Joe Menosky and Aron Coleite joins writing staff
- Thread starter intrinsical
- Start date
Every Trek person started out as a non-Trek person...
They probably mean someone who wasn't even a fan before being paid to work on it, like Nick Meyer. Of course, that can back-fire (think JJ).
"Backfire?" Hardly. Despite the rhetoric from some corners, the 2009 film is the most financially successful Trek film since TMP (correcting for inflation -- the most successful of all time in uncorrected dollars), and one of the most positively reviewed Trek films by the public and the critics alike. It's the highest-ranked Trek film on IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, and Metacritic, and STID isn't ranked much lower on any of them. Both Abrams films have been massive box-office and critical successes. That's no "backfire" by any legitimate standard.
And for the record, back in the early '80s, there were plenty of fans bashing Bennett and Meyer for their perceived mishandling of Star Trek, the continuity errors in TWOK, the way they dumbed it down into a lowbrow action-oriented movie, and so forth, just as much as they bash Abrams today. The newest stuff always gets the most hate, because it's the most unfamiliar. Over time, people get used to it. I fully expect there to be a vocal contingent of haters for Fuller's series, no matter what it's about or what timeline it's in or how well it's done, because there are always people who can't tolerate a version of Trek that's different from what they're used to.
Seriously, where do you get this stuff?
I think it's pretty clear that Danlav05 was talking about whether the staffers had prior professional experience on Trek, not whether they were fans. Fandom or lack thereof has no bearing on one's ability to do a show well. If it comes down to knowledge of the continuity, that can be gained through study of the past shows and consultation with experts and reference sources, just as any other subject relevant to one's work can be researched and learned about. If it comes down to understanding the style and tone of the series, that's something you gain from reading the writers' bible and following the showrunner's lead, just as staffers on any show would learn how to write in its style. And if it comes down to telling good stories, that's a matter of basic skill and hard work. It doesn't matter if you liked what came before in the franchise; what matters is that you care about the story and characters you're creating now.
I don't disagree, but we should consider 'Nemesis' a cautionary tale. Stuart Baird actively upset the cast with his lack of understanding of the world they'd worked so hard to create (thinking Geordi was an alien, etc), which I think it reflected on-screen. I'm not saying every director or writer has to be a megafan, but it does kind of show if you're disinterested in the subject material you're directing.
But it's incorrect to equate fandom with understanding of the material. Yes, being a fan is one way to understand a series -- although every franchise has fans who totally miss the point of it or who like one superficial aspect of it and ignore the rest -- but it's not the only way. As I said, a writer or director who gets an assignment to tackle a new subject matter can research it, gain familiarity with the material and get a handle on it. That's not a matter of liking, that's a matter of being a professional and knowing how to study and learn your material. Some people just do a better job of understanding the material than others, or are able to get more invested in the work than others. That's not necessarily about fandom, it's about skill and adaptability and dedication. It's the same as in any other profession -- some people do better than others, and you can't predict performance based solely on how much they like what they're doing, because liking alone is not enough when it comes to doing work on a professional level. There are no doubt plenty of people who, say, love animals but are really bad at farming or veterinary medicine. And there are no doubt people who don't care much for animals but are really good at being farmers or vets. Because liking is one thing, technique and skill and dedication are another. You can't always be good at doing the thing you like best. You're lucky if you can be, but it's hardly a given.
And being disinterested, in the literal sense, can actually be good. That word doesn't really mean uninterested, it means having no stake, being neutral and objective. An objective viewpoint can often be a better place to work from than an emotionally attached viewpoint, because you can step back and get a sense of perspective that helps you see what works and what doesn't, what's beneficial to the story and what's just self-indulgence. (Some of the most perceptive writing I've seen about religion has come from atheists.) Filmmakers who are too close to the material, too fond of it, can have trouble killing their darlings or distinguishing what elements are really necessary, and they can make flawed films as a result.
I agree. I think we're largely on the same page here. In fact I think the more fresh blood Fuller brings to the writing staff, the better- but I'm still glad there's someone I know understands and loves the history of the show at the helm.
I actually think this is a good thing. Just look at what the TNG/DS9/VOY era of writers have gone on to spawn in the past two decades. Having a new generation of writers go through "Trek University" is a great plus that we get to enjoy not just the new series itself, but also a host of shows produced by ex-Trek writers for many years after.
Last edited:
Right -- as demonstrated by the fact that Fuller has brought aboard more of his colleagues from later shows like Wonderfalls, Pushing Daisies, and Hannibal than his colleagues from Voyager.
I don't want to surpass the entire post (I just dind't want to quote a bit block of text
), but this logic is one that I try and emphasise to a lot of people.While he's not a director or writer, when Matt Smith came to Doctor Who he wasn't a fan and didn't have much knowledge about the show at all. What he brought to the table as a performer was a wonderful understanding of the character and it showed really well on screen that, despite not being a fan before, he found what he loved in that role and he owned it.
There are many other examples - but being a fan should certainly never be equated with quality. A newcomer can see things a fan might not be able to. Fans may see things a newcomer might not be able to.
If someone reads a pitch or an outline or an idea and can connect or understand it - and more importantly bring a new understanding to it - whether they're a fan or not or what came before is absolutely irrelevant.
I think at this point this is actually a good thing. The biggest problem with the Rick Berman-era was the lack of longterm arcs and character development. None of which the writers had any influence on (that's the producers decision).
But at this point, the only people familiar with the Trek style are ... people who know Trek. And it's quite obvious that Bryan Fuller will run things a different way, so maybe the writers are allowed to go more bonkers/do stuff they always wanted but never were allowed before.
A year from now, fresh and new writers can look at the tone of the new Trek series and write tales on their own that fit in this universe. But as of now, the only way to tell stories in the Trek universe is... if you are already familiar with the Trek universe.
Outside of Fuller, there's only two writers who've worked on past shows or films.
It seems a bit premature to begin worrying.
It seems a bit premature to begin worrying.
And one who's been writing Trek novels for the past decade.
And? I know you're an author yourself, but writing fan-canon books =/= writing for a TV series.
Why should fans joining the writer's room be a bad thing? As long as they're good writers, give me all the fans you got.
I never said it was. The topic was experience with Star Trek specifically. I wasn't saying it was an identical or equal type of experience, just that it was about Star Trek.
The point is that it's neither a good thing nor a bad thing, that it's completely irrelevant to the issue of qualifications. I like to eat, but that's not gonna earn me a job as a chef.
That's unlikely to happen here anytime soon because Bryan Fuller is the showrunner (at least for now), and he and his collaborators are essentially creating the world of this show - as previous Trek teams had created the worlds for previous shows.
So Fuller and his team are unlikely to, for example, think one of their human characters is an alien, as Stuart Baird reportedly considered Geordi LaForge. One does not need love or knowledge for previous incarnations of Star Trek to be able to keep consistent the nature of your cast of characters.