Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
Starships & Technology
»
The Duration of the Battle of Wolf 359
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by kmart: [QB] I sold about three dozen long articles to Cinefex between 1990 and 2000 and have freelanced for a bunch of other mags (CFQ, Markee, American Cinematographer, International Cinematographers Guild in the US, CGI and Hotdog in the UK) since then, but the Pocket experience (which is probably described in nauseating detail in the TREKLIT archives at trekbbs from 2002) was an utter disaster. I went on staff at Cinefex with the assurance that I'd get a couple of the 'making of' books that fall their way, but the editor there took all of that stuff herself, so my pro credits are still just for web (DailyRadar) and magazines. As for THE ART OF STAR TREK, I did everything I was supposed to do, getting written letters of interest from Paramount PR, from ST VI producer Steven-Charles Jaffe, and from ILM's Steve Gawley, before calling to and getting a verbal expression of interest from Kevin Ryan at Pocket before submitting (he even said he hadn't heard the idea pitched before, which floored me), but then nothing, not an acknowledgement of receipt beyond the registered delivery slip. Then a couple years later when I heard they were doing ART OF STAR TREK with different writers, I still couldn't get any response or acknowledgement out of them. Ryan had switched offices, so I could only reach John Ordover when I phoned. Cinefex told me not to sue over a book that would bomb anyway, and that it would bounce back badly on them if I caused trouble (as if Paramount could ignore small press more than they already did -- our coverage on GEN was nearly cancelled 3/4 of the way through because of lack of coop from them!), so I just said 'fuck it' and bought the book that did come out and amused myself by counting errors and noticing how much better my proposal looked (in content, both pics and text) than their finished volume. Mine was only focused on TOS TV and features, and was organized in a totally different way, looking at how the bridge evolved from pilots to series through features, then looking at other parts of the ship in the same chronological way, and so on, for Starfleet facilities and the Federation and alien stuff and parts of the galaxy. Visually it was great, cuz you'd go from a shot of the TOS Ent to a matching angle shot of the TMP Ent, but off to one side of the page, you'd see the route not taken, with the McQuarrie Enterprise from mid70s PLANET OF THE TITANS. It also let you see how the designers would rework sets from film to film, and didn't waste space by filling pages with movie poster imagery like the published volume did. EDIT ADD-ON: the main dif was that I wanted my version to be equally text-heavy, with interviews of the artists and designers explaining their choices, so there would be a single-source reference for the work -- something definitive, and back then, there were more of these folks around than there are today. END NEW RANT. Very bitter over the whole thing, and I guess my existence is an embarassment to Pocket, because at the end of 96 when John Eaves mentioned me for possibly doing more sketchbooks (this was when Pocket planned to do sketchbooks for the TOS movies, before the GEN/FC book only did moderate biz), Pocket still wouldn't talk to me, even though Ryan was long gone by then. The mockup I kept of my THE ART OF STAR TREK proposal did help me get some other writing assignments, and I still have a very worn mockup that I may wind up scanning and putting up as a writing sample if I do a website sometime ... [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3