Poll STAR TREK CONTINUES: "To Boldly Go (Parts I & II)" - Grading & Discussion Thread

[USS Intrepid]

A question was asked. I answered it

I wasn’t singling you out, sorry if it came off that way, if anything I was defending your right to criticise.

We should embrace criticism. We might not always agree, it might not always even be valid, but we can often learn from it. Even if we don’t like it.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The poll options are biased to be top-heavy. On the five-grade system of excellent, good, satisfactory, needs improvement, and unsatisfactory, I would rate it as satisfactory for a fan production. But on the OP's scale, I suppose therefore it would have to be fair (2).

My issues with it and the things I liked about it were posted in the other thread. To summarize, the major problems were with story and TOS character interpretation. The good things were main character acting and the look, which would include everything from costumes to sets to VFX. Sound was good too, and that would range from dialog to FX to music. I don't rule out watching it again, but I'm not rushing to do it right away, so that's a pretty middle of the road reaction.

My hat goes off to the effort by the STC team across the board. This series was clearly a massive undertaking, and everyone involved must have put forth a tremendous effort over an extended period, simply for a fan production. I commend everyone from Vic on down for their efforts.

 

[Warped9]

Re: the episodes’ visual f/x.

I really miss Doug Drexler.

 

[Samuel]

I've wondered why the espers aboard the Kongo didn't simply try to capture the two Constitution class starships sent to intercept them. With three starships instead of just one, they wouldn't have been vulnerable to the tactic Kirk, Spock, and the Romulan commander used against them.

Of course its possible they tried to take control of the two ships (which is how the Kongo was damaged) found they couldn't control both and finally forced them to open fire on each other.

But it seems that the espers got some kind of real thrill out of forcing others to kill themselves. Like Lana when she forced Drake to kill the other security guard and then himself. And of course the entire crews of the Kongo and Hood.

 

[MikeH92467]

I really don't have a problem with fan films providing fan service. I mean, what is a fan film if it isn't servicing the fans who made it? That's a creative choice I think they're entitled to make. It never has bothered me, but I can see it as being distracting for some. I try to judge fan productions on how well, they do what they set out do, rather than comparing them to a professional standard, just as I would judge a community theater presentation of "The Mousetrap" differently than I would an Equity production. Hopefully the criticisms that have been offered will be food for thought for those who make the effort in the future.

 

[Maurice]

We should embrace criticism. We might not always agree, it might not always even be valid, but we can often learn from it. Even if we don’t like it.

Yeah, that I don't get. Critique is part and parcel. You want ouch? Try handing in a screenplay to a (professional) producer and have them tell you they "hate it." I've been there, no fun, but you take your lumps.

There are lots of nasty comments on TTI but we don't remove them or even argue (albeit we have deleted a few comments that are just cruel or nasty, sexist, making fun of the actors by name or with ethnic slurs or what have you). We do occasionally point out when a comment is inaccurate (as when someone commented that Harris's skirt was shorter than anything ever seen on TOS, and we posted a link to a photo of Helen Noel's even shorter one) or inane (which I typically respond to with "Put. The. Tranya. Down"). But, by and large, if people say "it sucks" or "the acting is terrible" or whatever, we just grin and bear it.

You can't tell people what to like, after all.

 

[Mark 2000]

If I ever critiqued fan films the same way I’ve written about Gene Roddenberry’s own work I’d be burnt at the stake. And I like Gene Roddenberry’s work.

 

[Maurice]

If I ever critiqued fan films the same way I’ve written about Gene Roddenberry’s own work I’d be burnt at the stake.

Mmmmm. Crispy! I'd have to call you Joan of Mark.

 

[USS Intrepid]

Yeah, that I don't get. Critique is part and parcel. You want ouch? Try handing in a screenplay to a (professional) producer and have them tell you they "hate it." I've been there, no fun, but you take your lumps.

There are lots of nasty comments on TTI but we don't remove them or even argue (albeit we have deleted a few comments that are just cruel or nasty, sexist, making fun of the actors by name or with ethnic slurs or what have you). We do occasionally point out when a comment is inaccurate (as when someone commented that Harris's skirt was shorter than anything ever seen on TOS, and we posted a link to a photo of Helen Noel's even shorter one) or inane (which I typically respond to with "Put. The. Tranya. Down"). But, by and large, if people say "it sucks" or "the acting is terrible" or whatever, we just grin and bear it.

You can't tell people what to like, after all.

Oh I get it. Criticism burns. I've been on the receiving end (fairly and unfairly) plenty and I'm still working on that thick skin. But yeah, as you say; part and parcel.

As to the episode, I liked it. I thought part 2 was better than part 1. I don't really disagree with any of the criticisms, but I did enjoy it, and that's really all that matters to me at this point.

Also, Michele Specht might not have had a lot to do in this, but I thought she really shined with what she did have.

 

[Maurice]

I wish they'd given her a better part than McKennah. She was wasted in that nothing role, being I think she was the best actor of the regular cast.

 

[USS Intrepid]

I like her a lot. I also thought Todd Haberkorn really grew into the role of Spock. Chuck Huber actually felt like McCoy to me for the first time ever in this one.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

I wish they'd given her a better part than McKennah. She was wasted in that nothing role, being I think she was the best actor of the regular cast.

I like her a lot. I also thought Todd Haberkorn really grew into the role of Spock. Chuck Huber actually felt like McCoy to me for the first time ever in this one.

Michele Specht is the most naturalistic of the STC actors. She seems at ease in her performance. She doesn't have an affectations either.

Haberkorn is certainly the best of the fan film Spocks. He seems to have that inner life in his performance that Nimoy felt was so important in the role. And he isn't robotic in his delivery while still maintaining that Spock staccato.

 

[Firebird]

Haberkorn is certainly the best of the fan film Spocks. He seems to have that inner life in his performance that Nimoy felt was so important in the role. And he isn't robotic in his delivery while still maintaining that Spock staccato.

THIS, emphatically. I've loved Todd's interpretation of Spock, and appreciate the fact that he didn't just try to do Nimoy. He was putting thought behind the role and treating it seriously, which definitely came across on screen.

 

[Bixby]

If I can borrow from Pro wrestling's terminology, I find that Michelle Specht makes for a much more natural heel than a babyface. Sure, she's managed to come off endearing as McKennah, but I think deep down inside there's a great villain. If you'll all remember the lady Klingon she portrayed in New Voyages' Kitumba episode, she was captivating in that role even though her screentime was pretty limited, stealing the show from Mignona's Malkthon.

I think she may have really wanted to wear a blue uniform, but that worked against her because I'd guess in about half of STC's episodes she had glorified cameos. Playing armchair quarterback, I think she could have done a Mark Lenard and only appeared in two episodes as a villain/hero with real scenery to chew. Actually if they'd given the Espers story the extra 20 minutes it ideally needed, she could have conquered in Lana's role.

 

[Gary7]

Finally watched this 2 part episode of Star Trek Continues. Overall, there was a lot to like about it. The saucer separation was very unexpected and actually done pretty well, IMHO. They picked a logical point of separation.

My only major criticism would be with the pacing. There are a number of moments where there's too much "dwelling," where a scene just slows to a crawl when it should keep moving. You can have terrific special effects, interesting story, and decent acting, but the editing is where the real magic happens. I think about 20% of the video time could've been cut to achieve a better pacing. You rarely ever see this happen in TOS episodes, and some of them were the slowest paced in the whole franchise. Even those moments that are a bit long in TOS have camera changes to help manage the pacing.

There were some clumsy moments... and I can't believe Spock fell for beaming over McKennah without any proof of the Kongo crew being alive. Very out of character not to arrange a simultaneous beam over. Even still, the excuse to have her over there to mediate was not believable.

I'd say that the most cringe worthy part for me was the part where McKennah is in transporter limbo. If there's not enough power to complete transport, how could there be enough to sustain a partial pattern for so long? I never liked that "partially aware" bit in the transporter sequence anyway. If this is all about disassembly and reassembly (as McCoy so aptly put it "molecules being scrambled"), how can a person function at all in a partial state? OK, so there's this fan-wank idea of it not being molecular scrambling but some kind of phased teleportation (which I've not bought into), but even assuming that I can't grasp how there wasn't enough power to complete materialization, yet linger on so long in a partial state.

Of course with a fan production you can't expect perfection. Overall, I'd say Star Trek Continues has produced the best TOS episodes of any non-profit effort. They have improved over time as well... albeit inconsistently.

I am grateful for the efforts to tie up "loose ends" from TOS. STC has made some nice choices on that, from reviving old characters to filling in the gaps between the end of TOS and the start of ST-I.

 

[Zaminhon]

As far as Transporter operation anomalies, it all lies in its potential to split a person into "good" and "evil" components, iow, it's magic.

 

[Gary7]

As far as Transporter operation anomalies, it all lies in its potential to split a person into "good" and "evil" components, iow, it's magic.

That's part of the reason I find it hard to watch "Enemy Within," in addition to savage overacting by Shatner. While an interesting exercise of a possibility, it's so incredibly remote that such a mistake could be made in such a very precise manner (not to mention the doubling of matter -- two entirely complete human beings created from one being). But that issue has already been debated to death in the TOS subforum.

 

[MarsWeeps]

I finally got around to watching this..I enjoyed it. It was a good way to end the series and tie it in to TMP.

Question: Does anyone know what will become of the sets? It would be a shame to see them disassembled.

 

[Vger23]

I finally got around to watching this..I enjoyed it. It was a good way to end the series and tie it in to TMP.

Question: Does anyone know what will become of the sets? It would be a shame to see them disassembled.

That is an excellent question!

 

[Gary7]

Haven't they opened them up for tourism? Star Trek Tour. I know this is being managed by James Cawley, but as I understand it he loaned the complete set to Star Trek Continues. And so I'm guessing the tour was set up after filming was completed.