posted
I think what they need is a richer writers stable. A lot of the ideas for these stories are pretty good, and the show has truly excellent production values. I think they really need to polish the plots, though. Ask: "What is this a story about?" and take the time to make sure it gets there. If that means taking an extra week or two per story, I think it'd be money well spent. Get those writers into groups talking to each other about the characters, maybe Braga is there (only occasionally) to tell them what big stroy arcs he wants to hit and when. Get those guys (and girls!) feeding back with each other, and I think you are going to start seeing much better shows.
Going to another network, even if it meant more money would be disasterous. Berman's there until 2006, and Braga's not showing any sign of quitting. I don't really blame them. People are still watching the show. This is just what I would do were I in Braga's shoes. That isn't to say that could do any better at the rest of it, but the writing needs improvement.
It seems simple, but the best way to make the show great is to have it be about something. Right now it seems a little listless in this regard. A lot of these episodes we've been seeing are nothing more than filler (something that Trek has had since TNG). I understand that not every episode can have huge sprawling FX-laden stories, but you can make those stories count, you really can. Make those writers watch some TOS and see the amazing things they were able to do with so little. How technically hard was it to make "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield"? Some stage makeup, Frank Gorshin in tights, and a silly matte shot of a burning city. And yet that's a lasting tale, something that resonates. That's the kind of thinking it's going to take.
-------------------- "Nah. The 9th chevron is for changing the ringtone from "grindy-grindy chonk-chonk" to the theme tune to dallas." -Reverend42
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
But are we going to see that in the future? Seriously, if you think about it, unless it occurs to B&B the best way to bring in ratings is to keep people watching it and to be a attractive to bring more in. Shitty stories do not attract nor keep people watching the series.
On the other hand, the Big 3 will never bring in any type of Trek unless the whole world stops when it airs, only then they will have a Sci-Fi show.
-------------------- Matrix If you say so If you want so Then do so
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Ask: "What is this a story about?" and take the time to make sure it gets there. If that means taking an extra week or two per story, I think it'd be money well spent.
I think the problem these days with Star Trek is that things are just way too rushed. And money is the motivating factor for this. Although I see what you're saying, in TPTB's eyes, it would be cost-prohibitive to take an extra week or two. A deadline is a deadline.
quote:It seems simple, but the best way to make the show great is to have it be about something. Right now it seems a little listless in this regard.
I quite agree. This was always Voyager's problem. It had an interesting premise which did not live up to its expectations. Robert Beltran even said himself that the show was supposed to be about an ordinary crew in an extraordinary situation, trying to adapt & survive. By the end of the show, however, no one really knew what it was about. With Enterprise, the general premise of this show was supposedly about the circumstances behind the creation of the Federation. Instead, it seems to just be about another crew aboard another ship, which we've had three times already. The only difference being that there's this "Temporal Cold War" thing which really has nothing to do with the premise.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
RE a couple extra weeks. I am talking about writer time. I don't know how those guys get paid, but I'm guessing it's either by the script or by the word. It just means you have to get them going on it a couple weeks ahead of time, fleshing it out. Any writer worth his salt can work on a couple scripts at once. Of the stories I've seen of Enterprise, I thought that each of them would have greatly benefitted from just a little more tuning. A workshop to hammer some kinks out and polish up some themes. It really wouldn't take that much, and I think they'd have a much better product to show for it. The extra money would be comparatively small, and even a modest ratings boost would easily cover it. That old carpenter's addage: "Measure Twice, Cut Once" holds true for television production.
-------------------- "Nah. The 9th chevron is for changing the ringtone from "grindy-grindy chonk-chonk" to the theme tune to dallas." -Reverend42
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, the time for a writer to cycle through a script and onto another is generally inversely proportional to the number of writers on staff. And Enterprise's writing staff is considerably larger than Voyager's. We're thus seeing seeing longer periods of time between scripts by the same writers... Bormanis has done two all year, the Jaquemettons likely will turn in four, though some were only teleplays.)
Then again, every single West Wing script this year has had Aaron Sorkin credited on it somewhere, someone infamous for churning out scripts at a Herculean rate and handing actors rewrites while the show is on the soundstage, so perhaps the whole theory that longer intervals equals quality is bunk.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I recall David Gerrold's Star Trek Lives book correctly, many times on The Original Series Gene Roddenberry would be finishing rewrites as the cast waited to start filming. They turned out some good episodes in spite of time crunchs as well.
However, I have no doubts that more feedback between the writers and, perhaps, a longer brainstorming session and peer review session would help bring about more polished scripts. So far, I've seen all of Enterprise's episodes save the one before "Aquisition." Only two has disappointed me. I think some of the others could have spent some more time in editting, but I've been happy with the writing.
This is also the first year of Enterprise. There have been a couple minor shake-ups in the writing staff (I believe two people have left and one or two more have come on recently). They have some kinks to work out obviously.
The biggest thing that the creative staff can do with season one coming to a close is set the direction of Enterprise. They need to do some work on the temporal cold war and find what more we're going to learn about it in season two. They don't need to plan the entire arc, but at least figure out the pitstops. In addition, it wouldn't hurt to set the development of the characters.
-------------------- The philosopher's stone. Those who possess it are no longer bound by the laws of equivalent exchange in alchemy. They gain without sacrifice and create without equal exchange. We searched for it, and we found it.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Joe Straczynski says that his best scripts are those he wrote in a rush, those he did in a day or so. Such stories are either arc stories that he's been thinking about for years, or stories that simply flow for one reason or another.
However, he normally doesn't need more than 7-10 days. The longer you spend on the script, the more it loses its immediacy and realism of dialogue. Novels, on the other hand, he tends to rewrite a lot because the words there need to paint pictures. According to him, what matters is not the writer, but who's on top; he even said that Jeri Taylor, a friend of his, could've done a lot more had it not been for the producers.
At least that's what a writer says. The producers' POV is that writers need to be controlled so that the spirit of the show remains the same. Most of the time, TOS was controlled by Gene Roddenberry, whom Bob Justman calls a better rewriter than a writer, and Gene Coon, who wrote a lot of good stories for Star Trek. Plus, the door was open for people like Bob Justman to contribute a lot of story ideas and solutions.
It's mostly about the people on the top; they choose the writers, they decide how far the writers can go.
[ April 03, 2002, 19:27: Message edited by: Boris ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
You just chopped off 90% of my sentence and invented what the rest of it said. I'll do the same to you:
"cast members of B5 make fun of"
Oh Please. Do you actually think that the B5 cast members can make fun of something? They don't have a sense of humor!
What the remainder of the sentence said was that the dialogue loses on realism if rewritten a lot. I never said it was 100% realistic in the first place; what it means is that if a piece of dialogue is 56% realistic at the beginning, it becomes 34% realistic if you spend a lot of time on it.
Also, some of B5's dialogue wasn't meant to be realistic. The aliens have a different idea of how the English language should be used, especially the Minbari and the Narns who prefer a more theatrical manner of speech. This was intended.
[ April 03, 2002, 20:19: Message edited by: Boris ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
Boris, Mike S. can't write dialogue for humans. Maybe his alien dialogue is okay, but his earth dialogue sucks and is very boring.
I think it was Mike O'Hare (I think I got that right -- Jeff Sinclare) who was famous for mocking the dialogue: "I got up in the morning. I had a shower. I went to the garage. I opened the garage door. I turned on the car. I drove out of the garage. I lowered the garage door. I drove to the party. I stopped at red lights. I went through green lights. I got to your house. I rang the doorbell. You opened the door..."
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
