Bring back episode pitching?

[Steve Roby]

Even what looks like a self-evidently worthless lawsuit still requires a response, which takes money and lawyers. If the studio's the plaintiff instead of the respondent they may decide it's not worth it, but if they're the defendant and don't negotiate a settlement they have to show up. (I figure CBS/Paramount is letting Alec Peters keep getting away with violating the terms of the agreement over Axanar because with everything going on over there it's just not worth the time and money to give him the legal stomping he deserves.)

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

And unfortunately, we've become an extremely litigious society. Sometimes, it seems like every other commercial on what little television I still watch is an ad for a tort law firm.

Some months ago, I was involved in a minor traffic collision. The other driver as much as admitted to my face that I kept looking in her direction, and speeding up, and couldn't get it through her head that I was every bit as interested in getting off the freeway as she was in getting on, and was trying to open up space for her to slip in behind me. She picked the worst possible time and place to try and squeeze in ahead of me, making a mess of my starboard headlight and starboard front fender (I could see no damage to her port rear quarter, but didn't want to risk getting run over to get a better look). The CHP and the insurance companies investigated, and found her 100% at-fault.

I declined to pursue any action, dropped my insurance claim, and had my fender and headlight fixed at my own expense, a few weeks later, while I was on vacation by rail (and could therefore do without the car for two weeks). Because she'd been through enough as it was, and I'm not the slightest bit interested in taking retribution for somebody's stupid mistake.

But when I hired a freelance editor to go through my work-in-progress novel last year, you better believe that there was a NDA involved, and I had the signing witnessed. By an ordained cleric, but that's only because said cleric had been involved in getting the two of us together, and was the most trustworthy person available at the only place where the editor and I have ever met face-to-face.

Back in the 1960s, TOS accepted spec premises, outlines, and scripts (at least according to David Gerrold's book on how "The Trouble With Tribbles" came to be produced), but they had to be submitted through a WGA-recognized agent, and apparently (at least as I read his description of the process) Gerrold was required to join the WGA as soon as it sold, and was thereafter prohibited by the WGA from working on-spec. My understanding is that (1)all the TNG process did was open up a route that didn't require an agent, and (2) there was a certain level of altruism involved, as well as the practicality of scraping together enough material to use.

 

[FederationHistorian]

Do you think pitches in the past went directly to the screen without being developed, rewritten and restructured? Without the studio, network or sponsers chiming in?

You are missing the point.

Trek currently relies on certain tropes and beats that are repeated ad nauseum. This makes for cookie cutter tv, and for a creative direction that afraid to take risks. Real risks, not the risks that are marketed as "big swings".

I get that the studios look at everything as real estate, and that outlook stops a number of creative pitches dead.

It does not change the fact that any writer that tries to break out of that mold to tell an original story, or even develop other supporting characters to be used for a bigger story down the line, is going to have trouble with the current format.

Its because of this current format why accepting fan pitches is even being discussed in the first place. As what Paramount is current doing is not working anymore.

Sure, with this method, Star Trek might stumble upon the new Michael Piller or Harlan Ellison or Jeri Taylor. But they might also find and end up creating the next Ronald D. Moore, when that person gets fed up of the rules they have to work with in Star Trek that are coming from the top down. And they leave and create their own shows that are more critically acclaimed than whatever Trek churns out.

Star Trek is not going to take the lead again as a franchise without a change. It will fade into irrelevance.

 

[fireproof78]

It will fade into irrelevance.

Already has.

 

[Steve Roby]

You are missing the point.

Trek currently relies on certain tropes and beats that are repeated ad nauseum. This makes for cookie cutter tv, and for a creative direction that afraid to take risks. Real risks, not the risks that are marketed as "big swings".

It just baffles me when people say Star Trek has been playing it too safe and recycling its history.

Discovery: the most serialized Star Trek series up to that point, with a focus on one character's rise from convict to captain, with a jump from being a prequel series that worked with classic material like the Klingons and the Mirror Universe to being a sequel series in a drastically changed universe.

Picard: two seasons of trying to do something new and different with a popular character, followed by one season of desperate fanwank. Well, nothing's perfect.

Lower Decks: an animated Star Trek workplace comedy. Yeah, we'd all had enough of that already from... hmm.

Strange New Worlds: a deliberate attempt at bringing back something that was a bit more conventional, but with some new angles on the characters.

Prodigy: a kids' show for the 21st century.

Section 31: a mess, but not like anything they'd done before.

Starfleet Academy: both bringing to life a series concept people have been talking about for decades, while also expanding on a new era for Starfleet and the Federation.

Same old shit over and over again, right?

 

[Nerys Myk]

Trek currently relies on certain tropes and beats that are repeated ad nauseum. This makes for cookie cutter tv, and for a creative direction that afraid to take risks. Real risks, not the risks that are marketed as "big swings".

Trek has been troping since 1966.
Define "risk" and "real risk".

It does not change the fact that any writer that tries to break out of that mold to tell an original story, or even develop other supporting characters to be used for a bigger story down the line, is going to have trouble with the current format.

Proof of this? You've no idea what is happening behind the scenes. What writers are pitching. Which characters might be striking a cord and which ones are duds.
You actually think there's some sort of restriction on developing supporting characters?

In watching various interviews with the cast and creatives on SNW,, one thing that often comes up is the collaborative nature of the show. They actively seek out each other, which is unusual. One might say i breaks the mold.

Its because of this current format why accepting fan pitches is even being discussed in the first place. As what Paramount is current doing is not working anymore.

I'm not sure fan pitches are the solution.

Sure, with this method, Star Trek might stumble upon the new Michael Piller or Harlan Ellison or Jeri Taylor. But they might also find and end up creating the next Ronald D. Moore, when that person gets fed up of the rules they have to work with in Star Trek that are coming from the top down. And they leave and create their own shows that are more critically acclaimed than whatever Trek churns out.

Harlan Ellison? That's a bit of an odd man out with the rest.

 

[Firebird]

Harlan Ellison? That's a bit of an odd man out with the rest.

Harlan bristled against his experience writing for Star Trek and I don't think he ever forgave Roddenberry for it over the decades. He did just fine on his own without the rep from City on the Edge of Forever.