I am one of those who would have liked to see Frakes direct. Also, I choose to believe that he, as a strong director would have made some...I like your word...modifications.
Stuart Baird
- Thread starter JeffinOakland
- Start date
I am one of those who would have liked to see Frakes direct. Also, I choose to believe that he, as a strong director would have made some...I like your word...modifications.
Insurrection and Nemesis have something in common to their detriment: contractual contribution to the story by Stewart and Spiner. As much as I like them as actors, it can't be coincidence that both films seem to suffer from too much Picard and Data to the exclusion of the ensemble cast as well as who knows what story elements the two contributed. Both movies have protagonists with huge ships that need time to unfold and impress at the end of both films. hmmmm. I don't feel we can blame Baird for everything.
Scary looking aliens that are off-shoots of another race in the movie. Both also end with a weapon opening up to fire.
Neil
And thank goodness for that!
2takesfrakes said:
I'm not so sure he wouldn't have "made a difference".
One of NEM's biggest problems IMHO are that there are a multitude of great character scenes, that got excised on the word of Baird as director. It's entirely possible that Frakes would have had a keener eye for those moments (in particular I'm disappointed that Beverly actually had a few strong character scenes this time around, particularly acute because of her close long-term friendship to Picard, but almost all of them were taken out of the movie). Many of these deleted scenes deliver something closer to the TNG we all love. Sure, it's easy to see why something like Spot adopting Worf as her new owner at the end of the movie was removed, it's not exactly 'plot critical', but it *is* a very TNG moment. That the Picard/Data 'philosophy of aging' scene was excised is something that still baffles me to this day, because that one really does tie into the arc of the movie; and Data's frustrations with B-4's developmental problems (and the real reason he provides the memory uplink) are all made much clearer, for example, in context of the missing Mess Hall scene...
Obviously I don't *know* what Frakes would have done. None of us do. But I've a feeling maybe he'd have presented a movie that is much better balanced between the character moments and the action scenes. Baird just went for the money shots every single time.
Case in point:
Iamnotspock said:
Baird deserves most of the accolades he receives as an editor, which is why the very poor construction of Nemesis is so baffling. I look at a film like US Marshalls, which Baird also directed, and see a fairly bland script shot with competence. Something, somewhere, had to happen in the post production phase of Nemesis. Some studio interference, a last minute power play from Stewart and/or Spiner, something had to happen to dramatically influence the final cut of the film.
Now, even looking at all the deleted material, Nemesis had a ton of problems. Some of Baird's choices are inexplicable. But, I can't help thinking that there's the core of a passable to good Star Trek film in there. I just can't for the life of me figure out how a good writer like Logan, and a guy with the editing bona fides of Baird didn't end up with one in the end.
Now, even looking at all the deleted material, Nemesis had a ton of problems. Some of Baird's choices are inexplicable. But, I can't help thinking that there's the core of a passable to good Star Trek film in there. I just can't for the life of me figure out how a good writer like Logan, and a guy with the editing bona fides of Baird didn't end up with one in the end.
This is my view. I'm not saying Nemesis would ever have been spectacular, but there's enough evidence IMO in those deleted scenes, and even in Logan's script, to point towards a better movie than we got. I honestly think it just got eviscerated in the editing room.
What really baffles me is why it got obliterated in editing. Baird is an Oscar nominated editor of no small stature, and he was at least a competent director on US Marshalls and Executive Decision. Logan is an award winning writer with Oscar nominations to his credit. What the heck happened to Nemesis? I have to think that, odd as it is, there is some piece of the puzzle here that we lack to this day.
What baffles me is how Baird got the job at all. Numerous sources (Sirtis, Frakes, Burton, etc.) complained openly about how arrogant and condescending Baird was and how he refused to watch TNG and freely admitted he knew nothing about ST (He thought Geordi was an alien because of the visor). He also resented having to refer to ST shows and use ST sets. I know at least on other director was offered the job but turned it down because the studio wouldn't let him edit the script. http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Stuart_Baird
I think Brent Spiner has to share some of the blame for involving John Logan in the first place as well as taking a share of the blame for the story.
The lions share belongs to Baird, though, as he had the centre seat.
The lions share belongs to Baird, though, as he had the centre seat.
Baird got the gig because Paramount owed him for coming in to do last-minute rescue edits on Mission: Impossible 2 and Lara Croft: Tomb Raider.
I am one of those who would have liked to see Frakes direct. Also, I choose to believe that he, as a strong director would have made some...I like your word...modifications.
Haha ... I stole "modifications" in this context from Harve Bennett, actually, as he used it in my Search for Spock Bonus Features.
I'm not so sure he wouldn't have "made a difference".
One of NEM's biggest problems IMHO are that there are a multitude of great character scenes, that got excised on the word of Baird as director. It's entirely possible that Frakes would have had a keener eye for those moments (in particular I'm disappointed that Beverly actually had a few strong character scenes this time around, particularly acute because of her close long-term friendship to Picard, but almost all of them were taken out of the movie). Many of these deleted scenes deliver something closer to the TNG we all love. Sure, it's easy to see why something like Spot adopting Worf as her new owner at the end of the movie was removed, it's not exactly 'plot critical', but it *is* a very TNG moment. That the Picard/Data 'philosophy of aging' scene was excised is something that still baffles me to this day, because that one really does tie into the arc of the movie; and Data's frustrations with B-4's developmental problems (and the real reason he provides the memory uplink) are all made much clearer, for example, in context of the missing Mess Hall scene...
Obviously I don't *know* what Frakes would have done. None of us do. But I've a feeling maybe he'd have presented a movie that is much better balanced between the character moments and the action scenes. Baird just went for the money shots every single time.
Valid points. I've watched the deleted Chat Over a Glass of Wine scene and it's hard to tell how it could've played if it were included in the final cut, because it dragged on. It was boring and, in my view, should've been cut, as it was presented in the Bonus Features. If it had been trimmed a bit (maybe even a lot) and the coverage was broken up, like, cut/cut/cut ... it might've played out, better.
Frakes would've definitely taken more interest in a scene like that, though, you're right. It has its charm and it's in keeping with the theme of the movie, but it already had that incredibly long chat with Picard & Shinzon. If Tom Hardy weren't so eloquent, all of that exposition would've been very hard to sit through, as it was. The last thing this movie needed was another leisurely fireside chat with Picard about nothing overly useful. Having said all of that, it's clear to me now, from what you gents brought up that Frakes probably would've made somewhat more of an impact on this movie than I suspected, at first, using the same, exact script.
I am one of those who would have liked to see Frakes direct. Also, I choose to believe that he, as a strong director would have made some...I like your word...modifications.
I know this is a controversial opinion, but I don't find Frakes to be a particularly strong director. I think he's better than Nimoy, and I think Nimoy is the worst of the Star Trek film directors. My issue with both Nimoy and Frakes is that I find their direction very static and not especially cinematic.
I'm not so sure he wouldn't have "made a difference".
One of NEM's biggest problems IMHO are that there are a multitude of great character scenes, that got excised on the word of Baird as director. It's entirely possible that Frakes would have had a keener eye for those moments (in particular I'm disappointed that Beverly actually had a few strong character scenes this time around, particularly acute because of her close long-term friendship to Picard, but almost all of them were taken out of the movie). Many of these deleted scenes deliver something closer to the TNG we all love. Sure, it's easy to see why something like Spot adopting Worf as her new owner at the end of the movie was removed, it's not exactly 'plot critical', but it *is* a very TNG moment. That the Picard/Data 'philosophy of aging' scene was excised is something that still baffles me to this day, because that one really does tie into the arc of the movie; and Data's frustrations with B-4's developmental problems (and the real reason he provides the memory uplink) are all made much clearer, for example, in context of the missing Mess Hall scene...
Obviously I don't *know* what Frakes would have done. None of us do. But I've a feeling maybe he'd have presented a movie that is much better balanced between the character moments and the action scenes. Baird just went for the money shots every single time.
Valid points. I've watched the deleted Chat Over a Glass of Wine scene and it's hard to tell how it could've played if it were included in the final cut, because it dragged on. It was boring and, in my view, should've been cut, as it was presented in the Bonus Features. If it had been trimmed a bit (maybe even a lot) and the coverage was broken up, like, cut/cut/cut ... it might've played out, better.
Frakes would've definitely taken more interest in a scene like that, though, you're right. It has its charm and it's in keeping with the theme of the movie, but it already had that incredibly long chat with Picard & Shinzon. If Tom Hardy weren't so eloquent, all of that exposition would've been very hard to sit through, as it was. The last thing this movie needed was another leisurely fireside chat with Picard about nothing overly useful. Having said all of that, it's clear to me now, from what you gents brought up that Frakes probably would've made somewhat more of an impact on this movie than I suspected, at first, using the same, exact script.
If nothing else, I believe Frakes, as both an actor and as somebody with an intimate and unique knowledge of these characters from having worked with them for so long, would have made editing choices in terms of those 'character bits' that would've resulted in a different movie to the one we got. Adding certain scenes (like, for example, the whole "save the last dance for me" thread between Beverly and Jean-Luc) would have given a completely different emphasis to certain sections of the movie, and I like to believe that Frakes would've been more in touch with that than Baird; who by his own admission cared little for these characters, nor the Star Trek universe.
That said, Paramount deliberately kept Frakes away from the director's chair after Insurrection. I believe that to been a mistake, and somewhat unfair, but at the time they felt, maybe not entirely unjustifiably, that a fresh pair of eyes was needed...
Aye, from what I remember of the deleted scenes, they were self-evidently removed because they were dull as balls, with flat writing and flat performances that would have had non-fan audiences ripping up their seats in boredom. The studio probably figured they had a dud on their hands, and aimed to cut their losses by maximizing the popcorn action movie quotient. A more enthusiastic filmmaker could probably have made an extended cut for the fans, as Peter Jackson does, but the fact that Baird didn't do that doesn't mean general audiences should have been subjected to that stuff.
As for Baird's attitude, well, I'm hardly in a position to judge that.
As for Baird's attitude, well, I'm hardly in a position to judge that.
I'm not by any means saying they should have ditched all the action stuff for all the character stuff. The movie itself is skewed way towards action, and the deleted scenes are skewed way towards talkie exposition. Somewhere out there, we could have seen a movie which is a medium between the two extremes. It's clear from the deleted scenes that the picture which ended up on our theater screens didn't even try for that approach, they just lopped out all the character scenes and left all the action movie stuff in.
Here's your first problem: John Logan is not a good writer. In fact, he's generally stumbled ass-backwards into his success. Let's look at his filmography:
Bats and Tornado: Really, really bad.
RKO 281: Cribbed so heavily from The Battle Over Citizen Kane that they had to give a writing credit to the producer / writer of that documentary.
Gladiator: Draft was so bad that it was rewritten top-to-bottom by Bill Nicholson; Logan's only remaining contributions are some of Commodus' dialogue and some structure of the battle scenes.
Any Given Sunday: Rewritten by Oliver Stone.
The Time Machine: Really, really bad.
Sinbad: Really, really (sin)bad.
The Last Samurai: Rewritten by Zwick.
The Aviator: Rewritten top-to-bottom by Michael Mann as a favor to Scorsese.
Sweeney Todd: Adapted Sondheim nearly word-for-word, not much effort there.
Rango: Was extensively rewritten by Verbinski and Byrkit.
Coriolanus: Adapted Shakespeare pretty closely with modern trappings.
Hugo: More memorable for its visuals than its script.
Skyfall: A misogynistic mess of a script.
Long story short, Logan has gotten a lot of credit for work that really isn't his.
Baird did last-minute emergency edit jobs to salvage both Tomb Raider and Mission: Impossible II (the latter of which had a cut running more than three hours and was unwatchable). Both wound up making a bucketload of money, and Paramount promised Baird a "high-profile" directing job as a way of saying thank you. That job wound up being Nemesis.
Well, if Logan got screen credit he obviously did enough work that the WGA felt attribution was merited, since there is a cap on how many writers can be credited. I'm not defending his writing, but maybe he's considered a solid enough early-draft writer to get a story bashed out and then replaced by writers who can work from that and improve it.
Or not.
Or not.
Even if Logan isn't what his resume is, Baird by all accounts is when it comes to editing. So the lingering question remains; how did a guy who was an Academy Award nominated editor with two reasonably big budget directorial credits under his belt put together the disjointed film that Nemesis turned out to be?
They kept the character scenes that were pertinent to the story, the ones with B4 and Shinzon. Trouble is, the story was too stupid to invest in. The Romulus dinner and ready-room confrontation are well-directed, and well-acted, but why was Shinz nice and chatty to Picard if he absolutely needed to bleed him dry?
I've long wondered what all that cut stuff was, as the movie feels perfectly complete as is.
