CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

[JRTStarlight]

This is under the theory that if they added links right away, the MODS would notice and immediately step on it, I assume? So linking retroactively has been a huge problem here, eh? I would think those links would be buried and seldom seen as the most recent part of the thread bypassed that area and left those links many pages in the past and far behind and rarely seen. But I guess some can come by later to read the whole thread. But would the very presence of links really threaten them or anyone? Don't click them if they don't interest you.

I would rather think the "report" option would handle that - assuming I know what that is and what it really does, for I may not - and only once something like that becomes a problem and a person reports it, the MODs can take a report from an annoyed user to zero in on the problem and only then would they need to handle it, and they might even issue a warning for unacceptable edits and retroactive spamming, if that's the issue. This grace period wouldn't really prevent anyone intent on doing that. Join - wait - post a bit - them SPAM. But seriously, who would do that since once done, it becomes obvious and they get banned?

But then I've run afoul of a MOD or two in my short time here and I agree they are trying to be overly controlling. But hey, it's not my board, and not my responsibility to keep it running smoothly, so their playground, their rules. Compliance is (usually) no problem.

I just try to let things slide, like water off a duck's back, and no matter how disagreeable I may find some here, I won't let those relative few mitigate my enjoyment of sharing Trek or talking about Trek with those interested like minded few who also find sharing and discussion to be a major part of the enjoyment of the fictional landscape.

 

[JRTStarlight]

Axanar is about Garth. And Alec Peters’ Garth is an idealized version of a perfect captain with a perfect ship and he saves the day because, well, he’s awesome. That’s not good character to me. It’s boring. In Discovery, the characters are flawed, they’re interesting, they’re not the perfect precept of a Starfleet Officer. And that I find fascinating.

I never understood the complaint Garth is too good to be true, or a Gary Stu. If he weren't like that, then he wouldn't be the character he was originally written to be, the prototype for all other starship captains, even better than Kirk. This is not to say perfect, but he's awesome, and what he did was awesome. More would, and should, complain if he weren't like that.

If you’ve not read the script for the Axanar feature, I suggest you do so. It, to me, is a prime example of Gary Stu-ism to its fault. You can disagree with me. That’s okay. It’s just my opinion.

Unfortunately, to come up with what Garth actually did to warrant that reputation, which I would have found completely fascinating, did not materialize in any script I've seen for Axanar.

In the meantime, I liked Prelude and the style, and I think what was great about it was the way it didn't violate canon, but embraced it and provided even more background to the start of the TOS Trek era. I'm more than interested in that story. I would love to see the actual construction of THE U.S.S. Constitution NCC-1700, the other prototype, this one for the starship we came to know and love, for example. And I would have loved to see a magnificent captain like that, maybe even knowing despite his awesomeness, what his tragic future holds for him - perhaps some foreshadowing of a character flaw just waiting for an accident to destroy his normal inhibitions to keep his evil side in check. We've seen Kirk's evil half. Why not get a peek at Garth's, knowing the accident that will set it free. And I don't mind it's about a war. So what?

But like I said, I saw no such worthy script.

 

[Campe]

I never understood the complaint Garth is too good to be true, or a Gary Stu. If he weren't like that, then he wouldn't be the character he was originally written to be, the prototype for all other starship captains, even better than Kirk. This is not to say perfect, but he's awesome, and what he did was awesome. More would, and should, complain if he weren't like that.

That’s why this story didn’t work for me. A far more interesting tale would have been Garth’s fall. You can still see this perfect specimen of a Starfleet Officer. Then, he has his accident, sees himself become a villain and the main thrust of the story is outthinking one of the finest tacticians in Starfleet. The idea behind Axanar? That was boring. Because there was no growth. He was just awesome.

He started the story awesome.
He ended the story awesome.

There was nothing in between.

And I don't mind it's about a war. So what?

It’s unoriginal. Just like Discovery being set against the Klingon War is. How many episodes of Star Trek have there been a conflict? Even moreso how many have there been fighting the Klingons? It’s a big flaw for Discovery. But I’m hopeful they’ll move past that and the second season is supposed to do that. Prelude and Axanar have no scope outside of the war. It’s a huge flaw. Star Trek is supposed to be about exploration. Axanar is about pew pew.

 

[JRTStarlight]

That’s why this story didn’t work for me. A far more interesting tale would have been Garth’s fall. You can still see this perfect specimen of a Starfleet Officer. Then, he has his accident, sees himself become a villain and the main thrust of the story is outthinking one of the finest tacticians in Starfleet.

I think you were expecting too much from a one off – it’s just one story, one film, and not even a very long one. Trek is best as a series, and character development takes time – many episodes to be really good, IMO. I wasn't looking for that there. I don't think anyone should have been for a lone movie.

Another story about Garth's fall is certainly possible, probably even good, but I'd rather first allude to the flaw that leads to the fall in Axanar than actually see it. It didn't really sound that impressive – an accident, brain damage, healing, and the crazy captain giving an order to wipe out a whole race of people. Outthinking him? He gave an illegal and immoral order and his crew wouldn't obey and locked him up. I suppose it may have been more interesting if he ran amuck and Starfleet had to take him down, but that wasn't what was already written.

Trek is also best when it's optimistic. Dark and pessimistic has its place, too, sure, but for one story, you can't or shouldn't cover too much ground. There's nothing wrong with one of the best, most impressive things this prototype of a captain did to warrant that reputation. I just wish they wrote a good story to show that. They didn't.

The idea behind Axanar? That was boring. Because there was no growth. He was just awesome.

He started the story awesome.
He ended the story awesome.

There was nothing in between.

Again, that's a good goal for a series and multiple episodes, but not realistic in a short movie that may not even be allowed to have a second part follow up.

It’s unoriginal. Just like Discovery being set against the Klingon War is. How many episodes of Star Trek have there been a conflict? Even moreso how many have there been fighting the Klingons? It’s a big flaw for Discovery. But I’m hopeful they’ll move past that and the second season is supposed to do that. Prelude and Axanar have no scope outside of the war. It’s a huge flaw. Star Trek is supposed to be about exploration. Axanar is about pew pew.

Unoriginal? Most of the movies seem to gear up that way, unlike the series that take the time to spread out, develop, and have characters grow. I see no great reason to expect Axanar to not follow suit of the movies since it's meant to be a movie and not the beginning of a new series. Your complaints about how DIS started may be more warranted like that, and your hopes for it mirror my own (I'm not watching it now but I hear things and would similarly hope it follows Trek's episodic nature and not the bigger movie's pew pew pew nature). But still, Axanar is not a series – it's one story, and one whose general outlines have already been caste in Whom Gods Destroy. Garth did something at Axanar – something awesome. But what?

 

[dmac]

I do wish success in all endeavors, (endeavours for my friends across the pond) when life leads opportunity to your door.

 

[Campe]

I think you were expecting too much from a one off – it’s just one story, one film, and not even a very long one. Trek is best as a series, and character development takes time – many episodes to be really good, IMO. I wasn't looking for that there. I don't think anyone should have been for a lone movie.

While I agree with you on Trek working best as a series, I think you miss the rest of my point. I’m not speaking of Prelude. All it was was an extended trailer for the feature Axanar. While Axanar, of course, was never made, the script was leaked. That’s what I’m speaking of — what Peters wanted to make. What he deemed as the best Trek movie ever. You can’t carry a lot of ground in twenty minutes, you’re correct.

But in two hours? The story I suggest? It absolutely can be told. It’s almost akin to the idea of Heart of Darkness. You start with the idea of a Captain working with Garth at this amazing Battle of Axanar. You see Garth in action. You know he’s amazing. The battle is won. The captain and Garth have a conversation about how they’ll always be friends (or something). Jump forward to Garth on the start of his mission and how he goes mad. The rest of the movie is the captain friend having to hunt down Garth. You see bits and pieces of what happens to Garth as the friend struggles with taking him down. But of course we know what happens. No, it’s not the most optimistic tale. But the story would be better than Peters had planned and make better use of the idea of the Battle of Axanar.

There's nothing wrong with one of the best, most impressive things this prototype of a captain did to warrant that reputation. I just wish they wrote a good story to show that. They didn't.

There’s nothing wrong with it, no. And if Peters wanted to tell a story of a captain who had to become this amazing Garth and overcome something and actually struggle, I would have been okay with it. It, to me, still wouldn’t be the most original Trek

Again, that's a good goal for a series and multiple episodes, but not realistic in a short movie that may not even be allowed to have a second part follow up.

Again, you and I disagree on how much ground could be covered in a two hour film. That’s okay.

Unoriginal? Most of the movies seem to gear up that way, unlike the series that take the time to spread out, develop, and have characters grow. I see no great reason to expect Axanar to not follow suit of the movies since it's meant to be a movie and not the beginning of a new series.

The producers promised that Axanar would be the best Trek film ever. Film. Not fan film. That’s a pretty big promise. The script, as written, was so far from that goal, it’s not even funny. And just because one film in a series does something doesn’t mean the mold can’t be broken. That’s how you get amazing films.

But still, Axanar is not a series – it's one story, and one whose general outlines have already been caste in Whom Gods Destroy. Garth did something at Axanar – something awesome. But what?

You keep comparing this to a TV series. The only reason I brought Discovery up in the first place was because someone compared it to Axanar. I’m not comparing it to a series. I also think your scope seems fairly limited in what can be accomplished in two hours. I’m suggesting two ways forward: using the Battle of Axanar as texture for a better story about a man falling from grace. Or if focusing the story of Axanar is so important (it’s not), telling this story of Garth doing something awesome but suggesting there is a lot more to that story. That he was a reluctant hero. That something happened that made him doubt himself. Something. Anything more interesting than what Peters wrote for the Axanar feature.

Regardless of all of this, I find Garth to be more interesting as an enigma of a character prior to his fall. Let the audience fill in the blanks. I remember a time we didn’t have to fill in every gap in entertainment. Now it seems to be a prerequisite to tell every semi-interesting back story (Rogue One for instance). “Whom Gods Destroy” is a mediocre episode at best. The Battle of Axanar is really not a story that needs to be told on any screen.

 

[jespah]

This is under the theory that if they added links right away, the MODS would notice and immediately step on it, I assume? So linking retroactively has been a huge problem here, eh? I would think those links would be buried and seldom seen as the most recent part of the thread bypassed that area and left those links many pages in the past and far behind and rarely seen. But I guess some can come by later to read the whole thread. But would the very presence of links really threaten them or anyone? Don't click them if they don't interest you.

I would rather think the "report" option would handle that - assuming I know what that is and what it really does, for I may not - and only once something like that becomes a problem and a person reports it, the MODs can take a report from an annoyed user to zero in on the problem and only then would they need to handle it, and they might even issue a warning for unacceptable edits and retroactive spamming, if that's the issue. This grace period wouldn't really prevent anyone intent on doing that. Join - wait - post a bit - them SPAM. But seriously, who would do that since once done, it becomes obvious and they get banned?

But then I've run afoul of a MOD or two in my short time here and I agree they are trying to be overly controlling. But hey, it's not my board, and not my responsibility to keep it running smoothly, so their playground, their rules. Compliance is (usually) no problem.

I just try to let things slide, like water off a duck's back, and no matter how disagreeable I may find some here, I won't let those relative few mitigate my enjoyment of sharing Trek or talking about Trek with those interested like minded few who also find sharing and discussion to be a major part of the enjoyment of the fictional landscape.

Not to get into the minutiae but the thing about moderating any board (and this is not my first moderating rodeo) is that leaving spammy links up means spammers get to, for free, piggyback off a site's SEO. If links aren't taken down, then it implies to Google's bots that the links are somehow endorsed by a far more reputable site such as TrekBBS. Burying those links down one thousandfold doesn't eliminate that issue. So links from spammers need to be nixed.

A grace period helps to eliminate automated bots from doing much of anything. All that automated bots do is post links and yes, those have to be pulled as well.

As for reporting - and I've seen that elsewhere as well - often one person thinks everyone else has reported and then it turns into Alphonse and Gaston ("After you." "No, after you." etc) and nobody reports something.

All reporting is welcome. We'll sort it out if it turns out something was reported in error. Many thanks for asking!

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[JRTStarlight]

While I agree with you on Trek working best as a series, I think you miss the rest of my point. I’m not speaking of Prelude. All it was was an extended trailer for the feature Axanar. While Axanar, of course, was never made, the script was leaked. That’s what I’m speaking of — what Peters wanted to make. What he deemed as the best Trek movie ever. You can’t carry a lot of ground in twenty minutes, you’re correct.

No, I was speaking of Axanar, too. Prelude is fine – even great – but Axanar was supposed to the movie for that so-called extended trailer, more or less about that story, about what Garth did at Axanar that was so awesome. If he's a Gary Stu in it, I think that's fine since the character was written that way in TOS. It's one movie. If it were for a series, I'd be less inclined to want to watch a Gary Stu vehicle than one with a flawed captain who struggles, like most of the rest of us, with life's decisions. It's only for a series that I find the Gary Stu complaint to be particularly valid. So even a two-hour movie with a GS wouldn't bother me, and with shorter and shorter times for a fan film, I would expect even less room for character development and that complaint to be even less valid. This is why I'm mostly miffed at CBS/Paramount's guidelines of two 15-minutes segments and no real follow ups allowed (since they'd be too much like part 3, part 4, etc., so why have a limit at all if that's allowed?)

But in two hours? The story I suggest? It absolutely can be told. It’s almost akin to the idea of Heart of Darkness. You start with the idea of a Captain working with Garth at this amazing Battle of Axanar. You see Garth in action. You know he’s amazing. The battle is won. The captain and Garth have a conversation about how they’ll always be friends (or something). Jump forward to Garth on the start of his mission and how he goes mad. The rest of the movie is the captain friend having to hunt down Garth. You see bits and pieces of what happens to Garth as the friend struggles with taking him down. But of course we know what happens. No, it’s not the most optimistic tale. But the story would be better than Peters had planned and make better use of the idea of the Battle of Axanar.

I think that storyline is at odds with what WGD said happened to him. It sounds like a good story idea, but I feel it would take a retcon maneuver to make it. In TOS, his crew simply wouldn't follow him. You could expound on that, but I'm not confident it would work as you suggest by having Garth run dangerously amok like Khan and having his former friend, another captain, crew, and ship be the one's who had to stop him instead of his own crew simply disobeying the obvious lunatic, as given. I mean, they're not Abram's Romulans, after all. Anyway, it's not really the story of Axanar, but what later happens.

There’s nothing wrong with it, no. And if Peters wanted to tell a story of a captain who had to become this amazing Garth and overcome something and actually struggle, I would have been okay with it. It, to me, still wouldn’t be the most original Trek

I think Prelude was quite original in the way it told the story, and while Axanar may have been told in another manner, and while originality is often good, not every episode, or story, or movie needs to be completely original to be good or worthwhile. Originality is something that might make it better or hold it higher than other episodes, but lacking it isn't a killer since it's still a new story and fleshing out another part of a fictional landscape we enjoy, even if it's mostly about a starship, its captain, and something incredible he did. Why, for what it was supposed to be, just showing the creation of NCC-1700 and NCC-1701 makes it cool enough for me to want to watch it.

Again, you and I disagree on how much ground could be covered in a two-hour film. That’s okay.

Yep. Well, I'm not saying you can't put in something like a character developmental moment – I'm just saying if it's not there in a single movie, I'm not going to complain about it or suggest that's the reason it's no good. If it's not there in a series, then I might. But I'm also mindful of the new time constraints, too, and would expect even less of that. And yeah, it can still be done, but I wouldn't worry too much about lacking character development in a short, so such an argument or complaint becomes increasingly meaningless as a "deal breaker."

The producers promised that Axanar would be the best Trek film ever. Film. Not fan film. That’s a pretty big promise. The script, as written, was so far from that goal, it’s not even funny. And just because one film in a series does something doesn’t mean the mold can’t be broken. That’s how you get amazing films.

They did not deliver, this is true. We both didn't like the script, this is apparent. My point is a different script could still do that, even with a Gary Stu, or lacking completely in originality, like, yeah, it's about fighting Klingons - again. This script didn't mange to be good, but another could, even with those "damning" elements. So while if you wish to say the Axanar script sucked or you didn't like it, I'm cool with that. If you say any script with a Gary Stu (as Garth is suppose to be from canon) or where they fight Klingons (which actually seems like a worthy run up to TOS for me and almost expected for a prequel or sorts, despite its lack of "originality" ) will be bad, I'd disagree. Those elements are not particularly fatal or even that bad, as long as we see more of the Trek universe, its history, and find out what awesome thing Garth did at Axanar. Peters, sadly, doesn't seem to have a clue what that might have been (at least judging from that script). So I'll tear it apart and pick at its flaws, too, but Gary Stuism or fighting Klingons wouldn't be on my list of complaints. That's my point. I don't find those elements to be particularly valid complaints about one fan film.

You keep comparing this to a TV series. The only reason I brought Discovery up in the first place was because someone compared it to Axanar. I’m not comparing it to a series. I also think your scope seems fairly limited in what can be accomplished in two hours. I’m suggesting two ways forward: using the Battle of Axanar as texture for a better story about a man falling from grace. Or if focusing the story of Axanar is so important (it’s not), telling this story of Garth doing something awesome but suggesting there is a lot more to that story. That he was a reluctant hero. That something happened that made him doubt himself. Something. Anything more interesting than what Peters wrote for the Axanar feature.

Sure. Peters did a bad job with that script – we agree. But fighting Klingons or being an awesome guy aren't really problems that would make me complain about a one off movie. And if Peters could still put something out in two 15-minute shorts, I'd be even less inclined to fault him for Gary Stuism or unoriginally fighting Klingons. I just don't find those particular complaints compelling. There was plenty else to complain about in that script, IIRC.

Regardless of all of this, I find Garth to be more interesting as an enigma of a character prior to his fall. Let the audience fill in the blanks. I remember a time we didn’t have to fill in every gap in entertainment. Now it seems to be a prerequisite to tell every semi-interesting back story (Rogue One for instance). “Whom Gods Destroy” is a mediocre episode at best. The Battle of Axanar is really not a story that needs to be told on any screen.

Telling more of Trek history is a worthy endeavor, IMO, and if one could embrace canon while doing it instead of violating it left and right or retconing front and center, it would please a huge number of Trek fans. I believe Prelude did that. Axanar might have, too, if it had been made. But this so-call "need" to fill every gap is no more wrong than the "need" to want to watch even more Trek such that fans are willing to take up the challenge and make some. I think it's fine. Whatever low opinion you may hold for WGD, it doesn't mean an Axanar script couldn't be far superior, so your assessment of the low quality of WGD, almost as if that necessitates a lateral translation of low quality to other associated stories, seems erroneous.

But we sure did agree that particular Axanar script sucked. Of course, weirdly, sometimes the acting or effects can improve even a bad script. Anyway, it didn't happen, and from that script, it seems unlikely it could.

 

[Csalem]

Just read on FanFilmFactor that Lane's "Prelude to Ax'd-we-are" won best fan film in Berlin, beating Axanar:
https://fanfilmfactor.com/2017/11/2...xanar-in-the-berlin-sci-fi-film-festival-yay/

 

[137th Gebirg]

That was awesome. "Princess Buttercup"...

 

[JRTStarlight]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

There are some pretty good bits in here.

 

[Campe]

If he's a Gary Stu in it, I think that's fine since the character was written that way in TOS.

Eh, I don't know about that. He was really written as a fallen hero. A Gary Stu is more of the idea of a perfect character that fills in for wish fulfillment. Garth, as presented in "Whom Gods Destroy" was FAR from perfect. Garth, as presented in the Axanar script was dead on a Gary Stu.

It's only for a series that I find the Gary Stu complaint to be particularly valid.

That seems like a rather limited view on what the concept is. People complained (whether rightly or wrongly is up to your opinion) that Rey was a Mary Sue in Force Awakens. I can see the argument, even if I might disagree with it.

This is why I'm mostly miffed at CBS/Paramount's guidelines of two 15-minutes segments and no real follow ups allowed (since they'd be too much like part 3, part 4, etc., so why have a limit at all if that's allowed?)

No offense intended towards you in particular, but I think its time for fandom to get over this. You don't need longform storytelling to tell a good story. You don't need a series to tell a good story. I respect that you can tell a story with more texture with more length to it than 30 minutes. But there have already been some impressive stories told within the guidelines.

I think that storyline is at odds with what WGD said happened to him. It sounds like a good story idea, but I feel it would take a retcon maneuver to make it.

The quotes from "Whom Gods Destroy" actually could give you some wiggle room to have the story turn into a manhunt.

From "Whom Gods Destroy"
CORY: The people of Antos taught him the techniques of cellular metamorphosis to restore the destroyed parts of his body. By himself, he later learned to use the technique to recreate himself into any form he wished. The first time we knew about it was when a guard, seeing what he thought was me in Garth's cell, released him.
KIRK: He was such a genius. What a waste.

GARTH: Upon the firmest of foundations, Mister Spock. Enlightened self interest. You, Captain, are second only to me as the finest military commander in the galaxy.
KIRK: That's very flattering. I am primarily an explorer now, Captain Garth.
GARTH: And so have I been. I have charted more new worlds than any man in history.
KIRK: And tried to destroy Antos Four.
SPOCK: Why?
GARTH: Well, I could say because they were actively hostile to the Federation.
KIRK: Yes, you could say, but that would be untrue.
GARTH: Agreed. Actually they were quite harmless, and they made me whole when I was maimed and dying. And in my gratitude, I offered them the galaxy. They rejected me, and I condemned them to death.
SPOCK: How could you, a Starship fleet Captain, believe that a Federation crew would blindly obey your order to destroy the entire Antos race, a people famous for their benevolence and peaceful pursuits?
GARTH: That was my only miscalculation. I had changed. I had risen above this decadent weakness which still has you in its command, by the way, Captain. My crew had not. I couldn't sway them, but my new crew, the men in this room, will obey my orders without question. Gentlemen, you have eyes but you cannot see. Galaxies surround us, limitless vistas. And yet the Federation would have us grub away like some ants on some somewhat larger than usual anthill. But I am not an insect. I am master of the universe, and I must claim my domain.
KIRK: I agree there was a time when war was necessary, and you were our greatest warrior. I studied your victory at Axanar when I was a cadet. In fact it's still required reading at the Academy.
GARTH: As well it should be.

However...

In TOS, his crew simply wouldn't follow him. You could expound on that, but I'm not confident it would work as you suggest by having Garth run dangerously amok like Khan and having his former friend, another captain, crew, and ship be the one's who had to stop him instead of his own crew simply disobeying the obvious lunatic, as given.

Maybe the story would get a little complex. Okay, fine. Make the friend the first officer. Make it more personal to the story at hand. They served together. They continue to serve together. Something goes awry. The FO has to take down Garth, his Captain.

Anyway, it's not really the story of Axanar, but what later happens.

But again, to me, its not a story that is DYING to be told. It's fanwank. If it wasn’t, Paramount or CBS would have told it a long time ago. I think its better suited to be the texture of a different story. At the moment that's "Whom Gods Destroy." If its necessary to show this battle (I still don't think it is), the fall of a bright and talented Captain in Garth would be a great place to do so. But I get the feeling this will be an agree to disagree moment. That’s okay.

I think Prelude was quite original in the way it told the story, and while Axanar may have been told in another manner, and while originality is often good, not every episode, or story, or movie needs to be completely original to be good or worthwhile. Originality is something that might make it better or hold it higher than other episodes, but lacking it isn't a killer since it's still a new story and fleshing out another part of a fictional landscape we enjoy, even if it's mostly about a starship, its captain, and something incredible he did.

When you have an old, and tired format such as Star Trek had, virtually unchanging from 1987 to 2005, I think it’s better to do something original.

Why, for what it was supposed to be, just showing the creation of NCC-1700 and NCC-1701 makes it cool enough for me to want to watch it.

You’re absolutely entitled to your opinion. Me? I don’t know why that needs to be told either. In my opinion, we don’t NEED to see every bit of minutiae of Star Trek history. The dots don’t need to be connected, unless it’s a worthwhile story.

Yep. Well, I'm not saying you can't put in something like a character developmental moment – I'm just saying if it's not there in a single movie, I'm not going to complain about it or suggest that's the reason it's no good. If it's not there in a series, then I might. But I'm also mindful of the new time constraints, too, and would expect even less of that. And yeah, it can still be done, but I wouldn't worry too much about lacking character development in a short, so such an argument or complaint becomes increasingly meaningless as a "deal breaker."

And I prefer my characters to grow and learn something. Whether that’s across an hour of episodic TV, a two hour feature or a thirteen episode arc-based TV season, or even a short film, there’s no excuse in my mind that this couldn’t happen.

They did not deliver, this is true.

Honestly about 3/4 of the paragraph I quoted this from could have been condensed to the above sentence.

So I'll tear it apart and pick at its flaws, too, but Gary Stuism or fighting Klingons wouldn't be on my list of complaints. That's my point. I don't find those elements to be particularly valid complaints about one fan film.

That’s the great thing about Star Trek. There’s so much of it, we can disagree on what it means to us and what our criticisms might be and honestly, we’d both be right.

Telling more of Trek history is a worthy endeavor, IMO, and if one could embrace canon while doing it instead of violating it left and right or retconing front and center, it would please a huge number of Trek fans. I believe Prelude did that. Axanar might have, too, if it had been made. But this so-call "need" to fill every gap is no more wrong than the "need" to want to watch even more Trek such that fans are willing to take up the challenge and make some. I think it's fine.

Okay... but define a huge number of Star Trek fans? Let’s say there’s 10 million Star Trek fans in the world. Probably a little low, but it’s a nice number for my math. There were something like 7,000 fans in the Axanar Facebook group. But lets say that there were more who saw it, liked it and didn’t join the Facebook group. So, I’ll triple that to 20,000 fans. (Don’t even think about bringing YouTube views into this. They are not unique viewers. Just number of actual views.) That’s probably pretty high but I’m being really generous to Axanar. That’s .2% of the worldwide fan base. Yes. Not 2%. 0.2%. Zero. Point. Two. You have to remember, you have the big general bucket of the fan base. Then you have the glass that is the fan base who discusses this on the Internet. Then there’s the thimble of people who watch fan films. And not all of them like Axanar. Not all of them DID like Axanar.

Whatever low opinion you may hold for WGD, it doesn't mean an Axanar script couldn't be far superior, so your assessment of the low quality of WGD, almost as if that necessitates a lateral translation of low quality to other associated stories, seems erroneous.

Hmmm... I don’t know how my opinion about an episode of “Whom Gods Destroy” can lead to anything being erroneous. I didn’t say nor did I suggest that a sequel/prequel to such an episode automatically had to be terrible. “Space Seed” is an okay episode. Not great but not terrible either. I like Wrath of Khan just fine (granted, I don’t think is the end all, be all Trek film, but again, we’re all entitled to our opinions).

Of course, weirdly, sometimes the acting or effects can improve even a bad script. Anyway, it didn't happen, and from that script, it seems unlikely it could.

Eh. I think they needed a page one rewrite. I don’t know if VFX or acting (a category, BTW, that wasn’t very strong, given that Alec Peters was THE star of the show).

 

[JRTStarlight]

Eh, I don't know about that. He was really written as a fallen hero. A Gary Stu is more of the idea of a perfect character that fills in for wish fulfillment. Garth, as presented in "Whom Gods Destroy" was FAR from perfect. Garth, as presented in the Axanar script was dead on a Gary Stu.

In WGD, at the time of Axanar, he was written thus:

KIRK: When I was a cadet at the Academy, his exploits were required reading. He was one of my heroes. I'd like to see him.

And

KIRK: No. No, think. Think back to what you were before the accident that sent you to Antos Four. Try.
GARTH: I can't remember. It's almost as if I had died and was reborn.
KIRK: No, I, I can remember. You were the finest student at the Academy, the finest Starship Captain. You were the prototype, the model for the rest of us.
GARTH: Yes, I do remember that. It was a great responsibility, but one I was proud to bear.

It's clear from WGD, at the time of the Axanar incident, the character was pretty much a Gary Stu-like individual. That's the given. And Axanar isn't the tale of what he's like in WGD.

That seems like a rather limited view on what the concept is. People complained (whether rightly or wrongly is up to your opinion) that Rey was a Mary Sue in Force Awakens. I can see the argument, even if I might disagree with it.

That Star Wars run is more of a series, too, and not just one short story, so I think the Mary Sue complaint carries more weight there than it would in one stand alone story. Not that I'm making that complaint there. I'm not.

No offense intended towards you in particular, but I think its time for fandom to get over this. You don't need long form storytelling to tell a good story. You don't need a series to tell a good story. I respect that you can tell a story with more texture with more length to it than 30 minutes. But there have already been some impressive stories told within the guidelines.

I think Trek was so much more than mindless filler, despite the jargon (different from gobbledygook) and didn't need anyone to pad it out to 46 minutes. Back then, lots of shows were in an "hour" long format and expected to fill it since TV then was a barren wasteland, and I've seen some of those old shows recently that were dreadful and filled with crap just to get that much. Honestly, they could be condensed to 15 minutes and not lose much of the actual story. Try cutting 30 minutes out of a Trek episode and see if it still makes sense. But many also complain Trek is too long winded. I think it needs that time more than most other shows to explore and explain more important concepts and new ideas.

Anyway, if you like the 2x15 minute limit, that's your call, of course. I think it will be more detrimental to the Trek fan film arena than you do, obvs.

The quotes from "Whom Gods Destroy" actually could give you some wiggle room to have the story turn into a manhunt.

I wouldn't deny somebody the chance to try to write that, but in 30 minutes or less and still stay true to canon and show us what Garth did at Axanar that was so amazing, I suspect it wouldn't be easy.

Maybe the story would get a little complex. Okay, fine. Make the friend the first officer. Make it more personal to the story at hand. They served together. They continue to serve together. Something goes awry. The FO has to take down Garth, his Captain.

Yes, that sounds more promising. There's a story there, but I wouldn't tell it as part of the Axanar tale, but a separate one later. Axanar might allude to it, of course, foreshadowing the fall via the flaw, but would not be part of the Axanar story. But even assuming Peters put out a Garth story, wouldn't the guidelines preclude another Garth story as a sort of sequel? Another complaint of mine, but maybe you're fine with that guideline, too, and think others such just get over it already.

But again, to me, its not a story that is DYING to be told. It's fanwank. If it weren't, Paramount or CBS would have told it a long time ago. I think it's better suited to be the texture of a different story. At the moment that's "Whom Gods Destroy." If it were necessary to show this battle (I still don't think it is), the fall of a bright and talented Captain in Garth would be a great place to do so. But I get the feeling this will be an agree to disagree moment. That’s okay.

Don't so easily dismiss fanwanking off. And it's absurd to suggest if a trek story were worth telling, CBS/Paramount would have already told it. Of course, under the guidelines one could only tell one story or the other but not both, you may have preferred the fall of Garth to the greatness of his Axanar exploit. I wouldn't mind seeing both.

When you have an old, and tired format such as Star Trek had, virtually unchanging from 1987 to 2005, I think it’s better to do something original.

If it is, then it is. If it's not completely original in every way, it may still be good. We'd have to see it first to know, though.

You’re absolutely entitled to your opinion. Me? I don’t know why that needs to be told either. In my opinion, we don’t NEED to see every bit of minutiae of Star Trek history. The dots don’t need to be connected, unless it’s a worthwhile story.

Need? Well, the whole Trek lore of various classes of ships is impressive for those who pay attention to that sort of thing, and the Constitution Class Starship was the prototype for the Enterprise in TOS, as well as the other 13 or 14 flying about at that time. Very little is said about NCC-1700 U.S.S. Constitution in canon, so it's wide open. I think it would be interesting to actually finally see it and maybe learn more of its history in the Trek universe. If it doesn't interest you, that's fine, but I think you'd be in a minority. But since I have no hard data to prove that, I won't insist on it. I'd just watch it, if I could. If it became available and you'd take a pass on it and refused to watch it, I'd actually be amazed.

And I prefer my characters to grow and learn something. Whether that’s across an hour of episodic TV, a two-hour feature or a thirteen episode arc-based TV season, or even a short film, there’s no excuse in my mind that this couldn’t happen.

I won't get upset if somebody manages to truly learn something and we can see the transformation, having come to understand the beginning character and the transformed character in depth in a short, but if it's not there for a one off, I'm just not that upset and wouldn't really dismiss the piece for that reason. YMMV.

That’s the great thing about Star Trek. There’s so much of it, we can disagree on what it means to us and what our criticisms might be and honestly, we’d both be right.

Only if you also acknowledge we'd both be wrong, too. Ha ha. But I'm not sure subjective opinions really come in right or wrong flavors so much as different flavors.

Okay... but define a huge number of Star Trek fans? Let’s say there are 10 million Star Trek fans in the world. Probably a little low, but it’s a nice number for my math. There was something like 7,000 fans in the Axanar Facebook group. But lets say that there were more who saw it, liked it and didn’t join the Facebook group. So, I’ll triple that to 20,000 fans. (Don’t even think about bringing YouTube views into this. They are not unique viewers. Just number of actual views.) That’s probably pretty high but I’m being really generous to Axanar. That’s .2% of the worldwide fan base. Yes. Not 2%. 0.2%. Zero. Point. Two. You have to remember, you have the big general bucket of the fan base. Then you have the glass that is the fan base that discusses this on the Internet. Then there’s the thimble of people who watch fan films. And not all of them like Axanar. Not all of them DID like Axanar.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? I said IMO (in my opinion) and only base that on one thing. I'm a huge Star Trek fan, and I appreciate when others take it seriously enough to respect canon (what may or may not be canon is somewhat debatable, but one can't debate a lack of respect for canon from those who say those don't care about it or give a damn or don't think it's important at all). So since I appreciated it, I would think like-minded fans would, too. Naturally, not all fans are like-minded, nor do they need to be to qualify as fans. It's just an impression I get more would like it than not, since those who want it would be upset if it weren't there, and for those who don't care about canon, they don't get upset if a piece happens to adhere to it. Like most other aspects of this discussion, one should take it or leave it. I took it. You left it, apparently. I would like to see more fan films with historic Trek details that stay within canon – you don't seem to feel they are worth watching, let alone worth making, maybe since any worth making have already been made and Trek is old and tired now and you have more interesting and original shows you'd rather watch. Fair enough.

Hmmm... I don’t know how my opinion about an episode of “Whom Gods Destroy” can lead to anything being erroneous. I didn’t say nor did I suggest that a sequel/prequel to such an episode automatically had to be terrible. “Space Seed” is an okay episode. Not great but not terrible either. I like Wrath of Khan just fine (granted, I don’t think is the end all, be all Trek film, but again, we’re all entitled to our opinions).

I got the impression you were suggesting Axanar wouldn't be worthwhile since WGD, upon which it was based, was a mediocre episode, in your opinion, which is why you rated it in an Axanar discussion. But if you didn't mean that, fine.

 

[JD]

No offense intended towards you in particular, but I think its time for fandom to get over this. You don't need longform storytelling to tell a good story. You don't need a series to tell a good story. I respect that you can tell a story with more texture with more length to it than 30 minutes. But there have already been some impressive stories told within the guidelines.

Hell, there are great short films out there that are way shorter than 30 minutes.

In WGD, at the time of Axanar, he was written thus:

KIRK: When I was a cadet at the Academy, his exploits were required reading. He was one of my heroes. I'd like to see him.

And

KIRK: No. No, think. Think back to what you were before the accident that sent you to Antos Four. Try.
GARTH: I can't remember. It's almost as if I had died and was reborn.
KIRK: No, I, I can remember. You were the finest student at the Academy, the finest Starship Captain. You were the prototype, the model for the rest of us.
GARTH: Yes, I do remember that. It was a great responsibility, but one I was proud to bear.

It's clear from WGD, at the time of the Axanar incident, the character was pretty much a Gary Stu-like individual. That's the given. And Axanar isn't the tale of what he's like in WGD.

Garth can be those things without going into full on Gary Stu territory. I think would Kirk actually be a pretty good example of that.

 

[JRTStarlight]

Full on, eh? Well, I'm not sure where the objective yardstick on Stuism is these days, or how much time one has to devote to a person's flaws in a short fan film before he/she wouldn't be accused of Stuism.

Quite frankly, I'm more miffed at the accepted suggestion Kirk was the second finest military mind of the time, second only to Garth. Where and when did Kirk acquire that reputation?

Anyway, both characters might be accused of Stuism, but I think there is plenty room to admit they are both flawed in various ways. If you don't see the flaw in every story, or see them develop and change for each tale, that alone wouldn't suggest to me the story or tale was unworthy dribble.

 

[Campe]

It's clear from WGD, at the time of the Axanar incident, the character was pretty much a Gary Stu-like individual. That's the given. And Axanar isn't the tale of what he's like in WGD.

The point of the story of “Whom Gods Destroy” is to show a Captain fallen from grace and goes insane in the process. The idea of the Mary Sue didn’t even exist until 1973. (ETA: Of course that doesn't mean that there wasn't wish fulfillment in fiction prior to 1973.) I doubt sincerely the writer of the episode cared about the Battle of Axanar and how perfect Garth was at the time other than to add some texture to the story. But it certainly wasn’t wish fulfillment. Prelude/Axanar’s take on Garth? Absolutely a Gary Stu.

I think Trek was so much more than mindless filler.

I don’t think I ever once suggested it was.

Try cutting 30 minutes out of a Trek episode and see if it still makes sense.

Irrelevant to the idea of making a fan film.

Anyway, if you like the 2x15 minute limit, that's your call, of course. I think it will be more detrimental to the Trek fan film arena than you do, obvs.

I don’t like it. I don’t dislike it. I honestly don’t care, as I don’t make fan films. I see it as a challenge to telling a good story, not a limitation. I believe if more fan film creators took that to heart (and some, if not many have), and their fans actually accepted it, you could have some amazing short form Star Trek stories out there. But alas, there are many out there who would rather whine about it.

Yes, that sounds more promising. There's a story there, but I wouldn't tell it as part of the Axanar tale, but a separate one later. Axanar might allude to it, of course, foreshadowing the fall via the flaw, but would not be part of the Axanar story. But even assuming Peters put out a Garth story, wouldn't the guidelines preclude another Garth story as a sort of sequel? Another complaint of mine, but maybe you're fine with that guideline, too, and think others such just get over it already.

Let me say this very clearly and succinctly: I don’t care about The Battle of Axanar. I don’t really even care about Garth. I believe the more important tale to be told, if you need to tell a story about Garth, is his fall. Use Axanar as texture if necessary. Period.

You disagree. That’s fine.

If it doesn't interest you, that's fine, but I think you'd be in a minority. But since I have no hard data to prove that, I won't insist on it.

Star Trek is different things to different people. To some it’s the technology and the ship classes, to others, the characters and stories, to others still, it’s the ideal version of the future. No viewpoint is right. No viewpoint is wrong.

I got the impression you were suggesting Axanar wouldn't be worthwhile since WGD, upon which it was based, was a mediocre episode, in your opinion, which is why you rated it in an Axanar discussion. But if you didn't mean that, fine.

What I was suggesting was that I didn’t believe the episode required a sequel or prequel. Apparently, Alec Peters, and you, believes differently.

 

[JD]

Full on, eh? Well, I'm not sure where the objective yardstick on Stuism is these days, or how much time one has to devote to a person's flaws in a short fan film before he/she wouldn't be accused of Stuism.

I haven't read the script for Axanar, so I don't know exactly what happens with Garthy Stu in it, but even a 15 minute short film can find ways to show that a character isn't perfect.
Either way, it seems like a mistake to me to portray Garth that way. Yeah, he was a hero of Kirk and considered a great captain, but for him to end up in the state we saw in WGD there had to be a lot of less than perfect stuff under the surface.

Quite frankly, I'm more miffed at the accepted suggestion Kirk was the second finest military mind of the time, second only to Garth. Where and when did Kirk acquire that reputation?

I'm pretty sure we saw repeated references to Kirk being a really big deal in the 24th century shows.

Anyway, both characters might be accused of Stuism, but I think there is plenty room to admit they are both flawed in various ways. If you don't see the flaw in every story, or see them develop and change for each tale, that alone wouldn't suggest to me the story or tale was unworthy dribble.

You don't have to show the flaw in every story, but when you are telling one story about a character who ends up where Garth does, then it's a good idea try to include some kind of hints about where he'll end up.

 

[Campe]

Garthy Stu

...but even a 15 minute short film can find ways to show that a character isn't perfect.
Either way, it seems like a mistake to me to portray Garth that way. Yeah, he was a hero of Kirk and considered a great captain, but for him to end up in the state we saw in WGD there had to be a lot of less than perfect stuff under the surface.

Exactly this.

I'm pretty sure we saw repeated references to Kirk being a really big deal in the 24th century shows.

And exactly that.

Kirk was not the perfect specimen. He had flaws, particularly in the movies. Sometimes the legend looms larger than the man. Which is exactly why Garth may be an amazing military commander, but that doesn't mean he needs to be the perfect human being. That's the story Alec Peters wanted to tell. Perfection? Well, to me, that's boring. Besides, there's no such thing.

 

[mos6507]

It's fine to start Garth off as perfect as long as you show how war causes him to lose his marbles. That is the character arc, isn't it? To have the whole story wrap up before he descends into madness is to not really have a complete story. I don't see how you get a complete Garth arc in two 15 minute shorts. It's impossible.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Hell, there are great short films out there that are way shorter than 30 minutes.

Exactly. How long are the Pixar shorts? In a few short minutes they introduce the world, the characters, the method of how the story is going to be told and tell a satisfying story.