Originally Posted by Quark
Haha yeah I put those two together. Stuart is an editor first and a director second. He also edited Daniel Craig's first outing as Bond in Casino Royale. As for Logan, I have to give him more credit than he has gotten. He is an avid fan of Star Trek and the person to blame for messing it up would have to be Baird, who had never see an episode of TNG in his life. And it really showed...So, yeah it's nice to see that Logan has redeemed his reputation continuing as a writer while Baird has not directed any films. To Baird's credit however, he's a great editor.
Originally Posted by martok2112
I personally enjoyed Baird's directorial style for Nemesis, because it finally felt like a big screen movie for TNG.
As I've always said, it takes a big screen director to make a movie for the big screen....all the action in the previous TNG films had filled up a 4:3 aspect TV screen quite nicely, but just didn't sit well with me on the big screen.
John Logan, whose work I admired for Gladiator, I thought did a nice job with the writing for Nemesis, but, there were some things that showed him to be more of a fan-boy writing a story, rather than a fan of Trek trying to make a professional Trek movie. (The whole thing with the Ent-E apparently having grown 5 more decks in in its belly?....that does kinda smack of Star Trek V where somehow, the Ent-A seemed to magically have some 70 decks...?....!..)
Ah..well...Nemesis is still my fave of the TNG films, even for all its Sovereign class flaws.
And I think I might treat myself to a day out at the movies tomorrow, to catch the premiere of Red Dawn, and to go see Skyfall.
I too think John Logan was too much of a fan of ST to write for it. There was a hilarious
annotated version of the Nemesis
script floating around at the time of the movie's release, which (among other things) snarkingly highlighted instances of dialogue that seemed to have been processed through the Berman staff's editing filter. It portrays Logan as being very gullible and starry-eyed to be working with the ST team of that time. I also didn't like The Time Machine
which he adapted. He may be too much a fan of sci-fi in general.
Stuart Baird, I can't say I think much of him as a director either. His ST is the most distant film of the series since TMP
. He lacks a humanizing touch to getting good material out of his actors. His preferences with lighting, interiors and composition are questionable and didn't render very much that was pleasing to look at in the film. The only thing I find necessarily 'larger' in scale from the prior films are the exterior shots, which I suspect may largely be an issue of quantity. All of the First Ten STs including TMP
have seemed rather limited in scope, and for reasons that are largely variable and varied (specific for each individual film).
I would say both of their work on Bond though has been exceptional. I need to see it again.
I have never seen in either version. Like a lot of '80s style 'invasion USA' type movies, I suspect it's just not my thing.