nemesis.

I actually really like Nemesis.

I don't think Nemesis was a bad film. Actually, Compared to the other films with the "Next Gen" cast, it was better than "Insurrection."

Unfortunatly, the film was a box office disappointment, which is why we haven't seen a new Star Trek film in a while.

I don't think Nemesis was a bad film. Actually, Compared to the other films with the "Next Gen" cast, it was better than "Insurrection."

Unfortunatly, the film was a box office disappointment, which is why we haven't seen a new Star Trek film in a while.


I actually really like Insurrection. It is my favorite of TNG films. :D

NEMESIS was OK; not good; but not bad either.

I love "Star Trek: Nemesis", one of the last 11 "Star Trek" films ever. It was not too bad.

7EfbCSSgRmQ

SZavbndD2bg

8ZjkHUrEuHc

http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-trek/star-trek-nemesis/

Besides the quality of the movie (https://www.google.com/search?q=TrekBBS+Nemesis+site:www.trekbbs.com&newwindow=1&sa=X&ei=wzkFVaqRGsjyoASt54HICA&ved=0CCoQrQIoBDAA&biw=1440&bih=799) itself, I think that Nemesis flopped at the box office was because: 1) Audiences were getting burned out of Trek (especially the type of Trek that was arguably diminishing since Voyager (http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=273264)) and started to take it for granted. 2) Audience perhaps weren't entirely pleased w/ the way that the previous movie, Insurrection (https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&biw=1440&bih=799&q=TrekBBS+Insurrection+site%3Awww.trekbbs.com&oq=TrekBBS+Insurrection+site%3Awww.trekbbs.com&gs_l=serp.3...219693.223498.0.223677.18.15.2.0.0.2.122.1337.10j4.14.0.msedr...0...1c.1.62.serp..18.0.0.cc8ulQbOWKc) turned out (which may have accused of being little more than a glorified two-part episode of TNG). 3) It came out around the same time as The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers and the second Harry Potter film.

Resurrecting 9 year old threads? :confused:

Resurrecting 9 year old threads? :confused:

And that bothers you because...? It isn't like people have stopped discussing Nemesis (the videos that I posted is pretty much proof of that) after 2006. :crazy:

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/star-trek-nemesis/36477/star-trek-nemesis-what-went-wrong

Star Trek 10 was supposed to lead into a further Next Generation crew movie, had all gone to plan. It didn't. So what happened?

Read more: http://www.denofgeek.com/#ixzz3i78UmfSt

Don't get me wrong, I like Insurrection more than I did when I wrote my previous post a few years back.
But I enjoyed Nemesis a bit more.

http://www.unwinnable.com/2012/12/18/what-killed-star-trek/

At the time of its collapse, the creative minds behind Star Trek insisted the disease killing the franchise was “Star Trek fatigue.” Audiences had simply grown tired of it all. The franchise needed a break after being on television in the form of four different shows (some of which ran concurrently in reruns) for nearly two decades (not including the years before when it was just Star Trek: The Original Series). On top of that were the films and the dozens of books each year.

It was a convenient excuse – convenient because it took the blame off the creators. By pointing fingers at fatigue, they essentially blamed accountants at Paramount and the audience, deflecting away any responsibility for their own limitations. Fans as a whole, however, never really bought into this excuse.

Now, having gone back to revisit Enterprise, I would say that there was perhaps some truth to the claims. There was fatigue, but it was the formula that was growing tired, not Star Trek itself.

Keep in mind that genre television had changed dramatically during the 1990s and 2000s. It had become more serialized, thanks in large part to The X-Files, as well as Stargate SG1 and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The shows were more sophisticated, with long story arcs and richer backstories (the phrase “series mythology” was born).

Star Trek, however, was very slow to adapt to this change. The powers that be were sluggish to recognize what audiences wanted in their shows. Instead, Trek stayed the same. Star Trek: Voyager continued to rely solely on the planet/alien/anomaly-of-the-week formula. This was a tried-and-true approach that dated back to the original series and in many ways was good. But at this point it had become overly used, aged and repetitive.

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine proved the franchise could adapt, but that series was – especially at the time and often by the very people in charge – viewed as the black sheep of the family. An anomaly. A series that was dark and brooding and serialized, all things syndicators (the people the producers were apparently forced to appeal to) supposedly didn’t like.

Star Trek: Voyager stayed true to this traditional formula. Enterprise would follow suit, most especially in its first two seasons. The fledgling series tried to have a mythology in the form of a Temporal Cold War, but it was handled so poorly and half-heartedly it never really worked (and was eventually dropped altogether at the beginning of the fourth and final season).

Both series relied heavily upon the formula, which didn’t just include the stories. The look, style and feel remained consistent as well. Each show had a set number of characters (with the shows often focusing only on a few, and rarely on the others), and were set on a ship often going randomly through space. As a result, the characters became meaningless and the plots felt familiar. Virtually any episode in the second season of Enterprise could have been used in The Next Generation and would not have been much different.

By 2004, fans had grown tired. The show was criticized, the writers were demonized and the blame game began. “Star Trek fatigue” was killing the franchise, the producers cried. Even the book publishers started pumping out fewer novels. But this was only half true. “Star Trek formula fatigue” was killing it, and the writers who had spent too many years churning out Trek like it was a product and not a creative endeavor were to blame.

Star Trek: Nemesis, the final classic Trek film, debuted in 2002 and was spit out as the last entry in the film series. Like the shows, the movies suffered formulaic fatigue, crunching out one film after another that made little use of its cast and instead repeatedly focused on just two characters (Picard and Data).

Both with Enterprise and Nemesis, fans were promised a new kind of Trek. Something different. Yet despite the best intentions, what they got was more of the same formula.

The year 2005 marked the “end” of Star Trek. The franchise that Gene Roddenberry had created, that Rick Berman had steered, was done.