It was not pitched. While some elements have been cannibalized already by me and more will be in the near future, FEDERATION is dead.
details on Singer's Trek pitch
- Thread starter Temis the Vorta
- Start date
It was not pitched. While some elements have been cannibalized already by me and more will be in the near future, FEDERATION is dead.
I suggest you try an experiment. The next time you submit a script, write it in crayon on the back of grocery bags-- with a cover note reminding the studio that there's no such thing as objective quality standards.
That's not a quality standard, that's a formal requirement.
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. Scriptwriting is not rocket science where things HAVE to be this way or that way otherwise the rocket explodes. It's art, and in art things can be done in any way. And if something is good or bad is up to the individual.
Plan 9 from Outer Space is not objectively bad. You have failed to give an objective criteria. All you mentioned were subjective impressions. Stanley Kubrik, the grandmaster of science fiction, legendary genius of a director. Yeah, is that some natural law? Or just a personal opinion? A majority vote doesn't make it objective either.
Last edited:
What does rap music have to do with anything?^^ You're a pleasant guy.
I suggest you try an experiment. The next time you submit a script, write it in crayon on the back of grocery bags-- with a cover note reminding the studio that there's no such thing as objective quality standards.
Adios, kids. I'm off to read a book. Enjoy your Hollywood drivel.
So young. So angry. Damn that rap music.
Dude, I would have thought thrash rock/hardcore metal music would be far more aggressive than rap.
I don't think we "devolve" from talking about skiffy TV to Van Gogh, no matter how much we adore Star Trek.
RJ, the emperor called about your returning his outfit when you're done. It's still new.
I don't think we "devolve" from talking about skiffy TV to Van Gogh, no matter how much we adore Star Trek.
Caaaare-ful. That could be taken as support for an objective standard. You will report to the commandant's office immediately!
I don't think we "devolve" from talking about skiffy TV to Van Gogh, no matter how much we adore Star Trek.
Caaaare-ful. That could be taken as support for an objective standard.
Only if you choose to ignore that it's carefully formulated as a statement of opinion. You kind of have to "get" colloquial English, though.
Either that, or in some alternative universe you're reading "It is not 'devolving' to move from talking about skiffy TV to Van Gogh," etc.
Right, and I was poking fun at RJ's tendency to...aw, fuck it. Let's have thread bombs.
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.
If it were anatomically possible for me to do so, I would bear your children.
the only post-TOS Trek series that has come anywhere close to the spirit of TOS is Deep Space Nine.
Wishing doesn't make it so. You'll see more TNG long before you'll ever see a return to the shows no one watched.
The audience is always right.
The audience is always right.
Except TOS has the new film going for it and more people knowing about it versus Nemesis's flop and lack of the general audience being exposed to the TNG guys outside of TNG (at lest from what I've seen when ever a show that isn't trek references trek.) Plus NuTOS unless it flops will likely run to AT LEAST 2015. You sure people will still remember TNG by then?
Plus isn't Patrick Stewart getting a little too expensive for trek these days?
Wishing doesn't make it so. You'll see more TNG long before you'll ever see a return to the shows no one watched.
The audience is always right.
I suppose that's true, but I still don't really get why TNG is so much more popular than TOS seems to have ever been. Maybe it's because the TOS fans are getting older and less active. *shrug*
You're coming perilously close to displaying commonsense, reason and courtesy. This will not be tolerated.
How would I have any idea of the answer to that?
People kill time on the Internet trying to predict trivial future stuff.
What I know is that TNG is more popular and well-known now than any version of Trek other than TOS.
That was true ten years ago. It was true when TNG and DS9 were both running at the same time. It's true now. No one has advanced any credible argument for why that should change.
And what I said was that if in the future the studio wants to go back and borrow from any past version of Trek other than TOS, there's no reason other than wishful thinking to believe that it will be anything other than the one mainstream success the Franchise has had besides TOS.
I'm sure he is. Remarkably, they've managed to do a TOS-derived movie without William Shatner and now they're planning to do one without Leonard Nimoy. If it happens that they want to mine TNG again one day, I'm sure they can do it without Stewart, Spiner or the rest of the old crew.
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.
Doesn't Patrick Stewart have better, more personally rewarding things to do with his time now?
I'm sure running away was the safer course, at this point.
Yeah, but what's that got to do with a TNG revival? Abrams couldn't even get Kelley for a cameo, after all.
Similar threads
