Star Trek Continues Ep. 5: "Divided We Stand"...(spoilers)

[Bixby]

It would be interesting to see Uhura featured once with a story where she plays a prominant role. I know Vic is effectively the star, but I'm reminded of those episodes like "The Galileo Seven" and TAS' "Slaver Weapon" where Kirk wasn't anywhere near the real action or even seen.

I don't know how prominent you want Uhura to be in your ''dream episode'' Warped, but I hope it's not anything beyond really what she has been in before, like Gamesters of Triskelion or Tribbles. I still don't know how Kim Stinger really wants to approach Uhura, but we have to be really honest about one thing: Uhura, as played by Nichelle Nichols in TOS, was completely bipolar. Many fans will rag on William Shatner's sometimes overdramatic acting, but Nichols is the champion as far as I'm concerned.

It's as if she was never really sure how Uhura should be, sometimes like in the Corbomite Maneuver when Bailey is the one having a complete meltdown, she would confidently take over his position and be unfazed. But other times, like in Space Seed, or Plato's Stepchildren and, I think it was in either Squire of Gothos or Arena where she screamed way beyond how a Professional military person should be reacting under pressure (when Kirk is absconded away)...

And then she manages to be both in Mirror, Mirror, oddly enough...

While it could be interesting to examine her somewhat, since it's well established in the movies that Uhura never did have aspirations for, or did achieve her own command. There shouldn't be a story where Uhura sits on the big chair (sorry, I know STC in their ''You've got the Conn'' vignette teased a future where Uhura would captain her own ship, but that one was total baloney since unlike Sulu and Chekov she never did transfer to another department or another ship to seek promotion for command rank).

And that's fine, because not everyone achieves superior rank.

 

[E-DUB]

I don't see a problem with an episode being too contemporary in terms of mindset or outlook or whatever term you'd want to use. The key question is if it could have credibly "fit in" to a sixties series based on the idea of looking forward. If you have a good story, well presented, that's pretty much all you need. The rest is just frosting on the cake.

"Lolani". "Fairest" and "Divided" all could have worked as "fourth season" eps, in my opinion. Some may call "Fairest" fanwank, not that there's anything wrong with that, but certainly no more so than "Mirror Darkly" was

Maybe doing a "sixties show" with a contemporary mindset could give you, to appropriate a phrase, the best of both worlds.

 

[ianintheuk]

ianintheuk... A question. Is it significantly more US-centric than some of the TOS episodes where Kirk, e.g. gets all hot and bothered about the US Constitution or Abe Lincoln?

I have long assumed that part of why most fan films outside the USA are set in the TNG/DS9/VOY era (with a resurgence this year of pre-TOS Trek projects; I know of 10 pre-TOS films in the works right now, with only 3 from filmmakers with prior releases; the UK and Canada do produce some TOS-era fan Trek.) was due to TOS being only superficially international, but in a deep way, very American-centric. This article is cited by a right-wing Trek friend to prove that Trek lost it's values with TNG, but to me the values here are US-centric. https://www.claremont.org/article/the-politics-of-star-trek/

I agree TOS was very US centered even though afterwards they tried to sell it as the ultimate international crew. I am not really complaining about TOS or STC being US fixated but more about some of the comments that have been posted here. I realise that TOS was a US series for a US audience. This may have changed as its sales abroad became more obvious if the series had continued. It is a shame that TOS which is supposed to be in the 23rd century was not a bit more universal when dealing with all of earths history.

Re the Next Gen etc, I think 1) we had a British actor in the centre seat and 2) the studio was more aware of overseas sales so I understand why the change may have occurred.

I enjoyed TNG and some of DS9 but after that it lost its way and I still (with all its faults) prefer TOS and the fan films around that era. It may be that TOS was cut short and the later series lasted in my opinion too long.

I am not criticising the TOS fan films or STC episode 5 greatly just putting thoughts out there to try and make people think that it all could be a bit better. Most of STC has been really good.

 

[aridas sofia]

Also while the US finally got round to abolishing slavery by war the UK did it 30 years earlier by act of parliament and by winning the arguement. Just look up on google the Slavery Abolition Act 1833. and William Wilberforce its prime supporter. After this date the Royal Navy was tasked with intercepting slave ships from Africa and freeing the people on board.
one person also commented that the UK nearly sided with the south during the war this is far from the truth, an while i doubt wikepedia a lot the entry below is fairly accurate...

Actually, don't trust Wikipedia without seeking more substantial corroboration.

This episode chose the Battle of Antietam as its setting. I assume the makers of the episode knew its significance beyond its status as the single bloodiest single day battle in American military history. Because the Confederate invasion of the North was thwarted, the mission of John Adams' grandson to prevent British intervention on the side of the Confederacy was a success. The results of Antietam allowed Lincoln to change the country's war aims from merely preserving the Union to also ending slavery. This undermined the Southern strategy of getting Britain (and France) to intervene without having to sully themselves with the issue of slavery. So long as the Union war aims had included the possibility of retaining slavery, the British and French could intervene under the pretense of a peace mission. Once Lincoln used Antietam as the basis upon which to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, intervention would mean interference in an effort to end slavery in the United States. That, they were unwilling to do.

So, it is untrue that Britain and France did not come close to intervening. They came very close, indeed.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/europeandcivilwar.html

 

[Phantom]

Ah yes, The Emancipation Proaclamation, also knowns as Lincoln's greatest slight of hand trick. Didn't free a single slave that was under actual Union control.

And it was a lie anyways, as Lincoln continued to allow for the possibility of continued slavery post-war at the Hampton Roads conference.

 

[JE Smith]

I rather enjoyed this episode. Like others, I wish it had been closer in length to an actual TOS episode.

I have to say, I find these comments about the length of the episode to be completely bizarre. TOS was 52 minutes (or thereabouts) because it was dictated by the network -- not always because it best served the story. Some original Trek episodes seem either padded or overly-compressed; it's the nature of network television, and the show-makers at the time dealt with it as best as they possibly could.

But fan films are NOT controlled by a network -- why in heaven's name do people whine when a fan production doesn't match the running time of an actual episode?

As someone who has seen way, way, way, way, way, way, WAY too many fan films that were hideously, horribly over-long, and overtly padded (It's the "Look, ma, I'm getting images on video!" syndrome), I firmly believe that any video of this type should be exactly as long as the material demands. If your story takes 20 minutes to tell, make it 20 minutes long. Or 35 minutes, or 51 minutes or whatever.

Fan filmmaking allows a wonderful freedom that network- and sponsor-driven series don't have. Trying to crimp that freedom into an old-fashioned framework just so it "feels" a little more like Classic Trek strikes me as the height of "missing the point."

I think Vic and crew are absolutely correct to let these stories breathe to their appropriate length, and not worry about replicating the exact running time of TOS. I have found all five episodes very well-paced and of organic lengths appropriate to the individual scripts.

Just my .02, as always, and sorry, Kor, not trying to pick on you in particular.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Watched “Divided We Stand” the morning it was released on Vimeo. From a production values standpoint, this episode was top notch and certainly was a small step above “The White Iris” and “The Fairest of Them All.” However, the episode suffers from some of the script missteps that plague fan productions. The story ultimately doesn’t hold.

Before we get into that, I do want to praise the episode for what was well done.

Less Pew Pew, Still Action Adventure

The cinematography is impressive — the lighting and the camera angles are all dynamic and dramatic. The production makes use of an original music track that melds well with the TOS music. Despite any issues I have with the episode, I must give credit where credit is due. Continues has great cinematography and original music that feels like it’s out of the original Trek.

And Star Trek Continues provides action-adventure without relying on pew pew to move its stories forward. When phasers are fired, we only see the shot of the ship spewing its weapons and an explosion — no prolonged ship maneuvering or close quarter battle like in other productions.

The performances also surprised me. I’m not the biggest fan of Vic Mignogna. But I have to give it up to him. He’s charismatic as Kirk even though he imbues his performance with a bit too much impersonation. Chuck Huber delivers a good performance as McCoy in this episode.

It’s great to see Dr. M’Benga. I’m not a fan of bringing back characters for the sake of bringing back characters, but it was a pleasure to see M’Benga again. There is a lack of diversity in a lot of these fan productions, and I’ve gone on record on where I feel Uhura has been more underutilized in TOS-based fan shows than on the actual show. So I’m happy that M’Benga has a prominent role in this episode. I hope Martin Bradford returns in the role.

Lastly, kudos for starting in media res and having a cold open that was less than three minutes long.

With that out of the way, let’s get to the problem that hampers this episode and a lot of fan productions.

For the Love of the Great Bird, Stop Undercutting the Drama

“Divide We Stand” commits one of the biggest sins of fan productions — undercutting the drama. It’s a sin that sends me into a plak tow.

Before the first “commercial” break, we learn that Kirk and McCoy are in a nano-induced hallucination. Immediately, the danger and drama of their situation evaporates. There is no mystery and the episode becomes a plot-by-numbers story. If we as viewers don’t buy in the situation at first, that the danger is real, then why should we care what happens?

Then M’Benga quickly stabilizes the delusional duo. So there’s no danger from the nanites until Sawbones … um Bones … saws Kirk’s leg off in the Civil War shadowplay. But at that point, the danger is … well whatever. We know they’re going to get out of it. We just have to wait to see what technobabble solution gets them out of it. Once again, paint-by-numbers.

The nano-infection should’ve been the midpoint twist — if anything. The audience should’ve been left asking what’s going on until the story's midpoint: are they stuck in time or is something else going on. We should’ve been hooked before we got the information that Kirk and McCoy were really laid out in sickbay.

And if the episode is so committed to the dream danger, than it should’ve done something to establish the danger that what happens in the dream can harm then. “The Thaw” is one of the better episodes of Star Trek: Voyager, which also takes place in a dream state. But that episode quickly establishes that events in that state can kill. The danger to our characters are real. The drama isn’t undercut.

But “Divide We Stand” goes out of its way to establish that what Kirk and McCoy are experience has no real impact on them, even if they don’t realize it. So it makes any argument they have about affecting the timeline or whether they should help the injured solider moot. It just becomes lip service that has no real danger or drama behind it.

In the End, What the Hell is it All About

I’m going to be blunt here. But what the hell is this story about? And I don’t mean what happens — that’s plot. What is the story? What is the episode trying to say?

I appreciate that Continues tries to stay away from the pew pew, but they haven’t had an episode about something other than plot since “Lolani.”

Like I said, this episode is a paint-by-numbers plot — Kirk and McCoy think they’re back in the Civil War but it’s really a dream with a technobabble solution.

The episode doesn’t say anything — whether it’s saying something about Kirk and McCoy’s relationship or using the Civil War as an allegory for a social issue. There is no story. It’s procedural.

Others have outlined what could potentially be done, including involving Uhura in the story, an idea I like a lot. I’m not a Civil War buff and while I know the history, I don’t know the details so I won’t speak on those. But this story could’ve said something really interesting on the race relations today using that situation.

While the Civil War reenactors add production values, I’d have preferred a situation that harkens back to that period. Perhaps a parallel Earth story where the war never ended, or that this was a race with eerie similarities. With that, this episode could’ve had a more diverse cast in the “Civil War” setting by not being beholden to the historical details. Also, having the story set on another planet rather than a hallucination would’ve gone a long way to prevent the undercutting of the danger.

Not having a theme is the greatest sin of fan productions. Fan films get hung up on plot more than they do theme, as this latest Continues episode illustrates. My advice to the production: do more stories like “Lolani,” which was about something, than these paint-by-number plots.

Let’s Play CinemaSins

The biggest problems in “Divide We Stand” stem from undercutting the drama and not having anything interesting to say about anything. However, there are a few nits in this episode, which I don’t want to spend too much time dwelling on. So let’s quickly play CinemaSins, which I’ve been watching a lot of recently.

• McCoy coming on the bridge is really more motivated by plot, to get him to stand in front of the science console for the explosion. Also, can’t McCoy see that there’s a dangerous situation happening. McCoy may have come to the bridge to rib Kirk about a decision he’s making but would never disrupt a crisis with something so banal as a physical.
• The anachronism of the computer lingo: virus, firewalls, etc. Wish they kept with the terminology of the 60s era or how TOS would twist it to sound futuristic.
• The blatant ripoff of the upward shot from "City on the Edge of Forever." Um ... why.
• The North soldiers notice that Kirk is wearing the "wrong" uniform, but they brush it off quickly. So why bring it up at all? Kirk would've at least tried to explain it away as he did with having a "Confederate" solider with him.
• Kirk tells McCoy it's his fault that McCoy is in this situation. But it was McCoy who came to the bridge and tried to interrupt Kirk handling what was obviously a crisis.

Those were the nits that stood out to me.

With that, I want to reiterate: Star Trek Continues has impressive production values, great cinematography and music. I urge the production to figure out what they want to say with their episodes, and look to do more stories like “Lolani.”

 

[Zaminhon]

This story is about loss and sacrifice and the cost of war, and a brief history lesson. Yes, it's a theme that's been done a million times, but this was STC's take on it and they used the bloodiest battle of the ACW to illustrate it. For Kirk and McCoy, what they experienced at the time was real, no matter if they were in a virtual world or a real one.

Of course "The Inner Light" gave it away in the first scene, not that I'm trying to compare or equate the two productions beyond that.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

This story is about loss and sacrifice and the cost of war. Yes, it's a theme that's been done a million times, but this was STC's take on it and they used the bloodiest battle of the ACW to illustrate it. For Kirk and McCoy, what they experienced at the time was real, no matter if they were in a virtual world or a real one.

If that was the theme then it was very superficial expressed with the cliched use of the young solider who learns to be brave when it counts. Nothing that happens really effects Kirk or McCoy. In fact, nothing really happens to them.

The story spends so much time with the technobabble of the nanites that the Civil War aspect of the story just moves from plot point to plot point. There's a Kirk speech, but there's no real discussion of anything and nothing of impact happens in the story other than a recreation of that battle. These characters are just caught in a plot, not a situation like in "A Private Little War."

Once again, there's no decision for Kirk to make. Nothing for him to do but participate in the story rather than drive.

Now what a war does to a generation — that's a theme. And that's something we're seeing in our world today. Had "Divide We Stand" use the Civil War to explore something like that, then maybe I could see it. But everything is so paint-by-numbers that any theme or real story is apparent. Or the futility of war, and we could've seen it from McCoy's perspective, like a Civil War Hawkeye stuck in a never-ending deluge of wounded.

If the theme was the cost of war, then it was one that wasn't fully explored by the characters or the situation.

Of course "The Inner Light" gave it away in the first scene, not that I'm trying to compare or equate the two productions beyond that.

"The Inner Light" establishes a danger in pulling Picard out too soon. So the danger wasn't undercut like it is in this episode. However, I thought the TNG episode also made a misstep by giving it away so soon.

 

[Christopher Miles]

Re user name Ryan Thomas Riddle's post up-thread.

Ryan's thorough analysis is spot on. I particularly appreciate the coordinated screen caps which help set the tone for each point in his well though out post.

I am, however, cognizant that folks from Continues are here - so first things first-

Thank you for your incredible work. All of you. Anything that follows is written because in my head I'm comparing your fine productions to Season 1 and 2 Trek. You've gotten that good. I watched it the minute it came out. Literally 11:01 am eastern time.

Plot/ Writing /Direction

Agree about McCoy. He's a general nuisance, but not in an emergency. This opening scene makes him appear tone deaf to the ongoing bridge chaos.

Agree about the danger/no danger by early dream reveal. This choice might have been a no win for the Continues team, as my wife noticed that at first I was actually upset that a computer explosion sent our pals back in time. I yelled- "I'm out!" - only to be sucked back in, as a shared dream makes sense. Still, from a storytelling standpoint, the suspense/danger was stolen early on.

Direction/Editing- Go pull a George Lucas and edit the scene with the fella who mistimed his fall from the tree. It jumps out at you. Make it up to him by Kirk-starting a new uniform or rifle for him.

Writing/Direction- I agree with the previous point made up thread about McCoy and Kirk being far too loud/open about their predicament. If timeline issues were truly a concern, then privacy would be paramount. Also, why is there so much focus on the war for these two- and no talk of planning to get home? (unless I missed it) Were they each just waiting for a hail Mary from Spock, is the audience supposed to assume that's just a given by season 4?

I do agree with Continues' choice as as far as Kirk's general "do no harm to the timeline" view. That said- the plot leaves room for McCoy to save people - and this is fine by me- the tent was large enough for two medics- who's to say another wouldn't have been there in his place? Additionally, how could Kirk and McCoy have been sure they weren't simply replacing originals who was supposed to have been there? Save who you can, avoid killing when you can. The safest set of choices out of a bad set of choices.

Writing- Sadly, this time out we see a Hamhanded /Forced in /Kludged use of McKennah here. I've written about her previously. Fine actress (and a looker!)- Wish a different empowered woman role could be/have been created for her talents. The team has chosen the moniker Star Trek Continues, Not Phase II. Trek works best as Id-Ego-SuperEgo. We may not like it, but that's Trek before being re-introduced in '77 (Late in the "me" decade). That's what Star Trek Continues, is, well, continuing. Changes can come- but not so fast, junior. It's 100 years to Next Gen.

An aside-
Roddenberry was a little slow on the late 60's early 70's enlightenment party- Watch Genesis II and Planet Earth. Sexism still quite apparent. These plots were more than likely rolling around in his head when a notional 4th or 5th Trek season would have been produced.

I suppose, then, I agree with others that this series is written from a Next Gen perspective- I don't know what that means going forward. Takes me out a bit- but these aren't written for Gen X me.

Casting/Writing- Hey, thank you for M'Benga! Using him in this way provides a wonderful example of a professional black person fully integrated into a future society and treated as a very much needed. problem solving equal. His inclusion is perfectly paired with main story's message. I look forward to seeing more of the character, and hope the actor gets a bit more comfortable in the role. The M'Benga I remember from the series was quite authoritative and confident- this time out, he appeared a bit less so.

Direction.- I wouldn't for a thousand years wear all the hats Mr Mignona wears. That said- maybe a little wear and tear and sweat appearing on Kirk would be in order- especially in the med tent. What we "hear" from Kirk is justifiable nerves at upcoming amputation - we "see" is Kirk appearing cool as a cucumber.

Direction/Writing. Regarding The elder white bearded soldier in the tent- his monologue was quite long, especially for a (we assume) severely wounded man. What would have been cool would have been to have several injured men, in a larger, recovery type tent, each recounting part of the story of our young soldier/hero. One of the storytellers could have been a person of color- whose people are persecuted- yet he's a Union soldier nonetheless.

Story-
This is a tough one. It should bear repeated watching. But this episode doesn't. I just don't want to be lectured to again. I get it- really- but less is more. The music cues are spot on- the lighting and camera angles pitch perfect- so what I'm trying to point out, is less "pew pew pew" homilies. Here's our homily- BAM! "Here's our point again in case you missed it" BAM! "Oh, and we have a shrink on board in case you forgot" BAM.

Whoa. Hard to port- Sermon off the starboard bow!

Ok. That's it. These guys know what they're doing. Go find Andy Bray and stick him in as Chekov and give him a juicy story.

Agree with many (over several threads) regarding anachronisms/technobabble (both in this ep and the previous one) No need for the all too millennial terms Virus, Firewall, etc. It hurts my ears, as much as hearing "record tapes" and "speakers" does when watching the original. One can just as easily use the phrase "isolated, infested, "over-ride"- "command code/executive protection breached" "audio only" and so forth. After all- We want these Continues gems to last for decades like the originals don't we? I'd put a smiley here, but I don't like emoticons. So - virtual smiley.

None of these observations- None- will keep me from contributing to episode 6 (and beyond).

ps - Team- I will double my contribution if you use Original logo.
(I mean, you're already doing it with the title card anyhow)

Everytime I see it, (current red/gradation logo) I think to myself- "Why is the [Continues] logo on fire?"

pps- Incredible work by the Federation Orchestra (tm). Thank all the folks involved in what is an important, but often overlooked part of these productions. Wonderful cues- Just wonderful.

 

[Kor]

I was trying to think of the best way to articulate my impression of the McKennah character...

In real life, armies and navies have had mental health experts for a long time, though very specialized treatment was more likely to be received at a base.

How should mental health issues be treated in a futuristic world? On a five-year mission in deep space, far away from starbases and possibly in isolated areas for long stretches of time, it would certainly be useful to have a mental health specialist on the medical staff.

However, a warm and friendly talk therapist strikes me as being too much like TNG. I think an MD psychiatrist with a less warm demeanor would better fit a 1960s-era production, and the background of writers and producers who had likely seen military service in WWII and Korea. But I could be wrong.

It seems that in the 1950s there was a breakthrough or increase in improved pharmaceuticals to treat specific psychiatric conditions, so I think that to TOS writers, that area would still have been fairly new and fresh, and they would have projected that onto their vision of a technological future. Feeling anxiety? Take a hypospray; instant cure. Maybe this is opening up a can of worms...

Conversely to all of that, it struck me as odd that in the shared "dream," McCoy used the term "shell shock," which was pretty specific to World War I, and I think not really in use any more by the 1960s, much less the 2260s.

Kor

 

[Christopher Miles]

@Kor-

Yes, that's it- a mental health specialist, more on the meds and sprays, less on the touching and feeling. I am thinking of an enhanced Elizabeth Denher type character.

More Freud, Less Jung.

Strong woman role(s) in general-

Following the above referenced 2nd pilot, we did see (a few) strong women on the show as well in other ship roles. Example- Ann Mulhull seemed pretty darn strong to me. Jim's old love, the StarBase lawyer, etc.

As far as Continues goes, in my opinion, it's just too early for a ships counselor/therapist to be so highly placed. Including a counselor this early is their choice- just not one I'd have made in this Phase of Trek.

As far as your point about McCoy- I think he would know the term shell shock (as he is from the future) but I don't remember if he shared the term out loud with any of the civil war era soldiers, as that would have been a time travel no-no. If he was over-heard, and it was a term they'd not heard before... then (In the words of Mr. Scott) Who's to say he didn't invent the thing?

 

[Zaminhon]

McKenna needs a modified Neural Neutralizer in her office for those rare occasions. .

 

[Kor]

@CM1701: Yes! I had a brain fart and totally forgot about Elizabeth Dehner. She's a perfect example.

As for "shell shock," I meant that it was already an outdated term by the 1960s. I think writers of that decade were more likely to use the term "battle fatigue." And today the term "post traumatic stress disorder" is used for such symptoms. And these aren't just new expressions for the sake of having new terms... they reflect changing and growing understandings of the conditions involved.

Kor

 

[Astra]

When watching their Ep. 5 gag reel it's shown that they bound Drake's arm behind him. So we can assume they did the same with Kirk's leg.

I'm pretty sure it was CGI. You can see him walk (or rather hop) around, and there is nothing at the back. Also when lying on the table, where would it be? Unless they cut a hole into the surface.

At first I thought they would be filming around it but when it finally got shown it made a huge impression.

(I was wondering if probably that other soldier shown in the tent was someone who really was without an arm)

I agree with those saying that it was a bit odd when McCoy and Kirk discussed their situation so freely in front of the other soldiers. But I just assumed that in reality they were whispering very low, and it was only made more clear so we could understand it. And the poor fella on the ground was either unconscious or surely minding his own painful business at the moment.

How would they be able to actively search for a way back home though? No computer to be found, no secret door out of a possible virtual reality... and they had tried to flee / stay out of trouble until they were discovered. If they tried to walk away now, from the middle of a camp full of soldiers, it would be rather suspicious and probably dangerous. So they had to go with the flow.

As for the viewer knowing too soon that it was not really dangerous - they didn't know this. I'm sure the amputation felt very real - for both of them.

I loved it.

 

[Christopher Miles]

@CM1701: Yes! I had a brain fart and totally forgot about Elizabeth Dehner. She's a perfect example.

As for "shell shock," I meant that it was already an outdated term by the 1960s. I think writers of that decade were more likely to use the term "battle fatigue." And today the term "post traumatic stress disorder" is used for such symptoms. And these aren't just new expressions for the sake of having new terms... they reflect changing and growing understandings of the conditions involved.

Kor

Ok, Kor, Now I get your point regarding shell shock as an antiquated term for Bones to have used. Totally agree.

But-

I've also grumbled a bit now and again that Continues doesn't reflect it's 60's heritage enough (in the script, not the production value)- so these terminology choices and the use of idiom will be a "continuing" Kobiyashi Maru for the writing team. What is "accurate?"

An aside-
Let's move forward a bit and think of the Federation ground troops in DS9's "Siege of AR-558". Ironic- there were one or two that appeared to have had something resembling ... shell shock (even Jake). Loved that ep. Moving.

 

[Warped9]

I agree Elizabeth Dehner is a better role model for McKennah than Deanna Troi. STC, please take note. As for how to do it onscreen just show McKennah growing into her job.

I agree (and mentioned it myself earlier on) that I thought the reveal of where Kirk and McCoy are came too early.

I also agree a bit more effort in using more '60's era "futuristic" terminology would work better than using contemporary terms. Trust the audience to follow along just as the TOS creators trusted the audience.

I don't think a story should be padded just for the sake of running time, but in this instance maybe another five minutes would have helped to fill the story in more.

A couple of suggestions:
- have McKennah reporting to Spock that some have sought her because of their concern for Kirk and McCoy. She doesn't have to say who (and likely wouldn't anyway).
- maybe have McKennah express her own concern in an apparently detached way given her previous exchanges with Kirk (which somewhat echo the kind of exchanges we've seen before way back on the series Moonlighting).
- show Kirk and McCoy coming back to their earlier discussion about how they could possibly be where they think they are.

Maybe that isn't five minutes but only three, but it would fit in with what we've already seen.

 

[Zaminhon]

McCoy worked in the medical tent all night except for a short coffee break, so I would have liked to see him operating on a few more patients. I would have also liked to see Billy rallying the men at the end instead of getting a long-winded play by play, but I am grateful that the actor could pull it off and for the score which made it tolerable.

 

[dswynne1]

I rather enjoyed this episode. Like others, I wish it had been closer in length to an actual TOS episode.

I have to say, I find these comments about the length of the episode to be completely bizarre. TOS was 52 minutes (or thereabouts) because it was dictated by the network -- not always because it best served the story. Some original Trek episodes seem either padded or overly-compressed; it's the nature of network television, and the show-makers at the time dealt with it as best as they possibly could.

But fan films are NOT controlled by a network -- why in heaven's name do people whine when a fan production doesn't match the running time of an actual episode?

As someone who has seen way, way, way, way, way, way, WAY too many fan films that were hideously, horribly over-long, and overtly padded (It's the "Look, ma, I'm getting images on video!" syndrome), I firmly believe that any video of this type should be exactly as long as the material demands. If your story takes 20 minutes to tell, make it 20 minutes long. Or 35 minutes, or 51 minutes or whatever.

Fan filmmaking allows a wonderful freedom that network- and sponsor-driven series don't have. Trying to crimp that freedom into an old-fashioned framework just so it "feels" a little more like Classic Trek strikes me as the height of "missing the point."

I think Vic and crew are absolutely correct to let these stories breathe to their appropriate length, and not worry about replicating the exact running time of TOS. I have found all five episodes very well-paced and of organic lengths appropriate to the individual scripts.

Just my .02, as always, and sorry, Kor, not trying to pick on you in particular.

And I'll raise you a dollar. The whole point of STC is that the production wants to "continue" the voyages of the starship Enterprise. That to me means that there should be a level of authenticity to STC and similar outings. Besides, these episodes do not come out as often as we would like, so 'padding' a STC episode is still like a feast to the senses. But I do agree that not subject matter warrants a full episode, so the other routes are the vignettes.

 

[Treadwell]

when lying on the table, where would it be? Unless they cut a hole into the surface.

There was. It's a really easy trick, I've done it in one of my own films as well.

(I was wondering if probably that other soldier shown in the tent was someone who really was without an arm)

Yep!

RTR, that was a great post and excellent food for thought.