• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Star Trek Discovery Writing Staff

lawman said:
Oh, I agree that the Klingons have been treated as more of a plot device than a legitimately credible culture for a long time. I'm just saying that DSC promised to do better than that, to explore them in greater depth — and then completely bailed on that.

As for ending a war... it's easy for everyone to agree on that as an objective. The means are what the storytelling (and the dramatic conflict) are all about. Or should be. In this case I don't even find the means plausible, because there's just no way any other self-respecting Klingon houses would have knuckled under to L'rell's (unverifiable) extortionate demands. To them, at least, she very much would have been the villain.
Click to expand...
Sure, but I'm ok with leaving the fate of the Empire in question. I find it as plausible as Kirk being able to sue for peace with the Gorn.

I also disagree about them "completing bailing." But, that's me being nitpicky about words again.
 
Rahul said:
The problem is, they aren't that great at recreating what makes Star Trek work. That's in part, because it can't be recreated. It's not the 90s anymore. Television isn't that episodic anymore, and so far EVERY serialized threat on Trek has been about a clear enemy - the Dominion, the Xindi. But Trek doesn't live by that, in fact Trek lives by most plots not featuring clear and obvious Hollywood-type villains. But having an ongoing arc on Star Trek, without relying on a major villain, simply has never been done before. And now they HAVE TO do that, or else Trek will immediately become repetitive again and die as a franchise again. But it's uncharted territory, and I'm not sure Kurtzman and Goldsman are the people to pull it off.
Click to expand...

I'd disagree somewhat with the claim that Trek has never done an arc without a villain, as it has done character arcs - most notably on DS9. Sisko's character arc stretched across the entire show, and although he dealt with particular antagonists (Dukat, Wynn, Weyoun, etc) in the end the conflict that drove the arc was the internal conflict between his duty as a Starfleet officer and his being chosen as The Emissary by the prophets.


Rahul said:
The main problem is, every story needs CONFLICT to be a "story" and move the plot along. The "complex" part now is to create a "conflict", without having an enemy. In the past, Star Trek has done that often via different viewpoints: Aliens have abducted a human child and raised them as one of their own, now they should give him back, but the child doesn't want to go back, instead stay with his "new" people. So what to do now? This is an example from a TNG episode. It's a fucking NIGHTMARE to make that into a compelling "story", where each scene changes the situation and moves the plot along. If the final result is a pretty straightforward, "simple" episode, with a clear cut beginning, middle and end, it's a masterpiece of complex story writing. And the final result still might come across as somewhat "bland". Having a clear badguy immediately gives an episode a narrative. But that's why Star Trek has become so repetitive over the years: Suddenly, every single episode needed to have a badguy. And that became not just also boring, but uncreative as well.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree with the point that every story needs conflict in order to drive the story forward. Again, look at The Inner Light. What exactly is the conflict here? In the first part of the episode, Picard feels conflicted between the life he remembers and his status as Kamin, but that's dropped about halfway through.

Most great Trek episodes do have conflict of course. But the conflict is often internal. Episodes like The City on the Edge of Forever, The Visitor, and In the Pale Moonlight are all driven forward by the tortured feelings of the protagonist of each episode, which is why they are so incredible. Discovery totally could have done this with Burnham, but instead of portraying her as being tortured by the decisions she needed to make, they just tortured her, yet showed her as as acting with complete and total moral certainty.

Rahul said:
I wouldn't say so much. Season 3 of Enterprise was a complete story of it's own, almost completely separated from what came before. It was much more complex, had a LOT more dangling plot threads at the same time, multiple recurring themes and plotlines, ranging from various political fractions in badguys that were a completely new introduction, to space anomalies and freaking TIME TRAVEL being part of the pre-planned plotline. And it STILL came across as a lot smoother nonetheless.
Click to expand...

I'm not as much of a fan of ENT Season 3 as you are. Certain things were just so hastily penciled in (not even having a name for the Xindi weapon or homeworld?) and other episodes were clearly mostly standalones awkwardly shoved into the middle of the arc. But you're right, it worked much, much better than Discovery.

Rahul said:
I think the main problem of DIS was not having clear character developments planned out in advance. In the Dominion war arc, each character was put in a situation they weren't used to - the action guy Sisko needing to plan from behind a desk, the resistance fighter Kira becoming a collaborator with the enemy, the loner Odo dealing with his people. On ENT season 3 every character also had a clear and obvious storyline and development they went through: Archer struggling with "leading" in the face of unclear and morally ambigous situations, Trip dealing with the trauma of the death of his sister, learning to cope and forgive, even in the face of the "enemy", T'Pol becoming more human-like, struggling with addiction, emotions, and the limits of logic.

The only character development we saw in DIS season 1 was of Burnham, and that wasn't so much a clear redemption arc, as just a collection of scenes. She didn't came across as "learning", because from episode 3 onwards she ALWAYS made the right choice - just with a lower rank. And NONE of the other characters had anything resembling a personal storyarc, let alone clear character development. Season 1 purely lived with the plot, dangling from one shocking twist to another, but losing steam and integrity on the way, until it all ended in utter schlock, a handheld bomb threatening the homeworld of the enemy, and throwing all logic and internal plot consistency out of the way (Hey! Why didn't TKuvma tried to unite all klingon houses by holding the home planet hostage? Seems a surprisingly easy and effective way!).

What they need for season 2 is a more concrete vision of what to do with each of the characters. So that they need fewer plot twists, and we come back to see were the characters go, and thus they can have a more well-rounded story-arc that only has one or two major twists, which then in turn actually MEAN something.
Click to expand...

I'm in complete agreement here. They should have taken a page from DS9 honestly, which often got plot ideas from the characterization, rather than the other way around.
 
Rahul said:
You know, I agree with a lot of the things you say about the show itself. But about the creators? Not so much.
The show's writing is a dumpster fire by any means - and the exact level of qualiy one can expect from Kurtzman and Goldsman doing a high-concept show. They're shitty storytellers. But they never intended to make bad Star Trek.

Here is the thing: Both Goldsman and Kurtzman say they love Trek. And I belive them! Wholeheartedly! I would even go so far as to say they probably even understand Star Trek pretty good.

You know why? I love Star Trek. I would even claim I understand Star Trek, and what makes it appealing to so many people. But you know what? I would utterly suck at writing a Star Trek show. I'm just not a good writer. I have many ideas for a good Star Trek show, and can clearly say what DIS so far does good, where it is lacking, and what can be done to improve it. But I would utterly FAIL if I had to write it myself.

Some writers/creators just can't do everything. Stanley Kubrick is one of the (if not THE) best filmmakers of all time. I bet he would totally suck doing a romantic comedy. I'm sure he knows what makes a good romantic comedy. And he might even be a big fan of romantic comedies (we know he LOVES Steven Spielberg's sentimentality, and one of his regrets is not being able to pull it off himself). He just wouldn't be a good fit to make a rom-com.

I'd argue the same holds true for Kurtzman and Goldsman. Kurtzman is a very compelling writer. He writes fast and snippy dialogue, and his output is extremely fast and reliable. But IMO he's just. not. capable. of telling an exploratory "science" story. He needs a clear antagonist-stopped-in-three-acts structure to write around. His writing is not so much logical, as emotional. He can write great character scenes. But he's (IMO) just utterly incapable of creating complex, intricate plots.

It's just not what he does best.
He's one of the best when it's about to bring a very standardized scene to live, to fill it with character and emotions. He just doesn't come up with good plot and scene structure himself. And sadly, that is exactly what is needed of a Star Trek show. Trek is, as all science fiction, at least if not even more about the plots than the characters. Especially if you don't have a clear badguy, it#s GOD DAMN FUCKING HARD to come up with a compelling central conflict in a weird, hard-to-understand high concept hypothetical scenario. Which is what science fiction, at it's core, often is. I know I can't do it. And I think the current showrunners can't do it either. They'd probably be very good to bring someone elses weird sci-fi idea to live with interesting character dynamics. But they can't come up with great story ideas themselves.

But there is no malevolence.
They 100% intend to do Star Trek justice. And they do so with a passion. And it's very visible they are deep fans of Star Trek, from their interviews, their amazingly fucking deep knowledge of Trek, and the things they say they love about the show. It just seems, they admire the one thing, and chose to DO the one thing, they are not very good at. That doesn't make them bad people. Not even incompetent ones. Just people that aren't a good fit for the job they are currently doing, and would be better doing a property that is more in their comfort zone.
Click to expand...

Agree with everything, well said.

Interesting that you refer to Stanley Kubrick in present tense. I wish he was still alive and making movies. He was the best, love all his movies.
 
My sister's been ranting about this since we were kids, and I finally almost agree: it seems like it's time for them to start recruiting writers from the novelverse as story consultants at the very least. I almost feel like one of the reasons Voyager and Enterprse stories started getting so stale is because the creative team was over-specialized in creating their product and basically used the same solutions and plot devices over and over again. This might be happening with Discovery too, except they're recycling plot devices and solutions from other TV productions and falling back on what's familiar.

@Christopher How are you with screenplays?
 
Crazy Eddie said:
it seems like it's time for them to start recruiting writers from the novelverse as story consultants at the very least.
Click to expand...

Kirsten Beyer, who writes the Voyager relaunch novels, is among the Discovery writers. And, nothing personal, she wrote "Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum." It was fine, Trek-y, just not a favorite of mine, nothing against her abilities.
 
Last edited:
And one of Voyagers biggest writers, was on the Disc. writing team, and wrote/co-wrote Lethe, but I hear he left.

And Discovery itself was created by a big Voyager writer.
 
seigezunt said:
Kirsten Beyer, who writes the Voyager relaunch novels, is among the Discovery writers. And, nothing personal, she wrote what I felt was not one of the most satisfying episodes, "Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum." It was fine, Trek-y, just not a favorite.
Click to expand...

FYI: There's a nice interview with Kirsten in the latest issue of the DISCO comic book, in which she talks about her long involvement with Trek as both a writer and a fan. And I can personally vouch for the fact that she was hanging out at conventions with the rest of us long before went to work for DISCO.

So, yes, she knows her Trek backwards and forwards and is a long-time fan.
 
Amused that Joe left the writing staff.

I doubt he fit in well with the producers and writers of STD. He's too much of a holdover from the era when Trek was good.
 
Crazy Eddie said:
My sister's been ranting about this since we were kids, and I finally almost agree: it seems like it's time for them to start recruiting writers from the novelverse as story consultants at the very least. I almost feel like one of the reasons Voyager and Enterprse stories started getting so stale is because the creative team was over-specialized in creating their product and basically used the same solutions and plot devices over and over again.
Click to expand...
Just the opposite, at least in the case of Ent. In season 4, Garfield and Judith Reeves-Stevens, (both were Trek novelists) came on board the staff and penned a few of that acclaimed season's best episodes.
 
I've heard that the transition from novelist to screenwriter is not recommended, or something not very many novelists succeed at, despite trying. It seems to me to be a very different skill set and talent.
 
Kane_Steel said:
Amused that Joe left the writing staff.

I doubt he fit in well with the producers and writers of STD. He's too much of a holdover from the era when Trek was good.
Click to expand...

brutal.:guffaw:
I like it. The guy wrote the only episode of S1 that was both good and not a rehash of an older, better Trek episode.
 
The reason why Star Trek stood above other sci-fi series, especially in the case of TOS and TNG but also DS9 and Voyager is because Star Trek was written by writers who had something to say about the current societies, values, history, the future, personal relationships, family, impact of technology, social issues, etc.

At its core Star Trek was always a sci-fi action adventure to me but the intelligent discourse of it is what made it stand above the rest of TV shows (like SAAB, nuBSG) and Hollywood production (Alien movies, Abrams first Star Trek movie, etc). I truly enjoyed movies like Aliens, the first Abrams Star Trek movie, action movies, other types of movies, but I'm talking about what make Star Trek stand above the rest (in a similar way Doctor Who, Stargate SG1, the new Outer Limits, the first few seasons of Sliders, did for me).

So I never was big on the soap opera/character drama aspect of Star Trek, and I don't view Star Trek as only an action series. I like those parts knowing they are not the main dish but part of a deeper whole. Written by people who had knowledge and have things to say about our current societies, our history and the future.

When I think Sci-fi (related to the speculation about the future, technology, aliens, etc). I think of 'what ifs'. Even if it's about alien body snatchers taken over our society and government. Most of the time, there's a topicality to each episodes even if it's served in an action-adventure setting so it's not too much heavy handed, but still topical enough to have some depth and rewatch value. It makes us think. Other similar "what if" sci-fi series are Doctor Who, the first seasons of Sliders, Stargate SG1, etc. What I like about Star Trek in particular is that every angles and point of views about different issues were explored through sci-fi prism. Either by the various characters opinions, the aliens point of view, the events, etc.

I think of episodes like "Half a Life" (TNG fourth season). It's touch a lot of different subject directly and indirectly. It's about assisted suicide a little bit, inter generation, the contribution of elderly, goals in life, motivated scientists, the impact of one's life, obeying the society's culture and rules, etc. At the same time, the episode doesn't end with the alien accepting the elderly people are important due to their experience and wisdom and that assisted suicide is bad in every cases. All the contrary of course.

I think the real reason why Star Trek was so great and became so influential was because of its great writers and the direction of the writing room (Piller, etc). It was more evident to me in the original series and Star Trek TNG but could be felt and was very good in DS9 and Voyager too.

I hope Discovery is heading in that direction. Making it about Sci-fi action-adventure. More exploration of human, planets and alien societies through sci-fi prism. Written by knowledgeable writers who have things to say about our societies, history and future by exploring various point of views without making about what is right or wrong like in typical Hollywood movie fashion (even if for the characters and/or alien and/or societies explored in the show, it can be about what is right and wrong from their perspectives).
 
eschaton said:
Will this be the first black Trek writer? I think so.

It's interesting that he's not only an active Christian, but wrote the first Left Behind movie. I wonder if he might bring some religious themes into Trek.

Still, his filmography looks like unbridled shit. Absolutely nothing good.
Click to expand...
Oh good, the guy responsible for the Worst Nicholas Cage Movie Ever™ is writing Trek.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top