Phase II Blood and Fire Part 2 Grading and Commentary

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Civil governments simply shouldn't recognize religious ceremonies as legally binding. Go ahead and have your church wedding, but then fulfill state requirements for a marriage contract separately. No property or legal rights should confer simply on the basis of a church ceremony.

That's not entirely practical, of course. The law recognizes all kinds of marriage on some level - for purposes of collecting social security benefits, for example, the surviving spouse of an "unmarried" heterosexual couple can often qualify if they ever spent a night together in one of several states that recognizes common law marriage on that basis. Seriously.

 

[TrekkieMonster]

Not to mention the fact that this whole argument is largely based on the fact that your average everyday heterosexual who wants to get married at the Justice of the Peace or in Vegas or even in their local nondenominational church will most likely not accept the idea of their "marriage" being turned into a "civil union".

Which brings us back to the starting point: Marriage is the historically recognized relationship. While there may be debate about whether that was originally a "religious" or secular designation, in 2010 that's pretty much a moot point. Marriage is the institution recognized by society as a whole - secular and non-secular - and specifically named in every state's laws on the subject. So, at this point in time, marriage is the the issue. Civil Unions are a construct of people who don't want to deal with the real issue.

 

[Maurice]

Ok, seriously, I'm a gay man heavily involved in politics and even I am tired of every Star Trek thing that has the slightest tinge of gay anything becoming a reason for everyone to trot out the same old arguments. No one here is going to convince anyone else here to change their minds. The subject is Blood and Fire and whether it's a good show or not. Can we get back to that?

I for one think the initial scene of Peter and Alex in part 1 was bad. It was excessively long and drawn out and boring. It didn't work for me because I had just barely met these characters and they're immediately being all kissy face. I don't know them enough to care about them yet. It was too early in the story, and it felt calculated to push buttons. That is my objection to the relationship as portrayed.

 

[I'm Kirk]

I'll just say I found the two men kissing and one on top of the other extremely gross. That is all I'll say on the topic.

 

[Maurice]

The one positive thing about threads that go like this is that it helps make it easy to beef up my ignore list.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Ok, seriously, I'm a gay man heavily involved in politics and even I am tired of every Star Trek thing that has the slightest tinge of gay anything becoming a reason for everyone to trot out the same old arguments. No one here is going to convince anyone else here to change their minds. The subject is Blood and Fire and whether it's a good show or not. Can we get back to that?

I for one think the initial scene of Peter and Alex in part 1 was bad. It was excessively long and drawn out and boring. It didn't work for me because I had just barely met these characters and they're immediately being all kissy face. I don't know them enough to care about them yet. It was too early in the story, and it felt calculated to push buttons. That is my objection to the relationship as portrayed.

Is it possible that maybe having David Gerrold direct his own story was a tactical error? Maybe a better choice would've been someone with a bit more perspective?

 

[Barbreader]

Great post TrekkieMonster Based on his/her subsequent rant, I don't think that Barbreader read your comments though

I read them. I just think you have different ways of fighting, and you are choosing to lose. That's your right, though.

The U.S. Supreme Court is probably the most right wing court we have had since the 1850s. Yet, you think that they will find in your favor. Frankly, I could see Scalia writing an opinion that makes it unconstitutional for states to legalize gay marriage, with Thomas, Alito, and Roberts all joining in the opinion. Good news, I doubt they'd get a fifth vote on that.

I remind you of Dred Scott v. Stanford. In that case, an enslaved man was brought north by his slaveowner. The Enslaved man served the slaveowner until the owner planned to move back to slave states. At that time the enslaved man brought suit saying that his sojour in the North had freed him. The court found, instead, that no black man had any rights that need to be recognised by any white man, effectively overturning the laws in every free state that outlawed slavery. It also overturned the laws which outlawed slavery in certain territories. The Free Soil movement resulted, it grew into the Republican Party. When the north elected Lincoln, attempting to get the right to outlaw slavery in the North again, the South tried to leave the union... and the Civil War followed.

The idea that you can automatically win in a court because your cause is just is very idealistic, and again, it's your fight, your choice. But I wouldn't want to bet my rights on Justice Roberts and the other three musketeers.

OK, you'd get Breyer, and Ginsberg. I'm less sure of Sotomeyer, but let's put her in your column, although until I see her opinions, I have my doubts. Her bench opinions are not uniformly liberal. Let's assume you get her vote. I think you could get Stevens vote, too.

So, this turns on... getting Kennedy's vote. Lose it and you lose. If that sounds good to you, well, that's your reading of him, and I'm fine with that, it's your fight. I just don't agree what the outcome will be. He doesn't approve express discrimination laws that make homosexuality a crime. But he sided with the Boy Scouts in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale. His opinions overturning Sodomy laws have generally made clear he doesn't support gay rights to all types of relationships.

This is not the Warren Court of the 1960s. I just don't see what you want coming out of this court. The Justice most likely to retire is Ginsberg, who has pancreatic cancer. That doesn't help you. Then, John Paul Stevens will be 90 in April. Again, his retirement would not help you. The next oldest are e Kennedy, 73, and Scalia, also 73. That could be helpful, if it happens. They both have life expectancies over 10 years, though. Breyer is 71.

The remaining musketeers are Thomas, 61, Alito, 59, and Roberts, 54.

Sotomeyer is 55.

Again, I'll be joyful if proven wrong.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Back to the topic at hand, I just got through watching Part II (is it just me, or does half the soundtrack sound pretty final?). Gave it a 9. Part I could still use some tightening up in the editing (trimming about half of Peter and Alex's make out scene would do wonders), but Part II seems a little more on pace. Just needs that final sound mix. Also, the presence of the Klingons now makes a bit more sense.

Might I suggest that Dr. Yar's metamorphosis be accompanied by some sort of buzzing or sizzling sound effect?

 

[Maurice]

Is it possible that maybe having David Gerrold direct his own story was a tactical error? Maybe a better choice would've been someone with a bit more perspective?

Or, dare I say, someone who'd directed a TV show before?

 

[USS Intrepid]

Civil governments simply shouldn't recognize religious ceremonies as legally binding. Go ahead and have your church wedding, but then fulfill state requirements for a marriage contract separately. No property or legal rights should confer simply on the basis of a church ceremony.

That's not entirely practical, of course. The law recognizes all kinds of marriage on some level - for purposes of collecting social security benefits, for example, the surviving spouse of an "unmarried" heterosexual couple can often qualify if they ever spent a night together in one of several states that recognizes common law marriage on that basis. Seriously.

I'll vote for that. Besides, regardless of how much the church wants to claim marriage as its own, the simple fact is, marriage had nothing to do with religion. Religion co-opted it for its own purposes, and has no right to claim ownership.

The one positive thing about threads that go like this is that it helps make it easy to beef up my ignore list.

Good point.

 

[KingstonTrekker]

I'll just say I found the two men kissing and one on top of the other extremely gross. That is all I'll say on the topic.

Just as I find the MANY heterosexual displays of affection on Trek (and out in the public at large) to be gross...but I live with it.

 

[KingstonTrekker]

Ok, seriously, I'm a gay man heavily involved in politics and even I am tired of every Star Trek thing that has the slightest tinge of gay anything becoming a reason for everyone to trot out the same old arguments. No one here is going to convince anyone else here to change their minds. The subject is Blood and Fire and whether it's a good show or not. Can we get back to that?

I for one think the initial scene of Peter and Alex in part 1 was bad. It was excessively long and drawn out and boring. It didn't work for me because I had just barely met these characters and they're immediately being all kissy face. I don't know them enough to care about them yet. It was too early in the story, and it felt calculated to push buttons. That is my objection to the relationship as portrayed.

Is it possible that maybe having David Gerrold direct his own story was a tactical error? Maybe a better choice would've been someone with a bit more perspective?

Although I disagree that it was a mistake to have Gerrold direct, I do agree that the scene between Peter and Alex came much too early in the episode. It would have been better if their relationship had been introduced in earlier episodes to lay the groundwork for this story.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Is it possible that maybe having David Gerrold direct his own story was a tactical error? Maybe a better choice would've been someone with a bit more perspective?

Or, dare I say, someone who'd directed a TV show before?

Or a story editor who could've really reined in the script during the writing phase, eliminating and tightening up some of the overdrawn, pointless scenes and unnecessary plot elements. Someone who could also find a way to better integrate those elements and scenes so that they serve the story a little more.

Or a film editor that could trim, rearrange, and rework those elements so that they don't drag down the story as much as they do.

 

[KingstonTrekker]

[QUOTEOr a story editor who could've really reined in the script during the writing phase, eliminating and tightening up some of the overdrawn, pointless scenes and unnecessary plot elements. Someone who could also find a way to better integrate those elements and scenes so that they serve the story a little more.

Or a film editor that could trim, rearrange, and rework those elements so that they don't drag down the story as much as they do.[/QUOTE]

Which "overdrawn pointless scenes" and "unnecessary plot elements" are you referring to? I agree that the story is a bit thin to be stretched to two episodes (it likely should have been 1.5 episodes -- a very awkward number.) In my opinion, the Klingon storyline never really had a pay off. The beam-outs back to the Enterprise also dragged on. Although both elements were enjoyable, they weren't essential to the episode. Overall I really liked the two episodes.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Is it possible that maybe having David Gerrold direct his own story was a tactical error? Maybe a better choice would've been someone with a bit more perspective?

Or, dare I say, someone who'd directed a TV show before?

Yeah, a lot of the problems I saw were purely technical, like blocking, choices in camera angles, not enough cutaway shots, etc.

Well, everyone's gotta start somewhere....

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Or a story editor who could've really reined in the script during the writing phase, eliminating and tightening up some of the overdrawn, pointless scenes and unnecessary plot elements. Someone who could also find a way to better integrate those elements and scenes so that they serve the story a little more.

Or a film editor that could trim, rearrange, and rework those elements so that they don't drag down the story as much as they do.

Which "overdrawn pointless scenes" and "unnecessary plot elements" are you referring to? I agree that the story is a bit thin to be stretched to two episodes (it likely should have been 1.5 episodes -- a very awkward number.) In my opinion, the Klingon storyline never really had a pay off. The beam-outs back to the Enterprise also dragged on. Although both elements were enjoyable, they weren't essential to the episode. Overall I really liked the two episodes.

Off the top of me head without having to rewatch the entire two parts:

Most of the Klingon bridge scenes in Part Two, where the Klingons watch the events unfold, add nothing to the story and are, quite frankly, boring. If the function of the scenes is to add tension to the situation, it fails. Rather than ramp things up, those scenes flush my interest out of the story.

Other scenes on the Enterprise include the scenes in which the crew "mutiny" against Kirk. They play as jingoistic and kill any potential conflicts the crew might have over Kirk's decision making process in the episode.

The first such scene is at the end of Part One when Kirk goes down the line of Scotty, Uhura, and Chekov after he states he is going to blow up the Copernicus. There is a chance for some real conflict between Kirk and his senior officers, but instead it comes off as one of those happy-go-lucky-aren't-we-all-loyal-officer scenes.

Another such scene plays in part two when the crewman confronts Uhura. Well, confronts is too strong a word because there is no confrontation. "Kirk is captain, Kirk is great" seems to be the real point of the scene. Therefore any legitimate concerns the crew has is quickly quelled without any substantial protest. Despite what Uhura says, Kirk is putting the ship and crew at risk. There is a real gem of conflict in the scene that could easily ramp up the tension and replace the Klingon elements. Moreover, it could also show the reservation of some crewmembers in donating blood for the transfusions, further driving the AIDS allegory.

The narrative line was in the loss of Peter Kirk, the bloodworms, and on the Enterprise. That gets lost in Part Two.

Had the script been edited and another pass been made some of these things could've been addressed.

In the end, I think that "Blood and Fire" would've made a tauter, better 90-minute episode than a two-parter. Another film edit could still accomplish that.

 

[Captain Robert April]

As much as I bitch and moan about not wanting to work in television (radio guy, all the way ), I'd love to take a crack at editing this puppy.

 

[RobertMfromLI]

As much as I bitch and moan about not wanting to work in television (radio guy, all the way ), I'd love to take a crack at editing this puppy.

Well, it was edited by someone with decades experience in virtually all aspects of movie and tv production. He's been an editor or co-editor on over 50 different productions (including such big names as Battlestar Galactica, X-Files, Star Trek Voyager, Sliders, Star Trek: TNG and more). Nothing personal, but I doubt you could do better.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1776409/

Truly a pleasure working with him, trying to anticipate his needs, and knowing he understands (without me or the DP having to write any scene notes) what look we were trying to accomplish.



On other notes, keep in mind every episode we shoot has time and monetary constraints... some people have brought up some interesting - and costly - suggestions...

Best,
Rob

 

[KingstonTrekker]

As much as I bitch and moan about not wanting to work in television (radio guy, all the way ), I'd love to take a crack at editing this puppy.

Well, it was edited by someone with decades experience in virtually all aspects of movie and tv production. He's been an editor or co-editor on over 50 different productions (including such big names as Battlestar Galactica, X-Files, Star Trek Voyager, Sliders, Star Trek: TNG and more). Nothing personal, but I doubt you could do better.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1776409/

Truly a pleasure working with him, trying to anticipate his needs, and knowing he understands (without me or the DP having to write any scene notes) what look we were trying to accomplish.



On other notes, keep in mind every episode we shoot has time and monetary constraints... some people have brought up some interesting - and costly - suggestions...

Best,
Rob

Great reply to the know-all self-proclaimed "experts" on here

 

[Captain Robert April]

Never claimed to be an expert, or even a professional. Just sayin' the episode could use some tightening up.