[NEWS] - TREK actress proclaims the adventure is over

7 views
Skip to first unread message

Stan Jensen

unread,
Mar 30, 2004, 9:04:18 PM3/30/04
to
TREK actress proclaims the adventure is over
Marina Sirtis tells fans there won't be anymore movies with the NEXT
GENERATION crew

----------------------------------------------------------------

Things don't look good right now for another STAR TREK film starring
Patrick Stewart and his NEXT GENERATION crew members. Representatives for
IGN FilmForce were in attendance during last weekend's United Fan Con held
in Boston where actress Marina Sirtis (Counselor Troi) was a guest of
honor. When asked when the next TREK movie would arrive in theaters, Sirtis
told the crowd "It's over. There's not going to be another one."

Sirtis also suggested that the last TREK movie, NEMESIS, would have been a
blockbuster had Paramount released the film two months later than it did.
The actress felt that the close proximinity of the release of THE LORD OF
THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS greatly hurt the box office performance of
NEMESIS, and had the movie opened in February, would have been a hit.


Sirtis' comments further underscore that, for the first time in more than
20 years, Paramount has no desire to make a new STAR TREK movie. She
suggested that maybe the franchise needs to remain fallow for a decade at
least before being brought back.

Ragnar

unread,
Mar 30, 2004, 10:31:39 PM3/30/04
to

"Stan Jensen" <sp...@wonderful.spam> wrote in message
news:vc9k60dju2on1huch...@4ax.com...

>
> Sirtis also suggested that the last TREK movie, NEMESIS, would have been a
> blockbuster had Paramount released the film two months later than it did.
> The actress felt that the close proximinity of the release of THE LORD OF
> THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS greatly hurt the box office performance of
> NEMESIS, and had the movie opened in February, would have been a hit.

Shows how much she knows about the market. There is very little crossover
between the audiences for those two movies.

> Sirtis' comments further underscore that, for the first time in more than
> 20 years, Paramount has no desire to make a new STAR TREK movie. She
> suggested that maybe the franchise needs to remain fallow for a decade at
> least before being brought back.

Or maybe Sirtis' poor acting skills had a hand in killing the movie.


graham

unread,
Mar 31, 2004, 12:08:20 PM3/31/04
to

"Stan Jensen" <sp...@wonderful.spam> wrote in message
news:vc9k60dju2on1huch...@4ax.com...


Nemesis had one massive problem. It was crap. Pure and simple. To compare it
with Rings sounds like an bad excuse to explain its poor performance. The
one grind I had with Nemesis is it came as a total surprise that the cast
didn't see they were on to a loser. It was if they filmed a load of stuff
"just to get it over with" and not caring about what happens after,
especially when a majority of the script was a cut-and-paste from ST2.

Star Trek in all its forms needs good stories to keep it going. All the time
there are stories and originality, its possible for anything to continue
indefinitely. When the ideas run out, time to call it a day.

Graham

Graham

Elvis Gump

unread,
Mar 31, 2004, 12:29:34 PM3/31/04
to
in article c4etu3$b1b$1...@hercules.btinternet.com, graham at

Well, it worse than that. Why and how did Logan or (what was the directors
name of that POS Nemesis again?) even get the job of working on the movie in
the first place? The whole franchise has become an increasingly smaller
clique as the more talented people who were clearly responsible for whatever
success TNG or DS9 enjoyed have left and not been replaced with anyone equal
to them.

I don't think the actors really have that great a feel for what made good
Trek stories, even Frakes who's direction was technically okay lacked a
total sense of what had gone before successfully story-wise, hence movies
like "Insurrection" which indulged the actors getting to sing or act silly
and not take the story very seriously; as though seeing them having a lark
and a romp would satisfy the fans who expected an engaging story.

I don't think it's necessarily ever been the only option to call it a day
for Trek, but the whole idea of it has drifted badly and I have little hope
that their story telling by committee will ever find someone to enter the
present clique with a singular vision of what was right about the concept to
begin with and make an audience care about watching it.

As it is Trek is a suffering a slow, painful death with things like
"Enterprise" as it borders on self-parody and eating itself alive by
cannibalizing old story ideas without a wit of why what they are rehashing
was worthwhile in the first place.
--
"I detest life-insurance agents; they always argue that I shall some day
die, which is not so."
-- Stephen Leacock

graham

unread,
Apr 1, 2004, 12:46:16 PM4/1/04
to

"Elvis Gump" <elvi...@NOhotmailSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:BC905C1E.227D7%elvi...@NOhotmailSPAM.com...

Lots of good points here. I was annoyed that Frakes and everyone else did
not recognise that STN was basically plotless. Most of the cast have taken
the directors seat at one time or another, so it wouldn't take a huge about
of ability to recognise a load of crap from anything else. I saw an
interview with Pat Stewart who believed the poor response for STN was due to
the ST franchise having run its course. IMHO, it wasn't. It was basically
crap - that's why it failed. If the film was "good", people would have gone
to see it. But watching it, I got the sense of "so what?" from the film.
They (Paramount) have allowed Star Trek to slowly degenerate by lack of
investment and research into good scriptwriters. As for Enterprise, I have
seen up to the end of Season 2 and have yet to see anything worth the price
of electric to power the telly. It really is a poor series and it seems to
try to draw its inspiration from stuff which has been done before and does
not fit the Star Trek timeline/history. Personally, I would like to see
Enterprise pulled and replaced when someone comes up with some decent
stories to warrent either the series or something better.

If ST ultimatly fails and gets pulled/put to sleep, Paramount have only
themselves to blame for it.

Graham.


Elvis Gump

unread,
Apr 1, 2004, 1:29:33 PM4/1/04
to
in article c4hkh4$euf$1...@sparta.btinternet.com, graham at

grah...@btinternet.com wrote on 04/01/2004 11:46 AM:

>
> "Elvis Gump" <elvi...@NOhotmailSPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:BC905C1E.227D7%elvi...@NOhotmailSPAM.com...

>> Well, it worse than that. Why and how did Logan or (what was the directors


>> name of that POS Nemesis again?) even get the job of working on the movie in
>> the first place? The whole franchise has become an increasingly smaller
>> clique as the more talented people who were clearly responsible for whatever
>> success TNG or DS9 enjoyed have left and not been replaced with anyone equal
>> to them.
>>
>> I don't think the actors really have that great a feel for what made good
>> Trek stories, even Frakes who's direction was technically okay lacked a total
>> sense of what had gone before successfully story-wise, hence movies like
>> "Insurrection" which indulged the actors getting to sing or act silly and not
>> take the story very seriously; as though seeing them having a lark and a romp
>> would satisfy the fans who expected an engaging story.
>>
>> I don't think it's necessarily ever been the only option to call it a day for
>> Trek, but the whole idea of it has drifted badly and I have little hope that
>> their story telling by committee will ever find someone to enter the present
>> clique with a singular vision of what was right about the concept to begin
>> with and make an audience care about watching it.
>>
>> As it is Trek is a suffering a slow, painful death with things like
>> "Enterprise" as it borders on self-parody and eating itself alive by
>> cannibalizing old story ideas without a wit of why what they are rehashing
>> was worthwhile in the first place.

> Lots of good points here. I was annoyed that Frakes and everyone else did


> not recognise that STN was basically plotless. Most of the cast have taken
> the directors seat at one time or another, so it wouldn't take a huge about
> of ability to recognise a load of crap from anything else. I saw an
> interview with Pat Stewart who believed the poor response for STN was due to
> the ST franchise having run its course. IMHO, it wasn't. It was basically
> crap - that's why it failed. If the film was "good", people would have gone
> to see it. But watching it, I got the sense of "so what?" from the film.

I couldn't imagine what they saw on the script pages that made them say "hey
this is a good idea!" I suspect there was a big incentive to milk it one
more time for their retirement funds, perhaps a sense of not wanting to be
seen as being a spoilsport and have the fans hate them for not donning the
spacesuits one more time or even that they were contractually obligated to
do it no matter how bad it was.

The various stories of how Nemesis became a train wreck of multiple people
being asleep at the switch and going through the motions would be more
entertaining than the actual film I suspect.

I thought the most interesting thing was Tom Hardy's thankless performance
trying to eek something out of his nonsense part which couldn't do anything
but dribble off at the end as written. The problem was the movie had no real
third act which is the problem with most films because the premise was
'wouldn't it be great' gets them started and then they can't work out where
to go from there for a pay-off so they start blowing stuff up hoping no one
will notice.

The final space battle was the best FX work of an Trek movie and oh so
boring at the same time because who could care because the story was so bad.

> They (Paramount) have allowed Star Trek to slowly degenerate by lack of
> investment and research into good scriptwriters. As for Enterprise, I have
> seen up to the end of Season 2 and have yet to see anything worth the price
> of electric to power the telly. It really is a poor series and it seems to
> try to draw its inspiration from stuff which has been done before and does
> not fit the Star Trek timeline/history. Personally, I would like to see
> Enterprise pulled and replaced when someone comes up with some decent
> stories to warrent either the series or something better.
>
> If ST ultimatly fails and gets pulled/put to sleep, Paramount have only
> themselves to blame for it.
>
> Graham.

"Enterprise" as an idea excited me when I knew nothing about it. There are
so many ways, many posted in ongoing discussions in the various Trek NGs
that would have made it so much better.

Among many things I think there should have been more than one starship in
service when the series started, all embarking in different directions which
they could have easily been depicted with the same interior sets of NX and
had them interact a bit. It's insane that with no help a ship would just go
blazing off into the unknown like NX-01 has to me when it would represent
such a huge investment for Earth.

And they should have dialed back even further on the level of technological
advancement shown on the show so far. Early on there were some nods to the
TOS era such as meeting the Andorians and such but that went out the window
pretty quick. Most days the ship and technology seems exactly like TOS or
TNG with different naming conventions. I want to see them bridge the real
science we know to the science of the future and extrapolate 'getting from
here to there'.

And for crissakes tell a good story once in a while! The best thing for me
in "Enterprise" so far was probably "Carbon Creek" because it actually told
an interesting story that didn't depend on wild FX or yet another species
with bumpy foreheads.
--
"I hope life isn't a big joke, because I don't get it."
-- "Deep Thoughts" by Jack Handey

Numan

unread,
Apr 1, 2004, 4:48:38 PM4/1/04
to

"graham" <grah...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:c4etu3$b1b$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...

I could not agree with you more. Today is April Fools Day and I saw the
big "Enterprise is Cancelled" banner today. All I could think was, "if
only."
I would be happy to see it go. Maybe they could get the next one right.


Snake

unread,
Apr 1, 2004, 9:20:23 PM4/1/04
to
graham wrote:
> Lots of good points here. I was annoyed that Frakes and everyone else did
> not recognise that STN was basically plotless. Most of the cast have taken
> the directors seat at one time or another, so it wouldn't take a huge about
> of ability to recognise a load of crap from anything else. I saw an
> interview with Pat Stewart who believed the poor response for STN was due to
> the ST franchise having run its course. IMHO, it wasn't. It was basically
> crap - that's why it failed. If the film was "good", people would have gone
> to see it. But watching it, I got the sense of "so what?" from the film.
> They (Paramount) have allowed Star Trek to slowly degenerate by lack of
> investment and research into good scriptwriters. As for Enterprise, I have
> seen up to the end of Season 2 and have yet to see anything worth the price
> of electric to power the telly. It really is a poor series and it seems to
> try to draw its inspiration from stuff which has been done before and does
> not fit the Star Trek timeline/history. Personally, I would like to see
> Enterprise pulled and replaced when someone comes up with some decent
> stories to warrent either the series or something better.
>
> If ST ultimatly fails and gets pulled/put to sleep, Paramount have only
> themselves to blame for it.

Both of you have great points. For me, for instance, STN's major
spoiler was BOTH Shinzon and...Picard. Shinzon, as a Uber-villian,
didn't exactly make your skin crawl. Picard, on the other hand,
was...wooden. He's standing there, talking to Troi, and says "I don't
trust him" with all the emotion, and reasoning behind 'not trusting
him', as ordering his Earl Grey, hot. No explanation of the deep
emotions behind that decision, not to mention that Stewart didn't show
and emotion to make up for the lack of dialog to explain the process.
Flat. Completely flat.

Like both of you said, *everyone* was just going through the motions. I
don't think that any character in Nemesis is memorable, in terms of
dramatic expressions of personality nor emotional direction. Cardboard
cutouts doing the routine. Snore. STN wasn't successful because...most
of us realized that. At least in First Contact SOME people are having
real reactions to things, even if some of those reactions are a
little...overdone.

GMAN

unread,
Apr 8, 2004, 6:42:39 PM4/8/04
to
In article <c4db8d$7p5$1...@news1.kornet.net>, "Ragnar" <rwo...@kornet.net> wrote:
>
>"Stan Jensen" <sp...@wonderful.spam> wrote in message
>news:vc9k60dju2on1huch...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Sirtis also suggested that the last TREK movie, NEMESIS, would have been a
>> blockbuster had Paramount released the film two months later than it did.
>> The actress felt that the close proximinity of the release of THE LORD OF
>> THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS greatly hurt the box office performance of
>> NEMESIS, and had the movie opened in February, would have been a hit.
>
>Shows how much she knows about the market. There is very little crossover
>between the audiences for those two movies.

Huh,

Star Trek= nerds who never leave their parents basement
LOTR = nerds who never leave their parents basement

LMAO

Ragnar

unread,
Apr 9, 2004, 4:49:54 AM4/9/04
to

"GMAN" <glen...@xmission.com> wrote in message
news:c54kh6$f16$1...@terabinaries.xmission.com...

> In article <c4db8d$7p5$1...@news1.kornet.net>, "Ragnar" <rwo...@kornet.net>
wrote:
> >
> >"Stan Jensen" <sp...@wonderful.spam> wrote in message
> >news:vc9k60dju2on1huch...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> Sirtis also suggested that the last TREK movie, NEMESIS, would have
been a
> >> blockbuster had Paramount released the film two months later than it
did.
> >> The actress felt that the close proximinity of the release of THE LORD
OF
> >> THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS greatly hurt the box office performance of
> >> NEMESIS, and had the movie opened in February, would have been a hit.
> >
> >Shows how much she knows about the market. There is very little
crossover
> >between the audiences for those two movies.
>
> Huh,
>
> Star Trek= nerds who never leave their parents basement
> LOTR = nerds who never leave their parents basement

Given your rather assinine definition, there couldn't be a Star Trek or LOTR
movie, since the audience never leaves the basement.


nick

unread,
Apr 9, 2004, 3:59:42 PM4/9/04
to
On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 17:46:16 +0000, graham wrote:


>
> Lots of good points here. I was annoyed that Frakes and everyone else did
> not recognise that STN was basically plotless. Most of the cast have taken
> the directors seat at one time or another, so it wouldn't take a huge about
> of ability to recognise a load of crap from anything else. I saw an
> interview with Pat Stewart who believed the poor response for STN was due to
> the ST franchise having run its course. IMHO, it wasn't. It was basically
> crap - that's why it failed. If the film was "good", people would have gone
> to see it. But watching it, I got the sense of "so what?" from the film.
> They (Paramount) have allowed Star Trek to slowly degenerate by lack of
> investment and research into good scriptwriters. As for Enterprise, I have
> seen up to the end of Season 2 and have yet to see anything worth the price
> of electric to power the telly. It really is a poor series and it seems to
> try to draw its inspiration from stuff which has been done before and does
> not fit the Star Trek timeline/history. Personally, I would like to see
> Enterprise pulled and replaced when someone comes up with some decent
> stories to warrent either the series or something better.
>
> If ST ultimatly fails and gets pulled/put to sleep, Paramount have only
> themselves to blame for it.
>
> Graham.

The blame lies with the network exec's and producers, these days when they
contemplate bringing a new trek series to television, they are no longer
thinking about producing a quality show. They are only thinking about what
they must do to tap into the established base of trek fans. They do not
want to create waves, what they want is a predictable show that generates
a predictable return on their investment. This worked for them in the
past, but it won't work anymore..

Grey

unread,
Apr 10, 2004, 4:40:51 AM4/10/04
to

"nick" <ni...@getsometoordalladdaliitletumeric.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.04.09....@getsometoordalladdaliitletumeric.com...

I agree with what you say, but is one part of a larger problem. As I said,
another aspect of the problem is general lack of ideas. ST Voyager began to
run out of things to do, so the writers kept hashing up tired borg stories -
I couldn't believe there was one in Enterprise. Another problem for
Enterprise is the obvious lack of money spent on special effects and lack of
sets/locations (funny how they always land on a planet a night?). The whole
thing has a cheapness feel to it and doesn't try to disguise the fact it is
made on a shoestring budget.

My advice to Paramount - Go away and think up something new and original,
then bring back ST.

Graham

Troy Heagy

unread,
Apr 12, 2004, 7:42:15 PM4/12/04
to
"Grey" <grah...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> My advice to Paramount - Go away and think up something new and original,
> then bring back ST.


Or get J.Michael Straczynski to create a REAL "Birth of the Federation" 7-yr-story.

Or hire some of the Pocket Books authors.

Or even the old DS9 producers.

Take risks.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages