Revisiting Star Trek Continues...

[CmdrJoe]

I love Continues, especially the way it perfectly bridges TOS with TMP. I see it as the best fan-made production out there, not the Vic Mignogna show. That said, Vic's portrayal of Kirk was quite good. Todd Haberkorn as Spock was outstanding. And Chris Doohan playing the part his dad made famous is icing on the cake (I love Scotty! And cake. Cheesecake, specifically.)

 

[Bixby]

Falling behind on my re-watch, I'll deal with Lolani later this week, Warped.

You can feel the compulsive fanboying happening in this episode by the needless linking of the Tantalus field weapon with the Tantalus 5 penal colony from Dagger in the Mind.

My biggest gripe with this episode is that despite an interesting premise, following up Mirror Mirror with a sequel seen from the other side, the showmakers just didn't seem to understand the characters. In Mirror Mirror, the alt-universe characters are supposed to be uncontrollable and wild "animals", near-psychotics. The way the actors portray them in Fairest of them all is far from the original portrayal. For example, early on when Kirk refers to Kipleigh Brown as Jones and she mumbles "the name is Smith, sir" might have seemed to the cast as a fun callback to Smith's only original series appearance, but the Mirror Mirror version of Kirk would have savaged her for even this small reply.

The same for Marlena Moreau: in Mirror Mirror Barbara Luna played her as confident, icy and calculating, but all of a sudden in Fairest of Them All, she's constantly nervous, twitchy and submissive. Actress Asia Demarcos looks very similar to Barbera Luna apart from the height difference, but she wasn't playing her the same way. This was not just limited to the women, many of the male actors just weren't displaying the needed amount of viciousness.

One of the perplexing things in OG Trek was how its corridors were often shown as either filled with crewmen racing through, or other times when they would be completely empty (just how many people would be walking by with a crew complement of 400 inside a gargantuan ship?)

That same problem happens in Fairest, which to the STC crew's credit they were ambitious in the many locations across the ship during this episode, with film extras in uniform walking through or standing while listening to the Captain's intercom message...There probably was about 15 to 20 extras during this episode alone...However, this just emphasized how ridiculous it looked in their bridge scenes with a maximum of 3 crewmen handling this most vital command center during a battle scene. On the one hand, they needed to keep the bridge crew down to bare numbers during the 3rd act's mutiny scene, or else there would have been many casualties during this power grab...but it made no sense to have so few people there during a space battle.

Same thing during the resolution: only enough Empire loyalists to fill one tiny shuttlecraft went with Kirk? I know many of them would have been cheesed off at him for his dismissive speech, but it's odd to think that they would have been so easily swayed to Spock's side...

i guess by this point the STC gang hadn't yet decided what producer Steven Dengler's character was going to be in the series going further (he only appeared at the very end in the shuttlecraft bay)

Anyway, this episode was pretty well executed, despite some glaring logic holes. I could have done without the reusing of a lot of Mirror Mirror's sick bay battle against Spock in the briefing room dustup between Spock and Kirk, but what can you do...

 

[Kor]

Instead of a 1980s pop psychology type of therapist as a regular character, I think there should have been occasional appearances from a psychiatrist with a doctorate similar to Elizabeth Dehner in TOS or Sidney Freedman in M*A*S*H.

Starfleet as depicted in the 1960s was still somewhat more along the lines of real-world armed forces of the time, with the worldbuilding taking some cues from producers' and writers' experiences in the navy or other branches of the service.

Kor

 

[Warped9]

Instead of a 1980s pop psychology type of therapist as a regular character, I think there should have been occasional appearances from a psychiatrist with a doctorate similar to Elizabeth Dehner in TOS or Sidney Freedman in M*A*S*H.

Starfleet as depicted in the 1960s was still somewhat more along the lines of real-world armed forces of the time, with the worldbuilding taking some cues from producers' and writers' experiences in the navy or other branches of the service.

Kor

Yes, agreed. If they had done this with McKenna it would have worked better, but as is every time she appeared we’re reminded of them injecting TNG era ideas into TOS.

 

[Richard Baker]

One thing Doug Drexler did differently with the ship shots was instead of having a large ship being filmed by a virtual camera like a full scale setup, he scaled the Enterprise to the size of the original miniature and then created a virtual lens which duplicated the one used in the original sfx shots.
When planning the camera moved he tried to keep within the bounds of how they filmed things in the sixties instead of getting overly dynamic

I think this approach really contributed to giving this series the same feel of TOS, even more so than the official remastered editions

 

[Warped9]

One thing Doug Drexler did differently with the ship shots was instead of having a large ship being filmed by a virtual camera like a full scale setup, he scaled the Enterprise to the size of the original miniature and then created a virtual lens which duplicated the one used in the original sfx shots.
When planning the camera moved he tried to keep within the bounds of how they filmed things in the sixties instead of getting overly dynamic

I think this approach really contributed to giving this series the same feel of TOS, even more so than the official remastered editions

Yeah, I remember him talking about that. He also advised on how the ship should flyby in the opening credits, noting the Enterprise should sorta “slide” out of the distance rather than come right at you.

 

[Warped9]

"The White Iris" - 2/5

Stardate: Unknown - While on a diplomatic mission Kirk is seriously injured. He recovers, but soon finds himself haunted by apparitions from the past.

Okay, I foresee a lot of disagreement on this one. It's a story designed to pull on the emotions, but I'm calling it as I see it.

There is zero chance TOS would have ever done a story like this particularly about Kirk. This story is pure indulgence, pure fanfic to tell a TNG like story set within TOS. They're treating Kirk like Picard. Indeed with the fan service callouts to later productions and using TNG style technobabble as well as everyday jargon more common to decades long after TOS had ceased production this doesn't feel at all like a TOS story. People in the 1960s didn't use phrases like "needing closure."

Also a BIG logic flaw in this story is Kirk's supposed regret and guilt over losing a possible girlfriend aboard the Farragut. Excuse me, but we clearly understood Kirk's regrets over the Farragut in "Obsession" and by the end of that episode he had come to terms with it. No need to bring yet another old flame into the mix. So I call bullshit on this element of this story.

I also feel the writing is really off here as the characters don't seem like themselves and I mean that beyond the fact they're being played by different actors.

I don't have a lot to say about this episode because, while decently performed, I find it so disappointing. It doesn't feel like a TOS story. It feels like a TNG story but with the TOS characters. It doesn't feel or sound like something that could have been written in 1969. This is a contemporary mindset that says Kirk is broken and needs to be fixed. That isn't a mindset a writer for TOS in 1969 would have had. TOS would never have revisited three previous and disparate storylines like this story tries to do. Furthermore can you imagine them trying to get Joan Collins (Edith Keeler), Louise Sorel (Rayna) and Sabrina Scharf (Miramanee) back all at the same time for the same story? It never would have happened.

This doesn't feel remotely like it's 1969 again. After three reasonable previous outings STC falls on its face with this one.

The performances make it somewhat tolerable, but this comes across much more like a mediocre story published by Pocket Books.

 

[Maurice]

I have a lot of respect for many of the fan series were able to accomplish, even as I was sometimes critical of their script and story choices.

Although I was approached to direct on at least one major fan production post-Exeter, I never had any interest in doing so because I generally didn't like the approaches these shows took. NV, Farragut, Continues, et al, brought in influences from later works, some of those being bad habits scriptwise.

Continues always felt it was playing with one toe in the TNG era and did too many callbacks and call forwards for my taste (though nowhere near as much as NV), starting in its first episode with a holodeck and making an overt reference to Have Gun Will Travel for no narrative reason.

My preference was to do TOS as TOS. The rule on Exeter was to make it like it was contemporary to the original, with no foreknowledge of what was to come after 1970 (Startfleet Battles aside). Overt callbacks were minimal (the worst being connecting our "Quince" Garrovick to the TOS Garrovicks) and I think the only overt call-forward to later official Trek was Chang in "The Savage Empire," which many of us thought was a mistake, and something not repeated on "The Tressaurian Intersection" nor in my unfilmed "Atlantis Invaders" script.

So, I have nothing but respect for those other shows. They're just not the playgrounds I was interested in playing in or visiting much.

 

[Warped9]

I have a lot of respect for many of the fan series were able to accomplish, even as I was sometimes critical of their script and story choices.

It takes a lot of enthusiasm, dedication and effort to do this regardless of outcome, but particularly when striving for a degree of professionalism.

...I generally didn't like the approaches these shows took. NV, Farragut, Continues, et al, brought in influences from later works, some of those being bad habits scriptwise.

Continues always felt it was playing with one toe in the TNG era and did too many callbacks and call forwards for my taste (though nowhere near as much as NV), starting in its first episode with a holodeck and making an overt reference to Have Gun Will Travel for no narrative reason.

For me these things really undermine any sense of "authenticity" in trying to make it feel like something that TOS could have done back in the day. You are constantly yanked out of the suspension of disbelief by being reminded of something that couldn't possibly have been there originally. Many fans cannot resist the urge to indulge in fan service and display their knowledge of Trek lore. And they desperately want their production to be tied into official Trek in some way or other. But the fan service always undermines the effort.

I can forgive the holodeck (or holographic rec room) in the sense the concept was born during TOS' production, but they never had the opportunity to actually realize it. So this is a nod to something TOS could have done given a bit more time and money and given the chance. However, it needs to be acknowledged that if the TOS Enterprise had had a convincing holographic record room it would have undermined the crew's amazement with convincing illusions they encountered elsewhere.

The Have Gun--Will Travel tie-in is an indulgent nod to Doug Drexler who is a big HGWT fan (with his own outfit) and the fact Roddenberry wrote a lot of episodes for HGWT years before he developed Star Trek. Many viewers might not even get the tip-of-the-hat unless it's explained to them.

My preference was to do TOS as TOS. The rule on Exeter was to make it like it was contemporary to the original, with no foreknowledge of what was to come after 1970...

And this is the approach I think works best if you're striving for authenticity. In more than one interview Vic Mignogna made a point of saying he wanted viewers to feel like they were watching something from 1969. You could make certain allowances for slipping in some things that could have been done back in the day, but weren't due to limit of time and money. But, as we've agreed above, the constant fan service, whether little or large, immediately undermines the intent and suspension of disbelief.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Probably my favorite STC episode is "Fairest of Them All."

It's a very good episode, but it's not above criticism.

Spock seemed to gain his allies far too easily. Besides Marlena, for whom a convincing answer was already implied in the original episode, I needed believable answers for why the Mirror Universe counterparts who chose to follow Spock made that choice, and none were given.

The plot critically hinges on Scotty's loyalty to Spock, when Spock is at Scott's mercy in the dampening field. Not treating the question of why Scotty doesn't betray Spock to Kirk is a glaring weakness in the story.

Similarly, the Chekov we saw in "Mirror, Mirror" would more likely have been plotting to betray Spock to the Emperor at his earliest opportunity than going all-in with Spock's rebellion. That there was no indication that Chekov might perhaps be biding his time for such an opportunity was another weakness of the episode.

Ultimately, the secondary characters have no depth. Without depth of characters, the episode is reduced to a pro forma playing out of what was already suggested in the original episode, and, as such, superfluous.

But it was extremely well executed and in many ways an all but perfectly convincing facsimile of a TOS episode. Kudos.

 

[Warped9]

I, too, felt the mutiny went a little too easily.

In “Mirror, Mirror” we had practically no insight into the secondary characters of Scotty and Uhura from the Mirror universe. I agree Chekov would most likely side with Spock initially then turn on him at the first opportunity.

Mirror Spock had said originally the Mirror McCoy was somewhat softer and “sentimental” than what might be considered normal at least compared to Kirk. At that point Spock did not yet know that he was dealing with counterparts from another universe. So we could reasonably assume that Mirror McCoy wasn’t as conventionally barbaric as the rest. If so then we might be inclined to assume Mirror McCoy would be more inclined to side with Spock’s mutiny. But this is based solely on Spock’s remark in the original episode because we never spent any time with the actual Mirror McCoy.

Mirror Uhura and Scotty are complete blanks. We have no clue whatsoever which way they might lean. So the fact that Mirror Spock sways them easily enough indicates he already knew which way they would most likely go.

I felt this episode could have perhaps another five to ten minutes of story to flesh it out better. Everything happened rather quickly to be believed. I think Mirror Kirk could have been more nuanced. I think it’s safe to assume many amongst the ship’s crew sided with the prevailing side at the time, but couldn’t really be trusted if given a chance to betray Mirror Spock if they felt they had something to gain personally.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I, too, felt the mutiny went a little too easily.

In “Mirror, Mirror” we had practically no insight into the secondary characters of Scotty and Uhura from the Mirror universe. I agree Chekov would most likely side with Spock initially then turn on him at the first opportunity.

Mirror Spock had said originally the McCoy was somewhat softer and “sentimental” than what might be considered normal at least compared to Kirk. At that point Spock did not yet know that he was dealing with counterparts from another universe. So we could reasonably assume that Mirror McCoy wasn’t as conventionally barbaric as the rest. If so then we might be inclined to assume Mirror McCoy would be more inclined to side with Spock’s mutiny. But this is based solely on Spock’s remark in the original episode because we never spent any time with the actual Mirror McCoy.

Mirror Scotty and Scotty are complete blanks. We have no clue whatsoever which way they might lean. So the fact that Mirror Spock sways them easily enough indicates he already knew which way they would most likely go.

I felt this episode could have perhaps another five to ten minutes of story to flesh it out better. Everything happened rather quickly to be believed. I think Mirror Kirk could have been more nuanced. I think it’s safe to assume many amongst the ship’s crew sided with the prevailing side at the time, but couldn’t really be trusted if given a chance to betray Mirror Spock if they felt they had something to gain personally.

Mirror Scotty was not a complete blank.

At the end of "Mirror, Mirror," Spock referred to the four transpositions he held in the brig as "brutal, savage, unprincipled, uncivilized, treacherous," a characterization based on close observation, in line with what was established by Kirk and company on the other side, that the Mirror Universe counterparts were evil versions of the regular crew. That goes for Mirror Scotty and Mirror Uhura, both, as well as the other two.

Regular Scotty had a standard template on TOS. Whenever the story demanded that there was a variation from that template, it was at least directly addressed. See, for example, "The Lights of Zetar."

This was a case when the secondary character, Mirror Scotty, went against an explicitly established norm without explanation, and the plot depended critically upon the choices of the character. Criticizing the failure to address this variation from what had been previously established, even if it meant developing the character that was a blank slate by comparison to the main characters and giving him some sort of character arc, is a valid criticism.

 

[Warped9]

One thing that is very hard to guard against is the inclusion of contemporary speech and language in what are now period pieces.

TOS is not a contemporary take on the future. It’s a 1960’s take on the future. The characters in TOS speak how people spoke in the 1960s and not how they speak today. How they used language is different from today. Language has a more casual sense to it today than sixty years ago. There is less formality and more personal familiarity today. There are also words and expressions used today that did not exist back in the day.

Filmed historical fiction must also guard against this. You can have the most lavish and historically accurate sets and costumes of a given period, but if your characters speak and behave like early 21st century denizens your audience will be jarred right out of their suspension of disbelief.

If you grew up in the 1960-70s you likely didn’t really notice the change or evolution of common speech as the years and decades passed. But decades later you watch what were then contemporary productions and now decades old and you can’t help but notice the characters don’t speak or act like they do today. In some respects it’s a subtle difference, but you can’t help but notice it.

This is something I picked up on watching STC. Beyond injecting contemporary technobabble and current scientific terms the characters don’t talk like they did in TOS. There are subtle differences in speech patterns, words and expressions used as well as even body languge that can make you feel something is off.

Look, I know this is glorified fan-fiction and not a multi-million dollar historical production, but we’re having a discussion and this is something thats noticeable. And STC certainly isn’t the only fan production doing it.

 

[Richard Baker]

I understand what you mean about the styles of expressing in a film shift with time.
I love watching the classic Dirty Harry movie series and it is a bit weird hearing how the characters speak to each other as opposed to how it is done now.

Dating was also much easier in the seventies- you could say what you wanted to without worrying about so many social triggers derailing the evening. Today it is like tap dancing in a minefield just trying to have a conversation...

 

[Daddy Todd]

you could say what you wanted to without worrying about so many social triggers derailing the evening

Yeah, how dare the chick you’re buying dinner (in order to get into her pants) object to racist, sexist and anti-LGBTQI+ slurs! What a effin’ snowflake!!

/s, because Poe’s Law is a thing.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

I think if you watch a lot of TV/movies and read a lot of books where people speak in contemporary slang to that era, it becomes less unusual than it used to be to your mind and you don't notice it as much as you might if you heard it for the first time. You get desensitized, although there are still phrases you might pick up on as something seemingly more common then than now.

 

[Richard Baker]

Ash saying "Groooovy" is good no matter when it is said...

 

[Bixby]

"The White Iris" - 2/5

Stardate: Unknown - While on a diplomatic mission Kirk is seriously injured. He recovers, but soon finds himself haunted by apparitions from the past.

Okay, I foresee a lot of disagreement on this one. It's a story designed to pull on the emotions, but I'm calling it as I see it.

There is zero chance TOS would have ever done a story like this particularly about Kirk. This story is pure indulgence, pure fanfic to tell a TNG like story set within TOS. They're treating Kirk like Picard. Indeed with the fan service callouts to later productions and using TNG style technobabble as well as everyday jargon more common to decades long after TOS had ceased production this doesn't feel at all like a TOS story. People in the 1960s didn't use phrases like "needing closure."

Also a BIG logic flaw in this story is Kirk's supposed regret and guilt over losing a possible girlfriend aboard the Farragut. Excuse me, but we clearly understood Kirk's regrets over the Farragut in "Obsession" and by the end of that episode he had come to terms with it. No need to bring yet another old flame into the mix. So I call bullshit on this element of this story.

I also feel the writing is really off here as the characters don't seem like themselves and I mean that beyond the fact they're being played by different actors.

I don't have a lot to say about this episode because, while decently performed, I find it so disappointing. It doesn't feel like a TOS story. It feels like a TNG story but with the TOS characters. It doesn't feel or sound like something that could have been written in 1969. This is a contemporary mindset that says Kirk is broken and needs to be fixed. That isn't a mindset a writer for TOS in 1969 would have had. TOS would never have revisited three previous and disparate storylines like this story tries to do. Furthermore can you imagine them trying to get Joan Collins (Edith Keeler), Louise Sorel (Rayna) and Sabrina Scharf (Miramanee) back all at the same time for the same story? It never would have happened.

This doesn't feel remotely like it's 1969 again. After three reasonable previous outings STC falls on its face with this one.

The performances make it somewhat tolerable, but this comes across much more like a mediocre story published by Pocket Books.

This one might be the episode where the costume department and set design/construction worked overtime, and should get many flowers. I am assuming also that its script was written months before active production actually began, since Mignona and others needed to cast the women and Colin Baker's role as best as possible (I don't think I am mistaken here that Mignona would save the contact addresses of actors from the many cons he would also attend, since one of the supporting players was a Yellow Ranger and a former Doctor Who)

As usual, visually the episode was as rich in colour and sumptuously-lit as all the others (kudos to Matt Bucy the dp)

If I activate my fanboy program in my head, I did enjoy revisiting instances from episodes I enjoyed in the past, like Edith Keeler on that fateful New York city street, and that passing mention of the Farragut devastation from OBSESSION. Also, since I do have one adult child but life circumstances happened that I could not have others (a deep regret), the subplot involving the little girl and Kirk's deeply buried feelings towards children really got me in the feelings...

Turning OFF my fanboy switch...I agree with what was said, the STC group decided to apply a post-TNG view of serialized storytelling and viewed Kirk's frequent-but-not-constant dalliances during OG Trek as a problem he had with relationships, rather than a function of 60s episodic television by multiple writers on the staff.

While we can say that James Bond had countless ONS, this is not a problem but rather a result of the person he needs to be as an effective government-trained assassin. During the Daniel Craig period, it was more than ridiculous to see the producers try to domesticate Bond as good "marriage material".

However if the STC people think Kirk has a problem, then so do the Fonz, Jack Tripper, and many other lead characters who kept meeting and changing partners almost every episode.

As Warped 9 mentioned, adding Nakia as a love lost from the Farragut was unnecessary, since she was not mentioned whatsoever during OBSESSION. I think they chose this character because the actress would only do the role if she could wear a Starfleet uniform (why not keep the character as an Enterprise crewman and have her die from a mission that was not part of the filmed ones...Is it heresy to even suggest an adventure not sanctioned by the Great Bird?)

That's all for now!!

 

[Cap'n Calhoun]

I think some of the same actors were involved too. Stinger acted in both, I believe.
but STC kind of became the darling of CBS All Access for a little while, since a couple of actors were invited to the Discovery premier, and the Star Trek Continues site became an affiliate for the streaming service. Then news about Mignogna broke and and that was over.

For what it's worth @FredH, New Voyages got some of the treatment @XCV330 is describing when the 2009 movie came out. James Cawley (Kirk) and Jeffrey Quinn (Spock) both had cameos in that film.

Vic Migogna also worked on New Voyages/Phase II: He guest-starred in "Enemy: Starfleet", "Kitumba", and the "lost" episode "Origins: The Protracted Man"; he also directed "Kitumba".

I rewatched both series in January/February of this year.

New Voyages/Phase II was sometimes good but often hard to watch. I had a lot of respect for it when it came out, but it hasn't aged well, and even making allowances for it being a fan series, many of the scripts are very uneven. Lots of cliched dialogue and random fan service; it also tended to tie into existing continuity in ways that were very forced and didn't make sense, especially early on. The scripts from experienced writers like D.C. Fontana tended to fare a little better.

Continues was generally strong across the board, with "What Ships Are For" being good enough to make a list of top 10 TOS episodes IMO. Good stuff.

 

[FredH]

I could swear I remember a Security Chief character starting off in New Voyages and eventually ending up in Star Trek Continues. Am I imagining that? (After all these years, I might very well be.)