details on Singer's Trek pitch

[number6]

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.

Some "fans" are a lost cause. This is one.

 

[xortex]

Seriously, who the hell talks like this anymore?

No one I know. I'm writing like this because I feel like it. Seriously.

A small number of the world's greatest artist's opinion means his work was considered, as you said "Utter shit"? That's a funny way to evaluate something.

If Speilberg, Scorsese and Coppola said JJ Abrams was a great film maker would their opinion be less valid if other people thought his work was utter shit?

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.

The star of the film ROCKET MAN was considered a "comedian's comedian" by more than a few great comedians. Yet he fails to resonate with the public, most of whom seem not to get the joke.



No. Let's not. You seem to think he was just painting and not trying to show. He was doing both, just as his peers were, and was summarily rejected nearly every time. he did show sometimes with no sustained good result. That is why he thought he was a failure when he died. Because he was. There were LOTS of people trying to do the same thing at the time also getting nowhere, just as now. He deemed himself to be one of them.

Or do you place your assessment over his? He was there, after all.

I still disagree with you.

So what? The facts don't.

...any artist who produced a competent piece of work could fall in and out of favor due to the passage of time? I don't think so.

And, again, you're wrong. Entire schools of art have fallen out of favor along with their practitioners. Not just painting either. Seriously. just stop now.

Are you not calling him a failure here?

And of course the usual suspects show up.

 

[Dukhat]

And of course the usual suspects show up.

What are you even talking about?

 

[number6]

And of course the usual suspects show up.

What are you even talking about?

I don't think even he knows.

 

[Geoff Thorne]

Seriously, who the hell talks like this anymore?

No one I know. I'm writing like this because I feel like it. Seriously.



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.

The star of the film ROCKET MAN was considered a "comedian's comedian" by more than a few great comedians. Yet he fails to resonate with the public, most of whom seem not to get the joke.



No. Let's not. You seem to think he was just painting and not trying to show. He was doing both, just as his peers were, and was summarily rejected nearly every time. he did show sometimes with no sustained good result. That is why he thought he was a failure when he died. Because he was. There were LOTS of people trying to do the same thing at the time also getting nowhere, just as now. He deemed himself to be one of them.

Or do you place your assessment over his? He was there, after all.



So what? The facts don't.

...any artist who produced a competent piece of work could fall in and out of favor due to the passage of time? I don't think so.

And, again, you're wrong. Entire schools of art have fallen out of favor along with their practitioners. Not just painting either. Seriously. just stop now.

Are you not calling him a failure here?

And of course the usual suspects show up.

Not. The argument wasn't that he was not, ultimately, deemed a genius, but rather that, during his lifetime he was considered crap by nearly everyone who saw his work.

Read it slowly this time. Follow the actual conversation.

 

[number6]

That's a tall order for some.

 

[Captain Robert April]

I think it's been well established, even in Geoff's own posts, that Van Gogh was considered a brilliant artist within the art community at the time. The problem, and major reason for Vincent's depression, was that this respect within the artistic community did not translate into sales of his work. The missing element in Geoff's analysis is that Van Gogh was also recognized at the time to be full goose bozo insane, and this likely had a very strong chilling effect on possible sales of his work (after all, would you buy from an artist who, if he finds out you've hung his painting wrong, my very well show up on your doorstep and eat your cat?). After all, how do you explain his not selling his first painting until a few days after his death?

Recommended viewing: Simon Shaama's "The Power of Art"

 

[Geoff Thorne]

I think it's been well established, even in Geoff's own posts, that Van Gogh was considered a brilliant artist within the art community at the time. The problem, and major reason for Vincent's depression, was that this respect within the artistic community did not translate into sales of his work. The missing element in Geoff's analysis is that Van Gogh was also recognized at the time to be full goose bozo insane, and this likely had a very strong chilling effect on possible sales of his work (after all, would you buy from an artist who, if he finds out you've hung his painting wrong, my very well show up on your doorstep and eat your cat?). After all, how do you explain his not selling his first painting until a few days after his death?

Recommended viewing: Simon Shaama's "The Power of Art"

I explain it the way everyone who knows art history and practice explains it, i.e. the malleable taste and mercurial nature of the audience. Which was and remains the point.

It had NOTHING to do with Van Gogh lurking next to his paintings and threatening potential buyers. That's something you made up and it's wrong.

 

[xortex]

So his work could be a potential failure again.

 

[Geoff Thorne]

So his work could be a potential failure again.

Yes. Nothing lasts forever. Nothing.

 

[xortex]

Nothing and everything, but let me just interject here that I liked what you did so far, but the better question is, if you'd like to have a conversation, is Star Trek played out, exhausted?

 

[Geoff Thorne]

Nothing and everything, but let me just interject here that I liked what you did so far, but the better question is, if you'd like to have a conversation, is Star Trek played out, exhausted?

No.

Of course not.

Mr. Abrams has proved the original concept holds, provided the people using it understand they are trying to appeal to 21st century audiences rather than 20th.

The books and comics had a rebirth during the Ordover administration which continues to this day. Some of the best work ever done with the STAR TREK properties has been and is being done in the novels and I'm not talking about me.

Star Trek is, in itself, entirely derivative of other preceding works. It has its foundations solidly in the adventure fiction traditions that have continued for centuries. The fact that it takes place in space is just the wrapping paper. It's a magic trick to get you to pay attention. It's not ABOUT that. Or, rather, if it's made to be about that, it dies.

The only thing that was ever wrong with it was people who had strong starts driving the property stayed too long at the wheel, forgetting that you have to modify the wrapping paper every so often if you mean to hold onto your audiences. Navel gazing doesn't make for compelling drama.

And remember, as much as we all love TOS, the REAL success story of Star Trek is TNG, both financially and in terms of global appeal. I would still love to have a crack at the franchise without the strictures imposed by whoever has the wheel (even when I'm loving what's being produced, like now). I'm betting most of us who've written it would.

 

[xortex]

Geoff, don't confuse the cyber world for the real world, which is to say I would never let how I feel about you personally influence how I feel about your work. If GR did that we probably would have never got CEOF as it seemed Harlan was a prick even before the rewrites which again he probably took personally - to this day.

Exclusionary practices like not listening to the fans is Imo what killed Star Trek and just plain stupid. Why would you not want to hear and be open to everything that is being said? It makes no sense at all. If you keep everything bad out, you're gonna keep out that one good thing that could make all the difference in the world and mean everything. If everybody is stupid or guilty of something for that matter, then all of a sudden nobody is. Hearing too much is better than not hearing enough. and even bad ideas can lead to good ones. Everything should be considered even the big picture. No, not Trek '09. IMO.

 

[Geoff Thorne]

Geoff, don't confuse the cyber world for the real world, which is to say I would never let how I feel about you personally influence how I feel about your work. If GR did that we probably would have never got CEOF as it seemed Harlan was a prick even before the rewrites which again he probably took personally - to this day.

Exclusionary practices like not listening to the fans is Imo what killed Star Trek and just plain stupid. Why would you not want to hear and be open to everything that is being said? It makes no sense at all. If you keep everything bad out, you're gonna keep out that one good thing that could make all the difference in the world and mean everything. If everybody is stupid or guilty of something for that matter, then all of a sudden nobody is. Hearing too much is better than not hearing enough. and even bad ideas can lead to good ones. Everything should be considered even the big picture. No, not Trek '09. IMO.

That sounds great to you but

1) that isn't how it works

2) how would "we" choose which "fans" to listen to?

There are segments of Trek fandom who think the best version of the series is when the Federation is at war (not). There are those who think straight exploration and ONLY exploration is what the series is about (not). There are those who find TOS embarrassing (not) and those who think it's the only version of Star Trek that is "pure" (not).

I got [expletive deleted] because I didn't write my TITAN novel as the Deanna and Will Show. I wasn't concerned with them. I wanted to see the "lower decks." But lots of fans thought I missed the mark by not focusing on what they thought I should have.

And I don't care what they think. It's not a democracy.

Nor, frankly, should it be. It's bad enough when ninety network execs, each with their own concerns (usually legitimate but not always) weigh in on the hows and whys of a given episode. Or an editor, also legitimately, spikes an entire story one or more of the writers thinks would be awesome. There's simply no way to please or even address all the concerns of Trekkies. It's a mug's game.

It's like the whopper said: The only way to win is not to play.

What we CAN do is trust to our own Trekkiness, our own love of the franchises, and write the books we would want to read, hoping there are enough of you out there who agree.

Some Trekkies are going to be bummed about SOMETHING at all times. The job is to keep that population small.

 

[Dukhat]

There are segments of Trek fandom who think the best version of the series is when the Federation is at war (not). There are those who think straight exploration and ONLY exploration is what the series is about (not). There are those who find TOS embarrassing (not) and those who think it's the only version of Star Trek that is "pure" (not)...Some Trekkies are going to be bummed about SOMETHING at all times. The job is to keep that population small.

Wow, Geoff, I really, REALLY like the way you think.

 

[Admiral_Young]

I don't think it's a writer's job to write their stories in order to appease their audience, or readership but I do think it's important for them to at least take into consideration what fans' expectations and hopes are for any given project. Ultimately though writers should and will tell their own story. I hope this makes sense.

 

[xortex]

It's funny but we got fifteen years of executives who thought TOS was embarrasing, hokey, corny and trite and didn't even care for it nor watch it.

 

[Nerys Myk]

It's funny but we got fifteen years of executives who thought TOS was embarrasing, hokey, corny and trite and didn't even care for it nor watch it.

We did?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It's funny but we got fifteen years of executives who thought TOS was embarrasing, hokey, corny and trite and didn't even care for it nor watch it.

We did?

That's the spin.

 

[Harvey]

Rick Berman has admitted that he didn't see all of the original Star Trek, but just who are these nameless "executives" supposed to be, anyway?