It's evident to me from this interview that the strength of Nicholas Meyer is that he doesn't give a shit about Star Trek, but he DOES give a shit about literature, history, art and culture, and he can apply his knowledge of archetypes and storytelling from this to create a captivating narrative that just happens to take place in the Star Trek world.
Nick Meyer did a great job regarding the movies, but his vision of Trek is somewhat contrary to Roddenberry’s. Therefore, I’m not too interested in his views of Trek.
@@kellymartin8090 I doubt Meyer was overly concerned about taking Roddenberry's vision--for whatever that's worth--as the be-all end-all when it came time to actually settling down and writing a compelling narrative. Because, when you get down to it, you want to have relatable characters, put them into a relatable crisis, and figure out how to resolve that crisis in a way that is compelling to the audience. As long as he has taken pre-established characters from this established universe, hasn't fucked w/ those characters where we don't recognize them, and hasn't fucked w/ the canon where we don't recognize the world it's supposed to take place in (they did have that minor gaff in WoK where Khan recognizes Chekhov, even though he wasn't a part of the cast during Khan's appearance in TOS--but that's actually fairly ret-connable), you have succeeded. The interesting thing is, the older I get, the more I actually get about Kirk (and the other characters) kind of facing up to their getting old, and starting to lose their friends--that's a narrative that only hits closer to home. Same goes for Undiscovered Country, where you have many characters (heroes and villains alike) feeling adrift in a post-Cold War world that is changing much too fast than they are prepared for (all too timely for its day, but also has many connections to getting old in general, and the way the world tends to feel that way the older we get).
I think Meyer with the Khan mini series question gave a very honest answer. I do not think he can say there is a difference between CBS and Paramount copyrights.... so think he used the euphemism that CBS and Paramount could not agree on who is in charge. Why would Paramount be disagreeing with CBS over a streaming show when obviously CBS owns the TV rights. This goes back to the complex license agreement. So think you got an honest answer as to the issues and he did not break NDA but pretty much said the 2 copyrights owned by Paramount and CBS were being contested by the phrase they cannot decide who is in charge.
But at least the second one had a base in something good... I was hoping for something with Carol Marcus, Genesis and a genetically modified Kirk in the third one but no... and the way things are going I doubt there will be a fourth...
Nicholas Meyer is one of the best DVD commentators on the process of story writing in science fiction (the other being Ronald Moore). I loved Meyer's commentary on Khan and Star Trek VI. Always a joy to hear from one of the most thoughtful voices in Hollywood. Great interview!
aside from his Star Trek work I absolutely loved Time After Time, such a cool take on the HG Wells Time Machine and Jack The Ripper stories....very inventive.... good interview too 😃
The channel continues to impress by conducting interviews with fascinating writer/directors. From Tom McLaughlin to Nicholas Meyer, the questions are well thought out and the results are highly entertaining.
@@dixonhill1108 since wrath of Khan came out there were 3 other star trek series and and 9 other movies that came out before the NJ Abrams shit. Why you want to blame Meyers for the direction of the JJ Abrams and discovery crap
@@dixonhill1108 Ummm whut? Wrath of Khan works because it is the best and tightest story of the Star Trek movies. It is a near perfect story of an aging Kirk facing down his sins. It respects and honors everything that came before while giving actual character development to the main cast. It intertwines Melville and Dante into a nice small tight Star Trek story that harkens back to not just Space Seed but some of the other best TOS episodes such as Balance of Terror. It's the closest movie to an actual TOS episode in story, tone and scope. Wrath of Khan works because it is not simply a good Star Trek movie. It is a Great Story and a Great Movie. Near perfectly executed. Not really an ounce of fat anywhere in it. Everything in it has meaning. Everything references back on itself. At pretty much every point the movie follows the rules of Chekov's Gun. Everything is carefully foreshadowed. Heck even as Meyer cribs heavily from Melville and Dante's Inferno he puts it out there right in front of you. Those are the books on Khan's bookshelf. I'll give you the tacky red uniforms we probably could have done without, and those did pollute the franchise for a long time.
dixon hill you’re right and wrong - ST2 showed the studios that they could make a blockbuster out of ST. But if you look back at all of the TOS films none of them duplicated that formula. OTH, every Trek movie since Nemesis has been the same lame attempt at cashing in on the Wrath of Khan formula. I put that on Paramount and JJ.
Great interview, and always look forward to more of your videos where the creators get a stage to speak about their success and experiences. Thank you Mr. Meyer.
Excellent interview. Now I'm more a fan of his than ever. Had no idea of his writing contributions to the star trek movies, nor that he directed time after time, though now not at all surprised. Awesome stuff!!
Such a good episode of Midnight's Edge. I was lucky to have a dad that loved to take me to the movies in the 1970's religiously and I really enjoyed Time After Time in the theater.
I think he was referring to the first season when Fuller left, when it kept getting pushed back because of problem after problem. It should never have gone into production.
Wow, The Day After, had no idea he wrote that. At the time, that was an innovative short tv series for ABC. Thanks for this interview, his thoughts on all the topics he addresses are quite interesting! The whole story behind the Wrath of Kahn is just amazing. Now it makes sense why he kept coming back to Star Trek - he was called on to save the franchise with more popular versions. He is now 72, and the last thing he wrote is one episode of Discovery in 2017. Very nice to hear his thoughts.
Unless you were alive in the U.S. in the 1980s, you can't possibly understand how significant The Day After was as a cultural event. Everywhere you would go, people were talking about it. I didn't know anyone at the time who hadn't seen it. In a way, it united the country. A huge achievement. I'm not surprised that Meyer cites it as one of his proudest moments.
Paul Johnson In those days network TV had a reach which it must be hard for a young person to grasp. Hence we got TV dramas like The Day After, Holocaust, or Roots, that actually shifted the cultural conversation.
His candor, and his honesty about not bullshitting about things he doesn’t know, or wasn’t privy to, is really refreshing. It does take a lot of the romanticism out of the history of these things. But then I realize that those of us of a certain age who grew up with these things, well, we’ve built up the romanticism. It’s rooted in our collective emotional nostalgia. When in reality, many, maybe even MOST of these creative designs and decisions that have become like scripture for a generation boiled down to professionals, men and women alike, who were just hired to do a job with a limited budget and made concessions to to studio executive interference and they mixed it all up and somehow it became “A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away” or “where no man has gone before...”
Very cool interview! And you know, Nicolas Meyer might be right about the social importance of "The Day After." That's because it not only changed Reagan's mind, but also scarred an entire generation. Seriously. There's no way anybody who grew up in the 80's and saw that miniseries would ever think of a nuclear war as "winnable."
Kevin Street The scary thing is that nuclear war might actually have broken out in 1983 owing to errors in the Soviet early warning system combined with a strong suspicion among the aging Soviet leadership that the United States was preparing to attack it
great interview, i really like how you made a minibiography right up front. that invests people, and speaking for myself after learning who he is, that well questioned and answered interview was great content. like a sir! excelsior! jolly well done and good eve to you lol
What Meyer said in 25:00 doesn't dissappoint me at all, on the contrary he seems respectful and honest. People like him are very much needed in this industry.
I for one would actually consider paying for CBS All Access if they gave Nick Meyer the reins of a series. He has proven time and again he has the smarts necessary to tell a thoroughly captivating story. Just image Star Trek with 2, 4 and 6. Without Nick Meyer, the movies would have been a flaming pile of dreck and would have likely ended at number 2. All hail Nicholas Meyer. I just added his movie 'Elegy' to my Netflix queue.
Listening to this interview I can’t help thinking about Star Wars as much as I’m thinking about Star Trek. The two most popular franchises in all of science fiction and sci-fi fantasy media, and both at a REAL crossroads in terms of how to best move the franchises forward and appeal not only to the longtime fans who have really made the respective franchises what they are in terms of importance as cultural phenomena, but to an entirely new generation that is not only increasingly cynical, but has FAR more options than EVER before, that serve as direct competition. And now we increasingly find arguments about what is being “true” to Star Wars, or “true” to Star Trek. What strikes me is how I’ve been guilty in the past of believing that all these franchises REALLY needed were smart creatives who really LOVED and RESPECTED these franchises the way fans do. I first began to realize I was wrong when I learned that “Rogue One” (the modern Star Wars film that I feel best exemplifies what the Original Trilogy was) was largely “fixed” by writer/director Tony Gilroy, who was simply brought in to fix a movie and did so. He could care less about a Wookie or a Wampa. And I get the same sense listening to Meyer. They’re experienced professionals brought in to do a job. They punch in, do the job well, and punch out, without any slavish devotion to the genre or the franchise. Interesting.
They were dead on about the Star Wars 9 plot leaks a year in advance, so I think they have some credibility. However, there seems to be some confusion between fact, rumour, and theory, among the channel's proponents. You can't use them as a source in an argument since the videos are theories, but you can take the information they do provide and use it for your own arguments--just make sure you can cite the channel's sources (and not anonymous leakers).
Jord IL I agree with everything you’ve said here. I just find groups that tend to worship at the alter of Kurtzman deride Midnight’s Edge because it doesn’t fit their narrative.
Excellent interview. I must be the only one who didn't know he worked on Discovery. but with all the changes on and behind the series, I guess we will never know how much input he put into it. maybe CBS should have let him take over writing for season two, (or lead the writers direction of the series?) but in the end it's CBS lost.
Great interview, thank you. I can tell you I went to the US trademark website, and under star trek they have 6 or 7 titles for Streaming/dvd trademarked. Star Trek: Starfleet Academy, StarTrek: Destiny, Star Trek: Reliant, Star Trek: Lower Decks, Star Trek: Revolution, and Star Trek: Ceti Alpha V. So my guess is it's coming soon, but who knows. LLAP:)
Great interview. My favourite parody of film reviews has a running argument between the two hosts, one of which says Star Trek 2 took place in San Fran and the other saying the 4th did. It's really long and stupid but eventually there was an unrelated court case and in order to challenge the intelligence of the critic defendant Meyer was called in to give testimony. It was awesome.
You pretty much covered everything we would be interested in asking him. I would like to have known more about that scriptwriting mess over Nemesis though, and if there was something more to it than what's already been written.
When I saw this in my feed I was most surprised and I'm sure that the Drekkies would be triggered from here to the Neutral Zone knowing that a channel that they deemed as being problematic scored themselves an interview with someone who worked on the show
It’s funny how ego and the passage of time can distort recollections of history. “The Day After” did not influence Reagan to make peace with the Soviets. In fact, after Reagan saw the miniseries he believed that it validated the hard line approach he had adopted for dealing with the Soviets. What made the Reagan-Gorbachev arms reduction talks possible was not a change of heart on Reagan’s part but the growing weakness of the USSR’s ruling elite. Gorbachev attempted to restore stability by initiating reforms and opening a dialogue with the west, but his efforts only paved the way for the fall of the Soviet Union.
@sonoki82 Um, no, not even remotely. Before "The Day After" began, a title card came up indicating that it only was portraying a *limited* nuclear exchange, and that an all-out nuclear exchange would be far, far worse. In fact, that was the point - that even a "limited" nuclear exchange, even if such a thing were possible without further escalation, would be utterly catastrophic. Whether or not it influenced Reagan in actuality, the notion that it was influential to the deescalation of the Cold War is not a product of "ego and the passage of time"; this narrative had been cemented by the very early '90s. /someone old enough to remember watching it on TV as a teenager
@sonoki82 Nonsense. In the premise of the movie, the total number of warheads deployed is a small fraction of each nation's contemporary stockpiles, with no full-retaliation or second strike following up (because they magically decided that just a few nukes was enough and they were done, as if that could ever happen in the real world). That is the exact definition of a limited nuclear exchange. The movie cites 300 inbound ICBMs, and even with MIRVs, this would be a tithe of the 30,000 weapons the USSR could deploy at the time. The Soviet Union had about 3500 ICBMs at the time the movie was made. If Lawrence KS got hit disproportionally to its population in the film, it's because of its proximity to ICBM launch sites, which were the primary targets of a limited exchange (to reduce second-strike capability). This is EXACTLY the limited nuclear war Reagan and certain factions within the Pentagon imagined they could win.
@sonoki82 Tithe = 1/10th. 300 out of 3500 ICBMs = a tithe. And limited warfare. The movie deliberately made the exchange a 10th of the two nations' stockpiles, because the "full-out" war you imagine it was trying to portray would have left no drama, because there would be no "day after".
@sonoki82 Dude, I'm a physicist working at a national lab. I got my doctorate on a first principles model of solar wind-impressed magnetic fields in the ionosphere on Venus in 1999, before many of the people reading this comments section were even born. I'll put my math against some random guy's on the internet's any day. In 1980, the Soviet Union had ~3500 ICBMs and ~30,000 nukes - yes, many of which were tactical(1). *In the movie*, the USSR launches 300 of its 3500 ICBMs at the US in the "limited nuclear war" the movie stated in its title card as portraying. Most Soviet ICBMs deployed multiple warheads (MIRVs) at the time; and Soviets were more dependent on these than the US. Allowing 4 warheads per nuke, typical of Soviet ICBMs at the time, that means that *in the movie*, the USSR deployed ~1200 of its potential ~14000 strategic nukes in the nuclear exchange against US soil. That's approximately a tenth. *A tithe*. What went on with tactical weapons in Europe is outside the scope of the movie (again, see note 1) or this discussion. And this is a worst-case scenario using the information given by the movie. Allowing for a mix of single-warhead missiles and MIRVs, the exchange could have been anywhere between 300-1200 nukes, which - while an insane number of weapons to deploy against any country - is still a tiny fraction of what they had the capacity to deploy, and what would have been deployed in a full-out nuclear war, even allowing for keeping weapons in reserve for secondary and tertiary strike capability. So by no reasonable measure can it be said that the *movie* is portraying full-out nuclear war, even giving the widest latitude to the Soviet attack, as portrayed *in the movie*. Consistent with what is indicated by the opening card, the *movie* portrayed a limited nuclear exchange where at most around a tenth of the USSR's strategic weapons were used on the United States. Your contention that the *movie* portrayed a full-on nuclear war, and not a limited one (as the movie itself claims), is thus soundly disproven, and thus is not relevant to what was believed to be "winnable" at the time. (1) In the plot of the movie, in fact, the strategic missile exchange was an escalation from the US' use of tactical warheads over Soviet tanks in Europe, though the movie leaves ambiguous who struck first with strategic weapons.
Peter Walker, I was a teenager when “The Day After” aired, too. I remember it quite clearly. I don’t recall this “narrative” you describe, but I have read the passage from Ronald Reagan’s published diary regarding the miniseries, and his impression was that the horrors it portrayed justified his hard line stance against the Soviets. Furthermore, as the other commenter pointed out, Reagan continued to play it tough with the Soviets for several more years, until Gorbachev came along with his Glasnost policies. The reality is that Reagan did not think nuclear war was winnable, but he did fear that the Soviets believed they could win a nuclear war. The entire point of Reagan’s hardline pursuit of the Mutually Assured Destruction policy was to convince the Soviets that both sides would be destroyed in a nuclear exchange, to deter them from even contemplating the initiation of such a war. Despite Meyers’ opinion, “The Day After” actually served as propaganda in support of Reagan’s MAD policy. /Someone who has a graduate degree in history and knows what really happened.
Looks like the Khan show is gone then. I can't say I'd miss it- it's (like SOLO) as story that doesn't need to be told, A Eugenics Wars story perhaps is a better idea. But they had to kinda re-write that as the events "no longer happened" in the way they are supposed to have happened due to Real life getting in the way of Star Trek History. (as we have already seen on Star Trek Voyager). I'm quite pleased if it does get cancelled. As I think it's not really worth the money to make it it would only be modestly interesting and the parts you would want to see would be skimped on to keep the budget down. There is some interesting questions to be asked like is that a space ship carcus they are living in and where did it come from ? But perhaps since it's already a story that's been told in other media - it's not worth rehashing it. Star Trek likely needs to crash and burn to come back stronger even if it has to hide in a hole for another 10 years to do that.
You've got NO chance of a valid attempt at the 'Eugenics War' in the current dumbed down left wing fanaticism political climate. It would be cartoonish at very best!
@@Lensman864 even though the NPCs worship the woman who started the eugenics program we've got today masquerading as women's reproductive rights. It's weird how they wouldn't want to see something involving the extermination of a group of ppl. Just tell them that the characters in the Eugenics War are Nazi-like and the other side is "Anti"-fascist.
"But they had to kinda re-write that as the events "no longer happened" in the way they are supposed to have happened due to Real life getting in the way of Star Trek History. (as we have already seen on Star Trek Voyager)." Voyager ignored it, but they didn't necessarily retcon it out of existence. Novels might not be canon, but you should read the Eugenics Wars by Greg Cox if you haven't already. He did an excellent job of working the events of the Eugenics Wars into the events of the real world. Adopting that novel into an Assignment: EARTH spinoff series would be neat. Or just make the novels canon.
Mr. Meyer doesn't seem to be passionate about Star Trek at all. It's rather that he loves his work and takes his projects seriously. I found it a bit edgy that he kept telling the interviewer to read his book in the beginning. Otherwise it was an interesting interview. I'm excited for the next one.
"Mr. Meyer doesn't seem to be passionate about Star Trek at all. It's rather that he loves his work and takes his projects seriously." That's probably the reason why Star Trek 2 and 6 are generally considered a success from Star Trek fans. A competent writer distanced from any fanaticism usually has an objective approach to storytelling as apposed to someone like Roberto Orci, a fan, who assumes he knows what the audience wants rather than what it needs.
Eroica I agree totally. And I think that objectivity is what makes for good, dramatic storytelling. Even in something like Doctor Who-to me, the best Time Lord was the guy who was just a good actor; not a fan. The problem with the entertainment industry today is that it has become such a crony network, there are very few, genuinely talented writers, or actors.
Y'know, when Discovery was being commissioned and the haters went nuts, I reminded them that Nick Meyer was involved in it and that he directed the best Star Trek film of all time, Wrath of Khan. Well, they responded by saying it was a shit film so that they could continue trashing the series to this day; it was then I remembered that this is RU-vid, where trolls luv talking stupid 4 the sake of talking.
I'm calling BS here: pics/links or it didn't happen. Why? Because you can't go a week without STDJWs dissing TOS, TNG, or Roddenberry, but virtually no one dislikes ST2. Thus, this sounds like projectionism. And indeed, even if some oddball did say it, it doesn't compare to the hate for past Treks that we're awash in these days.
@@STvSWNet People hate you b'cuz YOU'RE the oddballs, and YES IT HAS HAPPENED! I don't have pics or links to these ppl's profile; why da fuck would I? And, here you are with proof that Nick Meyer, the guy responsible for the movie that you said no one dislikes, is indeed involved with the new Trek and you completely it brush off so you can continue ranting about the current Trek! Way to prove me wrong.
@@terrancehall9762 non fact they come from all around the world , what you get is lost in your own self deluded important like i care what you say when you attempt mediocre, no minded attack that is so trivial that its at best like stepping on a BUG....your that zzzzzzzzzz sound everyone hears.
@@chronosschiron I'm still right. You are the one pressed because ppl like something different. Enjoy your trolls. And you take yourself too seriously.
Star Trek Discovery gets a 20% to 37% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes (although official critics rated it higher). It is no wonder the series is ending. The Discovery ship with its angular designs looks much different than most other ships in Star Trek lore. So much is different.
I'm glad you asked the "colorful metaphors" question. I disagree with his conclusion that because society has shifted more that way Star Trek had to ... that logic would also say that if we become more fascist Star Trek has to, or that the next Pixar movie needs an F bomb, but at least he carefully considered it.
Great interview with a great artist Nicholas Meyer gave a lot to pop culture. Great channel: light-years away from the MSM Channels like yours are the future
I really liked all of his Star Trek movies I should check his other works. His contribution to STD is weird. He worked for a year and next year he was no longer consulted but still paid? STD production was really chaotic.
Should've faded out the background music when the interview started. It got pretty distracting when trying to understand what the guy was saying, especially since it was low quality phone audio.
I always wondered, why did they feel the need to change the klingons so much? It always felt like some attempt for the director to "leave his mark" on the IP.
If you're referring to Discovery's Klingons, it's because of the licensing issues between CBS and Paramount. The series is being made under Paramount's license (same as the Abrams films), so all of the fictional elements must look noticeably different than the rest of the Trek franchise which is held under the CBS license. If they could have gotten away with a change that wasn't so drastic and so ugly, then that would be the show runner's responsibility.
