Interesting. What did they write?
How the Pentagon Rewrote Star Trek IV
- Thread starter Shon T'Hara
- Start date
Interesting. What did they write?
While the book may or may not be made up to some undefined degree, interference from the government has happened in films before.
I recall one example from film composer Howard Blake (and the source, incase you are wondering, was him personally from either his website or na interview, but I read him say it).
He said on the 1983 film "Lords of Discipline" an unspecified (in his comments) person or persons from the White House wanted changes to the film. And one of the things they wanted changed, was his score. He did a more darker and dissonant score, but had to reject the whole thing and record a new, different score. It's a very, very rare instance of a composer having to replace himself (instead of being replaced by somebody else).
I recall one example from film composer Howard Blake (and the source, incase you are wondering, was him personally from either his website or na interview, but I read him say it).
He said on the 1983 film "Lords of Discipline" an unspecified (in his comments) person or persons from the White House wanted changes to the film. And one of the things they wanted changed, was his score. He did a more darker and dissonant score, but had to reject the whole thing and record a new, different score. It's a very, very rare instance of a composer having to replace himself (instead of being replaced by somebody else).
Apparently, whatever they wrote was tossed and Bennett and Meyer did a "page one rewrite", which means from scratch, using none of the pages from the prior work (albeit it likely shared some of the same concepts).
From what I understand, if a movie uses the same basic story structure that a writing team came up with, they can still get screen credit on the finished movie, even if none of their dialogue is used.
Ususally that gets you "Story by" credit, but if the story concept and came from people who weren't the writing team, they may end up as a separate "team" under Screenplay by.
Right. Which is what I believe was the case with TVH. IIRC, that movie went into arbitration, and the final credits were determined by the Guild. Something similar happened with TUC, only there it got even more contentious. Nimoy actually threatened to sue.
The military should be non-partisan in all of its activities, they shouldn't be interfering with the creative process for incoherent reasons. And this rule should be imposed upon them by a responsible political executive that the military should abide by.
If you want the cooperation and assistance of a particular institution in making a film, that institution has every right to impose conditions on its cooperation and assistance. Doesn't matter whether it's a private corporation, a university, a nonprofit organization or the military.
Nobody is "interfering with the creative process for incoherent reasons." You're perfectly free to make your movie without the military's help.
Nope. Public institutions in democratic countries have a duty to be non-partisan. The conditions they should impose are related to national security. They are interfering with the creative process for incoherent reasons; examples of this are chronicled on this very thread. Public institutions have a different obligations and duties than private entities. I shouldn't have to point this out.
Why would the White House care about a film score?
You're right, you shouldn't have to point it out, because you're wrong.
Like I said, the Pentagon is not INTERFERING in the creative process. Any filmmaker can still write and produce whatever film they want, and the Pentagon can't do a damn thing about it.
However, if that same filmmaker wants HELP, what then? The simple fact is, you don't have the right to have your film paid for. If you want to make a film, you can do so, but if you want help, you have to play by the rules of whoever you want help from. That's just common sense, nothing more. It's not political partisanship or anything like that.
The bottom line is, the Pentagon is under absolutely no obligation to help anyone make a film that it does not approve of. This does not mean that film is being censored, or anything like that. If you are a filmmaker and you turn down the Pentagon's offer of assistance, you can still go ahead and make your film, but YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN. You are in no way entitled to demand help from any organization who doesn't want to help you.
I mean, let's turn this thing on its head, just for shits and giggles. If the military (or the government) learns of a film that is being made, and it doesn't like that film, but the filmmaker still wants access to military equipment, resources, sets, etc., you are effectively saying that said filmmaker has the right to demand that the government pay for making the film anyway. Do you have Clue One as to how silly that sounds?
You dare to bring up the Pentagon's status as a public entity. Well, the Pentagon may be public, but HOLLYWOOD FUCKING WELL ISN'T.
Last edited:
You are confused. a) If X is making requirements to change things in the film then that is interfering with the creative process by definition. b) Public entities should not be disclosing political bias. They shouldn't be imposing requirements of that sort. Why is that? Because public entities are properly apolitical. National security -- I'll add what I omitted to mention above -- budgetary stipulations are sound requirements. I'm not sure what the rest of this stuff is about, you seem to be having a fantastic time arguin' positions that I have never stated and don't hold.You're right, you shouldn't have to point it out, because you're wrong.
Like I said, the Pentagon is not INTERFERING in the creative process. Any filmmaker can still write and produce whatever film they want, and the Pentagon can't do a damn thing about it.
However, if that same filmmaker wants HELP, what then? The simple fact is, you don't have the right to have your film paid for. If you want to make a film, you can do so, but if you want help, you have to play by the rules of whoever you want help from. That's just common sense, nothing more. It's not political partisanship or anything like that.
The bottom line is, the Pentagon is under absolutely no obligation to help anyone make a film that it does not approve of. This does not mean that film is being censored, or anything like that. If you are a filmmaker and you turn down the Pentagon's offer of assistance, you can still go ahead and make your film, but YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN. You are in no way entitled to demand help from any organization who doesn't want to help you.
I mean, let's turn this thing on its head, just for shits and giggles. If the military (or the government) learns of a film that is being made, and it doesn't like that film, but the filmmaker still wants access to military equipment, resources, sets, etc., you are effectively saying that said filmmaker has the right to demand that the government pay for making the film anyway. Do you have Clue One as to how silly that sounds?
You dare to bring up the Pentagon's status as a public entity. Well, the Pentagon may be public, but HOLLYWOOD FUCKING WELL ISN'T.
It sounds very silly indeed. Jolly good thing I never I made this claim in the first instance isn't it?
You are hopelessly wrong. On a, it's not interfering when the film company wants to film on your property or use your institution to say how you want it filmed. STIV wants to film around a Navy base, the Navy has every right to want to be portrayed positively as would Microsoft if someone wanted to film in their offices using their name in a film. You want to show them negatively you'll have to film elsewhere. Make an organization part of your film you're gonna have to accommodate them. On b, there's no politics here, someone wants to film at Ben and Jerry's they aren't going to be showing anyone screwing up the ice cream as a regular activity in their ice cream making if they want Ben and Jerry's cooperation.You are confused. a) If X is making requirements to change things in the film then that is interfering with the creative process by definition. b) Public entities should not be disclosing political bias. They shouldn't be imposing requirements of that sort. Why is that? Because public entities are properly apolitical. National security -- I'll add what I omitted to mention above -- budgetary stipulations are sound requirements. I'm not sure what the rest of this stuff is about, you seem to be having a fantastic time arguin' positions that I have never stated and don't hold.
It sounds very silly indeed. Jolly good thing I never I made this claim in the first instance isn't it?
^ There isn't one.
The Pentagon isn't imposing anything. The film could still have been made without the Pentagon's help, the crew would just have had to use a set instead of filming on a real aircraft carrier. Which does not seem to be the biggest of hardships, as they were on the carrier (screen time) for what, five minutes?
The Pentagon isn't imposing anything. The film could still have been made without the Pentagon's help, the crew would just have had to use a set instead of filming on a real aircraft carrier. Which does not seem to be the biggest of hardships, as they were on the carrier (screen time) for what, five minutes?
I'd like to add, whether one believes an organization is or is not imposing upon a film production, film productgions are imposed upon ALL THE TIME, every film as far as I know. The least of the worries of a film or television production is some company or organization wanting to make sure they are not portrayed in a bad light or some other reasonable request.
I've interviewed about 30 or so composers, talked to many more, talked to various people in the industry from editors, producers, some directors, and miscellaneous other people, as well as having read many interviews with various crew (mainly compsoers though) and let me tell you: films and television are burdened like crazy from impositions.
First you got censors who read of scripts (live shows or recorded before and audience shows, have one on hand who can stop things and require changes), you have studios executives who can order changes to scripts or suggestions (which are half the time veiled demands); producers battling each other because one wants things this way or another wants things this way and they in turns push and pull crew members until the point a person, like a composer, doesn't know what to even do anymore and picks the one he's not going to piss off; unreasonable demands from stars, actors who think they knows what's best for the film and start using their weight to get what they want, directors who don't stand up for themselves and get tugged back and forth and make this change or that change and affect everybody below them, or directors who impose their idiocy upon the very crew that's bringing their talents to the table to make the film; to even frivilous lawsuits (often you don't even hear about) that can bring production to a hault until settled; and of course battling production companies that want this or that done or not done in a film. And when you've gone through all that, there's always some pissant who demands their niece or newphew or cousin or immediate family member be given this or that position as a prequalification for their help, regardless of whether that relative sucks or is a bitch to work with.
And then when you've turned in the film, the studio may decide to edit it, reshoot things, toss out the score and fire you so you have no say in the changes they want to make.
It's not Hollywood, it's Imposywood.
I've interviewed about 30 or so composers, talked to many more, talked to various people in the industry from editors, producers, some directors, and miscellaneous other people, as well as having read many interviews with various crew (mainly compsoers though) and let me tell you: films and television are burdened like crazy from impositions.
First you got censors who read of scripts (live shows or recorded before and audience shows, have one on hand who can stop things and require changes), you have studios executives who can order changes to scripts or suggestions (which are half the time veiled demands); producers battling each other because one wants things this way or another wants things this way and they in turns push and pull crew members until the point a person, like a composer, doesn't know what to even do anymore and picks the one he's not going to piss off; unreasonable demands from stars, actors who think they knows what's best for the film and start using their weight to get what they want, directors who don't stand up for themselves and get tugged back and forth and make this change or that change and affect everybody below them, or directors who impose their idiocy upon the very crew that's bringing their talents to the table to make the film; to even frivilous lawsuits (often you don't even hear about) that can bring production to a hault until settled; and of course battling production companies that want this or that done or not done in a film. And when you've gone through all that, there's always some pissant who demands their niece or newphew or cousin or immediate family member be given this or that position as a prequalification for their help, regardless of whether that relative sucks or is a bitch to work with.
And then when you've turned in the film, the studio may decide to edit it, reshoot things, toss out the score and fire you so you have no say in the changes they want to make.
It's not Hollywood, it's Imposywood.
It is interfering with the creative process. If you make a demand on a piece of creativity and that piece of creativity is changed as the result of that demand that is interference. I appreciate everything to do with the military is politically charged in the US and alot of confusion results but its always good to scrutinise the distinction between private entities and public entities and understand that Microsoft is a private company with different duties and responsibilities, than public entities.
Similar threads
