Guest Trek Blogging#7

The Trek Movies.

Insurrection killed the Trek movie franchise. Bold statement? Not really. Think about it. Now don't get me wrong. Insurrection, while my least favorite of the Next Generation films, is not a bad movie. On the contrary, it's pretty solid stuff. A firm three out of four stars. But it was rushed out too soon after First Contact, to capitalize on that film's enormous success. But hey, you say, First Contact came out two years after Generations, and Insurection came out two years after First Contact, so how can you make that argument? Here's why: First Contact had to come out soon after Generations if the Trek movies were going to survive. Generations was a decent-size hit, but it was slammed by critics and a lot of fans. The emotion chip was gimmicky, the nexus was nonsensical technobabble; Shatner upstaged Stewart. There was serious doubt as to whether the Next Gen crew could hold a film on their own, with no help from the original series. First Contact quickly proved that they could…Star Trek clearly still had a future on the silver screen.What should they have done then? They should have let the movie series rest awhile. Let some anticipation build for the next installment. But those Paramount execs, they can always be counted on to do whatever they think will make them the quickest buck. What did they do? Salivating with the success of the "Borg movie," as I'm sure they inaccurately called it, they threw loads of dough at Stewart and Spiner and they filmed the first story Michael Piller could come up with. And what happened? Insurrection, while entertaining and modestly successful at the box office, failed to generate the excitement a Trek movie should. It was a fine story, but it was pretty forgettable. And c'mon, "Insurrection?" It was a horrible title. Really, in all seriousness, "Insurrection?" What the hell does that mean? It sounds like one of those lackluster one-word technobabble titles from some TNG or Voyager episodes, where you get the idea that they didn't feel like coming up with something good. "The Devil in the Dark," "The Changing Face of Evil," The City on the Edge of Forever," "Far Beyond the Stars," those are Trek titles. Insurrection underperformed, and that was possibly a good thing, cause it made Berman & Co. realize they needed to take more time to think up something better for the next one. And you know what? They did. The ho-hum response to Nemesis confounded me. At the time, I tried to explain it away with bad timing. Well, there was a Lord of the Rings, a Harry Potter and a Bond film out at the same time. Well, you know what? Those excuses didn't work with Star Trek V, and they don't work with Nemesis either. It goes deeper than that. Some people didn't like Nemesis, but I although I think they're wrong, I don't think they're the problem. I think the people who didn't SEE Nemesis are the problem. When a film like Star Trek V underperforms at the box office, it's easy to explain. It was a bad movie. When A a really cool film like Nemesis (and it was really cool) underperforms, it means, interest in the Trek films is waning. Interest in Trek in general is waning. Oh, I hated writing those last words I just wrote. But it's the only explanation. The future of Trek. Enterprise will not last seven years.