FADE IN: The Writing of Star Trek Insurrection
- Thread starter ghostryder
- Start date
Larry Young
Master Member
Sent it over.
I'm down for one - excited to read it!
jimmy2step at verizon .net
jimmy2step at verizon .net
add me to the list please! I really want to read this having worked on the film!
wondersquid23@yahoo.com
thanks!
wondersquid23@yahoo.com
thanks!
ave4uevoli
Sr Member
This is facinating - Me too please. I could use a good read:
Thomas (dot) I (dot) Fan (at) Gmail.com
Thomas (dot) I (dot) Fan (at) Gmail.com
Commander Max
Sr Member
I would like to request one as well.
maxim2(at)mindspring.com
maxim2(at)mindspring.com
nickytea
Master Member
Here's a link for those that don't want to email:
MEGAUPLOAD - The leading online storage and file delivery service
MEGAUPLOAD - The leading online storage and file delivery service
WinstonWolf359
Sr Member
Well, I've been picking away at this for several days, and finally finished.
It's an interesting read, although if you've read other books about the process of going from script to screen it's not particularly Earth-shattering.
I was also surprised by how knowledgeable Patrick Stewart was about the series' past, and how he really pushed to not go over the same material again.
I actually found Brent Spiner's notes even more interesting. He seemed to be the only one picking up on how many plot holes there were, both large and small, and it's sad that most of his observations went largely ignored.
It's obvious from the things each man focused on that Patrick was much more focused on the emotional impact (and being sexy!) than the details, while Brent was really looking at the nuts and bolts of creating a story that made sense first, yet also not wanting to re-hash things done in the past.
Even Paramount's laundry list of problems with the story showed a much more knowledgeable and helpful understanding of Star Trek's history than I ever would have expected. Granted, some of the comments became moot points after subsequent re-writes, but I though the care for Star Trek and desire to at least try to make a better film was obvious in the comments.
Which means this book was completely different from what I had expected going in. I just assumed it would be a story of how the original script for Insurrection was such an amazing story and how the finished film was ruined by meddling studio suits and ego-driven actors.
When, in actuality, it began as a weak and poorly-plotted story that couldn't be saved, even after the significant efforts of the principal actors and the studio.
I still think Insurrection is the second-worst Trek film, but now after seeing the details of the work that led up to the final product it confirmed my belief that it takes a lot of work to make a film that bad. In the end I just think the basic premise was too flawed to work, and too bogged down in formula and technobabble.
It's an interesting read, although if you've read other books about the process of going from script to screen it's not particularly Earth-shattering.
I was also surprised by how knowledgeable Patrick Stewart was about the series' past, and how he really pushed to not go over the same material again.
I actually found Brent Spiner's notes even more interesting. He seemed to be the only one picking up on how many plot holes there were, both large and small, and it's sad that most of his observations went largely ignored.
It's obvious from the things each man focused on that Patrick was much more focused on the emotional impact (and being sexy!) than the details, while Brent was really looking at the nuts and bolts of creating a story that made sense first, yet also not wanting to re-hash things done in the past.
Even Paramount's laundry list of problems with the story showed a much more knowledgeable and helpful understanding of Star Trek's history than I ever would have expected. Granted, some of the comments became moot points after subsequent re-writes, but I though the care for Star Trek and desire to at least try to make a better film was obvious in the comments.
Which means this book was completely different from what I had expected going in. I just assumed it would be a story of how the original script for Insurrection was such an amazing story and how the finished film was ruined by meddling studio suits and ego-driven actors.
When, in actuality, it began as a weak and poorly-plotted story that couldn't be saved, even after the significant efforts of the principal actors and the studio.
I still think Insurrection is the second-worst Trek film, but now after seeing the details of the work that led up to the final product it confirmed my belief that it takes a lot of work to make a film that bad. In the end I just think the basic premise was too flawed to work, and too bogged down in formula and technobabble.
Similar threads
