RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,627
Posts: 5,426,819
Members: 24,810
Currently online: 572
Newest member: Rom

TrekToday headlines

IDW Publishing December Trek Comics
By: T'Bonz on Sep 17

September Loot Crate Features Trek Surprise
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

USS Enterprise Miniature Out For Refit
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Comic Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Trek 3 Shooting Next Spring?
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek: Alien Domain Game Announced
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Red Shirt Diaries Episode Three
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Made Out Of Mudd Photonovel
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Takei Has Growth Removed
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Retro Review: Tears of the Prophets
By: Michelle on Sep 12


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Fandom > Fan Productions

Fan Productions Creating our own Trek canon!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 16 2014, 05:16 AM   #166
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Star Trek Continues: Episode 2 "Lolani"...

^^ True. I have seen the odd less-than-positive remark on their FB page, but those are mild compared to some things I've seen around the net. Mind you that's true for every fan production or even professional productions for that matter.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16 2014, 05:42 AM   #167
RCAM
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Star Trek Continues: Episode 2 "Lolani"...

GSchnitzer wrote: View Post
Warped9 wrote: View Post
I think the STC group are aware of what's being said here and on their Facebook page. Mind you the FB comments tend to be more gushing and less analytical than here on the TBBS.

I sense they're open to fair minded critique as long as it's offered respectfully. And I think it's safe to assume they've probably gotten more lengthy and detailed feedback through the "contact us" email link on their home website. I know I forwarded much of the same remarks I've made here to them through their website.
Well, the remaining comments tend to be more gushing and less analytical. They also probably receive some less-than-gushing and much more analytical comments on their Facebook page, too, but those are likely excised rather quickly. (Who could blame them, really?)
I saw some pretty severe ones on there, but there may well have been some additional ones that were axed.
RCAM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16 2014, 06:12 AM   #168
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Star Trek Continues: Episode 2 "Lolani"...

Simply put not everyone is going to buy into trying to recreate the TOS vibe and style in terms of production. Not everyone is going to accept the resistance to adding a lot of things that couldn't have been there when TOS was in production.

In terms of acting opinion is really going to vary just as it does with professional productions. One has to accept that recreating the original cast in terms of near identical appearance, performance and onscreen chemistry is flat out impossible. The best you can hope for are acceptable to respectable interpretations. And, of course, opinion will vary on what should be stressed in an interpretation.

No one has done a perfect Kirk, including Shatner. There have been a few instances in TOS where Shatner goofs, and that's certainly true in the films particularly the later ones. Chris Pine is a professional actor, but in my view he's not depicting the TOS Kirk, but a shallow caricature. He does have something of a semblance to Shatner's appearance. Now if Pine were in a production I had more respect for and he was depicting a more fleshed out interpretation then I might be inclined to be more forgiving. But as is I simply don't like the character he portrays and how the character is written.

James Cawley doesn't work for me. For one thing his appearance is too divergent. He does have some of the Kirk mannerisms, but something in his speaking delivery sounds a bit too forced or affected. Then there's also that I don't get the TOS vibe from P2. It feels more like TOS-R writ large and expanded. And so the overall ambience contributes to an odd feeling to P2 in my opinion. They're simply doing it with a different approach.

I like Vic Mignogna's portrayal even though it isn't Shatner's Kirk. Vic manages to incorporate some of Shatner's mannerisms and distinctive quirks yet generally he doesn't overdo it. That said he does have moments when he, too, seems a bit affected or forced as if he needs to ease up just a bit. He doesn't really look like Shatner, but his hair colour and style and his physique do evoke a mind's eye image of Kirk, at least in my opinion. Vic also benefits from STC's overall ambience and capturing a good dose of that distinctive TOS vibe and visual style.

Again, in my opinion.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16 2014, 09:24 AM   #169
Ryan Thomas Riddle
Rear Admiral
 
Ryan Thomas Riddle's Avatar
 
Location: The Bay Area
View Ryan Thomas Riddle's Twitter Profile
Re: Star Trek Continues: Episode 2 "Lolani"...

Warped9 wrote: View Post
I think the STC group are aware of what's being said here and on their Facebook page. Mind you the FB comments tend to be more gushing and less analytical than here on the TBBS.

I sense they're open to fair minded critique as long as it's offered respectfully. And I think it's safe to assume they've probably gotten more lengthy and detailed feedback through the "contact us" email link on their home website. I know I forwarded much of the same remarks I've made here to them through their website.
Todd Haberkorn's popped into the Trekmovie comments on the episode: http://trekmovie.com/2014/02/09/star...lani/#comments

Speaking of those comments, I also posted my review there and it's sparked up a bit of discussion, especially what I wrote regarding the lack of any other color than green in the episode.
__________________
A mild-mannered reporter
Ryan Thomas Riddle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16 2014, 01:59 PM   #170
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Star Trek Continues: Episode 2 "Lolani"...

middyseafort wrote: View Post
Warped9 wrote: View Post
I think the STC group are aware of what's being said here and on their Facebook page. Mind you the FB comments tend to be more gushing and less analytical than here on the TBBS.

I sense they're open to fair minded critique as long as it's offered respectfully. And I think it's safe to assume they've probably gotten more lengthy and detailed feedback through the "contact us" email link on their home website. I know I forwarded much of the same remarks I've made here to them through their website.
Todd Haberkorn's popped into the Trekmovie comments on the episode: http://trekmovie.com/2014/02/09/star...lani/#comments

Speaking of those comments, I also posted my review there and it's sparked up a bit of discussion, especially what I wrote regarding the lack of any other color than green in the episode.
Interesting to read some of those posts.

I don't get the resistance to using Uhura instead of McKennah. It's what they likely would have done in TOS back in the day and it would be more poignant. As I've said I don't mind McKennah as a character, and I also like the actress, but I don't think she should be treated as a major character. Certainly not more than Scotty, Uhura or Sulu. She could be featured when appropriate like Elizabeth Dehner or Helen Noel.

I also don't get the resistance to STC sticking with the 4:3 aspect ratio. That's how most of Trek was shot! And if you're going for an authentic look then 4:3 is the way to go.

The use of cgi is a production necessity because building and filming huge models would be a lot more expensive and problematical. I think STC has managed a look that is TOS enhanced. It's something of a conceit as if TOS had magically had had access to '60's era feature film resources. Hence we get more finished looking models and other f/x. I'm sold on this approach because they still strive to retain the overall aesthetic even if it is higher resolution. I like this much better than what was done with TOS-R---there the new f/x footage doesn't match the remaining live-action footage and I find it jarring. STC's approach melds together much more naturally. If they're not doing it I'd add a touch of grain to all the footage and not just the space shots.

I also applaud STC not over indulging in continuity porn. If you're trying to recreate the setting as if there really had been a fourth season then you shouldn't get hung up on trying to tie-in to what supposedly comes later because all of that wouldn't have existed yet. For that reason I pray we do not see TNG-VOY and ENT aliens and other references. If Andorians, Klingons or Romulans are done let them be more like the TOS versions. If we see Klingon or Romulan ships, even other types, as well as new Starfleet or Federation designs then let them be treated as Doug Drexler has done the Enterprise with the TOS look and aesthetic. Please, no over greebled ENT or TOS-R style Tholian ships. I thought the Orion slaver ship was a bit over greebled and thought the TNG style lighting effects looked out of place.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?

Last edited by Warped9; February 16 2014 at 02:15 PM.
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16 2014, 02:27 PM   #171
feek61
Captain
 
feek61's Avatar
 
Location: The Sunshine State
Re: Star Trek Continues: Episode 2 "Lolani"...

Warped9 wrote: View Post
middyseafort wrote: View Post
Warped9 wrote: View Post
I think the STC group are aware of what's being said here and on their Facebook page. Mind you the FB comments tend to be more gushing and less analytical than here on the TBBS.

I sense they're open to fair minded critique as long as it's offered respectfully. And I think it's safe to assume they've probably gotten more lengthy and detailed feedback through the "contact us" email link on their home website. I know I forwarded much of the same remarks I've made here to them through their website.
Todd Haberkorn's popped into the Trekmovie comments on the episode: http://trekmovie.com/2014/02/09/star...lani/#comments

Speaking of those comments, I also posted my review there and it's sparked up a bit of discussion, especially what I wrote regarding the lack of any other color than green in the episode.
Interesting to read some of those posts.

I don't get the resistance to using Uhura instead of McKennah. It's what they likely would have done in TOS back in the day and it would be more poignant. As I've said I don't mind McKennah as a character, and I also like the actress, but I don't think she should be treated as a major character. Certainly not more than Scotty, Uhura or Sulu. She could be featured when appropriate like Elizabeth Dehner or Helen Noel.
One thing to remember is that in these fan productions ALL of the actors are donating their time; it's not a paying gig. The actress who played Uhura may have had other (paying) commitments and therefore could not devote the time to be on set (for a non-paying gig). Other considerations may be as simple as she couldn't get the time off of work. The two STC shoots took 20 days last year; a lot of time off for someone to take . . . to work. To my recollection I believe she was only on set for a day or two at the most. That certainly would have prevented her taking on the role that McKennah did which required much more time during filming. It's a miracle that all of these people can be coordinated to be there at the same time; there are bound to be some problems working it out for everyone. FWIW, Uhura plays a bigger role in the up-coming story.
__________________

Last edited by feek61; February 16 2014 at 02:41 PM.
feek61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16 2014, 03:02 PM   #172
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Star Trek Continues: Episode 2 "Lolani"...

feek61 wrote: View Post
One thing to remember is that in these fan productions ALL of the actors are donating their time; it's not a paying gig. The actress who played Uhura may have had other (paying) commitments and therefore could not devote the time to be on set (for a non-paying gig). Other considerations may be as simple as she couldn't get the time off of work. The two STC shoots took 20 days last year; a lot of time off for someone to take . . . to work. To my recollection I believe she was only on set for a day or two at the most. That certainly would have prevented her taking on the role that McKennah did which required much more time during filming. It's a miracle that all of these people can be coordinated to be there at the same time; there are bound to be some problems working it out for everyone.
Fair enough. Hmm, seems we might need a behind-the-scenes look at STC when it's all done.

feek61 wrote: View Post
FWIW, Uhura plays a bigger role in the up-coming story.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16 2014, 03:48 PM   #173
Campe98
Commodore
 
Campe98's Avatar
 
Location: Tennessee
Re: Star Trek Continues: Episode 2 "Lolani"...

I fell asleep watching this the other day. That does not bode well in my opinion. I think the production quality is great and the story was interesting enough but there was something about the dialogue that put me to sleep. Frankly, I think McKenna is a horrid character. It is obvious that she is a character created for two purposes: to give Vic's girlfriend something to do (Google the actress) and sex appeal (red hair, huge fake boobs... Come on. And don't mistake me. I love well-endowed redheads.) Kick her character to the curb or minimize the role. Much of her role could and should be handled by McCoy.

It's better than Phase II though, that's for sure.
__________________
"Living is easy with eyes closed."
John Lennon, Strawberry Fields Forever
Campe98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16 2014, 06:15 PM   #174
Kelso
Vice Admiral
 
Kelso's Avatar
 
Location: On the destruct button until the last minute!
View Kelso's Twitter Profile
Re: Star Trek Continues: Episode 2 "Lolani"...

TOS would have had a one-shot guest star, probably a white lady, fulfilling the role that McKennah played in the story.
Kelso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16 2014, 07:03 PM   #175
Kelso
Vice Admiral
 
Kelso's Avatar
 
Location: On the destruct button until the last minute!
View Kelso's Twitter Profile
Re: Star Trek Continues: Episode 2 "Lolani"...

TOS would have had a one-shot guest star, probably a white lady, fulfilling the role that McKennah played in the story.
Kelso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16 2014, 07:38 PM   #176
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Star Trek Continues: Episode 2 "Lolani"...

Kelso wrote: View Post
TOS would have had a one-shot guest star, probably a white lady, fulfilling the role that McKennah played in the story.
Maybe, maybe not.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16 2014, 08:38 PM   #177
Eric Snickars
Cadet
 
Re: Star Trek Continues: Episode 2 "Lolani"...

Is it possible that Zaminhon blew up the ship himself, rather than be taken by a foreign empire? One of the themes explored was sovereignty vs. human rights, and the show is clear that Zaminhon comes from a much different culture, one that does not subscribe to the same logic as the Federation's liberal culture. It "please[d]" Zaminhon to "deny" Kirk with regard to the purchasing of Lolani. Perhaps he'd rather die than be taken as well.

Last edited by Eric Snickars; February 16 2014 at 08:39 PM. Reason: grammar
Eric Snickars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16 2014, 08:43 PM   #178
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Star Trek Continues: Episode 2 "Lolani"...

Eric Snickars wrote: View Post
Is it possible that Zaminhon blew up the ship himself, rather than be taken by a foreign empire? One of the themes explored was sovereignty vs. human rights, and the show is clear that Zaminhon comes from a much different culture, one that does not subscribe to the same logic as the Federation's liberal culture. It "please[d]" Zaminhon to "deny" Kirk with regard to the purchasing of Lolani. Perhaps he'd rather die than be taken as well.
Wow! That notion never occured to me. In "Journey To Babel" the Orions blew themselves up to avoid capture. And in TAS' "The Pirates Of Orion" they were prepared to do the same thing again (as well as try to take Kirk and the Enterprise with them). Mayve Zaminhon took that way out when he saw the Enterprise coming for him.

And why did Kenway go back to Lolani's cabin afterward? Maybe for the same reflective reason as Kirk, but also maybe because he half expected for Lolani to have left something there for him.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16 2014, 08:55 PM   #179
Kelso
Vice Admiral
 
Kelso's Avatar
 
Location: On the destruct button until the last minute!
View Kelso's Twitter Profile
Re: Star Trek Continues: Episode 2 "Lolani"...

Warped9 wrote: View Post
Kelso wrote: View Post
TOS would have had a one-shot guest star, probably a white lady, fulfilling the role that McKennah played in the story.
Maybe, maybe not.
They didn't give Uhura roles like that. There's no "maybe" about it.
Kelso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16 2014, 09:01 PM   #180
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Star Trek Continues: Episode 2 "Lolani"...

Kelso wrote: View Post
Warped9 wrote: View Post
Kelso wrote: View Post
TOS would have had a one-shot guest star, probably a white lady, fulfilling the role that McKennah played in the story.
Maybe, maybe not.
They didn't give Uhura roles like that. There's no "maybe" about it.
Given there might have been some changes if there had been a fourth season there is no definitive answer.

One advantage with these productions is that one can indulge in things we'd like to have seen in TOS. The question then becomes how far one is willing to go. You can add/change a helluva lot, but then at the risk of altering the production's identity. Or you can make mild changes or additions and retain a good measure of the production's identity.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?

Last edited by Warped9; February 16 2014 at 09:14 PM.
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:17 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.