Fade In: The Writing of Star Trek: Insurrection

[darkwing_duck1]

Villains in the right, eh?

How many does it take before it becomes wrong? Hm? A thousand? Fifty thousand? A million? How many will it take?

Gah, don't get him started...we've got one thread for people who think like this already...

 

[JoeZhang]

Then there's the other poor schlub that lost HIS production job just for making a reference chart of the new Enterprise in it's various proposed sizes compared to previous versions.

source?

 

[mattbignell]

Hey all, I'm an aspiring screenwriter and would really like to take a look at this book. If one of you fellows that has it would be so good as to send it to me if I PM you then I would be very grateful.

 

[Christopher]

Interestingly, Guinan and Geordi were in late 19th century (in the TNG episode 'Time's Arrow,') and nothing was said about their color.

That actually worked out pretty well, since Guinan was shown associating with Samuel Langhorne Clemens (Mark Twain), who was very involved at the time with the emancipationist and equal-rights movements. So the people she and Clemens were with at that party were just the sort of people who'd be willing to accept a cultured, intelligent woman with brown skin, or at least to embrace her as a novelty that let them illustrate their cause.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Then there's the other poor schlub that lost HIS production job just for making a reference chart of the new Enterprise in it's various proposed sizes compared to previous versions.

source?

Oh, fer chrissakes.

Eaves posted it on his blog, and the poor shlub was Geoffery Mandel, who's been doing Star Trek technical drawings since before JJ could process solid food.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Interestingly, Guinan and Geordi were in late 19th century (in the TNG episode 'Time's Arrow,') and nothing was said about their color.

That actually worked out pretty well, since Guinan was shown associating with Samuel Langhorne Clemens (Mark Twain), who was very involved at the time with the emancipationist and equal-rights movements. So the people she and Clemens were with at that party were just the sort of people who'd be willing to accept a cultured, intelligent woman with brown skin, or at least to embrace her as a novelty that let them illustrate their cause.

Besides, it was San Francisco, and like most port cities, they've always been on the cultural fringe.

 

[Bones2]

Villains in the right, eh?

How many does it take before it becomes wrong? Hm? A thousand? Fifty thousand? A million? How many will it take?

It wasn't the smug fuckers' planet in the first place. It belonged to the Federation, and the Ba'ku were lucky enough to stumble upon it and then decided to give up technology and sit around being sanctimonious instead. The Son'a had as much claim as the Ba'ku (being the same race), and they were willing to work with the Federation to help millions (or billions, whatever). And in the near identical episode with Wesley in, Picard was on the side of moving some native Americans who weren't sitting on a planet that could magically improve quality of life throughout the Federation.

 

[Joel_Kirk]

Interestingly, Guinan and Geordi were in late 19th century (in the TNG episode 'Time's Arrow,') and nothing was said about their color.

That actually worked out pretty well, since Guinan was shown associating with Samuel Langhorne Clemens (Mark Twain), who was very involved at the time with the emancipationist and equal-rights movements. So the people she and Clemens were with at that party were just the sort of people who'd be willing to accept a cultured, intelligent woman with brown skin, or at least to embrace her as a novelty that let them illustrate their cause.

And, then we would get into an entire conversation on their (Twain and his compatriots') idea of equal rights and Mark Twain's writings like 'Huckleberry Finn' which feature such [sarcasm]forward moving characters[/sarcasm] like Jim...whom I understand is a 'Yassuh massa...' type of character.

Mind you, I haven't actually read the book; I'm getting my info from online searches and what I've heard over the years.

(But we're getting off-topic; there is like two conversations going on in this thread now...)

 

[kkozoriz1]

Villains in the right, eh?

How many does it take before it becomes wrong? Hm? A thousand? Fifty thousand? A million? How many will it take?

It wasn't the smug fuckers' planet in the first place. It belonged to the Federation, and the Ba'ku were lucky enough to stumble upon it and then decided to give up technology and sit around being sanctimonious instead. The Son'a had as much claim as the Ba'ku (being the same race), and they were willing to work with the Federation to help millions (or billions, whatever). And in the near identical episode with Wesley in, Picard was on the side of moving some native Americans who weren't sitting on a planet that could magically improve quality of life throughout the Federation.

It wasn't the Federation's planet. If it was why would they be hiding from the Baku? If they were illegally on a federation planet Starfleet would have beamed them all aborad the ship and been done with it. Why the deception?

In Journey's End the inhabitants were Federation Citizens on a planet that was ceded to the Cardassians by treaty. Different situations.

 

[Christopher]

And, then we would get into an entire conversation on their (Twain and his compatriots') idea of equal rights and Mark Twain's writings like 'Huckleberry Finn' which feature such [sarcasm]forward moving characters[/sarcasm] like Jim...whom I understand is a 'Yassuh massa...' type of character.

Mind you, I haven't actually read the book; I'm getting my info from online searches and what I've heard over the years.

Then you really need to read the book for yourself, because that's really missing the point. Yes, by today's standards, the portrayal of Jim could be seen as somewhat backward and naive, but so was the portrayal of female equality in Star Trek, say. First steps don't go as far as later steps. Even the most racially enlightened minds of the nineteenth century would seem prejudiced by our standards; at the time, the leading debate wasn't about whether blacks were equal to whites but whether they were even truly human, so the bar was set somewhat lower.

So you have to look at a work by the standards of its time. And Huckleberry Finn was intended to satirize and discredit the institution of slavery by portraying Jim, the escaped slave, as a good, intelligent man and a true friend to Huck. Compared to other contemporary portrayals of black people, that was very much a forward-moving character. I've never thought it was fair to condemn people for not being as far ahead of their time as we are generations later. We couldn't have climbed higher than they did if we hadn't been building on the foundations they laid for us.


Anyway, the point is that Clemens was well-known for his involvement with the abolitionist and equal-rights movements and other social causes. Notably, the famed emancipationist Henry Huttleston Rogers became friends with Clemens in the same year "Time's Arrow" takes place. So even if Clemens and his compatriots weren't as racially enlightened as we are, that doesn't change the fact that it's logical that they would've been the ones most likely to associate with Guinan.

(In fact, the timing of Clemens' meeting with Rogers places it shortly after "Time's Arrow," so I like to think that Guinan introduced them. The problem, however, is that the real Clemens was in Europe at the time of the episode -- a newspaper with an August 13, 1893 date is shown -- and only returned briefly to New York, where he met Rogers.)

 

[T'Pan]

Remember the Ba'ku arrived on the planet over 300 years prior to Insurrection beginning. No Federation then.

**

As for Michael Piller's manuscript, it was a good read and a shining example of how movies are made. Too bad the market for a book like that was so limited that it couldn't get published.

It also showed how many hands are on a film, even when the script is being written. But that's not always a bad thing. (Do you know how many writers worked on Casablanca?)

I've always liked Insurrection. Thought it was a good film. It was a "smaller" film, more thoughtful as opposed to just blowing something up every five minutes, and had a broader appeal than most ST films. Definitely had fewer flaws than other ST films. (i.e.: Data as a floatation device and the Starfleet flagship controlled by a Joystick!?)

Reading this manuscript makes me wish I'd had a chance to meet Piller before he died. I think the Piller family should reconsider allowing it to be posted. It shows what a good and talented man he was. He really cared about Star Trek and Roddenberry's vision.

I also wish I hadn't left this forum for so long that I have to start over as a cadet.

**

“I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.”
-- Maya Angelou (American Poet)

 

[BillJ]

Piller and Behr, yes. Coto ABSOLUTELY. Berman and Braga can go play in traffic. Hurly I don't know enough about his writing/producing style and philosophy to judge.

You can't hang Berman for the bad Trek he produced over the years without also giving him credit for the successful Trek that he produced over those same years.

Villains in the right, eh?

How many does it take before it becomes wrong? Hm? A thousand? Fifty thousand? A million? How many will it take?

Gah, don't get him started...we've got one thread for people who think like this already...

That would be me. Kick the sanctimonious fuckers off the planet and strip the 'metaphasic' radiation from the rings!

Actually, my thoughts on the subject can be found in the Insurrection threads here and in the Trek Movies I-X forum.

 

[JoeZhang]

Then there's the other poor schlub that lost HIS production job just for making a reference chart of the new Enterprise in it's various proposed sizes compared to previous versions.

source?

Oh, fer chrissakes.

Eaves posted it on his blog, and the poor shlub was Geoffery Mandel, who's been doing Star Trek technical drawings since before JJ could process solid food.

The reason I asked is that some of us get out of the basement now and again and don't follow every aspect of the arguments about how many laces Kirk's boots should have or if the Enterprise's exhaust is two inches too wide.

 

[Joel_Kirk]

And, then we would get into an entire conversation on their (Twain and his compatriots') idea of equal rights and Mark Twain's writings like 'Huckleberry Finn' which feature such [sarcasm]forward moving characters[/sarcasm] like Jim...whom I understand is a 'Yassuh massa...' type of character.

Mind you, I haven't actually read the book; I'm getting my info from online searches and what I've heard over the years.

Then you really need to read the book for yourself, because that's really missing the point. Yes, by today's standards, the portrayal of Jim could be seen as somewhat backward and naive, but so was the portrayal of female equality in Star Trek, say. First steps don't go as far as later steps. Even the most racially enlightened minds of the nineteenth century would seem prejudiced by our standards; at the time, the leading debate wasn't about whether blacks were equal to whites but whether they were even truly human, so the bar was set somewhat lower.

So you have to look at a work by the standards of its time. And Huckleberry Finn was intended to satirize and discredit the institution of slavery by portraying Jim, the escaped slave, as a good, intelligent man and a true friend to Huck. Compared to other contemporary portrayals of black people, that was very much a forward-moving character. I've never thought it was fair to condemn people for not being as far ahead of their time as we are generations later. We couldn't have climbed higher than they did if we hadn't been building on the foundations they laid for us.


Anyway, the point is that Clemens was well-known for his involvement with the abolitionist and equal-rights movements and other social causes. Notably, the famed emancipationist Henry Huttleston Rogers became friends with Clemens in the same year "Time's Arrow" takes place. So even if Clemens and his compatriots weren't as racially enlightened as we are, that doesn't change the fact that it's logical that they would've been the ones most likely to associate with Guinan.

(In fact, the timing of Clemens' meeting with Rogers places it shortly after "Time's Arrow," so I like to think that Guinan introduced them. The problem, however, is that the real Clemens was in Europe at the time of the episode -- a newspaper with an August 13, 1893 date is shown -- and only returned briefly to New York, where he met Rogers.)

Maybe.

Maybe.

Again, I haven't read the book, so I may agree or disagree.

 

[Christopher]

You should definitely read it. I mean, it's Mark Twain, for Pete's sake. I'm amazed you didn't read Huckleberry Finn in high school.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Then there's the other poor schlub that lost HIS production job just for making a reference chart of the new Enterprise in it's various proposed sizes compared to previous versions.

source?

Oh, fer chrissakes.

Eaves posted it on his blog, and the poor shlub was Geoffery Mandel, who's been doing Star Trek technical drawings since before JJ could process solid food.

Thanks! Couldn't remember who it was that got axed...

Do you happen to recall if it was eaves or drexler that got the "we really don't want anyone with 'Trek experience' on this project" speech? IIRC it was Eaves, but I'm not sure.

Piller and Behr, yes. Coto ABSOLUTELY. Berman and Braga can go play in traffic. Hurly I don't know enough about his writing/producing style and philosophy to judge.

You can't hang Berman for the bad Trek he produced over the years without also giving him credit for the successful Trek that he produced over those same years.

I'll give him the credit I feel he's due: he kept the worst of GRs excesses in his declining years from doing too much damage to the franchise. He was also a decent producer in some respects, like keeping the budget under control and going to bat for the writers against even MORE asinine suggestions from the studio.

But his rigid adherence to Roddenberry's Rules as if they were Holy Writ stifled the show. I don't agree with Piller's end assessment that it was good for the show. Trek in that era didn't succeed because of those rules, it succeeded in spite of those rules, being lucky enough to have a truly talented group of individuals in the writers' room.

Berman also was responsible for such atrocious decisions at the firing of Ron Jones because he refused to writer sub-par scores to satisfy Berman's tin ear. He also didn't want the Dominion War to last more than a couple of episodes. And the list goes on...

That would be me. Kick the sanctimonious fuckers off the planet and strip the 'metaphasic' radiation from the rings!

Actually, my thoughts on the subject can be found in the Insurrection threads here and in the Trek Movies I-X forum.

(This is not directed at you personally Bill). It truly amazes me how many fans (at least those posting on the topic):

1) Ignore all the canon evidence that the Federation is breaking it's own rules in Insurrection.

2) don't seem to care if they are or not. They're intellectually about a half-step away from Mao, Pol Pot or Stalin in their absolutist "greater good" mantra.

 

[kkozoriz1]

Mind you, I haven't actually read the book; I'm getting my info from online searches and what I've heard over the years.

http://manybooks.net/titles/twainmaretext93hfinn12.html

Here ya go. Pick a format from the drop down on the right and read it. It's in may electronic formats including epub and pdf. And it's free. No excuse now.

 

[Captain Robert April]

I'll have to remember this one...

 

[BillJ]

(This is not directed at you personally Bill).

I think over the years (god... it's been years) that we've had this debate I've been consistent in three things:

1. Without a doubt I move them. This has more to do with the resources that you have to commit to protect these people for the forseeable future once the secret of immortality has gotten out.

2. I do believe the Federation went about the removal the wrong way. The plan they were executing in the movie was beyond laughable.

3. I believe there's more to the Ba'ku situation than we see in Insurrection. I think the movie barely scratches the surface.

YMMV

 

[Joel_Kirk]

Mind you, I haven't actually read the book; I'm getting my info from online searches and what I've heard over the years.

http://manybooks.net/titles/twainmaretext93hfinn12.html

Here ya go. Pick a format from the drop down on the right and read it. It's in may electronic formats including epub and pdf. And it's free. No excuse now.

Hahahahaha!

Thank you, sir!

You should definitely read it. I mean, it's Mark Twain, for Pete's sake. I'm amazed you didn't read Huckleberry Finn in high school.

Nope.

I do recall reading Catcher in the Rye...and that's about it. (And maybe the Autobiography of Malcolm X)...