Nick Meyer; Tone it Down!

[RobertScorpio]

WRATH of Scorpio!

I just watched Star Trek The Motion Picture last night (on Bluray and it was awesome) and I decided to listen to the commentary of the Okuda’s and Judith and Garth. I found the commentary to be VERY entertaining with all the behind the scenes and PHASE TWO info. Great commentary..

However, I then skipped up to TUC, and found the two commentary tracks for that movie less than great. I’ll give Behr and Nemreck a pass, because although they were fooling around to much, they, at times, had something to say which I found interesting.

But Meyers/Flynn? I am no great fan of Roddenberry’s, but the lack of respect that I could hear oozing from their words was a let down. Meyer really comes off as a real egotistical nut-job. And Flynn? He just sounds like a jerk.

Roddenberry’s rosy view of Earth’s future has often been attacked. Even I have, at times, found it kind of unrealistic. But then, if you come right down to it, this was Roddenberry’s creation. Meyer admits to this day he doesn’t ‘get’ star trek. Well, I will explain it to him right now. The reason TOS was great then, and now, was, duh, the positive future it showed the population of the 1960s, who were fighting for civil-rights and against a growing lack of trust between the people and the government. Star Trek, at least once a week, showed them, even if it wasn’t real, that maybe in the future we will all get along, for the most part. Blacks, yellows, whites, browns, and even a Green guy, could all come together and resolve issues. Hope; that is at the center of TOS’s appeal, IMO.

I found Meyer/Flynn’s snide remarks, and sarcasm very pathetic. What I thought was going to be a behind the scenes look at the movie became an attack on Roddenberry and his belief. And, while commenting, Meyer’s own self adulation was so “front and forward” I found it very disappointing to hear. He moans on and on, so does Flynn, how writing for Trek was hard for “hundreds” of writers because of Roddenberry’s ‘no drama between’ human mantra. Well, Meyer, take a clue from Behr, and gasp, Berman, and write around that problem by using the aliens.

And by the way? I LIKE how the actors signed their names at the end. It wasn’t stupid (Meyer) or silly (flynn). Your idea sounded good, but Nimoy went with what he wanted, what we saw, and I like it. It was the last TOS movie, and it was a great way to send them off. And the lack of respect that comes from both of you, as you are discussing this aspect of the movie, was very grating. Perhaps next time, Meyer/Flynn, you can discuss your views with someone who doesn’t agree with them; Shatner or Nimoy.

Taking pot shots at the producer of a movie, and stars, and a dead man, Roddenberry, is not appropriate in this venue. Two sentences or a few lines? Ok..I can deal with that. But try to have a BIT more tact.

The more I hear Meyer talk, the more I don’t really care for him. His whining about KHAN, and to this day, his belief that Scotty’s tooting Amazing Grace was silly, is a bit too much. He is a good (not great) director. But his attacks are not warrented in this venue.

 

[Data Holmes]

Star trek was not just "GR's Creation." Trek was created by a core group of people from GR to Gene Coon, Justman, ect. And they changed a lot of GR's Ideas they felt just would not work.

Perhaps you should take a chill pill yourself.

 

[GhostFaceSaint]

Calling Meyer a nut job is inaccurate to say the least, but I think you missed the point, Roddenberry was a humanist and Meyer was not so he has legitimate questions about the series which he brought up in Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan, please watch the commentary by Meyer on the DVD or Blu-Ray of 'Wrath and you will hear him explain his questions.

It is ok to be an outsider with questions for Trek otherwise you get only one perspective on Trek, and without an open mind to questions; you go down the path of ignorance which is not what Roddenberry was about, and besides Gene was just a TV producer with a good idea that worked he wasn't the holy 'freakan father of Trek so it's ok to question some of his decisions.

Roddenberry wan't perfect nor was Meyer but Roddenberry's lack of experience with producing the big budget Motion Picture led to Bennet and Meyer coming to Trek, if you don't like Meyer than logically you must blame Gene for nearly nearly screwing up the production of the first film leading to the lower budget in the next, but I don't look at it that way, I choose to see it as a good thing that an outsider came to Trek and helped it mature in terms of story telling.

 

[RobertScorpio]

Calling Meyer a nut job is inaccurate to say the least, but I think you missed the point, Roddenberry was a humanist and Meyer was not so he has legitimate questions about the series which he brought up in Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan, please watch the commentary by Meyer on the DVD or Blu-Ray of 'Wrath and you will hear him explain his questions.

It is ok to be an outsider with questions for Trek otherwise you get only one perspective on Trek, and without an open mind to questions; you go down the path of ignorance which is not what Roddenberry was about, and besides Gene was just a TV producer with a good idea that worked he wasn't the holy 'freakan father of Trek so it's ok to question some of his decisions.

Roddenberry wan't perfect nor was Meyer but Roddenberry's lack of experience with producing the big budget Motion Picture led to Bennet and Meyer coming to Trek, if you don't like Meyer than logically you must blame Gene for nearly nearly screwing up the production of the first film leading to the lower budget in the next, but I don't look at it that way, I choose to see it as a good thing that an outsider came to Trek and helped it mature in terms of story telling.

I couldnt disagree more. I actually agree with SOME Of what has been said about Roddenberry over the years. But his commentary is out of line on the DVD, and comes off as snide. I watched it with my two STAR WARS fans, and even they thought it was over the top.

So..no..if Nick Meyer wants to lauch bombs, he can write a book. Don't do it on the DVD. Talk about the movie, how you shot it, maybe make some opinions..but to go on and on and on about things you think are silly about Roddenberry's vision, especially when the other commentator agrees, is just wrong.

Bad commentary....and Meyer comes off as a whining little preppy YET again.

Rob

 

[RobertScorpio]

Star trek was not just "GR's Creation." Trek was created by a core group of people from GR to Gene Coon, Justman, ect. And they changed a lot of GR's Ideas they felt just would not work.

Perhaps you should take a chill pill yourself.

Ummm..no.

You don't attack the man (roddenberry), as those two goof balls did, on the DVD, which is based on his vision. I agree that Roddenberry's vision was a bit corny, but guess what..HE wanted it that way. Yes, Coon and Justman were there, but even they, and Berman I might add, tried to stay with-in Roddenberry's, and yes I mean RODDENBERRY's, vision of the future.

So, you go right ahead and stand behind two bozos (meryer/Flynn) for not only making crappy remarks about GR, and Nimoy I might add, but I wont support it, especially on the DVD. Not the venue..

And Ira Behr its YOUR turn. How dare you, HOW DARE YOU, even bring up the rumor about the actress who played Rand, and why she left the show. That commentary was not the place to drop that bomb, and thank God Nemreck, changed the subject right away. That little bomb had NOTHING to do with the making of TUC and was way out of line.

Perhaps the younger crowd, maybe even you Data Holmes, doesn't have the respect for others, and can't tell when it is right and isn't right to bring up certain subject matters. But my generation did, and still does.

But do not worry, I will always be here to guide you in such matters.

Rob

 

[cardinal biggles]

Is there a point to this thread, apart from you venting your spleen?

Apparently Meyer disagreed with much of Roddenberry's philosophy. While I have to admire GR's optimism, I have to agree that a lot of it is wishful thinking, and on TNG, it frequently made for dull storytelling. I don't see how a DVD commentary is an inappropriate venue for him to express these opinions (and yet you encourage him to write a book, which he is doing). He did direct the film and co-write its screenplay, so it's not like he's a random talking head.

I am amused by the notion that you're going to school all of us on respect and tact. Good luck with that.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Taking pot shots at the producer of a movie, and stars, and a dead man, Roddenberry, is not appropriate in this venue.

Denny Martin Flinn is also now dead. No pot shots for him.

And Ira Behr its YOUR turn. How dare you, HOW DARE YOU, even bring up the rumor about the actress who played Rand, and why she left the show. That commentary was not the place to drop that bomb, and thank God Nemreck, changed the subject right away. That little bomb had NOTHING to do with the making of TUC and was way out of line.

Grace Lee Whitney is in ST VI. A perfectly good time to mention the reasons why GLW left TOS - and it's no rumour - it's even in her autobiography.

So..no..if Nick Meyer wants to lauch bombs, he can write a book. Don't do it on the DVD.

What rule says that certain topics are off-limits for a relatively new medium as DVD commentary, but okay for a tell-all book?

 

[cardinal biggles]

Taking pot shots at the producer of a movie, and stars, and a dead man, Roddenberry, is not appropriate in this venue.

Denny Martin Flinn is also now dead. No pot shots for him.

Yeah, shame on you, Rob, taking pot shots at a dead man. There's a proper time and place for these things, y'know.

 

[CorporalClegg]

I don't know much about the commentaries (Never bothered to listen to them because I can't stand the guy.), so I can't say one way or the other. But it really don't surprise me.

He made a mediocre film that was mucked with poor plotting and dreadfully laughable acting, and people worship him for it.

And he eats it up.

 

[cardinal biggles]

I haven't listened to his TUC commentary, but I thought his TWOK commentary was one of the better ones. He also did a great commentary with Robert Wise on the DVD for The Day the Earth Stood Still.

I'll be honest, I can't think of a good reason to keep this thread open any longer. The only reason it's stayed open this long is because the other posters here frequently manage to make silk purses out of the sow's ears you are constantly throwing down, Rob. I don't forsee much discussion, apart from speculation on how big your eventual cerebral hemorrhage will be if you keep flipping out over this stuff. It would be wise to follow Data Holmes's advice and take a chill pill. It's only a DVD commentary, it's only a movie, it's only a piece of entertainment.

 

[Maurice]

I rather enjoyed Meyer's commentary on the TWOK DVD, but very much disliked that on the TUC DVD.

 

[archeryguy1701]

It was Meyer's movie and Meyer's commentary. I think the man can say whatever he wants. It doesn't really matter if his movie was based on a TV show that was based on "Roddenberry's vision of the future". It's still his personal work, which entitles him to say or do whatever excites him the most. In the immortal words of your thread title:

Tone it Down!

 

[Chrisisall]

While I have to admire GR's optimism, I have to agree that a lot of it is wishful thinking,

If we don't BELIEVE we can get there, we never, in point of fact, will.

and on TNG, it frequently made for dull storytelling.

Can't deny that; TNG was his baby, what he wanted from TOS initially. Fortunately, he was guided into making a superior series in '66- what we would have gotten if The Cage had been greenlit for immediate production, IMO, would have been fascinating, but short(er)-lived. The Outer Limits would have taken Trek's place as the go-to 60's SF example.
Creative types are an occasionally squirrely bunch- let's just enjoy WHAT THEY PRODUCE without undue concern for personality, K?
That said, Rob makes a point that negative rants make for un-enjoyable commentary tracks, I believe.

 

[CoveTom]

If we don't BELIEVE we can get there, we never, in point of fact, will.

I believe that humanity can and will improve itself, just as we have done throughout history. But I simply don't believe that our fundamental human natures are going to change significantly, nor do I think that what Trek depicts is in any way a realistic expectation. I'm not even sure I would want to live in the world Trek depicts. Can we eradicate poverty, increase life spans, work better together and so forth? Of course. But are we ever going to do away with all interpersonal conflict, have no personal property, work for no other reason than some collective desire for the "betterment of humanity," etc? Nah. I don't see that happening.

Can't deny that; TNG was his baby, what he wanted from TOS initially. Fortunately, he was guided into making a superior series in '66- what we would have gotten if The Cage had been greenlit for immediate production, IMO, would have been fascinating, but short(er)-lived. The Outer Limits would have taken Trek's place as the go-to 60's SF example.

I disagree. I don't think TNG was anything like Gene Roddenberry's original 1960's vision for Star Trek. Not in the slightest. That's why it's so difficult to actually talk about "Gene Roddenberry's vision." His vision changed drastically during the 70's as he began to actually believe all the crap he preached on the lecture circuit about his grand vision for humanity and his higher purpose for Star Trek.

Granted, "The Cage" was a more intellectual story than some Trek stories. Perhaps even a bit "cerebral," as the saying goes. But it was no high brow science fiction piece like 2001 either. It was not, at any point, the type of science fiction that TMP later aspired to be. And it certainly didn't contain the type of cardboard, above all problems and conflict characters that Roddenberry later wanted to try and force on TNG.

No, I maintain that in the beginning Roddenberry simply wanted to make a quality, entertaining sci-fi show that he could sell to the network and make some money on. His first shot at that was "The Cage" and when the network thought it not suitable -- for a variety of disputed reasons -- we got "Where No Man Has Gone Before."

It wasn't until after TOS that Roddenberry actually came to believe that Star Trek was some sort of higher calling, that humans were destined for some sort of grand socialist utopia, that Trek should eschew all interpersonal conflict, and started trying to push that philosophy.

 

[GhostFaceSaint]

If we don't BELIEVE we can get there, we never, in point of fact, will.

I believe that humanity can and will improve itself, just as we have done throughout history. But I simply don't believe that our fundamental human natures are going to change significantly, nor do I think that what Trek depicts is in any way a realistic expectation. I'm not even sure I would want to live in the world Trek depicts. Can we eradicate poverty, increase life spans, work better together and so forth? Of course. But are we ever going to do away with all interpersonal conflict, have no personal property, work for no other reason than some collective desire for the "betterment of humanity," etc? Nah. I don't see that happening.

Can't deny that; TNG was his baby, what he wanted from TOS initially. Fortunately, he was guided into making a superior series in '66- what we would have gotten if The Cage had been greenlit for immediate production, IMO, would have been fascinating, but short(er)-lived. The Outer Limits would have taken Trek's place as the go-to 60's SF example.

I disagree. I don't think TNG was anything like Gene Roddenberry's original 1960's vision for Star Trek. Not in the slightest. That's why it's so difficult to actually talk about "Gene Roddenberry's vision." His vision changed drastically during the 70's as he began to actually believe all the crap he preached on the lecture circuit about his grand vision for humanity and his higher purpose for Star Trek.

Granted, "The Cage" was a more intellectual story than some Trek stories. Perhaps even a bit "cerebral," as the saying goes. But it was no high brow science fiction piece like 2001 either. It was not, at any point, the type of science fiction that TMP later aspired to be. And it certainly didn't contain the type of cardboard, above all problems and conflict characters that Roddenberry later wanted to try and force on TNG.

No, I maintain that in the beginning Roddenberry simply wanted to make a quality, entertaining sci-fi show that he could sell to the network and make some money on. His first shot at that was "The Cage" and when the network thought it not suitable -- for a variety of disputed reasons -- we got "Where No Man Has Gone Before."

It wasn't until after TOS that Roddenberry actually came to believe that Star Trek was some sort of higher calling, that humans were destined for some sort of grand socialist utopia, that Trek should eschew all interpersonal conflict, and started trying to push that philosophy.

I think you hit the nail on the head CT, and Meyer said in his commentary in 'Wrath that he didn't see any proof of Roddenberry's vision coming true either. I also don't like what the writer's did with trying to take out interpersonal conflict by TNG and afterwards, that is unfair and boring to think that we would be like that in the future, and without character flaws in Star Trek it gets preachy and boring; very two-dimensional indeed! To move a story, which Star Trek is just a story, their are two routes to take with your characters through, the two-dimensional route where the characters don't change or improve at all (apparently because in Trek they are perfect; look at the failure of Enterprise those characters were boring) or a three-dimensional character who learns or goes through change by suffering by the trials brought about in the plot. I prefer a three-dimensional character myself.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I also don't like what the writer's did with trying to take out interpersonal conflict by TNG and afterwards, that is unfair and boring to think that we would be like that in the future, and without character flaws in Star Trek it gets preachy and boring.

So you've never watched much TNG either, have you?

 

[Chrisisall]

I believe that humanity can and will improve itself, just as we have done throughout history.

Cool.

But I simply don't believe that our fundamental human natures are going to change significantly, nor do I think that what Trek depicts is in any way a realistic expectation. I'm not even sure I would want to live in the world Trek depicts.

? What? You like war as a solution to the fear of lack of resources? Of course not. A "united humanity" doesn't mean no conflict, it just means less death on a whim.

Can we eradicate poverty, increase life spans, work better together and so forth? Of course.

Cool.

But are we ever going to do away with all interpersonal conflict, have no personal property, work for no other reason than some collective desire for the "betterment of humanity," etc? Nah. I don't see that happening.

Me either, however I don't feel that this is the future depicted in Trek (TOS at least). Otherwise how could Scotty "earn his pay for the week?"

I don't think TNG was anything like Gene Roddenberry's original 1960's vision for Star Trek. Not in the slightest. That's why it's so difficult to actually talk about "Gene Roddenberry's vision." His vision changed drastically during the 70's as he began to actually believe all the crap he preached on the lecture circuit about his grand vision for humanity and his higher purpose for Star Trek.

I don't wholey disagree with this.

I think you hit the nail on the head CT, and Meyer said in his commentary in 'Wrath that he didn't see any proof of Roddenberry's vision coming true either. I also don't like what the writer's did with trying to take out interpersonal conflict by TNG and afterwards, that is unfair and boring to think that we would be like that in the future, and without character flaws in Star Trek it gets preachy and boring; very two-dimensional indeed!

There were certainly times when I wished TNG had been a little more straight-up in the confrontation area, but to say there was no interpersonal conflict... ?

So you've never watched much TNG either, have you?

 

[CoveTom]

What? You like war as a solution to the fear of lack of resources?

No, not at all. I'd be very happy to see war gone away. But that is only one aspect of the society we see on Star Trek. In particular, I'm talking about Trek as it's depicted in TNG, really, because the vision presented differs depending on whether you're talking about TOS or TNG or DS9 or whatever.

But while I would certainly like to see a lack of war, I don't know that I want to live in a society that is quite so heavily tilted toward socialism, where religion and any sort of belief in a higher power appears to be absent, where our values make us content to let an entire planet full of people die in the name of maintaining our holy Prime Directive, and so forth. In short, TNG depicts many things I agree with, but also many I would hate to see.

And let's not forget that even TNG does not depict the absence of war. It just depicts the absence of war on Earth, mostly because of our technological advancement's being able to overcome most scarcity of resources on the planet. But war is still very much alive, very much a threat, and very much something humans are involved in once you leave the confines of this planet.

In any event, my real point is not to debate the specifics of TNG or of Roddenberry's vision, but rather to simply say that I am more in the Bennett/Meyer camp when it comes to my view of the future of humanity than in the Roddenberry camp. Namely, that I believe humanity will continue to progress and improve, that we will solve some problems, but that our fundamental human natures are not going to change to the extent that we are no longer concerned with ourselves at all and just work for some "collective good."

 

[seigezunt]

I will forgive Meyer for whatever he says.

He directed the two best TOS movies, and for that I'm grateful.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

And by the way? I LIKE how the actors signed their names at the end. It wasn’t stupid (Meyer) or silly (flynn).

There is so much that is stupid, silly and hackneyed in TUC that it's really picayune of them to single out one detail simply because it might not have been their idea.

Meyer is clearly a reader, and particularly a fan of 19th century English literature - by Hollywood standards that seems to automatically classify one as an intellectual (thank you, David O. Selznick). That said, nothing Meyer has written and most certainly nothing I've heard him say at a podium or in one of these commentaries marks him out as a deep or interesting thinker.