SF Lit Author John Scalzi Picks Best Trek Movie Directors
- Thread starter Ryan Thomas Riddle
- Start date
I agree with that list.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
It's nice to see somebody who isn't gaga over Abrams, but that list of his is all over the place. I'd probably swap positions on Nimoy and Shatner, and put Carson a helluva lot higher up (he probably made his film under more trying circumstances than any of them except Shatner and possibly Wise.)
How did that Scalzi get that gig anyway? I looked at a couple more of his lists and it just looks like he tossed them off in 5min (or is that the whole idea of this blogging, to differentiate it from informed and/or researched opinion?)
How did that Scalzi get that gig anyway? I looked at a couple more of his lists and it just looks like he tossed them off in 5min (or is that the whole idea of this blogging, to differentiate it from informed and/or researched opinion?)
I wrote a reply to Scalzi's list here at my blog.
I disagree with Scalzi almost entirely. I'd rank Shatner higher (he genuinely tried to be cinematic, to the point where he tried too hard to reinvent the wheel), Frakes is very much middle-of-the-pack (though I believe his direction on Insurrection far outstrips his direction of First Contact), Carson's direction was better and more inventive than the material he had to work with, and Nimoy's direction was flat and dire.
I disagree with Scalzi almost entirely. I'd rank Shatner higher (he genuinely tried to be cinematic, to the point where he tried too hard to reinvent the wheel), Frakes is very much middle-of-the-pack (though I believe his direction on Insurrection far outstrips his direction of First Contact), Carson's direction was better and more inventive than the material he had to work with, and Nimoy's direction was flat and dire.
Even taking into account the adage that opinions are like assholes, I'd say this list could use a trip to the bidet.
Well, Scalzi's books have been nominated for the Hugo award several years in a row, especially those in his Old Man War series. He also won the John W. Campbell award for Best New Writer in '06. He also won the Hugo for Best Related Book for his writings on science fiction.
So I think he has the cred to get the gig.
That being said, I think that Scalzi tends toward a more humorous affect in his column. Moreover, I think his director list is skewed towards the film's story, plot and some acting than it is towards the directing (composition of shots, editing, actor performance).
Nimoy has a horrible shot composition. It's bland and boring, almost television-like. Shatner had a good sense of composition and framing in his movie, and the aide of a really good cinematographer. He was trying for a more cinematic Trek that hadn't been seen since the first movie, but unfortunately budget and script problems hamper his efforts.
Carson too benefited from his cinematographer (the same person who worked on TFF, iirc). Once again, script and acting weren't on this man's side. Still GEN is an alright two-part episode. As a movie... well... moving on.
Of course, Wise had some interesting shots, but the editing and pacing of his film is the weak point for him. Frakes is a mediocre director. Yes, he made one the better TNG films, but it still looks like a television episode. When Frakes would try an interesting camera move or angle, it was as if he held back from pushing the envelope. However, I have to wonder how much that was Frakes or who was ultimately in charge of the franchise. Berman has a very stately approach to the way Trek was shot.
Abrams had some wonderful shots in his film; however, I agree with Allyn's comments, that the lens flare occasionally got outta control. One thing that Abrams brought that non of the other directors brought to their films was kinetic camera work. The picture moves, not only through action but through the cinematography.
And Baird... I got nothing. That's how uninteresting his direction was. Okay I have one thing: his use of mood lighting in several scenes is awkward and not very well-done.
Wow, you have such a great misunderstanding of what a DIRECTOR and a DIRECTOR OF PHOTOGRAPHY are doing.
You call Frakes' direction mediocre because you think the images are not looking good enough? Sorry to be so harsh, but that's an opinion grounded in stupidity.
I got the impression he was saying it looked like a TV show rather than a movie.
No you're not sorry at all or you wouldn't be harsh in your tone. Own up to it. Don't puss out. You meant to call what I wrote stupid. Plain and simple. "Don't mince words, Bones, tell me what you really think." It's easier to say that my opinion is grounded in stupidity or that I have "such a great misunderstanding" than to actually engage and, perhaps, enlighten me as to what I might greatly not get. Snark always trumps actually discussion.
That being said.
The director is in charge of the overall aesthetic of the film, from acting to camera work, which results in the images projected screen. The DP, or cinematographer, is responsible for the actually camera work but under the direction of the... DIRECTOR.
Of course, what I just wrote is an oversimplification. Now I'm not a film theorist, critic, or hold a degree in cinema. I'll fess up in that I took one film class in undergrad, which talked about this very subject--the differences between the director and the cinematographer. But I do know people who have degrees in film, and have directed small films.
Most directors, like Wise or, better still, Hitchcock, know what they wanted in the frame of the camera. The position people are blocked. The angle the camera will be tilt. And work with their DP closely to ensure that they got what they want. Wise and Hitchcock were fond of storyboarding every shot. The Making of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, iirc, has a photocopy of a script page with Wise's notes on where the camera should be placed for Kirk's entrance into the engine room. It is accompanied by storyboards that illustrate what Wise, the director, wanted Klien, the DP, to shoot.
That's why there are monitors off to the side, so the director can decide if 1) what the DP is doing is working 2) the acting is working 3) the lighting is working and so forth.
Now some directors let their DPs go out on a limb. Excellent DPs are good enough to anticipate what the director wants, make suggestions and own their work completely. Now I don't know if that happened in Frakes' situation, but as director he was ultimately responsible for the way the thing was shot.
Now I'm not knocking the story of FC, and I feel that people sometimes, like Scalzi, have a hard time separating the writing and acting from the direction in terms of aesthetic, which is what I am commenting on. Then again I do have my issues with the writing and acting, but that's a different argument.
Simply put, FC looks like an episode not a movie.
Or in other words...
Fo'sho.
Last edited:
Okay, I am hardly an expert on film direction and cinematography, but The Final Frontier is very impressive looking movie as far as cinematography.
Mostly the external scenes on Nimbus III in and around Paradise City look really good, which is a combination of decent direction and great set design.
It's a shame that the story and special effects are a joke (well, the final act - I actually enjoy STV right up until the ending).
No, not if he decides to leave it completely to the DoP and concentrates on directing the actors. And that decision does not make a director "mediocre". The Director of Photography is doing far more than just holding the camera. He is the guy responsible for planning, staging, framing and lighting the shot. The visual effects work mostly runs through the director of photography to match the visual style of the movie.
Of course a director can interfer with that. Some directors prefer heavy influence on the visual style, others don't and let the DoP do everything related to visuals. It's like blaming the director for bad set design or music. Of course he has influence on some of it in varying degrees if he chooses to, but he doesn't do the work.
Calling a director mediocre because it "looked like a TV show" is not any better.
^
Frakes has no visual flare that says this is a Jonathan Frakes film. His two Trek movies had a style that was very much like the television show that bore it; nothing spectacular or cinematic. Nor do I think he elicited any great performances from the actors. So for me, he's mediocre as a director with nothing distinctive stylistically to set him apart.
But you're mileage obviously varies.
Frakes has no visual flare that says this is a Jonathan Frakes film. His two Trek movies had a style that was very much like the television show that bore it; nothing spectacular or cinematic. Nor do I think he elicited any great performances from the actors. So for me, he's mediocre as a director with nothing distinctive stylistically to set him apart.
But you're mileage obviously varies.
Last edited:
Close Encounters of the Third Kind doesn't look like Indiana Jones, Indiana Jones doesn't look like Jurassic Park, and Jurassic Park doesn't look like Minority Report. Yet all of these movies are directed by Steven Spielberg.
What makes you think that the new movie doesn't feel like a TV episode? Because of the flashy visuals? In my opinion that's nothing. Abrams cheated his way out of all the potentially great scenes just like every other Star Trek director did before him. The battle above Vulcan for example, it is NEVER shown. It's like Best of Both Worlds, where the Enterprise warps into the debris field. Lame. The battle between the Narada and the Enterprise is terribly short, and all they do is shaking the camera while ILM delivers its usual standard quality. The action scenes are not any better than in Nemesis, in my opinion. The make up effects for aliens where far superior in The Voyage Home (and you actually saw a lot more diversity in that particular movie, too, creating a much grander feel). Not being able to see anything because of the lens flares glaring at me everywhere and the camera shaking gave me a claustrophobic feeling, not an epic one. The brewery they used for the engine rooms was a terrible choice, reminded me of cheap TV shows and B-movies. The sets are small, the shots framed in a way that you have lots of close ups on faces and no wide shots that would have created a grander feeling. The movie's score reminded me too much of Lost and Alias, and it had an unfinished feeling, so nothing grand and cinematic in there either. A planet being blown up by an exploding sun was already greatly done in Generations. Actually I think that Generations has a much more epic feeling than this new movie.
I can only say that to me First Contact definately doesn't look like the TV show.
What makes you think that the new movie doesn't feel like a TV episode? Because of the flashy visuals? In my opinion that's nothing. Abrams cheated his way out of all the potentially great scenes just like every other Star Trek director did before him. The battle above Vulcan for example, it is NEVER shown. It's like Best of Both Worlds, where the Enterprise warps into the debris field. Lame. The battle between the Narada and the Enterprise is terribly short, and all they do is shaking the camera while ILM delivers its usual standard quality. The action scenes are not any better than in Nemesis, in my opinion. The make up effects for aliens where far superior in The Voyage Home (and you actually saw a lot more diversity in that particular movie, too, creating a much grander feel). Not being able to see anything because of the lens flares glaring at me everywhere and the camera shaking gave me a claustrophobic feeling, not an epic one. The brewery they used for the engine rooms was a terrible choice, reminded me of cheap TV shows and B-movies. The sets are small, the shots framed in a way that you have lots of close ups on faces and no wide shots that would have created a grander feeling. The movie's score reminded me too much of Lost and Alias, and it had an unfinished feeling, so nothing grand and cinematic in there either. A planet being blown up by an exploding sun was already greatly done in Generations. Actually I think that Generations has a much more epic feeling than this new movie.
Last edited:
Yet even if Spielberg's films aren't carbon copies, and they shouldn't be, there is a quality and sensibility to those films that point to it being a "Steven Spielberg" film and not say a "Kubrick" film.
On a side not, a case could be made that Spielberg tried to emulate Kubrick when he completed the latter's A.I. project.
Which is all this boils down to, why you restored to your original "harsh" tone, and why you called my opinion "grounded in stupidity."
You think it does look like a film. I think it doesn't. I'm not going to convince you and you aren't going to convince me. But I've made my case for why I don't and that's all I feel obligated to do.
EDIT: To answer your long rant that you amended to your post as I was responding. Obviously, you are having a knee-jerk reaction because I said something negative about a film you prefer. After this, I'm done engaging you in discussion. And I'm going to be economical in my response.
To refer back to what I originally posted on the subject. Here's what I said:
I thought the lens flare got out of control on occasion, particularly on the bridge. But there was a kinetic energy that was lacking in the previous movies, especially the latter films, where the shots and editing created a languid pace.
Now I could go into a long essay about film narrative in regards of why the ship battle of Vulcan wasn't shown and the Battle of Wolf 359, but I won't.
Simply put, because the lens (pun intended) of the story wasn't on those elements. It was on the Enterprise. The important moment of the Vulcan scenes was it's destruction and showing the attempts of Kirk and Spock to prevent it and save as many lives as they could. The emotional beat wasn't with ships firing on Nero's hulk, but with Spock and the loss of his mother. You show what's more important to the overall story and the arc of the characters. Spend money on more ship battles or on what's important, Spock's emotional story.
Do I have problems with the film? Yes. It's not perfect. Did I enjoy it? Yes.
One last note, did I enjoy FC? Yes, I did. Is it a perfect film? No. Do I think much of the direction, the acting or the story? No, still enjoyed watching it.
That's it. I'm done with you.
Last edited:
No no, you clearly didn't understand the difference between a director and a DoP, and were making up your opinion upon that.
Abrams might have said "I want this movie to be bright, almost blinding you, because it's a bright future", and his DoP could have said "We could use lens flares to get that effect", to which Abrams responded: "Yeah, let's do that."
But with a different DoP, the new movie could have looked entirely different, despite having Abrams as the director. The shots would be framed differently, the lighting would be differently, it goes even back to set designs and color schemes, because the DoP has great influence on the look of the final product, that's his job. Which is why Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull doesn't look like the original 3 movies. They tried to emulate the style of the original DoP, but they weren't entirely successful.
Same goes for Frakes and Matthew F. Leonetti in First Contact and Insurrection. Of course First Contact would have looked differently with Abrams working together with Leonetti. But not that much, I suppose.
It would be like blaming the director for the soundtrack. Of course he has influence on the music, but he usually doesn't do it. Oh, I already said that before.
And yet you could've just said all that and I'd have been willing to listen, debate and engage you. But you didn't. You resorted to an originally insulting tone, and still doing so ("No no, you clearly..."). As I said, snark trumps actually discussion.
I'm willing to admit when I am factually wrong or have come to an incorrect conclusion. But you had no interest in trying to "educate" me, rather you preferred to lord it over at first, which is disappointing because I think you've made some valid points above.
Oh well. Had a lovely time arguing. Now I'm really done.
Last edited:
Frankly, I don't see how being even a respected SF Lit author gives one's opinion any more weight than anyone else: unless he's a student of film with some greater than average understanding of the medium.
The problem with grading directors is that every director has a different way of working. However, film is generally recognized as a director's medium (unlike TV), as the director does make the creative decisions on the set with the actors and with the camera crew. If he decides to let the DP shoot it the way he wants, that is in itself a directorial decision, especially if the DP's work ends up being the wrong tone for the shots (too flashy, too pedestrian, etc.). So, you can critique a director about the cinematography, as it's his decision which DP to use and to argue if he's not getting the kind of shots and coverage he wants.
As to the Trek directors, I'm not going to claim any special status for my opinions of them, and I won't rank them, but here's my observations on each, for those who care.
Wise -- Actually the easiest director to discuss because his body of film (not TV) directorial work is as big as all the other Trek directors combined (over 40 features), and you can see past the quirks of an individual film or two and get a sense of what he brought to the table. He's very focused on composition and mood, which isn't surprising. Wise started as an editor and was very aware of coverage and angles. There are a lot of very interesting camera angles in TMP, but most people don't notice them because they're not flashy. There are angled up and down shots, etc., which is stuff you practically don't see in the other films, where the camera tends to always be at the height of the actor's eyelines. Interesting, odd, not flashy. Maybe subtle is the word. On the downside, Wise's films in general tend to have a moderate pace...often slow. Couple this with a story low on action...
MEYER -- He's self-admittedly not a visual guy, but he's got good instincts editorially and seems to be able to get actors to deliver motion picture appropriate performances instead of a side of ham. Of all the directors he comes across as the most focused on sticking to what the story is about without wandering off into side-alleys that are cute or nods to the audience. That he's a novelist and screenwriter no doubt contributes heavily to this.
NIMOY -- From all his films I've seen it's readily apparent that he's actor-focused and not camera-focused. As such, his films (even non-Trek) tend to be visually rather inert.
SHATNER -- It's difficult to judge a man on the basis of one feature, but I gotta give him some credit for bringing energy to the scenes in his film. It's the same old cast, and despite the wretched script, the actors seem a little livelier overall. But it's obvious from a lot of things (the various drafts of the script, books and interviews) that the Shat doesn't have good instincts about what makes a good story, apologists for this film aside. He also can't direct himself, but that's a common problem.
CARSON -- I don't have much to say about him, as I only saw Generations once when it first came out and I have little memory of it save that I vowed to kick the writers in the shins for such an ineptly plotted mess.
FRAKES -- Nothing about him jumps out as exceptionally good or bad. He doesn't seem like a great actor's director. However, his films are uneven, and I don't get the sense that he's got any kind of thematic plan in mind, given how his films veer wildly in tone from sequence to sequence...and I mean in the way they're directed, not written.
BAIRD -- Let's just say as a director he's a fine editor.
ABARAMS -- Not going to comment. I've seen the film once, and I don't feel I've enough of a bead on his direction to make an informed comment.
The problem with grading directors is that every director has a different way of working. However, film is generally recognized as a director's medium (unlike TV), as the director does make the creative decisions on the set with the actors and with the camera crew. If he decides to let the DP shoot it the way he wants, that is in itself a directorial decision, especially if the DP's work ends up being the wrong tone for the shots (too flashy, too pedestrian, etc.). So, you can critique a director about the cinematography, as it's his decision which DP to use and to argue if he's not getting the kind of shots and coverage he wants.
As to the Trek directors, I'm not going to claim any special status for my opinions of them, and I won't rank them, but here's my observations on each, for those who care.
Wise -- Actually the easiest director to discuss because his body of film (not TV) directorial work is as big as all the other Trek directors combined (over 40 features), and you can see past the quirks of an individual film or two and get a sense of what he brought to the table. He's very focused on composition and mood, which isn't surprising. Wise started as an editor and was very aware of coverage and angles. There are a lot of very interesting camera angles in TMP, but most people don't notice them because they're not flashy. There are angled up and down shots, etc., which is stuff you practically don't see in the other films, where the camera tends to always be at the height of the actor's eyelines. Interesting, odd, not flashy. Maybe subtle is the word. On the downside, Wise's films in general tend to have a moderate pace...often slow. Couple this with a story low on action...
MEYER -- He's self-admittedly not a visual guy, but he's got good instincts editorially and seems to be able to get actors to deliver motion picture appropriate performances instead of a side of ham. Of all the directors he comes across as the most focused on sticking to what the story is about without wandering off into side-alleys that are cute or nods to the audience. That he's a novelist and screenwriter no doubt contributes heavily to this.
NIMOY -- From all his films I've seen it's readily apparent that he's actor-focused and not camera-focused. As such, his films (even non-Trek) tend to be visually rather inert.
SHATNER -- It's difficult to judge a man on the basis of one feature, but I gotta give him some credit for bringing energy to the scenes in his film. It's the same old cast, and despite the wretched script, the actors seem a little livelier overall. But it's obvious from a lot of things (the various drafts of the script, books and interviews) that the Shat doesn't have good instincts about what makes a good story, apologists for this film aside. He also can't direct himself, but that's a common problem.
CARSON -- I don't have much to say about him, as I only saw Generations once when it first came out and I have little memory of it save that I vowed to kick the writers in the shins for such an ineptly plotted mess.
FRAKES -- Nothing about him jumps out as exceptionally good or bad. He doesn't seem like a great actor's director. However, his films are uneven, and I don't get the sense that he's got any kind of thematic plan in mind, given how his films veer wildly in tone from sequence to sequence...and I mean in the way they're directed, not written.
BAIRD -- Let's just say as a director he's a fine editor.
ABARAMS -- Not going to comment. I've seen the film once, and I don't feel I've enough of a bead on his direction to make an informed comment.
Last edited:
Similar threads
