Slashdot Mirror
Crusher Crushed from Nemesis
Ant sent in a link to Wil Wheaton's weblog where he writes a surprisingly heartfelt piece on being cut from ST:Nemesis. Its a strangely bittersweet little entry that really speaks volumes, especially considering Wil's fairly public disagreements with
Rick Berman. Apparently Wil's bit was cut along with 48 whole minutes of the flick- its just the nature of filmaking. But
I guess if nothing else, they've got tons of stuff for the DVD now!
ps. journals.slashdot.org and helpdesk.slashdot.org please.
The Wil Wheaton Joy of Tech Comic available to buy and profits will be donated to Wil Wheaton and his wife Anne's Avon Breast Cancer 3-Day Walk.
Dude, doesn't he have like.. a communicator or something? I mean... just tap that little badge on your lapel, Wil. Hands free, baby!
But I have to say, I'm disapointed for him. I'm not a big trek fan and haven't really watched any star trek since ST:TNG, but it would have been nice to tie him in -- even to a small scene -- in something new.
If there are any current star trek series in production, it'd be interesting to have him return and play a completely different character. Sort of a Tom Paris kind of hero guy... only nerdier and maybe not so good with the girls.
He could be Captain Slashdotticus.
Ask anyone who has produced any sort of video media.... heck, even school projects. The big advantage to having a ton of extra footage that may get cut from the final version is that, in editing and post-production, the filmmakers have more power to make a film that will please audiences. Think about some of the past trekkie films... They shot extra junk like Scotty teaching the engineers how to make some sort of new polymer or whatnot. It's that type of work that gives a film it's character and the ability to connect to an audience. When you have more material to work with for a final cut, the odds are that the movie will be better for it, even if certain actors had their entire chunck of work aborted.
One movie that didn't quite do this was "Not Another Teen Movie". Apparently they were able to spice up the ending by having Molly Ringwald do an extended cameo. This probably cost a significant chunk of change to reshoot when compared to the rest of the rest of the movie. Unfortunately, it resulted in replacing one crappy ending with a slightly more expensive crappy ending featuring star power.
Much of the shape of the final story is worked out in the editing process. Directors typically shoot not only extra scenes that may or may not make it into the final cut, but they might also shoot a half-dozen or so versions of each scene, each acted a bit differently. (Or lit, or with different angles, etc.) With so much raw material to work from, the editor and director can take the film in almost any direction they choose long after shooting is completed and without having to drag the actors back in front of the cameras.
For a good example of what I'm talking about, go get the Big Trouble in Little China DVD. (As a /. reader you should own a copy of this film anyway, so if you don't have it you should buy it immediately or risk the loss of your nerd credentials.) Check out the deleted scenes, which include a number of alternate versions of scenes that actually appeared in the final cut. The director, John Carpenter, chose to make BTiLC a very fast-paced action-oriented film that almost never gives you a chance to take a breath. However, with the material at his disposal, he could have created a slower more dramatic film that was much more character-oriented.
Part of the reason for this is because very often even an experienced director can't tell how a particular script is going to work until he actually sees it on film. All this extra material allows him to pick and choose among entire scenes and subtle re-interpretations of scenes until the film conveys exactly the effect he's aiming for. Other times, I think it's because the director honestly doesn't know what will work better or what final product he's going for, and all the extra footage allows him to defer that decision until he's in the editing booth.
And the brethren went away edified.
In most Hollywood productions, the writer usually has little or no control over what finally makes it onto the screen. The producer can add or subtract anything he wants, because he's paying the bills. And producers don't revise for clarity or coherence, they make business decisions. (Well, most. Some break this mold, but they're usually the writer/producer/director auteurs.)Directors and A-list stars also have enough clout to change things around, depending on what their contract says.
Also, stuff that looks good on paper or in the mind's eye might not be practical to shoot (for whatever reasons), or just not look as good when it comes out. Someone might decide that the odd Gilbert & Sullivan reference was just a little too cute to be the crucial clue that solves the puzzle, or that the attacking mushroom people looked cool, but not cool enough to divert the Enterprise to their homeworld.
That's not to say what gets cut just to make it PG-13. Take one exploding head out, and you might have to rewrite every scene that character was in.
So a writer who's aware of that will add stuff that will make a four-hour movie, knowing that not all of it will be shot, and knowing that not all of it that gets shot will make it past the cutting floor. When you get down to it, the plot is almost like the music, in that composers don't write symponies for movies, they write themes and bits that can be inserted into the movie at numerous points. The long and the short of it is, draft screenplays are almost always different, and often radically so, from the final product.
(P.S., didn't I read somewhere that Lucas rewrote the light saber fight between Obi-wan and Vader after shooting had begun? The original had him survive, and Guinness fought against having him sacrifice himself. Of course, George is one who'll rewrite a movie twenty years after releasing it, so maybe that's not the best example.)
"Hardly used" will not fetch you a better price for your brain.
http://interviews.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/1 0/29/173252&mode=thread&tid=129
He's actually a pretty cool guy. It's a shame to hear that he got cut, but it happens.
I have a feeling that was his last chance to be part of Star Trek and I'm sure he'll miss it.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
At the end of the ST:TNG series, Wesley went off with the Traveler, who first appeared in the first season in the "Where No One has Gone Before" episode. The Traveler thought Wesley was someone who was very gifted and compared him to some of the greatest people who ever lived, like Mozart.
I worked with Wil many years ago. He was spending some time at the Renaissance Pleasure Faire as a boothie. I was running the Seadogs. We did a few gigs at his expense and he took it with a smile.
It's unfortunate the writers for ST:TNG were idiots and did a lot of stupid things with his character, but that wasn't under his control. He had basically two choices, live with it or quit. Would you quit a high paying job on Star Trek because you didn't like the direction your character was going? Hell no! I would have been happy to play any sort of character just to get on Star Trek.
-- Will program for bandwidth
Anyone who has watched TOS back when Gene was running things knows that he considered Star Trek a "Space Western" and he went on-record in multiple interviews as saying that he hated the TV censors and tried to sneak past them as much material as possible. Original fans will also note Kirk's green bellydancer lovefest, and the harem girls he slept with (all of them?) and so on. TOS was violent, sexual, and campy. Gene chafed against the restrictions. I'm tired of the Johnny-come-lately's suggesting that Gene would hate foul language or sex or action scenes. Ugh.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
Actually there is a DIRECT and MEASURABLE comparison between brain activity on the road and cell phone usage. A study was done where people would wear a piece of headgear that would not only measure the placement of one's eyes but also brain activity while driving. Turns out that people talking on cellphones spend less time looking at the road and the parts of the brain which are active while concentrating only on the road are less active while the operator is talking on the phone. Similarly, while intoxicated, and they used this exact comparison, the brain is less concerned with the road and more concerned with other thoughts.
This doesn't even take into account the reality that most people still hold their cell phones with their hands, rather than using the headset.
Your racecar analogy is bogus for reasons that any reasonably intelligent person can see. However, since we're posting on Slashnerd I'll elaborate. A racecar driver has certain commands and phrases that he says to his pit crew that he has said hundreds of times before. There is no conversation and there is no intensive cognitive thought involved. Therefore the portions of the brain which are focused on the road remain focused on the road when these pre-programmed phrases are uttered. Clearly arguing with your girlfriend is more demanding on the brain than "I need gas."
The guy in the fur coat was digitally replaced by a computer generated Jabba. I recall seeing something about it in a "Making Of" type special, they ended up having Han step on his tail because the original actor (in the suit) wouldn't have been standing there, but Jabba took more room.