Sign in to follow this  
Happy Russia

Did the Paramount execs have their heads shoved up their asses?

Recommended Posts

robjkay   
As I stated before, if the movie had've been true to canon and to what Trek was then Riker would've never accpted a command of his own.

Heres one example:

PICARD: Sounds a little like a young lieutenant commander I once recruited as a first officer.

RIKER: Perhaps.

PICARD: Will, what the hell are you still doing here?

RIKER: Sir?

PICARD: You've been offered the Melbourne.

RIKER: I've decided not to pursue that commission at this time.

PICARD: She's a fine ship, Will.

RIKER: Yes, but she's not the Enterprise. With all due respect, sir, you need me. Particularly now.

That is what hes always said. He wouldn't take a command, he'd rather command the Enterprise. Thats where he is happy. I bet he'd never would've taken command if I wrote the movie. Also Data wouldn't die, no clones, no deck 29 and we'd would had an adventure and some discovery! It would be a final adventure.

Oh please, having Riker finally accepting a command of a ship has nothing to do with sticking true to canon! After Riker having turned down command of the Melbourne and then finally accepting one in Nemesis of which 13 years has passed between the two. It would only make sense if SF offered Riker another command and him accepting one, being it simply came to what Riker wanted at that particular time in his life (which was pointed out in "Best of Both Worlds").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Terilynn   

Personally - It's realistic to think that Riker would finally leave. Coming up with realistic excuses for him to stay were getting pretty ridiculous IMHO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, with Rob on this. Riker finally getting a command was nothing more then him realizing that if he didn't take one soon he might never get one, because Picard certainly wasn't going to give up the Enterprise. It's not an error in canon, it's the character growing up and changing because of changes in his life.

As others pointed out, Riker does have some command experience, but staying on as XO of the Enterprise would only hurt his career and his chances to get command of the Enterprise some day. If having to choose between an officer who's been a commander for years and who's only command experience has been to fill in for his captain, and someone who has years of experience as CO of a starship and a number of high priority missions under his belt, Starfleet is going to choose the Captain over the Commander.

This is the Federation Flagship we're talking about here. It was fine to turn over the Enterprise to Riker during The Best of Both Worlds because no one else was available and there was a very good chance that no one was going to live through it, but in any other situation, at that point in time, Riker would not have been given command.

So I think Riker is only helping his chances at getting command of the Enterprise by taking command of the Titan now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
robjkay   
It's not an error in canon, it's the character growing up and changing because of changes in his life.

Jimi James, I could not have said it any better then that! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
robjkay   
Agreed 100%. It's also kinda illogical for Starfleet to offer Riker another command after all those years. I mean he kept refusing commands (how many? Three? The Drake, the Airies and the Melbourne? Did I forget one? I'm not a Riker expert, sorry @.@ *lol*), so the logical course of action for Starfleet should've been to leave him alone and have him wait for Jean-Luc to retire and then to make him captain of the Enterprise.

Riker was already under pressure, it was once said that there were already other, younger captains available and if he did not accept a command soon, the opportunity to get a command of his own would be gone. That was said on TNG, which means the situation in Nemesis should be that Starfleet is simply not interested anymore in giving him a command of his own.

Well being 13 years have passed of which SF did leave him alone. Also being Riker has exceptional abilities, command experience, accomplished tactician and is an experienced diplomat to include being the 1st officer on the flagship of the fleet. Due to this, it would be very hard for SF not to offer him another promotion for command and also it would be very stupid for them not to! I mean think about it, the Federation got done defeating the Dominion of which took alot of lives and ships. I am sure SF was short on experienced officers, especially ones to command there newest ships. Due to this and then you have Riker who was more then likely is your most experienced commander who's up for command. You then see why SF offered Riker another command. :vulcan:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
robjkay   
I really don't understand why the writers made him leave the Enterprise, there was no need for him to do so. The plot didn't require it (yeah I know, what plot? Does that movie even have one?), so whyyyyyy? o_O

Because it was time for Riker to move on, because he was getting married, because Nemesis was going to be the last movie to be produced about ST TNG, because it does not make any sense having Riker retire due to old age as the 1st officer on Enterprise. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually "Executive Decision" was an extremely good movie! Also Roger Ebert gave it 3 stars out of 4 which says alot about the movie. Another thing if you go to BOX OFFICE MOJO, it shows it did pretty good when it opened up in the theaters of which the viewers gave a an overall score of a B- which is not bad at all. :thumbsup2:

You can't argue with money, that's true. But when you start taking the advice of a 60-year old fat man who sits in a chair and raises his thumb up and down like Julius Caesar in the Colussium in order to rate movies, I think that stretches it a tad too far. ;):P I don't listen to film reviewers of any kind. I make my own decisions on what to see, what I like about it, etc. Anyone can be a critic...really! I saw "Executive Decision," I didn't like it...pure and simple. I'm not conjecturing that it was a bad film, because so many apparently liked it, I thought it was bad...from my point of view. It's just that Baird has very little directing experience...not to mention that he's a terrible editor. So my real beef is: What was Paramount smoking when they decided on Baird? That's it...because there are many, many more capable directors. And I understand it was a favor or whatever it was he wanted after helping Paramount edit "Air Force One." He could've turned down "Nemesis," couldn't he? But why didn't he? If he didn't know jack about Trek...why take the project? Maybe it was because he didn't have anything else better to do at the time...since he wasn't a very, oh what's the word I'm looking for, sought director? I mean, he's mediocre at worst...not best, worst. Someone here earlier said it best by saying that Baird did "Nemesis" for helping Paramount edit "Air Force One." But like I said: Did he have to do it? He couldn't have said, "Well, do you guys have any other films I could do?" No...and I'll never know why. So in my twisted and confusing logic, for now...and most likely forever, Stuart Baird and Paramount have BIG targets painted on the backs of their heads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
robjkay   
You can't argue with money, that's true. But when you start taking the advice of a 60-year old fat man who sits in a chair and raises his thumb up and down like Julius Caesar in the Colussium in order to rate movies, I think that stretches it a tad too far. ;):P I don't listen to film reviewers of any kind. I make my own decisions on what to see, what I like about it, etc. Anyone can be a critic...really! I saw "Executive Decision," I didn't like it...pure and simple. I'm not conjecturing that it was a bad film, because so many apparently liked it, I thought it was bad...from my point of view. It's just that Baird has very little directing experience...not to mention that he's a terrible editor. So my real beef is: What was Paramount smoking when they decided on Baird? That's it...because there are many, many more capable directors. And I understand it was a favor or whatever it was he wanted after helping Paramount edit "Air Force One." He could've turned down "Nemesis," couldn't he? But why didn't he? If he didn't know jack about Trek...why take the project? Maybe it was because he didn't have anything else better to do at the time...since he wasn't a very, oh what's the word I'm looking for, sought director? I mean, he's mediocre at worst...not best, worst. Someone here earlier said it best by saying that Baird did "Nemesis" for helping Paramount edit "Air Force One." But like I said: Did he have to do it? He couldn't have said, "Well, do you guys have any other films I could do?" No...and I'll never know why. So in my twisted and confusing logic, for now...and most likely forever, Stuart Baird and Paramount have BIG targets painted on the backs of their heads.

First off, that 60-year old man who sits in a chair raising his thumb up and down has been professional film critic since 1967 and is listened to and his columns are read throughout the country. Therefore you can say his critique does matter and does carry some weight behind it. All of which I don't think neither you or me can say that. As you said anyone can make there own decision on what to see, but in all actuality not anyone can be a film critic, being your simply voicing a opinion! ;) If you did not like "Executive Decision," then thats to bad being your simply voicing your opinion on the matter. If you had a group of listeners who followed your critique on what film you thought were bad or good then we could all say you were a film critic then. :)

As far as Stuart Baird, lets not forget he earned an Academy Award nomination for Best Film Editing and received another nomination for editing Gorillas in the Mist (1988) and has been nominated for numerous other awards. He also worked on such projects like Lethal Weapon 2, Die Hard 2: Die Harder, The Last Boy Scout, Casino Royale, Star Trek: Nemesis to name a few. So I think its incorrect for you to say that he was terrible editor & had very little directing experience. From what Paramount saw from Stuart Baird was enough justification to hire him to direct Star Trek: Nemesis and it also was logical for Baird to accept the job. As for "Air Force One" Stuart Baird is not listed for editing anything for that movie, but if he did then lets not forget that "Air Force One" receive two Academy Award nominations for Best Film Editing. Anyway I do not understand what your beef is with Stuart Baird, being the only thing I am seeing is that you simply did not like ST: Nemesis which I have to agree with being it was not the best ST movie I have seen. But its strickly not Stuart Baird fault being it was also the producers, writters & Paramount fault for Nemesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was the faults of the writers and producers as well, we all know that. But it all could've been avoided! John Logan, I think, was fine for the script. The original one was a tad too overzealous and actually dipped into the "fanboy movie" a bit. But when Baird started calling LeVar "Laverne," the turbolifts "elevators," Geordi "an alien," the phasers "lasers," and edits out all of the meaningful character moments out of the film, you kinda get the feeling..."Huh, maybe this guy isn't the right choice?" If that offends you...sorry. Maybe you shouldn't read this thread, then...that's just me talking, okay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
robjkay   
It was the faults of the writers and producers as well, we all know that. But it all could've been avoided! John Logan, I think, was fine for the script. The original one was a tad too overzealous and actually dipped into the "fanboy movie" a bit. But when Baird started calling LeVar "Laverne," the turbolifts "elevators," Geordi "an alien," the phasers "lasers," and edits out all of the meaningful character moments out of the film, you kinda get the feeling..."Huh, maybe this guy isn't the right choice?" If that offends you...sorry. Maybe you shouldn't read this thread, then...that's just me talking, okay?

Well you do not know if anything could have been avoided, being if you had a different director filming the same exact movie (I am saying director being your only arguement seems to be only with Stuart Baird) you would only have different problems being there still filming a movie based off of a poor script.

As for LeVar "Laverne," the turbolifts "elevators," Geordi "an alien," the phasers "lasers... Well I do not recall any of these things being said during the movie, nor do I think there were said in the movie. As for "meaningful character moments" being edited out of the movie, what meaningful moments are you talking about?

Anyway I am not the one that feels offended about anything being it would seem your the one who is offended about something of which so far you have not really made clear. What I mean is you blame Stuart Baird for everything about Nemesis, you say that Stuart Baird is a terrible editor & had very little directing experience which is all untrue. Also Stuart Baird worked with alot of other movies, not just "Executive Decision," & "Superman". Stuart Baird did not edit "Air Force One" which was nominated for two Academy Award Best Film Editing, due to this Paramount did not owe Baird anything. But from what you have stated so far about Stuart Baird which I guess is the main issue you have about Nemesis is that so far just about everything you stated about him has been wrong. Simply, maybe thats the problem! ;)

Also all the ST movies have had there share of mistakes and errors to include deleted scenes which equal to what happened to Nemesis. Therefore I guess you hate those movies to and also have a problem with Jonathan Frakes, David Carson, Nicholas Meyer who directed some of those ST movies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you read anything else everyone has posted here? Many of the others who posted here have much more merit than I. Baird had no knowledge of Star Trek, therefore he was the wrong choice. There, better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, one other thing, have you watched the deleted scenes? Those are the meaningful character moments that Baird cut out, due to "keeping up the pace of the film." and he also stated that "those scenes didn't progress the plot." I have the DVD, I heard it from the horse's mouth...and, no...those terms I mentioned weren't spoken in the film...it's what Stuart said because, well, he knows nothing about Star Trek! I mean, is anyone going to say "Stuart Baird, Paramount, Rick Berman, the writers and the producers did a good job!" Baird was the wrong choice, I'll say it again...he was the wrong choice. Paramount made the mistake and it cost us, the fans, the pleasure of a memorable end to the Next Generation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
robjkay   
Have you read anything else everyone has posted here? Many of the others who posted here have much more merit than I. Baird had no knowledge of Star Trek, therefore he was the wrong choice. There, better?

No I have not read every post, being I stoped when someone said that being Riker got promoted to Capt and was leaving the Enterprise went against canon. Which it is not.

Maybe Baird was the wrong choice and yes I am sure they could have found someone better. But when your directing a movie from a poor script that should have been sent to the dumpster, your still going to have a bad movie. Hell Steven Spielberg could have directed Nemesis of which the movie would have been better, but it still would have been a big stinker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
robjkay   
And, one other thing, have you watched the deleted scenes? Those are the meaningful character moments that Baird cut out, due to "keeping up the pace of the film." and he also stated that "those scenes didn't progress the plot." I have the DVD, I heard it from the horse's mouth...and, no...those terms I mentioned weren't spoken in the film...it's what Stuart said because, well, he knows nothing about Star Trek! I mean, is anyone going to say "Stuart Baird, Paramount, Rick Berman, the writers and the producers did a good job!" Baird was the wrong choice, I'll say it again...he was the wrong choice. Paramount made the mistake and it cost us, the fans, the pleasure of a memorable end to the Next Generation.

No I never got around looking at the deleted scenes, maybe sometime this week I will.

Will what Stuart Baird stated off film really does not amount to much. Also lets not forget Rick Berman did produce Nemesis of which has an equal part of what happened with the movie. Also it would seem Rick Berman does not know much about ST ether, simply because ST: Enterprise had so many holes that against canon.

Well thats fine saying that Baird was the wrong choice, but all I am saying is that the blame does not fall strickly on him!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you're right, the blame goes to Berman too. What I originally said, at the beginning of this thread, was that Paramount should be called out on this fo-pah. That means Paramount, Berman, the writers, everyone should atone for this tragedy! Trust me, rob, when you see the deleted scenes...you might wish they were back in the film as well. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. Troi   

They all have gotten older, I am surprised at Frakes letting himself go after seeing him in These are the Voyages.

Regarding Frakes's weight, I don't know if you knew it, but a few years ago People Magazine wrote an article on his wife, Genie Francis, who is a recovering alcoholic. The couple have been married for over twenty years and have experienced many ups and downs. The article explained how difficult it was for Genie to get her life back on track after experiencing long term unemployment after a successful career as a soap opera star. She began drinking after her stint as Laura and went into rehab. She began again shortly after the birth of her two children. What was really sad was that many people didn't know that she had a problem because Genie was a closet alcoholic.

At this time, Jonathan was working on Star Trek and directing movies. It was during this time that Genie went into rehab for a second time while Jonathan looked after the family. After rehab, Genie was able to get her life back on track and she even won an Emmy two years ago.

The result is that Jonathan really hasn't been taking care of himself, but looking after his family. I admire any man who can sacrifice himself for his family. Therefore, I cut Jonathan a lot of slack. It is not easy having a wife with a drinking problem and who has gone through rehab--with the public looking at your every move.

BTW, what was really fuzzy about the People article was the dates. I knew that as a teenager Genie had a drinking problem, but not as an adult. Genie discussed this in the Lifetime special on her life. The article also alluded to the fact that she had a relapse as an adult. This was not covered in the Lifetime special, but Frances talked about it shortly on The View, stating her drinking was a catalyst to get her life back together and to loose weight.

So now, what Genie has to do is get the hubby on a diet or send him back to Africa to work. I saw him after he did the movie the Librian and he was thin, because in Kenya one couldn't just eat every thing!

PS Why are people so concerned about people's weight? In general I think all the Trek actors look after themselves pretty well. When I think about the classic stars, I can say only OMG: Jimmy and William had guts on them! What made William so bad was that he tried to hide his with a girdle! At least Jonathans honest! :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Dr. Troi, that's a very interesting point. I did notice in some recent photos that Jonathan was looking much bigger than in his TNG days, but I don't particularly care, as long as he can stay healthy - doesn't matter if he's put on some weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. Troi   
^ Dr. Troi, that's a very interesting point. I did notice in some recent photos that Jonathan was looking much bigger than in his TNG days, but I don't particularly care, as long as he can stay healthy - doesn't matter if he's put on some weight.

I just wrote an article for Marina Sirtis's Official Fan Site about why the site was so poorly looked after. Marina has hit middle age and like most adult children has experienced the passing of her mother, father-in-law for whom she did hospice, aunts, and uncles, who were all in ther 70s and 80s. Likewise, Rod Roddenberry, the son of Gene Roddenberry, is looking after his aging mother who is almost 80.

The stars have lives and experience the same problems we do when it comes to aging parents. The one thing is that is different is that a star such as Kate Mulgrew has the clout to bring attention to the issue of Alzheimers Disease and the care of the aging.

Therefore, I really give the stars a wide berth because life isn't easy. Plus, I am experiencing the same problems with my own parents and in-laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Terilynn   
Nosferatu/Remens.

:thumbdown:

*snicker - sigh* yeah. They really bit.

sorry - couldn't help myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Terilynn   
Hey, Terri, the 1950's called...they want their joke back! :P

touche'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoyed Nemesis. Jonathan directed First Contact which many fans consider great and then he did Insurrection which didn't do too well and the studio blamed him? Stuart Baird edited Casino Royale and that turned out great. Perhaps, leave people in their jobs they're good at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this