From: jwindley%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.misc
Subject: TNG script guidelines (was Re: horse's stardates)
Date: 4 Sep 92 22:32:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: hellgate.1992Sep4.163228.11844
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
>If you are thinking of submitting a script, they suggest these guidelines
>to have the best chance of selling.

Eileen notes that the following restrictions are designed to keep
costs down, and this is very true.  But some others seem designed to
be purely arbitrary restrictions on the subject matter.  No wonder we
keep getting vanilla scripts and completely predictable plot lines
with cardboard characters.  The restrictions leave you with a gamut
from A to B.

>AVOID (or NO):
>-Stories with lots of planet scenes.

Translation: "We don't want to pay for set builders."  This seems
stupid, 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.  Of course, most expense in Hollywood is due to
unionization.  But that's another harangue.

>-Stories with lots of exterior scenes.

Translation: "We don't want to go on location."  This I can buy, since
location shooting is PHENOMENALLY expensive compared to soundstage
work.  That's why TOS built most of their "exteriors" on a stage.
This also wreaks havoc on production schedules.  It takes longer to
shoot on location than to shoot on a stage.  Since TNG is on such a
tight production schedule, this seems like a reasonable guideline.

>-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.

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.

All of this has looming over it the specter of insurance.  As soon as
you do something even the least bit dangerous, insurance premiums
skyrocket.

Heaven forbid we should have any action or other excitement.

>-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.

To us die-hard Star Trek fans this seems odd, since we tend to demand
lots of continuity between episodes.  But I don't need to mention that
Paramount thinks differently than its cast.

>-Stories about the guest star, not the cast.

This is just plain dumb.  There isn't any financial justification for
this.  They just don't want to offend the egos of the principal cast.
Guest stars are there because THAT particular story relies on their
presence.

But the real stupidity lies in the fact that a LOT of TNG episodes
have a prominent guest star, and the story revolves around that guest
star and not the cast.

>-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.

I simply don't buy this garbage that most of the nastiness of modern
society doesn't exist in the future.  True, AIDS might not be a
problem in the future, but I'll bet divorce and drugs will be.  And as
long as these are valid problems, they will affect even our holy TNG
cast.

>-Stories without a personal aspect.

This is covered by the above diatribe.  Science fiction falls flat on
its face if the fiction is subservient to the science.  The science
should provide a venue for the fiction, but not BE the fiction.

I think this is a reasonable guideline.

>-Stories about the supernatural, swords & socery.

This seems odd.  Apparently they are trying to keep TNG "down to
earth," so to speak.  But why, then, do they have so many omnipotent
guest stars?  Again, here's a restriction that they don't seem to
follow.

>_Stories that sound like TOS (Indian planet, Nazi planet)

Considering how many TNG stories have been blatantly ripped off from
TOS, this seems like another non-restriction.

>-Stories "high on the hoke scale" ("Troi kidnapped by space pirates, sold
>into slavery." (Sort of sorry to hear they feel this way. If they don't get
>her back, it could be one of my favorite shows!))

This seems reasonable as well.  You've got to maintain SOME semblance
of plausibility.

>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.

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.