Berman talks Meyer and Ridley Scott directing TNG films

[Khan 2.0]

RScott talks Trek in opening min of this interview
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bMfvAYkXgrU#
Its fun to hear Scott talk Kirk etc, wouldve been great had he directed one of the TNGs

 

[Cyke101]

Having Meyere could play on the success of TWOK, but Ridley Scott might have been a coup of sorts, it might also have brought people to the cinema who might otherwise not go see a Star Trek.

Ridley Scott style FC trailer:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xVH8z2QBRy0&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DxVH8z2QBRy0

Holy crap, THAT was a fun trailer.

 

[BillJ]

Meyer would have been perfect for Nemesis and probably would have honed a pretty good film out of such a dull script.

Sometimes it's just impossible to polish a turd.

 

[Hober Mallow]

Nimoy's talked about turning down GEN. He said the script needed a major rewrite, and the Spock character was ill-defined and that his lines could have been delivered by anyone (which Berman and co. went on to prove by having Chekov and Scotty mouth the same lines).

 

[Pingfah]

How would he be perfect for a film which shamelessly ripped off his own great work?

Um. Duh?

You do not get it--Meyer slumming on a ripoff of his own work would make him appear desperate, and trying to relive past glory.

He did not need that overflowing toilet of a film.

The question is whether Meyer would have benefited the film, not whether the film would benefit Meyer.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

The question is whether Meyer would have benefited the film, not whether the film would benefit Meyer.

If Meyer had been able to do a page one rewrite of the film, as he did with Star Trek II, then it's possible he could have benefited the film.

If, on the other hand, Meyer had been forced to shoot the film as written (much like the offer Nimoy received for Generations), then I see no advantage to having Meyer as the director.

Directors, and actors too, can only do so much with the material they have at hand.

 

[JarodRussell]

Oh, the direction has MAJOR influence on a film, without touching a single line in the script.

I wrote it in another thread about Nemesis months ago. The direction of Nemesis is incredibly lame. For example: remove the action scenes, and all that is left is characters SITTING around talking to each other. That's it.

Look at how they did it in First Contact, Insurrection or Abramstrek. In dialogue heavy scenes there is always SOMETHING going on. The characters walk from A to B, the camera is in motion, they do other stuff while talking to each other, etc. Stuff like that changes the energy of the entire scene, and eventually the whole film.

The best thing you see in Nemesis is that Picard stands up and gets himself a cup of tea while talking to Shinzon in the Romulan senate.

 

[I am not Spock]

Ridley Scott would have done a great job on Nemesis. Seeing as his Gladiator writer, John Logan, wrote the screenplay.

Interesting how Logan and Stuart Baird were both involved in Nemesis, which sank the Trek film franchise for seven years; and also both were involved in 2012's Skyfall, which was a highly successful film in that franchise (Baird was the editor)

 

[JarodRussell]

Ridley Scott would have done a great job on Nemesis. Seeing as his Gladiator writer, John Logan, wrote the screenplay.

Interesting how Logan and Stuart Baird were both involved in Nemesis, which sank the Trek film franchise for seven years; and also both were involved in 2012's Skyfall, which was a highly successful film in that franchise (Baird was the editor)

Apples and oranges.

Stuart Baird is a great action film editor, he also is a decent action film director (I liked "US Marshals"). But he sucks as a science fiction film director.

John Logans Nemesis script sucked. Ridley Scott directed wouldn't have changed the script, only the look and feel of the film. That might have been enough to make the film more entertaining. But seeing how much I hated Prometheus just because of the shitty script, I doubt that.

Also, the script for Nemesis had a wholy different creation process than the script for Gladiator. I blame Spiner's and Stewart's influence on the script as executive producers, which resulted in two clone stories mashed into one film, an unneccessarry dune buggy chase, and a forced hero death scene. Which wouldn't be the problem, but the way they eventually connected all the dots in the script was really badly done.

 

[Hober Mallow]

John Logans Nemesis script sucked.

This.

Also, the script for Nemesis had a wholy different creation process than the script for Gladiator. I blame Spiner's and Stewart's influence on the script as executive producers, which resulted in two clone stories mashed into one film, an unneccessarry dune buggy chase, and a forced hero death scene. Which wouldn't be the problem, but the way they eventually connected all the dots in the script was really badly done.

Maybe Stewart and Spiner didn't help, but Logan's horrible screenplay adaption of "The Time Machine" had me convinced before "Nemesis" premiered that we were in big trouble.

 

[Firebird]

Ridley Scott would have done a great job on Nemesis. Seeing as his Gladiator writer, John Logan, wrote the screenplay.

Interesting how Logan and Stuart Baird were both involved in Nemesis, which sank the Trek film franchise for seven years; and also both were involved in 2012's Skyfall, which was a highly successful film in that franchise (Baird was the editor)

What many seem to forget is that John Logan only wrote a transitional draft of Gladiator. The film that everyone knows and loves was actually done in a practical page-one rewrite by William Nicholson. The draft that was done by Logan was read at the table read before principal photography, and it was universally hated. People end up giving Logan far too much credit for Gladiator, when it sounds like his material was not good.

Had Ridley done ST Nemesis, he'd have brought on a different writer, likely to rewrite Logan's draft. From all the documentaries I've watched on his films, RS is heavily involved with the writing/development stage. I doubt he would've just come into the picture to simply direct the movie without making any changes.

 

[Clark Terrell]

How would he be perfect for a film which shamelessly ripped off his own great work?

Because he'd have done it right. What Baird didn't understand is that The Wrath of Khan was successful because it captured the essence of what Star Trek is really about-- people. Baird tried to duplicate it by including similar plot elements but paid no attention at all to the characters themselves, deleting many of the scenes that would have rounded out of the film and given it the substance it lacked.

 

[Synnöve]

Because he'd have done it right. What Baird didn't understand is that The Wrath of Khan was successful because it captured the essence of what Star Trek is really about-- people. Baird tried to duplicate it by including similar plot elements but paid no attention at all to the characters themselves, deleting many of the scenes that would have rounded out of the film and given it the substance it lacked.

Honestly, given the tone of TNG and the sort of characters that we came to know (sans the first two seasons), I do not think any plotline about an evil clone of young Picard which consequently makes Picard question his character can have substance; his character was already evaluated post BoBW & in Tapestry in terms of "what could have been if this or that".

WoK was successful because of the character development as you mentioned; we had not seen Kirk or Spock in such a position before. With Picard, we already had for the most part.

 

[Trek Survivor]

How would he be perfect for a film which shamelessly ripped off his own great work?

Because he'd have done it right. What Baird didn't understand is that The Wrath of Khan was successful because it captured the essence of what Star Trek is really about-- people. Baird tried to duplicate it by including similar plot elements but paid no attention at all to the characters themselves, deleting many of the scenes that would have rounded out of the film and given it the substance it lacked.

While I don't disagree, it could be argued that Meyer didn't necessarily understand what made Trek work either - he was just lucky he kind of stumbled on it. Remember, he was a "Trek newbie", and while TWOK is unquestionably successful in part because of its focus on the characters and their relationships... it could equally be argued they are very different characterisations than either the original series or the first film (yes, yes, you can handwave it by claiming it's "years later"...)

 

[trevanian]

Meyer would have been perfect for Nemesis and probably would have honed a pretty good film out of such a dull script.

Sometimes it's just impossible to polish a turd.

Oh, you can give it a shine, but it'll still taste like shit.

 

[trevanian]

Ridley Scott would have done a great job on Nemesis. Seeing as his Gladiator writer, John Logan, wrote the screenplay.

Interesting how Logan and Stuart Baird were both involved in Nemesis, which sank the Trek film franchise for seven years; and also both were involved in 2012's Skyfall, which was a highly successful film in that franchise (Baird was the editor)

What many seem to forget is that John Logan only wrote a transitional draft of Gladiator. The film that everyone knows and loves was actually done in a practical page-one rewrite by William Nicholson. The draft that was done by Logan was read at the table read before principal photography, and it was universally hated. People end up giving Logan far too much credit for Gladiator, when it sounds like his material was not good.

Had Ridley done ST Nemesis, he'd have brought on a different writer, likely to rewrite Logan's draft. From all the documentaries I've watched on his films, RS is heavily involved with the writing/development stage.

Scott does have a tendency to use (and use up) a particular writer before moving on to the next. He used Logan on RKO 281, I think when he was still intending to direct it, and I think he was just Scott's go-to at that point, hence his work on GLADIATOR (that which survives is if I'm not mistaken principally Commodus stuff.)

Being as generous as possible, Logan's RKO 281 is cut & paste from historical research along with the apocryphal (Welles encountering Hearst in an elevator), and barely registers as even creative typing to me.

Add to that the possibility that he was hired to riff on an existing screenplay about pro football that wound up as ANY GIVEN SUNDAY, and you have some potential credibility/ethics issues (this is addressed indirectly in the book by that Washington politico type who worked for Stone for a number of years, don't recall the title.) Plus there is THE AVIATOR ... his last draft is supposedly from 1996 or so, which suggests his Oscar is only due to his being 'first writer' on the show, a position that is hard to dislodge unless you've been rewritten at least 75%.

Except for RANGO (and I know nothing about the making of that), I don't see any winners that are whole cloth Logan at all. I realize my loathing SKYFALL to the point of giving up on the Bond franchise is a minority view, but I put nearly all of that on Logan's seriously wrongheaded read of the character, which riffs on Fleming incidents but collapses utterly given the wholly different context in which the events take place.

Even if NEMESIS didn't exist, I would consider Logan the most overrated screenwriter around, and the fact he has the keys to the Bond kingdom is the best evidence for me that Bond should never have transitioned into the 21st century (and except for a few very brief moments in QUANTUM OF SOLACE, he really HASN'T.)

 

[Cyke101]

I feel like I'm the only one who thinks Gladiator is an okay movie that's really overrated. I like Ridley Scott, and I guess I like Logan's work for the most part (whatever it is he did for the movie), but overall I thought it was disappointing and not nearly as character-driven or as epic as I thought it would be.

 

[Clark Terrell]

While I don't disagree, it could be argued that Meyer didn't necessarily understand what made Trek work either - he was just lucky he kind of stumbled on it. Remember, he was a "Trek newbie", and while TWOK is unquestionably successful in part because of its focus on the characters and their relationships... it could equally be argued they are very different characterisations than either the original series or the first film (yes, yes, you can handwave it by claiming it's "years later"...)

The characterizations are different, sure, but I think Meyer did a nice job of making said characterizations of the main cast fit with the story he was trying to tell. As you said, part of the premise for TWOK was to place Kirk and Spock in a situation they'd never faced before-- a real-life no-win scenario.

Now, setting aside "The City on the Edge of Forever," which did put them in such a position, it's clear that this new development created or unmasked aspects of their personalities we'd never seen before and changed them in ways that would shape the rest of their careers and lives. To me, that's what storytelling and moviemaking is really about. Characters should face situations that change them or their views of the world around them so that they can grow. Having characters who were essentially the same people today as they were five years ago doesn't make sense and doesn't make for interesting fiction. But that's just my two cents.

 

[Bacl]

How would he be perfect for a film which shamelessly ripped off his own great work?

Because he'd have done it right. What Baird didn't understand is that The Wrath of Khan was successful because it captured the essence of what Star Trek is really about-- people. Baird tried to duplicate it by including similar plot elements but paid no attention at all to the characters themselves, deleting many of the scenes that would have rounded out of the film and given it the substance it lacked.

Baird apparently had no clue and no care. Lavar Burton nearly walked off set once because Baird kept referring to his character as an alien, and he even struggled to learn the individual actors names, something that shows up on the commentary where he fumbles for Michael Dorn's name and then just refers to him as "Worf" when talking about the actor.

I remember reading early behind-the-scenes reports about how pleased they were to get a guy like Baird to direct, someone not from the Trek universe to breathe some of the outsider perspective into it. Um, yeah. Maybe instead of constantly trying to make a Star Trek movie for the masses they should sit down and make a damn fine Star Trek movie that's actually a Star Trek movie.

 

[Clark Terrell]

Baird apparently had no clue and no care. Lavar Burton nearly walked off set once because Baird kept referring to his character as an alien, and he even struggled to learn the individual actors names, something that shows up on the commentary where he fumbles for Michael Dorn's name and then just refers to him as "Worf" when talking about the actor.

There's a picture floating around somewhere of Baird talking to Patrick Stewart with the latter looking like he wants to cry because Baird had no idea what he was talking about.

I remember reading early behind-the-scenes reports about how pleased they were to get a guy like Baird to direct, someone not from the Trek universe to breathe some of the outsider perspective into it. Um, yeah. Maybe instead of constantly trying to make a Star Trek movie for the masses they should sit down and make a damn fine Star Trek movie that's actually a Star Trek movie.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. I understand that producers want to make money, but there's no point in having a film if the film doesn't fit the genre or style on which its based. Star Trek has historically been perceived as a series that only nerds like, but that never stopped it from doing well at the box-office if the movie was good enough. Granted, films that appealed to the general public in addition to fans did better than their counterparts, but Star Trek has had success with its so-called lesser films, both in theaters and after the fact.