Comments on: Nick Meyer Talks Trek II http://trekmovie.com/2006/10/14/nick-meyer-talks-trek-ii/ the source for Star Trek news and information Sun, 22 Nov 2009 03:17:18 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: Scorned http://trekmovie.com/2006/10/14/nick-meyer-talks-trek-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-2300 Scorned Fri, 20 Oct 2006 22:44:20 +0000 http://trekmovie.com/2006/10/14/nick-meyer-talks-trek-ii/#comment-2300 JJ Abrams is going to bury the Trek franchise. A silly stupid "recasting" of Kirks first mission. What a joke! There is NO interest in seeing that piece of trash. Abrams script for his "Superman movie" was a complete joke. GET MEYER back! JJ Abrams is going to bury the Trek franchise. A silly stupid “recasting” of Kirks first mission. What a joke! There is NO interest in seeing that piece of trash.

Abrams script for his “Superman movie” was a complete joke.

GET MEYER back!

]]> By: acb http://trekmovie.com/2006/10/14/nick-meyer-talks-trek-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-2200 acb Fri, 20 Oct 2006 00:23:19 +0000 http://trekmovie.com/2006/10/14/nick-meyer-talks-trek-ii/#comment-2200 Actually norm, i think that many of the other producers other than Berman deserve much credit for losing the concept of Star Trek's future, Ira Steven Behr especially. Now I am not going to say Roddenberry was perfect by any sense, but i do feel that his vision for Star Trek was ahead of its time. You could almost argue that with his ideas and the molding of his original partners, such as Gene Coon, the entire concept of Star Trek borders on genius. Now the only probably here then is that genius is a very limited attribute among many, especially for many in a Hollywood setting. I once read that what seperates a genius from someone who is simply smart or well above average is that those who fall into the latter can look at an idea or objective and see it for what it is fully. A genius on the other hand can look at the same idea or objective and see the other possiblities and how something could be better than what is already there. After seeing interviews with Berman and Behr you soon see that, though they do have creativity, they are not in the genius level. It was easy to see that they had issues buying into Roddenberry's future because they did not have the capability of creatively crossing the juncture to see it. They only saw the world as dark and subverted, and this carried through to TNG, DS9, VOYAGER, and ENTERPRISE (and if u dont believe me go back and watch all trek's pre-1991 and see how the story telling begins to move away from the characters and more towards sci-fi gimmicks.) Behr even admits to not enjoying TNG because of how he personally saw technology as an evil and not benefit. Now some may not see the issue with this, but look at it from the realization that though Berman and Behr and others may feel uncertain and disdain about today's society, those feelings mean nothing in the context of a future society. The fears of the past can not be attributed to the fears of a "present future" which Star Trek presents by having its episodes. Those fears can only be attributed to a "possible future" that has yet to be defined. Star Trek was defined, though it be in fiction, it was still defined by both Roddenberry, Coon, and others. They found an image add established it. It just that the those with lesser abilities have managed to dislodge it now. Actually norm, i think that many of the other producers other than Berman deserve much credit for losing the concept of Star Trek’s future, Ira Steven Behr especially. Now I am not going to say Roddenberry was perfect by any sense, but i do feel that his vision for Star Trek was ahead of its time. You could almost argue that with his ideas and the molding of his original partners, such as Gene Coon, the entire concept of Star Trek borders on genius. Now the only probably here then is that genius is a very limited attribute among many, especially for many in a Hollywood setting. I once read that what seperates a genius from someone who is simply smart or well above average is that those who fall into the latter can look at an idea or objective and see it for what it is fully. A genius on the other hand can look at the same idea or objective and see the other possiblities and how something could be better than what is already there.

After seeing interviews with Berman and Behr you soon see that, though they do have creativity, they are not in the genius level. It was easy to see that they had issues buying into Roddenberry’s future because they did not have the capability of creatively crossing the juncture to see it. They only saw the world as dark and subverted, and this carried through to TNG, DS9, VOYAGER, and ENTERPRISE (and if u dont believe me go back and watch all trek’s pre-1991 and see how the story telling begins to move away from the characters and more towards sci-fi gimmicks.) Behr even admits to not enjoying TNG because of how he personally saw technology as an evil and not benefit.

Now some may not see the issue with this, but look at it from the realization that though Berman and Behr and others may feel uncertain and disdain about today’s society, those feelings mean nothing in the context of a future society. The fears of the past can not be attributed to the fears of a “present future” which Star Trek presents by having its episodes. Those fears can only be attributed to a “possible future” that has yet to be defined. Star Trek was defined, though it be in fiction, it was still defined by both Roddenberry, Coon, and others. They found an image add established it. It just that the those with lesser abilities have managed to dislodge it now.

]]> By: Norm http://trekmovie.com/2006/10/14/nick-meyer-talks-trek-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-2177 Norm Thu, 19 Oct 2006 21:20:43 +0000 http://trekmovie.com/2006/10/14/nick-meyer-talks-trek-ii/#comment-2177 After reading this thread I would add, if you think Roddenberry is so overrated I suggest you get copies of his never picked up 70s TV pilots that were years a head of their time. Questor Tapes, Genesis II, Planet Earth & Spectre. I'm sorry but the man was ahead of his time. But now that I think of it they will most likely get trashed by the anti-Roddenberry revisionists in here anyway. The Studio chose the half season wonder Planet of the Apes TV show over Genesis II. After reading this thread I would add, if you think Roddenberry is so overrated I suggest you get copies of his never picked up 70s TV pilots that were years a head of their time. Questor Tapes, Genesis II, Planet Earth & Spectre. I’m sorry but the man was ahead of his time. But now that I think of it they will most likely get trashed by the anti-Roddenberry revisionists in here anyway.

The Studio chose the half season wonder Planet of the Apes TV show over Genesis II.

]]> By: Norm http://trekmovie.com/2006/10/14/nick-meyer-talks-trek-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-2168 Norm Thu, 19 Oct 2006 20:27:33 +0000 http://trekmovie.com/2006/10/14/nick-meyer-talks-trek-ii/#comment-2168 I hate the whole were too old bit in the movies. By todays standards Kirk & co. don't look to old in the first few movies. Sanfranman, "That’s because I really love the utopian-esque aspect of the future GR gave us. Think about it, it’s the only popular science fiction where the future doesn’t suck. I have always liked that aspect and thought it very important. " I agre that has been lost. Berman hated it thats the reason for DS9 which I HATED. & that Section 31 which had Roddenberry rolling in his grave! I hate the whole were too old bit in the movies. By todays standards Kirk & co. don’t look to old in the first few movies.

Sanfranman, “That’s because I really love the utopian-esque aspect of the future GR gave us. Think about it, it’s the only popular science fiction where the future doesn’t suck. I have always liked that aspect and thought it very important. ” I agre that has been lost. Berman hated it thats the reason for DS9 which I HATED. & that Section 31 which had Roddenberry rolling in his grave!

]]> By: TrekNerd http://trekmovie.com/2006/10/14/nick-meyer-talks-trek-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-2087 TrekNerd Thu, 19 Oct 2006 03:09:09 +0000 http://trekmovie.com/2006/10/14/nick-meyer-talks-trek-ii/#comment-2087 "The best Star Trek stories are when they are about the characters, and the characters are at their best when they are human." That's why I think STIV:TVH is the best film of the entire movie series. For me, the real litmus test of whether ST characters really work as characters is when they are stripped of their ST trappings. And STIV:TVH is a perfect example of that: Only a quarter of the film takes place in outer space. For most of the movie, there's no space, no Starship Enterprise, it's not even the future. And as a result, the richness of the characters really takes center stage. Can you imagine the TNG, DS9, VOY, or ENT characters in STIV:TVH? Do you think the film would still be as engaging and exhilarating with them in it? “The best Star Trek stories are when they are about the characters, and the characters are at their best when they are human.”

That’s why I think STIV:TVH is the best film of the entire movie series. For me, the real litmus test of whether ST characters really work as characters is when they are stripped of their ST trappings.

And STIV:TVH is a perfect example of that: Only a quarter of the film takes place in outer space. For most of the movie, there’s no space, no Starship Enterprise, it’s not even the future. And as a result, the richness of the characters really takes center stage.

Can you imagine the TNG, DS9, VOY, or ENT characters in STIV:TVH? Do you think the film would still be as engaging and exhilarating with them in it?

]]> By: acb http://trekmovie.com/2006/10/14/nick-meyer-talks-trek-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-1936 acb Tue, 17 Oct 2006 00:21:19 +0000 http://trekmovie.com/2006/10/14/nick-meyer-talks-trek-ii/#comment-1936 Meyer is right on the notion of "getting around the ballpark" because to tell an effective story main issues that have been come to known in canon can be addressed, but not everything has to. Much of the time if it is not, the story leaves enough space that allows for a fan to be open to assume what they wish of canon to maintain itself and what they do not wish to acknowledge. That is what Meyer did so well with constructing his films, the confronted realities of the characters (ie. Kirk slept with alot of women = thus the odds are there he will have a child eventually) but also expanded upon them (ie. kirk may have fooled around with alot of women because of the emotion impact laid upon him after the effort he placed into an early failed relationship with Carol Marcus.) The best Star Trek stories are when they are about the characters, and the characters are at their best when they are human. They do not, nor should they be, dark depictions of humanity but they should also be allowed to make mistakes as every human does. The race has done so for thousands of years already and we will not change 100% in the 250 yrs that Star Trek depicts. What is different though, and what seems to be what Roddenberry was showing, is that we do reach a point of co-existence and a point to where people are more open to confronting their faults sooner than burying them for years on end. Meyer is right on the notion of “getting around the ballpark” because to tell an effective story main issues that have been come to known in canon can be addressed, but not everything has to. Much of the time if it is not, the story leaves enough space that allows for a fan to be open to assume what they wish of canon to maintain itself and what they do not wish to acknowledge. That is what Meyer did so well with constructing his films, the confronted realities of the characters (ie. Kirk slept with alot of women = thus the odds are there he will have a child eventually) but also expanded upon them (ie. kirk may have fooled around with alot of women because of the emotion impact laid upon him after the effort he placed into an early failed relationship with Carol Marcus.)

The best Star Trek stories are when they are about the characters, and the characters are at their best when they are human. They do not, nor should they be, dark depictions of humanity but they should also be allowed to make mistakes as every human does. The race has done so for thousands of years already and we will not change 100% in the 250 yrs that Star Trek depicts. What is different though, and what seems to be what Roddenberry was showing, is that we do reach a point of co-existence and a point to where people are more open to confronting their faults sooner than burying them for years on end.

]]> By: Dom http://trekmovie.com/2006/10/14/nick-meyer-talks-trek-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-1902 Dom Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:07:42 +0000 http://trekmovie.com/2006/10/14/nick-meyer-talks-trek-ii/#comment-1902 trekmaster, you aren't a Trekker: you're a worshipper of The Church of Roddenberry, which is something else entirely! ;) trekmaster, you aren’t a Trekker: you’re a worshipper of The Church of Roddenberry, which is something else entirely! ;)

]]> By: trekmaster http://trekmovie.com/2006/10/14/nick-meyer-talks-trek-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-1901 trekmaster Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:01:02 +0000 http://trekmovie.com/2006/10/14/nick-meyer-talks-trek-ii/#comment-1901 @By-Tor TNG was made for 14 years olds and TOS for college students!? You must have seen a different series...My god, as a trekkie I thought the world isn't just black and white! @By-Tor
TNG was made for 14 years olds and TOS for college students!? You must have seen a different series…My god, as a trekkie I thought the world isn’t just black and white!

]]> By: By-Tor http://trekmovie.com/2006/10/14/nick-meyer-talks-trek-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-1857 By-Tor Mon, 16 Oct 2006 12:02:47 +0000 http://trekmovie.com/2006/10/14/nick-meyer-talks-trek-ii/#comment-1857 @trekmaster: It always bothers me when the defense for something's failure is that the audience was too "dumb" to understand it. When you then say that the same concept was reborn as TNG...well, now you're just being silly. IMO the single largest problem with TNG was that it was Trek dumbed down. I enjoyed a lot of TNG, but there's no doubt in my mind that it was written for 14 year olds (whereas TOS seemed aimed at college-age students). TNG rarely dealt with serious issues in anything more than a superficial fashion, and too often played the Deux Ex Machina game. When TNG was good, it was very good, but when it wasn't we ended up with the Particle Du Jour(tm) or Klingons howling at the heavens to warn them a new soul is approaching -- and did nobody notice that Native Americans were doing this first? It isn't about the "concept." The concept was and is very simple. GR always said it was Wagon Train to the stars, but that's only part of it. Drama requires conflict, and GR seemed rather allergic to conflict -- thus, in TNG, somehow we end up with no money and no fighting and perfect people. Riiiight. @Magic_Al: focusing on the No Smoking signs is focusing on a trivial, meaningless detail. Focus on the elimination of the pajamas or vaseline on the camera lenses or the fact that suddenly we admitted that Trek characters AGE. @Captain Dunsel: THANK YOU for bringing up the TMP novelization. I read it years ago, and I agree...it's awful. Just awful. And to read it is to understand just how much Roddenberry was out of his mind. To compare it to L. Ron Hubbard only begins to scratch the surface of its nuttiness. @Dom: I agree...TOS was the result of many people, not just GR's vision, and IMO Gene Coon and others had a lot more to do with what it ultimately became. @trekmaster: It always bothers me when the defense for something’s failure is that the audience was too “dumb” to understand it.

When you then say that the same concept was reborn as TNG…well, now you’re just being silly. IMO the single largest problem with TNG was that it was Trek dumbed down.

I enjoyed a lot of TNG, but there’s no doubt in my mind that it was written for 14 year olds (whereas TOS seemed aimed at college-age students). TNG rarely dealt with serious issues in anything more than a superficial fashion, and too often played the Deux Ex Machina game. When TNG was good, it was very good, but when it wasn’t we ended up with the Particle Du Jour(tm) or Klingons howling at the heavens to warn them a new soul is approaching — and did nobody notice that Native Americans were doing this first?

It isn’t about the “concept.” The concept was and is very simple. GR always said it was Wagon Train to the stars, but that’s only part of it. Drama requires conflict, and GR seemed rather allergic to conflict — thus, in TNG, somehow we end up with no money and no fighting and perfect people. Riiiight.

@Magic_Al: focusing on the No Smoking signs is focusing on a trivial, meaningless detail. Focus on the elimination of the pajamas or vaseline on the camera lenses or the fact that suddenly we admitted that Trek characters AGE.

@Captain Dunsel: THANK YOU for bringing up the TMP novelization. I read it years ago, and I agree…it’s awful. Just awful. And to read it is to understand just how much Roddenberry was out of his mind. To compare it to L. Ron Hubbard only begins to scratch the surface of its nuttiness.

@Dom: I agree…TOS was the result of many people, not just GR’s vision, and IMO Gene Coon and others had a lot more to do with what it ultimately became.

]]> By: Matt Wright http://trekmovie.com/2006/10/14/nick-meyer-talks-trek-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-1847 Matt Wright Mon, 16 Oct 2006 04:20:33 +0000 http://trekmovie.com/2006/10/14/nick-meyer-talks-trek-ii/#comment-1847 <i>Can we all at least agree that William Shatner, as fine a Kirk as anyone could ever have made, should never ever be allowed to direct himself in a movie again?</i> Ohh yeah, I don't think anyone would disagree with that. Can we all at least agree that William Shatner, as fine a Kirk as anyone could ever have made, should never ever be allowed to direct himself in a movie again?

Ohh yeah, I don’t think anyone would disagree with that.

]]>