Star Trek Continues "Pilgrim of Eternity"

[DarKush]

I enjoyed the episode. I can't see why anyone would fear that Phase II, JJ, and Continues would produce 'too much' and we'd get sick of it. Most TV shows produce over 20 episodes a year. I don't know how many Continues will produce, but I'm betting it will be less than 4. Phase II always wants to produce more, but they seem to produce one a year. JJ produces one every 4 years. Plenty of time for writers to come up with something new and original... if they are so inclined.

I don't get why anyone would say or feel that way either. I mean, it's not like they have to watch any of these fan productions. I was happy that the cast and crew took so much effort with Continues to evoke the feel and spirit of the original series. The same can be said for New Voyages/Phase II and some of the other shows. Heck even when the production values aren't there the love of Trek is and that counts to me.

Despite the great cast, FX, and spectacle of Into Darkness, seeing Continues was a welcome respite.

 

[beamMe]

Re: TOS continues...

they have the potential for a great deal of creative freedom.

No, these fan productions always lack creative freedom. They all limit themselves and will never be anything more than examples in nostalgia.

 

[Warped9]

Re: TOS continues...

they have the potential for a great deal of creative freedom.

No, these fan productions always lack creative freedom. They all limit themselves and will never be anything more than examples in nostalgia.

Wrong. Just because so far they've opted not to go beyond what they've been doing doesn't mean they can't. Yes, they might limit themselves, but the opportunity is still there. One day we might get something different. Unlike a licenced novel there is no censor telling them they can't do a particular kind of story.

 

[beamMe]

Re: TOS continues...

they have the potential for a great deal of creative freedom.

No, these fan productions always lack creative freedom. They all limit themselves and will never be anything more than examples in nostalgia.

Wrong. Just because so far they've opted not to go beyond what they've been doing doesn't mean they can't. Yes, they might limit themselves, but the opportunity is still there. One day we might get something different. Unlike a licenced novel there is no censor telling them they can't do a particular kind of story.

A good story is one thing.
But presenting it in the guise of the design aesthetic of TOS is already stifling any creative freedom.

 

[Warped9]

Re: TOS continues...

No, these fan productions always lack creative freedom. They all limit themselves and will never be anything more than examples in nostalgia.

Wrong. Just because so far they've opted not to go beyond what they've been doing doesn't mean they can't. Yes, they might limit themselves, but the opportunity is still there. One day we might get something different. Unlike a licenced novel there is no censor telling them they can't do a particular kind of story.

A good story is one thing.
But presenting it in the guise of the design aesthetic of TOS is already stifling any creative freedom.

No. In what way could the aesthetic possibly be limiting? There's nothing preventing them from doing something allegorical in the best tradition of TOS, TNG or science fiction in general.

The aesthetic isn't a limitation. The only real limitation is of a self-imposed nature or lack of creative vision. Just because Trek novelists or fan film creators haven't yet done something does not automatically mean it cannot be done.

I haven't yet seen TheNewVoyages version of "Blood And Fire," but I have read David Gerrold's original novel. I don't know how closely they stuck to the original story, but the book touches on openly gay characters and their acceptance within greater society. That story wouldn't have been aired in the '60s, but it could have done in the late '80s or '90s. TNG fudged it. But no reason that story couldn't be done by a fanfilm now. STC's "Pilgrim Of Eternity" is a story of individual redemption. So right there you're right on the doorstep of doing even bolder allegorical stories.

Star Trek didn't limit itself simply to straight-up adventure stories---if it had it probably wouldn't have had the staying power it's enjoyed all these years. And there's no reason fanfilms cannot emulate that approach. It's really a matter of will and ambition.

 

[plynch]

Re: TOS continues...

There are composers who compose new pieces in the styles of previous eras. Plenty of jazz groups (mine) play in by-gone styles (mainstream ca. 1955). I write new songs in the style of "standards" (like Gershwin, Ellington, etc.).

This production, yes, is like a KISS cover band . . . that writes new songs in the manner of KISS! And if you like classic KISS, that's a good thing.

I'd rather watch something in TOS style that has a new story than something in the JJ style that re-enacts scenes from a famous, much-more-emotionally-involving predecessor.

YMMV. Peace be with you.

 

[marksound]

Re: TOS continues...

A few thoughts ...

Pacing was good. Some fan productions drag, but this one seemed like it moved right along.

I thought the Uhura singing scene was a bit silly. Painful, almost. I skipped over it.

I think if they'd ...

Spoiler: continued

left Apollo bald through the main story, it would have made more of an impact at the end where he looked significantly younger

... but that's a production decision. Could have gone either way.

I initially had a problem with some of the casting, but as I got into the story it was less of an issue.

I thought Chris Doohan had a lot more lines than his dad might have had if they'd made this episode 45 years ago. Some of his lines would have gone to Spock or McCoy. Maybe they're just showing him off. Not a problem, just something I noticed.

The effects, as far as I'm concerned, are spot on. The Enterprise looks exactly like I expected it to look. They did a pretty good job duplicating the old stock footage.

The opening credits look good. Familiar, but not a carbon copy of the original.

Not sure why they needed a "counselor," unless it's just something they thought might be cool to try. No big deal, really. I think the crying was a little over the top for a trained officer. Again, not really a big deal.

Overall, I think they've hit the ground running. Some things could be tighter, but as they go on they'll work it out. I had my doubts going in, but I was pleasantly surprised.

 

[beamMe]

Re: TOS continues...

The aesthetic isn't a limitation.

It very much is, if you stick to portraying a futuristic world in the terms of 1960s TV-making.

There are composers who compose new pieces in the styles of previous eras. Plenty of jazz groups (mine) play in by-gone styles (mainstream ca. 1955). I write new songs in the style of "standards" (like Gershwin, Ellington, etc.).

This production, yes, is like a KISS cover band . . . that writes new songs in the manner of KISS! And if you like classic KISS, that's a good thing.

The difference here being, of course, that Star Trek isn't and never was a period piece about a specific by-gone time. It's a sci-fi show that tries to show a future world.
To ignore shifting and changing design aesthetics when portraying futurity today isn't creative. It's simply sticking to what you know and refusing to accept change.

This production is good, and I like it. But it is not a sci-fi show that takes today into account to portray tomorrow. It's a nostalgic masturbation fantasy for us fans, a period-piece about how a particular creative team saw the future in the 1960s (and even they moved on and adjusted their creative futuristic vision by the time TMP and, later, TNG came around).

 

[Pingfah]

Many heartfelt congratulations to all involved with this project. I watched it last night and really enjoyed it.

It felt very authentic to me, as a somewhat casual fan of TOS. The cameos were great fun, and great to see Jamie Bamber being such a good sport, but the show would still have been great without them as it was really strong.

Disbelief was successfully suspended for 95% of the proceedings.

 

[mos6507]

Re: TOS continues...

Kirk does have conferences and does ask for opinions, BUT in the end, he usually makes his own decisions.

There are a couple TOS episodes that come to mind that are mostly tension over "what should we do?". Savage Curtain spends a lot of runtime with Kirk deciding whether to trust the simulated Lincoln. And the episode this most resembles, Where No Man Has Gone Before, is almost all hand-wringing on how to handle Gary Mitchell.

It's true that TNG took this much farther, though.

 

[Opus]

Wonderfully shot and acted. Kudos to Michael Forest for reprising his role as Apollo, and Chris Doohan for 'stealing the show' as Scotty.

This is the best fan production I've seen thus far. Looked and felt like TOS. Bravo!

 

[plynch]

Re: TOS continues...

The aesthetic isn't a limitation.

It very much is, if you stick to portraying a futuristic world in the terms of 1960s TV-making.

There are composers who compose new pieces in the styles of previous eras. Plenty of jazz groups (mine) play in by-gone styles (mainstream ca. 1955). I write new songs in the style of "standards" (like Gershwin, Ellington, etc.).

This production, yes, is like a KISS cover band . . . that writes new songs in the manner of KISS! And if you like classic KISS, that's a good thing.

The difference here being, of course, that Star Trek isn't and never was a period piece about a specific by-gone time. It's a sci-fi show that tries to show a future world.
To ignore shifting and changing design aesthetics when portraying futurity today isn't creative. It's simply sticking to what you know and refusing to accept change.

This production is good, and I like it. But it is not a sci-fi show that takes today into account to portray tomorrow. It's a nostalgic masturbation fantasy for us fans, a period-piece about how a particular creative team saw the future in the 1960s (and even they moved on and adjusted their creative futuristic vision by the time TMP and, later, TNG came around).

This made me smile. How the future will really look is nowhere like they thought in 1965 and nowhere near what JJ thought it will, in 2009. You don't watch sci-fi thinking it's really gonna be that way, do you? Maybe when I was 12, reading Ray Bradbury rockets landing on their tails I thought it might really be that way, but now I know it's all just a fun vehicle to tell what-if stories that pertain to humanity in general, or to current issues.

C'mon, a space navy traveling at light speed!? By your logic, JJ shouldn't use such a preposterous concept that actually seemed plausible to WWII vets in the postwar era.

And I think it IS pretty similar to performing in a style considered hip in 1955. Hip now is way different. Yet some of us really like the old aesthetics. I can't wait to watch the whole episode tonight. Been saving it for a Friday on the big screen. Be well.

 

[HarryM]

Outstanding work, really amazing production values. Awesometo see Michael Forrest as Apollo, one of the great tragic figures of TOS, it's nice to imagine him getting a happy ending, canon or not.

 

[Barbreader]

Re: TOS continues...

Concerning objections to making new TOS episodes... this is essentially like 19th century 'steam punk' work. No one thinks 250 years from now technology in outer space will be behind our current communications tech on earth. Health care, likewise, will not go backward. For anyone who does like 'steam punk' but objects to these TOS fan films... there was real sci fi in the 19th century. Shelly's Frankenstein, jumps to mind. Edward Bellamy's 'Looking Backward 2000-1887' started a utopian movement that makes the Trek community look minor by comparison. I would not personally work on fan Trek... I'd rather do sci fi based on current issues in science and society. But I enjoy watching these efforts, and I have created an index (Star Trek Reviewed) to make it easy for everyone who likes them to spend their time watching them, not hunting for them.

Here, ST Continues has reimagined TOS with a less military-style command structure, a more civilian take. I would have preferred if they made it clear that this was Kirk's choice, and he, in the end, had the final say. Consensus may work for China, but I can't imagine it working on an international, interspecies space vessel. Nevertheless, I think it's an interesting addition to the Fan Film universe. It's no harder to believe than some of the other unlikely developments in Gene's universe. "There will be no war, there will be no greed, and all of the children will know how to read." I don't see the 'no greed' thing. ...Unless you eliminate humans.

 

[Kruezerman]

Re: TOS continues...

But why is keeping the old aesthetic so important compared to exploring new characters and topics? Fan productions will always focus on the "Star Trek"-ness of Star Trek and not the fun or adventure or stories. I hope one day this will change.

 

[beamMe]

Re: TOS continues...

The aesthetic isn't a limitation.

It very much is, if you stick to portraying a futuristic world in the terms of 1960s TV-making.

There are composers who compose new pieces in the styles of previous eras. Plenty of jazz groups (mine) play in by-gone styles (mainstream ca. 1955). I write new songs in the style of "standards" (like Gershwin, Ellington, etc.).

This production, yes, is like a KISS cover band . . . that writes new songs in the manner of KISS! And if you like classic KISS, that's a good thing.

The difference here being, of course, that Star Trek isn't and never was a period piece about a specific by-gone time. It's a sci-fi show that tries to show a future world.
To ignore shifting and changing design aesthetics when portraying futurity today isn't creative. It's simply sticking to what you know and refusing to accept change.

This production is good, and I like it. But it is not a sci-fi show that takes today into account to portray tomorrow. It's a nostalgic masturbation fantasy for us fans, a period-piece about how a particular creative team saw the future in the 1960s (and even they moved on and adjusted their creative futuristic vision by the time TMP and, later, TNG came around).

This made me smile. How the future will really look is nowhere like they thought in 1965 and nowhere near what JJ thought it will, in 2009. You don't watch sci-fi thinking it's really gonna be that way, do you? Maybe when I was 12, reading Ray Bradbury rockets landing on their tails I thought it might really be that way, but now I know it's all just a fun vehicle to tell what-if stories that pertain to humanity in general, or to current issues.

C'mon, a space navy traveling at light speed!? By your logic, JJ shouldn't use such a preposterous concept that actually seemed plausible to WWII vets in the postwar era.

And I think it IS pretty similar to performing in a style considered hip in 1955. Hip now is way different. Yet some of us really like the old aesthetics. I can't wait to watch the whole episode tonight. Been saving it for a Friday on the big screen. Be well.

It's as if I've written my post in Klingonese, and you haven't understood a word of it.

 

[Warped9]

Re: TOS continues...

But why is keeping the old aesthetic so important compared to exploring new characters and topics? Fan productions will always focus on the "Star Trek"-ness of Star Trek and not the fun or adventure or stories. I hope one day this will change.

Because that has long been and has long become part of the appeal.

Take a show like Murdoch Mysteries that periodically has a touch of Verne like sci-fi sensibility to it. The series is done in a way that allows them to sometimes look at contemporary issues yet through a late 19th century perspective. Late 19th century Toronto (where the series is set) wasn't like it's portrayed in the show (there are similarities and parallels, but it's not exactly the same). But it's entertaining to see them go about telling their stories in that historical setting. Star Trek and science fiction in general is no different. As fans we enjoy the world-building and overall setting as it's presented.

And perhaps one of the reasons the TOS aesthetic still works for a lot of people is because it harkens back to when some of us feel in love with Roddenberry's universe in a way that didn't quite click when it came to the later spin-offs.

Most likely the real 23rd century of our future will not look like TOS' but then it most likely won't look like JJ's or anyone else's for that matter. It is not SF's mandate to predict the future in any definitive way. Science fiction isn't about predicting or defining the future. Science fiction is about imagining a future. And if any of it happens to come true than that's simply coincidental happenstance.

If one gets too hung up on aesthetics then every few years you'll find yourself having to reject things you might once have enjoyed because they don't look likely anymore.


Also how does it detract from the fun and adventure? It doesn't. The aesthetic is part of the fun. Actors are really playing make believe like we all do as children. And to a large extent we experience the adventure or drama or humour or horror (or whatever) vicariously through the actors playing their worlds in an imaginary setting.

 

[Kruezerman]

Re: TOS continues...

I understand that, but there are times that that hearkening back turns into rigidity and stagnation. To be honest I don't care about the aesthetic, but what I do care about are the characters and stories. I want the humanity that JJTrek has in a fanfilm. I want the imperfections, the rage, fear, sadness, I want to see that. Give me adventure again, make me two years old again.

 

[beamMe]

Re: TOS continues...

If one gets too hung up on aesthetics then every few years you'll find yourself having to reject things you might once have enjoyed because they don't look likely anymore.

Then why did Roddenberry, Wise and Co. change the aesthetic for Star Trek with TMP so radically?

Hint: They did it to stay relevant and modern. (And they didn't even have the "Nero changed everything" excuse.)

 

[plynch]

Re: TOS continues...

"To ignore shifting and changing design aesthetics when portraying futurity today isn't creative." - BeamMe

So it's ok to stay using old aesthetics in music (Dixieland jazz, which some people like), but not ok when portraying futurity?

Why the difference? Since we know our 2013 design aesthetics say more about our own aesthetics ("Apple Store") than about the unknowable future? Why insist on moving on to a new, equally inaccurate-design aesthetic? I think the argument could be made stronger for discontinuing old musical styles, frankly.

I'm checking out of this thread. I like Star Trek Continued. It makes me happy. It is certainly a creative endeavor, just like someone writing new Sinatra-style songs or ragtime pieces or new Sherlock Holmes stories. Or even telling new "Star Trek stories" (what a passé vision of the future!) in movie theaters.