Drop the S31 show for a Captain Pike show?

[The Wormhole]

If the Pike petition is based on the safest possible “don’t touch anything, that looks fine right there, give us more of that” approach to “boldly going”, why not add the slightest amount of risk and ask for April in 2245 (or decades earlier if we go by TAS)?

An April series, like a Pike series is just going to be traditional Star Trek fare that doesn't really bring much new to the table. The difference is a Pike series at least has a pre-established cast that fandom has responded positively to, so that makes a more logical choice over an April series.

A showrunner isn’t supposed to “please anyone”, merely stay true to the structure under construction.

A showrunner has to please someone otherwise they're out of work.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

An April series, like a Pike series is just going to be traditional Star Trek fare that doesn't really bring much new to the table. The difference is a Pike series at least has a pre-established cast that fandom has responded positively to, so that makes a more logical choice over an April series.

Got it, so it’s a slightly safer of two safe choices for… Star Trek.

A showrunner has to please someone otherwise they're out of work.

Yes, themselves as professional writers responsible to the developing structure of a TV show, meaning no one else. All they can hope for is that enough people (including the studio and the network) will share their taste and agree with their decisions, but one cannot let outside forces create a tug of war. The best showrunners simply leave under such circumstances (as jms did following S2 of Jeremiah, for example, which was then cancelled anyway).

 

[The Wormhole]

Yes, themselves as professional writers responsible to the developing structure of a TV show, meaning no one else. All they can hope for is that enough people (including the studio and the network) will share their taste and agree with their decisions, but one cannot let outside forces create a tug of war. The best showrunners simply leave under such circumstances (as jms did following S2 of Jeremiah, for example, which was then cancelled anyway).

If the audience isn't pleased, the audience doesn't watch. If the audience doesn't watch, the studio executives aren't pleased. If the studio executives aren't pleased, they either replace the showrunner with someone new, or pull the show altogether. Either way, the displeasing showrunner is out of work. A similar model exists in all manner of workplaces. I mean, I'm as contrarian and difficult to get along with at my work as I dare to be, but even I realize I have to please someone in order to put food on the table.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

If the audience isn't pleased, the audience doesn't watch.

Yes, but the only way to (hopefully) please an audience is to construct a show properly with believable characters and plot developments. It can’t be done by any kind of polling unless you want your seams in public view, so we’re back to shutting the door of the writers’ room and focusing on the episode at hand, and the next one, and the one after that.

 

[fireproof78]

Yes, but the only way to (hopefully) please an audience is to construct a show properly with believable characters and plot developments. It can’t be done by any kind of polling unless you want your seams in public view, so we’re back to shutting the door of the writers’ room and focusing on the episode at hand, and the next one, and the one after that.

As with many things in life it requires a balance. This is not an all or nothing proposition.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Arguing that a Pike show is only a little more "safe" than and April show is disingenuous at best. One is currently a member of the pop culture zeitgeist and played by an actor whos reviewed nothing but positive applause. The other is a name in a few books and a cartoon show from 45 years ago.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

As with many things in life it requires a balance. This is not an all or nothing proposition.

No, it just is that absolute. There are characters which generate plot and the writer “transcribes” what they do. If you revert to Klingons with hair because it seemed like people weren’t happy with the change (assuming that’s why it happened), you’ve lost control of your own characters. Stay true to the show and you’ll get an audience that wants the show to have direction and Emmys will flow from there, not from a fan with a laundry list of change requests.

Arguing that a Pike show is only a little more "safe" than and April show is disingenuous at best. One is currently a member of the pop culture zeitgeist and played by an actor whos reviewed nothing but positive applause. The other is a name in a few books and a cartoon show from 45 years ago.

DSC remains an average streaming show and Pike was only a character from a rarely-seen pilot, its two-part envelope, and two films with an alternate portrayal. It would only take a season for April to catch up with Pike, especially if he’s played by an even better actor.

 

[CorporalClegg]

No.

 

[fireproof78]

No, it just is that absolute

It's not an absolute.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

It's not an absolute.

You need to read up on this subject. No self-respecting showrunner would come into the writers’ room one day and say, “Listen, there’s just too much complaining about the redesigned Klingons and the D-7 which didn’t look anything like the one on the old show… I mean, should we just change that back? We can say, I don’t know, that it’s no longer the time of war and now there’ll be a new D-7 representing unity.”

That would just be weak, and we can hope it’s not how the conversation went, but either way the end result still feels like backpedaling, not like an inevitable story point: an invasion of TOS Klingons perhaps (in their simpler ship designs). Because of the way DS9 and ENT handled the issue, story canon says that smooth-headed Klingons have to be somewhere, and DSC still follows story canon.

See also this interview with Ron Moore in reference to his own shows:

I try to keep that out of my writers’ offices as much as possible—don’t start a pitch or a conversation in the story room by saying, “I was reading this fan reaction on Twitter where the fans don’t like this, or the fans do like that.” Again, it’s not a democracy. I don’t give a shit. Like, what do we think is the best? We’re being paid to use our creative instincts and our creative ideas. We’re not being paid to do a survey and try to marry our material to what we think the Twitterverse is interested in. I’ve gotten to a place where I really just hold it at bay.

 

[The Wormhole]

No self-respecting showrunner would come into the writers’ room one day and say, “Listen, there’s just too much complaining about the redesigned Klingons and the D-7 which didn’t look anything like the one on the old show… I mean, should we just change that back? We can say, I don’t know, that it’s no longer the time of war and now there’ll be a new D-7 representing unity.”

The redesigned D-7 was actually an accident. The design was called the Sech class (even in the original work done before the episode went into production). Just someone somewhere along the line got overzealous about the Star Trek learning they had just done and suddenly the ship was identified as a D-7 in on screen dialogue. It was never intended to be a D-7 at all.

 

[fireproof78]

You need to read up on this subject. No self-respecting showrunner would come into the writers’ room one day and say, “Listen, there’s just too much complaining about the redesigned Klingons and the D-7 which didn’t look anything like the one on the old show… I mean, should we just change that back? We can say, I don’t know, that it’s no longer the time of war and now there’ll be a new D-7 representing unity.”

That would just be weak, and we can hope it’s not how the conversation went, but either way the end result still feels like backpedaling, not like an inevitable story point: an invasion of TOS Klingons perhaps (in their simpler ship designs). Because of the way DS9 and ENT handled the issue, story canon says that smooth-headed Klingons have to be somewhere, and DSC still follows story canon.

See also this interview with Ron Moore in reference to his own shows:

This doesn't make it an absolute. Sorry, it's not an immutable law that can never be violated. That's what an absolute means.

And there are many different ways to run a show and declaring something the absolute right way is not what I have seen in showrunning.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

The redesigned D-7 was actually an accident. The design was called the Sech class (even in the original work done before the episode went into production). Just someone somewhere along the line got overzealous about the Star Trek learning they had just done and suddenly the ship was identified as a D-7 in on screen dialogue. It was never intended to be a D-7 at all.

Dialogue comes before VFX, so it’s likely the writer was thinking of the original D-7 (or something in that style) while the VFX either didn’t pick up on the reference, didn’t have an appropriate model ready or maybe they just thought it should look that way on DSC, given all the other design changes.

Whatever the case, the point is that someone wanted those designs to depart from the original style, which was followed by a return to that style in S2. Are we supposed to believe that we’d never seen house ships before, only “united empire ships”? The classic D-7 form should’ve returned with TOS Klingons (who derive from “Klingons with hair”), and they could still be out there.

This doesn't make it an absolute. Sorry, it's not an immutable law that can never be violated. That's what an absolute means.

And there are many different ways to run a show and declaring something the absolute right way is not what I have seen in showrunning.

Specifically, you’re making the claim that sometimes it may be OK to backpedal during story construction as a result of social media backlash. How does that make sense to you? The story is the story, it has to have internal logic. Fans don’t get to tell you what to do.

 

[Hythlodeus]

look, art is not created in a vacuum, written work is not created in a vacuum. it is formed by many things and with popular/commercial art, in the sense of artforms that exists to entertain a somewhat paying (in whatever form that 'paying' may take place) audience, said audience and their reaction or perceived reaction naturally is one of the things that form and inform the creation of that art both directly and indirectly, both consciously and subconscously. the 'my way or the highway' approach to showrunning, is a romantic but largely unrealistic idea. while a certain amount of artistic vision that under no circumstances can ever be changed might be the core of every good production, every show on air has to compromise to a certain degree for various reasons. or else the majority of showrunners would still be struggling artists staying true to their vision but starving because no one else can see the genius in their work they can see.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

look, art is not created in a vacuum, written work is not created in a vacuum. it is formed by many things and with popular/commercial art, in the sense of artforms that exists to entertain a somewhat paying (in whatever form that 'paying' may take place) audience, said audience and their reaction or perceived reaction naturally is one of the things that form and inform the creation of that art both directly and indirectly, both consciously and subconscously. the 'my way or the highway' approach to showrunning, is a romantic but largely unrealistic idea. while a certain amount of artistic vision that under no circumstances can ever be changed might be the core of every good production, every show on air has to compromise to a certain degree for various reasons. or else the majority of showrunners would still be struggling artists staying true to their vision but starving because no one else can see the genius in their work they can see.

If you’re a great showrunner like jms or Ron Moore, you don’t compromise on story by implementing obviously bad ideas. You quit because you can, because your skill is in demand and will be more so with future clients who understand such passion. This is not to say one cannot receive feedback from approved sources (which fans aren’t because they can try to sue), but at the end of the day it has to make sense for the story, which the showrunner is ultimately in charge of.

I’m not sure why this is in such dispute — do fans like to pretend they can affect something directly, rather than remain a small but vocal part of a larger audience? I don’t want to tell a showrunner what to do; all I want is for a studio to hire one who can make the right decisions on their own. If I believe that the classic D-7 should’ve returned with an invasion of smooth-headed Klingons, that’s not a suggestion directed at the writers, but merely one development I would agree with — hopefully a writer would surprise me with an even better idea.

 

[Jadeb]

Star Trek is like Batman at this point: A high-profile corporate property with many overlords. I don't think the show bosses are hanging on my every post, but I absolutely believe that maximizing the bottom line is a priority -- probably the priority -- for the show bosses' bosses. If someone with enough influence decides a creative decision is hurting (or even might hurt) that bottom line, creative will give way to financial. And this is nothing new. Roddenberry had as much influence as he did, for a time, because people thought he was vital to the future of the franchise. When they decided he wasn't, out he went. Everybody's replaceable.

 

[Hythlodeus]

If you’re a great showrunner like jms or Ron Moore, you don’t compromise on story

But JMS DID compromise on multiple occasions on B5. For budgetary reasons for instance. Or when the actor who portrayed his main character became too ill (we all know that story) to work on a steady basis. Or when he completely rewrote the last two seasons because his show was cancelled (and then picked up again) because not enough people watched his show. And I'm pretty sure every single writer on a TV show has to compromise when it comes to his vision for a single episode when he has to fit into the strict 5 act structure the TV stations demand. Those are compromises, pure and simple. There are outside sources to ones vision that simply form the finished product and the audience is one of those.


or as Todd McFarlane put it this week in regards to his new Spawn movie:

"The money's sitting on the sidelines ready to go. I just need to get everyone that wants to put in money to shake their heads to the same script. As you can imagine, everyone has a slightly different version of it in their head. You just go and trying to appease a handful of people while not giving in to what it is that I'm trying to do myself."

 

[Boris Skrbic]

But JMS DID compromise on multiple occasions on B5. For budgetary reasons for instance. Or when the actor who portrayed his main character became too ill (we all know that story) to work on a steady basis. Or when he completely rewrote the last two seasons because his show was cancelled (and then picked up again) because not enough people watched his show. And I'm pretty sure every single writer on a TV show has to compromise when it comes to his vision for a single episode when he has to fit into the strict 5 act structure the TV stations demand. Those are compromises, pure and simple. There are outside sources to ones vision that simply form the finished product and the audience is one of those.


or as Todd McFarlane put it this week in regards to his new Spawn movie:

"The money's sitting on the sidelines ready to go. I just need to get everyone that wants to put in money to shake their heads to the same script. As you can imagine, everyone has a slightly different version of it in their head. You just go and trying to appease a handful of people while not giving in to what it is that I'm trying to do myself."

Yes, but those were all adjustments made by necessity (and not always to the detriment of the show; characters famously had “trap doors” so that foreshadowing could be found even for an unplanned exit). Jms has also said he basically stopped getting notes early in S2 and hasn’t allowed fan reaction to influence whatever plans were made or remade. S4 was compressed (not rethought) because the show had been canceled, while S5 had to be made from memory because hotel staff threw away his notes by accident. He later shut down Crusade because of TNT’s interference rather than keep going and see it canceled anyway.

My point is simply that one shouldn’t accept the idea (or illusion) of a social-media-driven story as a good thing ever, even when it does occur in practice (which may or may not be the case with DSC). Your Spawn-related quote fits with what I said earlier about approved sources making notes which a writer can accept or reject and even walk away from in case of major disagreements. This is just about the notion that mere fan reaction should be able to throw a wrench into a particular story concept, rather than have it develop logically towards a proper conclusion (as in the case of this Klingon concept, which would’ve ultimately disappeared anyway).

 

[Hythlodeus]

My point is simply that one shouldn’t accept the idea (or illusion) of a social-media-driven story as a good thing ever

see? on THAT we can agree, but this:

fits with what I said earlier

is where we disagree, since

No, it just is that absolute. There are characters which generate plot and the writer “transcribes” what they do.

does not fit that at all

 

[fireproof78]

does not fit that at all

Exactly.