STC Ep. 8: ???....
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
So if I get the gist of it, Mignona and company have completed their principal photography for their remaining 4 episodes already. So barring a few more months slotted for reshoots and add-ons, looks like that's it for them then. And with the Farragut people having split off from the Georgia facility (and THEIR final TOS-era episode is coming out soon), does that mean that that's IT for their soundstage, the one whose engineering set they only recently completed?
Seems like it would be an almost criminal waste if they just let all those sets, props and costumes either gather dust or rot. I'm hoping, despite Mignona having paid a substantial sum out of pocket in the beginning to get his pet project started, if he's done with Trek I'm hoping he considers donating or selling all of his assets to the Oklahoma people (the ones who refurbished the Exeter sets).
not much else to add, except a request to warped9: I dunno if it's possible still, but how about renaming this thread to ''STC general discussion thread''? There really hasn't been anything specifically pertaining to the 8th episode only, and I know you well enough that you'll do the same as for episode 7 last time and start another thread for episode 8 when it gets released, which means that we'll have two concurrent threads at that time (only a big deal because posters tended to mix both and that was a bit much). Can Warped or a mod change this one's title?
Seems like it would be an almost criminal waste if they just let all those sets, props and costumes either gather dust or rot. I'm hoping, despite Mignona having paid a substantial sum out of pocket in the beginning to get his pet project started, if he's done with Trek I'm hoping he considers donating or selling all of his assets to the Oklahoma people (the ones who refurbished the Exeter sets).
not much else to add, except a request to warped9: I dunno if it's possible still, but how about renaming this thread to ''STC general discussion thread''? There really hasn't been anything specifically pertaining to the 8th episode only, and I know you well enough that you'll do the same as for episode 7 last time and start another thread for episode 8 when it gets released, which means that we'll have two concurrent threads at that time (only a big deal because posters tended to mix both and that was a bit much). Can Warped or a mod change this one's title?
Yes that would be a shame but hopefully the bridge set and maybe the transporter set will survive. Vic Mignogna and Co. supposedly paid 50K (reportedly discussed much earlier for the bridge) and that was before they put major effort into it and built added sections. Under today's "guidelines" I find it hard to believe some other fan production has a large enough building or the funds to move the sets. If they are to be torn down I don't envy that crew. That would be hard for any fan to do.
It's not impossible, I suppose, that Kingsland could become Ticonderoga South?
I don't think I can change the title although a mod might be able to. Even so we could just start a new thread. Besides which Ep. 8 has a title I believe: Still Treads The Shadow. Given that this thread could still discuss that episode as more news of it comes out.
Later we could start a rating and discussion thread when Ep. 8 is released.
Not really a response, warped, but that's ok...
As all longtime contributors to these threads know, I've been progressively disappointed with STC's episodes since their second one (and before people's heads explode, it is for their content, story choices and approach and NOT for their art direction.
I'm really, really, really hoping that for their final 3 episodes Mignona and crew turn this around and finally come up with a story even close to the standards of Gene Coon and company, and that they veer away from the soap opera topics that have crept up.
Please no more ''Captain Kirk's love life'' and ''Mary Sue got indicted'', and please return to the hard-edged super-liberal topics that used to be a staple of Gene Roddenberry's little ship that could...That should be a snap considering that there is just as much social upheaval now as there was in the late 60s (if they need a hint, how about massive income inequality the likes of which hasn't been seen since the days of the French Revolution, the intentional dumbing down of the population while incessant global geopolitical conflicts run rampant, tribalism being stoked to a furor....I can go on but I'm sure everybody can come up with their own...
I'm really hoping STC's upcoming episode at least tries to reach beyond easy topics...
As all longtime contributors to these threads know, I've been progressively disappointed with STC's episodes since their second one (and before people's heads explode, it is for their content, story choices and approach and NOT for their art direction.
I'm really, really, really hoping that for their final 3 episodes Mignona and crew turn this around and finally come up with a story even close to the standards of Gene Coon and company, and that they veer away from the soap opera topics that have crept up.
Please no more ''Captain Kirk's love life'' and ''Mary Sue got indicted'', and please return to the hard-edged super-liberal topics that used to be a staple of Gene Roddenberry's little ship that could...That should be a snap considering that there is just as much social upheaval now as there was in the late 60s (if they need a hint, how about massive income inequality the likes of which hasn't been seen since the days of the French Revolution, the intentional dumbing down of the population while incessant global geopolitical conflicts run rampant, tribalism being stoked to a furor....I can go on but I'm sure everybody can come up with their own...
I'm really hoping STC's upcoming episode at least tries to reach beyond easy topics...
I'm not saying to write as edgy as Deep Space 9's Past Tense (I loved it, but now consider it about 60% edgy), but damn it, at least try
I wish they would pick up that story with the water people that NV was planning to do some years back. That would be cool. 
As far as meaningful and potentially controversial social commentary goes, I remember back in that discussion about the new fan film guidelines, somebody said that fan films should basically avoid it altogether so as not to rock the boat.
Kor
As far as meaningful and potentially controversial social commentary goes, I remember back in that discussion about the new fan film guidelines, somebody said that fan films should basically avoid it altogether so as not to rock the boat.
Kor
Last edited:
As far as meaningful and potentially controversial social commentary goes, I remember back in that discussion about the new fan film guidelines, somebody said that fan films should basically avoid it altogether so as not to rock the boat.
Whoever said that has no bloody idea what star Trek was really about...
I wish they would pick up that story with the water people that NV was planning to do some years back. That would be cool.
Are you thinking about "The Atlantis Invaders"? Because that wasn't NV. That was STARSHIP EXETER, and @Maurice was the screenwriter on that one, based on Jim Johnson's story.
See:
http://www.republibot.com/content/interview-scott-cummins-talks-about-his-work-starship-exeter-fan-film-“-tressaurian-intersec
Oops, my mistake. Yes, that's the one.
I agree! My thought was that fan films could still be meaningful even while adhering to the letter of the guidelines, by being bold and doing pointed commentary on provocative social issues that contemporary official Trek hasn't dealt with. The response was "go make your own universe" instead of using Trek for that.
Kor
Last edited:
I don't recall that. The guidelines (not rules) refer to inappropriate materiel. They don't spell it out, but it appears to suggest things along the lines of graphic sex or graphic violence. If you stick to what could have been originally in TOS or TNG then I don't see where the problem coukd be.I wish they would pick up that story with the water people that NV was planning to do some years back. That would be cool.
As far as meaningful and potentially controversial social commentary goes, I remember back in that discussion about the new fan film guidelines, somebody said that fan films should basically avoid it altogether so as not to rock the boat.
Kor
It wasn't one of the guidelines, it was just an opinion of a poster here... stay away from anything potentially controversial so as to avoid possibly upsetting TPTB.
Kor
Certain topical subject matter could certainly be controversial. I still wish Trek fan films would face such things head on. It's definitely possible to do so within the framework of a family-friendly production.
Kor
My two cents:
I think that they should include some sort of thematic exploration and/or social commentary, but something fairly universal. Something neither inherently "left-wing" nor "right-wing". Or perhaps a morally ambiguous exploration of two opposing points of view that shows them both as being imperfect.
My "dream theme" for a Star Trek Continues plot would be a storyline about political misunderstandings. It is my view that the vast majority of people want "what's best" for their country and/or the world at large, including freedom, equality, prosperity, etc. Their differences lie in how they define each of these concepts. One person might view equal opportunity as true equality, while another might define equality as guaranteed equal outcome. One might view freedom from government overreach as true freedom, while another might view government-guaranteed freedom from private overreach as the true definition of freedom, and a third person might have a middle-ground hybrid of both of these views (and that's not even getting into the matter of how overreach - whether from the government, the private sector, or elsewhere - is defined differently by different people). Almost everyone can agree, for instance, that lowering the poverty rate is a good thing. It's when you ask them (for example) whether more or less government spending is the way to achieve this that you will see differences in point of view.
In short, very few people mean to intentionally support anything tyrannical, bigoted, or in any way negative. That's not to say that all sides are equally right - someone has to be at least partially wrong. And some policies are harmful, no matter what the intentions of those who support them are. Sometimes everyone is wrong. But most people have good intentions, whether the path paved by them leads to (metaphorically speaking) Heaven or Hell. They just have such strikingly different views on what is good and what is bad that they wind up opposing each other, and (this is the most crucial part) by giving in to consequentialist thinking, begin to incorrectly assume that if someone supports a policy that (in their point of view) is harmful, that person must, therefore, be evil and/or intentionally supporting something bad.
Political opposition is, in and of itself, unavoidable. What is unnecessary and harmful, however, is demonization and straw-man building. Believing that the other side is evil may make political warfare easier, but it makes it harder to develop an understanding of what makes each other tick, find common ground, and explore those ideological differences that remain in a calm and sensible manner (which is what should ideally happen in a civil society).
This demonization and straw-man building is exacerbated by many opportunistic politicians (on almost every given quadrant of the political spectrum) who manipulate both the best (compassion, philanthropy, loyalty) and worst (fear, prejudice) elements of human nature to make those within their influence believe that everyone on the other side (or sides) is a big bad meanie that wants to get rid of everything good. This promotes a "us vs them" mentality that is useful to those particular politicians who treat the political landscape as a chessboard with "winners" and "losers", but harmful to the population at large, who (at heart) just want to make society's problems go away (or at least lessen in severity), but have differing ideas on how to go about fixing society's problems (and to a partial degree, just what society's current problems are).
I think that this matter would make excellent material for a Star Trek Continues episode. It is not only relevant today, but was already relevant in the 1960s when the original Star Trek was made, and even long before that. (George Washington even explored it in some detail in his farewell address - and that was back in 1796). And best of all, it is universal and non-partisan.
I think that they should include some sort of thematic exploration and/or social commentary, but something fairly universal. Something neither inherently "left-wing" nor "right-wing". Or perhaps a morally ambiguous exploration of two opposing points of view that shows them both as being imperfect.
My "dream theme" for a Star Trek Continues plot would be a storyline about political misunderstandings. It is my view that the vast majority of people want "what's best" for their country and/or the world at large, including freedom, equality, prosperity, etc. Their differences lie in how they define each of these concepts. One person might view equal opportunity as true equality, while another might define equality as guaranteed equal outcome. One might view freedom from government overreach as true freedom, while another might view government-guaranteed freedom from private overreach as the true definition of freedom, and a third person might have a middle-ground hybrid of both of these views (and that's not even getting into the matter of how overreach - whether from the government, the private sector, or elsewhere - is defined differently by different people). Almost everyone can agree, for instance, that lowering the poverty rate is a good thing. It's when you ask them (for example) whether more or less government spending is the way to achieve this that you will see differences in point of view.
In short, very few people mean to intentionally support anything tyrannical, bigoted, or in any way negative. That's not to say that all sides are equally right - someone has to be at least partially wrong. And some policies are harmful, no matter what the intentions of those who support them are. Sometimes everyone is wrong. But most people have good intentions, whether the path paved by them leads to (metaphorically speaking) Heaven or Hell. They just have such strikingly different views on what is good and what is bad that they wind up opposing each other, and (this is the most crucial part) by giving in to consequentialist thinking, begin to incorrectly assume that if someone supports a policy that (in their point of view) is harmful, that person must, therefore, be evil and/or intentionally supporting something bad.
Political opposition is, in and of itself, unavoidable. What is unnecessary and harmful, however, is demonization and straw-man building. Believing that the other side is evil may make political warfare easier, but it makes it harder to develop an understanding of what makes each other tick, find common ground, and explore those ideological differences that remain in a calm and sensible manner (which is what should ideally happen in a civil society).
This demonization and straw-man building is exacerbated by many opportunistic politicians (on almost every given quadrant of the political spectrum) who manipulate both the best (compassion, philanthropy, loyalty) and worst (fear, prejudice) elements of human nature to make those within their influence believe that everyone on the other side (or sides) is a big bad meanie that wants to get rid of everything good. This promotes a "us vs them" mentality that is useful to those particular politicians who treat the political landscape as a chessboard with "winners" and "losers", but harmful to the population at large, who (at heart) just want to make society's problems go away (or at least lessen in severity), but have differing ideas on how to go about fixing society's problems (and to a partial degree, just what society's current problems are).
I think that this matter would make excellent material for a Star Trek Continues episode. It is not only relevant today, but was already relevant in the 1960s when the original Star Trek was made, and even long before that. (George Washington even explored it in some detail in his farewell address - and that was back in 1796). And best of all, it is universal and non-partisan.
This was already addressed in a wonderful metaphorical way in "The Devil in the Dark." The humans and the Horta each thought the other was a murdering monster, until Spock and the Horta had a meeting of minds and gained a mutual understanding. It turned out both sides were only trying to protect their people, and the humans realized they were the "devil" who had been "in the dark" about the eggs they were destroying. Such a perfect Star Trek way of saying this that I doubt it could be improved on.
