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.
It only matters in degrees – like it's probably worse not to do it when you have more time, like in a series or string of movies, but more excusable you don't when time is tight, or character development is not that important to the shorter story.
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.
No, they didn't exactly say what the accident did to him, but later they say this:
CORY: How long before it takes effect, Doctor McCoy?
MCCOY: Reversal of arterial and brain damage should begin almost immediately.
It's not really a stretch since damage to a leg, for example, probably wouldn't cause so drastic a change, and they are talking about insanity. But it might not have been the accident that damaged the brain, but something about the shape changing process that poisoned the mind. We just don't know for sure.
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 that did great things, but still also had some dark, nasty stuff going on at the same time.
I agree. I'm not sure how imperfect one must be, or how well flaws must be demonstrated before one could escape the criticism of Gary Stuism, though, at a time when canon suggests he's the very model or prototype for those other 1 in a million guys.
I don't see why a fan film would be needed when the shows and movies already showed us what he did.
"Need" is not a word I'd use at all for fan films or Trek boards or many other things we do for fun – this isn't about a need so much as about a desire by one or more to make something, and/or one or more to watch it.
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.
True. Well, not need it to be there so much as want it, but will it be enough, or even acknowledged as existing, if the flaws aren't numerous enough or big enough or altered enough? I'd have to reread that Axanar script to see, and it really wasn't a good read the first time so I'm not inclined to do that, but is somebody saying there is no way anything Garth did in it could be considered or interpreted as a flaw, even a minor one?
It might not make something a bad story, but it definitely doesn't help.
I'm not convinced it really hurts that much, either, unless, like I said, it's for longer treatments when you have so much room and time, it's almost inexcusable not to take some of that and show growth and change.
Patton, of course, was all those things, but they took 170 minutes to tell that one in the 1970 film.
