Interesting, I actually thought it was one of the better fan films I've seen, but then again I also find that STC feels a bit too much like TNG to be really convincing for me.
This felt like classic Trek to me.
ST Phase 2: MIND-SIFTER
- Thread starter Bixby
- Start date
Interesting, I actually thought it was one of the better fan films I've seen, but then again I also find that STC feels a bit too much like TNG to be really convincing for me.
This felt like classic Trek to me.
Warped9 does it feel like TMP to you?
There's noting wrong with this script from what I can see.
I thought it was pretty good.
Doubleoh elaborated 2 posts after the one you've quoted to qualify his comments.
Of all the fan films, STARSHIP EXETER gets close to feeling like the original series and comes across as if it's an actual product of the 1960s.
The others feel like "modern" simulacrum, as if the producers of 1990s-early aughts Trek made a continuation of the original series, particularly PHASE II/NEW VOYAGES. Here's why: it has more modern-looking CGI effects; LCD overhead displays with overly wrought graphics (too many numbers and unnecessary information flashing); a large supporting cast; constantly getting orders from an admiral of the week; and a tendency to canon connect-the-dots.
In some ways, PII/NV feels like TNG transplanted into TOS.
CONTINUES also suffers from the "modernization" factor. It has a title sequence that looks more like TNG than the original, which feels at odds with Drexler's TOS-like effects in their episodes. There's a ship's counselor. And there's a bit of canon connect-the-dots — not much, but it's there.
What bothers me the most of all these TOS iterations is that they lack the ability to stick with their original vision, whether that be stay as true to the effects of the 1960s as possible or utilize modern vfx. While Mr. Drexler's work on STC is outstanding it's still obvious to the viewer that CGI is being used. Using an actual model ship should not be outside their capability. Hell, they could probably get away with using a 1/350 Polar Lights Enterprise.
Phase II/New Voyages has its share of issues as well. Why release an episode in 2K but in 4:3 aspect ratio? Why release a "Retro 60s" version of Mind-Sifter with ship movements that clearly would not have been feasible in the 1960s?
I'm fine with either approach but please pick something and stick with it.
Phase II/New Voyages has its share of issues as well. Why release an episode in 2K but in 4:3 aspect ratio? Why release a "Retro 60s" version of Mind-Sifter with ship movements that clearly would not have been feasible in the 1960s?
I'm fine with either approach but please pick something and stick with it.
Starship Exeter felt very close like TOS overall. The opening credits of STC does feel more like TNG or at least looks like it. The opening credits were not done by Doug Drexler, but done before he came onboard. Drexler has commented that the opening credits of STC aren't quite how he would have done them--the original TOS credits had the ship in a sort of sliding motion as it flashed by. No fan production has reproduced that.
I agree that all fan TOS productions have elements of modernization. Some of this I can forgive in terms of things that TOS could have done given a bit more time and money. But there are things that wouldn't have been seen back in the day and those things stick out (to me) as inconsistencies. Again sometimes it's subtle and rather easily overlooked, but others aren't so easily ignored.
One thing they all suffer from is dialogue. It's a subtle thing, but people on television today don't talk like they did fifty years ago. There are bits of contemporary slang and phrasing of speech that slips into the character dialogue that can sometimes not ring true. Again sometimes it can be overlooked and other times it stands out.
I agree that all fan TOS productions have elements of modernization. Some of this I can forgive in terms of things that TOS could have done given a bit more time and money. But there are things that wouldn't have been seen back in the day and those things stick out (to me) as inconsistencies. Again sometimes it's subtle and rather easily overlooked, but others aren't so easily ignored.
One thing they all suffer from is dialogue. It's a subtle thing, but people on television today don't talk like they did fifty years ago. There are bits of contemporary slang and phrasing of speech that slips into the character dialogue that can sometimes not ring true. Again sometimes it can be overlooked and other times it stands out.
Well, one man's "lack the ability to stick with their original vision" is another man's "ignoring the feedback from their fan base."
We get an idea, we think it's great, we try it, it turns out so-so, and fans complain. So we try something different next time. As I've said before, for every fan who says "P2 spends too much time connecting the dots," there's a fan who says "I wish they would spend far more time connecting the dots." For every fan that says "4:3 aspect ratio is just crazy," there's a fan who says "if you really want it to look like TOS, you have to frame the shots in 4:3 like the original Trek cinematographers did."
We know that our fan base is composed of diverse (and sometimes diametrically opposed) opinions of what constitutes an appropriate Trek fan production. Our show is watched by "sophisticated/good" viewers and "unsophisticated/bad" viewers alike. We try to cater to them all.
Some fan productions are hard for me to watch, mostly due to the lack of acting skills. Sometimes it's the costumes or makeup. I understand the limitations of doing an amateur production; this is like an "It's not you, it's me" thing.
"Mind Sifter" was one of P2's more watchable episodes for me, even with the problems that I've pointed out previously. Also included are "World Enough and Time" and "To Serve All My Days." I think the difference for me in these episodes is the casting of professional actors. Better writing? I don't know. I'm not a good judge of that.
What strikes a chord with me in STC so far is the consistency of the acting. The weaker links in the cast have improved greatly over a relatively short time, in my opinion, and that makes each new episode stronger than the last.
This is all subjective on my part, just putting it out there.
"Mind Sifter" was one of P2's more watchable episodes for me, even with the problems that I've pointed out previously. Also included are "World Enough and Time" and "To Serve All My Days." I think the difference for me in these episodes is the casting of professional actors. Better writing? I don't know. I'm not a good judge of that.
What strikes a chord with me in STC so far is the consistency of the acting. The weaker links in the cast have improved greatly over a relatively short time, in my opinion, and that makes each new episode stronger than the last.
This is all subjective on my part, just putting it out there.
I know that STARSHIP EXETER tried very hard to mimic effects in the same way that folks in the 1960s would've done, especially the whirlpool effect of the collapsed star, even though it had to be done with computers rather than practical effects. But Maurice can speak more to that than I.
The "Yes to the no" bit comes to mind in "Lolani." Although, there are greater sins in the dialogue than contemporary idioms. Some of it is written with a tin ear and very bland — the opening teaser and act of "Kitumba" is a great example of this.
In fairness written dialogue is rather hard to defend against I'd think. It's simply so ingrained in the way we think. Each of us don't speak exactly as we did years ago because we adapt with the changing times.
I do agree that a production should establish its identity and try to go from there in a reasonably consistent fashion. From the get-go P2/NV were doing things we wouldn't have seen on TOS. That's okay if that's what you want to do when playing in that sandbox but, of course, you then have to accept that some fans will dissent in that it doesn't really feel consistent with TOS. I'm not talking strictly about visual f/x but also story ideas that TOS wouldn't have done back in the day.
STC also straddles a fine line. While (to me) it feels closer to TOS than anything else I've seen since early seasons of TNG they do add things in ideas, f/x and story that we wouldn't have seen back in the day. Some of it is okay, but some of it stands out. Their MU episode was fun, but TOS would never have done it. It's also unlikely we would have seen Apollo again. I admit I really like what they've done with hangar deck sequences in two of their episodes. I like it because it looks authentic even though we likely wouldn't have seen those on TOS. But the cool thing is TOS could have done that with a bit more time and money because it wasn't impossible with the period resources at hand.
I do agree that a production should establish its identity and try to go from there in a reasonably consistent fashion. From the get-go P2/NV were doing things we wouldn't have seen on TOS. That's okay if that's what you want to do when playing in that sandbox but, of course, you then have to accept that some fans will dissent in that it doesn't really feel consistent with TOS. I'm not talking strictly about visual f/x but also story ideas that TOS wouldn't have done back in the day.
STC also straddles a fine line. While (to me) it feels closer to TOS than anything else I've seen since early seasons of TNG they do add things in ideas, f/x and story that we wouldn't have seen back in the day. Some of it is okay, but some of it stands out. Their MU episode was fun, but TOS would never have done it. It's also unlikely we would have seen Apollo again. I admit I really like what they've done with hangar deck sequences in two of their episodes. I like it because it looks authentic even though we likely wouldn't have seen those on TOS. But the cool thing is TOS could have done that with a bit more time and money because it wasn't impossible with the period resources at hand.
With all due respect, I don't get the "for every fan who says..." argument. These are non-commercial enterprises (pun intended). The number of viewers doesn't translate to anything other than bragging rights, so I don't understand why what said "fans" think ever enters into the equation. Fan filmmakers are free to make the film they want the way they want to, so why saddle yourself with trying to please this or that camp?
I can't and won't speak for other groups, but I know on Exeter Jimm Johnson made the films the way he wanted. He wanted it to look as much like 1969 as possible, and that's what was done. Some people don't like it, but that's the show he wanted to make and see, and he stuck by his guns, whether or not viewers like it or not.
I can't and won't speak for other groups, but I know on Exeter Jimm Johnson made the films the way he wanted. He wanted it to look as much like 1969 as possible, and that's what was done. Some people don't like it, but that's the show he wanted to make and see, and he stuck by his guns, whether or not viewers like it or not.
I would submit then that he and his production succeeded quite admirably.
Even something that's incredibly popular has its detractors. And there are fans who claim they love something for its sense of authenticity while claiming they'd like to see such-and-such oblivious to the fact that including such-and-such would ruin the very sense of authenticity they claim to love.
Maurice, yeah, we reach there. We really just want to make what we want to make. We're proud of our numbers but they're nothing compared to the big guys, and that's fine with us. As one of the local actors put it succinctly, more people have seen one episode of Potemkin than ever have seen all of her performances on the local stage combined.
I'll try not to come off as either condescending or arrogant.
I think when you make a show the way you want to make it--when you stick to your guns--when you have some itch that needs to be scratched--you can get just one, maybe two episodes out the door before you say "been there, done that, time to move on to the next itch I have." When you make nine, ten, more? episodes, my sense is that they become less mere vanity projects made "the way you want them," and more about appealing to an audience that's wider than just one person.
It's not just bragging rights--although, like I've said numerous times, the only income we get is nice comments, so we do stuff that will garner lots of nice comments--from commenters of all levels of sophistication. Additionally, appealing to a wider audience is done out of necessity nowadays: we know that our contributions (especially in a crowdfunding era) are driven by the popularity of our episodes and our overall viewership numbers. We know that the "smart" viewers that we have (all ten percent of them) have their criteria for what constitutes a "good" episode, while the "dumb" viewers who like lots of "pew-pew-pew" and "let's see Kirk on the planet Risa" constitute the other 90 percent of our viewers and have *their* different criteria. It would be "easy" (and it was) to dismiss the unsophisticated viewers and make the shows with little regard to the fan base, satisfying only ourselves. Instead of having only ten percent of our viewers happy with our episodes and contributing to funding our future projects, I'd like to try and maximize our popularity--make it both deep *and* wide--and have greater numbers contributing to future projects. (Pumping my own money into these things is getting old.)
(No, I don't know what the actual "good" viewers to "bad" viewers ratio is. My conjectural 10/90 percent split was meant to be illustrative, not necessarily accurate. But we know they're there.)
I think when you make a show the way you want to make it--when you stick to your guns--when you have some itch that needs to be scratched--you can get just one, maybe two episodes out the door before you say "been there, done that, time to move on to the next itch I have." When you make nine, ten, more? episodes, my sense is that they become less mere vanity projects made "the way you want them," and more about appealing to an audience that's wider than just one person.
It's not just bragging rights--although, like I've said numerous times, the only income we get is nice comments, so we do stuff that will garner lots of nice comments--from commenters of all levels of sophistication. Additionally, appealing to a wider audience is done out of necessity nowadays: we know that our contributions (especially in a crowdfunding era) are driven by the popularity of our episodes and our overall viewership numbers. We know that the "smart" viewers that we have (all ten percent of them) have their criteria for what constitutes a "good" episode, while the "dumb" viewers who like lots of "pew-pew-pew" and "let's see Kirk on the planet Risa" constitute the other 90 percent of our viewers and have *their* different criteria. It would be "easy" (and it was) to dismiss the unsophisticated viewers and make the shows with little regard to the fan base, satisfying only ourselves. Instead of having only ten percent of our viewers happy with our episodes and contributing to funding our future projects, I'd like to try and maximize our popularity--make it both deep *and* wide--and have greater numbers contributing to future projects. (Pumping my own money into these things is getting old.)
(No, I don't know what the actual "good" viewers to "bad" viewers ratio is. My conjectural 10/90 percent split was meant to be illustrative, not necessarily accurate. But we know they're there.)