Star Trek: Axanar

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

For me, it was a tedious, already well worn trope ran into the ground. There are some great episodes that occurred under that arc, It's Only A Paper Moon for one, but I still generally avoid the Dominion War episodes.

How can it be a 'trope for Trek when Trek had never done such a thing before? Individual battles yes. Come right up to the edge of but avert at the last minute yes.

Full out, "it's either us or them warfare"? No. That was new.

And it was a fascinating joyride as "perfect people" were forced to confront head on a decidedly imperfect universe.

They came darn close to doing exactly what Admiral Ramirez fears in his address to the Federation in Axanar: "destroying the dream..." You could probably make the case that they did, given Sisko's action in "In the Pale Moonlight" or just about anything Section 31 got up to.

The war stories may not have been a trope for "Star Trek" in particular, but DS9 certainly relied on a lot of those war genre tropes to tell their stories.

"In the Pale Moonlight" aside, most of the stories felt lifted from old WWII movies. That just didn't work for me. In the end, I didn't think DS9 had any unique perspective on war, anything meaningful to say about it or how it really affects the Federation or the characters.

Other than Nog, I really don't see what anyone really lost in the Dominion War, how it changed them.

While not anywhere close to perfect, at least "Babylon 5" was trying to say something about the responsibilities and consequences of war, particularly in the arc of Londo and G'Kar.

But that's me. YMMV.

 

[Tosk]

Other than Nog, I really don't see what anyone really lost in the Dominion War, how it changed them.

One of them lost their spouse, but does it really matter? If the characters had all survived, does that mean the stories would have meant nothing?

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Other than Nog, I really don't see what anyone really lost in the Dominion War, how it changed them.

One of them lost their spouse, but does it really matter? If the characters had all survived, does that mean the stories would have meant nothing?

Ah. I forgot about Dax because that story felt so inconsequential. Other than Worf having a night with the new Dax and throwing a temper tantrum at her presence when she came aboard, I really didn't get how that experience changed Worf at all. He was still Worf "It's a good day to die!" Rozhenko. What if Jadzia's death had turned Worf off to war? What if it made him question his unending belief in the Klingon warrior way? But it didn't. It was Worf as usual.

And I'm talking about themes here, not whether the characters live or die. For me, I felt DS9 had nothing thematic to say about war, one way or another, either through the plots or through the characters.

For example, I've been rewatching a lot of M*A*S*H lately. That show certainly had a perspective on war — the unending nature of war, the futility in waging a war of ideology, etc. Over the course of 11 years, we saw how the Korean War took a piece out of the characters, how they weren't the same people we started the show with.

With DS9, I didn't get the sense that the characters were any different because of their experiences. A big toll of war is who lives and who dies. But the toll is also what it makes us in the end, for better or worse. And I didn't see DS9 exploring any of those themes.

Like I said, that's me and what I want out of stories. YMMV.

And I hope that Axanar is going to give us something that has weight, that isn't just pew-pew and says something about what war does to people other than making them remembered heroes like Garth of Izar.

 

[BillJ]

For example, I've been rewatching a lot of M*A*S*H lately. That show certainly had a perspective on war — the unending nature of war, the futility in waging a war of ideology, etc. Over the course of 11 years, we saw how the Korean War took a piece out of the characters, how they weren't the same people we started the show with.

To be fair, MASH was just working on a different level for most of its run. But you're right, Deep Space Nine didn't really have anything to say about war. It is my personal least favorite Star Trek series.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

You're making the same mistake Tom is: a) trying to force the false "fanfilm vs 'real'/'pro'-fim" dichotomy

I don't think it's a dichotomy, and neither does Tom. As an extreme oversimplification: I think it's really an apples-and-oranges thing and there aren't a lot of meaningful comparisons to draw from because they are both starting in completely different mediums.

and b) equating the former with fast/junk food (with attendant "lesser quality expectation").

Quality has very little to do with a consumer's enjoyment of the product. That's a matter of personal taste.

From what we've seen Axanar does an EXCELLENT job with the resources they have at hand, certainly better than the rest of us could ever do. And yet the comparison fits: they can only do so much with the budget they have.

I WILL say that the resources they're working with are more than competitive with what was available when Wrath of Khan was produced. That, too, may be kind of a low bar to clear, but only from the standpoint of production values.

And thank God he was. Some of his ideas, like the Dominion War only lasting 3 episodes, were laughable at best.

I hadn't heard that before, but considering the hack job they did with the "Year of Hell" storyline in Voyager, that does not surprise me in the least.

 

[BillJ]

I hadn't heard that before, but considering the hack job they did with the "Year of Hell" storyline in Voyager, that does not surprise me in the least.

"Year of Hell" was originally suppose to last most of the season, but that idea was nixed by UPN.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

the point is just cos its not made by paramount or whatever does not mean AXanar will not be as good.
The way "fan film" is used by some is like it is a snide belittling comment.

In the past sixty pages I've been following this thread, I have not seen ANYONE use the term "fan film" in anything resembling a snide, belittling way. Quite the opposite, in fact, nearly everyone who pointed this out did so in its DEFENSE, as if the fact that it's a fan film excuses the minor imperfections in its visual effects (which, IMO, it does).

In fact, I can't even say I've seen anyone deride Axanar AT ALL. Even the harshest criticisms in this thread have all been constructive in nature, by people sharing ideas on what they hope to see and comparing notes on personal taste.

Whatever it is you're constantly railing against, it's not something that's happening in this thread.

 

[Maurice]

^^^Well put.

As to characterization, I don't think we've actually gotten much thus far. We got some sense of personalities from "Prelude" and what Soval thinks in the teaser scene, but there's not really much characterization going on, yet. And that's not a critique. That's just as "based on what little we've seen so far".

 

[OpenMaw]

"Year of Hell" was originally suppose to last most of the season, but that idea was nixed by UPN.

And, later on, from that we ultimately got the Xindi Arc.

^^^Well put.

As to characterization, I don't think we've actually gotten much thus far. We got some sense of personalities from "Prelude" and what Soval thinks in the teaser scene, but there's not really much characterization going on, yet. And that's not a critique. That's just as "based on what little we've seen so far".

Though to be fair, even though it's only snippets, it's very well done characterization. Not one weak performance between the opener and Prelude.

 

[fireproof78]

[

^^^Well put.

As to characterization, I don't think we've actually gotten much thus far. We got some sense of personalities from "Prelude" and what Soval thinks in the teaser scene, but there's not really much characterization going on, yet. And that's not a critique. That's just as "based on what little we've seen so far".

Though to be fair, even though it's only snippets, it's very well done characterization. Not one weak performance between the opener and Prelude.

Indeed. I value characters and certainly appreciate the snippets see thus far. However, I'm not hooked in to Axanar in a way that involves the character. I am hooked in a way that makes me want to see the production succeed, but I'm not invested in the characters fully, yet.

 

[Amaris]

For me, it was a tedious, already well worn trope ran into the ground. There are some great episodes that occurred under that arc, It's Only A Paper Moon for one, but I still generally avoid the Dominion War episodes.

How can it be a 'trope for Trek when Trek had never done such a thing before? Individual battles yes. Come right up to the edge of but avert at the last minute yes.

Full out, "it's either us or them warfare"? No. That was new.

And it was a fascinating joyride as "perfect people" were forced to confront head on a decidedly imperfect universe.

They came darn close to doing exactly what Admiral Ramirez fears in his address to the Federation in Axanar: "destroying the dream..." You could probably make the case that they did, given Sisko's action in "In the Pale Moonlight" or just about anything Section 31 got up to.

Let me be more upfront about it: I have a strong bias against war. I don't like it, not even as entertainment. I'll put up with it if it serves a supporting purpose, but I don't like it. Sorry about that, I should have been more clear.

 

[gazomg]

the point is just cos its not made by paramount or whatever does not mean AXanar will not be as good.
The way "fan film" is used by some is like it is a snide belittling comment.

In the past sixty pages I've been following this thread, I have not seen ANYONE use the term "fan film" in anything resembling a snide, belittling way. Quite the opposite, in fact, nearly everyone who pointed this out did so in its DEFENSE, as if the fact that it's a fan film excuses the minor imperfections in its visual effects (which, IMO, it does).

In fact, I can't even say I've seen anyone deride Axanar AT ALL. Even the harshest criticisms in this thread have all been constructive in nature, by people sharing ideas on what they hope to see and comparing notes on personal taste.

Whatever it is you're constantly railing against, it's not something that's happening in this thread.

You do know imperfections, mistaken or deliberate are not confined to fan films.

Look at the lens flares in abrams movies

 

[Maurice]

"Year of Hell" was originally suppose to last most of the season, but that idea was nixed by UPN.

And, later on, from that we ultimately got the Xindi Arc.

^^^Well put.

As to characterization, I don't think we've actually gotten much thus far. We got some sense of personalities from "Prelude" and what Soval thinks in the teaser scene, but there's not really much characterization going on, yet. And that's not a critique. That's just as "based on what little we've seen so far".

Though to be fair, even though it's only snippets, it's very well done characterization. Not one weak performance between the opener and Prelude.

Performance ≠ Characterization.

 

[Amaris]

[

^^^Well put.

As to characterization, I don't think we've actually gotten much thus far. We got some sense of personalities from "Prelude" and what Soval thinks in the teaser scene, but there's not really much characterization going on, yet. And that's not a critique. That's just as "based on what little we've seen so far".

Though to be fair, even though it's only snippets, it's very well done characterization. Not one weak performance between the opener and Prelude.

Indeed. I value characters and certainly appreciate the snippets see thus far. However, I'm not hooked in to Axanar in a way that involves the character. I am hooked in a way that makes me want to see the production succeed, but I'm not invested in the characters fully, yet.

Yep. While I am invested in some of the characters (Graham's Soval comes to mind), I really want to see this film succeed. I have been impressed with fan efforts before, like ST:C, but I want this one to knock my socks off. With the level of talent available to the production, it should happen. These are supremely talented people, which doesn't guarantee success, but I do have hope that everything will gel just right and they'll knock it out of the park.

 

[BillJ]

As far as performances go, all we've seen is people talking. I'm not ready to nominate anyone for an Oscar or Emmy yet.

 

[Tom Servo]

the point is just cos its not made by paramount or whatever does not mean AXanar will not be as good.
The way "fan film" is used by some is like it is a snide belittling comment.

In the past sixty pages I've been following this thread, I have not seen ANYONE use the term "fan film" in anything resembling a snide, belittling way. Quite the opposite, in fact, nearly everyone who pointed this out did so in its DEFENSE, as if the fact that it's a fan film excuses the minor imperfections in its visual effects (which, IMO, it does).

In fact, I can't even say I've seen anyone deride Axanar AT ALL. Even the harshest criticisms in this thread have all been constructive in nature, by people sharing ideas on what they hope to see and comparing notes on personal taste.

Whatever it is you're constantly railing against, it's not something that's happening in this thread.

You do know imperfections, mistaken or deliberate are not confined to fan films.

Look at the lens flares in abrams movies

Those weren't imperfections in the slightest. YOU may not personally like them, but they were a completely deliberate choice by the filmmaker, and also a stylistic artifact of shooting with anamorphic lenses.

 

[Amaris]

As far as performances go, all we've seen is people talking. I'm not ready to nominate anyone for an Oscar or Emmy yet.

Me neither.

*slides Oscar back under couch*

 

[OpenMaw]

Performance ≠ Characterization.

While you cannot have one without the other, you really really want to have one to inform the other.

Poorly performed, you're not going to get nearly as crystal clear a character.

Right now, I get who each of these characters are. That's down to the way they've been written, and the way they are performed.

 

[BillJ]

As far as performances go, all we've seen is people talking. I'm not ready to nominate anyone for an Oscar or Emmy yet.

Me neither.

*slides Oscar back under couch*

 

[Crazy Eddie]

the point is just cos its not made by paramount or whatever does not mean AXanar will not be as good.
The way "fan film" is used by some is like it is a snide belittling comment.

In the past sixty pages I've been following this thread, I have not seen ANYONE use the term "fan film" in anything resembling a snide, belittling way. Quite the opposite, in fact, nearly everyone who pointed this out did so in its DEFENSE, as if the fact that it's a fan film excuses the minor imperfections in its visual effects (which, IMO, it does).

In fact, I can't even say I've seen anyone deride Axanar AT ALL. Even the harshest criticisms in this thread have all been constructive in nature, by people sharing ideas on what they hope to see and comparing notes on personal taste.

Whatever it is you're constantly railing against, it's not something that's happening in this thread.

You do know imperfections, mistaken or deliberate are not confined to fan films.

Look at the lens flares in abrams movies

* sigh * This shit again?

Performance ≠ Characterization.

While you cannot have one without the other, you really really want to have one to inform the other.

Poorly performed, you're not going to get nearly as crystal clear a character.

Right now, I get who each of these characters are. That's down to the way they've been written, and the way they are performed.

Well, they also managed to snag three of the most under-rated actors in cinematic history for the teaser/documentary.

Next thing you know they'll have Jennifer Hale as the computer voice.