details on Singer's Trek pitch

[Geoff Thorne]

A quality standard would be something like "Every script needs exactly 3 acts.", and every movie that has 2, 4 or 5 acts is then bad by default. But that isn't the case.

I don't think that's an example of a quality standard. A better example might be if a film was put up on a big screen that was made in standard definition. That's a pretty obvious example of an objective standard of (bad) quality.

There are lots of standards like this because they make sense. However, I can't think of any where ST2009 failed.

Heh. I probably shouldn't have peeked in here again, but I did and since you asked....

I gave at least one example earlier in this thread, where Spock tries to kill Kirk rather than just putting him in the brig or confining him to quarters.

Another good example is the presentation of the Spock character, where it is incumbent on the writers to establish that this is a logical and unemotional being. In TOS, they did this not only by his demeanor and remarks, but by including a character with an unrequited crush on him, emphasizing his unattainability and emotional isolation. Good writing. In TMP, they did this by beginning with him participating in a ritual to purge emotion, then having him undergo a life-changing experience which inspired him to accept his emotions in tandem with his logic. Good writing. In nuTrek, they established this logical and unemotional being by showing him in an inappropriate relationship with a student, presenting him as being easily sexually manipulated and by having him attempt to murder a fellow cadet twice, once in a mad rage and once with malice aforethought. Bad, bad writing. Writing that would fail any writing class.

LOL.

Dear god. What you don't know about writing is a lot.

No, it's not an example of poor writing. It's an example of a divergent POV on a character. The question is, "is that divergence legitimate and supported by the material or is it out of left field?"

STAR TREK was about several things, not the least of which was two men, Kirk and Spock, trying to find themselves after events in their pasts made them outsiders in their peer groups.

Kirk's response to his father's hero legacy was to become a "bad boy" (something TOS Kirk never was in any version of the canon material until TWOK informed us he'd cheated a test at the academy. Was that also an example of poor writing? No. It's was filling in a blank in order to serve the movie plot.)

Spock's response to being a biracial vulcan was, at first, to dive DEEPLY, aggressively into his Vulcan heritage, becoming more vulcan than vulcan until, at the crux point, he made the significant decision to diverge. Both decisions, in SPock and Kirk, are emotional, almost irrational responses that both know must be dealt with.

We are shown both the main characters as boys, intercut, to draw a clear parallel between them. Message? They may look different on the outside and they may even behave differently but, at their core, they're the same hero. Both respond to adversity by confronting it rather than running. Both refuse to bow to whims of authority unless they agree with whatever's being dictated. If they don't agree they give unpredictable responses. It's not, y'know, subtle. (Nor has any incarnation of Star Trek ever been subtle).

MOST IMPORTANT: These are YOUNGER versions of the characters, ones not settled into their established personas which was, also, part of the point of this "reboot." We're meant to grow with these people not meet them fully formed.

This is a fairly obvious theme, Kirk and Spock both in their own ways battling for control of their knee jerk responses, ultimately overcoming them in order to save the universe. Kirk is essentially chaotic, improvisational. Spock is, essentially, structured, orderly, a rulebook man. Both are wearing masks. Both are out of balance until they synch up. Again. Not subtle.

"Fans" really need to learn the difference between "I don't like" and "objectively poor" because that difference is enormous.

extra: the reason the TNG films lost more and more money is because, as the film series progressed, the creators forgot the rules of movie-making, telling increasingly insular stories that could only hope to appeal to a shrinking audience of diehard fans (and often not even them). Had they obeyed the rules, those films wouldn't have stopped being made. James Bond anyone?

 

[JarodRussell]

One could argue that creating a script using coincidences, stupid/unreasonable/unbelievable decisions made by the characters and uneccessary scenes is poorer writing than creating a script using reasonable characters, a believable chain of events and only scenes that are essential. At least that's my opinion. And it certainly is not an "objective quality standard."

The thing is, Star Trek 2009 felt like they had a lot of key scenes that they badly wanted, but didn't know how to connect them. Then they wrote themselves into corners, and then Spock exiled Kirk on an iceplanet, where he is chased by a monster only to run into Spock, who explains everything and who happens to know the way to the next base, where they happen to find Scotty, who happens to have written a new formula that enables transwarp beaming in the future, which of course can be remembered by Spock. How convenient. And then Scotty, without any explanation, is chief engineer.

Wouldn't it have been better to... I dunno:
Spock puts Kirk in the brig, has the "Are you out of your Vulcan mind" discussion with McCoy, and the Enterprise is salvaging the destroyed fleet that is still orbiting the black hole, responding to a couple of SOS signals of escape pods. One of the few survivors is Montgomery Scott, chief engineer of the USS WhatDoIKnow. During the attack, the Enterprise lost its chief engineer. Scotty can convince Spock that he is the next best choice.
Old Spock, exiled on the ice planet by Nero, arrives at a Starfleet base that he glimpsed on a viewscreen aboard the
Narada. A scan of the sector shows that Vulcan is indeed destroyed, and that the USS Enterprise is near. Full of hope, he contacts the Enterprise, requesting "Captain James T. Kirk."
Uhura tells Spock that someone wants "Captain Kirk" to beam down to the outpost to receive information about the Romulan Nero. He's raising a brow, exchanging a look with McCoy, but then he decides to give it a try.
Kirk beams down, meets Old Spock. Spock is surprised that Kirk isn't Captain, but then recognizes that the timeline has been altered or that he didn't know the correct date, whatever. They mindmeld. Spock tells Kirk that he badly needs to take command because his younger self can't make the correct decisions. So Kirk returns, bullies Spock, who has a meltdown, and so forth...

I like that better, especially because it has every character active, doing what they are supposed to do, and because it erases those huge coincidences and contrivances (and probably because I pulled it out of my own ass). Lacks the monster chase scene though, but that served no proper function in the actual movie (except for getting Kirk from escape pod to Spock).

But would it have been objectively better?

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

One could argue that creating a script using coincidences, stupid/unreasonable/unbelievable decisions made by the characters and uneccessary scenes is poorer writing than creating a script using reasonable characters, a believable chain of events and only scenes that are essential.

It worked for Charles Dickens.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

One could argue that creating a script using coincidences, stupid/unreasonable/unbelievable decisions made by the characters and uneccessary scenes is poorer writing than creating a script using reasonable characters, a believable chain of events and only scenes that are essential.

If that were a fair, honest and unambiguously accurate description of a script and if that were the sum total content of it, perhaps.

But we're not talking about any such movie.

 

[Nerys Myk]

One could argue that creating a script using coincidences, stupid/unreasonable/unbelievable decisions made by the characters and uneccessary scenes is poorer writing than creating a script using reasonable characters, a believable chain of events and only scenes that are essential.

It worked for Charles Dickens.

Having just read "Drood" I'm sure Wilkie Collins opinion of Dickens would reflect Jarod's statement.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Of course, Jarod's description is just about note-perfect for films like the original Star Wars or Donner's Superman, just to stick to well-received genre movies. It's also not a bad summary of, oh, Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet.

 

[Ryan8bit]

I'm curious as to how Star Wars even comes close to ST2009 in terms of sheer coincidence and unreasonable decisions. Like, genuinely... this is not snark.

 

[Geoff Thorne]

Of course, Jarod's description is just about note-perfect for films like the original Star Wars or Donner's Superman, just to stick to well-received genre movies. It's also not a bad summary of, oh, Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet.

Or 12th Night, or The Tempest, or As You Like It or, well, most of them.

And there's Raiders of the Lost Ark. No deus ex machina and that movie doesn't exist.

For the record, I thought the meeting of Old Spock and Young Kirk could have been done better. But it didn't qualify as a deal breaker either.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The next comeback, BTW is, "yeah, but Abrams's movie isn't Shakespeare!" That misses the point...but we've been having these conversations for so long here that there aren't many surprises.

The meeting of Kirk and old Spock was a coincidence for which a vague explanation was shot and then excised from the film. It comes later in the movie than such a happenstance really should.

The remarkable thing about Raiders, as has been often pointed out, is that as far as the fates of nations were concerned Indy could have stayed home and taught his class - when the Nazis opened the ark, they were crispy critters, period.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I'm curious as to how Star Wars even comes close to ST2009 in terms of sheer coincidence and unreasonable decisions. Like, genuinely... this is not snark.

I dunno, how about the villain, the hero and the heroine being revealed as father, son and daughter? Who woulda thunk it!!!!!!!!!????? (Shakespeare maybe. )

 

[Ryan8bit]

Oh, I thought we were talking about just plain Star Wars, or A New Hope if you will. There's plenty of it in Empire.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I'm sure running away was the safer course, at this point.

Or walking away from a lost cause is the wiser course.

LOL.

Dear god. What you don't know about writing is a lot.

LOL your maturity and debating skills humble me, d00d ROFLMAO.

No, it's not an example of poor writing. It's an example of a divergent POV on a character. The question is, "is that divergence legitimate and supported by the material or is it out of left field?"

You followed this with a lot of typing that shows you do have some conception of character building. Unfortunately, it was all in the service of playing dodgeball. Re-read what I wrote; there's no getting around it. If a painter wants to communicate a red flower, he doesn't use blue paint. It's very simple, and it is objective.

extra: the reason the TNG films lost more and more money is because, as the film series progressed, the creators forgot the rules of movie-making

But... but... there are no rules, dude.

But would it have been objectively better?

Yes, that would absolutely have been objectively better (except for the meltdown part). I'm glad to see there's some understanding of what I'm saying. And the deficiencies that you cite here are only a fraction of the problems with the script-- problems that anybody with a knowledge of writing can point out as amateurish writing errors. And, also as you point out, problems that could have been easily solved if the writers weren't both lazy and incompetent.

 

[Gepard]

You seem to be confusing "no objective source for standards" with "no standards at all." Jarrod at least is articulating why he thinks the movie didn't work, whereas you state your opinion and back it up by claiming it lines up with some objective source of standards somewhere that you refuse to name or even explain. But there is no objectivity on this, which is why disagreements exist in the first place.

 

[RJDiogenes]

There are both subjective and objective standards. In my opinion, the movie should have been set in the original timeline and told the story of the original characters; that would have respected the artistic integrity of the source material. That's a subjective standard, although one I believe in strongly.

However, Jarod's last Post, as well as the examples I cited earlier, refer to objective standards of writing. Multiple unbelievable coincidences, the contradictory establishment of characters as I demonstrated with Spock, the ridiculous events like sending a cadet to certain death rather than to the brig, along with many, many other elements of the movie are examples of poor writing, based on objective standards of the craft.

 

[JarodRussell]

I'm curious as to how Star Wars even comes close to ST2009 in terms of sheer coincidence and unreasonable decisions. Like, genuinely... this is not snark.

I can't see it. Maybe he means the droids getting captured by the Jawas so they end up with Luke. But that's a big difference to finding Old Spock on the ice planet. The Droids ending up at Luke's home is the initial "coincidence" that gets it all started, that gets things moving. That is the Narada appearing in front of the Kelvin during Kirk's birth. That's John McClane being at the wrong place at the wrong time. That's okay.

But when Kirk just stumbles over Old Spock, and then they both happen to find the man who has exactly what they need right now, coincidences are used to remove obstacles for the characters.

But that's all my opinion. I haven't studied scriptwriting, I'm just speaking from my viewing experience.

However, Jarod's last Post, as well as the examples I cited earlier, refer to objective standards of writing. Multiple unbelievable coincidences, the contradictory establishment of characters as I demonstrated with Spock, the ridiculous events like sending a cadet to certain death rather than to the brig, along with many, many other elements of the movie are examples of poor writing, based on objective standards of the craft.

Are they really objective? I don't think so. Would they have really been nominated for a Saturn Award for Best Writing if the script was objectively bad?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Are they really objective? I don't think so. Would they have really been nominated for a Saturn Award for Best Writing if the script was objectively bad?

Art isn't "objectively bad;" the use of "objective" in this context is arrant nonsense. If it's not done out of ignorance then it might serve someone as a tool for passive-aggressive baiting, but it's otherwise meaningless.

 

[Saul]

Vincent Van Gogh's work was deemed utter crap during most of his life. Now he's hailed as a visionary genius. Same painter. Same art. Different audiences. Different times. You lose.

Wrong. That is a misconception. He was respected in the highest art circles at the time.

"I can't change the fact that my paintings don't sell. But the time will come when people will recognize that they are worth more than the value of the paints used in the picture."
— Vincent van Gogh

"In spite of everything, I shall rise again; I will take up my pencil, which I have forsaken in my great discouragement, and I will go on with my drawing."
— Vincent van Gogh

"What am I in the eyes of most people — a nonentity, an eccentric, or an unpleasant person — somebody who has no position in society and will never have; in short, the lowest of the low. All right, then — even if that were absolutely true, then I should one day like to show by my work what such an eccentric, such a nobody, has in his heart. That is my ambition, based less on resentment than on love in spite of everything, based more on a feeling of serenity than on passion. Though I am often in the depths of misery, there is still calmness, pure harmony and music inside me."
— Vincent van Gogh

Van Gogh's peers, many of them great artists, did respect his work and his theories and his family, particularly his wife and his brother Theo, supported him financially throughout his adult life. Had he been popular during that life, as prolific as he was, he wouldn't have needed their help. He did shows with some of his peers and, while many of them ascended, he remained obscure and unappreciated right up until the moment of his death.

AFTER his death (and Theo's who had nearly every piece his brother had ever done. again, not really possible had he been a successful artist, well-resepcted, etc) his wife made it her business to bring his art to the world. Van Gogh died thinking he was a failure.

The use of Van Gogh's life as an example of the mercurial nature of "objective" standards (that's called an oxymoron for the kids in the back row; nothing can be both objective and mercurial.) is apt. Which is why I used it in this silly, silly "debate" with people who literally have no idea what they're talking about.

PLEASE. If you're trying to take someone to school, you have to know the subject you mean to discuss. If you don't, learn to be still.

If you read my post again, I said popular in the highest art circles. Not popular with the general public. Look at the letters of condolences Theo recieved from the greats after Vincent died, Monet, Pissaro etc.
But YOU said it was deemed "utter crap"

What YOU are saying is that "Same painter. Same art. Different audiences. Different times." Which is quiet frankly bull.
It was Theo's wife who published Vincent and Theo's letters after they both died. She also mounted solo exhibtions of Van Gogh's work.
This was an aggressive move publicly that brought attention to his art. It had nothing to do with "the audience". Same for Trek 09. It was promoted heavily.
Nothing to do with people changing as you would have us think. You can't change shit to gold by waiting long enough.

Thanks for playing though.

 

[Geoff Thorne]

I'm sure running away was the safer course, at this point.

Or walking away from a lost cause is the wiser course.

LOL.

Dear god. What you don't know about writing is a lot.

LOL your maturity and debating skills humble me, d00d ROFLMAO.

Wrong approach. You lost this thing the instant you asserted an objective means of determining the relative "goodness" or "badness" of art.

My debate skills are excellent. You're just getting disdain added in because of your idiotic stance . Consider it a bonus. All that "typing" was the in service of the thing that keeps spanking you, i.e. the facts.

I believe at this point you're just a troll because no one could be as obtuse as you're pretending to be. However, if we must go one with this...

If a painter wants to communicate a red flower, he doesn't use blue paint. It's very simple, and it is objective.

Tell that to Pablo Picasso. Seriously. You know nothing. The longer you spew, the more you reveal your ignorance of Art and how it is made. You should have stopped pages ago.

]But... but... there are no rules, dude.

Sure, there are rules to studio moviemaking. They aren't objective though. STAR WARS did precisely the same thing as Star Trek, the prequels alienating some diehard fans but attracting legions more. Same approach, different result.

And nothing to do with your stupid assertions about the existence of objective quality because there's no such thing.

Yes, that would absolutely have been objectively better (except for the meltdown part). I'm glad to see there's some understanding of what I'm saying. And the deficiencies that you cite here are only a fraction of the problems with the script-- problems that anybody with a knowledge of writing can point out as amateurish writing errors. And, also as you point out, problems that could have been easily solved if the writers weren't both lazy and incompetent.

You're talking about a lot of things you couldn't possibly know (impatient? lazy?) and making value assessments based on wild speculations and some weird notion that you know the first thing about this stuff.

You don't. You've demonstrated you know nearly nothing about any of it. All you know is what you like, what you prefer.

"What I like" is not the same as "better." It's just what you like.

No one cares about that which is, I think, what's bugging you.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

"What I like" is not the same as "better." It's just what you like.

No one cares about that which is, I think, what's bugging you.

That really describes and explains a great deal of the negativity on the Internet directed toward all kinds of popular art. Most of the truculent assertions that "thus-and-such is no good" are premised on the not-so-veiled and insupportable presumption that the critic is brighter than the great mass of their fellows who happen to embrace what they disdain.

 

[Geoff Thorne]

Wrong. That is a misconception. He was respected in the highest art circles at the time.

"I can't change the fact that my paintings don't sell. But the time will come when people will recognize that they are worth more than the value of the paints used in the picture."
— Vincent van Gogh

"In spite of everything, I shall rise again; I will take up my pencil, which I have forsaken in my great discouragement, and I will go on with my drawing."
— Vincent van Gogh

"What am I in the eyes of most people — a nonentity, an eccentric, or an unpleasant person — somebody who has no position in society and will never have; in short, the lowest of the low. All right, then — even if that were absolutely true, then I should one day like to show by my work what such an eccentric, such a nobody, has in his heart. That is my ambition, based less on resentment than on love in spite of everything, based more on a feeling of serenity than on passion. Though I am often in the depths of misery, there is still calmness, pure harmony and music inside me."
— Vincent van Gogh

Van Gogh's peers, many of them great artists, did respect his work and his theories and his family, particularly his wife and his brother Theo, supported him financially throughout his adult life. Had he been popular during that life, as prolific as he was, he wouldn't have needed their help. He did shows with some of his peers and, while many of them ascended, he remained obscure and unappreciated right up until the moment of his death.

AFTER his death (and Theo's who had nearly every piece his brother had ever done. again, not really possible had he been a successful artist, well-resepcted, etc) his wife made it her business to bring his art to the world. Van Gogh died thinking he was a failure.

The use of Van Gogh's life as an example of the mercurial nature of "objective" standards (that's called an oxymoron for the kids in the back row; nothing can be both objective and mercurial.) is apt. Which is why I used it in this silly, silly "debate" with people who literally have no idea what they're talking about.

PLEASE. If you're trying to take someone to school, you have to know the subject you mean to discuss. If you don't, learn to be still.

If you read my post again, I said popular in the highest art circles. Not popular with the general public. Look at the letters of condolences Theo recieved from the greats after Vincent died, Monet, Pissaro etc.
But YOU said it was deemed "utter crap"

What YOU are saying is that "Same painter. Same art. Different audiences. Different times." Which is quiet frankly bull.
It was Theo's wife who published Vincent and Theo's letters after they both died. She also mounted solo exhibtions of Van Gogh's work.
This was an aggressive move publicly that brought attention to his art. It had nothing to do with "the audience". Same for Trek 09. It was promoted heavily.
Nothing to do with people changing as you would have us think. You can't change shit to gold by waiting long enough.

Thanks for playing though.

I always play to win. Thank you for quoting me. I meant to get back and fix that typo. Yes. Theo's wife. Absolutely.

Yes, a SMALL NUMBER of painters enjoyed Van Gogh's efforts. His work was shown and rejected by the world at large, hence his feeling, quite rightly, of being a failure. During his lifetime, that's what he was.

That SMALL NUMBER of people constituted a minority audience. CRITICS and the GENERAL PUBLIC constituted another. That latter audience summarily rejected his work for decades. For his entire adult life. Not because he was a "wild man" scaring people off but because they hated his output.

YEARS after his death (and partly because he was dead) Theo's wife was able to mount shows and get people in. These were, yes, some of the old people, but mostly new, younger, people who hadn't been exposed to him before and were seeing his work through the eyes of a new generation. That would mean they were a DIFFERENT AUDIENCE in a DIFFERENT TIME.

Honestly, you guys keep saying "reread what I wrote" as if it was somehow complex the first time around. You were wrong then and you're wrong now.

If there was anything like an objective standard for good art, once the rules were laid out, every competent artist would hit a home run every time. Do the math, kids. It's not hard.