Discussion in 'Future of Trek' started by zekkie, Jun 1, 2013.
I wonder what the one better is
Well I read the whole thing - it's a lot of horse droppings - one of the main problems with it is that it assumes that anyone normal gives a shit about matching up the old series with the new films - nobody gives a crap beyond a small group of hardcore nerds. That's before you get into the tonal problems.
Agreed. I'm a Star Trek fan, I enjoy every single series, from TOS to ENT without any exception, but I really don't give a crap matching the continuity.
To the author: did you ever saw the episode "Parallels"? That episode alone, aired in 1993, explains the existence of the new universe from 2009. Just sit back and enjoy the ride, we do not need any fixing. We have 716 (I have included Tha Cage and the animated series in the counting) tv episodes to watch and re-watch and 10 movies before the new universe and who knows what the future brings, we might get back to that universe someday. The basic idea is that we can enjoy both the prime universe and the alternate one together as explained in Parallels, and we do not need any fixing. Anyhow: 22 minutes sitcom style? No thank you ... That would turn me away from the series. And all this continuity fixing, and reusing as homages footage from previous series you really think it would have an audience that would sustain Star Trek in TV? I think for the casual audience it would be just confusing and they would turn away ...
If even Trek fans don't want to watch this series, imagine what the average audience member thinks.
That's one problem with hardcore fans of any franchise: they assume that it should be written for them, so when they write something, they write for themselves and people like them. Only, studios aren't interested in that. If you really want to make a series for Star Trek fans, maybe you should do a web-based thing like New Voyages, but forget the mass media.
And about the alternate timelines thing, yeah, it doesn't need fixing. Explain it as you wish: alternate reality, writer error, retcon, split timeline, etc. But in the end, the writers chose to reboot and do something new, and I don't expect we'll ever get back to the "prime" timeline, nor do I think we should. Sometimes you just need a clean slate.
I read most of your "pitch"... Questions have been raised...
You keep mentioning "terms." Do you mean seasons?
Why would CBS want to shoot in Michigan? It would probably cost them more to set up production there for an ongoing TV series. Also, assuming you can do everything you say you can here, and the actors would really want to do this, why would Felicia Day and Stephen Fry want to move to Michigan for long periods of time to shoot?
Why do the timelines need to be rectified? I'm not entirely sure I get the need. As others have said, the timelines stand apart on their own. The point of the new films is to get away from 40 years of continuity to tell new stories. Paramount and CBS would likely have no interest in any connection to the old timeline as it has proven to be unprofitable in airing a new TV series.
Why a comedy? For that matter, where's the funny? I see very little that makes me laugh in the characters or brief synopses you've listed.
These are just the tip of the iceberg here of questions I could ask. Overall, it's a nugget of an idea and needs to be fleshed out considerably before anyone would take it seriously. Not trying to be mean, but back to the drawing board...
Though "Tin Man" was a good episode.
I think we should have left Admiral Buzzkill speak to his own credits if he was so inclined.
Anyway, it appears the OP has moved on.
I don't get it. Yeoman Colt's actress was 22 when The Cage was filmed. Assuming the character is the same age in 2254, that would make her 13 in 2245 when Enterprise is launched in the Prime timeline. For a series with the intent of reconciling stuff, that seems a bit far-fetched.
I read most of the "treatment" before I got lost.
I'll tell you up front: I don't know a damn thing about selling a series, or writing a script, or dealing with tv executives, but I do know what I like to watch. I don't think this is it.
What I read, in my ignorance, was way too long and much too repetitive. I don't care who you want to bring in later or how you're going to reconcile timelines. If I were being pitched, I'd want something that grabs my attention and knocks my socks off. Or at least makes me pull my socks back up. If the pitch, or "treatment" held my interest enough to pursue it, I want to know what happens in the first 13. Anything after that is up in the air--in other words, a waste of effort.
If your treatment sells, they will hire or assign a group of writers. Don't count on being one of them, much less being the showrunner. When you sell your idea, you lose control over it unless you have some real leverage. From what I've read in this thread, you don't.
The experience I have in entertainment is a whole 'nother area, and I know for sure that you don't put your ideas out there unless you own the copyright and can prove it. Pitching to industry execs is dicey at best. They want to see what you've done before. They want to know that if they put their money on you that you can deliver the goods. They for damn sure won't give you the keys to the house unless they know you won't run off with the good china.
As Joe Q. Viewer, the premise strikes me as weird. Star Trek as a half hour "workplace comedy" doesn't do it for me. I'd try to watch the pilot, but if it didn't knock it out of the park by the first break I'd be on to something else.
Something else ... if you want the movie cast, even for cameos, you'd better have one hell of a budget. These kids are movie stars now and they won't do a show for TV money. Just hide and watch.
Another thing: I wouldn't brag about my experience as a lobbyist. The general public has a less than favorable view of lobbyists in general, and certain ones in particular.
I'm sorry if you don't like what you're reading here, but if you want to make it in entertainment you'd better toughen up now. There's a ton of rejection in your future. That's not a dig, it's a fact of life. Show biz execs don't care who you know or how good you think you are. They're in it for the bottom line.
Show biz is hard. You have to be confident, as you obviously are, but you also have to expect to have that confidence crushed on a daily basis.
He's probably rolling in money and Emmys.
OW. Emmys have those pointed wing things.
The Walking Dead? Breaking Bad? Mad Men? Justified? Game of Thrones? Boardwalk Empire? Sons of Anarchy? American Horror Story? There's a full on Golden Age of television going on, and nothing I saw in your pitch looks to compare with those deep, character driven shows.
How many months or years should we give Zekkie before we can safely assume that his attempt failed ?
To be blunt: it's not going anywhere. We can already safely assume it's not going to happen. NONE of the proposals that will appear on the BBS will go anywhere.
^^^Especially when they're as fan-wank as this, being posted in public aside.
I was being sarcastic. Of course it's not going anywhere. Zekkie is in for a major dissapointment. Which is unfortunate because he does seem enthousiastic about it.
About as long as for Whettestone.
Okay, not that long.
As a fan, I want to see good more than either timeline, and this treatment just doesn't strike me as doing that. I don't like the format or the premise. I'm more interested in Star Trek Begins than this idea.
Separate names with a comma.