• 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!

details on Singer's Trek pitch

That said, everyone's entitled to be as devoted to their particular fandom as they like
That's right, and if I think that Picard is a Denibian slime devil that's my particular fandom too.

That sagging old rust bucket the Enterprise D is designed like a garbage scow. Half the world knows it. That's why they're rebooting TOS.

Haw haw haw...:lol:
 
More details from SlashFilm, as well as opening logo:

http://www.slashfilm.com/bryan-singers-star-trek-tv-pitch-details-revealed/

stflogo.jpg
I actually would have loved to have seen this.
 
Re: The Scourge: Yeah. Sorry. No. I'm not giving away an awesome villain I plan to use, for free, just to "win" an argument. Sorry. Wait for them to show up in a film or novel near you.

Re: Starfleet being "corrupt": Who said that? Where is that in any of the articles? I never wrote that and, if I didn't write it, it's not there. Starfleet is described as being the LAST bastion of what the Federation once was and Admiral Nellscott is the CHAMPION of those ideals. They're not corrupt. They're lazy, complacent. because they spent nearly a thousand years winning all the time. Sound familiar? As Star Trek teaches us, utopia kills the human spirit.

re: overthinking:

I'm not sure you have any idea what goes into designing a TV series like this. The full document is 25 pages long with insane amounts of detail not only on things you see in the show but on WHY those things exist. This sort of document is only STEP ONE. There's a reason they call them series bibles when they're finished. It's not because they're thin.

It's not like we would have explained or even mentioned all that to the audience. This is a BACKSTAGE document. It was never meant for you or anyone who wasn't making the show to see.

What, you demand your car manufacturer give you the blueprints and torque specs on every car they make so you can have input into the construction? Of course not.

Whatever you think we had planned, you're wrong. You don't have enough data to make any assessment on that score. Not even to speculate.

The first four episodes (considerably more detailed in the actual document and the only ones detailed in this document) do not describe anything beyond the tone of the series. They are an origin story.
 
It's easy. Put some folks in yellow, blue and red shirts. Have Kirk be a rebel, whowing up moronic admirals and sleeping with alien babes. Spock finds things fascenating, raises and eyebrow and finds out that most time logic sucks. McCoy makes folksy observations, says somewhat racist things to Spock and is generally a bleeding heart. Sulu, Uhura & Chekov each get a scene or two to make some tiny bit of charactization (Sulu and his sword, Chekov & Russia, Uhura and being frightened).

Now, take that and tell a rollicking adventure story and leave out the fortune cookie morals like "War is Bad" or "Save the Whales". Ta-da!! Star Trek as a sucessful movie.

The pathetic attempts of previous Trek to be "relevent" is what sucked all the life out of it. Action and adventure = bums in seats.
 
Star Trek Federation definitely sounds interesting from the characters to the state of the power players in the year 3000 with some intriguing changes to capture the passage of time and the Scourge definitely has me curious. I also like that it would have been serialized. I'd much rather have this than Abrams version of Trek. This is the most interesting sounding series--Trek or otherwise--I've heard about in years. They oughta try pitching it--no reason why Abrams can't do the films in his alternate timeline and these guys do their weekly series on tv--I'm starving for a good solid tv show and this could be it. We need Trek back on the air to combat all the crappy tv we've had for the last decade.
 
The pathetic attempts of previous Trek to be "relevent" is what sucked all the life out of it. Action and adventure = bums in seats.
That's what made Star Trek what it was. Abrams turned it into mindless action adventure and sucked all the life out of it.
 
Captain Montgomery [Montgomery Scott, anyone?], Commander Kirk, M.A.J.E.L., the USS Enterprise: how is my nostalgia for TOS not being leveraged by this selection of names? You say it's not supposed to be nostalgic, yet keying off these names seems to be part of the appeal of the product.

I agree with Temis that Vulcans and Romulans being together is intriguing. However, I believe that one of the things that turns the general public off from Star Trek is that Trek takes itself too seriously for something that is make believe. You've mapped out a lot of specifics regarding what has happened to the races in the Alpha Quadrant. Why does this matter to the premise at all?

The general public has a very limited attention span for the details of the Trekverse. Therefore, indulging in a very limited amount of make believe to establish the essential elements of the premise would seem to be indicated, in order to appeal to the general public. A corollary of this is that altering characteristics of the known races as little as possible, and only in ways that are essential, would seem to be indicated as well. Take them as a given, and move on to what is actually interesting and essential to the premise. If all of what's in the pitch is essential, then it's too much; if it's just backstory that's never dealt with on screen, then it's needlessly rigid.
 
Captain Montgomery [Montgomery Scott, anyone?], Commander Kirk, M.A.J.E.L., the USS Enterprise: how is my nostalgia for TOS not being leveraged by this selection of names? You say it's not supposed to be nostalgic, yet keying off these names seems to be part of the appeal of the product.

I agree with Temis that Vulcans and Romulans being together is intriguing. However, I believe that one of the things that turns the general public off from Star Trek is that Trek takes itself too seriously for something that is make believe. You've mapped out a lot of specifics regarding what has happened to the races in the Alpha Quadrant. Why does this matter to the premise at all?

The general public has a very limited attention span for the details of the Trekverse. Therefore, indulging in a very limited amount of make believe to establish the essential elements of the premise would seem to be indicated, in order to appeal to the general public. A corollary of this is that altering characteristics of the known races as little as possible, and only in ways that are essential, would seem to be indicated as well. Take them as a given, and move on to what is actually interesting and essential to the premise. If all of what's in the pitch is essential, then it's too much; if it's just backstory that's never dealt with on screen, then it's needlessly rigid.

hmmm.

I'm wondering from what position you're standing that you feel free to give this instruction?

As I said, to make a TV series you need to know a LOT more than you need to watch one.
 
Any series--Trek or otherwise--has to establish the current state of possible players. I don't think they were going to dump all this on us right off the bat but would eventually do so over the course of the show. But you have to acclimate viewers to a new century and the changes that have occurred in the intervening centuries to all the players Trek developed over 5 shows. ENT did it in "Broken Bow".

In fact, one of the things I most loved about DS9 and ENT was its world-building and exploring the dynamics among the various familiar races. Seeing the Dominion War through the Federation's eyes then the Klingon's and later the Romulans was very interesting to me for example.

So it is nice to hear these writers were looking at the Big Picture and had taken the effort to envision what the Klingons, Romulans, Vulcans, Bajorans, Cardassians' societies/cultures were like in this new era.

Trek had pretty much played out standalone adventure stories of the week--by the time ENT rolled around there was a lot of recycling--DS9 got better when it veered into serialized storytelling which forced DS9 to carve its own identity same for ENT with the Xindi arc and S4. So this fleshing out of Trek races along with the mention of more serialization sounds great.
 
I'm wondering from what position you're standing that you feel free to give this instruction?

If you must know, I was sitting in my chair.

Yeah. haha.

The problem with a lot of fans is, before anything even happens, you've got your knives out. I was a fan long before i was writing this stuff but I've been a writer for a good long while now. Don't you think, just maybe, the fresh voices you all whine so much about are out there but, unlike myself, simply unwilling to grapple?

You've seen less than 10% of this pitch, some of it paraphrased by a third party and yet you feel you know enough to criticize? I wrote it. I know precisely what's in it and why.

You would have loved this series. It's idiotic to come out against something you know nothing about.

It's this very hidebound mentality from "core fans" that makes keeping the damned thing fresh so problematic. Me, I am a fan. I don't actually care what other fans think very much. I am one. So I write to the audience I know. Sure, some don't like it. That's true of every creative endeavor. But to just sit there waiting to pounce on ANY thing that doesn't fit your very narrow view is, well, it's the opposite of Star Trek Fandom. Hell, it's the opposite of Star Trek.
 
The problem with a lot of fans is, before anything even happens, you've got your knives out. I was a fan long before i was writing this stuff but I've been a writer for a good long while now. Don't you think, just maybe, the fresh voices you all whine so much about are out there but, unlike myself, simply unwilling to grapple?
I agree. People complained Trek had become stale and wanted something new and fresh then when they get that they basically say they want more of the same--go figure

You would have loved this series. It's idiotic to com out against something you know nothing about.
Why not try pitching it because it really does sound interesting.
 
The problem with a lot of fans is, before anything even happens, you've got your knives out. I was a fan long before i was writing this stuff but I've been a writer for a good long while now. Don't you think, just maybe, the fresh voices you all whine so much about are out there but, unlike myself, simply unwilling to grapple?
I agree. People complained Trek had become stale and wanted something new and fresh then when they get that they basically say they want more of the same--go figure

You would have loved this series. It's idiotic to com out against something you know nothing about.
Why not try pitching it because it really does sound interesting.

The truth is simple. There was a brief window when both Mr. Abrams and Mr. Singer had an equal shot at grabbing the franchise. Mr. Abrams got the nod before Mr. Singer could compete. Now the window's closed. The politics of getting a trek series on the air BEFORE the movie came out and smashed were like the Gordian Knot. Now? Good luck. If Mr. Abrams isn't doing it, I doubt anyone else will until he walks away. Last I heard, he's pretty good at making TV too.

Elements of this version of a Trek series will certainly pop up in my own work. I put too much of myself into it to let it just lay fallow.

The way this thing works is, CBS/PARAMOUNT holds every card. They have a long list of folks they would go to for a new Trek series if not to Abrams himself. Likely most of us don't know those names. Mine is not on that list. It was a privilege to be asked to do this by these people whose work I admire. I'm really sorry it won't ever happen because I actually do agree with most of the harsh criticisms of the Trek TV franchises over the years. TOS had teeth. TWILIGHT ZONE sized teeth. TNG had a great brain. DS9 showed us nuance and depth. Voyager was a hampered attempt to get back to basics but, to my mind, the wrong people were driving. They'd been in the saddle too long to create anything new with the franchise. Enterprise?

Poor little Enterprise. The things that hampered VGR crippled ENT.

I get it. I definitely get it. And I got it then. We all did.

Mr. Abrams chose to make Trek movies. I actually love his version. I think it embraces nearly all the good stuff about the franchise as it can be applied to films.

But, to me, Star Trek is meant to be on a small screen, shown in weekly bits. The things that make a movie work won't work there. So we tried to do what would work, what would please most fans and, even more important than the existing fans, create new ones in the larger non-Trekkie audience.

THAT audience is the point. I know it sounds harsh to put it bluntly like that but trying to write for the tastes of diehard Trek fans is like herding rabid cats. Smart people don't play that game and Mrs Thorne didn't raise any dumb kids.

Trust me, the best of this pitch is already being worked into other materials. You'll see some of it soon. And, if you've been looking close, some of it has already shown up in the worlds beyond Trek.

:techman:
 
Yeah, I'd like to hear more about it. Maybe I'd love it, maybe I'd hate it, but I guarantee that I'd give it a chance. I don't have any preconceptions about whether it's better to have a weak or strong Federation or Klingons as allies or enemies, but if it told a good story, I'm sure I'd watch it.

As far as the names go, I thought having a "Captain Kirk" might have been going a little too far, but M.A.J.E.L. was subtle enough that 99% of the people watching wouldn't bat an eyelash, but 1% would get it.

So is there anything else you can share, Geoff?

ETA: posted before the above post
 
Yeah, I'd like to hear more about it. Maybe I'd love it, maybe I'd hate it, but I guarantee that I'd give it a chance. I don't have any preconceptions about whether it's better to have a weak or strong Federation or Klingons as allies or enemies, but if it told a good story, I'm sure I'd watch it.

As far as the names go, I thought having a "Captain Kirk" might have been going a little too far, but M.A.J.E.L. was subtle enough that 99% of the people watching wouldn't bat an eyelash, but 1% would get it.

So is there anything else you can share, Geoff?

ETA: posted before the above post


Every starfleet field officer (on away teams) has a personal transporter device as part of standard equipment. worn on the wrist or as a belt. or, maybe, as a broach.

First openly gay character on a Trek series.

New aliens.

Oh, and the REASON for all those changes to the known star trek aliens was precisely because we wouldn't be seeing them as much. They TOO would become alien again. And we would bring you, wait for it, NEW things and people to fall in love with.

Y'know, like the novels do.

love that word.

new.
 
The pathetic attempts of previous Trek to be "relevent" is what sucked all the life out of it. Action and adventure = bums in seats.
That's what made Star Trek what it was. Abrams turned it into mindless action adventure and sucked all the life out of it.

ST 09 - Worldwide: $385,680,446
Nemesis - Worldwide: $67,312,826
Insurrection - Worldwide: $112,587,658
First Contact - Worldwide: $146,027,888

All the TNG only films made $60,000,000 less that ST 09 did by itself.

That's what sucked the life out of it.

ST 09 is the best Trek movie by far. Why? It made the most money. The people have spoken.
 
All of TNG can be safely ignored. It added nothing to Trek lore except a certain vanilla gutlessness that thankfully now can be forgotten.

...well, okay, I guess the Borg were cool for a while.

Possibly the single most ridiculous thing anyone has said on this board, including Jayson's nonsense. Congrats.

RAMA
 
Every starfleet field officer (on away teams) has a personal transporter device as part of standard equipment. worn on the wrist or as a belt. or, maybe, as a broach.

First openly gay character on a Trek series.

New aliens.

Oh, and the REASON for all those changes to the known star trek aliens was precisely because we wouldn't be seeing them as much. They TOO would become alien again. And we would bring you, wait for it, NEW things and people to fall in love with.

Y'know, like the novels do.

love that word.

new.
The fact that you write like William Shatner speaks fills me with.

what's the word?

confidence.
 
The pathetic attempts of previous Trek to be "relevent" is what sucked all the life out of it. Action and adventure = bums in seats.
That's what made Star Trek what it was. Abrams turned it into mindless action adventure and sucked all the life out of it.

ST 09 - Worldwide: $385,680,446
Nemesis - Worldwide: $67,312,826
Insurrection - Worldwide: $112,587,658
First Contact - Worldwide: $146,027,888

All the TNG only films made $60,000,000 less that ST 09 did by itself.

That's what sucked the life out of it.

ST 09 is the best Trek movie by far. Why? It made the most money. The people have spoken.
ST 09 was the worst excuse for Trek by far. Of course it made the most money. The lowest denominator has spoken.

Every starfleet field officer (on away teams) has a personal transporter device as part of standard equipment. worn on the wrist or as a belt. or, maybe, as a broach.
That's something else I would have done if I were to produce a Trek series; also, personal force fields.
 
The problem with a lot of fans is, before anything even happens, you've got your knives out. I was a fan long before i was writing this stuff but I've been a writer for a good long while now. Don't you think, just maybe, the fresh voices you all whine so much about are out there but, unlike myself, simply unwilling to grapple?
I agree. People complained Trek had become stale and wanted something new and fresh then when they get that they basically say they want more of the same--go figure

You would have loved this series. It's idiotic to com out against something you know nothing about.
Why not try pitching it because it really does sound interesting.

The truth is simple. There was a brief window when both Mr. Abrams and Mr. Singer had an equal shot at grabbing the franchise. Mr. Abrams got the nod before Mr. Singer could compete. Now the window's closed. The politics of getting a trek series on the air BEFORE the movie came out and smashed were like the Gordian Knot. Now? Good luck. If Mr. Abrams isn't doing it, I doubt anyone else will until he walks away. Last I heard, he's pretty good at making TV too.

The way this thing works is, CBS/PARAMOUNT holds every card. They have a long list of folks they would go to for a new Trek series if not to Abrams himself. Likely most of us don't know those names.

The premise for the series sounded very interesting. But like you said, if they go for a new TV series now, if not produced by Abrams it will be in the Abramsverse, that's where the money is, that's where the potential new audience is (people who watched the films).
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top