• 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!

Phase II begins re-filming "Mind Sifter"

Status
Not open for further replies.
The OP told a tall tale and was called out on it. I say we move on.

I recently reread Shirley Maiewski's original "Mind-sifter" as well as the version that was edited and published in The New Voyages. I also read andreich's script (which I'm not going to link to- I'll leave that to her, if she chooses- but it is easy enough to find if you're interested) and found it interesting.

Phase II would do well to go with the leaner edit of the story. The business with Chekov and the hunt for time travelling Klingons distracts from the meat of the piece- Kirk/Hamlin and Spock/McCoy. andreich's script also adds quite a bit of filler that doesn't add much to the story, though that may well have been at the request of the producers.

I've always felt that it would have been more fitting to have Spock and McCoy beam down together to retrieve Kirk (especially after having been at such odds throughout the story). Having Chekov go seemed like an odd choice. Though, andreich did attempt to write around that problem in her script.

And I know that the story has never ended with post-recovery Kirk dropping back in to give Nurse Hamlin a proper goodbye, but I'm still always surprised that it isn't there.
 
Last edited:
I stumbled upon a used copy of the New Voyages anthology a few weeks ago. I'm kicking myself for not buying it then because now I want to go back and read the short story. Hopefully it'll still be there tomorrow!

Though from what you describe, it sounds like, thematically, having the triumvirate together at the end would make sense.
 
Oh, drat. It didn't even occur to me that I should have spoiler-tagged those comments. Whoops!
 
You don't know much about Hollywood, do you? Either that, or your playing dumb.
If you would actually pay attention I wasn't saying what happened. I simply pointed out what would have to be the case had it actually happened as related, and leave it to everyone to decide for themselves how likely that is.
 
Last edited:
For the Chico story as described to be true, the following must necessarily follow (assuming IMBD's credits are correct to the episode):
  1. Komack took the story and "paid" with two twenties
  2. This script was so good it was shot with "no changes", even though sitcoms typically work in an iterative fashion where table reads and rehearsals result in adjustments
  3. Ron Friedman took story by credit (and presumably payment), knowing he didn't write it
  4. George Arthur Bloom and Henry Irving shared teleplay credit with Friedman (and presumably payment), meaning three writers took credit for something none of them worked on (if it was shot with "no changes")
Possible? Likely? You decide...
You don't know much about Hollywood, do you? Either that, or your playing dumb.

I know a bit - certainly enough to know that you're blowing smoke; you've no idea what you're talking about.

What the hell, I'll just say it: the story being told here about the authorship and sale of that script is not true. Sorry if that disillusions anyone.
 
What the hell, I'll just say it: the story being told here about the authorship and sale of that script is not true. Sorry if that disillusions anyone.

I think the thing that trips me up is: how does the author know the episode was a word for word reproduction? Sorry if I missed the explanation. Did she keep a copy of her hand-written script? How would she even know when that particular episode was due to air? This was before word processors and VCR's were in common use.

Could she have sent something that became the basis for an episode? I think so. Did she send a completed script that required absolutely no work on the production company's end? I doubt it.
 
You don't know much about Hollywood, do you? Either that, or your playing dumb.
If you would actually pay attention I wasn't saying what happened. I simply pointed out what would have to be the case had it actually happened as related, and leave it to everyone to decide for themselves how likely that is.
Why don't you stop being a coward and just call her a liar. And it is clear that you are either an idiot or just pretending not to know about Hollywood's long history of ghost writing and just flat out plagiarism. There are many who will happily put their name on someone else's writing. In advance, no, I have never had a script plagiarized.
 
Not to be mean, or trying to dictate the course of the thread, but I don't think PII is re-filming Chico and the Man.

What I'm wondering is that given they had a successful kickstarter, how quickly will we start seeing the three eps in the pipeline. :)
 
In advance, no, I have never had a script plagiarized.

You know, I'm not sure that it's really seemly for people who remain anonymous on a message board to call folks who make their identities public "cowards" for posting information and judgments that they stand behind.

It might help if you'll acquaint with what you "know" about how Hollywood works, and through what personal experience you acquired that knowledge.
 
This didn't happen in Hollywood, but there was a scandal here in Canada about a producer who put her sister's name on scripts written by american writers (when only local scribes were supposed to have been assigned to their productions, as mandated by financing rules).

The writers got paid a good fee for their work. What was the real reason for the name switcheroo? when productions made in North America and elsewhere get broadcast in some european countries, they get back monies per each broadcast. One script probably won't bring in much money, but when you have your name on say 50 scripts per year that keep getting re-broadcast in many countries, then that's a significant chunk of change...

The scammers got snitched, and boy was the alarm sounded, all of which affected many production companies and workers for years afterward (including yours truly)...

So, I don't know about Andriech's story being true or not, but shady dealings do occur...
 
This didn't happen in Hollywood, but there was a scandal here in Canada about a producer who put her sister's name on scripts written by american writers (when only local scribes were supposed to have been assigned to their productions, as mandated by financing rules).

The writers got paid a good fee for their work. What was the real reason for the name switcheroo? when productions made in North America and elsewhere get broadcast in some european countries, they get back monies per each broadcast. One script probably won't bring in much money, but when you have your name on say 50 scripts per year that keep getting re-broadcast in many countries, then that's a significant chunk of change...

The scammers got snitched, and boy was the alarm sounded, all of which affected many production companies and workers for years afterward (including yours truly)...

So, I don't know about Andriech's story being true or not, but shady dealings do occur...
And probably the only reason that producer got caught was he was too greedy.
 
You don't know much about Hollywood, do you? Either that, or your playing dumb.
If you would actually pay attention I wasn't saying what happened. I simply pointed out what would have to be the case had it actually happened as related, and leave it to everyone to decide for themselves how likely that is.
Why don't you stop being a coward and just call her a liar. And it is clear that you are either an idiot or just pretending not to know about Hollywood's long history of ghost writing and just flat out plagiarism. There are many who will happily put their name on someone else's writing. In advance, no, I have never had a script plagiarized.

Why don't you do your research? As is demonstrably and easily available with just a few clicks in this very forum, Maurice has proven himself not only to be a working professional in the filmmaking industry and as a member of one of the crew of one fan film but he's also been, I dare say, one of the tiny few who has remained active on this message board, dealt with all kinds of people - both good and bad - and somehow managed to do so with class and never to resort to petty name-calling, insane accusations or impugning the character of others.

In advance, yes, you picked the wrong person to attack on the "practical experience in filmmaking" card.
 
Why don't you do your research? As is demonstrably and easily available with just a few clicks in this very forum, Maurice has proven himself not only to be a working professional in the filmmaking industry and as a member of one of the crew of one fan film but he's also been, I dare say, one of the tiny few who has remained active on this message board, dealt with all kinds of people - both good and bad - and somehow managed to do so with class and never to resort to petty name-calling, insane accusations or impugning the character of others.

In advance, yes, you picked the wrong person to attack on the "practical experience in filmmaking" card.

+1
 
If you would actually pay attention I wasn't saying what happened. I simply pointed out what would have to be the case had it actually happened as related, and leave it to everyone to decide for themselves how likely that is.
Why don't you stop being a coward and just call her a liar. And it is clear that you are either an idiot or just pretending not to know about Hollywood's long history of ghost writing and just flat out plagiarism. There are many who will happily put their name on someone else's writing. In advance, no, I have never had a script plagiarized.

Why don't you do your research? As is demonstrably and easily available with just a few clicks in this very forum, Maurice has proven himself not only to be a working professional in the filmmaking industry and as a member of one of the crew of one fan film but he's also been, I dare say, one of the tiny few who has remained active on this message board, dealt with all kinds of people - both good and bad - and somehow managed to do so with class and never to resort to petty name-calling, insane accusations or impugning the character of others.

In advance, yes, you picked the wrong person to attack on the "practical experience in filmmaking" card.

I don't know who he is and don't give a fuck! He demonstrated his idiocy and cowardice in the posts that I read in this thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top