 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think he was good on ST III and IV, and obviously his directing career peaked with the enormous success of Three Men and a Baby. At that point he could take his pick of scripts. The career was his to lose.
But then he directed three MASSIVE box office bombs in a row: The Good Mother, Funny About Love, and Holy Matrimony. That was three strikes, and he was absolutely finished as an A-picture director.
To my lights, it's not so much that ST IV and Three Men and a Baby were total flukes, as he did a terrible job of picking his next projects. He was a director who needed a VERY strong project going in, for him to make any kind of magic out of it. So I would say he had an element of luck on his three hits, including Star Trek's pre-sold audience, and then women losing their minds for a cute-baby story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't consider Nimoy a "great" director (as I would, say, Kubrick, Scorsese, Spielberg, Cronenberg, etc), simply because I don't see the overall arc and unifying elements or vision in his work. But he obviously knew what he was doing and made some good movies. His greatest accomplishment as a director is STAR TREK IV, the most humorous of the Star Trek movies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I never agree with you guys. :-)
I felt Star Trek III was a fabulous follow up to TWOK and the performances, for the most part were great (Shatner, Kelley, Lloyd). Nimoy did direct it like a TV show but since that's what Star Trek worked best as, there's no problem there. The feeling of the day was that approaching it like a "motion picture" was part of what plagued the first film. Star Trek III remains my favorite Trek film.
Star Trek IV had the much more broad performances because God forbid he actually DIRECTED Shatner in comedic scenes. Nimoy was an old fashioned soul with an old fashioned eye. Nothing flashy. He brought in his good friend Roesnmann to score it and that gave us a kind of stilted and dry score. I had read that Nimoy originally wanted George Gershwin music in the city scenes, which would have been stuffy and dated as hell, but Rosenmann suggested a more contemporary sound (which dates the film as well but at least in the right era).
Ironically, the cast member director who truly had a filmmaker's eye was Shatner. His film looks like a movie when it doesn't have the cheap opticals. He just never should have been allowed to come up with the story.
Nimoy was an okay director. Three Men and a Baby felt corny, especially the opening credits. He didn't have a stylistic eye, but seemed to be good with actors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I never agree with you guys. :-)
So you say. But you actually agree with us quite a bit. :-)
Ironically, the cast member director who truly had a filmmaker's eye was Shatner. His film looks like a movie when it doesn't have the cheap opticals. He just never should have been allowed to come up with the story.
Agree, STAR TREK V did have some great visuals. The story was , but the movie had some moments. And a terrific Jerry Goldsmith score.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Apr 1, 2024 - 7:17 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Col. Flagg
(Member)
|
the usual nonsense about the visuals for 3 and 4, they were both very well shot and look better than much more expensive films now, and the color and lighting were excellent. He had a non flashy style, not excessive motion of the camera, but that is a choice. There are some excellent moving dolly shots in 4, Don Peterman was a well established talent, and there are some very nice long shots down the streets and the bay in widescreen that still look terrific. It was nominated for an Oscar. If you cannot see it, you are not really looking at the film. Both films are quite good.
Motivated camera movement was an asset and sadly, largely a thing of the past. Plenty of fluid moves in 4, and most of all, an improvement over 3 on how to stage for widescreen.
Nimoy's approach created ample headspace for thoughtful moments and philosophical exchanges to really soar in mid-80s Trek. He allowed the essence of Trek – its sensitivity – to really breathe. And he couldn't have done it without Harve Bennett's soulful writing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Apr 2, 2024 - 8:51 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
the usual nonsense about the visuals for 3 and 4, they were both very well shot and look better than much more expensive films now, and the color and lighting were excellent. He had a non flashy style, not excessive motion of the camera, but that is a choice. There are some excellent moving dolly shots in 4, Don Peterman was a well established talent, and there are some very nice long shots down the streets and the bay in widescreen that still look terrific. It was nominated for an Oscar. If you cannot see it, you are not really looking at the film. Both films are quite good.
Motivated camera movement was an asset and sadly, largely a thing of the past. Plenty of fluid moves in 4, and most of all, an improvement over 3 on how to stage for widescreen.
Nimoy's approach created ample headspace for thoughtful moments and philosophical exchanges to really soar in mid-80s Trek. He allowed the essence of Trek – its sensitivity – to really breathe. And he couldn't have done it without Harvey Bennett's soulful writing.
perfectly stated Col.
The films in the last 25 years became addled with the need for the camera moving constantly, almost always for no reason, as you stated, no motivation, just the hyperactive appetite for constant tracking and moving camera shots. What is missing in this is that the movie making becomes the point, more than the movie itself.
Sometime around middle to later 80's the big studio directors became like little kids with the approach to directing and camera work, this was largely instigated by Spielberg, who did this better than anyone. But it became so common place and overused that it ceased to serve the better interests of the film itself.
We can see in The Voyage Home that Nimoy was a more confident director, and he had more resources, and an excellent DP on hand in Peterman, and the more earthbound settings provided options that he, or any other Trek director, never had before, like those great big widescreen shots down the streets of Frisco, or the really nice shots of the bay and the bridge and the hills. That is just a few reasons why it was nominated for an Oscar. And, agreed, as you said, Harve was a terrific human writer, and Nick Meyer too, and Nick was pared back from his sometimes overbearing literary allusions here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Apr 2, 2024 - 9:44 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Solium
(Member)
|
the usual nonsense about the visuals for 3 and 4, they were both very well shot and look better than much more expensive films now, and the color and lighting were excellent. He had a non flashy style, not excessive motion of the camera, but that is a choice. There are some excellent moving dolly shots in 4, Don Peterman was a well established talent, and there are some very nice long shots down the streets and the bay in widescreen that still look terrific. It was nominated for an Oscar. If you cannot see it, you are not really looking at the film. Both films are quite good.
Motivated camera movement was an asset and sadly, largely a thing of the past. Plenty of fluid moves in 4, and most of all, an improvement over 3 on how to stage for widescreen.
Nimoy's approach created ample headspace for thoughtful moments and philosophical exchanges to really soar in mid-80s Trek. He allowed the essence of Trek – its sensitivity – to really breathe. And he couldn't have done it without Harvey Bennett's soulful writing.
perfectly stated Col.
The films in the last 25 years became addled with the need for the camera moving constantly, almost always for no reason, as you stated, no motivation, just the hyperactive appetite for constant tracking and moving camera shots. What is missing in this is that the movie making becomes the point, more than the movie itself.
Sometime around middle to later 80's the big studio directors became like little kids with the approach to directing and camera work, this was largely instigated by Spielberg, who did this better than anyone. But it became so common place and overused that it ceased to serve the better interests of the film itself.
We can see in The Voyage Home that Nimoy was a more confident director, and he had more resources, and an excellent DP on hand in Peterman, and the more earthbound settings provided options that he, or any other Trek director, never had before, like those great big widescreen shots down the streets of Frisco, or the really nice shots of the bay and the bridge and the hills. That is just a few reasons why it was nominated for an Oscar. And, agreed, as you said, Harve was a terrific human writer, and Nick Meyer too, and Nick was pared back from his sometimes overbearing literary allusions here.
Ditto to everything said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Apr 3, 2024 - 5:20 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
TheAvenger
(Member)
|
the usual nonsense about the visuals for 3 and 4, they were both very well shot and look better than much more expensive films now, and the color and lighting were excellent. He had a non flashy style, not excessive motion of the camera, but that is a choice. There are some excellent moving dolly shots in 4, Don Peterman was a well established talent, and there are some very nice long shots down the streets and the bay in widescreen that still look terrific. It was nominated for an Oscar. If you cannot see it, you are not really looking at the film. Both films are quite good.
It isn’t “nonsense”, it is opinion. To suggest that someone “can’t see” the visual flare you insist is there is just absurd.
I agree that IV looked a lot better than III, but that is largely down to how badly I feel the latter was shot. Everything on the Genesis planet looks flat and studio-bound and unsurprisingly the bulk of DP Charles Cornell’s work was in TV.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
