Star Trek Continues "Pilgrim of Eternity"

[GSchnitzer]

Re: TOS continues...

You are not seriously comparing Kirk and co. to Abraham Lincoln?

Bringing life again to a real historical figure through the medium film is something else entirely from telling stories about fictional characters.

Yes, I'm seriously comparing a character that you "can't" write about because his established future path is already known with a historical character whom, I guess, you similarly can't write about because his future path is already known. Many of our viewers don't differentiate the kind of immutability of the fictional Trek universe with the kind of immutability of the actual universe.

But you'd need to take it up with them regarding why they think that way.

 

[beamMe]

Re: TOS continues...

And similarly, of course, no one can really do a compelling or interesting movie about Lincoln, because we already know how that whole thing works out.

You are not seriously comparing Kirk and co. to Abraham Lincoln?

Bringing life again to a real historical figure through the medium film is something else entirely from telling stories about fictional characters.

No, it's an apt comparison. Lincoln's life is documented (largely) although there will always be questions because not every moment of his life is documented. Events in his life can be (and are) dramatized with a measure of creative leeway to make his story and the events compelling. We know the outcome, but we can still chart the events in a compelling way.

In Star Trek it's all fiction. All that is set in stone is what has happened to the characters in TOS' three seasons in so much as they're approaching this as if they are indeed doing the unseen fourth season. They are not constrained by having to acknowledge what was seen in TMP or in any film or series afterward.

Yet even if they do acknowledge the events of TMP and a nod towards TNG they can still do a great many things as long as it's not inconsistent with where they end up in TMP (and as long as it's rationalized in a credible way).

Any of the characters could get married or promoted or whatever as long as they're back the way we see them by the time of TMP.

Or put it another way. Kirk was the hero of the series. It wasn't going to happen that they would kill him off or any of the other series regulars for that matter. That certainly didn't preclude them from telling compelling stories.

Therefore I reiterate that the only creative limitations are self imposed ones rather than in fact.


I sense that what's really being asked here is whether one could apply a Game Of Thrones style of storytelling to TOS. In that regard I would say "no" because that would definitely be straying too far from the kind of storytelling done on TOS and all other television of that era. If the STC producers are limiting themselves in that way then I think they're right in doing so.

Sorry, but telling compelling stories that inevitably have to end up where we know they will end up in a style that hasn't been relevant in a very long time is by definition NOT creative freedom.
There can never be any surprising, unexpected changes or lasting consequences for the characters we really care about.
That's why these fan production have to bring in other characters (Peter Kirk and McKenna, for example) to have at least some wriggle-room.

I wish the fan productions would, like Abrams, put their own stamp on Star Trek. Phase II and, now, Continues have shown that they have talent, and I'm sure they could pull off their own interpretation rather than simply recreating (though they do it with loving devotion and I admire them for their efforts).

 

[beamMe]

Re: TOS continues...

You are not seriously comparing Kirk and co. to Abraham Lincoln?

Bringing life again to a real historical figure through the medium film is something else entirely from telling stories about fictional characters.

Yes, I'm seriously comparing a character that you "can't" write about because his established future path is already known with a historical character whom, I guess, you similarly can't write about because his future path is already known. Many of our viewers don't differentiate the kind of immutability of the fictional Trek universe with the kind of immutability of the actual universe.

But you'd need to take it up with them regarding why they think that way.

Who said you "can't" write about anyone?

 

[GSchnitzer]

Re: TOS continues...

You are not seriously comparing Kirk and co. to Abraham Lincoln?

Bringing life again to a real historical figure through the medium film is something else entirely from telling stories about fictional characters.

Yes, I'm seriously comparing a character that you "can't" write about because his established future path is already known with a historical character whom, I guess, you similarly can't write about because his future path is already known. Many of our viewers don't differentiate the kind of immutability of the fictional Trek universe with the kind of immutability of the actual universe.

But you'd need to take it up with them regarding why they think that way.

Who said you "can't" write about anyone?

Well, I hope I didn't mischaracterize what Halliwell said, but I might have summarized it inartfully.

"From a creative stand point, the TOS fan films are limited to what's already been established with these characters. Unless they do a reboot like JJ-TOS, then we know that the 5 year mission will end. Kirk will get promoted, Spock will go back to Vulcan for Kolinhar, the Enterprise will be refit and Scotty will over see it, and McCoy will leave Starfleet and Kirk won't be captain again until TMP."

I guess she was saying that it would be a challenge, not that it couldn't be done. What I was trying to get at, and I might not have articulated it well enough, is that you can actually tell interesting and compelling stories about characters, real or fictional within the confines of the future that is known to await them. You *can* make Lincoln a part-time vampire slayer, but evidently you don't actually have to reboot him to make an award-winning movie. Maybe this line of thinking only works with historical figures, I guess, and not fictional ones for some reason.

But I suppose it's true: adhering to what is already "known" is "limiting." I just see a pretty blank canvas to work with despite those limitations--even if I'm limited to just that canvas size.

 

[Maurice]

Any fanfilm show could, if they so chose, steer hard to starboard of the history, past and future of the Trek universe via any number of mechanisms. There's no "trap" there and no limitations except those which the makers choose to impose on themselves.

 

[mos6507]

Re: TOS continues...

There can never be any surprising, unexpected changes or lasting consequences for the characters we really care about.

But Trek often served purely as an anthology show. They visited a new civilization each week and THAT was where the novelty was, not so much through long pre-planned character-arcs. I mean, having a show that is almost all bottle-episodes isn't necessarily a bad thing, even though these days dramas have shifted to mostly serial storylines.

TOS really didn't have a lot of lasting consequences for any of the characters. These days you'd probably have call-backs for Edith Keeler, Miramanee, and things like that, but they had Kirk eventually get over his traumatic experiences.

There were only a few isolated episodes that touched on their back-story or were particularly revelatory. Amok Time, Obsession, Shore Leave (with Finnegan) things like that.

 

[Warped9]

Re: TOS continues...

You are not seriously comparing Kirk and co. to Abraham Lincoln?

Bringing life again to a real historical figure through the medium film is something else entirely from telling stories about fictional characters.

No, it's an apt comparison. Lincoln's life is documented (largely) although there will always be questions because not every moment of his life is documented. Events in his life can be (and are) dramatized with a measure of creative leeway to make his story and the events compelling. We know the outcome, but we can still chart the events in a compelling way.

In Star Trek it's all fiction. All that is set in stone is what has happened to the characters in TOS' three seasons in so much as they're approaching this as if they are indeed doing the unseen fourth season. They are not constrained by having to acknowledge what was seen in TMP or in any film or series afterward.

Yet even if they do acknowledge the events of TMP and a nod towards TNG they can still do a great many things as long as it's not inconsistent with where they end up in TMP (and as long as it's rationalized in a credible way).

Any of the characters could get married or promoted or whatever as long as they're back the way we see them by the time of TMP.

Or put it another way. Kirk was the hero of the series. It wasn't going to happen that they would kill him off or any of the other series regulars for that matter. That certainly didn't preclude them from telling compelling stories.

Therefore I reiterate that the only creative limitations are self imposed ones rather than in fact.


I sense that what's really being asked here is whether one could apply a Game Of Thrones style of storytelling to TOS. In that regard I would say "no" because that would definitely be straying too far from the kind of storytelling done on TOS and all other television of that era. If the STC producers are limiting themselves in that way then I think they're right in doing so.

Sorry, but telling compelling stories that inevitably have to end up where we know they will end up in a style that hasn't been relevant in a very long time is by definition NOT creative freedom.
There can never be any surprising, unexpected changes or lasting consequences for the characters we really care about.
That's why these fan production have to bring in other characters (Peter Kirk and McKenna, for example) to have at least some wriggle-room.

I wish the fan productions would, like Abrams, put their own stamp on Star Trek. Phase II and, now, Continues have shown that they have talent, and I'm sure they could pull off their own interpretation rather than simply recreating (though they do it with loving devotion and I admire them for their efforts).

No, the only limitation is the one you perceive in your own mind. You are predisposed to see it that way so you accept it as a fact when it isn't any such thing. And if you want a reinterpretation of the TOS characters and setting then you have JJ Abrams, and therefore I don't see what your beef is.

The fan productions are interested (mostly) in continuing the series that was aborted. They're trying to give fans what they would have liked to have seen. If it isn't what you want to see then there is nothing to be done about it.

 

[plynch]

Re: TOS continues...

Sorry, but telling compelling stories that inevitably have to end up where we know they will end up in a style that hasn't been relevant in a very long time is by definition NOT creative freedom.

Huh? Your definition, maybe.

ANY choice of manner or style has limitations, but that choice also has implied directions of creativity too. In addition to standards (Sinatra-esque songs), I write ragtime, which sends me in a specific direction, structure-wise. It's an old idiom, but still enjoyed by many. Is what I've written not creative? I have incorporated mixed meter and some modern harmonies occasionally. But even if not, they would be new melodies and new pieces. I and some other people would still enjoy them. Would they be less creative than minimalism or autotuned pop, because they are newer idioms? I think by your argument Justin Bieber is more creative than my jazz trio playing a new old-style song. I am starting to agree with post-ers above that you are pissing on our parade!

Telling compelling stories like the Apollo one I just watched -- where I really, truly didn't know how it was going to end up -- is certainly creative.

If I needed the characters growing in new ways over many episodes, well, doesn't that invalidate good ol' TOS? It was episodic Sixties TV, and I daresay two more seasons on NBC would have produced . . . two more years of episodic TV and zilch character growth. Character development wasn't the mode. And that is FINE by me. I don't care if they keep Kirk's character "arc" the same or have him give birth to twins named Luke and Leia; just keep telling as humane, fun, and compelling Trek stories as the one I saw last night, and I'll keep enjoying them.

 

[Warped9]

^^ The crux of it. If you want to significantly change TOS then why bother doing TOS?

 

[Kruezerman]

Because we want to. If we had the sets and characters but decided to turn the whole of canon on it's head at that point we would. Because that's what we want. It's not that we're bored with it or anything like it, we just want a kind of radical different here.

 

[beamMe]

I read so many (wrong) posts here criticising a lack of character development in the last two Star Trek movies, and now you three here tell me character growth doesn't matter?

 

[Warped9]

Because we want to. If we had the sets and characters but decided to turn the whole of canon on it's head at that point we would. Because that's what we want. It's not that we're bored with it or anything like it, we just want a kind of radical different here.

Then go make your own fan film.

 

[Barbreader]

The idea that fan films cannot be creative could only come from somebody with a very limited view of fan films. I invite you to come to Star Trek Reviewed and watch the following:
Steam Trek: http://startrekreviewed.blogspot.com/2009/06/7.html
Stone Trek: http://startrekreviewed.blogspot.com/2009/06/8.html
Star Trek Aurora: http://startrekreviewed.blogspot.com/2009/06/8.html
Turkish Star Trek: http://startrekreviewed.blogspot.com/2009/06/28.html
Stalled Trek: http://startrekreviewed.blogspot.com/2009/06/50.html

I have limited myself to what I call "Golden Age" films... but there are many more unique and creative efforts.

 

[GSchnitzer]

I read so many (wrong) posts here criticising a lack of character development in the last two Star Trek movies, and now you three here tell me character growth doesn't matter?

I think, for our production at least, we are generally content to show the same amount and kinds of growth in the characters that we saw them undergo back during the 80 hours of Trek in the 1960s. I'm not exactly sure how much of TOS's popularity was driven by character development. I think that Star Trek, like its sister show Mission: Impossible, was largely plot-driven. But I'm sure Kirk must have grown and developed substantially between "Where No Man Has Gone Before" and "Turnabout Intruder."

I think your suggestions, though, would make for a very interesting approach to Star Trek that many people would like to see. I know *I'd* watch it! I think just about everyone here would be encouraging of your efforts.

 

[beamMe]

The idea that fan films cannot be creative could only come from somebody with a very limited view of fan films. I invite you to come to Star Trek Reviewed and watch the following:
Steam Trek: http://startrekreviewed.blogspot.com/2009/06/7.html
Stone Trek: http://startrekreviewed.blogspot.com/2009/06/8.html
Star Trek Aurora: http://startrekreviewed.blogspot.com/2009/06/8.html
Turkish Star Trek: http://startrekreviewed.blogspot.com/2009/06/28.html
Stalled Trek: http://startrekreviewed.blogspot.com/2009/06/50.html

I have limited myself to what I call "Golden Age" films... but there are many more unique and creative efforts.

Get back to us when you have something that is not a comedy.

 

[beamMe]

I read so many (wrong) posts here criticising a lack of character development in the last two Star Trek movies, and now you three here tell me character growth doesn't matter?

I think, for our production at least, we are generally content to show the same amount and kinds of growth in the character that we saw them undergo back during the 80 hours of Trek in the 1960s. I'm not exactly sure how much of TOS's popularity was driven by character development. I think that Star Trek, like its sister show Mission: Impossible, was largely plot-driven. But I'm sure Kirk must have grown and developed substantially between "Where No Man Has Gone Before" and "Turnabout Intruder."

I think your suggestions, though, would make for a very interesting approach to Star Trek that many people would like to see. I know *I'd* watch it! I think just about everyone here would be encouraging of your efforts.

The passive-aggressive-ness of that last sentence really wasn't necessary.

I know that I neither have the resources nor the talent to do a tiny fraction of what you've accomplished.

You see my comments as an attack on fan productions; they aren't one.
It's just a direction I'd like you, who have proven your talent, to try and take; to make a Star Trek of your own; to be unburdened of all that canon.

 

[GSchnitzer]

I read so many (wrong) posts here criticising a lack of character development in the last two Star Trek movies, and now you three here tell me character growth doesn't matter?

I think, for our production at least, we are generally content to show the same amount and kinds of growth in the character that we saw them undergo back during the 80 hours of Trek in the 1960s. I'm not exactly sure how much of TOS's popularity was driven by character development. I think that Star Trek, like its sister show Mission: Impossible, was largely plot-driven. But I'm sure Kirk must have grown and developed substantially between "Where No Man Has Gone Before" and "Turnabout Intruder."

I think your suggestions, though, would make for a very interesting approach to Star Trek that many people would like to see. I know *I'd* watch it! I think just about everyone here would be encouraging of your efforts.

The passive-aggressive-ness of that last sentence really wasn't necessary.

I know that I neither have the resources nor the talent to do a tiny fraction of what you've accomplished.

You see my comments as an attack on fan productions; they aren't one.
It's just a direction I'd like you, who have proven your talent, to try and take; to make a Star Trek of your own; to be unburdened of all that canon.

I don't see your suggestions as an attack (although its flattering to think that we have so much traction that we would be attacked for something). I am taking your suggestions very seriously to heart! I think there are indeed elements of our fan base who are clamoring for a really different take on Star Trek. I just am not certain how to satisfy those people and still satisfy those who want nothing to do with a different take on Star Trek.

Another important point is that fan films exist purely through the generosity of CBS Consumer Products. We have tacit approval from them to make our silly little productions as long as we don't realize any revenue (not just bottom line revenue, but top line revenue), and as long as we continue to work within the confines of their old, "abandoned" artistic design and timeline. The minute we deviate from that and head off in some interesting new direction that we think the public wants to see, we become competition to them--using what is actually their own property. So the amount we are allowed to deviate from the old Star Trek look isn't just a matter of artistic preference; it's actually a condition imposed upon us by the actual property owners.

We can, of course, actually do whatever we want to do with whatever character arcs and growth we want to show in our characters. We just wouldn't be able to use the Trek characters or Trek elements or the Trek name. (I guess that would then be called a "film" instead of a "fan film.")

 

[Avon]

i'm just glad that the people who make fan films do them because they think they've got an interesting or fun story to tell and the determination to make it happen in whatever form instead of thinking 'i cant do this because some random whiney guy on the internet might not like my idea or it doesn't stick exactly to canon/blah blah etc. i shouldn't bother'

 

[beamMe]

i'm just glad that the people who make fan films do them because they think they've got an interesting or fun story to tell and the determination to make it happen in whatever form instead of thinking 'i cant do this because some random whiney guy on the internet might not like my idea or it doesn't stick exactly to canon/blah blah etc. i shouldn't bother'

Yes, I think it's best if they don't listen to the likes of me/us here.

 

[Barbreader]

The idea that fan films cannot be creative could only come from somebody with a very limited view of fan films. I invite you to come to Star Trek Reviewed and watch the following:
Steam Trek: http://startrekreviewed.blogspot.com/2009/06/7.html
Stone Trek: http://startrekreviewed.blogspot.com/2009/06/8.html
Star Trek Aurora: http://startrekreviewed.blogspot.com/2009/06/8.html
Turkish Star Trek: http://startrekreviewed.blogspot.com/2009/06/28.html
Stalled Trek: http://startrekreviewed.blogspot.com/2009/06/50.html

I have limited myself to what I call "Golden Age" films... but there are many more unique and creative efforts.

Get back to us when you have something that is not a comedy.

Star Trek Aurora is not a comedy. But I'm sure you'll find some reason to eliminate that, too.

In audio Trek, look at Star Trek Outpost. http://startrekreviewed.blogspot.com/2009/06/247.html

In Silver Age Trek, many people think the forth episode of Encarta is what Voyager should have been. http://startrekreviewed.blogspot.com/2009/06/86.html

Star Trekz Empire tells the story from the Klingon point of view: http://startrekreviewed.blogspot.com/2009/06/124.html

The fact that you had to eliminate comedies shows you acknowledge that some fan films are very creative and original. I'm sure you'll further acknowledge it by making up reasons to eliminate more of these.

Every time you say a fan film doesn't count you prove yourself wrong again.