Phase II Blood and Fire Part 2 Grading and Commentary

[Maurice]

Well, it was edited by someone with decades experience in virtually all aspects of movie and tv production...

Great reply to the know-all self-proclaimed "experts" on here

Professionals make mistakes all the time. That's why Sturgeon's Law remains full in force and daily re-proven.

That aside, the Producers have ultimate responsibility for how this came out, love it or not. The decision was made to make this a two-parter, and that some of us think it's slow and padded is not less valid because of who worked on it.

 

[TrekkieMonster]

Well, now that I've finally watched the 2nd half I guess I need to comment on the actual topic of this thread.

First, I do have to say that I completely understand the criticisms about the length. It could have used a bit of tightening here and there and, while I understood the reason for the Klingon sub-plot, I also understand the suggestions that it could have been made a bit more "integral".

That having been said I have to confess that I loved this installment, as I have the previous New Voyages/Phase II offerings. I think the acting just gets better and better with each iteration. And, while I'm not exactly sure how to articulate it, the "TOS Feel" just seems to be there in more and more places. I guess it's a combination of the visuals such as the amazing sets and CGI work, but almost more than that is the spot on background effects and music cues. And the little hints or "tips o' the hat" the actors offer to the original actors. Mr. Cawley seems to be especially gifted in this regard. I found myself getting lost in this episode several times, just feeling the fun and joy and sometimes the awe I remember from when I was a teenager addicted to Star Trek (and watching the reruns every chance I got.)

I know this probably sounds like gushing, and I suppose it is. Believe it or not, in real life, I'm one of the most critical people most of my friends know in terms of movies and entertainment in general. I can see where there may have been shortcomings in this episode, but it's just so damn fun to watch these episodes I was able to push them aside in my mind fairly easily. Plus, I am continually amazed at what this group of volunteers is capable of producing.

So, the bottom line is, thanks gang for making me feel 13 again (it's a lot better experience now than I remember it being then.)

 

[RobertMfromLI]

Well, it was edited by someone with decades experience in virtually all aspects of movie and tv production...

Great reply to the know-all self-proclaimed "experts" on here

Professionals make mistakes all the time. That's why Sturgeon's Law remains full in force and daily re-proven....

Why, yes they do... or they have a different creative opinion on how something should be done, which is no more or less wrong than that of other professionals in the industry or the fans that watch something. Or they did the best they could within the constraints created by the material they had to work with. Or a variety of other factors.

I just always find it odd when people who don't know what footage we have think they can do it better than someone with 3 decades experience.

...and that some of us think it's slow and padded is not less valid because of who worked on it....

Agreed. That doesn't make their criticisms of the final product any less (or more) valid - especially since such things are based on their opinions (and not based on fact). So, hopefully no one took my statement to mean their opinion is not valid. My statement was solely directed at the comment that (paraphrased to indicate how I read it) we needed a "good"/"real" editor - to which I was trying to point out that we have one of the best in the industry and (though I didnt state it) me knowing what a plethora of footage we had from a two week shoot and 6 pickups, that he did an amazing job of putting it all together so that the viewer cannot even tell that some parts of the episode were filmed months or years after the initial shoot.

Hopefully that clarifies my statement. It's not the opinions I have problems with... it's the comments indicating the editor was at fault and unskilled and should have been replaced with a real one.

Best,
Robert

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Agreed. That doesn't make their criticisms of the final product any less (or more) valid - especially since such things are based on their opinions (and not based on fact). So, hopefully no one took my statement to mean their opinion is not valid. My statement was solely directed at the comment that (paraphrased to indicate how I read it) we needed a "good"/"real" editor - to which I was trying to point out that we have one of the best in the industry and (though I didnt state it) me knowing what a plethora of footage we had from a two week shoot and 6 pickups, that he did an amazing job of putting it all together so that the viewer cannot even tell that some parts of the episode were filmed months or years after the initial shoot.

Hopefully that clarifies my statement. It's not the opinions I have problems with... it's the comments indicating the editor was at fault and unskilled and should have been replaced with a real one.

Best,
Robert

My initial film editor comment, perhaps, comes across as too flip, where it wasn't intended as such. And I'll admit that it came off with all the subtly of a heckler.

It wasn't constructive and I hope that my follow-up post clarifies the critique I had of the two-parter, which mostly lies with the script itself.

I'm sure that there were factors such as time and expense to consider. Nor do I think that the editor did a shoddy job, but I do feel that things could still be tightened up and that a few missteps were made. I had made similar observations on Part One when it was released. And I do understand that another edit is perhaps a pipe dream, once again due to time and money.

That being said, I try to give comments and critiques in order to see NV/PII continue to push the envelope that it has excellently blown apart over the last few years and episodes. And I have never once resorted to making harsh, hurtful comments like some have in the past (regarding hair, actors, etc.).

I look forward to your continued success--bring on "Enemy: Starfleet" and "Kitumba."

 

[Captain Robert April]

This is not directed solely at this production, but more of a general overall statement.

Editors are generally only as good as the director and producer who's telling them what to do, and if the director is off in his vision or perspective, for whatever reason, the editing is going to follow. A really good editor can steer that director or producer in a direction to make a scene better, but if the final word is, "No, I want it this way," the editor is duty bound to abide by that decision.

 

[RobertMfromLI]

This is not directed solely at this production, but more of a general overall statement.

Editors are generally only as good as the director and producer who's telling them what to do, and if the director is off in his vision or perspective, for whatever reason, the editing is going to follow. A really good editor can steer that director or producer in a direction to make a scene better, but if the final word is, "No, I want it this way," the editor is duty bound to abide by that decision.

That is correct... but there are a lot more factors involved when it comes to a fan production. So, while I will make no admission that any of the factors you indicated, or the ones I am about to indicate cause things to be edited a certain way, they are indeed factors that contribute to the final product.

For instance, with a fan production, budgetary constraints and/or availability constraints and/or time constraints can cause the following problems...

- During editing, certain scenes are found to be lacking a master/close/2, etc... and the cost to fly the needed people in for more filming is too excessive.

- Certain sets are not fully prepped/built/available to provide certain reverse angles, closeups, etc

- Certain performers were not available for certain closes, certain lines or a variety of other things.

- There was not enough time to film certain scenes as the director wanted - and not enough time and/or money to fly people back in to get those scenes later

Perhaps none of those factors impacted BaF - or perhaps some of them did. So, what I am trying to point out is, regardless of the "normal" (ie: big paid production) reasons a film gets edited a certain way, there are a lot of other factors involved when it comes to a fan production. In a big production, if it runs over schedule or a certain shot is missing or needs to be refilmed to tighten something up, it is more likely that the production will simply throw more time and money at it to get people back and film some more stuff. Not so much the case with fan productions.

Again... I cant say if any of those impacted our final episode... just pointing out that it's not always the producers or the editor who has the "final say" on the finished product - it can often be what's shot and what can be afforded (time wise and monetarily) to be re-shot that controls their final say.

Regardless, I'm happy with our final product. And such things happen in TV as well where there is a time constraint.

Love it... hate it... extoll it's perfection... criticize it... whichever... I still think it's pretty good considering the normal constraints any production has coupled with the plethora of constraints that volunteer fan productions have on top of that.

 

[Captain Robert April]

All points conceded. And, yes, you can be justifiably proud of what has been accomplished.

My comments regarding additional editing is strictly based on tweaking the shown footage, not any assumptions of reshooting anything or using footage we haven't seen. Just a general tightening up of what's already there on the screen.

 

[Commandergood]

Over all it was a well done episode. I think it would have been a much more moving episode if they had waited to do it 3 or 4 episodes down the line, and had just introduced the character of Peter and Alex now. As it was Alex was just another red shirt to me and his death did not have much impact.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Interesting, since Alex was in a blue shirt...

 

[AJBryant]

True, but he did suffer from redshirt syndrome -- a landing party character introduced in an episode usually doesn't fare too well in any circumstance.

 

[Pauln6]

I for one think the initial scene of Peter and Alex in part 1 was bad. It was excessively long and drawn out and boring. It didn't work for me because I had just barely met these characters and they're immediately being all kissy face. I don't know them enough to care about them yet. It was too early in the story, and it felt calculated to push buttons. That is my objection to the relationship as portrayed.

It wasn't 'bad' but I agree with all your criticisms for all your reasons. Plus the engagement had a sense of 'one more day to retirement' about it...

I think that establishing the relationship, that Alex is replacing Peter on the away team, and leaving in the Sulu line would have been enough for me here. They could have got engaged later on in the episode withoiut too much gratuitous fondling.

I tend to feel that less is more because I want gay relationships to be part of the furniture rather than an event. I prefer the innuendo in Torchwood to the full on guy-on-guy face sucking (and worse) and I thought that the portrayal of the central gay relationship in Children of Earth was about right.

Still, as far as Trek goes, this was a start!

 

[Professor Moriarty]

On the other hand, I have to say I have little sympathy for the choice of the political leadership of the gay community to repeatedly act as if their allies are their enemies because their allies felt, rightly as it turns out, that calling the rights they asked for "marriage" instead of "civil unions" would lead to their defeat, while they could have had a triumph. I have grown weary of being called anti-gay for simply evaluating the current political climate correctly.

If the gay leadership had gone for civil unions, instead of over 30 defeats they probably would be looking at over 30 victories, and they would actually have the rights they have been seeking.

Yeah, us uppity faggots need to learn our place, shut up and be happy with "separate but equal" civil unions.



If you're going to be a scold, at least do us the courtesy of taking time to educate yourself on the hundreds of differences between a civil marriage and civil union. The latter is anything but equal to the former.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Fine, so long as the folks on the other side learn that this is not just another stop along the gay rights march to equality. You're not going up against practices that are already illegal, you're taking on an area that hits at the very core of the major religions. Folks aren't going to budge on this, no matter how much you rail about your civil rights being violated, because it's not seen as a civil right on the other side. It's seen as a privilege and sacred religious sacrament, and at that point, logic and legal arguments no longer apply.

The advice from your unappreciated supporters is to take what progress you can get with civil unions and build from there. Because this "all or nothing" tactic will get you nothing.

 

[KingstonTrekker]

Fine, so long as the folks on the other side learn that this is not just another stop along the gay rights march to equality. You're not going up against practices that are already illegal, you're taking on an area that hits at the very core of the major religions. Folks aren't going to budge on this, no matter how much you rail about your civil rights being violated, because it's not seen as a civil right on the other side. It's seen as a privilege and sacred religious sacrament, and at that point, logic and legal arguments no longer apply.

The advice from your unappreciated supporters is to take what progress you can get with civil unions and build from there. Because this "all or nothing" tactic will get you nothing.

Easy to say when you are in the majority. As other posters have argued, marriage can be viewed by people other than yourself as being a legal act and not so based in religion as you might think.

I also find your view so hypocritical --- isn't religion (especially Christianity) supposed to preach equality, love, tolerance, understanding, helping others, etc.? I guess these concepts only apply if you are white, male, straight, etc. and are not threatening to upset the majority's carefully constructed status quo. That is religion's greatest weakness...it can be perverted by the "converted" to persecute others.

Honestly, you can take your "underappreciated support" and ........ Who needs the kind of "support" that you are offering? Next you are going to say something vomit-inducing like "Well, I have lots of gay friends so I do get it." With friends like you who needs enemies? Sigh.

(BTW -- the "all or nothing tactic" resulted in legalized gay marriage across Canada --- maybe you should review both your religion and your pathetic excuse for a Constitution down South -- "The Land of the Free" --- Hardly)

 

[GSchnitzer]

Over all it was a well done episode. I think it would have been a much more moving episode if they had waited to do it 3 or 4 episodes down the line, and had just introduced the character of Peter and Alex now. As it was Alex was just another red shirt to me and his death did not have much impact.

One of the things the drives our production is the desire to make episodes that were much like the original TOS episodes while still pushing the envelope a bit. (Unless we're pushing the envelope, what's the point of the whole thing?) And one of the ways we try to emulate the original series (as opposed to TNG or, especially DS9) is to try and do episodes that pretty much "stand alone." There's great value to the multi-episode story arc; I love DS9. But it's not our Phase II show and we don't really want to drag out stories over multiple episodes.

Part of this is simple practicality: we make, basically, one episode a year. So, to have a character introduced in an episode and have hime be part of the family for a while so that the loss will be all the much more greater when we finally get around to depicting the loss of that character *four years from now*, well, my sense is that most of our viewers just aren't as patient as you might be. We got a great deal of grief for dragging out the resolution over nearly a full year. I can't even imagine setting up a narrative four episodes (years) down the road. Hell, I don't even know what I'm doing for lunch tomorrow.

It should be remembered that as originally conceived back in 1986 when "Blood and Fire" was conceived as a TNG episode, there was no real relationship between the Alex Freeman character and the Peter Kirk character. (Well, the Peter Kirk character was called Danny Eakins back then.) It was only hinted at via a short throwaway line--when Riker asks Freeman how long he and Eakins have been together. Freeman replies "Ever since the Academy." So, the loss we felt as the story was originally written was simply the loss of a good and decent medical technician--not really the loss of part of a romantic couple. Certainly the story worked dramatically even when there was no real relationship portrayed between the two characters.

Since, like TOS, Phase II doesn't really have the luxury of multiple episodes to develop a fondness for a character before disposing of him for dramatic purposes, we fell back on the "Balance of Terror" model: two Starfleet lovebirds whose relationship is cut down before it could really flourish. And we saw Edith Keeler introduced and killed in the same episode, yet we felt for her. So I don't think there's anything inherently problematic with trying to get people to care for a character who is newly introduced. We might not have succeeded, of course. But I don't think our efforts were *inherently* doomed simply because Freeman was new to the audience.

We've seen lots of feedback on how much of the relationship should have been portrayed:

* It should have only been hinted at like in the original story
* It shouid be subtle like in Torchwood
* It should have been drawn out over multiple episodes
* It was too graphic
* It wasn't graphic enough
* It was too long
* It wasn't long enough
* It was spoiled by a lighthearted moment at the end
* It was touching and real
* It was plodding and forced and boring
* It was just right
* I'm never watching this show again
* It's about time someone did this story

Mostly, as long as people are talking about it, I think we probably did our jobs. I don't think we ever expected any kind of consensus--just discussion.

 

[Barbreader]

Professor Moriarty, Please also address my most recent post on this, and explain why you disagree on my reading of the decisions of the US Supreme Court, which, last time I checked, doesn't control the law of Canada.

 

[number6]

This episode definitely represents a quantum leap of quality from previous efforts. I can see some of the criticism as mentioned before regarding pacing, and I am sure the final audio mix will fix the issues I can hear with the dialog recording.
I do think it's somewhat disappointing that Kirk Spock and McCoy seem stiff and a little too angry all the time, missing the warmth, heart and comeraderie of the original "big three," even when they argue and disagree. They seem to be constantly scowling.

I do finally like Cawley's hair!!

FWIW, you can count me as converted to PhaseII fandom!

I wish I could be involved with the audio somehow, as that is my thing.

 

[KingstonTrekker]

Professor Moriarty, Please also address my most recent post on this, and explain why you disagree on my reading of the decisions of the US Supreme Court, which, last time I checked, doesn't control the law of Canada.

I think you have gotten your posts mixed up -- to my knowledge Professor Moriarty was not commenting about Canada --- I was.

And thank The Great Bird Of The Galaxy that the U.S. Supreme Court has NO control over Canada's laws!

 

[RobertMfromLI]

Professor Moriarty, Please also address my most recent post on this, and explain why you disagree on my reading of the decisions of the US Supreme Court, which, last time I checked, doesn't control the law of Canada.

I dont want to stay too off topic, even though this episode seems to bring up this issue numerous times, so I did want to answer the above post (and the earlier ones from all parties) in this one post.

The simple fact is, in the US, a "civil union" is not the same as a "civil marriage"

The people who support civil unions dont seem to understand that what they are talking about in reality already has a name... it's called a civil marriage - which is the right that gay, lesbian and bi people want.

The people who argue religious beliefs against it also do so without remembering that the religious protections in the Constitution prohibit it. If the legal changes wanted were for laws allowing and/or forcing religious marriages of same sex couples, then they have reason to complain. But those are not the laws trying to be passed - which are for civil marriages and have nothing to do with religion. Preventing the passing of such laws based on one's chosen religion is against the practices of various other religions and also illegal - which hopefully the majority will soon remember. Not like the religious protections in the Bill of Rights and Constitution are new... been around for centuries. My religious rights are thus being infringed upon, as I cannot get a civil marriage license and go to a religious church that supports it to be religiously married.

Now, if a civil union as defined by people who think gays should settle for it is really a civil marriage as defined by those same people, then what's the problem? Simple. They are only the same in concept. The specific term needed for the same protections, based on the laws of the land is "civil marriage" - not "religious marriage" or "spiritual marriage" or "civil union"

If only people would stop and realize "civil marriage" is not "religious marriage" and that they cannot use their religion to infringe upon other's religious beliefs, then "civil marriages" would already be legal for same sex couples.

Sorry for straying off topic...

Robert

 

[Barbreader]

RobertMfromLI, I was not confused. I just anticipated some comment to the effect of, 'They can't rule against us because Canada did this.' If calling it 'civil marriage' gets you a win, go for it. It's definitely worth a try. In fact, I'll write to my New York State Assemblyman tomorrow and suggest it. Gay marriage was just voted down in the New York State Senate this week.

This issue to me is what can you actually GET, not what you deserve. I spend most of my social time listening to people tell me how much more they deserve than they got. You name it, they deserved more, better, nicer whatever. In my experience, people generally think they have a raw deal and that their rights have been trampled on.

While I believe a Dred Scott v. Stanford decision here is unlikely, I have to admit, it worries the hell out of me. I sort of shake when I think of the USC deciding this thing. And I don't see a Dred Scott type decision as any LESS unlikely than the result you seem to think will be the outcome.

Let me give you an unrelated example. I don't think you will confuse this with anything related.

A man walks into my law office. He is one of four siblings. He is in his 70s, and his mother just died, just shy of her 100th birthday. He was the sibling who took care of her in her sick and dying days. He was also cut out of her will.

Further discussion discloses that his siblings all chose paths based on making the most money, which is what his mother valued. He chose a career that lead him to win a major international prize similar to, but not necessary one of, the Nobel Prizes. If I'm more specific than that I may disclose who this famous person was.

He felt that he took better care of his mother than his siblings, and that she SHOULD have been proud of him (he did support his family) and that she, if anything, should have left him MORE money, not none, since all of his siblings were multimillionaires many times over and the money would change nothing for them, but would have been important to him.

I had to tell him that he had no remedy. That from what he told me, his mother was a very bad person, (I called her a bitch) but had the power to cut him out of the Will if that was what she wanted to do. He then accused his siblings of stealing from her before her death. I asked what evidence he had of that, and he pulled out papers which he thought showed she had made lifetime transfer to them. I looked over the papers, and while there had been a significant drop in interest income in the period, in fact interest rates had dropped during that period and could account for it. I saw no drop in the principal, and I showed that to him. I advised him that I thought he could find a lawyer to take the case, but that all that would happen was that he would run up legal bills and lose. He was absolutely right, it totally unfair, but he would still lose.

He left my office. about 18 months later he called me. He wanted to bring a malpractice case against the lawyer who had taken his case and run up over $30,000 in bills, and lost. He pointed out that I had been clear that that was what would happen.

I did not tell this guy not to sue his mother's estate because I think it's OK for a mother to hate a son who does very important good in the world but doesn't create a great material fortune. I told him not to sue because I thought he'd lose. He was under the English Common Law, not the French code law, BTW. Only Louisiana in the US follows French Code law. The results under French code law would probably have been different.

I was not trying to hurt this guy when I recommended he not sue. I was looking at whether he could win. Similarly, here, you think looking at the people sitting on the US Supreme Court and their voting records makes me an idiot. You are entitled to consider me an idiot. The guy who won the major international prize did, too. Initially. You think it means I think you don't deserve it. I'm guessing that that is what that guy thought I was saying, too. But, honestly, I thought his mother was a bitch. I just didn't think he'd win. And there are always costs and expenses when you lose.

Again, I refer you to my US Supreme Court discussion, supra.