This episode did not pull its punches. You never saw what Spock saw in mindmelds in TOS that I recall.
Star Trek Continues: Episode 2 "Lolani"...
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
Then why not use the SPOILER button, eh?
Alright, so the main problem I have is with the climax.
I found it completely implausible that Lolani alone could have blown up the Lief Ericson. Like the space Romans on 892-IV, the Orions have been handling slaves for a long time, and given that she had killed everyone aboard the Tellarite ship, Zaminon would have little motive to drop his guard.
If the episode is a whodunit, then the more plausible explanation is in fact that Kenway did it. He had motive, means, and opportunity (he left his post, remember?). Of course, getting Lolani off the Enterprise unseen might be a problem down the line, but if anyone could pull it off, a transporter chief could. The fact that Kirk never more openly considers the possibility that Kenway beamed Lolani off and blew up the ship himself, or admits complicity, even just man to man with Kenway, is, in my opinion, a missed opportunity. In contrast, the use of the word "stowaway" in the opening act 1 log entry was smirk-worthy, because she wasn't really a stowaway at that point.
Vic's performance of Kirk is to be praised, and this has quite possibly the best instance of Kirk's signature flying kick yet seen.
I enjoyed seeing the female guard and commodore, and I love Commodore Gray's uniform (what we saw of it). The irony in females oppressing females was apropos.
I give the episode high enough marks to rank among the TOS episodes.
Thank you.
Last edited:
So, the "message" is that foreign cultures use our political apparatus to undermine our values? Disappointing.
Re-watched it again today and came away just as impressed. And I have to echo the sentiment of those who said this "feels" the most like a lost episode of any film to date.
Something like "World Enough and Time" is an incredible achievement, as it was very well-made and compelling drama, but I never had the sense that I was watching a lost TOS episode. "Lolani" recreates that atmosphere and those details extremely well and, on top of that, STC also produced a highly engaging story with rich performances.
Something like "World Enough and Time" is an incredible achievement, as it was very well-made and compelling drama, but I never had the sense that I was watching a lost TOS episode. "Lolani" recreates that atmosphere and those details extremely well and, on top of that, STC also produced a highly engaging story with rich performances.
While Phase II have replicated the sets/costumes/props too [updating as they move forward however towards the movies/TNG] it feels like a modern TV series while Continues feels like lost episodes of TOS from the 60s.
At first I was like 'why is this Continues coming out when we already have Phase II, can't they do movie era', but now I see There's room for both
Continues is set a bit earlier in the timeline (as demoed by their first vignette)
I love this so much, I can't describe how good this was. Sure it may have had some errors and issues, but all good Star Trek has it's flaws.
Too bad they didn't eat those generic colored cubes with the Orion slavemaster. That would have been truly a "meal he wouldn't forget."
Too bad they didn't eat those generic colored cubes with the Orion slavemaster. That would have been truly a "meal he wouldn't forget."
Anyone feeling the other way? I found this to be very boring and the characters far less engaging than recent Phase 2 offerings.
No, the "message" is the question "do we turn our backs on human/alien rights abuses because it's politically expedient?" And "what methods will people use to escape oppression: how far will they go?"
It's not handled as well as it could be, and "slavery and beatings are bad" is a pretty obvious theme, but I still give them credit for telling a story that has a point of view rather than being space melodrama and pew-pew stuff.
I can't speak to how you're feeling about the characters not being engaging (I disagree, which is fine), but on the "boring" part: Phase II has certainly been a lot more action/adventure-oriented than STC. So, I can see how this might seem "boring" in comparison. But I don't think the recent Phase II offerings have had much substance to them, and I'll take a slower-paced episode that's actually about something over a fun action romp.
The message was coded with the reference to Edward Gibbon, a favorite among those concerned over the effects of multiculturalism in Western Society.
Did they actually read that book and pattern the message on that? Or did someone just use the title as a reference? Are there additional "coded" references other than the book just being there? I've never read Gibbon, so I can't speak to it.
I did not see this as a powerful episode. I guess because in the end Kirk did nothing to solve a problem and events moved him rather than he making a decision that was meaningful. Did he at the last moment make a decision? I guess so, but it was moot and lacked actual consequences for him.
I also don't get why we get this red haired doctor rather than her outrage going to McCoy or Uhura--you know, people the fans actually care about? If I was a captain and this woman I'd just met talked to me the way she talks, I'd have her tossed off at the nearest starbase.
It seems STC (like STP2) wants to shoehorn in Starfleet brass for Kirk to answer to so they can stick in cameos from famous SciFi actor of the past. Not only is this stunt casting distracting, but it serves to take the decisions away from their main characters.
Star Trek is at its most interesting when there's a real dilemma for Kirk. Here, if he's just following orders, that's not happening. That he eventually decides to disobey is then toothless when the writers decided to cop out.
I don't think I'll be watching STC again.
I also don't get why we get this red haired doctor rather than her outrage going to McCoy or Uhura--you know, people the fans actually care about? If I was a captain and this woman I'd just met talked to me the way she talks, I'd have her tossed off at the nearest starbase.
It seems STC (like STP2) wants to shoehorn in Starfleet brass for Kirk to answer to so they can stick in cameos from famous SciFi actor of the past. Not only is this stunt casting distracting, but it serves to take the decisions away from their main characters.
Star Trek is at its most interesting when there's a real dilemma for Kirk. Here, if he's just following orders, that's not happening. That he eventually decides to disobey is then toothless when the writers decided to cop out.
I don't think I'll be watching STC again.
Sort of one of the problems with the prime directive, isn't it? The law says the Federation isn't suppose to interfere with other cultures. So the question becomes: where's the line? How much "respect" does the Federation/Starfleet have to give to a culture. It's not the first time Trek touched on the ideal: Cloud Minders for example.
I think the key difference here is Kirk doesn't win, he doesn't save the day. All the way around, there was no "win", no last minute save. Which, to be honest, is one of the things I liked.
I was engaged throughout the episode, and heartbroken by the denouement. I don't think I could praise the episode any higher. Well done!
The acting and production values were fantastic, but this episode disappointed me.
Star Trek is supposed to be an optimistic projection of the future. This means that although Federation and Starfleet leadership isn't perfect and can sometimes be stuffy, bureaucratic, or clueless, it's not callous enough to allow an atrocity simply because "one person isn't worth having a diplomatic incident over". Heck, in the original series Kirk was more than happy to upend entire civilizations to right a wrong, I can't stand to see him just stand there and do nothing. Oh wait, he does have the slave trader over to dinner and tries to reason with him. Seriously, this is not something Kirk would do. This is something that Picard would have done on the first season of TNG when Gene's lawyer was rewriting the scripts.
And as others have commented on, I don't like that they took the dramatic weight of decision making away from Kirk just to shoehorn in a guest appearance from a beloved star of a classic sci-fi production.
Still, overall I enjoy what these folks are doing and look forward to seeing more of their work.
Star Trek is supposed to be an optimistic projection of the future. This means that although Federation and Starfleet leadership isn't perfect and can sometimes be stuffy, bureaucratic, or clueless, it's not callous enough to allow an atrocity simply because "one person isn't worth having a diplomatic incident over". Heck, in the original series Kirk was more than happy to upend entire civilizations to right a wrong, I can't stand to see him just stand there and do nothing. Oh wait, he does have the slave trader over to dinner and tries to reason with him. Seriously, this is not something Kirk would do. This is something that Picard would have done on the first season of TNG when Gene's lawyer was rewriting the scripts.
And as others have commented on, I don't like that they took the dramatic weight of decision making away from Kirk just to shoehorn in a guest appearance from a beloved star of a classic sci-fi production.
Still, overall I enjoy what these folks are doing and look forward to seeing more of their work.
I have no problem with episodes that examine the premises of the Trek universe. However, it seems like this is being sneaked in through the back door and in language that has a peculiar political spin. Moreover, I find the feared diplomatic crisis, both in real life and in Trek lore, to be contrived. I don't remember in what territory the incident occurred, but transport of a slave by Federation citizens could make it a matter for the Federation (as the flag state). I also find it a little silly that they would go to war over a single slave.
I did not check for other problematic areas in my first viewing. Though it sounded like it would be Gibbon at first, I dismissed this because Roman history could not be considered anti-slavery. Instead, I looked for clues throughout the episode that it might be a history of the Civil War. It was only at the end that my initial guess was confirmed. When I have time to rewatch, I'll look more closely.
I have to agree with others who have said that this is the first fan film they have watched where they did not get bored at some point. I enjoyed this very much. Nothing about the dialogue or the production values ever took me out of the moment.
The only thing that rang a bit false for me was that the Orion slave girl, considering what she has been through, was a bit "smiley" and happy when she first appeared on the bridge, and when she got her new wardrobe from the Doctor, but I'm sure that can be explained away.
A real highlight for me was getting to "see" into the Vulcan mind meld, and I thought Kirk's monologue in the corridor was well done, and I was hoping it would go on a bit longer. It reminded me of some of Shatner's "hero" walks through the corridors.
A question I wanted to ask: I may very well be mistaken, but when the series Star Trek: Enterprise dealt with the Orion slave issue, I walked away with the impression that the woman were always in charge and the men were always the slaves, even in TOS times, even though the Orions didn't reveal this in TOS times. I thought that we pretty clever. Is my interpretation of the Enterprise episode mistaken?
The only thing that rang a bit false for me was that the Orion slave girl, considering what she has been through, was a bit "smiley" and happy when she first appeared on the bridge, and when she got her new wardrobe from the Doctor, but I'm sure that can be explained away.
A real highlight for me was getting to "see" into the Vulcan mind meld, and I thought Kirk's monologue in the corridor was well done, and I was hoping it would go on a bit longer. It reminded me of some of Shatner's "hero" walks through the corridors.
A question I wanted to ask: I may very well be mistaken, but when the series Star Trek: Enterprise dealt with the Orion slave issue, I walked away with the impression that the woman were always in charge and the men were always the slaves, even in TOS times, even though the Orions didn't reveal this in TOS times. I thought that we pretty clever. Is my interpretation of the Enterprise episode mistaken?
Similar threads
