RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,150
Posts: 5,343,676
Members: 24,595
Currently online: 489
Newest member: jagmegyan

TrekToday headlines

New Funko Trek Figure
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Saldana As A Role Model
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

San Diego Comic-Con Trek Fan Guide
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Cumberbatch As Turing
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Retro Review: In the Pale Moonlight
By: Michelle on Jul 19

Trek Beach Towel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 18

Two New Starships Collection Releases
By: T'Bonz on Jul 17

Giacchino Tour Arrives In North America
By: T'Bonz on Jul 17

IDW Publishing October Star Trek Comics
By: T'Bonz on Jul 16

Cho As Romantic Lead
By: T'Bonz on Jul 16


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 24 2013, 08:22 AM   #46
Therin of Andor
Admiral
 
Therin of Andor's Avatar
 
Location: New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
View Therin of Andor's Twitter Profile
Re: Lindelof not writing next trek movie?

Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
Did Duane or Foster write for the show?
Diane Duane loosely adapted her TOS novel, "The Wounded Sky", into a TNG episode, "Where No One Has Gone Before". Her glass spider scientist became the Traveler.

Alan Dean Foster's shelved Klingon two-parter script, written on spec for the abandoned Season Four of TOS, was used to pad out a single TAS episode to novel length for "Star Trek Log Seven". On the strength of his work for Ballantine's adaptations of TAS and his Power Records audio scripts, Foster was asked to adapt "Robot's Return" (a script for "Genesis II") into the premise for "In Thy Image", which would become a Harold Livingston script, and eventually "Star Trek: The Motion Picture".
__________________
Thiptho lapth! Ian (Entire post is personal opinion)
The Andor Files @ http://andorfiles.blogspot.com/
http://therinofandor.blogspot.com/
Therin of Andor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24 2013, 10:48 AM   #47
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Lindelof not writing next trek movie?

tmosler wrote: View Post
hey the last time i heard the current writing team is stepping down for the writers of thor and xmen first class are they still going to be involved?
Old news, since disproven. Orci and Kurtzman are writing again.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24 2013, 10:51 AM   #48
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Lindelof not writing next trek movie?

Shaka Zulu wrote: View Post
^THIS.

Time for the obdurate foundamentalist Trek fans among us to stop wishing for the older shows to come back (as much as I loved TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT); it isn't coming back, and people like Orci & Kurtzman are the only ones who would write movie that this that are successful.
Exactly, there are only two people in Hollywood that can write scripts for successful movies.
__________________
lol
l
/\
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24 2013, 03:28 PM   #49
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: House of Kang, now with ridges
Re: Lindelof not writing next trek movie?

Therin of Andor wrote: View Post
Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
Did Duane or Foster write for the show?
Diane Duane loosely adapted her TOS novel, "The Wounded Sky", into a TNG episode, "Where No One Has Gone Before". Her glass spider scientist became the Traveler.

Alan Dean Foster's shelved Klingon two-parter script, written on spec for the abandoned Season Four of TOS, was used to pad out a single TAS episode to novel length for "Star Trek Log Seven". On the strength of his work for Ballantine's adaptations of TAS and his Power Records audio scripts, Foster was asked to adapt "Robot's Return" (a script for "Genesis II") into the premise for "In Thy Image", which would become a Harold Livingston script, and eventually "Star Trek: The Motion Picture".
So that would be no on Duane and almost on Foster. ( assuming one sees TOS and TAS as seperate shows)
__________________
The boring one, the one with Khan, the one where Spock returns, the one with whales, the dumb one, the last one, the one with Kirk, the one with the Borg, the stupid one, the bad one, the new one, the other one with Khan.
Nerys Myk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24 2013, 05:06 PM   #50
tmosler
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Lindelof not writing next trek movie?

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
tmosler wrote: View Post
hey the last time i heard the current writing team is stepping down for the writers of thor and xmen first class are they still going to be involved?
Old news, since disproven. Orci and Kurtzman are writing again.
Orci: "We are currently talking to Paramount to see if we can make a schedule work where we can remain involved, but again, for example the second movie we teamed with Damon Lindelof, so on the the third film we may do something similar"

is it possible that orci and kurtzman may not be the only people writing the movie and they are working with the writers of thor and xmen first class?
tmosler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 25 2013, 05:27 AM   #51
Therin of Andor
Admiral
 
Therin of Andor's Avatar
 
Location: New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
View Therin of Andor's Twitter Profile
Re: Lindelof not writing next trek movie?

Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
So that would be no on Duane and almost on Foster. ( assuming one sees TOS and TAS as seperate shows)
It would be a "no" for both.

Duane wrote for TNG, not TOS.

Foster's TOS script was unproduced - and quite unknown until he mentioned it an essay for the most recent trade reprints of the "Logs" (it was the story about Captain Kumara, Cadet Kirk's former Klingon Exchange Program roommate) - and adapting TAS episodes for books, writing TAS-based audios and a "story by" credit on TMP wouldn't count as writing for TOS either.
__________________
Thiptho lapth! Ian (Entire post is personal opinion)
The Andor Files @ http://andorfiles.blogspot.com/
http://therinofandor.blogspot.com/
Therin of Andor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 25 2013, 05:35 AM   #52
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: House of Kang, now with ridges
Re: Lindelof not writing next trek movie?

Therin of Andor wrote: View Post
Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
So that would be no on Duane and almost on Foster. ( assuming one sees TOS and TAS as seperate shows)
It would be a "no" for both.

Duane wrote for TNG, not TOS.

Foster's TOS script was unproduced - and quite unknown until he mentioned it an essay for the most recent trade reprints of the "Logs" (it was the story about Captain Kumara, Cadet Kirk's former Klingon Exchange Program roommate) - and adapting TAS episodes for books, writing TAS-based audios and a "story by" credit on TMP wouldn't count as writing for TOS either.
Oops. Read it wrong. Some how I thought he had written a TAS episode. Still an almost, since it was written for Season 4 and shelved.
__________________
The boring one, the one with Khan, the one where Spock returns, the one with whales, the dumb one, the last one, the one with Kirk, the one with the Borg, the stupid one, the bad one, the new one, the other one with Khan.
Nerys Myk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 27 2013, 06:58 PM   #53
Hober Mallow
Commodore
 
Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy
Re: Lindelof not writing next trek movie?

CorporalClegg wrote: View Post
Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
They predominantly write SF and understand its unique requirements.
That makes them prolific science fiction writers. They aren't any more "real" than if I were to sit down, write a story, and call it sci-fi.
You could also duct tape boxes together and call it a house, but that doesn't make you a carpenter. You could surgically remove your neighbor's spleen but that doesn't make you a doctor. Further, I could write a serious drama with no laughs in it whatsoever and call it a comedy, but calling it that doesn't make it so. "Science fiction" as a genre has several agreed-upon definitions by those who've practiced it (who else should define it?), and most television writers don't write things that fit those definitions. It's not an insult to television writers to define what they do and what they don't do, and it's not to say they can't write good scripts. It's just that I, personally, would like to see Trek bringing back the imaginative SF it used to try to do on occasion by people who do it for a living.
Therin of Andor wrote: View Post
Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
So that would be no on Duane and almost on Foster. ( assuming one sees TOS and TAS as seperate shows)
It would be a "no" for both.

Duane wrote for TNG, not TOS.

Foster's TOS script was unproduced - and quite unknown until he mentioned it an essay for the most recent trade reprints of the "Logs" (it was the story about Captain Kumara, Cadet Kirk's former Klingon Exchange Program roommate) - and adapting TAS episodes for books, writing TAS-based audios and a "story by" credit on TMP wouldn't count as writing for TOS either.
I'm not sure who specified only TOS. I certainly didn't, and a "story by" credit does count for me. I'd be happy with a new Trek series with stories by SF authors being adapted into teleplays by television writers.
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 27 2013, 07:45 PM   #54
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: Lindelof not writing next trek movie?

Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
"Science fiction" as a genre has several agreed-upon definitions by those who've practiced it (who else should define it?), and most television writers don't write things that fit those definitions. It's not an insult to television writers to define what they do and what they don't do, and it's not to say they can't write good scripts. It's just that I, personally, would like to see Trek bringing back the SF it used to try to do on occasion by people who do it for a living.
If science fiction, as a genre, has several agreed-upon definitions, isn't it also true that most (if not all) of those definitions were applied after the fact, and that not all of those definitions even agree with each other?

It's one thing to define a genre, but the definition itself is nearly always a label applied to a creative work already made - already written, composed or painted. Mozart and Haydn didn't one day decide "I'm going to write a Classical sonata according to this definition of sonata form." No, that label was invented and applied decades later by someone else. Same with science fiction: the stories came first, the label sometime later. The people creating stories and what-have-you are not (and should not be) concerned with how exactly the thing they're making fits any predetermined definition; they should be concerned, first and foremost, with making it function as a story or whatever kind of work it is. The classification and labeling by genre/sub-genre and any further applicable slash/hyphenate hair-splitting is a secondary thing which gets taken care of afterward, by someone other than the creator.

If you're a movie producer, you want to hire a writer - one who can deliver the story you're looking to tell. That is and should be the qualification. Whether that writer is perceived in advance as a "real SF writer" is simply not (IMNSHO) of primary importance. Of the "SF writer" names which keep coming up—Ellison, Matheson, Sturgeon, et al—most wrote in other genres as well, and they did this because they considered themselves writers first; writing is what they did for a living. That they're known as SF writers is mainly because some of the stories people remember best were thus categorized, not because they're any more "real" than any other writer whose story fits at least partially into the SF genre.
__________________
Dinosaurs are just really, really big chickens.
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 27 2013, 10:29 PM   #55
CorporalClegg
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalClegg's Avatar
 
Re: Lindelof not writing next trek movie?

Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
You could also duct tape boxes together and call it a house, but that doesn't make you a carpenter.
No. Because, by definition, carpenters work with wood. I could, however, duct tape a few 2x4s to a couple of panels of plywood, and call myself a carpenter.


You could surgically remove your neighbor's spleen but that doesn't make you a doctor.
This is a false analogy. [Legally] Practicing medicine requires licensing and accredited training. Writing has no such requisite.

In either case, I could offer my services as a carpenter or surgeon to build you a duct & ply house or remove your spleen, but that doesn't mean you have to pay for them.

I could also try to sell you my self-labeled science fiction tale to a science fiction publisher, but they can refuse to buy that too.

Further, I could write a serious drama with no laughs in it whatsoever and call it a comedy, but calling it that doesn't make it so.
As long as YOU think it's funny it does. Otherwise you're just falsely representing it.

But as long as you can justify why you called it comedy, your label is all that matters. Transversely, if I can justify why I called my story science fiction, no one has any right to say otherwise.

But this brings up another interesting point. The definition of "comedy" has changed over the centuries. Why? Because writers have come along over time and said, "'Comedy' isn't just this, this, and this; it can also be this or might sometimes even be this." In other words, the writers defined it and then redefined it. So that, overtime, the "definition" changed. Non the less, that doesn't make Shakespeare's. definition of comedy any more accurate or valid than Mel Brooks's.

"Science fiction" as a genre has several agreed-upon definitions by those who've practiced it (who else should define it?), and most television writers don't write things that fit those definitions.
Complete bullshit. There is one (not several) specific definition and it's this (from OED):

Fiction based on imagined future scientific or technological advances and major social or environmental changes, frequently portraying space or time travel and life on other planets.
That's pretty broad and all-encompassing, which is all any definition of an artistic genre or medium should ever be. If those definitions become too specific and rigid, then it's no longer art.

Any television series or film I can think of written in the last half-century by someone who's claimed it to be sci-fi has met the above definition.

Take something like Eureka, or example. People often suggest it's not real science fiction. Paglia and Cosby said it was. And when someone asked them why, they could've just reply with something like, "Well it's a show that deals with futuristic technology in a unique social setting." It's defined and legitimized it and its "science-fictionality" is therefore immune to any and all attacks from interwebz crusaders.

Think of it as the Descartes test. Obviously, a show can't think for itself. Its surrogate has to be those who created it.

M'Sharak wrote: View Post
It's one thing to define a genre, but the definition itself is nearly always a label applied to a creative work already made - already written, composed or painted. Mozart and Haydn didn't one day decide "I'm going to write a Classical sonata according to this definition of sonata form." No, that label was invented and applied decades later by someone else.
And, as I demonstrated above, the label is always changing. Sticking with music, take something as benign as "Classic Rock." Before, it was used to only include groups like Zep, Floyd, and The Who. Now it includes, Nirvana, PJ, and Metallica. Someday, Coldplay, Nickleback and such will no doubt be lopped in there as well.

Or we can broaden the scope and just call it "Rock and Roll." The thing is, what does that even mean any more? Because there are all they genres and sub-genres. And sub- genres of sub-genres! It's changed a lot over the last 60 years--and so have the sub-genres of the sub-genres.

There was a time when The Clash were labeled strictly as English punk (Not to be confused with American punk, electronic punk, fusion punk, techno punk, or alternative punk). Yet, nowadays, the most likely place to hear "London Calling" is on an adult-contemporary, pop station.

Do we define it by the tempo, melodies and tones? By the instruments. If we go by the original 50s definition, Rock and Roll can only be 12-bar Blues, usually I-IV-V (with the occasional vi), with a rockabilly beat, and played with guitar, bass, and drums.

But I would bet just about every instrument in the world has been used in a Rock song at some point or another. Every tempo and rhythm pattern that humans are physically capable of playing (and some that aren't) has been used. And, these days, the I-V-vi-IV (Or vi-IV-I-V if you're feeling spicy.) is the most commonly used chordal progression used in pop music.

So as a listener, it's quite a challenge to label songs/compositions and try to fit them into snug little bubbles. We can only trust they are what their creators say they are. And we have no right to tell them they're wrong.

For example, I could play a song I wrote that sounds eerily a lot like "Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star" flamenco-style on a nylon guitar and call it a folk lullaby. Most people would probably agree.

I could then turn around play the exact same melody in fifth (power) chords, with an aggressive-staccato 16th note strumming pattern, on a Jackson/Ibanez Superstrat, through a Bad Monkey, into a JCM800, and call it Metal.

Someone else could say it's still a lullaby. Either way, it's for ME to decide.
__________________
Is this where we come in?
CorporalClegg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 4 2013, 06:28 PM   #56
Mach5
Rear Admiral
 
Mach5's Avatar
 
Re: Lindelof not writing next trek movie?





Remember the time when we bitched about Braga being a hack?

God, I miss him.

OK, no I don't. But you get my point.
__________________
"Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence, it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines."
― Bertrand Russell
Mach5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 4 2013, 07:45 PM   #57
SalvorHardin
Rear Admiral
 
SalvorHardin's Avatar
 
Location: Star's End
View SalvorHardin's Twitter Profile
Re: Lindelof not writing next trek movie?

^
__________________

SalvorHardin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:24 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.