We Few…
As USS Jack Riley has related, the shoot was hampered by a no-show on the planned photographer and a less than ideal location, so as such I’m not going to point out any obvious deficiencies in the photography and the limitations posed by the location (not allowed to build a fire, etc.).
First Time At Bat
As I've said on here many times, I always applaud anyone with the tenacity to make a film and bring it to fruition, regardless of any flaws. My first film was an over-reach which failed to come together, so I'd never claim to be some kind of wunderkind whose early efforts beat those of beginners here in fanfilm land. So, my hat's off to Mike and crew for taking this from the start to the finish line.
That said, based on what Mike wrote (above) he appears to be anxious or at least receptive to input on how to improve. In that spirit I'm going to give feedback on the episode. As is my wont, I hope what I write herein will be accepted in the spirit it is given: as constructive criticism which will hopefully help Jack and company step up their game in subsequent productions.
Acting
As in previous reviews, I do not generally critique the acting, and will not here.
A Vignette Is An Episode
Like a number of fanfilm series, Project Potemkin tends to focus on what they call vingettes. I’m going to be very up-front here because I feel most such fanfilm makers seem to misapprehend the word to mean “a short subject with no real story” whereas I see a vignette much like a short story which zeroes in on plot, character, or theme in a very evocative manner. In other words, a vignette is an “episode” in the true (not TV) sense in that it tells a very concise story.
The Story
But what story is told here? When you strip away all the superficial setup and trappings what’s left is just three people sitting around relating why they joined the service. That’s all fine and good, but it’s not drama. What we do learn isn’t particularly interesting or revelatory and has no context in the narrative nor influences it. The one and only decision any character makes is that MacKenzie says he will take the next watch.
The essence of drama—even in a short short piece—is what decisions people make or fail to make. If these campfire stories influenced the action or inaction or one or all of them, then that would have made this a story. Instead, it’s just talk.
Now allow me to clarify my point about superficial trappings. The setting of this vignette is, in the end, inconsequential. It influences no decisions. It impacts the characters in no meaningful way. The crash doesn’t matter. The deaths don’t matter (no one seems affected by the losses). The abandoned colony doesn’t matter. The weather and the disease don’t matter. The characters take no action and are rescued with no long-lasting effects, rendering moot the specifics of the setting and plot events moot. They could just as well have had these same conversations in a just-fine shuttle or in a cafe. The trick with plot events is to use them to underpin the story, put the characters in situations they must deal with and overcome, or at the very least utilize the setting to reinforce a theme. As portrayed the particulars of the narrative seems to have been decided merely to explain the shooting location: the failed colony justifies the one building we see and the path and pole. The shuttle crash justifies their being alone. The cold and the disease justify… well, really nothing other than arbitrary danger (as if being stranded on an alien planet perhaps with food you can’t eat and water you can’t drink wouldn’t be bad enough).
From all of this one might conclude that I think that I am poo-pooing everything here. On the contrary, what I am pointing out is that there are all these elements in place, all of which could have been exploited to tell a story, but which are not synthesized to that effect.
So, if I’d been given this script to read before it was shot, what would I have suggested to do to fix what I perceive as the narrative failing? Putting on my Story Editor hat, here we go:
At core, the personal revelations must serve a dramatic purpose. What these people say must affect them and how the story resolves. Each of these survivors first think of their own survival, but once they reveal themselves to each other one of them decides to think of the others first. Let's say MacKenzie is moved by he stories of his companions, volunteers to take the watch, because he’s now more concerned for their safety, lets them oversleep and suffers crippling or fatal consequences because of that. He choses to take a risk, and now his superior, Mike has to live with that guilt, knowing if he hadn’t humanized himself that this fellow mightn’t have acted so selflessly, and learning the hard way why commanders must maintain some appropriate distance from their subordinates.
Now, I’m not saying this is the story which should have been told, rather, I am illustrating what kind of human drama you can make from something as simple as three people telling their stories.
If that's not too "inside baseball" I can share some other observations I have regarding dealing with WTF problems like crew members dropping out, location issues, and technical stuff like location sound and dubbing, and why Less Is More is really important where VFX are concerned.
I hope some of that is helpful.
