Seems like a lot of blame was dumped into his lap for Nemesis' failure. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve his fair share of blame but I'm of the general opinion that a movie, good or bad, has many fingerprints all over it. What do you think?
Stuart Baird
- Thread starter JeffinOakland
- Start date
A
Amaris
Guest
I think both share an equal amount of responsibility for the movie's lack of success, wandering storyline, and odd characterizations.
Stuart Baird was a better producer for the Harry Potter films than he was a director for Nemesis. Although even there, he made or allowed some odd, counter-intuitive casting choices that went against the descriptions of the characters in the books. I'd say his track record is, while not spotless, more good than bad.
I believe you may be mixing him up with someone else.
Baird was and still is an outstanding film editor, but for whatever reason sucked as a director. Some editors can make the jump -- Robert Wise started as a film editor, and his work on Citizen Kane was nominated for an Oscar -- but Baird couldn't. That said, the script was utter dogshit. I don't think the combined ghosts of Welles, John Ford, and Hitchcock could have teamed up to make this a great Trek movie, to say nothing of having it appeal to the general public.
Stuart Baird's decision to light the bridge in favour of showing off the console displays, as opposed to lighting the aging actors in a flattering way was piss poor, to me. I also found his use of high contrast on the planet scene to be an interesting one, but I don't buy the look of it. Between these sorts of choices and John Logan's script NEMESIS never had a chance. Some would've preferred that Jonathan Frakes directed, and I'm sure it would've come across a lot better and looked gorgeous, but Frakes would've undoubtedly used the exact same script, with few - if any - modifications. For that reason, I don't really see Frakes making much of a difference, had he been in the director's chair.
Counter-argument: Skyfall.
Doctorwhovian
Fleet Captain
Baird was an editor on Skyfall, interestingly enough (He also edited Casino Royale, and a couple of films with Richard Donner and Martin Campbell).
You are correct. I confused him with Stuart(!) Craig.
1. Another doomsday machine
2. Too much action...not enough interaction or reflection
3. The Data "growing pains" schitck wearing thin
4. More systems malfunctions
5. A James Bond villain in a ST movie
2. Too much action...not enough interaction or reflection
3. The Data "growing pains" schitck wearing thin
4. More systems malfunctions
5. A James Bond villain in a ST movie
Doctorwhovian
Fleet Captain
^Not sure by what you mean by a James Bond villain. If anything I think Chang was the closest we got to a James Bond villain in a Star Trek movie IMO.
A funny-looking cackling madman who wants to destroy earth w a superweapon. Also, meant to be Picard's opposite, like 006 in Goldeneye.
Counter-counter argument: Logan was not the sole writer on Skyfall, and going beyond that, while the film is gorgeously shot and very well-directed, its script is a muddled mess that's dripping with misogyny.
I think part of the problem was a very awkwardly-constructed final cut. There are several deleted scenes that could have been put back in, such as the Picard/Data scene where they discuss time and mortality over a glass of wine, the assault of Troi in the turbolift (as an alternative to the sex scene in the final film - actually I'd probably have taken out that subplot entirely), and Crusher's goodbye chat with Picard over the comm. On the flip-side, the dune buggy chase, for example, served little-to-no purpose.
Er, I also think the Skyfall script is crap - hence my point of countering the notion that Logan the strong element in Nemesis.
(I'd forgotten that Baird had any involvement in that movie also.) And I agree that its treatment of its female characters sucked, from M being a total idiot to Eve doing field work with farcically huge hair to the whole character of - Sandrine? (Don't remember, don't care.) And I don't think Skyfall was well-directed, either. It was so busy looking pretty it bored me to exasperation, even in a big-screen theater.
Stuart Craig was a production designer, not a producer. So you've been blaming him (or Baird) for Potter-based decisions that weren't his. Poor guy.
