Star Trek: Axanar

[BillJ]

Or put it another way: would the studio back a Captain Pike movie where the only familiar character to the mainstream audience was a young Spock and he wasn't even a prominant character? I think it highly unlikely.

I guess my question is: if you worked at a studio, would you recommend your employer spend a $100 million on 'Captain Pike'? Do you think that Star Trek fans are numerous enough to make something like that a success?

There is more than just the fan side to this process.

 

[Mudd]

"The fan side" has become a tail that wants to wag the dog.

 

[BillJ]

"The fan side" has become a tail that wants to wag the dog.

Yup.

 

[Phantom]

The notion that mainstream entertainment is less intelligent, imaginative and sophisticated than Star Trek is preposterous fannish nonsense.

Take it up with GR who, despite all his faults, worked hard to establish Trek as appealing to a bar set higher than the LCD entertainments of the day, a policy that was continued through all the modern Treks up to the 09 film.

The evidence of history, sir, is against you.

"The fan side" has become a tail that wants to wag the dog.

Bull! Trek's fans have made over a billion dollars for Paramount (and CBS later) without resorting to appealing to the LCD masses. It can make another billion or more by honoring those fans AND offering quality entertainment for the mainstream.

But it requires more effort than Kirk the Smirk, nudie/underwear scenes, and pratfall humor.

 

[fireproof78]

The notion that mainstream entertainment is less intelligent, imaginative and sophisticated than Star Trek is preposterous fannish nonsense.

Take it up with GR who, despite all his faults, worked hard to establish Trek as appealing to a bar set higher than the LCD entertainments of the day, a policy that was continued through all the modern Treks up to the 09 film.

The evidence of history, sir, is against you.

Um, yes and no. Not to be argumentative, but GR modeled it on the Westerns of the times, selling it as "action/adventure" with some "social commentary. Science fiction provided a platform for telling a multitude of stories without being bound to one specific time, society, or place. He could have the commentary that he wanted on society, without necessarily pointing fingers at a specific aspect of of American society (with due respect to fans from other countries).

I think Trek 09 carried forward that spirit with a lot more energy, but I saw action, I saw adventure, I saw commentary. So, it works as Star Trek for me.

Obviously, and rather ridiculous to restate but I will, other people will have different experiences.

If what they produce matches the quality of Prelude I'll be more than satisfied. (Of course the actual production will face different challenges from a mockumentary format like Prelude, but it left me pretty confident in the chops of the team. The latest taste likewise.)

I liked Prelude and found the concept to be interesting. My only struggle (and the reason why I watch films) is there were maybe two characters that I liked and wanted to see succeed or (in contrast) see fail.

VFX only does so much as far as my interest goes, so I am hoping for a trailer where I have a more concrete idea of what everybody's role is in the actual film.

Again, cautious optimism, but I've seen many fan productions over the years, and I think caution on my part is warranted. This is not a slam against the production team, who I think are doing a good job, especially with a lot of naysaying and random attacks.

I am looking forward to the trailers, as well.

There are some specific reasons why Prelude was the way that it was, specifically the retrospective documentary and interview style of presentation. Some were creative -- wanted to do something different and fresh to pitch the concept and prove what we could do with the money that we had. Others were practical -- having only the money that we had not being low on the list.

The vast majority of the feedback that we've received from fans, pros, and media has been overwhelmingly positive in the near year since it premiered and was released to donors and YouTube. That said, the coming feature will not only have a much larger budget, but it also has more creative talent behind it, not to mention that it will unfold as a traditional film narrative -- as-you-were-there style -- as any Star Trek film from Paramount has done. Thankfully, and this is only my personal opinion, although it may be shared by many, the feature-length film will be largely practically shot on real sets and that should surely kick things up a notch.

Speaking only for myself, one of my jobs is wrangling the displays on the sets; everything from ordering the monitors and video devices that will play the animations, but perhaps even a few goodies that involve very large touch screens. All of that will be practical effects, too, and we're not using TOS repro graphics. Our in house art department has created a new computer interface system that we believe strongly, after a bazillion hours of development, will bridge the gap between the ENT and TOS designs. They'll be practical though, since we're working from the place that technology is today and not what technology of the future was thought to look like 50 years ago. That said... they'll be very familiar, too.

It's a wild ride, but by the time the film premieres, if we all aren't already on a mental hold from exhaustion, we'll be dropping off the grid for a few weeks to an undisclosed location that doesn't even have soup cans and string for outside communication. =P

Terry,

thank you for your response. I know that the Axanar team has put a lot of time, blood, sweat, tears, money and everything else in to the project, and (having done fan film projects) I appreciate the effort.

That said, I meant nothing against Prelude in my comments. I love the documentary style of Prelude, and think more fan productions would do well to take that as inspiration. I can recall a similar one for Star Wars based around the battle of Hoth. They did a (then) History Channel style documentary, with voiceovers reciting quotes from famous people at the battle.

Also, having done just basics of tracking finger movements for a graphic display, I'm impressed by all the displays that have to be done. Again, my comments are not meant to denigrate the work you all have done. Instead, it is that I am hoping that it is a film that I cannot wait to see, and appreciate the full story, characters, and events.

Thank you for your response and please continue the good work!

 

[Warped9]

Or put it another way: would the studio back a Captain Pike movie where the only familiar character to the mainstream audience was a young Spock and he wasn't even a prominant character? I think it highly unlikely.

I guess my question is: if you worked at a studio, would you recommend your employer spend a $100 million on 'Captain Pike'? Do you think that Star Trek fans are numerous enough to make something like that a success?

There is more than just the fan side to this process.

If I were running a major studio then I would likely make similar decisions as they currently do because even as an avid Trek fan I still know that a Captain Pike film (or an Axanar film) doesn't have enough familiar Trek elements for a mainstream audience.

But a fan production isn't hobbled by the same concerns. It isn't dependent on mass ticket sales and has the freedom to explore more off-the-beaten-path ideas.

Fan productions are using the visual mediums to tell stories they most likely won't see backed by the big studios. In some cases they could tell stories that mightn't even get published by Pocket Books.


Some have expressed surprise by CBS not shutting fan productions down. But from CBS' point of view they can reap the rewards of promotion of their property without it costing them a dime. As long as fan productions do not profit and no claims are made of the productions being official in any way. This is a way to keep the interest in Trek going without having to invest heavily in mounting a new series until they're good and ready. And as long as everyone plays by the rules CBS also earns a measure of goodwill from fans simply by not shutting down the productions the fans obviously enjoy.

 

[BillJ]

Take it up with GR who, despite all his faults, worked hard to establish Trek as appealing to a bar set higher than the LCD entertainments of the day, a policy that was continued through all the modern Treks up to the 09 film.

It's heartening to know so many people still buy into the Roddenberry hype machine.

Seems that even Roddenberry understood his job was to get people to watch his show...



http://www.bu.edu/clarion/guides/Star_Trek_Writers_Guide.pdf

 

[Warped9]

I think Trek 09 carried forward that spirit with a lot more energy, but I saw action, I saw adventure, I saw commentary. So, it works as Star Trek for me.

Obviously, and rather ridiculous to restate but I will, other people will have different experiences.

No question. I just hacked out a lung.

 

[BillJ]

I think Trek 09 carried forward that spirit with a lot more energy, but I saw action, I saw adventure, I saw commentary. So, it works as Star Trek for me.

Obviously, and rather ridiculous to restate but I will, other people will have different experiences.

No question. I just hacked out a lung.

Different strokes and all that. But I think you'll find far more Star Trek fans that share fireproof78's opinion than your own.

It is your right to dislike whatever it is you want to dislike, but sometimes you go way overboard. I'm honestly surprised you haven't had some kind of stroke over the Abrams films at this point.

 

[Phantom]

The "commentary" in current Trek lacks depth and feels tacked on "just because". The most recent effort ostensibly was some sort of commentary about modern American war fears or something like that, but it was mostly implied and buried under what amounted to a pair of Bond villains. Instead of using the film to show Kirk and Co investigating and uncovering the moral rot at the heart of that version of the Federation, we got lots and lots of "pew pew pew" and run-and-jump BS, first with Khan at SF headquarters, then MORE with the Klingons AND Khan, and finally with the USS Vengence.

We could have gotten a tightly plotted, involving political thriller. What we got was basically the equivalent of Winter Soldier. Star Trek as superhero film.

To be fair, there were signs things were going to head this way as far back as First Contact, but even the TNG movies tried hard to at least present us with a moral or philosophical issue to contemplate in depth.

What I see in Prelude (to bring this back onto Axanar), was material presented in more depth, and much more thoughtfully. The teaser scene explores the issue of the Vulcans pulling out of the Federation, and what Soval fears might happen as a result. It explores the issue of how diverse peoples struggle with their differences when they try to come together in common purpose.

THAT is something worth making a movie about. Sure, there will be some space battles, maybe even a land fight (?), but the film isn't about the battles, it's about the PEOPLE.

 

[BillJ]

But a fan production isn't hobbled by the same concerns. It isn't dependent on mass ticket sales and has the freedom to explore more off-the-beaten-path ideas.

Which is why it isn't fair to try and compare fan and professional projects. IMO.

 

[Phantom]

Take it up with GR who, despite all his faults, worked hard to establish Trek as appealing to a bar set higher than the LCD entertainments of the day, a policy that was continued through all the modern Treks up to the 09 film.

It's heartening to know so many people still buy into the Roddenberry hype machine.

Seems that even Roddenberry understood his job was to get people to watch his show...



http://www.bu.edu/clarion/guides/Star_Trek_Writers_Guide.pdf

I'm very well aware of just how mercenary GR could be. But that doesn't change the fact that his idea was to use the a/a FORMAT to also talk about the issues of the day: racism, economics/class structure of society, etc, as well as more personal stories about obsession, the burdens of leadership, and so forth.

 

[BillJ]

The "commentary" in current Trek lacks depth and feels tacked on "just because". The most recent effort ostensibly was some sort of commentary about modern American war fears or something like that, but it was mostly implied and buried under what amounted to a pair of Bond villains. Instead of using the film to show Kirk and Co investigating and uncovering the moral rot at the heart of that version of the Federation, we got lots and lots of "pew pew pew" and run-and-jump BS, first with Khan at SF headquarters, then MORE with the Klingons AND Khan, and finally with the USS Vengence.

The commentary was about as subtle as "Let This Be Your Last Battlefield". Spock comes right out and states it is wrong to execute someone without a trial. Kirk speech at the end clearly takes on American's reactions to 9/11.

I'm not quite sure what was implied in Into Darkness, it was pretty out in the open.

I like "pew pew pew" but it either shows a lack of attention on your part or dishonesty to say that was all Into Darkness was.

Star Trek Into Darkness was an incredibly fun movie to watch (which is why I watch TV/movies). If Axanar is even half as fun to watch, they'll have a fan in me.

 

[Warped9]

But a fan production isn't hobbled by the same concerns. It isn't dependent on mass ticket sales and has the freedom to explore more off-the-beaten-path ideas.

Which is why it isn't fair to try and compare fan and professional projects. IMO.

It's entirely fair. They're both creative works put out for people to enjoy and critique. The major studios are in the position they're in because they've chosen to do so.

I also find it amusing that the recent Treks are defended by citing the less-than-impressive Trek episodes. Evidently they can't be defended by citing the episodes where Star Trek was at its best.

 

[fireproof78]

I think Trek 09 carried forward that spirit with a lot more energy, but I saw action, I saw adventure, I saw commentary. So, it works as Star Trek for me.

Obviously, and rather ridiculous to restate but I will, other people will have different experiences.

No question. I just hacked out a lung.

Different strokes and all that. But I think you'll find far more Star Trek fans that share fireproof78's opinion than your own.

It is your right to dislike whatever it is you want to dislike, but sometimes you go way overboard. I'm honestly surprised you haven't had some kind of stroke over the Abrams films at this point.

Dude, don't push it! He just hacked up a lung

*hands Warped9 his lung back*

You might need this, unless you are a Klingon

The "commentary" in current Trek lacks depth and feels tacked on "just because". The most recent effort ostensibly was some sort of commentary about modern American war fears or something like that, but it was mostly implied and buried under what amounted to a pair of Bond villains. Instead of using the film to show Kirk and Co investigating and uncovering the moral rot at the heart of that version of the Federation, we got lots and lots of "pew pew pew" and run-and-jump BS, first with Khan at SF headquarters, then MORE with the Klingons AND Khan, and finally with the USS Vengence.

We could have gotten a tightly plotted, involving political thriller. What we got was basically the equivalent of Winter Soldier. Star Trek as superhero film.

To be fair, there were signs things were going to head this way as far back as First Contact, but even the TNG movies tried hard to at least present us with a moral or philosophical issue to contemplate in depth.

What I see in Prelude (to bring this back onto Axanar), was material presented in more depth, and much more thoughtfully. The teaser scene explores the issue of the Vulcans pulling out of the Federation, and what Soval fears might happen as a result. It explores the issue of how diverse peoples struggle with their differences when they try to come together in common purpose.

THAT is something worth making a movie about. Sure, there will be some space battles, maybe even a land fight (?), but the film isn't about the battles, it's about the PEOPLE.

This is where I will respectfully disagree, and state that if you want to talk about the commentary in Trek 09 and STID I'll be happy to in PM or on the Trek XI+ boards

The commentary in both in intricately woven with the characters, to the point that removing the commentary is only possible by removing the characters. In my opinion, the political thriller is absent because it is about the politics from Kirk's point of view.

Contrast that with Axanar (again, for me) where the events are important but the characters are presented in their response to the events, and not as characters in of themselves.

Now, I think that Axanar will change all of that by allowing me to get to know Garth, Travis, Ramirez, etc. But, I had to look up their names on the website because the characters did not stand out to me, or I didn't identify with them in a meaningful way.

Again, this is not a slight against Axanar. If anything, it highlights my desire for a film so I can get to know these characters. It also highlights why I don't stack fan productions against Hollywood productions. They are two different animals.

 

[Warped9]

*hands Warped9 his lung back*

Thanks. I have to mow the lawn tomorrow and it's easier with two lungs.

 

[BillJ]

I also find it amusing that the recent Treks are defended by citing the less-than-impressive Trek episodes. Evidently they can't be defended by citing the episodes where Star Trek was at its best.

I've said it before (pretty sure it was directly to you), but I'll say it again: the Abrams films aren't the best Star Trek ever, neither are they the worst. They are a highly entertaining adaptation of a 1960's TV show.

But if Barrett, Nimoy, Takei, Nichols and Koenig were all on board, who am I to say that the Abrams films are bad/wrong. And it isn't like any of them needed the money like some on the TOS forum accused Bob Justman of for liking the remastered versions of TOS.

If you can't live with the fact that many people that actually are Star Trek fans and actually like the Abrams films, I simply don't know what to tell you.

So many of your posts simply come across as sour grapes at this point. I don't like much of the Berman led shows, but I don't need to constantly try and shit on them for some cheap thrill.

 

[Phantom]

But a fan production isn't hobbled by the same concerns. It isn't dependent on mass ticket sales and has the freedom to explore more off-the-beaten-path ideas.

Which is why it isn't fair to try and compare fan and professional projects. IMO.

So if it isn't Big Hollywood, it needs to "know it's place" and get in the "fan ghetto" where it belongs? That's what I'm hearing.

The "commentary" in current Trek lacks depth and feels tacked on "just because". The most recent effort ostensibly was some sort of commentary about modern American war fears or something like that, but it was mostly implied and buried under what amounted to a pair of Bond villains. Instead of using the film to show Kirk and Co investigating and uncovering the moral rot at the heart of that version of the Federation, we got lots and lots of "pew pew pew" and run-and-jump BS, first with Khan at SF headquarters, then MORE with the Klingons AND Khan, and finally with the USS Vengence.

The commentary was about as subtle as "Let This Be Your Last Battlefield". Spock comes right out and states it is wrong to execute someone without a trial. Kirk speech at the end clearly takes on American's reactions to 9/11.

I'm not quite sure what was implied in Into Darkness, it was pretty out in the open.

I like "pew pew pew" but it either shows a lack of attention on your part or dishonesty to say that was all Into Darkness was.

You're right, it wasn't subtle at all, but it WAS muddied, and presented in a shallow and superficial way that made it feel like token psuedo-commentary, to wit: "Militarism bad."

Moral dilemma for cavemen. Ook Ook.

Compare that to ST VI, which touched on some of the same issues in a much deeper, more profound way, forcing the crew to confront their own prejudices and foibles as well as dealing with the militarist conspirators. It also had the Klingons as active moral agents with their own dilemma to solve and as characters with room to grow. In ID they were basically mooks to be shot and a phantom threat to move the plot.

By the time we got to the one good scene that had some depth to it (Kirk's soliloquy at the end), it was too little and too late to redeem an otherwise paint-by-numbers actioner.

If Axanar is even half as fun to watch, they'll have a fan in me.

I expect it will be MORE fun, as it appears to have the depth of a VI instead of the shallowness of a 09 or ID.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Or put it another way: would the studio back a Captain Pike movie where the only familiar character to the mainstream audience was a young Spock and he wasn't even a prominant character? I think it highly unlikely.

I guess my question is: if you worked at a studio, would you recommend your employer spend a $100 million on 'Captain Pike'? Do you think that Star Trek fans are numerous enough to make something like that a success?

There is more than just the fan side to this process.

If I were running a major studio then I would likely make similar decisions as they currently do because even as an avid Trek fan I still know that a Captain Pike film (or an Axanar film) doesn't have enough familiar Trek elements for a mainstream audience.

But a fan production isn't hobbled by the same concerns. It isn't dependent on mass ticket sales and has the freedom to explore more off-the-beaten-path ideas.

Fan productions are using the visual mediums to tell stories they most likely won't see backed by the big studios. In some cases they could tell stories that mightn't even get published by Pocket Books.


Some have expressed surprise by CBS not shutting fan productions down. But from CBS' point of view they can reap the rewards of promotion of their property without it costing them a dime. As long as fan productions do not profit and no claims are made of the productions being official in any way. This is a way to keep the interest in Trek going without having to invest heavily in mounting a new series until they're good and ready. And as long as everyone plays by the rules CBS also earns a measure of goodwill from fans simply by not shutting down the productions the fans obviously enjoy.

I agree with pretty much everything here, and I would likely be making similar decisions if I were a studio executive.

I also find it amusing that the recent Treks are defended by citing the less-than-impressive Trek episodes. Evidently they can't be defended by citing the episodes where Star Trek was at its best.

But this is neither here nor there. "Whom Gods Destroy" is certainly among "the less-than-impressive Trek episodes," yet it has its virtues, among them Steve Ihnat. "Whom Gods Destroy" will be cited a great deal in discussions of Axanar, possibly more than any other episode.

 

[BillJ]

I expect it will be MORE fun, as it appears to have the depth of a VI instead of the shallowness of a 09 or ID.

Wait a minute! You call the Abrams films shallow and superficial yet hold up The Undiscovered County as some shining beacon.

"We'll clean their chronometers!", yeah, real deep stuff there. Gorkon instead of Gorbachev, clearly Nimoy and Meyer were just working on another level there that us mere mortals can only dream of reaching.