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?
I have no idea what criteria they use for nominating or judging the Saturn Awards; nuTrek lost, but, on the other hand,
Avatar won. In any case, the answer to your question is yes, they are objective. Despite the constant attempts to divert the question to the subjective nature of art, there are objective standards to any craft, including writing. If any of the posturing we're seeing in this thread had any basis in reality then the weekly Saturday movie on Sciffy would be the equal of
Metropolis or
Forbidden Planet and there would be no schools and Stanley Schmidt could flip a coin when going through his slush pile.
Wrong approach. You lost this thing the instant you asserted an objective means of determining the relative "goodness" or "badness" of art.
It's unfortunate that you don't know the difference between standards and taste. That's an important distinction for a writer to make. Well, not in Hollywood, I suppose.
My debate skills are excellent.
Pure hearsay at this point. I'm still waiting.
I believe at this point you're just a troll
Just a little digression here for the sake of advice-- and this applies to others in the thread, too-- this is at least the second time you've posted something that merits a Warning. If I weren't a Mod, you'd probably be on a vacation by now. Deep breaths.
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.
I'd ask him, but he's on the Planet of the Apes. I'm tempted to ask what the hell you're talking about, but I'm bored enough with the writing nonsense.
"What I like" is not the same as "better." It's just what you like.
Ah, now this is what writers call "irony."
It's too bad that you don't understand what you just wrote here, otherwise all this silliness could have been avoided. If you had just responded with "I know nuTrek is a piece of crap, but I enjoyed it anyway," that would have been fine. I enjoy B-Movies, too. I've got
Plan 9 on my shelf in my Ed Wood Box Set. MST3K was a great show. Lots of fun. If nuTrek had been presented as a generic Space Opera on Sciffy, I would have found it hilarious. There's nothing wrong with that. But in your knee-jerk defensiveness, you've painted yourself into a corner.
No one cares about that which is, I think, what's bugging you.
Bugging me? I'm not the one in an angry, defensive panic.
However, I
am bored. I think I've spent enough time going over the fundamentals of writing with people who do this for a living, since I know you keep these fundamentals in mind whenever you write something you hope to sell. And, despite the fact that I'm laughing at you a little, I do hope you have some success with that, since the ideas you posted here aren't half bad. Have a nice day.
If anyone else has any interest in continuing this discussion, I can always be reached by PM.
We need more Marshall McLuhans to appear at random like this. I guess you're sort of the equivalent having shot down people who had uninformed opinions about the "pitch" in the OP.
