So would there be any major legalities keeping a fanfilm outfit from trying to produce Starship?
Starship, the proposed 1970s Series
- Thread starter Doctor Jeffrey
- Start date
Excellent question, Phoenix. It depends on what you want to do.
Do you want to try to recreate Roddenberry's original concept, or create a series that is very much like what was described for STARSHIP in 1976? What I liked about the premise was the potential and the focus. I like the idea of a crew of 7 or 8 scientists on missions of discovery, and I follow Maurice's idea of these highly qualified people being a heck of a lot of fun, each in a different way. I also like the idea of a ringship, which was not unique to the STARSHIP. You'll find a few designs for ringships on the net, and one of the cable science outlets (I think it was the Science Channel) did a pretty good job of showing how one would work in a show that speculated on different forms of interstellar travel.
Do you want to try to recreate Roddenberry's original concept, or create a series that is very much like what was described for STARSHIP in 1976?
Do you want to try to recreate Roddenberry's original concept, or create a series that is very much like what was described for STARSHIP in 1976? What I liked about the premise was the potential and the focus. I like the idea of a crew of 7 or 8 scientists on missions of discovery, and I follow Maurice's idea of these highly qualified people being a heck of a lot of fun, each in a different way. I also like the idea of a ringship, which was not unique to the STARSHIP. You'll find a few designs for ringships on the net, and one of the cable science outlets (I think it was the Science Channel) did a pretty good job of showing how one would work in a show that speculated on different forms of interstellar travel.
Do you want to try to recreate Roddenberry's original concept, or create a series that is very much like what was described for STARSHIP in 1976?
You didn't, but that's pretty much exactly what KDB said:
And I don't like the way you're talking about "genius" as if it were a dirty word, some shameful secret that should be tiptoed around so viewers will "accept" them. What if you substituted some other minority group and said that audiences would "accept" them more if they didn't come right out and say they were gay or Jewish or whatever but had to tiptoe around it? Intolerance of geniuses is no better than any other kind of intolerance. The word is not the problem. The intolerance toward it is the problem.
Only if you try to sell it for profit. It's always illegal to try to profit off someone else's intellectual property. As long as it's just done recreationally, it shouldn't be different than a fan film based on any other fictional franchise. Although we hardly know anything about Starship beyond what the ship looked like, so I'm not sure how you could actually do that. It would basically be an original film with a borrowed ship design. So why not just do an original film?
Nope. Didn't use genius as a dirty word.
Nope. Not intolerant. Merely cautious about using the word in a very particular context, and nothing more.
My own IQ is 140, which JUST places me within labeled genius range. My Mom, my oldest sister and her husband have slightly higher IQs, so I have no reason to think of the word genius as a dirty word, and no reason to be intolerant of it. Caution based on experience has nothing at all to do with intolerance. It has to do with learning lessons and . . . why . . . that's GENIUS!!!
As a playwright, I also appreciate the LITERAL meaning of the word genius.
The point that King Daniel and I were making was about finding the best approaches to getting the pilot produced, the pilot sold into a series, and the series gaining an audience. Nothing else in the context of that particular conversation was as important.
Speaking of lessons learned, I've learned that if I defend my point more than twice, a moderator will likely tell me to stop, even if I've already said that I'm stopping (and I've now said all that I need to about the word "genius"). So, I CAN'T say any more about this. I'm just a Red Shirt, and we all know what happens to Red Shirts. Even to Red Shirts with an IQ of 140 and . . . 140! . . . 140! . . . why . . . that's GENIUS!!!
Nope. Not intolerant. Merely cautious about using the word in a very particular context, and nothing more.
My own IQ is 140, which JUST places me within labeled genius range. My Mom, my oldest sister and her husband have slightly higher IQs, so I have no reason to think of the word genius as a dirty word, and no reason to be intolerant of it. Caution based on experience has nothing at all to do with intolerance. It has to do with learning lessons and . . . why . . . that's GENIUS!!!
As a playwright, I also appreciate the LITERAL meaning of the word genius.
The point that King Daniel and I were making was about finding the best approaches to getting the pilot produced, the pilot sold into a series, and the series gaining an audience. Nothing else in the context of that particular conversation was as important.
Speaking of lessons learned, I've learned that if I defend my point more than twice, a moderator will likely tell me to stop, even if I've already said that I'm stopping (and I've now said all that I need to about the word "genius"). So, I CAN'T say any more about this. I'm just a Red Shirt, and we all know what happens to Red Shirts. Even to Red Shirts with an IQ of 140 and . . . 140! . . . 140! . . . why . . . that's GENIUS!!!
I think we've come to have a stereotype in the media of what a genius is and how they act. There's some anecdotal basis for that stereotype but you're absolutely right it does carry connotations which are likely to limit an actors' performance. The problem often is what makes someone a genius is actually very difficult to present on screen in a show made by and for mostly, well, non geniuses.
Trek has by and large managed to sidestep that by introducing characters such as Spock and Data who by their very nature would be expected to subvert the trope anyway (DW also does this very well by the way), but even there we got into quite generic territory by the time we got to 7, Bashir and, well, pretty much most of the DSC crew.
Other than that the best onscreen portrayals for me tend to be non fiction,where a real person is explored in a holistic way (see "A Beautiful Mind") rather than merely attaching the label to someone who it helps to designate as very smart in order to explain the miracles they'll be pulling off down the line.
First of all, when a moderator asks you to stop, just stop. No further commentary is necessary or appropriate. “That’s what I said” is not helpful. I said it because it’s my job to say it.
Secondly, if you have a problem with a moderator’s behavior, feel free to take it to PM. Arguing or making smarmy remarks derails the thread, and is not allowed here.
You’re relatively new, so I let the first one slide. Now, you’re on notice.
Drop it.
We're talking about 1970's TV executives here and how they would have reacted to Starship.
Today, television is more niche than ever. We're getting countless shows which never would have been throught profitable to persue in the 1970's. Even if I thought a show centering on 5 or 7 cliche geniuses as I imagine they might be portrayed in that era wouldn't have found the kind of audience necessary back then, it may fare better in today's landscape.
Last edited:
I really like Spot's first paragraph in his last post. That says it very nicely. I also like Maurice's example of Malcolm from Jurassic Park. That was a great example of how to make such a character not only interesting and relatable, but, as Maurice said, a heck of a lot of fun.
I have to wonder what you're basing that on. The '60s TV genius characters I can think of were generally among the most popular characters in their shows -- Spock, Batman, the Professor on Gilligan's Island, Barney Collier on Mission: Impossible, Will Robinson on Lost in Space, Uncle Martin on My Favorite Martian, Artemus Gordon on The Wild Wild West, etc. To some extent in the '70s too -- David Banner on The Incredible Hulk, Quincy on Quincy, M.E., Rudy Wells on the bionic shows, Rem on Logan's Run. TV geniuses of that era tended to be endearing, charming, funny, or admirably hypercompetent.
I once tested at about a 150 I.Q. but that was a long time ago.
In my experience it's a number you can attach any vague and inconsistent meaning you wish to more than it is any kind of hard science. I've seen intelligent people make some of the stupidest and most tragic mistakes imaginable and display terrible ethical judgment and those of average or even below-average intelligence live relatively quiet and successful lives and avoid many of the same problems.
At best there's anecdotal evidence for people who score high on I.Q. tests behaving and performing in ways that live up to the importance we attribute to those numbers.
In my experience it's a number you can attach any vague and inconsistent meaning you wish to more than it is any kind of hard science. I've seen intelligent people make some of the stupidest and most tragic mistakes imaginable and display terrible ethical judgment and those of average or even below-average intelligence live relatively quiet and successful lives and avoid many of the same problems.
At best there's anecdotal evidence for people who score high on I.Q. tests behaving and performing in ways that live up to the importance we attribute to those numbers.
I agree, Cool Eddie. That's why I think it would have been stronger to define the characters as being accomplished and excellent in their fields. I've had the same experiences you stated in the second paragraph, and your third paragraph makes a good and important point. Good observance on your part.
My own IQ is Who The Hell Cares? IQ tests are scientifically dubious and ought to be on the same rubbish heap as Meyers Briggs... and burned with fire. I once did an informal personal survey and took a bunch of different IQ tests and not only were a lot of the questions culturally/educationally biased, but the results were all over the place.
Many writers go directly to archetypal/sterotypical models for characters. My favorite example is the stoner, which a lot of people write as a clone of Jeff Spicoli from Fast Times at Ridgemont High, forgetting the range of behaviors stoned people exhibit—and which they have probably seen in real life—in favor of this easy-to-copy model.
Last edited:
You realize he was BSing right?
Whether he was or not, I HAVE experienced what he wrote in his second paragraph and he did make a valid point (whether intentionally or inadvertently) in his third paragraph.
Ace Frehley of KISS boasts a 163 IQ, and his life is a catalog of cock-ups and missed opportunities.
True, but as my above examples show, often the genius archetype in fiction is a positive one. "Boy genius" characters like Will Robinson or Jimmy Neutron tend to be aspirational, a type that kids imagine themselves to be, able to outsmart adults and create or achieve whatever they want. Adult geniuses like Spock or the Professor or Batman or Mr. Fantastic are irresistible to women, though clueless about it. Geniuses like Barney Collier or MacGyver are admirable for their endless resourcefulness. Geniuses like Uncle Martin or the Doctor (in Doctor Who) may be arrogant and condescending toward normal people, but still clever, funny, noble, and ultimately compassionate. So there are a lot of positive genius archetypes in fiction alongside negative ones like the evil mastermind or the unattractive nerd.
Dude...an IQ of 140 isn't really a thing...
Wha? Of course it is. That's about where I've tested in the past, albeit unofficially. It's toward the lower end of the "genius IQ" range, if anything. By definition, an IQ of 100 is average, "genius" kicks in around 125-140 depending on the standard used, and the highest recorded scores have been in the lower 200s, though those are generally discounted these days as based on antiquated standards or flawed calculations (the modern Stanford-Binet test sets 170 as the highest definable IQ value). Indeed, the whole concept of putting a numerical score on intelligence has been increasingly discredited. I've always felt that the higher you score on an intelligence test, the less likely you are to consider that score meaningful.
Which isn't the same as "not really a thing." They're a thing, in that they exist as measured test results; it's just disputed how meaningful the test standards are.
Similar threads
