Star Trek Continues casts Matthew Ewald

[Bixby]

Andriech does make a few good points. While the fan in me likes the idea of returning to Magna Roma to see what has happened since, the purist in me thinks that the original story has already dished up all it can in the first serving. I would personally prefer it if in the future Phase 2 and STC steer well away from TOS call backs and really do ''explore strange NEW worlds''.

And here I thought I was the only one that was starting to get really bothered with all the TNG intrusions on what are supposed to be TOS-centric fan films. The awkward ''hey, look at me!!'' bit with Denise Crosby as Jenna Yar, Tasha's mother or grandmother in Blood and Fire was teeth-gnashing enough, but Pilgrim of Eternity went way too far into TNG territory to suit me (usually the teaser opening in TOS was used to set up an important story plot point, but the holodeck was TNG M.O. : add filler material that ultimately brings nothing to the main story, but used to cover up the fact there isn't enough ''STORY'' to fill a 50-minute episode...

Guest-stars are fine when they are appropriately used. No more Jenna Yar's and Admiral Leslies in the future, please, but Gil Gerard as Kitumba's admiral is a definite step in the right direction...

Some others here have said it more eloquently than I: Kirk needs to reclaim the center position of this series, the split-second seat-of-your-pants decision-making that defines KIRK. No more new-agey touchy-feely Picard-esque Kirk we've been getting the last few years: I want the Kirk who went head-to-head with a Romulan Commander, and who became the scourge of the Klingon Empire by Star Trek 3.

Love the discussion here...

 

[Bixby]

I applaud the inclusion of a new female character, who certainly has enough personality to fulfill the dynamic originally intended for Rand but I question putting her in such a stereotypically female role and once whose limitations were well documented by Marina Sirtis. I would also still like to see Chapel and Rand as more than just cameos.

On the RedLetterMedia website when they reviewed the prequel Star Wars trilogy, the host had a segment that provided some insight on the différences between the original leads and the prequel characters, script- and character-wise...He took a camera and went to ask everyday film fans this question:
''Describe the following Star Wars character WITHOUT saying what they look like, what costume they wore, or what their profession or role in the movie was.''

(1) Han Solo: He's a rogue...very arrogant...charming...totally dashing...fancies himself a playboy...a smarmy, cocksure womanizer...scoundrel...pigheaded...completely sexy, in a bad boy sort of way (lol, of course a woman said this )...with a bit of a bad streak...a thief with a heart of gold, deep down...

(2) Qui-gon Jin: he is stoic...he has a beard...stern?

(3) C-3PO: the bumbling sidekick...timid...scaredy cat...anal retentive...prissy...comic relief...high strung...effeminate...

(4) Queen Amidala: ...that's fucking impossible, she has no character...she's Nathalie Portman...she's kinda normal...monotone...

Very telling about the whole series and its handling, if you ask me...

But back to Star Trek...TOS's second pilot which starred William Shatner had a story that perfectly and clearly defined its two lead characters, Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock. right off the bat when we first see them they are playing futuristic chess against each other. Kirk is cocky, good-natured and charming, but also intense, passionate and self-assured. Spock is patronizing, analytical totally unused to losing...

I see Pilgrim of Eternity with new character Doctor McKennae...apart from empathetic, and a bit old-fashioned, I have no idea who she is as a character...

 

[Maurice]

The failing of original characters in fanfilms is in part because fan writers either just make clones of existing character types or conflate creating backstory for character.

This may surprise some people, but a lot of professional TV show creators never devise backstories at all. Who the character is isn't a past, but rather knowing what they want, why they want it, what they're willing to do or not do to get it, and, very importantly, what their failings are. Every character wants something from the other characters, whether that be love, approbation, a spanking, or just to be left alone. Knowing that informs how you write the character. As such, typically you start from there and create backstory as needed. Not every TV or screenwriter works this way, naturally, but I daresay it's the case most of the time.

 

[doubleohfive]

The other thing to consider is simply that the majority of fan films (if not all) were started and continue because the people making them tend to be the same people starring in them and there is therefore the element of what could essentially be whittled down to "playing dress-up." Ever notice how nine times out of ten, the person in charge of the fan film production is also the one playing the captain?

I'm not criticizing this, mind you. I'm just pointing out that it can be a factor when it comes to what's best for the characters as written. Why give up a gee-whiz awesome set piece or punchline if it's cool if you don't really have to?

I don't particularly mind the more TNG-esque approach to the characters vs. the TOS approach; my frustration begins when it becomes apparent that the fan film can't decide which it wants to be nor commit to one or the other. About the only one that really nailed this mentality down was Starship Exeter.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

The failing of original characters in fanfilms is in part because fan writers either just make clones of existing character types or conflate creating backstory for character.

This may surprise some people, but a lot of professional TV show creators never devise backstories at all. Who the character is isn't a past, but rather knowing what they want, why they want it, what they're willing to do or not do to get it, and, very importantly, what their failings are. Every character wants something from the other characters, whether that be love, approbation, a spanking, or just to be left alone. Knowing that informs how you write the character. As such, typically you start from there and create backstory as needed. Not every TV or screenwriter works this way, naturally, but I daresay it's the case most of the time.

Which is why worldview is far more important than backstory in my writerly view. How does a person's worldview inform what they want and how they go about getting it. When worldviews and wants chafe against each other is where you get conflict — not in the petty, soap opera-ish bickering that most viewers think of conflict.

Take Superman and Lex Luthor. Both have a particular worldview — granted some of that informed by backstory — that comes into direct conflict. Superman wants to help humanity the best he can and doesn't care about satisfying his ego. Lex Luthor wants to help humanity so long as it satisfies his ego, and the "alien" stands in his way to that. Something perfectly illustrated in ALL-STAR SUPERMAN.

 

[Barbreader]

STC has produced just one film. I know they have shot and promised another. I was not thinking about the fact that this is an STC thread. I did not think of STC when I was writing about fan films generally, as they are new and not yet a major producer. (I'm not from Missouri, but you still have to show me.) I realize they have honked their horns a lot, but then so did Star Trek Horizon (Poland), Star Trek Hathaway, and to this day Star Trek Lexington. I didn't state it clearly, but for me, 3/4 of a fan film is not a fan film. A film that was fully shot and edited but never got special effects or got special effects but never final sound is not a film. I know others differ on that, so I should have stated it more clearly.

The single episode STC released and the shorts were weird to me. It didn't feel like the TOS characters at all. Having Kirk act like a Prime Minister (Picard certainly made decisions on his own after consultation, he did not demand consensus) is not what I meant. I meant that an episode might focus on some character other than the big two or three. TNG's Lower Decks is the most extreme example of this.

In some cases the 'guest stars' have been a distraction, in others not. I do think the guest star should serve the film, not the film the guest star. Hence, my suggestion on the Phase II page that they consider, if they ever do the Harry Mudd episode they talk about, inviting Will Wheaton to play Harry Mudd. I don't expect it to happen, but neither do I see that as a big move from the bizarre version he plays of himself on Big Bang Theory. He has the skill to do that type of character.

Some of my favorite fan films take an entirely different take on Trek than pro Trek. I love Star Trek: Aurora. Some do follow up with episodes but not with characters. I appreciate the Star Trek: Outpost (an audio series) follow up on A Piece of the Action by including a character from that world but 100 years later and as part of the UFP. I like it that The Multiverse Crisis created a Rhino race and Potemkin has picked that up with another member of that race.

So, I did not intend, by what I wrote, to fully endorse STC, which seems to be how what I wrote was interpreted. In three years STC may be a major fan film group, but to me they are, as of now, a one-off. I do expect them to produce several more films. But if I'm wrong, it won't be a new experience for me. I believe a fan film will come out when it's released, not before.

 

[Bixby]

Recent events in the news have got me thinking: here we are, a few of us trying to push some of the Star Trek fan recreations to more strongly follow the spirit of the original series and its stories, rather than presenting sequels that ultimately pale in comparison with the power of the original episodes.

So many events over the last few months have served to remind me that what made STAR TREK such a cultural icon was its exploration of many of the societal upheavals that so characterised the 1960s, in a time when television so often turned a blind eye in favour of cookie-cutter inoffensive pablum entertainment.

Well what are we now, except in what may be the second such period in television (and sadly, film ) history. Dominated by endless hours of worthless reality shows, multiple all- ''news'' networks filled with tripe, movie mega-plexes filled with moronic vacuous popcorn duds the likes of which hasn't been seen since the 50s.

Yet every day, events happen that should shake our society to its core but it is strangled into oblivion by the 24-hour news cycle.

STAR TREK Under Roddenberry and especially Gene Coon made it its mission to shake up our society with thinly-disguised morality plays under science-fiction trappings, as we all know.

I would think it high time someone with a little guts take up that mission once again and do a little examination of the direction our society is going, instead of the same old, same old...

 

[Maurice]

I don't know that Star Trek did this as much as some of its creators claim it did, and when they did do it, they didn't always do it very well. That said, the thing I agree about is writing stories which touch on topics important to us. In fact, I had decided to do something like this for Exeter (after it became obvious that The Atlantis Invaders script was too big a task to do given the resources) and I'd started writing a script in which the theme was the misuse of science for political aims and specifically on how some people cherry pick scientific findings to support their presuppositions...but all this during an action adventure story (as opposed to people sitting around a table). It's the kind of thing that I'd love to see fanfilms do, but, seriously, it takes a light touch to make that kind of stuff work without being preachy and obvious, and fanfilms are not known for great scripts.

 

[feek61]

Perhaps the forth-coming episode WILL touch on relevant current topics. We will see in February.

 

[Shane Houston]

Um, no offense to anyone. But am I supposed to be impressed with whoever this Ewald is supposed to be. From his statement you'd think he was the Great Bird of The Galaxy himself. Never heard of him nor do I want to. I don't like phony, and his words seem just that.

First Lou Whatshisface from the 70's and now this guy. I doubt either will make that much of a difference in quality. Reminds me of how egos move at transwarp speeds.

 

[Maurice]

A lot of fanfilm makers like to make announcements in the vein of big studios. Basically it's ego boo for those involved, and maybe it excites a small audience of people who know the people in question.

 

[MikeH92467]

Yeah, stunt casting is a lot of fun and I will certainly admit that we all got a little bit of a boost when Ursaline Bryant made a small, but very significant appearance in our most recent Star Trek: Excelsior episode. We could have had someone else do it, but we figured having the original actor reprise her role would be fun. It was a lot of work, but Ms. Bryant was very gracious and her contribution was very much appreciated. Whether it was worth the effort, well YMMV.

 

[Maurice]

I had to look up Ursaline Bryant, but now I know who she is.

 

[doubleohfive]

Yeah, stunt casting is a lot of fun and I will certainly admit that we all got a little bit of a boost when Ursaline Bryant made a small, but very significant appearance in our most recent Star Trek: Excelsior episode. We could have had someone else do it, but we figured having the original actor reprise her role would be fun. It was a lot of work, but Ms. Bryant was very gracious and her contribution was very much appreciated. Whether it was worth the effort, well YMMV.

I for one thought it worked out very well for you guys.