Star Trek Phase II Enemy: Starfleet! Now Released!

[Expo67]

Is it so difficult for some of you to post without being rude and nasty to one another?

I have often pondered that question myself.

Unfortunately, it is part of human nature to be distateful and highly primitive in such extreme points of view.

To quote Spock from 'Let That Be Your last battlefield', "To expect sense from two mentalities of such extreme viewpoints, is not logical."

 

[AJBryant]

Finally had a chance to sit down and watch it.

Damn you guys.

Why can't you be closer to where I am?

You never cease to amaze me with the quality and integrity you bring to the project.

You have my gratitude, and my respect.

Keep the dream alive, guys.

 

[Pony Horton]

Finally had a chance to sit down and watch it.

Damn you guys.

Why can't you be closer to where I am?

You never cease to amaze me with the quality and integrity you bring to the project.

You have my gratitude, and my respect.

Keep the dream alive, guys.

You live only about 900-1,000 miles from Port Henry. I live in SoCal, but I manage to take AMTRAK back there to attend the shoots.

If you can make the time, it's quite an experience!

 

[number6]

5 hour drive for me.. Very doable.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

I have been holding back my thoughts on "Enemy: Starfleet!" until I complete my written review of the episode, but I wanted to address a few statements being made in this thread.

I will also say that, having worked in The Industry all my life, our filming and VFX work is NOT television-quality...

It's MOTION PICTURE-QUALITY. If you think you can do better, join us! We can always use more help.

"Enemy: Starfleet!" is a herculean feat of dedication and devotion, no one doubts that. While as spectacular as it is for a fan production, the episode doesn't apotheosis towards television quality or "motion picture quality."

There are visual ticks in the episode that call attention to itself, which would be spotted by novice moviegoers. DS9Sega's critique of the mismatched eyelines is valid because a moviegoer can subconsciously know that something is visually amiss, even if that person can't articulate why.

The same with cinematographic choices such as keeping everyone in a medium two-shot close frame, and an editing choice to cut from two-shot to close-up to two-shot again, which is what occurs in "Enemy: Starfleet!"

Once again, it's a visual cue for the audience and if the camera work is stagnant and predictable, a viewer will notice.

But these critiques aren't given with the sole purpose of slaying the work. It's so that future work from the hardworking, dedicated folks at "Phase II" can continue to grow and improve as they have since "Come What May."

Constructive criticism is one thing - but your remarks sound like someone who is saying anything against our work just to sound authoritative.

I'm not being thin-skinned, I'm calling out a remark(s) that are simply not accurate.

...

"If you can do better" is a perfectly fair comeback when the person being responded-to makes arguments that are both circular and inaccurate. Since you have not been to the sets in person, I can say, with total accuracy, that when it comes to our sets you don't know what you're talking about.

Films are films. We make ours to as high a professional standard as was used on any of the other TREK shows. Our scripts were written by the original writers in many cases. Saying the writing is poorly-done, in this case, is simply subjective. I liked it, and I say my argument holds as much, if not more, weight as yours.

But, once again, it's easy to sit on your chair and make snarky criticisms. If you really think we can improve and are not doing-so to your standards, by all means, JOIN US. Maybe you have a talent we can use, like writing.

Trust me, I've sat in many MFA writer's workshops and had my work blown shreds with comments just slightly above "this sucks". But here a lot of the comments have been well-thought out and appropriately worded.

The bar has been set high, but with each subsequent production, you guys should be looking for opportunities set the bar higher and higher (which I'm sure you are).

But knee-jerk reactions such as "if you can do better, join us" don't help. Whether or not it was intended to be snarky, it came across on the page as such.

I swear I'm not choosing sides here...

But for what it's worth, I appreciate the fact that people on this board take the time to view our efforts and then provide feedback to aid in the process of improving the product.

I have found DS9Sega's comments very constructive and generally spot-on. Is there room for disagreement? Of course. But I've always felt that the intention was to aid the fanfilm makers and never to diminish or denegrate their efforts, P2 included.

So, thanks for that.

John, you're one of the best things about the production. I can't say enough about your performance as Dr. McCoy, especially in this latest outing.

 

[KirkPicard]

A few hours away in Philly. Sent an E-mail to the Phase II team to volunteer but have not received a reply as yet.

 

[Maurice]

As I said upthread, the problems I addressed are not exclusive to Phase 2, but it's the one that gets frequently lauded by fans as being as good as anything on TV or of feature film quality. I've stated my reasons for disagreeing with that conclusion. Others can and may disagree with my opinions and reasons, and they're welcome to.

I think Dennis can confirm that I'm not entirely ignorant about the realities of a film set (heck, I took a rap on the noggin from a C-Stand on a professional studio shoot Monday). I ran around like crazy on the Starship Polaris set trying to make sure everything got done well, within schedule, and that we got plenty of coverage in order to avoid the editorial issues that many fanfilms suffer from in post (Exeter included).

I want everyone to succeed and everyone to do good work, but to do good work requires being open to the possibility that there is room for improvement. I don't believe it's helpful to give approbation for work that hasn't actually been done.

 

[DaveGalanter]

I've taken the comments here as constructive and interesting and there have been many I've agreed with. I think you guys have been quite considerate and constructive on the whole.

 

[Forbin]

Re: Peter's hair. My wife felt compelled to say how silly she thought it looked every time he showed up on screen. Just sayin'.

Effects: Gorgeous! My only critique would be that I thought there was a little too much close-in "dogfighting" between the capital ships. I personally prefer the standing-off-trading-shots-while-moving-majestically ships-of-the-line mode. YMMV.

All that said, before anyone is tempted to be overly critical (or even mildy critical) I would say go back and look at the first effort and compare it to the later work and try to digest just how vast the improvement is. To me the changes and improvements are nothign short of staggering.

QFT. They've come a long way, baby!

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I think Dennis can confirm that I'm not entirely ignorant about the realities of a film set.

That's a fact - DS9Sega's contributionsto Polaris as someone with considerable professional experience have been inestimable.*


----------------------------------------------------------

*inestimable [ɪnˈɛstɪməbəl] - adj

1. not able to be estimated; immeasurable
2. has saved our asses.

 

[BillJ]

Really? With the exception of the bridge the sets are small ...

The sets are EXACT re-creations of the originals, and are sized accurately.

Then there is an issue somewhere else along the way (lighting or directing?) because the bridge set does seem really small on screen.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I've been on the Phase II sets, and they are a remarkable achievement in every way - craft, research, attention to detail and practicality to the extent that the space they work in allows. If they get tired of making movies, those guys can open a museum.

That said, the apparent size of a set does have a lot to do with both camera angles and lenses (and lighting, lighting, lighting). The Phase II bridge is (or was) "buttoned up" rather than having large sections that can be pulled out of the way (they may have ways of removing viewscreens or something to get behind the structure for longer angles; I can't speak to that). So it's possible that there are wide angles you're used to seeing in TOS that make the bridge set look bigger sometimes than are used on Phase II - but I don't know, the bridge looks pretty much the same to me as it does on TOS.

I really suspect that the apparently smaller size of a set like Sickbay on screen has to do with how closely together some of the sets are necessarily constructed and resulting limitations on camera angles. Per Doug Drexler, the original Sickbay was built on an open plan, "three camera sitcom" layout that enabled the crew to effectively shoot it from outside the set itself and to dolly the camera quite a bit.

A careful viewer can easily be mistaken in estimating the size of that set as being smaller than the original - it doesn't matter on screen what something is, just what it looks like. Sort of basic to movie making, that.

 

[BillJ]

Thanks for the insight.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Thanks for the insight.

I'm sure that James can correct me if I've misstated the layout of things or if they've changed significantly since 2009.

 

[Tom]

Well, like Dennis mentioned above, I can tell you that the bridge set is a amazing. From the outside you see this run down and raged old garage/car dealship type building but when you walk inside you are transported to this cool TOS world. They make every possible use of that space also, from the sets below to the transporter set in the loft above. Mostly all the monitors each have there own little 10 year old Dell Dimension computers running the graphics. The whole ingenuity of the place creates it's own magic, and anyone who has ever been there will agree with that.

 

[Pony Horton]

I've been on the Phase II sets, and they are a remarkable achievement in every way - craft, research, attention to detail and practicality to the extent that the space they work in allows. If they get tired of making movies, those guys can open a museum.

That said, the apparent size of a set does have a lot to do with both camera angles and lenses (and lighting, lighting, lighting). The Phase II bridge is (or was) "buttoned up" rather than having large sections that can be pulled out of the way (they may have ways of removing viewscreens or something to get behind the structure for longer angles; I can't speak to that). So it's possible that there are wide angles you're used to seeing in TOS that make the bridge set look bigger sometimes than are used on Phase II - but I don't know, the bridge looks pretty much the same to me as it does on TOS.

I really suspect that the apparently smaller size of a set like Sickbay on screen has to do with how closely together some of the sets are necessarily constructed and resulting limitations on camera angles. Per Doug Drexler, the original Sickbay was built on an open plan, "three camera sitcom" layout that enabled the crew to effectively shoot it from outside the set itself and to dolly the camera quite a bit.

A careful viewer can easily be mistaken in estimating the size of that set as being smaller than the original - it doesn't matter on screen what something is, just what it looks like. Sort of basic to movie making, that.

See, now this is the kind of response that can get good reactions. Yes, on TOS, of course they had "wild" wall sections, and the entire Bridge was built of separate wedges (each station) that could be moved out of the area for wider shots, especially with those huge Chapman dolly's and Mitchell cameras they had to use back then, which could not easily be set up like the new lightweight stuff.

James' set is complete, but we can remove the "ALERT STATUS" area panels for access that way, and the green screen for the forward viewscreen can be removed, although it's a set No-No to enter the Bridge by crawling through the viewscreen.

McCoy's sickbay is shorter than the stage area on TOS, but we can, if we're careful, fit three biobeds in there, but usually there are two.

The only place where there is really any visual lack of space, and yes it is obvious, is the "corridor" outside the Transporter Room. It's really only a few feet wide, and I have wanted to drop a green screen back there and light it so it looks larger, and extend the corridor a bit, but it's a low priority.

As to story, that's far more subjective. I personally liked the story, and didn't read too much into it, as this was not what I would consider a big Social Issue Commentary episode. It was more of a romp, and I liked it, but to each their own.

And yes, DS9 is right in that there WERE eyeline problems (had I been there, they would have been fixed, or at least flop one of the shots in editing) with Kirk and Paul on the Transporter stage at the end.

To those who have emailed for the summer shoot, be patient and the producers will get back to you.

 

[Forbin]

The Phase II bridge is (or was) "buttoned up" rather than having large sections that can be pulled out of the way (they may have ways of removing viewscreens or something to get behind the structure for longer angles; I can't speak to that). So it's possible that there are wide angles you're used to seeing in TOS that make the bridge set look bigger sometimes than are used on Phase II ...

That makes a whole lotta sense. I recall a lot of shots in TOS where, for instance, they'd clearly removed the wedge next to spock's station to see Kirk over his shoulder while he had his nose in his viewer.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

According to some of the TOS actors, a large part of the front half of the bridge set was moved to one side of the stage for most of the season.

Justman has written that he liked to get the helm and navigation actors in for a day early in the year and shoot a lot of forward-looking coverage - "George, look at your board. Now look over your shoulder at Kirk. Look at the big viewscreen," etc. - and indeed, when you've seen these things about a million times you notice how often those shots are reused in different episodes. So evidently they'd get a lot of the set out of the way for weeks at a time unless it was required for some story-point shot.

Exeter shot with a bridge that was missing two stations, so it was easy to move equipment in and out, lay dolly track and so forth (it also enabled most of the crew and visitors to watch filming, which was fun). When it came time to shoot reverse angles they moved two "pie slices" around to the other side, redressed the displays and voila!

 

[AJBryant]

Finally had a chance to sit down and watch it.

Damn you guys.

Why can't you be closer to where I am?

You never cease to amaze me with the quality and integrity you bring to the project.

You have my gratitude, and my respect.

Keep the dream alive, guys.

You live only about 900-1,000 miles from Port Henry. I live in SoCal, but I manage to take AMTRAK back there to attend the shoots.

If you can make the time, it's quite an experience!

Hmmm....

 

[USS Intrepid]

Just to echo what Dennis has said, DS9Sega is never less than constructive or helpful in his criticisms. Indeed, he was exceptionally helpful to me recently with some editing choices, and made me look at the entire thing a little differently (and pushed me to be pretty brutal with my cuts).

It's not always easy to determine intent from cold hard text on a screen, and I realise that there are plenty of folks out there who are just looking to criticise. DS9Sega is very, very honest in his criticisms, but he isn't just criticising to be mean.