He directed 2 of the greatest Treks. How can he not be considered that?
Nick Meyer - The Best Trek Director
- Thread starter Captain Zog
- Start date
Siwilliams
Fleet Captain
Jonathan Frakes I think is the best director, then Nick Meyer then David Carson
I'd go with Carson. Generations was a beautiful looking film. The director has to work with the script that they get, and Generations was a lacklustre story, but it fit together well, with good perfomances, and some great cinematography. Meyer... while TWOK was the best, TUC hasn't dated at all well IMO, and Meyer's tendency to tinker makes him Trek's Lucas. TWOK's DC is pointless, while the Scooby Doo ending of TUC rankles me worse each time I watch it.
Siwilliams
Fleet Captain
good choice for director
Siwilliams
Fleet Captain
Robert Wise did a good job directing 'The Day The Earth Stood Still' (1951)
Meyer was a very good director for Trek. I could have done without the gratuitous Shakespeare, character assassination and choppy editing in TUC, though.
His was involved in TVH too.
I think he was a great Director for Star Trek and treated it the way it deserved to be treated. I would have loved to have seen him Direct XI.
Meyer and Bennett took serious science fiction and turned it into a cartoon. They did more to kill serious trek and turn it into pop culture junk then anyone.
Star Trek 6 is a mediocre movie, hardly "great." TWOK is one of the better Trek movies, and Meyer's direction is pretty stylish given the time and budgetary constraints he worked within.
Good to know all those sixties-era photos with "I Grok Spock!" t-shirts in them were an elaborate hoax. I always suspected that actual Star Trek viewers consisted solely of people like Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke sitting in opulently furnished lounges, debating the existential metaphors inherent in the idea of a broken machine accidentally working as a perfectly functional personality-altering cloning device while smoking fine cigars.
They were probably also wearing monocles.
^Trek brought the metaphoric quality of sci fi to main stream audiences that may not have realized that science fiction could comment on the human condition and not just be about lasers blowing things up. Maybe it wasn't high art, but it wasn't flash gordon either. Paramount got the great Robert Wise to direct TMP, and if the fools there hadn't squeezed him and rushed him into production, he might have produced something greater than he did, but the intent was there and visible. Paramount saw a cash cow however, and turned to a hack like Meyer (and eventually uber hacks Nimoy and Shatner) to turn out pulp.
Nick Meyer was commenting on the human condition, he just added action to the films as well to make them entertaining. TMP was interesting on an intellectual level, but it wasn't all that entertaining. TWOK and TUC were both commenting on the human condition, but in a way that was far more relatable. TWOK was about a man growing old and realising that he wasn't enjoying his life as much as he should because of the decisions he has made. TUC was about how predjudice was preventing these people from seeing the bright new oportunities that awaited them and how they had to overcome them.
So there was space battles and ray guns as well, does that really detract from the movie? All those fist fights Kirk got into in the series, all those women he kissed, those were intellectual were they? Nick Meyer was not some hack that turned Star Trek into a cartoon, Star Trek was already a cartoon by your logic.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
I'm so glad you pointed this out. It seems to me like he's the one everyone forgets. But he really did, at lease in a cinematic sense, do the best job.
As you said, he presented a beautiful film. It was expertly cut and framed and he really gave a unique feel and ambiance that I don't think existed in any of the other movies.
Also, he somehow managed to squeeze out some good performances from the TNG cast (Which I think is the weakest of the lot.) despite some truly cringe-worthy dialog.
This is a bit of a non sequitur don't you think? It's as if to suggest: If a film doesn't have action, it must not be any good.
That's an opinion, not a fact. I find it to be very entertaining. Apparently, so did a lot of other people; it made wads of cash--more than any of the others, as a matter of fact.
"Relateable" because they're so obvious, trite, cliche, and by now really tired. How many other films, books, plays, whatever have presented these two themes? Hundreds? Thousands? Not big on the originality scale.
Not that it matters though. In both cases, the themes were buried so deep that the basically came off as silly after thoughts only to be resurrected again whenever a character presents said theme to another character (and the audience) in an absolute and matter of fact manner.
When it has a "dumbing down" effect, absolutely.
I'm not so sure this is a fair comparison. For starters, I think the whole "Kirk the Womanizing King of Fisticuffs" thing has posthumously (In terms of the series.) been over exaggerated over the years. Sure there was a lot of if, but it really wasn't what the series was about. Also, in most cases it was just the proverbial climax spice; it was never the focal of the show.
But, that's neither here nor there. How many episodes were actually about cramming as many fires and explosions and laser light shows, and more fires, and more explosions? And, in terms of "cartoons," as you put it, turn on a Saturday morning cartoon and what do you see? Laser light shows and explosions.
In the end though, the issue isn't just Meyer's job as a director, it's also the precedent he set. Let us examine TWOK for a minute:
You have a villain who, for reasons not actually presented on screen (So we just have to take his word for it.), despises Hero #1 and wishes him dead. The villain then tells us he's uber smart. But again, there's no on screen evidence of this so we have to take his word for it.
Some shit happens and villain and his little motley band are able to seize an entire starship. Of course, this all happens off screen so we simply have to ponder how it was possible. Though to be fair, this does seem a little more plausible once we take into account the competence of the crew of said starship. It is presented on screen that this crew must have a Sarah Palin grasp of interstellar geography as they didn't even know what planet they were on. Nor did they realize the planet they thought they were on had actually blowed-up. This crew was obviously not the best example of "Starfleet's finest." So, while the villain might not really have a "superior intellect," it was probably superior to theirs.
So, more stuff happens and finally villain comes to confront Hero #1. Villain has the advantage of surprise on his side. Not only that, Hero #1 screws the pooch and makes a mistake that even the noob on the ship was quick to point out. Given these circumstance, Villain should have a clear victory. But he doesn't. Yet, for whatever reason, he calls over to gloat anyway. In the meantime, however, Hero #2 pulls some mystical deus ex machina rabbit out of his ass and the Heroes are able to escape.
This whole escapade leave serious doubt over Villain's "superior intellect." Except, thanks to all the big explosions we loose track and seem to forget all about that.
More stuff happens and a new uber Doomsday Wannabe Device appears. Villain must have it! But it's unclear as to what purpose it would serve him in his goal except to be used as a weapon. Except, there's no apparent practical use for it as a weapon so again with the confusion. Of course, it could simply be it's powerful and the desire for powerful things equals Eeevviill, right? In fact, to prove he's so eeevviill, Villain mercilessly tortures a bunch of people. But again, this is done off screen so we just gotta take his word for it.
So, in order to get his hands on this new weapon, Villain dresses up a couple of foxes in sheep's clothing. An oldie but goodie! And it works too despite the sign on their heads that reads, "Working for bad guy." The Heroes fall for it hook line and sinker and lead them strait to the Flock.
Villain is then able to capture Weapon quite easily. This is only exacerbated by more incompetence on Flock's part. Despite previous apprehension by Flock as to someone stealing Weapon, it gives Weapon no lock, no key, no security of any kind and leaves the proverbial cookie jar open for Villain to take and use at his leisure. So, is Villain really that smart, or is everyone else just really effen stupid?
In any case, Villain calls up Hero #1 again to gloat. He even says something about "Burring Hero #1 alive." Ironically, however, Villain is presented with the opportune time to use Weapon and do just that. But, he decides not to. We can only assume he's not big on keeping promises. Then again, he is eeevviill.
So finally we arrive at the big climax. Villain has all the advantages, but still looses out because he forgets to notice space has three dimensions. At this point, we can't help but wonder if the "tactical genius" could even defeat an eight year old in checkers.
It is at this time Villain decides to take Weapon out of his pocket. Again, to use it he just has to turn a few dials and pull a few levers. He isn't even required to provide his ATM PIN number.
It is at this junction that some previously unexplained plot device comes to fruition. It's overtly contrived and not all too clear, but we're forced to accept that, in order to prevent it, Hero #2 must put his hands in a giant fishbowl of light thus sacrificing himself and saving the ship.
The interesting thing here is, it is actually Hero #1 who's the known fighter and man of action--the guy who doesn't take "no" for an answer. Yet, for whatever reason, he just sits around with his finger up his ass waiting for death. He doesn't ask for suggestions or look for solutions. This goes against everything known of his character, and that presented earlier in the film, for that matter. All the while, Hero #2 goes and dies ... But not before he could insert plot device for the inevitable sequel!
Now, I don't know about anyone else, but to me that seems like a complete mess and a total gaff by the director. And, TUC is an even bigger mess!
There's an obvious lack of substance there. Yet, people seem to ignore it on account of all the pretty pictures. This set a trend and it only got worse with each film.
The sad thing is, it ill represents Trek television.
Throw some names out there:
"Tomorrow is Yesterday"
"The City on the Edge of Forever"
"The Doomsday Machine"
"The Measure of a Man"
"The Inner Light"
"Darmok"
"Duet"
"The Visitor"
"In the Pale Moonlight"
"Shuttlepod One"
I could go on. The point is, those are the episodes most consider to be the very best of Star Trek, yet they aren't exactly action romps. Even "Scorpion" and "Best of Both Worlds," when you get right down to are really lite on the actual shoot-em up.
The question is, why can we have films like those? Most, if not all, could easily be made into movie form that would, not only be entertaining, but attract viewers.
The theory here is, it was Nicky and Harvey that made this trap that all Star Trek movies must be high action low substance popcorn flicks that don't fairly represent the source material. And the Paramount TPTB fell right into it.
And it seems this new J.J Abomination thing is only going to continue (Worsen?) this trend. Now, I'll wait till I see it before I pass judgment, I just don't hold a whole lot of hope.
Siwilliams
Fleet Captain
Exactly, he could have directed Nemesis and done a better job
Indeed.
