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

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

The difference between "Divide We Stand" and "The Inner Light" is that the latter is about something —*Picard's unlived life. The probe and the "dream" just the medium by which to play that out. And it reveals something of Picard —*"I thought I didn't need children to make my life complete ..."

That being said, while I like the concept of "The Inner Light," there are parts of its execution I didn't care for — especially the quick reveal that Picard wasn't really experiencing it.

To be honest, I was never the biggest fan of "The Inner Light," either.

While DWS definitely wasn't my favorite kind of story, my biggest issues lie more with the execution than the conception. I think they could have done a much better job with the same basic idea than they actually did.

And this comes down to the writing I think. I have no idea of the process these fan produced stories go through, but I would hazard that a strong story editing would definitely be helpful. Someone(s) who could go through this and point out and help fix the missteps.

Someone who could point out, "Not bad, but maybe here is how you can make it better."

Any available D.C. Fontana types around?

Agreed. A strong story editor who can pull apart a story and see the opportunities where it can be improved is what's needed.

Honestly, a lot of problems in fan productions can be fixed at the script level. Fix it on the page and the rest will follow.

 

[DCR]

D.C. Fontana actually wrote a PII/NV episode.

I do agree though, that writing is STC's weakest point. I wouldn't call it bad, but it definitely doesn't measure up to the rest of the production.

 

[Warped9]

I recall a little exercise two friends and I went through several years ago. We decided to do something like what STC is doing only in fanzine form: try to tell stories that could actually work like a TOS episodes. Come up with an idea and then try to adapt it to Star Trek.

We bounced ideas off each other then each of us wrote our stories and then the other two would offer critical analysis.

I found the best approach was to make your observations and offer a sampling of possible alternatives then let the writer go off and try fixing it themselves based on the feedback.

In STC's case I think someone with a bit of detachment who could look at a story with a bit less fan perspective and offer constructive criticism could be quite helpful.

 

[HarryM]

I think there's no shortage of people who could offer them help, a quick scan through a critical thread like this shows that. They just have to be willing to seek out some "story/script consultants", at least in giving it a basic "sniff test" before they start filming.

 

[BigJake]

It's not odd or out of the blue. Cushman shares a writing credit for the teleplay on "Divide We Fall," and he's been listed as a consultant on the production in Continues' previous episode.

Ah, good, I felt like I was missing something.

(Well, I still am, in that I'm missing why Karzak is so massively caustically bitter and dramatic about it, but that does explain the reference, thanks.)

 

[GSchnitzer]

I think there's no shortage of people who could offer them help, a quick scan through a critical thread like this shows that. They just have to be willing to seek out some "story/script consultants", at least in giving it a basic "sniff test" before they start filming.

As per the end credits for "Divided We Stand," the Script Consultant is Marc Cushman and the Story Editor is James Kerwin.

So it's not like STC isn't performing this function; it looks like you think they just should do a better job.

 

[Kor]

I never realized the writer of TNG "Sarek" was held in such low esteem.

Kor

 

[Warped9]

I think there's no shortage of people who could offer them help, a quick scan through a critical thread like this shows that. They just have to be willing to seek out some "story/script consultants", at least in giving it a basic "sniff test" before they start filming.

As per the end credits for "Divided We Stand," the Script Consultant is Marc Cushman and the Story Editor is James Kerwin.

So it's not like STC isn't performing this function; it looks like you think they just should do a better job.

That is basically what is being said.

Looking back over all five STC episodes and the ensuing discussions regarding them one does see some consensus on how certain things could have been done better and more effectively in terms of story. So perhaps a different viewpoint is required to help the production be more effective storytellers.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

I never realized the writer of TNG "Sarek" was held in such low esteem.

Kor

The negative views on Cushman stem more from the shoddy research and journalism in his three-part tome "These Are the Voyages," which covers the behind-the-scenes production of the original series.

Also, Cushman provided the story and initial script for "Sarek" but who knows how much of that made it into the episode. The teleplay was written by Peter S. Begal with a page-one rewrite by Ira Behr and Ron Moore.

As per the end credits for "Divided We Stand," the Script Consultant is Marc Cushman and the Story Editor is James Kerwin.

So it's not like STC isn't performing this function; it looks like you think they just should do a better job.

While both men do have substantial writing credits (according to their IMDBs), the writing on Continues feels undercook, like the scripts need another pass or two. And I do think a stronger story editor is needed.

 

[Indysolo]

Also, Cushman provided the story and initial script for "Sarek" but who knows how much of that made it into the episode. The teleplay was written by Peter S. Begal with a page-one rewrite by Ira Behr and Ron Moore.

From a Beagle website: "Widely regarded as one of the better Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes, 'Sarek' was adapted by Peter S. Beagle from an unpublished story by Marc Cushman and Jake Jacobs."

The only person saying Cushman wrote a "Sarek" script is Cushman. He has a habit of not reporting accurately.

Neil

 

[Captain_Koloth]

Seconding having zero faith in Cushman, the guy basically went to the publically accessible UCLA archives, did an unbelievably shoddy job of summarizing what was there, and then claimed he got all the info from tons of never before seen material given to him directly by Roddenberry.
Anyway....

Just watched Divided We Stand which I thought was pretty solid, though not quite STC's very best outing.

I had a thought re: the music. While I love the actual TOS music cues, I have been finding that the new original music scores detract slightly from the last two episodes. The best part of STC is how faithfully it reproduces TOS- from the uniforms and sets to the hairstyling and even the lighting. To have something so true to TOS, and then have new original music, I find breaks the immersion a bit and takes me out of the TOS feel.

The music itself is great, there's nothing wrong with it and i appreciate the jazzy TOS vibe it imparts, I just find it jarring when juxtaposed when what is otherwise such a faithful TOS reproduction.

Anyone else have this reaction?

 

[Warped9]

I think I can usually pick out the new arrngements, but by and large I don't find them jarring at all. Also every season of TOS had new music written and recorded so why would a fourth season have been different?

 

[Zaminhon]

The music is one of the better components of the production. They've found a composer who can write in the same style and conduct and sync the score. Andy Farber is a great find.

 

[Kor]

Yes. For me, the music enhances the whole experience, rather than detracting from it.

There were plenty of musical compositions written for specific episodes of TOS, so this is just continuing that approach. If STC only used cues from original episodes, I would find it cliched, and it would take me out of the experience by making me constantly think of the episodes that the music originally appeared in.

And, no disrespect meant to other productions, but the orchestral arrangements in STC are a huge step up from the synthesized music that is used in certain other fan films.

Kor

 

[Zaminhon]

As far as the story itself, why does there always have to be a message or moral or lofty meaning? We might have conceivably had an episode focused on a day in the life of Kirk, or McCoy or Chekov in the fourth season. M*A*S*H did something similar with a news crew that, if I recall, followed Hawkeye around for a day. I believe B5 did something similar, as probably many other shows. I consider this episode sort of the same, it's basically a day in the life of soldiers facing a bloody battle in which Kirk and McCoy are participants. I think it was pretty effective in conveying that, considering the limited budget and time constraints.

As far as Kirk's speechifying, I didn't particularly find it very effective, mainly because it's in hindsight, and those lofty ideals were the furthest thing from the soldiers' minds. I enjoyed the point at the campfire when Kirk was cut off by the old guy (who I kept wanting to call "Gabby Johnson"). It's one of the few times when Kirk was at a loss for words.

Tragically the only person who took it to heart was Billy. I wish the morphine would have fully kicked in about the time Kirk was cheering him on, but of course, then the virtual battle would have been lost and hundreds more would have died (or deleted by the program). All in all, I think the episode set out to do what it intended and succeeded at it.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

As far as the story itself, why does there always have to be a message or moral or lofty meaning? We might have conceivably had an episode focused on a day in the life of Kirk, or McCoy or Chekov in the fourth season. M*A*S*H did something similar with a news crew that, if I recall, followed Hawkeye around for a day. I believe B5 did something similar, as probably many other shows. I consider this episode sort of the same, it's basically a day in the life of soldiers facing a bloody battle in which Kirk and McCoy are participants. I think it was pretty effective in conveying that, considering the limited budget and time constraints.

There doesn't have to be a lofty message or moral. I prefer themes over morals, messages and meanings. However, a story should be about something not just a situation. It should be something worth telling because then why tell it at all. It should strive to do something, make us feel, make us think, reveal something about a character and the situation.

The difference between those "Day in the Life" examples and "Divided We Fall" is that M*A*S*H was showing the daily horror of war through the eyes of the 4077, while revealing to us how isolated and lonely everyone felt despite having each other. The Babylon 5 episode ("And Now for a Word") was furthering the show's theme of responsibility and choices, while escalating the Narn-Centauri conflict.

"Divide We Fall" isn't a day in the life. Because in the end it's not really about those soldiers, nor is it about Kirk and McCoy. It's about the situation of the hallucination.

As far as Kirk's speechifying, I didn't particularly find it very effective, mainly because it's in hindsight, and those lofty ideals were the furthest thing from the soldiers' minds. I enjoyed the point at the campfire when Kirk was cut off by the old guy (who I kept wanting to call "Gabby Johnson"). It's one of the few times when Kirk was at a loss for words.

Tragically the only person who took it to heart was Billy. I wish the morphine would have fully kicked in about the time Kirk was cheering him on, but of course, then the virtual battle would have been lost and hundreds more would have died (or deleted by the program). All in all, I think the episode set out to do what it intended and succeeded at it.

Unfortunately with it being a hallucination, I felt nothing for the lose of Billy. He didn't really exist and we as an audience don't get enough sense of him as a person to care. Nor do we get see that Billy's death really affected Kirk, like how the 20 minute life Picard had affected him.

 

[DCR]

As far as the story itself, why does there always have to be a message or moral or lofty meaning? We might have conceivably had an episode focused on a day in the life of Kirk, or McCoy or Chekov in the fourth season. M*A*S*H did something similar with a news crew that, if I recall, followed Hawkeye around for a day. I believe B5 did something similar, as probably many other shows. I consider this episode sort of the same, it's basically a day in the life of soldiers facing a bloody battle in which Kirk and McCoy are participants. I think it was pretty effective in conveying that, considering the limited budget and time constraints.

There doesn't have to be a lofty message or moral. I prefer themes over morals, messages and meanings. However, a story should be about something not just a situation. It should be something worth telling because then why tell it at all. It should strive to do something, make us feel, make us think, reveal something about a character and the situation.

The difference between those "Day in the Life" examples and "Divided We Fall" is that M*A*S*H was showing the daily horror of war through the eyes of the 4077, while revealing to us how isolated and lonely everyone felt despite having each other. The Babylon 5 episode ("And Now for a Word") was furthering the show's theme of responsibility and choices, while escalating the Narn-Centauri conflict.

"Divide We Fall" isn't a day in the life. Because in the end it's not really about those soldiers, nor is it about Kirk and McCoy. It's about the situation of the hallucination.

As far as Kirk's speechifying, I didn't particularly find it very effective, mainly because it's in hindsight, and those lofty ideals were the furthest thing from the soldiers' minds. I enjoyed the point at the campfire when Kirk was cut off by the old guy (who I kept wanting to call "Gabby Johnson"). It's one of the few times when Kirk was at a loss for words.

Tragically the only person who took it to heart was Billy. I wish the morphine would have fully kicked in about the time Kirk was cheering him on, but of course, then the virtual battle would have been lost and hundreds more would have died (or deleted by the program). All in all, I think the episode set out to do what it intended and succeeded at it.

Unfortunately with it being a hallucination, I felt nothing for the lose of Billy. He didn't really exist and we as an audience get enough sense of him as a person to care. Nor do we get see that Billy's death really affected Kirk, like how the 20 minute life Picard had affected him.

Exactly, Kirk has no "Ressikan Flute" to tie the dream to his reality. The moment Picard put that flute to his lips at the end of "The Inner Light" we had concrete evidence that Kamin's life was real to him. It connected the inner and outer stories in a way that "Divided We Stand" couldn't manage.

 

[Zaminhon]

Kirk doesn't have a Ressikan flute but he does have the experience of having his leg sawed off, which I believe was very real and traumatic to him at the time. I'm not sure if that can be easily forgotten. I guess Kirk could have actually lost his leg from gangrene, since it apparently was dying at one point, and then he would have something more in common with Drake than just a memory of it. But of course that can't happen since they're trying to stay consistent with canon.

eta:

They might have made a stronger case to tie it together at the end. Kirk was rubbing his leg at one point, but perhaps showing him walking on the bridge with futuristic crutches and a special cast that regenerates dead tissue might have made a stronger point.

 

[DCR]

Kirk doesn't have a Ressikan flute but he does have the experience of having his leg sawed off, which I believe was very real and traumatic to him at the time. I'm not sure if that can be easily forgotten. I guess Kirk could have actually lost his leg from gangrene, since it apparently was dying at one point, and then he would have something more in common with Drake than just a memory of it. But of course that can't happen since they're trying to stay consistent with canon.

Unfortunately, you can't show a memory on screen. Once they get out of the hallucination they don't do anything on screen to really show how the experience affected him. To connect the dots they really should have shown Kirk interacting with something relevant to the hallucination after they got back. It would have helped tie the piece together.

 

[Karzak]

Kirk doesn't have a Ressikan flute but he does have the experience of having his leg sawed off, which I believe was very real and traumatic to him at the time.

I'm not sure if that can be easily forgotten. I guess Kirk could have actually lost his leg from gangrene, since it apparently was dying at one point, and then he would have something more in common with Drake than just a memory of it. But of course that can't happen since they're trying to stay consistent with canon.

eta:

They might have made a stronger case to tie it together at the end. Kirk was rubbing his leg at one point, but perhaps showing him walking on the bridge with futuristic crutches and a special cast that regenerates dead tissue, might have made a stronger point.

And yet, none of that was done. Nor was any of it really explored. It's a trivial plot point in this episode, which gets ignored after Mbenga's astonished "His leg is dying!" (and, even more astonishingly, Mbenga's inaction to even try to stop the leg from dying.)

...only to be followed by pithy jokes at the end of the episode about prosthetics in the presence of the one person on the ship who uses one (and, not unimportantly, the use of which the entire dilemma was eventually resolved.)

It was the shitty, poor taste tomfoolery of "Scotty, I've got a little surprise for you!" at the end of "Plato's Stepchildren" all over again.

Also, none of this eliminates the stupidity of Kirk's fear of losing his leg to begin with. Even if the Civil War dream stuff was really happening (again, its all super vague.) Clearly Drake uses a prosthetic arm and can still function just as well in Starfleet with it; clearly the technology exists in the 23rd century or at least acessibly to Starfleet officers to have prosthetic limbs that allow people to function as normally as possible.

Lazy, lackluster writing. Utterly failing to take into consideration the implications of the very ideas it is trying to present.