Damn. Thanks.
So glad they didn't do the blasted "Dominion War."
So glad they didn't do the blasted "Dominion War."
Fade In: The Writing of Star Trek: Insurrection
- Thread starter DarkHorizon
- Start date
Yeah, the studio's notes addressed pretty much every problem I had with the final film. And yet many of these things were never fixed. I suspect it had to do with budget; once they found out what the budget was going to be, their efforts shifted to staying within it, and the story took more of a back seat.
It's really amazing how every decision that contributed to the film going off course seemed, at the time, to be perfectly rational.
I'm halfway through and it's got some amazing insights.
A great study on how that film came to be what it was... and a peek inside the mind of a professional TV screenwriter in a unique situation. Especially interesting are Patrick Stewart's notes on early story drafts.
Overall though, I think they were doomed from the start with this "heart of lightness" approach. It was a misstep to believe that after First Contact, the best strategy would be to run in the other direction.
My two-cents takeaway is that this one was a prime example of "too many cooks" all of whom had been in the same kitchen for far too long at that point...
A great study on how that film came to be what it was... and a peek inside the mind of a professional TV screenwriter in a unique situation. Especially interesting are Patrick Stewart's notes on early story drafts.
Overall though, I think they were doomed from the start with this "heart of lightness" approach. It was a misstep to believe that after First Contact, the best strategy would be to run in the other direction.
My two-cents takeaway is that this one was a prime example of "too many cooks" all of whom had been in the same kitchen for far too long at that point...
Wow. Very cool. Thanks for posting this, DarkHorizon.
I think you've hit the nail on the head.
Especially with something like Trek, EVERYONE has to put his oar in and make some sort of mark.
The results are often not good.
What a remarkable document- thank you so much for posting this, I just finished it and really enjoyed it (I've also read an enjoyed the two William Goldman books on screenwriting, and this stands proudly in that tradition).
Piller himself comes across as very smart, likable and funny. I also really enjoyed the insights into Berman, Stewart and Spiner. I thought they all came across really well, particularly Stewart. While some of his decisions did, indeed, seem to contribute to the eventual problems with the film, his love for Picard and Trek really shine through. I'm actually impressed with how knowledgeable he is about Trek, quoting episodes titles from memory, etc. Loads of stars (Sarah Michelle Gellar springs to mind) barely remember what happened on the shows they starred in. I also think this effectively negates a lot of the vilification of Berman by fans- he clearly comes across as someone who knows a lot about Trek and cares greatly for it.
This, exactly. It's clear everyone wants to make the best film possible, it's clear they put so much thought into it... how did it go so wrong?
Anyway, I really enjoyed reading this, it gave me a much deeper understanding on ]Insurrection, and, really, a new appreciation for the film itself. Everyone interested in the script-writing process should read this.
Piller himself comes across as very smart, likable and funny. I also really enjoyed the insights into Berman, Stewart and Spiner. I thought they all came across really well, particularly Stewart. While some of his decisions did, indeed, seem to contribute to the eventual problems with the film, his love for Picard and Trek really shine through. I'm actually impressed with how knowledgeable he is about Trek, quoting episodes titles from memory, etc. Loads of stars (Sarah Michelle Gellar springs to mind) barely remember what happened on the shows they starred in. I also think this effectively negates a lot of the vilification of Berman by fans- he clearly comes across as someone who knows a lot about Trek and cares greatly for it.
This, exactly. It's clear everyone wants to make the best film possible, it's clear they put so much thought into it... how did it go so wrong?
Anyway, I really enjoyed reading this, it gave me a much deeper understanding on ]Insurrection, and, really, a new appreciation for the film itself. Everyone interested in the script-writing process should read this.
Too many agendas that all had to be satisfied at once. So it all got averaged out to blandness.
I actually think INS is a fairly good movie, aside from the gratuitous, forced action and the walking back of Data's emotional growth. But it's good in the sense of being a pleasant little change-of-pace story. Reading this book, I see it could've been so much more.
Piller cites Goldman as one of his early influences in pursuing a writing career- and I believe it was Goldman who coined the dictum that Hollywood works as it does because "nobody knows."
Most people who make movies want to make good movies. When they fail it's sometimes lack of resources and - hopefully not too often - because they don't know how to make it good, not because they don't care.
Fascinating read. And my assessment of the film is pretty much the same now as it was then, Insurrection is one of the best films of the entire line. And, quite frankly, they were quite correct to not try and "out-Borg the Borg."
Now if we could just track down that Nov. 15 draft and fill that gap in the manuscript...
Now if we could just track down that Nov. 15 draft and fill that gap in the manuscript...
There is a profound passage from Piller in the final pages of the book when he's summing up his experiences and what he's learned from his career:
"There’s a new kind of action writing in Hollywood that I simply don’t know how to do. It begins - even before a word is put down on paper - with identifying “set pieces”, big self-contained action moments that are thrilling and memorable, and then finding some way to string all your set pieces into a coherent narrative. The theory is that audiences are really coming for the “eye candy” -- to see how we’ve filled the screen with awesome visuals and special effects. Set pieces sound great in pitches and make for good coming attractions but in my opinion, this approach almost never results in a good movie because it abandons the fundamental demands of story-telling."
Reading this makes me even more sad that Piller is gone... perhaps he could have continued pushing Hollywood to focus on stories "about something" as opposed to all the drek we get now. Then again, maybe it's better that he didn't live to see what mainstream, big budget movies have quickly become... and I wonder, based on his feelings above, what he would have thought about JJ's Star Trek...
"There’s a new kind of action writing in Hollywood that I simply don’t know how to do. It begins - even before a word is put down on paper - with identifying “set pieces”, big self-contained action moments that are thrilling and memorable, and then finding some way to string all your set pieces into a coherent narrative. The theory is that audiences are really coming for the “eye candy” -- to see how we’ve filled the screen with awesome visuals and special effects. Set pieces sound great in pitches and make for good coming attractions but in my opinion, this approach almost never results in a good movie because it abandons the fundamental demands of story-telling."
Reading this makes me even more sad that Piller is gone... perhaps he could have continued pushing Hollywood to focus on stories "about something" as opposed to all the drek we get now. Then again, maybe it's better that he didn't live to see what mainstream, big budget movies have quickly become... and I wonder, based on his feelings above, what he would have thought about JJ's Star Trek...
Unfortunately, it sounds like he's talking about Star Trek 2009. I'm ashamed to admit it, after the new movie, I started missing Berman and Piller and Braga and Hurly and Behr and Coto.
Considering that he passed away in 2005, I highly doubt it. Anyways, set-pieces have been around in moviemaking since forever and all the TNG movies had them. The opening set-piece of JJ's Star Trek contains probably the most emotional moment in a Trek movie since 1982. I don't think they're an inherent evil.
I know he passed away in 2005. Just seems Star Trek 2009 was the type of film he was concerned about.
My GF agrees- it's her favourite TNG film.
I got the impression, based on comments that followed, that it was essentially the same basic script as we ended up with onscreen.
I thought this also, and it's clear that it was the film-maker's intent to make it a balls-to-the-wall 'action' film. Yet INS was also being sold as an 'action' film, which I kind of resented. Give me the thoughtfulness of TMP or the humour of TVH over some 'action' any day.
Piller isn't writing about a movie like Star Trek (2009). His complaint concerns movies where the major set pieces are crafted, and then a screenwriter is brought in to add characters, dialogue, and all that other stuff. Star Trek (2009) wasn't written like that, not to my knowledge. Another Orci/Kurtzman penned movie, however, was: Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen.
And yet a lot of Patrick Steward's comments, if made here by a fan, would be seized upon by people who didn't like the 2009 film as evidence that person didn't 'get' Star Trek. Indeed, it's arguable that the film we got last year is the sort of film that PS wanted to make...
Similar threads
