From: jwindley%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: Re: TNG script guidelines (was Re: horse's stardates)
Date: 8 Sep 92 14:34:11 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

Couple of quick disclaimers: (1) I lost sight of the fact that this
was a set of guidelines for unsolicited or new writers, not for
writers in general.  (2) I approached the list with the attitude that
these were things a writer should never do, not merely things which
should be avoided.

gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu (Just another theatre geek.....) writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.163228.11844@hellgate.utah.edu> jwindley%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:

>>Translation: "We don't want to pay for set builders."  This seems
>>stupid,
>	Only for the naive.  I think most theatre people realize set
>construction and such is very labor intensive, no matter where you
>are.

I agree.  I have built sets before, and under very adverse time,
space, and money constraints.

Let me explain what I think is stupid.  Since Paramount has given the
TNG production crew exclusive use of their largest soundstage for use
as a transient stage, it stands to reason that TNG must want to build
sets which require such a stage.  So it sounds stupid when they say
"Don't write scripts which require set building."

Believe me.  I KNOW what problems and expense are involved with set
building, and they must be worse for Hollywood where you have to
factor in union requirement.  I just think Paramount is sending out a
mixed message.

>>>They want stories that take place entirely on Enterprise.
>>Ho hum.  Frankly, this sounds like a lazy policy.  They've already
>>paid for the sets, and the production crew doesn't want to depart from
>>their beloved soundstage.  Cheap and easy.
>
>	Damn right. As a producer, I damn well want a good script that's
>cheap and easy. 

But do you want a script that LOOKS cheap and easy?  A lot of TNG
stories during the past season have been just that -- visibly cheap
and easy.  The challenge is to produce a script that IS cheap and
easy, but LOOKS expensive and challenging.  Granted, a novice writer
is probably not going to cut it (hence the restrictions).

>	It's also a guaruntee that if a novice writer can manage to
>write a tight, convincing story WITHIN these confines, he or she is
>likely to have the right stuff. Time for the other stuff later, after
>he or she has proven themselves. 

Of course.  A good writer shouldn't have to rely on glitzy production
effects, since good fiction is about people rather than things.  But
some of us remember when Star Trek was an action/adventure show.
Right now it's just a collection of talking heads.  In my mind it's
like a Western with no gunfights (The stuntmen were too expensive), no
posse chases (The wranglers were too expensive), and no big sky
country (They couldn't afford to go on location).  Not entirely true
for TNG, but you get the picture.

Okay, now I have to defend TNG, because I like it.  TNG has more
effects shots per hour of film than most feature film.  Until now, a
television show simply couldn't rely that heavily on optical effects.
Film was too expensive; two-week turnaround and $2,500 or more per
shot.  Video did not have acceptable quality.  TNG pulls it off -- on
time, on budget, and looking good.

The constraints on time and money are a killer compared to feature
film production.  For two hours of finished film, a feature production
can spend six or eight weeks in principal shooting (say, three to four
weeks per hour of finished film).  TNG has five days of principal
shooting per hour of finished film.  A feature with lots of special
effects may spend $30M to $40M per finished hour.  TNG spends $1M to
$2M per finished hour.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.cs.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | I was a rutabaga in a former life.