Star Trek Phase II Enemy: Starfleet! Now Released!

[Forbin]

Mostly, I've come to realize (even for myself), that "can you do better?" mostly means you have no actual, valid argument to make.

Expanding on the architect comment above - the one I always use is, "one doesn't have to be a trained chef to know if you don't like the food."

I used to take criticism too personally too - still do, if i don't watch myself. If you put a lot of yourself into an illustration and somebody finds fault with it, it's easy to take it personally. You have to take a step back, listen to how the person is saying it, try to see objectively if they have a point...

 

[JarodRussell]

Mostly, I've come to realize (even for myself), that "can you do better?" mostly means you have no actual, valid argument to make.

Expanding on the architect comment above - the one I always use is, "one doesn't have to be a trained chef to know if you don't like the food."

Isn't this contradictory? If I ask the cook "Can you do better than that?" I have no valid argument to make?

 

[Maurice]

A big part of being able to improve one's work is the ability to not just identify the problems (mismatched cuts, continuity, whatever) but to develop production processes and procedures to make certain that they get addressed. I learned this the hard way as a producer in the video game industry. It's one of the reasons I make checklists for key positions and tasks and myself, so that people really can't forget what they're supposed to do even in the pressure of the moment, so long as they check their checklist at the "last looks" moment.

As to scripts, I'm a firm believer in traditional 3-act structure, and when I study a script I break it down by listing all the page numbers and writing down what happens on each page in terms of when each character is introduced, when plot points first appear, when complications occur, and when elements are resolved, etc. If all the setup doesn't happen in the first 25% of the script then I make note that the first act isn't structured correctly and needs to be reworked to address that. So, using the thread topic of Enemy: Starfleet as an example, the unstable nature of local space being introduced at the halfway mark would have immediately gotten a note to the effect that this idea should be introduced earlier (e.g. Spock could say something like "subspace in this sector is prone to distortion, and we have to be careful about our speed or risk blah blah" when they are trying to get away from the Peshans), effectively setting it up.

A good trick in screenwriting is if you can make the characters connect the dots just a moment before the audience puts it all together. If the audience can go, "Oh, yes, of course! Why didn't I think of that?" then the writer's really done their job.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Having no valid point, being unable to express a valid point correctly, and being unable to express a valid point at all are three different things.

One of the things I appreciate about Dennis's post above is that he was able to put his finger on a plausible reason why the Phase II bridge may look too small, even though it probably isn't.

If Dennis's theory is correct, then the casual viewer who says, "Gee it looks too small," in fact has a point, although he may not be expressing it correctly. If I understand his idea, it is that the focal length sometimes used for Phase II may be different than that used for a similar shot in TOS, thus resulting in a differing perspective for a similar shot. This differing perspective may be noticeable to the casual viewer, even if he cannot correctly assess all of the implications of what he is experiencing.

Just because the casual viewer can't articulate correctly why something appears to be so, that doesn't mean that he or she doesn't really have a point, and possibly even a significant one. Sometimes you have to allow that the speaker may be experiencing something real and significant that they do not know how to describe in technically correct terms.

By the way, for the record, I have the experience of feeling like the Phase II bridge is too small by a little bit. If Dennis's theory is correct, then I'm probably just one of those viewers who is sensitive to changes in focal length [or whatever the technically correct explanation is]. Also, for the record, I've always had a funny feeling surrounding my perceptions of the size of the Phase II bridge, and Dennis's theory seems to account for these vague funny feelings.

 

[USS Intrepid]

Perspectives aside, setting foot on those sets is nothing less than a joy. I couldn't tell you whether they're perfect or not, but they sure look it to me.

 

[Melonpool]

A big part of being able to improve one's work is the ability to not just identify the problems (mismatched cuts, continuity, whatever) but to develop production processes and procedures to make certain that they get addressed. I learned this the hard way as a producer in the video game industry. It's one of the reasons I make checklists for key positions and tasks and myself, so that people really can't forget what they're supposed to do even in the pressure of the moment, so long as they check their checklist at the "last looks" moment.

As to scripts, I'm a firm believer in traditional 3-act structure, and when I study a script I break it down by listing all the page numbers and writing down what happens on each page in terms of when each character is introduced, when plot points first appear, when complications occur, and when elements are resolved, etc. If all the setup doesn't happen in the first 25% of the script then I make note that the first act isn't structured correctly and needs to be reworked to address that. So, using the thread topic of Enemy: Starfleet as an example, the unstable nature of local space being introduced at the halfway mark would have immediately gotten a note to the effect that this idea should be introduced earlier (e.g. Spock could say something like "subspace in this sector is prone to distortion, and we have to be careful about our speed or risk blah blah" when they are trying to get away from the Peshans), effectively setting it up.

A good trick in screenwriting is if you can make the characters connect the dots just a moment before the audience puts it all together. If the audience can go, "Oh, yes, of course! Why didn't I think of that?" then the writer's really done their job.

This post makes me wish I could get you to read the script we're about to shoot. Great tips!

 

[GSchnitzer]

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.

A nifty little picture from Wikipedia.

The top picture is taken on the *huge* bridge with magenta Sulu in the foreground and purple-ish Uhura 'way, 'way in the background--like at the far end of a bowling alley.

The middle picture is taken on the "medium sized" bridge--and you can see that purple Uhura is sitting much closer to Sulu on this smaller bridge.

The bottom picture, of course, is the little dinky bridge where everybody squeezes in as best they can--and Uhura is so close, there's hardly even any room for the Captain to sit in his chair between Uhura and Sulu.

Obviously, the point of all this is that the only thing changing in the pictures is the focal length of the lens. If our bridge set seems small, it's probably more about the lens we're using.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

A picture, a thousand words, thanks!

 

[Pony Horton]

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.

A nifty little picture from Wikipedia.

The top picture is taken on the *huge* bridge with magenta Sulu in the foreground and purple-ish Uhura 'way, 'way in the background--like at the far end of a bowling alley.

The middle picture is taken on the "medium sized" bridge--and you can see that purple Uhura is sitting much closer to Sulu on this smaller bridge.

The bottom picture, of course, is the little dinky bridge where everybody squeezes in as best they can--and Uhura is so close, there's hardly even any room for the Captain to sit in his chair between Uhura and Sulu.

Obviously, the point of all this is that the only thing changing in the pictures is the focal length of the lens. If our bridge set seems small, it's probably more about the lens we're using.

Excellent illustration. Another point to consider is that the mediums of film, it's cameras and lenses, are very different visually from video, even modern DSLR or RED video, and its lenses and cameras. Add to that the fact that if it's seen on your computer monitor, it creates a somewhat different look than a TV set.

All of this can contribute to a variation in the apparent size of sets.

 

[Forbin]

Mostly, I've come to realize (even for myself), that "can you do better?" mostly means you have no actual, valid argument to make.

Expanding on the architect comment above - the one I always use is, "one doesn't have to be a trained chef to know if you don't like the food."

Isn't this contradictory? If I ask the cook "Can you do better than that?" I have no valid argument to make?

You got it backwards - it's if you criticize the meal, offend the cook, and he asks YOU if you can do better.

 

[JarodRussell]

Mostly, I've come to realize (even for myself), that "can you do better?" mostly means you have no actual, valid argument to make.

Expanding on the architect comment above - the one I always use is, "one doesn't have to be a trained chef to know if you don't like the food."

Isn't this contradictory? If I ask the cook "Can you do better than that?" I have no valid argument to make?

You got it backwards - it's if you criticize the meal, offend the cook, and he asks YOU if you can do better.

Ah, okay. I can agree on that.

If our bridge set seems small, it's probably more about the lens we're using.

Are you going to be using other lenses that make the bridge looker bigger?

 

[GSchnitzer]

Isn't this contradictory? If I ask the cook "Can you do better than that?" I have no valid argument to make?

You got it backwards - it's if you criticize the meal, offend the cook, and he asks YOU if you can do better.

Ah, okay. I can agree on that.

If our bridge set seems small, it's probably more about the lens we're using.

Are you going to be using other lenses that make the bridge looker bigger?

Well, I know that in the original series, different lenses were used in different scenes to impart different effects. If you want to highlight Kirk's loneliness of command, you use a lens that makes him seem isolated on a big bridge. If the entire bridge crew is going to suffocate together from lack of air, you use a lens that might make the bridge look tight, close-knit, and claustrophobic. So, there's no absolutely correct "this is the lens that should always be used on the bridge to make it appear to be the 'proper size." Just as long as edits and different uses of different lenses aren't jarring and don't call attention to themselves--that's all I ask.

So, I guess the answer is: we'll use one lens when we want the bridge to feel bigger and we'll use another lens when we want the bridge to feel smaller. That's the exact kind of thing that the director and the director of photography artistically decide for each scene.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

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.

A nifty little picture from Wikipedia.

The top picture is taken on the *huge* bridge with magenta Sulu in the foreground and purple-ish Uhura 'way, 'way in the background--like at the far end of a bowling alley.

The middle picture is taken on the "medium sized" bridge--and you can see that purple Uhura is sitting much closer to Sulu on this smaller bridge.

The bottom picture, of course, is the little dinky bridge where everybody squeezes in as best they can--and Uhura is so close, there's hardly even any room for the Captain to sit in his chair between Uhura and Sulu.

Obviously, the point of all this is that the only thing changing in the pictures is the focal length of the lens. If our bridge set seems small, it's probably more about the lens we're using.

I have to save this to my hard disk; it's perfect.

I may not be paying close attention, but the bridge has not seemed too small, to me. The main set in which I get that sense is Sickbay and to a lesser degree crew quarters. Pony says that only a partial set exists - two of the three beds? - so it makes sense that they don't go back for long shots there.

I was on that set briefly, but my main memory of it was how nifty the doodads that are repurposed as the "sensor rods" or whatever that jut out under the overhead biomonitors are.

 

[PattyW]

Although the crew invitations have not been sent out yet, folks should be aware that - due to the nature of this episode's script - this June's shoot is a "closed set" with a smaller, limited number of crew being invited to attend. So if you are not chosen as a volunteer this year, it's not you - it's the script. And, unlike other shoots, visitors will not be allowed.

We NEED less crew because the June script is so contained, and our actors are facing the hardest, most intense work of their lives so LESS crew mean MORE ability for them to prepare, stay in the "zone", and work with the director.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I may not be paying close attention, but the bridge has not seemed too small, to me.

Your ability to recognize a possible explanation for what's going on may have also made you immune to the effect.

 

[DaveGalanter]

We NEED less crew because the June script is so contained, and our actors are facing the hardest, most intense work of their lives so LESS crew mean MORE ability for them to prepare, stay in the "zone", and work with the director.

Fewer crew, not less. ;-)

HEE!
*ducks* *runs away*

(She's gonna kick me next time she sees me.)

 

[Captain Randy Hall]

Does anyone remember the Next Gen episode when Scotty used the holodeck to return to the bridge of the original Enterprise? It looked pretty massive when they zoomed in on Scotty and Picard, but I saw somewhere that it was actually only a small portion of the bridge. You can do funky things with sets and cameras!

 

[Maurice]

This post makes me wish I could get you to read the script we're about to shoot. Great tips!

Send me a PM.

 

[Robert Simmons]

Does anyone remember the Next Gen episode when Scotty used the holodeck to return to the bridge of the original Enterprise? It looked pretty massive when they zoomed in on Scotty and Picard, but I saw somewhere that it was actually only a small portion of the bridge. You can do funky things with sets and cameras!

The episode you are referring to is "Relics".....
.
.
.

 

[Ssosmcin]

I had a really good time with this episode. It felt expansive, the details were right, and I enjoyed a number of the performances (Cawley and Kelley are still your strongest regulars - Kelley is better than ever). I was also really amazed at how much unreleased TOS music you used in the episode. Really wish these would hit CD already. Having said that, there was a tendency to overuse background score. It's not as bad as it was in the first two shows, but it's starting to creep up again. Careful there. Not every shot needs music.

Your new Chekov...he looks like a young Scott Bakula in some scenes. If you ever do an "Enterprise" film, keep him in mind.

I really only have one point that hasn't been already mentioned: Spock. I absolutely see why you have to recast so often, and that's fine. But as a character, he's is totally underused and has absolutely no sign of the friendship he's supposed to have with Kirk and McCoy. It really feels like The Big Three has been cut down to the Big Two at Spock's expense. Maybe the recasting takes its toll on chemistry, and some of the Spactors don't quite have a handle on Spock (he is the hardest to nail, I'll grant). But there's really nothing to Spock in these films other than stoically imparting information. He's never in the personal scenes anymore. It's a shame, because McCoy and Kirk click very well. Spock is the odd man out.

Otherwise, this was a nice, later season Trek. I saw the CBS color thing and didn't make the "CBS/Paramount Owner" connection. I just assumed NBC cancelled the series and CBS picked it up. :-)