Nimoy vs. Shatner: Director Showdown

[CoveTom]

Ok, so here's my basic question: who is the better director -- Leonard Nimoy or William Shatner?

Before you jump to a quick answer, remember that I'm not asking whose movies are better. Clearly, most people would choose TSFS and TVH over TFF in terms of overall quality.

But regardless of what you think of the movies themselves, who did a better job behind the camera?

For me personally, I think Shatner made a lot of mistakes in the development of the story which, combined with mistakes on the part of Harve Bennett and Ralph Winter on the allocation of money and the selection of a special effects house, sank TFF.

But as a director, I think Shatner shot his scenes with a lot more style and finesse than Nimoy. TSFS and TVH feel like they were shot by a TV director. TFF feels like it was shot by a feature film director.

What do you think?

 

[EnriqueH]

I know what you mean, and I have "rediscovered" TFF earlier this year after years of having a mainstream reaction to it.

I enjoyed TFF, warts and all.

I know what you mean, I think Shatner was a good director, (and I looooove Shatner overall. He's my idol.)

But I still have to go with Nimoy.

His films were executed better and had better results across the board.

TVH and TSFS have always been my favorite Trek films. for a reason.

 

[Trimm]

Yknow, that's a real interesting question. Naturally, my kneejerk reaction is to say that Nimoy is the obvious choice given the overall quality of ST5. But, upon further reflection, it's a more difficult choice. So much goes into the direction of a movie, and the fact that both TSFS and TVH are significantly better films that TFF is certainly more or less the responsibility of Nimoy.

That said, there's an arguement to be made that TFF is at the minimum a much more dynamic film that TSFS. Shatner at least seems to be attempting to be grand and cinematic in the scope and shooting of TFF, whereas TSFS in many cases feels very static.

All in all though, it is really difficult that to argue that Shatner is the better director. Certainly Nimoy's overall career as a director speaks well of him. So that's where my vote goes.

 

[BillJ]

I don't know honestly?

Nimoy had better writers in his corner but his stuff felt like it was done by a TV director. Shatner's movie seemed more cinematic but the story was pretty rough.

 

[CoveTom]

Interesting points made by all. I see what you're saying regarding Nimoy producing overall better films, but let me ask you this... suppose Shatner had not been involved in writing the story, but had just been the director. In fact, suppose Shatner had been given the exact same script as TSFS or TVH to direct. Do you think the film would have been better than the one produced by Nimoy? I think so.

Most of the criticisms I see directed at TFF, from the ridiculousness of the underlying "search for God" premise to the excessive focus on Kirk at the expense of the other characters to the awkward attempts to insert comedy all come back to the script. And the other big complaint, the special effects, has to do with the selection of the effects house, a decision which Ralph Winter himself accepts responsibility for and says they should have known better.

With a solid script like TSFS or TVH and ILM helming the effects, I think Shatner could have turned in a better film than Nimoy.

 

[Shaw]

What do you think?

I think that no amount of rationalization is going to help Shatner out... but if you are really curious, throw out Star Trek related directorial positions and compare the two men's work.

If you want to do a showdown, at least keep the competitors in the same relative class. For example...

Is Shatner better than Ed Wood?

I'd say it is too close to call, both have more passion than talent.

 

[HIjol]

it has always been difficult for me to understand that people do not always have a positive emotional connection to creative work and production. Sir Alec's attitude about Star Wars and Obi Won, "Get a Life" Shatner (who I love), Connery as Bond, Brando in Streetcar, The Entire Cast of Guccione's "Caligua" - wait, ok I DO get that one!, etc.

So, I would say, perhaps the answer to the OP question is, in part, related to who has the most emotional investement in the Franchise, and connects with it positively on a personal level. I am like BillJ in my answer; I am not really sure.

But my thinking is, there needs to be feeling for the thing, or it is just a thing.

 

[EnriqueH]

Yeah, I doubt you can make much of a case, CoveTom.

The end result just wasn't there.

And, as I mentioned, this is coming from a HUGE Shatner fan.

I think he had a lot going against him, but ultimately, the director is responsible for what goes right and wrong.

The movie has a lot of energy and physical action, which is great. But it also has Scotty bumping his head on a bulkhead and a horse-neck-pinch. He's also responsible for playing Kirk a bit too broadly at times. Granted, the studio was pushing for more humor, but again, the director is held accountable.

I like Star Trek V, and I think Shatner had some good idea, but the story was OVERLY ambitious and he really put himself in a corner. With a different script, I think Shatner would've at least matched the quality of the Nimoy films, but as is?

It's hard to make a case for Shatner.

Especially since TVH and TSFS turned out so well.

 

[CoveTom]

Especially since TVH and TSFS turned out so well.

Eh. I don't know.

TVH benefits from being 90% on location, which makes it feel much bigger and more expansive than the typical Trek outing.

TSFS feels incredibly small scale to me. Everything about it feels like a big budget TV episode. Everything is shot so conservatively. Just looking at the way Meyer shot the bridge set and comparing it to the way Nimoy shot the exact same set, it just feels different to me. It's hard to quantify, though. There's something just intangibly more "movie-ish" to Meyer's work than Nimoy's.

Here's one key difference, I think: the cinematographer. In TSFS, Nimoy had Charles Correll. Not to slight him, but TSFS was literally his only feature film credit. All of his other work was a director of television. In contrast, TFF had Andrew Lazlo, a highly respected cinematographer with no less than 28 feature films to his credit. That makes a big difference.

 

[EnriqueH]

Yet even with that, TSFS was a better film.

Shows you how important story and script execution is.

 

[eyeresist]

This is one of those unanswerables, like who was the greater general, Napoleon or Wellington? We have the result of what happened on the day, but there are always "what if"s ...

I think Shatner had more visual flare than Nimoy, but was hampered by a broken script and poor SFX. If ILM and a responsible adult to deal with the script had been on hand, would TFF have been a good movie? Maybe. Better than TSFS or TVH? Who knows?

If TFF had succeeded, would Shatner have gone on to direct more movies? Maybe, but based on their respective filmographies I think Nimoy just wanted it more. And I'm not sure Shatner could have sustained the level of attentioned needed to be a professional director. Shatner has said he likes directing, but I can't help thinking he's better in front of the camera, where he can be spontaneous, whereas Nimoy has more of the logistical mind which is necessary for directing (and producing).

Looking at Shatner's short list of directing credits on IMDB, I am curious about the couple of TV movies he has done. Has anyone seen TekWar or Groom Lake?

it has always been difficult for me to understand that people do not always have a positive emotional connection to creative work and production.... "Get a Life" Shatner

That was a line from a Saturday Night Live sketch - it was not a serious thing.

 

[EnriqueH]

I saw the Tekwar movie and I rather enjoyed it.

I have not seen all the way through since the mid 90s, but I don't remember it having the script problems that ST5 had.

It was a sci-fi TV movie with budget constraints, I'm sure, but it was a competently made TV movie.

 

[eyeresist]

I saw the Tekwar movie and I rather enjoyed it.

I have not seen all the way through since the mid 90s, but I don't remember it having the script problems that ST5 had.

It was based on a book, so they already had the plot sorted

 

[2takesfrakes]

Nimoy is good working with actors. That's his strength. He directed the 80's movie Three Men & A Baby, which, according to The Internet, was a comedy that broke all kinds of box office records, at that time. And though he directed a couple of other pictures, beyond that, they bombed and bombed badly. Somehow, this did not affect his STAR TREK opportunties to direct, though he's passed on those since TVH. But in the editing department, he can be a little sloppy, which I have noticed. Nimoy seems to understand the Hollywood system, that is, how to "play the game." I feel he would've made a much better Executive Producer than director of movies.

William Shatner's directing style seems to revolve around moving the camera, instead of moving the elements in frame. As evidenced in TSFS, Nimoy understands that the camera is really good at presenting people's faces and gives it ample chance to get to "like" his actors. Hand-held is great for things like showing discord, or for things like a situation breaking down. People are starting to mistrust eachother, let's say, because of a recent development. A hand-held, used in contrast with steady camera can really help tell the story in that way. It also occured to The Shat to use coloured filters on different planets, rather than actually trying to get fancy with the photography, which seemed weak. I also did not care for his taste in costuming in STAR TREK V. And the wire-work in that movie was entirely too evident, when it should've been cut/cut/cut, like with the Catwoman attack. Shatner does not know how to build up tension in a scene, either. The stunts were not at all inspired. He's just not a good filmmaker.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Much as I love Shatner, I have to go with Nimoy here. As others have stated, there's a lot more to directing a film than just shot composition. Yeah, Shatner had a more energetic visual style, but there are other things...

Nimoy got better performances from his actors (including himself), had had a better story sense, kept his films on schedule and on budget, knew who to call for his special effects and had a preference for realistic character humor that Trek was known for.

Shatner had a creative visual bent and kept his film moving, but otherwise, he pretty much failed at everything else. He got overwrought and over dramatic performances out of all of the supporting gang, blew through the budget too quickly, leaving nothing for the grand finale, hired the wrong people for his effects, gave the Gang of Four humiliating gags and included far too many corny gags. Not to mention that he provided the basic story that nobody had the balls to shoot down in its embryonic stages.

 

[Trimm]

To be fair to Shatner, his visual style is one of the only things that keeps TFF watchable. Nimoy does well with the location filming in TVH, and with the action scenes in TSFS, but nearly all of the shipboard scenes in his films are very visually dull.

 

[Maurice]

As I've said before, it's very hard to judge some aspects of a director on the basis of one or two films. A lot of what people are citing as attributes of the directors could actually have more to do with who the cinematographers and editors were.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I have to go with Shatner here.

The Search for Spock, as others have said, looks like a television episode. Nimoy's camera work is very static and, frankly, dull. The Voyage Home benefits from the location work, but the camera work still lacks energy.

The Final Frontier, by contrast, has a much more cinematic look to it, and Shatner's camera work creativity.

I'd say the same thing about David Carson and Stuart Baird in comparison to Jonathan Frakes on the TNG films; Carson and Baird both shot films that look cinematic in comparison to Frakes' films which look like television and aren't visually impressive. I would've liked to see Levar Burton direct a TNG film; based on his Voyager work I think he'd have turned in a very cinematic, kinetic film.

 

[BillJ]

I would've liked to see Levar Burton direct a TNG film; based on his Voyager work I think he'd have turned in a very cinematic, kinetic film.

I wouldn't be opposed to Roxann Dawson getting a shot.

 

[Ginger]

I am echoing what has already been said, but I vote Shatner. Nimmoy's films benefit from better scripts and stories, and it is clear from other sources that he is the kind of guy that is dependable and can get the job done on time etc. but, the cinematography of TFF is simply better than the previous two films.

Shatner apparently wanted to make a big epic film and went for it, wheras Nimmoy somehow made films that felt like they were very 'by the numbers'. The performers did their jobs well, but the films are more like TV show in the way they are shot. I think, given a better script and a stronger hand on his shoulder from a producer, TFF would have been a much better film, and is certainly a good debut effort.

Still, I do like all three of these films, and don't let arguments like this spoil my enjoyment. I just would have liked to have seen a TFF like what was originally intended.