Edmund Kattak wrote:Also, I've been told by several people now to see it in IMAX. I have several IMAX theaters to choose from, so I might be tempted to go on Saturday.
The 10,000 watts of sound might not help the score, but the larger screen may bring out more of the details.
I've literally digested things for a week and with the glow having warn off and me really thinking things through as objectively as I can...I agree with you.DavidBanner wrote:I don't know that I'm a naysayer, but I can't quite jump on the bandwagon of this one. It's not an awful movie, or even a bad one. But for me, it wasn't a very good one either.
As a whole, I can tell this thing came from the people that do Lost.
On a simple level of writing and directing, I simply had some issues that the film couldn't answer. The plot simply didn't make sense when taken as a whole. How does Kirk get promoted that quickly?
No idea.How is it that Scotty suddenly becomes the ship's engineer under these circumstances?
This didn't bother me that much.What is Bones doing on the bridge for so much of the time? (Granted, he popped up a bunch of times during the features, but there were pretty good explanations for it. During the original series, he tended to visit the bridge and then go back to work in the sickbay.)
Agreed.
On a directing level, I was unable to follow several of the major action sequences and combat scenes, simply because of the shaking camera and the quick cutting.
Agreed again.I don't mind fast cutting or energetic camera work, but I still need to know where everyone is relative to each other. The bar fight in particular was a blur for me. I'm sure there are other people who enjoyed this style, but I had real problems with it. With all due respect, J.J. Abrams is a fine TV director but not much of a feature filmmaker.
Agreed with all of this as well.His pilot for LOST is one of the finest TV movies I've ever seen, and I look forward to what I hope will be his return to LOST for its finale. But the MI:3 movie and now this one simply don't stand out for me as strong directorial pieces. I will give him props for part of one sequence, however - the beginning of the atmospheric skydive sequence where you only hear Kirk breathing is a nice piece. Unfortunately, we wind up back in the middle of yet another fight with the fast cutting and the shaky cam.
I also enjoyed the performance of Bruce Greenwood as Captain Pike, and I truly hope we'll see him in the sequel. He grounded at least two key scenes here.
I'm a fan of the music of Michael Giacchino, as heard on LOST. Here, it really felt out of place. And after the post-barfight scene with Kirk and Pike, the musical cue felt like a LOST cue superimposed into the film.
I think they would be wise to tap into some of these people you name because they need to get some heart and warmth into this thing and start tapping into really what made Trek what it is, regardless of whether this is "new blood" or a "different timeline" or not.
I'll be curious to see what they come up with in terms of a second movie.
I would be happy to see if they could get James Horner back to do the scoring, and I'd be happy if they could include contributions by some classic Trek folk like David Gerrold, D.C. Fontana or even Nicholas Meyer. Heck, if he's up for it, I'd be curious what things would look like with Nimoy involved in a producer capacity. (I doubt at his age he wants to direct a feature film again, but you never know.)
And I'll be curious to see what new adventures they come up with for this alternate Enterprise. I hope they don't simply replay earlier adventures from the original series. I'm more interested in how this crew reacts to things we haven't seen yet.
DavidBanner wrote:Eric, that was a very thoughtful post, and a very interesting read.
That's been kind of building up in me since I saw the movie. I think you can see that this all means something to me. I wish it were just that. This is epic tragedy to the nth degree. It's downright unfathomable and especially for a truly legendary character to have to endure for the rest of his life in his clear twilight. This beloved icon of a character is left saddled with an impossible, dreadful burden.
I pretty much agree with your conclusions. I hadn't thought about how badly Spock does in this film, but yes, he has a lot of egg on his face by the time this is done.
Agreed and I think it was kind of a reach to even get Nimoy to work in this but they did...I guess.It was also shocking to me to realize that it's actually been 18 years since Nimoy played the character before. (Both Nimoy and Shatner are almost 80 now...) Shatner would have been completely out of place here, and I can't see any reason to use him or any of the other cast from the other series in these films.
I've read and heard a lot of these stories and while I was never big on the Academy movie idea...I daresay Bennet knows more about what "real Star Trek" is than a lot of other people out there.
I'll add that the basic idea of this film was proposed twice before.
Back in 1989, Harve Bennett wrote a "Starfleet Academy" movie that would have used Shatner and Nimoy in a framing sequence built around a flashback to their academy days, which would also somehow include the other characters. The idea was rejected, partly because it was obviously an attempt by Bennett to completely usurp the original cast by recreating it himself, and because the heads of Paramount wanted to just have an original cast film. (The sad part of this is that Bennett really did a lot of good work in the 10 years he produced the Trek movies, from II thru V, but he never became part of the "family". Some of this is due to Roddenberry's open hostilitiy to him, some of this is due to his workstyle - which could be pretty hardnosed, some of this is due to his fallout with Nimoy. But it's still unfortunate - and he has commented on this, saying that it was a real shock to realize that after 10 years of his life, he was considered to have just been "jobbed in.")
This would be cool. I'd have no problems with this.
Even before Bennett's failed Academy movie, Greg Strangis wrote up a treatment for Star Trek: TNG that would have been at least partly based out of Starfleet Academy, albeit not with the original characters.
Yup, Gerrold is definitely another casualty of sorts. His biggest claim to fame arguably is the TOS episode Trouble with Tribbles, an absolute gem.Of course, once Roddenberry found out about it, the whole thing was toast - and Roddenberry was able to pull together a lot of his original series staff to create the TNG we came to know and appreciate. (As a sidenote, David Gerrold has really never been appreciated for the work he did to create TNG and make it workable. He actually claimed a co-creator credit via the WGA, but settled the claim rather than unseat Roddenberry. Based on the work he did on the show, and the various concepts from his book THE WORLD OF STAR TREK that wound up in the series, I think he had a legitimate claim and was treated pretty shabbily by Roddenberry. One of my favorite scenes in the pilot episode of TNG was written by him as an audition piece for actors playing Picard and Riker - the discussion of why Riker wouldn't let another Captain go down to a dangerous planet.)
McIntyre's novelizations take a few liberties that are mostly fun but really a ton of nice detail in them. I've read those books a sinful number of times.
In watching the original series, the basic impression I get of the setup is that we're looking at a group of professional military officers running the ship. Kirk in the series was a younger captain at 36, but still one who had served on other ships as a lower officer before getting a ship of his own. Spock was a capable officer who didn't seek command but had served under two captains of the Enterprise. (It seems clear in the original series that Kirk and Spock met when Kirk took over command from Pike, with Spock getting promoted to First Officer in addition to the Science Officer duties he already held.) Scotty and McCoy were older officers who had been around the service for a bit before Kirk or Spock got in the service. (This was enhanced by having those characters played by slightly older character actors with more mileage - both Doohan and Kelly were ten years older than Shatner and Nimoy.
Roddenberry played with the casting of the doctor over two pilots and then the first episode, saying that he wanted the doctor older than his captain, but not SO MUCH older that he couldn't share the adventures - if you look at the original two doctors, they were considerably older.) Sulu and Uhura were young lieutenants in the service likely on their second assignments each to ship duty. Timeline-wise, they would have come out of the academy after Kirk and Spock had already gone through a couple of tours of duty - which is why they are two steps in rank lower down the food chain. Chekov was an ensign nearly fresh out of the academy, which accounts for a lot of the rookie mistakes his character would regularly make.
Looking at the movies, the first two films make the most sense in terms of the ranks and experience of Kirk and his officers. We see in the first film that it's only 2 1/2 years after the end of the original mission (although the actors look MUCH older than that!), so it's not unreasonable to see Scotty supervising the refit, and Lt Cmdrs Sulu and Uhura still at their post, along with Lt. Chekov. Even the second film does okay with this, with Spock promoted to Captain (albeit of a training vessel), Sulu promoted to Captain but agreeing to go on the Enterprise one last time, Uhura promoted to Commander and Chekov promoted to Commander and made the First Officer of the Reliant. (There's an interesting sidenote in Vonda N. McIntyre's novelization of Trek II, in that she has the opening simulation not only staffed by the usual Enterprise officers, but also by trainees that the officers are supervising at their stations.)
Unless it goes along with Kirk getting demoted from Admiral to Captain. That's the kind of detail that McIntyre covers in her book. There's a great scene in there where Sulu gets into an argument with Kirk about how unfair it is that they're still even on trial after saving the Earth and how he knows it basically cost him his command of the Excelsior.
Once you get to the end of Trek IV, the realism idea starts to go out the window - there's no reason for all these senior officers to happily go back to low-level positions on the Enterprise again.
That was in the novelization for Trek VI by JM Dillard, another excellent author. I think that opening really makes a lot of sense. If they'd had the budget there was also a scene where Kirk and Carol Marcus were basically together and some other neat continuities like that.Trek V makes no sense in terms of what the crew is doing on the ship at this point. You might see Kirk and Spock still on the bridge, but, really, they'd be telling the other officers still hanging on to their consoles to "Get a life!" Trek VI at least addresses this by making Sulu the Excelsior's captain, and by showing that the other officers are about to retire anyway. (I always liked the idea announced for an introduction to the film, showing the characters bored in retirement and therefore happy to come back for one last run around the block, but this couldn't happen due to the really tight budget constraints.)
Yes. The sequel to this thing has a LOT riding on it. I don't think that point can be overstated. They've won over lots of new fans and probably the majority of the core Trek base although again I'm noticing how now some time has gone by, people are digesting this thing, letting it settle, and now they're reckoning with it both good and bad and it isn't just "fanboys" voicing some issues anymore.
This new crew in the film is exactly what Eric has said they are: It's a new group of characters who happen to have the same names as the people we've gotten to know over the years. It's a world where Uhura outranks Kirk, when you think about it. A world where Scotty doesn't even seem to be in Starfleet until he's discovered by Kirk. A world where Spock can simply order people to eject Kirk from the ship (rather than confining him to quarters or the brig) and the crew HAPPILY SHOVES KIRK OUT THE AIRLOCK! It's a world where McCoy gets his nickname not because of the old "Sawbones" idea that Roddenberry loved, but because his divorce has left him with "nothing but my bones". (????) On the other hand, the presence of Chekov makes sense, in that there seems to be so much of a crisis that a 17-year old gets pressed into service. And it will be nice in sequels to see Bruce Greenwood as Admiral Pike giving the guys their orders.
But now that they're done with the origin story, please let us have a coherent storyline and some coherent direction.
There's a lot that happened in Trek directly or indirectly that had to due with that planet. For me personally, it's huge.
BTW the destruction of Vulcan changes some elements of the series, but not that much.
Amanda was important in a lot of ways that we never directly saw but it was more implied or mentioned in dialogue across TOS and TNG.Sarek is still around as the ambassador, and Spock points out that there will be a new homeworld for what remains of the Vulcan people. The major change would appear to be that there's no more Amanda.
Indeed, however I can turn that around on you and say that the Romulus we always knew is gone and the loss of Vulcan is just tremendous any way you cut it although this was a "different" Vulcan than the one we always knew.The destruction of Romulus, however, HAS NOT HAPPENED YET in this alternate timeline and in fact MAY NOT HAPPEN due to the events of the film. So there would still be Romulans aplenty in this new series of films...
Yeah, the professionalism is virtually non existent in this new movie. It's really implausible how loose and care free the lag of regs and protocol are.Eric Paddon wrote:Truthfully, this notion of everyone being just about the same age coming together all at once is one reason why I'm not keen on seeing it, because just from a distance I keep getting the feeling that the core group of Enterprise regulars has been reduced to a glorified Scooby-Doo gang, and that the sense of military professionalism that David talks about that was a key part of the original series (and I agree the movies started going backwards on this starting with IV with its ending that put everyone back aboard an identical looking old-Enterprise) and which evidently is not here.
Casino Royale was good. Give it one shot. Quantum was something you could probably take a pass on, though.
I have already had the spoilers revealed to me regarding what's going on and what happens, and I think ultimately I will pass on this as I've done on just about all current movies now (just as the rebooting of the Bond franchise has made me bail out on them too).
I'm basically like you. My home theater and Blu-Ray and other high def sources have forever spoiled me. This Trek film was the first time I'd bothered to return to a theater since the third LOTR film. I'd probably go to the theater more if it were of better quality than what I have available to me.DavidBanner wrote:
For me, I rarely go to the cinema anymore. I have a home theater setup that works just fine for me, and when I watch a movie, I don't have to be subjected to 30 minutes of commercials for TV shows (HUH????) while sitting in the theater. If I ever get to the position in my life where I can open my own movie theater, I guarantee that the only ads anyone would see would be a few previews for upcoming films. In seeing the Trek movie, I spent over 20 minutes before the film deleting phone messages and reading, just to avoid the barrage of advertising screaming from the screen. (Also, the screen itself was damaged and I could see large rips whenever the image became halfway bright...)
It's ok but I don't think it lived up to Casino Royale. It suffers from a lot of the typical "middle movie of a trilogy" issues.DavidBanner wrote:Re Bond - I actually like Quantum of Solace, but I easily understand why a lot of people were not happy with it. For me, it established the Quantum group as a modern SPECTRE, and laid the foundation for what should be an interesting series of films with Daniel Craig - hopefully ones in which he doesn't kill EVERY SINGLE LEAD HE HAS.
Almost deliberate cruelty. Certainly stupidity and laziness on the writing end at the very least right on through to the bitter end with a terrible, quick, cheap death for Data.
Re Trek -
I agree that Spock deserved better than that end. On the other hand, Kirk deserved better than the end he got in Generations. The later films have really been unkind to the older generation...
Agreed. And to be fair...Berman did some good things, too and he deserves credit for those things but once the checks and balances were gone and the vision got lost...I'd say by about the 5th season of TNG you can really start seeing the introduction of some ideas and executions thereof that were just starting to get a little off. The rest was history indeed. A very slow, Alzheimer's like decline and ultimately death of Trek at the foot of that horrible Nemesis movie that I can't believe ever got made.
As far as Rick Berman goes, it should be noted that Gene Roddenberry had very little to do with TNG after about 2/3 of the first season. Susan Sackett's book about her relationship with him, along with Joel Engel's attack book on him (and David Alexander's loving portrait of him) all basically say that he retreated after the majority of the first season was finished. You can see the changeover in the episodes, as of the ep "Coming of Age". Once he (and his attorney) left the leadership position, TNG took another year or so to stabilize, although this was complicated by the 1988 WGA Strike, which effectively crippled the show going into the 2nd season. I would argue that TNG was really strong at the end of the 1st season, and then took months to recover from the strike with a bunch of mediocre episodes sprinkled with better ones, until they got good again about 2/3 through the 2nd season. And the 3rd season saw the departure of Maurice Hurley and the ascension of both Berman and Michael Piller - and the rest is history. (You can see the changes that Berman made right off the bat in the 3rd season, with the change in the costumes, sets, and the look of the photography)
Goldsmith uniquely made a career at times of making music that was WAY better than the actual source material he was scoring. I don't know how he did it.And now Abrams is doing the same thing and going much further than Bennet ever did.
Harve Bennett certainly understood Star Trek, but he also made the mistake of repeatedly trying to put his own stamp on the whole thing.
Right. This is pretty neat. You and I have both read all of these Trek memoir books and such and you with your background obviously know a lot more than I do but I know exactly what you're talking about.Richard Arnold points out in Shatner's interview "memories" books that Bennett's destruction of the Enterprise was partly to push his new Excelsior and partly because Bennett and Roddenberry saw the ships in a different way. Roddenberry came from the age of the big bomber planes where you called the plane "she", etc. Bennett was of the mind that if you crashed your helicopter, you went and got another one without paying it another thought. Of course, when he blew up the Enterprise, he did take the obligatory moment - but even the original series saw Kirk ready to push the button on fairly small provocation from Bele.
I need to read this Alexander book.
Bennett's attempt to the Academy movie (which I believe he intended to direct himself) alienated him from the Paramount leadership at that time, which felt he had overreached and told him to pack his things. His producing style was pretty autocratic - he told the director and the crew what to do and they did it - and eventually it led to bad feelings from Nimoy and others who resisted Bennett's control. Roddenberry of course disliked Bennett going back to his days on a pilot called "The Long Hunt of April Savage" in the 60s, and Alexander's book clearly shows Roddenberry's contempt for the man. When Trek V went as badly as it did, everyone had their excuse to drop him. When Bennett tried to push his Academy idea, he unwittingly walked the plank and jumped off.
Bennett has told the story of meeting Charlie Bludhorn many times, as well as the story of Bludhorn calling him from his jet after seeing Trek II. I believe his story is pretty accurate. I'm fairly sure that Bludhorn took the opportunity to both spear Michael Eisner with the bit about "See, by you, bald is sexy!", and then to ask Bennett if he could make a movie for "less than forty-five CENSORED million dollars?!!!!"
I almost mentioned this in my last post. I think all told I'm going to say that Star Trek II will never be rivaled or beaten as the overall, all around best Star Trek film when you get down to what Star Trek is, what it's about, how to make it work, the characters...you name it.
Bennett made it possible for the movies to recover from TMP and held everything together, but I agree that Nicholas Meyer is the one who really got Trek II to fly. It's really a well-made film, enough so that some jaded Los Angeles critics referred to the initial Enterprise/Reliant encounter as a classic textbook example of how to effectively build suspense and pay it off.
Yup, you pretty much read my mind there. Generations was rushed, came too fast, and it showed. All Good Things would have made for a better movie if they'd fleshed it out and fixed up a few of the plotholes.DavidBanner wrote:
I agree that Berman and company should have let it go long before ENTERPRISE. I personally think they could have called it after that last season of TNG, which was mostly filled with some really, really awful episodes. (I can count on one hand the decent eps in that last season, and I don't think its Emmy nomination absolves it - that nomination was actually for the whole series, since it had been ignored for years.) The best thing they could have done at that point would have been to NOT make GENERATIONS. A few years off to build up demand would have been a good idea. Doing a movie with that cast right after the series ended really felt like they were trying to cash in as quick as they could. I also think they needed to bring back the really good writers, like Gerrold and Fontana, who really understood the material. In retrospect, it would have worked to have turned the show over to Ron Moore, but Berman couldn't stand him. (And in honesty, he admits today that he was out of gas during that 7th season of TNG). I agree that a bunch of eps in the 5th season really dragged (too many "Child of the Week/Ship in Danger" stories to the point that you could predict the formula by the first commercial), and that the 6th season had a lot of clunkers in the first part of the year. But the 6th season did have several of my favorite eps, particularly "Chain of Command", "Ship in a Bottle" and "Frame of Mind".
I've listend to it on disc and it does have its moments but the drop off by Goldsmith's standards for a Star Trek film is stiking and disturbing to me.
I actually liked Goldsmith's score for NEMESIS. It actually felt like one of the original series scores - particularly the scene where they encounter Shinzon's vessel for the first time.
Maybe that's the case but all I know the end result looked, felt like, and basically had the effect of killing Trek and the tone and approach on that movie and everything about it really made suspect that it was deliberate even though you may be right and it wasn't.
I don't think NEMESIS was intended to kill off the golden goose. They were clearly trying to find some new blood, given how many hundreds of hours of episodes they had already done between four series at that point. Bringing in John Logan and Stuart Baird was initially thought to be a bold move toward shaking things up, particularly since INSURRECTION was properly received as a feature-length episode of TNG.
For a time I think there was just oversaturation of Trek. TNG was still going on and then DS9 starts up and overlaps early with the 6th season. Then they do that overlap and roll off again with Voyager.
I agree that there is definitely more interest in TREK now due to the new film, and also due to the fact that there hasn't been anything new with TREK since ENTERPRISE bit the dust four years ago. (And I don't count the remastering of the original series as a new development)
I easily take your word for it.
My sourcing for my thoughts here come from a variety of places. I grew up watching the original series and then the movies. My father was friends and worked with Bob Justman on other TV shows. (Justman signed my copy of his book with Solow and showed me some charts he had made about the production of the original series. He had kept track of the dates each ep was outlined, written, filmed, posted and aired, with notes about whether things were on time or late, whether things were on budget or over, and why. I remember that the ep "What Are Little Girls Made Of?" went over due to not having a completed script when they started filming - apparently Roddenberry had to completely rebuild Robert Bloch's script...) I also worked for two months on the first season of VOYAGER in the spring of 1995, and then worked next door to VOYAGER and DS9 for a year from 1996 to 1997. (When they did the Tribbles episode of DS9, it went on FOREVER. You could tell because of the costumes and the beehive hairstyles for the women)
I'm happy to say I've read a good chunk of these but there are a few I've missed. It's also been years since I've read some of these so some retreading for me certainly would not be a waste.
But beyond that, I have also read many books about what went on in the making of these shows, and I recommend pretty much all of them if you want a complete picture from everyone's perspective:
The first two, and the most crucial are, of course:
The Making of Star Trek - Stephen Whitfield's book, written during the making of the original series with inset comments by Roddenberry
Inside Star Trek: The Real Story - Herb Solow and Bob Justman's book about what really went on during the production of the pilot episodes and the three years of the original series. Justman continues the story to acknowledge the problems that happened during TNG and the end of Roddenberry's life.
For some good material about the nuts and bolts of specific episodes, etc, I recommend:
The Trouble With Tribbles - David Gerrold's account of the writing and production of his script.
The City on the Edge of Forever - Harlan Ellison's lengthy account (rant) about the varous untrue things that have been said about him and the episode. (Of course, I don't believe he acknowledges that this script came in REALLY late, and even his protests about not being THAT far overbudget fall flat. All accounts show that his episode came in 66K over budget, which was a HUGE amount in 1966, and that was just to do a stripped down version of the original idea he'd presented.) That said, Ellison has a valid point that Roddenberry repeatedly tried to rewrite this history, and that there have been a lot of yahoos saying things about him who weren't there. And reading Ellison's original script is a revelation.
The World of Star Trek - David Gerrold's dissection of the original series and his many suggestions for improvement if another series were to be done. The key here is that his ideas form the backbone of what would become TNG, and I believe Gerrold thought he was going to be the head writer or "showrunner" when Roddenberry brought him in to write the TNG "bible" and used all his suggestions. When Roddenberry turned on him, Gerrold understandably went ballistic.
Captain's Logs - Edward Gross and Mark Altman's compilation of various articles and episode guides written about Trek include many direct quotes from the writers and directors who worked on the episodes, including some candid statements by Joe Pevney, Fred Frieberger, David Gerrold, Ralph Senensky and others. Gross and Altman's opinions about the episodes aside, these quotes help fill in some blanks and clarify things that even Justman and Solow don't address. (One example is that Justman insists that Bill Shatner didn't have any creative input in what was done on the show - that he just performed the script handed to him. And it's true that Shatner didn't write or direct any episodes. But Pevney describes regular "table rehearsals" on the set where Shatner and Nimoy would go through the scenes being filmed and insist on changes, to the point that Pevney refused to come back any more. Pevney described the situation as intolerable for a director trying to tell a story, when the leads of the show are essentially writing and directing the scene for you...) This compilation is also one of the first to acknowledge the extremely troubled production history of the first Trek film. The interview material with Hal Livingston is particuarly devastating.
For some interesting perspectives on the making of the series and the movies, I would of course recommend:
My Star Trek Memories, and My Star Trek Movie Memories - Shatner's ghostwritten memoirs (really done by Chris Kreski) include a lot of candid interview material with many of the creative people involved. It sounds very much like Shatner brought a tape recorder with him when talking to Justman, to Nimoy, to Bennett, to Meyer, etc.. If you just read the interview segments, you'll get a really vivid picture of what was happening, and if you bounce that off the Justman/Solow book, and the interviews in the Gross/Altman compilation, things get a lot clearer. To his credit, Shatner acknowledges that James Doohan refused to speak to him, and that Nichelle Nichols took him to task for his behavior during the series. He even includes a devastating quote from Bennett about him, where Bennett frankly tells him that he seems to always want to be the center, the quarterback, the wide receiver, and the head of the cheerleading squad in every scene. (It's interesting to note how things have now broken down again between Shatner and Takei...)
I Am Not Spock and I Am Spock - Leonard Nimoy provides his own perspective, without going through the prism of Shatner's interviews. His books are the only place where I found the admission that both Nimoy and Shatner campaigned to direct episodes of the original series (which of course was firmly denied). Of course, Nimoy skates around the fact that he did in fact insist on Spock being killed in the second film as a pre-requisite for his participation. Nimoy will tell you that he didn't do that, that he just felt it was an attractive offer by Bennett. But if you read these accounts carefully (and read Bennett's interview extracts), you'll see that Nimoy made clear he would not return for another Trek movie until he was told the character would be ended. On the other hand, Nimoy's account shows that his work on "A Woman Called Golda", part of his deal for agreeing to do Trek II, was not a picnic, since the director openly resented his being cast in the film by Bennett over the director's head.
Chekov's Enterprise - Walter Koenig's account of the making of the first Trek film is interesting, in that it's the only real fly-on-the-wall perspective we have of that production, from the time it was happening. If anything, it shows that Koenig was in the dark about most of what was happening, and was just happy to be there. But there's some good stuff in there about hijinks on the bridge, and the absolutely interminable wormhole scene.
For perspective on Gene Roddenberry, I strongly recommend all three of the following:
Creator - David Alexander's loving portrait of Roddenberry, which glosses over a lot of the difficult areas, but does include many Roddenberry letters and memos from the time of the series and the movies. And it gives Roddenberry's side of the dispute with Bennett (along with some fairly unhappy comments about the behavior of Nimoy and Shatner in the films), which presents Roddenberry as "choosing" to take the consultant title rather than produce any more. It acknowledges the difficulties of the first year of TNG, but says that Roddenberry was only trying to defend himself, etc.
Gene Roddenberry: The Myth and the Man Behind Star Trek - Joel Engel's no-holds-barred machete attack on Roddenberry goes even father than Engel's flaying of Rod Serling in an earlier book. Engel's portrait is of a truly unpleasant man who did some good things and tried to take credit for all the good things everyone else did. Engel includes some really nasty material about Roddenberry's behavior during the making of the original series, the films, and TNG. Almost every quote used in the book is designed to deflate any complimentary thoughts one might have about Roddenberry, and if that isn't enough, Engel than editorializes in the same mode. On the other hand, if you take this book and stand it up against Alexander's book, you get a much fuller picture of the man. This book includes some pretty solid medical perspective of what was happening to Roddenberry during his only year on TNG, and includes various tidbits about how production was handled during both series. One surprising admission is that the script for "The Menagerie" (the envelope portion around Roddenberry's original "Cage" pilot ep) was actually written by John D.F. Black before he walked off the show. Roddenberry then did a rewrite on it and claimed sole credit. Black didn't present a case to the WGA, assuming that he would win his arbitration just by presenting his draft and Roddenberry's. Roddenberry won, and Black learned an unfortunate lesson.
Inside Trek - Susan Sackett's account of her affair with Roddenberry over at least fifteen years fills in a lot of blanks, and provides a clear picture of his decline during the 80s until his death. Sackett's portrait of herself and of Majel Barrett is similarly unflattering, but it presents an accurate picture of the making of TNG and the endgame around her final moments there. Her account of her "exit interview" with Rick Berman and her discussions with Michael Piller are quite chilly, and you can tell they are trying to usher her off the lot as fast as they can. Certain details of the making of TNG, like the naming of Deanna Troi after her, or the technical name of Geordi's VISOR are revealed here as coming from Sackett. (Of course, she tries to take credit for the basic idea for Star Trek III, which makes little sense, as it's clear this is what Nimoy and Bennett were planning to do anyway.) Sackett's account also does not include the fact that she received a considerable inheritance from Roddenberry after his death - she portrays that part of the story as though she was totally cut off. Finally, Sackett discusses the 25th Anniversary Star Trek book, for which she wrote the text while Roddenberry was ostensibly supervising it. (In reality, Roddenberry was completely infirm by this point) When the book was literally about to be printed, Nimoy intentionally blocked its production and took over the project himself. Sackett later realized that the published book was in fact using her material and had to pursue Paramount to be paid for her work. Sackett's book makes clear that Roddenberry's involvement with the movies after TMP was minimal (memos that they rarely followed), and that his involvement with TNG was also minimal after the first season, other than to watch episodes and give notes. (and even those notes were minimal, if anything.) Sackett's description of her reaction to an early 4th season episode is particularly illuminating.
When you put all three accounts together, you get a much more complete picture of the man, warts and all.
Yeah, I know about the headache but after a time you do start to get an overall "big picture" of what reality may have been like.
Finally, I would also advise listening to the various commentaries on the Trek films and series and watching the featurettes, albeit with a grain of salt. When you get past the self-congratulation, you get to some really interesting material. In the commentary for TMP, Stephen Collins describes the filming of the wormhole sequence (every shot had to be done four times - in 35mm normal speed, 35mm slow motion, 70mm normal speed and 70mm slow motion) as akin to a really bad root canal. In the featurettes about the making of the series, Nimoy admits that when they made the 2nd pilot, the budget was incredibly low, since they had spent so much money on the first pilot. And there's plenty of other stuff to find in there...
By wading through all this stuff, you eventually wind up with a very interesting picture of the human beings who made these shows. Or you wind up with a headache...
Yup, you pretty much read my mind there. Generations was rushed, came too fast, and it showed. All Good Things would have made for a better movie if they'd fleshed it out and fixed up a few of the plotholes.DavidBanner wrote:
I agree that Berman and company should have let it go long before ENTERPRISE. I personally think they could have called it after that last season of TNG, which was mostly filled with some really, really awful episodes. (I can count on one hand the decent eps in that last season, and I don't think its Emmy nomination absolves it - that nomination was actually for the whole series, since it had been ignored for years.) The best thing they could have done at that point would have been to NOT make GENERATIONS. A few years off to build up demand would have been a good idea. Doing a movie with that cast right after the series ended really felt like they were trying to cash in as quick as they could. I also think they needed to bring back the really good writers, like Gerrold and Fontana, who really understood the material. In retrospect, it would have worked to have turned the show over to Ron Moore, but Berman couldn't stand him. (And in honesty, he admits today that he was out of gas during that 7th season of TNG). I agree that a bunch of eps in the 5th season really dragged (too many "Child of the Week/Ship in Danger" stories to the point that you could predict the formula by the first commercial), and that the 6th season had a lot of clunkers in the first part of the year. But the 6th season did have several of my favorite eps, particularly "Chain of Command", "Ship in a Bottle" and "Frame of Mind".
I've listend to it on disc and it does have its moments but the drop off by Goldsmith's standards for a Star Trek film is stiking and disturbing to me.
I actually liked Goldsmith's score for NEMESIS. It actually felt like one of the original series scores - particularly the scene where they encounter Shinzon's vessel for the first time.
Maybe that's the case but all I know the end result looked, felt like, and basically had the effect of killing Trek and the tone and approach on that movie and everything about it really made suspect that it was deliberate even though you may be right and it wasn't.
I don't think NEMESIS was intended to kill off the golden goose. They were clearly trying to find some new blood, given how many hundreds of hours of episodes they had already done between four series at that point. Bringing in John Logan and Stuart Baird was initially thought to be a bold move toward shaking things up, particularly since INSURRECTION was properly received as a feature-length episode of TNG.
For a time I think there was just oversaturation of Trek. TNG was still going on and then DS9 starts up and overlaps early with the 6th season. Then they do that overlap and roll off again with Voyager.
I agree that there is definitely more interest in TREK now due to the new film, and also due to the fact that there hasn't been anything new with TREK since ENTERPRISE bit the dust four years ago. (And I don't count the remastering of the original series as a new development)
I easily take your word for it.
My sourcing for my thoughts here come from a variety of places. I grew up watching the original series and then the movies. My father was friends and worked with Bob Justman on other TV shows. (Justman signed my copy of his book with Solow and showed me some charts he had made about the production of the original series. He had kept track of the dates each ep was outlined, written, filmed, posted and aired, with notes about whether things were on time or late, whether things were on budget or over, and why. I remember that the ep "What Are Little Girls Made Of?" went over due to not having a completed script when they started filming - apparently Roddenberry had to completely rebuild Robert Bloch's script...) I also worked for two months on the first season of VOYAGER in the spring of 1995, and then worked next door to VOYAGER and DS9 for a year from 1996 to 1997. (When they did the Tribbles episode of DS9, it went on FOREVER. You could tell because of the costumes and the beehive hairstyles for the women)
I'm happy to say I've read a good chunk of these but there are a few I've missed. It's also been years since I've read some of these so some retreading for me certainly would not be a waste.
But beyond that, I have also read many books about what went on in the making of these shows, and I recommend pretty much all of them if you want a complete picture from everyone's perspective:
The first two, and the most crucial are, of course:
The Making of Star Trek - Stephen Whitfield's book, written during the making of the original series with inset comments by Roddenberry
Inside Star Trek: The Real Story - Herb Solow and Bob Justman's book about what really went on during the production of the pilot episodes and the three years of the original series. Justman continues the story to acknowledge the problems that happened during TNG and the end of Roddenberry's life.
For some good material about the nuts and bolts of specific episodes, etc, I recommend:
The Trouble With Tribbles - David Gerrold's account of the writing and production of his script.
The City on the Edge of Forever - Harlan Ellison's lengthy account (rant) about the varous untrue things that have been said about him and the episode. (Of course, I don't believe he acknowledges that this script came in REALLY late, and even his protests about not being THAT far overbudget fall flat. All accounts show that his episode came in 66K over budget, which was a HUGE amount in 1966, and that was just to do a stripped down version of the original idea he'd presented.) That said, Ellison has a valid point that Roddenberry repeatedly tried to rewrite this history, and that there have been a lot of yahoos saying things about him who weren't there. And reading Ellison's original script is a revelation.
The World of Star Trek - David Gerrold's dissection of the original series and his many suggestions for improvement if another series were to be done. The key here is that his ideas form the backbone of what would become TNG, and I believe Gerrold thought he was going to be the head writer or "showrunner" when Roddenberry brought him in to write the TNG "bible" and used all his suggestions. When Roddenberry turned on him, Gerrold understandably went ballistic.
Captain's Logs - Edward Gross and Mark Altman's compilation of various articles and episode guides written about Trek include many direct quotes from the writers and directors who worked on the episodes, including some candid statements by Joe Pevney, Fred Frieberger, David Gerrold, Ralph Senensky and others. Gross and Altman's opinions about the episodes aside, these quotes help fill in some blanks and clarify things that even Justman and Solow don't address. (One example is that Justman insists that Bill Shatner didn't have any creative input in what was done on the show - that he just performed the script handed to him. And it's true that Shatner didn't write or direct any episodes. But Pevney describes regular "table rehearsals" on the set where Shatner and Nimoy would go through the scenes being filmed and insist on changes, to the point that Pevney refused to come back any more. Pevney described the situation as intolerable for a director trying to tell a story, when the leads of the show are essentially writing and directing the scene for you...) This compilation is also one of the first to acknowledge the extremely troubled production history of the first Trek film. The interview material with Hal Livingston is particuarly devastating.
For some interesting perspectives on the making of the series and the movies, I would of course recommend:
My Star Trek Memories, and My Star Trek Movie Memories - Shatner's ghostwritten memoirs (really done by Chris Kreski) include a lot of candid interview material with many of the creative people involved. It sounds very much like Shatner brought a tape recorder with him when talking to Justman, to Nimoy, to Bennett, to Meyer, etc.. If you just read the interview segments, you'll get a really vivid picture of what was happening, and if you bounce that off the Justman/Solow book, and the interviews in the Gross/Altman compilation, things get a lot clearer. To his credit, Shatner acknowledges that James Doohan refused to speak to him, and that Nichelle Nichols took him to task for his behavior during the series. He even includes a devastating quote from Bennett about him, where Bennett frankly tells him that he seems to always want to be the center, the quarterback, the wide receiver, and the head of the cheerleading squad in every scene. (It's interesting to note how things have now broken down again between Shatner and Takei...)
I Am Not Spock and I Am Spock - Leonard Nimoy provides his own perspective, without going through the prism of Shatner's interviews. His books are the only place where I found the admission that both Nimoy and Shatner campaigned to direct episodes of the original series (which of course was firmly denied). Of course, Nimoy skates around the fact that he did in fact insist on Spock being killed in the second film as a pre-requisite for his participation. Nimoy will tell you that he didn't do that, that he just felt it was an attractive offer by Bennett. But if you read these accounts carefully (and read Bennett's interview extracts), you'll see that Nimoy made clear he would not return for another Trek movie until he was told the character would be ended. On the other hand, Nimoy's account shows that his work on "A Woman Called Golda", part of his deal for agreeing to do Trek II, was not a picnic, since the director openly resented his being cast in the film by Bennett over the director's head.
Chekov's Enterprise - Walter Koenig's account of the making of the first Trek film is interesting, in that it's the only real fly-on-the-wall perspective we have of that production, from the time it was happening. If anything, it shows that Koenig was in the dark about most of what was happening, and was just happy to be there. But there's some good stuff in there about hijinks on the bridge, and the absolutely interminable wormhole scene.
For perspective on Gene Roddenberry, I strongly recommend all three of the following:
Creator - David Alexander's loving portrait of Roddenberry, which glosses over a lot of the difficult areas, but does include many Roddenberry letters and memos from the time of the series and the movies. And it gives Roddenberry's side of the dispute with Bennett (along with some fairly unhappy comments about the behavior of Nimoy and Shatner in the films), which presents Roddenberry as "choosing" to take the consultant title rather than produce any more. It acknowledges the difficulties of the first year of TNG, but says that Roddenberry was only trying to defend himself, etc.
Gene Roddenberry: The Myth and the Man Behind Star Trek - Joel Engel's no-holds-barred machete attack on Roddenberry goes even father than Engel's flaying of Rod Serling in an earlier book. Engel's portrait is of a truly unpleasant man who did some good things and tried to take credit for all the good things everyone else did. Engel includes some really nasty material about Roddenberry's behavior during the making of the original series, the films, and TNG. Almost every quote used in the book is designed to deflate any complimentary thoughts one might have about Roddenberry, and if that isn't enough, Engel than editorializes in the same mode. On the other hand, if you take this book and stand it up against Alexander's book, you get a much fuller picture of the man. This book includes some pretty solid medical perspective of what was happening to Roddenberry during his only year on TNG, and includes various tidbits about how production was handled during both series. One surprising admission is that the script for "The Menagerie" (the envelope portion around Roddenberry's original "Cage" pilot ep) was actually written by John D.F. Black before he walked off the show. Roddenberry then did a rewrite on it and claimed sole credit. Black didn't present a case to the WGA, assuming that he would win his arbitration just by presenting his draft and Roddenberry's. Roddenberry won, and Black learned an unfortunate lesson.
Inside Trek - Susan Sackett's account of her affair with Roddenberry over at least fifteen years fills in a lot of blanks, and provides a clear picture of his decline during the 80s until his death. Sackett's portrait of herself and of Majel Barrett is similarly unflattering, but it presents an accurate picture of the making of TNG and the endgame around her final moments there. Her account of her "exit interview" with Rick Berman and her discussions with Michael Piller are quite chilly, and you can tell they are trying to usher her off the lot as fast as they can. Certain details of the making of TNG, like the naming of Deanna Troi after her, or the technical name of Geordi's VISOR are revealed here as coming from Sackett. (Of course, she tries to take credit for the basic idea for Star Trek III, which makes little sense, as it's clear this is what Nimoy and Bennett were planning to do anyway.) Sackett's account also does not include the fact that she received a considerable inheritance from Roddenberry after his death - she portrays that part of the story as though she was totally cut off. Finally, Sackett discusses the 25th Anniversary Star Trek book, for which she wrote the text while Roddenberry was ostensibly supervising it. (In reality, Roddenberry was completely infirm by this point) When the book was literally about to be printed, Nimoy intentionally blocked its production and took over the project himself. Sackett later realized that the published book was in fact using her material and had to pursue Paramount to be paid for her work. Sackett's book makes clear that Roddenberry's involvement with the movies after TMP was minimal (memos that they rarely followed), and that his involvement with TNG was also minimal after the first season, other than to watch episodes and give notes. (and even those notes were minimal, if anything.) Sackett's description of her reaction to an early 4th season episode is particularly illuminating.
When you put all three accounts together, you get a much more complete picture of the man, warts and all.
Yeah, I know about the headache but after a time you do start to get an overall "big picture" of what reality may have been like.
Finally, I would also advise listening to the various commentaries on the Trek films and series and watching the featurettes, albeit with a grain of salt. When you get past the self-congratulation, you get to some really interesting material. In the commentary for TMP, Stephen Collins describes the filming of the wormhole sequence (every shot had to be done four times - in 35mm normal speed, 35mm slow motion, 70mm normal speed and 70mm slow motion) as akin to a really bad root canal. In the featurettes about the making of the series, Nimoy admits that when they made the 2nd pilot, the budget was incredibly low, since they had spent so much money on the first pilot. And there's plenty of other stuff to find in there...
By wading through all this stuff, you eventually wind up with a very interesting picture of the human beings who made these shows. Or you wind up with a headache...