One thing I've learned about writers in Hollywood from years of watching movies and paying close attention to who wrote and directed each is that sometimes you just need to judge the writer's work one project at a time. Yes, there are people who are just hacks that stink up pretty much any project they're attached to, but much of the time, it really depends on the individual project...some people are just better suited to some projects than others.
Plus you have to consider x-factors like studio interference, and when working with a franchise, the basic building blocks the writer(s) can play with that gives an advantage (or disadvantage) over things written from scratch.
For example, consider Akiva Goldsman, who all by himself wrote one of the worst comic book/superhero movies in "Batman & Robin". Here's a guy who clearly didn't research the source material or have the right kind of perspective to understand what is required to make a big screen Batman story work. And yet he wrote an Oscar worthy screenplay for "A Beautiful Mind", working from a book that I'm sure is very good, so he's proven to not be a completely worthless writer and is still prospering in Hollywood despite writing a movie that killed the Batman franchise for 7 years.
Similarly, John Logan wrote 'best picture' winner Gladiator before (apparently due in part to meddling by Patrick Stewart and Brent Spiner) throwing together the wretched "Star Trek: Nemesis".
A recent example of a writer's track record being totally contradicted is "My Life in Ruins", a movie written by Mike Reiss that by all accounts is a completely lame, cliche-riddled disaster of a romantic comedy. And yet it's written by a man who co-wrote some of the most beautifully moving and cleverly funny Simpsons episodes and co-executive produced some of its funniest and most touching early seasons.
In that case, I guess the collaborators
helped a lot. Or maybe he's just as wrong for live action romantic comedy as he's right for animated dramedy. I said something similar about Bryan Singer and his "X2" writers after they followed the triumph of "X2" with the very flawed "Superman Returns".
To use an example that will probably be more applicable to the Star Trek sequel...think about how "Casino Royale" was written by the same two guys who wrote the ridiculous "Die Another Day". The big difference in writing teams between the two movies is that they were assisted by Paul Haggis on "Casino Royale" and you can see what a big difference one writer made.
Again, it probably helped that this was based on a supposedly good book, unlike the completely original creation of the previous Bond movie. I don't think O & K will have a good Star Trek book to work off, but word is they'll be assisted by a writer for "Lost", so hopefully he'll reign in some of their bad tendencies and bring order and subtlety to the writing as Haggis apparently did with "Casino Royale". So fear not, the movie still has a fighting chance of not sucking.
You've got to give M'Sharak time to sit down and have a cup of tea before starting the new forum!
I was just curious, for example, how long this forum was established before the movie debuted. It doesn't seem like they really have anything to talk about yet.
