Someone who's recently been told they have to stop using the word "fuck" like it's a comma. True story.
BSG (1978) used the word ‘frack’, whereas the re-imagined series used the four letter word ‘frak’. In Galactica 1980 they also used other expletives such as ‘felgercarb’
The effing doesn't really bother me, I tend to think of it as a nod to Polaris Fifties SF styling, insofar as keeping it PG. But, I agree it can come off as a little hokey and clumsy to some.
Well, the intent in the context of the whole scene was comic, having to do with the character being unaccustomed to cursing (rather like Kirk's "double dumb-ass on you") but awkwardly trying to project menace. The original line, which is shortened for a different effect in the trailer, is "I'll blow your f--ing head off...sir." We may lose the fucking "f-ing."
I recall you saying that. I was just sharing my take on it, so I probably should have made that clearer. I think it's fine as is, though I can see why people would roll their eyes at it. Ultimately it's your call.
Your take's as valid as mine, Nick - the point at which a writer shows their work is the point at which the writer's interpretation ceases to be authoritative.
The restraint to go with "f'ing" creates the attempt to retain some semblance of humanity in a place so far from home.
I wrote the following on Facebook re trailer, for those who might be interested in why the trailer is cut the way it is: Well, in short the idea was to give this thing a distinct identity from all the fanfilm type scifi trailers with their emphasis on action and pew pew pew, even when the stories aren't. As such, I decided to create a tiny narrative which sets up the problem (lost at the edge of nowhere) and the dangers (some mysterious thing that endangers the crew) and the antagonist, but leave exactly what this danger is vague because why spoil anything. As such the trailer is more mystery than action. I knew which line was going to be the "button" right from the get-go, because it's a good line and hopefully leaves people intrigued. I stuck mostly to MCUs and CUs and went to wider shots to establish location or to add visual context to a line. Sometimes it’s to show there’s some scope to the film (not people on a greenscreen who can barely move around or limited to a few cramped sets). As to the shot choice, naturally, this wasn’t SHOT as a trailer, it was shot as a film, so the context of the scene dictated the coverage and how it was shot. So, sure, one could say looking at the trailer “that should be a closeup”, but in the film proper it may be a medium-wide single for the dramatic purposes of the scene ergo there IS no closeup for use in the trailer, etc. Context is everything, after all.
I'm really quite anxious to see this finished. As ever, the finished film won't be perfect but I'm confident it'll be entertaining and people will enjoy it. It's a fun story, and I love the all the classic imagery. Like Dennis, I grew up watching all those fifties SF movies like Robinson Crusoe on Mars, or Forbidden Planet, (not to mention reading classic SF like Bradbury and Asimov) I have a real fondness for such things. I love all those old classic novel covers and this movie feels like the embodiment of a lot of that imagery to me. Hopefully others will feel similarly.
We'll be concentrating on that more in the next month now that the trailer's out. A completely hypothetical question devoid of any useful context - what do you guess we might reasonably be able to achieve via crowd funding based on this presentation?
I'd say you should be able to raise $20,000-$30,000. I think it looks good. Mention your writing experiences on TNG and your work on Starship Exeter.