• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Phase II: "Kitumba"

Were you able to recover the data yet?

The latest word from the data recovery firm now that they've actually laid hands on the failed drive is that they've seen this type of failure before and have had success at 100% recovery. They said we should know the final outcome by the end of next week.

This is great news. Backups notwithstanding, it must put everyone's mind to rest to not have to redo all the data ingest.

As for "Kruge," that is a terrific make-up job. Thank your gods that it is not the real thing, since Nimoy's BTS stories all indicate that Lloyd was very difficult to work with; understanding neither Star Trek nor his character, and generally unable to take direction.

I understand that Cawley's hair is required to stay Elvis-y as part of his professional commitments. So what is Rice's excuse for the "non-reg" hairdo? I can see how producers might decide it's OK to keep it long since they think they're replicating what "might have been" in the late '60s/early '70s. But even given that assumption, a longer look would be trimmed, shaped and blow-dried. For an example, I offer the crewman in The Motion Picture who Spock takes out with his neck pinch. That fellow had long hair (for Starfleet) which was shaped in the perfect 1970s style, as was his mustache. But no shagginess in the back or over the ears. A shame to get the sets and costumes so perfect, but then pull me out of the Trek universe because someone couldn't bother to get a haircut.

Well, you've hit on a few of the important factors regarding Bobby Quinn Rice's hairstyle:

1. Peter Kirk's hair only seems out of place and "non-reg" in a 20th or 21st century military service outfit; we really don't know what hair styles will be acceptable in a 23rd century Starfleet. How did you find out what the regulations will be 200 years from now to be able to determine that Peter's is "non-reg?" (Example: When I look at 18th and 19th century naval hairstyles, they are pretty long.)

2. If you give Peter shorter hair, the hairstyle begins to look military instead of pseudo-military. (The term Roddenberry used was actually "semimilitary.") So, we need to find ways to reinforce the "semi-" part and not the "military" part. Hair that would be inappropriate for the 20th or 21st centuries might therefore be the exact kind of thing you would want to rely on to convey that the organization merely a "futuristic" semi-military organization.

3. Janice Rand's crazy basketweave beehive is also out of place in a pseudo-military service outfit but most people don't complain about that (although a few do).

4. Walter Koenig had to wear a wig for his first few episodes while his "non-reg" longer Beatle-style hair grew in. So, the "new young character that kids can relate to" whether he's in 1967 or 2007, always needs to have an appropriate hairstyle so that, well, the kids can relate to him.

5. When we changed our moniker from "New Voyages" to "Phase II," we decided to adopt many of the art designs from the ill-fated 1970s Phase II series. This includes the costumes, some props, some sets (if and when we get to them) and, yes, even the 1970s hairstyles. Peter Kirk's hair faithfully recreates hairstyles seen on the men in screentest footage shot for the original Phase II series. The hairstyles will be one of the ways we try to "recreate" the Phase II series instead of just recreating TOS. So Bobby has Phase II '70s hair instead of '60's TOS hair. It's a shorthand way of conveying that this isn't exactly your father's TOS Star Trek. (We gave Scotty a "non-reg" moustache, too.) If it pulls you out of the same ol' TOS Trek universe, excellent. That's part of the point. As for "not bothering" to get his hair cut: you assume too much. In real life, Bobby does not keep his hair this long and he grows it out at our instruction. I'm sorry if our creative decision doesn't work for you.

6. Peter's heart isn't really in Starfleet in many ways and we need a quick way of showing that rather than saying that in dialog. He's ambivalent about being there and, as we've seen, he came on board the Enterprise mostly to be with Lt. Alex Freeman. Giving Peter longish hair is an intentional way of showing that he's not really toeing the Starfleet line.

7. After five episodes with Peter's long hair, I believe we'll find that it's no longer really working for Peter--and as he grows up and he finally takes his position and responsibilities in Starfleet more seriously, he'll be adopting a more "appropriate" hairstyle to convey that he's really, finally joined the team. So, shortening his hair is something we'll probably rely on in our next episodes.
 
Last edited:
How did you find out what the regulations will be 200 years from now?

I was not comparing it to current military regulations. Even the styles in the 1960 show are not U.S. regs of the day. No problem. As for 200 years from now, the only canon example I have to go on is the one cited in my post, which seems pretty valid.

Even when the hair is allowed to be longer, Rand, Chekov, Commander Decker, etc. all kept it neat. David Gautreaux's abortive Xon is also shaggy, but proves my point: It looks silly and distracting. And was never seen on camera. Can I get an amen?

st%2BXon.jpg


I must admit, I wasn't expecting such a long, detailed response to an otherwise trivial comment. :lol:
 
How did you find out what the regulations will be 200 years from now?

I was not comparing it to current military regulations. Even the styles in the 1960 show are not U.S. regs of the day. No problem. As for 200 years from now, the only canon example I have to go on is the one cited in my post, which seems pretty valid.

Even when the hair is allowed to be longer, Rand, Chekov, Commander Decker, etc. all kept it neat. David Gautreaux's abortive Xon is also shaggy, but proves my point: It looks silly and distracting. And was never seen on camera. Can I get an amen?

st%2BXon.jpg


I must admit, I wasn't expecting such a long, detailed response to a otherwise trivial question. lol

The photograph we're looking at of Xon was never seen on camera? Do I understand you correctly? ;)

Well, the main thing the detailed response is meant to convey is that our hairstyle on Peter Kirk is well-considered--taking into account so much more than the average person is probably aware--by the hardcore-i-est of Trek fans/experts at all levels of the Phase II production team. It's not like Bobby has long hair and we let him keep it because we're asleep at the wheel and never thought about or don't care about his hair length. It's just a creative decision that we've intentionally made that you don't agree with.

(By the way: our Xon has long shaggy hair, too.)
 
The photograph we're looking at of Xon was never seen on camera? Do I understand you correctly? ;)
I take it by the winky-con that you're being facetious. Fair enough.

So Rice and P2-Xon (sorry, I don't know the actor's name) normally wear their hair short but grow it that long once or twice a year for shooting? That is dedication. Or are they wigs? If so, they are very well made. Has there been discussion of getting Cawley a Shatner-esqe wig to make his hairstyle more accurate as well? I know it's more tricky for men to put longer hair under a shorter wig, but the pros do it all the time, so I was just wondering if the idea has come up or any tests have been done.
 
The photograph we're looking at of Xon was never seen on camera? Do I understand you correctly? ;)
I take it by the winky-con that you're being facetious. Fair enough.

So Rice and P2-Xon (sorry, I don't know the actor's name) normally wear their hair short but grow it that long once or twice a year for shooting? That is dedication. Or are they wigs? If so, they are very well made. Has there been discussion of getting Cawley a Shatner-esqe wig to make his hairstyle more accurate as well? I know it's more tricky for men to put longer hair under a shorter wig, but the pros do it all the time, so I was just wondering if the idea has come up or any tests have been done.

"Lack of canonical evidence of long hair" is not the same thing as "canonical evidence of a lack of long hair."

Yes, Bobby Rice and Patrick Bell have hair that is generally a bit shorter--and they grow it out a bit for our shoots. (So that's about twice a year; they might have to grow it out again if we need to do pick-up shots during the year with those characters.) As for what their hair "normally" is, that can vary. Bobby is actually an actor in L.A., so his hair length varies with whatever gig he currently has. (BTW: Charles Root grows in a mustache for Scotty, too.)

No wig has ever been contemplated for James, just as Daniel Craig never contemplated wearing a wig to make himself look more like Sean Connery in his 007 role. Nor is James planning on parting his hair on the "accurate" side, nor is James planning on wearing hazel contacts to cover up his brown eyes. James does flirt with the idea of letting his hair grow out to its normal sandy blond color instead of its dyed Elvis black color--but he hasn't yet. After ten episodes, it might just look goofy now. I think most people are accustomed to his dark hair.
 
Last edited:
"Lack of canonical evidence of long hair" is not the same thing as "canonical evidence of a lack of long hair."
Like that argument has ever stopped a Trekkie from nit-picking. :guffaw:

Bobby is actually an actor in L.A.
As compared to the others who aren't actually actors? ;)

No wig has ever been contemplated for James, just as Daniel Craig never contemplated wearing a wig to make himself look more like Sean Connery in his 007 role.
But Craig (and his producers) have never made a claim to faithfully recreating the Connery-era.

nor is James planning on wearing hazel contacts to cover up his brown eyes.
How about blue for Elvis? :lol:

James does flirt with the idea of letting his hair grow out to its normal sandy blond color
Ok... I guess that is really what I wanted to know: If other avenues have been discussed/explored.

After ten episodes, it might just look goofy now. I think most people are accustomed to his dark hair.
"Most people"? As fast as your audience is growing, I would think the question comes up again and again. It certain seems to get an obligatory mention in any news article about the project.
 
"Lack of canonical evidence of long hair" is not the same thing as "canonical evidence of a lack of long hair."
Like that argument has ever stopped a Trekkie from nit-picking. :guffaw:

Bobby is actually an actor in L.A.
As compared to the others who aren't actually actors? ;)


But Craig (and his producers) have never made a claim to faithfully recreating the Connery-era.


How about blue for Elvis? :lol:

James does flirt with the idea of letting his hair grow out to its normal sandy blond color
Ok... I guess that is really what I wanted to know: If other avenues have been discussed/explored.

After ten episodes, it might just look goofy now. I think most people are accustomed to his dark hair.
"Most people"? As fast as your audience is growing, I would think the question comes up again and again. It certain seems to get an obligatory mention in any news article about the project.

Well, I only mentioned Bobby as an L.A. actor since only his and Patrick's hair was in question. (And, no, Patrick is not an L.A. actor.) The professional actors on our regular cast are James, Ben, Brandon, Kim, Andy, Jonathan, and Bobby.

When I say "most people," I guess I mean most of us on the production team are now accustomed to James' darker hair and now think of James Kirk as a thin, furrowed-brow dark-haired man. The degree to which James (or any actor, I suppose) should look like and walk like and talk like and act like William Shatner does cause some creative tension on our show. But no matter what we do, some viewers will be critical that James is copying Shatner too much, while other viewers complain that he is not a close enough copy of Shatner in some "important" ways. Knowing that no portrayal will please everyone, in order to determine if we seem to be striking a good balance, I simply check our viewership numbers. If our audience is growing, we're probably on something close to the right track.
 
Its always about the hair, LOL. At some point, I would love to use my real hair color, it just always seems are schedule does not permit it!
 
But no matter what we do, some viewers will be critical that James is copying Shatner too much, while other viewers complain that he is not a close enough copy of Shatner in some "important" ways.

I agree. In any fan film, consistency is more important than accuracy. If the production has the high quality of Phase 2, the fans will come along. The same can be said for the performances of Pine, Quinto, and Urban.

As for the hair being the focus of discussion, it just means everything else is done so well that we have to find SOMETHING to pick on. :techman:
 
Another screenshot from our shoot this week. Kirk and Chief of Security Chekov beam down and finally get to see The Kitumba for the first time:

3615949560_097d4db3e7.jpg
OK, that is a really cool shot. The lighting, uniforms and staging look straight out of a lost episode of Star Trek! :techman:

(Although p.s., James Cawley is showing a little bit of nip in that pic, I just noticed :D)


On behalf of my Grip/Electric Team and myself, much thanks for the praise on the lighting - hope you like the rest of our work as well!

Best,
Rob
Gaffer/LP
STP2
 
Were you able to recover the data yet?

The latest word from the data recovery firm now that they've actually laid hands on the failed drive is that they've seen this type of failure before and have had success at 100% recovery. They said we should know the final outcome by the end of next week.

This is great news. Backups notwithstanding, it must put everyone's mind to rest to not have to redo all the data ingest.

Considering how many HOURS it takes to ingest data from the cameras' cards and storage drives for the cameras we used this episode? Heck yeah! It takes roughly 5-10x the time (compared to the footage length) to ingest and transcode from raw to edit copy.

Believe me, even though I was 98% sure we lost nothing, I was thrilled when I heard everything was recoverable, as Greg can attest to. ;)

Rob
 
And, like the Star Wars universe, everyone has met everyone before... it's a tired gimmick. Sorry.

DS9Sega, do you ever have anything complimentary to say about our productions--I mean, apart from backhanded compliments?
I have. Not my fault you haven't noticed or read any messages where I did. Even if I had nothing positive to say, that would still be my prerogative. Do you feel the need to point it out when someone gives you nothing BUT compliments?
 
Last edited:
And, like the Star Wars universe, everyone has met everyone before... it's a tired gimmick. Sorry.

DS9Sega, do you ever have anything complimentary to say about our productions--I mean, apart from backhanded compliments?
I have. Not my fault you haven't noticed or read any messages where I did. Even if I had nothing positive to say, that would still be my prerogative. Do you feel the need to point it out when someone gives you nothing BUT compliments?

I apologize for not noticing your positive comments about our production and for what might be a skewed perception of your posts (although I welcome feedback from other boardmembers--whether they can either concur or not concur with my perceptions).

Yes, it would indeed be your perogative to say nothing positive.

No, I don't generally point out when people are disproportionately complimentary.
 
DS9Sega, do you ever have anything complimentary to say about our productions--I mean, apart from backhanded compliments?
I have. Not my fault you haven't noticed or read any messages where I did. Even if I had nothing positive to say, that would still be my prerogative. Do you feel the need to point it out when someone gives you nothing BUT compliments?

I apologize for not noticing your positive comments about our production and for what might be a skewed perception of your posts (although I welcome feedback from other boardmembers--whether they can either concur or not concur with my perceptions).

Yes, it would indeed be your perogative to say nothing positive.

No, I don't generally point out when people are disproportionately complimentary.
Well, I appreciate your being such a gentleman, and, if I haven't said it directly in the threads where you've shown your research and prop recreations, I find that aspect of the production to be top notch.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top