Nicholas Meyer Fascinates Me!

[Zachary Smith]

Ok. I know what theater you're talking about.

You still live in this area?

Life-long resident; though I hope to be pardoned to the West Coast eventually.
'
You here too?

Yep. I live in Olathe, also a life-long resident. Was born in KC, moved to Shawnee with the 'rents when I was 11, live on my own currently in Olathe. I love this area and this town.

Mid-town, born and bred. You was a rich-kid to my world-view. Then again, I remember when Olathe was nothing but farmland . . .

 

[Trekker4747]

Mid-town, born and bred. You was a rich-kid to my world-view. Then again, I remember when Olathe was nothing but farmland . . .

If having lived in KCK made me "rich" then...

 

[Zachary Smith]

Mid-town, born and bred. You was a rich-kid to my world-view. Then again, I remember when Olathe was nothing but farmland . . .

If having lived in KCK made me "rich" then...

Ever seen to Mid-town?

(Of course, if you lived in "the Dot", that IS different!)

 

[Trekker4747]

Ever seen to Mid-town?

(Of course, if you lived in "the Dot", that IS different!)

Yeah, I was born in WyCo. and lived there until the 6th grade then we moved out to Western Shawnee, KS.

Hey, let's don some baggy pants and sports jerseys and meet up in the P&L District!

 

[Data Holmes]

You guys should really take this conversation into PM land...

 

[Brutal Strudel]

I don't know, I think he's very picky about what projects he associates with...

Yeah. Seventeen or eighteen years worth of picky now.

Directing low-budget "Star Trek" features and an occasional television movie did not generate an insatiable demand for his services. "The Wrath Of Khan" was good, "The Day After" was overblown and ultimately trivial, and McDowell and Steenburgen were the reasons to see the amateurishly directed "Time After Time." Other than that...meh.

I'd add Warner to the list of reasons to see Time After Time.

I'm disappointed that no one has mentioned the career Meyer has made of late by neutering Philip Roth, first The Human Stain, now Elegy (from The Dying Animal).

 

[trevanian]

I'd add Warner to the list of reasons to see Time After Time.

Warner's scene where he is channel-flipping is so good it almost makes the whole rest of the film unnecessary. And the look he gives HG when the key thing gets pulled at the end is something that I really wish they'd included in LICENCE TO KILL when Bond torches Sanchez, since that villain honors loyalty about all else, and would understand.

 

[Steve67]

I'm bumping this thread because Meyer's figured into my current Sherlock Holmes/Edwardian mood. I was pleased that the soundtrack to Time After Time was released and that Meyer's Holmes novels are still in print. I didn't know that The Seven Percent Solution was such a bestseller.
Looks like Nicholas Meyer has intensified my interest in 19th Century history, arts, and literature.

Time to listen to his commentaries on II and VI again...

 

[Maurice]

I read "The Seven-Per-Cent Solution" recently and found it mediocre. The last 3rd feels mostly disconnected from the first half, and Freud ends up just sort of along for a bland chase. The great idea of teaming up Holmes and Freud just doesn't pay off in my estimation.

 

[Jeyl]

I had been a big Meyer gusher after reading CONFESSIONS OF A HOMING PIGEON, when TWOK was in postproduction, and even moreso after TWOK, but I've been less impressed with him in the subsequent years, especially his releasing TWOK as a diredtor's cut even though the dvd is glaringly without his original ending (basically slicing off the Golden Gate park stuff of torp on planet.)

As he stated himself, "art thrives on restrictions". The ending that TWOK had is an example of him being restricted to the ending the execs had given him. He may have fought against it, but did it hurt the film in the end? I don't think so, and I think he's smart enough to realize that it didn't hurt the film either. Even great minds can have a change of heart.

 

[Admiral James Kirk]

I guess he saw no harm in releasing one himself as it acurately reflects his original intentions. However, he does state his opinion that once you put a movie "out there", you lose all possession of it - it now belongs to the audience, and changing it can only risk alienating those who came to love the original version, something that George Lucas could've done well to bear in mind.

Or maybe Meyer's opinion is just an opinion. Sure as hell GL doesn't need to take lessons from a far less successful director than he. Art is selfish. It needs to be. Otherwise it's impersonal. Just work. Better that GL maintain his artistic integrity and adjust his work until it's as close to his original intention as possible than to be just another Hollywood hack and settle for less than his best just because an audience that won't outlive his work might get upset at the changes. People have expiration dates. Art is forever.

As he stated himself, "art thrives on restrictions".

That's a cliche. Doesn't make is so. Art thrives on energy and unfettered imagination. Restrictions kill your energy and limit your imagination. Yes you might have to be creative to work within the limitations but is it going to be as satisfying and creative as your original conception? Probably not>

God save us from cliches but even more so from those that quote them like gospel!

 

[startrekrcks]

Nicholas Meyer is a genius he's a very talented director.

 

[Jeyl]

Or maybe Meyer's opinion is just an opinion. Sure as hell GL doesn't need to take lessons from a far less successful director than he. Art is selfish. It needs to be. Otherwise it's impersonal. Just work.

You know what the difference is between Nicholas Meyer and George Lucas? Lucas paints himself as a film maker. Nicholas Meyer paints himself as a story teller. When it comes to his philosophy of story telling, he says that the biggest challenge of making a good story is having one where the audience understands why it needed to be told. You know? He doesn't want to waste your time. Lucas' prequels fall into the category of stories that didn't need to be told, because we get the needed information in the original films already. Going back and having all the information available to the audience comes off as redundant and slow pacing. And of course, the best movies are those that start in the middle of the story, not the beginning. There are exceptions, but the Star Wars movies with the prequels don't fall under that category.

Better that GL maintain his artistic integrity and adjust his work until it's as close to his original intention as possible than to be just another Hollywood hack and settle for less than his best just because an audience that won't outlive his work might get upset at the changes.

Lucas has artistic integrity and tries to make his movies close to his original intent? That's a load of crap. There is not one thing about Lucas that even hints he had any original intent. I don't even think he knows what 'original' means. What Lucas does have is an EVER CHANGING intent. The moment he gets a new idea in his head on what he should change, he sets out to change it while going under the delusional idea that this is what it should have been all along.

Restrictions kill your energy and limit your imagination.

Do they? Is it not possible that restrictions can enable some areas of your imagination to work differently? I think they would. If Steven Spielberg a much bigger budget when he made Jaws so he could show the Shark more often, you think the film would have been any more successful? Spielberg took a restriction and limitation on his own movie, and he and his crew worked on ways to get around not showing the shark while at the same time benefiting the presentation of the story. And by god, it worked.

 

[Maurice]

Better that GL maintain his artistic integrity and adjust his work until it's as close to his original intention as possible than to be just another Hollywood hack and settle for less than his best just because an audience that won't outlive his work might get upset at the changes. People have expiration dates. Art is forever.

Art is as much about when it was made as what the result is. Furthermore, George changes his mind and alters the films to match his current perception, not any so-called original intent. Lucas has contradicted himself about his "original intent" in interviews for 20 years. The story's never the same,

As he stated himself, "art thrives on restrictions".

That's a cliche. Doesn't make is so. Art thrives on energy and unfettered imagination. Restrictions kill your energy and limit your imagination. Yes you might have to be creative to work within the limitations but is it going to be as satisfying and creative as your original conception? Probably not>

And Orson Welles, a far greater talent than Lucas could ever dream to be, rightly said, "Art without restrictions is its own worst enemy."

 

[Jonesy]

That's a cliche. Doesn't make is so. Art thrives on energy and unfettered imagination. Restrictions kill your energy and limit your imagination. Yes you might have to be creative to work within the limitations but is it going to be as satisfying and creative as your original conception? Probably not>

God save us from cliches but even more so from those that quote them like gospel!

I agree. While Meyer talks about restrictions being so great, he also complains about not having more money in other parts of the TWOK commentary.

 

[Jonesy]

Directing low-budget "Star Trek" features and an occasional television movie did not generate an insatiable demand for his services. "The Wrath Of Khan" was good, "The Day After" was overblown and ultimately trivial, and McDowell and Steenburgen were the reasons to see the amateurishly directed "Time After Time." Other than that...meh.

I actually think that TWOK stands up fairly well, particularly in contrast to most of the rest of the Trek films.

However, while people in this thread like to defend how articulate and intelligent Meyer is, I would have liked to have seen more intelligence in the script for TUC, which had some really cheaply-written dialog and scenes.

 

[Jeyl]

I agree. While Meyer talks about restrictions being so great, he also complains about not having more money in other parts of the TWOK commentary.

But does that bother him as much as Lucas does? I think not. Let's face it. If he wanted to change anything to The Wrath of Khan Lucas style, I'm sure Paramount would jump on the opportunity to present a 'Special Edition' of The Wrath of Khan. I remember in his commentary that he wasn't too happy about the way some shots of the Genesis Cave looked, but those could be changed and improved in a heart beat if he wanted to.

 

[Nardpuncher]

I guess he saw no harm in releasing one himself as it acurately reflects his original intentions. However, he does state his opinion that once you put a movie "out there", you lose all possession of it - it now belongs to the audience, and changing it can only risk alienating those who came to love the original version, something that George Lucas could've done well to bear in mind.

Or maybe Meyer's opinion is just an opinion. Sure as hell GL doesn't need to take lessons from a far less successful director than he. Art is selfish. It needs to be. Otherwise it's impersonal. Just work. Better that GL maintain his artistic integrity and adjust his work until it's as close to his original intention as possible than to be just another Hollywood hack and settle for less than his best just because an audience that won't outlive his work might get upset at the changes. People have expiration dates. Art is forever.

As he stated himself, "art thrives on restrictions".

That's a cliche. Doesn't make is so. Art thrives on energy and unfettered imagination. Restrictions kill your energy and limit your imagination. Yes you might have to be creative to work within the limitations but is it going to be as satisfying and creative as your original conception? Probably not>

God save us from cliches but even more so from those that quote them like gospel!

Well, maybe not restrictions, but I wish someone would have told Lucas "No" a few times when he made the prequels.
And it's common knowledge that Lucas didn't have everything he wanted when he made the original movies.
That may be such a blessing.

 

[Jeyl]

However, while people in this thread like to defend how articulate and intelligent Meyer is, I would have liked to have seen more intelligence in the script for TUC, which had some really cheaply-written dialog and scenes.

I am by no means claiming he is a god amongst writers and film makers, just someone who is more respectable than most. He states a lot that he doesn't like to modify his films, but he still tends to do so, and he also has said he doesn't like to do commentary tracks, but he's done three of them for Star Trek already (All of which are really good. Blankets!).

Not everyone always makes a great movie after another. Even Spielberg has made films I ultimately loath. And even with what we got in TUC, it's still a more enjoyable Trek outing than any of the TNG movies, especially Trek09.

 

[Jonesy]

I agree. While Meyer talks about restrictions being so great, he also complains about not having more money in other parts of the TWOK commentary.

But does that bother him as much as Lucas does? I think not.

Well, I'm not really making a point as to how much it bothers him. I'm just making a point that he contradicts himself. It's one thing to expound upon how restrictions are so great, and then state later how restrictions aren't helpful.

Let's face it. If he wanted to change anything to The Wrath of Khan Lucas style, I'm sure Paramount would jump on the opportunity to present a 'Special Edition' of The Wrath of Khan. I remember in his commentary that he wasn't too happy about the way some shots of the Genesis Cave looked, but those could be changed and improved in a heart beat if he wanted to.

(shrug) You might be right. However, IIRC Paramount pinched the pennys pretty hard on the directors cut of TMP.