Discussion in 'Fan Productions' started by jespah, May 10, 2018.
How is the writing for Axanar any better?
It's not. The shooting script been online for a couple of years; and it's absolute fan wank garbage. Don't take my word for it it's linked In the Axanar threads here; there's plenty of analysis from actual Star Trek novel writers who've read it.
The bottom line is: Garth is the Federation's absolute savior, and couldn't be more Mary Sue / Jerry Stu In one of the worst executions of that particular trope.
To be fair, novel writers are not necessarily good judges of screenplays.
I find an emotional connection to the Discovery and Picard characters, which carries me though some questionable plot choices. Modern Trek does likeable and relatable characters far better than Berman-era Trek, in my opinion.
Alec Peters' Garth of Izar is as likable as a cup of tea made with month-old milk, which has been kept behind a radiator for safekeeping. And he's the only character that's more than a name and rank that exists only to Garth how good he is.
Interesting you find that connection with Kurtzman/CBS Trek because I feel differently. While I can accept that Kurtzman-era characters are more relatable in a way (due to them being more flawed in many ways), it's hard for me to find many that are as likeable as the Berman-era characters. I think the writing just overdoes or undercooks it with the Kurtzman characters too often for my taste.
What both eras have in abundance are good actors, but the differences in writing to me is noticeably lacking for the Kurtzman era. That said, the Kurtzman series all have better production values (especially DISCO; and I'm really enjoying the slivers we've seen of Prodigy so far; For Lower Decks, the animation is good I'm not just into the too cartoony style, and I'm not the biggest fan of PIC's production design).
As for Peters' Garth yeah the acting there isn't great while the character's in the thick of the action. However I don't have any problems in the documentary-style scenes where he's talking about the war. Peters evokes a more emotional, mournful kind of performance than when he's in the captain's chair. While in the chair he comes across stiffer and it's like he's trying a bit too hard. But I don't mind that much because it is a fan film.
I think Prelude and the last few seasons of Trek both suffer from a weird sort of tunnel vision and lack of interest in their own stories that I've gotten tired of.
So, in Prelude, the big thing is that Garth is supposed to be this tactical genius. In fact, quite a lot of the doc is talking about tactics and strategy and maneuvers, but it never actually explains what any of them are. The Klingons invaded using "the strategy of least respect," but what does that entail? Garth attacked the Klingons boldly, "like a Klingon maneuver," but how did that differ from what had been done before? The lack of overt explanation would be more forgivable in a straight narrative rather than a documentary, but even if it had been presented as a conventional movie, it was obvious that no one behind the scene knew the answers to those questions, either. They didn't show any kind of particular logic or through-line in the action, as far as I know, most of the space combat scenes were created in a vacuum (pardon the expression) and assembled in editing, and weren't made to coincide with any particular narrative purpose. There are other movies and shows I can point to where the logic of the action is secondary to the emotional reality and doesn't get walked through for the audience, but it's still clearly there, and you can deduce the tech-plot if you look carefully ("The Expanse" does this a lot, as did the new BSG), or even ones when the emotional reality is important so the action is straightforward, but doesn't get dressed up and have people tell you its so complicated and intricate when it isn't (which is what the action sequences in "Babylon 5" were more like, simple but direct).
And DSC does the same thing. I only have first-hand knowledge up to season 2 (when I decided I would get off the train until I saw reviews that satisfied me that the shows were off this bullshit), but there are a bunch of times where the show just asserts stuff without doing any work for it. There's Tilly's "Power of math!" moment, where they had to catch a weird asteroid, but they can't, but then there's a montage and a little machine unfolds into a big machine, and they can, now. What math? There was no problem-solving, no clever moment, just a weird cathartic beat celebrating a non-victory. But the one that bothered me the most was when they developed a plan to capture the Red Angel based on the fact that it kept showing up when Michael's life was in danger, and it worked, and then a few episodes later, we find out the Angel hadn't actually been showing up when Michael's life was in danger, it was a different Red Angel, and the one time the first Angel had shown up to save Michael, she appeared somewhere else, which would've been useless for their trap. No one seems to realize that they tried to murder Burnham on a theory that was completely, utterly wrong!
It's like reading an outline of a story riddled with "TK TK TK." Or, more on-topic, if the '90s Trek scripts where the writers just left space for the sci-fi problems in the script with "Wait, this is just like the personal problem I'm dealing with in the b-plot! We can [tech] the [tech], which is analogous to how I can address my strained relationship with my parents, and that should [tech] and deflect the asteroid!" they decided the solution to "too much technobabble" was just to cut all those segments out entirely, so we're left with lots of big feelings and big plots that don't integrate, but still amplify each other's intensity in ways that don't make sense and aren't really resolved except in the most superficial ways.
Latest donor emails: Alec served Shawn O'Halloran with a restraining order, reshoots November 20-21, and you can buy Battlestar Galactica patches from Propworx.
No, it's "professional, independent Star Trek" and cost millions.
I have issued my own restraining order to myself to keep away from LFIM. We’re a couple of thousand miles apart and I have ordered myself to do my best to keep it that way. If any of you hear of him coming to Boise please let me know so I can get out of town. Thanks in advance!
Now I have to restrain myself from pointing out the word you left out.
The word he wanted to use probably would have gotten anyways.
Unless you have any sci-fi cons of variable quality on the calendar you should be ok...
Petty personal grievances, kick the can down the road, and buy some stuff from us!
That's the content donors want...
I've never read the whole Axanar script, but from what I've heard about it, all this drama is probably more entertaining anyhow.
You can catch some of it in their comic book adaptations. The artwork is not too bad, TBH, but it's mostly just a lot of people yelling at each other between "pew pew" scenes.
The Scene 1: "Fire photon torpedoes!"... Scene 2 ... Scene 3: "Photon torpedoes FIRE!" bit is particularly cringe-worthy. Not well written at all.
Quite. But my question was asked in a particular context.
If you follow the bouncing ball through the thread, the apparent context was (paraphrasing, not a direct quote), "Fans of Axanar don't group together because of real-world politics, what they have in common is that they think that the writing in modern Star Trek sucks."
The implied subtext of my question is, "Why are people who are dissatisfied with the writing in contemporary Star Trek flocking to Axanar? If they find good writing represented in the script for Axanar, what about it do they see as good? Or is it that Axanar is drawing them in for reasons besides its writing, and if that is the case then just what is the draw?"
Personally I think the concept of Axanar is brilliant- we get to finally see an epic battle which turned the tide of a war with the Federation's greatest enemy at that time. There are only a couple unseen yet mentioned events in TOS like that, the great Romulan war is another.
This drew me in the first place and I was really excited someone was attempting to show this on screen after so many years. I was not driven to it by disappointment with the Trek franchise, I would have been just as happy to see this if it was featured in any of the other series as well.
Sadly this was not to be. Instead of creating the promised fan film, events took a darker turn and fan films, some of which were exceeding well done, got crippled by the collateral damage.
OK, I have fixed the missing link so you can lift the restraining order.
I'm not sure it is just the writing, though obviously that was mentioned. I think it is just dissatisfaction and when modern Trek isn't doing that then they go to other places. Axanar is not good writing-period. But, it offers up a very nice looking package that caters to the need for modern Trek to look like old Trek.
Now, that is entirely a generalization, but my recent observations have been seeing a lot people wanting Trek to look a certain way.
I suspect that's getting close to the mark. yeah.
Clearly in some circles, beyond just the look, there's also the desire for new Trek to dovetail seamlessly into the original continuity, i.e. without significant retcons.
Under this perspective, the spore drive is too major a retcon. Burnham being Spock's sister, also too major. Going into another timeline for new out-of-continuity adventures of the original characters? Crossing the Rubicon.
New Voyages/Phase II and Star Trek Continues had devoted followers, at least some of whom appear to reject the new franchise offerings.
To some, the first rule of a fan film is to base everything around one of the greatest hits. Looking inside a tantalizing box that was referenced in the original but was otherwise unopened (which is what the Battle of Axanar is) is akin to that, I think.
There's a sentimental appeal to reminiscent fan films. Fan films can be kind of like a love letter, or, well, a fan letter, to the franchise from an admirer.
And, yeah, fans are vulnerable, and they can be taken advantage of, because of their ardent devotion to the thing they love.
Separate names with a comma.