Star Trek: Axanar

True.

However some have not compared but in my case made a simple statement or preference for Axanar.

Like you opinion or that or anyone else, mine own included it is just personal choice and has little basis in actual fact but what we prefer.
Some will prefer one movie others prefer another or look forward to one and maybe not the other as in my case.

Why some people feel so threatened, insulted etc over how another person on the internet prefers a fan production over a mainstream production is staggering

 

Has anyone seen the Anaxar Q&A panel at Comic Con San Diego, last friday?
I haven't been able to find the video on youtube.

 

They are indeed. And I do still like the idea of exploring more of Trek's important historical moments, the battle of Axanar isn't one that we've gotten much about until now.

And depending how well this goes I could see it becoming part of a lot of fans personal headcanon of the pre-TOS era.

But at the end of the day it's still a fan production and shouldn't be compared to something Hollywood can produce, because that's setting an unrealistic expectation or making an unfair comparison.

Is it better than anything JJ Abrams has ever made? as others have said, no. Is it better than the current Trek movies? from a technical standpoint, or a cultural impact, no. The important point is that neither of those things are remotely relevant to Axanar's production.

And I find it annoying and laughable at the same time that the very people dragging down Axanar discussion by bringing up the JJverse and going on about it at length, are the very people who hate it the most, who for some reason felt the need to drag it into this discussion. Whereas JJ supporters, did not bring it up, except to inquire about the ships being used from it.

Either way, this film is going to be judged on what it manages to accomplish on it's own. And I'd hope after it airs, that the same people will not come in here bringing up how they thought it compared to those movies and continuing the derailing.

 

I prefer wordy responses, as I am prone to them myself.

 

I too love the BTS so much, I went for the backer package with the BTS DVD set. Now I have to wait until next year to get it.

 

What is "better?"

If something entertains and interests you and another something doesn't (or not nearly as much) then it's likely the one you enjoy more is going to be seen as "better."

What someone defines as "better" is going to be based on certain parameters deemed important by the individual. The work that fulfills those parameters is going to be seen as "better" by the individual.

 

I wish that I could shed light on this, but I have no idea. Casting is strictly an Alec thing and he tends to do things two fold -- invest a bit of time to see who might be available, and then once he's decided on who might be right for a role then he contacts only that person and focuses on them.

 

Well seeing as Prelude treats it as the end of the war between the Federation and the Klingons Vulcan probably just wanted to get out of the war and with it effectively over they probably didn't see a need to leave anymore.

 

As I understand it Axanar takes place two decades before the TOS era with Kirk and Spock aboard the Enterprise. So while they could be alive they would each have been quite young.

Kirk and Spock "serving as brothers" could merely be a poetic way of describing what the Federation is seen to represent.

 

Not exactly, Axanar predates even the Pike era as they've shown in some footage events will happen just as the Enterprise is finished assembling. They were supposed to have Michael Hogan as Robert April at some point, but that plan has been changed...

Edit:
My bad... Don't know how reliable the following is (http://www.comicvine.com/james-t-kirk/4005-20078/forums/comparison-of-timelines-394849/) but it mentions Kirk being 12 years old at the start of April's tenure on the early Enterprise, so ...

 

Exactly, Kirk would be 11-12 and Spock about 14?

Kirk mentions Garths victory and tactics bring required reading at the Academy, so he and Spock would have studied the same history lesson, but it seemed to have far more of an impact on Kirk, making aspire to be a starship Captain all the more.

But as they didn't meet (in the Prime timeline) until the five year mission, it's a stretch to say it affected them at the time.

Unless you mean it shaped the course of Kirk's life enough for him to obtain the captaincy at a young age and therefore to befriend Spock when he did, in which case, okay.

 

I thought some nice character touches came out, although the format only allows for minimal brush-strokes: Kharn as something of a philosopher-warrior and the sort who recognizes and respects his enemy (though they remain the enemy); Garth as surprisingly self-effacing, soft-spoken and modest; Travis as a gruff personality with a wry sense of gallows humour. One of the best things about it, actually.

 

Here's the first scene.

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K723TV7GZFQ[/yt]

Neil

 

That "EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!" sound you just heard...

...was me going "EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!"

Discuss.

 

Overall, nice beginning.

However, the political jargon didn't make sense: the council has already cast their vote, but the council's decision will soon be final?!? All that's left is ratification, meaning that the council must ratify its own vote, given that the council still has something left to do??? No. The universal translator must be broken.

Anyway, I really like Ambassador Soval. He was one of my favorite ENT characters.

 

Vulcan looks beautiful, I'm not sure a native Vulcan (the actress, sorry I'm not familiar with the cast) should be squinting so much but it was a nice scene.

 

The Council (Senate) votes. The Administrator (President) signs in to law. Since there's no canon to say either way, the American system works well, since it's familiar.

 

Yeah, but the point is that the first thing stated was that the council had just cast their vote. Then it's about getting the council to change their mind before the process of secession concludes by ratification. Sorry, but it literally makes no sense. Either it's passed out of the council's hands or it hasn't. And if it hasn't, then why make the point that they've already cast their vote?

 

(EDIT: On reflection what the dialogue actually implies is that the "formality" of ratification is in Soval's hands -- but that it's only a "formality" by way of tradition, and that should he wish to break with tradition he can turn the "formality" into a real political battle. This kind of weaponization, as it were, of the traditional "formality" actually sounds like something we've seen play out frequently in recent real life politics in America. So I think Terry's parallel holds just fine.)

 

That's not what ratification means, though, which is why I suggested at first that perhaps the wrong English words were used in translation.

Once a body has passed a resolution on to be ratified, it's out of their hands and in the hands of the body actually considering the ratification. Yet Soval continues to speak as if it's council that should change its mind. That's what doesn't make sense. It can't be council who has to change its collective mind, but rather it must be that whatever unnamed body that is expected to rubber stamp the ratification has to be persuaded not to ratify the resolution to secede, which can't be council itself. That is, of course, unless the wrong English words have been used in translation, or this political organization doesn't operate the way real-world political entities do, take your pick.

By the way, I didn't get that ratification was in Soval's hands.