Star Trek Anthology

[Philip Guyott]

Hi Jim, I was not going to post here again after this, but I just wanted to take the opportunity to personally apologize to you for having posted this thread. It was a mistake that I seriously regret. I am fairly new here and made the false assumption that the ‘fan productions’ page would be full of actual Star Trek fans who would be passionate and supportive towards other fan productions. Sure, I expected that productions would receive critique, but I expected it to be constructive. As a fellow Trekkie I am heartbroken by the negativity here.

I am a fan of your work and hope to be able to contribute in the New Year.

Thanks again for all your hard work.

 

[Karzak]

None of the critique aimed at what has been released of Star Trek Anthology has been unfair or cruel. Rather than take the response with aplomb, Jim chose to attack everyone including those not involved with this specific discussion. All the comments about the film on this thread have been, largely, perfectly reasonable and constructive criticism. It's only since Jim's little temper tantrum that things have escalated. If you truly value constructive criticism, you might want to take a long hard look at how the people involved with the film actually react to the criticism offered. Characterizing the criticism of the film as unworthy discussion and implying those of us offering it aren't "true Star Trek fans" is also as ridiculous as Jim's reaction above.

 

[Philip Guyott]

None of the critique aimed at what has been released of Star Trek Anthology has been unfair or cruel.

Oh really, I must have been reading an entirely different thread altogether!

Karzak, please do not think I am having a go at you. I felt that your original comments were reasonable and constructive, even though I disagreed with some of your points of view. However, when looking back over this thread the same cannot be said for a few (emphasis on ‘a few’) others here. People clearly have different definitions of what constitutes ‘constructive criticism’. Perhaps it is not so much a matter of what it is being said, but is more a matter of tone.

 

[Squiggy]

I am fairly new here and made the false assumption that the ‘fan productions’ page would be full of actual Star Trek fans who would be passionate and supportive towards other fan productions.

Sounds like you want us to hand out participation trophies.

 

[Karzak]

Not everybody has thick skin. Be unusually polite and supportive. Don't swear so much--even if it's your "style." Too much swearing constitutes "adult content" and is a board infraction.

Uh, nobody is forcing these auteurs to share their Magnum opus with the entire internet. If all they want are compliments and accolades they should probably stick to their backyard screenings for the neighbors and stay off the World Wide Web.

Also: there's nothing in the rules about swearing being forbidden here, let alone equating it to "adult content." Not sure where you are getting that from.

Fan films using the same tired old tropes? Heck, people should worry about board members trotting out the same old *forum* tropes in their posts.

I eagerly look forward to the day that every fan film under the sun delivers a unique, dynamic and engaging story that's well-produced, wll-written and doesn't trip over itself repeating the same thing we've seen dozens of times in other fan films and the official shows, and that likewise isn't connecting every single dot, random character and continuity porn they can think of.

 

[Barbreader]

None of the critique aimed at what has been released of Star Trek Anthology has been unfair or cruel.

Oh really, I must have been reading an entirely different thread altogether!

Karzak, please do not think I am having a go at you. I felt that your original comments were reasonable and constructive, even though I disagreed with some of your points of view. However, when looking back over this thread the same cannot be said for a few (emphasis on ‘a few’) others here. People clearly have different definitions of what constitutes ‘constructive criticism’. Perhaps it is not so much a matter of what it is being said, but is more a matter of tone.

There are a few worthwhile posters on this board. The most notable one is Maurice, who has produced a number of excellent instruction threads, and who has read over some people's scripts. His comments may be too harsh for some, but they are genuinely useful for those who can work with them.

This is also sometimes the ONLY place, other than You Tube or Vimeo, where a new fan film by a previously unknown filmmaker is posted. For this reason alone, I personally feel I MUST check here, so that I don't unnecessarily miss a release I should include in Star Trek Reviewed.

Some of the posters here confuse nastiness and constructive criticism. They have nothing worth your time to say, yet spew out words in the most vicious manner. I assume they don't realize most thinking people assume they are describing themselves, not the film. I have blocked a few of those.

You can find links directly to Maurice's excellent posts (and many other resources) with no need to hunt through the other Trek BBS postings here: http://startrekreviewed.blogspot.com/2009/06/249.html

 

[Maurice]

Thanks for the kind words, Barb.

I always try to be fair, but I'm a firm believer that you don't give approbation for work not done. No one learns by being told their work is better than it actually is. That's why I create those primer topics: to help fan filmmakers avoid the most common missteps. It's sad to think all that positive input is somehow negated by the mildest criticism.

I've received plenty of slams on my work over the years, some deserved, some not, many of which make the typical critiques in this forum look like sunshine and rainbows. Having people challenge the quality of your work comes with the territory when you share it publicly. "It's not for the timid."

And, seriously. I've never really taken the gloves off when critiquing any any fan production on this forum. If I did no one here would ever speak to me again. Well, except Karzak maybe.

 

[Karzak]

Some of the posters here confuse nastiness and constructive criticism. They have nothing worth your time to say, yet spew out words in the most vicious manner. I assume they don't realize most thinking people assume they are describing themselves, not the film. I have blocked a few of those.

And still some confuse constructive criticism with nastiness.

This kind of absolutism is really not helping the conversation at all, Barbreader. You speak of people who "don't realize" "they are describing themselves, not the film" and you turn around and hurl this petty "I know you are, but what am I?"-esque insult to anyone who dares not praise the people behind the fan films. It's unfair to the actual people who go to the effort to offer critique that summarily gets rebranded in the discourse here as "nastiness" by those poor souls with too sensitive egos and quick temperaments who can't take any kind of criticism at all, as we have seen happen here in this very thread.

There are those who take the good and the bad whether they like it or not and push on, striving to better themselves and their projects. It's not easy to do so under those terms, but they somehow manage. But others just treat it as an opportunity for yet another temper tantrum. And it's embarrassing to behold, never mind exhausting.

Then again, what do I know? You run Star Trek Reviewed. You're not at all close to the problem at all, and certainly able to remain entirely objective and unbiased. Clearly, the problem you describe is entirely one-sided and not at all due to anything other than the people who aren't immediately wowed and impressed by these amateur fan-produced efforts.

Thanks for the kind words, Barb.
I've received plenty of slams on my work over the years, some deserved, some not, many of which make the typical critiques in this forum look like sunshine and rainbows. Having people challenge the quality of your work comes with the territory when you share it publicly. "t's not for the timid."

This should be the first page of every fan filmmaker's How-To guide, and repeated at the header of every succeeding page.

And, seriously. I've never really taken the gloves off when critiquing any any fan production on this forum. If I did no one here would ever speak to me again. Well, except Karzak maybe.

 

[Zaminhon]

I hope that the production has better success than its namesake.

 

[YJAGG]

Actually in the real Navy, captains whose ships hit a pier lose their commands. Captains who lose an entire ship and crew don't get another.

Did not know that, but I have to ask even if it is from enemy fire? I mean sure hitting a pier you messed up, but what about an ambush.

plus by the 23rd century I am sure we will all be blameless

 

[Maurice]

Actually in the real Navy, captains whose ships hit a pier lose their commands. Captains who lose an entire ship and crew don't get another.

Did not know that, but I have to ask even if it is from enemy fire? I mean sure hitting a pier you messed up, but what about an ambush.

plus by the 23rd century I am sure we will all be blameless

How is enemy fire going to make you run into a pier? The point is, there are lots of good officers and relatively fewer commands, so if a something goes wrong under a captain's command, she/he is replaced by someone who hasn't cocked-up.

 

[Philip Guyott]

Actually in the real Navy, captains whose ships hit a pier lose their commands. Captains who lose an entire ship and crew don't get another.

It should be noted that according to the trailer, Colt was not the Captain of the U.S.S. Ajax but held the rank of Commander (First Officer). I also got the impression from the trailer that the Captain of the ship had received full blame for the loss of his ship. If he had survived, a court martial would not have granted him a new command. It would seem that commander Colt was not blamed by Starfleet.

That being said, perhaps she does bear some responsibility. After all, how many times did commander Riker have to step in to prevent Picard (albeit under alien influences) from leading the Enterprise into disaster?

I suppose the question is if the Captain was at fault (and without the Ajax prequel we don’t yet know the circumstances) should the first officer and crew be blamed for following orders? Also should they receive promotions out of it? Again, we don’t yet know the circumstances, but at first glance it does not seem fitting that Starfleet would award Colt with a promotion to Captain after this. Perhaps at some future point in time it would be appropriate to do so, but not after the loss of the ship.

I look forward to see how Star Trek Challenger addresses these issues.

 

[Maurice]

It's entirely possible that Colt wasn't the captain in this story. I was referring to the Star Trek trope of the captain who loses a ship and gets another.

 

[Barbreader]

Some of the posters here confuse nastiness and constructive criticism. They have nothing worth your time to say, yet spew out words in the most vicious manner. I assume they don't realize most thinking people assume they are describing themselves, not the film. I have blocked a few of those.

And still some confuse constructive criticism with nastiness.

This kind of absolutism is really not helping the conversation at all, Barbreader. You speak of people who "don't realize" "they are describing themselves, not the film" and you turn around and hurl this petty "I know you are, but what am I?"-esque insult to anyone who dares not praise the people behind the fan films. It's unfair to the actual people who go to the effort to offer critique that summarily gets rebranded in the discourse here as "nastiness" by those poor souls with too sensitive egos and quick temperaments who can't take any kind of criticism at all, as we have seen happen here in this very thread.

There are those who take the good and the bad whether they like it or not and push on, striving to better themselves and their projects. It's not easy to do so under those terms, but they somehow manage. But others just treat it as an opportunity for yet another temper tantrum. And it's embarrassing to behold, never mind exhausting.

Then again, what do I know? You run Star Trek Reviewed. You're not at all close to the problem at all, and certainly able to remain entirely objective and unbiased. Clearly, the problem you describe is entirely one-sided and not at all due to anything other than the people who aren't immediately wowed and impressed by these amateur fan-produced efforts.

Thanks for the kind words, Barb.
I've received plenty of slams on my work over the years, some deserved, some not, many of which make the typical critiques in this forum look like sunshine and rainbows. Having people challenge the quality of your work comes with the territory when you share it publicly. "t's not for the timid."

This should be the first page of every fan filmmaker's How-To guide, and repeated at the header of every succeeding page.

And, seriously. I've never really taken the gloves off when critiquing any any fan production on this forum. If I did no one here would ever speak to me again. Well, except Karzak maybe.

Nice to know how you classify yourself! I only named Maurice. Others were free to decide if they were useful, sometimes useful. or just nasty.

 

[Karzak]

Oh, I have feel no compunction about whether I'm useful or not. If I interpreted your clumsy implication in your previous post about me, it's because this whole branch of conversation started because of my comments on this trailer and Jim's temper tantrum response to it.

Hard as this may be to believe, I likewise do not care for drive-by generalizations that catalog any kind of criticism as inherently negative or as attacking, which is what I read the central point of your post above to be.

And really, with all due respect and sincerety... your "all or nothing" attitude on the matter really doesn't help assuage the problem.

 

[Barbreader]

Oh, I have feel no compunction about whether I'm useful or not. If I interpreted your clumsy implication in your previous post about me, it's because this whole branch of conversation started because of my comments on this trailer and Jim's temper tantrum response to it.

Hard as this may be to believe, I likewise do not care for drive-by generalizations that catalog any kind of criticism as inherently negative or as attacking, which is what I read the central point of your post above to be.

And really, with all due respect and sincerety... your "all or nothing" attitude on the matter really doesn't help assuage the problem.

I reread my original post, not my post as edited by you, to find that 'all or nothing attitude.' Lets see, I characterize "a few" and "some" posters. I make no statements about all posters. I do not suggest all posters are good only or bad only. That's in your head, and clearly your projection. If you are suggesting that all comments are useful, you are entitled to your opinion. I am also entitled to mine.

This thread was NOT only about you. The post states clearly that your original comments were useful, but that he felt that some OTHER PEOPLE said things afterward that were not.

Karzak, you have made clear that you hate me. I rarely post even a few raw facts or statistics without you attacking me. You were projecting your own view of me onto my view of you. Perhaps you could make your own life better by blocking me? You repeatedly make it clear that you think I and my posts are worthless, so why bother with them?

Be happier! Block me!

 

[Philip Guyott]

Some people here may find this video helpful.

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWZRZ8T2DC0[/yt]

 

[Maurice]

Some people here may find this video helpful.

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

Constructive criticism of that post: The post would be funny if it were actually funny.

 

[Karzak]

Oh, I have feel no compunction about whether I'm useful or not. If I interpreted your clumsy implication in your previous post about me, it's because this whole branch of conversation started because of my comments on this trailer and Jim's temper tantrum response to it.

Hard as this may be to believe, I likewise do not care for drive-by generalizations that catalog any kind of criticism as inherently negative or as attacking, which is what I read the central point of your post above to be.

And really, with all due respect and sincerety... your "all or nothing" attitude on the matter really doesn't help assuage the problem.

I reread my original post, not my post as edited by you, to find that 'all or nothing attitude.' Lets see, I characterize "a few" and "some" posters. I make no statements about all posters. I do not suggest all posters are good only or bad only. That's in your head, and clearly your projection. If you are suggesting that all comments are useful, you are entitled to your opinion. I am also entitled to mine.

This thread was NOT only about you. The post states clearly that your original comments were useful, but that he felt that some OTHER PEOPLE said things afterward that were not.

Karzak, you have made clear that you hate me. I rarely post even a few raw facts or statistics without you attacking me. You were projecting your own view of me onto my view of you. Perhaps you could make your own life better by blocking me? You repeatedly make it clear that you think I and my posts are worthless, so why bother with them?

Be happier! Block me!

I do not hate you, Barb. But I do disagree with your narrative of the discourse here, and likewise your lack of ability to reconcile that there are some fan filmmakers who are just as guilty of perpetuating this nastiness as there are those in the bleachers watching.

 

[Philip Guyott]

Constructive criticism of that post: The post would be funny if it were actually funny.

Well humour, especially my own humour is very subjective. The good news is that I am not offended by your criticism, so in a strange way that does actually count as constructive criticism!

See, you can do it if you try.