What are your thoughts about seeing the prime universe again?

[Rahul]

Can we please not pick on individual writers before we see what their final output for this new series is?

Many people don't like "Batman & Robin". But those people forget one thing: This movie was exactly what the producers intended it to be at the time. It was aimed at children, had a lighter tone (still dark, but more colorfull), got more poeple (kids) into the whole "Batman"-mythos, sold a whole lot of toys, and was quite successfull at the box office (and people forget: successfull with critics at the time). And characterwise it is more in line with the source material than for example Murder-Battfleck. Not in tone and visually though - but that's not the job of a writer.

Goldsman is a writer for hire. He writes stuff. Fast. And consistent. That's the driving force for tv-shows. You cannot have some super artsy-indie writer that arguibly has a more independant vision but needs a year to dinish a draft. That's what indie-movies are for. A tv-show needs guys that got told an idea and plot for a single episode, and then a few days deliver a 60-pages draft that fits into the grander scheme. There's nothing better than a "writer for hire" for this job.

 

[mos6507]

Isn't the hack "writer for hire" the approach that led to franchise fatigue and the watered-down quality of, let's say, Voyager?

I'd say if you want to restart Trek on TV you should spend more time in development and creating higher quality boutique scripts, just to prove that it isn't a continuation of the paint-by-numbers Berman-era.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

Many people don't like "Batman & Robin". But those people forget one thing: This movie was exactly what the producers intended it to be at the time. It was aimed at children, had a lighter tone (still dark, but more colorfull), got more poeple (kids) into the whole "Batman"-mythos, sold a whole lot of toys, and was quite successfull at the box office

Batman & Robin was a huge commercial and critical failure. It was such a failure that WB cancelled plans for Batman 5 even though they already had a complete script by Mark Protosevich.

 

[fireproof78]

Isn't the hack "writer for hire" the approach that led to franchise fatigue and the watered-down quality of, let's say, Voyager?

I'd say if you want to restart Trek on TV you should spend more time in development and creating higher quality boutique scripts, just to prove that it isn't a continuation of the paint-by-numbers Berman-era.

And they have Meyer and others to provide that. Not sure why Goldsman's hire is considered a harbinger of doom or ill will

Though, they are bringing on other writers with prior Trek experience so it isn't like they just tossed the keys towards Goldsman and said "Have fun."

 

[jamestyler]

I don't care what anyone says - Sam Jackson's death in Deep Blue Sea was some script-writing gold.

Deep Blue Sea was not thought provoking, or deep, or made me question my existence - but it's a fecking riot. Start to finish, it's quite a fun little film.

People can write cheesy (as was clearly the intention with the Batman film) AND write sci fi - I, Robot changed from the original tale, but it's STILL good sci fi that falls in line with what Star Trek has done in it's 'best' episodes.

Goldsman is a writer who knows the system, knows how to reach more than a niche and will write what he's told to write - the latter point being very important considering he's not in charge.

 

[fireproof78]

Deep Blue Sea was not thought provoking, or deep, or made me question my existence - but it's a fecking riot. Start to finish, it's quite a fun little film.

People can write cheesy (as was clearly the intention with the Batman film) AND write sci fi - I, Robot changed from the original tale, but it's STILL good sci fi that falls in line with what Star Trek has done in it's 'best' episodes.

Goldsman is a writer who knows the system, knows how to reach more than a niche and will write what he's told to write - the latter point being very important considering he's not in charge.

Precisely this. Goldsman knows the system, knows Kurtzman, and knows how to operate on that schedule. One of his personal quotes is that knowing who you are working with can contribute to a more creative working environment. The fact that he has worked with Kurtzman before speak to this quality and hopefully will lead to more quality output.

 

[Mudd]

Apart from Trek, Roddenberry was an unsuccessful producer.

Still, Trek.

 

[Rahul]

Apart from Trek, Roddenberry was an unsuccessful producer.

Still, Trek.

Apart from Star Wars, George Lucas was an unsuccessful director.

Still, Star Wars.

 

[Trekkin]

I liked American Graffiti and THX 1138. And I guess I'd throw Revenge of the Sith in there. Mostly.

A hit rate of 2:3 ain't bad. It's certainly better than most Trek directors can claim.


Edit: Looking at RT, George Lucas apparently has only directed one 'Rotten' movie - The Phantom Menace. On MC, his only 'low' scores (for TPM and AOTC) still only sit at 'mixed' (yellow) and averaged in the mid-50's. Hell, even the critical reception to his work as a producer is mostly positive.

Damn... anyone think that I can be George-Lucas-unsuccessful in my chosen career?

 

[fireproof78]

I liked American Graffiti and THX 1138. And I guess I'd throw Revenge of the Sith in there. Mostly.

A hit rate of 2:3 ain't bad. It's certainly better than most Trek directors can claim.


Edit: Looking at RT, George Lucas apparently has only directed one 'Rotten' movie - The Phantom Menace. On MC, his only 'low' scores (for TPM and AOTC) still only sit at 'mixed' (yellow) and averaged in the mid-50's. Hell, even the critical reception to his work as a producer is mostly positive.

Damn... anyone think that I can be George-Lucas-unsuccessful in my chosen career?

We can only hope to be that unsuccessful.

 

[jamestyler]

Damn... anyone think that I can be George-Lucas-unsuccessful in my chosen career?

George Lucas is completely remarkable in that regard. It's arguable that he's had what? One good idea? Maybe two (Indy)? And yet he's rolling around on a big pile of money like Scrooge McDuck.

 

[Rahul]

I was using hyperbole, critizising the post I quoted

Both Roddenberry and Lucas did things outside of "Trek" and "Wars". Quite successful even (for normal standards, I doubt anyone of us helped to write and create multiple television episodes and shows). But they also created pop-cultural juggernauts, to which any other work they previously did pales.

I HATE it when people claim "Rodenberry was only a lunatic", "completely unsuccessfull besides Trek", "all important work was done by others". NO. That's not how any of that works! Nobody creates something like Star Trek (or Wars) on it's own. That doesn't mean the bascics didn't come from one creator. You can appreiate DC Fontana AND Rodenberry at the same time. Crediting one doesn't diminish the other.

If George Lucas had never did another movie after Star Wars, he would have been a genius. And he deserves credit for it. Same for Rodenberry and Trek. Someone complaining from his armchair "well, he wasn't that influential, or even good" about somebody who created fucking Star Trek gets me riled up...

 

[rahullak]

As long as it is noticeably sci-fi, I wouldn't have minded if it were Prime, Kelvin or something else altogether.
I do have a slight tilt toward sequels rather than prequels though because some minor constraints wouldn't exist in sequels.

 

[fireproof78]

I was using hyperbole, critizising the post I quoted

Both Roddenberry and Lucas did things outside of "Trek" and "Wars". Quite successful even (for normal standards, I doubt anyone of us helped to write and create multiple television episodes and shows). But they also created pop-cultural juggernauts, to which any other work they previously did pales.

I HATE it when people claim "Rodenberry was only a lunatic", "completely unsuccessfull besides Trek", "all important work was done by others". NO. That's not how any of that works! Nobody creates something like Star Trek (or Wars) on it's own. That doesn't mean the bascics didn't come from one creator. You can appreiate DC Fontana AND Rodenberry at the same time. Crediting one doesn't diminish the other.

If George Lucas had never did another movie after Star Wars, he would have been a genius. And he deserves credit for it. Same for Rodenberry and Trek. Someone complaining from his armchair "well, he wasn't that influential, or even good" about somebody who created fucking Star Trek gets me riled up...

I just would add in the caveat that it wasn't all one person making that happen. Every project has several people who are working their hardest to make it happen. GR had it, GL had it, and on and on. I'm not discounting their vision because I can appreciate how much both men had to work in order to make it happen.

I think GR was good, but I think he had people working with him who were able to make it great.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

I've been watching Have Gun - Will Travel lately. If any youngsters don't know what it is look it up. Probably the best 25-minute drama/action series I've ever seen. Especially the Gene Roddenberry written episodes are some of the finest TV I've seen. And it was written almost 60 years ago!

 

[Mudd]

I was using hyperbole, critizising the post I quoted

Ineffectively; you missed the point.

 

[jmidnight_99]

Anybody here a fan of DC comics? They have all these "universes" to explain different versions of their characters. If they've got 5 TV shows on at the same time, plus 3 movies, 4 of them are from different universes. This is done to make things more interesting and to give the writers more freedom, but it has always had the opposite effect. Every 10 or so years something happens to the timeline which rewrites all the continuity. It might sell some more comic books in the short term, but it kills a long term commitment from fans, which is why sales immediately drop off again after the reboot.

I didn't care for the star trek "reboot". In fact I consider it an abomination. Instead of coming up with a new ship, new ideas, a new crew, they rehashed the original one and perverted it. I'm surprised they didn't make Kirk transgendered to boot. Yes, they have those pesky BPA pollutants in the future, too.

Now there are two "universes". This reboot didn't advance "Trek" like "TNG" did in the 80's. Instead... it infected it with a fatal disease.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Anybody here a fan of DC comics? They have all these "universes" to explain different versions of their characters. If they've got 5 TV shows on at the same time, plus 3 movies, 4 of them are from different universes. This is done to make things more interesting and to give the writers more freedom, but it has always had the opposite effect.

I've been reading DC for 50 years.
It's done to make money for the IP holders and the licensees. Marvel properties are spread out over three or four studios. With some properties having multiple continuities. Marvel's been playing the multiple continuity game pretty hard in comics for a decade or more, so its not exactly a DC thing anymore.

It might sell some more comic books in the short term, but it kills a long term commitment from fans, which is why sales immediately drop off again after the reboot.

As I said, 50 years of reading comics. I'm pretty committed. Currently DC's leading the market in sales. Sales will drop off as readers lose interest, same as they've done for the last 80 years.

Now there are two "universes". This reboot didn't advance "Trek" like "TNG" did in the 80's. Instead... it infected it with a fatal disease

I love the smell of hyperbole in the morning.

 

[BillJ]

I'm surprised they didn't make Kirk transgendered to boot.

That's really fucking offensive. What would it matter, honestly?

I didn't care for the star trek "reboot". In fact I consider it an abomination.

Then you likely need to take a step back. They are movies.

 

[{ Emilia }]

Instead of coming up with a new ship, new ideas, a new crew, they rehashed the original one and perverted it. I'm surprised they didn't make Kirk transgendered to boot. Yes, they have those pesky BPA pollutants in the future, too.

I strongly suggest you knock it off. Try to keep things constructive instead.
Talking about "perversion" and mentioning trans people right afterwards might have seemed subtle enough to you but it isn't.