CHUD.com, in regards to ST V: The Search for God

[doubleohfive]

What rule said he had to supply the story? That's when the project went south. You know, right at the start.

Even if they had gone with a completely different screenwriter, as director of the picture Shatner could have easily thrown it all out and re-wrote it as he saw fit. That's what directors on features do; it's how the power structure works on a feature. Thus, Shatner was the auteur of the film, even though there really was much to be all auteur about.

Not really. A director can't just go in an rewrite a script. It doesn't work that way.

How would you know? How many Hollywood features have you worked on? In short - what's your source for this deflection of my early post?

I wasn't saying Shatner had final cut or that he was God of All Things Cinema, all I said was he had the ability to change the script that was handed to him because he was the director. That's how it works in features.

 

[JarodRussell]

How would you know? How many Hollywood features have you worked on? In short - what's your source for this deflection of my early post?

I give you my source if you give me yours.

The standard procedure is that a director is not allowed to make changes to the script. He usually makes suggestions to the scriptwriter and producer to change it. In the cases in which a director changed the entire script (like it happened recently with Robin Hood) the scriptwriters mostly sold their scripts completely to the studios, which meant they wouldn't be consulted on script changes anymore. And even then it's usually not the director himself who changes the script but the new scriptwriter, who follows the new input.

 

[Ssosmcin]

The director isn't necessarily the final arbiter of a film, this is why we have "director's cuts." The producers, the studio, and whomever all have a stake in it. If someone else came in to write Star Trek 5 and the studio and Harve Bennett approved it, Shatner's only real choices would be to film it or leave the picture, unless that would have constituted a breach of contract.

Certainly he could suggest changes, but the producers and the studio were the bosses, particularly in Star Trek's case where Paramount owned the property. Remember Rick Berman asked Nimoy to direct Generations. Nimoy wanted to change the script, Berman said no, Nimoy declined the job. It all depends on ownership, I imagine. Paramount could have rejected Shatner's script at any point.

The issue probably was that Star Trek 4 was such a cash cow, they were afraid to lose Shatner by rejecting his idea, and therefore see the end of the Star Trek movie series. Harve Bennett and David Loughery completely reworked Shatner's story when he was off on another job caused Shatner to beg, threaten, cajole, and convince them to change it back. They by no means had to, but again, he may have very easily just walked and then they'd be up the creek. They convinced themselves they could get milk from a sow's ear.

 

[doubleohfive]

How would you know? How many Hollywood features have you worked on? In short - what's your source for this deflection of my early post?

I give you my source if you give me yours.

I've been working in Hollywood on television shows and feature films since early 2007.

The standard procedure is that a director is not allowed to make changes to the script. He usually makes suggestions to the scriptwriter and producer to change it. In the cases in which a director changed the entire script (like it happened recently with Robin Hood) the scriptwriters mostly sold their scripts completely to the studios, which meant they wouldn't be consulted on script changes anymore. And even then it's usually not the director himself who changes the script but the new scriptwriter, who follows the new input.

Being that the original question I responded to was "Why didn't they bring in a completely different screenwriter," my contention that "had he wanted to, Shatner could have made changes to the script" still doesn't seem to be refuted, and certainly not by your own example cited here.

I'm not saying that's what happened in 1988/1989, I'm not saying that's what happens on every picture, I'm just saying that it does happen.

 

[JarodRussell]

How would you know? How many Hollywood features have you worked on? In short - what's your source for this deflection of my early post?

I give you my source if you give me yours.

I've been working in Hollywood on television shows and feature films since early 2007.

In what position?

Being that the original question I responded to was "Why didn't they bring in a completely different screenwriter," my contention that "had he wanted to, Shatner could have made changes to the script" still doesn't seem to be refuted, and certainly not by your own example cited here.

I'm not saying that's what happened in 1988/1989, I'm not saying that's what happens on every picture, I'm just saying that it does happen.

You certainly implied that by saying: "That's what directors on features do; it's how the power structure works on a feature." which is not the rule, it's more of an exception.

 

[doubleohfive]

I give you my source if you give me yours.

I've been working in Hollywood on television shows and feature films since early 2007.

In what position?

Mainly as a writer's assistant. I'm on the edge of my seat awaiting the revelation of your bastion of experience in the industry.

Being that the original question I responded to was "Why didn't they bring in a completely different screenwriter," my contention that "had he wanted to, Shatner could have made changes to the script" still doesn't seem to be refuted, and certainly not by your own example cited here.

I'm not saying that's what happened in 1988/1989, I'm not saying that's what happens on every picture, I'm just saying that it does happen.

You certainly implied that by saying: "That's what directors on features do; it's how the power structure works on a feature." which is not the rule, it's more of an exception.

Well then, so it was simply a misunderstanding of intention.

However, my contention that the power structure on a feature is still valid. Directors are the head honchos on productions; unlike in television where it's the executive producers who run things, directors on features do have the power and ability to make changes to the scripts as they see fit. That they don't always is irrelevant, but it happens more often than you think.

Depending on the property of course can add a significant wrinkle to the whole proceeding; I think it's fairly obvious that a cash cow like Star Trek or Twilight would likely have more mouths to feed and thus more people to answer to than some non-genre indie film or your generic romantic comedy. I know for a fact the script to the recently released You Again was drastically altered and changed from the script that had been greenlit for production and as a result, the completed film was quite less amusing than the script I read last year. I don't see a horde of Star Trek nerds going apeshit over that, nor any other of the majority of films that go through this process. It's just an accepted fact of the business, but because this time around we're talking about SHATNER and STAR TREK V it's a big fucking deal when really ... it's not.

 

[Warped9]

Excluding the TNG films, of which I don't care for any of them, TFF isn't the least liked in my view. That dubious honor goes to TVH.

I liked the music in TFF and it has some good scenes scattered through it. I agree that it needed a budget and a decent rewrite and then they'd have had something.

 

[dcsmokey]

It's no secret I'm a fan of Trek V. As I've posted in another thread, my re-edited version is now on YouTube.​

http://www.youtube.com/user/dcsmokey#grid/user/7BE86E9AAA36C179

This was done nearly 10 years ago, when we were building our first non-linear editing system for desktop/home use.

I think it's one of the best "character" films of the TOS era.

Thanks

Jack Marshall

 

[Nardpuncher]

I'm still very surprised that anyone at all likes TFF.

I mean before I joined the TrekBBS I thought I was the only one who liked TMP. Then I found that many were able to enjoy it for it's sense of breadth and wonder even though you'd have to understand that it's not a movie geared toward exciting the audience so much as it presents a mesmerizing journey into a vast other-worldly place with an absolutely beautiful musical score.

But again I must say that I never thought TFF would have any supporters at all. It's just fucked up.

 

[Warped9]

TFF is a good idea gone off the rails. In some respects it was pushed off the rails. But as disappointing as it is it still has some good points. I can't help but wonder how this might have come off with a decent rewrite, a different director and a more appropriate budget. It's also interesting to ponder how this story might have been done when TOS was in production.

 

[Nardpuncher]

But that's almost like that old philosophy problem about a ship that every time it docks it gets something replaced...after a while is it still the same ship?

What I mean is you'd have to strip that movie down and rebuild it so much it wouldn't be the same movie anymore.
Even if it you did fix it to where it was even half decent...it would be a forgettable late 80s cheap sci-fi flick that no one would be talking about today.
Like Dennis said if it weren't a Trek movie it would have only made about $10 million.

 

[Warped9]

^^ I think that's unfairly harsh because often the difference between good and can be a hairline or one or two wrong decisions.

It's similar with taking any sort of chance: if it works you're a hero, but if it doesn't then your a schmuck.

 

[doubleohfive]

^^ I think that's unfairly harsh because often the difference between good and can be a hairline or one or two wrong decisions.

Or it could be the simple passage of time between 1979 and 1980, apparently.

It's similar with taking any sort of chance: if it works you're a hero, but if it doesn't then your a schmuck.

What if you're senile?

 

[Joel_Kirk]

It's no secret I'm a fan of Trek V. As I've posted in another thread, my re-edited version is now on YouTube.​

http://www.youtube.com/user/dcsmokey#grid/user/7BE86E9AAA36C179

This was done nearly 10 years ago, when we were building our first non-linear editing system for desktop/home use.

I think it's one of the best "character" films of the TOS era.

Thanks

Jack Marshall

I'm watching it right now.

Too bad there couldn't be an edit getting rid of the Klingons (and those uniforms)...but still pretty interesting so far...