Star Trek: Axanar
- Thread starter Linnear
- Start date
- Status
DoubleOhFive Wrote:
…a long-winded and contradictory “review” of “Prelude to Axanar.” Most of the individual paragraphs of his review slam “Prelude” and Alec Peters; in my opinion he unfairly slams the two. Since this is a debate forum and discourse is encouraged, I’m going to throw in my two cents worth. Unlike DoubleOhFive, however, I’m going to do it fairly and comment on his paragraphs individually.
On its own, this is nothing more than an extended trailer, therefore I can't (and won't) attempt to critique this as if it were its own film but instead do so for what it is.
You freely admit that “Prelude” is a trailer but the way in which you say this is belittling and implies that it’s beneath your notice. With your opening sentence you are telling the reader that you intend to write a negative review. I understood immediately that you were going to write a biased and negative opinion piece not a fair and unbiased review of the “Prelude” short film.
Those of us paying attention have known for some time that Star Trek: Axanar was going to be Alec Peters' vanity project and he is to be commended for not trying to put himself front and center here. The production team and writers wisely chose to recognize the top brass talent they had access to (Todd, Hatch, Vernon, Hertzler, Graham) and let the spotlight be shared by them instead of focusing entirely on Peters as Garth of Izar.
Your quite obvious dislike for Alec Peters is declared in this second paragraph. You condemn him for wanting to produce a Star Trek story about Garth of Izar and the Battle of Axanar. Your “commendation” of Mr. Peters is—also quite obviously—in fact nothing more than you further condemning him.
I for one think that Mr. Peters has every right to want to appear in his own production of “Axanar”; it was his idea, he’s put up wads of his own money, he’s done most of the work getting the production this far, he’s put up with more headaches and grief than many politicians, and he’s done so much more to get this movie produced. He wants to be in Star Trek? Woot! Do it! More power to him! Hell, we all want to be in Star Trek in one way or another. Personally, I want to be the chief engineer on a Constitution class (refit) starship.
Before you accuse me of being a friend of his or experienced in the workings of movie production, I want to clearly and loudly state that NO! I am neither of those things. I am, however, a reasonably intelligent member of the United States culture and I recognize the—to me—insane amount of politicking that must go on to pull off anything of this scope. I recognize that in order to mesh multiple Hollywood personalities, one must have enormous quantities of patience and diplomacy.
Unfortunately, the down side is of course that by getting professional actors to contribute and perform in the piece, and by placing a single acting novice alongside them, it only further highlights Peters' relative inexperience and clumsiness as an actor. Certainly, he's not terrible, but the parts of his performance where the cracks are showing are all the more evident because of how much those he's playing against actually shine with what they have to work with.
You continue to condemn Mr. Peters for being a novice when you should, instead, be saluting his efforts. He has publically stated—more than once—that he hasn’t got much experience in acting, but that he has, at his own expense, obtained training and education so that he can produce the best possible movie for all of us. That expense is not only a financial commitment, but also a commitment of time and energy.
You state that “he’s not terrible” but you then accuse his performance of having “cracks are showing” but you don’t say what they are. Yet, later in the discussion chain you laugh off Red Omega’s list of hyperlinks because he didn’t actually state any firm facts. So? Where are your facts? What are these “cracks” of which you speak?
I find myself mostly agreeing with the assessments of Maurice and Harvey but I also think it fair and proper to point out that this episode, while visually quite polished and pretty to look at, and while it works brilliantly as a tease for the film itself (however good or bad it turns out to be), on its own, this "prelude" is nothing more than fancy window dressing.
Wow. You just changed the wording of your introductory paragraph and again slammed “Prelude” for being nothing more than a “tease” for the actual film. Why is it that you insist in that silly notion? Why do you think it’s wrong to have a teaser advertise a film? Doesn’t Hollywood do the very same thing when they produce commercials to show on television? Aren’t the previews at the beginning of each and every movie shown at a theater a “tease” to get our attention? Isn’t the point of a “tease” to get your attention—and money—for another movie? Why do you again condemn this project for doing the exact same thing?
Writing and story-wise, we hear a lot about how great Garth is from all of the characters interviewed. We hear about how Ramirez gives this incredibly powerful speech that inspires hope. We hear a lot about how great Kharn is from a lot of the characters interviewed. We hear a lot about how horrible the Klingon advance was. We hear about how badass the Ares is supposed to be. We hear about how daring and brilliant Garth is.
But we don't see any of it.
Of course you “don’t see any of it”. This paragraph is another example of you complaining that you can’t have your cake and eat it, too. “Prelude” is a teaser; you’ve admitted that yourself. The things you complain of not seeing will be shown in the feature film. I’m sure you want to know how I know this. Faith. I know these things will be in the upcoming feature because I have faith.
Well, we get part of Ramirez' speech but is it any different from any other speech we've seen before? Not really.
I’m sure the speech Ramirez gives is familiar. It’s a speech meant to inspire and boost hope for the listeners. Lord Nelson did it. John Paul Jones did it. So did Churchill and Roosevelt. Also look to the speech every football coach gives his team at halftime when they’re behind on the scoreboard. In the case of the Four Years War, the Federation was getting its backside handed to it. The Klingons were steadily pushing the Federation back. The Battle of Axanar and the introduction of the Constitution class starships were what turned the tide and pushed the Klingons back across the neutral zone.
These things have been stated in one form or another in various sources dating all the way back to the Original Series episode “Whom Gods Destroy” in 1969.
All the loudmouthing about greatness and brilliant military strategy ... and none of it shines through here. It's all just talk. Are these things we'll see in the final film? I hope so. But here, just referring to these events and elements of the story ring hollow.
Again, you’re complaining we don’t see any of this “greatness” and “strategy” here because it’s a trailer. What about the commercials we see for “Exodus”? We see a bit of sword play, some thunder and lightning, some chariots, and so forth. We don’t see Moses come down the mountain with the tablets, but we’re pretty sure we might see it if we go to the theater and watch the movie. Do those things “ring hollow” to you also?
Note: I mention “Exodus” here because it’s was the first action movie I can remember seeing a commercial for last night. I haven’t see it and I’ll probably wait until the BluRay releases before I do see it.
Indeed, when Alexander and Travis recount Garth's signature battle maneuver, all we get is a simple (if pretty) cut to more visual effects work by the extraordinarily talented Tobias Richter of one ship moving out of the way and the Ares just cruising by and attacking.
More petty griping here; says the same thing as the previous paragraphs.
Are we to believe from this then that Garth is considered a brilliant military commander simply because he knows how to point his guns in the right direction and pull a trigger? That he's so cunning because he knows enough not to shoot while his friendly ally ship is in the line of sight?
No, “Prelude” isn’t why we’re to believe Garth is a “brilliant military genius”; Kirk said this in the third season episode “Whom Gods Destroy.” That’s canon as established by CBS, Paramount, and Roddenberry.
Again, it's hard to criticize without seeing the full film and I certainly am open to recanting this point after I do see the whole film in context, but here, out of context, it's awfully difficult to accept that this is part of the great mythos surrounding the brilliant military commander James Kirk studies during his academy days.
If it’s “hard to criticize”, then why do you do so?
I'm not a fan of modern vernacular "Queen Bitch-Whore of the Federation" or the exceedingly stupid "pinkskin" reference, which I freely admit, I've never liked. Each feels out of place in this particular era of Star Trek, and while I fully offer that this is my own opinion on the matter, I just didn't care for how either were presented.
Is this a case of criticizing dialogue from the “Prelude” teaser? Didn’t you just criticize “Prelude” for not having content? Shouldn’t you make up your mind, pick a criticism, and stick with it?
More important however is this project's narrative flip-flopping of its mission statement. The contradictory intent -- Garth's line that "Starfleet isn't about that [battle]." only to see him turn that right around, drooling over the Ares as the newest, best battleship makes me question what kind of cohesivity (if any) we'll get with the full film, as though the producers want to stop just long enough to acknowledge that Star Trek is more than just being about pew pew pew spaceship battles...before giving us a 20 minute short film/extended trailer of mostly, exactly that -- gorgeous starship fly-bys, to be sure, but nonetheless mostly fly-bys and pew pew pew spaceship battles.
Kirk “drooled” over the Enterprise refit in “Star Trek: The Motion Picture”, didn’t he? For that matter, didn’t we all drool over her just a little bit? Didn’t we all cry about her destruction in “Star Trek III: The Search for Spock”? I remember reading an anecdote back then that more guys cried for the Enterprise’s “death” than cried for Spock’s death in “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan”.
So Garth drools over the Ares. Big deal. So he talks about Starfleet’s stated ideal of not being about battle but instead being about peace and exploration. We’ve heard the same thing from the very beginning of Star Trek when we listened to Kirk proselytizing those same ideals. You cannot condemn “Axanar” and Alec Peters for not sticking to the original Star Trek ideals (at the beginning of your review) and then condemn them for sticking to the Trek ideals.
The fact is you cannot have peace without being prepared for war. Peace without strength of arms is just another way of saying “slavery”.
Sound design, lighting, color correction, and editing are all fine. The super-widescreen presentation was nice too. But I don't see the 'bottom" of the story here and am at a loss as to who I should be caring about, story-wise, as it's clear from this piece that every single character portrayed obviously survives the Battle of Axanar. (Sorry, Michael Hogan!)
Yup. The people in the “Prelude” feature obviously survived the war. They’re doing interviews. Why do you think you need to care about anybody in “Prelude”? It was designed to be a History Channel style biography production—you’ve said so yourself in your review—to educate the viewer about the events which occurred in the Four Years War. If you want to “care about” somebody, watch the full-length feature when it releases next year.
Regardless of these quibbles, I remain hopeful that the finished film will deliver what it and its producers have been promising, if only for the untold number of contributors on Kickstarter's sake. I laughed when I heard the narrator's voice because it sounded an awful lot like Richard Hatch, and I, like others, appreciated the nod to John Gill.
In conclusion: I appreciate the approach to this piece with the gimmick of mimicking The History Channel-style retrospective, and in many ways the production gets a lot of important things right and wrong. It's obviously too soon to praise or condemn the actual film itself and certainly not based on this piece alone, but I look forward to what Alec and his team are going to present when they're finally ready to release the full film.
While I’m not entirely convinced of your “hopeful” status, I will take you at your word on this one. Why? Because I’m an optimist and I really think everyone who watches the full-length feature will enjoy it.
Someone mentioned that many of us are here at the behest of Alec Peters to gang up on DoubleOhFive. That is certainly not the case for me. Yes, I saw Alec’s post on Facebook, which is what led me here. My comments, however, are strictly driven by my disagreement with DoubleOhFive. I read his review and I thought it was wrong. I observed his choice of wording and phrasing and I could “hear” his attacks, accusations, and condemnation of Alec Peters. That is what led me to join this BBS and contribute to this conversation chain.
…a long-winded and contradictory “review” of “Prelude to Axanar.” Most of the individual paragraphs of his review slam “Prelude” and Alec Peters; in my opinion he unfairly slams the two. Since this is a debate forum and discourse is encouraged, I’m going to throw in my two cents worth. Unlike DoubleOhFive, however, I’m going to do it fairly and comment on his paragraphs individually.
On its own, this is nothing more than an extended trailer, therefore I can't (and won't) attempt to critique this as if it were its own film but instead do so for what it is.
You freely admit that “Prelude” is a trailer but the way in which you say this is belittling and implies that it’s beneath your notice. With your opening sentence you are telling the reader that you intend to write a negative review. I understood immediately that you were going to write a biased and negative opinion piece not a fair and unbiased review of the “Prelude” short film.
Those of us paying attention have known for some time that Star Trek: Axanar was going to be Alec Peters' vanity project and he is to be commended for not trying to put himself front and center here. The production team and writers wisely chose to recognize the top brass talent they had access to (Todd, Hatch, Vernon, Hertzler, Graham) and let the spotlight be shared by them instead of focusing entirely on Peters as Garth of Izar.
Your quite obvious dislike for Alec Peters is declared in this second paragraph. You condemn him for wanting to produce a Star Trek story about Garth of Izar and the Battle of Axanar. Your “commendation” of Mr. Peters is—also quite obviously—in fact nothing more than you further condemning him.
I for one think that Mr. Peters has every right to want to appear in his own production of “Axanar”; it was his idea, he’s put up wads of his own money, he’s done most of the work getting the production this far, he’s put up with more headaches and grief than many politicians, and he’s done so much more to get this movie produced. He wants to be in Star Trek? Woot! Do it! More power to him! Hell, we all want to be in Star Trek in one way or another. Personally, I want to be the chief engineer on a Constitution class (refit) starship.
Before you accuse me of being a friend of his or experienced in the workings of movie production, I want to clearly and loudly state that NO! I am neither of those things. I am, however, a reasonably intelligent member of the United States culture and I recognize the—to me—insane amount of politicking that must go on to pull off anything of this scope. I recognize that in order to mesh multiple Hollywood personalities, one must have enormous quantities of patience and diplomacy.
Unfortunately, the down side is of course that by getting professional actors to contribute and perform in the piece, and by placing a single acting novice alongside them, it only further highlights Peters' relative inexperience and clumsiness as an actor. Certainly, he's not terrible, but the parts of his performance where the cracks are showing are all the more evident because of how much those he's playing against actually shine with what they have to work with.
You continue to condemn Mr. Peters for being a novice when you should, instead, be saluting his efforts. He has publically stated—more than once—that he hasn’t got much experience in acting, but that he has, at his own expense, obtained training and education so that he can produce the best possible movie for all of us. That expense is not only a financial commitment, but also a commitment of time and energy.
You state that “he’s not terrible” but you then accuse his performance of having “cracks are showing” but you don’t say what they are. Yet, later in the discussion chain you laugh off Red Omega’s list of hyperlinks because he didn’t actually state any firm facts. So? Where are your facts? What are these “cracks” of which you speak?
I find myself mostly agreeing with the assessments of Maurice and Harvey but I also think it fair and proper to point out that this episode, while visually quite polished and pretty to look at, and while it works brilliantly as a tease for the film itself (however good or bad it turns out to be), on its own, this "prelude" is nothing more than fancy window dressing.
Wow. You just changed the wording of your introductory paragraph and again slammed “Prelude” for being nothing more than a “tease” for the actual film. Why is it that you insist in that silly notion? Why do you think it’s wrong to have a teaser advertise a film? Doesn’t Hollywood do the very same thing when they produce commercials to show on television? Aren’t the previews at the beginning of each and every movie shown at a theater a “tease” to get our attention? Isn’t the point of a “tease” to get your attention—and money—for another movie? Why do you again condemn this project for doing the exact same thing?
Writing and story-wise, we hear a lot about how great Garth is from all of the characters interviewed. We hear about how Ramirez gives this incredibly powerful speech that inspires hope. We hear a lot about how great Kharn is from a lot of the characters interviewed. We hear a lot about how horrible the Klingon advance was. We hear about how badass the Ares is supposed to be. We hear about how daring and brilliant Garth is.
But we don't see any of it.
Of course you “don’t see any of it”. This paragraph is another example of you complaining that you can’t have your cake and eat it, too. “Prelude” is a teaser; you’ve admitted that yourself. The things you complain of not seeing will be shown in the feature film. I’m sure you want to know how I know this. Faith. I know these things will be in the upcoming feature because I have faith.
Well, we get part of Ramirez' speech but is it any different from any other speech we've seen before? Not really.
I’m sure the speech Ramirez gives is familiar. It’s a speech meant to inspire and boost hope for the listeners. Lord Nelson did it. John Paul Jones did it. So did Churchill and Roosevelt. Also look to the speech every football coach gives his team at halftime when they’re behind on the scoreboard. In the case of the Four Years War, the Federation was getting its backside handed to it. The Klingons were steadily pushing the Federation back. The Battle of Axanar and the introduction of the Constitution class starships were what turned the tide and pushed the Klingons back across the neutral zone.
These things have been stated in one form or another in various sources dating all the way back to the Original Series episode “Whom Gods Destroy” in 1969.
All the loudmouthing about greatness and brilliant military strategy ... and none of it shines through here. It's all just talk. Are these things we'll see in the final film? I hope so. But here, just referring to these events and elements of the story ring hollow.
Again, you’re complaining we don’t see any of this “greatness” and “strategy” here because it’s a trailer. What about the commercials we see for “Exodus”? We see a bit of sword play, some thunder and lightning, some chariots, and so forth. We don’t see Moses come down the mountain with the tablets, but we’re pretty sure we might see it if we go to the theater and watch the movie. Do those things “ring hollow” to you also?
Note: I mention “Exodus” here because it’s was the first action movie I can remember seeing a commercial for last night. I haven’t see it and I’ll probably wait until the BluRay releases before I do see it.
Indeed, when Alexander and Travis recount Garth's signature battle maneuver, all we get is a simple (if pretty) cut to more visual effects work by the extraordinarily talented Tobias Richter of one ship moving out of the way and the Ares just cruising by and attacking.
More petty griping here; says the same thing as the previous paragraphs.
Are we to believe from this then that Garth is considered a brilliant military commander simply because he knows how to point his guns in the right direction and pull a trigger? That he's so cunning because he knows enough not to shoot while his friendly ally ship is in the line of sight?
No, “Prelude” isn’t why we’re to believe Garth is a “brilliant military genius”; Kirk said this in the third season episode “Whom Gods Destroy.” That’s canon as established by CBS, Paramount, and Roddenberry.
Again, it's hard to criticize without seeing the full film and I certainly am open to recanting this point after I do see the whole film in context, but here, out of context, it's awfully difficult to accept that this is part of the great mythos surrounding the brilliant military commander James Kirk studies during his academy days.
If it’s “hard to criticize”, then why do you do so?
I'm not a fan of modern vernacular "Queen Bitch-Whore of the Federation" or the exceedingly stupid "pinkskin" reference, which I freely admit, I've never liked. Each feels out of place in this particular era of Star Trek, and while I fully offer that this is my own opinion on the matter, I just didn't care for how either were presented.
Is this a case of criticizing dialogue from the “Prelude” teaser? Didn’t you just criticize “Prelude” for not having content? Shouldn’t you make up your mind, pick a criticism, and stick with it?
More important however is this project's narrative flip-flopping of its mission statement. The contradictory intent -- Garth's line that "Starfleet isn't about that [battle]." only to see him turn that right around, drooling over the Ares as the newest, best battleship makes me question what kind of cohesivity (if any) we'll get with the full film, as though the producers want to stop just long enough to acknowledge that Star Trek is more than just being about pew pew pew spaceship battles...before giving us a 20 minute short film/extended trailer of mostly, exactly that -- gorgeous starship fly-bys, to be sure, but nonetheless mostly fly-bys and pew pew pew spaceship battles.
Kirk “drooled” over the Enterprise refit in “Star Trek: The Motion Picture”, didn’t he? For that matter, didn’t we all drool over her just a little bit? Didn’t we all cry about her destruction in “Star Trek III: The Search for Spock”? I remember reading an anecdote back then that more guys cried for the Enterprise’s “death” than cried for Spock’s death in “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan”.
So Garth drools over the Ares. Big deal. So he talks about Starfleet’s stated ideal of not being about battle but instead being about peace and exploration. We’ve heard the same thing from the very beginning of Star Trek when we listened to Kirk proselytizing those same ideals. You cannot condemn “Axanar” and Alec Peters for not sticking to the original Star Trek ideals (at the beginning of your review) and then condemn them for sticking to the Trek ideals.
The fact is you cannot have peace without being prepared for war. Peace without strength of arms is just another way of saying “slavery”.
Sound design, lighting, color correction, and editing are all fine. The super-widescreen presentation was nice too. But I don't see the 'bottom" of the story here and am at a loss as to who I should be caring about, story-wise, as it's clear from this piece that every single character portrayed obviously survives the Battle of Axanar. (Sorry, Michael Hogan!)
Yup. The people in the “Prelude” feature obviously survived the war. They’re doing interviews. Why do you think you need to care about anybody in “Prelude”? It was designed to be a History Channel style biography production—you’ve said so yourself in your review—to educate the viewer about the events which occurred in the Four Years War. If you want to “care about” somebody, watch the full-length feature when it releases next year.
Regardless of these quibbles, I remain hopeful that the finished film will deliver what it and its producers have been promising, if only for the untold number of contributors on Kickstarter's sake. I laughed when I heard the narrator's voice because it sounded an awful lot like Richard Hatch, and I, like others, appreciated the nod to John Gill.
In conclusion: I appreciate the approach to this piece with the gimmick of mimicking The History Channel-style retrospective, and in many ways the production gets a lot of important things right and wrong. It's obviously too soon to praise or condemn the actual film itself and certainly not based on this piece alone, but I look forward to what Alec and his team are going to present when they're finally ready to release the full film.
While I’m not entirely convinced of your “hopeful” status, I will take you at your word on this one. Why? Because I’m an optimist and I really think everyone who watches the full-length feature will enjoy it.
Someone mentioned that many of us are here at the behest of Alec Peters to gang up on DoubleOhFive. That is certainly not the case for me. Yes, I saw Alec’s post on Facebook, which is what led me here. My comments, however, are strictly driven by my disagreement with DoubleOhFive. I read his review and I thought it was wrong. I observed his choice of wording and phrasing and I could “hear” his attacks, accusations, and condemnation of Alec Peters. That is what led me to join this BBS and contribute to this conversation chain.
^^^ Maybe true, and while I may agree with everything you said regarding Axanar's production 100%, and while I may completely 100% disagree with DoubleOhFive's bloviating about Axanar and be amused at his hollow pleas for civility against the coming tidal wave of others whose opinions are logically equal to his own, because you're listed as a "Cadet" on this BBS and that this was your first post ever, it would in fact appear that you just signed on TrekBBS to do exactly what you said you didn't come here to do in your final paragraph, "Someone mentioned that many of us are here at the behest of Alec Peters to gang up on DoubleOhFive. That is certainly not the case for me."
Your 5-mouse-click scroll response belies that sentiment.
* Please note that the quantity of mouse-clicks may differ on other screens with a different resolution.
You and your cohorts coming here and spamming the board does nothing to improve your position, nor does it do any good service to what is, in my opinion, one of the best fan-productions ever made. It is self-destructive and completely unnecessary.
Just sayin'...
P.S. - Please forgive my large and hard-to-read single-sentence paragraph above, but it's been a long day and I'm too tired to correct my grammar at present.
Your 5-mouse-click scroll response belies that sentiment.
* Please note that the quantity of mouse-clicks may differ on other screens with a different resolution.
You and your cohorts coming here and spamming the board does nothing to improve your position, nor does it do any good service to what is, in my opinion, one of the best fan-productions ever made. It is self-destructive and completely unnecessary.
Just sayin'...P.S. - Please forgive my large and hard-to-read single-sentence paragraph above, but it's been a long day and I'm too tired to correct my grammar at present.
Last edited:
tl;dr
Coming here to post a text wall against one person for simply expressing an opinion that doesn't happen to be fully brown-nose territory is pretty damn pathetic.
You know all of you are just proving 005's point?
I just wanted to say that I liked Prelude to Axanar a lot. I would not have watched it so many times if I didn’t. What I like about Prelude is that it uses the History Channel style to tell a story set within the Star Trek universe. It is set during a time period that has never really been shown in a fan film, pre-TOS. The title Prelude to Axanar fits because it is just that, a prelude. The dictionary definition of prelude is that it is an introductory performance preceding the more important matter. That is exactly what this short film is. Sure it’s only about 22 minutes, but that’s all it needs to be because there is more to come. I would define Prelude to Axanar as a short film since it is not feature length, but longer then a movie trailer would be.
Ok, so the actors are sitting in front of a green screen talking, with the documentary style that is how it has to be done. ’m not a professional filmmaker, but I have seen a lot of fan films, and it is some great green screen work here. The backgrounds used are fantastic, and certainly better than anything I would have expected. Then we have wonderful cgi animations intercut with the dialogue, and the live action footage, and it works on may levels. Quite frankly, that alone makes Prelude a better film than some of the other fan films I have seen. It is certainly better than anything I could do on my own.
I’m not out to attack or criticize anyone personally, but I do think the timing of the review that was posted could have been better because Prelude to Axanar has been released for several months. I don’t agree with what was said in the review, and I don’t care to state why publicly. I will continue to support Axanar because I believe that what is coming is the Star Trek movie I have always wanted to see, and that alone has gotten me excited.
Ok, so the actors are sitting in front of a green screen talking, with the documentary style that is how it has to be done. ’m not a professional filmmaker, but I have seen a lot of fan films, and it is some great green screen work here. The backgrounds used are fantastic, and certainly better than anything I would have expected. Then we have wonderful cgi animations intercut with the dialogue, and the live action footage, and it works on may levels. Quite frankly, that alone makes Prelude a better film than some of the other fan films I have seen. It is certainly better than anything I could do on my own.
I’m not out to attack or criticize anyone personally, but I do think the timing of the review that was posted could have been better because Prelude to Axanar has been released for several months. I don’t agree with what was said in the review, and I don’t care to state why publicly. I will continue to support Axanar because I believe that what is coming is the Star Trek movie I have always wanted to see, and that alone has gotten me excited.
Actually, he does.
- He describes the review as a "hate filled rant", to fan the flames.
- He encourages people to come here and "let him know what real Star Trek fans think", meaning go tell him he's wrong because [royal] you are the "real fans" while those who disagree are clearly not.
- He then sweetens the pot by offering "Brownie Points for those who do," which he follows up by promising: "I will be noting on a spread sheet, everyone who posts. I am going to come up with some structure for accumulating service stars or such."
And that's just MY humble opinion.
Last edited:
To be fair, even if they are "vanity projects" I can't recall previously seeing you characterize any other fanfilm with that term, so there's a certain tinge of the pejorative there which I'd have suggested omitting.
NorthStar01:
Thanks for weighing in here. The more healthy discussion on my fan film board, the happier I am as a moderator. And it's always nice to have some new blood around here. Welcome!
You seem pretty knowledgable on Axanar--and I presume other productions as well. I think I probably speak for a lot of TrekBBS members when I say I look forward to *your* thoughts and a review of sorts on Axanar. We got your "review" of someone else's "review." I'm interested in your take on the production now that we have your take on doubleohfive's take.
Again, welcome.
Thanks for weighing in here. The more healthy discussion on my fan film board, the happier I am as a moderator. And it's always nice to have some new blood around here. Welcome!
You seem pretty knowledgable on Axanar--and I presume other productions as well. I think I probably speak for a lot of TrekBBS members when I say I look forward to *your* thoughts and a review of sorts on Axanar. We got your "review" of someone else's "review." I'm interested in your take on the production now that we have your take on doubleohfive's take.
Again, welcome.
doubleohfive
Fleet Admiral
Perhaps.
Until today, I didn't really think that the term "vanity project" was altogether a terrible thing, myself. I still don't. It's the unspoken thing about fan films that we all kind of know is there but we never really acknowledge.
I think, however, you'll agree it's certainly not something that would warrant the witchhunt we are seeing play out here.
How about "passion project"--seems like those who create fan films are in it for that reason, not for "vanity".
I definitely see where doubleohfive is coming from here. I didn't take "vanity project" negatively, either. And he did clearly state that Axanar has done a better job at handling the "main character is the producer/writer/creator" better than other productions. In that light, I'd say the intent was clearly not negative.
But having majored in Human Communications, I'd say "vanity" does have a negative twinge to it, and I can see how it might get people upset. But to lash out at doubleohfive because of it? I'd say that's unwarranted.
I am a little sad that we have to take camps on the Prelude, though.
I really enjoyed it, despite some things that bothered me. Some people REALLY enjoyed it, and that's cool too! One of my offline Trekkie friends hated it, and we had some great discussion on it. But we could always come back to the fact that we both love Star Trek, and are happy to see fans making new, exciting content.
But recent Treks feature plenty of that, so it can't be it. Which begs the question, what are the absent "core values" that Axanar is supposedly bringing back?
Quite a bit of TOS. Good stories like:
The Corbomite Maneuver
Balance of Terror
Dagger of the Mind
The Conscience of the King
Court Martial
Arena
A Taste of Armageddon
Errand of Mercy
The Doomsday Machine
Journey to Babel
Obsession
By Any Other Name
The Ultimate Computer
Elann of Troyius
The Enterprise Incident
Day of the Dove
Whom God's Destroy<--- Quite relevant to 'Axanar' BTW.
Nearly a FULL SEASON of 'Star Trek' stories (out of the 3 Star Trek seasons) that still had core characters and values that weren't in GR's oft cited 'enlightened humanity on a voyage of peaceful exploration' that honestly was NOT always the prime core element in Star Trek (be it the TOS or TNG/DS9/VOY or ENT eras.)
Axanar does have a lot of the core Star Trek elements of interesting and complex characters striving to be better, but faced with a dire situation they're working together to resolve.
A certain someone seems very insecure, asking for "real fans" (a line which destroys all credibility) to come here and argue on his behalf against one guy. You've got your Kickstarter money and, unless CBS steps in, you'll get to make your movie. What damage can one mediocre review really do? Or five? Or ten really nasty ones? Rise above it.
My apologies. I hit "quote" and somehow the wrong name ended up in there. I've corrected it.
But recent Treks feature plenty of that, so it can't be it. Which begs the question, what are the absent "core values" that Axanar is supposedly bringing back?
Quite a bit of TOS. Good stories like:
The Corbomite Maneuver
Balance of Terror
Dagger of the Mind
The Conscience of the King
Court Martial
Arena
A Taste of Armageddon
Errand of Mercy
The Doomsday Machine
Journey to Babel
Obsession
By Any Other Name
The Ultimate Computer
Elann of Troyius
The Enterprise Incident
Day of the Dove
Whom God's Destroy<--- Quite relevant to 'Axanar' BTW.
Nearly a FULL SEASON of 'Star Trek' stories (out of the 3 Star Trek seasons) that still had core characters and values that weren't in GR's oft cited 'enlightened humanity on a voyage of peaceful exploration' that honestly was NOT always the prime core element in Star Trek (be it the TOS or TNG/DS9/VOY or ENT eras.)
Axanar does have a lot of the core Star Trek elements of interesting and complex characters striving to be better, but faced with a dire situation they're working together to resolve.
Personally, I don't think the TNG era Star Trek series have done a good job of it myself (DS9 came close at times.) YMMV.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
