Most shorts like that are almost like silent films. Very haiku-like. Usually all physical comedy like the birds on a wire. That form of minimalistic storytelling is simply not suitable for the David Lean-style "epic" that Axanar was supposed to be.
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
Most shorts like that are almost like silent films. Very haiku-like. Usually all physical comedy like the birds on a wire. That form of minimalistic storytelling is simply not suitable for the David Lean-style "epic" that Axanar was supposed to be.
Don't ever compare Alec Peters to David Lean. Or I'll laugh my ass off.
Not only that, but they typically tell an amazing character arc in a short period of time.
Ed Wood seems a more apt comparison.
Bingo.
Great art doesn't require "without limitations." Great art requires someone committed to making the art regardless of limitations.
Or Uwe Boll.
I'm not saying Garth was a Gary Stu in WDG, or the authors wanted him to be a Gary Stu in WGD at that time in his history (or even knew the term in the late 60's). But they alluded to what Garth was like beforehand in several lines. Even in general, only one man in a million can command a starship, and Garth was the best of them, the very prototype for them all, and his exploits were REQUIRED reading at the academy. That's the canon. So if a current author wishes to write about Garth during THAT period of Trek history, he almost has to be a Gary Stu by definition, lest he violate canon. This is why I'm so terribly unimpressed with the complaint the Garth character was too much of a Gary Stu in Prelude or Axanar. It doesn't mean he's perfect or without flaw, but he's awesome, and if one doesn't take precious limited time pointing out his imperfections for a one off story, I'd hardly condemn the lone story for such a reason.
It may be implied when one suggests they can tell an equally good Star Trek story in 30 minutes. We agreed, after all, that Trek was better as a series than as movies, and I would think we shared the same reasoning, but maybe not. When you have more time, you can fill it with mindless slop, or meaningful character development and further flesh out the historical fictional landscape or explore more meaningful and socially important ideas, etc. But the point is, more time is THE reason Trek works better as a series. While not an absolute, it would tend to be the reason why Trek fan films or series could usually do better with more time, more parts, or more sequels or prequels.
Can be, but mostly I think the Trek universe does better when it has more time.
Ah, so you seem to be saying anyone who doesn't like it is merely whining? That is, attacking their character if they disagree with you on that point? Well, I don't like it. Nor do I feel one need to make fan films themselves to like it or not like it when simply watching fan films gives one enough of a stake to have a valid opinion on the matter. And while I'm not saying people can't make some amazing short fan films, my general belief is still Trek does better with more time to tell more interesting and unique and socially important stories.
You take a lot of time to write about something you don't care about, or berate the very character as a Gary Stu when you suggest you couldn't care less about him. Regardless, I think we both agree one could concoct a decent story about Garth's fall that both fit canon and the CBS/Paramount guidelines, and I'd happily watch it. But first some fan film maker has to agree and make it. I know of no one who is even trying to write that. If they do, however, I would watch it. But I'd also happily watch a decent story fleshing out exactly what Garth did at Axanar that was so amazing that it became required reading at the academy, particularly if it involved, at least in passing, the creation of the Constitution Class of Starships. I'm pretty sure I could watch both, and most likely in less time that it takes to write this response.
Yes, as long as it is made perfectly clear by you that anyone who disagrees is just a whiner, it would seem.
I wouldn't go so far as to give carte blanche to any viewpoint, but I would tend to agree many different reasons or combinations thereof are valid enough to be fans, or not fans, of Trek. I happen to like all the things you mentioned there, and more, and I feel Trek brought so many good elements together in such a way that even today it stands above many fictional offerings on T.V.
Requires? Needs? You seem to be suffering from some impression that if something isn't a necessity, it shouldn't be made or watched or something. I'm not really sure what you're suggesting there. I mean if all you're saying is if somebody makes Axanar, you will refuse to watch it since you feel it is a needless waste of time, then O.K. I think with all of the myriad reasons to like Trek, most of which you say you agree are valid, plenty of people would watch it if it were made, and I'd be one of them.
Last edited:
They probably can, sure, but I don't think it's particularly necessary for a one off.
Could be, but then again brain damage doesn't necessarily mean it can only bring out existing flaws – it can totally create some, too. Gary Mitchell, on the other hand, had something happen that brought out the existing evil within, but not everything is like that. Anyway, you can write it either way for Garth, if you wish to write a story about the fall.
Yeah, he's a big deal and a great officer, but I don't recall a long or vaulted wartime history. He was about 10 years ahead of the normal curve, he was so good, but none of that was for wartime efforts and being a tactical genius. I'm not saying it's impossible he earned that or deserved that reputation, but I'm not sure where or when he did it. Maybe that's a good area for a fan film.
I might have alluded to a character flaw during the time of Axanar that could have led to the fall after Axanar, or even a strength, the opposite of wishing to rule the universe or thinking anyone should, to demonstrate how his accident would later twist the man into that megalomaniac, but I wouldn't have given it too much screen time. But that's my choice. If another didn't want to point out a flaw or two in what was going to be a one off, I wouldn't have complained too much about that, either. It's not like I don't understand the problem with the Gary Stu character when you will have bags of time in a series, or string of movies, but for a one off, it's like one is saying life necessitates meaningful and noticeable change every encounter, and they don't see it, it must be unrealistic crap and not worth watching.
Anyway, the only point I started with remains true IMO. Not having a character flaw pointed out and/or overcome during the story doesn't make it a bad story, particularly for a shorter format, and especially when the character in question is supposed to be exceptionally awesome.
Last edited:
It seems that your entire purpose here is to have a fight. I am therefore done with this conversation. People can agree to disagree, friend.
ETA: Also, I didn't call you a whiner. Did I say "That JRTSTarlight... What a whiner!" No! Get over yourself. You assume that you're the center of the universe in this discussion. Just realize: While we may be having a discussion, not EVERY comment is ABOUT YOU.
Y'know, after reading all that, I really have an urge to write a 30 minute Axanar script. Could be fun.
Actually, Garth lost his marbles when the Antosians taught him how to use their shapeshifting abilities in order to heal himself from some sort of injury he'd incurred. I never thought he lost it during battle. More like the invisible man who goes insane from the chemical he treated himself with.
Sure they can. But you're wrong when you assert my purpose is I'm looking for a fight. Maybe you wish to agree to disagree about my motives, too, under the theory your belief what I'm thinking or feeling or what my motives are is just as valid as what I'd actually tell anybody they actually are. But I'm pretty sure I have a better handle on what I'm thinking than you do.
I didn't assume that. You, however, seem to think you know what I'm thinking, like you can read my mind, and you're more than willing to tell others what I'm thinking or even what my motives or assumptions are. I think that's weird. No, at best you just implied I was whining, or simply made it particularly easy to infer as much by saying "many" who don't like the limitations are just whiners, right in the middle of a conversation with me where I point out I don't like the limitation, without taking any pains to even give lip service to the notion you didn't mean me. But even if you can't see from the context that would be a natural inference to make, you do, again, attribute motives or a particular characteristic to MANY who don't like the time limitation, and with one wide brush paint an entire cross section of fans in an unflattering manner that, contrary to your other claims, is an equally legitimate opinion since it is, according to you, yet while implying their POV is not valid after all since many of them are just whiners. And, of course, like what I'm thinking or what my motives are, you seem to feel you know better than they do. It seems inconsistent to me. And weird.
But if you're done with the conversation, I thank you. It'd be nice not to have to post again on this just to take the words out of my mouth you seem intent on putting there, or to let stand any false assertion of what my motives really are.
One cannot deny the greatness of Dr. Strangelove.
I'm going to work on a 7 minute one.
Inspired by the most famous scene in film history left on the cutting room floor, I'm going to write one where Garth defeats Kahrn in a massive pie fight. Instead of pew, pew, pew it's going to be splat, splat, splat! It will be EPIC!
I don't really see why it matters if it's a one off or not, you can still have good characterizations in a one off. I'm not an expert writer or anything, but there are still ways to ways to give decent characters in a single short film.
Was it specifically stated somewhere that he had brain damage? I double checked Memory Alpha and all it said is he was "maimed" and I don't remember the episode ever getting specific about what exactly happened to him.
Either way, just because he was a great Captain doesn't mean he had to be perfect and flawless. There are plenty of major, heroic historical figures who did great things, but still also had some dark, nasty stuff going on at the same time.
I don't see why a fan film would be needed when the shows and movies already showed us what he did.
You don't need to spend a ton of time on it, you just need it to be there.
.
You don't need big meaningful change for there to be decent characterization.
It might not make something a bad story, but it definitely doesn't help.
Last edited:
zzzzzzz
Frankly, I'm sure there's a good story someone could tell about Garth of Izar and the battle of Axanar, but the Axanar script barely qualified as a story and certainly didn't get within sensor range of "good". Patton demonstrates that a good film and a compelling story of a military genius is not in one bit undermined by the fact that we know how the war turns out. But what it does which Axanar 's script didn't was portray the genius as a complex and deeply flawed man. You could tell the story of a flawed man whom everyone thinks is the model officer, and how he walks the fine line of madness, filled with self-doubt until he starts to believe his own press, which would be consistent with the image Kirk has of him, but would show us what was really going on, and why this man could crack when his body was shattered.
Mary Stu Garth was neither interesting nor complex. He was an utter bore.
Mary Stu Garth was neither interesting nor complex. He was an utter bore.
Last edited:
- Status