• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Star Trek: Renegades

I liked the ship designs and graphics (though some of the other CG stuff was a little iffy in places, though still good for a fan project), and the alien make-ups are among some of the best I've seen from a fan film.

The plot was interesting, but the film feels like they're trying to cram too much into it, making some of the plotlines feel a little disjointed. The problem with a scenario like this is that I can't see much in the way of story diversity, other than lots of action. Unfortunately, there wasn't as much character development as I'd have preferred to have seen.

I'd have preferred if Lexa was just a genetically enhanced human, without the Khan connection. Also really could have done without the Zimmerman make-out session. Tuvok being in Section 31 bothers me as well, he has too much honour and integrity for an organisation such as that.

One thing I really disliked were the uniforms. What would be wrong with the First Contact ones, or even something closer to the All Good Things style.
 
Sorry on my phone and it was a pain to cut out what I didn't want to quote, but, we haven't seen anything from Axanar. Prelude is a 20minute talking head fauxumentry. What prelude demonstrated was they can light a scene properly, use a green screen properly and other basics. What they did was the easiest form of film making possible.

I disagree. The actors all performed well. The dialogue carried the expository load with a deft hand and still revealed a great deal about the characters, showing writing quality. There were no pacing problems and the film flowed nicely, demonstrating editing quality. The FX were high-standard and as good as or better than those used on some broadcast shows. The costuming was easily as good as the FX work.

Axanar just works on all levels.

Again, you cannot compare Prelude to Axanar (We haven't seen anything from Axanar yet, aside from the Vulcan Scene) to Renegades, because Prelude was a fauxumentary, and Renegades was a scripted Drama.

How many people did Renegades excite with their Chekov and Tuvok teaser. Those were shot well, the Uniforms looked good... Shooting a talking head in a green screen is a very different thing than shooting actors walking, talking, interacting, emoting with one another on an actual live set.

Pushing forward a story, while combining both action sequences and exposition is difficult. There has to be a right balance of both. Renegades is a great example of just how difficult it is... because overall, it's a great story, just not told really well.
 
Again, you cannot compare Prelude to Axanar (We haven't seen anything from Axanar yet, aside from the Vulcan Scene) to Renegades, because Prelude was a fauxumentary, and Renegades was a scripted Drama.

How many people did Renegades excite with their Chekov and Tuvok teaser. Those were shot well, the Uniforms looked good... Shooting a talking head in a green screen is a very different thing than shooting actors walking, talking, interacting, emoting with one another on an actual live set.

Pushing forward a story, while combining both action sequences and exposition is difficult. There has to be a right balance of both. Renegades is a great example of just how difficult it is... because overall, it's a great story, just not told really well.

Prelude to Axanar may have been a "fauxumentary", but it was still a scripted drama. Those lines were written by a writer. Those actors were not improvising their lines. What sticks out to me most about Prelude was how natural the actors were. It actually felt like a real documentary, which is pretty hard to pull off. I think comparing it to Renegades is more than fair, as both are dramatic films.
 
Prelude to Axanar may have been a "fauxumentary", but it was still a scripted drama. Those lines were written by a writer. Those actors were not improvising their lines. What sticks out to me most about Prelude was how natural the actors were. It actually felt like a real documentary, which is pretty hard to pull off. I think comparing it to Renegades is more than fair, as both are dramatic films.

Prelude was actors in front of green screens delivering monologues. There was no interaction between actors, there was very little if any blocking direction needed. No fight scene choreography, There were no physical sets, and MUCH of the driving exposition was delivered by a Narrator, which is the EASIEST form of story telling.

Renegades had actors interacting with one another, physical sets, fight scenes, and no out of story narrator to move the story along.

These two are completely different animals, and can't be compared.
 
I thought some of the alien makeup in Renegades was good. IIRC, I liked the bad guy alien makeup, for what it was, and I liked the Andorian makeup. I didn't watch it under HD, so I can't comment on how it looks at anything beyond how I streamed it from YouTube on my PC.

While the bad guy alien makeup was fine for what it was, I personally would not have chosen makeup that obscured the actors' faces so much. To me, there's no enhanced realism in covering up their faces, because they're already humanoid and therefore the compromise has already been made for theatrical reasons. Which is fine. That's just the way it is in Star Trek, with lots of humanoid aliens. YMMV.
 
I have to admit I'm curious to see just how bloody-minded SuperSpaceMan is about having the last word. :lol:
 
I have to admit I'm curious to see just how bloody-minded SuperSpaceMan is about having the last word. :lol:
Well isn't "I disagree" an invitation to responde? :rommie:

Yup, while I didn't really care for Renegades, I am pretty sure, that it could be turned into a Fauxumentary just as good as Prelude, because narrated historical accounts are the easiest ways to tell a story.
 
For $300,000 (or even $2 million), you need a sparkling script that requires sparse resources. Two guys in space suits walking across an alien vista trying to survive. Not space battles, thirty actors and tons of sets.

I think that is the crucial point. Fan productions have a way of thinking huge with tiny budgets, and somehow thinking that they can achieve both. Hollywood wouldn't spend hundreds of millions on films if they could be done 85% as well with a million or two. They spend it because that's what that end product costs to make. However much Trek-loving altruism you have amongst your cast and crew, ultimately sets, actors, props, costumes and effects cost money. The more you have, the more they cost.

If you don't have much money, you look to Netflix originals for inspiration, not Hollywood blockbusters. Small casts, minimal sets, keep the effects to when they're absolutely necessary, and hang your success on writing and editing.

If you took Renegade's budget and talent and made a bottle show, a small cast who are engaged in a compelling story based on a maximum of two main locations, say a ship and a planet set, you could so something really good for the money. Many of Trek's best loved episodes have been two or three actors on a couple of sets, and even one of its most successful films was largely a half dozen people with a conveniently invisible space ship walking around modern day locations, but with a great story and tight editing.
 
The extreme closeup shakey cam was pretty annoying, wish they didn't do that, but other than that, the effects and the look of the film was pretty good. I don't think I can invest in a series though.
 
For $300,000 (or even $2 million), you need a sparkling script that requires sparse resources. Two guys in space suits walking across an alien vista trying to survive. Not space battles, thirty actors and tons of sets.

I think that is the crucial point. Fan productions have a way of thinking huge with tiny budgets, and somehow thinking that they can achieve both. Hollywood wouldn't spend hundreds of millions on films if they could be done 85% as well with a million or two. They spend it because that's what that end product costs to make. However much Trek-loving altruism you have amongst your cast and crew, ultimately sets, actors, props, costumes and effects cost money. The more you have, the more they cost.

If you don't have much money, you look to Netflix originals for inspiration, not Hollywood blockbusters. Small casts, minimal sets, keep the effects to when they're absolutely necessary, and hang your success on writing and editing.

If you took Renegade's budget and talent and made a bottle show, a small cast who are engaged in a compelling story based on a maximum of two main locations, say a ship and a planet set, you could so something really good for the money. Many of Trek's best loved episodes have been two or three actors on a couple of sets, and even one of its most successful films was largely a half dozen people with a conveniently invisible space ship walking around modern day locations, but with a great story and tight editing.

The cool thing is, we now live in a time, where, the equipment to shoot a decent looking fan film, really would be within the reach of most people who wanted to make a Fan Film.... And what you can't afford, I am sure there is a YouTube Tutorial showing you how to make (Lighting rigs for example). So now every fan film can at the very least look like it was shot on something other than an old Betamax....

With so many talented Artists out there (one only has to spend a few minutes parusing the Fan art thread here) even decent CGI isn't that difficult of an obstacle for an Amateur film...

I agree with you , they took on a very ambitious story for their "Pilot", and the overall story, would have made for a better "Season Arc" than just a single stand alone episode. A bottle Episode for the Pilot would have been better IMO, introducing us to the Ship, the crew, and their mission.... (Undertaking secret missions for a reformed Section 31 under Admiral Tuvok)
 
Phantom: While I tend to agree about what we've seen of Axanar thus far, let's keep in mind that a) it's comparatively just over 20/25 minutes of footage, most of which is promotional and not part of the main feature; and b) Axanar is, as we've been correctly reminded, off-topic for this thread.

Writing is writing, acting is acting, editing is editing. And so forth.

One of the two projects did it well across the board, the other did not.

One of the two is broadcast quality. The other is not.

That's the point in comparing the two.

If Renegades' "mission statement" was to produce something that could be taken to CBS to pitch, it quite honestly failed. Even if I did find some elements of it interesting.
 
For $300,000 (or even $2 million), you need a sparkling script that requires sparse resources. Two guys in space suits walking across an alien vista trying to survive. Not space battles, thirty actors and tons of sets.

I think that is the crucial point. Fan productions have a way of thinking huge with tiny budgets, and somehow thinking that they can achieve both. Hollywood wouldn't spend hundreds of millions on films if they could be done 85% as well with a million or two. They spend it because that's what that end product costs to make.

A certain project seems hell-bent on proving that truism to be not so true, and doing a fantastic job of it.

Mind you, if you were dealing with Big Hollywood with its morass of conflicting rules, guild/union regulations, etc it would be a 100x harder (and more expensive). Actors' salaries alone would bust the piggy bank, even if you could get them for "scale".

Yeah, you're not going to get broadcast quality on a $300,000 budget today. I get that. But you don't need $100+ million, or even $20+ million to produce a perfectly acceptable, quality product if you know what you're doing.
 
So, I realize that Gary Graham had a part in Voyager, but for me he will always be Soval. It took me a while to get used to him NOT being Vulcan. But then I couldn't figure out what he was. I thought he was human...until the shape shifting part close to,the END. So, did I miss something? Where there clues in the movie that I missed?

And, I'm sorry, but after more than a century, Chekov STILL has that annoying accent?
 
Yeah, you're not going to get broadcast quality on a $300,000 budget today. I get that. But you don't need $100+ million, or even $20+ million to produce a perfectly acceptable, quality product if you know what you're doing.

For a high budget feature film, you easily need $100 million if you want it to be relevant. Admittedly, we're in a whizz bang! period of filmmaking where much of it is style over substance. Think about the amount of time to shoot. Think about the post production work that goes into a film.

For an hour of TV, of the same caliber, you'd need maybe at minimum $4 million. Quicker shoots. The FX isn't going to be nearly as good. Neither will the makeup. You can't say that you can't get high quality actors for TV because that's where it's at these days.

A $300k fan film is fine. But as others have said -- write to your budget. One of the many reasons why Renegades didn't work. One of the reasons why I'm concerned about Axanar. But I hope I'm wrong and it is successful.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top