trek film in three years ( Dammit these people don't learn )

Dennis Toy · Post by **Dennis Toy** » 2005-05-29 10:22pm

http://www.trektoday.com/news/280505_01.shtml

is berman puttin seti-alpha eels inside the food of the execs.

Quadlok · Post by **Quadlok** » 2005-05-29 10:28pm

Why can't they just fucking stop violating Star Trek's corpse?

And how the hell could they have been spending twice as much on Enterprise than on SG-1 or Galactica? It isn't like the actors were bigger names, and the production values weren't noticably better.

Spacebeard · Post by **Spacebeard** » 2005-05-29 10:43pm

Rick Berman wrote: ... a new, fresh feature with a whole different outlook ...

This is what they said Voyager would be, and Enterprise. One of their problems is that they never have the courage to carry through with their premises; they always must return to the TOS/TNG "planet of the week" formula. Or the "villainous threat of the year" formula for movies.

"Unfortunately, our show costs a lot more than [the Sci-Fi Channel's] shows do," he said. "A lot of those shows are shot with budgets not much more than half of what out budgets are. I think that to continue our show at the level of production we've kept it at, to keep these actors, it would probably be prohibitive to do it on cable."

What does he expect to gain by saying that? He's basically admitting that he and Braga have nearly twice as much money as, say, Ron D. Moore, and still produce shit. And I wouldn't be bragging about "actors" like Scott Bakula...

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2005-05-29 11:11pm

I wouldn't mind a new Trek movie if someone else besides B & B were doing it. However thats not likely to happen.

FedRebel · Post by **FedRebel** » 2005-05-29 11:26pm

Berman wrote:I think that if this film is made it certainly won't get finished in the next year,"

I don't think the new film is a certainty at this point

Berman probably is pushing for it though, I just hope the Paramount execs have the Box office figures from Insurrection and Nemesis at hand whenever Berman tries to pitch ST XI

It's funny, because people always talk about how season one was good,” Berman told Ian Spelling for Star Trek: Magazine. “Seasons Three and Four were good. If you go back and look – as Brannon [Braga] and Manny [Coto] and I did recently – at Season Two, there are a lot of very, very good episodes. In fact, some of the fans' most favourite episodes were in Season Two.”

And how many people made these claims? And where?

“I don't believe that it is a result of the quality of the show. The response that I've given before, that I'll give again, is that I think Star Trek Nemesis was a very good movie.

The executives at Paramount pictures and everybody involved with the movie were shocked that it did two – thirds of the business of the last movie.

Insurrection failed

Nemesis did worse

And you're still seriously considering another movie?

I don't think that had anything to do with the fact that Nemesis qualitatively was different than the previous movie.

So in your opinion, Nemesis wasn't of the same quality as the other nine films?

I think it's all part of the same syndrome, which has something to do with the erosion of the fans and the fact that after 700 – and something episodes of television and 10 movies that people are moving away.

We call this syndrome....

Rick Berman & Brannon Braga

“Each of our series has had its predecessors to compete with. Enterprise is on the air, but there's a market where ST:TNG and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and Star Trek: Voyager and Star Trek: The Original Series are all playing as competition in a sense.”

And that sense being that all these shows run at diffrent times, so there really is no competition.

You need to look "harder"

Junghalli · Post by **Junghalli** » 2005-05-30 01:59am

Somebody needs to remove those two bloodsucking parasites and quickly, before they kill the franchise for good by poisoning it to death with their shit.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2005-05-30 02:22am

Kill? It's been more or less dead creatively since about halfway through Voyager.

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2005-05-30 02:24am

It's been dead creatively since 1991.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2005-05-30 02:32am

Berman once more addressed the reasons for Star Trek: Enterprise's cancellation, mentioning once again the over-saturation of the franchise, but also the hefty pricetag associated with a show like Star Trek. "Unfortunately, our show costs a lot more than [the Sci-Fi Channel's] shows do," he said. "A lot of those shows are shot with budgets not much more than half of what out budgets are. I think that to continue our show at the level of production we've kept it at, to keep these actors, it would probably be prohibitive to do it on cable."

Not only is there more of the overexposure bullshit but now he's saying it's the price? Fuck that! As if he isn't aware that most of the budget has been squandered on he and his cock-suckers ill-deserved salaries. Enterprise had an appalling number of useless people on board no doubt sucking their share of the withered tit of Star Trek. That's most of the waste right there!

The rest of it seems to be lost through shitty production, stupid gimmicks, and all other manner of shit. There has been plenty of commentary on how poorly they ran the production, banking on the cash cow label. It never occurred to them that they couldn't deliver for ever.

Whatever the costs are, it's nothing that ever showed up on-screen.

Junghalli · Post by **Junghalli** » 2005-05-30 03:37am

In the grand tradition of incompetents the Paramount execs and B&B have obviously surrounded themselves by advisers who can best fellate them.

SCVN 2812 · Post by **SCVN 2812** » 2005-05-30 12:00pm

I thought I heard somewhere that their contract was up next year? They seem pretty confidant they are still have the ability to make long term, expensive decisions over a franchise they might not even be allowed anywhere near once their contracts are up.

Paramount as an entity existing solely for the purpose of generating money by bankrolling profitable media projects would have collectively lost their minds if they renew these guys' contracts.

Its a simple matter of economics

- How much money did TNG make for them?
- How much money did DS9 make for them?
- How much money did Voyager make for them?
- How much money did Enterprise make for them?
- How much money have the various films made for them?
- Under whose management did Paramount make the most money?
- Under whose management did Paramount make the least?

What we have here is a trend of downward spiral and their money making endeavour finding itself confined to smaller and smaller markets as fewer and fewer networks agree to air their shows and movie ticket sales and DVD sales become more sluggish. Meditate on this, how easy was it to find a channel showing TNG when it went into syndication? Pretty easy really. DS9 also fairly easy. Voyager after about 3 or 4 seasons, get out your tin foil and rabbit ears. Enterprise, even worse. In 5 years I've seen maybe 9 or 10 episodes of Enterprise on 3 channels.

If the significance of the answers to these questions eludes the Paramount board of directors and CEO, then we all should be on notice to not purchase Paramount stock.

Drunk Monkey · Post by **Drunk Monkey** » 2005-05-30 02:37pm

It’s dead Jim. Get over it, B+B murder trek. No mater how hard they try it will be dead for me and many other’s.

Noble Ire · Post by **Noble Ire** » 2005-05-30 04:46pm

Drunk Monkey wrote:It’s dead Jim get over it B+B murder trek no mater how hard they try it will be dead for me and many other’s.

Punctuation is your friend.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2005-05-30 06:19pm

Oh gods stop it stop it just fucking stop!!!

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2005-05-30 08:13pm

How come these two sanctimonious necrophiles haven't been fired yet?

Srynerson · Post by **Srynerson** » 2005-05-30 09:59pm

SCVN 2812 wrote:Paramount as an entity existing solely for the purpose of generating money by bankrolling profitable media projects would have collectively lost their minds if they renew these guys' contracts.

Two words: "Frank Lorenzo".

SCVN 2812 · Post by **SCVN 2812** » 2005-05-30 10:32pm

Srynerson wrote:
SCVN 2812 wrote:Paramount as an entity existing solely for the purpose of generating money by bankrolling profitable media projects would have collectively lost their minds if they renew these guys' contracts.
Two words: "Frank Lorenzo".

Enlighten me so that my dreams of a competent leadership for a beloved franchise are thoroughly squashed before I dare to hope.

Srynerson · Post by **Srynerson** » 2005-05-31 12:11am

SCVN 2812 wrote:
Srynerson wrote:
SCVN 2812 wrote:Paramount as an entity existing solely for the purpose of generating money by bankrolling profitable media projects would have collectively lost their minds if they renew these guys' contracts.
Two words: "Frank Lorenzo".
Enlighten me so that my dreams of a competent leadership for a beloved franchise are thoroughly squashed before I dare to hope.

It's just an analogy. Frank Lorenzo was an executive who destroyed or crippled a half-dozen airlines with reckless management practices during the 1980s, but for some reason people kept lending him money to just make the same mistakes over and over again. He inflicted so much damage on the American air travel industry that the FAA literally found him unfit to run an airline in 1993: http://dotlibrary.dot.gov/Historian/chronology.htm (scroll down to the September 8, 1993 entry)

My point though is simply this: some people really can fail upwards. B&B seem to be in that category.

Burak Gazan · Post by **Burak Gazan** » 2005-05-31 12:30am

B+B are living proof of the Dilbert Principle in action

Zed Snardbody · Post by **Zed Snardbody** » 2005-05-31 01:16am

Burak Gazan wrote:B+B are living proof of the Dilbert Principle in action

Not really. The dilbert principle states that those incompetent are promoted above others to positions where they will do the least amount of harm.

This is not what is happening.

Burak Gazan · Post by **Burak Gazan** » 2005-05-31 01:46am

Harm is a point of view

Can you imagine if they actually had important jobs?

It is sad though, that we are reduced to cracking wise over what's left of the francise. Like beating a dead horse, but until those 2 are cut out of the loop, any future ventures are doomed before they get started

Mr. B · Post by **Mr. B** » 2005-05-31 02:07am

I dont get why Trek fans havent demanded B+ B's heads on pikes long ago.
They have ruined a once proud franchise. Shame on them, shame...

FedRebel · Post by **FedRebel** » 2005-05-31 07:47am

Some Trekkies are so addicted to Trek that they actually like the crap B&B make

Zed Snardbody · Post by **Zed Snardbody** » 2005-05-31 07:56am

link

JET · Post by **JET** » 2005-05-31 08:50am

[/quote]

This is what they said Voyager would be, and Enterprise. One of their problems is that they never have the courage to carry through with their premises; they always must return to the TOS/TNG "planet of the week" formula. Or the "villainous threat of the year" formula for movies.

What does he expect to gain by saying that? He's basically admitting that he and Braga have nearly twice as much money as, say, Ron D. Moore, and still produce shit. And I wouldn't be bragging about "actors" like Scott Bakula...[/quote]

What kinda movie would you write then? No baddies or aliens? maybe they could all just sit there and look pretty (if Picard was there

)

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

trek film in three years ( Dammit these people don't learn )

trek film in three years ( Dammit these people don't learn )

Re: trek film in three years ( Dammit these people don't lea