• 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

You might start by not assuming that the other person "knows nothing" and you're the fucking Oracle at Delphi.
Hmmm, lets see. On the one hand we have a professional who uses his own name and has novels, short stories and screenplays to his credit. All verifiable On the other hand we have an "writer" who posts on line using a cute pseudonym. Walking the walk vs talking in the talk.
 
Well, I got round to reading what we can of Geoff's treatment. Here's the thing: some of it challenged me as a ST viewer. A kind of "Seriously? They want to do that?"

But this is NOT a bad thing.

I really wanted to pitch a series idea I had when Voyager finished but before I heard about Enterprise. But I was aware that, even then, the way shows were made was changing, in terms of dialogue, how the action flowed, even the sets and act structure was changing. West Wing was cited earlier as an example, a show I quite liked.

So the idea I had very much in the same vein and structure of the old style Trek, and I just wasn't sure how that would fly in the changing environment. Plus, of course, I had no easy way to get it to Paramount, even though I was invited to pitch story ideas for VOY from Australia via phone conference. After VOY shut down, I lost the contacts I had on the writing staff. At the time I viewed it as a bit of a setback, but not now. It wasn't right, and I've written better pitches since. But I digress.

We don't make programmes now that are imitations of 60s or 70s ones (or if we do, it's ironic). Updates of any old TV shows - Doctor Who and Hawaii Five O come to mind - have to not only have a contemporary sensibility, but challenge us all over again the way the original shows did back then. That's one aspect we seem to forget about those old shows, that they weren't comfortable and cosy back when they came out, they were, as we might say now, edgy.

So shaking things up is good. I don't agree with every decision of ST09 (Vulcan), but wow, it made for a hell of a ride and can take the movies in interesting directions.

As for shooting Kirk out the airlock, I took it like this. Spock was under stress and angry, masked by his Vulcan training. Kirk was not going to back down, not in any way shape or form. Best thing to do WAS shoot him out thew ship, and pick him up later (probably to answer charges). When he somehow made his way back onto the ship, despite the massive obstacles... it was probably time to listen.

So, I come down on the side that says this is an interesting pitch that might have made a good series.

Thought: why not have the TV series in the Prime universe, and the movies in t'Other universe? As we often say, don't treat audiences like idiots - they'll get it.

Geoff, I'm gathering there's no chance it can be pitched again later?
 
Well, I got round to reading what we can of Geoff's treatment. Here's the thing: some of it challenged me as a ST viewer. A kind of "Seriously? They want to do that?"

But this is NOT a bad thing.

I really wanted to pitch a series idea I had when Voyager finished but before I heard about Enterprise. But I was aware that, even then, the way shows were made was changing, in terms of dialogue, how the action flowed, even the sets and act structure was changing. West Wing was cited earlier as an example, a show I quite liked.

So the idea I had very much in the same vein and structure of the old style Trek, and I just wasn't sure how that would fly in the changing environment. Plus, of course, I had no easy way to get it to Paramount, even though I was invited to pitch story ideas for VOY from Australia via phone conference. After VOY shut down, I lost the contacts I had on the writing staff. At the time I viewed it as a bit of a setback, but not now. It wasn't right, and I've written better pitches since. But I digress.

We don't make programmes now that are imitations of 60s or 70s ones (or if we do, it's ironic). Updates of any old TV shows - Doctor Who and Hawaii Five O come to mind - have to not only have a contemporary sensibility, but challenge us all over again the way the original shows did back then. That's one aspect we seem to forget about those old shows, that they weren't comfortable and cosy back when they came out, they were, as we might say now, edgy.

So shaking things up is good. I don't agree with every decision of ST09 (Vulcan), but wow, it made for a hell of a ride and can take the movies in interesting directions.

As for shooting Kirk out the airlock, I took it like this. Spock was under stress and angry, masked by his Vulcan training. Kirk was not going to back down, not in any way shape or form. Best thing to do WAS shoot him out thew ship, and pick him up later (probably to answer charges). When he somehow made his way back onto the ship, despite the massive obstacles... it was probably time to listen.

Agreement. Aside from simply enjoying the hell out of the Abrams take, I always go into these things with one question in my mind: "Is this interpretation in line with the source material or a departure from it?"

If it's in line, as I believe the Abrams Trek was, then, regardless of smaller issues of deus ex machina here or different characterization choices there, I would support it. And do.

if it's not in line the new interpretation had better knock my socks off such that preconceptions don't matter and the new thing supplants the old. That's a harder trick to pull off but not impossible. Modern BSG beats the living crap out of OBSG in my opinion.

So, I come down on the side that says this is an interesting pitch that might have made a good series.

Thought: why not have the TV series in the Prime universe, and the movies in t'Other universe? As we often say, don't treat audiences like idiots - they'll get it.

Geoff, I'm gathering there's no chance it can be pitched again later?

Not really. I hadn't considered it at all since it was done. When I saw the article i emailed Rob to see if there was some new push underway. There isn't.

I actually pitched another series, one based on the TITAN novels to a big production company and, while it was considered, the feeling there was, now that Abrams is driving, the idea of anyone else getting in is pretty remote.

The project is, as they say, dead.

I cannibalized it for another "space opera" that is sort of underway in short story form right now with a mind to taking into a full novel or, god forbid, to the small screen.

The problem with small screen space-based scifi is that you need to be a big name for any network, even syfy, to even consider it. The only reason BSG saw the light of day was because it was a co-production, saving SCIFI tons of money. Stargate Universe, despite its grittier feel and more expansive approach, actually costs the same or less to make than the other versions since it takes place, nearly exclusively, on the same sets.

The thing about series pitches is, as we've seen in this thread, there are lots of opinions. The people who greenlight projects would certainly have forced changes, lots of them, long before anyone saw this thing.

These documents are as much to sell how the aspiring creators are thinking about the project as they are about the project itself.

It was big fun to do. I was really honored and amazed to be asked to do it and I was thrilled that they basically let me write whatever I wanted. I've developed six projects for TV over the last 10 years. Three were things I was hired to adapt or design; three were just out of my head. FEDERATION never really got out of the gate but I would have been the happiest man in the world if it had.
 
Last edited:
[

If it was just the three of them, yes. Did you miss that point? They're just guys. If 100k people disagree with them about a piece of art, they're wrong.

I thought the quality of art came down to personal interpretation, not majority rule... :shrug:

Both.

Every pair of eyes on any peice of art may judge it according to the veiwer's own standards. NO art, however beautiful to a given majority of people, will be pleasing, much less transcendent, to all who see it. Thus all judgment of all Art is entirely subjective.

Within that basic subjectivity we can create smaller, "objective" criteria based upon arbitrarily described and agreed-upon rules which is why realists and impressionists can both be great (popular) while at the same time creating entirely different forms of fine art.

But, as there is no true objectivity to be had, the opinion of ten great artists does NOT offset, in even the slightest way, the majority of opinion of a given piece.

For there to be an objective standard there must be a single goal or set of goals, clearly described and defined, for every artist to agree upon and then try to achieve. Since that has never been true of Art and never can be true of Art, commercial or Fine or Modern or Post- Modern or any of the others, no one can claim to have insight into or knowledge of what is objectively good or poor Art.

If the vast majority of people in a society deem the art exceptional, it is exceptional. If, after a generation, that same art is deemed to be crap, it is now crap. The audience decides and the audience, being made up 100% of human beings, can and does change its mind. if it changes due to subjective opinion, there can be no objective opinion to which one can appeal.

qed
 
Last edited:
Geoff...you did a "Star Trek" treatment? I've gone back a few pages and assumed it was posted in this thread but would love to check it out.
 
Geoff...you did a "Star Trek" treatment? I've gone back a few pages and assumed it was posted in this thread but would love to check it out.

Yes. I wrote the so-called "Singer pitch." It never actually got pitched for reasons outlined upthread. There's a link at the opening of this thread I believe.

The entire pitch is not available online (only six people have access to it and no one has posted the whole thing. seven, if you count the reporter who wrote the article.)

And, guys, just for the record, the Klingons aren't "less warlike." The Empire still expands via conquest. It's just they're not vikings anymore. More like imperial China. With monofilament weapons and blasters.
 
I was never in love with the "berserker civilization" portrayal of the Klingons that was arguably introduced in the third Star Trek movie and delineated in repetitive detail throughout the Trek sequel TV series. It seemed to me that, from Kruge onward, the word "Klingon" was a failure of the Universal Translator to properly interpret the word "moron." The characters seemed to represent a more sophisticated and modern society in their first appearences on TOS; the Cardassians of DS9 were very similar to the Klingons of the original TV series.
 
I was never in love with the "berserker civilization" portrayal of the Klingons that was arguably introduced in the third Star Trek movie and delineated in repetitive detail throughout the Trek sequel TV series. It seemed to me that, from Kruge onward, the word "Klingon" was a failure of the Universal Translator to properly interpret the word "moron." The characters seemed to represent a more sophisticated and modern society in their first appearences on TOS; the Cardassians of DS9 were very similar to the Klingons of the original TV series.

Well, I wouldn't go quite that far. Until Farscape scifi on TV was fairly close to comic books in its ability to portray complexity. KRAD's Empire novels fill in all those blanks quite nicely and, within the confines of what could be done on TV, I think ROn Moore's version of the Klingons did the same.

I agree, absolutely, a Berserker civilization would eat itself pretty fast. And how did they manage to build all those awesome ships anyway if the only thing of value to them was battle? SOMEBODY had to do the thinking and constructing.

The idea in FEDERATION was to show evolution and, as you posited, to get most of the traditional aliens off the playing field pretty quick so we could bring in new people and things. You wouldn't have seen much of the Vulcans or any of the others unless there was was really compelling reason to show them (or unless the network forced us). There was no point, IMO, in going over all that old ground again.

Pretty much everything that can be said about the old aliens has been said, as far as I'm concerned. Or is being said better in the novels. the watchword on FEDERATION was, "New fish in the old pond and the old pond is a LOT bigger than you think."
 
I was never in love with the "berserker civilization" portrayal of the Klingons that was arguably introduced in the third Star Trek movie and delineated in repetitive detail throughout the Trek sequel TV series. It seemed to me that, from Kruge onward, the word "Klingon" was a failure of the Universal Translator to properly interpret the word "moron." The characters seemed to represent a more sophisticated and modern society in their first appearences on TOS; the Cardassians of DS9 were very similar to the Klingons of the original TV series.

Yet you dislike TUC although the portrayal of the Klingons was the closest to TOS (in my opinion even better than in DS9).
 
The two-part episode "Kitumba" written for Paramount's Star Trek Phase II television series posited a more interesting and plausible version of the Klingon Empire than what we've actually seen on screen, IMAO - the fanatic soldiers/warriors that the Federation was accustomed to encountering represented a single facet of their culture and an influential but not unchallenged part of their governmental structure. Feudal Japan was the obvious parallel. The folks designing and building spaceships and keeping the trains running on time? Other classes/castes.

Yet you dislike TUC although the portrayal of the Klingons was the closest to TOS (in my opinion even better than in DS9).

That the Klingons were capable of speaking in something other than belligerent monosyllables isn't nearly enough to make TUC a great film, I'm afraid - nor were the Klingons very much like the TOS variety. Among many other things that I disliked were the simpleminded parallelism with then-current events ("Oh look, the Klingons/Soviets are in trouble from overmining their moon/blowing up their nuclear plant!"), the extraordinarily specific borrowing from the film The Hunt For Red October, the sloppy mystery plotting and the piling-on of one illogical incident after another. TUC is just a generally mediocre movie - at best - and is only really remembered by anyone other than the hard core - to the extent that it is - because it fills a slot in the Trek movie mythos rather than being a forgettable, underbudgeted one-off.
 
@Geoff I had no idea that you were responsible for writing the pitch in question!!! No wonder you've been posting so much in the thread! I feel stupid now lol.
 
Here's a problem I had with the the Klingons in TNG: in "Sins of the Father," Kurn says that on a Klingon ship he would have killed Riker for offering his help, and it's implied that a Klingon will kill you if you look at him wrong.

Exactly how could people with such short fuses ever cooperate long enough to build an irrigation canal, much less a starship? It just didn't make sense, unless Kurn was taking the piss because he's a total badass who liked making people squirm.

Geoff and Dennis said much the same thing upthread, but this was something specific that always bugged me. Maybe they never do any actual killing, but they like to talk a big game.

Hmm...sounds like the Internet.
 
Here's a problem I had with the the Klingons in TNG: in "Sins of the Father," Kurn says that on a Klingon ship he would have killed Riker for offering his help, and it's implied that a Klingon will kill you if you look at him wrong.

Exactly how could people with such short fuses ever cooperate long enough to build an irrigation canal, much less a starship? It just didn't make sense, unless Kurn was taking the piss because he's a total badass who liked making people squirm.

Geoff and Dennis said much the same thing upthread, but this was something specific that always bugged me. Maybe they never do any actual killing, but they like to talk a big game.

Hmm...sounds like the Internet.

Well at some point in the evolution of an intelligent species, the "Alpha" of the group cant be the one who is best in a one to one fist fight. The best leaders are not generally the ones who can win physical fights. Experienced older commanders might lose a fight to a young Marine half their age, but that doesnt make the young Marine fit to be the commander. Otherwise, Seal Team members and MMA champions would be our rulers.

Nothing about the Klingons made sense in this area. Not only too insanely short tempered to be a really functional society, but settling too much by physical challenges.
 
Ron Moore's Klingons were the reason I stopped watching TNG. They were laughable one dimensional cartoon cutouts. Worf was another reason. Ugh. Disgusting. Even the portrayal doesn't hold up for me. Just stupid. In fact nothing was right about that show. Everything was off kilter and balance. The bridge was too big and slanted (warped) like Picard was. I think people only watch it it because GR tried to hold it together for two seasons but he was out of his depth and too old. The predators were coming in fast. It's always the best guy that's the first to go and everybody hates.

Van Goegh was a failure? Wow, let me notify the musuems.
 
Last edited:
Ron Moore's Klingons were the reason I stopped watching TNG. They were laughable one dimensional cartoon cutouts. Worf was another reason. Ugh. Disgusting. Even the pertrayal doesn't hold up for me. Just stupid. In fact nothing was right about that show. Everything was off kilter and balance. The bridge was too big and slanted (warped) like Picard was. I think people only watch it it because GR tried to hold it together for two seasons but he was out of his depth and too old. The predators were coming in fast. It's always the best guy that's the first to go and everybody hates.

Considering that TNG was the most successful and watched Star Trek series ever, I think there are a lot of people who would disagree with your assessment.
 
Ron Moore's Klingons were the reason I stopped watching TNG. They were laughable one dimensional cartoon cutouts. Worf was another reason. Ugh. Disgusting. Even the pertrayal doesn't hold up for me. Just stupid. In fact nothing was right about that show. Everything was off kilter and balance. The bridge was too big and slanted (warped) like Picard was. I think people only watch it it because GR tried to hold it together for two seasons but he was out of his depth and too old. The predators were coming in fast. It's always the best guy that's the first to go and everybody hates.

Van Goegh was a failure? Wow, let me notify the musuems.

See, there's this thing called reading comprehension that, if employed properly, will prevent one from making a fool of oneself on the Internet. You may want to explore it before posting again. And look into some art history before spouting off about van gogh while you're at it.

This is the sort of post that really depresses me when I think there are lots of "fans" out there who agree with the sentiment expressed.

Sure, you are entitled to dislike any artistic product for any reason you like. Absolutely. But you're not entitled to make stuff up.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top