First off, I want to acknowledge the technical artistry and effort that went into this as the designs, uniforms, and effects are very well done. That said, I want to like it but I just don't. It feels less like classic trek and more like a prequel to Discovery due to the tone and asthetics. If that's your thing then I'm happy for my fellow fans (no sarcasm) who have been waiting for it for a long time. I honestly think I'd have enjoyed it more if it was its own thing and not specifically a trek fan film.
Pretty much sums up my views. I still love the aesthetic as it feels very much in line with Enterprise and the time period. Yeah, probably.
The script for that second half was a mess, and the impressive VFX don’t make up for that one bit. What a letdown.
I tried to watch part II last night. The framing device kills the story’s momentum. Also the story is snooze-inducing. So I didn’t finish it. Pretty ships. Nice set. Bland characters whose actions don’t make sense.
Okay, so Part 1, at 8:20, she says "We can match the harmonics and pull out," to which he replies, "We tried that. Warp drive accelerates the planet's breakup," so she advises the captain to attempt escape using impulse drive. My question: Seeing as the planet's going to break up anyway, why not use warp drive to get out????? Am I missing something? What??
Ditto. I had hoped it would be much better. Lots of time and effort into making a completely unique look and vibe. Ship, props, VFX all looking good but the story wasn't ready yet.........I still enjoyed it and I commend the cast and crew. They did not steal any money and they actually produced something!
Ugh. That was worse than Part I. Years of waiting and that was it? There's no story here. It's not about anything. There's no clear rationale for why the characters make the choices they make, no character propelling the story. There's all this mystery and suspicion about their mission that really goes nowhere and doesn't add up to a hill of quadrotriticale. Spoiler: Scenarios described aren't thought through. For instance, they talk about extending life support "by an extra shift or so" by evacuating 70 members of the crew in shuttles, which is rejected because "nobody stands a good chance in this anomaly, much less separated". Okay, but they never consider just putting 70 people in the shuttles for as long as feasible without launching them, thus extending the ship's life support by that extra shift as they try to get the ship working. <facepalm> Oh and there's suddenly a mutiny plot which immediately plays out and apparently kills the Captain, who went on his own for reasons we never get. There's no dramatic build anywhere. The shooting isn't even that good. Really basic 101 camera blocking and boring undynamic framing. Hell, the entire ready room scene "crosses the line" so there's not a single matched look to be found. Utter amateur hour in the simplest possible setup imaginable...two seated people talking. Spoiler: The main character. She doesn't do anything but argue with a mouthy, inconsistent interrogator, and when she's finally forced to make a decision, another ship shows up to relieve her of it, so we never ever get to hear exactly who she decided to try to save and how she selected them. Spoiler: And the ending? Ooh, we found some information about a lost civilization, so that was totes worth getting 49 people killed on our side and blowing up a ship that was trying to help us at the cost of who knows how many lives and possible war. That's it? Nice enough VFX demo reel. Bad as a film.
Back when Part 1 came out I wrote that I didn't want to come across as too negative, and added that it's in many ways a handsome production, and gave them kudos for that. I then lamented that I wished the scripts for these things were a little tighter and better focused. Sadly, this script was a big fat zero, even worse in the 2nd half than in the first. I think too many wannabe fillmakers fool themselves into thinking screenwriting is easier than it is, so again and again the results are tepid and utterly lacking in drama and tension. If he does another film I hope he can find a writer who can actually devise a compelling script.
I really liked it. I agree that the characters were extremely shallow and I really wonder what the original Starfleet Intelligence plan was exactly, but it wasn’t the dumbest script ever, imho, acting was mostly ok and the visuals, both space scenes and the internals, were really good.
Sadly, yes, I really have to agree. So much of Part 2 just happens. And that's it, unfortunately. The only "character" is the Starfleet Intelligence officer who appears hostile for the sake of being hostile. I think it has a great aesthetic and set up but there needs to be more to the story. The captain of the other ship was more interesting to me.
Anyone has any clue on what the military mission was? They were supposedly sent to capture the romulan ship, but how were they to do it?
Indeed, but manpower is often limited in these sort of productions. At least having an “actors’ director” calling the shots can help.
Exactly. Yeah. There are ways to do this, even on amateur productions. I'm a big fan of running the day's pages with the actors at the start of the shooting day, before we hit the set, because then I can "pre-direct" them by hearing their first take on the performances, give them any notes I have, and then they can digest that while they prep scenes for the rest of the day rather than me doing "running" direction on each scene as we go. Yes, it takes time at the start of the day, but you more than make up for it when the cameras are rolling because you tend to need fewer takes and you usually get better results. I really wanted this to be done on Polaris but I wasn't directing that. One way to work with inexperienced actors is for the director to walk through the scene with them and give them the subtext of what's going on, i.e. "your character is saying X but she's actually thinking Y," and to tell the actors what the scene is actually about in the bigger narrative, i.e., "this scene is about where the acting captain's is starting to lose her nerve but putting a brave face on," or what have you. As an actor friend of mine related to me from his training, people tend to hide their true emotions, so a sad person will put on a brave face, or an angry person will bite their lip and try to play pleasant, so it's often a good idea for beginning actors to consider playing an opposite emotion and let the actual emotion peek through the cracks because it will often bring the dialog to life more than if they just played the obvious. I also advise strongly against having actors try to do accents. My experience with less experienced actors is that they're generally not capable of juggling two balls at once, and the effort to do the accent ends up further limiting their emotional performance and tends to make their characters sound mush-mouthed.
IIRC, for Intrepid didn't you write the characters to suit the strengths of everyone you knew in order to get the best possible performances?
I would never want to be in front of the camera myself—but I love the craft. I seem to remember an episode of Mythbuster where Jamie actually seemed spooked when a director/guest was trying to bring something out of him. It is very intimate..feminine. Not everyone is up for that. It takes a high emotional IQ. Me? I tear up when I hear a beautiful conversation, so I’d be no help Now if you have someone in authority who is trying to drive a point home to a group, is it best to have said character dart his eyes back and forth—so as to drive a point home—-does that look shifty or mansplaining, or professorial? That might even depend on casting. BTW, take a look at https://microclimate.com for helmets...
I dunno what you're trying to get at re "intimate" or "feminine" (I disagree with the latter characterization). And Jaime on Mythbusters wasn't there to be anybody but Jaime. He's not trying to play Captain Jaime of the U.S.S. Mythbust. Darting eyes do not convey gravitas. They generally make you look uneasy or jumpy or—as you say—shifty.