ST Phase 2: MIND-SIFTER
- Thread starter Bixby
- Start date
ElimGarak.93-99;10117333 I guess that Star Trek: Phase II used the original story made by Shirley Maiewski said:
What did the editors change? I'm not sure I could spot it, it's been so long since I read the book.
Well, it'd take a while list everything.
Original had Koloth and Korax spearheading the operation, not Kor. Original had "slingshot around the sun" as the time-travel method, instead of "The Guardian." Original had Chekov discovering where/when Kirk was by noticing pictures of the Klingons in an old 1950's textbook. Much of the story involved McCoy and Chekov doing reconnaissance after arriving at 1950's Earth--setting up shop in a hotel, preparing for Kirk's "extraction." In the edited version, Spock just figures it out--without much explanation, and then they jump through the Guardian and retrieve Kirk without much difficulty.
Thanks.
Last edited:
doubleohfive
Fleet Admiral
Ugh. That script is atrocious.
How so? In ways that are attributable to weaknesses in the underlying source material/story? Or is it an adaptation that doesn't really do justice to the story?
doubleohfive
Fleet Admiral
My apologies. The story is fine. The story, as you all are presenting it, I have no doubt, will be fine.
I should have been more precise with my comment. When I used the word "script" here, I said it as a writer, but also as a script coordinator and member of a television writer's office staff who reads dozens of versions of the same scripts every day. I mean that the actual format and structure and presentation of the document on the linked webpage was atrocious.
I freely admit, this could just be due to how it is presented on that particular website, but Patty's style, such as it is, is overly verbose and not in keeping with the typical Hollywood fare I am exposed to. Having read her draft of "Kitumba" as well, I know also that this isn't an isolated problem with her writing, either.
There's already a wonderful, prose short story out there. The language and format and structure and usual accoutrements of same are excessive here and make the draft entirely sluggish to get through.
I don't think I'm commenting here with anything new to anyone reading this, but scripts are supposed to be lean, easy-to-read, and concise blueprints for all the hands of a production to be able to easily read and understand in order to do their jobs. This document reads almost as if it were a literal adaptation from the short story (almost; I've not read the short story myself for quite some time), warts and all, to screenplay format and further belies the biggest problem New Voyages/Phase II suffers from: not knowing when to edit and trim the unnecessary fat from the main course of the meal.
Just my two cents.
I read this a while back, at the behest of someone on the production, but never said anything publicly because NDA and all that. 
The short story is at fault for a lot of the story issues, notably the melodrama and the overly arch dialog.
On the other hand, doubleoh is correct that as a teleplay it rather falls down. In particular it undermines its own dramatic beats by ending acts too late (e.g. Act Two's ending gets undercut by following the Midpoint Twist with dialog instead of fading out on the big reveal). It also features far too much indication for the actors in the action slugs; in some scenes every second line of dialog has a description of action or tone attached, much of it internal character thoughts which can't be filmed.
I could give detailed "notes" but I don't think that's what most people are reading this topic for.
The short story is at fault for a lot of the story issues, notably the melodrama and the overly arch dialog.
On the other hand, doubleoh is correct that as a teleplay it rather falls down. In particular it undermines its own dramatic beats by ending acts too late (e.g. Act Two's ending gets undercut by following the Midpoint Twist with dialog instead of fading out on the big reveal). It also features far too much indication for the actors in the action slugs; in some scenes every second line of dialog has a description of action or tone attached, much of it internal character thoughts which can't be filmed.
I could give detailed "notes" but I don't think that's what most people are reading this topic for.
I can't even get through the first scene.How is all that supposed to help anyone put anything on film? "He is terrified." That's all. But we've already been told that anyway.
There are many different tele/screenplay styles, but nowadays it's generally considered a no-no to include much camera direction, tell the actors how to say a line (wrylies), describe something which can't be filmed (e.g. she thinks of her mother), or to act as a narrator and inject an emotional POV (as per the example you cited).
How is all that supposed to help anyone put anything on film? "He is terrified." That's all. But we've already been told that anyway.
Last edited:
One of the things I look for in reviewing our scripts is if the writing style emulates scripts from TOS or P2 era. I'm less interested in whether the script style meets more modern criteria for script/stage direction. (After all, we're after an old 60s-70s style, not really a style from "nowadays.")
I recall (and have always enjoyed) the verbosity of Dorothy Fontana in her scripts:
"Scene 73 INT. EXAMINATION ROOM - CLOSE - SPOCK
"He lies on an examination table, bare chested. With his look, CAMERA PANS to the device on his arm. From this device CAMERA FOLLOWS transparent tube carrying his green blood to a wall computer.
"CAMERA PANS to a second computer, follows the tube from it to the Jefferies Seperator. HOLD on the green Spock blood entering the seperator, and orange portion dropping down to a bottled labeled 'Waste Factor', CAMERA NOW FOLLOWS another tube which carries blood of a brighter green hue to a device on Sarek's arm. Sarek is anesthetized."
I love Patty dearly, as well as this script--hindered though it was by the weaknesses of the original source material. I agree that it is still a bit too verbose, but this is just a reminder that our target is not today's script style.
Last edited:
The reason most of that camera stuff got junked is because directors and cinematographers routinely ignore it, feeling it's their job to figure out how to shoot it, not the writer's.
You can suggest camera angles and movement without doing the CAMERA THIS and CAMERA THAT stuff just by writing stuff like:
You can suggest camera angles and movement without doing the CAMERA THIS and CAMERA THAT stuff just by writing stuff like:
YMMV.
I thought the current fashion was for the screenwriter to write a script with little or no camera/actor direction, and then this is followed by a shooting script prepared by the director to indicate what he wants to do with the camera. My first and only script contains no camera direction and very little actor direction.
A friend is working on a script which outlines every single movement of the camera. It's a tough read. Since the guy writing it hopes to direct it also, I guess this makes sense for him.
A friend is working on a script which outlines every single movement of the camera. It's a tough read. Since the guy writing it hopes to direct it also, I guess this makes sense for him.
It's totally ridiculous to put camera indications within a script, unless you do it very rarely and only if it is essential to the story (for example, like the split-screen shots in Brian DePalma's Carrie at the prom dance). But otherwise you have to realize with all the eventual rewrites, the director AND storyboarding artist coming up with THEIR camera angles and shot selections, you're basically just wasting your time putting it in your script.
Directors just usually scribble notes on their copy of the script and don't bother doing a rewrite just to add such stuff. For instance, the script for Argo features the following instances of camera direction in its 122 pages:
11 ANGLE ON as a Shot or within an Action slug
5 ANGLE ON as part of a Scene Heading
4 ANOTHER ANGLE as a Shot
1 CAMERA
1 FOLLOW/FOLLOWING
1 TILT
1 CLOSE/CLOSEUP
0 TRACK/TRACKING
0 DOLLY
0 PAN
0 FAVORING
0 TRACK/TRACKING
0 TRUCK/TRUCKING
The 1973 3rd draft script for Chinatown is equally spare, mostly just calling for the very occasional POV shot from Detective Gitties and a few CLOSE ON [object]s.
As to TV, scanning the pilot of Treme, in 55 pages I've only seen a few of ON [charactername] notes and no other camera direction other than one C.U. [object].
So, yes, styles have changed.
11 ANGLE ON as a Shot or within an Action slug
5 ANGLE ON as part of a Scene Heading
4 ANOTHER ANGLE as a Shot
1 CAMERA
1 FOLLOW/FOLLOWING
1 TILT
1 CLOSE/CLOSEUP
0 TRACK/TRACKING
0 DOLLY
0 PAN
0 FAVORING
0 TRACK/TRACKING
0 TRUCK/TRUCKING
The 1973 3rd draft script for Chinatown is equally spare, mostly just calling for the very occasional POV shot from Detective Gitties and a few CLOSE ON [object]s.
As to TV, scanning the pilot of Treme, in 55 pages I've only seen a few of ON [charactername] notes and no other camera direction other than one C.U. [object].
So, yes, styles have changed.
Last edited:
Yesterday I read a update about Mind Sifter on the Phase II website. http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/?p=4848
We as fans have to get use to a lot of new actors.
Besides the new Kirk = Brian Gross,
there will be a new Sulu = Shyaporn Theerakulstit
and a new Uhura =Jasmine Pierce.
There are also a few new characters in this episodes.
And also a new McCoy
played by Jeff Bond. I really like John Kelley as Dr. McCoy.
So far I know is Charles Root the only one left from the original cast.
We as fans have to get use to a lot of new actors.
Besides the new Kirk = Brian Gross,
there will be a new Sulu = Shyaporn Theerakulstit
and a new Uhura =Jasmine Pierce.
There are also a few new characters in this episodes.
And also a new McCoy
played by Jeff Bond. I really like John Kelley as Dr. McCoy.So far I know is Charles Root the only one left from the original cast.