Writers Bibles

[Mr. B]

The links from DigificWriter are to an early draft version of the guide. Is the year 3 version essentially the same thing, just with more up-to-date information, Mr. B?

The TOS guide is 31 pages and the TNG one is 48, both with sections on the Enterprise, its systems, and the technology and procedures used (transporters, tractor beams, communicators, etc.), along with character backgrounds and writing guidelines. The Voyager one looks pretty incomplete in comparison. Maybe Voyager writers were assumed to have general Trek background knowledge already (or were given the "prototype" tech manual as well)?

The writer's guide is pretty much the same. I probably wouldn't have bothered posting if I had seen it was online.

As for the technical guide, I would imagine alot of writers that came on board to the show had very limited if any knowledge of trek tech based on the language in the guide given to writers. The language used leaves out all the non-canon technobabble in the TNG/DS9 manuals.

 

[TGTheodore]

Writers were encouraged not to get hung up on the technical stuff (mostly in the outline phase). They would just insert the word [TECH] and move along with the story. It would be worked out later while breaking the story and polishing the script.

--Ted

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

They actually used the tech dialogue ("technobabble") I wrote for "Tin Man." I was irrationally pleased.

 

[Mysterion]

Also have a copy of an early version of the TNG Writer's Guide. Most interesting is the backstory given for Data which tells how he is a construct of an unknown alien race.

Which David Gerrold also used in his novelization of "Encounter at Farpoint", but which was then overridden when the script for "Datalore" was being developed.

True enough.

Am I the only one who thinks this would have been a better character arc for Data?

 

[Maurice]

Writers were encouraged not to get hung up on the technical stuff (mostly in the outline phase). They would just insert the word [TECH] and move along with the story. It would be worked out later while breaking the story and polishing the script.

--Ted

Which often led to "magical" solutions to problems because they weren't organic (if I can use that term) to the story, but verbal hocus pocus to pull a solution out of thin air.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Am I the only one who thinks this would have been a better character arc for Data?

Well, essentially it was already the character arc for Questor - Gene Roddenberry's "The Questor Tapes" telemovie/TV pilot.

 

[Kryton]

Roddenberry was well past caring whether he strip-mined every idea he ever had by the time of TNG.

I mean, the comparisons of the main cast to the leads in TMP (e.g. Kirk = Picard, the "elder statesman" of the ship, Decker (WILL!) = Riker, youthful exec officer, Ilia = Troi, moderately telepathic former paramour of the exec, etc, and so forth) are legendary, so revisiting Questor in Data is anything but a surprise.

After all...how many Dylan Hunts were there?

 

[CoveTom]

Which often led to "magical" solutions to problems because they weren't organic (if I can use that term) to the story, but verbal hocus pocus to pull a solution out of thin air.

I dunno. I can see it working both ways. Sure, there is the potential to lead to magical solutions.

But equally possible is a writer who knows exactly what they want to accomplish story-wise, but doesn't know the Trek terminology for making it happen. Rather than getting bogged down in those technical details, they just insert "[TECH]" and let someone else deal with it.

 

[Maurice]

Which often led to "magical" solutions to problems because they weren't organic (if I can use that term) to the story, but verbal hocus pocus to pull a solution out of thin air.

I dunno. I can see it working both ways. Sure, there is the potential to lead to magical solutions.

But equally possible is a writer who knows exactly what they want to accomplish story-wise, but doesn't know the Trek terminology for making it happen. Rather than getting bogged down in those technical details, they just insert "[TECH]" and let someone else deal with it.

Trouble is, the result was usually lame: making up miracle particles or some nonsense technobabble to explain ridiculous or impossible to escape situations. It's one thing to say [tech that makes the engines fail near the planet] and another to say [tech that causes the person to be restored to human form after becoming a salamander], one is just looking for a logical explanation, the other is "A [tech] wizard did it."