Letter to Moonves

[USS KG5]

How about 'Lost in the dimension of mind'.

The thing you have to remember is that even a very surreal story needs to hold together. The onus is not on the reader or viewer to follow your story but on you to write it.

The other thing is that the burden of proof on you for a "far out" premise like this is much stronger. You would have to produce at least one full-length script to prove you could develop your idea into a TV show.

It seems very odd you would pitch a premise at all. Tell you what, post a bit of script here for us to look at, just a single scene demonstrating how your premise actually works.

Personally I think you are posting a load of twaddle, but I'm willing to read anything more substantial you put up.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

No it didn't there is a subtle distinction.

The premise of Lost is "plane crash maroons disparate group on remote weird island".

The premise of BSG is "last survivors of human colonies flee from Cylons".

I have no problem with whacking metasphysical crap in the show, its fun, but it will never fly as the premise of the show. It is too complicated to write around for a weekly TV show.

Trek is a fun, straight up space opera, nothing more, nothing less.

Huh? I'm not sure I see what you mean.

BSG made the cardinal mistake of basing its premise on characters being stupid and/or insane. Cavil was insane; the rest of the Cylons were stupid and incredibly gullible. This is far too easy on writers; you can manipulate characters into whatever you like by making them stupid or insane. Try the same thing with mentally competent, savvy people. Not so easy, huh?

The jury is still out on Lost, but so far, nobody is needing to be too stupid or too insane, just to make the plot work.

If by "fun, straight up space opera," you mean you don't expect Star Trek to do attempt anything too tough and challenging in the writing arena, you're selling it short. Sure, it can go the cheap and easy route. But there's no reason it has to. If Lost has set the bar high, Star Trek should set it higher. I refuse to admit defeat!

Well if the OPs premise is merely "Trek a bit like TOS but with added metaphysics" surely all that stuff with the Prophets in DS9 has that down pat.

The Prophets plotline was the weakest aspect of DS9, little better than a video game in sophistication. Surely Star Trek can do better than that!

How about 'Lost in the dimension of mind'.

Give the audience a reason to care that these people are "lost in the dimension of mind." What the frak does the "dimension of mind" mean? Well, if you can make the audience care about the characters, regardless of exactly where they are lost, you don't have to have an answer to that question. They could be lost in the next neighborhood over from their own, and that would be enough to grab an audience. It's up to you to figure out how to make them care whether they are lost around the block from their home, or lost in the next parallel dimension.

 

[Dusty Ayres]

Not everything has to be produced for CW or CBS, just as not everything made by Fox has to go on, well, Fox.

Alex

Back in the past, no. But today, yes, it has to be on CBS, Showtime, or the CW; nothing that CBS Studios puts out can be on NBC or ABC, the 'nets are making stuff to be specific only to one network or its sibilings (corporate synergy at work, that's why just recently a rerun of a show on Showtime is now on CBS, or other such similar moves, with a few exceptions[the Saturday morning blocks on CBS and the CW are from different companies instead of in house.]) So yeah, a Star Trek show would only be able to be shown on CBS, Showtime, MTV, Spike TV, etc.-all corporate sibilings. And as mentioned above, syndication is a dead duck for Star Trek now.

 

[AviTrek]

Except that after the Viacom breakup the only networks left on the CBS side are CBS, CW, Showtime, Movie Channel, and College Sports.

Which is why I continue to maintain the best chance Star Trek has of coming back to TV is for CBS to decide to launch a basic cable channel. Until that happens there is just no CBS channel that makes sense for Star Trek.

 

[USS KG5]

BSG made the cardinal mistake of basing its premise on characters being stupid and/or insane. Cavil was insane; the rest of the Cylons were stupid and incredibly gullible. This is far too easy on writers; you can manipulate characters into whatever you like by making them stupid or insane. Try the same thing with mentally competent, savvy people. Not so easy, huh?

That was not BSG's premise but the resolution of the arc story, that has nothing to do with premise, which is what we are discussing here.

When they came up with BSGs premise as we all know Cavil as a character had probably not be thought of.

BTW - I disagree about what you are saying anyhow, but that is for another forum.

If by "fun, straight up space opera," you mean you don't expect Star Trek to do attempt anything too tough and challenging in the writing arena, you're selling it short.

I don't, again I am talking premise. The primary mistake in this forum is fans come in, post their wacky premises and state nothing about how they will make it an exciting weekly show. In the case of the successful trek shows the premise had little to do with their quality. It was well written characters, good solid storytelling and good leadership that did that.

The Prophets plotline was the weakest aspect of DS9, little better than a video game in sophistication. Surely Star Trek can do better than that!

I'd say the prophets plotline was the weakest bit of WYLB, overall I think it added an element to the DS9 story which led to some great episodes, though arguably "Far Beyond The Stars" could have been made anyway.

 

[Dusty Ayres]

Except that after the Viacom breakup the only networks left on the CBS side are CBS, CW, Showtime, Movie Channel, and College Sports.

Which is why I continue to maintain the best chance Star Trek has of coming back to TV is for CBS to decide to launch a basic cable channel. Until that happens there is just no CBS channel that makes sense for Star Trek.

Star Trek can come back on Spike (as 'An Original Program'), MTV (as Starfleet Academy) CW (also as Starfleet Academy), Showtime (any Star Trek concept) and Nickelodeon (as an animated Star Trek show or as Starfleet Academy). The limits you mentioned before aren't really limits at all.

 

[AviTrek]

Star Trek can come back on Spike (as 'An Original Program'),

Owned by Viacom not CBS

MTV (as Starfleet Academy)

Viacom again

CW (also as Starfleet Academy)

Wrong demographic as has been discussed multiple times. CW is interested in Teen girls, not exactly a fanbase Star Trek is known for.

Showtime (any Star Trek concept)

Most likely not interested in a franchise show, but the most likely option today.

and Nickelodeon (as an animated Star Trek show or as Starfleet Academy).

And Viacom once more.

You need to realize that CBS is no longer part of the Viacom family. CBS corp, the rights holder to Star Trek TV, is a separate legal entity with no connection to Viacom besides having the same owner(Sumner Redstone).

This thread is titled "Letter to Moonves". Leslie Moonves is the President of CBS and the appropriate person to be talking about in regards to Star Trek TV. But he has no control whatsoever over any Viacom asset. If you want to talk about Viacom the name you need to mention is Philippe Dauman, but I think he is quite happy with where Star Trek is in his company(JJ's movie with Paramount). And Dauman could not make a Star Trek TV show anyway without buying the rights from Moonves.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

nothing that CBS Studios puts out can be on NBC or ABC

Why not? CBS Studios has already produced shows for other networks in the recent past - Medium ran on NBC until last year.

Generally speaking, corporations will take anyone's money.

 

[AviTrek]

Because the way the networks work these days they keep all their productions in house. It keeps all the revenue at one company and doesn't leave you in sticky situations where network A makes money off of TV while network B is making money off of DVD sales.

Also, look at the current list of productions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBS_Television_Studios#Shows_produced_.28starting_in_2009.29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Media_Studios#Currently_produced

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC_Studios#Currently_produced

With the exception of House and a couple of co-productions between ABC and CBS, everything is aired on the network associated with the production company.

 

[Dusty Ayres]

Because the way the networks work these days they keep all their productions in house. It keeps all the revenue at one company and doesn't leave you in sticky situations where network A makes money off of TV while network B is making money off of DVD sales.

Also, look at the current list of productions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBS_Television_Studios#Shows_produced_.28starting_in_2009.29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Media_Studios#Currently_produced

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC_Studios#Currently_produced

With the exception of House and a couple of co-productions between ABC and CBS, everything is aired on the network associated with the production company.

Just what I said.

 

[AviTrek]

Because the way the networks work these days they keep all their productions in house. It keeps all the revenue at one company and doesn't leave you in sticky situations where network A makes money off of TV while network B is making money off of DVD sales.

Also, look at the current list of productions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBS_Television_Studios#Shows_produced_.28starting_in_2009.29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Media_Studios#Currently_produced

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC_Studios#Currently_produced

With the exception of House and a couple of co-productions between ABC and CBS, everything is aired on the network associated with the production company.

Just what I said.

Except you included the Viacom stations which are no longer affiliated with CBS. The ONLY stations/networks owned by the production company with the TV rights to Star Trek are, CBS, CW, Showtime(and affiliates), and CBS College Sports.

 

[Dusty Ayres]

Because the way the networks work these days they keep all their productions in house. It keeps all the revenue at one company and doesn't leave you in sticky situations where network A makes money off of TV while network B is making money off of DVD sales.

Also, look at the current list of productions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBS_Television_Studios#Shows_produced_.28starting_in_2009.29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Media_Studios#Currently_produced

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC_Studios#Currently_produced

With the exception of House and a couple of co-productions between ABC and CBS, everything is aired on the network associated with the production company.

Just what I said.

Except you included the Viacom stations which are no longer affiliated with CBS. The ONLY stations/networks owned by the production company with the TV rights to Star Trek are, CBS, CW, Showtime(and affiliates), and CBS College Sports.

Who gives a flying shit?

The companies are still related in some way, otherwise the Star Trek movie wouldn't have been made by Paramount and would not have been released on video by Paramount. So what I said still stands.

 

[AviTrek]

Just what I said.

Except you included the Viacom stations which are no longer affiliated with CBS. The ONLY stations/networks owned by the production company with the TV rights to Star Trek are, CBS, CW, Showtime(and affiliates), and CBS College Sports.

Who gives a flying shit?

The companies are still related in some way, otherwise the Star Trek movie wouldn't have been made by Paramount and would not have been released on video by Paramount. So what I said still stands.

The Star Trek rights are split between both companies with one getting tv and the other getting movies, that's it. To CBS there is no difference between Spike and TNT.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Because the way the networks work these days they keep all their productions in house. It keeps all the revenue at one company and doesn't leave you in sticky situations where network A makes money off of TV while network B is making money off of DVD sales.

Also, look at the current list of productions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBS_Television_Studios#Shows_produced_.28starting_in_2009.29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Media_Studios#Currently_produced

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC_Studios#Currently_produced

With the exception of House and a couple of co-productions between ABC and CBS, everything is aired on the network associated with the production company.

So basically it's a current business practice that makes financial sense to the companies, and which they deviate from when it makes sense to them - as in the case of House and was the case with Medium and doubtless is the case with other shows and will be again.

That makes sense and is the way I understood it, and of course is very different from the suggestion that "But today, yes, it has to be on CBS, Showtime, or the CW; nothing that CBS Studios puts out can be on NBC or ABC...a Star Trek show would only be able to be shown on CBS, Showtime, MTV, Spike TV, etc..."

Italics mine.

If it made sense for CBS to produce a Trek series for, say, a cable venue suitable for it which they don't own, nothing would prevent them from doing so.

Thanks.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

That was not BSG's premise but the resolution of the arc story, that has nothing to do with premise, which is what we are discussing here.

I don't know what your definition of "premise" is - maybe BSG's premise was something simplistic, like escape the Cylons and find Earth - but Cavil was the character who impelled the action of the plot and therefore is key to the whole frakkin' thing.

Cavil turned out to be the most important character in the story. And yeah, he was shoehorned in long after the story began, which is what caused the clumsiness of the story - writers really shouldn't start a story without taking into consideration their most important character, even if they don't plan to introduce him till later.

The primary mistake in this forum is fans come in, post their wacky premises and state nothing about how they will make it an exciting weekly show.

Well, that's certainly true. You could take any wacky premise and make it boring or make it great. The elements of good storytelling are basic: characters we care about, cast of diverse enough types that they play well off each other, plotlines that stem from the characters' unique personas and are not just pulled out of the writers' asses (especially not by making characters stupid, forgetful or insane for the convenience of the plot - the sure mark of an inept writer), themes that matter, plot twists that are neither too predictable nor absurdly out of left field, and let's not forget the spacebattles, splosions and sex.

Any premise - time travel, spaceships manned by Tholians, the Federation falling or having a civil war, even the dreaded Starfleet Academy - could be terrific if you get the frakkin basics right.

 

[Lynx]

I want a return to the 24th century.

I find it horrifying that they once did come up with all those species, all those storylines and everything we had in TNG, DS9 and VOY and then they abandon it for a third-rate screwed-up retro remake movie.

But what does "Moonshine" and his gang care about? They don't give a d**n about Star Trek, the only thing they care about are their wallets.

A series about the screwed-up "Abrams Universe" is of no interest at all to me.

Even worse is that the "relaunch" books about the 24th century s***s big time. There is nothing in them but character destruction.

So I guess I have to re-watch the DVD:s and tapes I have from the 24th century series. Again!

And read the books I have from the same era, the books which were made when the series were on air. Again!

How I miss the glorious days when Star Trek was good and interesting!

 

[Therin of Andor]

then they abandon it for a third-rate screwed-up retro remake movie.

Which is highly successful and a whole lotta fun!

the only thing they care about are their wallets.

As any good TV production person should. Or else they get fired.

A series about the screwed-up "Abrams Universe" is of no interest at all to me.

See ya!

There is nothing in them but character destruction.

Tee hee!

So I guess I have to re-watch the DVD:s and tapes I have from the 24th century series. Again!

That's why you bought them.

How I miss the glorious days when Star Trek was good and interesting!

Many of us - and lots and lots of the general public - disagree with you that it's no longer "good and interesting".

 

[Therin of Andor]

Totally different... but similar except more contemporary.

CW is interested in Teen girls, not exactly a fanbase Star Trek is known for.

Walter Koenig was a featured celebrity of teen magazines like "Fifteen" and "Tiger Beat" in the 60s, as was Wil Wheaton in the 80s. When Wheaton was on TNG, his fan mail supposedly outnumbered everyone else's.

From teen girls.

 

[Dukhat]

That was not BSG's premise but the resolution of the arc story, that has nothing to do with premise, which is what we are discussing here.

I don't know what your definition of "premise" is - maybe BSG's premise was something simplistic, like escape the Cylons and find Earth - but Cavil was the character who impelled the action of the plot and therefore is key to the whole frakkin' thing.

Cavil turned out to be the most important character in the story. And yeah, he was shoehorned in long after the story began, which is what caused the clumsiness of the story - writers really shouldn't start a story without taking into consideration their most important character, even if they don't plan to introduce him till later.

The primary mistake in this forum is fans come in, post their wacky premises and state nothing about how they will make it an exciting weekly show.

Well, that's certainly true. You could take any wacky premise and make it boring or make it great. The elements of good storytelling are basic: characters we care about, cast of diverse enough types that they play well off each other, plotlines that stem from the characters' unique personas and are not just pulled out of the writers' asses (especially not by making characters stupid, forgetful or insane for the convenience of the plot - the sure mark of an inept writer), themes that matter, plot twists that are neither too predictable nor absurdly out of left field, and let's not forget the spacebattles, splosions and sex.

Any premise - time travel, spaceships manned by Tholians, the Federation falling or having a civil war, even the dreaded Starfleet Academy - could be terrific if you get the frakkin basics right.

Point 1: Question: Had the BSG writers already envisioned Cavil's character before writing the miniseries and then just introduced him later, or were they just making things up as they went along? If the latter is true, then the writers really can't be blamed for clumsiness, other than general clumsiness that follows making things up as you go along (see point 2).

Point 2: I will also wholeheartedly agree that people just post wacky premises for series VI without forethought of making it a successful 7-year show, but really, isn't that what the producers of Voyager and Enterprise did? Voyager's premise (and it was a good one) was, "Let's strand the ship in a part of the galaxy never before explored, with no way of getting home. We can tell pretty much any story we want, because it's a new slate, but it's still Star Trek 'cause we have a Trek crew." However, once the initial premise was set, the producers/writers clearly couldn't come up with any original ideas, so they went back to a planet-of-the-week Trek show like we'd seen in TOS and TNG. And Enterprise's premise (also a good one) was "Let's tell the story of the birth of the Federation," and yet they couldn't do that either.

 

[T'Girl]

My wacky thoughts. A single successful Star Trek movie pulls in more profit than a few sessions of a successful series. So no Star Trek series can in any way interfere with the next Abrams movie. Take that as a given. A new series has to be to TPTB's advantage or they won't allow it to be made.

So, the new series has to be in the Abrams universe. It can't involve the Enterprise. None of the characters from the last movie. The new series has to feed into the next movie, basically advertise the the movie months ahead of time. Keep the potential audience interested in the whole "Trek Thing." I really don't know how long it takes to get a new series up and running, but if they started now and had the new show on the air (somewhere) by fall of 2011, then that would be a half year until the next movie opens in the theaters.

Perhaps the new series could have several shows that introduced a premise or crisis that the movie would address.

I would prefer a ship based show, but a station or planet based could be made to work. As other have noted it is the concept and the writing that will make or break the new show. It seems that CBS does well with crime based shows. I love NCIS, I don't think that crime would work at all with Trek.

Just some wacky thoughts.