From: gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu (Just another theatre geek.....)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.misc
Subject: Re: TNG script guidelines (was Re: horse's stardates)
Date: 4 Sep 92 23:39:33 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Sep4.163228.11844@hellgate.utah.edu> jwindley%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:
>eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
>>AVOID (or NO):
>>-Stories with lots of planet scenes.
>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. Given the fact that
series TV has to pump out episodes on a weekly (or so), this also means
you have to be FAST. Dunno 'bout you, but where I work, there aren't
that many good, fast designers and not that many good, fast builders.

 since TNG has permanent residence in Paramount's largest
>soundstage.  They basically spray paint over the plaster and change
>the lighting to make a new "planet," so I don't see what the great
>expense is. 

	Design. Paint materials. Labor. QUICK LABOR.

	And if you don't think these things cost professionally, then
you aren't living in the real world.

>>-Stories that rely on lots of action or special effects.
>Translation: "We don't want to pay for stuntmen or effects."  Stuntmen
>are expensive.  I'm not saying that they don't deserve it, but there
>are more union problems here as well.  Even for "simple" stunts you
>have to pay big bucks, when your principal could probably handle it
>with nominal preparation.

	Dream on.

>They should probably distinquish between special effects and optical
>effects.  TNG relies heavily on optical effects -- post production
>composites, optical highlighting, and so forth.  Special effects can
>include things like pyrotechnics, breakaway sets, and other mechanical
>effects which are filmed "live" with the actors.  These are expensive
>because you sometimes have to replace your "permanent" sets with
>breakaway lookalikes, so that they can be burned up, blown apart,
>painted purple, or whatever.  And then you have to hire stuntmen to
>replace the principles.

	And, and there's the fact that you HAVE to get done right the
first time, or spend time reshooting it.

	EXPENSIVE either way.


>>-Stories based on earlier stories or characters.
>>-Stories depending on a prior relationship.
>
>This is sort of obscure.  The reason for this is that a viewer should
>be able to tune in to any episode at random without having seen any
>others and be reasonably assured of following the story.  This is just
>a convention of television production.

	It's a pretty hard and fast economic rule. Serialized shows
or those with heavy continuity DIE in syndication.

>>-Stories about the guest star, not the cast.
>This is just plain dumb.

	Agreed.

>>-Stories that could be on any other drama (drugs, AIDS, Divorce...)
>I can understand a rationale which attempts to place TNG in a
>different genre of television show, but the fact remains that
>successful fiction relies on people addressing their problems, and
>that people from all times and all places have certain problems in
>common.

	The rationale here is that if it could be transplanted whole from
another series, why bother doing it on Trek?  It simply isn't worth
the hassle.

	What they're saying is that you have to do stories that can
only be Trek stories....but the themes can be universal.


>>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. 

	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. 

	You seem to have forgotten that these are guidelines for
NEW writers. They can be freer with staff writers and people who they've
worked with before because they HAVE worked with them before. 

>
>I'm sorry, but I for one am going to get darn tired of seeing the
>inside of the Enterprise week after week after week.  If the TNG crew
>doesn't break out of this complacency I think the quality of the show
>will henceforth plummet.
>
>Thank you, and good night.
>--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
>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.


-- 
Roger Tang gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu
Executive Producer Emeritus, Asian Theatre at the UW;
	The definition of having balls is a non-singer who goes karaoke singing 
with the cast of a musical revue.