Well said.
Star Trek Continues, Episode 5....
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
Pretty much as bad as loading up an episode with call outs to other data points in the Trek franchise is a reaction formation avoidance of anything from the Trek franchise that's not TOS related--no matter how contorted the mental gymnastics need to be to avoid the reference.
I'm imagining an intriguing script where our Enterprise heroes have a first contact situation with an exotic humanoid species with great telepathic and/or empathic power. Getting to know this planet and its people, and setting up further contact and integration with the Federation could be an interesting story and could very well be in keeping with something TOS might have done.
"Yes, that could be very interesting--and could be done in a way that is very faithful to TOS!"
"'m glad you agree. I shall call this new and interesting planet Betazed--and its inhabitants Betazoids."
"Oh dear God! How dare you! TOS could not have done stories about Betazoids; they didn't even exist as an idea yet back in 1969! This isn't faithful to TOS!"
Like I say: not connecting obvious Trek dots might just be crazier than connecting Trek dots on occasion.
Indeed, or if one wanted to tell the story anyway, but changed the planet name to avoid the callback issue, one would get in just as much "trouble" for recreating the wheel when it comes to empathic planets. "Why not just call it Betazed and get it over with?"
To be clear, I'm not saying "never mention anything that's ever been mentioned in Star Trek ever before." I'm just saying, use a little imagination and come up with fresh stories. The Klingons are over-used (much like The Master in Doctor Who fan filmdom), but if you have a genius story involving the Klingons, by all means, use them.
I'm mainly talking about the kind of wink-wink, nudge-nudge fanwank that basically stops the story to titter "See how well-versed I am in Trek lore?!? Ain't I precious?" When STC started off with their Apollo story, I was like, "Okay, that's kind of fun." By the third time their scripts were directly rooted in earlier Trek shows, I was like, "Enough already, come up with new stories that don't use prior Trek as scaffolding."
To my mind, "Tressaurian Intersection" was not hurt in the least by using the Tholians as villains. They were worthy bad guys, and the script didn't drop stupid lines like, "Captain, it's the Tholians -- I hope they don't try to trap us in their THOLIAN WEB!!"
Trek has its own rich history, of course. Nothing wrong with utilizing some of those elements -- but use them in a fresh way that isn't just a pointless name-drop to show how much ST you can quote.
Just my .02, of course.
I'm mainly talking about the kind of wink-wink, nudge-nudge fanwank that basically stops the story to titter "See how well-versed I am in Trek lore?!? Ain't I precious?" When STC started off with their Apollo story, I was like, "Okay, that's kind of fun." By the third time their scripts were directly rooted in earlier Trek shows, I was like, "Enough already, come up with new stories that don't use prior Trek as scaffolding."
To my mind, "Tressaurian Intersection" was not hurt in the least by using the Tholians as villains. They were worthy bad guys, and the script didn't drop stupid lines like, "Captain, it's the Tholians -- I hope they don't try to trap us in their THOLIAN WEB!!"
Trek has its own rich history, of course. Nothing wrong with utilizing some of those elements -- but use them in a fresh way that isn't just a pointless name-drop to show how much ST you can quote.
Just my .02, of course.
Again well said.
"Pilgrim Of Eternity" worked partly because they were able to use Michael Forest's age as an integral part of the story. It was a decent "proof of concept" for their stated intent. That said it wasn't a story that needed to be told because no one was crying out for the character of Apollo to be redeemed. "Lolani" stepped up to the plate to follow up on what they claimed to wanted to do. Using the Orions was not a distraction or a detriment to the story because they used them in an interesting way. At this point it was very encouraging.
"Fairest Of Them All" was a pure fan indulgence. Again this wasn't a story begging to be told, and because it was generally well done it was fun to revisit the Mirror Universe again. One could also look at this as a side story that has nothing to do with the regular characters because they aren't directly part of what unfolds here.
"The White Iris" was another fanfic indulgence. It was a very touchy-feely contemporary type story that would have been right at home on TNG. But it's highly unlikely this story or something like it would have been done by TOS.
STC has earned a lot of goodwill for their overall execution. On that I give them an "A" and they're 4 for 4. But in terms of stories offered up in line (so far) with their stated intent it's much more debatable. On that issue I'd say they're really only 1 for 4.
What we're seeing might also be a result of limited writing sources in that they're stories from a few core people. Maybe they could benefit from a wider source pool.
And TOS established the Orions even if only in a somewhat throwaway fashion. Yes, there was something of a reference to a story from ENT, but it was such a vague way that anyone unfamiliar with ENT could completely miss it. But it was right up TOS' alley to explore the Orions further in some manner just as they did in TAS' "The Pirates Of Orion" decades before they showed up again in ENT.
After the premiere, I am curious to know which fan film you are referring to. For me, I'm reminded of a New Outer Limits episode as far as the basic setting and subject matter.
Last edited:
----
I'm new here- but thought JE Smith's post was a great way to jump in.
First things first- I loves me some Continues.
With some small nitpicks -
1) To quote a 90's IBM ad :"Why is the [Continues] logo on fire?" Because they can? Cue Star Trek VI speech: "Just because you can do a thing..." etc, etc
2)McKennah. I'm sorry- My suspension of disbelief engines canna' stand the strain.
Classic Trek Intermix formula:
McCoy - Spock - Kirk as in Id - Ego - Super Ego.
WWRD? What would Roddenberry have done (and no looking at this from OUR timeframe)
Roddenberry changed a great deal from '64 to, what- '75 ish when Phase II was rattlin' in his brain? So where was his mindset- (and that of the mainstream Hollywood writers/Network(s) in '69 and '70?(Continues production timeframe)
I think no ship's counselor. Not yet.
The Continues team hung a lampshade on the issue by having Kirk challenge her role/presence in White Iris' briefing room scene halfway into the episode.
I just don't buy it. I mean- One of Continues' early vignettes was a wonderful- incredible - word for word, beat for beat - remake (and extension) of Turnabout Intruder- A sexist ep if I ever saw one. (Kirk/Lester filing nails on the bridge!- and later she/he in hysterics) This despite the fact the Ep was about Starfleet's Glass Ceiling.
Moving forward a few years-
Anyone remember the sexism of the Planet Earth Pilot ? John Saxon's character(Kirk redux) was all about the ladies. This man was no Dink. In the end he goes off in the tube with a small, cute (but rather submissive) brunette.
So that's my feeling. I suppose I'm bugged a bit, 'cause Contiues' Kirk Spock and Scotty and Chekov are so damned convincing- and the production values are so well matched to the original! (except the necessary handicap of being shot on 23/24fps HD video rather than being shot on actual film - I want a "film" setting in Adobe = Something that makes a production look like TV Panavision)
Will the McKennah character or a Bright Red logo stop me from downloading Episode 5 the second it hits the YouTubes? Hells no.
It's just that I wish we could, as a society/viewers be ok with the fact that a remake of a 60's show, might, by necessity, have to reflect the values/attitudes of the writers, producers and Network buyers of the time, and not the views we wish they'd had.
I mean- the music was intense, the drama intense. No way that stuff would fly today- but the amazing 50 year ride had to start somewhere. Let's honor the (perhaps somewhat flawed) beginnings, and leave the retconned attitudes for anyone doing a 1978 Phase II in Starfleet pyjamas.
Last edited:
You know, the anti-McKennah rallying cry is getting really old, guys.
McKennah is perfectly acceptable and fits in just fine in the Continues' venue. Not every single last detail or element from 1969 need be in place nor every single last burden be imposed upon these fan films.
Like it or love it.
McKennah is perfectly acceptable and fits in just fine in the Continues' venue. Not every single last detail or element from 1969 need be in place nor every single last burden be imposed upon these fan films.
Like it or love it.
Karzak: "Like it or love it"
Well, Karak, since you put it that way- I choose to like it and love it.
I think a little comment/opinion written with graciousness is ok- and that's what makes a forum. I just didn't couch it with IMHO or any other 90's AOL cutesy acronyms.
I like Continues. I like it very much.
I'm not advocating sexism in Trek. I was talking about verisimilitude. I was talking about the concept of the big three- Kirk-Spock- McCoy. A Freudian triumvirate relationship which lasted 'til Star Trek VI.
McCoy is the emotion/heart as well as ersatz shrink. That's the deal. That's the show that was made in the 60's. That's the show that would have continued judging by the movies. I wouldn't have a problem with McKennah being used as a high ranking linguist or navigator, or as an advanced science or computer person. I would love a compelling, recurring role for a competent woman other than Uhura as telephone/switchboard operator.
On authenticity-
I'm not a big fan of the Trek productions that are in 16x9 either. And that too, is ok to say.
I made my case against revisionism. Either be authentic, or not. I don't care, it's your party- But don't claim the most bona fides while shoehorning in an anachronism.
Even in professional productions it's perfectly ok to take issue with something quite small (ie the fact that the Vulcans use contractions and are less formal in Enterprise, yet they speak quite formally in Classic Trek) it takes you out of the established universe. Enterprise Vulcans are not Vulcans. No thees, no thous - no nuthin'. And it's ok to say that the Season 4 Surak Vulcan "fix" doesn't cut it. The Vulcans were written differently because they were written in the 2000's for an audience watching in the 2000's.
I love Continues, and will contribute via Kickstarter when the time comes for Ep 6.
As I said, I'm new- If something has already been addressed, I certainly would not have made such an effort to make my point about authenticity.
Well, Karak, since you put it that way- I choose to like it and love it.
I think a little comment/opinion written with graciousness is ok- and that's what makes a forum. I just didn't couch it with IMHO or any other 90's AOL cutesy acronyms.
I like Continues. I like it very much.
I'm not advocating sexism in Trek. I was talking about verisimilitude. I was talking about the concept of the big three- Kirk-Spock- McCoy. A Freudian triumvirate relationship which lasted 'til Star Trek VI.
McCoy is the emotion/heart as well as ersatz shrink. That's the deal. That's the show that was made in the 60's. That's the show that would have continued judging by the movies. I wouldn't have a problem with McKennah being used as a high ranking linguist or navigator, or as an advanced science or computer person. I would love a compelling, recurring role for a competent woman other than Uhura as telephone/switchboard operator.
On authenticity-
I'm not a big fan of the Trek productions that are in 16x9 either. And that too, is ok to say.
I made my case against revisionism. Either be authentic, or not. I don't care, it's your party- But don't claim the most bona fides while shoehorning in an anachronism.
Even in professional productions it's perfectly ok to take issue with something quite small (ie the fact that the Vulcans use contractions and are less formal in Enterprise, yet they speak quite formally in Classic Trek) it takes you out of the established universe. Enterprise Vulcans are not Vulcans. No thees, no thous - no nuthin'. And it's ok to say that the Season 4 Surak Vulcan "fix" doesn't cut it. The Vulcans were written differently because they were written in the 2000's for an audience watching in the 2000's.
I love Continues, and will contribute via Kickstarter when the time comes for Ep 6.
As I said, I'm new- If something has already been addressed, I certainly would not have made such an effort to make my point about authenticity.
Last edited:
...so new that you've slightly mis-used the "Quote" function... the comments you quoted were not made by me but by good sir Warped9.
Okay, that's fair. Personally I think a bit too much is made of the "triumvirate" business from time to time. The really essential core of the show for my money was the Kirk and Spock buddy dynamic (note that while the "triumvirate" dynamic turns up in NuTrek, its "third chair" is alternately occupied by Uhura or Bones, which actually provides a nice sense of variety around that basic core, and IMO is one of the reboot's better decisions). But certainly this aspect of things was genuinely part of the original show's hook nevertheless and calling back to it can be useful. It wasn't the be-all and end-all of getting everything done, though. For example:
This is true of McCoy's role within the "triumvirate." OTOH McCoy is too masculine and gruff a "country doctor" figure to be convincing for the kind of thing they had McKenna doing in "Pilgrim of Eternity." So it makes sense to have another character with some specific training in that role. The only thing that's really much different is that the original series would have used a rotating cast of walk-on characters for that kind of role instead of just filling it with a regular cast member. The latter decision is probably the more economical route for a fan series, where you don't have a deep bench of experienced character actors to draw from.
Yes, I was curious about this too. I don't watch a lot of fan films, so I didn't notice any similarity. I just viewed the teaser, and...
Kirk sees a ghostly figure of a female officer in a blue uniform from the time of "The Cage" or WNMHGB.
I haven't seen the rest of the episode, so I can't weigh in much yet. If there is a ship's counselor along the lines of TNG, I don't think that fits in well. However, having a psychiatrist on McCoy's medical staff would fit just fine with a 1960s background, since real militaries have had them for a long time.
Kor
I don't see any connection or similarity between the teaser for Ep. 5 and what we saw in Ep. 4.
I have some ideas for what we see in the Ep. 5 teaser, but I really have no concrete idea of whats going on. I can only say there are one or two possibilities that I hope are not the path they went down. And somehow I suspect neither of those is what they've done.
I hope.
I have some ideas for what we see in the Ep. 5 teaser, but I really have no concrete idea of whats going on. I can only say there are one or two possibilities that I hope are not the path they went down. And somehow I suspect neither of those is what they've done.
I hope.
This new episode is supposed to be released within the next few hours, but I'm surprised it's never been mentioned its co-writer's name is Marc Cushman. Is this the same as the author of the ''These are the Voyages'' series of books that have been amply discussed on this site?
Similar threads
