I FINALLY realized why the Enterprise-A was a clunker in TFF.

[JonnyQuest037]

^I still say it was a misguided effort on the studio's part to echo the out-of-their-depth humor of TVH. Which does make the characters look incompetent when it's transposed to their own native environment.

Oh, I agree. I don't think for a second that when Shatner got the STV directing assignment he thought, "Wonderful, now I can show the world what incompetent morons Scotty, Sulu, Chekov and Uhura really are! MWAH-HA-HA!!!"

I'm sure that the massive crossover success of TVH was the big reason more humor was included in TFF. I just think that the type of humor that Shatner & Loughrey decided upon made most of the crew look incompetent, even if that wasn't their intent. But I think it's pretty clear that Shatner viewed the other four actors beyond the big three as just supporting/background players, while Doohan, Takei, Koenig, and Nichols viewed the entire cast as an ensemble. So it was almost inevitable that they would have problems with what TFF's script had for them.

 

[Christopher]

But I think it's pretty clear that Shatner viewed the other four actors beyond the big three as just supporting/background players, while Doohan, Takei, Koenig, and Nichols viewed the entire cast as an ensemble.

Well, let's be fair -- Shatner was right. They weren't an ensemble. Scotty got a couple of focus episodes, Chekov got a couple of subplots, but Sulu and Uhura didn't even get first names. They were secondary players in a '60s TV show that was centered on its two, eventually three, main stars. There were some attempts in the movies to give each of the supporting players their own big scene, but they were never, ever an equal ensemble like the TNG, DS9, and VGR casts were. (And even the TNG movies reverted to the TOS formula, with the focus mainly on Picard, Data, and Riker while the others remained secondary.) I can't blame them for wanting to be more equal, I wish they had been, but the fact is, they never were.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

But I think it's pretty clear that Shatner viewed the other four actors beyond the big three as just supporting/background players, while Doohan, Takei, Koenig, and Nichols viewed the entire cast as an ensemble.

Well, let's be fair -- Shatner was right. They weren't an ensemble.

Yep. It might've been nice if they were, but how could they be when several of the actors were only contracted for 7 out of every 13 episodes and working only 1-2 days most weeks? I think 10 years of attending Star Trek conventions made some of the supporting actors think they were more important and well-loved than they really were.

I'm not saying this as a criticism of the supporting actors, just a statement of fact. I think it would happen to practically anyone in their shoes. It's got to be frustrating to be mostly known for a role where you usually didn't get all that much to do. And to be so typecast by that role that you don't get a whole lot of outside work.

 

[Maurice]

It's not accurate to say feature films directors have complete control over the writing process. Some directors do, just as some have final cut, but many do not. Film is often cited as "a director's medium", certainly moreso than TV, but, depending on the contracts, the director's say in the script varies from project to project, and in many cases the Producer may still have greater influence.

 

[Christopher]

Film is often cited as "a director's medium", certainly moreso than TV, but, depending on the contracts, the director's say in the script varies from project to project, and in many cases the Producer may still have greater influence.

That's true, but the writers themselves have essentially no control over the process, unless they're also producing or directing.

 

[FormerLurker]

Unless a writer has the good fortune of having a spec script of theirs produced relatively unaltered*, they have a choice; write what they're told to write, or find another job. The question becomes, who's telling what to write, the producer or the director?

Film is called "the director's medium", with stage "the actor's medium" and TV "the writer's medium" because in each case, the overwhelming majority of what the audience sees comes from the director's point of view (or the actor's, or writer's). That is, what you see on the big screen came out of the director's head, as his/her interpretation of the script. Most directors will even tell the Director of Cinematography what to focus on in a given sequence, and some will even tell them how to frame their shots. The DC has their own ideas, but will accommodate the director as much as possible. Even the editor has to use which take the director wants, and spends their time deciding how much of the beginning and end of it affect the overall storytelling.

*It does happen. I don't know how often, but it does. Usually as an indie production, I believe.

 

[eyeresist]

Good point. It doesn't feel like the scene was created with the idea of undermining Scotty, just that it had a gratuitous bit of slapstick tacked on as an afterthought to add "humor" to what was otherwise a straightforward scene.

Agreed. I thought since Scotty had spent 3 weeks trying to get the Ent's basic systems working, there's no reason he would have also memorised the placement of every bit of ductwork on the ship. So in no way did it undermine Scotty for me.

The real problem with the scene is it's one of a series of gags that undermine what is supposed to be a tense section of the story. OTOH I do enjoy the various little jokes that reintroduce the characters at the beginning of the film, and show them as humans rather than infallible icons.