Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s down to JJ Abrams style of writing. He’s frequently talked about his love for a “mystery box” where he believes a good mystery is better than fact. The problem with his writing is, unlike most other writers who use mystery boxes, Abrams doesn’t even know himself what is inside that box. And you see this across all of his work. Frankly, I find him to be the most overrated writer and director in Hollywood because…
loved Super 8. Have watched it several times. It's his best movie IMO.
Star Trek (1964) [pdf]
101–110 of 132 posts
Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]
#102Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like they were Lost . ("Lost" was an extremely promising SF show that claimed to have a plan, but was revealed not to. Which is unforgivable when the attraction of the show was figuring out the mystery. My own theory is that the wildly successful first season led to the writers purchasing too much celebratory cocaine, and subsequently just phoning it in, while the business people were happy to milk it like a s…
It’s down to JJ Abrams style of writing. He’s frequently talked about his love for a “mystery box” where he believes a good mystery is better than fact. The problem with his writing is, unlike most other writers who use mystery boxes, Abrams doesn’t even know himself what is inside that box. And you see this across all of his work. Frankly, I find him to be the most overrated writer and director in Hollywood because…
They planned a trilogy without writing it? They just shot ⅓ of a trilogy with no plan whatsoever of what should happen next?
Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]
#104Even if you are not a fan, the PDF is a very enlightening read! "...blonde with a shape even a uniform could not hide" It's shockingly misogynistic!
Remember who the audience of the document is: powerful studio executives steeped heavily in the sexism that was the social norm for the era. They may not understand the philosophy of the series (and probably wouldn't have cared for it if they had) but they do understand that having pretty faces can improve viewer counts (not so different from today really) and they want to be certain that there's going to be ROI befo…
Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]
#105Does that robot planet episode exist? It clearly exists in Futurama, just wondering wether that was inspired by Star Trek, or rather by that Star Trek pitch document?
Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s down to JJ Abrams style of writing. He’s frequently talked about his love for a “mystery box” where he believes a good mystery is better than fact. The problem with his writing is, unlike most other writers who use mystery boxes, Abrams doesn’t even know himself what is inside that box. And you see this across all of his work. Frankly, I find him to be the most overrated writer and director in Hollywood because…
Well in star wars case, the executives are to take the blame. They planned a trilogy without writing it? They just shot ⅓ of a trilogy with no plan whatsoever of what should happen next?
Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
I watched Melrose Place.
I watched couple seasons of Santa Barbara.
Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]
#108It’s amazing how far ahead this was, compared to everything else on TV at the time. And that last scenario kinda reminds me of…
Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]
#109Ronald D Moores “series bible” for battlestar galactica is also quite a fun read for fans. A copy is available from the same site, so clearly this person enjoys their sci fi. http://leethomson.myzen.co.uk/Battlestar_Galactica/Battlesta...
Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]
#110Does that robot planet episode exist? It clearly exists in Futurama, just wondering wether that was inspired by Star Trek, or rather by that Star Trek pitch document?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Are_Little_Girls_Made_Of%...