In your opinion, who do you think is the best Trek director?
Nimoy, Frakes, Meyer, you decide!

In your opinion, who do you think is the best Trek director?
Nimoy, Frakes, Meyer, you decide!


Well, none of them gives Kubrick a run for his money, but I'll go with Meyer. Being a writer (and a good one at that), I think he understands what made TOS work, and was able to get Roddenberry's series onto the big screen in a way that appealed to both fans and members of the general (non-Trekie) audience alike. Realizing both the commercial as well as artistic merits of the proverbial "good summer popcorn movie," Meyer had fun with the characters without allowing them to become gross caricatures of their TV incarnations (some folks have a problem with Kirk's O.T.T. "Khaaaannnn!!!" line, but given the context Shatner's delivery has always worked for me). With all due respect, Nimoy and Fraker should never be allowed anywhere near a director's chair ever again.

Frakes, probably. As Martin says, none of them are real stand-outs; they're all competent directors-for-hire.

Russ Meyer directed Star Trek??? I thought Uhura looked a little bustier in the films than she did in the series... :p

But seriously folks...my opinion is that Nicholas Meyer directed the best of the films (yes, I'm one of the many who feel "Wrath of Khan" is the best Trek film hands down), but I believe Leonard Nimoy had a better feel for each of the characters because of his personal involvement, so I would have to give Nimoy my vote for best director. Hey, you asked! :wave:

Shatner, all the way! :p

Frakes' First Contact rocked the house but Insurrection sucked ass.

Star Trek III and IV were kinda cool so I'm gonna say Nimoy. He's been around the block in terms of Trek for a LONG while now.

I'd have to say Meyer certainly is the best of those directors, but keep in mind the director can only direct as good or only slightly better than the material he's given. Very few can overide the writen word without major confrontation with the writer (who's under contract) and the studio/execs/producers who agreed to the script in the first place.
I just recently watched the commentary Frakes gave for Thunderbirds. The movie is alright by itself, it captures alot of the flavor of the original series but Frakes points out that he was supposed to make it for kids (and not the adults who grew up with it) and that he was supposed to make it light summer fun. I certainly wouldn't mind seeing him direct again, after hearing what he had to say.

YEA William Shatner!

Meyer was the best, then Nimoy.

Is there a reason Robert Wise was left off the list?

I know I'm probably one of the few who thinks TMP was the best movie, but the fact is, the most thought went into that film. Many of the things that make modeling the Refit such a headache now (aztec patterns, self illuminating spotlights, detailed interiors, etc...) all were a result of that film. According to the commentary, he was the one who wanted the 8' shooting model. I think he was also the most theatrical of the directors.

The other directors each had their pros and cons:

Nimoy: probably got the best performances from the actors, although the overall look of the films were less than stellar. This is probably due to the fact that Paramount wouldln't give hime any kind of budget to work with. According to Mike Okuda, some of the FX shots were actually an AMT/Ertl Enterprise!

Frakes: also got great performances from the actors, but many segments of his movies had shot compositions that looked more like TV than film. Probably the most consistent in terms of quality.

Meyer: hard to classify. Wrath of Khan was virtuoso work... but how to explain the Undiscovered County? While TWOK had subtle performances (KHHAAAAANNNN! excluded) and more depth of character, TUC was one dimensional, hammy, and terrible in terms of casting.

Shatner: come on. It's Shatner... enough said.

I would have to place the list in this order:
1 Wise
2 Meyer
3 Frakes
4 Nimoy
5 Shatner
6 whoever the hack was who directed Nemesis...

Definitely a choice between Nimoy and Meyer, and I'd say perhaps both are on a par. If you listen to Nimoy's commentary on The Voyage home, which is my favourite next to Wrath of Khan, Nimoy's thinking into the elements which make is such a great film are just so insightful - and that's taking nothing away from Meyer which I think Nimoy said Meyer had a big hand in directing certain sections of the film as well (if I recall correctly?).

It's a hard choice: I don't think Search For Spock was all that good (Nimoy), and I don't think Undiscovered was all that great either (Meyer). Then there is First Contact (Frakes) which I really really enjoyed, but Insurrection was awful...

Fox

Meyer had a better feel for story telling, I think. STII & STVI are the two best movies in my opinion. I also put STIII up there so Nimoy is pretty darned good though I didn't care a whole lot for his work on STIV.

Actually, I guess ST 4 tips the balance somewhat in Nimoy's favor -- it's more of a "movie movie" than most of the other Trek films, involves a greater range of locales and more location filming and work with a more extensive supporting cast, a little more improvisation, and critical pacing because of the comic beats. Comedy is hard, as they say, and Nimoy delivers fairly well here.

Actually, I guess ST 4 tips the balance somewhat in Nimoy's favor...
SNIP
Comedy is hard, as they say, and Nimoy delivers fairly well here.

By "Trek" 4 the TOS characters had become unrecognizable to me; overindulged actors left to their own devices, mugging for the camera and running amuck with a shoddy arsenal of cheap gags. If ST:TMP failed because it took itself too seriously, TVH fails for the opposite reasons. The Enterprise crew members became parodies of themselves, and to me this undermined the integrity the universe Roddenberry had created. I have nothing against comedy, but I do resent it when laughs are generated at the expense of the characters. I realize TVH was a popular entry in the "Trek" series from a box office standpoint, but to me it played like a feature-length Saturday Night Live sketch.

I realize TVH was a popular entry in the "Trek" series from a box office standpoint, but to me it played like a feature-length Saturday Night Live sketch.

I don't know that I disagree, but a big reason that TVH was one of the strongest box office performers among the Trek movies was the craft with which it was made; given the freedom that this particular story gave him, I think Nimoy showed more skill than the other directors ever had the opportunity to.

Now, one can also refer to the non-Trek work of the various directors...on that basis I think Wise is pretty clearly head-and-shoulders above the later guys. Meyer never did anything notably stylish or that was memorable for his contributions as a director, outside of Trek -- "Time After Time" is a cleverly written and well-acted piece, but the direction is clumsy at best (not surprising for a first feature effort). "The Day After" is just a sprawling unfocused mess, even as tv movies go.

By "Trek" 4 the TOS characters had become unrecognizable to me; overindulged actors left to their own devices, mugging for the camera and running amuck with a shoddy arsenal of cheap gags.

Couldn't agree more.

Trek 2 is, in my opinion, by far the best entry in the series, and much of the credit must go to Meyer. Clearly he had a vision for how to expand upon the TV series while at the same time managing to be faithful to it.

Having said that, Robert Wise is without a doubt the most accomplished director to have helmed a "Star Trek" movie. "Day the Earth Stood Still," "West Side Story," and "Sound of Music" are considered classic motion pictures. Suffice it to say neither Jonathan Frakes or Leonard Nimoy has ever directed a classic. And while I think Wise was probably the wrong choice to direct ST:TMP he certainly gets points for trying (nothing could have saved that script).

Given the way in which the question is phrased -- "Who do you think is the best Trek director? Nimoy, Frakes, or Meyer..." my vote goes to Meyer.

...a big reason that TVH was one of the strongest box office performers among the Trek movies was the craft with which it was made...

While I do think Nimoy has demonstrated a deft touch with light comedy, I must agree with Martin's comment with regard to sacrificing the integrity of the characters for a few cheap laughs. Resorting to campy satire and sappy save-the-whale plot gimmicks may have ensured a broader audience, but IMO it did so to the detriment of the "Trek" series.

TVH scored at the box office because it boldly pandered to the lowest common denominator. Nimoy is not without talent as a director, but in this instance I believe those talents were used wrong-headedly.

I'd have to say Wise, then Meyer. TMP, TWOK and TUC were definitely the best of the bunch.

BTW, I think there was a lot of pressure after ST II and III to lighten things up a bit. Hence the sitcom aspect to ST IV. Its cute, but its not my favorite movie.

BTW, I think there was a lot of pressure after ST II and III to lighten things up a bit.

The mandate seems to have been to attract a broader (read: female) audience, and a noble mandate it is. I just take issue with the way the producers went about it. "Star Trek" has always benefited from a sense of humor, but resorting to camp was a creative misstep, IMO.

"Star Trek" has always benefited from a sense of humor, but resorting to camp was a creative misstep, IMO.

Oh, yeah? Tell that to the producers of Lost in Space and Batman!

Wait. I see what you mean, now. Nevermind! :freak:

I must admit, I've always been curious why everone else seems to hate Insurrection so much? The plot was very much in the spirit of Trek (doing what's right as opposed to just following orders), some funny moments, and some of the best cinematography and location shoots of all the movies.

I can see hating the steaming pile of fecal matter that was Nemesis (can you say TWOK rip off? Star Trek 11: the search for Data's program...). But really... was Insurrection so bad?

Robert Wise did pretty good with the lousy premise, and he's a very good director in most of his other films. he doesn't put his heel print into his work like some other directors (Ridley Scott etc)

I must admit, I've always been curious why everone else seems to hate Insurrection so much? The plot was very much in the spirit of Trek (doing what's right as opposed to just following orders), some funny moments, and some of the best cinematography and location shoots of all the movies.

I'll concede some of your points regarding the 'spirit' of Trek, it's just that the movie didn't handle anything very well--it was too much like a lame episode rather than an even decent movie.

I got the impression that the Hollywood bureaucracy was handing out favors to friends for Insurrection, hence the elaborate and mostly uneeded sets and such. Too much money seems to distract from coming up with a great story. Generations on the other hand, IMHO, had a great roller coaster storyline despite many nitpicking faults and a rather unglamorous death for Kirk.

First Contact had a good solid story despite yet again visiting the time travel theme that has been really worn out in the movies.

I must admit, I've always been curious why everone else seems to hate Insurrection so much? The plot was very much in the spirit of Trek (doing what's right as opposed to just following orders), some funny moments, and some of the best cinematography and location shoots of all the movies.
But really... was Insurrection so bad?

IMHO, the scene where Whorf & Picard have to sing Gilbert & Sullivan to the malfunctioning Data was the single most painfully embarrassing scene in Trek history, worse than Uhura's geriatric fan dance, the "forgotten" Frengi & Borg on Enterprise, or the anti-grav boots in UC. It didn't make any sense, and worse, it wasn't funny, and made three of TNG's best characters look like idiots. And the rest of the movie was just a mess.

Of course, YMMV.

Wise was a great director, but STTMP showed it was rushed and not well thought out. Nimoy did a workmanlike job on SFS and a good job on VH, sadly, I think VH suffers now as the most dated of any of the Trek movies. Shatner, well, as pointed out, it was Shatner. I loved FC, but Frakes work since has been less than steller. So my nod goes to Meyer, WOK was such a breath of fresh air after STTMP, and got the franchise back on track, even if only for awhile.

THe "Director's Edition" of STTMP wasn't so bad. :thumbsup:

IMHO, the scene where Whorf & Picard have to sing Gilbert & Sullivan to the malfunctioning Data was the single most painfully embarrassing scene in Trek history, worse than Uhura's geriatric fan dance..."

With all due respect, Uhura's "geriatric fan dance" sets the standard by which all things embarrassing must be measured. As an act of shameless self-abasement it is simply without peer.

Wow can you imagine what Ridley Scott would do with a Star Trek movie? Could be interesting... or disasterous. ;)

I keep hoping Ridley Scott will tackle another sci-fi film, but I think he and "Star Trek" would be a rather odd match. As Scott's past efforts illustrate, he posesses a fairly pessimistic view of human nature (he's admitted as much in interviews), whereas so much of Trek's appeal is rooted in it's sense of optimism and hope for the future. No doubt a Scott-directed "Trek" would look amazing, but thematically speaking I can't help but think the film would be at odds with itself.

You raise an interesting question, though... who would the ideal "Trek" director be? You may hate me for this, but I suspect someone like Ron Howard would do a pretty decent job. He's good with actors, he's mounted a couple of FX-heavy productions, and he doesn't have a cynical bone in his body. Alas, Howard's career is not exactly in the toilet, so there's no way he'd go anywhere near "Star Trek."

Frankly, short of some young TV director looking to make the jump to features, I can't think of anyone who'd want the job.

I'll be impressed when a real director takes the helm, which rarely happens. Other than rare pieces like Kubrick's 2001, Ridley Scott's Blade Runner and Alien, or Spielberg's Minority Report, most science fiction films are terrible. Some of this has to do with substandard directors, but most of it has to do with producing schlocky crap that only pimply-faced geeks will love.

It seems we have a good science fiction film once every 10 years or so.

Other than rare pieces like Kubrick's 2001, Ridley Scott's Blade Runner and Alien, or Spielberg's Minority Report, most science fiction films are terrible.
SNIP
It seems we have a good science fiction film once every 10 years or so.

True sci-fi cinema -- as opposed to fantasy -- is pretty rare indeed.

In terms of Hollywood's more recent efforts I enjoyed "Contact," although I could have done without the chemistry-bereft "romance" between Jodi Foster & Matthew McConneghy.

I also thought "A.I." was a thought-provoking if ultimately unsatisfying film.

The recent "Solaris" remake posed some interesting questions; too bad no one went to see it.

For a while I had hopes for "Aeon Flux," but having just sat through a rough cut I must report that while it does qualify as science fiction, it does not qualify as good science-fiction.

The truth is that sci-fi has always been a hard sell in Hollywood. Good sci-fi stories (i.e. novels) tend to be idea-driven, whereas good movies are driven by a synthesis of plot & character. I'm not saying there are no dramatically compelling characters to be found in science-fiction literature (Captain Nemo has always been a personal favorite), but the genre as a whole does tend toward the cerebral. Hollywood, as we know, does not.

THe "Director's Edition" of STTMP wasn't so bad. :thumbsup:

I agree and highly recommend it to anyone who hasn't seen this version. Due to Paramount committing to a 12/08/79 release date, there was not enough time to do all of the FX shots they had storyboarded... hence the lackluster theatrical release.

Also, the commentaries are phenominal (who knew James Doohan created the spoken Klingon and Vulcan languages?...)

I forgot about Contact. That was a good film, if a bit sappy at times. I found the countdown to Foster's wormhole jump one of the best sequences in science fiction film. I really liked the huge spinning magnets and all that - very powerful...

There are parts of science fiction films I like, such as the opening sequence for Star Wars: Episodes II and IV, and the warp field effect in ST:TMP. I loved The Cell, which few people enjoyed. I suppose that counts as science fiction, actually.

I think Meyer was the best of the three. His films had good rhythm and pace. He keyed in on the Trek mystique.

The only think I didn't like was the regimentation, militarism. In the first pilot there was a sense that this crew were explorers; the militarism came second. As TOS progressed that mystery and wonder disappeared. TNG came close, but it was never recaptured it, in my opinion.

True sci-fi cinema -- as opposed to fantasy -- is pretty rare indeed.

In terms of Hollywood's more recent efforts I enjoyed "Contact," although I could have done without the chemistry-bereft "romance" between Jodi Foster & Matthew McConneghy.



With all due respect, the best succinct review of Contact was done by Mr Garrison on Southpark:

"I sat thru two and a half hours till the end of that piece of sh*t and the alien turns out to be Jody Foster's f-ing father?!!!!"

With all due respect, Uhura's "geriatric fan dance" sets the standard by which all things embarrassing must be measured. As an act of shameless self-abasement it is simply without peer.

At least she didn't sing!

"I sat thru two and a half hours till the end of that piece of sh*t and the alien turns out to be Jody Foster's f-ing father?!!!!"

For my part, the two and a half hours of getting there was all the fun.

Sappy father/ daughter moment aside, the filmmakers must be credited for keeping things ambiguous at the end (i.e. did Ellie Arrowway actually travel to another planet or did she imagine it).

And what a great role for John Hurt!... Howard Hughes by way of Captain Nemo. Wonderful stuff.

Yes, but for those who like juvenile smash-em-up bang bang movies with bombastic music and ridiculous characters, Contact simply didn't do. Contact was a very good film, but I could sense the exasperation by some in the audience who expected a disgusting alien to appear at some point, presumably brandishing an evil ray gun and sporting yet another biomechanical suit a la Giger. Contact was thoughtful - the core of the story had to do with faith (in God or whatever and science), rather than first contact. But that got lost somewhere in translation.

There is smart science fiction and dumb science fiction. There are many, many more fans of dumb science fiction. Production companies know this, which is why movies like Contact are rarely made and movies like Independence Day or Event Horizon are cranked out once or twice a year.

Oh well.

Yes, but for those who like juvenile smash-em-up bang bang movies with bombastic music and ridiculous characters, Contact simply didn't do. Contact was a very good film, but I could sense the exasperation by some in the audience who expected a disgusting alien to appear at some point, presumably brandishing an evil ray gun and sporting yet another biomechanical suit a la Giger. Contact was thoughtful - the core of the story had to do with faith (in God or whatever and science), rather than first contact. But that got lost somewhere in translation.

There is smart science fiction and dumb science fiction. There are many, many more fans of dumb science fiction. Production companies know this, which is why movies like Contact are rarely made and movies like Independence Day or Event Horizon are cranked out once or twice a year.

Oh well.

Starman didn't show us a "disgusting alien" either, just Jeff Bridges. The difference is it was a good movie.

If there aren't any cool looking ships and some great laser/phaser fights, I just ain't interested! :p

There is smart science fiction and dumb science fiction. There are many, many more fans of dumb science fiction. Production companies know this, which is why movies like Contact are rarely made and movies like Independence Day or Event Horizon are cranked out once or twice a year.

Oh well.

I completely agree with this. But what I don't get is why there aren't more films that try to do both. It's not as if the two are incompatible. One would think they would in fact be complementary, and actually expand the appeal of a film. Am I missing something, and a "smart" film crowd will just not want any shoot 'em up? And vice-versa?

I'd say because it's harder to make a smart film than a dumb one. It may also be harder to market it, but that may be reflexive cynicism on my part.

...sci-fi has always been a hard sell in Hollywood. Good sci-fi stories (i.e. novels) tend to be idea-driven, whereas good movies are driven by a synthesis of plot & character. I'm not saying there are no dramatically compelling characters to be found in science-fiction literature (Captain Nemo has always been a personal favorite), but the genre as a whole does tend toward the cerebral. Hollywood, as we know, does not.

I think this is an interesting point. Is the problem with science-fiction that it's too "cerebral" and "idea-driven" for consumption by today's general movie-going audience? And why is it so hard to make a smart movie that's also entertaining?

I recently watched "Gattaca" (a science-fiction film if ever there was one), and while the filmmakers certainly had a lot on their mind I found their movie unceasingly dull. I mention it because I think it illustrates the point Carson made earlier, i.e. a smart movie is not always a good movie.

It will be interesting to see what Arron Aronofsky (SP?) cooks up with his time-tripping Fountain of Youth flick. No doubt it will be smart; but will it be entertaining? Time will tell.

I'm tempted to say we've strayed off-topic here, but since this entire thread is OT given the perimiters of this chat room I guess it's kind of beside the point. Still, in the interests of continuing what I hope could be an illuminating discussion I invite interested parties to join me next door at the HobbyTalk Movies forum.

For the record, the topic for discussion is: "Why are there so few good, smart, entertaining science-fiction movies out there, and what should be done about it?"

Depending on the type of story, I'd go with Meyer for a dark and battle themed story. Frakes for some light and battle storylines. Then Nimoy for a lighthearted movie in general.

I agree with those who say TMP was the best, most thoughtout, theatrical film of the series. It may have been a little slow for some peoples tastes, but I'd also have to say it was the most realistic in terms of character interaction. Also the 'look' of the film was the best. The production value dollar really showed up on screen that it didn't show again until 'First Contact'.
ST:TWOK Had a great story, but Meyer screwed around too much with the sets and the look.
Quite frankly, what the Star Trek series of movies suffered from the most was Studio intervention dictating how the movies should go and a week executive producer (Harve Benett) who gave his directors too much freedom to change around things (that didn't matter to the story) like the sets and look. Those movies should have been treated like an extended TV series in that the directors come in and affect acting, pacing, story etc. not the established look of the world.

While George Lucas's direction for Pts 1-2-3 is questionable, it was his iron hand over EVERYTHING in 4-5-6 that made that world so believable.

So, with that said.
Wise (da man).
Meyer
Nimoy
Frakes/Baird (tie)
Shatner (for his total disregard to everything established)

I completely agree with this. But what I don't get is why there aren't more films that try to do both. It's not as if the two are incompatible. One would think they would in fact be complementary, and actually expand the appeal of a film. Am I missing something, and a "smart" film crowd will just not want any shoot 'em up? And vice-versa?

I do kind of think they are incompatible.

I think I'm kind of a middle of the road sci-fi guy. Liking the more intellectual stories than just action. But I have a friend who is really only a 'book' sci-fi guy and some of the things he runs by me I find so uninteresting and far out I can only go "........hunh, ok." thinking that no one would really want to see that (or 'get' that) as a movie.

I'll say Nicolas Meyer for sure and over Wise soley because Wise only did one. I agree, Meyer's pacing is excellent. He really tells a story well. Even with being handicaped with budget he can tell a good story in film.

Wise, Nimoy, and Frakes have skills as well. Frakes did excellent with First Contact but sorta dropped the ball on Insurrection. But the gripes are all in the visual department for that film. Not the pacing of the film. Change alot of the visuals and the movie would be more enjoyable. Nimoy is great as well. ST:III is a testiment to that.