Stuart Baird

[eyeresist]

2. Too much action...not enough interaction or reflection

Actually, last time I watched NEM I was surprised how much of the film is conversation about strategy and moral issues.

I think the script is good, actually one of the better ones Trek has had. It should be noted, though, that a lot of work was done on the script after Logan handed in his draft. (That seems to be a common thing with Logan's work.) The film also looks very cinematic (in contrast with INS).

I agree that Baird somehow screwed it up in editing. I think it's probably because as director he got attached to scenes and shots in a way he didn't when he was editing other people's material.
The Viceroy/Riker fight needed to be cut back dramatically, as it undermined the tension of the space battle and was boring in its own right.
The climax in the energy chamber is disappointing, and I think a lot of that is due to the mundane set design. It should have been an interesting space with different levels, not a closet, and Shinzon running onto that spike was unbelievable, because the spike hadn't been set up previously, and because Shinzon could easily have avoided it.
OTOH I feel the deleted scenes belonged on the cutting room floor.

 

[Lance]

they just lopped out all the character scenes and left all the action movie stuff in.

They kept the character scenes that were pertinent to the story, the ones with B4 and Shinzon.

It depends what one sees as "pertinent to the story". The deleted mess hall scene for example was helpful to setting up Data's motivations for doing the memory engram transfer with B4 later on, the reasons for which are otherwise quite murky in the movie as it was released (he seems to do it because... uh, he just thinks B4 is a bit dumb or something, whereas the missing mess hall scene shows us that B4 lacks Data's in-built capacity for growth).

Oh sure, we can rationalise the meaning from the scenes that are in the movie. The movie doesn't miss not having the mess hall scene in it. But nevertheless, it would have added a further dimension to the Data/B4 subplot, and made it feel slightly less like 'It's another evil brother for Data', and more like 'Data cares about B4 and just wants to give him every chance to help improve himself'.

As it is, I think the movie (being erred towards it's action sequences) feels somewhat unbalanced, without character material like that in it. Again, I'm not suggesting making the movie a dull talky snooze-fest. But, rather, I'm talking about how they could have found a better balance between the action scenes and these character moments. It's why I think the movie got kind of destroyed in the editing room. It picked up a pace, but lost some of its heart.

 

[TheAlmanac]

Are there any well-received fan edits of Star Trek: Nemesis out there?

All this talk about how the editing is what's wrong with the film (ironically, for reasons already mentioned) makes me want to seek something like that out...

 

[Tosk]

Unfortunately, a lot of the "bad editing" of Nemesis was the complete dumping of potentially great scenes. They've only been released in abysmal quality and timecoded.

 

[eyeresist]

^ Debatable.

 

[Lance]

The timecode/poor quality of the released deleted scenes is deliberate. Movie studios routinely don't give best quality versions of deleted scenes out on DVDs and the like, precisely because they don't want people out there doing 'phantom edits'.

The biggest problem of all is that several of the scenes are lacking their complete special effects. Starscapes in the windows, split screen work for Data/B4, etc. However, one or two of the trims are actually in the movie trailers, fully processed and with their special effects intact (of note is Worf's line in the briefing room warning Picard to be careful of the Romulans). So, either they finished off the SFX shots in the background of these scenes simply for the benefit of the movie trailer, or else there's a version of them out there somewhere that were fully printed and edited, complete with special effects... and we just haven't been given access to them.

I remember reading that Baird's first edit of the movie reportedly came in too long for what movie theaters would actually play, which is why the razor blade was put to it in the editing room to rapidly get it back down to a reasonable length. Maybe there's a complete "director's cut" already out there somewhere, just waiting to be rediscovered?

 

[inflatabledalek]

Err.. It's Stewart Baird isn't it? I only point this out as a Stuart who doesn't want to be damned by association.

 

[Indysolo]

Err.. It's Stewart Baird isn't it?

Nope, Stuart.

Neil

 

[doubleohfive]

The timecode/poor quality of the released deleted scenes is deliberate. Movie studios routinely don't give best quality versions of deleted scenes out on DVDs and the like, precisely because they don't want people out there doing 'phantom edits'.
p

I can't speak to how accurate this declaration is, but it's also a very easy thing to say because we all have our inflated idea about how much fans care enough about some movies to even make a phantom edit. I don't know that I believe that this is the only reason the timecode was left on, but I can tell you that it's probably just as much (if not more so) because all the other post-production accoutrements -- sound spotting, music spotting, color-correction, visual effects, etc. -- clearly haven't been applied to those deleted scenes either. I could simply be a matter of the scenes having been included in the early editorial stages and cut before the picture was locked and went off to the next stage of post-production to be color-corrected, et al.

 

[EnriqueH]

Logan's script was IMO stronger than Baird's direction.

Counter-argument: Skyfall.

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.

It is? What's misogynist about it? I noticed you said this twice in this thread, so I assume you want to vent some demons here?

Baird deserves most of the accolades he receives as an editor, which is why the very poor construction of Nemesis is so baffling. I look at a film like US Marshalls, which Baird also directed, and see a fairly bland script shot with competence. Something, somewhere, had to happen in the post production phase of Nemesis. Some studio interference, a last minute power play from Stewart and/or Spiner, something had to happen to dramatically influence the final cut of the film.

Now, even looking at all the deleted material, Nemesis had a ton of problems. Some of Baird's choices are inexplicable. But, I can't help thinking that there's the core of a passable to good Star Trek film in there. I just can't for the life of me figure out how a good writer like Logan, and a guy with the editing bona fides of Baird didn't end up with one in the end.

I agree, I thought Executive Decision was a kick ass action movie!

Not only was it done well, but Baird handled an ensemble cast pretty well here. Now, I haven't seen US Marshals, but I have heard good things about it over the years.

So that's why I was shocked that Nemesis sucked.

It just doesn't add up, so I agree with Trimm: something, somewhere happened during the making of the movie.

Could it be interference by Rick Berman?

Here's a guy a director who made two solid action films, and edited a bunch of good---even great---action films:

The Omen
Superman: The Movie
Outland
Lethal Weapon 1
Lethal Weapon 2
Die Hard 2
Demolition Man
Maverick
Casino Royale
Skyfall

He's got some dogs on his resume too, like Green Lantern and Salt, but the good definitely outweigh the bad.

So how did things get THAT BAD on Nemesis?

The film TOTALLY dropped the ball.

 

[Timby]

Counter-argument: Skyfall.

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.

It is? What's misogynist about it? I noticed you said this twice in this thread, so I assume you want to vent some demons here?

In the beginning, Moneypenny misses the shot, hits Bond. M made the call when it was likely a pretty awful decision. At the end, Moneypenny goes from being a field agent to a man's secretary.

Severine appears to be strong and in control, but is actually being controlled, is summarily executed and all that happens is Bond makes a rather tasteless one-liner.

M is shown to make decisions out of maternal feelings; she is not seen as a leader, but rather as a mother figure to both the protagonist and antagonist, who in turn can't make decisions disconnected from her gender.

At the inquiry regarding MI6, the head of the inquiry is a woman and she goes on a tirade at M, and she gets put in her place by a man, essentially being told "shut up."

M can't handle a gun, is unable to defend herself, and dies. Not long after, she's replaced by a man.

Misogyny is rampant throughout that film's script.

So how did things get THAT BAD on Nemesis?

The film TOTALLY dropped the ball.

I don't know why people are looking for a conspiracy, here; the film was flawed conceptually from the beginning and it resulted in a terrible script, and it had a director who didn't want to do the movie in the first place (as noted earlier, he was promised a "high-profile" directing job as a thank you, and he was pissed when it wound up being Star Trek). The other thing that people fail to realize is that Baird didn't edit Nemesis -- Dallas Puett did. But being a great editor (which Baird is) does not equate to being a great or even good director (Executive Decision is an entertaining-enough mess but U.S. Marshals is just awful).

And while it's easy to say that the film was lost in the editing room, that just isn't the case. The material that was cut was terrible -- the Chateau Picard scene is seriously the most ham-fisted shit.

But it all goes back to the story and script. The greatest director in the world couldn't have turned that into gold, because it was just so broken at its foundation.

 

[EnriqueH]

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.

It is? What's misogynist about it? I noticed you said this twice in this thread, so I assume you want to vent some demons here?

In the beginning, Moneypenny misses the shot, hits Bond. M made the call when it was likely a pretty awful decision. At the end, Moneypenny goes from being a field agent to a man's secretary.

Severine appears to be strong and in control, but is actually being controlled, is summarily executed and all that happens is Bond makes a rather tasteless one-liner.

M is shown to make decisions out of maternal feelings; she is not seen as a leader, but rather as a mother figure to both the protagonist and antagonist, who in turn can't make decisions disconnected from her gender.

At the inquiry regarding MI6, the head of the inquiry is a woman and she goes on a tirade at M, and she gets put in her place by a man, essentially being told "shut up."

M can't handle a gun, is unable to defend herself, and dies. Not long after, she's replaced by a man.

Misogyny is rampant throughout that film's script.

Hilarious!

 

[EnriqueH]

Star Wars is misogynist! Princess Leia gets captured, tortured and has to be rescue! Oh, and the only main character to get shot is Princess Leia!

TNG is misogynist! Three female characters, 1 gets killed, the other got transferred in and out and almost NEVER carries a phaser and the other is just there to show her boobs!

Voyager is misogynist! The ONE TIME Star Trek gets female captain as the lead and she gets everyone lost in the Zeta quadrant! Oh! And Trek fans are misogynist because they routinely call Voyager the WORST in the franchise!

TOS is misogynist! Ah, I give up...

 

[Timby]

What a lovely man of straw you have constructed instead of addressing my points.

 

[cardinal biggles]

Ah, I give up...

Oh, if only...

 

[EnriqueH]

What a lovely man of straw you have constructed instead of addressing my points.

The only point to address is that you're using selective memory.

I don't think M is that black and white. Judi Dench's "M" has always been a leader who has been unafraid to make the tough decisions, but in Skyfall, she makes some mistakes and her character is humanized, not victimized as per her gender.

Moneypenny was a field operative who decided the field wasn't for her. Neither Tanner (M's Chief of Staff) or Q are field operatives either and they're men, (and have been used on the field in previous 007 books and movies, I might add, but not here.)

Ralph Fiennes character is a douchebag, corporate asshole. So does that mean Skyfall is labeling all men as Precambrian swine?

And then there's Bond who has a history of being misogynist in the books and movies and has been called such by Dench's "M" no less in GoldenEye.

But to say the movie itself is misogynist is fallacy.

But I guess conspiracies abound...

 

[Gaith]

Skyfall's story is as stupid as Nemesis'. The whole thematic point of the movie is that M made this awful, terrible mistake in turning over Silva to the Chinese, but he's become such a psycho by the present day it's hard not to suspect she was justified in doing so at the time (the script is very vague on all this). Now, if M had sacrificed an actual innocent, say, a loved one of Silva's, that might have greatly improved that aspect of the story. But that would have made for a more complex story, instead of a story that pretends to be complex without actually unsettling anyone.

Later, M and and the old guy leave their perfectly good tunnel hiding place and wave their flashlight around wildly in the dark, practically begging to be found and killed. This is our Big Good? Even if the tunnel had been filled with smoke from the burning house (not shown - another tiny fix that would have been very helpful), turning on the flashlight, let alone waving it around, was beyond idiotic.

And then you've got genius mini-Q, who thinks that plugging a master cyber-terrorist's laptop into the whole MI6 network with no precautions is a splendid idea. And genius Bond, who is established as being wary of mini-Q, just stands around watching.

So, on the smarts front, both genders come out pretty lousy in the movie. But Bond sexing up Severine right after being told she's been a sex slave for years was creepy as hell, and M's incompetence was especially obnoxious.

Moneypenny was a field operative who decided the field wasn't for her.

Fine, but before making that decision, why does she have an enormous afro? I don't care which gender you are, you don't go into the field in a spy/action context with as massive a hairdo as that; not only does it make you stick out in a crowd, not only might it get in your way in any number of scenarios, but it's a huge liability in a fistfight, as it gives your opponent a great way to yank your head around if they manage to grab you from behind. Makes her look like an idiot from her first frame. To make things worse, in this same movie, Bond's got less hair than any other instance I know of. Stupid, stupid direction, and movie in general.

 

[EnriqueH]

Skyfall's story is as stupid as Nemesis'. The whole thematic point of the movie is that M made this awful, terrible mistake in turning over Silva to the Chinese, but he's become such a psycho by the present day it's hard not to suspect she was justified in doing so at the time (the script is very vague on all this). Now, if M had sacrificed an actual innocent, say, a loved one of Silva's, that might have greatly improved that aspect of the story. But that would have made for a more complex story, instead of a story that pretends to be complex without actually unsettling anyone.

Later, M and and the old guy leave their perfectly good tunnel hiding place and wave their flashlight around wildly in the dark, practically begging to be found and killed. This is our Big Good? Even if the tunnel had been filled with smoke from the burning house (not shown - another tiny fix that would have been very helpful), turning on the flashlight, let alone waving it around, was beyond idiotic.

And then you've got genius mini-Q, who thinks that plugging a master cyber-terrorist's laptop into the whole MI6 network with no precautions is a splendid idea. And genius Bond, who is established as being wary of mini-Q, just stands around watching.

So, on the smarts front, both genders come out pretty lousy in the movie. But Bond sexing up Severine right after being told she's been a sex slave for years was creepy as hell, and M's incompetence was especially obnoxious.

I think you raise a lot of interesting points, but I'm not really in the mood to discuss the pros and cons of the script right now.

I'm just annoyed that the movie is considered misogynist, which is so laughably ludicrous that I can't believe it has been suggested.

Fine, but before making that decision, why does she have an enormous afro? I don't care which gender you are, you don't go into the field in a spy/action context with as massive a hairdo as that; not only does it make you stick out in a crowd, not only might it get in your way in any number of scenarios, but it's a huge liability in a fistfight, as it gives your opponent a great way to yank your head around if they manage to grab you from behind. Makes her look like an idiot from her first frame. To make things worse, in this same movie, Bond's got less hair than any other instance I know of. Stupid, stupid direction, and movie in general.

Hairdo?

A hairdo???

You're talking about a secret agent who dresses in tuxedos and drives Aston Martins and orders the best food and liquor and wins high stakes gambling games all the time.

And you're worried about an afro?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[TheAlmanac]

The timecode/poor quality of the released deleted scenes is deliberate. Movie studios routinely don't give best quality versions of deleted scenes out on DVDs and the like, precisely because they don't want people out there doing 'phantom edits'.

More's the pity. This thread has made me very curious to see what I'd think of an alternate interpretation.

I remember reading that Baird's first edit of the movie reportedly came in too long for what movie theaters would actually play, which is why the razor blade was put to it in the editing room to rapidly get it back down to a reasonable length. Maybe there's a complete "director's cut" already out there somewhere, just waiting to be rediscovered?

Given that Nemesis came out the Friday before The Two Towers, that sounds more like an excuse from TPTB than a legitimate reason for those editing choices.

 

[Gaith]

I'm just annoyed that the movie is considered misogynist, which is so laughably ludicrous that I can't believe it has been suggested.

Your dreary hyperbole aside, I suspect the key here is the meaning of "misogynist". It's a word that's being thrown around a lot lately, often used synonymously with "sexist", which is rarely helpful. Do I think Skyfall as a work, or the people who made it, hate or despise women? No, I don't have any reason to go that far. Do I think they were at the very least a tad sexist, if only by dint of sloppy/uncaring work when they made all their female characters pawns or dolts? Yeah, I think that's pretty clear.

And you're worried about an afro?

HAHAHA<SNIP>

1) Calm the heck down, man. Your shrill denunciations of others' opinions is bad form.

2) I'm far more concerned about the afro as an entirely frivolous liability in combat than I am about not being able to disappear into a crowd. But that is annoying also, as the point of the Craig interpretation is that he's fundamentally a bit of a rogue, so to have this newbie flouting any sensible grooming standards doesn't help - either she's as much a rogue as Bond, which makes him less interesting, or everyone at MI6 who tolerate that sort of bone-headed hairdo is themselves moronic. Both options are bad.