Sign in to follow this  
Captain_Bravo

This Guy Almost Directed TWOK...

Recommended Posts

kenman   

Interesting indeed. I wonder if at that stage in his career he would have been ready to helm a Trek feature (for comparison, the same year he made "Night Shift" which is a fine movie...but nowhere near the special effects and egos he would've had to have handled on Trek).  He definitely would be a fine choice to handle any Trek feature now (I would applaud him being on board even if just an episode of the new show!)...you just have to wonder if at that early stage of his career, having mostly handled low budget Corman features, would he have been able to make something like Meyer did.

But where he is now, a long running and fairly consistent filmmaker who has dabbled in tons of genres to great success?  I'd love to see him be a director for Trek. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Corylea   

Ron Howard?  Wow!  That could have been very interesting, and it could have changed the tone and direction of the franchise. 

I've read that Nick Meyer thought of Star Trek as "the Navy in space," and he added some militaristic touches (like shouting "Captain on the bridge") that weren't present in the TV show and that neither Roddenberry nor Nimoy put in the movies they made.  I wonder what Howard would have done, and how it would have all turned out.

I guess we need one of those alternate-reality episodes to explore this. :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kenman   

It really would be interesting what direction Trek might've gone stylistically had it been someone other than Meyer.  His style definitely shaped Trek's look in the movies all the way through TUC.  If a similar script had been handled by a young Ron Howard?  Who knows what it could have looked like, where the Trek movies might've gone after that?  How would things have changed? 

As it is we can only ponder, and if he really is a fan...hope that maybe we get Ron Howard to direct something of Trek someday, he is certainly a talented guy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that "Apollo 13" is one of my favorite movies?  I'd be OK with seeing what a young Ron Howard could've brought to the ST table.   But Meyer also had a major hand in shaping TWOK's screenplay, and that was invaluable.  Without Meyer, TWOK literally wouldn't have been the same screenplay. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kenman   

Given that "Apollo 13" is one of my favorite movies?  I'd be OK with seeing what a young Ron Howard could've brought to the ST table.   But Meyer also had a major hand in shaping TWOK's screenplay, and that was invaluable.  Without Meyer, TWOK literally wouldn't have been the same screenplay. 

Then the interesting thing really is what would Trek look like today with him at the helm at that tipping point.  Would he had made a film that would've worked on the same level?  Would Trek have had more sequels? 

Furthermore Meyer not only made a movie that was successful both creatively and financially and lead to another sequel, but he had a hand in shaping Star Trek IV, a film that went on to be so financially successful that they decided to bring Trek back to TV...creating TNG.  Where would Trek be at this point had Meyer's successful efforts to the franchise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CaptPapa   

In a word . . . fascinating!

And the headline is right - that is something that I never knew about Star Trek.

As for the possibilities . . . well the mind goes round and round on that one.  I looked up Meyer's credits and find he had no more experience as a director than Howard.  Meyer did Time After Time (1979), which I enjoyed, and Howard did Night Shift (1982), which I also liked.

I thought Wrath Of Khan was the best of the Star Trek films - but I was disappointed with The Undiscovered Country and hold Meyer responsible because of the film's style.

Again, back to their credits, and in my opinion, I think Howard's body of work is clearly superior to Meyer's.

Could Howard at 28 have handled the egos involved in making a Star Trek movie?  Good question - Meyer was 37.  I just don't know if that would make a significant difference.  Howard at that age had many years experience, in the business, and I would assume he was a respected artist.

ME

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kenman   

In a word . . . fascinating!

And the headline is right - that is something that I never knew about Star Trek.

As for the possibilities . . . well the mind goes round and round on that one.  I looked up Meyer's credits and find he had no more experience as a director than Howard.  Meyer did Time After Time (1979), which I enjoyed, and Howard did Night Shift (1982), which I also liked.

I thought Wrath Of Khan was the best of the Star Trek films - but I was disappointed with The Undiscovered Country and hold Meyer responsible because of the film's style.

Again, back to their credits, and in my opinion, I think Howard's body of work is clearly superior to Meyer's.

Could Howard at 28 have handled the egos involved in making a Star Trek movie?  Good question - Meyer was 37.  I just don't know if that would make a significant difference.  Howard at that age had many years experience, in the business, and I would assume he was a respected artist.

ME

Well...Howard was a child actor.  Who knows how respected he would've been as a director with egos as large as the cast of Star Trek...a child star who suddenly thinks himself a director. It's a weird business Hollywood.  Meyer was a tad older and didn't have the baggage of Opie and Richie Cunningham to overcome (and hell...even the TOS cast worked with Opie's little brother in an early episode! It is entirely possible they'd think of him as a kid and would try to run the show)...and he was able to just do his thing...make Shatner do enough takes until he got bored of hamming it up and just did what Meyer wanted. 

Career wise?  Yea, I would say Howard is the more accomplished and possibly the better director/artist of the two.  That said...at the time?  Meyer may have been the right choice.  And since Star Trek VI is very near the top of my favorites, I am very pleased with what Meyer did for the franchise (with Harve Bennett). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CaptPapa   

In a word . . . fascinating!

And the headline is right - that is something that I never knew about Star Trek.

As for the possibilities . . . well the mind goes round and round on that one.  I looked up Meyer's credits and find he had no more experience as a director than Howard.  Meyer did Time After Time (1979), which I enjoyed, and Howard did Night Shift (1982), which I also liked.

I thought Wrath Of Khan was the best of the Star Trek films - but I was disappointed with The Undiscovered Country and hold Meyer responsible because of the film's style.

Again, back to their credits, and in my opinion, I think Howard's body of work is clearly superior to Meyer's.

Could Howard at 28 have handled the egos involved in making a Star Trek movie?  Good question - Meyer was 37.  I just don't know if that would make a significant difference.  Howard at that age had many years experience, in the business, and I would assume he was a respected artist.

ME

Well...Howard was a child actor.  Who knows how respected he would've been as a director with egos as large as the cast of Star Trek...a child star who suddenly thinks himself a director. It's a weird business Hollywood.  Meyer was a tad older and didn't have the baggage of Opie and Richie Cunningham to overcome (and hell...even the TOS cast worked with Opie's little brother in an early episode! It is entirely possible they'd think of him as a kid and would try to run the show)...and he was able to just do his thing...make Shatner do enough takes until he got bored of hamming it up and just did what Meyer wanted. 

Career wise?  Yea, I would say Howard is the more accomplished and possibly the better director/artist of the two.  That said...at the time?  Meyer may have been the right choice.  And since Star Trek VI is very near the top of my favorites, I am very pleased with what Meyer did for the franchise (with Harve Bennett). 

Mmm . . . I don't know anything about Hollywood, but as a bottom line, I would tend to agree that Meyer was a better choice at that time.

ME

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a word . . . fascinating!

And the headline is right - that is something that I never knew about Star Trek.

As for the possibilities . . . well the mind goes round and round on that one.  I looked up Meyer's credits and find he had no more experience as a director than Howard.  Meyer did Time After Time (1979), which I enjoyed, and Howard did Night Shift (1982), which I also liked.

I thought Wrath Of Khan was the best of the Star Trek films - but I was disappointed with The Undiscovered Country and hold Meyer responsible because of the film's style.

Again, back to their credits, and in my opinion, I think Howard's body of work is clearly superior to Meyer's.

Could Howard at 28 have handled the egos involved in making a Star Trek movie?  Good question - Meyer was 37.  I just don't know if that would make a significant difference.  Howard at that age had many years experience, in the business, and I would assume he was a respected artist.

ME

Well...Howard was a child actor.  Who knows how respected he would've been as a director with egos as large as the cast of Star Trek...a child star who suddenly thinks himself a director. It's a weird business Hollywood.  Meyer was a tad older and didn't have the baggage of Opie and Richie Cunningham to overcome (and hell...even the TOS cast worked with Opie's little brother in an early episode! It is entirely possible they'd think of him as a kid and would try to run the show)...and he was able to just do his thing...make Shatner do enough takes until he got bored of hamming it up and just did what Meyer wanted. 

Career wise?  Yea, I would say Howard is the more accomplished and possibly the better director/artist of the two.  That said...at the time?  Meyer may have been the right choice.  And since Star Trek VI is very near the top of my favorites, I am very pleased with what Meyer did for the franchise (with Harve Bennett). 

Mmm . . . I don't know anything about Hollywood, but as a bottom line, I would tend to agree that Meyer was a better choice at that time.

ME

For the time?  Yes, I agree as well.  But that's not to detract from Howard's own accomplishments as a filmmaker.  Stanley Kubrick is a cinematic genius; would he be right for a ST movie?  Probably not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this